Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3963 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3963: Application for FRANK CURRAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A.4 (100-33) and Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory building in an area other than the required rear yard and with a setback of less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 780 Ha~waters Road, (Peconic Bay Properties subdivision), Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 111, Block 1, Lot 016. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 26, 1990 under Appeal No. 3963; 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 W~EREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, the surrounding areas; and and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is known and referred to as 780 Haywaters Road, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, is identified as part of Lot #45, part of #27 and Lot #26, on he Map of "Peconic Bay Properties" at Fishermen's Beach, and is more particularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 111, Block 1, Lot 16. 2. The entire premises has frontage along the north side of Haywaters Road of 120+- feet in length and varied depths of 128 feet and 100 feet. The subject premises is presently improved with a single-family dwelling structure as more particularly shown on the July 19, 1990 sketch submitted for consideration. Page 2 - Appl. No. 3963 Matter of FRANK CURRAN Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 3. By this application, appellant requests variances for permission to locate a new 20 ft. by 30 ft. accessory garage/structure in the easterly side yad area with a setback of three feet from the easterly property line and 8-1/2 feet from the closest setback from the outer edge of the bulkhead along Ha~waters Cove. 4. Although the amount of relief requested by this application is substantial in relation to the requirement, the setbacks requested are not out of character with those generally existing in the immediate neighborhood and with those setbacks of the existing dwelling on this parcel. The accessory garage structure will not be closer to the bulkhead than the dwelling structure and will not be closer than 75 feet to the front property line along Haywaters Road. 5. For the record it is noted that a Waiver Permit has been issued by the Southold Town Trustees on September 27, 1990. 6. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the nonconformities of the land and building in question lend to the practical difficulties; (b) the difficulties cannot be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (c) the location of the dwelling as requested will not change the essential character of this residential community; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the tow~, and will be within the limitations set for lot coverage at less than the 20 percent of the total lot area; (e) in carefully considering the entire record and all the above factors, as well as viewing the general character of the neighborhood, it is within the best interests of justice to grant the variance, as applied and further noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3963 in the Matter of FRANK CUI{RAN for the location of a 20 ft. by 30 ft. accessory garage structure with reduced setbacks Page 3 - Appl. No. 3963 Matter of FRANK CURRAN Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 from the existing bulkhead at 8-1/2+- feet and at not less than three feet from the easterly side property line, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That there be no disturbance of the land between the garage structure and the existing bulkhead (and no disturbance to any bulkhead tie backs). 2. That leaching basins and gutters with down-spouts to properly retain run-off on site be placed where necessary. 3. That the garage have overhead or pull-out doors at a height of approximately seven feet (and not less than six feet in height) on the northerly side facing Ha~waters Cove and on the southerly (front) section facing Haywaters Road for ingress and egress. 4. That the height of the garage to the top of the ridge not exceed 20 feet; 5. That the accessory building be used only for garage or storage purposes, as applied, with no utilities except electrical utilities. 6. That the relief granted hereunder will supersede that relief granted under Appeal No. 3768 for a pool with deck and fence enclosure, which is now withdrawn from the record. Any proposed for construction other than as applied herein will require a separate variance application for consideration. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, and Dinizio. This resolution was unanimously adopted. lk RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Clerk, Town of Southotd GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,//CHAIRMAN Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT K tIARRlS Supen'isor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HERRRY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be hell.the SOuTnuhDTOWNBOA~ OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1990, at the following times: .7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3961 - VENETIA MCKEIGHAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as (gazebo) in an area other than the required rear yard. Property location: 495 Bayview Avenue, Bouthold, 19~; County Tax Map No. 1000. Section 052, Block 05, Lot 23. Page 2 - Notice of Hearfngs Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 26, 1990 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3962 - HAROLD GORDON. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as existing residence. Proposed construction will have insufficient side yard setback(s). Property Location: 124 Hickory Avenue, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 78, Block 7, Lot 50. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3966 - PETER BLOOM. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufffcient side yard s~.t~.acks. Property location: 40 Old Shipyard Lane amd 580 L']~,=,=~]ieu, Southold; Cq.;~t'~ax,Ma.p No. 1000. Sect.~.o~. 64, Block 2, Lot 53. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3964 - KENNETH MINNICK. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 B(14), as disapproved, for permission to establish accessory apartment in proposed addition to existing one-family dwelling structure. Property location: 3305 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 124, Block 1, lot 3.2. Page 3 - Notic~ of Bearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 26, 1990 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3967 - KIM CAMPBELL. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved, than the required rear yard area. Property Location: East End Road, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 004, Block 004, Lot 016. /Z7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3963 - FRANK CUBRAN. Variance to the _ ning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33) and Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory building in an area other than the required rear yard area and with a setback of less than 75 ft. from.~e bulkhead. Property Location: 780 Haywaters  Hoad, (~onic Bay Properties S.u~l%..'vision), Cut~hogue, ~ount~ Tax Map No. 1000, Section 111, Block 1, Lot 16. 8~00 p.m. Appl. No. 3960 - THOMAS & ALLISON SARGENT. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, for approval of insufficient area, width'and depth of parcels, each with an existing single-family dwelling, in this pending division or reseparation of merged properties, and for Page 4 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 26, 1990 approval of reduced yard setbacks between existing structures lots will have insufficient width, depth and total lot area for this district. Property Location: Private Road of Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 06, Block 06, Lot 07. 8:05 p.m. Matters of J~S, PET~ & ~IS ~S~S. Appeals No. 3951 and 3957 - Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30 A.3, Article ~III, Section 100-239.4 (100-239d), and Article III, Section 100-31A, for proposed deck construction which re~ires approval as to insufficien~.'~ideyards, excessive lot coverage, and reduced se~ack f~ ~e m~-~ r~re~r~ ~e or~ ~g~ater mark of Long Island Sound, and for approval of this s~standard merged). Property Location: 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 106, Block 1, Lot 36 and Lot 37. Page 5 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 26, 1990 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3955 - DOMINICK SBLENDIDO & A. · /~T~O. Va~-~h~ ~-{~Or~-c~, ATt/=I~XJ_I A, Sections 100-30A.2 (100-31A) and 100-30 A.3, Article XXIII, Section 100-230 (A), for interpretation regarding second kitchen and for permit concerning addition to the existing one-family dwelling for use as a second dwelling unit. 185 Inlet ~.ane, Greenport, County Tax Map No. Block 004, Lot 37. Property Location: 1000, Section 43, 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3938 - VILLAGE MARINE. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-112, Article XII, Section 10071%1C(1), Article XXIII, Section 239.4, and Article XIX, for permission to construct ~ddition to existing principal building with insufficient setbacks from the bulkhead, the northerly (side) setback, and to locate boat storage structure [boat rack) with insufficient setbacks from the northerly (side), westerly, easterly property lines, and bulkhead. Also requested is relief, as may be deemed necessary concerning parking and/or landscaping under the current revisions of the site plan regulations. Zone District: Marine I (M-I). Property location: James Creek, east side of Bay Avenue, Page 6 - Not/ce of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of September 26, 1990 ~at~k/~,-~, ~; ~uunt-f~ax~a~D/~i=tlDO0, S~=~/un/22, Bluck 3, Lot 15.1 The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time allotted. Additional time for your presentation will be available, if needed. information, please call 765-1809. iI ~ 1 ~)ated: September 6, 1990. For more ORDER :OF T~E SOUTHOLD TO%;N BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIR55~N By Linda Kowalski FORM NO. :3 TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTtIOLD. N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date Y'.//"~ ~ · - ' ~ , ' · '/ .....,'... ..... ~ .......... , 1~' .,C.... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your a~lication dated ~ ~ ~ , ...... ..:.~ .......... . ..... ,~9~... for pe~it to ffW~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ' . ~' ~ ~ /~ ..... noose ~o. ~ st/ed ................ County Ta~ M~p So. ~000 S¢~tio../~/ ........ mo~ / Lot Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No ...... ~ ..... is returned)~e~ewith and disapproved on the following grounds ~$:... (~,~ .~ .... . .-~ ............ .~ ...... ~ .. ..... ~ ............. j.. .~.~ .... ........ ,?..., ~. ~cc~A ~...~.-,. ~:,~....~-~.~.~ ~. ,. _ :,, .,~ ........... . .~ .... ~ ....... ~.. B~idi~spector ''' 1/80 RICIIVID TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APP,~Lri~/I~ZISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR NING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y, (We) ......... Name of Appellant I1'~ C , Street and Number .................................... .~...-~...~...~..('...C~... ........................................ .~.....?.. ......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ....... .... Name of Applicant for permit ..... ....... ...... ........... Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ]. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~.~....l~.....J~'~2~J.~...~...~.~....~..~.....:.....~...~..~.. ~..~/.~...~I'~-J'L'~ S~,~et /Hamlet / Use District on'Zoning Map District 1000 Section Block Lot C trent .................................................................................. u Owner Mop No. LC~O'- Iii = OJ Dig Lot No. Prior Owner 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- sect.on and./.~.Paragraph of the. Zo~n.g~O~rdinonCe/o - c~,~r ( IC~ -:~ ~,}bY numbqr. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article ~ Section loo. ~, 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 Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~'~(has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building inspector or with respect {o this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit (~ request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ..... ..~....~...~.-..~.. ......... Dated OC.~'-~)~D-~-~J~ ~i~:) ,,. /~/~8' ( ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that l%rrn ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 0 ~ ~/! ! ~ ~ I I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical cl~l~o~neces- 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 , 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD. NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) Sworn to this ~ ~; ~ day of.....~.~..~ 19~---cZ Notary Public HELENE O. HOI~E Ouelfflod Iff 364 T-OWN OF SOUTHOLD I~OPERTY, RECORD-CARD OWN ER FORMER OWNER RES. ,~/~ SEAS. LAND .I / ~ .~ // ~ STREET aa AGE NEW Tillable 1 Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland Brushland I- House PIo~ Total N S VL. FARM IMP. TOTAL DATE IG BELOW VI LLAGE .. W DI~ICT I SUB. q'%'~oACREAGE ;:^~ ,, . TYPE OF BUILDING ABOVE V-l ~oo~, co~4m, Extensie'ri Exten~i~/~ Porch D~,o ~z ×v3. -'- lC. 8 ,lo 17' Deck Foundation Basement Ext. Walls Fire Place Pool Patio Driveway Bath Floors Interior F in isl' Heat Attic Rooms 1st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor B reezewa Garage ~CLBo APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 December 20, 1990 Mr. Peter R. Stoutenburgh, President Environment East, Inc. 3075 Indian Neck Lane, RR #3 Peconic, NY 11958 Re: Appl. No. 3963 - Frank Curran Parcel ID #1000-111-1-16 Dear Mr. Stoutenburgh: We are in receipt of your letter with sketch and photographs in which a definition of Condition No. 5 concerning placement of utilities in the subject accessory garage structure. It is our understanding that the property owner would like to remove the systems which are presently stored in the dwelling basement area and to store the water/purification systems and oil-fired heating systems in this garage for use and operation only in and to the existing dwelling structure (and not for sleeping or habitable use in the subject garage). The Board of Appeals has no objection to the placement~ installation and operation of the above systems provided that these systems be used only for the residence, and that the garage structure be used only for storage purposes, without any other plurabing facilities (such as bathroom and/or sink connections) in the garage. We are simultaneously herewith furnishing the Building Department with a copy of this letter for their permit file and future reference in this project as may be needed. Yours very truly, lk cc: Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Environment East, Inc. R. R. No. 3 - 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, New York 11958 516-734-7474 December 19, 1990 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Rcad $outhold, ~Y 1].971 of Appeals Dear President and Board Hembers, in regards to Appeal # 3963, dated 10/24/90 we are looking for a definition for item # 5 on the garage/storage building before we p~oceed with this project. The utilities in question, we assume, refer to the building itself and making it a habitable structure. The Currans,m of course, have no plans of using it in that fashion. However, they would like to store and house complex water and purification systems, as well as, the oil fired heating systems for the existing house in part of the new structure. At present, as you can see in the enclosed pictures, all utilities for the house are located below the floor of the house ~n~ in a now inadequate and dangerous utility room. During Hurricane Gloria all this eguipment was flood~d. Because of exhaust and noise levels the idea of raising them above floor could never be done, hence the plan to relocate them. New technology for hot water exchange has now made this possible. If there ar~any q~u stions, please don't hesitate to call or stop down. ~ Sincerely, ~¢/~4 Peter R. S~ ]tenburch ~re~id~nt/- ~nvlron~nt East, Inc. ncl. // Page 8 ~ December 15, 1990 Z.B. use is reasonable. If it is, the zoning authority is free to rezone within the con- stitutional limits of the court ruling and without impeding the landowner. The court agreed with Guy that the Schwartz decision should apply retro- actively to this case. It reversed the trial court's order for a one acre minimum requirement because this violated the doctrine of separation of powers. In another sense, though, winning the retroactivity question was not the best outcome for Guy. The court found his proposed use of half acre lots unrea- sonable, since it would add so many more mobile homes that the versatility of residential dwellings in the town would be disrupted. The town already had 917 mobile home sites, about 20 percent of total resi- dential housing. This belied the developer's argument that the town effectively placed a total prohibition on mobile home development. A statute bars zoning decisions that totally prohibit a legal land use for which there is an appropriate location. But it does not apply when the proposed use already exists within town boundaries. Because the appeals court upheld the decision to invalidate the old require- ment as unconstitutional, the town may not impose any acreage requirements of two-and-a-half acres or more. Within those limits, it is free to set a new minimum acreage. Schwartz v. Flint, 395 N.W. 2d 678 (1986). Special Exception - Residential Area - Professional Offices Rejected - Too Little Parking ME Tompkins v. City of Presque Isle, 571 A.2d 235 (1990) Tompkins owned a two-story house with an attached barn in an urban resi- dence zone of the city of Presque Isle, Maine. This type of zone allowed for professional offiees. Tompkins applied to the city Zoning Appeals Board for a special exception allowing such a use on the building's first floor. The board held a hearing on the request, but rejected it for three reasons. First, the use of the property would have a significant detrimental effect in the immediate neighborhood from noise, fumes and dust. Second, the use would cause regular on-street parking. Third, the use would have a detrimental effect on property values. Tompkins sued the city. At trial, the court reversed, finding that the board did not base its decision on substantial evidence. The city appealed. DECISION: Judgment vacated. Based on the evidence before it, the board could have reasonably ruled that the proposed use of the premises and the number and location of parking spaces did not satisfy the city's zoning ordinance. Therefore, the trial court erred when it ruled that the board was compelled to find that Tompkins's use of the prop- erty would not have caused significant on-street parking. Standish Telephone v. Saco River Telephone & Telegraph Company, 555 A.2d 4.78 (1989). Zoning Bulletin in this issue: & · Variance - Substandard Lots - Invalid Denial for Traffic Impact ...................................... page 2 · Manufacturing Variance - Failure to Construct in One Year - Lapse ................................. page 2 · Nonconforming Use - Beach Concerts - No Limit on Concerts Allowed ............................. page 3 · Nonconforming Use - Construction Company - Special Permit Revoked .............................. page 3 · Transitional Housing - Six Person Limit in Battered Women's Shelter May be Unconstitutional ........ page 4 · Residential Development - Moratorium - Deemed Approval .................................... page 5 · House Rented by College Students - Equivalent of "Family" . .................................. page 6 · Mobile Home Park - Minimum Acreage Requirement is Unconstitutional .............................. page 7 · Special Exception - Residential Area - Professional Of- rices Rejected - Too Little Parking ............... page 8 Publishing Editor: E. Michael Quinlan, Esq. Managing Editor: Kevin P. Jones Contributing Editors: Bernadette C. Murphy, John Patrone, Marc Pembroke This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subjsct matter covered, It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is oot engaged in mnpering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional lemon should be sought -~t Published by OuinlanZoning Bulletin ISSN 0514-7905 ma, ...... 23 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387 Copyright © 1990 Z.B. December 15, 1990 - Page 7 Page 2 - December 15~ 1990 Z.B. Valance - Substandard Lots - Invalid Denial for Traffic Impact MA Colangelo v. Board of Appeals, 552 N.E.2d 541 (1990) Colangelo owned two adjacent parcels in a commercial area of Lexington, Mass. The two lots together did not meet the town's three-acre minimum area lot requirement for commercial development. Colangelo therefore applied for a variance or an exemption fmm the ordi- nance's minimum standards. He also applied for special permit to construct a 24,000 square foot building. The town board of appeals held a hearing and denied both the variance and the exemption requests, ruling that the traffic impact of the building proposal was too great f~r the area. It did not review the special permit application. Colangelo then obtained a court order requiring the board to consider the variance and exemption request without considering the specific use of the prop- erty. The board held another hearing, but again denied the requests. Colangelo sued. At trial, the court granted him a variance and an exemp- tion. The court also invalidated the town's three-acre lot minimum size as it applied to Colangelo's land and nullified the special permit requirements of the zoning ordinance. The town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part. The board denied Colangelo the variance based on the possible traffic impact. The evidence indicated that the office building would add only 296 vehicles to the area. Both before and after it considered the Colangelo requests, however, the board approved two other applications which together added 2,415 vehicles to the traffic flow in the area. The evidence also sbov~d that the traffic impact was not related to the size of the development. Such inconsistent and arbitrary acts by the board demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The trial court's decision is affirmed. Humble Oil & Refinery Company v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 360 Mass. 604 (1971). Manufacturing Variance - Failure to Construct in One Year - Lapse Kolt v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 553 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1990) Kolt received a variance in July 1983 from the city of Newburgh, N.Y. Zoning Board of Appeals which allowed him to use his property for manufacturing. The city zoning ordinance declared variances null and void if work was not started and performed diligently within one year of the variance grant. In 1988, the board held a hearing on whether the variance had lapsed because of disuse. The board found the variance had lapsed. Kolt sued the board. At trial, the court dismissed the case. Kolt appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. There was substantial evidence that Kolt's variance had lapsed. Kolt did not begin manufacturing in one year. A resident testified that there was no the Municipal Land Use Law and the state constitution since it regulated a class of people rather than a property use. The borough conceded the ordinance was intended to prevent unrelated college students from living together in residential districts. DECISION: For the owners. College life does not usually lead to stable households. This situation, how- ever, appears unusual. The ten students shared one kitchen, ate meals and cooked together, and shared household chores. They also had a common checking account to pay bills. And although the lease terms were short, they intended to stay until they left the college. There is every indication the occupancy was stable, permanent, and fulfilled the ordinance's requirement that it be the "func- tional equivalent" of a family. This standard can be met by related or unrelated persons. Courts have generally held that it is not the place of zoning regulations to enforce problems like disruptive behavior. Berger v. State, 364 A.2d 993. Mobile Home Park - Minimum Acreage Requirement is Unconstitutional MI Guy v. Brandon Township, 450 N.W. 2d 279 (1989) Guy wanted to develop a mobile home park in Brandon, Mich. However, a town zoning ordinance required lots to be a minimum of two-and-a-half acres. The proposed park would be subdivided into half acre lots. Guy sued the town, claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional. He said residential development was economically feasible only if the density require- ment were reduced. The trial court invalidated the ordinance as an unconstitu- tional taking, and ordered a "compromise" rezoning requirement of one acre lots. Both Guy and the town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part. An unconstitutional taking occurs when an ordinance precludes any rea- sonable use of a property, thereby decreasing the property's value. Since the land apparently cannot be used for agriculture or any other permitted use, the ordinance amounted to a confiscation. The town claimed it was the developer's fault the land was unsuitable for agricultural use, and that this self-created hard- ship prevented Guy from seeking rezoning. Evidence doesn't support this argu- ment. There is no indication that minor changes like Guy's removal of some topsoil and gravel made the land unfit for farming. Guy is entitled to damages, which should be determined in court. While this case was pending, another court held in Schwartz v. Flint that zoning should be free from judicial intrusion. It introduced the "specific rea- sonable use" role. Under this role, once a court has declared a zoning ordinance unconstitutional and invalid, it must decide whether the landowner's proposed Page 6 - December 15, 1990 DECISION: Reversed. California's Permit Streamlining Act of 1977 requires public agencies to approve or disapprove a development project requiring an EIR within one year. In the event that the agency fails to act within the one year time frame, the act, as it read when Selinger submitted his application, provided that the pro- ject shall be deemed approved. On the other hand, a section of the government code, enacted in 1965, allows a city to impose a development moratorium up to a total of two years as an emergency measure prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the city is con- sidering or studying. This statutory provision allowing a city to impose a development moratorium cannot be reconciled with the other statute which requires the city to act on an application within one year. The later enactment is deemed to effect a repeal or partial repeal of the earlier inconsistent statute. Therefore, a moratorium, enacted after an application is complete, does not toll the time period for action on the application. However, the Permit Streamlining Act is unconstitutional as far as it led to approval of applications for development without provision for notice and a hearing to affected landowners. For this reason, the California Legislature amended the act to include a requirement of nntice to the public and a hearing. The code now states that a development project may be deemed approved after the speci- fied time periods "only if the public notice required by law has occurred." House Rented by College Students - Equivalent of "Family" NJ Borough of Glassboro v. Vallorosi, 568 A.2d 888 (1990) In June 1986, the relatives of Vailorosi bought a home in the borough of Glassboro, so that Vallorosi and nine friends could live there while attending Glassboro State College. The ten students moved in around September 1986. Each student had a renewable lease for four months, or one semester. At the end of each semester, if the house was "in order," the student could renew the lease for another four months. All ten intended to remain tenants while enrolled at the college. Two months before Vallorosi and company moved in, as a result of a rowdy student celebration, the borough amended its zoning ordinance to limit resi- dential districts to families. The ordinance defined a "family" as one or more people living in a shable, permanent arrangement as a single nonprofit house- keeping unit. The amendment said groups of individuals temporarily occupying the same place were essentially transient, and did not fit the definition of family. Such groups were prohibited from occupying structures with only two dwelling units in residential zones. The borough sued for an injunction against the owners to prevent them from leasing the house to the students. The owners claimed the amendment violated December 15, 1990 - Page 3 manufacturing back to 1983. The city assessor found that building vacant. And, a witness testified that Kolt told the building inspector that no manufacturing had occurred on the site. Since no manufacturing occurred during the first year after the variance was issued, the court correctly dismissed the case. Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 382 N.E.2d 756. Nonconforming Use - Beach Concerts - No Limit on Concerts Allowed ME Mason v. Crooker-Mulligan, 570 A.2d 1217 (1990) Thomas Point Beach in Brunswick, Maine was a privately owned commercial beach which had been used for outdoor events since 1924. The town enacted a zoning ordinance in 1969 which prohibited outdoor recreation facilities in the area, but the beach continued operating as a legal, nonconforming use. Neighboring landowners (owners) petitioned the town in 1984 to prohibit the beach from presenting outdoor concerts. The enforcement officer then found that no concerts had taken place before 1969, and therefore such a use was not an appropriate, nonconforming use of the property. The town zoning board of appeals overturned the zoning officer's findings, ruling that concerts had taken place before 1969. The owners then sued the board. At trial, the court set aside the board's decision, ordering it to limit the nature and extent of nonconforming uses of the property, including the number of mass gatherings to be held per year. The board then imposed certain limits on use of the beach, but placed no limit on mass gatherings. The owners sued the board again. At trial, the court again ordered the board to limit the number of mass gatherings. The board limited the gatherings to 11 per year. The owners asked the court to overturn the board's decision, arguing that the number of mass gatherings allowed should be one. The court affirmed the board's decision. The owners appealed. DECISION: Modified and affirmed as modified. The landowners had the burden of proving that the beach owners altered the use of the beach. Thus, the number of gatherings was not the key issue -- the key issue was whether use of the beach had changed. Based on the evi- dence before it, the board correctly found that there had been no alteration, extension or enlargement of the beach's nonconforming use. The board need not have limited the gatherings to 11 per year. The limit is therefore deleted. Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023 (1982). Nonconforming Use - Construction Company - Special Permit Revoked MA Mendes v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 552 N.E.2d 604 (1990) Rogers and Marney (owners) operated a construction company on land they Z.B. December 15, 1990 - Page 5 Page 4 - December 15, 1990 Z.B. owned in a residential area of Bamstable, Mass. The town granted them vari- ances in 1969, 1972 and 1980 to erect several buildings and a storage yard for materials and equipment. In 1983, the town's voters amended the zoning ordinance to prohibit use variances within 300 feet ora major artery. The owners' land was located less than 300 feet from a major artery. When the owners sought to add another building to their property in 1985, they applied for a special permit, which allows for increases in the size of an existing nonconforming structure. They claimed they were entitled to such non- conforming use status since their building did not conform with the use restric- tions of the residential area. The permit was granted, but later annulled in court. The owners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The owners misunderstc~od the term "nonconforming use." A nonconforming use is one which is lawfully carried on at the time the zoning code is amended to prohibit such a use. Here, however, the owners' use of their premises has never been permitted by the town's zoning regulations and has never been noncon- forming, since its use for construction began after the area was zoned residential. Thus, their use of the land did not come from preexisting right, but from an after-the-fact variance. Since the owners' use is not nonconforming, they are not entitled to the special permit. Norcross v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 150 N.E. 887 (1926). Transitional Housing - Six Person Limit in Battered Women's Shelter May be Unconstitutional PA Doe v. City of Butler, Penn., 892 F. 2d 315 (1989) The Volunteers Against Abuse Center (VAAC) sought to establish a center for abused women and children in a residential neighborhood of Butler, Penn. The zoning ordinance of Butler defines four residential zones, R-1 being private single family housing only, R-2 allowing conditional commercial uses. R-3 allows multifamily dwellings and businesses, and R-0 includes churches, offices, libraries, and schools. All transitional housing was subject to the limitation that no more than six persons apart from supervisors could be sheltered at any one time. The Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application, but it was rejected by the city council on the grounds that the six person limitation might not be respected and the result would have a negative impact on popula- tion density control. Three battered women using fictitious names (Doe, Roe, and Loe) filed a class action suit seeking an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance and judicial review of the rejection of the application, claiming the six person limitation was unconstitutional. The lower court granted judgment without a trial for the city, and the women appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The ordinance does not violate due process. The rule is gender neutral and does not prohibit battered women from living with their children. Further, there is no restriction on the number of shelters which could be established in an R-2 zone. Population density is a legitimate basis for regulation, so the council did not act arbitrarily in applying the statute to an R-2 zone. However, permitted structures in R-3 and R-0 zones could affect density far more than transitional housing. The court sent the case back to the district court to consider whether the six person limit was reasonable. The court also directed the district court to determine whether the six person limitation had a discriminatory effect on battered women with children, in violation of the amended Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of family status. Residential Development - Moratorium - Deemed Approval CA Selinger v. City Council of Redlands, 264 Cal. Rptr. 499 (1989) Selinger purchased a parcel of approximately 260 acres which the city of Redlands annexed in December 1985. In April 1986, Selinger filed an applica- tion to develop the parcel as a residential subdivision. The proposed project conformed with existing zoning requirements. On May 12, the city informed Selinger that his application for the pioject was complete. While the planning department began preliminary work on an environmental impact report (EIR) for the subdivision project, the city council learned that two other major residential subdivisions were planned for the same area as Selinger's project. The city's staff identified potential adverse effects from devel- opment of the area. Therefore, on June 3, 1986, the city council adopted an ordinance as an emergency measure, restricting all development approvals in the area for 45 days. The council later voted to extend the emergency ordinance through June 3, 1987 and again through June 2, 1988. On May 26, 1987, Selinger informed the city council that the one-year period within which it was required to act on his application had passed, and the application was deemed approved by operation of law. The city council denied Selinger's request that his application be deemed approved. In September 1987, Selinger filed a petition in court requesting that the city be required to deem his tentative tract map approved by operation of law. In December, the city council adopted a general plan amendment for the annexed area, reducing the allowable density from 304 residential lots to 120. The trial court ordered the city to deem Selinger's application approved and to process the project under the ordinances and policies in effect as of May 12, 1986. The city appealed, contending that its development moratorium tolled the time limits required by law to approve development applications. The city also argued that the law providing for deemed approval failed to safeguard the constitutional rights of adjacent landowners to notice and a hearing before they are deprived of substantial property rights. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals IVlAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2.5 SDUTHDLD. L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Application of FRANK AND SANDRA CURl{AN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for construction of a pool with deck and fence enclosure with an insufficient frontyard setback and excessive lot coverage (over 20 percent), at premises known as 780 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-01-016. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on October 6, 1988 in the Matter of the Application of FRANK AND SANDRA CURRAN under Application No. 376~ 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, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is known and referred to as 780 Haywaters Road, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of · Southold, is identified as part of Lot #45, part of #27, and Lot #26, on the Maps of "Peconic Bay Properties" at Fisherman's Beach, and is more particularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 111, Block 1, Lot 16. 2. The entire premises has frontage along the north side of Haywaters Road of 120+- feet in length and varied depths of 128 and 100 feet. The subject premises is presently improved with a single-family dwelling structure as more particularly shown on the August 3, 1988 sketch submitted for consideration. Page 2 - Appeal NO. 376g Matter of FRANK AND SANDRA CURRAN Decision Rendered October 26, 1988 3. The setbacks of the existing dwelling are shown on the sketched submitted hereunder to be: (a) 12 feet at the northwesterly corner of the dwelling to the westerly side property line (along the bulkhead); (b) seven feet, more or less, from the nearest northerly {rear} property line; (c) 19 feet, more or less, from the easterly side property line at its closest point; (d) 51+- feet from the front property line along Haywaters Road. 4. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, Column "A-40" of the Zoning Code requires a minimum frontyard setback at 35 feet and maximum total lot coverage at 20 percent. 5. Section 100-33 permits the "...average setback of the existing dwellings within 300 feet of the proposed...on the same side of the street, same block and same use district .... " 6. The location of the proposed pool and fence enclosure is within the frontyard area. The setback is requested at 12 feet for the fence from the westerly side property line and at 30 feet from the front property line. 7. The total lot coverage of the existing~t'i~g is shown to be 19,080 sq. ft. (inclusive of land underwater), or 15,470 of the upland area. The square footage of the house is given at 3066 sq. ft., and the coverage for the pool and deck is given at 833 sq. ft. The percentage of the existing dwelling coverage is 19%, and the total percentage if this variance is granted is shown to be within a half percent of 25% (25 - 25-1/2%). 8. It is the position of this Board that in considering this application, the nonconformities of the lot and limited buildable area do lend to the nature of the practical difficulties. The relief requested is the minimal necessary and ~ the Board agrees the request is not unreasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested in the Matter of the Application for FRANK AND SANDRA CURRAN under Appeal No. 3768 as applied under Appeal No. 3768, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~age 3 - Appeal No. 3769 Matter of FRANK AND SANDRA CURRAN Decision Rendered October 26, 1988 1. The total lot coverage shall not exceed the amount requested (at 25+-%); 2. Screening with three-ft, high evergreens every six feet be placed and continuously maintained on the outside of the fence enclosure; 3. The new construction remain open and unroofed (as applied): 4. There be no lighting which may be adverse; 5. The pool construction not be elevated more than three feet above grade level (with the exception of minimal step areas). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Members Doyen and Sawicki were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk CHAIRMAN ~ ~': ~t~old Town Bgard of Appeals -49- November 5, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2912. Upon application of Frank Curran, by Peter R. Stoutenburgh, 3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory structure in the sideyard area at 780 Fishermen's Beach Road, Cutchogue; Peconic Bay Properties, Inc. Filed Subdivision Map No. 286, Lots 26 and part of 27; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-111-1-16. The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier this evening, at which time decision was reserved. By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct an accessory building (proposed shed) containing a square foot- age of 312 square feet, in the sideyard area with a setback from the easterly sideyard line of not less than three feet and a setback from the northwesterly end of the rear yard property line of six feet. The premises in question contains an area of 15,470 square feet with road frontage along Haywaters Road of 120 feet. The premises is improved with.a substantial one- family dwelling and newly constructed addition, containing a total area of approximately 3,130 square feet. The applicant's agent has submitted for the record the percentage of lot cover- age which has been provided by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., licensed surveyor, of which the existing dwelling with new addition covers 20% of the lot, and together with the proposed shed covers 22%. The board does find that.the premises contains no practicable buildable rearyard area, and the location of the existing dwell- ing lends itself to the practical difficulties in locating the proposed shed in the sideyard area. The board agrees that the proposed location of the shed is the most feasible and practical under the circumstances; however, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the code requires a maximum percentage of lot coverage to be 20%. Therefore, it is the determination of this board that the size of the new accessory building be reduced to 200 square feet, or, that 112 square feet of'building area be eliminated from either structure (the shed or the dwelling), which will be within the spirit of the zoning ordinance. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. was On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it RESOLVED, that the application of Frank Curran and wife, $outhold Town Board of Appeals Appeal No. -50- November 5,19 2R12 be G. RANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the shed shall not exceed 200 square feet in' area when using Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.'s calculations as to lot coverage; (2) That the setback of the shed will be a minimum of 10 feet from the existing bulkhead and a minimum of five feet from the side yard property line; (3) That the shed shall not be for habitable use (strictly storage); ... (4) That the shed be not more than one-story; (5) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 780 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was .unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: APPEAL NO. FL-9. Upon application of Frank Curran, by Peter R. Stoutenburgh, 3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY fo~ a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapt~ 46-8~ Sections 46-17, 46-18, 46-19, for permission to construct ~ provements exceeding 50% of the market value of existing structure, with base floor below the 8-foot minimum elevation above mean sea level in a Zone A, at 780 Fishermen's Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY; Peconic Bay Properties, /nc.'; Filed Subdivision Map No. 286, Lots 26 and part of Lot 27; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16. The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier this evening, at which time decision was reserved. The Board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek approval of the construction of an addition containing square footage of approximately 270 to be located at the southerly end of the existing one-family dwelling with a setback of approximately 63 feet from Haywaters Road and .approximately 20 feet from the side property line (abutting Lot 25), and permission to construct new accessory storage shed containing an area of 312 square feet, both structures of which the building inspector concludes to exceed 50% of the market value and which · .. November 5, 1981~,~,~ . S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -5~- (Appeal FL-9 - Frank Curran, continued:) should therefore comply with all constructions methods and res- trictions in this A-4 Flood Zone. The premises in question contains area of 15,470 square feet with road frontage along Haywaters Road of 120 feet. The premises is improved with a substantial one- family dwelling and newly constructed addition, containing a total area of approximately 3,130 square feet. The ground eleva- tion above mean sea level is 5-8 feet at the westerly side of the existing dwelling and 8-5 feet at the easterly side of the existing dwelling. The proposed shed will have a slab foundation without crawl space area at 5-9 feet above mean sea level. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the property is located in a A-4 Flood Zone with a minimum elevation at~8 feet above mean sea level. The Board finds that'there are homes in the neighborhood of the lot in question of similar size, and the dwell- ings' lowest floors are constructed below the minimum base flood level. The Board also finds that the lot in question meets the standards set forth in Section 46-16A of the Code since it contains an area of less than one-half acre and is contiguous to and sur- rounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. In passing upon this application, the Board has considered · all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards specified in the Code; 'and all of the applicable factors contained in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11), inclusive, of the Code. The Board further finds and determines that: (1) There is a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) A failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; (3) The grant of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances, or cause fraud, or victimize the public, or conflict with existing local laws or rules or regulations. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the application of Frank Curran and wife, Appeal No. FL-9 BE A/~D HEREBY IS GRANTED a' Variance from the Pro- visions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold to construct addition and accessory storage building with minimum base flood elevations as applied for, on premises known as 780 Fishermen's Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY; Peconic Bay Properties, Inc. Filed Subdivision Map No. 286, Lots 26 and part of Lot 27; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: (1) That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant apply for and obtain a Development Permit from the Town Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage _d Town Board of Appeals -5~- (Appeal FL-9 - Frank Curran, continued:) November 5, 1981 Prevention Law; (2) That there shall be no habitable (living) area at any time below the requested minimum base flood level; (3) That there shall be no habitable living area below the first floor of the new addition, such as cellar, basement, utility or storage areas; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Provisions of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant i~hereby_given notice that the structure for which this variance is granted will be per- mitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board transmit copies of this determination to' the applicants and to the Town Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Richard J. Cron, Esq. and Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D. appeared before the board tonight at the advice of the Chairman to discuss a right-of-way which will be the subject of a variance application for "approval of access." Apparently, Mr. Cron and Dr. Schwartz misunderstand that an application should have first been filed before discussing this matter. Mr. Cron said they will file an application as early as possible. RESERVED DECISION PENDING in the matter of APPEAL NO. 2893 - MATTITUCK AIR BASE. The board agreed to deliberate and research this matter further, and that a Special Meeting is hereby scheduled to be held next Saturday morning at approximately 9:15 a.m. Being there was no further business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meetng adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L~mda F. Kowalski, Secretary Sout:hold Town Board of' Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTY L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 December 20, 1990 Mr. Peter R. Stoutenburgh, President Environment East, Inc. 3075 Indian Neck Lane, RR #3 Peconic, NY 11958 Re: Appl. No. 3963 - Frank Curran Parcel ID %1000-111-1-16 Dear Mr. Stoutenburgh: We are in receipt of your letter with sketch and photographs in which a definition of Condition No. 5 concerning placement of utilities in the subject accessory garage structure. It is our understanding that the property owner would like to remove the systems which are presently stored in the dwelling basement area and to store the water/purification systems and oil-fired heating systems in this garage for use and operation only in and to the existing dwelling structure (and not for sleeping or habitable use in the subject garage). The Board of Appeals has no objection to the placement, installation and operation of the above systems provided that these systems be used only for the residence, and that the garage structure be used only for storage purposes, without any other plumbing facilities (such as bathroom and/or sink connections) in the garage. We are simultaneously herewith furnishing the Building Department with a copy of this letter for their permit file and future reference in this project as may be needed. Yours very truly, lk cc: Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Environment East, Inc. R. R. No. 3 - 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, New York 11958 516-734-7474 December 19, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY z~97z Dear President and Board lqembers, in regards to Appeal # 3963, dated 10/24/90 we are looking for a definition for item # 5 on the garage/storage building before we ~~ucee.. with this project. The utilities in question, we assume, refer to the building itself and making it a habitable structure. The Currans,m of course, have no plans of using it in that fashion. However, they would like to store and house complex water and purification systems, as well as, the oil fired heating systems for the existing house in part of the new structure. At present, as you can see in the enclosed !pictures, all utilities for the house are located below the floor of the house end in a now inadequate and dangerous utility room. During Hurricane Gloria all this ecuiDnent was flood~d. Because of exhaust and noise levels the ~.=a of raising them above floor could never be done, hence the plan to relocate them. New technology for hot water exchange has now made this possible. If there ar,~.any q-~ucstions , down. ~ , please don t hesitate to call or stop Sincerely, ~/~/~ Peter R. S~ ~tenburch President/ - EnvironJnt East, Inc. Environment East, Inc. R. R. No. 3 - 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, New York 11958 516-734-7474 December 19, 1990 Sou~hold Town Board of Town Hall Hain Rc~d Sou~h. old, NY I]971 Appeals .,tedz President and Board Hemoers, in regards to Appeal ~ 3963, dated 10/24/90 we are looking for a definition for item ~ 5 on the garage/storage building before we proceed with this project. The utilities in question, we assume, refer to the building itself and making it a habitable structure. The Currans,m of course, have no plans of using it in that fashion. However, they would like to store and house complex water and purification systems, as well as, the oil fired heating systems for the existing house in part of the new structure. At present, as you can see in the enclosed pictures, all utilities for the house are located below the floor of the house ~nd in a now inadequate t~nd dangerous utility room. During Hurricane Gloria all this eGuipment was flooded. Because of exhaust and noise levels the idea of raising them above floor could never be done, hence the DJ. an to relocate them. New tuchnology for hot water exchange has'now made this possible. If there ar ~n}~-~3~Scstions o2ease don't hesitate to call stop Peter R. S~6utenbur~h ~resident/ - ~nvlrorT~t East, Inc. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 360-5206 OCT 3 0 1990 ARTHUR H, KUNZ DIRECTOR OF' PLANNING October 29, 1990 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) James, Peter & Chris Meskouris James, Peter & Chris Meskouris ~,l~ank Curran 3951 3957 3963 Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning GGN:mb S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Sco'rT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 5~095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southokl, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 - Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, 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 III , Section 100-30A.4 and Article XXIII, Section ~00-239.4B __ Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector. Special Exception, Article , Section Special Permit Appeal No.: 3963 Applicant: Frank Curran Location of Affected Land: 780 Haywaters Road, County Tax Map Item No.: 1000-lll-l-16 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line Cutchogue, NY XX Body of Water (Bay, Sound or'EstuaWy) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed __Boundary of Existing or Proposed Other Recreation Area County, State or County, State or Federally Ow~{ed Land Federal Park or or Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Drainage Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Lines, Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. Channel Channel COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to construct an accessor7' building in area other than required rear yard and with a setback of less than 75' from bulkhead Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: October 25, 1990 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 24, 1990 SCO'[T L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Mr. Peter Stoutenburgh Environment East, Inc. 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, NY 11958 Re: Appl. No. 3963 - Curran Dear Pete: Transmitted for your records is a copy of the determination rendered by the Board of Appeals at our October 17, 1990 Special Meeting concerning the above application. Please be sure to return to all involved agencies for approvals and permits as deemed necessary. Copies of this decision have simultaneously been transmitted to the Building Inspectors' Office for their files and update. Yours very truly, Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Inspectors' GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Office Suffolk County Planning Commission Environment East, Inc. R. R. No. 3 - 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, New York 11958 516-73~7474 October 2, 1990 Southold Town Board of Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Appeals Dear Sirs, Enclosed is a copy of letter of waiver issued by the Southold Board of Town Trustees concerning the proposed accessory building for Frank and Sandra Curran on their Fisherman's Beach property. Please add this t~.~_o~r application for variance now on file with you. If any addition~/~ormation is Deeded, please let me know. Sincerel~_~'~t~ Peter R. S~utenburgh Presiden~ Enviro~nt East, Inc. Encl.' PRS:jm TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, Ill, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Kmpski, Jr. John L. Bednoski. Jr. John B. Ttlthill Telephone {516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 September 28, 1990 Peter Stoutenburgh 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, NY.11958 RE: Frank and Sandra Curran SCTM ~1000-111-1-16 Dear Mr. Stoutenburgh: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during its regular meeting held on September 27, 1990: RESOLVED that the Town Trustees approve the request for a waiver to construct a 30' X 20' accessory building with the condition that all roof run-off be contained on site. Please return to the Building Department for a determination on the need for any other permits which may be required for this project. Very truly yours, Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Town Trustees JMB: jb cc: Bldg. Dept. CAC File 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING : OCT I 2. t990 ' Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 September 26, 1990 7:30 P.M. BEFORE : BOARD MEMBERS: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI~ /%~NT- JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ALSO PRESENT: LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behalf THE CHAIRMAN: of Frank Curran, Appeal (Legal Notice read off 21 The next appeal is in Number 3963. record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of the survey indicating an existing house set fairly close to Haywaters Cove, surrounded by somewhat a bulkhead seawall type of situation. The nature of this application is a construction of a 20 by 30 foot storage building on the easterly side of the property, approximately 3 feet from the easterly side yard -- actually property line -- and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard? MR. PETER STOUTENBURGH: Yes, please. Chairman, and members of the Board, am mostly here to answer any questions and to make sure that if there is any paper work missing in your records, I could give you copies of it. In terms of the past, almost every project they have done has had to come 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before of the 22 the Board because of the awkward size land that they made their home on some time ago. One thing that was never constructed was the utilities space, since maybe ten years ago they converted their garage into a bedroom for the expanded family. We had gotten an approval your body and the Trustees for pool complex in the front yard, years ago or so, and we had run into problems with the DEC stating that the only place they really felt we could do any building was pretty much exactly where we asked for this storage facility. It is in the side yard, and we are not asking to reduce the rear yard setback from the bulkhead any further than what the house from the bulkhead presently, from both swi~ing think two I think the request at the time from the DEC. The variance that we had gotten in the past was, I believe, 800 and something feet. We are looking for a building envelope of approximately 600 this time. is which was also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 23 That variance at that THE CHAIRMAN: time dealt with an existing lot coverage. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you are going to be 200 square feet under the existing lot coverage. MR. STOUTENBURGH: What we had asked for, at that time, yes. It had requested a reduced front yard, as well, which we are not asking for at this point. The property narrows too much as we get towards the front of that. So we are looking or they are looking for a 3-foot setback from the side yard property line, the same reduced distance from the bulkhead and looking for a, hope- fully, variance of 25 percent approximately of lot coverage. THE CHAIRMAN: Existing distance proposed -- I'm sorry -- proposed distance of the -- let's just use the phrase distance from the garage or proposed garage to the bulkhead is what? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight point five. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Eight point five. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Which is what 24 the is off the bulkhead at the closest house distance. THE CHAIRMAN: I notice you want to build 3 feet to the easterly sideline. Does that include the overhang? MR. STOUTENBURGH: It doesn't include the overhang. The building they have looked at has less than -- I would say less than a foot of overhang. It is probably less than that. It is a minimal amount of overhang. THE CHAIRMAN: runoff? MR. STOUTENBURGH: What about water spoke with the Trustees when we met them on the site, and they had some confusion. Hopefully, at their meeting tomorrow we will get our They letter of approval from them. indicated that at the meeting. All runoff is going to be contained on a drywell on the site or however they request it. We also have no porous surface inside the building so that it would be 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ~7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contained. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. and a half. 25 What about height? STOUTENBURGH: Height is a story They are looking for storage above, although it will not be a total two- story structure. It will be something along the line of a salt box. I think the plans we had sent in with it are from a very similar structure we did, from Anderson on Nassau Point. It is just a salt box which has two-thirds height on one side. THE CHAIRMAN: What are you talking about, maximum 167 That's something, again, if you don't have it with you, Peter, it is all right. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I think the plans that you have -- THE CHAIRMAN: It is shown here as 19-9 on that side. All right. The only other problem we have is a rather new one and I don't think it has ever been done any other place in Southold. We are, however, all firemen on this Board and I don't know if you sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 through these hearings on Carol Road. We started out on Carol Road, over by the Sound Beach Motel and we started with one garage on the lot and we kept on going down the line as people moved out and converted the houses from seasonal dwellings to year-round. Most of them had heat in them, anyway. The nature of this Board's policy usually does. the Board is is not to close up side yards, as one The restriction on this, if so inclined to grant it, may or not be to have two existing garage doors; one in front and one in the back. MR. STOUTENBURGH: is a problem. THE CHAIRMAN: We do that mainly for two reasons. I am from Mattituck, Jimmy is from Greenport, Serge is from Fishers I don't think that Island, and Charlie is from Southold. We find that it is very easy to fight a fire if you can open the garage door and pull a hose through the garage door rather than try to wind it around, and that is exactly what we did on Carol Road and every one of the 1 3 4 § 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 '17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 existing garages we granted. the restriction on this. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I that's fine from the customer's from what he told me. THE CHAIRMAN: an overhead garage door. MR. STOUTENBURGH: 27 So that may be would assume standpoint, It doesn't have to be Is there also a distance between the two buildings that could be suggested -- one or the other? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you are going to be able to get it there. Usually the distance is 8 feet, and I don't think you are going to get it. The other concern is the opposite side of the dwelling. It is completely fenced with a four-foot fence and you just cannot drag two and a half and three foot hoses over a four-foot fence. As I said, this may be a consideration. ! don't know at this particular time, but if you -- on the 20-foot -- how large a door are you putting on this, 8 feet -- 10 feet? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight foot is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 minimal. It's quite often 9 foot for aesthetic reasons. They may go down to 28 THE CHAIRMAN: We would not -- on the back side of the building -- we would not be requesting anything larger than 8 feet. It does not have to be overhead. It could be swinging. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I'm sure that's fine, that or 8 foot. Between the two would be given an option. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any other questions, as long as you allow us to put a restriction on it that it for storage purposes. MR. STOUTENBURGH: is only to be used I don't think there is s problem. The house is big enough. THE CHAIRMAN: for coming in. Is there anybody else that would to speak in favor of this application? there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Any questions Board members? We thank you very much like Is from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. DOYEN: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. (Time noted: 8:09 p.m.) THE CHAIRMAN: The next hearing is a recessed hearing from July 25th, at which time new maps were submitted and ! now have before me a new map indicating a requested set-off of now three houses on a private road off of Fox Avenue in Fishers Island, indicating three existing dwellings that probably have pre-existed zoning. We have seen them personally, all three of them. The first lot is approximately 40 by 120, Lot Number 2 is 44 by 120, and Lot Number 3 is 16,714 square feet or 85 by -- or 85 by combination of about 180. And they have existing CO's. We ask the attorney if he would like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 for MR. DINIZIO: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much coming in. (Time noted: 8:20 p.m.) I, GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct transcript of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing 1990, according to my stenographic of September 26, notes. GAIL ROSCHEN Official Court Reporter 37 2,5' 0" ¥ ~ ~2."oC · No'q-.::: / / I0' Section 100-33, as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory structure (gazebo) in an area other than the required rear yard. Proper- ty location: 495 Bayview Ave- Map No. 1000, Section 052, Block 05, Lot 23. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3962-- HAROLD GORDON. Xftriance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an (deck) addition to 16. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3960-- THOMAS &. ALLISON SAR- GENT. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Sec- tion 100-30 AG, for approval of depth of parcels, each with an existing single-family dwelling, concerning adcWdon to'~he ekist- lng one-family dwelling for use as a second dwelling unit. Pro- perry Location: 185 Inlet Lane, G~enport, County ~ax Map No. 1000, Section 43, Block 004, ~:$$ p.m. Appl. No. 3938-- · ~VILLAGE MARINE. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- in this pending division or re- cie XI, Section 100-112, Article separation of me~ged proper~e~ ~ XII, Section 100-11 lC(I), Article and for approval of reduced ~.V' YX'III K-~.'~oa ~.d Artl -~yard setbacks between existing'-', .o1~'-~i~ r,~'~.,~c~'~,,'-'~, ~,,' ~' stroctu~es and property lines, as ~ , ga'act addition to existing prin- proposed. 'Proposed construc- ~ iclPni building with insufficient existing rcsideocc. Proposed . :tionofnewlotswillhaveinsuf- construction will havc insuffi- fi~ientw~dth depth and to~al lot " ' ,~,~..~., cient side yard setback(s). Pro- ~ : area for this district. Property . maintaining the nonconforming perty Location: 124 Hickory . Location: Private Road of Fox. i ~ northerly (side) sethack, andre ~M~ap,. ~No;L~ ~0~, ~i,?~,n. 78,~ ;TaxMapNo. 1000. Section 06, .:~! : .: :(boat rack} with insufficlent set- ~:,~ p.m. npp,. ,,~,..,,,.,~-- , : ~, 8:05p.m. Matters of SAMES, PETER BLOOM. Variance to '" :~PETER & CHRIS MESKOU- the Zoning Ordinance, Article , ~' RIS. relief, as may be deemed ncees- Ili A, Section 100-30 A.3, as dis- approved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing dwelling. Proposed con- stroction will have insufficient side yard setbacks. Property location: 40 Old Shipyard Lane and 580 L'Hommedieu, Southold; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 64, Block.2, Lot 53. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3964--~ KENNETH MINNICK. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 B(14), as disapproved, for permission to establish acces- sory apartment in proposed ad- dition to existing one-family dwelling structure. Property location: 3305 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, County 'Pax Map l~. 1000, ~q,'O_ ion 124, Block 1, L~ ~ 32 · ' 'p~ Appl 7:50 m. . No. '3967--" KlM CAMPBELL. Variance to th~ Zoning Ordinance, ~ III, Section 100-33, as disap- proved, for permission t~ con- struct accessory garage m an area other than the required rear yard arca. Property Location: East End Road, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 004, Block 004, Lot 016~ '~' NOIICE OF HEARINGS '~: ~. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3963-- · NOTICE IS HEREBY . FRANK CURRAN. Variance to GIVEN, pursuant to Section the Zoning Ordinance, Article 267 of the Town Law and the , II1, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33) CodeoftheTownofSouthold, [and Article XXIII, Section the following heatings will be 100-239.4 B, as disapproved, for held by thc SOUTHOLD'~ TOWN BOARDOF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 on WEDNESDAY, SEpTeMBER 26, 1990, at the.following times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3961- VENETIA McKEIGHAN. Var- ~oermission to construct an ama and with a setback of than 75 ft. from the bulkhead. Property Location: 780 Hay- watcr~.. Rpad, (Pec0nic Bay ~r~perties Subdivision), Cut- chngue, County Tax Map No. lllO0. Rection III. Block I. Ixn' Appeals No. 3951 and 3957-- ' ~ary concerning parking and/or Variances to the Zoning Ordi- landscaping under the current nance, Article IliA, Section revisions of the site plan regu- 100-30 A.3, Article XXIll, See- lations. Zone District: Marine I tion 100-239.4 (100-239d), and (M-l). Property location: James ~ArticleIII Sectionl00-31A for ,, Creek east side of Ba Avenu · proposed deck coflstructlon · wracn n~tmres approvm as to m- a) Map District 1000, Section 122, sufficient sideyards, ~xcessive lot :'i" Block 3, Lot 15.1. ;, ... ~.. - 'coverags~ and reduced setback '~2 TheBoard of Appeals will at from the minimum required from the ordinary highwa~r ,mark of Long Island Sound, · and for approval of this substan- dard parcel for dwelling use (as exists) (re-separate lots that am imerged). Property Location: ~1350 Sound Beach Drive, Matti- said time and place hear any and all pe~ons or representatives de- l ,~:, airing to be heard in each of the above matters. Written com- ments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time allot- .tuck, County Tax Map No. ted, Additional time for your 1000, Section 106, Block 1, Lot : "resentation will be avaiinbl if 36 and I.at 37. . ', - ,'~.~:, ~ _~_-W~ed_. For more informatina. : 8 20 p m. Appl. No. 3955~/;. nlease'gal] 765 1809 '* ' DOMINICK ~RI.[R~IDO &~ ,, 'l~tod: o ....... , A. AURICCHIO. Variance to~ , *:r, ,'~'~/~i ,-nv ~r~=r, the Zoning Ordinanc, Article .... ~'/": ~"IE III A, ~b.otlona 100-30A.2 0~0-31A) and 100-30 A3, PaVi~ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER cie XXIII, Section 100-230 (A), CHAIRMAN for interpretation regarding se- / By Linda Kowalski cond kitchen and for permit IX, 9/20/90 Copies of Legal Notice to the following on or about Septem- ber 17, 1990: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Gordon 124 Hickory Avenue Southold, NY 11971 Mr. K.T. Grathwohl, Jr. Willow Pond Lane ~outhnl~, NY 11971 Mr. and Mrs. Peter Bloom 135 Pacific Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Minnick 3305 Aldrich Lane P.O. Box 201 Laurel, NY 11948 Mr. Jacobs Albert James V. Righter Architects, Inc. 58 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 Environment East, Inc. 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, NY 11958 Michael N. Hills, Esq. 206 Roanoke Avenue ?iv~rhead, NY 11901 Mr. James Fitzgerald Proper-T Services P.O. Box 617 · Cutchogue, N~ 11935 Philip J. Cardinale, Esq. Cardinale & Cardinale P.O. Box W Jamesport, NY 11947 Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 180 Old Country Road Riverhead, NY 11901 Mrs. Venetia McKeighan 495 Bay View Avenue Southold, NY 11971 APPEALS BOARD MEMBER~ Gerard P. Goe~inger, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCP~RN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published recently 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 times allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Please fee~lf_ree to call our off/=e ~rior to the h~aring date if you have questions or wish to update your file. truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S.E..O..R.A. September 26, TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 ' Telephone (516) 765-1800 1990 Appeal No. 3963 Project/Applicants: County Tax Map No. Location of Project: FRANK & SANDRA CURRAN 1000- 11-1-16 780 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Accessory building - sideyard - within 75'water 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 with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tm JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFF1CE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: JUDITH T. TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RE: ZONING APPEAL NO. 3963. FRANK & SANDRA CURRAN DATE: JULY 23. 1990 Transmitted is application submitted by Environment East, inc. on behalf of FRANK & SANDRA CURRAN together with Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; authorization by Frank Curran for Environmental East, Inc. to act as his agent; short environmental assessment form; notification to adjacent property owners; floor plans; Zoning Board of Appeals Questionnaire form; Board of Trustees application; Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department; and Area Map. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk PROJECT LD. NUMBER 617.21e 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. APPLICANTISPONS R 2. PROJECT NAME o s'-e Inc. + 3. PROJECT LOCATION: M.n,clp g,y ua- Co.n,y , uCCo(k. 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address a~Jroad intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: [] New i~'Exbanslon [] Modification/alteration SEQR 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY; 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLy WITH ~-XISTiNG ZONING OR OTHER EXIST NG LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? [] Yes ~'No If No. describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ~'Residential [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agricullure [] ParkJForestlOpen space [] Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? [] Yes ENo If yes, gst agency(s) and permit/approvals il. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [] Yes .~[No If yes, gst agency name and permit/approval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WiLL EXISTING PERMiT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? []Yes [~'No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: ]['~ ',J ~ (' 0 fl~t~ ~-~/¢~"~ ~;: C;I..,.% ~" [~q. O~ . Dale: Signature: I If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the J Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment I 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 by 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 question has been answered Yes the project may be sig- nificant and completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not significant. (d) 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 ~No groundwater quality? __Yes 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 co~ununity? 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 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 Yes ~NO period or have a major negative effect on the charact~-~ of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project?~-~ / 'l , · Preparer' s ZBA ~/75 ' Envirolmlent East, Inc, IL R, No. 3 - 3075 lqd. ian Neck l,nLe.. Poconic, Now Yolk 11958. 516-734-7474 ,. TOWn Of ,~outhold BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail, $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York ! 1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE LAWS, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COASTAL AND INTERIOR WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS AND DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD', AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 32 OF THE CODES OF THE TOWN OF BOUTHOLDo APPLICATION NO, DATE OF APPLICATION TAX MAp NO. ~0I~)0 -- ~ '~ 0 ~-- 0~'~2 LOCAT,O. O F P.OP E.T Y FO. W., C. P E.M, T w,,.T E._U.C__O___½~_d~_~_%~__R__~.- .... .NOME ADDRESS OF PERMIT APPLICANT IF DIFFERENT FROM AFORESAID LOCATION CREEK, SAy OR HARBOR FRONTING SIZE OF PROPOSED WORK LENGTH '~0 {- 0U WIDTH HEIGHT ABOVE HIGH WATER 6 DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL N~ A ' FT, INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY____ oEscRisE ANy KNOWN PRIOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON TME PREMISE OR PERMITS HAVE SEEN ISSUED TO ERRECT DREDGE OR DEPOSIT FILL ON SAID PREMISES AND WHETHER DESCRIBE FULLY THE REHABILITATION AND PIIOPOSED CONDITION OF THE PREMISES AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETED INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL SURvEy OF THE PROJECT SITE IF NECESSARY '- ..... -a*m~Z----a-~-.-_~a-{-ia~ -- ~s~ ~cce~ -- , ....... -:9 ........ WRITTEN CONSENT OF APPLICANT. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTy, IF NOT THE SAME AS THE ARE THERE ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRiCTiONS IN YOUR DEED THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THIS PROJECT? ~ ~ 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 'County p¢o~ ' 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address an~ad intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., ~r ~ New ~xpansion ~ Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: SEQF 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: 6. WILL FROPOSEO ACTION COMPLY WITH ~XISTING ZOOMING OR OTHER EXISTING LARD USE RESTR CT[ONS~ ~ Yes ~No I[ No, describe briehy ' ~Residential ~ Industrial ~ Commercial ~ Agriculture ~ Park/Forest/Open space ~ Other 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCy (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? . ~ Yes ~No It yes, list agency(sI and permit/approvals 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTIOt~ HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ~ Yes ~o I~ yes, Iisi agency name and permit/approval I CERTIFy THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE j~--'~h -------'-------- e..action.is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete Ihe ~ ~..oastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PAHF II--ENVHtONMENTAL ~r-SSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. UOES ACTION ~i~CEED ANY Ty~I~THRES~HOLD IN 6 NYCRe, PAR¥ G17.127 C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANy ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, it legible) -- potential Ior erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: 02. Aesthetic, agricullural, archaeological, historic, or olher natural er cullural resources; ' ' or communily or neighborhood characler? Explain briefly: C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish. sheglish or wildlife species, significant habitals, or threalened or endangered species? Explain brleUy: C4. A co~mmuniys existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or inlenslty of use of land of olher natural resources? Explain brier C5. Growth, subsequent development, Or r~laled aclivdies likely [o be induce~ by the C& Long lerm, short term, cumulative, or olher effects not idenlilied in 0~-C57 Explain beefly. C7. Other imDacls (including changes in use of eilher ~uanldy or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D, IS THERE, on IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? [] Yes ~o If Yes, explain briefly PART III--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse et/ecl identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each elfect should be assessed in conneclion with ifs (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (cf duration; (df irrevers~bildy; (e) geographic scope; and (t) magnitude. It necessary, add artachments or relerence supporting materials, Ensure that, explanalions confain sulficient detail Io show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY [~chCur. Then proceed directly fo the FULL EAF and/or nre are a ' ' eck this box ii' you have determined b - r- P poslhve declaration.. documentation, fhat the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant a0verse environ~.3tal impacts , aseo on fhe information and analysis above and any SUpporting AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: _. Inc 2 Environment East, Inc, IL R. No. 3 - 3075 Indian Neck $~-734-7474 ~ · TO Whom It May Oonoernl I~ l~unk Curran ' author~ae as my agent &n appl&n~ ]~nvirormmnt ~st, Inc, to act o~ my property a.t .780 }~Yw~ters Road. Cutchoguc OwnW~ ~ L- Iac~u4$~; NY3 Dept. of Envirou. Cmnaerv. US Army Corps of ~n~t~eers Towu of $outhold Environment East, Inc. R. R. No. 3 - 3075 Indian Neck Lane Peconic, New York 11958 516-734-7474 Environalent East, Inc, It R. No. 3 - 3075 10dian Nock Pecontc, Now Ymk 11958. 516-734-7474 To Whom It May Oonomrn~ rf Iac~udlt~ NY3 Dept. o£ Eaviroa. Conserv. US Army Corps of Erq~ir~ers Towu o.e ~3oubhold lO;ti YOgi STAOJEPAP, TMENT OF E'.IVI?~Nt.~NTAL [IVATIOII Regulatory Affairs Unit ......... Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 ...... '~ '~' Stony Brook~ PUl '11794 "(515) 751-7900 30 September 1983 Frank & Sandra Curran Haywaters Road Nassau Point, New York Dear Mr. & Mrs. Curran: A review has been made of your proposal to: repair an existing 8' X 25' porch located on north side of house, and screen in same. Add an 8' X 18' extension onto same porch. Location: aw t s Cove: aywaters Road, assau oin , owo SOTM# 1000-11]-01-016 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has found the __parcel XYQIX project to be: Greater than 300' from inventoried tidal wetlands. XXX Landward of a substantial man-made structure (F~m~h~mmml m,,~.~--=~ greater than 100' in length constructed prior to September 2~ [~/. .. Landward of 10' contour elevation above mean sea level on a gradual, nat- ural elope. .. Landward of topographical crest of bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10 feet in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no permit under Article 25 (Tidal WetLands of the Environmental Conservation Law) is required at this time since the current proposal is beyond State mandated Jurisdiction pursuant to ~tis act. H~,ever, any additional work or modifications to the project may require a permit. It is your responsibility to notify this office, in writing, if such additional work of modifications are contemplated. Very truly yourst Daniel J. Larkin Regional Supervisor of Regulatory Affairs TOW/',} OF SOIJI HOLD I]UII-Dli~IG I) [PAR'I MENT Office of the 13uilding Inspector Town ItMI qm~lhohl. N.Y. C rli[icale O[ Occupa,cy No. Z12443 1984 ................. Date Apr:i 1 30 TillS CE ~,'rIF[ES that the buihlmg rt-> )o:i -c ~'. c;nlarclelmml: of exiskJ, nq porch. Location of Property ..'~[) .. Ilay,,vatcrs Road Cutchogue County Tax Map No. ~000 Sec ~on.. .........l lJ . .Bh,ck .... [~ ......... Lot 016 Subdivision .. )(Q~gpJX. [~X .[~'P~: ~. 5.xV~ :.iqled Map No. Y.~ .... Lot No. 26 c, 27 conforms substantially to the Application for ltuihting P,rrmit heretofore filed in this office dated ..... 2~'~'..~ ....... , 19 . .8. qmrsuant to Milch Bulk ng Permit No .... ~.7..[~. ~ .......... -dated 9.qCgbe ~: 3 j ........... 19 ~1~. , was issued, and confo]ms to al~ of the requirements of the applit:able provisions of thc law. 'lhe occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ...~ ..... 5gP~-~E to and en:Lar~emenk oL .an exfskin9 porch. Thc certificaic is issued to FRANK B. CIJRRAN (o~vner, &.~'P~r t*~ ...................... of Ibc aforesaid building. St fl'olk Counl~ Dep;utmcnt of IIealth Approval UNDEI{WR[T[}RS CERTI[:ICATE NO. Building Inspector QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED ~ITH YOUR APPLfCATIiON FOililS TO Tt{E BOARD ~[.' Ak~PEALS Please complete, sign and return t~ the Office of the Board of Appeals with your completed application forms· If "Yes" is answered to any questions below, please be sure totdepict these areas on your survey (or certified sketch), to scale, and submit other supporting documenta- tion. 2.a) b) 3. 4. 5. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.) Are there any areas open to a waterway without bulkhead? Are there existing structures at or below ground level, such as patios, foundations, etc? Are there any existing or proposed fences, concrete barriers, decks, etc? If project is proposed for an accessory building or structure, is total height at more than 18 feet above average ground' level? State total: ft. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No If project is proposed for principal building or structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above average ground--~-~l? State total: ' ' ft. Yes NO Are there other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? If yes, please submit copy of deed. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership, if any)? State Permit ~ and Nature: Yes ~ Yes No Do state whether or not applications ar~..pending concerning these premises before any other department or agency (State, Town, County, Village, etc.): 10. 11. 12. Planning Board Town Board Town Trustees County Health Department Village of Greenport N.Y.S.D.E.C. Other Yes No No YesNo YesNo No Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes, please submit copy of names or purchasers and conditions of sale. (from contract) Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at 5 feet or less as exists? If new construction is proposed in an area within 75 feet of wetland grasses, or land area at an eleva- tion of five feet or less above mean sea level, have you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under the requirements of Ch. 97 of the Town Code? Yes Yes ~ ~ No 13. Please list present use or operations conducted upon the subject propert~ at this time ~%~'~ an~ proposed ~o~Lv~ ~ 6%C¢~f~ ~ . Please submit photographs £or the record. ~J I certify that the above statements are true and are being submitted for re~n~ce bzy~tb~ Board of Appeals i~ considering my application· S~gnature [~roper~y Owner) ~norize~ Agen~) ~ ' 1/88 WETLANDs [Amended H-26-7~; I~y L.L. No. 2-1.')76; 3-26- 85 by L.L. N,~. 6-19851: A. TIDAL WETLANDs: (1) Ail lands generally cover~,d or intermittently ered with, or which bord~,r on, tidal wa~r:~, or lauds lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean Iow tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth five (5) feet, inch.ling but not limited ~ banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meado~vs, flats or Other low lying lands subject to tidal action: (2) All banks, bogs, mead~ws, flats and tidal marsh subject ~ such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any of the followinff: salt hay, black grass, saltwort, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high hush, cattails, gro ndsel marshmallow and Iow march eordgrass; and/or (3) All land immediately .l~,~eent to a tidal wetland as del ned in Subsection At~) and lying within seven- ty-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of such a tidal wetland. FRESIiWATER WETLANI)S: (1) ~Freshwa~r wetlands" as defined in Article 2,1, Ti- tle 1. ~ 24-0107, Subdivisions l(a) ~ l(d) inclusive. of the · Env~ronmen~l Conservation Law of the Sta~ of New York: and (2) All land immediately ndjaeent ~ a "~reshwater wot- land," as ' · . defined m Subsection B(I) and lying with- in Seventy.five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a "fi'esh~v~er wet/and." 9705 Irlol-I~ A-C R'$ R-80 A-C ~8 Agricu Reside Reside ....... 1989 - - - RES PBP R H E PM £ PJ C RO C SH C UP COP C P! ¢ TL C JH £ LM . N~RAN FRANK e~ &OO 400 ACCOUNT NUMBER BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or' the Petition of to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. Th~ntention of the'undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold tO request a~?ria~Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] ). That the property which is the subiect of the Petitiqn is located adjacent to you. E property and is des- cribed as follows: 1'2.~! ~k~(c~_ ~' IOOI o~e_eC) L/~"~ eR. 3. That the property which is the su~ect o.f such Petitign is located in the following zoning district: 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: .5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Cocle auplicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article ~ Section too- 3oA. [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approva] 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 ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at sui:h hearing. Dated Petitioner Owners' Names: Post Office Address Tel. No. [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of ~ ~. to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board o! to request a (Variance) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petit' is loc; cribed as follows: the Town of Southold :ircle choice] acent to your property and is des- 3. That the property which is the subjec is located in the following zoning district: 4 ~[hat b~, such Pelition, the undersigned est the following relief: 5. That the provisions of the Southold To~ Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Sect/on [ ] Section 280-A, New York .aw for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office, Main Road $outhold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hour (516) 7~5-1809. 7. That before the relief sou Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Town of Southold and designated for right to appear and be heard at such I be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the must be published at least five days prior to the date of such _ong Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the ~ublication of such notices; that you or your representative have the Dated: Petitioner Owners ' Names: Post Office Address Tel. No. ( ) [Copy of sketch or purposes.] plan showing proposal to be attached ' ~ f~, ~venience NAM~ PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS P 077 47~821 F~ECF-IPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS.: % ~ , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the ' day of ,19 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current ~jessment roll of the Town of Soulhold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at ~'-~--C ~v~ ~ ,,' ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn tohbefore me this "~ ~,~"~ day of ~.--~L~..j~ , 19~'~" Notary Public HELENE O. HOIqNE No. 4,961364 Qualified In Suffolk County ,,~ Commisaloo Expiree May 22, lgc// (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) TOWN CLERK 'TOWN DF SOUTIIOLD k -- Southold, N. Y. 11971~19 Judllh T. Ter~, Town Clerk