Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4909
ego azo—ms £ eeeac- /0/ -.14t—data,,,) at. f'-c±“. e (247-.0, aze tee_ 1)P : Yd4;cce at—o° A/1. a/a-lo/, 2/ir/o! /ago : ra ? 2,,01 - . r-" grz:ell � dee , �(�� 026 &l-/-a- 71/3/71/3/0/ 01 c `.a& Ca-...4-°Zwl�e.`,a/✓' 1 0!-/69 b!/ eced,ie✓o.do ,zez-5-3/ (o/ e pAzji zeh ef- - /212.4.4.1-11-3 t 4/107 Pec --va;rdConcin 6/11/17 elltiElzc,5 E'64,0.eb 7ttlo&u& a ot sp -3705 XL/MS L9.>_G°ce #4/4 gzi A/Arare, 61/4q/97 /9ecEsso,e2/ Zu..td i/✓G.s iAv Ti-lc raw?' 1/.e 1 - d/n) Aft ,oa-e c-b a% 'es _69 )4/. iry.id 7/A.16 ,@r500/e- 'at > i.UGS ' y9° 9 - a47/o/ aAR-lv/ � - 4/7/6/ a,/O, • . • I,,,.... -- • G • Board of Appeals 'yam s� Town of Sonfhok o •,,,, FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909— Patricia and James McNamara STREET & LOCATION: 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: February 27, 2001; March 15, 2001 I. NATURE OF APPEAL: Appellants, Patricia and James McNamara, request that the Zoning Board of Appeals reverses a Building Permit (No. 26821-Z) dated October 4, 2000 issued to Eberhard Mueller and Paulette Satur Mueller to construct two greenhouses. East greenhouse measures 30 by 96 feet. II. RELIEF REQUESTED: Appellants maintain that the Building Inspector erred in issuing the building permit, because, pursuant to Southold Town Code Section 100-250, site plan approval by the Town Planning Board was required for this project prior to a building permit being issued. Site plan approval was not obtained. III. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The property consists of approximately 18 acres situate along the west side of Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue and is improved with a newly constructed house, a cottage converted to a storage building, and a barn. The greenhouses were constructed about 70 feet from the front property line. Of the 18 acres, the development rights on approximately 16 acres were sold to the County of Suffolk. The property is more specifically described as SCTM Parcel #1000-101-2-24.5 which covers that portion of the lot on which the development rights have not been sold, and SCTM Parcel #1000-101-2-24.6 which covers that portion of the lot on which the development rights have been sold. IV. MATTERS CONSIDERED: 1) Eberhard Mueller and Paulette Satur Mueller own the parcel for which this building permit was applied. 2) The McNamara's own a parcel of property and live directly across the street from the property for which the Building Permit in question was issued. 3) Construction of the greenhouses was originally begun without building permits. The Building Department stopped the work and subsequently the property owners applied for and received building permit No. 26821-Z. 4) The greenhouses each measure 30 x 96 feet. The square footage of the greenhouses totals approximately 6000 square feet. The greenhouses have no heat. The floors are the , Page 2 — June 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909 — P. and J. McNamara 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 5) The Building Inspector testified that there was no distinction between a temporary or permanent building under the Town Code. The Building Inspector further testified that the greenhouses met the definition of building under the Town Code and therefore a building permit was required. 6) Pursuant to the Southold Town Code the property owned by the Muellers is a single lot, despite the fact that the lot has two Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers. There was no subdivision involved, just the sale of the development rights on the majority of the parcel. Two SCTM numbers were issued for ease of taxing purposes, not to indicate two legal, separate and distinct lots as defined by the Town Code. V. APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS: Chapter 100 "Zoning" under Article XXV, Section 100-250 entitled "Site Plan Approval," which reads as follows: § 100-250. Applicability. This Article shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, § 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single- family residential home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this matter on February , 2001 and March 15, 2001, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based on all testimony, documentation, personal observations of members of the Board and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Issue before the Board The crucial issue before the Board is whether or not these two greenhouses required site plan approval pursuant to Town Code Section 100-250. • . Page 3 —June 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909—P. and J. McNamara 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 The use in question is farming. This is undisputed. Section 100-250 states that Article XXV of the Town Code shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except that: 1) the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, § 100-31A(1); and 2) customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code Farming is a land use and neither of the exceptions are applicable. Therefore Article XXV of the Town Code applies to farming. (It is important to note that the question before this Board is not whether or not the two buildings are permitted but rather, whether site plan approval is required.) Section 100-250 further states that site plan approval is not required unless there is: 1) a change in use, or 2) a change in intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities. In this case there is no change in use. The prior use of the property was farming or accessory farming and the greenhouses will be used for the same use. The key question is whether the construction of the two greenhouses constitute a change in intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities. The greenhouses in question together total approximately 6000 square feet. By sheer size alone these cannot be considered minor accessory structures. The footprint created by such substantial greenhouses as well as their placement on the property constitute a change in intensity of use which will affect, at a minimum, open space. Thus, pursuant to Town Code section 100-250 site plan approval was required as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit. The Board notes that in totaling approximately 6000 square feet these structures are larger than the majority of the structures in the Town. The Muellers raise the questions of standing, notice and mootness. The Board finds these claims to be without merit. BOARD RESOLUTION/ACTION: Now, therefore, on motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Horning, it is . Page 4 —June 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909—P. and J. McNamara 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 Resolved, that the Zoning Board of Appeals, based on the record, the public hearings, the oral testimony and the written submissions, for the reasons set forth above, hereby finds that Mueller's application required site plan approval pursuant to section 100- 250 of the Town Code prior to a building permit being issued; and be it further Resolved, that the Building Inspectors decision to grant Building Permit No. 26821-Z dated October 4, 2000 is hereby reversed and annulled. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, and Horning. NAYS: Members Dinizio and Collins. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-2). ' erard P. Goehringer, Ch irman 1� .r WECEI V ED AND FILED BY .I.-7v SOL('T',C D TOtivId GI LA. �/ .`.i.::� „ „ J./ eyttajp2: re\ Town Clerk, Town of Southold J C_J) , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 'I SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be heard by,the SOUTHOLD ','. TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001,at the times noted below,or as soon thereafter as may be possible a 6:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4917 ROBERT H. GHILTON. A Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-239.48 is requested to locate a dwelling at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 1165 Blue Marlin Drive; Southold; '1000-57-1-13. 6:35 p.m. Appi, No. 4908 -CHESTER CIAGLO, JR. A Variance under Article Ill, Section 100- 4-4 33 to locate a proposed deck addition at the rear of the existing dwelling, which deck will place an existing accessory building in the side yard. Location of Property: 1825 Main Bayview Road, Southold; ',i .1000-70-8-54. 6.40 p.m. Appi. No: 4911 — MANOR GROVE CORP., Owner/WILtIAM and MARY OLIVIA i, '. MOTT, Contract Vendees. A Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244-8 is requested to locate a 13 ` dwelling with a rear yard setback at less than 35 feet. Location of Property: 1380 East Gillette Drive, �1'w,j i, East Marion; 1000-38-3-26. 6:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4896— STEPHEN SCHOTT. This is a request for Variance under Article Ill, Section 100-33, and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's October `31 30, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for a deck addition to existing one-family dwelling with a rear yard 1"i setback at less than 50 feet, and an accessory building in a side yard location with the new deck ,, addition. Location of Property: 1235 Cedar Drive, East Marion; Aquaview Park Lot 11; 1000-22-2-44. 4 6:55 p.m. App! No. 4900 - MARTIN AND JACQUELINE TAESCHER. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 to locate an accessory shed in an area other than a rear yard: Location of Property: 985 Boisseau Avenue, Southold; 1000-63-2-27. , 7:05 p.m: Appl. No: 4913 — LEONARDO TIRADO. This is a request for a Variance under Article 41 ` Ill, Section 100-33 for permission to locate an accessory swimming pool in an area other than a ilk designated rear yard. Property Location: 3850 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; 1000-111-8-1. al' 7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4914—OWEN MORREL. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, l;'lia Section 100-33 to locate an accessory swimming pool in an area other than a permitted rear yard or \ front yard on this waterfront parcel. Location of Property: 3945 Soundview Avenue, Peconic; 1000-68- l 1-15.1. Page 2—Legal Notice February 27, 2001 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4915-MANOR GROVE CORP.and PETER DENICOLA: This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B to locate a new dwelling with a minimum rear yard of less than 35 feet. Location of Property 2205 Gillette Drive,East Marion; 1000-38-3-14. 7:25 p.m. Appi: No. 4916- CHARLES MILLMAN. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B to locate a new dwelling with combined sideyards of less than 35 feet. Location of Property: 2670 Deep Hole Road, Mattituck; 1000-123-4-10. 7:35 p.m_ Appl. No. 4910- NICHOLAS BUBANY. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, for an as-built garage in an area other than a rear yard. Location Of Property 160 Shipyard Lane, Southold; 1000-64-2-51. 7:45 p.m Appl. No. 4837 — H. CASITY. (Continued Hearing). This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-239.4A.1 to locate an accessory swimming pdol and hot tub construction at less than 100 feet from the bluff of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold; 1000-50-1-3 8:10 p.m. AppI No. 4918 — WILLIAM and THERESA ACKERMANN. This i a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-32 to construct a second dwelling as a principal building, replacing a dwelling. Also requested is a variance for a height of the new dwelling above the code limitation of 35 feet, and/or 2-1/2 stories. Location of Property 14035 and 13936 Middle Road, Cutchogue, at Manor Hill. 108-3-7. !r 8:25 p.m. Appi. No. 4876 — GORDON, and MADELEINE SCHLAEFER (1670 House of Furniture). This is a request for a Variance under Article X, Section 100-1030, based on the Building Inspector's September 14, 2000 Notice of Disapproval Applicants are proposing an addition to an existing commercial building which would have a building frontage of 103 feet facing C.R. 48. Project Location: 47025 C.R. 48 (a/k/a Middle Road), Southold, 1000-55-2-23. 8:35 p.m. Appl No. 4909-JAMES AND PATRICIA McNAMARA: This is a request for Reversal of Building Permit No. 26821-Z issued concerning new construction at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, property owned by Paulette Satur Mueller and Eberhard Mueller; Parcel No. 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 (combined as one lot). The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring t0 be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of the abo4e hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during reg lar Town Hall d Page 3—Legal Notice February 27, 2001 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: February 1, 2001. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box,1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 • f— --- {€1 l�, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SURVEY 1u Ei1 "° BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHECK J, PUG 1 5 200 (�I.I (.J TOWN HALL - SEPTIC,,,yiill ! ;r SOUTHOLD, N.X. 11971 DEC 1-- TEL: 765-1802 TRUSTEES NOTIFY .. _..�Ohv _..� CGL.. .:......:�YJ.!"L••:•/. Examined 20.... n MAIL TO- Approved 119 I. U. , O . Permit No. °,24701-1E- Disapproved E- Disapproved a/c (lkl}iX g Inspector) APPLICATION FOR. EDILDING PERMIT . Date 20. ... INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in inkand submitted to the Building Inspector' 3 sets of plans accurate plot plan to.scale. Pee Arrording to schedule.. b. Plot plan showing location of lot aid of buildings on premises; relationship to adjoining premisesor public'.streets or areas, aid giving a detailed description of layout of property mist be drawn on the diagram wirier is parte. this application. c. 'Die c ork covered by this application maynot be catmanced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon apptcval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Soo permit shall be kept on the premises available.for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in i.4uole:or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been grantedby the Building Inspeector, APPLICATI(N IS UCPTN MAtE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building:Permit pursuant to the &milium;Zone Ordinance of the Teen of Southold,.Suffolk County, New York, and:other applicable Iris, Ordinances or Regulations; for the construction of buildings,:additions or alterations, or for removal ordemolition,-asherein descril+ed. The applicant agrees LO caz1y with all applicable laws,ordinances,building rrriP; housing code, and. regulations, aid to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in bpi ing for necessary insj .tions, f (Signature of applicant, or name, if corporation)' 31105 ALVAf l'S 1. ,JE 0git-140G-e E rir.1 t ur (Mailingaddress of applicant) State whether applicant is a suer, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, ,elect icianlurber or buil OWi Pc-rt S M e (r.6 EBr Mt CLe Nate of aiimer of pranises Aw_ ....:... ... u�C �+ (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer: (Nara and title of corporate:offi.cer).. &ilderg License-No. : Plurbers License No Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. ( J; 1, Iiration of land on which proposed work will be done 41)"4 CFS1ttt^l Aftt CoF r zc€l. 3705 ,9L1/4Af} r LfvJr ' cuitt4oCyciE Pc„se Naber Street// Ranlee Cnynty Tax Map No. 11X1.0 Section ....LQ........ Block a Lot `Z 7•'S Subdivision ' Filed Map No Lot (Nam) 2. State existing use and occupancy of�pand d into use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. misting use.and occr l ^ney 1 tCCP h0t5E I UN,EtJ F&. GRcitaNiG. cgoQ7S N/.b. Intended use and occupancy 3. Nature of work (check which aj},,._.,able): Ilea Building Addition ` wAlteration Repair.............. Reroval ..i3:. le:mlition Other Work Was)tccfroP tAczU$..✓, (Description) 4. Estimated.Cost P�0' Ql fee (to be paid on filing this.application) 2 5. If dwelling,runner of dwelling units -. kindler of cbrel.ling units on each floor. If garage, rxnber of cars .. - /, 6. If business, camatp ercial or mixed ocancy, specify.nature and extent.of.each type of use use r 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if`any: Print...,3.0 Rear Depth' IMr ]eight I.1 r Narber:of.Stories Dimensions of sane structure with alterations or.additions: Front Rear Depth Weight Nkniter of Stories la 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: P.wt3Q r Rear Depth 1 Height 1J : Ni.rber of Stories _pJ r q r "\ 9. Size.of lot: Runt ( I IaE6...... .. Rear Depth ��•�� 10. Date of Purchase r\At..199.1--• No-re of Domer Oaner 6d/3 .I`-)a /.� .F. 11. Zone or.use district in which premises are situated .....&C�lP j7AC'/P'."- L 12. -Does proposed construction violate anyzoning law, ordinanceor regulation: NO 13. Will lot be regraded 7/?' Stnu. �..�iW,,�iil��l excMesIs,�fill be re:ovec frail premises: :LS V. u 14. Nares of.Wner of premises !:/' -gr1 . .`:' '"9 ttUUt Ddress °.].7Os�uI'lliS IaH/E'.iC44G1OCxcEllxne No.-1S�J /2)9 Nae of Architect Address Phone No. Nate of Contractor Address Phone No. 15. , Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO *IF YES, SCt11131D TERI TRUSTIES P&lT BAY l REQJIRFII-.. i PLOT DIAGRAM "....'.•. locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, wietiherexisting or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions i Iwo property lines.: Give street and blocicrurber or description according to deed? and show street natesand indicate whether..interior or corner lot. mow" APPPOVEDAS'NOTED r.. n mq rf.(: C vI r °° B.es ^ t:ATE: o« C �'•-- - yl . ,y ,' NOTIFY I(BD•� BY: E M-+1 A L".YAJ" NOTIFY BUILDING D�-ARTM TAT' ne O,.1F'/ y .[ g, {e 765-1802.9 AM TO 4;PM FOR THE l''L ^SC �L" 9�CCUPANC�Y OR i FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS: PA ,gyp - UNLAWFUL I. FOR.POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION 0 TWO REQUIRED ?"' i 1= I�.I.� .l WFUL 2. ROUGH • FRAMING & PLUMBING ,1 J TOUT CERTIFICATEp {� :.FINAl4n INSULATION MUST •, OCCUPANCY BE COMPLETE FOR.C.O. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET 1 .. THE.REQUIREMENTS=OF.TNE:N.Y. STATE:.CONSTRUCTION:&'ENERGY • CODES. NOT<RESPONSIBLE;FOR ' `.J] DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ERRORS SrAtr 08I W IDlE,/^. DESIGN OR CONSIRVCTiON t6 sVr, IT 1A. �-(7--r°LKSScaw -•`-- -`�-+r`r` being duly sworn, deposes and says thatshe is the applicant (Nate of individual signing contract) above named,. 5Ile is the (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work spd to Pokeand file this application; that allstatements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and ilia. the work will beperfonred in the Runner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before se this --Pa day,of lySAhGI.U...;-1-1- .20Q O... /' Notary.hdalid� IS /-a �, J/ -E,,�. AINBgYULMIC@.,,gm.4(.5� ... piormy NPUaUS,St3B767 t (Signature of )l.ican Dual fieri In Suffolklly Commission anima February 27,s2seo f . f For Office Use Only: Fee$ t� .. _.-- "* ra i; us ? Assigned Ne. g90r. it. M. ct S13"" 5WN OF SOUTHOLD, N iii YORK ' S" ,'i re,Ren APPEAL FROM DECISION BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED: OCTqBR g,,, ,zQQQ --j Irma taco 2--7 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: I (We) PATRICIA and JAMES McNAMARA ha-$� (Appellant) A ( 631 ) 734-5447 of 4000 Alvah' s Lane, P.O. Box 703, CIIb CCHHOGU , hGy#York 11935 ) HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED 01october 4,, 2006 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ger` S T APPLICATION DATED i `yoo FOR: Building Permit 268212 dated 10/4/00 C ) Permit to Build I rr t ( ) Permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit to Use We live directly across the street," Alvah' s ( ) Perini$for'Abuilt Lane, at 4000 Alvah' s Lane, from the greenhouses that were built pursuant to the building permit ( ) Other: _ _ • _ - reverse ,.Our deed is ..submitted 'ra herewi ;;th 1. Location of Property....3.7.0.5..A.luah!.a..Laue,..Caateb .gus....NX ....: ..„.. Zone District 1000 Section...1.0.1..Block..2..Lot(s)..2.4.-S .• tL,4...Current Owner.,. � , Paulette Muller mild Eberhard Muller _ 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance A opeaied. (Indicate Article, Section,Subsection, 1I, and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by:numbers. Do not quote the law.) Article Section 100- .Z54....Sub-Section '{;' and the, Bulk Schedule k for Residential Distrlet 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: ° ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Or Zoning Map tT. i, , ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town Law . r Chap. 82, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. E;' ( ) interpretation of Article Section 100- e Reversal or Other: Reve.csal,..of.. iilding..P.ermi.t..2.6.821Z rSee accompanying affirmation and exhibits . k'; 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appear;(has) (has not) been made withrespect to this aF property or with respect to this decision'*,the Building Inspector(Appeal # Year ) u. REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature): AREA VARIANCE REASONS: AP.1),:- , ; m 4. (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: :. _'• .s •” i dI (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: . hFa 4 (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: li ,if , (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or ii environmental conditions In the neighborhood or district because: al% . ! (S) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No This is the MINIMUM that is necessary c nd adequate, ,--,r,,-.4 „ ;'- rc,sc;�tslime f� epre$eri'e,and If protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the f,, community. ( ) Check this box if USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are completed and attached. oyi. (Signatf Appellant-'or Authorized Agent) fn r ""{ .C.2r �3, (AgenAt st submi thoriz Hon from Owner y Z,AApp OflO yP Public, to oft Holub* Ouatified in Suffolk County ComraaissionExpiresAug.al, o1 9 .-105t-;44,4„4,...,,,,:-YY �P The locations of wens and cssspoo0 Y'"`l R" shokareon are from field observations q `_ ond. rr: dale ob(orned Prom ofhers. i' -i `far/.A��, A .? v $ ry �'�::F��� �'s"` /' � ',Q -� 'CONTOUR LGYES AND ELEVA•710NS N3.`- f r�x; •d ARE REFEREN„cD 70'rHE+F1VE a - '^ �-"� ♦ '9 '{ - �" £ASTERN TOb3NS. TOPOGRAPIa'C` eA - , ayo a� II h IR .mac . Nv YZ• ,„t ,"`N''� 9,, ,�f ltd g �N% s T ➢3/aaWFl` ! ... A'4 mr4 - $ er 0^ o a �. � A g � det ii0fr d hni z l 0 m `,[i � ` 4 4 ,F Sti _ o 4 ^ W cN S. ��\ 5 if p,\,FjS ,Iva IQ\C.,',‘, SURVEY OF , '/aa, ' har(aesr FaP.1RPRpyAL PROPERTY Y SYSTENSFCR,S FAQ RESVOVOE's T CUT�e7V`+a�Gar� 1 . , • : ado,IS TOW 1 OF SOtifT1-1OLD SUFFOLK GOUTY M Y . 1000- 101-02-24.5 Scale:q r_ so' '. .,-',-;-:::1,,,,,,,_..,,:.„,„..,-.cERTInEp'ra Feb..27,.1997 5551774-19e„,, BERHAMp MCJtL PA(RETTEAto•ck d M ELLER Mw" 2G,i997(we/1.C As) ill i a'EBSYEF BAf1X;r- Jae 26,Iva,COMMONIYEALTH LAMP TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY /Prod W e r tea'l 14 ) RH 91.0/59 1RE/4 43docOsgff. a iaeA`sav qa A�".T�. ro rhm'sc» . '' xx ,r "THE,YORK STATE 7kW TKW. _ S'6;;1271-L....7.3:: ff a eri, Oq� ':ARE r.SleS Or209. .A�q xS ALL CEA: AA ROWS �'P OEC 11:E,xisV55En SEAL OF atr he 4 �(( :;a ,#. Y.S. L/C Na 4%!B ARs rErEat s.n,EYOR P•CONIC C6Y TO C E"RS P.C. P4PL.Y'ep}l 3AD CAb TliE TFRM AL TERp fir ) T6$=`5G2� lSED�eY ANt'.ArD.ALL 3t{4'✓EYMS U�rrwr A COPY S'6^ 9Ra 0-n Tr• NOT Rvc RLQ h, cArce. AND SO.Of sD y.T�"' x�c+.,op .v r •THEE I/97/ ajd) 10119I y"de-#-1 F 0156V SUPE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OUNTY OF SUFFOLK X PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER, � y o12( ; Jud`I (5,)-00 I Petitioner, Index No. " ( '5-7 -against- NOTICE OF PETITION ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, PATRICIA MCNAMARA AND JAMES MCNAMARA, Respondents. X Upon the annexed petition by Paulette Satur Mueller, verified the 12th day of July, 2001, an application will be made to this Court at IAS Part at the Courthouse, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead,New York, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard on August 31, 2001 for a judgment pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78 annulling the determination of the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals dated June 7, 2001 and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold on June 14, 2001 on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious, erroneous as a matter of law, an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence on the record, and such other and further relief as is just and proper. A verified answer and supporting affidavits, if any, are to be served at least five days before the return date of this application. Pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules 7804(e) you are directed to file with the Clerk of the Court your answer and affidavits, together with the certified transcript of the record of the proceeding,together with the entire official file containing the records of the petitioner held by Respondent A { and referred to in the proceedings as being in the record as official records kept by Respondent. Suffolk County is designated as the venue of this proceeding on the basis of the residence of the parties. Dated: July 12, 2001 Mattituck,New York Wickham, Wickham&Bressler, P.C. Attorneys ?or Petition-r /h.B , aigail A. Wickham 1031' A ain Road, P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck,New York 11952 (6310 298-8353 To: Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold,New York 11971 James McNamara&Patricia McNamara 4000 Alvah's Lane Cutchogue,New York 11935 e . iy • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ' X PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER, \ (e[CI eil f 1,t it/ 151ibb Petitioner, Index No. 01 - 1 lost w7 -against- VERIFIED PETITION ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,PATRICIA MCNAMARA AND JAMES MCNAMARA, Respondents. X TO THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: Petitioner,by her attorneys, Wickham, Wickham&Bressler, P.C., for her petition respectfully alleges: THE PARTIES 1. Petitioner is and at all time's was a resident of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York,residing at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York. Petitioner is and at all times was an owner of real property known as Suffolk County Tax Map#1000-101-2- 24.5, 24.6,hereinafter"Farm". 2. Respondents Patricia McNamara and James McNamara are and at all times were residents of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, residing at 4000 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue. 4000 Alvah's Lane is across Alvah's Lane from 3705 Alvah's Lane. 3. Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold is and at all times was a duly established zoning board of appeals for the municipality of the Town of Southold pursuant to Town Law §267. • e FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. The Farm consists of approximately 18 acres and is improved by a home, storage buildings, barn, and three hoophouses. The Farm has been continually used in agricultural production since prior to the adoption of zoning in the Town of Southold in 1957. The development rights to the 16.140 acres on which the hoophouses in question were built were sold to the County of Suffolk. 5. In August, 2000 Petitioner applied for a building permit for the two northerly hoophouses on the Farm. This application was approved on October 4, 2000. Construction of the easterly hoophouse was completed prior to November, 2000, and the westerly hoophouse was substantially completed shortly thereafter. 6. The hoophouses consist of a series of semi-circular metal hoops pounded into the bare ground without foundation, and seasonally covered with plastic. The hoophouses are unheated and without floors. The area coveredby the hoophouses is approximately 2900 square feet per hoophouse. The land under the hoophouses was previously farmed on a year-round basis and continues to be farmed underneath the plastic coverage of the hoops, albeit with varying crops. The hoops merely extend the growing season of certain crops and allow others to overwinter. Previously, only winter hardy crops were planted on a year-round basis. The location of the hoophouses meets all provisions of the Southold Town Zoning ordinance. 7. On or about November 30, 2000, at a time when the hoophouses were substantially complete, McNamara,hereinafter Respondent McNamara, filed an appeal of the building inspectors determination to issue building permits for the hoophouses with the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals. The application sought reversal of the building permit on two grounds: the lack of site plan approval and the lack of side yard variance. • t � 8. Respondents McNamara asserted standing based upon the obstruction of their view caused by the hoophouses and their alleged loss of value in their property as a result thereof. No evidence of special or financial damage was introduced. 9. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals by a 3-2 vote granted the application and annulled the building permit by decision dated June 7, 2001 and filed with the Town Clerk on June 14, 2001 hereinafter"Decision". A copy of the Decision is annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The ratio decidendi was that the erection of the hoophouses effected a change in intensity of use which affected open space. THE APPLICABLE LAW 10. Southold Town Zoning ordinance provides in relevant part as follows: (a) Article XXV Site Plan Approval, Section 100-250: This Article shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, §100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require a site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. (b) Article XXII Farmland Bill of Rights, Section 100-220. Right to Farm: A. The Town Board of the Town of Southold fmds that farming is an essential activity within the Town of Southold...Accordingly, fanners shall have the right to farm in Southold without undue interference from adjacent landowners or users... Section 100-222. Right to Undertake Protected Farm Practices: A. Farmers shall have the right to undertake protected farm practices in the active pursuit of agricultural operations, including,but not limited to:...utilizing farm crop protection devices; designing and _ constructing and using farm structures, including barns, stables,paddocks, fences, greenhouses and pump houses;... (c) Article I, Definitions, Section 100-13: ...OPEN SPACE—Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open space,provided that such areas may be improved with only 1 • those buildings, structures, streets and off-street parking and other improvements that are designed to be incidental to the natural openness of the land. 11. Respondents McNamara had and have no protectible interest in a view from their property and had and have no standing to challenge Petitioner's building permit in the absence of special damages. 12. The appeal to Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals was moot since the construction of the hoophouses was substantially complete at the time of appeal. The hoophouse closest to Respondents McNamara was complete; the one behind it,which Respondents McNamara cannot see from their property,was substantially finished. Respondents McNamara took no steps at any time to attempt to preserve the status quo by injunction. Respondents McNamara adduced no evidence as to the reason for their delay in bringing the appeal or failure to seek injunctive relief. BASIS FOR RELIEF 13. The Decision of the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, illegal, and unsupported by substantial evidence in that it improperly determined that: (a) site plan approval was required as a condition precedent to issuance of a building permit for the hoophouses; (b) Respondents McNamara had standing to bring the appeal; (c) the appeal was not moot. 14. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals correctly determined that the erection of the hoophouses did not constitute a change of use of the land. The use of the land was and continued to be for agricultural production. There was no evidence to the contrary. 15. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals wrongly determined that the erection of the hoophouses constituted a change in intensity of use of the land. The use of the land was and v continued to be for field and seed crops on a year round basis. There was no change in intensity, i.e. the degree or amount of use, as the entire area was and continued to be used for farming. No permanent buildings were erected which changed the character of the farmland or its usage in agricultural production. There was no evidence of a change of intensity of use and the Building Inspector correctly determined that there was no change in intensity of use. 16. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals wrongly determined that the erection of the hoophouses themselves constituted a change in intensity of use of the land,while failing to address whether or not an actual intensification occurred. Construction of an agricultural building such as the hoophouses in issue,in and of itself, cannot be considered an intensification of use. The use of the land was for agricultural and remained so. The Building Inspector correctly determined that construction Of hoophouses would not consitute a change in intensity of use. 17. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals wrongly determined that the erection of the hoophouses constituted a change in intensity of use which affected open space. The farm does not qualify as"open space" since it is not designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment—it is and has been since prior to zoning a working farm. Moreover,the definition of open space itself contemplates the existence of structures in two respects. First, both before and after erection of the hoophouses the Farm was "essentially unimproved", since additional lot coverage 5800 square feet out of over 700,000 square feet is de minimus. Second,hoophouses are plainly"incidental"to the agricultural use of land, and therefore permitted. 18. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals wrongly determined that Respondents McNamara had standing to bring the appeal. There was no evidence in the record that Respondents McNamara suffered any special damages measured in dollars either by way of loss n { . of value in property or otherwise by reason of the building permit. In the absence of such evidence, Respondents McNamara were not aggrieved and had no standing. Living across the street is insufficient to establish standing. 19. The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals wrongly determined that the appeal was timely brought. The record reflects without dispute that the hoophouses were substantially complete prior to the filing of the appeal. No reason for delay in filing the appeal or failure to take steps to preserve the status quo was printed. 20. The Decision should be annulled and the building permit reinstated. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that a judgment issue annulling the Decision of the Respondent Zoning'Board of Appeals and reinstating the Building Permit together with such other and further relief as the Court deems proper together with costs and disbursements. Dated: July 12, 2001 Mattituck,New York Wickham, Wickham &Bressler, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner By . ' ai1& ' �r,./ cul ��.igail A. Wickham 10315 I ain Road,P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck,New York 11952 (631) 298-8353 `G PAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �,,i'®�UFF00. , .. .���p� ., ® Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ��_ • VI 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. y P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora p _' �� Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins V � ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Horning =�®d 1'00��� Telephone (631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 2001 By Fax Transmission 298-8565 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Wickham Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: McNamara/Mueller Dear Ms. Wickham: The Board of Appeals requested an extension of time for a decision on or before the July 12, 2001 meeting. The time requested was extended by Mr. Ross. Ver - ours Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman 6010/ elt/a 14.47 19-17 atc:, ,� -TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT P L ' TIME : 06/05/2001 15: 49 DATE,TIME 06/05 15:48 FAX NO. /NAME 2998565 DURATION 00:00: 30 PAGE(S) 01 RESULT Ok MODE STANDARD ECM 516 238 442? 426 P01 JUN 05 '01 13:22 � U‘' ; tr'=APEA1 c130ApU : PAC,F 01 06/05/200) 14:1d F�t?F99Y351 MEt . APPEALS afAa a �Flalk� Southold Town Hail 'BOARD MBh RS Q C +.� r i . 53095 Mein Road (:l:ai man a f,.�s : r; RC) Box 1179 3arneGerard N t?4eh:in„et, , r New Yells 11;+11 Lydia Dinizio,Ji. °� + ° Southold.I`' �{� ` °"� ` .f'"r'”"`��qq�,, zFA Fax(631)165-9064 Lura S.Colaqt di • Telephone(631)16548,09 6 [corgi liouiiCe ue.,-zi; BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOtrT1 OLD June 4, 2001 c Esq, like Novh-e).-^-at. C,On.4.el Daniel Ross, l:� 316 Westphalia Avenue P 0, Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952 �,N2e-) 0".._0"6_±-*F/i;,‘ Re: Mueller/McNamara '- f/5) j1c 1p-4,a0- Our File44909 Dear Daniel Ross, Esq.. As you know, we have had this application before us for some time The Board Is requesting an extension of time until it 3 July 12i''meeting ng We Board has bern dale deliberat derating liberation or about June since the closet1 this draftia decision assume we will complete , about the 216'of June. If you have a problem with this request, kindly contact me at the office in order to discuss this, Sincerely, l / 'terard P. Goenringer // ,r. Chairman OPG, pq APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 'it- 0WFO4 rrr \® Oe Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �r�_ . d: 53095 Main Road %James Dinizio, Jr. .;£ ' P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora _ $ Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins . d �� eel ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Horning -_ *' *„.0° Telephone(631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 4, 2001 Daniel Ross, Esq. 315 Westphalia Avenue P. O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Mueller/McNamara • Our File #4909 Dear Daniel Ross, Esq.: As you know, we have had this application before us for some time. The Board is requesting an extension of time until its July 12th meeting. The Board has been deliberating intently since the close of this hearing. We assume we will complete deliberation on or about June 7th, and draft a decision about the 21st of June. If you have a problem with this request, kindly contact me at the office in order to discuss this. • Sincerely, Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman GPG: pq jLiI3 Law Offices T=;, 11144WICKHAM WICKIIAM&BRESSLER P.C. T' n-' 17 .77771 — 10315 Main Road, P.O. Box 1424 ; Mattituck,New York 11952 qp, 631-298-8353 L 2200' 1Telefaxno. 631-298-8565 P /y1 April 2, 2001 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Application of McNamara(Satur/Mueller) Ladies and Gentlemen: We enclose a survey of Satur Farms showing the development rights parcel and the reserved parcel. A residence has been constructed on the reserved parcel, as well as a small greenhouse. At your request, we have drawn in the two 30X96 foot greenhouses, with the setbacks as the owners have measured them(68 to 70 feet frontyard, 15 feet sideyard). Further, at your request, we hereby submit the following statement in support of our position that the application should be dismissed. This statement is in addition to the matters placed on the record at the hearings. Prior to restating our legal arguments, we reiterate the provisions and intent of Code 100-220, Right to Farm, that"farmers have the right to undertake protected farm practices in active pursuit of agricultural operations, including utilizing farm protection devices; designing and constructing and using farm structures, including greenhouses", in furtherance of the Town's policy and findings that inconveniences to others by agricultural activities are "more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community". 1. Objectant Lacks Standing The objectant has no standing to bring this appeal because they have no legal right to a view across applicant's property, which is the jist of their complaint, and have submitted no proof whatsoever of harm, damage, loss of monetary value, or otherwise resulting from the issuance of the building permit. They have submitted no evidence of a right to a view, and in fact their home is over 150 feet away from the closest hoophouse. The hoophouse is 68-70 feet back from the street, well in excess of the front yard setback for even a principal structure, and while it also meets the sideyard setback requirements, . those are irrelevant to objectant's position that it impedes their view. Moreover, even if site plan review were required,the structures comply with Town setbacks. The Planning Board cannot change minimum setbacks in site plan review, but rather deals with parking, drainage, and other issues which are not pertinent to these structures. 2. Section 100-250 Does Not Require Site Plan Review. Section 100-250 does not require site plan review of the hoophouses prior to issuance of a building permit, and the Building Inspector did not err in issuing a permit without site plan review. Section 100-250 requires site plan review of structures, other than single family residences or non-agricultural accessory uses, only if they present a change in use or change in intensity of use. Neither change has occurred here. There has been no change of use. The use before and after the hoophouse erection was agricultural. The hoophouses merely cover field crops or seed beds with a temporary plastic cover supported by metal hoops hammered into the ground without footings. The same crops which grow during the regular season are, by use of the hoophouses, able to remain warm enough to avoid freezing during the winter. Likewise, seed beds are able to be germinated earlier in the season under the hoophouses than if they were sown into an uncovered field. Not only has the agricultural use not changed, even the type of agricultural use has not changed. There has been no change in intensity of use. A longer growing season, or more tiny plants from seeds where fewer larger plants once grew, is hardly change in intensity. Crops have always grown on this field, including year round crops as described at the hearing. It would be ludicrous to expect the Planning Board to review a more compact planting of crops. More compact planting, as well as protection from winter kill, is the consequence that the hoophouse allows, but it does not equate to an intensification of use to which a site plan review is geared. It is just better agricultural production. If this interpretation were taken to its logical extreme, a retail store that received site plan approval but only stocked half of its shelves during its early years, but which finally reached the level of business that it could fill its store, would have to ask the Planning Board to look again. Such a project does not need site plan review unless it expands to a larger space than originally approved. In such a case,the use has not changed, but by enlarging the space, use has intensified. Here, we are looking at the planting of a farm field, and if it can be planted for better production, either by use of winter hardy plants and no hoophouse, or non-hardy plants under a hoophouse,this should not be within the purview of the Planning Board. By analogy, more carrots planted per acre than last year is not intensification of use. Agriculture is agriculture. Nor should the Board, for instance, have to look at a situation where a farmer switches from a relatively quiet agricultural use, such as a wheat crop, involving basically the initial planting and the eventual harvesting, to a crop such a vegetables,requiring extensive soil and field preparation,planting, constant weeding and irrigation, harvesting over a much longer period of time, and finally covercropping or • perhaps the field preparation and planting of a later crop during the same season. Under the objectant's reading of 100-250, site plan review would be required as to all the non- residential structures on the property because a different type of agricultural production was used. Surely this is not meaning of intensification. The objectant's generalized statement at the very end of the hearing,that the farm was busier than previously, is likewise not indicative of intensification. No evidence was presented in support of this contention, and in fact the owner stated that the trucks and farm help are in and out of the existing barn to ship the crops grown on the open fields. There was no proof produced of intensification, and the owner stated that the hoophouses do not generate an employee usage or receive truck traffic. Again,they are merely covering crops. We are not asking the Board to address, because of the limited nature of this structure, whether a glass and steel greenhouse with a cement floor, heat, electric,water and all the amenities,would require more review. We are merely covering a field, and the Building Inspector correctly determined that site plan review was not required. Even though we strongly believe the Building Inspector was correct in determining there was no intensification of use, in the event the Board decides to use a microscope and apply the intensity of use standard to this matter, site plan review is still not required. Intensification must affect one of the following characteristics: parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities. The only characteristic even remotely at issue is open space,but open space does not mean that any construction will conflict with or affect the concept of open space and trigger site plan review. Open space, by its own definition in 100-13, includes buildings. So the mere construction of a structure fitting the permitted uses of the zone does not necessarily affect open space,particularly a small structure of a temporary nature. These hoophouses, having an area of less than 6000 square feet total, cover less than 1% of the development rights parcel. The Building Inspector would certainly have been justified, had he felt this analysis was required, to determine that these structures did not affect open space. Open space does not mean only flat open land: open space is the direct result of keeping land in agricultural production, so that residential subdivision which would otherwise be permitted cannot be build. But agriculturual production, by its very nature, necessitates some buildings. 3. Approval of the Suffolk County Farmland Committee is not a Prerequisite to Issuance of a Building Permit The Code does not contain any provision requiring the Building Department to determine compliance with the development rights restrictions imposed by the deeds of record on the owner's property. The owner is currently reviewing its project with the Suffolk County Farmland Select Committee, but that process has no bearing on the Building Permit from the Town of Southold. The Building Inspector must review compliance with zoning usage, setbacks, lot coverage and other criteria,but compliance with deed covenants, whether imposed by private individuals or other governmental authorities, is not relevant. For the Board's information,the owner has asked the Committee to clarify its prior approval as to the current location of the hoophouses, as she understood (and in fact the objectant's petition states) that the northeast corner of the property would be a satisfactory location. However, this is a separate process from the Town procedure. The County's interest is in determining that agricultural production is pursued and that structures are erected for purposes of and in furtherance of agricultural production. 4. Commencement of Construction without a Building Permit is not a Proper Issue for the Board The owner, having reviewed her hoophouse plans with the Farmland Select Committee in 1998, erroneously thought a Town permit was not required because the structures are temporary. Having been advised by the Building Department that a permit was required,the owner immediately corrected the problem and obtained a permit, which has not been revoked. Therefore,this issue is moot. 5. Since Both Hoophouses are Substantially Complete, the Appeal is Moot The record, and this Board's site inspection, show that the eastern hoophouse was complete and the western hoophouse was substantially complete at the time this appeal was filed in December, 2000. Since the objectant failed, when construction was started, to obtain an injunction,thereby allowing construction to continue, their time to object has elapsed. This position is supported by a long line of cases wherein the courts held that if the building in question was allowed to proceed to substantial completion, an objection thereafter made, where no attempt was made to obtain an injunction, was moot. Here, the objectant complained to the Building Department in July, 2000, resulting in a letter from the Department. An application was filed in mid-August. This appeal was brought in December. At no time from July,when the construction commenced, until December, when this appeal was brought, did objectant seek injunctive relief. It was not until after the structures were substantially complete that objectant brought this appeal. In Stockade v. Hughes, 189 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 897 (3d Dep't 1993), a building permit for a housing project was issued. Neighbors appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and thereafter an Article 78 proceeding was brought. The appellate court ruled that the neighbors challenge to the issuance of the building permit was moot and barred by laches, because the neighbors did not try to stop the construction which was clearly progressing. Having watched the construction progress,they could not later ask that the owner's investment in the construction be thwarted. The neighbors "failed to make sufficient efforts to safeguard their rights here by failing to seek an injunction or stay to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of this litigation. In Caprari v. Town of Colesville, 199 A.D.2d 705, 605 N.Y.S.2d 157 (3d Dep't 1993), the Court found in considering a challenge to the building permit, that"by the time plaintiffs... sought a preliminary injunction,the proposed building was substantially constructed", and held that because the challengers did not timely safeguard . D l� their interests by seeking an injunction while construction obviously proceeded, they lost their right to do so. Even where a request for an injunction was made but not issued due to possible court error, the issue was determined to be moot because the construction was complete. Harbour v. Reidell, 172 A.D.2d 920, 568 N.Y.S.2d 206 (3d Dep't, 1991). Bytner v. City of Albany, 211 A.D.2d 1000, 621 N.Y.S.2d 960 (3`d Dep't 1995). The existence of Farmland Committee approval is irrelevant to this issue. Nor do exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. The provisions of Code 100-250 do not need statutory construction. It is clear what it says, and we believe it is clear that it does not apply. Whether it does or it does not is a question of how the Board applies the statute to this circumstance, not how it is interpreted. Nor is the owner relying on the fact that site plan approval has never been required in this situation in the past. We don't think it applies here, whether it has been applied previously or not. Opposing counsel's reference to Miller v. Kozakiewicz, (citation unavailable/Rt 58, Riverhead), is not applicable to this case. We are not relying on past practice, nor seeking statutory construction. This statute is neither ambiguous nor of doubtful meaning. It simply does not apply to this case. 6. Objectant Failed to Comply with Notice Requirements of the Code Objectant did not comply with Code Section 58-1, which clearly requires the posting of a sign for a continuous 7 day period prior to the hearing. That the owner removed the sign is not relevant, because objectant had no permission to place the sign on owner's property, nor did objectant ever request such permission nor complain to the owner about the structure in the first place. These facts are not disputed by objectant. Objectant, never having requested owner to post a sign, cannot be heard to complain that they were prevented from posting. Very to ly yours, .`�////�, ./ Abigail A. Wickham Attorney for Satur-Mueller Cc: Dan Ross, Esq. TRANSMITTAL AO TO: ZBA Chairman and Members FROM: � /Office Staff DATE: SUBJECT: File Update With reference to the above application, please find attached the following new information added to the official ZBA office file: Zige9.L1.144114*: 3//5/0 Comments: "�'j / 'lam Number of Pages Attached: TrMemo.doc 1 , • SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD MARCH 15, 2001 Prepared by: Paula Quintieri Present were: Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Collins Member Horning Secretary Kowalski Chairman Goehringer(absent until 9:10 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:58 p.m. Appl. No. 4909—JAMES AND PATRICIA MCNAMARA. (Owners 101-4-1). Appelants request a Reversal of Building Permit No. 26821-Z issued concerning new construction of 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, property owned by Paulette Satur Mueller and Eberhard Mueller;Parcel 101-2-24.5 and 24.6 (combined as one lot). Dan Ross, Esq. for appellants. Eric Bressler, Esq. for owners. MEMBER TORTORA: We will go on to James and Patricia McNamara, which is also a continuation hearing. I think what we're going to do with this, at our last hearing we requested someone from the Building Department be present, and Mr.-Forrester I see that you are here this evening. Would you like to come up and talk to the Board? The application is a request to reverse the Building Department's determination that a greenhouse does not require site plan approval. Perhaps you could give us your thinking and the department's thinking on, why you believe this to be the case, a little history or whatever you'd like to say about it. ED FORRESTER: I guess you could make the inference, which the Building Department did is we issued building permit. In any application for any development, we do a zoning analysis; what is being proposed, where is it being proposed what's the zone, what's the use. With this application we had proposals in agricultural greenhouse on a piece of property and an agricultural conservation zone. Through the zoning analysis, is it a conforming lot or non-conforming lot. Had,it been a non-conforming lot, we would have done a single and separate merger exercise. It didn't apply, so we go right into the zoning for that type of use. In the AC zone, then you have the purpose, then you have the permitted uses in the zone. We go through the exercise, find the agricultural operations and accessory uses, are permitted use; more family dwellings, agriculture, buildings owned by the town and wineries. For the wineries, it specifically sends you to the Planning Board for site plan approval. It used to be an agricultural operation that was a permitted use in the zone. I continued in my zoning analysis, through the chapter, to agricultural process, then we go through the Farmland Bill of Rights and see what the Farmland Bill of Rights were 102, 220, 221 and the entire Article 22 permits to do and Page 2—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings analysis. We get to 102-50 in that article regarding site plan approval and it says,"This Article shall apply to every land use permitted in town, except single-family home use, as - single separate lot, we go back 100-31A and agricultural accessory is there too. This is not the use that is exempted here. It goes on to instruct me that any change in use, or change in the intensity of the use will trigger the need for site plan approval. We had an agricultural piece of property that was in an agricultural operation. What was proposed there was a continuance of an agricultural operation, there was no change in use. We looked at the structures. They are customarily used in agricultural operation, they were somewhat temporary in nature. We didn't deem it to be, there were no parking area, it wasn't going to be used for retail. There were no additional farm workers involved there. There was no intensity of use deemed by my department, and a building permit was issued at that time. MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of question, in the permitted uses, under agriculture residential 100-31. I went through this,list myself. Of the four uses that are permitted; 1. family dwellings, 2. accessory uses, 3. buildings structures and uses by the town only the fourth specifically states that site plan approval is required. Under two, under the • accessory uses, 2C, it discusses barns, storage buildings, greenhouses including plastic covered and other related structures. Do the Building Department require site plan approval, or has it in the past required site plan approval for any of the accessory uses? ED FORRESTER: Not unless it pulled one of the site plan triggers where it represented a change in the use of the property or change in the intensity use of the property. To give an example, if you were to become a retail greenhouse, where things would be sold from the greenhouse. That would immediately pull a trigger, a site plan. You've got a traffic issue, we've,got a parking issue, and we have drainage issues. That would be the type of thing. MEMBER TORTORA: Retail greenhouses, would require site plan approval. ED FORRESTER: Retail, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Another question, it may not be directly related. ED FORRESTER: I guess your question, was no, we don't generally send just a greenhouse to. MEMBER TORTORA: Unless it's for retail purposes? ED FORRESTER: For retail purposes it would, a greenhouse for the farmers use, no. A • barn for the farmers use, no. MEMBER TORTORA: Ed, about a year ago, and I did not follow that closely, but I was curious as to the outcome. There was a lot of discussion, in the Code Committee, about greenhouses. I ' . Page 3—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings Was the question of site plan discussed at that time? ED FORRESTER: Yes, it was an issue with some of the types of greenhouses. It's funny you should ask. In here are my notes on those committee meetings. During those committee meetings, they were going to define different types of greenhouse uses. There was the home garden, there was a retail, there was a commercial greenhouse, there was a strictly, hobby greenhouse. They were attempting to define them, and in defining them, which ones, and in which zones, would they require site plan approval. An agricultural greenhouse in an R-40 zone, it went around, and around, and around. Those talks and that committee never reached a resolution, to my knowledge at this point, because a legislation still doesn't exist. MEMBER TORTORA: But was the assumption, that's what I'm really asking, because I did not attend the meetings. Was the assumption, that greenhouses for the, strictly for the purpose of growing agricultural crops, did not require a site plan approval? ED FORRESTER: Yes, there was a ( ? ) in favor of that. I don't think there was an opposition, however, other types of greenhouses. There was nurseries, growing everything, there was truck traffic, there was a parking area, we were talking about the necessity for planning too look at screening; setting them back maybe further to reduce the impact on the horizon. All types of things they were discussing. There were proponents pro and con, both from town agencies and from the agricultural industry. Again, there was no resolution to those discussion MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, I don't have any further questions. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Were you aware of a stipulation from some county agency that stipulated that these should have been built not in the location that they're in? ED FORRESTER: I'd been made aware of it. The Suffolk County Farmland, I guess it's our version of development rights. That's a deeded issue, it's an agreement that the property owner made with another agency. It is not a legislative thing, it's basically deeded thing. I did note it was property that had rights sold, and I advised them to contact the agency and get their approval. The Town Code doesn't directly enforce deeded covenants and restrictions between two parties. MEMBER DINIZIO: Were you aware of that at the time that you issued the permit. ED FORRESTER: Yes, I wasn't aware of a specific location? MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you aware now? ED FORRESTER: Yes, I am. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you aware of that, wouldn't you have issued that permit? • . Page 4—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings • ED FORRESTER: If the Code directs me to grant the permit, A B C, I've got to give the date. One of the things I have to look is an agreement you may have with another party that's not what I need to look at. I would've strongly suggested it. MEMBER COLLINS: You're putting that kind of in a category of, when people want to build on a plot that might be in Trustee territory, you've told them that they've got to talk to the Trustees. ED FORRESTER: I enforce all the Town Ordinances. This is not one of them. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry. So this is not the same. ED FORRESTER: If there was a current restriction placed by the Planning Board, I would enforce it. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, I was being too casual, and you're right. Thanks (UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN): In a previous testimony there was some discussion, I believe the owner said, that these were temporary structures. How do we determine how temporary, is temporary, and when does it become permanent? ED FORRESTER: Temporary doesn't exist in the Building Department's vocabulary. It's a structure or it isn't. There are some structures that are easily moved about, dismantled, removed. These structures would appear to be that type of structure. Everything that is erected, we determine is a structure, and needs a permit. Temporary, permanent it's not relevant to a building permit. (UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN): So, in other words these could be there for fifty to one hundred years, that would meet the building permit. ED FORRESTER: If they were planning to take them down next month, I'd still make them get a permit. MEMBER TORTORA: Are there any other questions of this witness? Thank you very much Mr. Forrester. Thank you for coming in. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on behalf of the application? DAN ROSS: Good evening. Dan Ross, for the applicants, Pat and Jim McNamara, who are seeking a reversal of a building permit. I understand that this is a continued hearing of a limited issue of past practice, I guess you would call it, of the Building Department. I don't know if the Board has had an opportunity to review the submission I made this afternoon. Basically, it's a case that was recently handed down from Judge Dunn, arising out of the development going on at Route 58, in Riverhead, it's Miller vs. Casacavitch The issue there was, what had been the general practice, regarding certain zoning . Page 5—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings practices in Riverhead. The applicant had argued that the Code had not been followed. Riverhead advanced the argument, well the Code had not been followed, but we never did it that way. We never filed the Code, in effect. What Judge Dunn said was, and I quote, "The practical construction of the statute by those charged with this enforcement is not relevant for the statute is neither ambiguous nor doubtful in meaning." You have the case there, the sections are marked off that deals with the issue, the Judge deals with this more extensively and I embark you to take a look at that. Basically, what the Judge says is, if the Code says it should be done this way, the people who are charged with carrying out the dictates of the Town Board, should not be permitted to avoid those dictates. Which is the case here. There is a scheme to things, and, if the Planning Board does not want to review the site plan; or if a building inspector does not want to send the applicant for site plan and review, then let them tell the Town Board to change the Code. It's not their place to say, this isn't how we do it. Which gets us to the issue. What does the Code say. The Building Inspector indicated that there is an analysis, a zoning analysis. You start with what it is, and put zones in, and he pointed out that he first looks to whether it is a permitted us; and, in this case, it was. But, we see it, right off the bat, in the applicable section, that site plan review is not limited to non-permitted uses. This article shall apply to every land use that is permitted. So, whether it is permitted or not permitted, is not relevant for purposes of site plan review. I am reading, again, from 100- 250, this article shall apply to land use that is permitted in the town of Southold, except the single-family home use on a single or separate lot, as set forth in article 100-31 in customary non-agricultural uses to single family residential use, non-agricultural uses. 31, then makes it very clear that a greenhouse is not a non-agricultural use. It lists it as an agricultural use. There is no way to define yourself out of these two statutory sections that can say site plan approval is not required. That the Building Department has not done it in the past may be the case that the Planning Board, and I understand we are waiting an advisory (end of tape) It's this bill's duty (inaudible) when presented with the opportunity to do so. Had the Code been properly applied, the applicant's here would have had a chance to come before the Planning Board and say, the greenhouse should not be in front of my front window. It should be in the northwest location, where the Farmland Committee told them they could put it. This is your opportunity to do what you're charged to do. MEMBER TORTORA: Would anyone here like to speak against the applicant? MEMBER COLLINS: I'd like to ask Mr. Ross a question. Dan could you return, I'm sorry. DAN ROSS: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to pin down what I believe you were telling us. You started to tell us what Section 250 says, and you stopped after the first sentence about the uses to which it applies. I think, what we're talking about here is the next sentence; which says when site plan approval has to kick in, and it is any change in use or intensity of use, which,will effect the characteristics of the site, in terms of parking, loading and - Page 6—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings - that requires site plan approval. What I believe we heard Mr. Forrester say was that the Building Department has, in it's administrative responsibilities, taken the view that if there is an agricultural use and you put a greenhouse on the agricultural property and it's not going to be a retail operation, it's not going to have retail parking and so forth, that's not the kind of change of use in intensity that would kick the site plan. I think, what you're telling us, and I'd like to know, is that we should interpret the Code as giving a different message to the Building Department; that, they're being too loose in their interpretation of those words. Is that what you're asking us to do? DAN ROSS:- Yes, I don't think it's the Building Department's position to interpret the Code. I think it's their charge to apply it. If the question of intensity of use is an issue, I'm not the person you want here. You want the neighbors to suggest that you have an open field, and you put 100 x 30 foot greenhouse on it, tubing, and that the intensity of the use does not change, it's just not correct. There is a greater intensity, there are farm workers there, I heard them mention that he didn't think there are any farm workers there. Let's hear from the neighbors. Let them tell you about the farm workers, I believe there's a port-a-potty on the premises now. So, to suggest that there's not going to be a change in intensity is just incorrect. MEMBER COLLINS: That's what I wanted you to tell us. I wanted to get that on the record, as to what really you're asking us to do. I think, it seems to me that if we were to entertain your request, that we reverse the building permit, it would have to be that we think the Building Department misread or misapplied that sentence and was wrong for not sending it for site plan approval.. And you're telling us that is, indeed, what you're • asking us to do. DAN ROSS: I think on the first sentence, site plan approval should have been required. But, if that's how this Board would read that, I think, clearly, two large greenhouses built on vacant farmland is going to be a greater intensity of use. MEMBER TORTORA: The two issues that I think we're talking about here are, one you believe the wording of the Code is planned, because it says, in essence, that every use except single-family houses and accessory uses thereto require site plan approval, and two, your contingent is that there has been an increase in the intensity of the use of the land by the by the very virtue that the land was once vacant, now contains two greenhouses. Is that accurate? DAN ROSS: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Dinizio, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Horning? 1 • Page 7—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. Would anybody like to speak against this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Hello, my name is Gail Wickham, I'm here on behalf of the owners of the property in question. I know the last hearing was quite long, and I'll try to be brief and address Mr. Ross's remarks. The case that he referred to, fortunately we're not talking here about Home Depot, and his past practice argument, is really not applicable; because, Mr. Forrester stated he did not make a decision based on past practice of the town, he based it on the reading of the Code, whether it applied to'this situation or not. I would like to first, if I could,just give the Board a bit of a backdrop in which they might want to view this particular matter, referring to specifically to Code Section 100-220, which is the farmland right to farm. That was enacted by the Southold Town Board in 1997, eight years after the site plan code that we're talking about, and, so it is a more recent expression of the Town Board's intention that in a site plan code we are looking at. That code enunciated a policy of the Town of Southold, that farmers have the right to farm in Southold, without undue interference with adjacent landowners or users. The Town Board went on to make actual findings of fact in that statute, including the fact that agricultural activities properly conducted are presumed not to adversely effect the public health safety and welfare. Whatever nuisance is caused by others to such uses, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community. The benefits are enunciated as fresh food, clear air, economic diversity, esthetic open spaces and less demand for services funded by tax factors. These are the factors the Board can consider in making it's deliberations, that farming and agricultural production, per say, should be waived heavily in making a decision and reflecting on the case at hand. While there is a reference in there for open space, I will address this in further detail in a minute, but it obviously doesn't mean that every portion of every acre has to be open. Barns and other structures, are recognized in farming practice on this farm and any other one. The code goes on to say that farmers have the right to undertake protected farm practices in the active pursuit of agricultural operations, including, utilizing farm protection devices, which this could be, designing and constructing and using farm structures including greenhouses. So, weighing your decision, I would hope that would keep thosepolicies, findings and farmers' rights in mind. Going on, specifically, to the site plan section 100- 250, which is really what we're talking about here; the first thing it says, is that it applies to every land use. It doesn't say buildings, it says land and the land use of farming has not changed. Moving on to the second sentence, site plans we heard before is required two instances. A changing use, the farming use is not changed, or a change in intensity of use, which we maintain very strongly has not changed either. Farming of field crops and seed crops has existed on this field for years, many, many years. The hoop houses that are there are covering crops on the field, and they are not intensifying the use of that property. Intensification is something where you may be adding uses, making major extensions in existing buildings on business properties. Planting denser crops or putting a covering over a crop can hardly be classified as intensification, it's better agricultural production is what it is. Even if the Board should decide that there has been a change, • Page 8—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings either in use or intensity of use, I would ask you to go on to the next sentence, which lists the criteria for when a site plan is required and if there has been a change. The change must affect parking; we don't have that here; or loading, we don't have that here. Or access, that's not here, or drainage, that's not a problem it's sandy soil the surrounding cover crop keep the drainage from being any kind of a problem, even in these extensive rainstorms that we've had over the past several months and during the winter. Utilities, no, there's no internal water or electric. Open space, well now that's an interesting point that's brought up, no, that I would submit doesn't apply either. Because, open space, as I mentioned before, doesn't mean that your acreage is going to be completely devoid of any structure,or any obstruction to visibility. It 'doesn't mean you can't build anything or have to provide an unobstructed view. First, if they put a row of sunflowers or corn along Alvah's Lane, you wouldn't see those structures. That's certainly no prohibited. A row of evergreens, that some of the neighbors have, that obstructs the view; but, it does not qualify it as being disqualified as open space. Even the Town's own definition of open space in 100-13 says, it means it's property which is, "essential unimproved" which contemplates some improvements. In that very definition of open space, they talk about buildings being permitted. Further, Development Rights Property, permits buildings. Flat, open land is not the result of open space or sale of development rights, it's a means to preserve agriculture. Which means, by nature, entails large straps of open land, but not necessarily all of them. Mr. Ross said you can't define your way out of that section. I'd say that's not true, 250 doesn't apply. There's no change, and even if you think there is, it doesn't apply to those' categories. I just want to address Mr. Ross's letter which he submitted today, naming four categories of sighting case law. It doesn't apply in any of those four categories, I would submit, because it presumes that the site plan approval was required and we're submitting that it was not. On his paragraph one, the permit was not issued based on past practices, I mentioned before. As to his paragraph two, it was not issued based on a Suffolk County Farmland determination. As to his paragraph three, I think what he's saying is that he doesn't think the Board may consider equitable principles of law, and I find that hard to believe. In any event, I'm merely asking you to read the statute and apply it to this situation, as it is written. As to paragraph four, in the Hurst w case, if there is an important question of statutory construction that is likely to occur, that this issue wouldn't apply. But, I submit that it does apply. We're not asking for a statutory construction, nor is he. The statute says what it says, nobody's arguing about what it says. It's a question of how the facts of this case apply within it. Finally, there's, as I mentioned before, there's no showing of standing, there's no showing of an entitlement to view, no showing of hardship and no showing that the site plan code provision applies to this case. We don't believe the Building Department earned granting a permit, and we would appreciate a prompt decision. If you have any further questions, Ms. Satur is here, and she'd be happy to help you. MEMBER HORNING: I have one. Is it true the greenhouses were originally erected without a building permit? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I believe that, having gone to the Farmland Committee, she understood that they had approved them, and she put them up when the complaint was filed. She went in immediately to see Mr. Forrester. He advised that they had to be • Page 9—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings • moved back. She actually moved them back further from the road than she originally placed them. MEMBER HORNING: How much further? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: At least 20 feet. I believe she had them at 40, and they were moved back to 60 or so feet. I hope that answers your question: MEMBER HORNING: Yes, thank you. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That was a mistake, but it was immediately corrected when she realized the error. MEMBER TORTORA: One thing we had asked for at the last hearing, and I don't see it in the file, is the survey with the location of the greenhouses on the survey. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't recall you requesting that, I'm sorry. I know that was talked about, but we don't have one. In fact, that's another issue I raised at the hearing, that if you're going to require an agricultural greenhouse to have a survey, that's an expensive thing. MEMBER TORTORA: No, but the property would have a survey, by virtue of the fact that it has the development rights. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I can give you a survey of the property. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, if you could just draw them in. If you could submit that, I would appreciate it. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: It will be a photocopy. MEMBER TORTORA: That's fine. I have no other questions. Miss Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: All that we had, as I recall, was from the Building Department file, we had a survey of the house lot. You could see, very faintly, because I think they'd been penciled in and then it was photocopied, what appeared to be the two greenhouses in a spot not on the house lot. I think our concern was where are they. We were not asking for a surveyor. Obviously, a survey of the property exists and to put them where they actually are. Just for our record. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: You want the whole farm. We will try to estimate that. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim? - Page 10—March 15,2001 • ZBA Hearings • MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you about no one is entitled to a view. Certainly, if someone has a piece of property they are entitled to do what they like. I would also rely on people's word. I'm just kind of a little upset about the fact that these people agreed to put these buildings back in a different location and signed a piece of paper, I'm assuming, that said that they would do that in order to sell the development rights or however that went with the County, that that document exists. That someone could read that document and someone could interpret or stand across the street and say, well I don't have to worry about these hoops because they're required to be built in a location that's acceptable to • me. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Acceptable to the neighbor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, they have agreed to put those buildings in a location other than where they are now. I'm assuming that they signed, whatever they signed. I never read it, but my understanding is a Farmland Committee somewhere, asked these people not to build the buildings in that location. That they preferred to have it in a different location. Was I right? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Not exactly. First, of all the development rights were sold years ago. This particular application to the Farmland Committee was made a couple of years ago. When the Committee makes a decision you don't sign that, they send you a letter. Miss Satur's understanding was that that was a general discussion of some of the area's where she could put the building. She did not realize, and it's still not clear to me, that it was specifically mapped on the property. There was a discussion about putting the building down, the hoop house rather, in the very northwest corner of the property at one point, because at that point, she thought it would be out of the wind. However, that floats. It's a very low spot. It's very heavy soil and I'll let her address that more carefully, if you would like me to. She put it there, and she talked about various locations at that same meeting. There were several other applications the way the Committee was approaching it. One application came in, I think they were asking for some number of acres of greenhouses. They were asking, on another application, two barns anywhere of several different locations on the property. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not concerned with that. My concern is just this in particular. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: In this.particular case, I don't think she felt that they had zeroed in on, a particular location other than the northern end of the property. Yes, there is a designation that says northwest. I don't think she realized that she was limited that. That's a Farmland Committee issue, which we certainly will take up with them. I don't think the Board of Appeals really has to do anything on this. MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, we don't have to enforce it. MISS SUTUR: They didn't make recommendations as to where I should put the houses. When I went before the Committee, it was just to allow hoop houses to be put on land - Page 11—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings where the development rights had been sold., And they say, where were you thinking? I had just bought the land, maybe here, maybthere. Okay, we are allowing you to put hoop houses on land where the development rights had been sold. This is not a problem, this is an agricultural practice, stamped and signed. They didn't request it to be put there. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: She's talking about at the meeting. She sent the letter, she suggested a couple of locations when the meeting occurred. It was a very informal discussion about a various number of areas, and that's what she understood. I think when the resolution came back they just parroted what she said in her letter. But, she really didn't understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the resolution says.... ABIGAIL WICKHAM: It's a general description. It doesn't, there's nothing on a map that says. And we would clarify that with them. We intend to go to the Committee and clarify the agricultural reasons why those greenhouses shouldn't be where they're seen. (inaudible). as opposed to this northern area. Do you want to hear it? If you'd like, tell me, I don't know if it's appropriate. MEMBER DINIZIO: Say a person that is here objecting this right now, went to that meeting. I'm assuming, ABIGAIL WICKHAM: If they'd gone to the meeting they would have heard that there was a very, very big discussion about various places, here or there. Really, those are a group of farmers that are concerned about where agriculturally it should b situated; not caring about where the neighbors think about. MEMBER DINIZIO: Like I said, I think that someone reading this would say, oh well, it should be on the northwestern part. Well, I'm not going to worry about that. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Yes it does say that, and that's why we want to clarify that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you can't change something that's already been done. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, as you pointed out, we're all curious about this,but I'm not sure how it relates to the issue of whether or not a site plan is required. Do you have any further comments? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No. DAN ROSS: Yes, may I address Mr. Dinizio's question? The letter that was written to the Farmland Committee states, and I quote from the letter, "Our desire is to set the greenhouse at either the northwest or southeast end of our property. Even though it will incur more expense to bring water and utilities to either of these ends, it will not be obtrusive at either of these sites. " That's what the landowner said to the Farmland Committee. The Farmland Committee, after consideration said, a request was made for Page 12—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings a greenhouse, as proposed in a letter dated April 21, 1998, the letter I just read. A motion was made to approve northwestern location for a temporary greenhouse, subject to local requirements. It wasn't too general. It was specific,, and the reason was, put it in those corners so it would not be obtrusive. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That's not correct. I'll let him finish. • MEMBER DINIZIO: This Committee, I'm totally unfamiliar with it, but is this the Committee that would have to publish their meetings. DAN ROSS: Yes, the minutes are published, the minutes are before you. The minutes of the Farmland Committee is part of the application. MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's something we can rely on for information. MEMBER TORTORA: It consists of farmers throughout Suffolk County who meet and review applications for structures on lands where the development rights have been sold because the County has an interest in those lands by nature of the fact that they have been paid for by the taxpayers. It's as simple as that. DAN ROSS: It's under the auspices of the Suffolk County Planning Department. MEMBER TORTORA: Correct MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I was trying to get at Lydia. I wanted to know how important this Committee is. Obviously, MEMBER TORTORA: They carry some weight. MEMBER HORNING: If this material is part of their testimony, what bearing has it on the case? MEMBER TORTORA: In my opinion, it has no bearing on this. I think you'll agree, that the issue before us, our realm of review is whether or not Building Department errored in his decision not to require site plan approval. We have no jurisdiction to enforce any other agencies approvals, disapprovals or anything else. I think we recognize that Mr. Ross. DAN ROSS: I understand there are some neighbors who would like to comment on the intensity of use issue. MEMBER TORTORA: That's fine. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. I • Page 13—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings PAT MCNAMARA: Hi, I'm Pat McNamara. I just want to let you know that the house has been in our family for thirty years. There's always been farming there, always. This is a different kind of farming. The intensity is so much greater. They have trucks coming and going constantly. There are always workers in and out of the greenhouses, constantly, constantly. I mean, it's not just like no one is there. I mean, they have so many workers coming and going. It's just ruined our quality of life, as we know it. We have nothing against greenhouses, nothing. We love to see the farming, that's why we were so happy there. Why do they have to be put where they are? They have so much property going all the way down to the vineyards. Why are they putting them right on top of the hill. They're obnoxious to look at for anybody who drives down Alvah's Lane. Not just myself and my neighbors. The intensity is there, let me tell you. Like I say, it's been thirty years since we've been in this house, and when they say the intensity hasn't changed, that's not true. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak? JIM MCNAMARA: I'm Jim McNamara. I would just like to say that they have arrogance about them. I went over to talk to them when I first saw the greenhouse material, and he just turned his back, he wouldn't even talk to me. You would think that they could move them. If they wanted them next to the road, they only had to move them another hundred feet, and right across the street is grapes. No one is going to be bothered that way. Everything they do, they seem to don't follow the law to the tee. Just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, I think what we'd like to do is close the hearing to oral testimony. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Mrs. Tortora, may I just address that intensity of use question. MEMBER TORTORA: Very briefly, wrap it up here. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: The trucks are in and out of the barns. They have nothing to do with the greenhouses, so they don't effect the intensity of use there, as well as the workers, there have always been farm workers there. Mr. McNamara's remarks, first of all, were irrelevant and the location was agriculturally motivated, not by his view consideration. MEMBER TORTORA: I think what we're going to do is we're going to close the hearing to oral testimony and allow you, Mr. Ross, ten days to make any written presentation that you would like. Allow you five days after that to rebut and leave the written portion of the hearing open for a total of fifteen days for public comment by any agency or person. I'll make that motion. MEMBER COLLINS: Second i " - Page 14—March 15,2001 ZBA Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: All in favor ALL: Aye 9:08 p.m. Appl. No. 4837 — Application for H. CASHY and M. MISTHOS. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-239.4A to locate an accessory swimming pool and hot tub construction at less than 100 feet from the bluff of the Long Island Sound, at 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold; 1000-50-1-3. CHAIRMAN GERARD P. GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, ifs a pleasure seeing you tonight. (Thank you for closing that door.) We are ready for you, sir. CHARLES R. CUDDY, ESQ: Good evening, Charles Cuddy for the applicants, Harry Cashy and Maria Misthos. As you know, we have been here before and I'm sure I can get a sense that you would not be disappointed if we did not come back. But unfortunately we had to every though my clients had made a significant effort to resolve the questions that the Board has asked us to do. I earlier sent you a map or a survey that showed that the pool, which is the subject of this application, the pool and the bluff area, had been moved in so that now the pool was shortened but it was also more feet away from the westerly side. So that it was 48 feet from the boundary line of the property and the property inside going to the neighbor's house on the west is another 10 feet, so as it stands now the pool will be 58 feet away from their house. In addition, the applicants had retained a landscaped architect who had added additional landscaping. I will go through that with you in a few minutes, and present to you a copy of his work so that we thought by moving the hot tub, which we moved from one end to the other, moving over the pool and adding significant additional landscaping so that we would satisfy those people on the west that had objected. I thought that had resulted in some sort of resolution. It did not, so we've asked to be heard again. We have tried very much as I've indicated, to be sensitive to their concerns. I don't know why we have not succeeded — that I have not heard. But I do have several witnesses that I would like to continue the hearing with. The first one is George Penesis. He's an engineer who is an acoustical engineer. There was some testimony at,the last hearing on sound. I believe he's a sound expert and that he can testify about the sound from the pool. I would like him to come up and in the mean time I'd like to give you his C.D. or resume so that you can look at it while he's talking. CHAIRMAN: thank you very much. (Handed up copy of resume for Mr. Penesis.) GEORGE PENESIS, P.E. raised his right hand and was sworn in by the Chairman. CHAIRMAN: It's a pleasure to meet you, sir. ;r , 3 ,moi lig OFFOL A. �,. Board of Appeals , y = Torn of So . hol ;o 0,' • FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909 — Patricia and James McNamara STREET & LOCATION: 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: February 27, 2001; March 15, 2001 I. NATURE OF APPEAL: Appellants, Patricia and James McNamara, request that the Zoning Board of Appeals reverses a Building Permit (No. 26821-Z) dated October 4, 2000 issued to Eberhard Mueller and Paulette Satur Mueller to construct two greenhouses. East greenhouse measures 30 by 96 feet. II. RELIEF REQUESTED: Appellants maintain that the Building Inspector erred in issuing the building permit, because, pursuant to Southold Town Code Section 100-250, site plan approval by the Town Planning Board was required for this project prior to a building permit being issued. Site plan approval was not obtained. III. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The property consists of approximately 18 acres situate along the west side of Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue and is improved with a newly constructed house, a cottage converted to a storage building, and a barn. The greenhouses were constructed about 70 feet from the front property line. Of the 18 acres, the development rights on approximately 16 acres were sold to the County of Suffolk. The property is more specifically described as SCTM Parcel #1000-101-2-24.5 which covers that portion of the lot on which the development rights have not been sold, and SCTM Parcel #1000-101-2-24.6 which covers that portion of the lot on which the development rights have been sold. IV. MATTERS CONSIDERED: 1) Eberhard Mueller and Paulette Satur Mueller own the parcel for which this building permit was applied. 2) The McNamara's own a parcel of property and live directly across the street from the property for which the Building Permit in question was issued. 3) Construction of the greenhouses was originally begun without building permits. The Building Department stopped the work and subsequently the property owners applied for and received building permit No. 26821-Z. 4) The greenhouses each measure 30 x 96 feet. The square footage of the greenhouses totals approximately 6000 square feet. The greenhouses have no heat. The floors are the Page 2—June 7, 2001 - r Y Appl. No. 4909—P. and J. McNamara 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 5) The Building Inspector testified that there was no distinction between a temporary or permanent building under the Town Code. The Building Inspector further testified that the greenhouses met the definition of building under the Town Code and therefore-a building permit was required. • 6) Pursuant to the Southold Town Code the property owned by the Muellers is a single lot, despite the fact that the lot has two Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers. There was no subdivision involved, just the sale of the development rights on the majority of the parcel. Two SCTM numbers were issued for ease of taxing purposes, not to indicate two legal, separate and distinct lots as defined by the Town Code. V. APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS: Chapter 100 "Zoning" under Article XXV, Section 100-250 entitled "Site Plan Approval," which reads as follows: § 100-250. Applicability. This Article shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, § 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single- family residential home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board andall other public agencies involved. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this matter on February , 2001 and March 15, 2001, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based on all testimony, documentation, personal observations of members of the Board and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Issue before the Board The crucial issue before the Board is whether or not these two greenhouses required site plan approval pursuant to Town Code Section 100-250. Page 3 —June 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909—P. and J. McNamara 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 • The use in question is farming. This is undisputed. Section 100-250 states that Article XXV of the Town Code shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except that: 1) the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, § 100-31A(1); and 2) customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code Farming is a land use and neither of the exceptions are applicable. Therefore Article XXV of the Town Code applies to farming. (It is important to note that the question before this Board is not whether or not the two buildings are permitted but rather, whether site plan approval is required.) Section 100-250 further states that site plan approval is not required unless there is: 1) a change in use, or 2) a change in intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities. In this case there is no change in use. The prior use of the property was farming or accessory farming and the greenhouses will be used for the same use. The key question is whether the construction of the two greenhouses constitute a change in intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities. The greenhouses in question together total approximately 6000 square feet. By sheer size alone these cannot be considered minor accessory structures. The footprint created by such substantial greenhouses as well as their placement on the property constitute a change in intensity of use which will affect, at a minimum, open space. Thus, pursuant to Town Code section 100-250 site plan approval was required as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit. The Board notes that in totaling approximately 6000 square feet these structures are larger than the majority of the structures in the Town. The Muellers raise the questions of standing, notice and mootness. The Board finds these claims to be without merit. • BOARD RESOLUTION/ACTION: Now, therefore, on motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Horning, it is Page 4—June 7, 2001 -- Appl. No. 4909—P. and J. McNamara • 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 • Resolved, that the Zoning Board of Appeals, based on the record, the public hearings, the oral testimony and the written submissions, for the reasons set forth above, hereby finds that Mueller's application required site plan approval pursuant to section 100- 250 of the Town Code prior to a building permit being issued; and be it further Resolved, that the Building Inspector's decision to grant Building Permit No. • 26821-Z dated October 4, 2000 is hereby reversed and annulled. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, and Horning. NAYS: Members Dinizio and Collins. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-2). ' erard P. Goehringer, Ch-firman ///iii,,_ ,'PEALS BOARD MEMBERS �,ll OFF 04 =, 1° pyo K 00Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ��j •• 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. , y Z P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora '} 47$ Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins / ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 George Horning = 141 *tile. Telephone'(631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 2001 By Fax Transmission 298-8565 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Wickham Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: McNamara/Mueller Dear Ms. Wickham: The Board of Appeals requested an extension of time for a decision on or before the July 12, 2001 meeting. The time requested was extended by Mr. Ross. Ver . ours Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman joi4 53p VC/0 (GO oto.40 et,A)3.) g; Law Officesl'1%1;'f WICKHAM, WICKHAM &BRESSLER, P.C. A 10315 Main Road, P.O. Box 1424 /:od,o m. • Mattituck,New York 11952 631-298-8353 Telefax no. 631-298-8565 April 2, 2001 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Application of McNamara(Satur/Mueller) Ladies and Gentlemen: We enclose a survey of Satur Farms showing the development rights parcel and the reserved parcel. A residence has been constructed on the reserved parcel, as well as a small greenhouse. At your request, we have drawn in the two 30X96 foot greenhouses, with the setbacks as the owners have measured them(68 to 70 feet frontyard, 15 feet sideyard). Further, at your request, we hereby submit the following statement in support of our position that the application should be dismissed. This statement is in addition to the matters placed on the record at the hearings. Prior to restating our legal arguments, we reiterate the provisions and intent of Code 100-220, Right to Farm,that"farmers have the right to undertake protected farm practices in active pursuit of agricultural operations, including utilizing farm protection devices; designing and constructing and using farm structures, including greenhouses", in furtherance of the Town's policy and findings that inconveniences to others by agricultural activities are "more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community". 1. Objectant Lacks Standing The objectant has no standing to bring this appeal because they have no legal right to a view across applicant's property,which is the jist of their complaint, and have submitted no proof whatsoever of harm, damage, loss of monetary value, or otherwise resulting from the issuance of the building permit. They have submitted no evidence of a right to a view, and in fact their home is over 150 feet away from the closest hoophouse. The hoophouse is 68-70 feet back from the street, well in excess of the front yard setback for even a principal structure, and while it also meets the sideyard setback requirements, • those are irrelevant to objectant's position that it impedes their view. Moreover, even if - site plan review were required, the structures comply with Town setbacks. The Planning Board cannot change minimum setbacks in site plan review, but rather deals with parking, drainage, and other issues which are not pertinent to these structures. 2. Section 100-250 Does Not Require Site Plan Review. Section 100-250 does not require site plan review of the hoophouses prior to issuance of a building permit, and the Building Inspector did not err in issuing a permit without site plan review. Section 100-250 requires site plan review of structures, other than single family residences or non-agricultural accessory uses, only if they present a change in use or change in intensity of use. Neither change has occurred here. There has been no change of use. The use before and after the hoophouse erection was agricultural. The hoophouses merely cover field crops or seed beds with a temporary plastic cover supported by metal hoops hammered into the ground without footings. The same crops which grow during the regular season are, by use of the hoophouses, able to remain warm enough to avoid freezing during the winter. Likewise, seed beds are able to be germinated earlier in the season under the hoophouses than if they were sown into an uncovered field. Not only has the agricultural use not changed, even the type of agricultural use has not changed. There has been no change in intensity of use. A longer growing season, or more tiny plants from seeds where fewer larger plants once grew, is hardly change in intensity. Crops have always grown on this field, including year round crops as described at the hearing. It would be ludicrous to expect the Planning Board to review a more compact planting of crops. More compact planting, as.well as protection from winter kill, is the consequence that the hoophouse allows, but it does not equate to an intensification of use to which a site plan review is geared. It is just better agricultural production. If this interpretation were taken to its logical extreme, a retail store that received site plan approval but only stocked half of its shelves during its early years, but which finally reached the level of business that it could fill its store, would have to ask the Planning Board to look again. Such a project does not need site plan review unless it expands to a larger space than originally approved. In such a case,the use has not changed, but by enlarging the space, use has intensified. Here, we are looking at the planting of a farm field, and if it can be planted for better production, either by use of winter hardy plants and no hoophouse, or non-hardy plants under a hoophouse,this should not be within the purview of the Planning Board. By analogy, more carrots planted per acre than last year is not intensification of use. Agriculture is agriculture. Nor should the Board, for instance, have to look at a situation where a farmer switches from a relatively quiet agricultural use, such as a wheat crop, involving basically the initial planting and the eventual harvesting, to a crop such a vegetables, requiring extensive soil and field preparation, planting, constant weeding and irrigation, harvesting over a much longer period of time, and finally covercropping or • perhaps the field preparation and planting of a later crop during the same season. Under the objectant's reading of 100-250, site plan review would be required as to all the non- residential structures on the property because a different type of agricultural production was used. Surely this is not meaning of intensification. The objectant's generalized statement at the very end of the hearing, that the farm was busier than previously, is likewise not indicative of intensification. No evidence was presented in support of this contention, and in fact the owner stated that the trucks and farm help are in and out of the existing barn to ship the crops grown on the open fields. There was no proof produced of intensification, and the owner stated that the hoophouses do not generate an employee usage or receive truck traffic. Again, they are merely covering crops. We are not asking the Board to address, because of the limited nature of this structure, whether a glass and steel greenhouse with a cement floor, heat, electric, water and all the amenities, would require more review. We are merely covering a field, and the Building Inspector correctly determined that site plan review was not required. Even though we strongly believe the Building Inspector was correct in determining there was no intensification of use, in the event the Board decides to use a microscope and apply the intensity of use standard to this matter, site plan review is still not required. Intensification must affect one of the following characteristics: parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities. The only characteristic even remotely at issue is open space,but open space does not mean that any construction will conflict with or affect the concept of open space and trigger site plan review. Open space, by its own definition in 100-13, includes buildings. So the mere construction of a structure fitting the permitted uses of the zone does not necessarily affect open space, particularly a small structure of a temporary nature. These hoophouses, having an area of less than 6000 square feet total, cover less than 1% of the development rights parcel. The Building Inspector would certainly have been justified, had he felt this analysis was required,to determine that these structures did not affect open space. Open space does not mean only flat open land: open space is the direct result of keeping land in agricultural production, so that residential subdivision which would otherwise be permitted cannot be build. But agriculturual production, by its very nature, necessitates some buildings. 3. Approval of the Suffolk County Farmland Committee is not a Prerequisite to Issuance of a Building Permit The Code does not contain any provision requiring the Building Department to determine compliance with the development rights restrictions imposed by the deeds of record on the owner's property. The owner is currently reviewing its project with the Suffolk County Farmland Select Committee, but that process has no bearing on the Building Permit from the Town of Southold. The Building Inspector must review compliance with zoning usage, setbacks, lot coverage and other criteria, but compliance with deed covenants, whether imposed by private individuals or other governmental authorities, is not relevant. Apr-02-01 02:54P WWBPC 16312988565 P_01 • For the Board's information,the owner has asked the Committee to clarity its prior approval as to the current location of the hoophouses, as she understood(and in fact the objectant's petition states) that the northeast corner of the property would he a satisfactory location. However,this is a separate process font the Town procedure. The County's interest is in determining that agricultural production is pursued and that structures are erected !Or purposes of and in furtherance of agricultural production 4, Commencement of Construction without a Building Permit is not a Proper Issue for the Board The owner, having reviewed her hoophouse plans with the Farmland Select Committee in 1998, erroneously thought a Town permit was not required because the structures are temporary_ Having been advised by the Building Department that a permit was required,the owner imtnediately corrected the problem and obtained a permit, which has not been revoked. Thercfbre, this issue is moot. 5. Since Both Hoophouses are Substantially Complete, the Appeal is Moot The record, and this Board's site inspection, show that the eastern hoophousc was complete and the western hoophouse was substantially complete at the time this appeal was filed in December, 2000. Since the objectant Tailed, when construction was started, to obtain an injunction,thereby allowing construction to continuo,their time to object has elapsed. 'I'his position is supported by a long line of cases wherein the courts held that if the building in question was allowed to proceed to substantial completion,an objection thereafter made, where no attempt was made to obtain an injunction,was moot. Here, the objectant complained to the Building Department in July,2000,resulting in a letter from the Department. An application was tiled in mid-August. This appeal was brought in December. At no time from July,when the construction commenced, until December, when this appeal was brought. did objectant seek injunctive relief. It was not until after the structures were substantially complete that objectant brought this appeal. In Stockade v. Hughes, 189 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 897(3d Dcp't 1993). a building permit for a housing project was issued. Neighbors appealed to the Zoning Board of'Appeals,and thereafter an Article 78 proceeding was brought. The appellate court ruled that the neighbors challenge to the issuance of the building permit was moot and barred by laches,because the neighbors did not try to stop the construction which was clearly progressing. Having watched the construction progress, they could not later ask that the owner's investment in the construction be thwarted. The neighbors"tailed to make sufficient efforts to safeguard their rights here by failing to seek an injunction or stay to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of this litigation. In Caprari v_Town of Colesville, 199 A.D.2d 705, 605 N.Y.S.2d 157(3d Dept 1993), the Court found in considering a challenge to the building permit, that"by the time plaintiffs.., sought a preliminary injunction,the proposed building was substantially constructed",and held that because the challengers did not timely safeguard v their interests by seeking an injunction while construction obviously proceeded, they lost their right to do so. Even where a request for an injunction was made but not issued due to possible court error, the issue was determined to be moot because the construction was complete. Harbour v. Reidell, 172 A.D.2d 920, 568 N.Y.S.2d 206 (3d Dep't, 1991). Bytner v. City of Albany, 211 A.D.2d 1000, 621 N.Y.S.2d 960 (3`d Dep't 1995). The existence of Farmland Committee approval is irrelevant to this issue. Nor do exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. The provisions of Code 100-250 do not need statutory construction. It is clear what it says, and we believe it is clear that it does not apply. Whether it does or it does not is a question of how the Board applies the statute to this circumstance, not how it is interpreted. Nor is the owner relying on the fact that site plan approval has never been required in this situation in the past. We don't think it applies here, whether it has been applied previously or not. Opposing counsel's reference to Miller v. Kozakiewicz, (citation unavailable/Rt 58, Riverhead), is not applicable to this case. We are not relying on past practice, nor seeking statutory construction. This statute is neither ambiguous nor of doubtful meaning. It simply does not apply to this case. 6. Objectant Failed to Comply with Notice Requirements of the Code Objectant did not comply with Code Section 58-1, which clearly requires the posting of a sign for a continuous 7 day period prior to the hearing. That the owner removed the sign is not relevant, because objectant had no permission to place the sign on owner's property, nor did objectant ever request such permission nor complain to the owner about the structure in the first place. These facts are not disputed by objectant. Objectant, never having requested owner to post a sign, cannot be heard to complain that they were prevented from posting. Verytruly y ss, , A / '/ A' igail A. Wickham Attorney for Satur-Mueller Cc: Dan Ross, Esq. Apr-02-01 02:54P WWBPC 16312988565 P_O1 For the Board's information,the owner has asked the Committee to clarity its prior approval as to the current location of the hoophouses, as she understood(and in fact the objectant's petition states)that the northeast corner of the property would he a satisfactory location. However,this is a separate process from the Town procedure. The County's interest is in determining that agricultural production is pursued and that structures are erected for purposes of and in furtherance of agricultural production 4. Commencement of Construction without a Building Permit is not a Proper Issue for the Board The owner, having reviewed her hoophouse plans with the Farmland Select Committee in 1998, erroneously thought a Town permit was not required because the structures arc temporary_ Having been advised by the Building Department that a permit was required, the owner immediately corrected the problem and obtained a permit, which has not been revoked. T'hcrctore, this issue is moot. 5. Since Both Hoophouses are Substantially Complete, the Appeal is Moot The record, and this Board's site inspection, show that the eastern hoophouse was complete and the western hoophouse was substantially complete at the time this appeal was tiled in December, 2000. Since the objectant failed, when construction was started, to obtain an injunction,thereby allowing construction to continue,their time to object has elapsed. 'Phis position is supported by a long line of eases wherein the courts held that if the building in question was allowed to proceed to substantial completion,an objection thereafier made,where no attempt was made to obtain an injunction, was moot. Here, the objectant complained to the Building I)epartntent in July,2000,resulting in a letter from the Department. An application was tiled in mid-August. This appeal was brought in December. At no time from July,when the construction commenced, until December, when this appeal was brought, did objectant seek injunctive relief. It was not until after the structures were substantially complete that objectant brought this appeal. In Stockade v. Hughes, 189 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 897(3d Dcp't 1993), a building permit for a housing project was issued. Neighbors appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals,and thereafter an Article 78 proceeding was brought. The appellate court ruled that the neighbors challenge to the issuance of the building permit was moot and barred by laches,because the neighbors did not try to stop the construction which was clearly progressing. Having watched the construction progress, they could not later ask that the owner's investment in the construction be thwarted, Me neighbors"tailed to make sufficient efforts to safeguard their rights here by failing to seek an injunction or stay to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of this litigation. In Caprari v._Town ol'Colesville, 199 A.D.2d 705, 605 N.Y.S.2d 157(3d T)ep't 1993), the Court found in considering a challenge to the building permit, that "by the time plaintiffs... sought a preliminary injunction,the proposed building was substantially constructed'',and held that because the challengers did not timely safeguard Page 7—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals am representing Wayne and Mary Olivia Mott, the contract vendees of property located at 1380 at East Gillette Drive, East Marion; Tax Map No. 1000-38-3-26. This application before the Board of Appeals is for a rear yard variance, to set a proposed dwelling at 18 feet from the rear property line instead of the required distance of the zoning code of 35 feet. This is a small lot having an area of 11,219.729 sq. ft. It has frontage on East Gillette Drive of 140.05 feet, a depth on the south side-of 81.45 feet and a depth on north side of 79.73 feet. Under the present zoning code the house requires a front yard setback of 35 feet, and a rear yard of 35 feet total and 70 feet, which would give proposed house only 9.73 feet in width. The proposed house location meets the proposed front yard of 35 feet and complies with the side yard requirements under the Code. However, the proposed rear yard is 18 feet and not 35 feet, thus necessitating this variance application. The proposed width of the house is 26 feet. The proposed house location and rear yard of 18 feet will be similar to the rear yard of the house immediately adjoining the property to the south designated as Tax Map 1000-38-3-25. This neighboring lot obtained a rear yard variance of 18 feet after a hearing date of August 2000, Appeal 4835. The applicants were William and Gloria Bertodatti. I respectfully request the Board apply the same reasoning in the Mott application as it did in the Bertodatti approval. It is respectfully submitted that one, granting the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the - 8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4909 — JAMES AND PATRICIA MCNAMARA. This is a Reversal of Building Permit No. 26821-Z issued concerning new construction at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, property owned by Paulette Satur Mueller and Eberhard Mueller; Parcel No. 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 (combined as one lot). Daniel C. Ross, Esq. for applicants. Eric Bressler, Esq. for owners. CHAIRMAN: The last appeal of the evening is on behalf of James and Patricia McNamara, appeal no. 4909. Where is Mr. Ross? There he is, sitting there quietly in the back of the room. DANIEL ROSS: Good evening. Dan Ross, on behalf of the applicants, Pat and Jim McNamara. I would like to, first, hand out some exhibits; affidavit of posting, green cards and other exhibits. CHAIRMAN: My statement is this. In reading your narrative again today, I realize that the permits that this applicant, not you, this property owner, which is the nature of this hearing tonight, were approved by a Suffolk County Department Planning. I work for the Suffolk County Department of Planning. I do not work in that capacity, nor do I work on that floor. I work for a division of that department. I have not had time to discuss this with the town attorney, but, if anybody has any objection to my chairing this, I will have a discussion with him later. If they ask me to recluse myself, I will do so. If anybody has any objection, at this point, of my chairing this, please raise that issue at this point. ( DAN ROSS: No objection. Y Page 8—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: No objection. During the period of this hearing I just want to inform people that certain people will be asked to be sworn in; so that both co-council for applicant and council for the property owner, were officers of the court, so we don't swear in officers of the court. We know you; we know your reputation, so on and so forth. So we will ask you to continue. DAN ROSS: The applicant seek a reversal of building permit 26821-Z, which permitted the construction of two green houses, 30 feet by 100 feet each, on premises across the street from the applicant's residence on Alvah's Lane. The main basis of the application is based on section 100-2-50 of the Town Code, which requires site plan approval for all permitted uses, except single-family home uses and customary non-agricultural accessory uses under 100-31-Al. 100-31-Al lists agricultural uses in sub-section A2, it includes greenhouses. In other words, section 100-31 separates and makes clear that agricultural uses are different than the exemption form site plan approval of single-family homes and non-agricultural uses. Greenhouses, hence, are not a non-agricultural accessory use. That's clear. I submit there is really no two ways to read those sections. It is very clear that site-plan approval was needed and necessary before the building permit could be issued. So you may ask, so what's the big deal. The big deal is, the greenhouses were built directly across the street, in front of the front window of Mr. and Mrs. McNamara's home. It is not as if there was no other place to build, to put the greenhouses. The property has sufficient acreage that the greenhouses could have been placed in another location. Had site plan approval required, these issues could have been addressed; and Mr. and Mrs. McNamara and the neighbors could have been heard on this very important issue to them, in as much as it affects their home. Pictures, which have been handed up, show what the property, the view from the McNamara property, before the greenhouses were built. That's referring to picture A. Picture C and D; show you the view of the McNamara property as it presently exists. There are other pictures, A thru M, of basically, that shows different views of the property. I would like the Board to review them. The second basis for the application, and I don't want to dwell too long on this, is basically that there may have been a side yard violation, a side yard setback violation. This was unclear, because on the building permit application, there was no indication where the side yard was. Investigation indicated that some of the property is in the Suffolk County Farmland Development Program, and no sub-division approval is needed or required when that happens; even though the whole of the property is not put into the program. Nonetheless, there is two tax lots, and we were asked to post two properties. I don't know if, for zoning purposes, you treat this as one lot or two; but it's an issue and if it's treated as two, I submit there may be a side yard violation, side yard setback violation. But, with the records submitted, you really can't tell. Just for the record. Which brings us to the other point, which is the Farmland Committee of Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Planning Department, granted permission for the construction of one temporary greenhouse. The Farmland Committee granted the permission for a northwestern location, subject to local requirements. The Committee's permission made specific reference to a letter of the owners dated April 21, 1998. The letter was, in effect, the application to the Farmland Committee asking for permission to build the greenhouses. I 1 • • Page 9—Transcript of Hearings • Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals would like to quote from that letter. "Our desire is to site the greenhouse at either the northwest or southeast end of our property. Even though it will incur more expense to bring water and utilities to either of these ends, it will not be obtrusive at either of these sites." That was the permission that was granted to put the greenhouse in the northwest corner. Of course, it was not put in the northwest corner. It was put on the road, across from, again, the McNamara's residence. As I noted, the Farmland Committee's permission, also, was subject to local requirements. Nonetheless, construction commence without a building permit. You will see in the application a letter from the building department directly a building permit be obtained. This was, at some point, during the construction. We know that the owners of the property ignored the Farmland Committee's direction. We know they started construction without a building permit. But, this Board probably is aware, and I don't know if you are, that it really doesn't stop there. In fact, the big house on the premises was built subject to a variance granted by this Board. As the survey, which is Exhibit F to the application, indicates there is a cottage on the premises. This Board, in granting the variance said, upon the completion of the new single-family residence and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the existing cottage shall be converted to-an accessory structure. In no event, shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such. That's this Board's decision with respect to this property wherein you permitted the construction of the large house. The Board doesn't have to feel left out, in terms of ignoring instructions. Delivered today was a affidavit by Pat McNamara indicating, it's a sworn affidavit, that the cottage is inhabited and has been for some time. Getting back to the main point, had site plan approval been required, there would have been a forum to address this issue, the placement of the greenhouse. From discussions with Mr. Felderman of the Farmland Committee, I know I am aware that, the owners of the premises have basically made application to the Farmland Committee that the greenhouses can remain as built. I also am aware that this board has requested from the Planning Board, an opinion as to the sections 100-250 and 100-31. While I don't begrudge your seeking input from the Planning Board, may I suggest, I believe it's a simple question, this Board is charged with interpreting the Town Code. The Town Board is charged with drafting it and adopting it. That's been done. Again, I don't think there's any wiggle room in the language. CHAIRMAN: Let me just clear one issue up there. We were aware of when that legislation was drafted, the legislation that you were referring to. No matter how the memo is written, I was hoping they would come back to me and say, yes we did a site plan review on X, Y, Z parcels of property. Significantly, I don't think they have, at this point. So that was the purpose of DAN ROSS: I haven't seen the (unknown) I just talked to Bob Johnson, he said there was a request for one opinion. CHAIRMAN: I'm just telling you that's the reason why I charged our secretary to send the memo. Page 10—Transcript of Hearings .. Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals DAN ROSS: That's basically the appeal for McNamara's appeal. There is another issue that's been raised by the attorney for the property owner's, and that goes to the issue of the posting of the sign. I don't know if you would like to hear me on that, or wait until Miss Wickham makes her presentation; and I will respond to it. CHAIRMAN: We are aware of the situation and the memo from Miss Wickham today, regarding that, and we will take that under advisement. As for your presentation, we're here to listen to you. DAN ROSS: Okay, on the issue of posting, state law requires notice of the ZBA application. That's at Town Law, as I don't need to tell you, 267-M. Following the statute, there is commentary in the McKinney's Statute book. The commentary, which I've handed up as an exhibit, I'm going to quote from some of the commentary. "The failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements of Town Law 267-A7, or with the additional local notice requirements, generally has not been constituted a jurisdiction of defect." Moving down in these notes, these are, again, supplementary practice commentary following the Town Law section in McKinney's. "The courts generally will not rely on,a failure to fully comply with a notice requirement to negate the authority of a board to hear a matter or the ballistae of its decision. Again, from those commentaries, "Consistently with the apparent judicial policy of endeavoring to sustain notification efforts, a substantial compliance has occurred. The courts ordinarily have concluded that the failure to strictly comply with a local mailing requirement, is not jurisdiction." And, finally, "Regardless of claim confirmities in the provision of notice the strict compliance with local requirements or with the publication provisions of the Town Law, the courts uniformly upheld that one who receives actual notice of a hearing and appears at the hearing, is not prejudiced by any claim defect and is waived any irregularity in the provision of notice." You have the commentaries in total before you. I suggest that there is no court that would throw out your decision, because, the posting was removed by the attorney for the property owner. CHAIRMAN: My question to you on this, Mr. Ross, is was the posting done on Mr. & Mrs. Mueller's property? DAN ROSS: I don't know where the property line is. I posted it, you have my Affidavit of Posting. I don't know, is the 50 foot, I don't know how big the road is there, but, it was within 10 feet of the roadway property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I don't know if I should take testimony first, or if I should go on ...(turned tape over—beginning inaudible) DAN ROSS: Affidavits have been submitted to the courts, I know you haven't had a chance to review them. Is there some point that you would like testimony with respect to. CHAIRMAN: Well, first of all, my esteemed colleague here, of course, is an attorney. So she would like to ask you a question. t Page 11 —Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Ross, I just had two fact questions based on your, of course, we haven't read the material you put in tonight I realize that. I have fact questions based on the affirmation and support that you submitted ahead of time, which I read and studied and annotated. Do you know exactly what property the greenhouses lie on? DAN ROSS: As I indicated, I really can't tell. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want that answer. Eyeballing it, I would say they probably lie entirely on the development rights land, but I don't know either. I just wanted your view. DAN ROSS: If you look at, and, if you look at Exhibit F MEMBER COLLINS: That's my next question, right. DAN ROSS: You'll see the survey, and I didn't know, I assume from that survey that the greenhouses, that survey is from the Building Department's file. MEMBER COLLINS: It's from the file that was related to the building permit application, I gather that. , DAN ROSS: Yes, it is. MEMBER COLLINS: And there appear to be greenhouses 30 x 96 penciled in very lightly,just beyond the DAN ROSS: I have to go back and make another copy, because it was so light. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, I wanted to see if that's what you saw. Thank you. That's it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to go over and clear up, just exactly what you just stated. Which at the beginning was, that the applicant should have had an opportunity to comment on these through the planning process; and, that our Town Code entitles your applicant to that. DAN ROSS: Correct, the Town Code, and I don't want to quote from the Town Code. You have to sit down and read Section 100-250, which says you need site plan approval. Everything except single-family homes and non-agricultural use, 100-31A. If you go to 100-31A, and it lists agricultural uses, the agreement. It separates that out from the non- agricultural uses. I don't think there's any two ways to read those two sections. Site plan approval is required. The building inspector should have required it. And he didn't. You know, whether that's the way it's been read for the last ten years, I'm not sure; but, in this Page 12—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals circumstance he should have required site plan approval, and it would have taken care of the problem that has arisen. MEMBER DINIZIO. I just wanted, I thought that was what you were saying, and I know what the code is. DAN ROSS: There's a lot of history. There's a lot of background, but, basically, that's it. That's we're here on, site plan approval should have been required. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Then, we'll just go on to opposition at this point. Anybody else want to ask any questions. No, okay. Miss Wickham, how are you tonight? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Good evening, my name is Abigail Wickham. I'm here on behalf of owners of the property in question. Miss Satur and Mr. Mueller. First, I would like to mention again, the issue in my letter to you this afternoon, regarding the jurisdictional question. There was no posting on the property in compliance with Town Code Section 58.1, which I believe renders the application improperly in front of you. No permission to post was requested and none was given. In fact, contrary to the quotations by Mr. Ross, those cases about notice and whether they caused a defect are mainly, are mainly geared toward publication notices. The Town Code, if you remember a few years ago, had a notice provision that specifically said that failure to comply would not be a defect. That was removed by the Town in 1998. That was the former Section 100-275C. In fact, unlike the cases Mr. Ross quoted, where defects in posting or notice are not deemed to be defective, there was no substantial compliance here. If the Board is not in a position to make a ruling on that now, I will continue on with my comments on CHAIRMAN: Let me just make a brief statement on that issue, okay. This will be the first hearing that we have had for the reversal of a building permit application, based upon this new law, as it exists right now. But, we briefly discussed that issue tonight, not of this case, but of cases similar to this that we had in the past. We find it very difficult to understand how, I find it very difficult to understand, how these notices, although the Affidavit of Posting would exist, would be very difficult to see or hear or be able to view in certain aspects of this town. Being on 1600 right of ways, or rights of way, and so on and so forth. Yes, you could say you put it there. Yes, you visually saw it for the last five days, but it would be very difficult. I think that there are provisions, or may have to be provisions within this Town Code which address those particular issues, in reference to either voluntarily placing it or adverse takings, as in this case. I mean, that's just an issue at this point. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I understand that The point is, is that our code requires that it be posted. It was not continuously posted. You can have my testimony on record, and, they didn't comply with the code as the way it is written. Is it written properly, should it be corrected, perhaps. But the way it's written now, wasn't complying with it. j 7 Page 13—Transcript of Hearings Held February27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals ii CHAIRMAN: I'm just saying to you, that we're taking it under advisement at this point. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you just explain to me just exactly what happened, in plain language? • ABIGAIL WICKHAM: We were in receipt; let me answer your question by making a statement. My clients have spent the past four years, spending a lot of money, making a farm operational on the property; and in addition to the financial investments, they've worked literally from dawn to dusk, in addition to their regular jobs to make a go of it. All of a sudden, they're faced with an application, that they feel has not merit whatsoever; and someone coming on their property and posting a sign without asking permission. My legal council to them is that they did not have to grant permission to do that. Therefore, this sign was removed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, so you're saying it was on their property? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know where it was; we have no way of knowing. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you just stated that. You just stated to me that it was on their property and he came on there illegally. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: It was posted on or near their property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Was it on their property? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, that's what I need to know. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I didn't remove the sign. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted you to state that ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know where it was. If it wasn't on the property it was. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, Jerry, I'll go along with whatever you ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Either way, they didn't comply with the statute. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, could you explain to me why they didn't comply with that statute? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Because the notice was not posted. Page 14—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: How did that come to be? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Because they did not have permission to do it. MEMBER DINIZIO: How did it come to be that it was not; can you explain that to me? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That what was not ... MEMBER DINIZIO: I have testimony from a lawyer, that says that he posted a sign. That it was there. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Yes, that's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now you must have some information that tells me that it's not there. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: The sign was removed. We advise them of that. MEMBER DINIZIO: You removed that sign? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I didn't personally, my client did. I advised him to do that. That's no secret. That was advised, we advised him of that. MEMBER DINIZIO: I need to get that on the record, that's all. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Okay, we advised the Board of that immediately; and we advised opposing council, as well. MEMBER COLLINS: I think we might just ask you where that leads. Does that lead, in a case like this, where, in your view, the sign is not posted on the property in question, is invalid. I think that's your point, and, the property owner has the right to keep the sign from being posted, he has an absolute right to keep the action from going forward? Is that true? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: The way the code is written, they have not complied with the notice; and they made no arrangements to comply with it. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, arrangements mean negotiating with your client. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No permission was requested. MEMBER COLLINS:- I just want it on the record. Thank you. i CHAIRMAN: Let's continue please. r" Page 15—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Has it been determined whose property it was on? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No, I don't have any information on that. MEMBER HORNING: And yet you know that it was removed. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know where it was located. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's an affirmation of sign posting if you would like to read it. It states where it's posted. CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham, any time you're ready. ABIGAIL WICKHAM. I believe Mr. Ross indicated he was not clear, exactly, whether it was on the property or not. I would like to proceed to the merits of this case, because I think those are extremely important. The first is, we don't believe that the applicant really has standing to bring this action. First of all, their view is not over our property, my client's property, it is not a protective right. They don't have a legal right to a view and, therefore, they really have no standing to object to a placement of this greenhouse, visa vie, it's erection in a view that they may feel is protected. It's not protected, nor have they shown any proof of loss of value to their property. I also like to clarify for the Board that, while there's been a lot of talk about greenhouses, this is not typical, a typical greenhouse. This is what you would call, in the industry, a tunnel or a tube house. It's merely a plastic covering over a metal frame. There's no footings, there's no cement, there's no water, there's no electricity, other than maybe a hose that goes out to the tunnel. It's a temporary structure, probably won't be there for more than two or three years, and it's intended to get the plants started at an earlier time in the Spring. So, we do not feel that standing has been established, and that the applications should be dismissed on that basis. Number two, and also very important, Mr. Ross's two-pronged position are one of, A, violation of the site plan regulations; and B, violation of the side yard setback regulations. I would submit that there is very clearly another way to read Section 100- 250, and it is not the way that he is reading it. The references that he is made to single- family residences and non-residential accessory uses apply only in the event that a site plan is required. But, that section very clearly says, a site plan is required only if there has been a change of use or a change of intensity of the use on the property. This tunnel has been constructed for purposes of an agricultural use. There has always been an agricultural use on this portion of the property, and, that has not changed and it's not going to change with the operation of this facility right now. Nor, has the intensity of use changed. There has always been planting and growing and harvesting of crops on that property, for as long as I can remember. And of my personal knowledge, I know it's been farmed for probably, I know fifty years, I can't go beyond that. There have been all kinds of different crops. But the point is, there has always been crops on that property. The fact that they are now being seeded in a tunnel, as opposed to outright on the ground does not change the use, which is an agricultural farming use. I think that's very important to Page 16—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals recognize and on that basis, the building inspector is not required to seek site plan approval or direct the applicant to seek site plan approval from the planning board. CHAIRMAN: Do you construe these in your own interpretation? Do you construe these buildings to be an improvement? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: They are an improvement to the property, they're a structure, and I'm not debating that. But the use, if you look at the definition of use in 100-13 of the Code, the use of the property has not changed, the use is farming. It's similar to the debate that came up in the town a few years ago, when they were talking about and it's commercial use. Do you need a site plan when you change the use, if you're selling drive-it and not all of a sudden you're selling candies. Is that a change of use, no it's not; it's a retail sale. Similarly, this is a farming or an agriculture production use; and, we maintain it has not changed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Question? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: What was the reason for putting these tunnels up. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: To extend the growing season. . MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, isn't that an increase in the intensity of the use? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No. MEMBER.DINIZIO: Could they do this in the winter? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No, it's not an intensity issue. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it is. You could not grow those things if you did not have these. So you are increasing the intensity. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: This particular crop, but, there have been crops on that field that have been winter crops... . MEMBER DINIZIO: 100%, But what I'm saying to you right now is, could they do what they are doing in those tunnels, without the tunnels? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: They could grow winter wheat there, which has been growing there by Mr. Steele for many years. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could they do what they are doing now, without those tunnels? Page 17—Transcript of Heanngs Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That particular crop? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Because that is their business, I'm assuming, from what I read, this person sells these crops to restaurants. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: They sell them to... . MEMBER DINIZIO: So now, it's enabling them now to sell those crops in a longer season. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: It starts them sooner. CHAIRMAN: We need you to come up and just get, this is Mrs. Mueller? PAULETTE SATUR: Yes, I'm Paulette Satur. Our farm was transitioned to be organic and, I should get certification this year. To be an organic farm, I have to start my own plants. I can't purchase them. Well, you can, if you can purchase organic, but it's almost impossible to do. So I have to raise them myself. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you've changed the use from a regular farm, to an organic farm? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That's not a change of use. They've changed the type of farming, but it is still a farm. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to clarify that, you know, I understand what you're trying to do here, in your pride in what you're doing. Your council is trying to represent to us that it's not an increase intensity of use, and I'm just trying to clarify that in my mind. PAULETTE SATUR: There are many different crops one can grow. I'm growing now vegetables, produce; whereas, before it had pumpkins, or other crops. It's a changing crop, and with the change in selection of crops, I have certain. MEMBER DINIZIO: The new crops that you're growing in this tunnel, do you have a truck that comes and picks up the crops and delivers them to different? PAULETTE SATUR. We make deliveries, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, so you can do that, because of these tunnels you can do that now. Page 18—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals PAULETTE SATUR: Nothing is really coming out of the houses. I mean, over winter, things, lemon for instance can't make it through winters; or rosemary, so there now living in the tunnels and so that they'll come back. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you can get them out sooner? PAULETTE SATUR: No it's not sooner. MEMBER DINIZIO: They wouldn't exist without the tunnels. PAULETTE SATUR: Correct, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I needed to know. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: There's always been year-round crop there. If it wasn't that, it was covered crop or some other kind of crop. So, from that point of view, I see what you're saying, it's a different type of crop. But, I don't think that changes the use or the intensity. It's just a different type of crop and a different way of approaching the agricultural production. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you very much. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Our third point, relates to the Suffolk County Farmland Committee issue that Mr. Ross has raised. That was, added to his papers, although it doesn't seem to address his two basic points in paragraph two of his application regarding the issues of site plan and side yard; he did add it in; and I'm not sure how it relates to those two objections, but I will address it in any event, because he does mention it. We feel that the Farmland Committee issue is really not a Building Department concern; it is a deed restriction, that was placed on the property by the Satur/Mueler predecessors when they sold the development rights to the County of Suffolk. The Building Department, nowhere that I can see, is directed to look at whether Farmland Committees have been approved, either on a town or a county level; whether they do as a policy matter, I don't - know. But, certainly it is not the job of the Building Department or the ZBA to enforce deep covenants. That's what the development writings are, it's a restriction on the types of use that can be used and the type of procedure that you have to go through, in order to do certain things on the property. The owner did go to the Farmland Committee. We • have, as a result of this application, ask that they clarify the location issue, so that we don't have a problem with them in the future. But, I don't believe that it is an issue that the ZBA needs to be concerned about, in,terms of the Building Department's issuance of this building permit. On the set back issue, there was basically no proof offered as to what the concern is or what the issue is; and again, I don't think the applicant to over turn this application has standing to address this. Whether the side yard setback is 10 feet, one way or the other, really doesn't affect them. The front yard set back was established at 60 feet, and I don't think there's any impact, one way or the other 10 or 20 feet to the side. Page 19—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals They are across the street. They are not a neighboring property where a side yard might be an issue. So I think that's really rude issue, as far as they are concerned. On the fifth item that I want to address, there is a line of cases that indicates, if a building permit is challenged, but no injunction is sought to stop construction, if construction is substantially complete, then the application to reverse the Building Department's application is rendered moot. When we would argue based on Burns vs. Burns Pharmacy and some other line of cases in the town of East Hampton, I can give you the citations if you would like; that because the easterly greenhouse is virtually complete, and the westerly greenhouse is substantially complete and no injunction is sought or obtained, that their application is, therefore, moot. CHAIRMAN: Could you furnish us with a copy of this. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I could do that. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I'd just like to address a couple of miscellaneous things, because I know it's getting late; but, I do want to emphasize that there is no right to view, either on an adjoining property or property across the street. If there were no development rights here, there could've been a house constructed that would obstruct their view. Being there are developments sold, I've seen the committees, both town and county, particularly the county, barns approved, (inaudible) approved, fences approved, greenhouses not just in terms of square footage of area, but in actual acres of area that they've let people put up. So there is no protection to a right to view, either by virtue of the fact that they own across the street, or that the development rights have been sold. This is our client's property, it's their property, and as long as they do what they are supposed to by their deed restrictions, the property owners across the street are not charged with enforcing that. The sighting, I might add, of these greenhouses was based on purely agricultural considerations, based on the topography of the property. The drainage, had they been put further back from the road, they would've been going down to a low area they would have had a sloping problem, be it further west or further north. This is a very poor soil area where these greenhouses are constructed, because it is at the top of the hill. When, I know when Mr. Glover had pumpings there he had trouble. When Mr. Steele had his hay there, he had trouble. It's sandy soil. It's poor drainage. It's a good spot for greenhouses, because they can't grow crops there. I would invite the Board, during the production this summer, to look at this farm. While they may have two or three little greenhouses or hoop houses, they have acres and acres and acres of field crops and they really are producing a lot of agricultural production. I think that's what our town is trying to accomplish here. I would ask that the Board dismiss this application. Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Miss Wickham, can I ask you the question I asked Mr. Ross? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Certainly. Page 20—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Are the greenhouses, in fact, on the, whether there are two lots or one lot and tax map numbers, there is a survey and it delineates the land where the development rights were, where the house is and the rest of the land. Which land are the greenhouses on? Are they on the land where the development rights were sold? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Keeping in mind that I am'not a surveyor and I have not specifically been out there and walked the property from that perspective, it is my understanding that they are on the parcel where the developments rights are. MEMBER COLLINS: And that's what I think the survey and the building permit filed, that we talked about before, shows that. I just wanted your tape. CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham, before you sit down, just a thought. Is not, one of the main points of the nature of why we're here tonight, is to address the issue of site plan as opposed to no site plan? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That was one of the issues. CHAIRMAN: You have indicated to us tonight, that there is no change of use on this property; so, therefore, that should not trigger a site plan. Is that correct? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I believe the way that the Code is written, and the way that the Town has administered that in the Building Department, in terms of previous applications for greenhouses, that they have never required a site plan for this type of greenhouse facility. And that, where we have an existing farming operation, which is an agricultural production, that that type of usage has continued and the language of 100-250 is not triggered. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Ross, anything-in rebuttal or we're ready to close the hearing. DAN ROSS: The issue of a requirement of an injunction is somewhat new. As the Board doesn't know, in order to get an injunction in this case, in all likelihood, I believe it's less to post a bond I don't think an injunction is necessary; but, if you're going to look at those cases, I'd like to have an opportunity to review the cases and respond. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Mrs. Tortora wants to ask you a question. MEMBER TORTORA: Are there any other examples that you can think of, or that you're aware of, where a site plan review has been required of greenhouses? DAN ROSS: I haven't reviewed the files of the Planning Board with that in mind. No, I haven't. . • Page 21—Transcnpt of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just curious if, your ( ? ) essentially is that every land use, except residential, and non-agricultural accessory, require site plan? DAN ROSS: That's what 250 says. MEMBER COLLINS: It says any use or change. DAN ROSS: 100-250 and 100-31, ten different times, there is no other way that I can see to interpret that; and it makes sense. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: May I respond to that? CHAIRMAN: Sure. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Briefly, I know it's late. It doesn't make sense, because we're talking about an agricultural operation. The cost of bringing a site plan review before the Planning Board, as you can imagine, is staggering. That's not something that I think, in an agricultural usage of this type, that the Town should be looking at. I don't know to the extent it's admissible. -Mr. Forrestal did advise me, that he is aware that there have been in the past few years, probably fifty or sixty greenhouse application permits granted without site plan approval. It's not something that they consider is required by the Code. What their reasoning is, I don't know. My reasoning, on this particular case, is all I'm addressing. CHAIRMAN: The question is though, did they actually send those applications to the Planning Board; and did they waive site plan? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN: You don't believe so. ' PAULETTE SUTUR/MUELLER: May I comment on, as far as the operation goes. This is not a greenhouse. It's a high tunnel. I'm about ready to order a machine that actually lays tunnels down the high, down my rows of beds. I don't know if that will require a site plan or not. I mean, that's all it is. This is a large high tunnel, it's has no footings, it has nothing. CHAIRMAN: We're familiar with this. PAULETTE SUTUR: It's just a field, it's covered with a tunnel. It's not really a building. CHAIRMAN: Is that heated in any way? PAULETTE SUTUR: No, there's no heat. Page 22—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: It's passive from the cellar during the day? PAULETTE SUTUR: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: There's no heat. How do you bring water in? PAULETTE SUTUR: I hook up a hose. MEMBER COLLINS: There's a lot of parsing of what the Code says, going on tonight. I'm not taking a position, I'm just listening and reading the Code. I think one of the political issues that was bubbling around in town, when the Town Board's Code Committee spent a lot of time talking about greenhouses over the last year, was that some citizens in town were complaining to the Town Board "Wow we're spending all this money to buy development rights to keep land from turning into sub-divisions." Now, people are,going out and putting up greenhouses on the land. We don't want to look at them. The Code Committee has been struggling and wrestling. That's kind of in the background here. I think that the Building Department, if they were, it would appear from what:we've heard, that the Building Department has not been requiring a site plan approval. It certainly would have been nice if we'd been able to ask them to come and tell us about it. My reading of the Code is, if you were looking to,require it, you would rely on the sentence that says, any change in use that effects open space. You could say it was open space and now it has a plastic tunnel on it. Excuse, Miss Wickham, don't feel you have to rebut me, I'm just thinking out loud. I don't say I go along with that, I'm just kind of ruminating on the record coming to the point where I'd like to hear from the Building Department about this. Because, what we got, isn't that a case of second-hand opinion, as to why they did the way they did. I think their view is... It's interesting, it has no utilities. It has no utilities, that part of Section 250 doesn't reach it. I'm rambling, it's too late, I'll stop. DAN ROSS: Regarding the Building Department's, however they've read it. What the Code says is clear in black and white and how it's been applied. If you take a look at Judge Dunn's decision, in the Riverhead case, where Riverhead did not require, the Riverhead Building Department and Planning Board, did not require site plan documents, although it was required by the Code. You can't rely on past mistakes to bootstrap a wrong decision. That's made clear very close to home. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Can I clarify something for Miss Collins? The reason I didn't get to the issues of(?) parking, etc., is my position that the farming use has not changed, and therefore, you don't need site plan approval. On the development rights, and the whole issue of greenhouses and political, the way that the deeds read, the development rights are defined as the right to restrict the use of the premises for anything except agricultural production, clearly whether it's in or not. fi-- Page 23—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I was aware of that, and, I prefer greenhouses to subdivisions. CHAIRMAN: Jack, I think we're ready for you. If you would state your name for the record when you get up there. JOHN LADEMANN: John Lademann from Cutchogue, my wife's mother lives across the street, next to McNamaras, and she's lived there for, I guess, close to seventy years, sixty-nine years. She's ninety-five, and she's lived on Alvah's Lane all her life. I've been in touch with the chairman of the Suffolk County Department of Preservation. He said that they approved one greenhouse on the northwest part of that property, okay, and this was the motion here. Request was made for a greenhouse, as proposed in a letter dated April 21s`, 1998. A motion was made to approve northwestern location for temporary, subject to local restrictions, by Elma Zae and seconded by D. Corwin, motion carried. Now they have the greenhouses down without a permit. We filed a written complaint in July, with the Building Department. We have not heard one word from the Building Department as yet. Not one word. That's not right. They don't issue a building permit for something, without even noting that the Farmland Preservation properly. Two years ago, my mother-in-law would sit out on the porch, and she would see an outhouse right in front of her window. I mean, this is the way these people treat their neighbors. It's not right, what's going on, they build the greenhouses, they take them down after we complain building permit, this is what's going on. I mean, greenhouses, nobody has any objection to the greenhouses where the Farmland, where they said they had to go. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, you have to stand up and use the mike and state your name. MORGAN GRIFFIN: My name is Morgan Griffin and I ( ? ) Pat McNamara. I lived in the house on Alvah's Lane for many years and always enjoyed the view of the open farmland and now my view consists of a wall of plastic. I would like to see the Mueller's follow the rules. It's obvious, they don't follow the rules, because they went ahead and put up the greenhouses without a building permit. It was only after a complaint to the building department that they went through the proper procedures. In her letter to the Suffolk County Planning Department, Mrs. Mueller states, "The placement of the greenhouses will not be obtrusive. The continued beauty of our property is of utmost importance to us." How true! The greenhouses are not obtrusive to her, because they are not out her front door. She still has the beauty that she says is important. All we have is an ugly, large wall of plastic to look at, with the possibility of more to come. Furthermore, the greenhouses are not situated where they said they would be. Also, I would like to know why the manager of the farm is living in a cottage, that, according to a June 19`h, 1997 Board of Appeals Meeting states, "in no event shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such." Last, but not least, I feel that when someone moves into our beautiful area, they need to learn to follow the rules and regulations; and, perhaps, learn that common courtesy among neighbors, goes a long Page 24—Transcript of Heanngs Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals way. They have plenty of land to place those greenhouses that would not be offensive to anyone. Thank you CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The question is, ladies and gentlemen, do we close the hearing or do we leave it open? MEMBER COLLINS: I think we should close it MEMBER TORTORA: I think we'd better leave it open. MEMBER HORNING: I won't agree to that. Let's try to get the Building Department here. MEMBER COLLINS: Get the Building Department here, that might be worthwhile. MEMBER TORTORA: I want to hear testimony from the Building Department. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you take the testimony on March 15th, and by that time we will have received the cases from Miss Wickham, and we'll be able to give them to Mr. Ross and you can all talk about them. I'm being a little trite tonight, but it's the hour that's doing it. JOHN LADEMANN: May I just say one thing in question, was when the signs were taken down, they were taken down at 1:00 on Valentine's Day, February 14th CHAIRMAN: When were they put up? They were only up a short time. MEMBER COLLINS: What's that mean, an hour or two, or a day or two? JOHN LADEMANN: About a day. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: This alleged violation of occupancy, have you mentioned that to the Code enforcement people, i.e., the Building Department? MEMBER TORTORA: It's not a condition. MEMBER HORNING: Well don't they enforce the condition? CHAIRMAN: Yes, they're obliged to do so. MEMBER TORTORA: We can open the hearing, if they're in violation, you're aware of that. ,ii Page 25—Transcript of Hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Did you do that? JOHN LADEMANN: We did it in July, seven months later, we haven't even got a reply from the Building Department. MEMBER HORNING: I'm asking about the occupancy that's alleged violation of the Code. MORGAN GRIFFIN: I'm only saying what I observed. In your Board of Appeals Meeting, it stated that. That no one supposed to live there. I see lights on, I see people going in and out. I see dogs going in and out. MEMBER HORNING: The Code Enforcement, enforces that for us. If you would file a complaint. CHAIRMAN: So that's where we are at this point. So, we'll recess to March 15t. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make a statement, Jerry? . CHAIRMAN: Sure MEMBER DINIZIO:, I'm interested in hearing more about Miss Wickham's comments concerning this injunction; and, anything that you could have, that you could offer, for that, because I found that quite interesting. I'm wondering, why now, shouldn't the Building Inspector be putting a stop order on this, so that, you don't complete it: I'm wondering where he's going with that. Why it hasn't been asked for, and or if it has. Well, if this is a product of that, that seems to me, if your statement, that an injunction can be sought and it should have been sought, because it's not fair to you to allow to spend all this money and tell you no, why that process wasn't taken. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I'm not talking a about building permit injunction, I'm talking about going into to court and asking. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I know. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't think the Building Inspector ... • (INAUDIBLE - TOO MANY PEOPLE SPEAKING AT ONCE.) MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm interested I that, if anyone get that information. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I'll give you cases. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to reflect on this? Page 26—Transcnpt of hearings Held February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals DAN ROSS: Just we have the Town Law adapted by the State, says "a person has a right to appeal to a Zoning Board of Appeals on a decision by a Building Inspector." Yes, these people could go into court and, post a bond, and spend the money, that's an option. We have requested, I have requested of this Board, on a previous occasion, for a stop work order. This Board has requested it from the Building Department and, the Building Department said no. The Building Department is not required follow the dictates of this Board. Although, this Board has the power to reverse a Building Department decision. What I'm saying is, we chose our remedies, which we were permitted to do under the law. I would be.very surprised if there is a case law that says, you have to seek an injunction besides going to this Board. This is the purpose of this Board; exhaustion of administrative remedies. Most of the judges would throw you out. They'd say go to the ZBA first. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'll address it when I get the cases, but . CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So I need a resolution requesting the Building Department to be here, MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN: On March 15th. I think you have to reduce this to a specific time limit, when this hearing is going to occur, so that these nice people know when they have to return. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It would be approximately 7:30 pm. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you want to leave it at 7:30. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So I offer that as a resolution, ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jim already made the motion, and George already second it. - MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry, would you like me to sign that? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's a Board resolution. Everybody here voted on it also. You voted on it, right Jerry? MEMBER COLLINS: At the recessed hearing, we're inviting the Building Department, we're requesting their presence. 1 Page 27-Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Now we have to recess the hearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We did a resolution for the Building Department to appear on Marchl5th at approximately 7:30 p.m. So it's all in one resolution. JOHN LADEMANN: I have a request. Will you get something from the Suffolk County Farmland Board, where this was approved? • CHAIRMAN: Jack, the only thing that we have, is what you gave us. I have no knowledge of anything else, at this point. JOHN LADEMANN: I mean, you want something official. MEMBER COLLINS: We have the Minutes. I just want to get clear on what it is we're going to do on the 15th. By that time, Ms. Wickham will have given us the cases that she referred to. We will have given them to Mr. Ross. He will have a chance to look at them and respond. So we will certainly deal with that, at March 15th. Beyond that, I guess, Mr. Ross gave us material tonight which, of course, none of us has had a chance to read. We will have had a chance to read that, and see if we have any questions. I think, mostly, it was affidavits and things; but, I don't know what it is, because I haven't had a chance to read it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I'd like to ask Gail, if she could give a duplicate copy to Dan the-same time she gives it to us, please. • ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Of the cases? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: It just eliminates a day or two lag. • MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to be clear on where we're going with this. CHAIRMAN: So, we are at this particular point in recess. We thank everybody for their comments. We thank their council for their presentations. Thank you. Prepared from tape recordings: Paula Quintieri o • APPLICATION TO SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DANIEL C. ROSS, ESQ. KEEGAN&KEEGAN 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O.Box 146 Mattituck,New York 11952 516-298-1200 J EP/ e) � / , BEGAN & KEEGAN, L L P ATTORNEYS AT LAW 147 NORTH OCEAN AVENUE P.O Box 918 THOMAS J. KEEGAN, JR. PATCHOGUE,NEW YORK 1 1772-0918 EAST END OFFICE DEBRA A. BYRNES TELEPHONE (631) 475-9400 315 WESTPHALIA ROAD P.O Box 146 DANIEL C. ROSS FACSIMILE(631)475-0601 MATTITUCK,NEW YORK 11952-0146 * ***:r.=k:;:a::::::::::::::m.0;::;=**is (631) 298-1200 JAMIE ROSNER (631)298-4427 FAX *****:l:**:I***:I:***:;:*":::: March 15, 2001sV' �Lo, � ; [�`� � � THOMAS J. KEEGAN OF COUNSEL �1 f Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals R` 5 2001 11 Southold Town Hall '�; ) �,,f 53095 Main Road V P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Application of Patricia and James McNamara Ladies and Gentlemen: This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of Ms. Wickham's 3/12/01 correspondence with enclosures. PAST PRACTICE OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS NOT RELEVANT Enclosed herewith please find a Judgment rendered by the Hon. John J. Dunn in the case of Eileen Miller, et al. vs. Robert Kozakiewicz, et al, Suffolk Supreme, index 00-14530 involving an application for a special permit toallow a shopping center project in the area around Route 58 in Riverhead. The Town of Riverhead,by its Director of Planning, asserted that certain Town Code requirements had never been enforced and consequently should not be enforced in that instance. Judge Dunn commented that the Town Code should be amended if the Town did not intend to enforce the provisions thereof. The same argument applies in this case. The anticipated Building Inspector's testimony with regard to "how it has been done in the past" is not relevant to Zoning Board of Appeal's responsibility to read and interpret the Town Zoning Code. Past practice may be relevant in labor contract administration and negotiation but not with regard to the application of a statute. As Judge Dunn indicates in the Judgment, "The practical construction of a statute by those charged with its enforcement is not relevant where the statute`is neither ambiguous nor of doubtful meaning." THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS BOARD IS NOT "MOOT" 1. The mootness doctrine would not apply in this case because at the time the structures were being built they were in violation of the Farmland Committee's permit. Unlike the cases relied upon by counsel, here, there is no issue as to the legality of the structure during the construction, it was clearly being built in violation of the Farmland Committee's permit. 2. The power of the Zoning Board of Appeals is limited to the interpretation of the Town Zoning Code. Here, counsel for Ms. Satur requests the Board consider and apply various theories involving equitable legal principles. Even if the principles were applicable, and the applicants maintain they are not,the ZBA's powers and duties are set forth in the empowering statute and do not include the application of equitable principles of law. The Board should interpret the Code as is the Board's duty. 3. Certain of the cases relied upon by Ms. Satur's counsel, such as the Harbour vs. Riedell case, refer to the "articulated exceptions to the mootness doctrine" as set forth in Hearst vs. Clyne, 50 NYS2d 707, 431 NYS2d 400. In the first footnote of the Hearst case there is reference to the exceptions one of which is when there is an important question of statutory construction that is likely to recur the mootness issue should not be applied That situation is presently before the Board. If the indication by counsel for Ms. Satur is correct and the Town Zoning Code has not been applied by the Building Department so as to require site plan approval in situations such as in the case before the Board, and the Board finds the Code sections are being incorrectly applied, then the Board surely should not dismiss the application because the issue is "moot". The issue should be determined so as to give direction to the Building Department and the public. :1A1P to 1• 'f ie-l .rC. Ross cc: Wickham, Wickham& Bressler, PC ' DCR:kr enclosures data/real/mcna-zba.Itr SHORT FORM JUDGMENT INDEX No. 00-14530 F r SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 17 - SUFFOLK COUNTY '`�L2001Jf//1 � �PRESENT : -')/ Hon. JOHN J. DUNN MOTION DATE 7/25/00 Justice of the Supreme Court ADJ. DATE 9/7/00 Mot. Seq. # 001 -MG; CASEDISP • X EILEEN MILLER,NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL : CIARELLI & DEMPSEY COUNCIL, INC., DAVID SZCZESNY and JANICE Attorneys for Petitioners SZCZESNY d/b/a RIVERHEAD PAINTS PLUS, INC., : 425 Broad Hollow Road, Ste. 112 REVCO ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC. and TIMOTHY : Melville,New York 11747 G. GRIFFING, JR. d/b/a GRIFFING HARDWARE CO., : Petitioners, : SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG : ISLER and YAKABOSKI, LLP For a Judgment under Article 78 of : Attorneys for Resp. Town of Riverhead the Civil Practice Law and Rules, : 456 Griffing Avenue : P.O. Box 389 - against - : Riverhead,New York 11901-0203 ROBERT KOZAKIEWICZ, SUPERVISOR, • CHRISTOPHER KENT, PHILIP CARDINALE, : ROSENMAN & COLIN, LLP EDWARD DENSIESKI and JAMES LULL, : Attorneys for Resp. Riverhead Centre CONSTITUTING THE TOWN BOARD OF THE : 575 Madison Avenue TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK, and : New York,New York 10022-2585 RIVERHEAD CENTRE, LLC, • Respondents. : X • Upon the following papers numbered 1 -33 read on this Article 78 proceeding;Notice of Petition and supporting papers 1 -5 ;Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers ;Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 6-9; 14-15;20-21_;Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 22-23 ;Other 10-11 (Return Vol. 1); 12-13(Return Vol.2; 16-17 (memo of law); 18-19 (memo of law); 24-25 (memo of law); 26-27 (sur-reply); 28-29 (sur-reply); 30-31 (affidavit); 32-33 (supplemental affirmation); 34-35 (supplemental affidavit) ;(.. • . •. .... . • •••• • . • .• ) it is, ORDERED that petitioners' application(#001) is granted to the extent indicated below; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: That Resolution No. 464 of respondent Town Board of the Town of Riverhead ("Town Board"), dated May 16, 2000, which "approves special permit petition of Riverhead Centre, LLC" is declared to be annulled, void, vacated, and unenforceable, and it is further -' ,r v Kozakiewicz :x No. 00-14530 ge 2 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this constitutes the decision and judgment of the court and that petitioners shall recover from respondents costs and disbursements in the sum of$ as taxed by the clerk, and petitioners shall have execution therefor. The shopping center project which is the subject of this proceeding has been before this Court on three separate occasions, resulting in determinations dated February 1, 2000, March 31, 2000, and July 10, 2000. Familiarity with those holdings is presumed. Currently the project has survived a challenge to a zoning amendment adopted by the Town Board, which rezoned a 50-acre parcel in order to permit the construction of the large shopping center. That challenge, which alleged impermissible spot zoning, was rejected by this Court's July 10, 2000 determination. Additionally, the portion of a Planning Board resolution, dated November 5, 1999, which recommended approval of the then pending special permit applications,was declared to be void and unenforceable in this Court's March 31,2000 determination. Such was preceded by respondent Riverhead Centre,LLC's("Riverhead Centre")February 10,2000 withdrawal of the special permit applications and the submission to the Town Board of two newly-revised special permit applications, for which no variances were required. This proceeding followed the adoption of the Town Board resolution approving the two revised special permits. One permit allows the construction of a Home Depot as a lumberyard use on the portion of the property that is zoned Industrial A. The other permit allows an increase in coverage density of the Business B portion of the property from 15% to 16.32%. The verified petition sets forth five separate requests for relief. The Court agrees with the Town Board's contention that the third cause of action, alleging a challenge pursuant to Part 617 of Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law ("SEQRA"), is barred by the doctririe of res judicata, having been rejected by this Court in its July 10,2000 determination. Moreover,petitioners do not strenuously challenge the merits of the Town Board's approval of the increase in coverage in the Business B zoned portion of the property, or, for that matter, the Town Board's determination that a Home Depot use is a "lumberyard" under the applicable definition of the Town of Riverhead Code. Counsel for the Town Board has effectively demonstrated that the Town Board has consistently treated commercial businesses that offer the retail and wholesale sales of building supplies to tradesmen and the general public as "lumberyards." However, once again, as with the initial challenge to the prior special permit applications, which resulted in this Court's February 1, 2000 Order,petitioners assert a violation of the special permit section of the Town Code,located at§108-3. This time the challenge claims that said section prohibits the Town Board from accepting or approving an application for a special permit without a complete site plan. In fact, Resolution No. 464 fails to refer to any particular site plan as "the basis for its approving"the special permit applications. Petitioners further claim that contrary to § 108-3(E)(2), no testimony was taken under oath at the public hearing,. Section 108-3(A)(2) mandates the following as a basis for approving a special permit: A complete site plan showing the location of all landscaping and other improvements, including dwelling units and first floor elevations and the design of all buildings and structures, drainage, road designs and contours, signed,sealed and certified by a New York State licensed engineer or architect certifying that all things shown thereon are correct and comply with all federal , l /lI ` ter" er v Kozakiewicz ,ex No. 00-14530 age 3 and state codes,town and county laws,ordinances and regulations and the rules of any applicable special district. Section 108-3(E)(2) sets forth the following as part of the application procedures: All testimony at the public hearing before the Town Board shall be given under oath. The Town Board may require the sworn testimony of such persons as it deems necessary for a full and complete hearing on the application. ;; "Respondents concede that only a conceptual site plan, and not a complete site plan as required under the Town Code was before the Town Board when it approved the special permit applications. The concept a site plan was not certified by the seal and signature of a licensed professional, as required by the Town Code '� and its genesis, Education Law §7209(1). Respondents seek to explain away the absence of the mandatory 17 I certification and the requirement of"a complete site plan"by claiming that for the past 12 years special permit i applications have been processed and approved based upon conceptual site plans. The Director of Planning for the Town of Riverhead states that only after special permit approval is given, "then final site plan review is ripe for action." He further explains that the Town has uniformly relaxed implementation of the requirement that special permit applications be accompanied by a complete site plan, permitting either "a 1 sketch plan, a conceptual site plan, or a survey." However,the Town Code is clear and unambiguous. A completed site plan,which is"signed, sealed and certified" by a licensed New York State engineer or architect, is mandated. The Court notes that no affidavits are offered from members of the Town Board. Moreover, the Town's Director of Planning offered a conflicting account of the process before the Town Board when he claimed in his July 24, 2000 affidavit that the special permit applications"fully complied with the submittal requirements set forth in Section 108-3 (special penult) of the Town Zoning Code." Instead of circumventing the clear language of the Town Code, the Code provisions should be amended, if that is the intention of the Town Board. The potential for abuse in the current ad hoc process is apparent. Anyone reading the Code section would understand that a complete plan is necessary and would submit such a plan. If a complete site plan was submitted with the application, no Town official would or could object. However, others, familiar with the unpublished relaxed submission i? requirement, which is not revealed on the Town's submission requirement forms, can overlook the code requirement. Legislative intent is ascertained from the statutory language used, and where words of a statute are clear and unambiguous,they should be literally construed(see,People v Munoz,207 AD2d 418,615 NYS2d 730 [2d Dept 1994], appeal denied 84 NY2d 938, 621 NYS2d 535 [1994]). Moreover, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning when the legislative body has given no indication that a different meaning was intended (see, People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 423 NYS2d 625 [1979], appeal dismissed 100 S.Ct. 1825, 446 U.S. 901, 64 L.Ed 254). Here, the statutory language must be construed according to its natural and most obvious sense. Since the Town Code is clear on its face, there is no need , to resort to any other means of interpretation (see, Statutes, §§ 92[b], 94]). Here, despite the Director of �, Planning's contrary policy, an administrator's interpretation of his own regulation does not bind a court, particularly where there is no doubt as to the meaning of the words used in the regulation (see, Feickert v McGoldrick, 119 NYS2d 301 [Sup Ct Kings County 1953]). The practical construction of a statute by those M i sr v Kozakiewicz ex No. 00-14530 .age 4 charged with its enforcement is not relevant where the statute is neither ambiguous nor of doubtful meaning ° (see,Lawrence Const. Cort. v State, 293 NY 634 [1944];Dobess Realty Corp. v Magid, 186 Misc 225, 61 NYS2d 324 [Sup Ct New York County 1946]). Here, freedom to construe a statute is not freedom to amend or ignore it. Petitioners preserved this argument by setting it forth in their fifth cause of action and by their counsel's claim at the public hearing that there was no site plan. Additionally, as set forth in detail in this Court's February 1, 2000 Order,the failure to comply with the special permit section of the Town Code is a jurisdictional defect. Similarly,petitioners raise a valid objection concerning the Town Board's failure to abide by section 108-3(E)(2). The code,provision clearly requires that"[a]ll testimony... shall be given under oath." No oath was administered by the Town Clerk or any other authorized person at the public hearing. Moreover,the fact that counsel for Riverhead Centre stated at the May 2, 2000 public hearing that "[a]11 of the testimony that I'm giving, by the way, is under penalty of perjury," does not satisfy the requirement of an oath. To begin, CPLR 2106 only refers to affidavits ("when subscribed and affirmed by him to be true under the penalties of perjury"). Additionally, CPLR 2309(a) requires that an oath be administered by, inter alia, any person authorized by the laws of this state to receive evidence for that purpose. The perjury statutes,under Penal Law Article 210, offer definitions of"Oath" (Penal Law§210.00[1]),"Testimony"(Penal Law § 210.00[3]), and "Attesting officer"(Penal Law§210.00[6]). These definitions confirm the requirement that in order to make a valid oath,there must be the presence of an officer authorized to administer it and an unequivocal act of the affiant consciously taking upon himself the obligation of an oath (see, People v Guer, 42 AD2d 803, 346 NYS2d 422 [3d Dept 1973]). Here,there was no attesting officer,even though the Town Code contemplates such an activity. While the Town Board challenges petitioners' procedural objections as a"microscopic examination of the procedures followed," all respondents were on notice that this was a contentious project and that the failure to follow the procedures set forth in the Town Code surrounding the special permit process was an issue previously raised by petitioners. The failure to follow the dictates of the Town Code allows for irregularities to creep into the process, such as the belated"complete"site plan's apparent conflict with the conditions of the change of zone approval. Additionally, although the Court need not address the matter, petitioners raise an issue as to whether a"garden center" falls within the definition of a"lumberyard"under the Town Code. Finally, once again, the Court rejects respondents' challenge to the standing of the business entity petitioners for the same reasons as set forth in this Court's short form judgment of July 10, 2000. By short form order of the same date, the Court has denied Riverhead Centre's request for discovery on the issue of petitioners' standing. Accordingly, the petition is granted to the extent indicated abov Dated: OCT 1 8 2000 J.S.C. r ; en intimate, that a409 N E 2d 876 menced', and thus the case was moot. Judi- it locked. She then learned from Du Bray's •d. In Solnffk, we ciary Law § 4; U S C A"Cont. Amend. 1 attorney that Judge Clyne, behind closed 50 N.Y 2d 707 doors, had heard and granted a motion to h rir.;' o limits- e`—— —" 3. Criminal Law x635 on for declaratory �n the Matter of HEARST CORPORA �o�---�; close a proceeding during which Marathon _"____�__ Trial X20 was expected to enter a plea. The reporter, TION et al., Appellants, r — ,olution of the par- n', All udi©al roceedin s, both civil and d in a CPLR article 1 fl`'' J p g Armstrong, then knocked on the courtroom v. r-1 CZ)o j. criminal, are presumptively open to public. y predicate for this John J. CLYNE, as Judge of the Coun�fyyl cu JudiciaryLaw 4; U.S.C.A Const. Amend. door. There was no response. After about A § 15 minutes the doors opened and she ,wever, that an arti- Court of Albany County, et al., L---) L 1. learned from Judge Clyne that Marathon ailable to the partyRes ondents. p 713 P (,"ri i had indeed entered a guilty plea. The Inasmuch as plain- Fri ,j_Peter L. Danziger, Albany,for appellants. Court of Appeals of New York . 4._____H' Judge,however,refused petitioners request legislative act, this �,�� X10 Robert G. Lyman, County Atty. (William for a transcript of the plea proceeding or to ,atisfied in this case. July 3, 1980. fLrllI J. Conboy, II, Asst. County Atty., of coun- direct the court stenographer to read back with the majority >— sel), for John J. Clyne, respondent. the minutes of the proceeding. Article 78 proceeding was brought-- ------21� 1n outright sanctiontSol Greenberg, Dist. Atter (George H. On March 12, prior to trial, the other seeking declaration that closing of court=— —-- for if the majority s room to press during entry of guilty plea Barber, Albany, of counsel),for Sol Green- defendant, Du Bray, also entered a plea of yup d by what I berg, respondent. guilty before Judge Clyne. Thereafter analysis, I certainlywas illegal and seeking injunctive relief. y The Supreme Court,Appellate Division,dis- ..1_711. !Robert C. Bernius, Rochester, for Bing- Judge Clyne permitted the petitioners to d wholeheartedly. missed the petition, and appeal was taken. .fined by legal prece- hamton Press Company, Int, and others, obtain a copy of the transcript of the closed The Court of Appeals, Wachtler, J., held amici curiae_ plea proceeding; that-transcript has now Leve that the result affected by determination of appeal taken been furnished to them and forms a part of that: (1) rights of parties could not be ty today is best re- 112 �OPII�IION OF THE COURT the record on this appeal. ^tion. in the Article 78 proceeding where underly- WACHTLER, Judge. transcriptproceeding The of the closed roceedin r merits of this ap- ing plea proceeding had been concluded, The petitioners in this article 78 proceed held March 7, which is the sole concern of majority due to its and transcript had been furnished to peti- ing are the publisher of the Albany Times— this appeal, indicates that at the very com- to say that I agree tioner by time their action was commenced, Union, a daily newspaper, ate.Shirley Arm mencement of the already closed suppres ,senting Justices be- and thus the case was moot, and (2) remit- strong, a reporter for that newspaper. The sion hearing which had been adjourned y no administrative tal was required because Appellate Division respondent,John J. Clyne, is a Judge of the from March 5, Marathon's attorney orally pursue. had had no opportunity to consider matter Albany County Court. moved to close the courtroom to all persons reverse the order of in light of intervening decision by Court of In March of 1979 Judge Clyne was con- except Marathon, his attorney, and court reinstate plaintiffs' Appeals. ducting a joint suppression Rearing in the personnel The District Attorney joined . trial of the issues Reversed and remitted with directions. criminal case of Alexander Marathon and the motion. Without taking evidence or Meyer, J., concurred specially and filed William Du Bray,who had been indicted for hearing argument from anyone Judge opinion. the crimes of robbery in the first degree, Clyne immediately granted the motion, and GABRIELLI, Cooke, C. J., dissented. burglary in the first degree and-grand lar- even excluding the codefendant Du Bray 1ERG and MEYER, ceny in the second degree. The hearings and his attorney from the courtroom, and >> J. 1. Action 03=.6were closed to the public and press on the had the doors secured. In sworn testimony Power of court to declare law arises motion of the defendants, without objection Marathon then confessed his own participa- .nd votes to reverse by the prosecutor and without a hearing. tion in the crime for which he was indicted, only out of, and is limited to, determiningated his codefendant Du Bray, and rights of persons which are actually contro- Armstrong the court reporter for the incul Times—Union, knew the hearings were was permitted to enter a plea of guilty to verted in particular case pending before tribunal. closed and the courtroom doors locked, but one count of the indictment. was sufficiently interested in the proceed- The petitioners brought this proceeding 2. Declaratory Judgment X392 ings to periodically walk by the courtroom seeking a declaration that the closure of the Rights of parties could not be affected to observe whatever she could. plea taking was illegal, and for an injunc- RSYSTEM by determination of appeal, taken in ArticleOn March 7, during one these periodic tion prohibiting such closures in the future 78 proceeding seeking declaration that do- unless members of the press are afforded observations, Armstrong noticed the attor sure of criminal plea taking proceeding wasney for Du Bray, one of the codefendants, an opportunity to be heard. illegal and seeking injunctive relief, where standing outside the courtroom door. On The Appellate Division, 71 A.D.2d 966, underlying plea proceeding had been con- the assumption that something other than a 419 N.Y.S2d 338 concluded that the closure eluded.and transcript had been furnished to suppression hearing was in progress Arm- was a proper exercise of the trial court's 402 431 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 50 N.Y.2d 713 tioners appealed. We conclude that the of the instant case, where the underlying case is moot and that there is no sufficient plea proceeding had been long concluded reason for this court to consider the merits and the transcript had been furnished to of the appeal; however, for the reasons the petitioners at the time this action was which follow, the order of the Appellate commenced (cf. Matter of Westchester Division should be reversed and remitted Rockland Newspapers v. Leggett, 48 N.Y.2d fnr diamissnl 430, 436, 423 N.Y.S.2d 630, 399 N.E.2d 518) [1] It is a fundamental principle of our we conclude that the rights of the parties jurisprudence that the power of a court to cannot be affected by the determination of declare the law only arises out of, and is this appeal and,it is therefore moot. Be- limited to, determining the rights of per- cause we conclude that the appeal is moot it sons which are actually controverted in a may not properly be decided by this court particular case pending before the tribunal unless it is found to be within the exception (Matter of State Ind. Comm., 224 N.Y. 13, to the doctrine which permits the courts to 16, 119 N.E. 1027; California v. San Pablo preserve for review important and recur- & Tulare R.R., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. ring issues which, by virtue of their rela- 876, 878, 37 L.Ed. 747). This principle, tively brief existence, would be rendered which forbids courts to pass on academic, otherwise nonreviewable (see Roe v. Wade, hypothetical, moot, or otherwise abstract 410 U.S. 113, 12,5, 93 S.Ct. 705, 712, 35 questions, is founded both in constitutional L.Ed.2d 147). separation-of-powers doctrine, and in In this court the exception to the doctrine Iiia methodgical strictures which inhere in of mootness has been subject over the years the decisional process of a common-law ju- to a variety of formulations t However, diciary. examination of the cases in which our court [2] Our particular concern on this ap- has found an exception to the doctrine dis- peal is with that facet of the principle closes three common factors: (1) a likeli- which ordinarily precludes courts from con- hood of repetition, either between the par- 1716 sidering questions which, although once ties or among other members of the public; live, have become moot by passage of time (2) a phenomentin typically evading review; or change in circumstances. In general an and (3) a showing of significant or impor- appeal will be considered moot unless the tant questions not previously passed on, i. rights of the parties will be directly affect- e.,substantial and novel issues. After care- ed by the determination of the appeal and ful review we are persuaded that the case the interest of the parties is an immediate before us presents no questions the funda- consequence of the judgment. On the facts mental underlying principles of which have 1. "[N]ovel and important question of statutory ly to recur" (People ex rel. Guggenheim v. construction" (Le Drugstore Etats Unis v. New Mucci, 32 N Y 2d 307, 310, 344 N.Y S 2d 944, York, State Bd. of Pharmacy, 33 N.Y.2d 298, 946, 298 N.E.2d 109, 110), question "of major 301, 352 N.Y.S.2d 188, 190, 307 N.E.2d 249, importance and [that] will arise again and 250); "of a character which is likely to recur again" (Matter of Rosenbiuth v. Finkelstein, not only with respect to the parties before the 300 N.Y.402,404, 91 N.E.2d at 581); questions court but with respect to others as well" (East of "general interest, substantial public impor- Meadow Community Concerts Ass'n. v. Board tance and likely to arise with frequency" (Mat- of Educ., 18 N.Y.2d 126, 138,272 N.Y.S.2d 341, ter of Cold v. Lotnenzo,29 N.Y.2d 468,476,329 346, 219 N.E.2d 172, 175); "only exceptional N.Y.S.2d 805, 810, 280 N.E.2d 640, 643); "im- cases,where the urgency of establishing a rule portance of the question involved,the possibili- of future conduct is imperative and manifest ty of recurrence,and the fact that orders of this will justify a departure from our general prac- nature quickly expire and thus typically evade tire" (Matter of Lyon•Co. v. Morris, 261 N.Y. review" (Matter of Westchester Rockland 497,499, 185 N.E.at 111); question of"impor- Newspapers v, Leggett,48 N.Y.2d 430,437,423 tance and interest and because of the likeliness N.Y.S.2d 630,633,399 N.E.2d 518, 521); "crys- .` 'i" ,�. that they will recur" (Matter of Jones v. Ber- talizes a recurring and delicate issue of con- j�" man, 37 N.Y 2d 42, 57, 371 N.Y.S.2d 422, 433, crete significance" (Matter of Gannett Co. v. 332 N.E.2d 303, 311); "question of general in- De Pasquale, 43 N.Y.2d 370, 376, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1, terest and substantial public importance is like- 756, 759, 372 N.E 2d 544, 547.) v,:. S' 01; _ , ,.,,.. v i 'yr/ LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C. 10315 MAIN ROAD, P 0. BOX 1424 WILLIAM WICKHAM MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND MELVILLE OFFICE ERIC J.BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD ABIGAILA WICKHAM -SUITE III 631-298-8353 1 E LL , NEW YORK 11747 LYNNE M.GORDON TELEFAX NO. 631-298-85Eii C�^- ` ��� JANET GEASA `�7 0 1J ;;�3 -249-9480 March 12, 2001 `I T)` TELE A 0 631-249-9484 li��'1' � it Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals \;`%...2_;I t 2 2001 \ I 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 I Southold,New York 11971M -1 Re: Application of Patricia and James McNamara Ladies and Gentlemen: While our primary position is that a referral to the Planning Board for site plan review was not required because the hoophouse structure does not change the use or intensity of use, namely farming, we are forwarding copies of case law supporting our alternative position. If you would prefer a Memorandum of Law,please advise. The enclosed cases are representative of a long line of cases which provide that in cases where neighbors sought an injunction pending determination of whether the issuance of a permit or variance was proper,those objections were considered moot where the structure complained of was completed or substantially complete. A common basis in these cases is that the injunctions were sought by neighbors who were aware of the construction from the outset and failed to seek an injunction during the pendency of the construction. While there are numerous cases, mostly at the N.Y. Supreme Court level, those enclosed are: 1. Stockade v. Hughes, 189 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 897 (3d Dep't 1993). 2. Caprari v. Town of Colesville, 199 A.D.2d 705, 605 N.Y.S.2d 157 (3d Dep't 1993). 3. Harbour v. Reidell, 172 A.D.2d 920, 568 N.Y.S.2d 206 (3d Dep't, 1991). 4. Bytner v. City of Albany, 211 A.D.2d 1000, 621 N.Y.S.2d 960 (3rd Dep't 1995). Since the hoophouse closest to the road was complete when this appeal was filed, and the western hoophouse is substantially complete, requiring only the placing of the plastic over the existing hoops, we believe the appeal is moot. Verytruly yours, /, i// bigail A. Wickham AAW/dmc 30/shdtzba cc D Ross,Esq with enclosures(by hand) STOCKDALE v. HUGHES 897 Cite as 592 N.Y.S.2d 897(A.D.3 Dept. 1993) tinst the her discomfort. And, as she and other [4] On the other hand, the jury's award by defen- members of her family attested, she is still for past pain and suffering—a period of ndisputed prevented from doing most of the activities four years—is not so inadequate as to re- ) herniat , she formerly enjoyed, including much of quire modification (see, Reed v. Harter he spinal the housework—she was a fastidious Chair Corp., supra [$30,000]; Diorio v. eading to housekeeper—gardening, raking, shoveling Scala, supra [$30,000]; Hughes v. Peters, /as ample snow, carrying heavy items, dancing and 167 A.D.2d 687, 563 N.Y.S.2d 269[$16,500]; her pain. bowling. These-limitations have/also af- Lamot v. Gondek, supra [$27,900])• We )ert spec- fected plaintiff emotionally; she testified find Supreme Court's decision to override causes of that she feels "tormented" because her ac- this aspect of the jury's verdict to have nd would tivities have been so drastically curtailed. been an abuse of discretion. Inasmuch as en a firm Her daughter also observed that plaintiff the $15,000 award did not materially devi- On cross- has been "irritable" since the accident and ate from reasonable compensation (see, pain was appears to be in pain, and plaintiff's hus- CPLR 5501[c]), it should not have been set herniated band testified that plaintiff is frequently aside. - plaintiff l irritable and tired, that she cries often,and ORDERED that the order is modified, on e fall she that their sex life has suffered. the law, without costs, to the extent that into her Plaintiff's expert indicated that plaintiff the $15,000 jury award for past pain and i of her has considerable lack of motion in her back suffering is reinstated, and that part of the eve that and radiating pain associated with neck order directing that a new trial is to be held between `,, motion; he opined that these symptoms unless defendants stipulate to pay plaintiff .. When will persist, even if she undergoes correc- $75,000 for past pain and suffering is delet- on plain- • b tive surgery, and that they will most likely ed, and, as so modified, affirmed. cient evi- `:c worsen over time. Although defendant's I that the -,,: expert postulated several possible causes MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW elves and 431: of the herniation and pain—the accident, and CASEY, JJ., concur. Indeed,if nthe aging process or plaintiff's part-time would be •' ' job waitressing three days a week—he did w modest i not question that plaintiff actually suffers O SKEY NUMBER SYSTEM T d. ? from the pain she recounted. - s, CPLR ;- - Despite the fact that the jury obviously - Division concluded her injuries were permanent—it 189 A.D.2d 1065 when it -awarded her damages to compensate her s consid- '- t ` __ for the pain and suffering she would under- In the Matter al.,oRMespondents,nts,STOE As this ,, `rE-: go during her life expectancy—the amount et Respondents, pply to a ',.: deviates materially from what,-in our view, = v. - - =-- - ;sco, 179 :::• i`.,,• -Is reasonable compensation in similar cir- Margaret HUGHES et al., Constituting 58), it is +: _ ;cumstances (see, Reed v. Harter Chair the ZoningBoard of Appeals ppeals of the j nit over- �,� 11 Y -Corp., 185 A.D.2d 547, 550, 586 N.Y.S.2d Town of Wallkill, et al., Respondents, I ;;. N.`.. 401[$100,000]; Diorio v. Scala, 183 A.D.2d 1 decision',s;j n d.'065; 1066-10.67, 583 N.Y.S.2d 654 [$170,- and aPProP , -000]; Lamot v. Gondek, 163 A.D.2d 678, dict was;,_,,: ss aJ`n;`::679, 558 N.Y.S.2d 284 216 000 Bottone Wallkill Apartments Associates, we cop- ' ry' [$ ]� Proposed Intervenor- we lv New York TeL Co., 110 A.D.2d 922, 922- 't'" Appellant. ited ver-, :t s,,`y9 ,487 N.Y.S.2d 170, lv. denied 65 N.Y.2d f.;,;61Q, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 484 N.E.2d 1053 Supreme Court, Appellate Division am plain`_ .- ,;[$380,000 total award Third De t she,h4' 'pxeme Court's determination oto lsetyas de Department. a�� s},'x Jan. 28, 1993. t to p' ,_- o-, _ his portion of the verdict and to award x i.t4iL•� - someti y �EPaintiff $100,000 for future pain and suf- •als,. t d' ,'ring cannot be said to have been impru- Neighbors filed Article 78 proceeding some ' lent._ ;. 7 seeking to compel a public hearing on their 4 n ;F ., . 8J8 592 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES , ' attempt to obtain cancellation of building Before WEISS, P.J., and LEVINE, ZBA t permits for an apartment complex. The MAHONEY, CASEY and HARVEY, JJ. lenge Supreme Court, Orange County, Hickman, of the LEVINE, Justice. 1` J., denied the developer's motion to inter- movec vene and ordered a hearing. They developer Appeal (transferred to this court by or- sough ,i; appealed and the appeal was transferred. der of the Appellate Division, Second De- ' answe The Supreme Court,Appellate Division, Le- partment)from a judgment of the Supreme propos 1 vine, J., held that: (1) the developer should Court (Hickman, J.), entered September 4, sough have been allowed 'to intervene, and (2) 1991 in Orange County, which, inter alis, groun -i laches barred the petition, which'was not denied Wallkill Apartments Associates'mo- upon _; commenced until the complex 'had been tion, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR preme i. substantially completed and rented. article 78, for intervention. that p Jud ment reversed. Petitioners are homeowners and an asso- before i g ciation of homeowners of land adjacent to ing. ' t and immediately' surrounding a tract of not er land ownedbythe-proposed intervenor, - - --- stantii 1. Zoning and Planning is=47L5 Wallkill Apartments Associates (hereinaf ly by ' a Developer was "interested person" ter WAA), in the Town of Wallkill, Orange •hearin f that should have been allowed to intervene County. In September and October 1989, !" in proceedings before town zoning board of the Town's Building Inspector issued build Initi appeals in which neighbors sought revoca ing permits to WAA to construct a 128- that V ' j'f tion of developer's building permits for con- unit apartment complex (hereinafter the peal. struction of apartment complex. McKin- tuber g,� P Psubject complex) on the property. WAA peal a I< i ney's CPLR 7802. promptly began construction on the project. + See publication Words and Phrases Petitioners thereafter appealed to respon- was tip e i for other judicial constructions and dent Town of Wallkill Zoning Board of M rtir definitions. Martin Appeals (hereinafter ZBA) seeking a hear- to reverse the BuildingInspector's is- day (s 2. Zoning and Planning c=.468.1 ing P Constr suance of building permits for the complex ;tar Laches barred attempts,by neighbors . record l ' to obtain cancellation of developer's build- iPetitioners also requested that the ZBA ssue subpoenas for the appearance and timely - 1 ing permits for construction of apartment p PP Januar production of witnesses at the hearing. i complex where developer began construe- When the ZBA declined the subpoena re- [1] t I.1; tion promptly after issuance of permits, `', where neighbors had been aware of con- quest pending petitioners' verification of peal, • ,i$. the relevancy of the testimony of those erred i q}i struction, where they did not seek cancella-,, witnesses, petitioners instituted their first to inte ';., tion until complex had been substantially CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter "inter( i3 completed, and where many•units in cora- . om 11 alis, to compel the ZBA to issue the re cause plex were already occupied. quested subpoenas. Supreme Court, in an pursue `(`1i3. Zoningand Planningx468.1 April 1990 order, granted WAA's interven- titione •fi tion motion and dismissed the petition on revoke f" Neighbors' attempt to obtain cancella- the grounds of lack of finality of the ZBA's interes , tion of developer's building permits for con- 1; determination. In May 1991 this court af- been s struction of apartment complex was ren- firmed (see, Matter of-Stockdale v interv( i , dered moot by completion and occupancy of Hughes, 173 A.D.2d 1075, 570 N.Y.S.2d mers, 4 , 837; D I complex. 412). € ll' In the interim, between Supreme Court's A.D.2c 4.__;; decision and this court's affirmance, the also, Jacobowitz and Gubits(Donald G.Nichol, ZBA "canceled" petitioners' application for •the fa t:;,1 of counsel), Walden, for proposed interve- , nor appellant. a hearing, in apparent reliance on Supreme have ni Court's order. Consequently, in May 1990, City F i Bernard E. Davis, Chester, for Michele petitioners commenced this second CPLR ester, l�, Stockdale and others, respondents. article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the -see al' ,, g}}11 STOCKDALE v. HUGHES 899 LEVINE, Cite as 592 N.Y.S.2d 897(A.D.3 Dept. 1993) ZBA to hold a public hearing on their chal- 619, 628, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920, 393 N.E.2d 994; ARVEY, JJ. lenge to the Building Inspector's issuance Siegel, New York Prac §§ 178-182, at 272- of the building permits to WAA. The ZBA 276[2d ed]),and WAA had previously been moved to dismiss the petition and WAA granted intervention in the prior proceed- s court by or- sought leave to intervene and •n, Second De- serve an in g (see, Matter of Stockdale v. Hughes, answer, which petitioners opposed. In its 173 A.D.2d 1075, 1076, 570 N.Y.S.2d 412, if the Supreme proposed answer and moving papers, WAA supra; see also, Matter of Black v. Sum- sought dismissal of the petition on the mers, supra, 151 A.D.2d at 864, 542 ch, inter alia, grounds of mootness and laches based N.Y.S.2d 837). Lssociates' mo- upon the completion of the project. Su- ant to CPLR preme Court denied both motions, finding [2] This court having exercised its dis • that petitioners were entitled to a hearing cretion to permit WAA's intervention, s and an asso- before the ZBA and ordered such a hear WAA has the right to argue all issues as id adjacent to ing. The court also added that WAA was an aggrieved party(see, Matter of Clinton g a tract of not entitled to intervene because its sub- v. Summers, supra, 144 A.D.2d'at 147 n., N.YKI intervenor, stantive rights would not be affected mere- 534 ett, su 473; see 'also, Auerbach v. tes (hereinaf- ly by ordering the ZBA to hold a public Bennett, supra). We are persuaded by WAA's argument that petitioners' chal- illkill, Orange hearing. October 1989, lenge to the issuance of the building per- ^issued build- Initially, we reject petitioners' contention mits is moot and barred by laches. It is struct a 128- that WAA failed to timely perfect•its ap- well settled that where neglect in promptly reinaftthe peal. WAA's notice of appeal is dated Oc- asserting a claim for relief causes prejudice perty. WAAtber 18, 1991. If WAA perfected its ap- to one's adversary, such neglect operates )n the project. pealany day prior to January 22, 1992 it as a bar to a remedy and is a basis for ed to responwas timely,January 18, 1992 having been a asserting the defense of laches (see;Dwyer ng Board of Saturday and January 20, 1992 having been v. Mazzola, 171 A.D.2d 726, 727, 567 eking a hear- Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a public holi- N.Y.S.2d 281; Matter of Taylor v. Vassar nspector's is day (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[e][2]; General Coll., 138 A.D.2d 70, 72-73, 530.N.Y.S.2d the complex. Construction Law §§ 24, 25-a[1]). The 289, particularly in the area of land devel- iat the ZBA record supports the conclusion that WAA opment (see, Matter of Friends of Pine )earance and timely filed its brief and record prior to Bush v. Planning Bd. of City'of Albany, the hearing. January 22,1992. 86 A.D.2d 246, 248, 450 N.Y.S.2d 966, affd. subpoena re- •- [1] Turning to the merits of WAA's ap- 59 N.Y.2d 849, 465' N.Y.S.2d 924, 452 nification of peal, we conclude that Supreme Court N.E.2d 1252; see also, Matter of Sheerin lily of those erred in denying its request for permission v. New York Fire Dept Arts. 1 & IB 'd their first to intervene. WAA is uncontrovertably an Pension Funds, 46 N.Y.2d 488, 496, 414 _ _;eki g, inter ---interested-person" (see;-CPLR-78u2)`be- N.Y.S.2d 506, 387 N.E.2d 217; Matter of ssue the re- cause it owns the subject complex built Eberhart v. La Pilar Realty Co., 45 Court, in an pursuant to the buildingA.D.2d 679, 680, 355 N.Y.S.2d 791). A's interven- • permits which pe- titioners seek to have the ZBA review and The record clearly establishes that WAA _ petition on revoke. WAA has a real and substantial commenced construction on the subject )f the ZBA's interest in this matter and no reason has complex his court af- been shown whyit should not be allowed to buildingpromptly upon issuance thance of the t construe- !ockdale V. - intervene (see, Matter of Black V. Sum- tion is nowpecomplete.1989its in cmpleteOfthe128 apart- 70 N.Y.S.2d mers, 151 A:D.2d 863, 864, 542 N.Y.S.2d ment units in the complex, all but 13 are 837; Matter of Clinton v. Summers, 144 leased and many have been leased since the erne Court's -, A.D.2d 145, 147, 534 N.Y.S.2d 473; see summer of 1990. Many of the petitioners rmance, the also, CPLR 1013), particularly in light of lived immediately adjacent to the complex plication for _. the fact that the ZBA and its members during earlier phases of the project and, on Supreme :.- , have not appealed(see, Matter of Bailey v. thus, the "clearly discernible construction n May 1990, I. City Planning Commn. of City of Roch- activity in the[complex]during this extend- cond CPLR '-: c ester, 168 A.D.2d 1006, 564 N.Y.S.2d 948; ed period must have been evident to peti- compel the see also, Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d tioners, organized as they were to prevent { . •4•,:a,'-'4 ' ,i"'f4.°.r.- C, fl:-'rte pr - - 4,i^.o1rtrA.. r n c r+ • -' 900 592 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES ' such activity, and yet they permitted it to State Ad '` proceed, satisfied, it seems, to rest upon 189 A.D.2d 1054 subd. L. • the ultimate success" of their appeals to In the Matter of PATCHOGUE 2. Mandl the ZBA (Matter of Friends of Pine Bush NURSING.CENTER, Man( v. Planning Bd. of City of Albany, supra, Appellant, ; gard to 1 86 A.D.2d at 248, 450 N.Y.S.2d 966). act when v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF sought. [3] We conclude that petitioners failed 3. Mand to make sufficient efforts to safeguard HEALTH et al., Respondents. rs their rights here by failing to seek an in- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, r dir • . junction or stay to prevent construction on Third Department. order the subject complex from commencing or ( )to e, continuing during the pendency of this liti- Jan. 28, 1993. sonable gation (see, id.; compare, Matter of Har- charges c bour v. Riedell, 172 A.D.2d 920, 921, 568 Nursing facility brought combined Ar- against fE N.Y.S.2d 20). Even if petitioners are not title 78_proceeding to ,compel,_administra- no unreal guilty of laches, this controversy nonethe- tive hearing and action for declaratory damns to less has been "rendered moot" and should judgment that regulation on which adminis- perfo where mai t be dismissed because construction on the trative law judge's (ALT) interlocutory rul- ouglit, a complex has long since been completed, ing was based was invalid or inapplicable. issue of d and indeed much of it has been leased out The Supreme Court, Albany County, Tra- of ALJ's and is occupied (see, Matter of Harbour v. vers, J., dismissed petition, and facility ap- viewed ui t Riedell, supra, at 921, 568 N.Y.S.2d 206; pealed.The Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- dered. N Matter of Serafin v. Wallace, 117 A.D.2d sion, Casey, J., held that: (1) facility was McKinney 926, 927, 499 N.Y.S.2d 20; Matter of not entitled to declaratory judgment as ex- subd. 5; Friends of Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of haustion of administrative remedies would Procedure p, City of Albany, supra, 86 A.D.2d at 247, not be futile, and (2) mandamus did not lie 450 N.Y.S.2d 966), and petitioners have not as right to hearing depended on ALJ's rul- made any showing that this controversy ing which could not be reviewed until final Block, i t' ' falls within any recognized exception to the determination was rendered. C. Hambu •1 mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Affirmed. appellant. Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713-715, Robert 1' 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). 1. Declaratory Judgment c204 Mereson, ORDERED that the judgment is re- Exhaustion of administrative process dents. versed, on the law and the facts, without with respect to charges against nursing Before 1 • • i costs, motion of Wallkill Apartments Asso- facility of violating of public health law MERCUR] ciates for permission to intervene granted was_not futile following administrative law and petition dismissed, as moot. judge's (ALT) interlocutory ruling concern- CASEY, t ing administrative delay in bringing those Appeal f WEISS, P.J., and MAHONEY, CASEY charges, so that facility was not entitled to Court (Tra declaratory judgment that regulation on 31 3 and HARVEY, JJ., concur. in Albany I t which ALJ based ruling was invalid or in- er's applic applicable; ALJ's ruling and regulatory ba- r3 ? lis for it could be reviewed in Article 78 Pursuantt t • `•i 1 ' proceeding if facility was aggrieved by fi- declra0oN '' w nal determination and facility's claims of dare 10 N '. O EKEYNUMBERSYSTEM ' .�.1, r prejudice due to delay raised issues sepa- By notic rate and distinct from limited laches issue P 1988 etitig '; ' decided by ALJ and could be presented to spondent '1 i ALT when hearing resumed. McKinney's (hereinafte 's Public having v '� CPLR 7801 et seq.; ` McKinney § 2808(5) Health Law § 2808, subd. 5; McKinney's 1i, r +r r it CJ____kRI v. TOWN OF COLESVILLE - 157 I Cite as 605 N.Y.S.2d 157(A.D.3 Dept. 1993) 4 which convicted her of the lesser included [3] As a final matter,we are not persuad- i ' ,y court, offense of manslaughter in the first degree. ed that the sentence imposed was harsh and ppellate Sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of excessive. The brutal nature of the crime, f, f defen- 8'k to 25 years, defendant now appeals, pri- defendant's past record and the recommen- ted jus- manly arguing that County Court erred in dation contained in the presentence report all , islaugh- refusing to charge the jury regarding the mitigated in favor of the maximum permissi- defense of justification. We disagree. ble penalty. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. r;;;11:,:.: [1,2] Defendant's version of the events, r prose- as recounted to her brother, who in turn MIKOLL,"J.P., and YESAWICH andr= !onsider testified for the People, was that Woolfolk CASEY, JJ., concur. psychia- had been extorting sex from her by threaten- for his ing to have her children taken away from W ?' extreme her. On the night in question, after the two O TKEY NUM BER SYSTEM any was had already engaged in sexual intercourse, -Woolfolk stated that defendant could not - leave his apartment until she also performed 1 'k to 25 oral sex. Defendant refused and went to 4 ,° sentence leave. Finding the door locked, she instead 199 A.D.2d 705 9, ,ecution; walked into the kitchen, picked up a knife In the Matter of Raymond ''' ast rec- and slashed Woolfolk across the neck with it. et al., App ants,CAPRARI in pre- We conclude that no reasonable view of that of max- testimony supports a reasonable belief that v' t�' ` Woolfolk was committing or attempting to TOWN OF COLESVILLE ' f commit forcible sodomy (see, Penal Law r et al., Respondents. § 35.15[2]@]; People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d , ?r(Ken- 299, 301-302, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E2d (Proceeding No. 1.). -i ,i,.,s ton, for 1188). The further contention that the testi- Raymond CAPRARI et al., Appellants, ;"P, -, ' mony of Robert Berger, defendant's examin- m_Rose ing psychiatrist, supports a justification de- v' if res on- ' fense was not advanced in County Court and, Jonathan C. GAFFNEY, Respondent. F#' }, p thus, is not preserved for appellate review. ,11 (Action No. 1.) ,k Moreover, Berger's ' .' �WICH, dant's account of the events leading up to In the Matter of Raymond CAPRARI 1,��., , ,,,. Woolfolk's death was received solely as a et al., Appellants, G f, ; foundation for his opinion that defendant act- - ed under extreme emotional disturbance,and v' '' County the jury was properly instructed to consider ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF ri,°1l' J.), ren- the testimony for no other purpose (see, the TOWN OF COLESVILLE et ; ' i' Davidson v. Cornell, 132 N.Y. 228, 237-238, al., Respondents. a, ,-', verdict 0 )f man- 30 N.E. 573; Nissen v. Rubin, 121 AD2dJ 320, 321, 504 N.Y.S.2d 106). "`It is not the (Proceeding No. 2.) ' intent of the law to permit the defendant to Supreme Court, Appellate Division, `, led 74- avoid taking the stand and being subject to Third Department. mg him cross-examination by allowing his story to be r n Wool- * * * Dec. 16, 1993. - hamton, presented through hearsay testimony I,<1� cted for (People v. Richardson, 193 AD.2d4 i Zal, she 969,972, 598 N.Y.S.2d 341, quoting People v. Adjoining landowners brought Article 78 „j' Dvorozna 127 A.D.2d 785, 512 N.Y.S.2dproceeding injunctivei'. nal dis- and action for relief, 1 i - ie jury, 180). seeking to invalidate building permit and to 1,- grfi { ;--..-..7,:-:' .w. • - "' C Tia • S .. r .,z. t- 158 605 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES ' ...,2„,t t. i enjoin construction of proposed building, and as time barred, (2) from an order of said p _ G: second group of adjoining landowners corn- court, entered August 18, 1992 in Broome ,, ti( • , menced second Article 78 proceeding to chal- County, which denied plaintiffs' motion in ,'' re lenge subsequent determination of town zon- action No. 1 for a preliminary injunction,and ;`': A; ing board that building permit was properly (3) from a judgment of said court, entered ki issued. The Supreme Court, Broome Coun- August 19, 1992 in Broome County,which,in - 59 a ty, Rose, J.,dismissed Article 78 proceedings a proceeding(No.2) pursuant to CPLR arti- H t and denied motion for preliminary injunction. cle 78, dismissed petitioners' application to 89 Adjoining landowners appealed. The Su- annul determinations by respondent Zoning Pi preme Court, Appellate Division, Mercure, Board of Appeals of the Town of Colesville, 24 J., held that proceedings and action were inter alia, ruling that a building permit was84 barred by doctrine of laches and rendered properly issued. moot in light of landowners'failure to timely safeguard their interest byseekingm k injunc- Jonathan C. Gaffney owns property in the tion prior to substantial construction of build- Town of Colesville, Broome County. In - -------ing•- - - - --- - 1987, Gaffney constructed a 3,600-square- an Appeals dismissed. foot building on the property which he uses for the refurbishing of classic automobiles. ' In 1991 Gaffney applied for a building permit Zoning and Planning x570, 584.1 to construct a second structure of similar size • for the storage of classic cars. Following a Adjoining landowners' Article 78 pro- determination by the Town of Colesville Zon- • ceedings challenging building permit, and ing Board of Appeals that the proposed • their action seeking to enjoin construction of structure was permitted as an accessory use, • building were barred by doctrine of laches a building permit was issued on March 21, • and rendered moot in view of landowners' con- failure• • to timely safeguard their interest by 1992 and the building was subsequently seeking injunction prior to time building was structed. Proceeding No. 1 and action No. 1 substantially constructed, despite obvious were commenced by adjoining landowners(1) r presence of ongoing construction on proper- to annul the Zoning Board determination and ty invalidate the building permit and (2) to en- join construction of the proposed building ' and use of the existing structure as illegal I • Ball, McDonough & Artz, P.C. (Gary W. and a nuisance. Another group of adjoining Farneti, of counsel), Binghamton, for appel- landowners commenced proceeding No. 2 to Tants. challenge, inter alia, a subsequent Zoning Board determination that the building permit Pearls, Resseguie,Kline,Barber& Lebous was properly issued. Supreme Court dis- (Joan C. Long, of counsel), Binghamton, for missed proceeding No. 1 and proceeding No. Cc Town of Colesville and another,respondents. 2 and denied plaintiffs' motion for a prelimi- sa naryinjunction in action No. 1. The petition- ap - William K.Maney, Johnson City,for Jona- p Di than C. Gaffney, respondent. ers or plaintiffs in each proceeding or action appeal. su no = Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, It appears that, by the time plaintiffs in tic W MERCURE, CREW and CARDONA, JJ. )' action No. 1 sought a preliminary injunction, MERCURE, Justice. the proposed building was substantially con- structed. We were advised at oral argument Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Su- that the building was then completely con- S 1• preme Court(Rose,J.),entered May 28, 1992 structed. In view of petitioners' and plain- in Broome County, which, in a proceeding tiffs' failure to timely safeguard their inter- tic (No. 1)pursuant to CPLR article 78,granted ests by seeking an injunction, despite the ev • respondents' motion to dismiss the petition obvious presence of ongoing construction on of i L V -' PEOPLE v. GRAHAM 159 ;I:„ Cite as 605 N.Y.S.2d 159 (A.D.3 Dept. 1993) t,`' said Gaffney's property, the proceedings and ac- choke him as result of an altercation over )ome tion are barred by the doctrine of laches and defendant's failure to initial certain papers 1 - n in rendered moot(see, Matter of Center Square while defendant was being processed into the and Assn. v. Board of Bldg. Zoning and Hous. facility. McKinney's Penal Law § 120.05, , ered Appeals of City of Albany, 195 A.D.2d 684, subd. 7. ;h,in 599 N.Y.S.2d 897; Matter of-Stockdale v. arti- Hughes, 189 A.D.2d 1065, 1068, 592 N.Y.S.2d 2. Criminal Law .814(20) i_';, m to 1 897; Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v. Lesser included offense instruction of i . ming Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 86 A.D.2d assault in the third degree was properly re- i f ;fie, 246, 248, 450 N.Y.S.2d 966, affd 59 N.Y.2d fused where reasonable review of evidence I' ;. was 849, 465 N.Y.S.2d 924, 452 N.E.2d 1252). would not support finding that defendant --i ORDERED that the appeals are dis- committed lesser offense but not greater of- I;i • missed, as moot, without costs. fense of second-degree assault. +. n the f', In MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, CREW tare- and CARDONA, JJ., concur. Paul R. Corradini, Elmira, for appellant. uses ' biles. James T. Hayden, Dist. Atty. (Charles H. 1-;_ ermit O SKEYNUMBER51siEM Metcalfe,of counsel),Elmira,for respondent. -1z; r size T . zn a Before MERCURE, J.P., and CARDONA, '�'' g •�� Zon- WHITE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ. posed 1 ,,. y use, WHITE, Justice. ;'»'• di 21199 A.D.2d 699 +,l •(•' Appeal from a judgment of the County �•.p; t con- The PEOPLE of the State of Court of Chemung County(Danaher, Jr., J.), ' No. 1New York, Respondent, rendered March 30, 1992, upon a verdict l'e ars(1) v. ;convicting defendant of the crime of assault ,t in and in the second degree. ,'li, to en- Floyd GRAHAM, Appellant. '�,•i Defendant's principal contention on appeal ulding _ 1f1)=. ` illegal Supreme Court, Appellate Division, is that the People failed to prove that, at the oining Third Department. time of the commission of the offense,he was +i ). 2 to Dec. 16, 1993. confined to a correctional facility pursuant to i sJ a conviction of a crime. A correctional facili- I5 �erinit ty is defined in Correction Law§ 40(3) as an '` --.t— = Defendant was convicted in the County "institution operated by the statedepartment - — ',°I' ig No. Court, Chemung County, Danaher, J., of as- of correctional services * * * for the deten- ?j relimi- = sault in the second degree, and defendant tion of persons charged with or convicted of a ire appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate crime". In 7 NYCRR 100.1 and 100.35, the j stition i iv ppp Elmira Correctional and Reception Center l'i I/ . action Division, White, J., held that: (1) evidence p I supported conviction, and (2) evidence did located in the City of Elmira, Chemung i II, . not warrant lesser included offense instruc- County,is designated as a correctional facili- ilf'tiffs in tion on third-degree assault. ty. i'� 1._ nction, Affirmed. The record shows that on the date in ques- '=i t,. l con- tion, October 3, 1991, 1�1 s Y James Sowers was �,,��; ument employed by the State as a correction officer i4 ,.. con- 1. Assault and Battery492(1) f; Y at the Elmira Correctional Facility(hereinaf- "�;is ply- Evidence supported defendant's convic- ter the facility) and was at the reception ,'i fs ' inter- tion for second-degree assault; there was center package room where his duties includ- `�i!rf ite the evidence that defendant struck corrections ed processing inmates either coming into or tion on officer, knocked him down and began to leaving the facility. Sowers was processing i„ j'(0 0. , 4, • 5� 1 ,�� C. c . 1xt:r'''i: 206 568 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES w tual sale of property (see, Lane Real Es- ,= tate Dept. Store v. Lawlet, supra, at 42- 172 A.D.2d 920 43, 319 N.Y.S.2d 836, 268 N.E.2d 635; Viµ` In the Matter of Harry E. HARBOUR 1,4-, Hecht v. Meller, supra; Smith v. Peyrot, 1 i 201 N.Y. 210, 214, 94 N.E. 662). The prin- et al., Appellants, =---,' cipal's obligation to pay upon performance =: 7;:;',_`: by the broker is not necessarily conditioned v. upon his ability to sell the property to the Fred RIEDELL, Jr., et al., Individually ;?; z'' • ready, willing buyer. and Constitutings and able Thus, ab- the Village of Me- sent a contrary arrangement, a principal nands Zoning Board of Appeals, et al., t} �_ • ' ' ' who employs a broker is liable for commis- Respondents. x;.-. sions when the broker performs the con- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1 tract by procuring a purchaser, even Department. j though the principal does not own the prop- ThirdP` erty involved and cannot, therefore, sell it April 4, 1991. (see, Kennon v. Poerschke, 148-App.Div.____ _ .r_____ 839,840, 133 N.Y.S.528; Pearsen v. Lemk- en, 34 Misc.2d 636, 637, 229 N.Y.S.2d 589; - 1 Batchis v. Dlugasch, 128 Misc. 148, 149, Property owners challenged decision of , , 218 N.Y.S. 369; Jeremias v. Mantione, 60 village zoning board of appeals granting •I N.Y.S.2d 181, 182, 11 NY Jur 2d, Brokers, their neighbor a variance to allow construc- + § 97, at 453; see also, Greene v. Hellman, tion of a garage. The Supreme Court, 73 A.D.2d 826, 827, 423 N.Y.S.2d 754 [dis- Albany County, Bradley, J., dismissed peti- senting opn], revd. 51 N.Y.2d 197, 433 N.Y. tion, and property owners moved for order S.2d 75, 412 N.E.2d 1301). Accordingly, by excusing failure to appeal or alternatively 1 employing plaintiff to find a buyer, Nut- to reargue and filed notice of appeal. The man, although he did not own the property Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Yesa- 4 at issue, became liable for commissions wich, J., held that controversy was ren- once plaintiff procured a ready, willing and dered moot since construction of garage 4 able purchaser. was completed during pendency of appeal. [5,6] As a final note, we reject defen- Appeal dismissed. dant s argument that plaintiff failed to per- " form under the contract because the pur- chaser he procured negotiated the terms of the sale with Nutman and thus was not a Action <3=.6 1 buyer ready, willing and able to purchase Property owners' action to challenge according to the true owner's terms. Un- decision of village zoning board of appeals less it is agreed otherwise, the principal granting neighbor variance to construct ga- employs the broker to procure a buyer rage was rendered moot where construe- , willing to buy upon the terms of that prin- tion of garage was completed during pend- cipal who so employs the broker. In the ency of appeal, absent any showing that instant case, it was Nutman who employed controversy fell within articulated excep- plaintiff and who designated the terms tions to mootness doctrine. . - upon which plaintiff's purchaser was to agree. In light of the foregoing, the judg- i ment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. John W. Sutton, Galway, for appellants. s; WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and Donohue, Sabo, Varley & Armstrong (Christine M. D'Addio, of counsel), Alban CREW, JJ., concur. for Fred Riedell, respondent. Y, C. j O SKEYNUMBERSYSTEM T Before MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and CREW, JJ. r`. r ii .____ • 1... [m , SILVI 'E CONST. v. FACILITIES DEV. 207 ,', f - Cite as 568 N.Y.S.2d 207(A.D.3 Dept. 1991) r - YESAWICH, Justice. during oral argument before this court, j '; , - Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme construction of the garage was completed Court (Bradley, J.), entered January 17, during the pendency of this appeal (see, 1'11' , Matter ofBurns PharmacyofRensselaer ! 1990 in Albany County,which,in a proceed- ' ing pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter v. Conley, 146•A.D.2d 842, 843, 536 N.Y. r`,, i alia, granted a motion by respondents Fred S.2d 248; Matter of Serafin v. Wallace, Riedell,Jr.,Peter Nicpon and John Murphy 117 A.D.2d 926,499 N.Y.S.2d 20; Matter of '}' • to dismiss the petition against them for Friends of Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of 1; lack of jurisdiction. City of Albany, supra, 86 A.D.2d at 247, f 'i`. • , 450 N.Y.S.2d 966). As the controversy " • In December 1989, petitioners com does not fall within any of the articulatedi ; , • menced this proceeding to challenge a deci- ;, exceptions to the mootness doctrine (see, , sion of the Village of Menands Zoning Matter ofHearst . Clyne, 50 Board of Appeals granting petitioners' Corp.rp y { N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 ' neighbor, respondent Thomas Morrissey, a It ' six-foot area variance for their roPe 1n N.E.2d 876), the appeal must be dismissed. • P rty • Albany County. The variance allowed Mor- Appeal dismissed,as moot,without costs. } rissey to construct a garage"not* ' ' less %'- than 4 feet from[petitioner's] ' ' ' proper- MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, ; , ' • ty line"; the zoning ordinance requires a MIKOLL, and CREW, JJ., concur. 1 ft - , minimum side yard set back of 10 feet. ' '• ` After oral argument on December 15, 1989, w at which petitioners failed to appear, Su- o sE TKEYNUMBERSYSTEM j Via• , preme Court dismissed the petition. What {; j occurred at oral argument does not appear :It ': in the record. 1 s }; Immediately thereafter, petitioners [, moved for an order excusing their failure 172 A.D.2d 922 ' a appear to or alternatively to reargue, and t�; SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION !' on January 30, 1990 they filed a notice of i �?' appeal. In addition,on May25, 1990, after COMPANY, INC., Appellant, g; i PPl;. . 1; learning that 10 days earlier a building v } permit had been issued by the Village re- FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT i A, garding construction of the aforementioned CORPORATION, Respondent. „'IJP. ` garage, petitioners mailed to Supreme }' '.. Court a proposed order to show cause re- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, F, Third Department. } questing a preliminary injunction directing ri . . (: Morrissey to refrain from building the ga- _ April 4, 1991. {��1 - rage. These applications were never ad- ;II ,a • f f dressed; whether the court intentionally or l} i ` inadvertently declined the stay is not devel- Contractor brought breach of contract }F • oped in the record. No further action was suit. The Supreme Court, Albany County, ; _ apparently taken by petitioners. Hughes, J., denied motion for summary 1 + - • Although petitioners proceeded with judgment•dismissing third affirmative de- } alacrity in an attempt to safeguard their fense, and contractor appealed. The Su- i 0 ` appeal and therefore cannot be charged preme Court, Appellate Division, Mahoney, fII�4.:.; r. with being guilty of laches (compare, Mat- P.J., held that genuine issues of material 't- ;T., ter of Friends of Pine Bush v. Planning fact existed,as to whether contractor was +I[ " ' 1, Bd. of City of Albany, 86 A.D.2d 246, aware that check it received might be final r: 247-248, 450 N.Y.S.2d 966, ad. 59 N.Y.2d payment triggering time for filing notice of s d;`- fN claim,so as to preclude summary judgment ! t' _ 849, 465 N.Y.S.2d 924, 452 N.E.2d 1252), .- the fact remains that this controversy has on defense to breach of contract claim. ' _ been rendered moot. As noted by counsel Affirmed. 'F, i vuK, - c ., c t 70 -;ir �s 960 621 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES • allocution there must have been a motion to underlying those convictions. Further, we ` withdraw the plea or a motion to vacate the find that the jury could properly infer defen- ! judgment of conviction. In any event, al- dant's fraudulent and criminal intent from though defendant argues that his recitation the evidence presented at trial. The convic- of the facts underlying the crime to which he tion was thus supported by sufficient evi- 1, pleaded casts significant doubt upon his guilt, dence and not against the weight of the 1; a perusal of the plea minutes belies any evidence. contention that the allocution was defective. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The record reveals that the plea was volun- tarily, knowingly and intelligently made. CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. WHITE, CASEY and PETERS, JJ., concur. ;fi j CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, O TRLYNUNB&SY5RM s WHITE, CASEY and PETERS, JJ., concur. gI , W 4 O SLLYNBNBE0.5YBIFN 2 i i it 211=A.D 2d`1000 } I 1 In the Matter of Vincent D. h 211 A.D.2d 921 BYTNER, Appellant, tile" k " The PEOPLE of the State of v New York, Respondent, CITY OF ALBANY BOARD OF ZONING i; v. APPEALS et al., Respondents. li Preston G. ELKINS, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, E, 1 i!rf; Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. 11 Third Department. Jan. 26, 1995. i , Jan. 12, 1995. Vincent D. Bytner, appellant in person. 1';d` Frank Smithson, Ithaca, for appellant. Vincent J. McArdle Jr., Corp. Counsel 11 George M. Dentes, Dist. Atty. (Gary U. (Thomas A. Shepardson, of counsel), Albany, ¢! Surdell, of counsel), Ithaca, for respondent. for-City of Albany Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Appeal from a judgment of the County respondent. ,, Court of Tompkins County(Barrett, J.),ren- D'Agostino, Hoblock, Greisler & Siegal 11')i dered June 11, 1992, upon a verdict convict- P.C. (Daniel J. Tyson, of counsel), Albany, ,} ,;� ing defendant of the crimes of scheme to for Center for the Disabled and another, defraud in the first degree and petit larceny respondents. (three counts). '1 F Defendant was convicted after trial of WHITE, Justice. ? • .i}`, scheme to defraud in the first degree and Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme - three counts of petit larceny, and sentenced Court (Bradley, J.), entered December 20, , to concurrent terms of one year in jail and 1993 in Albany County, which, in a proceed- ,-. restitution. On this appeal, defendant con- ing pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted ,? tends that County Court erred in its determi- respondents' cross motions to dismiss the , R nation of a Sandoval issue and that the ver- petition due to petitioner's lack of standing- ' ( r: dict is not supported by sufficient evidence. Petitioner is appealing from Supreme i;, pP g P We find no abuse of discretion in County Court's dismissal of his petition in this CPU?. I ;a Court's use of the Sandoval compromise to article 78 proceeding in which he is challeng- pEs 1. allow inquiry as to defendant's conviction of ing respondent City of Albany Board of Zon- µf} six misdemeanors without questioning as to ing Appeals'issuance of a special use permit 'L('," the types of crimes involved or the facts to respondent United Cerebral Palsy Associ- illi y E • _Tu MEMORANDUM DECISIONS 961 Cite as 621 N.Y.S.2d (A.D.4 Dept. 1994) ° Further, we ation of the Capital District Inc. authorizing 2 it ' e y infer defen- it to construct a parking lot on property 1 intent from p P3' • owns in the City of Albany. At oral argu- 209 A.D.2d 1025 The conic- ment, we were advised that the parking lot sufficient evi- has been constructed. As a consequence, HIDDEN PONDS., Ap OF ONTARIO, ieight of the this appeal has been rendered moot in view INC., Appellant, • of petitioner's failure to obtain an injunction protecting his interests during the pendencyv. 1t is affirmed. Gregory HRESENT, Respondent. 1 _ • of this appeal (see, Matter of Caprari v. SURE, Town of Colesville, 199 A.D.2d 705, 605 Appeal No. 1. • >, JJ., concur. N.Y.S.2d 157; Matter of Center Sq. Assn. v. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, . ) Board of Bldg., Zoning & Hous. Appeals of Fourth Department. City of Albany, 195 A.D.2d 684,599 N.Y.S.2d T` 897). Nov. 16, 1994. ORDERED that thea appeal is dismissed, Kehoe and Bartlett by Cody Bartlett,Wol- as moot, without costs. cott, for appellant. CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, Pelkey and Pelkey by Bryan Pelkey,Roch- nt D. € CASEY and PETERS, JJ., concur, ester, for respondent. 1t' Appeal from Order of W Supreme Court, O 5[EYHUMBERSYSIEM • T Wayne County, Sirkin, J.—Dismiss Com- • )F ZONING plaint. adents. 1 Appeal unanimously dismissed without , 209 A.D.2d 995 costs (see, Matter of Laborers Intl. Union of Division, Matter of Pheinihas BOWLES, N. Am., Local 210, AFL–CIO v. Shevlin– Appellant–Respondent. Manning, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 977, 537 N.Y.S.2d • • 720). New York State Office of Mental Retarda- tion and Developmental Disabilities,Re- PINE, J.P., and BALIO, LAWTON, ,rp. Counsel spondent Appellant. Appeal No. 2. • isel), Albany, Supreme Court Appellate Division, CALLAHAN and DAVIS, JJ., concur. p ppe - ing Appeals,-- –- Fourth Department. W O SREY NUMBER SYSTEM _ q• & Siegal Nov. 16, 1994.' sel), Albany, Kingsley and Towne, P.C. by John Kersh- and another, ko, Albany, for appellant-respondent, a G. Oliver Koppell, Atty. Gen., Julie Mere- ' son, Albany, for respondent-appellant. 209 A.D.2d 997 PEOPLE of The State of New I Order insofar as appealed from unani- he Supreme mously reversed on the law without costs. York, Respondent, he Supr 20, Same Opinion by Pine, J.p., as in Matter of v n a proceed- I ' Bowles ([appeal No. 1] 206 A.D.2d 216, 622 78, granted ,;,,, N•Y.S.2d 169 [decided herewith Darnell BRANDON, Appellant. dismiss the '=_ from Order of Monroe County Court,�M ks Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of standing. f; J.—Attorney's Fees.) Fourth Department. n Supreme PINE, J.P., and LAWTON, FALCON, 1 this CPIS DAVIS and BOEHM, JJ., concur. Nov..16, 1994. is challengGerald T. Barth by Philip Rothschild, Syr- .,)ard of Zen- th' - w O SRET NUMBER SYSTEM acuse, for appellant. 1 use permit ,, ' ; T 'alsy Associ .' .' - William J. Fitzpatrick by James Maxwell, ` fi Syracuse, for respondent. + ., t S Z3?'`.` --_.'•coca y..ti.` : APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS • FF®(�� ®e. Southold Town Hall ' Gerard P Goehringer, Chairman �� : 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. t P .O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora r �� Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins `;'1'�® • �Ov ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 -• : Horning = l 4$0' Telephone(631)765-1809 1 JJ (Ain BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 2, 2001 To: Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. 10315 Main Road P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appl. No. 4909 — McNamara (Mueller Property) Dear Mr. Ross and Ms. Wickham: This will confirm that the hearing regarding the above appeal has been calendared for continuation at 7:30 p.m. on March 15, 2001, and will be held at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. Sincerely yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN 'V TRANSMITTAL ME"NO ,A3-1 TO: ZBA Chairman and Members FROM: ZBA Office Staff DATE: I o tc,Ai SUBJECT: File Update /vt c-1044694.A.,olt.t.c.cuk„i) With reference to the above application, please find attached the following new information added to the official ZBA office file: _44;.Lb___Lzs-ga-/.,Q4_4_ -ha-et _see--=, 462 ` c 1 Comments: � � re. W -ea-e—e_v�-� �, 11(�r� Z /4- q9 o c/ 10,1-1 Number of Pages Attached: TrMemo.doc Ja-rc deaf-716 A W, Loa r.,£o Lr D-I SZ y1>/0 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD A ), SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 6tk +1-7 l ciev In the Matter of the Application of PATRICIA A. McNAMARA and JAMES E. McNAMARA U seeking reversal of Building Permit 26821 Z, dated LIST OF EXHIBITS October 4, 2000, issued to PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER with regard to premises known as 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York SCTM: 1000/101/002/024.005 1. Notice of Appeal sworn to by the applicants on 11/18/00 with Affirmation of Daniel C. Ross dated 11/30/00 in support thereof and exhibits A through I; 2. Affirmation of Daniel C. Ross of Sign Posting dated 2/27/01; 3. Affidavit of Patricia A. McNamara sworn to 2/27/01; - 4. Photographs (13) of subject premises A through M; 5. Supplementary Practice Commentaries from McKinney's Town law section 267-a; 6. U.S. Postal Return Receipt Green Cards and list of cards not returned; 7. New York Times Magazine, "Salad Days", August 13, 2000; 8. Previously submitted affidavit of mailings and affirmations of service. r; Q k ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of MCNAMARA, JAMES and PATRICIA AFFIRMATION OF x SIGN POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign Upon Satur/Mueller Land Identified As 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 x DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: On the 14th of February, 2001, I personally placed two (2) of the Town's Official Posters with the date of hearing and nature of the referenced Application noted thereon, securely upon the Satur/Mueller property, located ten(10) feet or closer from the street facing the street and, upon information and belief, based upon correspondence by attorney Abigail A. Wickham, dated 2/16/01, a copy of which is an exhibit hereto)the Town's Official Posters were thereafter removed. The hearing date on said Town's Official Posters was shown to be 2/27/01. That on December 1, 2000 I served Edward Forrester,the Southold Town employee that issued Building Permit No. 26821 Z and which Building Permit is the subject of the referenced appeal, with the Notice of Appeal of the issuance of said Building Permit and filed the Notice of Appeal at the offices of the Southold Town Zoning Bo. 9 of Appeals. ;0s. 401 97a7/Di Daniel . 'oss data/real/awn-sign aff fY II r y vr, v iAM, WICKHAMa 5$ 1031 MAIN ROAD. P.0 OX 1 LER, r c B WILLIAM WICKI-AM " MATTITUC 4X c}Bq ERIC J BRL,SEER K, LONG ISLAND ABIGAIL A WICKI-IAM NEW YORK I i�S` Ms LVILi.E��r FICb LYNNM.GORDON ais f]Frr?AC)HOLLOW ROAD LYNNE MGO 631-298-t5353 SVITL ill 7ELEFAX Nca. 6.31.2rg1t3 EIBS5 MC.vILLE, NEW vriRI{ 117-; 631-t4.e_94E10 'ELC-Ay NCI r3:i1-2-19 r.av,a February 16, 2001 • Keegan & Keegan, LI,p 147 North Ocean Avenue Y.O. Box 918 Patchogue, New York 11772-0918 Re: Patricia & James McNamara Application to Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals n ` Gentlemen: We represent the Satur/Mueller's in connection with the above matter. We attempted to return the Notice of Hearing signs that were posted on Ms. Satur's property without her permission to the ZBA, but were told that the signs were purchased by Dan Ross and should he returned to him. As I am aware that Dan is out of town,please advise as to where you would like to signs delivered. \\'e regret this course of action, but the instant application was made without any attempt by the applicant tci contact our clients ahead of time to discuss their concerns or any prior notice to our clients. Consequently. we see no reason to facilitate their application Very truly yours, e Abigail A. Wickham NProssci .Li�l;4lrir cc Town 0fSouthold r'nntng Roared of Appeals 0 TO ' d b€.1 :60 TO-OZ-qa.I t ( 5 - • ' Y TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS x AFFIDAVIT OF In the Matter of the Application of PATRICIA McNAMARA PATRICIA A. McNAMARA and JAMES E. McNAMARA seeking reversal of Building Permit 26821 Z, dated October 4, 2000, issued to PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER with regard to premises known as 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York SCTM: 1000/101/0002/024.005 and 024.6 x PATRICIA A. McNAMARA„ being duly sworn deposes and says: I am one of the applicants herein and I reside at 4000 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York which is directly across Alvah's Lane from 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York SCTM: 1000/101/0002/024.005 and 024.6 (hereinafter referred to as the "premises"). There are two people residing in the Cottage located on the subject premises. Based on my observations both individuals have a car which they keep at the premises when they are at the premises. There are also two dogs housed at the Cottage on the premises. Recently my mother passed away and together with my husband, James, I became the owner of the property known as 4000 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York. A copy of our deed is an exhibit to our application. The house at 4000 Alvah's Lane was my childhood home and as a resident of 4000 Alvah's Lane I have had the opportunity to observe the premises which are the subject of my application before the Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition to the main house on the premises there is a cottage that is occupied by two people. A man who works at the premises has resided in the cottage for at least six months. During this time, a`^woman has also resided at the cottage from time to time. For the last month or • 0 �n - so the woman's presence at the Cottage has appears to be full time. There are also two dogs housed at the cottage, a Great Dane and a Jack Russell Terrier. I see the dogs enter and exit the cottage. I see the individuals referred to above enter and exit the cottage at all times of the day and the early night. I have observed on numerous occasions the lights on in the cottage until approximately 10:00 p.m. The male individual, whom I know as Jim, has acknowledged to me that he resides in the cottage. It is my understanding that the Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals ("ZBA")ruled that the cottage could not be inhabited. I base this belief on the ZBA's Findings, Deliberations and Determination adopted at the regular meeting of June 19, 1997 on Application Number 4484. A copy of the Findings, Deliberations and Determination is exhibit H to my application. ‘. AllrAr/.4/ / / PATRICIA A. McNAMARA r" (1e , ri4 oi oi DANIEL C.ROSS Notaty Public,State of New York Qualified Noin Suuffolk Coun Commission Expires Aug.31,t19 0° data/real/men-pat aff ,,,,,iii,,,- �®N'S$ O��€, ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE ��� �: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ; y • P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS �t Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER � y . / Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER oe 440 1° Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER � OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville DATED: December 11, 2000 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4909 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 4909—James & Patricia McNamara-Zoning Board of Appeals application for reversal. Also included is an affirmation in support of application, a copy of the building permit, letter from the building department,building permit application, a property survey, fax from Suffolk County Planning Department,ZBA findings, deliberations and determinations at meeting held on June 19, 1997, a copy of the deed, a copy of the Suffolk county tax map,pictures of greenhouse, an affirmation of service, a cover from Keegan&Keegan, ZBA questionnaire, and an applicant transactional disclosure form. f DEC - ! 2000 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD , SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS X � In the Matter of the Application of PATRICIA A. McNAMARA and JAMES E. McNAMARA seeking reversal of Building Permit 26821 Z, dated AFFIRMATION IN October 4, 2000, issued to PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER SUPPORT with regard to premises known as OF APPLICATION 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York SCTM: 1000/101/0002/024.005 X DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: 1. I represent the applicants herein, PATRICIA A. McNAMARA and JAMES E. McNAMARA, with regard to their application seeking reversal of Building Permit 26821 Z, dated October 4, 2000, exhibit A hereto, issued to PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER with regard to premises known as 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York, Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000/101/0002/024.005 hereinafter the "premises". This affirmation is submitted in support of the application. This affirmation is made upon information and belief based upon a review of records referred to herein. 2. Reversal is sought on two basis. First, site plan approval should have been required prior to the issuance of the building permit. Second, it appears a side yard variance was also required before the building permit should have been issue. 3. As indicated by their application to this Board, Mr. and Mrs. McNamara own and live in the house directly across the Alvah's Lane from the greenhouses that were permitted to be built by the subject building permit. Mr. and Mrs. McNamara's deed, a copy of the tax map showing their lot and before and after pictures of the view from their property are exhibit I hereto. As can be seen from the pictures, Mr. and Mrs. McNamara had an unobstructed view from their front window into the farm field across Alvah's Lane. The farm field is part of the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. As is evident from the after picture,the view is now obstructed by the greenhouses. As indicated below, if the greenhouses had been built in the place the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department granted permission to build one greenhouse there would be no problem. If the Building Department had required site plan approval as it should have prior to the issuance of the building permit, the issue could have been addressed at the appropriate time and not after the fact. Mr. and Mrs. McNamara have lost a wonderful view and have lost value in their property. They are aggrieved. SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE SECTION 100-250 4. Building Permit 26821Z allowed the"construction of(2) agricultural greenhouses as applied for". The Building Inspector violated section 100-250 of Article XXV of the Town Code by issuing Building Permit 26821Z without first requiring site plan approval in accordance with Article XXV, Section 100-250 of the Town Code which is exhibit B hereto and provides: 0 ARTICLE XXV Site Plan Approval 100-250. Applicability. This Article shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, section 1000-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. 5. The plain language of section 100-250 required site plan approval be obtained before the issuance of the subject building permit. If such approval had been required, Mr. and Mrs. McNamara's objections to the greenhouses would have been addressed before the construction was completed as was intended by section 100-250 of the Town Code. 6. In discussing this matter with the Building Inspector he pointed out that the greenhouses at issue are a"permitted use"under section 100-31(A)(2)(c). Section 100-31 of the Town Code is exhibit C hereto. Section 100-250 requires site plan approval for"permitted" uses with only one exception which is for: ...single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, section 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code." 7. According to the building Inspector,the building permit was issued because the greenhouses are permitted under section 100-31(A)(2)(c). Subsection(A)(2) begins with the words, "The following agricultural operations ....". Hence, it is clear from the very language of the subsection under which the Building Inspector granted the Building Permit that the greenhouses are an"agricultural operation" and consequently they do not fall within the exception from site plan review set out at section 100-250 for"single- family home use....and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use ...". The subject building permit was issued for the construction of greenhouses for use in connection with an agricultural operation. Site plan approval was required before the building permit could properly be issued. CONSTRUCTION WAS COMMENCED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT 8. The Building Departments' file shows the construction of the greenhouses was commenced without a building permit. Correspondence dated July 26, 2000, a copy of which is exhibit D hereto, by Mr. Gary J. Fish of the Southold Building Department to Paulette Satur Mueller advises Ms. Mueller that"greenhouses have been erected without first obtaining a Building Permit." 9. Thereafter, an Application for Building Permit, dated August 15, 2000, was submitted to the Southold Town Building Department. A copy of the approved application is exhibit E hereto. The application indicates it was approved on October 4, 2000, the same date the building permit was issued. 10. The Application for Building Permit at item 9 indicates the size of the lot is "Front: 191.16' Rear Depth 299.10' ". In fact,that is not the size of the lot upon which the greenhouses were constructed. A survey entitled "Survey of Property at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,N.Y."and dated February 27, 1997 was in the Building Department's file. A reduced copy of the survey is exhibit F hereto. The survey indicates the greenhouses are not located on the191.16'by 299.10 foot lot which contains various structures and will hereinafter be referred to as the "developed lot". 11. Item 1 of the Application for Building Permit indicates the greenhouses were to be located in the"North Eastern Area of Parcel". However, the greenhouses were not constructed in the North Eastern Area of the developed lot or the North Eastern Area of the undeveloped lot. THE CONSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE FARMLAND COMMITTEE OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12. According to documents obtained from the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department the property surrounding the developed parcel is within the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. Apparently, inclusion of the larger lot in the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program resulted in the creation of two separate tax lot because the areas are taxed differently, i.e., the developed lot is taxed with the development rights in place and the other parcel is taxed or not taxed as the case may be. However, upon inquiry to the Southold Town Planning Board, I was advised there was no site plan approval or site plan application for either lot and the lots had not been subdivided. 13. Ms. Satur applied to the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department for.permission to construct greenhouse(s) on the lot that is in the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. 14. In response to my request for information relative to the greenhouses at issue, Mr. Fedelem of the Suffolk County Department of Planning forwarded to me certain documents including correspondence by the Ms. Satur to the Farmland Committee, dated April 21, 1998, seeking permission to construct the greenhouses and minutes of the April 28, 1998 meeting of the Farmland Committee wherein specfic and limited permission was granted. These documents are exhibit G hereto. - 15. Ms. Satur's correspondence, dated April 21, 1998,to Roy Fedelem of the Suffolk County Planning Department requests permission to develop the property with"9,000 sq. ft. of greenhouse space..". In her correspondence, Ms. Satur indicates "Expansion the following year is probable." 16. On the issue of the placement of the greenhouses Ms. Satur states in her April 21, 1998 correspondence: Our desire is to site the greenhouse at either the northwest or southeast end of our property. Even though it will incur more expense to bring water and utilities to either of these ends, it will not be obtrusive at either of these sites. The continued beauty of our property is of utmost importance to us. My husband is an internationally acclaimed chef and we intend to have food critics and writers to our farm. Our farm is to be featured in Food and Wine Magazine this June. 17. The minutes of the Farmland Committee meeting of April 28, 1998 state: Paulette Satur A request was made for a greenhouse as proposed in a letter dated April 21, 1998. A motion was made to approve northwestern location for a temporary greenhouse, subject to local requirements, by Elmer Zeh and seconded by Nate Corwin. Motion carried. 18. I am not aware of any other approval or consideration by the Farmland Committee with 40 regard to greenhouse(s) at issue. In fact, the minutes quoted above, but not Ms. Satur's correspondence, are part of the Southold Town Building Department's file. 19. The construction of the greenhouses are not in accordance with the approval granted by the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department either with respect to the number of structures or the location. POSSIBLE SET BACK VIOLATION 20. It is not possible to determine how far back from the side yard boundary the greenhouses are located. However, it appears from the survey that the greenhouses are in violation of the side yard set back requirements of the Town Code. As to whether these lots are actually one lot or are two lots, the Board is referred to its own Findings, Deliberations and Determination adopted at the regular meeting of June 19, 1997, exhibit H hereto, wherein the Board granted the variance requested with respect to the developed lot and stated"this lot contains a total area of 80,000 sq. ft. ...". This board has recognized the developed lot as a separate lot for zoning purposes and therefore, the greenhouses should be setback the appropriate distance from the side yard or a variance should have been required before the subject building permit was issued. Although the printed portion of the Application for Building Permit states at item 15 "Locate clearly and distinctly ... all set-back dimensions from property lines"neither the application or the survey shows the side yard set-back. Wherefore,the application should be grantee .i the building permit revoked. aifrkv1) ' .40 )V?&(0,0 Daniel C. Ross Ulf l{1(1: UP •ONING BOARD OF APPEALlik 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski cr,TownofSouthold.ny.us or Paula.QuintierinTownofS outhold.ny.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 707 ? - 7 /3n ATTN: 9fl Q44i_) 41- oviJ DATE: / / /2002 REF: yitruiu I - /y1 C p4 q MESSAGE: Pa 5,0 9-6' 4 o a q Please feel free to call if you d 4d not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: / . r' M Page 2—June 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4909—P. and J. McNamara 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 soil, not cement. The Muellers testified that the greenhouses were temporary and would be removed in 2-3 years. 5) The Building Inspector testified that there was no distinction between a temporary or permanent building under the Town Code. The Building Inspector further testified that the greenhouses met the definition of building under the Town Code and therefore a building permit was required. 6) Pursuant to the Southold Town Code the property owned by the Muellers is a single lot, despite the fact that the lot has two Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers. There was no • subdivision involved, just the sale of the development rights on the majority of the parcel. Two SCTM numbers were issued for ease of taxing purposes, not to indicate two legal, separate and distinct lots as defined by the Town Code. V. APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS: Chapter 100 "Zoning" under Article XXV, Section 100-250 entitled "Site Plan Approval," which reads as follows: § 100-250. Applicability. This Article shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, § 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single- family residential home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this matter on February , 2001 and March 15, 2001, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based on all testimony, documentation, personal observations of members of the Board and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Issue before the Board The crucial issue before the Board is whether or not these two greenhouses required site plan approval pursuant to Town Code Section 100-250. „,iii,..., APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ®�VFFO(�0IP) ���gyp\ 0 Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ��_ : 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora y 47/ Southold,New York 11971 Lora S. Collins 'f' p! � ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Horning = ®1Alt ',,.' Telephone (631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 15, 2001 FILE COPY Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appl. No. 4909 — McNamara/Mueller Dear Mr. Ross: As conveyed by telephone earlier this week with your office, please find enclosed a copy of the Board of Appeals' determination rendered at the Board's June 7, 2001 Regular Meeting. Very truly yours, Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman Enclosure Copies of Decision also to: Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Building Department Planning Board aracA a /i /o,'. ,/ 't FORM NO . 3 ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 26821 Z Date OCTOBER 4 , 2000 Permission is hereby granted to : PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER 3705 ALVAHS LA . CUTCHOGUE,NY 11935 for : CONSTRUCTION OF (2 ) AGRICULTURAL GREENHOUSES AS APPLIED FOR. • at premises located at 3705 ALVAHS LA CUTCHOGUE County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 101 Block 0002 Lot No. 024 . 005 pursuant to application dated AUGUST 15 , 2000 and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $ 100 . 00 Autho iz ,d Signature ORIGINAL Rev. 2/19/98 ARTICLE XXV Site;Plan Approval • • '[Added 1-10-19891iy' .L.Islo.'1-1989;amended 5-23-1989'by L.t.•No:`9-1989] § 100-250. Applicability. , • • This Article shall apply to every land use'that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the.-single-family`home use on a single and separate,lot as set forth in.Article III, .§ 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family - residential home use as stated in the Townto'de.Any.cliange in ' use or intensity of use which will affect'`the 'characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site, development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued•by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and,in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. • • • § 100-31. Use regulations- [Amended 3-14-1989 by L.L.No. '3-1989] _ In A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is ' • designed to be used, in whole or in arranged, intended or following: Part, for any uses except the A. Permitted uses. • • •(1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. (2) [Amended 5-23-1989 by L.L. No. followinga 8-19897 The agricultural operations and accessory thereto, including irrigation uses at there shall'be'no storage of manure, fertilz'fertilizer other odor- or dust-producing substance or use, except spraying and.dusting to protect vegetation, within (;150 feet of any lot line:- .,(a) The raising of field and garden crops, vineyard ' • and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries' and the seasonal' sale. of'products grown on the premises:[Amended`11=29-1994 r` ' ' '' ' ' 'byL.L. No. 25-1994; 543-1997''by'L.L. No. • -''.1, , ' 8-1997] (b)1. The keePing, breeding, raising and 'traini :,i, horses,,,domestic ,-rg of animals and;, fowl!_f(except -- ' ,, ducks),4 on lots of 10 acres or more. (c)z. Barns, 'storage buildings, 'greenhouses (including plastic'covered)'and `other' related ' ' 'structures;''provided that such buil g conform to the yard're s shall begs. - - quirements'for principal (d) 'The retail sale of local produce from structures of less than,20 square,feet floor,area shall;be set • back at least 10 feet from anyslot line. [Added �� '{� 5-13-1997 byL.L.No. 8-1997_) _ • s$ ? • Town Hall,53095 Main RoadFax 516 I c >� ' ( ) 765-1823 P.O. Box 1179 y r.' ^{; i Telephone(516)765-1802 Southold,New York 11971-0959 O :e w' ..e 1 So' BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 26, 2000 Paulette Satur Mueller 3705 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Re: Premises,: 3705 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue N.Y. Suf'f.Co Tax Map #1000-101-2-24 . 5 Dear Ms . Mueller: It has been brought to the attention of the Building Department that plastic greenhouses have been erected without first obtaining a Building Permit. According to the Code of the Town of Southold a Building Permit is required before any construction can be undertaken. ' Please contact this office as soon as possible so this matter can be resolved,. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Respectfully, SOU OLD TOWN BUILDING DEPT. Gary J is , Building Inspector GJF:gar (Cert. Mail) OCT- E-200015 55 SC PLANNING DEFT F•�1 Suffolk Coin Detartment of . ng P.O. Box 6100 Flat ppaige, NY.11788-0099 (631) 853-5190 Fax: (631) 853-4044 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Q5 `� C • From: k( Date: Subject: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE (S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLE4SE CALL t (631) 853-5190. Message: 1 ,e 501- u �. � as q • PAULETTE SATUR/SA Z FARMS ph 212 -6889/ 516-73-142'19 Cutch t , NY 11935 - fax 212-754-09683205Aiva�`s Lara, _ • April 21, 1998 PAGE 1 O 1 TO:Foy Fedel ern/Suffolk County Farmland Committee RE: Request for Approval,for Greenhouse i am the new owner of property which falls within the Suffolk County Farmland Devel- ,' opment Rights Program, Tax Map Designation'1000, 101, 2-24.4 24.5 in Cutchogue, 'lbwn of Southold. I am]coking for approval for a greenhouse. My business is growing of organic specialty produce--baby greens, spinach, pea stpea shoots, herbs, heirloom tomatoes;etc for direct sale to restaurants and produce wholesalers in ' Manhattan. 1 do no retail sales from my farm. In order to supply my r'e'staurant accounts throughout the year,it.is necessary for me to continue year round in greenhouses. I will need'at least 9000 sq ft of greenhouse space to continue my business this fall through winter.Expansion the following year is,prob- able. 1.started my farm business in January of 1998, and at present have 1 full-time , year- round employee and will hire up to five seasonal workers this year. m are Our farm.has an attached,2 acre c�tbrcel where thebazt�s�he farmhouse ttrereis no place zthis greenhouse to be Because of the long shadows y sited on the 2 acre parcel. Our desire is to site the gr enhouse at either the northwest or southeast end of our property,Even though it will incur more expense to bring water and utilities,to either of these ends, it will not be Obtrusive at either of these sites.The continued beauty of our property is of uprnost importance to us.My husband is an internationally acclaimed chef and we intend to have food critics and writers to,our farm. Our farm is to be fea- tured in Food and Wine Magazine this June. The structure I ain intending to build will be gutter-connected, with a double mil poly, air inflated roof, and polycarbonate sides. The poly has a lifespan of 3 years,and, though can be removed within a day, should remain up for its lifespan for economical and environmental reasons.Runoff should not be,problem.as my farm is organic. Thank you for your consideration of my situation. Sincerely yours, Paulette Satur • ltIlstUTES OF FAI 'tLAN Suffolk County Ple.t g Department Date: April 28, 1998 , - P ent:— tephenM-Dories,Chairman -- - ---- Elmer Zeh(Brookhaven) Anthony Brand,Jr., (Huntington) William Rutkoskc(Islip) Citic,Solaeer,(At-Large), Dan Fricke(At=Large) Albert Schmitt(At-Large) Joseph Kcukoviiski(Southold) Albert Kalb,Jr. (Shelter Island) Lee Foster(Southampton) Nate Corwin(dt•Large) Roy Dragotta, l sq,. Bureau Chief, Municipal Svcs. •Jacob Rottkarap(Riverhead) Betty Schmitt, S.C. Division of Real Estate Roy Fedelern,S.C. Dept. of Planning •Guests:. Dick Ryan,Toi m of Southold Land Preservation Com t Paulette Satur : , Fred Lee Anthony Caggiano • Kenneth R. Balioto Absent: Brian Zitani(B4bylon) • Mark Zaweski( 1t-Large) Russell Barnett tSiniithtown) Shirley Riker(At•Large) • Teri Alfa,S.C.Division of Real Estate • Bennett Orlowski,Jr.(At-Large) _ Willjam Sanok,iCornell Cooperative Extensive Jenny Kohn,S.C. Dept. of Law Joseph Oergela,,L.I:,Farm Bureau • :rite:regular meeting of the Farmland Committee was filed to order by the Chairman, Stephen Jones, at 6:00 pi rri. in,the Arthur Kunz Library on the 4th Floor,in the H. Lee Dennison Building, Hauppituge,N.X. / • • /FreeIt=(Sang Lee Farms):r,ermission to guild Greeohouses ./ • Mr. Lee is asking for approval to build two(2)additional greenhouses as well as oval / for the existing greenhouses. The netv ternporarY greenhotieeieeell be 30' by 196 hoop houSes„ // covered yearieund for vegetable lgroWth. They are approximately 460'bet,'k iloru the road. M .Lee / would areo like approvatio build a farm stand close to the road. Toy rend made motion to approVethe•fartifitaird,4‘4(2) new greenhouses, existing gre•enhouses, seconded by Jacob Rettkamp,subject to local regulations. Motion carried. Paulette Satire A request-was made for a.gteenhouse as proposed in a letter dated April 21. 1998. A motion was made& apProve'riortli*istern location for a temperas",greenhouse,subject to local requirements, by Elmer?,eir-and seconded by Nate Corwin. Noaae carried. Jack Weiskott . • Held off une'll neXteneetirig. Nn-representation or information available. Suffolk County F land Preservation Partnership Program The Suffolk County rice-11'16d funding from the Legislature in December for the --• , fest$5 million fai'Land PreitiVilefon Partner-0*e kis a 50-50 program where the County can make funds,go further-And some of:the townslieve been active,with local bond issues to acquire deVeldpritent rigliti:ITheTOWiiiifiSotitliarciPtOrt is requesting aPProVal for premiership arrangements for two (2) farms`Which,are itibj6t to the approval of the Farmland Committee. The Town has submitted a reiolitiOnfor their half of the partnership which will then go to the County Legislature. Lee Foster suggeited ivvitactiOri. One of the parcels.Joshua's Place(17.3 acres)has already been approved'by the'COthrniitie tridihe other is a 35.5 acre parcel which will be discussed later. The Town of Southold is also interested in teaming up with the County on the Partnership Program. The ce0410'ExectitikiefilliS. Outliner inetheil5 million for this year plus an increase from$1.5 million up to'SS million for the rot:in-id Ptirehaie af development rights. • •, State and Federal F ,ds . • Roy Fe:4*f Stitialthat ie'Veillbe getting another check for$1.5 millioa from the State for the first application and theihaVejtrititeeiVed approval for$759,000 for the second round. We should be able tO:aPPIY tot'this iri Tew rrionths. They have put out anew RPP for the State and Federal funds whirl'Wewill be'pnitinglie APPlieritions. The State application is due June 3 and the Federal is,due'rine 10. Steve Jones added that when they got the letter back from the State it was basically ihellitthat,theFainitaridCOMinittee approved at the July and October meetings of last, yeaz ,,less chi itnittragota'Said the County'Exece very serious--biiifiaineing these programs and is personally engaged in this Issue. Congressman Forbes is on the Appropriations Cdmrninee,howev in order to get appropriations,the program has to be first authorized by the Congress. The current federal farmlands program runs out the end of • • • -I- - APPEALS BOARD ME``IBERS VFrfl(,f F= Chi. Southold Town Hall Gerard P Goehringer. Chairman 53096 Main Road s "��- -= P0. Box 1179 Serge Doyen te;, "rtiAiVA James Diruzio, Jr. o Southold. New York 11971 f}-]1�.X.]'�••yy��((�� ? Fax (516) 765-1823 L'Eti heir AfOlil @ , s•: Oti -_•' Lydia A.Tortora � �( ��- Telephone (616) 765-1809 Maureen C. Os termatin BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION ADOPTED AT REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE- 19, 1997 Appl. No. 4484 - EBERHARD MURTIER PARCEL 1000-101-2-24.5 STREET & LOCALITY: 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue 'DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: June 19, 1997 FINDINGS (PROPERTY FACTS) : DESCRIPTION: This property is located in an A-C Agricultural- Conservation Zone District, being situate on the westerly side of Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, with 262.88 ft. of road frontage. This lot contains a total area of 80,000 sq. ft. as depicted on the Febru- ary 27, 1997 survey map and is improved with an existing dwelling structure and five accessory buildings. BASIS OF APPEAL: Building Inspector's Action of Disapproval dated April 28, 1997; Article III, Section 100-33. AREA VARIANCE Rh:11IEF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT: Far approval of the location of a new dwelling to the rear of all existing accessory buildings, leaving a front yard location for the accessory buildings. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BFLOW: (1) The granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because construction of a new single-family residence in this location will be an improvement to the property and neighborhood and at the same time preserve the historic value of the accessory farm buildings. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the proposed house is situated in a manner to provide maximum use of the remaining property for farming. (3) The requested area variance is not substantial in relation to the location of farm complexeds built prior to the enactment of zoning. w -' • • •,� s,e-.�. $ ,x': x'� *�;t+:.= - 11,1r 3'-'�*M;.;' �:+fwy.;6"•' <�: -�: �`�'k�^��". n,:U�.v'.'i`4'��p, `'t�� Jt6�rv1�'' • 'i:1Y ��i ::S�y _ -, - ''�;,, �irs,{'ff,- �'+rtc-'iii» ,:;<;•:. .ir'��.ry- i"i`"N- x�,t-0x ~3a' �.� i' pll..n-{�« r �' til;; ""x'^.:'�a;.••; ;7 ,_.`r>, ,.;d.a`+ ''' !��'=�.; • - "-> 4,w.r�..!'ik�`,`x,',y°e:" ,Y' r t 5ti yn 1.�,-k�„� 'qr i.Y.,,,' ti:,:.f'- ', - `a^fix:> r5'�, err'',-°- +• - `:u:t'.i;;-�SG 4;naa, "+��"!�': +ya'- 1°^-brY" .�„ "'6Y:..T;1,7,M1.. `'%'r�,itr' '�',..�+>.5'Z�: Yqi��`�J v„i yi�`wf3'.r'�idr�-. `, - _ ,,Y �,a `+oN✓.rn� �++'-�y � sr;oiy�Fr-.',$$,,�,L ,.,. ,�.. hh� 'h fib. 3rar r.'d „r.,q. ” «a` 1*fi.w ,. .f 1�1,y@a' y'ts:J�v} �,f:4l"'j C, .�� 'Y.�„ i` rr_,C,`=4 -^y;.. ,a.Tl�i.�.M.� rkO r'o. 5 • � r.iF, -. STM .r;; „� �F"r :a d- rt.�-s4Y' ted t, s� lW. c 5, t,f ,, f` ry:- �.': 11h,i�w�`��i,� 1 4 �7 '� .•;2, je ��i Yb tcr..- ��5 K. n'4.i• ,�}^ .y.m i��r�, � - ;�. old:'' .�t' ,ds•Y� 1.;-. �r�;^I�:"x'-..f' `A � 'i, `',', _.. �'�Y .. -:_- -.m w fit:=,sF .. .,r<i-.� Y�u'�"'c!':�7_��$�w Aal.".4s3��L 1'`.. +^.i. ,.,ra.,a.+e'+..�s1.5}� R i>" • . • 1 Page 2 - June 19, 19 Appl. #4484: 1000-101-2-24.5 (Mueller) Southold Town Board of Appeals (4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the variance request is minimal. (5) The situation has not been self-created because the cottage and accessory structures were constructed prior to the enactment of zoning. (6) This action is the minimum that the Board deems necessary and adequate and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by ' Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as applied, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: Upon completion of the new single-family residence and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for same, the existing cottage shall be converted to an accessory structure. In no event shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS DOYEN, DINIZIO, TORTORA, OSTERMANN, and GOEHRINGER. This resolution was unanimous' - ed. j /RESOLUTION ADOPTED 6/)r9/97 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER' CHAIRMAN Actions.97/101-2-24.5 • • z '':R,� � '';ta:�+.w'F1`1`;Yiy{r10�1��,:.�F2..`Y�„,,P.]�.�i„'+,t>:Mf>y-i'�-�.:'a•�t;rF'i�';tz�"":t•.�'S1�.:�r:,.:#��rtir",�+Yl�,;T.•�:tri,t�r:•Y:;,;'�,,�vaN„�h�..�l�,`c.nY4'�:r'.�'Y:�t' 4''fr..,.'�•:�t.�r:^e,,�,ri.��;*�;x�4x • ‘;t i Y'�'ik-. :i•�i•.�.. °.`1r ,�7 f,.,y.,�trzet:';x,L'.J;':..:�t.4k� -,�„r1�.•��Ja+"f;3.� .t..S.'7"Te'i.- "M., y>.,y,_fM'r^ � ,m - ,�., ',,,�:,G'..,..s�t.- :t;:`�,r,.- ��.:"c,:y.'w'.a',:;,.-,.r�' �: -� :�=X,., .p„ ,T,.,'."+'��''^.A;�"��`7;"'r:;`�•.::� v�` - - ;tt�.j?.�'c>tr,• ,.y;. ".b:.c t• ',F YA'.Xi t`S.7.rC•t,+s ,L - �i• - ;•:.�R.iet >�-""s�'.K;L1,.., .twit.�_ 7, F{ry `�'+`,-' :f. -x' ,A4•R I'uc:.•+`b. �rirs; ( y *k'• +.i' ..¢ . ♦1 � ; /r .!' , � x b�' 1 4`,` fl' ,S H+r;, Mrd, a'ti.� . , „i •. . ,f:r ,,tf, : v3 t`.+, '.M {4 �}v ,n'�� C, ``i$,,.••4' ��4 �� , ��{Y. E >te,"^' 240`3 I •t'.f, .,l ,r, off' .,.'.iY,�J § �+. P ohf ZM.i: ::" �M9Y ii'"c q"1+''^�,;5 ii'� 44 eIRN'�. r'+':''..;‘,1141''' ^", �rfr'. "fie .3 c'n,.�7,n5 ',A"�'`�,rsi{uyuiu�,'�r•'>,'�•�; ,vi„;�,t't }�% .x„y ,P,g��- e wx t:',u. .t '�,,,;'a:=:''� y� _.., ..r, ,.':r'•m- .,:i_;c..,.,..1 .'.� .r.v...'.G�.' u .-..,�f.Scv..fr>44-44 . };,r.,s..i.v�P,'!,n t.,�a.�2w-",?�Car7�,�z:L;�af� �9 F�iw,.l,:.w�''r3,'�.`-w�'!5 �,>� l'.•.,i'ua'i:'b„'�.;�,�1.J°n r:.�a ' its"ii'7 .. --� ,-•+a•'a• t .4,x2-+-.,• ` i _I W.. V t` �*bb \1 42u • , ;i,i:'; 4h;;a 4',•. _',?4,• - '/701g�t' y■p�„�p7/�OT• P /(3� • `,,,,-,;•, _ :„xr _; L';REG,EYi ED�i: ,:i , _ _ �...., , :',!-'•(,:-:. ;',.24',,, 't� .,4N,' 1',. "•.*:;:' :.'�',-'- , ,VI IS- •, ':Y• -.'i J`.-f,?$'1:: ..•,_, i ,. s.7_,1-1..,... . ' , 6'fd :t;n ' ` .•a". ' ' 3 , ''' `Z'-'*"a, r'" um'iei�fages a >``:,, .'; :. ,,. .��, , , v'N}` ' I' TORI ENS ' AUG''29',2000 - 2000 AUG 29 Pik 4+-08 , .4'' :,h . .. ,',"!t- ;[s (:4i' ti,} ' ''”. '''''\, - , EDWARD?. ROMAINE . , 'i' '': %`„t ^,}r i,?' ''C1R R 13 °;SIGNING,THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS'INSTRUMENT'SHOULD ED BY LAWYERS•ONL-Y,w -'' ,g-- ,,,I,-®ap �` , ' '' A � '' .rl. :•THIS'INDENTURE;madthey.-viday of August'2000, ,•,1! , ',i ,B'ETWEEN „ y . '' ''' MAUREEN;GRIFFIN,,residing at,1435 Woodcliff:Drive,,.Mattituck,,,New,York,and_„,- , ' - . - ' PATRICIAMcNAMARA,residing at 427 Mansfield Avenue;"Plainedge,New York, ' ''� gip. • as,sole,distributees of the estate of Anna P'Lahgnerdeceased, - ;-'1);):','_ ri'partyiof'the'first part,'anile ' ;`r' � hitt - ':!'�- ,'. ' 'I ypr' , ��,l,J'''''',V-'''''''''"'‘ ',' ”`JAMESMcNAMARA'and'PATRICIAMcNAMARA,husband,and wife, residing at,• M1. . ''•'" ' `i"" '4271Man'sfield'Avenue;Plairiedge, New York; .i ,� ' .,s,. - - -party of:the second,part,' ": ' . '-, :, ?�r,:)a:-t;ii; • ' r',I,;i' •'':',''''M,','!"11:,I...'•;i.f C 1,l;;ii' �.iiu,,. „ . f,' ;i,Sf . „ , WITNESSETH;.that;the'•Paryofthe.firstipart,inconsideratelonof ffty'thousand dollars($50,000.00)•and , 1i ° J otheraood'and,valuable consideratlonfpaid,byalie',party!of,thelsecondpartdoesaherebyigranfandrelease`, ' ' ' ,,,. unto;theparty`oftlieisecondp1rt, theheirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ' ; • ' ' , . 'ALL that certain plot,piece or;parcellof;land;with''the buildings,and„improvements,thereon'erected,`situate, lying andjbeng`at;Cutcliogue TownYof,,Southold;:'County oft,Suffolk and State'of New,York bounded and 1 described'asfollows`' '7:- ' "4 , • BEGINNING at,an.iron'lpipe set in the easterly line of Alvah;s L'ane'at the northwest corner of land's of - `, Wdha IT.Remski,and the southwest corner of,premises about to be described; '- , , • ,i i` ,., r:,at,:II<i-_,r':,:,,i,,,(4,-,r};:n_I C 'r•`• `.'`',',., ,,; '7:7- ';.', RUNNINGTHENCE}nortiit32;degrees'30minutes,west,.'100,OQfeetalong,the •"'4',3,1.'\” asterly;IFne'ofAlvah'sLane ••., • , tr'" to,anfiron;pipre'and`,lands1noworfofinerly,ofWaltter,,Gatz;;;;. ,1',af•,,;• ,•1-,'.f., 1r %'' -1:,:i.•,-. . 000— '•iii'•u,.') j'-"'is i:.II f:•'t,�Cr,Y11'1' i.1,,t,,,;;.'';';e:;,'1-,4 i' �, •,..i iii-i. t.`^.'2,, .ftl.,'11',..ft'i:;',;.;.� .;,./r-n•.; ,-,, <, ,. RUNNING THENCE'north 60;degrees`44 minutes'east along saidilands`now or formerly'ofWalter Getz; ' - 160 00 feet to a concrete monument,' f:°'' RUNNING^THENCE'south'32 degrees'30 minutes'east, 100 00 feet still along lands of Walter Getz to an iron pipe,and lands'now or;formerly of William T. Remski; i , �---- RUNNING THENCE south 60 degrees 44 minutes west,16000 feet along said lands of William T.Remski oc-)1 to;the,easterly side of Alvah's Lane at the'point or place of BEGINNING. BEING.AND,INTENDED;TO1BE-the same:premises conveyeditorEdward:V.,Langner and'Anna Langner, his;wife;:both-now deceased,by deedsdated'04/23/,1973'and reeordedr05/,17/'19.73 in Liber 7400 page 36 ,., and dated�1'0/11/1973and'recorded 10/16/1973 in'Liber 7510:page•1,9.' i".:'L ;' A' 't't ''`siA,:..' e.,ti ' ,i ,'\ ..I- 1" � , , .. ,•. ',", t i.�,4 f;.e,i,r,.I.`.w.� ,:.',i iCi iii• 4.'.', 1Yi,,:" :I i':1 ` TOGETHER with all right,title.and interest,•rf any,of the party of the first part in and to any streetsand roads abutting the above descnbed,premises`;to the center lines thereof,TOGETHER'with the appurtenances and •" +•} all the estate and.rights ofkth'e'party,of,'the,first part in and to•said;prernises,,TO HAVE'AND TO:HOLD,the , premises-ierein grantedJu,ntoithe partyof'the second part,the'heirsior,successors and assigns of the party : ' , of the second part,forever. , ' ''t`'i`I'AN?D",the;p'arty of,the.first part?covenants,that'the•party of the first;part has not done on suffered anything wherebyithe said.premiseslhave^been encumbered in anyaway:whatever,:except'as:aforesaid =:� -==7 " r�r,, ii . _,.._.-..-` :, :.,.-.....: ., ,-�� yl` ia I , '1' - -• .7i i;:;:j.•-:,.c: "'a'�"..< ,i19::,.,;"'rS1^`"li'tF•tS:,•:';..f:;l.;,:•,-c,. ii' AND the`party of the first part;in cornpliance,with Section 1'3 of the Lien Law,covenants:that the party of the ii first part will receive.then„consideration;for;this conveyance'and,!,will hold-'the nght.,to:receivesuch - consideration as a•trust fundito beapplied,first for the purpose of'paying,the,;cost'ofrthe improvementjand ;•.y - - ! -• will applythe same first toithe payment;of;the cost of the,improvement before'using;any'part'of theaotaI of ;f the same`for any.otherpurpose,The word"party”shall.be construed'as;if,it read;'parties'{when;,everrthe !1. sense•of this indenture so'requires'• . .. .., ,; _- . ,H• , .,._•„�, .,.- . .. , . , IN;WITNESS WHEREOF,the party of,the first part has duly executed this deed the day and-year first above , written , . - • t IN PRESENCE OF /1 ;' M 11 EEN GRIF N .0'I1 PATRICIA McNAMARA • , Standard N Y B T U Form 8002-Bargain and Sale Deed,with Covenant against Grantor's Acts-Uniform Acknowledgment ' Form 3290 ' ' l i .�::a:,eta-s,,x.:. .�.,•e. bio-...ms,,,,,4*:-.,tea`41,.,;-.. :.,.=....,,,. rsw n,,c.., ay _w3-.i, 'a�'.ee:�r«.'.c"�yG_!�d:,��.F. e•:veras-ti��;rsa+„«c�-.aac.�.�.�:r..,a- .,,...-us„� �+. - +un.ab5eri"'*+ti'S65�W.�:.k :!Gti 4 J \ i /' \ ! y SI• E 4Y `F I. o '�0 1 Q �• � a °o. In 'ID?) ' D •�j , / 91 yS IOD 'ti.O° IC '1 O 4.3 .c3 's(,a / . , • '7 ,§ I�? rt. 5.1 .\a, 1 1,6. , `t. 2.0A 4` 4,<„s .,4h 159 SID S' ., '' , , p, , , 5.3 IJ� ^h 1� 14.6A , • • ' , f TOWN. OF SOUTI'iOLO (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) • ;,AA•. ,4 J .°., 4 o J� . , / IDIS' • , ., , • I \I 4 l.. �. \` / y FOR PCL. NO. SEE SEC. NO. , \ ...,...... - 101-02-024.6 \.. .-1 c.:, .r-a1 r "\ ,ii> .s . v ,. g'e r(1ri1 �+•'` 4 ! t .�"rr -. ec .'.4;..�a{yjk '.--'�-7s1, 1 . 4cY,A t a,' k1' £ „^ r. ..rVi� p , "'Z $ a' 1cY i � '� r .=-'r.. d ma. • 4. j. +S .,L!''',' y + _ .�. t YsY �.t {, ' r~N ¢ , 4. � .aa� '}'i ,, , y �_ , 'U �dL yrh;. ii sw j—F •"F ',iN-C4 . , ., 'j 'yxiy 07 hx`*^ l ,yy ” "'-).1kc''' ." 4r .I''a', a„ irWM . a .k ;th,; r• 'f. ,,,,:,,t` ',://} af.41. r ._' a2,4-,v `. om `.^:^'7� ,..1. ,,,,-,..:',.:17':: -, Tp • ' ;to--- e,, , -Z, 7, _. ', ,•, J_ta he ♦i •{r (r �1 ` lx ' 'N',424.,!,-.04 a', Mi : kxe ' -0X"--.. ..-'' '�f;•7' '. j 41!% t ! " ,i 3 ' '.4‹.;,'''...4' �" TrJ0 4, ..+ -.. , ,+,+e t e ,ay, r ,.>#wrxf . .A' �.. A' roE , ' ? Je�kc: ,Ffir• i�' ,,nT u es r -s :„ 1t4 t p' �. ti �- + T�+ i,, yyi 1 y ,- - � ' j .---y:;.„-,,,--:-.,-,7,-, f r `SJ, - 7 } h I EIIIT± . , , tAi• .,) Is,, } ' - .F ` _ } . "1 s t6_ , ..,.. ' k f 14 ,'.'�'?awG Y �, -r $p' -!.4'.4.-‘ J ,�k J -,p `T�..4 _..T V'�Q a .. .'M �ftg �� '� ' ,”!,...,q41,, ".a `t z� tr7}A fir' I ik r�•x a ?r z ,Fi a • z ��..j' 'C�e ' u '< .e'� i1yF1yA ly p;' + - aSw'ra� �,+ �r J.,-- t tri '� r'�^f. `'Sa i ee Fi-. Y.'{i�«�a+ Pf i r S �X° ` ' / r K 7:...VP 0 !in.• ' 1, J 4e. 'ri i>' 3 r/ }a,-�f`.• p�,' ' gli 1., m ' el h r` lf,+9f�t '4 wvY 3 . .y ., ,^ ,r's . ,4 t,:` �,+ 4` �"_ '�i z' '`,1%... ,a" C f,7: y.q .' .?Y ;A.s -rt i . 5:3 '�•"''°S.a.��-i,�,•-iF•n.r 4 �{A„-.O. '14W0,1'.;” y � n. �.f ti S-.K+�, xp a � � t t. ,, •;-i'''';.&4 tai , qt. : `.1•, Tk' S.` L, ...,',t *,'t' .•l'Ar*t:!. _.`taC�^' '";q..i _S'` '' d}"''�'Y , ,sk y l4, 1'......•',tti _.r� Y F,�a. �' .5%' '- }i{ ✓�'g"��.,n,`� k�4r4t`""o" ,, r G� AG ay'i:+,. �y,,'_7• Sify +A4In'�`" f r a+ _ .s .$A,' 7 . f;ahit a w.4 P.`. "'T 3r. 4.-Q.:::,...4-4,1.;-," ,' 45 ''">:: >^.-. f-"A. �,r,�* • %r 'e�`.1a�gi,!i„,� ,� y,,� � 4+,..,.�yC,x��tv��`. 7011.—. L�x q��t��R, n. v t � , c .q�`t,�� 'G:ua:,-'>''.''''7'245-7"- 6?`y;, ,:CK'��.Ki ,'T� 1','',i;T^ ' 7'Atti"C.m•_,' "'..V!,' /10,--i.2-r..-gin; 'x. '1`N,�+n;",." v'.-'',:i •I`f: 4"=f -,,r,4-- 7„-,:):-_,11;'- .:.s:,}, -rz .. •?`�' c.1:rit�r:! "a4.yi; �. ,"-"'•s-� "..,f,' � � t �� � .l ,G.; �x,...,. i- S:::hi,,z.,,,p,.-1 ,.,?,;!.p.,;-.A.,... -,n,ilp '7_,,*,,?'&'. t+,- r v., ,; t'� ' - ;kf ,Tn�F '.h'',...4;.:,. . t "f.'$,`°:1". .dr'. t("y P.`�" x tat f ���'` k' -- _ .�.''f`".�? ",�•_. ie b:�,',,,,,,-,:4„s' a,Y� .'.j� 'ic i . ,V111y = „ trtia .,,r-•y i,-', :, t ., '*vcy'.i !Yz':' '1T_ ,t .4. . .:.,b .-s ;� t � ,,2y i_-', :,.` t a a,, fir a,'F t 0.i titi g " • k'' {�7 i7 ¢x, :f't,- mr�v f-: i i • r ..,.,,..13•, 4,1 0-, t *J <. ,, .t� M1.1Y; 4 a 4 : , i .A xis'• , w� t 1 t', .ti a. fi F, �ri"r x Ar'x, i�r '� • R v t '£f `',�T, .i..i y �r` ,' X4-741X40.,_Y•41. t,i� 'ice -ria*,,,i .•Y'1? r„.: ti ti+s�Rscry'�t' x��'�' . �'`1 #�f_4.1 ~• •J4 .�' ' .k. �, rH,.,--4,-4, r: rY ,�y,� ,t a,:i. v:a„ �'i4N:S .."ria 'iGt •••' ^.r9: lS �.y 2�•w 'Y '"y 3j, �c'}"x3'►;. i N,.rsl.ti : k. 4 _ v�"-r § . _Yµ2-^. t.- .qc 'R TS } ^. ':. ' • @,+•� ',, r '^S#i u ^,,,, + ,.' ..�[.� ,'4: 'f`s•„ d:, kr''y "'iii Y4'74 1 . 1}. 'fir"'-,.' b^+'4 ';' ...'m'yya - r M S• • AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: I am over the age of eighteen(18)years, not a party to this action,not related by blood or marriage to either of the parties to this action, and I reside at Mattituck,New York. That on the December 1,2000 I served the Application of Patricia and James McNamara to 'the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals upon thegouthold Town Building Department (IrC(t.h...42D,ox-r.e& #00004%iiii• A1t4 & /, atA /oc7 DANIEL C. ROw'' data/affirmsv.dcr r— gym n E � \\,.] DEC - ! 2000 1 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. ) Unknown pvrppt to the extent indidted in the application for D••+ rai ng Permit , 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. ) N No to my knowledge. N C. , Are there any propose is to change or alter land contours? ( } Yes { } No Not to my knowledge 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 bvlkh de d. between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the, Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? Not to my knowlege E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? (If not applicable, state t4N.A. ") F. ig,t � etoo mm knpwledge. Yypati. os, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? If none exist,, please state "none." Yes. G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? ® If yes please emit a copy of. your building Permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. Construction complete or near complete. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? If yes, please of deeds. explain where or submit copies • We 'own the residential parcel across the street from the ouo I. Please list present use or operations conducted atrce this parcel prArg to be greenhouse use. pro,. use � and igr 'A M ' 4/14-14a-4-, D R-51L ©--ELVE 1) tt 4 ,G, /6)14iG / a,h-jr,- 7 I ER -Authorized Signature and Date 2000 3/87, 10/901k ' ,' 1 1 • APPLICANT 1 TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORT cc 1..f The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of � interest on the part of town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAHE: McNamara, James E. and Patricia j (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person's or company's name.) . • NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone Approval•of plat Exemption from plat or official map Other (If "Other," name the activity.) Application to ZBA to reverse grant of Building Perit Do you personally (or through your company, 'spouse, fabling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business iaterest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the • shares.. YES NO X. If you answered "YE$," complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner Of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation),' $) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation): C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the ' - applicant; or D) the actual applicant. A t 1 . DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP . . r))i"-----:------------------------7r,, ' finr-. \ -1-81.71,„. „. :, " . _,1 �r' ivl G _ '/ �� , f 0- a ' Submitted this _day of 2O ri eJ ,- , cti :1 Signature / /// } Print name Patricia McNamara DANIEL C.ROSS --- ._ -.- --.N Eublio..St eogNewYork • ,��,.•®cr,.:_ No.X7175 °uallleed in Suffolk County ,/ Commission moires Aug.31,19.— Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Jouthold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 12/11/00 Receipt#: 6513 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $400.00 Check#: 6513 Total Paid: $400.00 Name: Mcnamara, James Alvahs Lane Cutchogue, N.y. 11935 Clerk ID: LYNDAB Internal ID:20603 • .Y` . x 4 MYRi3iq'l.Tt i-e ms's 10 ++,•ofF014-0o NEVILLE � ••14 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road /CLERK t y = P.O. Box 1179 w i Southold, New York 11971 IVITAL STATISTICS Q GE OFFICER y� ..,N• +�� Fax(631) 765-6145 AGEMENT OFFICER �,( .�`� ++ Telephone (631) 765-1800 �F INFORMATION OFFICER ��• f ` OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: December 11, 2000 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4909 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 4909—James & Patricia McNamara-Zoning Board of Appeals application for reversal. Also included is an affirmation in support of application, a copy of the building permit, letter from the building department,building permit application, a property survey, fax from Suffolk County Planning Department,ZBA findings, deliberations and determinations at meeting held on June 19, 1997, a copy of the deed, a copy of the Suffolk county tax map,pictures of greenhouse, an affirmation of service, a cover from Keegan&Keegan, ZBA questionnaire, and an applicant transactional disclosure form. • flf t • s , . ..., _...., 8 13(00 • q __0, ,•4 -,,.„,=••,.. -2-r--- -•••• ., IA - •E. ,-,------4... ,---• •:•,( T.t.‘, '''' '„, V: I '•;',J p'y .... . ` v i i1 ...,` .; ir 7 . / I • . 7 - : 1 ...- . . ID . , 4'' V" 'I le .i j t ,, ir : ` ''' .-e '.^1^' ^'," N.--- :......; ' ir 7 i''''''''""..-"l'i r.-----.1. ----,-/77,.7. `,,,',4h"'r. ,, ,-,Z.--1 - ‘, '',-;',/ — *''' , ''''` 1 , ..... \ ‘•,,..:. ....1 ,"....... ....m. '":" "'I, '''''..A. "i- 0. l'''Z": .t. ',..ttp,....., •. .• .,%.:........• 4, , t` . - ' ----'-----r----..-1-'..\ , Eberhard Muller, the-- - - '1Y4' :4 -..-- /1 • executive chef of r,-,,,y,".41, „F., -- -- .. ,,- e.,•,:...:,-1a4i4....;_111,411,7 . ' - •..,,-.7• •- ...--, - .. ,,.,...,......,- ;...,,,,,, ,,...,-,,,,,,,,..-i- , , .- _. _,_ ,_,..,. Lutece, and Paulette --,.-.,--..?..-,,, ,--.2.,,:-...,,i.'!7,-0.,--4-A ---..,.,,,,A-,_ ,,,,,,,,; . .„, , ,---*-.41tt, .,A.-i--,.,- -...- ,-.- -, ... , . r Satur found their farm the 14.„,,-*-r:3-'`.!`4`z.--4,,--"4-J- • ____.„-----, !,,,,-•'_ '- ;.,, , - -s--t q.. --; ., f% '^- day after they became .,.,- -7:.-,::., .„, _-,.. _- _-:-....„--, engaged. Now it not only _ : .., . ---=.7-:-,,,,......,,,, ' -•—=',;•-4.-,5""-,:ft ' .':.4•,.„.1 _---' _ -..rtbi -7.-I-1;•:-.-..- --4.c '-'•,' `-, = .- ta ' 'J . • nurtures tnen- marriage,----- ._ . ,-- , ,--,;,,----,,- %,o,-,,-1,1- '„.,„.,st -=-,-,, 4 •,, f-.. 1,- ,... - :,_:::4.. .0,-;zy, .. • -,,,.4.;;;:. . ;-:*--7---, , , , - • , it also provides fresh•..f..-57-e--i.:4-z,,,...7=,-,---4'.... ,l''''' r'• ,'-v:.e. , ,,,i ,.t, ..,,..,--.„_,„...,„,,;,,,:;,..?-, i i rEz— / 7.: 1 - ,...-,.. produce for Manhattans 4-4--:- , -', ',=-...> - ,7.-- .;:f.,-(1-: 4'..--1; lye* .: I ' •••:.' -. '.' ,\''' ,,,, .% , - . * 1*----' -:— ,A,,.*tl.'s,',,,` -' - '..., ',' '.)-, i• — 1 . - --..."'• • 1,,‘,"-',-,=''' best restaurants. -.-'- ' ----'• :-. ,-i -:-:il'' 0 By William Norwich i :ii -- - . ..4...-.." ' '',-3.- i ' - , , i--„- -,,,--:,:„1,.,,,,,,, Photographs by Jason Schmidt ' ;` '- •\,- .---W--,.•,:.':"I'::-'" - - - ' '- ,L.--.-1.,,- i k 'N'''' •-^ ' . '-- • /4,1 * '\_17",. '-',Y . . - , .. -: , - - . , .- ,--.—, ,;11-kr I. ---, • .3r- — %--.-= 52 1 I . . v3/ _ ,-„,,u^ ;” ",":zt,i4-7, 7, xc7.' ," ;ie rtp" {, _ ... - t �x° �' R+ +4P`y ' 3 * Y $M^ •• �s'l }.ab , s7a "E 4 * e" f, ` ,q r{ b 4 v „' " 43..t - , V .3 o rk 1a -ma. � FkL y, Y .4...+4.: ;fib A?'� -?:: ,5. '4 • / de A ' ', L :gni aa` " -„'fi .-,,,.�” N'+ y h;.,r,_s..vy .%.'ti. ., f .'G,G"c-�' , J _ Sb dfi 44 4 / f b 3 fa_ _7 rn ft-iy, .: ,,,,,4,,,_, �' 1-4 • -,.:,:,7?,,-;;-,-.,....:sr e ^milk` `Np-i 6i 4`%-. - ; z F -G• r ' e q Y�., t`es. g iA iM rf V , � fie-'e „ Y~ _ ' A' "x $ ~F4'^T e�kT•3�y�`�.,,/. 3+t • "^ ♦. ., T. a � . ,3 k 7 C • .r` t 'a,4„ ,yf.., �•• r ''tea 9 . = z .,,,,,,...74.r.„ f „E 2. The New Ante)tCan Gothic Ebechai ii Ala//c,;with hiC wife and/CI nnng pa,tnci. Paulette Saran,at Satin Farm.on the No)th Folk of Long bland Virile)cook,a per jeer summer dinner grtiled ba,,,oven-,oa,ted tomatoe.,and a,ptct'ann,tet. v ,„-------•,, f, { 'The entire experience of growing my own • produce,' Muller says, , `has dramaticall . , Y - changed my style of : I. t }' cooking at home and . • .• .. ` ti at Lutece. ' i , 0,i,e,..,,;,;...t 7:7:„.4.4,7:1,7171. 4.,,r,i.ey1./...,.;:'.7.,y:.t,,,,,,, i; • ' ..„,...„...„. aulette used to go to Berg- f� h"1 ti r J 1 inc s I� dorf's,but now she goes to meetings of the cauliflower 1 te °t x , 4 r x association,"says Eberhard ` �� ; ? 3i } ' �'{'' Y aya> �+ , ya -'' 5,s'r s ., f^a£ Y Cv ti ',-5..., x,.fsrt_ r Muller, the executive chef .. ',.:e., . ' ,x t,m?5� ..•" aP� a '^.. '`.,,,,9,„,-1.,.,,,,,,,, and part owner of Lutece,the formidable Manhat- `,.`1...Z.::-'''."9e��F ='1-',, 'w"� e, ' ` t-?0,%...--:.--17-1" ,fy1'`'.'17,..49341:4%.,:, ` s- x xs,- 'S. ,a,-,t.u. . \.a -4k �"' F .e si,; tan restaurant,as he holds forth in the kitchen of a " i''..',717•?-:::: t 'x' "'_*` 4: ' 'I+". r -4 '! ' the nouvelle farmhouse he and his wife, Paulette yes!;>; N. •'„-'y r i_ t,�5`-•..- -� t r' ,Fri Z , Satur,built two years ago on 20 green acres on the -',X+ 7-...A.--- .r `#S.' ! .4i .i„",� sw r: r�'i ° ot'A. North Fork of Long Island. Hands dancing on food like some kind of culinary Nureyev,Muller prepares lunch: cubed tuna tartar ' ` ti N t* �y x-� ate'= , {" . ..�' r (with fresh herbs from the farm) for starters, fol- r.' { ` 'y�' / lowed by grilled bass,corn stew and tomatoes Be- f.., fore the M611ers married on Christmas Day 1996, . - '�a° "•fj s . :' � Muller asked Satur,whom he met one evening when k ; she was dining at Lutece,"What do you want to do when you grow up>"Although Satur made her living - " M t ': >4, ' rl as an account representative for a Long Island wine importer, she grew up on a dairy farm in central " iy Pennsylvania and has a master's degree in plant phys- iology from University of Arizona. So,-of course, . ' she answered that she would love to own a farm and ` :3 grow produce. "It made perfectly good sense toy li me,"Muller says."Lutece needed fresh produce." .{~ The couple found the farm the day after they be- , - t, , k 'x- 'w F came engaged in the fall of 1996 More than 18 -- - w acres are now planted with organic fruit,spices,as- sorted vegetables,lettuce and some 35 varieties of tomatoes Not only does Satur Farms provide - The architect Annabelle Selldoif's farmhouse for Muller and fresh produce for Lutece,it also supplies Le Cirque Satur,above,is an austere set of cedar-sided forms Muller,right, 2000, Fressen and some 50 other restaurants in toils at the kitchen's large,mai ble-topped center island Manhattan and on the East End of Long Island All He hates wearing shoes at home,which is why all the floors in all,the Mullers ship 3,000 pounds of organic let- in the house,kitchen included,are cherry wood Selldorf found tuce a week to restaurants and stores in New York. the porcelain hanging lights in Italy "New York City," Muller reports, "consumes 30,000 pounds of lettuce every day" 0 Muller takes a Samurai-size stainless-steel knife 54 —_— ---— - — --- -- - 3 •-.,i ;•,), - , -,', li t,,, -,, Ft,tit111-we ,:-..,..-,•.-i,'.-.,,,,!,,,. . ..,,q- . ,r,,,,::....'7,„!. .-,..4.354'..Ve..I The Conversation - Ever wonder what's in a famous MULLER Riesling is the chef's refrigerator Not a lot,in German iced tea We drink it -- • Muller's case, at lunch in the summer,because MULLER:I don't keep it isn't heavy and has a lower . _ .. ... vegetables or herbs in the fridge. alcokal content. +.1,th.y.should.1?We have 18 sitriip:-two jars of my , ,„.4,.•,,,,,,4,1-,-, 4, Tf,,,,:t, ,,it .,/,•..t.-4,-,-', ,t: t • .1 f:44.;.i',FS 4, ',r,U47.4... -''''' 446it4the26/31frOz in the.-- -,'refrigerator pickles,in blue glass ..,:;;5,":"' donfriia1,1411a 'ilevers " ajars given to me y • ."-t-."--•-: fr,,V) '.,'• '‘,-; •,.. • ' (A.,...P. .....'...--4-Ale'l-7%1,, t-'44.;,;-3''-',-.1., fields -I,-..- like leftovers Ball b ,, - •,,,I.,e.,,,,;:-%-,.. - t• - 4-'•'-',.,(1-,-r'-.- r.i.'v' a4,--.co.,„..---ei.,v-,4...,..4..,...,55,-,... ,„?...,-..).t.7--,y6y,icsvAttinss taste good my mother and a pound of :•:,7- . ' ,,,..,..„, '. „K,.2-A,.wq,,,,,,,,g-f„-ti&;-.1'...,,f,1,---3;.„-v.,,,-...5.ri:o.v5,-,,,-1;,,,-L.,,,, ,,.,.. :„..- „,,,.1, !''.-' • ;',,), - • 1-4-.*".1?"-4,-- .:-...„4.-.4., .....vastkeyer„.-,r-.,--, ,, ,,-- -.. Breakstone's butter-r- "'.34.,---' •,4',Afpgek..i.„.,-v-V-.:.',,!...-;.-.AtirfSATTMliWe have three bottles mULLER.On Friday nights,I ,-.,k,,„i4k:,,,m,..",,,,,-IS,.-'-:'-''r.-'?"k'''''fp -,-':.Pellegrino' and "!;),.. r,.. _ water bring a bag from the restaurant .f..t: ,„!• .,\,, ".;..:---°-e•.-,... kt-'-qP','-f,'-,-,", a:pjicher-oi iced tea with mint with a good,reasonable olive 4 t,1 -:*',..' 1 ...-M . -t••, ..•',",1,',:`,,,,f"i9-,,t-'theg'di.,„an` - oil[Aldo Armato,avtulable at Nolan'Itsforw-wwmadrose cons,or call .441 . guests. 1>auletteandl drink Water. -(800)910-1990]and restaurant- .,. - ...... - , ..:,,: - ,,.. ,•*...,,, : . thing SATUR:-two bottles of quality butter The closest .,_. -'.. •r ''-- en Gtian nesling,one bottle of available in the stores is Plugni "-;-" t.,:',T-7„.4„W Australian riesling,one bottle and in a pinch,Breakstone's is t„,•'•;:,•",'.,1,:l' , ;-.• ,-1,.. ..1.:tr. 10Vel 'of Alsatian riesling and abottle a good substitute IK ,'.., -tt...ot.t..'• ofong Islanpinot noir- SATUR:-anda container of , -,•;,,:::-k...itLd „i , :"P'-'•:'-1 Eberhard's soul dough starter. - MULLER:It gives bread a _ . . great flavor Aftei all,I grew up oe,g,..r.,t,,,,,v,.:-...-t4i,v: "t-...,...vikr-;.•" _ -. S't.4449,,i;g•NNAt'4":g.t44 - . v in a bakery ttiztkiv5•0440,4t-.5Mtv..tv ',z..,'1,-..;,•.,-,, i.,,,, , , awos.p.iyin.,,,A.,:ftq,, 0,v - , -",;',14,'N''• 4-.4V:W25;i1Mit,:41.4M A.8", • ..., V.. .' .0-rNex*.IN4iaip -k2,4,-,'Y . : -,.....:„.., . ..• . 7k :_•, , •0 -.\\I I- .1, st,"..t.y..M4.O.,. 4,0,7621.ft*y• 01..W5,....r•Va-V.7%-/ " C---\\I ..).,,,,...._._ "i5k;T-II:11.-41: l'"4:,-K:,40-AL,,'''II:k.'SI'.., ,,,.'',,,,,r, ,. ...-4.4r, i....., ;..,, •,,,, •::,,,-ft'vrl'iw-vti4.*-sik;t'" ii.",?•-•-•.--•'-'" ""'•''''''' •-otir: -1A, P- ,...i.-- :--., .....„ ..z.....10., - 51--- ,, ,'- ,--.,,,-r, .,,,6, 4,-„,,,, ,, . ev? .1 la V. , t -.:!. - '. A` ' - .,-t,.. - . _ .7"te:1CizI:4 ''4''0- .k4" - 1-1111 77-: .`,. ' ' :..- ili.',,,. 2, ,,,, ,_ `-t--•, A WritiV•Z;'''ZI.,:,1-''-'04 1:9_11n .A.':=41.,a 41 rIr JEM.,talft."4" 00 - -t: '',--,7e, , 3,3", •" kli, ,-./,• 11'),"" _--.,--- -j 1, rt' A .„./ .,,trAtUk. t ,4. ,, ni ,"174.'1,', , ','"-•,- - . '.1.,44-64-r...1.14-- "'l ..c.•". -:"---.1 .1--- trm-'d-A-- , -• .(4,;:::„M't,,-,,,Z,r:;,--4.,:l s'. -; -.C. 4:\ -•-- '-"---- ‘--- ' -.- ' Illi'f..:!15,11,.c. "-..1-' .:,:-.:::• a"...-*.i..t-ifi-ri-:.•t7,t'"-_,I01::3 -' , ••••• ->e4„ , -. -.° v • - t q 1-4r,, •" :t.„14 s.„'",..\, ,t _ iN,,.. - . _ ' . t \.„,... ..„0e,, •,,,,:,#Iti\i".. ,,,,-5,„i,V, 1 0,714‘,..i.,,,49,;117s:...„, or''1-...4k•"../. /4'. .. „,-, ;.;,, • ' ..011„,.• ' '. : ,,Iil•Y;'..:: ' ... -'• l" ,,f • , it..4,-T,... _,-.- 1.1." r!':'""V:.'1: ''' ,,'• - Lci.77."7-----.-:,R.F2/340 ":4 V :417:g04, • •1' :.,1''''''.•'. r•-....;e.:-''t -"' • -`... l' --"•;-••* 10'_':'"--"''''''-`?.,-=,...-iv.^7."-lvt,-,-, i.TA, -" • .e gfi- —- -;t's•','"'",',, t, . .$• " = ." .. • r :1,...",-1',--• 11'...k.-1,-1. ;17t:cogii.l.• tg , „", ,_ 45 ... ,.,„. .4,,, '-t, -,4" .., . , . m .1- -- ,...' ,-,4400.-Alf k. - ..7ik , 1 . , -wt.. 4.,---„,,,-.... ..,,- ,; t „.1.-__. . . , . •, _.„,,Iwura.21,7„ .,.... 414.--f71,4,,rL2 ..,,,,,, . t...-'.0.. ..1 6,. ' ,f-‘4-•-, :, •,i,--'-.'1-,,:ir!,-7-,,„::-;...::'-',:-L"-:,;'''.;'-` ''' i' 4-'1 * '''"--- • -- ,'.\ t,-1,"„A ° • 1''''''''._-..,' ' ' • 1' .'",yr ',.. .7--i.:: 1-',i,,- .i.=,,, '.- .;,'.,.;-,2, `i,i:1-':,,';'''-.., .;'4,,,-;---',,-,.,-, ,1..,-rd -,•,:.,' •' , :• . • \ '3an ' -' -'': ' •,"t - •'•w.„:''.:-1-;•,-;„ ' - ' ;''',"/,'IP,'. ..6141-. 11,71-.Z;4 :' '''rli5t2-:'-''' '? '.i " i ' ; tti ttt&,,• "a`"'-'-`:'-'' ''' 2 "'"'7-' ''f'"','.'''''..,`-'5 4 4.4-;-=*-----,-f=-4,:==`,.'F‘.4 -..;-.:,?i=';',i.k=.,--;‘,=="'-;-",,,,t2i, •,,,, =''.1-'''',11 , .ii.,,, i INiCSA L-'::1• ,'--::'','''' -.Z.:,--,'',-`--;'"...., .:* ,‘ - 1:---' r,, 1 -..$1„..,.... 11 n i::' s'i' -' ''''"....-;c:)% • 1.--' ;--olt 1. ==.-,1:. 'i.c.-.. ''..i' 1; ,. 1 :. ,,I,A.*, 1, '411 I) . .'e,',-- ;!„4! X- --•'N., ' '1-r ,1 I L ; .,1 , .. '^ -. ' •*-ilratWI= ,1.;4' ,,-;),.. -Y1 2 i ir;',-;-•=t,,-4rt ? 14.4414r= r I! ,,, -.; --'14 -;..r; .4:2,A77,-..,„-.:,-it.R, : :4,,r.,,..-: : , ,,, ./4,x,,f, ---,-,--,,,.71,.„„,,, .-..,711,- ''.4. nth, ,4- ,, • .' 'tt't4ck.'''•ti•T'•••..':':, ..1•3;i It `,/$'....-- - ' S...'4,A,...,47„iwtr"11 .' .."\\IT,0.....,,,`;'' '',4'' '''1 . ''''' kr,,M,;:-=‘,"•,,,,,,"'".' ' ;,.' !1', i: .-',,,,,,.V.1-,r1:,,,- ,, t., " ,! -11 • 1-f/IZ:„---, 1._.'141' ' .'".. ' ‘;. „Iv \ ,- . '- ..,,111-4-.1.41X‘-:tt••••0 1.1`.... ' • .17`,.7';'' .s'• . , , 1 THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE I AUGUST 13, 1........,.... --......., ---111111111MIMNIMMON0111111111 ----------- O to the tuna on the chopping block.He dices with- ' ' a-''t' out looking down."The entire experience of grow- '" .':'«° _ __ ing my own produce has dramatically changed my ^'' style of cooking at home,and at Lutece,"he says "I I., used to think I was using fresh ingredients,but I wasn't.Lutece has become incredibly more season- s 1 ; al.Just because it is the'first day of spring,we do °'4"r not change the menu and have spring pea soup 's� ..3,4,,,,-,..4 . ar .,t Farmers plant their peas by St Patrick's Day.Ever ,").:3„.'4,„.'-_,,-,-, see peas grow in three days?Now I wait until I have ..-',7:,.--4,,,:,,'` local spring peas to make pea soup I go out in the :„,”' ' farm and see what's ripe Then I decide what I'm P'-- :"`4`By Pilar Viladas cooking„ r-;.'-u=--- a This year, when the strawberries were first in ;�;- bloom,Muller went looking for the"perfect berry" F,. A m fields hidden from view from the house by tall .'_. , rye grass.He walked for over an hour,"one of the = -..` n design,just as in cooking,Eberhard Muller and Paulette most delightful things I've ever done,"he says,al- - I,.,t; Satur have no patience for pretense A lot of architects though his wife couldn't find him and, "Green 1..-=f:,r, we interviewed tried to give us columns and balustrades," tI Acres" 2000 style, tracked him down on his cell "'vi,,4-- Satur recalls,deeming such neo-Shingle Style proposals"too phone n i`` r' -fancy for the North Fork." "Where are you,darling?" '•--,: But there is nothing too fancy about Annabelle Selldorf `I "In the strawberry fields,dear." - -- True,the German-born,Jil Sander-clad,minimalist-modern 1 Paulette Satur returns this morning from a neigh- ,,-^ -architect's sleek spaces and fanatical attention to detail endear bor's place with an armful of roses the size of cab- --'lien to hotshots in the art world like the painters David Salle 1 bages "Roses like these need pesticides, and I .:,:,and-Eric Fischl or the dealers Barbara Gladstone and Michael won't grow them because we're organic,"she ex- ;Werner.But Selldorf believes in self-effacing subtlety and plains,filling a vase with tap water. ;disdains flash and polemics."I don't want my work to be about The inspiration for their house itself jelled one style,'rshe explains. "It's profoundly grounded in necessity" Whichrwas part of the draw for Satur and Muller "We liked her clean;simple approach,"says the celebrity chef."No fussiness t'F:' i l or unnecessary design." ',{ f . i-:,.': And howThe 2,600-square-foot,cedar-sided house that ` Selldorf designed to overlook the couple's vegetable fields is American Gothic by way of the International Style.Its roof : --t-;J1;=9 4, 's x l; :.a ;f,t 4-:,rpt, : is flat;it sits smack on the round,and its interior is open and .«�ci,inn ag":.* :,,,�'t= �Y'jz t l .a. g P } N 1 r' drenched in light The house's boxy form is broken only by a f - towerlike volume containing a central stair hall that vents . • v x warm air up and out of the house,since its owners hate air- ; conditioning. ,4 - ....a-.....-.4".tic �` w-..i.„577 ' The interiors are spare and simple,with cherry floors, 1 ,t pale walls and no curtains—the better to let the light in.The i a`.Y y ,, ,r 'x- ftp n�R' 5'. 7 °� i. 4Z.1.,.):' � l�, k»- �'�.,^� i �.� � living-dining room alone has six pairs of French doors that • i ;-Wxa ;,`"'"'"-',.11k.74% open onto the farmland view and the master bedroom boasts rte= • ,_ -i.x ,,, a luxurious three exposures Other than that,however,the .y -:`— i 4 „' " place is almost spartan in its simplicity."Eberhard refuses to h bend to fashion,"Satur says "The house is like that,too." r ri " 'r: 'r' r6.7'4419,,,,,-,%,,,-.k.:ai ' The architect's and her clients'shared abhorrence of fuss- ,-' a F: ,._, f Mr, a i, made for speedy completion of the house,just 18 months after £ € .t iir l' § j Z = i their first meeting."I could tell Annabelle wasn't going ± to try to push something past us,"Muller says of Selldorf,who 1�' F "S x returns the compliment."They're not idle people,"she • x -e;_ �m_rr „,,,q77,.. A observes."There was nothing frivolous about this project” .a. ?` ` ' ;;>r ..,t;r:,= -:- r _4 ,x _ Still,Selldorf feels the house's austerity is tempered by its .l' . 'a=• light and warmth."It's not sentimental,but it's not brutal," i ` - "v f• she says. _ _ 7.-.._ Not that it could be,given its owners'hospitable bent. [ r . •i'i .. - "My favorite place in the house,"Muller says,"is at the head - °_ • r ---- . of the dining table on a Saturday night,when I look around �R_ at our friends"That's plain enough • 56 • 1 . o -.. 3 , Y41 .. ,;:t t,W - - -• - - 2. '1" - 1-%• '' ''''-'' ''""14 • ',-:. `.---- ---4•-' -'-' ft :,,, .:.. -.••• '. -:' : .4;•-•'''''''.1 `• ,, - '. -' • - '-4-„ .'. , . - „ 11 --. ,.'4*---.r.k..-t,',,, .1 --=-,, . .N".---.... - .-'. tw.,,,,..,, t.'". 4"-T.''' , ,;; . -,,i .,4 ., ^'-' '.....!i ....-.., .41 .' • . ..7 1/4-1-‘4 .-,-,..„, . Iii :--"*-.-%,"::.---,,o, ' ,•:•''''',,,- t-,'-,;.,:414,-.1-1-‘ "f 1••4.:V7 PIL:-,:4,'--:,i,f '" 1. -:;,.. ,,I.-..•i".e.i.,•,, i 11.4.„_N•w",:i...T.':•14:410,1,,i;:•,-.,•"(::;-,' ,, -" .• •- ' " . .,--z.zi.k--.„,-,-..n r.•.• ,-,,..„,p .44.,,,,:•,.„ , ,, -1,- .'-,,"Ail- , ,' ;„• ...;.- ";,-.-4. it,,,- ,-:. . x,y-11,-- '.A, .,--,,-- , - 4',-"77''' . • ...., ' ' • ','-, ,••,:44-.--" ','1! ,,,.-• '.Atf:":1'!"`'I-.‘..`"4* *k'''1.,•-4.''T:—"-=,".:::::,:".!.• . *-- . . •-- ' '-0:. -2',,,,"•1 ..-.. tu_.,,,i,i' .,,,"- :•Z,,e'llt,"ki'', 04--— & ,... z,4 ',.:.*‘‘..!:,i!h .' — ' ' ii..-••• , 11-, ...:-' • - i,01•-„,,.. ,f4`-•'-,.,:„.ij#4'.14" ,,..--,,3„,,,,,,, ,-,,..1z,•,,,.7.- --4-..<:. -----7- 4.- 4A:5,1-'''-iiiii r,'('Vw,•,:`*, '',:-'4-A, ..----,„ r.-- - -: t. 6:777.1:1,--.------—2 7 1 fi: '''',,fril-Til• ' _TRAP7v;-W r,, ,i1 4 ,.., „ _440.,r - .,. -1,-. -4,4 _ .,;,,,,rwri..--,-,,,„,,•11 „..;-rit,,,,...;:.,..;,14:::,-, .1.7,--,A,,,,,7:.'4,...w.r''' 474.-_-‘7,---.4.„ ---',-,--,....--....z-,-..--.4,---i-..;• --&,,, -----,,,n,,,,,..,,..------;;Iit,,,..- .,.. , • _---, r ...... ., -, „.„.,„ i ‘4„,-,,,,, - ,, •:,--.-0 --,„,- ...,-;„f-i- —.,•,.0-7 -,:t• 4 ,,,,.. s. , ,,,,,r4.1.04 c4,..1k - - ,1,11.•.-,p,, ir, .4.-m.,_'-lig i::'; I: ' ....., •,,,.,,A,,,p--,.. , :-, ) --,--A,,,N, '", .- 1 -.',4s7=7,.r"1,.. '-'7,-'"-- _ - tr--T.•'1..tf,,11,,1 i L6 :k.,-, '1E7;11,4 ri.,11, _,:t t. ‘41:-Ialig-'; 1 ....:,,, • 3_ 0 _ ill .....,..oF5-. C --,,:7:4.0.. 'ic , .r.r.,, - ''''' • ?-4-. - . -•' ...-,, ,-''' ,--, .,. -J-..,-.. \ .;`,,',5 ,:`,,_" *•,. 1.-6 -,'-;e4-''. ...-- -.."-4-.4,.1 ; _,- ..•', -.;---t!`' ---':-"-----, - ---- 21._-% •,-,,,,,, ,-1.11,;...inly1 1%-i-k Pkt,,T11,„'-yp2,..,,-`4"..„,.c--4---„,. ., .:_.--_,,,-;,-,_:2_,_-,,,,.---,--:%..f..--,,-__,,- _-•,„--, '-'..›. -',-,3,14' 1 ,er:1'.'..,z,,, : "4...'--,i',.,-AcAllfi.., . „ _ - ., 4'-'f',,,' 1 ' ,45-14;'t'-ti'i'''''' '15` i 4 '"',M. ,t-l•A .4 -00••••k. "..a'-'•."":„4.N.": is..0- -It•,:-.,g„:„.,eif. , ,,„,, ,,p,, -",,ogr.., ! ki,11, ___........,------- .„34.,T..vv.-5.„ck,;--t-'40,-,.„-'-'4,1*---'7.,.l'i.,:-,-_',-. - ,.. ..1.,.!..----::,..-..--------- -- • - . ., ----,,-4,41-i 'Tr-,-4,-,71---... -,,,,,,,,,..„------•; .-,..._:.k t '44'4 _r_ra,r;.-17"---' ::,, - %, " '''' - --,-;$,,,,*-1 ,...,'4Vf•-;,-,4i - ........P:-.' .,- -,,-0111-, '- I ,'''',._.- - . • , ,-,' '-' -In 1 77%''''`-t'L'7'",,,,,,,-,4,i.t 44.-,-"...1.,,,t,-,''''fv--5,,,r--•, :,..•. ,4 't 1 '''."44471.4- ::;1,1 c,:;‘,44.,.A..- • 1 —--1L---- ; — t•, `". 4.* -,!'i --- -- ' ',.:''-• ',k4;.- ,,A _-- -., -to , .,.4-, '''' re,s c ,w.z., ,,,,,„ . .-t-,....,1,-- ,-2 ,,,,, %,--,,,,,,-,• ,,,..,,ii . - .., ..1, i t.-4-, ,,l, .---fl''.--,'',.;:.-40 fi l leanni I 77hdaiieLvsftfdSeeean:s'ehlts1';x1-hbin i;g1i7dieesihlodtimutvatri fi'l'ni:lsbstgu'elear,innssaTe,sfr:evITegilat2lnuilytsbel:T4,1:stedriPohv'egeal;uclut aaehntosfthnecneinjs, Sil__11;4, -,;,,,-•4„7,4-..,!,44-e-li-k,,,`- :44 r i ,'' ‘1. .4-•---1 ,,tYl!,,,2, lazed 4.4) e para..° ig-:...-:t 61t,,Z,,, ti'ft,',-4!;3,11 ,,, - IV'*,74-4;h. ' l'41 . ..., , doo,,to co ......-"' ,s.41.,11 - 1 4'' I ache'?caln finds -.=.10:41,4:41 a,,,,i 14 1. ,,1,',,,4, ..., 1 0-1." Mullo 4• because , Page • bothersome. 4..n. - 47- i-- -4 , . 1,1_ 1 ca,snet ',''. ,,' '7•fr''''-f.f111714;:" ',.1-4a`,Y."' . lt 1, ,,,,i..,, :,-4:-. . 0. r4.4g , ,1 , , 1 , ! ,0. V .1r-- kt 1 ,,,.„. , 1 ,,,,,,,,„it 1,1 ,#:4 i, '1 1 ....1-..- .,.,, ll't1 --- -,.; r'-,,,,, seado,fdli:si iegcliRedoman vsheradthe the , ,- , --i. .--,,,,..., 7 . t . =--- --'1"--- opposite , ,, ., , _ i 1! „i.i.,,i 11- 'r,i., '0,,y. _ It . i fl - r : . ...---- ------- , ' ' ' :.,k,,,.. . ,,, ,:,,•L,. - .'- ! ,.,- •', -:,...„ ,t 3 ,;•.4.. -:'. -;.- ,•,..;,''''''. ''' - 4„."1„,„,,r,. 57 .. 1 i 1 ? ' .40" ati ,,,, ,, , • 1,..14.1 . ..',.k.1,:fti, - .. . t.t .- . ., •, 110%1:4:',',* A ) . - -rim ' - - - ' t . r� t}}„r a. - • - - __ _ he couple -_ _. -, chosethe _ Y '-- ..-:':-.2,;'..---::,•,.,..:_:,--, plainest, most natural - --- : _ _ - - , serials for heir ' . _,r�_ ,- -• ' _house. `` .,--'f''''-',.:',.,,--- , 6 Eherharc refuses to i _ • fF - Y bend to fashion :FR z„ ; - ''& `T , • • J-,, 4. ` -,- is wife explains. he +fT t .house is likethat' << a ' , � . ' , f}'. t 4{"F "k r, while the Mullers were reading Vogue and hap- kw 9,,:• 7 a :d upon a storyabout a home designed bythe , 'h,IS, 'fr, * ^- �` r •: itect Annabelle Selldort They contacted her ;--e.? L=, _,-_ -r `” to discuss the farm 4.° ;' '~h` . , ? We started thinking about the house first with ,i` kitchen,"Muller recalls."How does the dining- _ ,47_- " ;= t r. %-?,';="_'" ' n table become an extension of the - - `'%r . -. , '. h kitchen' J;r��-` - "� �~:.-,, �. the master chef, the kitchen needed to be de- L, =,,it's• - _':> ,A I _ . - --• ed so that people could visit him there but also _- '+s =i.' -'"..c.w'-, .;, o one would get underfoot when he cooked.A ,'''-r` £. of the solution is keeping his stove near the re- -'s-•x;.` w i . • gator so that he could move between them with ▪-5 a.y s . '- - -.- a • 0, ."There's nothing out of the ordinary here,"he ..2';.,::'..-,;.',..',5•.: "Y I�" "Nothing anyone can't have.We designed an -' I ,,r,4,4„,4 " ""t^ 6-*' i g s-`s' • ?S;tis,s .yF`„x# J ,R.Lr+1o,a-°v'1•6r e"�~-0c.� ::r; ttainment kitchen I knew we'd have a lot of _ y:;rte' �w.; .�;;`�=,34f°=,"$,;#;����� W *-`"'r ; ers and parties and that I'd always be the one ? } k F '., '<F t^,i?tet ,VV `•: Kitchen cooking.At mealtime,we put the - ''r:4et .-, - "'= ' hors `c�z '',:p,_;i: ,,rr:e,,}'�'.,;-3rrrs m,•r,�,zt .t=,:,'' uv`res on the chopping block on the center is- "' ';::: ' .: `W >-,"' ,with the silver and the plates stacked Every- -:-.,"_:"-' -';,,.,,..Y,.;- ''"r:; ;p;•as;`-`, t 4°.- ,:` _�";, ;i'r`,. gathers around the island for wine and to talk :- yv 9 1„a .c:-,°,,, F.=z' re we eat.We serve buffet style" -Ys*-�;i-- `: _ r''''' ►}=w s;r•, _ tie kitchen plan is quite simple.No secrets here: _ -^, ju Fw'a -k; =F ,,k,=°8, - _`'q_- • : , ;ets are kept to a minimum.If there was a mi- '-••`&i r-.- --=^-- ";<. - rave oven,I missed it.There are two Askodi ` F, a_;..: aers near the sink, a .1-'..,:%4-:'-0;'4•, —+:1 ` " Garland oven and a 1 _ � . , ,',= risen refngerator The electric coffee maker is <µ e by Starbucks. "Chefs hate cabinet doors," i Muller,who devised the idea of curtains over - ' _'.,: cupboards instead ",The Idea was that I could " a rope and everything would be at my dispos- - . Alas, the fabric doesn't curl as tidily as he . Id like. "Something messed up in the trans- ,K = n," he admits, and laughs 'We're debating the architect I want something different She ks it looks neat" Simply prepared and simply delectable.Muller's tuna tartar, ke a debutante's ransom of Tiffany rubies,the - above,is surrounded by delicate leaves of baby arugula. is very"tartar"now,ready for presentation and The dish depends on the freshest fish and herbs—garlic chives, ;umption.Muller chops some cilantro to doll up mint and cilantro—from his garden Opposite,one of a dish."Cilantro is a bit overexposed, no? The pair of Murano glass chandeliers chosen by Satur for the dining mccino of the vegetable world." Dusting the area illuminates the table at dusk with herbs,he pauses:"Like everything in life, >le tend to overdo.The idea of cooking is to .bnng out flavor,not put it in your face Food, r, l •• • g i .; - , . .51i 'i h, F-',-,, ,,1',-,_,.„,• _ ,z k P 21 , Fl ,--,,,i-,k..:.,.__ , , -.t1, I r''''' it.:;.1,.1.' ,1113 r r_ %(/ } ' !e 1 t. - - A . _ - F. [ . i1 1. { 5 j g} (ibirta � „ V '''.•,'•---4,',.,.-•4,s.t s'",r.i. -.1,e.C,',,,--,..- -4-1.i4..., -• 07, _2_1.'10, ;-- - '.--',-'',',...,,, .,• .- • - • . ---I o *� n y 4 t..5i ,,//��qq ,._,1„-- -1„-• r � ., 1 . fir. __ �4 —E:3-in 1`l. ✓'�t '�w.�l.T., y,y.,. .o .F- r -�`- ,.1.......,_,. 4,4,41-44,-,-,. = • 1. • THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE/AUGUST 13,2000 59 2 •40 - ] - Pi' P, !„ �y� i t GA mow: 0 SUPPLEMENTARY PRACTICE COMMENTARIES FROM kms/ MCKINNEY'S, TOWN LAW SECTION 267-A a rdr P te .. i=<< `:' NOTICE a ,ll 1~c,F R,.�, } -,i�.'H: ---Ta ra•,;,.;'•,'. The provision of. adequate notice of a hearing on an application pending t N �14 1 t ,i' before a zoning=board-of appeals is essential in order to permit those most y :A =is -1 affected.by.:a:deterrnination;to voice their opinions, to provide probative v. t fF -:'.: -,1 facts and:to ensure .tat-.the ;process is open and that residents have '` .,-F4•,'•••,14471./y ' ",,...,'.: t: confidence.in"the:integrity'• _and.reliabilityof the r , ,'7,-,,,-,,v,,-,* ��''- process. Town Law 'P:.' ' =i § 267—a(7) mereiy�iequires that public notice of a hearingbe published in ;' " `" ° ::„; 1 a newspaper of general eirdu1ation`in a town at least five days prior to the ��` 4. date of.the h f Baring.. However, because few people regularly examine the •. .. legal notices in. a newspaper, most Iocal zoning laws provide for additional `"TM ;mg notification in the form - e. .a g ' of a mailing to property owners within a designated ;,,,",1 "jar,.,�,, ;._..` distance of property which is the subject of an application and/or posting :i-,iivl �t , conspicuous notices of the hearing. on the property. ;'tq. '. Despite the acknowledged importance ofprovidingsufficient notice of g ,, ' � s> ? hearing to the public and' as contrasted witthe strict a F= j 'FO : rict adherence required , , ti;� `=r. . for the notice provisions for the adoption or amendmentofzoning laws °}gz.5;i , .��:;.. �� � (see Commentaryto 264), failure to strictlywith the '� :..-0,,,,,,49 Lawecomply notice .t• requirements of Town267-a(7) or with additional local notice ` '' ,requirements generally has not been considered to constitute a lurmsaac- Gs . «fM-- i tional defect. Although earlier decisions, see UeUe v. Boettger, zurrit - 1-,.c.'45,1!":()",-,1 .S.2d 799 ;;4c ,,' .S. 115(2d Dept. 1987) Briscoe v. Bruenn, 216 N.Y .. p , k 'i , (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 1961), and occasional modern decisions, see -,,,,,T'�;;.a:„xi athampton Commons m ,`�:.., } So Condominiu v. Zoning Board of Appealsof '{' AI: 1 Town ofSoutham tthe SSI p132 Misc.2d7 , 506 N.Y.S.'2d 416 ,;t.,_,;;,tg,,il i w..F on, 10 4 (Sup. Ct. - � w ��}� .�� �' Suffolk Co, 1986), consider noncompliance '' £ti `` ” with notice requirements for a - ;;A,pn.t •t= 4,. zoningboard of „,r ,.,y, ;1 appeals hearing to be jurisdictional, the courts generally 4'ii i �' sAy will not rely on a failure to fully comply with a notice requirement to '' r. i 'legate the authority of a board toA `el ri q hear a matter or a va r ,•,...;:‘,..65.4,;n,,,n . . 1 e ion. See, e.g., Baer v. Town o, Waterford, Itib AI .L -i-4.1'7, 4,1F N.Y.S 817 (3d Dept 1 p 992);• Fairris v. Town of Washington Planning T� 4-�� _•` - : . denied 77 , 7.''',:',",'.4: _.e ,�..�; d 698 (2dappeal - Dept 1 90), ` - - ' . ,:-=',-,;.,,,-7,,,,:';,:i wdk14:i Y App r i qJ't�,7e5r y,,1',',1 - - - _ ' i- i ;•:44, 44, i Z •';':•• k's_' =f.>,�,'' p Jr ' pt '-',,,-,'''t:4,1'; h'--'d 805, 568,N.Y.S.2d 912, 571 N,E,2d f '1991 orf v. Building ), Velez v. Board of s; 993); Cave v. `': A __,',118 of the City of New Rochelle, 147 A.L:_at 648, ti: N.Y.S.2d 52 (2d ..D.2d 228, 373 Dept.), appeal dismissed in part, denied in part 74 N,Y.2d 760, 545 ), 382 N.Y.S.2d - N,Y.S.2d 100, 548 N,E,2d 748 (1989). While the statute is silent with respect to the contents of the notice,"(a). i determination notice should fairly be given the meaning it would reflect upon the mind of f be made within the ordinary layman and not as it would be construed by one familiar with - applicant for a the technicalities of the zoning ordinance." United Citizens of Mount and may timely Vernon v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Mount Vernon, 109 owner may not = Misc.2d 1080, 1086, 441 N.Y.S.2d 626, 680 (Sup, Ct. Westchester Co. 1981), ighbor until a appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 551,467 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 454 N.E.2d 126 (1983). 'or'example, a A notice is sufficient if it advises the public of the nature of the application i of construction and the time, date and place of the hearing. Id. In United Citizens of e enactment of Mount Vernon, the court approved of a notice which did-not state that the )lying a preclu- application was for a variance, but which recited that the nature of the d not received '''; application was to construct senior citizen housing containing 30 units. with lathes or ;; The court held that "Stating whether the application involves an extension al to•a zoning ;.f' of a non-conforming use or a use variance or an arta variance or any rty owner was ;` combination thereof is confusing enough even to lawyers and judges let rig no laches or gid. alone the ordinary layman." Id.at 1086-87, 441 N.Y.S2d at 681. liowev- l.Y2d 356, 251 =4, er, in Deile v. Boettger, 250 A.D. 688, 295 N.Y.S. 115(2d Dept. 1937), a )arrl of Appealsdetermination was invalidated, in part, because the'notice fa1Jeu to state 3d Dept 1990), -that the relief sought was a variance, Consequently,fI is advisable, if not .2d 517 (1990); : ; mandatory, to specify the nature of the relief stet, as well as the k.D2d 668, 800 :f development proposed. Moreover,mischaraeterization of the type of relief cision has con- ,,,, sought generally has been considered to be fatal to a board's jurisdiction to ,nd principles of grant relief. A notice is insufficient to grant an area variance if the notice appeal may be A states that a use variance is sought Burke v. Village of Colonie Zoning termination or . Board of Appeals, 199 A.D.2d 611, 604 N.Y.S.2d 843 (3d Dept. 1993). w Similarly, a zoning board of appeals lacks jurisdiction to grant a special • -. permit when the notice states that a variance was sought. Foland v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Bethlehem, 26 Misc2d 1093,207 iication pending k N.Y.S2d 607(Sup. Ct.Albany Co. 1960), runt those most Although § 267-a(7) commands that notice be published at least five Ovide probative days prior to a hearing, the courts have strived to sustain the validity of .} residents have T. 3 determinations when notice was published, but with less than five days 3s. Town Law • �' notice. In Gerling v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Clay, 11 be published in • Misc.2d 84, 167 N.Y.S.2d 858 (Sup. Ct. Onondaga Co. 1957), reversed on ays prior to the other grounds 6 A.D.2d 247,-176 N.Y.S.2d 871-(4th Dept. 1958), the court rly examine the held that notice published four days before a hearing was not-jurisdiction- ;' le for additional ally defective. An additional consideration in that determination was that hin a designated fact that the objectors had actual notice of the hearing. On the other 1 and/or posting hand, determinations were invalidated when notice was published less than e • the required time prior to a hearing in Deile v. Boettger, supra, and dent notice of a Briscoe v.. Bruenn, 216 N.Y.S2d 799 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 1961). ,erence required Because the five-day notice requirement is statutorily imposed, a serious A` of zoning laws risk exists that a determination based on less than five days'notice will be with the notice considered to be jurisdictionally deficient and be invalidated, particularly whenprejudice �' nal local notice ` can be demonstrated. Obviously, such a jurisdictional itute a jurisdic- issue should be avoided by adjourning a hearing and republishing the eager, 250 A D. notice if publication cannot be accomplished at least five days prior to the .16 N.Y.5.2d 799 date of a hearing, • n decisions, see ,Consistently with the apparent judicial policy of endeavoring to sustain f Appeals of the - notification efforts if substantial compliance has occurred, the courts 1 416 (Sup. Ct. prdinarily have concluded that the failure to strictly amply with a local, t;• lui cements for a ,mailing requirement is not jurisdictional. See Gaona u Town of Hunting- courts acr ing- courts generally ton Zoning Board of Appeals, 106 A.D.2d 638, 483 N.Y.S.2d 430 (2d Dept requirement to 1984); Velez v. Board of Appeals of the City of New Rochelle, 147 A.D.2d e validity of its 648, 538 N.Y.S.2d 52 (2d Dept.),appeal dismissed in part, denied in part 74 U.D.2d 850, 587 N.Y.2d 760, 545 N.Y.S.2d 100, 543 N.E.2d 743 (1989); Sarah .Lawrence :ngton Planning College v. City of Yonkers, 48 A.D.2d 897, 869 N.Y.S2d 776 (2d Dept appeal denied 77 1975). In those decisions, the required mailings were made, but because : ' a ---- ..- ..�,�t ��,, �,�uru a 4, --- - ----------- ------- - _ -- __ - - ., r•.¢ ..:::.,.,,y.. ,_...,. ,u _ F r rt_- .. ... .. wry y S... _v n - r B,. '3 } § 267-a TOWN LME of an error, one or more persons did not receive the mailed notice. t Moreover, in Ahearn v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Shawan- 7 gunk, 158 A.D.2d 801, 551 N.Y.S.2d 392 (3d Dept.), appeal denied 76 lr,° N.Y.2d 706, 560 N.Y.S.2d 988, 561 N.E.2d 888 (1990), notification made by 1,, regular mail, with a certificate of mailing furnished, was sustained despite A: the fact that the zoning law.required a registered or certified mailing, particularly since the objector received the notice and appeared at the hearing. It would appear that the courts strive to sustain a determination _ if notification has been made, but some error has resulted in less than' in�, strict compliance with the requirement or resulted in a lack of notice to ar' small number of individuals. Again, while the black letter law is that such defects generally are not considered to be jurisdictional if substantial - compliance has been achieved, the wiser course,of action is to avoid the risk of invalidation by ensuring that notification is properly accomplished, particularly because of the importance that the public be aware of pending .t. applications which may affect them and to foster confidence in the integri- l,ti ty of the review process. Regardless of claimed infirmities in the provision of notice, be it strict , _ ' ,compliance with local requirements or with the publication provisions of ;_ ,.the Town Law,the courts uniformly have held that one who receives actual notice of a hearing and appears at the hearing is no _claimed defect and has waived any irregularity in the provision of noticeti ' s: See Ahearn v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Shawangunk, 158 • A.D2d 801, 551 N.Y.S.2d 392 (3d Dept.), appeal denied 76 N.Y.2d 706, 560 N.Y.S.2d 988, 561 N.E2d 888 (1990); Petronella v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers, 138 A.D.2d 712, 526 N.Y.S.2d 525 (2d Dept. ' 1988); Gerling v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Clay, 11 Misc.2d 84, 167 N.Y.S.2d 358 (Sup. Ct. Onondaga Co. 1957), reversed on Ir other grounds 6 A.D.2d 247, 176 N.Y.S.2d 871 (4th Dept. 1958). The rationale for dismissing such noncompliance, as expressed in Gerling, is as follows: Bearing in mind that the purpose of the statute is to advise those who may have an interest in, and a desire to be heard upon, the proposed administrative action, it would seem that, as to those who had actual ' notice of the hearing and failed to question the sufficiency thereof prior to the hearing, a technical deviation from the statutory require- ment is not available to vacate the determination. The requirement that notice be given in strict accordance with the method prescribed by the statute may be waived by personal appearance of the objectors at the hearing. Gerling, 11 Misc.2d at 84, 176 N.Y.S.2d at 363. i HEARINGS j Zoning board of appeals hearings generally are characterized by more formality than planning board meetings. Such increased formality is appropriate because a zoning board of appeals is a quasi-judicial body, that is, it is charged with the responsibility to hear appeals and certain other matters and to apply the law to the evidence adduced. However, practices y vary greatly from one locality to another and, depending on the nature of ! an application and the presence or absence of controversy, in the same municipality. Nevertheless, in reviewing proceedings before zoning boards of appeal, the courts are cognizant that "zoning hearings may be quite informal," Von Kohorn v.Morrell, 9 N.Y.2d 27, 32,210 N.Y.S.2d 525, I 527, 172 N.E.2d 287, 288 (1961). Indeed, despite the quasi-judicial nature of a zoning board's function, "a public hearing is not a formal quasi-judicial hearing. . . ." Aprile v. LoGraade, 89 A.D.2d 563, 665, 452 N.Y.S.2d 109, 107 (2d Dept. 1982), affirmed 59 N.Y.2d 886, 466 N.Y.S.2d 316, 453 N.E.2d 545 (1983). Because of the courts' view of a hearing as essentially informal, procedural complaints.,unless egregious, rarely result in invalida- Feb-27-01 3:49P I& m7C 1631Z9813565 P_01 V1I-4 , 5,, i'n" s 7 1 -- P 1''-ca' LAW CFF vLa WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c IO315 MAIN POAL7. F'0 BOX 1424 MATTITIICK LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICK11AM NEW YORK 11952 MCLVILLE OFFICE ERIC J RP-SSLER 275 BROAD HOLLUW RC7ncl AEI:iA11 A W �KHA`" - - !LURE L III r"\ (� /� f,31-2' H-8353 MELVILLE.NEW YORK li/4i LYNdf M CCR3a �(j JANET CRA�,A L� TELEFAX Na Ea 31 ?a�+ �15b5 631 X49{3480 1 I ELE=AX NO.63I-2.1D-f.)424 FEB 2 20d( February 27, 2001 IV\ _I Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 5.1095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1E79 . Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Patricia and ,lames McNamara Ladies and Cientlemenr As you are aware, we represent Paulette Satur and rheihard Mueller in the above matter in connection with the hearing scheduled for this evening on the McNamara'," application. he advised that notice was not posted in accordance with Section 58-1 of the Southold I'nwn Code. Therefore, we request that the matter he dismissed inasmuch a, the Board lacksjurisdictionand notice was defective. Very truly yours. // tLy, Abigail A. Wickham .I:JW/(nu. 301ly10rr cc: J7anie1 Ross, Esq. ZJINGBOARDOFAPPILS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ( 631 ) 765 - 1809 FAX ( 631 ) 765 - 9064 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD , NY 11971 - 0959 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: ZBA OFFICE STAFF 765-1809 ecds COMPANY: J DATE: p- iz. . FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: PHONE NUMBE RE: 6P-- D-00 (11°140Aalktakij 0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY❑ PLEASE RECYCLE Feb-27-01 03:49P WWBPC 16312988565 P_O1 kiljC k ' __, 5,..._ des -1- * LAW CFF CES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER. P e 16315 MAIN ROAD. N 0 BOX 1484 MATTITLJCK LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICK!IAM NEW YORK 11952F MCLVILLE OFFICE ERIC J RR'`SLEf2 27E BROAD HULL.f1 ROAD ABIc,AII a W CK11fiPF-- - SIJI I L III LYNNE M CCS `� C i=ce S21-208-836,3 MELV1,_Lt NEW y01:4( 1114 / JANET CiPAFA S E TELEFAX NO 631 F89-96658,3I P49. .4.50? BC !I [ I LLE=AX MC).G31-249-9484 FEB 2 7 2001 l'ebruary 27, 2001 i L___. Town of Southold Zoning Bourd of Appeals 53095 Main Road, Post Otlice Box 1 179 Southold, Ncw York 11971 Re: Application of Patricia and.James McNamara Ladies and C,entlemen: As you arc aware,we represent Paulette Satur and Eberhard Mueller in the above matter. In connection with the hearing scheduled for this evening on the McNanlaras' application. be advised that notice was not posted in accordance with Section 58-1 of the Southold town Code. Therefore, we request that the matter he dismissed inasmuch as the Board lacks jurisdiction and notice was defective. Very truly yours. • /(iLLL " Abigail A. Wickham .1:11G'/IIn1I 3O/iubsba cc: Oaniel Ross, Esq. r TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REFOR';'� TIME : 02/27/2001 16:55 DATE,TIME 02/27 16:54 FAX NO./NAME 2984427 DURATION 00:00:56 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ,dloP CO ED y LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM a BRESSLER, P.C. 10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM NEW YORK 11952 MELVILLE OFFICE ERIC J BRESSLER 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD ABIGAIL A WICKHAM SUITE III LYNNE M.GORDON 631-298-8353 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 JANET GEASA TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO.631-249-9484 February 16, 2001 Keegan&Keegan, I-' 2 0 200) 11 g g �LLP h\LL 114North Ocean Avenue _ j?)P.O. Box918 Patchogue,New York 11772-0918 Re: Patricia & James McNamara Application to Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Gentlemen: We represent the Satur/Mueller's in connection with the above matter. We attempted to return the Notice of Hearing signs that were posted on Ms. Satur's property without her permission to the ZBA, but were told that the signs were purchased by Dan Ross and should be returned to him. As I am aware that Dan is out of town,please advise as to where you would like to signs delivered. We regret this course of action,but the instant application was made without any attempt by the applicant to contact our clients ahead of time to discuss their concerns or any prior notice to our clients. Consequently, we see no reason to facilitate their application. Very truly yours, ��1J , ; Abigail A. Wickham AAW/dmc 30/rossd / cc Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals V LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.0 10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM. NEW YORK 119521 MELVILLE OFFICE ERIC J.BRESSLER 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD ABIGAILA WICKHAM SUITE III LYNNE M.GORDON 631-298-8353 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 JANET GEASA TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 1--.., 631-249-9480 December 11, 2000 C © P S F.ITTFA X NO 631-249-9484 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals JAN I 0 2001 I t \ f� P.O. Box 1179 1 IL/ 53095 Main Road 1/i,ta,,,u an i L 4- Southold, -Southold,New York 11971 '] 41 ccuin .tn.;c Re: Paulette Satur Mueller Ladies and Gentlemen: Please be advised that we represent Paulette Satur Mueller and Eberhardt Mueller in connection with the purported Appeal by the McNamaras of the Building Inspector's decision on the hoop houses. We intend to vigorously oppose this matter and ask that you keep us advised of any proceedings. Very trulyyours, ) /tbt /a Abigail A. Wickham AAW/kc 30/shzbasat cc: Daniel C. Ross,Esq. r -r)For'Office,Use Only: Fee,$ Cid,!' r2l rlbb ` Assigned No. X909. cK# s13 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK -6-tai 'ect Tb•�'eveuus J it.///o6 /:„0/.'41 ', - Vo_lrAPPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR ( € ) -6, ' _ DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED: ..Qc.T:4.$. 4.....2AQR .-/—.40tai a9, TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: I (We) PATRICIA and JAMES McNAMAR4 1-1-A7 (Appellant) ( 631 ) 734-5447 of 4000 Alvah' s Lane, P.O. Box 703, C OGUE, Oty#York 11935 ) HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOk DATEDO,bctober 4,, 200 8 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR' APPLICATION DATED: 1i/1 poo FOR: ( ) Permit to Build `s Building Pil Permit 26821Z dated 10/4/00 ( ) Permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit to Use We live directly across the street, Alvah's ( ) Permit for'As-Built Lane, at 4000 Alvah ' s Lane, from the greenhouses (_ ) Other: that were built pursuant to the building permit we seek to have reversea.Our deed is submitted .ht herewi th. 1. Location of Property....3.7.0.5.,A.ivah:.s..I,ana,. C :k1:k�Ag0.n,.NX Zone District 1000 Section...].0.1..Block..2..lot(s)..2.4..5/..` H h ...Current'Owner Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article;;Se�ction,,Subsection, , and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the'Iaw.) Article Section 100- .Z5.9.. Sub-Section and the:-Bulk• Schedule for 'Residential DistrYCt 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town.Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. ( ) Interpretation of Article , Section XReversal or Other: Raver sal...of..Bui1ding..P.ermi.t„2,68212 See accompanying affirmation and exhibits. 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has) (has not) been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector(Appeal # Year -) REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature): AREA VARIANCE REASONS: /v`, s,,.:,:: ,.,-, ;,., m (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: , ::,' ;(- ;ie:`, . , (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: • ; • '- (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ),No,....., .., .. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the saEne time, preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, andi.welfare'of the community. ( ) Check this box if USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are completed and attached. , , FIALfrwt.e i Sw o --,.,v).A 1 ! A 4.0 4.4iPZ _ 1111”, (Signat •f Appellant Authorized Agent)! > 2ry v. (A en M st submi •thoriz• ion from Owner) 1;A App 0> Oran,Public,State of New York // c 5 Oualtfled In Suffolk County .,, Commission Expires Aug.31, ( r Ii DEC — ' 209() 11 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD �� , SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS LI x In the Matter of the Application of PATRICIA A. McNAMARA and JAMES E. McNAMARA seeking reversal of Building Permit 26821 Z, dated AFFIRMATION IN October 4, 2000, issued to PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER SUPPORT with regard to premises known as OF APPLICATION 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York SCTM: 1000/101/0002/024.005 x DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: 1. I represent the applicants herein, PATRICIA A. McNAMARA and JAMES E. McNAMARA, with regard to their application seeking reversal of Building Permit 26821 Z, dated October 4, 2000, exhibit A hereto, issued to PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER with regard to premises known as 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York, Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000/101/0002/024.005 hereinafter the '`premises". This affirmation is submitted in support of the application. This affirmation is made upon information and belief based upon a review of records referred to herein. 2. Reversal is sought on two basis. First, site plan approval should have been required prior to the issuance of the building permit. Second, it appears a side yard variance was also required before the building permit should have been issue. 3. As indicated by their application to this Board, Mr. and Mrs. McNamara own and live in the house directly across the Alvah's Lane from the greenhouses that were permitted to be built by the subject building permit. Mr. and Mrs. McNamara's deed. a copy of the tax map showing their lot and before and after pictures of the view from their property are exhibit I hereto. As can be seen from the pictures, Mr. and Mrs. McNamara had an unobstructed view from their front window into the farm field across Alvah's Lane. The farm field is part of the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. As is evident from the after picture, the view is now obstructed by the greenhouses. As indicated below, if the greenhouses had been built in the place the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department granted permission to build one greenhouse there would be no problem. If the Building Department had required site plan approval as it should have prior to the issuance of the building permit,the issue could have been addressed at the appropriate time and not after the fact. Mr. and Mrs. McNamara have lost a wonderful view and have lost value in their property. They are aggrieved. SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE SECTION 100-250 4. Building Permit 26821Z allowed the"construction of(2) agricultural greenhouses as applied for". The Building Inspector violated section 100-250 of Article XXV of the Town Code by issuing Building Permit 26821Z without first requiring site plan approval in accordance with Article XXV, Section 100-250 of the Town Code which is exhibit B hereto and provides: • ARTICLE XXV Site Plan Approval 100-250. Applicability. This Article shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, section 1000-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. 5. The plain language of section 100-250 required site plan approval be obtained before the issuance of the subject building permit. If such approval had been required, Mr. and Mrs. McNamara's objections to the greenhouses would have been addressed before the construction was completed as was intended by section 100-250 of the Town Code. 6. In discussing this matter with the Building Inspector he pointed out that the greenhouses at issue are a"permitted use"under section 100-31(A)(2)(c). Section 100-31 of the Town Code is exhibit C hereto. Section 100-250 requires site plan approval for"permitted" uses with only one exception which is for: ...single-family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, section 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code." 7. According to the building Inspector,the building permit was issued because the greenhouses are permitted under section 100-31(A)(2)(c). Subsection (A)(2) begins with the words, "The following agricultural operations ....". Hence, it is clear from the very language of the subsection under which the Building Inspector granted the Building Permit that the greenhouses are an"agricultural operation" and consequently they do not fall within the exception from site plan review set out at section 100-250 for"single- family home use....and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use ...". The subject building permit was issued for the construction of greenhouses for use in connection with an agricultural operation. Site plan approval was required before the building permit could properly be issued. CONSTRUCTION WAS COMMENCED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT 8. The Building Departments' file shows the construction of the greenhouses was commenced without a building permit. Correspondence dated Juiy 26, 2000, a copy of which is exhibit D hereto, by Mr. Gary J. Fish of the Southold Building Department to Paulette Satur Mueller advises Ms. Mueller that"greenhouses have been erected without first obtaining a Building Permit." 9. Thereafter, an Application for Building Permit, dated August 15, 2000, was submitted to the Southold Town Building Department. A copy of the approved application is exhibit E hereto. The application indicates it was approved on October 4, 2000, the same date the building permit was issued. 10. The Application for Building Permit at item 9 indicates the size of the lot is "Front: 191.16' Rear Depth 299.10' ". In fact,that is not the size of the lot upon which the greenhouses were constructed. A survey entitled "Survey of Property at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,N.Y." and dated February 27, 1997 was in the Building Department's file. A reduced copy of the survey is exhibit F hereto. The survey indicates the greenhouses are not located on the191.16' by 299.10 foot lot which contains various structures and will hereinafter be referred to as the"developed lot". 11. Item 1 of the Application for Building Permit indicates the greenhouses were to be located in the "North Eastern Area of Parcel". However, the greenhouses were not constructed in the North Eastern Area of the developed lot or the North Eastern Area of the undeveloped lot. THE CONSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE FARMLAND COMMITTEE OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12. According to documents obtained from the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department the property surrounding the developed parcel is within the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. Apparently, inclusion of the larger lot in the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program resulted in the creation of two separate tax lot because the areas are taxed differently, i.e., the developed lot is taxed with the development rights in place and the other parcel is taxed or not taxed as the case may be. However, upon inquiry to the Southold Town Planning Board, I was advised there was no site plan approval or site plan application for either lot and the lots had not been subdivided. 13. Ms. Satur applied to the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department for permission to construct greenhouse(s) on the lot that is in the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program. 14. In response to my request for information relative to the greenhouses at issue, Mr. Fedelem of the Suffolk County Department of Planning forwarded to me certain documents including correspondence by the Ms. Satur to the Farmland Committee, dated April 21, 1998, seeking permission to construct the greenhouses and minutes of the April 28, 1998 meeting of the Farmland Committee wherein specfic and limited permission was granted. These documents are exhibit G hereto. 15. Ms. Satur's correspondence, dated April 21, 1998, to Roy Fedelem of the Suffolk County Planning Department requests permission to develop the property with "9,000 sq. ft. of greenhouse space..". In her correspondence, Ms. Satur indicates "Expansion the following year is probable." 16. On the issue of the placement of the greenhouses Ms. Satur states in her April 21, 1998 correspondence: Our desire is to site the greenhouse at either the northwest or southeast end of our property. Even though it will incur more expense to bring water and utilities to either of these ends. it will not be obtrusive at either of these sites. The continued beauty of our property is of utmost importance to us. My husband is an internationally acclaimed chef and we intend to have food critics and writers to our farm. Our farm is to be featured in Food and Wine Magazine this June. 17. The minutes of the Farmland Committee meeting of April 28, 1998 state: Paulette Satur A request was made for a greenhouse as proposed in a letter dated April 21, 1998. A motion was made to approve northwestern location for a temporary greenhouse, subject to local requirements, by Elmer Zeh and seconded by Nate Corwin. Motion carried. 18. I am not aware of any other approval or consideration by the Farmland Committee with regard to greenhouse(s) at issue. In fact,the minutes quoted above, but not Ms. Satur's correspondence, are part of the Southold Town Building Department's file. 19. The construction of the greenhouses are not in accordance with the approval granted by the Farmland Committee of the Suffolk County Planning Department either with respect to the number of structures or the location. POSSIBLE SET BACK VIOLATION 20. It is not possible to determine how far back from the side yard boundary the greenhouses are located. However, it appears from the survey that the greenhouses are in violation of the side yard set back requirements of the Town Code. As to whether these lots are actually one lot or are two lots,the Board is referred to its own Findings, Deliberations and Determination adopted at the regular meeting of June 19, 1997, exhibit H hereto, wherein the Board granted the variance requested with respect to the developed lot and stated"this lot contains a total area of 80,000 sq. ft. ...". This board has recognized the developed lot as a separate lot for zoning purposes and therefore, the greenhouses should be setback the appropriate distance from the side yard or a variance should have been required before the subject building permit was issued. Although the printed portion of the Application for Building Permit states at item 15 "Locate clearly and distinctly ... all set-back dimensions from property lines"neither the application or the survey shows the side yard set-back. Wherefore,the application should be grantee .i` the building permit revoked. . iiei IVIVoe, Daniel C. Ross FORM NO . 3 TOWN OF SOJTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 26821 Z Date OCTOBER 4 , 2000 Permission is hereby granted to: PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER 3705 ALVAHS LA CUTCHOGUE,NY 11935 for : CONSTRUCTION OF (2) AGRICULTURAL GREENHOUSES AS APPLIED FOR. • at premises located at 3705 ALVAHS LA CUTCHOGUE County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 101 Block 0002 Lot No. 024 . 005 pursuant to application dated AUGUST 15, 2000 and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $ 100 . 00 ((->JL • i Autho ized Signature • ORIGINAL Rev. 2/19/98 ARTICLE XXV Site Plan Approval ' • • [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L.No. 1-1989;amended • 5-23-1989 by L.L1.No:`•9-1989] ' § 100-250. Applicability.. , • This Article shall apply to every land use-that is permitted in the Town of Southold except thesingle-family`home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article III, § 100-31A(1), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family residential home use as stated in the Town Code.Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the 'characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open • space or utilities will require site plan approval. In all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. § 100-31. Use regulations. [Amended 3-14-1989 by L.L.No. 3-1989] In A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, deor • designed to be used, in whole or in part,for any usesuteexceptthe following: A. Permitted uses. '(1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. (2) [Amended 5-23-1989 by followin a L.L. No. 8-19891 The g agricultural operations and accessory uses • thereto, including irrigation, provided that there shall be no storage of manure, fertilizer or other odor- or dust-producing substance or use, except spraying and.dusting to protect vegetation, within • , (150 feet of any lot line:- - ;(a) The raising•of field and and orchard farmin garden crops, vineyard g, the maintenance of nurseries and the seasonal' sale. of products •own on the premises.'"(Amended '11-29-1994 by L.L. No. 25-1994; 5-13-1997 by L.L. No. ' 8-1997] , , • -. (b), The keeping, breedin -,-~-` horses, domestic g, raising and training of an ducks)'on lots of 10acrees or ando fowl (except • (c) Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including plastic covered) and other related structures, "provided that such buildings shall conform to the yard requirements for principal buildings. (d) 'The retail sale of local produce from structures of less than 20 square feet floor area shall'be set back at least 10 feet from an ;:lot 5-13-1997 b y line. [Added • :.; y L.L.No. 8-1997] 1 C., . \x`' :FOC \ �. CSG. • Town Hall,53095 Main Roadt tp Fax(516)765-1823 P.O. Box 1179 ; - , Telephone(516)765-1802 Southold,New York 11971-0959 =`,..? t% 4 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 26 , 2000 Paulette Satur Mueller 3705 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Re: Premises : 3705 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue N.Y. Suff.Co Tax Map #1000-101-2-24 . 3 Dear Ms . Mueller: It has been brought to the attention of the Building Department that plastic greenhouses have been erected without first obtaining a Building Permit. According to the Code of the Town of Southold a Building Permit is required before any construction can be undertaken. ' Please contact this office as soon as possible so this matter can be resolved. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation , Respectfully, SOU OLD TOWN BUILDING DEPT. � �v7 Gary J is , Building Inspector GJF:gar (Cert. Mail) U \ BEE SIC • •90 ___.Z.-- , Z MATCN LINE FOR NO SEE EEC N0.09E .EE..0 NO 01 YE EEC MOM ___L—"C WTCH__ UNE w=a I gp� ° % 4:4 4. ST 44jss, Ns# eV ,yy fix •b, '� f �o • roti r s .ry. 4'44> -1 F .' Cr .. ....... ..: s _ \ ')�L' , f ` °Y £; .soy 0 CO \I i ri 41%pp t 2.~ V.,..... /1... 1 0 4. ".. * 1 .4. 1 j` 0yam ` 5 . �Y' I =b.i o ••} 4r o4i.je ‘. .0::''' ,,,EP '4.4P . g.g ....eb 1 % 1 / ,° 1 s aa Fe,' si• 4iik SEZ.; U _Q • O•s ' j f�T =Q •4�. j 6t, ,bhp *II' c� R6.1"v `.� a `0� i6' 4 Ea 4Al•1 0•'[ 4411v111 ,410411* OV 0 4 • „,,s3„, . 1 : illir+04,44,od s, . • ., ..p ... + 1 • / [•0I1 TMCEL.0. 9ix 4 ..••• ,1 .zE we.No T Wel .J> 101.0E-0z1.. 11410 °O s 2P �Y �1 '0 1 •m Q8p —! N.r 1.11. ..rE.1,— ..... • ro' �''ro• o 1¢'l �.ro can iu n•ib:°,.�T1• ro . 9 u 1 r n.•cmc[ ,r 6 O' I rw ur• �.�ro / • • [ wz•. o •” Ni�iaiw:uL.Ins°iei��[[ O / C ..E °IT.: '� O i�r oi�R •~ •\ at e�l•1 101 PA.CEL NO WN RRRC[L NO �1 �pCE Np EEE 6EC NO 10. 1-0x4.1 _ / F011 PIRCEL NO FSE[ 7C,LW lq•pl•MS 1 SEE SEC�0a1�9 _�___LINE MAT" �L LINE M1 1 FOR PMCEL h1. EEE EEC NO 109-01-0101 27 -MSN-.1-7-INE MATCN SEE SEC NO 109 SEEj C NO lOB-O7-00T le[ s —�WTCN Y _ Legend T4••°e.Rh ur Gnry 4r Fl OTMIN LN. _—P--- MM..TR.NLI Lb.--M.—_ SdtlrNlr Lx W 110 �0•o/lu��Th�T1l .a iorlo U r _—..—_R.N..0:11 4r_—d—_ SMItw.lr f3' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK K •N [M a[ TOME JW ITTYLD O N•C�0^�'�T— T'w L. L.P. M LY --L--_edNw © [ Np'�'� �' ...:. .I 9n. S u1 Kamm NOTICE © YNRNJr Lo Lir _=-- V111 .LI.. = _— PP.Dime Lim• _—.P.—EMAN.. ,- OrEAD. law ' -- Ad .RNM ow Fa19E•o armors. y1NTMYNOF�LLTEaTEx SAE OR Real Property Tax Service Agency Y SI 1W v[11a aF "dhie �,.•1 Mot DInI..LN. _-1C[I-- 1•^IN.NIn Lr .—.L. {iEl.l.l..91x1 Nn no W«I...EMw law Ns -- rN[�i ex [[•TwNT p150.1 F11 c[Mn PORTION a THE County Center Riverhead,N Y 11901 M ["'� �•— ,p0 QYI •.Tq Eli[f4 COURT III Y1P 6 PAWNED A 1D1 la lW ee' *la 100D _ -- RM. n,. RTN[ .mart ERITTEN PENMfEOI 6 THE YJLE N FEET, T I P ••p'-s ,M."+''1 �' �— M.LLLF ."""� REAL PROPERTY TAE Mon RCM. _ MERL=nTn.r.IS M. ? P.0-','0.2":7. 1;i-i.t...r '.'" t ;y;L _ 11 I , TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SURVEY ' 1 �}�(, BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHECK �, ,_ AUG 15 2001) TOWN HALL SEPTIC FORM SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 DEC TEL: 765-1802 TRUSTEES l7✓v cr NOTIFY: 2 L� /�/ ~ — _ CALL 7y3.5.-f �Y•'l Examined , 20.... �j R MAIL TO- Approved O_Approved i c'I.Cif , 6c). Permit No. - Q � Disapproved a/c (Bug Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ,20... INSTRUCTIONS • a. This application must be campletely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan stowing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and,giving a detailed description of layout of property mist be drawn on the diagram which is part c this application. c. 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 issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Sur 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 UEREIiY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein descri},ed. -The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in but ing for necessary inspecti'ms. (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) 31o5 ALVA4I`s LA/4E,C4i OGu.E, Nr ItIJS (Mailing address of applicant) i State whether applicant is cf.:nagent, g er, lessee, architect, engineer , , general contractor„ electrician, plumber or buil Ow N�`(L. � . m Name of owner of premises AV.LET� 5AT U. M(.isL [�t. mil) E6e�2.N� rii.tLt_ • (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. • (Nana and-title of corporate officer) guilders License No.” Pl•.nbers License No. Electricians License No. Other 'Trade's License No. I. Location of lard on which proposed work will be done NOge114 C.ASi -JJ AR-E'll CV= fiv Z 3-7o5— pLvAti-:-7 LA CuI CHOGUE House Umber Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .... .4....... Block - Lot 'II'SSubdivision Piled Map No. Lot (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intef ed use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Hoof Fb�.6E/ I ed Fac GRdW1a(s CaS TTT b. Intended use and occupancy . W IfI r • • y . • 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Addition Alteration Repair. ' Removal ..r► ' Demolition Other Work Nei!•?.t1tQOP. 1-A.c?!-?.55 4,1 (Description) 4. Estimated Cost 1°r(3 fee (lo be paid on filing this application) ) 5. If dwelling, nulber of dwelling units Bober of dwelling units on each floor If garage, rxnber of cars ,. 6. If business, canrcial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use F��"1 USE • rer 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front....3 Rear Depth IGO height IV timber of Stories Dimensions of sane structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth height lknber of Stories 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front .JQ Rear Depth Height I S r tuber of Stories q r p l`r 9. Size of lot: From 1 LIG Rear //Depth I�'/v 10. Dale of Purchase I 1�/..1C9.1... Name of Former Owner 1�dfj -j 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated f.t 5u P h41--/ l 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: 13. Will lot be regraded VE.c4ipSu Will excess fill be removed frau premises: YES ( 14. Names of O.+ner of premises 1.A4u.E. �/ ru`""lyddress .a705-$41/1443�lhC4OG Phone No.�,3q-(129 i Pare of Architect ' Address Phone No. Name of Contractor) Address Rhone No. 15. - Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO *IF YES, ScUIIlQD TOWN Tl JSILES PERMIT MAY BE RE(XJIBE. I - PLOT DIAGRAM r Locate clears?), and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions r Fran property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed; and show street names arxl indicate• whether interior or cornerilot. QCT n„r••._n nem_'..0.:En APP fOVED AS NOTED v DATE:IvI� `G B.P.#'`- Jc be,„ C ,,,,� 1 ! ' FEE: l Vv. BY: TPA TAT „_ l't�` 111 , NOTIFY BUILDING D 'AR D'" 41' 0,10(4''' 1'� '' 765-1802 9 AM TO 4 PM FOR THE •QA C OCCUPANC I,OR '` ' I 1. FOUFOLLOWNDATION NG INSPECTIONS: REQUIRED FOR POURED CONCRETE PQ-s USE E I S UNLAWFUL 2. ROUGH - FRAMNG & PLUMBING j is tQUT CERTIFICATE 3. FINAL- CONSTRUCTION MUST OCCUPANCY BE COMPLETE FOR C.O. AU.. CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET ' I THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE N.Y. STATE CONSTRUCTION & ENERGY CODES. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR N ci' DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ERRORS SfME OF M-34 YORK, DESIGN OR CONS I RUC)iON Eh,rung IY OF (-4,47-4-1D LK' Ss ' .). Cu.)-1,-de--.- �\�^ �r��� r.r. C ''''."114''' '''- 4iP4 'm'f.ti.. being duly sworn, deposes and says thatshe is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, n 1 .511e i s the / Ao. (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) ' of said owner or owners,'I and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and Lo make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be peirforned in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before Fre this 0144.y.(k. L.'day of• .. ;,;YO O... Notary Publi i ' "l- 4..,,..6-..,--ZZ----E AMY M.B ••• Homy BOU'C7�Yuck (Signature or ,lican No.Qualified In Suffolk Commission ExpireaiFebruary ,T2560 , :} '-^' ��, - P►�� The locations of wells and cssspoo/t �z�< .;c, \ shown hereon are from field observoAons l'.'.••'• ` t{;F �.. • � and or from data obtained from others. OtiX g"t� 4,�5�, rtk- CONTOUR LINES AND ELEVATIONS •r•y' , ras`ti,,fir k,;u' - A ARE REFERENCED TO THE FIVE ..--7‘,•1_,-• `'- 114'..1:34° ,./ 9 0� ("" EASTERN TOWNS TOPOGRAPHIC 2 :': ' e a .� aIAPs . .3:: 9 tk • ,!'•.Wit,r:tt V-mt r ix I �° T'i f�' Np b Q _.,„e- 4 ... . „,f "'7,, :.--4t.t.ov. ."s,,- ', ' -- ,. �,!•Jd, - ._ ,_ `^ _ . cep >, • ,. .... _ • irk ' . l'i •t •51.1,' Nor 70 v O Qs N 6 _on Of th es 11. 0 0O el— S. 4°if �P� TA ov- • SUR VE Y OF /w FadR dM&7e ST.ef�sRpS FOR APPROVALPROPERT Y .0 ONSTRbCTION Ce susalrAcE SEWAGE AT CUTCHQGUE OISPOSAL sryr s cone kFAMIL iSwr1 eV s perm,to•co,N„.,.the TOWN OF SOCATHOL® SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY. • 1000- 101-02-245 Scale: 1"= 50' �" Feb. 27, 1997 CERi#imo' .64 EBERHARO MULLER Mw 24/997 (wei,,r e P3) • PAULrETTE,SATUR,MULLER J�� MEBSTET2rBANK'• 1G,1997 (prey wet/ T sn0r• �arlf 'COMMONWEALTH LAM) TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY RH97,0159 • ,`REArar 80,000,rsq'/t, T. • i °rt.11•,,,�,,,ver,:.„, . t. cll. ,it/'/ ;;rl + , THE cYA9£.STASIPEY "A V LAw °'�oN`�kAu'j”,01'� ,' .vALD,FQT,TNs SAL of Y s 1 'j ^• Y.S. LIC. NO. 496/8 ON COBS BEAR THE a1�"1rCSSEO SEAL Of THE St-RVEYpT V M •tsomnrct r£s Ber s trE A K' P:CON/ 7% EY0 RS P.C. LLY To,taro,:METH SAIO LAM THE TER 4d ALTERED Dr- . B6x 929 -.. ZED BY,ANY,AAD,ALL SL wE'TORS LMUZ.,1G A CMY • 74,SLRVEYO/r's.K4r. Tarts-SUCH AS Y�t9"ECTED•AN7 1� Cf ' •RA`1 ` ��;" .TREET O-OATS-TARE,NOT,N COArL{4NC£MTH THE LAY, Sa mnep �r • 1I971 OCT-2E-2000 15:55 Sc PLANNING DEFT P.01 Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 .Hauppauge, NY .11788-0099 (631) 853-5190 Fax: (631) 853-4044 j FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: 'K O 5 S '` - From: 00,44/ F--eAC(Gt1( Date: I • Subject: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE .PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU 1*NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (631) 853-5190. Message: •�.� C 5 1 ' Q )) d de A. &o. G ,..P�-(.P)'`j Q GCC -i O �`Z t � � r ` : ••., 212 7526$$91 51673- �-• 2'19 • PAULETTE SATURJ SATUR FARMS 5 phfax 512 734-0919 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, NY 1193 April 21, 19% PAGE 1 OF 1 TO:Roy Fedelerrt/Suffolk County Farmland Committee RE: Request for Approval.for Greenhouse • ffolk County Farmland I am the new owner of property which falls within D 1Q1he �2 24.(?, 24.n Cutchogttc,evel- opment Rights Program, Tax Map Designation Town of Southold. I am looking for approval for a greenhouse. My business is, growing of organic specialty produce--baby gr spinach, wholesalers hins, • herbs, heirlooril tomatoes:etc for direct sale to restaurants andproduce - Manhattan. l do no retail sales from my farm. In order to supply my restaurant accounts throughout the year,itft s necessary for me to space continue yearround in greenhouses. I will need at least 9000 sqgreenhouse to continue my business this fall through winter.Expansion the followinglear is'prob- able.l started!,my farm business in January of 1998, and at present have 1 full-time, year- round employee and will hire up to five seasonal workers this year. ns are ed. Our farm.haslian attached 2 acre parcel �thereno place farmhouse e far zthis gregreenhouseto be Because of the long shadoTh's castby the barter sited on the 2 acre parcel. ur Our desire is to site the grOenhousc at either tense to bring water and utilities tohe northwest or southeast end of oeither of property.Even though it will incur more p these ends, its will not be obtrusive at either of theseites n internationallyThe otuedbeauty acclaimed chef our property is of upmost importance to us.My husband ichef and we intend to have food critics and writers to our farm. Our farm is to be fea- tured in Food. and Wine Magazine this June. The structure I am intending to build will be gutter-connected, withf 3 double i poly, air inflated roof, and polycarbonate sides. The poly has a lifespan years, though can be removed within a day, should remain up for its lifespan for economical and environmental reasons.Run-off should not be a problem as my farm is organic. Thank you for your consideration of my situation. Sincerely yours, 1 Paulette Satur . . MINUTES OF FARMLAND CO mr-rr :.E Suffolk County Pluming Department Date: April 28, 1998 - Present:--Stephen-M:-Jones, Chairman - - -- — Elmer Zeh(Brookhaven) Antony Brand,Jr., (Huntington) William Rutkoskc(Islip) Charlie Scheer(At-Large) Dan Fricke(At-Large) Albert Schmitt(At-Large) Joseph Krukowrski(Southold) Albert Kilb,Jr. (Shelter Island) Lee Foster(Southampton) NateCotwin(alt-Large) Roy Dragotta, Esq,. Bureau Chief, Municipal Svcs. Jacob Rottkam (Riverhead) Betty,Schmitt, S.C. Division of Real Estate Roy Fedelem,S.C.Dept.of Planning Guests: Dick Ryan,Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee . Paulette Satur Fred Lee Anthony Caggiano • Kenneth R. Balloto Absent: BrianIZltani(Babylon) Mark Zaweski(At-Large) Russell Bamett(Smithtown) `' _ Shirley Rilcer(At-Large) - , Teri Altar,S.C.Division of Real Estate Bei Orlowski,Jr. (At-Large) William Sanok,iCornell Cooperative Extensive Jenny Kohn,S.C. Dept. of Law Joseph Gergela,:L.L Farm Bureau • • The regular meeting of the Farmland Committee was celled to order by the Chairman,Stephen Jones, at 6:00 p.m. in the Arthur Kunz Library on the 4th Floor in the H. Lee Dennison Building, Htiuppauge,l N.Y. I •• • • Fred Lee(Sang Lea Farms)-Permission to a uild Greenhouses • Mr, Lee is asking for approval to build two(2) additional greenhouses as well as approval for the existing greenhouses. The new temporary greenhouses will be 30' by 196'hoop houses, • covered year round for vegetable 4rowth. They are approximately 460°beck from the road. Ma.Lee would also Iike approval to build a farm stand close to the road. Tony Brand made motion to approve the farm:stand, two (2) new greenhouses, existing greenhouses, accorded by Jacob Rottkamp,subject to local regulations. Motion carried. • Paulette Settsr A request waS made for a greenhouse as proposed in a letter dated April 21. 199g. A motion was made to'approve Northwestern location for a temporary greenhouse,subject to local requirements, Eby Elmer Zeh and seconded by Nate Corwin. h o err carried. • • Jack Weiskott Held off until 'next meeting. No representation or information available. Suffolk County Farssland Preservation Partnership Program The Suffolk County Exee. has received funding from the Legislature in December for the first S5 million for Larid Preserirtuion P 'ah a'hip. It is a 50-50 program where the County can make funds,go further and some of the 'towns have been active with local bond issues to acquire development rights.-'Ttte'Nevis of$out1i'ipton is requesting approval for parme ship arrangements for two (2) farms which are subject to the approval of the Farmland Committee. The Town has submitted a resolution for their half of the partnership which will then go to the County Legislature. Lee Foster suggested swift action.. One of the parcels.Joshua's Place(17.3 ate)has already been approved by the Committee and the other is a 35.5 acre parcel which will be discussed later. The Town of Southold is also interested in teaming up with the County on the Parawship Program. The County Executive has put in for another SS million for this year plus an increase from S1.5 million up to$5 million for the annual purchase of development rights. State and Federal Foal ds • Roy Fedelem spates that We will be getting another check for$LS million from the State for the first application and they have just received approval for$759,000 for the second round. We should be able to apply, for this iri a few months. They have put out a neer -P for the Sty and Federal funds which we will be pc ning in applications. The State application is due June 3 and the Federal is due June 10.,Steve Jones added that when they got the letter back from the State it was basically the list that th'e Farmland Committee approved at the July and October meetings of last year. less the horse fads and a few smell;one acre farms. Roy Dragoon said the County'Exec. is very serious aboitfadvancing these programs and is personally engaged in this issue. Congressman • Forbes is on the Appropriations Committee,however in order to get appropriations,the program has to be first authorized by the Congress. The current federal farmlands program runs out the end of I ! APPEALS BOARD MME`•1BERS VFFOL,f_- c-= Southold Town Hall • Gerard R Goehringer. Chairman J71, - • 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen 'o • P.O. Box 1179 James Dimzio, Jr. ar.;: 1 . ,? • Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 y s Telephone (516) 765-1809 Lydia A.Tortora _ 1 p Maureen C. Os'terrnaun BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION ADOPTED AT REGULAR MEE'1'INNG OF JUN1', 19, 1997 Appl. No. 4484 - EBERHARD MUFTILER PARCEL 1000-101-2-24.5 STREET & LOCALITY: 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue 'DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: June 19, 1997 FINDINGS (PROPERTY FACTS) : DESCRIPTION: This property is located in an A-C Agricultural- Conservation Zone District, being situate on the westerly side of Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, with 262.88 ft. of road frontage. This lot contains a total: area of 80,000 sq. ft. as depicted on. the Febru- ary 27, 1997 survey map and is improved with an existing dwelling structure and five accessory buildings. BASIS OF APPEAL: Building Inspector's Action of Disapproval dated April 28, 1997;' Article III, Section. 100-33. AREA VARIANCE Ri:l4IEF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT: For approval of the location of a new dwelling to the rear of all existing accessory buildings, leaving a front yard location for the accessory buildings. REASONS FOR ;BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because construction of a new single-family residence in this location will be an improvement to the property and neighborhood and at the same time preserve the historic value of the accessory farm buildings. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the proposed house is situated in a manner to provide maximum use of the remaining property for farming. (3) The requested area variance is not substantial in relation to the location of farm complexeds built prior to the enactment of zoning. -4!'• q : s 1 t�•';, n ;,I,=k;+••v• J a:} yy{{rif� •�: !)�, + �;�'`•.�' •tb,� f T G, its Iii• ' I fi :t.4.:�.c1'!'•'��f�3.r" �N.at'3!',�� ��! " lY _�1�..'•L4 Y.. f.�{ r .Hi'if; 1 > ,;ih� 'tia yv, f'il,-�-,•.�%rt:?ia'��' c •'• gym.;,, ,.'�,4i.;4 ..b�y,.l � .ir •;,��pp atn: ' si "s �. atyc..�.;r\.;, / `"r.rjtt.p v.� {r •N�-'t' .r S.L�Rrµ .�'•er.`-• i,,' •S •it l �+"/. s�Z�l••.4J,}/L t:OYIQ��C;y Gf,���$:��T��� •••�� � .^.�I.i�• Y• 1"1 � ,.S' ..f nYY`.-�N•:, ..•� . • ' . _ , i Page 2 - June 119, 1997 Appl. #4484: 1000-101-2-24.5 (Mueller) Southold Town; Board of Appeals (4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the variance request is minimal. (5) The situation has not been self-created because the cottage and accessory structures were constructed prior to the ,enactment of zoning. (6) This action is the minimum that the Board deems necessary and adequate and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by ' Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as applied, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND_TION: Upon completion of the new single-family residence and prior to issuance of a 'Certificate of Occupancy for same, the existing cottage shall be converted to an accessory structure. In no event shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such. VOTE OF TOE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS DOYEN, DINIZIO, TORTOR?,, CSI'TERMANN, and GOEHRINGER. This resolution was unanimousl ' ed. ' /RESOLUTION ADOPTED 6/, 9/97 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN • *****4c** ****%RFK*T**** Actions.97/10172-24.5 • %7.. ,,• 5T'0.Qw ' YJLIAA',K•�7:j":.:tiv ^• cr .*•&:••rv ,.+r ""4 0.4r •, k '>-e..- d,1M, el pyr� 3 t1.�4- ` • tti„,`{, .A_}t,','a;;c,r,.' '"' • ° ",`is � i - ' • 4 . tTY04tttP,• ' Rl+• ti J�Y�•.71r•�.y�� i,-..• .,_ ‘..t.,,; ,:_____.__:___r..--•--L--"'"" - 42",,.., 12066PC8I 4,8 ':,:5 REAL ESTATE — 3 . .. 12 . Li , -, , RE ..eyCEl.r.,D, — • RECORDED, ,Numberpf pages , ,, ; TORRENS ' - AUG 2 9 2000 20110 AUG 2 9 PM L : Q8 i Serial#'' ' - • ‘ ' „ . . TRANSFER TAX . EDWARD P.ROMAINE ., SUFFOLKSUFCLERK OF F,OLK COUNTY' Certificate# COUNTY , Prior Ctf.#:••, ,' -..1' i = ,- , • 4, .':.i,:.;! - - ' 420,9 1 __ Deed/Mortgage Instrument Deed/Mortgage Tax Stamp _ Recording/Filing Stamps , 4 I ',— .: - 1 • . FEES 9 —' Page/Filing Fee I , , , Mortgage Amt Handling n - I.Basic Tax 1 TP-584 , 2.Additional Tax P 1 • Notation " _ Sub Total . d _-- EA-52 17(County) 0-- ..' Sub Total ' / ' Spec./Assit. Or , EA-5217(State) ' -- , •Spec./Add. R.P.T.S.A. I513° ' 0 e .10 9ii, % - ' -- TOT.MTG.TAX ' ' . 14% ' ts Dual Town .•:,:/' Dual County Comm.'of Ed. '-5,00 t; . ' .-' ' ,-41,:. •,. i• ., r;., '' Held for Apportionment Affidavit • .'1/4-4•,, ,t4/4,/ , ,• Transfer Tax ,g211, ..‘ . --..,,..' :., ,- -• • '-....44..4.•>•..‘ .; " - '' '7,' •- ' ' -4,.., . ykcig-,t7 ,... , -- -:i Mansion Tait _Certified Copy ,,i:-.'.e..: ,-, • : 7-60-R. ' - ,,.1-,.- '_'• , , 1-7,,,;. . ' -: ,,S 1 -', • ..-“rE..- •< , --.,-,. ,Thepropertycovered.by this mortgage is or "'e -1,.128.Y *lei:Copy . s..- '•it' • •'('I'''411-' - 'S •• t' 'w-fill).e improved by,a one or two family d aCI°Sure Sub Total s •:----•,‘- ;,,i ; 4 '0.-., . , ," dwellingonly. ma/real/meYES or NO , • Other -'- • '1 -' -GRAND TOTAL 0' .., ''.--7,• — '-: iIf NO,see appropriate'tax clause on page# of this instrument. ...ti • ! ,,, '.. ; Alp ,.•. , , .-- . ., , • Vs:., - Ifeil'PrOpertiTak ServiceAgenCykV.erification . . ., ,:..:.1 .6', Community Preservation Fund . Dist. 1 Section B lock Lot , Ciinsideration Amount $ ..50/°DO •,-.:;,,. • 11:144461)1F1311(Q"'"Yil . , . - 1 , st . / 9P •4, i o a.(:),0 - ,c) -,/,, 0---0 opi_ap, „ CPF Tax Due 711— -7 -•- . • - '-''.' .•:."..--7( :"'.EC.EIVED Impoovd---21./ , e • . • 0 ,• • ' _ , • -''S ' • Inik"( Va ant Land Satisfactions/DischaIrges/Releases:List Property-Owners Mailing Address AUG 2 9 2600 TIj / RECORD&'RETURN TO: , COMMUNITY TT -- 1-/-t/;_i. •-\-7e,s ',. 5,6 - : .-PREsERy4knoN .. _. ' • j q5-) , - 1 E Title-Company Informationi Co. , I 1 Title# "' 9 ' - :-Sliff0101114 'u.'.Recordiri it:,86Etidorsernent Pate- . t This page forms part of the attached: 1a.t,i.... - - .. ."'''1._ . made by:: ("") (SPECIFY-TYPE'OF IICISTRUMENT) . . , . , ct.a---YAL-RatrIA • The,!premisesteTn)is;s4wite ;in , . „' -Yikt.01.121.,A:' Okiji_SAIr\-' SUFFOLK COIJNTY,'NEW YORK. TO In the Township of (-.5n),0-44,1. 0 t 6( - ,-POjeCLA.— 'YVV.c.-1112_0(0-6-._. In the VILLAGE •--ylkc_-7Lauft,(0_41-0, or HP:/LET of T.- BOXES 5 THRU 9 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN BLACK"'''ONLY PRIOR TO RECORDING OR FILING. • .--, f 0 ``• LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS INSTRUMENT'SHOULD BE USED BY L'AWYERS'ONL-Y- �7aFj �cb. 8'-1 FOD �' �� THIS INDENTURE,mad2 thet��'da`y of August,2000, BETWEEN , •. ' • , MAUREEN,GRIFFIN,residing at•1435 Woodcliff:Drive, Mattituck,New York,and PATRICIAt'lcNAMARA,residing at 427 Mansfield'Avenue,Plainedge, New York, } as soleidistributees of the estate of Anna P. Langner,'deceased, •,, party of the first part;and'. t. JAMES Z\—.- MARA-and PATRICIA M NAMARA;husband,and wife,residing at , , (�^J/. ,., -` ' • '-` 427'Mansfield'Av`entie,'Plainedge,New York,"' • ;.. ' • -party of the second part, - "> :,:) •'-:,i,. ,.k r.4 -;? ;1',i e ' ". WITNESSETH'that;tlie,p, +of the first-part,in,consideration,of fi 'thousand dollars($50,000.00)and -,,• N.ftY fty , ,. other good:and valuable consideration paid bytlieiparty=of=the second'part;does;hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part,the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain,plot,piece qr parcel of land,with the buildings,and-improvements thereon erected,situate, lying and,being;atfCutchogue Town,of;Southold;Countysof,Suffolk,and:State'of New-York;.bounded and described as follows.' • ' ' BEGINNING at an iron pipe set in_the easterly line of Alvah's Lane at the northwest corner of lands of . William T.Remskiand the southwest corner of premises about to be described; RUNNING THENCE north32•degrees 30.minutes,west,100;00 feetalong;the easterly,line-of•Alvah's Lane •• • ;,to;-�an iron'pipe,and'lands�now.orforgierly;of Walter;Gatz;; _t'{; ' .:i,:-.420',.,-.2.,..f: ,-, `'' , - .. i _..' ri': 'A',•?'1::?:1;'l'J'f,`7 i'•-•`..•', .. • .43 „ ±'",: .,,.....H, T... 1i r'.t';i,;..,L.;(t•,t••;,. ,4.--•i?,- t, 1 RUNNING THENCE north 60'degees 44 minutes east along-said lands now or formerly-of Walter Gatz, ------ 160.00 feet to a concrete monument, 10a ,------ RUNNING THENCE'south'32 degrees',30 minutes' east,100,00 feet.siill along lands of Walter Gatz to an iron pipe and lands'now or formerly of William T.Remski;. , ;• ,,, ,;I ..r:. r.;1 ,Pt ,• '••,.,:1,tt.iSt" 3 c. ttu.,, t, RUNNING THENCE„ south 60 degrees 44 minutes west,160:00 feet along said lands of William T.Remski MJ\ to the easterly side of Alvah's Lane at the point or place of BEGINNING. � BEING AND.INTENDED,TO BE the-same premises conveyed,totEdward V.Langner and Anna Langner, his wife,both now'deceased,7by.deeds'•dated 04/23/1973 and:recorded;05/i 7/1973, n=Liber 7400 page 36 �„., • and dated'1'0/11/1973 and'recorded 10%16/1973 in Liber 751'0 page 19, 'z:13-:-11,..3=3_1A6:JO::''vi �,-V ..t - '- - _ ' ' .. ,, • f ', ';---,•••••11.'!,” i'.. ; i; TOGETHER with all right,title and interest,if any,of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described'premises`to'the center lines thereof;TOGETHER-with the appurtenances and ,,F all the estate and rights of„ytle party,of the first part in and to said premises;TO HAVE AND TO•HOLD the premises herein granted:unto;the party of'the second part,the heirs,or.successors and assigns of the party of the second part,forever. AND the party of the first'part'covenants that the party of the first,part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises•have been encumbered in any;way;whatever;except as•aforesaid.=--;-•=: •. :- :.••,.t-p'-45=,;,;:• 0,,-':,_-,,,1%.*:�'q.:'c1'.-..`.:I,,C ' :,,: 7 AND the party of the first part;in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law,covenants that the party of the first part will receive,the„consideration for this conveyance and.will hold the right to receiv_e'„such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of-paying the,cost of'the improvernent;and will apply the same first to.the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the'total of • the same for any other purpose.The word"party"shall be construed'as-if it read"parties"when ever the , sense of this indenture so requires , ., _ __ . - •--_ . - IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written - ' • f'-- ^,p,•^,7Yl,V}5,,:1:',`''•Y•i , , •-4...•:•11-n!,::;-,••?,:,;!~ .. ___ _ _._ _ •_ - i • i , IN PRESENCE OF: ali/i M EEN GRIT N",* -, PATRICIA`cNAMARA • A. , ' Standard N.Y.B T.U.Form 8002-Bargain and Sale Deed,with Covenant against Grantor's Acts-Uniform Acknowledgment Form 3290 f70fare.r.7a.,K.bi,G lYL.I.:rIck'4N••4Cw+ao..m+.-.....1m,..,=.w..,...,r ce..1.,,,.-.... .. ....._:....... ...... .....r.w�.a...cw.. .n_...�-.......e.,.w,.a.na._..�..-...-..... ,..a... .,. ,� I _ fib• , t / .,., 4` A 9� O z I rb .: tip. ��P �6o• rna is • 6N�, �O p� N. / Z 9r 5S , rOo \ f r� P ° c ,9r .� �� / 0>> • . r .57 t' r�? i.. 5.1 cp6. 2.OA �8 `1 9Gq S .:h r99 aro tis, / r, 9 61,/ 5.3 J° �� 14.6A ..1� TOWN OF SOUTI'iOLD • I t (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) • .pA i w I .,N:,...A? °r , • A • NI . 9s FOR PCL. NO. SEE SEC. N0. 101-02-024.6 Ns 4s `a , : C. T-1 f G i /1> . I U) t't I k‘� P ItI 1 -•,.•,•--.:.• t.,Tt4-4y'''•..-..,'.:,.;',.,',,;.•'i-..d.o,t4;,.,',1.„:.... '.4s.lx.'.:",'ff-•:....,:_;-,....•.n..z...=, .,....;•,;:.:•.,.,,r,,.....k..•,:-,...,:-:.::-•ts:..v.;:-'-.,':iV.-:I•-,-••;•.••..c„-..s.c..:,....,4...,...?.::„...1...z,..s-,-:;s„.,.,..V,.:hit,e:-.,-s,r.:.,.....:.,-,..:.•,,•:,,s,,,!i-:-,;.0:0.-4,4--••.•,,•,%::1p.A1.',T.4,,,.,':s-11.:..-...'.s,,y.,•:....".,:,:,•'''-A",.-•.'s-. -,...;.,4.„0-.-i.;i••.',•.•- ai,•••,•',",h,i',F.,', ',''',--.,-,:"...•/',"'.0•''•:-.:.•,'•'.'-'K.'',,4-':5.A-'%`,1.';`,`./.,.4.,,.•,,,,1,,,-,•..s7e.:.7,'.^-'7-• '..•:.:::%!:.:'.7-?•,S*;b4-Er7.4711 .C...151::::;:, :; '..'-' ''...A." ?:' tfif:iitl.;'gr.4••••:..:',5:1. : ' -:.:.'':'''''':'"':.:4;'0','..-:,5!.,i'''!"-:,: ;:::'-'-''.-• ..-Z4:;:i.i':-:%:t.'.1§:4A3g6:i. :...11-..-. m%'7,•zii . :.4,.. t.i..,,,..i.., . ....: .._,.,:-.....4C.:7:%:•,1,. .. .:::'.1::'-,----'.;;45,,.':z1tv f<4,-.`f.7.0,-,,.k:'?-••,:.,:re.•'-i'.- ' '.. .."'0..;,.-..;jz:/A7-7%':4•41,b0f1.,-P.:f•':'•-•-•'';';',',,**7:1i-z??'.-- .•''').:•-•,-g:. • •;,.1,,::,--.--;;.:..• •-fft-;;;.;•.,f,.,',,,. "!;`.c.,:,- :,;,:'..,(:---,..,:i•i;-`:•:?-1::7,-,',":',Y.- -.:‘'',.::.:!...g.';' "?..-.3'.‘,',:,!^..i7;:',`"-F--. , ,'-:-...;.*:7"---•-..,;!=%5.Y.:.4-i'e:44%-r.c';-4,•-e.,'teiz..,.,;:?-t. .)::-... •'fF,"':':'..::-...• -•,--:,-,:, .:;•,•'•:!:.,..:-.;i:.•-.';e1-':.:'a---'*..i:.•.,•.4:7,-.,:-.. ,;:•i.;;•.::•,.,y.:fi.• i?..:,.---...-.-:;:-.;:t:';,-..-:....,:.,•::_•>•:i7i;-:,i.,-,•••!....'....;,-.:?;,,...'--:,:,,,I.,-,•:.:;-,...-..-,-.•:.,••:',,,f,•,f;-.,:i?-• -,,,,.,1i.F3F-•,:•. . .c.;;::-•-,:.-:.•;•-.,,,,.:-..,..,.:;•::,.:,_•.„•,,,:,,,:4,..c,„•,.- -..f,,•,,;,::: :,-•-,.. ..:•,,,i•". .f1F?7:-...::: -,.. .::••:;'..,A.•:,-.t;,-; - .:..'.. .1•::,,'", ..:.-.•i:i?-42:••:-;--..7:::'/...:.-.;,-..•:'•:,7.:•-3,.`4-.1 .:,."4.'.:,....---z::::-.,.,:i•:•:-.."-..:::•7' .•••••••:..:':, •.• ,.1.1.:,, .,i".:: :?,•::'•••./,;': ',,•'' .';;•,,13..-'4'... •:...,:,,•''...,-",-•:;;.:''.'I't:•'':';..,-',r,;:i-,::;.•.•;,'•:;:•,..... .:..,.,..1,:',..f.:,1".1•4:-•••••:•,,:,.;.: : ''..,••••,-r,".•:..,:.•-?: ,,z..;.......,-.:,1••-. .1•:::. , :r...5..:.:., . ,:i'••',..:'4'4;•fi.' '••••S'....F;.'1:-•'•-?•%,:'''';'2•Z*,;;;F>:.--.-,,,,i:•,..1.••:•':':;.;•t:':•• •••:-j:'‘,1;!;.:.'•....t:f.'.•:•;.:••.:5•Lf:.L. ..",;••-.-•-•:•1,,:-•••••;e'41..” .-..,,,,,.....:::„..;•:.,„„--••••••.,,,"2".•,,,, , .-•'',.:;.',„,..';,..n..i,, .Z.',,:•.,.;!23:.,,,:,;(;„,•p,•.Vil7,,t-!..:,.:.,,..::,-.,„exl..".:..;.....:,:1':•:••-.•'-''• .2:„.• •';'.•••!- ''.1.;-a'it4.7'•• ''1.1.7. .;:'i .-- -,f,:e.,,•,:,...",.•••••`::.1. -..-.,....,...,••••...,.;' L. •-,;-:':!.^7*-'''" ' . . .,..i. .... ,'• " . .. .3;..--1,1: .: ,• ',". •-•,:i5r..., .t ....NV,47; , "„•';','• ,..,•:' •,:„,,•,'^ 5- - •'-' '''.-••••,.'-,''.:,*.' . • ;1.7 '•••:':, '''- - 1"tpr%,..' .• ?.--. -;',-.'.:','.''.'t''.... .,,:, .:'1:. 4;.'•:sfs4,4••. .1:: ..:, ...:'• •:. • - ••''':.• •':f ,•••vi. ':•: .' ..'",ts•.;-•:' - t:s s•sts:s.ck` :::'-,%.:1;'s. s- • •'.... 1•1='f--:U.: .••ess-:-' •'••;•.• ..•-:'.:••-"^e40i.5.,,..:: •".,,,,:*11 . .'s ; . - '. . ••::::.'Vt....,:,.:4-': •••••si.: . . :.A.„5.','' .:,.,......s.,:;_s, ,,..:„.4'.;.;..i. i_. . ../.2' •,,-er.:::.,...-4,,. •-;.:;7:..s,•ml.•,•• ''.:E.:'• ';',' ••e;s1„*.;,:r. ,,,.;,.., i s.,, ..;,.. .., . -:..,,,;1;.....:!,,,. s„.., •• . . !es,s::,. ,s,.. ....:,-„t r.., ..4....-s,e.g..-.. ;.- ..-.A,......, -km.''.'.." .11:srg---- • •e :_ -IL. .zs.".,;=4,-s., : -•*.A's:". s•,.-_, s•ss •s: ' :',!::':!..s....;? . --:' " .',.• . ' :___'-,.1-,,;t,. ''.''-..."-;'--`,..,....;.1!..:C.;...`..:...............,........ ..-...,!..i.- 41:...:--;.:;.%-7.4.?:L.....;,;7.--,,...-..-t..!,--;',,,,,..i5,. .. ,i'.;,1,5-,--....t."-"y.....,--.-...- . -5' --:•,••:....•,-.7.:-.-‘'''----;.--;:.•7.:"--:',--:-":::777,-.--..7-••7z'.z::,-;".,-.,:".--:...,•-..'f.-;i...,,,:',.:.-••.,•:;-:-.,:JA.- ...,...,„,.,,,i,-;.!.:::.•;:f 0,-...4".7.1".4:i;•.•:---;.•,-.:•:: ::•.,....';''.;;;.,.:.•. 7,,.!..“..g,':.:.'..:-'•..V.,:;;:;:,.:..-.-.--:-.-:"...--:••••.;-..!...;t:;;;,!..?.:.•,•-- ::',.;'.:•'i:-..8:•'•IZf.:''h"..:.--", ";F,:.;:?:'-::-.•'•:-;':-:.:•.•-;-'..;; n:".•1-;'1":'- ',.:-''.,!'_•:.--.::':'!,•.'.i'-;:'•-• :':'.%)e•:•::,.:::?.-1'12.:Mikr•i_-'c-,-7,.-1:'•••••••':•:'.,•,•?7,i27....,..:0' ',". ::.::•.;".,'.•.'•,..-•:';',,..:'-.'•:•:,..-..:•:.7.'"..•::',"••:-",..,:ff....;'-i•;,,t,;"•.,:•',,---:::i.%)f:;..);.,_;.',-:-•,:.i':.,;;:.-2:•.,•,..;.',i,..:• ,-,;;.<'.. s.,:.:--,..:.-,-.f.-.e.-...7.4.1?..;A:•.‘7,..:ig-..E';,•,:.;';...,..i.F....;i5T.,;;;..:4:1',.:..- :-..;...a.-,-,..,.......;:.4.,fepx,;:i.?:,.p:-.,,', .....,,,'.....i :-4,.•••-iii10-n"..... ..'..,;;;•.'.--.'-.•••••-•;:'..,:-:v.-:',...i.:.'.',..."-s•••:-'.."--',..-•,,::i.":t-',>.'.....'-, :-''.'..'c''.r.:i•e::::-.fi''.•-•-iX••,,!.:..,-.:',.",If.: 1,-...,-,•:4•,:.:',::'::.,:•-i07,;7:7-•47..,;!•..q...1:,..!,.;'..,•.,7.,,,.;; ;-....;-;,'i-.-'.3i.ri-c.;:::;::::-...-.r.'..';'.:.--:-.-:-Z'f':.%`::?.:',•.-14,1.- ',--.-7.-'''''''..,-..;1-:.'-'-''41::'''':-:-•'-',‘•.--.1•1-‘:•-:-i`•-•k-;-•'''''''' .zw• ' :-.Z:.:,3Z'',-Il'iTiV,::4;ii",:5g.r.4,4=',:i• -.1•5,1'._il., ..A-k-IA.P. ..-.V.,'.?1-,,,•Z4141Ceili-i,Vi ?'',...(i'AP-'i,.:WiLl;li '-..-:7::a--•-•••:-.--'-'1!:-'2.:::: ',...:PE-.-k--' .1.1.1•-i-Z0.4.,14'-7711I:',A8A4:•:-.5.4•V.,,-'3i;A:•,-'0•;ii'ye,:46;",,aqi"i'''',!«..110;:`AV ",i '''It'V''''''f'''''6.3-.'"'"-14eri`,:Ilk 1---..-.:,,,,-.1, • ,:-, 1."-:::•.4.:',.-:''.'04;..f.':.4;tue,• '''' '','1''''''''7''r-'''t.4 .. .4. 0.,,,*-.,::: ,,,,,.4; .-4-•".1,,,,N= .f,,,nr„,i,4,4041.-,771„ g,'2,-;,175::4 :, '''-j4-,,,'•:.:41'4..: C'''''',-t. •' .-1'-='',:': ,.:;,,,,...:v.:...,.-,,,-••-• ..0.L.,'''': ..37'.."k"k,..4,P.3''..-4`'-k-...Ni14', ...k,..tw' e. '''`.is s X,r''''-'4.+,. .I,,. •..,..- -, .;„...... ..- .24- .-' ^- l'-''L.i.:'''''4'1:::'ilqe'tglik411'''''iV'V''''''VAIL4:1.,;1'''.4.•.1.V':,..04.:','..'AtP1:'S.1.....1'''I*..,''. ''.4'..t'.!V 2241,1'.?..-....I.\.:---„d.: 4..,%.,"" !/•,,,-..7=:-..`f'I/ .-, ,„ .c,%,,,k ,,,-,,Vie.V."•: •.". .'•'. '",-,• • ''".0..42. •.-•--;!,--..-•••'..• --I--••••1 ' q -;;;,/,' .,;" t-• , ,:,c.,-,, ,,,, ./-..,...,... • 't'4,14:klff„Z-,42;re,'-'-'•'l',5.,1-..1,1''';', 5!-.1.A;lifaT.Zr.2,Te:.-1q4.-iTer, ... ..' ,- , __J --: • - - „ „ , i-71:',- ;',(1t4T17;:q-4P4-1 -z,-.-,- •-- ' ' -'-ri'lz•'',..w.-•,..,7,,...th.1,. •• ...,. ,., , , ', , _ 4.:----,,,,o.tr:;',,,;•;,-. c' ..;---,•.....,' ,— • , • • , ‘.-:-.'Al.t"•,,,At.::-„,,,c..,...•...-,.' -•---i.),. k. •'-4i'e' - .. . . II --..•,,;::::-,-.- -,;:. ,,,i.., ...•:4, ...‘,- ,",, *.41 0,•11'''...',A\,,y.''••':7 ,--' i, ' - At\......!A,,•-•.;;,..••.• .7,,--;;;••,,.• .t • A. ,1.,, Iv 0 , .., :',,•,...',..K%:: !,',..1.,:.*:::,'EP';':',V,.;.•• :.,,,_ - ,- ,,,, % A7•:,. iwk . '••/,'• ...ies . -• . • - - • . .-....,,,,,,„„ •,,..,, :: 454: -,.r. :sr',,.'.,...: :..,i.., . '.-., : 4.*. ,,, , ..6.::'$ ,4,...., :::::, .:..4,..,.,...,,,.-... -.7-•*- ',.f:.. . <7-'04.,,..,.---:Z.X.,,,e--, .--,,3-..tc,-'',.. '• '- ..i ,,.‘'.:''''''',,-'N'''..',..-__,,1-;i....,,,,'1-1';1?:,"''-'4,' '''-''''.",',...tifc:--.::w,--7,ti:11;.'3E:4-1,,_'•1!:*.:. •i:.' !,.. .r;Itc:‘ : ':,;'-.t.;,1‘4' ...f' :••••!''' ;A•g,..aaTir;Vv.-.4 P.41- : .., ,,,74,..'-...--i'' .,..r,.”.4V-:.•..,,I,.?;,,,41.. ..1*.l.q.p..,..-t-&...i,ti, L.wi xr,..;yr,ix;.>s:,•• ..•: •';';,::„•• • -. --',.."'s•,•.1,%-701.... --.-•.•---7,-:. ••:-.7„-•••.:', 4- ,,..:,;77 ;,4,,,,400'.:N.f.3.4.,!i,fjilesVint'Fif.?..,..•.,.-?).---,,,,I,.L-Ir.;;,r :..;•.:',4.-- ftsk. i..'2_,.;"":!.•::.- -:.-k-.'•' .4'.i'f?.A-:,t:':, ,.-„r-4.': ',-,1,4,rty:',." i --if.:-.4144:04w-414?".40,F,. ...;:fAsv,4clier'r.,1K-'4, 4,..1...7.1.42‘;•:'.7•:;7`;'-%$:'4'''''':' ."'''.:.• " 1 •N,..•.-:',4iCir•;-., :-.4'...:': i', ---11- .,,.:.. .. ,r's.'.•.,':!;-,,,,A,,,,,,t.--'.:-?...c-')-Thv.1-::bz4ito...oR, , i,,,,,.. 44..-,24;t.,-.:1,-.t73 ,,r'Pe.t,•:;:t,t,-,.:::::: ...t,.... •.,.. - •,..:(:%-....i47:41;,---,-;41--- ,..Y.,--.".-st---,,...., iLip...r,sr.'..4i:-. ..,..-......•:.0 14:::!,i,11;:zrofig_t:46 ,,, ,.;:Rt,cit.:,..k..4j:-;:zif,:-.;--4Y.,,?,,,Y.:!',,,::::.,•:‘.5:1_4%;,:,- C‘X .?":-41'.-t.p.!-7,.a•A: ,..0•Yte-Vtittitt;''4.4.,';.-Ii;4:-::41.4):'4-. '4-:;.'S,'Z.i.-. -,•;.1:•;.' ,,.4k-t-'','k,'I.,751rz-',.-11-04:t0';'3,lio-;•,-,-- sti ,,,,,......„..,....•.4.0,:,,,A...-.::,....4.,-.• g„.--..„; -Aywv.,,- ,- mi...,6.i.,,,,,-.*kwa.,,: .:,,],...'pA:A.1:4•iy:-.%74.,.kgA...q.41-. . .••,,,...../..,,...,,,,,,,-..4,5,1, .. .•• ......../..-....,„„zi,f.r.0,49gi.,.... .--x,.z...,,v,:g.,,,,,..-0..,„0„,,„,,,,,A,41-..,,,,.-p.,,:t; ,,,.....,,_.,,.,,, ,,...,....„4:.:.>4..;-,,,,..w,pz..,r,•,-...:g.6 4 0,.,,,,t:le,y,,,,,,45.,7-YM.F,46,'.1.1;-T..'''',":7.,...,..s.',,f.-,,,e17:,',.;;;;:1,;,,,14-,A, ..,...,...,,...„,,,,..:,...,41.;,,,,irsfpw,-;::•,1Y.i.,wrj-...,7„•.,.i.f: ',4.;f.',;%*'..'il,spt••;:',,1-.N-li,3,V.4,71%-'ii`'... .,..4:•:,,:li->:.;,,,:',.4.-,_"•I.:,•,;,,:r**Z.:-::"."...:..-eq-,1*-.1,1!).''•.• .;-,..A'.71',"::',,.,*••:;-!--,•••••'11- ti:t':i,..:;. •:•,F4V.:41140•41,A,,,::',':;1:4Ve.;•Kg?,!‘-t;''S.f.;;',00.4!•;.;,,,-: :',';;;Fii-V..,4P,:rt;:•.Z.!i.):;.V!";t;,''•ifi•p',..W1,',?:•:.;:':'.:' :-.‘:q•:i-1,1V.'.4.it: •!-Z-.•-'14.,:- .:7, ;(-..:.-`,;'4,z.:4.-:'- .1::/.! Zi ; ;` '!- r:F.+.1!RP114-1';',.:i.it';;,, -.!::.);PI:ic.-fril),.f.:Se;;'.:::::-;.ri..i.:.;„ei.;11./;0.:•!;_if..--;;Fallk!,i'l,Farl.:if;*•..K-t-,',":7,f,,.:,-;1:f.. .:;:ft,',-;:";:.::.;t...L. ..?'':-,'5 -''....:;.`-'-', Z,:-k":i,"5'.!:...!.,:t:':. 600,,?,),‘,..‘4,-..;r-•:.,-.:*0,,::-.::- - - i.7.•,,,:t14.-;;:-.:•::;6.E.,::1:••-,."-,,,,,,,,,,,.•.,;...,-:1-..?••••.4.:',:s1.i.,--,,,L.:,),;.',1,-.:•,,,,,t^4•44,0.,.',-,::•,,z.'../••.`..-.'.!!'.....••.,•-•--,51.;:.;,,,--_,:x.';•:,.',-,-.•;30.4, . / _ ;,:c4q. ii4,4.,.,',"i2.--'..Vtfk::,.-:-,t1..1,74'.••.',J'' ,.---..-2,,,••v,7.•"f••';-'''..',"-"''''' ''"-.%'''''; 1...,''".''''''''',.•'''-`..-'' '''-'' '''''''';:'!';'" :53,64-'N,';',..... ..,...c,.,;%-,?::::::?, ;'.`...,;..-4-zq.:/i•.-4,,,:,:,..,...,.,-, ,•1,-‘;,,,A!..r..-;•• .kveg-,‘.....'i ',‘..,. ..,...4••=sx--.•:::7,-.. -....,,,,,,.,,ir..„......1,...A:..,,,-..,...,.,,,ts.r...,,,.,:;:. ....._*z,...c4ii.,,.:..a:::•.:i.iil-,F:A:?! /kA;'-1:-.....!':!;.;:11,'.4....z;..!. ...t:;-.4y.ts!,:::!:4:,;p•el.A.1.4-kw.:..•,;: -.. I:i:, ..lt,. -,;;•,,:ii,,,,.. 5..ci....;;:5z.,:•,t-je.::,,, ,1Wr...;e. ::?j:f!..0W•4"ieeii"..q.,' I: '...--74i,.2.:!•,1-q*:,,-1;;P:-,•••:4•,,-•,;.',-;••:.f.;.?4‘,,,,i,-Li4-,;74....„4,...,p,,ti...:,:.,,v:.44:,, .-4,.. ,,..,... ..4 ,,-.., : -,...,...„4...,,•",......,,,,‘::.s.,. •,,sksev:rz-,Veds4.:4,Z's-s:'s' af, .:?..`Asts .:•'-'•":*:k.1.4,. .-..:2::•••,0,,, .`.7m.4,..,...,.-.;,::Ss'sc•s"..Lesn' •4(''..i.•••:,:45-,-..il-r,:c:•/,:•.1X,';'-'.....;'•,4,;S:'%::-..-ea.: r".k.s•V4'7,:AVi.;,...!...s:s7.sys•r::•1:1:,•••••-.1:`•.:••••. A'•-,•";;'' ': ' .*.-•••' •t.'s's:i*T2S;4'11-,-5-"i'r-'i.t •-•',.44*.ii,. .,?."..''s••';;•..,.54:i'',:st•-,,`.-7....... ..srF..5r;.•:i-:?V:i--j:••Z•7.,...••••: ;iaiiIiits....'s';•!,5i4,4rizisf,tr-5.1•::s:•,i,iVre4.4,-. 6;c:61T6,';t:;!."•:,.ts....t:3.6.•;'!;4.5.: YeFV's-...!4.';.••••::.---eswqrs's•-1::,'Past•s '' '••• 1:::":ts••.:. 1 `'''•',:rs'"••••;1-'•••-'•'•:•••''''s.Z.' ,•;11.•••:••'i'''';''''''‘R,•;•"*.'''' 'cf,"A•."-tf''••,•-"•-'•-•"'e-'%04.-.;`,.,....,.." %PtleZ',,,..!i:':.;-1.:LL.:L.?!.1.:.R.,‘,,,,:;,'Z',11,..;',...,-;'Z'',;`I...;, 4 %.*.'-.7...P.:v.itt.:..'',,,,.*:•,.-'!,-",;'..-,',r:.,...;1.k.,, ,,,,,..,',.....,:,,,F.-.1:•.:.:L":-.;;N:3.;5? •,,,•-:...','e4.••••-•:.4.-.1:$,4'.'..,•;:c-,,,..t.t::::::'.3.:1•,..-4",... .' w- •'4,,:,•1-if."-•..%•;• ,,,,•314,`,7a,'.•:•",,f:..t:'.4..."..''Art‘:t'-',,,,:'':•,:,,,--,,,..."0e,','•',.,:t•,•':••,.'v...'',X-',...`,.:•-••••••••,,,,,"f:`••,,-'2‘,..4.:S5%.''"'"f-'-''''''*".''''''ic:',41 .)--,,,,,,,:k;:.-'.-'4Ztt,i,"::::•;3,..,•,,,,,,zi-,.;•s;,Rr,„:• e•fr.p.o.• •;•,,..-.-..,.,::::,„.-e.,tp,•,..,,,,,::?,,,-..,-..,,,,,..,,sks's,li•-'4'i.:...;•.•s.'A.":•?3,-4.,l's:•'-'",.',V.'s.::•I'e.::::‘,.••-s-',,'•••••••.).:.1:.<:..":,:''.-4.,is-.....",s..-,..:,,,-;:*-....•'-vs,:,:'::',,,,'14:", ;s•.:4.. ....ks-,•%:W.:7:'4:i..•N.rk".:ssqesy-,:,...".',r,":42•,,,t;%•,•••• es-...:4--.4....-...j.f:f.i.c.- -.4.:::,•.:;•-"•!::::',..;.:',',7,':;:lsr•4::",.‘',V.t,s...?-.f.:24';e,r,-,--,.:nss:ss ss,- :s.'::,:s:s:;•‘..! -:•4.-...','..s,;'!..1:::::.;•::-4:4'..s;;•P''''''''''''''''-"...;4,1,4',... 4 , ,. 1?;.L''';:: . ,,..:;!...'',..5-;:.'•i§ .;Y:l'Ai771:1.V VOV4 .:,i'f. '''''',''—''''''=""r.,••-,"•:,-,.. ,.,' qi.t1A-%.,5.it4: 4'.4NCLV-.;.$;,..,1.4.--47-',41&: . LLL',7,,,,,:-.2'.,..'"X•t-,1 ..tt.',.:'..)::;,'',:i..:'':.-'f...-",:.,',". ;::^‘1) :. ..%'..,,:-. ..,4r;....;,;:i'N'1 3'ih,::',!:.'''',.-•ti,'..i.:'..S,;''):..... ..A...;.•''f!';'..A;f1....;?::-.!....M.<"',.....t;:',Z1:,,,.....?,...:.i. 44-...1.,-,41.,..ltrje,:1:.**.l... '1:.i',Vr...-Z,-f-P-.'11L::.V1-1 v!.::::',:i1,;,q•,-.1pr...,ii'iti.i.z.,4., -,„1.-?..!::',--t:\,-.-1,;!.t;.,!'.....1',...,-iF;;..'t..-f..f.-',,:-.11,:cv...4:3-.!%;..;.f.71,•;'s:::1--.-',-,.1::•'•:'...r .4".....42::':'4''..:::'.:',-ii.,... ;:.,'".i';.,- ?:::•Y,.,'..:-?,..z.:(.%:tgktt?,...:',.'. .A4iN.4...--4; ,.. .1,1.;,...1,...,,:',2;....::..1,: it.,:-.3,?./c,i-.,.;,,,,.;?::,-.7..1,5.;,,:.,;'::::,,,r-v.:-.c,,,,.',:,t,,,,,A.jr",:r;,It:-.,,,'..,-tts 4';,•zi.'s;r•••..v:s.:.„1:•:‘,.:,:rs.1.•:•74.:,A.A:,/.'.4's,,,...p::..1.?...::.•1:-.t'ij:.;:1;:!ri,tV,:,3.,,,C:::.e-,:f,..:.:'.;:'.1,:-.1.';''''', .,,,,W.,477?,'il':......L.,%:,;..,:';'%:ti,...'''',;:i''.';'.'.,ikti.ii,:,.J.::;f4.f.il.i:i.,1%,..:.,..,W,Y,•,;:.'.,..,,: ...A. :1:::.:;'.1..'.g,4,:!_,,",,,,:,.;?;;Ve.;.'...,,t14,4!(";,,44105.$,,'..k..V,;;,,..e.t'..,(j:',:;i'4:::i.'..,.4::?,:1,''..;!..-,:.';'::,.,,Li.;:,:, ,,,...;:-...',.47:5 ;i4,;411.,‘4.-...-;"..k:5:;:-.--.P.''..:.71".i4,Y(4.1,"2Atfr-':.%.,...k.ELL!'1',;f%:::5t qf f!ii%;/:?,..i'.'::-:;: •;.- ',..f2::".f.:WF,Y4''',',5,!:e:@..21':•':117:;:i.?...i.`''!:V.1'.. .:(''.1'1:.tf'.'':';','•'tif.:2;%1:''''.:1'i.,::-...Y,V-'1.;::''*;;'''''''''''' ..4...,*,.Sg'-'..4,;tett.-;%1U".2.:'5_,.te..W..:11'!Af',A,.F.:*)A';:gA.?"'..':7;.;.k'i7.4','gc.:;;.,..1.1.i...$rsj":.:;01/:''''.4; U: ', 7'V.!''.1".?:•r?';',t:','',n3.r:if,.,.' s..;.=''''''..:),47'... ",47.._,,,,i.-,L';'1!.:".1 At.-,411.F.Z.,3/4....h-,,15,tW.'-'..3:.:21:5;.*''''; •':--;.::); 1 .:jr: :;.;g:?'.Y..Z4".4:-.!..4,t4,17..f A:42....;71,!;':,.%.:Ali.1;L::,L 4/J...1'.'tt,:.:'...,:..•L-fe;;;;*,;05-0.-•_.-:,.g.'1..,..'4'..i.Q:-;55,..,,,,y4".41,.,.$ -k"":-.It'r-.,-1:,`;'"--1,7". .,;;',Vi-l•-•.';:::; .::;-$5t•Z''' '''f:11'.,r2,,r: ::r 4'-'-,,,:'-:-•-'•-tf;.''.•-23;•:.;:-.•:', .i.":71';;;,-i,&sA.'4,-:2;.;--r-yr'•Ite''-:',•'.•.''..,,,,;,.:..,',,,..4 .4 .t.'-' ''.;.!'il':',;-5,.;,,A,..;:•:?;;;.:::•...,;.F4,..a, :':?-..,',..,4"?•'-..,•-r,',...,,f':•:',',:E-Zi;,:...,.."+;,-..X.,:,:-.N%-•,-'4-*'''''-',•'----:•',:- . -•-tr„-i',."-,•?-7-'''-'•%-77_..„,---':;:-':--gi ,•''..";•',.',. •;.•,,,7-;-;...f.,;:;,,,,,?-.--7”:1?4"..".,.:',:i-kt.:7::i;',•,t''.;',•:24-..-,a,r,:e2 ,,,.,,.,,':....9,:r.,"-z,,.;:i --•:7--.'',••-4'.,,P.i '''''4'.'"--.H:.:-.'"."---;:::-..- '''''..:''''';':*;!''.:::;'...-:';'4....q...":'‘;*'...'-'1;:'"---,?.. .-•''-'':-..,-V".".•":',1.f1:-V";:!,%:t;•'-c:..:1::?.;:.1-f-2:.'',1`•:;:'.-.1.....t.,?..•-•-.-----:;.,..!si.,4,..;*;:i.ivw.:14..z....._..„.,...e.,:,. .,, ,'",:.1. ,`,1.',.:•::.•;',1,','?4'%..7.'....',-,-.'•.•..?"----,,,•-•;:-',7.-•-ii4:%,`..;.P. ''''''', .;:_•;,'-l'2,-,Y:.-!';-..''''']-1.'7':'-'-'7,, .•..7..'--`;'''.: -'',;?;.;!:::":' - -- .1•.- -, ' ',A1-`-`f-r,•':::•;,14',1-''.4&:-',/,'.‘?- 4'.i',t,:-..;:f1"--.1:..?.41.-.-,1-3..,-;;.:;4';'Pil.,.-,..'..'-',..". ,:',.•'•....:•_'-.-;:,,,,q•..,2!-'r '..-‘,.:-....,'---- • ..,- ..... igg..-,:,:i,-52. 41-2•-:;1,- ----.1;04';,', •:'''''''.':"'::-,..,. .,-,.4",i'.--''''- ... '''-'''''-':'' 1,..l.,t.,.,.'4:-"-!--i'-',,'"-'-':,.• - :• .,.::,,,..liz.",--.:: - .1.-1-..... ... • -k A • •-• tit tit• 4 . , • • APPLICATION TO SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 t ' - '• ?k,". *_,R4t1.. _ 4 4, 7 sAW,,FV,1,11,.3;4' , - •A, "210 - - , • e••••i• 4:ra,.4 '" • • ••••• • .r•••, ••, .•s• • ? • )1. . , ' DANIEL C. ROSS, ESQ. ICEEGAN&KEEGAN- 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O.Box 146 „ Mattituck,New York 11952 - , •, , 516-298-1200 • , ,, • •„- , ' . „ - • ,4 . n AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: I am over the age of eighteen(18)years, not a party to this action,not related by blood or marriage to either of the parties to this action, and I reside at Mattituck,New York. That on the December 1,2000 I served the Application of Patricia and James McNamara to 'the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals upon theSouthold Town Building Department /=�2,�/J` 2uky2—(s), , r ) • ' 4. • 41F1197k/ob DANIEL C. RO data/affirmsv.dcr -' ,•mo i--- f V\17 FE? rs: I iII 12090 ; 1 1 •,„,,• . .• ii7e't We 44,7Taii l "NA` ,w Air • w r • _w_j___LJ____:__________LL__ iiii.so •, ______„...„___ __ __ .,, _ _ _ ... ,,?.......4...1.1„ ,......,;..f 4.'":""!1" ,4-.-"...."'- . : -4.• '• , --,.- . -.. ",--• -,..:::.:WZ e'.e.:-.42g,-Al 7 h' _ - .. . -.NIL-- _ . w1 I-i ., . , N . •.14 f'' ,... ...N, ,\1. . II. III , i f \ . El - ,,, _, 1 , ,, ' A, IA ; ,',.....i,: ,... .., ,u .., •........1 ,•,.. .„ ... ..,...4:.'".:1,,,,,,, • , ......„. . , , - - ... ' • 44011".. Ve'' .446, "; •- .'...: te' 416"1°46 . -. A.1111101.1W44' J'..; „co. •;;Lar.L4114.-..—..:. . - . .. . . . -4"4.01.4gaii.. ....... ., - . _ ., • -.._ • , . ._ \G 0 -• .� i/. t ... A• ' r..,,l , ,�,w' � � 0., Yel. . .4.- _ +R' ...•P'. .,.. • v II RI I k -.77;44...0,-;---i..-,s,.. ..:•...4., 0 r. ;III - f� I 1- '11 11 .1"1"mor:' uII r ti • - 4s._ A.. • *740141411/1.--'-' "' },,,,.i� v a1 .._• fr*Y-'3 -.t t'- •.• ,4t,14-1 --••• —. , :o . • '..,-9 ,),2. 4., V► i Y. • q .� _ .� •OXY..-� ,. ` _44. u `_,�yq�`-.. �� y • ,• .. y t r v. • t • _ s 1\. , .. idir � ; ^1if Vi sa \a ; a ,:���.i�+�.�,$. 7"M i . St ,' 1` iti hlita • \V } i Y'`tf is • 0 i . . .... SANRAN.1 v— i ,. •".:'w^"i,"E.'. .. r ~ / �.f.. a + a • .. . , ,.. • ._...• 44.1, k, 114 ' ---; //',"/7", -‘7( 1,1' 11 +24 "ewe*' a • ,:yn-v_:0p,p.- •� % (',- _ .sem..Anew. _ i67i;... I .__.4,: • SATU RIS"R""-S x _ 631-734-4219 4 _,.e. la 11: �r�N Sa t, ''.r •b. wr` r o' V ri. II wiwr ..,..:_y.:., i.1;7.^0' y •.wi ,-.: w .:ti. ,,,fir ;1 _ . I ..30.0**-411-j,-..---.4e140-'41,444*.Z.:1•7•N•';'i.:4::::".. 1 ---.'" 1- 1 x i ,R z s # a� ,;, „°' •: - 4 �.^i*RN 'tiM 0 1F{ - f4 t it-.. �_. .y, I} 4tln r �,. -Y a.w,. i F7 .y-' •°'"'p"'#a,r*a '. I easy } ( `ymayy�.k '"'A, .c.,',.,7, '�'ti • 7� "," CJ•r*r, 1 'vY,s • S • yyy��y '�!�.j� �. ,}7 yq t 'd' 'y +,p�f��i, .1,-;,, .�1 +...y3 r .�( .���'ir4 '416' .. {,4., y'�,fMfF 1 kf .:**,-...p: �" * ,A,,L •.' �,,,[�i,,,,4,y�,,i .bi %;',,yry,N IIG,�,s,7,4,„,,,.., ��F 14 7, : .kr + ,4 ,�' xat r5 7Zri r+'.j r _ • !x 1r,' -,t`•• ' i 8 4,,,,.'1,,�,�ptitsnt '�yALu, r �'0, r 1 1r 4 ,044, '7 :t+ r ' _,. -f,' per..t fi �t� ,. k" it.,a".t�lf r, "1 f"' ts.�y{ow,'T i , '%.* "r r- ra��� ,i.„.4'.4%,, > , i ;10'4- 4.., y a h f,'e 1.9 ( ,6 t 4.t.') i'',..,4:1,1, + .. ` 7,',''''''R., i''":‘,4.547°414 l .. !(i� _,_ *. t l '''.4,71 "'104'! 1 4a�„r "r ,. "Nq' :1;' r -"41', „l' y,.d ,p'r 1, r.., 1t It Fil J. i'F.r I��..* R`" :r: •4-'r.'i- ` ."'t4R'M'� x y,�idj 4•i, ,,`r f„.0*,, i, y S. c.,".$.. Y"'4 :,,-0-,:., .,..‘ 1,-,;p:::.%t , 41/dtor/&/e/ FOR BOARD AND STAFF USE 0:e0 7-2 d Updated New Trile,'=„fslailon. , 02/1270,7____ L.ilAvi OW AA &cc:, Ibi*ANc.,c), Lea--/ , i z- ,.., -Aq-,..,,ka (124 .;ff./gx-7-- , ./-../.,.....: ,•- i...., >4, .4'._...i/L.L- . _. •--/ _ ...2.6_yo/ .__ r__c1,614 , 1...._, ./ .:,/ ,- / , '4) a ,, oev- -, ' gc -4/-4, ri..46.44,24%47 ,v)- ) "--ii 4.(2. ._„(_) A /6.-etix) a 1/44-e71.6/ 25g-deeta_e_ 3-_2 (4 AP--yeA,,,AR) to& 4 n , bt6D : 6,0, P)__ ..:_-_-..,.• • 1 VT) 1 1 i Teruni-4 . fit(seo' INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: February 26, 2001 SUBJECT: Site Plan Review—Agricultural Greenhouses As you are aware, the Board of Appeals has an appeal pending with respect to a building permit for agricultural greenhouses constructed along Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue (copies enclosed). Your comments regarding this review and site plan review is appreciated. The subject property is located in an A-C Agricultural- Conservation Zone District. Thank you. iza ,-J /' 'A a-0 9 9//( �,6� /24-„ ,04 r4-6&,m,, ?-12 `'` a—ho �-r - Page 10 - Minutes 'June 19 , 1997 Regular Mee-f,,ng of the ZBA APPEALS BO=.RD MEMBERS Vrru(,� Southold Town Hall .�0 ...; CS•-:,, �?095 Main Road `� Box 1179 ae Chairman '•1 ---, P.O. Gerard P. S r e Doyen µ •t n ,--, �`-•-1 = Southold.New Yore 11971 J---) James Dinizio, Jr. p - - Fax(516)765-1323 y� �O_ Telephone(516) 765-1809 Lydia A.To 1 -:-- Maureen :- Maureen C. Ostermailtl BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD t I TIONS AND DETU.MINATION FINDINGS, DELIBERA MEETING OF NNE 19; 1997 ADOPTED AT REGULAR App . No. 4484 - EB ERHAR•D iIUELLER - PARCEL 1000-101-2-24.5 Cutcho e STREET & LOCALITY: 3705 Alvah's Lane, gu DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: June 19, 1997 FINDERTY FACTS): DESCRIPTION: This property is located in an. A-C Agricultural- Conservation Zone District, being situate on the westerly side of Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, with 262.88 ft. of road frontage. This lot contains a total area of 80,000 sq. ft. as depicted on the Febru- ,97 survey map and is improved with an. ersting dwelling - ary) 2� ? 1aa structure and rive accessory buildings. BASIS OF APPEL= Building Inspector's Action of Disapproval dated April 28, 1997; Article III, Section 100-33. APPLICANT: For - AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED BY A �, to the rear of or approval of the location 01 a new w�lln� yard location for the existing accessory buildings, Leaving a accessory buildings. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable chap• - in character of neiZhborhood or a detriment milto nearby properties because construction of a new single-fay residence in this location will be an. improvement to the property and neighborhood and at the same time preserve the historic value of the accessory farm buildings. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method. feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the proposed house is situated in a manner to provide maximum use of the remaining. property for farming. (3) The requested area variance is not substantial in relation to the location of farm compleseds built prior to the enactment of 'al.. :.?mss.:- +:;:e.:+y ;- .,.i;I..;:t .-..:Ctit:*• '.` - •: -•� - "*' -_ - • +•"' .t-- moi,_.1'-r-yts rw.- ,_. ..., _+4:r' I Page 2 - June 19, Appi. #4484 1000-1U1.-2-24.5 (Mueller)' Southold Town Board of Appeals (4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the variance request is minimal. (5) The situation has not been self-created because the cottage and accessory structures were constructed prior to the enactment of zoning. • (6) This action is the minimum that the Board deems necessary and adequate and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as applied, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: Upon completion of the new single-family residence and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for same, the existing cottage shall be converted to an accessory structure. In no event shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS DOYEN, DPTs IZIO, TORTORA, OSTERMANN, and GOEHRINGER. This resolution was unanimous) - ed. /RESOLUTION ADOPTED 6/ 9/97 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ********************* Actions.97/101-2-24.5 _• - •- y,ho-X..-'s. .•. , {? '3:...e'�'• r`- :ia:a.•;�';. ;,.a �••_t, .• '..- •4s�T:,4-. .=w.;r'., :-:ray. � ^`Ls•'�TC !_si`�u_��,:.'.:.;'�_ �;�,`'-�'�t�.-f-iii_�"f.�,`-';;_;.i��Er-�•:''-�'J'.a`=�. -F�;•ti.1, _14-ZriWargerirjr4747,TIMWE•► COMPLETE TH • 1 •1-D • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received by(Please Print Clearly) B Date of Delivery item 4 rf Restricted Delivery is desired. -� ` • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. C Signature • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X .Agent or on the front if space permits. 0 Addressee D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1 Article Addressed to• If YES,enter delivery address below. .No • Harris, Theodore P. 929. Madison Avenue- ;;'5 New York, NY 1 0021 �`,`-' s. Service Type es, 14 Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ?D` < 0 Registered ,fia Return Receipt far.AAerzkeocLsa \% 0 Insured Mail 0 C 0 D. -- _• / 4. Restricted Delivery�(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number Co y from service label) PS Form 3811,July 1999- - Domestic Return Receipt 102595.00-M-0952 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No 6-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • , Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 2._.. ..fi r.: r t `tttiltttjiititttliitltlfili m itiliiltt iiiii 1itfiiniii iiia ►*ir4G�Kejlim liWI6Y igoificv COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,land.Also'complete: ' -i ec ed byf(yese;P/Pt Clear B iate of Peliv-� item 4 if Restricted Deliveryis desired. ilf I • Print your name and address on the reverse '1 �' so that we can return the card to you. p C.St e 4 '/ / • Attach this card to tfie back of the mail lace, ✓ ❑Agent or on the front if space permits. �/ if 0 A•dressee D. Is deliv- address different from item 1? L es 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below Reinharat, Richard o O. BOX 1./7 11535 Main Road "1TUCK NY i 952 Mattituck, NY 11952 3. Service Type •Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Registered Return Receipt fe Mersliaadse 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O D 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article (Cop omservice label) :: : . ii :� erIdp ti // i PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 iviattituck, N T 1 '1952-0146 u 4n�� �Kelhhig*tvitni.—vjgegem COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1!2,and 3.Also complete! ' ' •A I Received by(Please'Pnnt Clearly)` : Date of,{eliv-ry item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 4 (/0 • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Oriffir C. Sig■ Attach this card to the back of the madplece, C.` ' J ■ Agent or on the front if space permits. ■ Addressee D. s delive -ddress different from item 1? L Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, : er delivery address below Reinhardt Richard P.O. Pnv, 1/7 ' iv►f:TTL1 UCK UY 1 195 . 11535 Main Road Mattituck, NY 11 952 3. Service Type Itertified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered E.Return Receipt4er-Merct1fl ,sel ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Co D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number(Copy from service label) PS Form 3811,July 1999 . . Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 I . i : . :i , , •. iilci i UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue • P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 ■ ': COMPLETE THIS SECTION 'COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY „ • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A Received by(Please Print Clearly) = -te of D-livery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. tkg VAS • Print your name and address on the reverse C. Signature so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X ❑Agent- or on the front if space permits �'Ll ❑Addressee D Is delivery address diffe-nt from item 19 0 Yes 1 Article Addressed to• If YES,enter delivery address below °J No • Galuccio Estate Vineyard Inc. c/d .Ginsberg & Co. 3 Service Type 675- Third Ave. Suite 2800 1 Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail New York, NY 10017 ❑ Registered It.Return Receipt for.Merahand ❑ Insured Mail 0 C O D 4 Restricted Delivery (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2 Article Number Co' from service label) fl 571 GG361 PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 . ... . t• • .. . - . UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 t.Tattituck, NY 11952-0146 1iiilliiililiiiil1illiilillliiiiiiiiiliiliiimiiililliiiiilll , Ajziolgaggiiirigimmaimixotroo- COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete ; A. Received I l(Please Print Clearly), Date o .selivery item 4 if Restricted Deliveryis desired. \ •u+ • Print your name and address on the reverse ! '�\�V' so that we can return the card to you. C. Signature • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, • Agent or on the front if space permits. X / 0 Addressee D. Is delivery address d erent from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to. If YES,enter delivery address below: Ea,No • Galluccio Estate Vineyards LLC c/o Ginsberg & Co. 3. Service Type 675 Third Ave. Suite 2300 t Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail New York, NY 10017 ❑ Registered aBeturn Receipt fer-AAerenaadisv. 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number Cop from service label) 70clq } o 0003 ; sac-tls1 crk,aq i<<. H PS•Form 3811,Julyi1999. • " ". ': UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G=10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. ICeegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 - -- ------it11�1litttU tiltt{ ILL Ulli1S! fl It tllilltlt'1llllllltit�lt . . , • , • , „: .. ilt is , , , E it 140104argijim umligslgyri i •g' AIJL•IJ/]ai11Ati' • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A ceived b i-lease Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery item 4.if Restricted Delivery is desired. . i ` — ../ • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. C. Signature Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, �h_A � Agent NI Attach 1 /I 7 Ad•_ssee or on-the front if space permits. �-1- . D. Is delivery a••ress diff4.—nt from item 1 (t- 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 'DiBorghese Castello LLC e0 (30x qs l 17150 Route 48 Cutchogue, NY 11935 CuLc 14.06 or ( ( 3.RSprvice Type Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered Return Receipt far-Mer.c.laaritelise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number C y from service bel) (��/�l� (,� : - (7)(94-11- PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 11 102595-00-M-0952 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 1111 1 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. . Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 _ j-> i i' iii ' i i i ii i ii i ii lii eu but a1�it � ��t i'linn.� ilii a usli� t tate ": COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY -E11• Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received by(Please Print Clearly) B. Date.f Delivery item 4 it Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your,name and address on the reverse ! so that we can return the card to you. C. nature • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 4I / • Agent or on the front if space permits. 0 Addressee D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to. If YES,enter delivery address below: lEr-No • Best, Constance M. 3700 Alvah' s Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 3. Service Type 121 Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 1:1 Registered g..Return Receipt fer-MegcbaReirse 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. A. 1.1 16N4mIller froservice label) • 0063 5- icri 5i Gtoo'Ul PS Form 3811,July 1999 . .. . ppmestic f Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 ; ; f! • • • • ; ii .itt(11 it i UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.C-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Nescphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 3a5g.ii46 -: CO 7- V COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received by(Please Pnnt Clearly) B Da e of Delivery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 2. i • Print your name and address on the reverse signature so that we can return the card to you. ' ❑Agent • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, • / ❑Addressee or on the front if space permits. 1 Article Addressed to D. s delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: g1 No • Remski, Anna B. 3900 Alvah' s Lane P..0. Box 123 3. Service Type Cu echo j ue, NY 1 1 9 3 5 VI Certified Mail 0 Express Mail Elegistered Et Return Receipt fc Merctfand+ce 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number(Copy from service label) 1•13axtjiIcooi P'�+ 5-1lig �Of , 9l fil� li PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 • ? if ilii • ii .i . i g ii ii 1 ii Iiia I II IE r ii I UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 11 11 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No G-1O • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 -Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 � 1?=�e• I,,,li,,,lll,I,,,I,I,,,I,BII„,,,,II,I„I,II,,,I„f,li,,,,,Iii ►U7 g: e/' :/f.-wwieg1O►�-tKo1a4fJ14/411.I6Y9x91L010V1dN]411P/4ti • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A Received by(Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Del very item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. E I b,�;,14„4 L • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. C. Si.nature • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, x 0 Agent or on the front if space permits. / 0 Addressee D. s delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: No Lademann, John B.0. Box 190 Cutchogue, NY 11935 3. Service Type It;Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered a-Return Receipt fer-Mere+iafld+ce- ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number p from service label • ;i• G, ao :t� 04)3I L11t4: it I ± FS;Forrri 381;1,July 1999 1 : Domestic lReturn Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 } UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 11 11 1 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 rlestphalia Avenue P.O. Box 146 Mactituck, NY 11952-0146 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received by(Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Del' ery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. j-4 4/ A.1/I L/ ■ Print your name and address on the reverse Ir so that we can return the card to you. C. Signature • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 0 Agent or on the front if space permits. X °�— —❑Addressee D. delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: • Lademann, John and Joan A.O. Box 190 Cutchogue, NY 11935 3. Service Type ciVt ertified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered t.,Return Receipt_44e.Meretieii e ❑ Insured Mail 0 C O.D 4 Restricted Delivery'?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number(C rom service lbe , i ! 1Oqqll VRivi1 . V3` 5� mV •� Ili i i PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.00-M-0952 ii d I iid ; ;+ i , UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 11 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit,No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. • Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue • P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 I .._ _46 ::,fi,:,iii,i:,,i,l::: :itl„::::il,i„1:►1::: :ti,il::::: ii : CO'• ' S / COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received by(Please Pont Clearly) Date .f I-livery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Q �i}V�i_` 1 c / I'�.� ■ Print your name and address on the reverse C. ure C 1 ` �- i- so that we can return the card to you. t ❑Agent • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, y, l r/ or on the front if space permits. �1 (rit(( LL C r 0 Addressee D. Is delivery addre different from item 1? 0 Yes 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below- No Tuthill, Hallock E. RR2, .4508 Alvah' s Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 3. Service Type )511'Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Registered I 1Return Receipt fer:449FeI d76e ❑ Insured Mail 0 C O.D - 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) CI Yes 2. Article Numb r Copy from service label"' JO0� �aA 0 cao3 S 1(0c .PS Form 3811,July 1999, , . . Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 ii iiia ei r§+?l �f i iii ? , UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid - 11 USPS Permit No G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan & Keegan, LLP 315 Westphalia Avenue I P.O. Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 _21K01,4 1,,,11,,,111,1„J,I,,,i,IP) 111,�1,11,,,I„1,11 Pli r I r 1 List of green cards not returned: Callaghan, Lisa and Mettes, Patrick 410 Central Park West New York,New York 10025 M � I Domestic Mail On! ; No Insurance Covera•e Provided 1=1 t.ITRIRM IITel.: m _a NEW YORK,: Y 10025 Postag 1 $ 0.34 UNL-9r1 0952 fULrl Certified Fee 1.90 W )4,-..,`' � Postm ,Return Receipt Fee 1�`� tHeO (Edorsement Regwred) �C erk:CIPE2 0 Restricted Delivery Fee , QO (Endorsement Required) r, /V �3.74 02 13/0 \ Total Postage&Fees a fU f J 54me(Please Print Clearly)(To be complet by malfer '� m , crfrlCIC all at,, L(S4 " • Uf��_ Er treat A o.•o,�r PO Box .t —Po c o y1U-te,ZIP++�. , ,] Wr N , l , 00 . PS Form 3800,111i 1999u S-e R-v- -f.r In (cons Ns34:Ilia 1101 il',ll>I Ii Domestic Mail On! • No Insurance Covera•e Provided .=- ATi lll!!`Y ITacc UlI L CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 .". . ul Postage $ 0.34 U�lITD09W Ln _ Certified Fee 1.90 §-1. _ 1.50 Cy( st ik C m Return Receipt Fee crsH e (Endorsement Required) Cl U O Restncted Delivery Fee ®- �.ci l im (Endorsement Required) --ti mi Total Postage&Fees $ 3.74 02/13 ru 1i1 Name(Please Print Clearly)(To be completed by mailer) M ` -Clin i'�Il 1-I Q II ocAc. SAaNo.;e� Box No.5(l .241 tr � . 14h 1-a v-e, im CI Stae,Zl-+4 PS F ro m~OOiJu •i19• - •- . - -f• li t?RT1P7jR wt�, n]b7acTna= E•3 4:II 1 1 kI Ma1I II1 IT4I:1 Domestic Mail On! •No Insurance Covera•e Provide• N Mffi[ u. -a CUTCHGGUE, NY 11935.43 z,Asi. 0.34 Ut3IJ% D: 0s �! Postage $ )\- mCefifled Fee 1.90 / Wd Pos tai—iark m Return Receipt Fee 1•t0 Hero '�O (Endorsement Required) 11=Y\KK,5 i5! z m Restricted Delivery Fee l�L o� O (Endorsement Required) p ci Total Postage&Fees 02 301 ru IL N me(Please Print Clearly)(To be completed by mailer) m Strri .9t,]3�N %Noc'osiell0 L,L- G 0 l'—+I_5v War PO KbUl e. y'V imCI St:e_ZIP+4 N ,.►_• - ( 3 PS Form 3800 JiihV' ••• ' _. - - . i r unx Domestic Mail Onl •No Insurance Covera•e Provided m � tata� D: RI f�NEW YORK, NY 10021 Ln Postage $co 0.34 UN ' D:,�}9t��CV J\ RJ Certified Fee 1'90 •d i— i S' §l Pork �� fn Return Receipt Fee 1.50t� M D (Endorsement Required) _ C l_\ ,„1,. Kut{ / mi Restricted Delivery Fee � O (Endorsement Required) 3,74 02/1 c 0 Total Postage&Fees R! . RIName(Please Print Clear y)(To be completed aIle() m i-iarri s „ oIc Dre., I- e 0 N Y"q i 3o}-Th. A V CI.Y.wXe N C ty State,ZIP4` Li N _ c �t`C— 00 PS Form 3800 Ju 1 •• s See Rever - . r t trrp -m-icrira 1I I tyg:.1141gili_II111:IX03g12 Domestic Mail Onl ;No Insurance Covera•e Provided ...0 WI.litrAM-17airk r9 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 0.34 UN'' ' 091 '-fl Postage $ `� .1 RI 1.90 t rl • Certified Fee 1.50 T To Ili Return Receipt Fee Sli CI (Endorsement Required) Cl I!• KK6 W 4 D Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) Total Postage&Fees $ 3.74 02/13!6 0 nj !1_I a(Please Print Clearly)(To be completed by mailer) , 1,C) t 2_4\rtY i B ------- ------ Q- Street,Apt.No.;or P Box No. '5c Q0 1 V4H:3_.L_.l, POB 1' 3 ty,Sate,ZIP+4 r Q p 6 r` l/� I PSForm3800t.1til ••• ` -- - -f• • t •r ���2�F1�7acrrt� Domestic Mail Onl • No Insurance Covera•e Provi•e. w NEW YORK, NY 10017 -13 0.34 UNIT' 1-/W. tri Postage $ 111l1 • Cert ped Fee 1.90 �� m Return Rept Fee 1.`0 al' t'ostmark (Endorsement R quired) lHee D erk.: IJI V5RW D Restricted Deli'ell,Fee D (Endorsement Required) fr--3 02 11 D Total Postage&FeesEMI v j D f J Name(Please Print Clearly)(To be completed by mailer) _ frl El-rt-- c/o 611-1 5 P-1 E- Street,Apt.No.;or PO Box No. • Dr- f // /' 2-R) Citytrat, P+4 7IooI 7 PS Form 6810 Jul •••r - - - • • - rma= t4Eoo• f]t-a��i�a- K•34:I<II411Bll .:1111:1*341:A Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Covera•e Provided `p sL47I'iii[: m -.0 NEW YORK, NY 10017 .11 0.34 UNIT ID: 09`,% u7 Postage $ RJ Certified Fee 1' 4 -77 ost m Return Receipt Fee HerOOO°O°e��� (Endorsement Required) f ;!t . KKV J tm Restncted Delivery Fee C O (Endorsement Required) 3. I;�1 0'�� c O Total Postage&Fees O �� IU Name(Pleease Print Clearly)(To be completed by mall=- 0m �` all 0CG/D g3' Y7 1/O �`) : - 0-- Street,Apt.No.;or PO Box No. ir it &7 —air-el4ve . ..5,/k Zoo N City,State,ZL#4 A / 71A, 1 ()C9/1 •rm 3800 Ju S-- - - . ugiF Wei4:1 I1U 14•11�1Te11 U1 iT41:11 (Domestic Mail OM •No Insurance Covera•e Provi•e• m Artic a e. [r_ a- ul CUTCHGGUE7 NY 11935 0.34 UNIT ID: 0952 u1 Postage $ .7 Ili Certified Fee 1.90 1.50 Pos. _.r- m Return Receipt Fee ere ci (Endorsement Required) Clerk. J 0 Restricted Delivery Fee ���7777��777 0�� OO (Endorsement Required) 3.74 09./ e / '1 Total Postage&Fees flI C+ I ru Namt(Pleas Print Clearly)(To be coy•toted by m'ler)_,_ Er Street, o.;MBre No. r- City,rokajw N //! 3 5 tip t.34;i114149lWI11:l ii 1 Domestic Mail Onl • No Insurance Covera•e Provided m Article ent .0 IiATTITUCK, NY 11952 0.34 UNIT ID: $952 L i Postage $ �` Certified Fee ru 1'90 69. 4, 1.50 PostmarTc m Return Receipt Fee H =5, (Endorsement Required) KKCftW Q Rastncted Delivery Fee Pr, O (Endorsement Required) 3.74 0 13/01aF If I=1 Total Postage&Fees $ v VS- Ili IL N (Please P Int Clearly(o be co ted C6y/Fa/ler) .-� D-.Ezi Street Apt.No.;or PO Box o. K 1_4(-2-------- E r City, - e IP+4 I r- i. _. dc �i-r� !t(5'2 PS for. 3801 J _ ••• 7 erre fo_L1Mt WEDl1T Eygl:iIldl_.ltffe\Iq:i S i 1 ••u- u-. /, • No Insurance Covera•e Provi•e• rr Artic a ent O .0 CUTCHOGUE. NY 11935 w 0.34 UNIT ID: 09'9 ul Postage $ rtl • Certified Fee 1. 0 CP 1.50 Postrrig m Return Receipt Fee Here (Endorsement Required) m 95r .: KKVSRW ,' 1] Rsutricted Delivery Fee t�7 CO • ®S' O (Endorsement Required) ` 1'9/1 `0 1%, 551 1=1 Total Postage&Feesill n� \ o '," n_I Name(PleaseQPrint Clearly)l/ (Tno be completed by�mailbr) � 1'^ ill 0— Street A t.No.; PO Box No. Ir -eo ox, 190 [a City,Statg,ZIP+' ho o / Y!I ) 1/ 3 5 S Form'3800 Ju 1••• ` S'ee Reverse f. i •- awns- MUM§•gills 1btra"riNf WA:uII a 14 CI Ie1IU;1 014I •.,,- i 1i. - •i • No Insurance Covera•e Provi•e. r_ Article Sent-• CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 ,.. 0.34 UNIT IU: It7 4,...._`1)m Postage $ V LriCertified Fee 1'90 1.50 •1 Ws ark m Return Receipt Fee o H re (Endorsement Required) V o i I Clerk: ,KV.,R4i 0 Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) 02/13/01 - )4V m Total Postage&Fees rU Iii Name(tease JP�rintlClearly) S completedeller m f C ' Q. Street• ,V23 oO o �r¢I'/ ) ,- j „ IT' J� 7�iL/Y ✓p'L/(�(/YLL/� ra_ Clty,St et e,Zl�r7 / `v l /t,/ 3.5-- 1,,,,,v77,......mp.we• tTJGF�iTRli[•7i� •ost- -I' - • Domestic Mail Onl • No Insurance Covera•e Provided m MMISIMITira cc trl MATTITUCK7 NY 11952 0.34 UNI :•. ' `..9 Ls, $ ISC 'Ao •V1 Certified Fee ru 1.90 Ill Return Receipt Fee 1"10 [y �Po�se ark 1 0 (Endorsement Required) Qo : ' 3i 1 Y i. O Restricted Delivery Fee C7 (Endorsement Required) im Total Postage&Fees $ 3.74 01 nJ Ili Name(Please Prl t Clearly) 0 be completed by mailer T m P:e - .. 1.:.------- 1. 11 /. N cit` tate a� At.(11 'W I!9-"fg— PS Form 3800,Jul ••• -- --v-r - tTIIi RRlirns 63i765.1064 - VVL-3 3/Ill iJ1/ FEB2 3,00' 7ONING BOARD of- APPEALS '11/ TOWN OF IE In YORK In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT AA Cilarviara 5-0tht12-S1 Ana cPairtthx_ OF (Name of Applicants) MAILINGS CIM Parcel #.1000- to( - '2_ - 2_(-/,5 and ------------- COUNTY OF St.iFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) £5 re.siding New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that On the ) day of feleuctILY , 20C( , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the VrAssessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office _ -1-9Lks-ri , for every property which abufs and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of- way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. (Signature) — fo b:1-ore me • gi4 oflif oFr, ar / I DAM EL C.ROSS Notary Public,State of New York No.4907175 PLEASle 'ffidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next tolTanneTTiraWelailei'&4kiresses for which,notioes were mailed. Thank you. ct-U-kciLd 514-e r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS RE: McNamara, James and Patricia SCTM Parcel#1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT CERT. MAIL, RRR TO THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF PROPERTY WHICH ABUTS AND IS ACROSS A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET, OR VEHICULAR RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD, SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION: 101-2-21.3 DiBorghese Castello LLC 17150 Route 48 Cutchogue,NY 11935 101-2-22 Tuthill, Hallock E. RR2, 4508 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 101-2-23 Callaghan, Lisa E. &Mettes, Patrick R. 410 Central Park West New York,NY 10025 101-2-24.4 Harris, Theodore P. 929 Madison Avenue#5 New York,NY 10021 102-4-3.2 Remski, Anna B. 3900 Alvah's Lane P.O. Box 123 Cutchogue,NY 11935 102-4-3.3 Lademann, John P.O. Box 190 Cutchogue,NY 11935 102-4-3.4 Lademann, John&Joan P.O. Box 190 Cutchogue,NY 11935 -1- , 102-4-4 Best, Constance M. 3700 Alvah's Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 102-4-5.1 Reinhardt, Richard 11535 Main Road Mattituck,NY 11952 102-4-5.3 Reinhardt, Richard 11535 Main Road Mattituck,NY 11952 109-1-13 Galluccio Estate Vineyarad, Inc. do Ginsberg & Co. 675 Third Ave. Suite 2800 New York,NY 10017 109-1-24.4 Galluccio Estate Vineyards, LLC c/o Ginsberg & Co. 675 Third Ave. Suite 2800 New York,NY 10017 - Artic KW, Section-100-244t-to. N YORK) Iotcif ixi7dweltirigT*IthI:.b.minimum STATE OFinv )SS: reary "alp,A„less than,35 feet. _ , ._ -, .., „ , •P,..repedjib'',I2205:'-,pilleffe: D'Tie,,.'East -- Marion.-1000=38.314._•1,.-•- — COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) , -74,2•5.;'44.ip..:;,..?,.`jAppl-k,isisl..,,,,:•_40.1.67.:',-4- I V3-3kill k 03-1A-r of Mattituck, in CHARLF.S1e41., ..,a , k„•1 iIi ne0'{ for n'-Alerianbeuedert.Article t ',V,t 1 „Sreelioit41)0,7„:244 ,-40;1Acieatte„4„,,,n6ixf;, I I;de111ngwitii4-41-341.4d std*id...05.04,.„` ! clerk o county, being TbIliEngSUdFulFy0sLwKoTrnIMEsaSy,sathweaet IdhyeInsehwesipas rperirn,cr 1.),0:li-1-1,4sa:04;.1Y144itEtcViacoo,s,03W I ' 40:,-I-. ”'`,„;---',-''--I-,'''"I';','"-I, '`I-I'"-'4''''. ,"'''•-• ' 1 rsisuhffeciolkaatndMsattittatuecokf,NinewthyeoTrko,wanndoffhaSfofhuthe Nolodf,iceCoouf Count' ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,.„,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,•iV•St_•4i,,,Ct.14.,-',*•,,,;Y:'''''''=•• f api,.?No.r49,10„ c...J.ASBUBANY.-IzThilike4ecinest-JOr a , ;t'Y4440'41061's0,61,P-":4-100-tiOn-194; the annexed is a printed copy, hasobneceen reegacuhlarlYv! lished in said Newspaper fa-,bnilfgarage,i,i 4,n,aren'otheril,, 1 for pTear yard.-t.cication,of Pr operty:',,,, , _ .„ 1641'Shipyerd.Lenei'annthnid;J000,76,kii on weeksfhseuccessivly, commen . -Pk) ' 20 • _ — • 645.-0.11i. WOOT -----,,: Z,4NO:.;.4011;-7,132 o :, f tAttik:r-CatiitaaeAlyltiiiilci,:41- CHRISTINA T.WEBER i Notary Public,State of New York i i No.01WE6034554 'IMF Qualified in Suffolk County ,.., , - Princi• jt lerk ,-1f4cossp,,tvov,inipepr.thid,-J,i-pe.tw ; Commission Expires December 13, .c,/._ .\ !)F;'°L,§1)4 0 0'9 iig r1r$411411 .1 ttql0 Or 04.' 1 the bluff:,,or,4116:1.4'.9...ii0'.: -i0,--,Isbli-R04:'- IN \ i-.l*itiOlf,-"30,g2F,ft.494,0,5.44k.;;"' Sworn to before me this '' '<ill'iliaiilo0,,scialkhtl-,,,;(..-7.,:;,..1,'''---• ..---- 20_21.1 iv efi#,:14314,-1,,,,IP,',:1413tVAM, .081,,,,-..,4 day of “-6 ' .,......_----,._ .:: •mti-itivi--;ANISi,roti0*-i),cEk-za._ mANiq', riiiii,-,Tereetaiiilworth,Psiki. '-'‘-'0,4A. EttlYNTelE.dt,-.4:,,,a.,-7,.- ,„ r-,-, ,- _,--,,,,, f.,,-,,,. .,,-•. -..„,,,, .,,,..„-,,,,,.-4.,iv„,,,,i„iiiiikie,,,,:,..--„,04#*5.1616,y)111:tgrgOolti)110,..-3_24p,erli%., '-:---AN-VllCr-iVY1='- !'"5'::'t-","-''9"tr,A,441",:"'`iti(iei4,ii6iesOdoniC'Ofkaliffg,i5'g RriPcg, °1'7 .f4rfr4I4WIY4-44'1i''::?I-J.1 t I building,'i e'vf a't•igi,"41fai 4;ciiiiii Also -, vIliggleitgsvii- ,43_,,,,:,,---„,_:,,. • ,.,,i,0, ,7k,,tii-, , 1 / cy>ci _ino., —r. vp-odsalz, ! --2T1HR'-g);:it'ltititt'ZiiitittS0021- ,cfNF$ROrts.?4k49,515$1,90i,lpgt)M„:„....s. :- --7..- '3 , ,v; ',*-1:ek.-t,;;iit;y4divelli0-09Ye;t49.,..:-.c.,0,41#41tagolt y„,,Nortp.0S;:VM..,P,Y9.-W,t1t,...; ',.:j,,,,,k..AV4iiiiatiiiii$1:1X,,Ori#,iiteatit*.,2 ,owin'AbefferE20,71tiVtbdappv4w4,-':, f-,,,,,-, :,,r,t----e-,_d_t,,..9,3--6,----waiw'-: -aifChapter 100(Zoning)Code 61'410' '',9-PcIPPI*341Pak-9,-,....L.,;..,_.T*1_, __ '''''-:-'417tr'' ' '•"k"'' '','" Road'0646-e."at Manor laks-,_ - _ _ __ 10A4i,_s0401-orati#,0.10X41g4,04.7,$;. .,, :A,,,,,,,,q, ;1, -,_,. -,--- .-. -iy-A-,,,i.,-,?4,--.:--, -..;.. ii0,4iii*60.44,003101.6-airg,,by „,,,,-!,lidt-T1-4,44=J ;i-1,i; 1;liql;,.44:16,;-;-.;-b4R: 6)*'.: (4-0*-1.'P4P7lPtw,: 44`00-P,':c4k-ir.'*•,tgi ''Pcf147SUINEV, C4114#Eiz,„'1 4:#84.*-4'tfiel,;###.44t -,,sw*I44f,,.!!-,,,,4;. -,;,. _r ,„.„..,:„. r..,„.. A-64;'=S76'itiorda,PkikiYii4Z11§IffitoiitAr,0147t HouseL-9f T119M3r,93,7,e,7111.1,-.1A= , Amster ITUESDAIOT;TEBkIVAktNt,4?",72.h10011.1,,4i,,,,,,, 4 ,f06:463-67i5v.-1,114.iiimit, :tigoki4iiioto$61*.awo-00.toex,It,.1°!1:-,-1 ,,---,:,,I,17A-1:(4)J40i,s4.Tair- ofto,oinay liii3O*40516):WjiatgW42:1;;S,644) e1....v-,..r.„!,°,1174.1,45-M44x..444,...„,,,,,,,,,S' • E3"tiriiarii,r*OpiNit 4:011;:tROlititik'tPs,4PP3141101#3.FiTt.11$7,Pr9,pos , 41ter-f-tteitim-v6v4itogi.4-41:ciAjObi'.;-:'' Yiti.0.911:tiili,'"tratc,51Priferdit ';':56tAr4-$44.-61i'i,g0.0-$.04,14*.'.i6/41.4F,-st.0101,qtekl, f5716'sfilikeir2'Ydjiit49- .‘:,.04'4*40iiiiii,',*),Oil*:rii*WiRIRL.,gt!ikli\- ie4:-01-$YetV-40-ilicik- fth'ii':`66'.'Pxith*I*444.'4:4°00*'!:§V,' Im''.--Td/retatylturiilaa_4(ioAstilif-1-- - Aisgiitivor;o:;Akw-miti*--liiiii.4.}t,,',:ygfq..ivliii.-fr.-xspy,w:a:§7646,44Vigyg- - • 6.(,0*Irtf_irocpi5,,?,,-,y4J,:::?:afitkc,:___.:'FL'-'-if,::%„).-15;vik-i.;; ewoNts,r :-,7-',:AmAizAr?:-Tiefii,:f *35". -'"P:Vg:t.9.041"4:,i00A.;:.-*.bits, =i,ii,'Aiiiiiiatf4it000piitgilikaiiiilfOilift T.E .'''qA1.9_1' 111:.*.,i9414.155-111n00ili--'„.. svg6g3tilyitirfie4-,6;iiiFieiii," iiiii;e4t1,_ ESOW§*11644.:r970;*.P.5,--- 10,4jiyii''1•;E0:-"tiV.1-Ailaiti4Til.:&; . 1 ,-ptlitqos4..?.. 51§if.000,--t:OXF-9,-,4.14-10‘?,J,-e4t4, r•- '117441rPi..hrA;-tcOf ,lt0.40,:..11..,' o-'”-if-tt--0----k10g,d.e-l--,--ri-,.iop"'"-•a'-i-i5l. owned by Paulette Mueller*.6Alfitifit45cprilV1544*4140LSatirF4414'-anVtg4iiitT No. ,- 14iY1*04:86445442go#6:875ee (combined-ad 6*Li"ii43PP"b;C4PJ*kgR2R6q7394Ic"A:AP#OaiKvT_ihep;- .._1;,_.. dkoii:c00iOWierb 2*AYNtiliW--,:04,944 xieth,:6,#*15**Ci.:- ;':46'siri!!E - wriikse•:•411;,,wkr;v:Mditr,,:-.7,.:1-giiii47(61,;,-;-# 4,i;e:414(1440441.18zi4dsiii!itgAti ;.-1:9' l-.1-.S"'-P7-,;k',--...,;-Via'...41,,-',3-•9-4(•.•4-•i-,•`,i4'1•-P-I,•"•e•••,di,Vti'Article-'•.4I:.I'.•,''g/'v.:=•'..-3?d0f•4.,t?•„-,'',•-'Y'4."-,."i,r.--.''.•.. submit .".4,-,4, 40--.statements be,-f9-,04z 1* AtetibW'fw.i4fELis reOneSted*locali- ,fij 15rofft4i5cvheirieiitUeS:i- 4241119g'with?.TFY4"-r"i;I.iL4 " AndiviltalctsigtleglipVgp*sigpated than 35 feet Location of Property 1380 Files e litabie ?r,ie4Aduring reg Egtona4A54*R.44400n-4064ivprqpa11,1fi!s'Ress-i?uf!"(g41n'.4 • §4420P4it" ' " p.m.) if pd.have7quesiinn4p14sedo.. ,- 63i "' -165/.$09. - 4"CP:40-Iia1".1'.r;31,-*11, 09;::if49,t-',3",lr- PPthcsIt4P'to--'e"n11----''(-,-)'-,,„ .. 51iptieMt.s0401-7K461,4ictrirt41-iiic,IL-,11,1_Pite4rfFitv.4064-4401,t -A/'1--,,,, '-foi:41..Pktiiiiie-50,**.iii9**,iqoi-poo - ' GERARD- r ,„..',.':... ,69, ,,49,„,„„,-:CHAIRMAN 244B _ 4 . ,,,..p.A .m.p.,... 406t,3, imo.,AriliFIciCAK§Ati9li'lqq, ,----7----7:7-',-Y-v, c,, , otrklowN 2:44,Bi ",b4:ied-..:-',"'ciri,r4;the,,iiiii0dip$,--,,,, -, 7, ' n do-p-0- ,-._ ...,; . , ixii--46ii%if-co'dtoioAsi°4**0-si'0;QE,,,,,--,-_.,--- -;,-.-,h-yr, -2•;444•71`f,, ,PARDff APPEALS ;11, a-kit- 0 1514iiiicCi4f),,0)4104-iaditokeo.-•P.. mg,t7.' , ,,,,,-.krk , --,,,--1,2- -,,,,,,,,, „,,..Rw . o'.pgone-family-T tA',9la' :X1•i0•'f';' 4'” ar.**''•,'•;'•„:l!.:•i•t,''-'•-,'•'C.v.:.• )'•,',`•4A'"pz.c.-,•,',,2,,o4-"gI -5_';,4ps„y04„:..9.„# setbdckatleggstia4pfeet,c0cii7atce , 7: ? AN; R ,i,kt'a6X1179 , uthold NY -0959 90;41?..140Tg.11t'iPtcc11640,143F4tPR8Y .,tiog L- __,"=--,;_--•-:::,.;,- dre,=;,ji-e.i.deck addition. Location of ij4i • t_L•_' __L',_'__-_.1-___-___. ▪ PrziOtiriTiA4 -1.riciP4Y6,'East- Mati44.7,.:`41??0,1-e*Rati41$41;-':1097: '- '".2,24440;%'.'---;',-,•''-'",=`,'"'”'655 p.m Appt,J4cf.MOD"-MARTIN , -Xi,ititACOVEUNterseittle,:jiiis • ,'Xi,i0.41:regV-40.*Nififf0,-,We',8*-1, , , loy,:s&tiiiii-04-3q:-:;.430:46:44,goegyoty. , -!,gtiOlif'''.141,144,:alieik,i.4141'xi 47.ti44.:-. .:tbairciri,,,i'if 1,./0361,!yp1„85:::=OCiiiienu- ' Avenue,Southold; :,-:--,,- i,', 7484'_pliii,"-5,'ii.,,0)..;--$6-.. ”-4913 - - 4E•*ti'lkikRb',firfRAIi9.-;tiiiifis','i,,re4upit k.'14IV4iiinctitiifai."-Artiel .'it'eI,L4Pil- C 1 '100.73 ,f:01,i:tp,--AisAiikt0,-..°F0,41',4sze---:' .-,..ic;*i#Iiiihipiry-elt:4 ),) 041,:-,4Tgorriofifo-,_.. . if#J, 49,g,g5 4,4-er,PY;#T4*,...;Er.r9P,94,3' PCifinif'.T:38.041's*satit'*it(Ve.cl;-, 7'061(041-4;',00011"1414;,-,::: F„'2LT'':,1„4 0:i.i*i..W10:,,,W404Y'-.-0:3, T 2 , motazgul,Isis.:,:;1,,V, i'gieki:',*,-A, : Variance vo_ , under III,: c-,40..kL - . [--43 t'4/0t4(e'aft-'0:6.143-00141liegItaJ)t- rli,aaV4i$:414;11rinfai*OfkiifCe1444rd-- "!-*0*igli*rifiii,:igitAii/Ca411" 1; tink4.4tijcp:40,1-104,51Viiii,frzgifew Vetitifeconit,,A9,9.9i6gil'AfP:("4i: ' ! -,GROVRTORP:lialtTERFDy,..NAC-0:::-.,' J . & P . McNAMARA REQUEST TO REVERSE BP #26821 -Z , Construction of • Agricultural Buildings Owners : P . & E . MUELLER 1000 - 101 -2 -24 . 5 , 24 . 6 TUES . , FEB . 27 , ' 01 - 8 : 35 PM . -') ING BOARD OF APP1- LS -' TOWN OF SOUTHOLb - ( 631 ) 765 - 1809 FAX ( 631 ) 765 - 9064 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD , NY 11971 - 0959 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: ZBA OFFICE STAFF 765-1809 4/0 COMPANY: / DATE: )31/4 l FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: * yea 7 • PHONE NUMBER: RE: ,�0-a) 677. .44a7410 .4) ❑ URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPOF 4 TIME : 01/31/2001 17: 01 DATE,TIME 01/31 16:58 FAX NO. /NAME 2984427 DURATION 00:03:23 PAGE(S) 06 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD I ZC `'ING BOARD OF APPS'" -. S TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - ( 631 ) OUTHOLD _( 631 ) 765 - 1809 FAX ( 631 ) 765 - 9064 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD , NY 11971 - 0959 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: �j FROM: ZBA OFFICE STAFF 765-1809 APANYaa �//-�G L(li.), CO : (/ DATE: 0//0 / FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: PHONE NUMBER: RE: X35.3 P4/IA dliA)/a 9 044 all.CU 0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: ,TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPOT TIME : 01/31/2661 16:55 DATE,TIME 01/31 16:53 FAX NO./NAME 2988565 DURATION 00: 02:36 PAGE(S) 06 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM LA) M .1-1//n°1( - ' s (' rte- „ Ak2-12/ )4r` ��i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be heard at a public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4909—JAMES AND PATRICIA McNAMARA. This is a request for Reversal of Building Permit No. 26821-Z issued concerning new construction at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, property owned by Paulette Satur Mueller and Eberhard Mueller; Parcel No. 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 (combined as one lot). The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of the above hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: January 30, 2001. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 1110 OFFICE OF 4111 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 January 30, 2001 Re: Chapter 58— Public Notice for Tuesday, February 27, 2001 Hearing Dear Applicant (or Agent): Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing the recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be mailed with a map or sketch showing the construction area or variance being considered. Send the enclosed Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, on or before Friday, February 16th, or as soon as possible, including a copy of a map showing your project area, to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. By Friday, February 23`d, please submit to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (copy enclosed) with parcel numbers noted for each, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. Later, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us (but not later than February 27th). If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing. When picking up the sign, a $15 check will be requested for each sign as a deposit. Please post the Town's official poster/sign no later than 2/20/01. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is furnished for each front yard.) The sign(s) must remain in place for at least seven (7) days, and should remain posted through the day of the hearing. If you need a replacement sign, please contact us. After the signs have been in place for seven (7) days, please submit your Affidavit of Posting to us for the permanent file. Within 20 days after the hearing, the sign and stand should be returned to us. The $15 deposit will then be returned to you. If the sign and stand are not returned within this 20-day period, the deposit will be non-refundable. If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ZBA Board Members and Staff Enclosures • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT OF (Name of Applicants) MAILINGS CTM Parcel #1000- - - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, residing at , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say,that: On the day of , 200 i, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the ( ) Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office , for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of- way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. (Signature) Sworn to before me this day of , 2000 (Notary Public) PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. - . .1 r t ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK ------------------------------------- x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN (Name of Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- - - x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, residing at , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the day of , 200'-; I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten (10)feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) -facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;*and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be (Signature) Sworn to before me this day of , (Notary Public) *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. ,3 t i - _ § 58-1 NOTICE OF PUBLII FARING § 58-1 Chapter 68 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING § 58-1. Providing notice of public hearings. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold 12-27-1995 as L.L. No. 25-1995. Amendments noted where applicable.] § 584. Providing notice of public hearings. Whenever the Code calls for a public hearing, this section shall apply. Upon determining that an application is complete, the board or commission reviewing the same shall fix a time and place for a public hearing thereon.The board or commission reviewing an application shall provide for the giving of notice: A. By causing a notice giving the time, date, place and nature of the hearing to be published in the official newspaper within the period prescribed by law. B. By requiring the applicant to erect the sign provided by the town, which shall be prominently displayed on the premises facing each public or private street which the property involved in the application abuts, giving notice of the application, the nature of the approval sought thereby and the time and place of the public hearing thereon. The sign shall be set back not more than ten (10) feet from the property line. The sign shall be displayed for a period of not less than seven (7) days immediately preceding the date of the public hearing. The applicant or his/her agent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision. C. By requiring the applicant to send notice to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public or private street § 58-1 SOUTHOLD CODE § 58-1 from the property included in the application. Such notice shall be made by certified mall, return receipt rt requested.posted'at least seven(7)days prior or the initial public hearing on the -application and addressed to the owners at'the addeesseS listedifir h ll on the local assessment roll.The applicant or agent tUe an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision. NEXT BAR NYSRPS ASSESSMENT INQUIRY DATE : 12/08/2000 47381 SOUTHOLD SCHOOL MATTITUCK SCHOOI ROLL SEC TAXABLE A . 2RCLS 210 1 FAMILY RES TOTAL RES SITE 102 . -4-1 TOTAL COM SITE 4000 ALVAHS LA ACCT NO 13 = OWNER & MAILING INFO = yi =MISC I ASSESSMENT DATA MCNAMARA JAMES E & tIRS-S' 1 **CURRENT** RES PERCENT ' PATRICIA A �Wl 1 (LAND 600 **TAXABLE** 427 MANISFIELD AVE E1 ' ' 1 BANK NOTAL 3,200 COUNTY 3,200 �V PLAINEDGE NY 1171' **PRIOR** TOWN 3,200 BLAND 600 SCHOOL 3,200 - -_ NOTAL 3,200 ==DIMENSIONS =_ SALES INFORMATION ACRES . 36 BOO 12066 SALE DATE 08/16/00 SALE PRICE 1 ID ' E 848 PR OWNER LANGNER ANNA P TOTAL EXEMPTIONS 0 ITOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS 4 CODE AMOUNT PCT INIT TERM VLG HC OWN CODE UNITS PCT TYPE VALUE 1FD029 IPK090 IWW020 ISW011 F1=NEXT PARCEL F3=NEXT EXEMPT/SPEC F4=PREV EXEMPT/SPEC 75 . 10- 03-050 F6=G0 TO INVENTORY F9=G0 TO XREF F10=G0 TO MENU 516 298 4427 059 P01 DEC 08 '00 13:19 LgG urR 0L, Imo„` , DEC ® 8 2000 11\ 3� ' KEEGAN & KEEGAN, {LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW !47 noRIHOC EAN AVFNua P.0 Pox 918 PATI HOOOE.Nb14 YORK 11772-0918 L'srEmr>OFFict,PIS-C•THOMAS J.KEEGAN, IRDEBRA A.BYRNE•S TELEPHONE (631) 475-9400 IALIN ROAL'FACSIMILE.(63l 475.06(11 6DANIEL C.RrJsS 1 .NON'YOkit 11Q52-0146 *44****.Q9,X�'�.Li l :Lt A..L 5-1200 JAMIE ROSNER 427 PAX !&r1•kt.frlk N QYuNU•QA•X % December S,2000 THOMASI KEEGAN By Fax to#631-765-906 eF COUNSEL Mr.Gerard P.Goehringer,Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Appeal byby McNamara(Property of Muller) Dear Mr.Goehtinger: We are in receipt ofi•your fax of today advising that Notice is required to be sent to the owner of property at the"address shown on the assessment rolls"by certified mail,return receipt requested.We believe that ive effected service on the owners of the property.Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller,by certitied mail,return receipt requested at the address shown on the assessment rolls(which is the same as the property location address)which is 3705 Alvah's Lane,Cutchogue,New)(calk 11935,on December 4,2000.Proof of Notice is faxed herewith. Mr.Bob Scott,the Chairman of the Southold Town Assessors,checked the assessment records for this property(Tax Map 41000-101.2-24.5124.6)while Karen,of this office,spoke to him over the telephone in the last hour.Mr.Scott said the Southold Town assessment records show no other address listed for the property owners of this parcel. Please advise if yotl believe that proper service has not been•achieved and thank you for your cooperation hi this miter. Very truly yours, Daniel . oss DCR:kr/enclosure /dataJreal(mcn-xbu2 lir 516 298 4427 059 P02 DEC 08 '00 13:20 ., i _ - I AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STA I'E OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)ss.: • DANIEL C.ROSS,an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: I am over the age of eighteen(18) year:,not a party to this action,not related by blood or marriage to either of the parties to this action, and I reske at Mattituck,New York. That on 114100 l mailed copies of the Application of Patricia McNamara and Janes Mc!'amara to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals to Paulette Satin Ivf(iUer and Ebel Chard Muller at 3705 Alvah's Lane,Cutchogue,New York 11935 by 11 S.mail certified return receipt requested by placing copies of said applications in a postpaid properly addressed wra;Jper artd delivering same to the post office under the exclusive care and custody o!'the United 5ater Postal Service. LIII DANIEL'C.C %' i/ ROSS IIS Postal Service ' U S Postal,Ser vice',' •F,, -." r CERTIFIED MAIL FIECEIPT, - , CERT,iFIED MAIL'RECEIPT (Do,-,,est.mai,On/y<f o Ink ilenn` Corer.* Prnvidecl) f r;(tiv n ^trc MzrI Only No,klsuraggc CovOrallQ'Provrded) • Pau,Lc. . Sa ug 77W/1�, ,; ` 7Postage ru Postage 1 s /)-,, . ' C a can uee Fee I /�I�7etr¢rr LI Cettl`f4d he h■'' G G' T �1eY ri J` plooatmar k,-, Actor,Recalr-PA, / ,1 n Rrssm int Psot Pee / �-' diem p IEndbrament ReGn sol . a ( tldrs[mDn!�UqU J I C:^ I� Reeato-so Do:6,y far +F rj7 7 estrated Dollvvysea C� t,ti two 4. •7 (EndMeorr.yrd.RagUlrod) .� 'l= TetelPwtage AFcee r� TM&t Pou-tag.&Paw .•- 3 os ` V Name pine Awl Clew;$c to laird d•m m � � M L Name Afow 7:t CMeNyJ(To b0 carreeted br rruaer. .e e....t ia. -A ....-. ... - •----•.••......-- n L[. t . SQ7�ciQ 77?G.+//CfL a— & Ant Nc.mor PO 9a+ 'o tam ' (..GLS ✓ Oiled,Apt.Na.;or PO Cox No I Ill; ✓ 3705 ,/02.h s 1-4P3-e, �rN"62t,4-c,17.0‘ a 1/ ,�S n C1ty,M a,VA.4 h� b' Al r /l z p r tar it • I Gt,li ar,F .93oc,Jar,ti l "%;„:,,,,,„,-i r.; t5 hi PS:rorm 3000 4,4,154; t``? as1 e:geverti3 for%tnst rtkfdy - - .AFI ALS BOARD MEMBERS �®�,i' �,�yFF®L� =; ate ® r ® Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairmand • 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. y P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora p r Southold,New York 11971 Lora S. Collins `A• �� ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 George Horning _= $ s•' Telephone(631) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 8, 2000 Fax Transmission to 298-4427 G Cefi��e a0 Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan and Keegan, L.L.P. 315 Westphalia Road Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 Re: Appeal by McNamar (Property of Muller) Dear Mr. Ross: Notice is required to be sent to the owner of property at the "address shown on the assessment rolls" by certified mail, return receipt requested. We are in receipt of your Affidavit of Mailing for the property location (Cutchogue), but not for the address listed on the assessment records of the County or Town. If this has not been done, please send notice and provide proof of the Notice as soon as possible. The application will be processed when this has been provided. Thank you. Very truly yours, rtilates.Zi-A/464,0° GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN ISMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT ..1"" _ �. TIME : 12/08/200 12: 48 DATE,TIME 12/08 12:47 FAX NO./NAME 2984427 DURATION 00: 00:41 PAGE(S) 01 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD /'�,� ANA IRLS BOARD MEMBERS 410 ,11 �ufF®t =; ®i® t'® ; Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �� ��- 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora r`.' Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins , ®! es' ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 George Horning eikg $,.I Telephone (631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 8, 2000 Fax Transmission to 298-4427 Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Keegan and Keegan, L.L.P. 315 Westphalia Road Box 146 Mattituck, NY 11952-0146 h•,e/)a-muk-a, YkaiLo-(.3 Re: Appeal by Maffer (Property of MjNamara) Dear Mr. Ross: Notice is required to be sent to the owner of property at the "address shown on the assessment rolls" by certified mail, return receipt requested. We are in receipt of your Affidavit of Mailing for the property location (Cutchogue), but not for the address listed on the assessment records of the County or Town. If this has not been done, please send notice and provide proof of the Notice as soon as possible. The application will be processed when this has been provided. Thank you. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN 'IR 1 ?ANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT,, TIME : 12108/2000 12:43 DATE,TIME 12/08 12:42 FAX NO./NAME 2984427 PAGE(S)ION 0:00: 41 1 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ' r KEEGAN & KEEGAN, L L P ATTORNEYS AT LAW 147 NORTH OCEAN AVENUE P.O Box 918 THOMAS J. KEEGAN,JR. PATCHOGUE,NEW YORK 11772-0918 EAST END OFFICE DEBRA A. BYRNES TELEPHONE (631) 475-9400 315 WESTPHALIA ROAD DANIEL C. ROSS FACSIMILE(631)475-0601 P.O Box 146 MATTITUCK,NEW YORK 11952-0146 *:1*****y:: :r.::::r-:i:a::,:::::r•:;.:i* (631) 298-1200 JAMIE ROSNER (631) 298-4427 FAX :r* ***: :,::, December 5, 2000 THOMAS J KEEGAN OF COUNSEL Town of Southold C D7 E Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall DEC $2000 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Li — E Attention: Linda-Kowalski a.- Yok ''',,(1, , Re: McNamara/Muller pi 1 elf - A4,7 i- OA,4,19,4A—, Dear Linda: Enclosed herewith for your records are two Affirmations of Service in the above referenced matter. On December 4, 2000, I mailed copies of the ZBA Application of Patricia McNamara and James McNamara to Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,NY by certified mail, return receipt requested. I also attempted personal delivery on four(4) separate occasions on December 1st and 2"d. On December 1st , I mailed copies of the Application by U.S. Express mail and on December 2nd I left copies at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,NY. / Aii k 11 DCR:kr enclosures data/realmcna-zba lir AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, not a party to this action, not related by blood or marriage to either of the parties to this action, and I reside at Mattituck,New York. That on the following dates and times I attempted to deliver copies of the Application of Patricia McNamara and James McNamara to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals upon Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York at the large residential structure at said address and deponent was unable to find a person of suitable age and discretion on 12/1/00 at 2:45 p.m.; 12/1/00 at 5:45 p.m.; 12/2/00 at 1:00 p.m.; 12/2/00 at 5:30 p.m. and on the last attempt on 12/2/00 at 5:30 p.m. I left copies of said application between the outside door and the inside door of the east doorway at said residence and, on 12/01/00 I mailed copies thereof by U.S. Express mail to Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York 11935 and on 12/04/00 I mailed to Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller copies of said application U.S. mail certified return receipt requested and for both mailings the applications were placed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper and delivered to the post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United Sates Postal Service. kito' __Adr."/ \y-vo r "NIEL C. ROSS real/mcna-afm ser • Ill ii 11111i r 11 _ 1 , POST OFFICE iG, E/1 MPRESS EL614j6727533US * TOADDRESSEE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TM ORIGIN.(POSTAL USE-ONL`r), •-,. = ,- E L 6 4 6 7 3 7 5 3 3 U S6- PO ZIP Code { 1 ADay of ery Flat Rate Envel pe 1h• N second Date In Postage LL /� C_� jjl�oon❑ 3PM $ SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR /Moon Day Year SERVICE GUARANTEE AND LIMITS Timem J 3 / [leyzndDay ❑ardoay ReturnRecelptFee ON INSURANCE COVERAGE N Weight AM '., Intl Alpha Country Code COD Fee Insurance lbs / rry,� No Delivery Acceptan �7', - , : ❑ Weekend ❑Holiday , CUSTOMER US 'ONLY - - ,. _ I PI .II ill'-I lliltli t-UtIE1111 1 'tit i7il1,%MTai1 W1i111ppf11111111ff METHOD OF PAYMENT X t 1 9 6 6 1 •.�^WAIVER OF SIGNATURE(Domestic Only).gftdItiM aJmerchandlso Insurance Is void If waiver of signature is requested. Express Mall Corporate Acct No L I wish delivery to be made without obtaining;flgna�re tlf addressee oc.ad asses a t(if delivery employee judges 'd j •,x rat article can be lath aecutgaocatlonpah aut riz that delivery Emplo b s s at re constitutes valid proof of ,t,delivery•.., •—,vas:1 t•/11,,-.:in tf.;' ` .s+'^. I^.,l ` IF4ti l eTc Acct No or NO DELIVERY- ,Weekenolida 4 4 . Postal Service Accl Nct � Y • � ; 6,. � �„�,� FROM:(PLEASE PRINT) PHONE( I TO:(PLEASE PRINT) PHONE( ) ,L At' d Ic,LEGA04 LL? , r 31 IracSTPi1ALIA AVEf11S. PLTF �/ai' e;` nt�ff Lr.,� 4rJr, rau box 1.4b ()IA EgFi f D ,v)-‘1_,1 1 L; .s"& MATTITUCn. NY 11.91, .1/to `37o f?1-.v0)-" 1.._r)1nir CUTCH 0 C.-\,i ; :/`3.`T'. I c.;� L J L J PRESS HARD. ;, 1 i III 111,1111/IN T '�"' `r .a. ' You are making 3 copies. FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING CALL 1-800,222-1.811 WW;W.0 C'} tit f{ I e • • 1 , c AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: DANIEL C. ROSS, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York affirms the following under penalties of perjury: I am over the age of eighteen(18) years, not a party to this action, not related by blood or marriage to either of the parties to this action, and I reside at Mattituck,New York. That on 12/4/00 I mailed copies of the Application of Patricia McNamara and James McNamara to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals to Paulette Satur Muller and Eberhard Muller at'3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York 11935 by U.S. mail certified return receipt requested by placing copies of said applications in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper and delivering same to the post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United Sates Postal Service. r , C 11/1" ' ,....rpepi / t fa DANIEL C. ROSS S. �. 1 T U.S. Postal Service °_ U S Postal Service �, � .� CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT '',- �' R` � (Domestic.Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) . CE,(Domestic M E�{MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail 94y;If Insurance Coverage Provided) m `Article Sent To 0- a �. Article Sent To, cri Postage $ 4-2 ®tn .� ru Postage' /$ j..,/ ° I Certified Fee ( / C �`; G. Certified Fee 7v m 4 isl � � �' � #}ere �. I m Return Receipt Fee �ostmar i n Return Receipt Fee ( dorsement Required) ere Endorsement Required) C ® Restricted Delivery Fee s� 0 (Endorsement Delivery Fee G 1� (Endorsement Required) D (Endorsement Required) _ �.E76Q Total Postage 8�Fees O ' ` t1J i( � Total Postage&Fees $' �� Ill Name Please Print Clearly)(To be completed by mailer) Name(Please Print Clearly)(to be mpleted b m ilei-, MI Pa�Cer�e S n- c , ,//e/Z, 1 m' t.„4,* !!f p- Street,Apt.No.;or PO Box No. , i 1 Cr Str No.r PO Box N-O.. /n / , , cr 1/43705 rr- rzi f City,Statp ZlL / io IN City,CI CLC '- 1.00 0.2. /V ,Awm £ v± or Ins 1.1 i PS Form„3800 July 9y9 ,> u See Reverse for ns Itructions zi'I P 3600 Ail 1 999 f '? '` t„yfr_ Page' 10 - Minutes June 19 , 1997 Regular Mei*4.ng of the ZBA APPEALS BOARD MEMBER.-3 ,Sy�F:.. I1 O Southold Town Hall . :�.• .A _ 0✓,'_ =:C95 Main Road Goe^ ge Chairman -" P.O. Box 1179 - Gerard P.Sergi Doyen : 1, .T- : . Southold_NewYarn 119?1 James Dinizio,Jr. O -f Fax(5 16)766-1823 if, 0� Telephone (5 16) 765-1809 Lydia A.Tortora 1 �.' Maureen C. Ostermaun BOARD OF APPEALS - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _ r FIvi DINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DEE M1M 19 T1997 ADOPTED AT REGULAR MEETING 0 Appl. No. 4484 - EBERHARD yUELLER. PARCEL 1000-101-2-24.5Cutcho e STREET & LOCALITY 3705 Alvah's Lane, g. DATE OF PUBLIC HEAR..Ni G: June 19, 1997 FINDINGS (PROPERTY FA properly is located in an A-C Agricultural- DESCRIPTION: This prop beim' situate on the westerly side of Agricultural- Conservation Zone District�� 262.88 ft. of road frontage. This lot contain Lane, Careho��e, ft. as b dwelling contains a total area of 80,000so• improvedDwith an e�stin7ra- try 27, 1997 survey map and. - ) structure and five accessory buildings. BASIS OF APPEAL= Building Inspector's Action of Disapproval dated 1997; Article _ e III, Section 100-33. - April 28, AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT For approval of the location of a ned front yard ins- to a rear for the xileavinga erring accessory buildings, accessory buildings. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable than• - in character of ne.•hborhood ora detr ie-family t to nearby properties becausebe an. improvement tonT singthe property and residence in this location willneighborhood and at the same time preserve the historic value of the accessory farm buildings. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other than an area 'ar`-�Ce method. feasible for applicant to pursue, because the proposed house is situated fin a manner to provide maximum use of the remaining property is not substantial in relanon to _ ,� (3) The reauested area variance mor to the enacnnent of the location of farm compleseds built p zoning. .._ - r'` i.'i•_f _ CCS_ -!" +ID.�i..._, 2.:;,_-0i-. - - y_ 71.2�;. _�.- ,. > ,Page 2 - June 11 997 AppI. , 4484: 1C,„„.=101-2-24.5 (Mueller) Southold Town Board of Appeals (4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the variance request is minimal. (5) The situation has not been self-created because the cottage and • accessory structures were constructed prior to the (enactment of Zoning. • (6) This action is the minimum that the Board deems necessary and adequate and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. , RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as applied, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: Upon completion of the new single-family residence and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for same, the existing cottage shall be converted to an accessory structure. In no event shad the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such. - 1 VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS DOYEN, DflIZIO, TORTORA, OSTERMANN, and GOEHRINGER. This resolution was unanimousl7ed. % ...„--- ___,,/,....; ....----)/4/1/,'7/L___.--- /RESOLUTION ADOPTED 649 I 97 GERARD P P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN i ********************* Actions.97/101-2-24.5 1 .4r~_ =J:t .::42 •.ra.. ,�'4 - c:Hyl a ti?% : �-J.gIN,- -,-.V,-,'.:, i i.- '_'^r� j-7” -.. r,, :,;^,... ,:°...-,� • o-.„4v y ea.. Com,_,. `'t-Z , ;:�� , .` *• -,,,:...r. --A. . . . .. _-.n ,••-..`..- . ,4 • tZ.H-. -.4,..."..1-4.:-,-4,....:-.-- -3 ;:',?.:"w",-,.`,°•. .. - L . r-4., - ri.-?c{ 1.01.x„ y: ;_+ 1,le !,� -.li.Gr . : Sc. 1,1 �. , _ :'1. , ' - 1 'V' 4';"d I ,'17 .tp.Y�,'i. �a.r .4,!4".,4,",i,,, 1• �: ;'...ti y r4_'. , •,'14, ),;•.;•,,..!•,,,,i.,,,-4bb:'ul <k'y1';';�, ,, _, 5 f, I. , ,. i '.raj.. i En i t'a',{�I :1!'r, .h�'F�Mf4C.,.. '• . P4 ,ti, ,,ii 1�•5yt,;,. ik, A,.j}• "�' q` • • e• ' .. :, § ! ny^ ,.4. 11 n 'I .. I to' ti.t � * .At:Al, f 1.7,17 ir?"ir'� '..tf.,j`i at ik.•i i•�':-.4. ii , `"`t • ` • �� i . ' • L ` ` "',, II'IIS ., i),-;13 �F,f y .�j h t 1 I S - i 1, X!� 'lYJft ,` �}'Y%1.}S'�Fjla+ t1?j.:x`�cp r'•J Y,. ! , , •' �:' 1,11 it,� { .,w?T}."• '1(q' 1 I6) i L. I 'I I ii 4 S •hit `hFt iia { •�,. �11.(;1•140,,i1 LL.Q4 a,y�1'!>, , ' 1,, 1 `'+' j;I,. ly? � 1 F •a., t •� ,. i. ,1 Lilt is �,,i • 1 Ili • a(}-'r+} i� ,'N,X 'In 4�I •A 'F •,'ff� •1 la '! al . » I lyf,,• 1 ''. A T�`.}" ot. 'S}' 'r: •l„ 'd' �'S ,• 'S IJ, : • • }. 1 r 1 1' �j( ti 5�'.�•r�.{ 4s r r y4. i s ''''.111,4.t.4.;,,.. 't'14'',rt''''' :C":,�-,V" F 1 + (,±. i 13M i. r � yr� c +1 q j. r, 7 t! ,,,G4,::,...,„•:. .i, I j !/ ' ,iite47. ,' ..Ir i.7`,:` • ,;'''Xti, P „ IN' i!!''''•,4•i:J .. !. , I' I i 1 '4„pp ;`'i. . • ik•'' ' „ F;, •:)!`';,7`.•41' I i. i r, r l L,; , . 1 •..,,i -- I,• ' �' i I j I' I I • rr+V!, r .r y p ! ...'. { r I • • {1' !1 I I' I • I' ` 'I i !' ,,'� ' ✓'h Y. r1 Se°tte !,' '{4�y •y• V�, • ' ' ,,�} ` I ' • 1 ,.F� a y,, t•x, F • -Sew '} i p1 r' ' �i ^i I, i' I' 1 r y 'c�'Y°�•f•'.n"if<•" fk ;� y,(• !'' A�'.• ..i, .Y ', I •7 • �' • " ""ew .__.. :I 1 Iil 1111 • 'i ij 1 I 4/1'''114...*".�SyFv.14•AT'1",•,• 5.4, •••,,.•T,: .4•••'r.4,"• ,:'.'4•,.'r 7.1,4 I i s 1� •..•+._.._._' ! I i • I :'! J1C.',.,it'F4� 'r •,717x'-Y,.;r:." �.i'• I,.Y',,Y, 1 ,I r ' '1 • i 1`"''q�n''Fyf4. ` ,`• ,.i. ,. ,7' 1,1,(: 1 1 1 :1 Ar, ;.,,1,417 i , ; 1'-fK:. Pk fa ,',f,'1 • k:.,11,".',"(.";'.'s:4'''''''"f• .w { X41• i• ,F� � cirt 143 r7 �if ;.'..'11f' "fie :} .. ..�'; '177'3'' Y .i, i ig: �Et}Y�.o4 •! t,; 4` �,•' ;' J'.;gT.0i • Z0, L •. „' f 'y Sy-4 • tip ¢ v - 1 , J i;,'iiFiiv-i,,;L-zi 04 rip;;, r; ;,, • . - 1 I� ''• ,.i.':,:'!.,....• '}''f, 11 %'� I 14 �y; ''.4-.'. .',',+ ,7,14:' , 'll i' .' e U 1 I. ! I r' (I IP' '11' �''I 1 r� , 1 M I '1 ar ' 'I, i ,,,,,, f., . ., , . ; • • pt :�'.'ti,,. ( 1 "4' 37I 1.,I,a�;1.... ..r, . .2..` 't :a'' >...• . .i' •:ij i'j I• II 1 �!' I. e,. ,,..• Fv y . ` • I, I II.114,I ,'-' 4,,.. to lie, 1•-r,, ..het ,".» x jt ,; xi y ..pi + t , , ,. • $, I ., ' ' .4 .4 '''-:''',';': ,: . \ ' ,,,,!;,;4'‘.,i,,,,:.1,..0.4.,,,,;st; ,,,.,.:„...,,,, ,,,,e:.1,1,,,, ...1... .„,,.....,..,..„,.r . "t ` i 1 8.o.oil() 'I • "("yL�. ^.al•3, ./..,:;,,..,-, ..1.:, 140 }} • r ,Of 0if k�t� i ' , y ,” a s `Y y, 'rte', - . ,' • i • / PT;+r.^-.+> .is ., ;41Lice., �;��.. r.,i�'..1: ':.. I !' ,'.:l•1, • r1 "l: r� t c11, 3+' .. ! aa. • . ..• •rJNYr ofd fit. h fl � I ( r �', . • r••e `� ,IFMrYiui,;�,,(f ,"� ,».y {i ri 1 r ,A4•'i! , iv•••",,•;•.',j1�,jf' xi �} A , �`Ir ,i ki • Ay,, - r r,/,}ri',rv:°t..•awe.l+{w,"f4>�. �,t 3y; 1 f,i.; '•.y`. II i t_> {.. ;$,,» .ry ,yir hi i r`. ^'� Ni ••7•- •1,,,,•-;—.,.1,•',A,.,;, I I • . „ :f 17 lav, ' ,Q•t14g'' leis :... •,iL.. i':aliistrr.s'-%7'11 ns;;:.- '�'tv1,!� • �.' .. .. I ....._isle.»J.,..a^L:r:i,.,'•-..(-wo°ul•t.} Yo:. 1'114.. , - z x:�.• ,'.:.,fit. c .�: ;.; I •eA f,I"i2 !`I ;