Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4260APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Halt 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION With reference to each of the following separately filed applications and appeal file numbers: Appl. No. 4260 Application for a Variance under Article IX, Section 100-91C(1) of the Southold Town Zoning Code, baaed upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for the placement of accessory tower structure which is required to be located in a rear yard with a setback as per Section 100-33B(2) at five feet from the property line. Property known and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone District; and Appl. No. 4261 - Application for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-231A of the Southold Town Zoning Code, based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the height of the fence which exceeds the required height limitation. Property known and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone District; and Appl. No. 4262 - Application for a Variance under Article IX, Section 100-93 of the Zoning Code based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the outside storage or display which is not permitted in this Hamlet-Business Zone District. Property known and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Harnlet Business Zone District. WHEREAS, public hearings on each of the above applications were held on January 4, 1995 and February 1, 1995, at whieh times all who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Beard has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and Page 2'- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings 'of fact: 1. BASES OF APPEALS. These are appeal applications based upon a July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector. 2. OWNERSHIP: Town records show the owner of the subject property as WILLIAM F. GASSER, having acquired the subject premises on September 3, 1981 by deed at Liber 9071 page 54. 3. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: The subject property consists of an area of 32,109 sq. ft. with 50 ft. frontage along the easterly side of Love Lane and 60 ft. frontage along the southerly side of County Highway 48. The parcel is "L" shaped with 248.50 ft. frontage in an east-west direction along the Long Island Railroad tracks. The property extends northerly 375.72 feet from the Long Island Railroad to the County Highway. The property is conforming as to total lot area, width and depth in this Hamlet-Business (HB) Zone District. 4. USE OF PROPERTY: The subject property is known to be a non-profit tank museum which existed since the early 1980s. Prior to having been acquired in 1981 by William F. Gasser, the property was used as an C-Light Industrial storage yard related to a nearby commercially established lumber company located on Sound Avenue, Mattituck. 5. ZONING. In 1981 the lower haft of the subject premises was zoned "C-Light Industrial," and the upper half of the subject premises was mixed nC-Light Industrial" and "A" Agricuitural-Residential. In January 1989, a new master plan was adopted which rezoned the premises to Light-Industrial. Subsequently, on May 27, 1992 the applicants applied to the Town Board for a change of zone from Light Industrial and Residential Office to Hamlet Business, and on November 10, 1992, the Town Board granted this change in zoning, with conditions as noted in the Declaration of Covenants filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on November 8, 1993 at Liber 11651 page 134. 6. CHARACTER OF IMMEDIATE AREA. Abutting this property are the following: (a) to the northwest is a 34,578 sq. ft. parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Frank Ammariti since October 8, 1985 as per conveyances at Liber 9899 pages 22 thru 36 {8 deeds}. On November 26, 1985, the neighbors applied for and received a Special Exception under File No. 3407 for a 470 sq. ft. catering services of prepared take-out foods" in conjunction with the owner's primary single-femily residence on the second floor, and separate single-family apartment use on the existing first floor. The property in 1985 was zoned "C-Light Industrial" and prior to the Ammariti's conversion to catering, it was used as a multiple Page 3'- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 residence for three families. Currontly, the zoning designation for the Ammariti's parcel is Itandet Business. (b) to the extreme north, County Route 48 (formerly known as County Road 27) which is a heavily traveled dual-lane highway. (c) to the east, property identified as 1000-140-2-18, now or formerly of Doroski, partly located in the Light-Industrial Zone and partly Residential-Office. Prior to 1989 this property was also zoned C-Light Industrial and Agricultural/Residenti-1. (d) to the south, the Long Island Railroad tracks. Further south of the LIRR tracks is the business district which consists of beauty salon, retail sales, banking, drinking establishment, and other personal service stores, with nearby municipal parking areas. APPLICABLE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS. 7. ACCESSORY TOWER SETBACKS: Article IX, Section 100-91C(1} reads as follows: C. Accessor~ uses. The foll~ing accessory uses are permitted as accessory uses and, except for residential accessory uses and signs..., are subjBct to site plan review: (1) Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by Section 100 31C(1) through {7) ... and set forth in Section 100-33 thereof. A~tlcle III, Seqtion 100-33 at page 10050.1 reads: 100-33. Accessory buildings. Amended 4-10-1990. In the Agricultural-ConsBrvation District and Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R 400 Districts, accessory buildings a~d structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not ~xceed eighteen (18) feet in height. B. Setbacks. (1) On lots containing up to twenty thousand (20,000) squar~ f~t, such buildings shall be set back no less than three (3) feet f~om any lot line. (2) On lots containing more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet up to thirty-nine-thousand nine hundred ninety-nine {39,999} square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than five (5) feet from any lot line. {Added 12-22-92} Page 4'- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 The accessory tower structure is shown on the sketch submitted with the application to be 19 inches short of the set-back requirement, at an 3.42 ft. (41"} set-back instead of five (5') feet. It is also noted that the tower structure was reduced in height to less than 18 feet as required by the code when it was moved to this particular area - all resulting from an attempt to comply with the Town Board's conditions under its grant of zone change for this Museum on November 10, 1'992 and pursuant to a Declaration of Covenants filed at Liber 11651 at page 134 on November 8, 1993. The subject tower was moved to this location, however, without a building permit or set-back variance. A height variance is no longer necessary based upon the modifications to the tower by the owner-applicant. 8. FENCE HEIGHT: Article XXIII, Section 100-231A (added 1-9-89) requires the height of a fence to be limited to six feet when located in the front yard of nonresidential zones, and when located in or along side and rear yards, the same shall not exceed 6-1/2 feet. The fence height along the northerly (side) line and westeriy (side) property line abutting Ammariti existed prior to 1982. At that time, fence heights along side and rear lines were permitted up to eight feet (Section 100-119.1 of the 'former zone code) and fence heights within five feet of the property and within a front yard area were limited to four feet in height. The height requested by this application is for a total of 6'8" (see applicant's sketch submitted with this application). 9. STORAGE OF MERCHANDISE IN ENCLOSED BUILDINGS: Article IX, Section 100-93 of the current Zoning Code reads as follows: ... 100-93. Uses confined to enclosed buildings. Ail uses pesmitted in the HB District, including the display and sale or merchandise and the storage of all property, except living plants, shrubs and trees, shall be confined to fully enclosed buildings on the premises .... The items which are not presently within an enclosed building are armoured vehicles, display guns on stands and other historical artifacts related to this type of museum. OPPOSITION/OTHER DISCUSSIONS 10. OPPOSITION RELATIVE TO NORTHWESTERLY LOT. During the hearing, opposition was received from the owners of property along the northwesterly property line of the subject premises. Memorandums have been furnished listing the areas of concern -- all of which have Page 5'- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 been fully considered by the Board Members under this application. Some issues raised were: a) a claim by opponent(s) that although the Town was cognizant of the fact that the museum existed for moro than 10 years without proof of enforcement proceedings for its existence as a museum use will, in the oppositionts view, proclude the grant of the within variances; b) a claim by opponent(s) that even under the 1992 HB zoning designation by the Town, the property is not the proper place for a non-profit museum without outside storage. c) the Beard at both hearings did request from opponent(s) a l/st of their own suggestions (similar to what is sometimes roferrod to as a "wish list") in which the concerns could be alleviated or be less adverse to their property by way of mitigation, and the opponent(s) chose not to furnish a list of suggestions or roquests. d) whether in fact the items which are not within an enclosed buildin~ would include motorized vehicles which have generally throughout the township for many years. e) whether or not the submission of information showing the applicant was operating as a museum from 1981 until 1992 is an issue to be determined at this time, under these applications, particularly since the action being appealed herein was taken by the Building Inspector dated July 12, 1994 and pertains to three specific areas: the tower location, fence height, and outside storage of artifacts. f) the specific "yard line" of the front yard as defined by Section 100-13 of the zoning code and a determination of the required height for that yard line and yard area. g) whether or not the change of the zone by the Town Beard in 1992 is directly relevant or a reason to proclude the granting or denial of the variances requested. FINDINGS~ INTERPRETATION AND DETERMINATIONS 11. For record purposes, it is noted and further determined that the issues raised pertaining to items 10(b), (b), (e), and (g) heroin (listed at page 5} aro not properly under the jurisdiction of this Board in these variance requests as applied. The action by a Town Beard to change the zoning of a parcel, as well as issues of alleged lack of enforcement or compliance, is not an area to be properly decided by this Beard, in a quasi-judicial status. Page 6~- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 12. INTERPRETATION. In this determination, it is confirmed by this Board that it has been the position of the Town for more th~n 37 years to permit the parking of movable, motorized vehicles or similar transportation in open areas. In fact, Article XXIII, Section 100-236 of the zoning code states that "...No unenclosed storage, except parking of operable passenger vehicles capable of passing inspection or recreation or boats and commercial vehicles as set forth in Section 100-191 shah be permitted in a residential district... (emphasis added)." This is not a residential district; this is a business district which permits museums, *open space, **parking lots. Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code, defines these terms: *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 those buildings, structures, streets and off-street parking and other improvements that are designed to be incidental to the natural openness of the land. **PARKING LOT: An off-street, ground level area, surfaced and improved for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. 13. VARIANCES. Fence height and tower setback relief are area variances {rof. New York Town Law, Section 267(1) amended July 1, 1992}. New York Town Law, as amended, provides that ZBAs consider two basic things: A) the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted; and B) the detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted. In balancing the interests above, the Board Members have considered, and determined, the following five factors for these area variance requests: a) there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, as granted for the fence height variation between 2" and 8"; the yard line is defined on Page 10033 of the code to be '*...A line parallel to a street or lot line at a distance therefrom equal to the respective yard dimension required by this chapter." The Bulk-Setback Schedule applicable to the Hamlet Business Zone District (along Love Lane) is for a front yard setback at 15 feet. A fence height limitation with the front yard line area is six Page 7~- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 feet for nonresidential zone districts. The fence height limitation is 6-1/2 feet when located along the side and rear yard areas. The requested height is shown on the applieant~s sketch to be 6~8' enclosing the entire premises, and the variance required is for two inches (2~) along the side and rear lines, and eight inches (8'*) for the front yard line. The fence is used for screening, privacy and security purposes. b) there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted for the tower setback; the location of the tower is at the furthest distance from the opponent's property, and is located very close to the vicinity of the rear yard of the easterly adjoining parcel; the location is also the general area requested at 100 feet or moro from Love Lane as stipulated by the Town Beard in its 1992 Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions; c) the benefit sought by the applicant can be otherwise achieved with the placement of a fence at 6 feet in height within the front yard lines, and at 6-112 ft. along the side and rear property lines. d) the benefit sought by the applicant to locate the tower at the location shown is outweighed against any benefit claimed by the abutting property owner in its present location, as compared to another location of the tower. (It should be noted that no claim ha~ been made for an alternative location by the abutting property owners for their benefit). e) the area variances for both the fence height and tower setback are not substantial or unreasonable particularly in light of the fact that the property is uniquely shaped with an L-shaped configuration, narrow width, limited buildable area, building location, and other preexisting nonconformities, as a commercial storage yar~l with parking of eommercial trucks and other vehicles in open yard areas; it is not uncommon for fences to be placed at six feet in height, or more, when accessory to open storage yards for screening from view and for security purposes. f) the area variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or business district {see environmental reviews and declarations adopted in 1992 by the Town Beard and Negative Declaration adopted by this Beard on November 2, 1994}; abutting the subject premises to the south are the Long Island Railroad tracks; to the north is a parcel of land occupied as a take-out catering service which is nonconforming in the HB Zone District; g) the relief granted is the minimum necessary with variations between 2 and 8 inches as to fence lieight, and as to 19 inches for the tower setback reduction; at the same time the relief as conditionally granted will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and Page 8 '- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 the health, safety and welfare of the community; the fence at six feet in height is properly secured and is not damaged, deteriorated, and is not a menace to the public. The applicant-owner has agreed to add slats within the links of the fence and to provide additional screening as would be agreeable to the northerly abutting property owner. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Chairman Geehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the relief as requested for the fence height above six feet along the front yard line, and above 6-1/2 feet along the side and rear property lines for this nonresidential use; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to INTERPRET the activity for parking of movable vehicles to include tanks and similar devices which may be used for transportation as a permitted use under Section 100-93 of the Zoning Code, with the understanding that these vehicles shall be placed within the southern most 14-feet of the applicant's property, and merchandise and items which are not defined as movable vehicles shall be stored as clearly worded under Section 100-93 within an enclosed building; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to DENY the variance requested for outside storage of merchandise, other than motorized vehicles, since there is an alternative to store these items within an enclosed building; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance requested for a 19" reduction in the setback for the accessory tower structure, as applied, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following conditions shall be complied with: a) Only that area 14 feet along the southerly property line (185' length) shall be used for parking of motorized vehicles in order that the remaining 36 feet remain open and unobstructed for on-site movement when necessary of vehicles, egress, ingress, landscaping, parking for guests and employees recommended along the northerly property lien and other accessibility necessary in the event of a fire or other emergency. b) When the museum is closed, the northerly most 35 feet of the property (adjacent to Love Lane} shall remain open and unobstructed, except for employees/v01unteers' vehicles; c) Tall plantings or trees shall be placed and continuously maintained by the applicants along or near the joint Gasaer]Ammaratti property line which runs in an east-west direction. If permission to place additional plantings is refused or prevented by the abutting property owners to the north (Ammariti), then confirmation shall be Page 9 '- Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 placed in writing with proof to be furnished to the Town. It is recommended for the benefit of all that some agreement be reached between the parties with reference to plantings on either or both parcels. d) Border fencing shall be slatted six feet north of the road line when it is presently unslatted; all fencing and slatted areas shall be maintained in good condition and repaired by the applicants. e) In six months from the date of the filing of this decision, the applicants-owners herein shall either remove all merchandise and artifacts which are not within a building. Alternatively, the applicants herein may apply to the Building Department within the next six months for an addition or new building area for these purposes. In any event, failure by the applicants to file a building permit application in a timely fashion shall not prevent the Town from an enforcement proceeding by the Town Attorney's Office or the Southold Town Building Department. f) this determination shall not preclude application by the owners or an aggrieved party for different relief as may be required by the Building Inspector and filed in accordance with the requirements of New York Town Law, Section 267 (such as an addition to the existing building, or new building for inside storage and display of merchandise and other artifacts). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Wilton and Goehringer. Nays: Mr. Villa (felt the relief requested not suitable to this particular location and due to the size of the parcel) and Mr. Dinizio (chose to withhold his reasons). This resolution was duly adopted 3-2. GERARD P. GOEHRINGEa~ CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Appl. No. 4227. Application of WILLIAM GASSER and AMERICAN ARMORED FOUNDATION requesting a variance based upon the Building Inspector's February 4, 1990, Notice of Disapproval concerning, a building permit 'application for two identification signs, as exist on fence, which do not meet the.setback requirement of 15 feet from all property lines, ref: Article XIX, Section 100-91{c), Article XVIII, Section 100-81-C{2a} of the Zoning Code. Zoning District: Hamlet Business. WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on April 6. 1994. at which time all those who desired to be heard'were heard-and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS. the Board has carefully considered all. testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; WHEREAS; Board Members have familiar, with the premises in question. surrounding areas; and personally viewed and are its present zoning; and the WHEREAS. the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. BASIS OF APPEAL. This is an appeal based upon the February 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector under an application for a building permit for approval of two on-premises advertising signs for the American Armored Foundation, Inc. and William Gasser, as owner. The owner acquired the subject premises on September 3, 1981. 2. LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF SIGNS. The face of each of the two signs exists at 22.75 sq. ft. in area, with dimensions of 3'6" by 6'. The location of each sign is on an existing fence - one located at the entrance to the subject museum along the easterly side of Love Lane, Mattituck, and the other on an existing fence along the southerly side of County Road 48, a dual-lane highway,, and both signs are more particularly shown {highlighted) on the survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. amended December 23, 1993. The thickness of the fence is given at one inch. Page 2 - Appl. No. 4221~- Application of WILLIAM GASSER Decision Rendered May 4, 1994 3. CODE PROVISION. The provislon- of the Code. from which the variance is requested is Article IX, Section 100-81C, subsection 2(a) {referred from Section 100-91C-2} - which states that such signs are permitted accessory uses subject to the following requirements: ...(a) Freestanding or greyed signs: ~nere the be{ldlng is set back 25 feet or more free the street, one (I) sign, slngle or deuble faced, not aore than 18 sq. ft., the lo. er edge of ahlch shall not be le~s than four feet above the groued,unle~s attached to a ~all or fence, and the upper edge of which shall not exte~ more than fifteen (15) feet above the gr~dnd, ehlch sign shall be set back not Jess than 15 feet fre~ all street and prol~ty line~ aed shall advertise only the besine~s conducted, on the prazi~;... 4. EXISTING SIGNS. Any other sign-which may be at the premises which does not have approval must be removed before issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy pertaining to this property. 5. STATE AUTHORIZATION. By letter dated January 31, 1994, the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation has confirmed conformance with Sections 52 and 88 of the Highway Law, for two fence-mounted signs. 6. OPPOSITION BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. During the hearing, opposition was received from the adjacent property owners (on the north of this property), through their attorney~ together with a copy of a Memorandum listing the areas of concern -- all of which have been fully considered by the Board Members under this application. At the April 6, 1994 hearing, the attorney for the opponents alleged there were other areas to be addressed under the pending site plan application before the Planning. Board, and that the subject variance may not, in her opinion, be .segmented for only this setback variance application on the fence signs. (No current documentation from the enforcing- officerls) or case law was, however, submitted to support this claim.) In addition, opponents made other claims, at the April 6th hearing, stating there were improprieties or noncompliance pertaining to the. site plan, although there was no evidence submitted by the opponents or their attorney from the Building Department to support this claim - except that there was an intent by opponents to file a written complaint over the next few days with the Building Department, Town Attorney, and/or Town Board to investigate or determine, the alleged noncompliance. The Z.B.A. hearing record for the setbacks of the subject' signs does show that the Appeals Board Clerk did speak as recently as the ~ :-;~ 3 - ~.~-~-'- ~io. 4220 ~.cati,./. -~f h'ILLIAM GASSER L~__:;on >~n~ered May 4. 1994 ~noor of the day of the. he-~'-ing I/~uril 6. 1994) with Building :~ector (Gary Fish) and that -~ tohl ~he Board. Clerk there were ~_ other items that he feels ;~c'~,ld proper to bring before the ~--~rd at this time particularly ~ '~.te I~e l~as been communicating with .--:__ appl~..~nts directly and that ~:-~.~ Gas:,,,~s are proceeding to remedy ____, out~-..andin9 problem, such ~eeC "' ~ny nS~re[~on~dg, and other site e=~nents r, ormally addressed b~ ;_~ of .-/ie Zoning Code. The i under Article .... -~xue r,,h~ed during the April 6. 1994 r==._.ring ~$ to whether or not _-- parc,:l or building has unrelated vc,ation~ is not properly before_- the lt,,ard' and must initially be ~_uresse,~ by the enforcing de~'.:a~.tmenI ',r enforcing officer of the -:wn. ~, determination on the -~iqn :"~lhack application as applied ~.uld n__~;'-~- however, preclude a S.~hseq~,.,,t appeal for different relief b~ the -~wners of the subject -~arcel ',r an aggrieved party as p~vided ;~Y i'~ew York Town Law. -~ect~,~,, ]_67. 7. ~jTHER CONSIDERATIO\.~. ~1,,, relief requested is an area ~riance which pertains to the r"-~'mer h, which the land dimensions cr topo~.~r~-Phical requirements are lo [~,~ ',uthorized by the Board of .'-_-peals ~ref. New York Town L~ ~_z92' ?his amendment no ie:~,]er h,,ludes the term "practical cfficult~" or any particular te~o a~,,i ~nsider two basic things: now provides that ZBAs aJ the benefit to :lin, "l'l,licant if the variance is _cranted; ~nd bJ the detriment to ~he t, alth. safety, and general ~elfare '-~f th~ neighborhood or .-,,mm~l,,uy that would occur if the varianc~ were to be granted. In balar~.ing the interests above. ~t,~ B~,,,, ,I Members have .consi- dered, ;~nd determined, the folh,.,~in~.] live factors for this varian¢--~, request: area a) there wilt not b. an m~desirable change in the charac:'~/- of the neighborhood or grante~.; the fence is a pernm.~t~h''ent to nearby properties, if - t.l~.ucture which is used for screer,:~/j, privacy and security P.rpo~,,~ throughout the town. and the f.,./f/~se for the proposed sig~; is I,,v on-premises advertisement which ~ perm tted n the Hami~t_l~t ~ - .... Ii,ess Zone District as an acce;-/-.' ! to the on-site use; th. siz , . limit~.t.~/' recommended by the Cod-"Revi~. of.. the..~s,gn _is~.. within., the b) the benefit sought L,~ thu :~pplicant cannot be achieved by ~r.~- other method, feasible fo~ the - 'q~plicants. other than an area vari~r~.x~-; placement of the sig', on It~e interior of the property Pag~ 4 - Appl. No. 4727(~ Application of WILLIAM GASSER Decision Rendered May 4,. 1994 (inside the fence enclosure), would necessitate-a different variance as to sign height in order to be visible, c) the area variance is not substantial - particularly in light of the fact that the property is unique as to its L-shaped configuration, narrow width, limited buildable, area. building location which preexists the zoning regulations~ and other preexisting nonconformity(les); d) this area variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or business district; abutting the subject premises to the south are the Long Island Railroad tracks; to the north is a parcel of land occupied as a take-out restaurant service with dwelling use(s); the parcel was re-zoned on September 21. 1993 from Light-Industrial and Residential Office mixed, to Hamlet Business; e) although the.fence signs have.been existing, for some time and was self-created by the owners, New. York Town Law provides that such action does not preclude.the grant of a variance when all the other factors are considered; f) the relief granted is the minimum necessary and at the same time will preserve-and.protect the.character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; the sign is not unsafe, insecure, damaged, deteriorated, and is not a menace to the public. 8. PLANNING BOARD STATUS. Under the pending-site-plan application before the Southold Town Planning Board a letter dated March 16, 1994 was sent to the owners/applicants that a variance was required for the setbacks of the two signs, as exist. It is noted that the site plan application is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the variance application, and a further review is continuing. 9. PERMITTED SIGNS. The Building Department has indicated that its department's ruling is that one on-premises advertising: sign is permitted for each road frontage;, and wl~en a parcel has frontage along two roads, two on-premises signs would be permitted, one along each separate road contiguous to the parcel, either single-faced or double-faced; and that Section 100-81C of the zoning code does not in their opinion prohibit more than one sign under these circumstances. NOW. THEREFORE, on motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Member Wilton, it was .~P6g~ 5 - Appl. No. 4227~ Al~plication of WILLIAM G~SSER Decision Rendered May 4. 199~ RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested for the location of an on-premises advertising sign posted on the fence as situated less than 15 feet from the property lines - one being at the easterly side of Love Lane. and the other at the southerly side of County Road 48, as exists, with the following understanding: a) final approval to be obtained from the Southold Town Planning Board under the site plan regulations; b) approval, does not expire from the N~Y.S. Department of Transportation pertaining to Sections 88 and 52 of the Highway Law; c) a fence permit to be obtained from the Southold Town Building Department; d) referral in accordance with the Administrative-Code.to the Suffolk County Planning Commission this project is located within 500 feet of a County Highway; e) this determination shall not preclude application- by the owners or an aggrieved party for different relief, filed in accordance with the requirements of New York Town Law. Section 267; f) compliance with all other sign and zoning regulations; Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen. Dinizio. Wilton. Villa and Goehringer. This resolution was duly adopted. GERARD P. GOEH~INGER ' CHAIRMAN ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of SouthoId, that the fo]lowing pub]lc hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town HaH, 53095 Main Read, Southold, New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY~ JANUARY 4, 1995, commencing at the times specified below: 1. 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4288 - JACK AND CHRIS GISMONDI. Request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-30A(1) for approval of the location of an accessory swimmingpool, above ground as built, in a yard area other than the required rear yard, at promises known as 5655 Indian Neck Read, Peconic, N.Y; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-6-14. (Setback from property lines, when located in a yard area other than a rear yard, shall be determined by the Board of Appeals. ) 2. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4289 - WILLIAM AND VERA SMITH. Request for a Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the October 28, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for permission to construct addition to existing building which will have an insufficient front yard setback. Page 2 - Legal Notice Southold Town Board of Appeais Public Hearings for January 4, 1995 Location of Property: 980 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-10-17. o Request for a Variance under Article X, 100-33, for permission to locate a canopy gasoline pumps in an area other ths~n the Property: 9945 l~l~in Road, Mattituck, NY; No. 1000-142-1-27. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4290 - WAREX TERMINALS CORP. Section 100-101C, ref. structure over existing rear yard. Location of County Tax Map Parcel 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4287 - NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUMS. (Carryover from December 7, 1994). Request to install swimmlngpool at 52325 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; 1000-135.1-1-43. 5. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4286 - JOEL AND MARGARET LAUBER (COREY CREEK VINEYARDS). (Carryover from December 7, 1994}. Request for Special Exception to establish Winery Use for the sale of wine produced from ~rr~pes grown on the existing Vineyard where the proposed Winery is to be located. Location of Property: Consisting of a minimum of ten 45470 Main Road, Southold, NY; and 9.6. (10) acres of land referred to as County Tax Map No. 1000-75-6-9.7 Page 3 - Legal Notice Southold Town Board of Appeals Public Hearings for January 4, 1995 6. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4293 - EDWARD J. MUNSON. Request for Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the December 7, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to construct addition to dwelling which will have an insufficient sideyard setback at less than the required 15 feet, and total side yards at less than the required 25 feet. Location of Property: 1545 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-3-5. Containing 10,400 sq. ft. of land area. 7. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4292 - JAY AND MARY THOMSON. Request for a Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the November 30, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to construct addition to existing dwelling which will exceed the maximum lot coverage limitations. Location of Property: 695 Bayshore Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-53-6-14. 8. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4291. JAMES M. and ELAINE OtKEEFE Request for a Special Exception under Article IIIA, Section 100-30B to establish Bed and Breakfast use as an accessory incidental to the applicant's single-family residence and ownership of dwelling located at 54300 C.R. 48~ Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-3-1. Zone District: R-40 Low-Density Residential. Page 4 - Legal Notice Southold Town Board of Appeals Public Hearing for January 4, 1995 9-11. 8:15 p.m. Application for Variances requested by WILLIAM F. GASSER concerning his property known and ~eferred to as the American Armou~ed Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone District, which requests are noted as follows: (9) Appl. No. 4260 - Request for Variance under Article IX, Section 100-91C(1) based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for the placement of accessory tower structure which is required to be located in a rear yard with a setback as per Section 100-33B(2) at five feet from the property line; (10) Appl. No. 4261 - Request for Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-231A based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disappreval for the height of the fence which exceeds the required height limitation; (11) Appl. No. 4262 - Request for Variance under Article IX, Section 100-93 based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the outside storage or display which is not permitted in this Hamlet-Business Zone District. Page 3 - Legal Notice Southold Town Beard of Appeals Public Hearings for January 4, 1995 6. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4293 EDWARD J. MUNSON. Request for Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the December 7, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to construct addition to dwelling which will have required 15 feet, feet. Location of Property: County Tax Map Parcel No. of land area. an insufficient sideyard setback at less than the and total side yards at less than the required 25 1545 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, NY; 1000-70-3-5. Containing 10,400 sq. ft. 7. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4292 - JAY AND MARY THOMSON. Request for a Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the November 30, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permi.~sion to construct addition to existing dwelling which will exceed the maximum lot coverage limitations. Location of Property: 695 Bayshore Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-53-6-14. 8. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4291. JAMES M. and ELAINE O'KEEFE Request for a Special Exception under Article IIIA, Section 100-30B to establish Bed and Breakfast use as an accessory incidental to the applicant's single-fsmily residence and ownership of dwelling located at 54300 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-3-1. Zone District: R-40 Low-Density Residential. 49.5' -K S. 45 o 05' O0 "W. CycLOne 187. 64 WILLIAM E GASSER LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD ZONING DISTRICT C-I AREA = 34,578 sO.FT. OWNERS: FRANK ~ DIANE AMMIRAT' FRANK MAP OF PROPERTY E~. DIANE AMMIRATI TOWN OF SOUTItOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTtIOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL To WILLI_AN F GASSER ·. 2383 5t:h AI/E. RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE ihat your application dated .. ,Jll~... 13, ..... · ' ' ............... , 19 9/4 forpermit to ....ERECT A TOWER, A FENCE 7' IN REIGItT, OUTSIDE STORAGE Location of Prooertv 640 LOVE LANE · . ~ ~ ...................... HATTITUCK County Tax Map No. I000 Section 140 Block 02 iot 16 Ham/er Subdivision ......... Flied Map No. : ............... Lot No .......... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following ,,round~l. ~}THE ACCESSORY TO~ER DOES NOT CONFORH TO IltlS RKAR '& SIDE YARD SET BACK REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE IX 100-91 C(I). ' ..... .... ........... ....... . !AT APPROX. 7') DOES' NOT CONFOR~ TO THE REQUIRED HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN AN HB DISTRICT, ARTICLE XXIII 100-231 .3... OUTSIDE STORAGE OR DISPLAY IS NO~ PERMITTED IN THE HB DISTRICT ARTICLE IX 100-93. ' .... ' .......... . . "'~'~;;i: ~,,;;..'.' ;,; ';.;,' ;;.;;:-:_::: -_ ................. ding -nspcc~o~ Date . 31ILY 12, .............. 19 94 J RV 1/80 FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 Examined .............. ".., 19... Approved ................. 19... Permit No ............ Disapproved ale ..................................... (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT ~[g~ $OF It i:t.,L'r tt ......... OF I'L,~=tS .......... SURVEY ................... ClIF-CK .................... SEPTIC FORtl .............. UOTI FY l CALL ................... HAIL TO: INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. 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 issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such 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 p~t for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the B.uilding Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY 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 described. The applicant agrees to comply with aU applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for nesexs~l'ry~i~ec~i~')~/ ~ ~ -- / (Signature of. apfflicant, oj.,na/ine,, i/,a corporat,on) /. :?.? (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Lo,' Jlco. F- Name of owner of premises ' . .................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No ......................... PI mber s L~cense No ......................... Electrician's License No. 0'" ~°- ~-- Other Trade's License No ...................... Location of land on which proposed work will be done. /tgO0. -/c/O -- .Z. '- / ~ · House Number Street Hamlet Counly Tax Map No. 1000 Section: .................. Block .................. Lot ..... ' .......... : · Subdivision ................................... Filed Map No ........... Lot ........ (Name) 2. State existiqg use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: -Re,air Remo~ .... o .......... ,xau m .......... ,'u teration · '" ......... Demolition ...... ............. Other Work .~tj~ ' ' ' 4. Estimated Cost (Description) 5. (to be paid on filing this application) If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor · if garage, number of cars ...................................................... . . .. 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ....... ' .......... 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any. Front ..... Height ..... ' .......... Rear .. Death ............ r,. .' ' ' ' ~. .......... ~'mmber ot::;tories .............. ' ............ ,- ................. ~,Unenslons el Same strucfure with alterations or additions: Front '. .... .................. Height ...................... Number of Stories . .. ' ...... 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ............. Rear .......... ~e'p't~': ............. sHi;ight~. '; '- ........... Number of Stories ..... 9. eollot:l~ront ...................... Rear ............. i.~.' D~pth' ' '..' .' .... .' 10. DateofPurchase [foOl · Name -f Fo--- ^ '-'" ,'?~._._"_ ..... . .......... 11. Zone or use district in which nremise's'o'f'~,'~-~ .... ~/. _~ne~r ~w e~ .~,. ~-~.r.c].~.. ~.~.*00 ....... ......... · ......... ze .. . · " 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: . . .... 13. Will lot be regraded .. '. .... /~...~. ..... ~ ........ Wall excess fil' be re ye' from ' · -- 14..N, ame of Owner of premises ~.: I ].,'~.~..~.~.%..e.e~ -~- '~ 1~_4.. m~ ~ premises, xes (~ lname of Architect ..... ~Jf?.' ...... ?a~a~ress .~-~.; .o.,~ .-7'/r~ ~[.~.t/~... Phone No. ~.o°f.-~. ?~ '~' Name of Contractor ...... /~. ~. ~c~ .......... 7 :.' ' · .'~.~.tess ................... Phone No .. ~ ...... 15. Ts ch±s oron~,-~-,, ..,4,*ua '~;?,,,,' '~ ............. ^caress .. . ,~ .. ' .......... ~ ~--~ -~,,~n auu ~eeC of a ~idal w~lo~a'~'' ~. ............ rnone ~o .......... ........ ~les ........ ~0..~ ..... ' ..... ~lf yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. -.. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give Street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. TA £ OF New OUNTy OF ............ S.S ,eve named, amc of individual signing contract) being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant ~ is the .................................... . . . (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) ' said owner or owners, and is auly authorized to perform or have performed the'said Work ...... and to make a d fil t i ~lication; that all statements contained in this application are true to tlie beat of his 'knowledge and belief; and that the rk will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. oru to before me this . . .................... day of.. · .......... , 19 ~ ~ ~o. 4~433~9-Sufl:,lk Coonty .............. bommissiml Expires NOV. 1, 19 ~/ (Signature of applicant) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ^PPL.\L FROM DECISION OF: BUILDING iNSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE ..... TO THE ZQNING BOARD OF APP~EALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y, ,,,, American Armoured Foundatio..nof . 2383 .F..if..t.b.....~.y.~ ..................... I, [vve ............................................................................................... Name at: Appellant Street and Number ........... .~QD,I~Q~kDma ........................................... N~..X.~=~, ..........HEREBY APPEAL TO ..... Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ..... ~...?...~2....).:: ................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) ( ) American Armoured Foundation Name of Applicant for permit of New York ...~38.3 ....... ~.i. ~-.t~h .. 4~ v. en ~.e .............. R.e n'le~,rVk'~m~' ............ -_' ............................. Street and Number Municipanty ',tote PER~IT TO USE PERMIT FOR. OCCUPANCY I. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..,bO.~.e..,G~ ......... ~,J~.t:u~k ..............~.B ........................... Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District ]000 Section 14C~]ock 2Lot 16 ................. Current 0~ner Wi[[iam F. Gasser Mop No. -Lot No. Prior' 0~ner Georcje Penny Sr. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article IX Section 100-91 c ( ] ~ 3. 'TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ~'~ A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A'previous appeal (h~/(has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit [ ) request for o variance ,,d ,,a, made ,. Appea No. ................ Oared ..'..d.¢r..LL.....C..,..,!ZZ:!. ............................. REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (v')~ A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that POW/MIA Tower does no~ meet 5' requirements. rear and side yard set back Form (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- saw HARDSHIP because Due to the width of property (50') and parking regulations that the planning board are requiring every foot of property is necessary 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all prope~ies alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because All other properties that exist 'in the HB'environment in ' th~ i~mediate vicinity fortunately are not confined to a narrow width of property such as ours. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE Dl'~i ~,ICT because This POW/MIA memorial Tower has stood on this property for over 10 years. So moving in away from.the rear and side yard would not change the character that has existed for over .10 years. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS COUNTY OF ~dF~6L~ ) '~'~Jignature , ' ...... OWNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY~RECORD CARD VL VILLAGE DIST. j SUB. ; .OT ACR. TYPE OF BUILDING COMM. CB. MIC$. Mkt. ¥~lue FORMER OWNER RES. ~,'~,? SEAS?' LAND IMP. TOTAL I REMARKS /¥oo Tillable FARM DATE ,?i' ~/~., ~. /~./,/?~ ' FRONTAGE ON WATER ~oo BULKHEAD T~ota I Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowland j DEPTH House Plot COLOR TRIM M. Bldg. Exter~sion Extension Extension Porch Porch Breezeway ~arage Patio O.B. Total Foundation Both Basement Floors Ext. Walls Interior Finish Fire Place Heat Type Roof Rooms 1st Floor Recreation Room Rooms 2nd Floor /r (' f ' Dormer Driveway inette LR. DR. F~N. B BR. DATE PURCHASED SUPREME COURT, STATE OF NEW YORK FRANK A/~g4IRATI and DIA/qE A/v~4iRATI cc: Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Supt Highways Appeals Board St);pe Ins Wm F Mullen,Jr Petitioners (S): GERARD p. GOEHRINGER, SERVE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA AND RICHARD C. WILTON, Respondent (S): ENTRY D '.' ~ 5 · OUD~E ASS:~NED FLJ. I. FEE PAID R J I DATE -EN -ASS -BI -OTN SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) FRANK AMMIRAT1 AND DIANE ) ) A M M IRA TI, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) vs. ) ) GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, SERGE ) DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA AND RICHARD C. F)LED ~VILTON, Constituting The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, DEFENDANT Sirs: MAR ? 1995 EDWARD Pm ROMAtNE CLE'RK OF SUFFOLK CO[$~'~F~ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed petition of Frank Ammirati and Diane .xmmirati, verified on the 6th day of March, 1995 and upon the affirmation of Carmela L. Borrelli, dated March 6, 1995 and the exhibits thereto attached the undersigned will apply at a Special Term of the Supreme Court, held in and for the county of Suffolk at the courthouse thereof, in the Town of Riverhead, on the 29th day of March, 1995 at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon therafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78, reversing a nd annulling the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, dated i cl,'ruary 1, 1995 and filed on February 8, 1995, in the matter of the application of William F. t ;asser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. d/b/a American Armoured Tank Museum ~;~r three variances from the Southold Town zoning code to permit fences higher than permitted, m station an accessory structure closer to the lot line than permitted and to permit the outside storage of museum artifacts which is similarly not permitted in the Hamlet Business District of the Town of Southold and granting such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and p~ oper, together with the costs of this proceeding. l)ated: Greenport, NY March 6, 1995 Carmela L. Borrelli ONGION! & BORRELLI Attorney for Petitioners 403 Front St-PO Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 516-477-2048 mumirati:noticep.doc -2- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FRANK AMMIRATI and DIANE A M M IRA TI, Plaintiff, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA and RICHARD C. Vv'ILTON, Constituting The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold Defendant Index # PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petition of FRANK AMMIRATI and DIANE AMMIRATI, for their petition in l}~is proceeding under and pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, to review the determination of the respondents herein, constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, respectfully alleges as follows: 1. Petitioners are and at alt times hereinafter mentioned are the owners and occupants of certain real property hereinafter described in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of ~!cw York, to wit: A certain parcel located at 730 Love Lane, Mattituck, New York, bearing Sutt'olk County Tax Map #1000-140-2-18 (See Exhibit 1). 2. Respondents, Gerard P. Goehringer, Serge Doyen, Jr., James Dinizio, Jr., Robert A. Villa and Richard C. Wilton, at all times hereinafter mentioned, were and now are the members of and constitute the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, thereto appointed by the Town Board of the Town of Southold. As used in this petition unless otherwise expressly stated, the term "Board" means and is intended to mean the said Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, composed, at the respective times above mentioned, as aforesaid. 3. That heretobefore, a Notice of Hearing was published by the Town of Southold based on three applications filed by William F. Gasser and The American Armoured Foundation, Inc. bearing appeal numbers 4260, 4261 and 4262 for the following relief: #4260-a variance from Article IX, Sec. 100-91 C(I) to allow an accessory structure (a gun tower) to be placed less than five feet from the property line (Exhibit 2) #4261-a variance from Article XXlll, Sec. 100-23 IA to permit a fence in excess of the 6 I/2 feet required for non-residential property. (Exhibit 3) #4262-a variance from Article IX, Sec. 100-93 to allow outside displays and storage of museum exhibits including tanks and other similar vehicles which is not permitted in the Hamlet Business District. (Exhibit 4) 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by a certain decision of the Board made on or about February I, 1995 and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold on or about February 8, 1995 and which decision by the Board purports to give to one William F. Gasser and The American Amoured Foundation, lnc. d/b/a American Armoured Tank Museum the following relief: a. Granting a variance for a 19" reduction in the setback for an accessory tower structure in violation of Section 100-91 C(I) of the Zoning Code; b. Granting a variance to permit a fence in excess of the height requirements of Section 100-231A of the zoning code; c. interpreting the activity for parking o[movable vehicles under Section 100-236 and Section 100-13 to include tanks and similar devices which may be used for transportation as a permitted use under Section 100-93 of the Zoning Code in a 14'x185' strip of the parcel adjacent to the railroad tracks and thus permitting the outside storage of museum artifacts in violation of Section 100-93 of the zoning code which request for relief in the form ora variance from this section was denied by the Board. 5. That the real property owned by petitioners has been, is being and will be permanently injnred and damaged by the said permit to use 14' zoned in the lib District for the outside storage of tanks and similar devices as aforesaid and to place an accessory structure, namely a gun tower, -2- closer than the required set back footage to the side and rear lot lines as aforesaid and to have a fence with barbed wire in excess of the 6' requirement, which has been made available to the said William F. Gasser and The American Armoured Foundation, Inc. d/b/a American Armoured Tank Museum on the said plot of land by virtue of the aforesaid decision. 6. Upon information and belief, the said property, for which the applications for variances were made, is 640 Love Lane, Mattituck, New York, bearing Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-140-2-16. 7~ That the Town of Southotd adopted Building Zone Ordinances Article IX, Section 100-91 C( I ), Article XXlll Section 100-231A and Article IX, Section 100-93 which as amended, provide: 1. Article IX Section 100-9lC(l} "C. Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted as accessory uses and, except for residential accessory uses and signs..., are subject to site plan review: "(1) Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by Section 100-3 lC(t) through (7).. and set forth in Section 100-33 thereof_.." "100-33. Accessory buildings. Amended4-10-1990 "In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Residential R-80, R-120, R200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: "A Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. "B. Setbacks. "( I ) On lots containing up to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than three (3) feet from any lot line. "(2) On lots containing more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet up to thirty-nine-thousand nine-hundred ninety-nine (39,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than five (5) feet from any lot line. -3- 11. Article XXXIlI~ Section 231 "Fences, walls or berms may be erected and maintained, subject to the following height limitations: "A. When located in the front yard of residential zones, the same shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. When located in the front yard of popresidential zones, the same shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. "B. When located in or along side and rear yards, the same shall not exceed six and one- half (6-1/2) feet in height." III. Article IX, Section 100-93 "....Uses confined to enclosed buildings. All uses permitted in the HB District, including the display and sale of' merchandise and the storage of all property, except living plants, shrubs and trees, shall be confined to tinily enclosed buildings on the premises...". IV. Article XXlll, Section 100-236 "No unenclosed storage, except parking of operable passenger vehicles capable of passing inspection or recreation vehicles or boats and commercial vehicles as set forth in Section 100-191, shall be permitted in a residential district." ~ V. Article 1, Section 100-13 "B. Definitions and usages. Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following terms shall for the purpose of this chapter, have the meanings as herein defined. Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged (or latest edition)." -4- "JUNKYARD-Land occupied or to be occupied for storage of old wood, paper, cloth or metal, including old automobiles, trucks, equipment, machinery, fixtures and appliances not usable as originally designed, and also including any portion of such old automobiles, trucks, equipment or machinery as may be sold as and for junk or salvage...." "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 those buildings, structures, streets and off-street parking and other improvements that are designed to be incidental to the natural openness of the land." "OUIDOOR SlOP.AGE-The keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, junk, material, merchandise or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours." "PARKING LOI-An off-street, ground level area, surfaced and improved for the temporary storage of motor vehicles." 8. That on or about February 1, 1995, at,er hearings held by the said Board on January 4, 1995 and February 1, 1995 at which hearing the said William F. Gasser, together with his attorneY and others appeared in support of the application, and upon which hearing your petitioners, their attorney and others through signed petitions, appeared and objected, the Board made its decision purporting to grant and deny in part the said application of William F. Gasser and The American Amoured Foundation, Inc. d/b/a American Armoured Tank Museum and in so doing, made and signed the report and decision, a copy of which is hereto_ annexed and marked Exhibit 5. 9. That the granting of the said permission to use 14 feet ofthe applicant's property which has been rezoned Hamlet Business for the outside display oftanks and similar vehicles under an interpretation of the zoning code for motor vehicles was not warranted by the facts, was illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of Section 100-93 of the zoning code ordinance of the Town of Southold, same being in the State of New York, and violative of the laws of the State of New York, and not in harmony with the general purpose and interest thereof and does not secure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and was and is in violation and an abuse of any discretion vested in the Board, and the Board did not have any -5- right, power or authority to grant said permission and/or variance, and in addition said decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 10. That the granting of the said permission to place the gun tower closer to the rear lot line than is required in the set back requirements for property zoned HB was not warranted by the facts, was illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the zoning code ordinance Sec. 100-91 of the Town of Southold, same being in the state of New York, and violative of the laws of the State of New York, and not in harmony with the gene?al purpose and interest thereof and does not secure the public health, safety and general welfare and was in violation and an abuse of any discretion vested in the Board, and the Board did not have any right, power or authority to grant said permission and/or variance, and in addition said decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 11. That the granting of the said permission to permit a fence with barbed wire in excess of 6' plus barbed wire for property zoned HB was not warranted by the facts, was illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the zoning code ordinance Sec. 100-231A of the Town of Southold, same being in the state of New York, and violative of the laws of the State of New York, and not in harmony with the general purpose and interest thereof and does not secure the public health, safety and general welfare and was in violation and an abuse of any discretion vested in the Board, and the Board did not have any right, power or authority to grant said permission and/or variance, and in addition said decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 12. That permitting the outside storage of tanks..and other similar vehicles through a new and novel interpretation of Sections 100-236 and 100-13 of the zoning code which sections were specifically meant for automobiles or other similar vehicles for properly zoned Hamlet Business was not warranted by the facts, was illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the zoning code ordinances Section 100-13 and Section 100-93 of the Town of Southold, same being in the State of New York, and violative of the laws of the State of New York, and not in harmony with the general purpose and interest thereof and does not secure the public health, safety and general welfare and was in violation and an abuse of any discretiofi vested in the Board, and the Board did not have any right, power or anthority to grant said permission and/or variance, and in addition said decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 13. Said decision and/or variances granted as aforesaid by the Board are wholly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unjust and the following are the specifications and grounds thereof: a. Regarding appeal #4260 for a variance from the setback requirements for an accessory structure (a gun tower), the applicant submitted no evidence except the application (See Exhibit 2) to support a finding that relief from the code was warranted. The record clearly shows that the applicant's problems were self-created and over a period of more than 10 years were in total disregard for the law. The demands of another board (the Planning Board) for parking (as part of the site plan review) is not a basis for granting a variance from the zoning code. If site plan review had been sought when it was required, the tower would never have been brought to the site because there would have been no place to legally place it. b. Regarding appeal #4261 for a variance from the height requirements for the fencing surrounding the property, the applicant submitted n_9_o evidence except the application (See Exhibit 3) to support a finding that relief from the code was warranted. The Board's decision contains as a statement of fact that a portion of the fence pre-existed the current fencing requirement but there is no evidence in the record to support that conclusion. In addition, applicant's protestations to the contrary, if applicant complied with the inside storage requirements of the code under Section 100-93 (which request for relief under application #4262 was denied by the Board) fencing itself would not be required and certainly the excessive fence height with its unsightly barbed wire would not be required. Applicant_stated the fencing was required to protect the artifacts which are illegally stored outside. c. Regarding appeal//4262 for a variance from the inside storage requirements for a museum, the applicant sub~nitted no evidence except the applications (See Exhibit 3). The Board denied the request for such variance but arbitrarily interpreted other sections of the code (Sections 100-236 and 100-13) clearly meant for motor vehicles(automobiles and similar vehicles) to encompass tanks and other similar vehicles. The Board's wholly unrealistic and illogical interpretation circumvents its own denial of the variance request to permit outside storage and thus violates Section 100-93 by permitting such outside storage in a 14' area. -7- 14. That no evidence was produced at the hearing to show that the premises to which this variance would apply could not be used in a conforming manner, and if so used, would not yield a fair return to the owner on his investment. 15. That evidence that was produced at the hearings showing that the violations of the zoning code and the unsightliness of the stored tanks attd similar vehicles was entirely self- inflicted and that applicant had not met his burden under both statutory and case law to support the granting of any variance. 16. That no evidence was produced at the heatings to meet the standard necessary to receive the requested relief 17. That the Zoning Board of Appeals wrongfully undertook to act in an legislative capacity and did not limit itself to its administrative functions. 18. That the variances granted and the new and novel interpretation of the code by the Zoning Board of Appeals were not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinances of the Town of Southold and were not in the interest of public health, safety, the general welfare and substantial justice. 19. That thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the filing of the decision of the Board on February 8, 1995 in the office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, and no previous application for the relief herein sought has heretofore been made to any court or judge thereof. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, be reviewed, and that said decision and determination of said Board of Appeals be annulled, and that the Board of Al~peals, aforesaid be directed to cancel any permit or grant made by them, to the said William F. Gasser and the American Amoured Foundation, Inc. d/b/a the American Amoured Tank Museum, and further, that said Board of -8- Appeals be directed to deny said application in its entirety and for such other, further and different relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. Dated: March 6, 1995 Greenport, New York Yours, etc. ONGION! & BORRELLI Attorneys for Petitioners By: Carmela L. Borrelli Office & P. O. Address 403 Front Street P. O. Box 562 Greenport, New York 11944 516-477-2048 -9- STAI E OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS: Frank Ammirall and Dinne Ammirali, being duly sworn, says: that they are the petitioners obove homed and have read the Foregoing Petition and know the contents thereof, that the same is true to Iheir own knowledge, except os to the tootlers therein stated to be alleged on int'oHnotion and belief and that as to those matters they believe them to be tree ') Diane Ammi~ ati Sworn Io before me this ~ day of March, 1995 Nolmy Public CARMELA L BORRELU Notary Public State of NewYm~ No. 4526699 Oualified in Suffolk Count~ Commission Expires January SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FRANK AMMIRATI AND DIANE AMMIRATI, PLA I NT! FF, VS. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA AND RICHARD C. WILTON,, DEFENDANT AFFIRMATION CARM ELA L. BORRELLI, an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, under the penalties of perjury and upon information and belief, states as follows; 1. I am a member of the firm ofOngioni & Borrelli, Esqs.,attorneys for the Petitioners herein and make this affirmation in support of the Petition to annul the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold rendered on February 1, 1995 and filed on February 8, 1995 with regard to three applications for variances made by William F. GasSer and the American Amoured Foundation, Inc. d/b/a the American Armoured Museum (hereinafter referred to as the Applicants). 2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject matter having represented the petitioners herein over the past five (5) years in opposition to the many and continued applications of the Applicants for relief from the zoning code after having violated the code for many years. 3. The subject applications are the latest relief requests of Applicants in an attempt to legitimize what has been an illegal operation since 1981. Despite Petitioners continued efforts to -I- obtain relief from the arbitrary disregard by an adjacent property owner of the Town's zoning code, no such relief has been forthcoming. A brief history of the site is in order to fully apprise the Court of the background of the situation at hand: The Applicant purchased the property in 1981. Applicant had previously "unofficially" spoken to the Board with regard to using the property as a museum despite this fact, Applicant commenced operations as a museum sometime shortly after purchase. The property at that time was zoned C (Commercial) and a museum was not a permitted use despite this fact, Applicant commenced operations as a museum sometime shortly after purchase. At the time of the implementation of Southold's Master Plan, the property was rezoned into two sections: LI (Light Industrial) for that portion fronting on Love Lane and RO ( residential office) for that portion fronting on County Road 48. Both of these sections are contiguous to petitioner' s property. Under the new zoning a museum was still not a permitted use. The self-proclaimed museum was and is the final resting place for retired mechanized units obtained from the Federal Government in the form of tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, and various other military instruments. AIl of the above operations were fully illegal under the Southold Town zoning code until 1992 and remain partially illegal to this day. According to the Applicant at the heatings held with regard to the instant applications, the fencing was installed sometimein 1981. Said fencing was then and is now in violation ofthe Southold Town zoning code. At various points in the history of this Applicant and this site, the Applicant has claimed that various other governmental agencies required the fencing or even higher fencing but never has the Applicant provided proof of those assertions. In 1988 the Applicant installed a gun tower at the site and immediately renamed it a POW/MIA tower. The tower violated the height requirements (it was in excess of 18 feet but has since been reduced by a couple of inches to bring it in conformity with the code) and additionally violated the set back requirements of the code as it was placed at the front entrance to the site on Love Lane adjacent to the entrance to petitioners' property. The tower was subsequently moved 100 feet to the rear of the property as one of the conditions imposed when Applicant sought and -2- received a zone change from the Town Board in 1992.~ HoWever, the tiew location violated the set-back requirements and Applicant sought relief in one of the instant applications on the basis that under his concurrent site plan review by the Planning Board (now years after it should have been done) he is being required to provide parking spaces and to relocate the tower because of the Planning Board's requirements. A thorough review of the history of this site and its multiple and continuing violations of the law were contained in petitioner's memorandum in opposition to the applications submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals in opposition to the applications. That brief was accompanied by 29 exhibits extending over a period of 14 years confirming the abuse of the zoning code by the Applicant and the failure of the Town of Southold to uphold the law. 4. The zoning code of the Town of Southold requires under Section 100-93 that a museum, which is a permitted use in the Hamlet Business district, ~nclose all exhibited material within a building. The Board on February 1, 1995 denied Applicants request for outside storage which left the applicant with two alternatives l) to remove the several dozen tanks and armored vehicles including a helicopter on either side of an existing building and 2) to seek permission to build an6ther building to house the armored vehicles. However, the Board arbitrarily and without foundation interpreted other sections of the code regarding the parking of vehicles "outside" to include the storage of tanks and other similar mechanized vehicles as permitted in Hamlet Business and thereafter restricted the Applicant to a 14' x 185' strip adjacent to the railroad tracks (some 36' from Petitioners property line). The Board denied Applicants request for a variance from the code to enable him to store the mechanized vehicles outside a building, but, by slight of hand gave Applicant exactly what was needed except that the outside storage was limited to the aforesaid strip of land. ~ The zone change was necessary because a museum is a permitted use only in Hamlet Business. However, also according to the code as it pertains to the Hamlet Business district all storage must be In an enclosed building. Thus the zone change only cured the use proscription but mandated a request for relief in the form cfa variance from the Board becanse outside storage is still prohibited. -3- 5. Afftrmant was reproached at the public heatings for referring to the tanks and similar vehicles as war machines. Affirmant was advised that the tanks and similar vehicles were "historical artifacts". The nature of the reprimand confirms without a doubt that the tanks and similar vehicles are display items for the museum and as such they must be enclosed within a building. The recharacterization by the Board of these display items of the museum as vehicles comparable to automobiles is magic more becoming to Houdini than to a Zoning Board of Appeals. To accomplish this end, the Board through a rather circuitous route takes us from Section 100-236 which provides that no unenclosed storage is permitted in a residential district (except for operable passenger vehicles capable of passing inspection or recreation or boats and commercial vehicles) to mean that tanks and similar motorized vehicles are permitted to be stored openly at Applicants property because such property is not in a residential district. The Board took the negative approach by stating the subject parcel is not residential but is rather Hamlet Business and in Hamlet Business museums are a permitted use as is "open space" and "parking lots". A rather magical transposition since under the permitted uses in i-IB under Section i00-93 there is no listing among the 18 permitted uses and I ! special exception uses for a use called "open space" or "parking lot". In this rather clouded gray area the Board created by these illogical conclusions, Section 100-13 (the definition section) is used to apprise the public of the definition of"open_spaces" and "parking lots" which in some unknown fashion now allows tanks which are the display exhibits of a museum to be stored in the open without benefit of an enclosure. The variance for open storage of display items for the museum without benefit ora building was denied by the Board because Applicant's request was unsupported by evidence and Applicant had not met the requisite criteria to be granted such a variance. The Board rightfully denied that application because the record clearly showed no basis for granting same especially in light of its self-created nature. However, in continuing to shelter this applicant from the proper administration of the law, the Board stretches logic to come up with a rationale to permit the outside storage of the display items, namely tanks, in a 14' x 185' strip of land at the site through a novel interpretation of the definition section of the code that equates tanks to cars. 6. The Board's decision has no basis in law because the Applicant submitted no support for his requests. The Board's decision is arbitrary and capricious and totally without foundation either within the record or within the confines ofzoning law. While ~t zoning board may interpret the applicable sections ora zoning code, such interpret~tiorl is subject to the constraints oflogic, the purpose of its enactment and the overall law of the State of Ne~ York. This Board'S decision meets none of those criteria. Section 100-13 (definition section) defines "outdoor storage" ~s the "keeping in an unroofed area, of any goods, junk, material, merchandise or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty*four (24) hours". The. ta. nk~ and similar vehicles can fit any one of the five categories listed in that definition depending on the perspectfve of the observer but no matter into which category they fall they are certainly in the same place for more than 24 hours when they are the "historical artifacts" ora museum open to the public for viewing. As such they are forbidden by the code (Section 100-93) to be so displayed in FIB but t'ather must be contained within a building as are all museum artifacts. All of the sections of the Southold Town zoning code mentioned in this affirmation and in the petition are attached hereto in numerical order as Exhibit 6. 7. The Board in rendering its decision cites to New York Town Law as requiring it to consider the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted and the detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were granted. The Board neglected to state that tn making that determination the Board is mandated ("shall"-) to take into consideration five criteria which are: -whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character ofthe neighborhood or a detriment to neighboring properties; -whether the benefit sought can be aehiesmd by some other feasible method; -whether the relief requested is substantial; -whether the relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood; -whether the alleged diffiCUlt was self-created. The standard given in Section 267b of the Town Law is an attempt by the legislature to codify the case law pertaining to the practical difficulties test. Petitioners' memo to the Board cited many cases defining practical difficulties and recent case law interpreting the new Section 267b as still requiring compliance with that test. The record, created almost entirely by Petitioners since Applicant supplied little more than the applications, clearly showed that the requested wlriances must be viewed in the context of the history of the site: the site cannot be considered as not changing the character of the neighborhood despite the Boards contrary finding simply because it has existed for so long; the extended prior existence was in flagrant violation ofthe law; each and every problem with the site was self-created despite long and continuing admo. ni~ions by various board's of the Town to correct same. If the Applicant complied with the one outstanding and all encompassing portion of the law i.e., that the museum's artifacts be in an enclosed building, the present and even past requests for relief would not be necessary: There is ti feasible ~olution for the applicant to pursue and that is to obtain a Building Permit and enclos~ the artifacts within a building. Aff~rmant was asked at the public hearing to request from Petitioners a "wish list" of what they wanted the Applicant to do that would satisfy Petitioners. Such a request by the Board was an admission that there was no basis for the requested relief and Petitioners were being requested to acquiesce in the granting of the unwarranted variances by stating what would satisfy them so as not to pursue a judicial adjudication ofthe issues. Petitioners wanted and continue to want compliance with the law as they have been required to do with their own property. Variances, under the New York approach to zoning, are to be sparingly granted because the zoning law itself is a demonstration of the locality's intent for its development. Zoning board's have been cautioned over the years to become miserly in their distribution of variances so as not to totally circumvent the purpose of the zoning ordinance. ][ti fact, Section 267b of the Town Law specifically mandates ("shall") that zoning boards grant tile minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. 8. The decision rendered by the Board was not unanimous. Two members of the Board voted "no" with regard to the relief that was granted. This leSs than unanimous support for the relief that was granted is indicative of the facts contained in the record that the variances should have been denied in their entirety. While the fence height and set back distance are not significant, these coupled with the convoluted method used by the Board to provide outside storage to Applicant, make the variances granted significant. The Board has justified its gra,fing of the fence height and tower set back variances 0rt the bases that they are not substantial or unreasonable ~ttid they will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental coddifions in the Ileighborbood. However, if this Applicant had applied 14 years ago for permission to erect th(~ fence and install the tower and store tanks and similar vehicles at the Site, there would certainly have be~tl ti significant clumge in the character of the neighborhood and tach requ~ts, would have been denied. At that time, the use itself would have been prohibited and, even if'it existed, the variances requested would have been substantial and unreasonable in light of the h~ighbothood. The tact that these uses and violations have existed illegally for so many years is not a basis for ltow.det~riingthatthey are not substantial or unreasonable or will not have an adverse effect on,the physical or envirotttnental conditions in the neighborhood. In fact, the possibility of environmental p~blems was addressed by the Board when it rendered a negative SEQRA determination by conditioning such determination on Applicant taking certain precantions with regard to oil spills and similar accidents. The impact is therefore significant arid does ,of diminish because the Applicant created an illegal museum quite some time ago. Petitioners have consistently over the years complained of the noise of moving tanks, of the sense of physical disquiet occasioned by large guns pointed out from the site, of the visitors who not wishing to pay the entrance fee to the museum walk onto Petitioners property to view the historical artifacts (now conveniently equated to automobiles), of the unsightliness of huge weapons of*war in a pastoral setting on a quiet tree lined street in a rural area when Petitioners who are in the catering business have Sunday brunches outside in the Summer, of the unsightliness of chain link,fencing with barbed wire, of the noise of demonstration of*tanks which move up and down a 50' wide lot adjacent to Petitioners for hours Orl end. 10. All the variances requested should have been denied. The denial of the most significant request, to store tanks and similar vehicles outside, was in fact denied. However, the Board's new and novel interpretation of the definition section of the code has overriden both their denial and the mandates of the code itself. The code specifically refers the reader to Webster's dictionary f*or the definition of words not defined therein. Webster's defines a "vehicle" as "any device on wheels or runners for conveying persons or objects, as a cart, sled, automobile, etc. and defines a "tank" as "an armored, self-Propelled vehicle moving on caterpillar treads". The Board, however, has made the two synonamous which to anyone's eye they are not. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the decisio~ of the Zoning Board of Appeals granting a variance from the zoning code for fence height and set back requiremen~ts md the interpretation of the code allowing the outside storage of tanks and similar equipment in a designated area be annulled in its entirety. Dated: March 6, t995 Greenport, New York Carmela L. Borrelli ammirati:affirmat -8- ? Ii~ / UG 2 lown Clerk ~,ou~old TOWH OF SoUTIIoLD, FROM ©ECISIObl OF- BUILDING iNSPECTOR APPEAL 1,1o. L/~ ~ DATE .............................. TO TttE ZONING BOARD OF_APP~ALs, TOWH OF SOUTHOLD, H. Y. ,., .american Armoured Foundational ..23~3 ~.t£~.b [.~e, . Name of .Appellant Streef a~ld NUmb~l' .......................... ~,Ql~ko~',.koma ........................................... N~t,t...Y.o~c .......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality Slate THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM 'THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING iNSPECTOR ON .................................... 4]' I:$ APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. bATED ............ t ......................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DEFILED TO ( ) ( ) ( ) American Armoured FoundatJotl Name of Applicanf roi' petml{ of New York -..Z3&3 ...... · F.i-~..~h..A yen ~le ............ :. R~ t~k'~.tlk'6tn~- ........................................... Street andNumber Munm~pal]t~ State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT I:OR OCCUPANCY t. LOCATION Off THE I~ROpI:RTY ...bP.v.e...baJ~e...,..,,lC~.fJ:.Ll:t.t~.k...,..,,,.,...t:IB ...................... ,..... Stteef /Hamlet / U~e Dl~trlc~ on Zontng Map District 1000 Sec,{on 14~10ck 2Lot 16 . ........................................................... I]~t~r~ltt (}wti~f~ WJll~aiti ~'. gasser Mop No. .Lot No. PrtoP ~W~f..._geo~ ~enn~ Sr. 2. PROVISION (Si OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Ihdl~at~ th! AHIcle Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number, bo imf i3uole th~ Ordinance.) Articl~ IX Section lOg-gl C (l) 3. ~PE OF APPEAL Appeal Is made herewith for (Pl~GS~ check appropriate box) ( ~ A VARIAHCE to th~ ~nlng Ordinate or Zoning ( ) A VARIAHcE due to tack of acc~{ (Stale of HeW 'York ~n L~ Chap. 62 Cons. AH. 16 Sec. 280A SubSecfton 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A' pteviou{ appeal (h(h~/(has not) been made With tetpec{ to this decision' Of the Building InSpector or wHh respec{ ~o this properly. Such cppeaJ was ( ) request for o special permif { ) request for o variance ......... ................ ..... ....... : ..................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to SecJlon 280A Subsection 3 (t/)'" A Variance. lo the Zortlng Ordinance ( ) Is requested for the't tea{on that POW/MIA Tower does not mee~ 5' requirements. rear and ,i~e yard set back (Contlnu~ Oh othJ.~t ~ldei RE^SOH FOR APPEAL Con t lnu[,.d I. STRICT APPLIcATiON OF THE ORIDINANcE ,,,auld produce I~tclct~ci~l dlfFIculi'let or unneceS- sary HARDSHIP because necessary g a e requiring every foot of property is 2. The hardship created Is UNIQUE and I~ nor ~hored by oli ptopedt~ ellke In the vlclnity al thts ~rop~rty and In thl~ us~ dlstrtct becous~ All other properties that exist in E~e ~B'~nvironment in - th~ t.mmediate vicinit~ fortunately are not con~'ined to a narrow width of property such as ours. 3. The Vdrlance would observe thtJ ~plrlt olt the Ordlr~aHcl~ tsnd ~t,;OULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTI~R OF THE Dt$iP, ICT becau~ This POW/MIA memorial To,et has afood on this property for over 10 years. So moving ~ away fr6m.the tear and side yard would not cha~e the character that has ~xist~d for over .10 years. STATE OF HEW YORK COUNTY o~ ~dFFOLK RE¢ VE ~U~ 2 1~4'pWtl OF SOUTIIoLD. ~HEW 'YORk: APPF,\L FROM [tiLI~)I~ILi~IJl0~C~JiLDihlG INSPECTOR TO Tile ZONING BOARD Of APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTNOLb, N. Y. DATE .............................. .American Armoured FoundatJOnof .:[.f~j) ~ I, w. .......... 23~3 F W.e ..................... Nome of Appellant Street o.d Number .......................... ~q~kpma .-' ............................. N~.~...Y~ .......... HEREBY APPEL TO Munlcipolity Slat. TtiE ZONING BOARD Or APPEALS FROM Tile DECISIOH OF THE BUILDIHG INSPE~OR ON APPLI~TION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DAT[D ...~y.~ ~ I.~l...~.~/.~ ..................... WHEREBY THE BUILDIHG INSPECTOR DENI[D TO ( ) ( ) ( ) American Armoured Foundation Home of Applicant for permit -..Z38.3 ....... F.J.fi-'eh.*-Avem~ .............. ~.~,, ~,~,,s~,., ............blew York Street and Number MOG'f~)B~'I)t~'''"'~ ................................. PERMIT TO USE State PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY I. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ...b~.~.e...ba~e_ ......... P~tff. Ltu~k .............. ~B ........................... District: 1000 SecttoM J4CBlock 2Lot 16Street /Hamlet / U~e Dlsfi'lct on Zoning Mop ............................................................ Curre,J: I~,~t- NJ. iJ. tam F. gasser Mop Ho. 'Lot Ho. Prior- OWtl{~fr'. ~george Pe~.tly Sr. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPI~_ALEICI (htdl~:ciU) the AHIcl6 Sectlart, Sub- section and Paragraph oI th~ Zoning Ordinance by nUmb~, b~ ~ot ~uot~ Ih60rdlnohce.) Articl~ XXlll Section 100-231A - 3. TYPE Of APPEAL Appeal Is made herewith tot (please check appropriate box) ( ~/A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zotilhg ( ) A vARIANcE due to tack of access (State of Art. 16 Sec. 280X Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPE/',L A'prevlous appealS(has not} been made with tespect to this decision 0f the Building Inspector or with respect Ia this properly. Such oppe.aJ was ( ) request for a Special permit { ) request /or a variance wa. mode I. ^ppeo' .o. C R~SON FO~ APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Secllon 280A Subsection (u'~A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that Fence h.eight doe~ no(: confSrm HB district. bhe required fence height in an T'orrn (C°ahnu~'~on olhSt ~lde) #J FOR APPEAL Con tinuL,,d I STRICT APPLICATION OF THE OROIFIAMcE would produce procflcal dl[flcultle~ or unnece~- sa~ HARDSHiP because The height of this fene~ and Ehe n~e~sary barbed wire extension is for security and without this security vandalism, intruders, property damage'and liability m~y result 2. The hordshlp cteotedls UMIQUEondl~notshored by oil prO~eHt~ alike In vicinity ofthls ~roperly and In thts use dlslrtcf because AI~ o~er propettie~ in the HB environme~t in immmediate vicinity do;not have to Conform 6o m~ndato~y security measures set down by the UiS, Military under the DOD 4160.21 and 5100:76 regula%,ions se~ down'pa all properties displaying gov~rhment weaponry · · 3. The VotJonc~ would observe the splrl! Of the OrdlrictHe~ O~id ~/VOULD HOT CHAKIGE THE CHARACTER OF 'THE DI§iRICT b~cause and This fence has existed on th~ Drbperty .for 13 years at time of installation 1981 there were ho height restrictions STATE OK ~EW YoRK ) COUNTY OF .5~£~ ~ Sworn lO Ibis ....... ~.M, .................... : ............. day N ..... ~U~L C, Sl~te ~I t(~ Y0I~ .......................... ........................... . Notary Public/// TOWN OF SoUTIIoLD. N~'W APPE,\L FROM DECISION or- BUILDING INSPECTO~ APPBXL No. FO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TO.?VN OF SOUTHOLD, H. y W A~moured Foundationot .. 2 ,~3 ~i~ .~ . . .................................................................................... ............. t:.h...6 ...................... Name of Appellant ' Stt~6f amd tqUmbe¢ .......................... ~qilk~,n. LkPma ........................................... J',t~w...Y. ainlc .......... HERi~BY APPEAL TO Municipalily Slot~ THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BU!LD1NG INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ........... ..qD~ .................... WHEREBY THE BUILDIt, IG INSPECTOR DEFILED TO American Armoured Foundation INIome of Applicant tot permit New York ) PERMIT TO USE PER~IT FOR O~UP~H~Y ) 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ...Lg.v.e..J. an~. ......... J'~La.E~.[kLiJmk .............. .L-JR ........................... · Street /ttamlet / Ute DIStrict 0fl Zoning Mop District 1000 Sec,{on 14%lock 2Lot 16_ .. ............................................................ curre,: ~e~ William F. gasse~ Mop Fla. · to~ No. PrJoP OWM~P. _.George Penny Sr. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APIq~Lt:D JlHdlcat~ thc AHIcle Section, Sub- section and Paragraph al the Zoning Ordinbnc~ by humb~L Dct ho! quoh~ thl~ Ordlnat~ce,) Articl~ IX Section 100-93 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal Is made herewHh for (pleaSe check appropriate box) ( ,x~ A VARIANCE to ( ) A VARIAHcE Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A'previou~ appeal (h(~h,._~)(has hot) heed rnod~ with tespec(' to lhls decision' Of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request Jar o special permit { ) toques{ Ear o variance . ' ................................. ~'~.-'-.~.,-,.-.r..h-~ ..... ~. ............................. REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3,, (v)/' A Variance lo the Zodlng Ordinance Is requested for the reason thaf oate~cle d~splays ~re not~ pe~mJ.t~l~ecl J. ti ~h~ fib Di'~tri'c~ (Coatlnue on other ~Ide) REASOn! FOR APPEAL Com|inu~ STRICT APPLtCATIOF! OF THE ORDIMAhlc~ ~oul~ ptoduc~ ptacltebldliflculllejorunn~Eet- HAROSHIPbecduse As a non-proFit mus~ an~ louri~l alEraction on the North Fork exhibits ~nd displays a~e ~ ~sary part for any musuem ~nd without,~hese dt~pl~y~ ~d ~khibi~s not onl~ would the attrmctton to this non-prpf, it ~emori~t museum be reduced, cmusing loss of cmpitol to maintaiM ~his noR-p~o~{~, but ~he monetary problems that ~his would ~eh~ra~ in ~h~ shipping of ~he~e exhibits and displays back to the military would force the museum to close its doors; and thus deny the North ForR ~ world class tourist attraction 2. The hordshtp created iS UNIQUE and l~ nor ~hored by bll ~top~leJ ollk~ In th~ lmm~dl~t8 vlcinHy ol Jhi~ ~ro~ett? and In this us~ dlstrlcl bscoos~ ?here exists no othe~ non-p~o~ik ma~eum~ in ~ffe ~B en~t~onmeflt~ 3. The Variance would observ~ lh~ ~plrit of the Ordinance ~hd ~OULD NOT CHANGE THI~ CMARACTER oF THE blS lP, ICJ' b.cau~ As stated before these exhtbiSQ h~v~ existed ~or 13 years and mt the onset of kh~ musuem which -- had building there was no teS~rict~bhs ~or ~o~ge o~ display in the .c zone ' STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY O1: ~uf~ez~ 5lgh~JtJt~ . " ~ .... · L , ~ALS BOARD MEMBERS P. Goehdn{~er, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Rohmt A. Villa Richaid C. Wilton 1OWN oFsOUtHOLD SouO'lold Town ttall 5309,5 Main Road P.O. Box J_'J79 Souihold, New Yolk J.J.97 Fax {516) 765-1823 telephone (516) 765-i809 FINDINaS AND DETEItMINATION With reference to each of Ihe follOwlel~ .~l~arMe|y tiled aDplldttlons and appeal file ~a~bers: ection t~-glC(i) of the Southold Towfl goalhE codel baaed upon ~ly 12, t994 Notl~ et Disapp~vM la~a~fl b~ th~ BoHdi~ ln.pecto~ . laeement ~t accessory towar ~teuetu~ w~eh la ~qai~d to the.p ...... ~- ' ','- ~ -~tbaek aa ~ B~etlon t0o-aaB(a) at .. rom the wperly line p~et~ known nad .~te~d to as the feet ~ . . P ;'2 . ~ .*~/~.~. 640 ~ ~n~ and tho ~ooth hide et Cetmty ROUte 4gl Mattltuck~ NY; ~o~Hty Ta~ Map pardi No. 1ooo-14o-2-16 located In tim llamlet Bu~laena ~db~ Dlat~let; and .Appl. No. 4281 - Appll~tlo~ tot a Vatlaaeo ttad~t Aptlete XXIII~ · O0 a~lA of the Soathold q o~n ~o~th~ Coda~ based ttpou Sectmn 1 - . the fanca which · ' 48. Mattltuckl ~Y: CO~t~ Tdx M~p Pflr~! No, Iooo-14o-a-18 Io~t~d t. ttm llaml~t Bualfl~., Zofl~ lhntHet; and .Appl. No; 4262 - AppOrtion tO~ u ~a~ian¢~ u~de~ Article IX, ,t 100-93 ut the ~o,dt~g Led, buu~8 apo~ t~ ~oly t~ i994 Notl~U WlIEIIEA9~ public heariti~tg on bapli et the ttbov~ ~t~pllcatlona w~ra ~iIEREAS, thd Bo~d Im~ ~tUlly eo~td~t~d MI t~Umony aud WlIEREA~ Board Memba~ l,a~.p~oflatly ~t~w~d and a~ ~1~ Page 2 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261~ 4262 property of WIIJ,IAM GASSER Dntorminatlon Rendered February t~ 1995 WItEREA8, Lhe Board made tile follo~l~ng findings of fact: . 1. BASES O,F. APPEAI,s. 1'h~6 h~ hpP~ll I~DpllL,~ttIo~ ba.~ed upon a aaly I~,, 1994 Not~ee of Disappi-ovitl t~nU~d by tho; Building Inspector. 2. OWNEItSIIIP: Town reeord~ ~;how thi~ owner of the subject property as WlLLI^M F. (;ASSER~ ha~lfl~ aeq~d tho ~ubjeet p~mi~ea oe September 3, 1981 by deed at lAGer 907i pn~ $4. a. LocATION AND DESCRIPTION O1~ PI1OPERT¥.' The subject p~,perty consists ef an a~ of ~2;109 hq:' {t; ~th 50 [t: ~nta~ ~1o~ the easterly side of Love l~ne arid ~0 {t. {~fltage aJong the southerly side of CoUfity Ilighway 48. Tho ~fi~l ia *ihs ~hapud with 248.50 ft. frontage la an v~at-west di~eettob alo~g, tho I~n~ l~lafld RMl~ad tracks. The D~perty extond~ tmvthe~ly 37~.~2 f~t f~m th~ ~ng Islabd ltail~md Io tim County lligbway, ..T¥.~pgety 1~ ~flfo~mlflg n~ to loinl lot area, width and depth in tbla uammt-B~na {liB} ~oa~ Dlatrtet, 4. USE OF PIIOPERTY: Th~ .~ubj~et peopoety h; known to be it non-profit lank museum width ~xisted ~tne~ th~ ~drly l~80a. Prior to I,avinff been acquired h~ 1981 by Wllllfl~ F; Oa..et~ tho D~l,erty was .sod as an C-l.,Ight lndostrinl .to~ yard tel,tied to a nearby commercially ~stnblinbed lamber eompan~ Io~t~d on Sound Aveaae~ Matlituek. 5. ZONING. In 1981 Ibc lower hitft Of the §Ubjoet pi-cruises was zoeed ~'C-l.i,g, bt Industrials" and the uppe~ hitlf of lite subject p~mlses to Light-Industrial. StJbsequently~ OH May 27~ 1992 the appli~nts applied ? the ~own Board rev a ehaa~ at ~o~e tto~ Light l~dustvtal and ~?sidentml Off~ee to Ilflmlet BU~l,es,~ arid Off Novemb~ 10~ 1992, th~ lawn Board g~nted tht~ ehfln~ in ~o~B~ ~th ~ndltion~ a~ holed the Declaration o~ Covenants flied la the Suffolk County Ule~kt, Office oe Novcmbe~ 8~ 1993 at Ltber 11651 pa~ 1~4. O. CllARACTER {IF IMMEDIATE AltkA, Abtltting tht~ property ate following: la) to the northwest Is it ~4i57/~ §q. ti, parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Fl-ask Ammnrltt ~ttie~ October 8, 1985 a~ p~ ~.veyatiea~ No. 3407 for fl 470 sq. fl. c~terl~g ~e~leo~ of D~pared taka-oat f~mds" in conjdt~etlon with the ownor*~ prtmdey ~lflglo-fd~ly ~sldeUee on tho second floor~ and ~eparale .ingle-family apartment tt~ OH the ~xistlnff first fDor. 'l.'ba property in 1985 wa~ zoned '*C-Light Indoatvtai". and /Re 3 - Appl. No.~. 4260, 4201, 4262 f'roperty of WILLIAM ¢;A.qSER Determination Rendered Febrlmry ~; 1995 residence for three families. Cttrrently~ tile zOtdng designation for the Ammarfl~ .~ parcel is llomle( BtlsitlesR. (bi to th~ extreme north+ CoUnty Retire. 48 .({ormerly known aa County Road 27) whmh iv n heavily travoled dllal-lnne highway. (c) to tim east, preperty identified a~ 1000-140-~-18i now nv formerly of l)oroaki, partly lo.ted In the t,ight-lndaatHal zone and partly ResidentiaI-O~fiee. Prior to 1989 thi~ p~p~vty waa al~o zoned C-lAffht lnchlatrial sod Affrleultu~llRe~identlnl. (d) to the .oath, tl~e lzmg .l~ldnd Railroad traek~. Further south of the LIRR traek~ t,~ the htl~i~s dtsttlct ~hteh ~n~i~ts o~ bea.iy .ahmi ~elall nalea~ hanktnff~ d~i~kinff ~atnbli~hment~ and other personal service stores, witt~ nearby municipal parking a~as. APPLICABLE ZoNIN0 CODE PROVlSiON8. 7. ACCESSORY TOWER SETBACKS: Article IX+ Section IO0-glC(I) t'eflds fin folh)w.~: Page 4 - Appl. Nos. 426~, 426t, 4202 Property of WII,IAAM GASSER Determinat{o~l Rendered Februatry l, J.q95 Tt,e accessory tower strUctUre tg sbowJl ba lhe Sketch giibliiitted With be appb~atton 1o bo 19 i,cheg ghort o[ thc fi~t-baek ~qal~etttl at an 3.42 ft. {41"J get-back ln~tead o~ five {5~) ~e~t, It i~ also noted tbat the tower structure ~ag ~dUe~d I, h~lght to legs than 18 feet ag ~quteed by tho eod~ Whoa it sas mows t0 thtg Dartictllar eoudillong under it, g~ut of zo~o ehau~e ~ov thl, ~uaet~m on upon the mod~t~tkms lo {l;e towee by the ownee-appli~nt. 8. FENCE lIEIC, li'r: Article XXlll~ Section 100-2MA (added 1-9-8§1 ~qutpe~ the height of a fence to be limited to slx f~t whett located la th~ f~at yaed of yards~ tl~e same ~hall not exceed 8-11~ reef. Tim fo~ee height along the northerly (shle~ line and westerly (aids) p~D~vty Iihe abutting ~mariti existed prior to 1982. At that Oma} fea~ hel~hts along sade and eea~ lines were pe~mttlea Up {U ~t~ltt f?t traction 100-119.1 of the former zo.e code) aud fence lt~t~ht~ WHhI. flvb feet of tho property and wi{bin a front ~rd ~efl w~ Itel{ed (o fo~ feet t~ helgbt. The heigl/( requested by {lll~ appll~tlon la foe a total of 6'8" (see applicant's sketch submitted wllh tht~ npplicJttlon). 9. S'l'OItA(;i; OF MElt(;ItANI)IsE IN EblELOSEi) ItUILDIN(;s: Article IX, Section 100-93 of tide ettt-t-eflt Zoning Code i-ends tis follows: Tt~e items which are not presently wtthhi att ¢.aclosed btflldihE aec armoured vehh:hm~ d/splay ~Hg .~ klflitds fl~d other hlst0H(~l arttfact~ related (o ibis type of museum. opi,osrl'ioN IoTiII;It Dl.~scUssioNs to. OPl,OSI'I'ioN ltEt,A'I'IVE TO Nolrt'llWES'rEitL¥ LOT, the northwesterly property IIn~ Of th~ ~ubjoet D~mla~,, Memo~udum9 lmve beeu fornisl,ed lialt,,K the .~as of coat.pa -- all of which ~ngc 5 - Appl. Nos. 42~o, 42c, 1. 42B2 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determinntiotl Rendered Fet)runl~y I ~ 1995 been fully considered by th~ Boat'd M~l~lb~l'§ Imdot- this npplieatlon. ,~r~me IssUes ~Ised were: a) n elntm by bff~oueiit(~J that .ltho~gh th~ Town cognizant of the fact that rite mo~.a~ ~tEd [o~ ~o~ tha. 10 yearn without proof of enforeemen~ pPOeeedifl~ fOP It~ e~t~tehee as n mtlne~ nne will, in the opposltlo~n vlew~ p~el~d~ tile ~nt of the wlthtn b) n claim t)y opponeHt[~) thM even ttndep the 1992 lib zoninff d~st~tion by ~lm 'row~; the ~pt? ta not the p~per place for n hon-p~fit mtmettm wtthout otlt~hlo e) the Baard at both h~a~la~a fltd ~qae~t f~m opponet~t(s) a list et their own suffffegtton~ (similar to ~ltat is ~o~ti~s ~er~d to as ~ "wish list") ia which th~ ~e~fi~ ~Uld b~ alla~lated or be les~ advera~ to thete p~peety by ~ay et ~ltl~tio~ ahd the opponent(nj chose not to famish ~ list of .~estiOaa o~ d) whellmr i. fact tim it~ which a~e m)t within an enclosed buildlnff weald iaehlde motorized vehtel~ wldeB ha~ ~enerally throughoOt the township ~op many y~avs. *helher or trot the mlbmlssioh Of infO~mdtloa ~howlng the he determined at mis time, tmde~ these appll~tions~ paeltcularly since the act/on belaff appealed ho~lfl ~aa tak a by ttl~ Bulldluff hmpecto~ Io¢~tlofii fence height, and eut~lde ~lo~e of f) the ~pecifie "yard llUo" of tltO f~ttt yard as defined by Section 100-13 of the zoning code arid fl dete~mtnation of the required height for that yard line and yaed fi) whether or not the eha~ffo et the zon~ by the Town Board in 1992 is d~rectly relevant or a ~eason to ~yeetade the gnmling or denial ef the variatiees reqiie~/~d- FiNDtN~St INTERPRETATION AHD DETERMINATIONS the Is~ue~ ~t~ml p~lnl~ing to lt~m~ lO(b)~ (BJ~ (e)~ and (~) herein onrereement o~ eompll~tleo~ i~ ~ot ~ ~ to b~ p~p~rly decided by tht~ Benrd l in n q~n~i-judlet~l at. tits. .............. P.ge t~ - Al, pl. t, los. 4260, 4201, 4262 I'r/Jperiy o1' WILI,IAM {;^B.qEIt D'etermlnatlon Rendered Febt-.ary l~ 1995 · 12. INTERPRETATION. In this determiliatlon; 1[ 1~ eotiftrmed by tl.s Board that, It has bee. the pOgltloit bi' tho Town roi; ~o~ titan aY 100-i91 droll,, be pe~mlti~d In a ~ld~n~M ~atflet,,, (e~phaala added}.'t lids is nat n &~identlal dtatflett tMa t~ a bUsitless ~istrict which p~mtts mas~ ~op~fi ~Pa~t ~a~ IOt~, S~etiofl a.d, off-slreet pnrkt.ff~ and other tmp~em~nt~ that a~ land. "PARKINC, LOT: Att off-.~tt,uuh I.tt~ound legal at~a~ §uffaeod I a. 9AItlAf~CRs. ?nee hetght aid lower setback relief at~ at, mt ~aflanct!~ [reL ?ow YOrk Iowa l~w~ S~ettO~ a~7{I) amended Jaly 1; }gg~J: NeW ~O~k qowu t~w~ an amended~ prov~den that glean ~aslde~ t~o bagle thin.at A) hi batancltig attd deter, mined ~ reqtiests: th~ ,l~tHa.,nt t~ thu healthi aaron, and '~nu~i ~lta~. of the neighborhotfl U~ et, mmu~tty that would ueeue If the the following [lvd [~tOF~ to~ thoro ~ varla~ a) lhure will not be ali tttld~.l~tblu uhail~ In tho blia~etut ut the hel~hbofl~ood o~ ~ detflmut~t to ~a~Dy D~Du~tlou~ ~ ~tud foe th~ by tl.s cMptbL" ]yh~ Ihdk-~etbaek ~hbdal~ up~ll~blo to tl~e ilaml~t ,'nl~.e ? - Aiq)l. No::. dY, BO, ,lY,(i,I, P,'nl~nrty of It/ll,l,l^M l~(~termh.dio, lte.¢lered l~ebrunry I~ 1995 For .o.r(~.o. ide.li:d z(.~e dintrieln. 'l'h~ r(~lu(~:t(~d heiRht i~ .hown o. the nppli(~.t'..k~tch to ho 6'8" ellelo~Jll~ (~lirc ]lremisc~, n.d lbo vnri{~.eo rcq.irod in for two inel,o. (~") 'l'he [en~(~ i~ .ned for ~:ero(~n{.~, l~riw~ey low(~r ,-.elbnek; Iho Ioenti(., of Ihc tow(..r in ~t t1,(~ furthe.ql di.~ln.ec from Ihe opp,.~enl's property, nnd in Ioentod very elo.qe to tho. vieinily of the rent ynr¢l of lhc en~terly ndjoi.i.l~ pnrecl; the Ioe~'~tion F.(~.ernl nrcn roq.c.qiod nl !00 fool or more from l.ovc l.'~nc ~t.q .qtipulnted hy lh,.~ 'l?ow. lh.~rd in il~ !.0!19. l)celnr:di,.~ (,f ('~ovo.n~l.q nnd Re.qtrielion.q; e) the t)eneFil go.~h! I)y th(~ npplie~t.I c~n be olherwi.qe :~ehh'.ved with the pl~¢;eme.t of n fence nt 6 foot i. heil~ht wilhh! the f~'~nl ynrd li.e.q, nnd nl 6-1/9. ft. hie.ff, thc .qide nnd r~nr properly d) tl.~ he.cji! .~.lF. Ill I~y ll,~? npplien.t lo Io(udo tho towor nl nh.lli.~ prope~'ty own~r i. il. j)rene. I h.~.lio., nn eoml.~r(~d Io nnolhcr Ioe:dio~ of Ihn low~r. (!1 ~ho. hl I~e llt~h~d Ih:~l no eh~im hn. l,c~n Ihe :t~'en va~'i:.~c(~, for I)oth the Iht f:lel Ib{d Ibc })r(~perly }. ..iquely ~h:~ped wilh n. h-.h:~l~Cd ~x.ffi~.r:dion, n:,rrow whllh, limilo(I b.ihlnl~lo nren, b.ihli.~ Iocntio., n,,d oth(~r l,r(~(~xi~l{.~ no.eo.formili(~, n. n eom.,ereinl nlom~o ynr(l wilh p:,rki~ of eommer(~inl Ir.ck. n~,l nlh~r vohicle~; i..po, ynrd n~-(.n~; il IU92 hy lh(~ Tow. Bo.~'d n~.t N(~div(~ l)eel:~':~lion nd(H~led by Ihi. Bonrd /ho l.o,,ff I.In,.I Rnilrond trnek~:; fo tho ttorlh i~; n l)nre(.I of In.(l ()(m.i)i(~(I nn n I~lco-o.l e:ll(~r}.~ ~(,ruie(~ which {..o.(confori.}.~ i. ih(~ lib Zo.e I)i~;h'iel; E) the will I~?:pnrly ~f WII,I,I^M (:ASfiER IlICfiOI.VF.I), Io I)F. NY Ihe, re,lie,[ n.~ re,que,..~le,(t I'or th~ fe,.ee, h~ight · 'dmv~ .~i× [ee,t nlt.ll~, the frcm~ .ynrd Ii.e, nnd nbove ~-1/2 re,el :llo.~ the side ;t.d re,hr prol~e,rt.y Ihm.,'~ for thi.~ .onre,.~ide,ntinl u~e,; lie rr I~III[TIlER I[V.~()I,VF.I), fo INTEItI'Itl';T lhe netlvily for lmrklnF, of movnble vehiele,~ to lnel.dn t:mkn nmi ,imllnr deviee~ which mn~ be, .~ed for lqlll'rll~ III'~R()I.VI:~I), lo (II1AN'I' lho vnri:~.ee recl.e.te(I for n Iff" r(~rhleti(.I |11 Ih~? seltme,k for Ihn nee~m.'y I.we,r .~truel.r% ~.~ npplled, Iii1(! lie IT l;IJ IUI'II Ell I~ILc;OI,VF.I), Ih:H lh~ f. IG~wi.f. eonditl~)..~ ~hnll lie. coral)lied wilh: :t) Only th:il life,Il 1'1 flt(~l nlo. L~ the, =(~lltmrly l)rop~wly li,m (lflS' whe. ~t(me,~;nry of ve,hlel(~, e~ro~n, ill~re,~, I:m(l~:e:~l~i.~, p:lrkitl~ for ¢,ther neee~ibilily .e,ee~;:lry i. the e,vent of n fire, or olhe,r e,m(!rffe,tl(:y. b) Whe,. Ih(. ,.Imm.n i~ elo~e(I, tile, .orlhe,rly re(m! ,15 f(~(,t (~f (lie, Yhff. e 9 - Appl. Nos. '1260, d2GI, 49.62 Property of WILLIAM GAS.qEI/ Determination Rendered February I, 1995 p teed in writing with proof to bt? furnished re(:ommended for tl}~ benefit of nil that some nRreeme~lI be reached between the pnrlies wifh r{~forellee Io plantings on either or both d) Border fenr:in~, slmtl Itc .slalted six feel north of lhe rend line when if is presently unslatled; all fonein[ and slafted are:m nlmll be maintained in flood eondiflm, and rep:fired by llte applie:mts. e) In nix monlhs frcm! lite dale of lhe f'ilinff, of this decision, Ihe appUconts-owners herein shall ei(her remove ~I[' mereb~mdise and nrlifnetg which nrc not within n building. Alternatively, the applicants hereb~ may apply 1o lhe Buildin~ l)elmrlmenl wllhln lhe l~exl any event, failure by ~he applicants fo file n Imildin~ permit applle~tion in n limely fasb!on shall sol prevent the Town fromm enforcement proceeding by lbo Town Allornoy's Offie~ m' Ibc Sm~lhold Town lluildin~ Deparlmenl. f) this determinalio~t shall nell preclude :lppliealion by the owners or an aggrieved Imray lev different ~elief as may he r~qulred by the Building Inspeelor and filed b~' ~c(~¢(tane~ wilh Iho requiremenfn of Now York Town l.~w, Seelion 2fi7 (slleh n~ an addilion to tim exlsli,[ Imihlln~, or new Imildln[ for inside slorn[e and display of merehandlse and othbr artifacts). Vote of the Board: Ayes:: Messrn. I)oyen, (:oehringer. Nays: Mr. Villa (fel~ Ihe relief requested not tiffs particular loenlion nnd due lo lhe size of the parcel) mul Mr. l)inizio Willnn and suitaltle (chose 1o withhold his reasons). This resolulion was d,ly d*.~i~n,,,l In l~n ~vallnhl~ for .~ .nlt m~' rflllllret di~'tl5 wtth ~.t lllnf~ lhm~ one Ill nth~r ~.rh .nit F:nt'l~ .rill ~hnll hnv~ n ~l,x~r n~nh~ff on Ih. ~l~rlnr ~f th,, h,dl~li,~ nr n~ n cnn.nnn hnllwn~' lrmli~ In th~, I.ANIIMARK DRRIfINA'I'IIIN - - l'h~ d~t~nnl.io, nf n hnlhl In~v, Ihr~,,~h Ii~lln~ th~ I~rol~.l~, I, tho I~,'~ D~.~i~nnt,~I I.~ndn~nr~ nn4 filln~ n ~,py nf th~ ~,Iry In lite I.ANIIRC. APIN~I - An ,t~n or l~nd re~trtct~l In olh~r Ihntl for l~hnr.~neeulienl or Pe~enreh purl~ or mnlerlnl~. "l,iehl ;,d,~l fy" ind,dm ~,,I.~t rlal nl~rnl and fl,rt~' fiv~ {~SI D'~I tnnm hnvln~ n n~i,hnmn f~urleen I,OT - AnY l~nr~d of Innd. nnl n~e~nrtly c.hlddent wlth th~ chlldrea of the r~l~n~ fnmlt~ nn~ no[ ndwrtlnen or enll~ attention to n bunln~nn ~vhleh th~ ~lffn t~ located. [fidd~l 11-~-10~4 Gy 1,.1,. (~FF-STRK~T PA~R~N~ SPA(~ A ~nee f.r Ih~ pnrld.ff of on~ (t) motor whlele within n p.blte or private pnr~t.ff aron, but ~ot within d publte OPeN ~I'A(~R ~ Any p~re~l or nre~ or land or water en~.ttnlly ..lmptoved n.d net nnldo, dedicated, do~{ffnnted or ~e~etved ~ot ~.blle or private ~n.loym~nt nr for H~ uno nnd ~nJo~ent of own~r~ nnd ~ecupnntn of I.nd .djotnln~ or nelffhborlnff nueh open ap.co, ptovtded that n.eh nten, may b~ Improved wtth pn~ld.ff nnd oth.t Improv.m~.tn that nfo h,eld~ntnl to thc .nt.rnl op~nn~nn 0~ the area, of nny ~oodn, j~nk, ~t~rlnl, m~rehnndi~e vohlelo~ In the nnmo ~lnco ro~ mor~ thnn twenty-trait ()WN~R ~ ln~l~lde~ the duly m~thorl~ed agent, attorney, p.rehnner, devln~, Rdtlelnry o~ ~ny other pernon hnvl.ff m~rne~d nnd Improved for th~ tempornry motor whlelpn. ~TAT1ON ~ A ~oltn~ ~etvte~ wtntlon primarily for the hy men.n of n qualified nttpndn.t controlllnff nn ~ 100.~I ,q¢)UTIloI,I) CODA ~ 100 n~ which nrc ~ttjoc~ ~0 ArUcle XX, nfo m,t~jec{ ~o nile plnn ~ IO0. aIC(1) [hro. Rh (7) of tim A~rle.lh~rnl- ~-~ forth i. ~ 100-~ fho~oof?~ ~ 100-92. lt.ll~, nren nm! Imrldnl~ toR.InUnnn. No b.ildlng nr premlnon .hall bn .ned nnd no h.ildl.R fir pnr[ same conrorm~ herein t. § lOo-.q3 ZONI~NCI ~f IOo.loi living plnnt~, abridge and tree~, shall be confined to f. lly IAdded t-lO-t§gg I~y L.L No. l-lflR.~nl ~ lOO-lO0. Pt~rpoae. for retail and wholesale commercial development and limited involw chatncterlsUca each aa heavy tr~tckln~ and noise. A. iAmnnded K-0-I~O~ h~ L.L. No. O-I"".l Permitte4 ~ lOO-~IA(~) aaa ia) of the A~rle.lt. rnl- (2) A.y permitted ose .et forth In and icg. Isled hy pnddn~ .po~e.~ rot lh~ ..~ of tim f~mtl~ of th~ th,~e ~ohihtte~ ~y thl~ ehnpt~r. ?-~R-I99~ by 1,.I,. N~. 14-1fl~$1 llom, oeetlpntt~n. on the ~nnr~'fl J,d~menk, I[ fln~n tlm~ In m~et ~o mnln[nln tin~ n~ to h~ eofl~tte~e~ Iff ~ ~nnne~ ~lm~ will not alter the el~a~nctht of [he tenl~enHnl netRhbo~hood~. The Donr~ nlm. The~e unen .Imll he permltke~, ~tovlded thnt: (2) In I.h~ ~wnt. of fl ehn,g~ froth h, neee~nr~ nr ~n~n~ ~e to Itvnhl~ floor nreh, the n.4 gflrnR~ nt.otng~ nr~n tony o~ly b~ conwrte~l h~, p~inrlpnl I.Hhlln~ fi~r ntn~Imfntntly (3) ()l:~mt t.~imn nf ndrllLlml~ ~hJeh enht~ef. (4) ll~ck nnd/,t pat.in mldiL;o,~ t.o n pH,~lpnl hulldin, 11111-2.11. IlelRhf .f I'emm~, ~,nll.~ Itthl h~.rm~. IAmenth~d A. Wh~. lo~nt~d ;. t. hn rro.t ynr~ of t~l~m*t.tnl ~.,,~, th~ Inentn~ in t,he front ~,-~ of flnnted~e,~ nl ~m~, the . nme droll no[ exeeea ~tx (fl) re~t tit height. widl.h of ,ot I~ (h~fl ~f~fl (1~) f~t, ~e~vin~ only ~uch Int. n ~tr~et hy me~fl~ b~ ~fl n~q~y ~hnll b~ U~e t~uired frnt~t yard ~eified fo~ th~ dMHet In which the lot i~ t^dded ~ ~t1-1.~11 h~, I~L. fl~. I~-I!l?lll Fire lane for ~Ii IoL~ Im~ wtth ~ bultdlnk o~ ~trueh*re fnllnw~: (I) Ru~fn~ fr~ fm~ ~thol~, ~Lq ~Hd other def~ts. fo~ ~mhtentt~l lOfl-~?. I~rohlhlled u,~ hi #I1 dMrleL~. IAi, ended II-S4. by I,.I~ No. -l gel Any u~e which I~ hoxlott~, offensive oP nbj~tlonMde by aa In catt~e ~rmafleht damage tn the ~tl and ntrrama or ndwt~ely nffeet th~ sUrrdtlhdln~ nrefi or by re~m ~f th~ et~ntlon of h~t~. ~lb~tto~. ~leettoma~etle or offwr di~torh nnee ot hy ~en~lt of Ilhn~tlo~ by ~ttlfielM II~ht nr light t'rfl~tlotl beyotid th~ IImlL~ nf the h,t o, or from which ~ueh 100-33 CODE § 100-.q.q 100-33. ^cees~ory huildinl~. [Amended 4-10-1990 In the A~tic~dtu~nl Cnn~ervnfion District nnd l,ow-Don~ity Rosldontinl I{-R0, R-120, R-200 nnd R 400 l)i~trlcts, accessory huildinff~ nnd str.ct.re~ ~r othor accessory rises shall be located in the roq~fired roar yard, mlltject tn tho follmvlnff req.irement~: A. S.eh buildinff~ shall not. exceed eighteen (1~) feet, in heiffhL B. S~thnelr~. IAmendod 7-17-199~ hy l.l. No. 14-1990; 2-5-1991 hy I,I,. No. 2-19911 (1) On It~{~ con~nlning ~p to ~wonty {hmmnnd (20,000) sqtmre feet, m~ch hulhli.ff~ shall be set back no less ~hn~ fl~ree (~) feet from nny lot line. (2) On lots cnntnining more than twenly thnusnnd (20,000) square fee~ up to ~hirty-nlne thousnnd nine h.ndred ninety-nine (39,999) ~qunre feet, such b~ildinff~ shall he ~et hack no le~ limn fivo (5) fee~ fi'om nny Iot llno. (~) On lot~ con~nlnlnff in oxco~s of thirty-nlno tho~nnd nlno h.ndrod nln~ty nine (39,999) sq~mre feet up seventynine thm~nnd nine hundred nino~y-nine (79,999) ~qunre feet, s~ch buildings ~hnll he set bnek no le~ limn ten (I0) feet frnm nny lot line. (4) On Io~ eon~ninlnff in exce~s of seventy-nino ~hm~nnd nine hundred ninety-nine (79,999) fee~, ~eh buildin~ shall he ~et back no le~ ~hnn ~wenty (20) feet frnm nny Io~ llno. (? In the en~e of n wa~erfron~ parcel, accessory building~ nnd structures may be loentod in the fron~ yard, provided thn~ such b.ildlngs nnd struc~res mee~ ~he fron~-ynrd setback ~equirements n~ se~ forth by thi~ Code. IAdded 12-22-1992 I~y l,.g. No. ;worn to ~fore me on TATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF -. "i . 19 ~/..I served thc within [-'] ~ . by depositing a true ~= ~,~ ~ ~. ~' custody of the .U S, ~" ~:- : eddre~ set forth ]=']. ~ , by.delivering a true COlby thereof person~l'~o" : ; - '==~.~. . ~ -. to oe the person menttoned'' and d ' ' ~' .ench l~'rson, named, below at ti ~ .... · . . . esenbed m said a asa ' ~ , b t . . p pera party therez~. rm '~ ~s~ ny a~torans .mttt~ng,tbe papers by eleetrumc means to the teletthone ni~l~r I~,,,.a s ,~ ~ rccewed. I also deposited ~ true, ~,,..'~.~_ ~ ne eqm. pment, of the attorue ! '¥': / exclusive care and custod,, of th- ~,,~,~,~m_,.tn.e~papers, enclosed in a post-paid wranper, in an __ ~ ...., . ~ ~.o. rostai ~ervice,'addressed to the attorue at ~ s~ ........ ~ m a wrapper aaaresseo as shown below, into the custody for overnight delivery, prior to the latest time designated by that service for overnight delivery. - being sworu, say. I am not a patx~y to tbe!~n~,am ~ver 18 ye~rs.~ rn to before me on PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) ' SEQR 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: [] Residential ~ndustrial ~ommercial [] AgriCulture [] ParVJFotest/Open space [] Other I CERTI~f THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE I$ TRUE TO THE aEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE II the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER I .(Continued on reverse side) before any action is taken. INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be sig- (c) If all questions have been answered NO it is likely that the project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessme'nt 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically'alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes :,~NO 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form on the site? Yes ~No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect On an existing body of water? Yes ~No 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? Yes ~No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? __Yes ~No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? Yes .~No 8. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes ~No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct- %tre of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical 10. WAll project have a m~jor effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes ~No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or · cause a major effect ~o existing transportation 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's operation? Yes ~No 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes ~No 14. Will project affect the existing conununity by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- period or have a major negative effect on the ' charact~ of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public confroversy concerning the , project? / ~ ' Yes QUESTIC:~AIRF. FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z..q.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: (S.~ . ~ ' sa~e or being shown to prospective buyers? { } Yes n t~e real estaue marneu for { } No. Jif Yas, Dlaa~a ir_r_~_a c~_~af "conditions,, of C. Are ther~ ~ { } Yes {~ No ~u~al~ tm ~an~e ~ alter l~d c~==.~u? D. 1. Are there any areas whic~ contain wetland grasses~ 2. ~9 the ~?tlapd ~eas shown on the map s~minneu ' knas application? ~/~ ' 3. ~s the Property bul~d bet. e ~e upland bulldin are ~ ~/~en the wetlands area an 4. &r your Property c~nta{~i -~ d you contacted t~e Office of the - -~ weClanas or pond areas, have Tow~ Trustees dete~ination cz jurisdiction? ~/~ for its E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near proposed cogstruction level9 ~,/ . ~tOr b~ow five feet the area of above mean sea ' ~,/~ (If appllc~le, state "N.A."] ic r n atios, concrete ~arriers, S~mittin~ ~,~ not sh~ ~ ~u SUrvey bulkheads or fe~ map that you ~ · _ If none exist, please state "none.', G. Do ~ou have any construction taking place at this Concerning your premises? ~ t ~f your buildin~ ~ ~ .... 0 If yes, ple ....... uepar~en~ $~e.,,,~= ~nu map as ann~--~ ~a~ ~u~lt. a cop H. Do you or any cc-owner als~ own other land close to this parcel? _00 If yes, please explain where or Submit copies of deeds. I. Please list present Use o Parcel Do,1. ~ ~ ~ r Operations Conducted at this -. ~ ~ .~ and ~eu Signauure ane Dat~ 3/87, 10/901k ~age~30 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:15 P.M. Appl. No. 4~260~4261, 4262 Applications of WILLIAM F. GASSER: MR. CHAIRMAN: These are hearings for Variances concerning property known and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone District, and is continued from the last regularly scheduled meeting and I think we'll start out with Mr. Blass. How are you tonight? GREG BLASS, ESQ.: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. I have several items I'd like to submit for the record. And first I'll state them as I present them is a statement of posting required for the record again, the second is I know that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce was presented here originally. Do you have that ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we do. GREG BLASS: I have a copy that I'll give, together with a copy of our Reply Memorandum, a copy of which I have for each Member of the Board and finally I have a total of 125 petitions from residents of the Town of Southold that relate to the activity of the applicant. I'll be brief in my comments, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to say that having had the opportunity to read the papers submitted by the objectants, Mr. & Mrs. Amaretti, I have to take serious issue in which the way the motives and actual the conduct of Mr. Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation having fictionalized suggesting Page 31 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals that in one place, one quote is that "they have knowingly violated Town Law for 13 years." I would point out that when the applicant purchased this property it was used for storage, and it had access to the public. Not museum storage, but it was storage of lumber and commercial and private individuals went to the property under the previous owners use and went there in considerable volume and removed materials from the property. It was a good-faith intent on the part of the applicant to continue a similar though not identical use with the CO that he was able to get and to suggest that they have flaunted or violated the law for this that I think is pointed discussions had been had. period of time really overlooks a scenario out on page, starts on page 3 after First discussion was actually between Mr. Gasser and the Board in 1980. That was not, there was no inference that the items would be stored in a building. The 20 items that he had alluded to in that conference of restoring them and displaying them having enough space between them so people could look at could never have been accomplished in a building that size in that number of vehicles. But then when the Amaretties moved in which actually was six years after this operation was underway we had a series of events that involved constant visits by Mr. Gasser to this building and by their attorneys, the respective attorneys who preceded myself. And I point out August 28, 1991 the Planning Board required revision to the site plan, discussions followed, application to the Building Department in December of '91 for a Tower Permit, January of '92, Notice was given of Disapproval February 25, '92, Page 32 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals application for Variance for the tower, April of '92, request for conferences with the Town Attorney and the Zoning Board after numerous discussions told the applicant, convinced the applicant that a zone change would be needed, and by the way, here's an example of the way our efforts in this regard have been twisted. They were not told out of the blue by a letter from the Town Attorney, look we're not going to tolerate this anymore, get a zone change. This was a suggestion that the applicant, Mr. Gasser and his attorney made to the Town Attorney in a personal discussion. The Town Attorney considered that suggestion, brought it back to the Town Board, and then based upon the input of the Town Board got a letter out to the applicant suggesting that the zone change was a good idea. That's what that letter was about. The quote taken out of context from that letter is just one of many examples of the distortion that we're very concerned with. I would just let the Board review the rest of the scenario that had been followed in good faith over a period of years that true has only some documents in the record but every of the Building Department, the staff to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board are ali well aware of the real yeomen's effort that these people have put into keeping this thing in harmony with what the Town wanted and there has not been one directive, not one requirement that the Town of Southold has made with respect to this property that my clients have not followed and followed to the letter. And they're still doing that right up to this application_ today. Page 33 - Hearing Tlscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals I would also point out on the Reply Memo that we have that we have shown the difficulties being very practical difficulties as a basis for an area variance. We point out that the property's L-shaped configuration. The L-shape configuration alone, the dimensions alone were the basis of this Board's decision of May 4, 1994. Talking about the virtual impossibility as to future construction on the property. There are Court cases that establish that. That is an important factor. And I can also point out that some of the cases in the memo that the objectants cited themselves stand for a very important proposition here, a very important proposition and that gets back to the point of why we should not really take as seriously as they would have us take a threat to take this all to court and that these proceedings are just a dry run. Remember, gentlemen of the Board, that the Zoning Board of Appeals not oniy put into cases that were cited by the objectant but also according to the Jordan Partners' case which was decided in the Court in the Appellate Division with respect to actions taken by this very Board, that it is the Zoning Board of Appeals that has primary jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction in interpreting the code. So I think a Court will very highly regard whatever decisions and whatever scenarios have taken place with respect to these applications up until now. Both the Town and the applicant contrary to what has been suggested have been doing a long series of efforts and work in administrating the Town's regulatory authority as it would apply to Page 34 - Hearing Tr~Fnscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals the applicant, to the applicant's property and to the applicant's use of that property. And I also would point out that the Town Law 267B requirements are met here. We wili point out that the neighborhood of the community where this property is located is a very important factor in what your decision should be. This property is not on an island with the only other affected property being the neighboring residential/commercial property that's owned by the objectives. This property is in a neighborhood that has a tourist and commercial base. It is a property that is used in a way that attracts tourist economy. Tourism is a recurrent theme in the Master Plan of the Town of Southold. And I would point out that any kind of museum that has military artifacts dating back to the American Revolution is a tourist based facility. It is not a World War II machine storage place as is contemptuously stated in the papers submitted by the objective. And I would also point out that whether or not the applicant reaps a debtor profit out of this variance being granted is not really an issue here because the applicant is a non-profit corporation. It doesn't make money on this kind of activity. In fact, some complaint has been suggested that there's been no financial information offered about what the applicant does in terms of dollars and cents. Well, I don't have a statement to give you in writing tonight but I can tell you that the total cash income that derives from American Armoured Foundation activity at this property is about $25,000 and that includes a small gift shop and it includes Page 35 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeais admissions charged to visitors. The contribution that is personally made by Mr. Gasser, himself, to this operation totals about $124,000 a year of his own money and that total goes to expenses that range from advertising, payroll, payroll loans is about $25,000 annually, insurance, accounting services, parts for equipment and supplies, delivery and freight charges, building repairs, ground maintenance, all of that is where this money goes to. There is no profit. There's nothing taken home. It's just the opposite. It's given in, so I don't think that we're talking about reaping benefits of profit or profitability that some of the cases that have been cited in the objective's memorandum suggest to you, but I think the conclusion can be made Members of the Board that this application to this variance is the result of many appearances before all the Planning Board and Zoning Board and the Town Board. The applicant has cooperated, will continue to cooperate and I ask that every consideration be given to not only what this property is on the very difficult dimensions it lies but also what it is contributing to the community and to actually the heritage of this nation as it can be found here in this Town of Southold and the community of Mattituck. I think that they deserve the consideration that their being asked. It is not outlandish. These variances are slight, and they will go a long way towards the system of the operation in maintaining the character of the displays and the operation that they have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask a couple of questions, Mr. Blass? GREG BLASS: Sure. Page 36 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: When they purchased the property, the Gassers in 1980, the zoning on the property was Light Industrial wasn't it? GREG BLASS: It was zoned C and at that time there was no published regulations that related to outdoor displays. That occurred subsequently when the master plan was adopted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then it switched to what? What were they changed to? GREG BLASS: LI. MR. CHAIRMAN: LI, Light Industrial. Now, what precipitated and I know that we had discussed this several times but just so I can keep it fresh in my mind, what precipitated the change to HB. GREG BLASS: The application made before the Town Board and that was precipitated by the apparent difficulty in getting a clear sense of direction from the Building Inspector and from the Planning Board in the site planning view process so the suggestion was made that a zone change be applied for and that suggestion was accepted by the Town. It wasn't imposed by the Town as it had been suggested. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it was changed then from LI to HB. Ok. Let's go back to the fence for a second because the nature of this hearing is all three hearings in one. GREG BLASS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The fence is approximately how high at this point? I heard 5 foot 6 inches and then I heard, maybe Bill can tell us. MR. GASSER: on the front that. OK, the fence height is 6-1/2 ft. on the side 6.8 feet and then it has a double barbed wire extension above Page 37 - Hearing Ti~Iscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: What did you say it was on the side? MR. GASSER: 6.5 feet. MEMBER WILTON: Is that to the top rail? MR. GASSER: I'm sorry. MEMBER WILTON: Is that to the top rail? Is there a top rail? MR. GASSER: To the top rail, but below the barbed wire. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a specific and please I realize that there are particular reasons for these things but is there a specific reason for the barbed wire? I mean I know the reason for barbed wire, alright. GREG BLASS: Yes, that it's because in the arrangements that have been made for the delivery for the receipt of some of the artifacts so the displays requirement has been made by the Federal Agencies that there be a better protection than just a simple fence and that's why the barbed wire was placed there in order to be eligible to receive some of these exhibits. On top of the overali problem of people who have climbed the fence before the barbed wire was there who were able to enter the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. There is no physical way that I mean all they could do though is malign or damage the ~pecific units there they could not start them or anything of that nature to my knowledge from what I gathered from Mr. -. GREG BLASS: That would be physically impossible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Does anybody have any questions about the fence before we go any farther? The attorney has now explained to us why the barbed wire is there. Page 38 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER WILTON: Is that requirement documented some place from the Federal Government? GREG BLASS: We can get documentation for you, sure. MR. GASSER: I'm operating on a defense security manual. They set the parameters when I established the museum. They argued the issue and wanted a 10 foot fence with double wiring because these weapons are live. I have a live weapons museum. That's what we are and they said they wanted a 10 foot fence and I said that's not going to fly in town when I have to keep it to a reasonable size. More conventional size which is a 6 foot fence, alright. It's just a barbed wire, it comes out to wherever it comes out to when you purchase that way. So that's where it came from. They let it ride. They want to put an (word unclear) over to us now and they brought the 10 foot issue again and that tank is still being deliberated on pending their review of my security systems. So, the defense is still an issue even with them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could that be changed, Bill, by putting sensors in the fence? I mean I realize that's a great expense of putting sensors in the fence. MRS. GASSER: Electric sensors. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, well yes, similar to what they have in jails. MR. GASSER: We did some inquiries with our alarm company on it and the best it turns is a visual something. I understand that the interpretation here. I mean I don't like barbed wire either. It's just, you know, it's not the most esthetic pleasing thing in the world but it serves a purpose, it serves a purpose of deterring Page 39 - Hearing Ti~iscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals anybody from coming in and doing injury. If anybody gets hurt on those things, I'm the one responsible. The Army doesn't care. I'm the one who has to take the rap on it. I have to bring any misappropriation or misuse of anything in the museum. In firearms if you lose a firearm you're guilty not the person who takes it alright. I have to have the maximum security possible in order to make Uncle Sam feel comfortable to allow the installation to sustain operation and I said I had to I have a whole set of cameras, I have arm guard service and alarm system to central station. The best army bases in the world don't have what I have. I have the top of the line full alarm system you can have. But, you still have to allow for you know, the unexpected. That's the general public. they want to hop on something and get in there and do damage, you know, the police they raise their hands and say we're not responsible, you're responsible. The Army also to me says the same thing. I have to protect it. I have to be wary of lawsuits. I have to be wary of anybody getting hurt. I don't want it to happen. The best way I thought I could prevent it was using the double V type system on it because I was a kid too and I climbed barbed wire fences, OK. I think we all, every male child probably at one time or another hopped the fence, OK, there are ways of still doing it. The barbed wire it's just as hard getting in as it is getting out with the double V at the top and that's, even most military installations are going to go with that fence because it costs a lot to put it up. I'd like it to be built by the double V because it was a small addition at the time and got that extra security. Page 40 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: When approximately did you put that fence in Bill? MR. GASSER: Gee. I guess 1981. North Fork Fence put it in for us. MR. CHAIRMAN: 19817 MR. GASSER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: A]right, now we go over to the tower. I believe there is a variance of a setback on the tower. GREG BLASS: Yeah, the tower I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, was moved 100 feet back as per the Town Board. We actually moved it back at that point 100 plus some feet. Then the tower was moved again to the rear corner as per the Planning Board. It is 9 inches by 1'7" less than the 5 feet from the rear line requirement, and it is a full 2 feet less than the 5 feet of the side yard and that so the variance would be for the 1, 9 by 1-1/2, 1.7 and by the 2. MR. CHAIRMAN: And it's been lowered? GREG BLASS: And is now, is now 17 feet 8 inches high. MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright, good. Does anybody have any questions of anyone about the tower? I realize you may have questions later. I mean I'm just asking on the Board if anybody has any questions? By the way you might want to review these (end of tape). Does anybody have any questions about the tower and its particular placement at this time? MEMBER VILLA: MR. CHAIRMAN: MEMBER VILLA: parking? Well, why was it placed there? Planning Board. I was led to believe because they wanted some Page zll - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals GREG BLASS: Well it was placed in the back by the Town Board as a condition to the zone change. MEMBER VILLA: Right. GREG BLASS: It was placed in the corner by the Planning Board in their site plan review process which is still pending. MEMBER VILLA: For what reason? MRS. GASSER: It was placed there by the Building Department. They told us we had to have it in the rear yard. Now the Planning Department, the Planning Board is saying OK, you need parking spots there, and we can't give you the five parking spots there until you have to move this out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. What is the specific purpose of the tower? It just adds to the ambiance of the museum. Is that particularly what it is? MR. GASSER: I bought it for an exhibit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MRS. GASSER: That tower stood in Mattituck for 50 years. An observation point. In the news. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to ask the question. I assumed that that was the reason. MR. GASSER: It was at one time taller. GREG BLASS: It's diminished in size, but it has a memorial function because it is also similar to towers that were in certain POW camps so it's considered, it's regarded and displayed as a memorial tower and it's also a historical artifact because of what it actually was at one time though it's lower now. Page 42 - Hearing ranscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, so then we go back to the outside issue, the outside display issue; and that appears to be the remaining issue that's before us and again I'll ask if anybody has any particular questions of either the applicant, his wife, or their attorney? MR. GASSER: I'd just want to say if I could, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of display - it was suggested that by the objectants that we put up a building for displaying interior display. With the configuration and the dimensions of this property, that would be that would necessitate as even more variance than what we sought already. It would further make display of only possible of a far fewer amount of artifacts. Probably less than half of what we have there now. It would probably make the museum less than viable an operation, but I think that the outdoor display issue is truly mitigated if I could submit respectfully to the Board by the environmentai requirements that have been promulgated by the Board and which have been complied with already with respect to the drip pans and the tarpaulins and the regular, regularity inspection by on-site personnel that has been established. So, we think that has accomplished much of the concern that would arise from the outdoor display, and we feel that it mitigates the problem, and it deserves the Board's consideration that they regard the viability of this operation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Any other questions of the applicant or his attorney regarding outside display? (none) No? OK~ We thank you Mr. Blass, we'll see what develops. I'm sure we'll see you back shortly. Page 43 - Hearing Ti~iscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals GREG BLASS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes, Sir. You're welcome to use the mike or stand or whatever you'd like to do. I think we'll ask you to use the mike if you don't mind. How are you tonight? WILLIAM MACOMBER: Good evening. I spoke last week. I got a few things wrong, but this evening a few friends from friends and members we've collected a petition on people that were for this particular variances. I know the Town has codes on height requirements and everything, but I've expressed my views to Mr. and Mrs. Gasser and a few other veterans that it makes me feel a slight hand bad because something that is rare marking in remembrance of the POW - MIA, I felt kind of bad to see the tower being shoved to the rear. Not anything on your part, but the government was always shoving the POW and MIA to the rear. And I know you have your requirements of height and all, but I was kind of upset about that totally. We've gotten a lot of support on the petitions. We had a very good outing this week. Another item that was brought up in the last meeting was the property next door, having brunches in the Spring and Summer which is wonderful. The museum happens to open up at their time or brunch time. I happened to be at the museum this Sunday because there was a function going on, and I also noticed that pretty close to schedule each Sunday, the Long Island Railroad comes through and I believe that makes just as much noise as the machinery that is being operated. When I was to these functions that Page 44 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals was going on Saturday, I believe there were two items that were started. Three items were moved. One item they could not get started. I won't say there was an over excessive noise; I work in a shop that's very noisy, but it was within reason and of course I beg to differ, I'm sorry, I don't mean to ask, so it may make a difference, but that's all I have to express. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. We'll move over to the opposition and then we'll wrap-up with anybody that would like to make any further final closing statements. How are you tonight, Ms. Borelli? CARMELA BORELLI, ESQ.: Fine. I'd like to go through, first of all a couple of the things that Mr. Blass covered. I'm not going to respond to the itemization in his memo of the events and actions that were taken by the applicants because I think that ff you look at the record, the record absolutely speaks for itself. It's irrefutable in terms of the lack of action. I don't think that those were insinuations. I think that is fact, and I think the record absolutely speaks for itself so I'm not to address this listing of items because they cannot and will not repute what the record wili tell you if you look at the record. Mr. Blass said that the building was used for storage at the time of purchase. That is correct. It was owned by Penny Lumber and George Penny used it for storage. However, it was not a museum. It was within the code for what it was used for at the time. The museum never was a permitted use in that zone which was C. It was never a permitted use in LI when it was changed to LI and it was never a permitted use in HB, which is why they're here now. It has always violated the code, even though Page 45 - Hearing T]~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals it was used for the storage of lumber prior to that and I think that there is a serious difference between the storage of lumber and the storage of machinery. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you ask the Town Attorney at the time when they were asked to change from LI to HB, why they chose HB? CARMELA BORELLI: No, I don't know whether you have, I don't know whether this is an accurate statement in terms of that. It was suggested to them by I think they said Mr. Arnoff originally. I don't know if that's the case. However, I do know that I came across today in going through the stacks of papers that I have out of the files of the various departments here at Town Hall that there were a series of supposed conferences. I think at that particular time just prior to the zone change Mr. Gasser was represented by Wickham, Wickham & Bressler. And there is various communications which ! would be glad to dig out tomorrow and send to you where Dan Ross, Harvey Arnoff and other agencies, I believe, were taiking about they want to have a conference they should have a conference -they want a conference. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have all that in the file already. CARMELA BORELLI: OK. And what happened was it was just not coming to fruition, and Harvey Arnoff (as Town Attorney) said in the letter of which you have a copy there was an exhibit in the prior brief that I gave you, it's time to get off the stick, guys, you know you've got to do something here I can't and, I believe, he says, I can't sit back and let this illegality continue and they had to go for the zone change. Page 46 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals The fence may be required by the government for the security of the weapons. I don't know if that is the case. There is nothing in the record so far that confirms that they are mandated to do that. However, the requirements for "that the government may have the security purposes" do not preempt the Town's authority with regard to zoning. You have the ultimate authority with regard to the zoning requirements and the Zoning Code stipulates that. I don't care what the Federal Government says that have to do there. The Zoning Code takes precedence over that. Mr. Gasser in part of his reply just now said, they have live weapons there. It's the first time I ever heard that. We've been told everything doesn't work. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shells. Shells. CARMELA BORELLI: Well, they still have a potential problem there if they have live weapons there. MR. GASSER: Licensed weapons. CARMELA BORELLI: I'm sorry? MR. GASSER: Licensed weapons. CARMELA BORELLI: OK, I take it back. The tower has been said to serve two functions - that is, a memorial function and historical artifact. Last hearing, we were told that it was - I refer to it in my brief as a gun tower and I was called to task for that for referring to it as a gun tower. It was not a gun tower. And ! said that my recollection was that somewhere it was said that that's exactly what it was. Well, I brought another brief tonight which addresses that and a couple of other issues, and in there is a copy of a letter written by Mr. Gasser's attorney. I think it was in 1988, Page 47 - Hearing Tl~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals which specifically states that this was a tower that was in Mattituck, and it was a gun emplacement tower. The name that has been given here and to which the speaker in support has said that it is a POW-MIA Tower, my feeling is that it is an acronym that has been given to it to give it some appeal to this Board and to the public. By cailing it that, who could object? I mean, what am I objecting to? POWs, MIAs or the honoring of those people? No, I'm not objecting to that, and I think that's why the name has been given to this tower. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't particularly care what it's "called." I mean. Do you have any specific objection to it in its present place? CARMELA BORELLI: Yes. I have an objection to granting the variances to it because he ais0 in this brief you will see that in support of this request for the variance that it doesn't meet the side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant has stated in the application that this is because the Planning Board is requesting them to supply parking spaces. One of the exhibits attached to this new brief that I have handed you tonight contained in that same letter from the earlier attorney which is 1988, I believe, that letter contains the statement that there are 15 parking spaces available at the site all the time. Actually it's in my prior brief. It's an exhibit in my prior brief. And that attorney in 1988 says that there are 15 parking spaces available ail the time on site, and that was used as support for whatever they were asking for at that particular time. Now, we're being told you have to give them a Page 48 - Hearing Tra~nscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals rear and side yard setback variance because the Planning Board is requiring that they supply parking spaces. I mean we, we just have this consistent and constant changing of where you stand and what you're saying. It all depends on what you're asking them, what the Planning Board is asking them and what comes up. So the story changes. The mitigation changes. Everything changes. We've been told here tonight that our suggestion that they put up a building would require more variances. Please, I don't want to do this again. We've also been told that they will be able to display less artifacts. Well, that might be the case but they're not supposed to be displaying artifacts the way they're displaying them now. They've always been in violation of the code. Mr. Blass has also said that they have mitigated the environmental requirements based on your request. One of the new exhibits that I have attached tonight is a memo that was written by the Chairman of the Planning Board in 1992 to the Town Clerk with regard to the request for a zone change. And he was referring to the environmental consultant's report at that time. And he says it here, "the Planning Board has reviewed the environmental consultant's draft recommendations for this project. The environmental review is too narrowly focused on the subject property alone. The review should have incorporated a wider area, namely the surrounding business district because the proposed change of zone will have an effect on that area." That's exactly the point in my first brief when I said that giving them a negative dec. under SEQRA Page 49 - Hearing Tlscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals was inappropriate here. We can't just deal with the oil that comes out of the tanks. We have to deal with the whole context of what this is and what it stands for. My client handed me tonight some pictures that were taken the 31st. These pictures show you what people see. OK, and some of them were taken just this past Sunday. You can see here that this tank actually extends over the fence. The fence which is illegal, the tank extends over. You can see where people see as they walk down this street, and this is the way you have to view this site in terms of SEQRA requirements. Now, Diane was telling me that she tried to capture but without a moving camera she couldn't. There was actually a tank being driven up and down the yard on Sunday. And she said that it went on for close to two hours. Now, we've been told tonight that the railroad passes by and makes a similar noise. Even if the noise is similar the train goes by, and it's gone. That tank went up and down making noise for two hours. In addition to which about that tower, Diane tells me that in addition to just the tower, people go up on the tower. They stand on the tower. They walk around the tower. And on top of the tanks. Not on the tower, on the tanks. So, we have this constant viewing of what is not supposed to be there. I mean it's just- it's illegal. MI{. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask a question before you go on? MS. BORELLI: Of course. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't mean to, first I shouldn't be calling you by your first name, I apologize. Page 50 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, Southold Town Board of Appeals 1995 Assuming that we had inside storage and assuming that it necessitated them to move these vehicles on a bimonthly basis or once a month or whatever to keep them lubricated, I know we've referred this, we've talked about this area before, what can we do on that portion of Mr. & Mrs. Amaretti's porch, as they look out toward this, notwithstanding the noise issue of the running of the tank. What can we do concretely that would make your clients happy? It goes back to the wish List I asked you, so that they would be shielded. And I'm not talking about the slating of the fence because when the culmination of the decision out of this hearing - the fence wLil be slatted. I do concur with Mr. Gasser, it should not be slatted all the way to the end so that he has visibility when he pulls out and I'm talking 6 feet. Tell me what we can do at this particular point, so as Mr. & Mrs. Amaretti will never see uniess of course the plants die, alright, these particular bushes, whatever has to be built, you know, we can start at six feet. We can start at eight feet. Whatever it is and we can construct something then. We can put this embodied in a decision, alright, because I'm saying to you that this is not going to go away. We are not going to stop these people from the operation of these tanks. If there inside or outside, they're going to have to operate the tanks. There are six tanks there, or six vehicles there, not road vehicles but six vehicles there that have to be operated so that they don't become fused, alright. So, that's something you've got to talk to us about before we finish this hearing. Page 51 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals CARMELA BORELLI: My response to the prior request about a wish list was that we didn't have a wish list. I mean, it's unfortunate to tell you that we're just totally disillusioned with the Town of Southold. MR. CHAIRMAN: tell me what we I understand, so tell me now, forget the wish list, can put there? What we can have professionally done, alright, so that these people do not have to see people walking on tanks or whatever the case might be. CARMELA BORELLI: Put them inside a building. MR. CHAIRMAN: But, they still have to be moved. Ok. That's the issue. They're going to be moved outside. You cannot operate a diesel tank inside a building. They're going to be asphyxiated. CARMELA BORELLI, ESQ.: They have a back part of their property that fronts on Love Lane MRS. AMARETTI: On (County Road) 48. MR. CHAIRMAN: Even if the nature of this Board was to tell them that they are not permitted to operate a tank outside a building, by the time they call the police, the police came down, cited Mr. Gasser for it, which is not going to be the case, alright, because we understand they have to operate a tank outside a building, alright And I'm talking about the moving of the tank alright, which is what I think Mrs. Amaretti was referring to this Sunday. Tell me what you want us to put embodied in a decision so as to shield their property from the Amaretti property? CARMELA BORELLI: You know, I get the feeling that I'm being asked a question that the witness on the stand is asked by the Page 52 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals attorney who says, when did you stop beating your wife, which means that just by answering that question you have to admit that you were beating your wife. So, by asking me the question that you're asking me now, you're really asking me to give you a wish list. And what I'm saying --- MR. CHAIRMAN: No, trees you want. CARMELA BORELLI: I'm just asking you to tell me what kind of Well, I'm saying my answer to that is, make them comply with the zoning code. Put it inside a building and make them meet the setback and the rear yard requirements because that's what they're supposed to do. That's what they should of done since 1980 and that's what I'm asking. Anything other than that I am conceding that we think that something else is less reprehensible than what it is now. And I can't do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. I understand. I'm sorry, I hope that didn't upset you. CARMELA BORELLI: Oh, no. It didn't upset me. Let me see if I have anything else to make comment on. I think, I took a quick glance at Mr. B]ass's memo. He contends in Point I and Point II that the applicant meets the practical difficulties test which is the legal test for getting an area variance. I think that that is, you can't meet the practical difficulties test by producing just this written report and by producing your application which says, it's difficult for me to do this. You have to have some other supporting documentation that isn't a self-serving statement or the fact that the Planning Board is Page 53 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals making me do this and therefore it's a practica! difficulty. So, I do not believe that they have met either of those tests. The 267B or the practical difficulties test. I also, there is a contention in here which I'm not, on page 7, that we're supposed to give them some greater leniency here because they're a Not-For Profit Organization but everybody has to comply with the law no matter whether you do it for money or you don't do it for money. And despite what this says in here they have never, ever met the zoning requirements, no matter what it was. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CARMELA BORELLI: Thank you. GREG BLASS: Just briefly, Board Members. I wanted to say that counsel for the objectant and I read the zoning code differently. The HB. Zone does provide in Section ]00-91 of the Code that subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, one use that is permitted in the HB Zone is libraries or museums. We comply with the zoning code not only by the use that the code lists but also by the variances that can be granted from the Board that has primary jurisdiction over interpreting the code. And that's this Board. So to say that you either comply with the zoning code or you don't - why is there a Zoning Board of Appeals? That's why we're here. We think that the economics and a neighborhood considerations that come to play are very important. We would also point out not only did the objectant move in six years after this operation was well under way, but they actually took trees down, a number of them. Pine trees - that were between the Page 54 - Hearing Tra~nscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals properties. And further we have offered, we reiterate the offer that we will plant a line of either hemlocks or whatever preferable evergreen, screening, shrub is requested between the properties at our cost and expense to deal with the issue of what they see, but the fact is that HB, but for outside display, does permit the museum operation and we are asking that the variance be granted for the outdoor display that we seek. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. How high is the existing building? Do you have any idea? MR. BLASS: How high? I think it's 25 feet. I hate to, I'll have to double check it with my client. It's pretty high. 20. 25. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's pretty high. It's about 2-1/2 story, well to the peak. They do a different thing in the State Construction Code. They take the mean roof line, actually you have two roof lines cause it's a double fan that comes down, but they take that upper roof line and they bisect it halfway and they said, that's the actual height. So it's, even though you may be saying it's ( ), it's really half of that amount so, it's probably 22, 23, maybe. I don't have anything else at this point. I just do want to mention. Do you have something? MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I have a question. It's been alluded that the equipment and machinery has to be moved. Now, there are plenty of places that have standby generators that have to be operated periodically to be sure that they're in operating condition. They don't operate them for two hours. What would be your minimum of time that you would have to run some. You know, if you're there Page 55 - Hearing TOscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals on display and you're running it around just to show people how it moves, that's one thing but that .... MR. GASSER: We cycle. We had an event that day. The club made a reservation for the Military Club to come in and to tour the facility and we sporadically ran each vehicle throughout the day. I think Mr. Goehringer might even have witnessed it. Ok. They weren't running continuously for two hours. stop, start, stop, start, stop, start, stop, With various vehicles. What you saw is start, that was the operation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you normally do that every Sunday? MR. GASSER: I wish I could. No, I can't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Sir, would you just state your name for the record please. Thank you. STEVE FOX: You have to excuse my voice - going on here but it's not working properly. Fox. I'm an unpaid volunteer at the museum. profit line, I know I will continue to be that way for the indefinite I don't know what's My name is Steve After hearing the result of the security measures that have been taken, and we continue to enforce those on a regular basis. I myself and one of the armed guards at the museum, licensed. I'm also a former police officer, although currently I'm a public school teacher and have been for the last 25 years and even in that regard I have to comment future - which is fine. I didn't ask for a profit. I'd just like to reemphasize that the safety record of the museum is impeccable. We have never had an incident of any negative consequence. We've never had a consequence. As a direct Page 56 - Hearing Tr~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals again on how the public reacts to this type of a tourist attraction. I mean, the reactions are just incredible. I'm speaking on a very positive note. I have yet to meet anyone who is, I'm also one of the guides in the museum. I have yet to meet anyone of any age, of any gender who is not pleased or impressed to some degree with what we have. It is a unique organization. It is a unique site. We had an opportunity this past summer to travel to Anniston, Alabama, to make a trip to require to pick up some tank parts that the army had allowed us to retrieve and we were a subject of endless questions by all the people that we ran into down there. They were just impressed to the ends degree with what we had to tell them as to what we had to offer. They just couldn't believe what we have and that we have it opened to the public and that we are a live museum. I emphasize live. I mean that's tantamount to the explanation to the running of vehicles and the licensed material which is on the property. Again, it's something which is just not comparable to anything, anywhere, and I think you would have to go to a federal facility to find something of comparable value or comparable interest and to even question its validness for being here or to have any concerns regarding safety which I can understand some people have. We, I believe it's satisfied. We have the safety well in check. The ultimate concern seems to be, why is it there. It's there to train people, to inform them, that we are an information center. We are a historical site. We have an opportunity to inform and to correct people's views and we're not there to really tell them a story. We just present them the facts. I can't help but think about Page 57 - Hearing Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southo]d Town Board of Appeals the Annulagay controversy that's going on now with Smithsonian where there was a concern that there was an over emphasis perhaps on the original exhibit that they were portraying the Japanese as the victims or perhaps others wanted to portray the Americans as the victims and now they've concluded, well we're neutral. Well, we're just going to present the facts and let the people make their own conclusion and basically that's what we do. We are not there to glorify, we're not there to moralize. We are there as a service to the public to provide them with information that they will seek or wish to know. And I think we do a pretty good job and it would really be a travesty on so many levels to jeopardize that in anyway. So I hope you will consider that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Secretary changed tapes.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. We're ready. CARMELA BORELLI, ESQ.: I just want to remedy any impression that you or the applicant may have gotten with regard to my characterization of the items at this museum. I am a museum goer. My minor in college was history. I probably read every book about every major military leader there is out there because their logistics and their strategizing interests me only may be because of the profession that I've chosen, but I don't want you to get the impression that I and/or my clients are opposed to a museum and/or a museum that has weapons from the government from various armed conflicts. I would like to erase that from your minds if that is the case because that's not where we're coming from. Page 58 - Hearing Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: I am led to believe that there are no weapons there other than the weapons that are licensed, OK. Everything that is there has been disarmed or else they would not be permitted. So, I do understand with what you're saying. I'm just saying to you that on the surface they look like weapons but they're really not weapons because they've been disarmed. CARMELA BORELLI: Well, we're, we're talking semantics here as to how you categorize it based upon its prior - it's irrelevant. What I am saying is that is not our objection. I mean, it's neither mine nor my clients. We don't object and I would like to make the record clear on that. That's not where we're coming from. We're ~alking strictly from a zoning aspect with regard to compliance here in the town and how we object. That's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER WILTON: I think we had asked for a shopping list to try and get a better understanding ourselves to find out what your clients real concerns are. Are they concerned about noise, are they concerned about appearance, smell, you know, what are the major ill features? CARMELA BORELLI: Well, I mean they'll probably named some of them. I mean, it's noise that they object to. MEMBER WILTON: Is one more important than the other? CARMELA BORELLI: It's visual. It's visual what they object to in terms of that it. It permeates the atmosphere, permeates their piece of property. It permeates that part of Love Lane. that's what we're talking about. We're, we're talking about this, this outside display Page 59 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals of this equipment and the noise it creates. In the past, I don't think it's happened recently but in the past they even had trespasses on their property from people who didn't want to pay to get into the museum so they would come around on their property to look through the fence. And I think that has ended, we don't have that anymore, but it's all those things put together. MEMBER WILTON: So, everything you don't like? CARMELA BORELLI: That's about it. MEMBER WILTON: That was the conclusion I was drawing. CARMELA BORELLI: That's about it. MRS. AMARETTI: There's also you know limit to what comes on the property. Every time we turn around - if you look back at some the pictures, there are small tanks there that you can barely see. Even with the barbed wire. With everything new that's coming in, it is bigger and higher to the point, whatever they're called, that the ends are bigger, there's a helicopter, every time we turn around and look out, it's something bigger, something more. There's more than six tanks in front of us right now, if you go look tonight. Look in the picture you can see more than six tanks. But there's no limit. Every time you turn around and there's never going to be a limit because there's always something bigger that he can put up there. And you see what we're looking at from our door. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the record, for the person taking this down, that was Mrs. Amaretti. Thank you, Diane. Lee's see. I have one more question before we close the hearing. Bill (Gasser), we've talked about alternate sites. We talked about the possibility Page 60 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals of moving over to the property next door regardless if it's conforming and non-conforming. You've explained to me the problems over there. I realize that one of Mr. Blass' jobs is as a very astute County Legislator have you approached anybody in the County at anytime for an alternate location? Mr. GASSER: Yes, many, many times. MR. CHAIRMAN: And what's developed there? Mr. GASSER: It's something similar to what Engine 39 is running into. We're running into a budgetary thing where there is no lending port in considering the new administration in the State it would look very chancey if anything could ever happen like that. I'd be thrilled. I'd be thrilled if somebody wants to find a new home for me that's suitable for us to move into, that would not cost us a fortune in conversions and transportation, I'd be all ears. It just doesn't seem like it's going to happen. CARMELA BORELLI: Would the Chairman enlighten us as to what discussion and what piece of property you're talking about? MR. CHAIRMAN: I had asked Bill in the past about the possibility of procuring the piece to the east between Mr. Brown's prior, it's still called K.G. Brown's but I think somebody else is buying the piece, and there's a piece in between. CARMELA BORELLI: The other side of the building? MR. CHAIRMAN: The other side of the building, yes, Ok. CARMELA BORELLI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright, hearing no further comment, we thank you all for your courtesy. We are, I am, and I have to admit to you arid Page 61 - Hearing TOscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals I'll go back to the last comments that I had was the prior, prior, prior, prior Town Attorney, who was a gentleman who was just an unbelievable individual - Robert Tasker, and he said, "Jerry, you don't want to leave the person with the intention that you are going to make a negative or positive decision." But I think it goes back symmetrically, Ms. Borelli, when I told you that we're going to try and put this thing to bed. You may not construe it to be to bed, but we're going to try to put it to bed, alright. I hope that whatever comes out of this decision, that it is put to bed, but it may not be, so, that's all I can tell you at this point. As for the Armoured Foundation, you know, I understand the situation that you ladies and gentlemen are in and I'm going to do the best I can in my particular position here. And we are an interesting group of individuals. Most people that have spent time on this Board and have just been - the dedication is just unbelievable. And we'll do the best we can. That's all I can tell you. Thank you again. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER WILTON: MR. CHAIRMAN: BOARD MEMBERS: I'll second that. All in favor? (All Ayes). Taken from audio tape recording of the hearings. Lucia Farrell, Typist SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW YORK:COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Plaintiff desigantes Suffolk County as the place of trial Frank Ammirati and Diane Ammirati, Plaintiit; VS. Town of Southold and William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc., Defendant To the above named Defendant The basis of the venue is PlaintifY resides in Suffolk County SUMMONS Plaintiff resides at 730 Love Lane, Mattituck,NY EDW,~.D p. R~IJNE CLEFiK OF SUFFOLK COU~ YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this. summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within tile State of NewYork); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default fbr the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Greenport, NY Sepmmber 19, 1995 ONGIONI & BORRELLI Attorney for PlaintiFf 403 Front St-PO Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 516--477-2048 Defendant's Address: Southotd Town-Town Hall Main Road C, outi~old. NY 11971 \Villiam Gasser ~\merican Armoured Foundation, Inc. Love Lane Mattituck,NY 11052 cc: Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Stype Agency Wm. F. Mullen, Jr SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FRANK AMMIRATI and DIANE AMMLRATI,, Plaintiff, VS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and WILLIAM GASSER d/b/a/AMERICAN ARMOURED FOUNDATION, INC.,, Defendant Index# VERIFEED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs through their attorneys, ONGIONI & BORRELLI, complaining of the defendants, states upon information and belief as follows: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENJOIN VIOLATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AND DE.CISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I. That plaintiffs at all times herein mentioned were and are residents of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York and are the owners in fee simple of premises known as 730 Love Lane, Mattituck, New York bearing Suffolk County Tax Map No. I000- 140-2-18. 2. That defendant, Town of Southold, at all times herein mentioned was and is a domeStic municipal corporation. 3. That defendant, William Gasser, at all times herein mentioned was and is the owner of premises located at Love Lane, Mattituck, New York beating Suffolk County Tax Map No. t000-I40-2-I6. 4. That the )unerican Armoured Foundation, Inc., is a domestic corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York 5. That William Gasser at all times herein mentioned was and is the sole shareholder and a director of the ,~merican Armoured Foundation, Inc. 6. That defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. at all times herein mentioned is the owner and operator of a museum for, among other things, armoured vehicles at the aforesaid location in Mattituck, New York. 7. That the aforesaid properties are designated Hamlet Business by the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold and are subject to the zoning code of the Town of Southold for said district.. 8. That the aforesaid zoning code requires under Article Section IX 100-93 that all museums maintain the storage of museum exhibits within the confines of a building. 9. That on or about February 8, 1995, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold under the authority delegated to it by the Town of Southold, rendered a decision with regard to three applications by defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. for variances bearing numbers 4260, 4261, 4262. 10. That the apptication bearing number 4262 was for a variance fi-om the requirements of Article IX Section 10-93 requiring the inside storage of the museums exhibits. 11. That the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals as attached hereto as Exhibit 1 required the defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. to limit the outside exhibition of its artifacts to an area 14' x 185' along the southerly side of the property along the railroad tracks. I2. That the time within which defendant William Gasser dib/a American A_rmoured Foundation, Inc. was to comply with the aforesaid Zoning Board of Appeals decision has passed and defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Annoured Foundation, Inc. has not complied. 13. That the defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. is not entitled to continue the outside storage of motorized armored vehicles except within the area specified by the Zoning Board of Appeals and such outside store is in violation of the laws of the Town of Southold. 14. That the defendant, Town of Southotd, has failed to enforce the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals although duly demanded and requested to do so. 15. That by reason of the aforesaid illegal use of said property by the defendant William Gasser, d~b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. the salability and rentability of plaintiffs -2- property and the operation of plaintiffs business are and will continue to be greatly diminished and these plaintiffs will suffer great damage to the value of their property and business to the extent of many thousands of dollars by reason of the aforesaid illegal operations for which the~e plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and the desirability of the district for hamlet business as zoned will be destroyed. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE 16. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered 1 through 14 of the First Cause of Action as though more fully set forth at length herein. 17. That commencing in or about August 8, 1995 defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. has maintained and operated a museum for armored vehicles among other things in violation of the laws of the Town of Southold on premises adjacent to that owned and operated by plaintiffs and the defendant, Town of Southold has failed to enjoin such illegal use; that said illegal use has caused persons to trespass upon plaintiffs property` to view the armored vehicles, among other things, through the open fencing; that said illegal use has caused persons to enter into and upon plaintiffs property to park their vehicles before entering the museum; that the armored vehicles are moved about the premises causing smoke, noise, noxious vapors, and trembling which are visible and noticeable by plaintiffs and those members of the public who enter plaintiffs business premises causing fear, annoyance, distress and anxiety to plaintiffs and others: that the aforesaid smoke, noise, noxious vapors and trembling are offensive and sickening and destructive to the health and comfort of persons in close proximity to said museum including plaintiffs and members of the public who come to plaintiffs' business. 18. Plaintiffs further allege that heretofore they have duly presented their complaints upon which this action is founded to the Town of Southotd, its agents, servants and/or employees and said defendant has neglected or refused to enjoin the defendant, William F. Gasser d/b/a the )anerican Armoured Foundation, Inc. from continuing such illegal and improper operation. t9. That since the illegal operation of the aforesaid premises has been going on, the said museum has constituted and is a nuisance, injurious to the comfort and enjoyment of plaintiff in their residence and occupation by themselves and through the customers of there business and tenants of plaintiffs premises. 20. On information and beliefi that defendants intentionally and negligently and carelessly failed to abate the said nuisance and unsafe and illegal condition in violation of their duty to the public and plaintiffs. 21. Said illegal use is a public nuisance and prevents and materially impairs the enjoyment of the surrounding area by the public. 22. Said violation of the zoning code's mandates as varied by the Zoning Board of Appeals seriously injures plaintiffs said property, and obstructs the view of and from plaintiffs property and interferes with plaintiffs easements of light, air and access appurtenant to their property. 23. That by reason of the foregoing facts and the maintenance of such nuisance by the defendants the rental value of plaintiffs premises above described have been depreciated and the value of plaintiffs business has diminished and the income derived from such business has diminished; and the plaintiffs have suffered damag~ in the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($750,000.00) DOLLARS. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: 1. On the first cause of action: a) Enjoining and restraining defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. from operating a museum with outside storage of vehicles other than within the 14' x 185' area designated by the Zoning Board of Appeals on said property which operation violates the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold and the variance from said ordinance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; and b) Compelling the defendant, Town of Southold, its officers and employees to enjoin the aforesaid illegal operation by defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. c) compelling the defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, and the American Armoured Found to remove from said premises any armored vehicles or other motorized or machine not within the 14' x 185' area designated by the Zoning Board Authority decision of February 8, 1995. 2. On the Second Cause of Action granting plaintiffs judgment against the defendants in the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) together with the costs and disbursements of this action. 3. and for such other, further and different relief as to the court may seem just and proper. Dated: September 18, 1995 Greenport, New York ONGIONI & BORRELLI, ESQS. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 403 Front St-PO Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 516-477-2048 ammirati:complnt, nui ~TATE OF NEW YORK ~:OUNTY OF SUFFOLK VERIFICATION FRANK AMMIRATI, being duly sworn, states under the penalties of perjury that he is the Plaintiff in this action and that the i!ouegoing Verified Comp[aint is true to his own know~edge except those stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to I~hose maEters he believes it to be Erue; [~worn to before me this day ~f SEFTEM~BER, ~995 CARMELA L BORRELU Nota~/Public, State of New Yolk No. 452.6699 Qualified In Suffolk County Commission E~3ims Janua~f 31, K AMMIRAT I /EALS BOARD MEMBERS ,erard P. Goehdnger, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION With reference to each o£ the following separately ~led applications and appeal file numbers: Appl. No. 4260 AppLication for 'a Variance under Article IX, Section 100-91C(1) of the Southold Town Zoning Code, based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for the placement of accessory tower structure which is required to be located in a rear yard with a setback a~ per Section 100-336(2) at five feet from the property line. Property knowll and. referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love La~e and the south .side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; Counter Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone District; and Appl. No. 4261 - Application for a Variance under Article X~II, Section 100-231A of the Southold Town Zoning Code, based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the height of the fence which exceeds the required height limitation. Property known and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone District; and Appl. No. 4262 - AppLication for a Variance under Article IX, Section 100-93 of the Zoning Code based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the outside storage or display which is not permitted in this Hamlet-Business Zone District. Property known and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love r~ne and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-16 located in the Ham[et Business Zone District. WIIEREAS, pubUc hearings on each of the above applications were held on January 4, 1995 and February 1, 1995, at which times all who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered ali testimony and documentation subm/tted concerning thi.~ application; WHEREAS, Board Members-have-personally viewed and are-'Ta~iliar .... with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and Page 2 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 WHEREAS, the Board made the following f'mdings of fact: 1. BASES OF APPEALS. These are appeal applications based upon a July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector. 2. OWNERSHIP: Town records show the owner of the subject property as WILLIAM F. GASSER, having acquired the subject premises on September 3, 1981 by deed at Liber 9071 page 54. 3. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION i. OF: PROPERTY: The subject property consists of an area of 32,109 sq: ft. with 50 ft. frontage along .... · the easterly side of Love Lane and 60 ft. frontage along the southerly side of County Highway 48. The.parcel is~ ~L~ shaped with 248.50 ft. frontage in an east-west direction, along 'i the Long Island Railroad' tracks. The property extends northerly . 375 ~ 72 feet from.the Long Island Railroad to the County Highway.. ~rhe property is conforming as to total lot area, width and depth in this I{~mlet-Business (HB) Zone District. 4. USE OF PROPERTY: The subject property is known to be a non-profit tank museum which existed since the early-1980s. Prior to having been acquired in 1981 by William F. Gasser, the propert~r was used as an C-Light Industrial storage yard related to a nearby commercially established lumber company loeated on' Sound Avenue, Mattituck. 5. ZONING. In 1981 the lower .h~lf of the subject premises was zoned "C-Light Industrial,~ and the upper half of the subject promises was mixed "C-Light Industrial~ and "A~ Agricultural-Residential. In January 1989, a new master plan was adopted which rezoned the premises - to Light-Industrial. Subsequently, on May 27, .1992 the applicants applied to the Town Board for a cb~ng-e, of zone from Light Industrial and Residential Office-to Hamlet Business,, and on: November~10, 1992, the Town Board ~'ranted this ohnnge in: ZOning,~ with conditions as .noted in the Declaration of Covenants f'ged in the SuffoLk County Clerk's Office on November 8, 1993 at Liber 11651 page 134. : ' 6.' CHARACTER OF IM~MEDIATE ARF~. Abutting this property are the following: (a) to the northwest is a 34,578 sq. ft. parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Frank Ammariti since October 8, 1985 as per cenvesrances at Liber 9899 pages 22 thru 36 (8 deeds}. On November 26, 1985, the neighbors applied for and received a Special Exception under File No. 3407 for a 470 sq. ft. catering services of prepared t~ke-out foods" in conjunction with the owner's primary single-family residence on the second floor, and separate single-family apartment use on the existing first floor. The property in. 1985 w~s zoned "C-Light.Industrial?..and-- -- prior to the Ammariti's conversion to catering, it was used as a multiple / ' /3 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 .~perty of WILLIAM GASSER /Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 / residence for three families. Currently, the zonin~ designation for the Ammariti's parcel is ltamlet Business. (b) to the extreme north, County Route 48 (formerly known as County Road 27) which is a heavily traveled dual-I~ne highway. (c) to the east, property identified as 1000-140-2-18, now or formerly of Doroski, partly loeated in the Light-Industrial Zone and partly Residential-Office. Prior to 1989 thi.~ property was also zoned C-Light Industrial and Agricultural/ResidentiAl. (d) to the south, the Long-Island Railroad tracks. Further south of the LIRR tracks is the business district which consists of beauty salon, retail sales, b~nking, drinking establishment, and other personal service stores, with nearby municipal parking area~, APPLICABLE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS. 7. ACCESSORY TOWER SETBACKS: Article IX, Section 100-91C(1) reads as follows: Page 4 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAbl GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 Article follows: The accessory tower structure is shown on the sketch submitted with the application to be 19 inches short of the set-back requirement, at an 3.42 ft. (41"} set-back instead of five (5') feet. It is also noted that the tower structure was reduced in height to less thf~n 18 feet as required by the code when it was moved to this ]particular area - all resulting from an attempt to comply with the Town Board's conditions under its grant of zone change for this Museum on November 10,' 1'992 and pursuant to a Declaration of Covenants flied at Liber 11651 at page' 134 on NOvembe~'8, .1993. The Subject tower was moved to this location, however,· without :a building permit or set-back variance. A height variance'is'no ,longer ~necessary based upon the modifications to the tower by the owner-applicmnt. 8. FENCE HEIGtIT: Article XXIII, Section 100-231A (added 1-9-89) requires the height of a fence to be limited to six feet when located in the front yard of nonresidential zones, and when looated in or along side and rear yards, the same shall not exceed 6-1/2 feet. The fence height along the northerly (side) line and westerly (side) property, line abutting Ammariti existed prior to 1982. At that time, fence heights along side and rear lines were permitted up to eight feet (Seqtion 100-119.1 of the 'former zone code) and fence heights within five feet of the property and within a front yard area were limited to four feet in height. The height requested by this applioation is for a total of 6'8" (see applicant's sketch submitted with this application). STORAGE OF MERCHANDISE IN ENCLOSED BUILDINGS: IX, Section 100-93 of the current Zoning Code re~ds as The items which are not presently within an enclosed bui]dlng are armoured vehicles, display ~uns on stands and other historical, artifacts related to this type of museum. OPPOSITION/OTHER DISCUSSIONS 10. OPPOSITION RELATIVE TO NORTHWESTERLY LOT. During the hearing, opposition was received from the owners of property along the northwesterly property line of the subject premises. Memorendums have been furnisi~ed listing the a~as of concern -- all of which have 5 Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 .?roperty of WILLIAM GASSER .~ Deternnnation Rendered February 1, 1995 been fully considered by the Board Members under :this application. Some issues raised were: a) a claim by opponent(s) 'that 'although.the Town was cognizant of the fact that the museum .existed for more thru 10 years without proof of enforcement pvoc~edlng~-fop it.q existence as a museum use will, in the opposition's view, preclude the grant of the within variances; --' :. .~ -b) a claim by opponent(s) that even under the 1992 HB zoning designation by the Town, the~preperty,is*not'the:.preper place for a non-profit museum without outside storag~· ~'i.-~ ~;~ c) the Board at both. hearln=~s did request from opponent(s) a list of their own suggestions (simil~r-.'.to 'what is sometimes referred to as a "wish list") in which the'concerns could.ha,alleviated or be less adverse to their property by way of .mitigation, and the opponent(s) chose not to furnish a list of suggestions 'or requests. d) whether in fact the items which are not within an enclosed building would include motorized vehicles which have gener~.lly throughout the township for many years. . ,~.-. ; -:.. ........... '- . e) Whether or not the submission of information showing the applicant was operating as a museum from 1981 until 1992 is an issue to be determined at this time, under these applications, particularly since the action being appealed herein was 'taken by the Building Inspector dated July 12, 1994 and pert-2in.~ to three specific .areas: the tower location, fence height, and outside storage of artifacts. f) the specific ."yard line" of the front yard as defined by Section 100-13 of the zoning co/lc and a determination of the required height for that yard line and.yard area..-, --'-.-. : g) whether or not the chAng~of the zone by the Town Board in 1992 is directly relevant or a reason to preclude the granting or denial of the variances requested.. -- FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND D]CI'ERMINATIONS 11. For record purposes, it is noted and further' determined that the issues raised pert~inlug to items 10(b), (b), (e), and (g) herein {listed at page 5} are not properly under the jurisdiction of thin Board in these variance requests as applied. The action by a Town Board to change the zoning of a parcel, as well as issues of alleged lack of enforcement or compliance, is not an area to be properly decided by this Board, in a quasi-judicial status Page 6 - Appl~ Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 12. INTERPRETATION- In this determination, it is confirmed by this Board that it has been the position of the ..Town for more thsn 37 years to permit the parking of movable, motorized vehicles or similar transportation in open areas. In fact, Article XXIII, :Section 100-236 of the zoning code states that ....No, unenclosed storage; except parking o£ operable passenger vehicles capable ~ ~ of~ passin~ ~'inspection or recreation or boats and commer~i~l:.-,vehicles .- ns set,* forth_~.in Section: 100-191 shall be permitted in - a residential .~' district,, · . (emphasis ~: added)." This is not a residential-district; .thi~ is a business,?' district' which permits muse-ms, *open space, .?*pal.'.lelng lots..~ Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code, defines~ these terms-,...~,Li;~,.. · OPEN SPACE: Any parcel or. are~ of Innd.:orawl~tel: esseD~inlly'~ ;.:' ~nlmproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment, or-: for the use' and - ', l~nd;ad' inin~- or enjoyment of owners and occupants oil ]o neighboring such open space, provided~thst such:areas'~may be improved with only those buildin~si;~StruetUresi-'.streets. and off-street parking ~nd Othe~improvements, that are:- ~ .: -- designed. Lo be incidental to the-natural~ ~penness of the land ....... ~ --~;--', '"" .... · · *PARKING LOT: An off-street/g-round level'area,., surfaced "-." and improved for the temporary stora~ of motor vehicles.. 13. VARIANCES. Fence height and tower setback relief are area var4~nces'.{ref. New-York Town Law, Section 267(1) amended ~uiyt, 1992] ._ .~. New York Town. Law, '..' as amended, provides that ZBAs consider two basic.thlnge: - A) the benefit to the. applicant if. the variance is g-ranted; and' B) the detrimen~ to't~e:hea~th;"safaty,-a~d'*genernl welfare Off ........ the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were tobe g~eanted..-.'-:.. ;':. :.'. ~,:.~ '- "- :' ' · , ....... . . :. ~. ~ ~ .. '~-t;- -.. In balancing the interests above, the Board Members have-considered, and determined,, the following five factors for' these area variance requests: '" -" '--' a) there will not be an undesirable change, in the cha,-acter., of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby, properties, as ~ranted for the :-.~. · fence height variation between 2" and 8"; the yard. line is defined on -. Page 10033 of the code to be "...A line parallel to a street or lot llne ' '. at a distance therefrom equal to the-respective yard dimension required by this chapter." The Bulk-Setback Schedule applicable to the H~mlet Business Zone District (along Love r~ne) is for a front yard setback at 15 feat. A fence height limitation with the front yard line area is six · e 7 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 /~ of WILLIAM GASSER /, Determ/nation Rendered February 1, 1995 £eet foe nonresidential zone districts. The -. fence . height, limitation is 6-1/2 feet when located along the side and rear yard. ar~a$. -~The requested height is shown on the applicant's sketch to.be 6~8~.. enclosing ., the entire premises, and the variance.required is for:-two inches (2") along the side and rear lines, and eight inches (8") fol~ the front yard line. The fence is used for screening,., privacy and security purposes. b) there will not be an' undesirable change in the-e-h~-acter of,:£ the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted for the tower setback; the location of the tower_is at the furthest distance the opponent's property,, and is:.located..-.veryl, clos~to~,-~the~v/~,inlt¥,..of the..~--.; rear yard of the easterly adjoinlng-~parCel;-':~,-:th~/:~-locati0n.;is.also the general area requested at 100 feet or moro from Love Lane 'es stipulated by the Town Board in its 1992 Deela~'ation. of Coven~nts.and..l~estrietions;.. c) the benefit s0ugh~_ by ..the applicant-~.can .'. be l- otherwise achieved with the placement of a/fence at 6 feet in height within, the front yard lines, and at. 6-1/2 ft.:siong the side and rear-property lines. d) the benefit sought by-the-applicant.;to:locate:the.tower.at the location shown is outweighed~ a~in~t any benefit ~clalmed by the : abutting property owner in its present location,, as compared, to another location of the tower. (It should be noted thnt no el~i~, hn~ been-, made for an alternative location by the abutting property.owners for thsir. ~. benefit). . e) the area variances for-both the~fence height-and tower setback are not substantial or unre~sonable.--:...particdiariy in'.light the fact that the property is . uniquely shaped -with an L-shaped?. configuration, narrow width, limlted~builclable area~.~bu/ldin~ location and other preex/sting -- · - o nonconformities, -as: a commeraial':,storag~, yard with parking of commercial trucks and other vehicles in open yard areas; it is not uncommon for fences to be Pisced-at,.sL'c.fee~in:heighti.o=;more, when accessory to open storage yard~-for::.screenlng 'from:-~view, and for' security purposes. .,..~-~ ..;;:~ ..... . .... ., .. f) the area var/ances:-w/li~;not have an-adverse effect or impact on the physical or environ,mental ~cenditions in-the~ neighborhood or business district (see envirsnmental reviews and declarations adopted in 1992 by the Town Board and Negative Declaration adopted, by.-thi~ Board on November 2, 1994}; abutting the- subject premises, to :the south ar~ the Long Island Railroad tracks; to the north is :'a-' parcel., of ]~nd occupied as a take-out catering service which is nonconforming in the HB Zoae District; .... .., . ~ '¥:~:. '... g) the relief ~g~tted. is the .m~n~m,,m necessary with variations between 2 and 8 inches ~o fence height, and as. to 1S inches for the tower setback reduction; at the same time the relief as conditionally granted will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and Page 8 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 Property o£ WILLIAIVl GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 the health, safety and welfare of the comm,,nlty; the fence at six feet in height is properly secured and is not d~rrm~ed, deteriorated, and is not a menace to the public. The applic~nt.-owner :has agreed ~'to add sists~- within the links of the fence and' to.,' provide~.additionai'.screenin~-'as would be agreeable to the northeriy'~abuttin~,property' o_wner~-... ""- . .~ ~ ~ ..... :.- -. :- . ,~-,."'~ .~,~... ~ .;[~.~,~ NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Ch$~i~n Goehrlnger, seconded by Member Dinizio, it was -. ~ . ~;;-..~L';~'--::.- ..... ~,.,:-,~'~: '~- RESOLVED, to- DENY :the krelfe~_~,ias~:requastedaf.or. ~the-~fence above SL~ feet along the front, yard-line, and above 6-1/2 feet along the side and rear property lines for thi-~.nonreside~! _use; BE,IT:FURTHER RESOLVED, to INTERPRET the }activlt~r~fol-. parking ~'of~'movable vehicles to include t~nk.~ and slm~]mp, devices which ma~;be used for tr~n-~portation as a permitted use..,undel~-~Seetionj~.100-93,~0fr;the Code, with the understand~n~ that-these-vehieJesJ.'~hal[$rl~;['piaced-wi the southern most 14-[eet of the sppl]~nt's~property',-' and~merchandise and items which are not defined as .movable.~vehicles~.sh~ll be stored as clearly worded under Section 100-93::withln.-kn_?encl0sed, building; BE IT · RESOLVED, to DENY the vari~nce.~requested-for~outside storage, of merchandise, other than motorized ~vehieleS, <$ince~ there-' is - an alternative' to store these items withiu an enclosed btti]dln~; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance requested' for a 19". reduction, in the setback for the accessory tower~.structur~,.-as'~applied, and. BE FURTHER;-- .... - .... - '~'' .... ; RESOLVED- that the foliowan,r' conditions, sh,,il:.be'.~omplied:wxth: '~- ".~ ~'- a) Only- that area '14"feet:along~:the"*~outheriY-~.pr°perty'"'line:~(185~'''~'':~' length) shall be used for parlring' of.. motorized3vehloJes hr order- that remainin~ 36 feet remain .open: and.:..unobstrueted for-on-site movement~ when necessary of vehicles, egress, ingress, l"ndscapino~ parkin~ for guests and employees recommended alon~.,thel, northeriy',property.~lien and. other accessibility necessary in-the, event:.o£ia' fire~or.other~emergency. b) When the museum is closed~'the.~northerly most 135~feet o£'the property {adjaceut to Love l.~ne} Shlll;'r~,nnln opeu and .unobstructed?'::~- except for employees/volunteers' _¥ehi¢l~s, ._.. . -..-. · .~ c) Tall plantings or trees shall be placed and continuousllr maintained by the applicants along or near-the joint Gasser/Ammaratti property line which ruus m an ~,n-~t-west. direction. ?If permi-~sion to place addition~al plantings is ~-efused or prevented b~ tlie abutting property owners to the north (Ammariti), then confim~ation shall be -/ · Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 /~'operty of WILLIAM GASSER /Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 placed in writing with proof to be furnished to the Town. It is recommended for the benefit of all that some agreement be reached between the parties with reference' to plantings on either or both parcels. d) Border fenoing shall be slatted six feet north of the road line when it is presently unslatted; all fencing and slatted areas shall be maintained in good colidition and repaired by the applicallts. e) In six months from the date of the filing of this decision,, the applicants-owners herein. shall either remove ~al~','-~'merchandise and artifacts wh/ch are not within a bui]dlng. Alternatively, the ' ' applicants herein may apply to the Buildl-g Department within the next six months for an addition or new building area for these purposes. In any event, fa/lure by the applicants to file s building permit application in a t/mely fashion shall not prevent the Town 'from an '' enforcement proceeding by the Town Attorney's Office or the Southold : Town n Department. - ~' ~: .- ..... . . ,.~.~ .~ ..... . :, f) this determination shall not preclude applicatioll.by the owners '. '~' or an aggrieved party for different relief as ,my be required by the Building Inspector and filed in accordance with the requirements of New . York Town Law, Section 267 (such .as an addition?to-,the ;'existing building, or new building for in-~ide storage and:display~of merchandise and other artifacts). . :. ~ ~. .. . . %.~- ._, Vote of the Board: Ayes: .... Messrs ~ :~ Doyen, , Wilton and Goehringer. Nays: Mr. Vil]:a (felt the relief' requested not suitable to ' ' this particular location and due to the size of the parcel) and Mr. Dinizio (chose to withhold his reasons). This resolution was duly adopted 3-2 .... ..,,,~.- ... :~,,,,~,~: ~b~;,;. :-. : -. ' ": GERARD P. GOEHRINGF~.. CHAIRMAN Article III, Section 100-33 at page 10050.1 reads: In the Agricultural Conservation District and Residentia/ R 80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessor~ buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in therequired rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not e~ceed eight~u (18) feet in height. B. Setbacks. (1) On lots containing up to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, such buildings shall be set hack no less than three (3) feet frc~ any lot line. (2) On lots containing more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet up to thirty nine-thousand nine hundred ninety nine {39,999} square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than five (5) f~t from any lot line. (3) On lots containing in excess of thirty-nine-thousand (39,999) square feet and up to seventy-nine thousand nine-hundred ninety-nine (79,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set hack no less than ten (10) feet from any lot line. (4) On lots containing in excess of seventy nine-thousand nine-hundred ninety-nine (79,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than twenty (20) feet frc~ any lot line. C. In the case of a waterfront parcel, accessory buildings and structures may be located in the front yard, provided that such buildings and structures m~et the fornt-yard setback requirements as set forth by this Code. {Added 12-22-92} A-~F. 2383 51~ A~m~lUe Ro~tl~oma, N.Y. 11779 January 3, 1995 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., R onkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mattituck, NY Southold Town Hall Zoning Board of Appeals Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attention: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman RE: Mitigation measures. Dear Board of Appeals, As per fax dated December 19, 1994 please be advised of the following measures adopted by American Armoured Foundation, Inc. to meet the mitigation measures set down by the Board of Appeals to receive a SEQRA negative declaration: Drainage pans and oil absorption blankets: Ail vehicles that presently contain gas and oil have already had drip pans installed under them. The remaining drip pans and oil absorption blankets will all be in place within the maximum of 30 days from this meeting. These drip pans will be green rubbermaid type containers, as we felt these were the least obtrusive item that could be found to fit the intended job use. We also do not want the Museum to become an eye sore with so many drip pans around. Each pan will contain a weight to weigh these pans down so that they are not blown around the yard by the wind. The oil absorption blankets will be place under each drip pan. Daily checks: Please find attached a conformation letter showing that American Armoured Foundation has on staff a reliable, responsible and capable person that has and will continue to make daily checks of all display vehicles. As an environmentally safe and responsible organization, American Armoured Foundation, Inc. has no problems with adhering to the mitigation measures being set by this board and the museum will continue to take any and all measures to prevent any contagions from entering the ground. The museum has been working on a regular basis to maintain the vehicles in good condition and to exhibit them to the public in the best condition possible. Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum Slit AW Ronk(mkoml, N.Y. 11779 January 3, 1995 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mattltuck, NY Southold Town Hall Zoning Board of Appeals Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attention: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman RE: Mitigation measures. Dear Board of Appeals, As per fax dated December 19, 1994 please be advised of the following measures adopted by American Armoured Foundation, Inc. to meet the mitigation measures set down by the Board of Appeals to receive a SEQRA negative declaration: Drainage pans and oil absorption blankets: Ail vehicles that presently contain gas and oil have already had drip pans installed under them. The remaining drip pans and oil absorption blankets will all be in place within the maximum of 30 days from this meeting. These drip pans will be green rubbermaid type containers, as we felt these were the least obtrusive item that could be found to fit the intended job use. We also do not want the Museum to become an eye sore with so many drip pans around. Each pan will contain a weight to weigh these pans down so that they are not blown~ around the yard by the wind. The oil absorption blankets will be place under each drip pan. Daily checks: Please find attached a conformation letter showing that American Armoured Foundation has on staff a reliable, responsible and capable person that has and will continue to make daily checks of all display vehicles. As an environmentally safe and responsible organization, American Armoured Foundation, Inc. has no problems with adhering to the mitigation measures being set by this board and the museum will continue to take any and all measures to prevent any contagions from entering the ground. The museum has been working on a regular basis to maintain the vehicles in good condition and to exhibit them to the public in the best condition possible. Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Muaeum Lot t, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLI~ ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE FEB 2 · STEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 February22,1995 Applicant: William Gasser/Armoured Tank Museum Mun. File No.: 4260, 4261 & 4262 S.C.P.D. FileNo.: SD-95-1 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Comments: The outdoor storage of merchandise other than motorized vehicles appears inappropriate and unwarranted. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning GGN:mb S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Pursuant to Article X/V of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, The Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Cu~u,~ssion: .. Variance from the Zoning Code, Articl~x,XXliI,iX, Sectio~oo_91C(1),100_231A, 100-93 __Variance from Determination of Southold Town Buildin9 Inspector __Special Exception, Article · Section __Special Permit ~ppeal No:4260_4262 Applicant: William F. Gasser ocation of Affected Land: 640 Love La., M attituck, N.Y. County Tax Map Item No.: 1000-140-2-16 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line × Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or __ Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant __ Within One Mile of an Airport Comments: Applicant is requesting permission to Acc_' T~wer setback Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: February , 1995 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 NOTE FOR THE FILE RECORD February 17, 1995 RE: Resolution Adopted February 1, 1995 Appeals No. 4260, 4261 and 4262 NOTE: Please note the following information which is to clarify dissenting votes of the Beard's February 1, 1995 decision: Clarification: Dissenting votes by Members Villa and DinJzio were without agreement to the original resolution, which was to mitigate as much as possible the concerns raised by the adjoining owner as written in the adopted resolution. Member Dinizio was not in favor of the museum and did not want his reasons entered in the record, while at the same time voted agaln.~t the resolution for denial with mitigation references. Member Villa also voted against the resolution with the understanding that his reasons would be noted. (This update was entered to clarify any misunderstanding by readers of the February 1, 1995 resolution and split votes.) l.inda Kowalski Board Clerk/Secretary APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chai[man Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robe~ A. Villa Richard C. Wilton 1 Of 3 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Pursuant to Article X/V of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, The Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Cu~u~ssion: XX Variance from the Zoning Code, Article IX , Section 100-91(C)(1) Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector ~Special Exception, Article , Section __Special Permit Appeal No: 4260 Applicant: William Gasser/Armoured Tank Museum Location of Affected Land: 640 Love Lane & s/s CR48~ Mattituck, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 140-2-16 Within 500 feet of: 'Town or Village Boundary Line Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines; or __ Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant __ Within One Mile of an Airport Applicant is requesting permission to the placement of an tower structure which is required to be located in the rear ~ments: ~essory t s of Town file and related documents enclosed February 9, 1995 for your review. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa [~clla A~ Toztoz~ BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 March 1, 1995 Gregory Blass, Esq. 120 Court Street Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 Re: Appl. No. 4260, 4261, 4262 - (Willlnm F. Gasser) Dear Mr. Blass: Please find attached a copy of communications from the Suffolk County Department of planning which results from their review under the Suffolk County Admlni.~trative Code for projects located ~rithin 500 feet of a state or county highway, estuaries, creeks of the Peconic Bay area, West Harbor, Fishers IslAnd Sound, Long Island Sound, and its tributaries. This copy is for your update and recordkeeping. Very truly yours, Lucy FarroH Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J, GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 2 4 STEPHEN M. JONES, A.LC.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 February 22, 1995 Applicant: William Gasser/Armoured Tank Museum Mun. File No.: 4260, 4261 & 4262 S.C.P.D. FileNo.: SD-95-1 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Comments: The outdoor storage of merchandise other than motorized vehicles appears inappropriate and unwarranted. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning GGN:mb Sis Geral~l G. Newman Chief Planner MATTITUCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P.O. BOX 1066 MATTITUCK, LONG lEt. AND, N,Y. 11952 January 3 I, 1995 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD RE: THE/~VlERICAN ,N~MOUI,tED FOUNDATION Dear Sirs, Tthe Mattituck Chamber of Commerce wishes to convey our thoughts on the Zoning Variances proposed to you by the American Armoumd Foundation. The variances involve the fence, a memorial sower and the outdoor display. We in the Chamber feel that the American Armoured Foundation represents a respectable part of our nation's past, The museum also repre- sents a significant financial income to Mattituck and the entire North Fork, The patrons, who come from all over the world, not only visit the museum, but alSO our small town. Their income is vital to the business community here in Mattituck. The MaltitucK Chamber of Commerce requests that these variances be granted. Sincerely, Patrlcia & William Moore Presidents, Mattituck Chamber of Commerce ZONING 80ARD OF APPEALE: TOWN OF :BOUTHOLD: STATE OF NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM F. GA.=.:.ER and the AMERICAN ARMOURED FOUNOATION, IN(:., For Variances from Article IX 100-'91 C(1 ), Article XXIII 100-231A and Article IX 100-9B REPLY ' MEMOF<ANDUM OF AF'PI-ICANTS TO MEMORANDUM IN OF'POSITION OF OIANE ANO FRANK AMMIRATI STATEMENT OF FACTS Much issue is taken with the miSstatement of facts' offer-ed in the memorandu~ of Oiane and Frank Arm'~irati, hereinafter referred to as the ."objectants.- On Nover~ber '='r ~,-, ~-~, 1_o0, the applicant, Mr. ~illia~ Gasser, approached the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of :'r o~.t. hold strictly for the purpose of an .' :~ ~,-~ discussion conce~ning his plans to establish a ~ot-for-profit museum for a~m°u~ed vehicles. Contrary to objectants, suggestion to the Board in the instant case, it cannot be inferred that applicant planned, at that or' any tir~e, that the vehicles would be stored inside the existing building then on the subject pa~cel. Indeed, twenty vehicles were anticipated, and discussed, ~ith the 8oard. Twenty vehicles, distributed with sufficient space between them so as to allow for exhibition, were ~ell beyond the storage capacity of said bblilding. ~hen the applicant placed the arr~oured vehicle displays on the prope~ty~ th'e applicant did so as a State designated foundation. Based on cor~m~unications with' the To~n Planning 8nard and Building Inspector~ the applicant endeavored in good faith to co~nply~ and has cor~',plied with each and every di~ective of maid authorities~ It ~as the applicant's intention at all times to ~ontin~e the storage ose of the property~ and to atlo~ l'i~'~it~d p~blic a~ces to v~e~ the ite~s stored~ This had been p~e~isely the ~se of the property by the p~'evio~s o~ner~ to ~it~ ~torage of ~aterials with p~blic access. Given the ve~-y ~nus~a! configuration of the s~bject pre~.ises, the applicant rega-ded his display of the ite~s sto~ed at the site as not only very sick, ilar to the p~evio~s ~se of the p~'operty, but also as the only possible~ prmctical ~se. His responses to and cooperation with the To~n authorities in eve~'y instance is a n~,atter of record, and cont~adicts objectants~ unfob;nded allegation that applicant has knowingly violated Town Law for thirteen years. Specifically~ when objectant's co~plaints precipatated the Building Oepart~eot~s letter to applicant unde~- date of Septte~ber 20, ~988~ applicant made inquiry to the To~n Planning Board in writing on October~, l~°'-'~ and co~'~plied with the Town's dete~-~ination~ issb~ed Feb~-uary 17, l~._.~, that applicant shall subn~it a site plan~ which applicant accon'~plished in the forn'~ of a final, co~,'~plet, e subn'~ission on April 16, l'Bgl. The length of ti~e wd~ich elapsed during this period was d~e to a series of nun';ero~s discussions and correspondence between the applicant and the Planning Board. Actual surveys were not avilable to the applicant until July of 1991. The objectants are quite incorrect to suggest that applicant did anything less than what applicant actually did, which was to pursue all avenues available to hir~'~ with the Town. the schedule of applicant's efforts can be follows: listed as August op revisions to site plan, discussions~ l__l Planning E,o~q~d required resulting in a series of Oecember 23, 19gl: Application to E:uilding Oepartment for tower permit~ January, l_~, Received Notice of Oisapp~-oval, based on grounds that a non-conforming use cannot be eniac-ged. February 2S, 1992: Application fon variance April l, 1992: Request for conference with Town Attorney and Zoning Board after numerous discussions convinced applicant of the need for application for zone change. April 15~ 1992~ Received Attorney suggesting zone change and not any other applications until Town Board letter fron~ Town to proceed with decides. May 12~ lqq2', Applicant submits application for zone change to Town E:oard. ~z, 1993: Received with the covenant that~ among other things, back 100 feet f~'o~ Love Lane~ Septer~bel-, 1992 through surnn'ler of Comply with zone change conditions; proceed with discussions with Planning 8oard re. site plan. 199:B: January 1994: Planning Board completes review and requires site plan re¥ision with variance for sign. Application subr~itted for signs to E:uilding Dept. February 4~ 199~: Disapproval received for signs. April 2~ 199~: Application submitted for sign variance. Tower required to be moved further to rear yard, with adequate room for parking (S spaces)~ May, 199~ Variance for signs received from Zoning Board~ May 22~ 199~ Returned to Planning Board with sign variance and was then directed to revise site plan~ and seek variances for tower~ fence and outdoor display. ~une 13~ 1~9~: Application to Building Oepartment for tower~ fence and display items~ July 12~ 19g~: Received disapproval from Building Oept. for tower~ fence and displays~ August 17, 19g~: Applied to ZBA for variance on fence, towe~and display items (instant application). Of particular concern is the observation to,er, whose history at the site is quite inaccurately recounted by objectants~ This tower at the direction of the Town Planning 8oard~ Zoning Board and Town 8oard, has been relocated, and has been reduced in height~ Because of the Planning 8oard's ~nost recent direction that parking spaces be established at the back of the property~ the applicant no~ seeks a variance from the provisions of the Town Zoning Code with respect to the requirements of set back and distance fro~ neighboring property lines (see instant application). A great length of time was consulted over a period of years to determine in the first instance whether the observation tower wo~ld require a buildi~g'pe~mit~ and particularly whether it was a structure o~- display item~ The pre-existing, non-confo~r~ing use which applied to the property, and which has been at thb center of applicant's interaction with the Town~ lies with applicant's storage of military artifacts. Applicant relied upon the Certificate of Occupancy issued for this property as the basis for its use. ~hen the question of ob~tside storage of these artifacts first became an issue of concern~ it was applicant who ~ade inquiry to the Town attorney~ and it was applicant who then suggested that it seek a zone change. The Town Attorney~ in his letter of April 27~ ~9~2~ concurred with that suggestion. Objectant characteristically distorts the origin and content of this communication between the Town Attorney and the applicant~ to the point of quoting it out of context. Applicant i~mediately ~ade such zone change application, which was granted by the Town 8oacd with certain conditions with ~hich applicant has complied. Throughout this process, ob~ectants continued ~ith their strategy of unfounded allegations, r~isstate~ents and the lodging of objections which lack any basis in fact o~~ in law~ As pe¥' the decision of this 8oard of May ~ ~99~ to grant the variances sought by applicant with regard to signage and fencing~ applicant has every intention to seek site plan approval from the Town Planning 8oard~ the application for which is pending~ Further~ the approvals secured by applicant from NYS OOT will not expire in the interim~ Applicant shall comply with all other sign and zoning regulations. This shall include a fence permit application to the Building Departn~ent, to be~ submitted folowing action on the instant application~ and application to the County Planning Commission~ again subsequent to action on the instant application before this Board. Essentially, the actions of the Buildings Department and the Planning 8oard with respect to pending applications cannot proceed until the instant application is decided. Whether the instant application is considered as one entire application or three separate ones before this 8oard is completely immaterial to the applicant, and suggests yet another specious complaint by o~jectant POINT I APF'LICANT HAS: SHOWN F'RACTICAL OIFFICULTIES AS BASIS FOR AREA VARIANCE Applicant has shown without question that the subject premises cannot be put to any real use absent the variances which have already been granted or which are sought in the instant application. The configuration and dimensions of the property offer even more of a practical difficulty than the Court of Appeals of New York encountered in the in the case of PUHST v. FOLEY, (~978) ~.'10 N.Y.S. 2d S6, ~.$ N.Y.2d 44~. The applicant certainly meets the test handed down by this decision, as well as that set fo;~th in the provisions of Town Law Section 267-b. This 8oard itself cited the practical difficulty as it applies to this property's L-shaped configuration in its decision of May 4~ 1994~ particularly as to the vi~tual impossibility of future construction on the propecty~ ]'his hardship is accentuated by applicant's not-fo?-profit status in New York state~ and its reliance upon donations for its operations~ as set forth in the summary of applicant's opei-ations submitted herewith. Applicant reaps no real monetary gain from the property once its variances are granted, and thus do the principles of the cases Cited by objectant not apply to this matte~-. Mo,-cove?, at the time applicant purchased the subject property in 1980, its zoning (Zone C) did not preclude ~iuseum use at that time. It was, in fact~ the subsequent adoption of the Town's Master Plan which c~eated a conflict in permitted use~ and which underlay the application for zone change. Accordingly, the standard of "self-inflicted loss" outlined in the case of CO,AN v. KERN~ (1977) ~l N~Y. 2d Sgl, does not apply to applicant, and neve~ did. The ve~'y case cited by objectant, NATIONAL MERRITT, INC~ ~=___~EIS~, (1977 41 N~Y. 2d 438 stands for the proposition that broad discretion is g~-anted by the State Legislature and by the Courts to local Zoning Boards and Planning 8oards~ appoioted as they are by the elected representatives of the local municipality. ]'he law sets the standards, and the boards interpret how those standards apply to a local situation~ According to a recent decision involving this Zoning 8oard, JOROAN'S PARTNERS v. GOEHRINGER (2d Oept. 199~) .... A.O.2d ....... , 61l N.Y.S~2d 626~ it is clearly the law of this state, apparently overlooked by the objectant~ that the Zoning Board of Appeals has primary jurisdiction in the interpretation of applicable zoning ordinances~ The objectant has not demonstrated even the slightest measure of standard of hardship this 8oard. abuse of this discretion~ or that the has imp~operly been interpreted by ~:__O___I~}I~_~II_ APF'LICANT MEETS THE REG!UIREMENTS Of TO~)N LAg 267-b (3) Applicant has sho~n to this E:oad that the general tourist activity of the Love Lane, Mattituck neighborhood is enhanced by the attl~action of a museum containing military artifacts dating back to the American Revolution. Objectants' contemptuous description of the applicant's artifacts as "~o~ld ~a~~ II machinery" notwithstanding, the fact restrains that persons who visit the museum also visit other commercial activities within this neighborhood. Objectant is well awa~e that visitors to the m~se~¥~ also patronize objectant~s food service establishment, and vice ve~sa. Applicant has also shown~ further- to the p~'ovisions of ~Town Law Section 267-b (3)~ that the configuration of the subject prope~-ty renders this area variance the applicant's exclusive method of achieving the benefit of the property's continued use by applicant. This E:.oard has already considered and will continue to conside~~ the environmental conditions related to applicant's use of the property~ has set forth conditions addressing same~ and has ;~eceived from applicant mo~e than adequate proof that applicant has complied with these conditions, despite the statement by objectant that "~e find that this applicant cannot meet the level of proof required..." Objectants' memorandum p. 17). The applicant does not seek a variance with ~espect to the observation towe~- because of its previous location~ o~ the length of time of its previous location on the property. This is one of ~,any examples of how objectant misstates applicant's position, and then complains of that position~ Applicant o~'iginally placed the towe~~ on the p~operty as a display item~ and has complied with the directives of both the Building Oepart~,~,ent and the Town 8oard, and again by the E:~ild~ng Oepart~ent, in terms of ~,~oving it and reducing it in size. Although applicant still regards, and oses~ the tower as a display item~ it seeks a set back variance~ applicable under the Zoning Code only to str~ctures~ because it has been recently requi~'ed to do so~ At no time did applica~ conclude that, as objectant deceitfully suggests, "the tower will not alter.the neighborhood because it has existed fop ten years." (Objectant's mer~orandum, p. 19). It is the contention of the applicant that the tower, a~ moved and reduced in height, will not change the neighborhood because it has value as an historic artifact, as a memorial and tribute to MIA'a and POW~s, and as a point of interest to the tourist activity common to the Love Lane area. Nor were there regulations in effect in connection with outside storage or display when applicant acquired the property, contrary to objectan[s~ comments. With a certificate of occupancy for warehouse-storage, applicant was acting under the belief that his open and notorious use of the property for the storage of these artifacts would be permitted. The bad-faith, calculating design attributed to him by objectants is unsubstantiated and irresponsible. We hasten to add that there is no "illegal .electpical conduit" at the top line of the fence. Contrary again to objectants' allegations, this conduit has been inspected and certified with an electrical underwriter's certificate, which has been submitted to the Planning Board in its site plan review pcocess. Likewise the unfounded, gratuitous remarks in objectants' memorandum ~ith regard to applicant's security video camera, which faces the building located on applicant's property. -10- Finally, we co~,',e to the insistence that applicant should pursue stol~age at this pr. opel~ty only thl"oL~gh construction of a building to house all items stored at the site. Objectants' appl'oach to this entire situation, on the basis of emotion I'ather than reason, is no more apparent than he~-e. To build anything fbmther on this site which would be adequate foi- storage would ~equire enorr(~ous expense and delay. The dimensions of the property and the Zoning Code would necessitate numerous variances, and the effort of applicant to finalize with the Town of ::]outhold the status of his property, which he has been attempting fo~~ yeal-s, would continue indefinitely, n~uch to objectants' delight. CONCLUSION ', Applicant ;-,as r~',ade a good faith effoi"t to conduct the storage and display of historical al-tifacts in cor,'~pliance with all ~'equil~ements which the Town has p~omulgated. Objectants acquil-ed thei~~ neighbol-ing propert.y to the rial'th of applicant six yeai~s aftel' applicant opel'ated its site as a museurr,. Objectants we~e fully aware of applicant's use of this pl'opel-ty. Objectants have i~r'esponsibly fictionalized applicant's condu~ct and r~'~otives. Neve~'theless, applicant has complied with the laws and o~"dinances of the Town, and of all di~'ec:tives which the ]-own has lodged. It is a di~ect cl~nsequence of applicant's policy in this respect that applicant 'is before this 8oard with the instant application in the same cooperative spirit as in numerous, previous applications before this and other Boards over the years in connection with this property. Contrary to objectants' unfounded statements, there is no question that the Town and the applicant have been working diligently in the Town's administration of its regulatory authority. Applicant's use of the property as a museum of historic~ military, artifacts is very much in harmony with the tourist-based theme which recurs throughout the Town's Master Plan. The character and economy of the surrounding neighborhood have benefitted from applicant's activity, and applicant has met and will continue to meet all the standards which are set forth in Town Law~ case decisions, and in the application of these standards to applicant. In not one instance has applicant resisted or objected to the conditions set Town of So~thold at or the ~se thereof~ Dated: February 1, Riverhead, forth by any E:oard or Department of the any time with respect to his property 1995 New York Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. Blass Attorney for William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Fiundation APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 January 17, 1995 To: Gregory Blass, Esq. 120 Court Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Carmella Borelli, Esq. Ongioni & Borelli 403 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appl. No. 4262, 4260, 4261 - WHliam F. Gasser Dear Mr. Blass and Ms. Borelli: This will confirm that the public hearing on the above applications was recessed by the Beard of Appeals and will be reconvened on Wednesday, February 1, 1995 at 7:50 p.m. Very truly yours, l,lnda Kowalski APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Halt 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 January 17, 1995 Mr. William F. Gasser 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Re: Appl. No. 4262 - Variances Dear Mr. Gasser: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice published this week by our office. You will note that the public hearing on your applications will be continued on Wednesday, February 1, 1995 at the Southold Town Hall at 7:50 p.m. Also, you will find enclosed a Poster Notice which must be placed either on a stake a~d located in the front yard (road side) of the subject property, or placed on the front of the building (or fence, if appropriate) where it can be easily seen from the road. The poster must be conspicuously located at this time since the Board Members are planning to visit your area within the next several days. You should complete the attached Confirmation of Posting, sign, and return it to our office either by mail or hand delivery for our update and permanent file. Thank you. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosures APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Ir. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, that the following public hearing will be continued before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 MAin Road, Southold, New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY~FEBRUARY 1~ 1995~commencing at the time specified below: 4. 7:50 p.m. Continued Hearing on the Applications for Varinnces requested by WILLIAM F. GASSER concerning his property kno~ and referred to as the American Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituck, NY located in the Hamlet-Business Zone District. (Carryover from 1/4/95) For further information, please cad 765-1809. Dated: January 17, 1995. GERARD P. GOEtIRINGER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / / ~, / ,, !~ / \ R-80 ~ ~t / -~ ~-~ ~_ -~.J ~t~ i ~.~ ~' ~'~,.~ ~ ~80 / LIO R--~O t~ .~,,~ / / / / A~C r~,~ ~_ ,~.~.~ ~. GRE'A 7- PE'GONIG BAY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 November 20, 1985 Mr. Frank Ammirati 730 Love Lane P.O. Box 288 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Site Plan for Frank and Diane Anu~irati Dear Mr. Ammirati: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, November 18, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board forward the following comments to the Board of Appeals regarding the site plan for Frank and Diane Ammirati: The Planning Board has no objection to this proposal for conversion of an existing three-family house to a take out food and catering business with a dwelling use. The Board noted that there would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood and there would be buffering along the residential property. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Board of Appeals By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET ~-~ (~ VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT FO~MER OWNER ~ : ' ACR. ~¢.~/~ .~,,~:¢.'(~., ~: ' W W , , ~PE OF BUILDING ~s.)d,:' ~s. ~. ~. co~. c,. ~,cs. ~ND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS ~ ,,., AGE BUILDING CONDITION N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Pet Value .'. Acre Tillabla FRONTAGE ON WATER ~ W~land FRONTAGE ON ROAD [ ~ 0 ~ ~? ~ = Meado~land ,.. DEPT~ House Plat ' BULKH~D Total DOCK MARIE ONGIONI ONGIONI & BORRELLI ATTORNEYS AT L~W 403 FRONT STREET ' P O.8OX 562 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 1 1944-0562 TEL. (516) 477-2048 . FAX (516) 477-8019 288 PANTIGO ROAD EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 TEL (516) 324-8282 FAX (516) 324-8283 Ja nnal).' 9 5 Mr. Gerard P. Gochringcr. Chairman Soolhotd Toxin Zoaing Board of Appeals EO. Box 1179 Southold. Ncxx York 11971 Re: William Gasser - American Arnioured Foundation Applications # 426lL 4261 and 4262 Dcar Mr. Goehringcr; In accordaucc x~ ith the Board's rcqncst at tim hearing held on the above applicalious on Wednesday. Jannary 4. 1995 enclosed llcrcxxith please find copies of the following court decisions: I. Matter of Lcvinc x. Korman - 586 N.Y.S. 2d 620 (2d Dept. 1992) 2. Matter ofSasso x Osgood. ct al .... App. Div.--- (4th Dept. 7/15/94) 3 Mailer of Sasso x. Osgood. ct al .... App. Div.--- (4th Dept. 9/30/94) 4 Sorrcnti v. Siegel. 525 N.Y.S. 2d 667 (2d Dept. 1988) 5. Carlncci v. Board of Zoning Appeals .... App. Div.--- (2d Dept. 6/20/94) 6. Vilardi v. Roth~ et al - 597 N.Y.S 2d 86 (2d Dept. 1993) 7. Dosle v. Amster - 79 NY 2d 592 11992) 8. Cox~an v. Kern- 41 N.Y. 2d 591 In the Levmc case the Southanlplon Zoning Board's dcnial oflhe petitioner's application for a xariancc was suslaincd b.x the court Milch noted: (1) Ihe petilioner failed to show "practical difficulties" in order lo cstablish entitlement to thc x ariancc: (2) thc variancc was sought to accommodate a chosen aeslbclic design: (3) thc petitioner's xxcrc prcsunlcd to have knoMedge of the zoning restrictions at the lime of purclrasc and thns the hardship 'nas sclf-crcated. In the Sasso case the Appellalc Dix isiou rex crsed a loxxcr court (Supreme Court) decision which had sustained a ZBA determination Ihat grantcd an area variance because: (1) the ZBA's findings were not supported b.~ thc cvidcnce provided b) the applicant; (2) thc ZBA's decision was based in part on lhe erroneous belief thai Tox~u Lax~ 267-B prox ides a nlorc lcnieut staudard for granting an area variance than "practical difficult.','". lu the Sorrcnti case a ZBA dccisio I de r?, ~g air rca ~ ariancc nas sustained by the court because t ~c pc i ioner had failed Io demonslralc an5 practical dilticnltics that wonld resnlt from Ibc denial of his application. In the Carlucci case thc ZBA decision den.~ lng an area xariance was suslained because: (1) the decision of the ZBA xxas supported b.x snbslamial evidence: (2) thc petitioner's difficult5.' in complying x~ilh the zooiug regulaliou was self-created M~ich is a significanl clcmcnt mitigating against the application: (3) aflcr findiug that ibc hardship was self-created the ZBA had no obligation to weigh the expense of compliance in petitioner's favor ltl the Vilardi case Ihc denial of an area ;ariancc was sustained because: (1) the determination ;~as supported b3 snbstautial evideucc~ (2) thc econmnic hardship was self-created as part of a conscious decision: (3) thc critcria of Town ka;i 267-b and the existing case lax; regarding "practical difficult3'" had not been met b3 Ihc petilioner. In the Doyle case the Cour~ of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Divisions affirmance of the Zoning Board Anthority's decision to dcn.~ an area x ariauce because: (I) The Boards deuial that the petitioner did nol meet thc practical difficult} lcsl ;las based on substantial evidence: (2) economic injury is not established because property ;;ill yield a better mlurn v, ith the variance: (3) any economic injul~.' was self-imposed because Ihe zouing restrictioa was in effec! when thc petitioner purchased the land. In the Co'~xan case, Ihe Court of Appeals. reinstated thc Supreme Court's decision which affirmed Ihe Zoning Board Authoril)'s denial of an area variance because: (1) They found the claim of discrimination to be unfounded: (2) The record sustained that petitioner had failed to establish either economic hardship or practical difficnlty: (3) if there '~;as an ecouomic hardship it had been willing assnmed because of pcfitioucrs kno;xlcdgc at thc time of purchase and was thus self-inflicted. Thc record before this Board upon ;;hich a decision regarding these applications musl be rendered tls submitted by the petitioner consisls of Ihc application and tbc self-scrving statements contained thercia. Thc exidcnce pot forth b3 the petitioner at tile hearing consists o£testimony of supporters of thc nmseum. Thc record is absolnlcl3 dc',oid of c; idence to support tile grauting of the area variances. On thc contrar), the evidence pnl I'orth b3 opponents clearing shows the 14 year disregard of the zoning ordinauccs by Ihis petitioner together x~ ilh Ihe sclf-crcated nature of his current predicament. Plcasc bc ad; iscd thai my clicnls do not ;lish to submit fl ";~ish Iisi" to this Board with regard to this application. Our posdion remains as it has been-that this applicant's requests for variances should be denied On behalf of m) clients, howc'~cr. I ;;ill bc contacting the applicant's attorney dimclly to discuss this matler. Very truly 5ours. clb/ns ONGIONI & BORRELL1 Cannela L Borrelli cc: Grcgor3 Blass Esq. (w/o encs) Frauk & Diauc Ammirati (w/o cncs) am nlirati:×ba folup Itt In the Matter of Sol Levine et al., Appellants, vs. Elise Korman et al., Respondents, and Elizabeth M. Cain, Intervenor- Respondent. 90-09089, 90-09091 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 586 N.Y.S.2d 620, 185 A.D.2d 323 July 20, 1992, Decided In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals for the Incorporated Village of Southampton, dated January 19, 1989, which denied the petitioners' application for an area variance, the petitioners appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), dated June 25, 1990, which directed that the proceeding be dismissed, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered September 18, 1990, upon the order, which dismissed the proceeding. As Revised August 11, 1992. Bourke, Flanagan of counsel), COUNSEL Flanagan and Asato, Southampton, N.Y. (Gilbert G. David J. Gilmartin, for appellants. Southampton, N.Y., Jr., Southampton, Elbert W. Robinson, intervenor-respondent. for respondents. N.Y., for JUDGES Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur. OPINION {*323} Ordered that the appeal from the order is (see, CPLR 5701 [b] [1]), and it is further, dismissed Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and it is further, Ordered that the respondents and intervenor-respondent, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation We reject the petitioners' contention that they could legally construct the desired expansion of their home for use as a master bedroom without a variance. The Code of the Village of Southampton 116-19 (c) (3) provides that a nonconforming structure such as the petitioners' home "may be enlarged ... except that the degree of nonconformity shall not be increased". An interpretation of that section that an increase in the bulk of a nonconformity would constitute an increase in the "degree of nonconformity" is reasonable and rational (see, Matter of Frishman v Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823). Therefore, a variance for the expansion was required. With respect to the denial of the variance, upon review, the determination of a zoning board should be regarded as presumptively correct, and that determination will be upheld where it is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591; Matter of Perlman v Board of Appeals, 173 A.D.2d {'324} 832). In the present case, the petitioners failed to make the requisite showing of "practical difficulties" in order to establish entitlement to an area variance by demonstrating that without the variance they could not utilize the structure without coming into conflict with the restrictions of the zoning ordinance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445). In addition, the requested variance for the extension was sought merely to accommodate a chosen aesthetic design, which will not support a finding of practical difficulties (see, Matter of Mizrachi v Siegel, 160 A.D.2d 801). Moreover, the petitioners are presumed to have had knowledge at the time they purchased the property of the applicable zoning restrictions, and, therefore, under the circumstances of this case any hardship was self-created (see, Matter of Suratwala v Casey, 172 A.D.2d 613; Matter of Iannucci v Casey, 140 A.D.2d 343). Thus, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, and, therefore, was proper. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation MATTER OF LAWRENCE M. SASSO AND EVELYN PLANTY EDNEY, APPELLANTS, ELLIOTT OS~OOD, PEARL MC GORY, WAYNE WILSON, DAVID MAGOS AND DONALD SMITH, CONSTITUTING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF HENDERSON, RESPONDENTS. GERALD G. SPEACH, INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT. (Appeal Gilbert, No. 0699 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7736 July 15, 1994, Filed from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, J. - Article 78.) JUDGES PRESENT: DENMAN, P.J., PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN, DAVIS, JJ. OPINION Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court failed to exercise its review function properly in denying the petition to annul a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Henderson (ZBA). The ZBA granted an area variance to intervenor, the owner of a substandard lot, to enable him to demolish an existing single-slip boathouse and erect a three-slip boathouse in its place. Although local zoning boards have discretion in considering an application for a variance and the judicial function is a limited one (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444), a court reviewing the substantiality of the evidence upon which such a variance is granted "exercises a genuine judicial function" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181). The court failed to specify what evidence it considered to be substantial and to provide a rational basis for the ZBA's determination, and our review of the record indicates that many of the ZBA's findings of fact are unsupported. In particular, we conclude that the record does not support the ZBA's findings that, absent a variance, the subject lot may never be used and will be rendered valueless; that the proposed use will not be detrimental to nearby properties; and that the substantiality of the requested variance is excusable to "restore equality of permitted use". Further, the ZBA's determination appears to have been (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation based in part upon the erroneous belief that Town Law 267-b provides a more lenient standard for the granting of an area variance because the term "practical difficulty" was removed from the statutory language. There is no appreciable difference between the standard set forth in the newly-enacted Town Law 267-b (3) (b) and the familiar "practical difficulty" standard, and an applicant still must demonstrate that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties (see, O'Keefe v Donovan, 199 A.D.2d 681; Matter of Vilardi v Roth, 192 A.D.2d 662). Thus, the ZBA's failure to require intervenor to make such a showing was erroneous. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation MATTER OF LAWRENCE M. SASSO AND EVELYN PLANTY EDNEY, APPLTS., vs. ELLIOTT OSGOOD, PEARL MC GORY, WAYNE WILSON, DAVID MAGOS AND DONALD SMITH, CONSTITUTING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF HENDERSON, RESPTS., AND GERALD G. SPEACH, INTVR.-RESPT. No. 699/94 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10412 September 30, 1994, Filed JUDGES PRESENT: DENMAN, P.J., PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN, DAVIS, JJ. OPINION Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied. (C) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of John Sorrenti, Appellant, vs. Harry Siegel et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, Respondents [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 525 N.Y.S.2d 667, 138 A.D.2d 382 March 7, 1988 JUDGES Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur. OPINION {*382} In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, dated October 2, 1985, which denied the petitioner's application for an area variance to permit the maintenance of an existing carport erected in violation of the side-yard setback and aggregate side-yard setback requirements of the Code of the Town of North Hempstead, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), dated March 13, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding. {*383} Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The petitioner is the owner of real property situated in a residence B zoning district in the Town of North Hempstead which is presently improved with a one-family residence containing an attached two-car garage. Shortly after the petitioner purchased the premises, he erected, in 1965, without a building permit a one-story carport next to the two-car attached garage. The carport did not meet the requirements of the Code of the Town of North Hempstead providing for a side-yard setback of 7 feet and an aggregate side-yard setback of 15 feet (Code of Town of North Hempstead 70-41 [A]). The side-yard setback and aggregate side-yard setback of the petitioner's carport are 1 foot and 11 feet, respectively. In July 1985 the petitioner received a notice of violation from the Building Department of the Town of North Hempstead. The petitioner applied to the Building Department for a permit to maintain the existing carport but that application was denied because of the side-yard setback and aggregate side-yard setback (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation violations. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead for an area variance. The Board of Zoning and Appeals denied the petitioner's application, finding that the granting of the variance would produce a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and cause a detriment to adjoining property owners, and, further, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any practical difficulties would result from the denial of his application for a variance. The petitioner then commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the denial of his application by the Board of Zoning and Appeals. Special Term dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the determination of the Board of Zoning and Appeals was supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. It is a well-established principle of law that local zoning boards possess discretionary authority to consider applications for variances and the judicial function is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, e.g., Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 599, rearg denied 42 N.Y.2d 910; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702). If the zoning board's determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence it will ordinarily be sustained by the courts (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Human {*384} Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 138). The applicant for an area variance bears the burden of establishing that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties" (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). In the matter before us, we find that the petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that the denial of his application for a variance would result in practical difficulties. The evidence presented by the petitioner before the Board of Zoning and Appeals failed to demonstrate that he would suffer significant economic injury should his application for a variance be denied (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra, at 596-597). Furthermore, the record fails to show that "as a practical matter [the petitioner] cannot utilize his property or a structure located thereon 'without coming into conflict with certain of the restrictions of the [zoning] ordinance'" (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445, quoting from 3 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, ch 45, 1 [4th ed]). Lastly, we conclude that any "difficulty" alleged by the petitioner was self-created. Thus, it cannot be said that the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead abused its discretion when it denied the petitioner's application for substantial side-yard setback and aggregate side-yard setback variances. Special Term properly held that the determination of the Board of Zoning and Appeals was supported by substantial evidence in the (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation record. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of John Sorrenti, Appellant, Harry Siegel, Chairman, et al., constituting the Board Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, Respondents No. 1114 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 534 N.E.2d 328, 73 N.Y.2d 702 December 1, 1988 OPINION Motion for leave to appeal denied with twenty dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of Nancy Carlucci, petitioner, Board of Zoning Appeals for Town of Philipstown, respondent. No. 93-02062 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6397 June 20, 1994, Decided COUNSEL Meiselman, Farber, Packman & Eberz, P.C., Mt. Kisco, N.Y. (Myra I. Packman and Mary Beth Kilgannon of counsel), for petitioner. Richard I. Goldsand, Brewster, N.Y., for respondent. JUDGES WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., ALBERT M. ROSENBLATT, SONDRA MILLER, DAVID S. RITTER, JJ. OPINION DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Philipstown filed July 18, 1992, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's request for an area variance. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. Initially, we note that the Supreme Court should have disposed of the proceeding on the merits instead of transferring it to this court (see, Town Law 267[7]). However, this court will decide the case on the merits in the interest of judicial economy (see, Matter of Cucci v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 154 A.D.2d 372, 545 N.Y.S.2d 850). The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals was supported by substantial evidence and was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see, e.g., Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 382 N.E.2d 756; Matter of Kattke v Village of Freeport, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Jan. 30, 1994]; Matter of (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation Scarsdale Ave. Equities Assocs., Ltd. v Board of Appeals of the Vil. of Scarsdale, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Dec. 20, 1993]). The petitioner failed to meet her burden that strict compliance with the zoning law would cause "practical difficulties" The record clearly indicates that the petitioner's difficulty in complying with the zoning regulation was self-created. While self-creation does not in and of itself justify a denial of an area variance application, this factor is a significant element militating against the application (see, Matter of Slakoff v Hitchcock, 194 A.D.2d 613, 599 N.Y.S.2d 63; Matter of Nammack v Krucklin, 149 A.D.2d 596, 540 N.Y.S.2d 277). After finding that the hardship was self-created, the Board of Zoning Appeals had no obligation to weigh the expense of compliance in the petitioner's favor (see, Matter of Slakoff v Hitchcock, supra, at 614; Matter of Nammack v Krucklin, supra, at 596; Matter of CDK Rest. v Krucklin, 118 A.D.2d 851, 500 N.Y.S.2d 339). Further, this court has previously upheld the denial of an area variance where, as here, the zoning violation was self-created due to a builder's error (see, e.g., Matter of Slakoff v Hitchcock, supra; Matter of Fendelman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Scarsdale, 178 A.D.2d 478, 577 N.Y.S.2d 138; Matter of Nammack v Krucklin, supra; Matter of J.T.T. Contrs. v Ward, 148 A.D.2d 537, 538 N.Y.S.2d 869). In light of our determination confirming the determination and dismissing the petition, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contentions. THOMPSON, J.P., ROSENBLATT, MILLER and RITTER, JJ., concur. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of Rosario Vilardi, Appellant, vs. David Roth, as Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Babylon, et al., Respondents. 91-03564 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 597 N.Y.S.2d 86, 192 A.D.2d 662 April 19, 1993, Decided In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Babylon, dated February 22, 1990, which, after a hearing, denied his application for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered December 11, 1990, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding. COUNSEL Arthur J. Giorgini, Lindenhurst, N.Y., for appellant. Stephen L. Braslow, Town Attorney, Lindenhurst, N.Y. (Joseph F. Buzzell of counsel), for respondents. JUDGES Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur. OPINION {*663} Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The petitioner owns a substandard lot consisting of 4,524 square feet. This property is located in a zone in which, pursuant to the local zoning ordinance (Code of the Town of Babylon 213-79 [A]), a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is generally applicable. However, in cases of properties which have been held in single and separate ownership since 1954, as has the petitioner's, the controlling minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet (Code of the Town of Babylon 213-79 [A]). The petitioner applied for an area variance with respect to the minimum lot area provision and for several other variances, including variances relating to the minimum front street line, front yard and rear yard requirements. The Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals denied that application, and the (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was commenced. In the judgment appealed from the determination was confirmed and the proceeding dismissed. We affirm. In rendering its determination denying the petitioner's application, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Babylon considered the five factors set forth in the case of Matter of Wachsberger v Michalis (19 Misc. 2d 909, affd 18 A.D.2d 921), which are similar to the five factors now set forth in Town Law 267-b (3) (b) (eff July 1, 1992, L 1991, ch 692, 9). The respondents also considered whether denial of the variance would result in significant economic injury, in light of the standard set forth in Fulling v Palumbo (21 N.Y.2d 30, overruled in Matter of Doyle v Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592) and Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Hd. of Appeals (67 N.Y.2d 702). We agree with the Supreme Court that the determination to deny the petitioner's application has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of Doyle v Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592, 596, supra; see also, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 445; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 599; Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Hd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 315). We note, in particular, that the evidence supports the conclusion that any economic hardship suffered by the petitioner, a builder, was self-created as part of a conscious decision. We also note that the case of Fulling v Palumbo (supra) relied upon by the respondents in assessing whether the petitioner had demonstrated significant economic {*664} injury, has since been overruled, and that the current standard for demonstrating such economic injury is, from the point of view of the landowner, more stringent (see, Matter of Doyle v Amster, supra, at 596). We conclude that the determination under review was properly confirmed, both pursuant to the five criteria outlined in the Town Law 267-b (3) (b) and pursuant to the previously existing case law which had evolved as a result of efforts to define the "practical difficulty" standard (see, e.g., Matter Of Doyle v Amster, supra, at 595; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). At least in respect to their application to the facts of this particular case, we discern no appreciable difference between the newly enacted standard (Town Law 267-b [3] [b]) and the familiar "practical difficulty" standard. We also conclude that the petitioner failed to prove that the application to his property of the local zoning ordinance under review constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of his property without compensation (see, Matter of Kransteuber v Scheyer, 176 A.D.2d 724, affd 80 N.Y.2d 783). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of GARY T. DOYLE, Appellant, VS. RONALD AMSTER et al., Constituting the Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals, Respondents No. 63757 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT 575 N.Y.S.2d 424, 176 A.D.2d 1128 October 24, 1991 Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Carey, J.), entered August 27, 1990 in Rockland County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Town of Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals denying petitioner's request for, inter alia, an area variance. COUNSEL Ferraro, Goldstein, Yatto & Zugibe (Stephen J. Cole-Hatchard of counsel), New City, for appellant. Murray N. Jacobson (Ronald E. De Christoforo of counsel), New City, for respondents. JUDGES Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Contrary to petitioner's contention, the denial of his application for an area variance by the Town of Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Barrett v Rose, 152 A.D.2d 525). The property in question contained two houses on a single lot which, under {'1129} current zoning laws, was large enough for only one house. Petitioner sought a variance so that he could divide the property into two lots and sell the two houses separately. The record before us supports the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate either practical difficulty or significant economic hardship entitling him to the requested variance (see, Matter of Hansen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Islip, 158 A.D.2d (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation 689). AS to the question of practical difficulty, it should be noted that the variance sought was substantial. Furthermore, he purchased the property with the homes already constructed and with the zoning laws already in effect. Finally, both buildings were being rented and petitioner failed to show that he was being deprived of a reasonable rate of return on the land. (see, id.; Matter of Stengel v Town of Woodstock Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 155 A.D.2d 854). On the question of economic hardship, we note that a denial of an area variance is not arbitrary or capricious just because the property is worth more with an area variance than without one. (see, Matter of Johansen v Ochsie, 158 A.D.2d 886). DISPOSITION ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of Gary T. Doyle, Appellant, Arnold Amster et al., Constituting the Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals, Respondents. No. 122 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 594 N.E.2d 911, 79 N.Y.2d 592 June 4, 1992, Decided Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (the appeal having been transferred to that Appellate Division by order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department), entered October 24, 1991, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (John Carey, J.), entered in Rockland County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissing an application by petitioner to review a determination of the Town of Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals that denied petitioner's request for area variances. COUNSEL Stephen J. Cole-Hatchard for appellant. POINT OF COUNSEL I. The refusal of respondent Zoning Board to grant the requested area variances, as affirmed by the Supreme Court and Appellate Division, Third Department, is contrary to prior holdings and decisions of the Court of Appeals. (Matter of Hoffman v Harris, 17 N.Y.2d 138; Matter of Clune v Walker, 10 Misc. 2d 858, 7 A.D.2d 651; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 105; Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516; Matter of Howard Johnson Co. v State Tax Commn., 65 N.Y.2d 726.) II. Pursuant to Second Department case law, as interpreting applicable Court of Appeals decisions, the Third Department's affirmance of the denial of the requested area variances is an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. (Matter of Stengel v Town of Woodstock Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 155 A.D.2d 854; Matter of Johansen v Ochsie, 158 A.D.2d 886; Matter of Clune v Walker, 10 Misc. 2d 858, 7 A.D.2d 651; Matter of Gruen v Simpson, 3 A.D.2d 841; Van Dusen v Barrack, 376 US 612.) III. A practical difficulty exists as a matter of law pursuant to Appellate Division, Second Department, case law, as interpreting Court of Appeals decisions. (Matter of Clune v Walker, 10 Misc. 2d 858, (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation 7 A.D.2d 651; Matter of Gruen v Simpson, 3 A.D.2d 841; Matter of Stengel v Town of Woodstock Zoning Hd. of Appeals, 155 A.D.2d 854; Matter of Johansen v Ochsie, 158 A.D.2d 886; Matter of Hoffman v Harris, 17 N.Y.2d 138.) IV. The existence of a significant economic injury has been shown as a matter of law, contrary to the decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department. (Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30; Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Hd. of Appeals, 143 A.D.2d 757; Young v Board of Zoning Appeals, 62 Misc. 2d 147, 35 A.D.2d 430, 29 N.Y.2d 685.) V. Strict enforcement of the zoning code herein will not serve any valid public purpose outweighing the severe injury to appellant, and as such, the affirmance of the lower court's dismissal of the petition was an abuse of discretion and must be reversed. (Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 105.) COUNSEL Murray N. Jacobson, Town Attorney (Ronald E. De Christoforo of counsel), for respondents. POINT OF COUNSEL The resolution of the Zoning Board of Appeals was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious or illegal. (Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Hd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591; McGowan v Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 434; Matter of Wilcox v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 N.Y.2d 249; Van Deusen v Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 28 N.Y.2d 608; Matter of Village of Bronxville v Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 1N.Y.2d 839; Matter of New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v McCabe, 32 Misc. 2d 898; Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v City of Fulton, 8 A.D.2d 523; Matter of Solo v Egan, 57 A.D.2d 841; Matter of Wachsberger v Michalis, 19 Misc. 2d 909.) JUDGES Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur. AUTHOR: BELLACOSA OPINION {*594} Appellant Doyle challenges the Clarkstown Zoning Board of Appeals' (Board) denial of his application for area variances to allow subdivision of a 29,370-square-foot parcel of property located in New City, Rockland County, into two building plots. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, on transfer from the Second Department pursuant to New York Constitution, article VI, 4 (g), because we agree with both lower courts that there is substantial record (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation evidence supporting the Board's determination that Doyle did not establish practical difficulties or significant economic injury which would entitle him to the variances. To the extent that Matter of Fulling v Palumbo (21 N.Y.2d 30) suggests otherwise with respect to the measurement of significant economic injury, it should no longer be followed. The property in issue, which Doyle purchased in 1980 for $ 64,000, contains two residences--a year-round home and a "summer home". Doyle resided in the year-round home and rented the latter until 1987, when he moved away and began to rent both residences. At the time the record in this case {'595} was made before the Board, Doyle was receiving $ 1,775 per month in rental income from the dual rentals of the property. [206zThe applicable Clarkstown zoning ordinance requires 22,500-square-foot minimum building lots. In 1989, Doyle applied to the Board for area variances to subdivide his property into two separate building lots: a 14,367-square-foot lot for the year-round home and a 15,003-square-foot lot for the summer place. He alleged in his application and supporting papers that he had been "unable to sell his property as a single parcel" for over three years, having received no purchase offers at his reduced asking price of $ 225,000 (from $ 280,000). He concluded that "without [the] variances [he] would suffer great economic injury." The Board denied the application after a public hearing, concluding that Doyle had not established a "practical difficulty ... that would deprive [him] of the reasonable use of the land or building involved", as required by Clarkstown Code 106-31 (C) (2). It added that he had not proven that he was unable to sell the property for a profit, noting that he had purchased the property for $ 64,000 only 10 years ago. Doyle sued the Board on the grounds that its denial of his application was illegal, arbitrary and capricious. Supreme Court, Rockland County, dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The applicable case law in the Appellate Division, Second Department (where the intermediate appeal originated), and the case law in the Third Department (to which it was transferred) was essentially the same in all relevant respects. If it were different, the view of the originating intermediate appellate court governs until we finally settle the issue (see, Siegel, The Second Department's Transferred Cases: Whose Law Applies in a Conflict?, NYLJ, Apr. 23, 1990, at 1, col 1). Applicants for area variances are obliged to demonstrate to zoning authorities that strict compliance with an applicable zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulty to the property owner (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 445; (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 314). "Practical difficulty", while not subject to precise definition, may be established generally by proof that a property owner cannot utilize the property without violating zoning ordinance restrictions (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445). Judicial review of municipal land use determinations of this kind, i.e., a zoning board's denial of a variance application {*596} based on the property owner's failure to establish practical difficulty, is subject to the limitation that courts may not interfere with decisions enjoying a rational basis, supported by substantial evidence in the record (id., at 444; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41N.Y.2d 591, 599; Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 314, supra). The Board's decision in this case that Doyle made an insufficient showing of practical difficulty rests comfortably on a rational basis and substantial evidence. The Board acknowledges that its denial of Doyle's application for variances does not prohibit him from continuing to reap a significant annual rental income from the two dwellings on his property, which is significantly undersized for a double building use (compare, Matter of Hoffman v Harris, 17 N.Y.2d 138). Alternatively, it is not without significance that Doyle may sell his property, albeit perhaps at a price less than the $ 225,000 he last sought, and receive a substantial profit on his initial investment. Doyle counterargues that he is entitled to the requested area variances, in any event, because without them he incurs significant economic injury. "Significant economic injury" in this context may be established by proof that the specific use permitted by the zoning ordinance will not yield a reasonable return if the applicable land use restrictions are enforced (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 442). This calculation focuses on the value of the property as presently zoned, not the value the property would have if the variance were granted (Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 597, supra; Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 9). To the extent that Matter of Fulling v Palumbo (21 N.Y.2d 30, supra) holds otherwise in this respect, it should no longer be followed and is overruled. Since Fulling, we have refined the rules to reject the notion that significant economic injury may be established by proof that the property would yield a greater return to the owner with the variance than without it (Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra, at 596-597; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice 23.39, at 217-218 [Jd ed]). Thus, proof that a parcel, if subdivided pursuant to a variance, could be sold to yield a higher profit to the owner does not constitute significant economic injury (see, Matter of Graziano v Scalafani, 143 A.D.2d 664, 666; 2 Anderson, op. cit., 23.42, at 224-225). Although Doyle alleges that the value of his property as (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation zoned, without a variance, is $ 280,000, he submitted no certified {'597} appraisal to that effect, relying solely on real estate brokers' estimates. While that failure of proof alone might not be determinative in the context of this case, Doyle has also been receiving over $ 20,000 per year in rental income from the continued nonconforming use of his property, which he purchased for $ 64,000 in 1980. Moreover, he submitted no proof that he would not realize a reasonable return on his investment if he sold the parcel for an amount somewhat below his last asking price of $ 225,000. The record establishes that the $ 64,000 Doyle initially paid for the property would have been worth approximately $ 151,500 as of January 1, 1990 had he invested it and received an average yield of 9%. Doyle submitted no evidence that he made any substantial improvements to the property. Finally, we note that inasmuch as the applicable zoning restrictions were in effect when Doyle purchased the property, any claimed economic hardship is self-imposed (Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra, at 597; Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra, at 442; Matter of Graziano v Scalafani, supra, at 665-666). On this record, we agree with the courts below that it cannot be said as a matter of law that the Board abused its authority in rejecting Doyle's application for area variances. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. DISPOSITION Order affirmed, with costs. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In the Matter of Randolph Cowan, Respondent, Roy M. Kern et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of Rthe Town of Smithtown, Appellants Matter of [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 363 N.E.2d 305, 41 N.Y.2d 591 April 5, 1977, Decided Cowan v Kern, 51 A.D.2d 569, reversed. COUNSEL Dudley L. Lehman, Smithtown, for appellants. Sidney N. Gitelman, East Northport, for respondent. JUDGES Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur with Judge Jasen; Judge Gabrielli dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Judge Cooke concurs. AUTHOR: JASEN OPINION {*592} The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its discretion, as a matter of law, in denying petitioner's application for a zoning variance. In January 1970, petitioner Randolph Cowan purchased, at a tax sale, a substandard parcel of land in the Ronkonkoma Heights section of the Town of Smithtown. The parcel consists of three separate building lots and has a total land area of 7,500 square feet. The property is located in an "R-10" residential zone which authorizes the construction of single-family residences on minimum plots of 10,000 square feet. The land was originally divided into building lots by a map filed in 1911 and the 10,000 square feet requirement was first imposed in 1949. In order to construct a residence on the Cowan property, a variance must be obtained to cover the total area deficiency, as well as deficiencies in the sizes of the proposed front and rear yards. (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation In January 1974, Cypress Homes, Inc., a builder and the prospective purchaser under a contract of sale, applied for the necessary variance, asserting that the Cowan parcel was the same size as other improved parcels on the same street. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application on February 26, 1974 and the contract of sale was rescinded. The landowner, Cowan, then sought to obtain a building permit for the property, but the request was denied on the ground that a variance had not been obtained. Thus, on May 24, 1974, Cowan applied directly to the board for the necessary variance. His application was based on much the same contention as had been asserted in the earlier application by the builder: the fact that others had built on similarly sized properties and that a residence on his property would be in conformity with the character of the neighborhood. It was also claimed that denial of the variance would inflict "severe" economic hardship on the landowner. On June 25, 1974, the board conducted a hearing on the Cowan application. The landowner submitted proof that, of {*593} the 17 parcels on his block, nine parcels either met or exceeded the zoning requirements and that eight others did not. with respect to the eight substandard properties, two (the Cowan property and one other) had not yet been improved. Two substandard parcels had been improved after the board had granted requisite area variances. No evidence was introduced by petitioner to explain whether the remaining four improved but substandard properties were nonconforming uses constructed prior to the 1949 zoning ordinance or had been the subject of prior grants of variance or, finally, were constructed in plain violation of the zoning ordinance. The landowner did produce an analysis of the entire neighborhood, including several nearby blocks, which indicated that approximately 67% of the distinct parcels and approximately 77% of all the individual building lots in the area conformed to the zoning requirement. The applicant's expert appraiser testified that the value of the real property, with the variance, would be approximately $ 7,500. Without the variance, the landowner would be able to sell the nonbuildable plot to the owner of an adjoining parcel for approximately $ 1,000. The landowner did not report the price he paid for the property at the tax sale. Several persons appeared at the hearing in opposition to the variance application. The neighboring landowners testified that if Cowan were to build on his property, there would be less than the 100-foot distance between Cowan's cesspool and their water wells, as required by the ordinance. This testimony was rebutted to some extent by a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health to the effect that the Cowan cesspool could be located the necessary distance away from the neighboring wells and that any shortage in the distance between Cowan's well and (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation the neighbors' cesspools could be compensated for by digging the Cowan well deeper. Unrebutted, however, was the testimony of one neighbor that all of the houses on substandard plots, save the two for which variances had been granted, had been constructed prior to the adoption of the 1949 area requirement. Hence, it was established that four of the six improved but substandard parcels were nonconforming uses. On September 16, 1974, after the board had failed to pass upon his application, Cowan commenced an article 78 proceeding to compel the board to grant him a variance. At a regular meeting six days later, the board voted to deny the application. The board found that the character of the neighborhood {*594} was substantially in accordance with the zoning requirements and that the applicant had failed to establish unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. It was noted that "the applicant did not testify before the board as to what the loss of value in the premises would have been to him, since it was not revealed what the purchase price of the subject parcel was at the time applicant purchased same. Therefore, the board would also find that the testimony of applicant's expert witness is incomplete and affords very little upon which this board can determine the loss in value to said applicant." Special Term awarded judgment to the board and dismissed the article 78 proceeding. The court ruled that "where, as here, a substandard parcel of property is purchased at a tax sale, the purchaser thereof cannot later claim that a denial of a variance for that property results in a severe economic hardship. The Court further finds that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the character of the neighborhood is substandard." Petitioner moved for renewal of the article 78 proceeding and for a hearing on the ground that the board had discriminated against him. The court granted the request for a hearing. The petitioner submitted proof that, on November 11, 1971, the board had granted area, front yard and rear yard variances to the owners of two parcels immediately adjoining petitioner's. No other proof was put forward; instead, counsel for petitioner engaged in a lengthy oral argument. The court denied the motion for renewal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his claim of discrimination. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, reversed the judgment of Special Term and directed that the board grant petitioner a variance. (51 A.D.2d 569.) On appeal, petitioner presents two separate arguments in support of his claim for the variance. First, it is argued that the board, by granting variances to others similarly situated while denying relief to the petitioner, discriminated against him and, thereby, abused its authority. A second and distinct contention is that the petitioner had submitted ample proof that the application of the zoning ordinance to his property would result in economic hardship entitling him to a variance. We (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation conclude that the record does not reveal either discrimination or abuse of discretion. We would, therefore, reverse the order of the Appellate Division and reinstate the judgment of Special Term. As to the claim of discrimination, the law is well settled {*595) that the mere fact that one property owner is denied a variance while others similarly situated are granted variances does not, in itself, suffice to establish that the difference in result is due either to impermissible discrimination or to arbitrary action. The controlling principles were stated by Judge Lehman, with his usual eloquence, long ago. "The mere fact that consents were granted to owners of premises somewhat similarly situated does not in itself show that consent was arbitrarily refused to this applicant. The question is not whether someone else has been favored. The question is whether the petitioner has been illegally oppressed. Exercise of discretion in favor of one confers no right upon another to demand the same decision. Unlimited discretion vested in an administrative board by ordinance is not narrowed through its exercise. * * * The [board] may refuse to duplicate previous error; it may change its views as to what is for the best interests of the [town]; it may give weight to slight differences which are not easily discernible. There are, of course, extreme cases where analogy is so complete, where grant of consent under similar circumstances has been so frequent, both before and after refusal in one instance, that inference arises that the refusal is the result of unfair discrimination and oppression. Especially is this true where strong reason is made out for granting the consent. In such case, perhaps, the courts may call upon the dispensing power to rebut such inference." (Matter of Larkin Co. v Schwab, 242 NY 330, 336-337; accord Matter of Crossroads Recreation v Broz, 4 N.Y.2d 39, 46-47.) n__* Here, petitioner has shown only that two variance applications were granted to adjoining landowners in 1971. Although the board of health indicated that it was technically feasible to lay out water and sewage facilities in a manner that would not create an unsanitary condition, the zoning board was certainly free to conclude that, after three years from the last residential construction, the area had become too congested to permit further substandard development. The board could consider the existence of several nonconforming uses in the same immediate vicinity, uses that, constitutionally, the board was powerless to change. That the board had granted two variances in the past did not strap it to grant variances to all comers in the future automatically and without due regard for {'596) changed conditions that might require a different result. Having granted two variances in the past, the board could properly decide that additional variances would impose too great a burden and strain on the existing community. More importantly, the board, after three years' reflection, could find that previous awards had been (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation a mistake that should not be again repeated. Certainly, the board was not bound to perpetuate earlier error. Three additional factors are important. Only two variances were awarded in the past and these applications were decided at the same time. The evidence showed that the neighborhood, generally, was in conformity with the ordinance and the other exceptions on this particular block were not due to variance awards, but were created prior to the adoption of the present zoning requirement. Thus, this is certainly not the extreme case where the board had consistently granted variances and issued building permits to all in the neighborhood save a few selected out for discriminatory treatment. (See Matter of Ozolins v Horn, 26 A.D.2d 555.) Secondly, the timing of the two variance grants indicates that the awards were made on an individual basis viewed in the light of conditions then prevailing in the community. Phrased another way, there is no history of a consistently liberal board policy that was suddenly and dramatically changed to the disadvantage of this petitioner. Thirdly, the board denied a variance to a builder who sought to construct a residence on the same parcel. This indicates that the board had changed its policy on variances even before this petitioner applied for one. Thus, denial of his application was consistent with the board's policy with respect to this neighborhood. Turning to the second ground pressed by the petitioner -- that the board abused its discretion in denying the variance -- we find that the evidence substantiates the board's conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish that the denial of the variance would result in the infliction of either significant economic hardship or practical difficulty. Before the zoning authority is required to explain why the public health and welfare requires adherence to the zoning standard, the petitioner must first come forward with proof of significant economic injury. (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41N.Y.2d 438, 442, 445; see Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309.) The petitioner's only proof on the question of financial hardship was to the effect that if the {*597} variance was granted the real property for building purposes would be worth approximately $ 7,500, whereas the real property was worth only approximately $ 1,000 without the variance. However, in calculating whether financial hardship would be inflicted by adherence to the zoning standard, the inquiry should properly focus upon the value of the parcel as presently zoned, rather than upon the value that the parcel would have if the variance were granted. (Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 9.) Concededly, the parcel, without the variance, has an economic value of at least $ 1,000. In the absence of proof as to what the petitioner paid for the property at the tax sale, there is no predicate which would support a finding of economic hardship in requiring the petitioner to adhere to the zoning ordinance. Thus, the petitioner failed to prove that the property (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation "will not yield a reasonable return if the area standard restrictions are imposed." (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra, at p 442.) Moreover, the manner in which petitioner acquired the property, by purchase at a tax sale, indicates that any hardship was willingly assumed. In view of the tax sale purchase, the petitioner, is certainly "chargeable with knowledge of the interdictions of the zoning ordinance which limited * * * development." (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra, at p 444.) Hence, economic loss, if there be any, was self-inflicted and self-created. While no proof of the purchase price has been adduced, it is reasonable to assume that the price obtained by the County of Nassau at the sale reflected the value of the property as restricted by the ordinance. Hence, the granting of the variance would, like as not, result in a windfall to petitioner well above the minimal price paid at the tax sale. While the fact that any financial hardship was self-imposed does not prevent the board from granting the variance in a proper exercise of its discretion (Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 315, supra), the existence of a self-created hardship does not entitle the landowner to demand a variance. (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra, at p 442.) One further comment is necessary. The dissent places its primary reliance on the standard of review articulated in Matter of Fulling v Palumbo (21 N.Y.2d 30, 33). Since 1967 when Fulling was decided, we have had numerous occasions to both clarify and modify much of its admittedly broad language. (E.g., Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra, at p {*598} 442; Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra; Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delan¥, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 455; Matter of 113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v Zaino, 27 N.Y.2d 258, 261-262.) The present dispute simply involves a challenge to the rationality of an administrative decision. The petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance as applied to his property. In this circumstance, it would be inappropriate to apply constitutional criteria (see, e.g., Matter of Grimpel Assoc. v Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 431; McGowan v Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 434) in lieu of the traditional standard applicable to the judicial review of all kinds of administrative determinations. Even the Fulling case recognized the limited nature of the judicial scrutiny of local zoning decisions. Notwithstanding the broader sweep of the opinion, the ultimate issue was stated to be whether "the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its discretion, as a matter of law". (21 N.Yo2d, at p 32.) The dicta to which the dissent averts is not now, if it ever was, representative of the state of the law. In fact, the cases which followed Fulling quite consistently adhered to the traditional standard. (E.g., Matter of ll3 Hillside Ave. Corp. v Zaino, 27 N.Y.2d 258, 261-262, supra; Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delan¥, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 454, 455, supra ; see Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation N.Y.2d 438, 442-443, supra.) We have recently reiterated the rule. "The oft-stated standard by which a request for an area variance is to be measured is whether strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties. (E.g., Matter of Wilcox v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Yonkers, supra; Matter of village of Bronxville v Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 238, affd 1 N.Y.2d 839; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], 18.32, 18.33, 18.40.) The local zoning boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and the judicial function is a limited one. The courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. (Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 32; Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 24.) Phrased another way, the determination of the responsible officials in the affected community will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Matter of Wilcox v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Yonkers, 17 N.Y.2d 249, 255, supra.)" (Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 314, supra.) {*599} The crux of the matter is that the responsibility for making zoning decisions has been committed primarily to quasi-legislative, quasi-administrative boards composed of representatives from the local community. Local officials, generally, possess the familiarity with local conditions necessary to make the often sensitive planning decisions which affect the development of their community. Absent arbitrariness, it is for locally selected and locally responsible officials to determine where the public interest in zoning lies. (McGowan v Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 434, 438, supra.) Judicial review of local zoning decisions is limited; not only in our court but in all courts. Where there is a rational basis for the local decision, that decision should be sustained. It matters not whether, in close cases, a court would have, or should have, decided the matter differently. The judicial responsibility is to review zoning decisions but not, absent proof of arbitrary and unreasonable action, to make them. Nothing in Matter of Fulling v Palumbo (21 N.Y.2d 30, supra) is to the contrary. Here, the record does not indicate that the zoning board acted in a manner that was in any way arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational or indicative of bad faith. Its decision, therefore, should not have been disturbed. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of Special Term reinstated. DISPOSITION (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation Order reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, reinstated. DISSENT Gabrielli, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm the order of the Appellate Division. In this case the petitioner seeks an area variance n_~ as distinguished from a use variance, and just recently this court stressed the importance of this distinction "since, in the usual case, a use variance will have a greater impact on the community than an area variance which does not involve a use prohibited by the ordinance" (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41N.Y.2d 438, 441). An area variance does not alter the basic character and nature of the community in the manner that a use variance does and, therefore, the courts have rationalized and properly held that different standards of burden of proof are applicable (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra). "The difference in the level of proof is explained by the fact that, generally, an area variance will release a landowner from the duty to follow {*600} the strict letter of the zoning ordinance so that the land may be put to a permitted use. On the other hand, a use variance, if granted, will result in the use of land in a manner inconsistent with the basic character of the neighborhood" (Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. o~ Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 313-314). The petitioner has the burden of proving that the imposition and application of an area standard will create significant economic injury (Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30) and once that proof is adduced "the burden of going forward with proof that the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate exercise of the zoning power is upon the municipality" (Matter o~ National Merritt v Weist, supra, at p 443). The proof of significant economic injury is met by demonstrating that the property will not yield a reasonable return, but there is no requirement that in an area variance case the petitioner must prove what he paid for the property. In Matter of Fulling v Palumbo (supra) the proof demonstrated that Fulling had been offered $ 11,000 for his property by his two neighbors but with an area variance he could obtain double that amount. This was deemed sufficient to satisfy his burden of proving significant economic loss. In the case before us Cowan demonstrated that without the variance his neighbor owning contiguous land, and who had objected to the grant of the variance in this case, n__2 would purchase the property for $ 1,000 but with the variance the value would rise to $ 7,500. This, too, should be deemed sufficient to sustain the burden of proof. The fact that Cowan purchased the property at a tax sale and failed to reveal the price paid is not determinative here. To demonstrate, if Cowan had paid in excess of $ 1,000 for the (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation property, clearly the denial of the area variance would result in economic hardship because it would result in an actual financial loss. Likewise, if he paid less than $ 1,000, a situation analoguous to the facts in Fulling, he has still demonstrated economic hardship because literal enforcement of the ordinance will cost him 86% of the value of his land (see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice, 18.40). {'601} Serious financial injury need not be equated to actual financial loss; a significant differential in value may amount to a hardship even if the owner paid nothing for the property. The majority, citing Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin (36 N.Y.2d 1, 9), holds that in determining financial hardship, inquiry should focus on the value of the property as presently zoned, "rather than upon the value that the parcel would have if the variance were granted" (p 597). Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. involves a use variance. The standard of proof in a use variance case must necessarily be more stringent than in an area variance case because the character of the community is affected. On the other hand, proof of economic injury, in the context of an area variance, need not be as restrictive since the over-all impact of relief is less burdensome on the community. The quantum of evidence necessary to satisfy the burden of proof must be balanced with the public interest affected (see Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra). Where the petitioner shows that the value of the property under the existing area restriction does not yield a reasonable return as compared to the value of the property with an area variance, the burden of proof of economic injury has been met. Economic injury does not, of course, end the matter. If there is a legitimate purpose for the ordinance and it is reasonably related to the public health, financial loss will be inadequate to justify granting the variance (Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delan¥, 28 N.Y.2d 449). In this case, however, the board introduced insufficient "evidence", and indeed the record is sparse, if not totally lacking in evidence that denying the variance would benefit the public health and welfare. The fact that the financial hardship may be self-imposed does not prevent the board from granting the variance (Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra) but is one factor which may be weighed with the evidence before it. The decision of the board is silent on the issue of self-created hardship but even if it had been considered, in view of the severity of the economic loss, it would be insufficient to mandate denial of the variance. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. OPINION FOOTNOTES (c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation n* The Appellate Division's statement to the effect that a claim of discrimination is made out simply if "Tweedledee is granted, and Tweedledum is denied" (51 A.D.2d, at p 570), is in plain conflict with established principles and cannot be sustained. DISSENT FOOTNOTES nl The ordinance requires an area of 10,000 square feet. Petitioner, desiring to erect a one-family residence, requested an area reduction by reducing the front yard setback from 40 feet to 37 feet and a backyard setback from 50 feet to 38 feet. n2 It is of consuming interest to note that this objecting neighbor had but recently been granted a similar area variance. Obviously, the ordinance was calculated to maintain the essential character of the neighborhood, which was residential, and there was no evidence that a grant of the variance would defeat this purpose; and, in fact, the proof established that a new house on this lot would improve the neighborhood. c) 1994 By The Michie Company, A Division of The Mead Corporation January 3, 1995 Southold Town Hall Zoning Board of Appeals Attention: Mr. Gerard P. Geohringer, Chairman Dear Board of Appeals, This letter is to inform the Southold Board of Appeals that I, Thor Pettersen have been on the staff of American Armoured Foundation, Inc. since May 24, 1994. My duties at the museum include, but are not limited to, security, watchman and overseer of the museum on a daily basis. My inspections of the museum are conducted during daylight hours and takes me approximately 30 to 45 minutes to inspect the entire site. The museum has not set a required time for my inspections due to security measures. The following is a list of functions that I perform during my inspections. Unlock entrance gates and walk south yard checking all vehicles for spillage and check all drip pans. Unlock and turn off alarm at entrance of building. Check all displays inside building plus heating system, water pipes, electrical status and a thorough inspection of building. Then I close up the museum and proceed to inspect the North yard. I once again walk the North yard and inspect vehicles and drip pans. I am well versed in the safe handling and disposing of any liquid material that may pose a problem or may have accumulated in the drip pans. I have also been instructed to contact Mr. William Gasser, museum director, if during my inspections I find any potential problem. At this time a sound and responsible way to deal with that particular problem will be put into place immediately. Along with the above duties I am on record with both the Southold Police Department and the alarm company's central station as first response person to any burglar or fire alarms. Sincerely, Thor Pettersen A.A.F. 2383 SIh Av~flue Roflkonl(oma, N.Y. 11779 January 3, 1995 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., R onkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mattituck, NY Southold Town Hall Zoning Board of Appeals Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attention: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman RE: Mitigation measures. Dear Board of Appeals, As per fax dated December 19, 1994 please be advised of the following measures adopted by American Armoured Foundation, Inc. to meet the mitigation measures set down by the Board of Appeals to receive a SEQRA negative declaration: Drainage pans and oil absorption blankets: Ail vehicles that presently contain gas and oil have already had drip pans installed under them. The remaining drip pans and oil absorption blankets will all be in place within the maximum of 30 days from this meeting. These drip pans will be green rubbermaid type containers, as we felt these were the least obtrusive item that could be found to fit the intended job use. We also do not want the Museum to become an eye sore with so many drip pans around. Each pan will contain a weight to weigh these pans down so that they are not blown around the yard by the wind. The oil absorption blankets will be place under each drip pan. Daily checks: Please find attached a conformation letter showing that American Armoured Foundation has on staff a reliable, responsible and capable person that has and will continue to make daily checks of all display vehicles. As an environmentally safe and responsible organization, American Armoured Foundation, Inc. has no problems with adhering to the mitigation measures being set by this board and the museum will continue to take any and all measures to prevent any contagions from entering the ground. The museum has been working on a regular basis to maintain the vehicles in good condition and to exhibit them to the public in the best condition possible. Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum PETITION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSE UM The American Armored Foundation Tank Museum building in Mattituck currently violates several zoning rules for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate of Occupancy. The Tank Museum has requested variances from the Zoning Board on three items: 1. For the use of a tower closer to the rear and side yard than permitted. 2. For outside display of tanks and cannons which would otherwise have to be housed inside a building to conform to zoning. 3. For fences that are higher than permitted (in order to include the barbed wire at the top). We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning that their use of the requirements. .n Fu~l Name: Print Full Name: Full Address: Date: PETITION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSEUM The American Armored Foundation Tank Museum bui]dlng in Mattituck currently violates several zoning rules for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate of Occupancy. The Tank Museum has requested variances from the Zoning Board on three items: 1. For the use of a tower closer to the rear and side yard than permitted. 2. For outside display of tanks and cannons which would otherwise have to be housed inside a building to conform to zoning. 3. For fences that are higher than permitted (in order to include the barbed wire at the top). We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning that their use of the property be requirements. Sign Full Name: Print Full Name: Ful~ Address: Date: i ! fl ~ ' ~ ~ PETITION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSEUM The American Armored Foundation Tank Museum building in Mattituck currently violates several zoning rules for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate of Occupancy. The Tank Museum has requested variances from the Zoning Board on three items: 1. For the use of a tower closer to the rear and side yard than permitted. 2. For outside display of tanks and cannons which would otherwise have to be housed inside a building to conform to zoning. 3. For fences that are higher than permitted (in order to include the barbed wire at the top). We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask of the property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning that their use requirements. Sign Full Name: Print Full Name: Full Address: Date: PETITION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSEUM The American Armored Foundation Tank Museum building in Mattituck currently violates several zoning rules for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate of Occupancy. The Tank Museum has requested variances from the Zoning Board on three items: 1. For the use of a tower closer to the rear and side yard than permitted. 2. For outside display of tanks and cannons which would otherwise have to be housed inside a building to conform to zoning. 3. For fences that are higher than permitted (in order to include the barbed wire at the top). We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning that their use of the property be requirements. ISign Full Name: Print Full Name: Full Address: Date: PETITION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSEUM The American Armored Foundation Tank Museum building in Mattituck currently violates several zoning rules for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate of Occupancy. The Tank Museum has requested variances from the Zoning Board on three items: 1. For the use of a tower closer to the rear and side yard than permitted. 2. For outside display of tanks and cannons which would otherwise have to be housed inside a building to conform to zoning. 3. For fences that are higher than permitted (in order to include the barbed wire at the top). We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask · the property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning that their use of requirements. Sign Full Name: Print Full Name: Full Address: Date: 1 MARIE ONGIONI CARMELA L. BoRr~ELLI ONGIONI & BORRELLI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 403 FRONT STREET . P.O,BOXS62 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944-0562 TEL, (516)477-2048 . FAX(516)477*8919 DFC I 5 288 PANTIGO ROAD EAST HAMPTON. NY 11937 TEL (516) 324-8282 FAX (516) 324-8283 December 12. 1994 Mr. Gerard P. Gochringcr. Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Soutbold Tox~ n Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. Ncx~ York 11971 Re: Applications of William Gasser Nos. 426(L 4261 and 4262 Negative Declaratiou - SEQRA Dear Mr. Gochringer: As you knoxx. '~xe represent DiallC and Frallk Anullirali. tile adjacenl land oxx ncrs Io thc Gasser properly. This letler is submitted xxith rcgard to Ihc Negati'~c Dec}aration xxith miligaliou measures rcndcrcd b5 Iht Board on Novenlbcr 2. 1994. The applicanl subnritled a Loug Em ironmcutal Assessment form to this Board/x lib his letter of October 10. 1994 together with a cop.~ of thc Tox~n Board's prior Ncgalive Declaralion regarding his requested zone change and a copy of Ibc findings of Cramcr. Voorhis 86 Associates also prepared with regard lo the prior application for a ×one changc This Board has required thai Ihe applicanl mcel tx~o miligating measnres for thc negative declaration to Dc cffcctivc. The applicaut must place pans and oil absorption blankets under all vehicles (active and inaclixc) and lnust iuspcct Ihe vchiclcs on a daily basis and take all measures necessary to prexcnl oil drippings Thc applicant iu his Icllcr ofOctoDcr 10. 1994 ad,,iscd that x~eckl.~ maintenance checks arc made of thc vehicles. As thc Board is xxcll ay, arc. Ihis "museuu~" is uot open Io thc public on a daily basis, in addition. Ihcm is no fllll limc staffat thc site on a dail)basis. 11 appears Ibcrcfore that it ;~ill be impossible for the applicant lo COlnpl.x xx ith the miligatiou mcasnrc of daily checks of the vehicles. The weekly maintenance schedule nou iii cffecl is simpb inadcquatc to deal with thc potential damage of a significant oil spill from oue or morc of thc clailncd ten operalional vehicles iii Milch gas and oil are maintained, hr addilion, given this applicanfs past uon-cmnplianc¢ xxilh thc zoning code. xxe fail lo see how the To',~ n 'ail[ DC able to mouitor Ibc nfiligalion measures Io insnrc that the.~ arc being adhered to by thc applicant. With regard Io thc cm iromucnlal siguificancc of this silo. I call the Board's attention tim letter of Cromer. Voorhis & Associates dated Scplcmbcr 18. 1992 and altachmcnt sub~nitlcd to Ms. Judith Terry in conlicction with the applicalion for a/.onc change Thc Texan's cn',.ironmcrdal consultant called thc Town Board's attention to thc fact that SEQRA rcquircs consideration of land use. zoning issues aad community impacts. In facl. thc) rccommended against Ihe subscquenl aclion of the Town Board m re×onJng that portion of Ihe site then ×oned residential lo LI bccausc il could haxc impac! on Ihc comnmnil.', permanently. Cramcr. Voorhis br addilion noted Ihat Ihe change of×one uould nol be consistent ;~ith the recommendations of Ibc Master Plan. While thc ×eec change xxas cvcntuall3 granted b.~ thc Ihcn constilulcd Toxin Board. this Board is not dix eslcd o£ ils dut). Io mx cstigalc those same issnes iu connection with ils SEQRA determination regarding the reqncstcd '~ariances Cramer Voorhis determined Ihat Iht proposed zouc change would conflicl with officially adopted plans or goals for Ihe To',x n and that it xxonld set all importanl precedent for fi~ture projects. The requested relief- the three requested variances - coupled with a prior request for relief regarding signs certainly conflict with adopted plans and goals and '~x ill set an important precedent for fi~tare projects, l am enclosing here:~itl: a cop:, cf Cra:mcr Voorhis I cng FAF P:irt !! and I ca!l this Board's a!!cntion to the Conclusion contained therein as its conlcnts are applicable to the instant request for mlicl'espcciatly that request '~hich asks this Board to allo~ open storage ofwar machines. Cramer Voorhis stated: "Issues regarding zoning arc complex, invol~ mg change to comntunit} character, divergences from land use plans and precedent setting nature of an action. Based npon the discnssion included in the appropriate section above, there is a recognized small intrusion inlo a resideatial area as well as some recognized precedent set as a result of this action. Thc duratiou of this ilnpact is considered permancul for thc purpose of this discussiou: ...The ilupact can bc controlled through site plan rcvicu utiliziug sclbacks, bnffcring, and other land use control techniques uith regard to thc dcvcloplncnl on thc site as well as adjaccut sites.., It is rcconunended that thc decision contain reasonable measures to nlininlize enviromncntal impacts to the maximum exteul practicable.... These applications lnust be x icx~cd in their cutirct.x and their combined effect ou Ihc communih.' and thc3 must be vicx~cd through thc lime lens of this applicants repeated and continued x iolation of the zoning code. Reasonable measures to minimize em ironmcntal impacts are uol practicable for repeat offenders. Much more stringenl reqnircmcnls. Ihat can be enforced or ~xhosc violation arc quite visible to the general public, mnst be imposed as Ihis Board's decision '~x ill effect laud nsc and '~x ill scl precedent, Thank .~on for )'our consideralion ofonr objections. Wc ask this Board to reconsider its negative declaralion or in the alternative to impose more stringent, enforceable safcgnards with regard to both the usual and also thc more compelling acslhctic issues of impact on lhe communit~,. clb/ns cc:Frank & Diane Ammirati ammirati;zbaseqra.ltr Very truly yours, ONGIONI & BORRELLI Carmela L Borrelli APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. GcehrinCer, Chairman Saree Doyen, Jr. James Dini~o, Jr, Robert A, Villa Richard C. Wilton Pest. It' brand tax trar~mittal mamo 7871 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF.SOUTHOLD NOTICE FOI~ POSTING Subject: Pendin[ Ve4']ance Applications - w.r,;~m F. Gasser or the Amerlce~ A~nou~ed Foundation, Inc. Location of Property: E/s Love Lane and S/s CE 48, Mattituck. Zone District: ~-,,I-t Business (HB) Attached is a Notice of Declaration under SEQRA as per Resolution adopted at & RGb, I=',' Meet[n[ of the Besz~ of Ap~'~ != on November 2, 1994. The Public Corem*ut pelflod is subject to the periods established in Part 611 of NYCRR and subJKt to the [~les and rezulations of the New ¥o~k State Environmental C~,-l;t¥ ][eview Act. Based upon this Negative De~tion u an Uf~:tl~to~ Action, SEQRA is now oompleted, and appli~,,t sh~' be requh~d to mitigate, es noted below, as well as any 9thel, requirements in the proee~z~ of the &pplications. For fu~d~er ~nformation plebe contact the O/~flce of the Bes-~ of Appeals, Gem.-'d. P. G.oeh_.-lnzer, Ch-;,,,,--,,, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, or tel. 516-765-1809. Th~l~ you. (Continued on next paze) APPEALS BOARDMEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge D~yen, Jr. James Dinlzio, Jr. Rober~ A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD $outhotd Town Hell 53095 Main Road P.O. Box ~17g Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-182.3 Telephone (516) 765.1809 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Per Action t~Ven,November 2, 1994 by the Southold Town Board of Appeals · Re: PendJ.ug AppUcation~ of WILLIAM GASSER [~ocation of P~operty: Love Lane, Matfltuek Appeals No. 4262, 4261 and 4260 WILLIAM GASSER at SEQRA determination per~"'i'~tnE ~ p~pe~y of ~t~tu~, ~e S/s ~ C.~. 48 ~d ~e EJs ~ve ~, to pen~g app~ un~r App~ 4262, ~61 ~d ~260... ~t~ ...... n s~aU~-n ~ ~a~u. It ~ ~t~, however, ~[ D~on ~ the ~n m~s ~mt~ ~m. un mo~n by C~ G~r, ~nd~ by Mem~ D~, it RESOLVED, to de~ L~ AGENCY smt~, ~ d~m a NEGATIVE DEC~ATION ~th t~ foBo~ ~t~n m~u~s ~omted ~hm~, subj~t~ the no~ pubUe es~b~ u~r ~e S~RA ~1~: 1. D~ ~n~ ~d off abso~Uon bt.nk~ shsll be ~der ~ v~ su~ ~ ~de~ ~ t~on ~d ~elu~g ~ve ~d weU as ~c~ve yemen. 2. The owner ~ ~ponsible for ~y cheoks of t~ veMe~s ~atsln ~d ho~n of t~ ve~cles- AYES: ~ss~. Doyen, ~n~r, D~o ~d Wilton. (Member V~ wu absent. ) T~ resolu~on was d~y adopted. LONG EAF PART III CRAMER, VOORHIS &"ASSOCIATES ENVlRON M E N TAr! AND,,iPLA~NING CONSULTANTS '~'~.~_~ 'w/I~ ,,~',\ Pnge ! LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, II AND III Project: William F. Gasser and the American Armonred Foundation, Inc. (Change of Zone) Love Lane Mattituck, New York Prepared For: Prepared By: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town IIall, 53095 Main Road P.CL Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, Ne~v York 11764 Date: September 16, 1992 ~- D'~'~\ &~'~SSOCIATE S CRAMER, VOORHIS E NVI R O N M E N TAI~M~',,ID,. ~L.~ NI~IG CONSULTANTS ~ "~,'lll \~\~\ LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART Ill EVALUATION OF TIlE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS PROJECT William Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. (Change of Zone) Mattituck, New York LOCATION The site of the subject application is located on Love Lane, on the north side of the Long Island Railroad, in Mattituck New York. APPLICANT Mr. William Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 DATE September 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION · ..The. .pr. oposed project .and the environmental character of the project site is described in Oetafl w~th~n the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evahmtes the project impacts and their magnitude. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, in order to form the basis for the-adoption of a determination oF significance. The LEAF Part 111 is prepared if orn. e or more impacts are cons t ered as being potentially large, as identified in the LEAF Part Il In the case of the proposed project, anticipated impacts are considered small to moderate: however, in order to provk e the Town Board of the Town of Sonthold with additional reformation pertinent to this proiect for the consideration in making a determination of significance, th~s Part III narrative has been completed for several small to moderate imp. acts, identified in the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part Il. This Part Ill addresses m detail the environmeatal and planning issues which are relevant to the subject application. CRAMER, VOORHIS &';/ASSOCIATES ,,w.O.M,Nr^ a co,suer^ms Page 2 IVilliam Gasser Change of Zone Long Environmental Assessment Form ENVIRONMENTAl, iMPACTS Impact on Growth and Character of Commnnlty * The proposed action will confiict with officially adopted planx or goals. * Theproposed action willset an importantprecedentfor.fittureprojects. The proposed action involves a request for. a change of zoning from the Town Board of the Town of Southold for the continued operation of the American Armoured Museum, Inc. Although the action is a request for a change.of, zoning and must be ~:onsidered in the context of use allowed by the requested zoning, ~t is ~mportant to understand the present use and history of the site with regard to evaluation of impacts. The project involves a split-zoned parcel of 0.797 acres. 'The northern part o.f the site with frontage on C.R. 48 cnmprises approximately 9,000 square feet of land and ~s zoned Residential Office. The remainder of the site (23,109 square feet) has frontage on Love Lane, is adjacent the Long Island Railroad tracks (LIRR) and is zoned Light Industrial. There is a 54 by 120 foot corrugated metal building and an 8 x 8 foot tower, tanks and gravel parking, located on the Light Industrial zoned portion of the site. , The present zoning of the site requires m n mum lot areas of 40000s uare feet f the ti' Light Industrial and 40 000 square feet for the "RO" Re~sident al Or'ce zonim,. C4-he "R-O" Residential Office District is intended to protect the land values of residential c, --- property on Main Road and allow non-residential uses within its confines as envisioned in the .Town of So.ut.hold Master Plan Update Background Studies. The "LI" Lieht Indu~trinl zoning is intended to provide ,a,n opportunity for business and industrial uses~)n sm~l~"l-~ts than those ~ppropriate under LIO Light Industrial Park/P armed office park". It is noted that the LI distr ct also prohibits the museum use of the site. The requested. . . zonin~,¥ "ItB" ltamlet Business.., requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet w~th mlntmum side yards of 25 feet. This zoning district would allow for museums and libraries as permitted uses within the district, and snch uses are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. With regard to existing use and zoning, it is noted that the site has been operating in violation of the cnrrent zoning classification, and tli-e owner was notified of this sttuation in ~9e88' .by t.he Ordi.nance Inspec!or. At that time the site was zoned "A" sident?l/Agrmultural anti 'C" Industrial. The present "LI" zonin,g, of !lie south part of the site prohibits the museum; nowe~er, this use is permitted under the RO' Residential Office district if approved by a Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Therefore, the site is operating without approval as a museum and the tower exceeds the 18 foot maximum height for an accessory structure. Review of the zoning map and held investigation of the a,,rea 'i2dicates that the requested zoning will cause an intrusion nrc a residential area ( RO' Residential Office district) to the west and east of the northern portion of the site. In addition, review of the Master Plan Background Studies for the I tamlet study -Mattituck; finds that the "LI" portion of the site is shown to be I lamlet Business and the present "RO" part of the site is proposed CRAMER, VOORHIS 8~'¢~'~SOCIATES E N VI R O N M E N TAL~t~'~D,,~ 'L~,~JN G CONSULTANTS '~ v/~// ,;:\\ Page 3 ~ fiham Gasser Change o1' Zone Long Environmental Assessment Form to remain Residential Office. The change of zone for the "LI" Light Industrial part of the site to "HB" Hamlet Business is not expected to have a sisnificant impact upon the community. The change of industrial zoning to hamlet bnsiness ~s recog, nized as a natural extension of the existing Love Lane Bnsiness area. The change of zone will allow for the continuation of the museum in an area where it was previously proilibited and as a result would not compromise the zoning integrity of tile community. If the overall parcel were rezoned to "HB", the business district would intrude into the "RO" zone. The "RO' zone adjacent the site contains residential dwellings, in conformance with zoning, therefore, the location of business uses in this .area would cause potential land use conflict. If a full change of zone for the subject parcel ~s granted, the goals of "RO" Residential Office zoning designation of the subject site would not be realized. Thus, the Hamlet Business zoning in the "RO" Residential Office portion of the site is out of character with adjacent land use and is expected to cause an impact on the immediately surrounding community, as well as the area. The action, if approved, wonld set a precedent for other future actions, thereby n,n, dermining the integrity of the zoning patterns in this section of the Town. This precedent may promote the expansion of the Love Lane Business District from County Road 48 to Sonnd Avenue. This possible expansion would not conform to the intention of the "RO' zoning or the Master Plan for providing a transition area between the business and Iow-density residential and limited nonresidential development along major roads. It is also noted that if the change of zone is granted the museum would still not conform comp ere y with zoning. Tile Hamlet Business zomng states that "all uses permitted in the 'HB' tlamlet Business district, including the display and sale of merchandise and the storage of all property, except IMn,,g plants, shrubs and trees, shall be confined to ful!y enclosed building on the premises, thus the outdoor storag, e of the tanks would not be permitted under the reqnested zoning. If tile zone change ~s granted, tile use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. CONCLUSION The Long EAF Part II, is intended to consider the impact, then determine available mitigation as well as the importance of the impact,_based upon certain criteria. Specific impacts considered above involve issues of Impact on the Community.. This discussion results in the conclusion that the impact is related to planning and zoning issues. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topography is flat, there is no significant vegetation, wetlands or wildlife habitat on site. Likewl-se, the proposed zoning would not generat, e a significant inflnx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aes?mtic or,visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. Therefore, issues reduce to land nsc and zoning, and local commnnity impacts as well as precedent. Issnes regarding zoning are complex, involving change to community character, divergences from land use pans and precec e it setting nature of an action. Based upon the , ~,~\ CRAMER, VOORHIS &'.~SOCIATES E NVlRONM ENTA~A~ID; p~NI~IG CONSULTANTS Page 4 William Gasser Change o[ Zone Long Environmental Assessment Form discussion included in the appropriate section above, there is a recognized small intrusion into a residential area as well as some recognized precedent set as a re.su!t, of..this a.ction. The duration of this impact is considered permanent for the pun3ose ot thts o~scusslon;~ however, it s noted that the action could be reversed through future zoning changes. The impact can be controlled through site plan review utilizing setba.cks,..bufferln~: and ,o. ther. land use control techniques with regard to the development on the site as wen as aolacem sites. Further control can be applied to reduce the precedent by. ,mak!.ng th, is z.,onin~g petition a unique case based upon all of the facts and other specific consmerauons ny me Jown Board. The impact is considered to be local as opposed to regional. This Long EAF is intended to provide the Town Board with sufficient information to determine the environmental significance o[ this action, and provide a basis for decision on the project. Given the relatively small scope of issues, and the available information concerning impacts, the project does not warrant the prel~aration of an Environmental Impact Statement. The consideration of a change of zoning is a legislative decision of the Town Board. It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for this action based on the information contained herein. Subsequently, the Town Board may consider the petition, site condition, environmental review, testimony, and other matters of record, and render a decision on the proposed action. It is recommended that the decision contain reasouable measures to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined herein. CRAMER, VOORHIS &',,ASSOC ATES ENViRONMENTA~D~/(~,~,~IG..~ , CONSULTANTS Page CRAMER, VOORHIS & ,ASSOCIATES ENV RONMENTA~-AI~D J~,I.~INI[,IG CONSULTANTS September 18, 1992 Ms. Judith T. 'Ferry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Change of Zone, Mattimck Dear Judy: We have completed review of the above noted change of zone petition. In order to condnct this review, we have field inspected the snbject site, reviewed and corrected the Long EAF Part I and prepared a Long EAF Parts !! and III. W.? hav. e also .consul!ed , information submitted in connection w th the application, as wen as the zomng coae ano Master Plan Update. Attached, please find the completed Long EAF Part I, 11 and III, as well as a SEQR Determination of Significance. As always, these documents are submitted in Draft form for the Boards review and consideration. It is suggested that the Board review these documents, and if there are further considerations we would be pleased to amend documents or consult with the Board as necessary. In review of the documents you will find that we are recommending a Negative Declaration for this action, due to the fact that issues primarily involve local zoning considerations. The site is not considered to be environmentally sensitive. SEQR does require consideration of land use and zonin~ issues, as well as community impacts, therefore, we have included a section discussing these issues. In summary, we feel that the "lIB" district is su~,ted to the LI port on of the s~te; however, the change of the R.O part of the s~te to "lIB would intrude into a residential area in a manner which could ~mpact the community. In addition, this change wonld not be consistent with recommendations ()f the Master Plan Update, and would set a precedent for further action. The impact of the zone change could be minimized th[ough site phm review as req?red under Chapter 100-9lA. as well as restrictive covenants or bnffers on the north part o(the site. One additional interesting factor noted as a result of our review, is that the reqnested "lIB" zoning prohibits outdoor storage and restricts height to 18 feet, there[ore, additional modifications ¢)f the cnrrent use may be necessary to provide conformance. We thank yon for the opportunity to review this petition, and would appreciate any hmher comments yon may have. Please call if yon have any qnestions. 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 -' \ ' American Rmlkonkoma. N.Y. 11779 Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mattituck, NY October 10, 1994 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Appl. Nos 4260-62 (Variances) Dear Board of Appeals; As per your request of letter dated 9-22-94, please find enclosed the Long Environmental Assessment form that you wished us to fill out, along with a copy of the Long Environment form that was submitted on 5-11-92, the review and findings by Cramer, Voorhis & Associates on 9-16-92 and the SEQRA Negative Declaration that we received from the Town Board of the Town of Southold dated 10-6-92. Also enclosed is two addendums per your request. Addendum 1 explains the manner in which we are disposing, storing and controlling all liquid substances from the vehicles. Addendum 2 addresses the concerns of board members concerning odors. The Museum feels and the enclosed SEQRA Negative Declaration from the Town of Southold verifies that the Museum is an environmentally clean operation. If your board needs further information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you Very trul~ yours~ William F. G~sser, '-~-' Director Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum ~ 5th Av~tue Rmll~nl(oma, N.Y. 11779 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mattituck, NY Board of Appeals Town of Southold Addendum 1 Re: Appl. Nos. 4260-62 (variances) The following is a list of chemicals that the museum uses in quantity: Kerosene: 2-3 gallons at a time. Used to remove grease from parts. Stored in a New York State Fire Code safe dipping tank. Waste Kerosene is removed and disposed of at an EPA recycle center. Dipping tank is located inside museum workshop. Motor, Transmission & gear oil: Minimal amount stored (5 to 10 quarts in all at any given time) Larger quantities purchases when needed. Waste oil removed and disposed of at an EPA recycle center. Gasoline and/or Diesel fuel: Larger quantities purchased when needed. Approx 50 gallons or less stored inside at any given time, which is well below New York State Fire Code restrictions of indoor container storage of 660 gallons. These substances are stored in 5 gallon metal cans (military jerry cans) that are labeled and these cans are stored in accordance with New York State Fire Code regulations. Ail vehicles that are incapable of movement are required by us to have all gas and oil removed. As stated before these substances are disposed of at an EPA approved recycle center. Vehicles that are capable of movement, at present approx. 10 vehicles are completely operable, are fueled before start up and are run until fuel is consumed, as stale fuel is detrimental to these vehicles. Of the approx. 10 vehicles that run there is a total of approximately 100 gallons of gas in them at any given time. The museum has in place a weekly maintenance mechanic that is in charge of checking every vehicle for cleanliness in regards to this very subject. If any leaks are detected, they would first be contained and prevented from entering Tank end Ordnance War Memorial Museum the ground. Any accidental spills would be cleaned up immediately. Then a mechanical check would be made to see why there is a problem and work would commence to fix what ever is wrong gaskets, oil fittings and the like would be replaced. If there was a major problem with the possibility of a large spillage, the vehicle would be drained of that substance until repairs could be made. The Museum has been in operation for 13 years now and to date has not had any problems regarding this matter. We feel that our maintenance check plan is working and the museum is proud to be an environmentally clean operation as previous assessments and reviews have shown. We intend to do the utmost to continue to be a clean operation not only for our pride but also for the pride of the community and environment in which we live. A.A.F. ~ 5th A~nue Rmlkon~oma, N.Y. 11779 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mettituck, NY Board of Appeals Town of Southold Addendum 2 Re: Appl. Nos. 4260-62 (Variances) As stated in the letter attached, the Museum has previously received a review from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates and the Southold Town Board concerning the environmental assessment of the property and operations of the property in question. The Museum poses no adverse effects to the environment or community including, but not limited to, pollution, noise, traffic, water quality or odors. Of the 33 vehicles that are presently on site only 10 of these vehicles are operable. Of the ten that are operable only three are used on a somewhat regular basis, approx twice or three times a month. These three vehicles are used to move the inoperable vehicles and displays around the yard, they are also used to unload from a tractor trailer a new donation or piece of equipment for display from the army. Also these vehicles are used to help in the restoration of large pieces of equipment. These vehicles are operated only when necessary and at the most for 1 hour on a Saturday or Sunday only and at times are not run for periods of a month or so. The other seven vehicles are only used in exhibition during a tour, which takes place approximately twice a month for a period of less than 20 minutes. Or they are run so that the mechanical aspects of the vheicles can be worked on. Of the 13 years that the Museum has been in operation we have received no complaints from visitors or neighbors concerning an odor problem. Also there are no other activities at the site which generate any odors whatsoever. As an environmentally clean operation the museum does not produce any more or any less odors than any other operation located in a HB district in the Town of Southold including but not limited to a restaurant, a take out or deli, an auto and t.ire service area, a lawn & tree company, a machine rental establishments, a garden supply or a laundromat. Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum PART 1--PROJECT iNFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and pub{ic review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality anc~ NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ADDRESS ¢ NAME OF OWNER (If different) ADDRESS STATE ZIP CODE EUSINESS T~LFPHONE ) STATE ZiP CODE Please Complete Each questlon--lndicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physica setting of (~verall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: r'3, Urban [-Ilndustrial J;~Commercial E]Residential (suburban) : I~,Forest I-1Agriculture ,~Other 2. Total acreage of project area: r-l, Rural (non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION -- % Oi s,te APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY Meadow or Brushland (Nor,-agricultural) acres Forested acres A~ricultural (;ncludes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) acres Water Surface Area acres Unvegetated (Ro~k, earth or fill) ~ [ ~ acres Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces acres ~ Other (Indicate type) acres 3 What is predominant soil type(s)on project site?. ~""~LI' ~. ~ 3(~f, '-~ ~.,~,,' ~ ~-~4~, _ a Soil drainage: '~ell drained ~ % of ~Ji'e/ [~Moderately well drained [~Poorly drained % oi~ site b. If any agricultural land is involved, i~ow many acres of soil are classified w thin soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Class i~ic.ation System~ /I,/.//! acres· (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? , I'~Yes ~o a. What is depth to bedrock? __ /~-/(;~* ~{in feet) 2 L 5. Approximate percentage of proposed proiect site with slopes: /~-10% C~ % ~-I10-15% % [-115% ot greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to. or'contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Piaces~ ~Yes ~o 7. Is project substantially conti~uous to a site Hsted on the Register of National Natural Landmarks~ ~Yes ~o 8. What is the depth of the water table~ ~ -~' (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or so~e source aquifer? ~Yes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishin~ or shell fishin~ opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~Yes ~o 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or =nimal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ~Yes ~No According to ,~- Q~ ~i~l~ cnUCs% Identify each species ~ ~ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the proiect site~ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~Yes ~o Describe ' I ' ~O-~c~c,-~,~c ~ ~,~ ~ ~ 1~ Is the project site presently used by the community/or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? OYes t~No If yes. explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I-lYes ~/,No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ~4///~[ /~/~'~ ~-~ a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas with, in/?r contiguous to project area: a. Name ,/Z//~ b. Size {in acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~es (-1No ~'D4 ~' nrd . a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~es ~]No k~ ~-- C o · b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? .I-lYes ' 18. Is the site located in an agriculturai~istrict certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 2S-AA. Section 303 and 304? [~Yes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes 20. Has the site e,~er been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? C~Yes B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor~/ b. Project acreage to be developed: ,4//~ ja~cres initially; /~///,/~ acres ultimately c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped~ ./'~,~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ,~/,/.~ (If appropriate) e. If the proiect is an expansion, indicate percent ofj~xpansion proposed ~ %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ~;; ; proposed g Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour/t~'~;'~j (upon completion of proiect)? / ' ~C~fS h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Fam~y Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Ultimately ~_~_~,~ i. Dimensions (in f~et) of largest proposed structure /t'//~ height; width; length. j Linear feet cf frontage along a public thoroughfare prolect will occupy is? ~(7 ft. 't~ ~(,/~'~ 2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? (~ tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be rec a med? [-~, Yes [:]No ~"N/A 5[~'~ a. If yes. for what intend . purpose is the site being recla reed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [:]Yes [:]No ,,///~ c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [:]Yes [:]No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? ._~¥' 4 '~c:~' acres 5. Will any mature/forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this proiectZ E]Yes 'l~i~No 6. If single phase proiect: Anticipated period of construction /~///~ months, (including demolition) 7'. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated /?,/'/./~ (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I ~ month ~ c. Approximate completion date of final phase //~?~ month year, (including demolition). year. d. Is phase I functionally deoendent on subsequent phases? -- · [:]Yes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ~]Yes ,'~o 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ~; after project is complete 10. Number of iobseliminated bythis pro,ect 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ~]Yes ~o If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal nvolved; FqYes ~tNo a. If yes. indicate Wpe of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount . ~ b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ~'F/,,~ 13. Is subsurface liquid w~ste disposal involved? ~es E]No Type . C(~ ~. ~, 19 oOl 14. Will surface a~ an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I-lYes Explain 1S. Is p~oiect or any portion of proiect located in a 100 year flood p ain? E:]Yes ~,Io 16. Will the project generate so d waste? [:]Yes [~o a. If yes. what is the amount per month /k"/~4 tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? l-lYes ~!o c. If yes. give name d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary andfill? e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of so id waste; [qYes ~,~No a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposa[~ tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will proiect use he[bicides or pest cides~ ~]Yes ,[~o 19. Will proiect routinely produc~ odprs [.more than ~ne~hour p~r day)? F-lyes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise evels? [~Yes 2~. Will prolect result in an increase in energy use? (~es [~No 23. Total anticipated w?er usage per day gallons/day. ~ 24 Does project involve Local. St, ate or Federal lundin§? ,,~3Yes If Yes, explain' t~O DI[,q~:,..~&r~ -T~.~Ks ~ u.~,'ll¢~.j ~.~. 4 l--lYes ~o 25. Approvals Requi.'ed: City, Town, Village Board /~,Yes City, Town, Village Planning Beard .~Yes ~No City, Town Zoning Board //~Yes I-INo City, County Health Department ,/~Yes [~]No Other Local Agencies [~]Yes )No Other Regional Agencies [Yes I-1No State Agencies [~]Yes Federal Aeencies I~Yes I-INo C. Zoning and Planning Information Type 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? .~es [~]No ~. If Yes, indicate decision required: [-Izoning amendment /~oning variance I-Ispeciat use permit [qsubdivision .[~ite plan I-Inew/revision of master plan [~resource management Dian ~lother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ]LJCLvr~ ~¢~1~ ~o~ ,-~/e S. S 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Submittal Date / 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5 What ~s th.e m~aximum potential development of the site if developed a,s permitted by the proposed zoning? ~o~ flrl,'d~ ~-x .S,,~ ~,',',, /~..-~ /~,,,~/~ d~,~e~d;~,~,¢$ ~' -~1~ -~,,~.t~,~,~ z~:,.'..,i 6 Is the proposed action consisten~ with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~es i-;No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? ~Yes ~No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how/many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I--lyes 11 Will the proposed adrien crea~te/la demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police. fire protection)? ~,Yes .,~o a. If yes, is existing capacity surf cient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No .12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present evels;' [~]Yes a.'lf yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~ye~/~//~__~No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to c)arify your project If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and th.e_ measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them E. Verification I certify that the in{ormatlon provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Apphcant/Spon~s~r Na _r~e/.. ~(2 ///~4' n~ .~ ~,~ ~/'/C~ ~/~' ~'~ ~,,~ ~. ~,~ Date /~" L~ ~ I[ the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Fo~m beiore proceeding with this assessment.~ ~ 5 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 NOTICE FOR POSTING Subject: Pending Variance Applications - William F. Gasser or the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Location of Property: E/s Love Lane and S/s CR 48, Mattituck. Zone District: Hamlet Business (HB) Attached is a Notice of Declaration under SEQRA as per Resolution adopted at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals held on November 2, 1994. The Public Comment period is subject to the periods established in Part 617 of NYCRR and subject to the rules and regulations of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Based upon this Negative Declaration as an U:nlisted Action, SEQRA is now completed, and applicant shall be required to mitigate, as noted below, as well as any other requirements in the processing of the variance applications. For further information please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, or tel. 516-765-1809. Thank you. (Continued on next page) APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, .Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Per Action taken November 2, 1994 by the Southold Town Board of Appeals Re: Pending Applications of WILLIAM GASSER Location of Property: Love Lane, Mattituck Appeals No. 4262, 4261 and 4260 SEQRA determination pertaining to property of WILLIAM GASSER at the S/s of C.R. 48 and the E/s of Love Lane, Mattituck, pertaining to pending applications under Appeals 4262, 4261 and 4260. The Board Members confirmed their recent inspections at the site and indicated that all their concerns were answered through the applicant's communications. It was noted, however, that mitigation measures were necessary to be taken, and agreed to a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures incorporated therein. On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to declare LEAD AGENCY status, and declare a NEGATIVE DECLARATION with the following mitigation measures incorporated therein, subject to the normal public comment period established under the SE(~RA rules: 1. Drainage pans and oil absorption blankets shall be placed under all vehicles such as under the transmission and engine areas, including active and well as inactive vehicles. 2. The owner is responsible for daily checks of the vehicles and taking all measures necessary to prevent oil drippings, and maintain good condition of the vehicles. AYES: Messrs. Doyen, Goehringer, Dinizio and Wilton. (Member Villa was absent. ) This resolution was duly adopted. JL~DITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Roud P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone ~516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Dctcrmlnation of Non-Significance Dctcrmlnation of Significance Lead Agency: Address: Date: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 October 6, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Description: SCTM Number: Locntion: William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc Mattituck, New York Type I Action The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a proposed change of zone of 0.737 acres from Light Industrial "LI" and Residential Office "RO" to Hamlet Business "HB". District 1000 - Section 140 - Block 02 -Lot 16 The site is located on the east side of Love Lane, north of the Long Island Railroad with frontage on C.R. 48, Mattituck, New York.' Page I or 2 Gasser Change of Zone SEQR Determination Reasons Supporting This Determination: This detei'mination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: 1) 2) 4) 5) The project has been evaluated through a Lon$ EAF Part III which discusses in detail environmental and planning aspects of the project. . . . The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sens~t~wty in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the-following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topography is flat, there is no significant vegetation, wetlands or wildlife habitat on site. 3) The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared tO present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. Land use and zoning issues are a local as opposed to a regional consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board if the zoning is changed to "HB" in accordance with Chapter 100-9lA. of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516) 765-1801 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board 'Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Daniel C. Ross, Esq. Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 2 of 2 LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, II AND III Profecl: William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, lnc. (Change of Zone) Love Lane Matfituck, New York Prepared For: Prepared By: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Date: September 16, 1992 CRAMER. VOORHIS, 8;.;~'~SOCIATES E NV I R O N U E NTAI','~AN_D,~IG CONSULTANTS LONG EAF PART III CRAMER, VOO'RHIS ~';~5OCIATES E NV~ RO N M F N T.~.~A~_ ~. ~, IN G CONSULTANTS · '~.-~ W/ll ,~\\ Page i LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART llI EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE _OF IMPACTS PROJECT William Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. (Change of Zone) Mattituck, New York LOCATION The site of the subject application is located on Love Lane, on the north side of the Long Island Railroad, in Mattituck New York. APPLICANT Mr. William Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc. 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 DATE September 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION The proposed project and the environmental character of the project site is described in detail within the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude. This section of the LEAF is intended tO provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, in order to form the basis for the adoption ora determination of significance. The LEAF Part I11 is prepared if one or more impacts are considered as being potentially large, as identified in the LEAF Part II. In the case of the proposed project, anticipated impacts are considered small to moderate, however, in order to provide the Town Board of the Town of Southold with additional information pertinent to this project for the consideration in making a determination of significance, th~s Part III narrative has been completed for several small to moderate impacts, identified in the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part Il. This Part Ill addresses in detail the environmental and planning issues which are relevant to the subject application. ~¢ASSOCIATES ENVlRON M ENTAi~ A~D;,~'~[NG CONSULTANTS Page 2 William Gasser Change of Zone Long Environmental A~sessmen! Form ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact on Growth and Character of Community * The proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. * Theproposed action willset an intponantprecedentforfittureprojects. The proposed action involves a request for a change of zoning from the Town Board of the Town of Southold for the continued operation of the American Armoured Museum, Inc. Although the action is a request for a change.of zoning and must be considered in the context of use allowed by the requested zoning, it ts important to understand the present use and history of the site with regard to evaluation of impacts. The project involves a split-zoned parcel of 0.797 acres. The northern part of the site with frontage on C.R. 48 comprises approximately 9,000 square feet of land and is zoned Residential Office. The remainder of the site (23,109 square feet) has frontage on Love . Lane, is adjacent the Long Island Railroad tracks (LIRR) and is zoned Light Industrial. There is a 54 by 120 foot corrugated metal building and an 8 x 8 foot tower, tanks and gravel parking, located on the Light Industrial zoned portion of the site. The present zoning of the site requires minimum tot areas of 40,000 square feet for the "LI" Light Industrial and 40,000 square feet for the "RO" Residential Office zoning. The "R-O" Residential Office District is intended to protect the land values of residential property on Main Road and allow non-residential uses within its confines as envisioned in the Town of Southold Master Plan Update Background Studies. The "LI" Eight Industrial zoning is intended to provide ,a,n opportunity for business and industrial uses on smaller lots than those ,,a, ppropriate under LIO Light industrial Park/Planned office park". It is noted that the "LI district also prohibits the museum use of the site. The requested zoning, "HB" Hamlet Business, requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet with minimum side yards of 25 feet. This zoning district would allow for museums and libraries as permitted uses within the district, and such uses are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. .' With regard to existing use and zoning, it is noted that the site has been operating in v o at on of the current zoning c assification, and the owner was notified of this si'tuat'on 'n 1988 by the Ordinance Inspector. At that time the site was zoned "A' Residential/Agricultural and "C" Industrial. The present "LI" zoning oflhe south part of the site prohibits the museum; however, this use is permitted under the "RO' Residential Office district if approved by a Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Therefore, the site is operating without approval as a museum and the tower exceeds the 18 foot maximum height for an accessory structdre. Review of the zoning map and field investigation of the area indicates that the requested zomng w~ cause an intrusion into a residential area ( RO Res denual Off ce district) to the west and east of the northern portion of the site. In addition, review of the Master Plan Background Studies for the Hamlet study -Mattituck, finds that the "LI" portion of the site is shown to be Hamlet Business and the present"RO" part of the site is proposed Page 3 William Gasser Change or Zone Long Environmental Assessment Form to remain Residential Office. The change of zone for the "LI" Light Industrial part of the site to "HB" Hamlet .Bu,sines. s,is no.t expected to have a significant impact upon the community. The change of moustrm! zoning to hamlet business ts recognized as a natural extension of the existing Love Lane Business area. The change of zone will allow for the continuation of the museum in an area where it was previously prohibited and as a result would not compromise the zoning integrity of the community. If the overall parcel were rezoned to "HB", the business district would intrude into the "RO" zone. The 'RO" zone adjacent the site contains residential dwellings in conformance with zoning, therefore, the location of business uses in this area would cause potential land use conflict. Ifa full change of zone for the subject parcel is granted, the goals of"RO" Residential Office zoning designation of the subject site would not be realized. Thus, the Hamlet Business zoning in the "RO" Residential Office portion of the site is out of character with adjacent land use and is expected to cause an impact on the immediately surrounding community, as well as the area. The action, if approved, would set a precedent for other future actions, thereby nndermining the integrity of the zoning patterns in this section of the Town. This precedent may promote the expansion of the Love Lane Business District from County Road 48 to Sound Avenue. This possible expansion would not conform to the intention of the "RO" zoning or the Master Plan for providing a transition area between the business and Iow-density residential and limited nonresidential development along major roads. It is also noted that if the change of zone is granted the museum wo,,uld st I not .conform completely with zoning. The Hamlet Business zoning states that alt uses permitted m the 'HB' Hamlet Business district, including the display and sale of merchandise and the storage of all property, except living plants, shrubs and trees, shall be confined to fully enclosed building on the premises", thus the outdoor storage of the tanks would not be permitted under the requested zoning. If the zone change is granted, the use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. CONCLUSION The Long EAF Part II, is intended to consider the impact, then determine available mitigation as well as the importance of the impact, based upon certain criteria. Specific impacts considered above involve issues of Impact on the Community. This discussion results in the conclusion that the impact is related to planning and zoning issues. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons: soils are conduc ye to eaching toposraphy is flat, ther. e is no significant vegetatmn wetlands or w Id fe habitat on site. Likewise, the proposed zomng would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. Therefore, issues reduce to land use and zoning, and local community impacts as well as precedent. Issues regarding zoning are complex, involving change to community character, divergences from land use plans and precedent setting nature of an action. Based upon the CRAMER, VOORHIS,. 8~;~SSOCIATES ENVIRON M ENTAL~..A~D, I:'~ING CONSULTANTS Page 4 William Gasser Change of Zone Long Environmental Assessment Form discussion included in the appropriate section above there is a recognized small intrUsion into a residential area as wellas some recognized precedent set as a result of this action. The duration of this impact is considered permanent for the purpose of this discussion; however, it is noted that the action could be reversed through future zoriin$ changeS. The impact can be controlled through site plan review utilizing setbacks, buffering, and Other land use control techniques with regard to the development on the site as well as adjacent sites. Further control can be applied to reduce the precedent by making this zoning petition a unique case based upon all of the facts and other specific considerations by th~: Town Board. The impact is considered to be local as opposed to regional. This Long EAF is intended to provide the Town Board with sufficient information to determine the environmental significance of this action, and provide a basis for decision on the project. Given the relatively small scope of issues, and the available information concerning impacts, the project does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The consideration of a change of zoning is a legislative decision of the Town Board. It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for this action based on the information contained herein. Snbsequently, the Town Board may consider the petition, site condition, environmental review, testimony, and other matters of record, and render a decision on lhe proposed action. It is recommended that the decision contain reasonable measures to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined herein. CRAMER, VOORHIS ~?;ASSOCIATES E NVI RO N M E NTAL."%AND:,~.,~ ~[~IG CONSULTANTS Page 5 William Gasser Change or Zone Long Environmental Assessment Form LONG EAF PART I Appendix A ,State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM t ma . be techn,ca Iv e~pett m env,to~enlal Iy. there are aspects eta. - ~tm~l knowledge o' the en~,'onmtn~ °~t b~ awae el the 5reader concerns allect,ng ~, n,f,cance ma~ have I,ttle ~ ~o '~-~led*e m one patt~cuIa~ area m*y ~ the quesUon pi s;gnd,cance The full LA[ ~s ,ntended to prey,de a method whereby applicants and agenoes can be assured p~ocesshasbeen°rdedy'c°m0tehens~e'nnalu~e vetHex'blet°all°w'ntt°ducu°n°l'ni°tmat~°nt°[itapt°iect°r action tull tat Componenls: ~helull [AF ,s compt,sed pi three parts. P~tt 1: pto~ides oblect~ve data and miotmaUon about a given protect and ~ts ~te B~ ,denUiy,n[ bas< p~Olcc' be considered small to moderate et ~hethet P~tl 2; focuses on ,den[~ism~thetan~e o~ posgbie impaCtS that ~mpaCt ~s hkeiv to - la[[e ~mpaCt The io~m al~o ,dentif,es'*hethet an impact can be m~t~sated or reduced Part ]: It any ~mpact,n Part 2 ~s~dent~i~ed as potentlally-iarse-~hen Pa[t 3~sused [oe~aluatewhe[he[ D[T[RMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-TYpe 1 and Unlisted Action~p Identify Upon rev,ew of the ,ntormabon recorded on th~s EAF [Parts 1 and 2 and 3 d apPrODr~a:eL and 3ny other sup~or~m~ mIormatlon, and considermE both the ma~,tude and ~mportance of eaCh ~mpaCt. it ,s ~easonablv determined by the wh,ch ~ill not lead a~encv ~ ha~e a s~nd~cant ~mpaCt on the environment, thereiore n ne~nli~e ~ecln~lion ~ill be prepared- e~fect tot th~ Unhsted ~cDon because the m~t~at~on measures described m thereiore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' on the en~,ronment. [hereiore ~ positive declaration will be ptepn~ed. · & Cond,[,oned Ne~au~e Oeo[afar,on ,s only valid (or Unbated ~cuons WILLIAM F. GASSER AND THE AMERICAN ARMOURED FOUNDATION, iNC. CHANGE OF ZONE-LI and RO to HB Town Board of the Town of Southold Name pi Lead qgenC¥ ~ ~*n,ce~ m Lead ^§encv Print or T',pe Name el Kesp l,tle ot Responsible Od<er p~epared by proiecl Sponso¢ · w("~ ICE Th,s document :s de..~gned :o assF~t ~r, deterrmnm~ v, hethe~' the action Of ~one - L~ and ~0 ~o ~ American A~ou~ed Foundation, ~nc. and W~am F Gasse~ Chan~e Love Lane, Mattituc~ ~~SCTM~/16~ ~us~ss~-o,~ NA~ O~ ApPLICANT~ (~ American Armoured Foundation inc. Love Lane CITY;PO Hattituck, 238,3 Fifth Avenue ~ NY t 11952 516' ~43- 66___00 NY _1 ~1779 Ronkonkoma . - .- ~'-~ Office to Hamlet -~ TON rial and Kesloen~ld~ cmp~.o, oF~C - 'i ht Indust / 6 .OES,. ' ..... ~-n-e the zone Trom L g . · .... +ituck (SCTM 1000/140/2.1 ). ~, 'Application Lo ~no 3 ~ **~rtV at Love Lane in r~oL~ . ~ q,, 'J Cur~c,n'~,~,, ~Business with respect ~o Pr~vI ~.~ ~v')~ ~C~ ~'~ o~ ~. rL~ Please Complete E,ich Question-Indicale N.A. ii not appllc;~ble A. Site Description prole< both de..eJoped and undeveloped areas _ . 1 P~esent land use :Forest :AgrmCulture ~Other ~:~ 2 Total acreaSe ot prolect area 3~109 S~ ~s . 7~ 70C}~ 6' AFTER COMPLETIO: - PRESENTLY /V/~ acre ~ppROXIMATE ACRE ACE ~'/~ acres bn~e~etated ~Rock. earth o, t,ll~ .~'' BI~ 7~0 ~t¢~x Roads. bu~Jdm~s and other pa~ed suflaces acres Other(tnd,ca'e t"pe'-- ~~ a Sod drnmage ~eil dra,nt'd 10~ % oi s,te :Moderalelv well drained ~ - ' . :PoorI~ dra,ned / Land Cla~s,,,cat,on %s~'m~ ~e~ acres ~5,'e 1 ~CRR 3701' ~'~'~ ~/ 2 -. I Unknown ~-~i_, 8~hat ,s th,..J~'~ .)t :he ~.ater tableL~'~ /0 hn teeO 11 Ooes P~olect s~te contain any speoes at plant o~ an,~l Ide Ihat ~s *denJffied as ~hrealened or endanBered~ unusual land torres on ~he proleC~ s~le? (~ e. cliffs. ~s. o~Ke~ geological iormat~onsJ ~Yes ~No gescr,ge , · ~ ~..' 15'Streams w,thm or conDguous tO prolect a~ea ~J~OJ]~. a Name oi Stream and name al Rr, er to whrch ,t ~s u*butar¥ ~es '~NO ti yes. explain -',es 16 lakes ponds...,,etJand areas v, tthm of con:~§uOus lo prolec: area None a .Name N/A b S,ze (in acres} - 17 Is the s,te ser. ed bv ex,st,n~ pubhc util,ues~ EYes ~No Electric .,~X.(.~c~,~ b) Ii )es. ~JJl ~mpro~emenls be necessar~ to allow (onnecbonl ~Yes ~NO 18 I~ the *~Je Iaea:ed ~n an ~tl(,jJluraJ dl~u,(~ certified pur~uan~ to ABr~cuhure and ~arkets Law. Article Section 30~ and ~04/ ~es ~o 1~ Is lhe ~le located m of subslanDaJJ~ con~uous Io a C[iIJ(2J Environmental A~ea designated pursuan[ at the ECL and o NYCRR 617) ~Yes 20 Has the ~te e~er been used ior the disposal oi sohd or hazardous wastes~ ~Yes ]~o Upon info.arian and belief B. Proiect Description a Total cont,~.~ous acreage o,.,,ned or con;rolled by prolec', sponsor 3_22,10.9 sq~ft.~ ~ '7.~ '7 ~L~ Cc~ . b Pro!ec~ ~cre~ge :o be de~eloped ][/A ac~es,n,:Jall~ _~ _ acres ul ~malel~ c P~olect acreage Jo ~emam undexelo~ed ~ N~A _ acres NO physical change anLicipa~ed d .length of prolect, in mdes N/A . [ t appropnale) e I~ the prolect ~s an expan~,on, mdmcJte percent al expansion proposed ~ N/A %. § ',.la',,~mum ',eh,cular trips generated per hour j,~nima] h It res,dent,al Number and /;pc oi hou~,ng umtS N/A One Farad', 1',',o Faro,Iv Intt~alI~ L:h,m atel', t'J/A · proposed ~. ' Jupon completion oi pfolec~)1 '/- '~ ~'~/~/ '.tuhlpJe Fam,)', Condom~mum a It yes. for ,,,,hat intended ~uq~ose ~s the ~te bemi recla~med~ b '~,'dl toosod he slo¢~.Oded to~ reclamat~on~ _-Yes .. c Wdl u~Oer subsod be s~ockDded'tor ,eclamauon~ :Yes --Yes ~No 6 If smile phase prolect: Anhcipaled period pi consUuct~on N/A months. [includ,ng demolihon) 7 If multi-phased: N/A a Total number of phases ant,opated {number). b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c .Approximate completion date o[ [mai phase month d Is phase 1 iunctionalls, dependent on subsequent phases'~ ~-Yes 8 ~,', ,11 blashng occur dunng construction,' =Yes -No 9 \umber of lobs generated during consl~uc(,on N/A . 10 ~.umber pi lobs eliminated by Ih~s prolec! 11 V;',II p~olect require ~eJocahon pt any prolects or fatalities,' year. [includin8 demolihoni [~Yes ~_No If yes. explain 12 Is suriace hquid waste disposal invol~,ed~ .'_-'Yes a Ii '.,es. ~nd*cate type pi v, aste (se~..aae. industrial etc) and amount b Name pi w~ter body ,nto ~,bch e/fluent will be discharged 1]. Is subsurtace hqu,d waste d,sposal ,nvol,.ed' /'~Yes ~No Type~ 14 Wdl surface area of an e~stmg water body ,ncrease or dec~ease by proposal? --Yes [ xplaln :+ .?,ti ~ t 1 ~ Is P~olect o[ any portion pi p~olect [DCa:ed ,n a 100 yea~ flood platoI 16 ~,%'Jll Ihe prOleCt gene,ate sohd waslel -x~.Yes ~No a Ii yes. what is the amount pe~ month tons b Ii ~es. w,ll an ex~st,ng sohd ~as:e d Wdl any wastes not go 1nip a sewage d~soosaJ system or miD a san,la~ landfill? ~Yes 1: ~ ,11 the prolect revolve ~he d,sposal a If yes. what ~s ~he anbopa~ed rate of d~sposal~ tons month 18 ~¥,11 prolect use herbmc~des or pe~hc,des 19 ~sill prolect routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes ~o 20 ~'dl prolect produce o~erat,n~ nmse e~ceedm8 the local ambient no,se lesels~ ~Yes ~No 21 Wdl PrOleCl result ,n an ,ncrea~e Ii ~es . md,ca~e ~vpe(s) ~__,Yes ~?o Unknown ~No 22 If ~.,ater suppl', ~s from ~ells ;nd~cale pumpm8 capaoI¥ gallons, minute J~.:.Dg-' ~),'c;..$, P~-~ - 23 rolal ant,c,paled ~aler usage pe, da', gallonslda¥ Minimal ~.9.j '/~,1.4 x... .~m~?/~. 24 Does OroleCt ,n,.olve Local Slate or federal /undin8; X~Yes ~No Federal: De~t. of Defense donations are regularly made of tanks and ii ~es. e~ola,n .............'~'£tilTe~-F6F'-tl~-~'H'6§'~i-- ' C..p; 'To~n '~,11~;., R .,' (],tv i'o~n Vdlate Pl~nn,nK Board C,Iv County H~ahh Dep~r~men~ O~her local Other Re~,onal ~enc,e~ State AEenoes Federal A~enc,es _-Yes _~No _--Yes ___Yes L~NO ~.'x es Yes Suffolk County Planning Commission X C. Zoning and Planning Information '1 Site Plan Approval Does proposed action revolve a plannang or zomng deos~on~ ~_Yes ~".o I! Yes. ,ndicale decks,on required X'--zomng amendment ~"'zon,ng variance ~spec~al use ~erm,t -subd~ws~on ~new rev~s,on o~ master plan ~rescurce management plan ~olher plan ~'hat ,s the zonmg class,f,cahon(slo~ the sae' l.i~.hr Tndusr~-~l/P~:~Jz_?~ nFF¢.~ ~vhit .s the max,mumpolen~,al ~*elopm(nl o/ the s,te ,i de~eloped as perm,ued by the p~esem ~ucn uses as are permzccea, pe~mz~a Dy specLaz exceptzon and accessory uses aIiowed by Arc,cie XII, Section [O0-]~0.L$~hc In~us~al D[s~[~Cc o~ thp ~n. rhnlfl Wha~ ,s the prooosed zoning of the s;tel flaker Business (N ~) (~xhibic A) What .s the ma~mum ootent~al development pi the sae d de~eloped as permit:ed by the oroposed Such uses as are permitted, permi~d by special exception and accessory uses allowed by Article IX Section 100-90 Ha~r R,,~-~ n~ ~f ~ c~ ~ ~- Is the proposed act,on cons.stent w~th the recommended uses ,n adopted local land use plans ~es ~o~ what a ~ the predom~nanl l~nd usesl and zon,n~ classmcal~ons *,thru a '.. nde tad,us of proposed achon) Ha~et BusLness. Res~denCLai O[E~ce. L~ghc Induscr~ai 8 Is the proposed acbon compabble w~lh adlo,mn§surroundtn§ .and uses w~thm a ', m,le.~ .X~Yes 9 It lhe p~opo;.ed achon is the subd,'.~s,on o~ land. how many loll are proposed~ N/A a kVhat ~5 the mm,mum [pi s~ze proposed~ N/A pohce ---Yes ~",o _-'~o D. Inlormational Delails AHach any add,t;onal ,nlormabon as ma',' be needed lo cla¢;r', '.'our prolec( h there are or may be an,,. adverse ,mpacts assooated ,...,th ',our propo>al, p;ease d,scuss such ,mpacb and Ihe measures wh.'h You propose to m,h§ate or avoid them E. Verification ' cerhi'~ ,hat the ,nro,mahon pr.~-~, ed abo~:¢ ,s tru~....,o the bes, ,)., m'v kn.ov..ledse. ~/~C<' Il Ihe Icl;on is in lhe Co~s ~ Arvn, and you ~re ~ slale ~gencx, ¢omplcle Ibc Coastal &ssessmenl [ora beJore proceeding ~lh Ibis nssessmenl. William Gasser Change of Zfmc Long Envlronmenta! Assessment Form LONG EAF PART II CRAMER, VOORHIS ~."'~SSOClATES E N VI RO N M E NTA ..L.~D;,~'L~I~iN G CONSULTANTS Pad 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE · · ~j Responsibitil¥ of Lead Agency ,General Infoemation (Read Care~l~¥) · In completing the term the tewe'.,,er should be gu,ded bs the quesl~on Ha~e my ~esponses and de:c'¢mmal~ons · Identifying that an impact wlJJ be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that d is also necessardv Any large ~mpact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine s,gmficance Identifying an ~mpact m column 2 s~mpJ'. asks that ~t be looked at turther · [he J~lampJe$ prowded are to assist the fewer, er by ShOwing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold o' magnitude that would trig§et a response m column 2 The examples are generally applicable throughout the State for a Potential Large Impact response. Ihus requiring evaluation in Part ] · The impacts of each prelect, on each $~te. m each locality, will vary Therefore. the examples are IlJustratr~e have been offered as guidance. They do not consbtute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question · In identif;in§ ~mpacts. consider long term. short term and cumlatJve effects Inslructions (Read carefully) a Ansv. er each of the 19 questions in PART 2 Answer Yes d'lhere will be any ~mpact b Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers c If ans',,.'etmg Yes to a que'.tion then check the appropr,ate box (column 1 o,' 2) to indicate the potential s,ze of impact· If ,mpact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided check column2 If~mpacI','.dloccurbu[ ~s Iov',er than example, check column 1 d If re,,'~e,.~et has doubl aboul s~ze of the m~pact then consider the impact as polentlally large and proceed to PARt e If a potentially large ~mpact checked in column 2 can be m,t~gated by change{s) in the prelect to a small [o moderat(- impact, also check the Yes bo~ in column 3 A No response indicates that such a reduction ~s not poss*ble. Th, must be explained m Part 3 IMPACT ON LAND 1 2 3 Smaltto Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change :: - -yes Z = Z~es Z~o Z Z Z~es Z~o Will the proposed acuon result ~n a physical change to t~e project site? ~NO m--Y[S [~amples thai would appJs' to column 2 · Any construCbo~n on slopes o[ 15% or grealer. (15 foot r~se per 10% 3 fee~ · Con~u~ct~o~ of 9aved park,n8 ate~ ior 1.~ or more vehicles · ~ons[ruct~on on ~and where bedrock ~s exposed or generally lon~ oi natural ma~e,aJDe ~o~k o~ sod) ~er year · Construction or expansion oi a sanltarv · Cons~rucbon m a desk,ha:ed floodwa~ ~'HI there be an eifect Io any umque or unusual land forms found on the sde;' (ie . chffs, dunes geolog,cal formations, etc ),~NO ----YES · Specific land forms 6 IMPACT ON WATER Wd[ proposed action affect any water bod'/designated as protected~ (Under Articles 1S. 24. 25 pi the Environmental Conse~abon Law. ECL) CYES E~amples that would apply to column 2 · C)e,.,elopable area pi site contains a protected water body · Oredg~ng more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream · [xtens,on of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body · Construction m a designated freshwater or t,dal wetland · Other ~mpacts 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected existin.~ or new body of water? ENO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a tO acre increase or decrease · Construction pi a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area · .Other impacts 3 Wdl Proposed Acbon atfect surface or groundwater quality or quantity~ ~NO ~YES E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permd · Proposed Action requ,res use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (prolect) achon · Proposed Action requires water supply trom wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capaoty · Construction or operation causing any conlammal~on of a water supply system · Proposed Action wdl adversely affect groundwater · bquid effluent wdl be conve'~ed oil the s,te to faolmes which presently do not ex~st or have inadequate capaoty · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.00G gallons per day · Proposed Action v.,ll likely cause siltauon or olher discharge into an ex~stmg body of v, ater to the extent that there wdl be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions · Proposed Action wd[ require the storage of petroleum or chem,cal products greater than 1.100 gallons · Proposed Act,on wdl allow residential u-es ~n areas ~,~lhout water andor ~ewer serwces · Proposed Act,on locates commeroa[ and or ~ndustual uses which may require new or expansion Of existing v, aste treatmenl and/or storage facdmes · Other ,mpacts 6 Wdl proposed achon aher drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoif) ~NO ~"" Y [ S E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood ..*ater flows 7 ~ 2 3 Sm,, Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes _ o __ -- ~Yes · Proposed Action wdi allow development in a designated floodway IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed act,on affect a~r quality/ ~----)(NO CY[5 Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will reduce 'i.000 or more vehicle trips ~n any given hour. · Proposed Action will result m the incineratton oi more than 1 ton DJ refuse per hour · [mission rate oi total contaminants will exceed $ lbs per hour or a heal source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour · 'Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount oi [and committed to industrm[ use · Proposed acDon wdl allo~ an increase m the densit'~ or industrial development w~thm ex~stmg ~ndustrial areas · Other impacts IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endan,,gered ~NO species? [,~amples that ~,ould apply to column ') · Reduction o{ one or more species listed on the New York or Federal · Other,' impacts 9 will Propo'~ed Act,on substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered spec~es~ Y'~_NO ~YES Etamples lhat would apply to column ? · Proposed Action ~,ould substant:ally interfere w~th any res,dent or m~tatorv h~h. shelli~sh or wddhle species · Proposed Ac~on reqmre5 ~he removal of more than 10 acres of mature loreM (over 1~ ~ear~ of abe) or o[her locally ~mportan~ vesetat,on IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOUROES 10 WdI the Propose~ Act,on affect aSncuhural land resources;' ~NO [~amples lhal would apply Io column ] · The proposed act,on would sever, cross o~ lim~l access ~o a~ricuhural land [in(ludes cropland, hayfields paslure, vineyard, orchard, elc) Small to Potential Gan Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change m ~ -yes ~ ~j ~¥es ~No m '-'Yes :--1 G ~ C~'es ~ ~ ~Ves ~ ~ Cves ZNo ~ ~Ves ~o ~ ~Yes m ~'es ~o I · Construchon activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located rn an Agricultural District. more than 2S acres of agricultural land · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agncultural land management systems (e g. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches. strip croppmg), or create a need for such measures (e g cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? tX'NO ~YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617 21. Appendix B } Examples that would apply to column 2 "Proposed land uses. or project componenls obviously d,iferent from or m sharp comrast to current surrounding ];md use patterns. ',*,hether man-made or natural · Proposed land uses. or prolect components wsible to users of aesthetrc resources which wdl eliminate or signihcantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Prolect components that will result in the elimination or s~gnificant screening of scemc wews known to be important [o the area · Other ~mpac:s IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Wdl Proposed Action ~mpact any s~te or structure of historic, pre- h~storic or paleontological ~mportance~ ~NO E~amples that would apoJy to column 2 · Prooosed ACtlOC~ occurring wholly or parttallv within or substantially conti~,uous to any facility or s~te listed on the State or NaDonaJ Register of historic places · Any impact to an archaeolo§~cal s;te or fossil bed totaled w,thm the PrOleCt s~te · Proposed Acbon ','.dl occur ,n an area des,gnaled as sensdi'.e for archaeological sdes on the .N'YS %re In;enlory · Other ~mpac:s IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 v,,'dl Proposed Aclion affect the quanhts or quality of ex~s',mg or iuture open spaces or recreahonal opportunmes~ Examples that ~.ould apply to column 2 ~hO ZYES · The permanent [6reclosure of a future recreational opportun,ty · A major reductron oi an open space important to the commun,ty · Other impacts S to Potential Can impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] ~ ~-' Yes []NO ~ ~ ~Yes ~No O C ~Yes ~No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14 Will there be an eftect to~JJtmg transportation sy$.,~ems~' ~NO [[amples that would apply to column ? · Alterat,on oi present patterns of movement oi people and/or goods · Proposed Action will result ,n malor traffic problems. · Other ~mpacts 'IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 V','dl proposed achon affect the commumt¥'s sources of fuel or energy supplv~ ~NO eYES [~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed .Action will cause a greater than 5% increase m the use of an; form of energy m the municipality · Proposed Action will requ,re the creation or exlension of an energy transmission or supply syslem to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commeroal or industrial use · Other impacts NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 W,II there be objectionable odors, no,se, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action.~ ~NO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting w,th~n 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sens~uve facility · Odors wdl occur routinely (more than one hour per day] · Proposed Action will produce operating nmse exceeding the local ambient noise levels for no~se outside oi structures. · Proposed AcUon will remove nalural barriers that would act as a no,se screen · Other ~mpacts IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 W,II Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ,, ~NO EYES E'~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i e od. pestlc~des, chemlcals, radlahon, etc)~ntheevento( accident or upset condihons, or the~e ma', be a chrome Iow level d~scharge or emission · Proposed Action may result in the burial oi "hazardous wastes" in any iorm fie toxmc, pomsonous, h~ghl¥ reach,.e, radioactive, irritating. mfecUous, etc ) · Storage faclhhes I'or one mdJion or more gallons at liquified natural gas or olher flammable liquids · Proposed act,on may result ,n the exca~at,on or other disturbance v~,thm 2.000 ieet of a s~te used for the d,sposal of solid or hazardous waste · Other impacts 1 ~j~dael I to ~'ate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact '3 Can I;'npact 'B- Mitigated By Project Change --Yes ~No ~,sc ~Yes i~Nc ,__Yes yes ~,Yes --Yes ~Yes _--'~es 10 ' . I;dPACT ON GR, AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 1~8 Will proposed action alfectthe character of the ex~st~ng commumty~ __.NO /,,~Y E S Examples that would apply :o column 2 · The permanent populahon of the cH:¥. town or village ,n which the prolect is located ~s likely to grow by more than 5% · The mun,cipat budget tor capital expend~tu;es or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result o[ this proleet · Proposed action will conihct ~.,th oificialiy adopted plans or goals · Proposed action will cause a change ,n the density pi land use. · Proposed Action will replace or ehminate existing facdities, struclures or areas of historic importance to the commumty · Development wd[ create a demand Jot addHional communiW services (eg schools, police and fire. elc ) · Proposed Action will set an ~mporlant precedent for future prolects · Proposed Action wdl creale or eliminate employment · Other impacls _ ~ 2 3 to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated E Impact Impact Project Chan ~ ~ ~Yes ~', ~ I-~ ~r~" yes ~r~:, ~ ~ --Yes _-~ ~ ~ ~Ves ~N ~ ~Yes m ~ ~Ves ~N 19 Is ~here. or ,s there likely [o be. public con:,oversv related Io polent~al adverse environmental ~rnpacts~ ~NO ~-Y[S If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Pad 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibilil¥ ot Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared il one or mo~'e impact(s) is considered Io be potentially large, e',,en ii Ihe impact(s) may b. mitigated. Instructions Discuss/the following for each ,mpact ~dent;hed m Column 2 of Part 2 Briefl'~; describe the ~mpact 2 Describe(if applicable) how the ~mpact could be m,hgated or reduced to a small to moderate ~mpact by project changcffs Based on the mJormahon a~adabie, dec~de if d ,s reasonable to conclude :hat ~h,s ~mpact ~s impo~'lant. ]'o answer the question of ,mporlance consider · The probabdiIy of Ihe ,mpact OCCUrr,ng · The durahon of lhe ~mpact · Its ~rrevers~blht¥. including permanenlJ.,, lost resources o~ value · Whether the ,mpact can or '~d[ be controlled · ]'he regional consequence of the ~mpact · Its potenha[ divergence from local needs and ~oals · Whether kno'...n eblechons to the pro)ecl relate to [h~s m~pact (Conlmue on attachmentsJ 11 MARIE ONGIONI CARMELA L BORRELU ONGIONI & BORRELLI 288 PANTIGOROAD EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 TEL(516)324-8282 FAX(516)324-8283 October 25, 1994 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Variance Applications American Armoured Foundation Dear Mr. Goehringer: On July 22, 1994 the Enforcement Officer, Mr. Gary Fish, after literally years of our complaints, finally issued a Notice of Disapproval to the above party thus requiring the applicant to appear before your Board for several (3) variances. The requisite applications were filed on August 1, 1994 together with a short environmental assessment form. By letter dated September 22, 1994 you have requested the applicant to supply a Long Environmental Assessment form and to address specific questions with regard to potential hazardous waste spills among other things. As you know, this applicant filed an application for a variance earlier this year which we vigorously opposed on substantive grounds and in addition opposed the segmentation of the requested for relief We claimed, and our contentions were ultimately confirmed, that this applicant had other violations at the site and should not be allowed to proceed with only one application for a variance. In fact, a review of my records indicates that on July 25, 1994 1 wrote to Mr. Fish advising that on the day he issued the notice of disapproval new equipment was moved into the site and a camera was installed on the already illegally high fence. As you can see from the above, and what a review of the multiple Town files regarding this sight will confirm, this applicant has functioned since 1981 illegally. In fact in February, 1992, Mr. Gasser filed an application with your Board based on a Notice of Disapproval issued four (4) months earlier but never renewed the application after it was returned to him as incomplete. 1 am sure that it is as obvious to you as it is to me, that this applicant stalls, delays, obfuscates and otherwise does nothing to remedy violations of the law until mandated to proceed by some authoritative person or tribunal. It is now three (3) months since the most recent Notice of Disapproval, two (2) months since the application was filed and two (2) weeks since your last request for more information but the latest note in your file indicates that the applicant is not as yet ready to submit the Long Environmental Assessment Form because of the hospitalization ora family member. While I am sympathetic to Mrs. Gasser's problems, I am more sympathetic to my clients who have endured this illegal operation for many years without relief from the Town of Southold. By copy of this letter to the Town Attorney and Enforcement Officer, 1 request that the applicant be issued a summons for the violations which can be adjudicated in the Town Court. The usual adjudication of such matters is a guilty plea with imposition of fines with a conditional discharge if the defendant proceeds before the appropriate board in lieu of ongoing fine assessments. It is in my belief that the only way to insure that this applicant proceeds with this matter is to force the applicant to proceed. Very truly yours, ONGIONI & BORRELLI ns/clb Carmela L. Borrelli CC: Laurie Dowd, Esq. Southold Town Attorney Town Board Mr. Gary Fish, Enforcement Officer PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Ma~ S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P, O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 16, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. William F. 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Gasser RE: Proposed Site Plan for American Armored Foundation N/Ec LIRR Right of Way & Love Lane, Zoning Hamlet Business (HB) SCTM# 1000-140-2-16 Mattituck Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gasser: The Planning,Board has received your revised site plan dated April 21, 1994. The following changes/additions must be made before the Board can proceed with its review: Zoning District lines must be indicated. Fence with barbed wire exceeds six foot height limitation in front yard. Electrical conduit on top of metal chain link fence requires approvals. Tower height must be indicated. Accessory structures are limited to eighteen feet in height and located in a rear yard. Accessory Tower must be five feet from all property lines. Parking calculations must be shown in addition to note on plan that municipal parking is available. A five foot landscaped area abutting the front of the building. A fifteen foot (15') vegetative buffer is required.between the Hamlet Density and Residential Office zones. Town Code 100-93 indicates that all display and storage must be confined to fully enclosed buildings on the premises. In addition to the above, Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval must be obtained before any possible final approval. If you plan to use the entrance on Route 48, Suffolk County Department of Transportation permit must be obtained. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. ~ Kassner Site Plan Reviewer CC: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge Carmella L. Borrelli, Ongioni & Borrelli (_)NGIE)NI & B()RRIEI II Gary Fi r:!~ Buildinq rnspector Town of !;~mthold P.O. Bo~: I I79 Southold, NY 11971 RE: ZB_A_ V_a r_i_a ~1c_ ? S~C'i'M ~ 1000 140_72_716 Dear My lile on Lhe abo',;e matter refle,:ir; ,hat on Hay 16, 1994 Bob Kassner ,oquesLed additional data f~om *h~ ':a~ser~ and additionally advised ~hem where certaJ I1 structures were rer~uired to be under the code. Hy last conversation with you indi,'ated you were aware of several ,~io]ations at thJ. s site, had spoke, ~o Bob Kassner and that the appl ir'ant would be given a reasonab]~ t im,, within which to take I ,,,.mid appreciate your adu.ising l-be ,;, al us of this matter and what, i , .an},, progress has been had in I,. inqinq this site into compli, a,-'o with the code. V,-ry truly yours, f~!~':I()NI & BORRELI, I /l' // By: ( Carmela f,. Borrel]i CLB:ar cc:Rob~,~I G. Ge~a,d P. Kassner, Planning Depart~len~ GoehrJnger, Zoning Board r~ppea 1 s APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main .Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 September 22, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. William F. Gasser 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Re: Appl. Nos. 4260-62 (Variances) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gasser: This will confirm that Board Members have visited your site and have classified the variance request for outside display of vehicles to be within the "Unlisted Action" category under the New York State Environmenta! Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Please complete in full, sign, and return the enclosed Long Environmental Assessment form (questionnaire) and include therein a description of the manner in which oil, oil drippings, gasoline leaks, and other fluid clischarge from the vehicles while being displayed out-of-doors will be received in the ground, and handled, and the location and type of dispensers containing flammable materials (oil, gasoline, etc) for operation of the vehicles. Also, Board Members are concerned about the possible creation of odors which may disturb nearby properties or visitors at the site and have asked that this be addressed in the Environmental Assessment as a written addendum. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CIIAIRMAN Enclosure MARIE ONGIONI CARMELA L. BORRELLI ONGIONI & BORRELLI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 403 FRONT STREET , P.O.BOX 562 GREENPORT, NEWYORK 1 1944-0562 TEL. (516)477-2048 · FAX(516)477-8919 288 PANTIGO ROAD EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 TEL (516) 324-8282 FAX (516) 324-8283 August 8, 1994 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197] Re: Variance Applications - Three American Amoured Foundation SCTM #100(I-140-1-16 Dear Mr. Goehringer: My clients, Frank and Diane Ammirati, received the required notices with regard to the above applications from the American Amoured Foundation in response to which I attended at your office to review the file. The notice of disapproval issued by Building Inspector Gary Fish on July 12, 1994 noted three violations of the Southold Town zoning code which required remedial action by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Gasser, owner of the American Amoured Foundation has filed three separate requests for variances although he paid for same with one check. It appears from acursory review of the application and thc manner in which each has been set up,that your Board will be treating these applications as three separate and distinct requests for a variance. If you will recall, when this same applicant filed a request for a variance earlier this year (#4227) with regard to signs on the fence to the property, I strenuously objected to consideration of that request when other violations existed on the property. The applicant's attempt to segment this matter continues at this time by the filing of three separate requests for variances which have been assigned three separate numbers by your Board. According to the text books on this subject "segmentation is universally criticized..Y1. Segmentation is frowned upon because it can distort the review process requiring judicial invalidation for correction. The concept of segmentation has arisen in the SEQRA review process where an application splits a project into two or more smaller projects each falling below a threshold that requires action and thus evades a full and complete review of the project. It is our contention that this applicant for thc past 13-14 years has been evading full review of an illegal use by asking for relief on an intermittent and scgmentated basis. We strenuously object to the handling of Mr. Gasser's applications as three separate and distinct requests for a variance. I refer you to PointI of my memorandum dated March 30, 1994 submitted in opposition to applicant's request for a variance regarding signs. It was our position that an application for a variance for one violation could not be granted when multiple violations existed. Despite our objections, Mr. Gasser's request was hcardat that time and ultimately granted. The multiple violations of this site have existed for literally years and only now some 13-14 years after commencement of illegal activities has this applicant been forced to appear before your Board seeking three variances. As I stated previously, "by piece meal application, delayed over years, this applicant has flagrantly violated the code and more importantly has done so with impunity".2 I respectfully request that thc three applications filed by Mr. Gasser be treated as one application with three requests for relief. Thank you for your attention to this matter and consideration of my request. Very truly yours, ONGIONI & BORRELLI Carmela L. Borrelli 1.Environmental Impact Review in New York, Sec. 5.02[1]. 2.Memorandum of Diane and Frank Ammirati In Opposition to the Applicant for a Variance, March 30, 1994, Ongioni & Borrelli, Point I. Town of Southold Building Department Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attention: Mr. Gary Fish Dear Mr. Fish, Please find enclosed a copy of the Southold Town Planning Boards May 16th determination of changes that they feel necessary in completing our site plan approval. Also enclosed is the the following items are necessary. building application that should cover that determinations by your department 1. Fence with barbed wire exceeds 6 foot height limitation in front yard. 2. Electrical conduit on top of metal chain link fence requires approvals. 3. Accessory Tower must be five feet from all property lines. 4. Town code 100-93 indicates that all display and storage must be confined to fully enclosed buildings on the premises. Please find application and all necessary paperwork that I feel is necessary to make a determination on the above. If further in[ormation or paperwork is necessary, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You. ~ / S~,~ere ly, ~ /r/Karen A. GaSser, Director / Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum 0 ..,,:, I':, , O. FEILER ° ARCHITEC' 600 O1n Jul¢~ L~r~ · Mr~ltitu(:k, NY 11952 · (516) 296-525 L~w and t~ C~e of the Town of ~M, ~at t~ following ~blic ~o~ 119~1, on lh~ Application~ f~ Vafia~os ~- D~d: Jmm~Y.l?, 1~9~. cHAmMAN. BOARD OF A~AL~ STATE OF NE~]~'ORK) ) SS'. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ~of Matlituck, in said County, beinl~ duly sworn, aay~ that he/~he is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Malfltuck, In the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed Is a printed copy, has been regularly publi~ed in said Newspaper once each week for t/~ weeks ~ day commez~c)~g on the , of Pubfle, ~Me M New YIl~ PHnd]~l Clerk No. 5004884 Qualified in Suffotk County Notary Public Sworn to before me this NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, purspant to Section Map Parcel ID No. 1000-112- 1-Lot 4 and part 0f3, said lot as ·amended, containing 128,045.sq. ff. of land area, sub- ject to afinal resolution for Iqt- 267 of the Town Law and ~he line approval and subdivision CodeoftheTownofSouthold, ~ bytheSoutholdTownPlanning that the following public hear- 'Board. ings will be held by the ~ ' 3~ 7:,~5 I~.m. Appl. N'o. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD 4296- CHARLES TYL'ER, J R. OF APPEALS at the Southold Request for a Variance under/`] TownHall, 53095 Main Road, i Article Ill, Section 100- Southold, New York 1.1971, on 31C(8), based upon the Build- WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY: lng Inspector's December 2, 1. 1995. commencing at the t' 19~4 Noticb of Disapproval for times specified below:, approval ofaccessory building 1. 7:30 p.m. Appl. 'No. (chicken coop) with fence en- 4294- ~. Closure located in the rear yard ~.F~. Request t'or area with a setback at less than a Variance under Article the required 40 feet from all XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, . property lines. Location of based upon a Notice of Disap- proval issued by the Building Inspector updated January 4, 1995, for permission to con- struct proposed addition at the rear of existing dwelling which is to be located within 75 feet of the existing bulkhead and with a proposed lot coverage of approximately 27 percent for all building construction. Loca- tion of Property: 330 Snug Har- bor Road, Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point Section III, Sub- division Lot No. 57, containing a nonconforming lot area of 1,739 sq. t~. County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-35-5-31. The dwelling as exists received a building permit prior to the enactment of the 75-ff. bulk- head-setback requirement. 2. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4295- MICHAEL RACZ AND GAIL DESSIMOZ. Request for Variance under Article III, Section 100-32, based upon the Building Inspector's January 10, 1995 Notice of Disapproval for permission to locate pro- posed accessory building (pool house a/k/a bath house) in an area other than the required rear yard or front yard as a water- front parcel. Location of Prop- erty: 4255 Private Road No. 10 (a/k/a Hallock's Lane), Mattituck, NY; County Tax Property: 1455 Pike Street, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140- 241. 4. 7:50 p.m. Continued Hearing on the Applications for Variances requested by WIL- LIAM F. GASSER concerning his property known and re- ferred to as the American/" Armoured Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side ' of County Route 48, Mattitack, NY located in the Hamlet- Business Zone, District. (Carryover from I/4/95). The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representa- tives 4esiring to be heard in the,/. ~ above ma~ters. Written com- ments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before the times designated above. If you wish' to review any of the above files or would like to request more information, please do not Eesi- tate to call 765-1809 or visit our/ t& office. Dated: January 18,1996 BY ORDER OF TttE SOUTItOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHR1NGER, CHAIRMAN OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Tim Kelly, being duly sworn, says that he is Ihe Editor, of the TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suf- folk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Traveler-Watchman once each week for ............................................... ~... .................... weeks successively, commencing on the ..~.. .............. Sworn to before me this .......~...../.. ........... day of 9..?.).- 1 Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York ilo. 4~0~.~,46 Qualified in Suffolk Coun.ty _ C0mmi~zion Expires g'J3~/cll,. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ~, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, that the following public hear- ings will be held by the Southold Town Board of heals at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY. IANUARY 4. 1995. commencing at the times specified below: 1. 7:30 p.m. AppL No. 4288- JAGK AND CHRIS G1SMONDI. Request for a Variance under A~cle.IIl, Sec- tion 100-30Ar1) for approval of swimming pool, above ground as built, in a yard a~a other than the required rear yard, at premises known a~ 565~' Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; CounW Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-6-14. (Setback from property lines, when located in yard, ~hall be determined by the Board of Appeals.) 2.7:35 p.m. Appl. No 4289- WILLIAM AND VERA SMITH. Request for a Vari- ance under Article IliA, Sec- tion 100-30A.3 based upon the October 28, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for permis- sion (o constract addition to existing building which will have an insufficient front yard setback. Location of Property: 980 Bayview Avenue, Mattiluck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000,106-10- 17. 3.7:40 p.m. Appl. No 4290- WAREX TERMINALS CORP. Request for a Variance under Article X, Section 100- 10lC, tee 100-33, fqr pennis- pumps th an area other than the rear yard. Location of Property: 9945 Main Road, Matfituck,. NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-142-1-27. 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 428% NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUMS. (Cmryover from December 7, 1994). Request to install swim- ming pool at 52325 C.R. 48. Southold, NY; 1000-135.I-I- 43. COUNTY ()F SUFFOLK ~,IATF ()1 NFWY()I,~K ss: Thn' Kelly, being duly sworn, says that he is Ihv Editor, of tine FRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suf- folk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said T~aveler-Watchman once each week for successive[y, commencing on the ....~......~ day of ........... ~.~t':~TzC .................. 19....~..~. .................... ....................... Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER ~OTARY PUBIIC, State of New YorA No, 4806846 5. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 4286- JOEL AND MARGA- RET LAUBER (COREY CREEK VINEYARDS). (Carryover from December 7, 1994). Request for Special Ex- ception to establish winery Use for thc sale of wibe produced from grapes grown on the ex- posed Winery is Io be located. Location of Proparty: Consist- ing of a minimum of ten (10) acres of land referred to as 45470 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Mao No. 1000-75-6-9.7 and 9.6. 6. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4293- EDWARD J. MUNSON. Request for a Vari- mace under A~icle ILIA, Sec- tion 100-30A.3 based upon the December 7, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permis- sion to construct addition to dwelling which will have ma in- sufficient sideyard setback at less lhan the required 15 feet, and total side yards at less than thc required 25 feet. Location of Property: 1545 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Pa?cci No. 1000-70-3-5. Containing 10,400 sq. fi. of land area. 7. 8:05 p.m. Appl, No. 4292- JAY AND, MARY THOMSON. Request For a Variance under Article ILIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the November 30, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building thspector for permis- sion to construct addition to existing dwelling which will exceed the m~ximum lot cov- erage limitations. Location ~f Property: 695 Bayshore Road, Greenport, NYi County Tax . Map Parcel No. 1000-53-~- 14. JAMES M. AND ELAINE O'KEEFE. Request for a Spe- cial Exception under Article [HA, Section 100-30B to estab- an accessory incidental to the applicant's single-family resi- dence and ownership of dwell- ing located at 54300 C.R. 48, Southo[d, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52~3-1. Zone District: R-40 Low-Den- siiy Residential. 9-1 I. 8:15 p.m. Application for Variances requested by reining his properW known and referred to as the American Armored Tank Museum, 640 Love Lan6and the south side of County Route 48, Matfituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140~2~16 located in the Hamlet Business Zone Dis- trict, which requesB are noted as follows: 9: Appl. No, 4260- Request for Variance under Ankle IX, Section I00-9 lC(!) besedupon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for the structure which is required to be located in a rear yard with a setback as per.S~c~ion 100- 33B(2) at five feet. from thc property llne:~ : ~'' I 0. Apph No. 4261 - Request for Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-231A based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the height of the fence which ex- cess the required height limi- teflon; I 1. Appl No~ 4262- Request for Variance under Article IX, Section 100-93 based upon the ,Jul~ 12, 1994 NoQc~ of Disap- proval for the Outside storage or display which is not permit- ted in this Hamlet-Business Zone District. The Board of Appeals will at said rime and place hear any and ali persons or rep~santa. tives desiring to be heard in the prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each h~aring will not stert befor~ tho times designated above, ffyou wish to r~view any of the a~ove files or would like to request more information, pleare do aot hesi- tate ta call 765-1809 or visit our office. Dated: D*c~mber 16,1994~ BY ORDBR OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD p. GOEHR1NGER, CHAIR- MAN By: Linda Kowalski 1X- 12/22/94 ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) in said CouMy, [~lng duly sworn, says thai he/she b Prlndpal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Mal~tuck, In the Town of Southold, County o~ Suffolk and State of New York, and that the NoUce of which the annexed is a p[4nled copy, has been regularly publl~q~ed in said Newspaper once each week for/ weeks Notary Public dayof I"--.~.~/~L/LI~-- ~/ I APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 December 20, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. William F. Gasser 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Re: Appeal No. 4260 - Variances Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gasser: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice published by our office in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times newspapers, which shows that the hearing is being held on Wednesday, January 4, 1995 at the Southold Town Hall at the time noted therein. Also, you will find enclosed a Poster Notice which must be placed either on a stake and located in the front yard (road side) of your property, or placed on the front of your dwelling or other front yard structure where it can be easily seen by the traveling public from the road. The poster must be conspicuously located a_~t this time since the Board Members are planning to visit your a~ea within the next several days. Please complete the attached Confirmation of Posting, sign, and return it to our office for our update and permanent file. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski, Clerk Board of Appeals Enclosures BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ................................... X In the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM F. GASSER CONFIRMATION OF POSTING I, , residing at and, being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the day of December, 1994, I personally posted the property known as "640 Love Lane and C.R. 48, Mattituck, NY" by placing the Town's official poster notice on facing the read side of the property, and that the poster has remained in place at least seven days prior to the date of the first public hearing. Dated: December , 1994. ( signature ) Page 6 - Legal Notic~ Southold Town Board of Appeals Public Hearings for January 4, 1995 Mailing List for Legal Notice Hearings for January 4, 1995 Copies of the Legal Notice furnished to the following 12/20/94: Mr. Edward J. Munson, 1545 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold Mr. and Mrs. William F. Gasser, 2383 Fifth Ave, Ronkonkoma 11779 Ongioni & Borelli, 218 Front St., Greenport 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Jay Thomson, 695 Bayshoro Road, Greenport 11944 Mr. and Mrs. James M. O~Keefe, 54300 CR 48, Southold 11971 Mr. and Mrs. William A. Smith, 980 Bayview Ave, Mattituek 11952 Paul Caminiti, Esq., Main Rd, Southold 11971 (Re: NF Beach Condos) Mr. Louis DeRonde, 16 Victoria Dr, Amityville 11701 (Re: Warex Terminations Corp. ) Mr. and Mrs. Jack Gismondi, 5655 Indian Neck lane, Peconic 11958 Mr. and Mrs. Joel Lauber, Box 921, Southold, NY 11971, Re: Corey Creek Vineyards Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Fristachi, 6 Adrienne Court, Farmingdale, NY 11735 (Opp. Re: Lauber) Posted on Town Clerk Bulletin Board on 12[20/94 Copies to Board Member Boxes together with copies of files 12/20 Copy to Town Clerk for distribution to TB on 12/20/94 Copies to official newspaper(s) on 12/19/94 by fax transmission Copy to Building Department on 12/20 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Aug. 2, 1994 S,E.Q.R.A. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 4260 Project/Applicants: Wllllam Gasser/American Armoured Foundation County Tax Map No. 1000- 140-2-16 Location of Project: 640 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Accessory tower does not conform to the rear and side yard setback requirements This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted; however, Section 617.13 of 6 NYCRR Part 616, and Section 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law, this variance application falls under the Type II classification as established by law. Further, this Department may not be an involved agency under SEQRA {Section 617.13(a) as amended February 14, 1990}. Although this action is classified as Type II for this variance application under SEQRA {specifically 617.13, 616.3(j), and 617.2(jj)}, this determination shall have no affect upon any other agency's interest or SEQRA determination as an involved agency. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. Original posted on Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Hall Copies to applicant or his agent and individual board members. Copy placed in ZBA project file for record purposes. mc JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Judith T. Terry, $outhold Town Clerk DATED: August 2, 199[[ RE: Zoning Appeal No. Lt260 - William F. Gasser Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. q260 of WILLIAM F. GASSER (American Armoured Foundations) for a variance. Also included is: Notice to Adjacent Property Owners; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department, dated July 22, 199u~, and copy of application; Short Environmental Assessment Form; ZBA Questionnaire; letter from Karen Gasser to Gary Fish, Southold Town Building Department with plans attached. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF $OUTHOI.D In the Matter or the Petition of American Armoured Foundation to the Board of Appeals nf the Tnwn nf 5outhnld TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER SEE BEVERSE FOR ADDRESSES AND ATTACHED FOR PROOF OF MAILING YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: I. T~ intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a~ (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] ). 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: SCTM ~ 100/140/2/16 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: HAHLET BUSINESS 4 That b~, such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: from rear and side yard setbacks ~o~ $. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signedare Article IX Section 100-91 C (1) [ ] Section Z80-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over ri§ht(s)-of-way: 6. That within five days [rom the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. American Armoured .Foundation Petitioner Wm. Gasser, President Owner$'Names:_.~k_G&~la~lL~. PostOUiceAddress "' 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, N.Y. 11779 Ye]. No. (516) 588-0033 [Copy of sketch or purposes.] plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience 072 715 676 Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverag (See Reverse) Z 072 715 Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage (See Reverse} Z 0 7 2.~7 Receipt for Certified N No Insurance C Do not use for (See Reverse} Z 072 71~ Receipt for Certified Mail ~ No insurance Coverage Pro ~;[~s~ Do not use for International (See Reverse} Z 0,,- 7t5 685 Receipt for /~_ Certified Mail No insurance Coverage provided Do not use tot international Mail {See Reverse) NAME Gall & Gary Doroski Irene Wells Hawkins Mr. & Mrs. Ammirati Long Island Railroad PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAiL RECEIPTS ADDRESS P.O. Box 780 Cutchogue, New York 11935 P.O. Box 218 Love Lane Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 730 Love Lane Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Jamaica Station Room 511 Jamaica, N.Y. 11400 Southold Building Dept Southold Town Hall Main Rd. $outhold, N.Y. 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFF, O4. K) ,, ss.: , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the J i'~- day of ~ J ~, ~ ~ t- ,19 ~, deponenl mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side h~r~of, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposi[e their r~pective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresse~ of said persons as shown on the curre~ss~ssment roll of the Town of Sou~hold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- ricea~ ~V~ ~ ~ . ~ied~regisleredJ mail.. . ~J Sworn to before me this Public NOTARY PJgL;.:, grate et N.ow Yotl~ No. 4~438g9-5uil;lk CmJr~ty .. / Cemmi~on Expb'e~ Nov, ;i ),~ ~/V ;that said Notices were mailed to~ of said persons by (This side does not property owners.) have to be Completed on foPm transmitted to adjoining