Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4261 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 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, 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. Property known and. referred to as the American Armonred 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 Armonred 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 Hamlet Business Zone District. WHEREAS, public hearings on each of the above applications were held on January 4, 1995 and February 1, 1995, at which times aH 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 personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and Page 2 Appl. Nos. 426~4261, 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 applieations 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 commerciaBy established lumber company located on Sound Avenue, Mattituck. 5. ZONING· In 1981 the lower half of the subject premises was zoned "C-Light Industrial," and the upper half of the subject premises 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 Beard 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-family residence on the second floor, and separate single-family apartment use on the existing first floor. The property in 1985 was zoned nC-Light Industrialn-~nd 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 Determina~on Rendered February 1, 1995 residence for three families. Currently, the zoning designation for the Ammariti's parcel is Hamlet 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/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, 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: (1) Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by Section 100-31C(1) through (7) . .. and set forth in Section 100 33 thereof. Article III, Seqtion 100-33 at page 10050.1 reads: 100 33. Accessory buildings. Amended 4-10-1990. In the Agricultural Conservation District and Residential R-00, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. B. Setbacks. (1) On lots containing up to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, (2) On lots containing more than twenty thou~nd (20,000) square feet up to thirty-nine-thousand nine-hundred ninety-nine {39,999} Page 4 - Appl. Nos. 426~11]~4261, 4262 Property of WILLIANI 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) roquives 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 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 (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 Hmited 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. All uses pezmitted in the [{8 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 more than 10 years without proof of enforcement proceedings for its 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 property is not the proper place for a non-profit museum without outside storage. c) the Board at both hearings did request from opponent(s) a list of their own suggestions (similar to what is sometimes referred 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 requests. d) whether in fact the items which are not within an enclosed building 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 roqnired height for that yard line and yard area. g) whether or not the change of the zone by the Town Board in 1992 is directly relevant or a reason to preclude the g~anting 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) herein {listed at page 5} are not properly under the jurisdiction of this Beard 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 Board, in a quasi-judicial status. Page 6 - Appl. Nos. 49.~4261, 4262 Property of WILLIAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 12. INTERPRETATION. In this determination, it is confirmed by this Beard that it has been the position of the Town for moro than 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 stor~age, except parking of operable passenger vehicles capable of passing inspection or recreation or boats and commercial vehicles as set forth in Section 100-191 shall be permitted in a rosidential 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 (ref. 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 g~anted. In balancing the and determined, roquests: interests above, the the following five Board Members have considered, factors for these area variance 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 roquired 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. 42 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 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") 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 more from Love Lane as stipulated by the Town Beard in its 1992 Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions; c) the benefit sought by the applicant eau be otherwise achieved with. the placement of a fence at 6 feet in height within the front yard lines, and at 6-1/2 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 has 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 yard with parking of commercial 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 Board 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 height,, and as to 19 inches for..the to~ver 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. 426~4261, 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 Goehringer, 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 shah be placed within the sou'thern 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) shah remain open..and unobstructed, except for employees/V01onteers' veh±cles; c) Tall plantings or trees shah be placed and continuously maintained by the applicants along or near the joint Gasser/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 ha 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 planthags 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 ha 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 hereha 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 ha 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 determhaation 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 Beard: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Wilton and Goehrhager. 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. GOEHRINGER / ~ - CIIAIRMAN 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 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 Rood, 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 Variances requested by WILLIAM F. GASSER concerning his property known 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 call 765-1809. Dated: January 17, 1995. GERARD P. GOEllRINGER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOT~N OF SOUTItOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO~,VN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTtlOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL WILLEAM F GASSER To .......... .... 2383 5th AVE. RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ... ~[I~.. 13~ ..... , 19 94 forpermit to ERECT A TOWER, A FENCE 7' IN IIEIGRT, OUTSIDE STORAGE ......... ,at Location of Property 640 LOI/E ~ I~TTITUCK House No. Street .......................... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 140 Ham/er .............. Block .. 02 Lot 16 Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ......... ........ Lot No ..... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds I. TIlE ACCESSORY TOWER DOES .N.OT..CONFORM TO 'rtil~ REAR & SIDE YARD SET BACK REQUIP. EMENTS AS SET FOR'H{ IN /~RTICI,E IX 100-91 C(I). ' ........... '"'ii i iii"i" ...... iii ....... / 'b .................. '" HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN AN HB DISTRICT, · ARTICLE XXIII 100 ........................ 231 A.. .... .3:. ODTSIDE STORAGE OR DISPLAY IS NO~ PERMITTED .IN ~ EB DISTRICT ARTICLE IX ' ' 100-93. ' ' ' .............. - .... "' //[~il ' ' ' ' ...... d±ng ~nspcc;c~'r Date JULY 12, .......................... , 19 96 RV 1/80 E×amincd .............. ,19... FORM NO, 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 'AKO OF R£ALTH ......... SETS OF PLAHS .......... SURVEY ................... ClIECK .................... SEPTIC FORtl .............. CALL ................... HAIL TO: Approved ................. 19...Permit No ............ Disapproved a/c ..................................... · (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS a. Tlds 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 part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance 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 ali applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for ne~s~'ry,~ec~.~.~ ~-~ .~ / (Signature of apFllcant, oLname, if a corporation) ............... .... · (Mailing address of applicant) '" State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, ensineer, general contractor, electrician, pinmbcr or builder. 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) License No ....... .~).//..~. ............. Builder's Plumber's License No ..... .~../.t~ .............. Electrician's License No. Other Trade's License No ...................... h p / Location of land on whic roposed work will be done. - Itouse Number Street Hamlet Cotm ly Tax blap No. 1000 Section .. ........... Binck Lot /~ ' . Snbdivision ......... ~/~ ........... : .......... Filed Map No..~/~. Lot (Name) ........... .... Siaic existing use and occupancy of premises and intended usc and occupancy of proposed constriction: ..... .......... """"". .......... ^.era.on .... r ......... Rem .... Demolition · - ' Other Work 4. Estimated Cost . (Description) (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ...... Number of dwelling units on each floor ..... ifg ......... · arage, number of cars ................... . .......... 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, spec nature and extent ofeac e of use ........ 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any Front h typ Height ..... ' ........... Rear .... Denth .... i ....... D' . ' '. .......... r~Umber ot::;tories ........................ ' ....... , ........... Unenslons el same struct'ure with alterations or additions: Front i i ii i ' Depth ..... ~ .......... Rear ...... ...................... Height ...................... Number of Stories ................ 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front .......... Rear ........... Depth .... Height ............... Number of Stories ............................... . . 9. Size oflot: Front ...................... Rear ............... Depth .. . . 10. DateofPurchase /~o~l · Name-fFo -2, .... ~ ~' '2C~-''~I''~II~' 11. Zone or use district in which premises a'r;'sit~;;~ ' ' ' z~'. _ ~r~ne~r °w/get ..',.a..~m._<V.el. ¢.~.0.0 ......... . ............ '.~,t,./.¢ T... ~,.o.,5: .tie ~ ~ ' - 12. Does proposed construction viol~e any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..................... 13. Will lot be regraded ....... /~' · ', ................ Will excess 14. Name of Owner of premises/~.i[ J.'O.e,. ~..~'~-~e~,- --- :9ce~ss,sJil~enren~ve~d from premises: Yes Name of Architect ........ ~/?.'. · ....... .Aa, O. ress. .~..o.,~ .'-27r_~ K.~. ~... Phone No. ?.o?:9~. ?(/. Name of Contractor .... /~. ,] ~c~ ......... ~ ~ · ·. ~aa, ress ................... Phone No ..... '""' 15. Is chi ' ' '~ .................. ~uuress ..... · ........... s propergy within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? ''~y~'- .......... Phonve No ................ u ........ NO..,~1 ..... · If 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. rATE OF NEW YORK, OUNTy OF ....... S.S (Name of individual signing con tract) eve nafned. being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant - is the ...................... said owner or o ' '~OalJOlate Omcer, etc.) · Owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the'said work ' a d to m e nd fil i ~lication; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his 'knowledge and belief; and that the rk will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. orn to before me this . . ...................... day of.. · ........... , 19 ?/ ~ NOTARy Pg~L~;C, $~.~!e ~f tluw Yolk ....... t// [to. 4~433o9-SuH~Ik Coull y ............. " Commissio. Expires Nov. 1, 19 ~/' (Signature of applicant) R.e:;IIVED AUG 2 191~WH OF SOUTHOLD, NE~¥ YORK APP~,\L FROM J~IEt~I,~iL~IIII~ILDING INSPECTOR DATE .... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. we} ...................... ..................... Name of Appellant Street and Number .......................... ~Qp,,I~Q~'L~oma ........................................... N'~¢...¥-~:~ .......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ................... ; ................................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) ( ) American Armoured Foundation Name of AppJicant for permit of New York ..2.3&~ ....... t~.i. f-i.h..-Av~n ~-e ...........:.- R-enk~,~k'em~ ........................................... Street and Number Municipanty State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..~p.~..~...Dan~ ......... ~.f.~.~czk .............. ~B ........................... Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 14(~lock 2Lot 16 ..... Current Owner William F. Gasser Map No. -Lot No. Prior Owner George 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 xxzzz Section 100-231A 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 (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 and was made in Appea! No...~...'.'~....7-...2. ................ Dated ..~.~.~.~.i~.l.......~.r..,!..~....~j.~L ....... ~ ..................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 2BOA Subsection 3 (~')/ A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that Fence hgight does not conf6rm to the required fence height in an HB district. (Continue'~on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaldifficultiesor unneces- saw HARDSHiP because The height of this fence and the necessary barbed wire extension is for security and without this security vandalism, intruders, property damage'and liability may result 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by oil properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property end in this use district because Ai'i o~er properties in the HB envir.onment in t'he immmediate vicinity do. not have to conform to m~ndato~y passive sedurity measures set down by the U.S. Military under the DOD 4160.21 and 5100.76 regula.t,ions set down on all properties 'displaying gov~rhment weaponry 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE CHARACTER OF THE DI:~I KIC'T because This fence has existed and at time of installation THE on the property .for 13 years 1981 there were ~o height restrictions STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF ~dg~L'~' ) S gnoture Sworn to this ..... ::z:~ , .................... ; ............. day 19 ............. ...... ............................ . Notary Public~ / OWNER FORMER OWNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY"RECORD CARD ACR. TYPE OF BUILDING COM~. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value J VL. J FARM LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS LOT FRONTAGE ON '~ATER Tillable Meodowland House Plot Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH i BULKHEAD Total COLOR TRIM M. Bldg. Exter~sion Extension Extension Porch Porch Breezeway Garage Patio O.B. Total Foundation Ext. Walls Fire Place rype Roof P. ecreation Room )ormer Both Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms 1st Floor R6;ms 2nd Floor Driveway ~]nette LR. DR. BR. FIN, 8 ESS-C R. HAWKiNs · ~ . ,,,.~._~" o~ '~;., ,, _ /' ."~', ~., : ~ /o ~' ' ' ' ' o ~ ~ S. 4~° 05'00 "W. cycZan~ 187. 64' WILLIAM E GASSER LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD ZONING DISTRICT C-I AREA =34,578 SQ.FT. OWNERS: FRANK 8 DIANE AMMIRATI MAP OF PROPERTY 8. DIANE AMMIRATI SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW YOP,.K:COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Plaintiff' desigantes Suff'olk County as the place of trial I:rank Ammirati and Diane Ammirati, Plaintitt; VS. Town of Southold and William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundahon, Inc., Defendant To the above named Defendant The basis of the venue is Plaintiff resides in Suffolk County SUMMONS Plaintiff resides at 730 Love Lane, Mattituck,NY EDW.%~.D p. R~,WNE CLFJ~( OF S~FFO~ COUNT YOU ARE It EREBY SUM~'IONED 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 the State of NewYork); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default ir'or the relief'demanded in the complaint. Dated: Greenport, NY September 19, 1995 ONGIONI & BORRELLI Attorney ['or Plaintiff 403 Front St-PO Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 516-477-2048 Defendant's Address: Southold Town-Town Hall Main Road Southold,NY 11971 William Gasser American Armoured Foundation, Inc. [.ove Lane *lattituck,NY 119q2 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, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and WILLIAM GASSER d/b/a/AMERICAN ARMOURED FOUNDATION, INC.,, Defendant Index# VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs through their attorneys, ONGIONI & BOR, P, ELLI, complaining of the defendants, states upon information and belief as follows: AS AND FOR A FI~.ST CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENJOIN VIOLATION OF A ZONING O1LDINANCE AND DECISION OF TH]E ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1. 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. 1000- 140-2-t8. 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. 1000-140-2-16. 4. That the .~nerican Annoured Foundation, Inc., is a domestic corporation, organized and e,,dsting 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 :h-nerican An'noured Foundation, Inc. 6. That defendant, William Gasser d/b/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. at all times herein mentioned is the owner and operator ora 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 dgo/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. for variances beating numbers 4260, 4261, 4262. I0. That the application beating number 4262 was for a variance from 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 dgo/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. 12. That the time within which defendant William Gasser dgo/a American Armoured Foundation, Inc. was to comply with the aforesaid Zoning Board of Appeais decision has passed and defendant, William Gasser dgo/a American Armoured 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 Southold, has failed to enforce the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals aithough duly demanded and requested to do so. 15. That by reason of the aforesaid illegal use of said property by the defendant William Gasser, dgo/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 these 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 fencifig; 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 Southold, its agents, servants and/or employees and said defendant has neglected or refused to enjoin the defendant, William F. Gasser d/b/a the :~nerican Arrnoured Foundation, Inc. from continuing such illegal and improper operation. 19. That since the illegal operation of the aforesaid premises has been going on, the said museum has constituted and is a nuisance, injurious to [he comfort and enjoyment of plaintiff in -3- their residence and occupation by themselves and through the customers of there business and tenants of plaintiffs premises. 20. On information and belief, 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 ~RED FI>"TY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($750,000.00) DOLLARS. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: I. 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 Appeais 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 dIb/a American Armoured Foundation, and the American A.rmoured 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. a~d 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 amrmrati:complnt, nui -5- ~;TT\TE OF NEW YORK f:OUNTY OF SUFFOLK FRANK AMMIRAT I, of perjury that he t!ouegoing VERIFICATION being duly sworn, states under the penalties is the Plaintiff in this action and that the Verified Complaint is true to his own knowledge except those stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to !~hose matters he believes it to be true; '3worn to before me this day ~f SEgT~BER,~995 'otary Public CARMEl.a, L. BORRELU Nolary Public. State of New York No. 45;[6699 Qualified In Suffolk Co~llty Commission E~oims Januat~ 31, 19~ / FRA_~K AMMIRAT! / 'F_ALS BOARD MEMBERS ,erard 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 FINDINGS AND D~--rERMINATION With ~eference to each of the following separately Cried applications and appeal f/lo numbers: Appl. No. 4260 - Application for a' Varl,nce under Article IX, Section 100-91C(1) of the Southold Town Zo,ln~ 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 as per Section 100-33B(2) at five feet from the property llne. Property known aud-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 ~rticle 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 Armoursd Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side of County Route 48, Mattituek, 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 fane 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. WHEREAS, pubUc hearings on each of the above applications were held on January 4, 1995 and February 1, 1995, at which times ail who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has care£uliy considered all testimony and documentation submitted c~ncerning this application; WI1EREAS, Board Members-have-personally viewed and are---faniiliar .... with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding a~eas ~ 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 ~re appeal applications based upon a July 12, 1994 Notice o[~ 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 IAber 9071 page 54. 3. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION~.OF.: PROPERTY: The subject property consists of an area of 32,109 sq: ft..with 50 ft. frontag~ 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 ILfdlroad' tracks. The property extends northerly 375~72 feet £rem the Long Island Railroad to the County Highway.. She property is conforming as to total lot area, width and depth in thi.~ I~mlet-Business (HB) Zone District- 4. USE OF PROPERTY: The subject property is known to be a non-prefit tank museum which existed since the early. 1980s. Prior to having been acquired in 1981 by Wjlllnm F. Gasser, the property was used as an C-Light Industrial storage yard reiate.d to a nearby commercially established lumber company located on~ Sound Avenue, Mattituck. 5. ZONING. In 1981 the lower h~lf of the subject premises was zoned "C-Light Industrial,~ and the upper h~lf of the subject premises was mixed "C-Light Industrial" and ~A~ Agl-icuitural-Residential- In January 1989, a new master plnn was adopted which rezoned the premises to Light-Industrial. Subsequently, on May 27, .1992 the appll~nts applied to the Town Board for a eban~we of zone from Light Industrial and Residential Office-to Hamlet Business,,~and. on: November :10, 1992, the Town Board $~2nted this ~h~nge in: ZO~inff,~ With conditions as .noted in the Declaration of Covenants Cried in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on November 8, 1993 at Liber 11651 page 134. . · ' 6.' CHARACTER OF IMMEDIATE AREA. Abutting thi.~ 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 Speoi~l 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-f~mily residence on the second floor, and separate single-family apartment use on the existing first floor. The property in 1985 was zoued -C-Light. Industrial"- . and-- prio~ to the Ammariti's conversion to catering, it was used as a multiple ~3 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 /"operty of WILLIAM GASSER ,.Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 residence for three families. Currently, the zoning designation for the Ammariti's parcel is Itamlet Business. (b) to the extreme north, County Route 48 (formerly known as County Road 27) which is a heavily traveled dual-]nne 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 thi.~, property was also zoned C-Light Industrial and Ag~icultural/Residenti~l. (d) to the south, the Lonl~ 'Island Railroad tracks. Further south of the LIRR tracks is the business district which consists of beauty salon, retail sales, b~nk-ing, drinking establishment, and other personal service stores, with nearby rm,nlcipal parking a~-~. 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 WILLLAM GASSER Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 o 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 au 3.42 ft. (41"} set-back instead of five (5') feet. It is also noted that the tower structure was reduced i~ height to less than 18 feet as required by the code when it was moved to this particular area - all resulting from au attempt to comply with the Town Board's conditions under its ~nt of zone ch~n~e for this Museum on November 10,' 1'992 and pursuant to a Decla~tion of Covenants filed at Liber 11651 at page' 134 on N0vember'8,'1993-The:Subject tower was moved to this location, however,- without ~'a building permit or · "; o ~longer necessary based' set-back variance. A height va~nea' is n upon the modifications to the tower by the owner-appli~nt- 8. FENCE HEIGIIT: Article XXIII, Section 100-231A (added '1-9-89) requires the height of a fence to be limited to six feat when located in the front yard of nonresidential zones, and when located in or along side and rear yards, the same shall not exceed 6-112 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. (Section 100-119.1 of the 'former zone code) and fence heights within :fi~e 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)- STORAGE OF MERCHANDISE IN ENCLOSED BUILDINGS: IX, Section 100-93 of the current Zo~!ng Code reads as The items which are not presently wi-thin an enclosed building are armoured vehicles, display ~uns on stands and other historxcal, artifacts related to this type of museum. OPPOSITION/OTHER DISCUSSIONS. RELATIVE TO NORTHWESTERLY LOT. During 10. OPPOSITION was received from the owners of property along the hearing, opposition - Memorandums the northwesterly property line of the subject premises. have been furnished listing the areas of concern -- all of which have .e~C~e 5 Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 .~'roperty of WILLIAM GASSER /'Determination Rendered February 1, 1995 been fully considered by the .Board Members under ,this appL/cat/on. Some issues raised were: a) a claim by opponent(s) ~thAt ~although the Tow~o. was cognizant of the fact that the museum-existed for more than 10 years without proof o£ enforcement proceedings-for,~ its existence as a museum use will, in the opposition's view, 'preclude the ~rant of the within variances; .... · b) a claim by opponent(s) that even unde~ the ]992 HB zoning designation by the Town, the~'propert]r~is~not-.the:proper place for a non-profit museum without outside storace~ c) the Board at both'hearln~ tiid request from opponent(s) a list of their own suggestions (simil~l~:to 'what is sOlll~t/m~..~ l~fevred to as a "wish list') in which the-cencer~s: could be~-nileviated or be less adverse to thei~ preperty' by way :of .mitig~tion~-~., and the opponent(s) chose not to furnish a Hst of sug~.stion.~ or r~quests. d) whether, in fact the items which are not within an enclosed bnilding would include motorized vehicles which have ~enerall~r throughout the township for many years ..... ~..~: . ; -L.../ .......... - , · e) Whether or not the submi-~sion of information showing the applicant was operating as a museum l~om 1981 until i992 is an issue to be determined at this time, under these applications, particularly since the action being appealed herein was 'taken by the Buildinc Inspector. dated July 12, 1994 and pert~in.~ to three specific 'areas: the tower location, fence height, and outside stor~t~e of artifacts. f) the specific ?yard line" Section 100-13 of the zonin~ code and a determln~tion of the required heicht fo~' that yard llne and.yard ar~...,- ~) whether or not the eh~no°~,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.. ' . FIND]NGS~ INTERPRETATION AND DJ~i'ERMINATIONS 11. For record purposes, it is noted-and further'determined that the issues raised pert~inluc to items 10(b), (b), (e), and (g) herein (listed at pa~e 5} are not properly under the ]ur4_sdiction of this Board in these variance requests as applied. The action by a Town Board to chance the zoning o/~ a parcel, as well as issues enforcement or compliance, is not an ar~a to be properly dec/ded 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 morO than 37 .~:' years to permit the parking of movable, motorized.;vehicles ov similar transportation in open areas. In fact, Article XXIII, ~Seetion 100-236 of the zonlnE code states that ".. LNo- unenclosed stora~e;'.exrOpt Pat'kinE of operable passenCer vehicles · .capable"~ of:~:passin~~.~'inspecti°n or recreation or boats, and commerciaL?vehicles, set,': fol~th:i,in Section: '- 100-191 shall be permitted in "a . residential .,~ district (emphasis. ~ :: added)." This is not a reSidentiAl .di_~triet; ,',:thi.~ is' a busule~ district' which permits muse,!ms, *open' spaCe,:'.**Pa~Irln~ lots,.': Section · OPEN SPACE: ~ny p~m.,~ . vnimproved and set aside~ dedicated, designated or reserved fo~ public or private use. o~ en]o .l./~en_t.?l':fOr,.th. eninuso,~.e~l~an.d: :: · enjoyment of owners and occupants o~mnu~a~l]Oi _:. - '"'. : neighbo~nE such open space,, prOvided~ that such.areas:, umy :.:. be imprOved with only thosebulldin~o-3~structUz'esi/-Stl'eets, . ~/ ' '" and off-street parldnE and:othem>m.l.p designed to be incidental to the. natu~ai.~ ope~ ~ . ...... und level area,, surfaco . · · *PARKING LOT: An of~-street, gro and improved for the temporary stora~ Of motor .vehicles.. Fence height and tower setback relief are;area Var!"nc~s .{ref. New-York. Town Law, Section 267(1) amended July .1, 1992}..,:?~New York Town.,Law~.~'" as amended, provides that ZBAs consider two basic.tbin~'s: ':'"" ~ A) the benefit to the applicant if~ the, varisnce..is g~anted; and' B) the detriment~ to the'~health; ~'~Lf'ety~'?and'~enelml ~el~.are of -' -. the neighborhood or community that would oecu~ il tile balanelng the interests above, the Board Members` have-considered, for, these area variance In and determined,, the following five factors requests: a) there will not be an undesirable c~ in the character., of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby: propel:ties, as ~-ranted fo~ the ~ence height variation between 2~ and 8.W; the yard. line is defined on Page 10033 of the code to be ".'o.A line parallel to a street or lot line at a distance therofrom equal to the-respective yard .dimension required by this chapter." The Bulk-Setback Schedule applicable to the lrl~mlet 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 : e 7 - Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 of WILLIAM GASSER De.termination Rendered February 1, 1995 feet for nonresidential zone districts. -The--fence.height,llmlt~tion is 6-1/2 feet when located along the side and rear yard ar~a-~. ~The - requested height is shown on the applicantts sketch to-be 6~8"..eneiosing.:: . the entire premises, .and the variance required is for:two inches (2") :. -- · along the side and rear lines, and eight inches (8") foe the front yard line. The fence is used for se~eenln~,_.privacy and security purposes. b) there will not be an 'undesirable' change in the ehn~acter of..-- xL.:!. :..: - the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby prOperties, if ~nted for the tower setback; the location of the tower.~is at' the furthest distance the opponent's preperty,, and is:.l.ocated~very! close~toathe,vi~_inity.of the ~ tear yard of the easterly adjoimn~parcel;-_-~ithe;-'-lo~n.is. ~1~o the" ]'-'.:. general area requested at 100 feet or more from Love Lane'as stip-lnted by the Town Board in its 1992 Decisration..o/~ Covenants and::Restrietionsl- e) the benefit souCh~-, by .the~ applJr~nt-; can ,.be']~,otherwise achieved with the placement of m/fence at. $ feet in height.within .the greet yard lines, and at 6-1/2 ft.'.alonC the side and ~ear-.property lines. d) the benefit sought by ,-the. applicant ~to locate: the ,tower .at '~ the location shown is °utweiched~ acaln-~t any benefit .'claimed by the ' - abutting property owner in its present location,~ as compared.to another location of the tower. (It should be noted ths~t-.no elmira h~_~ been,made ' foe an alternative location by the abutting-property:owners for' their. benefit). e) the a~-ea variances for_both thek£ence height.: and tower-Z>. setback are not substantial or "n~easonable.-.-:..particularly in'light of-:; ...... the fact that the property is . un/queiy shaped with .an L-shaped ~-; con/i~tratiou, narrew width, limited buildable area,..]~building location, and other preexistinff noneon/omnities,'qas~ a COmmeraial:,storace_ yard with parkln~ of commerala~ trucks and other* vehicles in open yard a~eas; it is not uncommon for fences to . be. placed, at. six: .feet,iht hei~ht,-.:.ol~; more, when accessory to open storage yawls-for::scree_nlng-from:,~view, and for- ~-. security purposes. - f) the area vav/ances will<not have an.adverse-effect or" impact on the physical or environmental-conditions in the:neighborhood, or ,--: business district (see env/ronmental reviews and declarations adopted in 1992 by the Town Board and Negative Declaration.adopted blr-thi_~ Board on November 2, 1994}; abutting the subject prsmi-~es, to.. the south aro .... the Long Island Railroad tracks; to ~the north is':~a'parcel, of land- :'-. occupied as a take-out catering service wh/ch is nonconforml.g in the HB Zone District; g) the relief ~t-anted is the minim.m necessary with variations ~ · , between 2 and 8 inches as to fence height, and as. to 19 inches for the , to%vet setback reduction; at the same t/me the relief as conditionally ~ranted 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 comm,,nity; the fence at six feet in height is properly secured a~d is not' a.r~o~d, deteriorated, a.ud is not a, menace to the public. The. applio~nt-_owner .-bas agreed. :'. to add slats~:'? within the link.~ of the fence and' to:, provide;_, additional .saree-ninE would be agreeable to the aortherllr'abutting property: o?ner.-.-.._ "- -:" ~" NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Cb~i~n Goehringer~ seconded by Member Dinizio, it was ....... ~_~ · RESOr.VED, to- DEN u:asted (or: ,.tha fance, above six feet along' the front, yard-hue,' and above 6-112 feet along the. side and rear property linas, for thi.~, nollresidenti~! [us~;' 'BE' IT~- FURTHER RESOLVED, to INTERPRET the ~acti~lty.-'for~: parlrm~ ~ of"~movablea~ vehicles to include tank.el and slmi]~ .devi~ which ma~be:, used for transportation as a permitted use:iunde~.~..S.ec, tion~,:100-?3(~f~.the.iZ,°.~.~.~,.- Code, w~th' the understandmff' that. these-,:vehieles..gh~ll~l~/,(~placed.-wlthm, · - - the southern most 14-feet of the applir~nt$,~propertl~i anc[ merchandis . and items which are not defined as movable.~vehiciee~,sh~ll be"storod as clearly worded under Section 100-93-:w/thln'-i~n:?encl.~~' buil~ng;, BE IT FURTHER .............. -- ...... ~'-'"'- RESOLVED, to DENY the varlance.~requested.'for-~outside, storage, ofTM merchandise, other than motorized :vehicl~'~'~$ince; there-' is- an alternative':; to store these items withirt ~n enclosed buildln~; 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 FURTHER ~qrl~-Vl~D that the followino~ conditions .sh~ll: be' complled:wxth. '~-- ~-~ ..... ~,- .. a~.~a¥:.,,~ .~i~ ~'~.,:,~a~.~.. ~.~.~ a) Only that area-'14 'feet:-'alon~:the;-goiltherlY'~'Pr~PePiY len~-th) shall be. used for parking- o£-motorizedavehicles: in order- that the> remaining 36 feet re.in .open. ancL~unobstructed ~for on-site movement'::[ when necessary of vehicles~ e~-ress, in~wl~s, IsndSi.v~pln~, parldng for guests and employees recommended along,.thel, northeriy';property'.:lien and other accessibility necessary m'the, event-.0f.a fire-or.other emerge cy . ' b) When the museum is closed~:~'the;.northeri¥ ~ost ~35~ feet o[' the property {adjacent to. Love r-~ne} sh. il';,~e--ln open and except for employees/volunteers' vehicles; - . --- -~". -:~ e) Tall plantings or trees sh~! be placed and eontinuousl~ maintained by the applicants along or near-the joint Gasser/Ammsratti property line which runs in an east-west dix-ection. :!-J~ permi-~sion to place additional plantings is ~efused; or prevented b~ tlie abutting properly owners ~o the north (Ammariti),. then confiemation shall be Appl. Nos. 4260, 4261, 4262 ,A-operty of WILL/_AlVl GASSER /De{erug~ation Rendered February 1, 1995 placed in writing with proof to be fur-i~hed to the Town. It is recommended for the benefit of all that some a~-reement be reached between the parties with reference' to plantino~s on either or both parcels. d) Border fenolng shall be slatted six feet north of the road line when it is presently uuslatted; ail fencing and slatted area~ shall be maintained in good condition and repaired by the applicants. e) In six months from the date of the f{llng of thi.~ decision,, the applicants-owners herein shall either remove ~alt ~Y'merch~ndise and artifacts which are not within a applicants herein may apply to the Building Department within the next six months for au addition or new building area for these purposes. In any event, failure by the applicants to ~le 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 determlnntion shall not preclude application .by the owners or an aggrieved party for different relief as may be r~quired by the Building Inspector and flied in accordance with the requirements of New York Town Law, Section 267 (such-as: an addition'?to-,the.~'existing building, or ilew building for inside storage-and:di-~plalr~of merchandise and other artifacts). . .... :...~.:-. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ..... Messrs. ,~ Doyen, , Wilton and Goehringer. Nays: Mr. Vill~ (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.. ,? APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, JL James Dirdzio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Lydia A. Tortora 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 July 19, 1995 M~s. Karen A. Gasser American Armoured Foundation, Inc. 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Re: Your Letter of July 6, 1995 Dear Mrs. Gasser: Your inquiry letter dated July 6, 1995 was reviewed by the Members of the Beard of Appeals, and the Beard Members have taken the position that, under the circumstances, no action be taken. Therefore, variance determln~tions #4260, 4261 and 4262 as filed on February 8, 1995, remain as each stands, (without prejudice). Very truly yours, BOARD OF APPEALS By: Gerard P. Goehringer Chai~nmn N.Y. 11T/! American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adres$ 2383 5th Ave., Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: Love Lane Mattituck, NY July 6, 1995 Southold Town Hall .Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Zoning Board of Appeals P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Chairman Attention: Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman %BA Dear Mr. Goehringer, Please consider this a formal request for an extension of time on the determination made by the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 8th, 1995. This determination requires the removal of 75% of the museum collection, that is being displayed aC the Love Lane property know as the Tank Museum, by August 6th of this year. We feel this extension of time is necessary and not unrealistic due to the fact thaC there is a lawsuit pending concerning this determination and this requested extension will give us the opportunity to encDlore options that have come to our attention during discussions with various regulatory boards of the Town of Southold. I would like to thank you for your time and consideration in the matter of this requested extension and are in hopes that this extension will be grented. ? 7 Sincerely, ~'aren A. Gasser CC: Tom Wickham, Supervisor Ruth Oliva, To%rn Board m~nber Lauren Dowd, Town Attorney Robert Kassner, Planning Board Gary Fish, Building Department Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE FEB 2 4. STEPHEN M. JONES. A.I.C.P. DtRECTOR 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 Plaiming 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 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 Dinizio were without agreement to the origins! 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 against 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.lnda Kowalski Board Clerk/Secretary 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 2 0f 3 Pursuant to Article XIV 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 Commission: XX Variance from the Zoning Code, Article XXlII , Section 100-231A Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article , Section __Special Permit Appeal No: 4261 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) XX 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 ~ned 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 ~m~ ~m approval for the -- height nf fmnnn which exceeds the required height limitation Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated:February 9, 1995 Page 9 - Appl. Nos. 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. DinJzio (chose to withhold his reasons). This resolution was duly adopted 3-2. 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 February 8, 1995 Gregory Blass, Esq. 120 Court Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Appl. Nos. 4260-4262 - William F. Gasser Dear Mr. Blass: Enclosed please find a copy of the findings and determinations rendered by the Board of Appeals at our February 1, 1995 Regular Meeting. We have furnished copies of this approval to the Building Department for their update and permanent recorclkeeping concerning its issuance of the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval. Also, since the subject premises is located within 500 feet of a County Highway, copies of this file have been transmitted to the Suffolk County Department of Planning in accordance with the rules of the Suffolk County Charter. Once their response has been received, a copy wilL1 be forwarded to you. Please be sure to return to the Town Building Department and any other agency which may have jurisdiction in this project for issuance of all permit(s) or other approvals pertaJnlng to this project. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copies of Decision to: Building Department Planning Board Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Carmella Borolli, Esq. P~ge 9 - Appl. Nos. 42b0, 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 m~int~ined in good colidition and repaired by the applicants. e) In six months from the date of the filing of th_is decision, the applicants-owners herein shali either remove ali 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 BuJ]cling Inspector and filed in accordance with the reclnirements of New York Town Law, Section 267 (such as an addition to the existing building, or new bui]cling 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. GOE[IRINGER CHAIRMAN A.~F. Slit A~enue Rogtkonkoena, 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 blow~ 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 Hearing script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:15 P.M. Appl. No. 4260, (4~261~4262 - 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 regu]ariy 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 lunlber 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 period of time really overlooks a scenario that I think is pointed out on page, starts on page 3 after discussions had been .had. 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 ranscript Regular Meeting of February l, 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 all 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 Tr~script Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals have I would also point out on the Reply Memo that we have that we 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 only 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 Transcript 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 will 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{~lSscript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals 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 There's nothing taken home. so I don't think that we're money goes to. There is no profit. It's just the opposite. It's given in, 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. that their being asked. slight, and they will go operation in maintaining operation that they have. I think that they deserve the consideration It is not outlandish. These variances are a long way towards the system of the the character of the displays and the MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask a couple of questions, Mr. Blass? GREG BLASS: Sure. Page 36 - Hearing Tr-~nscript 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: OK, the fence height is 6-1/2 ft. on the side 6.8 feet on the front and then it has a double barbed wire extension above that. Page 37 - Hearing T~fscript 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 overall 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 specific 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 ranscript 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, weli 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 Tr~"nscript 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: Alright, 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 41 - Hearing Ti~isCript 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. Ok. That tower stood in Mattituck for 50 years. An In the news. I have to ask the question. I assumed that that MR. CHAIRMAN: MRS. GASSER: observation point. MR. CHAIRMAN: was the reason. MR. GASSER: GREG BLASS: because it is It was at one time taller. It's diminished in size, but it has a memorial function 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 Transcript Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, outside display issue; that's before us and so then we go back to the outside issue, the and that appears to be the remaining issue again I'll ask if anybody has any particular accomplished display, and the Board's operation. 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 environmental 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 much of the concern that would arise from the outdoor we fee] that it mitigates the problem, and it deserves consideration that they regard the viability of this 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 T~script 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 if you look at the record, the record absolutely speaks for itself. terms of the lack of action. I don't think insinuations. I think that is fact, and I absolutely speaks for itself so I'm not to address It's irrefutable in that those were think the record items because they cannot and will not repute what the record will 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 this listing of Page 45 - Hearing T~script Regular Meeting of February 1, Southold Town Board of Appeals 1995 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 I would be glad to dig out tomorrow and send to you where Dan Ross, Harvey Arnoff and othe~ agencies, I believe, were talking 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 T~nscript 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 I 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 T~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 calling 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 variances BORELLI: Yes. I have an objection to granting the to it because he also 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 ~5 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 all 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 T~script 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 tile 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 Ttscript 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 actuaily 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 tl~e 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 illegai. MR. 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, 1995 Southold Town Board of Appeals 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 will 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 unless 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 TOscript 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: I understand, so tell me now, forget the wish list, tell me what we 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 Ti~script 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. you're asking me now, you're list. And what I'm saying --- MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm just trees you want. So, by asking me the question that really asking me to give you a wish asking you to tell me what kind of CARMELA BORELLI: 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. Blass'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, 199§ Southold Town Board of Appeals making me do this and therefore it's a practical 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 lel~iency 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 100-9] 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 Transcript 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 TWscript 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. What you saw is start, stop, start, stop, start, stop, start, stop, that was the operation. With various vehicles. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you normally do that every Sunday? MR. GASSER: I wish I could. No, I can't. Mi{. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Sir, would you just state your name for the record please. Thank you. STEVE FOX: You have to excuse my voice - I don't know what's going on here but it's not working properly. My name is Steve Fox. I'm an unpaid volunteer at the museum. After hearing the profit line, I know I will continue to be that way for the indefinite 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 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 Page 56 - Hearing T~nscript 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 wonid 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 Smithsortian 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 T~script 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 Regular Meeting of February 1, 1995 Southo]d 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, end there's a piece in between. CARMELA BORELLI: Tile other side of the building? MR. CHAIRMAN: The other side of the buiiding, yes, Ok. CARMELA BORELLI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: A]right, hearing no further comment, we thank you all for your courtesy. We are, I am, and I have to admit to you and Page 61 - Hearing ~t 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. Bore]ii, when I told you that we're going to try and put this thing to bed. but we're going to try to whatever comes out of this may not be, so, that's all I You may not construe it to be to bed, put it to bed, alright. I hope that decision, that it is put to bed, but it 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: I'll second that. MR. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: (All Ayes). Taken from audio tape recording of the hearings. Lucia Farrell, Typist ZONING 80ARD OF APPEAL!=-: TOb;N OF SOUTHOLD: L=;TATE OF NEN YORK In the Matte~- of the Application of X WILLIAM F. GASSER and the AMERICAN ARMOURED FOUNDATION, INC., Fo~- Va;~iances fror,~ Al'ticle tX 100-'91 C(1 ), A~'ticle XXIII 100-231A and A~'ticle IX 1 '~0 w' L . -S:~, REPLY MEMORANDUM OF APPLICANT:_=; TO MEMORANDUM IN OF'F'OSITION OF DIANE AND FRANK AMMIRATI S-T-ATEM_E.NT OF_.F AC:Tb~] Much issue is taken with the ~isstatement of facts' offer*ed in the n',en'~o~*andur¢~ of Diane and Frank Arm¥~irati, he~'einafte~* refers-ed to as the ."objectants." On November- 20, l'B80, the applicant, M~*. Williarr~ 6asse~-, app~*oached the Zoning E:oa~d of Appeals of the Town c)f 'So~thold st~ictlv fo~- the pLmpose of an inf, ..... ~ discussion conce~-ning his plans to establish a not-fo~*-p~-ofit rr~Seblm fop ai'r,'~oul'.ed vehicles. E:ont~*a~*y to objectants, suggestion to the E:oard in the instant case, it cannot be infei-~-ed that applicant planned, at that o~- any time, that the vehicles ~ould be sto~ed inside the existing building then on the sc~bject pa~-cel. Indeed, t~enty vehicles ~e~'e anticipated, and discussed, with the Boa~-d. Twenty vehicles, dist~'ibuted ~,ith sufficient space between them so as to allow fo}- exhibition, we~-e ~ell beyond the stoi. age capacity of said building. ~hen the applicant placed the a~'rr~oul-ed vehicle displays on the p¥'opei-ty, the applicant did so as a :State Oesignated foundation. E:ased on cor,'m~unications with~ the Town Planning 8oard and Building Inspector~ the applicant endeavored in good faith to con~ply~ and has complied with each and every directive of said authorities~ It ~as the applicant's intention at all times to continue the storage use of the property~ and to allow l'i~rd~ted public acces to view the ite~s sto~-ed. This had been precisely the use of the prope~ty by the pcevio~s owne~ to wit: stol-age of ~,~ate~ials with public ac~ess~ Gi~>en the very unusual configuration of the subject pre~ises~ the applicant ~ega~'ded his display of the ite~,~s sto~ed at the site as not only very similar to the previous use of the property, b~t also as the only possible~ practical use~ His responses to and ~ooperation with the Town authorities in eve~'y instance is a n'~atter of ~eco~'d~ and cont~adicts objectants' ~nfounded allegation that applicant has knowingly violated Town Law for thin'teen years~ Specificatly~ when objectant's co~¥,plaints precipatated the Building Oepa~t~.,ent,s lette~ to applicant ~nder date of ._.~ptt~.r~b~~ 20~ Planning E:oa~d in con'~plied with the 1 ........ applicant made inquiry to the Town w~'iting on October- 2A, l~,:---,, and Town's determination, issued Febrc~ar,,, 17~ lg89, that applicant shall applicant accomplished in the submission on April 16~ lggl. elapsed du~ing subn~it a site plan~ which forn'~ of a final~ col~plete The length of ti~e which this period was due to a series of numerous discussions and correspondence between the applicant and the Planning 8oard. Actual sul'veys wece 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 him with the Town. Thereafter~ the schedule of applicant's efforts can be listed as follows~ August .~o ~'evisions to site plan, discussions. l__l: Planning E:oard required resulting in a series of December 23~ 1991: Application to Building Oepartment for towel- permit~ January, l__~. Received Notice of Disapproval, based on grounds that a non-conforming cannot be enlarged. use February 2S~ l__z. Application for variance April 1, 1992: Request for conference with Town Attorney and Zoning E:oard after numerous discussions convinced applicant of the need for application for zone change. April 1S, 1992: Received letter from Town Attorney suggesting zone change and not to proceed with any other applications until Town E:oa~d decides. May 12, 1992: Applicant sub~its application for zone change to Town E:oard. September ~, 1993: Received zone change with the covenant that, among other things, tower be moved back 100 feet from Love Lane. Septembei-, 1992 through summer of 199_~:: Comply with zone change conditions; proceed with extensive discussions with Planning E:oard re~ site plan January ~99~: Planning Board cor,'~pletes review and requir~es site plan re¥ision with variance for~ sign~ Application submitted for' signs to Building Dept. February 4~ 199~.: Disapproval ~eceived for signs. April 2, 199~ Application submitted for sign variance. Tower ~equired to be moved further to rear yard, with adequate room for parking (S spaces). May, 199z~: 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 towe~, fence and outdoor display. June 13, ]--~,'~'~ ' Application to Building for- tower-, fence and display items. Department July 12, 1994: Received disapproval from 8uilding Dept. for tower, fence and displays. August 17, 199~: Applied to ZBA for on fence, towe~and display items (instant application). Of particular concern is the observation tower, whose history at the site is quite inaccurately recounted by objectants. This tower at the direction of the Town F'lanning 8oard, Zoning 8oard and Town Board, has been relocated, and has been reduced in height. Because of the Planning 8oard's most recent directfon that parking spaces be established at the back of the property, the applicant now 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 consumed over- a period of years to determine in the first instance whether the observation tower would require a building peri, it, and variance particularly whether it was a structure or display item. The pre-existing, non-confo~ming use which applied to the property~ and which has been at the center of applicant's interaction with the Townv 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. When the question of outside storage of these artifacts first became an issue of concern~ it was applicant who made 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, 1992, concurred with that suggestion~ Objectant characteristically distorts the origin and content of this com~unication between the Town Attorney and the applicant, t~ the point of quoting it out of context. Applicant i~mediately made such zone change application, which was granted by the Town 8oard with certain conditions with .which applicant has cor~plied. Throughout this processv objectants continued with their strategy of unfounded allegations~ misstate~ents and the lodging of objections which lack any basis in fact or in law~ As per the decision of this E:oard of May ~, 199~. 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 8oa~d~ 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 Department, 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 8nard 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 8nard is completely i~material to the appticant~ and suggests yet another speciob~s complaint by o~jectant POINT I APPLICANT HAS SHOWN PRACTICAL 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 FUHST v. FOLEY, (~978) 4.'10 N.Y.S. 2d S6, 4. S N.Y.2d ~41. The applicant certainly meets the test handed down by this decision, as well as that set forth in the provisions of Town Law Section 267-b. This 8oard itself cited the practical difficulty as it applies to this p~operty's L-shaped configuration in its decision of May ~J 199~, particularly as to the virtual impossibility of future construction on the property~ This hardship is accentuated by applicant's not-for-profit status in New York state~ and its reliance upon donations fo~ 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 dited by objectant not apply to this matter. Moreove~J at the time applicant purchased the subject prope~ty in 1980, its zoning (Zone C) did not preclude museum use at that time. It ~as, in fact, the subsequent adoption of the Town's Maste~ Plan which created a conflict in permitted use~ and which underlay the application for z~ne change. Acco~dingly~ the standard of "self-inflicted loss" outlined in the case of COWAN v. KERN, (1977) G1 N.Y. 2d Sgl, does not apply to applicant, and never did. The very case cited by objectant, NATIONAL MERRITT, INC. v. WEIST~ (1977) ~l N.Y. 2d ~.38 stands for the p~oposition that broad discretion is granted by the State Legislature and by the Courts to local Zoning E:oa~ds and Planning 8oards~ appoioted as they are by the elected representatives of the standa~-ds, and standards apply to the local n~m~nicipality~ the boards interpret how a local situation. The ].aw sets those Actor-ding to a recent decision involving this Zoning 8nard, JORDAN'S PARTNERS v. GOEHRINGER (2d Oept. 199~) A.O.2d ..... , 611 N~Y.S.2d 626~ it is clearly the law of this state, apparently overlooked by the objectant, that the Zoning E:oa~-d of Appeals has prin~,ary ju~isdiction in the inte~p~etation of applicable zoning ordinances. The objectant has· not demonstrated even the slightest ~,eas~re of ab~se of this discnetion~ o~~ that the standard of hardship has i~r,p~operly been interpreted by this Board. ~_'..O__I_I'~{.T__I_! AF'PL I CANT MEET:E; THE RE6~U I REMENTS; OF TO~N LAW 267-b (3) Applicant has shown to this 8nad that the general tounist activity of the Love Lane, Mattit~ck neighborhood is enhanced by the attraction of a ~useu~,~ containing military artifacts dating back to the An'~erican Revolution~ Objectants' contemptuous desc~iption of the applicant's artifacts as "~o~-ld ~ar II ~,achinery" not~ithstanding, the fact remains that persons who visit the muse~'~ also visit othe~- co~m',ercial activities within this · neighborhood~ Objectant is well aware that visitors to the ~'~oseb~lY~ also patronize objectant's food service establishment~ and vice ve~-sa. App 1 i can t .Town Law Section 267-b (3)~ that the configu~-ation of subject p~ope;~ty ~-ende~s this a~-ea va~iance the applicant's exclusive method of achieving the benefit of the p~ope~-ty's continued use by applicant. This E~oard has al~-eady considered and will continue to conside~~ the envi~onr,iental conditions. ~'elated to applicant's use of the property~ ha5 set forth conditions add~'essing sa~/e~ and has ~eceived f~-o~'~ applicant ~'~o~e than adequate proof that applicant has co~plied with these conditions~ despite the statement by objectant that "we find that this applicant cannot ;,',eet the level of proof requi~'ed..." (Objectants' ~',e~,',orandu~,~ p. 17). The applicant does not seek a variance with ~-espect to the obse~'vation towe~~ because of its p~evious location~ nc the length of tin'~e of its previous location on the p~'ope~ty. This is one of many exan~ples of how objectant misstates applicant's position~ and then con'~ptains of that position. Applicant o~-iginally placed the tow,_=~~ on the property as a display ite~'~, and has con'~plied with the di~'ectives of both the E:uilding Oepa~tment and the Town 8oas'd, and again by the Building Oepartn'~ent, in te~s of ~',oving it and ~educing it in size. Although applicant still regards, and uses, the tower as a display ite~, it seeks a set back va~iance, applicable unde~~ the Zoning Code. only to structures, because it has been recently I~equi~ed to do so. At no ti~,'~e did applicant conclude has also s. hown, fu~-the~~ to the p~'ovisions of the that, as objectant deceitfully suggests, "the tower will not alter~the neighborbood because it has existed for ten years~" (Objectant's memorandum, 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 F'OW~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 objec%an~s' comments. With a certificate of occupancy for wareho~me-mtorage~ applicant was acting ~nder the belief that his open and notorious use of the property for the sto~age of these artifacts would be permitted. The bad-faith, calculating design attributed to him by objectants is unsubstantiated and irresponsible. ~e hasten to add that there is no "illegal ~electrical conduit" at the top line of the fence. Contrary again to objectants' allegations, this conduit has been inspected and certified with an electrical unde~writer's certificate~ which has been submitted to the Planning 8oard in its site plan review pcocess. Likewise the unfounded~ g~atuitous remarks in objectants~ ~emorandum with regard to applicant's security video camera, which faces the building located on applicant's property. - 1 0- Finally~ we come to the insistence that applicant should pul~sue sto~age at this pi"opepty only th~,ough construction of a building to house all items stored at the site. Objectants' approach to this entire situation, on the basis of emotion ~ather than ~eason, is no mo~-e apparent than here. To build anything fb~ther on this site which would be adequate fo~ storage would ~equipe enormous expense and delay. The dimensions of the p~operty and the Zoning Code would necessitate numerous variances, and the effo~-t of applicant to finalize with the Town of Southold the status of his p~-ope~ty, which he has been attempting for years, ~ould continue indefinitely, much to objectants' delight. CONC:LUSION: Applicant has made a good faith effoi'~t to cond!~ct the storage and display of historical artifacts in compliance with all ~'equi~'e~ents which the Town has p~omulgated Objectants acquired their neighboring property to the no~-th of applicant applicant's use of six years after applicant ope~'ated Objectants were fully awa~-e of this pl~ope~-ty. Objectants have its ir~'esponszbl¥ fictzonaiized applicant's conduct and motives. NevePtheless, applicant has corr, plied with the la~s and o~dinances of the Town, and of all directives ~hish the Town has lodged. It is a direct conseguence of applicant's policy in this respect that applicant is -]1- before this Board with the instant application, in the same cooperative spirit as in nume~ous, 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 wo~king diligently in the Town's administration of its regulatory authority. Applicant's use of the prope~ty as a museum of historic~ military, artifacts is. very much in harmony with the tourist-based theme which recurs throughout the Town's Maste~.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 applica~t~ In not one instance has applicant resisted or objected to the conditions set forth by any Board or Oepartment of the' Town of Southold at any time with ~espect to his property or the use thereof. Dated: February 1, 1995 Riverhead, New York Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. Blass Attorney for William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Fiundation ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL!_:; TOWN OF SOUT'HOI 0'. '.=;TATE OF NEW .... ..... - - - - YORk. In the Matter of the Application of X WILLIAM F. GASSER and the AMERICAN ARMOURED FOUNDATION, INC. , For Va~'iances fr.or~ Article IX 100-91 C:(1), Article XXIII 1DO-2:31A and Article IX 100-93 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF APPLICANTS TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF DIANE AND FRANK AMMIRATI ~ATEM~NT OF FA~:TS Much issue is taken with the rr, isstatement of facts offer-ed in the mer~onandur~.~ of Diane and Frank Ar,'~r¢,irati, he~'einafter refer~ed to as the ."objectants." On November 20, l'B80, the applicant, Mr. Williarr~ Gasse~, approached the Zoning Boa~-d of Appeals of the Town of Soul,hold st~ictly for the pu 'pos~ of' an informal discussion concerning his plans to establish a 8or-for-profit ~iuseurr, fo~ ai'mou~-ed vehicles. C:ontl~ary to objectants, suggestion to the Board in the instant case, it cannot be inferred that applicant planned, at that or any ti~e, that the vehicles would be sto~-ed inside the existing building then on the subject parcel. Indeed~ twenty vehicles we~e anticipated, and discussed~ with the Board~ Twenty vehicles, distributed ~ith sufficient space between the~ so as to allo~ for exhibition, were well beyond the storage capacity of said building. When the applicant placed the a~-~Oured vehicle displays o~ the property~ the applicant did so as a State designated foundation, Based on comm~nications with' the Town Planning 8nard and Building Inspector, the applicant endeavored in good faith to comply~ and has complied with each and every directive of said authorities~ It was the applicant's intention at all times to continue the storage use of the property, and to allow l'imited public acces to view the items stored, This had been precisely the use of the property by the previous owner, to wit: storage of materials with public access. Gigen the very unusual configuration of the subject premises, the applicant regarded his display of the items stored at the site as not only very similar to the previous use of the prope~ty~ but also as the only possible~ practical use, His responses to and cooperation with the Town authorities in every instance is a matter of record, and conti'adicts objectants' unfounded allegation that applicant has knowingly violated Town Law for thirteen years. Specifically~ when objectant's complaints precipatated the Building Department's letter to applicant under date of Septtember 20~ 1988, applicant made inquiry to the Town Planning 8nard in writing on October 2~ 1988~ and complied ~ith the Town's determination, issued February 17, 1989~ that applicant shall submit a site plan~ which applicant accomplished in the for~'~ of a final~ complete submission on April 16~ 1991, The length of time which elapsed during this period was due to a series of numerous discussions and correspondence between the applicant and the Planning 8oard~ Actual surveys were not avilable to the applicant until Joly of l__l 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 him with the Town~ Thereafter, the schedule of applicant's efforts can be listed as follows: August revisions to site plan~ discussions · __ 1 Planning 8bard required resulting in a series of December~oo,, lq'~l:__ Application t.o E:uilding Oepartment for tower permit. January, l__z. Received Notice of Oisapproval, based on grounds that a non-conforming use cmnnot be enlarged~ February .-,c , 1'9'B2, Application for variance April 1, 1B92: Request for conference with Town Attorney and Zoning 8bard after numerous discussions convinced applicant of the need for application for zone change. April 1S, 1992: Received letter from Town Attorney suggesting zone change and not to proceed with any other applications until Town E:oard decides. May 12, 1'9'92: Applicant submits appl. ication for zone change to Town E:oard. September -:,c. ~, 1 _ _._:,: Received with the covenant that, among other things, back 100 feet. from Love Lane. zone cbange tower be moved September-, 1'3"B2 through sun',r~'~er of 19'BJ: Comply with zone change conditions; proceed with extensive discussions with Planning E:oard re. site plan. January 1'-~'~4: Planning 8nard cor~'~pletes review and requires site plan )~e¥ision with variance for sign~ Application su~br,~,itted for signs to Building Dept. February 4, 199~.: Oisapproval received for signs. April 2~ 1~4~ Application submitted for sign variance. Tower required to be moved further to rear yard, with adequate ~oom for parking (S spaces). May, I'?D~: Variance fo)' signs received from Zoning 8nard. May 22~ ~9~: Returned to Planning 8nard with sign variance and was then directed to revise site plan~ and seek variances for tower, fence and outdoor display. Oepart ~'~en t June ~3~ ~'_~_g~. Application to 8uiiding for tower! fence and display items~ July ~2, ~?B~: Received disapproval from Building Oept~ for tower~ fence and displays~ Of particular concern is the observation tower, whose history at the site is quite inaccurately recounted by objectants. This tower at the direction of the Town Planning 8nard, Zoning 8nard and Town Board, has been relocated, and has been reduced in height. Because of August 17, l'9'B~: Applied to ZE:A fo)' variance towerand display ite~,'~s (instant application)~ the Planning 8oard's r~ost recent direction that parking spaces be established at the back of the property, the applicant now seeks a variance fro~ the provisions of the Town Zoning Code with respect to the requirements of set back and distance fro~'~ neighboring application). A great length period of years to determine the observation property lines (see instant of time was consumed over a in the first instance ~hether tower would require a buiIdi~g per~it~ and particularly whether it was a structure or display item. The pre-existing, non-conforming use which applied to the property~ and which has been at the 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~ When the question of ob~tsid~ storage of these artifacts first became an issue of concern~ it was applicant who made 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, 1992~ concurred with that suggestion~ Objectant characteristically distorts the origin and content of this comn~unication between the Town Attorney and the applicmnt~ t~ the point of quoting it out of context. Applicant i~ln~ediately made such zone change application~ which was granted by the Town 8nard with certain conditions with .which applicant has complied. Throughout this p~ocems~ objectants continued ~ith their strategy of unfounded allegationm~ misstatements and the lodging of objections which lack any basis in fact or in law. As per the decision of this 8nard of May ~ 1998. to grant the variances sought by applicant ~ith regard to signage and fencing~ applicant has every intention to see~ site plan approval fro~ the Town F'lanning E:oard, the application for which is PQnding. Further, the approvals secured by applicant fror~ NYS DOT will not expire in the interim. Applicant shall comply with all other sign and zoning regulations. This shall include a fence permafit application to the Building Department, to be. submitted folowing action on the instant application, and application to the County Planning Com~,¥ission, again subsequent to action on the this 8oard~ Essentially, the actions instant application before of the E:uildings Oepartn~ent and the Planning 8oard with respect to pending applications cannot proceed until the instant application is decided~ ~hether the as one entire application this 8oard is completely instant application is considered or three separate ones before im~',ate~ial to the applicant, and suggests yet another specio!.~s complaint by o~jectant POINT I APPLICANT HAS SHOWN F'RACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AS BASIS FOR AREA VARIANCE Applicant has shown without question that the subject p~emises cannot be put to any real use absen% 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 blew York encountered in the in the case of FUHST v. FOLEY, (]978) ~.]0 N.Y.S. 2d S6, ~S N.Y.2d ~]. The applicant certainly meets the test handed down by this decision, as well as that set forth in the provisions of Town Law Section 267-b~ This Board itself cited the practical difficulty as it applies to this property's L-shaped configuration in its decision of May ~ 1994~ particularly as to the virtual impossibility of future construction on th'e property. This hardship is accentuated by applicant's not-for-profit status in New York state~ and its reliance upon donations for its operations~ as set forth in the summary of applicant's operations 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 matter. Moreover~ at the time applicant purchased the subject property in 1980, its zoning (Zone C) did not p~'eclude n',useu~', use at that time. It was, in fact, the subsequent adoption of the Town's Master Plan which created 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 COWAN v. KERN, (1977) ~l N.Y. 2d Sgl, does not apply to applicant, and never did. The very case cited by objectant, NATIONAL MERRITT, INC. v. WEIST, (1977) ~1 N.Y. 2d ~.38 stands for the proposition that broad discretion is granted by the State Legislature and by the Courts to local Zoning Boards and Planning 8oards~ appoioted as they are by the elected ~'ep~esen tat ives of the standa~*ds~ and standa~-ds apply to the local rr~unicipality~ the boat'ds interpret how a local situation~ The ].aw sets those According to a recent decision involving this Zoning 8oard, JORDAN'S PARTNERS v. GOEHRINGER (2d Dept. 1994) ...... A.D.2d ...... , 611 N.Y.S.2d 626, it is clearly the law of this state, apparentl~ overlooked by the objectant~ that the Zoning Board of Appeals has primary jurisdiction in the inte~*pretation of applicable zoning ordinances. The objectant has not demonstrated even the slightest ~easure of ab~se of this discretion, o~ that the standard of hardship has improperly been interpreted by this 8oard. .,.c_'..O..I_!.q_~T II_ APF'LIC:ANT MEET:Z; THE REQUIREMENTS OF TO~N LA~ 267-b (3) Applicant has shown to this 8Dad that the general tourist activity of the Love Lane, Mattituck neighborhood is enhanced by the attraction of a ~seb~r~ containing rl~ilita~y artifacts dating back to the Arr~erican Revolution· Objectants' conterr~ptuous desct'iption of the applicant's artifacts as "~orld ~a~~ II rr~achinery" notwithstanding, the fact ~emains that per'sons who visit the r,'~useu~ also visit other corrm'~ercial activities within this neighborhood. Objectant i=- well aware that visitor-s to the [r~Llseul¥~ also patronize objectant's food service establishment, and vice ve~sa. Applicant .Town Law :Section 267-b (3), that the configuration of subject property renders this area variance the applicant's exclusive method of achieving the benefit of the property's continued use by applicant. This B.oard has already considered and will continue to consider the environmental conditions related to applicant's use of the property, has set forth conditions addressing same, and has received from applicant more than adequate p~oof that applicant has complied with these conditions, despite the statement by objectant that find that this applicant cannot meet the level of proof required..." Objectants' memorandum p. 17). The applicant does not seek a variance with respect to the observation tower because of its p~evious location, or the length of time of its previous location on the property. This is one of many examples of how objectant misstates applicant's position, and then complains of that position. Applicant originally placed the tower on the property as a display item, and has complied with the directives of both the Building Department and the Town 8nard, and again by the Building Oepartment, in terms of r~oving it and reducing it in size. Although applicant still regards, and uses, the tower as a display item, it seeks a set back variance, applicable under the Zoning Codm only to structures, because it has been recently required to do so. At no time did applican% conclude has also shown, fu~-ther to the provisions of the that~ as objectant deceitfully suggests, "the tower will not alter the neighborhood because it has existed for ten years." (Objectant's memorandum, p. 19). It is the contention of the applicant that the tower, as moved and reduced in height, will not change the neighborhood because it has value as an historic artifact, as a r~e~orial 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 objectants' 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 .electrical conduit" at the top line of the fence. Contrary again to objectants' allegations~ this conduit has been inspected and certified with an electrical ~nderwriter's certificate, which has been submitted to the Planning 8nard in its site plan review pcocess. Likewise the unfounded, gratuitous rema~ks in objectants' memorandum with regard to applicant's security video camera~ which faces the building-located on applicant's property~ -10- Finally~ we come to the insistence that applicant should pursue storage at this property only th~'ough constroction of a boilding to ho~se all items stored at the site, Objectants' approach to this entire situation, on the basis of emotion rather than reason~ is no more apparent than here~ To build anything further on this site which would be adequate for storage would require enormous expense and delay. The dimensions of the property and the Zoning Code wo~ld necessitate numerous va~iances~ and the effort of applicant to finalize with the Town of So~thold the stat~s of his property, which he has been attempting for years~ wo~ld ~ontinue indefinitely, much to objectants~ delight~ CONCLUSION~ Applicant inas made a good faith effoi-t to conduct the storage and display of historical artifacts in compliance with all requirements which the Town has promulgated~ Objectants acquired their neighboring property to the north of applicant si;', years after site as a museum. Objectants were applicant's use of this property. applicant operated its fully aware of Objectants have irresponszbly fictionalized applicant's condb~ct and ~otives. Nevertheless, applicant has complied with the laws and ordinances of the Town, and of all directives ~hich the Town has lodged. It is a direct consequence of applicant's policy in this respect that applicant is -11- before this Board with the instant application, in the same cooperative spirit as in numerous, previous applications befoce this and other Boards over the years in connection with this p~operty~ 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 ~ecu~s 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 forth by any Board or Oepartment of the Town of Southold at any time with or the use thereof. Dated: February 1, 1995 Riverhead, New York respect to his property Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. Blass Attorney for William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Fiundation MATTITUCK CHAME~BR OF: COMMERCE P.O. BOX 1066 MATTITUCK, LONG IBLAND. N.Y. 11952 January 3 I, ! 995 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD RE: THE t~IERICAN ARMOUI,tED FOUNDATION Dear Sirs, Tthe Mattituck Chamber of Commerce wishes to convey our thoughts on the Zoning Variances proposecl to you by the American Armourecl I:ounclation. The variances involve the fence, a memorial tower and the outdoor clisplay. 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 ancl the entire North Fork. The patrons~ who come from all over the world, riot only visit the museum. but alSO our small town. Their income is vital to the business community here in MattitucK. The MattitucK Chamber of Commerce requests that these variances be grante~. Sincerely. Patrlcia & William Moore Presidents, Mattitucl~ Chamber of Commerce 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 CarmeHa Bore]Ii, Esq. Ongioni & Borelli 403 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appl. No. 4262, 4260, 4261 - William F. Gasser Dear Mr. Blass and Ms. Borelli: This will confirm that the public hearing on was recessed by the Board of Appeals and Wednesday, February 1, 1995 at 7:50 p.m. the above applications will be reconvened on Very truly yours, IAnda Kowalski 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 Mr. WDliam 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 ~ find enclosed a Poster Notice which must be placed either on a stake and 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, 4.4' Linda Kowalski Enclosures ONGIONI & BORRELLI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 403 FRONT STREET . P.O.BOX 562 288 PANTIGO ROAD EAST HAMPTON. NY 1 1937 TEL (516) 324-8282 FAX (516) 324-8283 January 9, 1994 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringcr. CbairmaR Soulbold Tox~n Zoning Board of Appeals P. O. Box 1179 Sonlhold. Ncx~ York 11971 Re: William Gasser - American Armoured Foundation Applications # 4260. 4261 and 4262 Dear Mr. Goehringer: In accordancc with the Board's rcqucsl at tile hearing held on the above applications on Wedncsdas. Jannar5 4, 1995 encloscd hcrcuith please find copies of thc following court decisions: I Matlcr ofLevinc v. Korman - 586 N.Y.S. 2d 620 (2d Dept. 19921 2. Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, et al .... App. Div.--- (4th Dept. 7/I 5/94) 3 Maltcr ofSasso x. Osgoo& ct al .... App. Div.--- (4th Dept. 9/3(t/941 4 Sorrcnli v. Siegcl, 525 N.Y.S. 2d 667 (2d Dept. 19881 5. Carlucci v. Board of Zoning Appeals .... App. Div.--- (2d Dept. 6/2(t/941 6. Vilardi v. Roth, et al - 597 N.Y.S. 2d 86 (2d Dept. 19931 7 Do)lev. Amster- 79 NY 2d 592 (19921 8 Cowanv. Kern-41 N.Y. 2d 591 In the Levinc case the Southamptou Zorting Board's denial of the petitioner's application for a variance was sustaiucd bx' the court xdficb noted: ( 11 the petitioner failed to show "practical difficulties" in order to establish entitlement to Iht variance: (2) the variance was sought to accommodate a chosen aeslhetic design: (3) the petitioner's were presumed to have knowledge of the zoniug reslrictions at the dine of pRrchase aRd Ihus the hardship was self-created. In the Sasso case the Appcllatc Division reversed a lo'.x er court (Supreme Court) decision which had sustained a ZBA determination fllat granted aR area variance because: (11 the ZBA's findings were not supported by thc c; idence provided by Ibc applicant; (2) the ZBA's decision was based in part on the erroReous belief thai Town La~ 267-B provides a more lenient standard for grantiag an area variance thaH "practical difficult)'". IR thc Sorrcnti case a ZBA decision den) iRg an ama x ariaRcc was sustained by Iht court because the pctitioner had failed to demoRslralc an) practical difficullics lhal would resull from Ibc denial of his application la thc CarlRcci case the ZBA decisioR den5 iRg an area xariance was suslained because: (11 the decision of the ZBA was supponcd b)subslanlial cvideRce: (2) Ihe petitioner's difficult_,,' in complying xxilh thc zoning regulation was self-created Milch is a siguificant clcmcut mitigating against the application: (3) aflcr finding thai Ibc hardship xxas self-crealed thc ZBA had no obligation Io weigh thc expense of compliauce iu petitioner's fiwor Ia tile Vilardi case tim denial of an area xariancc was sustaiucd because: (1) the determinatiou ;xas supported b) substantial evidence: (2) thc econoraic hardship '~xas self-created as part of a conscious decision: (3) the criteria ofTowu Laxx 267-b and Ihc exisling case la~ regarding "practical difficulty" had not been met b) Ibc petitioner. In the Doyle case the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Divisions affirmance of the Zoning Board Aulbority's decision to den) an area variance because; (1) The Boards deuial that the petilioner did not meet the practical difficult) test was based on substantial evidence: (2) economic injup,.' is not established because property Mil )ield a better return with the variance; (3) any economic injuD' was self-imposed because the zoniug rcslriclion was in effecl when the petitioner pumhased the land. In the Coxxan case. the Court of Appeals. reinstated the Supreme CourVs decision which affirmed Ibc zoumg Board Authority's denial of an ama variance because: (1) The5' found the claim of discrimination to be unfounded: (2) The record sustained that pclitioner had failed to eslablish either economic hardship or practical difficulty: (3) if them was an ccononfic hardship it bad bccn willing assnmed because of pctitiouers knoxx Icdgc at thc time of purchase and was thus self-i~fllicled. The record before this Board upoa which a decision regarding these applicatious must be reudcred as submitted b) Iht petitioncr consisls of the application and the self-serving stalcments coutained thereto. The evidence put forth b~, the petitioner at thc bearing consists of testimony of supporters of Iht museum Thc record is absolutcl) devoid of c',idence to support the grauting of the area variances On tbe contrary', thc evideuce put forlh b) opponents clearing shows the 14 year disregard of thc zoning ordmaaccs b5 Ihis petitioner Iogetber x~ilh the self-created nature of his curmnl predicament. Please be advised that my clients do uot Msh to submit a "wish list" to this Board with regard 1o this application. Our position remains as it has been-that this applicant's requests for variances should be denied. On behalf of my clients, however. I will bc contacting the applicant's attorrtey directly to discuss this matter. Very truly )ours. clb/ns ONGIONI & BORRELLi Carlnela L Borrclli cacs. cc: Gregory' Blass. Esq (x~/o encs ) Frank &Dianc Ammirati (~/o cncs) a m mirati: zbal'olup.lt r 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. COUNSEL Bourke, Flanagan and Asato, Southampton, N.Y. (Gilbert G. Flanagan of counsel), for appellants. David J. Gilmartin, Southampton, N.Y., for respondents. Elbert W. Robinson, Jr., Southampton, N.Y., for intervenor-respondent. JUDGES Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur. OPINION {*323} Ordered that the appeal from the order (see, CPLR 5701 [b] [1]), and it is further, is 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 $chmidt, 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, 41N.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 Case¥, 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, vs. ELLIOTT OSGOOD, 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. No. 0699 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7736 July 15, 1994, Filed (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. - Article 78.) JUDGES PRESENT: DENFuAN, 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 IA]). 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, vs. Harry Siegel, Chairman, et al., constituting the Board of 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, VS. Board of Zoning Appeals for Town of Philipstown, respondent. SUPREME No. 93-02062 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 NoY.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, 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 D~cember 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 (21N.Y.2d 30, overruled in Matter of Doyle v Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592) and ~uman Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. 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 Bd. 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. 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 Grnen v Simpson, 3 A.D.2d 841; 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 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 Palnmbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30; Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. 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. (Conle¥ v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591; McOowan v Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 434; Matter of Wilcox v Zoning of Appeals, 17 N.Y.2d 249; Van Densen v Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 28 N.Y.2d 608; Matter of Village of Bronxville v Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 1 N.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 (21N.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 Conley 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, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 599; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.¥.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, 41N.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 [3d 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 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 Randolph Cowan, Respondent, vs. Roy M. Kern et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of Rthe Town of Smithtown, Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 363 N.E.2d 305, 41 N.Y.2d 591 April 5, 1977, Decided Matter of Cowan v Kern, 51A.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 abuse of discretion. We would, therefore, the Appellate Division and reinstate the Term. either discrimination or reverse the order of judgment of Special 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 Conley 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.Y.2d, 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 113 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, 11N.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. (Mc~owan 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__l 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. of 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 of 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 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. ~ Sth A~mue R~nllO~lltomm, N.Y. 11779 January 3, 1995 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 Museum 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 that their use of the property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning requirements. Si,gn Full Name: I Print Full Name: I Full Address: [Date: PETITION TO THE SO UTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MATTITUCK 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: I Full Address: IDate: PETITION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWTV ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE MATTITUCK 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 property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning that their use of the requirements. Sign Full Name: I Print Full Name: I Full Address: IDate: TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSEUM mer~can Armored Foundation Tank Museum buiMing in Mattimck currently zon,ng rules for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate ~.~he Tank Museum has requested variances from the Zoning Board on three kerns: '~'~T'v~:*'"~F°r' the ~e~ 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 i .i ~ inside a building to conform to zoning. that are higher than permitted (in order to include the barbed wire at the ' : :~op)' ~ We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask that their use of the property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning requirements. I~ Full, Name: I Print Full Name: Full Address: Date: &.~l~&,/- 'l / - , _ . I ~ ~ _. TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD THE MA TTITUCK TANK MUSEUM merica~i~'Armored Foundation Tank Museum building in Mattituck currently zoning trues for the hamlet that others in the area obey. It has no Certificate requested variances from the Zoning Board on three items: ~*~ "bf ~ ~ower closer to the rear and side yard than permitted. ,~2. butside display of tanks and cannons which would otherwise have to be housed a building to conform to zoning. ,~,. ences that are h~gher than pes~tted (in order to include the barbed wire at the ~ We the undersigned oppose the request of the Tank Museum for these variances and ask that their use of the property be made to conform to the existing hamlet zoning requirements. MARIE ONGIONI CARMELA L, BORRELLI ONGIONI & BORRELLI A~rORNEYS AT LAW 403 FRONT STREET . P.O,BOX 562 GREENPORT, NEW YORK I 1944~562 TEL. (516) 477-2048 . FAX (516) 477-8919 BEg I 5 i99fl _ _ 21~ PANTIGO ROAD I~AST HAMPTON, NY 11937 TEL (516) 324°8282 FAX (516) 324-8283 Decenlbcr 12. 1994 Mr. Gcmrd P Gochriagcr. Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Sou(hold Toxnl H311 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Sou(hold. Nc;x York 11971 Re: Applicalions of William Gasser Nos. 4260. 4261 mid 4262 Negative Declaratiou - SEQRA Dear Mr. Gochringer: As )ou knoxL xxc represenl Diane alld Frank Anlnlirali. thc adjaccnl laad owners Io Ihe Gasser property. This letler is subnlilted with regard to I1~c Negalixe Declaralion with mitigalion measures rendered bj, thc Board on Novenlbcr 2. 1994 The applicanl submitted a Long Enviromncatal Assessment form to Ibis Board xxilb Ids letler of October 10. 1994 togelher with a COl)3 oflllc Toxul Board's prior Negative Declaration regardiug his requested zone change and a copy of thc fiadings of Cramcr. Voorhis & Associates also prepared with regard to Ihe prior application for a ×one chaugc This Board has required thai the applicant meel Ix~o miligating measures for tile negative declaration to be effective. Thc applicaat must place pans and oil absorption blankets under all vehicles (active and inacli'se) aad must inspecl the vehicles on a daily basis and take all measures nccessan.' Io prevent oil drippings. Thc applicant m his Icl(ct of October 10. 1994 advised Ihat xvockl) maintenance checks arc madc of the vehicles. As thc Board is xxcll a',x are, Ihis "museum" is not open to Iht public on a daily basis In addition. Ihere is no fidl tmle staffa! thc site on a daily basis. It appears therefore that it will be impossible for file applicanl to compb x~ilh thc mitigalion measure of daily checks of the vehicles. The weekly maintenance schedule now ill cf fcc( is simply iaadequate to deal with ihc potcnlial damage of a significant oil spill from one or more of the clammd ten operational vehicles m whicb gas and oil are maintained Iu addilion, given Ihis applicanl's pasl non-compliance with the zoning code. we fail Io sec how the Toxin xxi}l be able to monilor Ibc nliligalion measures Io insure Ihat thc>' are being adhered to by the applicanl. With regard Io thc cnviromncntal sigmficancc of this sile. I call tile Board's attention tile letter of Cramcr, Voorhis & Associates datcd Scptcnlbcr 18. 1992 aud altachmcnt sabmitled to Ms Jndith Tern. m COllUeCliOn wilh Ibc application for a ZOlle challge. Thc Town's cnvironnlental collsultalll called tile Toxin Board's attention to thc fact thai SEQRA requires consideration of land use. zoniug issucs aad community impacts. Ill facl. thc) recommended againsl Ihe sabscqncnl aclion oflhe Town Board ill rezoning that porlion of the sile then zoned residential to LI because it could have impact on thc comnlmlib, permauentb'. Cralller. Voorhis m addilion noted Ihal the change of zoae wonld uot be consistent uith the recommendalions of thc Master Plan. Whilc IIic zone change ;x3s evenlualb graalcd b)thc (lien conslitutcd Tow n Board. Ibis Board is riel dixestcd of its dul~, Io mvcsligatc ihosc sanlc issllcs iii connectiou xxith ils SEQRA dctcrmiualion regarding thc requested xarianccs Cramer Voorhis determined lhal thc proposed zone change would conflicl with officially adoplcd plans or goals for thc Tox~n and fha! it would set au important precedent for fillum prqjccls. The requested relief- thc three requested '~ariances - coupled 'aith a prior request for relief regarding signs certainly conflict xxith adopted plans and goals aud will set an important precedent for fi~lure projects, l am enclosing herewitl~ a cop:,' of Cramcr Voorhis Long F &F ?:m !! and 1 call this Board's n!!¢ntiou to the Conclusion conlamed Iherem as its contents am applicable to thc mstaul request for reliel'especially that rcquestxxhichasksthisBoardtoallox~ openstomgcof',~armachines. Cramer Voorhisslaled: "Issues regarding zoning arc complex, invoMng change to community character, divergeoces from land nse plans and precedent sclliug uaturc of au acliou. Based upon the discussion included in the appropriate section above, there is a rccogni×cd snlall Julrusioll Jnlo a residential area as xxcll as some recognized precedent set as a resnlt of this action. Thc duration oflhis impact is considered pcrmanenl For thc purpose of this discussion: ...Thc impact can be controlled through site plan rcvicxx utiliziug sclbacks, buffering, and oilier land usc control lechniqncs xxith regard to Iht devclopmcul on Ihe site as xxcll as adjacent sites... 11 is reconunended that Ibc decisiol~ contain reasonable uleasures Io nliuinlizc em'konmcntal impacts to the maximum extent practicable....". These applicalions must be vicx~cd in their entirety and their combined effect ou Ihc community aod tbcy must bc vicx~cd through thc lmm lcus el'this applicaols repeated and continued x iolalion of the zoning code Reasonable measures Io minimize cm iromnenlal impacts arc not practicable for repeat offenders. Much more stringent rcqniremcnts. Ihal can bc cn£orccd or whose violation arc quite visible to thc general public, nmst be imposed as this Board's decision x~ ill effect land nsc aud will scl precedent. Thartk 3ou for your consideration of our objectioos. We ask Ihis Board Io reconsider ils negative declaration or in the allcmativc to impose more stringent, cuforceablc safeguards with regard to both the usual and also thc nlore compelling acstbclic issues of impact ou the coulomnit.x. clb/ns cc:Frank & Diane Ammirati ammirati:zbaseqra, lt r Very truly yours, ONGIONI & BORRELLI Carmela L. Borrelli APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Gcehdnger, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr, James Di~iao, Jr. Robe~ A, Villa Richard C, Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF,SOUTHOLD NOTICE FOR POSTING Subjeot: Pending V~a~ee Applio. ations - W~ F. G~se~ o~ ~ ~e~ ~d Foden, Inc. Lo~tion of P~pe~y: E/s ~ve ~ ~d Sis CR 48, ~t~. Zone Dist~ct: ~mlet B~ass (HB) Attached is a Notice of Declaration under SEQRA as per Resolution adopted at a Regular Meetin~ of the Board of Appeals held on November 2, 1994. The PubLic Comment period ~s subject to the periods astabl~shed in Part 617 of NYCRE and subJeot to the rules and refulations of the New York State Envh-o~mental Quality Revisw Act. Based upon th;m NeKative Declaration as an U~l~,ted Action, SEQRA is now completed, and applioant ab,.' be required to mitiKate, as noted below, as welt as any f2ther ~equi~emente in the proceasin$ of the vM, lance applications. Fo~' further information please ~onteot the Office of the of Appeals, Gerard P. Go~h~4,~_~e, Cha/t~,~, ~,~ Road, Southold, New York 11971, or tel. 516-765-1809. Th,nl~ (Continued on next APPEALS BOARD MEM6ERS Gerard P, Goehdnger, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr, James Dinizio, Jr, Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN O[e SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 NEGAT .IVE. D~-CLAKATION Per Action taken,November 2, 1994 by the Southold Town Board of Appe~l-~ Pending Appllca~ons o~ WILLIAM GASSER Location of Property: Love Lane, Mattituck Appeals No. 4262, 4261 and 4260 SE~KA detel~mln~tion per~lninE to p~pe~ ~ W~M GASS~ at ~e Sis ~ to p~ appH~ un~ Ap~l- 4262, 4261 ~d 4260. T~ B~rd M~bers m~u~ ~ n~ to be ~en, ~d a~d to a NeW.ye De~]-~on ~ ~ ~ ~u~s ~m~ ~.. On mo~on by ItESOLVED, to declare LEAD AGENCY status, and de~la,~ a NEGATIVE DECLAI~,ATIO.N. with the followinz ~ measures incorporated therein, subject to the nm, mai p~mm~nt peeiod established under the SEQIIA rules: 1. Dr~in~_~e l~n~ and off absorption blankets shall be placed under all vehicles such as under the tx~nKmtsston and en~rine ax~as, including active and well aa inactive vehicles. 2. The owner is responsible for daily cheeks of the vehicles and tAlrirtK all measures necessary to pt. event off drippi*~_~s, and maintain good condition of the vehicles. AYES: Messrs. Doyen, Goehringer, Dtni=lo and Wilton, (Member Villa was absent, ) This resolution was duly adopted. A.A.F. N.Y. 11779 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5Ih Ave., R onkonkoma, 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~v/yours~ William F. G~sser, '--- Director Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum A-~F. 23~3 ';th A~m~tue Ronl(onkoma, N.Y. 11779 American Armoured Foundation, Inc. Mailing Adress 2383 5th Ave., Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-0033 Museum: · Love Lane Mattituck, NY OCT Z 4- 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 and 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. ~ 6th Avenu~ Roflk, on~oat~, 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 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 community including, but not limited traffic, water quality or odors. to the environment or to, pollution, noise, 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 bite 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 Proiect 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 wdl be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subiect to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Part~ 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAr 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 and County) NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR I SUStNESS TELEPHONE t STATE I ZIP CODE /u. BUSINESS T[LEPHONE ADDRESS C~T~PO STATE z,. CODE DESCR~'nON O~ ACT, ON Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of (~verall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1 Present land use: re, Urban I-Ilndustrial ~ommercial C]Residential (suburban) : I~,Forest [~Agriculture ,~Other k,~c~;~ ~u~- ~ ~- /AO'~L~,,...- 2. Total acreage of project area: ,~;/~-~ ;~ -ores. ~ 7_%? °~re~ APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY Meadow or t)rushland (Non-agricultural) acres Forested acres Agricultural (;ncludes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres Water Surface Area acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ,~1 [ ~. acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres ~,Rural (non-farm) Other (Indicate type) acres 3 What is predominant soil type(s)on project site? ~'J' ~)/' ~- '~f, '~,~ ,._~_-,' 1~ a Sod dra.nage: ~el[ d~a~ned ~ ~ of ~te ~Moderately well drained ~Poorly drained ~ % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, now many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classific.ation Systeml W/~ acres (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? , ~Yes ~o a. What is depth to bedrock? ~ /~-/6~g"(in feet) ~FTER COMPLETION -- % of site 2 L S. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ~[~0-10% C~ % r~10-15% % 015°/$ or greater % 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? OYes ~o 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmark~? OYes ~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? ,-~ -[o' (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? I-lYes ~'No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the proiect area? I-lYes ~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or =nimal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? OYes ,~fNo According to . - ~-.I,"t~ ~-ie. lc~ ~nucs.'4' Identify each species ~//~ /' 'J 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? {i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) 1~ Is the project site presently used by the community/or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? OYes Ho If yes. explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? OYes ~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ///,,/~, a. Name of Stream and name of River to which i~t ~s ~ri%~utary 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas with, in/~r contiguous to project area: 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~l~es nNo ~/,l'D~'~' . a} If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~f'es ~]No · b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? l-lYes ' ,l~o 18. Is the site located in an agricultut~al/district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. ,~rticle 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? imYes ,~No 19. Is the site Iocated i.n or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 m~Yes 20. Has the site e~,er been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ~mYes B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fiji in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by proiect sponsor-~'~,/~')~$~-/~/~cres. b. Project acreage to be developed: ,~/~ zcres initially; ' /~/,~ acres c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped .~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ~/~ (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of ~xpansion proposed ~/~ %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing~ ; proposed g Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~ h If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Fam~y Two Family Multiple Family Ultimately i. Dimensions (in i~etl oi largest proposed structure /~/t~; height; __ width; __ j Linear feet ~f frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? (upon completion of proiect)? / -~(LO. rS lOec ~¢ ' Condominium length. 3 2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock. earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? cr~ tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? [~Yes DNo ~'"N/A ~, a. If yes. for what intend , purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes [~No C. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? E]Yes I-INo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? .,_~ ",'~'~ '~ acres 5. Will any matu,~forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes ~.No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction /~/~/ 7. If multi-phased: [number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 ~ month c. Approximate completion date of final phase /U//¢ month d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? FIYes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? f-lyes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ~; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project /~//~)~ . 11. Will project require relocation of any proiects or facilities? E/Yes months, (including demolition) year. (including demolition). 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? F1Yes a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid w~ste disposal involved? {~es rqNo Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I-tYes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? I-lyes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? I-lYes a. If yes. what is the amount per month /1~/¢4 tons b If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? FqYes c If yes, give name ..~_~'/~C'~ ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes. explain { 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? E]Yes ~,~No a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes. what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~Yes 19 Will proiect routinely produce odprs [,more thap onechour p~r day)~ [~Yes 20 Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~Yes 21 Will project result in an increase in energy use? [~es fqNo 22 If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day, i'~,'~q, 24 Does project involve Local. S?te or Federal funding? E/Yes ~o 4 2S. Approvals Required: City. Town. Village Board ?Yes E:]No City, Town. 'Village Planning Board ZYes []No City, Town Zoning Board /~Yes (No City, County Health Department /~Yes r"lNo Other Local Agencies [~Yes [:]No Other Regional Agencies [:]Yes r-INo State Agencies fqYes l-INo Federal Aeencies -, rlYes f-INo C. Zoning and Planning Information Type 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~'~'es [:]No ~ If Yes. indicate decision required: I'-~zoning amendment /~oning variance [~]special use permit I-isubdivision ,J~ite plan [:]new/revision of master plan I-lresource management plan ¢-Iother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ~O.~r~ I¢-~ ('~o~ r-~./e !L 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 js thee maxic.mum potential development of the site if deve!oped as permitted by the proposed zoning? V~ ~ri,d~ :r-x G, ~ ",, ~,, /~,-20 /¢~,~/e¥ ~,qec-:,'l),~-M,¢$ ¢-( 'H-~ &~,:'t4,14'T~.~,~ Z~ '""7 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~es ~No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V~ mile radius of proposed action? 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surroundin8 land uses within a ~ mile~ ~Yes ~No 9 If the proposed a~tion 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? ~Yes 11 fire protection)~ ~Yes Will the proposed action cre~a demand for any community provided se~ices (recreation. education, police. a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No .12 Will the proposed action result in the generation o~ traffic significandy above present [eveis~ ~Yes ~. ff ~es. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic~ ~Ye ~o D. Informational Attach ang additional information as may be needed to dadf~ gout Croject. If there are or mag be ang adverse impact~ associated with gout ~roposal. ~lease discus~ such impacts and th~ measures which gou ~ro~ose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true [o the best o~ my knowledge, Applicant/Spon.sz~r Na .m~/~C/,///~/4 ~ ~ ~Se~ /~ eY/c~ ~/~a ~,~o.~ ~.~ ~. ~ Date /~' j~' ~ Sisnature ' ' 4 Title '1~c'~-. ~-~.~ ~_ ~ilb l~i~ 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 OFSOUTHOLD 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:lxlisted 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 OF SOUTHOLD 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, pertnining 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 normai public comment period established under the SE(~RA rules: 1. Drainage pans and oil absorption blankets shall be placed under ali 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. JLq)iTH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF V~TAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hail. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold. New York 11971 Fax t516) 765-1823 Telephone t516! 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLAIL~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Significance Lead Agency: .,4 ddress: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York I1971 Date: October 6, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertainmg 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 Acti0n: SEQR Status: Project Description: SCTM Number: Location: William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, Inc Mattituck, New York Type I Action The project which is the subiect of this Determination, involves a proposed change of zone of 0.737 acres from Light Industrial "LI" and Residemial Office "RO" to Hamlet Business "FIB". 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 Yorkl ' Page I of 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. ll, 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 Long EAF Part III which discusses in detail environmental and planning aspects of the project. 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. 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 "H B" in accordance with Chapter 100~91A. 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. P, oss, Esq. Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 2 of 2 LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, II AND III Profect: William F. Gasser and the American Armoured Foundation, lnc. (Change of Zone) Love Lane Mattituck, 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 & A~sociates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Date: September 16,1992 LONG EAF PART III CRAMER, VOID'RHiS ~'.;.~SSOCIATES E N VI R O N M E N T.~.~b.~ ~'1~'t~1~, ~N G CONSULTANTS · ?~_- i~/ll! ,~\\\ Page I LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III 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 Mattimck 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 l0 provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project o.n the environment, in order to form the basis for the adoption ora determination of s~gnificance. The LEAF Part III 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 III addresses in detail the environmental and planning issues which are relevant to the subject application. CRAMER, VOORHi~ &;i'~SOCIATES E N VI R O N M E N TA~4~_~_D:,,iT'~tN G CONSULTANTS Page 2 William Gasscr Change of Zone Long Environmenlal Assessment Form ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact on Growth and Character of Community * The proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. The proposed action will set an important precedent for fitture projects. The proposed action involves a request for a change of zoning from the Town Board of the Town of Southo{d 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 is important to understand the present use and history of the site wzth 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 pomon of the site. The present zoning of the site requires minimum lot 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" Light Industrial zoning is intended to provide an opportunity for business and industrial uses on smaller lots than tho,s,e ~pproprmte under LIO L~oht 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 violation of the current zoning c assfftcauon, and the owner was nonfied of th s s tuat on n 1988 by the Ordinance Inspector. At that time the site was zoned "A" · ' ' " " ' " " , the Restdenttal/Agrzcuhural and C Industrml. The present LI zomng of the south part of 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 Appea s. 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 zoning will cause an intrusion into a residential area CRO" 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 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 . .'?¢~.~ ~/.',~ CRAMER. VOORHiS, &'i~SSOCIATES E N VI RO N M E N TA~....__~. D'~,I~'~NiNG CONSULTANTS · '~ q/I1/ Page 3 ~,¥illtam C, asser Change of Zone Long £nvlronmental 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 significant impact upon the commun ty The change of industrial zoning to hamlet business ~s 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 m 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 :ts the area. The action, if approved, would set a precedent for other future actions, thereby undermining 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 mtenuon 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 ~ranted the museum wo,,uld still not conform completely with zoning. The Hamlet Business zoning states that all uses permitted in 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 encIosed 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 1 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. Likewise, 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. 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 . f5,;,.,_, CRAMER, VOORHIS, ~',~SSOCIATES E NVIR O N M E~ N TA~.A~N D,..P,,~IN G CONSULTANTS '-~ W/Il ,:,\'~ Page 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 welles'some recognized precedent set as a result of this a'ction. 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 zoning changes. The impact can be controlled through site plan review utilizing setbacks, buffering, and Other l.and use control techniques with regard to the development on the site as well as adjacent s~tes. 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 the 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 the proposed action. It is recommended that the decision contain reasonable measures to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. as outlined herein. CRAMER, VOO'RHtS, &"..ASSOC ATES E NVIRO N M E N TAL~..P, ',.{.~ N,I,~,IG CONSULTANTS Page 5 William Gasser Change or Zone Long Environmenlul Assessment Form LONG EAF PART I CRAMER, VOORHIS~ &~!~'~SOCIATES E NVIRONM ENTA~A~O~.~ ~lO CONSULTANTS FULL ~N~RONMENTAL ASSE55MEN~ FORM PurpOse: The iull ~ ~F ,s des~gned '.o hel0 adohcants and agenc=es determine, m an o~derN manner whethe[ a ~o[ect analysis In add,uon man~ who have knowledge Jn one part~cula[ area may not be aware of the broader concerns afiectmg the question DJ s~mi~cance method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured Jhat the determination The tuH [AF ts intended to prowde a vet flex,hie to allOW introduction of ,nfo~ma:~on to {it a protect or action Full IAI ComponentS: The tull [A~ ,s comprised oi three parts part 1: pro~ides oblectwe data jnd mformaHon about a gNen pro~ect and ~ts 5,te Bv ,dentdYmg basic p~ojec' data. it assists a re~e~e~ m :~e ~n~t~sts that ~3ke5 place in Parts ~ and ] large ~mpaCt The iorm also ~dent~l~es'*hether an impact can be m~t~gated or reduced Part 3: Ii any ~mpaCt m Par~ 2 ~s ~dentd~ed as poren(iajjY'targe' then Pail ] ts used to e~aluate whether or no~ th impact ,s actually ~mportant DETERMINATION OF SiGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify Ihe Portions o( IAI: completed Jot this project: :~ Part other SuppOrting reasonably determined by the Upon review oi the m~ormat~on recorded on th~s EAF (Parts '~ and 2 and 3 ~{ appropr~atel, and any ,niormat~on. and considering both the mag,rude and tmportance oi each ~mpact. wh,ch ~{11 lead agency that .~. The prolect wdl not result in any laf§e and ~mportant impaCttS) and. therefore. ~s one ~ ha~e a s,am{~can~ ~mpaCt on the env.onment, there{ore a negative declaration will be prepared- ~ B Al~houch the PrOtect could ha~e a s~ndicant eiiect on ~he envaonment, there wd[ not be a st~nd~Can~ eifect {or th~ ~nl~sted kcDon because the m~ti~at~on measures described tn PART ~ have been required there{ore ~ coNDITiONED ne~ali~e d~claratlon will be on the en~,ronmenL ~hefeiore 3 posili~e ~ecl~ralion will be prepare~- · k Cond,t~oned ~e~a~e Oecla~at~on ,s only ~ahd {or ~nhsted ~cuons WILLIAM F. GASSER AND THE AMERICAN ARMOURED FOU~IDATION INC. cHA~JGE OF ZOHE-LI and RO to HB ' Name oi ACtiOn Town Board of the Town of Southold Name oi Lead .~,genCv / 7--_ · de-~o~s,ble 0 ,ce~ ,n lead Agency Pt,nt or T', ,pe Name o~ ~e u '--"= l,tJe ol Re,pons,hie C)t c $,gnature O{ Respon~b"e ()d~(er ,n Lead Ageno,' " .° p,epared by proj¢c! Sponso, it IS e~O~cted that complebon ot the fuji EAF wdJ be dependent on iflJofm~ttOn culrenlJv avaliabJe and ~lJl no[ ,n~olve of Zone - L[ and RO Lo HE ~ American Amoured Foundation, Inc. and Vlilliam F. Gasser Change Love Lan~ MatLituc~unL~SCTM~/[~ ;American Armoured Foundation Love Lane Mattituck, ~ll~ F~ ~s~ 2383 Fifth Avenue STATE i Z!P cOOE I NY i 11952 BUSINESS TELEPHONE 516' 543-6600 ~--- Ronkonkoma Office to Hamlet DESCRIPTION OF ~.CTION · Apolication to change the zone from Light industrial and Residential ' ss with respect to property~at Lov_.e Lane 'n Mattituck (SCTM 100,0/140/2./16). ~ Buslne . - _ :_ Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. ii nol ~pplicable A. Site Descrtpt'on phys,cal sell,nB oi o~etaII project both de~eJoped and undeveloped areas _ · 1 Present land use ~L'rban ~lndustr,al ~Co ....... m ~ForeS~ ~AU'cuhure ~ PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLE TIO~ Fore,ted acres ~r,cuhu~al Hncludes orchards c~op~and pasture, e~c) ac~' bn~eeetaJed ,Rock. earth or i,lI) .~% ' Bl~ 7?~t~X -- RoadS. buJd,ngs Jnd othe, pa~ed suffices acres Other(Ind,cate type'-- ~~ ~/.~... a Sod d~,~mafe ~kNelJ d~,ned ~ % oi s,te ]Modefatel~ ~ell d[amed ~ - ' Land Crass,heat,on %stum~ ~ ac~es ~S,,e 1 ~CRR )701' ~b 2 11 Does prolect s~te contain an',' speoes o~ plant or amr~l hfe lhal ~s ~denldied as threatened or endan§ered~ 12 .Are there any umque or unusual land torres on the prolecl sale? (le. cliffs, d..u/ne, s. other geolo§icnl iorma]~ons) '_-'~es ~No Ii xes. expla,n XNo ~ 5 ° Sueams w,thm or ¢ont,guous Ia prolect area N___OFIP, 16 lakes ponds. ',~etland areas v,,th,n or con'd:uouS ~o prolec: area None 17 a ,',,ame N/A b S,ze (In acresl_ · ~'I/A Is the s,te ser',ed by ex,st,n~ pubhc utihues al If ~es. does suihc,enl c~pac,tv e,,st ,o allow connect,on' ~Ves ZNo ~[~) ' Sect,on 303 and 3041 ]hes o~ ~he ECL and o NYCRR 61P ~Yes ~No 20 Has the ~,te e~er been used for the d,sposal of sohd or h~zardous wastes Upon info~aLion and belief B. Project Description a Total conhg.aous acreage owned or con:rolled bs' proie<: sponsor ~2__~10~ b Pro!et: ac~e~;e :o be de~elooed _~I/A acres m.:,alls _~L~ . acres ulhmateK c Prolect acreaBe lo remain unde,.eloped .__~A . acres No ~hys~cal change anticipated d Length oi prolect. ,n re,les N/A f appropna~el e II the prolect ~s an expans,on, md,ca:e percen1 al expansion proposed .~/A . %. f ~umber at oi~-s~reel park,nB spaces e,,stmB . ~ .. proposed ~ - g ',.tax,mum .,eh~cuIar U~ps generated per hour J,]jj~im.ql h II ref.,denhal '..umber and t',pe o~ hou-,,n~ umtS N/A One Famdv l','~O Fam,K {upon complet,on of prolectV /~ '~ ',4ulhple [amd', Condom,mum L:h,mate[s length D~mens~ons ,n teetlo~ large>t Droposed'~tructure _I.I/A _ height. _ ~dth __ . l,near feet or irontage along a pubhc .horoughiare pro,ecl w,ll OCCup'~ ~s' 50 _ ,t and 60 .ft I ~,~.'dl ,J,srurbed .lreas _-~¢s -No ,~.N,A .~'~l? ~ [,Y.; t = .... -~_,~ =Yes ~No 6 If s~ngle phase project: Anucipaled penod pi construction N/A months. {including demolition( 7 If multi-phased: N/A a Total number of phases anticipated (number). b Anticipated date of commencement phase I month c Approximate completion date of final phase month d Is phase 1 iunctionall,,, dependent on subsequent phases? EYes 8 ~,% dj blasting occur dunng conslrucllon? ----.Yes --No N/A 9 Number of lobs generaled during conslruchon N/A , 10 ".umber o[ lobs eliminated by th~s prolect .11 ".",'all p*'olect reqmre relocation of any projects or [ac~iities? :No year. (including demolmom aiter prolect ~s compJe:e I~Yes y~No Ii yes. explain 12 Is surface hquid waste disposal invoh, ed~ ~Yes ~No a If ',es. red,cate type oi '.,.aste (se~...age. mdusmal, etc ) and amount b Name ot w,~ter body rolo ,.sh~ch ei[luenl will be discharged 13 Is subsurtace I,qu,d waste disposal mvol,ed;' /h~Yes ~No 14 W,]I surface area ot an e~,stmg wa(er body ,ncrease or decrease by proposal? ~Yes [ ~pla,n ~No 16 PrOleCt or any pomon oi p;olec[ Iota:ed ,n a 100 ~ear flood plain; ~,Yes .,~'~o Unknown the prolecl generate sohd ~asle' ~Ves ~No ~XI~T~*¥[ ~~' Ii yes what is the amount per month tons t Ii ~es. w,ll an ex~sl,ng sohd waste facd~(v be used? , ~Yes ~No~ W,II any was[es not ~o ~n(o a se~a~e d,sposal system o~ inlo a samta~ landf,lP ~Yes Yes. explain ~/~1 ' ~' _--.No 1= %all the proJect involve !he d~sposal of iohd waste; ~Yes :~No Ions month years 19 ~.',ill prolect rOuhnely produce odors (more than one hour per day}? ~Yes X=~O 20 ~.'dl prolect produce operatm[ no(se e~ceedmg the local ambient no~se levels? ~Yes ~No 21 Wdl prolecJ result ,n an ,nctease ~n energy use) ~Yes ~No If ~es , ,nd~cale Ivpe(s) 22 Ii ;~aler suppJ~ ~s [tom ;~eJJs. ~nd,ca~e p~mpm~ capao~v ~aJJons. m,nu:e ~.Q~' ~,'o.~l ~-~ - Does prOleCt ,n~ol~e toc~l S~ate or r~de~al funding~ ~Yes If ~es. e~pla,n Federal: Dept. of Defense dona:ions are regularly made of tanks and ............. ~'Ft ENo Yes Suffolk County Planning Commission X C. Zoning and Planning Inforrnalion 1 Site Plan Approval Does proposed achon ,nvolve a planmng or zomng dens,on" ]~Yes ,".o I! Yes. indicale decision required X--zoning amendment ~zomn§ variance ~speoal use 0ermi[ ~subd,v,s,on ~new rews,on ol master plan ~rescurce management plan ~olher £ -. 4/[5191 ~s,~e plan / ~'hat ,s the zon,r,g classd,cat~on(sloi the s,te? l.~ghr rnrh,qr~'~-*l/Re.r~4J~4~_ial Office / ).vh~t ~s the max~mumoolenU4i ~elopm~n~ oj ~he s]le ,~ de}eloped as permitted by ~he presenl zoning) ~uc. uses as are permluEeo~ perml~ Dy speciaz exceptzon and accessory uses allowed by Article XII. Section 100-140,LiKht Industrial District of rh~ ~n,,rh~]H Tn,~Z~ing~od~ What ,s ~he proposed zomng Of the s~te~ Hadst Business ~ ~ ~> (~xhibit A) Wha~ ~s the max,mum potent,al development pi the s~te ,f de,eloped as pe~m,~ted by ~he proposed zon,ng~ Such uses as are permitted, permi~d by special exception and accessory uses allowed by Article IX Section 100-90 H~m~r R,,~in~e~ ~. ~F *~ c~ .~J ~. m ..-~ . ~ ~ Is ,he ~roposed act,on cons,stent w,th ,he ,ecommended uses ,n adooted local land use plans' ~YesZbl~xo~ %%'hat are the Qredom,nan~ land us~s; and zon,n~ classn,cat,ons .,~thm ~ '.. rode ~ad,us o~ proDosed action~ Ha~et Business. Residential Office. Light Industrial 8 Is the proposed action compat,ble with adlo,nmgsurroundtn§ .and uses v.~:h,n a ', rode) )C_Yes ~No 9 It the propo*ed achon :s the subd,~s,on o~ land. how many lots are proposed; a ~Vhat ,S lhe mm,mum Io~ s,ze proposed; N/A O. Inlormational Oelails Altech any add,l,onal mlormahon as may be needed to claz;t~ your Orolect Ii there are or may be any adverse E. Verification ,ce,t,,. t at .s ,. ; II Ih~ ~¢llon is in Ihe Co,sial A~en. and ~ou are ~ slale ~ency. complele Ihe Coaslal Assessmenl [orm b~fore prn¢eedin~ ~ilh lhls nssessmenl. r Wi{Hum Gasser Change of Zone Long £nvlronmcnlal A~sessmcnt Form LONG EAF PART II CRAMER, VOORHIS &!.'.'A'SSOCIATES E NVIRONM ENTA ,.~D:.~E~I~IJNG CONSULTANTS '~ ¥'~?11 Pad 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility pi Lead Agency General infoemation (Read Carefully) · In completing the term the re,,~ev, er should be guided bs the question Ha',e my responses and de:ermmdhons b-t-n · Identify,hi that an ~moact wdl be potentially large {column ?} does not mean that ~t ~s also necessardv significant. Any large ~mpact must be evaluated m PART ] to determine s~gmficance Identd','mg an ~mpact m column 2 s~mpl'. asks that ~t be looked at further · The Examples prowded are to assist the revlev, er by showing types of ~mpacts and wherever possible the threshold o' magnitude that would trigger a response ~n column 2 The examples are generally applicable throughout the S~ate an,: for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requmng evaluation in Part 3 · ]'he ~mpacts of each prelect, on each s~te. tn each locality, will vary Therefore. the examples are dlustrat~;e ant: have been oifered as guidance. They do not constttute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each queshon · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question · In identifsing ,mpacts. consider long term. short term and cumlative effects Instructions {Read carefully) a Ans'...er each of the 19 questions in PART 2 Answer Yes d'there will be any ~mpact c If ans'~.ermg Yes to a questton then check the appropriate bo× (column 1 or 2) to indicate the 0otent;al s,ze of th_,: ,mpact. lf ,mpact threshold equa[s or exceeds an',' example provided check column2 If impact;",dloccu~bulthre~holc ~s io;..er than example, check column 1 d If rewe~.'.er has doubl about s,ze of Ihe impact then cons,der the impact as polenbally Large and proceed to P.-".R T J e If a potent,alJ¥ large ~mpact checked in column 2 can be m,hgated by change{si in the prelect to a small to moderat~- indicates that such a reduction ~s not poss~ble~ Th, impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 A No response must be explained m Part 3 IMPACT ON LAND Will [he proposed action result ;n a physical ,_hange :o t~e prelect site? _~NO ~Y[S [~amples that would apply to column 2 Any construCt~O,q on slopes of 15% or greater. (15 ioof rise per 1~ foot of length), or ~here the general slopes ,n the prelect area exceed 10% Construct,on on land where the depth to the water table ,s less than 3 ~eet Constrict,on of paved parking area [or 1.~ or more vehicles Conslruct~on on land where bedrock ~s exposed or generally withm 3 feet o~ ex~st;ng ground surface [t,:a~at~on for mmm8 purposes th~ would remo~e more than 1.~0 Construct,on or expansion o~ a sanitary landfdl Construction m a des,~na:ed fioodwa~ 2 ~A, dl there be an eifect to an',.' umque or unusual land forms found on the s,te.' (i e. chits, dunes. ~eolog~cal formations, etc )/~"~O ---YES · Specdic land forms 6 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change '_- Z _-'res : :- :~es -_'-o _- _- -~es _-'~o -- -- --_',e~ _--xo ~ ~ _-Yes ~o Z 7_ Z~,s ZZ'~o ~' Z Z~es Z~o IMPACT ON WATER ~ t, Vdl proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15. 24. 25 of the Enwronmental Conservation Law. ECL) X-NO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Oe',elopable area of s~te contains a protected water body · Oredgmg more than 100 cubic yards of matenal from channel of a protected stream · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. · Construction ,n a designated freshwater or t,dal wetland · Other ~mpacts: 4 Will proposed action affect any non-prolected existin,~ or new body of water? ~NO ~YES 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 10 acre increase or decrease · Construction pt a body pt water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area *.Other impacts 5 Will Proposed Action attect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will requ~re a discharge permit · Proposed Action requires use pt a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (prolect) action · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with grealer than 45 gallons per minute pumping capaoty sugDly system · Proposed Action wdl adversely affect ~roundwater · Liquid effluent will be conve~ed oil the ~te to facilities which presently do not ex,st or have inadequate capacity · Proposed Action would use water in excess pi 20.~ ~allons pet day · Proposed Action ~dl li~eiy cause 5iltat~on or olher discharge into an ex~stinB body pi ~ater to the e~lent that there wdl be an obvious visual produc~s ~reater than 1.1~ ~aHons · Other ~mpact s 6 WdJ proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface ~,ater runoii.~ ~NO ~-YES Etamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood ..,ater dows 7 · 2 3 Smo. to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large MitiGated By Impact Impact Projecl Change ~ ~: ,r~wes "-'No ~ C ~y~s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes m m ~Yes ~ ~ m ~Yes ~NO ~ ~ ~Yes _ o - Z ~Y*s · Proposed Achon may cause substanttal erosion. · Proposed Action ,$ ,ncompat,ble with ex~stmg drainage patterns · Proposed Achon wdl allow development m a designated floodway · Other ,mpacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed action alfect air quality~ ~-----~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Acbon wdJ ~nduce 1.000 or more vehicle trips :n any given hour. · Proposed Action wilE result m the ~ncinerahon of more than 1 ton of refuse pet hour · Emission rate o( total contaminants wdl exceed 5 lbs per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour · 'Proposed act*on will alloy, an ~ncrease in the amount o{ land committed to ,ndustnal use · Proposed achon wd] allow an increase ~n the den.it'~ of industrial development w~thm existing industrial areas · Other impacts IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 wdl Proposed Action aifect any threatened or endangered ~,,,O species? Examples that ¥.ould apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more speoes listed on the New York or Federal list. us,rig the sKe. over or near site or found on the site · Removal of any portion of a critical or s,gnificant wddlife hab,tat. · Application o~ pesticide or herb,eide more than tw=ce a year. other than for agricultural purposes · Other.' impacts_ 9 WiII Proposed Act,on substanhaIl¥ affect non-threatened or non-endangered spec~es? Etamples that would appl;' to column ? · Proposed Acbon ~o,ld subs[~nt=ally interfere w~th any res,dent or m~gratorv ~oh. shelli~sh or wddh~e · Proposed Action ~equ~res ~he ~emoval of more (hah ~0 acres of ma~ure iores~ {over 1~ years of a~e} o~ olher locally ~mportant vegetation IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Wdl the Propose~ Act,on affec: aSucuhural land resources~ Examples that would apply to coJumn 2 · The proposed acbon would sevef, cross o~ limit access to a~ficuJtu~al land ~include~ cropland, havheld5, pasture, vineyard, o~cha~d, etc ) 8 2 Potential Large Impact I Impact Can impact Be Mitigated By Project Change -~ves _-~o 'mYes ~-¥es ~o ~Yes .~¥es '-Yes _~¥es ~",o · Construcbon activity would excavate or compact the sod profile pi agricultural land · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, ii located in an Agricultural Distr~ct, more than 25 acres of agricultural land. · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation o1' agricultural land management systems (e g. subsurface drain Tines. outlet ditches. str~p cropping) or create a need for such measures /e g cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runolf} · Other ,mpacts IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources.~ ENO ~YES (If necessary, use the Visual CAF Addendum in Section 617 21. Appendix B ] Examples that would apply to column 2 · ' Proposed land uses. or prolect components obviously d,fferent from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patlerns. ~he~her man-made or natural · Proposed land uses. or prolect components wsible to users aesthetic resources which wdl eliminate or significantly reduce their enlovment pi the aesthebc qualities of that resource "~ Prolect components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scemc wews known to be important to the area "Other ~mpacts 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 ~YES E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or parbaJlv wllhin o¢ subsJanliallv contH~uous to any facility or s,te hsted on the State or Nabonal Registe¢ pi historic places · ,-~ny ,mpact to an archaeological sate or fossil bed located w~thin the project s,te · Proposed Acbon ~,~11 occur ~n an area designated as sens~tr,.e for archaeological s~tes on Ihe NYS S~te In;en(or¥ · Other ,mpac:s IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ~,~,'il[ Proposed Aclion atfect the quanbt;, or quality pt exrstmg or iuture open spaces or recreahonaf oppoHumt~es;' E'~amples that v, ould apply to column 2 ~NO --~YE$ The permanent foreclosure pt a {uture ~ecreatJonal oppoftumty A major reducbon oJ an open space important to the commumtv Other impacts 9 S to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] C :Yes c_ EYes ~ C ~Yes ~No ~ ~- =Yes ~o ~ m ~Yes IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to~ [hng transportahon ~NO Esamples that would apply to column 2 · Aherat~on of present patterns of mo~,ement pi people and/or goods · Proposed Action will result m malor traific problems · Other ~mpacts 'IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 W,II proposed action affect the commumt¥'s sources of fuel or energy supplv~ ENO ~YES E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase m the use of an,,' form of energy in the muniopa[ity · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or suppty system to serve more than 50 single or t',vo famdy res,dances or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 W,II there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ENO [~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting w,[hm 1.500 feet of a hosp,tal, school or other sens,hve facdity · Odors wdl occur routinely (more than one hour per day) · Proposed Actiopi will produce operatm§ no,se exceeding: the local ambient no,se levels for noise outside of structures · Proposed Achon will remove natural barriers that would act as a · Other ,mpacts IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed AcNon affect public health and safety? ~NO EYES [tamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk oi e~plos~on or release of hazardous substances(ia od. peshodes, chem,ca[s, rad,ahon, etc ) ,n the event of accident or upset conditions, or there ma', be a chron,c Iow level form [ie toxic, poisonous, h~ghl¥ reactr, e. radioactive, irntatmg. mfechous, etc ) · Storage fac,ht~es lot one mdlion or mo~e gallons of liquified natural ga, or other flammable Nqu~ds · Proposed action may result m Ihe exca~ahon or other disturbance v,,th,n 2.000 feet of a s~te used for the d~sposal of solid or hazardous · O;her impacts 1 dael I to Impact Potential Can hnpact B. Large Mitigated By Impact Project Change Zves '--Yes r'-' ,~Yes © Cves "Z~o 10 I;dPACT ON GR~.{~ AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character of the existing commumly~ _rNo . YES Examples thai would apply :o column ? · The permanent population of the city. town or wllage ,n which the project is located is likely Io grow by more than 5% · The mumopal budget for capital expend,Lures or operating services will ~ncrease by more than 5*,/. per year as a result of this project · Proposed action will conllict ~.~th officially adopted plans or goals · Proposed action will cause a that',ge m the density of land use · Proposed Action win replace or ehmmate e×i$1mg facdities, structures or areas ot historic importance to the commumty · C)evelopmeot will create a demand ior additional community services (e g schoo s. police and fire. etc ) · Proposed Action wdl set an ~mportant precedent tor future proiects · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment · Other impacls Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated E Impact impact Project Char ,'~ ~ ~r~' Yes ~_~> 19 Is [here. or ,s there likely to be. public cont~o...ersy related lo potent,al adverse environmental ~mpacts? .~NO ~'-YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnilude of Impact, Proceed to Pad 3 Pad 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility oI Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared il one or mole impact(s) is considered Io be potentially large, even ii Ihe impact(s) may b. mitigated. In$1ruclion$ Discuss/the following for each ,mpact ~dent,fled ,n Column 2 of Part 2 Briefly; describe the ~mpact 2 Describe(if applicable] how the ~mpact could be m,t,gatedor reduced to a small to moderate ~mpact by prolect changc-(~ 3 Based on the ~nformation a:a,lable, dec de ,t ~l ,s reasonable to conclude :hat th~s ,mpact ~s importanl. '[o answer the question oi :mportance. consider · The probability ol the ,mpact OCcurr,ng · The durahon of the ,mpact · Its ~rre'.ers~blht¥. including permanently lost resources oi' value · Whether the ,mpact can or wd[ be controlled · 1'he regional consequence oi the ~mpact · Its potential divergence i~om local needs and goals 11 MARIE ONGIONI CARMELA L. BORRELLI ONGIONI & BORRELLI AVfORNEYS AT LAW 403 FRONTSTREET , P,O,BOX562 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944~562 TEL, (516) 477-2048 · FAX (516) 477-8919 288 PANTIGO ROAD 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 l 1971 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 I 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 tl~e Town of Southold. By copy of this letter to the Town Attorney and Enforcement Officer, I 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 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Map Pamel ID No. 1000-112- 1-Lot 4 and part 0f3, said lot as .amended, containing 128,045 sq. fL of land area, sub- ject to a final rgsolution for Iqt- line approval and subdivision CodeoftheTownofSouthold, j 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 TYUER, J R. OF APPEALS at the Southold Request for a Variance undej:~ TownHall, 53095 Main Road, Article Ill, Section 100- Southold, New York 11971, on 31C(8), based upon the Build- WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1995, commencing at the times specified below: 1. 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4294- ~[~-. ~21:U2.U37t.O_~. Request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based upon a Notice of Disap- proval issued by the Building Inspector updated January 4, 1995, for permission to con- stmct proposed addition at the rear of existing dwelling which is to be located within 75 feet Of the existing bulkhead and with aproposed 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. ft. 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-fi. 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 aJk/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 ing.lnspector's' December 2, 1999, Not.ich of Disapproval for approval ofhccessory building (chicken coop) with fence en- closure located in the rear yard area with a setback at less than the required 40 feet from all property lines. Location Of' Property: 1455 Pike Street, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140- 2-41. 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 Americanj 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). The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representa- fives c~esiring to be heard in thq/ above maiters. 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 tiesi- rate to call 765-1809 or visit our/ office. Dated: January 18,1995 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHR1NGER, CHAIRMAN 1 X-t/19/95 ~ OF SUFFOLK %TATE OF NEW YORK ss: Tim Kelly, being duly sworn, says that he is the 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 ............................................... ,iff... .................... weeks successwely,' commencing on the ...~.. .............. ..' .......... ,., ........... ,:,.. ...................... Sworn to before me this ........Z..../.. ........... day of 1 9. Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER ~OTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 480~.g46 qualifi,.? in SufMk ~oun.ty C0mmio=i0n txpires LEGAL NOTICE 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 $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF ~ at the ,~hold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995, conunenc~ng at the time specit-~l below~ 4. 7:50 p.m. Continued Hearing on the Applications for Variances quested by WILLIAM F. GASSER concerning his propett~ known and refened to as t~ae American Annmm~ Tank Mu~.4m. 640 Love I ~' and the south side of CoUnty Route 48. "Mattimck. NY [ocaled in the, Hamlet- Bualne~"Zon~ District. (C'a'rryover Ifrom 1/4/95) For further information, please call 765-1809. Dated: January 17. 1995. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 8207-1TJI9 STATE OF ~ YORK) ) SS: cOUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) of Mulfltuck, in aald County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE sUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Multituck, in the Town of Southoid, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly publi~aed in said Newspaper once each week loth4~- weeks ~ day of ~ce. asively, comme~c~g on the 19.__~t~ CHmSI1NA VOl IN$~ No, My PuMie, Stme of New Ymk Principal Clerk No. 5004884 Qualified in Suffolk County Notary PnbUc Sworn to before me this BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ................................... X In the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM F. GASSER ................................... X CONFIRMATION OF POSTING and, being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the ~Q~ day of December, 1994, I personally posted the property known as "640 Love Lane and C.R. 48, Mattituck, NY" by ~cing the Town's official poster notice on ~__ ~_ ~Z'~,t'~, 7,~]~.~.~.-7~.~ ~_facing the road side of the property, Jand~ th&t the poster has remained in place at least seven days prior to the date of the first public hearing. Dated: December2~', 1994.(~ai~u/~~) ...~~ ~ 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 Tgwn Board of Ap- heals at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 1197 l, on WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 4. 1995. commencing at the times specified below; 1. 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4288, JACK AND CHRIS GISMONDL Request for a Variance under A~iclefII, Sec- don 100-30A(1) for approval of the location of an accessory swimming pool, above ground as built, in a yard area other than the requLred rear yard, at premises known as 5655' Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; 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 detannthed by the Board of Appeals.) 2.7:35 p.m. Appl. No 4289- WILLIAM AND VERA SMITH. Request for a Vari- ance under A~icle IliA, Sec- tion 100-30A.3 based upon the October 28, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for permis- sion (o construct addition to existing building which will have an insufficient front yard setback. Location of Property: 980 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck, 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, ref. 100-33, fqr permis- sion to locate a canopy struc- ture over existing gasoline pumps in an area other than the rear yard. Location of Property: 9945 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-142~1-27. 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4287- NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUMS. (Carryover from December 7, 1994). Request to instal[ swim- ming pool at 52325 C.R. 48. Southold, NY; 1000-135.1-1- 43. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK h'IAT[ ¢)F NFW YORK ss: Tinf Kelly, being duly sworn, says that he is tht~ 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 h~ '~aid T~aveleF-Watchman once each week for / successively, commencing on the ....~...-~ d,/y of ..............~.~ _-:7 .................. 19..?.~ .................... ....................... Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY ~U~LIC, State of New York 5. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 4286- JOEL AND MARGA- RET LAUBER (COREY CREEK VINEYARDS). (Canyover from December 7, 1994). Request for Special Ex- ception to establish winery Use for the sale of wine produced fi.om grapes grown on the ex- isting Vineyard where the pr~ posed Winery is to be located. Location of ProperW: Consist- ing ora minimum often (10) acres of land referred to as 45470 Main Road, SouthoM, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-75-6-9.7 and 9.6. 6. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4293- EDWARD J. MUNSON. Request for a Vari- ance under Article IliA, Sec- tion I00-30A.3 based upon the December 7, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the BuiMing Inspector for permis- sion to construct addition to dwelling which will have an in- sufficient sideyard setback at less than the required 15 feet, and total side yards at less than the required 25 Peet. Location of Property: 1545 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-3-5. Cofltaining 10,400 sq, ~. of land area. 7. 8:05 p.m. Appl, No. 4292- JAY AND, MARY THOMSON. Request for a Variance under Article III/~, Section 100-30A.3 based upon theNovemher 30, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permis- sion to construct addition to existing dwelling which will exceed the maximum lot coy- erage limitations. Location of Property: 695 Bayshore Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax 8.8: I 0 p.m. Apph No. 4291. JAMES M. AND ELAINE O'KEEFE. Request for a Spe- cial Exception under Article IliA, Section 100-30B to estab- lish Bed and Breakfast use as an accessory incidental to the applicant's single-f~mily resi- dence and ownership of dwell- ing located at 54300 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52~3-1. Zone District: R-40 Low-Den- siiy Residential. 9- I I. 8:15 p.m. Application for Variances requested by cerning his property known and Armored Tank Museum, 640 Love Lane and the south side &County Routa 48, Ma~ituck,' NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140,2-16 locatad in the Hamlet Business Zone Dis- trict, which requests are noted as follows: 9: Appl. No, 4260- Request for Variance under Article IX, Section 100-glC(0 basedupon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for the be located in a rear yard with a setback as per Section 100- 33B(2) at five feet. fi.om the pr0per~ line;· : ~. ! 0. Appl. No. 4261 - Request for Variance under Article XXIll, Section 100-231A based upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of Disapproval for the cess the required height limi- I I. Appl No~ 4262~ Request for Variance under Article IX, Section 100-93 based upon the July 12, 1994.No, ce of Disap- proval for the outside storage or display which ia not permit- ted in this Hamlet-Business Zone District. The Board of Appeal~ will at said time and place hear any fives desiring to be heard in the ments may also be submitted prior to the coneinsion of the subject hearing. Each heating will not start before the times desisnated above. If you wish to review any of the above files or would like to request more information, please do not host- tats to call 765-1809 or visit our Dated: December 16,1994 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD p. GOEHR1NGER, CHAIR. MAN By: Lthda Kowalski IX-12~22/94 Indian Neck Road. (ii) AppL I~. 262 -- p. cq,~ ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) In said Coumy, being duly sworn, says that he/die is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES. a Weeldy Newapaper. publldied at Mattltuck. In the Town of Southold. County d Suffolk and Slate of New York. and that the Notice of which the annexed is a prinled copy. has been r~-gularly publi~ed In said Newspaper once each week for/ weeks pp_c.cesslvely, comm~(;Jn~ on the t~l--~- day of ( Y_.~I~.,(' i~4/'+ ' N CHRISTINA ~OUNSKI '~ mary Pub;k:. State ot New ~ .... No. r~04884 Qualified in Strffo~ NomryP~Hc 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 at this time since the Beard Members are planning to visit your are~ 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, 1Anda Kowalski, Clerk Board of Appeals Enclosures BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 road 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) 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 Southold, that the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 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 premises known as 5655 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; 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 Appeals Public Hearings for Januar~r 4, 1995 Location of Property: 980 Bay-view Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-10-17. Request for a Variance under 100-33, for permission to locate gasoline pumps in an area other Property: 9945 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; No. 1000-142-1-27. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4290 - WAREX TERMINALS CORP. Article X, Section 100-101C, ref. a canopy structure over existing than the rear yard. Location of County Tax Map Parcel 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4287 CONDOMINIUMS. (Carryover from December 7, install swimmingpool at 52325 C. R. 48, 1000-135.1-1-43. - NORTH FORK BEACH 1994). Request to Southold, NY; 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 grapes grown on the existing Vineyard where the proposed Winery is to be located. Location of Property: Consisting of a minimum of ten (10) acres of land referred to as 45470 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-75-6-9.7 and 9.6. 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: County Tax Map Parcel No. of Land area. 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 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 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-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 Hearings for January 4, 1995 9-11. 8:15 p.m. Application for Variances requested by WILLIAM F. GASSER concerning his 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, which requests are noted as follows: (9) Appl. No. 4260- Section 100-91C(1) based Disapproval issued by the Request for Variance under Article IX, upon the July 12, 1994 Notice of 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 Disapproval 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 tlamlet-Business Zone District. 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 IliA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the December 7, 1994 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to construct addition to dwel]ing which will have an insufficient sideyard setback at ]ess than the required 15 feet, and total side yards at less than the required 25 feet. Location of Property: County Tax Map Parcel No. of land area. 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 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 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-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 6 - Legal Notice 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 12/20194: Mr. Edward J. Munson, 1545 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold Mr. and Mrs. William F. Gasser, 2383 Fifth Ave, Ronkonkoma 11779 Ongioni & Bore[Ii, 218 Front St., Greenport 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Jay Thomson, 695 Bayshore Road, Greenport 11944 Mr. and Mrs. James M. O'Keefe, 54300 CR 48, Southold 11971 Mr. and Mrs. William A. Smith, 980 Bayview Ave, Mattituck 11952 Paul Caminiti, Esq., Main Rd, Southold 11971 (Re: NF Beach Condos) Mr. Louis DeRonde, 16 Victoria Dr, AmityviBe 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: Coroy Creek Vineyards Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Fristachi, 6 Adrienne Court, Farmin.gdale, 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 12/19194 by fax transmission Copy to Building Department on 12/20 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEAI.~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SE~RA UNLISTED ACTION DECI~TION Town Hal!, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Appeal No. 4261 Project Name: William Gasser/American Arm0ured 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: Fence height at approximately 7', does not conform to the required height of a fence in a H8 Zone This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the J~uplementing regulations pertaining to ;Lrticle 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. P~n Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been s~fomitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to OCCUr sh0u]d the project be ~plemented as planned, and: { } this t~ard wishes to assume Lead Agency status and urges coordinated written comments by your agency to be s%ubmitted with the next 20 days. {X } this Bo~Lrd has taken jurisdiction as Lead Agency, has deemed this ~ard of Appeals application to be an Unlisted SEQRAAction, o_nd has declared a Negative Declaration for the following reasons: a. An Environmental Assessment has been s%[bmitted and evaluated, 8-nd/or b. ;tn inspection of the property has been made, or c. Sufficient information has been furnished in the record to evaluate possJ~le adverse affect of this project as filed, and/or d. This application does not directly relate to new const~%lction or on-site improvements. { } this Board refers lead agency status to your agency since the Board of Appeals does not feel its scope of jurisdiction is as broad as the Planning Board concerning site changes and elements under the site plan reviews. The area of jurisdiction by the tR)ard of Appeals is not directly related to site improvements or new buildings. (However, if you do not wish to assnme lead agency status within 15 days of this letter, we will assnme you have waived same, and we will be required to proceed as Lead Agency.) For further information, please contact the Office of the Board Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, ~V~ 11971 at (516) 765-1809. mc of § 100-70 ZONING § lO0-SO (g) There shall be no latch-open device on any self- service dispensing nozzle. (6) Cabinet shops, carpenter shops, electrical shops, plumbing shops, furniture repair shops and bicycle and motorcycle shops. [Added 5-30-75 by L.L. No. 3- 1975] (7) Special exception uses set forth in, and as regulated by § 100-30B(16) of this chapter. [Added 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] C. AcceSsory uses. [Amended 10-26-76 by L.L. No. 5-1976] (1) Accessory useS on the same lot with and. customarily incidental to any permitted use and nog involving a separate business. (2) Signs as set forth in § 100-60C(2) of this chapter. [Added 2-1-83 by L.L. No. 2-1983] § 100-71. Bulk, area and parking requirements. No building or premises shall be used and no builalng or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the B-1 General BusineSs District unleSs the same conforms with the "Bulk and Pm"LinE Schedule" incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in ARTICLE VIII C Light Industrial District § 100-80. Use regulations. In a C District, no bnlldinE or premiseS shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose except the following: § 100-80 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-80 A. Permitted uses. (1) [Amended 10-26-76 by L.L. No. 5-1976] Any permitted uses set forth in, and as regulated by, the following provisions of this chapter: (a) Subsection A(2) and (3) of § 100-30. B. [Amended 7-1-86 by L. Lo No. 5-1986] Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and except for the uses set forth in Subsection B(18) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: (1} Industrial uses, including manufacturing, aesembling, converting, altering, finishing, deanlng or other processing, handling or storage of products or materials, involving the use of only oil, gas or elec- tricity for fuel. (2) Research, design and development laboratories; office buildings. (3) Wholesale storage and warehousing. (4) Bui]ding contractors' yards. (5) Public utility structures and uses. (6) Newspaper and printing establishments. (7) Bus and truck terminals (garages, parking facilities, loading docks, etc.). (8) Food processing and packaging plants. (9) Marlnoa for the docking and mooring of all types of boats? (10) Launching facilities. {11) Ferry to~nlnals. (12) YaCht clubs; charter fishing docks. (13) Eating and drinking establishments. t 0042.12 § 100-80 ZONING § 100-90 (14) Retail sales of boats and marine items. (15} Boat building; boat servicing; boat storage facilities. (16} Yards for sale and storage of fuel and building materials. (17} Special exception use. [Repealed 10-26-76 by L.L. No. 5-1976] (18) Special exception uses set forth in, and as regulated by, § 100-30B(16) of this chapter. [Added 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] C. Accessory uses. ; (1) Accessory uses on the same lot with and cust~marfly incidental to any permitted use and not involving a separate business. (2) Signs as set forth in § 100-60C{2) of this chapter. [Added 2-1-83 by L.L. No. 2-1983] § 100-81. Bulk, area and parking requirements. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the C Light Industrial District unless the same confOrms with the "Bulk and Parldn~ Schedule" incorporated into this chapter by reference, with th~ same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. ARTICLE IX C-1 General Industrial District § 100-90. Use regUlations. A. [Amended 7-31-73; 10-26-76 by L.L. No. 5-1976; 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] In the C-1 District, buildings and premises may be used for any lawful purpose, except that no building and/or premises shall be used for hotel, motel or tourist camp purposes, and the uses hereinafter set forth are permitted only 10042.13 s-2s-s~ § 100-90 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-90 by special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and, except for the uses set forth in Subsection A(48) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Plan- ning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: (1) Abattoirs. (2) Acetylene gas manufacture or gas manufacture from coke, petroleum or from any other product, or the storage thereof. (3) Acid manufacture. (4) Ammonia, bleaching powder or cbJorine manufacture. (5) Arsenal. ~ (6) Asphalt manufacture and asphalt mixing plants. : (7) Blast furnace. (8) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of paris manufac. ture; ready-mix or bulk concrete plants and block manufacturing. (9) Coke ovens. (10) Crematories. (11) Distillation of bones. (12) Dwellings, all types. (13) Explosives manufacture or storage. (14) Fat rendering. (15) Fertilizer manufacture. (16) Fireworks manufacture. (17) Garbage, offal or dead anlm~Is reduction or dumping. (18) Glue, size or gelatin manu/acture. (19) Gunpowder manufacture or storage. (20) Automobile wrecking yards and all other junk'yards. (21) Oilcloth or linoleum manufacture. 10042.14 9-25-86 § 100-90 ZONING § 100-90 (22) Oil, rubber or leather manufacture. (23) Ore reduction. (24) Paint, oil, shellac, turpentine or varnish manufacture. (25) Paper and pulp manufacture. (26) Petroleum refining, storage tanks. (27) Potash works. (28) Roiling mill. (29) Rubber or gutta-percha manufacture. (30) Saltworks. ~ (31) Sauerkraut manufacture. ~' (32) Shoeblacking or stove polish manufacture. (33) Smelting. (34) Soap manufacture. (35) Stockyards or slaughterhouses. (36) Stone mill or quarry. (37) Structural steel or pipe works. (38) Sulfuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid manufacture. (39) Sugar refining. (40) Tar distillation or manufacture. ~ (41) Tar roofing or waterproofing manufacture. (42) Tallow, grease or lard manufacture. (43) Tanning, curing or storage of rawhides or skins. (44) Tobacco (chewing) manufacture or treatment. (45) Vinegar manufacture. (46) Yeast plant. (47) Airports and airfields. 10042.15 9-25-86 § 100-90 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-100 (48) Special exception uses set forth in, and as regulated by, § 100 30B(16) of this chapter. [Added 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] § 100-91. Special exception uses; site plan approval. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Article; where a use is permitted in any use district only as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, such use is not permitted in a C-1 District except as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, and where a use in any use district is subject to site plan approval of the Planning Board, such use in a C-1 District shall require site plan approval ofi the Planning Board. § 100-92. Signs. Signs as specified in and regulated by § 100-60C of this chapter are permitted in a C-1 District. § 100-93. Bulk, area and parking requirements. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the C-1 General Industrial Dis- trict unless the same conforms with the "Bulk and Parking Sched- ule'' incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. ARTICLE X Tourist Camps, Camp Cottages and Trailers~ § 100-100. Permits required. No tourist camp shall be established, maintained or operated in any district, nor shall any tent, tent house, camp cottage, house car or trailer to be used or occupied as a place for living, sleeping or eating, whether charge is or is not made, be erected or placed therein, unless authorized by the Town Board pursuant to the provisions of the Trailer Camp Ordinance, dated June 30, 1953.2 * EditeFs Note: See also Ch. 88, Tourist and Trailer Camps. 2 Editor's Note: This ordinance appears as Ch. 88, Tourist and Trailer Camps, of this Code. 10042.16 s- ~s-ss 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 PoO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 September 22, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. William F. 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Gasser 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 Environmental 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 discharge 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 materiais (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 CHAIRMAN Enclosure PEANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie La{ham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P, O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 16, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. William F. Gasser 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 RE: Proposed Site Plan for American Armored Foundation N/Ec LIRR Right of Way & Love Lane, Mattituck Zoning Hamlet Business (HB) SCTM# 1000-140-2-16 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, Services approval must be approval. Suffolk County Department of Health obtained before any possible final 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. ~R~Ue~t~ G. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer cc: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge Carmella L. Borrelli, Ongioni & Borrelli ONGIONI & B()RI~,Iil 11 .l ~¥ 1, lqg4 Build~ n,1 rnspector Town ot: g,)uthold P.O. Bo:: I 1'79 Southold, f,IY ]197l RE: Z__B_~ V~_riangg_ S_Ci'M.# 1000 140-2-16 My (;le on the abo~ze matter reflectr; ~ hal ou Hay ]6, 1994 Bob Kassne~ , oquested additional data from ~ ho '::~n~erg and addS~ionally advised ~ hem where certain structures were ,equ[red to be under the code. H), last conversation wi~h you indl,'a~ed you were aware of several . iolations at this site, had spoke, *r~ Rob Kassner and that the 8ppl ir'ant would be given a reasonable *;m,, wit bin which to take I ,',',,.,Jcl appreciate your advising the ~;' at u~ Of this matter and what, }~ any, progress has been had in I., 5aging this site into comp]ia-,',, with the code. wr, y kru]y yours, CLB:ar cc:Robo~ h G. Kassner-, Planning Departmen~ Ge~o,d P. GoehrSnger, Zoning Board MARIE ONGIONI CARMELA L. BORRELLI ONGIONI & BORRELLI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 403 FRONT STREET . P,O.BOX 562 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944~)562 TEL. (§16) 477-204B . FAX ($16) 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 11971 Re: Variance Applications - Three American Amoured Foundation SCTM #1000-140-1-16 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 1 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 a cursory review of the application and the 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, 1 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 critlcized..."l. Segmentation is frowned upon because it can distort the review process requiring judicial invalidation for correction. The concept of segmentation has arisen in thc SEQRA review process where an application splits a project into tWD 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 the 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 Point I 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 heardat that time and ultimately granted. The muhiple 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 [ 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 the 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. 5.0211]. 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 ~n completing our site plan approval. Also enclosed is the building application that should cover the following items that determinations by your department are necessary. 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 information or paperwork is necessary, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You. S/ rely, /~ / ? /'/Karen A. Gasser, Director / Tank and Ordnance War Memorial Museum / /v JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK 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, Southold Town Clerk DATED: August 2, 199L[ RE: Zoning Appeal No. ~261 - William F. Gasser Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 4261 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, 199Lt, and copy of application; Short Environmental Assessment Form; ZBA Questionnaire; letter from Karen Gasser to Gary Fish, Southold Town Building Department; and plans. Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOI.D In the Matter or the Petition of American Armoured Foundation to the Board of Appeals of the Tr~wn nf Southold TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER SEE HEVERSE FOR ADDRESSES AND ATTACHED FOR PROOF OF MAILING YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. T~ intention of the undersigned to petition the Board nf 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: SeTH ~ 100/140/2/16 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: HAMLF. T BUSINESS 4 That h~, such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: Fence height regulations in HB district $. That the provisions of the Southold Town ZoningCode applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article XXIII Section 100-531 A [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing.. Oa,ed: I- American Armoured-Foundation Petitioner Wm. Gasser, President 0wners'Names:_ w~. ~a~er PostOffice Address 2383 Fifth Avenue Ronkonkoma, N.Y. 11779 Tel. No. (516) 588-0033 [Copy of sketch or plan purposes.] showing proposal to be attached for convenience 072- 715 68 ~ Rec~..ipt for ~ Certified M; ~ No Insurance Co~ ~ Do not use for In~ (See Reverse) Receipt~ Certifiec No Insuranq Do not use (See Revers 072 71! Receipt t Certified No Insurance Do not use f (See Reverse] Receipt for ' Certified M~ NO Insurance Coyt Do not use for In (See Reverse) No Insurance Coverage Pl;ovided Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) NAME Gall & Gary Doroski Irene Wells Hawkins Mr. & Mrs. A~mirati Long Island Railroad Southold Building Dept 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 11400 Jamaica-Station Room 511 Jamaica, N.Y. Southold Town Hall Main Rd Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY~OF SUFFOLK ) ss.: , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of ,19 . , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the' above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the curreoz~as.~essment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fiedJ~egistered) ~ ; that said Notices were mailed t~ch of said persons by Sworn to before me th~s /$7' No. 4 43~SB-~uf101k g0unt~ ./ ~mmission ~pir~ Nov, ?t JS ~y (This side does not have to property owners.) be completed on fo~m transmitted to adjoining 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be comDieted by AI3pltcant or Project sponsorl ' 3. PROJECT LOCATION: SEQR ?. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: WHAT IS PRESENT ~NO USE IN VICINtT OF PROJECT? ~ Residential ~naustrial ommercial ~ Agriculture ~ Par~Fores~O~en sDace ~ Other I CERTI~ THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE 1! the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete tt~e Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 .(Continued on reverse side) The N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act requires submission before any actlon is taken. (d) Environmental Assessment groundwater quality? _~Yes ~- No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on 8. Will project have a major effect on visual char- 10. Will project have a m~jor effect on existing or 15. IS there public confroversy concerning the project? ~ ~ Yes~ No 'ZBA P/'75 FOR FILI~'~G WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of : the Owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Seoarate sheet may be attached ) ~. Is the stUD]ecu premzses lisuea on t~e real esEaue marKe~ ~ sa~e or bein~ shown to ~ros~ective buyers? { } Yes C. Are there ~ D. 1. Are there any areas which, contain wetland grasses: 2. Are the wetland ~eas shmwn on the map s~mi~ted ~i~ ~his application? 3. &s the property bul~eaeed bet- een . the upland'building area~ ~;~ the wetlands area and 4. If your property contalns w~ or pond you contacted the Office ~ ~ areas, have . ~ ~ne Tow~ Trustees for its dete~ination of ]urisdiction? E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of ruction proposed co~t ~tor b~low five feet above mean sea levelP ~ (If appiic~le, state "N.A.") F. Are th~m any patios, concrete barr~ Which e~ ~d are ...... ers, ~ulk~- --=- no~ If none exis~ ~=y map that you -, pmease state "none." G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time Concerning your premises. of your building Pe~it and man = If~f.%_~l~ese Sukmlt.a copy Depar~ent. If none, please state. = ~s -~P~=u Dy the Building H. Do you or any co-oWner also own other land close to this Parcel? ~O If yes, please explain where or Submit copies of deeds. I. Please list present Use or Operations parce~ ~~ conducted at this proposed Use ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and 3187, 10/901k 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 Ammirati 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, oard of Appeals BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., ~HAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary /~o~-/~.:-/~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET 7f~ (~) VILLAGE DIST, SUB. LOT 0 S~S. VL. FARM CO~. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value · ~ND IMP. TOTAL DATE R~ARKS AGE BUILDING CONDITION , N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Per Value ' Acre Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER W~land FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meodowland / DEPTH House Plot , BULKH~D Total : ' DOCK MATTITtJCK R-80 A.-c LIO R~8o R--aO GREAT PECONIC BAY