Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3994APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 September 16, 1991 William D. Moore, Esq. Clause Commons P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application for East Wind Development Corp. Dear Mr. Moore: Almost a year has passed since the original notice of the above application, which, as you know, has been deemed incomplete for some time. For these reasons and the fact that the Notice of Disapproval is outdated, the application has been deadfiled, without prejudice to the filing of a new application together with the required notices and all other documentation, updated accordingly. ~- Very truly yours, Gerard p. Chairman Goehringer cc: Building Department Planning Board · -- FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ... ~a .o~. !..~..~. ~ .......... , · 3 .LEAS_.E TAKE.~NO.~TiCE that your application dated ..~.~--c~....~j~.. ~ ,o O~ ~ouse ~o ~ Street ' ~e~ Coun~ T~ Map No. 1000 Section ...J.~ ~ ....... Block .. ~ .~ ~ ....... Lot . ~.~ ......... Subdivi~on .............. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the ~ollow~o ~rou-~ ~~a ~ ~ ~ o~ ,_. ~ ~ ~ .... ~. )~;.~~.~..~.. ~~...~. .... ~Z7~'% .... ~.~.~.~....m.~.~.. 2 ~ .~,~.. .... ' ................ RV 1/80 William D. Moore Patricia C. Moore MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law Clause Commous Suite 3 Main Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax: (516) 298-5664 JUL I 6 t991 JUL I 6 t991 ii!/l'i Margaret Rutkowski Secretary July 12, 1991 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: East Wind Development Corp. / New Suffolk Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with your clerk Linda Kowalski in which I requested an additional period of one month in which to provide the information requested by the board in its last correspondence with me. Our client is interested in pursuing use of this property and we will have that information to you as soon as possible. WDM/mr Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, cc: East Wind Development Corp. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 21, 1991 SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 William D. Moore, Esq. Clause Commons P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application for East Wind Development Corp. Dear Mr. Moore: Please advise us of the status of the above project. The application has been since its filing in an incomplete stage. We are awaiting an "as is" survey or other certified map showing the zoning and use of the land and all structures as of the current date. The maps submitted reflect the proposed site plan under the previous zone district and do not show correct information for the land and buildings as exists under recent date. In the event we do not hear from you in this regard within 20 days of this letter, we will assume that the project is not being actively pursued by you and your client and will declare the application withdrawn. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk Enclosure PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~9.~ Site Plan for East Wind Corporation King and Second Streets, New Suffolk SCTM $ 1000-117-08-06 DATE: January 8, 1991 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 In answering the questions posed in your memorandum of December 17, 1990, I first wish to emphasize that the Planning Board does not have a policy or determination about interpreting the specific sections of the Zoning Code which you are being asked to interpret by the applicant. Our understanding of the sections of the Zoning Code that are referenced in your memorandum of December 17, 1990, is that the Town Board's 1989 rezoning of the property made null and void any approved site plan where the zoning designation changed. If this is true, the only exception would be if the use for which the site plan was approved remained an allowed use under the new zoning district designation; and the bulk and area restrictions remained unchanged. The facts of the situation are: 1. The East Wind Corporation site plan was approved on August 30, 1988. The zoning of the parcel at that time was "B" Light Business. 2. On February 25, 1989, a new zoning map pursuant to the Master Plan went into effect. The zone changed to "R-40" residential. 3. The new zone does not allow the uses permitted by the previous zone. 4. The content of two previous decisions of your Board on similar cases; specifically, Pequash Commons and Jordan's Partners, buttress the position that the site plan is no longer valid. Accordingly, a new site plan may be required for any proposed use that is allowed within the "R-40" district, but which also requires a site plan, as specified in Section 100-31 of the Zoning Ordinance. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3915 - Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission to construct retail stores in conjunction with office building uses; proposed retail construction is not permitted in this RO Zone District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1. WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appeal No. 3915; and WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, the physical characteristics of the land, its present zoning, its previous zoning classification(s), and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. This is an appeal of the January 31, 1990 Notice of Disapproval in which an application dated May 9, 1989 was considered by the Building Inspector to construct office and retail stores, which was disapproved on the following grounds: "...Under Article VII, Section 100-71, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this district. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals... " 2. The premises in question consists of 4.75+- acres with frontages along three streets: (a) North Road (a/k/a State Route 25) along the northerly end of the premises, (b) Main Street (a/k/a State Route 25) along the westerly end of the premises, and (c) Knapp Place (a town street) along a southerly 79.97 ft. portion which is situated in the Residential Zone District, Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southold. Page 2 - Appeal No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 3. Since January 9, 1989, most of the subject premises has been situated in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District, and only a small section (approximately .30 of an acre) has been situated in the R-40 Residential Zone District. The entire tract is vacant land, except for partially completed foundation construction which includes footings and concrete wall extending 372.6 feet in an east-west direction. 4. Surrounded on its southerly and easterly boundaries are residential communities in the R-40 Residential Zone District. To the north are State Route 25, and to the north thereof a preexisting restaurant located in the Limited Business (LB) Zone District and residential communities in the R-40 Residential Zone District. To the west are Main Street and residences in residential use districts. 5. The following facts and events are additionally noted for the record: (a) On October 3, 1985, the Southold Town Board adopted a moratorium concerning all business and industrial zone districts; (b) On October 10, 1985, an application was pending before the Southold Town Planning Board (referred to as "280 North Road," applicant) and which was under a town-wide moratorium affecting all business and industrial zone districts in the pending "Master Plan Revisions"; (c) On October 22, 1985, the Town Board denied the request of the applicant (by his attorney, John C. Tsunis, for the requested Waiver under the provisions of Local Law #14-1985 for the reason that the uses proposed were inconsistent with the proposed Residential-Office Zone District provisions; Esq.) (d) It is apparent that during 1985 and 1986, and up until January 9, 1989 (the date of adoption of the new zoning regula- tions), the subject premises was being considered by the Town for a change in the zoning use district to Residential-Office (from B-Light Business). In the applications before the Town Board and Planning Board during the period from 1984 through 1985, a site plan dated September 9, 1985 was filed for an office mall area in excess of 12,000 sq. ft., together with retail stores and bank facility. (See copy of site plan on file with the Southold Town Clerk and Planning Board). Page 3 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 5. (e) Again, on January 13, 1986, John Tsunis, attorney for the property owner, requested a second Waiver under the provisions of the moratorium, and the record is clear, as is also shown in the February 4, 1986 Town Board minutes and in its resolution granting a waiver at the same meeting, that: "...the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential-Office Zone District .... " (Emphasis added) (f) Following the grant of the waiver to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential-Office Zone District, the applicant/property owner proceeded to make amendments to the Planning Board under the site plan process. (g) On June 23, 1986, the Planning Board adopted a resolu- tion approving a site plan for the building and on-site changes. It should be noted that although the Planning Board proceeded under the site plan process, the Town Board waiver was strictly for those uses which would conform to those in the Residential- Office (RO) Zone District. (h) It is noted for the record that the Planning Board is and has always been without authority to consider a change of use, change of zone, or use variancesr and the proper forum for those requests are before the Town Board as a legislative agency and/or Board of Appeals as a quasi-judicial agency. (i) The applicant has also furnished the board with copies of canceled checks, invoices, and a list of expenses which the applicant asserts was expended during the course of this project. The Board has evaluated the record and notes that the expenses are not itemized and are without a clear breakdown for the total claim, thus the Board questions the validity of some of these claims, including real estate taxes on vacant land; fees for consultants as well as attorney fees to review the town files and represent the applicant in the proceeding before this Board; certain expenses for real estate commissions (which are normally paid by the seller rather than the purchaser if the commissions were for the sale of the premises); closing costs were not itemized; mortgage payments with interest were claimed without specific time periods or any breakdown as to how the figures were arrived at; the amount given for the purchase of the land differs from that shown in the Suffolk County real estate transfer records; insurance expense was given without a breakdown as to type or coverage or time periods covered; purpose of payment of corporate tax and miscellaneous expenses was not provided; and the purpose of incurring certain expenditures as a necessity in the process to the extent charged is not provided. Page 4 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 6. At this juncture, it is noted that on May 18, 1989, approximately 2-1/2 years after receiving final site-plan approval, an application for a building permit was filed with the Town Building Department. 7. On June 8, 1989 Building Permit No. 18187Z was issued by the Building Inspector's Office for an "office and retail store shopping center." At the time the building permit was issued, retail stores in the RO Zone District were not allowed or permitted uses; and the building permit was issued in error. Approximately three months later, the footings and partial foundation construction was placed. 8. On November 30, 1989, a Stop Work Order was issued. 9. On January 31, 1990, this appeal application was filed with the Office of the Board of Appeals and Town Clerk. 10. In addition to evaluating all documentation in the Planning Board file, Town Clerk file, Assessors records, County real estate records, and the Building Department file, and documentation and testimony submitted in support of the application, the board has also considered all testimony and written material against the application, or as otherwise presented by mail, in person or during the public hearings. The public and the landowner were provided with full opportunities to present their views. 11. Article VII, Section 100-71B, Residential-Office Use regulations of the Zoning Code do authorize several uses proposed in the applicant's site plan construction project, to wit: professional offices and business offices, by Special Exception by the Board of Appeals subject to site plan approval by the Planninq Board provided that not more than one (1) use shall be allowed for each forty thousand (40,000) square feet of lot area. 12. Article VII, Section 100-71B of the Residential-Office (RO) does not, however, provide for retail stores or shops, and certain retail uses are provided for in business zone districts and then only as specified therein (i.e., Limited Business (LB), Hamlet Business (HB), Business B, etc.) 13. In considering a use variance, the Court of Appeals has set three requirements which must be clearly shown by the evidence before the variance may be granted. First, that the land cannot yield a reasonable return for allowable purposes; second, the plight shall be due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions of the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance; and third, that the use sought by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Page 5 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 14. With reference to the first requirement, there is no doubt that the property owner has offered proof of many expenditures during the entire site plan process, with excep- tions as noted in paragraph 5(i), supra. This board will not question that large sums of monies have been expended, but it is questionable as to whether the sums paid were properly applied in "dollars and cents proof," and whether some of the sums paid were to the same individuals-who sold the property and those that purchased the property. It appears that one individual seller was also the purchaser in the property transfers. Therefore, sufficient proof has not been furnished showing a "proportioned" sales price proportioning a part of the financial loss in this project. Also, the record does not disclose any other individuals or parties which have had a financial interest in the property which might affect the sales prices over the years. 15. With reference to the second requirement, the Board finds that the property owner has not proven that the subject premises could not be used for other uses under the same provision of the Residential-Office Use regulations (100-7lB); i.e. 100% professional offices and business offices as compared to the partial (15,000 sq. ft.) proposal in the subject project. In fact, the property owner is proposing to use the premises and proposed building for permitted office uses (by Special Exception). Additionally, other uses which are also authorized by Special Exception in this Residential-Office (RO) Zone District are residential use, funeral home use, art galleries, museums, libraries, wineries. It is noted that within a few short blocks of the subject property there is a hospital and professional office building. The record is clear, by the maps, that office use is feasible for future construction on this vacant parcel. Appellant in the Board's view did not establish that the present investment was inadequate for professional/business office use; and it is well known that due to the conditions of the economy throughout the North Fork, land values have depreciated. It should be noted that many of the expenses paid may also be applied to professional/business office mall uses," and the landowner has not been deprived of his right to use the land as zoned. (Gordon v. Town of Huntington, 1962, 230 N.Y. S2d 619). A landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses, and not, however, in foreseeable context. Conclusory testimony of a witness, unsupported and unsupplemented by underlying concrete facts is not sufficient proof. Page 6 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 16. With reference to the third requirement, it is the opinion of this Board that the essential character of the locality will be altered. The locality consists mostly of single-family residences, and there is one preexisting restaurant. 17. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) sufficient proof has not been demonstrated as required by the statutes to show that: (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return with underlying facts in dollars and cents proof; (2) the burden of proof of unnecessary hardship or that literal application of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship has not been sufficiently met (Otto v. Steinhilber); (3) the use to be authorized will not alte~ the essential character of the locality; (b) the uses proposed are not permitted uses in this zone district and will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance; (c) the current uses of the property and the zone district regulations are not so restricted that the premises could not be used for reasonable purposes; (d) the Board does not dispute that the circumstances and events which have taken place are unique; (e) the property in question is centrally located in center of other Residential Zone Districts, and although the Residential-Office Zone District does permit office use as well as residential use; (f) this Board cannot under the semblance of a variance exercise legislative powers; (g) the denial of this use variance will not cause a building to be destroyed or replaced since the land is vacant with the exception of the foundation wall/footings as mentioned previously; (h) this variance may not be granted because the applicant claims a higher return for retail uses rather than office use or other uses authorized in this RO use district; Page 7 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 (i) Good faith reliance on an invalid permit does not automatically entitle the applicant to a variance {See Rejman v. Welch, 112 AD2d 795, 492 NYS2d 295 (1985, 4th Dept.)}; (j) The issue of a use variance is not whether the use as presently zoned is the most profitable use, but merely whether that use will yield a reasonable return, (see Bellanca v. Gates, 97 AD2d 971, 468 NYS2d 774 (1983, 4th Dept.), affd. 61 NYS 2d 878, 474 NYS2d 480, 462 NE2d 1198.) (k) An application for a change of zone is not without merit and has not been exhausted. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the relief requested in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appl. No. 3915, for the reasons stated above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk J GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,~AIRMAN 3346 92 Street Jackson Heights, NY January 8, 1991 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Gentlemen: 11372 mira As a long-time summer resident, and taxpayer, of New Suffolk, I feel I must reply to your notice of East Wind Development Company's request for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance. I strongly protest any interpretation which would allow business use for the property mentioned and I request that appeal be denied. My property borders the proposed light business property for several feet on the south side where the plan shows a large area of paved parking space with several lamp posts to light the area. Obviously the area would be lit at night for the convenience and safety of the parking patrons. However, the lights, traffic (shoppers and vehicular) and noise would be disruptive to me in the use of my garden and lawn areas, constitute an infringement on my peace and privacy, and possibly reduce the value of my property and others in the area. Certainly, space to accommodate 25 cars at any given time indicates that considerable activity is anticipated. There are other important reasons for my objections to the proposed site plan "improvements". The street is an access road to the beach and the increase in traffic from shoppers, delivery trucks and trash haulers is potentially hazardous for the pedestrians, particularly the children who now can walk unaccompanied to the shore in relative safety. In addition, there is a ballfield across the street used by children attending the local school, who are accustomed to quiet, virtually unused roads surrounding them. And, within close proximity, there are several school bus stops utilized by a number of children who are traveling to other schools. These bus stops are serviced by the school bus garage also located on King Street, the proposed exit from the department store parking lot. King Street is a narrow road, not designed for commercial traffic. There are no lights, lines, dividers, signs or cautions to alert either drivers, pedestrians or shoppers from out of the area, of the rural nature and uses of the neighborhood. -2- An additional concern I have is in regard to the drainage of the property. Drainage calculations shown on the drawing are based on an hourly rainfall factor of .16 {less than 2"/hr.) The 1990 edition of the BOCA National Plumbing Code shows that the rainfall rate for this area is .25 (3"/hr.) Thus, the storm sewage systems appear to be improperly sized which could cause flooding and erosion on my property. I am also extremely anxious about the aesthetic and environmental issues that come to mind as I dwell on a department store located so near. Trash, its accumulation, storage and removal allow many opportunities to diminish the appeal of the neighborhood. Pollution, noise, crowds, litter, signs for advertising and identification, rodents and vermin, are annoyances most of us in the community are here to avoid. This area is residential and has been so zoned. There are several shopping areas nearby where the problems mentioned can be controlled more readily as a result of appropriate planning and design. Significantly, they are successful because of the diversity of products available at a central location. To allow a commercial establishment in this pleasant residential area is not supportable. It can only deteriorate the quality of life which is established and expected in this seaside community. Again, I protest and object to any site improvements which would allow business to be conducted on the property in question, and I request your cooperation to deny permission to do so. Sincerely, Nicholas J. Mandusic 810 Third Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 The BOCA' National Plumbing Code11990 Model building regulations for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. EIGHTH EDITION As recommended and maintained by the active membership of BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 4051 W. Flossmoor Rd. Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795 Founded in 1915 708/799-2300 REGIONAL OFFICES 3592 Corporate Dr., Ste. 107 3 Neshaminy Interplex, Ste. 301 Columbus, OH 43231-4987 Trevose, PA 19047-6939 Telephone 614/890-1064 Telephone 215/638-0554 Towne Centre Complex 10830 E. 45th Place, Ste. 200 Tulsa, OK 74146 Telephone 918/664-4434 APPENDIX D RATES OF RAINFALL FOR VARIOUS CITIES" (in./hr) AIobama: Birmingham ........ 38 Huntsville ........ 3.6 Mobile ............ 4.6 Montgomery ........ 4.2 Aleska: Fairbanks .......... 1.0 Juneau ............ 0.6 Arizona: Flagstaff ........... 2.4 Nogales ........... 3.1 Phoemx .2.5 Yuma ............. 1,6 Ad(arises: Fort Smith ........ 3.6 Little Rock ....... 3.7 Texarkana ......... 3.8 California: Barstow ......... 1.4 Crescent City ...... 1.5 Fresno ............ 1.1 Los Angeles ........ 2.1 Needles ........... 1.6 Racerville ......... 1.5 San Fernando ...... 2.3 San Francisco ...... 1.5 Yreka ............ 1.4 Colorado: Craig ............ 1.5 Denver ............ 2.4 Durango .......... 1.8 Grand Junction. 1 Lamar ............ 3.0 Pueblo ........... 2.5 Connecticut: Hartford .......... 2.7 New Haven ........ 2.8 Putnam ............ Georgetown ........ 3.0 Wilmington. .3.1 District of Columbia: Washington ........ 3.2 FIorido: Jacksonville ......... 4.3 Key West ........... 4.3 Miami ........... 4.7 Pensacola .......... 4.6 Tampa ........... 4.5 6eor0ia: Atlanta ............. 3,7 Dalton ............ 3.4 Macon ........... 39 Savannah .......... 4,3 Thomasville ......... 4.3 Hawaii: Hilo ............... 52 Honolulu .......... 3.0 Wailuku ............ 3.0 Idaho: Boise ............. 0.9 Lewiston .......... 1.1 Pocateflo ........... 1.2 Illinois: Cairo ............. 3.3 Chicago ............ 3.0 Peoria ............ 3.3 Springfield ......... 3.3 Rockford ........... 3.2 Indiana: Evansville .......... 3.2 Fort Wayne ......... 29 Indianapolis ...... 31 Iowa: Davenport .......... 3.3 Des Moines ......... 3.4 Dubuque .... 3.3 SiouxCity iii;iii ..36 Kansas: Atwood ............ 3.3 Dodge City ......... 3.3' Topeka ..... 3.7 Wichita ........... 3.7 Kentucky: Ashland ............ 30 Lexington .......... 3.1 Louisville ....... 3.2 Middlesboro ...... 32 Paducah ........... 3.3 Louisiana: Nexandria ........ 4.2 Lake Providence ..... 4.0 New Orleans ........ 48 Shreveport ......... 3.9 Maine: Bangor .......... 22 Houlton ......... 2.1 Portland ........... 2.4 Maryland: Baltimore .......... 3.2 Hagerstown ........ 28 Oakland ......... 2.7 Salisbury ....... 3.1 Massachusetts: Boston ..... 25 Pittsfield ....... 28 Worcester ......... 27 Michigan: Npena .......... 2.5 Detroit ........ 2.7 Lansing ......... 28 Grand Rapids .... 2.6 Marquette ........ 2.4 Sauit Ste. Marie .... 2.2 Minnesota: Duluth ............ 28 Grand Marais ....... 2.3 Minneapolis ........ 31 Moorhead .......... 3.2 Worthington ....... 3.5 Mississippi: Biloxi ............ 47 Columbus ......... 39 Corinth ............ 36 Natchez ........... 4.4 Vicksburg .......... 4.1 Missouri: Columbia .......... 3.2 K3nsas City ........ 3.6 189 THE BOCA NATIONAL PLUMBIN,G CODF./'I990O St. Louis ........... 32 Springfield ......... 3.4 Montana: Ekalaka ............ 25 Havre ............. 1.6 Helena ............ 1.5 Kalispell ........... 1.2 Missoula ........... 1.3 Nebraska: North Platte ........ 3.3 Omaha ............ 3.8 Scottsbluff ......... 3.1 Valentine ........... 3.2 Nevada: Elko .............. 1.0 Ely ............... 1.1 Las Vegas .......... 1.4 Reno .............. 1.1 New Hampshire: Berlin ............. 2.5 Concord ........... 2.5 Keene ............. 2.4 New Jemey: Atlantic City ....... ~ 2.9 Newark ............ 3.1 Trenton ............ 3.1 New Mexico: Alburquerque ....... 2.0 Hobbs ............ 30 Raton ............ 2.5 Roswell ............ 2.6 Silver City .......... 1.9 New York: Albany ............ 2.5 Binghamton ....... 2.3 Buffalo ..... 2.3 Devils Lake ........ 2.9 Fargo .............. 3.1 Williston ....... 2.6 Ohio: Cincinnati .......... 2.9 Cleveland .......... 2.6 Columbus .......... 28 Toledo ............ 2.8 Oklahoma: Altus ............. 3.7 Boise City .......... 3.3 Durant ............. 3.8 Oklahoma City ...... 3.8 Oregon: Baker .............. 0.9 Coos Bay ........... 1.5 Eugene ......... 1,3 Portland ......... 1.2 Pennsylvania: Erie ............... 2.6 Harrisburg .......... 2.6 Philadelphia ........ 3.1 Pittsburgh .......... 2.6 Scranton ........... 2.7 Rhode Island: Providence ......... 2.6 South Carolina: Charleston .......... 4.3 Columbia .......... 4.0 Greenville ........ 4.1 South Dakota: Buffalo ........... 2.8 Huron ........... 33 Pierre ............. 3.1 Rapid City ....... 2.9 Yanklon ........... 3.6 Kingston ........... 2.7 Tennessee: New York .......... 3.0"~-' Chatlanooga ........ 3.5 Rochester .......... 2.2 Knoxville ........... 3.2 North Carolina: Asheville ........... 4.1 Charlotte ........... 3.7 Greensboro ......... 3.4 Wilmington ......... 4.2 North Dakota: Bismarck ........... 2.8 Memphis ........... 3.7 Nashville ........... 3.3 Texas: Abilene ............ 3.6 Amarillo ........... 3.5 Brownsville ......... 4.5 Dallas ............. 4.0 Del Rio ......... 4.0 El Paso ........... 2.3 Houston .......... 4.6 Lubbock .......... 3.3 Odessa ............ 3.2 Pecos ............ 3.0 San Antonio ...... 4.2 Utah: Brigham City ...... 1.2 Roosevelt ...... 1.3 St. George ......... 1.7 Salt Lake City 1.3 Vermont: Barre ............. 23 Braffeboro ........ 2.7 Burlington ......... 2.1 Rutland .... 2.5 Virginia: Bristol ............ 2.7 Charlottesville ...... 2.8 i~YonChbu rg ......... 32 rfolk ............ 34 Richmond ......... 3.3 Washington: Omak ............. 1.1 Port Angeles ....... 1.1 Seattle ......... 14 Spokane ........... 1.0 Yakima ............ 1.1 West Virginia: Charleston ......... 28 Morgantown ...... 27 Wisconsin: Ashland ........ 2.5 Eau Claire .......... 2.9 Green Bay ........ 2.6 La Crosse .......... 3.1 Madison ........... 3.0 Milwaukee ......... 3.0 Wyoming: Cheyenne .......... 2.2 Fort Bridget 1.3 Lander ............ 1.5 New Castle ......... 2.5 Sheridan .......... 1.7 Yellowstone Park .... 1.4 Note o. Rainfall rates are based on a storm of one-hour duration and a 10g-year return period. Source: National Weather Sen, ice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admimstration. Washington. D.C. 190 YEA& I NOUfl RAINFALL IHICHESI EASTERN UNITED STATTS miX D 1ll II~IIGINEERING COMPUTJ~'IONS GN-76-1718 (9-77) Sheet of File No. Job Plant Bldg. Date /~,qqs~ ~.25'- /,74~ Fr,~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 TO: F ROM: DATE: RE: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK DECEMBER 5, 1990 ZONING APPEAL NO. 3~194 - EAST WIND DEVELOPMENT CORP (JOHN DEREEDER) Transmitted herewith is ZONING APPEAL NO. 3~94 - EAST WIND DEVELOPMENT COR). (JOHN DEREEDER), together with a letter from William D. Moore, Notice to Adjacent Property Owners, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department, the Short Environmental Assessment Form, the Zoning Board of Appeals Questionnaire, a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy, a copy of the deed, a letter from Joseph R. Attonito, and a Survey Map of the Property. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached.) B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for - sale or being shown to prospective buyers? { } Yes {~} No. (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale.) C. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? { } Yes {~ No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? 3. Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? w~_~ 4. If your property contains or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? ~/0 (If not applicable, state "N.A.") F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist an~ are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting?~ If none exist, please state "none." G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? /~ If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? ~0 If yes, please explain where or submit copies of deeds. parcel Ot~*¢G~/ proposed use A~'6i~ze~'S£gnature hnd Dat~/ 3/87, 10/901k Please list present use or operations conducted at this and § 97-13 WETLANDS § 97-13 TOWN -- The Town of Southold. TRUSTEES -- The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. [Added 6-5-84 by L.L. No. 6-1984] WETLANDS [Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2-1976; 3-26- 85 by L.L. No. 6-1985]: , C) · ,~' ~DAL WETLANDS: ~ (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with, or which border on, tidal waters, or lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean low tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of five (5) feet, including but not limited to banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, fiats or other Iow lying lands subject to tidal action; (2) All banks, bogs, meadows, fiats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following:, salt hay, black grass, saltworts, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high bush, cattails, groundsel, marshmallow and low march cordgrass; and/or (3) All land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven- fy-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of such a tidal wetland. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: (1) "Freshwater wetlands" as defined in Article 24, Ti- tle 1, § 24-0107, Subdivisions l(a) to l(d) inclusive, of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York; and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a "freshwater wet- land," as defined in Subsection B(1) and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a "freshwater wetland." 9705 2- 28- s5 APPROVED BY -"" --~.'" PLANNING BOARD ' '~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD "' .: DATE AUG 3 0 1988 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. G~hringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'Vr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 To: Victor Lessard Building Department From: Board of Appeals Date: December 17, 1990 Subject: East Wind Corp. - Your File Ref: 965 1000,117-08-006 King St. & 2nd St., New ~uffolk 'Please provide us with copies of your entire file in the above matter, or feel free to loan your file to us today for copying by our office and return to you. A copy of your Notice of Disapproval is attached for your reference. Thank you. Examined ................. 19... FORM NO. t TOWN OF $OUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL ~OUTHQL.D.. L~¥o TEL.; 765-1802 tED OF HEALTH SETS OF PLANS CI1ECK CALL .............. , 19... Permit No ............ Approved .. Disapproved ale ................................... (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS ~. This application must be completely flIled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building I~Sl~CCt~r, sets of p~, -"'"'~rat~ glot plan to scale. Fcc ac¢~cding to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public street: or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram whichis part of this appl;. cation. ¢. The work covered by t~$ application ma), not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. ~. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Suefi permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throu-.chout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or ~n part for a.ny purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION I$ HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of tl~ Town of Southold, Suffolk County', New York, and other applicable La~s0 Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for l:emoval or demolition, as herein described. The .applicant agrees to comply with all a,~liea~ ..... ~,~ ~,,~ rows, oroxnances, build' ~ :od/e'~ousin~ code, and ~ulations, and to .adm'tauth°rizedinspectorsonpremisesandinbufldingfornecessaryinspe~ :'.~..~' ..~...~.. (Signature fi' ap , or name', ..................... ~).. :..-. ,.~- . ..... · u~aihng address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. I 7 ............ ' .................... · ' (as ~n' t'h'e' t'a'x' ;°'1;; ;£ a pplxca n t is Jat '";t' (~;e'd') ..... la c°~_Z~o~J~, signature of duly authorized o£ficer. (.~ne and title of corporate officer) ........ Buildc?'s License · nsc No ................ Plumber's License No ....................... Electrician's License No ....... ....... Other Trade's License No I. Location of land on which proposed work will bc done; ilouse Number Street '' 'l~-~mlet ........ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . } ["7 · ................. Bloc . ..... Lot " ubdivifion .... ................................. Eilcd Map No. (Name) .............. Lot ...... fp · ' State existing use and occupancy o remises and intended use and occupancy of proposed constn,ctinn. , ~' ,~ .... B. Intended use and occupancy ......... , .......... r .......... r~ ~ ~ / - "l' ...... '{' .......... Repair ........ i ..... Rl~moval .............. Demolition . · ' ...... Swi~in~l~.,t.. :[/2 Tennis Court ......... Accessory Building .......... Ye~c; ..'. .... Other Work,.... ..... ..' --'~**~ '.'.'.' 4. Estimated Cost ................................ Fee ..................................... ~ be paid on filing this a~Dlicationl 5. If dwelling, number of dxvelling units ............. · · Nnmberofdwellingunitson each floor ................. If garage, number of ears ................ . Dimcnsionsofcxistingstmctures, ifany: Front .. r ...... Rear . .~ ........ De .. Hei2ht ............... Number or Stories..~ ........................ Dimensions Depth.. [~f .............. · }feint .~% ................ Number of Stories. ~&~ .............. 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front. ~g Rear ~ Depth ~ Height ~ Number of Stories (~ ' ' 9. Sizeoflet:Ffont ..(q.~ .......... Rear. /R~ ....... Depth .~q~ .... 1 I. Zone or use d~trict in which premises are situated..~5~ ............................................ 12. Does proposed construction violate any zon~g law, ordinance or regulation: . ~o......... .......... .......... . 13. W~I lot be regmded .. ~. ...................... Will excess fill be removed from prm~: ,. Xes 14 ...... ~ ................ r ........ Addraa~q~ ~.~... Phone No. ~!~ ~;~75... N~e of Architect .............. : ............ Address ................... Phon~ No ............... 15.~a ~kza property Located ~ithln'a~a feet of a t~dal ~etXaad~ ~Y~S .... ~If yea~ Southold To~n ~ruatee$ Permit may be required. PLOT DIAG~M Locate ele~ly =d diatMetly ~1 bu~d~, whether existing or proposed, =d. indicata ~1 set-back d~ensions from prop~y ~nea. Give street ~d block number or description accordMg to deed, ~d show streei n~ea ~d ~dieate whether interior or comer lot. STATE OF NEW Y,.Q r~,~, COUNTY OF .... o.... ~..-'~. ).~. ...... S.S ;'· - --....-. ............ beingdnlysxvorn, deposes and says that he is the applican: (Name of individual signing contract) above named. Iqe is the....a,. 5~..~. . (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to pe,rform or have performed tile said work and to make and file thi application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that th,, Work will be perfommd in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this · , ......... d'7 ........... day of · ~.~ ...... 19 ~.?.^ -- "' · ' "[' '" 't"J" ~ARRETT A '.~-,~.,- archit Main Road P.O. Box 1412~ ~,..~ ~,~ - ' 516 - 765 - - ~ APPROVED BY. · ~ ~ ' BOARD -" -" PLANNING ~ ~ ~!- ·: ~.. '"' ': ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STRANG William D. Moore Patricia C. Moorg MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law Clause Commoas Sait¢ 3 Main Road P.O. Box 23 Mattltuck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax: (516) 298-5664 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary February 5, 1991 Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application for East Wind Development Corp. Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: As per your request, enclosed please find an Affidavit of Disclosure for the above referenced matter. A copy of the survey and any available planning board information will be forwarded to you upon our receipt of same. WDM/mr Eric. AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) JOSEPH R. ATTONITO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an officer, shareholder and director of EAST WIND DEVELOPMENT CORP., the title owner of certain property, a description of which is annexed hereto as SCHEDULE A. 2. There are no other owners of this property, other than EAST WIND DEVELOPMENT CORP. 3. EAST WIND DEVELOPMENT CORP. has the only financial interest in this project and the only principals of EAST WIND DEVELOPMENT CORP. are myself and my wife, KATHLEEN K. ATTONITO. We are the sole stockholders, directors and officers of the corporation. 4. There are no mortgages on said property and no liens of any sort. SWORN TO before me this  nuary. 1991: Notary Publ~~ ALL THAT CERTAIN PLOT, PIECE, OR PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATE, LYING, AND BEING AT NEW SUFFOLK, IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, cOUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND STATE OF NEW YORK, MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ON THE NORTH BY KING STREET, 204.1 FEET, ON THE EAST BY SECOND STREET, 103.95 FEET, ON THE SOUTH BY LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY OF APONEK AND WEBB, 204.3 FEET AND ON THE WEST BY THIRD STREET, 106 FEET, SAID PREMISES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS ACCORDING TO A SURVEY MADE BY DANIEL R. YOUNG, C. E. AND L. S., DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1934: BEGINNING AT A STONE MONUMENT SET AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF KING STREET WITH THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SECOND STREET; AND - RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SECOND STREET, SOUTH 7 DEGREES, 55 MINUTES, 0 SECONDS WEST 103.95 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT AND LANDS OF ROSE WEBB; RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID LANDS OF ROSE WEBB AND ALONG LANDS OF HELEN APONEK, NORTH 83 DEGREES, 27 MINUTES, 30 SECONDS WEST 204.30 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT SET ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF THIRD STREET; RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY SIDE OF THIRD STREET, NORTH 8 DEGREES, 01 MINUTES, 0 SECONDS EAST 106 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT AND THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF KING STREET; RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF KING STREET, SOUTH 82 DEGREES, 53 MINUTES, 0 SECONDS EAST 204.10 FEET TO THE STONE MONUMENT AT THE POINT OR PLACE OF BEGINNING. FOR INFORMATION ONLY: DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 117.00 BLOC~ 08.00 LOT 006.000 SCHEDULE A James G. Dill Ja0k,on St. New Suffolk, New York 11956 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Ooehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen. Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 21, 1990 SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 William D. Moore, Esq. Clause Commons P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application for East Wind Development Corp. Dear Mr. Moore: This letter will acknowledge receipt of the above application and review by our department at this time. As you know, the Notice of Disapproval has been corrected to indicate that the application to the Building Department, dated October 29, 1990, for "permission to construct retail space" was disapproved, and a copy of the corrected disapproval is furnished herewith for your convenience. The application at this time has not been scheduled by resolution of the Board for a public hearing and has been temporarily tabled pending reviews. In the interim, please furnish for the record: ~ ,~ ,~t ~1) an Affidavit of Disclosure concerning the corporation or entities, and individuals, having an interest in this project or premises; (2) a survey or other map showing the existing building and its uses of the current date; ~,~,~. ~ (3) documentation from the Planning Board, either in general or in Iai support of this Z.B.A. application. Yours very truly, lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Enclosures CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Ha/I, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Attention: Bob Kassner or Valerie Scopaz FROM: Board of Appeals ~ DATE: December 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Site Plan Application - 1000-117-08-006 Our File Reference East Wind Development Corp. As you may know, we have an application pending at this time concerning "activation of the site plan as approved by the Planning Board" by way of an interpretation under Section 100-255 of the Zoning Code. It is necessary to receive from you a written confirmation as to whether or not the above site plan is in effect at this time and valid, and to confirm your Board's policy/determination as to the changed circumstances in the re-zoning of this property to R-40 on January 9, 1989 by the Southold Town Board andl' its effects on the site plan approval. Please note subsection B of Section 100-255, which reads as follows: nB. All ~ite plans which have received final.. approval prior to the enactment of this Article shall remain valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of such enactment. This period will begin when all governmental approvals have been obtained," and also address the following: 1. Does the Planning Board deem its August 1, 1988 approved conditional site-plan map to be valid and in effect at this time, in lieu of the changes under the new Master Plan Revisions adopted 1/9/897 ~- To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Board Board of Appeals December 18, 1990 East Wind Development Corp. 1000-117-08-006 2. If the August 1, 1988 approved conditional site plan plan is not valid at this time, would it be normal for the Planning Board to consider a new site plan based on the new zoning district and new site plan regulations, and would the Planning Board consider the 1988 approval void in its entirety? 3. If the 1988 site plan approval is not null and void, to w~at extent is the site plan map valid (or in the alternative, what areas would the site plan map be permitted to be activated)? Since this is a legal matter under quasi-judicial review by our board at this time, we must ask that you please limit your response to the actions or policy decisions made by the Planning Board concerning the site plan above-referred at this time, and whether or not the site plan is "in effect" {regardless of the new zoning district}. Please note that we will also be coordinating comments from the Planning Board at a later date once the file is accepted in complete form and processed. The file at this time before us is incomplete and has been temporarily tabled. For your information, the property at the present time is nonconforming in several respects in this R-40 Zone District, which are findings considered by the Z.B.A. before and after the public hearing as part of our normal review process. Thank you for your cooperation. NEW SUFFOLK ASSOCIATION INC. POST OFFICE BOX I;42 N E W S U F F O L K, N. Y. 11956 24 January 23, 1991 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. Charles Grigonts, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Town Hall 53095Main Road Sou%hold, No Ye 11971 REs Petition of East Wind Development Corp. County Tsx Map ~ 1000-117-08-06 2nd and King Streets New Suffolk Zoning Districtl R-40 Residential ~roposed Use~ Department Store Gentlemen~ The New Suffolk Civic Assoc'iation is opposed to any ruling by the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, which would change the usage of the property in question (Tax Map ~ 117-08-06) for any purpose other than residential. These are our reasons~ (1) Past experience shows that retail establishments in the hamlet of New Suffolk have been unable to stay in business, leaving behind empty, derelict eyesores, inviting vandalism and other social problems. (g) There would be a problem of increased stormwater runoff from the site, if altered as proposed, in view of the considerable gradient of the property, running down in both directions, south on 3rd Street to the Bay and east on King Street to the Cove. (S) Overhead lights and a parking lot for 25 cars in our quiet residential neighborhood would be inappropriate. The neighborhood, including our school in close proximity, is not prepared for the volume of traffic that would be essential to a successful retail business enterprise. We realize that the reason the property in question reverted to Residential usage was the fact that the hamlet in recent decades has been unable to support retail establishments. encourage appropriate residential development of this property. Sincere ly, doan Robbins, President New Suffolk 0ivio Assooiation cc The Suffolk Times cc Long Island Traveler-Watchman ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE OF YESHIVA UNIVERSITY MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER Matei S. Roussan, M.D. Professor and Chairman Arthur S. Abramson Department of Rehabilitation Medicine January 14, 1991 Albert Einstein College of Medicine 1300 Morris Park Avenue Bronx, New York 10461 Telephone: (212) 918-554=I Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Petition of East Wind Development Corporation for change in zoning interpretation. Dear Sirs: Thirty years ago I began spending my summer vacations in the charming, quaint and unspoiled little village of New Suffolk. A great many of my friends and acquaintances had preceded, or followed me. As time passed, some of us bought properties and built houses. I bought my house in 1979 from John Malinowski~ the former owner of the supermarket located on the corner of 2nd and King Streets. For several years the store had been closed, since its owner had found a bett~r and more profitable location on Route 25, in Southold. I do clearly remember the years while the store was open and the havoc it ~caused with traffic and parking in this quiet residential area. Part of the huge parking lot on 2nd Street is now my driveway. Finally, th~ vacant supermarket building was sold and the new owner had plans to build 2 additiional apartments for rent. He was denied permit. All these years the entire neighborhood has had the benefit of enjoying peace and privacy without infringement by traffic, noise from commercial activity and accumulation of garbage. All of us have well kept lawns and gardens with flowers and vegetables. We have had to put up with the kitchen odors emanating from the restaurant, ~onnies on the Bay, but refuse to put up with the exhaust pollution from 25 cars. Delivery trucks and trash haulers will add to the traffic congestion and'pollution. Undoubtedly, the parking lot will be illuminated at night, causing further deterioration of living conditions in this quiet residential area. King Street is already congested by school buses and fishermen going to Captain ~{arty's Fishing Station. The school is only 2 blocks away and children walk along and cross the street throughout the school year.. Any further increase in traffic represents greater hazard for their safety.~ Second Street is an access street to the public bsash. Ail summer long vacationing families push their strollers down to the beach, and there are a great many young children on bicycles. The ball field is located between Main, King~ 3rd and 4th Streets and ./. -2- Board of Appeals January 14, 1991 is teeming with children, teenagers and young adults all s~mmer long. The plans submitted to you show unmistakably that eleven cars will be beaming their exhaust pipes at the playing youngsters, day and night.. Similarly, seven exhaust pipes will be spitting pollution directly at my property. I am afraid that the proposed two "small scale ornamental trees along the fence" will not compensate for the insult and injury to the environment. No, thank you! Incidentally, my well is located in the corner where the two stockade fences meet, a few feet west of the garage destined for "removal." The drainage problem has been adequately addressed in the letter to you by my neighbor, Mr. Mandusic. It clearly shows that the petitioners have misrepresented the probiem.. Excessiv~ drainage will clearly cause flooding and erosion, and will put strain on our wells and cesspools. It is, therefore, abundantly clear~ dear Sirs, that a department store does not belong in the middle of this residential area. It will destroy the esthetic appeal and the quality of life of local dwellers 'and summer vacationers who have cherished the unspoiled charm of our seaside resort. For all of the above reasons, my family and I strongly oppose the Petition of the East Wind Development Corporation for a change in the interpretation of the present zoning ordinance, and forcefully request that the Board of Appeals reject their appeal. ~spectfully, Matei and Michelle Roussan 4455 Douglas Ave. - #12C Riverdale, NY 10671 Southold Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Janu~ 16~ 1991 Gentlemen: We have been informed that a Corporation headed by a Smithtown Attorney has proposed to the Town Board the building of a Department store and several apartments on the lot formerly occupied by the supermarked between Second and King Streets, and owned by the late John Malinowski, We personally strongly protest this project. First of all, our house is right across this structure and we will be directly affected by such a building in many ways. It is our understanding that the corporation has asked for a change in ~he zoning.from Residential t? 9ommercial. ~ey are also planning a parking for 25 card, whmcn means cemenmmng and black topping a large area. This is bound to create a drainage problem in a residential area which can ill afford this kind of '*n strain on our wells and cesspools. In add~tmo , this cemented parking lot is facing the public basketball and baseball field and is a mere 2 blocks from our school, a potentially very dangerous situation where our children are concerned. On a more personal basis, we wi~h to emphasize that the main entrance of thi~ proposed structure would be directl~ in front of our house whmch would result ~n a constant flow of heavy traffic, parking practically on our property, and permanent strong lights shining on our house at all times - not forgetting the danger of possible damages and rendering our house susceptible to criminal activity. At a time when we should all be concerned with pollution of all water, noise, light, lois of land, etc.) and so many kmnds (. · ~ sitting empty throughout Southold commercial p~pert~es _re - ill-concelved plan which Town, this eeems at the very least an has everything against it - with no practical gain for the community.. We wish to register our strong disapproval of the building of this structure and hope that the Board of Appea~s will look seriously into this matter and reject ~he proposed zoning change from Residential to Commercial. /and ~onia Kinczel 7 Second Street New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Tel: 734-61~5 CA'II'r.E "LEXLOCI" NEW YORK ITT TELEX 42774 [5161 734-6235 143 FIFTH STREET SUFFOLK. NEW YORK 11956 January lO, 1991 Tnwn Board of Town ttall, 53995 ~lain p. n. Dox 1179 Southold, N. Y. ll?T1 2cad Centlemen' I ~:as just informed that a number of changes are [elna ?ro- posed to the Tnwn nnard to build a department stere on the lot formerly occupied by John's supermarket het~,een Socond and Kin~ Streets in New Suffolk. As a long-teem taxpayer, otrner and resident ~f ~lew Cuffolk, ! am writing te strongly object to such plans since the creation of a derartment store and additional a??artments including a cemented parkin~ lot for 25 cars ;rill danger- eusly afCect thn drainage cf tlc entire area. It ,~ould also increase traCfic and ~ollution as ~:ell as create mnre strain on our ~,ells and cesspool~. As a memker of the !;orth Knrk Environmental Cnuncil, I re- nuest that ynu turn down this proposal and allow the area t~q remain reside)~tial as is presently the case. ~ ra ...lCh l\a 8 l'~ O. f ('O U..) p to p.-x F/ Athanas & Ruth E. Zamphiroff 2nd and Main Streets New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Town Board of Appeals Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Proposed Department Store in New Suffolk Gentlemen: We are residents in New Suffolk and learned that a Smithtown based corporation is asking the Board for a zoning change from residential to commercial in order to get permission to build a Deaprtment Store and apartments with parking lot on the lot between 2nd and King Streets. We strongly protest such zoning change. If this request is approved by the Board it will unfavorably affect~the Hamlet. This is a quiet residential village and the increased t~ffic and pollution would badly affect the environment and the quality of life in New Suffolk. It also would put additional strain on wells and cesspools. The parking lot would not be larg~ enough and parking would overflow on lawns of private residential properties. Furthermore, there are so many Shopping Malls along the main road from Riverhead to Southold whicSare not fully used and are half empty. Why not build a Departmmnt Store in one of these Malls? We strongly feel that this New Suffolk area should remain residential. Kindly consider the residents of New Suffolk. Yours very truly, FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTblENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date. ~. ~..~.. . ...1~ .o.~. , .!..~.~.~.. ................... .....'~.. ~..~.~. ~ ~LEA~ TAKE~TI~E that your application dated . .~~.. ~.~ ...... ~ .... ~:: ~ ....:~-~ ~- ~L~ ................... ~.. at Coun~ T~ Map No. 1000 Section ...J.~ ~ ....... Block .. ~ .~ ~ ....... Lot . ~.~ ......... ............. Map No ................. Lot No ............... Subdivision .... Filed Building Inspector RV FORM NO, 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTblENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL .~.~.! .~.~- .................. , · ....~q..~...~..~.....~, ?LE^S~ r^KE ~:OTXCE t~t ~ou~ a~p~i~tio, ~at~ .. ~.~.. ~.~ ...... ~9 .~.~. for pe~it to ~~' ' ' '~'~'~ ................... ~ ......... at Location of Property County Tax Map No. I000 Section ...].~ ~ ....... Block .. ~.~ ~ ....... Lot . ~.~ ......... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No. r ............... Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the foll~w~g grounds· .~~... ~~--~.--~-.~--~~.~..'.v~...~.. .~, .......... ~'.'.'~'.'.'~ ........... ~'.'. .... ~ .... ~. .......... .................................. Building RV 1/80 William D. Moore Patricia C. Moore MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law Clause Commons Suite 3 Main Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax: (516) 298-5664 M~rgaret Rutkowski Secretary December 4, 1990 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: East Wind Development Corp. Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the following for an interpretation of zoning ordinance to override the building department's denial of a building permit for work to be performed pursuant to an approved site plan: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. An application in triplicate Notice of disapproval Notice to Adjoining Property Owners Short Environmental Assessment Form Z.B.A. Questionnaire Copy of Certificate of Occupancy Four prints of site plan Current deed Check in the sum of $150.00 for filing fee WDM/mr Ends. cc: East Wind Development Corp. PROJECT I.D, NUMBER si?.21 SEQR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACT)ONS Only PART I'-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A~licant or Pro~ect sponsor) 3. PR~E~LOCATION: ~V~OV~ Co~ ~l~;~ 4. PRECISE LO~TION (Strut address ~d ~ndmarks, el~, or provide map~ ~ S, IS PROPOSED ACTION: D New D ExDans,on ~[~odiflcatlon/alteratlo. 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY; ~ ?. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially ~ acres Ultimately ._~..?(~,O 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION [~ Yes ~ NO COMPLy WITH EXISTING ZONING'-~'~-(~R OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRiCTiONS"~~~ If NO, (~escribe brielly 9. V~_T IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? '~ ~Y'-mJYesidential [] Industrial ?~[] Commercial r~ Agriculture [] ParkJForestlOpen space [] OthM' Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR----ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL A~CY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? [] No If yes, list agency(s) and permff/approvals lt. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLy VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ~ Yes ~No If ye~. Iisi agency name and pe~mitla~etovaI 12. AS A RESULT OF CTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? [] Yes I CERTIFY THAT THE INFOR~'ATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF M~'KKNOWLEDGE ~ 1 (Continued on reverse side) =~he~N.Y.S. Environmental Qualit~ R~,,~ .... of =,is term, and an environmental ~vi~c~_req~lr~s submission before any ac=ion is taken. --- ~u mate uy this board ~O~T ENVIRONMENTAL ASS£SSMENT FORM INSTrUCTIONs: (a} In order ~o answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available informationconcerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Z~ is net expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be sig- nificant and completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not Significant. (d) E~nvironmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than l0 acres of land? ~Yes ~NO 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or Unusual land form on the site? 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? Yes /No 4. Will project have a potentially large, impact on groundwater quality? 5o Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ___Yes /No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? 8. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? ._._Yes .___/NO 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical envircamental area by a local agency? _ 10. Will project have a m~jor effect on existing or 11. WAll project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation ~ systems? Yes /No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's Operation? ~Yes ~/No 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? .._..~es V~.o 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent OVer a one-year period or have a major negative effect on the charact~ of the community or neighborhood? SHORT ENVIRO~E~TAL ASSESSME~;,T FORM INSTRUCT!ONS~ (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF is is assumed that the preparer will use currently available info~ation concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project mmy be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is ,not significant. (d) ~vironmental Assess,meat 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? · · · · · · · · Yes 2. Will there be a ~Jor change to any unique or ~' '/N unusual land for~ found on the site? Yes o 3. Will px'oject alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? . . . . . . Yes &. Will project have a poten~ially large impac~ on groundwater quality? · · · · · · · · Yea NO 5. Will project significantly, effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? · . . . · · · Yea, No Will project affect any threatened or endangered 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on 8. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the co.~munity or scenic views or vistas kno%~n to be important to the com.munity? . . . -- Yes v No 9. Will project adversely impact an7 site or st~uct.- ufo of historic, prs-his~oric, or paleont, ologioal / importance or any site designated as a critical . / environment~l area by a local agency? . . . Yes_~/__ No 10. Will project have a major effect on existL~g or future rocrcational opportunitio'J? · · · Ye, o 11. Will project.result'in major traffic problems or cause a major effect %o existing transportation ~./ 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare~ vibrat~on, or electrical disturb- . // ance as a result of the project's opera%ion? . . Yes~/ No Will project have any impact on public health or safety? .... . ....... Will project &fleet the existin~ community by directly causing a growth -~n permanent i:opula- tics cf more than 5 percent over a cae-year period or have a major negative effect on the J characte--~ cf ~hs community ~r neighborhood?.. Yes ~'o PREPARER. S SIG:IATL~RE: //~/~/~q/~///Y~ /F///~//~/~----~ TITLE: Attornev for Appellant Il lt~ ' - ,'- - - R~PRF. S-":;TI::G: ~ast Wind Development CO~T~: 12/4/90 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITIED WITH YOUR APPLICATION FORMS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Board of Appeals with your completed application forms. If "Yes" is answered to any questions below, please be sure to depict these areas on your survey (or certified sketch), to scale, and submit other supporting documenta- tion. 1. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours seaward of area under construction? Yes Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.) by Yes Are there existing structures at or below ground level, such as patios, foundations, etc? 4. Are there any existing or proposed fences, concrete barriers, decks, etc? 5. If project is proposed for an accessory building or structure, is total height at more than 18 feet above average ground level? State total: ft. Yes If project is proposed for principal building or structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above average ground level? State total: ft. Are there other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? If yes, please submit copy of deed. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership, if any)? State Permit # and Nature: No Yes Yes ~ Yes ~ lO. ll. 12. 13. I cert~ relia Signatl Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes, please submit copy of names or purchasers and conditions of sale (from contract). Yes Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at 5 feet or less as exists? Yes If new construction is proposed in an area within 75 feet of wetland grasses, or land area at an eleva- tion of five feet or less above mean sea level, have you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under Yes No the requirements of Ch. 97 of the Town Code? Please list present use or operations conducted upon the subject property at this time office, apartment, _s~tudio for artist and proposed retail shops and_apartment ,~ .~ above stg_~ements are true and are being submitted for 3oa~ of ~p~eals in considering my application· e (~) erty Owner) (Authorized Agent) L Do state whether or not applications are pending concerning these premises before any other department or agency (State, Town, County, Village, etc.): Planning Board Yes Town Board Yes Town Trustees Yes ~ ~ County Health Department Yes Village of Greenport Yes N.Y.S.D.E.C. Yes Other Yes 3/87 1 k TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN HiLL SOUTttOLD, NEW YORK CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NONCONFORMING PREMISES THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the /--/ Land /~'~ Building(s) /--! Use(s) Pre C.O. #- Z-15160 Date- January 5, 1987 located at 950 Third Street & 965 Second Street & 600 Ring Street New Suffolk Street Hamlet shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 117 , Block 08 Lot 06 , does[notlconform to the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold for the following reasons: Insufficient front yard set-backs non-conforming residence On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector,s Office· it has been determined that the above nonconforming /~./Land /x~x/Building(S /i/Use(s) existed on the effective date the p~esent Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold, and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli- cable provisions of said Code. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to the Building In_spector's' ~)ffice, the occupancy a_nd use for which this Certifi- cate is issued is as follows: Property contains business buildings, residence; .,,~nd concrete floor of demolished building; all situated in 'B' light busine~,, with access to Second Street; a Town Road The Certificate is issued to of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Appro~,al .. UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. JEFFREY & ANN HUNTER (owner, l~X~vJ~w~ N/A N/A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the owner of the above premises HiS NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspec- tor to determine ff the premises comply with all applicable codes and ordin- ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore; no such inspection has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula- tions. TO m SCHEYER,]ELLENIK&ATTONITOIEL No. 516 265 855~I~Dec 04,90 15:28 P.02 DONALD J. NEIDHAR/J'i SANICI~ V. ORSNAN LAW OFFICI;~ JOSEPH R. ATTONITO ~27 MIDDLE COUNTRY ROAD SMITHTOWN, NBW YORK 117~7 (516) 2~.s.see T£LECOPIER: (516) Decmeber 4, 1990 Willlam Moore, ~sq, P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 ~e: Bast Wind Development Corp. Dear Mr. Moore: I am writing as a principal of East Wind Development Corp. and in connection with its application to the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the New Suffolk, New York property. This is to confirm that John deReeder is hereby authorized to aot on behalf of East Wind in coDnection with the aforesaid Development Corp. application. VIA FAX #298=5664 Original Mailed Vic~'~esident Wind Development Corp. --~ - - - ~988 - - - ~ ~p~ ?~ - - - RES PRP R H ACCOUN ~rT7,;8-11 .................. :~ ROUSSAN HATE] $ ~ZCHEL ?00 $.700 700 5,700 210 I Town Hall, 530.95 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-I938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 27, 1988 Kevin McLaughlin P.O. Box 803 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: East Wind Corp. SCTM #1000-117-8-6 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, July 25, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve this site plan on 21,430 sq. ft. located at New Suffolk subject to satisfaction of the following conditions: 1. resolving the grading problem as shown on the marked map received by the applicant at the July 25, 1988 meeting. 2. showing the location and grading of the of the new curbing and concrete aprons relative to the existing street. These locations and grading must be approved by Raymend Jacobs, Superintendent of the Highway Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. As discussed at the meeting, a floor plan will be submitted with the Planning Board at the time a building permit request is filed with the Building Department. · If You have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. ,[""Very_L~uly'-- yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN § 100~2,r~5 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-256 § 100-255. Duration of plan. A. An approved site development plan shall be valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of approval. All work propeeed on the plan shall be completed within three (3) years from the date of approval unl~s a longor period was approved or the applicant obtains an extension from the Planning Board. B. All site plans which have received final approval prior to the enactment of this Article shall remain valid for a period of three (3) year~ from the date of such enactment. This period will begin when all governmental approvals have been obtained. § 100-256. Application requirements; fees. A. Submission of a complete site plan application shall consist of: (1) A completed site plan application form. (2) The site plan review fee, as specified in Subsection B below. (3) A completed environmental assessment form. (4) Nine (9) copie~ of the site plato (5) Four (4) copies of a property survey, certified by a licensed land surveyor. B. Fees° (1) The application fee for a new site plan shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150.) per acre or any fraction of an acre thereof, plus two and five-tenths cents ($0.025) per square foot of building are~ (2) The application fee for a revised site plan shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150.), plus two and five-tenths cents ($0.025) per square foot of building are~ C, Standards. Site plan design shall include the following items: 10154 7-25-89 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOKK ACTION OF THE ZONinG BOAJ~D OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2380 Dated December 5, 1977 ACTION OF TKE ZONING BOARD OF APPE~S OF T~ TO~ OF SO.HOLD To John Malinowski Second Street New Suffolk, NY DATE Jan. 12, 1978 Appellant at a meeting of the ZonLng Board of Appeals on January 12, was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to hck of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) 1978 ~e appeal 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board B was determined th~ a ~ecial exc~fi~ ( ) be granf~ ( ) ~ denied pur~t ~ Article .................... Sect~n .................... Subsec~on .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning O~inance and the decis~n of the Building Inspector ( ) be revecsed ( ) ~ co~hm~ b~anse 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) - Postponed decision upon application of J~hn Malinowski, Second Street, New Suffolk, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60, Article VII, Section 100-70, and Article VIII, Section 100-80 for permission to' use existing business building for assembly of parts. Location of property: west side Second Street, south side King Street, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by King Street; east by Second Street; south by H. Aponik and other land of applicant; west by Third Street. 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 (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 (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (would not) SEE REVERSE and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. SEE REVERSE FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL~ After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to use existing business building for assembly of parts, west side Second Street, north side King Street, New Suffolk, New York. The findings of the Board are that the applicant has been unable to sell, rent or insure a building, formerly a supermarket discontinued in October, 1976, for economic reasons and the building adjoins his residence centrally located in New Suffolk. The business at peak operation required 25 employees, at times, and 10 to 15 daily truck deliveries at peak operation. The residential area surrounding the operation was subject to some hundreds of vehicle trips daily by customers using the store. Recently, a possible purchaser has appeared whose operation will, if permitted, virtually eliminate on-street parking and whose business will require only an occasional van-type truck delivery or shipment. The applicant requires a use variance per- mitting the assembly of pre-fabricated electrical stove components and the assembly of other patented gadgets used in the building trade. The nature, size and shape of these pre-fabricated parts will not be changed. The applicant states that he will not require more than five local employees and a secretary. The largest stove to be assembled will not exceed 6~ by 2' by 2' The owner's cir- cumstances appear to be unique and a severe economic hardship. The proposed limited use will improve rather than deteriorate the- neighborhood by greatly decreasing traffic~ noise and congestion$ The Board finds that strict application of the O=dinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, an~ will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED, John Malinowski, Second Street, New Suffolk, New York, be GRANTED permission to use existing business building for assembly of parts, west side Second Street, south side King Street, New Suffolk, New York, as applied for, subject to the following conditions: #1. Manufacturing as defined in the ordinance may not be conducted on the premises except that assembly and/or packaging of pre-fabricated electrical oven parts be conducted on not more than 2/3 of the estimated 7,500 sq. ft. of floor space contained in the building. The other 1/3 of the building may be used for display of assembled products and for demonstration. Light cabinet work should be permitted in connection with the oven project. Various small gadgets patented by the applicant and used in the building and related industries may be assembled on the premises and displayed. %2. All uses permitted by this action including display and sale of merchandise and storage shall be confined to the fully enclosed building or premises. %3. At least 10 parking spaces shall be provided for employees. Loading and unloading of trucks will be conducted on the premises. %4. Not more than 8 full or part-time employees, including office help, may be employed on the premises. %5. Any change in the applicant's conduct of the business as herein described shall be referred for approval or disapproval to the Board of Appeals. Any question regarding interpretation of the foregoing shall be referred to the Board of Appeals. %6. The Board of Appeals shall review this application within two years from the date the action becomes final. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD, NEW YOKK ACTIO~ OF TIIE ZO~ I~OA~D OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2380 Dated December 5, 1977 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To John Malinowski Seoond Street New Suffolk, New York 11956 DATE~a~....4..,_..1978 Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 13, 1978 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 ( ~ Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) the appeal 1. SPECIAL EXCF~:TION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be comfirmed because 7: 30 P.M. (E.S .T. ) upon application of John Malinowski Second Street, New Suffolk, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60, Article VII, Section 100-70, and Article VIII, Section 100-80 for permission to use existing business building for assembly parts. Location of property: west side Second Street, south side King Street, New Suffolk, New York, bounded ontthe north by King Street; east by Second Street; south by H..Aponik and other land of the applicant; west by Third Street 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it ~vas determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce hardship because practical difficulties or unnecessary SEE REVERSE (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 (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (would not) SEE REVERSE and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( that the previous decisions of the Building·!O~.r. . . ( ) be confirmed ( FORM ZB4 ~ ~NG ) be granted ( ) be reversed. BOARD OF APPEALS ) be denied and The legal expense of contesting an application that is specifically tailored to an individual operation doesn't seem worthwhile either to the applicant or the Town. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals RESCIND the action of the Board on Appeal No. 2380, John Malinowski. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, and Maimone. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'Fr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Appeal No. 3907 - Application of N~CHOLAS ALIANO.;~ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A-r~Section 100-30 A.2 to construct a retail/office complex. Proposed construction is not permitted in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 102, Block 3, Lot 1. WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Matter of the Application of NICHOLAS ALIANO under Appeal No. 3907; and WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, the surrounding areas; and and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. This is an appeal of the January 5, 1990 Notice of Disapproval in which an application dated January 4, 1990 was considered by the Building Inspector to construct a retail office complex and which was disapproved on the following grounds: "...Under Article III A (R-40 District), 100-30A.2, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this district. Action required by the Town Board (Zoning Change) or by the Zoning Board of Appeals... " 2. The premises in question consists of .860 acres, or 37,462 sq. ft. iX area with 200 ft. frontage along the west side of Pequash Avenue and 207.62 feet along the south side cf State Route 25 (Main Road) in the Hamlet of Cutchoque, Town of Southold. Page 2 - Appeal No. 3907 Matter of NICHOLAS ALIANO Decision Rendered June 27, 1990 3. The subject premises as of January 9, 1989 has been situated in the R-40 Residential Zone District and is improved with an existing one-story frame building having a total floor area, inclusive of attached garage, of 1408+- sq. ft. 4. By this application, the appellant requests a Variance for permission to construct new 1426 sq. ft. (One-story) masonry building to be occupied by retail stores and commercial office uses, uses which are not permitted in this R-40 Zone District. 5. Certificates of Occupancy have been furnished for the record indicating that on January 14, 1988 renovations were made to an existing real estate office in an existing building (C.O. #Z-16582) and that on August 2, 1973, Certificate of Occupancy No. Z5343 was issued for a business building with apartment (public garage). 6. Although the present use of the site has been nonconforming in this R-40 Zone District since the January 9, 1989 Master Plan Zoning Revisions, the relief requested in this application is not under the nonconforming sections of the code and was applied for a variance under the "permitted use" section of this R-40 Zone District. 7. For the record, it is noted that expansions, enlargements, alterations or reconstruction of nonconforming buildings and/or nonconforming uses are not permitted without variances from the Board of Appeals (Section 100-243 of the Zoning Code). 8. It is the position of the Board Members that the grant of the subject variance under the present terminology and definitions of the current zoning code is not appropriate. 9. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) sufficient proof has not been demonstrated as required by the statutes to show that: (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return with underlying facts in dollars and cents proof; (2) the burden of proof of unnecessary hardship or that literal application of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship has not been sufficiently met (Otto v. Steinhilber); (3) the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the locality; Page 3 - Appeal No. 309 Matter of NICHOLAS ALIANO Decision Rendered June 27, 1990 (b) the uses proposed are not permitted uses in this zone district and will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance; (c) the current uses of the property and the zone district regulations are not so restricted that the premises could not be used for reasonable purposes; (d) the circumstances and nature of the uses of the property are unique; (e) the property in question is centrally located in the R-40 Residential Zone District and is not immediately adjoined by any other zone district; (f) this Board cannot under the semblance of a variance exercise legislative powers. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appl. No. 3907 in the Matter of NICHOLAS ALIANO be and hereby is DENIED for the reasbns noted above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki, and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. lk · CHAIRMANGERARD p. ~OEHRINGER FORM NO. 3 TO%~N OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date ._PI]~AS~E TAKE~_NO~TICE that your application dated .~2~ ~ ~D,~ . ,n O ~ ~l . ........................ ~-~ ......... at Coun~ T~ Map No. 1000 Section ...~.~ ~ ....... Block .. ~.~ L ....... Lot . ~.~ ......... Subdivi~on ......... Filed Map No ........ · ................ Lot No ......... , ...... is returned herewith and disapproved on the follow~ - ~ ..... ~ ' ~ ~ - - - ~ , ~ g grounas., j~~... 0~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ......... - ' .... 2'~ff7"~*' "b .... ~- ~-~.*... · ~.~.~...1 .~...~a~... ~.~ ~-4~. a~ ~.~...'..~, s. ~ /.}'~' ............. ...... RV 1/80 I FORM NO. ',5I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING OEPARTM£NT TOWN HALL ~0 UTH QL,D,,. L%.¥_ 'L'L93 t TEL.: 765-1803 Examined ................ , Approved ................ , ]9,., ~c~it No ............ Disapproved OF HEALTH ........... CI1ECK . . CALL (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to thc Building sets of pln.% at-~.urat~ plot plan to scale, lace a'cc~rd'ing to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public street: or areas, and -' ' - cation, olvmo a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram whicllis part of this app[i. ¢. The work covered by this application may not be Commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Suci~ permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance or- tlze Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or The applicant a~rees to comply with all a--,:--~ · - fgr ~emoval or demolition, as herein described. · . . ~.n~-au~e .~aws, ora~nances,, build .= cod ousm~ code, and regulations, and to admzt anthonzed mspcctom on premzscs and tn building for necessary mspec (Marling address of applicant) ppli o · State whether a cant is wrier, lessee, agent, architect, en neer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name of own~f,.~mises . . ,% ~, ~ ' t~'e ta I or at t'deed) . Ifapphcantts gnature old I aut .......... ...... ....... (Z~tne and title of corporate' o~er') · BuildcFs License No . ' Plumber's License No. . . .... Electrician License No Other Tradc's License No ....... I. Location of land on which proposed work will be done; Street .......... Hamlet .................. County Tax Map No I000 Section Subdi iSion ............ Lot. . .... :... v .... . ............... Eilcd Map No. Stztee.' ' (Name) .............. Lot ....... use :lnd oCCUpancy o x~Stmg use and occupancy of premiscs and intended f proposed construc~on: ,... '7.... $. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building .......... Addition .. '. Repair ........ : ..... R~moval .............. Demolition ........ Tennis Court ........ ~ Accessory Building ........ .'.'~;nc''g'~ ..... Other Work; ........... 4. Eatimate d Cost ~..~'...'~..<~.. ............................. Fee ................................. ' .... -. (&a h~ paid on filing this a~plicationl 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor ................. If garage, number of cars ...................................................... ~ · · · 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use · 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front.. ~..~. ~ ......... Rear . .;..~.~.~ ....... Depth .. ! ~.q 3. ........ Height ............... Number of Stories . .'Tr ..................................................... Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front . .,5-z~/.~.~. .......... Rear . 0".A.~.. ~ ............ Depth .. ~.-'h,~ ............... }Icight ./'/'~.~. ................ Number of Stories..~.'Q..~.~. ............... 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ...~.'5..~.~. ....... Rear . d'dv~.¢. ........ Depth .J¢~. ~. ......... Height . ...~ ........ .Number of Stories . .f..'~..¢'. ....... ; ............................. '. ........... 9. Size of lot: Fi'ont /.o. ¥. Rear . /o~ n~nth Z-~.~ . ........... : ...... : ....................... ...... 10. Date of Purchase ... 1..q.q'.? .................. Name of Former Owner . .'~.~.ffr~)~ .~ ..~'.m~-. ~.~..~.* ...... 1 I. Zone or use district in which premises are situated..~.%'t.¢.~. ............................................. 12. Does proposed ¢onstruction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..~o. ............................. 13. Will lot be regraded ...~-P. ....................... Will excess fill be removed from pre. mi~: ~ Ye~ .... N~. . ALldress ....... ~ ....... ~ ...... o,.~ ,,o. .,, ........ NameName Ofof Contracto[Architect.~.-Typ- - .~.wp. ?:~.% - · · · - · -'' Addre= ................... Phone No. ~.'~'_'~7('''1'~¢':J~''''''''''' Address ................... Phone No ............... t~.Ls tttis, property Located vithin )ilo feet of a tidal vetland? · If yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicat~ all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or comer lot. STATE OF NEW Y~ I'~, p COUNTY OF .... o. ~. ~..-~. ~ ...... S.S (Name of individual signing contract) above nam'cd. !% is thc '. a~.~ · . (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, crc.) of said owner or owners, =d is duly authorized to pcfform or have perfomed the said work and to m~c and file thi application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that th~ Work wQl be perl~m~cd in thc re=ncr set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before mc this .......... .......... Notao, Public .... ~ .............. county H~ [ DE ~E · ' ' ~. 4707878, ~olk ~u~. being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is thc applican: APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR _/ ~. APPEL NO. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF S~~ 1, (We) ~...~n~...D~Lo~m~L...C~...of .~.~...H&~.Le~]~n.~...~ ................... Name of Appellant Street and Numar · ..~.~.~g.~P ............................................................................ .~ ................ HEREBY APPEL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APP~LS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPE~OR ON APPUCAT ON FOR ERM T NO ..................................... DATED ...... .......... WHEREBY THE NSPECTOR DEN ED TO ( ) ( ) (x) John De Re ed er... ~/. c...Ea s.t ..W. in~%..~eu~& ~p men.t..C~p. Name of Applicant for permit of ~.,.Q.,... D.~...1 ~.Z 2.,... ~la .t.t i.tu ck ..................................... .~. ............................ Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY Building Permit for site plan approved 8/1/88 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY K.ing...S.t,.r..$ec9~.~.t...~Thir~..~t.../.N~w...Su/f~lk/ R-40 Street /Hamle~ / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section ll~lock08Lot06 ~ . .................................................................................. ~urren~ Owner East Wind Development Corp. Map No. Lot No. Prior Owner Jeffrey & Ann Hunter 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article xxv Section 100-255 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 (x) Interpretation to overr~de denial ~ building permit 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning O~inance (x~ Interpretation of Section 100-255 of the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reasonthat owner received site plan approval on August 1, 1988 for an alteration of an existing commercial building in %~hat was formerly zoned B Light Business in the pre-1989 zoning ordinance and map. The property was rezoned to R-40 with the new zoning map on January 10, 1989. In spite of section 100-255 of the zoning ordinance which provides a 3 year period to perform the work approved on the site plan, the building department has FormZB1 (Continue on otherside) disapproved an application to perform work approved on the site plan on the grounds that the zoning has been changed as described above. It is respectfully requested ~hat' Ch~ reverse the determination of the Building Department ~hd provide ~m~erpr t~ authorizing issuance of the building permits to perfor~c~he ~pp~ve~'~e plan improvements. REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATI~I~'I~RDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because ~ nweT I~o~ Not Applicable 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because Not Applicable 3, The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because Not Applicable STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK John )eReedt Signature agent for owner .............................. 1990 ~ ~~&. ~. 4832 728 _ ~1~ In Suffolk Cou~ ~ ~ ~ires Janue~ ~,~ i l;~,o~ .//,/_ _.¢ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OPERTY RECORD CARD !OWNER FORMERO, WNER I STREET VILLAGE DISTRICTSUB. -'~ld- zOe~c ACREAGE '._/~ o. 4-90 . TYPE OF BUILDING LAND /6 O0 ~G~ SEAS. VL. IMP. /~o~00 NEW NORMAL Form Acre ~rTillable 2 Tillabler 3 Woodland ~se Plot Total W '7'-/ , f O/ //)/,,- o O 7~ LOT TOTAL FARM DATE BELOW ABOVE Value Per Acre Value :/',-,',.ZT-. /c 0 K~'% .o Parch Attic Porch Rooms 1st FlOr Breezeway Patio Rooms 2nd FlOr O.B. BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of : E~t- ~ind D~ve]~pmeni- to the Board of Appeals of the Town of $outhold : TO: ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold request a (Variance) (Spe.cial Exception) (Special Permit) ~ [circle choice] of building permit 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adiacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: ~"~:~:^~' Ccunty Tax .... ~ ln00-117-08-06 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: R-40 4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersignedwillrequestthefollowingrelief: Interpretation nF zonino ordinance t~ p~rmi~ a~hnri~ ~i~ p!a~ i~pro\re~e~ts to be performed in spite of re-zoning of property from business to residential use 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article XXV Section 1 00-255 [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for appr0va] of access over r~ght(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the 5outhold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809, 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 ~~es; t~a.t., ~-~ such notices; t you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: December 4. 1990 . ' P~etitiol erj~J~t W~d Development Corp. uwne s Na~n,-~s: ~,/r~ T^1~ll~=m n U .... Esq. Post O, ,ce Ad ess ttorney for Appellant P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 NAME Nicholas J. PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS Mandusic 33-46 92nd Street Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Matei & Michelle Roussan 4455 Douglas Avenue, Apt. 12C Riverdale, NY 10471 PS Form 3800, June 1985 _ - PS Form 3800, June 1985 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OFSUFFOLK) SS.: ~WJ%L-~-%v%,v' ~), ta, oofte'" , residing at :~ ~'lqP..i,: P-D~,~ ~%ViSe'¥1~9 P4 ~ , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the .~ day of ?) ~,~:~(~c."w-- ,19 ~[0 , 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- (certified) (.f~lll~me~) mail. day of~,19 ~ c~ Public ; that said Notices wqre n3,ai~d to each of said persons by aoYml .l (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) ./ / Ill C i A\~p u /OO0-H7-O~ - 00% GARRETT A. STRANG architect Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold N.Y, 11971 516 - 765 - 5455