Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4098 -krs r r~ tS-0.9 s t SrJ ,VAI,6 166 f o~~g~fFO(KCo APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman H T 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. ~p P.O. Box 1179 71 James Dinizio, Villa r y'~Oj ~a0` Southold, Fax (516) 765-1823 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CORRECTED ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 4098 and No. 4248. Upon Applications of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. Appl. No. 4098 - This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of a deck extension located within 100 feet of the bluff of the Long Island Sound. Appl. No. 4248 - This is a request for variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of a deck addition with insufficient side yard setbacks. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 8, 1994 under Appeal No. 4248, and held on May 7, 1992, June 4, 1992, November 9, 1992, December 3, 1992 and June 8, 1992 under Appeal No. 4098, at which times all persons 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 WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. REQUESTS. By this application, the appellants are requesting the following variances: a) request for above-ground deck construction which is located within 100 feet of the top of the bluff along the Long Island Sound; and b) request for above-ground deck construction which is located with a one-foot insufficient side yard setback Page 2 - Appl. No. 4248 and 4098 Matter of TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS Decision Rendered June 24, 1994 from the westerly side property line; (c) the easterly side yard is proposed to comply with the elevation and setback requirements of the code for walks and entrance ways and is subject to further inspection and review by the Building Inspector. 2. BASIS OF APPEAL. By Notice of Disapproval dated March 2, 1992, the Building Inspector disapproved an application for a building permit for the deck construction, as exists, due to its location within 100 feet of the Long Island Sound bluff and due to the need of other agency approvals (Town Trustees and N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation). By a second, updated Notice of Disapproval dated May 20, 1994, the Building Inspector disapproved an amended application for a building permit for the deck construction, as exists, due to not only its location within 100 feet of the Long Island Sound bluff but also for an insufficient side yard setback. 3. CODE REQUIREMENTS. The Articles and Sections of the Code cited in the Building Inspector's Notices of Disapproval are Article XXIII, Section 100-239.A and Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, which provide as follows: Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A of the Zoning Code requires all buildings and structures located on lots upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not less than one hundred (100) feet from the top of such bluff or bank. Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Zoning Code requires the principal setbacks to be not closer to the side property lines than that established, or not closer than 10 and 15 ft. side yards for properties containing less than 20,000 sq. ft. in total lot area, whichever is less. 4. PROPERTY DATA. The premises in question is a described parcel of land situated north along Aquaview Drive, East Marion, and is improved with a single-family dwelling structure as more particularly shown on the June 17, 1991 survey prepared November 15, 1990, updated December 19, 1991, by William R. Simmons, Jr., Land Surveyor. The parcel has a frontage along Aquaview Avenue of 60 feet and frontage along the highwater mark of the Long Island Sound of 43+- feet. The average depth of the parcel is 220+- feet. The dwelling, as exists, is shown to be set back at 42 feet from the front property line (excluding of step area). The side yard setback of the dwelling scales out to be 9.2+- at the east side yard and at 11+- feet at the west side yard. The brick walks within the side yards are not elevated above ground. When F Page 3 - Appl. No. 4248 and 4098 Matter of TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS Decision Rendered June 24, 1994 elevated, further variances would be required. Level walks are not included, if at ground level, in the setback calculations. 5. HISTORY OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. Prior to February 1992, the deck which is the subject of this appeal and disapproved building permit was constructed without any agency approvals. On April 10, 1991, the time when a previous variance for different relief (porch addition) under Appeal No. 4008, the subject deck did not exist. The difficulties claimed by appellants in this application are self-created. 6. It is personal knowledge, and through town records, that this bluff area is subject to erosion, and in the past the bluff areas in this vicinity have been damaged. Erosion of this nature has lead to the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Law (Ch. 37) of the Town mandated by the State and Federal Government for properties fronting along the Long Island Sound. 7. EFFECTS OF RELIEF REQUESTED. It is the position of the Board that: (a) the deck area extending to the platform at the top of the bluff stairs does not and will not have a foundation area which disturbs the natural ground underneath or around the construction; in fact, the deck area helps to preserve the natural land area over which it is placed; (b) the setback requested to the platform at the top of the bluff is substantial in relation to the requirements, being a variance of 100% of the requirements; (c) the grant of the entire relief will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood since many of the neighboring parcels are improved with buildings similar to the subject parcel; (d) it is personal knowledge, and through town records, that this bluff area is subject to erosion, and in the past the bluff areas in this vicinity have been damaged - leading to the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Law (Ch. 37) of the Town, as mandated by the State and Federal Government for properties fronting along the Long Island Sound; this construction is subject to review and approval by the Southold Town Trustees under Ch. 37; (e) due to the size of the property, there is limited available land area for an open, unroofed deck. (f) the alternative for appellants to pursue is to remove the deck construction entirely, which the appellants feel is not feasible; Page 4 - Appl. No. 4248 and 4098 Matter of TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS Decision Rendered June 24, 1994 (g) the difficulties claimed are uniquely related to the property and are not personal in nature; (h) the relief, as requested, will not in turn have an adverse effect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood and district since the open, unroofed deck, without a foundation, will help to prevent erosion in this area; (i) in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting the specific relief requested, and noted above. Accordingly, on motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested and as noticed in this application SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the dimensions of the open deck shall not exceed that shown on the sketch submitted, prepared by Timothy Coffey Nursery dated 6/94 with variables of 22 feet in width at the north end where the platform is connected, running thence south 10 feet, thence west nine feet, then six feet south, thence eight feet northeast on an angle, thence south eight feet to the rear step area of the house, extending along the rear area of the house 32 feet in width, thence extending north four feet, nine feet west, to the point of beginning, at the existing platform at the top of the bluff; 2. Erosion control measures must be taken when removing the existing deck areas to conform with the modified diagram; 3. The easterly side yard area shall not be reduced for the raised deck or dwelling construction (except as may be permitted for minimal steps and level brick walks); 4. Existing landscaping must remain; 5. Further viewing and acceptance by a representative of the Board of Appeals is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Dinizio, Wilton, and Goehringer. (Members Doyen and Villa were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. s s s 1: Rl P. EHRIIal ER C_ IRMAN Corrected to reflect variabl distances, as underlined- above sketch tal~en, from _ prepared by landscaper of 6/94. , RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE 7Ia5I qy HOUR &:/0 Town Clerk, Town of So old APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Fad Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. 4 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 Road, Southold, New-York 11971, on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994, commencing at the times specified below: i 1 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4235 - KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA SUTRYK. (Hearing Continued from May 4, 1994) This is a request for a.variance based upon the April 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector to locate accessory building in the front yard area. Location of Property: 3200 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-94-2-5. 2. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4234 - ALEX AND MARION-WIPF. (Hearing Continued from May 4, 1994). This is a request for a variance under Article Ill, Section 100-33C for permission to locate an accessory garage with a frontyard setback at less than the required 40 ft. front yard setback. This parcel is nonconforming with a lot area of approximately 22,000 sq. ft. and frontage of 118 ft. Location of Property: 940 West Creek Avenue; Cutchogue; NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-103-13-7. Paige; 2 - Notice of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting. of June 8, 1994 3. 7:40 p.m- Appl. No. 4246 - LKC CORP. and JASTA, INC. This is a request for a Special Exception for permission to establish a drinking establishing use as listed under Article XI, Section 100-101B in an 'existing principal building. The subject premises is nonconforming with a-lot area of approximately one-half acre and 11"5+- ft. frontage along the north side•'of the Main Road and is located-in the B-General Business Zone District. Property Address: 6955 Main Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map: No. 1000-122-6-36. 4. 7:50 p.m. App1. No- 4245 GEORGE AND SUSAN TSAVARIS. This is i a request for a variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A for permission to locate swimmingpool with fence enclosure within 100 feet of the bluff of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 2170 The Strand, Lot 111 at Pebble Beach Farms; East Marion, NY; Parcel ID No. 1000-30-2-53- 5. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4244SE - DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC. This is 'a request for a Special Exception, as amended, to.include approval for the location and use of -a proposed addition to the existing principal building located at 320 Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed addition is an expansion of the existing recreational membership club and is located in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District. Property ID No. 1000-102-2-12.1. Page 3 - Notice of Hearins,. Southold Town Boar&of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 8: 1994 6. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4249 - SANFORD"AND SUE HANAUER. This is a request for a Special Exception to establish and operate a Bed and Breakfast in accordance with the provisions of the zoning code at Article III, Section 100-31B(15), with owner-occupancy, and as an accessory to the existing principal residence. Location of Property: 4105 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-94-3-part of 1.7, also known and referred-to as Lot No 2 on the Subdivision Map of Robert and Jean Lenzer. 7. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4240 - JOHN CROKOS. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIX, Section 100-239.4A based upon the May 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector for permission to locate swimmingpool with fence enclosure within 100 feet of the bluff along the Long Island Sound. This property was the subject of prior Appeals under Appl. No. 4204as rendered 12/8/93 and Appl. No. 4140 as rendered 2/23/93. The subject premises is improved with a single-family dwelling and contains an area of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. (total lot area). Location of Property: 2110 Grand View Drive, Orient, NY; Lot No. 7 on the Map of Grand View Estates; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-2-3.11.' 8. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4241 - RICHARD LAN. This is a request for a variance under Article IIIA,-Section 100-30A.4 (ref. Article III, Section 100-33) based upon the May 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector in a building permitapplication to construct Page 4~- Notice of Hearil, Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June E, 1994 pool and deck in the front yard area, as an accessory use_ Location of Property; 230 Bridge Lane, CLtchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-15-1.4 and 1.5 (Tax Map Parcel No. 1.4 totals 2.478 acres and Parcel No. 1.5 totals 1.088 acres). The subject premises is located in an R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. 9• 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4243 - MOORE'S LANE HOLDING CORP. This is a request for a variance under Article V Section 100-53B; Section 100-31C (ref. Section 100-33), and Section 100-231, based upon the May 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector for permission to locate accessory uses (tennis court; swimmingpool and pool clubhouse) in an area other than the required rear yard, and with tennis-court fencing at a height of more than four feet when located in a front yard area. Location of Property: 475 Cedarfields Drive, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-40-5-1.42. The subject - premises is located in the Hamlet-Density Zone District. 10. & 11. 8:25 p.m. TONYAND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. Appl. No. 4098 - (Continued Hearing) This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII, Section 1.00-239.4 for approval of a deck extension located within 100 feet of the bluff of the Long Page 5 - Notice of HearincL Southold ~ Town Board- of Appeals Regular,Meeting of June-8, 1994 Island Sound: Appl.,No. 4248 This is a request for variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A 3 for approval of a_deck -addition with insufficient side yard setbacks 12. 8:35 p.m. Appl. 4247 - HUGH T. and CAROL L. CONROY. This is a request for a Special Exception to establish an Accessory Apartment in conjunction with the owner's occupancy within existing residence as authorized under Article III, Section 100-30A:2B and Section 100-31B(14) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: Westerly side of Gin Lane, Southold, NY; also referred to as Lot #2 on the Subdivision Map of Bay Haven filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map 2910; further identified on the County Tax Maps as 1000-88-3-6: 13. 8:55 p.m. Appl. No_ 4239 - MARGARET BEST and ADYLYN SYVERSON. This is a request for a variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A:1 based upon the May 2, 1994 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector for approval of the proposed insufficient lot area and^ insufficient lot width of proposed Parcels #1 and #2. Location of Property: Private Road #17 extending•off the easterly side of Camp Mineola Road, Matti:tuck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-6-17 The subject premises contains a total lot area of approximately 1.2 Pbge 6 - Notice of Hearh Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 8 1994 acre(s) in total area and is located in the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters.,_Written comments 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 the files or need to request more information, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809 or visit our office. I Dated: May 23, 1994. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski x FORM NO, 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date 19 %r• 494/ et PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application datedoVr~ L ...'°4~~y/•/. 19~. . for permit to A--'at ~J t=l~ G U . ~r ~ - Location ,ofProperty r . / House No. Street . ~ Street Hamlet . County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .......mom. Block ;:2-:...... Lot Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No................. . is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds uz(. • cse;c~~ra ./oD. - ~.~1•: 5~/.~.~i/'s~.f~~i. !~..~-~.-~..~~i ..~~1v t !G Ile '4 t1'4 4 . , .A ..04.. E. . ~Sui1~g Inspector RV 1/80 . , RECEIVED---/ MAY 2 Q 1994 Southold Town Clerk TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1. (We) Name of Appellant Street and Number N.1... HEREBY APPEAL TO Qd?L1`~`~z? . 'i Municioclity........................................................... State j THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION. OF THE BUILDING IN`PECTCR ON i APPLICATION' FOR PERMIT NO..................................... DATED WHEREBY TH'E.BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO i _.7ONV _M~ ko51 CU L- . Name of Applicant for permit of a32 i>cwe' tkanhusse~ N X . 11030 Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~~35 ~a VrP ECtS~ /1) O~ /4f• Street /Hamlet f Use Distract on Zoning Map District 1000 Section Block a Lot 015 Current Owner 7tr~ 9y?o MA 4 (casrc)uLA-s Map No. at o. Prior Owner 2vrr{ 2ow&~-- 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article 3,J 'Section - /~~-3ae9.3 3. PE OF APPEAL Appeol.is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map A ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 ( 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous oppea (hos) has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such cppeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( v,/request for a variance and was made in Appeal No........... _...Dated e~~/o~ 9/. 1/098/ 30 /9z . REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( 4 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that -7. /5 /Ot'd' ~Cteo~. 71zi s`~C ~udi~ UrS ~czn E- }a Loe~iy ~/and ~®rrr~e/ bfu{~ • %7tc -.Pirrshn y hozJSC~ iti°crs rerno)ru~el' Y3 Vananee. Attu. V00? cla7d '//~n/5! 4 CC~~~L? f!~??e%r carers ~or~hve e~ ~o "~onreeet di0us~ , A V~ r~ric¢ Alo. -1098 e%uaee/ ~/3o~4z aje P~/Snny Vvv~eCl ~eclc f~dre Tjvslecs.nct . r SLi iaci, from burl /5 hereby G//"Ldb~ECl 740 e0ll m 70 Pbnn ZSt (Continue on other side) _ REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1,` STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because ~td~~ /`°i~'~~r~/` •cz ~cxecfrcl Gc~~eac~nt d'c fh.e .'..esnJr. ~-s%arnc~ 5ev d /~Gu lr ®strn5 /2kvse WBS /aca ct cvr~v ,rnee G l/ rsrrcJ ~ >~~f'tre`rz.' ~tt-u~iv,`z's Gt,~a'e lc°CEwrd' refer ~EZ{ ;~rorn b~F~ h -e Lis j3F ~d p, a r ~y 'f77, isnencly Otecr-,n met 6 'Pram rc r nr aca7 V14zf arh1 c1fs arhaln Jc 1cain ~Y~de tncrcl~ ~ . ~ 7z' 7aF' oF /3ira %71e f ¢/ECic (zlag arc c:a9 s been oub5innfk~ aduc L y irvs§e~s eoc,&+~t ara,(o ~ cad 9'~rm~ , 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared byall properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because one . - (JCeri~-l Ls ~c bsfrandsxrc~ ht ucrzc~ cz Icy et a e c{~ptcxlrt-'ai iY d!(33 1Vdfro.' in Svxspe ncw,rZg: ©ntN loCS. p re~i §rcyn^ttc.~c~e Salo ark Jay o~ e Same 4s1d y~~ -EPx,'C-.. Cs~ot'tcJ 1-cstina 'mss\at'~a} <~c`CSYtC~: t. c. ~~eexe:,}s Yrc~ ~b V,°e ~cti s.Cils. tar- A+C c td co: ~ T,-SLaiC8 +r C. i~az~ rcr c~nd - ?re dec ir,~5 v4a--~ • ar~ssscxliecl 3•Yi ~n ,iC ~tiato ~~i'15..r s ^{a tku h c m(f c)ca3 ij err 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because Th av5rri,-t co»~ 555 or ~cla~~afKEcvtC~. rSSZec\ laYCeIS i~3liccV ~w~' 1 re s o v c~ es~ pa nclec` 'sc iY'e-e-t c sent bu-ucAk ~cxig Y>clarts .e -ThE ` (fleck-i'n5 is ~recForntrccniEcl tad ~.ccRa Cis,ra dce5 nor C~YA5wudt \Kz>kk v i i~ ~o rJce,~t (p o~~r"ries -a°d wb b2 Y 0 less d~s~u ~t w -fhcan r o f I i STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SkFFOCrs j ss . Signature Sworn to this day of....:.... 19 g Notcry Public MARGARET C. RUTKOWSKI Notal PWAC, State of Now York - - No.4982528 . Walified nSdolkCoumy Commission E*m Jtgie 3,19 9?~ 0 0 _ Q O 4es~ ° o - m m I fl O o ~ a 3 a 3 1 o Z D p C Z 3 cp m r a a 3 a m c m A s O. W N m \ f Ayr m A F~ f: tlir N m J\J EEiitl,.,; S ifvN k t dv, A e P N y ' z © W G 4 yy o t5 T~ v 1 ¢TY p x I fD 011.1 a> ? s "~u~ 6 rP D Z A- r "F s F A i. n JF ' 0 A ~ ~f7 ~ F 'g M Q m I! pe D' r k tau } k v'>ti O I W 3 1 yyq~, -N zg~A fifirv' 1 3 ^ PNM N r u~ 4p I AW4 ? 1 ,.n, l i ~n 1 A ,y'k 1 t 1~ i 1 4 ~ C ~ -may µf x'& L; g 3JI. I. A ggf~ IF F., { al IFFY M WD a ;a ® f 1 ~ ~ W to i" U' ~ r r Y tI a \ ~ ~ > Sys t. Y ji' $ v 71, sl t r j ^ v}~1! x i4~ if 'r I IN! gum P ' N. o o ~ v3 / , 1>~0 N W N O O 03 ON CP. t ~ ~a!o o~ o 0 0 - r c3 -n IT) k < - m 3 O ® 3 ~ O O rk r \n 1 1 `4 o o y = 3 ~ o ' 0 0 o m_ ~ - - N N I O N { 22 N ~ O O s 'rJ1 c.` ~ ~ ~ cwt n 1V? i :V :l W b 1 f r \ © v li I tto y~ ~~[v[• 0. L 5 I-V TIC d '93 10.17 TOWN OF HOLD" dt~L_~flfj~ ~ P.2/2~ I N X p F < i~ Q YFSETaAav 44 -:5.ze z ~oF~~Ff f, 7.hp o ~ rr7olle4l ! ~~Jgice 4 Mkk. ~\j O ~t , 14N v 1 ; r-7 .c/ cv5 iof ~Q.oo { W 11t w u al fL U- _ vi ca m C r O Rr J 13 Z ~ ruFFOt r ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ffy~a t~'Q Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. f Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. ` r P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 6, 1994 William D. Moore, Esq. Moore It Moore 315 Westphalia Road Mattituck, NY 11952-0023 Re: Appeal No. 4098 - Tony and Maria M. Kostoulas Dear Mr. Moore: We have not had any communications - from the applicants or their agents in the above matter since April 29, 1993. The last communications received was that your office was to submit full documentation to the Town Trustees and appear at their May 1993 hearings calendar. The Board of Appeals is returning this application to the calendar for a final hearing on June 1, 1994 without further delay or postponement requests in behalf of the applicant, and for a final disposition. If there is no appearance, a determination is expected to be made based upon the record before the Board at that time. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Ik MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 F= (516) 298-5664 William D. Moore Margaret Rutkowski Patricia C. Moore Secretary April 28, 1993 NNK 2 9 innq Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Mrs. Linda Kowalski Re: Appeal No. 4098 (Kostoulas) Dear Mrs walski: I am waiting to hear back from our clients with respect to a proposed modification to the Town Trustee Coastal Zone Permit. As soon as I have heard from them, I will let you know when we will be ready to continue with the application before the Zoning Board. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, e~ William D. Moore WDM/mr cc: Mr. & Mrs. Tony Kostoulas APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor ?v Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 7v Charles Grigonis, Jr. ~Jry Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 4008. Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to construct addition which will decrease total side yards and reduce yard setback from bluff along the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 21, Block 02, Lot 013. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 22, g 1991, and continued on April 5, 1991; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants originally, upon filing the variance application on February 12, 1991, requested permission to square off the two northerly corners of the existing dwelling in addition to renovations/reconstruction shown on the plans prepared by Miller Associates, Project #9037 dated Janu- ary 4, 1991. All construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound bluff. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land having a frontage along the north side of Aquaview Avenue of 60.0 feet and frontage along the Long Island Sound of 43+- feet. The subject parcel is substandard, having a lot area of approximately 11,330 sq. ft. 3. The subject parcel is unique, being quite narrow and with limited (upland) building area, which lends to the practical difficulties. 4. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code permits relief to lots containing less than 20,000 sq. ft. in the front Page 2 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOULAS decision, continued:) yard to not less than 35 feet and in the side yards to not less than 10 feet. The minimum rearyard setback is permitted to be reduced under this provision to 35 feet. The code does not specifically permit relief to substandard parcels for bluff setbacks, except as may be permitted by the Board of Appeals. 5. During the processing of this application, opposition was received from the landowners immediately abutting this parcel on the easterly side. Upon learning of the objections raised by the adjoining landowners, the applicants have alternatively requested permission to construct a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly side of the house, meeting the required setbacks as limited by Section 100-244B of the code. Although the addition along the southerly portion is "landward" of the dwelling structure, this alternative would be within 100 of the bluff, also necessitating relief by this board. 6. It is the position of this board that in considering this application, as amended, for an addition along the southerly portion of the dwelling structure: (a) the proposed location of the southerly addition is landward, being 46+- from the bluff at its closest point, of the existing dwelling structure, setback reduction to 24 feet from the westerly (front} property line is substantial in relation to the requirements, however, there is no alternative available for appellants to pursue except by variance; (b) the alternative relief, as requested, is not substantial in relation to the existing structures; (c) the difficulties imposed are uniquely related to the property and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will not adversely effect the essential character of the neighborhood, or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town and neighboring properties; (e) there is no other alternative method feasible for appellants to pursue; (f) in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting conditional alternative relief, as requested and further noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief for the construction of a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly (front) of the principal dwelling structure, which will be not less than 46 feet Page 3 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOULAS decision, continued): to the bluff setback at its closest point (although landward of the dwelling), as requested in the Matter of the Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS under Appl. No. 4008, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the front yard addition comply with the front yard setback provisions of the Code for this substandard parcel (as per 100-244B) or the provision in effect at the time of the issuance j of a building permit; 2. The proposed reconstruction/renovation at the northerly end for the existing house including the porch (or deck) within the existing footprint, shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling; this reconstruction/renovation shall not include the Eouaring off of both corners at the northerly portion of the house. 3. The renovations of the existing dwelling shall not extend beyond the existing footprint and shall not involve excavation or other land alteration activities. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Dinizio, and Villa. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ¢ . 6 HEARING FO 2 5 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 18, 1993 4:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF TONY KOSTOULOS, APPEAL TO THE TOWN TOWN BOARD, DESIGNATED AS THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW. Present: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Deputy Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff Assistant Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan Absent: Justice Raymond W. Edwards TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It would be in everybody's best interest for the Board to accept any comments, any that were made by anyone else, that who might be here by, for example, Mr. Moore's clients, or some other representative of the Town. But, it must be in the confines of the record, not matter that has not been already determined. The appeal is itself as a matter of law. -All appeals are limited to the record, as it exists, nothing new. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of clarification. I'm not entirely familar with.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's okay. We're informal. JOHN BREDEMEYER: 1 do mostly administrative, where I come from.. There are conditions though, that might relate to application, like engineering, or conditions since then, as far as rainfall storms, or conditions that he might have in his structure now. It's been for inspection. Whether that should be brought in. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: You can bring them up. The Board can either reject them, or not, So, can Mr. Moore. Bill? WILLIAM MOORE: Thank you all. I've been doing two things in the Town Hall, as a first. This is another one. My wife did the first bed and breakfast application with the Zoning Board, when that was the new law. I represented people doing the first affordable housing subdivision, when that was a new law. So, here we go again for a first. Thank you, Harvey, for spelling out some, Pg 2 - Hearing - KoSolos . what I Mope, will be a very informal process of describing the situation, explaining the small area of disagreement we had with the Trustees' decision, that was made on this one, and see if we can't resolve it. I'm going to make reference, for convenience sake, I hope, I think the packet has a copy, to a survey of the property as it existed before the renovations. It's in my packet of papers as exhibit D, and hopefully, I'll be able to speak clearly enough, that we can see what we're talking about. TOWN ATTORNEYARNOFF: Bill, it would appear that there's two surveys, one date November 15, 1990, and another revised June 12, of '93. You're talking about the one that has November 15 of '90? WILLIAM MOORE: That's right, Harvey. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: Bill, I don't think the members of the Board have the Exhibits. We can run out and make some copies real quick. TONY KOSTOULAS: I have a. packet with all of them with that survey in it, if you would like mine. WILLIAM MOORE: Whether it helps you, when you're listening, I don't know, but here goes. That's one of each. Anyway, Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas bought the property 1990, went to the Zoning Board, and got permission to do substantial renovations to the property. Please feel free to interupt with questions, as we go along. In the course of reconstrution, if you look at that survey, there's an area that butts out, that waterfront people call their front yard, but the rest of us call it backyard, 14 by 8 feet in size, alcove area. That was taken out in the course of renovations, and in it's place there are footings, and cement block, and poured foundation. The Building Department came down, and granted a C.O. for the house, and in inspecting that open area, said, you got to cover that. So, a deck was put out, and the deck was put across that area, and tied out to that existing wood deck, which is shown here 22 by 10. The next survey shows, that deck continued out covering the, what had been an alcove that was taken out, and tying into an existing deck. It was then that the Building Depart- ment advised the builder, that, whoops, we need a CZM permit, and a variance for that. So that application was made to the Trustees, and Mr. Kostoulas on their own, in conjunction with their landscape person proceeded last summer. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Before you get lost in this, you have an Exhibit D, and Exhibit E. My Exhibit E shows a wood deck. I can't exactly read what's on it, but it looks like something 590. WILLIAM MOORE: That's the elevation. COUNCILMAN PENNY: You're saying, that the Building Department told them to put this out there? WILLIAM MOORE: As a covering, if you look back on the prior Exhibit D. MARIA KOSTOULAS: The existing stairs and deck had to be repaired, as per the Building Department, when we purchased the house, it would be in moderation. So, that was repaired before the house was built. Between the two, there's an i empty space, and we proceeded to connect the deck, and the Building Department came out, and told us that we needed a permit for that, io the only thing that was left uncovered was the cement footing. So, when we came to speak to the Pg 3 - Kostoulos heari~ • Buildling Department, they told us to cover it, and they just said, because we had to two young children, and another one on the way, so said, cover that, and make it safe. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Bill, am I to understand then, that footings ran from the house all the way out to the thing that says wood deck? WILLIAM MOORE: No. They're under that area, that shown.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Just under the little alcove area, so the open area, which existed from the water most point of the house to the other side of the wood deck, as it pre-existed, was a lawn, or some type of natural vegetative substance, which you have covered up. There was soil inbetween. WILLIAM MOORE: Beyond the alcove. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Beyond the alcove, and it would look to be about, I guess, about 15 feet, maybe, 15 to 20 feet at it's closest point. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Harvey, this alcove you're referring to is the rectangular projection at the front of the house? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's correct. COUNCILMAN PENNY: That is known as the alcove. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That is known as the alcove, that says 7.9 and 14, and 7.9, do you see that? COUNCILMAN PENNY: Yes, I do., TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: So, what I'm doing is taking the nearest point on the alcove to the deck, and I'm estimating, 1 don't have a ruler here, but it would appear that it's roughly twice the 7.9, as I look at it with my eyes, I'm saying roughly 15, 20 feet. WILLIAM MOORE: Do you want to scale it, Harvey? COUNCILMAN LIZEWSKI: Out from the house? COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Square the house off? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: No. I'm saying, you take the nearest point. You go from this point here to this point here, it's probably close to 15 to 20 feet. That's what I'm saying. I just wanted to be sure we're talking about the same thing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Now, the wood deck that's marked up there, that's 17 on one end, 24 of the other, you were told to put that in by the Building Depart- ment? MARIA KOSTOULAS: We connected.. well, it's not really a deck. All it is, is wood planking on the ground, but what we did is, we started to connect. The Building Department came out. We had no idea we need a permit to do that. They came out in mid-stream, and told us to stop, to get a permit, but all that was left, that was not done at that point, was the concrete alcove. That was left, Pg 4 - Kostoulos heaeg • so at that time, when we came to speak to the Building Department, they said cover that, make it safe. WILLIAM MOORE: They were building out from what was the existing wood deck, back toward the house, and had left open that alcove area. They said cover that, but you need a permit, so you did. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This alcove area now, you're referring to, is where the three steps are? MARIA KOSTOULAS: No, beyond the three steps, there is cement footing. Those steps are now covered up. It's extended beyond the steps. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Is the house the same size, because it appears that it's not? It appears that the original drawing of the house is 30.2 by 26.3, and the other is 30.2, and it looks like 36.1. Am I correct? MARIA KOSTOULAS: What happened was, we built on the exiting foundation. What we wanted to do was square off the back, where that alcove is, but the Zoning Board of Appeals refused to give us the back that way. They gave us the eight feet to the front. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Correct. I read that decision, so that means you extended it. MARIA KOSTOULAS: That amount of feet. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: And loped off, so to speak the alcove? MARIA KOSTOULAS: Correct. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: And that was the last thing, that you covered up, was the alcove. WILLIAM MOORE: Now, we're asking wood planks on the.. COUNCILMAN PENNY: On the ground is a structure. WILLIAM MOORE: That was a misconception on their part. They will cover up the alcove, and go get the permits. Since then they've been working with the Trustees. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We didn't build an elevated deck out of the house. It was on the ground. You walked down the steps, and it was on the ground. TONY KOSTOULAS: Most of the planks were not even nailed on. They told us not to any nailing, just put the planks down. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Anything after that point, we didn't even nail down. WILLIAM MOORE: What we're talking about is approximately, I'm going to use the Trustees decision on this one, is about 670 square feet. What we're really talking about is 470 square feet, because you could have up to 200 feet of decking as an insignificant structure under the regulations, that would not even require CZM permit. In my opinion 470 feet of decking is of issue here. Pg 5 - Kostoulos hearing TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Bill, just to interupt, is there a side yard problem with the deck? It looks like the deck is built literally to the side yard on both sides. WILLIAM MOORE: Well, we haven't got a C.O. for it, so that may well pose to be yet more problems. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It would appear that the structure is literally on the property line without a variance from the Zoning Board. WILLIAM MOORE: There is an application before the Zoning Board right now. It's been put on abeyance pending, you know, one of our problems was.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: 1 didn't know if that had been addressed within that application. WILLIAM MOORE: 1 have not reviewed that application to see if, in fact, that includes side yards on that one, or not. I don't know. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Bill, can ask questions of you, or are we.? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It's up to the Board, if we have any problems with that. I don't. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The Board would like to get all the information, we possibly can. If it's okay with the Counsel, we'd like to get all the information. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The question on my mind, and the question I wanted to surface here, on unrelated activities, the curved piece to that in terms that led the Board of Trustees to believe, that the 200 foot exclusion for a permit, that if you're accessing the beach, or directly accessing where structures would result in going to or from the water, so that this area that you..200 square feet, you seem, you say, okay, fine, the area we calculate it out, but under the definitional section of the Code on unregulated activity on page 3710, it says, unregulated activity, excepted activities which are not regulated by this chapter include but not limited to elevated walkways, or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use, and built by an individual property owner for the limited purposes of providing noncommercial access to the beach, docks, piers, wharfs, structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface area of less than two hundred square feet, or for which are removed in the fall of each year, and that goes on to talk about normal beach grooming, and cleanup. WILLIAM MOORE: We can agree, or disagree, as to the interpretation. I'm glad you brought that up, I'll have to go back and read it again, and rethink, but in any event we're arguing about a 670 square foot deck. So be it. I think that there might be an arguement, that we're talking 470 square feet, but that's not critical to the point we're trying to make here. The only issue we take exception with, the Trustees have granted permission to have the deck put there, is the restriction on the decision and request, asking us to cut back that deck by either four feet, or eight feet. We were given the choice. Cut it back by four feet, and if you do that, and please reduce that existing wood deck, which is down on the bluff, or cut it back by eight feet, and leave that existing one alone. Essentially contention, or problem, we have with that is getting from, what we're allowed to have as a deck to that existing wood deck. That existing wood deck Pg 6 - Kostoulos hear • is not an issue before the Trustees, and Jay would immediately acknowledge that. We're talking about getting from, what the Trustees allow as a deck, across this yard area, which is at the top of the bluff to another exiting wood deck. We're not saying, do these people get access to the bay, or to the sound rather, or not? They have it. There's going to be traffic across that property. COUNCILMAN PENNY: For the purpose of clarity, would it be possible that we number, you keep referring to a wood deck, now, we have three different indivi- dual areas on a map here, marked wood deck. Can we start with the one on at the top, where it says elevation 54.94, and call that deck number one, next one deck number two, and the third one deck number three, so that we're not totally confused at the end of this? If we find a fourth one, then we'll go on. WILLIAM MOORE: Fine. The real contention we have here, it doesn't make sense to allow a deck. We're going to have to access to an existing deck, and have pedestrian traffic across the top of the bluff. Two points we want to make, Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas have two children, and Mrs. Kostoulas is expecting a third one. She's having contrations right now, so we'll talk faster. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: We've covered. Mrs. Kostoulas can relax. WILLIAM MOORE: That would be another first. The real point we want to make is, we're going to have pedestrian traffic across this way anyway. We're talking about, what will be three young children, and regular normal family activities, going back and forth to those steps. Its our position simply stated, it make more sense to have the deck continue up, and tie into what was allowed to be an exisiting wooden deck, and it really doesn't matter if we cut this deck number one by four feet, or by eight feet. We're recreating that traffic pattern over the bluff and down the hill to the beach. That's the point we're making. Now, I appreciate, I think I understand the underlying goals of the CZM Ordinance, and what the Trustees were trying to do, as far as concerns about plant growth, and maintaining a vegatative, and erosion control measures up there, and we hadn't done that. As we went to the Trustees for the variance, they had to consider basically three things in the Ordinance. One is there some other place %,ou can put this? They said, no. The Trustees acknowledged there's no alternate site for this deck. It's where it's got to be. The second one was, in the course of doing this deck, have you employed mitigation measures to reduce the impact you might have on natural environment, and this is why the Trustees made some mistakes in their findings, and I think that would suggest that perhaps on conclusion then can be accepted. First of all, it's not that significant, but they did issue a negative declaration under SEQRA, which suggested proposed activity had no significant effect on the environment, not that I've asked for a positive dec every application, but there really was not a positive finding here. In the Trustees decision, there was discussion of installing dry wells. In the docu- mentation I provided you, I showed you dry wells that had been installed to control runoff from the roof of the house, already in place, and I gave you a memo from Tim Coffey indicated that he had installed those already. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Are they in each corner of the house? WILLIAM MOORE: Mr. Coffey went on, and installed erosion matting, jute, and i some staples, the detail of which I don't know, the Coffeys are in Florida until April the first. I gave you his summary of what was installed there as erosion control measure. In addition, he selected the plants that went down below the deck, and along the stairs, as an erosion control plant. My point on bringing Pg 7 - Kostoulos hearib • this up is that the Trustees made a mistake. In their decision, they identified the plants as ornamental non-indigenous species, and my belief is that they presume that this was a layperson said, oh, roses would look nice down here, but in fact, those where a specifically choosen species, as an erosion control measure. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Can I just say something about that? When we had to repair the steps, when the house was being built, there was so much poison ivy, we had to spray something to get rid of the poison ivy. The men could not work on the stairs. When that was done, that house had been a neglected house for over ten years. That was the Rowe house, and no one had lived it for over ten years, so people had used as..kids would hang out there, and there were so many beer cans, and soda cans, it was just dumped on. When that was cleaned up, our concern was, that we needed something to keep down the ground. We spoke to Tim Coffey. We did not tell him what to put down. We said, just put something that will hold the ground. We want to make sure, that whatever we plant there, is good for our bluff. He chose the roses. Whatever he would have told us, we would have put, and that was done prior to even constructing that. That was the first thing we did, was plant the roses. That was in 191, as soon as the built, so we planted over 200 rose bushes on that bluff. It cost us $1,500.00 to tie down the ground, because that was what he choose as the best. We put a lot of money into this house. Our main concern was that nothing happen to the bluff, as well. WILLIAM MOORE: Mr. Coffey is not here, but I had gone and checked with him, back when I first submitted the application. I went to Riverhead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the brocures, that spell out what types of plant are appropriate, and confirm it's in here. Rosa Rugosa, which is what he planted, is a known and accepted plant. I didn't know that. That was news for me. I was glad to see he took the species, that was appropriate for the area. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Do they outline it in terms of erosion control, or is this coastally..can handle salt? There's a difference between erosion control, and, or plant's ability to withstand a salt tolerance. I was just wondering how these spell out. In other words, to be honest with you, the Trustees when they visited the site, and they saw the Rugosa in, because they saw the rosehips, where inpressed that this is not entirely in keeping with recommendations we've seen previously coming out Soil Conservation Service. Two members of the Board, of course you realize, have an agricultural degree, Mr. Krupski, and myself, and the fact is that Soil Conservation Service normally recommends either Lathopa, or American Beach, where it will grow, or they will be recommend something like Crown Veg, that will handle the loamy soil, something that burrows in, and provides more matrix. Of course, the Board may be seeing relatively recently after the Rugosa roses were in, saw plants that had crown spaces that were very open, and prone to what we felt would be rainwater washing, mulch that around them, away. That's why, you know, I had not heard whether it was Albert, or the rest of the Board, feeling that the planting they saw, was installed in such a fashion, that it was erosional capability, or the reason is there that-you know I'll concede if that's the information. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We were told that the roots are very long, and they stretch i across, and that's what holds the soil, that's why it was a good choice. He, also, agreed that was a excellent choice. Pg 8 - Kostoulos hearj~q • WILLIAM MOORE: The reason I bring that up is, that if you read the Trustee's decision, the language used in the decision, and that's what we're appealing here, was, it made me believe as a layperson, that there was a misunderstanding in the application with the application, or other plant selection would, ornamental selection, and I must confess I'd forgotten about your background. I certainly forgot about Albert's, but in the course of that, it was a ornamental selection, and we questioned that Mr. Coffey, who we can balance, and the two of them can argue back and forth, and what have you. But, he did select, and recognize the erosion control species to go in there. It may serve ornamental purposes to boot, but it is in fact an erosion control selection. In their own derision, the Trustees made reference to two site inspections, which they noted no erosion. That's significant. Whether you considered it or not, we've had the nor'easter, and subsequent storm, and those folks can tell you there's been no erosion. TONY KOSTOULAS: When we put down the netting, when Mr. Bredemeyer came up, and did the inspection. Whatever we do, we try to do the best that there is. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Counsel, just digress for a minute here. I don't want you to lose your train of though, that you're on, so was the deck, that is number one, now intitled one, deck number one, was that whole structure, was there a building permit issued for that structure, at the same time as the house renova- tion went along? MARIA KOSTOULAS: In our closing statement, I believe is in that packet. We have it in here. It specifically states, that we have to repair that, and the deck, or we would be in violation. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Deck number one in Exhibit E. TOWNY KOSTOULAS: That's part of the original application. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Deck number two already existed. WILLIAM MOORE: No, that wasn't part of the orginal application from the builder. In fact, they didn't even know, given the type of structure it is, that it required a building permit. Out here in Southold, we know it's called structure, it needs a permit. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Are you suggesting, that this is like a catwalk, just a series of boards laying on the ground? WILLIAM MOORE: Basically, that's correct. There's a drawing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: It's railroad ties. WILLIAM MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Just laying on the surface of the ground. WILLIAM MOORE: It's a walkway you would see down to the beach. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Like a raised catwalk? I WILLIAM MOORE: Yes. Six by six with two by sixes on top of it. Pg 9 - Kostoulos hea& . SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Presently, there is, in other words, you don't have a permit, a building permit, for that structure at this time, then? MARIA KOSTOULAS: We didn't realize we needed one. WILLIAM MOORE: The Building Department says, you've got to get your CZM permit before. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: In other words, when you found out that you needed the permit, you went back to the Building Department, and they denied you, because it was in the Coastal Erosion Area? MARIA KOSTOULAS: Right. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That had to be approved before. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But, this deck goes from one side of your property line to the other side. Is it? It's not just a walkway to get to get out to the pre-existing deck. It actually covers the entire width of lot. MARIA KOSTOULAS: That's the extent of our backyard, or frontyard, whatever you want to call it. That's what we have, so we have young children, and they want to ride their bicycle, or whatever, we built that, so that they can play in that designated area. I mean it's very small, as you can see. That's the entire play area. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do I understand.. MARIA KOSTOULAS: There's a picket fence, that goes around the entire property. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And this new deck is at various levels, or is it all firmly attached at one grade? TONY KOSTOULAS: One grade, and it goes down one step to go to the other level. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Three steps out of the house, one level, and then another, one step down to the other. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: What are the actual dimensions of this deck number one? WILLIAM MOORE: I have a hard time. The total is 670 square feet. It's not shown. I have a problem as far as dimensions go. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We took it off the survey, which is not exactly. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: It looks like about forty-five feet wide. MARIA KOSTOULAS: It goes in on an angle. It's not straight. JOHN BREDEMEYER: If somebody wants to ask for a measure, I'll be glad to go. Pg 10 - Kostoulas hearing • COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Give us the northerly most dimension of that deck number one. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The northerly most dimension, that which is parallel to the top of the bluff, is by my estimate 43 feet. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: On the west side? JOHN BREDEMEYER: On the west side the leg parallel with the property of the neighbor within approximately two feet of it is 17 feet. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: There's two feet there between the deck and the neighbor, right, at the property line? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's hard. It could be less. It's very difficult to read from a survey. It may be a foot and a half. On the easterly side section that parellels the plot line is 8 feet. COUNCILMAN PENNY: As we're getting into specifics here with deck number one, what happened in deck number two? Now, my feeling was, that you didn't have to get a building permit for that, from what I've read. They asked you to repair it, but as it was repaired it was enlarged, from 10 by 22 to 22 by 14. There's another little thing, that goes off the front of it, that I can't ascertain exactly what it is. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: It looks like steps going down to the other stairs. COUNCILMAN PENNY: It goes from a simple 10 by 22 rectangle to a 14 by 22 with another something out in front of it. WILLIAM MOORE: 1 wondered if that includes the step that connects the two decks, that fourteen foot measurement, 1 believe, would include that step between decks number one and two. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I just want to be sure, that we agree on somthing. Process before this Board is merely to sit as an Appelate forum, so to speak, for the Trustees. You could very well find yourself, and I just want you to understand, and the Board to understand, relegated in fact of going back to the Building Department, and back to the Zoning Board. In other words, the fact that there's imprimatur, if there were one, and I don't presume to do that from this Board, reversing a determination of the Trustees, they still would have to go, I want the Board to understand this, you still go to the Building Department, and as I read the survey, and I think as you read the survey, they're going to get denied in the Building Department, because of sideyards. Regardless of anything they're going to get sideyards, because they never got a variance from the Zoning Board, so they could be faced with making major modifications to the deck by the Zoning Board of Appeals, depending upon their actions. WILLIAM MOORE: That's entirely possible. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: This Board's actions can not in any way impact, nor will be used in any way to impact upon the integrity of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Pg 11 - Kostoulas hearjrg • WILLIAM M OGRE: The Zoning Board's criteria is very different from yours. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I think it's important that the Board know that. WILLIAM MOORE: One of my concerns, in fact, of having multipal applications going before different Boards at the same time, is the concerns you end up with inconsistant. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm seeking to avoid that. WILLIAM MOORE: You take one at a time. This is what this has said, you don't circumvent. We need to go to the Zoning Board. We're already before them. To get back to see that the specific issue, you know it is the bluff distance, whether that application approves sideyards, I don't know. I was not involved with it, when that was filed, but I'll follow on that. What we're boiling down to is the Trustees have acknowledged that the deck can exit there, it's a four foot, or an eight foot cutback in the deck, and our position is, we're going to have human traffic at the top of that bluff. The issue is safety for the youngsters, and secondly, just human pedestrian, and family traffic on what is the top of the bluff. You can't change the characteristics of the property. It's a small piece of property. The house is there. The Zoning Board in granting their prior approval to reconstruct kept them from building closer, but in my position to keep people off the top of the bluff, and running about on it, you're going to get to the existing deck anyway, and so leave it be. There's been no erosion. These are facts. The Trustees looked twice. There has been no erosion. Tim Coffey put in the entire erosion control devises. They appear to be working, and these storms haven't damaged it. The Trustees should have said, it may cause erosion, or it may do this. With the benefit of their two inspections, this northeast storm, and no problem. So, it was on supposition. I know it was all the best intentions on their part. There should be no ill will to the Trustees' decision at all. We just disagree as to the wisdom, and the logic of eliminating the deck area between the permitted deck, and deck number two. That's really the issue. COUNCILMAN PENNY: All the Trustees are suggesting is that, if I read this right, number one, that this be shortened eight feet. When we say shortened eight feet, could Jay tell us exactly what the purpose is? JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Board meant to, the seaward most portion of it, to be treated landward. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: To be what? JOHN BREDEMEYER: In other words, cut back to the landward. In other words, the whole intention of the Board is to provide clearance at the top of the bluff, point of inflection of the bluff, or that portion of the bluff, that starts to go, and tumble on to the beach, is right at the edge of the bluff. The way the bluff, and deck, are presently positioned, the discharge from the deck which slopes right to the point of inflection will have all the runoff, and rainfall, on to the surface of the ground, which theft leaves almost no area for maintenance. If any erosion at all starts, the deck will then start to be undermined by the erosional force. It will be very difficult to maintain, so the motion was to set minimums. I guess when I get into my presentation, I'll discuss the ordinance, and the Board of Trustees starting to develop some policy on it, in relation to the ordinance and the Board's feeling when we discuss this. But, to say now, that to move it back. Pg 12 - Kostoulas heatg • COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Move it back eight feet? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do you have a presentation to make, Jay? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Yes. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Counsel is not finished yet. WILLIAM MOORE: I really have reached my end. It's important to these people. They don't want to put up something that's going to fall down, and take any unnecessary risks. They've incurred great expense, over $3,000.00 to Mr. Coffey to do his erosion control measures, and their work. That's the proof of the pudding. The Trustees' decision on the other hand, really relates to the what if scenerios, and we point to a couple of areas of error, into the ornamental plants, and the ornamental plants, and if there's some reason for the Board to feel a desire to have more information from an engineering standpoint, or Tim Coffey's standpoint, I'd be happy, as I've said, this is the first time we've done this. I don't know what extent you want. It is an appellate review, but what we're reviewing, and considering, it is still in the Town of Southold, as far as the Boards within Southold. I'm happy to get more information for you, if you feel you would like to have it to make the decision. I'll try and get it for you. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'll start with my presentation, 1 guess. Just want to say, Bill left out one of the firsts, that he was in town, and that was a person to do a DEIS before the Trustees, and that's one of the firsts. We've always worked well together. I enjoy the informal approach, but he did leave out one of his firsts. Some people think Trustees dont' do DEIS's. Everyone has a copy of the permit history from the Trustees. The permit history, and the finding of the facts? I guess I'll go to the first part of the discussion. The deck in it's entirety is jurisdictionally on a bluff with respect to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act of the Town defines the bluff as going landward of what is the point of inflection. That was what I was trying to draw, which way the bluff tumbles home down to the beach. You notice the point of inflection, and a point landward of that for twenty-five feet, is also con- sidered bluff for the bluff jurisdictional area. Usually, if you will, the ordinance itself would have open constructed structures not located on a bluff itself. Con- struction in the Code within twenty-five feet, it doesn't permit a deck in that area. It's totally forbidden to have a permanent foundation unless it's on a very strict variance request. (tape changed) One of the primary concerns of the Trustees regarding the site, regardles of how they found the deck there, and the underpining of what got us there The Board was concerned primarily with protecting the bluff area, and protecting the neighbor's properties, as well as the Kostoulas' from any bluff erosion. The initial response in looking down I did see the Rugosa rose, and I'll to, you know, say that we're certainly going to have look into Rugosa Rose a little more formally, as far as it's erosion, and it's soil keeping qualities. But the soil is there. Our typical Plymouth Carver, or Plymouth Havens Association vary clay, soils, and it's a remakablely stable cove, that whole cove, so that long term erosion, or prospects, are probably not serious for the site. That's true. But given the fact that they're very steep slopes, visually they're even steeper than one on one. The Board was very Pg 13 - Kostoulas hea~ • concerned that by not having any area of maintenance where you could have vegetation, that a structural approach won't work. It's all well and good to put hay fields under the deck on a temporary basis, or put filter cloth and jute, but these are all organic materials. All organic materials are just going to become, going to oxidized, and eventually will diminish. The only real secure way of having soil keeping is with plants, that can get sufficient light, to bind the soil, and their roots. I stopped out to the site today at lunchtime, just to see what may have gone on, and already the mulch, that was on the side is starting to organize, so that it's lining up, so that you can see that there is water erosional force. It's starting to move down the sides of the hill, and of course, that would be normal. That's normal for probably everywhere you look along the area there, but the idea of having the deck come back further is to prevent that. Now, a simple calculation of rainfall over the existing size of the deck at 770 square feet, approximately, a two inch rainfall, when you calculate it out, it comes to 840 gallons. Now, the deck does slope almost entirely towards the point of inflection of the bluff, and 840 gallons of water, which could come in a relatively short period of time, represents a lot of water going over a bluff, particularly for a structure which goes out to the neighboring properties. There was a concern there, that by not setting some minimums we have might have problems in the future, where a Board of Trustees would called to answer for a decision, that allowed building right over transitions. So, basically, what you're having here, is you have transition from land surface to the bluff itself, and those areas are going to be prone to force. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Let me ask you a question, Jay, please. The deck actually does actually have space between each plank, so the water can go through it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's true. - Plank space is very tight plank space on this deck. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Which way do the planks go? JOHN BREDEMEYER: The planks are running east and west, parellel to the shore, so, it would tend to burrow substantial amount of water through them. But, I would say, it's a fairly tight constructed deck. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Jay, let me just hold you up for a minute. Bill, if I can go back to a statement, that you made. Somebody mentioned about drains that were put in? Are they drywell drains? Where were they placed, again? WILLIAM MOORE: At the corners of the house. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: At the corners of the house, the structure itself, not the actual deck area. The drywells were put in, and the reason for the drywells were? For rain off the roof, so that didn't run down the bank, in other words? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Each of those are connected to the downspouts from the gutter? WILLIAM MOORE: Right. 1 JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Trustees in looking at it, it would impractical to try to contain runoff with gutters on the deck. Although we talked about it, it did not end up in the permit. In Mr. Moore's return to you requesting the hearing, Pg 14 - Kostoulas hearing • there was a discussion on, I think, Plymouth soils, but the discussion there related to soil without slopes, but the reality here is there's a question about discharged to soil with severe slopes, and that really, you know, it's not really a problem with the discharge through the deck, and below. It's really the question of the discharge or the accumulated discharge, which would be moving along and down the bluff. The Board thought about options, and in requesting the setback of the eight feet, the Board felt we wanted on all Coastal Erosion Hazard applications, a minimum of approximately eight to ten feet for maintenance to try to promote the kind of vegetation, that you want to have to stabilize the top of the bluff, and we felt this is a minimum, since the ordinance,since the ordinance, itself, would have at least a twenty-five foot setback for open constructed structures. We felt that even somewhat less than that Linder the circumstances, that it would be justified under the circumstances because of stable soil. We didn't want to go in closer than that. We felt in difference to the stability we saw that we were on the side of being lenient, we actually thought the eight to four foot options, the eight options are fairly lenient options compared to what the ordianance call for, and we basically wanted it on the safe side. It is true that the negative declaration reflects a limited concern as far as environmental. But, of course, that also relates to impacts, that might effect the public good, and even a modest storm along the sound, you see what they do. There was never a question here about this site, discharge in large quanities of soil, material into the waterway. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Jay, what is the feeling of the Board in reference to bluff stabilization? Do you feel, as a Board, through coastal erosion, that they have to come you for any bluff stabilization before any of that work is every attempted, even talking about vegetation? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's part of the ordinance, and the Board will otherwise require that in their permit, where they see a site suitable.. The Roard saw the Rugosa Rose, and felt best to leave 'well enough alone. The request was to leave it, and although they might have had other preferences, that may change now, too, as we get more familar with it. I know the soil conservation people were recommending hydoseeding, which they had good results with, and depending on the types of soil, various planting types. This site we. felt would have been better used for something else. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That wasn't noted. The reason why I ask you that question, is it was not noted in your findings, that the fact that the individual who did the work should have come before the Trustees prior to even starting the planning. That why I asked you, if it was a prerequisite for any applications, or just stabilization work regardless of an application report. JOHN BREDEMEYER,: 1 think the Board did make a notation on that. This was noted revegetative with ornamental non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched to accepted soil stababization practice for the bluff. We wanted to note the condition we saw, but then the Board, when they discussed it, they felt that we on to the permit condition. I believe we said, here the entire bluff shelf not be vegetated, or revegetated, or altered in any fashion, except for the mimimal disturbance without the express permission of the administrator. So, we went from..we saw something we're not entirely pleasedwith. It was not deemed sufficient. We never issued a violation on this application. It came to us through the Building Depart- ment. There was a concern whether it was a violation on the face value of the Code, and we felt it was a revegetation. Pg 15 - Kostoulas hears • SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The reason why I bring that up is,this Board has to act on what is before it, and obviously, it was not noted, so as far as we're concerned there was no problem with the work that was done there. You know, in reference to negative decing, and so on. I'm just bringing it to your attention. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was just reading the permit history, and the findinry facts are very clear. We said that they did not properly vegetate, and we went on to say how they should not revegetate without permission from the administrators. SUPERVISOR HARRIS My point was, that if this Board is to act on the application, as far as a whole, the deck is one part of what's in question here. The second part of it, obviously, by your findings is the vegetation itself. JOHN BREDEMEYER: 1 don't think there's a problem with the request for the deal. I think it's with the kind of vegetation, and having problem Trustees. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That's my point. That's what I'm trying to get to. That that's in contention, the vegetation. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Basically, the deck itself. The feeling was that this simply shades the coastal zone too much, and the discharge of water, and over time could possible erode both that property, and adjourning properties. Fairly straight forward. Any questions? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Jay, 1 have one question. Your suggestion of the modification of the deck, either one or two, is that somehow impact, and vary from the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals? The Zoning Board of Appeals said, the proposed reconstruction, and the existing house, including the porch, with an existing blueprint shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling. Novi, isn't your decision then, somewhat at variance with a decision of another Board, and giving greater rights than that Board? JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was not aware of any.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm reading from the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I did not have a decision, nor did my Board have a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals when they went into this. We went into this, we went into.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm not being critical. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I have to be honest with you. If the Zoning, Board of Appeals has limitations different than Our Board, we are separate Boards with respect to the law, and thrust of it. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: The thrust is different. That's correct. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The thrust is entirely different, and not only that, the Trustees were blind to the fact of limitation... Pg 16 - Kostoulas he*q • TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: So, then your postion is not withstanding.. I just want to understand your position is not withstanding the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, even if you had notice of it, you still could say this, but it doesn't necessarily change or vary the prior approval of the Zoning Board, the limitations of Zoning Board. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Trustees are looking at this strictly within the Coastal Erosion Management, strictly. COUNCILMAN PENNY: 1 think the point, that Harvey and Jay are discussing, is a point that I'm kind of at a conflict with, and if you were dealing with this as a new application for something that did not exist, the matter would be a lot clearer. The fact of the matter is, that this structure was put in place, and the fact that it violates number 2 on the ZBA is something that we have to separate, and the Trustees did that. Their treating of this was as if there was a new application. Even if the Trustees did approve it, and even if the deck was not built with this approval, they could go back to the ZBA, and seek further relief from this restriction, that already exists. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: But, the Zoning Board of Appeals does not necessarily have adhere to this, and they can say, we feel that our original decision gave you enough room. Just because the Trustees say, you can build within so many feet for erosion purpose, we feel for zoning purpose, and setback requirements, or lot coverage, or some other reason that they may assign to it, you can only go so far. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: Does it seem logical if the Board wants to discuss things with us, as attorneys, that we should recess the hearing? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Sure,' at the conclusion. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: At this point, we,maybe,we want to hear more evidence, or go forward. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'll rap up real quick. As a point of clarity, because also when we got into this processing, and if we tried to do coordinating action under SEQR I'm sure we'll still be discussing this in a couple of years from now. It's on Long Island Sound. We don't have to coordinate. We've decided administratively in house, that we will all handle these as un-coordianted reviews, if they're unlisted actions, just to keep things simple, or managable. I don't know if that simple. I have nothing further to comment. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: 1 have a question. Do I understand, that the way..l have two questions. Is the point of inflection a key criteria, that you measure back from? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's defined in the Code. I know that at least the past dealings with the Trustees, and 1, with the DEC, when they involved in erosion protection through wetland permits, the point of inflection is a key point. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The point of inflection isn't where it's starts to curve down to the beach. The point of inflection is where the curve starts going down, and then the curve reverses about half way down, or part way down. Inflection means the change.. Pg 17 - Kostoulas hear JOHN BREDEMEYER: Let me read the definition from the Code. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It's when the curve reverses is the point of inflection technically. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Technically it is, and in a lot of cases there is also another point of inflection at the head of the bluff, because the sand, and material, deposit sometimes on top of the bluff, and there's an inflection, that also there's another S-curve, that goes back to the upwards. I think the point of inflection is the current defines, as I depicted on the blackboard, I may not call,even call, it separately, it may just be the bluff itself. The noint of inflection is that point along the top of the bluff, where the trend of the land slope changes to begin it's descent of the shoreline, even though it's not a classic point of inflection. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not a proper point of inflection. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's correct. It's not correct, and what's the Code gives me. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's also the State law. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The second question I have is, are your recommending that there be sort of a gap between.. if they would move this back eight or ten feet, there be a gap between the shortened deck, and the pre-existing deck? JOHN BREDEMEYER: We weren't suggesting that. If that was understood from our decision, no. The Board had meant to have them continue. Since it was pre-existing structure, it was felt that by bringing it back, we would be able to have as much as practical protection for this slope. Admittedly, the other deck is there. We can't do anthing about it. It was the hope, that we could possibly opt for the decision with four foot shortening, and removing that deck, and just having the catwalk down to the stairs. We felt that was the most desirable option. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So, there still be a catwalk to the stairs? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It would be catwalk to the stairs, and then with the shortening of your maintenance area, the vegetation could be maintained, and it would be very little shading then. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: How wide would this catwalk be? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Again, I believe the Board is reasonable. We just assumed it would the width of the existing walk. It wasn't specified. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I don't see any mention of any catwalk in this decision. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I believe the decision is clear now. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It's not clear to me. It's not the intention of Trustees then to shorten this thing across the entire width of the lot, such that people have to walk down into the sand, and the dirt, and get on to the wood structure. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It was not the intent, but between Town Board discussing it, and what the final language is, I can see that there is. Pg 18 - Kostoulas heafg • WILLIAM MOORE: I don't see anything that suggests some kind of a catwalk. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Or a connection between decks. JOHN BREDEMEYER: There's a misunderstanding with that. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Do you want to consider that, before we continue with this hearing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Can we just make it clear ? The way I understand what the Trustees ask is the shortening eight feet across the whole northern end of the structure. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Or four feet with another variation. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That's what the decision says, but now we also under- stand that the Trustees are not adverse to some form of a connection. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think the misunderstanding lies in..because the the ordinance allows for stairs, and access. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This hearing may not even be needed, or wanted, if Counsel discusses this, now, with his clients a minute. I'll certainly give you a minute, counselor, if you'd like to consider what you've just heard. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The reason we discussed this, because the deck, we asked to be reduced to the width of the catwalk. Number two. Number two would be altered to become the width of the stairway. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This one is deck number one, and this one here is deck number two, and they just happen to fall in line, one and two. But, there is more to it, than four foot shortening, instead of the eight foot shortening. It's also moving a portion of the deck. WILLIAM MOORE: My suggestion to Harvey was. Jay and myself had made our observations, and we'll let Gerry do his, and in light of this new information I'll go back and speak, prior to your making a decision with the Trustees and the Board, and see if we have everything. GERARD GOEHRINGER: I was not here to discuss what's before us now with the new deck, which we're discussing, but this particular application is near and dear to us, because of it's proximity to the bluff, and the acutual reconstruction was before us in 1991, and so forth. Any sugestions, that were made, 1' should point out that the Kostoulas, they've done everything we've discussed with them, and so on and so forth, However, where the problem came in, in our decision, you've read our decision, during the period of the hearing, and you can see that I had it in here, if you want to see it, the neighbor next door, and I don't remember who was on the east side or the west side, where deeply concerned with what you're referring to be the alcove. The alcove was a porch. Okay? I have copies of it in here. This porch evidently had a cement slab underneath it, and it still has a cement slab, which now is now underneath their steps. It's a short deck, and then the steps go down to the question that is before you. We spent a lot of time, a lot of discussion, and we assured the neighbor that there would be construction, or destruction, of that particular cement slab. Alright? The reason Pg 19 - Kostoulas hea0. for the decision. and the reason for the four feet, was because the Kostoulas wanted to put a second story veranda off of the master bedroom. Right? The nature of our decision was clearly to allow them to put two four by fours four feet out, wherever it lie in that area of the cement slab, not to penetrate with the cement slab, but to put that there. That was conceivable it, ladies and gentlemen. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: So, that's what the four feet reference is. GERALD GOEHRINGER: That was the four feet reference. Okay? Mr. Randazo, who was their contractor, and somebody I had known for at least twenty years, and worked with by the way in the 70's, indicated to me that he needed those to support this veranda, that he was putting in. He then subsequent to the decision called me, and he said, I'm a little concerned because it says I can't go out past the footprint, and 1 clearly defined for him, at that particular-you know, on that discussion, that was approximately two weeks after the decision was rendered, and indicated to him that that did not mean he could not place these two four by four out four feet out from the existing footprint. Okay? Again, he needed that for the support for the veranda. So that was understand. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Goehringer, in other words, this determination states that that four foot does not say any deck construction. It is saying almost the existing deck construction, which is going to become a footing in retrospect is the reason why it was granted for an above structure to be placed there. GERALD GOEHRINGER: We didn't want any alteration, because we promised the next door neighbor. There's no alteration of that existing cement area. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for that clarification, because it was not clear by reading this. GERALD GOEHRINGER: I should just point out the jurisdiction of the 239.4 of the Zoning permit involved the applications before us. Now, it's been held in abeyance throughout this entire proceedings, that go back and forth. But the Zoning Board does have total jurisdiction on the 239.4, which says we have jurisdiction up to 100 feet to the bluff. We then yield that jurisdiction to the Trustees, and then of course, this were the Coastal Zone Management Area gets involved. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for the clarification on your decision. It does help, certainly in my thought process. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Gerry, is it your interpretation then, if the Board proves, or disapproves, or whatever, the determination of the Trustees, that the Kostoulas are then entitled to a building permit, and a C.O. for the deck, regardless of any sideyard varianaces? GERALD GOEHRINGER: Absolutely not. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Okay, when you said that you yielded, I wanted i the Board to know that you haven't yielded, that that phrase yield doesn't mean that you yield to everything. Pg 20 - Kostoulas he*g GERALD GOEHRINGER: We now have to deal with the total encompassment of the rear yard, and that's something that we have to deal with. We haven't deliberated. We have closed the hearing, and we haven't done anything about it. According to our calculations, when we've only had one application in the thirteen years, that I've been on the Board, that has been similar to it, and it was not on Long Island Sound. It was on Pipe's Cove. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there anybody else, anybody on the Board? (No response.) Any other questions? (No response.) Mr. Moore? Mr. Bredemeyer? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Nothing else. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Okay, I think the Board has heard all the facts. We will reserve decision, and thank you for your time. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Will you be taking any additional information? SUPERIVSOR HARRIS Yes, additional information is certainly needed. By all means, 1 hope that the applicant, and the, certainly, the Trustees will be able to provide that information to help us come to a decision. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Just one question. In the interim, before we make our decision, would it be possible, if any Board member wanted to visit these premises, because we have no rights as Town Board members to walk on somebody's property, only a Building Inspector does? WILLIAM MOORE: I meant to suggest that earlier. That would be the best way to see it, if you all look at. By all means. JOHN BREDEMEYER: For the time, that you are the Reviewing Board for the Trustees, do you want us to include your name in the applications for access permission? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: No. The time is now, just like Mr. Penny requested. I asked the applicant, whether we can make a visual inspection. COUNCILMAN PENNY: I don't want to go down there, and do a visual, and get locked up for tresspassing. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for your time. I i7J Judith T. Terry 'i Southold Town Clerk ° A I ? L e HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 18, 1993 4:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF TONY KOSTOULOS, APPEAL TO THE TOWN TOWN BOARD, DESIGNATED AS THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW. Present: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Deputy Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff Assistant Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan Absent: Justice Raymond W. Edwards TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It would be in everybody's best interest for the Board to accept any comments, any that were made by anyone else, that who might be here by, for example, Mr. Moore's clients, or some other representative of the Town. But, it must be in the confines of the record, not matter that has not been already determined. The appeal is itself as a matter of law. -All appeals are limited to the record, as it exists, nothing new. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of clarification. I'm not entirely familar with.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's okay. We're informal. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I do mostly administrative, where I come from. There are conditions though, that might relate to application, like engineering, or conditions since then, as far as rainfall storms, or conditions that he might have in his structure now. It's been for inspection. Whether that should be brought in. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: You can bring them up.' The Board can either reject them, or not, So, can Mr. Moore. Bill? WILLIAM MOORE: Thank you all. I've been doing two things in the Town Hall, as a first. This is another one. My wife did the first bed and breakfast application with the Zoning Board, when that was the new law. I represented people doing the first affordable housing subdivision, when that was a new law. So, here we go again for a first. Thank you, Harvey, for spelling out some, Pg 2 - Hearing - Ko*los • what I hope, will be a very informal process of describing the situation, explaining the small area of disagreement we had with the Trustees' decision, that was made on this one, and see if we can't resolve it. I'm going to make reference, for convenience sake, I hope, I think the packet has a copy, to a survey of the property as it existed before the renovations. It's in my packet of papers as exhibit D, and hopefully, I'll be able to speak clearly enough, that we can see what we're talking about. TOWN ATTORNEYARNOFF: Bill, it would appear that there's two surveys, one date November 15, 1990, and another revised June 12, of '93. You're talking about the one that has November 15 of '90? WILLIAM MOORE: That's right, Harvey. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: Bill, I don't think the members of the Board have the Exhibits. We can run out and make some copies real quick. TONY KOSTOULAS: I have a. packet with all of them with that survey in it, if you would like mine. WILLIAM MOORE: Whether it helps you, when you're listening, I don't know, but here goes. That's one of each. Anyway, Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas bought the property 1990, went to the Zoning Board, and got permission to do substantial renovations to the property. Please feel free to interupt with questions, as we go along. In the course of reconstrution, if you look at that survey, there's an area that butts out, that waterfront people call their front yard, but the rest of us call it backyard, 14 by 8 feet in size, alcove area. That was taken out in the course of renovations, and in it's place there are footings, and cement block v and poured foundation. The Building Department came down, and granted a CA for the house, and in inspecting that open area, said, you got to cover that( , So, a deck was put out, and the deck was put across that area, and tied out to that existing wood deck, which is shown here 22 by 10. The next survey shows, that deck continued out covering the, what had been an alcove that was taken out, and tying into an existing deck. It was then that the Building Depart- ment advised the builder, that, whoops, we need a CZM permit, and a variance for that. So that application was made to the Trustees, and Mr. Kostoulas on their own, in conjunction with their landscape person proceeded last summer. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Before you get lost in this, you have an Exhibit D, and Exhibit E. My Exhibit E shows a wood deck. I can't exactly read what's on it, but it looks like something 590. WILLIAM MOORE: That's the elevation. COUNCILMAN PENNY: You're saying, that the Building Department told them to put this out there? WILLIAM MOORE: As a covering, if you look back on the prior Exhibit D. MARIA KOSTOULAS: The existing stairs and deck had to be repaired, as per the Building Department, when we purchased the house, it would be in moderation. So, that was repaired before the house was built. Between the two, there's an empty space, and we proceeded to connect the deck, and the Building Department came out, and told us that we needed a permit for that, io the only thing that was left uncovered was the cement footing. So, when we came to speak to the Pg 3 - Kostoulos hear • Buildling Department, they told us to cover it, and they just said, because we had to two young children, and another one on the way, so said, cover that, and make it safe. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Bill, am I to understand then, that footings ran from the house all the way out to the thing that says wood deck? WILLIAM MOORE: No. They're under that area, that shown.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Just under the little alcove area, so the open area, which existed from the water most point of the house to the other side of the wood deck, as it pre-existed, was a lawn, or some type of natural vegetative substance, which you have covered up. There was soil inbetween. WILLIAM MOORE: Beyond the alcove. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Beyond the alcove, and it would look to be about, I guess, about 15 feet, maybe, 15 to 20 feet at it's closest point. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Harvey, this alcove you're referring to is the rectangular projection at the front of the house? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's correct. COUNCILMAN PENNY: That is known as the alcove. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That is known as the alcove that says 7.9 and 14, and 7.9, do you see that? COUNCILMAN PENNY: Yes, I do.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: So, what I'm doing is taking the nearest point on the alcove to the deck, and I'm estimating, I don't have a ruler here, but it would appear that it's roughly twice the 7.9, as I look at it with my eyes, I'm saying roughly 15, 20 feet. WILLIAM MOORE: Do you want to scale it, Harvey? COUNCILMAN LIZEWSKI: Out from the house? COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Square the house off? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: No. I'm saying, you take the nearest point. You go from this point here to this point here, it's probably close to 15 to 20 feet. That's what I'm saying. I just wanted to be sure we're talking about the same thing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Now, the wood deck that's marked up there, that's 17 on one end, 24 of the other, you were told to put that in by the Building Depart- ment? MARIA KOSTOULAS: We connected.. well, it's not really a deck. All it is, is i wood planking on the ground, but what we did is, we started to connect. The Building Department came out. We had no idea we need a permit to do that. They came out in mid-stream, and told us to stop, to get a permit, but all that was left, that was not done at that point, was the concrete alcove. That was left, Pg 4 - Kostoulos hear* • so at that time, when we came to speak to the Building Department, they said cover that, make it safe. WILLIAM MOORE: They were building out from what was the existing wood deck, back toward the house, and had left open that alcove area. They said cover that, but you need a permit, so you did. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This alcove area now, you're referring to, is where the three steps are? MARIA KOSTOULAS: No, beyond the three steps, there is cement footing. Those steps are now covered up. It's extended beyond the steps. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Is the house the same size, because it appears that it's not? It appears that the original drawing of the house is 30.2 by 26.3, and the other is 30.2, and it looks like 36.1. Am I correct? MARIA KOSTOULAS: What happened was, we built on the exiting foundation. What we wanted to do was square off the back, where that alcove is, but the Zoning Board of Appeals refused to give us the back that way. They gave us the eight feet to the front. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Correct. I read that decision, so that means you extended it. • MARIA KOSTOULAS: That amount of feet. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: And loped off, so to speak the alcove? MARIA KOSTOULAS: Correct. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: And that was the last thing, that you covered up, was the alcove. WILLIAM MOORE: Now, we're asking wood planks on the.. I COUNCILMAN PENNY: On the ground is a structure. WILLIAM MOORE: That was a misconception on their part. They will cover up the alcove, and go get the permits. Since then they've been working with the Trustees. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We didn't build an elevated deck out of the house. It was on the ground. You walked down the steps, and it was on the ground. TONY KOSTOULAS: Most of the planks were not even nailed on. They told us not to any nailing, just put the planks down. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Anything after that point we didn't even nail down. WILLIAM MOORE: What we're talking about is approximately, I'm going to use the Trustee's decision on this one, is about 670 square feet. What we're really talking about is 470 square feet, because you could have up to 200 feet of decking as an insignificant structure under the regulations, that would not even require CZM permit: In my opinion 470 feet of decking is of issue here. Pg .5 - Kpstoulos hearidl TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Bill, just to interupt, is there a side yard problem with the deck? It looks like the deck is built literally to the side yard on both sides. I WILLIAM MOORE: Well, we haven't got a C.O. for it, so that may well pose to be yet more problems. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It would appear that the structure is literally on the property line without a variance from the Zoning Board. WILLIAM MOORE: There is an application before the Zoning Board right now. It's been put on abeyance pending, you know, one of our problems was.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I didn't know if that had been addressed within that application. WILLIAM MOORE: I have not reviewed that application to see if, in fact, that includes side yards on that one, or not. I don't know. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Bill, can ask questions of you, or are we.? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It's up to the Board, if we have any problems with that. 1 don't. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The Board would like to get all the information, we possibly can. If it's okay with the Counsel, we'd like to get all the information. JOHN BP.EDEMEYER: The question on my mind, and the question I wanted to surface here, on unrelated activities, the curved piece to that in terms that led the Board of Trustees to believe, that the 200 foot exclusion for a permit, that if you're accessing the beach, or directly accessing where structures would result in going to or from the water, so that this area that you..200 square feet, you seem, you say, okay, fine, the area we calculate it out, but under the definitional section of the Code on unregulated activity on page 3710, it says, unregulated activity, excepted activities which are not regulated by this chapter include but not limited to elevated walkways, or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use, and built by an individual property owner for the limited purposes of providing noncommercial access to the beach, docks, piers, wharfs, structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface area of less than two hundred square feet, or for which are removed in the fall of each year, and that goes on to talk about normal beach grooming, and cleanup. WILLIAM MOORE: We can agree, or disagree, as to the interpretation. I'm glad you brought that up, I'll have to go back and read it again, and rethink, but in any event we're arguing about a 670 square foot deck. So be it. I think that there might be an arguement, that we're talking 470 square feet, but that's not critical to the point we're trying to make here. The only issue we take exception with, the Trustees have granted permission to have the deck put there, is the restriction on the decision and request, asking us to cut back that deck by either four feet, or eight feet. We were given the choice. Cut it back by four feet, and if you do that, and please reduce that existing wood deck, which is down I; on the bluff, or cut it back by eight feet, and leave that existing one alone. Essentially contention, or problem, we have with that is getting from, what we're allowed to have as a deck to that existing wood deck. That existing wood deck Pg 6 - Kostoulos heaq* • is not an issue before the Trustees, and Jay would immediately acknowledge that. We're talking about getting from what the Trustees allow as a deck across this yard area, which is at the top of the bluff to another exiting wood deck. We're not saying, do these people get access to the bay, or to the sound rather, or not? They have it. There's going to be traffic across that property. COUNCILMAN PENNY: For the purpose of clarity, would it be possible that we number, you keep referring to a wood deck, now, we have three different indivi- dual areas on a map here, marked wood deck. Can we start with the one on at the top, where it says elevation 54.94, and call that deck number one, next one deck number two, and the third one deck number three, so that we're not totally confused at the end of this? If we find a fourth one, then we'll go on. WILLIAM MOORE: Fine. The real contention we have here, it doesn't make sense to allow a deck. We're going to have to access to an existing deck, and have pedestrian traffic across the top of the bluff. Two points we want to make, Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas have two children, and Mrs. Kostoulas is expecting a third one. She's having contrations right now, so we'll talk faster. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: We've covered. Mrs. Kostoulas can relax. WILLIAM MOORE: That would be another first. The real point we want to make is, we're going to have pedestrian traffic across this way anyway. We're talking about, what will be three young children, and regular normal family activities, going back and forth to those steps. It's our position simply stated, it make more sense to have the deck continue up, and tie into what was allowed to be an exisiting wooden deck, and it really doesn't matter if we cut this deck number one by four feet, or by eight feet. We're recreating that traffic pattern over the bluff and down the hill to the beach. That's the point we're making. Now, I appreciate, I think I understand the underlying goals of the CZM Ordinance, and what the Trustees were trying to do, as far as concerns about plant growth, and maintaining a vegatative, and erosion control measures up there, and we hadn't done that. As we went to the Trustees for the variance, they had to consider basically three things in the Ordinance. One is there some other place ,ou can put this? They said, no. The Trustees acknowledged there's no alternate site for this deck. It's where it's got to be. The second one was, in the course of doing this deck, have you employed mitigation measures to reduce the impact you might have on natural environment, and this is why the Trustees made some mistakes in their findings, and I think that would suggest that perhaps on conclusion then can be accepted. First of all, it's not that significant, but they did issue a negative declaration under SEQRA, which suggested proposed activity had no significant effect on the environment, not that I've asked for a positive dec every application, but there really was not a positive finding here. In the Trustees decision, there was discussion of installing dry wells. In the docu- mentation 1 provided you, I showed you dry wells that had been installed to control runoff from the roof of the house, already in place, and I crave you a memo from Tim Coffey indicated that he had installed those already. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Are they in each corner of the house? WILLIAM MOORE: Mr. Coffey went on, and installed erosion matting, jute, and some staples, the detail of which I don't know, the Coffeys are in Florida until April the first. I gave you his summary of what was installed there as erosion control measure. In addition, he selected the plants that went down below the deck, and along the stairs, as an erosion control plant. My point on bringing Pg 7 - Kostoulos hear • this up is that the Trustees made a mistake. In their decision, they identified the plants as ornamental non-indigenous species, and my belief is that they presume that this was a layperson said, oh, roses would look nice clown here, but in fact, those where a specifically choosen species, as an erosion control measure. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Can 1 just say something about that? When we had to repair the steps, when the house was being built, there was so much poison ivy, we had to spray something to get rid of the poison ivy. The men could not work on the stairs. When that was done, that house had been a neglected house for over ten years. That was the Rowe house, and no one had lived it for over ten years, so people had used as..kids would hang out there, and there were so many beer cans, and soda cans, it was just dumped on. When that was cleaned up, our concern was, that we needed something to keep down the ground. We spoke to Tim Coffey. We did not tell him what to put down. We said, just put something that will hold the ground. We want to make sure, that whatever we plant there, is good for our bluff. He chose the roses. Whatever he would have told us, we would have put, and that was done prior to even constructing that. That was the first thing we did, was plant the roses. That was in 191, as soon as the built, so we planted over 200 rose bushes on that bluff. It cost us $1,500.00 to tie down the ground, because that was what he choose as the best. We put a lot of money into this house. Our main concern was that nothing happen to the bluff, as well. WILLIAM MOORE: Mr. Coffey is not here, but I had gone and checked with him, back when I first submitted the application. I went to Riverhead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the brocures, that spell out what types of plant are appropriate, and confirm it's in here. Rosa Rugosa, which is what he planted, is a known and accepted plant. I didn't know that. That was news for me. I was glad to see he took the species, that was appropriate for the area. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Do they outline it in terms of erosion control, or is this coastally..can handle salt? There's a difference between erosion control, and, or plant's ability to withstand a salt tolerance. I was just wondering how these spell out. In other words, to be honest with you, the Trustees when they visited the site, and they saw the Rugosa in, because they saw the rosehips, where inpressed that this is not entirely in keeping with recommendations we've seen previously coming out Soil Conservation Service. Two members of the Board, of course you realize, have an agricultural degree, Mr. Krupski, and myself, and the fact is that Soil Conservation Service normally recommends either Lathopa, or American Beach, where it will grow, or they will be recommend something like Crown Veg, that will handle the loamy soil, something that burrows in, and provides more matrix. Of course, the Board may be seeing relatively recently after the Rugosa roses were in, saw plants that had crown spaces that were very open, and prone to what we felt would be rainwater washing, mulch that around them, away. That's why, you know, I had not heard whether it was Albert, or the rest of the Board, feeling that the planting they saw, was installed in such a fashion, that it was erosional capability, or the reason is there that-you know I'll concede if that's the information. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We were told that the roots are very long, and they stretch across,. and that's what holds the soil, that's why it was a good choice. He, also, agreed that was a excellent choice. Pg 8 - Kostoulos hea~ • WILLIAM MOORE: The reason I bring that up is, that if you read the Trustee's decision, the language used in the decision, and that's what we're appealing here, was, it made me believe as a layperson, that there was a misunderstanding in the application with the application, or other plant selection would, ornamental selection, and I must confess I'd forgotten about your background. I certainly forgot about Albert's, but in the course of that, it was a ornamental selection, and we questioned that Mr. Coffey, who we can balance, and the two of them can argue back and forth, and what have you. But, he did select, and recognize the erosion control species to go in there. It may serve ornamental purposes to boot, but it is in fact an erosion control selection. In their own decision, the Trustees made reference to two site inspections, which they noted no erosion. That's significant. Whether you considered it or not, we've had the nor'easter, and subsequent storm, and those folks can tell you there's been no erosion. TONY KOSTOULAS: When we put down the netting, when Mr. Bredemeyer came up, and did the inspection. Whatever we do, we try to do the best that there is. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Counsel, just digress for a minute here. I don't want you to lose your train of though, that you're on, so was the deck, that is number one, now intitled one, deck number one, was that whole structure, was there a building permit issued for that structure, at the same time as the house renova- tion went along? MARIA KOSTOULAS: In our closing statement, I believe is in that packet. We have it in here. It specifically states, that we have to repair that, and the deck, or we would be in violation. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Deck number one in Exhibit E. TOWNY KOSTOULAS: That's part of the original application. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Deck number two already existed. WILLIAM MOORE: No, that wasn't part of the orginal application from the builder. In fact, they didn't even know, given the type of structure it is, that it required a building permit. Out here in Southold, we know it's called structure, it needs a permit. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Are you suggesting, that this is like a catwalk, just a series of boards laying on the ground? WILLIAM MOORE: Basically, that's correct. There's a drawing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: It's railroad ties. WILLIAM MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Just laying on the surface of the ground. WILLIAM MOORE: It's a walkway you would see down to the beach. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Like a raised catwalk? WILLIAM MOORE: Yes. Six by six with two by sixes on top of it. Pg 9 - Kostoulos hear • SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Presently, there is, in other words, you don't have a permit, a building permit, for that structure at this time, then? MARIA KOSTOULAS: We didn't realize we needed one. WILLIAM MOORE: The Building Department says, you've got to get your CZM permit before. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: In other words, when you found out that you needed the permit, you went back to the Building Department, and they denied you, because it was in the Coastal Erosion Area? MARIA KOSTOULAS: Right. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That had to be approved before. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But, this deck goes from one side of your property line to the other side. Is it? It's not just a walkway to get to get out to the pre-existing deck. It actually covers the entire width of lot. MARIA KOSTOULAS: That's the extent of our backyard, or frontyard, whatever you want to call it. That's what we have, so we have young children, and they want to ride their bicycle, or whatever, we built that, so that they can play in that designated area. I mean it's very small, as you can see. That's the entire play area. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do 1 understand.. MARIA KOSTOULAS: There's a picket fence, that goes around the entire property. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And this new deck is at various levels, or is it all firmly attached at one grade? TONY KOSTOULAS: One grade, and it goes down one step to go to the other level. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Three steps out of the house, one level, and then another, one step down to the other. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: What are the actual dimensions of this deck number one? WILLIAM MOORE: I have a hard time. The total is 670 square feet. It's not shown. I have a problem as far as dimensions go. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We took it off the survey, which is not exactly. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: It looks like about forty-five feet wide. MARIA KOSTOULAS: It goes in on an angle. It's not straight. JOHN BREDEMEYER: If somebody wants to ask for a measure, I'll be glad to go. Pg 10 - Kostoulas heW9 • COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Give us the northerly most dimension of that deck number one. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The northerly most dimension, that which is parallel to the top of the bluff, is by my estimate 43 feet. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: On the west side? JOHN BREDEMEYER: On the west side the leg parallel with the property of the neighbor within approximately two feet of it is 17 feet. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: There's two feet there between the deck and the neighbor, right, at the property line? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's hard. It could be less. It's very difficult to read from a survey. It may be a foot and a half. On the easterly side section that parellels the plot line is 8 feet. COUNCILMAN PENNY: As we're getting into specifics here with deck number one, what happened in deck number two? Now, my feeling was, that you didn't have to get a building permit for that, from what I've read. They asked you to repair it, but as it was repaired it was enlarged, from 10 by 22 to 22 by 14. There's another little thing, that goes off the front of it, that I can't ascertain exactly what it is. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: It looks like steps going down to the other stairs. COUNCILMAN PENNY: It goes from ,a simple 10 by 22 rectangle to a 14 by 22 with another something out in front of it. WILLIAM MOORE: I wondered if that includes the step that connects the two decks, that fourteen foot measurement, I believe, would include that step between decks number one and two. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: 1 just want to be sure, that we agree on somthing. Process before this Board is merely to sit as an Appelate forum, so to speak, for the Trustees. You could very well find yourself, and I just want you to understand, and the Board to understand, relegated in fact of going back to the Building Department, and back to the Zoning Board. In other words, the fact that there's imprimatur, if there were one, and I don't presume to do that from this Board, reversing a determination of the Trustees, they still would have to go, I want the Board to understand this, you still go to the Building Department, and as I read the survey, and 1 think as you read the survey, they're going to get denied in the Building Department, because of sideyards. Regardless of anything they're going to get sideyards, because they never got a variance from the Zoning Board, so they could be faced with making major modifications to the deck by the Zoning Board of Appeals, depending upon their actions. WILLIAM MOORE: That's entirely possible. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: This Board's actions can not in any way impact, nor will be used in any way to impact upon the integrity of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Pg 11 - Kostoulas hea~ • WILLIAM MOORE: The Zoning Board's criteria is very different from yours. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I think it's important that the Board know that. WILLIAM MOORE: One of my concerns, in fact, of having multipal applications going before different Boards at the same time, is the concerns you end up with inconsistant. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm seeking to avoid that. WILLIAM MOORE: You take one at a time. This is what this has said, you don't circumvent. We need to go to the Zoning Board. We're already before them. To get back to see that the specific issue, you know it is the bluff distance, whether that application approves sideyards, I don't know. I was not involved with it, when that was filed, but I'll follow on that. What we're boiling down to is the Trustees have acknowledged that the deck can exit there, it's a four foot, or an eight foot cutback in the deck, and our position is, we're going to have human traffic at the top of that bluff. The issue is safety for the youngsters, and secondly, just human pedestrian, and family traffic on what is the top of the bluff. You can't change the characteristics of the property. It's a small piece of property. The house is there. The Zoning Board in granting their prior approval to reconstruct kept them from building closer, but in my position to keep people off the top of the bluff, and running about on it, you're going to get to the existing deck anyway, and so leave it be. There's been no erosion. These are facts. The Trustees looked twice. There has been no erosion. Tim Coffey put in the entire erosion control devises. They appear to be working, and these storms haven't damaged it. The Trustees should have said, it may cause erosion, or it may do this. With the benefit of their two inspections, this northeast storm, and no problem. So, it was on supposition. I know it was all the best intentions on their part. There should be no ill will to the Trustees' decision at all. We just disagree as to the wisdom, and the logic of eliminating the deck area between the permitted deck, and deck number two. That's really the issue. COUNCILMAN PENNY: All the Trustees are suggesting is that, if I read this right, number one, that this be shortened eight feet. When we say shortened eight feet, could Jay tell us exactly what the purpose is? JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Board meant to, the seaward most portion of it, to be treated landward. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: To be what? JOHN BREDEMEYER: In other words, cut back to the landward. In other words, the whole intention of the Board is to provide clearance at the top of the bluff, point of inflection of the bluff, or that portion of the bluff, that starts to go, and tumble on to the beach, is right at the edge of the bluff. The way the bluff, and deck, are presently positioned, the discharge from the deck which slopes right to the point of inflection will have all the runoff, and rainfall, on to the surface of the ground, which then leaves almost no area for maintenance. If any erosion at all starts, the deck will then start to be undermined by the erosional force. It will be very difficult to maintain, so the motion was to set minimums. I guess when I get into my presentation, I'll discuss the ordinance, and the Board of Trustees starting to develop some policy on it, in relation to the ordinance and the Board's feeling when we discuss this. But, to say now, that to move it back. Pg 12 - Kostoulas heaeg • COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Move it back eight feet? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do you have a presentation to make, Jay? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Yes. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Counsel is not finished yet. WILLIAM MOORE: I really have reached my end. It's important to these people. They don't want to put up something that's going to fall down, and take any unnecessary risks. They've incurred great expense, over $3,000.00 to Mr. Coffey to do his erosion control measures, and their work. That's the proof of the pudding. The Trustees' decision on the other hand, really relates to the what if scenarios, and we point to a couple of areas of error, into the ornamental plants, and the ornamental plants, and if there's some reason for the Board to feel a desire to have more information from an engineerinq standpoint, or Tim Coffey's standpoint, I'd be happy, as I've said, this is the first time we've done this. I don't know what extent you want. It is an appellate review, but what we're reviewing, and considering, it is still in the Town of Southold, as far as the Boards within Southold. I'm happy to get more information for you, if you feel you would like to have it to make the decision. I'll try and get it for you. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'll start with my presentation, I guess. Just want to say, Bill left out one of the firsts, that he was in town, and that was a person to do a DEIS before the Trustees, and that's one of the firsts. We've always worked well together. I enjoy the informal, approach, but he did leave out one of his firsts. Some people think Trustees dont' do DEIS's. Everyone has a copy of the permit history from the Trustees. The permit history, and the finding of the facts? I guess I'll go to the first part of the discussion. The deck in it's entirety is jurisdictionally on a bluff with respect to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act of the Town defines the bluff as going landward of what is the point of inflection. That was what I was trying to draw, which way the bluff tumbles home down to the beach. You notice the point of inflection, and a point landward of that for twenty-five feet, is also con- sidered bluff for the bluff jurisdictional area. Usually, if you will, the ordinance itself would have open constructed structures not located on a bluff itself. Con- struction in the Code within twenty-five feet, it doesn't permit a deck in that area. It's totally forbidden to have a permanent foundation unless it's on a very strict variance request. (tape changed) One of the primary concerns of the Trustees regarding the site, regardles of how they found the deck there, and the underpining of what got us there The Board was concerned primarily with protecting the bluff area, and protecting the neighbor's properties, as well as the Kostoulas' from any bluff erosion. The initial response in looking down I did see the Rugosa rose, and I'll to, you know, say that we're certainly going to have look into Rugosa Rose a little more formally, as far as it's erosion, and it's soil keeping qualities. But the soil is there. Our typical Plymouth Carver, or Plymouth Havens Association vary clay, soils, and it's a remakablely stable cove, that whole cove, so that long term erosion, or prospects, are probably not serious for the site. That's true. But given the fact that they're very steep slopes, visually they're even steeper than one on one. The Board was very Pg 13 - Kostoulas heaO • concerned that by not having any area of maintenance where you could have vegetation, that a structural approach won't work. It's all well and good to put hay fields under the deck on a temporary basis, or put filter cloth and jute, but these are all organic materials. All organic materials are just going to become, going to oxidized, and eventually will diminish. The only real secure way of having soil keeping is with plants, that can get sufficient light, to bind the soil, and their roots. I stopped out to the site today at lunchtime, just to see what may have gone on, and already the mulch, that was on the side is starting to organize, so that it's lining up, so that you can see that there is water erosional force. It's starting to move down the sides of the hill, and of course, that would be normal. That's normal for probably everywhere you look along the area there, but the idea of having the deck come back further is to prevent that. Now, a simple calculation of rainfall over the existing size of the deck at 770 square feet, approximately, a two inch rainfall, when you calculate it out, it comes to 840 gallons. Now, the deck does slope almost entirely towards the point of inflection of the bluff, and 840 gallons of water, which could come in a relatively short period of time, represents a lot of water going over a bluff, particularly for a structure which goes out to the neighboring properties. There was a concern there, that by not setting some minimums we have might have problems in the future, where a Board of Trustees would called to answer for a decision, that allowed building right over transitions. So, basically, what you're having here, is you have transition from land surface to the bluff itself, and those areas are going to be prone to force. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Let me ask you a question, Jay, please. The deck actually does actually have space between each plank, so the water can go through it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's true. ; Plank space is very tight plank space on this deck. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Which way do the planks go? JOHN BREDEMEYER: The planks are running east and west, parellel to the shore, so, it would tend to burrow substantial amount of water through them. But, I would say, it's a fairly tight constructed deck. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Jay, let me just hold you up for a minute. Bill, if I can go back to a statement, that you made. Somebody mentioned about drains that were put in? Are they drywell drains? Where were they placed, again? WILLIAM MOORE: At the corners of the house. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: At the corners of the house, the structure itself, not the actual deck area. The drywells were put in, and the reason for the drywells were? For rain off the roof, so that didn't run down the bank, in other words? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Each of those are connected to the downspouts from the gutter? WILLIAM MOORE: Right. 1 JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Trustees in looking at it, it would impractical to try to contain runoff with gutters on the deck. Although we talked about it, it did not end up in the permit. In Mr. Moore's return to you requesting the hearing, Pct 14 - KostOUlas hearing there was a discussion on, I think, Plymouth soils, but the discussion there related to soil without slopes, but the reality here is there's a question about discharged to soil with severe slopes, and that really, you know, it's not really a problem with the discharge through the deck, and below. It's really the question of the discharge or the accumulated discharge, which would be moving along and down the bluff. The Board thought about options, and in requesting the setback of the eight feet, the Board felt we wanted on all Coastal Erosion Hazard applications, a minimum of approximately eight to ten feet for maintenance to try to promote the kind of vegetation, that you want to have to stabilize the top of the bluff, and we felt this is a minimum, since the ordinance,since the ordinance, itself, would have at least a twenty-five foot setback for open constructed structures. We felt that even somewhat less than that, under the circumstances, that it would be justified under the circumstances because of stable soil. We didn't want to go in closer than that. We felt in difference to the stability we saw that we were on the side of being lenient, we actually thought the eight to four foot options, the eight options are fairly lenient options compared to what the ordianance call for, and we basically wanted it on the safe side. It is true that the ne0ative declaration reflects a limited concern as far as environmental. But, of course, that also relates to impacts, that might effect the public good, and even a modest storm along the sound, you see what they do. There was never a question here about this site, discharge in large quanities of soil, material into the waterway. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Jay, what is the feeling of the Board in reference to bluff stabilization? Do you feel, as a Board, through coastal erosion, that they have to come you for any bluff stabilization before any of that work is every attempted, even talking about vegetation? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's part of the ordinance, and the Board will otherwise require that in their permit, where they see a site suitable. The Roard saw the Rugosa Rose, and felt best to leave 'weR enough alone. The request was to leave it, and although they might have had other preferences, that may change now, too, as we get more familar with it. I know the soil conservation people were recommending hydoseeding, which they had good results with, and depending on the types of soil, various planting types. This site we felt would have been better used for something else. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That wasn't noted. The reason why I ask you that question, is it was not noted in your findings, that the fact that the individual who did the work should have come before the Trustees prior to even starting the planning. That why I asked you, if it was a prerequisite for any applications, or just stabilization work regardless of an application report. JOHN BREDEMEYER,: I think the Board did make a notation on that. This was noted revegetative with ornamental non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched to accepted soil stababization practice for the bluff. We wanted to note the condition we saw, but then the Board, when they discussed it, they felt that we on to the permit condition. I believe we said, here the entire bluff shelf not be vegetated, or revegetated, or altered in any fashion, except for the mimimal disturbance without the express permission of the administrator. So, we went from..we saw something we're not entirely pleasedwith. It was not deemed sufficient. We never issued a violation on this application. It came to us through the Building Depart- ment. There was a concern whether it was a violation on the face value of the Code, and we felt it was a revegetation. Pg 15 - Kostoulas heario • SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The reason why I bring that up is,this Board has to art on what is before it, and obviously, it was not noted, so as far as we're concerned there was no problem with the work that was done there. You know, in reference to negative decing, and so on. I'm just bringing it to your attention. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was just reading the permit history, and the finding facts are very clear. Vie said that they did not properly vegetate, and we went on to say how they should not revegetate without permission from the administrators. SUPERVISOR HARRIS My point was, that if this Board is to act on the application, as far as a whole, the deck is one part of what's in question here. The second part of it, obviously, by your findings is the vegetation itself. JOHN BREDEMEYER: 1 don't think there's a problem with the request for the deal. I think it's with the kind of vegetation, and having problem Trustees. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That's my point. That's what I'm trying to net to. That that's in contention, the vegetation. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Basically, the deck itself. The feeling was that this simply shades the coastal zone too much, and the discharge of water, and over time could possible erode both that property, and adjourning properties. Fairly straight forward. Any questions? TOWN ATTORNEY AP.NOFF: Jay, I have one question. Your suggestion of the modification of the deck, either one or two, is that somehow impact, and vary from the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals? The Zoning Board of Appeals said, the proposed reconstruction, and the existing house, including the porch, with an existing blueprint shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling. Now, isn't your decision then, somewhat at variance with a decision of another Board, and giving greater rights than that Board? JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was not aware of any.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm reading from the decision of the Zoninq Roard of Appeals. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I did not have a decision, nor did my Board have a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals when they went into this. We went into this, we went into.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm not being critical. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I have to be honest with you. If the Zoning Board of Appeals has limitations different than our Board, we. are separate Boards with respect to the law, and thrust of it. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: The thrust is different. That's correct. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The thrust is entirely different, and not only that, the Trustees were blind to the fact of limitation... Pg 16 - Kostoulas heaq • TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: So, then your postion is not withstanding.. I just want to understand your position is not withstanding the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, even if you had notice of it, you still could say this, but it doesn't necessarily change or vary the prior approval of the Zoning Board, the limitations of Zoning Board. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Trustees are looking at this strictly within the Coastal Erosion Management, strictly. COUNCILMAN PENNY: I think the point, that Harvey and Jay are discussing, is a point that I'm kind of at a conflict with, and if you were dealing with this as a new application for something that did not exist, the matter would be a lot clearer. The fact of the matter is, that this structure was put in place, and the fact that it violates number 2 on the ZBA is something that we have to separate, and the Trustees did that. Their treating of this was as if there was a new application. Even if the Trustees did approve it, and even if the deck was not built with this approval, they could go back to the ZBA, and seek further relief from this restriction, that already exists. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: But, the Zoning Board of Appeals does not necessarily have adhere to this, and they can say, we feel that our original decision gave you enough room. Just because the Trustees say, you can build within so many feet for erosion purpose, we feel for zoning purpose, and setback requirements, or lot coverage, or some other reason that they may assign to it, you can only go so far. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: Does it seem logical if the Board wants to discuss things with us, as attorneys, that we should recess the hearing? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Sure,' at the conclusion. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: At this point, we,mavbe,we want to hear more evidence, or go forward. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'll rap up real quick. As a point of clarity, because also when we got into this processing, and if we tried to do coordinating action under SEQR I'm sure we'll still be discussing this in a couple of years from now. It's on Long Island Sound. We don't have to coordinate. We've decided administratively in house, that we will all handle these as un-coordianted reviews, if they're unlisted actions, just to keep things simple, or managable. I don't know if that simple. I have nothing further to comment. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I have a question. Do I understand, that the way..] have two questions. Is the point of inflection a key criteria, that You measure back from? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's defined in the Code. 1 know that at least the past dealings with the Trustees, and 1, with the DEC, when they involved in erosion protection through wetland permits, the point of inflection is a key point. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The point of inflection isn't where it's starts to curve down to the beach. The point of inflection is where the curve starts going down, and then the curve reverses about half way down, or part way down. Inflection means the change.. Pa 17 - Kostoulas hear JOHN BREDEMEYER: Let me read th..e definition from the Code. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It's when the curve reverses is the paint of inflection technically. JOHN BP.EDEM,EYER: Technically it is, and in a lot of cases there is also another point of inflection at the head of the bluff, because the sand, and material, deposit sometimes on top of the bluff, and there's an inflection, that also there's another S-curve, that goes back to the upwards. I think the point of inflection is the current defines, as I depicted on the blackboard, 1 may not call,even call, it separately, it may just be the bluff itself. The noint of inflection is that point along the top of the bluff, where the trend of the land slope changes to begin it's descent of the shoreline, even though it's not a classic point of inflection. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not a proper point of inflection. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's correct. It's not correct, and what's the Code gives me. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's also the State law. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The second question I have is, are your recommending that there be sort of a gap between.. if they would move this back eight or ten feet, there be a gap between the shortened deck, and the pre-existing deck? JOHN BREDEMEYER: We weren't suggesting that. If that was understood from our decision, no. The Board had meant to have them continue. Since it was pre-existing structure, it was felt that by bringing it back, we would be able to have as much as practical protection for this slope. Admittedly, the other deck is there. We can't do anthing about it. It was the hope, that we could possibly opt for the decision with four foot shortening, and removing that deck, and just having the catwalk down to the stairs. We felt that was the most desirable option. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So, there still be a catwalk to the stairs? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It would be catwalk to the stairs, and then with the shortening of your maintenance area, the vegetation could be maintained, and it would be very little shading then. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: How wide would this catwalk be? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Again, I believe the Board is reasonable. We just assumed it would the width of the existing walk. It wasn't specified. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I don't see any mention of any catwalk in this decision. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I believe the decision is clear now. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It's not clear to me. It's not the intention of Trustees i then to shorten this thing across the entire width of the lot, such that people have to walk down into the sand, and the dirt, and get on to the wood structure. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It was not the intent, but between Town Board discussing it, and what the final language is, I can see that there is. Pg 18 - Kostoulas h*ng . WILLIAM MOORE: I don't see anything that suggests some kind of a catwalk. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Or a connection between decks. JOHN BREDEMEYER: There's a misunderstanding with that. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Do you want to consider that, before we continue with this hearing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Can we just make it clear ? The way I understand what the Trustees ask is the shortening eight feet across the whole northern end of the structure. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Or four feet with another variation. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That's what the decision says, but now we also under- stand that the Trustees are not adverse to some form of a connection. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think the misunderstanding lies in-because the the ordinance allows for stairs, and access. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This hearing may not even be needed, or wanted, if Counsel discusses this, now, with his clients a minute. I'll certainly give you a minute, counselor, if you'd like to consider what you've just heard. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The reason we discussed this, because the deck, we asked to be reduced to the width of the catwalk. Number two. Number two would be altered to become the width of the stairway. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This one is deck number one, and this one here is deck number two, and they just happen to fall in line, one and two. But, there is more to it, than four foot shortening, instead of the eight foot shortening. It's also moving a portion of the deck. WILLIAM MOORE: My suggestion to Harvey was..Jay and myself had made our observations, and we'll let Gerry do his, and in light of this new information I'll go back and speak, prior to your making a decision with the Trustees and the Board, and see if we have everything. GERARD GOEHRINGER: I was not here to discuss what's before us now with the new deck, which we're discussing, but this particular application is near and dear to us, because of it's proximity to the bluff, and the acutual reconstruction was before us in 1991, and so forth. Any sugestions, that were made, I should point out that the Kostoulas, they've done everything we've discussed with them, and so on and so forth, However, where the problem came in, in our decision, you've read our decision, during the period of the hearing, and you can see that I had it in here, if you want to see it, the neighbor next door, and I don't remember who was on the east side or the west side, where deeply concerned with what you're referring to be the alcove. The alcove was a porch. Okay? I have copies of it in here. This porch evidently had a cement slab underneath it, and it still has a cement slab, which now is now underneath their steps. It's a short deck, ' and then the steps go down to the question that is before you. We spent a lot of time, a lot of discussion, and we assured the neighbor that there would be construction, or destruction, of that particular cement slab. Alright? The reason • Pg 19 - Kostoulas hear*. . for the decision. and the reason for the four feet, was because the Kostoulas wanted to put a second story veranda off of the master bedroom. Right? The nature of our decision was clearly to allow them to put two four by fours four feet out, wherever it lie in that area of the cement slab, not to penetrate with the cement slab, but to put that there. That was conceivable it, ladies and gentlemen. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: So, that's what the four feet reference is. GERALD GOEHRINGER: That was the four feet reference. Okay? Mr. Randazo, who was their contractor, and somebody I had known for at least twenty years, and worked with by the way in the 70's, indicated to me that he needed those to support this veranda, that he was putting in. He then subsequent to the decision called me, and he said, I'm a little concerned because it says I can't go out past the footprint, and 1 clearly defined for him, at that particular-you know, on that discussion, that was approximately two weeks after the decision was rendered, and indicated to him that that did not mean he could not place these two four by four out four feet out from the existing footprint. Okay? Again, he needed that for the support for the veranda. So that was understand. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Goehringer, in other words, this determination states that that four foot does not say any deck construction. It is saying almost the existing deck construction, which is going to become a footing in retrospect is the reason why it was granted for an above structure to be placed there. GERALD GOEHRINGER: We didn't want any alteration, because we promised the next door neighbor. There's no alteration of that existing cement area. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you 'for that clarification, because it was not clear by reading this. GERALD GOEHRINGER: I should just point out the jurisdiction of the 239.4 of the Zoning permit involved the applications before us. Now, it's been held in abeyance throughout this entire proceedings, that go back and forth. But the Zoning Board does have total jurisdiction on the 239.4, which says we have jurisdiction up to 100 feet to the bluff. We then yield that jurisdiction to the Trustees, and then of course, this were the Coastal Zone Management Area gets involved. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for the clarification on your decision. It does help, certainly in my thought process. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Gerry, is it your interpretation then, if the Board proves, or disapproves, or whatever, the determination of the Trustees, that the Kostoulas are then entitled to a building permit, and a C.O. for the deck, regardless of any sideyard varianaces? GERALD GOEHP,INGER: Absolutely not. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Okay, when you said that you yielded, I wanted the Board to know that you haven't yielded, that that phrase yield doesn't mean that you yield to everything. Pg 20 - Kostoulas hung . P GERALD GOEHRINGER: We now have to deal with the total encompassment of the rear yard, and that's something that we have to deal with. We haven't deliberated. We have closed the hearing, and we haven't done anything about it. According to our calculations, when we've only had one application in the thirteen years, that I've been on the Board, that has been similar to it, and it was not on Long Island Sound. It was on Pipe's Cove. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there anybody else, anybody on the Board? (No response.) Any other questions? (No response.) Mr. Moore? Mr. Bredemeyer? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Nothing else. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Okay, I think the Board has heard all the facts. We will reserve decision, and thank you for your time. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Will you be taking any additional information? SUPERIVSOR HARRIS Yes, additional information is certainly needed. By all means, I hope that the applicant, and the, certainly, the Trustees will be able to provide that information to help us come to a decision. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Just one question. In the interim, before we make our decision, would it be possible, if any Board member wanted to visit these premises, because we have no rights as Town Board members to walk on somebody's property, only a Building Inspector does? WILLIAM MOORE: I meant to suggest that earlier. That would be the best way to see it, if you all look at. By all means. JOHN BREDEMEYER: For the time, that you are the Reviewing Board for the Trustees, do you want us to include your name in the applications for access permission? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: No. The time is now, just like Mr. Penny requested. I asked the applicant, whether we can make a visual inspection. COUNCILMAN PENNY: I don't want to go down there, and do a visual, and get locked up for tresspassing. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for your time. A~ ' r/ Judith T. Terry ;i Southold Town Clerk i a~ ~ ~b~ f,. r.. i T itECE1VED 1 r~3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK MpR3 0 ~ APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAhutol ' C1erk DATE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. .....r[/LYf v4vrPu~ -5/ 1, (We) 7 t~T lt rQ ~p~~TLLL,i~S.....of C . Name of Appellant ~S~t~r/ept and Number !Q~: rif0~ I) J.l.................. HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON / APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO . DATED Z/..Q.....2............................. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ~y7J r~C{aK /a v5..... ome of Applicant for permit of ~1~l1lfPsMAC /V / /1 57 . . . State . .......tr............ . .Number Municipality Seetand. . ( ) PERMIT TO USE (v-f' PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY pp 7- XQ?Ct ,24 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ...Q. S..........Q.!! ~ : S......... Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 7,1 Block 2 Lot13 _._..„._...........•Current Owner r0/7 i rNlaK /a DSTD(/c Map No. Lot No. Prior Owner vV41 0t1)10 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by umer. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article Section /V D 2 3 -1r~ /k 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 as mot been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) equest for a special permit ( v7 request for a variance / ..Qf.........r .........7..dO.g............Dated and was mode in Appeal No. //>°j( REASON FOR APPEAL ( A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( )A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance r ~ is requested for the reason that Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) i • .dry i?J~ °.il:•`. v CS• ) COUNTY OF ) ig ature Sworn to this day of................................... 19 9 q Notary Public JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public, State of New York No. 4952246, Suffolk Courr~~yyr Term Expires June 12,19..7a ? G~ '1 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS . rn Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 4008. Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to construct addition which will decrease total side yards and reduce yard setback from bluff along the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 21, Block 02, Lot 013. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 22, 1991, and continued on April 5, 1991; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants originally, upon filing the variance application on February 12, 1991, requested permission to square off the two northerly corners of the existing dwelling in addition to renovations/reconstruction shown on the plans prepared by Miller Associates, Project #9037 dated Janu- ary 4, 1991. All construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound bluff. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land having a frontage along the north side of Aquaview Avenue of 60.0 feet and frontage along the Long Island Sound of 43+- feet. The subject parcel is substandard, having a lot area of approximately 11,330 sq. ft. 3. The subject parcel is unique, being quite narrow and with limited (upland) building area, which lends to the practical difficulties. 4. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code permits relief to lots containing less than 20,000 sq. ft. in the front Page 2 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOULAS decision, continued:) yard to not less than 35 feet and in the side yards to not less than 10 feet. The minimum rearyard setback is permitted to be reduced under this provision to 35 feet. The code does not specifically permit relief to substandard parcels for bluff setbacks, except as may be permitted by the Board of Appeals. 5. During the processing of this application, opposition was received from the landowners immediately abutting this parcel on the easterly side. Upon learning of the objections raised by the adjoining landowners, the applicants have alternatively requested permission to construct a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly side of the house, meeting the required setbacks as limited by Section 100-244B of the code. Although the addition along the southerly portion is "landward" of the dwelling structure, this alternative would be within 100 of the bluff, also necessitating relief by this board. 6. It is the position of this board that in considering this application, as amended, for an addition along the southerly portion of the dwelling structure: (a) the proposed location of the southerly addition is landward, being 46+- from the bluff at its closest point, of the existing dwelling structure, setback reduction to 24 feet from the westerly {front} property line is substantial in relation to the requirements, however, there is no alternative available for appellants to pursue except by variance; (b) the alternative relief, as requested, is not substantial in relation to the existing structures; (c) the difficulties imposed are uniquely related to the property and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will not adversely effect the essential character of the neighborhood, or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town and neighboring properties; (e) there is no other alternative method feasible for appellants to pursue; (f) in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting conditional alternative relief, as requested and further noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief for the construction of a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly (front) of the principal dwelling structure, which will be not less than 46 feet Page 3 . April 10, 1991 Spectl Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOULAS decision, continued): to the bluff setback at its closest point (although landward of the dwelling), as requested in the Matter of the Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS under Appl. No. 4008, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the front yard addition comply with the front yard setback provisions of the Code for this substandard parcel (as per 100-244B) or the provision in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposed reconstruction/renovation at the northerly end for the existing house including the porch (or deck) within the existing footprint, shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling; this reconstruction/renovation shall not include the squaring off of both corners at the northerly portion of the house. 3. The renovations of the existing dwelling shall not extend beyond the existing footprint and shall not involve excavation or other land alteration activities. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Dinizio, and Villa. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax (516) 298-5664 William D. Moore Margaret Rutkowski Patricia C. Moore Secretary Thomas F. Moore Of Counsel November 20, 1992 BY HAND RECEIVED Mrs. Judith Terry NOV 2 0 1992 Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall _ Main Road Southold T,!,,_ rj.,I, Southold, NY 11971 Re: Matter of Tony Kostoulas Dear Mrs. Terry: Enclosed please find an appeal to be filed with the Southold Town Board with regard. to the October 22, 1992 decision of the Southold Town Trustees in the matter of Tony Kostoulas. Very my yours, WY11iam D. Moore WDM/mr Enc. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW ---------------------------------------------X In the Matter of TONY KOSTOULAS APPEAL ---------------------------------------------X This appeal is filed with the Southold Town Board in its capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review pursuant to Article IV section 6-35 of Local Law 24-1991. The owner of the property files this appeal seeking a modification of the action of the Southold Town Trustees acting in their capacity as Administrator of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area in their conditional approval dated October 22, 1992. A copy of the Trustees' decision is attached as Exhibit A. The specific provisions of the chapter which were improperly applied in this matter involve sections 6-12(A), (B), and (C) and 6-30. Mr. Kostoulas is the owner of property located at Aquaview Avenue some 1,020 feet east of the intersection of Aquaview Avenue and Rocky Point Road in East Marion. The property has the Suffolk County Tax map identification as 1000-21-2-13. This property was improved with an existing single family dwelling, deck and stairs leading to the beach with additional accessory buildings at the foot of the stairs near the beach on the Long Island Sound. Mr. Kostoulas purchased the property in 1990. At the time he purchased the property he obtained a copy of the certificate of occupancy issued by the Southold Town Building Department together with a copy of the building department's housing code inspection report. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit B. The building department noted in its report that the existing exterior stairs, porches and deck needed to be repaired. In addition to these repairs, Mr. Kostoulas sought and obtained approval from the zoning board of appeals in decision #4008 to substantially renovate the existing single family dwelling. A copy of the certificate of occupancy issued for these improvements is attached as Exhibit C. A copy of a survey prepared by William R. Simmons, Jr. dated November 14, 1991 shows the status of the property prior to these extensive improvements to the property; a copy of the survey is attached as Exhibit D. In the course of the reconstruction of the residence, the preexisting 7.9 ft by 14.0 ft alcove located on the north side of the dwelling was removed revealing and exposing the original footings of this alcove area. It was the consensus of both the builder employed by Mr. Kostoulas and the building department inspector that the exposed footings should be covered with decking to avoid a hazardous condition on the premises. [The footings could not be removed without disturbance to the area in question and equipment could not have gained access to the area in view of the existing dwelling] A copy of the William R. Simmons, Jr. survey as revised dated June 12, 1992 shows the property as it has been improved. See 2 Exhibit E. The footings have been covered with an on grade irregularly shaped deck of approximately 760 square feet. The deck consists merely of 2 x 6 planks attached to 6 x 6 ties. A sketch of this construction is attached as Exhibit F. Neither Mr. Kostoulas or his builder were advised that an additional permit (Coastal Erosion Hazard Area) was required for this ground level deck which was designed to cover the prior footings and to attach to the pre-existing deck. The pre-existing deck is not the subject of this application as it predates the effective date of this local law. The only deck in question is the . one which was installed to cover the prior footings, and which was extended to tie-in to the pre-existing deck. When Mr. Kostoulas was advised that his deck addition required an additional permit, he promptly made application for same. At or about the same time, he attempted to mitigate the potential impacts from erosion that the deck might have caused by having a landscaper recommend and install appropriate erosion control measures. Specifically, the landscaper installed permanent erosion control fabric on top of which was placed three layers of jute erosion matting pinned down with 8 inch steel erosion staples which was further covered with 2 - 3 inches of cedar mulch. See Exhibit G. In addition, rose bushes, selected by Timothy Coffey Nursery/Landscape Contractors were planted as a further measure to control erosion. The cost of these measures was more than THREE THOUSAND dollars ($3,000.00.) The Southold Town Trustees erred when they determined that the 3 A deck "may have resulted in unnecessary soil disturbance that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face." The conditional approval given by the trustees required the installation of drywells to control runoff. However, dry wells had already been installed by the landscaper employed by Mr. Kostoulas. The trustees apparently did not recognize this fact. See Exhibit H. The trustees' conclusion is that the deck may result in run-off. However, the trustees made two inspections to the property on March 17 and May 21, 1992 and noted no active erosion on the property. The trustees noted in their inspection that the bluff area had been revegetated with "ornamental/non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched." The plant selection was made specifically by Timothy Coffey to act as an erosion control measure. The plant selection was not made by a layman for ornamental purposes. The particular species selected by Mr. Coffey was "Rosa rugosa" which is noted for its particularly effective soil erosion control characteristics. The root structure of this plant grows both vertically and laterally, is drought resistent and requires no chemicals to sustain its growth. It should be noted that the United States Department of Agricultural, Soil Conservation Service includes this specific species as effective erosion control plantings in its "Conservation Plants for the Northeast" publication. Moreover, such species are "shade tolerant" [ie. can survive in shaded areas such as the one created by the deck] and are effective for stabilizing sand dunes and landscaping. The "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the 4 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service identifies the soil on the subject property as "Plymouth loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes (P1B). See attached Exhibit I. "The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil." The impact of the 670 square foot deck' which is landward of the top of the bluff is far less than the impacts that could reasonably be expected from pedestrian usage and passage from the house to the pre-existing deck and steps. The on grade deck simply ties the house into the preexisting access to the beach and will eliminate pedestrian and other family activity in the area. Given the significant erosion control measures which have already been installed by Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas, and the fact that no active erosion was identified by the trustees after two inspections of the property, it is clear that the deck coupled with the erosion control measures have not and will not cause a measurable increase in erosion at the site or at other locations. As the trustees noted in their conditional approval, the deck cannot be located in another part of the property to accomplish the goal of connecting the preexisting deck with the house. Accordingly, Mr. Kostoulas has met and satisfied the general standards set forth in section 6-12 of Article II. It is respectfully requested that the permit issued by the Town Trustees be modified to allow the deck to remain as constructed together with the erosion mitigation measures already installed by the i At issue is only 470 square feet of deck, as up to 200 square feet is defined as an "unregulated activity" 5 owner. Lastly, we hereby reserve the right to challenge the appropriateness of the designation of the Southold Town Trustees as the permit administrator for the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Dated: Mattituck, New York November 20, 1992 MOORE & MOORE By: William D. Moore 315 Westphalia Road PO Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 6 C FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall. Southold, N.Y. PRE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z19582 Date DECEMBER 13, 1990 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ONE FAMILY DWELLING & ACCESSORIES Location of Property 985 AQUAVIEW AVE. EAST MARION House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 21 Block 02 Lot 13 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Requirements for a private on-family dwell- ing built prior to APRIL 9, 1957 pursuant to which Certificate of Occupancy Z19582 Dated DECEMBER 13, 1990 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ONE FAMILY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The certificate is issued to RUTH ROWE (owner) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDEPWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A ****SEE INSPECTION REPORT 41 / Bui ding Inspector Rev. 1/81 I-B~IE~IT FL) ?UILDI?:C DEP:.RT:LiiT A TO'rPi1 OF SOUT:iOLD, N. Y. HOUSIiiG CODE INSPECTI011 REPORT Location 985 Aquaview Ave. East Marion knumoer u street) (viunicipaiity) Subdivision Iap No. Lot(s) None of Owner(s) Ruth Rowe Occupancy A-1 Owner (type) owner-tenant) Admitted by: Richard Israel Accompanied by: Same Key available Suffolk Co. Tax No.-21-2-13 Source of request william H. Price Date Dec. 4, 1990 DUELLING: Type of construction WOOD FRAME _rstories t$ Foundation POURED CONCRETE Cellar FULL Crawl space _ Total rooms, lst. F1 2nd. F1 3rd. F1 Bathroom(s) ONE FULL Toilet room(s) ONE Porch, type REAR ENCLOSED Deck, type -Patio, type_-- Breezeway Garage Utility room Type Heat OIL Warm Air Ka Hotwater Fireplace(s) ONE No. Exits 2 Airconditioning Domestic hotwater YES Type heater ELECTRIC Other ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Garage, type const. Storage, type const. Swimming pool Guest, type const. Other DECK (TOP OF BLUFF)-DECK 6 BRICK 6 CONCRETE SUED (ON THE BEACH) SET OF WOODEN STAIRS TO BEACH. VIOLATIONS: Housing Code, Chapter 45 N.Y. state Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code Lncation Description ~Art.I Sec. Stairs to beat Exterior stairs, porches, decks etc. ICHAP.I F a decks. shall be maintained in a safe 6 sound 12421 condition Remarks: ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN NEED OF REPAIR. Inspected by: -2 J ca Date of Insp. 12/6/90 GARY J.•FISH :Time start 10:30 end Io:soa.m. ~Gt,$T~L/LAS SUFFOLK COUNT`' N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: ~.~.y ,~AM.~~/Q M / TOWN OFS0UTydL1 LOCATED AT .,5_,4.,57_ "WA:0/0A-1 CO. CLK. NO. FILED LOT , MAP OF ~ESC~/BED~PE SCALE I" _ SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA:- E• T DIST./000 .SEC. O2/•00 0 - ~ t BLK. OZGO LOT tj DL3 ri1~ / I6 ~/B O r s ! O d \ OFFSETS FR^M STRUCTURES -j/AS u TO RELATIVE bOt{NDki Li::_ J' ~G ^ y~ 2'L r ON SURM, ARE FOR A / g o n N J/F A` C a a SPECIFK USE ONLY, AND T SWULD NOT BE USED FOP. Sj 0 j n o• snsos CONSTRUCTION OF FENCE, Q F- O OR OTHER STRUCTURES, C Q' 49 n n i • ~ ~ L~.~ fig. ZI. a GG14e44-17E60 76' • ~=rJf N ~ ` J - F_ ~ O O. Z~'S H n' ~ O ~osTot/G4S n~wr m T ~!-//G4Go ~JzE /.VSC/,e4~s/eE ~ O ~/C~ /IB E,T - Q~ y Q3/9G i . 0 0 19 O HY --I 7-/t/o. SURVEYED ~(/OI~ /b) ? WILLIAM R. SI MONS JR._ O BOX 377 d JAMESPORT, L.I., N. Y. 11947 O-Q5 PAGE ZC7 GRID FILE NO. I2, 7G8 SURVEYED FOR:-7,t/V 4~ ".4RI4 /1~/ ~oSJoULAs LOCATED ATeF;QaST M.4,E'/0A/ TOWN OFSOC/T/-1aGO SUFFOLK COUNTY N.Y. LOT MAP OF OESce/BED ~p~o/oE.E'~ CO. CLK. NO. FILED SCALE 1" = 30' SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA:- E 'f DIST. SEC. Oel-00 ~ J F..?. QG nD LOT O/3 C0 JA' 1 (5°~MG z 5/AS n 1 F 1V1.4L' L' G P V'i a.Q Cy " k o N/` mg o o' oF' a n I _ C o ~~S , N a \ r ' ~ 1 ~ AoC IN FR• C_C:gegVTECOTa: 0 6Rrc p p1~LG• p 0 z C ' ,~!o~ToucAS ~ ~ <ow~~ T' gee ~ ~I~iS ~ 1, ~ O c-'"i caco TTcE/.VSV,PaNcE' Q ~ o ~O Co M~pq~ f; i o 5 QJ ~U~ ~I F~.a< <oa. ,FE. Lob. ,/UNE /7 1991 SURVEYED ND?• /b~ 1990 BY WILLIAM R. SIMMONS JR. PIO BOX 377 - JAMESPORT, L. I., N. Y. 11947 FILE NO 448 PAGE 2CO GRID 40 -45 DRAWN BY72,~.~_ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS' SCOTT L. HARRIS L Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. °t Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. WiltonU Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 12, 1993 William D. Moore, Esq. Moore & Moore 315 Westphalia Road Mattituck, NY 11952-0023 Re: Appl. No. 4098 - Mr. and Mrs. Tony Kostoulas Dear MfMoore: On November 9, 1992, you had requested that the above hearing be recessed since you were just retained by the applicants concerning this application. Subsequently, you indicated that you would be filing an appeal before the Southold Town Board concerning the Coastal Zone Management Permit issued by the Town Trustees on October 22, 1992. Please advise us in writing of the status of this matter in order that we may calendar this application for a final hearing at our next meeting. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS r . GA Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ca PVT Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. ® - James Dinizio, Jr. p! P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Trustees Attn: J. Bredemeyer, President FROM: ZBA`..w~ DATE: April 15, 1993 SUBJECT: Property of Tony Kostoulos 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion 1000-21-2-13 In updating the status of the appeal application with the Town Clerk's Office concerning the Coastal Zone Management Law, we were informed that the Appellants are exploring possible disposition and the Town Board is awaiting a further update between William D. Moore, Esq. and the Town Trustees (please see the attached letter dated March 15, 1993 to the Town Attorney). We ask that you please include us in all correspondence or other determinations which may be rendered concerning this project since our file is still open. Thank you. GG:lk At~tachments (2) APR 1 HARVEY A. ARNOFF SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Attorney _p Supervisor MATTHEW G. KIERNAN Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Assistant Town Attorney P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Louis Harris, Supervisor Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Board FROM: Matthew C. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attor ey Iqu DATE: March 18, 1993 RE: Tony Kostoulas - Coastal Erosion Review. Annexed is a copy of a letter received today from Bill Moore with regard to. the above-referenced matter, which I am forwarding to you for your information. Z eCJ MOORE & MOORE '1, y J-~p @nt Attorneys at Law i ~rR 8 3 / J% 315 Westphalia Road P.O. Box 23 TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ' Mattituck, New York 11952 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax. (516) 298-5664 William D. Moore Margaret Rutkowski Patricia C. Moore Secretary March 15, 1993 Harvey Arnoff, Esq. Southold Town Attorney Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Coastal Zone Management Appeal of Kostoulas Dear Harvey: In confirmation of our discussion at the close of the hearing in the above matter, it is our understanding that the Town Trustees and the Appellants are exploring possible disposition of the matter which would render the Appeal moot. I will keep you apprised of any progress we make with the Trustees. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter, and if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, T19 William Moore WDM%mr cc: Mr. & Mrs. Tony Kostoulas ~-7Znn, APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman J Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. , P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: ZBA 9~ DATE: February 10, 1993 SUBJECT: Kostoulas Property at Aquaview Avenue, East Marion Town Board CZM Hearing Notice for 2/18/93 We are in receipt of a copy of the notice of hearing on an appeal application concerning Tony and Maria Kostoulas. For your information, we are attaching copies of a 1991 variance determination for the subject premises together with a copy of the survey prepared November 15, 1990 and a copy of a written evaluation from the Soil and Water Conservation District of Suffolk County. You will note that at that time, the applicants were proposing to square off the dwelling. The deck was not a part of the variance request in 1991. There is, however, a variance pending at this time with the ZBA, and Attorney Bill Moore has requested a postponement in order to file an Appeal of the Town Trustees' decision pending before the Southold Town Board. The ZBA has advertised two public hearings on this application and at the last hearing, the applicant requested a postponement in order to retain an attorney. It appears that the applicants do not wish to proceed with the zoning variance until after the Coastal Zone Management variance has been finalized. JUDITH T. TERRY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 10, 1993 The Southold Town Board will meet at 4:00 P.M.,Thursday, February 18, 1993 in the conference room at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, for the purpose of holding a hearing on the Coastal Erosion Board of Review Appeal of Tony Kostoulas. Ju Terry Southold Town Clerk z Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Supt. of Highways Trustees Building Dept. All Departments (4) Newspapers WBAZ Radio Station News 12 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERSSCOTT L. HARRIS 'a Supervisor Gerard E Goehringer, Chairman 3 a Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. , r1' P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa = 3r :3 y Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: ZBA 4 v DATE: February 10, 1993 SUBJECT: Kostoulas Property at Aquaview Avenue, East Marion Town Board CZM Hearing Notice for 2/18/93 We are in receipt of a copy of the notice of hearing on an appeal application concerning Tony and Maria Kostoulas. z For your information, we are attaching copies of a 1991 variance determination for the subject premises together with a copy of the survey prepared November 15, 1990 and a copy of a written evaluation from the Soil and Water Conservation District of Suffolk County. You will note that at that time, the applicants were proposing to square off the dwelling. The deck was not a part of the variance request in 1991. There is, however, a variance pending at this time with the ZBA, and Attorney Bill Moore has requested a postponement in order to file an Appeal of the Town Trustees' decision pending before the Southold Town Board. The ZBA has advertised two public hearings on this application and at the last hearing, the applicant requested a postponement in order to retain an attorney. It appears that the applicants do not wish to proceed with the zoning variance until after the Coastal Zone Management variance has been finalized. , • A APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 'ZZ SCOTT L. HARRIS r, ry Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Y Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax(516)765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 4008. Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to construct addition which will decrease total side yards and reduce yard setback from bluff along the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 21, Block 02, Lot 013. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 22, 1991, and continued on April 5, 1991; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants originally, upon filing the variance application on February 12, 1991, requested permission to square off the two northerly corners of the existing dwelling in addition to renovations/reconstruction shown on the plans prepared by Miller Associates, Project $9037 dated Janu- ary 4, 1991. All construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound bluff. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land having a frontage along the north side of Aquaview Avenue of 60.0 feet and frontage along the Long Island Sound of 43+- feet. The subject parcel is substandard, having a lot area of approximately 11,330 sq. ft. 3. The subject parcel is unique, being quite narrow and with limited (upland) building area, which lends to the practical difficulties. 4. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code permits relief to lots containing less than 20,000 sq. ft. in the front i Page 2 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOULAS decision, continued:) yard to not less than 35 feet and in the side yards to not less than 10 feet. The minimum rearyard setback is permitted to be reduced under this provision to 35 feet. The code does not specifically permit relief to substandard parcels for bluff setbacks, except as may be permitted by the Board of Appeals. 5. During the processing of this application, opposition was received from the landowners immediately abutting this parcel on the easterly side. Upon learning of the objections raised by the adjoining landowners, the applicants have alternatively requested permission to construct a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly side of the house, meeting the required setbacks as limited by Section 100-244B of the code. Although the addition along the southerly portion is "landward" of the dwelling structure, this alternative would be within 100 of the bluff, also necessitating relief by this board. 6. It is the position of this board that in considering this application, as amended, for an addition along the southerly portion of the dwelling structure: (a) the proposed location of the southerly addition is _ landward, being 46+- from the bluff at its closest point, of the existing dwelling structure, setback reduction to 24 feet from the westerly {front} property line is substantial in relation to the requirements, however, there is no alternative available for appellants to pursue except by variance; (b) the alternative relief, as requested, is not substantial in relation to the existing structures; (c) the difficulties imposed are uniquely related to the property and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will not adversely effect the essential character of the neighborhood, or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town and neighboring properties; (e) there is no other alternative method feasible for appellants to pursue; (f) in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting conditional alternative relief, as requested and further noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief for the construction of a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly (front) of the principal dwelling structure, which will be not less than 46 feet r • Page 3 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOULAS decision, continued): to the bluff setback at its closest point (although landward of the dwelling), as requested in the Matter of the Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS under Appl. No. 4008, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the front yard addition comply with the front yard setback provisions of the code for this substandard parcel (as per 100-244B) or the provision in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposed reconstruction/renovation at the northerly end for the existing house including the porch (or deck) within the existing footprint, shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling; this reconstruction/renovation shall not include the squaring-off of both corners at the northerly portion of the house. 3. The renovations of the existing dwelling shall not extend beyond the existing footprint and shall not involve excavation or other land alteration activities. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Dinizio, and Villa. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. --7 i lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,,CHAIRMAN ;SURVEYED FnO;~ l~' i' [l•?/!l ~Qrf I• ~T_.`l ~Gr~:`.:i I / SUFFOLK COUNTY N.Y. To`,vr OF•UOC/%1nG0 r~ 'LOCATED AT C.=/• i'Y/~=~ ~~G:)~ I J.' , / FILED ` CO. CLK. NO. I~ MAP OF O, FC- J• SCALE 1' n SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA ' OIST./Or0 SEC.C.'~'/CNt rrJ~j ~t.lJ A ~rBLK OPC%'.~ I LOT p,4%I'v ~ I tit ` I •i;.. (1F^^;TS F~;, 11 ti? .~,wRt n!j r~ c r vIVE rn n. I.~ Q A 'U ` O'J .cleft YTv Al. Ff'B . , J rN w o a ' CIA': LISA 01!1.7. 13 f~U;D P:^- rr U7:F7 FO". r~ vJ p,J ~//F ~ln 1~ e•. T € p 9,v !ON OF F'; !f r T ~Q , w.a, 3ss 7 08 O~J l • ~a ~lIPJfJC7!G.J~~~LL TJ7C t -:TV-.FS. 1 . i+ 3 v Late rsn a. r Ul <^•i' V~, 11 f11 :4f, b In tj a•; b w 1 ~ 1 ~r Le oSEn~! \ 1, T p GU~JeA.(JTIF/ - 27" ~ DeroE pbr, p U yi ' l` s 1 ,`mac 7ct/LAS' n 05 r tee vk/ Cs~icAa~'.Ti ~v-E p v i D.. VAL/ ,Jotcj, Cc.vr _ 10 1 ~ E12 7ze F// I SURVEYED 1,10V- i5/ 1990 By ¢ d +t++ r ' WILLIAM R. SIMMONS is. s /ia MSJ'~1'n.+7 ~L yY . ' A P/O BOX 377 bj.~i't~~>H wr9~•}ar••e; a 5* ~`r ~ I a ^ t=• JAMES PORT, L. I., N. Y. 1 1947 FILE NO.IZ7PAGE 260 GRID D-45 V". .G(,Cri-.:~/ ~/..t_~lete<s..at~4YJe°/~/r•~' ! 'd S5~2 nr+n rnrnl ov C i COUNTY OF SUFFOLK c6 ~M 11c__lu~ PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE SOIL AND WATER STANLEY A. PAUZER CONSERVATION DISTRICT DISTRICT MANAGER April 17, 1991 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: Regarding your request for our assessment of the Kostoulas property in East Marion, please be advised that a site inspection was conducted on April 10, 1991. At that time the top of the bluff was approximately 16-18 and 24 feet northward of the proposed additions on the Northeast and Northwest corners of the residence, respect- ively. The bluff face in this area is very steep; however, appears stabile and is vegetated predominately with woody vegetation. There was no significant toe erosion at the base of the bluff. Construction of the new concrete foundations and piers will involve excavation in close proximity to the top of the bluff. The new construction will also add signi- ficant weight at the top of the bluff. Wheather this activity will jeopardize the stability of the bluff can not be accurately determined by this office. However, such activity would increase the potential for bluff erosion especially along the upper portion of the bluff. Storm water runoff from the roof of the dwelling and the yard area should be diverted from flowing over the top of the bluff and onto the bluff face. I hope this information will be useful to you and the board. If you require additional information please contact this office. Sincerely, 21/ Thomas J. McMahon Senior District Technician P.S. Please note new address overhead County Center loom E-16 lverhead, New York 11901-3100 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr.! " Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr.+ ; P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa t Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 3, 1992 (7:30 P.M. Hearing) P r e s e n t HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ROBERT A. VILLA RICHARD C. WILTON HARVEY A. ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY LINDA KOWALSKI, Secretary-Clerk to Board (Absent: Serge Doyen) 0 Page 15 - 12/3/92 • APPLICATION NO 4098 - APPlication of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence, as exists, near the L.I. Sound bluff. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. (Hearing was previously postponed for Town Trustees action on Coastal Zone Permit jurisdiction). (Above matter was not reconvened; postponed as requested by attorney William Moore NO DATE SET.) . V I<° s PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 9, 1992 (7:30 P.M. Hearing) P r e s e n t HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman SERGE DOYEN, Jr. JAMES DINIZIO, Jr. ROBERT A. VILLA RICHARD C. WILTON HARVEY A. ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY LINDA KOWALSKI, Secretary-Clerk to Board ~I i I i w • Page 12 - 11/9/92 • APPLICATION NO. 4098 - Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS FOR A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence, as exists, near the L.I. Sound bluff. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. (Hearing was previously postponed for Town Trustwees action on Coastal Zone Permit jurisdiction). 7:50 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: This is a rehearing which goes all the way back to --or, pardon me, a continuation of a hearing that goes all the way back to May 7, 1992. It concerns a deck in the rear yard of the Kostoulases. We did hold this application in abeyance for some time, bearing in mind that we were waiting for Trustees' approval. Is there somebody who would like to be heard concerning this application? Mr. Moore, how are you tonight? Appearance: William D. Moore, Esq., for the Applicants. MR. MOORE: Not too great. I am suffering from a and I` cold, have little voice. I will spare it _-or I will share it with you. THE CHAIRMAN: The cold or the voice? • Page 13 - 11/9/92 MR. MOORE: I was in touch with Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas this afternoon, in fact just after your close of office hours at four this afternoon --I am simply requesting a recess of tonight's hearing so I'll get a chance to sit and visit the property more fully and work with them as far as the Trustees ' approval, which they just got this past week. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. No problem. Very good. Thank you. Is there anybody here who wanted to speak concerning this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, anybody at all? okay. I will make a motion continuing this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (Seconded and carried: Recessed to next meeting as requested by William D. Moore, Esq.) I • Page 14 - 11/9/92 • APPLICATION NO. 4136 - Application for GEORGE BITSAKIS AND OTHERS (Owne S\kor a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A fo permission to construct addition and reconstruct existing dwells g structure areas located within 100 feet of the L.I. Sound bluff r bank. Location of Property: 57065 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; Coun y Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-044-2-1. This property is nonconfor ing as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. 7:55 p.m. (The Chairman pened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for t e record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I ha a copy of a survey, the original date was February 13, 1992, whic indicates a two-story frame home and a garage in the front yar area. The house presently sits approximately 65 feet from the t bank or so. There is a relatively shallow elevation at this pa icular site toward the sound, and we have before us an applicatio concerning that particular dwelling; and copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in he area. Who would like to be heard? Appearance: Lawrence Feeley of Ward Associates MR. FEELEY: May I present this to the Boar ? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely. You are from Ward Ass ciates, right? MR. FEELEY: Yes, Lawrence Feeley. THE CHAIRMAN: You look familiar. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman a' Serge Doyen, Jr. g Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa s Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 12, 1992 William D. Moore, Esq. P.O. Box 23 Westphalia Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appl. No. 4098 - Tony & Maria Kostoulas Dear Mr. Moore: This letter is to confirm that the above matter has been postponed pursuant to your request of November 9, 1992, for the December 3, 1992 calendar of hearings. A copy of the Legal Notice as prepared for publication will be forwarded to you soon. In the event you are not able to attend on December 3, 1992 or need a further postponement, please let us know by Monday, November 23, 1992. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski cc: Mr. and Mrs. Tony Kostoulas APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Janes Dinizio, Jr. P.O.Box1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 25, 1992 Mr. and Mrs. Tony Kostoulas 2-21 148th Street Whitestone, NY 11357 Re: Appl. No. 4098 - Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas: Please find attached a copy of the Legal Notice, published by our office in the Town's official newspaper, Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. The Board of Appeals has unanimously voted to reopen the hearing on this zoning variance application to allow submission of the written action by the Southold Town Trustees under the Coastal Zone Management Act. It is our understanding that the Town Trustees have not acted on the Coastal Zone permit application as of this date. It is not necessary for you to appear since the Board will be reopening and then recessing the hearing pending receipt of the Town Trustees' action or permit approval. You may, of course, appear and enter additional comments or documentation into the record on June 4, 1992 if you wish. I Please do not hesitate to call our office at 765-1809 in the event you have questions concerning the reopening of the hearing. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk Enclosure 1 ~ b 01 I g~ • y ft /@¢r11VRZ?-y '9fi Consultant Project Name APR SCTM #1000- Date y/»/9 y The Southold Town Trustee office has determined that your application fora astal erosio VclYra., U'rS ncomplete please consider the following information in this regar or any required return submission: r /ru LGir / 4/C Gv rI _ , o r i NLE /C /t/eLAI Z-lee'NJaReV u,Y 16th /Pwf~ 6e' J'~6.~r P r ry~ .f// o,tG rfe.H_r /c~~c?,i~ die amp//~ agd f~oPri /cr * .cnTii?(.- ; t-.ti -ru r° a(= RG:i Gl N4 - , a <rn a L ,n.T f"ll (•l f~r,+ r yn f ~11 71/U G/1.i? l lk/YS' r 6~fcnreC~n s.~ f A?c. crw/ &-dFF OC-771716 Fd 2:Kf j tie'rf of DEG, S Lo-,Nr++~~ hb-w Ar l o~*r>~i r- c T El. C j~T4/{Ed + ,ffrc/.(/r dr- IVOI4? Val evl /'(-'/U/h '*-0 L) Qum-.~ fF ~,~a er; Fie m+, ~v» . ~-~c dv~r Yta ,kG, ~ ~iJ'~or~'~ Q ~ f,~L,%.~f ?'TA /'~iG.Ty fib.%J ,Ti P r f y/cn i7~ ~i'~ © /!/,/Td11 ~ OI-- i4/s•~Y 6~i /c /x G> 1 L G. Mi71 .~~YL r-•t,~ /S/ tea- ~ ~ ' k~ ~c7c. ,t T'o,~ nr iii ~ Q ~CTR/LEd /OGF*iv~ o~= ~a-w ycv w. / /fm~^ f r/D p f~ DELx' /.7 ustee Represe ative cc: Building Dept. Zoning Board of Appealsl/ This notice makes no claim with respect to other jurisdictions within or outside the Town of Southold with respect to permits, permission required. 4/92 "L SURVEYED FOR:TNy -e ",4RI4 A,/ ~o.SJouLAs LOCATED AT,5;4u~'T M,4A01OA./ TOWN OFc- `17 IOLO SUFFOLK COUNTY N.Y. LOT MAP OF ~ESGe/BEO ~O~'OjOE.~'~y CO. CLK. NO. FILED SCALE 1" =.270' SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA:- ~y DIST./000 SEC.Oel.00 plE~ 1r.J~ y LOT O/3.00 ~ ~ !I Z 5. CxJ ~ . - /G Sln Jr R~ (u p / o a. Q C a N~ ~ ' o NSF ~t~ ~ mL ~ n - 0 oEc C & gee -gr n~.0; i C9 a° o.. ~ Z FR G ~1 I m G rn - O ~RrcC ~ ~~~G. 4 !A04,V7-ECO71 y N \ A e pee W vi1e~5 0 b 7 74 1A 45, /20- 1 F.;.4c . 9ooB - 03/.96 - ~ Pules / -ZAle 17, 1991 SURVEYED ti'D!/ /gj 1 99o BY WILLIAM R. SIMMONS JR. P.fO BOX 377 t JAMESPORT, L. I., N. Y. 1 1947 FILE NO. /G" 7fCf PAGE c?~O GRID O -¢S f.' i.~o 4 <z t_ovr 7" 1 DRA~,NN BY;,i7!lf, _ r\ r~ t 050 p.m. Appl. No. 4245- Drive, Orient, rijWt No. 7 12. 8:35 p.m. Appl. 4247- BOARD OF APPEALS GEORGE AND SUSAN on the Map of nd View HUGH T. and CAROL L. t ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TSAVARIS. This is a request Estates; County Tax Map CONROY. This is a request for a variance under Article Parcel No. 1000-14-2-3.11. for a Special Excep NOTICE OF [ion to + PUBLIC HEARINGS XXIII, Section 100-239.4A for 8. 8:15 p.m. Appl No. 4241- establish an Accessory Apart- ~ permission to locate swimm- RICHARD LAN. This is a re ment in conjunction with the ing pool with fence enclosure quest for a variance under Ar- owner's occupancy within ex- NOTICE IS HEREBY within 100 feet of the bluff of title ILIA, Section 100-309.4 isting residence as authorized GIVEN, pursuant to Section the Long Island Sound. Loca- (ref. Article III, Section under Article III, Section 267 of the Tbwn Law and the I tion of Property: 2170 The 100-33) based upon the May 4, 100-30A.2B and Section Code of the Town of Strand, Lot 111 at Pebble 1994 Notice of Disapproval 100-31B(14) of the Zoning Southold, that the following Beach Farms, East Marion, from the Building Inspector in Code. Location of Property: public hearings will be held by NY: Parcel ID No. 1000-30- a building permit application Westerly side of Gin Lane,' the SOUTHOLD TOWN 2-53. to construct pool and deck in Southold, NY; also referred to BOARD OF APPEALS, at 5. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No• the front yard area, as an ac- as Lot No. 2 on the Subdivi- the Southold Town Hall,! 42445E- DEPOT ENTER- cessory use. Location of Pro- sion Map of Bay Haven filed 1 53095 Main Road, Southold, l PRISES, INC. This is a re- perty: 230 Bridge Lane, Cut- in the Suffolk County Clerk's New York 11971, on quest for a Special Exception, chogue, NY, County Tax Map Office as Map 2910; further WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, as amended, to include a - Parcel No. 1000-111-15-1.4 and 1994, commencing at the P identified on the County Tax royal for the location and use 1.5 (Tax Map Parcel No. 1.4 times specified below: P Maps 8: 1000-88-3-6. of a proposed addition to the totals 2.478 acres and Parcel ~ 13. 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. L 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4235-, existing principal building No. 1.5 totals 1.088 acres). The 4710_ 4ARr.ARET 1 BEST KIM FALLON AND CYN-II located at 320 Depot Lane, subject premises is located in THIA SUTRYK. (Hearing i Cutchogue, New York. The an R-40 Low-Density Residen- This TdVD 4 reuest for a vaSON Continued from May 4, 1994) proposed addition is an expan- tial Zone District. r a request for a v Section This is a request for a variance sion of the existing recrea- 9. 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4243 lap 30.11 based aIn thecMa Y based upon the April 4, 19941 tional membership club and is - MOORE'S LANE 2, 1994 Notice of Disapproval Notice of Disapproval from located in the Residential- HOLDING CORP. This is a by the Building Inspector for the Building Inspector to Office (RO) Zone District. request for a variance under 8 pettoed for locate accessory building in' Property ID No. Article V Section 100-53B, suffiapprovalcient of lot the area and proposed fi- the front yard area. Location 1000-102-2-12.1. Section 100-31C (ref. Section oposed of Property: 3200 Soundvi~ Parc lot width of proposed - i - , 6.8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4249- 100-33), and Section 100-231, d Avenue, Mattituck, NY; Coun- SANFORD AND SUE based upon the May 4, 1994 Parcels No. 1 and N Load ty Tax Map Parcel Notice of Disapproval from Lion cf Property., Private Road HANAUER. This is a request No. 17 extending off the 1000-`91'2-5• for a Special Exception to the Building Inspector for per- 8 o 2. 7:35 p.m.4kppl. No. 4234 mission to locate acesso easterly side of Camp Mineola ALEX AND MARION establish and operate a Bed ry uses and Breakfast in accordance (tennis court, swimming poolty Road Ta,x Mattituck, Parcel N No. C No. WIPF. (Hearing Continued with the provisions of the zon- and pool clubhouse) in an area Map Paarc from May 4, 1994). This is a 1000-123-coot The subject ing code at Article III, Section other than the required rear request for a variance under premises contains a total lot 100-31B(15), with owner- Yard, and with tennis-court area of approximately Article III, Section 100-33Coccupancy, and as an ac- fencing at a height of more lis for permission to locate an ac- cessory to the existing than four feet when located in acres in total area and cessory garage with a fron- prin- located in the R Low-, cipal residence. Location of a front yard area. Location of Density Residential ial Zone tyard setback at less than the Property: 4105 Soundview Property: 475 Cedarfields required 40 ft. front yard set- District. Avenue, Mattituck, NY; Coun- Drive, Greenport, NY; Coun- The Board of Appeals back. This parcel is noncon- l ty Tax Map Parcel No. ty Tax Map Parcel No. at said time and place hear any forming with a lot area of ap- 1000-94-3-part of 1.7, also 1000-40-5-1.42. The subject and all persons or re in proximately 22,000 sq. ft. and known and referred to as Lot premises is located in the P frontage of 118 ft. Location of - t desiring to be heard ard in No 2 on the Subdivision Map 'Hamleo-pensi[y Zone District.. the he above matters.. Written Property: 940 West Creek of'Robert°and Jean Lenzer' 10. & 11. 8:25 p.m. 1MW comments may also be sub- Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; 7. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4240- AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. mitted prior to the conclusion County Tax Map Parcel No. JOHN CROKOS. This is a re- Location of Property: 1035 of the subject hearing. Each 1000-103-13-7. quest for a variance under Ar- 3. 7.40 pm. Appl. No.4246 An w Avenue, East hearing will not star[ before title XXIX, Section Marion, , NY; County Thx Map the times designated above. If LKC CORP. and JASTA, 100-239.4A based upon the Parcel No: 1000-21-2-13. This You wish to review the files or INC. This is a request for a May 4, 1994 Notice of Disa Special Exception for permis- P property is nonconforming as need to request more informa- sion to establish a drinking Proval from the Building In- to total lot area in this R-40 tion, please do not hesitate to Spector for permission to Zone District. call 765-1809 or visit our establishment use as listed locate swimming pool with Appi No. 4098 - (Continued office. under Article XI, Section fence enclosure within 100 feet Hearing) This is a request for Dated: May 23, 1994 100-1OIB in an existing prin- _,9f the bluff along the Long a variance under Article BY"ORDER OF THE; 6 6 Sipal building. The subject Island Sound. This property XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for SOUTHOLD TOWN' premises is nonconforming was the subject of prior AP- approval of a deck extension BOARD OF APPEALS' with a lot area of a rox- Peals under AppL No. 4204 as pp located within 100 feet of the GERARD P. GOEHRINGER imatel one-half acre and rendered 12/8/93 and Appl. bluff of the Long Island Y 8 CHAIRMAN _ 115 t ft. frontage along the No. 4140 as rendered 2/23/94. Sound. The subject remises is im- By: Linda Kowalski north side of the Main Road 1 P Appl No. 4248- This is a re, IX-5/26/94(40) and is located in the B-General proved with a single-family quest for a variance under Ar- Business Zone District. Pro- dwelling and contains an area ticle IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 perty Address: 6955 Main of approximately 40,000 sq. ft, for approval of a deck addi- Road, Laurel, NY; County Thx (total lot area). Location of tion with insufficient side yard ,nnn 11n 1 11 Prnnrrty 71111 (.rand Vine - i__v_ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of the TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Traveler-Watchman once each week for / ..................weeks succesg, vely, commencing on the day of 19....V V. SWQr~a to before me on this ....V 'SF of 19~ Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yak No. 4806846 Qualified in Suffolk C Commission Expiros3i /y~ r utbacK at io> a it anu , lly sworn, 88ys utaa see/ aux. garage with a I'Mmy fd front yard ul- required rear Y that 1h than the required 40 . let court fencing a a height of more bk. This parcel is noncoAWel four fat when located in a front Yard f THE SUFFOLK TIMES ac . a with a lot area of aPPro y area. Location of property: t44Y: published at Mattituck, in 22.000 sq. ft. and frontage of 118 it. Cedarfields Drive. No. 1000-40- Tax Map Location of Property: 940 West Creek County rse Avenue, Cutchogue. NY; County Tax 5-1.42. T110 subject Prcms is located old, County of Suffolk and Zone MaP Parcel No. 1000-103-U-7. in the Hamlet-DenaryTONY ana f ad that the Notice of which 3. 7:40 p.m. APPI. No. 4246 - 10. & l1. in p.m. IIted copy, has been regular' ~C. ibis HpR[A KOSiOULAS. La/uon of LKC CORP. and dpSTA, p 1035 Aquaview Avenue. Newspaper is a request for a Special Exeeption for topeny: OIICC each week E M NY: County as map lish a drinking This prop permission to estab ast arion. establishing use as listed under Article Parcel No. 1000-1-1-2-13. uell. ivelyb>•g OII as to total la . J i A COIIIrIICIIC pri Section 100-10 in existing en is twnconformin pirid. 1As t principal building. The he subje ect premise ar t y A in this R-40 Zone a is nonconforming with a lot area o f APPI• No. 4098 - st (Cotilinued approximately one-half acre and Hearing) This is a request for a ft. fronmge along the north side of the.' variance under Article VeXofla ~w Main Road and is located in the B• Section 100-239.4 for aPPro ! ~y1'1DP General Business Zone District. ro deck extension located withmsl nd principal Clerk 6955 Main Road. feet of the bluff of the Long ' Property Address: No100 NO. Sound. ^r Laurel. NY: County Tax Map 1000-122-6-36. APPI. No. 4248 This is a re" 4 7.50 pm ApPI No. 4245 - for variance under Article GEORGE and SUSAN TS TSAVARIS. guest with in- IIIA.l Section deck 10030A addition .3 for a - of a C this This is a request for a variance under rove sufficient side yard setbacks. LL Article perXXIIII mission oon to locate Section swimmi Iimmi .4A CorngPool P I2. 8:35 p in. App1 4247 - AUGB` 19 permiss t. with fence enclosure within 100 feet o T. and CAROL L. CONROY. This is The a request for a Special Exception in the bluff of the Long island Sound. 2170 establish an Accessory Apartment Location of Property: Strand, Lot I 11 at Pebble Beach con unction with the owners oceuPan- Farms, East Marion, NY; Parcel ID cy within existing residence as autho- r No. 1000-30-2-53. rued under Article III. Section 100- 5. 7:55 p.m. ApPI. No. 42445E - 30A2B and section 100-316(14) of DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC- This the Zoning Code. Location of Gin Lana, is a request for a Special Exception, as amended, to include approval for the SoutholdProperty: Westerly side red to in Lot location and use of a proposed addi- #2 , NY: also referred p of on the Subdivision Map of Bay [ion to the existing principal building Haven filed in the Suffolk County located at 320 Depot Clerk's office as Map 2910: further New York. The proposed addition is identified on the County Tax Maps as an expansion of the existing recre- . p.m. ApPI. No. 4239 - ational membership club and is locate 13d 1003 S:5 -5 6 . 8:5 in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District. Property ID No. 1000.102-2- MARGARET BEST and ADYLY SYVERSON. This is s request for a 12.1. - variance under Article IIIA. Section 6. 8:05 p.m. AppI No. 4249 100-30A.1 based upon the May SANFORD and SUE HANAUER. 1994 Notice of Disapproval by the ibis is a request for a Special Excep- Building Inspector for approval of the Lion to establish and operate a Bed and Building insufficient lot area and Breakfast in accordance with the pm-. . in of width of proposed lot visions of the zoning code at Article parcels #1 and #2. Location of Prop- 111. Section 100-31B051, with owner- ertPrivate Road #17 extending off - occupancy, and as an accessory to the the easterly side of Camp Mineola existing principal residence. Location Road. Mattituck, NY; County Tax of property: 4105 Soundview Avenue, Ma parcel No. 1000-123-6-17. The Mattituck. NY: County Tax Map contains a total lot Parcel No. 1000-94-3-part of 1.7, also subject premises known and referred to as Lot No. 2 on area of approximately 11 acre( s) in the Subdivision Map of Robert and total area and is located in the R-40' Low-Density Residential Zone Dis- lean Lenzer. 7. 8:10 p.m. APPI. No. 4240 - triThe Board of Appeals will at said JOHN CRnce under This is a request time and place hear any and all per- for avariace under Article XXIX. sons or representatives desiring to be Section 100-239.4A based upon the heard in the above matters. Written May 4. 1994 Notice of Disapproval comments may also be submitted prior from the Building Inspector for per- to the conclusion of the subject hear ' mission to Iocate swim mingpooI with ,s in Each hearing will not start before fence enclosure within 100 feet of the[ the times designated above. if you bluff along the Long Island Sound. wish to review the files or need to This property was the subject of prior request more information, please do Appeals under No. 4204 as rear not hesitate to call 765-1809 or visit tendered 12/8/93 and d ApPI. No. 4140 as mfr office. rendered 2/23/93. The subject premi Dated: May 223, 1994. es is improved with asingle-famit y BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD dwelling and contains an area of TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS approximately 40.000 sq. ft. (total lot GERARD P. OF AP NGEfI area). Location of Property: 2110 - CHAIRMAN Grand View Drive. Orient, NY; Lot By Linda Kowalski No. 7 on the Map of Grand View w`M1" NOTI E 79454TMyM PUBLIC HEARINGS Estates; County Tax Map Parcel No. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, 1000-14-2-3.11. pursuant to Section 267 of the Town 8. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4241 - Law and the Code of the Town of RICHARD LAN. This is a request for Southold, that the following public avariance under Article IIIA. Section hearings will be held by the 100-30A.4 (ref. Article III, Section SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF 100-33) baud upon the May 4, 1994 APPEALS, at the Southold Town Noti ng of Disapprabuilding the Hall. 53095 Main Road, Southold. Permit New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY,- application to constmct pool and deck JUNE 8, 1994, commencing at the uin the front yard area. 35 an accessary se. Location of property: 230 Bridge time specified below: - Appl. No. 4235 - Lane. Cutchogue. NY~ 111- County Tad 1. Map Parcel No. 0 15-1.4 and KIM 7:30 p.m. FALLON SUTRYK. (Hearing and Continued f CYNTHIA rom 1.5 (Tax Map Parcel - Parcel No. 1.4 totals May 4, 1994). This is a request for a 2.478 acres and Parcel No. 1.5 totals I variance based upon the April 4. 1994 1.088 acres). The subject premises is oval from the - located in an R-40 Residential Zone Dstrict~w Density Notice of Disappr Res Building Inspector to locate accessory building in the front yard area. 9. 8:20 p.m. APPI. No. 4243 - I Location of Property: 3200 Soundview MOORE'S LANE HOLDING Avenue. Mallituck, NY; County Tax CORP. This is a request for a variance Map Partt11000-942-5. under Article V Section 100-53B, 2. 7:35 p.m. ApPI. No. 4234 - Section 100-31C (ref. Section 100-331, I I y APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS~ ~ Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. ` rry; y; P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa ~~1 Fax (516) 765-1823 Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 24, 1994 TO: Applicants RE: Public Hearings - June 8, 1994 Dear Sir or Madam: We are in receipt of your recent application under the Southold, Town Zoning Ordinance and. have forwarded notice for publication this week to the local and official newspapers of the Town, to wit: Long Island Traveler and Suffolk Times. Copies of your file have been distributed to the Board Members for additional review. and individual on-site inspection, expected within -the next 10 to 14 days. If you have not already staked the proposed new construction, we ask that you please do so immediately. It is requested that one of the property owners, or if the property owner is not available, then someone fully familiar with the property, appear at the public hearing at, the time specified in the attached Legal Notice. If your presentation should be lengthy, a draft or final written copy is always appreciated. You should feel free to submit additional documentation to support this application at any time before; or during, the public hearing. Please: do not hesitate to call our office if you. have questions concerning your application or related matter. Yours very truly, Linda Kowalski Clerk, Board of Appeals Enclosure rs~ z4FFO(~ C~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Serge Goehringer, Chairman ine o,TJr. 3~`'rO1 ' t o~~~ Town Hall, P.O. Box 1M9 in Road James D Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 Road, Southold, New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994, commencing at the times specified below: 1. 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4235 - KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA SUTRYK. (Hearing Continued from May 4, 1994) This is a request for a variance based upon the April 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector to locate accessory building in the front yard area. Location of Property: 3200 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-94-2-5. 2. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4234 - ALEX AND MARION WIPF. (Hearing Continued from May 4, 1994). This is a request for a variance under Article 111, Section 100-33C for permission to locate an accessory garage with a frontyard setback at less than the required 40 ft. front yard setback. This parcel is nonconforming with a lot area of approximately 22,000 sq. ft. and frontage of 118 ft. Location of Property: 940 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-103-13-7. Page 2 - Notice of Hearie • Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 8, 1994 3• 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4246 - LKC CORP. and JASTA, INC. This is a request for a Special Exception for permission to establish a drinking establishing use as listed under Article XI, Section 100-1OIB in an existing principal building. The subject premises is nonconforming with a lot area of approximately one-half acre and 115+- ft. frontage along the north side-of the Main Road and is located in the B-General Business Zone District. Property Address: 6955 Main Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-122-6-36. 4. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4245 - GEORGE AND SUSAN TSAVARIS. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A for permission to locate swimmingpool with fence enclosure within 100 feet of the bluff of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 2170 The Strand, Lot 111 at Pebble Beach Farms; East Marion, NY; Parcel ID No. 1000-30-2-53. 5. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 42445E - DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC. This is a request for a Special Exception, as amended, to include approval for the location and use of a proposed addition to the existing principal building located at 320 Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed addition is an expansion of the existing recreational membership club and is located in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District. Property ID No. 1000-102-2-12.1. Page 3 - Notice of Hearie Southold Town Board•of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 8, 1994 6. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4249 - SANFORD AND SUE HANAUER. This is a request for a Special Exception to establish and operate a Bed and Breakfast in accordance with the provisions of the zoning code at Article 111, Section 100-31B(15), with owner-occupancy, and as an accessory to the existing principal residence. Location of Property: 4105 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-94-3-part of 1.7, also known and referred to as Lot No 2 on the Subdivision Map of Robert and Jean Lenzer. 7. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4240 - JOHN CROKOS. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIX, Section 100-239.4A based upon the May 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector for permission to locate swimmingpool with fence enclosure within 100 feet of the bluff along the Long Island Sound. This property was the subject of prior Appeals under Appl. No. 4204 as rendered 12/8/93 and Appl. No. 4140 as rendered 2/23/93. The subject premises is improved with a single-family dwelling and contains an area of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. (total lot area). Location of Property: 2110 Grand View Drive, Orient, NY; Lot No. 7 on the Map of Grand View Estates; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-2-3.11. 8. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4241 - RICHARD LAN. This is a request for a variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4 (ref. Article III, Section 100-33) based upon the May 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector in a building permit application to construct Page 4 - Notice of Hearie • Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 8, 1994 pool and deck in the front yard area, as an accessory use_ Location of Property: 230 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-15-1.4 and 1.5 (Tax Map Parcel No. 1.4 totals 2.478 acres and Parcel No. 1.5 totals 1.088 acres). The subject premises is located in an R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. 9• 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4243 - MOORE'S LANE HOLDING CORP. This is a request for a variance under Article V Section 100-53B, Section 100-31C (ref. Section 100-33), and Section 100-231, based upon the May 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector for permission to locate accessory uses (tennis court, swimmingpool and pool clubhouse) in an area other than the required rear yard, and with tennis-court fencing at a height of more than four feet when located in a front yard area. Location of Property: 475 Cedarfields Drive, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-40-5-1.42. The subject premises is located in the Hamlet-Density Zone District. 10. & 11. 8:25 p.m. TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13• This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. Appl. No. 4098 - (Continued Hearing) This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of a deck extension located within 100.feet of the bluff of the Long = Page 5 - Notice of Heariro . Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular-Meeting of June 8, 1994 Island Sound. Appl. No. 4248 - This is a request for variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of a deck addition with insufficient side yard setbacks. 12. 8:35 p.m. Appl. 4247 - HUGH T. and CAROL L. CONROY. This is a request for a Special Exception to establish an Accessory Apartment in conjunction with the owner's occupancy within existing residence as authorized under Article 111, Section 100-30A:213 and Section 100-316(14) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: Westerly side of Gin Lane, Southold, NY; also referred to as Lot #2 on the Subdivision Map of Bay Haven filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map 2910; further identified on the County Tax Maps as 1000-88-3-6. 13. 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4239 - MARGARET BEST and ADYLYN SYVERSON: This is a request for a variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.1 based upon the May 2, 1994 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector for approval of the proposed insufficient lot area and insufficient lot width of proposed Parcels #1 and #2. Location of Property: Private Road #17 extending off the easterly side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-6-17 The subject premises contains a total lot area of approximately 1.2 Page' 6 Notice of Hearir• Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 8, 1994 acre(s) in total area and is located in the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters. Written comments 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 the files or need to request more information, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809 or visit our office. Dated: May 23, 1994. By ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski x Copies of Legal Noticewt to the following 5/24/94: • Cynthia Sytruk and Kim Fallon 55 Harbor View Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. and Mrs. Alex Wipf 940 West Creek Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 LKC Corp. P.O. Box 843 Jamesport, NY 119147-0843 Mr. and Mrs. George Tsavaris 2170 The Strand P. 0. Box 385 East Marion, NY 11939-0385 Dr. Joseph Lizewski Depot Enterprises, Inc. 320 Depot Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mr. and Mrs. Sanford Hanauer 4105 Soundview Avenue P.O. Box 281 Mattituck, NY 11952-0281 Attn: Keith Keller-Sandgren Associates 10 Mineola Avenue Roslyn Heights, NY 11577 Mr. James Fitzgerald P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0617 Moore's Lane Holding Corp. P.O. Box 1143 Cutchogue, NY 11935-1143 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. P.O. Box 23 Westphalia Road Mattituck, NY 11952-0023 Mr. and Mrs. Hugh T. Conroy Dr./Mrs. Robert Hariri 380 Gin Lane 61 Lafayette Avenue Southold, NY 11971 Chatham, NJ 07928 Scheffs Trust M/M Demetrio Laveglia 3100 Soundview Avenue 97-24 116th Street Mattituck, NY 11952 Richmond Hill, NY 11419 Copies to TB, BD, PB, TA Departments APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton = Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Additional time will, of course, be available. A drafted or final written copy of your presentation, if lengthy, is always appreciated. Please feel free to call our office at the above telephone number, or to stop by between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, if you have any questions or wish to update your file prior to the day of the hearing. Attachment (Legal Notice) X APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS A Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr? P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1992 commencing at the times specified below: 1) 7:32 p.m. Appl. No. 4135 - Application of ELAINE ROMAGNOLI for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article: (a) III, Section 100-32 concerning construction of deck in the rear yard with excessive lot coverage, (b) XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for construction of deck in the rear yard with a setback at less than the required 75 feet from bulkhead. Location of Property: 1230 First Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-07-29. This parcel is substandard in size and is situated in the M-I Zone District. 2) 7:36 P.M. Appl. No. 4139 - Application of CONSTANTINE COSTAS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-82 for permission to locate accessory garage building in the rear yard area with excessive lot coverage, at • Page 2 - Legal Note of Hearings • Southold Town Board of Appeals 68955 Main Road (S.R. 25), Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-53-1-2. This parcel is substandard in size and is located in the Limited Business (LB) Zone District. 3) 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4138 - Application of THEODORE M. GOLD AND CAROL A. WEICK for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ILIA, Section 100-30A.4 (100-33) for permission to locate accessory garage building in the front yard area. Location of Property:,(Sound View Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-4-10. ) 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - Application of TONY AND MARIA KO4 STOULAS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence, as exists, near the L.I. Sound bluff. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. (Hearing was previously postponed for Town Trustees action on Coastal Zone Permit jurisdiction). The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not Page 3 - Legal NotOe of Hearings • Southold Town Board of Appeals start before the times designated above. For more information, please call 765-1809 or visit our office. Dated: November 17, 1992. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER By Linda Kowalski ---------------------------------------------------------------x Copies transmitted to the following on or about 11/18/92: L.I. Traveler-Watchman Suffolk Times, Inc. I i nollc> oh flEnulNCS 3) 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4138 - I STATE OF NEW YORK) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, Application of THEODORE M. pursuant to Section 267 of the Town GOLD AND CAROL A. WEICK for ) SS: Law and the Code of the Town of a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Southold, the following matters will Article ILIA, Section 100-30A.4 be held for public hearings bcfora the (100-33) for permission to locate ac- Cara Conk l i R of Mattituek, In SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF oessory garage building in the front APPEALS At the Southold Town yard area. Location of Property: said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, Sound View Avenue, Southold, NY; New York 11971, on THURSDAY, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51- is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a 410' Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituek, in 4) 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - DECEMBER 3, 1992 commencing at Application of TONY AND MARIA the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and the times specified below: KOSTOULAS for a Variance to the 1) 7:32 p.m. Appl. No. 4135 - Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, State of New York, and that the Notice of which Application of ELAINE ROMAG- Section 100.239.4 for approval of the annexed is a printed copy, has been regular- NOLI for a Variance to the Zoning deck extension (at or near ground Ordinance, Article: (a) In, Section level) and fence, as exists, near the ly published in said Newspaper once each week 100-32 concerning construction of L.I. Sound bluff. Location of Prop- deck in the rear yard with "=sive any: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East for one weeks successively, commencing on lot coverage, (b) XXIn, Section 100- Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 239AB for construction of deck in the No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is the 19 th d8yOfNOyemberIEQ2 rear yard with a setback at less than nonconforming as to tool lot arty in the required 75 feet from bulkhead. Location of Property: 1230 First this R40 Zone District. (Hearing was a Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax previously postponed for Town Map Parcel No. 1000.117-07-29. This Trustees action on Coastal Zone Per- mit j parcel is substandard in size and is The Board of Appeals will at said Principal Clerk Situated the M-I Zone District time and place hear any and all per. 2) 7:36 p.m. . Appl. No. 4139 - sons or representatives desiring to be Application of CONSTANTINE heard in the above matters. Written COSTAS for a Variance to the Zon- comments may also be submitted ing Ordinance, Article VIII, Section prior to the conclusion of the subject Sworn to before me this 100-82 for permission to locate ac- hearing. Each hearing will not sun cessory garage building in the rear before the times designated above. day of November I n yard area with excessive lot cover- C~ For more information, please call i age, at 68955 Main Road (Map Par- 765-1809 or visit our office. / ALICE C. hlae.Oq.',-ALE Grccnpon, NY; County Tax Map ar - Datcd: November 17, 1992. Notafy Public. State o- 1,~ Vn'4 cel No. 1000-53-1-2. This parcel is No.4. 7~;i8= BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOL Ouaii4ied in Serb R, Cnvnty substandard in size and is located in TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS . y the Limited Businea4 (LB) Zone Dia Cumms>son Expi:e5 ac i. 0 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER trio By Linda Kowalski 7561-1TN19 - c moor Page 4 - Legal Not* of Hearings • Southold Town Board of Appeals Copies transmitted to the following on or about 11/18/92: L.I. Traveler-Watchman (trans. 11/17) Suffolk Times, Inc. (trans. 11/17) Ms. Elaine Romagnoli, 1230 First St., New Suffolk 11956 Mr. John H. Geideman, East Marion, NY 11939-0416(Romagnoli) Mr. John C. Born, 1675 Cedar Beach Rd, Southold 11971 (Costas) Constantine Costas, 68955 Main Rd, Box 70, Greenport 11944 Theodore M. Gold & Carol A. Weick, Box 1524, Southold 11971 William D. Moore, Esq., Box 23, Westphalia Rd, Mattituck 11952 (Re: Kostoulas) ZBA Members Town Bulletin Board (lobby) I APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS " SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. ` Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr.~~ P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. a, s Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 7651800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Additional time will, of course, be available. A drafted or final written copy of your presentation, if lengthy, is always appreciated. Please feel free to call our office prior to the hearing date if you have any questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosure APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809; Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1992 commencing at the times specified below: 1) 7:32 p.m. Appl. No. 4099 - Application of CHARLENE EDWARDS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.A for approval of deck extension between existing deck and stairs along the bluff of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 880 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-68-3-8.2. The size of this lot has a total area conforming to the requirements for this R-40 Zone District. 2) 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - Application of INDEPENDENT GROUP HOME LIVING PROGRAM, INC. (IGHLP) appealing the June 30, 1992 Notice of Disapproval issued by the building inspector, for relief under Article XXIII, Section 100-231(B) of the Zoning Ordinance for the placement of fencing at more than the 6-1/2 4 , Page 2 - Legal Noti. • Hearings for November 9, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals ft. height limitation {proposed height: 8 ft.). Location of Property: 52550 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-61-3-1. 3) 7:38 p.m. Appl. No. 4137 - Application of JANE C. PEACE appealing the October 19, 1992 Notice of Disapproval issued by the building inspector, for relief under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for the placement of a raised concrete patio extension with awning at a setback of less than the required 35 feet from the front property line along Reydon Drive. Location of Property: 40 Grove Drive at Intersection with Reydon Drive, Southold, Reydon Shores, Section H, Lot 23, 24 & 1/2 of 22; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-80-4-17.1. 4) 7:42 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence, as exists, near the L.I. Sound bluff. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. (Hearing was previously postponed for Town Trustees action on Coastal Zone Permit jurisdiction). A . Page 3 - Legal Not • Hearings for Novemb r 9, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals 5) 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4136 - Application for GEORGE BITSAKIS AND OTHERS (Owners) for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A for permission to construct addition and reconstruct existing dwelling structure areas located within 100 feet of the L.I. Sound bluff or bank. Location of Property: 57065 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-044-2-1. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. 6) 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4132-B - Application of SPECTACLE RIDGE, INC. to include, as amended, a request for relief under Article III, Section 100-31A(1) (and/or Section 100-31C pertaining to accessory uses) to permit residential second-floor use for family member of a proposed accessory building, in conjunction with the use of the proposed principal single-family residence. Location of Property: 14990 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-084-01-02. This property is located in the "Agricultural-Conservation (A-C)" Zone District, and is presently before the Southold Town Planning Board concerning a change of lot line and before the Farmland Development Rights on 17+- acres, leaving 2+- acres for one (1) principal dwelling use per two acres of land area. 7) 8:00 p.m. Ref. File No. 4122-B. Application of ROBERT H. and KATHRYN B. DEXTER under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for a rehearing, or in the alternative, new Application for a 1 Page 4 - Legal Not' • Hearings for Novembbr 9, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals deck extension, as modified, plus second-story overhang, all to be located within 75 feet of the lower bulkhead along Great Peconic Bay. Location of Property: 8380 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-11-20. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before the times designated above. For more information, please call 765-1809 or visit our office. Dated: October 26, 1992. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER By Linda Kowalski ---------------------------------------------------------------x Copies transmitted to the following on or about 10/26/92: L.I. Traveler-Watchman Suffolk Times, Inc. Ms. Charlene Edwards, 40-27 195th St., Flushing, NY 11358 IGHL, Inc., Attn: Mr. Walter Stockton, Box 638, 62 Pine St., East Moriches, NY 11940 Donald M. McGayhey, Esq., Box 981, 1050 Youngs Ave., Sld 11971 Re: Jane Peace Mr. and Mrs. Tony Kostoulas, 2-21 148th St, Whitestone 11357 Ward Associates, P.C., 1500 Lakeland Ave, Bohemia 11716 Re: G. Bitsakis and others Mr. G. A. Strang, R.A., Box 1412, Southold 11971 Re: Spectacle M/M Robert H. Dexter, 197 Kensington Rd, Garden City 11530 I ~I / COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss STATE OF NEW YORK . NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the 267 of the Town Law and the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, Code of the Town of Southold, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; the following matters will be held for public hearings before and that the notice of which the annexed is a printer) copy, the SOUTHOLD TOWN has been puhlished in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 once each week for ....................l weeks Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, successively, commencing on the I4.;. DECEMBER 3, 1992 commen- cing ' ' ' ' ' belwa[ the times specified , day of ......191.) 1) 7:32 m. A l. No. 4135 - / Application of ELAINE ROMAGNOLI for a Variance to . . . . . . . . . . . , , . / ...1.. Y . . the Zoning Ordinance, Article: (a) III, Section 100-32 concern- ing construction of deck in the rear yard with excessive lot coverage, (b) XXIII, Section . R` 100-239.48 for construction of Sworn to before me this clay of deck in the rear yard with a set- back at less than the required 75 19 ~y feet from bulkhead. Location of I Property: 1230 First Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-07-29. This dinance, Article XXIII, Section ! parcel is substandard size and 100-239.4 for approval deck 6v?Fzs-4-+•. .4 is situated in the M-I Zone extension xtension (at or near ground District. level) and fence, as exists, near Notary Public 2) 7:36 p.m. Appl. No. 4139 - the L.I. Sound bluff. Location - Application of CONSTAN- of Property: 1035 Aquaview RARBARA'A: SMNEIDER' TINE COSTAS for a Variance Avenue, East Marion, NY; NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York; i to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- County 'Pax Map Parcel No. Wo. 4806346 cle VIII, Section 100.82 for per- 1000-21-2-13. This property is Qualified in Suffolk County mission to locate accessory nonconforming as to total lot Commission Expires 1113119y garage building in the rear yard area in this R-40 Zone District. area with excessive lot coverage, I (Hearing was previously at 68955 Main Road (S.R. 25), postponed for Town Trustees ac- Greenport, NY; County Tax tion on Coastal Zone Permit Map Parcel No. 1000-53-1-2. jurisdiction). j This parcel is substandard in size The Board of Appeals will at and is located in the Limited said time and place hear any and Business (LB) Zone District. all persons or representatives 3) 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4138 - desiring to be heard in the above Application of THEODORE matters. Written comments may M. GOLD AND CAROL A. also be submitted prior to the WEICK for a Variance to the'.. conclusion of the subject hear- Zoning Ordinance, Article ILIA, ing. Each hearing will not start Section 100-30A.4 (100-33) for before the times designated permission to locate accessory above. For more information, garage building in the front yard please call 765-1809 or visit our - area. Location of Property: office. j 20485 Sound View Avenue, Dated: November 17, 1992 j Southold, NY; County Tax Map I BY ORDER OF Parcel No. 1000-51-4-10. THE SOUTHOLD TOWN 4) 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 BOARD OF APPEALS - Application of TONY AND GERARD P. GOEHRINGER MARIA KOSTOULAS for a by Linda Kowalski Variance to the_ Zoning Or- Ix-11/19/92(55) 7 STATE OF NEW YORK) L. I. Sound bluff. Location of Prop- i ) SS: No l ILI', Of. IILAItINVti NOTICE IS IILREBY GIVEN, eny: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Cara Conklin of Mattituck, in Law and the Code of the Town of noNo I rtconf rming as 10 101°1 lot area in Southold, the following matters will ,his R-40 "Lone District. (hearing was said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she be held for public hearings before the previously postponed for Town SOUTHOLD TOWN 130ARD OF 11°11, Tmstccs action On Coastal Zone Per- is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TI , a 53095 53095 MALS ai at n R the Soad,ouJhololJ d o Told," Ncw mhjurisdiction)• 1 No. at36 - Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in York 11971, on MONDAY. NOVEM- 5) . - p.m f.or GApp:EORGE BIT' the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and BIiR 9, 1992 commencing at the times Application SARIS AND OTHERS (owners specified below: for a Variance under Article XXIII, State of New York, and that the Notice of which 1) 7:32 p.m. Appl. No. 4099- Section 100-239.4A for pcOnissimt to the annexed is a printed copy, has been regular- Application of CHARLENE ED• eum,wa addition and mornslmct cx• WARDS for a Variance to the Zoning istin dwelling structure areas located ly published in said Newspaper once each week Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section within 100 feet of the Ll. Sound bluff for on a weeks successively, commencing on 100-239.A for approval of deck ex- or bank Location of Property: 57065 tension between existing deck and C.R. 48. Greenpon, NY; County Tax. the 29th day Of Oetober1992 stairs along the bluff of the Long Is- Parcel Na. 1000-044-2-1. This i, land Sound. Location of Property: 880 Map is nonconforming as to total I ' Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, NY; Colin- property , y "Ihx Map Parcel No. 1000-68-3-8.2. lot area to this RAO Zone District. The size of this lot has a total area 6) icat on of No. SPECTACLE C tI include, as amend- conforming a Dithestrict. requirements for RIDGE,INC. to of this R-40 Zone Principal Clerk 2) 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - ed, a request for relief u ander d/or See Application of INDEPENDENT III. Section 100-31Aut1) to to GROUP ROME LIVING PROS tiou eIDO permit 1C pnaini dcniial second- GRAM, INC. (IGHLP) app 0, 1992 Notice of Disap- floor use for family member of a pro- the June 3 in conjunc- Sworn to before me this proval issued by the building inspcc- posed accessory building, y tor, for relief under Article XXIII, tion with the use of the proposed prin- day of Oe 199 Section 100-231(8) of the Zoning cipal single-family residence. Loca- _~_-iy (?L El"fE4Q/+Z Ordinance for the placement of fenc- Lion of Property: 14990 Oregon Road, ;0t8 Of ry'r 'abbe.. Sta;a O, ~:?W'{ollf ing at mom than the 6-1/2 It. height Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Par- i n i47_8 74 1000-084 -01 limitation (Proposed height: 8 ft- 1- cel No. cared in the 02 This proper- p- ^unlified in 11: C/ ultural- Location of property: 52550 Main ty is located in the " ccDislrid, ^'~`•ston ExDires Road, Southold, NY. County Tax Map CO 15 prcscntlyAbc[ re the Southold and Parcel No. 1000-61-3-1- Planning Board concerning a 3) 7:38 P.M. Appl. No. 4137 - Town Manning line and eforc he arrttland Development Rights 01117± Application of JANE C. Notice P-h of lot appealing the October 19, leaving 2i acres for one (1) of Disapproval issued by the building a rind al dwelling use per two acres inspector, for relict under Article IIIA, p P SCCtIGt 100-30A.3 for the placement of land arcs. of a raised concrete patio extension 7) 8:00 p.m. Ref. rte No. 4122-B. C with awning at a setback of less than Application of ROBERT 11. AND the required 35 feet from the front KA,rI1RYN B. DEXTER =d rtoAra property line along Reydon Drive. title XXIII, Location of property: 40 Grove Drive rehearing, or in the alternative. new at Intersection with Rcydon Drive, Appl'ean° bus secondstory, nextension , 3! Southold, Rcydon Shores. Section if. modified, p overhng Lot 23, 24 & 112 of 22; County Tax all to be IowleJ withinCrcat P <oni Map Parcel No. 1000-80.4-17.1. lower bulkhead along Greet _ 4) 7:42 p.m. Appi. No. 4098 - Bay. Location of Propen a8390 t y: Application of TONY AND MARIA pcconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY KoST'OULAS for a Variance to the County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000 Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, 126-11-20. cats will at sat Section 100-239.4 for approval of The Board of App \ deck extension (at or near ground time and place hear any and all per level) and fence, as exists, near the suns or representatives desiring to be heard in the mabove matters. ay also be submr iltet comments may th prior to o the conclusion of the subjcc hearing. Each hearing will not star before the woes designated above. Poi more information, please call 765 e 1 609 or visit our Office. Dated: October 26.19912" BY ORDER OPTT IL• SOU11101- TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL`: GERARD P. GOEIIRINGER By Linda Kowalski 7s,7 IT019 - Nowr I Y COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY Variance to the Zoning Or- Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the GIVEN, pursuant to Section dinance, Article XXIII, Section 267 of the Town Law and the 100-239.4 for approval of deck Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, Code of the Town of Southold, extension (at or near ground a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; the following matters will be I level) and fence, as exists, near and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, held for public hearings before the L.I. Sound bluff. Location the SOUTHOLD TOWN of Property: 1035 Aquaview' has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman BOARD OF APPEALS at the Avenue, East Marion, NY; once each week for On~ weeks Southold Town Hall, 53095 rt Main Road, Southold, New 1000-21-2-13. This property is o2- `Yh York 11971, on MONDAY, nonconforming as to total lot I,. successively, commencing on the . 2 commen-area cing at the tim s specified P earm was previously C Q~ tontoneCsoasR-40 Zone tta Zone Permit day of g...., 19..... 1) 7:32 p.m. Appl. No. 4099 - Application of CHARLINE jurisdiction). EDWARDS for a Variance to S) 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4136 - the Zoning Ordinance, Article Application for GEORGE BIT- XXIII, Section 100-239.A for I SAKIS ANDS approval of deck extension bet- I (Owners) for a Variance under 44- ween existing deck and stairs g rt7Cic e- XXIII, Section along the bluff of the Long ! 100-239.4A for permission to Sworn to before me this ~Liv ~,Y Island Sound. Location of Pro- construct addition and perty: 880 Salt Marsh lane, reconstruct existing dwelling q Peconic, NY; County Tax Map structure areas located within ....Q ~-1. ° ear 19 [ d-' Parcel No. 1000-68-3-8.2. The 1 100 feet of the L.I. Sound bluff size of this lot has a total area or bank. Location of Property: i conforming to the requirements 57065 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; for this R-40 Zone District. County Tax Map Parcel No. 2) 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 1000-044-2-1. This property is Application of 1 EPEN- area in this R-40 Zone District. y nonconformin as to total lot DENT GROUP HOME I:IK Notar Public ING PROGRAM, INC.6) 7:55p.m.Appl.No.4132-B' I( GHLP)appealingtheJune30, - Application of SPECTACLE BARBARA* A. SCHNEIDEff 1992 Notice of Disapproval RIDGE, INC. W include, as NOTARY PUBLIC,^St,te of Na'a York 46 issued by the building inspector, amended, a request for relief Po. ,oOC.', for relief under Article XXIII, Qualil;cd in Suliclle County Section 100-231(8) of the Zon- under 100-31A (1) ( Article III, and/or Section Section Comrutsu~; Cxires 8/3119y ing Ordinance for the placement 100-31C pertaining to accessory of fencing at more than the uses) to permit residential sion, as modified, plus second- 6-1/2 ft. height limitation (pro- second-floor use for family story overhang, all to he located posed height: 8 ft.). Location of member of a proposed accesory within 75 feet of the lower Property: 52550 Main Road, building, in conjunction with bulkhead along Great Peconic Southold, NY; County Tax Map the use of the proposed prin- Bay. Location of Property: 8380 Parcel No. 1000-61-3-1:•~~~'~ cipal single-family residence..) -Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, 4)1.!%p.nt:AI501 No. 4137- Location of Property: 14990 Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Application of JANE C. Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY; Parcel No. 1000-126-11-20. PEACE. appealing the October County Tax Map Parcel No. The Board of Appeals will at 19, 1992 Notice of Disapproval 1000-084-01-02. This property is said time and place hear any and issued by the building inspector, located in the "Agricultural- all persons or representatives for relief under Article IIIA, Conservation (A-C)" Zone desiring to be heard in the above Section 100-30A.3 for the place- District, and is presently before matters. Written comments may ment of a raised concrete patio the Southold Town Planning also be submitted prior to the extension with awning at a set- Board concerning a change of conclusion of the subject hear- back of less than the required 35 lot line and before the Farmland ing. Each hearing will not start feet from the front property line Development Rights on 17+- before the times designated along Reydon Drive. Location acres, leaving 2+- acres for one above. For more information, of Property: 40 Grove Drive at (1) principal dwelling use per please call 765-1809 or visit our Intersection with Reydon Drive, two acres of land area. office. Southold, Reydon Shores, Sec- 7) 8;00 p.m. Ref. File: No. Dated: October 26, 1992. tion H, Lot 23, 24 & 1/2 of 22; 4122-B. Application, of BY ORDER OF THE County Tax Map Parcel No. ROBERT H. and KATHRYN B. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD 1000-80-4-17.1. DEXTER under Article XXtlt, OF APPEALS 4) 7:42 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 Sectio 0-239.4B for a rehear- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - Application of TONY AND ing, or in the alternative, new By Linda Kowalski ' ~OuLAS cur a Application for a deck eaten- _ IX-10/29/92(251 a total lot area of 19,985 sq. ft. 3. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4109- (and the wester* of Sunset ~i and is located in the R-40 Zone 1 MARGARET LEAHY. This is Way) at Bayview, Southold,' District. Location of Property: J BOARD OF APPEALS an Appeal of the April 27, 1992 N.Y.; also known as Cedar 305 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Notice of Disapproval from the Beach Park, combined Lots No. N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel NOTICE OF HEARINGS Building Inspector, Article III- 158 and 159; County Tax Map No. 1000-35.4-5 (now 28.25); A, Section 100-30A.3 for per. Parcel ID No. 1000-91-1-5. also known as Lot 10, Map of NOTICE IS HEREBY GI V- mission to construct deck addi- 7. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4112- Fordham Acres, Section One. 11 . 8:25 p.m. Appl . No. 4098- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of tion to existing front porch with HENRY AND BETTY HINT- TONY AND MARIA The Town Law and the Code of an insufficient front yard set- ZE• A variance is requested the Town of Southold, the back. This parcel has a noncon- under Article XXIV, Section KOSTOULAS. (Hearing is following matters will be held forming lot area of 12,500 sq. ft. I 100-244B for permission to con- reopened and continued from for public hearings before the and is located in the R-40 Zone struct deck addition and with a the May 7, 1992 concerning an the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD District. Location of Property: setback at less than 75 feet from Appeal Zoning for a Ordinance, Variance to Article OF APPEALS at the Southold 1185 Wiggins Lane, East the existing bulkhead, and XXIII, Section lance, .4 for Article Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Marion, N.Y.; Cleaves Point, under Article III,, Section 100-33 Proval of deck extension (at or Thursday, New York 11971, on Section Three, Lot No. 79; for small accessory shed in the near ground level) and fence Count 'lhx Ma front yard. This parcel contains , June 4, 1992, com- Y P Parcel No. a total lot area of 14,500± sq. wit h an insufficient setback mencing at the times specified 1000-35-5-8. from the L.I. Sound bluff, line. ft. and is located in the R-80 below: 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4101- Location of Property: 103 JOHN ROWAN Zone District. Location of Pro. 1. 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4107- (Property now perty:'Righr-of--Way extending NY a Count~nue, EastM anion RENEE PELLETIER. This is or formerly of LUCIEN AR- off the easterly side of Pipes Y Tex Ma Parce an Appeal of the May 14, 1992 CAS). This is an appeal under Neck Road, Greenport, N.Y.; No. 1000-21-2-13. This propert Notice of Disapproval issued by Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 County Tax Map Parcel No. is nonconforming as to total to the Building Inspector for a for a deck addition with an in- 1000-53-1- 15. area in this R-40 Zone District. Variance to the Zoning Or. sufficient setback from the nor- 8. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4106- dinance, Article XXIV, Section therly property fine. This parcel LAWRENCE P. AND 12.8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3975- 100-244B for permission to con- has a nonconforming lot area of MARILYN HIGGINS. A ARTHUR G. CARLSON. struct a raised wooden walkway 33,637 sq. ft. in this R-40 Zone (Continued from March 25, Y variance is requested under At- 1992), This is an Appeal for an extending from the (easterly) District. Location of Property: ticle XXIII, Section 100-239.4 front door to the existing 435 Soundview Avenue Exten- Interpretation resulting from the 8 for permission to expand deck October 11, 1992 Notice of (southerly) side deck. The pro- sion, Southold, N.Y.; County by approximately 480 sq. ft., ex- Disapproval from the Building posed walkway is five feet in Tax Map Parcel No. Y tending the existing deck Inspector, as amended, under width, located with an k. This 51000-50-2 d p. seaward approximately 13 feet, Article 111, Section 100.31A(2) ent front rd setback. This . 7:50 p.m. App1. No. 4111- yard all of which will be located for approval of a wholesale parcel has a lot area of 13,634 JOHN G. AND MARIE within 75 feet of the existing shellfish distribution business sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 ELENA BRIM. Request to bulkhead. This parcel contains and declaring that the Zone District. Location of Pro- Amend Variance to locate ac- a lot area of approximately aquacultural use falls within the perty: 550 Fasbender Avenue, cessory tennis court Partly in the,rn 19,200 sq. ft. and is located in purview of the agricultural use I'econic; also referred to as com- front yard and side yard and I the R-40 Zone District. Location The subject parcel is located in bined Lots No. 1 to 5, inclusive, with an insufficient setback I of Property: 830 Lupton Road, the Agricultural-Conservation Map of Bailey Park filed from nearest wetlands, all as Mattituck, N.Y.; County Tax (A-C) Zone District and con- 9/26/32 as No. 1097. County shown on the Amended Plan Map Parcel No. 1000-115-I1-16. tains a total area of 40,000 sq. Tax Map Parcel ID No. prepared May 12, 1992 by 9. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4104 It. Location of Property: 1575 1000.67-6-4. Chandler, Palmer & King. The ANTONIO VANGL A var. Lower Road, Southold, N.Y.; 2. 7:35 p.m. APP1. No. 4108- provisions under which this County Tex Map Parcel No. Lance is requested under Article DANIEL AND PAMELA Amendment is requested are At. XXIV, Section 100-244 and Ar- 1000-69-5-13.2; also known as TUTHILL. Special Exception ticle III, Section 100.33, and Aro- ticle XXIII, Section 100-239.4A Lot No. 3 of the Minor Subdivi- to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti. ticle XXIII, Section 100-239.4. for permission to construct ad- sion of Judith T. Terry approv- cle III, Section 100-30B(16) for ! Location of Property: Norther- ed by the Southold Town Plan- permission to dwelling with a reduc- permission to establish a "Bed ly side of Private Road (exten. ed easterly side yard and within ning Board 10/1/79. - and Breakfast Use;' in conjunc- ding off East End Avenue), ~ 100 feet of the top of the L.I. tion with the single-family Fishers Island, N.Y. ; FIDCO Sound bluff. This Parcels con- The Board of Appeal will residency by the owner. This use Block 18, Combined Lots IA tains a total ara of 25,135± sq. said time and la at is to be accessory and subor- and IA having a total land area ft. and is located in the R-40 all p rehear any and dinate to the residen- of 3.56± acres in this R-120 persons or representatives principal Zone District. Location of Pro- desiring to be heard in the above tial use, is for the rental of note Zone District. perty: 645 Glen Court, Cut- matters. Written comments may more than three bedrooms, and 6. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4105- chogue, N.Y.; also referred to as also be submitted prior to the is for lodging and serving of JOHN J. FIORE. A variance is Lot No. 1, Map of Vista Bluff conclusion of the subject hear- breakfast to not more than five requested under Article III, Sec- filed on March 15, 1968 as Map ing• Each hearing will not start casual and transient roomers. tion 100-33 for permission to No. 5060; County Tex Map before the times designated This parcel contains a lot area locate accessory swimmingpool Designation: 1000-83-1-17. above. For more information, of 1.3876 acres in this R-40 Zone structure and fence enclosed in 10. 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4110 please call 765-1809. District. Location of Property; an area other than the required (filed May 19, 1992). THOMAS Dated: May 18, 1992. 32660 County Route 48 (and the rear yard. This parcel contains E. COFFIN. Variance to the BY ORDER OF THE westerly corner of Carroll an area of approximately 28,000 Zoning Ordinance, Article SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD Avenue), Peconic, N.Y.; County sq. ft. and is located in the R-80 XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for . I OF APPEALS Tax Map Parcel No. Zone district. Location of Pro- permission to construct addition GERARD P. GOEHRINGER 1000.743-11. perty: 3100 Cedar Beach Road within 75 feet of the existing CHAIRMAN bulkhead. This parcel contains ._By: Linda Kowalski % IX-5/28/92(81) C011N'IY 01=*POLK ss: • S f'A*1•1i 01= N ORK Patricia Wood,- being duly sworn, says that she is Editor, of -I'I-1E LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHM/ it public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk Cour and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed co Ims been published in said Long Island 'I'rrveleWatehr once each week for NYC successively, commencing on the clay 01 19 . ~L- Sworn to before me this . d ..........r11' 19 ~ : Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEID NOTARY PUBLIC, Slzte of Nc No. 43OG346 Qualilicd in Suflol'a L Commission Expires Q/_ I I i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. ? Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Additional time will, of course, be available. A drafted or final written copy of your presentation, if lengthy, is always appreciated. Please feel free to call our office prior to the hearing date if you have any questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosure APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. % P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1992 commencing at the times specified below: 1. 7:30 P.m. APP1. No. 4107 - RENEE PELLETIER. This is an Appeal of the May 14, 1992 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to construct a raised wooden walkway extending from the (easterly) front door to the existing (southerly) side deck. The proposed walkway is five feet in width, located with an insufficient front yard setback. This parcel has a lot area of 13,634 sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 550 Fasbender Avenue, Peconic; also referred to as combined Lots ##1 to 5, inclusive, Map of Bailey Park filed 9/26/32 as No. 1097. County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-67-6-4. Page 2 - Legal Noto • Hearings for June 4, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals 2. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4108 - DANIEL AND PAMELA TUTHILL. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B(16) for permission to establish a "Bed and Breakfast Use," in conjunction with the single-family residency by the owner. This use is to be accessory and subordinate to the principal residential use, is for the rental of not more than three bedrooms, and is for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than five casual and transient roomers. This parcel contains a lot area of 1.3876 acres in this R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 32660 County Route 48 (and the westerly corner of Carroll Avenue), Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-74-3-11. 3. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4109 - MARGARET LEAHY. This is an Appeal of the April 27, 1992 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, Article III-A, section 100-30A.3 for permission to construct deck addition to existing front porch with an insufficient front yard setback. This parcel has a nonconforming lot area of 12,500 sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 1185 Wiggins Lane, East Marion, NY; Cleaves Point, Section Three, Lot No. 79; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-8. 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4101 - JOHN ROWAN (Property now or formerly of LUCIEN ARCAS). This is an Appeal under Article Page 3 - Legal Noto • Hearings for June 4, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals II XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for a deck addition with an insufficient setback from the northerly property line. This parcel has a nonconforming lot area of 33,637 sq. ft. in this R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 435 Soundview Avenue Extension, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-50-2-16. 5. 7:50 P.m. APP1. No. 4111 - JOHN G. AND MARIE ELENA BRIM. Request to Amend Variance to locate accessory tennis court partly in the front yard and side yard and with an insufficient setback from nearest wetlands, all as shown on the Amended Plan prepared May 12, 1992 by chandler, Palmer & King. The provisions under which this Amendment is requested are Article III, Section 100-33, and Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4. Location of Property: Northerly Side of Private Road (extending off East End Avenue), Fishers Island, NY; FIDCO Block 18, Combined Lots lA and 1B, having a total land area of 3.56+- acres in this R-120 Zone District. 6. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4105 - JOHN J. FIORE. A variance is requested under Article III, Section 100-33 for permission to locate accessory swimmingpool structure and fence enclosed in an area other than the required rear yard. This parcel contains an area of approximately 28,000 sq. ft. and is located in the R-80 Zone District. Location of Property: 3100 Cedar Beach Road (and the westerly side of Sunset Way) at Bayview, Southold, NY; Page 4 - Legal Not* • Hearings for June 4, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals also known as Cedar Beach Park, combir ' Lots No. 158 and 159; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-91-1-3. 7. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4112 - HENRY AND BETTY HINTZE. A I variance is requested under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to construct deck addition and with a setback at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead, and under Article III, Section 100-33 for small accessory shed in the front yard. This parcel contains a total lot area of 14,500+- sq. ft. and is located in the R-80 Zone District. Location of Property: Right-of-Way extending off the easterly side of Pipes Neck Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-53-1-15. I 8. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4106 - LAWRENCE P. AND MARILYN HIGGINS. A variance is requested under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for permission to expand deck by approximately 480 sq. ft., extending the existing --ck seaward approximately 13 feet, all of which will be located within 75 feet of the existing bulkhead. This parcel contains a lot area of approximately 19,200 sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 830 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-11-16. 9. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4104 - ANTONIO VANGI. A variance is requested under Article XXIV, Section 100-244 and Article Page 5 - Legal Not* • Hearings for June 4, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals XXIII, Section 100-239.4A for permission to construct addition to dwelling with a reduced easterly side yard a within 100 feet of the top of the L.I. Sound bluff. This parcels contains a total lot area of 25,135+- sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 645 Glen Court, Cutchogue, NY; also referred to as Lot No. 1, Map of Vista Bluff filed on March 15, 1968 as Map No. 5060; County Tax Map Designation: 1000-83-1-17_ 10. 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4110 (filed May 19, 1992). THOMAS E. COFFIN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for permission to construct addition within 75 feet of the existing bulkhead. This parcel contains a total lot area of 19,985 sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 305 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-4-5 (now 28.25); also known as Lot 10, Map of Fordham Acres, Section One. 11. 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. (Hearing is reopened and continued from the May 7, 1992 concerning an Appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence with an insufficient setback from the L.I. Sound bluff line. Location of Property: 1035 Page 6 - Legal Not* . Hearings for June 4, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. 12. 8:30 P.M. Appl. No. 3975 - ARTHUR G. CARLSON. (Continued from March 25, 1992). This is an Appeal for an Interpretation resulting from the October 11, 1991 Notice of Disapproval from the-Bui1ri;n~ TnaDector, as; amended- dA- 7~,rt,cle-III-.-Sest1sn 100-31A(2) for approval of a wholesale shellfish distribution business and declaring that the aquacultural use falls within the purview of the agricultural use. The subject parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) Zone District and contains a total area of 40,000 sq. ft. Location of Property: 1575 Lower Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. I 1000-69-5-13.2; also known as Lot #3 of the Minor Subdivision of Judith T. Terry approved by the Southold Town Planning Board 10/1/79. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before the times designated above. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: May 18, 1992. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski I Pyge 1G • • Public Hearing Southold ZBA 5/7/92 Appeal # 4098 Applicant(s): Tony and Maria Kostoulas Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-21-2-13 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 p.m. and read the Notice of Hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated November 15, 1990, updated December 19, 1991 indicating an existing, partially ground level deck, thereby enclosing most of the rear yard area, landward, lip of the bluff, a wood deck, which is a landing, and then steps leading down to Long Island Sound. The nature of this application is the existing partially ground level deck and, I believe the elevated wood deck. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there any representa- tives for the Kostoulas's. MRS. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We are here and I also have pictures for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I forgot where your house was, I went to the wrong house. MRS. KOSTOULAS: Quite honestly, we were not aware we needed a variance for this. It is at ground level, we simply connected the two existing decks. It is probably about a total of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet. It is exists right now, as you can see from the pictures. We have two (2) very young children. We have a three (3) year old and a one (1) year old, so the main purpose of this was to keep them in the back yard. It is 40 mph zone in front of our house and it is very dangerous with the kids running out. I also have another picture to show you. Last year, we were here for a variance, there is a cement slab in the back of the house that we were not allowed to remove because it is on the back of the Sound. So it posed a danger for the children as well, so that was another reason that we chose to cover it with the wood planks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I think that at the time you came before us, you were expecting with that second child. MRS. KOSTOULAS: You are right, a.year-old now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There has been some discussion before the Town Trustees concerning this deck and its position in the new Coastal Zone Management Law. What has been going on with the Trustees over this deck, anything to your knowledge? MRS. KOSTOULAS: Nothing. i PqLge 11• • • Public Hearing Southold ZBA 5/7/92 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing. MRS. KOSTOULAS: I did speak myself to Mr. Bredmeyer and he said it was, no decision has been made. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is undecided. MRS. KOSTOULAS: At the time I spoke to him and that was, I would say a month ago, so nobody has told me anything otherwise. The only change was, that it was about ninety-five percent (95%) completed, with the exception of the cement slab and the Building Inspector told us to just finish it and make it safe because it was a libility at that point. The children could just fall on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have gotten a C.O. for the house? MRS. KOSTOULAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You just don't have the C.O. for this deck and that is basically.... MRS. KOSTOULAS: Right, but when I got the original C.O. it included the deck that went down to the water and that was part of the original C. 0. The only thing we don't have is that middle piece between the existing deck and the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, let us see what develops. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against this application? Bob? MEMBER VILLA: Well, the only thing that you can say about this, is that you would, if you were looking at it before it was done, it could be a disturbance to the bluff or to the land area. It is accomplished, it is done, so if you are going to dismantle it, you create another situation where you might be disturbing the bluff. It is almost better leaving it be. MRS. KOSTOULAS: If I could say something with my husband, we have done everything in our power, to obviously make it as safe for us as possible. We intend on living there for a long time. We planted two hundred (200) rose bushes to preserve the bluff. We've done, literally, everything we possibly could. We didn't make it an elevated deck for that reason, we just put it right on the ground. We tried to do as little as possible, just to cover it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to be honest with you. I was completely floored when I went there. I didn't realize that. There is no doubt in my mind, I'm sure that you probably didn't realize that you couldn't do what you did also. As I said, I I Page 13 • Public Hearing Southold ZBA 5/7/92 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't): went two (2) houses down and I said I think I am at the wrong house, and that is when I came two (2) houses back up again. Two (2) houses to the east I was. I really don't know how to answer this thing, except that we really should address the issue again with Mr. Bredmeyer and see if there is any change and that is what we will do. We will close the hearing tonight and if there is any reason that he wants to readdress any particular issue, or any member of the Town Trustees, we will reopen it, if not, we will do the best we can for you, that is all we can do. MRS. KOSTOULAS: We appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for coming in. Again, is there anybody else who would like to speak either pro or against this? Seeing no hands, I will make a motion closing the hearing, reserving the decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. All in favor - AYE. End of hearing. by 6Jt~~ tc C~c a E' ~i~, Lorraine A. Miller (Transcribed by tapes recorded 5/7/92) i i • Page 30 Public Hearing Southold ZBA 6/4/92 APPEAL # 4098 Applicant(s): Tony and Maria Kostoulas Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-21-2-13 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a hearing that was closed and concluded on May 7th. What we are doing at this point is very simply just reopening the hearing tonight, the sole purpose of the fact that we are requiring additional input from the Town Trustees regarding the Coastal Zone Management area, which for the people in the audience who would like to know, the Coastal Zone Management area, is an area that deal with now. We are doing that in concert with the Town Trustees. They have, actually pro forma jurisdiction. We still have overlapping jurisdiction on 239.4 of the Zoning Code and so, therefore, gentlemen I am requesting that we reopen this hearing, and that is what I am doing. Any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In disposing of this application at this point then, this is an act that we don't normally do. I will recess it to the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is June 30th, which hopefully by that time the Trustees will advise us in reference to the overall impact of this particular deck and as it pertains to the property on Aquaview Avenue. by Lorraine A. Miller (Transcribed by tape recorded 6/4192.) Page 6 Public Hearing Southold ZBA 6/30/92 APPEAL #4098 Applicant(s): Tony and Maria Kostoulas Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY County Tax Map No: 1000-21-2-13 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:40 p.m. and read the Legal Notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This has been an ongoing application with us, it concerns a deck or the actual using up of the majority of these peoples property in the rear of their house. Within the new coastal zone management area, the Trustees, basically, evaluation is what we are looking for here. And they haven't at this time, given us an approximate recommendation of what we are looking for in reference to a recommendation from them. So, therefore, I will propose to the Board that we further recess this hearing until the meeting in the end of August. Do we have a figure for that. We will readvertise it anyway. It will probably be approximately the 30th of August. So I will offer that gentlemen as a resolution. MEMBER DOYEN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no one in the audience that wanted to discuss Kostoulas is there? Okay. End of hearing. Lorraine A. Miller (Transcribed by tapes recorded 6/30/92) • CO(JN'I'Y OF SUFFOID S'I'A'I'I: OF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that slip is file NOTICE OF HEARINGS 100-82 (and Article XXIV, Sec- E(litor, of'I'I-IE I-ONG ISLAND TRAVELER•WA-I-CI-IMAN, NOTICE IS HEREBY tion 100-242A) for permission to a public newspaper printed at Southold In Suffolk County; GIVEN, pursuant to Section construct addition which will in- 267 of the Town Law and the crease the degree ofnonconfor- and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, Code of the Town of Southold, mance in the northerly side yard h.rs hCell published in Said I-Ong Island Tr;1VCICr-WaIC'Illll;ln the following matters will be setback. The setback from the held for ublic hearin s before northerl once each week for . . . . . weeks p g y property line is less the SOUTHOLD TOWN than the required 20 feet. Loca- BOARD OF APPEALS at the tion of Property: 41155 C.R. 48 SUCCCSSivcly, CoininenC'ing on llhe 3 D Southold Town Hall, 53095 (and the westerly side of Kenny's • • • • • • • • • . Main Road, Southold, New Road), Southold, NY; County York 11971, on THURSDAY, Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7- daynf April jQ MAY 7, 1992 commencing at the 33. This property is noncon- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • 1 times specified below: i forming as to total lot area in 1. 7:34 p.m. Appl. No. 4102- this Limited-Business (LB) Zone BERT AND ELEONORE I District. CAHILL. This is an Appeal of 4.7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4100- the April 22, 1992 Notice ofDis- THOMAS J. McCARTHY approval by the Building Inspec- (Contract Vendee) (Owners: for for a Variance to the Zoning, Frank Majeski and Others)a. S wnrn to b r.l a rc ntr ibis . Ordinance, Article III-A, Sec- This is an Appeal for a Variance day of tion 10030A.3 for permission to to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- construct deck addition with an cle ILIA, Section 100.30A.3 for April insufficient ) 9 9 2 front yard setback approval ofinsufficientlotarea, from the easterly property line width and depth of parcels pro- (along Cedar Lane, a private posed in this four-lot minor sub- road). Location of Property: 515 division, each with a preexisting East Gillette Drive, East dwelling. Location of Property:/ Marion; County 'Pax Map Dis- 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King K trict 1000, Section 38, Block 4, Street, New Suffolk, NY; Coun- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Lot 12; also referred to as Lot 69 ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117- Notary Public on the "Map of Marion 7-8. This property is zoned R-46. CHNEI~ER Manor" filed with the Suffolk 5. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4037- BARBARA A. SI SC County Clerk as Map No. 2038. METRO/808 REALTY CORP. NOTARY BARBARA No. PUBLIC, . Sl7te of 6 New York The subject premises is noncon- (Continued from the April 2, forming as to lot area in this 1992 hearing). Location of Pro- Qualilietl in Suffolk Cognty R-40 Zone District. perty: Corner of the Northerly Commission Expires OIjt~J2 2.7:37 p.m. Appl. No. 4098- Side of Main Road (Route 25) / TONY AND MARIA KOS- and the Westerly Side of Depot TOULAS. This is an Appeal for Lane, Cutchogue, Town op a Variance to the Zoning Ordif Southold; County Tax Map Par- nance, Article XXIII, Section cel No. 1000-102-5-26. - Map Parcel No. 1000-30-2-53:pl-' ° said time and place hear any and 100-239.4 for approval of deck 6. 8:05 p.m. AOol. No. 4080- 7. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4091- all persons or representatives de- exfbYision`(af or near'ground GEORGE AND SUE TSA- EUGENE M. LACOLLA. Vari- siring to be heard in the abovV level) and fence with an insuffi- VARiS. This is an Appeal for a ance to the Zoning Ordinance, matters. Written comments may cient setback from the L.I. Variance to the Zoning Ordi- Article III, Section 100-31 A & also be submitted prior to the Sound bluff line. Location of nance, Article XXIII, Section B, requesting permission to conclusion of the subject hear- Property: 1035 Aquaview Ave- 100-239.4 for approval of Iota- change use of a portion of the ing. Each hearing will not start nue, East Marion, NY; County tion of accessory satellite (an- subject premises, from residen- before the times designated Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2- term dish structure with a set- tial to non-residential. Location above. For more information, 13. This property is noncon- back at approximately 37 feet of Property: North Side of Main please call 765-1809. forming as to total lot area in from the bluff line. The require- Road (State Route 25), at Arsha- Dated: April 24, 1992. this R-40 Zone District. ment for all structure under Sec- momoque near Greenport, BY ORDER OF 3. 7.40 p.m. Appl. No. 4103- tion 100-239.4 is 100 feet from (abutting properties of Hollis- THE SOUTHOLD TOWN WARREN AND ELLEN the Long Island Sound bluff. ter's Restaurant, Mill Creek Li- BOARD OF APPEALS HUFE (FUTURE SCREW Location of Property: 2170 The quors, The Pottery Place, etc.); GERARD P. GOEHRINGER MACHINE PRODUCTS, Strand Way, East Marion, NY; CountyTax Map Parcel Nos. CHAIRMAN INC.). This is an Appeal for a Pebble Beach Farms Filed Map 1000-56-4-24 & 19. By Linda Kowalski Variance to the Zoning Ordi- No. 6266, Lot 111; County Tax The Board of Ammeals will at 1X, 4/30/92 (8) nance. Article VIII, Section - 5.7:55 m. AppL No. 403 7 - Y~ ?Y METR REALT CO RP. (Cantina the April 2, 1992 NOTIC OF HEARINGS hearing). Location of Property: Cor- STATE OF ORK) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, net of the Northerly Side of Main Pu t m Section 267 of the Town Road (Roue 25) and the Westerly SS: Law and the Code of the Town of Side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, COUNTY OF Southold, the following matters will Town of Southold; County Tu Map COUNTY n SUFFOLK) be held for public hearings before the Parcel No. 1000-102-5-26. of Mattituek, in SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF 6.8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4080 - APPEALS at the Southold Town GEORGE AND SUE TSAVARIS. said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, 'this is an Appeal for a Variance to IS Principal New York 11971, on THURSDAY, the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXHL Pal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a MAY 7, 1992 commencing at the Section 100-239.4 for approval of lo- Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in - times specified below: _ cation of accessory satellite (antenna) 1. 7:34 p.m. Appl. No. 4102 - dish structure with a setback at ap- the Town of Southold. County of Suffolk and ROBERT AND ELEONORE proximately 37 feet from the bluff State of New York, and that the Notice of which CAHILL This is an Appeal of the line. The requirement for all structure April 22, 1992 Notice of Disapproval under section IOp-239.4 is 100 feed the annexed is a printed copy, has been regular- by theBuilding Inspector fora Vari - from the Long Island Sound bluff. ante to the Zoning Ordinance, Article Location of Property: 2170 The ly Published in said Newspaper once each week III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for pemtis - Strand Way, East Marion, NY; Peb- sion to construct deck addition wi ble Beach Farms Filed Map No. for weeks successively, commencing on an insufficient front yard setback 6266, Lot 111; County Tax map Par - the day Of~ 19 from the casterly property line (along cel No. 1000-30-2-53. Cedar Lane, a private road). Location 7.815 p.m. Appl. No. 4091 - of Property: 515 East Gillette Drive, EUGENE M. LACOLI-A. Variance East Marion; County Tax Map Dix - to the Zoning Ordinance, Aside Ill. _~s/'/'?X~7\' trio 1000, Section 38, Block 4, Lot Section 100-31 A & B, requesting cq`-~ \ 12; also referred to as Lot 69 on the permission to flange use of a portion "Map of Marion Manor" filed with of the subject premises, from residen- Principal Clerk the Suffolk County Clerk as Map No. tial to non-residential. Location of 2038. The subject premises is non- Property: North Side of Main Road conforming as to lot area in this R40 (State Roue 25), at Arshamomoque Zone District. near Greenport, (abutting properties .5 2.7:37 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - of Hollister's Restaurant, Mill Creek Sworn to before me this TONY AND MARIA KOS- Liquors, The Pottery Place, etc.); d8 of TOULAS. This is an Appeal fora y I9 County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000- Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, 564-24 & 19y j ~,dp Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for The Boa; of Appeals will at said HEM G OEROINKA approval ef deck wrtension (at or near time and place hear any and all per- Navy Pubhe, state of Now Ywk ground level) and frnce with an in - sons or representatives desiring to be No.4528620 sufficient setback from the L. owflE in Suffolk Canty"~y-t hex; in the above maters. Written lion Gr~irea August 31, 1vLi7, Sound bluff line. Location of Prop- comments may also be submitted erty: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East prior to the conclusion of iv. su1 ject - Marion, NY; County Tex Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13. This property is hearing. Each hearing will not start nonconforming as to total lot area in before the limes designated above. this R40 Zone District. For more information, please call - 765-1809. 3. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4103 - Dated: April 24, 1992. WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD (FUTURE SCREW MACHINE TOWN HOARD OF APPEALS PRODUCTS, INC.). This is an Ap- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Peal for a Variance to the Zoning Or- CHAIRMAN dinance, Article VIII, Section 100.82 By Linda Kowalski (and Article XMV, Section 100- 7371-1TA30 242A) for Pconission to construct addition which win increase the de- gree of nonconformance in the northerly side yard setback. The set- / back from the northerly property line is less than the required 20 fees, Lo- r cation of Property: 41155 C.R. 48~ (and the westerly side of Kenny's Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-33. This Property is nonceoforming as to total lox area in this Limited-Business (LB) Zone DistricL 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl No. 4100 - THOMAS 1. McCARi4 (C ouact Vendee) (Owners: Frank Majeaki and Others ).'this is an Appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article MA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of parcels proposed in this four-lot minor subdivision, each with a preexisting dwelling. Lo- cation of Property: 1270 Founh Street and 305 King Street, New Suffolk. NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8. This property is . zoned R-0O. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. ' S ' Serge Doyen, Jr. .1,"' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box x 1179 James t A Villa Jr. Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS J TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Additional time will, of course, be available. A drafted or final written copy of your presentation, if lengthy, is always appreciated. Please feel free to call our office prior to the hearing date if you have any questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosure knA44--- . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles yen, i J ~ ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, r. . James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa y Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992 commencing at the times specified below: 1. 7:34 p.m. Appl. No. 4102 - ROBERT AND ELEONORE CAHILL. This is an Appeal of the April 22, 1992 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for permission to construct deck addition with an insufficient front yard setback from the easterly property line (along cedar Lane, a private road). Location of Property: 515 East Gillette Drive, East Marion; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 38, Block 4, Lot 12; also referred to as Lot 69 on the "Map of Marion Manor" filed with the Suffolk County Clerk as Map No. 2038. The subject premises is nonconforming as to lot area in this R-40 Zone District. Page 2 - Legal Noti . Hearings for May 7 992 Southold Town Board of Appeals 2. 7:37 p.m. Appl. No. 4098 - TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. This is an Appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence with an insufficent setback from the L.I. Sound bluff line. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 21-2-13. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. 3. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4103 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE (FUTURE SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC.). This is an Appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-82 (and Article XXIV, Section 100-242A) for permission to construct addition which will increase the degree of nonconformance in the northerly side yard setback. The setback from the northerly property line is less than the required 20 feet. Location of Property: 41155 C.R. 48 (and the westerly side of Kenny's Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-33. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this Limited-Business (LB) Zone District. 4. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4100 - THOMAS J. McCARTHY (Contract Vendee) {Owners: Frank Majeski and Others). This is an Appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of parcels proposed in this four-lot minor subdivision, each Page 3 - Legal Noti• • Hearings for May 7, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals with a preexisting dwelling. Location of Property: 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8. This property is zoned R-40. 5. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4037 - METRO/808 REALTY CORP. (Continued from the April 2, 1992 hearing). Location of Property: Corner of the Northerly Side of Main Road (Route 25) and the Westerly Side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, Town of Southold; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-5-26. 6. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4080 - GEORGE AND SUE TSAVARIS. This is an Appeal for a Variance to the zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of location of accessory satellite (antenna) dish structure with a setback at approximately 37 feet from the bluff line. The requirement for all structure under Section 100-239.4 is 100 feet from the Long Island Sound bluff. Location of Property: 2170 The Strand Way, East Marion, NY; Pebble Beach Farms Filed Map No. 6266, Lot 111; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-30-2-53. 7. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4091 - EUGENE M. LACOLLA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 A & B, requesting permission to change use of a portion of the subject premises, from residential to non-residential. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road (State Route 25), at Arshamomoque near Greenport, (abutting properties of Hollister's Page 4 - Legal Noti• Hearings for May 7, 1992 Southold Town Board of Appeals Restaurant, Mill Creek Liquors, The Pottery Place, etc.); County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-56-4-24 & 19. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before the times designated above. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: April 24, 1992. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski ---------------------------------------------------------------x Copies to the following on 4/27/92: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Cahill, 35 Greenwood Place, Valley Stream, NY 11581 Mr. and Mrs. Tony Kostoulas, 221 - 148th St., Whitestone, NY 11357 Mr. Robert T. Bayley, A.I.A., P.O. Box 595, East Marion 11939 Mr. and Mrs. Warren Hufe, 41155 Route 48, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Thomas J. McCarthy, Box 1266, Southold, NY 11971 Allen M. Smith, Esq., 737 Roanoke Avenue, Box 1240, Riverhead, NY 11901 (Attorney for Metro) Permit Research & Acquisition Co., Inc., 1108 Route 110, Farmingdale, NY 11735 Mr. and Mrs. George Tsavaris, 2170 The Strand, P.O. Box 345, East Marion 11939 Mr. and Mrs. Edward S. Kondak (as requested - oppos.) 2060 The Strand, East Marion 11939 Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., P.O. Box 1547, 180 Old Country Road, Riverhead, NY 11901 (Attorney for LaColla) L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. (fax transmission) Times-Review (fax transmission) Individual Files and Board Members Bulletin Board (in Lobby) Building Department Planning Board 0 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS % SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. ` Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa t Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 6, 1992 Mr. and Mrs. Tony Kostoulas 2-21 148th St. Whitestone, NY 11357 Re: Appl. No. 4098 - Variance for Deck Extension from North Side of Rouse to Platform along Bluff Area Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas: This letter will acknowledge receipt of the above variance application for deck areas extending from the north side of the house near the top of the bluff (which exists), The Board Members will be individually conducting field inspections and reviews as may be required concerning this project. Please be sure to submit two photographs of the subject deck areas from a side angle before or at the date of the public hearing. The public hearing is expected to be held during the evening of Thursday, May 7, 1992. A copy of the Legal Notice as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman and the Suffolk Times will be sent to you as confirmation (with the exact time) in approximately 10 days. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS O~OS~FFO(~ cOG SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor o Charles Grigonis, Jr. ca Z Serge Doyen, Jr. 0-0 • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Dinizio, Jr. . Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 2, 1992 S.E.Q.R.A. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 4098 Project/Applicants: Tony and Maria Kostoulas County Tax Map No. 1000-21-2-13 Location of Project: 1035 Aquaview Ave., East Marion, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct deck addition and fence within 100' of sound bluff This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Farm has been submitted; however, Section 617.13 of 6 NYCRR Part 616, and Section 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law, this variance application falls under the Type II classification as established by law. Further, this Department may not be an involved agency under SEQRA {Section 617.13(a) as amended February 14, 1990). Although this action is classified as Type II for this variance application under SEQRA {specifically 617.13, 616.3(j), and 617.2(jj)), this determination shall have no affect upon any other agency's interest or SEQRA determination as an involved agency. For further information, please contact the office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. Original posted on Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Hall Copies to applicant or his agent and individual board members. Copy placed in ZBA project file for record purposes.. me r~~ yrt~/:Y . , APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor :n4 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. U2 ` Y Serge Doyen, Jr Town Hall, 53095 Main Road . P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa y Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 2, 1992 R. A. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 4098 Project/Applicants: Tony and Maria Kostoulas County Tax Map No. 1000-21-2-13 Location of Project: 1035 Aquaview Ave., East Marion, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct deck addition and fence within 100' of sound bluff This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted; however, Section 617.13 of 6 NYCRR Part 616, and Section 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law, this variance application falls under the Type II classification as established by law. Further, this Department may not be an involved agency under SEQRA (Section 617.13(a) as amended February 14, 1990). Although this action is classified as Type II for this variance application under SEQRA {specifically 617.13, 616.3(j), and 617.2(jj)), this determination shall have no affect upon any other agency's interest or SEQRA determination as an involved agency. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. Original posted on Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Hall Copies to applicant or his agent and individual board members. Copy placed in ZBA project file for record purposes.. me oc~~EFOLK~O o~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITH T. TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: JUDITH.T. TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RE: ZONING APPEAL NO. 4098 TONY E MARIA KOSTOULAS DATED: MARCH 30, 1992 Transmitted is application for variance submitted by Tony E Maria Kostoulas, together with letter from Board of Appeals asking for notarization of Notice to Adjacent Property Owners; Notice to Adjacent Property Owner, Map of described property, Notice of Disapproval from Building Department, Questionnaire for filing with the ZBA application, and Short Environmental Assessment Form. . • • j/QyJ )Ys~Qe..c'.,~ it EC a IV TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOKE D APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTORMAR 3 0 IWAPPEAL NO. y0 / '-O P M1 / I 5outho~Town Go~ATE..d'. ...2........... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUaTHOLDA,` N. Y. 1, (We) 1.(!YI l~lClz l a v5 0 t-A of O~S y(c,u,AU;CaiAIP, C 1757 / SQL on) Name of Appellant Street and Number ` ~ Kra J&L ...............HEREBY APPEAL TO . Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO DATED 71 vI.9. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO L)O r Iv~Q)C a Gz UL/~ S L. Name of Applicant fo permit of l 21 ..........h!.. andN ~....i I Street umber Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE (A PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY e ®~U.~fU,Q~ e 7 ClrO{~ I 17~ 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ......~A .................................................1................................. Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section Block 2- Lot /3.Current Owner -roil L m-oft 1Q ~)STOv,A / Mop No. Lot No. Prior Owner y 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by umber. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article ti/',~ Section 10 d - 1~ 3. /TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropr' to box) q q ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map AitIC ( e D( ~1 aN SOD "ZJ / ~r ( ) 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 app aeen made with respect to this decision Athisprop~ of the Building Inspector or with respect to Such appeal was ( )!request for a special permit (t/) request for a variance and was mode in Appeal No..:/..oP.S ..................Dated .....ft.~~......,................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that Form ZBt (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL O :t V i a ` Utinued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sory HARDSHIP because aa•r?1 r,wod 'zlomlu+,e d P,c;7u-1/~~d~ Z a n cL PO r S a E K G( /C 0 it ~~~tNS J~ ~JNtiO( ~tiSf Lf w~ A4k;0 CC~0 i"I-),q f P i V 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by oil properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because ~L~>2 h0r~Cl T' [`U6(~r( ~ ),Lu H,~ C% cJ ~C tt'rt/r S ' vP c - 4 J i~Q C d 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because 4 ~ d" CL rt L /4 t t.~'e; SLc l~ C u rJC~ e, u STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss .........fSignoture COUNTY OF ) e q Sworn to this day of................... 19 . Notary Public JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public, State of New York No. 4852246, Suffolk COW* Term Expires June 12,1 _ .~-cv 6CY E ~ _ _ _ * MAR 3 0 ig2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Southold Town Clerk S~U~$ APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL N9. DATE .J~.. s. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ~j6iK rq ~~STad~~fS aa 'S a4V,t9 Krc~`l 1, (We) Jh.. of (.................l.r:............s~. Name of Appellont Stre and Number ( ......:...................HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO DATED S.Q.2............................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO 1. . . rC................................................. Nam of Applicant fo er it of / L.9 S/_ k" pS ~ Street and Number Munici Poliy State ( ) PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 4Ui 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY Q Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section Z ~ Block)- Lot /IS .._._..._..........._..Current Owner Oh t tila~ c~ v 5 J Map No. NO Prior Owner vG, uP 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by n mber. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article Section /OD - 2 39.7 A 3. !TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( V'1 A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appea (ha een mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( &J/request fora//variance / and was made in Appeal No..... ...............Doted ~yl ~~~...r........................................ REASON FOR APPEAL ( A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that Farm ZBt (Continue on other side) REASON FG1ft RPPEAL°iO~ r Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because ~c~,)C~ Cdvr C? C/f?~,.~ cJ,l"~1 Du,C ~~'~~7(~, S.Y, a~~ 1~7 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because 0 17 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because l~ l_ J e <7 N 4~' nG~ STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss . . COUNTY OF ) ignature Sworn to this 5 day of.................. 19 / W ?r Notary Public JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public, State of New York No. 4952248, Suffolk County Term Expires June 12, 194.3 i I BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN nF SOUTHOLD I In the Matter or the Petition of NOTICE TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: PROPERTY OWNER. t i YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN' NOTICE: iCa(aVariane it is th intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to reques c(Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) (circle choice) i 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is ties- cribed as follows: ' uy y. ae- 3. That the property which is he subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: i 00C-> G U ,C11 -Sec D2/- c 0 G~>~ 4 That bj such Petition, the undersigned will request the following elief: 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Ito e a p sign l' a~f to the relief sought by the under- 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 Travel er-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notice , that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated- ~?>l //X Petition r Owners' Nam'es'-. ov~nt 0,57711Q~ Post Office Add ess Gv~ Ss~fh-t' - Tel . No. r [Copy.of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] 1 PROOF OF MAILING nF NnTICE X=%cit CE3T:F1D `L4IL itEC i '^S NAM ADDRESS • o 61 ylewlsOd ~ shed 9 ~ sod 1tl101 C it e,PPV B'ele0 m ogA4IV ldieeeH wnletl P'.,Gp 01e0 p woVM of 0 p - ftM MS idieoey umletl ead A,.pa PBPPIeey eed Nenile0 IeioodS p D eed Pa4111e0 $ e6elsod d/( PlV - 0 dIZ 8 'MS' 04 1 N V 10-IS S , of wes I l . ,(asianad aag) peal leuoltewaiul io; asn iou OO Pap!nad 86EJOAOO aouemsul ON A0301:1 HOW P81111"O I 00L hE~6 56R d "ems 669 hE,o STATE OF NEW YORK 1 ss.: COUNTY OF A4ffetn cX..'E6AlI , 7A o-rr5 z.A s residing at J-A 146 6 I/? 7 being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of 19 1 -A- 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 he addresses of said p sons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Nati ks were maile at the Diced States Post Of- fce at SG(/7' 101-1 N ; that said No +ce were mail d t e ch of id pe ns by (certified) )registered) mail. Sworn to before me this day of iQ/JR ~4- 19 Y otary Public watr L f WOMfy ItMW atteuc, State of New yati No. 41-9406748 . Qualified in Queens County Go". filed in New fork Couynjtv~ Tam Enpim Sept. 30, 19 J•~ (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) -Rf"CEIVED MAR 3 0 02 v TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEA CAt0 elk DATE »3L TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. r -Tp , (i(QrC Q (/O STDUC i~S ~pu~lv;Pu~ r15/ et~ZYy 1, (We) /••.~1 ....................l`........................... of .............S ...:.:.1................................................ Name of Appellant Stre t and Number .......................ri................................... I................ HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipoli State APPLICATION THE ZONING FOR BOARD OF PERMIT NO . DATED THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING ~ INSPECTOR ON D WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ~~7J~.f/K,c1K r4....~57UUE/~S am'e/ of Applicant for permit of ....Sy Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE (~1 PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ....Q..S.........Q Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 2-I Block Z Lot(- »._...»._.........._..Current Owner Jh L rjt-ffar[ ra 40ST ele. Map No. Lot No. Prior Owner v Q~JP 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by~um~er. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article 2'5 Secti on /0 0 - 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) 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 mot been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( equest for a special permit ( ~ request for a ,,vaa~rionce and was made in Appeal No..........7..do 8............ Dated REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) r,I 'APO AL Continued REAS49iF'i OR 49 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because /4 ,J'7 &jo,l C CY L F ~tl C 7 1 Grp, A/e 5A/;6e, ~u /C 1/7 d 4i/1d C3Lj iG l? I' 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because C'CJoE'/c' lti 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because IiJL E1i7~~5 ? STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss ..........jJ9 COUNTY OF ) ture Sworn to this ........................doy of........................ 19 . No.tary Public JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public, State of New York No. 4952246, Suffolk Coury~, Term Expires June 12,19_7? ~v rrr~( ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman „f f .yc Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. x a Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. > i P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa `a r Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7LQa-Fe.t~ 3~3 0 March 27, 1992 Mr. & Mrs. Tony Kostoulas 2-21 148 Street Whitestone, NY 11357 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kostoulas: In reviewing your application for a variance, the enclosed Notice to Adjacent Property Owners is not notarized. Please notarize this notice and return it to us. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, LAM Lorraine A. Miller Enc. ( I I OARD OF aPPFAIS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of NOTICE ADJACENT 'o the Board of A eals of the Town of Snuthnld PROPERTY OS•1NER TO: YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That if is the, intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold t toreques a (Variance.~(Speciai 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 Is- cribed as follows: , 3. That the property which is-the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: /.CU Lvy i q That M such Petition. the undersigned will request the following relief: That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code arppiicabl~ to the relief sought by the under- signed are Art.cle~ sec---n 0 k, [ ] New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. Section 280-A. 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) 765-1609. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: Petitioner Ouners'Names: I OSiZLL Post Office Address r _ - Tel . No. [Copy. of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] PROOF OF "All IN(-, OF NnTl(-F ~~'i"lC;? l:z3T :.°~~J •":~Li. a: - ,.JAM AODRFSS i w a _ a a Z5 U o = 6 vO 1 i Q- u 4) O re W.2 0 mm - E s t6 'o ~ \ ~ ~ ~ OJvy m Er N N r~ Tl m =o¢ ,1' O O d N U m (1 V 2 0 N V~ q m m p~0 z~m o 0 0 < L. 9 of m a v m u ¢o c°~ E y a i3~ m owe a sob s m h a a v N 066L aunp 008£ WJOJ Sd 1 i r a Z at >a C3 dam b D h C3 L N rn~ s -e= V1 s m; O M ~ CO) -O U ~ N V ZaN a u A m o ao v en05 1~ m d g g Q a Q 8 Y i. b y y m m m E ~ F ~g in min n S v rn ¢o ~m 8 066L ounr '008£ Wjod Sd l STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) residing at 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 current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn to before me this day of -119 Notary Public (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) FORM NO. 3 • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date 3~? . To ~u{~ ~Ox Y l/ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated 19 for permit to Location of Property House No. G.'L~G..... !!C O........ Street ,/•f/amet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section a / Block .....:......Lot Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . ".It • ~,yA~`~~'° Q.......... ~-~~vn BuiXdin 2spector RV 1/80 141 W 171871-Test 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR q 2. PROJECT NAME A lL{2~a A 6)~~(/L 3. PROJE LOCATION: Municipality /f~lG? /z r 0/) County ~L /C a. PRECISE LOCATION (Ste address and roa int wtlo a, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: 7 ? New ? Expansion I{7 Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: ~~c?Fl nC7 cf (~L'A'i~~r/L L~ Y-1'.v/~ r%G7~~ ~?i ~c".f ) ~OVS~I /N'i~L~.I/l~ Gt~~O~~ Bst~~ c?%7 ~~?V' ~.f-Z'G/.G~~? 7. AMOUNT OF ND AFFE EO: Initially 01 5G Li 7 acres Ultimately acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ? Yea EKG, If No, describe briefly J~/7c.1~-t~ SCCE G ~d /4vl(~' 9. W'rH~A 4S PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? eCJ Residential ? Industrial 11 Commercial ? Agriculture C3 Park/ForestlOpen space ? Other Describe. 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAU? I ? Yea e N0 If yes, list agency(s) and permiVapprovals 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE AcTQ.14 HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ? Yes PN- If ye:, iist agcrcy name and permllapproval 12. AS A RESULT OFF PSOPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ? Yes &-N'. I CERTIF-/Y7TH T THE If ORMATI ) PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE /nq S /7 Z Apolicanusponsor name: L ~ > Date: 31f Signature: I IT, I It the actio~l i ttie Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal A ess~Tlent Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 (Continued on reverse side) The N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act requires submission of this form, and an environmental review will be made Ly this board . before any action is taken. SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any nificant and completed question Environmental answered Assessment Form pis 3necessary. sig- (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not significant. - (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically-alter more than 10 acres of land? _Yes -_NO 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form on the site? _Yes No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? _Yes No 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? _Yes No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? _Yes -No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? _Yes -No 8. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? _Yes -No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency? _Yes No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? -Yes -No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? _Yes No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, _ noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's operation? Yes -No 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes -No 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a ' Yes No character of the major negative effect on the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes No - Preparer's Signature: Representing: ZBA 9/45 Date: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached.) B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for - safe or being shown to prospective buyers? { } Yes } No. (If Yes, plPAq aftarh copy of "conditions" of sale.) C. Are there praposals to change m alter land contours? { } Yes { No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? N C 3. Is the property bulkheaded b1tween the wetlands area and the upland building area? r 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? ` E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed cruction at or below five feet above mean sea level? (If not applicable, state "N.A.") F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist an~ ~dare not shown an the survey map that you are submitting? iw~ - If none exist, please state "none." G. Do you have any constru ~on taking place at this time concerning your premises? If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? If yes, please explain where or submit copies of deeds. I. Please 1st present use or operations conducted at this parcel "_15ICIJq_kt+1 and proposed use X- , Au norized igna ure and Date 3/87, 10/901k • i § 97-13 WETLANDS § 97-13 TOWN - The Town of Southold. TRUSTEES - The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. [Added 6-5-84 by L.L. No. 6.19841 WETLANDS [Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2.1976:3-26- 85 by L L No. 6-1985k A. TIDAL WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with, or which border on, tidal waters, or lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean low tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of five (5) feet, including but not limited to banks. bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other low lying lands subject to tidal action: (2) All banks, bogs, meadows, flats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following salt hay, black grass, saltworts, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high bush, cattails, groundseL marshmallow and low march rardgrass.2mWor (3) All land immediately ndjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven- ty-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of such a tidal wetland. B. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: (1) "Freshwater wetlands" as defined in Article 24, Ti- tle 1, § 24-0107, Subdivisions 1(a) to 1(d) inclusive, of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York: and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a "freshwater wet- land," as defined in Subsection B(1) and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a "freshwater wetland." 9705 2.25-es i l I G: O U~~Y\ cl C V.T w Ur C'o (-6U `C_ O t - ~~hu,1\C~ c • ~`t.S t~ `Cs hsLC ~ [ c~ Jw ~ `1-11s.. C. c~'~'C S . \ w.~~.c\ mac` 1 t -r (1 v C\ C~ clc~,:tAv o-A c C~(L cYl a_~2r v\r \Jda.S~c~ \^L~.:i~ ~lUV:s cS1©S`z. •V ~~-11 ~C `Lr~~.~~ • ~ • ~ ~ ~s ~ca ~.~c1. ~ f ~ ..vs, c~~~sr~~.~ sue. cc~::~ ~~d 0-m c~ Ga, _ e 1 - al 1 0 s I 1 i y R-40 Ir, 'R 0 R-80 R-80 i ~ I dl I I p d I'-' r ~i I Y I RR ~1 3001 r -40 Fr Manan ~ ! i--t~d P.R „c LoMI R-40' Rwi •4 o, 0i- SOUTH LD, ` 'rte 1 .1 " P eP c~ `6rEU'~„`s ~y 6 so No ~ O % `off r." +P T/ 1 ~p4• +•i ' •5• ' I . ~v ~ LL~? •~ARp O ' ~StPPTW .~M°p M y jjY j eWa, W zee %i xo .w ' S~N{.PN o x rro o5 n o05. KEY m1p ` d a © COUNTY OF SUFF K SOUTHOLD ro.x ae %?rox Real Property Tax Agency • T Agency « c,.mr c 1000 - a., , rsn u,- ~ Min.h+%d, 1. L. N+. va.l Date Documents Accepted for Filing: 3/ 30 /9 Apl. Fee Required: $ 6-D , of Appl. No. Application Incomplete for the Following Reasons Date OK Application Form Not Signed or Notarized Notice of Disapproval not attached or in error / >.p-Notice to Adjacent Property Owners Form / - or Certified Mail Receipts not attached./ ilia-' /It G ~pZ one original survey is necessary Extra copies of survey map necessary Copy of Deed of Current Owner Necessary Environmental Assessment Short Form / / - Signed ZBA Questionnaire J / - If Applicant is a corporation, need - Disclosure Affidavit J / Other information is awaited: Site Plan Layout or other drawings J J Copy of Contract if Purchaser is applying / J Single & separate search / J -4- na~l3zati~ on of SEQRA by PB,( RRJ etc. / J Other Review by ZBA, i.e. / J / / _ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS o~OgUfFO(,~~oG SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. rn x Serge Doyen, Jr. `spy • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. ~0 a0 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa 1 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 XXIII Section 100-239.4 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article Section Special Permit Appeal No: 4098 Applicant: Tony and Maria Kostoulas Location of Affected Land: 1035 Aquaview Ave., East Marion, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 21-2-13 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line XX Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of an Airportapproval of Comments: Applicant is requesting ~SaKAt$ECS#FI7i.8S deck extension and fence with an insufficient setback from L.I. Sound bluff line. Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: OSUFFO(,~c APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Off' ~~j SCOTT L. HARRIS yJ2 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor o H • Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road O P.O. Box 1179 Robert t A Southold, New York 11971 Ri chard bert 1A1. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Teephone( lb) A-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Pursuant to Article X1V 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 Caamission: X Variance from the Zoning Code, Article XXIII Section 100-239.4 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article Section Special Permit Appeal No: 4098 Applicant: TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS Location of Affected Land: 1035 Aquaview Ave., East Marion, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000-21-2-13 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line X Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of an Airport Comments: Applicant is requesting permission.to extend deck (at or near ground level) and fence, as exists,.near the L.I. Sound bluff. Copies of town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: Nov. 10, 1992 TRUSTEES ~p SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President GSCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President o l 'c Henry P. Smith Town Hall John B. Tuthill 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson EO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 1j, /7 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES , G f I~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - YI OCT 2 2W October 22, 1992 ACTION OF THE SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES ADMINISTRATOR COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA Variance application of TONY KOSTOULAS SCTM #21-2-13 to construct a 670 square foot deck within the boundary hazard area. PERMIT HISTORY AND FINDING OF FACTS 1. On March 17, 1992 an approximate 670 square foot deck was noted near completion within the Structural Hazard Area at SCTM #21-2-13 without the required permit approval of the administrator. 2. An application was received for a variance pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act on March 25, 1992 in response to a notice of disapproval from the Building Department of March 2, 1992 and subsequently inspected by the Trustees on March 17, 1992. 3. The Southold Town Building Department allegedly permitted the deck construction to be completed so as to prevent a hazard to the Kostoulas children from trip hazards and the bluff precipice. 4. Pursuant to 37-6 the deck is wholly constructed on the bluff in that all construction is within 25' of the point of inflection. 5. The deck which is approx. 670 square feet is more than 25% greater in surface area than the house and existing deck which are approx. 1200 square feet and as such is defined as a major addition. 6. A variance is required pursuant to 37-17 A3 in that the addition is not the permitted minor addition allowed by Section 37-17 B. Additionally there are concerns that the structure contravenes the stated purpose of 37-17 A5 in that the activity r • • s may have resulted in unnecessary "soil disturbance that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face". 7. After the time of application, the applicant installed erosion control fabric and several tiers of low terracing beneath the deck areas without authorization from this office. 8. The bluff on site appeared to be free of active erosion at the time of inspections which were made on March 17 and May 21, 1992. 9. The bluff face was noted re-vegetated with ornamental/non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched in contrast to accepted soil stabilization practices for-bluff areas which should be heavily seeded with "known" erosion control species. 10. The deck in question and the pre-existing deck over the bluff cast shade over the point of inflection of the bluff. 11. The deck is not considered easily movable, although easily removed, and as such is at variance for Section 37-13 B: "the construction of non-movable structures on the placement of major-non-movable additions to an existing structure is prohibited" (in a structural hazard area) 12. The deck slopes toward the bluff and there is a serious question that rain run-off is not properly directed and collected for re-charge ahead of the bluff. 13. On July 30, 1992 an agency negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA was issued for this action which is considered an unlisted - uncoordinated action. 14. On September 17, 1992 a public hearing was held pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. 15. No one spoke against the application at the public hearing. DETERMINATION (conditioned approval) Whereas the deck in question could not readily occupy another site on the property. Whereas the deck in question does not reasonably mitigate the adverse impacts of run-off and shading in close proximity to the bluff face. Whereas the deck in question will not be reasonably safe from erosion damage. Whereas the variance requested is not the minimum necessary to properly protect the bluff from erosion and exacerbate the potential negative impact of the existing deck over the bluff. r Whereas the Board of Trustees is of the belief that the deck should not diminish the natural soil keeping features of the bluff to the extent that erosion control vegetation will not thrive. and Whereas the Trustees have considered that all the facts surrounding this application for a variance pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act the application is approved with the following conditions: 1. The deck constructed in March of 1992 and subject of this application shall be shortened 8 feet so that it is no closer than 10 feet to the point of inflection of the bluff thus permitting light penetration and vegetative stabilization of the bluff. 2. An alternative 4 feet shortening of the deck subject this application and removal of the entirety of the pre-existing 14' X 22' deck over the bluff-face shall be considered equally with condition number one above at the applicants choice. A maximum 8' X 8' landing would be permitted in lieu of the 14' X 22' deck. 3. The entirety of the bluff shall not be vegetated/re-vegetated or altered in any fashion except for the minimal disturbance needed for the removal noted above without the express written permission of the administrator. 4. Drywells shall be installed for the rear of the house. 5. A soil stabilization and planting plan approved by the Soil Conservation Service shall be submitted for the top most 20' of bluff adjacent to the removed deck prior to said deck removal. 6. An inspection of the deck removal, soil stabilization and drywell installation shall be called for prior to May 1993. In order to avoid the need to post a bond or consider legal action for the existing illegal construction, a notarized statement shall be submitted to the Trustees within one month of this approval indicating your concurrence with the provisions of this permit, your choice of #1 or 2 above and your agreement to abide by all of its terms. / c.c. Southold Town 2oning.Board of Appeals ~s Bill Southard, NYSDEC t 7r~ ~Y. IL: F_ ^zw. ICI' I PIrn7 - Itt I ~ i I I c w~ ~ I EYaST~r~~, I ~-t Fuu~v^T~ona~ ~ ~wSOOrE~S nI ~ ~ elf ~ id e e~ ey~~icn - ..r n .2 w ?~9k~?T f?'37'P'i5^'^' 1•~ I ' I. ~6 ~ S T21M _ _ I r - _ 1 _ - T !G i I - L-- - EAH5TING ~"I W11.1DOWS I-~- E.KIST,NG C.01kc vi 1= -'1 I NEW CON( RVE I FOUNDATIOµ F~uNAATO.1 --C7VACATION RESIDENCE S°A` DATE I (ON EXISTING FOUNDAT:ON) se;, Fc E. MARION, N.Y. IWlal FOR RANDANZZO BUILDING CO. f s.. ~Fill G A~R~C~HI T E C T S PLANNERS SHE e or PORT 1EffER50N STA. X5161331-8555 PRO Yj L MCYET OI F NII _ 24"DIA5C1cEEtax) . 5/4'7c 6 TYIM 1.DW£R 8 rYP ~ J CTS ET8 O.N.mp..I fWou' FWG BO {ot3~ FWG B7 74,6L I ~ I I _ I OJT TO 121412' WD 9CC.~ r4lS 111' FWG 80 X062 ~ FwG Q71 (adl -_.I ~ W}J STEPS TJGK~.UE ~W S[E PS TOC RK~E NEW cow- "EACONC. 1- Ems-rt 11G I NEW coNc- l FC„wCgTlOr1 _ I _ F0.>NOgT{OIS-l' _ _FOUNDKTW{( ~ `r~ ele~~-~ion 6~TTyR] LC LDERS As (t&Q, `yOOVS AYG ANCE.icy~ry PEv,zz"IE D ti~0. ~.tt4 GlA2iNG .ar.clNa:sa..tik5i _ i V J _ ~I e; -0 I v'-O ~ - I I - y i .H SE R I •:%ca ::.ES.ACC DEGKIr.:.~ 2 I :?LAY xx6 re < 2%6 C` w .il Ai I K q`-cn"6LG it ''I A 5 a'. rivlc~+~ j I - NI, I 6FD KM 2 1,4 z;a MSTiL rE^ RM- I! - I 91 I i I I I ~I L 0' 7toza 0 1 0 ; "p. I ~i ro a _ r~ . - n,, f" , Amy ~`--tMSTd C'ATFI CAI I 6K(;A2~ 2 Co l aaI 31 _ 9 n~<GSs ~ I w I-I 16w`.j I q•_sYi `i3'`J .a o S'/i I11 i JIj CL. i Ic oII I I III ~I' I I I I 5,`i' I$ 10'-c'i _-~,I°'h' '['•d'_3'i -_~__10.-4.,+_-=/s I ' OPENS ' ~ ' 6E C FM 3 bsa Ow ° I I aE0 P M 4 1311.cQ N II i II 'I o { VACATION RESIDENCE SCALE: AS SHOW , DATE HEVISIOR ~ (ON EXISTING FOUNDATION) E. MARION, N.Y. Jalws~oELr~c`^. FOR RANDANZZO BUILDING CO. ARCHITECTS PLANNERS SHEETq.OF f U L~LUMIND E.A('.y V s or _~.~.1.•~7ui 'izE.F cE TNT r.Jr, S q BIT H I s b ~I;S q I ~ x~11~~ s I ~ ~DINItilG ARkA ;n4~ 3 ~ a 1IV111G Rn/~, L411 5 Ir~FAfC.TN l r 1 III Z4•x 3b' P7.Ei•Ag 1111 r FIREVIACG w%7 V/ I EIF. a ~,u~y pN U11E I co i ~ / a) 1M3 FJ- I I A i Ii KITCHEt~I m ytv \ I II --t 0 17, 1 ovo! IT I C, .Ila Y m ~ WA4(E• ~i " ~+NE C'L 0 'W (D 1 OD I Y1 \ I f \ ~N1 VI ~ STACKED WPy{~ v L_ y ` 9 /DRYE;Z YEV- ~ ~I Q ! a I I I 4'(~ s1-cave [il vErdc ZZYE'l' - S~~Y -2- I aI LPl1LLDR'rr7 TO CxTtr,,O~, ('S1 l,c 8 ~ F'~U$N f 1 5 2.~ m 1~ /u/~' ~in I F ~1 I O I e. ocC I u0H I \ I V I ' ® b 9 l r -Y ! ~ I i 1 1 $4 D 10 -4•~1 S~~a TAO ~ ~ r ~ J~ ~ i I G ' 1 t ~ N d cjllr(5 . z c. ~ I raiz.6 L 8AT~1 3 N U~ \~~j vcxb CCLAK - - - - -I vccxl1 P°bT - r3ow OJTTO 1212 CEDAR ~2~~ W/5/4'K fo" - j' a. a a ~ ~-1 - - CT.i 2O FT(a 3oT/o GP 95 3054D 01 n - L, N.w I s L, - - ail --4 - - i - T7--- T t-L ) - -Fron-~ e eve.-lion R D qq VACATION RESIDENCE SCALE: A (ON EXISTING FOUNDATION) DATE A ? ~~4 E MARION, N.Y. ~lulao sw FOR RANDANZZO BUILDING CO. :,..'rf DFN 11 ARCHITECTS :PLANNERS,, ._s,9HE~T.j uN`~~'nN ~-Vaw ~ w' o.c. NI 2'' cvz ~yLT AND A'+H•+ALY _ 'o. . hw~NGiI.Fl~ 'f`!'P soli L.c. f!b GiuAU~ yj~ x 4 C7 3 U c. 3iE VIA 7+4o P S La~ sv c~ I vim- z . j04N 7. 2 xf. ~GOX Q~YWD,~ i 'fY?icJi~ ~ 7 -r-(e a NI 12WIN(l ~IUIN/q 'b es rxi z atic.,^ L 12 -I~1 !:Jc~-I, ~uvOPTCr-i IF -YViCIII~ '2) 2XG ~1,1~ :cALt'~•I - ~(hl~'t~l/ ~Pl~,t-BENT WO ~Nf IJlS~~n~ trot. cTl~ ~MUI,~I c~ -16 _ VACATION RESIDENCE SCALE: AS DATE gEVI, (ON EXISTING FOUNDATION! E. MARION, MY. V41il `_SUEDf FOR RANDANZZO BUILDING CO. 11 Mddc G@oL 9 ARCHITECTS PLANNERS SHEET 5OF PORT 1EffERSON ST A.151613314555 FRWECT0,.110 SUMMARY OF TOTAL THERMAL RATING If the Total Therael Rattnq ,a ter. (0) or greater, roooaea design r the ou,ld,ng • -alone cPa4P )It$ girth the E e-gY Coat. THE RMAL TABLE AREA U-VALUE RATING USED ' LXR 22 6 It;' 0 A. ROOF/CEILING 102.103 +1-E G_I^~f fe_1_ GL1=y5 Prat- hug - S. NET WALLS IS6S OT C. GLAZING zr:r- ',V- -T,r w: W,nao. 4110 ..sl +43 6=3 •q.1tA W1nPoe Skylights O1. FLOORS 107-0 .oT n_ (e-I O2. BASEMENT/CELLAR WALLS Wall Perimeter Feet Exposure Aeo.e Greoe Feet Well U-Value Death of Wall U-Value 611V' f•~1a1 --~/1~~7 GJL~(u,(r Belau Grade Inches "JA r2 X(/ C IU' O.6-141 03. SLAB INSULATION INeJk)L~'(V%N -rY~\G/~~ - SlaRPenmeter Feet Insult, on A-Value .JOI ~A7 'h y nI ~2~ lit" P7CL'(`l rJ1 ~,vASHG}7fi E. INFILTRATION CONTROL Conmt,onea Floor oor Aru - Sq. F0. - F. SOUTH FACING GLAZING South Glas./Total Glass Percent q Gt. Are.nW . Wall .ea - Percent /a a"C1N 2 MIN /]t[i y tone, t,ony M lour Aru = sg. Ft. N A _ AYp,/c INGiLlLQT10P{ f TOTAL THERMAL RATING+110 1 ANT N,lou 5 V a"~'~ -xY TR1M.A - 5/4.X6'DECKI.(G ~i16' T S!n ~I.Y,.VO. ~TEGO' L ERN. CND 80X C?Efvq W''r Ai TH7 U \ - ~~i x la" LAS- CroK 'I > 4~alau,ERS , W/NASeuERS Ira..T lf(/h m~~ \ AwMEtASR+IUG I O.G.STAGGFRET ¢l ':.w a iv'o.o. 'NI!2` 6i1w A oU i~L" rO.A a•, ,~o. hnf~ Z-MO~ INCX~'f. Lt1 woev DiIZ'+ h ' 19 uF . Fci.-r -TYP . ~GN G, JYTi (C V- 4x4Rnr I (aLU~ = vnltiv 1'r0u.ni„ i i ' 1~PovI1~E !.~aN (212xCe hIL.L I i A,>3. t~ 8, o" a c, T~7. FOtIN-)t-I( t,3 -r0 oe~-t nJ - cN a VJCG" G4•E~ FCG" INCi MINUMUM ALliM PNJ FLAWIUG ~ _ "l FLA~yaIaAG t10OK DAly~ - ~ , 5t)llb iik.A GK FILLER ~'i JJ I ;I iV L'61) 2XIAU L3M0K ~S IMPSOh1'1.u54G W H N•1GER. IP= I I Lti ' DECK DETAIL scAL¢• 5,V sl-o _ -«~riw:n. x <'M s..: e:.... .:~"'R Y -...w.-wnw..+i.+.a~:iL~.~ ~+WWS+n ..c 9•a ~„a.~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS o~~S~FFO(~-cG SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Serge Doyen, Jr. W Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 15 P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. ~ p, Southold, New York 11971 Ri c'ha dt c~. VWi 1 ton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Adninistrative Code, The Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: x_ Variance from the Zoning Code, Article XXIII Section 100-239.4 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article Section Special Permit Appeal No: 4098 Applicant: TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS Location of Affected Land: 1035 Aquaview Ave., East Marion, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 21-2-13 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line X_ Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of an Airport Comments: Applicant is requesting pL6f63A)NXIV approval of deck extension (at or neat ground level) and fence, as exists, near the L.I. Sound bluff. (Property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District.) Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: December 1992