HomeMy WebLinkAbout3654 Meadow Lane 115
~NT "~------
.... Q.ramer., Thomas !0J2/_85~3~!2 (see Renate Riedel ' 84)
'~.~ ~.v ~~,~ ~'~ .......
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTH01. D, L.I.. N.Y. 11S71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 3654
Application Dated Jul3 23, ]987
TO: William D. Moore, 55q.
Clause Commons, Suite 3
P.0. Box 23
Ma~tituck, NY ]]952,
[Appellant(s)]
At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on 0ct0ber 8, ]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
[×] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
Article XI , Section ]00-]]9.2
[ ] Request for
Application of WILLIAM MOORE~ ESQ. and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ. for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for
permission to establish "building envelope" with setbacks of not less
than 38 feet from nearest wetlands along existing two-foot contour and
not less than 30 feet from the front property line lis approved under
Appl. No. 3412, June 30, 1987). Location of Property: 675 Meadow
Lane, Mattituck, NY; Mattituck Estates Lot No. 42; 1000-115-5-7.
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on August 20, 1987 and
September 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM
MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appl. No. 3654; 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 are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from
the prior decision of this Board rendered under Appl. No. 3412
on June 30, 1987, and from Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for
permission to establish a "building envelope" with setbacks
at not less than 38 feet from all easterly corners at its near-
est points from wetlands (along the existing two-foot contour),
all as shown by survey dated July 21, 1987 prepared by Young &
Young, P.E.
2. The previous application requested specific setbacks
from the easterly (rear) portion of the proposed dwelling at
43 from the northeasterly corner and at 38 feet from the
southeasterly corner, and the applicants have asked for an
(CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO)
DATED: October 8, 1987.
Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81)
CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
P,age ~ - Appl. No. 3654
Matter of MOORE & HERZWEIG
Decision Rendered October 8,
1987
3. The premises in question is known and referred to as
Lot #42, Map of "Mattituck Estates, Inc." filed in the Office
of the Suffolk County Clerk on September 8, 1965 as File No.
4453.
4. The subject premises is located along the east side
of Meadow Lane in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold,
with a frontage of 115 feet, is vacant land, contains an
acreage of .51±, and has a frontage of 95.94 feet along pond
meadow and wetland areas.
5. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, requires all buildings
and structures to be set back not less than seventy-five (75)
feet from a tidal water body, tidal wetland edge, or freshwater
wetland.
6. In this Board's prior decision under Appl. No. 3412
n which alternative relief was granted for insufficient
setbacks from wetlands as well as insufficient setback from
the front property line at 30 feet, it was determined that
the project met the "practical difficulties" standards set
by the Courts.
7. It is also the determination ~f this Board that
the requested modification is minimal and meets the
"practical difficulties" standards for this amended area
variance.
8. It is noted for the record:
(a) that conditional approval was rendered by the
Southold Town Board of Trustees for Wetland Permit No. 312
for the construction of a single-family dwelling,
(b) that a Final Environmental Impact Statement
has been prepared and ~ubmitted to the Southold Town Trustees
as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617, NYCRR, Article 8 of
the Environmental Conservation Law, and Chapter 44, Code of
the Town of Southold;
(c) that both well and sanitary systems were
conditionally approved by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services on September 13, 1985 under Ref. No. 85-S0-164;
(d) that lot point[s], with catch basins, are to be
incorporated into the westerly driveway area to collect storm-
water runoff; gutters and leaders to be connected to dry-wells;
no construction of sewage-disposal systems or water-supply
facilities will be constructed below the 10-foot contour;
"natural buffers" are to be designed within the entire area
below the 10-foot contour line; there will be a natural
buffer during and after construction adjacent to the wetlands;
(e) a September 4, 1985 Waiver has been issued by
the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation waiving a
P,age ~ - Appl. No. 3654
Matter of MOORE & HERZWEIG
Decision Rendered October 8,
1987
permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling land-
ward of the existing 10-foot contour elevation above mean sea
level (on a gradual natural slope).
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the Modification of
the easterly setback of the proposed "building envelope"
for the construction of a single-family dwelling, with set-
backs at not less than 38 feet from the nearest wetland
boundary, along the present two-foot contour (as well as
a setback of not less than 30 feet from the front property
line at its closest point), as applied.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki ~Jas absent.) This
resolution was duly adopted.
lk
OCT 1. 6 1981
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following
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 THURS~DAY, 'AU~GUST 20, 1987 at the
following times:
7:35 p~m. Appl. No. 3602 MARGARET McNAMARA. Variance
to the Zoning Ordin]nce, Articl~-X~, ~ecti-on -lO0~l19.2(B) for
permission to construct wooden deck attached to existing
dwelling with an insufficient setback from existing timber
bul-khead and Peconic-~ay. Location of Property: 640 Takaposha
Road (P. rivate Road #15), Southold~ 'NY-; County-Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-87-06-]0. ·
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3646 ROBERT AND NANCY MUIR.
Variances to the Zon.ing Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31,
Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct additions to
dwelling wi-th an insufficient rearyard setback and insuffi-
cient frontyard setback. Location of Property: Corner of
Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road, East Marion, NY~ Oounty
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~38~2-29.
7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3643 EUGENE PERINO. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article X}, Section 100~119.2 for
permission to locate proposed dwelling wit. h or without deck
addition within 75 feet of nearest wetlands along the shore-
line of Marion_Lake. Location of Property: West Side of
private right-of-way known as "Truman's Path," East Marion,
-NY; County Tax Map~ Parcel No. 1000-31-12-t6.
7:50 p.m. Appl. No.
and DAVID FREY. Recessed
reconvened.
3644 JOSEPH REINHART, FRED WIGHTMAN,
hearing-from July 16, 1987 to be
8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3647 JOHN AND JOAN WETZEL.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31
and Article XI, Section 100-119.2, to construct additions ~o dwelling with reduc-
tions i~ the sideyar~t,--and to construct addition landward
of existing dwelling structure 70± feet from the nearest
wetland edge or highwater mark along Eugene Creek. Location
of Property: 4635 Pequash Avenue (Fleetwood Road), Cutchogue,
NY; Fleetwood Cove Lot No. 12; County Tax Map Parcel No-
1000-137-04-006.
Page 2 Notice of Hearings
Regular Meeting - August 20, 1987
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3648 - FERUCIO FRANKOLA. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-1t9.2 for
permission to construct swimmingpool, deck and fence enclosure
within 75 feet of wetland area along West Creek. Location of
Property: 1900 Glenn Road, Southold, NY; West Creek Estates
Lot No. 19; County Tax Map Parcel- No. 1000~78=02-36.
from
8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3655 - ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA. Variance
Condition No. 1. rendered July 8~ 1965 under Appeal No. 785,
and Article III, Section lO0~32~-for approval of the const-ruc-
tiDn of accessory storage shed in fro~t-yard-area as shown on
survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. April 9, 1984.
Location of Property: West Side of Private Road (We~% View"
Drive), Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-13-3-3.
8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 3656 NICHOLAS IPPOLITO. Variances
to the Zoni-ng Ordinance, Article ~II, Section 100-31, and
Article XI, Section 100~119.2, for permission to construct
garage addition to dwelling with an insufficient southerly
sideyard setback, insufficient total sideyards, insuffici-ent
setback from bulkhead ~long Arshamamaque Pond, and e×cess~ve
lot coverage. ~Location of Property: 230 Carole Road, Southold,
NY; County Ta~ Map Parce~ No~ 1000-052-02-007.
8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3653~- NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES.
Variance p~rsuant t-o-New Yor< Town La~, Secti-on-2-80-a, for
approval ~of access over p-rivate right-of-way extending 170
feet from the north side of Main Road', Orient, NY; County
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-18-4-1.3 and 2.
8:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3592
recessed from July q6, 1987.
BE8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3654 -
NJAMIN'HERZWEIG,-E'SQ. Variance
Articie xI, Section 100-119.2 for
"building envelope~ with setbacks
BENTE SNELLENBURG. Hearing
fro~ nearest wet-land along existing two-foot contour and
not less than 30 feet from the front property line (as
approved under 2ppl. No. 3412 June 30, 1987). location
of Property: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY; Mattituck
WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. and
to the Zoning Ordinance,
permission to establish
of not less than 38 feet
~states Lot No. 42; County Tax Map Parcel No. i000-115-5-7.
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
Page 3 Notice of Hearings
Regular Meeting - August 20, 1987
Southold Town Board gf Appeals
the time allotted. Written comments may
to the conclusion of the subject hearing.
please call 765-1809.
be submitted prior
For more.information,
Dated: J~ly 27, 1987. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
B~ARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GoEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowa~ski, Board Secretary
Notice to Newspapers:' Please publish once, to wit: August 6th
and forward two ~ffidav.~.ts of ~ublication to:
Boa~ of Appeals~.Main Road, Southold, NY 11971.
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, oursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and the Code of the Town of Soutnold, the following
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, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 at the
following times:
7:35 p,.m. Appl. No. 3651 DEAN KAMEN. Variances to
the Zoning Ordinance,.Articles: (a) III, Section 100-32 as
to excessive height, (b) XI, Section 100-119.2 as to
lnsNfficient setback from ordinary ~'ghwater mark of Ldng
Island Sound, of a proposed wind-tC~bine-generating tower
.to be constructed landward or near existing granite monolithic
structure. Location~f Property: North Dumpling tsland~ NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-120-01-004.
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3662 THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH.
Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) III, Sec-
tion 100-31, Bulk Schedule, as to an insufficient sideyard
setback of garage, when attached ~o orincipal dwelling
str~cture with raised open-decK construction, (b) XI, Section
100-119.2 for an insufficient setback from existing seawall
landward of wetland area for proposed deck addition, (c)
III, Section 100-32, for approval of garage as an accessory
s~ruc~ure in the sideyard area as an al'~ernative to a~taching
same to dwelling structure. Location of Property: 200 Hay-
waters Drive~ Cutchogue, NY: ~o~nty Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-104-05-19.
7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3622 - CHRISTIAN B. SALM!NEN. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 ~or
permission to construct deck addition to dwelling and accessory
stairs, both with a~ insufficient :~etback from edge of Marion
Lake, or landward edge of freshwater wetland, whichever is
closer. Location of Property: 240 Lakeview Terra'ae, East
Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-9-15.
7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3658 - PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 100-32
for permission to locate accessory building in fron~yaro area.
Location of Property: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax MaD Parcel No. 1000-104-'5-21.
Page 2 - Legal Notice of HeaFings
Regular Meeting September 10, 1987
Southold Town Board of Appeals
7:5~ p.m. Appl. No. 3665 LEHESK BUILDING CORP. Variance
~o the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk
Schedule, for approval of construction of open deck with an
insufficient rearyard setback a~ 360 Sebastian's Cove Road,
Sebastion Cove Lot No. 5, Mattituck, NY, County Tax Map
P~cel go. 1000-100-03-!!.8 ....
8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3593 - ~IET MAN INN (Reconvened
from May 2l-, 1987)~ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
VII, Section 100-71, Bulk Schedule, for permission to cons~ruc~
addition in this 'B-lU.General Business Zoning District wit~
an insufficient frontyard setback from the westerly property
line along Hobart Avenue. Location of ?roper~y: Corner of
Main Road and Hobart Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel no. 1000-62-3~7,
8:10 p.m. ApF1. No. 3659 - ~UIET MAN INN. Variance ~o
the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section tO0-112 (and
Article III, Section lO0~31} for approval of insufficient
number of parking spaces of this oreexisting business use.
Location of Property: Corner of Main'Road and Hobart Avenue,
Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Ne. 1000-B2.-3-7.
8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3628 GEORGE AND JANE KAYTIS.
Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article [II, Section
i00-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area
of two proposed parcels, Lot #l of 40,000 sq. ft. and
Lot #2 of 1.443 acres, and insu~X~cient frontage of Lot #2
along Robinson Road, Southold,~¥; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-81-03-15.4 (or 12).
~ 8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3654 WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. and
BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article XI, Section ]00-119.2 for permission to establish
"building envelope" with setbacks of no~ less than 38 feet
from nearest wetlands a~ong existi, ng two-foot contour and
qot less than 30 feet from the front property line Ias
approved under Appl. No~ 3412, June 30~ 198~. Location
of Prope'rty: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck, ~Y; Mattituck
Estates Lo~ No. 42; 1000~115-5-7. (Reconvened from 8/20/8~).
Page 3 Legal Notice of ~
,,eari~gs
Regular Meeting September 10, 1987
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3653 NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES.
(Reconvened from August 20, 1987). Variance for approval
of access at Orient.
The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place
el! persons ~r 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
informations_ please call 765-1809.
Dated: August 20, 1987. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P, ~OEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
Linda Kow.~lski~ Board Secretary
Notice to Newspapers: Please publish once. to wit: Se~t.
1987 and forward one affidavit of publication to: Board of
Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 1i97t.
3rd,
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
Date ...~..~tC~. ...... /..7 ......... 19 .o~.'7
To 7"/,~,(~-,~..~. · .~..'. ~~. ~ .~ ~/~, ~
...d. ~...~.( ~.?r~. ~.c .......
.~Z..~~.~..~....~.~. //7~
~LEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application aatea ..... ~...~% ........ 19 .~.-
for pe~it to -~~.~ [~.. ~.~.~.. Z~/~ f .......... at
~o ~o ~ o t v~op ~,~y...dZ ~... ~em ~ ~... ~ ......... g~i d ..........
~ou~ ~o. ~tr~t Hamlet
County Tax Map No. I000 Section .../~Z ..... Block ...~ ...... ~t . .~ ~ ......
is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds ...............................
... ~-2~.~/~..~. .... 7. ~ i.~..o.? .... .~.~7~ .... ~.~T...~.~...~. ~ .......
..~-.~../~.o.. !/. ?:3.
.... /..~-,~ u.~.,e.c-.,2....~ ~ .~. .... v. ~,q..~. ~.:~--.... ,.,~Z'..,~7.. ~ -
Building Inspector
RV 1/80
/~.~.'"~ f ,;,t- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
,JUL I987
APPEAL EROM DECISION OF 9UILDING INSPECTOR
^pPEA, NO.
DATE ..............................
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
.,~.///~.~..~....~_...q~...z~.....~... .'..¢e~_.<~..L.': ....... of Steer and Number
I, ~ Nome of Appeli~n~t '~4/.~-~'¢,~ '"~¢~""'O'"'"~'~'"'t'"~'~z"f~'~"~'R"/"~" ...............
.................. ...~.._..t~....~../..¥.,..; .......................................................... .../~..:.~.~..' .......... HEREBY APPEAL TO
Municipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ......................................................
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO
( )
(X)
Name of Applicant for permit
of 4L/.
.... ....... .......... ...........................................................
Street and Number Municipality State
PERMIT TO USE
PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY'......~...~.~'...~..~..~....~..../~~..~.. ............ ,~,..ff~.T: .......
Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map
Distr~ct 1000 Sect~on//~'Block~ Lot~ Current Owner~mz//~/~O~
Map No. Lot No. Prior OwnerShips-
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 ~)~! Section /0o - //~.2.-
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mede herewith for (please check appropriate box)
(~) A VARIANCE to the ZoninD Ordinance or Zoning Map C ~'~:~- ~---fo~n ~'~.o4~c~ )
( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New YorkTown Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
()
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal G(has not) been made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector er with respect to this property.
Such appeal was ( ) request far a special permit
(~) request for a variance ~_~
and was made in Appeal No ..... ~....~..t....~x... ........... Dated .~°}2~. ~°1 [~9~'7 ~ ~....~...~[~-/'
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
(~(.) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
( )
is requested for the reason that ~ /~¢~ ~ ~
(Continue on other side)
REASON FOR APPEAL
Continued
1. STRICT APPLICATION Of: THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sary HARDSHIP because ~/~m~.~,~r.~ ~:~$ ~.;~_.~Ec./ /~y ~O~M~/ ~q
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by oH properties alike ~n the immediate
vicinity 0f this pr~erty and in this use district because
3 The V~r once wou d observe t~e spirff of *he Ordinance ~nd WOULD NOT CNANGE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTR~CT because
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
Sworn to this ........... ~.. .......................... day of ..................................................... 19
OWNER STREET VIL~GE ~SUB. LO
~~~,~ - , · .
, ~ / S W ~PE OF BUILDING
VL ~ FAR~ CO~. CB. MICS. Mkt.
LAND IMP. TO~AL I/DATE RE~RKS/~
AGE
NEVV NORMAL.
BUILDING CONDITION
BELOW ABOVE
FARM
q"~llable
' .L)odlond
Acre Value Per Vclue
Acre
FRONTAGE ON WATER
FRONTAGE ON ROAD
Meadowbnd
House Plot
Total
DEPTH
BULKHEAD
DOCK
0
NOTES:
~. ~=taONGMENT IN THE OFFICE OF ,
2:. ~=STAKE
;5. SUBDIVISION MAP FILED
THEAs FILECLERKNo. 44530F SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT. 8~ 1965
4, SUFFOLK CO, TAX MAP
DIST, lO00 SECT, II5 BLOCKOS LOT07
5. ---.14'--- = EXISTING CONTOURS
6, ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO
N.G.V.D. 19:>9 (MSL)
Lot 41
(VACANT)
now or fOrmerly
County of Suffolk
PON D
Lot 42
Area= 22357s.f.
Lot 43
0
b°ro C°StOnzo
NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE
SURVEY FOR
WILLIAM MOORE
LOT 42; "MATTITi~CK
AT MATTITUCK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG
ESTATES~!NC." JULY 21, 1987
- ,.JUNE 5, 1987
DATE: ' ~uNE '~4'~ 19~?
SCALE: I"= 40'
NO. 87- 939
YOUNG S YOUNG
RIVERNEAD~ NE~ YORK
ALDEN W. YOUNG, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S. LICENSE NO. 12845
HOWARD W. YOUNG~ LANO SURVEYOR
N.Y.S. LICENSE N0.4589~
TRUSTEES
John M. Bmdemeyer, III, President
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President
Henry P. Smith
John B. Tuthill
William G. Albert.son
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUPERVISOR
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
EO. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
March 26, 1993
James E. Fisher
64 Fox Hollow Lane
Southampton, NY 11968
RE: SCTM ~1000-115-5-7
Dear Mr. Fisher:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of
Trustees on Thursday, March 25, 1993:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby
reinstates Permit ~452 to construct a one family dwelling on
property located at Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY.
Please note that all Covenants and Restrictions and conditions
imposed by the Southold Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of
Appeals still apply to this permit.
The owner of this property shall discuss these conditions with
the Board of Trustees prior to obtaining a building permit.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Very truly yours,
· Bredemeyer,
President, Board of Trustees
JMB: jmd
CC:
Bldg. Dept.
ZBA
John A.Occhiogrosso
Gillbert Flanagan
)'~' ~ TRUSTEES
· IX John M. Bredemeyer, III, President
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President
Henry P. Smith
John B. Tuthill
William G. Albertson
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUPERVISOR
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
March ll, 1993
John A. Occhiogrosso
Attorney At Law
1600 Hillside Avenue
New Hyde Park, N.Y. 11040
RE: Ba~mgratz from Fisher,
SCTM #1000-215-5-7
Wetland Permit #452~
Dear Mr. Occhiogrosso:
With respect to your letters of February 12, 1993 and March 3,
1993 and your questions concerning my letter to William Moore of
January 29, 1991, please note our sincere apology for not
getting back to you sooner and consider the following
information as you represent your clients:
1) The Southold Town Trustees suspended the permit for the
above referenced property on March 12, 1993 as a result of an
unauthorized intrusion into a wetland buffer zone protected by a
restrictive covenant.
2) The Southold Town Trustees held a hearing pursuant to the
Town Wetland Ordinance on April 30, 1992.
3) The Trustees did not issue findings at that time as we
decided to monitor the site for natural revegetation with some
contemplation of re-instating the permit on or after a year of
growth. At least two inspections of the site have been made by
the entire Board of Trustees since April 30, 1992.
4) Once the Trustees conclude another inspection which I will
schedule for March 18, 1993, we would be in a position to
formally consider reinstating the permit for the site. If the
permit is reinstated my letter of January 29, 1991 shall be
operant.
5) Because there was a violation of a filed restrictive
covenant which runs with the land and this Board's wetland
jurisdiction, we may not reinstate this permit without
additional conditions or restrictions and could ask the Town
Attorneys to proceed with prosecuting the violation.
By copy of this letter we are informing all Town departments
that we shall continue our review of this matter and may
schedule a findings statement and or permit reinstatement/change
should our pending field inspection show the site has
revegetated satisfactorily.
Very truly yours,
President, Board of Trustees
JMB:jmd
cc: Town Attorneys office
Bay Constable
Building Dept.
Zoning Dept.
William Moore
James Fisher
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen, Jr.
James Dinizio, Jr.
Robert A. Villa
Richard C. Wilton
Telephone (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
February 22, 1993
SCOTTL. HARFJS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
John A. Occhiogrosso, Esq.
1600 Hillside Avenue
New Hyde Park, NY 11040
Re: Appeal No. 3654 and Appl. No. 3412
Property at Meadow Lane, Mattituck
Dear Mr. Occhiogrosso:
In reply to your inquiry concerning the above property,
please note that the actions taken by the Board of Appeals under
the above file numbers are still effective.
You may wish to check further with the Town Trustees since
there was litigation involved and our office is not familiar
with the most recent updates concerning past activities at the
site since these ZBA determinations in 1987.
Very truly yours,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
lk
~JOHN A. 0CCHIOOROSSO
February 18, 1993
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road - State Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Baumgratz from Fisher
Property at Meadow Lane
Mattituck~ Town of Southold
FEB Z 2
Gentlemen:
On July 7, 1987 (appeal #3412) and October 15,
1987 (appeal #3654) you transmitted official findings
and determination rendered by the Board of Appeals re-
garding the above listed property. Copies of your letters
of said dates are enclosed.
I represent Mr. & Mrs. Frederick Baumgratz who
are under contract to purchase the above listed property.
It would be appreciated if you would confirm
whether said variances are still effective as initially
granted.
Thank you.
JAO:ao
Enc.
Copy to:
Mr. & Mrs. Baumgratz
Vp~.y tru~ly.TBours, .
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- ~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE 1'516) 76S lS09
APPEALS ~IOAR D
GERARD P, GOEHRINCER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONI$. JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
William D. Hoore, Esq.
Clause Commons, Suite 3
P.O. Box 23
Mattituck, NY 11952
October 15, 1987
Re: Appl. NO. 365q - William D. Moore and Benjamin Herzweig
Dear Bill:
Transmitted herewith for your file and perusal is a copy
of the official findings and determination recently rendered
by the Board of Appeals, the original.of which has this date
been filed with the Office of the Town Clerk.
Please be sure to return to the Building Department for
issuance of any permits or other approvals in writing as may
be applicable.
Please do not hesitate to call either our office (765-1809)
or that of the Building Inspector {765-1802) if you have any
questions.
Yours very truly,
Enclosure
Copy of Decision to:
~ui)dLng Qepartment
own mr~s~ees
County Planning Commission
Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq,
GERARD P.
CHAIRMAN
~-~i~y Linda
GDEHRINGER
Kowalski
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING OF
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987
Appl.-No, 3654
Applicant(s): WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ.
Location of Property: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck.
County Tax_Map ID No. 1000- 115~ 5 -7
Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer,
Members: Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki.
Absent was: Member, Charles Grigonis, Jr.
The Chairman opened the hearing at.9:27 o'clock p.m. and
read the notice of hearing and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed appeal from the last regu-
larly scheduled meeting on behalf of William Moore and Benjamin Herz-
weig. Ms. Moore, is she representing? Who is representing whom~
Would you like to use the mike sir.~and state your name for ~he record.
MR. HERZWEIG: I'm the attorney and I'm also one of the property
owners. By way of background, there's several things that I would
just like to put on the record basically so we understand where we
are. The last time we met, statements were made by someone named
Ellen Larsen regarding this particular piece. Again, what I'm about
to say is solely for the record and is not intended against Ms. Lar-
sen personally. I'm saying this basically because I have to protect
the record as you proceed forth in this proceeding. It has come to
my attention that Ms. Larsen, in addition to being an elected offi-
cial and a Trustee of the Town of Southold, is also an active politi-
cal candidate for local political office and that shets running in
the next general election for a position on the Town Board. I would
presume that Ms. Larsen's statements at the time were motivated by
certain political considerations and that's all I will say. Just~]
again, by way of background, so we understand where we are tonight.-
We have already gone through SEQRA process. A final environmental
impact has been issued, findings have been made. I think this Board
has adopted those findings and incorporated them into this particular
hearing. But the bottom line of what the Trustees did, they basical-
ly granted our application. In dding so, they pushed the proposed
house from 35 feet setback from the road to 25 feet setback from the
road because they wanted to keep the rear line of the house afcertain
Page 2 - William~ore and Benjamin Herzwei~earing
Z.B.A. 9/10/87~
MR. HERZWEIG (continued):
number of feet away from the two-foot contour which is the wetlands
boundary. I think that's 38 feet. That of course, as you know, has
necessitated another application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
the 10 foot variance from the existing zoning ordinance. When we
were here some time ago at the presentation, this Board granted our
a-plication to the.extent of putting the hour 30 feet from the set-
back of the road. However, in doing so, I think unintentionally as
I look at the survey, the rear ling of the house is not uniformed
in relation to the two-foot. ~n other words, the Trustees said stay
38 feet from the two-foot contour. The way this Board made its rul-
ing the last time, we were 38 feet on the one side and 42 feet on
the other side. The result of which was to reduce the depth of the
house from 28 feet down to 23 feet. After consultation with your
Town Attorney, a gentleman who's name I believe is Mr. Yakaboski, we
we~e.~originally going to petition this Board for a rehearing. Mr.
Yakaboski suggested that instead of a rehearing, we make a new appli-
cation to this Board seeking basically, to correct what is a minor
defect in the prior determination of this Board. That was the pur-
pose of the hearing last week. What we're looking for is we will ad-
here to the 30 foot setback line that this Board has originally de-
termined. All we're asking is that the rear line of the house be
perpendicular across the back line to the two-foot contour so that
there be a uniformed 38 foot setback from the wetland as mandated by
the Trustees. If that were the case, the depth of the house could
be increased back to where we originally proposed. The original pro-
posal, by the way, was submitted to the Trustees. And I would note
in passing that the Trustees had no problem at all.with the size of
the house. This is as my recollection is concerned. At the last
hearing, a gentleman named Alan Northinger who is also a lawyer,
asked to adjourn this hearing in part, because of a letter we sub-
mitted from Frederick Wood who is our expert. That letter is a part
of record. It's dated August 20, 1987. Mr. Northinger, I believe,
said he wanted some time to reply to that letter and the Board acted
in his request. Also, as parenthetical again, I presume rhetorical
questions were raised, "who is Fred Wood?". I have Mr. ~ood here
tonight to basically give you further testimony or to embelish upon
that letter. But there's one thing I'd like to add to the record
now that I wasn't away of back then. Mr. Wood, in addition to his
other present duties, also does appraisals for the Southold Savings
Bank. He also tells me that he's presently employed by the Town of
Southampton for their farmland preservation program and was invited
by the Town of Southold to do appraisal work for the town in regards
to its farmland preservation work. Mr. Wood, for business reasons,
decided that he didn't wish to accept the invitation with the town.
I bring that to mind and I wish to make it part of the record merely
to show that Mr. Wood's qualifications were thought well enough by
the Town of Southold to ask that he take part in the farmland preser-
vation program. Now, I'm not ali that familiar with how to proceed
before this Baord. I could ask Mr. Wood a series of questions much
line an attorney would ask a witness on a witness stand or I could
just ask him to make a narrative as to what he did, what his find-
ings and conclusions are and also he tell you more about his own work.
'~age 3 - William
Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
and Benjamin Herzweig HOing
CHAIRMAN: I think we have his passed experience pretty well down
in reference to the later and so on and so forth. If you remember,
at the last hearing, Mr. Herzweig, we asked both sides tonight to
specifically discuss that difference of 38 to 43 feet and how that
will effect you and how it will effect them and that's what I would
like you to limit your questioning to.
MR. HERZWEIG: Alright. In that case, I've explained the background.
The first way where it is 38 and 43, would decrease the depth of the
house. Perhaps Mr. Wood can come up and just explain to you the prac-
tical difficulty and the economic hardship that's intendant when you
build a house that's basically a railroad car.
MR. WOOD: I'm a real estate appraiser, deisgnated appraiser. I'm
also a licensed professional engineer. I've been practicing in the
field of appraisal for approximately 15 years. I've been a licensed
practicing engineer for approximately 25 years. I was asked by Mr.
Herzweig on his behalf to study the impact of the specified setbacks
on the problem of hardship. What sort of hardship it did present to
his constructed residence at the site. I reviewed that particular
requests'in two ways. As I mentioned, I looked at it as a real estate
appraiser and I also considered it from the standpoint of being a pro-
· fessional engineer. I've been practicing in the field of engineering
and I am presently actively involved in the design and drafting con-
struction review of residences themselves. Construction from the
standpoint of supervising construction. Not a builder in that respect.
There was two points that came to mind initially. In this particular
application, if~the total depth of the home were reduced to 23 feet
and w~'re required to adhere to the 30 foot setback as well as the 43
to 38 foot setback on the rear property line, it would result in a
house or a home that would have a depth of approximately 23 feet. It
would be a long narrow home. If we were to construct a home of the
type which would be a one-story residence, it would result in a home
that was narro%~. In fact, it would be to an extent, that in order to
free-flow any access within the house itself, providing for hallways,
minimum hallways, we would end up with rooms or room sizes which would
have to be sacrificed. They would end up being quite small. The end
result would be to give a .....
TAPE ENDED
MR. WOOD: They would be hard to utilize because of the narrowness of
the room. The other effect it would have would be because of the set-
back requirements in both the front and rearyard, it would be difficult
to create an esthetically pleasing home. I visited the neighborhood.
I looked at the homes in the area. You will find that there is a mix-
ture of one-story residences, two-story residences and they have varying
lines. They have setbacks. They have garages that extend to the front.
They have roof line changes and that sort of thing. That all can be
done where you have sufficient room and sufficient depth to create a
residence that would have that appealling look. In the present case,
however, with the narrow depth and shallow depth of the property that
would be allowed; a residence that would be constructed on there could
not really take advantage of those eminities because we would not be
able to set back. We would not be able to break roof lines. It would
be a conventional retangular home. In fact, if we tried to regain the
area that was lost by adhering to the 38 foot setback at the southerly
.Page 4 William ~e and Benjamin Herzweig ~ing
Z.B.A. 9/10/87
MR. WOOD (continued):
end of the property, it would result in actually changing the rear
line of the property to conform to that setback. So it would turn
out to be a regular. We'd have to actually notch' the.~ea~i!ofl.~the
house. The effect is two-fold. One; it's esthetically not appeal-
ling. And the second effect is; that now we have created a situa-
tion where the actual cost of the home to create a home with equal
area, would actually increase° What we have done essentially, is
stretched the home out to regain the total floor area that we were ' ~
originally looking for. This would require, in essence, more wall
area for the same floor area that would be created. And this in ef-
fect, is increasing the per square foot cost to construct a home of
that size. So it would actually be a more expensive home to construct
then as originally planned if we had a 28 foot width. The other ef-
fect would be the one of interior flow as I mentioned, i~If the style
of the home would be changed to a two-story home or we were to add a
stairway in their residence either to a basement or something of that
sort~ now what we're faced with is a home that's only 23 feet deep.
We would have to provide a stairway for access between levels. The
result of that would be having to create a stairway with a turn. We
could not put a single flight of stairs in a home that small.. It
would be a straight up from the center or from the outside wall of
the home to the second story or down into the basement. So we would
have to create an actual landing and cut the floor joints to make a
90° turn and ~ossibly even a 180 in orde~ to utilize two levels of
residence. So the net effect is not only to increase costs but to
reduce the utility of the structure to be placed on the site. As
far as values are concerned, they're pointed out° The very small
footprint allowed with the present restriction on the property, would
restrict the construction of the style of the home.and it would also
create a less appealling effect. And what effect it would have on
the market would be the average buyer entering the area and looking
at homes in the area would not necessarily attracted to this resi-
dence because it would look less appealling. It would have the ap-
pearance of a narrow railroad type flat and it would obviously re-
duce its value to the owner. I estimated, based on and my knowledge
of the area and the types of homes that are located here, the overall
effect on the value of the home will probably reduce it from 15 to 20%
overall. I would also like to point out that it was my opinion that
if the variance was to be granted as requested and the depth of the
home would be increased, the home would be built on the site. It
would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood. It's my opinion
based on the study of the area, that it would not reduce the value
of the surrounding properties. Nor would it prevent their future
use for residential purposes. ~here would be no adverse effect that
I could see on the neighborhood. I think that's about the sum of what
I intended to discuss with the Board. If there are any specific ques-
tions that the Board might have concerning my letter or anything I
didn't cover, I'd be happy to answer their questions.
"page 5 - William
Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
}e and Benjamin Herzweig
CHAIRMAN: Let me think about it for a little while. I thank you
so much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor
of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application?
Remember gentlemen, we're limiting this to the difference between
the two applications. If you have problems with that, I'd be very
happy to answer the question or show you what we're talking about.
MR. KASTANZO: I'm an adjacent property owner. I've been away, out
of town for a while. I understand there was a meeting that I had
missed. I will try to address this as one question. The Trustees
went through an intensive study and placed this house in a position
that it does effect the environment. I've been arguing the environ-
ment from day one. Now it seems that the house is going to be relo-
cated. If it's repositioned,... What I'm saying ....
CHAIRMAN: Let me explain it to you first so that you understand
exactly what we have going here. When they brought the applica-
tion in originally, the application concerned a building envelope.
The building envelope was 43 feet from here and 38 feet from here
and that's exactly what we granted. They then came back and said,
we want 38 feet. (That's what this application reads.) from here,
38 feet from here. That's what this application is now dealing with.
The difference between the 38 feet on the north property line and the
43 feet which was originally granted. That's what we're dealing with
tonight. Just so you understand.
MR. DEBROWSKI: I guess I don't understand the word granted. I guess
the question is that we don't understand. I don't understand exactly
what was granted. Are we talking setback or are we talking a minimum
departure from the existing wetlands as 43 and 38 for a sliding con-
tour?
CHAIRMAN: To the best of my knowledge, to answer the question, what
I believe was granted by this Board was a 30 foot setback from Meadow
Lane. There was a building envelope placed upon this particular sur-
vey or survey of this facsmile which indicated just what I pointed out
to Bob Kastanzo.. And that was, that it was 38 feet basically toward
the south property line from the two-foot contour and 43 feet toward the
north property line to the two foot contour and that's the way the de-
cision was written.
MR. DEBROWSKI: And the building contour should be interpreted by
being acceptable area.
CHAIRMAN: Building envelope. Some place in that building is where
the building will be built.
MR. DEBROWSKI: He will be bind by the 30 foot setback from the road
and the 38 and 43 towards the marshes from the 30 foot setback.
CHAIRMAN: That's correct. He has a question. Can I just have your
name for the record sir.
Page 6 - William and Benjamin Herzweig g
Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
MR. GOLDBRIG: Are we talking then that we are actually ~otating
this house a slight bit to make use of the other corner?
CHAIRMAN: I would say that that's probably what they're askihg for.
MR. GOLDBRIG: I see.
MRS. MOORE: I don't think so because we still have the 30 foot set-
back from the front.
CHAIRMAN: No. What he is asking is it going to increase the depth
of the house. I think. Is that what you're askihg?
MRS. MOORE: No. I think he's asking if it's going to turn the house.
MR. GOLDBRIG: Are we rotating this house to ....
CHAIRMAN: No. What they're doing is trying to increase the depth
of the house at one particular point on it in the envelope.
MR. GOLDBRIG: They aren't rotating anything?
CHAIRMAN: No.
MR.
: And without increasing the envelope at all.
CHAIRMAN: On the north side it would be increasing the~envelope from
43 feet to 38 feet. You see, this is very .... You have to excuse me.
Having been a teacher for 10 years and I've been out of it for 8, it's
very difficult to explain these things unless you have a blackboard up
here and you can draw it. Unfortunately, we don't have one and I hate
to digress for one second. A couple of years ago they asked me to come
in and explain zoning to an eighth grade class and I said I can't ex-
plain zoning to an eighth grader, (I told the Supervisor this.) with-
out a blackboard and we brought the blackboard in and that's basically
what we should have here. I think it was confusing to the other mem-
bers of your association at the last meeting just as I wanted you to
be understanding (Bob) of exactly what we were addressing here. I
should also tell you that we have before us an article 78 brought by
this gentleman and this applicant here or her husband attempting to
stay the decision that we made at 43 feet and 38 feet and 30 feet
from Meadow Lane. That's another situation and that's being handled
by our attorneys. I!m sorry. I apologize. ~oes that answer your
question sir?
: Why are we doing anything if they're not moving it?
CHAIRMAN: Well we're increasing. What they're asking us to do is in-
crease a building envelope toward the north property line from 43 feet
and move it out closer to the two foot contour to 38 feet.
MR. : This house would no longer be square?
· page 7 - William
Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
and Benjamin Herzweig
CHAIRMAN: Well, I assume what that would give them is five more feet
on that side of the house. So the house, instead of being as Mr. Wood
stated, 23 feet on that side, it would be 28 feet.
MR.
: It will not be a retangular house then.
CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that they could choose to build any type of
house that they wanted to as long as it was inside that building en-
velope.
MR. : What my question is coming down to is the drainage in
the map. The Trustees switched the house in a certain position. They
were very careful on location due to drainage. Now, that area; they
were able to get around this because of the 10 foot elevation. That's
why the D.E.C. is not involved in this. Now, the Trustees said fine.
It's a very l~sensitive, The house is in a situation like this. And
if ~1 adhere to everything of the new covenants and restrictions that
are being drawn, this can go ahead. Now, what I'm asking, does this
effect the drainage? This new contour, this different elevation; are
we now in a different point where the drainage of the house can effect
the environment? In essence, what I'm saying; should th~ decision
not go back to the Trustees because it's a revision of this plan.
CHAIRMAN: There's still at the 10 foot elevation, Bob.
MR. : I understand that. I'm looking at the different move-
ment of water drainage from the house and possibly whatever else comes
from there.
CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question°
MR.
Trustees.
That's why I'm asking why it did not go back to the
MRS. MOORE: If I can answer that. What we're doing is making the
Zoning Board consistent with the Trustees application so that they
will both be consistent. What we have now is the Zoning Board saying;
yes you can build within the area. However, it's cut back in the back.
So it's not consistent with the Trustees. It's less than what the
Trustees gave. We want to have exactly what the Trustees gave us.
No more, no less.
MR. : I'm sure that this gentleman would understand. From
an engineering point of view, when something is designed as a revision,
the person that designed it, should have the option to make sure it's
to the original plan. That's what I'm asking now.
CHAIRMAN: Let the record state that that was Ms. Moore that was just
directing her statement and she was directing it to the Board. Al-
though it was more for Mr. Kastanzo's benefit° Mr. Herzweig, maybe
he'll answer the question f~r you.
.Page 8 - William M~e and Benjamin Herzweig
'Z.B.A. 9/10/87
MR. HERZWEIG: I don't know if I can answer it. I think Ms. Moore can
answer it as well as anyone can. Basically, insofaras, drainage and
all that other stuff, that was considered by the Trustees. They con-
sidered water flow, nitrate flow, birds, turtles, reptiles, everything
on this property. They said 38 feet. I think Ms. Moore's point is
that this little correction we hear tonight is basically to conform
with what the Trustees had in mind which was 38 across the line in
the back and that's basically it. We're not asking for anything
more than what the Trustees said we could have.
CHAIRMAN:~ In answering you~ question Mr. Kastanzo, what we can do
is direct a memo to the Trustees asking them if they feel that there
is any specific change in reference to drainage. And we will close
the hearing based upon the fact that (hopefully) we will receive some-
thing from them indicating yes, no or maybe. And it may... I don't
know what their response will be. We can't presuppose that. However,
we might have to reopen the hearing again. We'll see what happens.
MR. DEBROWSKI: I'd just like to mention to Mr. Herzweig that Alan
Larsen spoke out against this construction more than a year ago.
CHAIRMAN:~ Thank you.
MR. HERZWEIG: My simple point was just to protect the record in case
we have to end up in court on this one. This was functioning simply
as it were~ I know Mso Larsen's position. She voted against us in
the Trustees and that's all I'll say. We have no ill will toward her.
I wish her every success but I do have to protect my own record and my
investment of this property. Thank you.
MR. DEBROWSKI : Several points in contention here. We'll now dis-
cuss Ms. Larsen for a moment. It was mentioned. And I think as a
citizen, I would now like to take the other side of the story or may-
be the devil's advocate. Just perhaps, this Ms. Larsen recognizes,
she's a public official. She gets paid directly by our taxes and di-
rectly out of budget. Just perhaps she understands her position as
best as I've seen it understood as public officials. That is, she
represents the public at large. She recognizes what the general
opinion or the concensus of the public is. And just perhaps she
feels it's her duty to show up here. ~n defense of her, I think that
should be said. With regard to Bob Kastanzo, I think he mentioned
that the Trustees have done an ~xtensive study and they come to a
conclusion and put some geometry on a document that. allowed for a
dwelling to be built.there. I think what the Trustees did is they
came to some compromise to minimize the environmental impact. I
don't think there's not going to be any environmental impact. I
think they did, in good faith, try to minimize it. That's another
point that should be mentioned. I guess for me personally, there
are many things about government, bear in mind I'm not getting off
the subject, but I look at what happened in this town and what is
happening now. We do have a waste management problem. We do have
an aquifer to deal with. In fact, you people know this better than
I do. So bear with me. I'm only rambling on. I assume you know it
better than I do. We have congestion problems. We have all sorts
of problems that have ~ome about. (I think) because of the lack of con-
trol regarding rate of development et. cetra. I look, as an individual
in the community and say yes. There are many good people working hard,
'~age 9 - William
Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
and Benjamin Herzweig
MR. DEBROWSKI (continued)
paying their taxes with a community spirit° And in lieu of that or
not in lieu of that but along with those thoughts, we do have several
people who come in and they look at the situation a little bit dif-
ferently and they try to capitalize on it. And government is providing
for both. I guess the question in my mind is; who is winning out. Are
select few being allowed, perhaps, because maybe they know the rules
better. Maybe in essence, what it looks like, we were sold a bill of
goods a year ago. Just recently on the most recent hearing that you
entertained, covenants were brought up as a defense for making a move
or not making a move. On the other hand now, we have a situation where
we have seen the covenants have been pushed aside. And in fact, they've
been replaced by other covenants. And I look at this, and myself, I'm
a little disconcerted and I look at one of the other problems we have
in society. We look at our youth and we wonder and we scratch our head.
Why are they perhaps, drifting off, some of them and some of them not?
And I say; they are sensitive human beings. They can see what's hap-
pening. They have all the sensors and they have a mind to resolve what
they see, feel and taste, et. cetra. And are we setting a good example.
And all I'm saying is; gosh. We bought 50 some residences in the com-
munity, 4 parcels of land and eventually built them and they were ....
And these associated with those purposes, were these covenants attached
to a deed and what was every single rule?~ To the best of my knowledge
it looked like society must have some rules or framework by and they
must, to some degree, there's got to be a point where they say; yes,
we will deviate from these rules up to this point. And I think as a
Board which governs the people, I feel you do have that in mind. I
sometimes, as I'm sure you do and we do out there, the "Joe Blow" general
public wonder where your break off point is. when will you say; no,
I'm sorry. This is going beyond. In the particular case we have here,
historically, this piece of property, parcels adjacent to it, have been
in contention. As parcels of land now will provide adequate dwellings,
for anybody in society and that's why they haven't been built on. That
is why the bank got rid of them and got rid of them and
got rid of them and whoever else's hands they've passed through. And
I look at Mr. and Mrs. Moore and say they look like a lovely couple.
I don't have anything against them at all. My only thought is that
there is one question in mind that does bother me a little bit and in
fact, some of you may say you're sorry that you didn't get in there
and buy that property at a song and maybe sell it at a dance or some-
thing like this. I don't know. No. I'm sorry. I'm the type of in-
dividual like the rest of you and most of the people at large out
there said; yes, I'm willing to abide by rules. We must abide by
rules and have an orderly, because that's condusive to an orderly
developing society. And bear with me. I'm not lecturing you. I
know you already know this. I'm reiterating it to bring up to your
mind. Perhaps maybe you'll do some thinking about it because there
are many parcels of land around here that are available if one needs
a dwelling. And there are obviously, realtors out there wanting to
sell those things. And the fact that these people do find a piece
of property that was in contention,, and I can'% help but think and
I'm sure there are others who can't help to think; do you really
want to build and provide a dwelling and a nice little nest for them-
selves and a future family and live in a community with a sincere
Page 10 - William
'Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
~re and Benjamin Herzweig
MR. DEBROWSKI (continued)
community or are they trying to turn it around° And if they're
trying to turn it around, good. You, we and a lot of lists of rules,
deem that property not buildable. And why should we change now
when there is so much property out there. And furthermore, we have
demonstrated as a society, right in this local area, that we can't
handle sufficiently all the problems that are developing because of
a rapid influx of passenger loads in this area. And we're going to
talk about importing water resources et. cetra. These are costs to
our federal land, to the tax base, to the neighbor, the proposed re-
spective neighbor. And I can't help to feel that perhaps, maybe
there is something undemocratic about allowing realtors to capitalize
on a situation at the expense of the public at large which I see hap-
pening. We're getting to the point where there must be some transi-
tion point, point of no return where the amount of property that is
available for building and the resources that are available underneath
it, those resources that can support the population density. ~here
must be some sort of point that is defined. All of a sudden the pop-
ulation density has now exceeded the resources and now whatever gets
done in the future, is at a cost to whatever taxpayers are here. Now,
if we don't be charitable, we all are benevolent. Most people, most
people in this society have a benevolent layer about them. They would
love to help the fellow man. And I guess what I'm saying is that if
you want us to be charitable, and it's getting to that point~.. That's
a point, perhaps with some investigation, requires some investigation
on the Town Board, governing committee or whatever bodies to explore
and come to the conclusion on it. Is the future development that is
being realized, being realized at the expense of the taxpayers, those
people who have lived here for years, done their job, have not resorted
to mercenary feelings from within to capitalize on Situations that
they see°most of which probably couldn't have anyhow. In fact, we all
fall into that category. And if that's happening, let's not abandon
them. And especially it's happening when you see company values are
absolutely prohibited where our children can't even be our neighbors.
I'm not talking about living adjacent to me. They can't live 10 miles
down the road. The average family can not afford to provide, as a
parent and look forward to their future. We are not the Kaytis', the
Neethus. Nothing against them, but we are not terribly affluent and
perhaps they're not either.~ But certainly the~e is dissparity what-
ever that might be obvious to some and not to others. It doesn't
make any difference. But I just think we should address some of
these points in making our decision to allow for variances that in
my opinion, can only add (in an extraordinary way) to the cost of
the society's balance. Go out and buy a regular piece of property
like the rest of us had to do, relative to whatever costs are at
the time. I want to bear on one more point. Realtors are making
some good money. If indeed we're burdening down our resources, I
don't mind people making a liveabl~ wage. But when property values
go up to $100 an acre, $120 dollars for a two acre parcel, that's
fine if perhaps made. It would be fine, if perhaps made. Most of
that money or a good portion of that money was being funneled back
into the government, governing body at large to provide for the re-
sources that will be necessary to support life on mat parcel. And
if that money does indeed not come back to the government, what hap-
pens. The government has to go out and get it as the situation de-
'~age 11 - William
Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
and Benjamin Herzweig
MR.
(continued :
teriorates. So I'll caution, I'll caution everybody, to be sincere
about their thoughts of allowing variances and to consider what's
going on. In one hand you have a situation where you value covenants
and in one hand you have a situation where you throw them out. And
in reference to my statement on youth, what are you teaching these
kids? These kids are getting confused as we adults are. We must be
consistent. We must have rules. There's got to be a point and that
is where we must set it. I'm sorry. Especially in a situation where
there certainly is enough land available° And I guess I want to make
it clear that I'm not addressing you personally. I think there is a
question in my mind as to your motives. And perhaps not knowing you,
you would maybe even emphasize on that situation if the roles were
reversed. I'm not sure about that. But I wouldiplead with you to
pay a little bit of attention, maybe play that tape back after a
while and say this guy does ramble on. He's a little bit
But let's see, does he have any points that are ~if any use t0-this com-
munity and society. Thank you very much.
MR. : There was a question raised about elevations before.
I guess the Board, in the interim of Mr. Debrowski's statement, had
ample opportunity to look at the survey. Perhaps you can enlighten
us on the drainage question.
TAPE ENDED
MR. WOOD: I have observed the site plan. I have seen it previously
as well and I have reviewed the environmental impact statement as has
been submitted. And it's apparent from the contours (you have the
survey in front of you) that in general, the area of the building en-
velope, the slopes that we're talking about are 1 on 15 or possibly
slightly less. The area that would be covered by the building en-
velope itself would be, as suggested with the relief that's being
requested, would end at elevation 11% at the north end and would touch
just touch but not to be built on at the south end. So they would be
well within the 10 foot elevation. The point to be made here is that
these contours are not unusual for the adjoining properties, that run
to the north. The slopes are not that severe that drainage could not
be retained by planting and by adequate swelling and other methods so
that the amount of runoff would be minimized and controlled within the
site. The slopes themselves, even as we approach the pond, fall well
within a pitch of 1 on 3 which is basically a stable slope. Although,
we do have drainage in ~hat area. It is a stable slope with vegetation
and other protective measures. The runoff should be easily contained.
MR. : One last point Mr. Goehringero I think if you read
some of the recommendations of the Trustees, I think they recommended
those mitigation measures as part of the construction. So that should
more than adequately addres~ Mr. Kostanzo's concerns.
MR. : With an engineering background as I have, as well, the town
has put great time and money, they've had engineers review the environ-
ment. If there's any changes, I thin~ it should go back to the original
designers so they can have an opportunity to make sure all their original
questions have been satisfied. I understand all the permits have been
Page 12 - William
· Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
re and Benjamin Herzweig
MR.
(continued):
issued. Now, there's a slight change. There's no argument on my
part. We all stand here and speak of homes, homes for society but
nature is very important. I live there, it's very important. I
~ave hours and hours of films of nature. I want to be absolutely
sure. Because of that, again, that decision should come. If there
is any change, the decision should come from the Trustees. The cove-
nants and restrictions have been forced on how their plans and so on
for water flow and to protect that area.
CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll send them the letter as we said.
MR. : Mr. Geohringer; I'm sorry to make this a see-saw
kind of a thing. But I think we have to understand something. The
SEQRA process is at an end basically. The Trustees have made their
determination and they have voted. And the only reason we're here to-
night, as Mr. Moore told you the last time, is because the Trustees
sent us here. Maybe Mro Kostanza would join us in amending our appli-
cation. We originally wanted 25 feet. If we had the 25 feet, you would
notl be engaging this at all. But you were probably opposea to the - . -
25 feet setback as opposed to 30 feet setback. The main point,is that
we're not seeking any change. He keeps on talking about change. There
is no_change. We're not asking for change. All we're asking for is
to give us what the Trustees said we could have which is 38 feet.
There was a technical error that was made by a~prior determination of
the Board. I mean no disrespect to this Board. I'm getting a little
angry. It's been two years since we've been involved in this project
of a half acre piece. I've had it with political speeches~and con-
stitutional arguments and so forth. All we want is what we're entitled
to. The Trustees said 38 feet. We said we'll live with 38 feet. You
said 30 feet, we do not want 30 feet. All we want is that everything
should be kept technically correct so we can go on with our plans.
And quite frankly, I don't know what are plans are. I don't whether
.Bill Moore and Pat are going to buy the property or what we're going
to do with it. The main point is we're not changing anything from
what the Trustees said. Sending us back to the Trustees is just another
effort to delay this, another effort to ~ause us to spend us more money.
And incidently to Mr. Debrowski's speech, the more money we spend on a
project, is one reason why property costs are so high and why people
can't live in their own community. Because people like Debrowski,
people Kostanzos, create all these false issues, cause you to go back,
spend more time and more money. The simple truth of the matter is;
that since we start this project way back in 1985~ We have not meant
to rape this property. We haven't meant to spoil the area. From the
very inception of this project, our only idea was to build a nice house
that would blend in with the community, that would be an asset to the
community and so forth. It took me five minutes to buy that property.
And Mr. Debrowski might tell me that it was a foolish investment. As
a matter of fact, when I was before the Trustees, he came up here and
said; you made a foolish investment. I'll swear on a stack of bibles
that he said that to me. And as god as my witness, I will fight this
case as long as it takes to show them that I'm right. This is~a beau-
tiful piece of property. It's not as environmentally sensitive as
everybody thinks it is.' The environmental issues are finished as far
as we're concerned. All we want to do is get on with this project and
let us do what the Trustees said we can do.
.~age 13 - William
· Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
~e and Benjamin Herzweig
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. : As I said before, I am not agry because this
has been approved. If there's any modification or revisions, be-
cause we are talking about there are revisions, that goes back to
the Trustees. And I believe you had said that you are going to do
that and I was happy with that decision. Now, as far as anything
else, I am also angry too° If you look at this from the day Rydell
had this case, the Board refused going beyond 35 feet. And if you
look back when Kramer withdrew because of other problems he had be-
cause it was in a very ticklish situation and somebody else picks it
up. I don't want to dig up the dirt but it smells on that end too.
The thing,is, I want to protect the environment. I live there.
CHAIRMAN: You~ last point Mr. Debrowski.
MR. DEBROWSKI: I just want to point out .... Mr. Kramer, he did.
What are we to believe. Let's look at our situation and this whole
group of people being Mattituck Estates, subdivided that place, '
wrote up some nice little rules and said these will be attached to
the deed. They sold us a bill of goods because they came to us and
said; hey, when you buy this, you've got a good set of rules. And
there is nothing wrong with those rules. And now along comes Mr.
"M". Mr. Abbott also went on to say, which we were foolish enough
and naive enough as community minded people, to believe that this
man was in fact going to dedicate that whole area and all the per-
ifery around that pond as a public park area and recreational area
for our children and all this nonsense and we believe him. We did
not need lawyers. We didn't ~e~i~ll khis le~al~arguement~_~.~e believed.
him as human beings, man to man. What do you expect us to do. Mr.
Kramer comes along after a while and tells us that he wants to be a
neighbor. He wants his family to move in there° After a while, a
little bit of rebuttal on our part, the man states to the public fine.
He really is maybe buying that land for speculation. And in regard
to a foolish investment, I might be the foolish one. And I might
have to concede to that and I really was only remarking or offerring
rebuttal in response to what you said at that particular meeting.
It was one of my immediate thoughts. It remains to be seen. I
think what we have here is not a show case. Let's watch out for peo-
ple who want to make a fast buck. Maybe it's not my business what
the heck is going on. But if you really need a buildable piece of
property, you need a shelter, the whole community will help you.
There's no doubt about that. But by god, when you pick up a marginal
piece of property and it starts to become a precedent in the communi-
ty when there's still a lot of land left around~ We see people rea-
lizing that large absorbant money values or returns on their money
because they're willing to go out and put a bet on something which
they think they've got a chance to win. I think when that's hap-
pening at the sacrifice of the rest of us~Ta~d that~s~i~c~d~ntally~ ~
another reason why property values'are going up. There's no doubt
in mind it's not because people want to protect their interest. It
is because people see there's a demand and that's simply it. Many
people are selling this area out. Property values are going up not
because of people like myself who want to uphold covenants and docu-
ments that we were led to believe because we're so darn naive. You
don't realize we were brought up in a generation that hey; I look at
· Page 14 - William
-Z.B.A. - 9/10/87
re and Benjamin Herzweig
MR. DEBROWSKI~ (continued):
my fellow man and I can trust him° I can shake the man's hand. I
don't need all this legal paraphanelia to support what's going on
between he and I and that was the generation we were brought up in.
To have faith in your fellow man. Well, by god, what's happening
with our society. We're setting real good examples of why not to
believe that way and we've got a society coming up for our children
that are not believing that way by example. Not by education. By
example, .that's their education. We don't have anybody telling them
that. They can see it. Let's turn around and let's get control of
our community and let's live like human beings and I feel that this
touches this. Given his consideration and indeed if you do want to
build there because of your humane interest, go do it. But if you
turn that thing around and profi~t big on it, you cost us a lot of
money. Don't think that you haven't. Fifty people came down here.
Forty at one time initially to get this going, to let this communi-
ty know that; yes, indeed we're concerned about the decisions that are
made around here. And yes indeed, we represent a group. And the
other hand could have a contention. What happens? What has happened?
Who's winning? They're winning. We're losing. We had all the rules.
We had everything in our pocket~ ' We were sold a bill of goods. So
if I'm a little bit apprehensive about believing what's going on,
please emphasize it for me. Thank you very much. Good night.
CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing
the hearing reserving decision until later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
MICHAEL A. LoGRANDE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
360-5206
LEE E, KOPPELMAN
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
October 28, 1987
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County
Administrative Code, the following application(s) which have been referred to
the Suffolk County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local
determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as
either an approval or a disapproval.
Applicant(s)
Municipal File Number(s)
Margaret McNamara
John & Joan Wetzel
~William Moore & Benjamin Herzweig
Nicholas Ippolito
Paul & Corrine Ferdenzi
3602
3647
3654
3656
3658
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
GGN:mb
S/s Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
VETERANS MEMORIAL hIGHWAy
HAUPPAUGE. L.I. NEW YORK 1~788
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11S'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS ~
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, the
Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers
the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
×× Variance from the Zoning Code, Article ×I , Section lO0 ~19.2
Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector
Special Exception, Article , Section
Special Permit
Appeal No.: 3654 Applicant: William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig
Location of Affected Land: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY
County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 115-5-7
Within 500 feet of:
Town or Village Boundary Line
×x Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary)
State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or
Other Recreation Area
La
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.
COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to ~hli~h "hn~l~ing
~n~lope" with setbacks of not less than 38 feet from nearest wetlands
along exist, two-foot cpntour and not less than 30 feet from front propert]
Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review, line.
Dated: October 22, 1987
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING OF
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1987
Appl. No. 3654
Applicant(s): WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG
Location of Property: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck
County Tax Map ID No. 1000- - -
Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer~P. Goehringer
Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki.
Absent was: (None). Also Present Were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.)
Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 25 persons in the
audience.
The Chairman opened the hearing at-9:06 o'clock p.m. and
read the notice of hearing and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At this particular time, they're asking for a
modification of that building envelope. So I can do two things at
this particular time. I can either copy... Well, I'll copy the
application. Is there anybody else who would like a copy of this
application and read it? This is the original. So if there are any
questions from the public. Is there any question after the appli-
cants speak, let us know and then we'll try and answer those ques~
tions. I have a copy and the most recent copy is July 21, 1987 in-
dicating the proposed building envelope at 38 feet and 30 feet from
the wetland area. I'm sorry 30 feet from Meadow Lane and 38 feet
from the meadow or wetland area at the two foot contour and this
was produced by Young & Young. And I have a copy of the Suffolk Tax
Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And who
is going to talk? Mr. Moore or Mrs. Moore? Would you explain to
the public what the purpose of this applica~i6n is-and what precipa-
tated it?
MR. MOORE: I'm sure most of us know this was a'long ~ime wi~h ~he
Trustees and hopefully ended a decision granting a wetlands permit
with the condition that any proposed dwelling be 38 feet from the
wetland boundary as shown on the survey. And we had in mind a house
that we thought was average in size. I think at'its widest point
was 28 feet. To comply with the 38 rearyard setback, the house as
we had proposed it, had to be pushed forward toward the road on the
lot to the point that it would be 25 feet from the road. With the
Trustees decision or that condition in mind, we made the request for
a variance because the Town Code requires a 35 foot frontyard set-
back. We never originally requested or contemplated coming in to
vary from that 35 foot requirement. When the Trustees decided to
put us at 38 feet from the wetlands, the wetland concern over-rode
the concern for a frontyard setback. The proposed house, as we were
Page 2 - August ~ 1987 ~
Public Hearing -~lliam Moore and Benjamin~rzweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. MOORE (continued):
asking for Which would have had a~25 foot frontyard setback, had
on the survey, setbacks of 38 to 42 feet respectively on the rear
of the property and that's created by virtue of the fact that the
wetlands boundary is curved. In its prior decision back in July,
this Board did not grant a 25 foot frontyard variance. It granted
a 30 foot frontyard variance. At the same time, it retained a rear-
yard setback of 38 and 42. And that result was a narrowing of the
depth of the proposed dwelling by five feet. We went from a house
that we proposed to be 28 feet in depth which we believe to be at
its widest point, which we believe is average, to a house then re-
sulting to be 23 feet in width at i~s widest point. So tonight, we
are here to say we will comply with the 30 foot frontyard setback
as this Board requests. The Trustees has said be it 38. They did
not say we had to be at 38 and 42, just take a 38 foot rearyard.
Don't pin us to both. The house can slip back a little bit on the
one side and we'd have a house that's back again, to its maximum
depth of 28. Far more in keeping with the average houses. I can
shift gears and go right in to some of the homework that I've done
just on house depths. You had asked the question, Mr. Chairman, at
the last time, if we could scale that house down. And thinking at
the time on my feet, I talked about the fact that the Trustees and
the applicant decided and agreed that there would be no decks and
patios on this property. And scaling the house down would be making'
for a small home with no outside living area to expand upon. I did
not think of it from an engineering standpoint which is to cut five
feet off the front of the house resulting in a house at its widest
point being 23 feet in depth. After the fact, I went back ahd
pulled building books out from a builder and we went through, my
wife and I, Patricia book after book after book. We couldn't find
a single house plan in a whole stack of books I've got here which
has 23 feet in depth. We fo6nd-things 24, 26 and 28, averaging up
to 32. They may have been some elaborate homes but things that were
narrower, turned around and were quite long ~hen. That was an un-
scientific analysis. Ben Herzweig contacted a real estate consul-
tant, appraiser, building engineer. And Mr. Wood wrote us a letter
addressed to you which we had delivered to us today in which in his
professional opinion, he lays out the difficulties in a house with
a depth of 23 feet. We think the request in this hearing tonight,
say just make a uniform rearyard setback of 38 feet to obviate all
the problems. We go back to a house that's a maximum of 28. It
averages about 26 to 24 and the house falls within the standards of
a typical stahdard'residential year-around home and that's why we're
here. A§ I'm sure the Board is aware, an Artiqle 78 proceeding was
brought and that was done on the prior hearing 'solely to preserve
time frames that were running out on that one less we not be able
to persuade you tonight. We're not here tonight to ask for a 25...
We're not here to ask for a 38 foot uniform setback and go to court
to ask for 25 for the front. That's not what we're here for. We're
going on one or the other. We'll go with the 30 foot frontyard re-
questing that the house be made more reasonable in its depth and
Page 3 - August 211987 ~
Public Hearing Wil~l~/am Moore and Benjamin Her~ig
Southold Town Board off, Appeals
MR. MOORE (continued):
practically a utilatarion. That the 23 foot wide house at its
widest d~pth can not be practically utilized or designed for in-
terior traffic flow, stairways and every thing else. So that's
why we're here tonight. I have a letter. I will give you the
original. I can't give you the building books, but take my word,
we spent a lot of time g6ing through and actually began to drool
over house plans until we saw that we couldn't do anything with
23 in depth. If I may, for the record, submit to you a letter
from Frederick Wood, Associates, Inc. dated August 20, 1987. ~t
is addressed to the Board o f Appeals and it's in reference to
this application. With that, is attached the qualifications of
Mr. Wood. In his qualifications he does not state that he has
been hired by various municipalities in the five western towns
and has appeared and been considered an expert in buildings.
And Mr. Herzweig may be better able to describe what this gentle-
man's were are not on his frequent . . For your infor-
mation, to know where Mr. Wood comes from.
CHAIRMANGOEHRINGER: Thank you.
BENJAMIN HERZWEIG: If I may, Mr. Wood originally started out his
professional life as an engineer working for Grumman. He was one
of the principle engineers responsible for designing the lunar
module that landed the atronauts on the moon way back in 1969.
There after, Mr. Wood decided to leave the profession and pursue
a real estate appraisal and engineer. Mr. Wood has beenc~etained
by the Town of Brookhaven in regard to variQus tax certiorari
matters whi6h as you know, are proceedings where a challenge is
made with property assessed and placed ~gainst real property. He.
has defended the Town of Brookhaven in regard to these matters.
He's also defended the Town of Brookhaven in regard to condemna-
tion matters. As an engineer, Mr. Wood has been retained by sub-
dividers and developers regarding to the development and construc-
tion costs, layout costs, things like that. Feasibility studies
and the design and building construction of residences, again of
the five western Gowns. He's also been consulted in regard to
construction claim cases where the claim was made that one party
has constructed a defective building to be an office building, a
professional building, shopping center. Mr. Wood will acutally
go in and rip the structure out. He's fully familar with cost
planDing and cost of construction and so forth. I would add, as
a parenthetical, by the way, that in preparation of this letter,
Mr. Wood looked over (extensively) our file and the material that
was submitted both for the Zoning Board in this case and the Board
of Trustees. He also went through cost calculators and various
plans. Andlhe said to me, that this is a rule, the cost of con-
struction actually increases the more irregula~ the property comes.
He says that the most basic shape is an actual square. And if
you cost it out, he said that as you increase the length of the--
house, the cost increases at a far greater proportion than the
Public Hearing - Moore and Benjamin erzweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. HERZWEIG (continued):
utility. In other words, the best Utilization of space would be
that square. And if you make it longer to make up the square
footage, you're increasing the cost but you're not restoring the
utility that has been lost by making the shape of the property
irregular. And ~hat's basically the point of Mr. Wood's letter.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak in favor of this application? Is there a spokesper-
son for the Mattituck Property Owners Association? How do you do
sir?
MR. REILLY: I'm the President of Mattituck Estates Association.
And we're averages according to all the experts but we can't see
how the Town is going to allow them to build a house there 38 feet
from the wetlands when the law says 75. And Mattituck Estates have
covenants and restrictions that indicate it should be 50 feet from
property line. It also says here with Trustees, any decision of
yours to set the house back further, they must go through the Trus-
tees again. The entire group of Mattituck Estates objects to this
house beihg built so close to the water. We've got 42 houses there.
They all comply with the rules and regulations and we seriously ob-
ject,to this building.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak against the application?
MRS. LARSEN: I'm a Southold Town Trustee. I'm speaking both as
well as a Town Trustee and I'm a citizen in Southold. First of all,
I'd like to apologize for my appearance. I'm on vacation technical-
ly but I did see this coming up before the Z.B.A. and I wanted to
speak. I'm glad to see that the Mattituck people are still here.
They were frowning in very large numbers throughout this whole ap~
plication process which the applicants would say had gone on for
over a year. Well, it Wen{ron~ a long!~time for ~hese~pe®ple as well.
They have been out here. They have been talking t~ their Board and
they've been talking to the Board members such as yourself and my-
self. Now, first of all, as far as Fred Wood goes and all Mr. Herz~
weig's (which I call) lawyer talk. I know what the five west end
towns look like. So Fred Wood's credentials don't really impress
me. I know that this lot on Meadow Farm along with other lots that
have.been recently approved for development, were not considered
developable in the Town of Southold. When they bought that lot, the
person who sold it to them, was not granted approval for building
on it. But we are in a situation now that these lots are small.
There are not that many prime building lots on the waterfront but
I say, our ordinances will hold up. I say; that these people who
live in Southold, who pay their taxes, who obey covenant, should
not be slid down the drain because we're not living up to the codes
of our laws. The 38 foot setback, the 75 foot setback could have
been upheld. The applicants were again and again asked to submit
studies. Now the study will show the di-
rect water course and its effect on the water. We will never know
whether this house will, as a result of the studies will ef-
Page 5 - August 2~987
Public Hea~ing - Wi-lliam Moore and Benjamin He~zweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. LARSEN (continued):
fect the water quality around it. I'm assuming at 38 feet, yes it
will. Between septic and now the other setbacks, we can look at
our bays now. They're totally brown. You get out to Gardiner's,
they're clean. It's as a result of all of this development on the
waterfront. Not only that. They are going to break the covenants
of the neighborhood as far as the 50 foot setback. Now, as they've
said, they have upheld it. How does it make .... How would it make
you feel,, if you were an older citizen in your community and you up-
held it and all of a sudden, someone came in; what I basically feel,
ramrod this through. Yes, they've submitted environmental impact
studies but we had our own experts. We had a woman named Arlene
Dove who showed that this property was a unique wildlife habitat.
That this acreage deserves to be protected. It falls under the
covenants of the law as far as .... Under the Z.B.A. ordinance,
certainly your criteria can not be met for setback requirements in
any which shape or form. Now, it's up to the Town itself, as I feel.
Unless we want to continually go in this direction and see neighbor's
houses six inches apart. Years ago if the house was on that property,
we wouldn't have any trouble with 23 feet. They would have put a lit-
tle bit of a shack on there. That's the rural character of Southold.
That's what Southold is about, at least the Southold that I've always
known. And I just feel that it's time that we started saying no when-~
we have the right to say no and that's really all I can say. I'm just
making an appeal to you. I feel that these people were right. That
some of the decisions could have come down could have been upheld and
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
against the application?
MR. NORDLINGER: Unfortunately, I'm a lawyer so perhaps you shouldn't
listen to anything that I say. But I'm also a resident of this par-
ticular area. And I have not been current with what has been going on
because I haven't been too well. But I am ~a little bit surprised by
some of the things that have happened this evening. In the first place,
I don't understand why a hearing of this kind, when people want to ob-
viously change the character of the neighborhood and call on you to do
it. Why they should come in with some surprising new evidence without
giving the people who live in the neighborhood an opportunity to examine
it and study it. So I have nothing more to say about the application
itself except that it clearly will change the character of the neigh-
borhood. It clearly violates the covenants and restrictions under
which all of us live and we (I) don't know who Mr. Wood is. Some
other people may but I would like to see Mr. Wood's analysis. I would
like to understand it and I would like to be able to make an intelli-
gent reply to it. And perhaps, hire somebody. So I suggest that you
put this hearing over and give everybody an opportunity to examine the
documents. Thank you.
MRS. LARSEN: I don't like to interrupt your meeting but I just want
to say one more thing. Under SEQRA if you go under SEQRA, SEQRA is
designed to ensure the not overall zoning compatibility, environmental
compatibility, esthetic with the surrounding compatibility. It's not
Page 6 - August 20t987
Public Hearing - Wi/'liam Moore and Benjamin He~zweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. LARSEN (continued):
designed to create a bunch of paperwork and prolifilate. It's de-
signed for specific reasons to look at it both environmentally,
structurally and along with your zoning regulations as well.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I just wanted to say in reference
to Mr. Nordlinger, that'in reading an application, unless a person
has the actual survey in front of them and watches the specific on-
going linguistic orientations to what we're referring to, that i~
is really a matter of just reading words. And I feel that, I can't
agree with you more. This Board and this Town has never stopped
anybody from investigating anything. And we sincerely hope and we
urge you to come in and look at the application and we will make
copies of the application for you so yOu can circulate them with~
your own individual community. I hope that, in reading the appli-
cation tonight, I did not cause a problem with someone or some per-
sons in the group but it's just a matter of something that we do
ritualistically. If I did slight anybody, I apologize.
MR. NORDLINGER: I wasn't suggesting, Mr. Goehringer, that on the
application. But both of the people who spoke in favor of it, made
a big point about Wood's analysis and Wood's findings and I don't
think anybody in this group had heard of him or seen those and I
think they should have an opportunity to read and understand them
and then come before the Board. And if it's necessary or seemingly,
to challenge. I'm not saying anything about your application.
MR. GOEHRINGER: What would you like us to do? Would you like us
to copy this for you tonight?
MR. NORDLINGER: We'll pick it up another day.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you want to hang around for a couple moments
after the hearing, I'll give you a copy of this. Then you don't have
to come all the way back out to Southold. You could come out anytime
you want and investigate the application but at least you have this on
your person tonight. Go ahead Mr. Sawicki. I'm sorry.
MR. SAWICKI: I was going to ask you if he's going to put this over
to the next meeting and maybe the people can come down tomorrow or
the next day at their convenience to get the copies.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what we intend. That's what I was going
to do. ~
MR. SAWICKI: Then the next date will be three weeks.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was the request basically by Mr.
Nordlinger to do that. So that's what we are definitely going to
try and do. Unless there is an objection from the opposite side
which we may over rule anyway. Yes.
Page 7 - August J 1987 ~
Public Hearing - W~l~lliam Moore and BenjaminH~zweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. MOORE: The application has been before the Board and available
and public legal notice went out. And anyone who came 'in to take a
look at this application, could see~ery clearly what the intent of
tonight's application was. A 30 foot frontyard and a 38 foot rear-
yard. End of discussion. We have to prove to you the diffculty
that is created perhaps through my not realizing engineering conse-
quences of the last meeting where you asked me what would happen if
we scaled the house down. I didn't have the sharpest answer. We
took it to an engineer. But certainly, the application and the sur-
vey has been presented and available since.... I don't know what
the date is that's sworn on there and received by your office. But
it has been there now for, I presume, at least ten days. And I do
object to having it carried over. This process has gone through.
We're talking about setbacks. SEQRA has been complied with. I ap-
plaud Ellen for her appearance tonight and for her many comments;
wide and varied. I'm not going to bother W~th each ~nd every!one be-
cause we worked through with the Trustees and %~e got a decision that
was favorable to us from the Trustees. SEQRA is designed to be a
coordinated review wi%h this Board as well. So you had the benefit
of that material. You've not been left in the dark. The environ-
mental concerns, and I don't mean to make little of them at all. I
grew up out here. I like it out here but they don't have to be
dredged up all over again. The application speaks for itself and
it's been before you and available. People who elect to wait for
the last minute and have you read it to them, that's their choice.
If you elect to rely on Mr. Goehringer's reading to you, that is
your choice. And if you elect to try and come up with your responses
on the cuff after you've heard those applications, fine. You're
welcome to do that. But please, not at the expense of the appli-
cant. Yes, there are private covenants that have to be dealt with.
Let me make one quick comment about that which I said before. The
homeowners can't have it both ways. They can't si~ there and tell
us we've got to comply with all the laws of the State of New York
and the Town of Southold that you didn't have to comply with and
we've got to comply with your private covenants too. That's a
whole legal argument. Lawyers and judges can talk about that until
they're blue in the face. But we're here for setbacks tonight and
I think the application has been there and speaks for itself. I
would ask the Board, unless there is information that I have to
provide you that wasn't clear tonight, to close the hearing and
proceed with the decision making process.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
either pro or con concerning this hearing before we make a decision?
Mr. Reilly.
Page 8 - August 20 1987
Public Hearing - Liam Moore and
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Benjamin H~weig
MR. REILLY: With his difficulty of only 5 feet on the house, our
difficulty is the entire house. And the idea is, if he. puts the
one house there, in a short time, there will be applications for
the other five lots and then you'll'~have- a little ghetto right
there along the side.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Alright. At this particular
time, we'll take approximately a three minute recess and discuss
this issue and come back and vote on what we intend to do concern-
ing the continuance of this hearing. At that time, I will copy the
document for you and you're welcome to come out at anytime and in-
vestigate the remaining part of the file. I need a motion.
Ail in favor to recess for 3 minutes - AYE.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion to recess this hearing until
the next regularly scheduled meeting with the proviso that the peo-
ple from Mattit~ck Estates be aware of the fact that this Board did
grant a thirty foot frontyard setback to the applicant. And that
any discussions that we have on September 10th, would probably deal
with the~difference of the two applications. And that is the dif-
ference between the application that they have before us tonight
and what was granted which is a matter of approximately 5 feet which
is the difference between the 43 and 38 which is the reason why the
Moores and Mr. Herzweig have come before us tonight. And not speci-
fically the nature of the fact that we are aware of your concerns
and so on and so forth. But that's what we're primarily concerned
with. The difference between the two applications. So I offer that
as a motion.
Ail in favor - AYE.
FREDERICK WOOD ASSOCIATES, INC.
Real Estate Consultants and Appraisers
426 KANE AVENUE, EAST PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772
(516} 286-8442
August 20, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Southold, New York
Gentlemen:
11971
Re: Application of William Moore/
Benjamin Herzwei9
I have been consulted by the applicants in the above referenced
matter in regard to a prior determination of this Board which, among
other things, reduced the width of a single family residence which
the applicants proposed to construct on the subject parcel from 28
feet to 23 feet. Attached to this letter are my qualifications and
curriculum vitae.
It is my conclusion that a reduction in width in the proposed
structure from 28 feet to 23 feet creates practical difficulty and will
cause the applicants signicant economic hardship. The basis for my con-
clusion follows.
The width of the structure, as presently mandated by this Board,
is at least 2 to 3 feet less than what is generally the average width
of a single family home in the Long Island community. At a width of
23 feet, the utility of the structure is substantially diminished in
the following ways:
The layout of rooms and room size is restricted leading to a rail-
road car effect. Smallness of rooms and the resulting cramped lay-
out also creates problems relating to flow of internal traffic. The
problem is further compounded since provision must be made for access
to the second floor via a stairway. In order to provide space for
such a stairway, room size must be further reduced and stair widths
reduced to minimum. Aside from the fact that the house itself would
be esthetically displeasing in appearance, these restrictions would,
of course, decrease the marketability and value of such a home since
most homeowners prefer a home having a sense of openness and light.
In order to make up for the loss of square footage occasioned by
the reduction in width, the applicants would be required to make the house
longer. However, this does not restore the loss of utility and also serves
to increase construction costs without any corresponding benefit. Thus,
the applicants are faced with further hardship. Generally, as the shape
of a structure becomes more irregular, i.e., more rectangular or narrow,
construction costs increase. These costs increase since more wall area is
needed to make up for the loss of square footage, the difficulties assoc-
iated with a narrow home, i.e., room size, interior traffic flow and layout,
Zoning Board of~peals
Southold, New York
Re: Applicatiol~of William Moore/
Benjamin Herzweig
Page -2-
are not decreased. These difficulties still remain. The house itself
would still not be esthetically pleasing. Such deficiencies in the over-
all design of the house would cause it to be less appealing to individuals
looking for a home which in turn would lead to a loss in marketability.
I would also point out that such a home would not be in keeping with the
general character of the community.
There certainly could not be any benefit to the community by reduc-
ing the width of the structure to 23 feet. The main point is reducing
it to 23 feet creates difficulties which would not be incurred if the
applicants were, say for example, limited to a width of 25 to 26 feet
which is more consonant with the average width of a home.
In the last analysis, it is my expert opinion that the harm to the
applicants in terms of practical difficulty and financial hardship far
outweighs any benefit to the community by the imposition of such a re~
striction. Further, it is my opinion that these restrictions will result
in an estimated 15 to 20 percent loss in the potential market value of
the residence to be constructed, in addition to the increased costs of
construction.
FEW/lw
Enclosure
Respectfully yours,
Frederick E. Wood, P.E.,A.S.A.
QUALIFICATIONS
The following information is presented as evidence attesting to the professional
competence of FREDERICK E. WOOD, principal author of this report.
FREDERICK E. WOOD, a real estate appraiser and licensed real estate broker has
been actively engaged in the valuation and sale of real property for the past
fourteen (14) years, during which time he has appraised all types of properties
located in New York State, with an aggregate value in excess of one hundred mill.
ion dollars. Appraisal assignments have included residential, commercial and in-
dustrial properties with appraisement for investment, financing, condemnation,
certiorari, estate, resale, fire insurance, etc. purposes. Mr. Wood has also
lectured on real estate appraisal practice at various real estate academies and
professional associations.
By Administrative Order, dated June 7, 1982, Mr. Wood was appointed as small
claims hearing officer for assessment matters by the Supreme Court, Tenth Judic-
ial District, Suffolk County.
In addition to his real property appraisal qualifications, he is a Licensed Pro-
fessional Engineer in the State of New York, heading his own consulting firm en-
gaged in cost surveys, technical valuations, land planning, building design, in-
spection services as well as many other related areas.
He is qualified as an Expert Witness for court testimony in matters pertaining
to the valuation of real property and fields of engineering and has testified in
local, county and state courts in the State of New York.
EDUCATION:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Bachelor of Science, 1954
Adelphi University - Master of Science, 1965
Completion of various courses, seminars, lectures on Real Estate
Appraising sponsored by various colleges, universities and appraisal
~ocieties.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
Member:
Member:
Senior Member:
N.Y. State Society of Professional Engineers
National Society of Professional Engineers
American Society of Appraisers
Candidate Member: Society of Real Estate Appraisers
DESIGNATIONS:
Senior Member: American Society of Appraisers
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y.
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD August 20, 1987
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN S. E. Q. R.A.
CHARLES GRiGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~LENTAL DECLAi~ATION
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPHH. SAWlCKI Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3654
PROJECT NAME: WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ.
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 Southol~.
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] IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION- Establish "building envelope" with setbacks
of not less than 38 f~e~ ~r6m nearest wetland along existing two-foot .
contour and not less than 30 feet from front property line
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY
1000-115-5-7
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) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indi-
cating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses
or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands.
FOR FURTHER INFORmaTION, PLEASE CO~TACT: Linda Kowalski, 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.
(3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by
Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA.
mc
Real Estate Consultants and Appraisers
426KANEAVENUE, EASTPATCHOGUE, NEWYORK 11772
(516) 286-8442
August 20, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Southold, New York
Gentlemen:
11971
Re: Application of William Moore/
Benjamin Herzweig
I have been consulted by the applicants in the above referenced
matter in regard to a prior determination of this Board which, among
other things, reduced the width of a single family residence which
the applicants proposed to construct on the subject parcel from 28
feet to 23 feet. Attached to this letter are my qualifications and
curriculum vitae.
It is my conclusion that a reduction in width in the proposed
structure from 28 feet to 23 feet creates practical difficulty and will
cause the applicants signicant economic hardship. The basis for my con-
clusion follows.
The width of the structure, as presently mandated by this Board,
is at least 2 to 3 feet less than what is generally the average width
of a single family home in the Long Island community. At a width of
23 feet, the utility of the structure is substantially diminished in
the following ways:
The layout of rooms and room size is restricted leading to a rail-
road car effect. Smallness of rooms and the resulting cramped lay-
out also creates problems relating to flow of internal traffic. The
problem is further compounded since provision must be made for access
to the second floor via a stairway. In order to provide space for
such a stairway, room size must be further reduced and stair widths
reduced to minimum. Aside from the fact that the house itself would
be esthetically displeasing in appearance, these restrictions would,
of course, decrease the marketability and value of such a home since
most homeowners prefer a home having a sense of openness and light.
In order to make up for the loss of square footage occasioned by
the reduction in width, the applicants would be required to make the house
longer. However, this does not restore the loss of utility and also serves
to increase construction costs without any corresponding benefit. Thus,
the applicants are faced with further hardship. Generally, as the shape
of a structure becomes more irregular, i.e., more rectangular or narrow,
construction costs increase. These costs increase since more wall area is
needed to make up for the loss of square footage, the difficulties assoc-
iated with a narrow home, i.e., room size, interior traffic flow and layout,
Zoning Board of
Southold, New York
Re:
Page -2-
APl
William Moore/
Benjamin Herzweig
are not decreased. These difficulties still remain. The house itself
would still not be esthetically pleasing. Such deficiencies in the over-
all design of the house would cause it to be less appealing to individuals
looking for a home which in turn would lead to a loss in marketability.
I would also point out that such a home would not be in keeping with the
general character of the community.
There certainly could not be any benefit to the community by reduc-
ing the width of the structure to 23 feet. The main point is reducing
it to 23 feet creates difficulties which would not be incurred if the
applicants were, say for example, limited to a width of 25 to 26 feet
which is more consonant with the average width of a home.
In the last analysis, it is my expert opinion that the harm to the
applicants in terms of practical difficulty and financial hardship far
outweighs any benefit to the community by the imposition of such a re-
striction. Further, it is my opinion that these restrictions will result
in an estimated 15 to 20 percent loss in the potential market value of
the residence to be constructed, in addition to the increased costs of
construction.
FEW/lw
Enclosure
Respectfully yours,
Frederick E. Wood, P.E.,A.S.A.
QUALIFICATIONS
The following information is presented as evidence attesting to the professional
competence of FREDERICK E. WOOD, principal author of this report.
FREDERICK E. WOOD, a real estate appraiser and licensed real estate broker has
been actively engaged in the valuation and sale of real property for the past
fourteen (14) years, during which time he has appraised all types of properties
located in New York State, with an aggregate value in excess of one hundred mill-
ion dollars. Appraisal assignments have included residential, commercial and in-
dustrial properties wi th appraisement for investment, financing, condemnation,
certiorari, estate, resale, fire insurance, etc. purposes. Mr. Wood has also
lectured on real estate appraisal practice at various real estate academies and
professional associations.
By Administrative Order, dated June 7, 1982, Mr. Wood was appointed as small
claims hearing officer for assessment matters by the Supreme Court, Tenth Judic-
ial District, Suffolk County.
In addition to his real property appraisal qualifications, he is a Licensed Pro-
fessional Engineer in the State of New York, heading his own consulting firm en-
gaged in cost surveys, technical valuations, land planning, building design, in-
spection services as well as many other related areas.
He is qualified as an Expert Witness for court testimony in matters pertaining
to the valuation of real property and fields of engineering and has testified in
local, county and state courts in the State of New York.
EDUCATION:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Bachelor of Science, 1954
Adelphi University Master of Science, 1965
Completion of various courses, seminars, lectures on Real Estate
Appraising sponsored by various colleges, universities and appraisal
societies.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
Member: N.Y. State Society of Professional Engineers
Member: National Society of Professional Engineers
Senior Member: American Society of Appraisers
Candidate Member: Society of Real Estate Appraisers
DESIGNATIONS:
Senior Member: American Society of Appraisers
17¸6
S8~°09'1)"E.~
Lot 41
22915'
now or fOrmerly
County of Suffolk
N5°54 O0 W.
NEW
;'0094
/
/
/
SUFFOLK AVENUE
0
[~Ow Or ~rrnerly
rborO
°$tOnzu
xP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF
SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT B,1965
X MAP
T II.~ BLOCK05 LOT07
/,IST lNG CONTOURS
~E REFERENCED TO
MSL)
4T OF HE,id. TH SERVICE~
,NSTRUCTION ONLY
· NO.
SURVEY FOR
WILLIAM MOORE
LOT 42, "MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC"
AT MATTITUCK
TOWN 0¢ SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
8~ BENdAMIN L. HERZWEIG
JUNE 5, ~87
DATE dUNE 4, 1987
SCALE I": 40'
NO 87 - 959
3eYO
400 OSTRANDER AVENUE
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK
NOTICE OF HEA,RINGS' ,el
EN, pursuant to Section ?.67 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, Main Road,
Southold, NY on THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER lOT 1987 at the
following times: .
7:35 p.m. Appl. NO. 3651-
Nl~,d~. Variances to
the Z~ning Ordinance, Articles:
(a) Ill, Section 100-32 as toex-
cessive height ,(b) XI. Section
100-119.2 aa to insufficient set-
Inu:k from ordinary highwate~:
mark of Long Island SoU,d, o'~'
· proposed ~wind-turbine-
g&nerating to~,~r to be con-
structed landward or near ex-
isting granite monolithic struc-
ture. Location' of Property:
North Dumpling Island, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-130-01-004.
7:40 p.m. Appl. No~ 3662-
THOMAS AND FRANCES
m. AppL No. 3665-
Variance to the Zoning
.dinance, Article 'Ill, Section iOLK
100-31, Bulk Schedule, for :)RK
approval of construction of
open deck with an insufficient
rearyard setback'at 360 Sebas-
tian's Cove Road, Sebastion
Cove Lot No. 5, Mattituck, NY,
County Tax Map Parcel No.
8:05 p.m. AppL No. 3593-
QUIET MAN INN (Reconvert-
ed from May 21, 1987). Va~;iance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti-
cle VII, Section 100-71, Bulk
Schedule, for permission to con-
.' struct addition in this "B-I'
~ Genera] Bu~f~/~ss::"Zb~n'ihg
District with an insufficient
frontyard setback from the,o~
westerly property line along ·
'Hobart Avenue. Location oF
Property: Corner of Main Road
and Hobart Avenue, Southold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-62-3-7.
8:10 p,ml Appl. No. 3659-
QUIET MAN 1NN. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
XI, Section 100-112 (and Arti-
~;MITH, Variances to the Zon- ' cie 111, Section 100-31) for ap-
,,~, n.a ..... ^., ~ ~r t~ ,. proval of instlffic ent number of
Section 100-3 Bulk Schedue. ,£~:~parklng spaces of this pre-
· -,- - . .4 _4 _; ,~ex sting bus ness use Location
back of garage, when attache~d- ,'~of Property: Corner of Main
to principal dwelling structur~ :~oad and Hobart Avenue,
v, ith raised open-deck construc- 'S0Uthold, NY; County Tax Map
sion, (bi XI, Section 100-119.2
for an insufficient setback from/
existing seawall landward of
v, etland area for proposed deck
addition, (c) III, Section 100-32,
for approval of garage as an ac-
cessory structure in the sideyard
area as an alternative to at-
taching same to dwelling struc-
ture. Location of Property: 200
Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-104-05-19.
7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3622:
CHRISTIAN B, SALMINEN.
~r:ance to the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article XI, 'Section
100-119.2 for permission to co~q
struct deck addition to dwellin,~
and accessory stairs, both with
an insufficient setback from
edge of Marion Lake, or land~
~sard edge of freshwater
x~etland, whichever is closer.
Location of Property: 240
Lakeview Terrace, East Marion,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-31-9-15.
7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3658-
P&UL AND CORRIN
FERDENZI.
Variance to the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article 111, Section
100-32 for permission to locate
accessory building in frontyard
area. Location of Property: 470
Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue'
,.i Parcel No. 1000-62-3-7.
8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3628-
GEORGF: AND JANE
KAYTIS. Variances to the Zon-./
lng Ordinance, Article Ill, Sec-
tion 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for
approval of insufficient area of
two proposed parcels, Lot No.
I of 40,000 sq. ft. and lot No.
2 of 1.443 acres, and insufficient
frontage of Lot No. 2 along
Robinson Road, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-81-03-15.4 (or 12).
/~'N~:35 p.m. Appl. No, 3654-
LIAM
AND
W,,EIG~ ESQ. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance,Article Xl,
Section 100-119.2 for permission
to establish "building envelope"
with setbacks of not less than 38
feet from nearest wetlands
along existing two-foot contour
and not less than 30 feet from
the front property line (as ap-
proved under Appl. No. 3412,
June 30, 1987). Location of
Property: 675 Meadow Lane,
Mattituck, NY; Mattituck Es-
tates Lot NO. 42; 1000-115-5-7.
(Reconvened from 8/20/87).
~- 8:55 p,m. Appl, No,
NORTH ROAD ASSOCb
(Reconvened from August 20,
1987). Variance for approval of
access at Orient.
N?:. ~o_t~n!y..Tax Map Parcel No.
ss:
IN eing duly sworn, says that she is the
Gri ~tSel~Aa7 [~Tu tRhAol~E, ~nE SR'uTfoAI]~CcHcMu 2t~';
of which the annexed is a printed copy,
in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman
..................... . .... weeks
ncing on the ......................
/
~e this ..................... day of
Notary Public
BARBARA FORBES
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 48068.:6
Qu. alified in Suffolk County
Commission Expires /-z¢7
The Board of Appeals will
hear at said time and place all
persons or representatives desir-
ing to be heard in each of the
above matters. Each hearin~ will
not start before the time allot-
ted. Written comments may be
submitted prior to the conclu-
sion of the subject hearing. For
more information, please call
765-1809.
Dated: August 20, 1987
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowalski,
Board Secretary,
IT-9/3/87(31)~
Legals
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY
;IVEN, pursuant to Section 267
,f the Town Law and the Code ~f
he Town of Southold, the follow-
~/rigs will be held by the
TOWN BOARD
APPEALS at a Regular
Vleeting at the Southold Town
fall, Main Road, Southold, New
~ork, on THURSDAY, SEP-
fEMBER 10, 1987 al the fol-
owing times:
7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3651 -
)EAN KAMEN. Variances to
he Zoning Ordinance, Articles:
a) III, Section 100-32 as to ex-
cessive height, ih) XI, Section
~00-119.2 as to insufficient set-
~ack from ordinary highwater
hark of Long Island Sound, of a
woposed wind-t urbine-generat-
ng tower to he constructed land-
yard or near existing granite
nonolithic structure. Location of
ogue, N Y; County Tax Map Par-
cel No. 1000-104-05-19. /
7:45 p.m. Appl. 1¥o. 3622 -
CHRISTIAN B. SALMINEN.
Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article XI, Section 100-
119,2 for permission to construct
deck addition to dwelling and ac-
cessory stairs, both with an in-
sufficient setback from edge of
Marion Lake, or landward edge
of fresh,eater wetland,
whichever is closer. Location of
Property: 240 Lakeview Terrace,
East Marion, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-31-9-15.
7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3658 -
PAUL AND CORRINE FER-
DENZI. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-32 for permission to locate
accessory bu!lding in frontymd
area. Location of Property: 470
Haywators Drive, Cutchogue,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-104-5-21.
7:55 p.m. Appl. No 3665 -
LEHESK BUILDING CORP.
Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-
~roperty: North Dumpling Is- ., ,31, Bulk Schedule, for approval
and, NY; County Tax Map Par- ' of construction ofol~endeck witl~
~1 bilM000-130-01-004. ; an insufficient rea~ard setback
21~ Ne. 3662 - g at 360 Sebas!;ian'a Cove Read,
~I&~A~m' ' FRANCE~ } Sebastian Cove Lot No. 8. Mat-
;MITH. Variances to the Zon- - tituck;' NY; County Tax Map
ag Ordinance, Articles: (a) III, Parcel No. 1000-100-03-11.8.
;ection 100-31, Bulk Schedule,
s to an insufficient sideyard
etback of garage, when at-
.ached to:' principal dwelling
tructure with raised open-deck
or/struction, (bi XL Section 100-
19.2 for an insufficient setback
rom existing aeawall landward
.f wetland area for propoaed
leck addition, Ici III, Section
00-32, for approval of garage as
tn accessory structure in the
ddeyard area as an alternative
o attaching same to dwelling
*tructure. Location of Property:
!00 Haywaters Drive, Cutch-
8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3593 -
QUIET MAN INN/Reconvened
from May 21, 1987L Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
VII, Section 100-71, Bulk
Schedule, for permission to con-
struct addition in this "B-I"
General Business Zoning Dis-
trict with an insuff/cient fron-
tyar~ setback from the westerly
property line along Hobart Av-
enue. Location of Property:
Corner of Main Road and Hobart
Avenue, Seuthold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-62-3-7y.
8:10 p.m. Appl. No 3659'~
/
QUIET MAN INN. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
X1, Section 100-112 (and Article
III, Section 100-31) for approval
of insufficient number of park-
ing spaces of this preexisting
business use. Location of Prop-
erty: Corner of Main Road and
Hobart Avenue, Soutbeld, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No.
8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3628 -
GEORGE AND JANE
KAYT1S. Variances to the Zon-
ing Ordinance, Article III, Sec--.,
· tion 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for
approval of insufficient area of
two proposed parcels, Lot #1 of
40,000 sq. ft. and Lot #2 of 1.443
acres, and insufficient frontage
of Lot #2 along Rebinson Read,
Soutbeld, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-81-03-15.4 (or
12L
fW8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3654 ~',
ILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. and
BENJAMIN HERZWEIG,
ESQ. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article XI, Section
100-119.2 for permission to es;
tablish "building envelope" with
setbacks of not less than 38 feet
from nearest wetlands along
existing two-foot contour and
not less than 30 feet from the
~ front prOperty line (as approved
under Appl. No. 3412, June 30,
1987L Location of Property: 675
Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY;
Mattituck Estates Lot No. 42;
1000-115-5-7. CReconvened from
~- 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3653
NORTH ROAD AS-
SOCIATES. (Reconvened from
August 20, 19871. Variance for
approval of access at Orient·
The Board of Appeals will
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-
lotted. Written comments may
be submitted prior to the conclu-
sion of the subject hearing. For
more information, please call
765-1809.
Dated: August 20, 1987.
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowatski,
Board Secretary
1TS3-5700 I i ~
STATEOF NEWYORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
CaralAn~ ~qhwlS~ ofGroonport, in
said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is
Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly
Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New
York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is
a printed copy, has been regularly published in
said Newspaper once each week for 1
weeks successively, commencing on the 3
day of SePtember 19_82_
Sworn to b%f~. ~3 ~ ~
dayof ~ 19~ MARYK. OEGNAN , .
~ ' .,~ NOIARY PUBLIC, State 0f New ~orK
Page 4 - List of Mailing
Notice of Hearings
August 20, 1987 ZBA Regular
Copies to:
Suffolk Times
L.I. Traveler-Watchman
Town Clerk Bulletin Board
Meeting
J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. for McNamara
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Muir, 14 Robin Road, Dix Hills, NY 11746
Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Perino, 132 Bayview Avenue, East Islip, NY 11730
Mr. and Mrs. John Wetzel
Mr. Ferucio F~ankola, P~O. Box 630, Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Ferucio ~rankola, 901 138th Place, Malba, NY 11357
Mrs. Ellen Hi DeMarial06 Vineyard Place, Port Jefferson, NY 11777
Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. for N. Ippolito
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Smulcheski, Carole Road, Southold, NY 11971
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. for North Road Associates
Mr. Edward Linker, Box 791, Orient, NY 11957
lMrS. Joseph Snellenburg
· ' Cardinale, Esq.
d Dean
William D. Moore, Esq.
ZBA Members by mail
Individual ZBA files
ZBA Office Bulletin Board
Building Department Administrator V.
Planning Board
Supervisor F.J. Murphy
Lessard
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE 'ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 319'73
TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date
of the public hearing concerning your recent applica.tion is
a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. Traveler-
Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc.
Someone should appear in your behalf during the public
hearing in the event there are questions from board members
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 free to 'call
our office, 765-1809.
Yours very tr~ly.~ ~ ~
G'~'RA~D P. GOEHR~'NGER ~/
CHAIRMAN
Enclosure
Linda Kowalski
Secretary and Board Clerk
' .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
ftall, Main Road, Seuthold, New
York, on THURSDAY, AU-
GUST 20, 1987 at the following
times:
7:35 p.m. AppL No. 3602 -
MARGARET McNAMARA.
Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article XI, Section 100-
119.2(B) for permission to con-
struct wooden deck attached to
existing dwelling with an insuf-
ficient ~etback from existing
timber bulkhead and Peconic
Bay. Location of Property: 640
Takapesha Read (Private Read
#151,.Southold, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-87-06-10.
7:40 p.m. AppL No. 3646 -
ROBERT AND NANCY
MUIR. Variances to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article 11I, Section
100-31, Bulk Schedule, for per-
mission to construct additions to
dwelling with an insufficien~
rearyard setback and insuffi-
cient frontyard setback. Loca-
tion of Property: Corner of Gil-
lette Drive and Cleaves Point
Road, East Marion, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-38-2-
29.
7:45 p.m. AppL No. 3643 -
EUGENE PERINO. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
XI, Section 100-119.2 tbr permis-
sion to locate proposed dwelling
with or without deck addition
within 75 feet of nearest wet-
lands along the shoreline of
Marion Lake. Location of Prop-
arty: West Side of private right-
Path," East Marion, NY; County
'Fax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-12-
7:50 p.m. AppL No. 3644 -
JOSEPH REINHART, FRED
WIGHTMAN, and DAVID
FREY. Recessed hearing from
July 16, 1987 to be reconvenod.
8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3647 -
JOHN AND JOAN WETZEL.
Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-
31 and Article XI, Section I00-
119.2, to construct additions to
dwelling with reductions in the
sideyard, and to construct addi-
tion landward of existing dwell-
ing structure 70-+ feet from the
nearest wetland edge or highwa-
ter mark along Eugene Creek.
Location of Property: 4635
Pequash Avenue (Fleetwood
Roadl, Cutchogue, NY; Fleet-
wood Cove Lot No. 12; County
Tax Map Parcel No, 1000-137-
FE~O~O fR--ANKOLA. VSri:
ance to the Zoning Ordinance,
~ XI, Section 100-119.2 for
p~sicp ion to construct swim-
~1, deck and fence enclo-
sure within 75 feet of wetland
area along West Creek. ~cation '
of Pro~rty: 1~0 Glenn Road,
~uthold, NY; West Creek Es-
tares l~t No. 19; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 10~-78-02-36. Gerry Pagliaro
8:10 pm. Appl. No. 3655
ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA.
Variance from Condition No 1
rendered July 8, 1965 under Ap-
peal No. 785, and Article I11,
Section 100-32, for approwd of
the construction of accessory
storage shed in frontyard area as
shown on survey prepared by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. April 9,
1984. Location of Property: West
Side of Private Road IWest View
Drivel, Orient, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-13-3-3.
8:16 p.m. Appl. No. 3656 -
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO. Vari-
ances to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article II1, Section 100-31, and
Article XI, Section 100-119.2, for
permission to construct garage
addition to dwelling with an in-
STATE OF NEW YORK )
I SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
of Greenport, in
said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is
Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly
Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New
York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is
a printed copy, has been regularly publist~ed in
said Newspaper once each week for
weeks successively, commencing on the
dayof Aug_us-- t
NORTH ROAD AS-
SOCIATES. Variance pursuant
to New York Town Law, Section
280-a, for approval of access over
private right-of-way extending
170 feet from the north side of
Main Read, Orient, NY; County
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-18-4-
1.3 and 2.
8:40 p.m. AppL No, 3592 -
BENTE SNELLENBURG.
Hearing recessed from July 16,
1987,
..~..:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3654~
WILl,lAM MOORE, ESQ. and
BENJAMIN HERZWEIG,
ESQ. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article X[, Section
100-119.2 for permission to es-
to.blish "building envelope" with
se{backs of not less than 38 feet [
from nearest wetland along
existing two-foot contour andX,~
not less than 30 ibet fi'om the
front property line (as approved
under Appl. No. 3412 June 30,
1987). Location of Property: 675
Meadow Lane, Mattituck. N~,Y~
Mattituck Estates Lot NO. 42;
County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-115-5-7.
The Board of Appeals will
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-
lotted. Written comments may
be submitted prior to the conclu-
sion of the subject hearing. For
more info)motion, please call
765-1809.
Dated: July 27, 1987.
sufficient southerly sideyard set-
back, insufficientpond, and exces-t°tal day o ~L~ i~9
sideyards, insufficient ~etback Sworn to~6efore mo this ......
from , Ikhead a,on, Ar-
shamomaque af - MAEY K. 0EGNA~
sive lot coverage. ~cation of / q/~ // /~ ~ N01ARYPOBtlC. Slate0lNew~0rk
Southold, NY; County Tax Map~[~ ~ierm ~pires Febfua~19 ~ ~
Parcel No. 1000-052-02-007.
8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3653 -
NOTICE ,IS HEREBY GIV-
EN, pursuant to Section 267 of
the Town Law arid the Code of
the Town of ~b~ii, l .~,fi~
following hearin~ ~ktl [:ie~held'~'
by the SOUTHO~ ~WN
~a~ a
~gular M~tJng at the ~uthold
Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold, N~w York, on
THURSDAY~ AUGUST 20~
1987, at the following times:
7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3602-
MARGARET McNAMARA.
Variance to the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article XI, Section
100-119.2(B) for permission to
construct wooden deck attach-
ed to existing dwelling with an,-'
insufficient setback from ex-
isting timber bulkhead and
Peconic Bay. Location of Pro-
perry: 640 Takaposha Road
(Private Road No. 15),
Southold, NY', County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-87-06-10.
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3646-
ROBERT AND NANCY
MUIR. Variances to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article 111, Section
100-31, Bulk Schedule, for per-
mission to construct additions
to dwelling with an insufficient
rearyard setback and insuffi-
cient frontyard setback. Loca-
tion of Property: Corner of
Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point
Road, East Marion, NY; Coun-
ty Tax Map Parcel No./
1000-38-2-29.
7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3643-
EUGENE PERINO. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti-
cle XI, Section 100-119.2 for per-
mission to locate proposed
dwelling with or without deck
addition within 75 feet of
nearest wetlands along the
shoreline of Marion Lake. Loca-
tion of Property: West Side of
private right-of-way known as
"Truman's Pathl' East Marion,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-31-12-16.
7:50 p.m. APPl. No. 3644-
FERUCIO FRANKOLA.I,°
iam~tri~snce to the Zoning Or-
Ca
ncc, Article XI, Section
'=f00-119.2 for permission to con- ss:
struct swimmingpool, deck and
fence enclosure within 75 feet of
wetland area along West Creek.
Location of Property: 1900 :tuly ~worn, says that she is the
Glenn Road, Southold, NY;
West Creek Estates LOt No. 19; LAN[) ! RAVELE R-WA FCIIMAN,
County Tax Map Parcel No. d at Souihold, in .%uifolk County;
1000-78-02-36.
8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3655- ich the annexed is a plinted copy,
ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA. d Long Island '[rave[er-Watchman
Variance from Condition No. I ~ ...... weeks
rendered July 8, 1965 under Ap- ' ............
peal No. 785, and Article II1,
Section 100-32, for approvalof on the
the construction of accessory
storage shed in ftontyard area as j~
shown on survey prepared bye. .... ~ 9 . ~. ~..
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. April 9,
1984. Location of Property: -- /
.'i~.._.: ,/'...:_._.ff .-.).:
West Side of Private Road (West
View Drive), Orient, NY; Coun-
ty Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-13-3-3.
8:15 p,m. Appl. No. 3656-
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO. · · .~ day of
Variances to the Zoning Or- ' ................
dinance, Article I11, Section
100-31, and Article XI, Section .... 1 9
100-119.2, for permission to con-
struct garage addition to dwell-
lng with an insufficient souther-
ly sideyard setback, insufficient ) __,
total sideyards, insufficient set- ~-/ ,
back from bulkhead along Ar- ,~t ~/~ru-''~'/~ z'~ '
shamomaque Pond, and ex- ,tary Public
cessive lot coverage. Location of ~
Property: 230 Carole Roadl'// BARBARA
Southold, NY; County Tax Map xry Ih~i~ ie, 8t.~ite oi ~ ~., ~ot k
Parcel No. 1000-052-02-007. i','o.
8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3653- ~u:,lificd in
NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES- ~1 ~siua Expires ~A..? 5/ 1~) ftc<f-
Variance pursuant to New York
Town Law, Section 280-a, for
approval of access over private
right-of-way extending 170 feet
from the north side of Main
Road, Orient, NY; County Tax
Map Parcels No, 1000-18-4-1.3
and 2.
8:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3592-
BENTE SNELLENBURG,
Hearing recessed from July- 16,
JOSEPH REINHART~ FRED 1987.
WIGHTMAN~ AND DAVID /~"8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3654-~
FREY. Recessed hearing from co / WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. and J
July 16, 1987 to be reconvened./''~ / .BENJAMIN HERZWE1G, . /
8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 364% / J~SQ. Variance to the Zoning~C/
OHN AND JOAN WETZEL. [ Ordinance, Article Xl, Section /
Var'mnce to the~. { 100-119,2 for permission to[..
dinance, Article Ill, Section ~x. establish "building envelope"[
100-31 and Article XI, Section t with setbacks of not less than 38 \
100-119.2 to construct additions '~ feet from nearest wetland along \
to dwelling with reductions in ] existing two-foot contour and\
· the sideyard, and to construct ~ not less than 30 feet from the\
addition landward of existing I front property line (as approv-\
dwelling structure 70± feet ed under Appl. No. 3412 June\
from the nearest wetland edge or · 30, 1987). Location of Proper- \
highwater mark along Eugene ty: 675 Meadow Lane, Mat-.]
Creek. Location of Property: tituck, NY; Mattituck Estates/
4635 Pequash Avenue (Fleet- ~ Lot No. 42; County Tax Map~,~
wood Road), Cutchogue, NY; c c,~. ?I NO.LI000:II5-5-7.
Fleetwood Cove Lot No. 12; t ,~ Boaxd of Appeals will
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONI$,JR,
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llCJ?l
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date
of the public hearing concerning your recent application is
a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. Traveler-
Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc.
Someone should appear in your behalf during the public
hearing in the event the're are questions from board members
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 free to call
our office, 765-1809.
Yours_ ~v e r y~u../~ ../,~
G'ERARD P. GOEHRINGER ~
CHAIRMAN
Enclosure
Linda .Kowalski
Secretary and Board Clerk
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHQL, D
In the Matter oi the Petition of
!
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of S0u~h01d
TO:
NOTICE
TO
ADJACENT,
PROPERTY OWNER
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the ~Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
to request ~--~a~Special Exception)(Special Permit) (Oth'er) [circle choice]
~ ).
2. That the property.which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows: /~_~_z6/~a_.)
3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:
$. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signed are Article /// Sectior. /~2,'3- //~, ~
[ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over ri§ht(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].6) 765-].809.
7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the
Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such
hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the
Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the
right to appear and be heard at such hearing.
Petitioner
Owners' Names:
Post Office Address ~4~,a,,,;~
NAME
~,~ anoAS~.
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF
ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECErIPTS
ADDRESS
3~tlO *aoc~ %qoxbor (_.t~q
/V~elboornc , ~1o.. 3~9~,5~
3~5 ~o.8~0 tnn., 0oo,~ 100cj
/~o&h~uck, N'x/- Iiq5-8_
Sworn to b~efore me this
Notar~uhli¢
Form 3800, June 1985 ~'U.S.G.P.O. 1985.480.794
/
~<. .m m~.-~'. _ ~ ~-~-
/.. ., __
~ s ~s are the addresses of said persons as shown on
" ~ ~Notic~ were mailed at the United States Post
~.~ ..... ,,q .... ~ ~ .. ~otices were m~iled to e~ch of s~id per~on~ by
(This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining
property owners.)
,4
2SHO{IT F. tiVIRONHENTAL '" '"" FOht4
~rop~ror will uu~ c~rrontly ~vatlablo info~n*~tion concurnin6
or other invoscl6a~ionn w~l bo
cc~plotod ~nvl~o~ontal A~ousmon~ Foz~
(d) ~qvironncntnl
1, W~I project ros~
to the proJoct
than 10 acr~ of ~and? .
2, ~tll thoro bo
), W~i project alter or h~vo
~n existing body of water? .....
~, W~I project have
gro~dwater quali~y?
~. ~1 proJcc~ ~l~iflcaacly. offuct
6, Will project affect any tl~oat.m,,,I or endangered
-plant or ani%%l ~pccieu'?
7, W~i project re~t in
air quali%7 ?
W~I prcJec~ havo'a c'nJor effect cn vtu~ml char-
kno~ ~0 bo L~portant to tho commun.[ty7 · · ·
9. ~ill project adversely impac~ uny sit,, or strucr-
ufo of hio~oric~ pro-historic, or {mluontolo~lcul
importnncu or any site designated
onvironm~n~l area by a local aKuncy? , · .
10, ~1 project huvo
future recreational opport~itiou*l · · ·
Il. Will proJoct.rqsult' in ~%Jor traffic problem~ o:-
Systems?
12. Will proJoct rog~arly cau[;o obJcction;~ble edom,
Will projec~ have any impact on public he~lth
1L, Will project ~,ffoct tho uXiutinK c'ommun~=7 by
~-PR,-;,*TL.C. I)ATiJ
g. UESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED
WITH YOUR APPLICATION FORI.IS TO T}IE BOARD OF APPEALS
Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Board of Appeals
with your completed application forms. If "Yes" is answered to any
questions below, please be sure to depict these areas on your survey
(or certified sketch), to scale, and submit other supporting documenta-
tion.
1. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours?
..'. : ~. ' ' Yes
2.a)
*b)
3.
Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses?
(Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by (~
Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.)
Are there any areas open to a waterway without bulkhead?
Are there existing structures at or below ground level
such as patios, foundations, etc? ' Yes
Are the~e any existing or proposed fences, concrete
barriers, decks, etc?
If project is proposed for an accessory building or
structure, is total height at more than 18 feet above
average ground level? State ~otal: ft.
If project is proposed for principal building or
structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above
average ground level? State total: ft.
Are there other premises under your ownership abutting
this parcel? If.yes, please submit copy of deed.
Are there any building permits pending on this parcel
(or abutting land under your ownership,'if any)?
State Permit # and Nature:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
9. Do state whether or not applications are pending
concerning these premises before any other department
or agency (State, Town, County, Village, etc.):
Planning. Board Yes
Town Board Yes
Town TrUstees Yes
County Health Department Yes
Village' Of Greenport ~- Yes
N.Y.S.D.E.C. Yes
Other Yes
10. Is premises pending a sale or conveyance?
If yes, please submit copy of names or purchasers
and conditions of sale.(from contract). Yes
ll. Is new construction proposed in the area of contours
at 5 feet or less as exists? ~-
Yes
12' If new construction is proposed in an area within
75 feet of wetland grasses, or land area at an eleva-
tion of five feet or less above mean sea level, have
you made application to the Town Trustees for an
inspection for possible waiver or permit under (~
the requirements of Ch. 97 of the Town Code?
13. Please list present use or operations conducted upon the
subject Property at this time
and proposed
*Please submit photographs for ~he record.
I certify that the above statements are true and are being submitted for
relian?~ the Board of Appeals in considering my application.
~ignacure (Pr6p~ty Owner) (Authorized A~enc)
3/g,7 lk
§ 97-13
WETLANDS
§ 97-13
TOWN ~ The Town of Soutbold.
TRUSTEES -- The Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold. [Added 6-5-84 by L.L. No. 6-19841
WETLANDS [Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2-1976;
85 by L.L. No. 6-1985]:
A. TIDAL WETLANDS:
(1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov-
ered with, or which border on, tidal waters, or lands
lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean Iow tide
are covered by tidal water0 to a maximum depth of
five (5) feet, including but not limited OJ banks,
begs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other
low lying lands subject to tidal action;
(2) All banks, bogs, meadows, fiats ami tidal marsh
subject to such tides and upon which grows or may
grow some or any of the following: salt hay, blac'k
grass, saltworts, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high
bush, cattails, groundsel, marshmallow and Iow
march cordgrass; and/or
(3) All land immediately adjaeen~ to a tidal wethmd :ts
defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven-
ty-five (75) feet landward of the m.'.~t lamlward
edge of such a tidal wetland.
B.
FRESIIWATER WETLANDS:
(i) "Freshwater wetlamts" as defined in Article 2.1, Ti-
tle 1, § 2.1-0107, Subdivisions l(a) to l(d) inclusive,
of the Environment~d Conservation Law of tho State
of New York: and
(2) Ail land immcd[atcb, adjacent to a "freshwater wet-
land," as defined in Subsection B(1) ami lying with-
in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land-
ward edge of a "fi'cshwater wetland."
9705
2-25-145
INTENT OF PERMIT
(Subject to proper language of C & R's by Town Attorney)
House to be sited a mininum of 25' from the road. C & R's to protect in perpetuity
30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water
access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere,
no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to rear and Fear window area no
more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code.
Conditions of Permit:
As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as
far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the use of
hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service
report. No sprinkler system on the site. (lngr~,'~t)'
C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS:
At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading
of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art
if approved by the County Health Department.
Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and
Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fee~, Building
Construction time frame and inspections required are to be set after
the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration.