Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3513 Appeal No. Application TO: Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RI3AD- STATE ROAD 25 $(3UTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3513 Dated/Filed May 16, 1986 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. as Attorney for STEPHEN SHILOWITZ Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel 108 East Main Street, Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 [Appellant(s)] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on November 20 , 1986 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 [X] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article XI, Section ]00-]]9.2(8) [ ] Request for Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to con- struct condominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water, at the west side of Sixth Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 49, Block O1, Lot 25.1. Zone District: "M-Light Multiple" Residence. This is an ments of Section Southold. appeal for an area variance of the setback require- 100-119.2(B) of the Zoning Code of the Town of Appellant's property is located on the west side of Sixth Street at Greenport, adjacent to the tidal waters of Pipes Cove and Peconic Bay. The total property, including underwater land, comprises an area of 98,949 sq. ft. (2.26 acres), of which 56,997 sq. ft. (57.79%) is located within the territorial boundaries of the Town of Southold, and 41,497 sq. ft. (42.13%) is within the incorporated Village of Greenport. The premises are designated on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as follows: 1000-49-01-25.1 (Southold); 1001-007-01-16 (Greenport). The appellant and/or his predecessor have obtained grants for the underwater portion of the premises from the State of New York. By way of background, Appellant since 1982 has been actively engaged in obtaining all necessary permits and/or approvals required for the construction of a nine-unit condominium complex on the premises, including zoning changes from both the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport; site plan approvals; special condo- minium permit approval from the Village of Greenport; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands permit; Southold Town Trustees' Tidal Wetland permit; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for bulkheads, dredging and floating docks; and a building permit from the Village of Greenport. In March of 1985, the Southold Town Board amended the Town Zoning Code by adding thereto Section lO0-119.2B, which provides that all buildings must be set back 75 feet from the tidal waters or wetlands. On May 9, 1986, appellant applied for a permit to construct condominiums on the site. Such application was denied for the reason, inter alia, that the proposed construction did not conform to the 75-fo~t set back requirement of Section appeal is from such denial. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) lO0-119.2B of the Zoning Code. This CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 - Appeal No. 3513 Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ Decision Rendered November 20, 1986 Hearings were held by this Board on June 19, 1986; July 17, 1986; August 14, 1986; September ll, 1986; and October 2, 1986, at which hearings all parties and their attorneys were given the right to present such testimony and documents as they deemed appropriate. During the several months that this appeal has been pending before the Board, the members have had an opportunity to visit the premises in question and the review of all documents introduced before the Board. The Board is also familiar with the history of the site, its former uses, and the condition of and uses of the structures located thereon. Prior to the purchase of the~premises by Appellant, an oyster-processing plant was located thereon, which use had been discQntinued for many years and the buildings and bulkheads along the shoreline were in a dilapidated condition. Appellant has submitted a site plan, dated July l, 1982, which shows three buildings. Building l, containing fQur dwelling units, is located entirely within the TQwn; Building 2 containing four dwelling units, is partially within the Town and partially within the Village; Building 3 contains one dwelling unit and is located entirely in the Village. Building 1 on this plan is located on the southerly portion of the premises with insufficient setbacks at 20 feet from the southerly bulkhead, seven feet from the westerly bulkhead, and 25± feet from the easterly bulkhead, at the closest points. Building 2 on this plan is located near the center portion of the premises with insufficient setbacks at 26+ feet from the easterly bulkhead, at the closest points (Southold). At the September ll, 1986 meeting, appellant submitted an alternative plan which reduced the dwelling units in Building 1 from four to three units, resulting in an increase in the setback from the westerly bulkhead from seven to 21 feet, and from the easterly bulkhead from 25± feet to 45+ feet. Building 2 on this plan is shown to be 29 feet from the easterly bulkhead, 62 feet from the northwest bulkhead, and 54 feet from the north bulkhead (Southold), at its nearest points. Appellant has submitted an affidavit which sets forth the fact that be has spent the sum of $210,000 to purchase the premises; $65,000 for architectural and engineering services; $12,000 for consultants; $110,000 for attorneys' fees; and $40,000 for advertising, telephone calls and miscellaneous expenses, or a total sum of $437,000 on this project, to date. As previously indicated, this is an application for an area variance where the standard is whether strict compliance with zoning ordinance will result in "practical difficulties." Although the courts have not defined the term "practical difficulties," in the Case of Wachsberger v. Michaelis, 19 Misc. 2d 909, the Court said that the following matters should be considered: (1) how substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement; (2) the effect, if the variance is allowed, of the increased population density thus produced on available governmental facilities; (3) whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or substantial. detriment to adjoining properties; (4) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method, feasible for the appellant to pursue, other than a variance; and (5) whether i~ view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. In applying the above considerations to the facts in this case, the Board finds: (1) that the variance requested is substantial in relation to the zoning requirement; (2) that the resulting increase in population density if a variance is granted will not produce an undue burden on available governmental Page 3 - Appeal No. 3513 Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ Decision Rendered November 20, 1986 facilities, since municipal sewer and water service to the facility has been approved, additional on-site fire hydrants are to be provided by the appellant and the municipal fire department has approved the project; (3) that the grant of a variance will not produce a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or create a substantial detriment to adjoining properties. If nine dwelling units are built on the site, which contains 98,494 sq. ft. of area, the resulting density is approximately one unit per 10,900 sq. ft. of area; if eight units were built (as in the alternative plan), the density would be approximately 12,300 sq. ft. of area per dwelling unit. This compares favorably with existing dwellings in the neighborhood; (4) this Board finds that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible for the applicant to pursue. Both the attorney for the appellant and the attorney for neighboring property owners agree that if no variance is granted, only l-l/2 units could be built on the premises located in the Town, and that the total number of units would be reduced to four, a reduction of more than 50%. Considering the investment made to date, in reliance upon the Town Code prior to its March 1985 addition of Section 100-119.2B, the Board finds that there is no method feasible to the appellant to obviate the granting of a variance; (5) the final consideration is whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by the grant of a variance. A review of the record in this matter demonstrates that the appellant, in good faith, contracted to purchase the premises in 1981 contingent upon his ability to obtain all required permits and approvals to construct condominium units at the site; that he thereafter applied to the Village, Town, County, State and Federal agencies for all required permits and approvals at a cost of many thousands of dollars, and the expenditure of more than three years of time and effort; that after obtaining the required permits and approvals, the Town Zoning Code was amended requiring that the buildings be set back 75 feet from the bulkheads on the site. It is the determination of this Board that the appellant has demonstrated that a strict application of Section 100-119.2B of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties and significant economic injury. The appellant has submitted an "alternative plan" to this Board on 9/11/86 and his attorney has stated that the Board could consider the same in its determination of this matter. The Board does hereby grant a variance of the provisions of Section lO0-119.2B of the Zoning Code to the extent, and subject to, the conditions hereinafter set forth. Accordinqly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, ~t was RESOLVED, to GRANT a variance from the provisions of Section 100-119.2B of the Zoning Code to the extent, and subject to, the conditions as follow: 1. There is no disturbance of land within wetland and beach areas. 2. There is no surface water runoff into tidal waters or neighboring lands (shall remain on this site). 3. Updated Certification by Building Department and Final Site Plan are approved by the Planning Board. Page 4 - Appeal No. 3513 Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ Decision Rendered November 20, 1986 4. Two copies of the Final Map are filed with the Office of the Board of Appeals. 5. This approval is not to be deemed an approval for any other construction, accessory buildings or otherwise. Conditions No. l, 2 and 3 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, as set forth in its letter of recommendation to this board dated October 9, 1986, which conditions are as follow: (a) The area of Building 1 should be diminished to allow accommodation of only three dwelling units; (b) Building 1 shall be relocated with a westerly bulkheaded setback of 21 feet along the Peconic Bay; (c) Relocated Building 1/accessory wood decking shall have southerly bulkheaded setbacks of 35 feet/30 feet, respectively, along Peconic Bay. (Thirty-five ft. setback for the foundation of dwelling units. Thirty ft. setback for open deck without concrete foundation attachment to dwelling units.) 7. There will be no overhead lighting which would be adverse to neighboring properties. Deck addition is to remain open and unroofed, and is to be constructed on pilings (without a permanent concrete attachment to dwelli,g foundation structure). 9. There is to be compliance with the lowest floor elevations of the Floodplain Management Law. 10. There will be no further setback reductions. ll. There will be no new fenced or other structures within 75 feet of tidal water, (except as approved herein). This Board declines to adopt Condition No. 4 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission report, which condition provides as follows: "Approval of the Greenport Fire Department," for the reason that it believes that it is not appropriate for this Board to make its approval of a variance subject to the approval of a fire department which provides fire protection to the subject premises. This Board believes that it is appropriate for this Board to consider recommendations of a fire department, which it has done in this case, but not to condition its approval of a variance upon the formal approval of a fire department to the grant of such variance. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted lk Town Town Clerk, ' _~ ERARD P. GO-£HRING~/R, CHAIRMAN ovember 20, 1986 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 public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Meeting of the SOUTHOLB TOWN BOARD Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY and as follows: Southold', NY at a Regular OF APPEALS at the Southold on THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1986 3:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3489 - PAUL LEARY for a Reversal of Decision of the Building Inspector for Nullification of Actions to issue a Modified Permit and Demolition Permit, ~n~"that the property owners be left to regular procedures of law, t~ be allowed only after review by the Board.of Appeals and in accord- ance with all provisions of law. Name of Owners/Location of Property: FRANK E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 Se~cond Street, New Suffolk NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000,117-10-20.7. (Recessed from 5/1/86) 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3499 - DANIEL AND LISA JEROME for a Special Exception of'the Zoning Ordinance.~for approval of an accessory apartment pursuant to Ar{icle III, Section.,lOO-30(B). Location of Property: 45125 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-02-3.1. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3502 GREGORY FOLLARI for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section' 100-119.2 for per- mission to locate new dwelling with an insufficient setback from L6ngfIsland ~ound bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Sound Drive, Greenport; ?~Map of Section Four£Eastern Shores" Lot #117, Map No. 4586; County Tax Map ParcelT~No. 1000-33-1-15. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3508 - DAVID MOORE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate new pool, deck and fence areas with an insufficient set- back from Long Island Sound bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-4-17. 7:55 p.m. Appeal ~o. 351S HOWARD REINHART and CHARLES HYDELL for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-118(B) and Article III, Section lO0-30(A for permission to use existing buildin, g for woodworking shop and sales in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Location of Property: 43305 Main Page 2 Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting - June 19, 1986 Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-0t~-16. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3516 - ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient setback from the closest northerly property tine as shown by sketched survey dated April 22, 1986. Location of Property: 6135 Indian Neck Road, ?econic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-6-19. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3424 ELEANOR LEONARD for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of two contiguou's parcels, having insufficient area, width and depth. Location of Property: Along Right-of-Way off the east side of Ba'y Home Road (and along the end of Willow Point Road), Southo~d, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-56-5-39, 40, and 41. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3518 MARJORIE D. PETRAS~for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle XI, Sectio~ 100-119.2 for insufficient setback of proposed additions from ~utkhead along Corey Creek, at 700 Koke Drive, Southold, NY;=County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-5-006. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3505 RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to locate proposed new.dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location 6f Property: 1080 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor Road), Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Section 3, Map No. 4650, Lot ~; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-28. ~' 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHE~N SH~ILOWIT~Z for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B)] / for permission to construct condominium complexes within 75' of bulkhead or tidal water. Location of Property: West Side of \ Sixth Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- ..~49-01-25.1. Zoning District: "M-Light-Multiple." 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3510 - RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate proposed pool, deck and fencing within 75' of bulkhea or tidal water. Location of Property: 100 McDonald's Crossing off the South Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; Edgemer6 Park Lots 12, 13, and 14; County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00- Page 3 Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting - June 19, 1986 145-4-15. 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3524 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate marine fuel-storage tank structures in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District with an insufficient setback from landward edge of tidal wetland and from ordinary highwater mark, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6~1. 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. a Special Exception to the 3525 PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES for Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to install/relocate marine fuel-storage tanks in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 'Ko. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.1. 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3512 - SAMUEL BAIL~ for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, SectionllO0~31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition and roof o~er cellar stairs which exceeds the maximum-permitted 20% lot co. yerage and roof overhang will reduced sideyard setback to less t~han that permitted. Location of Property: 1980 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-144-01-015. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing in question.~ For more informa- tion, please call 765-1809 (alt. 1802). Dated: June 9, 1986. BY ORDER OF THE SO'UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS?· GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS: Please publish Thursday, June 12, 1986 and forward two affidavits of publication on or before June 17th to: Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. lk 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 public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3529 PAUL KELSCH. Variance to the Zoning-Ordinance~ Article III~ Section 100-31 for permis- sion to construct deck addition To existing dwel.-ling w.ith an insufficient rearyard setback~ at 405 Wendy DriYe, Laurel, NY, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-~27-08-19~ 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3526 BRUCE'AND.S~IRLEY SIEVERMAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to existing dwelling and attaching an existing swimmingpool, leaving an insufficient setback from the southerly (side)~ property line on this corner lot~ Lecation of Property: 50 Aquaview Avenue andkRocky Point Road~ East Marion, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~21a3-1. /:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3528 RICHARD AND ALICE McM~NUS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III, -Section ~00-31 and Section 100~1312)[B] for approval of the construction of an open porch in excess of 30-~q. f~: in area, hav~ng an insufficient setback from the front property l~ne at 710 Cedar Lane, East Marion~ NY; Coun'ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-6-5.1. /:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3531 ALBER~ ~. BRENEISEN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article X~, Section 1UO-119.2(B) for permission to construct oool, deck and fence enclosure within 75 feet of mean high water along Dawn Lagoon, 715 Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-161~ Cleaves Point.Section III, Lot #71. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3521 ~ ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0'31 for permission to reduce living area in-preexisting, noncon- forming dwelling unit in this ~'B-.1'~ General Business Zoning District, to less than 850 sq~ ft~ Location of Property: Page 2- Notice of H6~rings Southold Town Board of Appeals July 17, 1986 Regular M~eting Z6~5 ~'ai~]~ ~o.~.~%.~kn~]eOf NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 122-6-30..1 (or 3(~-). 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3523 - STEVE KALAtJ[AN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel No. 2 in this twoilot division/set-off located on the north side of a private right-of=way extending off the north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, NV; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~1--t2~01-18. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No~ 3517 ~ ROSALIE GOWEN. Variance to reconside~ the relief requested under Appeal No, 3450 for Variances to the Zoning .Ordinance~ Article III, Sectio~ 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of: ~1) insufficient lot area, (2) insufficient lot widt~ (3) insuffic?ent lot depth, of two parcels as proposed in this pendfng set-off/redi~ision of land located at-~he corners of Zena Road, Cp-t. ~idd Drive and Central Drive, Mattituck, NY; Cpt~ Kidd's Estates Filed Map #1672, Lots 134, 153, 154;- County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-106-02-32 and 43. 8:t5 p.m. Appeal No. 3522 - NORTH FORK BANCORP-. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70(C)[2] for permission to ~nstall: (1) large on~premises~identification s~gn in excess of the maximum height and width requirements, and (2) second on-premises identification/directory sign, at premises known as 9025 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122J6-020. Zoning District: "B-Light Business. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3527 ~ ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN. Variances ~o.thelZoni~g O~dinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedul6r7 for 1Qcation of new single-family dwelling with reduced sideyar~S,, frontyard~ and?ea~yard~i'- setbacks; and. (b) Arti~le.~I~iSectiSm~l~OO~ll9.2(B} for location of new dwelqing w~th- reduced setback from highwater mark at,iFordham Canal. Location of Property: 715 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport,. NY;' County Tax Map-No. 1000-35~04-007.6 (referred to as Lo.t "C~' in prior subdivision records). 8:30 p.m. Appeal No~ 3428 ~'BERTHA KURCZEWSKI. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and frontage (l'ot width) of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land, located at the east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Page 3 - Southold July 17, Notice of Hearings Town Board of Appeals 1986 Regular Meeting County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-~02-02-003 and 025.  //~t 8:40 p,m. Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ.~.¥ariance o the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, 'Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct condominium complexes wit-bin 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water~ at the west side of Sixth Street~ Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~49-01-25~1. Zoning District: "M-Light M~ltiple.'~ (Recessed from June 19, 9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3510 - RICHARD AND RUTH ZEI~LER. Variance to lecate pool, deck and fencing within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water, at 100 McDonald's Crossing, Laurel. (Recessed from June 19, 1986) 1986 ) 9:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3489 PAUL LEARY for Reveral of Building Insoector's ~ecision concern~ng.~property of ?RANK E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk. (Recessed from June 19, q986~. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: July 2, 1986~ BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOW~ BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS: _Please oub]ish TH_ ~RSDAY, J~. ~L.Y 10, 1986 and forward two .~ffidavits of publication on 9r before ~/15 to: Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. · FORM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .... ~'L^. (~.)...?~..c~ ........... , 19 Location of Property h3t3s; ht'o~ ..................... St ,et O ............ h~t~i'ei County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...~..~.~ ...... Block .... .q~. J ...... Lot ...~.~.: ] ...... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds ............................ v...o~....~..~..~.~.~...cm..i~~..q...~.~...; ..... ; ..... ...... Building Inspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL P, OUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 Examined ................ 19... Approved ................. 19... Permit No ...... - ...... Disapproved a/c ..................................... Received ............ 19.. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ~'4 A~" ? 19~ INSTRUCTIONS a. Tkis application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with :ets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public stree )r areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this app~ zation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant· Such perm ~hall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until ~ Certificate of Occupant shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE' to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to tl · Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws; Ordinances, Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein describe Fhe applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, builc~ing cole, housh3g co. de,/and regulationsVxnd ~dmit authorized inspectors on premises and in bui/ding for necessary i~ ~3~Ik~n/- /[~/) )//~, .... ~ ; (Signature of applidant, or name, if a corporat~n) State whether applicant is owner, le~ssee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builde ..... O. W.'.D. ~¢. :..~. f.z.9. ~..r.~( ......................................................... Name of Owner of premises .~../~(~0,,~ (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No .......................... Plumber s License No ......................... Electrician's License No ....................... Other Trade's License No ...................... 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. .................. f. ...... House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ............... Block ................. Lot....~<~.: ......... Subdivision ...................................... Filed Map No ............... Lot .............. (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: Existing use and occupancy LO/%72~5~--/:::~L~{~''flr-~ ~-~_ , ............................ b. Intended us C~)~L~x"~{(['~(~--- :-...'..' ... ~.: ...... ~ .... · Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building c"-'~- Addition Alteration Repair ........... ... Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work ............... (Desaription) ' Estimated Cost ........ -/ ............................. Fee ...................................... (to be paid on filing this application) · If dwelling, number of dwelling units ..... _.. ~ ....... Number of dw~_¢~lling units on each floor .... /. ........... If garage, number of cars ...................... ~¢.~ ./~..' .... ~..~ ............... ~. ~.. ............. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ...... : .- ............. D~mensions o f existing structures, if any: Front .... f~ ....... Rear .............. Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stohes ........................................................ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ...~) ~ .......... Rear .................. Depth ...................... Height ...................... Number of Stori~, ............. ;& .... ~. D~mensions of entire new con~t~stion: Front ~.~. ~ ~. (T ~.. Rear .~.Z. J~ ~..(~L.. Depth . ~./;.~. ~T ~... tte~h, . .~ ......... . :. ~er of Stones .... ~ .................................................. Size of lot: Front .... }. [~. · ~ ..... Rear ..... M~t~ (. 7-'J ~ ...... Deoth .. ~ff5 (¢.1~.~ ......... Date of Purchase . ~.~&~(~. Aq'.f..[.~.~ .... Name of Former Owner .5~ Zone or use district in which premises are situated... ¢: Z~.~. U...t;~{ ~ ~.~ .; .('tO; Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ............................. Will lot be regraded ..... 7.~2~? ................. Will mi b~ Nmme of Architect ............. t ~ ............. Address ........ 'J .......... Phone No ...... ¢ ......... N~e of Contractor .~.~.. ~%-~.. Address ............... : .~,. Phone No ................ Is this property located wtthtnt00 feet of a tidal uatland? li'~es · If yes, Southold Tom Trustees Permit may be required. CGt~~ PLOT DIAG~M Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from )petty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether e.dor or corner lot. ~-TE OF NEW YORK, S.S ,UNTY OF ................. (Name of individual signing contract) being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant is the ......................................................................................... (Contractor· agent, corporate officer, etc.) said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this il/cation; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his ~owledge and belief; and that the rk wilt be performed in the manner set forth Ln the application filed therewith. om to before me this ......... 7 ........... day of ...... ~tary Public, - .... ~....~.-/..../~. ~..~. '..'~... County · , ~,'0t~"'t r0gL,,~ sta~ ~ ~ ~t~ (Signature of av~l/caht) TOW~ OF $O~THO~.D~ NE~ APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPF~kL NO.~ ~ DATE..~..a. Z& ...1..5.. ,....! Q.8...6 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ........ .................. Name of Appellant~s~' Ang~nez~r~ Street and Numar .... ~,~.~.~.~. ..................................................................... ~.~?~..ZQ~..,..HEREBY APPEL TO Munkipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FORz~EPJ~x:4~, B.ui~ding...~ermit DATED ..Ma¥...9.~...&.98~ ......................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Stephen Shilowitz Name of Applicant for permit of .... .t....3..3.r.4 .. rk ,.. ........................... Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ~ BUILDING PERMIT_ co. py of building permit and notice of disapproval are annexed as Exhzb~t A_ and B respectfull~ ~ 'Light mulkz, o ~.,-le residence (Southo.ld) 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .6gh...St-.r.e~.....W.a~=~.r.o~t,.~oa~=~ial...(gr~e~port) 1000-049-0!-25,1 (Sou~ho!d) Street Use District on Zoning M6p ...1.,0..9.1..?..0...0,Z.T'..0.~i.,]:~...(..g,~.e.,.e.,g~,°.,T.~). .................. Current Owner Stephen Shilowitz /Wop No. Lot No. 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 Ordi.nance.) Section 100-119.2B 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap; 62 Cons. Laws ' ~ Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAU A previous appeal ~ (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... ( ) (X) ( ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is_~guested forthereason~oLthe zo~ing, oKdirmcp was.amende~.~n or about Mar~h 26, ~Sb to require~a /~ ~oot setbac~ zrom the or¢inar~ nigh Water mark cz tidal waters (see tgO'!19.2B). Prior to this amendment, the owner Stephen Shziowztz, had obtained ali ~ecessarv approvals for the construction o~ a nine unit condominium complex wher~ buildings wer~ locak~e~closer than 75 feet ~o the water. The approvals znclude: a) zoning change~rom the Village of Greenport and Town of. Southold, b) sit~ plan aPprpva~taa c) N~SDEC permit, d) United States ~rmy Corps o~ Engineers p~rmit, e)~ . Suffolk County Planning Commission approval, f) Southold Town Trustees approval. This application for a variance is made witho~?~r~Fj~.~?%D~the rights the owner, zr any, to obtain the relief requ~'te~,]~e~:,~b~the prior approva~zssued~by ~overnmental agencies ha~inM ~ris~T~tion of this project, including ~he Town of Southold. of REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaldifficulti~ orunneces- sary,NARDSHIPbecause a substantial amount o£ money has been invested in chd application process and all existing permits would be invalidated if the location of the buildings have to be changed. In addition, all governmental agencies, including the Town of $outhold and Village of Greenport, have indicated their approval of the project as currently designed. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not s ~,ared by oil properties alike in :the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because of the extent of the prior approvals granted in this case. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because construcCing nine condominiun~ units on this site closer or farther from existing water lines would not~ affect the character of the district. (See Rider Attached) STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss cOUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) $¢eph%n R. An~i8%atone Sworn to this ............ ~.~..~. ........................ day of....~.¢.~. ........... '. ................................. 1986 Notary Public I~o. 48~ OWNER STREET FORMER OWNER LAND AGE NEW FARM Tillable Woodland Meodowland IMP. NORMAL Acre TOTAL FARM House Plot Total DATE BUILDING CONDITION BELOW Value Per Acre ABOVE. Velue '~'E~GE ~-----~ SUB. COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Velue . ~..~ -. ~?-~< ___ LOT FRONTAGE ON WATER FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH BULKHEAD DOCK COLO~ / /J T Bldg. Exten,sion E)(tensio~ Extension Porch Porch Breezeway Garage Total Foundation Ext. Walls )Fire Place Fype Roof Recreation Room Bath Floors Interior Finish ~eot Rooms ]st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway Dinette 'BR. FIN, RIDER TO APPLICATION OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ Attached are the following: letter from the Planning Board, Town of Southold dated 6/25/82- resolution approving site plan (Exhibit C); resolution of Town Board, Town of Southold granting change of zone for this property dated 7/7/82 (Exhibit D); letter of the County of Suffolk Department of Planning dated 3/9/82 indicating no action in connection with change of zone on the property (Exhibit E); NYSDEC permit dated 3/2/82 to construct waterfront condominiums on property, together with amendment extending permit to 12/31/87 (Exhibit F); Army Corps of Engineers permit for construction dated 4/6/82, together with letter extending permit to 4/6/87 (Exhibit G); Resolution of Village of Greenport Board of Trustees dated 2/22/82 (Exhibit H); zoning resolution of Greenport Planning Board granting condominium use approval for waterfront condominiums dated 8/16/82 (ExhibitI~; building permit of the Village of Greenport to begin construction on site dated 2/20/85 (Exhibit J); Town of Southold wetlands permit for construction, with letter of trustees dated 4/25/86 (Exhibit K). The documents referred to above reflect some of the approvals granted in connection with the property. FORM NO, 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1803 Examined ................ ,19... Received ........... ,19... · Approved ................ ,19... Permit No ............ Disapproved a/c ..................................... (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ~'/~"[' F 19~ INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public street or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permi shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupanc~ shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to th~ Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances o Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, huilc[ing co/de, housirlg coj:l~,~aod regulatio~'T'.'.'.'.'.'.'.and t~ admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary i~l~.~[{~. /-/l ~/'- - ~ .. (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ..... o.w..o. ~4.z.:. ~!~ .a.?/...~... :.-C.. ......................................................... Name of owner of promises ........................................................... (aa on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant ia a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No .......................... Plumber's License No ......................... Electrician's License No ....................... Other Trade's License No ...................... uLg~.~ i~- I. Location of land on which proposed work will be done .......................... / ...................... House Number Street Ilamlet ¢oun,yta~MapNo. ~O00Sec,ion .'...C/.~ .......... B,oc~ .... t ............. Lot...~7:. ~ ........ Subdivision ..................................... Filed Map No ............... Lot ............... ' - (Name) Stat~ existln8 u~ and occupancy of premises and in tended use and occupancy of proposed construction: 1. F...xhtin, u~e and occupancy .... ~..~....C~....~ . ........................ ...................................... 3. Nature ofwork (check which applicable): New Building .......... Addition ....... '... Alteration .......... ' Repair Removal Demolition Other Work ~ (Description) 4. Estimated Cost ....... !/...?~-. · .~..~./' ................... Fee .................................. 6) (to be paid on filing this application) 5. lfdweliing, number of dwelling units .1. Number of dw~ling units on each floor ......... lfgarage, numberofcars . I C~l,!~. C~.~.~..~-~(~./.Ct/~/~.. . ' ...... p' ~l'cy ;iify ~l~t "/aid;ii ~1~ df'i ~il't~;~ ii;ge .... ~.' ' .~-~ ........... ~. If business, commercial or mixed occu a , s c ute e a ................. 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front .... t':~ .~. .......Rear .............. Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stories ........................................................ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ....~..~. .......... Rear .................. Depth .. ..................... Height ............. _. ~ ...... Number of Stories .................... 3. Dimensions of entire new con,slp~:tion: Front ~.~-. ~.~ (~ !: !... Rear ..Z. 2..~. Height ~..%E..~..T'...,~,. [3. ~um-n-n-~r of Stories ....7~. ............................. '-. .....i. ' ..... ~. Size oflot: Front .... ?-: .'~.. l~'/.'J~ ..... Rear ..... Y..,,%,l.a,[.(~, .%.. ...... Denth ...O. ,A.. (~ I~ ......... ). Date of Purchase . ~':4..&..I.~-.~.(7}...z,,qq. ].~'~..4-= ....Name of Former Owner .~.P.~ ~. -~/dilLt','i~-~ ....... I. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ¢.[6, t-/r F /t-/ct L W'/ f>..t.:~. D~9.5~'C' '//~ .......... ~ Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: .............................. ;. Will lot be regraded ..... "/. '.~-.~? ................. Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes ~Nd 1. Name of Owner of premises ..~..~tc/~'~..~.l.T..L= Adclress3.??(: .~.g.?L.~.3.Y. Name of Architect t ~ ,, ........................... Address ........ .... ...... . Phone No. Name of Contractor ...J'~.. ~....~..~---------L.~-.c-~. ~ f.).. Address ...... ........... Phone No ................ ~. Is this property located withinl00 feet of a tidal wetland? ¥~fe'~'~ .... No ..... .- · If yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. ~L~l.~6Ax~CF"-~r t PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from operty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether terior or corner lot. ATE OF NEW YORK, S.S dj NrFY OF ................. .............................................. being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) llamed. is the ......................................................................................... (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this ,lication; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledg~ and belief; and that the rk will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. orn to before me this ......... 7 ........... dayo ...... .......... . . , '" av!,~. ~JSI.)C, S~m ~ ~ 'f~ -- ' (Signature of ap~h'caht) ~l~ch ~0, FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ..... ~Y~. 9~'_'_~.c~ ........... , 19 .~ .~. for permit to 0_.,~..'~_...~....~ ~.t,x.A~..~ ........................ at Location of Property ......... ~& ~ ~~.~ House No. ' ...... ..... treet U ........ b~l~ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...~. ~.~ ...... Block ..... ~. J ...... Lot . .~.~7, ] ...... Subdivision ................. Filed blap No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds ......... ~' .... o ..... I ~ - II ~.& ~~ ~:~ . .~ . ~ .. ~ ........ : ................. ~ ,, ............ .~ .~. ~. . .~.~. .~. ~.~ , ~.~.. d~ ............... ~ ~ . ~.~ ':"~ ~ .... _ ..~.....~~ .... ~~. . ~~ ~.~~~ .... Building Inspector RV 1/80 HENRY E. RAYNOR..Ir., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 June 25, 1982 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz 330 East 33rd Street New York, New York 10016 Dear Mr. Shilowitz: Please be advised of the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Tuesday, June 15, 1982. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan of Stephen Shilowitz for the waterfront condomin- ium project located at 6th Street, Greenport. The Chairman has endorsed approval on the above mentioned site plan and filed in the Planning Board office. A copy of same has been forwarded to the Building Department for their files also. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. cc: Building Dept. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TO~ PLANNING BOARD y Susan E. Long, Secre-cH~ry WHEREAS, o petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Town of Southold by ...................... .~..?..~...P.~.~...N....~.!!..[...]~...~.]..?..~.. ...................... requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chang- - "M" Light Multiple ing from .~'..~.g'.J~ ..~p~l.~.~.~'..J:.~..~..... District ro ...... District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its report having been filed with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ...... ~.~.h ....... day of ...................... ~P-..]-.~' ................. , 19..8...2..., and due deliberation having been had thereon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, and it hereby is GRANTED, DATED: July 7, 1982. (Petition No. 252) (Amendment No. 115) ITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO TOWN CODE A~I!.NDMENT NO. 115 NOTICE IS }tEP, I?bY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, held on the 7th day of July, 1!~,~2, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the T(nYn Code entitled "Code of the Town of Southold" together with the Building Zone Map forming a part thereof as follows, to wit: Amendment No. 115 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing 'from "C" Light Industrial District to "m" Light Multiple Residence District the property of Stephen Shilowitz situated at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, New York, and more particular- ly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly boundary-line of Village of Greenport on thc, westerly line of land now or formerly of Harvey, being the southeasterly corner of the upland portion of land about to be conveyed to Shilowitz; thence along said land now o~' fox'merly of llarvc, y S.29°05,40,,W. 0.39 feet; running thence through the waters of Peconic Bay, three courses: (1) S.43°30'W. 100 feet; thence (2) N.46°30,W. 340 feet, more or less; thence (3) N.33°43,20,,E. 106 feet, more or less, to land now or formerly of Braun; be conveyed to Shilowitz, of beginning. DATED: July 7, 1982. thence along said other land about to S.46°30 E. 355.53 feet to the point BY ORDER OF THE JUDITH T. TERRY, SOHTHOLD TOWN BOARD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JULY 15, 1982, AND FORI~RD (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOID~ NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following on July 9, 1982: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Building Department Van Tuyl Land Survevors Village of Greenpor{ Town Clerk's Bulletin Beard Stephen Shilowitz NEW YORX STATE DEPARTMENT Ol: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PERMIT TW S77-0156 UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEgVATION LAW E A~I'ICLE 15, (Proteclion of Water) [] ARTICLE 25, (Tidal wetlands) ARTICL~ 24, (Freshwater Wellands) U AItTICLE 36, (ConstrlK:tioo Je PIoorl Hazard Areas) PEP)alT ISSUED TO Enconsultants, Inc. for Stephen Shilowitz ADDRESS OF PEILrdIlq'EE 64 North Main Street, Southampton, NY 11968 LOCATION OF PROJECT (Section of stream, tidal wetland, dam, building) ?ipes Cove DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Repair or replace within 18" 689-+ 1.f: of steel bulkhead with timber bulkhead and conHtruct 4~0~ 1.f. of timber bulkhead. Expand existing boat basin by removal of 5,000 cu. yds. of up- COMMUNITY NAME (City, Town, Village) Greenport Suffolk land fill and place fill upland except in 20' X 15' area of existing waterway. Construct 8 condominium units, boat house/residence and parking areas as per supplied plans. Construct 120' X 4' floating dock to four 44' X 4' floats as per s~pplied plans. TOWN Southold I March 31, 1983 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The permittee shall file in Ihe olfice of the appropriate Re~ional ~c.s tn advance ol the time of commencement and shall also notify him :omp~ly in writing of Ihe completion of the work. 2. The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized der the work suspended if the public interest so reqmres. 3. AS a condition of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hJs ac* spied expressly, by the execulion of the application, the full legal respond ,er sulfered, arising out of the project described herein and has agreed to o~ts of every name and description resulting from the said project. 4. Any materia~ dredged in the proseculion of the work herein permitted ed ol Ihe waterway or ftoed plain or deep holes that may have a tendency to ause injury to navigable channe[s or to the banks of the waterway. 5. Any material to be deposited or dumped under this permit, c,ther in )e waterway or on shore above high-water mark, shall be deposited or dumped ( Ihs locality shown on the drawing hereto attached, and, if so p~escribed ~ereon, within or behind a good and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such s will prevent escape of the material into the waterway. 6. ~here shall be no unreasonable mterference with navigalion by the ork herein authorized. 7: fi'hat if future operations by the S'tate of New York require an alteration .~ Ihs position of the slructme or work herein authorized, or il, in the opinion ' f the Department of Environmental Conservation Jl shall cause. unreasonable he health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or loss or'destruction )f this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the vatercourse hereby authorized shall not ho compleled~ the owners shall, ondit~on the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall 5.~0-4 ~/75) ' (SEE REVERSE SIDE) 8. That the State of New York shall in no case be liable fuc any damage or injury to Ihe structure or work herein authorized which may he caused by or result Dom future operations undertaken by the State for Ihe conservation or improvement of naviRatiofl, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. 9. That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authorized is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be p~e- scribed by Ihe United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the owner. 10. All work carried out under this permil shall be bedormed in accor- dance with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike manner. 11. If granled under Articles 24 or 2S, the Department reserves Ihe right lo reconsider this approval at any time and after due notice and hoarinI to continue, rescind or modify this permit in such a manner as may be found to be just and equitable. If upon Ibe expiration or revocalion of this permlt~ the mndificaUun of lhe wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicanl shall, withoul expense Io the Slate, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its Iormer condition. No claim shall be made aRainst the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 12. This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any rtRhts, title or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party 1o the permit. 13. The permittee is responsible fo~ obtaioinR any other permits, provals, lands, easements and rights-of-way which may be required for this project. 14. If granted under Article 36, this permil is granted solely on the basis of the requirements of Arllcle 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Part SO0 of 6 NYCRR (Construction in Flood Plain Areas havJfll Special Flood Hazards - Building Permits) and in no way signifies that the p~oject will be free from flooding. 15. By acceptance of this peredl the permlttee agrees that Iha permit i5 contingent upon strict compliance with the special conditions on the reverse side. PECIAL CONDITIONS 16. There shall be no dredging in existing boat basin without permission of this office. 17. This project shall comply with all local or federal floodplan ordinances. 18. Ail spoil shall be deposited at locations shown on supplied plans. E~IT ISSUE DATE March 2, 1982 f/ NEll YOF~ STATE DEPARTMENT OF EI:VIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Regulatory Affairs Unit Building riO, SUNY--Room Stony Brook, New York 11794 ......... ' (516) 751-7900 RE: Permit No., ~'"F~ ~"/~' ,/ ~'-?. Dear AIIEI'IDi'IENT TO PERIIIT X Your recent request to extend t]lc above permit l/as bccn reviewed pursuanlt to 6I~CRR, Part 621. It |las been determined that there has not been a material change in environmental conditions, relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of tile existing permit; therefore, the expiration date is extended to l%-.3t- f7 Your recent request to modify tile above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6NYCKR, Part 621. It has been determined that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions or the existing permit conditions. Therefore, the permit is amended to authorize: This letter is an amendment to the original permit and as such, shall be posted at the Job site. All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit. Very.truly yours,~ CI{~I?~C~- T7 P~t4, Alternate Regional Permit Administrator CTH:DDR:co's Sent to: NYSDEC Reg. Permit ~d~tgistrator Bldg. 40~ Room 219 SUNY Campus Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794 Re: Permit No. Issued to (Agent) Dear Sir: Pursuant to General Condition No. 1 of the above referenced pemmtt you are hereby notified that the authorized activity ~lall commence on This notice is to be sent ac least two days in advance of com- mencement of the project. The permit sign will be posted at the site and copy of permit will be avail- able at site for inspection. Submitted by Failure to notify or post sign will leave o~mer and/or contractor subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance with permit conditions. %~SDEC Reg. Permit Administrator 31dg. 40, Room 219 S~{Y Campus Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794 Re: Permit No. Issued to (Agent) )ear Sir: Pursuant to General Condition No. 1 of the above referenced per~lt you are ~ereby notified that the authorized activity was completed on Submitted by (This notice is to be sent to above address promptly upon completion of ,roJec~). Failure to notify will leave ovmer and/or contraetor~ubject-Xo-app].ic- The followinc conditions shall apply if checked as applicable by the ~egional Permit Administrator~ ~1 dredging shall be conducted so as to leave a uniform bottom elevatio~ free of moumds or holes. All spoil material shall be disposed of either in the Atlantic Ocean or at an approved U.S. Government Dumpin~ Ground~ as directed by the District Encineer~ U.S. DepartMent of the A~ny~ Corps of Engineers. Any spoil terial not intended for such water disposal shall be removed from the site and disposed of a~ an approved upland site. ~1 fill and spoil material shall be suitably contained at the work site so as to prevent its erodin8~ leaching oc otherwise enterin~ into adjacent wetlands and ~aCerweys. Ail peripheral rip-rap ber[~ cofferda;~ rock revetments~ ~abions~ bull?- head~ etc. ~mall be coupleted prior to place~ent of any fill material behind such structures. Ail repairs to exis~in~ structures shall be confined to replacement of ez- isting structuralele~nts witk no chance in desicn~ dimension~ or materials~ unless specifically authorized herein. The following Uater Quality Certification shall apply if required by one or more agencies of the United States Government and if checked as appli- cable by the ~egiomal Permit Administrators: In accordance with Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean ~%ters Act of 1977 (?L ~5-217) the ~ York State Department of Znvironmental Comservation hereby certifies that the subject project proposal will not contravene effluent li'mitations or other limitations or standards under Sections 392~ 393~ 3~$ or 3~7 of the Act. DATE March 2, 1982 DEC:~ TW S77-0156 PWWQ Division of Regulatory Affairs HYS Department of Enviromuental Conservation ~uildinc 4~ C~Y -- P~om 219 Stony Brook~ Hew York 117~4 516-.751-7900 DEC # SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIAL CONDITIONS The following conditions apply to all permits: If any of the permit conditions are unclear, the permittee shall contact the Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address and telephone noted below. A copy of this permit shall be available at the project site whenever author- ized work is in progress. The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be protected from the weather and posted tn a conspicious location at the work site until completion of authorized work. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee shall complete and return the top portion of the enclosed receipt form certifying that he is fully aware of and understands all provisions and conditions of this permit. Within one week of completion of the permitted work the bottom portion of that fo~m shall also be completed and returned. For projects involving activities to be accomplished over a period of more than one year the ps,mitres shall notify the Regional Permit Administrator in w~iting'at least 48 hours prior to the commencement or resumption of work each year. If project design modifications take place after permit issuance, the permlttee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modifications. The permittee is advised that substantial modification may require submission of a new applica- tion for permit. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wet- lands or waterway by suspended solids, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachers or uny other enviror~mentally dele- terious materials associated with the p~oJect ~o~k. Any failure to comply precisely with all of the terms and conditions of this permit, unless authorized in writing, shall be treated as a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. The permittee is advised to obtain any permits or approvals that may be required from the U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Fed- eral Plaza, New York, New York 10007, (Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch), prior to commencing work authorized herein. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibi- lity of obtaining a grant, easement, or other necessary approval from the Division of Land Utilization, Office of General Services, Tower Building, Em- pire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12242, which may be required for any e~r~ach- ment upon State-owned lands under water. TW S77-0156 PWWQ Regional Permit Administrator NYS Department of Environmental ConseLwtio~ Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 516-751-7900 ~ ~ YOR~ STA~ D~F~RT~NT OP ~.NVI?,O~TAL Buildin8 ~0, S~a~a University of New York Stony Brook, New York 11794 516-751-7900 March 2, 1982 Enconsultants, Inc. for Stephen Shilowitz 64 North Main Street Southampton, NY 11968 RE: T~ S77-0156 PWWQ D~ar Mr. HaJe: In conformance with £he requirements of the State Unifom Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its impleme,~ing Regu!ation~ (6~C.~Part 621) we are enclosing your ~e.-mit. Please road all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with say condi- tions, plea~ contact the P~gioual l~gulato~y Affairs Office, l~fS Department of Euviranmem~al Conservation, State Univermi~y of New York at Stouy Brook, Building 40, Stony Brook, New York 11794. Also enclosed is a permit sign which you are to co~picuou~ly post a~ the project sits, protected from th~ weather, PERMIT SIGN No. TW S77-0156 PWWq has been issued to: Enconsultants, Inc. for Stephen Shilowitz address: 64 North Main Street, Southampton, NY 11968 for: Repair or replace within 18" 6893 1.f. of steel bulkhead with timber bulkhead and construct 400± If. of timber bulkhead. Expand existing boat basin by removal of 5,000 cu. yds. of upland fill and place fill upland except in 20' X t5' area of existing waterway. Construct 8 condominium units, boat house/residence and parking areas as under the Environmental Conservation Law xPer4'suppliedfloatingplans'dock toC°nstruCtfour 44' X120'4' ~ floats as per supplied plans. Article 15, [Protection of Water) Article 24, [Freshwater Wetlands) Article 25, [Tidal Wetlands) Article 36, [Construction in Flood Hazard Areas) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation /~' Permit Administrator March 2, 1982 Date Issued 95.20-1 (~/75) March 31, 1983 Formerly EA-93 Cvnlr~fi,~fl Regulatory Branch DEPAt~fMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK UIS1111CT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK. N, Y, 10278-0090 SUBJECT: Permit No. 12368B Stephen Shilowitz c/o En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Dear Mr. Shilowitz: In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) Department of the Army Permit No. 12368 issued by the District Engineer on 6 April 1982 authorizing you to replace and construct bulkheading, maintenance dredge with upland disposal, place fill, and install floats in Pipe Cove, Shelter Island Sound, at Greenport, Suffolk County, New York to provide a docking facility for private boats was modified on 7 December 1984 to extend the permit expiration date to 6 April 1986 (Permit No. 12368A). In response to your request dated 6 December 1985 and in accordance with the above provisions, the authorized activity described above is hereby specifically modified to extend the permit expiration date to 6 April 1987. Any further requests for extension will necessitate issuance of a new public notice for this proposal. Comprehensive documentation of the applicant's efforts to obtain financing should also be included. The original conditions to which the authorized work was made subject shall remain in effect. Sincerely, /~'Eor and ~J~ Dahalf of" ~.H. Gritfls Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Application No.81-?00 (Public Notice No. 10913-81-700-L2) Name of Applicant [','~, Stephen shilowitz Effective Date 6 April 1982 10 years for dredging i.e. 6 April 1992 Expiration Date (H applicable) 3 years for bulkheading, fill in and floatsi.e. 6 April 1985 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT '/~12368 Re~errm9 to we,item request daled 4 Sel~tember 1981 to, a perm*! to Section 10 of the H~ver$ and Harbors Act ol March 3, 1899 (33 USC. Stat. 1052; P.L. 92-532); Mr. Stephen shilowttz 330 East 33rd Street New York, NY 10016 212-689-0242 ,u replace (within 18') 689 ~ feet of timber bulkhead; excavate the hatched area to a depth of 10 feet below the plane of mean low water and remove 5000 + cubic yards of dredged material initially with further dredging operations to ~e performe, as required; the dredged material will be placed as backfill on property where it will be suitably retained to prevent its return to the waterway; fill in the cross hatched area; construct 402 feet of bulkhead along perimeter of the excavated and fill areas; place a 4' x 120' main float and four 44' x 4' finger floats adjacent to the new section of bulkhead; ,. Pipes Oove, Shelter Island Sound; G'reenport, Suffolk _County, New York 1522 (Shelter Island Sound - Shilowitz, Stephen - Bulkhead, excavate, fill and place fl~ts) I. General Conditions: . Poilu ~on Control Act of 1972 IP L. 92-500:86 Stat. 816), the MaI~ne Pr/~tection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92.532. 2 STRUCTURES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: MAINTENANCE DREDGING dredging, DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR FILLMATERIALINTOWATERSOF THE UNITED STATES a. That the d~scharge will be carried out in conformity w~th the goals and objectives of the EPA Gu,dehnes estabhshed pursuant tO Section 404(bl of the FWPCA and pubhshed in 40 CFR 230; b. That the discharge will consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in other than trace quant~he$; C. That the fill created by the discharge will be properly maintained to prevent erosion and other non-point sources of pollut,on;and d. That the discharge will not occur m a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System or ~n a component of a State wild and scenic river system. DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS: a. That the dumping will be carried out in conformity with the goals, oblect~ves, and requirements of the EPA criteria estabhshed pursuant to Section 102 pi the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, published tn 40 CFR 220-228. BY AUTH RITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY W. M. SMITH, Jr. Colonel, Corps of Engineers DISTRICT ENGINEER. U S ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7 April 1982 OATE TRANSFEREE DATE  aes°i~tion Adopted by ~, Village of Greenport Board of T~stees February 22, 1982 owing esolutlon was offered by Trustee and seconded by Trustee Kat~ Lieblein WHEREAS, Stephen Shilowitz has petitioned this Board for a change of zone for certain real property on 6th Street by a petition verified September 29, 1981, and WHEREAS, said Petition was referred to the Planning Board by this Board on November 12, 1981, for the Planning Board's study and recommendations, and said Board, by a Resolution dated FebruarY 17, 1982, has recommended approval of said Petition, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner, at the request of the Planning Board, filed with the Village a draft Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS, said property also involves a rezoning by the Town of Southold and said Town, pursuant to the applicable law and regulations, declared itself to be the "lead agency" and as such found that the proposed action (rezoning) had no adverse effect upon the environment thereby obviating the necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement and further review and comment and said determination is · WHEREAS, pursuant applicable laws and rules, on the draft Environmental Impact Statement binding upon the Village, and to the Suffolk County Charter and other said Petition has been ~eferred to the Suffolk County Department has and 21, Department of Planning (December 31, 1981) and said declared this.matter to be one for local determination, WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of this Board dated January 1982, a public notice was authorized calling for a public hearing on said Petition and said Notice was published as provided by law and a' public hearing was held February 4, 1982, at which all persons were heard both for and against the Petition, and WHEREAS, a majority of ti,e persons addressing this issue-- either at the public hearing or in writing--were in favor of the proposed condominigm construction and the rezoning is necessary to effect the same, and WHEREAS, this Board has been notified that the Town of Southold has granted and enacted the required change of zone (which affects the greater portion of the proposed site) for the proposed condominium construction, and WHEREAS, this Board takes notice of and incorporates herein by reference all litigation and matters relating to the amendment of the "W-C" use zone to allow condominiums therein, especially the testimony of Frederick R~uter in the action by Oceanic Oyster Company, and WHEREAS, in acting on this Petition the Board members are relying in part upon their personal knowledge of the site, its characterics and history, and WHEREAS, this Board has given due deliberation to said change of zone. NOW, THEREFORE, determine as follows: this Board does legislatively find and FINDINGS FIRST: The subject parcel of real property is situate in the "General Commercial District". SECOND: Waterfront condominium units ~as proposed are a conditional use in the Waterfront Commercial District. TNIRD: The subject parcel is currently in a state of disrepair, occupied by derelict buildings, bulkheads in disrepair, litter-laden, and otherwise blighted. ~ FOURTH: The subje~ t parcel has not been actively used for years and during that period, no owner has proposed any worthwhile use of the property, other than the instant application. FIFTH: The parcel is surrounded on most of its periphery by residential property. SIXTH: The subject parcel fronts upon Greenport Harbor. SEVENTH: The parcels surrounding the subject parcel have been, and continue to be, improved by structures situate ag the same 9eneral elevation above sea level as the subject parcel and those structures have withstood the rise and fall of the waters of Greenport Harbor, although most were built to standards less compelling than those required for construction on the subject parcel. EIGHT~: The future construction of condominium units on the subject parcel shall be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, the issuance of a building permit upon a proper application, a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and other approvals, such as that of the Suffolk County Department of Health. N1NTH: The proposed change and use of the subject parcel will improve the tax base of the Village, which is currently static; will pr6vide employment during the course of construction and operation, when the current rate of unemployment for this census tract is 9.2% and will influence the local economy during construction and thereafter. TENTH: The owners of the proposed condominium units will provide the Village with valued new residents and citizens. ELEVENTh: The proposed residential use is less polluting than the alternate permitted commercial uses. TWELFTH: Access is provided to the subject parcel by public highways. ~ THIRTEENTH: parcel can be adequately provided FOURTEENTH: The subject water service. The proposed condominium use and the subject with fire and police protection. parcel has both municipal sewer and ~I~TEENTH: The subject parcel dimensions for the proposed condominium units, is of sufficient size and parking, landscaping and amenities. SIXTEENTH: provide privacy to the subject parcel. SEVENTEENTH: The subject parcel can be surrounding parcels and adequately screened to to the occupants of the The requirements of Part 617 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation have been met. EIGHT~]NTH: Annexation of the parcel into the Villazew~ld simplify both the construction and use of the property. DETERMINATIONS FIRST: The present condition and use of the site constitutes a blight and detriment to the Village. SECOND: The rezoning of the site to "W-C" is necessary for the construction of the proposed waterfront condiminum units. THIRD: The proposed use is of such location, size and character as will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the Village and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties. FOURTH: The public health, safety and welfare, and the comfort and convenience of the public and of the residents of the Village will be improved by the proposed change of zone and use. FIFTH: The proposed change of zone and use minimize the adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED that the Petition of. Stephen ~hilowitz for a change of zone be granted to the extent that the official Map of the Village of Greenport and Chapter 85 of the Code of the Village of Greenport are hereby amended to designate and show the parcel of real property on the westerly side of 6th Street at its most s~utherly point as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is hereby zoned as "Waterfront Commercial" and that the Village Clerk shall publish and post notice of this action as is required bylaw. BE IT F~r~THE, R RESOL%~D that the action taken the the Village of Oreenport Board of Trustees shall be known as Local Law No. 1-1982 to amend the Zoning .Map of the Village o~ Greenport as designated on the ?uffolk County Tax ~p as District 1DO1, Section 007, Block 01, Lot 16 and that said lot is hereby changed fr~C-GCommercial-General District to ~C Waterfront Co~ercial District. This local law shall take effect immediately. Re: VILLAGE OF GREENPORT PLANNING BOARD Conditional Use Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ ~ESOLUTION Adopted AuKust 16, 1985 The following resolution was offered by William Coulter and seconded by ~Jalter Krzeminski , that WHEREAS, this resolution, is made pursuant to Chapter 85 of t ~e Code of the Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS, STEPHEN SHILOWITZ applied to this Board, pursuant to the provisions of Sectio~ 85-10(c) of the Village Code for a ~on~f- tional, use permit to construct 3.5 _+ residential condominium units on certain real property under contract to him, as more fully set forth ~n an application, sworn to by him on" December 8, 19~1, and WHEREAS, this Board, pursuant to the Environmental Conserva- tion Law and Regulations of the Town of Southold, declared itself to be lead agency for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed conditional use, and found that the proposed use did not require the filing of an environmental impact statement, and W~EREAS, this Board takes notice of and incorporates herein, all'correspondence, notices, testimony, etc., had before this Board or other Boards and bodi'es of the Village relating to the amendment of the Village Code Section 85-~0(c)(2), which added waterfront condominiums as a conditional use and changes the zoning of the subject parcel to Waterfront Condominium, and WHEREAS, this Board held a hearing on the proposed condi- tional use on lday 17, 1982 , at which time, all persons wishing to address this Board were heard and further evidence an4 testimony was received, in writing, as is on file with the Village Clerk, and WHEREAS, this Board takes notice of all matters of public record relating hereto as though fully set forth herein at length, and WHEREAS, this Board and each of its members takes collective notice of the personal knowledge each has of the Village and the sub- Ject parcel and its environs, and . WHEREAS, each member of this Board has considered all of the above and has applied thereto the applicable laws, rules and stan- dards, ,' NOW, THEREFORE, this Board does both legislatively and administratively find and determine as follows: FINDINGS FIRST: The subject parcel of real property "Waterfront Commercial District". SECOND: Waterfront condominium units are in the Waterfront Commercial District. is situate in the a conditional use THIRD: The subject parcel is currently in a state of disre- pair, occupi'ed by derelict buildings, bulkheads in disre~air, and' otherwise non-productive. FOURTH: the past any worthwhile use tion. FIFTH: The dential properties. SIXTH: The The subject parcel has not been actively used for years and during that p~riod, no owner has proposed of the property, other than the instant applica- parcel is bounded on most of the north subject parcel fronts upon Peconic Bay. by resi- SEVENTH: The future construction of condominium units on the subject parcel shall be subject to additional approvals by this Board, the issuance of a building permit upon a proper application, a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Corps of Engi- neers and other approvals, such ~ that' of the Suffolk County Depart- ment of Health. EIGHTH: The proposed use of the subject parcel will improve the tax base of the Village, which is currently static; will provide will employment during the course of construction ~.~d operation, and influence the local economy during construction and thereafter. NINTH: The Owners of the proposed condominium units (each selling f~r approximately $200,000.00) will provide the Village with valued new residents and citizens. TENTH: The proposed residential use is less polluting than the alternate permitted commercial uses. ELEVENTH: Acces:; is provided to the subject parcel by public highways. TWELFTH: quately provided with fire _THIRTEENTH: The water service. The proposed use and the subject parcel can be adc- and police protection. subject parcel h.~s both minicipal sewer and FOURTEENTH: The subject parcel is dimensions for the proposed condominium units, amenities. of sufficient size and parking, landscaping and FIFTEENTH: The subject parcel can be adequately screened to provid~ privacy to the surrounding parcels and to the occupants ofo~he s?bject parcel. · SIXTEEN'I'H: The requirements of Part 617 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of the Department,. of Environmental Conservation have been met. DETERMINATIONS FIRST: The subject parcel is properly zoned for waterfront condominium units. SECOND: The proposed use is of such location, size and character as will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the District in which it is proposed, and will not be detrimental to the orderly developmen! of adjacent properties. THIRD: The public health, safety, and welfare, and fort and convenience of ate neighborhood will be FOURTH: The environmental effects to the maximum extent FIFTH: The subject parcel should be approved by for construction and use as for in Section 85-]0(c)(2) of the corn- the public and of the residents of improved by the proposed use. proposed use is one which minimizes practicable. the immedi- adverse this Board waterfront condominium units as provided the ~ode of the Village of Greenport. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, sworn to O~, ~/~/ ~9~, for a conditiQ~al use permit to construct and use residential condominium units on cer- tain real property, fully described in said application, be granted 'in conformance with said application,' and a}l other documents submitted to this Board in support thereof, subject to the following conditions: FIRST: No building permit shall be issued for the use until a further site plan shall be approved for the subject parcel. This approval is limited to the general location of the proposed structures on the site both within the Village and the Town. The further site plan must show elevation of finished grade, maximum height of all structures,I all landscaping, including location and size of plantings, all'fencing, drainage, parking, including type and construction of said parking, all details for water, electric and sewer service. -5- SECOND: mitred until the Greenport, based upon an applicable provisions of applicable building codes and and the Department of a flood hazard area. THIRD: No mitred No construction or site preparation shall be per- issuance of a building permit from the ¥i~a~e of. application and drawings which comply with all th.~ Code of the Village of Greenport, and all requirements of the village of Greenport Housing and Urban Development for construction in construction or site preparation shall be per- until the applicant obtains all required permits, if any, from the Department of Environmental Conservation, Corps of Engineers, and other governmental departments oR agencies with jurisdiction oven"the proposed work. SpecifiCally, the Village Building Permit sha~l no~. be issued which provides issued until the Town Building Permit has been thereby the parking required for the units to Village. " ,' Village be built withi~ the FOURTH: Ail drawings and specifications submitted to the shall be sealed and certified by a licensed professional engi- neer certifying that the proposed construction is viable on the subject parcel and complies with all applicable laws and codes. FIFTH: The issuance of a building permit will be conditioned ul~on the filing with the village and approval by the Village Attorney of a title report certifying title in the applicant or a title report and options or ~ontracts showing the right of the applicant to proceed with the proposed construction. 'Specifically, the title report shall -6- certify all lands shown or used in the presentation by the applicant, including lands under water and lands allegedly in dispute on the nor-. therly side of the subject parcel. SIXTH: The condominium offering and any covenants and re- strictions attaching to this proposed use shall be submitted to this Board for their review, comment and approval before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use. SEVENTH: No sign is hereby approved. subject to a further application ~? this Board. Any signing shall be EIGHTH: No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for this proposed use without a resolution from this Board that ali germs of this and any other applicable resolution, rule or law ( relating to ~and- scaping) have been satisfied. NINTH: No building permit will be issued unless the total iot areas for both the Village "and T~wn requirements of lot area, coverage, etc. are certified and sealed by a licensed land surveyor. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly pu't to a vote which w~s carried unanimously. Form No. 3 fiuildirrg-Depar trrmnt~ VILLAGE OF GIlEENPOIIT 236 THIRD STREir-'T. GRE, F_.NPORT. L. L0 H. Y., 11944 ,Tel. ~Gie~npart 477-0248 Building Permit This Permit Must Be Kept on the Premises With One Set of Approved Plans and Specifications until Full Completion of the Work Authorized N.° 933 Pe:miss~on is hereby granted to: Stephen Shllowltz ~30 East 33rd Street Bxcavate, bulkhead & maintenance dredge. Approximately 225 linear feet ...~i~g. ~eel.bulkJxead.bo.b~ .~eplaced..by.wood. b~lkheads... £xistlng.hulkbeads.. on the west & north sides of the basin to be replaced by new bulkheads as outlined o~ plans on file to expand size of basin. Four finger-floats southerly end Of Sixth Street Greenport, New York approved by the Superintendemt of Buildings. Cost ~:! C,:nstructi:n $ .... ~9.,9P.q..O.O... Fee $...190.00 ....... Nancy ~. Cook, Village Clerk ItENRY P. SMITIt, President JOttN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOAIlI) OF TOWN TIII!STEES. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 'l'ox~n llall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 S,~tdl'told, New York 11971 April 25, 1986 TELEPHONE · (516} 765-1892 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz, A.I.A. 330 East 33rd Street New York, New York 10016 Re: Wetland Permit No. 184 Dear Mr. Shilowitz: Your recent request to extend the above referenced permit has been reviewed at the Trustee Meeting held on April 24, 1986. Your request has been approved by resolution, adopted at this meeting, for a period of six months. Your permit will expire on November 26, 1986. This letter is an amendment to the original permit and as such, shall be attached thereto. All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling Clerk to Board HPS:ip cc: Trustees Bldg. Dept. D.E.C., Stony Brook TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK WETLANDS PERMIT This Wetlands Permit No...l..~.& ............ has been granted by the Town Trustees according to _ , . En-Consultants, Inc. information furnished in Application No...~.~.~ ............ filed by/~ppt~can[ .......................................... S. shilowitz on .S.e~.t. 4. 19...8..~.... A map of the proposed work will be kept on file in the Trustee Office under the application number given. for Permit granted to do the following work ~D...;;.~-D.kaC. within 18" to dredge upland to 10' below MLW with spoil to be placed on adjacent upland. Install new bulkheading and floats · Location of property on which work to be done ....... .S..%~.x.~...h...~.t.[.¢.~.~, ~[~.~ ....................... Creek, Bay or Harbor fronting property ..E~-!q..C...~...~9.Y. ............................ see above description .......................... Sizeofwork: Length ................................. Width .......................................... ' .................................. Height Above High Water ....................................... ' ...... Depth Below Low Water ..................................................... + ' it from Villa e of G .~.e..n.~.Qrt) 5000_ (Ma or . ~ ............... ~ ..... Yards to be Excavated ........................... ) .......... ~/" · Yards to be Filled None in Town .w. at.e. rs ............... dragline or bucket cra.n..e.: Manner in which materi.al is to be removed or deposited ............................................................ Intended use of property Residential con.d.o..m, ini...u~..s. . . . .............. Conditions if any ............................................................................................................. November 26, 1985 if work has not .c.o..mD....e..n..g.e..d. b~:...~..i..d....d..a, te. Expiration Date ........................................................................ Number of Inspections Required 2 - Trustees to b.e..n..o.t~,..f..i,.9..d....w...b,D~..P.T..9-'J..9.q..t....i..~. ..... complete. Inspection Fees ..~..~.,.Q9 ........... ' .............................................................. Liability Policies in the Amount of .................................................................................................... The validity of this permit is or may be subject to the approval of other governmental or municipal authorities. The Town accepts no responsibility in applying for or obtaining such approval. In the event that such approval is necessary, the holder of this permit shall not commence operations here- · under until such approval has been obtained in writing. The failure to obtain such other approval when required shall subject thi~ permit to immediate revocation by the Trustees upon receipt by the Trustees' of written notice from such o[her governmental or municipal authorities of its refusal or disapproval. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 c:OUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11c3'71 TELEPHONE (516) 76B-180g APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS October 2, 1986 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S. 'R., Q. R, A, ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI NEGATI%rE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~L NO.: 3513 PROJECT N~2~E: STEPHEN SHILOWITZ This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse-effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to construct condominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead or tidal water. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of.Suffolk, more particularly known as: West Side of Sixth Street, Gr~enp0rt, NY; 1000-49-01-25.1. Zoning District: "M-Light Multiple." REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. · (3). Other State, Countv, Town and Village permits for this and similar construc[lon are in effect at %~is time. FOR FURTHER INFOPd~ATION, PLEASE CONTACT: 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. LEAD AGENCY: PREPARED BY: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Stephen Shilowitz Incorporated Village of Greenport Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York Village Planning Board Incorporated Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Roy L. Haje, President Eh-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, N. Y. 11968 ¢ TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ........................................................... 1 Description of the proposed action ................................ 2 Background and history ............................................ 3 Description of env£ronmental setting .............................. 3 Existing environmental features ................................... 4 Slopes and topography ................................. ' ............ 5 Land forms ........................................................ 5 Mineral resources ................................................. 5 Erosion ........................................................... 5 Hydrology ......................................................... 5 Surface Water ..................................................... 6 Ecology ........................................................... 6 Land use .......................................................... 8 Existing environmental constraints affecting action ............... 10 Statement of environmental effects (positive and negative) ........ 10 Cumulative ........................................................ 12 Identification and discussion of any adverse effects which cannot be avoided ................................................. 13 Description of mitigation measures to minimize adverse effects .... 13 Identification of any irreversible and irretrievable cormnitments of resources .......................................... 14 Description of any growth-including aspects of the action ......... 14 Impact of the action on the use and conservation of energy ........ 14 Description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives ............. 14 Studies, reports and literature used in preparation of DEIS ....... 16 II A. II B. III. IV. V. Site Plan Aerial photo of site (highlighted) taken summer, 1981 looking southeast Aerial photo of site (highlighted) taken summer, 1981 looking north Soil survey of Suffolk County (USDA, 1975) with subject site highlighted Artists rendering of proposed project Portion of NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands maps 720-552 with subject parcel highlighte~ DEIS for Stephen Shilowitz Summary The applicant proposes to construct an 8 unit condominum, a boathoua~ one family residence and expand an existing boat basin. The expanded basin will be entirely bulkheaded and existing bulkheads outside of the expansion area will be replaced or repaired as necessary. Spoil from the dredging operation will be placed om the property for backfill and, excess, if any, will be removed to a suitable upland site. At present, the site contains several deteriorated buildings used when it operated as an oyster processing plant many years ago. No significant adverse effects are foreseen due to 1). the present condition and use of the property, 2). the availability of public water supply and sewage disposal and 3). the type and intensity of the proposed use. The parcel is bisected by the Town of Southold-Village of'Greenport boundary line. The Village of Greenport, in a resolution dated 10/26/81, required the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its rules and regulations, NYCRR Part 617. Other approvals or permits required by the Village are 1). Chauge of zone from general commercial (GC) to waterfront commercial (WC). WC allows the type of development proposed. The Village Board of Trustees must approve the change of zone. 2). Site plan approval of the Planning Board. 3). Build- ing permit from the Building Department. AS part of the property lies within the Town of Southold, similar approvals are required from Town agencies. The present Town zoning of C Light Industrial must be changed to Light Multiple Residence. On the State level permits are required from the New York State Depart- ::!ent of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) under Articles 25 (Tidal Wetlands) and 15 (Protection of Waters) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) as work will be done in and adjacent to tidal waters. Water Quality Certification pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1977 (F PCA) must be granted for dock and bulkhead construction, and dredging. On the Federal level, approvals must be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the FWPCA of 1972 (PL 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1344). Description of the proposed action The purpose of thls action is the creation of a res£dential complex having its own mooring facilities for owmers' and guests' boats. Specifically, two (2) four dwelling condominum units will be built. The ninth and final unit will be a separate boat house/dwelling located partially over a boat slip in the northwest corner of the boat basin. It is the applicant's intention to make the development appeal to owners of medium size (30' - 50' ~) sail and power craft. To this end, it is proposed to expand the existing irregular ~ shaped boat basin to approximately 100~ ' wide by 200+'_ long~ Actualdimensions will vary depending upon the precise location within the boat basin. ~e proposed depth of dredging within the basin, 10' below mean low water (MLW), is'necessary to acco~v~datethe deeper draft keel sailboats expected to u~ilize the facility. Expansion of the boat basin will involve the removal of approximately 5000 cu. yds~ of existing upland. Yhis material will be placed on ~he adjacent ~pland for ~se as backfili~ The entire boat basin will be bulkheaded with CCA-tre~ted timber. Existing bulkheading on the remainder of the parcel will be replaced or repaired ~$ needed, ~lso with CCA treated timber. - 3 - Access to the 8' - 10'~ boats to be moored there will be v£a a system of floating docks. A 4' x 120' main float will be placed adjacent to the pro- posed westerly bulkhead and a series of 4' x 44' finger floats installed per- pendicular to it to create slips. A small (300 ~ sq. ft.) erea will be filled for the construction of the boat house which will straddle a boat slip (see site plan in appendices). Background and history This was the site of the J. and J. W. Elsworth Corp. oyster processing plant which originated over 100 years ago. Boats unloaded their catches directly from within the basin to the plant where they were shucked, processed end shipped. The base of oyster shells which covers much of the ground accumulated during this operation. In 1952, the property was sold to the Blue Point Oyster Co. for use as an oyster hatchery. In 1968, the property was sold to 3ames Homan and Armando Cappa who have used it for storage of gear and equipment and leased it for use by commercial fishing vessels. This is the present usage of the parcel. Description of environmental settin~ Location The site is located at the end of 6th Street (west side), Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. The 2.26 + acre parcel is bounded on the east by Sixth Street, on the south by the waters of Pipes Cove, on the west by Pipes Cove and lands now or formerly Cove Association, and on the north by lands n.o.f. Scott and Greenhalgh (see aerial photos in appendices). Existin~ environmental features A. Geology and soils. As indicated on sheet 5 of the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975), the dominant soils are Riverhead and Haven, graded, 0-8% slopes (RhB). It is described ms follows: "This mapp£ng unit consists of areas of Riverhead sandy loam, of Haven loam, or of both. The areas have been altered by grading operations for housing developments, shopping' centers, industrial parks, and similar nonfarm uses. In the western part of the county, the areas of this mapping unit are very large, and large acreagea are used as sites for housing developments. Originally, the Riverhead and Haven soils in this unit each had the profile described as representative of its respective series, but grading operations hsve left m man-made profile that is significantly different. In places the surface layer and the upper part of the subsoil have been removed, but in other places they have been left undisturbed. Undisturbed areas have been filled with soil material cut from adjoining high spots, but the River- head and Haven soils can be identified because aufficient diagnostic characteristics of the respective series remain. In some areas Riverhead and Haven soils that have not been graded make up as much as 25 percent of this unit. In places mnother 10 to 15 percent ham been so deeply cut or filled that the upper LO inches is sandy and contains no diagnostic horizons of the respective series. Included wL~h these soils in mapping are areas in which most or all diagnostic horSzons have been destroyed, but these areas contain mt least 12 inches of loam, silt loam, or sandy loam in the upper 40 inches. In places this 12 inches of material is in one l~yer, and £n others it is in several thinner layers~ Also included sre small areas of C~t and fill land mhd Montauk soils, graded. - 5 - These soils are suited to most grasses and shrubs generally used for lawns and landscaping. In places very deeply cut or filled areas are slightly droughty and need supplemental irrigation. The response of plants to applications of lime and fertilizer is good. The practice generally is to build on the soils immediately after grading; therefore, the number of existing buildings on areas of the soils in this unit is the main factor in determining their future uses. Capability unit not assigned; woodland suitability group not assigned." Slopes and topography The parcel is essentially flat. 6~ ft. above MSL. Average elevation on grade is Land forms There are no unique or valuable land forms on this site. Mineral resources There are no known mineral resources on this site. Erosion and sedimentation potential Several factors combine to make the potential for erosion and sedimenta- tion negligible. 1), The soils are well drained. 2). The parcel is entirely bulkheaded. 3). Ths parcel is flat, B. Hydrology Groundwater Groundwater is encountered at approximately 1 ft. above mean sea level (MSL). It is expected to fluctuate somewhat with tidal rhythms due to the parcel's proximity to surface tidal water. Fresh water for the project will come from a municipal supply and not from on-site wells. Surface Water The parcel fronts upon Pipes Cove to the south which i$ a tidal body of water whose tidal range is approximately 2.3 ft. The NYSDEC h~$ classified it as SA, the highest classification of tidal waters. These waters are "...suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and primary and secondary contact recreation." The area is presently open to shellfishing (personal communication, Bruce Mac Millmn, NYSDEC at Stony Brook) Contigous with Pipes Cove is a man-made basin which had been used by boats involved with the parcel's former use as an oyster processing plant and is still used by commercial fishirgboats. The depth of the water in the basin averages about 10 ft. at mean low water in order to accommodate deep draft vessels. Ecology Vegetation Aside from some upland weeds and grasses which have colonized the site, little vegetation is found. No true marsh vegetation grows on the s£te. The nature of past usage has been antagonistic to the growth of any substantial vegetation. Wildlife The developed character of this and surrounding parcels has inhibited its use by most wildlife except those species adapted to life in close proximity to man. Of the birds, the most commonly noted was the herring gull, Larus ar~entatus , a scavenger ~hich will thrive in areas such as this. While not personally observed on this site, there are other common coastal water birds which are found in and around the Greenport area which include laughing gull, Larus atricilla; great black - backed gull~ Larus marinus; black skimmer, Rhvncops ni~ra. No nesting sites for these birds were located on the property. The relativ~y small amount of shallow water, the sandy composition of the bottom, and the presence of7people homes, etc., limits the utility of the site for shore and wading birds. Common upland birds including the field sparrow, Spizella D~silla; mourning dove, ~enaidura macroura; grackle, Quiscalus quiscilla; and flicker, Colapter auraptus may occasionally use the site for nesting or foraging. Small mammals of the rodent family may visit the area in search of food or shelter. Cottontail rabbit, S¥1vilagus floridan~m: common house mouse, Mus sp.; moles, Scalopus and Condylura; and Norway rat, Rattus norvegicus are the species which may be found. Bait fish and juveniles of larger species may be found within the boat basin. Killifish, Fundulus, spp.; shiners, Menidia menidia; sticklebacks, Apeltes, spp. are the most common of the bait fish in Long Island waters and may, therefore, be found here. Juvenile bluefish (snappers), Pomatomus saltatrix; summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus; winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes Americanus;northern puffer, Sphaeroides maculatus; and toad fish, Opsanus tau are all possible visitors in appropriate seasons. Invertebrate in-and epi-fauna which may either live on, in or against the bulkhead or basin bottom include, blue crab, Callinectes sapidus; blue mussel, Mytilus edulis; barnacle, Balanus balanoides and various types and species of marine worms. As indicated on the NYSDEC's official Tidal Wetlands inventory map, No. 720-552, the boat basin is indicated as a littoral zone (LZ) while the area offshore of the sourherly bulkhead is indicated as a coastal shoal (SM). These are described in Part 661, Tidal Watlands-Land Use Regulations, respectively as: Littoral zone - The tidal wetlands zone, designated LZ on an inventory map, that includes all lands under tidal waters which are not included in any other category, except as otherwise determined in a specific case as provided in section 661.26. Provided, there shall be no littoral zone under waters deeper than six feet at mean low water. Coastal shoals, bars and flats - The tidal wetland zone, designated SM on an inventory map, that (i) at high tide is covered by water, (ii) at low tide is exposed or is covered by water to a maximum depth of approxtmstely one foot, and (iii) is not vegetated by Iow marsh cordgrass, Spartina alterntflora, except as otherwise determined in a specific case as provided in section 661.26. (see appendices for copy of inventory map). No important or unique ecosystems, critical habitats, food sources or nesting locations are found here. No rare or endangered species were noted nor are they expected to occur here. ~and use The site is presently used as a base for commercial fishing boats. Material and gear is stored in one or more of the existing buildings. Minor repairs are made to the boats and equipment. Adjacent to the parcel on the north and west are single family detached residences. On the east side of 6th Street across from this parcel, is a village park used for (unorganized) baseball and other games, picnicking, swi~m~ing, etc. A development plan for the Village of Greenport was prepared by Raymond and May Associates, Planning Consultants in June, 1967. It indicates the land use of this parcel as "marine cormmercial" to reflect its osage at that time~ Throughout this brief report, the importance of rehabilitating certain areas of the Village, especially the waterfront, is stressed. While this proposal differs in usage from that which was show~ the Plan further states "It must be clear that a long-range Development Plan for the Village is not permanent or unalterable document. It is based upon the best available formation, judgment, and forecasts of future events. ~ut the unfolding of new development will in one way or another vary from current expectations. It is for this reason that the Planning Board must periodically review the Plan and all new proposals." The plan should be viewed as a dynamic rather than static document adaptable to new innovative proposals and not tied to prior usage which may no longer be viable. The proposed project does represent a demographic change in the character of the area. This will be the first multiple dwelling project in the area and the cost per unit probably will exceed the cost of neighboring one family residences. It also constitutes a rehabilitation and upgrading of a deteriorating facility. Various services and facilities will be utilized by this project. Water, electricity and sewage treatment are all functions of the Village of Greenport Department of Public Utilities. Existing mains for both sewage and water are located in Sixth Street and service the existing facility. Electricity is also available from overhead wires on Sixth Street. No expansion to existing utilities is required to service this project. Fire and police protection will be provided by Village and/or Town departments as determined by various areas of jurisdiction. Little or no increase in Greenport's school population is predicted from this project as occupancy is expected to be on a primarily seasonal basis. There are no critical or unique land features on this parcel nor are there any known archaeological or historic resources. ¢ The visual character will be altered to the extent that the existing commercial build£ngs will be replaced by 2~ story (maximum height 35 ft.) residences. The presence of pleasure boats in the basin instead of commercial fishing craft constitute only mn insignificant modification to conditions. (See artist's r~ndering of project in appendices). No lasting elevation of noise levels is anticipated. Construction will occur only during normal working hours. No increase in odor levels is foreseen. Existing environmental constraints affecting action Final designations of flood plain zones for the Village of Greenport have not yet been made (Robert O'Reilly, NYSDEC, personal communication). On the interim H.U.D. map for this community (#361 004 A), the subject site is designated as zone A. While no first floor elevation has yet been mandated to ensure eligibility for Federally guaranteed insurance, the first living level of all structures will be at 8 ft. above M}{W which is expected to equal or exceed future requirements. Statement of environmental effects (positive and negative) A). Short-term As use of the land by wildlife is minimal due to its previously disturbed nature, few species will be disrupted by this project. Those which do utilize the site for nesting, feeding, or cover will be temporarily displaced by the construction. Short term "social impacts" will center around travel to and from the project site by workmen and equipment, Traffic will increase as material is brought to the site. Noise levels will increase as a result of construction equipment and workmen. Noise levels will lessen after the departure of most of the heavier equipment but will still be greater than ambient until the proposed project has been completed. Any noise-creating work will be done during normal working hours. The short term economic impact concerns purehaseof materials for construction of the structures and facilities, and employment for those who will constract them. Most materials will be purchased on Long Island aiding the local economy. Workers will come from Long Island and therefore are expected to further aid the economy. Dredging to the proposed depth of 10~ ft. below mean low water must create as level a new bottom as possible. Creation of deep, isolated holes can cause basins for the accumulation of sediment. Under adverse conditions, these can become anoxic and utilize great amounts of oxygen to the detriment of the surrounding enviroment. A properly graded, level bottom or one hsving only minor irregularities will permit water circulation throughout and minimize or avoid these problems. The cutting snd digging action of the dredging operation breaks through the thin oxidized layer of the submerged soil and exposes the deep unoxidized layer. Furthermore, most of the sediments placed in suspension sre removed from this layer and, hence, are in the chemically reduced state. Such material may have temporarily high chemical and biological oxygen demands. Turbidity, per se, reduces light penetrstion and interferes with photosynthetic production of oxygen, and it tends to elevate water temperstures. Eventually some suspended material escapes and settles to the bottom. Thus, there is a redistribution of sediments together with whatever nutrients they may contain. Such sedimentation problems are greatly accentuated when dredge spoil is placed back into the water. In this instance, dredged spoil will be placed on the up- land portion of the subject parcel and graded when sufficiently dry. - 12 - B). LonK Term Implementation of the project will have some long term effect upon upland habitat and its ecology. However, most of the species presently utilizing the site are well adapted to life in close proximity to man. Therefore, while overall numbers may decrease in response to decreased habitat available, little shift in species composition is expected. Of course, the exception to this is the replacement of upland with water in the area of the expanded boat basin. The same species which now inhabit the boat basin are expected to invade and colonize the expanded water and benthic habitat. Usage of the basin by boats will have a minimal effect upon the water- way. Marine heads on boats must comply with all applicable standards which pro- hibit any overboard discharge of untreated material. It is anticipated that the boats which will be berthed in the basin will be sailboats or inboards although dinghies or other smaller ~uxiliary craft may occasionally use it as well. Little petroleum residue is created by in- boards, and, as no fueling facilities are to be located here¥ contamination by gasoline or diesel fuel is not anticipated. Bottom paints (anti-fouling) and the treated timber used for bulkheads and docks leach very little and will not have any degrading influence upon the waterway. Long term economic effects will center about the increased patronage to local business, especially during the summer, from residents of this develop- ment. As the closest major shopping area is Greenport, most activity will be centered there. Cumulative Whether this project will have an influence upon the development of other waterfront parcels is difficult to predict. As discussed previously, section 85-10 (C) (2) (a) of the Village zoning ordinance limits waterfront condominiums to WC parcels which are "...immediately contigous to areas which are within the R-1 One Family Residence District or the R-2 One and Two-Family Residence Districts." This would eliminate parcels lying adjacent to the Retail Commercial District (CR). Still other parcels which do meet the zoning criteria lie in close -proximity to existing commercial operations~ which would make their conversion to residential use less desirable. Other broader conditions will influence the amount of additional development which occurs in Greenport and elsewhere on Long Island. Many variables including available land and capital, interest rates, and general state of the economy all work together to determine whether other similar projects will occur. Identification and discussion of any adverse effects which cannot be avoided The adverse effects of dredging have been discussed in a previous section. These are expected to be localized and temporary. As the parcel is already developed and bulkheaded, there will be no significant loss of open space and no loss whatsoever of tidal marshland. Description of mitiKation measures to minimize adverse effects The planned adherence to regulatory restrictions on all levels will mitigate the impact of the project. An earthen'berm is pmposed which will follow the bulkhead line for most of the periphery. In addition to is its aesthetic appearance, it will minimize most overland runoff into the waterway. Plantings of suitable vegeta- tion will also act to minimize runoff. Identification of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. The usage of fossil fuels to power construction equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible as is the consumption of electrical power by tools. The conversion of the present condition of t~e land to a developed parcel, and the commitment of wood and other material used in construction is essentially irreversible. Description of any growth-inducing aspects of the action. The small size of this project will not induce any significant growth. Existing facilities and services are adequate to acco~nodam the development Impact of the action on the use and conservation of energy. During the construction phase, energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity will be consumed. Upon completion, structures will be heated by modern, efficient equipment. Ail proposed structures will be adequately insulated to minimize energy consumption. Existing sources of electrical energy supplied by Greenport are adequate to service the proposed facilities. Description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives. The "no action" alternative would preclude a reasonable return on the applicant's investment. Other types of development, both residential and commercial, are theoretically possible. Present zoning (General Commercial-Village) allows a number of possible commercial uses. A use of this type, however, is likely to be more disruptive to adjacent homeowners than the proposed residential use. Should requested zoning changes be granted, denser residential development would be permissible pursuant to provisions of the code. It is felt, however, that the density proposed here strikes a viable balance between economic, aesthetic and environmental considerations. Studies, reports and literature used in preparation of DEIS Austin, G.L. Jr. 1961. Water and marsh birds of the world. Golden Press, New York. Burr, William H. et al. A field guide to the mammals, 1964. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Chmura, G. L. and N. W. Ross. marinas and their boats. Memorandum 45. 1978. The environmental impacts of University of Rhode Island Marine Greenport, Village of. Undated. Zoning, chapter 85 of the Code of the Village of Greenport. Miner, R. W. 1950. Field book of seashore life. G. P. Putnam's sons, New York. New York State Department of Enviromental Conservation. 1977. Tidal Wetlands - Land Use Regulations, Part 661. Raymond and May. 1967. Development plan for the Village of Greenport. U.S. Department Agriculture. 1975. Soil survey of Suffolk County. R~verhead. Appendix II A. P D HENRY E. RAYNOR..Ir.. Chairman ,IAME8 WALL BENNI~'I'r ORLOWSKL ~*r. William F. Mullen, Jr. 5outhold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 June 25, 1982 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz 330 East 33rd Street New York, New York 10016 Dear Mr. Shilowitz: Please be advised of the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Tuesday, June 15, 1982. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan of Stephen Shilowitz for the waterfront condomin- ium project located at 6th Street, Greenport. The Chairman has endorsed approval on the above mentioned site plan and filed in the Planning Board office. A copy of same has been forwarded to the Building Department for their files also. If you have aDy questions, please don't h~sJt;~e to contact our office. cc: Building Dept. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN $OUTHOLD TO~ PLANNIN~G BOARD CAS . NO: TOW Or SO.THOU IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN SMILOWITZ FOR A CiLA_NGE, MODIFICATION OR AMEN-DMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTYIOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO Ti-IE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. I ........S.t ephen. Shilowitz ............................................................ , residing at 330 East 33rd Street . (ir~sert name o~0~e~ioner) New xorK contract vendee S~f~'~x~l~o~, New York, the undersigned, am the ~'~4~r of certain real property situated at 6th Street, Greenport,N.Y~nd more particularly bounded and described as follows: ALL that certain tract or parcel of land now or formerly under the ordinary high water mark of Pipes Cove, together with the building thereon, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold; County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly boundary-line of Village of Greenport on the westerly line of land now or formerly of Harvey, being the southeasterly corner of the upland portion of land about to be conveyed to Shilowitz; thence along said land now or formerly of Harvey S.29°05'40"W. 0.39 feet; running thence through the waters of Peconic Ba~, three courses: (1) S.43~30'W.-100 feet; thence (2) N.46°30'W.-340 feet, more or less; thence (3) N.33°43'20"E.-106 feet, more or less, to land now or formerly of Braun; thence along said other land about to be conveyed to Shilowitz, S.46°30'E.-355.53 feet to the point of beginning. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Towq of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: From "C" Light Industrial District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: Petitioner desires to effect a change of zone for the purpose of constructing nine (9) residential condominium units with mooring spaces available in an adjoining boat basin for power and/or sail boats. The premises in question lie within, in part, the Incorporated Village of Greenport, and, in part, in the Town of Southold. With re- spect to that part which lies within the Village of Greenport, it is requested that change of zone be made from a General Commercial Dis- trict to a Waterfront Commercial District. As concerns those lands within the Town of Southold, it is requested thata change of zone be made from "C" Light Industrial District to "M" Light Multiple-Residence District. Th? proposed project would enhance the waterfront area in that exist- ing dzlapidated structures would be removed and replaced with highly valued residential buildings. The tax base of the property would be substantially increased without a great demand upon existing municipal facilities. From an esthetic and environmental viewpoint the area would be transformed from one of.~onTuse ~oone of attractive usuage-- in a 11 areas the community will benef:~, f3om. sdch..a- ~enpf.34ma~ p~oj ect%-~ (L. S.) .. . STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) STEPHEN £HILOWITZ .............................................. , BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that lie has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his ([~) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. · Sxvorn to before me tiffs .12.th day of ....... Iv[o,y ............. 19.8..2. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SHORT ENVIRONk{ENTAL 'ASSESS~JENT FORt,{ IONS: In Order to answer the.questions in this short EAF it is assumed the preparer will use currently available information cOncerning the ect and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that hal stud±es, research or other investigotlons wilZ be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be signlficont and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered Nd it is likely that this project is not significant.. (d) ~vironmental Assessmen+ 1. W±iL project resu±t in a large physicaZ change to the project site or physically alt e~ mare than l0 acres of land? ........................ Yes. c~o 2. Will there be a ma}or change ~o any unique or unusua1 land form found on the site? ...... ; Yes '~'No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on - existing body o£ water? ......... . .............. ~Yesu'-No 4. %'~ill project have o potentially large impact · "' on grou6dwote'r quality? ....................... Yes 5. ~'/ill project significantly e~fect drainage - ~'- flow on adjacent sites?.. ...... % .............. Yes o 6. Will project affect any threatened or .... endangered planf or animal species? ........... Yes '/No 7. %'1itl project result in o major adverse effect ' '---' on air quality? .......................... Yes 8. %~1ill project have a major effect on visual character Of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes 9. Will project adversely impact any sile or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency? ............. -~-.".-~-.v-.,.~..~..~. Yes~No 10. Will project have a bajor effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ......... yes ~,,/No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems -- ---' or cause o major effect to existing transportation systems? ....................... yes~./N° 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable od~rs, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance os a result of the project's operation9 ..................................... 13. Will project have any impact on public health ' or safety? .................................... _ Yes /No 14. Will project of£ect the existing community by directly causing o growth in permanent population of more ~hon 5 percen~ over o one year period or hove o major negative effect on the chara~-~er of the community or neighborhood~ 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? .... ~ ..... . ....... , ................. HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr.. Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. TELEPHONE 765- 1938 June 25, 1982 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz 330 East 33rd Street New York, New York 10016 Dear Mr. Shilowitz: Please ~e advised of the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Tuesday, June 15, 1982. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan of Stephen Shilowitz for the waterfront condomin- ium project located at 6th Street, Greenport. The Chairman has endorsed approval on the above mentioned site plan and filed in the Planning Board office. A copy of same has been forwarded to the Building Department for their files also. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD cc: Building Dept./ By Susan E. Long, Secretary " TEL. 765-1802 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 April 12, 1982 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. Subject: Greenport-Southold Condominiums Site Plan Review SK-1, 3/15/82 Gentlemen: The premises for this proposed development is located in the M-Light Multiple Residence District. The intended multi- ple dwelling use is permitted under Art. IV, Section 100-40 A (2) of Zoning Ordinance, Town of Southold. Site plan does not indicate the availability of city water, therefore, for dwelling unit density, 9,000 square feet of land for each dwelling unit was used to calculate the number of units permitted. (Art. XI, Sec. 100-116) The six units A-F inclusive are permitted for the lot area. Under Art. IV, Sec. 100-41, Bulk and Parking Schedule, a rear yard set back of 50'-0" is required. To determine rear yard area, a line parallel with 6th Street was estab~ lished 50'-0" east of point of intersection of 79.00 and 40. 00 boundary lines. Buildings A & B are located in the rear yard area and a variance for insufficient rear yard set back would be necessary. While parking spaces are shown, the size was not indi- cated. In scaling the area provided for parking, it appears the width of each space is 9'-0"'. Section 100-112 C requires that spaces be 10'-0" in width. Parking spaces can not be closer than 10'-0" from the property line. A corner of one space on the north end of a row falls with in the 10'-0" set back requirement (Sec. 100- 112 J (1)). Page 2 There has been no screening of parking area as required in Sec. 100-12 J (5) and K (1). Lighting fixture schedule, fixtures 'A' , their proximity to property boundaries could possibly create glare beyond such boundaries. This would be prohibited under Sec. 100-114 A & B. R,?~ pe c t fully, su~mit ted, Edward F. Hindermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:ee HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr..Cba/rman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, ~. GEORGE ~TCHIE LATHAM, Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. PL"ANNI OARD LD .U~.NTY Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 March 30, 1982 Mr. George Fisher Senior Building Inspector Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Stephen Shilowitz Site Plan Dear Mr. Fisher: Attached please find two copies of an amended site of the above captioned site plan, along with correspondence from the applicant explaining the changes. I hope you find this information helpful with regard to our request for certifi- cation on this site. Yours very truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary attch. Stephen Shilowltz, A.I.A. 330 I:ast 33rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 689-0242 CONSULTANT KOICHI NAGASAWA, 4.33 HIGASHI 4 CHO~v~E, SHIBIJyA-KU, TOXyO, JAPAN Edward F. Hindermann Building & Housing Inspector Town of Southold P.O. Box 728 Southold, NY 11971 :\rchitect May 5, 1982 Re: 6th Street Waterfront Condominium Project Greenport,Southold, NY Dear Mr. Hindermann, Pursuant to our telephone conversation today regarding the establishment of the rear yard requirement for the above referenced project, I am enclosing herewith three prints of my site plan for the same, with the latest ( today ) date: 5-5-82 revision, indicating that all proposed structures are at least fifty ( 50 ) feet back from the rear yard line established by the Van Tuyl & Son survey I referred to in my last letter to you dated May 1, 1982. I believe that this revision as well as my earlier letters on the subject of all the points you made in your report to the Planning Board dated April 12, 1982 will permit you to accept the site plan in its present form. I trust that the Planning Board will therefore issue its approval thereupon. Once again, many thanks for your interest and patience! I look forward to meeting with you in person when we review final drawings for building permit approval. encl. Architect Stephen Shilowitz, A.I.A. 330 East 33rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 689-0242 CONSULTANT March 16, 1982 Re: 6th Street waterfront condominium development Greenport-Southold, NY Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor, Pursuant to our meeting at the office of the Planning Board on March 9, 1982 I am submitting a site plan I have prepared myself, as a registered architect in the State of New York, for the above referenced project for consideration of site plan approval. This submission consists, in triplicate, the drawing of the site plan bearing the latest date 3-15-82 and other related information which the Building Inspector will require for Certification. Upon your_further suggestion that I not need to attend the meeting of the Planning Board on March 22, 1982, I am hand delivering the material to your office in lieu of a formal pre-submission conference. I wish to thank you and the Board for your kind patience in this matter and attention to my application. Very ru yours z ; encl. c.c.: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk PS; I am also enclosing a copy of the notice of granting a permit to me by the New York State Department of Enviroumental Protection. PPS: Please note that the distance between the two groups of attached structures is only 30 feet. The code requires 50 feet minimum. In as much as the design density of the entire pro- ject .is less than 20% (35% maximum is allowable), I believe that the request for relief related to the distance is reason- able and justified. HENRY E. RAYNOR, .Ir., Chairman ?~D ~'C'.~. JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 March 23, 1982 Mr. George Fisher Senior Building Inspector Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr~ Fisher: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 22, 1982: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board forward the site plan of Stephen Shilowitz to the Building Inspector for certification. I have attached three maps of this site, along with a copy of a letter stating a deficiency in the distance between the two groups of structures. Attch. Yours very truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secreta~ · ~ '~,~' NEW YORK STATE DEr ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION "" pER IT UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW  ARTICLE lg, (Protection of Water) [] AgTICLE 25, (Tidal Wetlands) ARTICLE 24, (Fresbwater Wetlands) [] ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Hazard Areas) PERi, IT ISSUED TO Enconsultants, Inc. for Stephen Shilowitz ADDRESS OF PER/~I~[EE 64 North Main Street, Southampton, NY 11968 LOCATION OF PI~OJECT (Section of stream, tidal wetland, dam, building) Pipes Cove DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Repair or replace within 18" 689-+ 1.f. of steel bulkhead with timber bulkhead and construct 400± 1.f. of timber bulkhead. Expand existing boat basin by removal of 5,000 cu. yds. of up- land fill and place fill upland except in 20' X 15' area of existin~ waterway. Construct 8 condominium units, boat house/residence and parking areas as per supplied plans. Construct 120' X 4' floating dock to four 44' X 4' floats as per supplied plans. COMMUNI~ NAME (City, Town, Village) I TOWN Oreenport I Southold COU~Y IFIA CO~iMUNI~ NO.' IDAMNO. PE~iTEXPI~TION DATE Suffolk March 31, 1983 GENERAL 1. The permittee shall file in the office of the appropriate Regional Permit Administrator, a notice of intention to commeoce work at least 48 hours in advance of the time of commencement and shall atso notify him promsXly in writing of the completion of the work. 2. The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation who may order the work suspended if the public interest so requires. 3. As a condition of the issuance of this permit, the applicant has ac- cepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal respon- sibility for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nat~we, and by whom- ever suffered, arising out of the project described herein and has aRreed to indemnify and save harmless the State from suits, actions, damages and costs of every name and description resulting from the said project. 4. Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted shall be removed evenly~ without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of the waterway or flood plain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause iniury to navigable channels or to the banks of the waterway. 5. Any material to he deposited or dumped under this permit, either in the waterway or on shore above hiRh-wuter mark, shall be deposited or dumped at the locality shown on the drawing hereto attached, and, if so prescribed thereon, within or behind a good and substantiat bulkhead m bulkheads, such as will prevent escape of the material into the waterway. 6. There shall he eo unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized. 7: That if future oper~tions lJy the State of New York require an all, ration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Depertment of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood ffow~.or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordernd by the Depart- ment to remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State; and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners shell, without expense to the 5tate~ and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its fo~mer condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. CONDITIONS 8. That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may he caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. 9. That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authorized is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be pre- scribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the owner. 10. All work carried out under thfs parmit shall be performed in accor- dance with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike manner. 11. If granted under Articles 24 or 25, the Department reserves the right to reconsider this approval at any time and after due notice and hearing to continue, rescind or modify this permit in such a manner as may he found to be just and equitable. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the modification of the wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 12. This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any rights, title or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a Person not a perry to the permit. 13. The permittee is responsibIe for obtaining any uther permits, a~- provals, lands, easements and rights-of-way which may be required for this project. 14. If granted under Article 36, this permit is granted solely o~ the basis of the requirements of Article 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Part 500 of 6 NYCRR (Construction in Flood Plain Areas havinR Special Flood Hazards - Building Permits) and in no way signifies that the project will be free from flooding. 15. By acce~ance of this permit the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the spacial conditions on the reverse side. (SEE REVERSE SLOE) I NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATII~ ~ ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT APPLICATION Read instructions on back before completing this application. Please type or print clearlv in ink. use senarate addenda and exhibits to provide all required data and explanations for which space on the form is inadequate, ~i[ARTICLE 15, TITLE 3 (CONTROL OF AQUATIC INSECTS, WEEDS, OR UNDESIRABLE FISH) ARTICLE 15, TITLE 5 (PROTECTION OF WATERS) [] For tl~e construction, reconstrucOon, or repair of a DAM or other impoundment structure. [] For the construction, reconstruction, or repair of any permanent DOCK, pier, or wharf: and any dock, pier, or wharf, built on openwork supports, which has a top surface area of more than 200 square feet. [] Fo~ the disturbance of a STREAM BED or excavation in or fill of navigable waters. [] ARTICLE 15, TITLE 15 [] WATER SUPPLY E LONG ISLAND WELL [] ARTICLE 24 (FRESHWATER WETLANDS) [] Fermit [] Letter of permission ~] ARTICLE 25 (TIDAL WETLANDS) 1. NAME OF APPLICANT: APPLICANT IS A/AN [] Individual E Partnership, [] Association J~ Corp~-atlon [] Municipality [] Governmental ARency NAME & TITLE OF OFFICIAL SIGNING APPLICATION STREET ADDRESS6~ j~llL'~:h J~llJ'~ S~. ' ~ P, O. BOX POST OFF CE NAME & ADDRESS OF~ (If n~ applicant) ' STREET ADDRESS 3~. ~ OR P. O. BOX POST OFF[CE , .2836360 PHONE STATE ZIP CODE ,v ,. ~, ZIP CODE STATE ...~ PROJECT LOCATION: I~ L'*el~lJlpo lc'J: a) City ~x Village of Tow~ of County of--- · " -.~;;, ,* J 6. WILL PROJECT UTIt STATE OWNED LAN NAME OF STREAM DR OTHER WATER BODY:, . ~ (if appropriate; if un-named~ show on ''r~ ch' ~--~ ~'es'~ ~] NO mad - See Item Sb) " -~ ~' Pipe~ Co'~e b) Specific project site or area is marked un J.S.G.S. or equivalent map, attached as Exhibil NO.. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION; (Feet of rip-rap new channel: cubic yards of material to be removed; draining, dredging, FEE OF $_.~0 Et, filling, and location of disposal sites; type of structure to be installed; height of dam; size of ]mooundment; capacities of proposed water sources; extent of distribution sys!e~n; ~?:.!~.l~p].4~~ o~' ~'e[~l~.~' (l~l_th~.3~ ~ ~ ~ YfilS projec~ wH reqoire the foll~ing additi~M permits, applicati~s for which are the responsibility of others: [ '~.~ ~ OA~ ~ OOC~ ~ STgEA~ O~STURaA~C~ ~ SPOES/NPOES ~ ~ATER,..,SUPPL~ ~ L. I. WELLS ~ FRESHWATER WET~DS,. :.. ~ ~[. 1~. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF LOCALI~ WHERE PROPOSED WORE5 ARE LOCATED: ., ,., If "YES", explain in addenda, giving reasons and dates, and show existing work on drawings or map. 15. CERTIFICATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of per ury that nformat on ffov ded on this form and all attachments submitt~e~- C wi h is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. False statements made herein are punishable as a Cl~.AJ~ misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law. As a condition to the issuance of a permit, the applicant accepts full legal responsibility for all damage, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whomever suffered, arising out of the project described herein and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Slate from suits, action~,,~ p damages and cost~ of every name and description resulting from the said project. EIVE' 9 1981 g/8/SZ DATE '~L ¥. S. D. E. C. '-"A,? ~':~?'O~'1 { SIGNATURE 95-19-2 (4/80) -SEE REVERSE SIDE- -rD... RECEIVED SEP 9 1981 N. Y. S. D. E. C. .r,;,,~_ ,, ,.~ V ,~FF~IRS, REGION 1 HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 June 2, 1986 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz, A.I.A. 330 East 33rd. Street New York, New York 10016 Re: Sixth Street Property Southold/Greenport, NY Dear Mr. Shi!owitz: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees at their regular meeting held on Hay 29, 1986 regarding the above captioned matter: Moved by Trustee Larsen seconded by Trustee Krupski ~iHEREAS, Stephen Shilowitz applied to the Southold Town Board for a change of zone and WHEREAS, Stephen Shilowitz applied to the Town Trustees for approval for a bulkhead and'dredging prior to the amending of the Wetland Ordinance and WHEREAS, the Board members are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS the Board has considered all the documentation submitted concerning this request; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this request, appellant requests a Waiver of the Wetland Ordinance, Chapter 97, Article II, Section 97-22 for the construction of Condomini~as on 6th Street, G~eenport. 2. The property in question is located at tke Southerly end of Sixth Street, Greenport, New York as designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1001, Section 007, Block 01, Lot 16. In considering this request the Board finds and determines: 1. The project as proposed will not adversely affect the Wetlands of the Town. 2. The project as proposed will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Stephen Shilowitz be and hereby is granted a Waiver of the %letland Ordinance all in accordance with the plans and specificat submitted. This waiver is given with the 1. 2. following provisions: Roof run off shall be discharged int~'dry wells. Parking areas within 75 ft. of the Wetlands.shall be of porous construction. Blacktop shall not belJused on this site. Care shall be taken so as to preclude the entry of any construction material into adjacent waters. Immediately following construction, all areas of exposed soul shall be properly protected with suitable erosion control devices and/or vegetated to prevent entry of eroded soil into nearby waters. ~ Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of,.Town Trustees By: II~ne Pfifferling Clerk to Board HPS:ip cc: Town Clerk Building Dept. Planning Board~'/ Board of Appeals Trustees file- MATTER SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ-APPEAL NO. 3513 THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 9:27 p.m. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of Stephen Shilowitz. Variance to construct condominiums within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. West Side of Sixth Street, Greenport. "M-Light Multiple Residence" Zoning District. Immediately prior to reconvening the hearing, the Chairman gave Mr. A~gel, Attorney for the applicant, a copy of the July 15, 1986 letter received July 17, 1986 at ll:O0 a.m. by the Board of Appeals Secretary, from Lawrence Storm, Esq. requesting an adjournment of the hearing. Mr. Angel was notified by telephone this morning of this request and the letter was read to him at that time. CHAIRlVtAN GOEHRINGER: I assume start the first part .of this hearing with Mr. Angel~ if you have anything to say~ Sir. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: What I would like to do is address this application- this letter that you just delivered to me~ iV~r. Chairman. Do you want to identify it or do you want me to identify it? CHAIRiViAN: You can identify it. MR. ANGEL: I was just 9iven for the first time--I haven't seen this before-- a letter dated July 15~ 1986 directed to you Mr. Chairman from the Law Firm of Twomey~ Latham ~ Shea and Kelley. It' s regardin9 the application of Stephen Shilowitz~ and it says~ "...Dear Sir: Our firm has just been asked by the Members of the Cove Circle Association to review the above application for the purpose of appearing on their behalf before the Z.B.A. lye have not yet been able to review any materials, and will be unable to do so before your scheduled July 17~ l 986 meeting. Due to prior commitments~ we will be unable to attend this meeting. In light of the above~ we respectfully request that this matter be adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meetin9 to permit adequate review and if necessary Page 2 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz - Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): presentation. Thank you for your courtesy .... It' s signed Lawrence Storm May I be heard in connection with this application? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. ANGEL: The first thin9 I want to say about it relates to me being a lawyer and not having heard about it except from the Board today~ which upsets me I thihk as a bit of a discourtesy. It puts me in a very difficult position not having read this letter. Fly name appears on all the papers involved in this proceedin9. I' m the one who sent out the notices. Certainly someone could have had the courtesy to tell me in advance that an: application would be made for an adjournment. Secondly, the letter is carefully,-~drawn--I didn't notice until just now--to not to indicate that this law firm is definitely goin9 to be appearin9 for this Association. It says they have been asked by members to review the application. It doesn't say we represent. Second, as you recall, I was here last time. At that time we had a public hearing and an application was made by somebody in the public to adjourn this one month, the next scheduled meeting tonight~ in order to try. to 9et counsel. I reluctantly did not oppose that. I think I stated that I understand the people who want to consult with lawyers before they take a position before this board. I want to point out to y3u~ however~ that we sent registered mail or certified mail notice to the adjacent property owners who appear as adjacent property owners in the Assessors Office of this Town, Suffolk County Tax Map Agency, and also in Greenport Village. There are four of them. They received a notice, and here is our adjacent property owners, an affidavit of mailing~ and the signed receipts. I would like that marked as an exhibit. These went out on IVlay 15~ 1986~ more than 30 days prior to the last hearing. CHAIRMAN: Are these originals? l~lR. ANGEL: Those are ori§inal receipts. I have copies of the receipts. an original affidavit and a copy of the notice. (Mr. Angel submitted copy of neighbor notice form~ completed: original Affidavit of IVlailing, and certified-mail receipts. ) That ' s Page 3 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing IVlatter of Stephen Shilowitz - Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): Next~ we appeared at the hearing on June lgth, and of course we discussed this~ as I eluded to before. One of the comments made at that June 19th meeting was that there was a possibility that we had not served all the people in accordance with your requirement that certified mail notice has to be given to all adjoining property owners. Well~ we checked again in the Assessors Office as your rules required, and those are the four proper people. Nevertheless I sent somebody out to the Board' s Office to pick up a copy of a report that was submitted by a gentleman that night allegedly showing the names of interested people. That report sets forth a list of names and deeds. It -- deeds~ libers and pages. It doesn't say anything about addresses. I~ nevertheless~ sent somebody over to the County Center. We pulled al1 those deeds. I looked at the addresses on those deeds, and I personally compared those addresses with the addresses of these people in the phonebook and whatever source I could find with names and addresses I prepared a letter on July 3, 1986 directed to "whom it may concern regardin9 this application~" and statin9, "I~re have been advised that you have an interest in certain property designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map..." and I put in the number of Mr. Shilowitz-- the number of the Cove Circle property that that report indicated. "This property adjoins land owned by Mr. Shi[owitz for which he is making an application to the Zonin9 Board of Appeals. Enclosed please find a copy of the notice which had previously been given to Cove Circle Associates, as the owner of said property .... " That's the notice that you just see. "...Please be advised that the hearing has been adjourned until July 17~ 1986~ and will be held at the Town Hall durin9 the evening of that day. As of now, the actual time of the adjotlrned hearing is unknown. The actual time may be confirmed by contacting the Southold Town Board of Appeals .... " And I signed it with our firm name~ and it was on our firm stationary~ and I'd like to offer this as another Exhibit. To it is attached the list of the people who we sent notices to~ and an affidavit of mailin9 by one of our secretaries that the notice was sent. I have in my possession receipts signed by approximately 75%. A few were returned because ttDse addresses on the deeds and in the phone books were stale. Now, at the last hearing~ we indicated that we were under some pressure to move on this particular application notwithstanding the application of the adjournment until tonight. I believe even a Trustee from the Village of Green- port indicated Greenport' s interest in moving the application alon9. I think Page 4 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz - Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals ANGEL (continued): that everybody who may have had an interest in it who was there that night understood us to make those comments. Now, I also want to point out in connection with the delay that we have here and the nature of the objections that this project has been going on for al'ong period of time. It started in 198l. I believe we told you before --lV~r. Shilowitz was here and he' s here tonight-- that Mr. Shilowitz made application to these numerous boards includin9 the Town of Southold' s Town Board, and the Town of Southold' s Planning Board before he actually purchased this property~ with the clear understanding stated to those boards that if nobody was interested in the project as he submitted it, he wouldn't do the project. Now it's interesting to note that at that time in the various public hearings regarding the rezoning there were no objections. I went and got copies of the public hearing--there were two public hearings held by the Town of Southold on the rezoning of this property from its prior industrial use to M-Light Multiple Residence, which it is today. One of those public hearings was held on January 5, 1982~ the last thin9 stated in the minutes of that public hearing was Supervisor Pell saying, "...does anybody else wish to be heard in favor o£ the application for a change of zone in behalf of Stephen Shilowitz .... No response. "Anybody wish to be heard in opposition to it? No response .... " I would like that offered in evidence. Now, in addition, for some reason there was a second public hearing held on exactly the same issue--the last thing said at that public hearing was also by then Supervisor Pell. What it was he said in part was, "Does anybody wish to be heard in opposition to the application?" No response. Again, that is the hearin9 of July 7, 1982 in connection with the rezoning. CHAIRMAN: That' s the plan that is before us now? r~lR. ANGEL: Well, that was on the rezonin9. I think the plan predates the rezonin9 and it was subject to public inspection. Also there was a model that was shown prior to that. Now, I have also caused to be examined the files of the Planning Board that 9ranted site plan approval, and we found no indication in the Plannin9 Board files ~hat there was any opposition of this site plan that is Page 5 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): currently before the board. Now~ at the time these applications were made, that property had a building on it--a factory on it. I understand it was an oyster factory. Some people have told me, "I' m not personally familiar with it." Some people have told me it was used to coat pipe~ to put coating on pipe. It was a factory. Mr. Shilowitz~ after he closed on the property~ knocked that down at some cost to himself. Now it's not difficult to infer why there wasn't opposition then~ and there is opposition now. Now finally I wasn't even able~ because of the letter~ whether it' s inadvertent or planned~ the discoutesy of not advising me a couple of days before that this would happen~ I wasn't even able to tell Mr. Shilowitz until two minutes ago or five minutes ago that this application was going to be made for an adjournment. He spent his whole day in a hospital waitin9 for somebody who is very close to him to come out of a very serious operation, hopped in his car to come out here and is going right back to continue his vigil. It' s just not fair to put us in the position the last minute to seek an adjournment under these circumstances. I request that you rule cn that adjournment. CHAIRlVlAN: Before we have the hearing? MR. ANGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say one thing~ Mr. Angel, that you are aware of the fact that our office did call you today after receiving this mailgram? IVlR. ANGEL: That' s correct. I was notified by your office I think between and 12:00. I was out and I found out about it about 12 noon. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if we're particularly ready to render a decision on that at this particular time. I would rather wait until toward the end of the hearing, and possibly a short caucus~ and then come back with a determination. MR. ANGEL: Ok. Then let me proceed with a couple of more items. I have-- Mr. Lessard last time asked us about the short distance to the bulkhead vis-a-vis emergency vehicles~ specifically fire vehicles. Now as you probably are all aware~ more so than I am~ knowing the area better ~ this site is serviced by the Page 6 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): Greenport Fire Department~ not by the Southold Fire Department. l~e have here an original letter from the Chief of the Greenport Fire Department. I would like to leave the original~ with your permission Fir. Lessard~ to the Chairman~ even though it' s directed to you because I would like to offer it in evidence. I have copies for you and the other members of the Board~ and I'd like to read you the letter though the conclusion is that the Greenport Fire Department does not find any difficulty with the proposed site plan. Should I read the letter so everybody hears it~ Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. ANGEL: It' s Greenport Fire Department~ Greenport, New York stationary, and it's a letter to Mr. Victor Lessard~ Chief Buildin9 Inspector~ Southold: ...Dear Mr. Lessard, I, as authorized representative of the Fire Depart- ment, Village of Greenport, have reviewed the site plan and architectural scale model of the 9-unit residential condominium project (Pipes Cove Condo- minium) that Stephen Shilowitz proposes to construct upon his site at the foot of Sixth Street, Greenport. I have determined as a result of my review that the design presently indicated by his plan indludin9 setbacks from bulkheads as shown thereon (site Plan dated July ], 1982'Drawing No. A-l) satisfies our department's criteria for proper fire-fighting, including deployment of our pumper and aerial-ladder apparatus during any fire emer- gency at that site. As you know, our department has the responsibility for fire protection not only upon that portion of Mr. Shilowitz' site that lies within the Village of Greenport but also upon that portion of his site that lies within the Town of Southold. Furthermore, Mr. Shilowitz has agreed to provide at least two new hydrants upon his site at locations which we will determine as proper. He will also eliminate a traffic circle presently indicated upon the afforesaid site plan to facilitate the maneuvering of our equipment. The area 6etween Building #2 and #3 will be paved so a p~nper can reach the water and pump from the bay or cove. This was agreed upon by both parties during our telephone conversation on July 7, 1986 .... And it's signed, "Very truly yours~ Paul Quarty~ Chief~ Greenport Fire Department .... " Page 7 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals lVlR. ANGEL (continued): Now~ at this point~ since we' re involved in the merits--shall I proceed with what I was going to do tonight~ Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: I would say yes because we are basically--we have asked you the questions~ and anybody that would like to rebut that will have time to do so. MR. ANGEL: I want to just quickly recap. This is an unusual situation. A unique situation. I should point out in my opinion not a precedent setting situation. We' re asking you to vary the 75-foot setback line from all tidal waters for this particular site. What's unique about it is~ we' ve got a slew of approvals that predate that particular law by numerous governmental agencies. So I went into them in some detail last time~ I want to mention them again. We've got it rezoned by the Town Board and the Village Board of Trustees in the Village of Greenport. As you remember~ the rezonings are conflicted. In Southold it's M-Light Multiple Residence which allows all sorts of residences. In Greenport it' s WC lYaterfront Commercial which doesn't allow any residences except multiple residence. So it' s hard to build one particular use other than the one that we have before you right now. Now~ we got Site Plan Approval from the Southold Planning Board. We 9or U.S. Corps of Engineers approval on the site plan. We got a conditional use permit from the Village of Greenport Plannin9 Board. We 9ot a DEC approval for this particular site plan. We 9ot a buildin9 permit from the Village of Greenport to do excavation work and bulkhead work. We 9or new wetlands permit from the Southold Board of Trustees among other things. As I said~ I don't think there' s a fear of a precedent-making case. It's not like we're askin9 you~ we're comin9 in with a new piece of property and we' re saying~ "Listen~ give us relief from that 75-foot setback. I want to put my pool next to the water." This started in 1981 with a series of meetings and extended through today. It ' s been through the mill. It' s been through many mills. This is a quirk that just happened by mis- take. It's specifically a situation where uniqueness brin9s it to you for your Board to do some justice. Page 8 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): Now, I also §ot a copy --I didn't take out my other documents here--I just took out my anti-adjournment documents when I came up here. I got a copy of public hearing minutes that were made by the Southold Town Board at the time of consideration of the ?5-foot setback law that we have before you. Now to be honest with you~ those minutes are not extremely elucidating. But they do have a ¢0]]0qt~y in them between a resident~ George Schroeder~ Supervisor Murphy and Town Attorney Tasker regarding how this Board in a proper unique case has the authority to vary those setback restrictions by variance~ and that the unique case should come before your Board for such a variance. And I'd like to offer that in the minutes as an additional exhibit. And refer you to page 4 where there' s a c0]]0qtly between Councilman Schondebare and Town Attorney Tasker and Supervisor Murphy concerning the appropriateness for the possibility of a variance in a proper unique situation. I've got some extra copies to give. SECRETARY: What' s the date of the meeting minutes? CHAIRMAN: Marchl2~ 1985. MR. ANGEL: The other thing I wanted to point out is~ as I think I mentioned in both the Affidavit and last time's hearing ~ the environmental concerns are extremely mitigated in a site like this where' ~he site is 9oin9 to be served by Greenport public water and Greenport sewer, lde' re not dealing with a situation where effluent is going to be dropped into tidal waters. Reflective of that particular concern is the fact that the D.E.C. granted a permit to construct as shown on that site plan. As you know~ the D.E.C.'s regulations concerning site development of this nature are fairly rigorous in this case. There was no difficulty--I' m not going to say that~ I wasn't there. In this case the D.E.C. issued that permit for the site plan as it is presently before you. At this point~ I believe we made a presentation last time and ask you to refresh your memories regarding that app[ication~ and Mr. Shilowitz is here tonight. He just came in late. He sure heard my application. Both he and I are available to answer any questions. Page 9 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: There are a couple of things that we had had trouble with. concern- ing this survey site plan of July [~ [982. Do you have anythin9 better to offer us? Do you have a more current survey~ anything that we can 9° down and measure possibly with more measurements on. When we look at this particular piece of property. Has there been a more current survey done~ possibly somethin9 that you are going to be using for actual construction? There is? lVlR. SHILOWITZ: I may have it in my folder toni9ht. CHAIItMAN: You don't have to give it to me tonight. You can supply us with it Also, we would like to have a copy of the bulkheading plan that I believe Mr. Douglass -- MEMBER DOUGLASS: I got it. CHAIRMAN: You have it~ Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Thirdly, I just wanted to ask the question-- the units themselves with be constructed on a monolithic poured foundation or will they be constructed on piling? MR. SHI LOWITZ: Both. Wood piling ~ concrete pile caps ~ concrete -reinforced concrete grade beams. Which makes a monolithic -- CHAIRMAN: You are an architect~ is that correct? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yes~ I am. CHAIRMAN: Are you certifying that the tiebacks that will be placed underneath the building~ ok~ would be substantial enough to withstand the normal pressure of this type of foundation? MR. SHILOWITZ: Without question~ and-- Page l0 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Will you put that in an affidavit? MR. SHILOWITZ: independent. I certainly will~ and I can state now that they are totally CHAIRMAN: If you can compose that in a letter for us and give it to us, we would appreciate that because there was a question on that. MR. SHILOWITZ: I wanted to just comment that my site plan that you have, and I certainly will supply the one that you just mentioned~ I had the firm of VanTuyl lay out~ just to be certain~ and prior to the earlier hearing the last time exactly what happens in the fie[d~ and that drawing is at 20th scale-- it' s a standard engineering scale. It came out so closely within fractions of a foot~ I' 1l commend myself in public for bein9 a very careful draftsman. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ so you'll send us that and-- MR. SHILOWITZ: If I have it in my folder tonight~ may I leave it with you? CHAIRMAN: Surely. No problem. All right. Let's see what continues durin9 the hearing~ and we' [1 render a decision concernin9 the possibility of a short recess or whatever. All right~ going over to the other side~- I would just like to ask all the people that are in the audience tonight that if there are spokes- persons available as I had a discussion with, I believe it was Mr. Strong yes- terday~ I would appreciate that; and I also appreciate--and this is something I have not asked durin9 this hearing--if you would kindly --the c09llate level of the questioning specifically be addressed to this particular site~ not speci- fically to the notic~n.~ which I think we' ve taken care of at this particular time-- if you' 11 abide by what I' m saying~ lvlr. Strong? Ok? You' re welcome to speak. ROBERT STRONG: I-- CHAIR~IAN: He's just goin9 to give me a drawing~ I'm sorry. (IVlr. ShiIowitz gave a copy of his plan dated for the record. ) IV~R. SHILOWITZ: I m going to leave this with you--it' s got some of my own personal notes on it~ and incidentally I have a letter from VanTuyl certifying Page Il-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SHILOWITZ (continued): that particular point. I' 1l submit that too. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I' m sorry. Sir? MR. STRONG: I' d like to speak in opposition to the application for the variance. I' d also like to address as you just indicated the adjournment. I' d like to come forward to Dive you copies of a letter of which I would like to read. CHA]RlViAN: Surely. IVlR. STRONG: There are two paDes. MR. STRONG: We would like to explain our request to obtain counsel~ and I' d like to read the letter. It sets it out precisely. "...I'm one of the adjacent property owners~ also known as the Cove Circle Association. I appeared at the June 19~ 1986 hearing. Among other things considered then~ I asked for and was granted an adjournment to determine if I, and the other owners~ who are present here tonight--" I'd like to interrupt for a moment if I may~ and indicate the second, third and fourth rows are taken up by the owners, so there are definitely more than four. There are also indications by that specifically addressing and question the Short Environmental Form, that there is a public controversy about this. And rebutting earlier information submitted by counsel. "I asked for and was §ranted an adjournment if I and the other owners needed counsel to protect our property interests as the result of this application for a variance. One of the other reasons for requestinD such an adjournment was to notify other owners. Immediately upon leaving the June 19th hearing, assiduous efforts were beDun to locate~ inform and meet with all ll of the owners in the undivided interests in the adjacent property~ known as the Community Beach." I also would like to digress from the letter for a moment to indicate that this appears on a map as if it were one parcel perhaps owned by one person. But there are varied interests in it. Page 12-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing IV~atter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRONG (continued): Immediately upon leaving that hearin§~ ~e made efforts to meet with all ll owners. But July 6th, eight of those ll decided to seek counsel and appointed a committee of three to do so. By July 14th, and I also agreed~ an intent II owners gave their proxy to another. During the period from July 6th .through July 15th, the counsel-search-committee accomplished the following: (a) we contacted and met with the attorney who represented these owners in another similar matter. However he had retired. We retrieved our file. (b) We contacted and met with a possible expert witness subject to approval of counsel we would hire. (c) We contacted and met with an attorney that closed the purchase of one of the other owners~ however~ as a result of subsequent developments~ he now has a conflict of interest and couldn't take the case. (d) We contacted and met with an attorney observed here handling unrelated matters before thisl ~board; however~ he wished to limit the scope of' his engagement to non-litigable matters. (e) We contacted and met with yet another attorney' known to be experienced in these matters ~ however ~ he was formerly associated with opposing counsel and obviously a conflict. (f) Lastly we contacted another attorney known to be experienced in these matters. We are in the process of executing a Retainer A§reement~ that I just received by express mail. It could be interpreted that the letter was carefully drawn to avoid the question of whether counsel was being hired. There is no question that counsel is being hired. The meeting with the owners was to determine how to '.divide up the fee~ and we have agreed upon how to do so. Some of the checks have already been drawn; however the Retainer Agreement has not been completely signed. Therefore~ we believe our request for the adjournment to obtain counsel should be continued and that such a request is reasonable in view of our diligent efforts. On that question~ that' s all we have to say. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to continue a rebuttal of the case~ or what would you like to do at this point? Do you want to have each individual speak concern- ing this? MR. STRONG: What I would like to do is as follows: Can we find out if there is 9oin9 to be an adjournment or do you want to go on the merits and continue? Page 13-July l?, 1986 Public Hearin9 iViatter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I find this a very difficult question, and I' ll tell you the reason why. We' ve had many cases like this before. What I would like to see tonight and the .board and I have discussed it~ is the possibility of~ hearing your side~ your group, and so on. I think after hearin9 that~ we'll make a determination unless of course lVlr. Angel has somethin9 else to say, then we'll make a determination at that particular point. But I think it's still a little too early to come up with what we intend to do. We may have to discuss it in a three- minute discussion before we come up with it. MR. STRONG: Under those circumstances I would like to do the following. Mr. Scott has some substantial questions to ask, and I would like, while he is doin9 so, quietly canvas one or two others to see if they do, and either they or I will speak after Mr. Scott. CHAIRlVlAN: Ok. Sir. AL SCOTT: My name is Al Scott. I' m on the east property next to lV~r. Shilowitz. There are severalthings I ' m concerned about. One of these, I don't know how to fix this application of his. Evidently the property has been sold~to a realty corporation on June 3rd of this year. It' s no longer in lVir. Shilowitz' s name. How that affects this hearing--I really don't know not being an attorney or knowledgeable about this, but I put it before you. This has been published in the Suffolk Times on July 3rd of this hearin9. CHAIRMAN: Well~ we will ask him at the end of the hearing if he will address that particular situation. I don't know, that he mandatorily has to. i~IR. SCOTT: One of the other things I' m a little concerned about is he has a bulkhead permit' that allows him 18" from the existin9 bulkhead, and I have some pictures here-- CHAIRMAN: Eighteen inches in or outward? NIR. SCOTT: Outward. It appears to me that he' s already encroached on our beach property-- not by much~ but enough to 9ire me a little bit of concern Page 14 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearin9 IViatter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals FIR. SCOTT (continued): I'd like to leave these photos with you. Plus before I give them to you~ I would like you to note that this property sticks out into Pipes Cove probably 150 feet at high water--probably a little more than that. But when you' re considering wetlands, I don't think it just says the front of the property as part of the wetlands. I think the westerly part of this property is also part of the wetlands and should] be taken into consideration, particularly when his building is within;five feet of the westerly boundary of the Bay. It seems very very close to me. But I'd like to give you these pictures anyway. CHAIRMAN: Can you leave these as a part of the record? MR. SCOTT: Yes. Me have taken some measurements. We think they' re fairly clear. CHAIRMAN: Just so I can mark them. lghat's your name again~ Sir? AL SCOTT: Al' Scott. I~IR. ANGEL: I just want to know if there is any writing on them. FIR. SCOTT: No. It's just the way they came out. It's not my intent to give iVlr. Shilowitz a hard time about the use of his property. Obviously the man has to be able to use his property. I have no objections as far as the condo format goes. ~v~hat I do object to is trying to, is in trying to circumvent the 75-foot setback. That really makes the whole project~ as far as I'm concerned-- a bad ball of wax. The reason~ as Fir. Angel said~ there was no objections on the original application. The original application called for a 75-foot setback. It' s only at this point in time that he now has 9one down to 20 feet. It' s not a matter of five ,or ten feet off the 75~ but 20 feet. Now that' s more than 50% reduction in the setback. And just the presence of all the other owners here is evidence that originally there was not that much concern. But now there' s a definite concern that he's going against the Southold zoning laws. They mentioned that there was a factory operating there. At one time a gentleman tried to 9et Page 15-July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Nlatter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals YiR. SCOTT (continued): a resin factory in there, but his requests were all turned down--both by the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. So that never materialized. There was no resin factory on that location. There was an oyster house, and that was there when the Ellsworth;had the property. The other thing I would like you to look at is whether the Fire Department in Greenport was shown the new plan or the original 75' setback~ because it does make an~aw£ul lot of difference between the 20-foot setback and the 75. Also~ that five-foot setback on the westerly .boundary--even a single-family house today~ you can't 9et within five feet of your neighbor's sideyard. My God the Buildin9 Department would jump up and down like a wounded eagle. So I don't see where a project of this size should get within five foot of the property line. I guess that's it. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Sir. Is that your only copy (of Suffolk Times excerpt). MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but that's ok. (Mr. Scott gave the clippin9 from the Suffolk Times reg~rdin9 transfer of title for the record. ) CHAIRMAN: Sir. Kindly state your name? ARTHUR RIEGEL: IVly name is Arthur Riegel. I' m also one of the owners in Cove Circle. I believe at the last hearin9 a question was raised~ and I did not hear lVlr. Angel respond to itt and I don't know if a response has been offered to the board relative to the plans for elevations, because the site plan which we had seen has no indication of that~ and I' m wonderin9 if there is ~any further information on that before I comment further about it. CHAIRMAN: Has there been anything received in reference to 'elevation? IVlR. ANGEL: With all due respect~ we' re not here to have you review a site plan and a building plan application. We're talking about a setback. I didn't think that it's necessary for you to review that. There's no question Page 16 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals iVlR. ANGEL (continued): we' 1l make a representation on the record that the elevations of these units will comply with the Building Code and the Flood Plain elevation requirements of the Town of Southold and the Federal Emergency Mmagement Agencies Floodplain Regulations. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Can you just tell me what zone it' s in. MR. ANGEL: It' s in the M-Light Multiple-- CHAIRMAN: No~ no. What floodplain zone it's in. MR. A~GEI~: It's in the A zone. It's not in a V. I don't know what number it is. woutcl you know? VICTOR LESSARD ~ BUILDING DEPT. ADM.: Probably an A-4 elevation eight~ something like that as a wild guess. CHAIRMAN: Eight-foot elevation? 1VIR. SHILO~IITZ: I've lived with this. MR. ANGEL: It' s current elevation eight? MR. SHILOWlTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN: It's an 8' elevation. FIR. LESSARD: You're askin9 me without the map or anything. MR. RIEGEL: I would just like to develop that a little bit further which is in keeping with essentially the content or the proposed content of this hearing. If one looks at the plan~ one sees that there is a proposed 35-foot high structure being put on an 8-foot elevation for a total of 43 feet. This 43-foot structure is now going to be within five feet of the building line on the westerly side. In the Short Form Environmental Statement which Mr. Shilowitz submitted Page 17-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RIEGEL: (continued) there was an indication in there that this would have no effect on the character of the area. Now from the knowledge and information of the Board~ the westerly side.:,of.the property in question is the side which..faces a private beach which is commonly held by the owners in Cove Circle. We are now looking at the prospect of a 43-foot structure facing what is now recreational area. There has to be considered a significant change in the character of the area. Furthermore~ looking at the plans which Mr. Shilowitz has drawn~ it seems rather clear that he doesn't have to~ and I'm not an architect and I wouldn't even suggest that I have expertise in the area. However~ just looking at his drawings: he has the ability~ instead of having his units singly developed in the sequence movin9 from the front end of this property and going out toward the Bay~ to double them up~ and in so doing~ move further back~ probably I have no way of knowin9 whether he- would be able to then meet the standard of the 75-foot setback and at the same time~ not impact negatively upon the recreational area which is commonly .held by the Cove Circle owners. CHAIRM AN: Thank you. MR. STRONG: I don't believe there are any other owners who wanted to speak, except myself. I just want to reiterate and possibly embellish a point that both the precedin9 speakers made. It can always be said a glass is half empty or half full~ it depends upon the perspective of'the viewer. Therefore~ I ask that Board to consider that the question is not ,only how close can Mr. Shilowitz come to the inside of his property line~ but shouldn't he observe the law which says he should stay a certain amount away from mine. SECRETARY asked the Chairman for a sheet containg the names of all the persons present in opposition for the record. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Angel~ before you say anything could I ask~ could possibly a roster be placed around the room and give us the names of everybody present here in the rebuttal. Opposing. Page 18-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: While they pass that around~ and I' II even give them a piece of paper if they want~ can I speak- CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. ANGEL: I think the first thing I want to say is one of the last things-- is a comment of the last things that were said about the property line. Ri§ht~ can we see his own drawing there. I think that we' re talking about a setback from a bulkhead line~ not a property line. Nobody is seeking to 9o five feet or 7.3 feet, from a property line. We're talking about 50 feet from a propeerty line; 7 point something feet from a bulkhead line. CHAIRMAN: Seven point five or six feet, whatever. lVlR. ANGEL: Right, you see the property line extends,~hrough some beach area into the open water and the bulkhead',goes around it. That' s not the property line. It' s the bulkhead line that we' re talking tabour? CHAIRMAN: Do you have riparian rights? MR. ANGEL: No~ I think they have actual ownership~not riparian rights. I mean I think it is fee ownership by virtue of conveyances in chain of title and grants from the State of New York. He has fee 9rants from the State of New York. MR. SHILOWITZ: I would also like to say that Mr. Hindermann of the Building Department specifically asked me to make sure that I had a SO-foot setback from that property line~ and accepted that and wrote that in his report~ and on the basis the Plannin9 Board granted its approval. I mean in part. So it' s not five feet-- CHAIRMAN: Would we say 7.7 feet from the water then or 7.-- MR. ANGEL: From the bulkhead. lVlR. CHAIRMAN: From the bulkhead. And we assume that there's water on the~ other side of the bulkhead or there' s sand? MR. ANGEL: Right. That' s right. But not a property line. I want to make it Page 19-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): clear that the property line is as shown on the map. I mean I don't think we would have gotten an approval if we were seven feet from the property. The property line setbacks are 15 feet in this particular area. CHAIRMAN: Could you just write your question down (to Mr. Strong) so that you don' t forget it. lV~R. ANGEL: Now~ another couple of things that I feel are necessary to respond to. I a[most want to beg your indulgence initially because of the way I am going to say it. I want to challenge in a sense Mr. Scott to produce that different plan. I mean it' s my impression that the site plan that you have before you is dated in July of 1982~ and I don't think that the setbacks changed one iota from Day One to today. MR. SHILOWITZ: The plan has never been changed. MR. ANGEL: The plan that was subject to public-- not public~ to public comment before your Planning Board, the plan that resulted in site plan approval is the one you see today. ~'re n:t changing the plan in any way. The plan' ~was drafted. The last revision I believe was July l~ 1982. It has been around a lon9 time. I do not want the board to leave with an impression that we' re talking about a change today. 'We' re talking about asking you to confirm what has been in the past -- at least been administratively. Hasn't faulted the property. But administrative[y that plan is the same. The plan has been the same even for elevations. There's also another factual error in one of the comments. I believe Mr. Shilowitz would state that the top ehavation~ the b. eight of the buildings is not 9oin9 to be 35 feet at that area, it is 9oing to be what? ~VlR. SHILOWITZ: There are nine units proposed on that site. One of them is mine--it's the furthest from them. That is 35 feet, and it's total is within Greenport. We went over it at nausium in Greenport~ and it was approved. The buildings that are closest to them again~ in the order of 26 feet above the datum; not 35. Page 20 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Do you have a set of plans that you could furnish us -- lVlR. SHILOWITZ: As a matter af fact~ my record, set--although this hearing is so important I would like to leave it--but I left a complete set with Mr. Hin- dermann. CHAIRiVlAN: Do you have it? MR. LESSARD: It's in my office~ yes. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're going to need a duplicate of that set for this hearing~ so you don't have to leave it tonight~ because I'm going to ask you-- MR. SHILOWITZ: I do have the tracin9. In an effort to speed this along~ you can have my record set. Shall I, before I forget-- MR. LESSARD: I can transfer mine over to you~ and when he applies for a permit, if he would submit it. CHAIRMAN: Can we borrow those? MR. SHILOWITZ: You can have them. MR. ANGEL: Don't be so cavalier - we might want to ask for them back some time. Especially the offers. CHAIRMAN: We never give anythin9 back, Mr. Angel. MR. ANGEL: I stand corrected. There was also a comment about the Environ- mental Assessment Form that was prepared by me. I prepared the Environmental Assessment Form. Again this relates--and I think the reason for my conclusion that it wasn't necessary to go into a significant--it' s the wrong word-- a deter- mination of significance under the State Environmental Quality Review Act is this project was subject to environmental review. Wasn't a Draft Environmental-- IVlR. SHILOWITZ: Yes there was. Page 21-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals lV~R. ANGEL: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for this site. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement--I believe Greenport was the lead aden cy--the Plannin9 Board of the Village of Greenport was the lead agency~ it was prepared--it was disseminated to the Southold Town agencies. It described the site. It met all the criteria of the State involved Environmental Quality Review Act. It discussed alternatives. It discussed the environmental settin9. It was a long document. You people have seen those documents. Again we are relitiDating somethin9 that was litigated before the various agencies without the public' s outcry. The Environmental Impact StaterDent was prepared at great expense. It was disseminated. It was discussed. The plans were disseminated. They were discussed. The elevations were d,~scussed. The setbacks were discussed. All of that stuff was done. It was discussed by all of those agencies~ including the agency sitting right here. That is the reason we' re not goin9 through another SEQRA review. 'Why do it twice? It' s exactly the same application. I feel like I' m beating a dead horse. I have no more comments on this. CHAIRMAN : Thank you~ Sir. Mr. Strong? MR. STRONG: May we respond to the rebuttal? CHAIRIViAN: Yes. I was just discussin9 something here about a prior application on this--I don't recollect one. i~lR. STRONG: It' s understandable that there are some questions about the plans and the surveys. There are at least a dozen. And we could produce them. They are presently in the file that is ~in9 organized for the attorney to be delivered some time between Tuesday and Thursday of next' week. I would like to take--that would be the first statement. The second statememt is~ I would like to take exception to the fact~ as a matter of fact and as a matter of law~ that the property line in question relevant to this 75-foot setback hearing~ is determined beyond a --is determined, period. There are questions that haven't been developed here~ as a matter of fact~ whether or not certain property lines are within 75 feet of our property line. As a matter of law in one example that I can think of~ is unclear whether the property line on the beach is determined~ and both those questions on that property line are relevant to this hearin9 on the ?S-foot setback~ because it seems to me~ 75 feet from a shared property line is a relevant question. If we don' t agree on the other end of that property line where it is~ then the property line is in question if we are the owners on the othersside. I also would like to re-emphasize that it may not be Pa§e 22-July 17, 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRONG (continued): the fault of any of the parties here that the notification system is the way it is. Namely~ what appears on the tax rolls of the Cove Circle Association~ and there are in most instances no post addresses to those livin§ inside the Circle~ and therefore it' s unfortunate but it remains a fact that althouDh there were prior hearinDs, I was never notified I can say~ and many of these people can say they were never notified. They are the ones who had the most immediate and adjacent concerns. The next~ ~point I would like to respond to in rebuttal is that there are inconsistencies. We intend to let our lawyers deal with.them between the various forms submitted. For example~ there is an inconsistency if I may abbre%'iate it and call it the Lon9 Form Environmental Statement about whether the development chanDes the character of the area. In the Lon9 Form of your own Enconsultants statement~ it specifically notes that there is a such change~ a demographic change. Those are two questions also on the Short Form. The Short Form, however~ answers those questions in the affirmative. It is not that this is not relevant~ it is also not that it was covered before--it is the question of~ as you mentioned before~ the process started in 1981. Things have changed since 1981. If those--for example~ if that Short Environmental Form dated IViay 1986 that was submitted by counsel was answered rather than referrin9 it back to the previous form~ it would have had to be answered in a different way--given the circumstances at that time. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your courtesy. I thank everybody for their courtesies. Is there anythin9 you would like to say~ Sir? The only question that wasn't answered is concernin9 the title transfer--do you want to address that? MR. ANGEL: Oh~ yeah. We will now make a representation on the record that whatever that name is entitled is in fact this person right here. IVlR. SHILOWITZ: Yumi is my dau§hter' s name. Page 23 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: What' s the name of the record owner? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yumi Realty. MR. ANGEL: And who is Yumi Realty? MR. SHILOWITZ: Me. MR. ANGEL: 100%? MR. SHILOWITZ: 100%. I' m the sole president, officer, owner~ chief cook, andbott[ewasher~ and Yumiis mydaughter's name. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I think we' re about ready to discuss the possibility of having an adjournment or not having an adjournment. The one thing I just wanted to say, I want to thank everybody for their courtesy; it was very~ very informative, and we' [1 talk briefly amongst ourselves for a couple of moments, and possibly hammer out some sort of decision. lVtEMBER SAWICKI: '. 'To recess? Now? CHAIRMAN: We can recess, but we really can't go into executive session We have to decide in the public. (lV~r. Strong gave the Chairman the roster of names of those opposing present tonight. ) CHAIRNIAN: I thank you. Before we close this hearing, I want to make sure that everybody has had an appropriate amount of time to speak, and if there is anybody whD'sfelt that we have slighted them in any way, please stand up before we close the hearing, or before we recess the hearing, because the~e may be restrictions on the hearing if we intend to so continue with it, which would preclude you from speaking. So we will discuss it right now. (After a few moments, Chairman continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN: All rioht~ what we' re going to do here is this. We feel that to a certain degree these people that have come tonight have the: 'right to counsel, and weearnestly do believe that they tried to get counsel, or we would have asked Mr. Strong to be sworn in. We'll recess this until the last hearing of the next meeting, and the restriction will be--there will be a limited time restriction and only the attorneys wi[[ be speaking, and we' re going to limit it to the two attorneys, Mr. Angel and I assume Mr. Latham-- Page 24-July l?~ 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRONG: lVir. Latham and/or Mr. Storm. CHAIRMAN: Whomever. But I would ask you to brief him before so we don't have a continual context going back and forth. lVlR. STRONG: That has been done. CHAIRMAN: Ok, but there will be a.limited time periodL~because we-- it will not be an hour. We have to 9et 9oing on this hearin9. MR. STRONG: I will be happy and relieved to deal with it. CHAIRMAN: I thank you again~ the meetin9 will be on theil4th; it will be the last hearin9 and hopefully we can wrap it up at that particular time. I' m sure you have objection to that. MR. ANGEL: Well, I object to it but there's nothing I can do about it. What I ask you to do is if possible to keep your minds open ~ and if it' s possible at the end of that evening after you' ve listened to our final arguments to be prepared to maybe give us another sort of determination. I would apprecia, it. I meant you do your own business. I'm just makin9 a request. CHAIRMAN: Right. Hearing no further comment, Ill make a motion recessing this hearing until the last hearing of the next regularly scheduled meeting (August 14th). IViember Sawicki seconded the motion ~ and the resolution was unanimously carried. Pp. 1-24 (Shilowitz Hearing) Respectfully submitted~ Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals July 16, 1986 Mr. Victor Lessard Chief Building Inspector Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Lessard: I, as authorized representative of the Fire Department, Village of Greenport, have reviewed the site plan and architectural scale model of the 9 unit residential condominium project (Pipes Cove Condominium) that Stephen Shilowitz proposes to construct upon his site at the foot of Sixth Street in Greenport. I have determined as a result of my review that the design as presently indicated by his plan including setbacks from bulkheads as shown thereon (Site Plan dated July l, 1982 Drawing No. A-I) satisfies our depart- ment's criteria for proper fire-fighting, including the depIoyment of our pumper and aerial-ladder apparatus during any fire emergency at that site. As you know, our department has the responsibility for fire protection not only upon that portion of Mr. Shilowitz' site that lies within the Village of Greenport but also upon that portion of his site that lies within the Town of Southold. Furthermore, Mr. Shilowitz has agreed to provide at least two new hydrants upon his site at locations which we will determine as proper. He will also eliminate a traffic circle presently indicated upon the afore-said site plan to facilitate the maneuvering of our equipment. The area between Building #2 and Building #3 will be paved so a pumper can reach the water and pump from the bay or cove. This was agreed upon by both parties during our teIephone conversation on July 7, 1986. Very truly yours, PQ:nr f Greenport Fire Department Stephen Shilowitz, A.I.A. 330 East 33rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 659-0242 CONSULTANT KOICHI NAGASAWA, 4-33 HIGASHI 4 CHOME, SHIBUYA KU, TOKYO, JAPAN Architect hh December 5, 1986 Re: PIPES COVE CONDOMINIUM Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer, I wish to thank you, the Board Members and the Secretary to the Board, for the recent resolution of approval which was granted to my project and for the long and difficult effort made on that behalf. With all due consideration of your very real concern for the health of the environment of the Town of Southold in particular and the entire North Fork in general, there should be no doubt in your mind that I share in that same concern. The resulting loss of one unit and the additional setbacks have vastly increased the challenge I face in succeeding. Success in our day and age is usually defined by monetary reward: I think you all know that I have not been so motivated but rather by my desire to provide a worthy addition to the general neighborhood in which I myself intend to reside. Again, my thanks to you all. Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 5, 1986 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz, AIA 330 East 33rd Street New York, NY 10016 Re: Amended site plan for Pipes Cove Condominium Dear Mr. Shilowitz: Enclosed is a copy of the corrected correspondence with regard to the above mentioned proposal. The resolution has been corrected to indicate the units approvedwith in the Town of Southold 0nly. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, cc: ~ilding Department %/Board of Appeals BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN UTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD M. S~hultze, Secretary  D T iLD' Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 2, 1986 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz, AIA 330 East 33rd Street New York, NY 10016 Re: Site Plan for Pipes Cove Condominium located at Sixth Street Dear Mr.-Shilowitz: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, November 24, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the amend- ed Site plan for Pipes Cove Condominium located at Sixth Street, Greenport/Southold for construction of 5 units (within the Town ) -- site plan dated as revised September 21, 1986; subject to: 1. Certification by the Building Department. It was noted that a variance has been received from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the building setbacks. When the Chairman has endorsed the site plans, we will forward one to you. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Board of Appeals Re: Stephen Shilowitz, Sixth St., Greenport Property Return of Building Department certification, change of zone, communication, Grade Pla~, 3-22-82; Drawings Al-A9, Sl-~c. Received file (including and other APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 November 21, 1986 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel 108 East Main Street, Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Appeal No. 3513 Stephen Shilowitz (Variance) Dear Mr. Angel: Enclosed please find a copy of the official findings and determination rendered last night by the Board of Appeals and filed this date with the Office of the Town Clerk concerning the above application. Please be sure their authorization documents as may be to return to the Building Department for of new construction, or for other written applicable. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Kowalski Enclosure By Linda Copy of Decision to: Lawrence M. Storm, Esq. Mr. Robert W. Strong Mr. Stephen Shilowitz Suffolk County Planning Commission Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Victor Lessard, Building Department NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE 15 HE~. EBY GI~V- EN, pursuant Zo Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will b~ held by the SOUTHOLD' TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall;. Main Road, $outhold; 1NY at a Regular M~ commencing 7:30 p.m. on TI4URSDAY, JU.L.Y 17, 1986 andas follows: 7:35 p,m;,Appeal NO. 3529- PAUL KELSCH., Variance to ~ the Zonlng~Ordinagt~ Arik~t~,'~ sion to construct d~l~,gddl0ofi to existing dwellingS(with'an ifil sufficient rearyard setback, at 405 Wendy Drive, Laurel, NY: County Tax Map Pa~:cel No. 1000-127-08-19. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3526- BRUCE AND SHIRLEY SIEVERMAN. Variance to the ~ming Ordinance, Article 111, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to ex. isling dwelling and tittaching an existing swiniming pool, leaving an insufficient setback from the southerly (side) property line on this corner 'l~t. Location of COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Trave~er-Watcbman once each week for .......................... weeks successively, commencing S;vorn to before me thru ............ ./..Z ..... dav of /.~ 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3428- LT;J'.~f'-,.'- ./ 19 d~>( BERTHA KUR¢,ZEWSKI. .... , ..... Variance to the Z~nJng Of 8:10 p.m. Ap~al No. 35D'- z dinance, Article III, Section ROSALIE GOWEN. Var~ace I00-31, Bulk and Parking Ploperty: 50 Aquaview Avenue i: to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- and Rocky Point Road, East i cie Ill, S~ction 100-31, Bulk Marion, NY; County Tax Mai> Schedule, fot approval of: (l) in. Parcel No, 1000-21.3.1. ' ~ ~ -- ...... ~ su,flclent Jot area, (2) msuffl. ' ',trent lot width, (3) Insufficient, RMIc~-dHA~q~jI~. ~ar~aDnc, ?t0L I, tChl~ Zoning Ordinance, Article iii, d mn~/'mn~^.~.~.aSecu°n 100-31 attd Section. i thecomersofZenaRoad, Capr Drive;~ ¢onstrucuono, an oe mtn excess of 30 sq. ;t.~i,P~l~l~ j ' ~:~',::CFk;l¢~'~aCpap~; having an insufficient se!~k{ ,] Lots 134 t53,154; County Tax from the front property line at ~ . Man Plugel No 1000 106-02 32 71o Cedar mari0 ,, 'i;Yi ' ' '' ' NY; County Tax Map Parcel NO. ;¢~J~!~ 1000-31-6-5.1...' 11:15, Ixm. Appeal No. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3531~. 3522-NORTH FORI{ ALBERT J~ BRENEISEN; BANCORP. Variance to th~ Variance to the ~aing Or.~' Zo~in8 Ordinance, Article VII dmance, Article ,V~.!. Sectio~. S~-'tton 100- 0(C)[2] for pernus- 100-119.2 (B) for p~rmission 16 ;5 rdoa to ins;all: {1) large on- construct pool deck, and fence : ;. pr~mises identifiCatkm sign in enclosure within 75 feet of mean' excess of the maximum height i:igh water along Dawn Lagoon; and width lequirementJ, and (2} 715 Dawn Drive, East Marioq~ i second on-premises identified- NY; County 'lhx Map Parcel No. . tion/directo~ sign, a~ promises 1000-35-5-16; Cleaves Point Sec- ~ ~ .:~kno~n as' 9025 Main Road; lion 111, Lot No. 71. ~, ~ Mattituck, NY: County T~x 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3521.., I~rcel No. 1000-122-6-020. ANDREW AND WILLIAM;i~ goJ~tng District: "B-Light GOODALE. Variance to tlS7 Bus,ess:' Zoning Ordinance, Article 111,~ 8~0 p.m. Appeal No. 3517; Section 100-31 for permission to' i; ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE reduce living area in preexistla8~~ ~'~ WI$SMAN Var daces o the nonconforming dWelling unit in. ' Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article this "B-I" General Busin~a Ill,., Section 100-31, Bulk Zoning District; to Iess thapg$0. Schedule for location of new sq. lt. Location of pro~t~': single-family dwelliog with 7655 Main Road, LaUrel, NY; t ! reduced sideyards,frontyard, and County 'Pax Map Parc~ No2 'rearyard setbacks; and (b) Art - 1000-122-6-30. I (or 30). 7"' ~ ' cie XI, Section I00-119.2(B) for 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3523s STEVE KALAI J IAN'. Variance to the ,Zoning ,Or~ ,~inance, Atqcl¢ 100-31, BUlk ana;Par[i~g Sch~ul~ for app~i of inaUf. ficient lot area ~ ~r~l No. 2 in tMs t~lot Oivi,'. sion/mmffl~t~ side of a pri~ fi~f-way tend~roff the ~;side of,~' Berg~ A~n~ MaUt~k. County ~ Map ~,~{.: location of new dwelling with reduced setback from highwate~ mark at Fordham Canal. Loca- tion of Property: 715 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-04-007.6 (riferred t~ as Lo[ "C" in prior subdivision records), Notary Public BARBARA FORBES No/a~-y Public, State of New York Schedule, for approval of insuf- ficient area and 'frontage (lot width) of two parcels in this pen- ding set-off division of land, located at the east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY: County Tax Map Parcels No. ~000-102-02-003 and 025. No. d~8068-;6 / 8:40 p.m. Appeal No 3513~ · Qualified.in aul'fo!k County ~STEPHEN SHILOWITZ'. Commisaon Expires x'c,? ~/ l~f Variance to the Zoning Or, '~ dinance, Article gl, Sectiofi] ]100-119.2{B) for permission ]construct condominium cornel ~plexes within 75 feet of --bulkhead and tidal water, at the west side pt' Sixth Str~'t, Green4 port. NY; Coun. ty.~.l~x Map ParcelNo. 1000.49-01-2~,L Zon- ing District: "M-Light Multi- pleY (Recessed from June 19, 1986). ~ 9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3510- RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER. Variance to locate pool, deck, and fanci~g within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal . water, at 100 McDonald'~Cro~. lng, Laurel. (Recessed fmm June. 19, 1986). 9:15 p.m. Appeal NO 3489; PAUL LEARY for R~ver~al of Building lnspe~or's IX*cision concerning property of FRANK · E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 S¢cond Street, New SuffolK. (Recessed from June 19, 1986~.. l'he Board of Appeals will hear at laid time and place all- persons or representatives desk, lng to be heard in each of the- above hearings. Writtan com~ ments may also be submitte0~ prior to !lie conclUSion of the subject hearing. For mom in/or- marion, please call 765-1809. Dated: July 2, 1986 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS' GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN IT-7/10/86(11) NOTICE OF HEARING NII'l'~C~ 18 IIEREBY GIVEN, I~.'~mnt to Section 287 of the T.wn Law and the Code of the T.wn of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by d~e SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meet- mg commencing at 7:30 p.m. on TIiURSDAY. JULY 17, 1986 and as follows: 7:35 p.m, Appeal No. 3529 - PAUl. KELSCH. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article I11, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to existing dwellingwith an insuffi- c~ent rearyard setback, at 405 Wendy Drive, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. airl I'ORK BANCORP. Variance to the Zoning Ordi- 1000-127-08-19. Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3526 ;';~fo~r.location of new singlc-lhmilv BItUCE AND SHIRLEY ~-~elling with reduced sideyard~, SIEVERMAN. Variance to the frontyard, and rearyard set- Zoning Ordinaqce, Article III, Se(Itoh 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to exi~t- mg dwelling and attaching an existing swimming pool, leaving an insufficient setback from the ~outberly/side) property line on Otis corner lot. Location of Prop- erty: 50 Aquaview Avenue and Rocky Point Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-3-1. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3528 . IRICHARD AND ALICE McMANUS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ltl, ~kctitm 100-31 and Section 100- ~ 31 ~ ,[ B', for approval of the con- backs; and lb1 Article X[, Section 100-119.2(B) for location of new dwelling with reduced setback from highwater mark at For- dham Canal. Location of Prop arty: 715 Gull Pond Lane, Green- porL NY; County Tax Map Ne. 1000-35-04-007.6 (referred to as Lot "C' in prior subdivismn cords). 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. :t,128 - BERTHA KURCZEWSKL Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nan., Article Ill, Sectim~ 100 31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for approval of insul~cient area and fi'enrage (lot widthl el t~o parcels in this pending set-of f di- vision of land, located at the easl STATE OFNEWYORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) MAcy Ellen ;e!!y of Greenport, In said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, e Weakly Newspaper, published et Graenport, 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 irt said Newspaper once each week for 1 10 weeks successively, commencing on the day of July 19 86 ~ / ~_, ~ ,~ Suffolk ~ ~ ~9860~,~ ~worn t~efore, me this / ~erm ~ ~/~9~ ,:ess of 30 sq. fl in area, having an insult]cient setback from the riehl property line at 710 Cedar l,ant, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Pazcel No. 1000-31-6- 51 7:50 pm Appeal No. 3531 - Variance to the Zoltilli Ordi- nance, Aflicle XI, ~ion l~- water along Dawn ~ff~n. 715 Zoning Ordinance, A~icle III, nonconforming dwelling unit in Arlicle Ill, ~ction 100-31, Bulk under Appeal No. 3450 for Vari- side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcels sO. 1000-11)2-02-003 ?mi 025 8:40 p.m. Appeal No 3513 TI~PHEN SHIL~,WITZ. Vari ~ anee to the Zoning Ordma,~nce,J Article XI, Section 100-119 ror permission to construct con-/ tominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water, at the west side ?f Sixth Street, Gre~npert, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-49-01-25.1. Zon- ing Di$trict: "M-Light Multiple:' See Legals, next page heard in each of the aboqc hi,al - TIlE SOUTttOLI) ToWN GEItARD P. GOEIIRINI;ER, CHAIBMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR, ,SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKt Southold Town,Board o£Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2.5 SOUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y. 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 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~J.~_ ~ G-ERARD P. GOEHR[NGER ~ CHAIRMAN Enclosure Linda .Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk NOTICE OF, HE~RINCIS NOTICE , l$~' HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant ~o Section 267 of the T~wn Law and the Code of the Town of South01d, the following p~blic hearings will be held by tbe SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF AP- PEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, ..~ NY at a Regular Meeting cota- mencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986, and a~ follow: 7:35 p.ta;. Appeal No. 3$40-MARK -AND LOR- RAINE LaROSA". Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to ~omtrua deck ad- dition at rear of ex~sting dwell- mg within 75 f.~e~ of ordinary ~- highwater markla~0n.g.,~0~ton Creek." located ~long the north side of Albo Drive, Laurel, NY; County .Tax Map. Parcel No. 1000-126-2-12. 7:40 p'.m, Appgal Nb. 3541-RIAL REALTY CORP. Variances to th~ Zoning Or- dinance, Article IlL' Section 100-31. Bulk Schedule, for ap- proval of insufficient lot width of three proposed parcel~ in this pending minor subdivision 'located at the northerly end of proposed right-of-way exten- ding from the north side of Oregon Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-95-1-3. Containing 47.0520 acres total. 7:50 p.m, Appeal No. 3533-JOHN BREDEMEYER. (Recessed from.~Angust 14, 1986). New dwelling with an in- sufficient setback from ordinary highwater mark. along Orient 7..~f'l · ~.m .,,Appea No., 3477-WILLIAM' ' , KATHERINE HEi~NS. (Re~: ed from August 14, 1986). In* sufficient area, width and depth of two proposed parcels. North side Main Road. Orient, NY; 1000-19-2-5 and 6. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3544-JAMES F. WARWICK. Variance to lift Condition of prior Z.B.A. Appeal No. 1729 rendered March 8, 1973 to allow new construction of a single- family dwelling ,,it pretalses located along the south side of Fasbender Avenue, Peconic, NY; Bailey Park Map filed September 26, 193.~, Subdivi- sion Lot No. II; Cou0ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-6-7. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3534-ROBERT WAD- DINGTON. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 111, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule. dition to existing building with setbacks, at 13175 Main Roadl Mattituck. NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.. 1000-140.03.038.,, "B-I" General .Business Zoning Dislrict.. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for .................... ~. ..... weeks successively, commencing on the ...................... Sworn to before me this .~ c~ ~ ..................... day of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public, State of New York No. 4806846 Qualified in Suffolk County Comrni~ion Expires ~ .~/ 19 J~'f :20 p.m. Appeal No~ 3550-JOSEPH ~ LINDA'~ SCHOENSTEIN. Variances t~ the Zoning Ordinance, Artlcle~[' (a) VI, Section 1~ for ~ff mission to exp~d non~nfo~: lng use of welding busings in this "B-Light Busing" Zoni~' District; (b) XI,: Sectioo I~-119.2(B) for ~ission ~o construct new bull~g ~ pand nonconfo~ng ~wel~ busings u~ Wit~n 75 f~ ~.,~ wetlands area, at Premise~' l~ted along the south side of' M~n Road, Gr~n~, NY[ County Tax Map Parcels No. 1~53-2-12, 13and 15; Lots 172, 173, 174, P~nic ~y Estates Map No. 658, and Map NO. 1124 as AmendS. 8:35 p.m. Appeal,No~ COURT. Varihnce to the ~n~ ~ ing Ordinance, A~icle Xl,~c- tion 1~I19.2(A) for ~rmh. sion to construct inground' swimmingpool with fence endosu~ ~d g~ witch I~ f~t of top of bluff or bank along Long Island ~und, at pr~i~ kno~ ~ ~10 Grand- vi~ Ddve, ~nt~ N~; Gr~d,' vl~ Estat~ Su~vision Lot No. 5, Map No. 7083; C~nty Tax Map Parcel No. 1~-14~3.9. fg~0 p:m. ~PPeai ~o.'~ 35!~-~PHEN SHILOW~Z. fRee,seal fro~ August 14, tion within 7~ r~ of ~lkh~ and tidal water West Side 6~th. Str~,= Gr~n~," NY; 1~4~1~2~A.. '.~ ~ · ~ The ~d of Aphis W~ hear at said time and ~ace all ~Mns or repre~ntativ~ desir- ing to b~ heard in each of the above hearing. ~ Writtea com- meats may al~ be ~ubmitted prior to the ~hclusion of the sub~t h~ring.~ Fo~ mo~ infor. marlon~ please eal[ 765- I Dated: A~gust.~ 19~. :~ -B~ ORDER OF THE souTHOLD TOWN G/ '~ARD~OF ~PEALS ERARD p~GOEHRiNGER ~#~ CHAIRMAN , Linda K0wahki, ~d ~ereta~ IT-8/28/86(6) Page 20A/T~e Suffol~ Tw~'Auoust 2~.1986 ~, Legal Notices NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBy GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the follow- lng public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meet- ing commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986, and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3540 - LaROSA. Variance to the Zon- ing Ordinance. Article XI, Sec- tion 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct de~.k addition at rear of ex/sting dwelling within 75 feet of ordinary highwater mark along "Horton Creek," lo- cated along the north side of Albe Drive, Laurel, N~; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-2. 12. 7:40 p,m. Appeal No. 3541 RIAL REALTY CORP. Vari- ances to the Zoning Ord/nanco, Article Ill, Section 100~1, Bulk Schodule, for approval of insuffi, clent lot width of three proposed parcels in this pend/ng minoy subd/vlsion located at the nortlx- eFly end of proposed right-of-way extending from the north side of Oregon Road, Mattituck, NY;~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-95-1-3, Conta/ning 47.0520 acres total. J 7:50 p.m. Appeal No~ g533 - Olin BREDF-,MEYEIL (Re- ces~ed from August 14, 1980). New dwelling with an insuffi- cient setl~ck from ordinary highwator mark along Orient Harbor. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3477'- WILLIAM . AND KATHERINE HEINS. sad from August 14, 1986). In- sufficient area, width and depth · of two proposed parcels. North Side Main Road, Orient,- NY; 1000-19-2-5 and 6. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3544 -- , JAMES F. WARWICK. Vari- ance to li/~ Condition of prior Z. HA. Appeal No. 1729 re- ndered March 8, 1973 to allow new construction of a single- family dwelling at premises lo- cated along the south side of Fasbender Avenue, Peconic, NY; Barley Park Map filed Sep- tember 26, 1932, Subdivision Lot #11; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~7-6-7. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3534 -- ROBERT WADDINGTO~/. Variance to the Zoning Ordi~ nance, Article IH, Section 100- 31, Bulk Schedule, for permis- sion to construct addition to existing building with insuffi- cient 'side and rear yard set- backs, at 13175 Main Road, Mat- tituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03~8. "E- l' General Buziness Zo _.n~ng Dis-~ JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN. Variances t~ (a) VI, Section 10060 for per- th/s "B-Light Eusin~s- Z~ing Dhstr/ct; (b) XI, Sect/on 100- sh-u~t n*~ h~Ming ~ expand use within 7~:f~t. from wetlands area, at pg~m/~e~ l~t~d ~]ong the so~th s/de of Main Road, Parcels No. 1000-53-2-12, 13 and Bay Estate~ Map No. 658, and 119.2(A) for permission to con- struct inground swimmingpool with fence enclosure and gazebo within 100 feet of top of bluff or · bank along Long Island Sound, at premises known as 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient. NY; Grandview Estates Subdivision Lot #5, Map No. 7083; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-0~- 39. /2~ 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 -X~ STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. /Re-,' cessed from August 14, 19861. Condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. West Side of 6t13 Street. Greenpert, NY; 1000-49~ 01-25.1. The Board of Appeals wilt hear at said time and place alt persons or repre~entative~ desir. ing to be heard in each of tho above hearings. Written corr~ mento may also be submitted prior to-the ~nclusion of tbe subject hearing. For more infor- mation, please, call 765-1809. / Dated: Augu~ 22, 19~6. ~ STATE OF NEW YORK ) ! SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Katherine Bondarchuk ofGreenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, s Weekly Newspaper, published et Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, end that the Notice of which the annexed is · printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks successively, commencing on the 2 8 dayof Auq'~]~ ~- 19 86 _ . . ,; . . BY ORDER Sworn to be~r~ me this 4/~ ~. '-~ ,:- ~ 0FTHESOUTHOLD ~-~ TOWN BOARD dayof (~/~t~fo_ 19.(~.~ NAN · OF APPEALS . /~, MARY K. O[{~ CHAIRMAN ~*~ ~SutIoI~ ~un~ ~. ~9~ Lin~ Kowalski, Te~m Expit~ feb~9~ ~a~ ~re~ - 1TA2~5333 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y. 11971 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 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~u..~ ~ Gl[RARD P. GOEHR[NGER ~ CHAIRMAN Enclosure Linda 'Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk 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 public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986, and as follow: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3540 - .M~..RK AND.,~ORRAINE LaROSA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100- 119.2(B) for permission to construct deck addition at rear of existing dwelling within 75 feet of ordinary highwater mark along "Horton Creekl~" located along the north side of Albo Drive, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 126-2-12. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3541 - RIAL REALTY CORP. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot width of three proposed parcels in this pending minor subdivision located at the northerly end of proposed right-of-way extending from the north side of Oregon Road, ~attitgck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-95-1-3. Containing 47.0520 acres total. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3533 - JOHN BREDEMEYER.(Recessed from August 14, 1986). New dwelling with an insufficient setback from ordinary highwater mark along Orient Harbor. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3477 - WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS. (Recessed from August 14, 1986). Insufficient area, width and depth of two proposed parcels. North Side ~ain Road, Orient, NY; ~000-19-2-5 and 6. Page 2 - Notice of Hearings Regular Meeting of September 11, Southold Town Board of Appeals 1986 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3544 - JAMES F. WARWICK. Variance to lift Condition of prior Z.B.A. Appeal No. 1729 rendered March 8, 1973 to allow new construction of a single-family dwelling at premises located along the south side of Fasbender Avenue, Peconic, NY; Bailey Park Map filed September 26, 1932, Subdivision Lot 911; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-6-7. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3534 - ROBERT WADDINGTON. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct addition to existing building with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks, at 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-038. "B-l" General Business Zoning District. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3550 - JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) VI, Section 100-60 for permission to expand nonconforming use of welding business in this "B-Light Business" Zoning District; (b) XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet from wetlands area, at premises located along the south side of Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-53-2-12, 13 and 15; Lots 172, 173, 174, Peconic Bay Estates Map No. 658, and Map No. 1124 as Amended. 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3538 - JEFFREY BETTANCOURT. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(A) for permission to construct inground swimmingpool with fence enclosure and gazebo within 100 feet of top of bluff or bank along Long Island Sound, at premises known as 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient, NY; Grandview Estates Subdivision Lot #5, Map No. 7083; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-02-3.9. Page 3 - Notice of Hearings Regular Meeting of September 11, Southold Town Board of Appeals 1986 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. (Recesed from August 14, 1986). Condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. West Side of 6th Street, Greenport, NY; 1000-49-01-25.1. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings. Written~mments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: August 22, 1986. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS: Please publish THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1986 and forward two affidavits of publication on or before Septem- ber 2nd to: Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies to the following 8/22/86: Personal Delivery: Suffolk Times, Inc. L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. By Mail 8/22/86: Mr. and Mrs. Mark LaRosa, Box 431, Southold, NY 11971 Mrs. Sophia Greenfield, as agent for Rial Realty Corp. P.O. Box 1505, Southold, NY 11971 Rial Realty Corp., 20 Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. as Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. W. Heins P.O. Box 744, Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. James Warwick, Box 367, Peconic, NY 11958 Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Kelly, 145 E. 27th St, NY, NY 10016 Mr. Peter C. Walsh, Mill Road, Peconic, NY 11958 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. as Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. J. Bredemeyer Box 1424, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 William Moore/Richard Lark, Attorneys, Box 973, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Richard J. Cron, Esq. for Mr. and Mrs. for Mr. Robert Waddington James Navas Stephen R. Angel, Esq. for Mr. and Mrs. J. Schoenstein and'S. Shilowi Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901 Swim King Pools, Inc. as agent for Mr. J. Route 25A, Rocky Point, NY 11778 Mr. J. Bettancourt, 2410 Grandview Drive, Bettancourt Orient, NY 11957 Lawrence Storm, Esq. for Cove Circle Association (Re: S. Shilowitz) 33 West Second Street, Box 398, Riverhead, NY 11901 Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD ' MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBE~RT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel 108 East Main Street, Box 279 Riverhead, NY ll901 August 18, 1986 Re: Appeal No. 3513 Stephen Shilowitz (Variance) Dear Mr. Angel: This letter will the above matter has 1986 Regular Meeting. confirm that the public hearing in been recessed until our September ll, During the last hearing, the applicant was asked to consider submission of an alternative plan (or plans) that may be feasible for him which would al.low more of a setback from the tidal water boundaries add n_qt affecting the "building envelopes" approved by the vari_ous agencies involved. The September llth hearing is expected to begi. n at 8:20 p.m. and will again be limited to di. scussions and written submissi, o~s by both attorneys. lk CC: Yours very truly, CHAIRMAN Lawrence Storm, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley WALTER H. BURDENIII PI PES COVE GREENPORT, NEW YORK: 11944 August 16, 1986 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: I wish to submit the following regarding the Shilowitz request for variance set back in the "Pipes Cove" condominium project. I reside at and owmproperty approximately three hundred feet to the west of subject project on Pipe's Cove. I am concerned for not only my own property but a}so additional property contiguous with the project property in which I have an interest should any variance be granted to the set back required by code. Enclosed please find six photographs of the project property taken from the east, northeast, north and northwest. These photographs were taken during storm "Nelson" which occurred several years ago. Several points should be noted from these photographs. i - Depth of water over property. The property is completely flooded from seaward with between five and seven feet of water on it's southerly portion. The bulkhead at ~hat time i§ totally submerged. 2 - Sea condition. Fortunately the wind direction was from the east allowing shelter and no substantial sea condition existed. Given circumstances akin to hurricane Gloria with winds in excess of ninety mph from the south, the scene here would have been dramatically different. Current new bulkhead construction as it is proceeding is at basically the same finished level of preceding bulkhead structure. This too would be submerged under conditions similar to "Nelson", exposing the filled upland to sea conditions as they might exist. My concern is this. Should you allow any variance from code setback requirements, you would allow structures to be built in a position where the potential for undermining is high and damage to the site substantial. Due to the level of construction elevation, run off of fill and possibly debris could endanger adjoining properties under certain storm conditions. It is my personal opinion that the unique nature and position of this property'is not suitable for this type of construction situated anywhere from five to twenty feet of open water. In reality, the setback currently required by code may not be realistic in this case (75 feet). continued page 2 page 2 WALTER H. BURDENIII PI PES COVE GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 Combine the storm levels of storm "Nelson" which were actually taken as the tide was receding and the direction/force combination of wind during hurricane Gloria and a potential hazard could be created should this variance be allowed in any fo~llo I do have other photographs of adjoining properties, streets etc. taken at the same time and would be glad to provide these should you wish. Our waterfront is a fragile but invaluable asset both residentially and commercially. Irresponsible developement of this asset affects many areas of our way of life here on Eastern Long Island and the developement cannot be reversed once in ~lace. I ask your board to carefully consider the consequences of allowin¢ such a variance which in effect would nullify a law which is a step in the rig~ direction of preserving one of our most valuable assets. Ygurs ~ Y ~ly, Walt~rt~. Burden, III enclosures W~LLIAM W. ESSEK$ ~VlARCIA Z. HeFTeR CHARLES R. CUDD¥ JANe ANN R. ~RATZ ESSEK$, HEFTER, CUDD¥ & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW I08 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. iIgOI (516) 369-I700 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWA¥ P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. II 976 Gerard p. Goehringer, chairman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 August 7, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Re: Appeal No. 3513, Stephen Shilowitz Dear Mr. Goehringer: I am enclosing the following documents which you requested in your letter of July 21, 1986: (a) Three prints of a survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. and dated August 4, 1986. (b) Certified copy of deed dated May 20, 1986 from Stephen Shilowitz to Yumi Realty Corp. recorded in Liber 10049 of conveyances at page 566 - this is the deed discussed at the last hearing. If you recall, Mr. Shilowitz indicated that he is the sole shareholder, officer and director of Yumi Realty Corp. (c) Deed dated March 24, 1983 from Armando Cappa and James p. Homan to Stephen Shilowitz recorded in Liber 9336 of conveyances at page 296..., ' v (d) Letters patent dated March 15, 1983 from the State of New York from Armondo Cappa and James P. Homan recorded in Liber 9336 of conveyances at page 293. ~ . .-; (e) Two prints of a site plan showing where Mr. Shilowitz has arranged for staking - the areas to be staked are circled and designated by capital letters. It is my understanding that the staking either has been accomplished or will be accomplished within the next day or so by the office of Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. You also requested written confirmation from the village of Greenport indicating that the site will be served by public water and public sewer. This document will be submitted to you under separate cover. Page Two August 7, 1986 If you recall, at the last hearing you requested that Mr. Shilowitz provide you with confirmation of certain design characteristics regarding the bulkhead. In this connection, I enclose an original letter-certification prepared by Mr. Shilowitz as a registered architect. If you need any additional information or certifications, please let me know and we will p£ovide it. Finally, I will be on vacation next week and, therefore, will not be able to attend the final hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 14, 1986. I have made arrangements for my partner Charles R. cuddy to be present on Mr. Shilowitz's behalf. During the period of time that I am gone prior to the hearing date, I request that any questions you may have wanted to direct to me be directed to Mr. cuddy. Thank you for your consideration. SRA:mg ver~ tru,ly yours, Encl. xc: Mr. Stephen Shilowitz WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER CHARLES R. CUDDY STEPHEN I~, ANOEL JAMES HEFFRON ESSEKS, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL ~08 EAST MAIN STREET F~IVERHEAD, N.Y. 1190~ P. O. Box 570 May 22, 1986 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz Dear Board Members: At the request of six prints of a typical Greenport. SRA:mg the board's secretary, we are delivering to you floor plan for units at Pipes Cove, V~t~r~ly yours, ~P~n R-~An~ Encl. Offer, rs NEW YORK 11944 August 6, lOS& Mr. Stephen Shilowitz 330 East 33rd. Street New York, N.Y; 10016 UTILITY OFFICE TFL (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 Re: Pipes Cove Dear Steve, The Village of Greenport, Utility Department is ready, willing and able to serve your public water and public sewage supply needs at your proposed condominium project in Greenport. You will be required to meet all the rules and regulations of the departments before service can be assured. If I can be of further service, please contact me. Yours truly, - James I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities dIM:lkm cc: George Hubbard, Mayor Menl~,andum from.... Southold Town Board of Appeals TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 765-1809 Date: 8/6/86 From: MEMO FOR THE FILE 7/31/86 - Tel. call from Mr. Shilowitz. Surveyor will try to have staked by 8/8 and board can expect at that time for viewing. 8/6/86 - Tel. call from Mr. Angel. He will arrange for delivery of items with letter as requested in board's letter tomorrow or Friday. He is going on vacation Thursday p.m., and Mr. Cuddy will be handling during his absence. Asked that Jerry call Mr. Cuddy on Mon. or Tues. of next week (since Jerry is away on vacation) about VG building permit status and construction in VG. Also, VG contract to be submitted at a later date or at hearing 8/14. ¢3 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, .JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RnAD- E~TATIE RE)AD 25 [SE)UTHE)LD, L.I., N.Y. llCJ'T1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 August 3, 1986 Lawrence Storm, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley 33 West Second Street, Box 398 Riverhead, NY ll901 Re: Appeal No. 3513 - Stephen Shilowitz (Variance) Dear Mr. Storm: Pursuant to our conversation this past Friday, transmitted herewith is one complete set of the transcript of the public hearing held July 17, 1986 in the above matter. Also enclosed as requested by Mr. Strong is a copy of the Greenport Fire Department's letter dated July 16, 1986. Please forward a check in the amount of $6.25 in payment of the above photocopies to the Southold Town Clerk. Yours very truly, Enclosures Linda F. Kowalski APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P, GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWlCKI Southoid Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATr' ROAD 25 SOUTHr'ILD, L.I., N.Y. 11~71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 July 21, 1986 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel 108 East Main Street, Box 279 Riverhead, NY ll901 Re: Appeal No. 3513 - Stephen Shilowitz (Variance) Dear Mr. Angel: As you know, the public hearing on this matter has been recessed until our Meeting of Thursday, August 14, 1986, which will permit oppositions' cou.nsel to submit, his testimony for ten minutes, and rebuttals, if .any, for ten minutes. The I time of the hearing is expected to be approximately 8:45 p.m.; subsequent confirmation of the exact time will be forwarded to you by way of a copy of the legal notice in the near future. In the-interim, we request' the following as early as may be possible: ~'~ (a) thr~e original survey maps of most recent date, if ~?_ available [or survey mapped by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. of · October 27, 1981]; /~,~2~.~ (b) copy o'f current deeds; ~ (c) wr'itte'n confirmation that the premises will be ~ serviced by city water and/or city sewer utilities .and a copy F~.~i of the wri.tten Village agreement or contract. .~.~ (d) staking Jf all corners along the bulkhead areas of ~J~<, the proposed buildings .[including decks] and the 50-foot rear- 1~.'~' yard setback lin'e. ~. ' Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If you Page 2 Stephen R. Al~qjel, Esq. Matter of Stephen Shilowitz (Variance) July 21, 1986. have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. lk CC: Lawrence Storm, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Strong Yours very t~rul~ J GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN THOMAS A. TWOMEY. JR. STEPHEN B. LATHAM JOHN F. SHEA, ill CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY AMY B. TURNER LAWRENCE M. STORM' MAUREEN T. LICCIONE *ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT AND FLORIDA TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA ~,~ KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET ]:~IVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 51E-727-2190 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. N,Y. 11937 516-324-1200 July 15, Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11871 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz Dear Sir: Our firm has just been asked by members of the Cove Circle Association to review the above application for the purpose of appearing on their behalf before the ZBA. We have not yet been able to review any materials and will be unable to do so before your scheduled July 17, 1986 meeting. Due to prior commitments, we will be unable to attend this meeting. In light of the above we respectfully request that this matter be adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting to permit adequate review and, if necessary, presentation. Thank you for your courtesy. LS/drd cc: Cove Circle Association Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOENRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, .IR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI 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 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_ v e ry~u.. ~__ G'ERARD P. GOEHR~NGER ~' CHAIRMAN Enclosure Linda Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk 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 public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3536 - GEORGE AND PAT BROWN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduction of existing nonconforming sideyard setback, at 150 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-136-1-3. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3477 - WILLIAM-AND KATHERINE HEINS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels in this proposed division or set-off of land located along the north-side of Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-19-2-5 and 6. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3520 - THOMAS SHALVEY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels in this proposed division or set-off of land located along the south side of Case Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-116-2-15 and 16. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3532 - ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE BURNS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section6 100-30(C) and 100-32, for permission to construct accessory tennis court in the frontyard area, at 3525 Private Road #13 (right-of-way extending off the end of Ruth Road), Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-105-1-4. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3433 - GAIL DESSIMOZ and MICHAEL RACZ. Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-a, over private right-of-way known as Hallock Lane and referred to as Private Road #10, extending off the north side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York,(over and along land.s of Charles Simmons and Edward Harbes). County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-112-1-7 & 8, and to Parcel No. 1000-112-1-4. Page 2 - Notice of Hearings August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3530 - RAYMOND T. GOODWIN. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (1) Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct kitchen addition with an insufficient sideyards; to construct setback from Bay Boulevard, westerly sideyard setback and insufficient total (2) Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B) for permission kitchen and deck additions with an insufficient the highwater mark along Peconic Bay, at 4450 Peconic Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-4-22.2. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3533 - JOHN AND JEANNE BREDEMEYER. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to locate single-family dwelling structure within 75 feet of ordinary highwater mark along Orient Harbor. location of Property: west Side of Bay Avenue, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-26-1-8. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3539 - MICHAEL HERBERT. Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast use, "an owner- occupied building, other than a hotel, where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three rooms. Location of Property: 795 Pike Street, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 140-2-23. Zoning District: "A" Residential and Agricultural. 8:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3442 JOHN J. NEWMAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct additions to dwelling within 75 feet of high water and existing bulkhead along James Creek, at 430 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-144-5-29.1 and 30. 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3535 NORTH FORK FRIENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to use premises for a special fund-raising event in conjunction with fireworks display, at premises of W.F. and T.A. LaMorte, 895 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-70-13-20 (20.1 to 20.21, inclusive). Page ~ - Notice of Hearings August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of APpeals 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3478 BECKY JOHNSTON. Variances for: (1) Building Inspector to issue building permit allowing existing structure to be weatherized, prior to final 280-a access approval, and (2) approval of access in accordance with New York Town Law, Section 280-a, over private right-of-way extending from the northerly end of Bridge Lane Extension and Oregon Road, over lands of Bokina,i~dentified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-73-2-4, to premises of Johnston, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-73-2-1. 9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct condominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water, at the west side of Sixth Street, Greenport, NY; 1000-49-01-25.1. Zone District: "M-Light Mul- tiple'~ Residence. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: July 17, 1986. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ATTENTIO~ NEWSPAPERS: Please publish Thursday, July 31, 1986 and forward two affidavits of publication on or before August 5th to: Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies to the following 7/28/86: Personal Delivery: Suffolk Times, Inc. L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. By Mail: Mr. Richard O. Kunst, 1745 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue for GEORGE AND PAT BROWN Mr. and Mrs. George Brown, 150 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. as Attorney Mr. and Mrs. William Heins Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Burns for Mr. and Mrs. William Heins, Main Road, Orient, NY 11957 Mr, and Mrs. Arthur Burns, 3525 Private Road #13, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. J~ Douglas Peix, 208 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010 for RACZ Gail Dessimoz an~ Michael Racz, 208 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010 Charles Matthews, Esq., Box 800, Huntington, NY 11743 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. as Attorney Mr. and Mrs~ Raymond T. Goodwin Mr. and Mrs. John Bredemeyer Mr. and Mrs. John J. Newman for Michael J. Hall, Esq. as Attorney for Becky Johnston Stephen R. Angel, Esq. as Attorne~ for Stephen Shilowitz Lawrence Storm, Esq. as Attorney for R. Strong and others Mr. and Mrs. Robert Strong, Woodmere address WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HefTEr ChARLeS I~. CUDDY STEPHen R. Ang£L JAMES HEFFRON ESSEKS, HEFTER, CUDDY F.. ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW i08 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 ~:~VERHEAD, N.Y. II90~ (516) 369-1700 WATER Mill OFFICE ~10NTAU K HIGHWAY P. O. BOX 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. il976 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 May 19, 1986 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz Dear Board Members: I enclose copies of the following in connection with the above captioned application: 1. Deed dated March 24, 1983 recorded in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk in Liber 9336 cp 296 conveying title to applicant Stephen Shilowitz. 2. Grant from the State of New York dated March 15, 1983 recorded in Liber 9336 cp 293 of the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, which grant was included in the deed description. These documents should be added to the file in the above. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. SRA:mg Encl. ~ Il CONSULT~ YOUR I,~'YER BFJOI~ SIGNING THIS INSTIIUMENT--THI~,-INST*~MEI~T SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYIRS ONL¥~ I · ' ' '' Tills ~iDF~ made Se 24 d~y of March , ~neteen hundred and exghty-three [ ARMANDO CAPPA residing .at Mai~R_Q. ad, Peconic, New York I and JAMES P. HOMAN, reslding ~tillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York \X MAP (;NATION 1000 O0 )2 50~1 ;t. 1001 '007 O0 party of the first part, and STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, residing at 330 East 33rd Street, New York, New York party of the second part, W'I]NE.S..q~-i-ti, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten ($10.00) ............. ............................................................. dollars, lawful money of the United States. and other good and valuable considerationpald by the party of the second pan, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the Second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate. lying and being ~ at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Sixth Street at the southeasterly corner of land nor or formerly of Greenhalgh; / THENCE South 07 degrees 18 minutes 40 seconds ~est, along the westerly side of Sixth Street, 230.00 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; THENCE South 29 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West, along the last mentioned land, 86.08 feet to a point; THENCE South 43 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West, into the waters of Pipes Cove, 100 feet to a point; THENCE North 46 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West, 338.30 feet to a point; THENCE North 33 degrees 43 minutes 20 seconds East, 101.47 feet to land now or formerly of Walter N. Burden, late of DiNinzio; THENCE North 47 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East, along the last mentioned land, 130.38 feet to land now or formerly of Alexander and Harriet Scott; THENCE South 32 degrees 41 minutes 20 seconds East, along the last mentioned land and along land nor or formerly of Lewis W. and Edith P. Greenhalgh, 235.24 feet to the westerly side of Sixth Street, the point or,~lace of BEGINNING. _ 333 REAL ESTATE' t.TI ANSFER TAX 'TOC~-I'i-I~r.,R with all right, title and interest, if any, of the ~)arty of the first part in and to any Streets .and roads abutting the above described premise.s to the~ center lines thei'enf, TO~:.l'l'l~..R with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises, TO HAV~ AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. Ar~ID the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anythin~ whereby the said premises have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the ~ame first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the sa.me {or any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read *'parties" whenever the sense of this indemure $o requires. IN '~ls-l~II?..~$ '~l-l~..Ol:'~ the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day $.nd year first above written. STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK) SS,: On the twenty-fourth day of March, 1983, before me personally came IRVING PRICE to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and to me known to be the attorney-in-fact of JAMES P. HOMAN and ARMANDO CAPPA, the individuals described in, and who by said attorney-in-fact executed said instrument, and duly acknowledged that he executed the same as the act and deed of said JAMES P. HOMAN and ARMANDO CAPPA by virtue of a power of attorney dated /~ ~.6~_/~-~and intended to be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk simultaneously herewith. / Notary Pu~c / On tl~ day'd 19 ,,before ~ personally came . -- to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that STATE OF NEW 'fORl~ COUNT~ OF ss: On the day of 19 , before me personally came to me known, who, being_by me duly sworn, did depose and say that hc resides atNo. ; that he is the of , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. the day of 19 , before me pers.~na~y came to me known to be the individual described in and who ,.xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the sam~ ITATE O~ NEW¥ORK, COUNT¥OF ~n the day of 19 , before me personally came . the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. ; that he knows to b~ the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. ~atllain anb ~alt TITIENO. T.G. T1281-2414 t, ARMANDO CAPPA AND JAMES P. HOMAN TO STEPHEN SHILOWITZ ' - TITLE GUARANTEE- NEWYORK ATZCOR COMPAN~ SECTION BLOCK LOT COUNTY OR TOWN TAX BILLING ADDRESS Recorded Al Request of The Tflle Guarantee Company RETURN BY MAIl, TO: Norman J. Sloane, Esq. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 345 Park Avenue New York, New York 10154 Zip No. eople of the tate of ork, race of . rtt allb Jllbtptltbtltt, TO ALL TO ~HOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING: ~n0W ~t, That pursuant to Article 6, Section 75, subdivision 7 of the Public Lands Law, and Findings of the Deputy Commissioner of General Services dated March 15 , 1983, and in consideration of the sum of Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500.00), lawful money of the United States of America, paid by Armando Cappa and James P. Homan, residing at Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, we have given and granted and by these presents do give and grant unto the said ARMANDO CAPPA and JAMES P. HOMAN, the owners of the land adjacent to the ~ landhereinafter described, their grantees or successors in interest, the following described premises: q Ail that certain parcel of land now or formerly under he waters of Pipes Cove, situate in the Village of Greenport, ~'own of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the original high water line established February 18, 1874, said point of beginning being distant seven hundred eight and forty eight hundredths feet from the intersection of the westerly side of Sixth'Street with the southerly side of a private road, fifty feet wide, also being the westerly extension of the southerly side of Clark Street; running thence from the point of beginning, the following four courses and distances into the waters of Pipes Cove; 1) South twenty-nine degrees-five minutes-forty seconds- west, five and seventy-eight hundredths feet. 2) South forty-three degrees-thirty minutes-West, one hundred feet. 3) 4) North forty-six degrees-thirty minutes-West, one hundred sixty-five and fifty-six hundredths feet. North thirty-two degrees-thirty seconds east, one hundred forty-four and twenty-six hundredths feet to the original high water line as mentioned; thence easterly along the original high water line South thirty-five degrees-fifty-nine minutes-thirty seconds east, one hundred ninety-six and sixteen hundredths feet to the point and place of beginning. REAL ESTATE APR Z )963 SUFFCLK IN WITNESS WHERJ?X)F, our Deputy Commissioner of General Sert~ice$ bas executed these letters patent in our .4me this 15thday o;~ March , 19 83 RICHA~ ,J. V~ Z~DT Deputy CO~S~ON~ OP G~N~ I hereby certily that the Great Seal of the State of New York was hereto a~xed on the 16 th day o/ March , 19 83 .................................. Jame~ C. Aube, Spec£al Apprm, ed ~ to torm this !...~.... day ROBERT ABRAMS Attorney General By .............. Assiitant Attorney General he People of the State of New York LMAND0 CAPPA and J~4ES P. HOMAN L I'TERS PATENT STATE OF NEW YORK Department of State March 23, 1983 Recorded in Book of Patents 86 76 o .................................. at page ................................ GAIL S. SHAF~ER Secretary of S-t~te Mrs. Lillian COhntryman / C '~' t~lt ~'~./c,,s.s, 41£i_,._~ ,..o_ ..,-, c,_ 'J'-~-~ ?/-.' h-, (u'--~, 7'0-/c ST-A-T-E-OF-NEW-YO R K OF FICa--OF.GENERAL SERVICES A LBAN-~.Y~. ~12242 ... ;~085 APR ~ ;ql: ,Il; CI.Ei~K OF SUFFOLK COUNTY Southold Town Board of Appeals N1AIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOE~iRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI~, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWJCKI September 15, 1986 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel 108 East Main Street, Box 279 Riverhead, NY ll901 Re: Appeal No. 3513 Stephen Shilowitz (Variances) Dear Mr. Angel: This letter will confirm the following our understandings during the September ll, in the above matter: in accordance with 1986 public hearing (a) today we did receive six sketched prints with the setbacks and other information as requested from the applicant; (b) tomorrow you will be furnishing the Latham, Shea and Kelley with one print of the and correspondence; Firm of Twomey, modified print, (c) the Firm of Twomey, Latham, respond theret, o in writing within one Firm with one copy of their brief and Shea and Kelley will week, providing your correspondence; (d) your Firm will respond in writing on or before September 25, 1986, providing their Firm with one copy of your brief and correspondence; (e) there will be no additional oral testimony, and the public hearing will be officially concluded the week after receiving all of the above, to wit: October 2, 1986. It is requested, however, that both Firms furnish our office with seven copies of each written submission, which will be distributed as follows: one to each of the five Page 2 September 15, 1986 To: Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Re: Appeal No. 3513 S. Shilowitz board members, one for referral County Department of Planning, permanent file, by our office to the Suffolk and one to be retained in our Yours very truly, lk cc: Lawrence M. Storm, Esq. GERARD P, GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN M~orandum .... from Southold Town Board of Appeals TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N,Y. 11971 765-1809 Date: 9/] 5/86 To: Z.B.A. Members Attached is the requested site plan with all setbacks and sq. ftg. of dwelling units which was received early this morning. Mr. Shilowitz asks whether it is possible to render a determination at our October 2, 1986 meeting. Linda Stephen Shilowitz, A.I.A. Architect 330 East 33rd Street New York, NY 10016 September 15, 1986 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25. Southold, NY 11972 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith are six (6) copies of the site plan drawings ( previously submitted to you in time for the last Public Hearing on September 11, 1986 indicating possible revisions to the plan as suggested in a letter from the Chairman to my attorney, Stephen Angel ) revised again to indicate set-back dimensions and square- footage of all units on the Southold side of the site as per the request of the Chairman made at that meeting. As you are aware, I offered to provide that information by placing it 'upon the then-submitted drawings "on-the-spot ", moments after the Chairman made his request ( the information was simple to provide ) but I was denied permission to do so. I am therefore presenting this additional information upon the revised drawings ( latest date 9-12-86 ) at the next earliest time available to me, this day, September 15, 1986. I trust that the Board will make its determination regarding my application no later than the October 2, 1986 Public Hearing to which the matter has been assigned by the Chairman. Stephen S~ilowitz ' - v - ~ ~ c.c.: Stephen Angel, Attorney Bernard H. Greene, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Attorney ES~SeKS, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGE:~' COUNSELORS AT LAW P. 0, BOX 279 P, O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N,Y. 11976 {516) 726-6633 Lawrence Storm, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley, Esqs. 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 September 16, 1986 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz, Town of Southold, Zoning Board of Appeals Dear Mr. Storm: Delivered with this letter is a set of plans last dated 9/12/86 which shows the information requested by Mr. Goehringer at the last zoning board of appeals hearing. It is my understanding that you will prepare written comments to this plan and submit them to me and the board on or before Tuesday, September 23, 1986. Very truly yours, Stephen R. Angel SRA:mg Encl. xc: Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Stephen Shilowitz ,JANE ANN R. KRATZ E$$EK$, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW P. O. Box 279 September 11, WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. 0. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y, 11976 //- ', 1986 Southold zoning Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11972 Re: Application of Stephen shilowitz Dear Board Members: We enclose eight prints of a revised plan. Please be advised that this plan is being submitted to the board for discussion purposes only and is not to be considered an amendment of the application. It is submitted in addition without prejudice to our client's rights. · Angel SRA:mg Encl. 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. 11CJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 September 9, 1986 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel 108 East Main Street, Box 279 Riverhead, NY ll901 Re: Appeal No. 3513 - Stephen Shilowitz (Variances) Dear Mr. Angel: Transmitted herewith for your record is a copy of an evaluation report received today from the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District concerning the above project. Also, we are in receipt of two prints of a sketched map showing the elimination of one dwelling unit and amended setbacks which have been furnished by Mr. Samuels today. Mr. Samuels has indicated that at least seven original prints would be furnished for the board members during or before Thursday's hearing. Please be sure to include the setback distances of both buildings at each of the six corners having less than the required 75-ft. setback. Yours very truly, Enclosure cc: Lawrence Storm, Esq. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER A!RMAN,~x .. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK {DETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE September 8, 1986 STANLEY A. PAUZER DISTRICT MANAGER Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer~ Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer'. In reference to your request for our evaluation of Appeal No. 3513 - Stephen Shilowitz (Variances), be advised that a site inspection was conducted on Sept- ember 4, 1986. At this time the site was observed to be almost devoid of vege- tation except for annual weeds. Soils of the site are mapped as Riverhead and Maven soils, graded; however, a soil boring found the soils to be disturbed-sand fill. The site is low lying, fairly level, and approximately 2-3 feet above mean sea level. The major limitations regarding development of this site would be flooding and a high water table. Since the elevation map and site plan indicate that sewage would be connected to an existing treatment system and that the site would be filled to an elevation of 10-11 (M.S.L.), these limitations would be overcome. Filling the site to an elevation of 10-11 will create fill heights of almost 8 feet in some locations. To alleviate future problems with differential settlement, a well-graded fill material must be used. The fill should be put down in 6-8 inch lifts and thoroughly compacted at optimum moisture level. Another potential problem noted from the site plan is the steep slope which would be created along the north property line from the east end of the fence to just west of Sixth Street. This slope would be approximately 2.5:1 or 4~ on the west end and 1:1, 10~ toward the middle. Since the entrance road is adjacent to and at the top of the slope~ a flatter more stable slope or retaining wall should be proposed. A well vegetated, maximum slope of 3:1 would be adequate. Special precautions should be planned for during construction and until permanent vegetative cover is established~ to control soil erosion on the slope. I hope this information will be beneficial to you. If you require any additional in- formation please contact our office. Sincerely, Senior District Technician 127 EAST MAIN STREET RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK11901 {~16) 727-2315 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RnAD-STATE: RnAD 2=` =`OUTHnLD, L.I., N.Y. llcJ'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 August 22, 1986 Mr. Stanley A. Pauzer, District Manager SQffolk County Soil & Water Conservation 127 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Appeal No. 351;3 - Stephen Shilowitz (Variances) Dear Mr. Pauzer: We have an application pending for the proposed location of new cQpdominium .comp]exes upon property locate~ at. the westerly end of.Si, xth Street, near the Village of Greenport, in the Town of Southold, which requires variances from our minimum requirement of 75 feet from the bulkhead and tidal water. Enc']osed is a copy of the elevation map and Ju]y ], 1982 slte p]an under consideration, which .indicates proposed ~setbacks of 7..4± feet from the most northwes~er]y corner,- and 20 feet f[gm the southerly property line at the closest poin~s~ M~y'we ask your evaluation of this proposal? The pub]ic hearing has been recessed Until our Septemben ll.~h meeting.. If additional information is needed, please don't hesitate to call.. Thank you for your time and assistance.. Yours very truly., ' lk Enclosures GERARD P. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER E$$EK$, HeFTeR, CUDDY ~ ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW P. O. Box 279 September 25, 1986 Gerard P. Goehringer, chairman and Members of the zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y, 11976 ~516) 7~6 6633 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz Dear Mr. Goehringer and Members of the Board: As you know, we are the attorneys for applicant Stephen Shilowitz, who has applied for a variance of Section 100-119.2B of your town's code. I have written this letter to summarize our comments and respond to the arguments advanced by our opposition. Our opposition's various positions have been summarized in a letter by Lawrence M. Storm dated September 22, 1986. Our comments are as follows. ALTERATION OF PLAN The first argument advanced by Mr. Storm relates to the submission by applicant, just prior to the last hearing date of an alternate plan. As you know, this alternate plan reduces the number of units and increases the setback from the bulkhead line. I have read Mr. Storm's letter several times but have been unable to ascertain his precise objection to the submission and consideration by your board of this alternative. He states that he "strenuously object[s] to the manner in which" the alternative was "presented". In order to make your record perfectly clear, the alternative was presented in response to oral and written requests of the board. It was submitted with the understanding it would be considered, along with other submissions, by the board in the course of making a determination on the application. It should be noted that even · PagH Two September 25, 1986 though the alternative is different than the plan originally submitted with the application, the board has authority to review and consider it. For example, in Reizel~ Inc. v. Exxon Corporation, 42 A.D.2d 500, 349 N.Y.S.2d 14 (2nd Dept., 1973) affirmed 36 N.Y.2d 888, 372 N.Y.S.2d 644 (1975) a town board granted a rezoning and special use permit for a greater area than set forth in the original notice of application. The Appellate Division, Second Department held that the Doard had authority to grant a rezoning for a greater area so long as the average citizen was fairly apprised of the general purpose of the hearing. The Appellate Division's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the highest court of the State of New York. Here, of course, the board is considering an alternative that would permit less development than originally sought and noticed. Nor can there be any claim that the opposition was not fairly apprised of the general purpose of this application. Moreover, as the board knows, a final copy of the alternative was given to the opposition so that it could be reviewed before Mr. Storm prepared his September 22 letter. The second portion of Mr. Storm's argument regarding the alternate plan is technical in nature. He makes conclusory comments that the alternate is "unacceptable" and presents percentages that are meant to convince you of his argument. The difficulty with percentages, however, is that they can be manipulated to serve anyone's purpose. For example, Mr. Storm states that the variance sought for the westerly setback line has been reduced from 90 percent to 72 percent (7 feet to 21 feet). Another way of stating it is that the setback has increased 300 percent. The fact is that Mr. Shilowitz has reduced the number of condominium units (excluding his home) from 8 to 7 and has substantially increased the waterside setback. He has done this even though, as you know, all other approvals have been obtained. Mr. Storm's characterization of the alternate as "minor tinkering" is not true. The elimination of one unit out of 8 is a substantial economic loss to our client. I refer you to Mr. shilowitz' analysis of the expected return from this property contained in his previously submitted affidavit. PagD Three .September 25, 1986 Mr. Storm points out to you that the units have been redesigned so that the end ones are wider. This is true. Mr. Shilowitz, in preparing the alternate, increased the size of the end units slightly, believing that he could charge slightly more for these now larger units and thereby recoup a portion of the loss he will probably suffer if he has to reduce the project by one unit. Finally, in connection with the alternate, Mr. Storm states that it provides 12 rather than 11 parking spaces. I do not know whether this is a criticism or a compliment. PROOF NECESSARY FOR VARIANCE Mr. Storm again makes conclusory statements that our client has the burden of proving "significant economic injury" under the rationale of a case entitled Fullin~ v. Polumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 286 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1967). Fulling v. Poiumbo was an area variance case involving the right to use a vacant substandard lot. It developed the "significant economic injury" test for that situation, not for area variances in general. Without getting into a discourse, it is my opinion that even for such cases, Fulling v. Polumbo has little authority today. It is not necessary, however, to worry about whether Fulling v. Polumbo is good law or bad law. I respectfully suggest that the "significant economic injury" test advanced for vacant substandard lot variances is not the controlling test. Here, the standard to be applied by the board in determining whether or not to grant a variance is expressed as "practical difficulties". If Mr. Shilowitz has shown such practical difficulties, the board is authorized to grant a variance and a variance will be upheld by the courts. The practical difficulties standard was clearly made applicable to area variances in village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906 (2nd Dept., 1956) affirmed 1 N.Y.2d 839, 153 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1956). The court distinguished between use variances, where the applicant's standard of proof is labeled "unnecessary hardship" and the area variance case where the standard is labeled "practical difficulties". The practical difficulties standard is a flexible one. There is Page Four September 25, 1986 no precise formula as our opponents suggest, to establish practical difficulties. For example, in wilcox v. zoning Board of Appeals, 17 N.Y.2d 249, 270 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1966), the Court of Appeals confirmed the grant of a series of variances issued to an applicant to construct a large apartment house. The site was zoned for apartment houses, but the applicant sought an increase in density, an increase in height and an increase in the ratio of floor area to lot area. The variance was granted by the board because: a) the topography of the site was unusual; b) it would cost more to construct a building because of the unusual topography; c) the additional cost of constructing an apartment ~ouse built in conformity with the ordinance would not result in a reasonable return; and d) the granting of a variance would not change the character of the district. The situation at hand is not dissimilar to the one in the Wilcox case. Here, the site imporvements necessary to build the condominium units are substantial. The condominiums were designed at a time when there were no setback restrictions. Evidence of the cost of construction and expected market prices was presented to the board in Mr. Shilowitz' affidavit. There is no question that the condominiums are permitted. In fact, Greenport has already issued permits to begin construction. The placement of units further or closer from a bulkhead line will not alter the essential character of the community. The Court of Appeals held that the facts recited above were sufficient to support the issuance of variances under the "practical difficulties" test. I have enclosed a copy of the Wilcox case for your information. It should be emphasized, again, that there is no precise test for "practical difficulties". In a relatively recent opinion, the Court of Appeals has stated the following in this regard (Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 445, 410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 58 [1978]): while it would appear that no precise definition of the term "practical difficulties" has yet been formulated, in general, petitioner must show that as a practical matter he cannot utilize his property or a structure located thereon "without coming into conflict with certain of the restrictions of Page Five September 25, 1986 the [zoning] ordinance". (3 Rathkopf, Law of zoning and Planning [4th ed.], ch. 45, ~1.) Here, the applicant has shown that he cannot utilize his property without coming into conflict with restrictions in the zoning code. The property was specifically rezoned for Mr. Shilowitz' project. In the period after the rezoning and after site plan approvals, environmental approvals and the like, Section 100-119.2B was adopted. The newly adopted setback requirements would obviously severely impact the yield of his project. Even Mr. Storm admits that in order to come into compliance with the 75 foot setback, Mr. Shilowitz could only build one and a half units on the Southold portion of his property. As I compute it, Mr. Storm is suggesting an overall reduction of from 8 units to 4 units, if we exclude Mr. Shilowitz' proposed home. A cursory glance at the previously submitted affidavit will indicate that under Mr. Storm's proposal, the project cannot be built. BAD FAITH OF OPPOSITION At one of the earlier hearings before the board, I argued strenuously that the opposition was acting in bad faith. I told you that our office had examined the records of the preceedings before the Town Board of the Town of Southold when Mr. shilowitz' property was rezoned to permit condominiums and the proceedings before the Town of Southold Planning Board when he was given site plan approval for these condominiums. None of his neighbors, who now oppose him, appeared in opposition. My conclusion was that at the time o~ the application, it was in their interest to encourage Mr. Shilowitz. There was an old industrial building on the site which Mr. Shilowitz removed. Now that the property has been vacant for a while, it is apparently in their interest to "kill" the project. while they appear before your board ostensibly seeking a further setback, their true colors are now apparent. Mr. Storm has communicated with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in an attempt to cause trouble for Mr. Shilowitz with that agency. He proudly attaches a confirmation of that fact to his September 22, 1986 letter. First, in response to that letter, Mr. Shilowitz went to the DEC, Page Six September 25, 1986 examined its files and has prepared a written response, a copy of which is attached. Second, I respectfully suggest that objectors are not acting in good faith and are using the board and the DEC in a clear attempt to stop Mr. shilowitz from building his condominiums. They have achieved what they wanted to achieve. The old industrial building has been torn down and water views, which had not existed previously, are now theirs. Apparently, if this board approves an alternate plan, objectors intend to complain to the DEC that the permit is no longer valid because the plan has been modified. They are trying to place Mr. shilowitz in a "catch 22" situation. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION I briefly want to comment on the environmental information submitted to the board in an affidavit by Lawrence Penny. The information contained in that affidavit was of an engineering or hydrological character. By his own admission, Mr. Penny is a biologist. The board should completely disregard his comments and look, instead, to the comments recently received by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District, which indicate that the project could be constructed without difficulty. CONCLUSION We are dealing here with someone who asked the various boards of the Town of Southold and the village of Greenport to permit him to develop his property in conformance with a specific site plan. He told those boards that he would not buy the property unless he could build his project. Now, after several years, a quirk in the zoning code has caused the necessity for this variance application. The property is zoned for condominiums. The density proposed is correct. The buildings will be behind existing bulkhead, improved to accommodate the project. The buildings will be connected to municipal water and sewer. There is simply no reason to deny the variance and every reason to grant it under the concept of fairness. The only opposition is from people who declined to oppose the project at its inception, even though they had ample opportunity to do so at that time. Page Seven September 25, 1986 This is a unique situation. It would be my guess that the board will never again have someone before it like Mr. Shilowitz, who already has all approvals necessary to build and who designed this project when Section 100-119.2B was not in existence. We respectfully request that the variance be granted. SRA:mg Ve~uly yours, xc: Lawrence Storm, Esq. Mr. Stephen Shilowitz MTR. OF WILCOX v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS [17 NY 2d 249] Statement of Case 249 In remitting thc proceeding to the commission to afford oppor- tunity for these inquiries, the tariffs as approved should stand subject to appropriate adjustment to be effected by the eom- mission if, as a result of such additional proof, it finds a different rate is warranted. The order should be modified accordingly, without costs, and the proceeding remitted to the eommisslon. Chief Judge DESmONn and Judges Funn, BUr~KZ, SCILEPPI, BEaOAS and KEaTIXO cohere' in Per Curtain opinion; Judge Va~ Vooanm dissents and votes to affirm for the reasons stated in the opinion at the Appellate Division. Order modified and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to the commission for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein. In the Matter of EL~ZaEETa K. Wmcox et al., Respondents, v. ZONINO BOARD OP APPEALS OF THE CITY OF YosKsaS, Respond- ent, ~nd WESTVIEW Towers CoaP., Intervenor-Appellant. In the Matter of JANES J. O'DONNELL, Respondent, v. Zom~o BO~mD or APPEALS or THE CITY OF YONKERS, Respondent, and WzsTv~w TowEas Coal'., Intervenor-Appellant. ht the Matter of Jm~ E. Fnvns et al., Constituting the Common Council of the City of Yonkers, Respondents, v. Ra~.ra B. F~mo~ et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers, Respondents, and WESTVIEW TOWEaS Com'., Intervenor-Appellant. Argued February 14, 1966; decided April 28, 1966. Municipal corporations--zoning--in area zoned for apartment houses, variance seeking cha~age in height, floor area ratio a~d density is area variance --record contains proof of practical dirge]ties- grant of variance reinstated. 1. In an area zoned for apartment houses, a variance seeking a change in height of an apartment house from 39 to 55 feet and Crom three stories to six stories, seeking a floor area ratio of 1.58 instead of 1.00 and seeking a decrease in tho lot area per fanfily of 790 square feet instead of 1,500 square feet, is an area variance, rather than a combined use and area variance, because the essential use of the land is not changed (Matter of Markovich v. Feriola, 41 Miss 24,~1051, disapproved). 250 17 NEW YORK REPORTS, 2d SERIES Points of Counsel 2. Since an area variance is involved, and since the record contains ample proof of practical diffleulties occasioned by a sharp slope from front to rear making the rear boundary 80 feet lower than the front property line, the grant of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals is reinstated. Matter of Wilcox v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City o! Yonkers, 24 A D 2d 513, reversed. Matter of O'Dor~nell 1. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Yo~kers~ 24 A D 2d 513, reversed. Matter of Flyn~ v. FerioIa, 24 A D 2d 513, reversed. ArrEan from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered June 28, 1965, which (1) reversed, on the law and the facts, a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Jo~s J. DmLo~r, J.), entered in Westchester County, denying the peti- tions and dismissing the applications in consolidated proceedings under CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers granting a variance, and (2) remitted the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the purpose of taking further proof. Stated findings of fact made by the court at Special Term were reversed and new find- ings made by the Appellate Division in lieu thereof. Intervenor- appellant stipulated for judgment absolute in the event of affirmance. Arthur S. Friedman and .Arthur J. Dora~ for intervenor- appellant. I. When the Supreme Court reviews the granting of a variance by a zoning board, thc question is confined to whether the board's action is unsupportable, as a matter of law. The court cannot make its determination turn on any of its own find- ings of fact. If the court decides any questions of fact, that, per se, is an error of law. (People ex tel. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie, 275 N. Y. 357, 303 U. S. 158; Matter of Reed v. Board of Stds. cg Appeals of City of N. Y., 255 N. Y. 126; Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkin, 11 N ¥ 2d 20.) II. The Appellate Divi- sion erred as a matter of ]aw in holding that the proof before the zoning board was not sufi%ient to satisfy the requirements of Matter of Otto v. Stcinhilber. Indeed, the proof before the board was not only substantial, it was conclusive. (Matter of Otto v. Stei~;hilber, 282 N. ¥. 71; Matter of Stork Rest. v. Roland, 2S2 N. Y. 256; Mattqr of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. New York MTR. OF State L .Recreat 7NY: 282 Ap 2d 27; 236, 1 } of City III. T~ holding Correc~ Otto v. the zen 23AD Corp. · Feriol(, Sra. Si 2d 107: Frar, and R~ alleged power Ret. C of Zo~ Steers Matte~ Matte; Tow~ FerloL Appea Matte~ v. Mic: v. Fer is a c( all of (Mall, (;91; -~ App. l Matte v. Gill nple rear the ) 2d AD the red for act or- of of !he ¥i- b e of of MTR. OF WILCOX v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS [17 N Y 2d 249] 251 Points o£ Counsel State Labor Relations Bal., 280 N. Y. 194; Matter of Crossroads Recreation v. Broz, 4 N Y 2d 39; Matter o[ Forrcst v. Evershed, 7 N Y 2d 256; Matter of 293 North Broadway Corp. v. Lange, 282 App. Div. 1056; Matter o[ Vow Kohorn v. Morrell, 9 lq Y 2d 27; Matter of Village of Bro~*xville v. Francis, 1 A D 2d 236, 1 Iq Y 2d 839; Matter of Satin v. Board of Stds. ~ Appeals of City of N. Y., 28 Mise 2d 931, 15 A D 2d 531, 11 Iq ¥ 2d 643.) III. The Appellate Division erred in reversing Special Term's holding that the variance granted was an area variance only. Correction of that error of law renders the rule of Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber irrelevant and requires reinstatement of the zoning board's determination. (Matter of Foley v. Feriola, 23 A D 2d 498, 16 N Y 2d 482; Matter of 293 North Broadway Corp. v. Lange, 282 App. Div. 1056; Matter of Markovich v. Feriola, 41 Misc 2d 1051, 22 A D 2d 691; Matter of Hartsdale Sra. Shopping Ce~ter v. Liberman, 25 Misc 2d 684, 11 A D 2d 1073.) Fro:ncis B. Cline, Corporation Counsel (Morton N. Wekstein and Richard W. Fulfree of counsel), for respondents. I. The alleged hardship is selLinflicted and respondent is without power to grant this variance. (People ex tel. Fordham Manor Ref. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280; Matter of Clark v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Hempstcad, 301 N. Y. 86; Matter of Henry Steers, Inc. v. Rembaugh, 259 App. Div. 908, 284 N. ¥. 621; Matter of Blumbcrg v. Feriola, 8 A D 2d 850, 7 N Y 2d 852; Matter of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery v. Board of Appeals of Town of Greece, 271 App. Div. 33; Matter of Bobrowski v. Feriola, 2 A D 2d 708; Matter of Thomas v. Board of Stds. & 'zlppeals of City of N. Y., 263 App. Div. 352, 290 N. Y. 109; Matter of Freitag v. Marsh, 280 App. Div. 934; Matter of Lehrer v. Michaelis, 11 Mist 2d 544; Matter of Sherwood Realty Corp. v. Feriola, 193 Ivflsc. 194.) II. The variance in the case at bar is a combined use and area variance and subject therefore to all of the legal requirements applicable to use variances. (Matter of Markovich v. Feriola, 41 Misc 2d 1051, 22 A D 2d 691; Matter of Van Elm v. Zoning Bd. o[ lIempstcad, 258 App. Div. 989; Matter of Ostro~e v. Cohen, 2(19 App. Div. 1054; Matter of Miller v. Silver, 278 App. ])iv. 91;2; Matter of Asch v. Gilllspie, 14 A D 2d 543; Matter of Crossroads Recreation v. 252 17 NEW YORK REPORTS, 2d SERIES Points of Counsel Broz, 4 N Y 2d 39; Matter of Gerling v. Board of Zon£ng Appeals of Clay, 6 A D 2d 247; Mat~er of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, I A D 2d 236, i N Y 2d 839; Matter of 293 North Broadway Corp. v. Lange, 282 App. Div. 1056.) IlL The owner of the subject parcel suffers from no hardship within the meaning of the law. (Ma.tter of Otto v. Steinhilbcr, 282 N. ¥. 71; Matter of Taxpayers' Assn. of S. E. Oceanside v. Board of Zoning .Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 301 N. ¥. 215; Matter of Henry Steers, Inc. v. Rembaugh, 259 App. Div. 908, 284 N. Y. 621; Matter of Lathrop v. Feriola, 276 App. Div. 850; Matter of Freitag v. Marsh, 280 App. Div. 934; Matter of Sherwood Realty Corp. v. Feriola, 193 Misc. 194.) IV. The rccord fails to demonstrate that thc condition causing the claimed hardship applies to the subject parcel alone. (Matter of Forrest v. Evcrshed, 7 N Y 2d 256; Matter of Levy v. Board of Stds. (C: Appeals of City of N. Y., 267 N. Y. 347; Matte; of Bobrowski v. FerioIa, 2 A D 2d 708; Matter of Galvin v. Murphy, 11 A D 2d 900; Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 N Y 2d 445; Matter of Wehr v. Crowley, 6 A D 2d 214; Matter of .Asch v. Gillispie, 14 A D 2d 543; Matter of Graham v. Newton, 7 Misc 2d 34; Matter of Gerling v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Clay, 6 A D 2d 247; Matter of Congregation Beth E1 v. Crowley, 30 Misc 2d 90.) V. The record fails to disclose that the land cannot yield a reasonable return if employed for a permitted use. (Matter of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery ~. Board of .Appeals of Town of Greece, 271 App. Div. 33; Matter of Saitta v. Malone, 26 Misc 2d 817.) VI. The record fails to demonstrate that the use authorizcd by thc variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. VII. The requirement that the plight of the owner be due to uulque clrcmnstances in order to justify administrative action is a basic rule of' government which applies to both use variances aud area variances. (Matter of Young lVomen's Hebrew .Assn. v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N. Y., 266 N. Y. 270; Mailer of Levy v. Board of Stds. c~ Appeals of Cily of N. Y., 267 N. Y'. 347; People ex tel..Arverne Bay Constr. Co. v. Murdock, 271 N. Y. 631; Matter of Clark v. Board of Zoning .Appe,ls of Hempstead, 301 N. ¥. 86; Matter of Halpert v. Murdock, 249 App. Div. ?77, 274 N. ¥. 523; Ulrner Park Realty Co. v. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 291; Matter of Ostrove v. Cohen, 2~;9 App. Div. 1054; M,ttcr of Miller v. MTF Silv 2d 1 reliC by ~ Y'on I~on varl Sca~ 23 A S£ rcvi( the Tow men/ a 25~ 500 f putc~ bollll At Wes~ erty contD was atten Distr addit walls thc b Th apar~ (apai medb "A-1 trier, feet ] peats ~nc~s~ dway f thc ag o£ (er of peals reefs, ag v. ~'orp. ;trate o the NY City AD Wchr l) 2d 247; ~ 90.) eld a ~er of Misc 'acter :bt of tstify )plies 'oung City ds. c~ ~rk v. ~atter llmer i'atter ,'ct v. MTR. OF WILCOX v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS [17 NY 2d 249] 253 Opinion per Scu,~rrb J. Silver, 278 App. Div. 962; Matter of Byback v. Murdock, 1 A D 2d 132; Matter of _Asch v. Gillispie, 14 A D 2d 543.) VIII. The relief sought by the intervenor eau be granted, if at all, only by legislative action of the Common Conncil of the City of Yonkers. (Rodgers v. 'l'arrytowi~, 302 N. Y. 115; Frecma~ v. Yonkers, 205 Misc. 947.) IX. The legal requirements for area variances and use variances should be identical. (Matter of Searpati v. Feriola, 8 A D 2d 111; Matter of Willits v. Schoepflin, 23 A D 2d 868.) Scr~zrr~, J. These three proceedings have been instituted to review the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers which granted a variance to Westvicw Towers Corp. permitting thc construction of a 156-family apart- ment building. The parcel involved is roughly rectangular with a 250-foot frontage on North Broadway and a depth of about 500 feet. It contains an area of 123,250 square feet. It is undis- puted that the land slopes sharply downward so that the westerly boundary is about 80 feet below the easterly frontage. At the public hearing, Bernard Fiumara, thc president of Westvlew, testified that the corporation had owned the prop- erty for about five years and that, as m. igiually improved, it contained several outbuildings as well as a large house which was to be remodeled into an apartm(,nt house. Following a fire, the large building was condemned and later razed. Having attempted to comply with the zoning requirements of thc" MG" District (apartment houses, low density), and having deter- mined that, because of the 80-foot incline, it would necessitate additional expenditures of $225,000 to $250,000 for retaining walls and extra foundations, Westvicw sought a variance from the board. Thc applicable zoning ordinance divides thc location where apartment houses may be built i~to four districts: "MG" (apartment houses, low density), "5~" (apartment houses, medium density), "A-2" (apartment houses, high density), "A-1" (apartment houses, highcst density). ~n the MG Dis- trict, the maximum permitted height is three stories but not exceeding 39 feet. Westview's pPoposcd building would be 55 feet high, six stories in the front and nine in the rear. The maximum permitted floor ai'ea ratio for an apartment in an IIII ' IIIIII .... II I .... III IIIIiil IIIii II .... iii ~! 254 17 NEW YORK REPORTS, 2d SERIES Opinion per SelI~gePi, J. MO District is 1.00. Westview's buikting will have a floor area ratio of 1.58. The miuimum permitted lot area per family is 1,500 square feet. Westview's building will have a lot area per family of 790 square feet. A variance with regard to all these particulars was granted by the board. The petitioners, seeking to annul the grant of the varlanee, brought these proceedings in Supreme Court, Westehester County. Special Term (DmLo~, J.) dismissed the petitions and upheld the grant of the variance. The Appellate Division, reversing Special Term, considered the variance requested to be a use variance or at least a combined use and area variance and remitted the matter to the zoning board to take proof which would satisfy the requirements of the leading use varlanee ease (Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N. Y. 71). Since the appeal is here pursuant to a stipulation for judgment absolute, our func- tion is limited to ascertaining whether, as a matter of law, the Appellate Division was in error when it directed the remission to the board (Cohen anti I{arger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p. 303). Obviously, the pivotal question on this appeal is whether we are concerned with a use variance or an area variance. Gen- erally speaking, an area variance involves no change in the essential character of the zoned district; therefore, the neighbor- hood considerations are not as strong as in a use variance (Matter of Hoffman v. Harris, 1.7 N Y 2d 138; Matter of Village of Broaxville v. Francis, I N Y 2d 839, affg. I A D 2d 236). Once a variance is properly characterized, thc record must con- tain substantial evidence of certaiu elements before the variance, if granted, will be permitted to stand. A variance relating to tile height of an apartment house, in au area zoned for apartments, is an area variance and not a nsc variance (see Matter of Foley v. Fcriola, 23 A D 2d 498, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 16 N Y 2d 4S2; Matter of Satin v. Board of Stds. ~ Appeals, 28 Mist 2d 931, affd. on Gpu. below 15 A D 2d 531. mot. for Iv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 643 [holding that a variance to erect a larger apartment house in a location zoned for apartments is an area variance] ). The Appellate Division, as well as Ibc respondent, places great reliance on Matter of Markovlch v. l%riola (41 Mtso 2d 1051, affd. on other gromnls 22 A I) 2d 691). In Markovich the lower M c( fa (~ p~ ol br 20 th th it dr~ r area ally is ca per these dance, hcster titions vision, ted to fiance which c case peal is w, the dsslon York in the ,~hbor- fiance 236). t con- iance, not a i 498, 9oard JAD ~hat a zoned MTR. OF WILCOX v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS [17 NY 2d 249] 255 Oplnton per SCIL~IPPI, J. court, interpreting thc Yonkers zoning ordinance, held that a change in density standards creates a change ip classification with the consequence that both practical difficulties as well as unnecessary hardship must be proven in order to obtain the variance (41 Mist 2d, p. 1053). Iu other words, the approach taken classified the variance sought as a combined area and use variance, requiring the higher standard of proof, i.e., that of the use variance. The Appellate Division, specifically not char- acterizing the variance, aflirmed on the narrow ground that there was a failure to comply with the local zoning ordinance (Matter o~ Markovich v. Feriola, 22 A D 2d 691). We disap- prove of the lower court's holding in Markovich, and we hold that, in an area zoned for apartment houses, to seek a variance of height, floor area, and density is to seek an area variance because the essential usd of the land is not being changed. In such a situation, the essential use remains the same (apart- merits), although the particulars (height, lot area, floor area ratio) of said use may be different. But to obtain such a vari- ance, practical difficulties must be shown (Matter of Village of Broaxville v. Francis, 1 N Y 2d 839, affg. I A D 2d 236, supra). The only renmining question is whether tho record contains substantial evidence that the petitioner is faced with practical difficulties (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larklu, 11 N ¥ 2d 20, 24). ltaving made a persomd inspection of the premises, thc board fonnd that the ~0-foot differeuce in grade between the front ami rear of l]~e lot req,ired mmsaal site prcparation and costly foundations. In additim~, the finding was made that lhe unusual topography was not common to the general condi- tion of the over-all zone. Tile record contains evideuce (1) that it would cost at least $225,000 more to construct this building because of the unusual topographical problem--the 80-foot incline; (2) if the zoning restrictions were followed because of Om SO-foot incline, an apartment house would not.yield a reason- able return, and (3) the granting of the variance would not change the character of the distrM. Since this is an area variance, a.d since the record contains ample proof of practical difficulties occasioned by the 80-foot gre~at .. __ drop, the order of the Appellate 1)ivision should be reversed 10al, ~ and that of the S.preme Court reinstated 7 256 17 NEW YORK REPORTS, 2d SERIES Points of Counsel Chief Judge Dr~s~o~Tv and Judges F,'r~rb V^~ Voou~m, BraKe, B~Roas and K~aTI~O concui'. In each proceeding': Order of Appellate Division reversed and the order and judgment of Special Term reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. TIlE PEOPLE OF T~tE STATE OF NEW YORK eX rel. Onzs~ E. RoaEr~s, Jrt., Appellant, v. ALFRED M-. STANLEY, aS Director of Rockland State Hospital, Respondent. Argued February 15, 1966; decided May 5, 1966. Insan~ and other incompetent persons--assignment of co~sel~in~ent men~l patient committed to institution is entitled, ~ habeas co~us proceed~g to estaMish sanity, to assignment of counsel. An indigent mental patient, who is committed ~ an institution, is entitled in a habeas corpus proceeding brought to establish his sanity ~ the assignment cC eouns~l as a matter of constitution,1 right. People ex rel. Rogers v. Slanley, 21 A 1) 2d 965~ reversed. Arrzab, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Departmeut, entered July 1, 1964, which unanimously a~rmed an order of tha Supreme Corn4 at Special Term (Ro~a~ Dosc~n, J.), ~,ntered in I~oekland County, dismissin~ a writ of habeas corpus aftra' a he;wing and remanding the relator. Herbert Mcr. lc Levy for appclhmt. I. The denial of appointed counsel to the indigent appellant, in a habeas corpus proceeding seeking release frmn incarceration in a mental institution, deprived him of the equal protection of the laws, and of liberty and property without the due process of law, required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and sections 6 and 11 of article I of the New York State Constitu- tion. (Ilowrtrd v. Ovcrholscr, 130 P. 2d 429; DooIing v. Overholser, 243 F. 2d S25; People v. lVitenski, 15 N Y 2d 392.) II. The princip~d mnlerlying the requirement of appointed counsel for indigents in criminal cases--inability to be assured of a fair hearing otherwise--requires that indigents in judicial discharge proceedings have appointed counsel. (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; Minnesota v. Probate Ct., 309 U. S. 270; 2 Wisse petitk but is right; ings a would otherv fully ~ comml State 445; / U.S. appob of' ecu a ruli~ been ,: stanti' appob proce~ procef COUUS( guard 299; P cial q~ contai appe!l ill hy ~ record facts: pital : Faber Loy and R ment habea institt entitle Architect Stephen Shilowitz, A.I.A. 330 East 33rd Street, New York, I~Y. 10016 (212) 689 0242 CONSULTANT Sept~nber 25, 1986 Dennis W. cole Sr. Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs unit Bldg. 40, SUNY, Rm. 219 Stony Brook, New york 11794 Re: Application No. TW S77-0156 Pipes Cove, Southold Dear Mr. Cole: I wish to thank you and Mr. Hall for the courtesy you both extended to me during my visit to your office yesterday at Stony Brook, made without prior appointment. My visit, as you know, was in response to your letter to me dated September 15, 1986 which I received on Monday of this week. The specific purpose of my visit was to examine your file pertaining to my (above referenced) project in order to examine the drawings that I had made to supplement my application for a . DEC permit. I wished to determine the basis of an allegation made by other parties being represented by Attorney Storm that my current building plans, now being reviewed by the Town of Southold, reflect "a change in elevation from 8 ft. above MSL to 10 ft. above MSL." In fact, my examination of this document clearly indicates no such change (Mr. Hall kindly retrieved my file and in my presence located the said drawing, photocopy enclosed herewith). I am enclosing herein a photocopy of that drawing and another drawing, also attached to my original application to your agency, of a proposed typical bulkhead cross-section. The elevation indicated at the bulkhead top clearly indicates "+ 5.00 ft. above MSL". The drawing, when viewed in conjunction wit~ the small cross-section located for me in my file by Mr. Hall indicates that the proposed final grade of fill (the dredged spoil of 5,000 cu. yds.) is Page Two September 25, 1986 another 5'-0" above the height of the proposed bulkhead thereby producing a final grade elevation of 10.00 ft. above MSL. This precisly coincides with my current plans now before the Town of Southold and there is no change as alleged by Storm. The note on the drawing "lst living level 8'-0" above MSL" was placed on that drawing as certification (for FEMA purposes) that such level would not be constructed below flood plain regulations as mapped for that area at 8.00 ft. above MSL. You were kind enough at our meeting yesterday to discuss this matter with me and agree to my suggestion that I send to you a photocopy of the above drawings with my note of explanation which I hereby submit. The Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold is currently reviewing my plan (previously approved by the Southold Planning Board) and may require some modifications. The board has not acted as yet and I decline to speculate what it intends to do. parenthetically, the small cross-section through a typical residence on the said drawing indicates a garage below 8.00 ft. MSL, a feature that I believed at the time of my application was acceptable to FEMA. I subsequently learned otherwise and my present plans indicate all living levels to be at least 8.00 ft. MSL or higher (10.00 ft. MSL). Also, there will be no modification to the amount of dredged spoil, 5,000 cu. yds., to be placed upon my site. Such amount, when evenly spread upon the site, will produce a final grade elevation of approximately 10.00 ft. above MSL as indicated upon all previous and present drawings. Thank you very much for your patience. I look forward to your early reply. Very truly yours, SS:mg Stephen shilowitz Encl. THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR. STEPHEN B. LATHAM JOHN F. SHEA. III AMY B. TURNER LAWRENCE M. STORM' MAUREEN T. LICCIONE 'ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT AND FLORIDA TWOMEY, LAq~HAM, SHEA & KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST seCOND STREET 516-727-2180 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. N.Y 11937 516'324-1200 September 22, 1986 Gerard P. Geohringer Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal No. 3513 - Stephen Shilowitz (Variance) Dear Mr. Geohringer: We wish to strenuously object to the manner in which the "new" sketch plans have been presented. Is it a new proposal by the applicant, or not? If not, why was it submitted at all. Is the applicant asking the ZBA to rule on a variance request for the 5' - 7' setback or for 21'? This somewhat ambiguous position only serves to accentuate your comment that it is difficult to know precisely what it is the applicant is proposing. Such ambiguity should not be rewarded by a grant of variances of the magnitudes requested. With reference to the "new" sketch prints received by this office on September 9, 1986, even assuming that the applicant now considers this the proposal by which he is bound, it does not satisfactorily address any of the issues we have raised nor the ZBA's articulated concern. It represents an insignificant modification at best. First, the setbacks shown to the west are now 21' versus the previously shown 5' - 7'; therefore, the requested variance has been reduced from 90% to 72%. Both are unacceptable and represent a significant and substantial violation of the letter, intent, and spirit of Section 100-19.2.B of the Town Zoning Code which requires the 75' setback. Even 21' represents a 40% greater setback variance than has ever before been granted by the ZBA for a dwelling unit. The minor tinkering does not change the underlying magnitude of the proposed variance. Second, the shown to be only variance of 79%. decks at the southern end of the property, are 16' from the bulkhead. This would represent a Third, the tinkering which purports to eliminate the western most dwelling and which should have resulted in a dwelling setback of approximately 30' has been artfully refashioned so that the widths of the remaining dwelling units have been expanded and the resulting setback is only 21'. We also note that the new sketch also contains an extra parking space, 12 in total rather than the previously shown 11 parking spaces. At the last hearing, Mr. Angel made much of the economic affidavit submitted by Mr. Shilowitz. However, as I pointed out in my previously submitted memorandum of law, the applicant must prove, in order to be entitled to a variance, that he would suffer or incur practical difficulty if forced to strictly comply with the applicable zoning requirements without a variance. This is defined as proof of significant economic injury. See Fullinq v. Palumbo 286 N.Y.S. 2d 249,253. This requires that proof be presented of the value of the parcel as presently zoned, rather than the value of the parcel if the variance were granted. Cowen v. Kern, 394 N.Y.S. 2d 579,583. The applicant offered no proof of the current value of the property under the current zoning requirements. The only evidence submitted of current valuation clearly establishes that under current zoning the applicant can realize a more than reasonable return on his investment, whether or not he develops the property. The variance is not warranted as there is no significant economic injury. Our position is that while Mr. Shilowitz may not be permitted to build as many units as he would like or put them where he would most desire, he can still realize a reasonable economic return. Mr. Shilowitz has already obtained building permits from the Village of Greenport to build 3 1/2 units on this parcel. Mr. Shilowitz, by rearranging his units, would be able to place at least one and a half more units on the Southold side and remain in full compliance with existing zoning. We recognize that by taking this position that the applicant may be inconvenienced. He may be forced to rethink the economic consequences of reserving building #3 as shown on his new survey for his own personal use. To the extent units are eliminated and profits reduced sale of building #3 would increase his profit. The magnitude of the requested variances are unreasonable, unprecedented in the Town of Southold, and would effectively repeal the setback ordinance, for no justifiable reason. Given the extraordinarily sized variance requested, the fact that the proposed construction is totally inconsistent with the present character of the neighborhood and will cause severe detriment to my clients as a result of loss of visual aesthetics and increased flood and over-wash potential, and the danger to the general public due to runoff into Pipes Cove, the variance request as currently proposed should not be approved. The dangers can be mitigated by requiring the applicant to move his terraces and dwellings upland from the north and west bulkheads. This would provide increased storage capacity for absorption of flood waters, runoff, and over-wash, would mitigate the adverse visual impact and avoid the effect of eliminating Section 100.19.2.B. of the Town Zoning Board. Only in this way will the standards set forth in Wachsber~er v. Michalis, 191 N.Y.S. 2d 621, be satisfied. If, and only if, the ZBA determines that the applicant has satisfied his burden of proof of practical difficulty, i.e. serious economic hardship, which he has not, then the ZBA must determine if granting the variance would or may adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Board has articulated a concern with limited access of fire vehicles, for instance to evacuate residents from the bay side of the western most units; this has not been adequately addressed by the applicant. Nor have the health and safety issues raised by Mr. Penny relating to flood deflection and over-wash onto my clients property, nor runoff into Pipes Cove, nor the visual impact of this project on my clients been adequately addressed. The claims of the applicant that the DEC has accepted his plans as presented to the ZBA are not accurate. I have attached a letter from the DEC to Mr. Shilowitz indicating that his current plans, (even before the "new" sketches) are not in conformance with his previously submitted and approved plans. Upon information and belief, the changed conditions referred to may include wetlands present at the site. The DEC is also concerned with Mr. Penny's issue of the impact of the project on Pipes Cove. In conclusion, based upon the fact that the applicant has failed to prove practical difficulty, that the only economic evidence presented indicates he will suffer no serious economic injury as a result of being required to comply with the existing zoning requirements, and the existence of health and safety issues, the application should be denied. LS/drd cc: Stephen Angel Robert Strong Cynthia Perillo New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY, Rm. 219 Stony Brook, N. Y. 11794 (516) 751-7900 Henry G. Williams Commissioner Steven Schilowitz 330 E. 33rd St. New York, N.Y. 10016 September 15, 1986 Re: Application No.TW S77-0156, Pipes Cove, Southold Dear Mr. Schilowitz: It has come to our attention that the proposed final elevations at the project site have been changed from 8' to 10' above mean sea level without proper DEC approval. Please note the current permit authorizes a total of 5,000 cubic yards of fill. Additionally we are advised that the conditions at the site may have changed. Accordingly, before any work is started you mast modify your permit with us to reflect the current plans. Also, please show where the additional fill will be taken from and how it will be stabilized to prevent erosion into the waterway. Very truly yours, Dennis W. Cole Sr. Environmental Analyst DWC:rw cc:L. Storm C. Hamilton J. Gilman Vill.of Greenport 41 N.Y.2d 591 COWAN v. KERN Cite as 394 N.Y.S.2d 579 363 N.E.2d 305 41 N.Y.2d 591 _Lin the Matter of Randolph COWAN, Respondent, Roy M. KERN et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Smithtown, Appellants. Court of Appeals of New York. April 5, 1977. Landowner petitioned pursuant to Ar- ticle 78 to annul a zoning board of appeals' denial of his application for an area vari- ance. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Charles R. Thom, J., dismissed, but the Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, 51 A.D.2d 569, 378 N.Y.S.2d 746, reversed that order. Board appealed. The Court of Appeals, Ja- sen, J., held that: (1) the petitioner failed to establish a claim of discrimination in the denial of his application for an area vari- ance to permit construction of a residence on a substandard parceI of land, and (2) absent proof of what the landowner paid for the property at a tax sale, there was no predicate which would support a finding of economic hardship in requiring the land- owner to adhere to the zoning ordinance. Appellate Division order reversed. Gabrielli, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Cooke, J, joined. 1. Zoning ~491 Mere fact that one property owner is denied variance while others similarly situ- ated are granted variances does not, in it- self, suffice to es~.blish that difference in result is due either to impermissible dis- crimination or to arbitrary action. 2. Zoning ~646 In Article 78 proceeding seeking to an- nul zoning board of appeals' denial of appli- cation for area variance, landowner failed to establish claim of discrimination in denial of his application for variance to permit construction of residence on substandard 579 parcel of land which he had purchased at tax sale. CPLR 7801 et seq. 3. Zoning ~=~536 Before zoning authority is required to explain why public health and welfare ce- quires adherence to zoning standard, appli- cant for variance must first come forward with proof of significant economic injury. 4. Zoning ~=~493 In calculating whether financial hard- ship to landowner would be inflicted by adherence to zoning standard, inquiry should properly focus upon value of parcel as presently zoned, rather than upon value that parcel would have if variance was granted. 5. Zoning ~=~544 Absent proof as to what landowner paid for property at tax sale, there was no predicate which would support finding of economic hardship in requiring landowner to adhere to zoning ordinance. $. Zoning ~=~497 While fact that any financial hardship to landowner was seIf-impased does not pre- vent zoning board of appeals from g-ranting variance in proper exercise of its discretion, existence of self-created hardship does not entitle landowner to demand variance. 7. Zoning ~=~353 Absent arbitrariness, it is for locally selected and locally responsible officials to determine where the public interest in zon- ing lies. 8. Zoning ~=~602 Where there is rational basis for local zoning decision, that decision should be sus- tained by courts, and it matters not wheth- er, in close cases, court would have, or should have, decided matter differently. 9. Zoning Judicial responsibility is to review zon- ing decisions, but not, absent proof of arbi- trary and unreasonable action, to make them. 580 394 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 41 N.Y.2d 592 _12~_l_Dudley L. Lehman, Port Jefferson, for appellants. Sidney N. Gitelman, East Northport, for respondent. JASEN, Judge. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its discretion, as a matter of law, in denying petitioner's application for a zoning variance. In January 1970, petitioner Randolph Cowan purchased, at a tax sale, a substand- ard parcel of land in the Ronkonkoma Heights section of the Town of Smithtown. The parcel consists of three separate build- ing lots and has a total land area of 7,500 square feet. The property is located in an "R-10" residential zone which authorizes the construction of single-family residences on minimum plots of 10,000 square feet. The land was originally divided into build- ing lots by a map filed in 1911 and the 10,000 square feet requirement was first imposed in 1949. In order to construct a residence on the Cowan property, a vari- ance must be obtained to cover the total area deficiency, as well as deficiencies in the sizes of the proposed front and rear yards. In January 1974, Cypress Homes, Inc., a builder and the prospective purchaser under a contract of sale, applied for the necessary variance, asserting that the Cowan parcel was the same size as other improved parcels on the same street. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application on February 26, 1974 and the contract of sale was re- scinded. The landowner, Cowan, then sought to obtain a building permit for the property, but the request was denied on the ground that a variance had not been obtained. Thus. on May 24, 1974, Cowan applied di- rectly to the board for the necessary vari- ance. His application was based on much the same contention as had been asserted in the earlier application by the builder: the fact that others had built on similarly sized properties and that a residence on his prop- .erty would be in conformity with the char- acter of the neighborhood. It was also claimed that denial of the variance would inflict "severe" economic hardship on the landowner. On June 25, 1974, the board conducted a hearing on the Cowan application. The landowner submitted proof that, oflthe 17 parcels on his block, nine parcels either met or exceeded the zoning requirements and that eight others did not. With respect to the eight substandard properties, two (the Cowan property and one other) had not yet been improved. Two substandard parcels had been improved after the board had granted requisite area variances. No evi- dence was introduced by petitioner to ex- plain whether the remaining four improved but substandard properties were noncon- forming uses constructed prior to the 1949 zoning ordinance or had been the subject of prior grants of variance or, finally, were constructed in plain violation of the zoning ordinance. The landowner did produce an analysis of the entire neighborhood, includ- ing several nearby blocks, which indicated that approximately 67% of the distinct par- cels and approximately 77% of all the indi- vidual building lots in the area conformed to the zoning requirement. The applicant's expert appraiser testified that the value of the real property, with the variance, would be approximately $7,500. Without the vari- ance, the landowner would be able to sell the nonbuildable plot to the owner of an adjoining parcel for approximately $1.000. The landowner did not report the price paid for the property at the tax s,~. e. Several persons appeared at the hear!.:_' in opposition to the variance applica'~i(~n The neighboring landowners testified if Cowan were to build on his proper::,-. there would be less than th~ 100-foot tahoe between Cowan's cesspool and th,-:' water wells, as required by the ordinance. This testimony was rebutted to some ,:~ by a letter from the Suffolk County partment of Health to the effect that 41 N.Y.2d 595 COWAN v. KERN Cowan cesspool could be located the neces- sary distance away from the neighboring wells and that any shortage in the distance between Cowan's well and the neighbors' cesspools could be compensated for by dig- glng the Cowan well deeper. Unrebutted, ho~.vever, was the testimony of one neighbor thai all of the houses on substandard plots, save the two for which variances had been granted, had been constructed prior to the adoption of the 1949 area requirement. Hence, it was established that four of the six improved but substandard parcels were nonconforming uses. On September 16, 1974, after the board had failed to pass upon his application, Cowan commenced an article 78 proceeding to compel the board to grant him a vari- ance. At a regular meeting six days later, the board voted to deny the application. The board found that the character of the _j29~ neighborhood_jlvas substantially in accord- ance with the zoning requirements and that the applicant had failed' to establish unnec- essary hardship or practical difficulty. It was noted that "the applicant did not testi- fy before the board as to what the loss of value in the premises would have been to him, since it was not revealed what the purchase price of the subject parcel was at the time applicant purchased same. There- fore, the board would also find that the testimony of applicant's expert witness is incomplete and affords very little upon which this board can determine the loss in value to said applicant." 581 granted the request for a hearing. The petitioner submitted proof that, on Novem- ber 11, 1971, the board had granted area, front yard and rear yard variances to the owners of two parcels immediately adjoin- ing petitioner's. No other proof was put forward; instead, counsel for petitioner en- gaged in a lengthy oral argument. The court denied the motion for renewal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his claim of discrimination. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissent- ing, reversed the judgment of Special Term and directed that the board grant petitioner a variance. (51 A.D.2d 569, 378 N.Y.S.2d 746.) On appeal, petitioner presents two sepa- rate arguments in support of his claim for the variance. First, it is argued that the board, by granting variances to others simi- larly situated while denying relief to the petitioner, discriminated against him and, thereby, abused its authority. A second and distinct contention is that the petitioner had submitted ample proof that the applica- tion of the zoning ordinance to his p~operty would result in economic hardship entitling him to a variance. We conclude that the record does not reveal either discrimination or abuse of discretion. We would, there- fore, reverse the order of the Appellate Division and reinstate the judg-ment of Spe- cial Term. [1] As to the claim of discrimination. the law is well settledlthat the mere fact Special Term awarded judgment to the that one property owner is denied a vari- ance while others similarly situated are board and dismissed the article 78 proceed- ~ranted variances does not, in itself, suffice ing. The court ruled that "where, as here, t~ establish that the difference in result is a substandard parcel of property is pur- chased at a tax sale, the purchaser thereof due either to impermissible discrimination cannot later claim that a denial of a vari- or to arbitrary action. The controlling principles were stated bv Judge Lehman. ante for that property results in a severe with his usual eloquence, long ago. 'The economic hardship. The Court further mere fact that consents were granted to finds that petitioner has failed to demon- owners of premises somewhat similarly sit- hood is substandard.' Petitioner moved for uated does not in itself show that consent was arbitrarily refused to this applicant. renewal of the article 78 proceeding and for . __ a hearing on the ground that the board had The question is not whether someone else 582 394 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 41 N.Y.2d 595 the petitioner has been illegally oppressed. Exercise of discretion in favor of one con- fers no right upon another to demand the same decision. Unlimited discretion vested in an administrative board by ordinance is not narrowed through its exercise. The [board] may refuse to duplicate previ- ous error; it may change its views as to what is for the best interests of the [town]; it may give weight to slight differences which are not easily discernible. There are, of course, extreme cases where analogy is so compIete, where grant of consent under similar circumstances has been so frequent, both before and after refusal in one in- stance, that inference arises that the refus- al is the result of unfair discrimination and oppression. Especially is this true where strong reason is made out for granting the consent. In such case, perhaps, the courts may call upon the dispensing power to re- but such inference." (Matter of Larkin Co. r. Schwab, 242 N.Y. 330, 336-337, 151 N.E. 637, 639; accord Matter o£ Crossroads Rec- reation v. Broz, 4 N.Y.2d 39, 46-47, 172 N.Y.S.2d 129, 134-135, 149 ,N.E.2d 65, 68- 69) ' [2] Here, petitioner has shown only that two variance applications were granted to adjoining landowners in 1971. Although the board of health indicated that it was technically feasible to lay out water and sewage facilities in a manner that would not create an unsanitary condition, the zon- ing board was certainly free to conclude that, after three years from the last resi- dential construction, the area had become too congested to permit further substand- ard development. The board could consider the existence of several nonconforming uses in the same immediate vicinity, uses that, constitutionally, the board was powerless to change. That the board had granted two variances in the past did not strap it to grant variances to all comers in the future automatically and without due regard for 1_.2~ss_[_changed conditions that might require a ' The Appellate Division's statement to the effect that a claim of discrimination is made out sim- ply if 'Tweedledee is granted, and Tweedledum different result. Having granted two vari- ances in the past, the board could properly decide that additional variances would im- pose too great a burden and strain on the existing community. More importantly, the board, after three years' reflection, could find that previous awards had been a mis- take that should not be again repeated. Certainly, the board was not bound to per- petuate earlier error. Three additional factors are important. Only two variances were awarded in the past and these applications were decided at the same time. The evidence showed that the neighborhood, generally, was in con fortuity with the ordinance and the othei exceptions on this particular block were no~ due to variance awards, but wers create, prior to the adoption of the present zonin.~ requirement. Thus, this is certainly not th: extreme case where the board had consist ently granted variances and issued buildin., permits to all in the neighborhood save few selected out for discriminatory treat mont. (See Matter o£ Ozolins v. Horn, A.D.2d 555, 270 N.Y.S.2d 1001.) Secondl5 the timing of the two variance grant~ indi cares that the awards were made on a individual basis viewed in the light of condl tlons then prevailing in the communit.~ Phrased another way, there is no history a consistently liberal board policy that w.~ suddenly and dramatically changed to th disadvantage of this petitioner. Thirdl: the board denied a variance to a buildc who sought to construct a residence on th same parcel. This indicates that the boax had changed its policy on variances ew before this petitioner applied for on Thus, denial of his application was cor~! ent with the board's po[icy with resp~ '. this neighborhood. [3-5] Turning to the second pressed by the petitioner--that the abused its discretion in denying :he '.:i~ anco--we find that the evidence p. 749). is in plain conflict with principles and cannot be sustained 41 N.Y.2d 5~8 ares the board's conclusion that the peti- tioner had failed to establish that the denial of the variance would result in the infliction of either significant economic hardship or practical difficulty. Before the zoning au- thority is required to explain why the public health and welfare requires adherence to the zoning standard, the petitioner must first come forward with proof of significant economic injury. (,'fatter of National Mer- rett v. Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 442, 445, 393 N.Y.S.2d 379, 383, 385, 361 N.E.2d 1028, 1032, 1033; see Conley v. Town of Brookha- yen Zoning 'Bd. o£ Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 356 N.Y.S.2d 681, 353 N.E.2d 594.) The petitioner's only proof on the question of financial hardship was to the effect that if thelvariance was granted the real property for building purposes would be worth ap- proximately $7,500, whereas the real prop- erty was worth only approximately $1,000 without the variance. However, in calcu- lating whether financial hardship would be inflicted by adherence to the zoning stan- dard, the inquiry should properly focus upon the value of the parcel as presently zoned, rather than upon the value that the parcel would have if the variance were granted. (Matter of DougIaston Civic Assn. v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 364 N.Y.S.2d 830, 836, 30-4 N.E.2d 317, 321.) Concededly, the parcel, without the variance, has an eco- nomic value of at least $1,000. In the ab- sence of proof as to what the petitioner paid for the property at the tax sale, there is no predicate which would support a find- ing of economic hardship in requiring the petitioner to adhere to the zoning ordi- nance. Thus, the petitioner failed to prove that the property will not }field a reasonable return if the area standard restrictions are imposed." (Matter of National Merritt v. Weist, supra, 41 N.Y.2d, at p. 442, 393 N.Y. S.2d, at p. 383, 361 N.E.2d, at p. 1031.) [6] Moreover, the manner in which peti- tioner acquired the properw, by purchase at a tax sale, indicates that any hardship was willingly assumed. In view of the tax sale purchase, the petitioner, an attorney, is cer- tainly "chargeable with knowledge of the COWAN v. KERN 583 interdictions of the zoning ordinance which limited development." (,'flatter of Nadonal Merritt v. Weist, supra, at p. 444, 393 N.Y.S.2d, at p. 384, 361 N.E.2d, at p. 1033.) Hence, economic loss, if there be any, was self-inflicted and self-creatod. While no proof of the purchase price has b~en adduced, it is reasonable to assume that the price obtained by the County of Nassau at the sale reflected the value of the property as restricted by the ordinance. Hence, the granting of the variance would, like as not, result in a windfall to petitioner well above the minimal price paid at the tax sale. While the fact that any financial hardship was self-imposed does not prevent the board from granting the variance in a proper exercise of it~ discretion (Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Ap- peals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 315, 386 N.Y.$.2d 681, 684, 353 N.E.2d 594, 597, supra), the exist- ence of a self-created hardship does not entitle the landowner to demand a variance. (Matter o£ .Yational Merritt v. Weist, supra, 41 N.Y.2d, at p. 442, 393 N.Y.S.2d, at p. 383, 361 N.E.2d, at p. 1032.) One further comment is necessary. The dissent places it~ primary reliance on the standard of review articulated in Matter o£ Fulling v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 33, 286 N.Y.S.2d 249, 251, ~ N.E.2d 272, 273. Since 1967 when Fulling was decided, we have had numerous occasions to both clarify and modify much of its admittedly broad language. (E. g., Matter of National Mer- ritt ~. Weist, supra, 41 N.Y.2d, at .~]_442, 393 N.Y.S.2d, at p. 383, 361 N.E.2d, at p. 1031; Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. o£ Appeals, supra; ,'fatter o£ OverhilI Bldg. Co. v. Delany, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 455, 322 N.Y. S.2d 696, 700, 271 N.E.2d 537, 540; .'fatter of 113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v. Zaino, 27 N.Y.2d °,58, 261-262, 317 N.Y.S.2d 305, 306- 307, 265 N.E.2d 733, 734-735.) The present dispute simply involves a challenge to the rationality of an administrative decision. The petitioner does not challenge the con- stitutionality of the zoning ordinance as applied to his proper~y. In this circum- 584 394 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 41 N.Y.2d SSS stance, it would be inappropriate to apply discretion. (Matter of Fulling ~,. Palumbo, constitutional criteria (see, e. g., Matter of 21 N.Y.Od 30, 32, 286 N.Y.S.2d 249, 250, 233 Grimpel Assoc. ~'. Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 431, N.E.2d 272, 273; Matter of Lenin Real~.~' 393 N.Y.S.2d 373, 361 N.E.Od 1022; McGow- Corp. ~*. Lufkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 24, ~ N.Y. an v. Cohalan, 41 N.Y-Od 434, 393 N.Y.S.2d S.2d 374, 131 N.E.Od 407.) Phrased another 376, 361 N.E.2d 10°.5) in lieu of the tradi- way, the determination of the responsible tiona] standard applicable to the judicial officials in the affected community will be review of all kinds of administrative deter- sustained if it has a rational basis and is minations. Even the Fulling case recog- supported by substantial evidence in the nized the limited nature of the judicial scru- record. (.~,/atter o£ Wilcox ~'. Zoning Bd. o£ tiny of local zoning decisions. Notwith- Appeals of CiO' o£ Yonkers, 17 N.Y.2d 0_49, standing the broader sweep of the opinion, 255, 270 N.Y.S.2d 569, 572, 217 N.E.Od 633, the ultimate issue was stated to be whether 635, supra.)" (coniey ~'. Town o£ Brookha- "the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its ~,en Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, discretion, as a matter of law". (21 N.Y.2d, 314, 336 N.Y.S.2d 651, 633, 353 N.E.2d 594, at p. 32, 286 N.Y.S.Od, at p. 251,233 N.E.2d, 597, supra.) at p. 273.) The dicta to which the dissent averts is not now, if it ever was, representa- ..L.[7-9] The crux of the matter is that the tire of the state of the law. tn fact, the responsibility for making zoning decisions cases which followed Fulling quite consist- has been committed primarily to quasi-leg- ently adhered to the traditional standard, islative, quasi-administrative boards com- (E. g., Matter o£ 113 Hillside A~'e. Corp. v. posed of representatives from the local com- Zaino, 27 N.Y.2d 258, 261-262, 317 N.Y.S.2d munity. Local officials, generally, possess 305, 306-307, 265 N.E2Od 733, 734-735, su- the fa.miliarity with local conditions heres- pra ; Matter o£ O~'erhill Bldg. Co. ~. Dela- sary to make the often sensitive planning ny, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 454, 455, 322 N.Y.S.2d decisions which affect the development of 696, 699-700, 271 N.E.Od 537, 540-541, su- their community. Absent arbitrariness, it pta; see Matter of National Merritt v. is for locally selected and locally responsible Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 442, 443, 393 N.Y.S.Od officials to determine where the public in- 379, 383-384, 361 N.E.Od 1028, 1031-1032, retest in zoning lies. (McGowan v. Cohalan, supra.) We have recently reiterated the 41 N.Y.2d 434, 438, 393 N.Y.S.2d 376, 379, rule. 361 N.E.2d 10°-5, 1028, supra.) Judicial ne- ''The oft-stated standard by which a re- view of local zoning decisions is limited: quest for an area variance is to be meas- not only in our court but in all courts. ured is whether strict compliance with the Where there is a rational basis for the local zoning ordinance will result in practical dif- decision, that decision should be sustained. ficulties. (E' g', Matter of Wilcex v. Zoning It matters not whether, in close cases, a Bd. of Appeak of Cit.~' of Yonkers, supra[17 court would have, or should have, decided N.Y.2d 249, 270 N.Y.S.2d 569, 217 N.E.2d the matter differently. The judicial re- 633]; Matter of Village of Bronx~'iIIe v. sponsibility is to review zoning decisions but Francis, 1 A.D.2d 0.36, 238, 150 N.Y.S.2d not absent proof of arbitrary and unreason- 906, 908, arid. I N.¥.2d 839, 153 N.Y.S.2d able action, to make them. Nothing in 220, 135 N.E.Od 724; 2 Anderson, New York Matter of Fulling v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, Zoning Law and Practice [Od ed.], §§ 18.32, 286 N.Y.S.Od 249, 233 N.E.2d 272, supra is 18.33, 18.40.) The local zoning boards have to the contrary. Here, the record does not discretion in considering applications for indicate that the zoning board acted in a variances and the judicial function is a lin- manner that was in any way arbitrary, ired one. The courts may set aside a zoning unreasonable, irrational or indicative of bad board determination only where the record faith. Its decision, therefore, should not reveals illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of have been disturbed. 41 N.Y.2d 601 Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judg- ment of Special Term reinstated. GABRIELLI, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm the or.der of the Appellate Division. In this case the petitioner seeks an area variance t as distinguished from a use variance, and just recently this court stressed the impor- tance of this distinction "since, in the usual case, a use variance will have a greater impact on the community than an area vari- ance which does not involve a use prohibit- ed by the ordinance" (Matter of National Merritt v. Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 441, 393 N.Y.S.2d 379, 382, 361 N.E.2d 1028, 1031). An area variance does not alter the basic character and nature of the community in the manner that a use variance does and, therefore, the courts have rationalized and properly held that different standards of burden of proof are applicable (Matter of National Merritt v. Weist, supra). "The difference in the level of proof is explained by the fact that, generally, an area variance will release a landowner from the duty to _~.0~ follo~.~.he strict letter of the zoning ordi- nance so that the land may be put to a permitted use. On the other hand,,a use variance, if granted, will result in the use of land in a manner inconsistent with the basic character of the neighborhood" (Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Ap- peals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 313-314, 386 N.Y.S.2d 681, 683, 353 N.E.2d 594, 596). The petitioner has the burden of proving that the imposition and application of an area standard will create significant eco- nomic injuw (Matter of Fulling v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 286 N.Y.S.2d 249, 9,33 N.E.2d 2?2) and once that proof is adduced "the 1. The ordinance requires an area of 10,000 square feet. Petitioner, desiring to erect a one- family residence, requested an area reduction by reducing the front yard setback from 40 feet to 37 feet and a backyard setback from 50 feet to 38 feet. 2. It is of consuming interest to note that this objecting neighbor had but recently been grant- COWAN v. KERN 585 burden of going forward with proof that the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate exercise of the zoning power is upon the municipality" (.'flatter of National Merritt v. Weist, supra, 41 N.Y.2d, at p. 443, 393 N.Y.S.2d, at p. 383, 361 N.E.2d, at p. 1032). The proof of significant economic injury is met by demonstrating that the property will not ~4eld a reasonable return, but there is no requirement that in an area variance ease the petitioner must prove what he paid for the property. In Matter of Fulling v. Palumbo (supra) the proof demonstrated that Fulling had been offered $11,000 for his property by his two neigh- bom but with an area variance he could obtain double that amount. This was deemed sufficient to satisfy his burden of proving significant economic loss. In the case before us Cowan demonstrated that without the variance his neighbor owning contiguous land, and who had objected to the grant of the variance in this ease,2 would purchase the property for $1,000 but with the variance the value would rise to $7,500. This, too, should be deemed suffi- cient to sustain the burden of proof. The fact that Cowan purchased the property at a tax sale and failed to reveal the price paid is not determinative here. To demonstrate, if Cowan had paid in excess of $1,000 for the property, clearly the denial of the area variance would result in economic hardship because it would result in an actual finan- cial loss. Likewise, if he paid less than $1,000, a situation analogous to the facts in Fulling, he has still demonstrated economic hardship because literal enforcement of the ordinance will cost him 36% of the value of his land (see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice, § 18.40)...l_Serious finan- cial injury need not be equated to actual character of the neighborhood, which was resi- dential, and there was no evidence that a grant of the variance would defeat this purpose; and. in fact. the proof established that a new house on this lot would improve the neighborhood. --I 586 394 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 41 N.Y.2d 601 financial loss; a significant differential in value may amount to a hardship even if the owner paid nothing for the property. The majority, citing MaCter o_:t Dougla- ston Civic Assn. v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 364 N.Y.S.2d 830, 836, 324 .N.E.2d 317, 321, holds that in determining financial hard- ship, inquiry should focus on the value of :he property as presently zoned, "rather than upon the value that the parcel would have if the variance were granted" (p. 583 of 394 N.Y.S.2d, p. 309 of 363 N.E.2d). Matter of DouglasCon Civic Assn. involves a use variance. The standard of proof in a use variance case must necessarily be more stringent than in an area varlanee ease because the character of the community is affected. On the other hand, proof of eeo- nomie injury, in the context of an area variance, need not be as restrictive since the over-all impae~ of relief is less burdensome on the community. The quantum of evi- dence necessary to satisfy the burden of proof must be balanced with the public interest affected (see Matter of National Marritt v. Weist, supra ). Where the peti- tioner shows that the value of the property under the existing area restriction does not yield a reasonable return as compared to the value of the property with an area variance, the burden of proof of economic injury has been met. Economic injury does not, of course, end the matter. If there is a iegitimate purpose for the ordinance and it is reasonably related to the public health, financial loss will be inadequate to justify granting the varianoe (Mac,er o_t' Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 322 N.Y.S.2d 696, 271 N.E.2d 537). In this case, bewever, the board introduced insufficient "evidence", and indeed the record is sparse, if not totally lacking in evidence that deny- lng the variance would benefit the public health and welfare. The fact that the financial hardship may be self-imposed does not prevent the board from granting the variance (Conley v. Town o£ Brookhaven Zoning Bd. o£ Appeals, su- pra) but is one factor which may be weighed with the evidence before it. The decision of the board is silent on the issue of self-created hardship but even if it had been considered, in view of the severity of the economic loss, it would be insufficient to mandate denial of the variance. Accordingly, the orde~ of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. BREITEL, C. J., and JONES, WACHT- LER and FUCHSBERG, JJ., concur with JASEN, J. GABRIELLI, J., dights and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which COOKE, J., concurs. Order reversed, with cost~, and the judg- ment of Supreme Court, Suffolk C~unty, reinstated. 363 N.E.2d 312 41 N.Y.2d 602 _i_DFI CObIMUNICATIONS, INC., Respondent, Sanford GREENBERG, Appellant. Court of Appeals of New York, April 5, 1977. Corporation brought action to enforce stock purchase agreement executed by indi- vidual defendant who counterclaimed for breach of employment agreement. The Su- preme Court, New York County, William Mertens, J., entered a judgment in favor of corporation in connection with the purchase and employment agreement executed be- tween parties and cross appeals were taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 51 A.D.2d 403, 381 N.Y.S.2d 880, affirmed and an appeal was taken. The Court of Ap- peals, Gabrielli, J., held that the minutes of board of directors meeting signed by co.?- WACHSBEI~GEI~ v. MICHALIS 621 It is a sad commentary that an entire month of the court's time and energy has been devoted almost exclusively to thc resolutlon of problems which mature, intelligent parents should be able to work out themselves for thc sake of their children. The parties are cautioned to make every effort to abide by the terms of the order to be entered hereon, both in letter and in spirit and to avoid · at ali costs any further litigation. All motions upon which decision was reserved are denied. Settle order forthwith. Application of Sidney and Belle WACHSBER, GER, Petitioners, P~r an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act v. Walter G. MICHALIS, Charles Gregory, Kenneth Chars, and William Seiffert, constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Respondents. S~upreme Court, Special Term, N'assau County, Part L Sept. 2, 1959. Proceeding on application for area variance. The board of zon- ing appeals denied variance and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Special Term, Bernard S. Meyer, J., held that where no evidence was presented to board of zoning appeals in hearing on application for area variance whether difficulty could be obviated by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the variance, and board's ori~nal consideration of the matter denying variance was based on improper criteria, matter would be remanded to board for further proceedings. Remanded to board of zoning appeals for further proceedings. 1. Municipal Corporations ¢:~621.17 A change of area may be granted in a zoning case on ground of practical difiSculties alone, without considering whether or not there is an unnecessary hardship in absence of statutory provision to the con- trary. 2. Municipal Corporations C=~621.17 lJnder statute to effect that where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in way of carrying out strict Ietter of zoning ordinances, board of appeals had power to vary or modify application of an7 regulations or provisions of ordinance relating to use, construe- 622 191 I~EW YOI{lt SUPPLEMENT, 24 SE~AIES tion or alteration of buildings or structures or use of land, special hard- ship need not be established as a condition to granting an area variance. Town Law, § 267, sub& 5. 3. Municipal Corporations C='621.22 In determining whether area variance could be granted to permit owner of plot containing 11,5S8 square feet to build two-family house although ordinance, nine days before owners took title, was changed to require a minimum of t2,000 square feet for a two-family house, board of zoning appeals should have considered how substantial the variation was in relation to the requirement, effect, if variance were al- lowed, of increased population density produced on available govern- mental facilities, whether a substantial change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining prop- erties created, whether difficulty could be obviated by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than a variance, and Whether in view of manner in xvbich difficulty arose and considering all above factors, interest of justice would be served by allowing the variance. Town Law, ~ 267, subd. 5. 4. Mualcipal Corporations ~:=621.57 Where no evidence was presented to board of zoning 'appeals in hearing on a'pplication for area variance whether difficulty could be ob- viated by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the variance, and board's original consideration of the matter denying variance was based on improper criteria, matter would be remanded to board for furtber proceedings. Town Law, § 267, subd. 5. 5. Mu~.eipal Corporations ,z=:621.47 \Vhere visual inspection was made of property in conuection with hearing before board of zoning appeals wltb respect to application for area variance, board's ~le~ision should get forth facts which would be' ascertained upon such inspection and which would be relied upon to sup- port board's determiuation. Town Law, § 267, subd. 5. Ir~'ing J. Berman, _k'ew York City, for petitioners. John A. Morhous, Hempstead, Town Attorney, for respondents. Robert D. Bell, XVantagh, of counsel. BERNARD S. MEYER, Juitlce. This Article 78 proceeding is remanded to the Board of Zoning Ap-' peals for further proceedings. According to the petition, petitioners are husband and wife, 58 and 56 respectively, "semi-retired" and now residing in Far Rockawav. On August 22, 1957, they purchased the land in qnestion in '~Vo0d~:ere for $8,000 under a contract reciting tb::t the prgn:ises were subject to zoning restrictions "which do not prohibit the erectton and matntenance ota one or t~vo famfl~ d~elhng . The seller had in 1955 obtained a re-zoning from Residence "B" to Restdence "C". Residence "C" zoning permits one or two-family houses and in February, 1956, the seller was issued a permit to erect a two-family house on the premises· The total area of the plot is 11,558 square feet, but in 1956 the Zoning Ordinance required only 1500 square feet per family, or a total of 3000 sqnare, feet for a two-family house. On Augx~st 13, 1957, nine days before petitioners took title, the ordinance was changed, effective September 9, 1957, to require a minimnm of 12,000 square feet /or a two-family house. Petitioners had no actual knowledge o£ the change until their application for a bnilding permit was disapproved on April 10, 1959. Meanwhile, they had contracted for the construction of a $28,000 two-family dwelling. They then applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance and after a hearing the application was denied in a decision which recited that it was made "after due considera- tion of all the statements made to the Board, of evidence received a-nd the Board s respect on ot the prem scs and. gate as the reason'for denial that, "The applicant has /aiIed to show that the premises cannot be used~ for a one family dwelling. A grant would be contrary to the spirit ~.nd intent of the Ordinance"· The papers submkted to the Board and in this proceeding show that the house proposed to be erected would have the outward appearance of a one family house, that the premises are ad- joined on the west by two apartment houses, one of eighteen families, the other of t~velve, and that on the south sid~ of VVest Broadway diagonally opposite the premises are two two-family houses, one erected on a plot 5880 square feet in area and the other 8100 square feet. It is further stated in the petition, although not in the papers presented to the Board, that additional footage cannot be acquired from the owners of land to the east and west. Nothing is said concerning acquisition of such foot- age from the owners of land to the north. [1, 2] The application to the Board was grounded on unnecessary hardship and the reason given in its decision, as well as the arguments made in its brief, show that the Board was applying the rule of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 24 N.E.2d 851. This ~vas error since xvhat is here involved is not a change in use but in area, and the rule clearly is that, "A change of area ma)' be granted on the ground of practical diffi- culties alone, without considering whether or not there is an unnecessary hardship. * * * in the absence of statutory provision to the con- trary, speciaI hardship need not be established as a condition to granting an area var'ance . Village of Bromxville v. Francis, I A.D.2d 236, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906, 909, affirmed with opinion 1 N.X.-d 809, 153 N.Y.S.2d 220; Gapinski v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Cheektmvaga, N.X .S._d 9~, appeal dismissed on stipulation 3 N.Y. 3A.D.2d976,162 r - '~ ,: 2d 920, 167 N.Y.S.2d 920; Siegel v. Lassiter, 6 A.D.2d ~,9, D7 N.Y.$. 624 191 NEW YOI~K SU?PLEM'ENT, 2~l SEi%IES 2d 894. The statute here involved, Town Law, § 267, subd. 5, is not to the contrary. It is phrased in the disjunctive, referring to "practical difSculties or unnecessary hardships". [3-5] No definition o{ "practical di~Sculties" has been laid down bv ordinance, statute, case law or text book, althou§h a zoning board was upheld in granting an area variance because of practical di~eu]ty in Feldman v..~assau Shores Estates, Inc., 12 Mise.2d 607, 172 769, alarmed 7 k.D.2d 757, 181 N.¥.$.2d 79 and was ordered to grant such a variance because of practical di~culty in Gruen v. Simpson, Sup.. 153 N.¥.S.2d 287, not of~cial~y reported, af/~rmed 3 A.D.2d 841, 161 N.¥.S.2d 843 and Stadden v. Macauley, 12 Misc.2d 297, 175 95'%, affirmed 4 A.D.2d 70-~, 16~ N.¥.S.2d 1004. Clearly, however, two-family dwelling being a permitted use, the question to be determined is whethe~ "carrying out the strict letter" of that provision of the ordi- nance requibing a 12,000 square foot area for a two-family house created a practical difficulty that could, consistently with "the spirit of the ordinance" and the sect~rity of "public safety and welfare", be varied in order that "substantial justice [be] done". (Town Law, § 267, subd. 5.) To that inquiry the question whefl~er the property can be used for a one-family dwelling has only slight, if any, relevance. In its deter- mination thee Board should consider (1) how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement, (2) the effect, if the variance is allowed, of the increased population density thus produced on available govern- mental facilities (fire, water, garb~xge and the like), (3) whether a sub- stantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining' properties created, (4) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue/other than a variance, and (5) whether in view 'of the manner in which the difficult)' arose and considering all of the above factors the interests of justice wilt be served by allowing the variance. On all ex- Cept item "4" the facts presented in the petition in this proceeding favor the granting of the variance. Since, however, no evidence was pre- sented to the Board on item "4", and since the Board's original con- sideration of the matter was based on improper'criteria, the matter will be remanded to the Board for further proceedings. On such remand the attention of the Board is directed to the requirement that, since visual inspection was made of the property its decision set forth tbe facts as- certained upon such inspection which are relied upon to support the deter- ruination (Gerling v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town o£ Clay, 6 A.D- 2d 247, 176 N.Y.S.2d 871). Settle order on notice. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ-APPEAL NO. THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 3513 9:55 p.m. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of Stephen Shilowitz. Variance to construct condominiums within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. West side of Sixth Street, GreenDort. "M-Light Multiple Residence" Zoning District. The preUlous hearing on this application was held July 17, 1986. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The attorneys are here and oresent? Yes. May I have your name, Sir, for the record? LAWRENCE STORM, ESQ.~: My name is Lawrence Storm from the Firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley. CHAIRMAN: Usually we allow the applicant to start the hearing. Or the agent for the applicant. And then we'll get to you shortly, Sir. Mr. Angel? Mr. Cuddy rather. I apologize. CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: My name is Charles Cuddy. I represent Mr. Shilowitz from the Firm of Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & ~ngel of Riverhead. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, it's my understanding that tonight we appear, as I understand is for the third time. Apparently I'm the new face in the crowd pretty much because Mr. Shilowitz has been to this Town Hall as well as the village of Greenport Hall numerous times, ultimately, they may name this "Shilowitz corner" in this room for him. He hopes that tonight it will be his last occasion here. I understand, and I ask the Chairman and the Members of the Board to correct me if I'm wrong--that the purpose of this hearing is to allow the opponents some time, and I understood it was ten minutes--to voice through their attorney opposition to the application that we have presented on two occasions, and various evidence to Mr. Angel of my firm. I have some things that I would like to give the board with reference to requests that I think had previously been made, and I just want to retrorse part of the record. I have one, an affidavit from Mr. Shilowitz with reference to to soil bearing capacity. I think this was requested previously also as to the Floodplain Elevation. I'll deliver that at the Page 2 - August 14, 1986 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. CUDDY (continued): same time as I deliver the other one. I also have a letter from the Village of Greenport Superintendent of Utilities with refer- ence to the availability of public water to the site. I have, depending upon what Mr. Storm wishes to discuss, some other matters which I reserve the right to put in evidence because I'm not sure what his position is~: Is my understanding correct that this is basically what we're here for? If I could put those things in the record. CHAIRMAN: Fine. MR. CUDDY: This is the affidavit. (The original Affidavit notarized August 14,~1986 and signed by Mr. Shilowitz was sub- mitted for the record.) That's the one from Mr. Monsell. (The 'original letter dated August 6, 1986 from the Superintendent of Utilities indicating that they are ready, willing and able to serve the public water and public sewage supply needs for this project was submitted for the record.) CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. Storm? LAWRENCE STORM, ESQ.: Thank you. I represent the Cove Circle Association, individual land owners, property owners, who are members of that association, of all property immediately adja- cent to the west and the north of Mr. Shilowitz' property. We here to discuss the 75-ft. setback requirement from the ordinary highwater mark of the tidal waters. We oppose any variance from the requirement as to tidal waters located to the west and to the south of the property. I will be offer- ing into evidence an affidavit by Mr. Laurence Penny, who is the Director of Natural Resources and Director of Environmental Protection for the Town of East Hampton, who sets forth clearly and explicitly that this variance, if granted, represents a problem and danger and have detrimental impact on the adjoining property owners, and represents a threat to the general welfare, health, safety of the community, especially my clients. The project or property--total property is approximately 98,000 sq. ft. of which approximately 27,000 sq. ft. in the Town of $outhold is underwater. I just wish to bring to the board's attention that when this application, as it worked it's way through the process was before the Village and the Town Planning Boards for site plan approvals, which I believe in the early part of 1982. Certain documents were presented, certain site plans were presented which set forth the dimensions of the property. I believe the board has before it the site Page 3 - August 14, )86 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. STORM (continued): plan dated, I think it's July 1, 1982. It shows on it that the property includes an area underwater directly south and somewhat to ~e east and west of the basin. An important fact that property did not become Mr. Shilowitz' until March of 1983. The significance of that in part has to do with the question of density, which I appreciate it's not mentioned in the inspector's report-Building Inspector's report; however, I think it's important to note that were ~it not for the inclusion of that underwater land that this proposed density, which I believe in the Town is 5-1/2 acres would not be complied with. There are approximately 56,000 sq. ft. of this parcel in the Town of Southold. Approximately 10,000 sq. ft., give or take, is land underwater in this particular grant from the State which occurred in March of 1983, so in any event he would not satisfy the density requirements of one 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say something at this point? MR. STORM: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Storm, as to the situation of the density, ok, we cannot specifically address that issue in this particular application. If you as the agent or attorney for the Cove Association so feel that they want to question the certifica- tion of this particular applicant, when he applies for a building permit, as to the period of time as you just mentioned in the purchase of this particular piece of property or the properties that adjoin this to make it one piece, or as to any other situation that might affect this, to the length and period of time that the permits have been out there, you know, and nothing has been constructed and so on and so forth, you must address it at the time that he actually applies for the building permit before the Building Inspector. We cannot deal with density at this particular time. It's just out of our role of aspect at this point. MR. STORM: Mr. Chairman, I accept that. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. STORM: Returning to the 75-ft. setback requirement, as a matter of law, in order for the applicant to be entitled to such a variance, he has to make an offer of proof. He has to Page 4 August 14, 1986 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. STORM (continued): make an offer of proof of practical hardship. The case law in this status was indicated in Town v. Kern. He's got to show by dollars and cents proof that he will suffer practical hardship. In order to do that he has to show that under no such circum- stances whereby he would be in compliance with the zoning requirements, he will be unable to have/make reasonable use of his property. Again in a dollars and cents point of uiew. He has introduced absolutely no evidence whatsoever on the record indicating the present value of this property as per the zone. None. I submit to you therefore that as a matter of law, this board need go no further and should deny the application in total. Let us assume, however, that by some manner, shape or form, and assuming for the sake of argument that he has shown economic hardship--which I don't accept, but let us assume that. In order for this board then to deny this application, it has to make a finding based upon a public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Penny's affidavit, and if I may, his oral testimony will indicate that in fact there are, among others, the following dangers to the public health, safety and welfare: This project, which will increase the elevation of the property any where from perhaps four to seven feet, depending on where on the property you're standing and subject to what in fact the elevations are, will represent certain flood hazard dangers to property to the north, the east and to the west. Storm surges coming along the deck from the south would hit this property and because of the manner in which it's built up, will either be diverted to the right or to the left, thereby increasing the flood hazards. I submit to this board that that's in direct contradiction tc Chapter 46 of the Town Code and represents a threat and danger to the public health, welfare, and safety. In addition to the flood hazard itself, there is the additional potential problem from over-wash. The applicant is going to bringing in a large amount of fill--some of which will be dredged, some of which will be coming from elsewhere. It's unclear at the present time where that will be coming from. The elevation of this property will be higher than the elevation of the surrounding properties. As I'm sure the board is. aware, having done --being familiar with the site-- this is a site that frequently floods. You get a heavy rain, winter storms--this area is always flooded. So is the Page 5 August 14, 1986 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. STORM (continued): community beach parcel on my client's property. There will be over wash. Some of the material brought in will in fact be deposited on properties not theirs. There will also be a potential problem of runoff. If you look at the site plan and the proposed drawings, there are steep slopes. There will be runoff from there into Pipes Cove and thereby into the Bay. This is an area the water, which is served by and for the taking of shellfish. There is a danger. There is a risk. There is a potential harm that this runoff will adversely affect the shellfish and the ability to maintain the state certification in that body of water. This board has also brought up in prior hearings the question of emergency access. Looking at the site plan, in those buildings immediately to the south and to the west, it's impossible for an emergency vehicle to get around to some of those units. In the event, hopefully which will never occur, but in the event there was a problem that residents in or occupants of those units were unable of their own mobility to exit themselves and vehicles were prevented to get into those buildings from a upland or landward side, we could have a very, very serious problem. I suggest to this board that by maintaining the 75-ft. setback, that all of these problems could be addressed and avoided. I would also bring to this board's attention its own prior history. Upon information and belief, this board has had before it since March of 1985, six applications for a variance from this section on the Bay-side of the Town, one of which had to do, believe, with a Pond, specifically on the Bay itself. In each of those occasions~ the board chose to limit the amount of the variance, which as I recall, the greatest variance allowed was within 24 ft. of the wetland, for a pool. For an accessory structure, and only in the instance where there was a retaining wall between the pool and the wetland. I believe in two other instances, there were again accessory structures, again for pools. There the board imposed a 35-ft. setback requirement. In the single instance where new dwellings were an issue~ the board insisted upon a 50-ft. variance. I would suggest to the board that in this case, in this instance, to al.low a setback of --and the site plan and the testimony is somewhat at odds--was at five feet or at seven feet, or something inbetween, represents in the neighborhood of a 90~ Page 6 - August 14, 1 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 Mit. STORM (continued): variance. In effect, rendering this provision a nullity. In effect repealing it. I would suggest to the board that that represents a complete derogation of the intent, the purpose, of this provision. At this time, if I may, I would like to submit to the board and a copy for opposing counsel, a memorandum of law on these points. Also the affidavit of Mr. Penny. I would like at this time if I may introduce Mr. Larry Penny if · tile board will permit, to give oral testimony{ he has examined the files in this regard; he has been on the site on numerous occasions; and I think his testimony will be helpful to make a complete record for the board. CHAIRMAN: As long as he addresses the issue. You're going to make-- MR. CUDDY: Before you make a ruling, I would like to object to that. I know Mr. Penny. I admire Mr. Penny. tte is a fine man and does an excellent job for the Town of East Hampton. I understood and my client understood, and my partner understood that we were here tonight to hear from the opposition through their attorney who was not avail- able at the last hearing. We've put into evidence various things. lie's offering into evidence. I did not intend and I did not prepare to present additional evidence. I prepared myself to present a rebuttal if necessary to what was there. I think it's unfair to the applicant who has been here three times to now introduce testimony on a third occasion which is set forth solely for the purpose of us presenting oral argument through attorneys. So I seriously object to Mr. Penny testifying at this time. CiIAIRMAN: I have--I somewhat concur with what you're saying because I did specifically place a restriction on the prior hearing that only the attorneys would be allowed to speak. Now you do have a-- you said you have an affi- STORM: I have an affidavit. CtlAIRMAN: Which basically includes everything that this gentleman would have to say? MI~. STORM: SUbstantially yes, but I believe that his oral testimony would include additional information based upon his site visit, maybe two hours ago. Page 7 - August 14, 1' Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. CUDDY: I think if they have an affidavit, counsel has testified nt an enormous length about things I would suppose that he must have personal knowledge--having taken that testimony, plus Mr. Penny's affidavit, I would think there would be sufficient evidence from opposition for the board to have. What he is doing now is calling witnesses that you indicated wouldn't be called. CitAIRMAN: I'm going to have to discuss this with the boardI. I will do it in an open forum, but I will not do it here. If anybody choses to be in that open forum. Only because this is not an area that's condusive to a round-table discussion. MR. STORM: If I may-- the purpose of the testimony is to give the board as complete factual background as we possibly can. The record is open. We would like the opportunity as I said to give the board has much information as we can. This is a project with grave implica- tions. We are all aware of the public controversy and public concern about these kinds of developments up and down our coastline. Mr. Penny has been studying the area. He's knowledgeable about the situation surrounding the Bay. And I think that his oral testimony could certainly be helpful and we're offering it to the board. CiIAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: If that was accepted, then I should be able to bring somebody in to rebut Mr. Penny. And I think that's unfortunate b(~cause that simply would allow us to go to another hearingl. It was my understanding that the intent of this meeting was tolbe the final meeting. I have no objection to your putting in evidence some basis of the statements ~hat have been made. He has an affidavit-- that's fine. The affidavit would be in evidence. But I think to have him testify at this time is not only late in time but I think it's improper based upon the rules set by the board. And I'm willing to abide by those rules. I would expect counsel also to abide by them. i CIIAIRMAN: All.right, I think what we'll do is we will caucus for about three minutes in the Building Department--if anybody chooses t.o go over there, they are very welcome to, and we'll have a round table discussion on this, which we normally do. This is open to the public. We are not closing it. If any members of the press or any specific group would like to sit in on it, they are very, very welcome to. I have had discussions of this nature and situ- ations which require decisions, one of which was I believe at the last meeting, and two of the members had trouble hearing me~ and I have no intentions of doing that again this time. So, I'm going to ask for a three minute recess to go over to the Building Department Page 8 - August 14, 1 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): to discuss that. MR. STORM: If I may--I would just like to address one other point. And then subject to your ruling, I'll be finished for the evening. I'd like to just correct the record before made in the past con- cerning what has and has not been done in situations at the Village of Greenport. I would like to bring to this board's attention that the site plan approval by the Village Planning Board has expired. It has under the provisions of the code, and this is not discretionary, if the construction had not begun within~two years of that approval, the language of the ordinance states that the board shall revoke the approval. The applicant has to go back to them. I'd also like to bring to the board's attention that the fact, again in-keeping with the increasing sensitivity the public officials on the North Fork are developing towards environmental issues--that the Village Board has --in now contem- plating removing from their zoning ordinance the ability to have Waterfront Condominiums. Now I respect the fact that Mr. Shilowitz for any number of extremely valid reasons, failed to act diligently upon his application after he got the initial approvals in 1982. The fact remains that he did not apply for a building permit until--of these units--until I believe it was May of 1986. He didn't apply for any permits for bulkheading until I believe in September of 1984. He has expressed some-- --counsel has expressed some disquiet --unease--arguing, that there's some kind of--it will be unjust, having gotten all those permits, and then having the law changed, brought the board now to--stop him in his tracks. I would suggest that it's a risk that we all take in life. But had he acted ina diligent fashion, not allow his site plan approval in the Village to lapse, that we would not be here today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. STORM: I'm sorry. Perhaps we can shortcircuit it. I take to heart the position of opposing counsel about the lack of notice, lack of preparation--I will waive the right of my demand for oral testimony. CI1AIRMAN: So in lieu of all testimony, you will submit-- MR. STORM: The affidavit and my memorandum of law. Page 9 - August 14, 1 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, do you want time to answer this memo? If it so addresses any issue that you feel. MR. CUDDY: Let me just check one moment with my client. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy: Mit. CUDDY: The answer is yes, I would like to have that time particularly since my partner, Mr. Angel, has done most of the work for Mr. Shilowitz, and won't be back until this weekend. So I would like a week's time certainly to take a look at it. CItAIRMAN: tonight? Is there anything else that you have to submit to us MR. CUDDY: Yes. I would like to have some rebuttal. I do have some things to submit to the board. CIIAIRMAN: Ok. Do you want to start with the rebuttal then and we'll go into the submission. MR. CUDDY: Yes. Initially I would like to say to get to the heart of the very last matter that was raised, and that's the Greenport Village. I'm really not sure what we're doing with Greenport Village here, but we've gotten virtually everything that I could imagine he said--being said. We're here on a setback variance application. But the Greenport Village Attorney John Munzel ruled on precisely the question that Mr. Storm raised, and said that unless affirmative steps were taken, there was no problem with the site plan approval, and in fact, subse- quent to that time, a building permit was issued. So not o~ly i~ it relevant, but it's wrong. I think a lot of the testimony, and I call it testimony because I think what was being given, is incorrect. A lot of it is immaterial. A lot of it has very little to do with what's before the board tonight. What's before the board, I think my partner-friend, Mr. Angel, has pointed it out on several occasions, is a question not of practical hardship, and I disagree very much on that term--it's practical difficulty. There is not a hardship question before you. It's a question of difficulty. And the standards that go with practical difficulties. In evidence before you I understand is an affidavit which goes on for pages showing the hardship, by the way, if that does have some bearing, economically, that,had been incurred by Mr. Shilowitz. It goes into the hundreds Of thousands of dollars. That's on the record here. More importantly, Page l0 - August 14, Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. CUDDY (continued): and I think that this the heart of the whole matter--Mr. Shilowitz has been heres and that's why I started out saying about being in the corner--for five years. He has been before the Army Corps. lie's been before the D.E.C. He has been before the Ilealth Depart- ment. He has been before the County Planning Commission. He has been before the Village Board, the Village Trustees, and the Village Planning Board, in the Village of Greenport. lie's been here in 1982 before the Planning Board. IIe has been before the Town Board. He got a change. As far as I'm concerned, he upzoned his property from industrial to the M-Light Multlple Dwellings that it is today. At no time has he been undiligent--to take a term that was used a few minutes ago--he spent five years going before eight different bodies. He has a building permit today in the Village of Greenport. He would very much like to get a building permit from the Town of Southold. I think there are times when facts compel a board to grant a variance. Is it a substantial variance? Yes~ it's a substantial variance. Is it going to happen again? No~ because you're never going to have an application like this before this board. This is unique. q'his is a man who has spent five years to get to this position. The Town changed the law. That does happen, but there are times when a Zoning Board is set up to do exactly the type of thing Lhat we're asking you to dos and that is to relieve us from what would be to me an unconscienable situation. And that is t(~ spend the money that he spent to go before the boards to all of those approvals and then have it pulled out from under you. And that's, I think is what is being suggested. I would think that this board is the board to do the right thing, to give some ,justice to Mr. Shilowitz at this point who has pursued this matter diligently, who has gone before the boards as indicated, ~.,~ think that these are facts that mandate very much that he g(~ts the relief that he requested. I have two things that I would like to have put in evidence b(~fore the board. One, is a memorandum which I have for counsel also~ having to do with a question of environmental law. There were some statements made by Mr. Angel who backed them up by this memorandum as to lead agency~ as to the determinations that were made. I would point out that much of the testimony given by Mr. 2torm had to do with things that are outside the cognizance of this board. I think the environmental concern was a concern that the board had, but I also point out, and I'm going to offer this in evidence top, that the significance of this particular act, that is the setback request, is a Class II Type of Action, which is a nonsignificant action; and that's exactly what the code of the State of New York says. So I'll offer into evidence two Page I1 - August 14, 1986 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 MR. CUDDY (continued): things: a copy of the General Regulations of the Code of the State of New York and the Memorandum. And I would ask the board to grant the relief requested. (Mr. Cuddy submitted copy of page 260.12c, Section 617.13, Chapter IV -General Regulations of NYS concerning Type II SEQRA actions, and original Memorandum dated August 7, 1986 with Exhibits A - M, inclusive~ for the record.) MR. STORM: I'd like to submit to the board Mr. Penny's affidavit, also a Memorandum of Law, in addition a copy of the provision of the Village Code indicating, I quote "Site Plan Approval shall be revoked in the event that the construction contemplated by such plan is not completed within two years of initial site plan approval by the Planning Board and construction must be commenced within six months of initial site plan approval." Also, if I may, do you have the copy of the building permit that has been issued by the Village? CttAIRMAN: That is not particularly appropriate in this hearing, ok? I do want to answer one thing that you were referring to, Mr. Cuddy. And that is, this board has investigated this site an innumerable amount of times. We find this a very, very difficult site to understand, ok. At one point we had no bulkhead, or a decaying bulkhead. Now we have a portion of a new bulkhead. This is not to say in any way that Mr. Shilowitz has not yielded or given us everything that we have asked for to date and there may be other things. I was down there tonight, in fact some of the property owners had seen me probably my fourth return to this particular piece of property. I am still ultimately confused. I will put it right on the record. It does not bother me one bit. In the placement of the structures. The elevation factor that might exist or may exist or will exist, possibly in half of the property. The stakes that were driven. The pilings that were driven. The height of those pilings. And so on and so forth. So I look at this particular application as a very, very significant application, not only to the property owners themselves but to myself in the agonization, and I don't know what my fellow board members have to go through, to deal with in this specific granting of what I would construe to be a substantial setback variance. I still think that I have to modify certain things that were originally stated that I somewhat agreed to on the beginning of this hearing, and that is it's true that we had recessed this hearing to allow Mr. Storm to speak, but at the same time after looking at the property, I think we really have to ask you to ask Mr. Angel to address the fact of the possibility of eliminating possibly one of these units in the town side, which may in some avail free up some of this setback. And for that particular reason, I can't truthfully close this hearing, all right. We spoke among ourselves tonight and I think we're all asking the same particular issue. And I think that has to be addressed before we can formally make a real genuine decision here. All right? So I'm going to ask that this hearing be held over to Page 12 - August 14, Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 CIIAIRMAN (continued): the next meeting, and I'm going to ask Mr. Angel to address that and I'm going to ask Mr. Storm to rebut it or whatever he chooses to do about it. But we are going to limit it again to a specific amount of time, and we are hopefully going to be able to close this on September llth which is really not that far away. And I'm sorry that I have to do that for the applicant, but at the same time we are representing the entire town in total here. Mr. Storm, we have to ask you for a list of all the people that you are representing. MIl. STORM: Those names appear on the memorandum of law. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Fine. Thank you very much. And you are going to submit a rebuttal from what we have received tonight and you will be free to give us any sort of rebuttal at that particular time alJso. Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: If it would be of help to the board, I'm sure that my client and any of the people that have worked with him would be happy to arrange a meeting with the board at that site to go over really yard by yard various elevations, and various things that the board is concerned about. I've been to the site. I'm aware of things at the site. I think that they can be shown if people are there so that the board could have some education from the people that are involved in it. And I think Mr. Shilowitz would be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN: I think that's what we're going to have to ask for. We've done it before. And the only problem is that we can't have any more than two board members or else it's construed to be a meeting. MR. CUDDY: We could arrange it on two occasions. We have no problem with that. CIIAIRMAN: We will be in contact with you and at the same time we may drop a note in the mail to this gentleman, to Mr. Storm, indicating that we're going over there--whatever the case might be. But we will be in contact with you. Mi{. CUDDY: Thank you. CtlAIRMAN: Som~ time prior to the next meeting, but hopefully after the humdrum after the next week or so--you know the summer is rapping up and so on and so forth, because we have Page 13 - August 14, I~J86 Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. Southold Town Board of Appeals 3513 CHAIRMAN (continued): people going on vacation and so on and so forth. thing you would like to say, Mr. Storm? Is there any- MH. STORM: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there anybody in the audience that ~ere not here at tile last hearing that they would like to say? Anybody on the applicant's side? No. Ok. I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next Regular Meeting of September ll, 1986. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 35].3 of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ until the next Regular Meeting of this Board, to wit: September ll, 1986. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Respectfully submitted, Board Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD '~S SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 31973 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GR~GONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI NEGATIVE ENVIP~ON~ENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance October 2, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. APPEAL NO.: 3513 PROJECT N~iE: STEPHEN SHILOWITZ 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 Envirornnental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the envirormlent 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: Permission to construct condominium comp]exes within 75 feet of bulkhead or tidal water. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of.Suffolk, more particularly known as: West Side of Sixth Street, Gr~enp0rt, NY; 1000-49-01-25.l. Zoning District: "M-Light Multiple." REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.]3 of the State Envir0nmenta] Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. . (3). 0ther. Sta~, ~ou~ty., To~ and Village permits for this and similar cons~ruct]on are in eTTeCt at tnis time. FOR FURTHER INFOPJ~ATION, PLEASE CONTACT: 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. WILL~AM W. ESSEKS iV1ARCIA Z. HEFTER CHARLES R. CUDD¥ STEPHEN R. ANGEL JAMES HEFFRON ESSeKS, HefTER, CUDDY & ANGEL COUNSELORS At LAW P. O. BOX 279 (516) 369 [700 TELEX EHCA 6852318 UW WATER ~ILL OFFICE MOnTAUK Highway P. O. ~ox 570 October 28, 1986 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz Dear Sirs: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Lawrence Storm by Dennis W. Cole of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in connection with the above captioned project. As you can see, a copy was sent to our client. This letter is relevant to the prior correspondence from Mr. to the DEC which was attached to his last submission to your board. Storm SRA: mg Encl. xc: Mr. Stephen Shilowitz New York State Department~f Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY, Rm. 219 Stony Brook, N. ¥. 11794 (516) 751-7900 Henry G. Willi,ms Commissioner Octobet 22, 1986 L. Storm Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley 33 West 2nd St. P.O.Box 398 Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Re: Permit No. TW S77-0156 Dear Mr. Storm: Our department conducted a field inspection at the site on September 26, 1986 and found that the project is in compliance with the permit and that there is no material change in the scope of the permitted activities. Thank you for your interest and concern in this matter. Very truly yours, Dennis W. Cole Senior Environmental Analyst DWC:rw cc:S. Schilowitz '~ D£PARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE October 9, 1986 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall - Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of "Stephen Shilowitz" (#3513) Town of Southold (SD-86-25) Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on October 8, 1986, reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to approve it subject to the following conditions: i. The area of building #1 should be diminished to allow accommodation of only three (3) dwelling units; 2. Building #1 shall be relocated with a westerly bulkheaded setback of 21 ft. along the Peconic Bay; Relocated building #1/accessory wood decking shall have southerly bulkheaded setbacks of 35 ft./30ft, respectively, along the Peconic Bay; and, 4. Approval of the Greenport Fire Department. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Chief Planner lApp Southold Town Board o eals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1986 REGULAR MEETING A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York !1971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., Serge Doyen, Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, cons{ituting all five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Admin- istrator, Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk, and approximately 120 persons in the audience. CONCLUSION OF HEARING: Appeal No. 3513. Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkhead(s), west side of Sixth Street, Greenport. Plan "B" submitted 9/11/86. Verbal testimony concluded 9/11/86 subject to receiving two written briefs from both attorneys, pro and con. Final submiss.ion was received 9/25/86. The following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Douglass and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to declare the Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, officially concluded (closed) at this time in order to commence deliberations and decision as required by law. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawi6ki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPF~L NO.: 3513 PROJECT N~2ME: STEPHEN SHILOWITZ 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 To~rn of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse-effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION:' DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: comp]exes within 75 feet of [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] Permis.sion to construct condominium bulkhead or tidal water. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: West Side of Sixth Street, Gr6enp0rt, NY;' 1000-49-01-25.l. Zoning District: "M-Light Multiple." REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~MINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely~to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. (3) Other State, County, Town and Village permits for this and similar construction are in effect at t~is time. SoutholdBoard Appeals Town APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH N. 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: XX Variance from the Zoning Code, Article XI , Section 100-119.2 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article , Section Special Permit Appeal No.: 3513 Applicant: Stephen Shilowitz Location of Affected Land: w/s ~lxtn ~treet, County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 49-01-25.1 Within 500 feet of: XX Town or Village Boundary Line and XX Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) Greenport (M-Light Zone) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Lan Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or Other Recreation Area or Exi-sting or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Lines, Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. or Drainage Channel Established Channel COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to construct condominium structures within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. (Four and one-half units in Town; 3½ units Village.) Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your Dated: September 29, 1986. ~t (-,-t) S ary, Board of Appeals review. Regular Meeting July 17, 1986 Copies of the Notice of Hearings on or about 7/9/86 to: Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Frederick M. Reuss, Jr., 11550-8116 Mr. and Mrs. Mr. and Mrs. Mr. and Mrs. Mr. Albert J. for B_rophy Esq. for Learz, 230 Richard Zeidler, P.O. Box 165, Bertram Walker, Edgemere Park, Hilton Ave, Hempstead, NY Laurel, NY 11948 Laurel, NY 11948 Richard McManus, 96 Webster St, Westbury, NY 11590 Breneisen, ?15 Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY 11939 £ostell6 Marine Contractlng as agent, P.O. Box AK, Greenport 11944 Mr. a~-J'Mrs. Bruce Sieverman, 50 AquaView Ave, East Marion 11939 Andrew Goodale, Esq., Box 146, New Suffolk 11956 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Kelsch, Box 411, Laurel, NY 11948 Mr. Steve Kalaijian, 25-56 222nd St, Bayside, NY 11361 Benro Survey Ltd., Attn: Christopher Henn, 121 Eddy Dr, Dix Hills as agent for Mr. Kalaijian 11746 Stephen~R. Ahgel, Esq. for Mr. Shilowitz, Box 108, East Main Street, Riverhead, NY ll901 Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Strong, 1067 Roselle Pl., Woodmere, NY 11598 opposin~ Shilowitz application Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C., Attn: Ellen Urbanski Main Road, Box 1424, Mattituck, NY 11952 for Mrs. Kurczewski Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Attn: Pat Moore, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 for Mr. and Mrs. Wissman Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. for North Fork Bancorp. and R. Gowen Main Road, Box 1424, Mattituck, NY 11952 Posted on Copies to Copies to Town Clerk and ZBA Bulletin Boards 7/10/86 ZBA Members, Town Board and Planning Board Building Department ~alV. EN, pu uant thc Town Lawi~'nn the ~n ;~ ~ ;h~ld the" foll~ng p~j~ tn~ ~ ~ held by jh~; ~WN ~ARD OF APP~ at the ~uthold ~n H~, M~n ~nd, ~uth01d, NY at a Regular Meeting of the SOUTHOLD ~WN BOARD OF APPEA~ at the SoUthold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on THURSDAY, JUNE .19, 1986 ~d ~ follows: 7:30 ~ PAUL LE~;fori ~1 of ~ision of the~B~~ lm~ rot for NuHifi~tion of ~ions ro issue a Modified Permit and Demolition ~rmit, ~d that the pro~rty owners ~ le~ to regular p~edu~s of law, to allowed only after ~i~ ~ the OCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS: qTATC t~-C klCl&l YORK 8.'00 p.m. Appeal No. 351~, ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN fo~ a Variance to the Zoning Or: ', dinah-ce, Article. 111, 5efti~ 100-31 for permission to con: eing duly sworn, says that she is the struct addition with an insuffi- c(ent ,~etback from the closest nOrtherly property ] ne as shown by sketched survey dated April IG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; :)f which the annexed is a printed copy, 22, 1986. Location of Property: in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman 6L35 Indian Neck Road; / Peconic, NY; County Tax Map .......................... '"..;.~eeks Parcel No. 1000-86-6q9. ' . 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3424- ELEANOR LEONARD for a Variance to the Zoning Or: ditmn~:e, Article .111, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for ap- proval of two contiguous parcels, havin~ insufficient area~ · ~cing on the ........... ./..~'. ....... Board.ofAppealsand in acc0r,' ,' width and dept. h. Location ol dance with all prOVisions of law. Property: Along Right-of-Way Name of Owners/Location Of off the east side of Bay Home Proocrty' FRANK E AND i~ Road (and song the end ot MARY BROPHY:,"r75 Senna Willow Point Road) Southold Street NewSuffoti~ NY:Coun~ '. NY;~County Tax Map ParCels. ~ t ......................... day of ty Tax Map Parcel N~ [' No.' 1000-$6-5-39, 40, and 41, 1000-117-10-20.7. (~ frgm,, :1 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3518- '.-7. ..... 1 9..6.!. 5/1/86). r, ,~, , MARJORIE D. PETRAS for a 7:40 p.m. Appeal No~ 3499- ,' ~ ' Variance, to the Zoning Or- DANIEL AND LISA JEROME dinance,' Article XI, Sectior for a Special Exception of the Zoning Ordinance for approval of an accessory apartment pur- suant to A~ticle I11, SectiOn 100-30(B). Location of prOper- ty: 45125 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-02-3.1. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3502- GREGORY FOLLARI for a Variance to the Zoning. dinance, Article XI, Sect|on 100.119.2 for permission to locate new dwelling with an in- sufficient setback from Lonk Island Sound bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Sound Drive, Greenport; "Map of Sec- tion Pour-Eastero Shores" Lot No. 117, Map No. 4586; Coun- ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-I.15. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3508- DAVID MOORE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cie XI, Section 100-119.2 for per- mission t6 locate new pool, deck and fence areas with an insuffi- cient setback~from Long Island Sound bluff. Location of Pro- perty: North side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Ng.. 1000-51-4-17; 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3515,~ HOWARD REINHART AND CHARLES HYDELL for a Variance to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article XI,. Section 100-118(B) and A~'tide 111, Se~ tion 100-30(A) for permission to usc existing buJJdin~ for wood. working shop and sale~ in thi~ "A-40" Residential an~ Agricultural;Zoning District. Location of Property: 43305 Main Road, Peconic, NY; Court-' ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-01-16. 100-119.2 for lmuffident setbacl, of: proposed additions frort bulkhead alon~ Corey.Creek, a~ 700 Koke Drive, Southold, NY:, County Tax Map Parcel Nd. 1000-8%5-006. ' 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3050- RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKIER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ' 111, Section 100-31 for. permis- sion to locate proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: 1C,80 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor Road), Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Sect[on 3, Map No. 4650, Lot 59; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-28. STEPHEN StiitOWITZ for yariance to the ZoniRg Or-~ ~dinaqce Article XI, Section/ ~100-H9.2 (B) for permission tO// ~construct condominium com-~ ~/pleXes within 75' of bulkhead or~ '~ tidal water. Location of Proper- ~ JtY: West Side of Sixth Street, ~ /Greenport, NY; County Tax \ [Map Parcel No. 1000-49-01-25.L ) ~Zoning District: "M-Lightl- .] L~_Multiple:' · 8:30 P.m. Appeal No. 3510- RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER for a Variance to the ' Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permis- sion to locate proposed pool deck and fencing within 75' of bulkhead or tidal water. Loca- tion of Property: 100 McDonald's Cwssing off th.~ South .Side of Peconic Bay B~ulevard, Laurel, NY~ Edgemere Park lrots 12, 13, and 14; County Tax Map Parcel No: 1000-145-4-15. 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3524- PORT OF EGYPT ENTER- PRISES for n Variance the Zon- ing Ordinance, Article XI, Sec~ tion 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate,marine fuel-storage tank' structures in this "C, Light'L inddstrial Zoning District with an insufficient set- back from landward edge of tidal wetland and from ordinary highwater mark, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Pamel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6. L Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public. State of New York No. 4806846 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires .4.~T~/ 19 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3525- PORT OF EGYPT ENTER; PRISES for a Special,Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cie VIII, Section 100.80(B) for permission to install/r~locate marine fuel-storage tanks in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.I. 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3512 SAMUEL BAILS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle I11, Section-100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to con- struct deck addition and roof over cellar stairs which exceeds the maximum-permitted 20 per-. cent lot coverage and roof overhang will reduce sideyard setback to less than that permit- ted. Location of Property: 1980 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY; County .Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-144-01-015. DATED: June 9, 1986: 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 hearings. Written com- ments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing in question. For more information, please call 765-1809 (alt. 1802). Dated: June 9, 1986 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN IT-6/12/86f36~ from the closest northerly prop- NOTICE OF HEARINC~ - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Cede of the Town of Southeld, the following public hearings will b~ held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL8 at the %uthold Town Hall Main Road, 3outheld, NY at a Regular Meet- ing of the ~OUTHOLD TOWN erty line as ~ikwn by sketched survey date~il 22, 1986. Lo- cation of Pro~l~ty: 6135 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86~6- 19. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3424 - ELEANOR LEONARD for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- vance, Article IIL Section 100- 31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of two continuous parcels, having District: "M.Light~Multiple.': 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3510.~,~ RICHARD AND RUTH ZEi~ DLER for a Variance to the Zoi~ ing Ordinance, Article XI, Sec- tion 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate proposed pool, deck and fencing within 75' of bulkheed or tidal water. Location of property: 100 McDonald's Crossing off the South Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; Edge- mere Park Lots 12, 13, and 14; tion. For more information', please cai] 765-1809 (alt. 180;tl. Dated: Jnne 9, 1986 BY ORDEB O1} TItE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN 1TJ12-5283 ~avson of Greenport, in BOARD OF APPEAI~ et the Southold Town. Hall, Main Road, gout}mid, NY on THURSDAY, ~UNE 19, 19~6 and as follows: 7:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3489: PAUl, tEARY for a Reversal of Deci~mn of the Building lnspe~- ,>r for Nullification of Actions to 39, 40, and 41. issue a Modified Permit and I~- 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3518 - molition Permit, and that the ~ MARJORIE D. PETRAS for a propertyownershelet%toregular : Variance to the Zoning Ordi- p~ocedures of law, to be allowed ~ nance, Article XI, Section 100- .rely after review by the Board of 119.2 for insufficient setback of t~ppeals and in accord&ncc with proposed additions from bul- dl provisiona of law. Name of i kheadalongCoreyCreek, atT00 :)wners/LocationofProperty: Koke Drive, Seuthoi~, ~; FRANK E. AND MAR~ County Tax Map ~'arce~ au. insufficient area, width am I County Tax Map Parcel No. depth. Location of Property i~[rc~000'145'4-15' ' Along Right-of-Way off the cas ~ 8:40 .m. Appeal No. 3525 - ' PORT OF EGYPT ENTER~ · side of Bay Home Read (and along the end of'Wallow Peat PRISES for e Variance to tt~ Road), Seutheld, NY; Coun{ ~ Zoning Ordinance, Article X[ Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-56-5- ~i Section 100-119.2(B) for permis- Ision to locate marine fuel-storage tank structures in this "C-IAght' IIROPllY, 75 Second Strest~ New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Liap Parcel No. 1000-11%10- 10.7. (Recessed from 5/1/86) 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3499 . DANIEL AND LISA JEROM]g ' bra Special Exception of the %ning Ordinance for approval of m accessory apartment par- 1000-67-5-006. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No, 3505 - RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to locate proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyerd setback. Location of Prope~y: :~uant to Article III, Section 100- , 1080 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug 10(B). Location of Property: Harbor Road), Greenport, NY; 45125 Main Road, Southold, NY; Cleaves Point, Section 3, Map County Tax Map Parcel No. No. 4650, Lot 59; County Tax 1000-75-02-3.1. I Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-2g 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3502 ~ ~ 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 -%~ GREGORY FOLLARI for a ~ STE, PHEN SHILOW1TZ for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- ~ Varmnce .to the Zoning Ordi- mace, Article XI, Section 100. ~nance, Article XI, Section 100- 1192 fi~r permission to locate dllg.2(B) for permission to con- 'ww dwelling with an insuffi. '-lent ~ethack from Long Island i ~-%und bluff· Location of Prop. e,rly: North,,,Side of Sound Drive, Greenport; Map of Section Four. Eastern Shores" Lot no. 117, Map No. 4586; County Tax Map Par- ~e] No. 1000-33-1-15. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3508 DAVID MOOREfor a Variance ~.o the Zoning Ordinance, Article )/.l, Section 100-119.2 for permi~- .;ion to locate new pool, deck and £ence areas with an insufficient setback from Long Island Sound i ~!uff. Location of Property: North Side of Seundvie. w Av-' enue, Seuthold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-4-17. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3515 - tOWARD REINHART and CHARLES HYDELL for a '~ariance to the Zoning Ordi- ~,~ce, Article X1, Section 100- ilSIB) and Article III, Section 100.30(A) for permission to use :'xisting building fi)r woodwork- ng shop and sales in this "A-40" ~csidential and Agricultural- /,oning District. Location of Property: 43305 Main Road, ':~vnk', NY; County 'lax Map ~arcei No. 1000-75-01-16. ~:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3516 - ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- struct condominium complexes within 75' of bulkhead or tidal water. Location of Property: West Side ofS xth Street, Green: port, NY; County Tax Map Par- cci No. 1000-49-01-25A. Zoning Industrial Zoning District with an insufficient setback from ng duly sworn, says that ho/she is )f THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly flished at Greenport, in the Town unty of Suffolk end State of New he Notice of which the annexed is has been regularly published in No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.1. 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3524 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTER- PRISES for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section ]00-80(BI for per- mission to install/relocate marine fuel-storage tanks in thi~ "C-Light" Industrial Zoning dig- trict, at 6~230 Main Road, South- old, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.1. 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3512 - SAMUEL BA1LS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to con- struct deck addition and roof over t cellar stairs which exceeds the maximum-permitted 20 percent with reduced sideyard :,etback to less than that perlnitted. Loca- tion of Proporty: 1980 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY', County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-144- 01-015. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above heat- ings. Written comments may also be submitted prior to thee , / Principal Clark ir once each week for _one landward edge of tidal wetl~and and from ordinary highwhter ,'ely, commencing on the 12 mark, at 6230 Main Road, South: le '~9 ~. 6 old, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ' Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RDAD-BTATE RDAD 25 BOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI 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 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,ulv_~, ~ G~RAI~D P. GOEHR~'NGER ~)" CHAIRMAN Enclosure Linda ,Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk Page 4 - Notice of H~arings Ma~ling List Regular Meeting "June 19, 1986 Copies to the following June 10, 1986 by mail, except as noted: Suffolk Times (personal delivery 6/10) LI Traveler-Watchman (" " 6/10) Town Clerk Bulletin Board posted 6/10 ZBA Office Bulletin Board posted 6/10 Howard E. Pachman, Esq., 366 Veterans Memorial Highway, Box 2?3, Commack, NY 11725 as Attorney for Brophy Frederick M. Reuss, Jr., Esq., Reuss Ruchala & Handler, Esqs., Attorney for Leary, Suite 103, 230 Hilton Avenue, Hempstead, NY 11550-8116 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Attn: Mrs. P. Moore, Main Road, Southold l1971 Attorney for Brophy Mr. Samuel Bail, 1920 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. Clarence W. Powell, as agent for Gregory Follari 380 Robinson Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Mr. Gregory Follari, 33 Fairview Avenue, Park Ridge, NJ 07656 Mr. Christopher Schwarting, Southold Pools, as Agent for Dave Moore u P.O. Box 539, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. David Moore, 301 East 47th Street, New York, NY Apt. #3M Mr. Howard Reinhart, 107 Lone Beach Road, St. James, NY 11780 Mr. Charles Hydell, 36570 Main Road, Peconic, NY 11958~ (Peconic Wood Design) Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Bodenstein, 6135 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic 11958 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Attn: Mrs. P. Moore, Main Road, S'outhold, NY l1971 as Attorney for Mrs. Marjorie Petras Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue 11935, as Attorney for Mrs. Leonard Leonard Mr. Garrett A. Strang, as Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Stocker, 54655 Main Road, Southold, NY l1971 Stephen R. Angel, Esq., as Attorney for Stephen Shilowitz, Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy and Angel, 108 East Main St., Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz, 330 East 33rd St, New York, NY lOO16 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Zeidler, Box 165, Edgemere Park, Laurel, NY 11948 Mr. Merlon Wiggin as Agent for Port of Egypt, Box 672, Greenport 11944 JUDITlt T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May ].6, 19 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal Mo. 3513 application submitted by Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel for Stephen Shilowitz for a variance and accompaning papers as outlined in the letter of transmittal from Stephen R. Angel, dated May 15, 1986. Judith T. Ter-ry . Southold Town Clerk WILLIAM W, ESSE~S MARCIA Z. HEFTER CHARLES R, CUOO¥ STEPHEN I~. Angel JAMES HEFFRON E$$EK$, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW P. O. BOX 279 I~IVERHEAD, N.Y, iI90I May 15, 1986 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAU K HIGHWAY P, O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y, 1~976 (516) 726-6633 Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of $outhold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Stephen Shilowitz for Variance Dear Chairman and Board Members: We are the attorneys for Stephen Shilowitz in application. We enclose in this regard the following: the above captioned Short Environmental Assessment Form. Wetlands letter. are also delivering with this letter six additional prints 1. Our check in the sum of $75.00 for the application fee. 2. Application for Variance in triplicate with attachments. 3. Copy of site plan. 4. Three copies of survey. 5. Affidavit of mailing on adjoining property owners along notice mailed. 6. 7. with We the site plan and a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement previously submitted. In the next several days we will give you a copy of the deed to the property and additional copies of the site plan. Please be advised that the site plan in question is the one that was of Page Two May 15, 1986 approved by the Town of Southold Planning Board a few years ago. If you need any additional information, please contact me immediately. SRA:mg Ve~y truly yo!rs, Encl. / fhe N.Y,S,.i:nv]ronmen~al (luali~y Hu~zlew Act requires cub- / % ' mission Of~hls form, and an envtronnIal reviuw will be · made by th~ board before any action ~taken. ~ ~ ~n or, er to answer the que~tion~ in th~ ahor~ gAF 1~ 1~ as~ed th~" Impa'c'~-.,[.~'tat~meH~l?arer will u~e ccrrentlF available ~fo~ticn conc~ln~ thc .... l~ely ~cc~ of ~he ac~!on, It l~ not e~ec~ea :ha~ add/~lonal were ~.e.pa~e~,.:,or c:ner lnve~tlgatlon~ w~l be The .: ,.: mmpac~.~, ~ ,h~".",' ' {b) jf any question ha= been an~were~ v.... ..... ~.~ ~ ~V~e~ed~, ..... z · ~-.~i,?,.~ ;-". Cc) Ir all que~tion~ have been an~wer,a ~ t ......... ' '' Board;~( ~h'm' ~. , (d) ,~vzron.~ental Assessment .,, .., ... ' Boar~/~ ?"f: """: .... P - . ........ l-tie pay=leal cb~nme . . :' '" ':': .;;' .... [~9~ e~S and' ~.~n~proJect Site or physically alter mort"- .... V111ag~:~ ~:~I ~ppo~f~ ' ~ ~?? be a ~lor chan~e to any ~tque or " . jF-,,. .t.~:. i .'al 0the~ ~nu=ual land fo~ fo~d On tho ~Ite? , , , , , agen'~i~;' ~avifig':: 3. Wnl project alter or My, a larg, effoe: on ".' ' juris~'~i" .... "" an oxx~t/n8 body of water? , , , :.," .; :' .-:. ~.,s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · · ., ~e~ [1o .... .: .~-.;~., · ~, ~1 proJec= h~vo a potentially largo ~ on ',['"~":' ~'"' " ~o,~wa ter quality? ,-;;~,'.'. : , ~, ~1 proJec: ~l~l~lcantly effect drainage ~ . .: . , .,'.. '"';~'?;~' 6. Will project affec~ any t~ea~ened or endangered :' - '- W~ project have a ~aJor eifect on visual c~ kno~ ~o be ~portan~ to tho com. munz~y? · · 9, Will pro3ec% adversely ~pact any ~lto or stmc~ crc of his:eric, pro-~lscorlc, or Pal~ontologlcul envlro~en~l area by a local agency? 10. W~I project have a ~Jor e~foc~ on exiathg or '..,. ' 11. Will project result In m~Jor traffic problems or . ' ;.,.... 12, Will project reg~arl7 cause objectionable ocor:, 'Jill project have any impact on public health or Will p,.oj~ct irr~c~ :b~ existing co--unity by perlod er have a ~ator negative e[~ecc On ~ ¢harac~ of the co~ r.e 15. Is ,here p,,b~t~.r~sy~,ccrn~ ,he pro.c.. No , - . ... ' - -' t ' ~' :2""' '~ '; ~.;, I :s. S~e ~j en -~t ~Ange~) ~ T.~_. Attorney May 15, 1986 Date) To: Southo!d Town Board of Appeals Main Road Sou~hold, MY 11971 Appeal Application of Stephen Shilowitz Location of Property: end of 6th Street at boundary between Town of Southold and Village of Grmenpnrt Dear Sirs: Is within the jurisdiction of. , Article 25 and ' ~ 6NYCRR Part 661, but is the subject of a permit which allows all site improvements [ ] shown on a site plan previously approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. [ ] In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-use Regul'ations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the ~'~e:.; York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that th subject property i,n the within appeal application: (pl~.a~u ch,~ck One box) however, constructed along thc water-lyin~f of this property is a bulkhead in very condition and at least 100 feet in len~ May b'e 'located within 300 feet of wetlands; however, constructed along the lyin? edge of this property is a bulkhez zn need of (minor) (major) repairs, and appr: ~ly feet in length. May be located wi 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, const along the water-lying edge of this pre is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in lenl [ ] Ma loc'-~ted within 300 feet of tida'i wetlands; there is no bulkhead or '~ ~-~. wa!~ con ...... the premisem. Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands ts '~ ~ .... ~ o~ ..... knc;;!cduo., not appear to [~]tarred items (*) indicate your property does fall within the jurisdiction of the N.Y.s. D.E.C.] Sin{ erely yours, ( ~: l~e~nUr~. ~egae~; , ' ~:OTE: If proposed project falls wi un D.E.C. ]urlodActzon, approval must be received an~d submitt6d to our office before your application can be. scheduled for a public hearing. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NL~V ¥O APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR I~'I~IIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. APPEAL NO. DATE May 15, 1986 g s .... .R...i..v...e..r..h...e..a...d.~. .................... ]~.~,~..,Y,~.k.....HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FORx~m~[~ B=iZdimg...P.e~mi, t DATED ..]~a~z...9.s...;1.~8~ ......................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Stephen Shilowitz Nome of Applicant for permit of .... .3..~.0.... ~..~ .~.[:... ~.~.r.4 ...~./;;. r.~.e.t.,..ANe~..y.O ~'k ,.. ANe.~..Za rk .............................. Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY , Light multiple residence (Southold 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY '6¢'h'"St:~'eel~'"'-'W'~]~ez;£'~°~t;"'~°~.m~e. ~e'~a'l-"/~;~zee~Port~-- t / ) 1000- 049-01-25.1 (Southold) 3~reet Use uistrict on Zoning Map 1001-007~0~-16 (Greenport) ~,~ Stephen Shilowitz ...................................................................................... t C~ner /Map No. Lot No. 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.) Section 100-119.2B 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~ (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) re,st for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... ( ) (X) ( ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ~gu~ted fort~ reason~bo~the zo~ing, ogdirmce was ~mended.on or about March 26, yoo no requzre a /~ ~oot setbacm yrom the 9rd~nary hz~h water mark of tzdal yaters (see 100-119.2B). Prior to thms amendment, the owner Stephen Sbilowzgz, had obtained all necessary approvals for the construction o~ a n~ne unzt condominium complex where buildings wer~ located closer than 75 feet to the water. The approvals include, a) zoning changes from the Village of ~reenport and Town of Southold, ~ site plan apprpvals~ e) NYSDEC permzt, d) United States Army Corps Engineers permit, e) Suffolk County Planning Commission approval,'f) Southold Town Trustees approval. ~s~ic~i?~ fo~ a y~r%an~ is mgde witno~p... =~]~:%ee"kothe rights of · ,= uw~ z~ any, nO oDgaln [ne relief requeste~..m,a:~e i:b~ ~th ' app~ov~ ~ss~e~.by gpvernmental aRencies havin~ ~e~d~. ~P~?[ prooec~, znczuazng ~he Town of So6thold. ,,-~',.?."~ .......... R~EASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaldifficultiesorunneces- sory HARDSHIP becau~ a substantial amount of money has been invested in the application process and all existing permits would be invalidated if the location of the buildings have to be changed. In addition, all governmental agencies, including the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport, have indicated their approval of the project as currently designed. 2, The hardship created is UNI(~UE and is not shored by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because of the extent of the prior approvals granted in this case. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit ofthe Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because constructing nine condominiumunits on this site closer or farther from existing water lines would not affect the character of the district. (See Rider Attached) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) S~eph%n R. An~i~.atq're Sworn to this ........ .l..5...t.,h. ................. day of....M...a, if ........... ' ..... 1986 Notary Public ~-'uallfled In 8uflo~ Coe REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaldifficultiesorunneces- sary HARDSHIP because a substantial amount of money has been invested in the application process and all existing permits would be invalidated if the location of the buildings have to be changed. In addition, all governmental agencies, including the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport, have indicated their approval of the project as currently designed. 2. The hardship created is UNI(~UE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because of the extent of the prior approvals granted in this case. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because constructing nine condominium units on this site closer or farther from existing water lines would not affect the character of the district. (See Rider Attached) STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss COUNTY OFSUFFOLK ) S~eph~n R. An~i~atqte Sworn to this ............ .1..5,..t..h. ......................... day of....l~..a.Y ........... ' .................... 1986 Notary Public ~Ommmsion F-xi~e~ Dec, 3~,nt~988 · OARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or t~'e Petit,on of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: William R. Ropp / Village of-Gree~port ~lexande? L. Scott Cove Circle Associates 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) (Other) [circle choice] ). 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: parcel at the west end .of 6th Strmmr nm hnrH~r m~: ~1 !~_g9 of Greenport and To%fa of Southold 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: Villame of Greenmnrt mhd Tn~-n n~ .qm,~hnld (waterfront commer6ial) (light multiple residence) 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief; Reduce 75 foot setback from t~d~l water S. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are .~krticle 100 Section I 1 q _ 9R [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over r~ght(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Boa-rd of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: May 15, 1986 Petitioner i~s .~eSrlt~efter' L~uddy & (~geI~ 0wners'Name~: S~ephen Shilowitz ~ Post Office Address 108 East Mazn Street, P.O. Riverhead, New York 11901 (Tel. (516) 369-1700 Box 279 P 107 575 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIl (See Revers~ ~± Ropp [st~6~d~ont Street P'~te~l[~°d~lorid Postage ~ Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and I PROOF OF MAILING OF~f~F ATTACH CERT/~m~I3.MATL g~S NO INSURANCE COVERAGE P NO]' ~OR INTERNATIONAL (See Reverse) s~t~lage of Gr~ S el No. ~l~age Hall~ P. , State and ZIP Code ~reenport, Ne, .~5 NO iNSURANCE COVEP ~'"- z_, NOT FOR INTERNAT 0., State and ZIP Code ~ostage Certified Fee * Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Special Delivery Fee Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee very Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivere[ Return receipt showing to wh ~ Date, and Addres )eliw ~ M4¥ STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OFSUFFOLK) SS.: Sworn to 12efore me this ,/ daypf /~.~ .-,. '~ ~-~-~-~- Notary Public Margaret Gironda , residing at Wading River, New York , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 15th day of May ,19 86 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice~t Riverhead, New York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by ~ (registered) mail. -., Margar~ Girond~- (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) June 10, 1986 Notice of disclaimer to anyone interested in this file: Please be advised that Celic Realtors is currently holding my Real Estate License. At the time of filing this application and the period of time that it takes to hold a public hearing and reach a decision, I have no interest in this application. I further state, that I have -no- knowledge of an existing active listing with the above Real Estate office. This statement is signed with the complete understanding of the information stated above ...... erard P. Goehringer TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I wish to disclose the following statement in the event the property in question should be pending a ream estate activity with Celic Estate Agents, Inc., who holds my conditional salesperson's license: I have no interest whatsoever in the sale of this property and am not a p~rt. of any other pending real estate activity of a business or professional nature which might be a conflict with my secretarial duties as Stenographer/Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold. Linda Kowal ski JUDITH T, TERRY TOW~ CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L.I., N. Y. 11971 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Dated: December 8, 1981 Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board, as lead agency for the action described below, has determined that the project, which is unlisted, will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Application of Stephen Shilowitz for a change of zone from "C" Light_~ndustrial District to "M" Light 'Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the west side of Sixth Street, on .Peconic Bay, Greenport, New York. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, it is assumed that there is no objection nor comr~ents by that agency. - Further information can be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Town Hall, Main Road, 'S. outhold, New York 11971. Copies to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Flacke, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk Bulletin Board Richard J. Cron, Esq., a/c Stephen Shilo~itz Village of Greenport SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING - MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER ll, 1986 9:30 p.m. Public Hearing reconvened in the Matter of Stephen Shilowitz, Appeal No. 3513. Variance to locate condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. Location of Property: West Side of Sixth Street, Greenport. The Chairman distributed copies of the maps received today concerning this pending application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is Matter of Stephen Shilowitz. like to speak. a reconvened hearing in the I'll ask Mr. Angel if he would STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Is it important that I speak into the microphone? CHAIRMAN: As long as you speak loud enough. MR. ANGEL: As long as I speak up. Is this all right? SECRETARY: That's fine. MR. ANGEL: As you all know, we've been here on numerous occa- sions, starting back I believe in June, and we presented a whole bunch of facts and legal arguments in favor of the application. Tonight I don't intend, at least in my initial presentation right now which is going to be short, to re-hash all that was said before. ~t's very obvious to me as you all took out your files that you received a new drawing prepared by Mr. Shilowitz. This new drawing was made in response to a comment of the Board confirmed in a letter made at the last meeting, which I did not attend. As you recall, my partner attended in my behalf. I was on vacation. Now, as I was saying before, this has been deliberated for several months and it's now September. And I'd just like to state my opinion that-- first, state- reiterate one thing that I think I brought out from my client when we first started and was anxious to get his approval so he could start construction. But I wanted to add an opinion to that, and I think that at this point, you have sufficient evidence--certainly Page 2 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): sufficient evidence to make a determination. And I think sufficient legal evidence to make a determination in our behalf, whether on the original application or as suggested in this additional drawing. I think as stated initially you all know this is an area variance application. Somebody here tonight stated that an area variance application is based upon a showing of practical difficulty, which as you know, is a very flexible standard. We've shown you financial evidence in that initial meeting-we submitted a detailed affidavit from Mr. Shilowitz showing how much it's going to cost him to build and what his potential return is. We've given you a whole bunch of legal evidence based upon all the approvals, previous plans filed. Explained the unique nature of the property. And should you grant us any relief, I believe that your grant of relief would clearly be sustained under the law. I'm sure you are all familiar with the basic presumption in favor of ~our determinations. If your deter- mination is supported by any rationale basis, the Courts will uphold it. And it's that principle -- was reiterated by the Court of Appeals--the highest Court of the State of New York in Conway verses the Town of Brookhaven Zoning Board in an area variance case. Now, all I'm going to say tonight beyond what I've just-- this brief summary -- is that I'm familiar with the legal issues that have transpired in the past in'the course of preparing this appli- cation and submitting the numerous documents I submitted. I reviewed all the applications before the other Boards. I'm familiar with a lot of the facts surrounding this. Mr. Shilowitz is here tonight. If you have any questions from either of us, we'd like to be able to answer them. We'd like to have a sense of where this is going. And if it's quite possible we would like a determination. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Angel, I'm a little confused at the -- and I honestly do appreciate the new application, or the new set of drawings that Mr. Shilowitz has brought in through our office this afternoon, but I'm confused at your letter. I don't know what it means. You'll have to explain that. MR. ANGEL: I'didn't want the new drawing to be considered an amendment to the application but clearly we would allow you to consider it. It's just a lawyer's way of preserving rights. Page 3 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: So in other words, we can now assume that this would be another -- MR. ANGEL: We didn't submit it to you with the view of rejecting it, let's put it that way. We submitted it to you for your careful consideration, and it's something our client designed that would be aesthetically acceptable to him. Is that clear to you? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER SAWICKI: So we can use it in our determination? MR. ANGEL: Sure you can use it in your determination. CHAIRMAN: Ok. In dealing with that particular set, I think that it's--it would be unkind of this board not to allow the people on my lefthand side to see it, so what I'm going to do is recess for approximately three minutes ana allow them to come up and to look at it. And if that precipitates any questions from their attorney, then they should mention it to their attorney and have him ask any questions that he might have, and hopefully we can get this hearing over with tonight. So hearing no objection to that-- (No objection) CHAIRMAN: Then'we'll take approximately three minutes to recess and put a few of these down for everybody to look at. (The Chairman distributed several copies for public viewing on the tables at the front of the room.) On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess for three minutes, at which time the hearing will be reconvened. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 9:46 p.m. Hearing reconvened. On motion by Mr. seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to reconvene the public hearing in the Stephen Shilowitz. Unanimously adopted.' Goehringer, Matter of CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say, Mr. Angel? Page 4 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: No. I'd like to reserve my right to comment if there is anything-- CHAIRMAN: Certainly, at all times. MR. ANGEL: No, I have nothing further to say, unless--just to reiterate if you have any questions, we're here. CHAIRMAN: I do, but I'l'l wait. Mr. Storm? LAWRENCE STORM, ESQ.: Good evening. A couple of brief comments. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to 1Qok at the sketch plan. The.significance ( ), I haven't the fogg~ist idea what it's all about. I'm a bit unclear and if the applicant's attorney can explain to us and to the board what is the significance, again what ~urpose is this n~w sketch plan being submitted. It's clearly a change or a modification from the existing plans that I understand have already been approved by various bodies, Village of Greenport and Town of Southold. Just briefly glancing at the plan, a number of things immediately stand out. For instance, you may note that the width of the existing condominiums -- strang61y enough are now wider -- they appear to be wider than the initial plan submitted previously. You'll also know, I believe, an additional parking space. You may also-- I apologize, this is being done under unusual circumstances-- for instance, I believe that the Greenport sited buildings are approximately five feet wider than previously and I believe they may be as much as seven or eight feet wider in the Southold side. I also believe now you've got one additional boat slip th~n you have buildings. As I say, in comparing the new sketch plan, either it's a change, either it's something new, or it's not. And I would suggest that either the Board can consider it as something substantial as a new proposal or shouldn't be looking at it at all. I share the Chairman's comment about certain perhaps lack of understanding about Mr. Angel's letter. Again, I just have seen it myself. I would ask the Board--you indicated you would like to wrap this up this evening.' I think we all would. However, in light of these new documents which again we have just seen, I'd like the opportunity to respond in writing to these things, or if not, then at the next scheduled hearing. Also, Page 5 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STORM (continued): I am in receipt from the Soil and Water Conservation District, Mr. McMahon. Again, I haven't had an opportunity to really review that. I'd like the opportunity to respond t6 that in writing also. Briefly, again, I don't want to take up too much of the Board's time this evening. I'd like to respond, however, to some comments made earlier. Contrary to the applicant's attorneys' representations, as a matter of law, he has not provided a sufficient showing of practical hardship--practical difficulty, excuse me. There has been no showing.to satisfy the legally required test of significant economic injury. I will be submitting this evening an appraisal by Mr. John Glander indicating the fact that this, the applicant can made more than a reasonable return on his money and be in compliance, as long as he is in compoliance with the existing zoning requirements of both Greenport and the Town of Southold. Subject to what else goes on this evening, I would ~ertainly like the opportunity to respond. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Angel, anything else? MR. ANGEL: Yes. One, I don't think you have an obligation to start anew when you've gone three or four months and based on a suggestion from the board to remove the unit. Two, as I've said to you, it's a drawing that the applicant says you can consider in making the determination in this case. Three, there is no additional parking space. Four, the Greenport side has not changed in width. Five, in order to recoup some of the loss from one unit, there's a minor increase in width of the Southold side-- it's not an increase in width of what was there because we've lost the unit, but one of the units has been expanded in width slightly. I don't know what to to~61 number of feet-- maybe Steve does. STEPHEN SHILOWITZ: I expanded three feet on each end unit, that is, two. MR. ANGEL: So, the units left --the middle unit is the same, the two side units are three feet wider than the previously designed units, except that one of the entire units is missing. Page 6 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): I have a little problem with something that Mr. Storm said. Lawyers all quote law to you, and they try to use the law as the way of bolstering their argument. I have a little problem with such a strong statement of the law as a matter of law. You can't do anything. I differ. It is my opinion, and I will tell you I'm not a judge. It is my opinion from reading the cases and based upon my practice as a zoning lawyer that a practical difficulty standard applies in an area variance case. That there's numerous factors to determine that. In my opinion, we've proven enough to establish a var~ahce under that practical difficulty standard, t really don't see very much to say. I would object to any further adjournments. I see no reason why there has to be further study. The Soil Conservation study has been out for awhile. Interestingly enough, I know that Mr. Storm received the letter with the Soil and Water Conservation Study at least a day before I did because he called me to tell me that he wanted to see my client's plans before I knew that somebody had filed them here. So, I don't see any need to prolong this thing. It's been studied to death. I'd like to end it. And again, as I said, we're here. Ask away if you've got anything. CHAIRMAN: Well, the only thing that I find missing on the newest plan is I would like the square footage of the buildings shown on the plan. I would like the setback of every part of the framing on the buildings. That includes the decks. Are they flush to the ground? MR. SHILOWITZ: The drawing states that they are 16 or 18 inches off the grade. CHAIRMAN: So therefore they are part of the actual framing of the building. And I would like the size of those, the distances of those to the bulkhead, and again the square footage of each one of the units shown on the drawing that you have so nicely given us. Upon receipt of that, we will call Mr. Storm's office. We will then give him a copy of it, and he will be allowed--be permitted, I should say, to reduce any of his opinions concerning the drawing to writing, of which you will Page 7 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN (continued): have time also to see, Mr. Angel. And we will close this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting and there will be no public comment--no comments from anybody. It will be written comment and a matter of formality to close it. Do you have any objection to that? MR. ANGEL: The only thing -- Mr. Shilowitz pointed out to me that the sizes of the units are on some of the submissions that were previously made. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you've changed those. The three units that we now have in the adjusted copy. So if you would just pencil in the square footage of each one of those. So that we don't have to scale it ourselves, and we know what the-- ~RL SR~LOWITZ: Am I permitted-to say anything-- CHAIRMAN: Surely. Please come up and we'll show you what we want. All I want is these distances here. There were minor changes, and if you would just put the numbers in. Twenty-one feet, 32 feet, whatever the difference is, and the square footage of this, this and this. Distance from here to here, on the decks, and then we'll consider-- you can go right up to here on the Southold Town line for me-- MR. SHILOWITZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN: I would really appreciate it. MR. SHILOWITZ: Everything else was there. CHAIRMAN: Just so w~ know what we're dealing with in reference to the units. Ok? MR. ANGEL: If we're going to do it that way, Mr. Chairman, why don't we set up a precise schedule. We'll get the plans with the additional information by a certain date. We'll deliver a copy to Mr. Storm. He gets his comments to us at a certain date. We'll have an opportunity to reply. Page 8 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Let's start with Mr. have this done, Mr. Shilowitz? MR. SHILOWITZ: Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Let's work-- MR. ANGEL: Let's right, and assume CHAIRMAN: Storm? MR. STORM: CHAIRMAN: MR. ANGEL: CHAIRMAN: SECRETARY: CHAIRMAN: MR. ANGEL: CHAIRMAN: work then until everybody gets And then he can Shilowitz first. When can you Monday or Tuesday of next week, copies on Tuesday. ' '" -- how long will it take you, Mr. A week. Which is the following Tuesday. So we're talking the 16th till the 23d. And our meeting is scheduled'for what date? The second? The 2nd of October. Second of October. Right. Because we're not doing anything but coming in and saying, "Have you submitted everything you wanted to submit~ and hopefully he will say yes. MR. ANGEL: I will submit a week before that meeting so you will have it. If I have any comments, 6s I said before-- CHAIRMAN: But you have the right to review anything that he-- MR. ANGEL: That's right. He's going to give it to me. I'll submit it and he'll have an even further chance. CHAIRMAN: Right. Fine. Page 9 September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SHILOWITZ: May I ask a question? I was scheduled for a 9:00 ferry boat tomorrow-- CHAIRMAN: Please don't worry. Next week will be fine. MR. SHILOWITZ: I have a specific reason for everything. You have seven prints. I can take any ferry'boat. If I can take those seven drawings while I'm here in Greenport-- you know I am in New York-- not that the mails don't work. I can sit for an hour and mark those drawings up completely. CHAIRMAN: You can take six of them, but you can't that seven. We have to retain one. MR. SHILOWITZ: Would that be acceptable? CHAIRMAN: That's fine with me~ MR. SHILOWITZ: Instead of reprinting everything all over again. CHAIRMAN: Fine. We'll give them to you right now. (Mr. Shilowitz was given six prints to be marked as requested.) MR. ANGEL: And what do we have to give? MR. SHILOWITZ: Areas of all the buildings that are in Southold, and all the significant setbacks of every corner. CHAIRMAN: Right. Areas of all the buildings in the Southold Town side. MR. ANGEL: You want lower and upper? CHAIRMAN: floor. First floor, unless second floor overhangs the first MR. SHILOWITZ: I'll give you the worse-case condition. That's what you're really looking for. To me, we always use the foundation. CHAIRMAN: Unless of course something hangs over. Page l0 September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Steph~n Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. of the building. ANGEL: Ok, you want the square footage within the perimeter Excuse me? I thought ~bur also have a few attorney was represent- things to say. Oh, I'm sorry. all units, the first floor, second Not only square footage but the exterior. You don't care MR. SCOTT: CHAIRMAN: ing you. MR. SCOTT: He does but I CHAIRMAN: I apologize. MR. ANGEL: Ok. The areas of floor if there's an overlap. CHAIRMAN: Size of the units. dimensions~of all the buildings. MR. ANGEL: Size of units. That's about the'interior, right? CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. ANGEL: All setbacks. CHAIRMAN: Including decks. MR. ANGEL: Is that it, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Yes. Could we just have your name for the record? AL SCOTT: A1 Scott. MR. SCOTT: Are these the ones being submitted to the Building Department? CHAIRMAN: No. These are b6ing submitted to us as a "B" plan. We have received an "A" plan and assuming, this can be construed as a "B" plan. MR. SCOTT: The setbacks that he's showing here are what we are now going by. Not the original? Because these'have changed. Page ll - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing Steph~n Sh~16witz Southold Town Board of Appeal~s CHAIRMAN: That's correct. We're using everything to make a decision when he gives us what we want, ok? We're not using-- we make take a piece of one or whatever the case might be. We don't know at this point. MR. SCOTT: You're only considering setbacks. You're not considering elevations? CHAIRMAN: We are not specifically dealing with elevations here, ok, because this is a setback appl-- MR. LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT.: The elevations belong in the Building Department. (Several discussions from other persons in the audience were taking place at this time which were ihaud~ble.) MR. SHILOWITZ: Ok. I have six. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Storm, did you have something else to say? MR. STORM: Thank you. I would just like to correct one comment by Mr. Angel concerning my access to. the new sketch plan. When I spoke to him yesterday, ~y understanding was that was the final version and subsequently understood that an additional sketch plan was going to be made which included things which may or may not be significant depending on the viewpoints of the setbacks. I considered that therefore as much as the sketch plan that he had in his office including that other document would be the one that was in fact submitted this afternoon. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? (Nothing) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion recessing this until the next regularly scheduled meeting--not for public comment. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Respectfully submitted, ~ _ ~/J J , ~inda F. Kow~lski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals September 15, 1986 BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ APPEAL NU. THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1986 3513 A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 9:38 o'clock p.m. on the 19th day of June, 1986 in the Matter . of the Application of Stephen Shilowitz, Appeal No. 351~. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen; Charles Grigonis; Robert J. Douglass; and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting the five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Stephen R. Angel, Esq., Attorney for Mr. Shilowitz, Victor Lessard, Building-Department-Adminis- trator, Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk, and approximately 35 persons in the audience. Chairman Goehringer opened the hearing at 9:38 p.m. and read the notice of this hearing as published in the Suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler, and read the appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map, site plan indicating Units A through H, including a boathouse or work shop, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County lax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The drawing of the site plan is dated July l, 1982. Mr. Angel, would you like to be heard? STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Yes. My name is Stephen Angel, and I represent the applicant, Stephen Sh~lowitz. Can you all hear me? I prefer standing here rather than speaking into the microphone. But I will yell into the microphone if you have trouble hearing me. CHAIRMAN: If we don't hear you, we'll just ask you to Page 2 June 19, 1986 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz CHAIRMAN (continued): bring a court reporter the next time.(jokingly). MR. ANGEL: I do that only when I intimidate. MR. ANGEL: As the application indicates, we're seeking a variance from a newly adopted provision in your zoning code- Section 100-119.2(B) which now has a townwide 75' setback in building along, I guess, non-soundfront water. What we have here is a project that was designed quite a few years ago to locate nine units on a parcel of property located in both the Town and the Village. You all have the site plan. This is not the normal, usual case. We come to you at the tail end of the application process. And I want to take a couple of minutes to indicate the history, which Mr. Goehringer glossed over when he read the application. I say we're at the tail end of the application process because this site plan--the site plan that you see, that comes by the way as close as 7.7 feet to existing bulkheaded waterfront has been approved by a myriad of agencies. You are one of the only agencies on the East End of Long Island that hasn't had a whack at this application as yet. It started out in 1981, in August of 1981, when Mr. Shilowitz entered into a contract to purchase this property. That contract was specifically contin- gent on getting all the necessary approvals to build the project as shown on the site plan--the site plan that's before you. In fact, a drawing of that same plan was attached to the contract, and if Mr. Shilowitz did not obtain the approvals to build in accordance with that site plan, he didn't have to buy the property. They gave him in the contract a long period of time to go out and try to obtain all those approvals. He started on his quest, and as you can see from the applica- tion before you, he has site plan from the town-this Town's Planning Board, and he got that in June of 1982. This Town's Town Board changed the zone from light-industrial, I believe --some industrial use--to M--Light Multiple Residence, to accommodate this particular site plan. He went to the D.E.C. The D.E.C. gave him a permit to construct all nine condominium units in accordance with this particular site plan. He went to the Army Corps of Engineers, and they him approval to construct the condominiums in accordance again with this particular site plan. The Village of Greenport changed the zone from a residential use to WC Waterfront Commercial, which Page 3 June 19, 1986 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz MR. ANGEL (continued): is a zone that allows waterfront condominiums. Very similar to your M-Light Multiple Residence. Although there's an important difference between the two zones that will come up later in my presentation. They changed the zone in August of 1982--no. Pardon me. They changed the zone in February of 1982. This site plan was taken to the Village of Greenport Planning Board just as it went before your Town's Planning Board and resulted in a conditional use approval in August of 1982. The Village of Greenport has granted wetland permits for the property. They've granted a building permit for the property, and in fact, some of the site construction, noncondominium-unit construction--bulkhead and grading is being done right now in conformance with the Village of Greenport. The Southold Town Trustees as recently as May 29th, waived further wetland permits. also granted a wetland permit and the necessity for coming for Now, you all have before you a copy of the site plan, but what's not on that site plan is what would happen--the absurd result that would happen if the 75' setback were imposed upon this parcel at this late date in the application process-- Mr. Shilowitz who is sitting here, by the way--I should have introduced him already, sitting next to Tom Samuels, and I met in my office this afternoon, and Mr. Shilowitz sketched an approximation of that 75' setback, and I'd like to introduce the symmetrics. You will note that 75 feet would leave a building envelope--and I am going to show it to you by hand-- between this side of the property. I don't see North/South. Here it is. From the North Side of the property going back a fairly small area. This is the 75-foot setback from this particular place where the water meets the upland. You'll see this Park over here. This is 75-foot setback from, I guess, the northwesterly side; and these two lines reflect 75' setbacks from the southerly line of the property, depending on where you measure. From this--the boat area here, is not in effect right now. It has to be dredged. The existing shoreline is water-ward of that, and these two 75' setback lines reflect what either one of those circumstances would be. Leaving a very small building envelope. The dilemma created by this is even more absurd. You will Page 4 June 19, 1986 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz MR. ANGEL (continued): see that small building envelope. And I guess somebody could say that, "Well, with a small building envelope you could at least build a house in there." But what's interesting about it is that the zoning history, the fact that these two different muni- cipalities wanted to approve this particular project, has lead to a real paradox or dilemma. Because the two zoning ordinances in which the property was placed--M-Light Multiple Residence-- isn't that what it's called--Light Multiple Residence, in Southold, permits all sorts of residential uses. I guess you can start-- it's a cumulative ordinance. You can start with a house and work up to multiple residence. Is that correct? I believe that's the case in your ordinance. CHAIRMAN: It depends. MR. ANGEL: And then in Greenport, however, the WC Waterfront Commercial District, which allows waterfront condominiums, only allows that--that is the only residential use, so if we couldn't build this particular project--Greenport would say, ~'!Build a commercial building there." Southold would say, "Build a residen- tial building there," and we'd have to somehow squeeze that in the middle of the line. It just doesn't work. And the problem is created is part because all these boards have particularly dovetailed the zoning to this particular project. Now, it just so happened that in 1985 the Town Board adopted this general 75-foot limitation, we assume, inadvertently because we'd had no indication that there's any dislike to the project, and we now have to seek relief from you people. Because of the 75' limitation. It just does not work. Now, the result of this obviously is a very substantial economic loss, and we've prepared an affidavit that Mr. Shilo- witz has signed setting forth in dollars and cents what his economic loss would be. He estimates, in fact, marginal profit at best if it's built with the full nine units--if there's any loss of units the project becomes unprofitable. And in addi- tion, there's been a very substantial investment in consultants, architects--Mr. Shilowitz happens to be an architect--he did seek outside assistance in preparing the plans. Engineers, consulting engineers, environmental consultants and attorneys who have been involved in all of these applications since 1981 to the present. Obviously, if there had to be some change to the plans that have been so carefully reviewed by so many boards, Page 5 - June 19, 1986 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowi~tz MR. ANGEL (continued): that expense and the time involved would have to be duplicated. Now here's the original affidavit. And I've prepared a whole bunch of copies which I would like to give the board members. (Mr. Angel distributed copies to each board member.) Now, as I said, Mr. Shilowitz is here tonight in case you have any questions. I'd like to at this point introduce Bill Lieblein, one of the Trustees of the Village of Greenport, who has consented to come here tonight and indicate Greenport's position in connection with this project. I think it might be beneficial to your board to know how the Village of Greenport feels about it, and I'd like to introduce Mr. Lieblein. BILL LIEBLEIN: Bill Lieblein, Trustee, Village of Greenport. As Steve has pointed out, the Village has worked and dovetailed with all the boards in Southold in order to get Mr. Shilowitz's project on line. And the officials in the Village of Greenport continue to support this project. Something that wasn't brought out as I believe that the density could have been much higher than what he has planned. He's kept his density much lower than some of the other projects, with the idea of a high quality facility. So Members of the Viii--speaking for the Village officials, we would urge you to give this a favorable response so that Mr. Shilowitz can continue his project and put it on line. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank you personally for coming here tonight, Mr. Lieblein. It was very nice of you to do so--I just want to ask you one quick question, if you don't mind? MR. ANGEL: To Mr. Lieblein? Sure. MR. LIEBLEIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Has the Village of Greenport dealt specifically with a complex of this nature as close to the water as--we're having trouble dealing with a 20-foot setback to be perfectly honest with you. And as little as a five-foot setback in one corner. Ok? What in effect I'm asking you, and it's a fishing type of a question--I know that there are condos going up two streets away--actually almost seen from this site. Are they as little as 20 feet from the water? Page 6 June 19, 1986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz MR. LIEBLEIN: The site at the end of Fifth Street I believe is set back quite a bit more than this, but it also fronts on the open bay. The site at the end of my street, Central Avenue, in Greenport, which is Sterling Cove Condominiums, on the waterfront, I believe--on the open bay, probably from the bulkhead itself, my guess is about 30 or 40 feet; but I believe on the basin side, it's quite a bit closer than that. And I've walked in there because it's only about 200 feet from my door, but I can't tell you exactly what it is. I think the difference is that, when you're on the inner basin there, you're on a bulkhead as opposed to the open beach, and again haven't looked at his plan recently--I don't know how close his buildings are to the beach facing the Cove on the open water. Is the closeness mostly the bulkheaded area of the inner basin? MR. ANGEL: I think the closeness is at the bulkhead as bulkhead meets the beach. That's the closest point, is that correct? the MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR be at the any of us · LIEBLEIN: To answer your question, the closest would Sterling Cove Condominium project, which is up--which I guess could go down and take a look at. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much. MR. ~ANGEL: Jerry? I can add a little bit to that and so can Tom Samuels wh6 is in the audience. I was the attorney for the Sterling Cove project, and went through six years of applica- tions and litigation on it. I believe that at some points were about 15 feet from the water. MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is though, is it the inner basin or is it the open water? MR. ANGEL: Well, I don't think there's any place where any of the units are less than 30 feet from the water, even in the open water side over there. That's my understanding, my recollec-' tion of it. In fact, the applications in Greenport allowed us to be closer. The'D.E.C. in that situation asked us to come back. Now in this situation, the D.E.C·, I was not involved in the D.E.C· applications on Pipes Cove, the Shilowitz project, but the D.E.C. approved the location as close as approximately -- I guess the plans show approximately five feet--but Mr. VanTuyl went out there and measured it just because we figured that issue would come up Page 7 - June 19, 1986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz MR. ANGEL (continued): tonight and said that the closest point would be 7.7 feet. Rambo, Mr. Samuels' Company, is doing the site work at the Oyster Point project on Fifth Street, and he will probably have some idea how close the buildings are to the bulkhead. TOM SAMUELS: It's not quite accurate that I'm doing the site work. We drove the pil~s and the piling foundations to the buildings. At one point, one of the buildings is within four feet of the basin bulkhead. But I think that the difference between that project and this project is that essentially from an easterly direction there aren't any bulkheads at all on the condo set-up at the end of Fifth Street, the old Oyster Factory. CHAIRMAN: No, I know--it's beach area. MR. SAMUELS: It's beach. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. SAMUELS: So that you don't have protection against flooding that you would have hopefully with a bulkhead. The one at Sterling Cove, some of the units are very close to the inner basin bulkheads, but there is about 25 or 30 feet on the bayfront section. The swimmingpool complex on the other hand is directly on a pennisula built out into the park, so there are a couple of things. They're different in some ways, but similar in others. CHAIRMAN: In no way was I comparing the two of them; I think that if one was to at least even draw some sort of comparison, I think you have to deal with Sterling Cove and this particular project before you can deal with the one on Fifth Street. But it was merely a question really directed to Mr. Lieblein mainly in an area of philosophy of what'you've been dealing with With these particular complexes, because they are unique to their own piece of property. There's no question about it. The only other ques- tion that I had, Mr. Samuels, if you could answer it for us, Mr. Samuels, it's our understanding that this particular bulkhead that you're constructing has no staves in it? There are no deadmen? No pipes running back to deadmen? MR. SAMUELS: No, it's a conventional navy wall construction with tie rods and anchor piles and lay rods--very heavy construction that's designed by a New York City structural engineer, Wiedenger Associates. I would be very happy to submit a set of plans to you on the bulkhead construction, but it's very heavy. CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Douglass would like to see those if you wouldn't mind. Page 8 June 19, 1 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz MR. SAMUELS: Sure. MEMBER DOUGLASS: And they've got to run far enough that they're going to be back under this building. MR. SAMUELS: On the-- on the-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: Tie rods. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. On the southwesterly most building the tie rods actually will be under, and the anchor piles will be under the building. It's all heavy treatment stuff. I dare say the anchors and tie rods will outlast the bulkhead itself. Probably~ it's been our experience that you might get--if the anchor system is properly built, you can re-tie into it--as you know. You could re-tie into it for several bulkheads. It's very heavily and well designed and we intend to built it well. Any buildings built close to the water have that potential for your having to do some maintenance on the bulkhead and having problems in doing it. I think that's why Wiedenger's gone so heavy with the tie rods and anchors, but we will definitely have a set of plans to you if Steve doesn't have a set with them tonight. We'll get you a set of plans. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. SAMUELS: It"ll pro~ably be as heavy a commercial bulkhead as you'll see in any part of Southold Town in our experience. It'.s a sock-o bulkhead. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Let me ask you a simple question. You're talking about the strength of the bulkhead, which I agree -- it no doubt it's going to be and will have to be strong to maintain any of this structure within that distance, but when you come to changing stuff, how are you going to change it--are the buildings going to be constructed to 1.ast 20 years and the bulkhead 30, or the bulkhead 30 and the buildings 50? (Secretary changed to Tape #3)~' (continued on page 9) Page9 - June 19~ [986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing iViatter of Stephen Shilowitz SAMUELS: I would say that we could probably get three bulkheads in, so we' re looking with one-lb CCA treatment I think we can count on 35-year life on the face of the structure. In givin9 it three bulkheads~ I think you can hook to those anchors. We've certainly done it on some old County projects--old County bulkheads that we hooked into. So you' re looking at as much as [00 years of life of the anchor system of the bulkhead and possibly three bulkheads for the condos. The buildings themselves are on piling foundations. Again one-bi. CCA piling foundations, 20-ton capacity~ super grade beams that '~ldenger has again designed. I think that the life of the structures is-- well--it' s as good as any structure~ any buildings that are being built. In time~ they' ll have to be maintenanced, the bulkheads and probably the anchor system. I don't know. With the onset of doom that the EPA is talkin9 about rising sea level, you know~ we're not even talking about the East End of Lon9 Island in 35 or 40 years, so who knows. But this particular project is 9oing to be very well built and very expensively built. CHAIRI~IAN: Thank you. I'm sorry, it probably wasn't the proper time to ask those questions~ but since we were dealing with it. },iR. ANGEL: I have a couple of more things if you don't have any more questions. Can I just ask your indulgence so I ask -- I must assume that one of the concerns in this particular provision of the ordinance of the code that we' re talking about~ primary concern is environmental; and one of the things that's unusual about this project is it' s proximity to Greenport. And because of that, it' s 9oin9 to be served by public water and public sewer ~ which you don' t get and a whole bunch of other applications along the water. You do have the unusual situation again of having the D.E.C. ~ which diligently prosecutes the Tidal Wetlands Act, allowing this to go in as presented to you. You have the detailed permit there. And I would guess one of your concerns ~uld be the precedential value of the decision in this case in our favor~ and what' s unique about it is the fact is that we a[ready have this myriad of approvals on this particular site plan. There' s so much water under the bridge, that we' re a very unique application. A lot of these concerns and some of the factors touched on by Bill Lieb[ein are contained in the Affidavit of l~lr. Shilowitz that I submitted a little while ago~ including the economic value, and I refer you to it. And ask you to read it before you draw any judgment. Thank you. CHAIRIVIAN: Thank you. Is there anybody ~dse that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody against the application? Sir, maybe you could come up a little bit to state your name. The microphone is right here. Page ]0- June 19~ [986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing IVlatter of Stephen Shilowitz AL SCOTT: My name is Al Scott~ and I bought a piece of property adjacent to IVlr. Shi[owitz. I don't have objections or approval of this thing either way. I' d like to as some questions for the board to consider. On the westerly side of this project~ there is one corner of one of these condos comes within approximately five to six feet of the bulkhead. Now this piece of property~ and I don't know if you' re familiar with it or not~ was the Ellsworth property. It doesn't follow the normal contour of what was originally the contour of Pipes Cove. This was built out by the E[[swortbs. Consequently~ we have "x" number of feet going out into the Bay. When he goes out 20 feet~ within 20 feet~ we know have a situation where the law ca[ts for 75 feet, heis back far enough that he is not actually at the shore line with the corner of that building. When you go out 25 feet~ that building now is in the Bay. So when we need 75 feet from the front of the Bay~ why don't we need it from the side. You know what I' m saying? The westerly side. In other words~ it is still in wetlands. That leg that sticks out. CHAIRMAN: I don't know that it's wetlands. l~lR. SCOTT: Well, it' s water. It' s the Bay. It' s Pipe Cove. CHAIRIVlAN: It' s within the area~ Sir~ that' s to my knowledge that is buIkheaded~ however~ so there is different jurisdiction at that point. I~iR. SCOTT: The front is bulkheaded. CHAIRMAN: I know. Actually all the sides are bulkheaded. MR. SCOTT: I mean it's still sticking into the Bay. CHAIRMAN: Oh sure. It's a pennisula. lVlR. SCOTT: Right. Well it has wetland--the setbacks has no bearing there? That five-point or 7.7, I believe? CHAIRIVIAN: That was certainly one of the areas that we have a tremendous concern. NIR. SCOTT: I just want to make the board aware that it is very close to that. CHAIRNiAN: Certainly. Definitely. Page ]]- June 19, 1986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of Stephen Shi[owitz MR. SCOTT: Now~ the other thing. Mr. Lieblein said that the Village would allow more density. The Village only has one part of that. The density in Greenport has nothing to do with the density in Southold. Two different ball games. CHAIRlV~AN: That' s correct. lVlR. SCOTT: The other point I would like to mention--how it effects the buffer zones between the community beach that I have a right if he moves further out compared to the 75. I just want the Board to take that into consideration. CHAIRIVlAN: Is this the beach on the westerly side that you're-- lVlR. SCOTT: The westerly side~ within seven feet of that one corner of that one unit. If that unit was even e[iminated~ he would have much more of a side setback. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would you like to say something~ Sir? ROBERT STRONG: Yes. I would. My name is Robert Strong; I' m one of the other owners with undivided interest in that beach. That is the parcel within the five or seven~ dependin9 on their point of view~ foot setback. And I think listening to all the agencies that approved this and all the statements that were made~ without bein9 whimsical~ I think I know how the snail ( ) felt. I fee[ a little alone here and rather sma[l~ but in the meantime~ all I know this is an opposin9 array and it seems to me from a layman's point of view~ many potential buildings in a small place- I believe that is the heart of the problem. I believe that is the problem that causes the conflict of the law. Furthermore~ I believe there is an adverse impact to me in the quiet enjoyment of what used to be in part my beach that [ didn't share with an imposingly tall structure. And I don't know fully what that impact would be. I haven' t been given all the information because in part I don't think all of the owners of this beach parcel were properly notified on the occasion of this request for a variance~ and I believe the parties who wish the variance are aware that there was a different notificatior, here--namely the the Cove Circle Association was notified. As distinguished from the individuals-owners of the undivided interest in the beach. And that Association in a previous matter for which Mr. Shilowitz was a party~ was held to be a void organization~ a nullity~ and therefore not capable of being notified. And therefore I also wish to ask in the event~ or perhaps before a decision is made~ the question of proper notification be considered as well as the impact on people like me. If this were not going to continue--I gather it will--I would have asked for PaDe ]2_ June 19, 1986 Transcript of ZBA Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz IVlR. STRONG (continued): time to see if I needed counsel to protect my rights. If it is anticipated that it will continue for a period of time as long as 60 days, which seems almost comical given the situation and its past history~ then I wouldn't ask for that. If it may be determined before that period of time~ then I would ask for an adjournment so I can arrange to see if I need counsel to protect my interests. CHAIRiVIAN: Sir~ let me just say this to you. 'We have never not listened to a property owner~ an adjacent property owner in the area. If you feel--I can't answer the question when the Board would make a decision if we closed the hearing tonight- we have 60 days to do so~ ok. To be perfectly honest with you, if you fee[ that you seek counse[~ then it might be to your best suggestion that you ask us before I close this hearin9 that we reconvene this at some other time. As for the proper notifica- tion issue~ I can't answer that question sittin9 here with all of this stuff in front of me to tell you if everybody has been properly notified. I know that we advertise in the proper over and above the proper notification that' s usually done when the application--that is always done when the application is fi[ed~ and if you' re telling us that you can notify other people~ and that you do want to seek counsel~ I myself certainly would make a recommendation to the Board to recess the hearing. And why don't you ponder that over for a little while while we continue with the hearing and let me know which way you would rather 9o? IVlR. STRONG: I have been ponderin9 this. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Good. IViR. STRONG: And we have been here for a while and had an opportunity to listen. I believe if I heard correctly you have another meeting scheduled for July l?th? CHAIRMAN: That's correct. IVlR. STRONG: I would like to have until that time to bring counsel or indicate or find that I don't neediit. CHA IiRlVlAN: Ok. lV~R. STRONG: I also have a memorandum to support my contention about the Association not being the proper party to be notified--a Court decision of another m atter. Page ]3- June 19~ 1986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing IVtatter of Stephen Shilowitz (Secretary and Chairman briefly discussed whether or not names and addresses are available from lVir. Stron9 as to the parties who should have been notified. ) CHAIRIV~AN: Can you supply us with a copy of the names and-- l~iR. STRONG: Yes I can. I have other papers which when an application for use of land underwater was made from the Office of General Services. I have the manner and form of notification with-- CHAIRIVlAN: Can I haveyyour name again? IVIR. STRONG: Robert Strong, S-t-r-o-n-9. CHAIRMAN: Ok. And you'll 9ire us that tonight or will you give it to us-- MR. STRONG: Yes. These are the only copies I have~ but I'll give them to you in the rreantime~ perhaps you can get some extra ones made and mail them back to me. I do have the copies with me~ yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. STRONG: I have some papers to fish through~ can I give them to you at the end of the evening? CHAIRMAN: No problem~ certainly. CHAIRI~IAN: Ok, Mr. Angel--excuse me. rv~R. ANGEL: I just have a couple of things to add. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. ANGEL: Somebody raised the issue of density. At the time that all of these applications were made, I believe the Village of Greenport is still the same. I think the Village of Greenport allows eleven units per acre in the WC Waterfront Commercial District. And at the time the application was made, Southold, I believe allowed one unit per 6,500 sq. ft. of surface area in the M-Light Residence Multiple, M-Light lVlultiple Residence District, which this is in; and Mr. Shilowitz Page ]4- June 19, 1986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz lVlR. ANGEL (continued): had computed that at the time we made the application~ if he wanted the maximized density~ he would have been able to locate 19, not nine units~ on the property. As far as the notification, that's a function that my office took upon itsel£~ and I caused both checkin9 the tax maps for adjoining parcels, and I also sent somebody out to your tax records to verify the ownership and whoever 9ets notification of those tax records~ and that' s where we sent them. I' m not privy to memoranda~ unpublished things. I' m only capable of checkin9 public records, & that' s what we did. '~fe checked both records in this case~ including updated tax maps. And 1 said the tax receivor's records. CHAIRIVIAN: Could you supply us, IVjr. Agen[~ and I don't mean to cut you off~ with an approximate area per square foot or per acre~ based upon 40~000--on how much of this property is actually lying in the Town of Southold. MR.ANGEL: I think 55,000 sq. ft. I think we have that. I would ask also--I don't like being in the position of arguing to cut off somebody' s rights~ so I' m not going to object to an adjournment. I would like you, however, if you wou[d~ IVir. Chairman, give me a copy of whatever is submitted or make it available to me. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. SHILOWITZ: FiRy-six thousand nine-hundred ninety-seven (56,997) sq. ft. in Southold. Forty-one thousand four-hundred ninety-seven (41,497) sq. R. in Greenport. (The Chairman was asked a question by Mr. Lessard concerning maneuverability of fire vehicles around the buildings. ) MR. CHAIRIVlAN: The question Mr. Lessard has is how are we goin9 to 9et emergency vehicles around the buildings, and that's an issue you can address in the next hearing if you so desire. MR. ANGEL: ~re' Il address it by all means, h/e have a logical difficulty here~ and I don't mean to say it disrespectfully. ~re have been through site plan approved before your Plannin9 Board. I have not been involved in any of that process, but certainly I'[[ ask Mr. Shi[owitz to address the question~ and I'll also review your record before your Planning Board to see how it was dealt with at that time. Page ]5- June 19~ [986 Transcript of ZBA Hearing lvlatter of Stephen Shilowitz CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. MR. SHILOWITZ: I can answer the question about emergency. lVlR. ANGEL: Why don' t we submit a-- lV~R. LESSARD: I' ve seen that you' ye designed to overcome the flood problem~ which is very good. But this bothers me a little bit on how to 9et a fire truck on the back side of this stuff~ and I thought possibly you could re-design it and move it back and it will open this without gettin9 too involved. I~R. SHILOIdlTZ: Well~ it can't be moved back. But again that will be addressed in a [engthly paper. But I did want to say that I' ve discussed the firefightin9 design of this project with Jim Monsel[ (Superintendent of Uti[ities~ Greenport Village)~ very closely, and he assured me that in addition to my putting extra hydrants on the site~ that I was within the 500 ft. requirement of an existing hydrant--but I' m putting two hydrants on the site itself~ and that puts everything within 100 feet. lVlR. LESSARD: The hydrant~ Sir~ I'm not-- i~iR. SHILOWITZ: That's all I can in my beha[£. MR. LESSARD: But~ Sir~ you understand~ the hydrant part doesn't bother me at all. It' s to physically get the fire equipment itself on the water side of your establishment. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. Strong? IVlR. STRONG: I have the previous notification letter. (l~,r. Stroh9 9ave copies of memorandum and list of names for the record.) CHAIRi~iAN: Thank you. Ok. Hearing no further questions or comments~ I'll make a motion recessin9 the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting and it will be some time toward the end of the meetin9. MR. ANGEL: When is that going to be? CHAIRIVlAN: 17th. lvlEMBER GRICONIS: Seconded. The board members all voted to recess this hearing until July 17, 1986. Page ]6. June 19~ 1986 IVlatter of Stephen Shilowitz Following the resolution to recess the Shilowitz hearing, several different conversa- tions were taking place - lVlr. Strong give his name~ address and telephone number to the Chairman for the record, and Member Douglass reviewing a construction plan with ~Vir. Shilowitz. The Secretary also asked Mr. Strong if addresses were avail- able of the persons on the list given by him in the event they were not on the tax rolls~ and Mr. Strong said he would try and get it to us within a week. IV~r. Strong said one party was on their way to Italy~ and another was in Massachusetts and was askin9 for this for them as well as himself. Respectfully submitted, Pp. 1-16 Shilowitz transcript transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Linda Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Other hearings following this matter are prepared under separate cover, the original of which is also simultaneously being filed with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference. To: MEMORANDUM The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold From: History of Shilowitz Project Under State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)- Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law Date: Esseks, Hefter, cuddy & Angel August 7, 1986 I have reviewed documents maintained by the Town of Southold and the village of Greenport to determine how the shilowitz application was treated under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Briefly, it appears as if the Southold Town Board ultimately became lead agency and made a determination of non-significance (negative declaration). When the project was first submitted to the village of Greenport, the village's planning board initially requested the preparation of an environmental impact statment, but reserved decision on the question of lead agency. The environmental inpact statment was submitted and reviewed by the planning board and other interested agencies, while this was going on, the Town Board of the Town of Southold had a rezoning application pending before it. In connection with this rezoning application, the Town of Southold determined that it should be lead agency and opted for coordinated review under SEQRA (see, 6 NYCRR ~617.7 - Regulations of Department of Environmental Conservation [DEC] under SEQRA). By opting for this procedure, the Town of Southold "finalized" its lead agency status and its determination of non-significance for the project (see, 6 NYCRR S6~7.7[a][1]). Notwithstanding the determination of non-significance, the environmental setting of the project was carefully analyzed and the draft environmental impact statement submitted to the village planning board and, of course, at the various public hearings held before the Town Board of the Town of Southold, the planning Board of the village of Greenport and the Board of Trustees of the village of Greenport. It should be noted that two rezoning applications and rezoning hearings were held before the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold in that it was necessary to amend the original rezoning. SEQRA was complied with in both cases. Annexed to this memorandum are copies of the documents listed below, which confirm, in our opinion, the conclusions regarding SEQRA compliance set forth above: Exhibit A - Letter from David DeRidder, DEC, dated 10/2/81 - apparently, when Mr. Shilowitz made application for a tidal wetlands permit, the DEC made an initial determination of non-significance and wanted to assume lead agency status. This letter reflects those determinations. It should be noted that in later correspondence the DEC ceded lead agency status to the Town of Southold. Exhibit B - Letter from David DeRidder, DEC, to R. Reynolds, Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated 10/2/81 - same as above. Exhibit C - Letter from Royal R. Reynolds, P.E., County of Suffolk Department of Health Services to David DeRidder, DEC, dated 10/13/81 - this expresses the health department's position that the project will not significantly effect the environment and, further, that it will be served by public water and public sewer. Exhibit D - Environmental Assessment Form submitted to village of Greenport dated 10/12/81. Exhibit E - Resolution of Village of Greenport Planning Board dated 10/26/81 this resolution required Mr. Shilowitz to prepare and file a draft environmental impact statement, but reserved action on the question of lead agency status. Exhibit F - Letter from David DeRidder, DEC, to Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold dated 11/18/81 - this letter expressly states that the DEC considered the Town of Southold as the lead agency for Mr. Shilowitz's project and, further, that the DEC agreed with the town determination of non-significance. Moreover, this letter reflects that on November 11, 1981 the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold sent letters to involved agencies stating its decision to opt for coordinated review, that it wanted to be lead agency and that it made an initial determination of non-significance. Exhibit G - Letter from Richard J. Cron, then attorney for Mr. Shilowitz to village Planning Board dated 12/8/81 Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - submitting draft environmental impact statement. Draft environmental impact statement submitted to Planning Board, village of Greenport prepared by Roy L. Haje, president, EnConsultants, Inc. Negative declaration issued by Town of Southold as lead agency dated 12/8/81. Letter from Allen M. smith, village of Greenport attorney to David DeRidder, DEC, dated 1/7/82 and letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Cron dated 12/18/81 referred to therein - these letters reflect that the village of Greenport acceded to the Southold Town designation as lead agency. Letter from Nancy W. cook, village Clerk, village of Greenport to Mayor and Board of Trustees dated 1/7/82 reflecting resolution of planning board approving project - this resolution specifically reflects the receipt of the draft environmental impact statement and the determinations by Southold of lead agency and non-significance. Resolution approving rezoning by Greenport Board of Trustees dated 2/22/82 - this also confirms Southold's lead agency status and its finding of non-significance. It also refers to the lack of any necessity on the part of the village ~o continue review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement. Resolution of the Planning Board of the village of Greenport granting a conditional use approval dated 8/16/82 - this resolution again reflects the findings of the Town of Southold but further finds that the requirements of the SEQRA regulations have been met (see finding sixteenth, page 4). ew York State Department of Environmental Conservation ~egula~ory Affairs Bldg. 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 516-751-7900 October 2, 1981 Commissioner Henry Raynor, Chairman TO~n of Southold Planning Board Main Pwad Southold, ~w York 11971 Construction of (8) condominium units, boat house and associated sanity,fy systems Re: and accmss road. Proposed pro~ect includes repair replacement of 689 = of bulk- head and 400 ~' of new bulkhead expanding the existing marina to allgw c~ns~ruc% tion of {4) new floating ~inger do~ks cqnn~c~ed ~o^~^I20' m~.in f~oat~ng.e~c~_ag~,a 12' x 90~ boat slip. ~ro~ect requires area~lng ~o~u cu. y~s. or ma=erzaz uu ~ ..... below mean iow water spoil to be placed on the sige m==~ Mr. ~.aynor: The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has received application(s) for Tidal Wetlands Perm/t No. TW S77-0156 PW, WQ by Enconsultants, Inc. for Stephen Shilo- witz. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the project is defined in 6 NYCRR, Part 617, as an unlisted action. As such, coordinated review by ievolved agencies is optional. This Department has made a preliminary determination that the action will not sig- nificantly affect the enviornment and wishes to coordinate review to confirm this deter- miuagion. As an agency also involved in approving this action, you are hereby requested to indicate whether or not you agree with this Department's initial determination and as- sumed status of lead agency. Enclosed is a copy of our application(s) and Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). Also, please make known to this Department your concerns for this project so that Our final determination of significance will reflect your views and recom~endations. Please reply by October 13, 1981. Sincerely, David De Ridder Associate Environmental Analyst .cC. Enconsultunts, Inc. State Department of Environmental Conservation Regula~tory Affairs Bldg. 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 516-7~1-7900 Commissione[ Octdber 2, 1981 R, Reynolds Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 construction of (8) condominium units, boat house and associated sanitary evster.3 and access road. Proposed ~ro~ect indludes repair replacement of 689 ~-- p~ bulk- Re: head and 400 *' of new bul?~a~ expanding thc existin~ ~m~rina to allow conStruc- tion of (4) new floating fin,er docks cunnected to a I20 main floating dock and a 12' x 90' boat slip. Project requires dredRing 5,000 cu. yds. of material to 10' below mean low water spoil to be placed on ~he site. Dear Fir. Reynolds: The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has received application(s) for Tidal Wetlands Permit No. TW S77-0156 PW, WQ by Enconsultants, Inc. for Stephen Shilo- witz. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ~he project is defined in 6 NYCRR, Part 617, as am unlisted action. As such, coordinated review by involved agencies is optional. This Department has made a preliminary determination that the action will not sig- nificantly affect the enviornment and wishes to coordinate review to confirm this deter- mination. As an agency also involved in approving this action, you are hereby requested to indicate whether or not you agree with this Department's initial determination and as- sumed status of lead agency. Enclosed is a copy of our application(s) and Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). Also, please make known to this Department your concerns for this project so that our final determination of significance will reflect your views and recommendations. Please reply by October 13, 1981 Sincerely, David De Ridder Associate Environmental Analyst Eec. cc": Eneonsultants, Inc. JlicoUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M*P.H. October 13, 1981 Mr. David DeRidder Associate Environmental Analyst NYSDEC Building No. 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794 RE: Tidal Wetlands Permit No. TW S77-0156 PW, WQ by Enconsultants, I.nc. for Stephen Shilowitz Dear Mr. DeRidder: I am in receipt of your letter concerning the above. It appears that the project will have public water and public sewers available. Therefore, we do not feel that it will significantly effect the environment in this respect. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Public Health Engineer General Engineering Services RRR:ljr cc: Southold ~lanning Board R C iVED' OCT N.y.S.i , ~, (516) 727-4700 M&¥OR ; I;IOII(;I W Illlllll41111/ I'RUS f~LS ~ , ~REI~NPOET~ SUH'OI K ('aUNTY STATE ENVIRON~NTAL OUAI, TTY ~EVIE~ ~CT }~vl~o~ents10uoli~y Review Act, Pa~t 617. Should fu~the~ info,motion be ~egulred, you will be contacted. ~HO~T F~V~EON~NTAL ASSESSNENT FO~ A. TH~S ~OJECT IS CU~NTLY PEN~ING BEFORE: ~ .G~eenpoFt Bu~]dJng x G~eenpoFt Planning Boa~d Greenport Zoning Board of Appeals Greenport Village Board of Trustees STI~EET LOCATION ~ND T?~ HAP NUMBEII: (west side). Disc 1001, Sect 007', Block 01, Lot 16 End of 6th St. TELFPIIONE (IIXK C. ~]~J,~E AND ADDRESS'OF APPLICANT: Enconsultants,Inc. ; '(Name) ' 64 North Main St. '(Street) ' Southampton, N.Y. 11968 (P.O.) (State) (lIome l~lone) contract vendee D. ~I_AME AND AD~RE~S OF ~ Stephen Shilowit~ (Name) 921 Bergen Ave. (Zip Code) 2836360 (Business Phone) different): Jerse. ,Ct. o. ) '(llome PIAo,~e ) NJ 07306 state ) ./ [Zlp Code) 201 6590820 '( Ibm i ne s s Phon~ ) 1".'. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ' (Briefly describe t.w~c., of project or action) Replace or ~epair (~/thin 18") 689~1f of existing failing ~ steel bulkhead tn aame location+and configuration with timber bulkhead. Expand existing __ b~n.h~o~u~lng_AO0~of new ti~er bulkhead.~nd.remo~ng.approx 5000 cy of material from existing upland. Proposed depth to be 10' below MLW. A small feur 44'x4' finger floats plus·4'xl20' main float secured parallel to bulkhead. 1, Will prelect result xn a large nhy~;ical change to lbo project site .r phv:~ically ~r more than lO acres of land? ....... ~._Yes , No o Will there be a major chanf;e to any 'unique or unusual land form found on the site? ............................... Yes xx No Utll the project alter or have ~ large effect on an exist'lng b.dy .f water?...'. . ....... Yes Will nro.lect have a potentially large impact on groundwater qualitv? .......... xx No Yes xx No Will .reject significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ........ Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ..... Yes'' xx No Yes xx No 7. Will project result in a major adw~rse effect on air quality? .................. Yes xx No Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known ~o be important to 'lhe con~nunity? ............. Will project adversely impo~t any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area bY a ]cglcal agency? ............... Yes lq. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recyeat'l~nal opportunities? .......................... Yes xx 11. Will .ro.]ect, result in major traffic .roblems or cause a major effect to existing transvort:at ion sy~ t'em:;? ....... Yeg . xx i,~o 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, Vibration, or electrical disturbance aa a result of the pro3ect"s operation? Yes xx No 13. Will project' have any'impact on vublic health or safety? ' Yes x~ No 14. Will project affect Ehe existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a major negative .. effect on the ch'~acter of the community or neighborhood? ......... Yes ×x No 15." Is therapublic controversy concerning the PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: REPRESENTING: ~. f ~o~T~ DATE: AFFIDAVIT State of New York County of Suffolk ) SS: ) °o says that all of the information form is true to my knowledge· ~ Sworn to before me this Notary Publfc / , being duly sworn, deposes and' contained in the aforementioned CATHERINE' INfiOGLIA Nolary Public. State of New York Residing in Suffolk Co. No. 4679842 Commission Expires March 30, VILLAGE OF GREENPORT '' A ENVIRONMENTA~ ' . // \\ · SERVICES:' EN-CONSUL TANTS, INC. 64 NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 October 12, 1981 Mr. John 1{. Geldeman Village of ~reenport 236 Third St. Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Re: 6th St. Greenport, Bulkheadfng for S. Shllowitz Dear Hr. Geideman: As per your reques:, I am enclosing a copy of the completed short form EAF. ! look forward to receipt of the Village permit for the bulkheading aspect of this project. encl Sincerely, Roy L. HaJ~ BESOLUTIO~ DATED 10/~6/§1 At a meeting of the Village of Greenport Planning Board held on October 26, 1981 at the Village Hall, 236 Third Street, Greenport, N. Y., a motion was made by Jane Wtll~4~ms and seconded by Mary Coyle, that ~EAB, a Building Permit application dated September 28, 1981 was submitted on behalf of Stephen Shilcwitz for bulkheading for property located at the s~Atherl.v end of Sixth Street, Greenportj No ~o, further identified on the ~uffolk County Tax ~ap as District iDOl, ~ection 007, Block O1, Lot 16 and ~, Stephen Bhilowitz appeared before the Village of Greenport Planning Board on October 14, 1981 for a pre-submission conference regarding the proposed condominiwas to be constructed on the subject property, and WHEREAS, ~uilding Inspector John Oeideman subsequently ~rote to Roy L~Je of En Consultants Inc. on October 16, 1981 regarding the application for bulkheading which he had submitted on behalf of Stephen Shilcwits and forwarded a copy of the Planning Board,s resolution of October 14, 1981 which found the submission of a,Short Enviror~ental Assessment Form to be premature and inappropriate, and WHEI~, Roy HaJe of En Co~sultante Inc. replied on October 19, 1981 to Building Inspector Geidemen,s letter, and WHEREA~, the Planning Board is charged by the Oode of the Village of Greenport with the responsib~l~ty for determining the advisabilit~ of an Envirc~m~ntal Impact Statement for an~ proposed action and therefore this Board hereby act~i upon the application before it. N~ TH~F~E, this Board finds ~ 1. The application is incomplete and fractional as to the entire proposed action. 2. The proposed action may affect salt water bodies adjacent to the property. pTanning Board Resolution Re ~ Stephen Shil~witz -2- 10/26/81 The proposed use will be high density with possible pollution considerations. 4. There may be visual impacts of the proposed action. 5. There may be other impacts of the proposed action, the exact nature, severity and duration of the same is unkncw~ by reason of the current imccmplete nature of the application. THEREFORE ~ IT FURTHE~ RESOL~, that this Board does hereby require pursuant to the provisions of the Co~e of the Village of Greenport, that the applicant file with the Village of Greanport am Environmental Impact Statement which shall comply with the provisions of Part 5~7 NYCRR, and BE IF FURTHER RF~OLVED that pending the filing of the above Environmental Impact Statement this Board shall reserve further action on Lead Agency Status. The question of the adoption of the foregoing motion was duly put to a vote which was carried unar~, cuely. State of New York ) C~unty of Suffelk see THIS IS TO CERT~t THAT I, Nancy W. Cook, Clerk of the Village of Oreempert of the C*unty of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing motion with the original nc~ on file im this office, and which was adopted by the Planning Board of the Village of Oreemport of said County; am~ that the same is a true and correct transcript of said motion and of the whole thereof. IN WIT--S WHERE., I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the V~!l~ge of Oreenport of the County of Suffolk. Novembeg ~. 19§1 Dat~' ~ New York 8tats Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. &0, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 RECEIVEp NOV "' i981 November 18, 1981 Robert F. Flecks Commissioner Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Hain Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Application of Stephen Shilowitz for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial to f~,t Light Hultiple Residential on prop- erty at the west side of Sixth Street, on Peconic Bay, Greenport, New York. New York State Tidal Wetlands Application Number TW S77-0156 PWWQ. Dear Ha. Terry: I received your letter of November 11, 1981 concerning coordin- ation to establish lead agency and confirmation of your prelim- inary determination of non-significance in accordance with SEQRA. I assume the coordination letter was also sent to the Suffolk · County Department of Health Services, another involved agency; although I noticed they vere not listed aa receiving a copy. Also, you should have been made aware of a prior coordination effort by this Department (copy of letter, October 2, 1981 to Torn Planning Board attached) with the Southold To~n Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Health Services. No response vas received from the Planning Board in the allotted time. We received a response from SCDHS (copy attached). Nevertheless, since wa have not acted on our Wetland Permit Application, we now consider you the lead agency for this project and agree with your initial determination of non-significance. Also, it appears that you can reasonably assume the concurr- ance of the SCDNS unless you hear otherwise. Kindly inform ua and the SCDHS of your final determination of -2- Significance when made. We will not act on our application until we receive ~our formal notification. Thank you for your continued cooperation with regard to these matters Sincerely YOUrs, David DeRidder Associate Environmental Analyst cc: D. J. Larkin C, Hamilton R. Reynolds, SCDHS J. Jensen DD:cz December 8, [98[ Village Planning Board Incorporated Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Att: Nan~y Cook, Secretary Re: Environmental 'Impact Statement Applicant - Stephen Shilowttz Dear Mrs. Cook: In connection with the abovecaptioned, I enclose herewith completed Environmental Impact Statement in behalf of the pending proposal for zone chan§e at premises situate at 6th Street, Greenport, New York, in behalf of our client, Stephen Shilowitz; I would be most appreciative if the Village Planning Board would promptly review the Impact Statement and proceed with the referral of this application to the Suffolk County Planning Com- mission for their ~eview and recommendation. I should also like to be apprised of the date for which this mat~er will be scheduled for public hearing before the Village Board of Trustees. If-there should be anything else that you may require, please do not hesitate to contact me. RJC/j f Enclosure cc: Roy L. Haje Stephen Shilowitz Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Stephen Shilowitz Incorporated Village of Greenport Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York LEAD AGENCY: PREPARED BY: Village Planning Board Incorporated Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Roy L. Haje, President En-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, N. Y. 11968 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ........................................................... 1 Description of the proposed action ................................ 2 Background and history ............................................ 3 Description of environmental setting .............................. 3 Existing environmental features ................................... 4 Slopes and topography ............................................. 5 Land forms ........................................................ 5 Mineral resources ................................................. 5 Erosion ........................................................... 5 Hydrology ......................................................... 5 Surface Water ..................................................... 6 Ecology ........................................................... 6 Land use .......................................................... 8 Existing environmental constraints affecting action ............... 10 Statement of environmental effects (positive and negative) ........ 10 Cumulative ....................................................... 12 Identification and discussion of any adverse effects which cannot be avoided ................................................. 13 Description of mitigation measures to minimize adverse effects .... 13 Identification of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources .......................................... 14 Description of any growth-including aspects of the action ......... 14 Impact of the action on the use and conservation of energy ........ 14 Description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives ............. 14 Studies, reports and literature used in preparation of DEIS ....... 16 APPENDICES II B. III. IV. V. Site Plan Aerial photo of site (highlighted) taken summer, 1981 looking southeast Aerial photo of site (highlighted) taken summer, 1981 looking north Soil survey of Suffolk County (USDA, 1975) with subject site highlighted Artists rendering of proposed project Portion of NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands maps 720-552 with subject parcel highlighted DEIS for Stephen Shilowitz Summary The applicant proposes to construct an 8 unit condominum, a boathous~ one fam£1y residence and expand an ex£sting boat basin. The expanded basin will be entirely bulkheaded and existing bulkheads outside of the expansion area will be replaced or repaired as necessary. Spoil from the dredging operation will be placed o~ the property for backfill and, excess, if any, will be removed to a suitable upland site. At present, the site contains several deteriorated buildings used when it operated as an oyster processing plant many years ago. No significant adverse effects are foreseen due to 1). the present condition and use of the property, 2). the availability of public water supply and sewage disposal and 3). the type and intensity of the proposed use. The parcel is bisected by the Town of Southold-Village of Greenport boundary line. The Village of Greenport, in a resolution dated 10/26/81, required the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) pursuant to the State Emvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its rules and regulations, NYCRR Part 617. Other approvals or permits required by the Village are 1). Change of zone from general commercial (GC) to waterfront commercial (WC). WC allows the type of development proposed. The Village Board of Trustees must approve the change of zone. 2). Site plan approval of the Planning Board. 3). Build- ing permit from the B~ilding Department. As part of the property lies within the Town of Southold, similar approvals are required from Town agencies. The present Town zoning of C Light Industrial must be changed to Light Multiple Residence. on the State level permits are required from the New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) under Articles 25 (Tidal Wetlands) and 15 (Protection of Waters) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) as work will be done £n and adjacent to tidal waters. Water Quality Cert£ficat~on pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1977 (F ?CA) must be granted for dock and bulkhead construction, and dredging. On the Federal level, approvals must be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the FWPCA of 1972 (?L 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1344). Description of the proposed action The purpose of this action is the creation of a residential complex having its own mooring facilities for owners' and guests' boats. Specifically, two (2) four dwelling condominum units will be built. The ninth and final unit will be a separate boat house/dwelling located partially over a boat slip in the northwest corner of the b~at basin. It is the applicant's intention to make the development appeal to owners of medium size (30' - 50' ~) sail and power craft. To this end, it is proposed to expand the existing irregular - shaped boat basin to approximately 100+_ ' wide by 200+' long. Actualdimensions will vary depending upon the precise location within the boat basin. The proposed depth of dredging within the basin~ 10' below mean low water (MLW), is necessary to acco~T~datethe deeper draft keel sailboats expected to utilize the facility. Expansion of ~he boat basin will involve the removal of approximately 5000 cu. yds. of existing upland. This material will be placed on the adjacen~ upland for t~se as backfill. The entire boat basin will be bulkheaded with CCA-treated timber. Existing bulkheading on the remainder of the parcel will be replaced or repaired as needed, also with CCA treated timber. Access to the 8' - 10'~ boats to be moored there will be via a system of flosting docks. A 4' x 120' main float will be placed adjacent to the pro- posed westerly bulkhead and a series of 4' x 44' finger floats installed per- pendicular to Et to create slips. A small (300 ~ sq. ft.) area will be filled for the construction of the boat house which will straddle a boat slip (see site plan in appendices). Background and history This was the site of the J. and J. W. Elsworth Corp. oyster processing plant which originated over 100 years ago. Beats unloaded their catches directly from within the basin to the plant where they were shucked, processed and shipped. The base of oyster shells which covers much of the ground accumulated during this operation. In 1952, the property was sold to the Blue Point Oyster Co. for use as an oyster hatchery. In 1968, the property was sold to James Homan and Armando Cappa who have used it for storage of gear and equipment and leased it for use by commercial fishing vessels. This is the present usage of the parcel. Description of environmental settinK Location The site is located at the end of 6th Street (west side), Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. The 2.26 + acre 'parcel is bounded on the east by Sixth Street, on Lhe south by the waters of Pipes Cove, on the west by Pipes Cove and lands now or formerly Cove Association, and on the north by lands n.o.f. Scott and Greenhalgh (see aerial photos in appendices). - 4 - Existin~ environmental features A. Geology and soils. As indicated on sheet 5 of the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975), the dominant soils are Riverhead and Haven, graded, 0-8% slopes (RhB). It is described as follows: "This mapping unit consists of areas of Rtverhead sandy loam, of Haven loam, or of both. The areas have been altered by grading operations for housing developments, shopping centers, industrial parks, and similar uonfarm uses. In the western part of the oounty, the areas of this mapping unit are very large, and large acreages are used as sites for housing developments. Originally, the Riverhead and Haven soils in this unit each had the profile described as representative of its respective series, but grading operations have left a man-made profile that is significantly different. In places the surface layer and the upper part of the subsoil have been removed, but in other places they have been left undisturbed. Undisturbed areas have been filled with soil material cut from adjoining high spots, but the River- head and Haven soils can be identified because sufficient diagnostic characteristics of the respective series remain. In some areas Riverhead and Haven soils that have not been graded make up as much as 25 percent of this unit. In places another 10 to 15 percent has been so deeply cut or filled that the upper 50 inches is sandy and contains no diagnostic horizons of the respective series. Included w~h these soils in mapping are areas in which most or all diagnostic horizons have been destroyed, but these areas contain at least 12 inches of loam, silt loam, or sandy loam in the upper 40 inches. In places this 12 inches of material is in one 18yet, and in others ~t is in several thinner layers. Also included are small areas of Cut and fill land and Montauk soils, graded. - 5 - These soils are suited to most grasses and shrubs generally used for lawns and landscaping. In places very deeply cut or filled areas are slightly droughty and need supplemental irrigation. The response of plants to applioattons of lime and fertilizer is good. The practice generally is to build on the soils immediately after grading; therefore, the number of existing buildings on areas of the soils in this unit is the main factor in determining their future uses. Capability unit not assigned; woodland suitability group not assigned." SloPes and tonoeraohy The parcel is essentially flat. Average elevation on grade is 6~ ft. above MSL. Land forms There are no unique or valuable land forms on this site. Mineral resources There are no known mineral resources on this site. Erosion and sedimentation potential Several factors combine to make the potential for erosion and sedimenta- tion negligible. 1). The soils are well drained. 2). The parcel is entirely bulkheaded. 3). The parcel is flat. B. Hydrology Groundwater Groundwater is encountered at approximately 1 ft. above mean sea level (MSL). It is expected to fluctuate somewhat with tidal rhythms due to the parcel's proximity to surface tidal water. Fresh water for the project will come from a municipal supply and not from on-site wells. ~urfaee Water The parcel fronts upon Pipes Cove to the south which is a tidal body of water whose tidal range is approximately 2.3 ft. The ~fSDEC has classified it as SA, the highest classification of tidal waters. These waters are "...suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and primary and secondary contact recreation." The area is presently open to shellfishing (personal communication, Bruce Mac Mil]an, NYSDEC at Stony Brook) Contigous with Pipes Cove is a man-made basin which had been used by boats involved with the parcel's former use as an oyster processing plant and is still used by commercial fishirgboats. The depth of the water in the basin averages about 10 ft. at mean low water in order to accommodate deep draft vessels. Ecology VeKetation Aside from some upland weeds and grasses which have colonized the site, little vegetation is found. No true marsh vegetation grows on the site. The nature of past usage has been antagonistic to the growth of any substantial vegetation. Wildlife~ The developed character of this and surrounding parcels has inhibited its use by most wildlife except those species adapted to life in close proximity to man. Of the birds, the most commonly noted was the herring gull, Larus arKentatus , a scavenger which will thrive an areas such as this. While not personally observed on th is site, there are other common coastal water birds which are found in and around the Greenport area which include laughing gull, Larus atricilla; great black - backed gull, Larus marinus; black skimmer, Rhyncops niKra. No nesting sites for these birds were located on the property. The relativ~y small amount of shallow water, the sandy composition of the bottom, and the presence of7people homes, etc., limits the utility of the site for shore and wading birds. Common upland birds including the field sparrow, Spizella p~silla; mourning dove, Zenaidura macroura; grackle, Quiscalus quiscilla; and flicker, .Colapter auraptus may occasionally use the site for nesting or foraging. Small mammals of the rodent family may visit the area in search of food or shelter. Cottontail rabbit, Sylvila~us floridam~m; common house mouse, Mus sp.; moles, Scalopus and Condylura; and Norway rat, Rattus norve~icus are the species which may be found. Bait fish and juveniles of larger species may be found within the boat basin. Killifish, Fundulus, spp.; shiners, Menidia menidia; sticklebacks, Apeltes, spp. are the most common of the bait fish in Long Island waters and may, therefore, be found here. Juvenile bluefish (snappers), Pomatomus §altatrix; summer flounder, Paralichthys d~entatus; winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes Americanus;northern puffer, Sphaeroides maculatus; and toad fish, Opsanus tau are all possible visitors in appropriate seasons. Invertebrate in-and epi-fauna which may either live on, in or against the bulkhead or basin bottom include, blue crab, Calltnectes sapidus; bloe mussel, Mytilus edulis; barnacle, Balanus balanoides and various types and species of marine worms. AS indicated on the NYSDEC's official Tidal Wetlands inventory map, No. 720-552, the boat basin is indicated as a littoral zone (LZ) while the area offshore of the southerly bulkhead is indicated as a coastal shoal (SM). These are described in Part 661, Tidal Wetlands-Land Use Regulations, respectively as: Littoral zone - The tidal wetlands zone, designated LZ on an inventory map, that includes all lands under tidal waters which are not included in any other category, except as otherwise determined in a specific case as provided in section 661.26. Provided, there shall be no littoral zone under waters deeper than six feet at mean low water. Coastal shoals, bars and flats - The tidal wetland zone, designated SM on an inventory map, that (i) at high tide is covered by water, (ii) at low tide is exposed or is covered by water to a maximum depth of approximately one foot, and (iii) is not vegetated by low marsh cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, except as otherwise determined in a specific case as provided in section 661.26. (see appendices for copy of inventory map). No important or unique ecosystems, critical habitats, food sources or nesting locations are found here. No rare or endangered species were noted nor are they expected to occur here. Land u~e The site is presently used as a base for commercial fishing boats. Material and gear is stored in one or more of the existing buildings. Minor repairs are made to the boats and equipment. Adjacent to the parcel on the north and west are single family detached residences. On the east side of 6th Street across from this parcel, is a village park used for (unorganized) baseball and other games, picnicking, swimming, etc. A development plan for the Village of Greenport was prepared by Raymond and May Associates, Planning Consultants in June, 1967. It indicates the land use of this parcel as "marine commercial" to reflect its usage at that time. Throughout this brief report, the importance of rehabilitating certain areas of the Village, especially the waterfront, is stressed. While this proposal differs in usage from that which was show~ the Plan further states "It must be clear that a long-range Development Plan for the Village is not a peru~nent or unalterable document. It is. based upon the best available in- formation, judgment, and forecasts of future events. But the unfolding of new development will in one way or another vary from current expectations. It is for this reason that the Planning Board must periodically review the Plan and all new proposals." The plan should be viewed as a dynamic rather than static document adaptable to new inoovative proposals and not tied to prior usage which may no longer be viable. The proposed project does represent a demographic change in the character of the area. This will be the first multiple dwelling project in the area and the cost per unit probably will exceed the cost of neighboring one family residences. It also constitutes a rehabilitation and upgrading of a deteriorating facility. Various services and facilities will be utilized by this project. Water, electricity and sewage treatment are all functions of the Village of Greenport Department of Public Utilities. Existing mains for both sewage and water are located in Sixth Street and service the existing facility. Electricity is also available from overhead wires on Sixth Street. No expansion to existing utilities is required to service this project. Fire and police protection will be provided by Village and/or Town departments as determined by various areas of jurisdiction. Little or no increase in Greenport's school population is predicted from this project as occupancy is expected to be on a primarily seasonal basis. There are no critical or unique land features on this parcel nor are there any known archaeological or historic resources. The visual character will be altered to the extent that the existing commercial buildings will be replaced by 2~ story (maximum height 35 ft.) residences. The presence of pleasure boats in the basin instead of commercial fishing craft constitute only an insignificant modification to conditions. (See artist's r~ndering of project in appendices). No lasting elevation of noise levels is anticipated. Construction will oscur only during normal working hours. No increase in odor levels is foreseen. ExisttnK environmental constraints affecting action Final designations of flood plain zones for the Village of Greenport have not yet been made (Robert O'Reilly, NYSDEC, personal communication). On the interim H.U.D. map for this community (#361 004 A), the subject site is designated as zone A. While no first floor elevation has yet been mandated to ensure eligibility for Federally guaranteed insurance, the first living level of all structures will be at 8 ft. above M}{W which is expected to equal or exceed future requirements. Statement of environmental effects (positive and neKativ~) A). Short-term As use of the land by wildlife is minimal due to its previously disturbed nature, few species will be disrupted by this project. Those which do utilize the site for nesting, feeding, or cover will be temporarily displaced by the construction. Short term "social impacts" will center around travel to and from the project site by workmen and equipment. Traffic will increase as materiel is brought to the site. Noise levels will increase as a result of construction equipment and workmen. Noise levels will lessen after the departure of most of - 11 - the heavier equipment but will still be greater than ambient until the proposed project has been completed. Any noise-creating work will be done during normal working hours. The short term economic impact concerns purchaseof materials for construction of the structures and facilities, and employment for those who will construct them. Most materials will be purchased on Long Island aiding the local economy. Workers will come from Long Island and therefore are expected to further aid the economy. Dredging to the proposed depth of 10~ ft. below mean low water must create as level a new bottom aa possible. Creation of deep, isolated holes can cause basins for the accumulation of sediment. Under adverse conditions, these can beeome anoxic and utilize great amounts of oxygen to the detriment of the surrounding enviroment. A properly graded, level bottom or one having only minor irregularities will permit water circulation throughout and minimize or avoid these problems. The cutting and digging action of the dredging operation breaks through the thin oxidized layer of the submerged soil and exposes the deep unoxidized layer. Furthermore, most of the sediments placed in suspension are removed from this layer and, hence, are in the chemically reduced state. Such material may have temporarily high chemical and biological oxygen demands. Turbidity, per se, reduces light penetration and interferes with photosynthetic production of oxygen, and it tends to elevate water temperatures. Eventually some suspended material escapes and settles to the bottom. Thus, there is a redistribution of sediments together with whatever nutrients they may contain. Such sedimentation problems are greatly accentuated when dredge spoil is placed back into the water. In this instance, dredged spoil will be placed on the up- land portion of the subject parcel and graded when sufficiently dry. B). Long Term Implementation of the project will have some long term effect upon upland habitat and its ecology. However, most of the species presently utilizing the site are well adapted to life in close proximity to man. Therefore, while overall numbers may decrease in response to decreased habitat available, little shift in species composition is expected. Of course, the exception to this is the replacement of upland with water in the area of the expanded boat basin. The same species which now inhabit the boat basin are expected to invade and colonize the expanded water smd benthic habitat. Usage of the basin by boats will have a minimal effect upon the water- way. Marine heads on boats must comply with all applicable standards which pro- hibit any overboard discharge of untreated material. It is anticipated that the boats which will be berthed in the basin will be sailboats or inboards although dinghies or other smaller ~uxiliary craft may occasionally use it as well. Little petroleum residue is created by boards, and, as no fueling facilities are to be located here~ contamination by gasoline or diesel fuel is not anticipated. Bottom paints (anti-fouling) and the treated timber used for bulkheads and docks leach very little and will not have any degrading influence upon the waterway. Long term economic effects will center about the increased patronage to local business, especially during the summer, from residents of this develop- ment. As the closest major shopping area is Oreenport, most activity will be centered there. Cumulative Whether this project will have an influence upon the development of other waterfront parcels is difficult to predict. As discussed previously, section 85-10 (C) (2) (a) of the Village zoning ordinance limits waterfront condominiums to WC parcels which are "...immediately conttgous to areas which are within the R-1 One Family Residence District or the R-2 One and Two-Family Residence Districts." This would elhn£nate parcels lying adjacent to the Retail Co~ercial District (CR). Still other parcels which do meet the zoning criteria lie in close -proximity to existing con~nercial operations' which would make their conversion to residential use less desirable. Other broader conditions will influence the amount of additional development which occurs in Greenport and elsewhere on Long Island. Many variables including available land and capital, interest rates, and general state of the economy all work together to determine whether other similar projects will occur. Identification and discussion of any adverse effects which cannot be avoided The adverse effects of dredging have been discussed in a previous section. These are expected to be localized and temporary. As the parcel is already developed and bulkheaded, there will be no significant loss of open space and no loss whatsoever of tidal marshland. ~escription of mitiKation measures to minimize adverse effects The planned adherence to regulatory restrictions on all levels will mitigate the impact of the project. An earthen berm is p~posed which will follow the bulkhead line for most of the periphery. In addition to is its aesthetic appearance, it will minimize most overland runoff into the waterway. Plantings of suitable vegeta- tion will also act to minimize runoff. Identification of any irreversible and irretrievable co~itments of resources The usage of fossil fuels to power construction equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible as is the consumption of electrical power by tools. The conversion of the present condition of the land to a developed parcel, and the co~nitment of wood and other material used in construction is essentially irreversible. DDscription of any Krowth-inducinK aspects of the action. The small size of this project will not induce any signiftoant growth. Existing facilities and services are adequate to acco~mnoda~ the development Impact of the action on the use an~ conservation of energy. During the construction phase, energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity will be consumed. Upon completion, structures will be heated by modern, efficient equipment. Ail proposed structures will be adequately insulated to minimize energy consumption. Existing sources of electrical energy supplied by Greenport areadequate to service the proposed facilities. Description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives. The "no action" alternative would preclude a reasonable return on the applicant's investment. Other types of development, both residential and commercial, are theoretically possible. Present zoning (General Commercial-Vi~lage) allows a number of possible con%mercial uses. A use of this type, however, is likely to be more disruptive to adjacent homeowners than the proposed residential use. Should requested zoning changes be granted, denser residential development would be permissible pursuant to provisions of the code. It is - 15 - felt, however, that the denslty proposed here strikes a v£able balance between economic, aesthetic and environmental considerations. - 16 - ~udies, reports and literature used in preparR~ion of DEIS Austin, G.L. Jr. 1961. Water and marsh birds of the world. Golden Press, New York. Burr, WtlliamH. et al. A field guide to the mammals, 1964. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Chmura, G. L. and N. W. Ross. 1978. The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. University of Rhode Island Marine Memorandum 45. Greenport, Village of. Undated. Zoning, chapter 85 of the Code of the Village of Greenport. Miner, R. W. 1950. Field book of seashore life. G. P. Putnam's sons, New York. New York State Department of Enviromental Conservation. 1977. Tidal Wetlands - Land Use Regulations, Part 661. Raymond and May. 1967. Development plan for the Village of Greenport. U.S. Department Agriculture. 1975. Soil survey of Suffolk County. Riverhead. Appendix II A. Aerial photo of site (h£ghlighted) taken Appendix Wetl~nds tulips 71ti-$52 with subject JUDITH T. TERRY Town CtERK ISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L.l.,N.Y. l1971 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRON~IENT TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Dated: December 8, 1981 Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6 NYCRR Part.617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board, as lead agency for the action described below, has determined that the project, which is unlisted, will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 'Southold, New York Application of Stephen Shilowitz for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "N" Light Nultiple Residence District on certain property located on the west side of Sixth Street, on Peconi6 Bay, Greenport, New York. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. ,~ Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, it is assumed that. there is no objection nor comments by that agency. Further information can be obtained by contacting Nrs. Judith Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Town Hall, Nain Road, 11971. Copies to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Flacke, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk Bulletin Board Richard J. Cron, Esq., a/c-Stephen Shilowitz Village of Greenport LIAM H LIEBLEIN .... . .......... .~ . ALLEN NI. SMITH 3BERT'I. 9.'EBB , '.I ..~-- (516) 727-3277  REPLY TO: PO. BOX 279 · ..... RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW' YORK 11944 · January 7, 1982 David DeRidder Associate Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Re: Rezoning of certain the village lands on 6th Street in of Greenport Dear Mr. DeRidder: Please accept this letter in reply to yours of December Please be advised that 'Southold Town has adopted the role of lead agency in this matter. I enclose for your reference a copy of their Negative Declaration dated December 8, 1981. Subsequent to the Town',s Declaration, I wrote to Mr. Cron relative to lead agency status and I enclose a copy of that correspondence. If I can be qf further help to you please contact me. Very truly yours, AlleN M. Smith AMS:gac Enclosures bcc~ Nancy W. Cook, Clerk G~ORGE W: IIUBBARD .L'.~ ~ ~ TRUSTEE5 WILLIAM D. ALLEN SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM II. ilEBLEIN ROBERT 236 TIIIR D ,qTREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YO~K { t044 pecember 18f ~9~ · : TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN EEPLYTO: P.O. BOX 2~9 RIVER{lEAD. N.Y. 11901 Richard. J/ Cronf ~q, Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Re! Sixth Street Condominiums Dear Dicks f Please De advised that pursuant to the prior resolution of the Village Planning Board and tbs smbmission of the draft of the Department of Environmental ~onservation~s statement by your client on December 11, the Village Planning Board declines to act as lead aqeDcy un~e~ the Village Part 617 of N¥CRR. ! :(~ · . Very truly yo~rs~ ).-!:":.],' AMSIgac '" -,., cos Nancy W.' Cook- Allen M. Smith MAYOR GEORGE W. SUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN SAMUEL KATZ WILUAM Ii. LIEBLEIN ROBERT T. WEBB 2]6 TltlRD SIREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 1/7/82 TELEPHONE (516) 477-0248 CLEPJC NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHUN !&ayor George Hubbard and Hembers of t he Board of Trustees 236 Third Street Greenport, N. Y. Gentlemen: Please find attached, copies of correspondence received conmerning the application of Stephen ~hilowitz for a change of zone from CG (Commercial- General) to W-O (Waterfront Commercial) for property located at the southerly end of Sixth Street where Mr. ~hi]owitz proposes to construct condominium units. At a meeting of the Village of Greenport Planning Board held on January 6, 1982 a motion was made by Jane Williams, seconded by Mary Coyle and carried to adopt the following resolution regarding the application of Stephen Shilouitz: ..Resolution WH~RB~S, Stephen Shilowitz applied to the Village of Greenport for a change of zone frcm CG (Ccmmercial-~neral) to W-C (Waterfront Co,~ercial) for property located at the southerly end of Sixth Street in Oreenport, N. Y.~ further identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1001, Section 007, Block O1, Lot 16, and W~RF~S, the Village of Oreenport Board of Trustees referred this application to the Greenport Planning Board for their study and recommendations, and %~RF.~S, Stephen 3hilowitz appeared b~fore this Board on two separate occastbn~ to explain his application, and WI~REAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was filed with this Board on December 11, 1981, and ~EREAS, Southold Town declared itself Lead Agency and made a deelaratinn of no significant effect, and W~EAS, this Board believes a public hearing is in order on this aF~lication to be held by the Village Board of Trustees. Rep?,rt to_B~ard of Trustees R~ Shilowitz Application for change of Zone N(~ TH~EF~E~ the Village of Greenport Planning' Board recommends that the Village Board of Trustees hold a public hearing on the proposed zone change after which this Board shall make a further study and recommendation on said application. Eno. RecpectfuLly submitted, Cook Village Clerk Village of Oreenport Board o£ Tru{~t,ees February 22, 1982 'The 'following Resolution was offered Kat~ by Trustee Lieble tn and seconded by Trustee ' I WHEREAS, Stephen Shilowitz has petitioned this Board for a change~(of zone for certain real property on 6th Street by a petition verified September 29, 1981, and WHEREAS, said Petition was referred to the Planning Board by this Board on November 12, 1981, for the Planning Board's study and recommen.]ations, and said Board, by a Resolution dated Februgry 17, 1982, has recommended approval of said Petition, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner, at the request of the Planning Board, filed with the Village a draft Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS, said property also involves a rezoning by the Town of Southold and said Town, pursuant to the applicable law and regulations, declared itself to 'be the "lead agency" and as such found that the proposed action (rezoning) had no adverse effect upon the environment thereby obviating the necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement and further review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement and said determination is 'WHEREAS, pursuant applicable laws and rules, Suffolk County Department of Planning binding upon the Village, and to the Suffolk County Charter and other said Petition has been ~eferred to the (December 31, 19~1) and said for local determination, Department has declared this.matter to be one and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of this Board dated January 21, 1982, a public notice was authorized calling for a public hearing on said Petition and said Notice was published as provided by law and a public hearing was held February 4, 1982, at which all persons were .hear~ both 'for and against the Petition, and WHEREAS, a majority of the persons addressing this issue-- either at the public hearing or in writing--were in favor of the proposed condominium construction and the rezoning is necessary to effect the same, and WHEREAS, this Board has been notified that the Town of Southold has granted and enacted the required change of zone (which affects the greater portion of the proposed site) for the proposed condominium construgtion, and WHEREAS, this Board takes notice of and incorporates herein by reference all litigation and matters relating to the amendment of the "W-C" use zone to allow condominiums therein, especially the testimony of Frederick R%uter in the action by Oceanic Oyster Company, and WHEREAS, in acting on this Petition the Board members are relying in part upon their personal knowledge of the site, its characterics and history, and WHEREAS, this Board has given due deliberation to said change of zone. Now, THEREFORE, determine as follows: this Board does legislatively find and FINDINGS FIRST: The subject parcel of real property is situate in "General Commercial District". SECOND: Waterfront condominium units as proposed are a conditional use in the Waterfront Commercial District. THIRD: The subject parcel is currently in a state of disrepair, occupied by derelict buildings, bulkheads in disrepair, litter-laden, and otherwise blighted. the FOURTH: The subject parcel has not been actively used for and during that period, no owner has proposed any worthwhile use years of the property, other than the instant application. FIFTH: The parcel is surrounded on most of its periphery by residential property. SIXTH: The subject parcel fronts upon Greenport Harbor. SEVENTH: The parcels surrounding the subject parcel have been, and continue to be, improved by structures situate a~ the same general elevation above sea level as the subject parcel and those structures have withstood the rise and fall of the waters of Greenport Harbor, although most were built to standards less compelling than those required for construction on the subject parcel. EIGHTh: The future construction of condominium units on the ~subject parcel shall be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, the issuance of a building permit upon a proper application, a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and other approvals, such as that of the Suffolk County Department of Health. improve prdvide the current rate of unemployment for this census tract is 9.2% and will influence the local economy during construction and thereafter. TENTH: The owners of the proposed condominium units will provide the Village with valued new residents and citizens. ELEVENTH: The proposed residential use is less polluting than the alternate permitted commercial uses. TWELFTH: Access is provided to the subject parcel by public' highways. NINTH: The proposed change ~pd use of the subject parcel will the tax base of the Village, which is currently static; will employment during the course of construction and operation, when T~IRTEENTH: The proposed parcel can be adequately provided FOURTEENTH: The subject water service. FIFTEENTH: The subject parcel is of dimensions for the proposed condominium units, amenities. SIXTEENTH: The subject parcel can be provide privacy to the surrounding parcels and subject parcel. SEVENTEENTH: of the Commissioner of condominium use and the subject with fire and police protection. parcel has both municipal sewer and sufficient size and parking, landscaping and adequately screened to to the occupants of the The requirements of Part 617 of the Regulations the Department of Environmental Conservation have been met. , EIO}~EENTN~ Annexation of the parcel into the Villagew~ld simplify both the constr~'ction and use of the property. DETERMINATIONS FIRST: The present condition and use of the site constitutes a blight and detriment to the Village. SECOND: The rezoning of the site to "W-C" is necessary for the construction of the proposed waterfrQnt condiminum units. THIRD: The proposed use is of such location, size and character ag will be'in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the Village and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties. FOURTH: The public health, safety and welfare, and the comfort and convenience of the public and of the residents of the Village will be improved by the proposed change of zone and use. FIFTH: The proposed change of.zone and use minimize the adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Petition of.Stephen ~hilowitz for a change of zone be granted to the extent that the official Map of the Village of Greenport and Chapter 85 of the Code of the Village of Greenport are hereby amended to designate and show the parcel of real property on the westerly side of 6th Street at its most southerly point as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is hereby zoned as "Waterfront Commercial" and that the Village Clerk shall publish and post notice of this action as is required bylaw. BE IT FURT}~R RESOLI~D that the action taken the the Village of Oreenport Board of Trustees shall be known as Local Law No. 1-198~ to amend the Zoning Map of the Village of Oreenport as designated on the ~uffolk County Tax ~p as District 1OO1, Section 00?, Block O1, Lot 16 and that said lot is hereby chan~ed fr(m~C-GCommercial-General District to ~U Waterfront Commercial District. This local law shall take effect i,mediately. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT PLANNING BOARD Conditional Use Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ ~ESO__LU%iON Ado~dAugustl6~ 1982 The following reso]utlon was offered and seconded by Wal~rKr~ew~tnskf WHEREAS, this resolution i~ made t .e Code of the Village of Greenport, and by William Coulter , that pursuant to Chapter 85 of WHEREAS, STEPHEN SHiLOWlTZ applied to this Board, pursuant to the p~ovis]o,%s of Section 85-~0(c) of the Village Code for a condi- tional use permit to construct 3.5 _+ resident].al condominium units on cert~Jn real property under contract to him, as more fully set forth in an application, sworn to.by him on December 8~ 1981 , and WHEREAS, this Board, pursuant to the Environmental Conserva- tion Law and Regulations of the Town of Southold, declared itself to be lead age~'cy for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental ]mfacts of the proposed conditional use, and found that the proposed use did not require the filing of an environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, this Board takes notice of and incorporates herein, all correspondence, notices, testimony, etc., had before this Board or other Boards and bodies of the Village relating to the amendmeat of the Village Code Section 85-~0(c)(2), which added waterfront condomln]ums as a conditional use and changes the zoning of the subject parcel to Waterfront Condominium, and WHEREAS, this Board held a hearing on the proposed' condi- tional use on Ma~ 17 , 1982, at which time, ail persons wishing to address this Board were heard and further evidence and testimony was received, in writing, as is on file with the Village Clerk, and WHEREAS, this Board takes notice of all matters of public record relating hereto as though fully set WHEREAS, this Board and each of notice of the personal knowledge each has ject parcel and its environs, and WHEREAS, each member of forth herein at length, and its members takes collective of the village and the sub- above and has dards, NOW, applied thereto THEREFORE, administratively find and this Board has considered all of the the applicable laws, rules and start- this Board does both ]egis]atively and determine as follows~ FINDINGS FIRS?~ ~The subject parcel of real property "Waterfront Commercial District". SECOND~ Waterfront condominium .units are in the Waterfront Commercial District. is situate in the a conditional use -2- TH1RD~ The subject parcel is ~air, occupied by derelict buildings, otherwise non-productive. FOURTH~ the past any worthwhile use of tion. FIFTHs Tile dential properties. subject currently in a state of disre- bulkheads in disrepair, and The subject parcel has not been actively used for years and during that period, no owner has proposed the property, other than the instant appllca- parcel is bounded on most of the north by resi- SIXTHz The subject parcel fronts upon Pseonfo Bay SEVENTHs The future construction of condominium units parcel shall be subject to additional approvals by this the issuance of a building permit upon a proper application, a from the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Corps of nests and other approvals, such as that of the Suffolk County ment of Realth. EIGHTH~ The proposed us6 of the subject parcel will the tax base of the Village, which is currently static; will employment during the course of construction and operation, and influence the local economy during construction and thereafter. NINTH~ The owners of the proposed condominium units selling for approximately $200,000.00) will provide the Village valued new residents and c~tizens... TENTH~ The proposed residential use is less polluting on the Board, permit Engi- Depart- improve provide will (each with than -3- ? the alternate permitted commercial uses. highways. ELEVENTH~ Access is provided to the TWELFTH~ The proposed use and the quately provided with fire and police protection. TltlRTEENTH~ water service. FOURTEENTHz The dimensions for the proposed amenities. subject subject parcel by public parcel can be adc- The subject parce! has both minicipal sewer and subject parcel is of sufficient size and co~dominium units, parking, landscaping and ~ZFTEEN~H: The subject parcel can be adequately screened to provide privacy to the surrounding parcels and to the occupants of the subject parcel. SIXTEENTH: The requirements of Part 617 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation have been met. DETERMINATIONS FIRSTt condominium units. character development of The subject parcel is properly zoned for waterfront SECOND~ The proposed use is of such location, size and as will be in harmony with the ,appropriate and orderly the District in which it is proposed, and will not be -4- detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties. ~H__~RD: The public health, safety, and welfare, and the fort and conue~ience of the public and of the residents of the ate neighborhood will be improved by the proposed use. FOURTH~ The proposed use is one which minimizes environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable. FIFTH~ The subject parcel should be approved by this Board for construction and use as waterfront condominium units as provided for in Section 85-10(c)(2) of the Code of the Village of Greenport. co~- immed i- adverse NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, sworn to D~oembe~ 8~ 1981 , .~ for a conditional use permit to construct a~]d use residential condominium units on cer- tain real property, fully described in said application, be granted in conformance with sa~d appl~cation, and all other documents submitted to this Board in support thereof, subject to the following conditlons~ FIRST~ No building permit shall be issued for the use until a further site plan shall be approved for the subject parcel. This approval is limited to the general location of the proposed structures on the site both within the V~llage and the Town. The further site plan must show elevation of finished grade, maximum height of all structures, all landscaping, including location and size of plantings, all fencing, drainage, parking, including type and construction of said parking, all details for water, electric and sewer service. -5- SECOND{ NO construction or site preparation shall be per- i~ltted until %he issuance of a building' permit from the Village of :Greenport, based upon an application and drawings which comply with all <applicable provisions of* the Code of the Village of Greenport, and all a~p]lcsble building codes and requirements of the Village of Greenport and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for construction in a flood hazard?area. THIR~ No construction or site preparation shall be per- mitred until th~appltcant obtains all required permits, if any, from the Department.of Environmental Conservation, Corps of Engineers, and other governmental departments o~ agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed work. Specifically, the Village Building Permit shall not be issued until the Town Building Permit has been issued which provides thereby the parking required for the units to be built within the 'vii]age. FOURTh{ All drawinge and epecifications submitted to the Vii]age shall be sealed and certified by a licensed professional engi- neer certifying that the proposed construction is viable on the subject · parcel and complies with all applicable laws and codes. FIFT~ The Issuance of a building permit will be conditioned upon the filing with the Village and approval by the Village Attorney of a title report certifying title in the applicant or a title report and options or contracts.showing the right of ,the; applicant to proceed with the proposed construction. Specifically, the title report shall -6- certify all lands shown or used in the presentation by the applicant, including ]ands under water and lands allegedly in dispute on the .nor- therly side of the subject parcel. Boe d rot certificate The condominium offering and any covenants and re- i~ng to this proposed use shall be submitted to this comment and approval before the issuance of a iCcupancy for the Proposed use. - ' SEVENTHs No sign is hereby approved. Any ~igntng shall be subject to a further application to this Board. EIGHTHs No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for this proposed , this and 'l'scaping) use without a resolution from this Board that all terms of any other applicable resolution, rule or law (relating %0 land-' have be~n satisfied. NINT[{I~ No building permit will be issued unless the total lot areas for both the Village and Town requirements of lot area, coverage, etc. are certified and sealed by a licensed land surveyor. The question of the adopticn of the, foregoin~ resolution was dul~ put to a vote which vas .oarried unanimously, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ x : : : : : x Appeal No. ~ MEMORANDUM OF LAW SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENOR COVE CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ROBERT AND NANCY STRONG, FERN SIMPSON, ARTHUR AND JOAN RIEGAL, ANTHONY AND MARY JANE DINIZIO, ALEXANDER AND HARRIET SCOT~ GEORGE BROT, DR. EARL AND MURIEL LOOMIS, AND JAMES AND CYNTHIA PERILLO, INDIVIDUALLY. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This Memorandum of Law is s~bmitted on behalf of the intervenors, Cove Circle Association Inc., (Cove Circle) and Robert and Nancy Strong, Fern Simpson, Arthur and Joan Riegal, Anthony and Mary Jane Dinizio, Alexander and Harriet Scott, Marlo and Elfrida Lazzari, George and Brot, Dr. Earl and Muriel Loomis, and James and Cynthia Perillo, individually. Cove Circle is a homeowners association with commonly owned property located north and west of the applicants property, and adjacent thereto. The individual intervenors are homeowners and members of the Cove Circle Association. In order to obtain a variance from the otherwise applicable zoning requirements, the applicant must prove either undue hardship or practical difficulty. Southold Town Ordinance 1 Section 100-121.B. The intervenors submit that the applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing his right to the variance requested and that, therefore, his application should be denied. ARGUMENT I THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IMPOSE NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THE APPLICANT Whether or not the applicant proves the existence of undue hardship, he must, at a minimum, prove practical difficulty in order to be granted an area variance. Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y. 2d 441, 410 N.Y.S.2d 56 (1978), i.e., that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties. Among the matters which should be considered by the ZBA in assessing practical difficulty are (1) how substantial a variance is in relation to the requirement; (2) whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties created; (3) whether the difficulty can be obviated be some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance; and (4) whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all justice will be served by Michalis, 19 Misc.2d 909, County, 1959). the above factors the interests of allowing the variance. Wachsberqer v. 191 N.Y.S.2d 621 (Supreme Ct., Nassau 2 At issue in the instant application is a variance request which would decrease the otherwise allowable setback from the ordinary high-water mark of the Peconic Bay from 75 feet to approximately 7 feet, a 9--0% reduction. By any stretch of the imagination this constitutes a substantial variance rendering the zoning restriction provision totally meaningless, in effect, repealing it. The proximity to the shoreline proposed by the applicant represents a substantial change in the neighborhood. Nowhere else along the Peconic Bay site of the Town, are there buildings so close to the shoreline, especially where the buildings are over 10,000 square feet in area and approximately 40 feet higher than the existing elevation. The proposal represents a detriment to the adjoining landowners. The height and proximity of the buildings will totally destroy the view to the southeast. In addition, the proposed construction may impede the flow of storm surges, diverting it to the west and north, shifting flood waters onto the property of the Cove Circle Association and adjacent land owners. There is nothing about the size, shape, or grade of the applicant's property which makes the literal application of the zoning ordinance a denial of the applicant's reasonable use of his land. Applicant can still build at least one residence on the property and remain within the zoning requirements. Compare Wilcox v Zoninq Board of Appeals, 17 N.Y.2d, 270 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1966). No practical difficulty is shown if strict application 3 of the zoning regulation prevents the applicant from constructing the large number (5 1/2) of dwelling units he proposes on the Southold Town part of the parcel. Fina Homes, Inc., v. Beckel, 212 N.Y.S.2d 635 (1961). The applicant can increase his yield on the Greenport part of the parcel (Section 85-10.C(2) (6) of the Greenport Code permits ll units per acre) and still build a single family residence on the Southold parts and remain in compliance with the 75 foot setback requirement. The legal standard to be applied by the Zoning Board of Appeals in hearing applications for variance from area standards is stated in the case of Fullinq v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 286 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1967). In that case, the Court of Appeals stated: The basic rule which has evolved from the cases is: where the property owner will suffer significant economic injury by the application of an area standard ordinance, the standard can be justified and welfare will be served by upholding the application of the standard and denying the variance. 286 N.Y.S.2d at 252. Thus, in all area variance applications the initial burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish "significant economic injury." However, it is clear from the evidence submitted by the applicant that established nor application. The method significant economic injury has not been can it be given the circumstances of the established in the case law of this State for determining if significant economic injury has in the case of (1977). It has set forth by the Court of Appeals 41 N.Y.2d 591, 394 N.Y.S.2d 579 4 been incurred was Cowan v. Kern, clarified the standard outlined in Fullin~ v. Palumbo and specifically stated the burden of proof that an applicant must meet in establishing significant economic injury. In Cowan, the Court noted that a Board of Appeals must focus on what the value of the property in ~uestion would be without the variance and how that relates to the initial investment of the applicant in the property. In finding that the applicant did not meet his burden of proof under Fullinq v. Palumbo, the Court stated: Before the zoning authority is required to explain why the public health and welfare requires adherence to the zoning standard, the petitioner must first come forward with proof of significant economic injury (Matter of National Merritt v. Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 442, 445, 393 N.Y.S.2d 379, 383, 385, 361 N.E2d 1028, 1032, 1033; See Conle¥ v. Town of Brookhaven Zoninq Board of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 386 N.Y.S.2d 681, 353 N.E2d 594.) The petitioners only proof on the question of financial hardship was to the effect that if the variance was granted the real property for building purposes would be worth approximately $7,500.00, whereas the real property was worth only $1,000.00 without the variance. However, in calculating whether financial hardship would be inflicted by adherence to the zoning standard, the inquiry should properly focus upon the value of the parcel as presently zoned, rather than upon the value that the parcel would have if the variance were granted. (Matter of Douqlaston Civic Association v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 364 N.Y.S.2d 830, 836, 824, N.E2d 317, 321). 394 N.Y.S.2d at 583. (emphasis added) Thus, the law is clear that without proof upon the record of what the application paid for the property together with what the property as a whole is worth with the variance and without the variance, the applicant has not met his burden of showing that it will not yield a reasonable return if the area standard restrictions are imposed. The variance must be denied. The applicant has not offered any proof of the current value 5 of his property under the current zoning requirements. It is respectfully submitted that since the applicant has not met his burden of proving significant economic injury, the application must be denied on that basis alone without need for the Board to inquire into whether the requested variance is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, or would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. ARGUMENT II THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS APPLICATION IS IN CONFOPd~-~NCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN 100-19.2.B OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD There are no special or unique circumstances or conditions of hardship which are peculiar to the applicant's parcel which do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the neighborhood. The applicant's parcel has land available upon which to build and earn a reasonable return and still remain in compliance with the Town Code. The denial of the application for a variance would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land inasmuch as he could build at least one single family residence on the property in Southold and, if so desired, he has the right to increase his yield from the Greenport part of the parcel. The essential character of the neighborhood would clearly be altered by the variance. What is proposed is 3 buildings, with a total of 9 dwelling units, up to 35 feet high on land whose elevation will increased up to 10 feet, some of whom will be within 7 feet of the shoreline in an area where no such 6 structures of such size nor so close the shoreline now exist. As such, they will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, will adversely affect the character and appearance of the neighborhood and be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In considering the existence of an adverse, impact on an alteration of the character of the neighborhood, the greater the magnitude of the variance requested the more likely the impact upon the community. National Merritt, Inc. v. Weist, supra. The structures proposed here are very large and run right up to the waters edge and are totally inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The ZBA must be careful not to introduce such an incongruity into the zoning pattern so as to seriously disarrange it. Van Duessen v. Jackson, 35 AD 2d 58, 312 N.Y.S. 2d 853 (2nd Dept. 1970). See also United States Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Schoepflin, 63 AD2d 970, 405 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2nd Dept. 1978). Upon information and belief, the ZBA has considered five applications for a variance from the application of this provision to lands bordering the Peconic Bay. No variance for any construction has been granted within 24 feet from the wetland, and then only for a single accessory structure (pool) with a wall between the pool and the wetland. In the single instance where a new residence was involved, a 50 foot setback was required by this Board. A 7 foot setback would seriously disarrange the zoning pattern. 7 ARGUMENT III THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE UPHELD IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY, AND PUBLIC WELFA~E Pursuant to Fullinq V. Palumbo, supra, and Cowan v. Kern, supra, once significant economic injury has been established in a variance proceeding, the application of the zoning ordinance in question is justified by a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be served by the zoning ordinance's enforcement. (This showing is not required if the applicant has not met the threshold of "significant economic injury".) Even if significant economic injury could be established by the applicant, which is not the case, the variance requested would have to be denied since it would result in a significant adverse impact on the immediate community. As will be established by the testimony of Laurence Penny, a noted biologist and environmental planner and the current Environmental Protector Director of the Town of East Hampton and the director of Natural Resources of that Town, the proposed variance will result in severe and manifold detrimental environmental impacts to the environment of Pipes Cove and the immediately surrounding neighborhood. He will testify that the project as presently proposed, will reduce the storage capacity of the area and increase the flood potential for the neighboring property, will act to deflect flood waters onto neighboring property, and will result in overwash of fill from the 8 applicant's property on to neighboring properties. He will testify that granting the variance would jeopardize the safety and welfare not only of the residents who occupy Pipes Cove, its immediate neighbors, and that runoff will have an impact on the water quality of the Peconic Bay, and may adversely impact the ability to take shellfish from Pipes Cove's waters. Laurence Penny's testimony will establish that any economic hardship proported to be suffered by the applicant is far out- weighed by the health, safety and welfare factors to be considered. CONCLUSION The application should be denied. Respectfully submitted, August 14, 1986 TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, NY 11901 (516) 727-2180 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ for Variance STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, being duly sworn, AFFIDAVIT Appeal No. 3513 deposes and says: 1. I am the applicant for the setback variance and I am thoroughly familiar with the property which is the subject of the application and which is located at the foot of Sixth Street, partly in the Village of Greenport and partly in the Town of Southold. 2. I am a registered architect and have completed the plans for the construction of homes on said parcel, and have had soil bearing engineering analysis made and the foundation of the homes are properly designed with respect to these findings. I further represent that the elevation of the supporting concrete grade beam foundation complies with all flood plain requirements. 3. I make this affidavit knowing that it will be relied upon by the Zoning Board of Appea~~ Town ~f/~So~ld... ~ Sworn to before me this 14th day of August, 1986 ESSeKS, HeFTeR, CUDDY & ANGel COUNSeLOrS At LAW P. O. Box 2?9 July 3, 1986 WATER MiLL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL. N.Y. 11976 Re: Application before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Stephen Shilowitz To Whom It May Concern: We have been advised that you have an interest in certain property designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 49, Block 1, Lot 19.2. This property adjoins land owned by Mr. Shilowitz for which he is making an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Enclosed please find a copy of a notice which had previously been given to Cove Circle Associates as the owner of said property. Please be advised that the hearing has been adjourned until July 17, 1986 and will be held at Town Hall during the evening of that day. As of now, the actual time of the adjourned hearing is unknown. The actual time may be confirmed by contacting the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Yours, etc. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel Attorneys for Stephen Shilowitz Mr and Mrs. Willilam H. Braun Private Road Greenport, New York 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Jacob W. Tyler Private Road Greenport, New York 11944 Mr Earl A. Loomis Private Road Greenport, New York 11944 Ms Fern L. Simpson 280 Cove Circle Greenport, New York 11944 Mr. Arthur G. Coffin 1000 Cove Circle Greenport, New York 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Burden F~t Street Greenport, New York 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Burden (Nog) Pipes Cove Greenport, New York 11944 Mr. Robert A. Braun 237 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Hr. and Mrs. Michael Tully 19 North Ingelore Court Smithtown, New York 11787 Hr. and Mrs. Alexander Scott 286 Ivy Avenue Westbury, New York 11590 Mr. and Mrs. James Pirillo Private Road Greenport, New York 11944 Hr. and Mrs. Prokop Five Wallsley Court Coram, New York 11727 Mr. and Mrs. Henry B. Keidel 244 Laurel Road East Northport, New York 11731 Ms. Mary Jane Dinizio 611 Brown Street Greenport, New York 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Mario Lazzari 87-25 Kingston Place Jamaica, New York Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Scott Private Road Greenport, New York 11944 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING for variance Appeal No. 3513 STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: ELIZABETH STOTSKY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at Riverhead, New York. That on the 3rd day of July, 1986, deponent served a copy of the within letter upon attached list of people at the addresses designated for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, certified return receipt requested in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the united States post Office Department within the State of New York. <j7 Sworn to before me this 17th day of July,/1986 Notary Public ~¢~$ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES JEANNE M. COOPER (;AIL F. HORTON DAVID E KAPELL WILLIAM H UEBLEIN SUFf. OF UTILITIES JAMES I. MONSELL [laye of 'een?o 'l 236 THIRD SFREET GREENPORT, SUI'I"OLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 Mr. Stephen Shilowitz 330 East 33rd. Street New York, N.Y. 10016 UTILITY OFFICE TEL (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 Re: Pipes Cove Dear Steve, The Village of Greenport, Utility Department is ready, willing and able to serve your public water and public sewage supply needs at your proposed condominium project in Greenport. You will be required to meet all the rules and regulations of the departments before service can be assured. If I can be of further service, please contact me. Yours truly, - James I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities JlM:lkm cc: George Hubbard, Mayor ~'- -' NOTICE OF APPLICATION ' - p LICATION TO THE COM~IISSIONER OF GENERAL SERVIC~ES FOK A ~!' NOTICr. OF A P. . GRANT OF L~ND L~.:D~,R~WATER ~ ~ ~ ~'~ (~ ~7~1[~) ~> ~?~ '~ ~u~d~ision 7 of the TAKE NOTICE, That, pursuan~ Public Lands Law, the undersiEned will 19 8~., (this date must be twenty-eight days after f~p~y. ·., of General Services for a grant of t~e land un,er water hereinafter ,ersom deeming himself liable to injury by said grant. described~ An~_~ mate file with said Co~issioner_of General Ser- shoul8 ~e __ -,,~ain~ E~oire State Plaza. Albgqy, Ne~ ~orh, a re- v~ce~._~__ ~eatin~ his reasons for oppos:ng sago granu. The land unde~ wa~er aLova me~,tioned ts %ounded and described as follows, to wit: See Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof. /~L~.~'~~' , f 2~.. ~o~ied for, is boun~ec on~cn~ ~~'~~V'~ifth S~reet Park -'~ Dist. 1001, Sec. Nozth by Tax.~%.15 ......... East by ~illage.of.G~eenpo~t ...... '' ' Dist. 1000, Sec. 49,Blk.l,Tax Dist. 1000, Sec. 49'Blk'l'1;est by Lo~.19.2 .................. Northwest byTax. Lot. 12 .............. Sec. 7, Blk~l,'Tax ~ t 17 . So theast b Dxst. 1001 _ ~ ~ occuoled by (here ~ · Y land of t~e applmcant ~s actua y_ . , whethe~nd Said ad3acent - ~{ liv~n~ u on. th~ DroD~r~ heretO insert n~mes of ~r~on~_a ~ See gch~duAe ~ ~ttauh= applicant or ap~i~%~nr s u=~= .... ,. m~'de a part hereoz. It ~s the intention of the undersigned to appropriate said land under water by improving the same as follows: ~e~. bulkheading, construction of townhouses, improvement of existing boat basin .. . ....... (Post Office Address) Stillwater Avenue .C~. t.c.h.o~.u.e, New York Norman J. Sloane o can (Office and Post Office Addres~ Paul,Weiss,Rifkind,Wharton & ....... Ghkk~bh ................ 345 Park Avenue New.~ork,.New.~ork.~O~5~ ...... Schedule A All that certain parcel of land now or formerly under the waters of Pipes Cove, situate in the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York,. belng more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the original high water line, established February 18, 1874, said point of beginning being distant seven hundred eight and forty-eight hundredths feet from the intersection of the westerly side of Sixth Street with the southerly side of a private road, fifty feet wide, also being the westerly extension of the south- erly side of Clark Street; running thence from the point of beginning, the following four courses and distances into the waters of Pipes Cove; 1) South twenty-nine degrees-five minutes-forty seconds-West, five and seventy-eight hundredths feet. 2) South forty-three degrees-thirty minutes-West, one hundred feet. 3) North forty-six degrees-thirty minutes-West, one hundred sixty-five and fifty-six hundredths feet. 4) North thirty-two degrees-thirty seconds East, one hundred forty-four and twenty-six hundredths feet to the original high water line as mentioned; thence easterly along the original high water line South thirty-five degrees- fifty-nine minutes-thirty seconds East, one hundred ninety six and sixteen hundredths feet to the point or place of SCHEDULE B Lot Designation Dist. 1001, Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Tax Lot 15 Dist. 1000, Sec. 49, Blk. 1, Tax Lot 12 Dist. 1001, Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Tax Lot 17 Sixth Street, Fifth Street Park Applicant's Land Dist. 1000, Sec. 49, Blk. 1, Tax Lot 19.2 (Community Beach Parcel) Name(s) of Last Owners of Record William R. Rupp, Liber 9105, Pg. 404 Alexander Scott, Harriet J. Scott, Liber 7395, .Pg. 362 Village of Greenport, Liber 5014, Pg. 481 Village of Greenport Armando Cappa and James F. Homa~ Liber 7997, Pg. 285, Liber 6294. William H. Braun and Robertina Braun, his wife - 1/16, see Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Earl A. Loomis Pg. 333 Loomis and Muriel P. 1/16, Liber 7982, Fern L. Simpson-i/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Jean J. Burden 1/16, Liber 8516 Pg. 64 Walter H. Burden III and Jean J. Burden, his wife-1/i6, Liber 8516, Pg. 70 Walter H. ~urden III-i/16, Liber .8820, Pg. 209 Mary Jane Dinizio-1/16, Liber 9050, Pg. 364 Robert A. Braun-I/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Michael Tully and Dolores Tully, his wife-i/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Alexander Scott and Harriet J. Scott, his wife-2/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 James J. Pirillo and Cynthia S. Pirillo, his wife-i/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Thomas D. Prokcp and Margaret Prokop, his wife-i/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Henry B. Keidel and Carol A. Keidel, his wife-I/16, Liber 7982, Pg. 333 Marlo Lazzari and Elfrida Lazzari, his wife-i/16, Liber 7982, Pq. 333 Robert R. Strong and Nancy R. Strong, his wife and Arthur Riegel and Joan S. ~iegel, his wife - 1/16, Liber 8232, pg. 444 People with Possible Interests in the Community Beach Parcel George Brot, Libcr 8871, Pg- 3!~ Sandra Brot, Liber 8871, Pg. · ?m MEMORANDUM ',_~0~ ~SUPkE~,MI~ COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM t COV~ CIRCL~ ASSOCIATION, INC., ~R H. B~, III, ~IA S. ~Y ~ERWOOD,~. J. S. C. PIRILLO,...a~d THOMAS D. PROKOP, Plaintiffs, VS. .AMMO. ~APPA, JAMES HOMAN, HELEN REZTER, 'and STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, Defendants. DATED PART I July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 19 PHILIP J. OFRIAS, JR., ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs 737 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 462 Riverhead, New York 11901 CRUSER, HILLS, HILLS & BESUNDER, Attorneys for Cappa and Homan 206 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 ~AUL, ~ISS, RIFKIND, I~JkRTON & GABRISON, ESQS. Attorneys for Stephen Shilowitz 345 park Avenue New York, New York 10154 Bach side moves for sugary judgment and the issue concerns which s£~e ham title (see RPAPL Article 15) to 3,500 square feet of undeveloped la in the Town of Southold. Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to collectively as Cove Circle Association, Inc.) allege that it is "a fee owner of the parcel of property" in q~estion (hereinafter referred to as the Community Beach property) and th it acquired title from William and Robertina Braun by a deed dated October 3 1964. O~ the other hand, defendants Cappa and Homan allege that they too acquired title to the same piece of property from the Brauns by a deed dated February 10, 1976. Defendants Cappa and Homan entered into a contract of sa with co-defendant Shilowitz dated August 18, 1981. Defendant Shilowitz seek to ~uild con~o~iniums on certain property not in question, and "to incorporat the s~all portion of Co~unity Beach" which is the subject of this lawsuit. RECEIVEr') .I1 4 1983 MEMORANDUM SPECIAL TERM P~/~RT I BY UNDERWOOD,JR. J. S. C. DATED July 6, 1983 19 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Two I A chronological title history of the community Beach property is required to be set forth in order to decide the mot%ohs. 1. On June 12, 1959, Franklin and Janet Ashby, owners of a large tract of real property, including the community Beach property, _conveyed it William and Robertina Braun. The dee~ which contained many restrictions, was recorded in L.4687, p.344. One restriction which is important to this lawsuil states~ "at no time may said designated area be conveyed without the consent of'~e other property owners on said Map." The deed contains no other referer to a "Map"showing the property owners referred to in this prohibition, nor is any map annexed to the deed. 2. On October 31, 1964, the Brauns conveyed the Community Beach property to the Cove Circle Association. The deed was recorded at L.5650, p.255. The deed states that Cove Circle Association is an unincorporated association and it does not mention the association's officers or members or the Person(s) authorized to act on its behalf. The deed recites some of the restrictions contained in the 1959 deed, but omits the prohibition against conveyance. 3. On July 23, 1974, the Cove Circle Association conveyed the Community Beach property to the Brauns by a deed recorded at L.7694, p.527. MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY COVE CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC., WAL'~ H. BURDEN, III, CYNTHIA S. PIRILLO~ . .a~_ d. THOldAS D. PROKOP, Plaintif~ VS. AMANDO.CA~PA, J~MES HOMAN, HELEN I~EITER, and STEP~ SHILOWITZ, Defendants. SPECIAL TERM PART I BY UNDERWOOD,JR. J.S.C. DATED July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Three 19 4. O~ December 3, 1974, the Brauns conveyed certain property to Thomas D. Prokop, one of the plaintiffs, and the deed (recorded at L.7770, p.124) contained the following provision:,"Together with a right to use the 'communitybeach' which said 'community beach' shall he'.reserved for the sole purpose of recreation ~nd use of the various owners of property ~nown as 'Cove Circle' a~d shall be subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the parties of the first part, or their successors or assigns may impose". 5. O~ January i9, 1976, the Brauns conveyed a large tract of real pr~rty iR fractional shares to many individuals, including two of the individual plaintiffs. This deed was recorded at L.7982, p.333. 6. 0~ February 10, 1976, the Brauns conveyed the Community Beach property to defendants Cappa and Homan. The deed was Fecorded at L.7997, p.28! 7. On August 18, 1981, defendants Cappa and Homan entered into a contract to sell a large parcel of real property including the Co~nunity Beach property to co-defendant Shilowitz. Cove Circle Association, upon the 1964 deed from the Brauns (see item no. II Inc. alleges that it is a fee owner based to the Cove Circle Association (unincorpora~ 2), the restrictions contained in the 1959 deed (see item no. 1) MEMORANDUM ~UPRE~ME COURT. SUFFOL. K COUNTY COVE CXRCXJ~ ~$OCx~T'rCX~lo INC., PIRIe, and TH~ D. PROKOP, Plai~tif fs, ~.0_~PA, ~S H~, ~.~N Daf end,ts. SPECIAL TERM PART I BY UNDERWOOD,JR.J.S.C. DATED July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Four 19 and that the 1974 deed from the Cove Circle Association (unincorporated) was invalid. The Cove Circle Association, Inc. also contends that it is the "successor to the unincorporated association of the same name". Defendants allege that the restriction against conveyance contained in the 1959 deed (see item no. 1) is a restraint on alienation,- the 1964 deed (sea item no. 2) fro~ the Brauns to the Cove Circle Association was a nullity because 'the association was unincorporated and incapable of holding title tc real pro~erty" and by 1974 deed (see item no. 3) the Cove Circle Association r~.o~veyed the Co~unity Beach property to the Brauns, who by the 1976 deed (sea item no. 6) conveyed the property to defendants Cappa and Homart. The courts have held that "a devise to an unincorporated associatic was void at common law" (2 Warren's Weed on the New York Law of Real Propert} Devise sec. 17-01 p.96; 15 N.Y. Jut Rev Deeds sec. 32; Mount v. Tuttl~, 183 NY 358; ~urray v. Miller, 178 NY 316; Owens v. The Missionary Society of the Methodist E~iscopal Church, 14 NY 380). However, the court requested the parties to corament on N-PCL sec. ! which states inter alia "where the certificate is for the .incorporation of ~ unincor~orated association or group, the members of such association or grou! shall be me,bars of the corporation so created, and all property owned by or held for it shall belong to and vest in the corporation..." BUPREME COURT, BUFFOLK COUNTY COVE CTRCLE ASSOCIAT~'C)~, LNC., h~%LTER S. BURDEN, III, CYNTHIA S. PIRILLO,. and THONA~ D. P~OKOP, - Plaintiffs, VS. AMA~BO.~PA, JAM~S HOHAN, HELEN HEITER, and STEP~ SHILOWITZ, Defendants. SPECIAL TERM PART I BY UNDERWOOD, JR.J. S. C. DATED July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Five 19 Cove Circle Association, Inc. alleges that it is the legal succeshor to Cove Circle Association (unincorporated) and that the Co~munity Beach property conveyed to the association by the 1964 deed (see item no. 2) is now the property of the corporation. Defendants dispute this contention. They state that the corporation did ~ot co~ply with N-PCL sec. 402 and again that the Cove Circle Association could not legally hold title to real property. Under the facts presented, N-PCL sec. 402(b) is clearly on point. It '~,tates "if the certificate is for the incorporation of an existing unincor- porated association or group it shall have annexed thereto an affidavit of the subscribers of such certificate stating that they constitute a majority of the members of a co~nittee duly authorized to incorporate such association or grou2 The certificate of incorporation of Cove Circle Association, dated December 11, 1978 and filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on January 29 1979, does not contain the mandated affidavit of the subscribers if it was "fo the corporation of 'an existing unincorporated association" (N-PCL sec. see also KoDricki v. Wojciechowski, 73 Misc 46 aff'd 151 App Div 949). certificate does not make any reference to the Cove Circle Association porated) Or the members thereof and it does not mention the property, the Co~m~unity Beach property, held by the unincorporated association. 402 (b); The (uninco: especial~ '" MEMORANDUM · 'UPREME .COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY '~OVE crRcLE ASSOCIATZON, INC., WALTER H. BURDEN, ZZZ, CtfNTItZA S. PIRIL~O~. a~d THOMAS D. PROKOP, - ' Plaintiffs, VS. DATED REITER, and S~PHEN SHILOWITZ, Defendants. SPECIAl. TERM PART I BY UNDERWOOD,JR. j. S. C. July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Six 19 Therefore, the court holds that Cove Circle Association, Inc., was not an incorporation of a previously unincorporated association within the meaning of the statute. In view of this,holding, the court does not have to answer the question of whether N-PCL sec. 403 permitting all property of an unincorporated association to vest in the corporation, changed the common law rule as previously stated (note however, Burrill v. Boardman, 43 NY 254). In short, if Cove Circle Association (unincorporated) could not hol~ title to real property because it was an uniDcorporated association and Cove CirCle A~sociation, Inc. is not the legal successor to Cove Circle Associatio£ · (unincorporated) because it did not comply with N-CPL sec. 402(b), the 1964 deed (see item no. 2) fro~ the Brauns to Cove Circle Association was void and of nc effect. Plaintiffs recognize the principle that the 1.964 deed is void and the state "the deed to Cove Circle Association, an unincorporated association, dated October 31, 196~, may not have given that unincorporated association legal t~tle to the land since an unincorporated association cannot hold title. However~ a conveyance to an unincorporated association is not without any legal consequences as defendants appear to argue". Plaintiffs cite~radle~ v. .O'Hare (11 AD2d 15), .Schein v. Erasmus Realt~ Co. (107 Misc 27 aff'd 194 App Div and Bronaiian v. Buckman (67 Misc 242 aff'd 145 App Div 950 aff'd 207 'SUISREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY COV~ CI~C;Z~ ASSCX~,TTON, I~C., h~T~TER H. ~URDEN, III, CY~THZA S. PIRILLO, and THOMAS D. PROKOP, Plaintiffs, ¥$. AMANI~i CAPPA, JAMES HOMAN, HELEN REITER, 'and STEP~rRN SHILOWITZ, Defendants. SPECIAL TERM PART I BY UNDERWOOD,JR. j. S. ~. DATED July 6, 1983 19 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Seven NY 719). case. However, these cases can be distinguished from the facts in this' For instance, in the Schein c~se, the Appellate Division stated, ~'we think that the deed from Beihl to Local Union...an unincorporated association conveyed no legal title, because there was no grantee competen9 to hold real property... We think, therefore, that the legal title remained in Beihl notwithstanding his conveyance to the unincorporated association; and the quitclaim deed subsequently given by Beihl to his wife...conveyed to her the l~al title... No legal title passed by a deed in which there is no grantee capable of holding real property; (and) a subsequent conveyance by the grantor in such deed can pass the legal title..." (at 194 App Div 40). Finally, plaintiffs' attorney submits an affidavit which states that "Cove Circle Association, Inc. (is) the successor to the unincorporated association of the same name". There is no affidavit by one with knowledge of the facts (i.e. an officer or member of the association) that makes this statement a~dthe~e~no specific evidentiary facts to support this statement. The attoz~ey's naked allegation is not sufficient (CPLR 3212(b)). III Defendants final contention is that the restriction contained in the 1959 deed (see item no. 1) is a restraint against alienation of real property MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT. gUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM COVE CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC., WALTER H. BURDEN, III, CYNTHIA S. PIRILLO, -&rd THOMAS D. PROKOP, Plaintiffs, ~4AN~--.CAPPA, 'JAMES HOMAN, HELEN REITER~ and STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, Defendants. BY UNDERWOOD, JR.J.S.C. DATED July 6, 1983 19 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Eight and is.void.· It has been stated that "one of the incidents of ownership of propert is the right to convey or transfer it: the right of alienation" (45 NY Jut, Per~et~3~tieS, =Restraints etc. sec. 86; 4~Warren's Weed New York Real Property, '.Perp~.u.l~ies Sec. 1, p. 4; see also, EPTL sec. 9 - 1.1)~ On the other hand, ' the rifle~' against perpetuities states that "every present or future estate shall be void in its creating which shall suspend the absolute power of aliena- tion by any limitation or condition for a longer period than lives in being at the or~atiO, n of ~he estate and a term of not more than twenty-one years" (EPTL ''. ~' .~ T~['.di[ference in the two principles has been stated as follows: ~etU!ties statute is aimed at the suspension of the power of alienatio; for ~%~ssible ~ri~, while in ~e case of a direct restraint on aliens. tion, the owner has power to alienate, and the purpose.of the restraint is to prohibit or prevent him from exercising that power Restraints, etc. sec. 86 pp. 254-255). (45 NY Jur, Perpetuities, The restraint is not limited to the sale of the Community Beach property. In effect, the property can never be conveyed by the fee owners, whether by gift or devise, or by creditors and it is not a restraint limited ti,me. , The m%ny parties whose consent must be obtained in order to effect a conveya~,ce are nowhere identified with specificity. :;' It has been held that "a naked provision in a deed or will to the 8.1JP, RE;ME: COURT, BUFFOI. K COUNTY SPECIAL TERM COVE CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC., WALTER H. BURDEN, III, CYNTHIA S. PIRILLO, ~nd THOMAS D. PHOKOP, VS. Plaintiffs, AMANDO. F. APPA, JAMES~OMAN, HELEN REITER, and STEPHEN~SHILONITZ, Defendants. BY UNDERWOOD, JR.J. $. C. DATED July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Nine 19 effect that land herby conveyed in fee must not be alienated without the consent or joinder of a designated person or persons .... is void (45 NY Jut, Perpetuities, Restraints etc. sec. 89, p. 258; In Re Brower's Will 25 Misc. 2d 482; In Re Van Winkle's Will 86 NYS 2d,597; Kirchhof v. Ramsey 151 Misc. 142 arid. 243 App. Div. 837 arid. 269 NY 640; 6 NY 467; Edib v Edib 63 AD 2d 643; Mann v. Wiesenthal v. Young 280 App. Div. 590). Therefore, the restraint contained in the 1959 deed (see item no. see also De Peyster v. Michael Schuman 1 AD 2d 678; 1) is void. CONCLUSION Since the 1964 deed (see item no. 2) which conveyed the Community Beach property to the Cove Circle Association (unincorporated) was void and the Cove Circle Association, Inc. is not the legal successor'to the unincorporated association and the restraint against alienation contained in the 1959 deed (see item no. 1) is void, the conveyance in 1959 to the Brauns was a legal transfer of title to the Community Beach property. The Brauns were free to convey the property to defendants Cappa and Homan in 1976 (see item no. 6). They in turn could enter into a contract of sale with co-defendant Shilowitz. MEMORANDUM ~UPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY ZOVE CIRCLE ASSOCIATION, INC., ~ALTER H. BURDEN, III, CYNTHIA S. )IRILLO, and THOMAS D. PROKOP, Plaintiff% VS. ~%NDO CAPPA, JAMES HOMAN, HELEN .~EITER, and STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, Defendants. SPECIAL TERM PART I ray UNDERWOOD,JR. J. S. C. DATED July 6, 1983 Index No. 82-3673 Motion No. 20,185 Motion No. 3,271 Page Ten 19 ioined". {owever, pursuant to the language of CPLR 3211(c) >resented, defendants motion for summary judgment Each side has moved for summary judgment, as previously stated. 2PLR 3212(a) provides that the motion shall be made "after issue has been The court notes that defendants ~ave not answered the complaint. and under the circumstances in their favor dismissing <he complaint is granted and cross-motion by plaintiffs' for summary judgment denied. In view of the above, the court need not consider plaintiffs' .orion to amend the complaint. -Settle Judgment. WILLIAM L. UNDERWOOD, JR. J.S.C. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ for Variance ..................................... X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, being duly 1. I am the applicant in the am fully familiar with all herein. the AFFIDAVIT Appeal No. 3513 Institute follows: A. I received my first degree in Architecture from the 14 years, University of Pennsylvania in 1953. B. I received a Graduate Degree in Architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1955. 5. I have been licensed since 1959. For approximately I worked as an architect, designing site plans for States of New York and New Jersey. I am a member of the American of Architects (A.I.A.). My educational background is as of this variance, having acquired title on March 24, 1983. 4. I am an architect, licensed to practice in the 2. I make this affidavit with the understanding that Zoning Board of Appeals will rely upon it. 3. I am the owner of the property which is the subject sworn, deposes and says: above entitled matter and the facts and circumstances set forth various types of projects, including universities. In addition, I designed schools, residences and hospitals. Since approximately 1968 I have managed several substantial multiple residences. In the course of practicing architecture and managing these multiple residences, I have become familiar with the costs incident to construction projects, including but not limited to, costs of labor, materials, engineering services, legal services, architectural services and the like. 6. The purpose of this affidavit is to let the Zoning Board know the damages I would suffer in the event the variance is not granted. The damages can be divided into two areas. The first relates to the cost of filing, prosecuting and processing applications for approval. The second relates to the economic return from the project after construction and sale. These two different areas of damage are discussed separately below. DAMAGES RESULTING FROM DUPLICATION OF APPROVAL PROCESS 7. I entered into a contract to purchase the property in August of 1981. My obligation to purchase, however, was contingent on receiving all approvals necessary for the construction of the nine condominium units shown on my site plan, which was attached to and made a part of the contract. 8. After entering into the contract, I started on the application process. I informed the various boards, including the Town Board and Planning Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees and Planning Board of the Village of Greenport, that I would not build the project if any board or agency failed to approve my site plan. I explained that I did not have to buy the property unless the approvals were obtained. All of the boards having jursidiction at the time issued the necessary approvals. These included, among others, the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, the Town Board of the Town of Southold, the Suffolk County Department of Planning, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, the Planning Board of the village of Greenport and the Trustees of the Town of Southold. Copies of the various approvals issued by these boards and agencies were submitted with the application as exhibits. 9. To date, I have spent $437,000.00 on the project. Of this sum, $210,000.00 was spent on land acquisition. The rest was spent, in large part, on obtaining the approvals mentioned above. I spent $65,000.00 on architectural and engineering services in connection with my various applications. I spent an additional $12,000.00 on consultants. My attorneys' fees, much of which was related to zoning advice and representation in connection with the various applications, were $110,000.00. The remaining $40,000.00 was spent on advertising, telephone calls and miscellaneous matters. 10. Should the board require a redesign of the project, I would have to go back to the various agencies to seek amendments of my existing permits and approvals. These are in existence and allow me building Southold redesign, I would lose the investment I made prior approvals and would have to spend tens to start the construction of the project upon obtaining permits from the Village of Greenport and the Town of (awaiting this determination). If I am forced to in obtaining these of thousands of new dollars for consultants, attorneys, engineers and filing fees for the next round of approvals. 11. I submit that the damages I would suffer if I had to amend existing permits, standing alone, should lead the board to a favorable view of my application. A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNREASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY 12. The current site plan calls for nine units. I have always intended to occupy one of the units myself and place the other eight units on the market. I have carefully budgeted the cost of construction, so as to be able to predict the return I will obtain from the property. My budget to complete the project, not including the cost of constructing of my home, is as follows: A. Land acquisition and soft costs (interest, legal fees, consultant fees, application fees and commissions) - $650,000.00; B. Construction of the eight units - $1,300,000.00; C. Site work (bulkheading, landscaping and fences) - $450,000.00; and D. Swimming pool - $50,000.00. Total projected cost of project, not including my home $2,450,000.00. 13. I need to net in excess of $300,000.00 per unit to break even. I am familiar with the values of other residential condominiums in the area and know that this is currently the top market price. I refer the board to Stirling Cove and Oyster Point. The most expensive unit at Oyster Point is being marketed for $305,000.00. 14. As an example, I should emphasize that at the $300,000.00 price I reach a break even point, with no profit or "return" on my money. Should I have to reduce the project by one unit in order to meet the setback requirement of the recently adopted code provision, I will reduce my construction costs by approximately $100,000.00, but reduce my return by $300,000.00. The result would be that I would have to net in excess of $330,000.00 per unit in order to break even and make no profit. 15. The result, however, of a strict application of the 75 foot set back requirement would be devastating. I would not be able to use the property. Even though a single family residence could be located within the remaining buildable area, under Greenport Village Zoning single family residences are not permitted on this site. A portion of the buildable area would be in Greenport. Thus, I would have a totally unusable lot. 16. I have never approached the project with a view towards maximizing profitability. When I first applied for site plan approval, the density restrictions in the Zoning Codes of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport would have permitted me to locate 19 units on my site. For aesthetic and economic reasons I chose to limit the site to nine units. I intend to live on the site. The decision to limit the site to nine units was a compromise between aesthetics (lower density) and economics (return - number of units). This was the least number of units that had a reasonable chance of turning a profit or, at least, breaking even. The Board should know that I made innumerable site plan studies in an attempt to reach this balance. 17. Now, if I do not receive the relief requested from this board or by some other agency or court, the project will be doomed to economic failure. CONCLUSION 18. Briefly, I want to call your attention to several factors which should assist you in awarding the relief I request: A. The property was bulkheaded. Under state wetlands law and regulations, property behind bulkheading is not subject to regulations. B. The project will be and sewer, therby alleviating most served by Greenport public water of the "environmental" concerns with respect to building on or near the shoreline. C. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) approved the site plan. It is well known that the DEC dilligently protects the environment. Apparently, substantial set back from the bulkhead line was of no concern the DEC. 19. An enormous amount of energy been spent on this project. To alter it at to and money has already this time would be unfair. There are no environmental concerns to protect and, because of the numerous approvals already given, ,,no adverse precedent would be created by granttin~the~reque~t~!va~i.a_nce. Sw3Drn to before me this / Kdayjof J e, 3a86 / ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of the Application of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ S.S: AFFIDAVIT OF APPRAISAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS COVE CIRCLE ASSO. AND THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS OF COVE CIRCLE IN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE APPLICATION BY STEPHEN SHILOWITZ Appeal No. 3513 STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JOHN GLANDER, being duly sworn, 1. I submit this affidavit as located on 6th Street, Village of Greenport, located at tax map District 1000, Section 049, 2.51 (Southold) and District 1001, Section 007, says: an appraisal of the property Town of Southold, Block 01, and Lot Block 01, Lot 16. (Greenport) The metes and bounds are described in the deed attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. The purpose of this appraisal is to give the fair market value of the aforementioned real estate were it to be developed in accordance with the Zoning Codes of the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport and in accord with the permits already obtained by Stephen Shilowitz. 3. I am fully familiar with the values of real estate in the Town of Southold, the Village of Greenport, properties with Peconic Bay frontage, and waterfront properties in Eastern Long Island. 4. I have been a senior member of Columbus Society of Real Estate Appraisers for 10 years, and an appraiser for 20 years. A copy of my qualifications are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 5. The property is within the Waterfront Commercial zone in Greenport and the Light Multiple Residence Zone in Southold Town. It is currently unimproved. 6. The total lot area is 98,494 sq. ft. with in excess of 320 feet of Peconic Bay (Pipes Cove) frontage. 7. The market value of this property at the present time is estimated to be $600,000, based upon comparables in other areas adjusted to the subject property. 8. For instance, on May 9, 1986 Edward F. Cook Real Estate, Inc. transferred to Jonathan S. Canno the parcel shown as 0300- 072-01-3.4 on the 10043, Page 48, and one building site. Suffolk County tax map, recorded at Liber sold for the indicated price of $315,000 for It is approximately 1.6 acres in size. This deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The tax map is attached as Exhibit "D". 9. On April 11, 1986, Edward F. Cook Real Estate, Inc. transferred to Lyla Hoffman a parcel shown as 0300-072-01-3.002 on the Suffolk County Tax Map recorded at Liber 10022, Page 143, and sold for the indicated price of $300,000 for one building site. It is approximately 1.3 acres in size. This deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 10. Abiding by the Southold Town Waterbody and Wetland Setback ordinance, the owner could build at least five (5) two and one-half (2 1/2) story dwelling units on this parcel, each with in excess of 2000 sq. ft. of livable space. These sized dwelling units, built at an estimated cost of $70 per square foot, with common walls and cluster construction, plus land acquisition costs of $21 per square ft., plus an estimated $30 per square foot in site preparation and finishing costs, would result in an estimated total cost of $1,210,000. Each dwelling unit would command an estimated market price of more than $350,000. The owner could, therefore, realize a profit exceeding $540,000. 11. In estimating the fair market value of condominium dwelling units at the subject property, I have used as comparables sales of waterfront condominiums at Stirling Cove in Greenport. For instance, one recent sale, by William W. Esseks to Lee Courtney Schroeder and his wife, on April 16, 1986, 1001- 003.01-1-017 on the Suffolk County Tax Map, recorded at Liber 10029, Page 118, sold for the indicated price of $250,000. This deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "F". That unit, with ft. approximately 1200 sq. ft. sold for about $204.00 per sq. Additional comparables from Stifling Cove are attached as Exhibit "G". The tax map is attached at Exhibit "H". 12. The subject property offers numerous advantages which would enhance the value of its future dwelling units compared to those at Stirling Cove. The subject property offers a more exciting waterfront view and the units will be substantially larger than Stirling Cove's. In addition, the subject premises represent the last available waterfront condominiums buildable in Greenport as a result of recent changes in Greenport's zoning ordinance prohibiting waterfront condominiums. Further, as a result of the scarcity of available waterfront property and increasing demand, the values of the waterfront property in this area are increasing dramatically. Dated: September 11, 1986 JOHN GLAN~ Sworn to before me this llth day of September, 1986. JOHN GLANDER, being duly sworn, deposes and says the following in connection with the attached appraisal: THAT he is an appraiser and a duly licensed Real Estate Broker of the State of New York, doing business at Grathwol Rd, New Suffolk, New York 11956, being actively engaged in appraising, selling, mortgaging, and renting property in the vicinity of the property concerned herein. THAT he has no interest, present or prospective in this property, nor is compensation contingent on the amount of the valuation reported. THAT the appraisal fee does not include giving testimony in court. THAT he has inspected the property herein described and that he has made a careful and detailed analysis of the factors pertinent to the estimate of it's value as of the date indicated on the Affidavit of Appraisal attached, and that no facts have been knowingly withheld or overlooked. THAT all data gathered in his investigation of the property is based on his own observation and/or from sources believed to be reliable but is in no sense guaranteed. THAT it is assumed that title to this property was good and merchantable and that there were no encumbrances which could not be cleared through regular processes. THAT the valuations set forth is the attached appraisal apply only under the existing applicable zoning ordinance as of the date of this appraisal. THAT the Market Value as defined by the Society of Real Estate Appraisers is the price which a property will bring in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, which would result from negotiations between a buyer and seller, each acting prudently, without undue stimulus. ?hn Gla~ / Licensed Real Estate Broker Senior Member of the Columbus Society of Real Estate Appraisers Sworn to before me this llth~ day of Sel~$em~er, 1986 ---bm. 3.~ &id flo,~ .dmmmlmdndmd eighty-mAx Y~4! J~AI, TY CORP., a h~v York Cor~or&tion vi~h o~f~ces c/o PAUL, MEZGS, RIFKXN~, lfl~AR~Olt & GAP~qXSON, 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10154 ~ esl dm imfl7 d d~ b~ pm% in ea;q~emtm ol Ten ($10.00) ddb,~ Issdul ..m~ db ~ 5um~ end other good and v&lu~ble conlldoretlortdd 17/ns~dbelq~l~r at Greenport, Torn of Southold, County of Butfolk end Orate of ~e~ York, bounded and described aa follower ~outheasterly corn~.r of land now or formerly off Greenhnlgh; a point: TO ~I RF~ALT¥ CORP, JOHN G. BLANDER NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK 11956 (516) 734-6619 CLIENT QUALIFICATIONS Prior and Present clients: Condemnation appraisals for the Town of:, Riverhead, New York Greenport, New York Village of Southampton, New York Town of Huntington (Com~.ack public library property), New York County of Suffolk ~ertiorai appraisals for: Ramp Ford, Port Jefferson, NY Sayville Ford, Sayville, NY Robert Weiss .Volkswagen, Middle Island, Garsten Motors, Riverhead, NY Holiday Inn, Riverhead, NY NY Law firms: Jon Semtenna, Esq., Garden City, NY Pe!le~Lreau & Pelletreau, Esqs, Patchogue, NY Styvesant Wainwright, III (former congressman)New York City and East Hampton, NY Hogan & Hogan, Esqs., Garden City (Howard T. Hogan, former New York Supreme Court judge) John Munzel, Esq.~ (Town attorney for Greenport, NY) Meyer & Wexler, Esqs., Sraithtown, NY Many intermediate firms in Suffolk County Clients: Banker's Trust Co. I-!e~hodist Church, Commack Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Woodridge, NY (real estate) LILCO - Joseph Rafano, V.P. in charge of real estate Nor~hvi!le Dock Corporation, Riverhead, NY MTA (Long Island Railroad) Rose Jewelers, Riverhead, Southampton, Obser Motors, Riverhead, NY Riverhead Datson, Riverhead, NY Riverhead Toyota, Riverhead, NY Many intermediate clients in Suffolk County East Hampton & Patchogue, NY dOHN G. BLANDER NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK 11956 (516) 734-6619 REAL ESTATE BROKER EXPERT WITNESS New York State Supreme Court' New York State Court of Claims Town Board of Riverhead, N. Y. Town Board of Brookhaven, N. Y. Board of Appeals, Town of Southampton, N. Y.  SENIOR MEMBER, COLUMBIA SOCIETY OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. MEMBER, POOL OF REAL PROPERTY APPRAISERS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS :iHDUSE HUNTING MAGAZINE Over ten million dollars in volume of real estate appraisals in Suffolk County of Industrial-Residential an& Commercial properties. Originator and Publisher of House Hunting Magazine - distributed by the American News Co. in the New York Metropolitan Area ... plus publication of many community magazines and brochures. SENIOR ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE The Hea. rst Corporation, Street ~: Smith Publishing, Conde Nast Pub- lications, Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.. New York City. ADVERTISING MANAGER NATIONAL PUBLICATION MARKETING BIRECTOR ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE QUALIFICATION Major Advertising Agency - New York City Ig2MM~D F.~COO~ J~AL KSTATI~, ll~., · New York corporatioe, having ~ pa p ace o bu~ n~-at 20 Nain Street, hot York ] 1937 J_~IliANS. ~, residtn6 at ~0 bet &Tth Street, tier York, 663.004 ~00 ~72.oo' LYI~W HOFF~IAN, resJdinq at 140 Ne~t El~d &v~nue, New York, NY 10023 1141Sl~F~n~L'~hf 16th '~r.[ April ,m~-,~,nh,,nd~,~4 elKh~y.e),x BL'TW~J~ ~ll,l,IAN ~. ESS£K$. r~tdLn~ a~ 108 £asC ~aLn Screen, R[verhead. Nt, w York I~r,* ,,f I~ 6t.~ I~,'. and LEE COURTNEY ~CHRODER and JENNY SUSAN SCHROD~R, his wife. both residtnR ac 25 Blackburn Lane, l~snheeee~. :lev York \ }~, tod ~ I I ]a),e of Greenport, To~n Si fro k Coun! v :{,.~ York . . . _ of Southold, .... ~,re parczcuiarly bonded and deecribed ~ SECT IO,~ BLOCK thl, i-trst p,~rt b'¢ a.,cd *l,'sied Ha'; 23, I0~5 r~adl, bv Stirlinl: Cove Suffolk on .lun¢ II, IOi~5 in Lit)er 9807 of Conveyances a~ Pa~e 112. t ~UFF ~ GOUNT~ M~ln common in the common elemente of the Condominium ~e{cribed in recorded in the Suitolk County Clerk'{ Otiice in Llbe, 9731, cp 65. T~"eeJrC M rAX 11S14 SEE ATTACHED IIIDE~ - To~m SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I-- ~- Property Tax Service AgencyJ-u.~E~' County Center ~ mmsn~cr,G I000 .~iverhecid, L 1., New ~o,~ ~ ~41~ BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Application of Stephen Shilowitz : : : : : x STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Affidavit Appeal No 3513 LAURENCE T. PENNY, being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. I submit this affidavit in opposition to granting the variance(s) requested in the Pipes Cove Condominium project on Pipes Cove, of the Peconic Bay system, part of which site is in the Town of Southold and part in the Village of Greenport. 2. In support of my credentials to give testimony, I offer the following: I reside at 450 Noyac Road in Sag Harbor, New York, and am presently employed as the Environmental Protection Director of the Town of East Hampton and the Director of the Natural Resources Department of that Town. I am a professional environmental planner and a biologist with a masters degree from San Francisco State University in Biological Science and 30 years of study and experience in Environmental Science matters. My resume is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A. 3. I have examined the Pipes Cove site and have reviewed the file in the variance(s) application before the Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold Town. Based on my inspection and review, I have come to the conclusion that the requested variance from the water body setback of 75 feet (Town Code, Sec. 100-119.2B) to the extent that the most forward limit of the Condominiums will be as close as 5 feet to the waters of Pipe Cove has no merit whatsoever and if granted will indeed result in severe and manifold impacts to the environments of Pipes COve and habitated lands immediately neighboring the Pipes Cove site situate in Southold Town. The rationale for this assertion is outlined below. 4. Variance from Setback Standard. In reality, the variance from the 75 foot water body to structure setback is three separate variances because the most seaward units as proposed a) are less than 30 feet from the surface waters of the existing basin, b) Cove on the south (See "Drawing A-i, variances of standard of average variance of 73%. less than 20 feet from the waters of Pipes side and less than 10 feet on the north side July 1, 1982") The these numbers represent 60%, 73%, and 87% respectively, for an This is a very great variance, whether 2 it is looked at in terms of a single variance or three separate variances. It could be argued that the setback relief from the basin waters is the only one that may have any merit at all because it could be argued that the basin was artificially created. If we were to set aside for the moment this setback relief sought, then the average setback relief sought for the two remaining variances requested would be at least 80%. 5. Basis for Setback from Surface Waters. A 75 foot setback from surface waters is a standard that has stood the test of time in the New York State Environmental Conservation Code since 1977 when the rules and regulations of the tidal wetlands were promulgated, in municipalities within New York State, and elsewhere. It is a practical setback that incorporates the separate needs for several different safeguards (from flooding, runoff, noise, visual stimuli, leaking, aesthetics and other type impacts) in one measure. To vary it significantly is to abridge one or more of these safeguards, to vary it by 80% is to, for all purposes, nullify them completely. 6. Flooding Potential. One of the safeguards incorporated in the 75 foot setback is protection from flooding and the · protection of features which have flood abatement valued (See Tidal Wetlands Act, State of New York). The Pipes Cove site is admittedly in a 100-year Flood Hazard Zone identified in the FIRM panel for that part of Southold Town immediately west of 3 Greenport on Pipes Cove. When the issue of flood hazard potential is examined further, it turns out that there are serious concern with the Pipes Cove project. A. Proximity to the sea. The closer the units are to the interface between the sea and land the more substantial will be the damage encountered in serious storms. In this area the damage potential will be extreme as the units are an average of 10 to 20 feet from this interface. B. Storitivit¥. application include the with fill to as much as above MSC (1929 datum). (Storage capacity) The site plan building up of the site's elevation five feet above grade or 10 feet Thus the site's storage capacity will be almost completely exhausted under the plan and its flood abatement value reduced to zero. C. FloodWater Deflection. The wall of fill, piles and buildings to occupancy the site under the plan will divert the flood waters increasing flooding potential ~m~ediately to the nor~o~f~%~e site. It will be seen that there is an open fetch of +/- 6,000 feet (over a mile) to the south across Pipe Cove. Inasmuch as in the vast majority of tropical storms and hurricanes hitting Long Island the strongest storm driven floodwaters and waves are manifested as a result of winds coming out of the south quarter (as, for example, obtained during Gloria's passion in 1985) the potential to deflect storm water onto the north nelg parcel is great, particularly because the loss of storage 4 to be realized on the site will be concomittantly transferred to each side of it headland). D. 9verwash. During severe storm flooding (of the land which the site has already experienced in several (as to create an artificial occasions in the 20th century) much of the fill placed upon the site will be evulsed onto the neighboring parcels, and into the basin and cove. For example, if bluestone were to be used as the dry material, it would end up on the neighbors' property. Thus, on the basis of the flood hazard safeguard alone, if the variance were granted as requested and the site developed as proposed, a potentially large hazard would be wreaked on the neighbors' property which would not only be contrary to the intent of FEMA's rules and regulations respecting building in federally inventoried flood hazard zones, but would also fly in the face of Article 1 (general provision) of the Town Code where it affords, under Sec. 100-10E, "The maximum protection of residential areas" and Article XII. Sec. 100-12lB where under Sec. 100-12lB it gives the Board the power to vary...the application of such regulations so that...public safety and welfare are secured. In this last case, granting the variance bared upon the site plan submitted will have just the opposite effect, it will jeopardize the safety and welfare of not only the residents to occupy the Pipes Cove project, but also the residents occupying the properties in the immediate neighborhood 5 of Pipes Cove. 7. Runoff. Runoff is another serious impact for which the 75 foot setback offers mitigation. The further the structures and covered areas from surface waters, the less the potential runoff. As the National Urban Study indicates and as, locally, water quality testing program of the New York State the recent DEC shows, loading of requested one of the outstanding contributions to coliform surface waters is by way of runoff. The variances for this site in order to implement the site plan as presently conceived will greatly increase the runoff potential of this site as it will be greatly elevated with steep slopes leading directly to the bulkhead line. The DEC indicates that Pipes Cove's waters are presently certified for the taking of shellfish. It is imperative in order that they continue to be certified that all sites along it be developed in such way that structures are situated maximally from surface water and the upland is not further mounded up in such a way that precipitation and irrigation waters don't runoff but rather completely infiltrate on site. 8. Other ImDacts. The 75 foot setback for structures also sets back buildings and their adjuncts, including landscaping, to the degree that so many other impacts attendant to man's habitating activities are placed far enough back so that their diverse impacts taken singly or collectively are likely 6 diminished with respect to the natural aquatic environment, in this case, that which Pipe's Cove affords. Such noxious stimuli as light, sand, leaching chemicals, (e.g. CCA pesticides) are further removed from the land water interface by way of enforcing such setbacks. 9. Density. The matter of computing density for the Pipes Cove parcel is an issue which should weigh heavily on the decision in that the lot area includes considerable underwater land which in most municipalities is not counted in the computations by which density is determined. In this case of the 57,000 +/- square feet of the project shown to be in Southold Town by the applicant, approximately 27,000 square feet is underwater land. If the underwater land is excluded from the computations for density, only 3 units would be allowed on the Southold side of the project. It would not be unreasonable to exclude the underwater land of Pipes Cove from the density calculations under the "wise use" rule. What, for example, would be the case were it reversed such that there were 40,000 square feet of underwater land and only 17,000 square feet left upland? Would the density still be determined to be 5 1/2 units? Of course not. Such a small upland are could not accomodate 5 1/1 units. CONCLUSION The application should be denied. 7 Sworn to before me this /~?day of/A~gust, 1586 N~a~y Pub~ LYNOA A. MONINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC, State ol New No. 4736164, Suffolk Courl~y,.~, ~m g~pir~ March 30, / Laurence Penny RESUME of Laurence T. Penny Applied Ecology, Inc. 450 Noyac Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 (516) 725-4521 (home) (516) 267-8462 (office) 1984- 1983- 1983- 1983- 1983- 1982-83. 1981. 1981. 1980-81. 1980-81. 1980-81. 1980- 1980. 1979-80. 1978-79. 1974-78. Natural Resource Director, East Hampton Town Consultant, Waterfront Revitalization Projects, Sag Harbor and Westhampton Beach Consultant to The Group For The South Fork, Bridgehampton Consultant to Nature Conservancy Environmental Planner, East Hampton Town Environmental Consultant Adjunct Professor, Field Biology and Environ- mental Courses, Southampton College, L.I.U., Co-Chairman, South Fork 201 Study, CAC, East Hampton, N.Y. Southampton, N.Y. Co-Director, Peconic Environmental Resource Center, Inc., Sag Harbor, N.Y. Consultant, Mashomack Master Plan Study, The Nature Conservancy Consultant to U.S. Attorney General, Eastern Office, Brooklyn, New York. Re: U.S. vs. Swan Lake Golf Course, Inc. Columnist on nature and environment, East Hampton Star, East Hampton, N.Y. Curator of Collections, Mus. L.I. Natural Sciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, N.Y. Staff Ecologist and Wetlands Specialist, Group For The South Fork, Bridgehampton, N.Y. Consulting: environmental science, ecology, aquaculture and fishery science Southampton College of Long Island University Southampton, NY 11968 -2- 1971-74. 1970-71. 1969-70. 1968-69. 1968-69. 1968 1967-68. 1967-68. Professor of Biology and Marine Science: Field Biology, Ecology, Fishery Science, Marine Ecology, Marine Science, Aquaculture, Verte- brate Zoology, Cell Biology Chemeketa Community College Salem, Or. 97303 Instructor (tenured) of Biological Sciences: General Biology, General Zoology, Anatomy and Physiology Community Environmental Council (a co-founder of), Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Founding Editor: Survival Times, mental monthly, later, quarterly 1970 to 1976) an environ- (ran from Community School, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Teacher: Biology, Chinese, Russian, Math, Environmental Science Santa Barbara Collectors, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Co-owner, Operator: collecting live marine specimens for major national aquariums Commercial Fisherman Santa Barbara, CA San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Lecturer: General Zoology (Summer Appointment Undersea Gardens, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA Curator-Collector of Living Organisms: in charge of 240,000 gallon flow-through aquarium Santa Barbara Underseas Foundation Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Co-founder, First President: organize and initiate a not-for-profit educational services foundation serving the greater Santa Barbara area and concerning itself with shipboard marine science. -3- 1967-68. 1967-68. 1964-67. 1962-65. 1962-63. 1961-65. 1958-61. Santa Barbara Free School, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA Co-organizer, Teacher: help start and teach the first Summerhill-type school in the U.S. Taught Biology, Psychology, Marine Science, Russian. in University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Lecturer: Ichthyology, Zoogeography of Fishes Seminar, Behaviour of Fishes Seminar University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Teaching Assistant: Biology, Botany, Ichthyology Biological Abstracts University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 Abstractor-Translator: of two Soviet journals, Voprosy Ikhtiologii (Problems in Ichthyology) and Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal (Physiological Journal) and parts of Referativnyi Zhurnal (the Soviet equivalent of Bioabstracts) San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Teaching Assistant: Biology Systematics Laboratory U.S. National Museum Washington, D.C. Translator: cover-to-cover translation of about 50 Soviet scientific (principally, biological) publications Army Security Agency U.S. Army, Japan Translator-Cryptographer: translation and deco- ding of Soviet domestic and military teleradio communications -4- Education 1964-68. University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Ichthyology, Animal Behaviour, Marine Biology; ABD* 1962 Chinese Language Institute San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Mandarin Chinese 1961-64. San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Biological Sciences; M.A. 1958-59. U.S. Army Language School Foreign Studies) Monterey, CA 93940 (Monterey Inst. of Russian 1953-57. Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14850 Biology, Wildlife Conservation; B.S. I am in process of reopening my Ph.D. candidacy. I have the guarantees of my major professor and the Biological Sciences Department that I will be able to resume my work toward satisfying the dissertational requirements. Languages Russian Chinese (Mandarin) French (read only) Spanish (read only) Honors General Motors Fellowship, 1965, 1966 Carnegie Foundation Fellowship, 1962 Selectee, UC Berkeley Teaching Internship Program (lst year, model program), 1962 President, S.F. State U. Biology Society, 1962-63 July 16, 1986 Mr. Victor Lessard Chief Building Inspector Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Lessard: I, as authorized representative of the Fire Department, Village of Greenport, have reviewed the site plan and architectural scale mode1 of the 9 unit residential condominium project (Pipes Cove Condominium) that Stephen Shilowitz proposes to construct upon his site at the foot of Sixth Street in Greenport. I have determined as a result of my review that the design as presently indicated by his plan including setbacks from bulkheads as shown thereon (Site Plan dated July 1, I982 Drawing No. A-l) satisfies our depart- ment*s criteria for proper fire-fighting, including the deployment of our pumper and aerial-ladder apparatus during any fire emergency at that site. As you know, our department has the responsibility for fire protection not only upon that portion of Mr. Shilowitz' site that lies within the Village of Greenport but also upon that portion of his site that lies within the Town of Southold. Furthermore, Mr. Shilowitz has agreed to provide at least two new hydrants upon his site at locations which we will determine as proper. He will also eliminate a traffic circle presently indicated upon the afore-said site plan to facilitate the maneuvering of our equipment. The area between Building #2 and Building #3 will be paved so a pumper can reach the water and pump from the bay or cove. This was agreed upon by both parties during our telephone conversation on July 7, 1986. Very truly yours, Greenport Fire Department PQ:nr PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD March 12, 1985 8:10 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ENTITLED, "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO BUILDING SET-BACK REQUIREMENTS ON LOTS ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES & WETLANDS. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a proposed Local Law in relation to building set-back requirements on lots adjacent to water bodies & wetlands to be read by Councilman Stoutenburgh. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 8th day of November, ;1984, a Local Law entitled, "A Local ~.aw in relation to building set-back requirements on lots adjacent to Water Bodies and Wetlands," which reads as follows, to wit: "BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: (additions indicated by underline; deletions by [brackets]). "Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article XI thereof (General Requirements) is amended by adding a new section thereto, to be section 100-119.2, to read as follows: Section 100-119.2 - Building set-back from water bodies and wetlands Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following set-back requirements shall appl~/ to all buildings located on lots adjacent to water bodies and wetlands: A. Lots adjacent to Long Island Sound. (1) All buildings located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound, and upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach, shall be set-back not less than 100 feet from the top of such bluff or bank. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision A(1) hereof, all buildings located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound shall be set-back not less than 100 feet from the mean high water mark of Long Island Sound. All buildings located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than Long Island Sound, shall be set-back not less than 75 feet from the mean high water mark of such tidal water body, or not less than 75 feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is greater. Page .2 - , ng Set-back Public Hearingl Local Law - Bm C. All buildings located on lots adjacent to any freshwater body shall be set-back not less than 75 feet from the edcje of such water body, or not less than 75 feet from the landward edcje of the freshwater wetland, whichever is cjreater. II. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State., Copies of said Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 12th day of March, 1985, at 8:10 o'clock P.M., at which time all interested persons will be heard. Dated: February 26, 1985:, Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk:' I have a affidavit that The Long Island Traveler-Watchman published this and I have an affidavit from The Suffolk Times. I have correspondence from the Suffolk County Planning Board dated March 1st: "Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval." I also.have a letter from the Planning Board, Town of Southold, dated February 8th to Judy Terry: "Re: Local Law in RElation to Building Setbacks. Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Planning Board, Monday, February 4, 1985. Resolved that the SOuthold Town Planning Board concur with the resolution of December 3, 1984 that the above proposed Local Law be amended with the following revisions: 1. Change ordinary high water to mean high water which will have to be defined in the zoning and wetland regulations (Chapter 97 - Section 97-28), 2. Ref- erence what datum mean high water is to be plotted to, using one of the datum that is acceptable, ie. US Coastal and Geological. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office." Signed by Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman. I have no other correspondence in this file. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Paul. You've heard the official reading of the notice of this proposed Local Law. Anyone in the audience here would like to speak in favor? Ruth? RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council:' We certainly wish to endorse this new law. We think it will help to clarify what has been a rather muddy situation as to where a wetland starts or ends or where a building should be. So we endorse this; Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Jean? JREAN TIEDKE, League of Women Voters: As you know we supported the Wetlands Ordinance way back in the early seventies. In fact at that time--there's nobody on the Board now from those old days, but the League went out and in three days got a petition with over: 900 signatures on it and it turned the tide, because one of the Councilmen had said he was against it but when he saw all those petitions he said; "Okay, I'll vote for it." We've had it ever since. We frequently also urge the Town to support efforts on the Coastal Zone protection, on our ponds and our lakes and our freshwater and saltwater wetlands. All of these are of utmost importance in the preservation of our sole source groundwater. They are also unique, easily damaged and almost impossible to repairJ These amendments to the Town Zoning Code I think are long overdue, but we're very happy to welcome them. .Page .3 - Public Hearing Local Law - ng Set-back SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Jean, you understand that we have located those on a map for the DEC. MRS. TIEDKE: Yes, I know. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: They will not be enacted until there is a public hearing so everyone can understand about them. MRS. TIEDKE: The new maps? COUNCILMAN STOUTENI3URGH: The new maps, right. MRS. TIEDKE: Yes, but this applies to all maps, right? I hope. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. SUPERVISOR MURPHY; Okay, is there anyone else would like to speak in favor of this proposed local law? (No response.) Anyone like to speak in opposition to this proposed Local Law? (No response.) Anyone like to make any comments at all? MR. GEORGE SCHROEDER: Yes, I would. I'm one of the Schroeder brothers. We own property in East Marion, 470 feet on the Sound. I have a picture here that shows a high tide, full moon and then the bank. We've owned the property over 35 years. The bank has never been disturbed. We've never had any erosion on the Sound at that particular place since we've owned it or maybe a hundred years before we owned it. If you have the 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff, we would be way over 300 feet from the high tide, full moon mark, and I'd like to submit a picture. Maybe we're one of the lucky ones, but we've never had any erosion there at all. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: You certainly are lucky. MR. SCHROEDER: I was a crane operator in Mattituck, unloading barges for two years--unloading barges for Gotham Sand and Gravel. We never had any trouble getting barges in that inlet until they messed around with the jetties down in Levon Properties and there's no way you could get a barge in there today. When they built that jetty in Peconic you saw what happened in Kenneys Beach. Thank God nobod¥'s built a jetty in East Marion. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Make sure they don't. MR. SCHROEDER: But I think it would be totally unfair: I would agree to a bank-- the beginning of the bank line and then back a hundred feet. But that bank up there slopes at least 75 feet and then to move it back 100 feet would be ridiculous. Like I say, you have to look at each individual location, I grant there are places that you go down and the wind is blowing 25 miles per hour and it's a high tide you can sit there and watch the erosion. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: That's for sure. Thank you. · Page- 4 - Public Hearingt · Local Law - BuT~ling Set-back COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Mr. Schroeder, could I ask you a question? In reference to this photograph, and not being familiar with the area, you would not be able to build in this Iow bank area anyway. MR. SCHROEDER: No. You're talking about 100 feet behind the top. Well look how far--- COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: I understand what you're saying, but this would be--you're not thinking of utilizin9 this area at all? MR. SCHROEDER: No. What I would say, draw your 100 feet from the beginning of this bank. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: From the toe itself? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: This is a unusual case, that's for sure, along that Sound area. MR. SCHROEDER: This is an unsual case, that's for sure. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: About how much of an area is it? MR. SCHROEDER: 470 feet. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, I mean I'm sure it doesn't start and stop at your border. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, I don't know of any erosion--- SUPERVISOR MURPHY: A thousand, two thousand? MR. SCHROEDER: As far as the golf course. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This last storm they had a tremendous amount of erosion. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: East of the golf course? MR. SCHROEDER: That's east of the golf course. It's from Stars Road, about Stars Road. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Oh, okay. MR. SCHROEDER: Now, after you pass that point in East Marion and go to Trumans Beach, then thereis erosion. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Let me ask Bob. Bob, if we pass this ordinance and his property is unique, can he go before the Planning Board and the ZBA and ask for a variance or something to this effect, since he seems to be somewhat unique? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Anybody can apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, provided they could prove their case. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: There is always a court open for you. · Page Public Hearin~ Local Law - Bu'lTding Set-back COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: See, my difficulty--I don't know how we can say that everybody except you goes back 100 feet from the bluff. We can't do that, all right? So when we pass an ordinance it's going to be for everybody, but your option, according to our Town Attorney, would be to the ZBA for a variance. You got a way out of this. MR. SCHROEDER: Just in the last couple of weeks I've been driving around looking at the top of bluffs. Pebble Beach--anywhere in East Marion, and there's no way really that you could define 100 feet back because some of it slopes, some of it-- there's no way you can get a straight line of it. The only straight line you could get is the bank itself, the beginning of the bank right at the beach and that's what I say you should go by. Really that would be the only fair solution. As far as the rest of the law, I'm all for it. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to speak? (No response.) All right, if not, I'll move to close this hearing. Judith T. Terry/~/ Southold Town Clerk: ¢ PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JULY 7, 1982 IN THE ~ATTER OF APPLICATION NO. 252 FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DSTRICT TO "M" LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY AT GREENPORT~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BY STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Present: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Councilman John J. Nickles Councilman Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Councilman Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards * * * Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR PELL: I call the hearing to order on the application of Stephen Shilowitz for a zoning change. It shall be read by Councilman Townsend. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: "Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Chapter 100, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M., July 7, 1982, on the following proposal of Stephen Shilowitz to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: By changing from "C" Light Industrial District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District all that certain tract or parcel of land now or formerly under the ordinary high water mark of Pipes Cove, f together with the building thereon, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly boundary-line of Village of Greenport on the westerly line of land now or formerly of Harvey, being the southeasterly corner of the upland portion of land about to be conveye~ to Shilowitz; thence along said land now or formerly of Harvey S.29 05'40"W. 0.39 feet; running thence through the waters of Peconic Bay, three courses: (1) S.43°30'i~. 100 feet; thence (2) N.46°30'W. 340 feet, more or less; thence (3) N.33o 43'20"E. 106 feet, more or less, to land now or formerly of Braun; thence along said other land about to be conveyed to Shilowitz, S.46© 30'E. 355.53 feet to the point of beginning. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. Dated: June 22, 1982, By Order of the Southold Town Board, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk." This appeared in The Suffolk Times on the 24th day of June and in The Long Island Traveler the same week. Notice was placed on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board by Judith Terry. ~age 2 - Public Hear~n~ Application for Change of Zone - Stephen Shilowitz There is a report from the Suffolk County Department of Planning which stated this is a matter for local determination. There is a letter from Henry Raynor, Chairman of the Southold Town Planning Board: "Resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend approval on the application of Stephen Shilowitz for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M" Light ~ultiple Residence District based on the following reasons: 1. Would upgrade the area; 2. Would upzone the~area; 3. The operation will be serviced by both municipal water and sewerage; 4. Recreational boating, along with other amenities would be conducive to the area." SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. You've heard the reading of the public notice and report from the Planning Board. Does anybody wish to be heard in favor of the application? (No response.) Anybody wish to be heard in opposition to the application? (No response.) Does any- body wish to be heard at all? (No response.) Hearing none, I declare the hearing closed. Judith T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JANUARY 5, 1982 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO "M" LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY AT GREEN-PORT, NEW' YORK. SUPERVISOR PELL: I call to order the hearing on a change of zone from "C" to "M" in Greenport, Long Island, New York, application of Stephen Shilowitz. I will ask that the notice be road by Councilman Murdock. COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: "Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the following proposal of Stephen Shilowitz to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on Tuesday,. January 5, 1982: 8:00 P.M. by changing from "C" Light Industrial District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded--" by the legal description which is in the folder and I will not read all of it. "Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified!'. I have an affidavit of publication by Patricia Wood on behal~ of the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, and affidavit by Karen Jean Rysko on behalf of the Greenport Suffolk Times, and an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk saying that the message was properly put on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. I have a letter from the PLanning Board of the Town of Southold addressed to the Southold Town Board: "Gentlemen: At a regular meet- ing of the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, November 23, 1981 the following action was taken: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend approval on the application of Stephen Shilowitz for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District based on the following reasons: 1. would upgrade the area, 2. would upzone the area, 3. the operation will be serviced by both municipal water and sewerage, 4. recreational boating, along with other amenities would be conducive to the area." Signed by Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Southold Town Planning Board Chairman. I have a message from the Suffolk County Department of Planning. "Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determina- tion. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval." Signed by Lee E. Koppelman, Director of Planning. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you very much. You have heard the reading of the public notice on the application of Stephen Shilowitz. will ask anybody who wishes to be heard in favor of the application may address the Board at this time. In favor of. RICHARD J. CRON: I am an attorney with offices at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York and I'm here in behalf of the applicant for this particular application. As Mr. Murdock so indicated, the application or the nature of this application is one to effect a change of zone of property that's situated at Greenport, off Sixth Street, in the Town of Southold. The change of zone that's being requested is basically an upzoning of this property which is present- ly in a "C" Light Industrial area, to an "M" Light Multiple Residence area. I believe the application has a tremendous amount of merit because the purpose for which I will go into shortly. As to the use of the property I believe is something that both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold can both prosper with. By way of background, this particular parcel is a piece of approximately two and a quarter acres. It was formerly an oyster processing plant and currently is being used by commercial fishermen, mostly as a mooring and docking berth. The proposed use of the land by Mr. Shilowitz is to construct and maintain basically eight condominium units, four of which will be in two separate buildings. He also intends to build his own residence, or a condominium nature, with his own boathouse in the northwest corner of that parcel. So the actual use in terms of residential use will be in the nature of nine units. The people that I have brought here to speak to the Board this evening consist both of Mr. Shilowitz who is both an architect and the applicant in this particular application to this Board. Mr. Shilowitz is basically not a stranger to this area. He has been in this area for some 13 years and is a true boating enthusiast, which is basically the reason that he is getting, I think, involved in Shis particular application. Because of the waterfront nature of the project we also have with us Tom Samuels who is the president of James H. Rambo, Inc., who will also make a presentation to the Board which will deal primarily with the reconstruction and construction of the bulkheading that's needed to complete this project. And finally, a name, I'm sure, that will be no stranger to the Board, is Mr. Roy Haje, who for a number of years was an important person in the Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation and is now the president of Eh- consultants, Inc., a firm which deals primarily and principally with environmental matters. I have asked each of the participants to limit, if at all possible, their presentation to the Board for a period of approximately ten minutes, with the expectation that perhaps the Board or others present may have something to say or want to be heard so we don't want to unduly delay or prolong the program. With that I would like to ask Mr. Steve Shilowitz to make his presentation to this Board which will consist primarily of what he intends to do. The nature of the use of the land, the type of condominium that will be constructed and all matters relating thereto. If you would, Steve, I ask you to step forward. ' PAOE 3 - PUBLIC HEARfJ - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ - CH~..3E OF ZONE STEPHEN SHILOWITZ: (Mr. Shilowitz displayed a model of the proposed condominiums and plot layout of the proposed project, and an artists rendering of the project.) I would like to believe that the design that I am involved with, that it's so clear it needs few words, and that perhaps in view of the fact this property is very well known to you that it in fact does just that, so I will try to be very brief and perhaps invite your questions. I find it somewhat easier to speak of the model, though the drawing quite accurately shows the basic elements. The basic elements are, the site facing out across towards Shelter Island; the existing basin which I am proposing to enlarge and I will trace my finger along the existing line so that I am now propos- ing to dredge this area (indicating) about a boat length to make safe berth for the vessels; and two groups of each one four homes with common party walls; my o~wn house of somewhat indeterminable design at the moment, which will be situated at the far end of the property. Sixth Street is here and there is a Greenport park running over here clear to Fifth Street and the Old Oyster Factory Restaurant on the other side of the park. The proposition here is that these will be very substantial houses, each one separate in itself except for a common party wall. Each house being essentially of two living levels with a garage within the house underneath, so that in the truer sense they are really individual residences rather than one above another. Each house it is proposed is going to be included with its own private berth so that there are berths for eight boats, plus my own, and that is the scope of the project. I am intending to more or less maintain the present entrance to the property which is there now by means of a driveway. There will be parking, as I said, for each house within each house one car, and in addition guest parking behind. I am going to remove an existing structure which I am told, and I can see for myself, doesn't have much more life left to it. It is a small wooden structure down in here, and I will landscape this area so that in a visual sense it is really going to include what one sees as a park. Each house has been situated to maximize the really spendid view. I think I have covered the highlights of the design. The roof line of both my model and the drawing indicates a pitched roof affair, we architects would call it a mansard roof, and I have carried my seheme far enough so that I am convinced I am going to be able to provide in effect a widow's walk, I like to call it, on each roof, private to each owner,so that they can enjoy the view even more and in the comfort of basically their own roof. As I say, I think I have hit upon the major elements. I, perhaps, ought to really ask if you have some questions about the design. I've stayed away from some of the details. It is wood construction. The materials are essentially that, and there will be a great deal of landscaping around this five foot berm or bank which I am going to take the dredged spoil and bring up to raise the level of five feet. That is the story. SUPERVISOR PELL: Gentlemen of the Board, anything you would like to ask Mr. Shilowitz? JUSTICE EDWARDS: Yes, I have a question. Do you plan a solid bulk- head both on the open water side and your lagoon? MR. SHILOWITZ: The bulkhead will be either repaired or new bulkheading put in, certainly where I dredge, but the entire perimeter of the site will be solid bulkheading, if I understand the question correctly. · PAGE 4 - PUBLIC HEAR J - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ - C ~GE OF ZONE COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: Approximately how much is the square footage of each living unit, have you figured that out? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yes. Better than 2300 square feet. Quite a large house. The rooms are exceedingly generous. COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: Between both levels? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yes, that's all inclusive, and frankly I am aiming for a substantial client here who would be presumably the owner and the slips were designed to accomodate a 40 to 50 foot boat. Obviously something smaller would fit in it, but that is not the economics of this project. The economics definitely dictate a very substantial type of residence. COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: The other question I have is simply dealing with waterfront. Will there be swimming access to the Bay or do you plan on the residents availing themselves of the park at Sixth Street? MR. SHILOWITZ: The answer to that really is I am not providing either a pool nor beach area. There is one small access, but that strictly speaking is to the west of the site which still lies on my property, but I think very clearly there is a fairly fine beach, that is to the east and belongs to the park, that they would avail themselves of that. SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else? COUNCILMAN NICKLES: Southold? How many units are going to be in the Town of MR. SHILOWITZ: I believe that it is five and a half and counting mine-- yes, five and a half. Nine is totally in Greenport. So two and a half are in Greenport and a half actually occurs because the property line almost exactly is falling the way my finger is being traced and I believe it goes right through this third unit so that leaves two ~nd a half plus mine in Greenport and the remainder in Southold - five and a half. SUPERVISOR DELL: Anybody else? (No response.) and will list to the next one. If not, we thank you MR. CRON: As the Board can readily see, this is clearly a waterfront type of community and a look at the visual presentation on the wall will also show that there is a great deal of wood or bulkheading and broadwalks. The person that we have brought here this evening to explain the nature of what will be done in relation to those things, as I previously indicated, is Thomas Samuels who is the president of James H. Rambo, Inc., a firm that not only has done work on the North Fork but as well, of course, on the South Fork. I think Tom can probably tell you all you would like to know. You jumped a question one me, but if you have any now, I'm sure that Tom Samuels can answer them for you. MR. THOMAS SAMUELS: This is the third prospective scheme that I've seen on this site. I know must of you are aware that there have been PAOE 5 - PUBLIC HEAR~_.~ - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ - CH~._,GE OF ZONE other people interested in developing. I've worked with all these people at various stages. This is the first owner of this property, prospective owner of this property, that has had the vision to actually plan the thing out so it will work. It will work because it is environmentally sound, it's going to be beautiful. The Greenport waterfront, as we all know is, I believe in terms of Greenport Village, a sleeping giant. It's underutilized, it's to some extent unattractive. This particular site has been dormant for some time. It looks pretty bad. We've done projects like this over on the south side. This is probably, as far as design is concerned, superior to all of the ones I've been involved with. I think the marketability of these units which some people might be sceptical about because they are going to be expensive. That exists, definitely exists. There isn't just this type of scene available. The people who will be owners here will be people of means which there has to be room in our Town for people of means I'm sure we agree on that. The bulkheading itself is going to be all navy wall construction. It will be all of excellent quality. Mr. Shilowitz has structural engineers who have gone over our suggestions as far as the construction is concerned. The life expectancy of the structures,without any maintenance, should be at least 35 years and thereafter maintenance will be necessary, but it will be able to be done fairly easily due to the type of construction methods that are going to be used. The dredging is only to give us room for the boats. There is plenty of room for spoil on the upland. In short, it's a very pleasing project to be associated with and I think it will fly in Southold Town. It will do an awful lot to the Greenport waterfront; not to say that this is the only use for Greenport waterfront because I don't agree that it is, but certainly this site--this is the ideal use for it I think at this point in Greenport's revitalization. In short, I'm very pleased to be associated with it, I think it will fly, I think it's well conceived and well thought out. Any questions you might have I'd be very happy to answer. JUSTICE EDWARDS: What's available there in the way of water and~ sewerage right now? MR. SAMUELS: Greenport water and Greenport sewerage. JUSTICE EDWARDS: Even though it's in part of Southold, it's still available? MR. SAMUELS: That's correct. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Right now the way the basin is situated, and I don't know if that represents a substantial change in shape. It looks like you're expanding to the southwest of the property a little bit and you're going to protect some of the boats there, but there is substantial wave wash. I know it is pretty difficult to keep a small boat with the prevalent winds being southwest which is the way you have it. MR. SAMUELS: Essentially this is southwest and the worst winds you have down there is right up the throat of the inlet. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: We have a very consistent southwest breeze. MR. SAMUELS: You certainly do at the time of the year the boats are going to be there. This is wall--again this is essentially southwest--we are going to be behind this wall. There was with one of the previous people who were working on this project, they had thought of putting a surge screen in here which was nothing more than a jetty, just to knock down the waves. They were just going to keep the present shape. This idea was to get in behind this wall and eliminate this surge screen, which our problem there is a real maintenance problem, ice damage problem. I don't think it is going to be necessary. That would be a potential addition to the construction should it have to be necessary. They're not environmentally damaging at all, they're not a groin. But I don't think it is going to be necessary from my observation down there which has been some time now. As recently as three years ago we replaced most of the pilings down there for the present owner and at that time we were there for some time and the southwesterly winds were coming straight at you, no question of that. It's not just wave action, it's a real surge. SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else with questions? (No response.) We thank you. Counsel? MR. CRON: Well, as the Board can see we've got a beautiful project, beautiful site, showing you what the project is going to be like to a certain extend. We discussed the view, the useage of the water- front in terms of its bulkheading and reconstruction. Now, I suppose the final question to be asked is it environmentally sound. Is it something that will not be detrimental to the environment and will meet the requirements of an environmentally sound project. Not being an expert in that area I have brought one with me, and that of course is Mr. Roy Haje who I indicated before his name I am sure is not unfamiliar to the Board as I believe he was the permit agent for the Department of Environmental Conservation and I knew him in that capacity, having delt with his agency on other matters. And I'm delighted to have him now on this side to explain to this Board why this.matter is totally environmentally sound. MR. ROY HAJE: As the previous two speakers have already brought out, the orientation for the project is towards the water, towards using the water for people to enjoy the water. Those would be the people we would expect would be interested and would buy these condos. In planning the project we took that as our main focus, our main interest, to determine how it could best be done and how we could mitigate any possible impacts on the water. We have come up with a plan which I think is environmentally sound and involves several aspects. First there has been some discussion already about the basin. As it exists now, the basin is somewhat smaller. We propose to expand it more to the westerly side and provide a safe mooring for the boats belonging to the owners. In doing so, this is somewhat unlike any of the projects which you are faced with which seek to fill in the waterway for the purpose of creating more land. It is just the opposite here. We're creating more waterway. We do not feel that the creation of the waterway expansion will be any detriment upon the remainder of the water. We are going to create a stable even slope on the bottom PAGE 7 - P BL C - ST P.EN S. LOW TZ - ZON and we do not expect that it would accumulate any type of debris. We don't anticipate any type of siltation which would degrade the water quality or reduce the oxygen level and so forth. We anticipate high quality of the water in the basin. As one of the means to insure this, we are proposing to place an earthen berm as shows both on the model and on the rendering, around the perimeter of most of the property. It serves not only an aesthetic function but will serve to reduce runoff which might head towards the water. As a further protection from that, as Tom has indicated, most of the bulkheading will be either replaced or rehabilitated. Therefore we expect virtually no siltation to get into the waterway. Other aspects of the project such as impact upon air quality would be really nothing. more than a house, an individual house, a series of individual houses. As was also mentioned, the sewerage disposal and the water supply will be handled by the municipal systems in Greenport. To sum it up, we believe that we have come up with an environmentally compatable plan, taking into account from the initial stage of the plan, the importance of the water wh}ch is critical to maintain for the client as well as the Town and the Village. Are there any questions? COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: The green area opposite (on the opposite side of the boat basin), that is wholly in the Village of Greenport? MR. HAJE: Yes, I believe it is. COI~CILM^N MURDOCK: Roughly from the way you spoke I would assume that that is roughly in the Village of Greenport. Is that buildable for the future? MR. SHILOWITZ: I would like to say it would destroy the viability of the project and it would have to be preserved from future develop- ment. I would go so far as to say that--I'm not familiar with the legal setup of a condominium development yet, I'm working with my advisors, but regarding the entire outer appearance of the project, I would like to see it legally maintained as I designed it, and absolutely nothing, other than, perhaps some kind of benches if i find it appropriate that there be some sitting area there. But no buildings whatsoever. MR. SAMUELS: The Village owns the street frontage anyway. There is no access to the area in question to be concerned about. MR. SHILOWITZ: Well, as I understood the question--- MR. SAMUELS: We bulkheaded a portion for the Village, I think it is right up to about--there is Village property fronting the street and still owned by the Village as far as I know. MR. SHILOWITZ: I can assure you that it is my keenest desire to maintain that as an open landscaping, pleasently landscaped, not left to chance. I was working today with a landscape planner on that area as well as the main portion to see how to contour it, plant it and so forth. MR. CRON: Larry, if I may just add something. I'm not Steve's advisor as far as the condominium setup but I am virtually certain PAGE 8 - PUBLIC HE. R .,3 - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ - C ~GE OF ZONE that everything outside the interior four walls of every unit will probably be designated as a common area and will be part of the common area of the condominium. That would include the area you are concerned about in terms of whether there would be any further construction or further utilization of that area. SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else? (No response.) Anybody else wish to be heard on behalf of the applicant in favor of the application? MR. CRON: I would just like to, for the moment, sum this entire matter up. I think if this Board has viewed the scene, and I'm sure it has, what presently exists at the property is something that is neither attractive to the Village of Greenport, nor is it attractive to the Town of Southold. If you can visualize the completion of this project that when it is completed you will have something that's extremely viable as a community, limited in scope only to the number of units that you presently see on the site on that board. I think from the point of view of tax incentive to both the Village and the Town, surely this project must excite both municipalities. There will be little to draw upon existing facilities because I am certain with the price range that these units will eventually sell, there will be little to draw upon existing facilities in terms of schools and what not. I think the area could be greatly enhanced by the approval of this applica- tion and I would hope that the Village of Greenport feels likewise. I might indicate to this Board that we have a somewhat similar application pending with the Village to change the zone that exists there from a general commercial district to a waterfront commercial district which, of course, will permit the construction of the condominiums. That should shortly come on for public hearing and a resolution. I ask the Board to most favorably consider this application. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard in favor of this application for a change of zone on behalf of Steve Shilowitz? (No response.) Anybody wish to be heard in opposition to it? (No response.) In opposition to the change from "C" to "M"? (No response.) Anybody wish to be heard at all on the application? (No response.) If not, I will declare the hearing closed. Thank you. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD March 12, 1985 8:10 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ENTITLED, "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO BUILDING SET-BACK REQUIREMENTS ON LOTS ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES & WETLANDS. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a proposed Local Law in relation to building set-back requirements on lots adjacent to water bodies & wetlands to be read by Councilman Stoutenburgh. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: "Public Notice is hereby given that there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 8th day of November, 1984, a Local Law entitled, "A Local ~.aw in relation to building set-back requirements on lots adjacent to Water Bodies and Wetlands," which reads as follows, to wit: "BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: (additions indicated by underline; deletions by [brackets]). "Chapter 100 (Zoning) of----~-~' Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: I. Article XI thereof (General Requirements) is amended by adding a new section thereto, to be section 100-119.2, to read as follows: Section 100-I19.2 - Building set-back from water bodies and wetlands Notwithstandin~l any other provisions of this chapter, the following set-back requirements shall apply to all buildings located on lots adjacent to water bodies and wetlands: A. Lots adjacent to Long Island Sound. (1) All buildings located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound, and upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach, shall be set-back not less than 100 feet from the top of such bluff or bank. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision A(1) hereof, all buildings located on lots adiacent to Long Island Sound shall be set-back not les~, than 100 feet from the mean hicjh water mark of Long Island Sound B. All buildings located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than Long Island Sound, shall be set-back not less than 75 feet from the mean hicjh water mark of such tidal water body, or not less than 75 feet from tho landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is greater. Page -2 - Public Hearing Q Local Law - Building Set-back C. All buildings located on lots adjacent to any freshwater body shall be set-back not less than 75 feet from the edge of such water body, or not less than 75 feet from the landward edge of the freshwater wetland, whichever is greater. II. This Local Law shall take effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State., Copies of said Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 12th day of March, 1985, at 8:10 o'clock P.M., at which time all interested persons will be heard. Dated: February 26, 1985, Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk:' I have a affidavit that The Long Island Traveler-Watchman published this and I have an affidavit from The Suffolk Times. I have correspondence from the Suffolk County Planning Board dated March lst: "Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval.'' I also.have a letter from the Planning Board, Town of Southold, dated February 8th to Judy Terry: "Re: Local Law in RElation to Building Setbacks. Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Planning Board, Monday, February 4, 1985. Resolved that the SOuthold Town Planning Board concur with the resolution of December 3, 1984 that the above proposed Local Law be amended with the following revisions: 1. Change ordinary high water to mean high water which will have to be defined in the zoning and wetland regulations (Chapter 97 - Section 97-28). 2. Ref- erence what datum mean high water is to be plotted to, using one of the datum that is acceptable, ie. US Coastal and Geological. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office." Signed by Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman. I have no other correspondence in this file. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Paul. You've heard the official reading of the notice of this proposed Local Law. Anyone in the audience here would like to speak in favor? Ruth? ~ RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council:' We certainly wish to endorse this new law. We think it Will help to clarify what has been a rather muddy situation as to where a wetland starts or ends or where a building should bo. So we endorse this~ Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Jean? JREAN TIEDKE, League of Women Voters: As you know we supported the Wetlands Ordinance way back in the early seventies. In fact at that time--there's nobody on the Board now from those old days, but the League went out and in three days got a petition with over 900 signatures on it and it turned the tide, because one of the Councilmen had said he was against it but when he saw all those petitions he said~ "Okay, I'll vote for it." We've had it ever since. We frequently also urge the Town to support efforts on the Coastal Zone protection, on our ponds and our lakes and our freshwater and saltwater wetlands. All of these are of utmost importance in the preservation of our sole source groundwater. They are also unique, easily damaged and almost impossible to repair~ These amendments to the Town Zoning Code I think are long overdue, but we're very happy to welcome them. · Page 4 - Public Hearing~ Local Law - Building Set-back COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Mr. Schroeder, could I ask you a question? In reference to this photograph, and not being familiar with the area, you would not be able to build in this Iow bank area anyway. MR. $CHROEDER.' No. You're talking about 100 feet behind the top. Well look how far--- COUNCIl. MAN STOUTENBURGH: I understand what you're saying, but this would be--you're not thinking of utilizing this area at all? MR. SCHROEDER: No. What I would say, draw your 100 feet from the beginning of this bank. SUPERVISOR MIJRPHY: From the toe itself? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: This is a unusual case, that's for sure, along that Sound area. MR. SCHROEDER: This is an unsual case, that's for sure. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: About how much of an area is it? MR. SCHROEDER: 470 feet. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, I mean I'm sure it doesn't start and stop at your border. MR. $CHROEDER: Well, I don't know of any erosion-~- SUPERVISOR MURPHY: A thousand, two thousand? MR. SCHROEDER: As far as the golf course. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This last storm they had a tremendous amount of erosion~. COUNCIl_MAN STOUTENBURGN: East of the golf course? MR. SCHROEDER: That's east of the golf course. It's from Stars Road, about Stars Road. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Oh, okay. MR. SCHROEDER: Now, after you pass that point in East Marion and go to Trumans Beach, then there's erosion. COUNClI~MAN SCHONDEBARE: Let me ask Bob. Bob, if we pass this ordinance and his property is unique, can he go before the Planning Board and the ZBA and ask for a variance or something to this effect, since he seems to be somewhat unique? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Anybody can apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, provided they could prove their case. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: There is always a court open for you. · Rage 5 - Local Law - Building Set-back COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: See, my difficulty--I don't know how we can say that everybody except you goes back 100 feet from the bluff. We can't do that, all right? So when we pass an ordinance it's going to be for everybody, but your option, according to our Town Attorney, would be to the ZBA for a variance. You got a way out of this. MR. SCHROEDER: Just in the last couple of weeks I've been driving around looking at the top of bluffs. Pebble Beach--anywhere in East Marion, and there's no way really that you could define 100 feet back because some of it slopes, some of it-- there's no way you can get a straight line of it. 'The only straight line you could get is the bank itself, the beginning of the bank right at the beach and that's what I say you should go by. Really that would be the only fair solution. As far as the rest of the law, I'm all for it. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to speak? (No response.) All right, if not, I'll move to close this hearing. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk /po/- 007-o/- ,~I/F" OF: V'/L. LZJO~-' oF / ? / - / T / // / 17'/ D ,x 1=~,I , ~, LI,ST OF DRAWINGS ARCHITECTURAL ~ A-1 2 SITE PLAN ~, F~OOR & R~?PLANS, ALL ~'ROUND FLOORPL~N, .'SECOND FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN CROSS SECTIONS, ELEVA~i ELEVATIONS '~ EXTER!OR~WAkL DETAILS E~/ERIORWALL DETAILS QE~AILS ,~, $ 'DET~I'LS SITE FOUND~TI~ GROUND : ~,, S~CON~ :SU-:I. ~I~. 'P,' 1, PLUMBING NVAC - ,HEAT: UNITS E,F;G,H BLB6 NO,,2 , UNITS A,B,~D; BLD~ NO, 1 (-, ,/ / I I I I u7 ~,. / ,// LIST OF DRAWINGS ARCHITECTURAL A - 1 SITE PLAN. 2 3 4. 5 6. FLOOR & ROOF PLANS, ALL LEVELS UNITS ~,~,~ BLDG NO. I UNITS D,~,F, ~- BLDG NO. ~ UNITS A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, I " b -F=T, GROUND FLOOR PLAN, S~HEDULES SECOND FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN CRGSS SECTIONS, ELEVATIONS 7. 'ELEVATIONS 8. EXTERIOR WALL DETAILS g. EXTERIOR WALL DETAILS 10. DETAILS , STAIR, CHIMNEY, ETC. ll. DETAILS, MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTUR~AL TEST BORING REPORT S - 1. SITE PLAN & BULKHEAD DETAILS 2. FOUNDATION PLAN & SECTIONS 3. . GROUND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 4. SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 5. ROOF FRAMING ~LAN MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SU- l. SITE UTILITIES ~LEC~gICAL " RECEIVED BY PIPES COVE CONDOMINIUM m9 Residential Unitms and Boat Basin with Floating. Dock,s Sixth Street, Villiage of Greenport/Town of Southold, NY for YUMI REALTY CORPORATION' 330 East 33rd Street, New Yo~, NY lOO16 tel:212-68g-0242 STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, A'..I,A., ARCHITECT 921 Bergen Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306 tel:201-65g-0820 ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 333 Sevemth Avenue, Hew York, NY lO001 te);212-B63-5200 NORRIS ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING MECHANICAL'& ELECTRIC 500 Highw~ 36, Atl)aptic Highlands, NJ te1:201-291-6700 scale = Z~' . date , p / / 7~ o ¢.,,',~1 oF' oo7- o/- l& 'l /-V/~iT~. %