HomeMy WebLinkAbout3581
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y, 11cj'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 358]
Application Dated November ]3, ]986
TO:
Mr. George D. Damien
Jackson, Main and Fifth Streets
New Suffolk, NY 11956
[Appellant(s)]
At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on August 20, ]987
the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken
on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property
New York Town Law, Section 280-a
[ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance
Article , Section
IX] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
Article III , Section]00-3], B~k SchedUle
[ ] Request for
Application of GEORGE D. DAMIEN for Variances to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, and Bulk Schedule, for
approval of insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels in
this pending set-off division of land located at the Corners of
Jackson, Fifth and Main Streets, New Suftolk, NY, County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 17, Block 9, Lot 12, containing a total
area of 28,919± sq. ft.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 16,
1987 in the Matter of the Application of GEORGE D. DAMIEN under
Appeal No. 3581; 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 Members have personally viewed and
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning,
and the surrounding areas; and
are
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
I. By this application, appellant requests area variances
for approval of: (a) insufficient lot area of 12,663 sq. ft.
and 16,256 sq. ft., Lots A and B respectively; (b) insufficient
lot width (frontage) of 101.22 feet along Main Street and 125.0
feet along Fifth Street, Lot A; and insufticient lot width [front-
age] of 90.11 feet along Jackson Street, Lot B; (c) insufTicient
lot depth of 101.41 feet, Lots A and B, all as more particularly
depicted on Map amended September 3, 1986, prepared by Roderick
VanTuyl & Son.
2. The property in question contains a total area of 28,919
sq. ft. with frontage along the south side of Main Street of 101.22
feet, along the east side of Fifth Street of 301.67 feet, and
(CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO)
DATED: August 20~ 1987.
Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81)
CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
Page 2 Appeal No. 3581
Matter ot GEORGE D. DAMIEN
Decision Rendered August 20,
1987
along the north side of Jackson Street of 90.11 feet. The entire
premises was conveyed as more particularly shown by deed at Liber
5911 page 167, dated January 22, 1966 from Margaret W. Roache.
3. The subject premises is improved with the following
structures: (a) one single-family dwelling, and (b) one acces-
sory garage, both constructed under Building Permits #3475Z and
#3646Z. A final Certificate of Occupancy #Z3412 was issued for
the dwelling on January 28, 1969. The dwelling is shown on
survey prepared by VanTuyl & Son dated July 15, 1968 to be
set back 40± feet from Fifth Street, 28 feet from Jackson Street,
and 25 feet from the easterly property line. The setback from
the existing dwelling to the proposed division line scales out
to 115± feet.
4. On September l, 1966, Board of Appeals action was taken
concerning an application for a variance for three lots having
insufficient area under Appeal No. 949 d~nyin~ "...permission
to divide into three separate building lots ....
5. On May 5, 196~, Building Permits #3475Z and #3474Z
were issued for the construction of two single-family dwellings,
one on the northerly portion of the premises and the other on
the southerly portion of the premises. A single-family dwelling
was constructed under Permit #3475Z and a final Certificate of
Occupancy #Z3412 was issued January 28, 1969. The second
Building Permit #3474Z expired and no construction took place
thereunder.
6. It is noted that by letter dated November 5, 1975,
the Town Building Inspector advised the applicant that "...the
action of the Board of Appeals #949, Sept.. 1, 1966, dividing
your property on E/S Fifth St., New Suffolk, into two building
lots, one with frontage on Jackson St. and the other with
frontage on Main Street, has not been changed or rescinded ....
You still have two building lots on E/s Fifth Street as the
Board set them off in 1966 .... "
7. During November 1971 and up until May t983, the
minimum lot area requirements of the Zoning Code was increased
from 12,500 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. ft. After investigation
and extensive research, no documentation was found in the
Town records substantiating the prior Building Inspector's
position. On October 27, 1980, Mr. Damien was advised by
letter signed by a Town Building Inspector that the zoning
requirements were increased in 1971, "...That you cannot
subdivide property into lots with less than 40,000 sq. ft'
in area...Therefore you cannot get a permit to build another
dwelling on your lot .... " Again by letter dated August 6,
1982, Mr. Damien was advised by the Building Department that
the Board of Appeals denied his application in 1966 for the
insufficient area of three lots and that approval could have
been obtained if he reapplied for the two lots during that
period of time since the requirements at that time were a
minimum lot area of 12,500 sq. ft.. and subject to approval
by the Planning Board under the subdivision regulations in
effect at that time.
8. Before, during and subsequent to 1966, the Southold
Town Planning Board was the proper authority to approve or
otherwise act on subdivisions. The Board of Appeals did no~
have authority during 1966 to subdivide, except to consider
.Page' 3 Appeal No. 3581
Matter of GEORGE D DAMIEN
Decision Rendered August 20,
1987
applications in varying the zoning regulations as to lot size,
etc. It is understood that the applicant was told that he
had the right to have two lots, and that he would have to
apply again. No record was found for approval of the two-lot
subdivision, by any Town or County agency, except that in 1975
the prior Building Inspector believed that Mr. Damien had
approval for two lots by the denial of the three applied for
in !966.
9. ToHay's minimum lot size requirements under Article
III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires
a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft., minimum lot width of
175 teet, and minimum lot depth ot 250 feet.
10. Town records show: (a) the appellants-owners have
always received one tax bill for the entire parcel, (b) there
is one deed of record dated January 22, 1966 at Liber 5911
page 167 conveying the entire parcel of 28,919± sq. ft. to
the owner-appellants> (c) an application is presently
pending with the Suffolk County Health Department for
Article VI DevelonmeDt/Subdivision approval and to date
no final action has been rendered, Id) an application
is presently pending (filed during May 1987) with the South-
old Town Planning Board for a set-off division of land and
to date no action has been rendered.
ll. The percentage of relief requested from the lot
area requirements are: (a) for the northerly proposed parcel
[Lot A] 84%, (b) for the s~utherly proposed parcel [Lot B]
80%. The percentages as to lot width and lot depth varies
from 60% to 29%.
12. In viewing the immediate area within Section ll7,
District 1000 of the Suffolk County Tax Maps, the Board finds
the following lots existin§: Lot 11, Block 9, containing
2.6± acres and situate opposite the appellant's premises
across Fifth Street; Lot l, Block 8, to the north of
appellant's premises opposite Main Streets containing a
total area of 30,000± ~. ft.~ Lot 13, Block 10, t~ the
south opposite Jackson Street containing 30,000± ~q. ft.~
and Lots abutting the subject premises along the east side
presently of Fudjinski and Acker of 15,2~0± sq. ft~ and
13,000± sq. f$. ~espectively.
13. It has been held by the Courts (VanDusen v. Jackson,
35 AD2d 58) that a Board of ~ppeals cannot under the semblance
of a variance exercise leg~sla$iv~ powers. It is apparen$
that the variances requested are substantial in respect to
lot area, lot width, lot depth, and would in effect establish
a zone district completely at odds with all other zone dis-
tricts provided for ~n the Zoning Code and Zoning Map.
14. Additionally, the Board finds and determines:
(a) that ~e difficulties claimed are self-imposed,
particularly due to the inaction of the property owner over
the period mf time, from 1975 to the present time, to obtain
map approval or other documentation (such as a vacant Land
Certificate of Occupancy, separate tax bills, separate deeds,
etc.).
(b) the percentage of relief requested is substan-
tial in relation to the zoning requirements, being a variance
from 80% to 29% of the requir~menSs as to area,.w!dth, and
depth;
(c) there is no other method feasible for appellant
Page 4 - Appeal No. 3581
Matter of GEORGE D. DAMIEN
Decision Rendered August 20,
1987
to pursue other than a variance;
(d) it is the burden of the landowner to prove that
the area restrictions as applied to his land imposes ~ignifi-
cant economic injury LFulling v. Palumbo, 21 NY2d 30];
(e) the effect, if the variance is allowed, is minimal
of the increased population density thus produced on available
governmental facilities;
(f) a substantial change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood since there are lots existing
of a size larger than that proposed herein;
arose and
of justice
(g) in view of the manner in which the difficulty
in consideration of all the above factors, the interest
will be served by denying the variances as applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis,
Mr. Goehringer, it was
seconded by
RESOLVED, that the relief r~qupstPd under Appeal No. 3581
in the Matter of the Application of GEORGE D. DAMIEN, BE AND
HEREBY IS DENIED4
Vote of the Boardz Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly
adopted.
lk
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant co Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold~ the following hearings
will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular
Meeting at the Southold Town Hall~ ~ain Roads Southold~ New
York, on THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987 at the following times:
7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN~ Variances to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article liE, Section lO0-31, and Bulk
/
/
Schedule, for approval of insufficient area, width and depth
of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land loca~e~
a't the Corners of Jackson, Fifth and Main Streets, New Suffolk.
NY; County Tax Map District 1000~ Section i7~ Block 9, Lot !2,
containing ~ total area of 28,919± sq. ft
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3639 WILHELM FRANKEN. Variance ~o
the Zoning Ordinance, Article II!, Section 100-32, and Article XI,
Section lO0-119.2~,~-for permission to locate 25' by 25~ accessory
building ~n sideyard area and with insufficient setback from
existing bulkhead along Gull Pond Inlet. Location of Property:
Nest Side of Osprey Nest Road, Greenpor~, NY; Cleaves Point
Subdivision Section I, Map 2752, Subdivision Lots 14 and
County Tax Map District 1000, Section 35, Block 6, Lots 22, 23
and 24 (now 24.1).
7:45
the Zoning
permi~ssion
Residential
Property:
Ma~ District 1000,
45,589± sq. ft. in
p.m. Appl. No~ 3635 ARTHUR V. JUNGE. Variance to
Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A) for
to establish electrical shop use in this "A-40"
and Agricultural Zoning District. Location of
North Side of C.R~ 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax
Section 96, Block' 1, Lot 19, containing'
lot area.
7:50 p.m. Appt, No. 363l'= PUDGE CORP. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A) for permission
to establish and construct 7500 sq. ft. building for industrial
use in this "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District.
Location of Property: North Side of C.R~ 48, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map District lO0~, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 20,
containing 39,524± sq. ft. in lot area.
Page 2 - Notice of Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting July 16, 1987
7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 2638 JAMES AND MARY TYLER (continued
from June 18, 1987). Special Exception modifying Appl. No. 3400
%o permit vehicle doors to face street side as constructed.
Location of Property: 6795 Main Road, Laurel, NY; Mattituck
Holding Co. Minor Subdivision Lot #3; County Tax Map District
1000, Section 125, Block l, Lot 19.6.
8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3642 DINA MASSO. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 t~ construct
accessory boathouse structure with deck at the foot of the
bluff, and deck and new stairs along and at top of bluff areas,
all landward of existing wood bulkhead along ?econic Bay,
premises known as 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; Lot 39,
Amended Map A of Nassau Point Filed August ~6, !922; County
Tax Map District 1000, Section lll, Block 13~ Lot 04.
8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3644 FREDERICK WIGHTMAN/DAVID FREY/
JOSEPH REINHART. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section lO0-30(A), Article X!, Section lO0-118{E) for establishment
of business uses, and/or interpretation, to permit the following
activities: retail sales and storage, business office, professional
office, governmental office, contractor office, personal-service
store or shop, as described for the "B-Light Business" Zoning
District, Section 100-60(A)[2]~[4]~[8] ~nclusively, in conjunction
with existing single-family dwelling unit on second-floor having
a livable f~oor area of 900 sq. ft~ Zone District: '~A~40.~:
Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, Peconic, NY;
County Tax Map District 1000, Section 75, Block 1, Lot 16, con-
taining 1.0194 acres.
8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3645 PAUL AND CHARLOTTE GALGAN.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article Xt, Section 100-1i9.2
for permission to construct additions to dwelling landwarO of
existing construction and withi~ Z5 feet of existing bulkhead
along Eugene's Creek, 4605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue~ NY;
County Tax Map District 1000, Section 137, Block 03, Lot 05.
8:35 p.m. App!. No. 3496 FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2
for permission to construct 38' by 16' beach pavillon and
attached deck areas extending a len9th of i24± feet and width
of 28 feet (exclusive of stairs), accessory and }ncidental to
Page 3 Notice of Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting - July 16, 1987
the established single-family residential use of the premises, not
to be operated for sleeping or habitable purposes and not operated
for gain, within 75 feet of brdinary highwater ma~k and/or landward
edge of tidal wetland, along Peconic Bay, 575 Old Harbor Roads
New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117~ Block
03, Lot 06.
8:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3592 BENTE SNELLENBURG (Continued
from April 20, 1987~.2s requestedl. Variances to the Zoning
Ordinance, Articles: (1) XI, Section lO0-119.1(B) for approval
of eight-foot height of fencing along the easterly property line
a length of 72± feet; (2) XIt, Section lO0-141, Appealing Ehe
November 62 1986 Order to Remedy Violation which mandates a
building permit for new fencing along the easterly property
line. Location of Property: Private right-of-way extending
off the east side of South Harbor Road (known as Private Road
No. 10, or Old Woods Path), Southold, NY; County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 87, Block 2~ Lot 21.
The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the
above matters. Each hearing will not start before the time
allotted. Written comments may be submitted prior to the
conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information,
please call 765-1809.
Dated: June 30, 1987. BY ORDER OF THE SOUT~OLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHqINGER, CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary
Notice to Newspapers: Please publish once, to wit: JULY 9TH, 1987
and forward two affidavits of publication to: Board of Appeals,
Main Road, Southold, NY 11971~(on or before July 14th).
Thank you. 765-1809.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD. N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .... .~.. ~.. J..~. ....... , 19 .~.X,.~'
for permit to ~..s~.... ~.~... I ~ .................................... at
Locat~o~ o~Property. ~_ .4...~..~.'...~...~.. ........................
House No. Street Hamlet
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .... 1.)..~. ...... Block ..... .~. ....... Lot . .f/.q / 3__
Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ............ ~. ,Lot No ............. , ....
is returned herewith and disapproved on the followlng~r, gunds ~4_~.'."~ ~'~
.~.,. ~ ~ ~.~.. ~?.~~.z ~..
Building Inspector
RV 1/80
TOWN OF SOUT,OLD, NEW Yom(
DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ~"-~'/
, ~ DATE ...~;.~ .....
To:~E'ZONING.BO~D OE A~DEALS ~QW~OF S~THOL N. ~.
'Sf~eetag~ .Number .... ~ Mumclpa~ , - . StYe , -
Fifth & Main St. in New ...S~.ffolk~. N.Y. 11956
DisCrict 1000 Sectionll7 Bldck .9L0t p/o~2 ~-~.
2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub-
section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance .by .number. Do not quote the Ordinance.)
Article I Section 106-20 Sub-div~szons by Authority of the PlanninE Board~
Art. III, Section 100-31
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (please check appropriate box)
(x) A VARIANCE 1o the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map
); -A VARIANCE doe' to ]bck-bf access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Lows
Art. ]6 Sec.. 2'~0A Subsection'~
(') A pre~ous appe~l was made. No 949,Se~t,!,!966 &.A~peal.,Ne3%0~ faf 10.2~1986
~. PREVIOUS APP, EAL~ previous appeal ~hos) .dl~T~been mode with respect to this d~ec~$ on
of tee Building Inspector ~t/with respect to this p~ropelrty. '
Such oppe~ was ( .) requbst for a special ~ermit '
( x)'jre, quest for o variance
k~wn oho ~.~n~ . , n,,te4 Sep. t.l,1966 and Oct. 2,1986
REASON FOR APPEAI~
( ) A Variance to S~e~i~n 2~A'Subsec~tion 3''
- (x) A Variance to the Zcnir~g Ordinance
~re~s ~ildin~ Ins~ector~ ~. Hawed Te~, ~ro~ded me ~th officizl letters
certi~uE that ~ property was ~ded ~ into two buildi~ lots afte~ my h~r~
of Sept. 1,1966.Although ~ the co'~se of the he~ing of 19~ ~e Cham~ of the
Bo~d of Ap~als did say that the Board ~ll not deny me two lots, pro, dod I apoly,
the then ~il~ng Insp~tor told ~ that I 'do not have to apply f~ a~hing~ since
I ~ve~ough 1~d,28,919 sq.ft, and "~s ~ the law." Nm~, aft~ the second hea-
Fo~ ZB1 (Continue on other side)
r~g ~f Oct. 2~1986, the resolution of the Board of Appea~ sti~lates t~t the
former ~ild~g Inspector "was in errs" ~d that the official letters he Eave me,
certif~ng that Z have two buildinE lots,have no legal value whatsoever.
REASON FOR APPEAL Continued
.1. .STRI'CT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sar~ ~ARDSHIP because i am denied to have two lots by the present B~ilding inspector,
Victor Lessard, for insufficient acreage, while in 1966, %K~en I had the hearing,
the acreage of my ~roperty, 28~919 sq.ft, was more than necessary to have two lots,
~Jae size of %he lot w~s 12,500 sq.ft, according to the Zoning Ordinance If 1966.
There ~rllt be no practical difficulties or unnecessa~7 hardship for ~nybodv if the
Board of Appeals considers ~¢ appeal as an application for form~lizir~g the division
~operty into two lots, as requested~r~ $f the Board of .Appeals
in. 1966. For after all, I have not done an2~¢hing illegal~nd should not ~ suffer
thzs utterly unjustified hardship by being denied to hav~_~ots because the former
Building Inspector was "in error'~' when he officially cor~irzr, ed by Hie last letter
of Nov. 5~1975 that ~. . the action of the Board of Appeals #949,Sept.l, lP66~
divi~ing your property on M/S Fifth St., N~' Suffo!k~ into two building lots,one
with frontage on Jackson St and the other with frontage on Main Street has not been
changed or rescinded . . o Tou still have two building lets on E/S Fift~
~ the Board set them off in 1966 . . .:~ Point 6 of the Action of the Zoning
Board of ~ppeals of Oct. 2,1986 emphaszzes ~that by this letter dated November 5,1975,
"the Town Buil~hg Inspec.tor advised Mr. Dmmien (erroneously).. ? if such is the
case why should~endure .thzs hardship created by an o~of the To~n of Southold~
n~mely the former Buildzng Inspector, when he made a ~mong internretation of the
1966 hearing and ~ishandled my ease by telling me that I do not ~ave to remake s. ny ap-
plication, when the Chair~n of the Board said that I had to apply, in order to for-
~li~e the di~rision ~f.F~V.D~.~perty into .two.!gts?.
· TEe hardship created ,s ur',l~2u~ aha ,s not snare(] oy an properties alike 'n the immediate
yicinity of this property and in this use district because
This Point 2 is true and applicable to my cas~. There are four buildings
in the back of ~ry property end they ~elong to Mrs .Acker ~ud M~. ~udjinski.%1ith
my second lot, my property ~ill have only two houses.
3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because ~..J~[~ it. ~*i!l zimply .restore the vali~ty
of a decision taken oy the Board o~ Appeals zn 1966 not te ~b .~e. t~ee tots
~t ~to ~d~se. me .~hat it win ~t me ~ tw~ lots. pre~ded I aRplz, And again.
! ~d ~ot ~keI ~PPtication to ~the Bo~d of ~pp~Is er to the Planing Board,
because the then ~il~ng Inspector m~t categorically em~asized to me that I do
n~ have to do ~hing else but' ~ ~pply to h~ by as~ng h~ to issue two dif-
ferent buii~ng per.ts f~ ~ two lots, which, in his ju~ent, were ~ted to
me by the B~d of Appeals in 1966. ~erefore. if he z~de an error and the letter
he gave me on Nove~er 5, 1975 is said to be ~co~ect, as letter (f) of Point ti
of the Action of the Zp~mng B~.rd of Appe~!s of Novemoer ~.1~86 s~m~lates,~ c~ot
be per.zed for somet~g ~ have not done~d no responsibility is mm~ble to me
for the h~hip crated ~-by a focal official of $out~ld To~. In light of these
explicative re~rks ~d ~ factual ~ck~o~d. I respec~!ly reque~ the
Cha~an and the Members of the Zoning B~d of Appeals to consider this appeal
as an AP~iCATION, if necess~, in ~ccor~ce ~th the ,t- ' ~ ~- statement ~de hy
the Chair~n of 'the Bo~d ~ 1966 that the Bo~d ~M~ll ~t me two lots, if I apply~
so t~t the present Zoni~ B~rd of App~Is ~y eliminate the severe h~d~nip ~posed
~,~,,, v~o~ ~ upon me by the f~m~ ~ildi~ Insoec~r, who ~te~err~usl~'
STATE OF ~cvv .~
' , _ ~ ~ ss ...... :-......~.--.: ....... : ......... ~.~..~....~/~
COUNTY~ ~: ~,~ ) ~ - ~ , ~gnatur~' 7
............. .......................
Notary. P~lic r
MARY ANN CYBULSK1
NOTARY PUBLIC. Sram of New Yet,
Re$1~lng i[I Suffolk Count~
No 52-5895~0
OWNER
FORMER OWNER'
VL.
LAND IMP.
._/j ~O
AGE
Farm
Tillable 1
Tillable 2
Tillable 3
Woodland
Swampland
Brushland ~.
House Plot
TOWN OF
$OUTHOkD
VILLAGE
STREET
NORMAL
Ac re.
PROPERTY I~ECORD CArD
,DISTRICT SUB. LOT
ACREAGE
FRONTAGE ON WATER
BUILDING CONDITION
ABOVE
Value
BELOW
Value Per Acre
F~RONTAGE ON ROAD3oo f'~- ~'f /~"~
BULKHEAD
DOCK
Total
~ ~ '~ -~ / ~' O0 ¢~6undation
~tension Basement
~ension Ext. Wails
~tenslon Fire Place
Breezeway
Garage.
~'t~,~A~/(" Bath
~.~...,¢~ ~ Floors
1~'.~L~' Interior Finish
__~_j~? Heot
Porch Roof Type
Porch / Rooms 1st
Floor
J
Patio Rooms 2nd Floor
Driveway J ' Dormer
MAI I,J ,ST P.. E E,T
$.85'40'~0"E. - 101.22
~4, S5'2T'00'W' - 90.1~
JACKSON STP-.EET
N. 85'44~'30'W.
N
MAP OF LAND
~UI~VE¥~D
.GEOI2. G E D ~ IVI.~AI2IE D. DAM! EN
NEW SUFFOUK
..... VAN TUYL & 50N
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
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
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Matthew J. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney
Zoning Board of Appeals~
September 19, 1990
Your Requested Concerning Premises of George Damien
Property ID: Corners of Jackson, Fifth & Main Sts, N.S.
CTM #1000-17-9-12
ZBA Appl. #3581 rendered August 20, 1987
ZBA Appl. 93503 rendered November 3, 1986
ZBA Appl. 9949 rendered September 1, 1966
Please find attached copies of our August 20, 1987 determination
which includes references to history of the prior decisions of
this Board. You will note that in all three applications, the
relief for the creation of lots of 12,663 sq. ft. and 16,266 sq.
ft. were denied. Although the circumstances did not change for
the property owner, the Board did reconsider the request a
second and a third time. The members were sympathetic with
the circumstances resulting in 1966 and 1967 when the previous
building inspector granted building permits for a dwelling (on
each lot). The permits were not effectuated since no
construction commenced and the permits expired. (In 1966 and
1967, the minimum lot area requirement was 12,500 sq. ft. in
$outhold Town, and the zoning was changed in 1971 to a minimum
requirement of 40,000 sq. ft. From during the 1960s through
September 6, 1979, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered
applications on set-offs when there were less than four lots
involved.)
The County Tax Map and general note which were in the file are
also attached and may be helpful.
Please let us know if you need additional documantation from the
(three) files.
lk
HARVEY A. ARNOFF
Town Attorney
MATrHEW G. KIERNAN
Assistant Town Attorney
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTr L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector
Gerard P. Coehringer. Chairman. Zoning Board of Appeals
Matthew G. Kiernan. Assistant Town Attorney '/'~DC~/
September 19, 1990
George Damien
At the request of Supervisor Harris I am in the process of reviewing
Dr. Damien's applications to subdivide his property in New Suffolk,
At your earliest convenience, please provide me with a summary of
Dr, Damien~s applications and the results thereof. Thank you,
cc: Supervisor Harris
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 WeSt Falrview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
(813) 837--9994
~.Gerard Goe~ringer
Chairman
Board of Appeals
$outhold, N.Y. 11971
s.nd Jackson Street
New Suff~lk._N.Y. 1!956
Tel. 516 734 6468
Au~tst 18,1987
Dear ,Mr. Goehringer:
_J~ugust 7 and 10~1987 /
I am now in possession of copies of the two letters~ggen~ oy [~m.~ ~ms. ~dJinski
to the ZoningBoard of Appeals. The first letter is dated August 7,1987 and was
signed by~. Joseph F~dJinski and his wife Joan. [n response to these two let-
ters may I brine for your attention and consideration the following facts and
three exhibits as evidence corroborating these facts~
Fact No 1.- ~n his letter of August 10,1987, Mr. F~djinski denies the fact that
~e had received the Notice of ~ntent requesting a second hearing for the subdi-
Vision of myproperty. This Notice was sent to him on Novenber 13,1987 by certi-
fied mail sub No P107379180. I submit F~hibit 1 as conclusive evidence, that is,
the original Return Receipt of the certified mail under the same No P107379180.
As you will see, the Return Receipt was signed by his wife, MrSe Joan FudJinski.
If you compare the signature on the Return Receipt with the one on the letter sent
to the Board of Appeals and dated August 7,1987, you will have the conclusive evi-
dence that they are identical. ~s. FudJinski also signed the letter of Au~ust 7,
1987, albeit in fine,she or her husband wrote ,,... I__have no record of receiving
%he certified-~er · . .,,. By denying the reception of the Notice of Intent, not~
withstanding' the irrefutable fact that Mrs. FudJinski did sign the Return Recipt,
there is no doubt that Mr.and Mrs. Fudjinski have made a statement that they know
~; and °bvi°usly~heymade it with the intent to deceive the m~
orm
of crLminal offense. Consequently, Mr.and ~.~s. Fudjinski have no legal ground what-
s°ever to ask for the re-opening of my file post-hearing.
F_act No 2.- In his letter of August 10,1987, ~. Fudjinski is asking "for a more
reasonable adjustment of the lot lines.,. He is trying to Justify his claim, which
is not receivable in light of Fxhibit 1, with the following statement: "I have
noticed from the official survey of the subject proper~ that the fence that sepa-
rates thepropertyf~om my property is 1'3" to 1'6,, over the line on my side..,
Therefore, Mr. Fudjinski clearly implies that I "own,, 1'3" to 1'6" of his land.
I submit Exhibits 2 and 3 as evidence that Fm. FudJinski is wrong. Thus, according
to the Map of Land Surveyed for Joseph H. and Joan M. Fudjinski of October 20,1965
(Exhibit 2), and a letter of August 17,1987 signed by the Land,Sbzrveyor,Roderick
Van Tuyl PC, T~chibit 3, which I also submit as evidence, first it is clear that
"the subject fence lies approximately (only) one foot easter-~f the common boundary.
line shown on the respective survey maps,,, an--~,3,, and 1'6" as Mr. FudJinski
claims. Second, as clearly stated in Exhibit 3 "-~e su~--~ --.
one footea~lv of the co .... ~ ....... ' ~u=~u ..... lies appr~telv
~ons-nuen~,, ~+~ ...... ,,~,.,~u~ uouncary-iine, shown on the res--~
one foot Of land,that Mr.~Ad~inski
claims that I have allegedly t~ken from his property,~l~
_ _ . ..... . ..... fact in-
cluded in his own property. Albeit the fence, which was built more than 30 yearS-ago,
is one foot easterly of the commaon boundary-line, this latter starts behind the fence.
Therefore~ according to Exhibit 2, the common-boundary lingoes start one foot behind
the chain link fence. It follows that the 100 feet propert~line of M~. FudJinski on
~in Street are intact and, thereby, are ng~"diminished to 99 feet, as he seems to be-
lieve.. Ostensibly, ~ Fudjinski does not seem to be aware of this very important
fact, which legally nullifies his claim for the so-called "reasonable adjustment of
the lot lines."
Furthermore, it is rather obvious that MroFudji~ski is also not aware of another very
important fact, namely, that his property line on 4th Street has also a chain-link fence,
which is also 1,2,' east of the boundary-line, which divides his property from the side-
walk property belonging to the Town of Southold. This is irrefutably demonstrated by
his own survey, that is Fxhibit 2. Consequently, does this mean that the Town of Southold
has the legal right to raise this question and to ask him to change the position of his
fence, in conformitywith his own survey, whose legal structure he does not seem to un-
derstand?
Fact No 3.- ~fter consultation ~th my Attorney, it appears that Mr. FudJinski is not
aware of another ve~ important fact, namely, that in the State of New York there is
a law which stipulates that after 10 (ten) yearslno fence, serving as a boundary-liner
can be moved with the purpose of changing the statusquo. This important fact also nul-
lifies ~. FudJinski~s claim for the so-called "reasonable adjustment of the lot lihes."
Consequently, it is very clear that Mr. FudJinski's "opposition" to the subdivision of
my property into two lots has no legal foundation whatsoever.
Fact No 4.- At the first hearing, on September 1,1966, ~-~. FudJinski was present. However
he never raised any question. At the second hearing of October 2,1986, albeit duly no-
tified by certified mail and an official legal notice in the newspaper "Suffolk Ti~,"
he never appeared, nor was he represented by anyone. At the third hearing of July 16,
1987, he did not appear either, nor was he represented by anyone. However now, all of
a sudden he wants another -hearing; he wants to re-open my case under the deceitful
pretext that allegedly he was not notified bycertified mail and, thereby, did not re-
ceive the Notice of Intent, while in fact his wife Joan did receive and did sign the
postal Return Receipt. Can one accept the preposterous hypothesi~that she never
told him? E~en if such an absurd assumption is accepted as a ,.truth,'. why did Mrs.
FudJinski sign the letter of August 7,1987, which specifies in fine: '~I have no re-
cord of receiving the certified letter?" ~s not this a clear case of collusion, i.e~,
a secret agreement for fraudulent purpose to deceive the members of the Board of Ap-
peals? And is not collusion another form of criminal offense and, indeed, an offense
against the members of the Board of Appeal?
It is,indeed, strange if not bizarre, that after 21 years,since my first hearing in
1966, I continue to be penalized by being unable to use part of my own land and now,
this penalization is taking another form of harassment, when my neighbors,Mr&Mrs.
Fudjinski are trying to deceive the members of the Board of Appeals, by falsely
claiming that they did not receive the Notice of IntentS? Is not this not only
strange but also most deplorable that ~-~. ~ ~s. FudJinski have decide~to indulge
in these kinds of base and disgraceful machinations in trying to deceive the members
of the Board of Appeals, so that they may re-open my file and allow them to oppose
my request for confirmation of the decision to subdivide my property into two lots
and by resorting to all kinds of fallacious pretexts and arguments to justify their
request?
And for~21 years, I lived with the illusion that Mr°and ~s. Fudjinski were good
neighbors and civilized frie~dSo ~ ~ ~
~Wncl. 3 Exhibits Sincerely, ~'~ '
George D. Damien
rDER: ComFlete ~ems 1, 2, 3 and
your address in the "RETURN TO" s
reverse side. Failure to do this wi ard from
being returned to you. The return recei t fee'will rOVide
person delivered to and the date of
31 fees the f~ services
available. Consult postTnaster for fees and check box(6s)
for service(s) requested.
1. [] Show to whom, data and address of ,
2. [] R6stricted Delivery.
3. Article Addressed
Type of Service:
Registered ~J
and Jackson ,%.
New Suffolk, N.T. 11956
Mr. Joseph ~d~inski
564 First Street
~rooklyn, NoY. 11215
November
Parsuant to Point 3, letter (b) of the Instructions of the Zoning ~oard
af Appeals Special Exceptions and Variance Forms, please be advised that
! am filing an application for another appeal of the following resolution
~aken by the Zoning Board of Appeals ~
"... it was resolved, to confira the prier acti~ of the Board of Appeals
rendered under Appeal No 949 Beptember 1,1966, for the denial of three Iota
having insufficient area, as applied, rather than approval of two lots of
· uffiolent area..
~ appeal is motivated by the fact that the present Board of Appeals con-
eiders the official letter of Nov-~aber ~,1975, sent to me by the former
~ailding Inspector, Howard Terry, to be ,incorrect.~ ! am enclosing the
requested notice~An accordance with the above captioned Instructions.
sinsorelr,
ODD,n~i ,- ..........
Encl. ~1 Notice
~e~rge D. Damien
DERICK VAN TUYL (L.S.)
COLIN VAN TUYL
RODERIOK VAN TUYL, P.O.
Licensed Land Surveyors
FF~ONT STREET AT MAIN
GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944
(516) 477-0170
OTTO W. VAN TUYL
Professional Engineer (Retired)
To ~,,fnom It i,iay Concern:
August 17, 19~37
· :ams is to certify the locaZion of a certain £ence
near the boumdary-line bet~,~een land of Georf:e Damien on
t~e~w~t~,and Jose?h Fudjins~i on the e~st, lying southerly
cz l:amn ~treet aha between Fourth and ~iffth Streets in
i~ew ~z fol~.
As sho~,n~ on the {~uaranteed s'mrveys ,orema~ed for
Fudjinski in October 1965 and for il.ir. Damien in August
1966, the subject fence lies %?pro~imately one foo~
easzerly of the common bo~u~dary-ii-ae shoo-in o~ the re-
s~sc~ve su~yey naps, and 'rua~s southerl~ from Lain S~reet
abou-t 1 52 feev ~0 !a~e_ of Acker.
To George Damien
.~,odermci~ Van Tuyl, l~O
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
.CO!JN~Y QF SUFFOLK
Michael A. LoGrande
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
Applicant: George D. Damien
Mun. File No.: #3581
S.C.P.D. File No.: SD-87-20
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County
Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to
the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local
determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as
either an approval or disapproval.
The Board of appeals should cautiously exercise its discretionary power in
granting such substandard lot area variances which only serve to undermine the
effectiveness of the zoning ordinance, alter the character of the area and
establish a precedent for the continuance of such a practice.
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
GGN:mb
S/sGerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
IELEPHONE {516) 765 1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, the
Board of Appeals of the Towo of Southold, New York, hereby refers
the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
×× Variance from the Zoning Code, Article III, Section 100-31 ,Bulk
Schedule
Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector
Special Exception, Article , Section
Special Permit
Appeal No.: 3581 Applicant:IIr. George D. Damien
Location of Affected Land: Jackson, Fifth and Main Streets,
County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 17-9-12
Within 500 feet of:
Town or Village Boundary Line
New Suffolk,NY
--~¢X- Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary)
State or County Road, Parkway, Itighway, Thruway
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Ownod Lan
Boundary of Existing or Proposed Cour, ty, State or Federal Park or
Other Recreation Area
or
Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel
Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Channel
Lines,
Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant
Within One Mile of An Airport.
approval of
COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting
~d3c_l~_~Q_pm~l~ in_I~hin ?nn~ling~m.~t-O£f ~li.vi_s~gn~ p_f
]_and.
Copies of Town file and related documen[s enclosed for your revi~w.
Dated:August 25, 1987
~9~k~xx~x~xA~
Notice of Hearings - July 16, 1987
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Copies on or about July
Suffolk Times
L.I. Traveler-Watchman
2, 1987
to the following:
Mr. George D. Damien, 4015 West Fairview Heights Avenue, Tampa, FL 33616
Mr. George D. Damien, Box 626, New Suffolk, NY 11956
Mr. John H. Geideman, as Agent for Mr. Wilhelm Franken,
Box 416, East Marion, NY 11939
Mr. Wilhelm Franken, Osprey Ness Road, Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Arthur Vi Junge, 68~0 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. James L. Gray, Sr., Pudge Corp., Box 1465, Southold 11971
Richard F. Lark, Esq., Box 973, Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935
as Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. James Tyler
Mr. Garrett A. Strang, R.A., as Agent for Dina Masso and Fred Wightman
Main Road, Box 1412, Southold, NY 11971
Mr. William Jacobs, Builder, as Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Paul Galgan
Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Galgan, 4605 Stillwater Ave, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. as Agent for Mr. Frederick Koehler
P.O. Drawer A, Jamesport, NY 11947
Philip J. Cardinale, Esq. as Attorney for Mrs. D. Dean
P.O. Drawer W, Main Road, Jamesport, NY 11947]
Mrs. Donald E. Dean, 9 Yorke Road, Mountain Lakes, NJ 07046
Mr. and Mrs. Socrates Spirakis, 139 Stratford Ave, Garden City,NY 11530
Justice and Mrs. J. Snellenburg, Private Road, Southold, NY 11971
Individual Board members with maps
Town Clerk Bulletin Board 7/1/87
ZBA Office Bul!etin Board 7/1/87
Building Department (Vic)
Planning Board Office
for on-site
inspections/reviews.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 13,
1986
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
To:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: JUdith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3581 application of Geor~]e Damien
for a variance. Also included is Notice to Adjacent Property Owners; tax map;
Short Environmental Assessment Form; letter relative to NYS Tidal Wetlands
Land-Use; surveys; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; and
CO.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
/¢~?,,
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING OF
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987
Appl.-No. 3581
Applicant(s): GEORGE D. DAMIEN
Location of Property: Jackson,_Fifth and Main
County Tax. Map ID No. 1000- 17 - 9 12.
Streets, New
Suffolk
Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer
Members Serge Doyen, Jr., Charles Grigonis, Jr.,
and Joseph H. Sawicki.
Absent was: (none)
Also present were: Mr. Lessard (Building Dept),
Board Secretary, and approximately 20 persons in
The
read the
P. Goehringer,
Robert J. Douglass
Linda Kowalski,
the audience.
Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 o'clock p.m. and
notice of hearing and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey done by Roderick
VanYuyl, P.C.- dated July 15, 1968 indicating the house lot, which
is approximately 90.11' by 150' variable.
SECRETARY: There are two surveys there cut and taped together to
show both lots and the division line.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. There's Lot #2 which is 12,663 sq. ft.(proposed).
And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Damien, would you
like to be heard?
GEORGE DAMIEN: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. Thank
you for giving me this opportunity to emphasize some facts of
my case. As you read in my petition, after I bought it, my lot.
I went to the Building Inspector at that time and asked him
because he was the only one in authority, asked him to determine
whether I would have the right to have two lots. And he said,
"Yes." He said the law, effectively, I mean the law at that time
was 125' by 100' and I have more land than that. ~oweverj in view
of the fact there are four houses behind my property and in view
of the fact that I have three children, I decided to ask for a
variance in order to be able to have this opportunity to present
for me to have three houses. So I applied for a hearing which
took place in 1966 and during the hearing--before that the
Building Inspector told me you don't even have to apply to have
a hearing because you are within the law and you have the right
to have two lots. And I said, "Well maybe they will give me a
variance." And so I applied and during the hearing--copies of
this on page ll--the Chairman of the --the Chairman at that
time--said clearly and I will simply read this, The Chairman
said we would not deny two lots, and then he added we would
have to apply again to divide this property into two lots.
Page 2 - Public Hearing Z.B.A.
Appl. No. 3581 - GEORGE D. DAMIEN
July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting
MR. DAMIEN (continued):
The whole thing comes clear. I, after the hearing, went back
to the Building Inspector and asked him, because I was a
Professor teaching at Columbia University. I said, "Well,
what am I supposed to do to have this into two lots?" And
he said there's nothing to do, you are within the law and
consequently addressing yourself to me is the procedure to
follow. So I said fine, and he issued as you have in the
files, the permits for two houses. However, I couldn't
build two houses because I didn't have the need at that
time, and he issued in writin9 in 1975--when I went to ask
him again, because I knew the. zoning ~-the variance-.-
not the variance, the size of lots had been changed--and
he wrote me a letter of which you have, and said and it
says hear and I will read it again, clearly, November 5, 1975,
an official document issued by the Building Inspector.
...Mr. George Damien
New Suffolk, NY
Dear Sir:
In reply to your inquiry, please be advised:
The action of the Board of Appeals - #949, Sept. l,
1966 dividing your proposed on the E/s Fifth Street,
New Suffolk into twolb~ilSing lots, one with
frontage on Jackson St. and the other with frontage
on Main Street, has not been changed or rescinded.
You still have two building lots on E/s Fifth
Street as the Board set them off in 1966.
Yours truly,
iS/ HOWARD. TERRY
Building Inspector...
Now I have been penalized. In the meantime, of course, the
administration changed.from a Republican Administration, and
I went to the new, who to my knowledge was not a Building
Inspector and is Director of the Building Department, Mr. Lessard.
And I explained my case to him and he told me, "No. The
Building Inspector made an error"and consequently I don't have
two lots.~ I talked to him, explained to him that I want to
fight it. Nobody told me what to do except just to apply, and
Page 3 Public Hearing Z.B.A.
Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN
July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting
MR. DAMIEN (continued):
when I applied to an official, and when he issued the official
letter, this letter is not (inaudible). I happen to be a
Doctor of Law although I don't practice, but I teach law and
this is to me absolutely incredible that an official document
issued by the same Building Inspector is considered to be in
error. That is something that I cannot be penalized. It's
like the previous President of the United States signs an order
and Mr. Reagan says , "No, he was in error." That is legally
speaking something that never happens and I am puzzled, so I
applied for having a hearing to confirm this decision that I
had in 1966, I was within the law and I had the right to have
two building lots. The decision taken by the Zoning Board on
October 2 last year, I applied in April, finally on October the
2nd I have a hearing, and I was again puzzled by a decision that
was'taken at that time. I did not ask --and this is again
something which I cannot understand--~ did not ask the Board
to confirm the decision of 1966 that I don't have a right to
three lots. I wouldn'~t apply for nothing to have--it doesn't
make sense. I applied to have a hearing and to have a decision
to confirm the ~act that in 1966 when I applied first I have
the right to have two lots because the at that time the zoning
ordinance required 125' by t00' Then since I could not get
what I have been trying to have for 21 years now, I applied
for a second hearin§ today which, is taking place. I have
said in detail, I had written a petition which I explained
all the facts and so forth. First of all, it was denied to
me. I applied in November--we are now in July--without going
through details I was aske~ that I cannot have the hearing
before obtaining an (inaudible) from the Department of
Health Services in Riverhead concerning my lot. And I
explained and wrote letters that if I have a second lot, then
I will first of all go forth complying with whatever require-
ments are in force by the Health Department. But what is
interesting to some extent to me is when I had the hearing
in October 1986, the Chairman of the Board did not require
that I have to have this application of the Article VI of
the Department of Health Services. And I said and I explained
and wrote many letters. My file is quite voluminous. That
this Article VI contains a special paragraph that says,
"...cases which are determined by the Zoning Board prior to
January 1, 1981, Article VI does not apply .... " Well, finally
I was very pleased to be called by the Secretary when I was
in Florida that I will have today's hearing scheduled.
Because on August 4, 1986, the Department of Health Services,
Page
Appl.
July
4 Public Hearing Z.B.A.
No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN
16, 1987 Regular Meeting
MR. DAMIEN (continued):
Mr. Royal Reynolds, Public Health Engineer, wrote a letter here
addressed to Judith Terry, Town Clerk, indicated a copy to the
Zoning Board, and it said, "...in order to determine whether
the property is exempt from Article VI of the Sanitary Code, it
is necessary to know whether the Town of Southold has issued
Planning or Zoning Board approval for this property .... " In
order words, that I have a lot. If I don~t have a lot, of
course all these Health requirements which meets the cesspools
and the wells does not apply. And for the (inaudible) again
I do not ha~e after so many years any satisfaction, and I am
penalized becau6e the interpret6tion was the previous Inspector
made a mistake. If he made the mistake, I am not the guilty one.
I don't see why I have to continue to be penalized to be able
to use my property the way I had the right in 1966 when I bought
the property. So I will simply say that in the present situation,
again, with the second appeal, second hearing, I am appealing to
the Chairman of the Board and the Members of the Board to confirm
the fact that I do have as in 1966 two lots because the objection
made by Mr. Lessard, who is Executive Director of the Department
of Buildings~I did not apply. I did apply. I went to the
Building Inspector and asked him what am ~ supposed to so, and
he said there is nothing to do. You are asking me, I'll give
you the permits. You are within the law. And that is the
decision of the Board--from the Zoning Board. So, what I have
done is simply ask him and as in my file, I sent you the original
of the Building Permits which he gave me for the second lot, and
after that of course, I am not a wealthy man--I didn't have the
money. This is the original for the second lot which you have.
So I do not understand why after so much procedure it cost me
money. In 1966 it was $5.00. Today it is $75.00 plus $50.00
for the Planning Board, plus I don't know what. ~ also have
to pay for Department of Health Services, and in the final
analysis I haven't got anything and I am penalized for some-
thing which is simply--I'm not involved. I haven't done anything
wrong. And I would appreciate definitely a decision taken by
this Board, and I appeal it to the Chairman and Members of this
Board to simply restore my rights and grant me a second lot--
and I'm glad also-to empha§ize the fact that as you well know,
according to the United States Supreme Court on June 9th of
this year, -- of the Constitution--this is an application
from the ~aw of the decision. "Landowners are entitled to
compensation when their land is made useless by zoning,
planning and environmental and other land-use restrictions."
Page 5 Public Hearing
Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D~ DAMIEN
July 16, 1987 ZBA Regular Meeting
MR. DAMIEN (continued):
Well I have been exactly in the same situation and the Supreme
Court of the United States is granting here to the landowners
which includes myself, the right to compensation which I am
not going to do. I would like simply to have my second lot
as it can be determined and for which decision I will be
grateful to the Chairman and all the Members for. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask you one question, Mr. Damien.
MR. DAMIEN: Yes, by all means.
CHAIRMAN: Would you just step up here one second please.
I have both apPlications. This to my left over here and to
your right is the application of last year's and this is the
application of this year's. If you'll notice the maps are
pieced.
SECRETARY: One had the house and the other did not.
CHAIRMAN: But they are virtually the same thing.
MR. DAMPEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: The house was not plotted on the other one, ok. I see.
There is one other thing. I just wanted to clearly state for
the people in the audience that the application of 1966 says,
and I'll read it, "George D. Damien, Appeal No. 3503, Variance
Requesting Confirmation of Building Inspector's Actions Prior
Z.B.A. Decision Rendered Appeal #949, 9/1/66, recognizing two
separate building lots having insufficient area, width and
depth, required by Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule
of the Zoning Code. Location of Property .... " I just wanted
to say for the record is what you asked us to do in that
application was to reaffirm that Decision of 1966, and that
was the reason why we did not require Article VI Approval
because you were asking us to confirm it differently from
the application that we have before us now. As you know
we denied the application in 1986, and that's where we are
today. We are here with a new fresh application of which
we did ask you to get Article VI Approval, which you didn't,
but we did grant you a hearing. Is that correct?
MR. DAMIEN: Yes. That is correct. That's besides the fact
that when I applied last year my request was simply to confirm
Page 6 Public Hearing
Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN
July 16, 1987 ZBA Regular Meeting
MR. DAMIEN (continued):
not that I have no right to have three lots.
CHAIRMAN: No, it says two lots in the public hearing.
MR. DAMIEN: But it says insufficient area, which is not the
case. I had sufficient area at that time in 1966.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. DAMIEN: And as to this Article VI, since this is a decision
taken in 1966, paragraph (c) if I am correct does not apply
for any decision taken before January l, 1981. Now if I have
the lot--if I build I will comply with the requirements of the
Department of Health, no doubt. If I sell the property, whoever
will buy it has to comply with it--that goes without saying.
Ok?
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. DAMIEN: I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to speak in behalf of this
application? Anybody like to speak against the application?
Questions from Board Members? (None). Hearing no further
questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,'Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski
Z.B.A. Clerk and Stenographer
I1(~ ' ¢-
{J
S. 85'40'~0"E. - 101.22
t,i
G£OF.Z'GE :r
NEW ~_ g t:" I:
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN RnAD- BTATE ROAD 25 BnUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD July 16, 1987
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. S . E . Q . R .A.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERTJ. DOUGLASS NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAPeXTION
JOSEPH H. SAWtCKI
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3581
PROJECT NAME: GEORGE D. DAMIEN
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.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice 'that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: ~] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of insufficient area, width and
depth of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Corners of Jackson, Fifth and Main Streets,
New Suffolk, NY 1000-17-9-12
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETErmINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction
as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEA.~E CONTACT: Linde KowalsRi, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeals,. Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
mc
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILD1NG INSPECTOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
October 27, 1980
Mr. George Damien
New Suffolk, New York
Dea~ Mr. Damien:
Re:
Property of George D. D~nien & wf
Main Street, Fifth Street and
Jackson Street
New Suffolk, New York 119~6
I reviewed our files and information about your property
and buildings.
Before 1971 a lot could not be less than 12,~00 sq.ft.
Your property was large enough at that time for two (2)
lots each with a dwelling.
You were given a building permit No. 3475Z to build
a dwelling. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy Z3401
and final Certificate of Occupancy Z3412 was issued for
this dwelling.
A permit 3474Z was issued for a 2nd dwelling which has
since expired as the renewal fee was not continued.
A permit 3646Z was issued for a detached garage and that
permit also has expired for t~e same reason.
In 1971 zoning was changed. You csnnot subdivide property
into lots with less than 40,000 sq.ft, of area. Your lot
has a dwelling and only a one family dwelling is permitted
to a lot. Therefore, you cannot get a permit to build
another dwelling on your lot.
You may apply for an accessory building.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE H. FISHER
Sr. Building Inspector
OWNER
FORMER OWNER
STREET
'F
VILLAGE ' DISTRICT SUB.
E/.-- ;, , ..~ ~ , ACREAGE
lW ~-- -: z, TYPE OF BUILDING
LOT
Est.
Mkt.
Vabe
LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMA, RKS /z~/z~~. ,ff~/~,/-
: ~ . , _,) . :a,~/_ C. ~,~, ~,,y~.~,t~ ~.~ /~:~.~ ~-
AGE I B~ILDING CONDITION ,
N~ NOeL BELOW ABOVE , FRONTAGE ON WATER
Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value : FRONTAGE ON ROAD~o
Tillable I ,~ [ 8ULKH~D
Tillable 2 ~ D~K
Tillob{e 3 1
W~iand
S~amplond ....... Z
Brushla~d ~ ~.
~Toto I
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2,5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y, 11971
TELEPHONE (516) ,~65 1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, .JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H, SAWICKI
June 12, 1987
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights
Tampa, FL 33616
Ave .
Re: Appeal No. 3581 (Variances)
Dear Mr. Damien:
This letter will confirm our telephone call to your
Florida home today advising that the Town Attorney and
the Board of Appeals have agreed to schedule your appli-
cation, tentatively for our July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting,
as you requested.
Please let us know as soon as possible whether or not
you are available to appear on July 16th (in the evening).
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER ~
CHAIRMAN
lk
cc:
Planning Board
Building Department
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 West Falrview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
(813) 837-9994
Mr. Gerard Goehringer
chairman
Board of Appeals
Southold, N.Y. 11971
~ay 23,1987
Dear Mr, Goehringer:
Iu responde to your letter of May 11 and in reference to my letter of
April 30, please be advised and please do not continue ignoring the
roll,ring irrefutable facts:
1.- As I have already clearly explained to you in nry letter of March 13,
1987, page 2 Point 3, the decision taken by the Board of J~ppeals after my
hearing of October 2,1986, which vms eo~aunicated to me a month later, on
November 10, ~,~s a paradigm of a ftmctional evasion and subterfoge, since
you did something, which had nothing to do with my appeal, namely, you con-
firmed the denial of three lots, which action was taken by the Board of AP-
peals in 1966. The reason why Mr. Lessard refused to recognize the official
doct~ent issued to me by Mr. Howard Terry, the previous Building Inspector,
and which clearly states that I have two building lots on my property, was
that I allegedlM did not appl[~ after the hearing of 1966~ to obtain a con-
firm~tion Of Board of Appeals decision confirming m~ r~ght to have two lots
on my propert~ in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance in effect in 1966.
My first appeal of October 2~1986 was to make you tmderstand that I did execute
the formality consisting in applying for the division of m~ property into two Lots,
as suggested by the Chairman, in the oodrse of the 1966 hearing. On page ll of
the 1966 hear~mg, the Chairman said: '~e wotuld not den~ ~o lots." In his letter-
rebuttal of August 6,1982, Mr. Lessard stated: "You (m.e., I) never did apply."
Mr. Lessard's statement is utterly false. After the 1966 hearing, I went to see
Mr. HOWard Terry, the Building Iuspeotor at that time,and asked him what I was
supposed to do and whom shall apply to, in order to get an official confirmation
of the Board of Appea~' decision that I have the right to have two building lots.
Mr. Howard Terry'expl~ned to me that addressing m~self to h~was the onl[ oral
application I needed to formalize the division of my property into two lots,
since I was '~ithinthe 1966 law." Therefore, he said, you have two lots and he
added:"You have by law ~vo lots and I'll give you two building permits, as soon
as you want them." And,indeed, I did get two building permits.
2.- In light of this explicative absolutely factual background, which I explained
in the Petition accompanying my Appeal of October 2,1986, I NEVER ASKED YOU TO
C~FI~I ~ 1966 D~CISION TI~AT I KAVE BE~I~ D~IrJD TO i{AVE THRF~ LOTS. I wo~ld
have indulged myself in a'flagrant form of functional insipience, if I had asked
you to confirm that I have no right to have three lots. And yet,that is exactly
what you did most deliberately. Your actima clearly illustrates that you have
indulged in the most disgraseful,if hot ignoble form of subterfuge, in order
to evad~ taking a decision in my case and confirming the fact that I did and do
have the right to have tw~o lots, as confirmed by the official letters sent to
me by the former Building Inspector.
./.
Therefore, Point 1 or paragraphe 3 of your letter dated ~ay 11, does not
make any sense. FYI please read Point 8, in fine, of my Petition of April
1986, accompanying my Appeal to you and in which I clearly stated that I
request the Board of ~ppeals to confirm the decision of the 1966 hearing, as
specified in the official documents issuied to me by the previnu~ Building
Zuspector, H~rard Terry, that I do have tw~o building lots, since in the course
of the 1~66 hearing the Chairm~ emphasized that I do h~ve the right to have
~o lots.
3.- Iu my sec~ Appeal, I am asking you the sa~e thing,i.e.,
to
that
I do have t~vo building lots and to stop being penalized by not recognizing
a decision taken by a previous Ads~nistration and which decision is contained
in documents issued by a former Official of the T~'~ of Southold.
~.- Nc~v, you refu~e to schedule the second hearing, under the fallacious pre-
tex~ that I have to have an exemption under Article 6 of the Sanitary Code
and you are referring to ;dr. Heynolda' letter of ~arch 27,1~87~ H~ever, you
did schedule the first hearing of October 2,1~88, without asking Reynolds'
appro~l for an exemption ~der Article ~ and ~ou do continue ignorin~ Re~u~olds'
letter of f~ugust 12,1~88 and in which he clarly stated that:
"In order to deter~J~ue whether the properb~y (my property) is
exempt from our standards ~nder &rticle 6 of the Sanitary
Code, it is necessary to ]~aov~ whether the Town of Southold
has issued Planning or Zoning Board approval for this project."
~r. Goe~hringer, ~ thought that as Chair~an of Board of A$~peals, ~ich is ~
form o~ a High Tribunal, you will perform your f~ctions.~y showing a paradigm
of integrity, which m~us the quality of sound moral przuciple,uprightness,
honesty and sincerity. H~'~ever, by using subterfuges and bergiversations in
evading to take a decision in my case, the concept of integrity becomes a
metaphysical abstraction, i do not k~ow what you haw against me and I do not
v~nt to believe that there is son~ form of connivance between you and Er. Rey-
nolds. I regret,I did not take you to Court al~ter the first hearing, after
which you rendered a decision totaIly irrelevant and immaterial to nry request.
And,indeed, you did this on p~rpose. Why? You are the only one who knovm how
to answer this question.
erely,
~eorge D. Darien
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 srlUTHDLD, L.I., N,Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J, DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKt
December 2, 1986
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights
Tampa, Florida 33616
Avenue
Re: Appeal No. 3581 Area Variances
Dear Mr. Damien:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your recent appli-
cation. The members of the Board of Appeals.~ill be conducting
field inspections and envirOnmental reviews as m~y be required
by State and local laws prior to scheduling your ~pplication for
a public hearing.
It is requested in the interim that you proceed with the
[ ] Planning Board [ ] N.Y.S.D.E.~_.[X] Co. Health (Art. 6)
in order that they may submit their written comments or recom-
mendations as early as possible. Upon receipt of their input,
your application will be scheduled for the next available hear-
ing date.
If the above document(s) are submitted by January 8th,
it is expected that the public hearing would be held about the
latter part of January. A copy of the notice of hearings as
published in the Long Island traveler-Watchman and the Suffolk
Times will be sent to yQu as confirmation.
Please feel free to call at any time if you have any questions.
Yours ~ry t~/~ Z
CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
cc: Planning Board
Southold Town Board of'Appeals
'
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS,
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
December 2, 1986
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33616
Re: Ap. peal No. 3581 Area Variances
Dear Mr. Damien:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your recent appli-
cation. The members of the Board of Appeals.~ill be conducting
field inspections and environmental reviews as ~ay be require-d
by State and local laws prior to s.~heduling your application for
a public hearing.
It is requested in the interim that you proceed with the
[ ] Planning Board [ ] N.Y'.S.D.E.q:[X] Co. Health (Art. 6)
in order that they may submit their written comments or recom-
mendations as early as possible. Upon receipt of their input,
your application will be scheduled for the next available hear-
ing date.
If the above document(s) are submitted by January 8th,
it is expected that the public hearing would be held about the
latter part of January. A copy of the notice of hearings as
published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman and the Suffolk
Times will be sent to you as c~nfirmation.
Please fee'[ free to call at any time if you have any questions.
Yours very t~ulv,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
cc: P-lanning Board
By Linda Kowalski
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRiGON~S, .IR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
May ll, 1987
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
Re ApPeal No. 3581 (Variances)
Dear Mr. Damien:
In response to your recent letters, please be
advised that you request to schedule a public hearing
without the required Suffolk County Health Department
Article VI approval for this division was considered
by all the Board Members and your request was denied.
To help to clarify the difference
prior and present applications, please
following:
between the
note the
1. The prior application (#3503) requested a
review and clarification of Appeal #949, and the
Board's Action was rendered November 3, 1986 and
forwarded to you. This application was not a direct
request under #3503 for area variances (as is the
~resent application).
2. The present application requests area variances
n a proposed division of land, and it is our understand-
ng that this project for a division of land is subject
to all rules and regulations, including Article VI
approval of the Suffolk County Health Department. (The
prior applications #3503 and #949 did not approve two
lots.) The March 27, 1987 letter from the Suffolk
County Health Department confirms its position that
your proposed division is not exempt, and therefore
you must proceed with their agency for their current
approvals.
We are enclosing a copy of Mr. Reynolds March 27,
1987 correspondence and ask that you proceed with their
Page 2 May ll, 1987
Mr. George D. DamPen
Re: Appeal No. 3581 (Variances)
agency.
We are sorry that you feel negatively about proceeding
with the Article VI County Application, however, we are not
permitted by law to act without same, and your variances on
this two-lot proposal without the County's approval under
Article VI would become fruitless and 100% ineffective.
Yours very truly,
lk
Enclosure
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 West Fairview Heights Ave,
Tampa, Florida 33616
(813) 837--9994
April 30,1987
Mr. Gerard Goehringer
Chairman
Board of Appeals
Southold, N.Y. 11971
/?
Dear l~r. Goehringer:
?~uclosed please find a copy of a letter I am sending this day to
Mr. Reynolds, as well as a copy of a letter which he sent you on
August 12,1986. Mr. Reynsl~~' request is the correct and legal
approach to solve my case.
Please answer me the following ~vo questions:
7~y did you schedule my hearing on October 2,1986,
without waiting for lire Reynolds~: decision, concer-
ning the application or not of Article 6 of the
Sanitary Code, and why do you refuse to schedule
my second appeal without v~iting for Mr.Reynold's
decision? Does your ov~ negative attitude tov~rd
me make sense to you, Wen the case is the same?
The first time you did not need ~Jre Reynolds~'ap-
proval or disap~ro~l and now you need it? On what
legal gro~n~d ?
V~y do you continue ignoring the letter Reynolds
sent you on Augumt 12,1986 and in which he stated
clearly and precisely the correct legal procedure
to follow for the solution of my case, namely:
"In order to determine whether the property (Damien's
property) is exempt from our standards under Article 6
of the Sanitary Code,IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW V~qETHER
THE T~N OF SOUTHOLD PLUS ISSL~dD PLA~NING OR ZONING
BOARD APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT."
I would appreciate an answer to these tw~ questions and ~x~ct that in~el-
llgence will prevail ~nd not Unjustified emotional negatzve~ow~rd me and,
thereby, you will schedule a hearing for my case without an~'further delai.
Pncl.2
Sincerely,
George D. Damien
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 West Fairv)ew Heights Ave,
Tampa, Florida 33816
(813) 837--9994
Mr. Ro~l Reynolds
Department of Health Services
County Center
Riverhead, N.Yo 11901
April 30,1987
cc: Nrc ~erard Goehringer
Chairman
Board of Appeal
Main Road
~outhold,NoY. 11971
Dear Mr. R~ynolds:
In reference to your letter of March 27, which I did answer on April ?,.
in which you stated that "discussion with the County Attorney,s 0ffioe
has confirmed that your development does not appear to be exempt from
Artcl~ 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code," please be advised that
I have consLulted my Attorney, who m~de the following suggestion~:
"In view of the fact that his statement, 'does not appear' is
pre-eminently problematic and,thereby, has no legal value,
ask Mro Reynolds to provide us with a letter from the Cotmty's
Attorney in which he will explain to you,on what legal ground
he claims that your case is ~ot exeml~ from Article 6, of the
Sanitary Code, when your ease, dividing the property into ~vo
lots, dates from 1966. If Mr. Reynolds ignores Letter (c) of
Pafagraphe 2 of the newly amended on March 4,1987, Article 6,
the co~nty,s,Attorney should give us his legal opinion, so
that we may study it and eventually challenge it Ln Court."
Please answer Point 3 of my letter dated April ? and in v~ich I did
refer to yOur letter of August 12,19~6, sent to Judith Terry, Town
Clerk of Southold, and in which y~st~ted:
"In brder to determine whether the property (Danden's property)
is ~'xempt from our standards undgr Article 6 of the Sanitary
Code, it is necessary to know whether the Town of Southold has
issued Plaguing or Zoning Board approval for this project."
Why did you change your mind, when you do know that your request was
correct, since I am now appealing to the 2onlng Board to take a deci-
sion either to confirm or to invalidate the 1966 decision dividing my
property into two lots~Th~'~the correct legal approach to solve my case
since the Zoning Board may or may not confirm the division of my property
into ~o lots. For after'all,if I do not have a second lot,your request
for applying Article 6, whether in my favor or against m~ case, has no
raison d'etre whatsoever~and,therefore, becomes an exercise in futility.
Sincerely, G~ D .~Dami~n.~
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
T ' ---~
· Terry
Town Clerk ~
53095 Main Road/
~thold, N.Y.~
DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H.
t 12, 1986~
Damien Development
New Suffolk (T) Southold
SCTM# 1000-117-9-12
Board of Appeals # 949
Dear Ms. Terry:
This Department is in receipt of a subdivision application
on the above referenced property.
In order to determine whether the property is exempt from our
standards under Article 6 of the Sanitary Code,it is necessary t___o know
whether thee Town of Southold has issued Planning or Zoning Board approval
f~ this project~ "
Would you please inform this Department whether such approvals
have been issued and if so, when.
Very truly yours,
Royal R. Reynolds, P.E.
Sr. Public Health Engineer
Wastewater Management Section
RRR:ljr
cc: Damien
COUnT~ C~NT~ 548-3312
b
GEORGE D, DAMIEN
4015 West Fstrvlew Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33516
(813) 837-8994
April 7,1987
Nr. Gerard P.Goehr~nger
Chairman
Southold Tov~ Board of Appeals
Nain Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Nr. Goehringer,
I would like to believe that you have read and comprehended the content
of my letter, dated March 13,1987, which contains a clear legal explana-
tion of my case. Consequently,will you answer my letter of the said date
without any further delay~
Next week, April 13,1587, it will be exactly SIXMONTHS or more than 180
days since~on November 13,1986~I did appl~ for a second appeal of my case,
which case was decided already in 1966.
I want to know, when are you going to schedule my case for hearing, so that
I may know whether or not you will divide my property into two lots in accor-
dance with the 1966 decision of the Board of Appeals.You told me, in the
course of our last telephone conversation, t~t you will call me and let
me know your decision. You did not. Why?
Your claim that allegedly my application is not complete because I have
to have "either a waiver or approval, or other action under Article 6 of
the Suffolk County Sanitary Code," simply does not make any legal sense
for the following two reasons:
1.- You simply aisregard the content of Section 609,
Point 2, Letter (c) of this sam~ Article 6, which
stipulates:
"The requirements of this article shall not apply to developments and other
construction projects approved by a Town or · . . Zoning Board of Appeals
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,1981, and which met the requirements of the Department
at that time."
2.- The truth of the matter is,Mr.Goehringer, that you scheduled
my first hearing on October 2,1986, WITHOUT ASKING ~ TO HAVE
as a conditio sine qua non~ as you do now,"awaiver or approval
or other action under Article 6."
I would like to believe,Mr. Goehringer, that you are an honest man and you
will stop playing this utterly dishonest game of insipient tergiversations
and,thereby, you will schedule my case without indulging in ~X~rther varieties
of subterfuges and procrastinations ~
Oeorg~D. Damien /
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH SERVICES
COUNTY Of SUFFOLK
M~C. hael A. LoGrande
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DAVID HARRIS. M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSION£R
March 27, 1987
George D. Damien
4015 West Yairview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
Damien Development
New Suffolk (T) Southold
Southold Appeal #3503
Dear Mr. Damien:
I am in receipt of your letter(s) concerning the above
referenced development.
I have recently met with Mr. Goehringer of the Southold
Town Board of Appeals and supplied him with my most recent cor-
respondence to you (January 6, 1987).
Furthermore, discussion with the County Attorney's Office
has confirmed that your development does not appear to be exempt
from Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
I am also enclosing guidelines for processing a realty
development map with this Department for your edification.
Sincerely,
Royal R. Reynolds, P.E.
Sr. Public Health Engineer
Bureau of Wastewater Management
RRR:ljr
enclosure
COUNTY C=NT[. 548-3312
GEORGE D, DAMIEN
4015 West Fairview Heights Ave.
Tampa, F~orlda 33616
(813) 837--9994
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer
Chairm~n
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, N.Ye 11971
March 13,1987
Dear Mre Goerhringer:
In refe~nce to our conversation of last night and to your letter of March 9,
please be advised of the followingfacts:
lc- We are dealing here, ieee, iu m~ case,with a strictly legal situation,
which you continue to ignore for reasans difficult to understand. Please
read my letter of January ?,1987 and my letter of March 9~1987 in which I have
amply and clearly explained the legal problem we are dealing with.
2e- The truth of the matter is that ONLY the Board of Appeals can legall~
deterautue the division of m~ propert~ into two lots~ particularly ina case
related to confirming a decision taken in 1986 by a previous Board of Appeals.
Such being the fact,established by the Southold To~n's law, your legal com-
petence stops here. Then, the Department of Health Services in Riverhead takes
over, so to say, since after the decision taken by the Board of Appeals, its
jurisdiction becomes f~c---~nal. Here again, we have two very different legal
cases. First, if the Zoning Board of Appeals confirms the division of my pro-
perry into two lots, then and only then the Department of Health Services, upon
my request,will decide whether or not Article 6 of Suffolk County Sanitary Code
is applicable to m~ case. And indeed, in m~applioation I shall refer to Section
609, Po~2,Letter (c) of this same article, which stipulates:
"The requirements of this article EHA~L NOT APPLY TO DEVELOPMm~TS
~ND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AE~PROVED BY A TOWN OR . . ZONING
BOARDS OF APPEAL~ PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,1981,AND WHICH M~T THh RE-
~UI~TS OF TH~ DEPARTMENT AT THAT T]~E."
Consequently,it is crystal clear that even after the decision taken by the
Southold Board of Appeals to divide my property into two lots ,article 8 IS
..N.0T APPLICABLE~ since n~ ease IS PRZOR TO JANUARY 1,1981.
~[f the Board of Appeals does not confirm the 1966 decision for two
lots, THERE IS NO LEGAL CA~E AND,~BY~ NOR~0NWHATSOEVER TO R~FE~ TO
A~TICLE 6. That is why, to claim, as you do, in paragraph 2 of your letter,
dated March 9,198?,that Article 6 approval is required as a conditio sine
qua non, i.e., Rs a peremptory condition, PRIOR TO scheduling and above all
as a legal cause FOR NOT ECHEDULING the hearing of my second appeal-~
arrant nonsense, for it does not have any legal ground whatsoeveri I have a
Bachelor Degree of Law, a Master Degree of Law and I am a Doctor of Law and
in light of this explicative background kindly stop indulging in further
tergiversations, in order to schedule my case without any further delay.
Please consult your Attorney and submit for his attention and eonsidera%io~
this letter,as well as copies of the letter I sent you on January 7,1967 and
the minutes of the 1966 hearing, page 10 where the Chairman stated~'~ou could
build tuvo houses there,"and page 11 where h~eiterated and said~e wou. ld NOT
deny two lots~" and addedl"You would have to'apply again to divide this pro-
party unto two lots." And I did ask the then Building Inspector,Howard Terry,
what to do and how to apply. His answer was that I was within the law to have
two lots and,therefore, I had nothing else to apply fortbut simply to ask him
to issue two building permits, which he did. Later on, in 1975, he oonfirmed~
by an official letter that I do have two lots and that this decision of the
Board of Appeals was not rescinded.
3.-The decisio~ taken by the Board of Appeals after my hearing of October 2,
1987, whic~omunioated to me a month later on November 10,1987, was a pa.
radigm of a functional evasion and subterfuge, since you did something which
had nothing to do with n~ appeal, namely, you confirmed the denial of three
lots~ which action was taken by the Board of Appeals in 1966. My first appeal
was to make you understand that I did execute the formality consisting in applying
for the division of my property into two lots, as suggested by the Chairman, in
the course of ~he 1966 hearing, by contacting the then Building Inspector, who
explained to me that addr.essing m~self to him was the only oral application I
needed to for~lize the division of my property into two lots and,thereby, to
obtain two building permits~ which I did get. I never asked you to confirm the
1966 decision that I was denied to have three lots. Hence, the reason for m~
second appeal. Now,after more than three months, since ~ applied for a second
appeal, you refuse to schedule a new hearing and to take a decision on m~ case
under the legally fallacious pretext that article 6 approval is required prior
to the hearing.
4.- Mnolosed please fin~ a copy of a ltter Mr. Reynolds sent me on August 12,
1986 and which clearly explains that~ A
"In order to determine whether the property is exempt from our
standards under Article 8 of the Sanitary Code, it is necessary
to know whether the Town of $outhold has issued Planning or
Zoning Board approval for this project."
This letter was sent to you, but it seems that you have carefully avoided
to even mention it and the more s~o to take into consideration the clearly
stated fast that, in order to see whether or not article 6 is applicable
to my case,the Health Department must first know WHETHER OR NOT I HAV~
TWO LOTS~ Is not this crystal clear and confirm, without any doubt whatso-
ever,the legal explanation I am providing you with,here in this letter,that
Article 6 approval comes ONLY AFTMR the Zoning Board decides whether er not
I ~ave two lots? And again, one would indulge in a paradigmatic ease of an
exercise in fu~lity and other varieties of arrant nonsenses, if one continues
to claim that scheduling the hearing of my case is conditioned by a prior
approval of Article 6.
S/~Ecerelya~A ~ ~ ,
Georg~ D. Damien /
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK{
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
oh T. Terry~
Clerk ~
Main Road/
ld,~
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
St 12, 1~
Damien Development
New Suffolk (T) Southold
SCTM# 1000-117-9-12
Board of Appeals # 949
Dear Ms. Terry:
This Department is in receipt of a su~ivision application
on the above referenced property.
In order to determine whether the property is exempt from our
standards under Article 6 of the Sanitary Code,~it is nece~ssary~to know
whether the To~rn of South~ld ha~..issued Plannin$ or Zoning Board approval
~f~his project~
Would you please inform this Department whether such approvals
have been issued and if so, when.
Very truly yours,
Royal R. Reynolds, P.E.
Sr. Public Health Engineer
Wastewater Management Section
RRR:ljr
cc: Damien
548-3312
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 WeSt Falrview Heights Ave,
Tampa, Florida 33616
(813) 837--9994
March 9,1987
Mr. ~erard P. Goehringer
Chairman
Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals
MainRoad
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Mr. Goehringer:
In reference to our telephone conversation of yesterday, please be
advised of the sad fact t~at,by the time you will receive this letter,
on Marc~ 13, it will be exactly 120 days siuoe November 13,1986, the
day when I did apply for a second appeal of my case.
Is this not another form of penalization against me? For after all,
the truth of the matter is that from 1966 to 1978, I did receiv~
official documents certifying that I do have two building lots on
my property. Then came another building inspector who opinionated
that the decision of the previous ~%m4~istr~tion to issue these
very documents was "iucorreet," and by virtue of his own decision,
which he considers "oorrect,~~in the style of the Roman sayingz
Ma~ister dixit, he deprived~6T my right to have two building
lots
on my property.
Now, in the course of the conversation I had with you, you told me
that you did not schedule my case for hearing because you did not
receive an approval of article 8 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code,
on behalf of the Department of Health Services in Riverhead. On January
19,1987, I did send you a copy of the letter I sent to this very Depart-
merit, Please read it and you will understand very clearly that Article
8 DOMS NOT APPLY TO MY CA~E, for Section 809, Point 2, Letter ~ of
this same article stipulates:
"The requirements of this article 8F~3.L NOT APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT8
AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPROVED BY A TOWN OR · · ZONING
B~ARD8 OF APPEALS PRIOR TO JANUARY l~1981~AND WHICH M~T THE
REQU~TS OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THAT T]~E."
Therefore, you DO NOT NEED ANY APPROVAL OF ARTICL~ 6, SINCE THIS
ARTICL~ DOES NOT APPLY TO MY CASE OF 1966~ Is this not crystal clear*,
Your arg~nent~'that "environmental groups are after you" simply does not
make any sense since you are acting legally and since confirming my two
lots, Will not change in any way whatsoever the environment of my property.
Please help me and schedule the hearing without any further dela~a for which
! do thank you. Sincerely, ·
George D. Damien /
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRtGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
March 9, 1987
Mr. Royal R. Reynolds., P.E.
Wastewater Management Section
Suffolk County Health Department
County Center
Riverhead, NY ll901
Re: Appeal No. 3581 George D. Damien
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
As you may know, we have an application pending
for a variance from our town zoning regulations in
the proposed division of land by Mr. George D. Damien
along Jackson Street, Fifth Street and Main Street,
New Suffolk, Town of Southold; 1000-17-9-12.
We woOld like to request that copies of determinations
concerning the status of Mr. Damien's application pending
before you under Article 6 be forward directly to us for
our file.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
lk
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONI$, .IR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- ,STATE RDAD 2.5 SDUTHnLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
March 9, 1987
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights
Tampa, Florida 33616
Ave.
Re: Appeal No. 3581 (Area Variances)
Dear Mr. Damien:
Please let this confirm the Board's position at our
March 5, 1987 Regular Meeting, in response to your letter
received February 19, 1987.
As you know, Article 6 approval is required for this
project as confirmed by letter dated September 9, 1986 from
Mr. Royal R. Reynolds, Sr. Public Health Engineer of the
Suffolk County Health Department. We received a copy of
that letter from Mr. Reynolds following our transmittal
to his office of our November 3, 1986 determination on
your Request for Confirmation under Application No. 3503.
On December 2, 1986, we sent you a letter requesting
that you proceed with Article 6 pursuant to the position
of the Health Department. In our December 29, 1986 letter
we tried to clarify our reasons for requesting that you
proceed with Article 6. We also asked that you k~ep us
advised regarding developments under the Article 6 appli-
cation with the County.
On January 12, 1987 we received communications from
you together with copies of your application to the County
Health Department Board of Review requesting a waiver and
signed December 29, 1986.
Page 2 - Appeal No. 3581
To: Mr. George D. Damien
March 9, 1987
We will contact the Suffolk County Health Department to
inquire as to the status of your Application for a Waiver
under Article 6 (which we understand was sent by you to
their agency mid-January 1987).
Please be aware that in the event a Waiver is denied by
the County Health Department, it would appear that your next
step would be to continue with a formal application and
variances from the County under Article 6 for this proposed
division. Please check with their office when applicable.
Your application ~or a variance under the town regulations
is still incomplete, pending receipt of either a waiver or
approval, or other action, under Article 6 of the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code.
Please keep us advised regarding developments. Thank
you for transmitting copies of your applications before the
County Health Department for our file.
Yours very truly,
lk
Enclosure
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
~v~"l~ GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 West Fairview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
(813) 837--9994
Februa~ 1~,1987
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer
Chairman
Southold Town of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Nrc Goehringert
May I bring for your attention and consideration the fact that some THREE
(3) months ago, on November 13~1988, I did apply for a second Appeal, in
order to confirm the division of my property in New Suffolk into two lots.
I have been penalized most unjustly by the Town's mishandling my case and
after twenty years I still have not gotten m~ property divided into two
lots, since in the opinion of the new Building Inspector, Victor Lessard,
the decision of the previous Building Inspector w~s said to be "incorrect."
Please spare me any further distress and torment of waiting to enjoy the
right of having t~o lots on my property, right which was confirmed to me
by official documents issued by the previous Administratic~ of $outhold,
a right which I had from 1966 until 1975.
I would greatly appreciate it, if you could schedule the hearing without
any further delay for, and I must say it once more, I have been penalized
and victimized for too many years and I begin to believe that there is
something personal against ms. So, please help ms, for which I do thank
you in advance.
GDD~md
.~oerely,
/
George D. Damien /
GEORGE D, DAMIEN
4015 West Fairview Heights Ave,
Tampa, Florida 33616
(813) 837-9994
January 19,1987
Mre Gerard P. Goehringer
Chairman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, N.Ye 11971
Dear Nrc Goehringerl
As a follow up of my letter of January ? and in order to continue clarifying
our communication process, enclosed please find a copy of the letter, dated
J~nuary 13, which I sent to Nrc Royal Re Reynolds of the Departmer~ of Health
8ez~rioes.
I would like to believe that the legal explanation of Seotiom 609, Point 2,
Letter (c) of Article 8 of Suffolk County Sanitary Code cancerning Realty
Subdivisions, Developments, and o~her Construction Projects, will contribute
to clarify my ease, so that the Board of Appeals may schedule a date for my
second hearing as soon as possible.
May I take this opportunity to thank you for your kindness and oooperatio~
in solving a 21-year ease, for which I have been severely penalized for a
decision taken in 1966,and which up to 1975 w~s considered to be legal and
correct and then a new Building Luspector came up with his ow~ interpreta-
tion and declared in 1982 that the decision taken by his former colleague
~s "incorrect e"
GDD ~md
Encle 1
Gerely' '
eorge De Dmaien ~
GEORGE D, DAMIEN
4015West FalrvlewHelght, Ave.
Tampa. Florlda33616
January 15,1987
Tel.: 8 t 3.-837-9994
Mr, Royal R, Reynolds, PoE,
Department of Health Services
County Center
Riverhead, N.Y. 11901
Dear Mr, Reynolds
I am in receipt of your letter dated January 6. After reading its content, I
derived a clear impression that you did not read my letter of Uecember 29,1986
or,perhaps, you did not want to understand its content. For after all, the
truth of the matter is that there is some malfunction iu your office because
I never receiwd any "guidelines outlining what information should be~
on the map," I sent you. Please read my letter of November 30,1986,as well as
my letter of December 29, Point 1, letters a/,b/and c/.,and be advised of the
irrefutable fact that the updated and amended maps of the two lots, as well as
of the land and the house, which I have already built, ~re signed by the Sur-
veyor Van Tuyl & Son and the seals of this Company were apposed, as required
b~ lgw.
May I bring for your attention and consideration the fact that Article 6 con-
cerning Realty Subdivisions, Developments and other Constructions Projects
stipulates in ~ection 609, Point 2, Letter (c) as follows s
"The requirements of this Article SHALL NOT APPLY TO DMVELOP~ENTS
AND 0THOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPHOV~D BY A TOV~N OR . . . Z0-
NING BOARD~ OF APPn~S PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,1981, AND WHICH Mn-~
TH~ R~QUIR~ENTS OF TEd DEPARTMENT AT THAT TR~E."
Therefore, since the Zoning Board of Appeals of $outhold is going to deal
with a decision related to a develol~nent of my property into two lots,
PRIOR to January 1,1981, and which decision, taken at the hearing of 1966,
clearly specified that I can have ~vo lots because the minimum requirement
to have a building lot was, in 1966, 12,500 sq.ft., ~ou have no legal cause
for action agaLust me and for compelling me to foll~ your bureaucratic pro-
cedure by peremptorily invoking Section 606, paragraphs 1.Co and $.a. You are
an engineer and I happened to be a Doctor of Laws and these are strictly and
pre-eminently legal matters, So, if ~ may suggest, please consult the County
Attorney. Kindly keep in m~nd that the requirements of the Health Department
in 1966 did not determine the size of a building lot to be 40,000 or 80,000
sq~te That is why, Article 6 is not applicable to m~ case~ I tried to oblige
you by signing appzica~ions an~ sen~ug you maps or my property because I
thought you will understand my case, when I gave you personally all the offi-
cial documents and papers confirming my right to have two lots and which were
issued by a former Official, the Building Inspector of $outhold.Furthermore~ if
the Zoning Board does not confirm the, 1966 decision for ~vo lots, or if it does
and then I sell the lot, it will be an exercise in f~tility to follow and imple-
ment your complex procedure. Why? Eimply because in the first case I shall not
have a second lot. In the second case, the new o~vner of my lot ~11 haw to im-
plement your procedure, which will be simplified, since Section 609,Point 2,
./.
~G~orge D. Damien to Ro~l Ro Re~nolds, Contd.
Letter c will render abrog~tive p~ragraphs loe. and ~.a., related to the
40,000 sq.fto, which commands the requirements of your proeeduree
The legal tr~th of the matter is that ONLy the Zoning Board of Southold can
confirm the division of my property interco lots, as established in the course
of the Hearing I had in 1966. Then and only then, I or the new owner of the lot,
if I sell it, shall apply for well and sewerage system to the Department of
Health. And then, in accordance with the legal requirements, established by the
Health Department, the well and the Sewerage system will be built on the lot,
provided that there is a m~nimum of 100 linear feet between them. When the 2o-
ning Board decides and confirms the 1966 decision that I do have a second lot,
whose area will be 12,800, as determined by the Zoning Law of 1966, the ~0,0OO
sq.ft, requirement of paragraphs 1.e. and 8.a. of Section 609, i.e., the buil-
ding lot must have ~0,000 sq.ft, i~s S~e'
conclusi~dence of a /
However, and in view of the fact that there is no/functional coordination and
correct interpretation of Section 609, Point 2,Letter c between the Health
Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals, I asked you in m~ letter of November
30,1986 to be kind enough and ~o send a conditional answer to the Board of ~ppeals,
in order to establish some form of coordination in the interpretation of this
Section 609, Point 2,Letter c. U~ortunately, you ignor~m~ request and indulged
in applying to me the alleged legal requirements of you~ procedure, when no one
~k~ws whether or not the Board of Appeals will confirm the 1966.decision, di-
~ding my property into two lots .Pleas~ ~e'ep in m~nd this ~e'ry important
I would like to believe that you will read this letter and ponder over the
legal meaning of its content, for which attention and consideration I do
thank you in advance.
GDD~md
i ely' ~
Prcf
__ ~_~ en;LLeB.~ LL.~.,LL.D.
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
4015 West Falrvlew Heights Ave
Tampa, Florida 33616
Tel.: 813-837-9994
January ?,1987
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer
Chairman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NoYe llg?l
Dear Mr. Goehringer:
Thank you for your letter of December 29,1986 and for your cooperation to
clarify our communication process. To this effect please be advised of the
following facts.
1.- I am fully aware of the fact that the Town is not permitted to waive
the Article 6 Requirements of the County. However, I believe you should
be also aware of the fact that~
a/ I am being penalized and victimized for the so-called "incorrect de-
cision'' taken by the Building Inspector of the previous Republican Admi-
nistration in Southold. Hence, the reason for m~ second Appeal to the Zoning
Board, since my first Appeal, which I initiated in ~pril aud finally took
place six months later on October 2,1966, ~s "resolved to confirm the
prior action of the Board of Appeals under Appeal No 949,September 1,1966,
for the denial of three lots having insufficient are~as applied, rather
than approval of two lots of sufficient area." When I had the privilege of
talking to you, I did not know the text of the Resolution. The only thing
I knew from Mrs. Kowalski, the Secretary to the Zoning Board, was that the
Board of Appeals did not confirm the decision of the 1986 hearing that I
have the right to have two lots,provided I apply, which I did orally to the
Building Inspector of that time, Mr. Howard Terry. His answer, which I have
clearly explained to the Z,Ding Board and supported with the letters he wrote
me, was that I was 'hvithtn~wwhtch required 12,600 sqeft.," which ~ had
for a second lot and,therefore, I had nothing else to do but to simply ask
himto issue two building permits, which he did. Now, your 'Resolution" con-
firmed the Prior Action of the Board of Appeals (1988) for the denial of
three lots havin~ insufficient area. This is a very peculiar Resolution,
since I never asked in my 1986 Appeal to have three lots and I never
applied fo~ anything of this sort. I did apply to have three lots in 1966
but I wa~enied the right to have TWO LOTS, as clearly stated in the
1966 hearing,and which was confirmed by the official documents issued to
me and signed by the former Building Inspector, which documents you con-
sider now to have been "incorrect."
b/ I followed yo~suggestion and on November 13,1986 I filed another appli-
cation for a second Appeal. I would like to believe that you are fully aware
of the fact that if the Zoning Board confirms the 1966 decision, dividing
m~ propert~ into two lots, its decision will be in conformity with Section
--609, Point 2~ Letter % which stipulates that the "Requirements of th~
./.
George D. Damien to Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Contd. 2 -
article (i.e., Article 6 concerning Realty Subdivisions, Developments and
othe Construction Projects ) ~H~LL NOT APPLY TO DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPROVED BY A TOWN or . · . EONING BOARDS OF APPEALS
PRIOR TO JANUARY l~lBSl~ AND WHICH MET THE RE~UIRa~ENTE OF THE DEPARTMENT
AT THAT TB~Eo" The requirements of Article 6 specify that "parcels to be
served by private wells and individual sewerage systems must have minimum
lot areas of 40,000 sq.ft., Section 606, paragraphs l.e and 3.a." Therefore,
sLuoe the 2cning Board of Appeals is going to deal with a decision related
to a development of my property into t~o lots,prior to January 1~1981 and
which decision specified that in 1966 I had to have a minimum of 12~500 sq.ft.,
which I did have, there is no legal cause for the Zoning Board of Appeals not
to schedule a date for hearing my second Appeal~without waiting for the Health
Department's decision concerning Article 6, Section 609, Point 2. Letter c.
2.- The truth of the matter is that ing with two bureaucratic procedures
established by ~wo different Institutions namely, the Southold Town Board of
Appeals and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Consequently,
and number c~e, only the Eoning Board of Southold can legally determine the
division of mO/ property into two lots, particularly in a case related to con-
firmi~Ea decision taken ~u 1966 by a previous Board of Appeals; second, assu-
ming that the Zoning Board will confirm the division of my prope y~to two
lots, then and only then I shall ask the Health Department to grant me a va-
rianoe or a waiver from regulations and specifications of P, rticle 6 require-
ments for 40,000 sq.f~, lot. However, instead of asking for a variance or a
waiver, I shall request and refer to Section 609, Point 2, Letter c of A~ticle
6 which stipulates that the requirements of A~ticle 6 shall not apply for
projects (decisions) approved by a Zoning Board of Appeals. Third: assnm~ng
that the Soning Board divides my property into two lots and ass,,m?~g that I
decide to sell the second lot, then the duty of the new owner will be to ask
the Health Department for the authorization to build a sewer and a well and
to m~ke "test holes" and "test well on his lot." Fourth, ass,,m~g the Zoning.
Board refuses once more to confirm the 1966 decision~,d riding my property in
to two lots, we shall have conclusive evidence that,complying and following
the bureaucratic procedure established by the Health Department, we have a
paradigmatic case of an exercise in futility and bureaucratic insipience~
Fifth and finally, the truth of the matter ~s that the Department of Health's
legal requirement is that any lot~ whether its area is 12~§O0~ 40~000 or
80~000 sq.ft~the well must be located at a m~imum distance of 100 linear
feet from the location of the sewerage system. And the m~p (survey), which
I sent Mr. Reynolds, shows clearly that there is more than 100 ft. betv~en
the well and the cesspool.
3.- Enclosed please find~ a/ a copy of a letter I sent Mr. Reynolds on Dec.29,
1986;b/an Application for variance or Waiver from Regulations and Specifica-
tions, dated Dec.29,1986;c/ Notice of Incomplete Application-Subdivision;d/
Notice of Non-Conformance Realty Subdivision. I would like to believe that the
preceding explicative background and the enclosed papers will contribute to
clarify the communication process between us and you will schedule the hearing
as soon as possible, for which I do thank you in advance.
~eorg~ De Damien /
4015 West Falrvlew Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
Mr. Royal Reynolds, P.E.
Department of Health Services
County Center
Riverhead, N.Y. 11901
GEORGE D. DAMIEN
December 29,1986
Tel.: 813-837-0994
Dear Nr. Reynoldst
In response to the printed papers you sent me, please be advised of the follo-
wing D~cts.
1.- Please read and refer to paragraph 5 of my letter dated November 30, which
specifies that I did send you the following paperst
a/an updated and amended map of the ~vo lots, with indications o£ the locations
of the existing and the future wells and cesspools;
b/an updated and amended map of the land and the house, which I have already
built wi~[ location of the well and the two cesspools which secure the techni-
cal functionality of my house;
o/an amended and updated application for Approval of Realty Subdivisions.
All the surveys (maps) were updated and amend~ by Van Tuyl & Son on August 12,
1986, Septen~er 3,1986 and November 12,1986. If you have not received these
maps, please let me kn~v. Perhaps, they are misplaced in your Office. All of
these maps were prepared and signed by Van Tuyl.That is why, I do not understand
the reason for your .request.
2.- As I told you, when I had the pleasure of meeting you personally, I am a
University Professor-lecturing in Tampa and I am profoundly puzzled by your
request to make "test holes" and "test well on property," when I do not know
whether or not the Zoning Board of Southold will confirm the 1966 Zoning Board's
decision dividing my property in New Suffolk into two lots. Furthermore, as-
's'uming that it will confirm this decision and will recognize my second lot,and
assuming that I decide to sell this second lot, it will be the duty of the new
owner to provide you with "test holes and test well," if he wants to build ~
house. For after all, if the Zoning Board again refuses to recognize the 1966 de-~
ctsion of two lots, all of your procedural requests have no raison d'etre and
become a paradigmatic form of a bureaucratic exercise in futility. The legal
requirements of the Health Department demand a 100 feet distance between the
well and the cesspools in the second lot,in regard to the well and the sesspools
o£ my house (already built), as well as to those of m~ neighbors. &ud the appro-
Ximate location of the future well and cesspools have been clearly dndicated on
the updated and amended two lets survey (map) I have already sent you. The Health
Department does have detailed map about the exact location of each well and cess-
pool in my area. So, kindly compare the locations o~ the future well and cesspool
on my second lot and you will see that there is more than 100 ft. distance bet-
ween them and those of my neighbors.
3.- As you well know from the official letters I gave you,written by the former
Building Inspector of Southold and which clearly confirmed the fact that I have
two lots, my case is very special. The new democratic Administration in Southold
does not recognize the validity of the letters issued to me by a former O~Ticial
o£ the previous Republican Administration. Result~ I am the innocent victim o/.
George D. Damien to Ro~al Reynolds, Contd.
and I am being penalized for the so-called "incorrect decisions" of the previous
Administration in Southold. That is why, if the Zoning Board confirms the 1966
decision, dividing my property into two lots,it will in conformity with Section
~2, Letter (c), which stipulates that the "Requirements of this article
(i.e. Article 6 concerning Realty Subdivisions, Developments and Other Construction
Projects) shall not apply to developments or other constructions projects which
have been approved by a Town or . . . Zoning Boards of Appeals prior to Januar~ l~
1981, and which met the requirements of the Department in effect at that time."
That is why your emphasis on having a lot of ~0,000 sq.ft.,in order to be allowed
to build a well and a cesspool will not apply in accordance to Section 609, Point
2, Letter (c).
4.- In light of this clarificatory background and in order to allow you to imple-
ment the bureaucratic procedure established by the Health Department, I am sub-
mitting for the attention and consideration of the Board of Review my Applica-
tion for Variance or V~iver From Regulations or Specifications, as you requested~
and notwithstanding the fact that the Zoning Board of Southold may or may not
confirm a decision taken prior to January 1,1981.
§o- Finally, in order to extricate myself from the bureaucratic labyrinth of the
Southold Zoning Board, Planning Board and the Riverhead Department of Health
Services~ I conveyed to you the suggestion made to me by the Chairman of the
Board of Appeals, the Honorable Mr. Gerard p. Goehringer, that you send him
a conditional answer, as formulated in paragraph 4 of my letter, dated November
30,1986.Ostensibly, you have refused to send him this conditional answer even
though you do know that there are more than 100 Feet between the well and the
cesspool to be built, if need be in the future in Lot B of my property,along
Fifth Street, as clearly indicated on the updated and amended survey (map) by
Van Tuyl. ¥~y? I do not know. Please help me instead of creating more problems
and difficulties for me,for which~/L do thank you in advance.
GDD:md
Encl. 3
e~orerely' ~
ge D. Damien
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WASTEWATER PIANAGEMENT SECTION
SUFFOLK COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION - SUBDIVISION
Your preliminary/final plan submission for the below referenced subdivision or development has
been reviewed by this office. This office will retuire the followin9 for further review:
/9. d. ~c~'< ~2~ /~2_/K_~C H.S. REF.:
,,.7-~c/CS:~.',3 ~'T-. ZONE NO.: TOWN:i~'-
Preliminary Submission
igned Applications (enclosed)
WWM-023 (Application) ~WWM-024 (EAF) '~ 'L-~aper Prints
l~-Test Holes Located and Witnessed By:
[]SCDHS inspector. Call 548-3312 for appt.
~ Other
[]Topographic Survey
'5]diZ, E./L.S. as per location instructions.
"j~Test Well
-{~Q~ocated & sampled by representative of this office. Call 348-2895 for appointment.
(Test well does not indicate a waiver of requirement for connection to public water).
~]~ther 7,~-- ~'~ {~ ~ ~/ ~Z ~,,~T'~T ~
~ Public wate~ availability and cost letter from local wate~ district.
~ Public water co~tract or covenant for extensio~ of public water.
~Rub]ic sewer availability letter from local sewer district.
Final Submission Looa%ions are ole~ly indica%ed on S~vey (~p). The te~
hole ~nd %est well loo~ions are %he sa~.
~Show on Final Maps: ~
-i[~,Test hole locations/details
~:BC.Test well locations/details
Sewer line locations/details, stamped
and approved by local sewer district
~S=wage disposal locations/details for
typical lot Lo~ati~on Survey
[]Water main ]~ations/detai]s
'~.E.'s/L.S.'s signature and seal
efollowing is required prior to
continuing
review:
oard of Review determination letter. < ~%¢~-u ~{} ~n-compliance notice enclosed.
[]Wetlands permit or determination letter from NYSDEC.
[]SEQRA determination letter from Town/State.
[]Filing fee check of $4.50 per lot at time of submission.
[]Covenants: For Approval __ Recorded Copy__ Instructions enclosed
'~ther .,F'~/~ /~ ,.~-- ~p~ ~~('~ ~ ~6~%~
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL.
PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS FORM WITH ANY RESUBMISSION./(~./"-')~/(~/,,,,m
cc: ~ ~ '-~cc~h ~- £o~j Reviewer
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION
COUNTY CENTER, ROOM N-204
RIVERNEAD, NEW YORK 11901
NOTICE OF NON-CONFORMANCE
REALTY SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT
~his application ~s ~ot being processed for approval because it does not ~onfor~ with
the requirements of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. This Code requires
that a realty subdivision or development comply with the following as marked:
parcels to he served by public water and individual sewerage systems must
/ h~5ve minimum lot areas of 20,000 square feet or equivalent yield, Section
, Paragraphs 1.c. and 2.a.
(~pa~els to be served by private wells and individual sewerage systems must
~e37~?imum lot areas of 40,000 square feet, Section 606, Paragraphs 1.e.
[] parcels to be served by individual have
sewerage
systems
lot
areas of 40,000 square feet or equivalent yield, Section 605, Paragraphs
1.d. and 2.b.
a community sewerage system method of sewage disposal is required when sub-
soil or groundwater conditions are not conducive to the proper functioning
of individual sewage systems, Section 605, Paragraph 1.b.
a community water system method of water supply is required when the realty
subdivision or development is located within, or is reasonably accessible to,
an existing water district or service area, Section 606, Paragraphs 1.a. and
1.b.
a community water system method of water supply is required when the
ground-
waters in the area are non-potable, or potentially hazardous, Section 606,
Paragraph 1.d.
Other/Comments:
For reconsideration, proof should be submitted that this project conforms with, or is
exempt from, these requirements of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
If this matter cahnot be resolved,_you may request a variance from these standards by
a_~lying to the Department's Board of R~vtew (~o~ms and instr~ions enclosed). P~ior
to apply ng o the Board of Re-qiew, the subdivision/development application must be
completed.
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BOARD OF REVIEW
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OR WAIVER FROM REGULATIONS OR SPECIFICATIONS
TO: Chairman of the Review Board
I, ?1~, George D, Damie~
(mailing address) P.O. Ile× 62,~; .rac]m,-,,~ .q~.~
, residing at/doing business at
New Suffolk. N.Y. 11956
request a variance (x) or waiver (x) from (indicate Article and Section Number) ' ·
609, Point 2.,Letter o.
of the..~FT_,~Suffolk County Sanitary Code (cross one
out), and is in relerence to (indicate Health Department reference number, name of realty subdivision/de-
velopment and property Iocation)H.S.REF.: Damien Dev.,Town~T 8outhold, my property is loca~
ted in New Suffolk, Main and Fifth St.
T.h, is request is based on the following (brief explanation why variance/waiver should be granted): __
In 1966, the Zoning Board of Southold divided my property into two lots. This was oon-
fizzled officially by letters given to me by the former Building Inspector of Southold,
which letters I gave to Mr. Royal Reynolds. The present democratic Administration of the
Town of $outhold refused to recognize the legality of these letters issued by the previo~
Republican Administration and found that the previous Building Inspector,s decision,con-
firming the fact that I have two lots, was "incorrect." The decision of the Eoning Board
reads as follows:" it was resolved to confirm the~rior action of the Board of Appeals ren-
~ere~ under Appeal No 949,Sept.l,1966,for the denial of 3 lots having insufficient area,
a~s ?_pplied, rather than. apjprov~l of two lots of sufficient- a~a "~ .... ~,, o ~ o -~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - - --:::::::::: .................
1. Type or print legibly.
2. Submit completed form to the address at top of application.
3. Regardless of any prior submission to the Wastewater Management Section, you must enclose with
this applicalion
a. copy of survey for residential construction, site plan for commercial construction, or map of realty
subdivision/development; and A copy of the survey was sent to Mr. Reynolds on
November 30,198S.
b. copies of all pertinent paperwork (i.e., letter of rejection, estimate of cost to extend public water.
etc.). Copies of letbers issued by previous Building Inspector were given to Mr.
Reynolds.
DO NOT CALL THIS OFFICE. You will be notified in writing of the date, time and place for the hearing.
The hearing will be scheduled as soon as possible; however, all hearing schedules will be based on a
first come- first served basis.
WWM-061
Southold Town Board of
Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
December 29, 1986
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
Re: Appeal No. 3581 (Area Variances)
Dear Mr. Damien:
This letter should help to clarify our communications
to you dated December 2, 1986.
The December 2nd letter is our form letter used to
keep you advised of the status of your newly filed application.
The letter indicated that Article 6 action is necessary from
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (in accordance
with their letter addressed to you 9/9/86 which was forwarded
to our office November 24, 1986 by the County). The Board of
Appeals has not authorized or directed any advertisement of
your new application for a public hearing at this time. It
is our understanding of the 9/9/86 County Health letter that
you may proceed with an Article 6 application on the division
of your property, particularly since the 1966 status of your
property has been clarified.
Our file
and the County
any additional
stood.
includes correspondence from the Planning Board
Health Department. We do not feel you need
application to the Planning Board as misunder-
It is only by resolution of the Board of Appeals to set
the calendar of hearings, and the Town is not permitted to
waive the Article 6 Requirement of the County.
Please send all future communications addressed to the
Board directly and keep us advised as to the status of the
County Article 6 application for our file.
Yours very tr]z]~
~aERARD P.
CHAIRMAN
GEORGE D, DAMIEN
4015 West Falrview Heights Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33616
Tel.: 813-837-9994
December 9, 1986
Mrs. Linda Kowalski
Secretary
Southold Town Board of
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Appeals
Re. Appeal No. 3581
Area Variances
Dear Mrs. Kowalski:
In response to your letter of December 2 please be advised that on
November 30, witness the herewith enclosed copy of a letter, I did
send to Mr. Royal Reynolds, P.E. another amended and updated Ap-
plication for Approval of Realty Subdivisions and Developments to-
gether with an updated and amended map of the two lots, with in-
dications of the existing and future wells and cesspools, the exact
square footage of each lot, an updated and amended map of the land
and the house, which I have already built with the location of the
well and the cesspools. I asked him to provide you with a con-
ditional answer, as explained in paragraph 4 of the letter I sent
him.
As you well know, you have received a letter dated October 7 from
the Planning Board informing the Board of Appeals that "1. This
propasal is not in conformance with the 2 acre zoning~ therefore,
the Planning Board cannot endorse it."
This letter provides you with "written comments" made by the Plan-
ning Board consequently there is no need for me to fill out an-
other Application and to spend another $50.00 in order to receive
the same answer.
Please spare me these bureaucratic formalities, since only the Board
of Appeals is legally competent to decide my case, concerning the
two lots. I have been penalized enough and deeply and endured pro-
blems and miseries for the last 20 years created by allegedly
"incorrect interpretations and correct misinterpretations" on
behalf of two Building Inspectors, the first one belonging to the
former Republican Administration and the second to the present
Democratic Administration of the Town of Southold.
Please help me instead of creating more problems for me.
Before my departure from New Suffolk, I talked to you and it was
clearly understood between us that my file was complete for this
third appeal and that you will schedule the hearing either before
Christmas or at the end of the first week of January 1987.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is the only instance capable of taking
a decision confirming my right to have two lots~as it was decided
already in 1966, provided I apply again for this confirmation.
And this is my second and final appeal to correct the alleged
misinterpretations of the 1966 Hearing by the previous Building
Inspector.
GDD:md
Encl. 1
~:erely,
George D. Damien ~
I
,0
A: i6,?~¢6 hZ.F;
KI. 85' ZT'00' W. -
D
U.
N. eS4~'3°-w.
Gr-
MAP OF
SU~V~Y~O
E D~.MA
~_.V
IV'lAP
GEORGE ;r
NEw
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board o£ Appeals
NIAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2S SDUTHOLD, I...I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
December 2, 1986
Mr. George D. Damien
4015 West Fairview Heights
Tampa, Florida 33616
Avenue
Re: Appeal No. 3581 Area Variances
Dear Mr. Damien:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your recent appli-
cation. The members of the Board of Appeals will be conductin9
field inspections and environmental reviews as.may be required
by State and local laws prior to scheduling your application for
a public hearing.
It is requested in the interim that you proceed with the
[ ] Planning Board [ ] N.Y.S.D.E.~:[X] Co. Health'(Art. 6)
in order that they may submit their written comments or recom-
mendations as early as possible. Upon receipt of their input,
your application will be scheduled for the next available hear-
ing date.
If the above document(s) are submitted by January 8th,
it is expected that the public hearing would be held about the
latter part of January A copy of the notice of hearings as
published in the Long Island ~raveler-Watchman and the Suffolk
Times will be sent to yqu as confirmation.
Please feel free to call at any time if you have any questions.
Yours very trulv~ _
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
.CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
cc: Planning Board
Legal Notices
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267
of the Town Law and the Code of
the Town of Seuthold, the follow-
lng hearings will be held by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
OF APPEALS at a Regular
Meeting at the Southold Town
Hall, Main Road, Southold, New
York, on THURSDAY, JULY
16, 1987 at the following times:
/~:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3581
ORGE D. DAMIEN. Vari-
ances to the Zoning Ordinance,
I ~n~icle III, Section 100-31, and
Bulk Schedule, for approval of
rdnSUfficient area, width and
epth of two parcels in this pend-
lng set-off division of land
coted at the Corners of Jackson,
Fifth and Main Streets, New
Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 17, Block
9,Lot 12, containing a total area
of 28,919± sq. ft.
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3639 -J
~WILHELM FRANKEN. Vari-
once to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-32, and
Article XI, Section 100-119.2, for
permission to locate 25' by 25'
accessory building in sideyard
area and with insufficient set-
back from existing bulkhead
along Gull Pond Inlet. Location
of Property: West Side of Osprey
Nest Road, Greenpert, NY;
Cleaves Point Subdivision Sec-
tion I, Map 2752, Subdivisioo4
Lots 14 and 15; County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 35, Block
6, Lots 22, 23 and 24 (now 24.1).
7:45 p.m. Appl. No 3635 - AR-
THUR V. JUNGE. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-30(A) for per-
mission to establ' h.~, electrical
shop use in this ' ' Residen-
rial and Agric~l~al Zoning
District. Location of Property:
North Side of C.R. 48, Cutch-
ogue, NY; County Tax Map Dis-
trict 1000, Section 96, Block 1,
Lot 19, containing 45,589-+ sq.
ft. in lot area.
7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3631 -
PUDGE CORP. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-30(A) for per-
mission to establish and con-
struct 7500 sq. ft. building for in-
dustrial use in this "A" Residen-
tial and Agricultural Zoning
District. Location of Property:
North Side of C.R. 48, Cutch-
ogue, NY; County Tax Map Dis-
trict I000, Section 96, Block 1,
Lot 20, containing 39,524-+ sq.
ft. in lot area.
7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3638 -
JAMES AND MARY TYLER
(continued from June 18, 1987).
Special Exception modifying
Appl. No. 3400 to permit vehicle
doors to face street side as con-
structed. Location of Property:
6795 Main Road, Laurel, NY;
Mattituck Holding Co. Minor
Subdivision Lot #3; County Tax
Map District 1000, Section 125,
Block 1, Lot 19.6.
8:00 p.m. AppL No. 3642 -
DINA MASSO. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XI,
Section 100-119.2 to construct
accessory boathouse structure
with deck at the foot of the bluff,
and deck and new stairs along
and at top of bluff areas, all
landward of existing wood bul-
khead along Peconic Bay, prem-
ises known as 5705 Nassau
Point Read, Cutchogue, NY; Lot
39, Amended Map A of Nassau
Point Filed August 16, 1922;
County Tax Map District 1000,
SecC~on 111, Block 13, Lot 04.
8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3644 -
FREDERICK WIGHTMAN
DAVID FREY/JOSEP~
REINHART. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-30(A), Article XI,
Section 100-118(E) for establish-
ment of business uses, and/or in-
terpretation, to permit the fol-
lowing activities: retail sales
and storage, business office, pro-
fessional office, governmental
office, contractor office, per-
sonal-service store or shop, as
described for the "B-Light Busi-
ness" Zoning District, Section
100-60(A){2], {4], {8) inclusively,
in conjunction with existing
single-family dwelling unit on
second-floor having a livable~
floor area of 900 sq. ft. Zone Dis-/
trict: "A-40.' Location of Prop-
erty: North Side of Main Road,
Peconic, NY; County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 75, Block
1, Lot 16, containing 1.0194
8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3645 -
PAUL AND CHARLOTTE
GALGAN. Variance to the Zon-
lng Ordinance, Article XI, Sec-
tion 100-119.2 for permission to
construct additions to dwelling
landward of existing construc-
tion and within 75 feet of exist-
ing bulkhead along Eugene's
Creek, 4605 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue, NY; County Tax
Map District 1000, Section 137;
Block 03, Lot 05.
8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3496 -~
FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR.
Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article X1, Section 100-
119.2 for permission to construct
38' by 16' beach pavilion and at-
tached deck areas extending a
length of 124 ± feet and width of
28 feet (exclusive of stairs), ac-
cessory and incidental to the es-
tablishod single-family residen~
tial use of the premises, not to
bo operated for sleeping or habit-
able purposes and not operated
for gain, within 75 feet of ordi-
nary highwator mark and/or
landward edge of tidal wetland,
along Peconic Bay, 575 Old Har-
ber Road, New Suffolk, NY;
County Tax Map District 1000,
Seaction 117, Block 03, Lot
8:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3592 -
BENTE SNELLENBURG
(Continued from April 20, 1987 Iq
as requested). Variances to the iS
Zoning Ordinance, Articles:
XI, Section 100-119.1(B) for ap- I¥
proval of eight-foot height of
fencing along the easterly prop- ri
erty line a length of 72+ feet;
(2) XII, Section 100-141, Appeal-
lng the November 6, 1986 Order ~S
to Remedy Violation which man- n
dates a building permit for new
fencing along the easterly prQp-
erty line. Location of Property:
Private right-of-way extending
off the east side of South Harbor
Road (known as Private Read
No. 10, or Old Woods Path),
District 1000, Section 87, Block
The Board of Appeals wilt
hear at said time and place all
persons or representatives desir-
ing to be heard in each of the
above matters. Each hearing
will not start before the time al-
lo, tod. Written comments may
be submitted prior to the conclu-
sion of the subject hearing. For
more information, please call
765-1809.
Dated: June 30, 1987.
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
CHAIRMAN
1TJyg-5658
Linda Kowalski,
Board Secretary
NOTICE OF HEARINGS'
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-
EN, pursuant to Section 267 of
the Town Law and the Code of
the Town of Southold, the
following hearings will be held
by the SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD~
Regular Meeting at the Southold
Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold, New York, on
THURSDAY~ JULY 16, 1987, at
the following times:
~GE7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3581-
ORGE D. DAMIEN.I
Variances tothe z~i-n~'-'
dinance, Article II1, Section
100-31, and Bulk Schedule, for1
approval of insufficient area,~
width and depth of two pareels~
in this pending set-off division
of land located at the Corners
of Jackson, Fifth and Main
Streets, New Suffolk, NY;
County Tax Map District 1000,
Section 17, Block 9, Lot 12 con-
taining a total area of 28,919_+
sq. ft.
~ 7:40 p.m. Appl. No.
WILHELM FRANIEEN.
Variance to the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article I11, Section
100-32, and Article XI, Sci:tion
100-119.2, for permission to
locate 25 ' by 25' accessory
building in sideyard area and
with insufficient setback from
existing~bulkhead along Gull
Pond Inlet. Location of Proper-
ty: West Side of Osprey Nest
Road, Greenport, NY; Cleave(
Point Subdivision Section I,
Map 2752, Subdivision Lots 14
and 15; County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 35, BlOCk
6, Lots 22, 23, and 24 (now
24.1).
7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3635-
ARTHUR V. JUNGE. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti-
cle Ill, Section 100-30 (A) for
permission to e~mblish el~=trical
shop use in this "A-40" Reaiden-
tial and Agricultural Zoning
District. Location of Property:
North Side of CR 48, Cut-
chogue, NY; County Tax Map
District J~100, Section 96, Block
, Lot~ 19~ contalnlr~45~89:k
sq. ft:'ifi ~f6C areaL'~'~' ~; .!~
7:50 p!m: App~ No.
PUDGE CORP. V~iaoce to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article 111,
Section 100-30(A) for p~'mis-
sion to establish and cOastruct
7500 gq.: fi building for in-
dustrial uaeia th~ ~'A~,! Residen.
rial and A~ricultm'al ~'Zonihg
District. Location of Pro~:
North Side of C~ ~ 4g, ~t-
ehogue, NY; Courtly 'lh~x.~e~ap
District 1000, Section 96~Block
1, LOt 20, containing 39,524*_.
sq. ft. in lot area. ~-.
7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3638-
JAMES AND MARY TYLER
(co n t in ue0_from Ju~LS~ 19~}.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ss:
STATE OF NEW YORK
Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Long Island Travel,er-Watchman
once each week for ........................... weeks
successively, commencing on the ......................
.... .....
(i.). ::-i ::". i :: i. i .......
Sworn to before me this ..................... day of
........ ~-.' ~' ~'f7 ......... 19...'..
/
Notary Public
BARBARA FOR b
]Notary P~bi~e, ~ -
No. 48)68 ~(;
Qualified in Suffolk; Com,t3,
Commission Expires o/~/-~
APPEALS ROArRD
MEMBERS
GIRARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGON~S, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR,
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
I'ELEPIK)Nt (516) 765 1809
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and dale
of the public hearing concerning your recent application is
a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. Traveller-
Watchman, Inc. arid Suffolk Weekly Times, l~c.
Someone should appear in your behalf during the public
hearing in the event there are questions from board member~
or persons in the audience. Please be assured that your
public hearing will not start before the time allotted in
the Legal Notice.
If you have any questions, please feel fr,e to call
our office, 765-1809.
Yours_ very .t,~ut~/~,~//~ ~
GI~RARI) "P .' GOEHRFNC, ER
CitA I RMAN
Enclosure
Linda Kow~I ski
Seczrcl, ary aud bo~i'd Clerk
~i0V 1 3 ~J~j~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
T~?E.~lx EJ~C)MJ DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEL NO. m~/
- DA~ Nov..... 13~1986
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF A~PEALS~ ~OWN OF S~THOLD, N.Y. '
Nome of Appellant Street and Numar
M~nicipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APP~LS.FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPE~OR ON
ApPLJ~ATIO~ FOR PERMIT NO. '"'~ ' ' DATE ' '~ Z6 ZoS~ ·
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTO ENIED TO
George' D. ~mien' '
Name of Applicqnt for permit
of ~ Jacks0~&'~fth St. in New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 ·
Street and Number . '~unicipali~ ~ State
(x) PERMIT'~O USE
( ~ PERMI~ FOR OCCUPANCY ~o.'
( )
.I.. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..............
Street /Hamlet / Use Distr-i~t on Zoning Mop
Di's~r'ict '1000 $~ction117 Blo'ck 9 Lot p/o,~2
.................................................................................. burren~ uwner' George .o. gm~ien
Mop No. T~ ~rmp No 1OOO Lot No. Prior Owner
2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub-
section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.)
Article I Section 106-20 Sub-divisions by Authority of the Planning Board,
Art. III, Section 100-31
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (please check appropriate box)
(x) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop
)' 'A VARIANCE due to lack-of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection '3
( ) A ~rev~ous appeal wa~ ms.de No 949,~ept,l~1966 & Appeal No3503 ~f 10.2.1986
'J,. PREVIOUS APPEALed'd previous appeal (has) (J~been made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector ~/with re~pect tO this property. ' .... ,r ! ;-: .... '
Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit .... .
.. ~ :. (x) r~quest for ~ variance ~(, ~ ' , : .
and waS made in ,~ppeal No.N.O..~4~..~3.~.0~.......'...Dated Se~)t,l, 966 and Oct, 2s1~8~
REASON FOR APPEAL '
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ' ' ·
(~) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
( ) ~
is reguested for the ~eason tinct I found myself ~raveT.v penalized by the fact that the
previous Building Inspector, ~. Howard Terry, nrovided me with official letters
certifyinK that m~ property w~,s divided ~ into two buildin~ lots after my Hearing
of Sept. 1,1966.Although in the course of ~he hearing of 1966 the Chairman of the
Board of Anpeals did say that the Board will not den7 me two lots~ provided I apply,
the then B~ilding Inspector told me that I do not have to aoply for anythin$~ since
I haveeuou~h land,28,919 sq.ft, and "was within th'e law." N0~, after the second hea-
~'orrn ZB! (Continue on other side)
ring of Oct. 2,1986, the resolution of the Board of Appeals stipulates that the
former Building Inspector "was in error" and that the official letters he gave me,
certifying that I have two building lots,have no legal value whatsoever.
REASON FOR APPEAL Continued
1. ~STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sary HAI~DSHIP because I am denied to have two lots by the present Building Inspector,
Victor Lessard, for insufficient acreage, while in 1966, when I had the hearing,
tha acreage of my property, 28,919 sq.ft, was more than necessary to have two lots,
~½e size of the :lot Was 12,500 sq.ft, according to the Zoning Ordinance If 1966.
There will be no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship for anybody if the
Board of Appeals considers my appeal as an application for formalizing the division
of my property into two lots, as requested by the Chairma~ 6f bhe Board of Appeals
in ?66. For after all, I have not done anything illegal~4~nd should not ~ suffer
thi~ utterly unjustified hardship by being denied to ~av~ots because the former
Building Inspector Was "in error" when he officially confirmed by his last letter
of Nov. 5~1975 that "... the action of the Board of Appeals #9~9,Sept.l,1966,
dtviSing your ~oroperty on M/S Fifth Et., New Buffolk, into two building lots,one
with frontage on Jackson St and the other with frontage on Main Street has not been
changed or rescinded . . . You still have two building lots on w/E Fifth Street,
as the Bosrd set them off in 1966 . . .." Point 6 of the Action of the Zoning
Board of ~ppeals of Oct. 2,1986 emphasizes 'that by this letter dated November 5,1975,
"the Town Build, hE Inspector advised ~r. D~mieu (erroneously)..." If such is the
case why should~e~dure this hardship created ~y 'an official of the To~ra of gouthold,
namely the former Building Inspector, when he made a wrong interpretation of the
1966 hearing and mishandled my case by telling me that I do not ~ave to make any ap-
plication, when the Chairman of the Board said that I had to apply, in order to for-
realize th division of per ~ into two 1 ts?
. THe hardship created ,s U"~'I~6~ an~ ,s not shored ~y all properties alike in the immediate
vicinity of this property and in this use district because
This Point 2 is true and applicable to my case. There a~_e four buildings
in the back of my property and they belong to Mrs.Acker ~nd Mr. FudJinski.With
my second lot, my property will have only two houses.
3. THe Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because ~ it ~¢l_ll simply restore the validi~,y
of a decision taken by the Board of Appeals in 1966 not to grant me three lots
but to advise me that it will g~ant me ~w~ two lots, provided I apply. And again,
I did not make any application to 'the Board of ~ppeals or to the Planning Board,
because the then Building Inspector most categorically emphasized to me that I do
not have to do anything else but to apply to him by asking him to issue two dif-
ferent building permits for my two lots, which, in his~ Judgment, were granted to
me by the Board of Appeals in 1966. ~herefore, if be made an error and the letter
he gave me on November 5, 1975 is said to be "incorrect," as letter (f) of Point 11
of the Action of the Zoning Board of Appeals of November 3.1986 stipulates,I cannot
be penalized for something I have not done .mad no responsibility is imputable to me
for the hardship created 'by a formal official of Southold Town. In light of these
explicative remarks and ~=~ factual background, I respectfully request the
Chairman and the Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider this appeal
as an APPLICATION, if necessary, in accordance with the ~ statement .msde by
the Chairman of the Board in 1966 that the Board will grant me two lots, if I apply,
so that the present Zoning Bo&rd of Appeals may eliminate the severe hardship imposed
STATE OF NEW YORK ) upon me by the former Building Inspec. t,r, who a__cte~'errone~usly
COUNTY OF SuFk~U~ ) . ,.. "~:~n~u~-'~r'~ ..... ' /
/
Sworn to this 1~
.... ., .........................................day of ............
.......
Notary PtEglic r
MARY ANN CYBULSKt
NOTARY PUBLIC. State of New
Residing ,n Sulfoik County
No 52.5895900
Coi1mllssto~ 'CxPire~- AD~! ~
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
In the Matter o'~ the Petition of :
George D. Dsmien :
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold :
TO: Mrs. Irwin Acker ~ Mr. Joseph FudJinski
1200 Flagles ~ive 564 First St.
West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401
NOTICE
TO
ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11215
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. Thatitistheintention ofthe undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals ofthe Town of Southold
to requ~t a (Variance)
in line and spirit of the statements made by the Chairman of the Board of Appeals ).
In %~e course or %ne £y66 nearing.
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows: County Tax Map No lOOO Section 17~ Block 9~ Lot p~o 12
3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
New Suffolk~ Main~ Fifth and Jackson ~treets
4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: Elimination of the severe
hardship created by erroneous actions and letters of former BUilding lnspec%ors so
that a second lot may be granted.
5. That the proviz, ns of the Southold To~:.o~i~ Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signed are Rzticle X~ Sectic~ .... ~'~
[ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way.
6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will
be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there
examine the same during regular office hours. (5'16) 765--'1809.
7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the
l~oard of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such
hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the
Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the
right to appear and be heard at such hearing.
Dated: November 13s1986 O ~-~/.~~L ~ · ~
%e~/itnie~ ~r , N a m es George
Post Office Address P.O.Box 62~
New Sb~ffolk, N.Y. 11956
(Tel. )
P 107 379 178
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO iNSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF
ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS
P 107 379 180
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAOE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNAIIONAL MAlt
(See Reverse)
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to whom and Date Delivered
Re urn receipt showing to whom,
Date, and Address of Deliv~'~,
,?
STATEOFNEWYORK)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
t ~ ~ ' _ ' . being duly sworn, depose~ and says'that on the ~ day
of ~E ~ ~ , 19 ~, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re-
ve~ side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective
name; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresse~ of said persons as shown on
the current assmsment roUof the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of-
rice a~ ~ ~U ~ ~ ~ .~ . ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
~(regJs~ered) mail.? /~?' ' ~~ ~.~~
Sworn't; al;re me'this [¢
Notary P~blic /
MARY ANN CYBULSK~
NOTARy PUBLIC State ot Nea
R~dff~g m Suffolk Coum
~o 52-5895900
fl Expire~ A~rql
~This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining
property owners.}
FORM NO. 6
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Building Department
Town Hall
Southold, N.Y. 11971
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Instructions
This application must be filled in typewriter OR ink., and submitted m ~ to the Building Inspec-
tor with the following; for new buildings or new use:
1. Final survey of property with accurate location of all buildings, property lines, streets, and unusual
natural or topographic features.
2. Final approval of Health Dept. of water supply and sewerage disposal-(S-9 form or equal).
3. Approval of electrical installation from Board of Fire Underwriters.
4. Commercial buildings, Industrial buildings, Multiple Residences and similar buildings and installa-
tions, a certificate of Code compliance from the Architect or Engineer responsible for the building.
5. Submit Planning Board approval of completed site plan requirements where applicable.
For existing buildings (prior to April 1957), Non-conforming uses, or buildings and "pre-existing"
land uses:
1. Accurate survey of p~operty showing all property lines, streets, buildings and unusua~ natural or
topographic features.
2. Sworn statement of owner or previous owner as to use, occupancy and condition of buildings.
3. Date of any housing code or safety inspection of buildings or premises, or other pertinent informa-
tion required to prepare a certificate.
Fees:
1. Certificate of occupancy $5.00
2. Certificate of occupancy on pre-existing dwelling
3. Copy of certificate of occupancy $1.00
4.Vacant Land C.O. $5.00
$15.00
Date...-~, !!. !. ~.t .~:~'~?! .........
New Building ............. Old or Pre-existing Building ............ Vacant Land .
Location of Property/~ ,,..~.lt!~d~'~ ~.. ~.. <.~) .~. .... i .~.1[.' ....... ~ . . '..~?~. 3.(.~';.
~ Street Ham/et
Owner or Owners of Property ..........
................. Lot .... -.'./ .......
Subdivision .
............ ~ ................ Filed Map No ..... ~ ..... Lot No ..............
Permit No ........... Date of Permit .......... Applicant ..................................
Health Dept. Approval ........................ Labor Dept. Approval ........................
Underwriters Approval ........................ Plarming Board Approval ......................
Request for Temporary Certificate ..................... Final Certificate .......................
Fee Submitted $ .............................
Construction on above described building anj~rmit meets, all applicable codes and regulations.
Applicant ........... ~.~.. } . .: .......... / ......................
Rev. 10-10-78
APPENDIX B
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
INST~U~TIONS~
(a) In order to answer the questions in this short gAF is 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 significant and
completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary.
(c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is
no.._% significant.
(d) Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical change
to th~oPrOJect site or physically alter more
than acres of land? . . . . . . . · · · · Yes x No
2. Will there be a major change to any unique or x.
unusual land form found on the site? · . · · -- Yes No
3- Will project alter or have a large effect on x
an existing body of water? . · · . . · · · · Yes
&. Will project have a potentially large impac~ on
groundwater quality? · · · · . · · · · · · Yes x No
5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow x
on adjacent sites? · · · · * · · · · · * Yes No
6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered x
plant or animal species? , , · · , , · · · · Yes No
7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on x
air quality? · · · · · · · · · · · Yes No
S. Will project ha~e a major effect on visual char-
acter of the community or scenic views or vistas x
known to be important to the community? · · · Yes No
9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct-
ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological
importance or any site designated as a critical x
environmental area by a local agency? · · · -- Yes --.- No
10. Will project have a major effect on existing or
future recreational opportunities? · · . Yes x No
11. Will project result in major traffic problems or
cause a major effect to existing transportation
12. Will project regularly cause Objectionable odors,
noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb-
ance as a result of the project's operation? .. Yes X No
13. Will project have any impact on public health or
safety? . · · · · · · . . · . . Yes x No
lA. Will project Affect the existing community by
directly causing a growth in permanent popula-
tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year
period o__r have a major negative effect on the
character of the community or neighborhood?.. Yes x
15. Is there pub~ontrover.~y ceqncerni~g the project? Yes No
PREPARER' S SIGNATUREi ~'~ ~ ~'~ TITLE: NoO~verl 18
REPRESENTING: George D. Damien ] DATE: · 3, ? 6
FORM ~O. 4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK*S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
r. ERTIFIr. ATE OP or.r. UPANr. Y
THIS CERTIFIES that the building located at . ~:h' 'at' .~t-'~'~c]gsoh' '~t ..... Street
Map No. ZXX Block No... ~.x' ..... Lot No. y~ ..... ~(~I' ' ~''' ....
............. ol~l~.... ~.~.~ .... ~. ;... & · .
conforms substantially to the Applicati, on for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office
dated ........... .~..~.y .... ~;· ..... 19.~.~Z. pursuant to which Building Permit No...~li.~. ~
dated ............. ~. ...... ~..., 19. f;~,, was issued, and conforms to all of the require-
merits .of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is
issued is . .pri~r.i~e~. ~;e. :i~=;~l},' '? %~"; ~_~ .........................................
The certificate is issued t.o . 'G~OT?~ 'i~?.ic'l'. ........ '~ .~cr' .........................
(owner,-lessee or tenant)
of the aforesaid building.
· .~. .... 1 ~C~-~....~ ..... /.. :, ~ .~.-~ .......
Suffolk County Department of Health Approval 'A~I~· ~ ~ . ,.~ ~ct
To:
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Appeal Application of George p. ~amien
Location of Property: _ Main~ Fifth and Jackson',~%ree%s
New S~/ffolk) N,¥e £1Ybo
Dear Sirs:
In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-uu
Regul'a=ions, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the Hew York
Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that t2
subjec~ property i,n tho within appeal ap: l~c.~_o.~.
(pl,..~._ check one box)
] M47 be located .within 300 feet of tidal wc-'t[andz
however, constructed along the water-lying;
of this property is a bulkhead in very good
condition and at least 100 feet in ~ ~
] May b'e 'located wiLhin 300 feet of -~n
- t_~a_ wetlandz~
howe,;er, constructed along the wate'r-lyin? edge
of thi~ property is a b' '.-'~ ~ ~ in ne.,d
ul,.ne~(. ~ of ( -,.o~)
(major] repairs, and asDr~:cimate!,/
length. -- - feet in
[ ]
May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands;
however, constructed '
along the water-lying edge -
of this p%'operty is a bulkhead less than 100 feet
in length.
[ ]' May be located within 300 feet of tida'i wetlands;
and there is no bulkhead or c ..... ~,.
'on the premises.
Is not located withia 300 feet of tidal Wetlands
to the best of my knowledcje.,
[:;ta._ed items
appear to fall within
hOT_: If proposed project
approval must
Your a?p lic:
(*) ndzcate your property doe~
3urisdiction of the H.y.~. D.E.C.
C~,nce re 1 y your.".,
falls wzcl~in D.E.C. jurisdiction,
be received and sukmit~6d to our office before
on can be [~chcdulcd foe a public
.,C .... Iq.