Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28336~0 Nau~les_~a~, Matti~uck S/S/8I D'use pa~ 6f ~r~s~ f~r commercial dockl g ~nd mooring. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZOiNI~G BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2833 by application Dated May 12, 1981 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TIlE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To Northville Industries Corp. P.O. Box 111 Riverhead, NY 11901 Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 2, was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X)~ Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Art. III, ( ) 1981 the appeal Section 100-30 1. ~k~J~~i~p~XX~Xl~.X~D~y.~_~Xuw~X~h~K~X~o~.a~X~ic]f~k~ ( ) be gra~ed ( ) be denied pursuant ~ Artlcle .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Bulldog I~pector ( ) be revers~ ( ) be co~irmed b~ause Public Hearing held 8/6/81: Application of Northville Industries Corp., P.O. Box 111, Riverhead, NY 11901, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 (A & B) for per- mission to use part of premises for commercial docking and mooring. Location of Property: 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Petersen and Robinson; west by Naugles Road; south by McKenna; east by Mattituck Creek; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 99-4-18. (owners of subject premises: Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElear- ney). (sEE REVERSE SIDE) 2. VARIANCE, By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because difficulties or unnecessary (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (c) The varlance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (would not) (SEE REVERSE SIDE) and therefore, ii was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. ) be denied and CG: lk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FORM ZB4 In this appeal, Appellant. seeks a variance to the provisions of Section 100-30 A & B of the Zoning Code to permit the use of property located in the A Residential and Agricultural District for the purpose of docking its maintenance barge and work boat and the use of the upland for the performance of maintenance and repair work. Ail of the members of the Board have personally visited the site and are familiar with the property as well as the surround- ing neighborhood. The property in question is shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 99 Block 4 Lot 18. It comprises 3.1 acres, is bounded westerly by Naugles Road 240 feet and easterly by the shoreline of Mattituck Creek. Its frontage on Mattituck Creek is approximately 500 feet. The northerly boundary line of the property is the division line between C-I Industrial Zone and the A Residential and Agricul- tural Zone. The Appellant has entered into a lease with the owners of the subject premises to lease approximately 100 feet of the shorefront for the mooring of its 85 foot by 40 foot barge and its 65 foot work boat and a parcel of upland adjacent thereto (50' by 100') for vehicle parking and the performance of repair and maintenance operations consisting of machinery repairs, painting, acetylene cutting, welding and sand blasting. The remainder of the subject premises has located thereon three cottages and two trailers. The Appellant operates an off-shore tanker-berthing operation in Long Island Sound for the reception of petroleum products for its extensive petroleum tank farm. This operation is located in the Town of Riverhead, a considerable distance from the subject property. The variance sought by the Appellant is a use variance and, accordingly, unnecessary hardship must be demonstrated before this Board may grant ~uch a variance. The hardship must relate to the property for which a use variance is sought. The courts have held that before a use variance may be granted upon the grounds of unnecessary hardship, the record must show, by dollar and cents proof, that the land in question cannot yield a reason- able return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone district in which it is located. No such proof has been presented. Ap- pellant's statements that mooring facilities are required for the conduct of its oil terminal operations at a site in the Town of Riverhead does not meet this requirement. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the appeal must be denied, without prejudice. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent were: Messrs. Sawicki and Doyen (Fishers Island). RECEIVED AND ~7'~LE'D"BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLEBK Tom Oerk, Town~ APPROVED Chairman Board of~ppeals~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING LEE E. KOPPELMAN October 8, 1981 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of "Northville Industries Corp." (#2833), Town of Southold (SD-81-9). Dear Mr. Grigonis: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on October 7, 1981 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following: 1. Sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable "use variance" criteria; 2. It constitutes an apparent circumvention of legislative powers exclu- sively delegated to the Town Board; 3. It would result in the further degradation of the character of the area surrounding Mattituck Creek; 4. Ample industrial zoned lands are available along Mattituck Creek; It is inconsistent with the Long Island regional element of the N.Y.S. Coastal Zone Managemant Plan which identifies Mattituck Creek as a GAPC (General Area of Particular Concern) and designates this area for low density single family residence development; and 6. It is inconsistent with the Town of Southold Development Plan which designates this area for suburban single family residence development. Very truly yours, GGN:jk Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Chief Planner Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 c~OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR, ROBERT J, DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI October 7, 1981 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 2833 Northville Industries Corp. Dear Mr. Newman: Please find attached herewith a copy of the Board of Appeal's decision concerning this matter, which was referred to your agency on or about September 11, 1981. Yours very truly, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary Enclosure  Southold Town Board of Appeals ~,~ ~o~ . ~ ~o~ ~ ~o~o~.~;~..o~i~;,~/~L APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER JOSEPH H. SAWICKI September 16, 1981 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 2833 Matter of Northville Industries Corp. Dear Mr. Newman: Recently the above appeal was referred to your agency which included documents of the entire Board of Appeals file. Attached herewith is a photocopy of the minutes of the public hearing held concerning this appeal on August 6, 1981 for your records. Yours very truly, Enclosures Linda F. Kowalski Secretary TOWN CLERK 765-3783 Bu~ldlng Dept. t Planning Bd. 765-2660 Board of Appeals Town Of Southold TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 Pursuant to the General Municipal Law, Chapter 24-, of the Consolidated Laws, Article 12-B, Sections 239-1 and m, the . ]~Qc,~d .Of. ~,Pp.ea~-.s ....... of the town of Southold, N. Y. hereby refers the following (agency involved1 proposed zoniCg action to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (check oneI New and recodified zoning ordinance ....... Amendment to the zoning ordinance ........... Zoning changes ......... Special permits ..Z_~ ..... Variances Art, III, Sec, Appeal No. 2833 Northville Industries Corp. P.O. Box 111 Riverhead, h~ 11901 oo- o (A & Location of affected [and: 61Q.N. augles..Driue,.Matti~uck,....~000~.99.~.~!8 .................. within 500 feet of: (check one or more) ..XX ...... Town or village boundary line or shore line (Mattituck Creek) ........... State or county road, parkway or expressway ........... State or county park or recreation area .... Sfrea.m or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines ........... State orcounty owned,parcelon which a public buildingissltuated Comments: Applicant is requesting a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 (A & B) for permission to use part of premises for commercial docking and mooring with parking storage area in an 'A' Residential-Agricultural Zone. Date: Sept ember.. J.l., ..~19.8~1... (signed) Eil.een. M,... ~a~ey.,... Ass istant Secretary Title Date received by Suffolk County Planning Commission .......................................... File No ~°uthold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2833. Application of Northville Industries Corp., P.O. Box 111, Riverhead, NY 11901, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 (A & B) for permis- sion to use part of premises for commercial docking and mooring with parking storage area in an A-Residential-Agricultural Zone. Location of Property: 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Petersen and Robinson; west by Naugles Road; south by McKenna; east by Mattit~uck Creek; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 99-4-18. (Owners of subject premises: Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElear- ney). The Chairman asked Member Goehringer to read the documents concerning this appeal, and as follows: appeal application, building inspector's Notice of Disapproval, miscellaneous corres- pondence. Mr. Grigonis then resumed chairmanship at 9:11 p.m. The Chairman read the entire letter dated May 30, 1981 from the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties; and we have a map of the area showing this property and the surrounding properties on Naugles Drive. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? EARL ESPALAND: Yes, I'm here, my name is Earl Espaland. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could yo~ speak right into that mike there, if you would sir? MR. ESPALAND: My name is Earl Espaland. I'm General Manager of Domestic Terminal Operations for Northville Industries. My office was formerly located here in Riverhead. And Captain Dudley who has been dealing with this subject currently out of the Country. I'm here to represent Northville in this matter. Northville has for many years been operating an off-shore tanker-birthing operation for the reception and shipment of various petroleum products. In this operation it is necessary for us to maintain water-boring equipment, a water barge to ser- vice the equipment, both along side the dock as well as underground equipment, underwater equipment. We also have a launch which is birthed in Mattituck Inlet, which is the only one in this area and the only area where we can receive a safe birth. During the years we have been maintaining our equipment formerly at the Naugles dock and most recently what is known as the Petersen Property. We have there maintained the property that we have been using, and maintained the dock at which the barge has been birthed. We have at that location maintained a small storage area for our own equip- ment, and a small tank for the purpose of refueling our marine .. $~outhold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 (Earl Espaland continued): equipment. Very little maintenance work is done right at that loca- tion. The matters or the points of arguments that have been presented in the letter from the Mattituck Advisory Board to some extent are quite exaggerated. The small amount of sandblasting that we do amounts to I think at the very most six hours over an annual period. We do maintain our vessels there, our small work boat, which is a 65', 5½-foot draft. The work barge is 85' by 40' It does have a crane, and it draws 2½'. The purpose for moving into the McElearney Property is to obtain a long-term lease for the purpose of mooring our equipment, something that we can rely upon for the purpose of servicing our platform. I have here a map of the area that I would like to show you if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. I think we have that map in our file. MR. ESPALAND: Oh, %he Board has these? MR. CHAIRMAN: Looks like it. MR. ESPALAND: Oh, you have it there. Ok. The property is designated, is shown there the 50' by 100' area that we would occupy on the McElearney Property, and then the barge and the work boat off the dock, off the bulkhead. We will-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe it would be better if you used the mike. MR. ESPALAND: The location or the area that we would occupy on the McElearney Property is designated, and off the bulkhead we show the location of where the barge would be, the work barge, With the board, as well as the work boat. In this location we are really further away from the working channel of Mattituck Inlet than we were before. We find this to be appropriate for our requirements, and we have the opportunity at this point to obtain a reliable lease which we would, would enhance our opportunities and reliability of servicing our operation, which is vital to this area. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have on this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have anything you would like to ask? MEMBER DOUGLASS: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not right at the moment, maybe-- MR. ESPALAND: Our intention, of course, is, we have demonstrated this in the past, that we have maintained our facilities in very good order and we would make any improvements that were necessary to reach your requirements. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right, thank you for the moment. If we have some questions a little later-- Is there anyone else to speak for this? (Negative) Is there anyone to speak against this? MICHAEL MADAS: My name is Michael Madas. I'm Secretary of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee. The Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee is a group of concerned citizens. The creation of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee was taken by the Town Board on May 20, 1980. The purpose of the Committee is stated as follows: The purpose of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee is to address planning optioQs for the Mattituck Inlet area and make recommendations to the Town Board. I want to make it clear this evening that the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee does not represent the Town Board. The Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee presence here this evening is only to give information to the Zoning Board of Appeals and nothing more. We have been studying this property for almost two years now, on both a formal and informal basis. First as a group of concerned citizens, secondly as a more formal group with the sanction of the Town Board. If this Town can go back 25 or 30 years, there is no way I feel that the Town would have ever permitted the creation of the monster that we have now in the commercial heavy-industrial area at the mouth of Mattituck Inlet. This is a blighted area. This area has been designated by the Long Island Regional Planning Commission, as we stated in our letter to you which you read into the record a few moments ago, as a geographic area of particular concern. Particular concern because the situation down there now which hurts our local tourist industry, which is ~olluting our off-shore waters and our fresh-water supply down there, and also because of the visual pollu- tion down there. Our beaches have been closed. Homeowners have been had to suffer the disturbances of heavy truck traffic. If anything the members of Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee are looking to improve the area. Improving an area does not mean that an area is going to be expanded. If anything the area down there should be contracted-- it should be eliminated. If the Zoning Board of Appeals were to approve the application of Mr. and Mrs. McElearney, we would in effect be expanding a blighted area. We have stated several reasons for objections in our letter, but I must take exception to a statement made here this evening about the fact that Northville's storage of boats and other vessels on the McElearney Property if it were to be permitted would place these vessels further from the working channel of Mattituck Inlet. A study of the map in front of you will show actually that that property juts our further into the channel. The channel there moves to the left. Boats going out of Mattituck Inlet keep to the left. And therefore it approached the land much closer with the McElearney Southold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 (Michael Madas continued): Property than they would, say, if they were to approach Petersen's Property. Petersen's Property tends to veer away from the working channel. Many of our residents are down here this evening because they have heard about this hearing and they are very concerned about it. As I said before, I speak only for the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee this evening, but I know that behind me there are literally hundreds of residents concerned about this matter that could not be here for one reason or another. Some of them don't wish to be here because they don't like getting up in front of public and make them say it in front of the'Zoning Board of Appeals. But I can tell you that if the Zoning Board of Appeals is to have the best interest of the people of our area at heart, it would not expand this area. And I urge you not to do it this evening. Thank you. MR. CHAIR~LAN: Thank you. Mr. Madas, there's a letter here from the Town Clerk that you're supposed to pick up. I was just made aware of it. Is there anyone else to speak against this? FRANKLIN BEAR: My name is Franklin Bear, and I'm also a member of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee. Naturally I support everything that Michael Madas has said and everything in the letter to the Board, and I would like to say that we're not here to oppose Northville Industries as an operation, but to oppose the expansion of that area--that industrial area into residential area. And for all the reasons that are mentioned in that letter, we believe that for Northville to move to the south in effect would be a very serious, brings about a very serious bad effect on that entire area and would extend an industrial area further. I would think that they could work out an arrangement with the present owner, Mr. Petersen, and would seem to me that that would De a proper placement and to remain. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bear. Yes, ma'am? MRS. OTERO: I'm Mrs. Otero, and we live adjoining to the North- ville Property. At that point there there's a very dangerous hill. It's downhill and there are kids there which even in normal times, and mention of the area you study, are going to have difficulty in seeing and judging the traffic. Any extra traffic on that area is going to make more hazardous than ever. I'm definitely not for it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir? MR. PETERSEN: I'm Mr. Petersen, and I am willing to arrange a lease agreement with Northville at any time they wish. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? RUTH OLIVA: Ruth Oliva, President, North Fork Environmental Council. We would wish to concur with the findings of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee, in whom we have the greatest respect for their judgment. Thank you. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Do you have any rebuttal you would like to make, Mr. Espaland? MR. ESPALAND: We also share the concerns that obviously have been demonstrated here by the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Board and others. It is not our intention to do anything different than what we've done before. We are also only seeking to occupy a very small portion of the McElearney Property. And the work or the boats that we will be mooring there are not going to be in any way a detriment to the area. We are concerned about the environment here. We have done many things within the Mattituck Inlet and also within Long Island Sound to assure that. We have helped in many areas with res- pect to safety and wit~ people los% off shore, etc. We have done many things to help in that area, and our service here to this particular location has a strong record. The traffic in the area is going to be minimal. We're only talking about tops, six or eight people working there at any one particular time. We have on many occasions before been seeking a lease agreement with Mr. Petersen, and he has not been willing to do that until this time. I don't know what that lease agreement would mean at this point, and I therefore would appeal to you that we be granted this variance so that the equipment that we are dealing with to operate in this area can be safely moored and with some reliability. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any of you gentlemen have any questions? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the decision until a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing in the matter of Northville Industries Corp., Appeal No. 2833, be closed and decision reserved until a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Northville Responds · Riverhead To the Editor: On returning from my vacation, I picked up a copy of the Suffolk Times to determine what coverage, if any, had been received by the Zoning Variance Hearing held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals on August 6, 1981. · First, I should state that I felt that the, first article appearing in the Times on this matter was both factual and accurate; I was, therefore, quite disappointed by your Aug. 13 item on page 16, in which two errors, in fact, were made. I would like to point out that Northville: Industries Corporation is not seeking to "annex" the property in question. That property will remain in the hands of its' present owners. Northville Industries Corporation is seeking only to receive a highly-restricted zoning variance for two particular uses of the property. The second error is in the implication that Northville Industries Corporation owns existing property in the Mattituck · Inlet; Northville Industries Corporation does not own any property in this area. We have been renting property on a month-to- month basis for the past twenty-eight years. This 'is a situation which makes long-range planning difficult. One of my first tasks on being appointed marine manager of Northville Industries Corpor- ~tinued from page S) ation was to obtain a long-term lease to a - suitable waterfront property in clese proximity to the Mattituck Inlet. I have. approached every owner of commercially- zoned property on tbenorth end of the in}et and have been refused a lease by all, prior to our application for a zoning variance for the property in question. As a final note, I fee] that I should mention ~y letter to'the S~uthold Town Board of Aooeals resnondine to the men- tioned MIAC ]etter. and refuting, with fact. every objection made in their June I letter of this type as you have been able to do in the past. Sincerely yours, J. R. Dudley Director of Terminal and Marine Operations Northville Industries Corp. (EDITOR'S NOTE: Most of Mr. Dud- ley's difficulty with the Aug. 13 article appears to be a matter of semantics. Although Northville's planning may be I hope that in the future you will ha a.ble to: inhibited by a month4o-month leasing ar-. make a more balanced report on matters August 27, 1981 rangement, that fact in itself is not relevant to its current application. T~ae company seeks to annex (definition: "to connect one thing, usually something smaller or subordinate, to another thing") one piece of leased property to property already used by Northville. (Mr. Dudley is, however, correct in his claim that we ommitted mention of Northville's letter in refutation of the inlet committee's objections. Sources at South- old Town Hall neglected {o mention the letter when we were gathering information on the ZBA meeting.) ,. It O ,rlIi V[LLE ) ¢o~w to ( ) Orisinal for ZBA file ( ) Comments or Reply Requested August 20, 1981 Board of Appeals Town of $oul'flold The Suffolk Times 429 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 Attn: Troy Gustavson Executive Editor and Publisher Dear Mr. Gustavson: On returning from my vacation, I picked up a copy of the Suffolk Times to determine what coverage, if any, had been received by the Zoning Variance Hearing held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals on August 6, 1981. First, I should state that I felt that the first article appearing in the Times on this matter was both factual and accurate; I was, therefore, quite disappointed by your August 13 Item on Page 16, in which two errors, in fact, were made. I would like to point out that Northville Industries Corporation is not seeking to "annex" the property in question. That property will remain in the hands of its present owners. Northville Industries Corporation is seeking only to receive a highly-restricted zoning variance for two particular uses of the property. The second error is in the implication that Northville Industries Corporation owns existing property in the Mattituck Inlet; Northville Industries Corporation does not own any property in this area. We have been renting property on a month-to-month basis for the past twenty-eight years. This is a situation which makes long-range planning difficult. One of my first tasks on being appointed Marine Manager of Northville Industries Corporation was to obtain a long-term lease to a suitable waterfront property in close proximity to the Mattituck Inlet. I have approached every owner of commercially-zoned property on the north end of the inlet and have been refused a lease by all, prior to our application for a zoning variance for the property in q~estion. OI'iTI LLE Troy Gustavson Page -2- August 20, 1981 As a final note, I feel that I should mention my letter to the Southold Town Board of Appeals responding to the mentioned MIAC letter, and refuting, with fact, every objection made in their June 1 letter. I hope that in the future you will be able to make a more balanced report on matters of this type as you have been able to do in the past. JRD/mas CC: Earl Espeland Bruce Hubbard Marge Tschiember Sincerely youYs, and Marine Operations Zenon Czujko / Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ Southold Town Supervisor, William Pell '~CA L_F 100" = I" M A-f'Tl-l'kJ CI,~ CI~E~I<. /~A UGL£$ ,,OR'IVY':: _ . SOLD ST~NL£ Y A/~ UGL E~ 'i LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 o[ the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of South- ..... ~.o..s~. ~eetin~ and the following public will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thurs- day, August 6, 1981 eom- meneing at 7:15 p.m. and as follows: 7:15 p.m. Application of Donald C. DeLalla, P.O. Box S26, Cutehogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zon- ing Ordinance Art. II1, Sec. 100-30 B (9)(a) for permission to dock and moor two boats not owned and used by owner of premises for his personal use between existing pilings at S545 Skunk Lane, CutchogUe, NY; bounded north by Timp- son; west by Baldwin's Creek; south by Faraguna; east by Bay Avenue (Skunk Lane); County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-18. 7:25 p.m. Application of Margaret MeGowan, 17 Aber- deen Street, Malverne, NY 11565 (by Gary Flanner Olsen as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. II1 Sec. 100-31 for approval in- sufficient area and/or width of two parcels due to the re- location of let lines. Location of property: R-O-W south of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Conneily, east by Johnston and Mormile, south by Alex- ander, west by Kennelly; County Tax Map Item No. 1000.128-4-11 & 14. 7:35 p.m. Application of Kenneth 1. & Judy M. Mc- Fall, 245 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016 (by Gary Flanner Oslen as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. I11 Sec. 100- 31 for permission to construct one.family dwelling from pre- existing chapel with insuf- ficient rear yard setback at 7216 Great Peconic Bay Boule- vard, Laurel, also known as Laurel Acres Minor Subd. (plcc~ne Minor Subd.) Map No. 1~24, Lot 2; County Tax Map ~tem No. 1000-126-10- part og 1.3. 7:50 p.m. Application of Patricia A. Bailey, RR #1, Box 114, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, Art. HI, Sec. 100-31 for permission to subdivide three merged lots, and apprOval of insufficient area of psoposed lot #2, apprOval of insufficient front yard of propesed lot #3 of said lots at 2155 Skunk Lane (Bay Ave.), Cu~chogue, NY. Above mentioned front yard of proposed lot #3 faces Leslie Road, Cutchogue; bounded north by NerOne, Ficht, Mc- Cleery, bounde.d .west b~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Pafricio Wood, being duty sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ...................... 1 ................. weeks successively, commencing on the .......... ,.~.C~ .................. Sworn to before me this ............ fid.! ............ day of ........ ............... , CLEMENT j. ]HOMPSON NOTARy PUB/lC, State o~ New York r~. ~'9321725 8:20 p.m. Application of Warren A. Sambach, 173 Hillside Avenue, Williston Park, NY 11596 for a Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. HI Sec. 100-31 & Sec. 100-36 for permission to con- struct addition with insuffi- cient side yard area and rear yard setback at Dogwood Lane, East Marion, NY; also known as Gardiners Bay Es- tates Sub&, Filed Map #95, Lot 96; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-37-1-9. 8:30 p.m. Application of Salvetere Calola, 74 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003 (by Samuel J. Glickman as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. HI, · Sections 100-30A (1) & 100-32 for permission to amend Build- lng Permit #11152 Z, which was issued for storage build- lng a permitted use Amend- ment to living unit is not permitted with an existing dwelling on premises without a Variance. Location of prOp- erty: 49975 County Road 48, 8:55 n.m Ant}Ii_cation of ..~rthville Industries Corp., P.O. Box II1_ Riverhead, NY '~11901 for a Variance to the e~o'~'-.. 100-30 (A & B) for ~mission to use part premises for commercial dock- in~ and moorin.~ with paramg storag9 area m an A Resi- '~'~ntial- A~r icult ur al ~,u~. ~tion 9[ nro,~,~y' ~,n Nau-  Drive. Mattituck, NY; u~d~d nnr~h by Petersen, ~'~n~on. West bv Nnnoles old'ad, south by McKenna. east b~y Mattituck Creek; County ~ax Map Item No. ~--18. Owners of oroperty: ~r. -Mrs. Joel MeEI6 _ ~~untinfi, ton Sta- tionI NY 11746. Dated: July 24, 1981 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Chairman 1T, 7/30/81 (2) HENRY E. RAYNOR, ,Ir.. C~airm~n JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 August 6, 1981 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held August 3, 1981. The Southold Town Planning Board does not feel that the matter of Northville Industries Corp. needs to be processed as a new sub- division. The Southold Town Planning Board does feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals should oppose the change of the use of this area so as to keep the area surrounding it from not being downgraded. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Linda Kimmins, Secretary - NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES a2833 _ Taken 5/26/81 C~ ' - Taken 5/26/81 LE INDUSTRIEs #2833 Taken 5/26/81 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. 'F.~:E ....... IILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N,Y, 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals July 21, 1981 Determinations pursuant to Chapter A106-13 Dear Henry: Pursuant to Chapter A106-13 of the Town Code, your determinations concerning the matters listed below are requested. If it is the Board's determination that any of these matters will require pro- cessing as a new subdivision, please do not hesitate to give us your comments or recommendations on the layouts as proposed herein. Thank you for your cooperation. Matter of Margaret McGowan appeal Patricia Bailey appeal ~qor~hville Industries Corp. appeal Location of Property R-O-W south of Peeonic Ba Blvd., Laurel Cty. Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-4-11 & 14 2155 Skunk Lane (Bay Ave.),Cutchogue 610 Naugtes Drive, Mattituck Very truly yours, CHARLES GRIGONIS, CHAIRMAN JR. By Eileen M. Carey, Tempo~ry Secretary Legal Notices LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, a Regular Meeting and the following public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the South- old Town Hall, Main Read, Southold, NY on Thursday, August 6, 19~1, commencing at 7:15 p.m. and as follows: 7:15 p.m. Application of Donald C. DeLalla, P.O. Box 526, Cutcbogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoo- lng Ordinance Art. III, Sec. 100-30 B (9) (a) for permission to dock and moor two boats not owned and used by owner of premises for his personal use between existing pilings at 5545 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Timp- son; west by Baldwin's Creek; south by Faraguna; east by Bay Avenue (Skunk Lane); County Tax map Item No. 1000-138-2-18. 7:25 p.m. Application of Margaret McGowaa, 17 Abet- deen Street, Malverne, NY 11565 (by Gary Flanner Olsen as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III Sec. 100-31 for approval insuf- ficient area and/or width of two parcels due to the reloca- tion of lot lines. Location of property: R-O-W south of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Con- ~nelly, east by Johnston and Mormile, south by Alexander, west by Kennelly; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128.4-11 & 14. 7:35 p.m. Application of Kenneth I. & Judy M. McFall, 245 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016 (by Gary Flanner Olsen as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III Sec. for permission to construct one-family dwelling from pre- existing chapel with insuf- ficient rear yard setback at 7216 Great Peconic Bay Boule- yard, Laurel, also known as Laurel Acres Minor Subd. (Piccione Minor Subd.) Map No. 124, Lot 2; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-126-10-part of 1.3. 7:50 p.m. Application of Patricia A. Bailey, RR #1, Box 114, Cutchogue, NY for a Var- lance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permis- sion to subdivide three merged lots, and approval of insuf- ficient area of proposed lot #2, approval of insufficient front yard of proposed lot #3 of said tots at 2155 Skunk Lane (Bay Ave.), Cutchogue, NY. Above mentioned front yard of pro- posed lot #3 faces Leslie Read, Cutcbogue; bounded north by Nerone, Ficht, McCleery, hounded west by Bay Avenue, bounded south by Maly, Price, Leslie Road, bounded east by Swiatocha; County Tax map Item No. 1000-97-4-11, 12, 17. 8:05 p.m. Application of Gunter Morchel, Nassau Point Read, Cutchogue, NY (Swim King P Route 25A, Rocl~-y Point, N, 11776 as agent) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct an inground swimming pool in the front yard area at the corner of Nassau Point Read & Old Menhaden Read, Cut- chogue, NY; also known as Nassau Point Subd., Filed Map #156, Lots 17, 13; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-9-3. 6:20 p.m. Application of Warren A. Sambach, 173 Hill- side Avenue. Williston Park, NY 11596 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III Sec. 100-31 & Sec. 100-36 for permission to construct addi- tion with insufficient side yard area and rear yard setback at Dogwood Lane, East Marion, NY; also known as Gardiners Bay Estates Subd., Filed Map #95, Lot 96; County Tax Map item No. 1000-37-1-9. 8:30 p.m. Application of Salvatore Caiola, 74 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003 (by Samuel J. Glickman as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sections 10~-30A (1) & 100-32 for permission to amend Build- ing Permit #11152 Z, which was issued for storage build- ing, a permitted use Amend- ment to living unit is not permitted with an existing dwelling on premises without a Variance. Location of pro- perty: 49975 County Road 48, Southold, NY; bounded north by Sound View Avenue, west by Sawicki, south by C.R. 27, Drnskoski, Wolanski, east by Madsen, Kamps, Demitrack, Dakis, Andriotis. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-51-3-8, 9, 12.2, 13.2. 8:45 p.m. Application of Frederick T. Horn, 297 Sunset Avenue, Westhampton Beach, NY 11976 for a Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 of the Town Law for approval of access of Case's Lane Exten- sion, Cutchogue; bounded north by Path Way, west by Fairway Farms, south by Case's Lane Ext., east by Horn, Bouffler; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-109-5-north section of 14.1. 19~1 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN 1TJy30-3738 OF SUFFOLK, )F NEW YORK, ~ ss: ~.. ~.~.~..~.a.¥~.o.1} ................ being duly Sworn, · ~le .... is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK TIMES, a newspaper published at Greenport, in said td that the notice, of which the annexed is u printed been published in the said Suffolk Weekly Times ch week, for ...... .o~..e .................. weeks ly commencing on the ... 3.0.~..~. ................. .. ~'~-3":. ........ ....19 81 before me this .]...~.30.~h. , .... ..... HELEN K DE '~)E NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No 4707878, Suffolk County Term Exp~¢es March 30, LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, a Regular Meeting and the following public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, August 6, 1981 commencing at 7:15 p.m. and as follows: 7:15 p.m. Application of Donald C. DeLalla, P.O. Box 526, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Art. III, Sec. 100-30 B (9) (a) for permission to dock and moor two boats not owned and used by owner of premises for his per- sonal use between existing pilings at 5545 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Timpson; west by Baldwin's Creek; south by Faraguna; east by Bay Avenue (Skunk Lane); County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-18. 7:25 p.m. Application of Margaret McGowan, 17 Aberdeen Street, Malverne, NY 11565 (by Gary Flanner Olsen as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III Sec. 100-31 for approval insufficient area and/or width of two parcels due to the relocation of lot lines. Location of property: R-O-W south of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Connelly, east by Johnston and Mormile, south by Alexander, west by Kennelly; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-4-11 & 14.. ? 7:35 p.m. Application of Kenneth I. & Judy M. McFall, 245 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016 (by Gary Flanner Olsen as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct one-family dwelling from pre-existing chapel with insufficient rear yard setback at 7216 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, also known as Laurel Acres Minor Subd. (Piccione Minor Subd.) Map No. 124, Lot 2; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-126-10-part of 1.3. 7:50 p.m. Application of Patricia A. Bailey, RR #1, Box 114, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to subdivide three merged lots, and approval of insufficient area of proposed lot #2, approval of insufficient front yard of proposed lot #3 of said lots at 2155 Skunk Lane (Bay Ave.), Cutchogue, NY. Above mentioned front yard of proposed lot #3 faces Leslie Road, Cutchogue; bounded north by Nerone, Ficht, McCleery, bounded west by Bay Avenue, bounded south by Maly, Price, Leslie Road, bounded east by Swiatocha; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-97-4-11, 12, 17. 8:05 p.m. Application of Gunter Morchel, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY (Swim King Pools, Route 25A, Rocky Point, Page 2 - Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of August 6, 1981 legal adv. NY 11778 as agent) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct an inground swimming pool in the front yard area at the corner of Nassau Point Road & Old Menhaden Road, Cutchogue, NY; also known as Nassau Point Subd., Filed Map ~156, Lots 17, 18; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-9-3. 8:20 p.m. Application of Warren A. Sambach, 173 Hillside Avenue, Williston Park, NY 11596 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III Sec. 100-31 & Sec. 100-36 for permission to construct addition with insufficient side yard area and rear yard setback at Dogwood Lane, East Marion, NY; also known as Gardiners Bay Estates Subd., Filed Map #95, Lot 96; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-37-1-9. 8:30 p.m. Application of Salvatore Caiola, 74'Irving Place, New York, NY 10003 (by Samuel J. Glickman as attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sections 100-30A (1) & 100-32 for permission to amend Building Permit ~11152 Z, which was issued for storage building, a permitted use Amendment to living unit is not permitted with an existing dwelling on premises without a Variance. Location of property: 49975 County Road 48, Southold, NY; bounded north by Sound View Avenue, west by Sawicki, south by C.R. 27, Droskoski, Wolanski, east by Madsen, Kamps, Demi~rack, Dakis, Andriotis. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-51-3-8, 9, ~2.~, 13.2~ 8:45 p.m. Application of Frederick T. Horn, 297 Sunset Avenue, Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 for a Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 of the Town Law for approval of access of Case's Lane Extension, Cutchogue; bounded north by Path Way, west by Fairway Farms, south by Cases's Lane Ext., east by Horn, Bouffler; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-109-5-north section of 14.1. 8:55 p.m. Application of Northville Industries Corp., P.O. Box 111, Riverhead, NY 11901 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 (A & B) for permission to use part of premises for commercial docking and mooring with parking storage area in an A Residential-Agricultural Zone. Location of property: 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Petersen, Robinson, west by Naugles Road, south by McKenna, east by Mattituck Creek; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-99-4-18. Owners of property: Mr. & Mrs. Joel McElearney, 66 Alpine Way, Huntington Station, NY 11746. Dated: July 24, 1981 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN Instructions to newspapers: Please publish once, to wit, Thursday, July 30, 1981 and forward nine affidavits of publication to: Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold, NY 11971, as soon as possible. Addendum to Legal Notice 8/6/81 Board of Appeals Regular Meeting On Monday, July 27, 1981, copies to: ~Qonald C. DeLalla Margaret McGowan ~.Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. as attorney for Mrs. Kenneth I. & Judy M. Mc Fall Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. as attorney for Mr. Patricia Bailey Mr. & Mrs. Gunter Morchel Swim King Pools, as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Morchel ~Mr. Warren A. Sambach Mr. Salvatore Caiola -Mr. Samuel J. Glickman, as attorney for Mr. Caiola · Mr. Frederick T. Horn ~Northville Industries Corp. Z.B.A. members T.B. members Town Attorney Supervisor ? Town Clerk Bulletin Board Appeal Files Margaret McGowan & Mrs. McFall Mr. & Mrs. Joel McElearney, owners of property of Northville Ind. Corp. appli Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONI$, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN. JR. TERRY TUTH:LL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki N. Y. S. NOTICE OF DECLARATION PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Appeal No. 2833 Application of: Northville Industries Corp. Location of Property in Question: 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map Item No. 1000- ~ 99-4-18 Project Proposed by Appeal Application: to use part-of premises for commercial use--commercial docking and mooring with parking storage area in 'A' Residential-Agricultural District ENVI RONb~ENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type I Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): and in the ~qng Form An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The project in question appears to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a bulkhead or similar type of barrier. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Dated: July 20, 1981 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Copies to: Town Clerk Bulletin Board Applicant/Agent ZBA file IVOIETHtLLE July 6, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman Board of Appeels Town ol Sout old Re: Appeal ~2833 - Northville Industries Corp. Dear Mr. Grigonis: I have completed the long Environmental Assessment Form which you sent to me on June 22, 1981, in order to fulfill the requirements for a Type 1 action, which I gather our appeal has become. In completing Part 2 of the assess- ment form, I answered "yes" to questions 3, 15 and 18. I should like to elaborate on these affirmative answers. Question No. 3 requires an affirmative answer if the project will affect any water body designated as protected. I believe that Mattituck Inlet is a protected water area. Our variance appeal will affect Mattituck Creek in that we will probably wish to install additional free-standing islands along the section of bulkhead where we plan to moor our barge. It may also be necessary to do a certain amount of maintenance or improvement work on the bulkhead itself; however, the dimensions of the bulkhead and the bulkhead it- self will not be changed. There will be no change and no alterations to the configurations of the current waterfront area. Question No. 15 requires an affirmative answer when there will be objectionalbe odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of this project. Be- cause we will be doing routine maintenance operations to our workboat and barge and assorted pieces of equipment at this location, it will be necessary to do a certain amount of sand blasting and chipping. These operations will be conducted infrequently and will seldom, if ever, be of more than one hour's duration. A certain amount of welding will also be done; but this, again, will seldom continue for more than one Southold Town Board of Appeals Attn: Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman July 6, 1981 Page -2- hour. The sand blasting and chipping operations may produce a noise level greater than the current ambient level and the welding operation will produce some glare; however, since the proposed location is such a short distance from our existing location, there should be no opposable change in the noise or glare exposure for the surrounding areas. Question No. 18 requires an affirmative answer if there is public controversy concerning the project. You are aware of the objection filed by Michael Cortese on behalf of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee, which clearly demon- strates that there is some objection to the project from within the Committee. If you should have any other questions regarding the completion of the enclosed Environmental Assessment Form, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, JRD/mas enc. cc: Earl Espeland Lesley Douglass TO%'FN OF SOUTHOLD E~ VI~qON~:~aNTAL ASSESS?LENT PAP. T PROJECT INF O~,LAT IO~ Bsard of' ppeals Tdwn of Southold ~Ffect ~n the cnvi~nm~t. Please co~letm the entire ~a~a Shee~. ~swe~ ~o Ches~ 9uesti~ns eill be ~nsi~ered ~y ~d~i~ic~J~ info.arian you believe .ill be need~ to ~plete pARTS Z an~ ). so lndicat~ ~nd specify each instance. (~hysi~l s~in~ of overall p~ject, both devele~ ~nd undaveteoed ar~as) l, Gener~l C~aract~r of t~e land: G~nera)ly unifo~ slo~e ~ener~ily ~even and ~iling or ir~guiar ,, ~ , Agriculture . , Otter ~MME~ ~ID~5 AUD R6~T~O~L ~A7 3. 7~tal acreage of ;~j~t a~a: ',. Wha'c (s ~.ae,t:: ':3 :edrmc:¢? 'v'l~r',~¥ ;DEEP earth or ?iii) O. 11 ~o:'es O' f I .~c~s 0.12 ac~e~ ~ ~cras 0 ~crss g. 10. A::roxirete~"er.-nt-c.-~ · = of proposed projec~ site with slopes: O-IOSIOQ~;_ lO-15~_C] ,.~,' 15~ or Is ~j~c: csn'iguous ' i or contain a building or s~te ]~sted on the National Register PlecesZ '~es ~h~t is the depth to ~he water table~ ~o hsncing or ?ishi~S o~o~unities presentl7 exist in the project area? ~.~es' ...ilo C-oas projes~ site con~zl~ species o? plant or animal life that is identified as threatened end~s~rod - Yes ~ ~Io, acco~ing to - Identify each species '- unu- land for~s on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes· other geologiczl ll. ~'re ~.9ere ~ny uniqse or ~ for~aticns - _____if es ~ -(Oescribe 12. Is ~he p~jec% site ~sentl2 us~ bZ the co~unit~ o? neighborhood as an open sp~ce ~roa - Yes ~ ~o. - · . .~ . '.: ' :C_~:~. 13. C~es :~a pres~site offer or include scenic views or vis~s kno~ to be ~mpo~ant t~.~e c~un~ty? -~ Yes ~ ?:o . . . · ,..- . j.T 14. 15. Streams within or c=ntiguous to project area: a. )(ace of strea~ and name of river to which it is tributary MA~(''i~I~'~ ' ~ y ~l,-4. P"cI ~_.~ -[-o LO~J,~ ~IZs L_~ ~D. SOUMD .' Lakes, Ponds, 'Jetland areas within or contiguous to project are. e: _ - ~. u~,=~MAT-FI-FL)CF~ Cp.~F~ ;b. Size {in acres)_ ~hat is the ds~ir.~nt lan~ use and zoning classification within a 1/4 m(le radius of slngle family residential, R-g) and the scale of development {e.g. Z story). I. Physical di=ensions and s~le of p~ject {fill in dimensions es appropriate) a. fetal c:ntigu:us acreage o.~ed by p~je~ sponsor ~o~ acres. b. P~ject ecreJ~ developed: ~cres initially;~3 acres ultlmately.~ " c. Project acreage ~ r~main undeveloped ~.~ ' J d. Len3th of project, in mil~s: ~' A. .(if app~pKiate) e. I~ p~ject ~s ~ expansion of existing, indicate percen~ of expansion p~posed: build~ng'squa~ age ~ 0 ; developed acreage ~ · f. tI~.~er of off-strut parking spaces existing g. ~axi~J~ vehicular trips generated per hour h. If residentitl: ~.~ber and type o? housing units: ; proposed ~-~AM~-_ (upon completion of project) ~10. C:LIA M6~.~ Ultim4te If: Con~.ercial Industrial One'Family Two Family Orientation Neighborhood-City-Regional J. Total height of tallest proposed structure Mul tiple Family Ccndominium EsCimated Emplo)~entt 7 .feet. klOT A, PLI C,~- I~L~ 5. HD'.~ much natural material rock, earth, etc.) will be reToved the site - ~ Okl~ ix10ME cubic yards. "~ ~a,y acres of vesetation {trees, shrubs ~--~ound covers) will be removed from site -~E acres. -~~ locally-{m=or6ant vegetation bl removed by this 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or ~,..r . project? ...Yes 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that re~oved during construction? Yes ' 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period cf construction ~onths, {including demolition). 7. If ~ul~i-phased '~ ~- Total n~be~ of ~hases antici~ No. '' ' b. Anticipated 6ate ~ent phase 1 month ~ea~ {including ¢. A~~pl~i~ ~ final phase ~ _ ¢~nth year. · .. -. ~~~jally dependent on subsequent phases? Yes . ~o -. 8. t(ill blasting occur during constriction? .~es ~0 9. ~ber of jobs ~eneratsd: du~ng const~ctio~ ~; &fret project is complete 10. Nu~er of jobs eliminated by this project O-' ' - Il. Xill project requir~ relocation of ~y projects or facilities! ~Yes ~o. If yes, explain: 12. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste dis;csal involved? Yes If yes, indicate type of waste {sewage, industrial, etc.} c. If surface dlsGosal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged ~.A. 13. Will surface ar~a of existing lakes, p~mds, strauss, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by a~asal? Yes I~~ No. 14. Is projec: or any portion of project located in the 100 year ~ood plain? ~Yes ~o 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? ..gas _/~o < D,sPo~) b. If yes, will an existing solid waste dis;osal facility be used? .~es flo ; location d. Hill any wastes not ~o into a s~wage dis;osal sYste~ or into a sanitary landfill? : Yes 16. ~ill project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes ~o 17. Will project ~utinely p~duce odo~ {~ than one hour per day}? Yes ~o 18. Will p~ject p~duce operating noise ~ceeding the local ~bience noise levels~ Yes ~No 19. ~ill p~j~ct ~esul~ in ~n increase in ener~' use? ~es ~o. If yes, indicate type{s) ~ 20. 21. 22. If water supply is from walls indicate pu~piqg capacity To,al anticipated water usage per day -~d) ~als/day- Zoning: gals/minute. a. Whac is dominant 'zoning classlf!cacion of site? i~ES~DEU'nA~/AG~ICUbi'UK~iL. A~P ,, b. CurrenC s;ecific zoning classification of site R~ID~M'T'I~.L / AGrelcu(~ur~D / c. Is proposed use ccnsiszent with p. resen: zoning? ~JO d. If no, indicate desired zoning A ~AEIKQ~JCE FOF~ ~M~IAL UgE -3- 26. A2provals: a. Is any Fedora! pernit required? Yes ~'w~;o b. ~oes project involve State or Federal funding or financing? c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required (ies, ~lo) (Type) Yes Submittal Approval (Date) (Dale) City, Tc',.m, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, To~;n, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies SinCe Agencies ~.¥. FederAl Agencies any a-~diticnal information as may be needed to clarify your project. If ~hJre are or may be any a.v_~e i~p:cta associated '~ii;h bhe'p~posal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which :an be co ~itigate ar ~void th~. ~ .. TO?,'~ OF SOUTHOLD ENViRONSLENTAL ASSESSbLENT - P~ PROJEC~ IMPACTS AND THEIR ~tAGNITUDE Ge~-~ '~ ,~i ~ (Read Carefully) r~vl_~_r should be guided Dy '~° question: Have my decisions and determinations '= n expert environmental analyst. been reason]b ~? Tke revie~er is nec expected ~o .. e. - Identifying :na~ an affect will be potentially large (column Z) does net mean that it is also necessarily sienifioant. Any large _,f_c. muss be evaluated in ~ART 3 to determine s~gnlficance. By.identifying an e-~ec: ~n column Z simply asks that it be looked a~ further. '' - The Examples ~rovidad are to assist the reviewer D? showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshol. .mg=_r a ~spcnse in col~-n ~ The examples are generally applicable throughout the Sta:e and for most situa=ions. But, for any s:eciFic~"r"~=~".~... or si%e other examples aod/or lower thresholds m~3 be more appropriate for e Potential Large impact re:ing. - Each project, on each si~a, in each'locality, will very. ~mrefore, the examples have been offered as' guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. . · t,,- importance of each question. - The number of examples per qeesticn does not indicate ~' " i. I Sh'.uCT~u IS (.Read Carefully) a. .nsw.r each of the 15 questions in PART 2. Ans'~er Yes if there will be any effect. b. ~evbe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a euestion then check the ap~rooria:e box (column 1-or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check colu~.q 2. If impacs will occur but threshold is lower than exemeie, check col~n 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impacs ~%.consider the imgact as potentially large and proceed to PARr 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less.t~an large m~gniteda, place a Yes in column 3. A ~lo response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. i. Z. IMPAC~ CH LACED NO YES ®© WILL THERE BE ~ EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CF.A~:GE TO PROJECT SITE? Examples that ~lould Apply to Column ~ Any construction on slopes of 15~ or greater, (lB foot rise per 1OO foot of lengch), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Const~ucticn on Land where_ the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. [SMALL TO POTE~(¥IAL CA,'{ IMPACT MOOS?ATE LARGE REDUCED 8Y I ?.P~C, IMPACT PROJECT C.HA.qS E Construction of oared sarking area for l,SO~ or ~cre. vehicles. C~nstructlon on lan~ ~here bedrock is exposed cr ~enerally Within 3 feet of existing ground su~ace. Construction chat will continue for more than 1 year or involve tons of naCural material (i.e. rock or soil) 2er year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- C:nstruct~an in a designated flocdway. "~0 YES ut,, TXr~: ~: ~q EFFECT TO ANY U;IIqUE OR U;;DSUAL L~O FO~'IS ~'~ FOU:;D C~i 7kE S~;E? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological for~a- ~x,._y tions, etc.) Specific land forms: ,Se NO YES UILL P~OJECi' A~FECT ~'::¥ ~ATER BODY DESiG';ATED AS .......... P~OTECTE~? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Csnservation Law, Dredling rare th~n 100 cubic yards of material from channel oF a protected stream. C~ns,.~c..~n (na designated freshwater or tidal WILL P~Odc,.,~crcu~ ~,YhCJ-PRO ,C,cD EXISTIMGOR,,:~ NO YES Examples Chat Hould Apoly ~ Column 2 A lC: increase or decrease in the su~ace area of any body of water am~re ~an a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds l0 acres of OCher impacts: YES ~iLL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNOWATER QUALITY? Examples that ~ould Apply to ¢olu~-~ Z '' Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to se?ye proposed project. ~ ~ ~,,s with greater Provec, requires 'water suoply from .~l, than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. - - .~n oceration causing any contamination of a publi~ water supply system. Project will adversely'affect ~undwaeer. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site co facilities which presently do AOt exis~ Or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use wa,.r ~n excess of 20,000 gallo,s per day. Project uill likely cause siltation or other discha~e - L~,R~E T~?~CT REBUt r.D 8Y P~OJEC'F Exa~ole that ~!ould Acply to Col~m 2 Project would ims~de flood water Flews. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Projec: is incompatible with existing drainage ~etterns. O,h_r imoacts: - Exe~oles that ~culd A:p!y to Coluc~ 2 Pr~.ject will induce 1,SO0 or mo~ vehicle trips in any given hour. P~ject will result in the incineration of mare_ then 1 ton - of refuse per hour. Project emission rate cf all cont:-minants will exceed ..... l0 lbs. per h:ur or a neat source producing more million ~TU's per hour_ 8. D/ILL P~OJECT AFFECT A;iY THREATEiIED OR ~!DA~;~ER~ SPECIES? Examo!es that ~ould Apply to Col'.~sn ~ Reduction of one or ~,.-~ species listed on the ~:ew York or Federal lisc, using the site. over or near site er found on t~a site. Rem-oval of any portion of a critical or significant wild- life habitat. Aoolic~ti~n of Pesticid~ or homicide over r~.--e than ' ' twice a year o~her than for agri~.~eurel puronsas. .- -~,-r -,,~ ..... rm~y AF~CT ': ' -'-'~ --' --~ 3R XO YES -~ ~..,.~.-~ SPECIES? ................................. Ex~-msle tmat ~Iould Ap~ly to Column 2 Project v~culd substantla)ly interfere wi Eh any resident or migratory fish or wildlife s~ecies. mature Forest (over lOO years in age) or otne~ !~c~lly ~RGE REDUCED BY IMPACT II:PACT PP.~J ECT CHAtIGE ;gtL ?HE P~CJECT AF??.T V[E!~S, VISTAS OP, T'H~ V!SUAL -'E_x:~=DI.',S that :;-~uld .:p21y to Column 2 ~n incom:atible visual affect caused by the intro~:ction of new materials, colcrs ~nd/or fo~ in contrast :o :he sur~u~ding lendsz~e. A :r:~:c~ e~sily vls~ble, no~ easily screened~tha: ~s o~v~ousJ~ diff~ren: fmq others around i~. P~ject will result in the elimina:ion or ma~or screening aF scenic views ~r vistas k~own to be Important to the are~. NO !Y~CT Cfi HISTORIC RESOUR~F~ 11. ,- t P~gdECT .,,~C. A:;Y SIT~ OR STRUCgJRE OF HISTORIC. NO r.,_-mIS ~,~C gR ~L:~,hO:ICA~ IMPORTANCE? ................. ~x~ies ~hat !~ould Asply to Col~ 2 .-.~ - ' ~holly or partially within or contiauous " to ~ny ~cili:y or si:e tis~ed on the National Register of. historic places. ~? im~c: ~o an arsheelogical site or fossil bed located -- ~i~h~n the projec: siva. ',IiLL TM-'- F~OJ~CT AFFECT TI~,E 12. O,R r"UiURE OPE?I SPACES OR RECRF~TIO~IAL Examples that ~ould Apply to Col~'m~ 2 The perm,,~'nen: foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impact~: P~P~CT n~l TPANSPORT~TTOtJ 13. ~IILL T~EZE BE A~I EFFECT TO ExISTiNG TEA~SPCRTATiO~( S¥ST~,~S? ............................................... Examoles that ~ou!d Apply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of ~?emen~ of ~eople .... and/or goods. Pro~ect will resul% in severe traffic problems. NO · I. Z-., "~ ;;IA~.L TO POTE~ITtAL CA,'q b"L~ACT ~.OOEP~TE LARGE REDUCED' BY . /IMPACT Ii, PACT PROJECT C.. ES YES YES C::',~C ~ ~ mF EX[STItlG ~lO YES I,. ~ILL PROJECTAFFECT TEE ...... - THE -~,,= ~ul";~n c~ the City, Town or Village in which the 7raRest is ~,c.a.=o~ is !lkely to grow by more than 5~ .c.q..s for capital expenditures or ooera- 'Jill involve ~ny xe~nept facility of a non-agricultural use in an agr:cui~:r~l ~istric: or remove prime agricultural The D~ject will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ~cctur~s or cre}s of historic imbalance to the co.unity. g- ~ ~--~n' will induce an in~ux of a pa~ic~ler age 2~jec: will :~: ~n im:o~nt p~c~dent for future p~jec%s. ~ro~e¢% will r.lo.a._ 15 or more ~mplo~ees in one or more I8. N0 ' YE: CO' C"q"' J~ l~dE PROJECT? O(~ r.~LIC Cu,, I r.u, ~,~S ....... Would A~ply to Colum.~ 2 .~z.ns of adjacent c~mmunities have ex~ress,sd n>7osicion or rejected the project or have Cb~_..~ons to the p~ject fr~mwi~hin the community. -I j POTEitT!AL LARGE IYPACT OR IF YOU..C~4~0T ~ETE~qI;IE I I ~HE MAG;:ITdOE OF It~PACT, PROCz=O ,0 ?_~T 3., D E'T :.~ .I,,A~ · - ;..IS PROJECT: PORTIONS OF EAF CO;IPL?i'ED FOR -u PART I - .. PART I1-- PART U:on rev~ of the inf~,,,ation recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 2) and consider!n~ ~och the magnitude and it~p. ortance of each ~pac:, it is reasonably determined that: A. The ;ro~ect will resul~ in no major imoacts and, there~re, is one which may not cause significant de.age ~o the environment. 8. Alt5cuoh the oroject could have a significant effect on the env~ment, cher~ will noe be a sign~ficent effect in this case tecause the mitigation ~asurq. s descrlPeo in P~RT 3 have been inc!uced as part'of the proposed ?rojec:. C. The ~roject will result in one or more major adverse imoacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant d~maQe to the env(~nment. Signature of Preoarer (if differanC from responsible officer) PREPARE A NEDATIVE DECL~.RATI01; PREPARE A PR?ARE ?0SiTIVE DE'ZLARATiO~( PROCEED C) Signature of 2aspons:ble-Officia~ in L Agency .... na~e of respOnslble offi i4. 15. ,r._~_r than 5~ increase in any form of ener~.Y used in munisipality. Pr:._ . requiring '~= creetien or extension of an Other impacts: OOuR_, ~IOIS:, GLO, RE, -~~'- n WILL I'R~-.,: ~ O~JECT~O~LaSLE ~;=~ I~N OIS ...... ,C-ASA RESULT OF THIS PRC~,CT! or ~ECTRICAL ~ ~' ~ .... Examples that ~ould Apoly to Co)~ 2 Blasting within 1,~OO feet of a hospital, school or ether sensitiv~ facility. Odors uill occ:r routinely ~more then one hour per dzy). ,,.~<~.Project ~ill or, duce o~erating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of s:rsc~ures. Project ~ill remove natural barriers tha~ would ass ~s a O~her impacts: 16. HILL pROJECTAFFECT?UEL[C HSqLF~ARO SAF~Y? ............ '~0 ~xamoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Projec: will cruse a risk of explosion or release of ~zardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, cSemicals, radietlsn, etc.) in the ~vent of ecoiden~ er upset condi~ions, or tnar~ will be 4 ch~nic low level discharge or emission. P~jec! ~h~t will ~suI~ in the burial of"hazardous wastes" (i.e. ~oxic. ~oisonoes, highly reactive, r~dioacsive, irritating, infectious, e~c., ~nclusing was%~s ~hat are solid, s~i-solid. liquid or ¢on:~in sases.) S~ore~e Facil~:ies for eno mill~on or ~ore g~llons :f liQuified natural gas or o~er li¢oids. ~ ~ALL TO POTE."iT IAL CA~; I~DER.a. TE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT ' [!:PACT PROJECT CHA:~r~E ) . i.,-~' TOW~'N OF SOUTHOLD E~VIRON~,tENTAL ASSESSbLENT - PAF~T III EVALUATION OF THE I_~'.PO~TANCEr OF' I~!PACTS The L~un~ of ~,r~n~ necessary to answer Pzr~ ~ may be datelined by answering the ~uest~on: In ~r~ef~y cc~]e%in~ ~ke ~n~:r~c:~ns be~cw have I ~laced ~n this record sufficient ~nfo~ation to ~nd~ca:e :he re~scna~l(ness of my ~cisicns~ C~ el_.. the follo'.~ine for each impact or effect ]d=n.~,~.d in'Column 2 of Part 2: 1. 2. ~rle~y descrite the i~pact. Cescri~e (if a~plicable) how the i~pact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than iar~e impact by a pro- ject ~ased on the info.erich available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is im~or'tant to the ~inicipalit7 (city, tp~n or villese) in.nicn the project is located. ,-n,e probability of the impact or effect occurring '" The duration of ~ i~act or effect Its ir~versibility, including pe~enently los; resources or values ~hether the im~ac~ or effect can be cont,"olled The regicnzl consequence of the impact or effect Its potential diversence from local needs ~nd ~oals Whether known objections to the project ap=ly to t~is impact or effect. An action is considered to be significant One (or more) impact above, is 'm~ ~" is determ,.ined to both lerc.~e and its (their) consequence, based on the rev(ew PA~T !ii S~A.~,.c.I S (Continue cn AtcachmenCs, as needed) A/OI1TH LE June 22, 1981 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman, Southold Town of Appeals Main Rd. Southold, N.Y. 11971 In the Matter of Appeal No. 2833, by Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElearney and Northville Industries, Tax Map No. 1000-99-4-18 Dear Mr. Grigonis: I have recently received a copy of the letter submitted by Mr. Michael Cortese protesting our appeal for a variance to use the McElearney's property to moor our marine maintenance equipment. I should like to comment on the points made by Mr. Cortese. I shall list my comments in the same order as the objections were listed in his letter of May 30, 1981. 1. If the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee had approached Northville Industries Corp. directly and expressed their interest in developing the Mattituck inlet entrance area for park and wetland use, I believe they would have found a considerable amount of support available from Northville Indus- tries for that purpose. As residents of the Mattituck area, our operating personnel are very conscious of the environmental sensitivity of the area. We are careful to conduct all opera- tions in the inlet so as to minimize any environmental impact. Like the Advisory Committee, I feel that this area should not be available for industrial use. However, I feel that "clean" commercial operations are an acceptable tenant for the parcels of land bordering the inlet. 2. I understand the Advisory Committee's concern for creeping industrialization in the inlet area. However, I feel that most of the "problems!' are a result of failure to require owners of industrial property to adequately maintain operating Page 2 or abandoned facilities in the area. I would challenge anyone to claim that the use of our current operating area has not resulted in an improvement in the appearance and cleanliness of that area. 3. In the matter of required dredging, the Advisory Committee has pointed out that there is, at low tide, only three feet of water available in the McElearney property. Since our work barge draws only two and one-half feet of water maximum, three feet of water depth would be more than adequate for our needs. The work boat which draws five and one-half feet of water is always moored outboard of the barge. There is more than sufficient water available twenty feet from the McElearney's bulkhead for our boat to remain afloat at all stages of the tide. 4. As indicated on the enclosed copy of chart ~12358, the McElearney property is not located on a bend in the Mattituck inlet channel. Our existing berthing area is located on the outside of a bend in the channel. As any small boat operator will tell you, we will be in a much safer location on a straight section of channel than we are at present located at a channel turn. 5. I appreciate the Advisory Committee's understanding of the importance of a Mattituck inlet mooring area to North- ville's marine operations. Mattituck inlet is the only possible safe harbor for our vessels between Orient Point and Port Jeff- erson. 6. In his letter Mr. Cortese indicates that a lease agree- ment exists between Northville Industries and Mr. Howard Peterson. There is no written lease agreement between Northville Industries and Mr. Howard Peterson. When Northville first arranged to use Mr. Peterson's property in 1973 some discussions of the lease arrangement were held. At that time no agreement was reached by mutual consent. In the last five years Mr. Earl Espeland, General Manager of Terminal for Northville, and Mr. Zen Czujko, Terminal Manager of the Riverhead Terminal, have made several requests for a lease to Mr. Peterson. All such requests have been either ignored or refused. Faced with the potential loss of rental income, Mr. Peterson now claims to be perfectly willing to enter into a lease arrangement with Northville. However, because of the difficulties imposed on our operations by Mr. Peterson in the past, and my good faith promise to the McElearneys to pursue this appeal to a conclusion, I do not feel able to conclude any lease negotiations with Mr. Peterson until this appeal has been heard. Page 3 7. The industrial type operations conducted by our marine personnel, in conjunction with operation of our floating equipment, are of a purely incidental nature. They would generate less debris than a normal automobile body shop. 8. After reading Mr. Cortese's remarks concerning the noxious substances which would be produced by our sand blasting or welding operations, I contacted the Regional Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The proof that these operations present very little hazard to the environ- ment is that the only operational precaution required is the provision of a clear air supply to the operators of sand blasting equipment, or a respirator for the welder when cutting or welding certain coated steels. At the Mc Elearney property the particulate matter generated by these operations would be less likely to be washed into Mattituck creek due to the flat operating surface there. At a current location the land surface pitches toward the creek so that any dust would be washed into the inlet by a heavy rain. 9. The condition of the bulkhead on the McElearney property is questioned by Mr. Cortese. The bulkhead is certainly not new. However, its only defect is that the original construction failed to continue the sheathing to a sufficient depth to prevent erosion. This problem would be easily eliminated by removing a small amount of material from behind the bulkhead and adding additional sheath- ing. In using the McElearney property the barge would not rest on the bulkhead itself but moor against~the pilings~driven slightly offshore from the bulkhead. Only light vehicles would be operated on the McElearney property. Heavy equipment would be handled to and from the barge at the Lone Star Industries property closer to the inlet mouth. 10. For normal operations only one or two vehicles would be driven to the barge moor area at any time. When there is no marine traffic the full maintenance crew may arrive at 8:00 a.m. in as many as six vehicles and leave at 4:30 p.m. with the same number of vehicles. I hardly think that this amount of traffic would produce any increase in the traffic hazards on this section of Naugles Drive in question. Northville Industries would be pleased to install warning signs on both approaches to the McElearney entrances. For the reasons set forth above I do not feel that the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee has presented any legitimate reason why Northville Industries should be denied the variance we have requested. I hope that the Board of Appeals will Page 4 make its decision solely on the merits of the arguments set forth by all parties concerned. Sincerely, Manager Marine Operations JRD:ps cc: Earl Espeland Lesley DouGlass c~ MATTITU¢ Scale 72°33, 78 87 Yards 40O 600 8oo j ~tx- 72°33, 73 76 54 87 88 97 96 6O 55 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. T E R R ~ EU~T~b~ ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P, GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE: ROAD 25 c::OUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g?~ TELEPHONE (5!,:6) 765-1809 June 22, 1981 Northville Industries Corp. P.O. Box 111, Sound Shore Road Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Appeal No. 2833 - Northville Industries Corp. Dear Captain Dudley: Please be advised that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at a Special Meeting held Thursday, June 18, 1981: BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board as lead agency determines this project as proposed to have a significant effect upon the environment and is declared to be a Type I Action, and it is hereby requested that applicant submit a Long Environmental Assessment Form which is attached hereto to be completed and submitted as soon as possible to this Board in order that we may further procced with this matter. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Yours very truly, CHARI,ES GRIG~IqI$~ JR. CHAIRMAN CG:ec Attachment New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 516-751-7900 June 4, 1981 Robert F. Flacke Commissioner ]]oard of/ ppe l,s Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Northville Industries Corporation Appeal No. 2833 Dear Mr. Grigonis: We have reviewed the above project as per your letter of 5/26/81 to moor vessels, park vehicles and store construction equipment at 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. These activities are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tidal Wetlands Act. However, any repair of this failing bulkhead will require Article 15 Protection of Waters and Article 25 Tidal Wet- lands permits. I would request that before any permission is granted for construction on this site, Northville Industries re- ceive a letter of non jurisdiction or letter of permission from this office. Thank you for your cooperation. CTH:ll Very truly your. s, Charles T. Hamilton Associate Environmental Analyst ( ) Agenda Item for / / (~/) ZTA Chai]'man/~,iembers copies ............ o~ L ~, R~,~ues%ed Mnttituc nJet AdvisorYBox 831 C° mmittc J !] S May 30,1981 Southold To~vn Board of Appeals, Main Road, So~hold,N.Y. 11971 In the matter of Appeal No. 2833, by Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElearney and Northville Industries, Tax Map No. 1000-99-4-18 Dear Sirs: In the matter of the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElearney and Northville Industries to the Southold Board of Appeals, Appeal No. 2833, be advised that the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Co.~mittee requests that a variance not be granted for the reasons set forth below: 1) The Mat~ituck Inlet Advisory Committee (M.I.A.C.) has been working for the past year to find a more compatible use for the currently zoned C-1 properties at the mouth of Mattituck Inlet because of the hazards associated with an industrial use ~f this area which is surrounded by residential/agricultural.land,a park district and protected wetlands. 2~ A move by Northville's industrial operation into an agricultural/residential zone would create an expansion of an already-existing problem area, an area designated by the Long Island Reg~onal P~anning Board as a "Geographic Area of Particular Concern". 3) The M.I.A.C. study has shown that dredging would be required in this ~rea to acco~odate even the smallest work vessels. At low tide, only three feet of water is available at the intended location. The need for future dredging is obvious, should this variance be granted. 4)The subject parcel is located on a ben~ in the Inlet.Vessels Mattituc mittee k nlet Advisory Corm BOX 831 MA. TTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 tied up at this point would present a navigation hazard,since' vessels heading south ~ould be forced to go into the center of the inlet chant~el, posing a d~ngerous situation for those vessels heading north, whose view is blocked by the bend. Since there is considerable traffic in the Inlet from pleasure cr~f~ and fi~ing vessels, Northville's proposal is a danger to all boats. 5) The M.I.A.C. study states that continued use by Northville for dockage and storage of equipment utilized in the mainteuance of its offshore oil terminal will probably be required and can be acco~odated in its present location (ta× ~tap # 1000-99-4-9). 6) Morthville states in its appeal that it has not discovered any party re~y to enter into a lease agreement for its mooring and storage requirements. Be advised that the owner of the parcel that Northville ' currently uses (tax # 1000-99-4-18),Mr. Peterson, is willing to continue his present le~ with Northville. No hardship thus exists. 7)Paragraph four of the Notice of Appeal states,"That by such petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: for permit to use part of the premises for.com~ercial use." Northville, in a letter to Mr. George Fisher~ Building Inspector, Town of Southold, however, state§"..° The ~rea would on occasion be used for ...oxy-acetylene cut$ing,welding and sand blasting". Such activities are industrial, rather than com~nercial in nature, and thus would extend a blighted area that the Town and its residents are trying to improve. 8)Nort~ville, in the letter to Mr. Fisher, Building Inspector, states,"No effluent or other material would be discharged into Mattituck Creek or onto the adjacent land." Be advised that the MattituckOlnlet Advisory Co mmittee BOX 831 MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 sandblasting mention in section seven of this letter would, .. of necessity, generate a large amount of particulate material, much of it noxious, including steel and iron dust. Such dust will, through normal washing of the land by rains, wash into the creek, thus leading to increased pollution. 9) A letter from Capt. John R. Dudley to the Southold Town Board of Appeals' dated May t2, 1981 states that"...the subject property in the within appeal application...may be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge is a bulkhea'd in very 'good condition and at least 100 feet in length". New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands Map # 704-542 which covers the Mattituck Inlet area clearly shows the subject property to be within 300 feet of tidal wetlands,in fact, it is closer to 200 feet. The statement that,"...along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition..o,,is also false. Enclosed are photographs of said bulkhead taken by ~ member of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Co~mittee on May 31,1981. The photographs clearly show the deteriorated condition of the bullhead. The Board will notice the rocks and debris falling through the bulkhead and the gaps within the bulkhead itself. If any ad~ition pressure were put on the landward side of the bulkhead, such as woul~ occur when Northville parks a truck next to it, gurther cave-ins are inevitable. The Board will also notice the shallow depth of the water- hardly sufficient for a vessel with a draft of two feet. 10) Access to the subject property will be fro~ Naugles Drive, at a point where the road turns sharply and goes down a very steep hill. A very dangerous traffic pattern would thereby be intro- duced. Trucks will have to almost stop $o make the turn into the property while trafffic from behin~,comin~ around the bend will be suddenly confronted by a virtually-stopped vehicle. An accident will be the certain result. the Board every sat hherefore petition. hold Board of ~c: Photographs ce: Planning Board Town Board Trustees -Mic~ael Cortese Chairman APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki $outhold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 BnUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 May 26, 1981 Mr. Michael Frosina Sr. Environmental Analyst N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation S.U.N.Y., Building. 40 Stony Brook, NY 11794 Re: Northville Industries Corp. Appeal No. 2833 Dear Mike: The Board of Appeals recently received an application for permission to moor maintenance and operating equipment at the south end of the existing bulkhead, and parking of vehicles and storage of material (such as bagged sand, spare mooring buoys, a welding machine, compressor, oil spill boom and materials), as well as machinery repair, welding, cutting, sandblasting, painting, at premises located on Mattituck Inlet and known as 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map Item No. 1000-99-4-18. The Board members are concerned as to whether these proposed activities are of particular concern to your agency, asking that you provide us with your comments as early as possible. Enclosed are three photographs of the subject bulkhead and property, and two of the photographs as you can see show that the bulkhead is not 100% functional. We appreciate your time and assistance. Yours very truly, CHARLES GRI~ONIS, CHAIRMAN CG:lk Enclosures P.S. If it appears that this project will not be within your jurisdiction, please call, if possible by Friday in order that the Board of Appeals may schedule a Special Meeting to schedule this matter for public hearing June llth. Thanks again. - NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES CORP. Southold ZBA File #2833 NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES CORP. Southold ZBA File #2833 NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES CORP. Southold ZBA File #2833 K JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR et VITAL STATISTICS TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 May 12, 1981 To: 'Southold Town Zonign Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2833 application of Northville Industries Corp. for a variance. Also included are notification to adjoining property owners, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, Short Environmental Assessment Form, and Wetland Questionnaire. JTT/bn Enclosures V Jhdith T. Terry Town Clerk ~ FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ ~:. ~ U:'[~ ~~ i~ .~ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .......................... Location of Property ..... : . . ,. /~ House Ivo. Street ~a~ler County Tax ~ap No. ]000 Section ....... ~.... Bloc~ ..... ~ ....... Lot [ .~ ........... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .(~'. .... :.. :... '.-- ......:..: ..... Building Inspector ~_ >'fo k"E /V/VA May 11, 1981 Mr. George Fisher Building Inspector Town of Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Fisher: Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElearney, trustees of Lot 18, Block 4, Section 99, Tax No. 1000, and Northvilte Industries Corp. wish to enter into a contract to moor a 90 foot crane barge and 60 foot workboat and store some items of equipment at the waterfront of this property. Specifically, Northville Industries wishes to moor one 90 ft. x 30 ft. crane barge and one 60 ft. x 18 ft. workboat at the south end of the wooden bulkhead. We also would require an area 50 ft. x 100 ft. immediately behind the bulkhead for the parking of vehicles and storage of material such as bagged sand, spare mooring buoys, a welding machine, a compressor and oil spill boom and materials. The area would on occasion be used for light maintenance work such as machinery repair, painting, oxy-acetylene cutting, welding and sand blasting. Noise levels from these activities would rarely, if ever, equal those produced by a lawn mower, chain saw or high- power outboard motor. Fresh water use would be restricted to that necessary for drinking and incidental cleaning. No effluent or other material would be discharged into Mattituck Creek or onto the adjacent land. The area and equipment would at all times be main- tained in a clean and orderly manner. I understand that Lot 18 is zoned for Residential/Agricultural use. Mr. and Mrs. McElearney do not wish to change that zoning, but along with Northville Industries would request that permission be granted to vary the use of the indicated portion of land for the purposes and time (or extension thereof) indicated in the attached lease. It is understood that this variance, if granted, would apply to the indicated contract only and would not be transferable or assignable to any other party or parties. prh attach. Sincerely, (/~__.R. Dudley ~ ~ . Manager, Mari~Q4;~rat i one L 100~ = THIS LEASE, made the 7th day of May 1981, between MADELINE McELEARNEY and JOEL McELEARNEY, as Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Mary Chambers, deceased, residing at 66 Alpine Way, Huntington Station, New York 11746, hereinafter referred to as Landlord, and NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES CORP., whose principal office is located at One Huntington Quadrangle, Suite 4C01, Melville, New York 11747, hereinafter referred to as Tenant. WITNESSETH; that the Landlord hereby leases to the Tenant and the Tenant hereby hires and takes from the Landlord, all that lot of land known and described as follows, to-wit: THAT CERTAIN portion of bulkhead land 100 feet in length and 50 feet in depth only, which bulkhead land is part of a parcel in the Town of Southold, Hamlet of Mattituck, County of Suffolk, State of New York, situate on the northeast side of Naugles Drive 1,700 feet northeast of Luther Road, bounded on the north by land now or formerly of G. Naugles; on the east by Mattituck Inlet; on the south by land now or formerly of J. McKenner; and on the west by Naugles Drive, County Tax. Map No. 1000, Section 99, Block 4, Lot 18; Together with a non-exclusive right of ingress and egress from Naugles Drive to the bulkhead land by a driveway through other lands of the Landlord and Tenant will maintain such driveway in its present condition and will not interfere or hinder the com- mon use of such driveway by others, for the term of five (5) years to commence at noon on the 1st day of May 1981 and to end at noon on the 1st day of May 1986. AND the Tenant hereby covenants and agrees to pay unto the said Landlord, the rent of FIVE HUNDRED and no/100 ($500.00) Dollars per month payable as follows, viz: FIVE HUNDRED and no/100 ($500.00) Dollars on the signing of this lease, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged; and FIVE HUNDRED and no/100 ($500.00) Dollars on the first (lst) day of each month thereafter until the termination of this lease. AND that during the term, Tenant will maintain premises in at least their present condition and at the expiration of the sai¢ term, the said Tenant will quit and surrender the premises hereby demised in as good a state and condition as they were in at the commencement of the term. AND the Landlord does covenant that the said Tenant, on paying the said rent and performing the covenants herein contained shall and may peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the said demised premises for the term aforesaid. AND the said Tenant hereby further covenants that if any default be made in the payment of said rent, or any part thereof, at the time above specified, or if any default be made in the per- formance of any other covenants or agreements herein contained, the said hiring, and the relation of Landlor~ and Tenant, at the option of said Landlord shall wholly cease and determine; and the said Landlord shall and may re-enter said premises, and remove all persons therefrom; and the said Tenant hereby expressly waives the service of any notice in writing of intention to re-enter. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, between the parties hereto: FIRST: That the Tenant has the privilege of renewing this lease; and the Tenant shall give notice in writing to the Landlord of his intention at least three months prior to the expiration hereof. SECOND: That the Tenant shall use the premises hereby leased exclusive for the purpose of mooring barges and painting the same only, and that the.Tenant will not, without the consent of the Landlord, assign this lease, nor let or underlet the whole or any part of the said premises, nor make any alterations there- upon under the penalty of forfeiture and damage. THIRD: The said Tenant agrees that the said Landlord shall have the right to enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof, at all reasonable hours for the purpose of examining the same, or making such repairs or alterations as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof. FOURTH: That the Tenant is to comply with all the sanitary laws, ordinances and rules and all orders of the Board of Health or other municipal authorities affecting the cleanliness, occu- pancy and the preservation thereof for the demised premises. FIFTH: The Tenant agrees that this lease shall be subject and subordinate to any mortgage or mortgages now on said premises or which any owner of said premises may hemeafter at any time elect to place on said premises, and to all advances already made or which may be hereafter made on account of said mortgages, to the full extent of the principal sums secured thereby and interest thereon, and the Tenant agrees upon request to hereafter execute any paper or papers which the counsel for the said Landlord may deem necessary to accomplish,.that end, ~ default ~ the Tena~ so doing that said Landlord is hereby empowered to execute such paper or papers in the name of the Tenant and as the act and deed of said Tenant and this authority is hereby declared to be coupled with an interest and not revocable. -2- SIXTH: That the Landlord agrees to deliver the premises to the Tenant in a clean condition, with all rubbish removed, and the Tenant agrees to maintain the premises in the same condition during the term of this lease and to surrender the same in a clean condition upon the termination of this lease. - SEVENTH: The Tenant agrees, at its cost and expense, to defend the Landlord and otherwise indemnify and hold the Landlord harmless for any claims arising out of Tenant's use and condition of the premises with respect to claims on the part of its employee. invitees, contractors and subcontractors. EIGHTH: This lease shall be negotiable with respect to the rental rate at the end of each year in the five (5) year period; and cancellable only upon one (1) year's prior written notice tendered by Registered or Certified Mail. NINTH: The Landlord covenants to provide to Tenant their full cooperation in any application for a zoning variance made before any appropriate municipal authority or board. TENTH: Ail notices to the parties shall be provided at the addresses first above written. ELEVENTH: In the event any increase in real estate taxes occurs as the result of Tenant's use of the premises over and above the present tax, or any use tax is imposed upon Tenant's use of the premises, the Tenant agrees to pay upon demand such increase or use tax. The covenants and conditions herein hontained shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, assigns and legal representa- tives of the parties hereto. This instrument may not be changed, modified, discharged or terminated orally. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. LANDLORD IN THE PRESENCE OF 'MaHeline McElearney J~l McElearney TENANT NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES CORP. By. Title ~'ff SHORT ¢IRONN{ENTAL ASSESSt4ENT FORI4 INSTRUCTIONS: V .... (o) II~ order %0 onswer %he questions in %his short EAF it is assumed " that the preparer will use. currently available information concerning project and the likely impacts of %he action. I% is not expected %hal additional studies, rescorch or other invest%go%ions will be undertaken. (b) If any quos%ion has'been answered Yes %he project may be significant and o completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No i% is likely %ha% this c% is not significon%. -. pr°je(d) Environmental Assessment '' '1. Will project result in o large physical change %0 %he project site or physically alter more %hah 10 acres of land? .................... Yes No 2. ¥1ill ~herebe o mo~or ahonge %o any unique ;;% ' -unusual land form found on %he si%e? ......... Yes/NO 3. ¥1ill project al%er or hove a large' effect on existing body of wa%er? ...................... , 4. ¥1ill project hove a paten%tally large impact , Yes on groundwa%er.qu?llty? .............. 5. ¥till projec% slgnzficon%l¥ flow on odjocen% si%es? ....................... Yes~/NQ 6. ¥1ill projec% affect any threatened or endangered plan% or animal ~peCies? .... ~e~'"' Yes v/No 7. ¥1ill project result in o ma3or adverse ' ''. ali%y? Yes,/No on air qu .............. · ................ . . . 8. ¥1ill project have o major effect on visual character of %he community or scenic views or. vistas known to:be important %o %he community? Yes/No ~. %Vill project adversely ~mpoc% any site or .- . structure of his%or%c, prehistoric or paleontological.importance or any site designated os o critical environmental oreo /N by o local ogency?............~...~-..".'.-.s"~. . ..~- Yes. o la. %~ill project have a major effect on exls%ing or future recreational opportunities? ......... Yes. W/No ll. %Vill project result in.major %raffia problems o~ cause a major effect %o existing . %ronsporto[ion systems? ....................... Yes/No 12. ¥1itl project .regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrlcol disturbance as o result of %he project's n? :- Y W/No. operotio .................................... es. 13. %~ill project have any impact on public health ' or.safety? .................................... Yes w/No 14. ¥1ill project af£ec% %he existing community by ' directly causing o growth in permanent · popular%on of more %hon 5 perce9% over a one year period or have o major negative effec% on the choro'cter of the community or neighborhood? ............................... Yes/No 15. Is there public controversy concernzng %he ' projec%? ...................................... Yes /No PREPARER'S SIGNATURE REPRESENTING /L/o,~7,v ~z~ (Today' s Date) To: Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal Application of /~R8 ~ /~/~. Location of Property: ~/o /o'~¢~3 Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that the subject property in the within appeal application: (please check one box) [~] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length.* [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately __ feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing on the premises. [ ] Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge.* [Starred items (*) indicate your property does not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S.D.E.C.] Sincerely yours, re p~t~ ~ eTOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YOI~I APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. !, (We)...N.9,.~.~.h..Y.&...1..1...e....T.P.~.u..s...~.~.i...e.s.....q..°..~.P:of .~.,.q.,..J~.Q.~....1-~.:L;..-.;~?.IA~'.(;1..~I~'p'~''~...gp.A~,... Nome of Appellor~t Street and Number Riverhead 11901 New York HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipalib/ State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO...N..o..n..e. ......................... DATED ....1...2...~.a.y....1...9..8...1. ........................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO (x) ( ( Nome of Applicant for permit of 66 Alpine Way HuntinQton Station New York 11746 Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE part of premises for commercial use ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ) 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..,6..Z...0.....N..a..u.,g..~,e.~...p...~.~,y..e. ....... ~.e..s...~.~,.e.~.~..~.a..~....&...,A..~L~..$.~,u..Z. tural Street Use District on Zoning Map Zone 1000 18 Map No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article 3; Subsection 100, Paragraph 30 (A & B) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is reauested for the reason that Northville Industries Corp. has been unable to obtain a lease to moor their maintenance and operating equipment at any suitable industrially zoned waterfront property on Mattituck Inlet. Mattituck Inlet is the only area available to moor this equipment. Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaldifficultiesorunneces- sary HARDSHIP because a diligent search of owners of industrially zoned property on Mattituck Inlet has not discovered any party ready to enter into a lease agreement with Northville Industries Corp. for mooring of floating equipment and storage of maintenance supplies. The Building Inspector's decision produces practical difficulties and ha~ship in that it denies us relief from the existing mooring arrangements which subject Northville's operations to: 1. interruptions of scheduled facility maintenance, 2. frequent inconvenience and added expense, 3. exposure to possible damage to vessels through grounding. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUEandisnotshared by all prope~ies alike in the immediate vicinity ofthis property and in this use district because no other residential/agriculturally zoned properties in the immediate vicinity are suitably located and bulkheaded for the intended use. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because 1. NO commercial activity would be transacted on the property. 2. Approval would permit movement of the existing activity a distance of only 250 feet. 3. The intended activities have been carried on for a number of years within 300 feet of the proposed site. 4. No commercial structures will be erected. 5. The intended activities will not regularly produce objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ~ ~ ) SS .~ .... ~~~.....: ........... COUNTY OF Suffolk ) ~ ~,gnature ~ Sworn to this .................... (...~ .................. day of ...........~ .................. ]9 ~ I ......... ...... .......... Notary Public C" RUTH ENGEL NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No, 52-ttt6645, SuffoLk CouAt~. Term Expires MaTch 30, 19_~> BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Inthe Matter ~thePetitionof : Mr. & Mrs. Joel_McElearney, and :. Northvtlle Industries Corp. : totheBo~dofAooeals ~.thelowp ~ Southold : TO: Board of Appeals Town of Southold NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIV. EN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (Variance) ]~~ (:g~zeXl~KR~i~g~) (the following relief: ). 2. Thattheproper~ whichisthesubjectofthePetitionisl~atedadjacenttoyourpropertyandisdes- cribed~llows: Tax MaD No. 1000, Section 99, Block 4, Lot 18 North by Petersen & Robinson; East by Mattituck Creek; South by McKenna; West by Naugles Drive 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict: Residential and Agricultural 4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersignedwillrequestthefollowingrelief: for permit to use part of their premises for commercial use. $. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are: Article 3, Subsection t00, Paragraph 30 (A & B) 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting ~he relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: 12 May 1981 Northville Industries Corp. Petitioner PostO~ceAddr~s P.O. Box 111 Riverhead, New York 11901 NAME Mr. Howard Petersen Mrs. Genevieve Robinson PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ADDRESS 38 Quaker Path, .Box.;~17., ~,. Stonybrook, New York 11790 Mattituc~ :N~w York ~i95~' Mr. James W. McKenna Jr. P28 6795151 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERASE PROVIDED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) SENTTO STREET AND NO P.O, STATE AND ZiP CODE ~STAGE CERTIFIED CEE ~ SPECIAL DELIVERY ~ RESTRICTED DEUVE~Y ~ ~ SHOWTOWHOM DATE AND ADDRESS OF ~ ~ DELIVERY ~ ~ SHOW 10 WHOM AND ~ATE :ADDR[SS OF DELIVERY WITH RESTRICTED DELIVERY c/o E. McKenna, 723 Pine Street Franklin Square, New York 11010 P28 6795152 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSORANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) SENTTO ~STAGE ~ SPECIAL DELIVERY = SHOW TO WHOM AND P28 6795153 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) ~TREET AND NO. ~ REST~ED DEL~V FRY ~ ~ ~T0~0M DATEC- ~ ~ ~L~W~ ~ ~ DEUVE~ED~ITH~ES~IGTE[ Captain John R'. Dudley , residi?~aic M~aale Road & Grand Avenue Mattituck, New York ' , I~ein8 duly swo-r,n, ~lep~ses, and says'that on the 12thda¥ of May ,1981 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Mattituck, New 'York .; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn to b~e[ore me this day of ~lr%"%.~c~ ,19 ~ ( Notary P blicC'~ RUTH ENGEL NOTARY PUBLIC, State of NEW York No. 52-1116645. Suffolk Term Expires March 30, I NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIES Taken 5/26/81 #2833 INDUSTRIES Taken 5/26/81 lc) #2833 9 3.4 A(c) 23 3 0 SEE S NORTHVILLE INDUSTRIEs Taken 5/26/81 #2833 ,.~, NORTH¥ILLE INDUSTRIES $2833 ~ Taken 5/26/8~