Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5633 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.north fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 COVER SHEET WITH ZBA FILE STATUS OF FILE ZBA # ~--~ 33 Tax Map #: ~-/./t._ 3_ o26,, ~// Name: Location: ~O0~ [ ] Refund issued: CANNOT activate or reactivate file (Applicant has withdrawn application). ['-~-~ NO REFUND DUE, based on time spent for Town to process application and/~ heatings. [NE~CCE] Obsolete & expired; CANNOT reactivate this file: NEW APPLICATION SSARY: Extensive time has passed; Zoning Code changes are now in effect and this application/~F~ expired. NOTE: Applicant may apply for a new application with Building Inspector fo~,..J~- a new Notice of Disapproval and submit NEW application with all documents and current maps to ZBA, or modify plan to conform to the current code. This Town file based on applicant's previous year requests has expired. [ ] No forms to be scanned; FILE # VOID: APPLICATION RETURNED. (All forms were returned to applicant early in process, as requested by applicant.) FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL NOV 4 2004 DATE: August 25, 2004 RENEWED: August 27, 2004 AMENDED: October 25, 2004 AMENDED: November 4, 2004 TO: Marko Anticev 2005 Old North Road Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated August 25, 2004 For a permit for a lot set off(subdivision) at Location of property 2005 Old North Road, Southold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Sectio Block3 Lot 26.4 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed lot set off is not permitted pursuant to Article III, Section 100-32, which states; "No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter with the same fome and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full." The minimum lot size required in the Residential R-80 District, according to the bulk schedule, is 80,000 square feet, the minimum required lot width is 175 feet. The proposed lot set off would create a non-conforming lot that measures 37,694 square feet. The adjacent parcel, although conforming in size, will have a lot width of 90 feet. Planning Board approval is also required. This notice of disapproval was amended on October 25, 2004 to correct errors and on November 4, 2004 to add the need for planning approval. Note to Applicant: Any ehange'~r-deviation to the above referenced application may require FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL TO: Marko Anticev 2005 Old North Road Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated August 25, 2004 DATE: August 25, 2004 RENEWED: August 27, 2004 AMENDED: October 25, 2004 For a permit for a lot set off(subdivision) at Location of property 2005 Old North RoatJ~outhold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section.~_~'~TBlock3 Lot 26.4 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed lot set offis not permitted pursuant to Article III, Section 100-32, which states; "No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full." The minimum lot size required in the Residential R-80 District, according to the bulk schedule, is 80,000 square feet, the minimum required lot width is 175 feet. The proposed lot set off would create a non-conforming lot that measures 37,694 square feet. The adiacent parcel, although conforming in size, will have a lot width of 90 feet. ~ice of~i~val was amended on October 25, 2004 to correct errors. Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: August 25, 2003 2005 Old North Road Southold, NY 11971 6.~0../~Zit t l / ¥/b ~ ~ Please take notice that your application dated August 18, 2003 For a permit for a lot set off(subdivision) at Location of property 2005 Old North Road, Southold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 50 Block3 Lot 26.4 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed lot set off is not permitted pursuant to Article mA Section 100-30A.3, which states; "No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full." The minimum lot size required in the AC District, according to the bulk schedule, is 80,000 square feet, the minimum required lot width is 150, and the minimum depth is 175 feet. The proposed lot set offwould create a non-conforming lot that measures 37,694 square feet. The size, will have a lot width 0 feet. Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. *CT .L BE "~,."~ESAPPROVED oL UTION ~)E FROt.4 -~' ~ ~..O~ "JNT$ ~E CORRECTLY CORRECT. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH SERVICES HAUPPAUGE, N. Y. DATE THI$1$ TO CERTIFY THAT THE pROFOSED REAL TY SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPI/IENT FOR iN THE ~IITN A TOTAL OF LOTS ~IAS APPROVEO ON THE ABOVE DATE. IYATER SUPPLIES AND SErIAlS DISPOSAL FACILITIES MUST CONFORI~ TO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TIldE OF CONSTRUCTION AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE PER, TS PURSUANT TO THOSE STANDARDS. THIS APPROVAL ~H~LL BE VALID ONLY IF THE REAL TY SUBDIVISION/DEVELOPMENT 1~4P IS DULY FILED Y//TH THE COUNTY CLERK E/THiN ONE YEAR OF TH[~ DATE. CONSENT IS HEREBY S/VEN FOR THE FILINE OF THIS MAp ON ~/HICH TNIS ENDORSEI~ENT AEPEARS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK IN ACCORDANCE Y//TH PROVISIONS OF THE FUBLIC HEAL TH LAP AND THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE. VITO A. ~VEI, P.E. DIRECTOR~ DIV~ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ,' HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLA T WAS MADE FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS COMPLETED ' THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOP/N THUS' · ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOJ~N AND ALL DIMENSIONAL AND GEODETIC DETAILS ARE CORRECT. JOHN T. METZGER, N.Y.S. L.S. LIC. NO, 49615 THIS IS TO CERTIFY Ti'lA T THE SUBDIVIS/'~N PLA T HA6' BEEA~ APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OE SOUTHOLD BY RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL DA TED BY CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD N. 84'10'50' E. 304. T1' \? ___W~_~,KEY MAP SETOFF PLAN FOR EASTERN BREEZES R.E. A T SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N Y. 1000 - 54 - 03 -26.4 SCALE; I~' = 100' JUL Y 15, 2003 OCT 2 ? 2004 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WA TER SUPPL YIS) AND/OR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM(SI FOR THIS PROJECT WERE DESIGNED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. BASED UPON A CAREFULL AND THROUGH STUDY OF THE SOIL , SITE AND GROUNDWA TEA CONDITIONS~ ALL LOTS, AS PROPOSED, CONFORM TOTHE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH SERVICES CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN EFFECT AS OF THIS DA YE. DA TE JOSEP FISCHETTI, P.E. LIC. NO. 052510 LO7 NUMBERS ARE REFERENCED TO MAP OF A MINOR SUB[¥~SION MADE FOR LIGHTHOUSE ASSOCIA YES PECONIC (631] 765 P. O, BOX I£$0 :T SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 49618 - 1797 APPLICATION TO THE $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Date AsslgnedlAsslgnment No. Office Notes: - 5'o33 Parcel Location: Hou~eNo.o~OOt' Street ~Lz~ ~/o~f/-/ ~o/~ O Hamlet 1 ~) ~P~ T~ ~N D~ATION OF THE B~D~G INSPE~OR DATED: ~O~U~f ~. ~ooV Applicant/Owner(s): Mailing Addr~s: Authorized Representative: Address: /7/70 //q O C,/~ //,/~r't~ l K D Z/t.'t/If' ,. 0'~o6t~'/fOZD, /t,'.¥" Telephone: g.3/- 76,.4-- /-/?/z/ {"/~q~.g 'Tg,..C-Wj~o/ Please specify who you wish co~/espondence tb be mailed to, from th~ above Its~ed nam.es: D Applicant/Owner(s) ~Autborized Representative [] Other: - WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED .g}g/ff. ~-.~ FOR: Other: [] Building Permit ~] Certificate of Occupancy D Pre-Certificate of Occupancy [3 Change of Use [3 Permit for As-Built Construction /-o¥ c£7' OF? Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article ..Z~',,4 Section 100- 3 o Subsection /q · 3 Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: FI A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map, f~A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. 0 Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section 0 Reversal or Other A prior appeal [] has S/hss not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. Year Page 2 of 3 - Appeal Application Part A: AREA VARIANCE REASONS (altach extra sheet as needed): (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a deblment to nearby properties, it granted, because: (2) 1he benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feadble lor lite applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of retief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect er.impact on the physical or')envlronmental / conditions in the neighborhood or district because: / (5) Has the variance been seti-creatad? ( ~ Yes, or ( ) No. if not, is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. (6) Additional Information about the surrounding iopography and building areas that relate to the difficulty in meeting the code requirements: (affach extra sheet as needed) This Is the MINIMUM that is necessav/and adequate, and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safely, and welfare o! the community. ( ) Check this box and complete PART B, Questions on next page to apply USE VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please consult your attarney.) Othe~dse, please proceed to the stanalure and notary area below. Sworn to ]~efore me this ] 7 '~ day~., 200_~ (N'ota~ Public) PETER M, COLEMAN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New york No. 52-5758570 Qu~l~f ec~ ir~ Suffolk County S~g~fu~ Of Apl~ellant or .~uthorized Agent (A'-gent must submit .~uthorization from Owner) Page 3 of 3. Appeal Application Part B: REASONS FOR USE VARIANCE (ff reauested): For Each and Every Pemdtted Use under the Zoning Regulations for the Particular DlsMct Where the Project I$ Located (please consult yolzr altomey before completing).- 1. Applicant cannot realize a reasonable return for each and every permilted use under the zoning regulations for. the particular dlstflct where the propmty Is located, demonslrated by competent Encmclal evidence. The applicant CANNOT realize a REASONABLE RETURN because.' (describe on a separate sheet). 2. The alleged hardship relating to the properly is unique because: 3. The alleged hardship does not apply to a substantial potion of the dlstrict or neighborhood because: / 4. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because: The alleged hardship has not been self-created because: 6. This is the minimum relief necessary, while at the same time prese~/ing and protecting the character of the nelghbo~ood, and the health, safely and welfare of the community. (Please explain on a separate sheet if necessary.) 7. The spirit of the erdinance will be observed, public safely and welfare will be secured, and substantial Justice will be done because: (Please explain on a separate sheet ff necessary.) ( ) Check this box and complete PART A, Questions on previous page to apply AREA VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please consult your aflomey.) Otherwise. please oroceed to the slanature and notary area below. .r,~worn to'before me this da · f"-Apl~llant or ,~thorlzed Agent submit Authorlzalion from Owner) pETER M. COLEMAN NOTARY PUBLIC, Slate of New york No. 52-5758570 Quolified in SuffoJk County C~mmission Expires March 30, December 15th, 2004 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Frem: Joseph McCarthy for Applicant Marko Anticev Re: Anticev File S.C.T.M. # 1000-54-3-26.4 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: This communication is in response to a letter that was faxed to you yesterday, December 14th, at 1:45 pm from Scott and Allison Latham, adjacent property owners of the applicant. I will address their concerns by paragraph, and will then add some observations that I believe you should be aware of. The opposition to the request for vadance is based upon their opinion that "it is completely out of character with the neighborhood and completely violates covenants imposed by the Planning Board when the lot was created". The existing residence directly west of the subject property is approximately 1/6th the size of the subject property, and being contiguous, and having been there for decades, is therefore part of the character of the neighborhood. The existing property to the east is smaller as well. The applicant has requested the subject lot be created to take into account the natural landscaping that delineates the requested lot as it now exists. There would be no scenic adverse effect, as the building envelope would be in the rear of this large lot. Additionally, the applicant would offer to further develop a buffer zone on the west side of the building envelope, so as to minimize any objections from the neighbor. (There are already large mature evergreens in place on the side property line.) The application seeks relief from the existing C and R's, and is therefore not violating any covenants, as is stated in the objection. We do not take issue with the second paragraph. We would like to point out, however, that there were originally six lots allowed, if Lighthouse Associates decided to take a different course of action in 1986. Additionally, the proposed lot is a full two acres, and we believe that the impact to the neighborhood would be negligible, since it is in two acre zoning that we ara requesting this two acre lot. Regarding the third paragraph, this application is based on the premise that a preperty owner has the right to redress and appeal, based on certain facts, before Town Government. We ask you to consider all of the facts presented, in their totality, in your decision whether or not to grant the relief requested. In regards to the fourth paragraph, the objecting neighbor states categorically that if you grant the relief sought in this application, you would be setting a precedent for the subdivision of the other three lots in the subdivision. I believe the concerns of this neighbor may be addressed satisfactorily by this Board in several ways. While it is our belief that the applicant has a hardship case due to the (confidential) facts set forth in another writing, the issue of the two significantly smaller lots directly east and west of the applicants parcel should bo examined in this request, as they are a part of the character of the neighborhood. The remainder lot where the existing house now sits, would be on a piece of land significantly larger than the parcel to the west, and would be almost the same size as the parcel to the east, with both being just shy of an acre. We also believe that this Board does not exist to set precedents, rather, to look at each case presented to it, and make decisions based on the merits of the respective case. In paragraph five, we believe the opposing neighbor takes exceptional liberties in their statement. The personal financial difficulty of this applicant is addressed in the previously referenced writing.. We maintain that the difficulties involved are most certainly related to their properbj, and their ability to maintain their home and property will cease if the relief requested is not granted .This appeal process is not a decision that they take lightly, as it is there home that is at dsk here. The objection stated in paragragh six is not based in fact, as this is an appeals process, and the lot that we hope to create will be a two acre lot of 80,000 square feet, with the remainder existing lot comprising of almost one acre, which is significantly larger than the parcel adjoining the applicant and the objecting neighbors' properties, and virtually the same size as the property due east of theirs. In the final paragraph, the objector clearly does not comprehend what a "current listing on the Real Estate Market" is. The subject property is not now, nor has it ever been, listed on the Reel Estate market. I am the only Real Estate professional that has been involved with this matter, and it was not listed through my agency. You cannot list a property that does not exist. The idea for the creation of this lot was presented to one party, and one party only, and this party agreed to enter into negotiations to procure the subject two acre lot, should the application be successful. There have been no monies exchanged between the two parties. This application was originally made by myself, a licensed Real Estate Broker. This is normal and customary, and should have no beadng whatsoever on the medts of this application. Historically, these applications are generally made by the owner or their attorney, or a Real Estate Professional.. In my comments to follow, I will address the second part of the objector's last stated reason for their opposition to this application. Yes, eventually, the lot would be sold. That is the whole purpose of the request for relief under the authority of the ZBA. That is why we are here today. The objector states that they were advised that the property is to be sold, by the owner. What they neglected to advise you in their opposition statement was that they discussed the potential sale of this lot with the owner. When they were advised by the owner that the lot, if successfully created, would be sold to a party whom he had already had discussions with, the objector offered that they would be willing to pay a greater amount of money. The owner, having already spoken with someone else about the potential sale of the lot, only IF and WHEN it was successfully created, declined their offer. The owner advised me that the objector stopped by his house several times, once even offedng her  assistance to "help out" the application process. They advised the owner that they would like to y the lot and hold it for their son's future use. hile this is admirable and I wish them success in finding a lot for their son, it seems as if they are playing both sides of the coin. I find it objectionable that they would express interest in pumhasing this lot and then when told by the owner that he would not sell it to them, even for more money, would object to the creation of this very same lot. It seems that since they could not buy it, because the owner is a man of his word, they want to make sure no one else can either. Where were their objections when they expressed their interest in pumhasing this lot? This is not what I call fair or unbiased objection. Being that the objectors waited until the Tuesday afternoon before the Thursday morning meeting to fax their objection to you, and I did not receive it until today, I felt that I should, even at this late hour in the process, call the Boards attention to these important details. It was not part of my odginal application, and I regret that it is necessary, but I feel that it is in Mr. Anticev's best interest that you have all the details necessary to make an informed decision regarding this application. Respectfully Submitted,,,, ( Contains Medical Information ) This letter contains confidential medical information and is mede part of the official record. However, we request that no part of this information be mede available to the general public. It is for the Town of Southolds' various Government Boards' usa only. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: Before you is an application, denial, and an appeal made on behalf of my clients, Linda and Marko Anticev. We seek relief in the granting of the ability to form a two acre lot from an almost three acre lot in two acre zoning, on the Old North Road in Southold. There are whet we believe to be, compelling reasons why this request may be granted. We have set forth the issue of the two smaller lots to the immediete east and west of our lot, in the previous communications. We have described the neture of the relief requested and how this Board may grant relief without setting precedent. There is more information that we would now like to put into the record. Linda Anticev was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer approximately two years ago. Conventional treatments proved ineffective, and her doctors told her thet she could expect to live about another three months. Thankfully, she is still with us, and this is due in large part, to experimental medical treatments thet she has undergone, and will continue to undergo, until she either wins her battle with this cancer or succumbs to it. The treatments are very expensive and are paid for largely out of pocket, since it is experimental and insurance companies typically do not cover these expenses. It is however, wod(ing, so they must continue. The ongoing expenses have created an extreme hardship for the Anticevs, and they are faced with a choice thet all of us would not want to make. Their resources are nearly exhausted, and there is only one recourse left for thom to obtain the additional funds necessary to maintain her ongoing medical treatments. It is their home. But there is another way that their goal of keeping Linda alive can be met, and that is through the successful separation and sale of a two acre piece of property from their almost three acre parcel. This goal can be accomplished without changing the character of the neighborhood. This is the only way thet they can afford to continue to live in Southold and pay for Linda's medical needs. Their only other recourse is to sell their home completely and move out of Southold Town, to a less desirable area where there are more affordable choices. This process is not only time-consuming, ( a commodity that is so precious to Linda ) it is debilitating to someone in Linda's condition. The mental process alone of having to sell your home can have serious effects on a healthy person, let alone someone who is in a battle for their life. Southoid is home for the Anficevs, and they do not went to move out of the town and away from the friends that they love. We are most eager to further meat with this board on site, to show you how the proposed lot would conform fo the community. We humbly beseech this Board to grant the relief requested, based on either or both of the aforementioned two issues of a smaller pre-existing lot to the immediate west and an equal size lot to the immediate east, as well as the medical and humanitarian issues set forth above. The astronomical medical costs will not go away, but Linda Anticev will, if she must. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph P. McCarthy Linda Anticev Marko Antloav LO~( This request is being made to set off a 2 acre lot from Mr. Anticev's approximately 3 acre lot. The remainder lot will consist of approximately 38,000 square feet. ( I acre = 40,000 square feet ) I am available at any time to discuss this matter, if anyone has questions. Thank Y o .u.~ ~ ~Mc~a~hy~, ~ent 470 Mockingbird lane Southold, NY, 11971 631-765-4914 Existing lot showing proposed lot with approximate building envelope: 14ou i A~Vq~¢E V I I QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION Is tho subj~'t premises listed on thc real estat~ market for sale? fl Yes ~gNo Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours7 [] Yes ~ No 1) Arc thoro any areas that contain wctlaad grasses7 A/ D 2) Are tho wotland areas shown on th~ map submitted With this application? 3) Is thc property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the uplaad building'area? 4) ffyour property contains wetlands or pond areas, havo you contacted thc offico of the Town Trustoea for its dc~rminntion ofjurisdictioa? A///t D. Is thero a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below fivo feet above mcan sca level7 /t/./.A} (if not applicable, state "n/a".) E. Are thoro any patios, conorete barriers, bulkheads or fences that ~Jst and arc not shown on thc survey map that you arc subnu'tfing? /%/O (If nono exist, please state "nono".) F. Do you have any oonstrucedon taking p!aco at this time concerning your premises? A/ If 3~s, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by thc Building Degartmont. If none, please G. Do you or any co-owner also own other land closo to this parcel? /V O ffYes, plcaso oxplain where or submit copies of deeds. H. Pleaso list present usc or operations conducted at this parcel ~ g _C t o ~CA/7-//q L .4 ~/ 0 ~c~n~_ andproposeduso g~£ /tI~.,,n-/AL A~9 Signature ~td Date 617.21 Appsndbc C Stat* Envtronm,ntai Quallop R~w SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL j~q, YESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED AC~iO~r/$ Only PART I - Project Information (To be complete by Applicant or Proj~t sponsor) 1. Applicant / Sponsor 2. Project Name 3. Project location: Munlclpalli'/ County 4. Pmd~se location (S~reet address and mad lntemections, pr6nlnent landmadm, etc. or provide map) Il?-// 5. Is ~ aotiun: /~OA D: 1~,3~NEW ( )E303ANSION ( )MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 6. Describe project bdefly: T. Amount of land effected: 'llnltiaflY: acres; Ultimately: · $. Will proposed action comply wgh existing or other e.~dsting land use restrictions:( ) YES 9. What Is present land use in vlclni[y of project: (describe): {'~ Residential ( ) Indusbtal ( ) Commerdal (,~[Agricultural ( ) PaMForest/Open Space ( ) Other 10. ODes action Involve a permit approval or funding, now Or ultimately-from any other Governmental ag~ncy,(Fedeml, State or Local) ? ()Q YES ( ) NO 11Yes, list agency(s) and pelmiCtapprovals: ~bttTUOLD To~,o 2_ 6.,a, , ~q?LO~/6- OEpT- ~ 11. Does any aspect of tho action have a currently valid permlt or approval'/ ( ) ¥£S ( ~ NO If Yea, l~st agency(s) and permlvappmvale: 12. As a result et proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification? ( ) YES (~ NO If Yes, list agency(s) and permti/approvale: I certify that the information provided above is true iD the bas1 of my kn, owisdge IAppllcant/Sponsor Name:,/Y./,,.4-~ E 0 /q.,vT/f E',/ Date'. Signature: If the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the C~astal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessn APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and cmolowes, The pumosc of this form is to provide information, which can alext the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. (L~st name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in thc name of someone else or other entry, such ~s a company. Ill so, ~dicate thc other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Chock all that apply.) Tax Grievance Change of Zone Approval of Plat Ex~anption from Plat or Oltieial Map If ".~or", name thc activity: Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the-~Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a parthorsMp, in which the Town officer ~)mployee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the -7~wn officer or employee owns moro than 5% of tho shares. YES J If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and thc Town officer or employe~. Either cheek the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in tho space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this ,)g day of .,46/6. , ,;)col/ Signature: -~ _- ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ' STREET '~ 0~-,".~'> VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT OWNER N ~ , E ~ , , ACR. , S W ~PE OF BUILDING ) S~S. VL~ FARM CO~. CB. MICS. Mkt. Vai~ IMP. I TOTAL ~;,/ · . ~,_ , _ ~. · ~., ~,~)~ '~QC ~ ~ t FRONTAGE ON WATER ~ONm, OE ON RO*D J ~ ~O . ~ DEPTH ~, ~Y ~ ~y~ ~~ ...... ~ BULKH~D Old esnoH C,l~opoew puolPooA/~ alqOll!J. COLOR Foundation ~ Bath ~ ~/2.- Dinette Basement SL~C"~WL Floors ~ Kit. Ext. Walls ~1 w C~h~ Interior Finish ~ ~ L.R. Fire Place Heat ~ t~ ~ ~ D.R. Woodstove BR. Dormer Fin. B. Attic Rooms 1st Floor Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor TRIM TO'WN OF SOUTHOLD BUI~DINC.. D~,PARTMENT TOWN }I:ALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 76S-9502 www. northfork.net/Southold/ Examined ,20__ Approved f~'/7 ,20__ Disapproved a/c Expiration ,20 PEILMIT NO. BUILDIN(i~ERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST D?~ have or need the following, before applying? ~/~3x~ Board of Health ~ ' g approval Survey_ Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: t?>/4ff_~ l~uqldi~ns~pector Phone:b31 '7~7- q~z~ ~ APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT ,ate d/a INSTRUCTIONS ' / ~ ' a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale, Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be co~ramenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any pm'pose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim, tk e Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new pemfit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance ora Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and gulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. ' anV (Signature of applicant or name, if a corporation) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, Name ° f °wner of premises j/ff. ~4t~' 0 ,4~Z/f)F_~/ (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License NO. Electricians License ND._~ Other Trade's License No.~// Location of land on which proposed work will be done: House Number Street OISAPPROVAL County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Subdivision (Name) Block_ .'~ Filed Map No.__ Lot _Lot Hamlet State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy c~jA~Z~ .~.4/~/z? ~_~.~-.~/r~r . b. Intended use and occupancy 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building_ Repair Removal Demolition 4. Estimated Cost ~' /~ 13 C~°2 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units If garage, number of cars Fee Addition Alteration Other Work ~Oq' /_/,v~" C./~,¢r~' (Description) (To be paid on filing this application Number of dwelling units on each floor ~' If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. ,~/fd Dimensions of existing strucm//~e~s, if any: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additioWrf/s'//. Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories Dimensions of entire new construction: F'r'ont Rear .Depth Height Number of Stories Size of lot: Front Rear Depth 10. Date of Purchase Name of Fon-ner Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES__ NO__ 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES NO__ Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES__ NO 14. Names of Owner of premises Name of Architect Name of Contractor Address Phone No. Address Phone No Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal xvetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES * IF YES, SOtSTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet ora tidal wetland? * YES__ NO ~' * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. NO X 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF ) .~ /~A) ~-~ ~/./'~ /')~ ~9'~/~ being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of indivich~al signing contract) above named, (S)He is the (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statemenB .contained in this apPlication are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this c-~ L/ dayof ~'~&/~, 20 ~>~ · '~4ot~y Public Signature of Applicant LINDA J. COOPER Notary Public, Smt~ of New Yofl; No. 4822563, S u~folk County Term Ex'piros Decemb.~, i~,~a~,~9 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTI{AR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: S outhold Town Zoning Board o f Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: October 28, 2004 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5633 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 5633 of Marko Anticev by Josph P. McCarthy for a variance. Also included is: Notice of Disapproval dated August 25, 2004, renewed August 27, 2004, amended October 25, 2004; ZBA Questionnaire; Short Environmental Assessment Form; Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form; survey of set off plan; and two (2) photos. Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 10/28/04 Transaction(s): Application Fees Receipt~: 1482 Subtotal $600.00 Check#: 1482 Total Paid: $600.00 Name: Anticev, Marko 2005 Old North Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Clerk ID: LINDAC Internal ID: 101509 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERs JERILYN B. WOODNOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2005 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Date: May 20, 2005 To: Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman Zoning Board of Appeals From: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Re: Anticev Variance Application SCTM# 1000-54-3-26.4 Appeal # 5633 The subject lot was created as part of the Minor Subdivision of Lighthouse Associates, a four-lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board in1986. The property owner is seeking to obtain variances to allow the lot to be subdivided into two non-conforming lots. After the initial submission to the ZBA, I prepared a memo from the Planning Board indicating that the ZBA could not issue the variances because the Covenants & Restrictions on the property prohibited the further subdivision of the lots on the approved map. Without an amendment to the C&R's, the ZBA cannot grant the variances. The C&R's can only be amended subject a public heating and the approval of a majority plus one of the Planning Board. In order for the Planning Board to consider this request, an application to subdivide and amend the C&R's is required. I spoke with Joe McCarthy a few weeks ago because I was under the impression that he was to submit a request to the Planning Board for a subdivision, including an amendment to the C&R's. No such application was submitted to this office. Mr. McCarthy told me that he was going to make a submission to the Planning Board but that it was on hold because Mr. Anticev's wife was ill and they needed time to deal with that first. I have not yet heard back from him and we have not yet received an application. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer Vincent Orlando James Dinizio, Jr. Michael A. Simon TOWN MEMO r 4 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Kieran Corcoran, Asst. Town Attorney Ruth D. Oliva, ZBA Chairwoman April 14, 2005 Anticev Property (3/31/05 ZBA PH; Possible PB Resubdivision) On March 31, 2005 the ZBA held a public hearing concerning an area variance in which the Anticev family is proposing to create a substandard lot size from property that is covenanted and restricted by the Planning Board as part of a filed subdivision. The Board of Appeals is interested in knowing whether or not the covenants and restrictions may be amended. The C&Rs were filed by the developer and the town based on a different map than is before the Board of Appeals. Joseph McCarthy, agent for the Anticev family, has indicated that a new subdivision application was submitted to the Planning Board for processing and a determination. Please advise as to whether or not the Planning Board will be in a position to amend the town's filed covenants and amend the filed map of record in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office concerning this property. Thank you. cc: Planning Board OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF ~4PPEALS Office Location: NFB Building, First Floor, 54375 Main Road at Youngs Avenue Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5011 during recording) fax (631) 765-9064 TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: -~ ~ ~ FROM: DATE: ~/,k~/ 12005 RE: I 105 Agenda (or f~'~'~l MESSAGE: Correspondence or related attached regarding the above for your information, Thank you. Pages attached: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 McCarthy. Good morning. MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board. We have two concerns going forward. First is that Mr. Anticev has consulted with an attorney and the attorney unfortunately could not be here this morning to represent him. Second of all we agreed with the Board to continue today from last month because you cult, had three members present, this morning you have four. I'm just wondering is it normal to have a full slate or a partial slate? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. We usually have a full slate. MR. MCCARTHY: We would ask for the Board's indulgence in postponing this until the next meeting so that Mr. Anticev's attorney can get up to speed on this and have all the facts necessary to adequately present it. And we would hope that there would be a full slate next meeting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is everybody agreeable? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When would be our next available date? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: March 3rd or March 31st. March 3rd is pretty much full. C~AIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 31st what time? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I would say approximately 11:00, 11:10. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, I'll make a motion to adjourn the hearing until March 31st about 11:00. BOARD MEMBER ORLAI~DO: Is that all right with you, Miss Wickham? MS. WICKHAM: I have no objection to that adjournment, but I would like to make, if I could, a very brief presentation on a legal issue. Is that okay with you? Are you finished? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MS. WICKHAM: I'm not going to address the variance issues because apparently that will be deferred to the next hearing and we have no problem with tha~, But I would like to ask the Board in the interim to review the issue of the jurisdiction it may have to grant this variance in the first place. Obviously you have a Planning Board letter, which while it does not make a recommendation in favor or against, does give you 45 January 20, 2005 46 2 3 4 5 '7 8 9 10 12 13 ']_4 '15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,t 25 a very clear indication of how they feel about the matter. And I would submit that they probably don't have jurisdiction to make a recommendation to you. If you look at the Marx v. Zoning Board of Appeals case and cases in that line, and I have that for you today if I might hand that in. I:'s an Appellate Division Second Department case which was decided in 1988, and I'll just read the first paragraph: "In this case we are called upon to determine the question of whether a village zoning board of appeals has the authority to modify the conditions imposed by the village planning board upon a subdivision plan approved by the village planning board. For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude 5hat it does not." The last paragraph of 5he decision says essentially the same thing, and 5here's a very good reasoning in there. It's based on the village law, which is pretty much mirrored by the town law under which you have your authority. I ask ~ha~ :hat be considered and reviewed by your counsel, and then we defer until March. Thank ~'0~. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: Thank you. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The hearing should be probably adjusted to approximately 10:45 that morning. MR. CORCORAN: Gail, may I ask you one question? Is it your view that the ZBA has no autkority to modify conditions of subdivision approval, or that it has no authority to grant the variance? Because those are somewhat different things in the presence of conditions and restrictions that relate to the granting of variance. MS. WICKHAM: The effect of granting the variance would be a modification of the subdivision approval in my opinion. MR. CORCORAN: Without speaking for the Board on what they would or wouldn't do, one could take the view that you could grant a variance, but you're still subject to the conditions of the subdivision approval, which would then need ~o be addressed by the Planning Board. MS. WICK}L~M: I think in this case it is pretty much on point. It talks about substandard lots being created. We do have two substandard January 20, 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lots which would be created here; one is substandard in terms of area and width, maybe more, I don't remember and the other is substandard in terms of width frontage. So I would like you to address that. MR. CORCORAN: I understand and I will. MR. MCCARTHY: If I may? CMAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. MR. MCCARTHY: In discussions that Mr. Dinizio had, unfortunately he's not here, we expressed a willingness to recreate lot lines so we could eliminate at least one of the points Miss Wickham has just brought up. There is approximately three acres there. We request to build a two acre lot in the back with a flag. We could reconfigure the one acre piece to be a two acre piece, thereby creating a one acre piece in the back to eliminate one of those objections that she has. If the Board finds that they are willing to work with us on that, we would be more than happy to do that. Additionally, I would request that the Board examine any previous decisions that they have made that might be similar in scope to this or in legalities as far as legal issues go with the point that Miss Wickham has just brought up. Because if, in fact, there are some, and we believe that there are, then they would need to be revisited as well. Thank you. MS. WICKHAM: I would like to say if there's going to be a new plan submitted, I'd like to see it ahead of time. I'm not sure it would change my opinion of the legality. And I apologize for the size of our print. It was done on our copier at a 64 percent reduction, which I might note, is less of a reduction that the applicant is asking for in this variance. I'll give Mr. McCarthy a copy also. CHAIRWOMAN 0LIVA: I'll make a motion to adjourn until 1:00 p.m. ISee minutes for resolution.) CH3%IRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is CD Reiters, 01d Barge Restaurant. Mr. Angel. MR. ANGEL: I neglected to send out notice to the adjoining owners. I have an affidavit with the copy of the notice and a copy of the letter we sent with it, I'd like to hand that up (handing;. I should probably give you my appearance. 47 January 20, 2005 330 331 333 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN ti. WOODHOUSE Chair RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fo.x: 631 765-3136 Date: December 14, 2004 To~ Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman Zoning Board of Appeals From: Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairwoman Planning Board Re~ Request for comments on Marko Anticev Variance Application SCTM# 1000-54-3-26.4 Appeal # 5633 In response to your request for comments regarding the variance application for the above-referenced property, thc Planning Board has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments and recommendations at this time: · This lot was created as part of the Minor Subdivision of Lighthouse Associates, a four-lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board in1986. At that time, there was sufficient acreage to create a major subdivision, which would have resulted in two additional lots for a total of six lots. From the records, it appears that the applicant did not want to pursue a major subdivision application given the additional expenses and extensive filing requirements. Accordingly, the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that was filed for this subdivision includes a clause stating that none of the lots be further subdivided. Each property owner purchased his or her lot with this understanding. A copy of the C& R's and the Planning Board Resolution of Approval is attached for the Board's review. · If the ZBA grants this request to create a substandard lot, it will open the Town to criticism that it is not honoring its own C&Rs. It also will create a precedent whereby the owners of the remaining three lots could plead hardship resulting in a total of eight non-conforming lots where six conforming lots were permitted by zoning and four approved by the Planning Board. · The applicant has the option of constructing an accessory apartment whereby additional income could be obtained. · The applicant's proposal would result in the creation of non-conforming lot by more than half for the zoning district, but the lot will still be larger than the pre- existing lot to the south. · The applicant should be advised that the issuance of the variances would not undo the need to obtain subdivision approval. If the Planning Board agreed to amend the Covenants and Restrictions and the ZBA granted the requested relief, the applicant will still be required submit the subdivision application and fees, pay the Park and Playground fee of $7,000 and obtain Health Department approval. This property cannot be subdivided unless the Planning Board agrees to amend the Covenants and Restrictions, which should occur before the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to grant the requested relief. The Planning Board withholds recommending approval or denial of the variance application until a petition to amend the Covenants and Restrictions has been submitted to and approved by a majority plus one of the Planning Board, subject to a public hearing. Sou:hold, N.Y. 11971 (516) "/65-1928 · - - ~' May 6, 1986 Mt. Henry ~. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Lighthouse Associates Dear Mr. Raynor: The following ac%ion was taken by the Board, M~nday, May 5, 1986. $outhold Town Planning RESOLVED that whereas a formal application for the approval of a subdivision plat entitled "Lighthouse Associates" located at Southold was submitted to the Planning Board on June 26, 1985 and filinq fee of'$550 was paid on July 8, 1985 and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said subdivision epplication and plat at the Town Hall, Southold, New York, on'Monday, April 14, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., and WHEREAS, the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the'Town of Southold have been met by said subdivision plat and application, NOW, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the application of "Lighthouse Associates" for approval of said subdivision plat prepared by Rod Van Tyle dated as amended January 7, 1986 be approved and the Chairman be authorized to endorse approval on said subdivision plat, subject to the following: 1. Covenants and.restrictions stating, no further subdivision of any lot in perpetuity, to be filed in the Office of the County Clel Upon reoeipt of notice that the above covenants and restrictions have been filed in the office of the County Clerk, the Chairman will endorse the surveys. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Page 2~ 5/6/86 Prior to filing the covenants, would you please submit a copy to the Planning Board office so we may refer ~hem to the ~own Attorney for his review. If you have any questions, plaase don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRbLAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary 32 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS INDENTURE made this 22nd day of October 1985 , ~4)~1, by Lighthous Associates-c/o John J, Breslin ~ at 44 Elm Streett Huntinqotnl New York 11743 hereinafter called tile Declarant. contract vendee WHEREAS, the Declarant is the ' ' . of a certain parcel of land Southold situate at ~, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, 'New York, and designated o! :3 p~.o 26, . the Suffolk Cot~nty Tax l~ap as District 1000. ~ eetion 54. t Bloek 3 ~and' Lot con,am hnder contract lng approximately 13~acres, being tile same premises --- by ~ dated 8/10/84 herein as the "premises" and WHEREAS, the Declarant intends !o subdivide said premises for residential purposes and de/sires to subject said premises to certain conditions, covenants' and restrictions in order to preserve the maximum open space, natural scenic beauty and natural vegetation and to prevent overcrowding and to conserve the ground water resources of the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, the. Declarant had applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for approval of the subdivision and development of the premises as a Minor Subdivision, to contain not more than four (4) lots o~ parcels'. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declirant does hereby declare that the aforesaid premises and every portion thereof is hereby held and shall be conveyed subject to the conditions, covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth, and that every purcl~ser o[ said premises, or any port/on thereof, by the acceptance of a deed thereto,.'coven~nts and agrees that the premises so purchased shall be held subject to the covenants, conditions, and restricti6ns hereinafter set forth~ 1. No lot or plot as shown and designated on the Minor Subdi~siou ma~ appro~d by and ~ed wi~ the Sou~old To~ P~n~g Board sh~ be fur~er sub- divided. 4. That all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained hgrein sh~ be construed as real covenants running with the land and shall continue and remain in full force and effect at all times as against the owner of the premises or any portion thereo~ in perpetuity. Said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be bindin~ upon, inure to the .benefit of and be enforceable by the Declarant, their heir successors and assigns; any owner of any portion of the aforesaid premises, their heirs, successors and assigns, and the Town of Southold0 and its successors and assigns, and ih? [~ilure of ~y o~ 9~e foregoing %o e~force any of such coven~ts, conditions and restrictio~ shall in no eveu~ be deemed a waiver o[ ~he right to do s thereafter. i0034 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this indenture has been execut first above written. STATE OF NEW YORK County of Suffolk t day and year John J. Brestin, M~agin9 Partner SS.: I, JULIETTE A. KINSELLA, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for sa d County (said Court bein Court of Record) DO HEREBY CERTIFr~i&t I have compared the anne, xed copy of and that it is a just and tru~copy of such original ~ of the whole thereof, and IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said )unty and Court this '~ day of ~ 19 · . ~ · ~',;&'. .41N1~00 ~irst abOVe STATE OF NEW YORK County of ~t~ffOIk (, JULIETTE A. KINSELLA, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and Clerk of the Supreme Court of the Slate of New York in and for said County (said Court bein~ Cou.rt of Recordl DO H'ER~BY CER. TIFY th~ I have compared the_annexed copy of .~~ aad that it is a iuat anO true~opy of such origina~ ~ aad of tile i~Jhole ~hereof. IN TEST MONy WHEREOF ( have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said and Cot~rt ~hiS. ~b~ '~day of ~k.4~¢_, 19 ~t~ #7241 STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Joan Ann Weber of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks, successively, commencing on the 2nd day of December ,2004. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2004 CHRISTINA VOLINSK NOI'ARY PUBLIC-STA'~E OF NEW YORK No. 01.V06106050 Qualified In Suffolk County L~,~AL ~d ~ap~ 1~ (~ing), ~ of ~e Town of Sou~ol& ~e folinwMg public bergs will ~ held by ~e SO.HOLD TOWN BOARD OF ~P~ at ~e Town H~l, 53~5 M~ R~d, EO. ~x 1179, Sou~old, New York 11971~59, on ~y, ~mber 16, ~, at ~e fi~ no~ ~low (or ~ ~n ~e~ ~ ~ssi- ble): 9:35 AM MORTIMER KELLY ~630. R~u~t f~ a V~e ~der ~ ~e Bu~g ~t's Au~st 16, 2~ N~ of Di~, for~e side y~, at (1195 (1145) ~ ~k 9:~ ~ J~ P~P~ ~6~. R~uest f~ a V~ ~d~ No~ of ~v~ ~ a lot ~ve~e ex~ ~c ~ ~on 9:45 ~ ~ KO~OUBIS Section 1~-239.4A, ~sed on ~e Notice of Disappmv~ conce~g RO~ ~627. R~t f~ a V~ 15 f~t on a ~in ai~ y~, ~d ex~ ~ ~t lot ~, at 350 W~t Lak~ Drive, Soadmtd; CTM 90-1-2L 10:00 AM PETER W. GAILLARD #5631. Request f~r a Vttdance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's December 24, 2003 Notice of Disapproval concerning as built" deck addition at less than the code required minimum 35 fL from the front yard line, at Mansion House Drive, Fishers Island; CTM 6-5-8. 10:05 AM CHARLOTTE DICKERSON #5616. Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4, for relief from the conditions of previous Appeal No. 5256 and based on the Building Depan~nent's August 12, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amend- ed November 22, 2004, concerning the as-built location of a foundation for a new single-family dwelling at less than 100 feet from the top of the L.h Sound bluff). Location of Property: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic; CTM Parcel 74-1-35.51. 10:15 AM GRACE KEHLE #5624. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's May 25, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amended August 4, 2004, concerning a pmpesed convemion of an accessory building located at less than 40 feet from the front property line for single-lam y dwelling use. Location of Property: 630 Strohson Road, Catchogue;~2. ~ 7241-iT 12/2 ~ ..MARKO ANrICEV. equest for a Variance under SeCtibn 100-32, B.A, SED ON THE Building Department s August 25, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amended November 4, area of less than 80,000 sq. ft. in this R- of Property: 2005 Old North Ro~, Southold; CTM 54-3-part or 26.4 so shown as part of Lot 2, ap of ~"t~3~J--/~l~ NICK AND OLGA DIAKUN. Request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-26 concerning Lot 2 containing 20,750+ sq. fL as shown on the Map of Sunset Knolls, Section 2. Based on the Building l~t's October 20, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, and Section 100-25, the properties have been merged due to common ownership with the fuat lot at ' any thne after July 1, 1983, until the total lot size conforms to the bulk sched- ule requirements. Combined the lands total 45,132 sq. ft. Location of Property: 1180 (sad 1060) Stanley Road, Mattituck; Sunset · Knolls 1:10 PM FITF, LLC ~T~617. Requ~t for a Variance under So~ioa 100-122 based on the Building Inspector's January 12, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amended September 21, 2004, for a proposed parcel with less #7285 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Joan Ann Weber of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks, successively, commencing on the 6th day of January ,2005 Sworn to before me this 2005 NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01.VO610~050 Qualified In Suffolk County Commission Expires February 28, 2008 ~----/--~/-~ Clerk ~ P-'~-ncipal day of / OF 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 11'19, Southold, New Yo~k 1!971:0959, on ?:bursdav. January 20. 2005; at the times noted below (or ss soon thereafter as possi 9:30 AM CONSTANCE BEEBE ~.~'~ II~ and EI~ANOR Private Road #12 (~so ~own ~ Wmdy CO~Y ~5~5. R~uest for a S~cial Poi~ ~e~. Sou~old. Zone Disffict: Ex~pfio~ to esmb~sh Accessou Bed RS0 Residenfi~ B~ed on ~e Building ~d B~t ac~ a~ mciden~. ~ ~p~Augug 27, 2~Notice of :Tm~o~~er's p~cy~ss~gle- ~'~sappm~, ~e~ Nov~m~r 10, ~~up] ~'o~ e (4, ~- 2~, ~l,c~'?l~ues~'g: r~ms f~ l~d s~of ~e~- ~, A) a ~ver ~?m~e lots ~at have ,f~t to ~re~ ~ c~ual, ~;~n ~ u~gn 1~-25 due ~sient~g at ~5 MX~ ~ad, 32 t~o~ o~P ~ ~e first l°t ' ~t M~n: ~3~16.1. ~ ~:~--~¢at ~:~ L 1~3. ~e a~li- 9:50 AM BARRY and KATE GRAYSON #5640. Request for a Varianc~t andoL Section I00-33, bas? on th6 B~lding D~pamnent s September 3. 2004 Notice of Disapproval concermng an as built from lhe ~ar lot lj~, Point Roa~ Cnte~ 1000-78-6-9.2 and 9.3 under Section 100-26: B) variants resulting from a pro- posed lot line change (in the event the Waiver to unmerge is grantedL for a [~c~ig~"TM 1000-78-6~92 from ~4,9844~;__ t~. to 13,500+- sq. ft., and in~&~ ~ 1000-78-6-9.2 Bom 6.098 s~vtt~t* 'LS00*- sq. ft 11:00 MARK ANTICEV #5633 Orient Road. (20% of,[O~O!g Sect~ns ~ ~? 1~ con- cemJng pro.seal additions ~d alter- 100 on ttc 10:05 AM MARK D~.i~ #5644. Request ~ a 9~C$ ~bns tower at 125 ft. hei~twi~ ~:.~ti~_~2~:~, b~ off ~te~a,-~d ~*la~ equi~t. ~e ~g ~pmment s tnovem~r 5, reason~ g~ for ~rovat ~ ~at a ~ SW~lng ~1 wlt~ ~ r~e~nts wi~ a pro~sed height at 1~162A{3) to c~t '6~uni- than con~_rning t ailerons e dwelling, W~h Will ~onstitute an in~o ~ ~e d~e o~ nonc~for- ~ce wi~ ~ont y~d s~c~ ~i I~SS · ~ 35 feet, at 425 ~hee Avenue, Sou~old; ~ 8%3-30. 10:20 AM EUGE~ ~d AGeS hours. If you havl question~, g!ease db not hesi tate to call (631) 765;i809, Dated: Janual3' 3! 200~ BY ORDER OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RUTH D. OLD/A, CHAIRWOMAN By Linda Kowalski KOEHLER #5647. Request for a, 7285-1T1/6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MARK ~/qT I CE~ BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Next application is Marco knticev. Good morning, Mr. McCarthy. MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning. Yesterday I received a fax from Mrs. Kowalski regarding a letter she received in opposition from the Lathams, and I had my response to that, which I need to pass out to you. BOARD MEMBER ORLAiVDO: Thank you. Also, Mr. McCarthy, we got a an internal letter from the Planning Board. MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, I'm aware of that. First of all, this is a kind of unique situation inasmuch as there is a previously established subdivision, and we're requesting a further subdivision of that by virtue of Mr. knticev's subdivision of his property. Me owns approximately a three acre lot and the house sits on -- the piece that we would like to split sits on approximately an acre, just shy of an acre. We would like to split two acres off of that that's in the back, and so there is 24 25 confidential information in there as far as medical information that's's for this Board's 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 perusal, I'm happy to address that with you, I don't know if that could be done in public or not. Regarding the letter from the Planning Board, I met with Anthony, I met with Val Scopaz, discussed different ways that this might proceed and the least objectionable ways to go. And it seems the application has to go forward on its own merits, as far as the subdivision goes and how we're asking to subdivide further in a subdivision that has covenants and restrictions on it previously. So what we have is a situation where there is two houses on either side of this lot that we're requesting to subdivide. One is significantly smaller and one is about the same size as the remainder lot. The remainder lot being approximately one acre after we would take 20 21 22 23 24 25 the two acres in the back and make that the lot that we're creating. The house to the left, or immediately to the east, is a house that's anyone there for many years has been part of the neighborhood was there long before the subdivision was put in. The house to the -- excuse me, to the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 west. The house to the east is the one that is on approximately the same size as the remainder piece, which would be approximately an acre. So it's not out of conformity with the neighborhood. In addition to that, we have mitigating factors that are presented to you in the confidential paper regarding the Health issues. We do have a hardship case we believe. We believe that deserves very particular attention. We have received a letter from Scott and Allison Latham. In this letter I have given you my response to it, and I have gone point for point in their opposition and I'm here to discuss any of that that you might think relevant for discussion. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On the aerial map, I have indicated where the Latham's house is in relation where the remainder lot is for Mr. Anticev where the proposed two acre lot is, where Mr. Krecheviski's lot is and Mr. Siracazano's lot is, as well as Tony Gregones, across the street. It would appear by looking at the map that this would not be anything that would be harmful or injurious to the neighborhood. It would not reduce any scenic vistas. The house could be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 placed so that it's in the back of the lot inside the building envelope. There is already a very large line of mature evergreen trees separating this proposed property from the bathams on one side, who wrote the objection, and it could be further ameliorated as far as a buffer zone goes if this Board decides that's the way to go. Any questions you have for me, I will be happy to answer. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, Mr. McCarthy, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for the record I want to say that my comments are not directed at you personally or at your applicant personally, but at the application itself. I did read the confidential historical medical reasons, and I have sympathy towards that but I need to look at the big picture outside the box, the repercussions that could go beyond that, and I personally believe indirectly where you're asking us to rezone it, two acre area to one acre, indirectly, and I personally feel if this application was approved, I think the result could be catastrophic and chain reactive, and the other lots would follow suit, and I'd have a mile long line down the line here looking for other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for the same relief. So that's what I'm saying, I'm not directly attacking you or your applicant, but I'm looking outside the box for this application because what could happen after this if it was approved. I have a problem with this, a big problem. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MCCARTHY: I understand it's a serious concern for this Board, and I understand that there could be repercussions. However, I believe that this Board takes each case on its own merit and I don't believe that it should be a blanket type approval, opening the door for other applicants for the same reason. This is a very specific application with very specific reasons, and they're set forth in the confidential statement as well as the public part of that. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I understand every application is unique and different on their own, but when we, if we did approve this one and deny the next one, an Article 78, the judge turns around and says you did that one, why not this one, and it would snowball. A/Id I personally think it would be catastrophic to start this. MR. MCCARTHY: If it's a political situation that's being addressed, to address that. I'm not prepared 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's not a political thing. You're basically indirectly asking us to change the zoning. MR. MCCARTHY: What we're requesting is to form a a two acre lot in two acre zoning, by default that creates an almost one acre lot. That's in between a half acre lot and a one acre lot, one on each side. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They're all preexisting. MR. MCCARTHY: They are indeed. BOARD MEMBER ORLAArDO: If we start a precedent now, then it's no turning back, and I'm afraid that that would be catastrophic to this. But I want to see what the other Board members have to say. I'm just one vote and it's my opinion. Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Regarding this application, I was over and spent some time looking at the neighborhood and spent some time looking at the lot itself to be basically separated, I'll use that phrase. I am still up in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the air regarding it. I have no real qualms about the granting of variances on a lot this size. Certainly not granting the lot that size you're granting the variance on the house piece. And it could be made more conforming thereby taking some property away from the 80,000 square feet. And creating an actual one acre lot for the house. And all I can say is that we've done it before, and there certainly is a hardship and we are aware of that. I'll leave it at that point. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: your aerial picture here, Joe, Mr. Dinizio? Just looking at seems to me like Mr. Latham's lot probably benefited from a similar subdivision at some point in time, and that's Mr. Kuhn, that may have been one square piece of lot at one time, and they had an existing house there, and they just cut off a little piece, and then this larger lots exists. I don't know if that's the case but seems to me like exactly what happened on that piece of property is going to happen on yours. 24 25 MR. MCCARTHY: That's not the case. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In any case, I have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 no objection at all to it. I didn't read your confidential letter, I just got it and I would like to have some time to read it. MR. MCCARTHY: Understood, sure. I apologize for that, I did not get that until yesterday afternoon. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's just going to hold you up. I mean, I'm going to need to read it. The point is, I don't see where approving this would give any precedent at all, because we have done this in the past and certainly, you know a three acre parcel in a two acre zone can be a hardship. It's not going to necessarily change the character, I don't see that happening. If you can maybe make it an acre and-a-half, an acre and-a-half -- MR. MCCARTHY: We could work with the Board on that if you decided to give us the 20 21 22 23 24 25 opportunity to do that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That may help your application. Right now I have no objection to the way it is but that may be something that you might want to look at MR. MCCARTHY: If I could just suggest to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 you that the reason why we went with that size is because it's naturally landscaped and bordered and it's almost a custom cut as far as separating the two. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't have to landscape it, you would just own it. The only thing that it would affect is probably setbacks of a house that's built on the empty lot, and I understand why you did it because the aerial photos shows that, but that may be something that I'm just suggesting that may be helpful to you to get this approved. That's all I have. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application? Is there any here opposed it to this application? Yes, sir? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Good morning, my name is Mark Krecheviski. I own an adjoining lot and I am opposed to this. I do think it does change the character of the neighborhood. I would also like to address what I believe is some inconsistencies with Mr. McCarthy's application. I've seen that down at the clerk's office where it's on file. In there he states that he currently has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no buyer for this piece of property. I feel that that is inaccurate, that there is a proposed deal in place to spin this piece of property off right away. Also, in our deeds when I purchased my lot, which is an adjoining lot, there was a covenant in there that there be no further subdivision, that was part of what made me decide to buy my lot, that I would have nobody directly behind me. This house in the proposed building 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zone would put a house directly behind me, and vehicles coming and going, the headlights would be right into my back windows of my home, and it will completely do a number on the privacy that I currently enjoy. Also when I bought my lot, I went around to the area residents and just checked on the water supply and just if they're having problems with remic in the water and what have you. I spoke with Mr. Anticev and his house on that lot, if you look at I'm not sure if any of your drawings currently show where his house is stationed on his lot, it's all the way over to the west border line of his property, and I asked him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 about the placement of his house and he told me that he intended to subdivide the lot some day and by keeping the house there, he would be able to build another house and subdivide it and sell the piece off. It's unfortunate there may be some health problems or whatever that have brought him 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to this point, but I think it was his idea all along to subdivide this at some point, and I just feel that unfortunately for him that now's the time he chooses to do it. I think this prior planning really casts doubt on the whole application filed by Mr. McCarthy. I don't think that it's really above board because there's one of the questions in there is do you currently have anybody interested in purchasing the property; he says no, that he doesn't. Well, that's incorrect. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there anything that would satisfy you as far as screening is concerned? MR. KRECHEVISKI: No, it really wouldn't because in the winter there's going to be a problem with leaves off the trees. And the nature 1 2 3 of this lot, this flag lot is going to put a house back directly behind me, and I feel that down the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 road if I were to choose to put up a barn or utilize the back area of my property for any reason that I would be in here facing you folks trying to do what I'm currently able to do because he may not want to look at a barn, or if my kids want to ride mini bikes or go carts out in this farm area that I'll be restricted in some way because this house is placed there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you just tell me where your lot is? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it this one? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Yes. And also the lot that Mr. Dinizio spoke of, the Kuhn residence, that was preexisting, that was an old time farm house and when the subdivision was put in place they went around that lot. It wasn't spun off from Mr. Latham's lot, it was just an old time farmhouse. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just looking at a photo. What about the Anticev house is that old, new? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. KRECHEVISKI: It's after the subdivision, it's a relatively modern house. That's why that little parcel there was just an old time farm house that was not part of the subdivision. Anybody have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Kresheviski. Would anybody else like to speak opposing this application? MS. LATHAM: Hi, my name is Allison Latham. My husband and I are here. We adjoin the Anticev property immediately to the west of the yard, the 3.3 acre lot, which I believe is the 54-326.5 is the tax map number. We wrote a letter to the Board in opposition of this application, which I trust the Board has reviewed. We're just really here in case the Board has any questions or comments for us here today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion that Mr. McCarthy said regarding this high greenery that's on the subject property, is that 23 24 25 on this gentleman's property or is it on your property? MS. LATHAM: That's on Mr. Anticev 's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is it well on his property or does it over shadow your property? MS. LATHAM: I believe it's just on the other side of the property line. I would have to look at the survey to see where they're placed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did see the greenery from the road, but is it relatively -- is it maintained, or does it run wild; how does it look? MS. LAT~AM: I think it looks nice. It's not high enough to screen a viewing my lot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn't get that impression either. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you a question. I'm looking at an aerial photo. When 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you drive by the place, you have the Kuhn house, you have your house, which is in back of the Kuhn, then you have Mr. Anticev, then you have what looks like a flag lot, that's what he wants to create? MS. LATHAM: That's what he wants to create, un-huh. 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The front portion of that to what he proposes as his backyard, if you drew a line all the way across, you would have approximately an acre there, maybe a little less, but would you be opposed to -- say if we were so inclined to grant this -- would you be opposed if we restricted the house to being built in that area and forever make the whole backyard green, that nothing can be done in there, no pools, no barns, no whatever, would you be opposed to that? MS. LATHAM: I think I would because there's still going to be a house that's either next door to my house or in my back yard. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: NO, it's not going to be anywhere near your backyard. It's going to be on the Main Road, right alongside Mr. Anticev's house? MS. LATHAM: NO, absolutely no. I would not want that. That would really change the look of the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: asking. That's why I'm MS. LAT}{AM: You mentioned before, I think you were talking about the similarity between the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Anticev property and -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I got that answer to that from Mr. McCarthy. MS. LATHAM: It was very old. That lot existed since before 1945. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just looking at the lines. I was thinking it would be very similar situation, but it's not, obviously not. MS. LATHAM: No. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Would anybody else like to speak? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I'm Abigail Wickham. I am representing the Lathams. And one of the beauties of being an advocate and Mr. Corcoran would appreciate this, is that I can and I am going to strenuously oppose this application on behalf of the Lathams because, quite frankly, I can't believe you're entertaining it given the subdivision, the covenants and the layout of the neighborhood. But I will guarantee you that if granted, I will be in Mr. Orlando's line with many clients who would be very happy to abrogate the subdivision and zoning code regulations that they bought under and that they subdivided under if 1 2 3 4 5 6 they can carve yet another lot out of their property. This is an incredible precedent if you grant it, and I'm really shocked that you are even frankly considering it, and I'll tell you why as far as preexisting tax Lot 25, that's really the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 only basis on which he is event broaching you, other than the personal matters, which I will approach in a minute, and that was one small preexisting lot in a neighborhood. And when people came in to subdivide this, I guess it was approximately eight or nine acres, I don't believe that lot was part of it, and they got a minor subdivision of four large lots, that's how the people who owned this particular lot that we're talking about bought, that's how everyone else in the neighborhood bought in reliance on that, and I do think the Lathams and their neighbors have a right to object to another dwelling unit being imposed in that neighborhood, that's not what it was supposed to be. It's clear that it was intended to be one lot. Also, I don't think their lot particularly benefitted, if I understood what you initially said on that, Jim, because it was preexisting. 1 2 And it's unfortunate, you do have in neighborhoods 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little, tiny lots that have been there for a long time, but that doesn't mean that everybody else in the neighborhood gets that all the time. It's just the way it is and you have to work around that, and I think the Planning Board did work around that in a specific way when they subdivided the property. A three acre parcel in a two acre zone is really not a hardship because that's the way they bought it, that's the way they understood it. And I would have to object to two things with respect to the confidential information that was submitted. Number one, when you're dealing with a real property variance, and this is not a waiver of merger, this is a variance, personal factors are not supposed to be determinative of your decision, and I would also have to object strenuously to any information being included on the record or given to the Board that was not public. I don't think that that is appropriate in a public hearing of this nature. I'm not trying to pry into their personal matters, but I don't know what they told you, and I don't know that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it's appropriate that you rely on it in any way and without it I have no way of commenting on that. I would also like to mention that aerial photos are really not how we live. They're very helpful to get everyone to get a picture of what it really looks like, but that's not when you drive in and out of your driveway and up and down your road, that's not really how you're living and how the zoning code has to be interpreted. So I would like to ask that you consider those things very, very carefully before you make a decision. BOD~RD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham, you raise a very interesting issue regarding confidentiality of this. I really think, and in the past I think it has to be made part of the public record but not necessarily part of the public hearing, and I think you do have the right personally to read it, that's my particular opinion, and not necessarily to comment on the specific elements of it, that's my opinion. So I 23 24 25 think you should be able to read it, and I think you should be able to comment on it, a~ain, not necessarily to that particular point of 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 confidentiality. MS. WICE/qAM: Just to a ~eneral. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: TO a ~eneral broader point. And I think we should ~ive you the opportunity to do so. MS. WICKHAM: I appreciate that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I think we should recess it until the 29th until we could do that. MS. WICKHAM: I may say nothin~ more than what I have already said what I've already said that it's not appropriate to your decision, and I understand I would want to respect privacy. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel's here, I'm not speakin~ for counsel. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: If the Board were inclined to take that position, I think 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 they should offer the applicant the opportunity to receive the information back because the applicant did submit it under the assumption that it would be treated confidentially. So I think the applicant should have the opportunity to make a more general statement if they would like about medical issues, but if the Board is going to as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 part of its decision rely on information, I think that information should be made available to the public. If it's not going to rely on it, it's privacy protected information that does not need to be disclosed, but it may not be appropriate to rely on information that's not made available to the public. MS. KOWALSKI: I would like to ask if the confidential portion of this is going to be accepted because I would normally return it. All written documents have been made part of the record in the past. So if the Board does not want to accept it, I would return the top sheet that 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 says confidential. MS. WICKHAM: Has the Board read it yet, though? MS. KOWALSKI: We just received it. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCOR3kN: We just received it. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We just received it. MS. WICKHAM: I would say if you're inclined to deny the application, I'll withdraw my objection. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. McCarthy, did you want to come up? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. Even given it is nature of the strenuous objections from Mrs. Wickham, I spoke with my client and we would have no objection to removing the confidentiality of this providing that it stays within this realm, and does not go out to the general public. For the sake of discussion, for the sake of your 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entertaining our request, I think it's appropriate that you have that, and as long as she can guarantee that it doesn't go out to the public, that's fine with us. ASST. TOWN ATTORiqEY CORCORAN: NO. MS. KOWALSKI: We can't do that. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: We can't do that. Once it's in the record and it's been disclosed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Once it's part of the record, Joe, anybody can go in there and see it. The reason why I didn't read it is because you have this first paragraph asking that, that's why. MR. MCCARTHY: Fair enough. We thought that that was not precedent setting, that that had been done previously. That was the information that we had were given, that's why we went that way. We withdraw the confidentiality factor of that, and we submit it as part of the as part of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the record. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to submit it as part of the record? MR. MCCARTHY: We withdraw the confidentiality part of the request. Secondly, I would like to take exception to Mr. KRECHEVISKI's objection stating that there was a buyer when we first approached this subject; there was not. When we first approached it and I filled out the application, there was not a buyer. The same as Mr. Latham alleges that there was an active listing on the real estate market; there never was. There was never an active listing. I had hoped that this wouldn't be necessary, but I find that I should go point for point with their objection letter as I have delineated in there because that would explain in great detail, and if there's any further questions, then we could address them here, if that's okay with the 1 2 Board. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOD~RD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also if it's all right with Mr. McCarthy and Miss Wickham, I'd like to adjourn this to our next hearing. We're two members short today, I'd like to get them up to speed and they may have other questions that we may not have. So we'll have a full Board vote on this one. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to read over the information. MR. MCCARTHY: If that's the case then there's no need for me to go point for point on their letter and my counter on their letter because you have that information in front of you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The next public hearing is January 20th. I'd like to adjourn it until then. MS. WICKHAM: May I ask one more question? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You may. MS. WICE/4AM: I just want to make sure that you have in the record the Planning Board covenant that was recorded, I believe you do? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, we do. Is there a time for that Linda? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. KOWALSKI: Yes, I would suggest, we have so many other adjournments that are going on the agenda, I would recommend 11:00. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. I would just like to call particular attention to the Board's attention, if you would, that the last couple of paragraphs in my response is quite pertinent to the Latham's objection. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So noted. MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. 11:00 January 20th? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, I make a motion to adjourn this meeting to January 20th 1100 hours. (See minutes for resolution.) D~-1~-2004 13:44 F~OM:WICKHAM~ESSLER 631 ~90 8565 Scott Latham Allison M. Latham 1755 Old North Road P.O. Box 1294 $outhold, New York I 1971 765-0066 T0:7659~64 December 14. 2004 VIA FACSIMILE Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road. Post Office Box l 179 Southold, New York I 1971 Re: Anticev File SCTM# 1000-54-3-26.4 Ladies and Gentlemen: We am the neighbors who adjoin the Anticev property to the West (tax lot 54-3-26.5). We oppose the request for variance as it is completely out of character with the neighborhood and completely violates eovenanLq imposed by the Planning Board when the lot was created. Specifically, this property was part cfa subdivision by Lighthouse Associatcs which included the subject property, our property and two lok~ on Lighthouse Road. The Planning Board required covenants against further subdivision of any lot. 'Ii, is covemmt was on record when we purchased our property, it was a major selling point and we relict on it. This application is totally precluded by the minimum lot size requirements of the Town Code, the subdivision requirements of the Town Code and the recorded covenants required by the Planning Board which run with the property in perpetuity. In addition, graining this application would set a precedent for subdldsion of the other three lots in the subdivision. Personal financial difficulty of an owner which is not related to the property does not entitle that owner to relief from the Zoning Code or eoven~ts. Thc applicam's answer to paragraph three of the application is incorrect because he is creating a lot of under one acre. There is only one other small lot in the area wlfich has been single ~md separate since well prior to zoning in a neighborhood of lots which are predominately 80,000 ~quare feet or more. P.002~3 ,~ DEC-14-8804 13:44 FROM:WICKHAM 6~1 898 8S65 T0:7659064 P.OO~x00~ Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals December 14, 2004 Page 2 We also dispute thc answer to question (a) of the Questionnaire which states that the property is not currently listed on the real estate market for sale. The application was made by a real estate broker. We have been advised by the owner of the property as well as the purchaser that the lot is to be sold. The application itself indicates that it is to be sold. We request that you deny the applimtion in its entirely. ~hso M. ~thm Cc: $outhold Town Planning Board APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer Vincent Orlando James Dinizio, Jr. Michael A. Simon http://southoldtown.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 May 20, 2005 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road ° P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 By Regular, Mail c. nd ?;x to ....... , ,....vv, Mr. Joseph McCarthy Eastern Breezes Real Estate 470 Mockingbi~ Lane Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 5633 - Variances (Lighthouse Associates Map/Anticev Property) Dear Mr. McCarthy: As a follow-up to discussions and the public hearing held on March 31, 2005, the Board of Appeals agreed to send a request for additional communications from the Planning Department. In the enclosed May 20, 2005 Memorandum, our department was advised that an application was not filed by the owners requesting an amendment of the town-required Covenants and Restrictions concerning the Map of Lighthouse Associates. When the applicants are able to submit an application to the Planning Board and to request an amendment of the town Covenants and Restrictions under the former subdivision, entitled Lighthouse Associates, and if approval is obtained, further review and processing of the variance will continue. For these reasons, the variance application is removed from the June 2, 2005 hearing calendar. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ruth D. Oliva Chairwoman Encl. APPEALS BOARD MFrvl~S Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer Lydia A. Tortora Vincent Orlando James Dinizio Annex Location -NFB, First Floor Southold, New York 11971-0959 Tel. Intercom Ext. 5011 Telephone 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Board Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeal~/'"~.~ December 3, 2004 SUBJECT: Coordination for Reply/Comments The following application is under review by the Board of Appeals, with an advertised December 16, 2004 public hearing. Enclosed are the Building Inspector's November 4, 2004 amended Notice of Disapproval and copy of the appeal application and applicant's map. The Planning Board may be involved regarding a modification to the previous subdivision, or other reviews under the Chapter 100 of Zoning, and your comments are requested at this time. The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience. NAME TAX#_/ ZBA BD NOD VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE STAMPED ANTICEV, 54-3-26.4 5633 11/4/04 Bulk Schedule, 7-15-03 Peconic MARKO RS0 Zone 100-244B Survey Surveyors Lot size less than code for existing house Your comments are appreciated by December 13, 2004. Thank you. Encls. · TRANSMITTAL WITHOUT COVER LETTER DELIVERED/~/ ~ /200~tTO ZBAOFFICE IICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, p.c. P.O. BOX 1414, MAIN ~qOAD MA'r'n'rucK, N£W¥OR~ U~ LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2004 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on Thursday, December 16~ 2004, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 10:25 AM MARKO ANTICEV. Request for a Variance under Section 100-32, BASED ON THE Building Department's August 25, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amended November 4, 2004, for a proposed parcel with a land area of less than 80,000 sq. ft. in this R-80 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: 2005 Old North Road, Southold; CTM 54-3-part or 26.4 (also shown as part of Lot 2, Map of Lighthouse Associates/Minor Subdivision). The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: November 22, 2004. Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS M~ILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF MAIN OFFICE: North Fork Bank Building, 1st FI. Corner of Main Road & Youngs Avenue, Southold November 23, 2004 Re: Chapter 58 - Public Notice for Thursday, December 16, 2004 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before DEC. 1st: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to al_l owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall (631 765-1937) and the County Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability and to confirm this in either a written statement, or at the hearing, with the returned letter. AND by DEC. IST: please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing and return it when available. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) By DEC. 8th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for at least seven (7) days and kept in place till the hearing date. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please also deliver your Affidavit of Postin.q at the meeting (or earlier if possible). If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff En¢ls. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of (Name of Applicants) CTM Parcel #1000- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: Onthe L/¢ dayof hff,2t?Pt6tc'lL, , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Xc~4x3~ c. ~ , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a tree copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (V} Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office ~C oc~ ~+014) , for every property which abuts and is across a public or private str~;et, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. / ' (Signature) PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. ~ o. &0,,c /'J{,'u'i O,u f, 5. Au'~. ~lq]l UNIT 2.30 Post~-ge Certlfleq Fee Return Reclept Fee (Endorsement Requlreq) ~ RestTicte~ r~elive~J Fee ~r~ (Endorsement Required) m Total Postage & Fees $ 0,~? m 0.3? ~IT I1): 0971 (Endorsement Requlred) ' C~EI~." TZ~O (EndorSement Required) (Endorsement Required) 0.~ 2.30 $ 2.67 L~IT IB: 0971 12/04/04 m 2.30 1.75 O.T/ 2.67 UNIT ID: 0~1 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delive~ is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · PS Fo~n 3811, Febtual7 2004 Domestic Retum · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Res'eicted Delivery J$ desired. · Print your name and address on the reveme so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, - or on the front if space permits. 1. ~ Addressed to: ~ 2. ~ Nurr/oe~ 'Ps F~m 3811, Februmy 2004 Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delive~ Is desired. , Print_your name and address on the reverse so that we ca~ return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the fTont if space permits, 1. AIticl~ Addressed to: · ~ Number I~ r~m 3811, February 2004 Domestic (631) 765-1809 OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road ~' Southold, NY 11971 Email addresses: Linda. Kowaiski~Town. Southold.n¥..~ http://southoldtown.northfork, net fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION SUBJECT: MESSAGE: Please find attached copies for your information. Thank you. Pages a~ched: ~. ZON1NG BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of (Nme of Applicants) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as lOOO- _.qc/ 3 - ~g, q COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING ~i2~t,~'l~t~ , N~w York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the '1~r day of~~;~, I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of heating and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;* and that Aotg I~,'/ / I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven ~s prior to that date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be B~. t g c30e~y . (Signature) Sworn to before me this /p4~day of/"3evert~ C 200 c~ (Notary P~lic) 2007 *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME: MARKO ANTICEV MAP #: 54-3-26.4 APPEAL: LOT SI UNDER 80,000 SQ.FT. REQUEST: AREA VARIANCE DATE: THURS, DEC. 16th 1 0:25 AM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 2.0A 24,2 6