Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-34.-2-1~RAVEL uCntCA~$' ~o/~ o~ Cu~' ,~z~v~r~o~l G5 c.~ PLANNING BOARD ~r~.A&E ~ ' I" * $0~ Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 25, 1986 Mr. Robert Gruber ARchitect 476 Espressway Drive, Medford, NY 11763 So RE: 280 North Road Dear Mr. Gruber: The following action was taken by the Planning Board, Monday, June 23,1986. Southold Town RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan for 280 North Road for construction of office and retail complex located at Main Street and North Road, Greenport, survey dated as revised June 17, 1986, tax map no. 1000-34-2-1, subject to: 1. Receipt of a curb cut permit from the NYS Department of Public Works. 2. Removal of the term "parcel two" from the residential land owned by the applicant. The Board does not want it to be construed that this has been subdivided. Upon receipt of the curb cut permit and amended surveys eliminating the term "parcel two",the Chairman will endorse the surveys. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 23, 1987 Mr. Robert J. Gruber 476 Express Drive South Medford,NY 11763 Re: Site Plan for Greenport Mall Dear Mr. Gruber: Enclosed is a survey for the above mentioned approved proposal which has been endorsed by the Chairman. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD BY Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. TOWN CLERK Tow~o~SO~o~D .~ N.° 11147' Suffolk County, New York 516 - 765-]~801 ~ ~u~th T. Ter~, Town Clerk 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 SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor 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 Appeal No. 3915 - Application of JORDAN'S PARTNerS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Seg~io~ 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(si, 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 beundaries 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, 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~ Esq.) (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 Residential- 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 uset change of zonet or use variancesr 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 100-7lB, 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 subject to site plan aDDroval by the Planning 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. 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. Conclusory testimony of a witness, unsupported and unsupplemented by underlying concrete facts is not sufficient proof. 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: (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; (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; (cD 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; 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 Rejman 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: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK HARBORSIDE F~NANCIAL CENTER--702 PLAZA 3 JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY 07311-3892 TEL. (201) 433-7677 TELEX: 132 511 CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ~.ECE!VED 1990 December 17, 1990 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road $outhold, NY 11971 RE: Jordan's Partners and Patelis Papazoglou Our File No. : 10C 4672 Policy No. : JPO 430306 Gentlemen: CC: Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police ~upt..of ~High.ways pRea~s ~oaro Building Dept. ~i~l~ an,,ning Board. . bri,Tmg r, 5outl~wicK In: William F. Mullen, Jr. Jefferson Insurance Company acknowledges receipt of the above captioned lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County Suffolk. The plaintiff's allege that the Town of Southold Amended Article 7 Section 100-71 of the zoning code changing the zoning use in the district in which petitioners premises are located from light-business to residential/office. The Amendment to zoning ordinance has in fact confiscated the property of petitioners and has made it of no use to the petitioners. The plaintiff's seek injunctive relief declaratory relief and compensatory damages. Jefferson Insurance Company is the Public Officials Liability Insurance Carrier for Town of Southold under Policy Number JPO 430306 for the policy period 1/1/90 to 1/1/91, subject to the provisions and exclusions of said policy. We call your attention to Exclusion L which reads as follows; "This policy does not apply to any claim; based upon or arising out of demands or actions seeking relief or redress in any form other than money damages including but not limited to claims for injunctive relief in any form whatsoever." A MEMBER OF THE ~ GROUP Town of Southoid December i7, 1990 Page Two We also call your attention to Endorsement GPO 2178 which forms part of this policy and reads as follows; "It is hereby understood and agreed that Exclusion D is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following; "This policy does not apply to any claim; Based upon or arising out of condemnation of any form, adverse possession, dedication by adverse use, or any zoning or land use statuted, ordinance, rule, regulation or restriction, or any regulatory taking. Please be advised that Jefferson Insurance Company denies coverage on the above captioned lawsuit. This denial coverage is predicated on the fact that this lawsuit emanated from a zoning or land use statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or restriction which is not covered under this policy. Please be advised also that injunctive and declaratory relief are also excluded under your policy of insurance. It is suggested therefore, that you notify your other liability carriers immediately. In the alternative, it is suggested that you retain counsel at your expense to represent you. Jefferson Insurance Company will not be responsible for any judgment or verdict that may be rendered against you. This letter is written without prejudice, without waiver and with full reservation of all rights and defenses available to Jefferson Insurance Company under its policy of insurance or otherwise. Town of Southold December 17, 190 Page Three If you have any question or need further clarification, not hesitate to contact the undersigned. <~y~ t ru~ Casualty Claim Analyst HAS:ah CC: Smith Special Risks Associates, inc. P.O. Box 2909 Jacksonville, FL 32203 do DEC 2 6 S~O JEFFERSON INSURANCE GROUP HARBORSID;= FINANCIAL CENTER--702 PLAZA 3 JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY 07311-3892 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 0 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11917 RE: Tsunis, et al. Jordan's Partners Greenport Commmns 2 August 1990 Dear Mr. Orlowski: From Mr. G. Goehringer's secretary, we've learned that the Jordan'.s Partners case has been tossed BACK INTO YOUR COURT. Whyever for? This is another case of planned usage directly violating the Master Plan. And common sense. For the Record: We are vehemently opposed to the strip mailing(mauling?) of Southold Town. Downto~n Greenport(rife with vacant business properties), her local business people and her local populace will be the big losers, if this gang of outsiders prevails. Economically unsound, Greenport Commons is antagonistic to our planning goals and focus...as well as, our shared rural environment. One developer's short-term greed will, however, be satisfied...for the moment. Jordan's Partners; Tsunis, et al.is not alone. Most developers share their modus operandi. Buy land. Abjure rules and regulations that impinge on maximized profitability. When in doubt or when constraints are in place, ruthlessly despoil the landscape(kill trees, defoliate, shove dirt around, start rudimentary foundations, etc. ad nauseam. All, I might add, at magnificently inflated, developer-concocted "costs-out-of-pocket".). The hope,here,is that the usual local apathy and the "well-it's-too-late-now" mentality will deaden the opposition. If found out, though, said developer claims ignorance of the process and its strictures. The newly chastened one's "woe-is-me" whine soon escalates into the outraged scream of "hardship"! What mockery and arrogance. Why do land speculators get special treatment? Allowing wholesale(literally and figuratively) exceptions to the rule---our hard won Master Plan...is corrosive to the public trust. It is expensive for the taxpayer, time-consuming for the jugglers of local officialdom and mortgages our future. It must stop. Read the Letters-to the-Editor, go to public meetings or social gatherings and it's obvious that the natives are restless. And cynical about just who is taking care of whom. When ALL public officials are elected and, therefore, accountable, is the day when access will be equitable and the rule of law...observed. With a well-oiled patronage machine in place, putting in the "fix" or exerting undue influence is easy. Just the way to §et things done. But for whom? It is damn well time for Real Estate...manipulators and stooges..to get out of the business of government. .Conflict of interest must be exposed and eradicated. The guys that can be got to, ought to be gotten out. Further on this tack, isn't it time that Real Estate investments be treated like any other. Some you win. Some you lose. Why is is that our Town is always left holding the bag? Pleading hardship and the mitigating circumstance is ludicrous but it seems to work. Real property investments evoke priviled§e, i.e. private law (from the Latin). Yet, this "priviledge" is not sacrosanct. Common Law does evolve! Land speculators and "improvers" who plunder the commonweal should NOT be protected. Page 2. Take this Tsunis( or Jordan's Partners or whatever corporate umbrella they wiggle). His is a case in direct violation of the Town Planning Code. How legally prescient and morally satisfying to penalize the fellow. Make him compensate SoutholdTown for time wasted. For the eyesore across from Porky's(how come we don't have a Tree ordinance like East Hampton???). For the display of mindful arrogance and cite him for contempt. Tsunis should be jumping through the legal hoops, not the Town. Jordan's Partners should be spending its time and money and energy to get things right, not the Town. It is Southold, particularly the villagers of Greenport, who should be seeking redress and crying foul. Respectfully, CC: Scott Harris G. Goehringer Lili Ann C. Motta P.O.Box 128 East Marion, New York 11939 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 ~OR3,.,N'DLr~ PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Gerard P. G0~hringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr..~O~°[~ Chairman Greenport Commons / Jordan's Partners SCTM# 1000-34-2-1 July 27, 1990 The following is in response to the Zoning Board of Appeals' memorandum of June 29, 1990, requesting the Planning Board's evaluation of the site plan for the above referenced property. The evaluation is based on the present Residential/Office (RO) District Zoning. The site plan was approved under the prior zoning code. However, the site plan is not valid under the current code. The proposed use of the property for office and retail stores is not a permitted use by right in the Residential/Office (RO) District. However, if the proposed use were to be limited to a use (or uses) permitted by Special Exception, e.g., professional and business offices, then the site plan could be reviewed in that light. The Special Exception section permits one use for every 40,000 square feet of land area. Since the site is more than 4.6 acres in area, the applicant could apply for 5 separate special exception uses, e.g. 5 offices. The site plan before your Board shows 29,000 square feet of building area. If you use i parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area as a standard for offices, approximately 290 spaces would be required. Page 2 Greenport Commons/Jordan's Partners ~owever, the site plan shows 203 parking spaces based on "usable" floor area of 20,300 square feet. The use of the remaining 8,700 square feet which represents 30% of the total floor area, is not designated but presumably would be used for storage. If the number of office uses is restricted to 5, it may be possible to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces that would be required to be installed. A corresponding increase in the landscaping area would help mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection.. The site plan meets all other setback and bulk requirements for the Residential Zoning District. This review is not to be construed as site plan approval or endorsement of same. If the Zoning Board of Appeals sees fit to grant one or more Special Exception uses, the Planning Board reserves the right to review a new site plan application and to process it as it would any other site plan. 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 SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 F~OM: DATE: RE: ~outhold Town Planni. ng Board ~ Zoning Board of Appeals ~/~//~ ~ ~ June 29, 1990 j ~ Evaluation of Greenport Commons During our Regular Meeting held, Wednesday, June 27, 1990, this Board requested that a site plan evaluation be conducted on Greenport Commons, by the Southold Town Planning Board based upon the Residential/Office (RO) District that presently exists. Enclosed you will find a copy of the application for a variance and the Agenda of June 27, 1990. If you require any further information please don't hesitate to ask. Enclosure ZBA/df 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 SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAYt JUNE 27t 1990 7:30 p.m. Meeting to'Order' I. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3949 - FRANCES FRISBIE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.4 {100-33), as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area. Accessory buildings may only be located in the required rear yard. Property Location: 8050 Nassau Point Road, Cutchoque, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 118, Block 5, Lot 2.1. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3948 - MGH ENTERPRISES, INC. - ORIENT BY THE SEA.' Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 C.9 (e), as disapproved, for permission to construct an off-premises sign. Property Location: 66040 North Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 04, Lot 01. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3947 - JAMES MARK. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an addition to a one family dwelling. Proposed construction, will have insufficient front yard setback. Property Location: 450 Parsons Boulevard, East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 37, Block 1, Lot 18. Page 2 - AGENDA Regular Meeting - June 27, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals I. PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3946 - MA'i'THEW KkR. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an addition to a one family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient rear yard setback. Property Location: 155 (Pvt. Road #6) Birch Drive S, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 128, Block 4, Lot 4. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3944 - ANTHONY MERCORELLA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved, for permission to construct a two car accessory garage in the front yard area. Proposed construction only permitted in the required rear yard. Property Location: 2260 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 145, Block 04, Lot 04. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3951 - JAMES, PETER & C~RIS MESKOURIS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.(2). Proposed construction will not meet side yard setbacks and will exceed the permitted lot coverage and will be within 100 ft. of the ordinary high water mark. Property Location: 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 106, Block 1, Lot 36. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3952 - BRUCE & TERESA BLASKO. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 B (14), for permission to have an accessory apartment. Proposed accessory apartment in an existing one family dwelling will contain less than 1600 sq. ft. of livable floor area. Property Location: 23 Middleton Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 5, Lot 9. · / 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3950 - JACQUE KASABA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, Article XXIV, Sec~on 100-244, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck dition to dwelling and accessory pool. Proposed accessory structure not permitted in the front yard area and proposed construction will exceed permitted lot coverage. Property Location: 80 Lakeside Drive & 675 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 90, Block 3, Lot 14. Page 3 - Agenda Regular Meeting - June 27, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals I. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3953 - PETER & CHERYL INZERILLO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Bulk, Area and Parking Regulations, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing one family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive lot coverage. Property Location: 505 7th Street, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 48, Block 01, Lot 17. 8:15 p.m. Appl. N~. 3831 - RALPH & PATRICIA PUGLIESE. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B (14), for a Winery for the Production, Storage and the Retail Sale of Wine. Property Location: 34876 Main Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 097, Block 01, Lot 12.1. 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3701 - CHARLES ZAHRA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXV, Section 100-243, Article X if V, Section 244, for permission to continue to use the second floor apartment as a non-conforming use. Property Location: 140 Pike Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, Block 4, Lot 5. 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 3915 - JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission to construct office and retail stores. Proposed construction is not a permitted use in this District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1. II. RESOLUTION determining N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act status on the following: Type II Action (no further SEQRA action required) (a) Appl. No. 3949 (b) Appl. No. 3948 (c) Appl. No. 3947 {d) Appl. No. 3946 (e) Appl. No. 3944 (f) Appl. No. 3951 (g) Appl. No. 3952 - Frances Frisbie - MGH Enterprises, Inc. - Orient By the Sea - James Mark - Matthew Kar - Anthony Mercorella - James, Peter & Chris Meskouris ~ Bruce & Teresa Blasko Page 4 - Agenda Regular Meeting - June 27, 1990 Southold Town board of Appeals II. RESOLUTION, continued Type II Actions (no further SEQRA action required) (h) Appl. No. (i) Appl. No. (j) Appl. No. (k) Appl. No. (.1) Appl. No. 3950 ~ Jacque Kasaba 3953 - Peter & Cheryl Inzerillo 3831 - Ralph & Patricia Pugliese 3701,- Charles Zahra 3915 - Jordan's Partners III. DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS (possible) (a) Eva Halla (b) Appl. No. 3907 - Nicholas Aliano Appl. No. 3914 - IV. Scheduling the following date for the July 25, 1990 Regular Meeting. V. COMMUNICATIONS - received requested information regarding Application of Nicholas Aliano. COMMUNICATIONS - regarding the application of Charles and Edna Hart from Michael Hall. COMMUNICATIONS - regarding the application of Jordan's Partners. VI. MISCELLANEOUS (a) The Board has received payment on the application of Gustave Wade and will discuss Lead Agency. (b) The Board is requesting a evaluation from the Southold Planning Board on the Site Plan of Jordan's Partners. VII. UPDATES A. ZONING & PLANNING COMM MTG. Friday, June 29, 1990 in the conference room. B. DEPARTMENT HEADS MTG. Thursday, July 5, 1990 in the conference room. (- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW' YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. '~'ll~C'' DATE .............................. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We)..49,13.P.AB.~.$...PART.~.I~R$. .................. bi ...~OL..~Q'I:QR..EARK~d&[ ....................................... Name of Appellant Street and Number HAUPpAI~GE ...................... :; .................. NE~..Y. QRK ...... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO...18187...Z .................... DATED ...dune..8,..J.989 ........................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR [~E[~E~](~P~O[ revoked orlor Bu±ld±ng Permit as ±ssued in error by Stoa Work Order dated 11/30/89 (see letter attached hereto). ...... .J..O. RDAN.'. S..P. AR~NER$ ......................................... Name of Applicant for permit . of ..8..O..L.~.o..t..o..r....P..a.r.~.w..a.y. .............. 14~R~.~Ug~ ................ ~.~..):~k .......... ~1.7. fi.8. ........... Street and Number Municipality State (X) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) .- 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY :[.0.Q0...l~R..S.t;Kfi~.~..i~n.~..1.~.0..~J~l;i,n..~gfla=~%~.,..2~:~K~fi~p~ft, NY Street /Hamlet ./ Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 034 Blo'ck 02 Lot O1 .. . .................................. CuH:.~ Owner JORDAN'S PARI~ & pAh'~.TS PAPASf~ Map No. Lot No. Prior Owner J:~N'S PAPJ( txLAC~, LTD. ~nd 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 Vll Section 100-71 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( X ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous o~ (J~,e~) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appea! No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) .3 'REASON FOR APPEAL Continued I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because the applicant will be unable to yeild a reasonable return inasmuch as the purchase price paid for the land was based on an appraised value takinR into consideration the fact that the land was (then) zoned for Business Use. Additionally, site plan approval had been obtained for a proposed ShoppinR Center and substantial time and money have been invested in pursuinR the develop- ment of a Shoupin~ Center at this site. Finally, a buildinR permit was issued and construction of the center has commenced. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not ~'hared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because this oarcel is the only parcel in the immediate vicinity that had been zoned for business use and was subsequently chanRed to Resident/Office use. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the parcel is located on the corner of a major intersection (State Route 25 and Main Street) with an already heavy traffic f~ow. Porky's Restaurant is directly across the street from the proposed center and is a hiRh volume landmark restaurant with substantial patroname. Additionally, the architecture of the center will blend in well with the surroundinR area. In fact, a center nearly identical in style develooed by the applicant's orincipal in Mt. Sinai was the recipient of an historical society architectural award for design excellence. COUNTY OF ) {// I Signature ' Sworn to this~ 3 "~~ ......................... day of .......... ~.,~...~ ..................... 19 I~ ~) .................................... ........ Q..,~*~: ~8~88'''" '~. ¢ ~ ~ i:; ~ '"; ~ 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 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 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Southold Town Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals ~ June 29, 1990 Evaluation on Greenport Commons During our Regular Meeting held, Wednesday, June 27, 1990, this Board requested that a site plan evaluation be conducted on Greenport Commons, by the Southold Town Planning Board. Enclosed you will find a copy of the application for a variance and the Agenda of June 27, 1990. If you require any further information please don't hesitate to ask. Enclosure ZBA/df APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, .Ir. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOWF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southotd, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1990 7:30 p.m. Meeting to.Order' I. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3949 - FRANCES FRISBIE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area. Accessory buildings may only be located in the required rear yard. Property Location: 8050 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 118, Block 5, Lot 2.1. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3948 - MGH ENTERPRISES, INC. - ORIENT BY THE SEA. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 C.9 (e), as disapproved, for permission to construct an off-premises sign. Property Location: 66040 North Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 04, Lot 01. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3947 - JAMES MARK. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an addition to a one family dwelling. Proposed constructionwill have insufficient front yard setback. Property Location: 450 Parsons Boulevard, East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 37, Block 1, Lot 18. JUL - 2 Iggo Page 2 - AGENDA Regular Meeting - June 27, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals I. PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3946 - MAi'THEW KAR. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an addition to a one family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient rear yard setback. Property Location: 155 (Pvt. Road #6) Birch Drive S, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 128, Block 4, Lot 4. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3944 - ANTHONY MERCORELLA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved, for permission to construct a two car accessory garage in the front yard area. Proposed construction only permitted in the required rear yard. Property Location: 2260 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 145, Block 04, Lot 04. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3951 - JAMES, PETER & CHRIS MESKOURIS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.(2). Proposed construction will not meet side yard setbacks and will exceed the permitted lot coverage and will be within 100 ft. of the ordinary high water mark. Property Location: 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 106, Block 1, Lot 36. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3952 - BRUCE & TERESA BLASKO. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 B (14), for permission to have an accessory apartment. Proposed accessory apartment in an existing one family dwelling will contain less than 1600 sq. ft. of livable floor area. Property Location: 23 Middleton Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 5, Lot 9. · / 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3950 - JACQUE KASABA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to dwelling and accessory pool. Proposed accessory structure not permitted in the front yard area and proposed construction will exceed permitted lot coverage. Property Location: 80 Lakeside Drive & 675 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 90, Block 3, Lot 14. Page 3 - Agenda Regular Meeting - June 27, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals I. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3953 - PETER & CHERYL INZERILLO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Bulk, Area and Parking Regulations, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing one family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive lot coverage. Property Location: 505 7th Street, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 48, Block 01, Lot 17. 8:15 p.m. Appl. ~o. 3831 - RALPH & PATRICIA PUGLIESE. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B (14), for a Winery for the Production, Storage and the Retail Sale of Wine. Property Location: 34876 Main Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 097, Block 01, Lot 12.1. 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3701 - CHARLES ZAHRA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXV, Section 100-243, Article XXV, Section 244, for permission to continue to use the second floor apartment as a non-conforming use. Property Location: 140 Pike Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, Block 4, Lot 5. 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 3915 - JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission to construct office and retail stores. Proposed construction is not a permitted use in this District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1. II. RESOLUTION determining N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act status on the following: Type II Action (no further SEQRA action required) (a) Appl. No. (b) Appl. No. (c) Appl. No. (d) Appl. No. (e) Appl. No. (f) Appl. No. (g) Appl. No. 3949 - Frances Frisbie 3948 - MGH Enterprises, Inc. - Orient By the Sea 3947 - James Mark 3946 - Matthew Kar 3944 - Anthony Mercorella 3951 - James, Peter & Chris Meskouris 3952 - Bruce & Teresa Blasko Page 4 - Agenda Regular Meeting - June 27, 1990 Southold Town board of Appeals II. RESOLUTION, continued Type II Actions (no further SEQRA action required) (h) Appl. No. 3950 - Jacque Kasaba (i) Appl. No. 3953 - Peter & Cheryl Inzerillo (j) Appl. No. 3831 - Ralph & Patricia Pugliese (k) Appl. No. 3701 - Charles Zahra {!) Appl. No. 3915 - Jordan's Partners III. DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS (possible) (a) Eva Halla (b) Appl. No. 3907 - Nicholas Aliano Appl. No. 3914 - IV. Scheduling the following date for the July 25, 1990 Regular Meeting. V. COMMUNICATIONS - received requested information regarding Application of Nicholas Aliano. COMMUNICATIONS - regarding the application of Charles and Edna Hart from Michael Hall. COMMUNICATIONS ~ regarding the application of Jordan's Partners. VI. MISCELLANEOUS (a) The Board has received payment on the application of Gustave Wade and will discuss Lead Agency. (b) The Board is requesting a evaluation from the $outhold Planning Board on the Site Plan of Jordan's Partners. VII. UPDATES A. ZONING & PLANNING COMM MTG. Friday, June 29, 1990 in the conference room. B. DEPARTMENT HEADS MTG. Thursday, July 5, 1990 in the conference room. .JUL TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. iZ)~l IgC' DATE .............................. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We)..q..0..R~A...~.[$...p..A.~T.~.F~$ ............................... bf ...~Q1..M~QR..P. ARK~A~ ....................................... Name of Appellant Street and Number ~.AUPPAU...G..E. ..... :'. ................. NE~..~Q~-~ ...... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO...18187...Z .................... DATED ...June..Bo...l~8~ ........................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ~E~X~CX revoked prior Building Permit as issued in error by Stop Work Order dated 11/30/89 (see letter attached hereto). ...... ~.O. RDAN.'. S..P. AR~NER£ ......................................... Nome of Applicant for permit o~ ..8..0. !...M..o..t..o..r....P..a..r..k.~ .a.~. .............. ~4~P.P.~g~ ................ ttm~..Ig~k .......... 1 J. 7..8..8. ........... Street and Number Municipality State (×) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) · 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY i. QQO....M~%~..~.t;r. DD.1;..~B~]..~.~.O..~;~n.J~g~.c]~.~.,..~=gK~D~Prt, NY Street /Hamlet ./ Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 034 Block 02Lot 01 ,..Current. 0wner~N'8 P~ & p~rmzq PAP~C~/J~ .......................................................Map No. ~'~'~"1~1'~i ............. Prior Owner. ~,,,,~oJC~AN'S ~,,,.~r~,PARK ]~AC~, LTD. and 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 Vll Section 100-71 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( X ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous ~ld (~e~) (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such cppeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was mode in Appeal No ................................. Doted ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that JUL - 2 Form ZBI (Continue on other side) 'REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because the applicant will be unable to yeild a reasonable return inasmuch as the purchase price paid for the land was based on an appraised value takinR into consideration the fact that the land was (then) zoned for Business Use. Additionally, site plan approval had been obtained for a proposed ShoppinR Center and substantial time and money have been invested in pursuinR the develop- ment of a ShoupinR Center at this site. Finally, a building permit was issued and construction of the center has commenced. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not~'hared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because this parcel is the only parcel in the immediate vicinity that had been zoned for business use and was subsequently chanRed to Resident/Office use. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the parcel is located on the corner of a major intersection (State Route 25 and Main Street) with an already heavy traffic f~ow. Porky's Restaurant is directly across the street from the pronosed center and is a hiRh volume landmark restaurant with substantial patroname. Additionally, the architecture of the center will blend in well with the surroundinR area. In fact, a center nearly identical in style developed by the applicant's ~rincipal in Mt. Sinai was the recipient of an historical society architectural award for design excellence. Corn · Iff_l_e~. in Suffolk Cou ! ' .' re'es'"- F-xp/r. June 2{),m~.~ JLI! - 2 GREENPORT ACTION COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED CITIZENS P.O. Box 618 Greeoport, New York 11944 June II, 1990 Supervisor Scott L. Harris Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor Harris: good planning and supportive We are a community group devoted to of the Greenport downtown business district. There is a variance request co Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals that would be devastating for downtown Greenport: Jordan Partners' "Greenporc Commons". We do not want Greenport CO be victimized by a Building Department error. (They issued a permit for retail construction contrary to the passage of the Master Plan by Souchold's Councilmen which ruled it a residential/office zone.) It would be a serious error for the ZBA to undermine the Town Councilmen's responsibility for zoning. We hope the Southold Councilmen and Planning Board will meet with Greenport officials and citizen groups to come up with a solution. In the meantime, we respectfully ask you to advise the ZBA that you do not want to abdicate zoning responsibility to chat appointed board and that they should deny the variance and refer Jordan Partners to the elected officials for a zone change. The public should be consulted and involved in the process of pursuing other uses for this property thaC would both benefit Southold Town and the Village and not unduly penalize the applicant for his ultimate responsibility in not researching the legality of his actions. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in any discussions or meetings on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joanne Dolinar "Commons" Committee Decia FaCes "Commous" Comm. cc: Southold Councilmen, ZBA & Planning Greenport Trustees and Planning Colet t~) Clayton "Co m~j~J o~//~ Board 13 June 1990 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road, Southold, 11971 New York Re: Greenport Commons Dear Sir: The following is the text of a statement made before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its March 15th hearing on the above subject, and signed by a number of Greenport and East Marion residents: "The proposed Greenport Commons complex is an example of the kind of misuse of our open spaces which the long-awaited Master Plan was designed to prevent. The construction at this important intersection of yet another row of stores and offices, offering goods and services of the type already abundantly available within the Village itself and elsewhere nearby, would not only adversely affect Greenport's commercial center but would needlessly and unalterably damage the rural character of the whole area. "There are at present numerous stores and offices in Greenport and throughout Southold Town--including space in the newer malls--that remain empty after more than a year, some much longer. This proposed development has been extremely unpopular in.the community at large, has been criticized in the press and chambers of commerce. It has nothing new or attractive to offer (except to the developers who will take their profits and move on, leaving us with the mess). It is opposed by environmentalists as well as those who care about preservation of the historic and rustic charm of the North Fork. And, it is in conflict with the Master Plan which went into effect in January, 1989. "Yet a building permit was issued last Spring. Inexplicably, this error went apparently undetected until after the foundations had begun. It is difficult to believe that Jordan's Partners remained totally unaware all along of the illegality of the situation and even harder to understand why the Town waited so long to take the stop-work action. "Granting the requested variance now on the grounds of financial hardship suffered by Mr. Tsunis will only compound the effor and set a very sorry precedent. It will very likely open the way for further exceptions to the rule and future -2- random commercial invasion to the west and east along a stretch of highway that has so far managed to escape the blight of suburban sprawl. "We urge that the requested variance be denied." Now, three months later, because of continued public opposition and increased awareness of environmental and economic concerns, it seems unlikely that Greenport Commons will become a reality. The problem remains of what to do about this parcel, currently in a ravaged condition; how to reasonably compensate Mr. Tsunis for his costs thus far and how to appropriately use this large area in a way which will benefit Town residents and not violate the essential character of Greenport, upon which tourism on the North Fork depends to a large extent. Perhaps some combination of needed housing and recreational space can be the solution. Or a public park with tennis courts, etc. and hourly fees. In any case, the residents of the Town should be allowed a voice in the final decision. Increasingly, people are dismayed by the waste of precious open land and resources sacrificed forever to foolhardy projects. Here, we have a second chance. Let's make the most of it. Respectfully yours, ,,/Jane M; Gohorel v East Marion, N.Y. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone 1..516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Gerard p. Goehringer, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., May 22, 1990 Chairman, Board of Appeals Chairman~ Greenport Commons / Jordon's Partners SCTM#1000-34-2-1 The following is in response to the Appeals Board request for the Planning Board's comments on the above referenced application for a variance, application No. 3915. The Planning Board is not in favor of granting a variance to construct a shopping center in this residential office zone. The Master Plan completely considered all factors when the zone was changed from business to residential office. The Board is in favor of the present zoning. ['n~r Gerard F. Goel%ringer, Chairman: In regard %0 appeal No. 3915- Jordan'S PartnerS, Oreenpor% Cor~ons shopping center, please disapprove his request for reta~ stores. The 5~ster Plan was revised on this land which was top priority. The town changed the zoning of the property in an elf to limit development of the area and preserve more open space. At a time when Long Island is becoming overdeveloped- Lets holc the pressure. The !~!aster plan took alot of time and money. We don't want to set a precedent overriding the zoning ordiance. This shopping center will have an environmental impact to Tov~n. After talking with the Town Attorney, he states the Sour Town Board of Appeals may make themselves Leed Agency. To req~ a Full Environmental Impact statement to be done under %he bas~ SEQR process. This project will most definately have an impac please req,~est one be done. Thank you, The proposed Greenport Commons complex is an example of the kind of misuse of our open spaces which the long_ awaited Master Plan was designed to prevent. The construc- tion at this important intersection of yet another row of stores and offices, offering goods and services of the type already abundantly available within the Village itself and elsewhere nearby, would not only adversely affect Greenport's commercial center but would needlessly and unalterably damage the rural character of the whole area. There are at present numerous stores and offices in Greenport and throughout Southold Town--including space in the newer "malls"--that remain empty after more than a year, some much longer. This proposed development has been extremely unpopular in the community at large, has been c.ritized.in the press and chambers of commerce. It has nothing new or attractive to offer (except to the developers who will take their profits and move on, leaving us with the mess). It is opposed by environ- mentalists as well as those who care about preservation of the historic and rustic charm of the North Fork. ~ it is in conflict with the Master Plan which went into effect in January, 1989. Yet a building permit was issued last Spring. Inexplicably, this error went apparently undetected until after the foundations had begun. It is difficult to believe that Jordan's Partners remained totally unaware all along of the illegality of the situation and even harder to understand why the Town waited so long to take the stop-work action. Granting the requested variance now on the grounds of financial hardship suffered by Mr. Tsunis will only compound the error and set a very sorry precedent. It will very likely open the way for further exceptions to the rule and future random commercialinvasion to the west and east along a stretch of highway that has so far managed to escape the blight of urban sprawl. We urge that the requested variance be denied. JOSEPH SAWlCKI, JR I~T ASSEMBLy DISTRICT THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY April 3, 1990 ALBANY OFFICE Mr. James Kuzloski Regional Director Dept. of Transportation Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Enclosed June 27, 1988 Letter to Joseph Sawicki from Former Regional Director, Michael J. Cuddy - Our Request for a Three Color Traffic Signal at the Intersection of County Road 48 and Main Street in Greenport Dear Mr. Kuzloski: During 1987 and 1988 on behalf of residents of the Sound Road vicinity in Greenport I requested that your Department perform a study as to the feasibility of implementing a three color traffic signal at the potentially dangerous intersection of County Road 48 and Main Street in Greenport. Enclosed is the final response to our quest dated June 27, 1988 in the form of a letter from your predecessor. Specifically, in the last paragraph on the first page of that letter, Mr. Cuddy addressed the new condominium subdivision, as well as future retail stores, and the impact it would have on this intersection. He indicates that when and if the condominiums and retail center are built, that a traffic signal will be installed. He also indicates that the developer will be responsible for improvements to the existing traffic signal. From all indications, the new condominium complex is scheduled to begin construction soon; and to further complicate the situation, the new 29,000 square foot shopping mall has already begun construction. Enclosed please find for your information the advertisement indicating that "Greenport Commons" will be available soon. Apparently, the Southold Town Planning Board has indicated to residents of the Sound Road area that they had no knowledge of Mr. Cuddy's indication that the developer was to install.such a new three color traffic light at this very .dangerous intersection. As you can see, time is now of the essence,-since ! Mr. James Kuzloski Page Two April 3, 1990 these two new traffic generating plans will impose a great amount of traffic congestion and confusion at this intersection. Would you please have your Department investigate this matter again and contact the Southold Town Planning Board, if necessary, if the developer must install the three color traffic signal. In any event, I must reiterate to you how important a traffic signal is at this intersection, especially with the upcoming projects just months away. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and I eagerly await your response so I can pass it along to those concerned residents in the Sound Road area, as well as to the other town residents who must travel this intersection. incer~ly,~ ~ · ~ JOSEPH SAWICKI, JR. Member of the Assembly JS:tf Enclosures cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Dinizio, Jr. Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ByMitchell Freedman ~ p~_ proposed shopping center just out- . si~d~,~Grcenport Village -- which would b.e~/me fha easternmost major shop- p~ng center on the North Fork -- has fallen into a legal limbo. While the foundation has been. poured for the 29,000-square-foot Oreenport Commons shopping center, it is being constructed in an area zoned fo~ residential use. And. while the Southold Town braid-. ing department originally had issued a building permit for the $2-million shop- ping center-- which is strongly opposed by merchants in the village-- the town later ordered the work stepped. The developer, John Tsunis, went be- fore Southold's zoning board of appeals Thursday night, asking for permmsion to complete his shopping center. The board voted to adjourn the henrin~tbr a month, until the matter viewed by the town att~rney~'~7~ The shopping center is one of several projects blocked by resonings that fol- lowed the town's master plan review.' £he lan. d ~ about four acres on the zouth side of 'Main Road and Main Street -- originally was zoned for com. mercial uso but was rezoned for one acrS'of realden- tial and residential-office uso in January, 1989. I ~;:' ' .. ,:.-~:,,'~ ...... c ~' '~,;~_~.~c:~-, · LONG ISLAND ..... ::-"~ . "~ .. ' Ptann, dGreennort Mall tn Anneal'-- posted at the site ~f.tho p~oposed mall site of the shopping center was a top priority "because of the inappropriate- ness . .'we hoped it would be changed from the very onset oftbe process." The town changed the zoning of the '-. property in an effort to limit develop- ' ment ofthe area and preserve more open , space· Town officials have repeatedly ~ said keeping open space is vital to pre- ~ serving the character of Southald, a ;:town whose year-round population is ? less than 22.000 people· ,~ Ingeborg Flynn, a real estate broker for 20 years, said that even if the build- ing department made a mistake in issu- ing a permit,"I fail to see where an error . on the par~ of the building depar~,,m, ent · overrides the zoning ordinance. She ' said Tsunis was attempting "an end run - · around the zoning ordinance." Another issue, yet to be resolved is whether the proposed shopping center would have a significant environmental impact. The developer claims no signifi- cant environmental changes would be caused because of the shopping center, .and t.he ~wn planning board currently ~. rexqewmg its records to see if any eh- ~ vtrenmental determination was made on the project. His firm is seeking mlief..~rom the town's zoning Gerard Goehringer, chairman of the Southald zen- cede to allow the shopp~g center to be completed,~ in. gbeard of appeals, said his agency w(Juld eventually Tsunis, whose firm purchased the land for arguing that the new zomng would reduce the value ~ have to make a determination on the shopping cen- $590,000 in February, 1988; .~.~eplanningboard ofthelandtonomorethan$150,000 while the shoo- ter'simnactontralnfic theexistin ....... :~.. ,~ that he had all t~te to begin con- ' · · - ping center would be worth $2.4 mdhon. : strxmtion except 6ne perrni~that would have allowed Norman Gerber, tile inde ndent lannin consul- rant f, r - '- ~._ I~, p g Tsums ran rote a similar emqronmental problem him to use village water.~"l~ .~.inj~,~aid the village op- o oreo~naven town WhO appeared on behalf of two years ago on'his,~194,550-square-foot Sunshine posed his efforts to dig his Own well and finally al- Tsunis, said that "what is being asked for is nothing Mall, which was built on 25 acres in Medford. ' lowed him to uso the village water supplyal~er the , more than what was approved by the Town of South- In 1986, then-Brookhaven Town Planning Com- rezoning was put in place · ~; ':,' ~} old" before the rezoning. ' · . . ' ,., .~ missioner Vincent Donnelly ruled that the mall would ~ The~nllage buddmgdepartment alsoissued aPermit More than 40 Greenport-area residents opposed the have no significant environmental impact because the fortheproject, andTsunissaidthe foundationfoof~ng~ appeal, with several ofthem sayingtheplanned shop- construction was taking place on a farm field on an we, reP~°~ur.e~.~and.,,w_°_r_k~w,~sto.ppedinNovember~j~k ping een~r would harm existing stores in the bnsi- underussd cOunty road. omy axrer ~ne w~m~ me~ a stop-work order. ,~sss distract and destroy the character of the area. - But local residents said the traffic the mall would TSUnis had experts testify to the zoning board'a~. ~Josoph Townsend, a former Greenport mayor and create was the proper subject of an environmental appeals that, at that .point,. an ad~tional $225,000 r.~:_f~mer Southold Town Board member, told the zoning review, and took the town to court. Ultimately, an had been spent[.or ~m. cenng, deslgu and construe- board of appeals that he worked on the town's master environmental review was done by ~he builder'after tion work. . .~_.'~,~. :v ,: ~ plan ~'iew from the beginning, and that rezoning the the mall was 80 percent to 90 percent completed Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 2, 1988 Dale Grippo Tsunis Associates 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York 11788 RE: Greenport Commons Site Plan S/e/c State Route 25 and Main Street, Greenport SCTM# 1000-34-2-1. Dear Mr. Grippo: As per our telephone conversation on Thursday, July 28th, I both reviewed the file for the above-referenced project and discussed same with the Planning Board. The site plan was approved in 1986. The approval still appears to be valid at this particular point in time. The policy, copy enclosed, of which I and my staff spoke, pertains to all site plans seeking approval from the Board. In the future, site plan approval will be granted after water (and sewer) contracts, have been satisfied to the Village's standards. However, for site plans with approvals already, the issuance of a building permit is still dependent on written notification by the Village to the Town that all terms of the water and sewer contract b~ave been met to its satisfaction. The Village's May 16th letter'to John Tsunis indicates that there are no contracts for ~ter os sewer in effect at this time. I trust this answers ~o~r' questions. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner CC: jd Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Chairman Victor Lessard, Building Administrator James Schondebare, Town Attorney MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUErEI~ STEPHEN L, CLARKE .JEANNE M. COOPER DAVID S. CORWIN GAlL F. HORTON SUPT. OF UTILITIES JAMES 1. MONSELL 236 THIRD STREET P.O, BOX AH GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 May 16, 1988 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 477-1748 FOWER PLANT TEL. (S 16) 477-0172 Mr. John Tsunis 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York Dear Mr. Tsunis: 11788 Re: Greenport Commons North Road & Main Street Greenport,~New York 11944 Your proposed project of a 29,000 square foot Shopp~-ng and Office Ma1! with water and sewer services has been under study with the Village of Greenport since 1986. . Sewer service with the Village of G~eenport is 'hot available at this time. Your projected sewer load was 2,022 gallons per day. You should make other arrangements for sewage d!sposal. Water service will be supplied by the Village Water Department at your projected load of 3,000 gal/day with a peak demand of 30 gal/min. When we have the capability to serve you, we will enter into a contract. We should be in a position to enter into a contract within the coming year. If I may be of further service, please call. JIM:nr CC: Very truly ~.ls~~~ ,Jam. es I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities George Hubbard, Mayor All Village Trustees Utility Committee Valerie Scopaz Victor Lassard I00 Years of Community Service 10305 Main Road P.O. Box 183 East Marion, NY April 29, 1988 11939 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen. There are two projects under consideration in and near East Marion that give rise to grave concern among local residents interested in maintaining the quiet, charming quality of life presently enjoyed. The proposed Greenport Commons on Route 25 will require tearing down trees for an unwanted and unnecessary shopping center. The proposed fast food restaurants means increased traffic congestion and litter. Greenport Commons will forever alter the natural environment at that site. The Cove Estates project in East Marion is of even greater concern. There is fear of irreversible environmental damage if upwards of 24 homes are built on that property. The resulting water and sewage problems plus traffic congestion would forever alter the desirable characteristics of this unique town. No one would object to a few custom homes, but 24 or more homes is totally inappropriate use of the land. Also a good argument could be made to continue allowing public access to the beautiful beach there, regardless of what is built. I sincerely hope that the greed of a few will not override the interests of present residents concerned about the vanishing, natural environment and quality of life on this end of the North Fork. Sincerely, Robert D. Pedersen PERM 42f (11/85) Permit Fee ins. Fee Total Received Check or M.O. No. Liability Insurance Policy No. Disability Benefit Coverage Policy No. ' 'taTATE OF NEW YORKj~i~EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ ~ .... ,:198E, ~ ' SHNo"' 1719 '- $ 2.fin lpn~n HIGH~AY ~OHK PER~IT P~mit No. De.sit Rec, (or $ Expiring Che~ or ~.O. No. ... Zip 11q44 Permittea Greenport Commons Ltd. Address Rte. ~5 City ~reengDrl; State FlY Mailing Address for Return of Bond or Deposit (Complete only if different from above.) Name Address City State Zip__ Dated or s $~nnn, Chargeable to Bond No. 9PnT]l !? or Undertaking on File Workmen's Compensation Policy No. Return of Deposit Made Payable To: Name Address City State Zip Under the provisions of the Highway Law or Vehicle & Traffic Law permission is hereby granted to the p~r~itt.ee to open s/s/o Rte. 25 e/o Knapp PTace~ Greenport for the purpose of installin.q two 30 0 intersection type .curb cuts: asphalt in entrance areas shall he traffic h~arin9 (4" dcns~ hacm; ?½" top) .if requiredi replace or repair any sidewalk which maybe necessaKy, in the county of Suffo1 k a~ ~t forth a~ repre~nt~ in tbe attached application; at the pami~mar I~ation or area, or over the routes as stat~ therein, if required; and pur~ant to the conditions and r~ulations, whether general or ~ecial, and moth.s of ~rforming work, if any; all of which are ~t forth in the application and form part ~ this ~rmit. ~ Dm,ed .t Hauppauge , N.Y. Commissio..~ ~lr.n,~r.tio~/ /. ~ DataSign~ 9/29/86 / /~ ~ //~ / . v ~ THIS PERMIT, WITH APPLICATION AND DRAWING (OR COPIES THEREOF) ATTACHED, ~ SHALL BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE ANY WORK IS STARTED. NOTICE - It is absolut. Iv ne~rv that the ~rmitt~ notifv H.R. THYBE~G - B.B .T. PePsins ~N~Engineer, who~ address is NYS OFFICE BLDG.~VETS H~Y.: HAIIPPAII~F:NY 24 HR. NOTIFICAT ~0N REQUIRED TeL No. 360-6025 baler, work is stn~ a~ upgn its compl,tion. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK AUTHORIZED, THE FOLLOWING WILL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY THE PEH~ITTEE AND DELIVERED TO THE RESIDENT ENGINEER Work authorized by this Permit was completed on (Date). Refund of deposit or return of bond or reduction of amount charged against bond or deposit on file for this permit whichever is appropriate, is requested Date AUTHONIZED AG£NT (IF' ANY) Upon acceptance of work performed as satisfactorily completed, the Raaidant Engineer win sign the following and fo~erd to the Regional Office. Work authorized by this Permit has been satisfactorily completed and is accepted. The Regional Office will forward this form to the Main Office with the appropriate box checked. To: HIGHWAY PERMIT SECTION: [] Refund of Deposit on this Permit is authorized, [] Return of Bond furnished for this Permit is authorized. [] Amount charged against Blanket Bond for this permit may be cancelled. r~ Retain Bond for future permits REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER The issuing authority reserves the right te suspend er revoke this permit, at its discretion without a hearing or the necessity el showing cause, either before or during the operations authorized. The Permittee will cause an approved copy of the application te be and remain attached hereto until all work under the permit is satisfactorily completed, in accordance with the terms of the attached application. All damaged or disturbed areas resulting tram work performed pursuant to this permit will be repaired to the satisfaction of the Department ef Transportation. ~ ~ Upon completion af the work within the state highway right of-way, authnrized by the work permit, the person, firm, corporaI tion, municipality, or state department er agency, and his ,~ its successors in interest, shall be responsible far the mainteRance and repair of such work or portion of such work at h within the terms and conditions of the work permit. ~ PERM 33e (11/85) STAT_E OF NEW YORK DEPARTM~OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT"A"PPLICATION FOR NON-UTILITY WORK PREPARE 3 COPIES Application is hereby made'for a highway work permit Name City ~ State ~. RETURN PERMIT TO: (If different from above) Address Highway Work Permit NO. Effective Date RETURN OF DEPOSIT/BOND TO: (COMPLETE ONLY IF DIFFERENT FROM PERM(TTEE) Name Address City State Zip City State Zip 1. Requested duration from 19___ 2. Protective Liability Insurance covered by Policy No 3. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy No. _ 4. Disability Benefits Coverage Policy No. thru 19 __, to apply to the operations(s) checked below: ; expires on 19 __ expiring job [~ Commercial - Minor 150 2.50 152.50 5,000 92071112 WORK MAY SE DESCRIBED BRIEFLY AS FOLLOWS: TO Op~D. S/e/O ~.te. 25 e/O ~J:~DI3 PlaCe. ~ee~pO~C ~o~ t~ p~oai o~ ~tA11inE ~ 30J--O' ~tar~ct~ type curb cues: aa~lt ~ entr~ce ar~a 8hll be LOCATION (on along across _ ) State Route ~719 between Reference Marker and Reference Marker in the Town of _ Rn. ff~l R County of ~o..~4-a known as ~O~ SEQR REQUIREMENTS: (Check appropriate box) ~ Exempt ~ Ministerial ~ Type II ~ ElS or DEIS Lead Agency I~ project is identified to be ministerial, exempt, or TYPE II, no further action is required. If proj~t is ~termin~ to ~ other than ministerial, exempt, or ~PE II, refer to M.A.P. 7,12.2, Ap~ndix A SEQR REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHWAY WORK PERMTS. Acceptance of the requesl~er~ sub~ permittee to the restrictions, regulations and o~aY~ns ~tated on this application and on the per'it. For Joint application an~rk, Role name and address of Second Applicant below: Second Applicant Signature Date 19 19 __. By Resident E -Dr Residency NO. __ . Approval recommended ~P ~ ~ ~ ~Z~ ~ZO~ ~;io. No. [0 . Approved ~ ~ ~19 By Regiona~ :ngineer PERMIT IS ISSUED CONTINGENT UPON LOCAL REQUIREMENTS SEING S, ~" ~'' ~:(~ PERM33e (11185) REVERSE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERMITTEE 1. PROTECTIVE LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE Permittee must have protective liability insurance coverage in accordance w th Department requirements. (See Certificate of Protective Liability Insurance for Permits on State Highways Form PERM 17) Expiration of or lack of liability insurance automatically terminates the permit. Insurance coverage may be provided by furn sh ng the Department w th one of the following: a. A Certificate of Protective Liability Insurance for Permits on State Highways (Form PERM 17, NYSDOT. b. A $2.50 remittance (check drawn on a New York State Bank or Certified) for coverage under the Departmenta Blanket Policy. c. Undertakings are limited to Public Service Corporations and government un ts They must be executed through an insurance/bonding company and are subject to approval t~y NYSDOT Office of Legal Affiars. - 2. COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND DISABILITY COVERAGE The applicant is required to have compensation insurance and disability coverage as noted n the provisions of the Worker's Compensation Law and Acts amendatory thereof for the entire period o7 the permit, or the permit is invalid. 3. NOTIFICATIONS Notify Commissioner, through Regional Office, one week prior to commencing work, except emergency work by public service utilities which should be reported the next work day. Work must start within 30 days from date of permit. Notify area gas distributors 72 hours prior to any blasting. Notify utility companies with facilities in work areas permission must be obtained before doing work affecting utilities' facilities)before starting work in accordance with Industrial Code 53. Notify Departmentof Transportahon at conclusion of work and return original copy of permit to Resident Engineer. Annual Maintenance Permit Notifications: Notify by telephone the Regional or Resident Engineer's office one week in advance each time regular maintenance work is to be performed, in emergenc es, not f cation by telephone shou d be made the next work day. 4. SITE CARE AND RESTORATION An Undertaking a bond or certified check in an amount designated by the Department of Transportation may be required by the Regional Office, before a permit is issued, to guarantee restoration of the site to ~ts original condi- tion. If the Department is obliged to restore the site to its original condition the costs to the Department will be deducted from the amount or,he permittee's guarantee depos t at the conc us on of the work. The permittee is responsible for traffic protection and maintenance including adequate use of s gns and burr ers during work and evening hours. Anyone working within the R.O.W. will wear an orange vest and hard hat. No uoneccessary obstruction is to be left on the pavement or the right-of-way or in such a position as to block warn- ing s~gns or between work hours. No work shall be done to obstruct drainage or divert creeks, water courses or sluices onto the right-of-way. All falsework must be removed and all excavations must be filled in and restored to the satisfaction of the Regional Maintenance Engineer. 5. COSTS INCURRED BY ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT All costs beyond the limits of the protective liability insurance, surety deposits, etc., are the responsibility of the permittee. The State shall be held free of any costs incurred by the issuance of this permits, direct or indirect. 6. SUBMITTING WORK PLANS The applicant will submit work plans and/or a map as required by the Department. This shall include such details as measurements of driveways with relation to nearest property corner, positions of guys supporting poles and a schedule of the number of poles and feet of excavation necessary for completion of the work on the State right-of- way. A description of the proposed method of construction will be included. Plan work with future adjustments in mind, as any relocation, replacement or removal of the installation authorized by this permit and made necessary by future highway maintenance, reconstruction or new construction, wil be the responsibility of the permittee. Driveway plans should be prepared in accordance with the POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR ENTRANCES TO STATE HIGHWAYS. The permittee must coordinate his work with any state construction being conducted. 7. TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE A plan detailing how the permittee intends to maintain and protect traffic shall be submitted with work plans. Traffic shall be maintained on the highway in a safe manner during working and non-working hours until construction is completed. The permittee is responsible for traffic protection and maintenance, including adequate use of signs, barriers, and flag persons during working and non-working hours until construction is completed. All sketches will be stamped with "MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES." 8. COST OF INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION ..... Prior to issuance of the Highway Work Permit thepermittee will be required to sign a SUPERVISION AND INSPEC- TION PAYMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWA'~WORK PERMITS (FORM PERM 50) agreeing to the payment of inspec- tion and supervision charges for Department employees. Supervision and inspection charges wilt be based on number of work days. NOTE: Work day is determineJ on basis of minimum of four (4) hours of inspection. 9. SCOPE a. Areas Covered Permits issued are for highways bridges and culverts over which the New York State Department of Transporta- t on has ur sd ct on. (Local governments issue permits for their own jurisdiction.) b. Legal The privilege granted by the permit does not authorize any infringement of federal, state or local laws or regula- tions is limited to the extent of the authority of this Department inthe premises and is transferable and assignable on y w th the wr tten consent of the Commissioner of Transportation. c. Commissioner's Reservation The Commissioner of Transportation reserves the right to modify fees and to revoke or annul the permit at any time, at his discretion without a hearing or the necessity of showing cause. d. Locations Work locations must be approved by the Department. e. Maintenance Property owners having access to a state highwayshall be fully responsible for the maintenance of their driveway in accordance with POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR ENTRANCESTO STATE HIGHWAYS. 10. COMPLETION OF PROJECT Upon completion of the work within the state highway right-of-way authorized by the work permit, the person and h~s or its sucessors in interest shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of such work or porhon of such work as set forth w th n the Terms and Cond tons of the H ghway Work Perm t. TO ROBERT J. GRUBER ARCHITECT 476 Express Drive South MEDFORD, NEW YORK 11763 (516) 654-4949 DEC Town of Southold 1986 Planning Board Southold~ N.Y. 11971 12-5-86 ATTENTION Diane Schultze 280 North Rd. WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via __the folloWing items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] COPIB DATE NO. DESCRI~ION 3 Site Plan 1 Hiqh~ay Work Permit THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: XFor Approved as submitted approval [] REMARKS [] For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Appro~,ed as noted [] Returned for corrections [] 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM TO: All Subdivision and Site Plan applicants who are required to provide public water from the Greenport Utility Company. RE: Water Contracts RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the policy that the applicant have a valid contract with the Village of Greenport within the year's.time frame of conditional final approval. When the applicant has met with the terms, the Village of Greenport will send a letter to the Planning Board stating that fact. Further, if a contract has been declared null and void the village will notify the Planning Board of same by letter.(March 7, 1988) jd TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 June 23, 1986 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 SUBJECT: Greenport Mall Main St. & North Rd. Greenport, N.Y Site plan--revised 6-17-86 Gentlemen: This will certify the above site plan in meeting zoning regulations. EH:hdv Building Inspector TO ROBERT J. GRUBER ARCHITECT 1986 476 Express Dr. South JUN 10 Eo o o, NEw YORK (516) 654-4949 Town of Southold Planninq Southold, N.Y. 11971 6-13-86 Bennett Orlo~ski Jr. Chairman RE: gre~nport M~_!! 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. DESCRI~ION 6 revised Site Plan (6-13-86) asper your letter of 6-11-86 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: REMARKS ,~For [] Approved as submitted approval [] For your use [] Approved as noted [] As requested [] Returned for corrections [] For review and comment [] [] FOR BIDS DUE 19__ cc: John Tsunis [] Resubmit.__ [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 11, 1986 Mr. Robert J. Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive So. Medford, NY 11763 Re: Site Plan for "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 9, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan for 280 North Road, Greenport for the construction of office and retail stores located at R~"+~e 44~, to the Building Department for certification. Survey dated April 23, 1986. Upon further review of the site plan, some site plan elements are not indicated'. Would you please add the following site plan elements to the plan and forward six (6) prints to our office so we may make the necessary referral to the Building Department: -Landscaping or screening on the southerly and easterly property lines -Location of proposed signs -Location of loading areas. -Location of Outdoor lighting -Location of utilities coming onto the property -Actual retail sales area. It appears that there is a discrepancy inthe site data, the retail sales is indicated as 29,000 square feet and also 30,000 square feet. Robert Gruber Page 2 6/11/86 Please note,these site plan elements are required pursuant to Section 100-134 of the Town Code. Would you also provide a copy of the curb cut approval when it has been obtained. Thank you. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very_ truly yours, , BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department Robert J. ruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive So. Medford, N,Y. 11763 1986 Nay 19, 1986 Town of Southold Planning Board Att: Diane M. Schultze Southold, N.Y.11971 Dear Miss Schultze; Enclosed please find six copies of proposed Site Plan for 280 North Road, Greenport, N.Y.. Please schedule this for the next Planning Board hearing so me may obtain Planning Board approval. cc: John Tsunis Very truers; 516-654-4949 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 13, 1986 Robert J. Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive Medford, NY 11763 So. Re: "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: Please let this confirm our conversation of May 6, 1986 regarding the above mentioned site plan, and the comments of Richard G. Ward, Planning Board member. It appears that the location of the building with respect to the 20' ingress and egress would create a problem with exists and entrances into the rear of the building. It is suggested that the building be moved North to allow for more circulation around the building. The concept indicated by the enclosed map shows vehicular circulation completely around the building or buildings. The campus style layout is preferred, however, if one building is insisted upon by the applicant it would be better if it were centered on the site. Enclosed is a site plan for your review and consideration. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN S D, .TOgN By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary enc. TO WARD ASSOCIATES P.C. Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers~l/, ~ Long Island MacArthur Airport 100 Arrival Avenue RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 (516) 588-2626 Southold PaJnnin.q Board I own of Southol8 Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11771 5-2-86 RE: Office Condominium U.S. MAIL ARE SENDING YO~J/ ~] Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Copy of letter [] Change order Z] ~[TE PLAN the following items: E] Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 2 SITE PLANS FOR OFFICE CONDOMINIUM THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: J~ 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 ring SIGNED: R. Ward 280 North Road. rear of building indicates that exists and entrances i-~to the building would interfer with 20' ingress and egress, suggest building be moved North to allow for a side ...... and building area comletely around w~h building with or a surrounding of parking~ around the building. Handicapped parking has to be designated. Planing Board's concept indicated by enclosed map shows vehicular circulation and completely around the building or buildings. Plannig Board prefers this approach. Ifone building is insisted upon by the applicant, it would bemuch better situated if it was more centered on the site allowing for proper sitting.(?) Planning Board with regard to the zone"A" property that the applicant apply for a set-off at this time to eliminate a residential zone and square footage from the application for the commercial use. JOhN C. TSUNI$ REC~VED 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMACr~ LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11725 JAN 1 A 1985 January 13, 1986 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. My client wishes to conform the use presently proposed and therefore my client respectflly requests a waiver of the moratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this application may proceed. Please advise of any hearing concerning this request. Thank you for your JCT/le courtesy and cooperation~ this Very ~yo~ Joht Tsunis matter. CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou Bennett 0rlowski, Jr. JOHN C. TSUNIS 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMACK. LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK 11725 January 13, 1986 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at ~G*eenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. My client wishes to conform the use presently proposed and therefore my client respectflly requests a waiver of the moratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this application may proceed. Please advise of any hearing concerning this r~equest. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis JCT/le CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou ~ennett Orlowski, Jr. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 January 14, 1986 To: Southold Town Planning Board~' Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department From: Elizabeth A. Neville, Deputy Town Clerk Re: Request for a Waiver - Local Law No. 14 1985 Please submit all pertinent data in your files pertaining to the request of "280 North Road" at Greenport for a Waiver from the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985. Attachment T ~! LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 16, 1986 Mrs. Elizabeth A. Neville Deputy Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Request for Waiver "280-North Road" Dear Mrs. Neville: In response to your correspondence of January 14, regarding the above mentioned site plan, please refer to our correspondence of October 18, 1985. The Planning Board has not received any additional information since that referral. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary JUDITH T, TERRY TOWN CLERK R~G[$TRAR Or VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa, P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 October 25, 1985 To: From: Re: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Waivers granted by Town Board on October 22, 1985 Attached hereto are the following waivers of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 which were granted by the Southold Town Board at their October 22, 1985 regular meeting: Ruth Enterprises Walter and Marilyn Gatz Joseph Lizewski 125-127 Main Street Corp. Alfred M. Citelli, Jr., DDS & Vincent M. Claps~d~DS Robert A. Celic Also attached is the resolution denying a waiver to '/'280 North Road", and a letter to Dynasty Packing Inc. relative to the Board's !naction on their waiver request. Attachments JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2.2, 1985: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road", has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law NO. 14 - 1985 with respect to his applica- tion presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to construct a retail shopping center, and WHEREAS, this Board deems such us inconsistent with the uses in the R-O District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine S Weiner, Inc.~s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and he hereby is denied a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. lq - 1985 with respect to his application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval. Southold Town Clerk Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 18, 1985 Mrs. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Request for waiver "280 North Road" Dear Mrs. Terry: As per your request, enclosed are copies of the data from the Planning Board file regarding the above mentioned site plan application. Also, proposal. enclosed is a current survey and rendering of the If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT 0 LOWSKI, JR., SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. The Planning Board had an informal discussion with Mr~. Gruber the architect for "280 North Road" on September 19, 1985. Mr. Gruber presented renderings depicting his clients proposal, which was revised to provide for office space and retail space. The Boardmembers present noted that they had previously requested that this proposal consist entirely of office space and recommended that Doctor's office be located here to support the hospital. Mr. Gruber explained that for financial reasons, his client was amenable to having some offices, but not all. This current proposal was split into approximately 50% office area and %50 retail area. It was noted that the Planning Board had previously requested that the project be broken up into smaller units and the applicant was now presenting the same plan as the first one submitted with no change in the layout. Mr. Gruber presented a rendering of the facade and stated that he was proposing berms and landscaping to buffer the parking. The Boardmembers noted that it still was not in compliance with what was requested and since some of the members were not present it was requested that Mr. Gruber leave the material for their review. JOHN C. TSUNI$ 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMAC~ LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK 71725 October 16, 985 Supervisor Frank Murphy and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. I respectflly request a waiver of the moratorium and ask that the Board notify other Town Departments of same. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, JCT/le CC: John C. Tsunis Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou ~z~ennett Orlowski, Jr. JUDITII T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 4, 1986: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road", has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with respect to their application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, John C. Tsunls, Esq. appeared before this Board and explained the nature of the uses for which he proposes to use the premises in question, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential Office (RO) District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Welner, Inc.'s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and they hereby are granted a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 to the extent of permitting such uses on said premises as set forth in their application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval, subject, however, to the applicant obtaining any and all permits and approvals required by all Town and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereof. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk JOHN C. TSUNIS 35 VANDERBILt PARKWAY COMMAC~ LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK October 16, 985 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. I respectflly request a waiver of the moratorium and ask that the Board notify other Town Departments of same. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis JCT/le CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou ~d~ennett Orlowski, Jr. IUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town E Southold, TEt (516) October 17, 1985 To: F rom: Re: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Request for Waiver -"280 North Road" Please submit all pertinent data in your files pertaining to the waiver request from John C. Tsunis, on behalf of "280 North Road". Attachment JOHN C. TSUNI¢; RECEIVED 1..71985 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMAC~ LONG ISLAND, NE'~/ YORK 11725 (516) 499-8070 October 16, 985 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the. present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. I respectflly request a waiver of the moratorium and ask that the Board notify other Town Departments of same. Thank you for your Courtesy and cooperation in this matter. JCT/le Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou Bennett Orlowski, Jr. JoHN C. TSUNI$ RECEIVED Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 DATE lST NOTICE 2NO NOTICE RETURN PS Fm'm 3849.~-A TO D $ 8outhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 10, 1985 Mr. Robert Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive, Medford,NY 11763 South Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: The Southold Town Board has recently adopted a moratorium on site plans in B,B1,C, and C1 zones, which became effective on October 3, 1985. Therefore, the Planning Board cannot take any further action -on the site plan known as, "280 North Road" until authorized by the Town Board. Enclosed is a copy of the moratorium for your review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board. dins enc. Robert J. C. ruber - Archite l 476 Expressway Drive So. Medford, N.Y. 11763 Sept. 11,1985 Town of Southold Planning Board Main Rd. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Att: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Re: South/East Corner of Main Street & North Rd. Greenport, N.Y. Dear Mr. Orlowski~ Enclosed are six copies of a preliminary amended site plan indicating the proposed layout and intended uses. My client and I would like to schedule a confer- ence with you to discuss this layout. Please inform me as to when a meeting can be arranged. Very truly yours SEP 12 i985 516-654-4949 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 766-1938 September 3, 1985 Mr. Robert J. Gruber, R.A. 476 Expressway Drive, S. Medford, NY 11763 Re: South/East Corner of Main Street and North Road, Greenport, NY Dear Mr. Gruber: We are in receipt of your letter of this date regarding the above proposal. Please note, when we are in receipt of six (6) surveys of the amended site plan, containing all the site plan elements, we will be able to schedule this matter on the next available agenda. Enclosed, for your review, is a check list indicating all the site plan elements required on the survey. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. enc. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. IRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secreta~ SITE PLAN ELEMENTS §100-134 Town Code ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lot, block, and section number, if any, or the property taken from tax records Name and address of the owner of record Name and address of the person preparing the map Date, Ngrth arrow and written and graphic scale Sufficient description or information to precisely define the b~undaries of the property. Ail distances shall be'in feet and tenths of a foot. Ail angles shall be given to the nearest ten seconds or closer. The error of closure shall not exceed one in ten thousand. The locations, name, and existing width of adjacent streets and curblines The location and owners of all adjoining lands, as shown on the latest tax records Location, width and purpose~ of all existing and proposed easements, setback: reservations, and areas dedicated to public use withinor adjoining property A complete outline of existing deed restrictions or covenants applying'~o theproperty Existing zoning Existing contours at intervals of five or less, referred to a datum satisfactory to the Board Approximate boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or stormwater overf Location of existing watercourses, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops isolated trees with a diameter of eight inches or measured three feet above the base of the trunk and other significant existing features. Location of uses and outlines of structures, drawn to scale on and within one hundred (100) feet of the lots. Paved areas, sidewalks, and wehicular access between the site and public streets Locations, dimensions, grades and flow direction of existing sewers, culver and waterlines as well as other underground and above ground utilities within and adjacent to the property. Other existing development, including fences, landscaping and screening The location of proposed buildings or structural improvement The location and design ofall uses not requiring structures such as off street parking and loading areas. The location, direction, power and time of use of any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. The location of, and plans for, any outdoor signs The location and arrangement of proposed means of access and egress, including sidewalks, driveways or other paved areas; profiles indicating grading and cross sections showing width of roadway, location and width of sidewalks and lcoation and size of water and sewer lines. · ~ .. OVER.. · Site plan elements cont. (~100-134) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Any proposed grading, screening and other landscaping including types and locations of proposed street trees. The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and of all sewer lines or alternate means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. An outline of any proposed deed retrictions and/or covenants. Any oontemplted public improvements on or adjoining the property. If the site development plan indictes onl~ a first stage, a supplementary plan shall indicate ultimate develoment. Any other information deemed by the Planning Board necessary to determine conformity of the site plan with the intent and regulations of this chapte~ Robert J. Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive So. Medford, N.Y. 11763 3 1985 Sept. 3,1985 Town of Southold Planning Board Main Rd. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: South East Corner Main St. & North Rd. Greenport, N.Y. Gentleman~ Please be advised that I have been retained by Fotios Katsamakis, George Mesaikos and Pantelis Papazoglou to submit an amended site plan in continuance of the plan previously submitted to your Board concerning above refer- enced location. Please advise of a date on which we may conference this matter and when a hearing may be held concerning this re-submission. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yo~urs~ 516-654-4949 NY DOT 7615 ICC MC 121454 ~o.~ ~ ,.s~.~ ..o..o.M ~ ~ 9 0 6 0 4 THIRD STREET · GARDEH CITY PARK, N.Y. 11040 (516) 746-~8 (212) 291-2220 DATE RECEIVED, SUBJECT TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND TARIFFS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE ISSUE OF THIS BILL OF LADING, Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 3, 1985 Mr. Robert J. Gruber 476 Express Drive S. Medford, NY 11763 RE: Proposed Site plan for "Greenport Mall" Dear Mr. Gruber As per your request, enclosed is correspondence and the environmental assessment form regarding the above mentioned project. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. PACHMAN, OSHRIN ~ BLOCK. P. C. ATTOI~4~YS September 13, 1984 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Street Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attention: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Re: Greenport Mall Dear Mr. Orlowski: At this time, I would like to thank you for the attention that the Board gave to my client's presentation last evening. As I reviewed my file, I noted that I did not submit to you the Town of Southold Environmental Assessment Form regarding the project. The original is enclosed herewith for your information. Within the next week, I intend to be in touch with you with reference to an early conference so we can discuss the next step in the site plan which was submitted to you last evening for approval. Thank you again. Very truly yours, HEP:mt cc: George Mesaikos < 1984 'm&,,T~Ti~.OL,,llvI.~NTAL A$$~.$$H_BLqT - PART l' PROJECT I [~-F OP~MAT I ON,. .~OTiC~: i"ni$ doc"~r~nC ~$ de$iqned ~o assi1: tn deCa~n~g '~hsc~er L~e scc~on p~po~ ~y ~ave ~ s~nif~canC any aa~icional info.etlon you ~elieve wi31 ~e nee~ Greenport Mall 280 North Road, Greenport, N.Y. See Attached List OE~CR[PTTO~! OF oooJgC?,: (Srier'l~ cl.-scribe type of arojec: mr acz~on) Construct a shoppin~ mall (30,100 sq.ft.) with 301 parking.spaces (105,350 sq.ft.) |. Gener~l :qarac:er of cna lan~: Genera~lg uniform sloae X · Co~erc!~l Presently After e. cmoleCion N .A. acr:s Unv~ecaced e~r:n ~r fill) Greenbelt ft. topsoil, 1 ft. loam, sand/gravel 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10: [00 :; 10-15: greater 1. 7. £s project can:iguous to. or contain a building ar site listed on the National Register of Hlstoric Places? Yes ,g No 8, What is the depth to the water table? 20 feet g. 0~. hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes ~' Mo 10. Ooes project site contain any species of plant or animal llfe that is identified as threatened endangered - YeS X ~lo, according to - Identify each species 11. Are t~ere any unique or ~usual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes No..(Oescribe ) 1Z, Is the preject site,presently used by the co,unity or neighborhood es an open space or'recreation area - Yes ;~ No. .. : 13. Ooes the present site offer or tnclude scenic views or vistas known to be Important to.t~e coca,unity? : Yes . X ~1o -- ..,. 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary N.A. Lakes. Ponds, ~etland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Na~ N.A. ~ b. Size {in acres) What is the dominant lanJ use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project single family residential. R-Z) and the scale of development {e.g, ~ story). R-g,-1½ story PROJECT OESCRIPTION 1. Physical di.r. ensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 4.6989 acres. b. Project acreage developed: 4.6 acres initially; acres ultimately. Project at.age th remain undeveloped D · Length of project, in miles: N~A. (if appropriate) %f pr°jest is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age ~-~. ; developed acreage ~[u~er of off-strut parking spaces existing ~- · ; proposed 0 ' ~xi~Ua vehicular trips generated per hour .450 peak~u(~Uonr completion of project) 175 Average If residential: Number and type of housing units: N.A. · - One'Femily TWo Family Kultiple Family Condominium Initial butld(ng 'square foot- Ultimate If: Orientation Neighborhood-City-Regional Estimated Employment Ca~areial X 25 Industrta) height,of tallest proposed structure How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 cubic yards. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, g~ound covers) will be removed from site -~.:4 acres. Will any mature forest {over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes X No Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes No If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 months, {including demolition). If mul :i-phas~d project: a. Total number of phases anticipated N.A. No. "~.' b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase ~onth d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes X No ; after project is complete .. year {including year. Yes Yes X' No. If yes, explain: 8. Will blasting occur during constroction? Number of jobs generated: during construction la. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12, a. Is surface or subsur(ace liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes ..No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Sewage c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged N,A) · 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ~onds, streets, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes ^No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year r-load plain? Yes No 15. a. Ones project involve disposal of solid waste? X ,~es No .b. If yes, will an ~xisting solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes X No c. If yes, give name: H.A. ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ,~ Yes X No Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X ~o Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X Ho Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local a~bience noise levels? Yes No 16. 17. 18. lg. 20. Zl. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes Gas and Electricity if water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity N.A. Total anticipated water usage ;er day4J~?R~ gals/day. Zoning: a. Whec is dominant·zoning classification of site? B b. Current specific zoning classification of site B c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desireU toning X ..No. If yes, indicate type(s) gals/minute. B,~inesK distrint Business district -3- Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X No b. Does pmject involve State or Federal funding or financing? c. Lo'al and Regional approvals: Approval Required (ies, tie) (Type) City, Town, Village Board C~ty, Town, Village Planning Board p~ City, Town, Zoning Board nn City, County Health Department yes · Other local agencies y~ Other regional agencies State Agencies -- Federal Agencies .. ~Sif~ ?lan san. sewers utilities Yes X' No Submittal Approval (Date) (Oate) PREPARER' S SIGI(ATUR£: TITLE: RF..PF. ESEHTING: · DATE: IN FO P~AT I D~'bt L DETAILS '; Attach any additional information as may be' needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the'proposal, please discusa such impacts and the measures which can be avoid taken to mitigate or the~. ~ /~ ~, ~ / NEIL ROBERT BERZAK. R.A. Prinr~pal August 17, 1984 Address and Name of Applicant Fotios Katsamakis, 88-27 Ransom St., Queens Village, N.Y. George Mesalkos, 420 W. 24th St. Apt. D, New York, N.Y. Pantelis Papazoglu, 82-26 235th St., Bellrose Manor, N.Y. RD HOLD SU! ~'TY $outhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 3], 1984 Mr. Neil Berzak, AIA' 611 Broadway New York, NY 10012 Dear Mr. Berzak: Enclosed is an environmental assessment form for the site plan, located at Greenport, which was prepared by your firm and submitted by George Wetmore. If you need any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, enc. Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board T LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1988 May 7, 1984 Mr. George Wetmore P.O. Box 627 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Greenport Mall Dear Mr. Wetmore: This will confirm our informational meeting of Friday, May 4, pertaining to your submission for a proposal known as Greenport Mall. People present from the Planning Board were Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, professional planner Mr. Emilita and the writer. We direct your attention to the following: 1. Too heavy a concentration for the area involved with approximately 22 stores. 2. The parkinq area on the South side is not possible due to the residential classification of the area. 3. It is suggested that you give consideration to a possible professional and/or medical center, including the laboratory support facilities, to be perhaps an assistance to the hospital and medical professions in the,Town of Southold. 4. A project possibly of smaller nature is now in operation on the North side of Route 25 in Aquebogue. If you desire to pursue this matter further with your principals, we are at your service. _k~c~y truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. SouthOld Town Planning Board WFM:dms FEB O~ 19B~ Real Estate 828 FRONT STREET, BOX 627 AMAGANSETT, NEW yORK 1~930 G~ENPORT, NEW YORK 119~ (516) 267-8810 (516) 477'0798 HenrY RaynOr, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. --SAIKOS - B Zone Opposite Por~ys Rest. De~r HenrY: As promisea, I have Just been informed that the buildings for the site plan have been staEe& out for yoUr board'S inspection- After yoUr revieW, please a~vise me when we canmeet again. Reg~ George LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Project Type,: Site Plar~s Status: O~? ~ ~y'p/~R C0/,J SCTM #' 1000- 34.-2-1 Project Name: Greenport Commons Address: 1000 Main Street & 160 NYS Route 25, Greenport Hamlet: Greenport Applicant Name: Jordan's Partners & Patelis Papazo,qlou Owner Name: Jordan's Partners Zone 1: RO Approval Date: 6/23/1986 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information End SP Date: 6/23/1986 Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: Main Street & North Road, Greenport SC Filin.q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M A,qreement: SCAN Date: SCANNED AUG 2 4 2006 Records Management