Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3320Sage 'Boulevard, Greenport #3320 BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP./Sage F~r approval of insufficient area and lot width of 19 proposed lots in this cluster- ~ ~ ~ development. J~ ,~,~,.~ - ~-~ ~/~ ¥/~[ REF: H. Zehner Special Exception for member- ship club #2161 6/24/76 granted. also "Southport Development Corp." info i'n e~file #2161 Southold Town MAIN ROAD-STATE: ROAD 25 SOUTHr'ILD, L.I., N.Y, 11cj71 TELEPHONE (516) 766-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO: Appeal No. 3320 Application Dated December 3l, ]984 Jeffrey D. F0rche]]i, Esq. D'Amato, Forchel]i, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 [Appellant(s)] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [×] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III , Section ]00-3] [ ] Request for Upon application for BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. (SAGE), by J. Forchelli, Esq., 120 Mineola Boulevard, Mineola, NY 11501 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, and Article XIII, Section 100-136A for approval of insufficient area of each lot in this proposed 19-lot cluster development or subdivision and insufficient setbacks. Location of Property: 67380 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-053-05-001, 001.3, 12.3; known and referred to as "Breezy Shores." In this appeal, variances from the lot yard requirements with subdivision of Section 1984. Bayview Development Corp. seeks numerous area, lot width, frontyard setback, and side respect to the 19 lots shown on a proposed One of its property, plan updated December 18, Appellant is the owner of a tract of land comprising approxi- mately 83 acres of land bounded on the north by N.Y.S. Route 25, on the south by that portion of Peconic Bay locally referred to as Pipes Cove. The premises are shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as Dis- trict 1000, Section 053, Block 05, Lots 1, 1.3, 12.3. Appellant has filed a sketch plan for the development of Section One as a cluster development, pursuant to Section 100-136 of the Town Zoning Code. Although Section One comprises an area of 43.756 acres, 29 acres thereof consists of ponds, wetlands and marsh land, which is proposed as "open area"; 2.5 acres proposed as a boat basin; 1.556 acres consists of an "island"; and the remaining six acres comprises 19 proposed subdivision lots adjacent to Pipes Cove, and which lots are the subject of this appeal. The 19 lots comprising Section One range in area from 9,000 sq. ft. to 25,000 sq. ft. with the average being approximately 12,000 sq. ft. in area. The lot widths along the southerly line of the private road range from 25 feet to 105 feet, with an average of approximately 67 feet. The frontyard setback is proposed to be 25 feet. Section 100-136(A)[2] of the Zoning Code provides as follows: "...(2) In a cluster DATED: (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) development, lot area shall not be CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 Appeal No. 3320 Matter of BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. Decision Rendered June 19, 1985 reduced by more than fifty percent (50%), and lot width and depth, front yard, rear yard, and side yards, shall not be reduced by more than thirty percent (30%) of the minimum requirements set forth in the Bulk and Parking Schedule .... " The premises are located in the "A-80" Agricultural and Residential Zoning District, and the Bulk,~and Parking Schedule requires a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft., minimum l~t width of 175 feet, a lot depth of 250 feet, front yard of 60 feet and rear yard of 75 feet; one side yard of at least 20 feet ~nd both side yards having a total of not less than 45 feet. It is apparent that none of the 19 lots comply with the code requirements for a cluster development with respect to lot area, lot width or front yard setbacks. The largest lot (No. 1) has an 'area of 25,000 sq. ft., or 63% of the required area. Four of the smallest lots (10, 14, 15 and 17) have an area of 9,000 sq. ft., or 23% of the required lot area. The sideyard dimensions are not shown on the sketch plan, but appear to be substantially below the minimum requirements. An examination of the sketch plan indicates that Appellant proposes the land north of the 19 lots and across the private road, comprising 20.5 acres to be subdivided as another Section in the Future. No explanation is given why this land cannot be added to the lots in Section One to increase the lot areas and setback requirements to conform to the code requirements. It has been held by the courts (VanDusen v. Jackson , 35 AD2d. 58) that a Board of Appeals cannot under the semblance of a variance exercise legislative powers. It is apparent that the variances requested are substantial with respect to lot area, lot width, and other setback requirements and would affect each and every lot in the proposed subdivision. The effect of the grant of the variances requested would be to establish a zone district completely at odds with all other zone districts provided for in the zoning code and zoning map. This board does not be- lieve that it has the authority to create new zoning districts under the guise of a variance. Such authority is vested in the Town Board, the legislative body of the Town. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the determination that it is without jurisdiction to grant the relief and the appeal is therefore denied. of this Board as requested, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Douglass abstained.) (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was adopted by majority vote of the four members present. lk 9 RECEIVED AND FILED THE SOb-THOLD TO¥/N C~'~2 DATE ~/~/£~ HOUR /~' ~ ~ Town_Clef.k, ~,.own of. South_.,old Southold Town Board of Appeals I~AIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR, ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Notice of Determination of Non-Significance March 28, S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIV~ ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION 1 985 APPEAL NO.: ~%%~ PROJECT N~H~E:~- - ~ , This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [~] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: For appr0¥a] of insufficient area and ]0t width of ]9 proposed 10ts in this c]uster-deve]0pment. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Sage Boulevard, Greenp0rt, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS D~TEP~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) This is a lot-line variance not directly related to new construction; (3) The Southold Town Planning has deemed itself lead agency and has coordinated reviews pursuant to SEQRA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, 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 t~e applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 NEGATIVE DECLARATION March 4, 1985 Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The major subdivision of "Sage Property, Section I" is a cluster subdivision of 19 lots on 38 acres located at Greenport. 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 were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no correspondence from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time, it is assumed that there is no objection nor comments by that agency. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is in agreement with our initial determination, they have no objection ~ our designation of lead agency status, they have no record of an application to the department,project can be served by community water supply; further comments cannot be made at this time due to the difficulty in ascertaining the scope of the project without information on the future sections. The project will meet all the requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold Subdivision of Land Regulations. Further information can be obtained by contacting Diane M. Schuftze, Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Copies mailed to the following; Robert Flack, DEC Commissioner NYS, DEC at Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission onancis J. Murphy frey Forchelli, esq. ing Board of Appeals Town of Southold Board of Appeals COUNTY OF' SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (516) 360-5513 LEI=' I='. KOPPELMAN June 5, 1985 Re: Application of "Bayview Development Corp.", Town of Southold (Appeal No. 3320). Gentlemen: Please be advised that pursuant to Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above captioned application will not be reviewed because of noncompli- ance with requirements for notice and maps as stipulated in Informational Bulletin No. 8 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The following information will only be accepted upon submission through the offices of the municipal referring agency. Please provide the following: (1) a map depicting the subject parcel(s) in- cluding upland/wetland acreages; (2) a dwelling unit yield map acceptable to the Town of Southold; (3) a copy of the Town Board resolution authorizing clustering; (4) depict various acreages referred to in correspondence for subdivision sketch plan - last revised January 21, 1985 (with a net area of 39.056 acres); (5) an overall development plan of petitioner's landholdings in the area; and (6) avail- able information demonstrating compliance with the SEQRA requirements. Thank you. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner VITIRAN$ MEMORIAl. HIGHWAY HAUPFAUGE, I.. I., NEW YORK 11788 COUNTY OF $1JI=f;OLK DEPARTMENT OF- HEALTH SERVICES 0el' 23 DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. Date O~7-oA~ /~, /egc-/ e e ¸7. This Department has no objection to your designation of lead agency status. This Department is in agreement with your initial This Department does not agree with your initial Comments. determination. determination. Insufficient information is available for technical comments. There is no record of an application to this Department. A more accurate project location is needed. (Suffolk County Tax Map #) This Department has received an application and it is: Complete Incomplete Other: It appears that the project can be served by: Sewage Disposal System Sewer System and Treatment Works Subsurface Sewage Disposal System(s) Other: See 548-3318 concerning the above Q1. Dear ,,~,e.a.~Zo~,,s~'; : We are in receipt of your letter dated referenced project, OWater Supply Syslem ._~¢~. c,~,~._~s A Public I..'ater t~q~ply Sysiem Individual Water Supply System(s) Other: Cor~nents: The Health Department's primary environmental concern pertaining to development is that the applicant comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code especially Article ¥ and VI, and relevant construction standards for water supply and sanitary sewage disposal. These considerations are to be reviewed completely at the time of application. Full consideration in placement of water supply wells and disposal systems is given to state and town wetland requirements. The Health Department maintains jurisdiction over final location of disposal and well systems and the applicant should not undertake to construct any water supply or disposal system without Health Department approval. Other portions of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code also apply,to commercial development such as Article XII. The Lead Agency is requested to forward a copy of this form to the applicant with its findings. ~ Further con~nent may be provided upon completion of the application review. Phone '~ ~, ~1<~: ~ FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ To .~.~..~.. / -- .....~o.o. ~. ?..~ .... ~ ................... ~.~~. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated for permit to const~ct .~.~ ........................................... at Location of Property .. ~o~ ~o~ ....... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...~.~ ...... Block ..... ~ ..... Lot .... ( ....... '.. Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................ Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .".~... ?...?~-..~- .,.~:.~.!,:...0,,~..'..~..~.-,~ ..... 0;~.' .&-...~ .... / ~ ~ :.eg.:..a..~.~. , Buildh~g Inspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL .~.~ ~.. ~.,.q:... ~. ~..~..v. 1 .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated...(~. ~... I.I ........ 19 .~. for permit to ~ .~44~. · · . .~. · ................................................... at Location of ~operty ~fi~ ..... ~'~'g'' ~ '~/e3{" '~~ .... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ... ~.~5~ .... Block .... ~ ....... ~t ... ] .......... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .(~ .~.....~)~ .~..~?. ~.-./..~. ~. ~.~. ~ .....~... i~.~..~ ~...~.. ~'..~..... .g... ~....~.. ~..~ ~...24.. ~.~..~......~.~..~....~.. ............. Building Inspector RV 1/80 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ,~;,q-O DATE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOU,THOL, D.., N. Y. c/o derrrey D. Forchelli ], (We)....]~..~..D..~.D...~.~....C~....~:.,. .............. of ...~.O...~..e~...1. fl..~.e.Y.~..'~..L.~.....O.:.....i~,..x,...3,~ ..... Name of Appellant Street and Number M_~teola Municipality ....... :':~:'....t:':ht:...,.HEREBY APPEAL TO State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED: 10/11/84 FOR: Cluster Development WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) (X) Name of Applicant for permit of 120 Mineola Blvd$ P.O. Box 31 Mineola New York · Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO ..... 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .6~'38.0 .]~'i!~ l~c~; .~3~aeAq~. A ...... Toe Section Bloc~k Lot Street and Haml~arlotte Sage, James ~. Sage, ........ 10O0 .................. OS~ .................. .~. ............. .1.. .... OWNER(S): Mic~ae.l.$..Sage.&.Patricia. T. Sage Mop No. Lot No. DATE PURCHASED: C.o.n..t~.a.c.t..S.i.9~..e~..1.2./.2.2.183 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article T~Z , Section 100-31, Article I. Section 106-20 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 (kz:) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such ~ppeal 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 requested for the reason that we would like to remove twelve (12) cottages and divide, bv way of subdivision, the rer~ningr nineteen (19) cotta~fes on nineteen (19) lots. ~ne total area would camply with the Zoning Ordinar~ce. However, the clustering would not. Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because ~l~e~e ~ p~ese~tly ~t~-one (31) non-confontt~ng d~ell~ngs on ~e s~bje~lc prem&ses. It ~d ~use ~nne~essary ~dsb~p ~o re~Hre all thirty-one (31) ~o be removed ~n ~ ~o c~n~ly wiL~ cn~ent ~on~ng. ~lic~nt herein seeks removal of twelve (12) cottages, thereby leaving nineteen (19) which would all be legal conforming lots as varied by this Board. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because the cxYctages ~ built many years ago, prior to the existing zoning and on a piece of property never subdivided or improved with adequate roads. The granting of this variance would permit develop- merit in accordance with current standards as varied by this Board. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because it would ramain with one f~mily dwellings. However, the number of dwellings would be less intensified. COUNTY OF~ ) Sworn to this .............. ~ ......................day of ............. ~ ~ .......................... 19 84 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NONCONFORMING PREMISES THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the DATE: July 24~ 1984 Pre C.0 J;Z 12637 /--/ Land~, /'~/ Buil~ng(s) Use(s) located at 67380 Main Road Arshamomague Greenport Street Hamlet shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 053.00, Block Lot 001 .001 · does[not)conform to the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold for the following reasons: There are 6 dwellinxs on one lot. There are 25 non-conforminm seasonal cottages. On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector's Office, it has been determined that the above nonconforming /_--/Land /X_--/Building(s) /Z/Use(s) existed on the effective date the present Building Zone Code of-the Town of Southold, and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli- cable provisions of said Code. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to the Building Inspector's' Office, the occupancy and use for which this Certifi- Property contains 5-1 story houses, 1-2 story cate is issued is as follows:house, 2-accessory bldgs., 25 seasonal cottages, 2 garages, 2 sheds (37 bldgs.). This property has access to Rt. 25 a State maintained highway, in the A zone.Non-conforming seasonal Charlotte Sage, Michael Sage, James The Certificate is issued to & ?~tr~¢ia Sa~e. (owner,)~ ~ R ~(~ ko~X kgp~ ) of the aforesaid building. dwellings. Sage Suffolk County Department of Health Approval N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N/A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the owner of the above premises H. iS NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspec- tor to determine if the premises comply with all applicable codes and ordin- ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore, no such inspection has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula- tions. Building inspector D'AMA]~O, FORCHELLI, LIBERY, 5CH~'AKI-Z, M1NF~O r3 'v~EINSTEIN COUNS[ LOLLS AT January 10, 1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman Application of Bayview Development Corp. Pr~mises: District 1000, Section 053, Block 5, Lot 1 Sage Property Southold, New York Dear Mr. Goehringer: In connection with the confirm the following: above application, I would like to a. ;The requested variances only affect the nineteen (19) proposed lots in Section I and do not affect any.other property on the map. b. The request is made to your Board because there is also a request for cluster develop- ment which is presently before the Planning Board and the Tow~ Board, and these variances are necessary. Very truly yours, JEFFREY D.. FORCHELLI bc: Mr. Henry Raynor Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 10, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli Damato, Forchelli, Libert, and Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Schwartz Re: Sage Property cluster subdivision Dear Mr. Forchelli: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, January 7, 1985. RESOLVED that the $outhold Town Planning Board refer the cluster subdivision of the Sage Property to the Town Board for their approval of the cluster concept, for Section I. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact the office. Very truly yours· BENNETT ORLOWSKI · JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Henry E. Raynor, Jr. JUDITIt T TIRRY TOWN CLIRK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD February 7, 1985 lFown Hall, 53095 Main~Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. 120 Mineola Boulevard P. O. Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Dear Mr. Forchelli: In response to a telephone call from your office, the following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on February 5, 1985: "RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold has considered the property of Sage Properties, Section I, located at Greenport, New York, and hereby authorizes the Planning Board to consider said property as being developed in the cluster concept. Said property is bounded and described as follows: .... " The complete metes and bounds description is included in and made a part of the above resolution and entered in the Town Board Minute Book on file in my office. That metes and bounds description is enclosed herewith. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk Enclosure SAGE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT SECTION I ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), the following four courses and distances from a monument set on the easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), where the same is intersected by the northerly line of lands as shown on Subdivision of Southold Shores, Suffolk County, filed Map Number 3853; RUNNING along the easterly side of Main Road: 1. North 15 degrees 13 minutes 47 seconds East 127.90 feet to a point; 2. North to a point; 3. North to a point; and to 7 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 677.17 feet 12 degrees 23 minutes 13 seconds East 376.45 feet 4. North 7 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 165.76 feet lands now or formerly of the Long Island Rail Road, the true point or place of BEGINNING; RUNNING THENCE along the southeasterly line of lands now or formerly of Long Island Rail Road North 42 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds East 442.74 feet; RUNNING THENCE along the southwesterly line of lands now or formerly of James Posillico and Posillico Construction Co. Inc., the following two courses and distances: 1. South 45 degrees 21 minutes 46 seconds East 205.42 feet to a point; 2. South 55 degrees 49 minutes 26 seconds East 1346.25 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE South 34 degrees 10 minutes 34 seconds West 456.94 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE southeasterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 250 feet a distance of 67.39 feet; THENCE South 61 degrees 29 minutes 58 seconds East 281.16 feet; left feet; THENCE southeasterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the having a radius of 200 feet a distance of 99.48 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 59 minutes 58 seconds East 267.11 right having a THENCE southeasterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the radius of 126.19 feet a distance of 196.02 feet; - 2 - feet; THENCE South 0 degrees 59 minutes 58 seconds East 80.00 THENCE southeasterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the left having a radius of 195.00 feet a distance of 78.28 feet; THENCE South 23 degrees 59 minutes 58 seconds East 225.69 feet; THENCE southeasterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the left having a radius of 380.00 feet a distance of 269.21 feet; THENCE South 64 degrees 35 minutes 28 seconds East 990.90 feet; THENCE northeasterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the left having a radius of 50.00 feet a distance of 59.93 feet; THENCE easterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 60.00 feet a distance of 98.10 feet; THENCE South 39 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East 422.29 feet to the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound the following five tie line courses and dis- tances: 1. South 81 degrees 29 minutes 38 2. North 74 degrees 33 minutes 18 3. North 66 degrees 24 minutes 48 seconds West 21.81 feet; seconds West 51.30 feet; seconds West 47.68 feet; - 3 - and 4. North 70 degrees 42 minutes 04 seconds West 96.13 feet; 5. South 89 degrees 20 minutes 28 seconds West 70.96 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along a wood bulkhead the following nine courses and distances: 1. South 31 degrees 18 minutes 45 seconds West 11.31 feet to a point; 2. North 64 degrees 40 minutes 01 seconds West 197.34 feet to a point; 3. North 64 degrees 37 minutes 42 seconds West 380.06 feet to a point; 4. North to a point; 5. South to a point; 6. North to a point; 64 degrees 32 minutes 31 seconds West 289.24 feet 76 degrees 09 minutes 50 seconds West 43.85 feet 64 degrees 27 minutes 7. North 17 degrees 10 minutes to a point; 8. North 68 degrees 17 minutes to a point; and 9. North 35 degrees 02 minutes to a point; 27 seconds West 220.43 feet 37 seconds West 36.68 feet 05 seconds West 308.25 feet 49 seconds East 43.24 feet - 4 - RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound and the "Basin" the following eighteen tie line courses and distances: 1. North 6~ degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East 37.16 feet to a point; 2. North 83 degrees 44 minutes 07 seconds East 22.45 feet to a point; 3. North 45 degrees 28 minutes 13 seconds East 22.99 feet to a point; 4. North 01 degree 13 minutes 46 seconds East 54.52 feet to a point; 5. North 18 degrees 28 minutes 55 seconds West 178.54 feet to a point; 6. North 31 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds West 40.19 feet to a point; 7. North 67 degrees 19 minutes 26 seconds West 36.31 feet to a point; 8. South 70 degrees 40 minutes 38 seconds West 37.59 feet to a point; 9. South to a point; 10. South to a point; 27 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West 29.58 feet 00 degrees 16 minutes 23 seconds West 73.63 feet - 5 - 11. South 04 degrees to a point; 12. South 03 degrees to a point; 13. South 36 degrees to a point; 14. South 07 degrees to a point; 15. North 49 degrees to a point; 51 minutes 07 minutes 27 seconds West 146.85 feet 36 seconds West 168.58 feet 26 minutes 28 seconds East 25.57 feet 04 minutes 17 minutes 51 seconds West 109.75 feet 24 seconds West 16. North 02 degrees 15 minutes 32 seconds East to a point; 17. North 48 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds West to a point; 18. North 57 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds West to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the easterly and northerly lands now or formerly of Howard and Dorothy Zehner the two courses and distances: 1. North 04 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds East to a point; and 2. North 80 degrees 27 minutes 08 seconds West to a point; 40.93 feet 31.60 feet 61.23 feet 32.07 feet lines of following 771.06 feet 453.84 feet - 6 - RUNNING THENCE along lands now or formerly of William Kilian, Joseph and Marie Knizak, Joseph and Rose Zuda and Murray and Selma Jacobs the following four courses and distances: 1. North 07 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds East 35.83 feet to a point; 2. North 61 degrees 29 minutes 58 seconds West 239.75 feet to a point; 3. North 76 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 154.13 feet to a point; 4. North 77 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 218.00 feet to a point; THENCE southwesterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the left having a radius of 220.00 feet a distance of 76.79 feet; THENCE westerly along the arc of a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 485.00 feet a distance of 169.30 feet; THENCE North 77 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 291.19 feet; THENCE southwesterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the left having a radius of 430.00 feet a distance of 185.36 feet; THENCE South 71 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds West 385.09 feet; THENCE southwesterly along the arc of a curve bearing to the left having a radius of 28.56 feet a distance of 34.90 feet to the easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25); THENCE along the easterly side of Main Road the following three 1. North 07 2. North 12 and 3. North 07 to the lands now or place of BEGINNING. (N.Y.S courses and distances: degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 437.17 degrees 23 minutes 13 seconds East 376.45 Route 25) feet; feet; degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 165.76 feet formerly of Long Island Rail Road, the point or - 8 - I~0 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P O BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 (516) P48 1700 April 19, 1985 Nenry Weismann, Esq. 940 Tarpon Drive Southold, New York 11971 RE: ..... Application of Ba~view Development CorE. Dear I~r. Ueismann: I am happy that we met wi th you and Mr. Flynn yesterday re- garding the above matter. However, I do not have the right or authority to conm~it the Town Board to zone the cove area of our property to any particu]ar type of zoning. As I indicated to you, I have no objection to developing it residentially, however, I in- dicated to tine Town that I will develop it according to their zoning. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Notice showing that the hearing will be reconvened on Thursday, May 2nd, at 8:10 p.m. Very truly yours, JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI JDF/js Enclosure bc: Mr. Henry Raynor i/~,~,~...d,**~__D__~._._~TOWN* O;'$OUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD i~--O~WN ER 1STREET ~ VILLAGE SUB. ACR. i~. ,c.~ ~ TYPE OF BUILDING Value FORMER OWNER " i N .' i E RES, COMM. CB. MICS. Mk LAND s s. IMP. VL. FARM TOTAL ~ DATE AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FAP~M Acre Value Per Value Acre Tillable House Plot Totel Woodland Meodowland DEPTH BULKHEAD REMARKS / , .., ./ '- /.~.:: ,. / ~ --, , ~ -~. ~ ~ _ FRONTAGE ON WATER FRONTAGE ON ROAD DOCK Weekly Real Estate Law Digest By Eugene J. Morris This column, a weekly feature of the Law Journal, pives brief sum- maries of dec'i~'io~ of interest to practitioner trundling real estate mat. ters in New York Members of th~ Bar are im~itecl to ,~ubmit cases /or evaluation a~l summarization in column. ZOning ~ Specific Parcel Type of Development ~ Form of Owuership Plaintiff. owner of twenty-two acres of land in Rye, instituted an ac- tion for declaratory Judgment and an re]unction against the City of Rye declaring Rye City Code Section 197- 13.2 invalld and unconstitutional. The · ordinance in question purports, to create a new zoning district, ap- plicable only to plaintiff's lot and directs, among m//ny other th!age, that the purl~rtod district must be maintained' in single ownership, rt' further provides that any develop. sent of the propert~ be limited to' residential 'condominiums, The to an action for specific performance of a contract of sale of the shares of a cooperative apartment The defendant cooperative cor- poration argued that thc contract provided that the defendant sell shares and transfer its interest in the apartment and that this action to compel specific performance of that contract necessarily affected the pos- session, usc or enjoyment of rea] property; consequently, it was re. qulred to be tried in Nassau County· The Court. in disagreeing, examined lho purpose behind CPLR 507 and determined thai actions involving real pFoperty are tried in the county where the proper~y is located so that title records become more easily ac- cessible to the court. Consequently,- reasoning that since there is no re- quirement of any recording of docu- ments with respect to the transfer of shares of stock of a cooperative ~apartmcnt, the Court determined that there is no reason why this type of transaction should fall within the NY2d . NYLJ, 118/85, p. 18. col. 1, fi] 7L Special{ Term, in an earlier case. had vacated a notice o! oendency in an action for specific performance of the sale of shares of 8 c. oopcrative apartment, reasoning that thosc shares were personal and not real property. (L. Sh.nnon r, F..d. Index No. 10442/84. slip opinto~ ~Sup. CL N.Y. Co. Oct. 22. 19841L "Similarly", the Court said. "wher~ the plaintiff sought to compel defen, dants to Issue shares of stock and ~ fipsrtment alleging he wa~ fraodulently induced to enter into a~ assignment of his subscription agree, merit, the court vacated the notice ol pendency on the grouhd that the sonalty and thus not a right, title or mterest in the property that CPLR ~601 was enacted to preserve" (eita. tion omitted). The Court then holed that "deSpite the seemingly generoul Supreme· Court denied plaintiff's scope of the real property venue claim for injunctive relief and..-~pr°vision. ordered a hearing to determine if the ~ 8dction wa~ confiscatory with respect to plaintiff's property. Tile Appellate Division reversed declaring the Code provision to be invalid in that it con- stitutes an improper regulation of the form of ownership of proper~y., '-- Aa.a,,fundamental principle, zon- ing is concerned with the use of the land. and not with the person who In response to defendant's further argument' that CPLR 507 Is not limited to action~ involving title to real property alone the Court said "a almilar argument hae been ad- vanced, and rejected, by the coerce in disputes involving the doctrine of [is pendens." While the Court of Appeals expressly left open the :luestion R¢'.ll.q Corp. 1'. O~ l~ Equity Corp. -- language in CPLI~ 6801 (includin{ 'use or enjoyment' -- which languag~ is identical to that of CPLR those courts have, In effect, held thai a notice of pendency cannot be lmet where the party filing does not have right, title or interest in the propert] itself." The Court concluded by offerinl another reason for treating, as iran, sitory, actions for {~pecific perfor monte of contracts for the sale el . owns or uecupies it. The Court stated that "the instant ordinance, which purports to direct how the proper~y 'may be held to the exelasion of all other forms 'of ownership, must fail because, as a general principle, a municipality does nut have Ihs power to regulate the manner of ownership of a legal estate, as 'it is u~e rather ,~ than form of ownership that is the ~ proper concern and fecus of zoning and planning regulations' /~'brlh Fork Motel v. ~gon~,,93 A.D,2d ~3)." The Cou~ concluded that "the city here h~ atlempt~ to dictate how property may ~ owned, and that' is exactly what it la not ,authori~d to do,' The Court also noted that. although.there have been a number of out-of-state cases holding that a munici~lity may not exclude the condominium form of ownership (McHenr~ 3late Bank v. ~ity qf McHcnry, 113 I11 App ~ 82. 4~ NE2d 521, 524; CHR O~. Inc. v. City of Nc:vim,. 387 Mass ~1. 439 NE2d 788. 791: Btqdge Park ~o. n. Bo~ugh qf , Higbgol~ Pork. 113 NJ Super 219~ ."A~ 397, 3~; goun~y of Payett~ v. Co.~scll. ~0 P~mwlth 202 4~ A2d 1226~ 1228; Grak~m ~t. A~s~. Town Coltncil.qf Town ~ Chapel Hill. 53 NC App 543,281 SE2d 418), here the ordinance excludes all other for~s ' - and cons~uently is-invalid; the Court did ~ot re~h the other im{ues. Accordingly.'the order denying in- junctive relief w~ reversed and the ~e ~rovlmion w~ decided to ~ in- valid. FG~L Prope~y ~rp. v. City of ltye, NY~, M~r~ i~ ~ p, 13 I lapp Die end Dept.). your advantage, the for(, I ' [ joffices of the.St. Regis Coi L __lbecome available at 237, 110,800 Sq. R. of perhaps the finest traditional York City is offered for long term sublease idl new atnum office building, ., 'ri :7 "~Call Atlhm' N{~i~ ::, Senior V.p or 2124~83.8608 ' EDWAR 9 S GORDON COMPANY tNC ;L ~or April 25, 1985 Board of Appeals of The Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Variance Application of Bayview Developement Corp./Sage Gentlemen: In accordance with your request made at the April ll, 1985 hearing in the above matter following is a list of some of those owners of property adjacent to the petitioners property within the meaning of Sec. 100-125 of the Southold Town Zoning Code to whom a notice of the application was not sent: 1) Leonard Walters & ano., ?.O.Box 159, New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Tax Map Sec 53 Block 5 Lot 5 Southold Shore Lot #48 2) Robert Bracken & ano., 32 Lichtfield Road, Port Washington, N.Y. ll050 Tax Map Sec 53 Block 5 Lot 6 Southold Shores Lot #49 3) Charlotte Weismann & ano., Tarpon Drive, Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Tax Map Sec 57 Block 1 Lot 39.2 4) Robert Chilton, Beachwood Lane, Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Tax Map Sec 57 Block i Lot 39.4 While the above were owners as shown on the latest assessment roll adjacent area of Southold Shores there appear to be other adjacent property owners to the east of the applicant's premises to whom notices were not mailed one of whom is Anasthesia Group, P.C., c/o Bertram S. Holder, M.D., 356 Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238 Tax Map Sec 53 Block 6 Lot 46.1. I do not represent that the above is a complete list o£ those adjacent owners to whom notice was not given. Very truly yours, ARMAND P. D'AMATO* JEFFREYD FOKCHELLI* JACK L. LIBERT* PETER A. IOVINO° DONALD dAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R. MINEO' THOMAS J DUNCAN* RICHARD C. GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARNERI* PETER ALPERT* D'AMAT0, FOKCHELLI, LIBEKT, IOV]NO, SCHWARTZ ~, MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P.O BOX31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK lift01 (516) 248-1700 April 16~ 1985 WASHINGTON OFF[CE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N W. WASHINGTON, D. C 20006 (202) 783-4802 OF COUNSEL JAMES W. PARES* ROBERTA MELILLO* Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage Dear Chairman Goehringer: I am writing to you with regard to the objection made at the public hearing concerning notice to surrounding owners. In con- nection therewith, I enclose a copy of your letter dated October 31, 1984, which advised us of the parties to be notified. I believe that your letter is absolutely correct because the owners on Tarpon Drive are not within the required distance of any lot which is the subject of a variance. Further, you adjourned the hearing and the objectants now have actual notice of the adjourned date and, consequently, their argument is without merit for this additional reason. In support of my position, I enclose herewith a copy of the Appellate Division decision in Gaona v. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals. D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ t~ MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage April 16, 1985 Page Two The last paragraph of the decision appears to be exactly on point with our situation. That case involved a store in a shop- ping center and the Court determined that failure to give notice to everyone within 200 feet of the exterior limits of the shopping center was not a jurisdictional defect. The Court further stated that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the application and, therefore, had the opportunity to present their views. Your ad- journing the hearing to May 2nd gives the objectants ample oppor- tunity to be heard as well as actual notice of the hearing. As an aside, I would like to advise you that this Thursday, I am meeting with Mr. Weismann regarding our proposal. Mr. Weismann has advised me that he has spoken with his neighb¢ cuss this matter on all their behalf. JDF/js Enclosures Very truly your ind will dis- :LLI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGERi CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI October 31, 1984 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appeal of Bayview Development Corp./Sage Location of Property: Sage Boulevard, Greenpprt, NY Dear Mr. Forchelli: We must return the documents in the above matter for the following: (1) Notice to Adjoining Property Owners' Form, Affidavit of Mailing, and postmarked certified receipts are required in the filing of a variance application. Copies of the required form are enclosed. Please check with the Assessors Office (765-1937) for the current names and addresses of the adjoining property owners as shown on the tax rolls, for properties in District 1000, Section 53, Block 5, Lots 9 (Jacobs), l0 (Suda), ll.1 and 11.2 (Knizak), 12 and 12.2 (Kilian), 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; and Block 4, Lots 44.1, 44.2, 46.1 (Poscillico), and Section 57, Block l, Lots 38.1, 38.2 and 38.3 (Zehner). (2) Also, in order to prevent delays, it is requested that the survey plan reflect all front, side and rear yard setbacks of buildings to be retained-from the proposed lot lines; and that if variances are required, the plan be reviewed by the building inspector for his amended Notice of Disapproval, in order that you can include all the necessary relief simultaneously with the area and width variance requests. Please feel free to call us at any time if you have questions. lk Enclosures cc: Building Inspector You s very ];ruly G'ERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN GAONA v. TOWN OF HI~INTINGTON ZONING BD. 431 Vel~z & Kabas, New York City (Dasil l~. the granting of the variance would not Velez, New York City, of counsel), for ~e- create congestion or traffic hazards be- spondents. ' Before TITON. E, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, RUBIN and BOYERS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, dated October 6, 1983, which granted the application of Elwood Hills Company for a parking variance, the appeal is from a judg- ment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Coun- t, dated.February 6, 1984, which annulled the determination and denied the applica- Judgment reversed, on the law, determi- nation confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs payable to appellants appearing separately and fil- ing separate briefs. Elwood Hills Company filed an applica- tion with the Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals for a parking variance reducing the off-street parking require- ment.s established by the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Huntington to permit a change in use of a certain building from a furniture s. tore to a retail auto parts store. 'The 'subject building, a 6,500 square-foot .fr~e-standing structure, is part of the El- wood Shopping Center, owned and man- aged by the Elwood Hills Company. The shopping center, which fronts on Jericho Turnpike in Huntington, contains approxi- mately 24 retail and commercial estabIish- rnents and a duplex movie theater. Elwood needed a parking variance to c~nvert the existing furniture store into a retail auto parts store because, under sectiou 198-47 of the zoning ordinance, it was required to provide a minimum of 33 parking spaces for a retail auto parts store (one space per :200 squat~e feet of gross floor area) but. Only 13 parking spaces for a furniture Store (one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area). Following a public hear- ing, at which Elwood established its inabili- ty to let the subject building to a furniture retailer an,l a traffic expert testified that cause the shopping center's existing park- ing facilities were adequate to reasonably serve the needs of the proposed use, the zoning board of appeals granted the vari- ance. Petitioners, the owners of property ad- joining the westerly border of the shopping center and located within 700 feet of the proposed auto parts store, thereafter com- menced this article 78 proceeding to review the determination granting the variance. They claimed that the variance was void because the zoning board failed to mail' notice of the public hearing to owners of adjoining property within a radius of 200 feet of Elwood's total property holding as required by section 198-112 (subd. B, par. [2]) of the zoning ordinance and because the zoning board exceeded its authority by granting a variance reducing off-street parking requirements by more than 50%, in violation of section 198-49 (sub& A) of the ordinance. Special Term agreed with peti- tioners that the variance was unlawful be- cause it permitted a reduction in excess of 50%, but did not decide the notice issue. ill Preliminarily, we note that Special Term correctly rejected 'appellants' claim that petitioners lack standing to bring this proceeding. As owners of property located within approximately 700 feet of the sub- ject building and adjoining the wcsteriy border of the Elwood Shopping Center, pe- titioncls were, as a matter of law, "ag- grieved persons" upon whom subdivision 7 of section 267 of the Town Law conferred standing to seek judicial review of the zon- ing board's determinations (see Matter of Prudco Realty v. Palermo, 93 A.D.2d 837, 461 N.Y.S.2d 58, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 656, 467 N.Y.S.2d 830, 455 N.E.2d 483; Mutter of Mu.~or Woodx Assn. v. Ra.dol, 29 A.D.2d 778, see, also, Matter uf Dot~glaMon Civic Assm v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1,364 N.Y.S.2d. 8:11), 324 N.E.2d 317: Glen H~od-Glenu'ood La.ding Cicic Co?~,M! i,. Town of Oyster Bay, 88 AD 2,t 154, .15:1 N.Y S2d 732). 432 483 NEW YORK SUI'I'LEhlENT, 2d SERIES [2,3] Special Term erred, however, in holding that the zoning board of appeals exceeded its authority by granting a vari- ance in excess of 50%. Section 198~19 (subd. A) of the zoning ordinance provides: "The Zoning Board of Appeals may re- duce the requirements for off-street parking as set forth in [section 198-47] * * * by not more than fifty percent (50~o) upon a finding that the amount of · space provided is adequate to reasonably serve the use proposed". ~ , Special Term apparently looked to the 33- parking-space requirement for retail auto parts stores in determining that the vari- ance reducing parking requirements by 20 spaces exceeded the 50% reduction permit- ted under section 198-49 (subd. A). The zoning board of appeals, however, has con- strued the ordinance differently, reading section 198-49 (subd. A) together with sec- tion 198-45, entitled "Interpretation ,and modification of requirements". Subdivi- sion C of section 198-45 provides that "[w]here more than one (1) use occupies a building or premises, the parking require- merits shall be equal to the sum of the requirements for each use". Under the zoning hoard of appeals' interpretation of the ordinance, the total parking require- ments of the various businesses contained in such an integrated unit as a shopping center must be considered in determining whether a proposed reduction in off-street parking requirements exceeds the 507, limi- tation. This construction is both reason- able and consistent with the principle of statutory construction that a statu~e or or- dinance should be read as a whole and all parts thereof, harmonized to acl{ieve the legislative purpose (see Sanders v. Win- ship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 395-396, 456 N.Y.S.2d 720, 442 N.E.2d 1231; McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes, §§ 97, 98, 130). Moreover, it is well settled that the construction given statutes and regulations · by the agency respons~le for their admin- istratio~ will be upheld if not irrational or unreasonable (Matter of Frishman ~. Schmid6 61 N.Y.2d 823, 825, 473 N.Y.S.2d 957~ 462 N.E.2d 134; Matter of Albert v. Board of Stds. & A~peak% 89 A.D.2d 960, 962, 454 N.Y.S.2d 108; see Mattcr of J6;,n. son v. Joy, 48 N.Y.2d 689, 691, 422 N.y. S.2d 56, 397 ~.E.2d 746). Since it established at the public hearing that a total of 549 parking spaces were requir~ for the shopping center under the zonir~ ordinance and the variance merely reduced such requirements by 20 spaces, or lc~ than 4%, the zoning board of appeals did not exceed its authority by granting the variance. [4] Finally, we reject petitioners' c'laim that the decision of the zoning beard w~ void because the beard failed to mail notice of the public hearing to owners of adios. ing property within 200 feet of the exter~r limits of the applicant's total property hold- ing, hero the entire shopping center, a~ required by section 198-112 (subd. B, par. [2]) of the ordinance. Notice was givca by publication but the beard apparently mal'le~ notice only to persons owning properl), within a radius of 200 feet of the proposed retail auto parts store. However, the tice requirement is not "jurisdictional" ia the sense that petitioners seek to use that term (see Zelenski v. Incorporated 1.%'l. of Patchogue, 51 A.D.2d 1055, 381 N.Y.S.2d 531; Matter ~of Sarah Lawrence Col£ v. City Council of Yonkers,: 48 A.D.2d 897, 369 N.Y.S.2d 776), and the failure to give such special notice does ~hot render tl~c variance granted by the zoning board void (see Matter of Gazan v. Corbet~ 278 App. Div. 953, 105 N.Y.S.2d 187, affd. 304 N.Y. 920, 110 N.E.2d 739). In any event, the record reveals that petitioners had actual knowledge of the planned conversion of the subject building and of the impending plicatinn for a variance and therefore that they had the opportunity to present their views if they were so inclined. ARMAND P. D'AMATO* JEFFREYD FORCHELLI* JACK L. LIBERT* PETER A. IOVINO° DONALD dAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R. MINEO* THOMAS d. DUNCAN* RICHARD C. GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUAP~N ERI * PETER ALPERT* D'AMATO, FOKCHELLI, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ g MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVAI~D P,O. BOX31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11801 (516) 248- I?00 April 16, 1985 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C 2000G (202) 783-4802 OF COIJNSEL JAMES W. PAP. ES* ROBERT A. MEL1LLO* Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage Dear Chairman Goehringer: I am writing to you with regard to the objection made at the public hearing concerning notice to surrounding owners. In con- nection therewith, I enclose a copy of your letter dated October 31, 1984, which advised us of the parties to be notified. I believe that your letter is absolutely correct because the owners on Tarpon Drive are not within the required distance of any lo% which is the subject of a variance. Further, you adjourned the hearing and the objectants now have actual notice of the adjourned date and, consequently, their argument is without merit for this additional reason. In support of my position, I enclose herewith a copy of the Appellate Division decision in Gaona v. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals. D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBER. T, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ ~, MINEO COUNSELOR.$ AT LAW Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage April 16, 1985 Page Two The last paragraph of the decision appears to be exactly on point with our situation. That case involved a store in a shop- ping center and the Court determined that failure to give notice to everyone within 200 feet of the exterior limits of the shopping center was not a jurisdictional defect. The Court further stated that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the application and, therefore, had the opportunity to present their views. Your ad- journing the'hearing to May 2nd gives the objectants ample oppor- tunity to be heard as well as actual notice of the hearing. As an aside, I would like to advise you that this Thursday, I am meeting with Mr. Weismann regarding our proposal. Mr. Weismann has advised me that he has spoken with his neighb¢ cuss this matter on all their behalf. JDF/js Enclosures Very truly your will dis- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P- GOEHRtNGERi CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI $outhold Town Board o£ Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119`71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 October 31, 1984 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY ll501 Re: Appeal of Bayview Development Corp./Sage Location of Property: Sage Boulevard, Green~prt, NY Dear Mr. Forchelli: We must return the documents in the above matter for the following: (1) Notice to Adjoining Property Owners' Form, Affidavit of Mailing, and postmarked certified receipts are required in the filing of a variance application. Copies of the required form are enclosed. Please check with the Assessors Office (765-1937) for the current names and addresses of the adjoining property owners as shown on the tax rolls, for properties in District 1000, Section 53, Block 5, Lots 9 (jacobs), lO (Suda), ll.1 and ll.2 (Knizak), 12 and 12.2 (Kilian), 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; and Block 4, Lots 44.1, 44.2, 46.1 (Poscillico), and Section 57, Block l, Lots 38.1, 38.2 and 38.3 (Zehner). (2) Also, in order to prevent delays, it is requested that the survey plan reflect all front, side and rear yard setbacks of buildings to be retained-from the proposed lot lines; and that if variances are required, the plan be reviewed by the building inspector for his amended Notice of Disapproval, in order that you can include all the necessary relief simultaneously with the area and width variance requests. Please feel free to call us at any time if you have questions. Inspector lk Enclosures cc: Building You s very G'ERAR D ¢ .~-GO EH R I N G. ER CHA I RMAN ARMAND P. D'AMATO* JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI* JACK L. LIBEl-T* DONALD JAY sCHWARTZ* D'AMA[O, J:ORCHELLI, LIBEP. T, JOV1NO, $Clt~X~AP-.IZ ~ MINEO 120.MIN£OLA BOULEVARD February 6, 1985 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. ~/. WASHINGTON, g. C. 20006 ROBERT A. MELILLO" Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Ms. Linda Kowalski RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Dear Ms. Kowalski: This letter will serve to clarify the information sent to you on February 4, 1985 regarding the above. The northwest portion is twenty-nine (29) acres. This includes 3.4 acres of fresh water wetlands. If the 3.4 acres is subtracted from the net area of 39.056 acres, it results in an area of 35.656 acres, or 1,553,175.3 sq. ft. Dividing this by a building lot (80,000 sq. ft.), it results in 19.414691 building lots. I trust the above information is adequate. In the event there is anything further which you require, don't hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI JDF/js APPLICATION OF BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal NO. 3320 PREMISES: Sage Property, Southold, NY The following information is submitted in connection with the Subdivision Sketch Plan last revised January 21, 1985: 1. The acreage of salt water wetlands is 11.551 acres. However, this acreage is entirely in Section two. Section one does not include any salt water wetlands other than the beach areas which are outside of the described property and the island which is to be dedicated to nature which is 1.566 acres. 2. The area of fresh water wetlands in section one is ± 3.4 acres. 3. The total area of section one is 43.756 acres. It is made up as follows: a. Northwest portion - 29 acres Area around small basin (This does not include area of basin itself) the 2.5 acres c. Roadbed - 4.7 acres Nineteen lots and community beach area 6.0 acres Disconnected island at east end (to be dedicated for nature preserve) 1.556 acres 43.756 acres 4.7 acres 39.056 acres LESS ROADWAY NET AREA Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 6, 1985 Jeffrey Forchelli Attorney at Law 120 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Sage Property Section I, Cluster Dear Mr. Forchelli: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 4, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the aketch map for the cluster subdivision of "Sage Property, Section I" located at Greenport for 19 lots on 38 acres, plans dated as last revised January_21, 1985 subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances needed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, 'JR., CHAIRMAN WN PLANNING^BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, ~e{a~y cc: Zoning Board of Appeals J~o~t~: Tne ouno~ 'lmms Sage Plan F.l i N®ighbor ' Rage, By JAJ~ GARRELL SOUTHOLD-Citimn ceueern over devel .o~mant .ntaw. for the Se~e erty Lu SouthoM led to a confrontation with local o~Sei~l, during Tuesday me~i-~s Tow~ Beard work ~Mu~y over coming to the point about i~c~e ~/Nheir visit, caused a Town lm~nent odminisd~Fator. out'how the pIo~nin_o Board ~ to nin_e Boilrd.s put wot a 'Fed herrin~ by t~]li~ the m/ty by dmnol~=hh~ fi~e of the b~ild. merit odmlni~atoF'¥ictoF I~amaed. ~ I a~ked for the ~ it was w~ no ~nteufion o~de~d~mf it hr re- Bay~iew's attoraey to the chairman the p~.,~i.g Bo~d along that ff ~ tton 1 wes approved in-accord~mce with the al~licat/on, Sect/on 2 (the r~-i~- Southold Town Board o£Appeais MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD AS E$OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P, GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI July 8, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Iovino, Schwartz and Mineo 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Dear Mr. Forchelli: For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the July 5, 1985 correspondence from the Suffolk County Depart- ment of Planning denied the above application for the reasons as noted therein. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copy to: Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. (agent for applicant) Mr. Victor Lessard, Building Dept.-Administrator Southold Town Planning Board DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECU1FIVE LEE E. KOPPELMAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING July 5, 1985 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Bayview Development Corp." (#3320), Town of Southold (SD-85-5). Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on July 3, 1985 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to dis- approve it because of the following: 1. The lot area and dimensional diminishments significantly exceed cluster developmental reduction limitations; 2. It constitutes an apparent circumvention of legislative powers ex- clusively delegated to the Town Board; The dwelling unit yield significantly exceeds cluster zoning require- ments as substantial areas of ponds, wetlands and marshes are included for developmental purposes; and It would only tend to establish an undesirable precedent for the con- tinuance of such a practice in the locale and throughout the Town of Southold. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN: jk COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ® PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE LEE E. KOPPELMAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING July 5, 1985 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Bayview Development Corp." (#3320), Town of Southold (SD-85-5). Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Cor~ission on July 3, 1985 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to dis- approve it because of the following: 1. The lot area and dimensional diminishments significantly exceed cluster developmental reduction limitations; 2. It constitutes an apparent circumvention of legislative powers ex- clusively delegated to the Town Board; The dwelling unit yield significantly exceeds cluster zoning require- ments as substantial areas of ponds, wetlands and marshes are included for developmental purposes; and It would only tend to establish an undesirable precedent for the con- tinuance of such a practice in the locale and throughout the Town of Southold. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning b -- ~"X~'Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN: j k VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAIJGE, L.I., NEW YORK I ! 788 [516) 360-5192 APPEALS 8OARO 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 SQUTHDLD. L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 June ?, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mine~ola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY ~1501 Re: Appeal of Bayview Development Corp. Appeal No. 3320 Dear Mr. Forchelli: In referring the above application to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1322, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter, it is the County Planning Commission's position that appropriate reviews could not be made because of nonconplian~ce with their requirements and requested additional maps and information. We enclose a copy of the reply received June 6:; 1985, and ask that you contact their office directly concerning submission of the documents requested. Also, we are submitting a :copy of t~he Town Board resolution authorizing the Planning Boar~d to consider the cluster development plan and a copy ,of the Planoing Board's SEQRA determination as requested at #3 and #6 of the County's letter. lk Enclosure Y, ours very truly,. / GERARD P. G I C HA ~ RMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board o£ Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE RrlAD 25 E; L.I., N.Y. 11g71 1ELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 June 7, 1985 Mr~ Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department.of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview~Development Corp./SaCe Dear Mr. N~wman: ~ Pursuant to your June 5th~letter, Flease find bnclosed copies of the Planning Board SEQRA determination in~'the above matter and the Town Board resolution authorizing th6 Plar, ning Board to consider this cluster'development application. Inasmuch as the remainder:of the information requested is not available from our file; we have'asked the applicant to submit same directly to you. Please let us know if there is any way we may be of assistance to you in this matter. Yours 'very truly GERARD P. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER By Linda Kowalski Enclosures Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RI-lAD- BTATE ROAD 25 ~DUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI June 20, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Iovino, Schwartz and Mineo 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appeal No. 3320 - Bayview Development Corp. Dear Mr. Forchelli: Please find enclosed a copy of the Board of Appeals' determination rendered last evening and filed this date with the Office of the Town Clerk. Copies:of same are being transmitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, Southold Town Planning Board and the Town Building Department for their records. Yours very truly, GERARD P. CHAIRMAN lk Enclosure cc: Suffolk County Planning Commission Southold Town Planning Board Building Department Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. GOEHRINGER 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 SOUTHDLD. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 June 18, 1985 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage Dear Mr. Newman: Please find enclosed a set of documents which were left with us for our submission to you (some copies have been initially submitted in our referral to you): 1. Map most recently dated January 21, ]985 (which is slightly different than the December 18, ]984 map in our files); 2. February 6, 1985 letter from Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. to the Board of Appeals; 3. Letter from the Town Clerk confirming the Town Board's February 5, 1985 resolution authorizing the Planning Board to consider this in a cluster concept; 4. Overlay map showing possible development for Section II; 5. Letter from the Planning Board to Joseph D. Forchelli, Esq. granting sketch plan approval subject to Z.B.A.; 6. Planning Board SEQRA declaration. It is our understanding that these documents are being submitted after Henry Raynor's discussion with you concerning the Planning Commission's request for additional information. Please let us know if this information will suffice. Yours very truly, lk GERARD P. Enclosures ~ ~L~_-,~/ ~h?/~C CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER ARMAND P D'AMATO* JEFFREYD FORCHELLI* JACK L LIBERT* PETERA IOVINO~ DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R MINEO* THOMAS J DUNCAN* RICHARD C GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARNERI* PETER ALPERT* D'AMATO, FOR.CHELLI, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ. f0 MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P.O. BOX31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK Il001 (516) 248 - 1700 <,,, /.,/, I "' June 14, 1985 WASHINGTON OFFICE I?3B NEW YORK AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D C 20006 (202) 783-4802 OF COL~SEL · JAMES W. PARI~5* ROBERT A. MELILLO* Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman RE: Application of" ' " Bayvlew Development Corp. Town of Southold (Appeal No. 3320) Dear Mr. Goehringer: In connection with the above, I enclose herewith two documents required by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. set is for them and one set is for you. The documents are as follows: 3. 4. 5. 6. sets of the One JDF/js Enclosures Map depicting the subject parcel. Computation figures showing the yield of the property. Town Board Resolution authorizing clustering. Overlay map showing the possible residential development of Section II. Planning Board Resolution granting sketch plan approval. Planning Board Resolution showing compliance with SEQRA. Very trul~y you/s,~/ ARMAND P D'AMATO* dEFFREY D FORCHELLI* dACK L. LIBERT* PETER A. IOVINO~ DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R. MINEO* THOMAS d DUNCAN* RICHARD C GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARN ERI* PETER ALPE RT* D'AMATO, FORCHELLi, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ 8 MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD PO BOX31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK liB01 ( 516 ) 248 - 1700 June 10, 1985 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C 20006 (202) 783-4802 OF COUNSEL JAMES W. PARES* ROBERTA MELILLO* Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage Dear Mr. Goehringer: In connection with the above appeal, I enclose herewith a lits of shareholders of the corporation which owns the above property. JDF/js Enclosure RICHARD MOHRING 056-24-1537 RR #1 Box 362 Mill Neck, N.Y. 11765 60 Shares RICHARD MOHRING, JR. 072-52-4625 35 Mohring Bay Court Bayville, N.Y. 11709 40 Shares JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI 131-36-0084 1 JDF Court Oyster Bay, N.Y. 11771 23 Shares ARMAND P. D'AMATO 113-34-1810 15 Ostend Road Island Park, N.Y. 11558 16 Shares JACK L. LIBERT 128-38-5980 DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ 107-38-1977 PETER R. MINEO 062-44-6130 KENNETH J. WEINSTEIN 061-38-9008 Tt~OMAS J. DUNCAN 063-40-1584 JAMES W. PARES 126-16-5041 RICHARD C. GOLDBERG 058-38-3552 141 Willow Road Woodsburgh, N.Y. 11598 3653 Mahlon Brower Drive Oceanside, N.Y. 11572 21 Berklcy Road Mineola, N.Y. 11501 2929 Bay Drive Merrick, N.Y. 11566 2 Meadowbrook Road Syosset, N.Y. 11791 19 Ridge Road Bayville, N.Y. 11709 3977E Sedgwick Avenue Apt. 14A Bronx, N.Y. 10463 13 Shares 9 Shares 9 Shares 12 Shares 6 Shares 6 Shares 3 Shares STEPHEN GUARNE~I 058-40-7269 PETER ALPERT C66-40-3579 R.D. 2 -- Hilltop Road Oyster Bay, N.Y. 11771 570 Saddle Ridge Road Woodmere, N.Y. 11598 2 Shares 1 Share ZBA May 2, 1985 Bayview Development Corporation/Sage Application ~3320 - reconvened MR. FORCHELLI:I would like to submit some documents that were not submitted last time. First, I have an aerial photo of this property which I would like to submit, which indicates the road in red and in black I have circled the property which belongs to the applicant, and I would like to submit that into the record. The property as it is zoned is A-Residential, 80,000 s.f. for single family dwellings. Although that's the zoning, it is presently improved with a roadway that divides the property and the loss of services from the adjacent properties, including the marina and it improves the 37 structures, 31 of them, for which there are certificates of occupancy, and I would like to submit to the Board the c/o for the structures. I would like to point out that the application, and you can see it clearly from the picture , involves the cottages which are all located at the far end of the property. The variances affect the cottages in that area and I would like to submit, and I know it's in the record, I would like to submit another copy of my letter to the Board, January 10th, which indicates that the variance only affects the 19 proposed lots and do not affect any other property, which is there. Now, what we are seeking to do; there are 31 existing cottages there in that area. What we are seeking to do is thin them out and by removing 12 of them and removing accessory structures and thereby reducing density to 19 lots and 19 struc- tures on them and this would thin out the density almost 40% and the 19 remaining cottages would request to be on legal lots. Now the reason we are ~equesting the variance is because all of the structures are clustered in that one area and we cannot comply with the zoning with the 80,000 s.f. zoning and leave the cottages remaining. We felt it was economically feasible to thin it out from 31 to 19 and thereby reduce the density and have something that was economically feasible and yet with our plan, we propose to dedicate substantial other acreage on the property so we have a gross area of 45 acres and yet we have a net acreage of over 80,000 s.f. per each of the 19 lots. Thereby we comply with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as it was amended a number of years ago. The open area includes the 29 acres on the northwest end of the property, 2.5 acres which is around a small basin and 1.556 acres which is the island and then there is a lot of 30,000 s.f. which would be the common beach for the 19 lots. Just to recap the history of the property, initially an application was made to the Planning Board and by resolution dated January 7th, the Planning Board referred to the Town Board to consider the cluster zoning approval and by resolution dated January 7th, the Town Board did approve a cluster concept for the property. I submit to you a letter That was a resolution of the Planning Board referring it to the Town Board. ZBA May 2, 1985 Page 2 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. FORCHELLI - continued: The Town Board acted on February 5th and did approve the property for full cluster zone and I submit a copy of their resolution to you from February 5th. I would also like to submit to you as our next exhibit, copies of the Planning Board's resolution, in which the SEQRA and also a copy of their resolution wherein sketch plan approval was granted to the property. In reviewing the application, I believe the application is a good one. It meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance and yet it takes into consideration the facts of life, or the fact that there are 31 cottages and 37 structures there at present and that being so, we are not mindful of cases which say that zoning has to do with use of property not who the owner is or how the ownership is and realizing it and looking at it and saying we could possibly go in and co-op or condo 31 units, we are not seeking to do that. What we are seeking to do is come here, set aside 45 acres 35 net, and have 19 cottages where there were once 31. We believe it is a good application and that it should be granted. We are not over- intensifying use and density will be as provided in the ordinance. I would like to point out, when we talk about cluster, sometimes there is confusion that cluster means condominiums. This is not a condominium. This is 19 lots that are clustered closer. There will be individual houses with side, front and rear yards. It is just because of their existing configu ration on that stretch they will all be located on that stretch, with the balance of the property of that 45 acres, not condominiums and not attached houses and not 2 family houses. They are one family houses on 19 proposed lots. I also would like to submit for the Board for the record, a copy of resolutions where in similar applications granted in 1977. Now, I believe when we were here three weeks ago, there was a question raised regarding notice and whether or not adequate no- tice had been given to surrounding owners, and particularly resi- dents on Tarpon Drive and the matter was adjourned at that time. I respectfully submit to you that as shown on the aerial photo, Tarpon Drive residents on one side, can only be considered adjacent if we consider the roadway not as dividing the property and the road- way I have marked in red. This is the area where the cottages are. There is a break in the property here for the marina and some houses here. The property is contiguous here. The red line divides the ...This portion there is divided from this by the roadway, which is used by the marina and by these dwellings. Tarpon Drive is in this area. I would submit that they are not within the meaning of the ordinance. If the Board would like to submit otherwise, then I would like to indicate to you that after our meeting on April 18th, I met with Mr. Weissman and Mr. Flynn regarding this and I con- firmed that meeting with Mr. Weissman, in which I sent the notice of this meeting to him and I would like to submit to you a copy of my letter to him dated April 19th, which is further notice to Mr. Weissman of the meeting. In addition to that, by express mail, guaranteed delivery by this morning 4 additional notices A~i~, ~ 1985 Page 3 of Bayview Developemnt Corporation/Sage MR. FORCHELLI - continued: were sent out and I submit to you the postal express mail receipts. I just would like to state that I, in looking at this application, had a great deal of difficulty in understanding a, wherein existing 31 cottages that do have c/o's, how in reducing it, what would be a major objection to it. And I think as a result of my numerous conferences and my meeting, and so on, I have determined that there is a master plan that has just been revealed or officially shown in which the cove area of this property is proposed to be zoned in a marine/commercial or a marine/business type use. Now, I have written a letter to the Planning Board saying if they change the zone of that property, then we will develop it in accordance with change of zone. Well, that's nothing spectacular, whatever it is zoned, we can't use it otherwise. I want to state that we are, my client is a residential builder and has no problem developing the entire property in Section 2 residential. I think what we have here is some neighbors who are opposed to a possible change of zone, which we are not advocating, but have applied for. They are opposed to a possible change of zone. They would hope that someway through this application, there could be a commitment made that zone would not be changed. I don't have the ability to do that and even if I did, I certainly would not try to interfere with the Town Board's deliberations on master plan and I think it is a terrible situation. We are coming in with a plan, which we believe is good and they whipsawed into getting a commit- ment out of the Town Board that they wouldn't change the zone on the balance of the property. I don't have that ability to do that and I think that if there is objection based on that, that objection is not really relevant here. This is an applicaton that relates to Section 1 of this map, relative to existing cottages and I trust that this Board would consider it on its merits without consideration of a master plan or something that a Town Board meant in its legis- lative function. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Forchelli. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? H. DRUMM: Gentlemen, I spoke last month in favor, and I would like to say again. I have been a resident of Southold town all my life, as was my father and grandfather. I have a farm and I believe in open space. I have known the~Sage property, as I refer to it, for many, many years. I felt that the way to go for the 31 cottages that exist and have been existing for manyyears, that the 19 cottages , basically two acre zoning was ideal. It preserves the open space, which there is a lake and woods, and this plan does preserve the open space. It is in keeping with our plan. It goes along with the new master plan. We are only talking about these 19 cottages. I am very much in favor of it. I feel there are c/o's on the cottages; the Planning Board has indicated in writing, in fact it was the Planning Board that said what about the other areas. The Planning Board has said okay and so has the Town Board approved the cluster zone. I personally feel that and I request that the ZBA vote tonight in the affirmative. Thank you. ZBA May 2, 1985 Page 4 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Yes, sir. F. M. FLYNN: I have been informed, perhaps erroneously, that Mr. Drumm was involved with the sale of this property as a real estate broker, agent. If that be the case, I think perhaps his endorsement of the sale and use of this property ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak, now we will shift over to the opposition side? Mr. Weissman, did you want to start with that? MR. WEISSMAN: Yes. Let me say that I don't intend to repeat any of the remarks I made at the last hearing but I would like to clarify a few things. First, on the question of notice. The notice required by the Town is to be given to the adjacent property owners at least five (5) days before the filing of the action, so that these people can be afforded enough time to inquire into the merits of the appli- cation and into its nature. This has not been done, not even by a last hour notice to people who had previously notified and I think there are others who still haven't been notified because their names have not been brought to the attention of the Board. The principal point that I would like to make tonight, I just briefly touched on last meeting was that the Board in fact, has no jurisdiction over this application. This application is, in effect, an application for rezoning. It is the application for the creation of another zoning district within a zoning district and only the Town Board has the authority to act in such a matter. Only they have the legislative authority. This Board's authority, as you all know is to grant variances when a person with a small lot, piece or land or a situation is in need of some relief because of a hardship or a practical difficulty. This is not the case. Here you are being asked to rezone a 6+ acre parcel of land, so as to create a district with totally different density, totally different sideyard requirements, totally different rear yard re- quirements. You are being asked to approve building sites that are less than a quarter of an acre in size, almost a fifth or sixth of an acre. Now, that is not granting a variance. That is rezoning. The landmark case, as a matter of fact, in the State of New York is a 2nd Dept. case involving the Town of Southampton and I c~refer you to it for your examination, the case of Van Dusen v. Jackson, 35 App. Div.2nd p.58 and I recommend that you read it. There are a number of other cases, but that is the leading case in the state of New Yor.k that ac- cording to its terms is absolutely unwarranted. Let me say that the ~n Grit v. Schermiler ~se, well that's another case, but one will lead you to the other. But the overall plan is not complete. This is a partial plan for the development of an entire parcel of land and I believe the application before the Planning Board specifically stated that the development of ZBA May 2, Page 5 1985 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. WEISSMAN - continued: of Phase I or Section 1 of this application was economically dependent on the development of Phase 2 and Phase 2 has not been presented to the Planning Board, .~nor to the ZBA, and so~, no one knows what they plan with the rest of the land, that will be planned as part of this cluster development and of course, the area of land that they intend to set aside undeveloped in order to qualify it as a cluster use is not even adjacent to the area that they request the variances on. I have no further remarks except I think we would like to see a few of the exhibits that were presented to the Board, and frankly I would like to see the c/o's relating to the 31 cottages MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we take an another 3 minute break here, while you look at this and the one map I have is all cut up, I will get the other one from the office for you. Again, with the public's indulgence, we will take another three minute break. Recess. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to be heard? MR. WEISSMAN: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce my neighbor, Frank Flynn, who is in a position this evening to review in detail, some of the technical objections to the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. W~issman. F. FLYNN: Gentlemen, if I may, I consider th~s a watershed appli- cation with respect to the future of zoning and variances within the Town. I have several things of importance that I would like to comment on. I would like to recite my qualifications. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you just try to lift that mike a little bit? F. FLYNN: The first things that you requested was that various maps be presented for the edification of the Board. I presume that I am addressing the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold. If you look in front of you the property is represented as being in the Village of Greenport. I would think that's a matter of some importance, inasmuch as it indicates the care and attention that was devoted to preparation of this map in p~esen- tation of this application. Now, if I may for a moment, I will give you my qualifications on the subject. I have been a real estate appraiser and consultant since 1946. Through the course of my career, I have appraised property from Guam to Greece and from British Columbia to Brazil. I have appraised properties from vacant residential lots to lucrative plant sites. I have appraised properties in industrial types; public utility companies, ship- yards, airfields. I have been retained as an expert by the federal government; state government; the attorney general; department of ZBA May 2, ~ 985 Page 6 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage F. FLYNN - continued: transportation. I have testified in the various courts; I have testified before the PSC; I have testified for the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, all as a real estate expert and with a specialty of the effects of zoning on property value. To bring it closer to home, some of the major properties I have appraised on Long Island, would be Grumman, Republic Aviation, the MTA, Airborne Instruments, Long Island Water Corporation, Sperry-Rand, I have appraised the Smithhaven Mall in the tax certioraricase~ & I am currently appraisinq 3 major public utility companies in tax certiorari action against the state of New York. This is my background from which I speak. Now, I would like to go in if I may, to some of my comments on this particular matter. I would also like to present to the Board one final thing. As a planner, most recently, I was a con- sultant with Arden Rathk0pfin the exclusionary zoning case brought against the Town of Brookhaven, in which we successfully defended Brookhaven. NOw, I will make my comments on this application. I consider this application an insult to the intelligence and integrity of this Board. The applicant is making outrageous demands based upon hardship. There is no such thi~ as hardship unless it is created by the applicant. If the applicant pays too much money for the property, of course he has hardship. Had the applicant paid $100,000 for this property, there would be no question of hardship involved here whatsoever. In this instance there is an intent to gain an outrageous intensity of use for this property to alleviate the hardship that they themselves created. Now, when we talk of hardship, we are not dealing with neo- phytes here. We are dealing with experienced developers; experi- enced attorneys and those who are politically well-connected. Perhaps the Board should investigate the background of the appli- cants. It might prove very interesting to the Board. I am in a position to do so, but I don't think it is pertinent at this time. I would remind the Board, that in all cases of this sort, the legal precedents are that the Town is not the partner of the applicant. It is in no way its obligation to rescue an applicant from an im- proper and injudicious price paid for a portion or parcel of real estate, which is apparently the effort being made in this instance. If there were any humor, at all, present in this situation, and I assure you that there is none, I would lik~ it the applicants' position to that of a youth who killed his parents and then asked for clemency because he was an orphan. ZBA May 2, I 985 Page 7 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. FLYNN - continued: Cluster zoning is an intent to relieve certain hardship inherent in the development of certain types of property. The Town clearly spells out how far that alleviation of hardship can go when cluster zoning is granted and it says that lot areas can be reduced to a maximum of 50% and any other dimensional variance can be reduced to by a maximum of 30%. Now, I will give you a spot check on some of the variances and the percentage requested on this appli- cation. Area reductions up to 88.75% in area Width reductions up to 80% in width Sideyards up to 75% in sideyards Rear yards up to 50% in rearyards And conveniently overlooked in all of this is the setback from the high water mark required by the department of environmental control. I have built a house in the area and I was restricted to 75' in set- back and constrained from touching any land, although it was in my ownership, within 30' of high water. Here we have a situation where every one of these lots is proposed to be located 30' from the high water mark. The extent of variances requested here is so outrageous that you would end up with 19 plots within an area of approximately 6 acres and do not be fooled by the white elephant of discussing existing cottages. The existing cottages are crude, meaningless on this map. Were it only the intention to retain these existing cottages, that could be done by mere demolition, but if you will look at this map, what we have on here are area envelopes through the proposed building envelopes, what is proposed here is to locate additional houses and new houses within these lots, which constitute a major subdivision that varies from the Town zoning in every respect. Now, we the poor, unconnected property owners in this Town are constrained to 2 acre zoning. I know of instances where people have owned in excess of 3 acres and been unable to build more than one house on the 3 acres. Here we have the arrogance to demand to build on 9,000 s.f. This, in my opinion, is inconscionable and insulting to the Board. Now, within this application we casually brush off an area of 2.5 acres intended for a basin for marina use. Now even a fundamental, offhand investi§ation of the Town ordinance would indicate to install a marina in that area would require a change of zoning. That's glossed over completely, but that does not belong before this Board although it is part of the application. ZBA May 2, , 1985 Page 8 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage J. FLYNN - continued: That's glossed over completely. That does not belong before this Board, although it is part of the application submitted to this Board. Mr. Forcehlli's calculations as to yield are completely erroneous. This property could not bring 19 lots, no matter how you calculate it by his standards for the simple reason that he forgot, or deliberately neglected to deduct the 20% prior to making his calculations. And I submit something else, what is offered in this so- called cluster is a 29 acre parcel, a quarter of a mile, more or less, removed from the potential building site. What is overlooked is contiguous to this building site, is a vacant parcel of approximately 20 acres which could be very well clustered with this 6 acre site, except that then the entire property would yield approximately 14 plots of the minimum size permitted by cluster zoning. What we have here is someone who is offering us a pig in a poke. We have 29 acres which is absolutely useless for development. It is almost entirely wetlands and as such, the idea of keeping it forever wild is obvious because it is not economically developable. Now, I am coming to the end of this presentation. Finally, as this Board knows, what is intended for the Section 1, in con- junction with Section 2, is the most objectionable zoning con- ceivable in the Town of Southold. We will have something that smells as badly as fish processing plants, which will permit boat building; which will permit free standing restaurants; which will permit commercial fishing; the mooring of commercial fishing trawlers; all in our backyards in the confines of a residential area and to the benefit of the applicant and to the expense of all the surrounding neighbors. It will destroy the character of the community and it will destroy all the property values and I would estimate at a minimum $5,000,000 of real estate will be depressed to the extent that presently isn't even calculable. Now, in view of what I have said, all of which is available to you by reason of the same research that I have done, I must request that if you are to act in good conscience you pre~mptorially dismiss this application as of this evening. Thank you, gentlemen for your attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Yes, Ru~h. RUTH OLIVA: On behalf of the Board of Directors of NFEC, we do oppose this application. The Town Board, as you know, was given suggested lot lines for their approval or disapproval of this proposal. Now, that is what they did. They looked just at the lot lines, not at the topography or the contour lines and they said fine. It was good for a cluster. And the way they looked at it, it was. But the 29 acres that are supposed to be in the cal- culations for this cluster are nothing more than a marsh. And tO ZBA May 2, 1985 Page 9 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage RUTH OLIVA - continued: the Planning Board's way of thinking, has been counted as unbuildable land, not to be included in the amount calculable for buildable land. So, therefore, Isuggest -- that that be stricken and if the applicant wishes to cluster, then he should include just the future section to the north of that which is about 20 acres. The lots also will be very small, and even with the removal of these buildings, will be extremely small. Will these tiny, little cottages remain? If they are not, are they going to be knocked down and rebuilt? Therefore, will they have to come back here again for variances for setbacks? There is the new wetlands regulations from the Trustees that buildings be placed 75' back from mean high water. Will they be able to meet this? What are the septic solutions to this problem:? Are they going to retain the septic tanks that they have now or are they putting in new ones? How will they be done? Mr. Forc~elli has just said that on the new master plan, that part of this property is up for marine/commercial. I would like to remind Mr. Forchelli that he said the Planning Board change of zone. It is not the Planning Board that changes zone. It is only the Town Board that changes zone. Only then after a public hearing. There are areas on the proposed master plan that are inaccurate. The Planning Board knows this. I have spoken to them about it. They left them on the proposed master plan so the public could have it now instead of perhaps 6 to 12 months from now. Now, these items can be addressed one by one as they come up. We also have a question as to the future plans for the future sections, especially that which is contiguous to Young's Marina. We feel that this is not the place for any expansion of any marina type service or any other commercial uses. Therefore, we do oppose this. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in opposition to this particular application? Mr. Forcehlli, would you like to add something? MR. FORCHELLI: Mr. Flynn spoke of a hardship and pain. I did not speak of a hardship related to dollars. I don't think that is really relevant here. In addition to the setbacks from the high water mark, being somewhat familiar with the regulations of the tidal wetlands act, the property is behind a substantial man-made barrier over 100' in length and therefore, that does not apply in that area. In any event, DEC will have to give a permit if this were approved and I am sure they will regulate what is done under their regulations. As a matter of fact, Mr. Flynn is well aware that we have been in touch with DEC. With respect to additional houses. There are 19 cottages on 19 lots. There will be no more than 19 houses, if the cottages are moved and a house is built, total at any time would be 19. As far as that 2.5 acres ZBA May 2, 1985 Paege 10 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. FORCHELLI continued: for a boat basin, being later used for something else, everything that is part of this map for Section 1. will stay vacant except for those 19 lots. And in that boat, the 19 lot owners will come in and out with their boats. This is not a a subterfuge to make 20 lots or 25 lots or 28 lots. It's 19. With respect to destroying property values by a marina being put in there, we bought this property knowing the zoning and knowing existing structures and uses. At the time that we submitted it, the application to the Planning Board, there was correspondence back and forth, and we submitted as an overlay a possible development, which we are happy to live with of the Section 2. This is dated November 12th and was submitted to the Planning Board as an overlay, which by the way, I would like to submit it at this time, shows 12 additional lots in Section 2. They range in size from 84,000 feet up to 131,000 feet, three of them on the cove. I would like to submit this and indicate pub- licly that we are very happy to live with this. We have not ap- plied for a change of zone. We are not seeking a change of zone, but the Town Board, in its legislative function, will do what it wants. I will publicly state that we have not requested it. We are happy to live with this and you may ask, you have lots there that are 130,000 feet, that's over the 80,000. Could you have squeezed more in? Yes, we could have squeezed more in. But just coincidentally, the 19 we are talking about in Section 1 and the 12 on that total 31, which is precisely the number of cottages that are there now. That number was not picked by ~ mistake or coincidentally. That number was picked so we still have 31. With respect to septic systems, that's a question for the Department of Health, and we realize full well, if this were ap- proved, the Department of Health will require sanitary systems. Now, we talk about property across the street being open. That property mak require denitrification system or what have you to service these 19 lots. It is there, so it is available, if that is required. If these 19 lots are going to have denite to go - across the street and use up 3 acres, it is there. That is what it is intended to be. I just take issue with one statement made by Mr. Weissman when he talked about the type of zoning and he cited a case, Van Dusen v. Jackson. I think there is one coming down on a case that appeared in the Law Journal on the 17th of April 1985, of which I will submit a copy to you, which case cites the North Fork Motel case, which I am sure you are aware of. Zoning has to do with use of property. There is a legal, non-conforming there but what we are saying to you is we have practical difficulties ZBA Page 11 May 2, of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage 1985 MR. FORCEHLLI, continued: in that we have legal non-conforming we have 31 cottages. We are coming in here with an application where we are looking for 31 spread out all over the property. The cove area, which these people are concerned about, I think their real concern is the master plan, not what we are doing, or what we are proposing to do. We only show that we do 3 lots in that area. We are very happy to live with that. We would not ask for a change of zone. We bought it as R-A, we will keep it as R-A. That is basically where we stand on it. We are not claiming hardship. We are claiming let's do some- thing that's good in the spirit of what is there. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. FLYNN: May I respond? If you examine the application sub- mitted by the applicant, it does claim hardship. Hardship is expressed in terms of dollars and cents. And dollars and cents particularly are indicated when the variance implies a change of use. Now, if I am supposed to take any credence whatsoever in the maps that are provided by your Planning Department and their consultants, that small area of 19 acres, of 19 houses on 6 acres, is classified a multi-family use or tourist homes. Now, we have proposed here a change of use. Steinhilder is the ruling case on that and I am sure I don't have to recite that to you people. Now, with respect to the marina. The marina site is proposed for the use of these houses. The Town ordinance says that a single owner and it would be a single owner of all these 19 houses in the form of an association, can only moor 2 boats, not 19 boats or 15 boats whatever it may be, and also it would be necessary to rebuild that with permission from the DEC, as far as the bulkheading is concerned; as far as any potential dredging is concerned; anything of that nature. So that is a refutation of that argument. Now, the map, so-called map, if you look at it, was drawn up in a hurry at the request of the Planning Board, if I recall my study of the correspondence. It in no way meets the standards or the rudimentary standards that are expected of a map to be filed either with the Planning Board Or to be presented before the Board of Appeals. Again, I say, this is another aspect of this application that insults the intelligence and integrity of the Board that they should even consider such a presentation. Again, gentlemen, I thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Flynn. DO I have any comments from either sides? Mr. Weissman, do you have any other comments? MR. WIESSMAN: No, not at the present. ZBA May 2, 1985 Page 12 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage RUTH OLIVA: Just a question with Mr. Forchelli. When you submit the plan for the two future sections as they are pre- sented now, in other words, if you get the approval for the cluster, then it would be written that you must divide the future sections the way they are presented tonight? MR. FORCHELLI: I would have no problem covenanting that. NO problem at all. But the Planning Board has asked and we sub- mitted to them a letter indicating that if the zone is changed we will develop it according to the change of zone RUTH OLIVA: You mean as far as the master plan? MR. FORCHELLI: Yes. In other words, what I indicated was, to Mr. Weissman and Mr. Flynn, we perfectly would be willing to develop it as per Section 2, knowing full well, that if some of that is wetlands and we don't get 12 and we get 11 out of it, we will get 11 out of it. We know that. But they are in the process of the master plan and if Mr. Flynn and Mr. Weissman, and whoever else is opposed to a marina there, they are fighting the wrong army on their own battlefield by coming here. We are not asking for that. That argument has to be made against the master plan and against those who would change or who are promoting the master plan. We have no desire to have that, but can I just say something. I cannot commit to something that they change the zone on. They have requested that we submit a letter and we have, that if they do change the zone, we will develop it according to how they change the zone. RUTH OLIVA: hearing? But again, does that have to come before a public MR. FORCHELLIP I will be there and I will publicly state that I hope they don't change the zone and I request that they don't change the zone and that's in your minutes. I cannot control, and you know and I know, just like the present Town Board can't legislatively restrict what a Town Board 5 years from now can do. They have to have their legislative prerogatives. Most Town Boards cannot restrict the later Town Boards On their legislative pre- rogatives. But I will publicly state that if they change the zone, I can't help that. I don't want them to change the zone. It is on the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forchelli, the only thing we did overlook was the DEC. Would you just give us a brief comment on what you had said concerning the DEC? ZBA May 2, 1985 Page 13 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. FORCEHLLI: With regard to the setbacks from the water? There is a substantial man-made barrier over 100' in length running along the shoreline. These cottages are behind that. Consequently, the landward edge of the tidal wetlands and the adjacent areas ends at the man-made barrier. Therefore, what is behind that they do not have jurisdiction over. On the ends they come in slightly on their jurisdiction. Our application is pending before DEC, Mr. Flynn is w~ll aware of that, he has already had correspondence with them. I can presume I can imagine what it is, but I haven't seen it yet. In any event, DEC would have to approve this. There are many approvals which have to be secured. Planning Board, Town Board, DEC, ZBA and if this were granted it would be subject to DEC giving their approval on it. MR. CHAIP~4AN: Thank you. MR. FLYNN: Again, this remark is completely countered to my experience of the actions of the DEC in our immediate area, of which I am intimately familiar. As recently as 3 years ago, a neighbor across the street from me built a new home on a bulkheaded canal and he was constrained to build 65' back from a bulkhead, which was far more than 100' in length and he was only constrained to build 65' because this was a man-made canal and were it natural in nature, he would and was told, would have had to build 75' back from this newly installed bulkhead. Against that on the Sage propert} we have deteriorating bulkheads of limited use and really nothing tha~ serves as a buffer from what the department considers to be sensi- tive wetlands. They consider it shoal areas immediately to the south of the bulkhead. As a matter of fact, this entire cove area is classified as wetlands and is classified as a fragile area to be maintained. And here we have a rapacious use that would absolutely destroy the utility of the cove to the entire community and to all those who benefit from it as a source of breeding grounds for shellfish and some of the rarest wildlife in the area. It is a breeding ground for swans; geese. I am intimately familiar with it from having been in the State Of Maine, we have loons nesting in the area. To include a commercial marina in this area is absolutely a devastating thing to do, and I would not want it on my conscience to do other than resist this to the last drop of blood in my body. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. FORCHELLI: I just have to respond to that. I am not asking to put a stick of wood in the ground in the cove area. I have stated that we would be very happy to develop it residentially. Mr. Flynn would like to fight against it and so would other people in the area, I have no problem with that. I am not looking to develop that as a marina. I am not looking to touch a thing in there. Thank you. ZBA May 2, Page 14 1985 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions from Board members? I would like to thank the public, both pro and con for their courtesy tonight. I thank the comments from the NFEC and we will take everything un~r advisement and within the next 60 days we will discuss this issue to the best of our ability and look over the individual documents that have been submitted and the statements made at this particular hearing. I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ZBA April 11, 1985 AppealS3320 - At 7:40 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP/SAGE, for a variance for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in this pro- posed cluster development-subdivision and insufficient setback of buildings. 67380 Main Road, Sage Boulevard, Greenport. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Raynor, are you representing Mr. Forcehlli? MR. RAYNOR: Yes, if it pleases the Board, my name is Henry Raynor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a minute, Henry. Mr. Higgins in the back there, could I ask you to close those doors, please. Thank you very much. MR. RAYNOR: Both myself and Mr. Forchelli and a principal of Sage Development Corporation are here this evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that mike over there? tonight. Henry, do you think I could ask you to use I am not positive that they are working MR. RAYNOR: We are here seeking relief to the Building Inspector's notice under Section 131, Article 3 and Article I Section 106 for insufficient setbacks in the area. As stated in the application for appeal, the first section for development is laid out here, would remove the 12 units from the point that exists on the site. In doing so, a proposal is before both the Town Board and the Planning Board. TO date it has the approval of the Planning Board for sketch plan. The Town Board has reviewed the plan approved the concepts for the area. Planning Board has declared under State Environmental Review Acts that this is a negative declaration to the environment. The proposal itself is unique in that the dwelling units pre-exist all the ordinances by probably 30/40 years and the variance requested on the property with regard to the cluster would bring the property density down by subdivision to the current 80,000 s.f. The character of the area would not be changed; it would only be improved with the reduction of density and we would hope that the Board has had sufficient information that we have supplied in both the analysis of the property and the documents that they have requested. ZBA April 11, 1985 Page 2 of Bayview Development Corp./Sage MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we thank you for all your cooperative help on this this evening in this particular endeavor. One thing I would like to ask you, and of course we have had, as I have indicated, when you have asked me, many people come in the office concerning this application. I have no idea if they have shown up tonight, we will see in the near future. The Section 1 indicated on the extreme west side, what is the actual intent of that particular piece of property? MR. RAYNOR: That will be a completely open area reserved, to be left in a natural state. Primarily to come up with present zoning ordinance standards. We have computed out for you all the wetlands and deleted those from the formula and therefore come up with this arbitrary line which is a little greater than the 80,000 s.f. re- quirement. MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we could call this a scenic easement; or land held in perpetuity; or anything of that particular nature? MR. RAYNOR: Yes, it is held and we have already stipulated that it will not be built on. MR. CHAIRMAN: That is through the covenants and restrictions in the Planning Board process? Where have you indicated that? MR. RAYNOR: Under cover of letter, separately to your Board, we have indicated it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I again am verbalizing this for the people in the audience that had questions of what was going in there. The in- dication of Section 1 2.5 acres, which appears to be a small tri- butary marina type, adjacent to the marina, which is not apart of this particular parcel, will be serviced as a marina? What is going to happen with that piece? J. FORCHELLI: Are you referring to this? That will remain open and the proposed 19 lots will have space here to keep their boats or access to the water. Nothing would be built upon this. It would remain open with the exception of maybe little docks or slips for boats for the 19 property owners and no one else. MR. RAYNOR: This backs up approximately to the back part of the Zeh~ler boatyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody in the back who can't see this? Why don't you put it right up here, Henry? I just thought they might want to see it back there. Why don't you just...can you see that all right now? We have a copy right here which we can give you. ZBA April 11, 1985I Page 3 of Bayview Development Corp./Sage MR. F[¥NN : I would like, if I may, to have dedicated the first parcel that was described to remain left forever wild. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you designate that for us, Mr. Forchelli? J. FORCHELLI: Yes. This 29 acres in this area will be forever natural, nothing can be built on it. In addition, a part of the disconnected portion, will be a nature preserve fore~er. This portion will be a beach area for the 19 proposed dwellings and this 2.5 acres here w.Quld remain natural with exception of possible docking, etc.. This section here is not part of the application. This whole area here we are not seeking to do anything with at this time. That's the future section. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask a question, Mr. Forchelli? You had indicated that there was another parcel that. would not be built on and used. Were you referring to the island? MR. FORCHELLI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. FORCHELLI: with respect to point they will We do not propose or request or ask for anything the area designated as future sections and at this ju$% remain as they are until a later date. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there Town water running into this piece at all? MR. FORCHELLI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I donLt think I have any further questions. Let's see what develops. Is there anybody else other than the applicants or the agents, that would like to speak on behalf of this application~ H. DRUMM: I would just like to say I am very familiar with the piece of property, iarge open spaces existing 31 units and as I understand the proposal there will be a reduction down to 19 units with the island of nature conservancy and I think very seldom that we in the Town have the opportunity to preserve as much open space as they have proposed. I feel it's a good plan and I recommend that the Board approve the plan as presented. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else On behalf of this application? Against the application? Kindly state your name, sir? HENRY WEISSMAN: I reside at 940 Tarpon Drive and I am an attorney at law and I am here tonight representing Charlotte Weissman, my wife. I was retained last night. It happens that Charlotte is an adjoining property owner and examination of the application and a list of property owners that were notified pursuant to the provisions of Section 100-125 of the ordinance, which apparently is jurisdictional, indicates that a number of adjoining property owners were not notified of this application. I can name a few. ZBA April 11, 1985 Page 4 of Bayview Development Corp/Sage MR. WEISSMAN - continued: Rackin on Tarpon Drive; Barry on Tarpon Drive, formerly Walters; Charlotte; Chilton. You see Charlotte and Chilton own underwater land adjoining the under- water land described at 11 or so acres on this map. Under the terms of Section 100-125 of the ordinance it stated that a person owning such a situation must be given ~tice. So, I therefore move at this time that the Board deny the application and of course allow the petitioner to submit it again after giving proper notice to all parties who are to be notified. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Weissman, can I just ask you one question? You had alluded to your wife's property, first. Is that contiguous as to water or to land? MR. WEISSMAN: It's land under water. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, it's riparian rights under water. MR. WEISSMAN: It's land under water. No riparian rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay; MR. WEISSMAN: Mr. Bracken's property joins above the land and so does the Barry property, on top. And they received no notice. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you assume these people would be here if they had? MR. WEISSMAN: I would think so. They certainly would make in- quiry. And we are opposed to the application in its present form. I made the application to deny the application pending resubmissio~ and proper notice. Next, if you see fit not to do so, then I request a one month adjournment so that we have the opportunity to prepare after due preparation, present all arguments and oppositions on the application. Or if you feel that you prefer not doing that, we request that we have one month, that the hearing be held over for one month so that written objections to the application can be made. Frankly, I have had since last night to review this thing. I~s brought up to date on the application last night by my neighbor~ Mr. Flynn, who had spent a little time looking into it and it is quite a scheme. Number 1, I think it is an absolute violation of the spirit and intent of the ordinance. You provide for cluster zoning and here they come in with a cluster zoning using one piece of property that is not even contiguous to the properties they intend to build on for the purpose of providing land to compensate for the land re- quired in a cluster. My goodness, you could come in here and say I will give you land in Mattituck for the application. This land is not even contiguous. One of the obvious things is the use of the summer bungalows as an excuse for the variances reducing the side yards and rear yards and lot area and front yards, is really a sham. Certainly the building sites and they are proposed are so large that not one of these bungalows would fit into it. They are so tiny. ZBA APril 11 , 1985 Page 5 - Bayview Development Corp/Sage MR. WEISSMAN - continued: It's obvious that they are all going to be destroyed or removed and that something else is going to be built there. The use of the bungalows is only being utilized for the purpose of creating some kind of hardship. They knew what they were buying. They were buying a non-conforming situation. The only hardship that they could have here is hardship that is self- created. The Board has no authority to grant them relief in a self-created hardship. It would take a matter of a few weeks to develop a clear in- sight as to what this~project is about and to present it adequately to this Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? MR. KLEIN: I live at 835 Tarpon Drive. I would like to endorse everything that Mr. Weissman has said and point out that as I under- stand the concept of cluster zoning, the reduction of lot size and the use of cluster zoning is a relief in and of itself, lot size would represent a 50% reduction. Some of these lots are 9,000 s.f., which represents a reduction of approximately 82% in area. The setbacks, sideyards represent 30 or 40% in addition to the permitted variance under cluster zoning, the so-called 19 lots on 29 acres, physically consists of 19 lots on 5.25 acres and if that constitutes a legal cluster concept, in my 35 years of experience, I have never seen anything quite like this. What you have here is the filing of a map which consists of variance piled upon variance. It is the duty of zoning to eliminate non-conforming use. What you have here is an application that will create a map which in its entirety is a non- conforming use. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Klein. on behalf of this application? Is like to say, Mr. Forchelli? Anybody else like to be heard there anything that you would J. FORCHELLI: In terms of the objection that there was not notice given to those on Tarpon Drive there, the variances requested are not in that area. They are adjacent to the proposed future ss[t~on there. The variance requested on the east end of the property and I respectfully submit to you the case of Gaona v. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of A~peals, 483 NYS 2nd p.430, decided December 31, 1984, which stands for the proposition that the lack of notice in this area is not a jurisdictional defect and therefore does have juris- diction over the application. With respect to the statements about the schemes, or what have you, there are presently 31 cottages with a certificate of occupancy for the 31. All we are seeking to do here is reduce 31 cottages to 19 lots. The density is being reduced, it is not being enlarged and the variances which we are seeking would foster the reduction of the density from 31 to 19. In terms of the 19 proposed lots on 5.75 or 6.0 acres, there presently is 31 in that amount of area. We think that this application is preserving open space and not detracting or using up open space. The development in the area where it presently is but in a reduced amount. We are reserving areas to be open, such as the island portion and this por- tion on the Main Road and we think that the application is a good one and should be considered favorably. ZBA April 11, 1985 Page 6 of Bayview Development Corp/Sage MR. FORCHELLI - continued: I think that we all know what we are talking about. We are talking about mehhod of ownership and splitting up ownership of the property and we are not talking about density or increase in density. We are talking about reduction in density and change in ownership or type of ownership. I respectfully submit that it is a good application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Weissman. MR. WEISSMAN: I would just like to point out to this Board that here we are not concerned with the question of judicial interpretatio~ What is an adjoining owner? Your ordinance is absolutely explicit. It states that in the event that any petitioner owns or has any in- teres~ in any property immediately adjacent to the property which is the subject of said petition, that written notice should also be given to the owners of the property adjacent to such other property of the petitioner. There it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you have anything else that you would like to say? Mr. Flynn, anything that you would like to say? At this particular time I think we will take a 3 minute recess and discuss the possibility here o a recess, or no recess and close the hearing and we will come back with a verdict or a decision. So, I make a motion recessing for approximately 3 minutes. Recess. MR. CHAIRMAN: Occasionally situations occur, where certain legal points come up and as you know the Town attorney is not with us at this particular time to suggest what he might suggest as being a remedy to this act. So, I basically have a philosophy and a request from both parts. One, the philosophy is the philosophy of the Town Board and we are, of course, sitting representing them at this particular time. It has been their philosophy that everyone in the Town be heard. Therefore, I am going to ask Mr. Forchelli to please give us notice through the Town assessor's office that you have notified everybody. I am going to ask you, Mr. Weissman, to send a letter indicating people that you feel haven't been notified and I will recess this hearing unless there is further comment on this until May 2nd. Being the last hearing of that evening because we have a full calendar for that docket already and if there is any question from anybody, I will take it right now. Either side? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing the hearing until May 2nd~ All in favor. Thank you very much for coming in. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RrlAD- STATE RnAD 25 c:nUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 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: ×X Variance from the Zoning Code, Article III, Section ]00-3] and Variance from Determination of Building Inspector ~ Special Exception, Article Special Permit Article XIII, Section 100-136(A) Southold Town , Section Appeal No.: 3320 Applicant: BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. (from Location of Affected Land: Sage Blvd. (private road), Main Road, County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 053-05-00], 001.3, 12.3 "Breezy Within 500 feet of: -- Town or Village Boundary Line X Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) [Pipes Cove] X State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway __ Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally- Owned Land __ Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or Other Recreation Area __ Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Estab- lished Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant __Within One Mile of An Airport. COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting ~mrmi~im~x~mxxx approval of a 19-lot (substandard) cluster development/subdivision for part of Sage) Greenport Shores" the entire premises as shown on the enclosed map. (Decision is pending at this time.) S~r'u~ture~ wll~ ~op~es o~ Town review. "Future sections" are proposed to be reserved. Also~ ~O~ me'e~ varo se~acKs . · ±e and Yelated documents enclosed herewith for your Dated: May 28, 1985. Secretary, Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SI-iUTHI3LD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE (516) 765.1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI April 30, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY ll501 Re: Appeal of Bayview Development Corp./Sage Appeal No. 3320 Dear Mr. Forchelli: Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence received today from Mr. Henry C. Weismann. Article XII, Section 100-125 of the Code of the Town of Southold requires written notice by either certified or registered mail to every owner of property immediately adja- cent to the premises which is the subject of this petition, and the word "owner" means the owner as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town. It is requested that written notice by certified mail be sent to all adjacent owners of land abutting the subject premises, and that you confirm same with the A~sessors Office. If these individuals are not present at the hearing on May 2nd, an additional recess may be necessary. Enclosed is a copy of Section 100-125 of the Code and a blank notice to neighbors form which should be completed, signed, notarized and returned as early as possible. Yours very truly, CHA I RMAN lk Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 6, 1985 Jeffrey Forchelli Attorney at Law 120 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Sage Property Section I, Cluster Dear Mr. Forchelli: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 4, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the aketch map for the cluster subdivision of "Sage Property, Section I" located at Greenport for 19 lots on 38 acres, plans dated as last revised Januarys21, 1985 subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances needed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN WN PLANNING^BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, ~etary cc: Zoning Board of Appeals April 25, 19~5 [~oard of Ap[.caln of The Town of Southold Southold Town Hall ,qaln ~oad Southold, N.Y. 1197] !:e: Variance Applteatlon ,~f' ~i:tvv ,,~ ,) velop,?m~,nt Corp.~Sere ~ent 1 o.~le n: In accordance with your reql.l~.:;t made at the April ]1, 1985 hearing in the above matter ['ol[owlnl~ i.a a list o£ :~ome o~ tbolto OWfl~,rf~ or [,r'ol,~,rl, y f~.J;t(:~nl; t;o the !mtltl. oners prol.erty uithin the meanlnr: ~,~' Sec. ]00-125 of the Southold Town ZonlnF,.Code to whom a notice ~I' thr application was not sent: 1) Leonard Walter:; & eno., P.O.I*ox 159, New Suffolk, ~;.Y. 11956 Ta× )lap Sec 5'{ Block 5 Lot 5 Southcld Shore Lot ~48 2) Robert Bracken & eno., 32 Lichtfleld Road, Port Wa:;hinaton, N.Y. 11050 Tax Nap Sec 53 Block 5 Lot g Southald Shorcz Lot #49 3) Charlotte Wolsmann ~ eno., Tarpon Drive, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Tax Map Sec 57 Block 1 Lot 39.2 4) l~obert Chilton, lh..~,chwood l,ane, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Tax Map Sec 57 21ock 1 Lot While the above were owners ar; shown on' the latest assessment roil adjacent area of So,Il;hold :]hor~; there apprar to he other adjacent property owner~ to thc east of the appliear~t's preml ses to whom notice~; were not illai l~,d one of whom Anasthesia Group, P.C.~ c/o [tortram S. ltolder, Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238 Tax r(ap f~ec 53 Block Lot 46.1. I do not represent that thc above is a complete list of those adjacent owners to whom notlce was not F, iven. Very truly yours, ' '(,t / / , IIr~NItY C./ WF, ISMANN § 100-123 ZONING § 100-125 § 100-123. Rules of conduct and procedure. The Board of Appeals shall, consistent with the law, determine its own rules of conduct and procedure. § 100-124. Fees. [Amended 2-1-83 by L.L. No. 2-1983] All applications to the Board of Appeals for any relief provided for herein shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty-five dollars § 100-125. Notice of hearing. [Added 5-30-75 by L.L. No. 3-1975] --:~A~. -~-n all cases where the Board of Appeals is required to hold a public hearing, in addition to the notice of such hearing required by law, a written notice containing the following information shall be sent by the person petitioning such Board, or his agent, by either certified or registered mail, to every owner of property immediately adjacent thereto. In the event that any petitioner owns or has any interest in any property immediately adjacent to the property which is the subject of such petition, then written notice shall also be given to the owners of the property adjacent to such other property of the petitioner. For the purpose of this section, the words "owner" or "property owner" mean the owner as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold. The notice required by this section shall be mailed by the petitioner, or his agent, within five (5} days preceding the filing of the petition in the Town Clerk's office. Proof of mailing of such notices in the form of a sworn statement shall be filed with the Town Clerk at the time of filing of the petition. Such notice shall contain the following information: (1) A statement that the petitioner proposes to apply to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold for a variance, special exception, special permit or other specified relief, as the case may be. (2) A description sufficient to identify the property which is the subject of the petition. 10057 .~- 2s- sa April 25, 1985 Board of Appeals of The Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Re: Variance Application of Bayview Developement Corp./Sage Gentlemen: In accordance with your request made at the April ll, 1985 hearing in the above matter following is a list of some of those owners of property adjacent to the petitioners property within the meaning of Sec. 100-125 of the Southold Town Zoning Code to whom a notice of the application was not sent: 1) Leonard Walters & ano., P.0.Box 159, New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Tax Map Sec 53 Block 5 Lot 5 Southold Shore Lot #48 2) Robert Bracken & ano., 32 Lichtfield Road, Port Washington, N.Y. 11050 Tax Map Sec 53 Block 5 Lot 6 Southold Shores Lot #49 3) Charlotte Weismann & ano., Tarpon Drive, Southold, N.Y. llg?l Tax Map Sec 57 Block I Lot 39.2 4) Robert Chilton, Beachwood Lane, Southold, N.Y. llg?l Tax Map Sec 57 Block 1 Lot 39.4 While the above were owners as shown on the latest assessment roll adjacent area of Southold Shores there appear to be other adjacent property owners to the east of the applicant's premises to whom notices were not mailed one of whom is Anasthesia Group, P.C., c/o Bertram S. Holder, M.D., 356 Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238 Tax Map Sec 53 Block 6 Lot 46.1. I do not represent that the above is a complete list of those adjacent owners to whom notice was not given. Very truly you~rs, AKMAND P D'AMATO* JEFFREY D FORCHELL]* JACK L LIBERT* PETERA IOVINO~ DONALD dAY SCHWARTZ* PETER K MINEO* THOMAS d. DUNCAN* RICHARD C. GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARNERI* PETER ALPERT* D'AMAT0, FORCHELLI, LIBEKT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ 8 MINE0 COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. 0 BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 (516) 248-1700 April 16, 1985 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N W. WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (202) 783-4802 OF COUNSEL JAMES W PAKI~S* ROBERTA MELILLO* Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp./Sage Dear Chairman Goehringer: I am writing to you with regard to the objection made at the public hearing concerning notice to surrounding owners. In con- nection therewith, I enclose a copy of your letter dated October 31, 1984, which advised us of the parties to be notified. I believe that your letter is absolutely correct because the owners on Tarpon Drive are not within the required distance of any lot which is the subject of a variance. Further, you adjourned the hearing and the objectants now have actual notice of the adjourned date and, consequently, their argument is without merit for this additional reason. In support of my position, I enclose herewith a copy of the Appellate Division decision in Gaona v. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals. D'AMATO, FOR. CHELLI, LIBER. T, IoviNo, SCHWARTZ ~ MINEO COUFISELOR.$ AT LAW Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Develo?ment Corp./Sage April 16, 1985 Page Two The last paragraph of the decision appears to be exactly on point with our situation. That case involved a store in a shop- ping center and the Court determined that failure to give notice to everyone within 200 feet of the exterior limits of the shopping center was not a jurisdictional defect. The Court further stated that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the application and, therefore, had the opportunity to present their views. Your ad- journing the hearing to May 2nd gives the objectants ample oppor- tunity to be heard as well as actual notice of the hearing. As an aside, I would like to advise you that this Thursday, I am meeting with Mr. Weismann regarding our proposal. Mr. Weismann has advised me that he has spoken with his neighb( cuss this matter on all their behalf. JDF/js Enclosures Very truly you~ ~.~, ind will dis- :LLI 183 NE9,' YORK SUPPL~T, In any e~vnt, plaintiff has failed to prove reasonable reliance as a matter of law. It was apparent that a day might come when Manhattan would no longer own the prop- erty, and even if plaintiff was entitled to rely on the provisions of the will, the will indicated that the restrictions were to be followed only insofar "as may be practica- ' ble, consistent with the purpose of this gift". 2d SERIES 1. Zoning and Planning ~571 As owners of property located within approximately 700 feet of subject building and adjoining wqster!y border of shopping center, petitioners were, as a matter of law "aggrieved persons" upon whom section of the town law conferred stand!rig to seek judicial review of zoning board's determina. tions regarding application for parking var- ianee. MeKinney's Town Uaw, § 267, subd. 7. 2. Zoning and Planning ~:~280 Zoning board of appeals ~nterp etat on of parking ordinance, under which total parking requirements of various busieesse~ contained in shopping center must be eon- sidered in determining whether a proposed reduction in off street parking requir, ments exceeds the 50% limitation was, rea- sonable. e In the Matter of Ciro GAONA, et 3. Zoning and Planning ~:~509 ~ :~ al., RespondentS, ' Since a total of 549 parking spacea ,~ v. ~vere required' for shopping center' under " zoning ordinance and variance merely re-' ;: ~ TOWN OF HUNTINGTON ZONING .~ duced requirement by 20 spaces, or less BOARD OF APPEALS, et al., Appellants. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Dec. 31, 1984. In proceeding brought to review d~tor- mination of town zoning board of appeals Which granted application for parking vari- ance, appeal was taken from judgment of (he Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Mcln- eraey, J., which annulled determination and denied application. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: (1) petition- ers had standing to bring proceeding; (2) zoning board of appeals did not exceed its authoi'ity by granting variance; and (3) de- cision of board was not voidf~ven though board mailed notice only to persons owning property within a radius of 200 feet of the proposed retail auto parts store. Judgment reversed and determination confnwaed. than four percent, zoning board of appeals did not exceed its authority by granting parking variance. 4. Zoning and Planning ~=534 Zoning board of appeals' decision granting parking variance was not void. even though board mailed notice only to persons owning property within a radius of 200 feet of the proposed retail auto pans store, in that notice requirement is nm jurisdictional and, in any event, petitioners had actual knowledge of planned conver- sion of subject building and of the impend- ing application for variance and therefore they had the opportunity to p~-eeent their views iS they were so inclined. Nicholas A. Sordi, Jr., Town Atty., Hunt- ington (Jerome P. Wallin, Huntington Sta- tion, of counsel), for Town appellantS. Faruolo, Caputi & Wei~traub, Hunting- ton (Robert R. Caputi and Gary N. Wein- p'aub, Huntington, of counsel), for apPe~ lant Elwood Hills Company. GAONA v. TOWN OF Hi~rNTINGTON ZONING BD. Vel~z & Kabas, New York City (Dasil E. Velez, New Yo_rk City, of counsel), for i'e- spendents. Before TITON. E, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, RUBIN and BOYERS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a prqceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, dated October 6, 1983, which granted the application of Elwood Hills Company for a parking variance, the appeal is from a judg- ment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Coun- t~, dated February 6, 1984, which annulled the determination and denied the applica- ti, on. Judgment reversed, on the law, determi- nation confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs payable to appellants appearing separately and fil- ing separate briefs. EIwood Hills Company filed an applica- tion with the Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals for a parking variance reducing the off-street parking require- ments established by the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Huntington to permit a 431 the granting of the variance would not create congestion or traffic hazards b~. cause the shopping center's existing park- lng facilities were adequate to reasonably serve the needs of the proposed use, the zoning board of appeals granted the vari- ance. Petitioners, the owners of property ad- joining the westerly border of the shopping center and located within 700 feet of the proposed auto parts store, thereafter com- menced this article 78 proceeding to review the determination granting the variance. They claimed that the variance was void because the zoning board failed to mail' notice of the public hearing to owners of adjoining property within a radius of 200 feet of EIwood's total property holding as required by section 198-112 (subd. B, par. [2]) of the zoning ordinance and because the zoning board exceeded its authority by granting a variance reducing off-street parking requirements by more than 50%, in violation of section 198-49 (subd. A) of the ordinance. Special Term agreed with peri- tioners that the variance was unlawful be- cause it permitted a reduction in excess of 50%, but did not decide the notice issue. change in use of a certain building from a The 'subject building, a 6,500 square-foot Term correctly rejected 'appellants claim free-standing structure, is part of the El- that petitioners lack standing to bring this wood Shopping Center, owned and man- proceeding. As owners of property located aged by the Elwood Hills Company. The within approximately 700 feet of the sub- shopping center, which fronts on Jericho Turnpike in Huntington, contains approxi- mately 24 retail and commercial establish- racnts and a duplex movie theater. Elwood necded a parking variance to c6nvert the existieg furniture store into a retail auto parm store because, under section 198-47 of the zoniffg ordinance, it was required to provide a minimum of 33 parking spaces for a retail auto parts store (one space per .200 square feet of gross floor area) but only 13 parking spaces for a furniture Xtore (one sil;~e per 500 squ'trc fi:vt of gross ~oor art,iQ. Follo;~ing a public hear- ing, at which El~,~d cstab]~sh(d its inabili- ty ~ let the subject bu~l,li::M to a fun~it~re reviler and a tr:fff~,' exp, rt te~tif~,'l theft ject building and adjoining the westerly border of the Elwood Shopping Center, pe- titioners were, as a matter of law, "ag- grieved persons" upon whom subdivision 7 of section 267 of the Town Law conferred standing to seek judicial review of the zon- ing board's determinations (see .],latter of Prudco Realty v. Palermo, 93 A.D.2d 837, 461 N.Y.S.2d 58, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 656, 467 N.Y.S.2d 830, 455 N.E.2d 483; Matter of Manor Woods Assn. v. Randol. 29 A.D.2d 778, set!, al.~o, 2,[a~q'r of Do:~,laston Uit4c Ass~. v. Gah,in, ;16 NY.2d I, ;/64 N.Y.S 2d 8~0, 324 N.E 2d 317; Gh'n [1~ ad-Glenwood La.ding ('ivic Cou'tci! f'. Town of Oys!er Buy, ~s AD24 194. 45:~ N Y S2,! 732). 4~ NEW YORK SUP [2,3] Special Term erred, however, in holding that the zoning board of appeals exceeded its authority by granting a vari- ance in excess of 50°/~. Section 198-49 {sub& A) of the zoning ordinance provides: "The Zoning Board of Appeals may re- duce the requirements for off-street parking as set forth in [section 198-47] * * ' by not more than fifty percent (50~,) upon a ~mding that the amount of space provided is adequate to reasonably serve the use proposed". ~ Special Term apparently looked to the 33- parking-space requirement for retail auto parts steres in determining that the vari- ance reducing parking requirements by 20 spaces exceeded the 50% reduction permit- ted under section 198-49 (sub& A). The zoning board of appeals, however, has con- strued the ordinance differently, reading section 198-49 (subd. A) together with sec- tion 198-45, entitled "Interpretation .and modification of requirements". Subdivi- sion C of section 198-45 provides that "[w]here more than one (1) use occupies a building or premises, the parking requir~ ments shall be equal to the sum of the requirements for each use". Under the zoning board of appeals' interpretation of the ordinance, the total parking require- ments of the various businesses contained in such an integrated unit as a shopping center must be considered in determining whether a proposed reduction in off-street parking requirements exceeds the 50% limi- tation. This construction is both reason- able and consistent with the principle of statutory construction that a statu~e or or- dinance should be read as a whole and all parts thereof, harmonized to acl~ieve the legislative purpose (see Sanders v. Win- ship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 395-396, 456 N.Y.S.2d 720, 442 N.E.2d 1231; McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes, §§ 97, 98, 130). Moreover, it is well settled that the construction given statutes and regulations . by the agency respons~le for their admin- istration will be upheld if not irrational or unreasonable (Mattzr of Frishman ~. Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823, 825, 473 N.Y.S.2d 957~ 462 NJl.2d 134; Matter of Albert ~. Board of Std~ & A~poal~ 89 3,D.2d 960, 2d SERIES 962, 454 N Y.S.2d 108; see Matter of Jc?~, son v. Joy, 48 N.Y.2d 689, 691, 422 ~; S.2d 56, 397 N.E.2d 746). Since it established at the public hearing that total of 549 parking spaces were requi~ for the shopping center under the ZOoi~ ordinance and the variance merely redace~ such requirements by 20 sp~aces, or le~ than 4%, the zoning board of appeals did not exceed its authority by granting th,.. [41 Finally, we reject petitioners' that the decision of the zoning beard void because the beard failed to mail notice. of the public hearing to owners of adjoi~ lng property within 200 feet of the exteri~ limits of the aPplicant's total property bols lng, here the entire shopping center, required by section 198-112 (subd. B, par. [2] ) of [he ordinance. Notice was given by publication but the beard apparently mailed~ notice only to persons owning properq, within a radius of 200 feet of the proposed retail auto parts store. However, the no- tice requirement is not "jurisdictional" in the sense that petitioners seek to use that term (see Zele~ski v. Incorporated Vil. of Patchogue, 51 A.D.2d 1055, 381 N.Y.S.2d 531; Matter ~of Sarah Laurence ColL v. City Council of Yonkers,: 48 A.D.2d 897, 369 N.Y.S.2d 776), and the failure to give such special notice does ~not render t!~c variance granted by the zoning board void (see Matter of Gazan v. Corbctt, 278 App. Div. 953, 105 N.Y.S.2d 187, affd. 304 N.Y. 920, 110 N.E.2d 739). In any event, the record reveals that petitioners had actual knowledge of the planned conversion of the subject building and of the impending ap- plication for a variance and therefore that they had the opportunity to present their vieWS ff they were so inclined. LEGAL NOTICE NY for a Variance to the Zoning NOTICEISH~I?.~YGIVEN Ordinance Article HI, Sect/on ~ :re ~ ~ of t~l~~ 100-~1 Bulk Schedule, for Town t~w and the Code of the proval of insufficient ama Of lots at 7:a0 p~. T~Ay, MAy 7:30 p~n. Ap~eation for gm0N ~D W~D~ ~ ~ ~ R. W. Oi~ie ~ ~ M~ ~d, ~u~old, ~ for a V~ p~t ~ New York ~ ~w, ~on ~-a, f~ ~val ~ ~ ov~ ~- va~ ~h~f-way ~ ~ 1~ off ~e ~t ~de of~ky ~int ~ad alo~ ~e ~u~erly p~ l~e of I~d of M~ ~d over 1~ of Nowell ~, W prom- ~ iden~fi~ ~ ~ T~ Map ~ 1~, ~on 31, BI~ 2, ~t 10; ~ ~m ~- ~ly ~ 2 ~d3 ~ ~ion No. 81 (1~3-~ 7:~ p.m. App~on of BRUCE M. ~, 622 O~ ~t. Copse, ~ 117~, f~ ' a V~ce ~ ~e ~ ~- ~, ~cle VI, ~n 1~ for ~i~i~ W ~ra~ a ~- ~n~r ~ ~ b~l&ng ~ ~ K~t - ~: ~ Si~ ~ Argue, ~; Co~W T~ ~p ~ ~ 1~, ~ 121, BI~ 5, ~2. 7:~ p.m. A~li~fion ~r~ ~ ~y P. S~), l~iH- wa~ Argue, ~e, ~ f~aV~~ · ~, ~e ~, ~on 1~ 31, B~ ~e, f~ a~ ~ ~ at ~ ~ (~ ~ly) ~ ~ Awns, ~ 1~, ~n 1~, BI~ in this proposed two-lot division of land located on the North Side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, 1000, Section 121, Blork 01, Lot 8:00 p.m. Application for MR. AND MRS. HOWARD L. YOUNG(by J. DeRsuder) 28545 Main Road Orient, ~/Y for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100- 31, BuJk Schedule, for approval of irmufficient area of two lots in this ih-~posod three*lot division of land located on the North Side of Main Road and the East Side of Browns Hill Road, Orient, NY; Comity Tax Map Di~x/ct 1000, Section 18, Blsok 06, l~ot 24. 8:10 p.m..l?mcenve~ Hearing of l~ew proval of insufficient area (and width) Of lots in this proposed cluster d~vel0pment at 67380 Main llaad, Ureenpor~, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 53, Black 5, Lots 1 1.3, 12.3 (at Breezy. Shor~). The Board of Appeals will hear at said ~ and place any and all porsens deciring to be hsurd in each of the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Dated: April 17; 1985. BY ORDER OF BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD p. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By L. Kowalski, Se~mry (516) 765-1809 (alt. 1802) 1TA25-4868 S'rATE OF NEW YORK ) ) S8: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ~wwi T.;~rl$ of Greenport, in ·mid CounW, being duly sworn, says that he/aha Is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, · Weekly Nemmpaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of SUffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed ia a printed copy, has been regularly published In said Newspaper once each week for one weeks auccem.lvely, commencing on the 2 5 dayof ~p~il 19 - -. :J~ ~.?~.~-~ ~ Princlp. I Clerk ~.~,- ~'~ 25 ~ Sworn to before me thi~ dayof April 19~ ~ ~ MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORX HO~C~ OF HEARIHGS IS .HERESY GrV- EN~ p~uant to se~ion 267 of ~e-~ ~w and ~ ~de of the TOwn~ of ~old, the fo~qw~g publiC ~e~ngs ~1 be held by ~e ~u~o~ .~wn or ,p Zae the ~u~old Tow~ M~n Road, ~uthold, NY at a Regul~ Meeting, ~menc- ~g at 7:30 p.m. ~DAY, ~r~S, by ~lispie as agent, Main ~fi ~uthold, New York Town ~Section 2~, ~approv~¥ access over private ~ht~way to be l~ate5~ off~ e~t side of R~y~ Road a~ong the sou~erly prope~y line of land of Metropoulos ~d over land ~ Howell ~tate, to praises identified as County T~ ~p ~st~ 1~, S~ion 31, Bilk 2, ~t 10; and more p~kular- ly ~ts 2 and 3 of Minor Subdivision N~. 81 (1973~Ret- ~os). 7:~ p.m. ~p~ication of Street Copi~?~Y 11726, for a Variance ~t6 the ~ning ~dinance, A~M~ ~I, ~ion lffi-~ for ~ion to oper- ate a c~nt~'~hop within existing bni[d~g in thi~ B- li~t busines~ ~ning Di~td~. ~y ~tion: South Side ~und ~venu~, Ma~ituc~; County Tax M~p Di~t~ct 1~, ~ion 1~, BI~ 5, ~t 2. 7:45 p~m. Application for ANN SABA (by P. Sujeskl), 1000 Stillwater Avenue, Cut- chogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article HI, Section 100-31, Bulk Sch- edule, for approval of inanff- icient area andwidth of lots in thts proposed tC~ot divlston located~t the South (westerly) Side oft StiJl~ater Avenue, Cutchogue, mi county Tax Map :District 1000, Section 103~ Block 07, Lot'007. 7:50 p.m. Application for GUY SOBERI~G (by P. Card- inale, Esq.), Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area of lots in this proposed two-lot division of land located on the North Side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section !21, Block 01, Lot 3.1. 8:00 p.m. Application for MR. AND MRS. HOWARD L. yOUNG (by J. De Reeder),28- 545 Main Road, Orient, NY f~r a Variance to the Zoning Ord- Inance, Article HI, Section 100.31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area of two lots in this proposed three-lot division of land locat- ed on the North Side of Main Road and the East Side of Browns Hill Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 18, Block 06, Lot 24. 8:10 p.m. Reconvene Hear- ins of ~A~YVIEW~D.F..~LOP- MENT'COI~../SAGE for app- ro~ area (and width) of lots in this proposed cluster development at 67380 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 53, Block 5, Lots 1, 1.3, 12.3 (at Breezy Shores). The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place any and all persons desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing+ -Dated: April 17, 1985 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 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 .~5- :h- day af~7.-: ~ .... .~?f.~7./. .... ,1 9. ....... Sworn to before me this ..................... day of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public, State of New York No. 4806846 OF APPEALS Town Hall Main Road - S.R. 25 Southold, N.Y. 11971 NO~ICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN, 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 Seuthold Town Board of Appeals at the Southold~ Town Hall, Main Road, $guthold, NY at a Regulsr Meeting, commenc- ing at 7:30 p.m. on THURS- DAY~ APRIl, 11~ 19~, and as follows: 7:30 p.m. I~diLIA T. PIKE, by A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance tothe Zoning Ordin- ance, Article m~ Section 100- 31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area of pro- posed Parcels 1 and 2 and insufficient lot width of Parcel 1, located at the North Side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140.03-26. 7:35 p.m. COLGATE DE- SIGN CORP., by W. Esseks, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct acces. sory building within the west. erly sideyard area. Location of Property: 7-11 Store, North Side of ~Main Road, Cut- chogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-05-24. - 7:40 p.m. ~% VELOPMEHT CORP./SAGE., by J.~ Forchelli, Esq;, 120 Mincola Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article HI, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule and Article XIlI, Section 100- 136A for approval of insuffi- cient area and width of each lot in this proposed lg-lot cluster development or subdivision and insufficient setbacks. Lo- cation of Property: 67380 Main Road, Greenpert, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000- 053-05-001,001.3, 12.3; known and referred to as "Breezy/ Shores." 7:55 l~.m..~IOSEPH LIZEW- SKI, ~9205 Main Road, Cut- chogu~, NY fora Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, S. eo~ti.'on 100-30(B)[6] for permission to construct build- ing for ~rivato membership with an insufficient setback from the easterly property line. Locationof Property: N/S Main Road and E/S Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 102-02-12.1. 8:00 p.m. J~ SKL Special Exception hear- ing to reconvene concerning establishment of racquetball/ private membership club. 8:05 p.m. THOMAS HIG- GINS~, Ruch Lane, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory garage in frontyard area, at 850 Ruch Lane, Southold, NY; County 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 ......... ~.'. ........... day~W~. ;;,,..~..~;q!: f ...... 19 .~.~.'~.' _ Sworn to before me this day of ...... ~.;~.~ .......... ,19 Notary Public BARBARA FbI~ BLS peals at thc Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Seuthold, NY at a Regular Meeting, commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, APRIL 11,1985, and as follows: 7:30 p.m. EMILIA T. PIKE, by A. Wi&ham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insuffi- cient area of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and insufficient lot width of parcel 1, located at the North Side of Mafrl Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-26. 7;35 p.m. COLGA~1~ DE- SIGN CORP., by W. Esseks, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance te the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permis- sion to construct accessory build- ing within the westerly sideyard area. Location of Property: 7-11 ~tore, North Side of Main Road, C*utchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-05-24. /~:40 p~m. BAY~IEW DE-~N / VELOPMENT CORPJSAGE, . { by J. Forchelli, ESq., 120 Mineola / ' _ - \ Blvd, Mineola, NY 11501 for a/ . ~. '' ! Variance to the Zoning Ordi-~ , LEGAL NOTICE ./ nance, Article IH, Section 100- NOTICE1SHEREBYGIVEN, ~ 31, Bulk Schedule and Article~ pursuant to Section 267 of the / xm Section 100-136A~for ap-'~, Town Law and the Code of the ] prov~l of insufficient aYea and Town of Seuthold, ~he foBowing width of each lot in this ~roposed public hearings will be held by 19-lot cluster develop~en~ or the Southold Town Board of Ap] i subdivision and insufficf~nt set- Location of Property:// 167380 Main Road, Greenpertk ]NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.~ /I000~053-05-001,001.3, ,, t23;~ /known and referred to as Breezy /Shore&" ~ ~ ~ 7:55 p.m. JOSEPH '~IJZEWSKI~ 29205 Main Road, Cutehogue, NY for a Variance to the ~oning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[6] for per- mission to construct buihting for private membership with an in- sufficient setback from the cas- teriy property line. Location of Property: N/s Main Road and E/s Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map parcel No. 1000-102-02-12.1. 8:00 p.m. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI - Special Exception heating ~o reconvene concerning ~tablishment ofrasquetha. I1/pri- vate membership club. 8:05 p.m. TOMAS HIC~dSIINS, Ruch Lane, Seuth~ld, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article 111, Section 100-32 for permission to construct acces- sory garage in frontya~t area, at 850 Ruth Lane, Sou~hold, NY; ~{~ounty Tax Map parcel No. 1000-524)2-30. ~* 8:10 p.m. HAROLD CARtL Box 1416, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, ArtAcle HI, Section 10~31 for perlnission to construct deck addition'~wlth an iv. sufficient rearyard setback, at 2045 Mar- rat~ka Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-02-003. 8:20 p.m. DOMINICK VAR- ANO, by R. Lark, E~q., Box 97R, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, Section 100 3l, Bulk Schedule for approval ~f uisul~i- ¢ient area of proposed I~t 3, at premises 6750 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-07-004. 8:30 p.m. WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER, by R. Lark, Esq., Box 973, Cutehol~m, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[131 for permit, sion te '~establish and build one-story building as a faneral home busi- nesa, at premiss of Dalchet Corp., S/s Main Road and W/s Harbor Lane, Cutehogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-97-6-part of 15; containing 2 + acres in area. The Board of Appeals will at said time'ana place hear all per- sons interested in the above mat- ters. Writton comments may also be submitted prior to or during the hearing in question. Dated: March 28, 1985. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD ~. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By L. Kowalski, Secretary (516) 765-1809 (alt~. 1802) 1TA4-4856 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ANNA LEKKAS of Greonport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 4 weeks successively, commencing on the dayof April 19 85 Principal Clerk Sworn to boforo mo this /'~fl' ? ANN M. ABATE / /,~, ~F"~OTA~Y PUBUC, State of New ~ Su,k, lk Count~ No 4748183 Term E~p;ro:~ M.,r~h 20 ARMAND P D'AMATO* SEFFREY D FORCHE[LI* UACK L LIBERT* PETER A IOVINO° DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R MINEO* THOMAS 3 DUNCAN* RICHARD C GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARNERI* PETER ALPERT* D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ 8 MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P O BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 (516) 248 1700 1985 U~ WASHINGTON OFFICE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON, D C 20006 (202) 783 4802 OF COUNSEL gAMES W PARE'S* ROBERTA MELILLO* Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Ms. Linda Kowalski Dear Ms. RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Kowalski: Enclosed please find submitted to the New York vation. a copy of the application which has been State Department of Environmental Conser- The application is presently pending. JDF/js Enclosures Veryi~~Ltruly yours, i'~;: ola N.Y. 11501 ;':' ~a _ ~. Y. 11~91 ]2 ~HIS PROJECT %*lEt REt2L;IRE ADDITIONAL PER~IT5 A*PL~CA]IONS}OR WHICH AREIHF R*SPONSIBIL'TY O* OTHERS ~ Dam ~,~axdl .... ~ Stream Di,turbance ~ 5PDES/NPDES ~ Water 9upp~ Q L I WeIN ~ Freshwater Wetland ~ T,dalWetand~ ~, ~ Y~k ~4 ~, N~ Y~ 1~ --SEE REVERSE SIDE-- 9. Applications for a water supply permit must be accompanied by Supplement W 1, special instructions on which SUPERCEDE certain of the above instructions· See "Water Supply" handbook. 10. Applications for a permit to apply a chemical to control or elimina(e aquatic vegetation fl~ust be accompanied by Supplement A-l, A-2, or 11. Question No. 12 pertains to projects involvin§ two or more applicants. One typical example is a new subdivision, requirin§ a Wetlands Permit for the developer, the project to be within a water district extension, requirin$ a Water Supply Permit for the town. 12. Be sure to enclose proper application fee, noted accordinsly in item 10; see Part 621, Uniform Procedures Rules, Rule ~214 (If in doubt, discuss with Resional Office before submittin¢ applicafionh tB INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION MAY DELAY PRO(ESSING! INFORMATION Application for permit to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is authorized by Environmen- tal Conservation Law, Article 15 (Title 3-Control of Aquatic Insects, Weeds, or Undesirable Fish; Title 5-Stream Protection; Title ~5 Water Supply), Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands), Artic[e 25 (Tidal Wetlands). NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGIONS Region 4 (Sub-Office) - Route lo, Stamio~d N.Y 12167 (6071 652-7364 Region 5 (SulH~fflce) ~ Region 6 (Sub-Office) Huason Street, Warrensburg, N Y i2885 Slate OftJce Building 13151 793-2S55 Region 7 P.O. Box 5170, Fisher Avenue ...... Codland, N Y. 13045 · 748! Henry Clay ~]vd. Liverpool, N.Y. 13088 R f D E R NEW YORK STATE DEPAR'J'i4ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Application for Permit Artfcle 25 (Tidal Wetlands) 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject premises is improved with thirty-one (31) cottages. Applicant seeks to do the following: a. Remove twelve (12) of the existing resi- dential cottages located at the Southeast end of the property (these are Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 on the survey). b. }{ave each of the remaining nineteen (19) cottages on a mapped lot. c. Dedicate the 1.566 acre detached parcel at the Southeast end of the property to nature. (Legal title to be with 19 home- owners.) d. Dedicate the 29 acre parcel at the North end of the property to nature. (Legal title to be with 19 homeowners.) e. Create a common beach area (30,000 sq. ft adjacent to Lot 19) and a common dock area (2.5 acres adjacent to Lot 1) for the bene- fit of the nineteen (19) remaining dwellings. f. Improve the existing roadway from Main Road through the property to the cul-de-sac adja- cent to the common beach. g. Create a future section which is comprised of 29 acres and 11.551 acres under water. No work will be done in this area without all required approvals. h. Install drainage along the roadway as same is required by the Town of Southold. This would collect and recharge the road run-off. P2PJ'iC£ '¥'"'.~ [~;" ,"~.)"£., .,i:S-!T . The pur2n~xe of tills qm:~tio~naire is to as~iot the a)p]icaqt what, if say, ,3e~t. %~,]ts or gp~rov:~!3 '~u~t ]~a obtained b~fora ntartinK wot!: on a ~ro>o:;a2 .~rojoct. If ',ou are not ;ure if t ~e acti,~l 2ro?o3ed 4$ a rcsulated activity or i~ within ~n area :~u]'ject to ~2t. regulation1 (tidal' wet]ands, freshwater .~etl~.nds, etc.) contact our radio%al office for clari- ficatioa, f, pra-applicattou conference with our st~.ff to obtain tuidance Southold; County of Suffolk ISEE AT2A(MLED RIDER[ 1. -leslt.~_ :%~__f..div[%!_o~ ......... ?.,: rc. va] :.' izi J,=9::au Co,.!~tt7 ~.,~..~ 20 lOT 72o~s project involve snbdiv:[s!on o~ laml into 5 or more residential lot'~ that will 5a served by a public or co:m~unity sewage dispo~al system? x 2. 'linin~ PerPit Does oroject tavolve the minink~ and co~mmrcial sale or off-site use of 1,qq3 tons of uineral within 12 calendar ~mnths(excepting excavation or grading in connactioi~ with on ~ite con-- structlon or fa~ln%?) __ 3 ~r Conta~oJnation Perrait a) i~es project iuvolve the construction, modi- 'ficatiou or operation of a boiler greater th~ 1 ~2lli~ BTU/hr rated heat tnout, ~ incinerator or ~ industrial process? __ b)Indirect Source: Does project involve constructim or modifi- cation of a highway, airoort or a parking facility titn 25] or more spaces? x 4.Solid ~aste %m~agement Doe~ project involve the ~tora~e, transfer processing or dimaosal of solid waste? __ x 5.?ild, Scauic & ?acreatimal ~gve~ Permit ~ly ap'~lies to certain l~d~ t~thin a J[ of the Ca~ms P4ver. Consult O.E.C. P~gional Office for exact dete~natim. __ X .. 6.1Iater Su?ply ~er~t ~e~ project involve the aciui~itim of l~d or construction of facilitie, for oater or ~stribution pu~ose~? x 7.Lon. g Island fJell a) '.Does project involve the construction of a new well or deepening or increasing the capanity of an existing well to withdraw water at a rata greater th~ 45 gallon, a ~nute? b)Does project require the te~or~w~ lowering of gro~dwatar le~l~ for const~etim pu~ose~? __ x 8.Protection of !-Iater~ a) Will project change, modify or disturb the eonr~a, eh~nel or bad of ~y ~tra~ ela~sifie8 ~(T) or the Regi~al Office for classifications.) -- b) Does project involve the te~orary or pe~anent artificial obmtructim of a nat- ural stream or water course? . -- c)Doea project involve the construction or. repair of a permanent dock, pier or wharf ha~ng a too surface area ~re th~ ~qumre feet? x + placing of fill in the navigable w,~t~:rs of the State and adjaceut 9. Tidal Wetlands Permit -~2 ~{f~foJ'de-~-~e located: a) in tidal waters? b) within 300 feet of either the land- ward edge of a tidal wetland boundary or a tidal body of water? II. Will there be any subdivision of land or physical alterations of land or water? _Exemptions to the above regulation location if: 1) Project will be located at a ground elevation of 10 feet or higher above mean sea level (excepting on the face of a bluff or cliff). 2) A substantial, man-made structure (s~ch as a paved street or bulkhead) 100 feet or longer exists between the project site and tidal wetlands or tidal water. (Consult D.E.C. Regional Office if unsure). '10.. Freshwater Wetlands Permit a) Will project area be within,, or within 100 feet of a freshwater wetland or fresl~~ater body of 12.4 acres or larger? b) Will project involve draining, dredging, filling, excavating, erecting structures, roads, utilities or other alterations or placing any form of pollution in a wetland? (Consult D.E.C. Regional Office if unsure). 11~ Section 401--Water Quality Certification Letter '' Does project or activity require a Federal Permit or License? If so, this State certification may be required prior to Federal approval. State Pollutant Discharge"Elimination System--. (SPDES) Permit Does Project involve: - a) A proposed subdivision of five or more units? b) A proposed or existing discharge of 1,000 gallons per day of sewage or any discharge ofindustrial or other wastes to ground waters? c) Any discharge of sewage, industrial or other ' w~stes to surface water? - 4)-A~y disposal of stormwater containing sewage indust~ial_ ~r ~ther w~astes? e) Any storage and disposal ~f-pot~ntially toxic or hazardous wastes? 13. The following additional required D.E.C.permits have been applied for: _Type of Application Application Permit Number Filing Date x x Applicant's Name (if different om application now b~ng submitted) goverr~nent: Type of Permit Governmental or approval Agenc~ Subdivision Southold Planning Board Cluster Approval Southold Town Board Variance Southold B.Z.A. Sanitary and Water Suffolk County Health I certify that the at~ve 4n~ormation is ~,.t( March 11, 1985 DATE List all other permits, licenses or approvals required by otheK agencies-of Status Pending Approved Pending Not vet am~limd for  b elTo.~ my ~JnowI~dge. OR AU11~QR~z~ 3m~hn~.nt, President'. ' R f D h' R NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON?,Ik,NTAL CONSERVATION Application for P~rlnit Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands) 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject premises is improved with thirty-one (31) cottages. Applicant seeks to do the following: a. Remove twelve (12) of the existing resi- dential cottages located at the Southeast end of the property (these are Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 on the survey). b. Have each of the remaining nineteen (19) cottages on a ]napped lot. c. Dedicate the 1.566 acre detached parcel at the Southeast end of the property to nature. (Legal title to be with 19 home- owners.) d. Dedicate the 29 acre parcel at the North end of the property to nature. (Legal title to be with 19 homeowners.) e. Create a comraon beach area (30,000 sq. ft adjacent to Lot 19} and a common dock area (2.5 acres adjacent to Lot 1) for the bene- fit of the nineteen (19) remaining dwellings. f. Improve the existing roadway from Main Road through the property to the cul-de-sac adja- cent to the common beach. g. Create a future section which is comprised of 29 acres and 11.551 acres under water. No work will be done in this area without all required approvals. h. Install drainage along the roadway as same is required by the Town of Southold. This would collect and recharge the road run-off. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIKOLq~ENTAL ASSESSbLENT - PA~T T PROJECT 15-F ORJ~AT ION yv ew r m opment S~e Estates BayviewDeveloDment Corp.. p/o Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Fsq. ~;aae: F. Q. BOX ~1 12G.Mineola_Poulevard... ~!'i'~ SA~, ~I~- SA~, · .: . · J~.~ SAGE ~d PA~ICIA SA~ : (~o #)' ~ge ~o~le'va.rd Creenport; 3U~.~ ES~ PHOebE: ...... Mineola,' -~R~v/7Ork ...... 115014 New York 11944 (Staca.; OE_~CRIPTSQr) OF OoOJECT: (grieFly describe type of prajec-. :r ac:ion) Applicant seeks to subdivide the subject premises into 31 separate building sites, 19 of v~nich shall, be in a~present subdivision ~nd 12 of which sh~ll be in a future subdivision. (2L-'_~SE C02PLET~ EACH ~U.~S710;( - Indicate ;(.A. i? not )oolica~le) (Phy$ica) set, lng o¢ o~er~ll ~jec~, bo~h develoc~ ~nd undevelc~ed areas) I. ~enerzl C~aracter of the land: Generaily unifo~-, sloae X ~enereily ,~even and millng or.ir~sular ~msent !and Jse: U~an [nuuscrial Co,ere!al guouroan lur!l' ," - , ., lgricul~J~ , O[ger 31 ~i~Pesidentia~ttn?es ~eadcw or ~rusnland 24 ~cr,s 24 ~cr~s ~, Z~ :r E.S.L.) 5 ~cres ~cr~s ~. ~hat fs ¢~ot~ to ~e~rccz? ~/A Presently Aft.~r Ccmoletion ~cad~. )ua!dings an~ ~:zer ~ave~ 8 sand, loam and clay mixture ~as X 9o ,; Approximate percentac, e of proposed projec~ site with slopes: greater ~. 0-I0:100~/-,.:: 10-15: 7. Is project contiguous~to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes ~ No 8. What is the depth to the water table? ~10 ,feet - 9. 09 hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes lO. Does project site contatq~any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endan¢~red - Yes Y~ ~o, according to - Identify each s!~ecies 14. Are there any ~pique or unusual land for~s (Ln.thegroje~t site~ (i.e. cliffs, dunes~ other geological formations - A ..Yes . ..,No. {Describe 1SI~Lr~Ci tO IDa d~]ic~tecl for natLLral use Is the project site.~resently used by the cer,~nunit7 or neigh.borhood as an open space or'recreation. area - Yes .x. No. . .. Does '~he present'site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important tO .the community? Streams within or contiguous to project area: ......... . a. N~r,e of stream and name of river to which it is tributary 8o~tho3d 15. f. cj. h. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: .......... ._.. a. Na~ ; b. Size {in acres) lB. ~rnat is the dominant lanJ use and zonln~ classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project single family r~sidential, R-~) and the-scale of development {e.g.g. story). C~onl~e~i~l & R~sldent ial PROJECT DESCRIPTIOn( I. Physical di,r, ensions and scale of project {fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor $~ acres .... ..:.;.,:_~"'. .: ~. ,: b. Project acreage developed: 40' acres initially; 4~ acres ultimately. "%" ': ::" Project acreage to' remain undeveloped ~11 ~e~.s .~h-ec! uncter ¢]~ste~ deYel_.o.~e, nt Length of project, in miles: -~ (if appropriate) Xf prelect is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age ; developed acreage )lu~er of off-str~-t perking spaces existing GO ~ '; proposed ~0 Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~ (upon completion of project) If r~sidential: Hu~ber and type of housing units: One'Family Two Family Multiple F~nily Condominium Initial ~1 Ultimate building'square foot- If: Con'~,ercial Orientation Neighborhood-City-Regional Estimated E~nployment Industrial Total height of t~llest proposed structure ordinance. ,. ~. ~;;~, feet. **as per zoning ' "":'="'" .: :r.~. "Hm~ much natural mat-~rial (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be remSv=.d from the site 3. cubic yards. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, gmun~ covers) will be removed from site - 5 acres. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? yes X ,~0 Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction) X Yes .,, No If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, {including demolition)· If multi-phasQd project: a. Total number of phases anticipated 2 _No.'' J.~ b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1__10 month 85 year {including . demolition) ...... c. Approximate completion date final phase 10 ~nth 87 year. .. ' d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? ~ -Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during const~Jction? Yes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10 10. NumJer of jobs eliminated by this project 0 ll. after project is complete 0 . proje_.s or facilitiesl gill project require relocation of any ' ~' ~ ~ist~ng ~ter service line iz~rn ~in to houses. X Yes No. If yes, explain: 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. lg. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ,X Yes _No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) se~ Jn exi~tin~ cegspcx~l~ c. If surface disposal name of stream intowhich effluent will be dischargu~d ~)/A Will surface area of existing lakes~ponds, stre~-m,s, bays or other surface wa~eraays be increased or decreased by ~roposal? Yes ~ No. ,- Is project or any portion of project located in the 1DO year flood plain? ~ Yes No a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X .~es No b. If yes, will an ~xisting solid waste disposal facility be used? X ~es No j' c. If yes, give na~e: pri~te s~u~itation ; location d. }Hll any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ~ Yes X No Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X _No Will project routinely produce odors' Cmore than one hour per day)? _ Yes X No '~"':' Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local eusbience noise levels? Yes .. X No Will project ~esul~ in an increase in energ_vuse? ~es ~ Nd. If yes, indicate type{s) 20. If water supply is from ~vells indicate pumping c~pacity 21. Total anticipated water usage per day __gals/day. Zoning: a. ~hat is dcminant'zoning classification of site) gals/minute. Residential A 2 Acre t~esidential b. Current sr. eclfic zoning classification of site C.. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? S~ ]~elow d. If no, indicate desired zoning Existing cottages are noneon£orm~ng Applicant seeks to reduce nohcongormity. 26. App~vals: a. Is any Federal permiC required? Yes ~: No b. Does pr:ject {nvolve State or Feder){ fundins: or financing? c. LoJa] and Regional approvals: City, Tom, Village 8oard C(ty, Town, Village Planning Hoard City, Town, Zoning Board ___ City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regiona) agencies - ' State Agencies Federal Agencies C. INFOP~"ATIG~GqL DETAILS Attach any additional information as adverse impacts associated with the taken to .~itig~te or avoid~ PREPARER'S SI G~{ATURE: /"" ~//' REPRESENTING: ~ Approval Require~ (~es, ~{o) (Type) Yes ~m ~0 Submittal Approval (Date} (Date) 'DATE: YES Cluster Deve lol]ment Y~]~ ~bdi~ision .... September 17, 1984 March 13, 1985 Attention: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SDNY Campus Building 40 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Mr. Charles T. Hamilton RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. Premises: Sage Property S~uth~]d, New York __ Dear Chuck: In connection with the above, I enclose herewith the fol- lowing: a. The Application Form in quadruplicate. b. The Project Permit Requirement Questionnaire in duplicate. c. Five copies of the plans. The lo- cation map is on each plan. d. Two copies of the Southold Planning Board negative declaration, along with the Environmental Assessment Statement. e. Our check in the sum of $50.00. f. A recent photo of the entire property. If there is anything further tate to give me a call. JDF/js Enclosures which you requi~don't hesi- Very~ 1, your . . ,~'RC ~ ELL I ato, Fo~c,,ell, Llbeit,lc,, o, Sch,',artz & M?neo, Esqs. I App]ication Fe( (Fbhrin( for Tidal W(,t]ands $ 50. O0 - Sage Property) - OB 2267 ! I Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 6, 1985 Jeffrey Forchelli Attorney at Law 120 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Sage Property Section I, Cluster Dear Mr. Forchelli: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 4, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the aketch map for the cluster subd±vision of "Sage Property, Section I" located at Greenport for 19 lots on 38 acres, plans dated as last revised JanuaryS21, 1985 subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances needed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Zoning Board of Appeals BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN By Diane M. Schultze, ~S~Tetary APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RnAD- BTATE RnAD 25 5DUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 March 4, 1985 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Dear Henry: Please find enclosed four site plans from our file in the above matter which I understand you have requested in order that additions or modification to the maps may be made and returned. Yours very truly, Enclosures GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOENRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. AOBERT.I. DOUGLASS )OSEPHH.$AWlCKt Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHE]LD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 February 26, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard~ Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp~ ,.ear Mr. Forchelli: Your replies dated February 6th and February 4til were reviewed by the board at our Regular Meeting held on Thursday, February 14, 1985~ It is the board's request that the areas of fresh and salt water wetlands of Section One be sketched, perhaps on three of the same maps in red ink. We have received inquiries and it was brought to the board's attention that a large area of Section One is land under water or marsh. If you don't have three copies of the map handy~ we'll be happy to return our file copies for delineation of these areas. The board has also requested that an application be made to the N.Y.S. Department of EDvironmenta/ Conservation for this subdivision pursuant to Section 661.5(b)[57] of ~he Tidal Wetlands Land Use Reguiations~ 6 NYCRR, Part 661 and Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and that any action or correspondence regarding same be furnished For our file. It is our understanding that the Planning Board will be reviewing this proposal at their March 4 1985 meeting and they will keep us advised accordingly. Yours very tru]y~ GERhaRD P. GOEr!RiNGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure [ly Linda Kcwalski cc: Mr. Henry Raynor, Jr. -27- JUI)I Ill T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 7, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPIIONE (516) 765-i801 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold, New York 11971 Dear Bennie: The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on February 5, 1985 authorized the Planning Board to consider the property of Sage Properties, Section I, located at Greenport, New York, to be developed in the cluster concept. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk ARMAND P DAMATO* JEFFREY D FORCHELLI* JACK L LIBERT* PETER A IOVINOo DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R MINEO* THOMAS J DUNCAN* RICHARD C GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARN ERI * PETER ALPE RT* D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ ~ MINE0 COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P O BOX 31 MINEOLA. NEW YORK Il501 (516) 248 1700 February 6, 1985 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON, D C 20006 (202) 783-4802 OF COUNSEL JAMES W PARES* ROBERTA MELILLO* Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Ms. Linda Kowalski RE: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Dear Ms. Kowalski: This letter will serve to clarify the information sent to you on February 4, 1985 regarding the above. The northwest portion is twenty-nine (29) acres. This includes 3.4 acres of fresh water wetlands. If the 3.4 acres is subtracted from the net area of 39.056 acres, it results in an area of 35.656 acres, or 1,553,175.3 sq. ft. Dividing this by a building lot (80,000 sq. ft.), it results in 19.414691 building lots. I trust the above information is adequate. In the event there anything further which you require, don't hesit~to let me know. / l Very truly yo~s, ~ . JDF/js ARMAND P D'AMATO* JEFFREY D FORCHELLI* JACK L L1BERT* PETER A IOVINOo DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ* PETER R MINEO* THOMAS d. DUNCAN* RICHARD C GOLDBERG*° STEPHEN GUARNERI* PETER ALPER. T* D'AMATO, FOR. CHELLI, LIBERT, IOVINO, SCHWARTZ i~ MINEO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P 0 BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YO~.K II501 (516) 248- 1700 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON, D C 20006 (202) 783 4802 OF COUNSEL JAMES W PARES* ROBERT A. MELILLO* February 4, 1985 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Ms. Linda Kowalski Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Dear Ms. Kowalski: In connection with the above, I enclose herewith six copies of the additional information requested in your letter of January 11, 1985. Will you kindly attach this information to the surveys previously submitted. I trust this will be satisfactory in view of the extremely large size of the surveys and the great expense of reproducing them. Also enclosed please Disclosure Affidavit. JDF:dbc Enclosures two 'copies of the find ID. Fo~ zhelli APPLICATION OF BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal No. 3320 PREMISES: Sage Property, Southold, NY The following information is connection with the Subdivision Sketch January 21, 1985: submitted in Plan last revised 1. The acreage of salt water wetlands is 11.551 acres. However, this acreage is entirely in Section two. Section one does not include any salt water wetlands other than the beach areas which are outside of the described property and the island which is to be dedicated to nature which is 1.566 acres. 2. The area of fresh water wetlands in section one is ± 3.4 acres. 3. The total area of section one is 43.756 acres. It is made up as follows: a. Northwest portion - i.~ ~. ~ ~ ~i . ~ 29 acres b. Area around small basin (This does not include area of the basin itself) c. Roadbed 2.5 acres 4.7 acres d. Nineteen lots and community beach area - 6.0 acres e. Disconnected island at east end (to be dedicated for nature preserve) 1.556 acres 43.756 acres 4.7 acres 39.056 acres TOTAL LESS ROADWAY . NET AREA . APPLICATION PREMISES: OF BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal No. 3320 Sage Property, Southold, NY The following information is submitted in connection with the Subdivision Sketch Plan last revised January 21, 1985: 1. The acreage of salt water wetlands is 11.551 acres. However, this acreage is entirely in Section two. Section one does not include any salt water wetlands other than the beach areas which are outside of the described property and the island which is to be dedicated to nature which is 1.566 acres. 2. The area of fresh water wetlands in section one is ± 3.4 acres. 3. The total area of section one is 43,756 acres. It is made up as follows: a. Northwest portion - 29 acres Area around small basin (This does not include area of basin itself) the 2.5 acres c. Roadbed - 4.7 acres d. Nineteen lots and community beach area - 6.0 acres e. Disconnected island at east end (to be dedicated for nature preserve) 1.556 acres 43.756 acres 4.7 acres 39.056 acres TOTAL LESS ROADWAY NET AREA . Southold Town Board o£ Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2S SDUTHmLD, /.I., N.Y. lll::J'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOAR(~ MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Planning Board Chairman FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Board of Appeals Chairman DATE: February 8, 1985 SUBJECT: Applications Involving Planning Board We would like to bring you up-to-date and to request your comments or recommendations on each of the following matters recently filed with our office prior to the advertising deadline, if possible. (Once our hearing is concluded, no additional input legally can be accepted for consideration.) Date Filed Matter of Tentative Deadline 2-1-85 Dominick Varano (Subdivision) 3-4-85 1-28-85 Emilia T. Pike (Subdivision) 3-4-85 1-29-85 Briden Machine (Site Plan, etc.) 3-4-85 1-28-85 Wm. & Helen Coster (" " ") 3-4-85 1-9-85 Joseph Lizewski (Hearing 3-7-85) 1-9-85 Colgate Design (7-11, Cut) (Hearing 3-7-85) 12-4-84 Cutchogue Free Library (Hearings 2-14-85) 2-8-85 Saul Millman (Spec. Exc. & Var) 3-4-85 12-31-84 $/xBayview Development Corp. 3-4-85 The following matters have received your responses and have been arranged to be held for hearings in the immediate future: Thomas Perillo Robert and Aldona Norkus John and Frances DiVello Alice D. Currie Meehan and Leonardi (Hearing 2-14-85) (Hearing 3-7-85*) (Hearing 3-7-85*) (Hearing 3-7-85) (Hearing 3-7-85) APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD p. GOEHRtNGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR, ROBERTJ, DOUGLASS !OSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals ROAD- STATE ROAD ~-5 SOUTHOLD, L,I.. N.Y, l]9?l TE:LEPHQNE (516) ?~)5 1809 January ll, 1985 Jeffrey D. Furchelli, Es~F. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Scl~wartz, Mined and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 3! Mineola, NY 11501 Re: App~a. iio. 33~.0 - aavview -evelopment Corp Dear' Mr. Forchelli: This letter will car. firm that the recent app'i ication made for Bayview Development Corp. was reviewed by the [;oard of Appeals at our January lO, 1985 Regular Meeting, and thac the following action was taken: RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3320 in the Mat~ser of BAYViE'.., DEVELOPMENT CORP. for Variances in this proposed cluster devuiop- ment along a private right-of-way kn'~wn as Sage Boulevard and located at the Souti~ Side of Main Road, 6reenport, BE AND HEREBY IS HELD IN ABEYANCE pending receipt of the 'Foi'iowing: 1. Six copies oF a survey: (a) simwing ti~e acreage of areas of fresh and salt water wetlands, separate and apart from !:he acreage of upland areas for' Section i, and (b) giving Lhe total area for Section I (separate and apart from tim Future Section, which we understand is not under consideration at this til/~e, and deleting the proposed 50~foot road from this co!~pu~a- ti on. 2. Receipt of approval from the Town Board on the clLister concept which we under';tand has been recently referred by the Planning Board; 3. Receipt oF comments or r~ccommendations from the Planning Board after thorou.jh review on the layou~ of this proposal r Page 2 - January ll, 1985 To: Jeffrey D. Forchetli, Esq. Re: Bayview Development Corp. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Yours very truly, CC: Building Inspector Southold Town Board Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Henry E. Raynor as agent GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski ARMAND P D'AMATO JEFFREY D FORCHELL[ JACK L LIBEI~T DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R MINEO KENNETH d WEINSTEIN THOMAS d DUNCAN RICHARD C GOLDBERG STEPHEN GUARNERI PETER ALPERT D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO g WEINSTEIN COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P O BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK H501 (516) 248 1700 (516) 742- 1400 January 10, 1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. Premises: District 1000, Section 053, Block 5, Lot 1 Sage Property Southold, New York Dear Mr. Goehringer: In connection with the above application, I would like to confirm the following: JDF/js bo The requested variances only affect the nineteen (19) proposeG lots in Section i and do not affect any other property on the map. The request is made to your Board because there is also a request for cluster develop- ment which is presently before the Planning ~r~e~s~.Town Board, and thes/ ariances E~'~7HELLI Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 9, 1984 Mr. Jeffrey D. FOrchelli Attorney at Law 120 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Re: "Sage Propert~'cluster subdivision located at Greenport Dear Mr. Forchelli: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, October 8 , 1984. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare themselves lead agency with regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the major subdivision of the "Sage Property" located at Greenport. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the major subdivision of "Sage Property" to the Town Board for their approval of the cluster concept, subject to receipt of the building lay-out for Section Two. The Board also requests that an application be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances needed. Please submit twelve (12) copies of the lay-out for Section Two; and see the Building Department on the procedure for applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you have any questions, ~ease don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN _~UTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Scnu,~, a y TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRON~MENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART PROJECT ~ny ~a~c~onal tn~o~ac~an yau ~elieve w~]] be neec~ ~,A~. ~qQJECT: B~yview D~x~lopment Greenport; New York 11944 Applicant seek~ tO subdivide the subject prem/ses into~31 Sep~te building sites, 19 of which shall, be. i~ a"present $~bdivision ~nd 12 of which sh~ll be in a ~ature subdivision. 3. ?and use: Urban :nCus:r~al , Co~.~lercial . Suouroan .' . Aura]' , AgricUt~4~ ,~; ,,,31 ~i~Pesidentia~tt~Fes " ' . - (~P~I~A~). . . A~roximac~ acreage: ~san:~y After Comp)e:!on , Presen~]y ~ft3r Yeadcw ar 3rusnland 24 acres. 24 ~cr!s ~. a, Ar~ "="- ~. '~'hs.. (S czoC.'. :~ :e~r:c:~: !'T'/A 31L/7a g. 10. Approximate percent~e of proposed project, site with slopes: O-Io~.C)O~X~;..Z;_ 10-15~ .H,' 15~ or. greater Is project con:iguou~to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places7 . ..yes ~.~o What is the depth to the water table? ~10 .feet ' '. Op. hunting or fishing oppo~untties presently exist in the project area? X Yes ~es project site contal~any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or end,neared - Yes ~ ~Io, acco~ing to - Identify each species 11. 1~. 13. Are there any ~{pique or unusual land for~s ~n .theoroje~t Simte~ (i.e. cliffs, dunes~ other geological formatiens A .Yes ..No. (Describe lsJ_~d to l~ dedicated for n~tu~ use Is the ~roject stte.~resently used by the con~uuntt7 or neighborhood as an open space or'recreation area - Yes 7~ ,lo. ' .. .? ODes the present'~tte offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to .the c~n~uuntty? Yes X 1)o ' ' *- Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. N~.e of stream and name of river to which it is tributary Southo]d l~ f. g. h. 15. Lakes. Ponds, ~etland areas within or contiguous to project area: ......... a. Na~ ; b. Size {in acres) 16. What is the dominant lanJ us~ and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g~ single family r~sidential, R ~) and the ~cale of development {e.g. ~ story). ~xZ~i~l & ~esidential PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' ' '' ' 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage ovmed by project sponsor 83 acres. .,....~',!~,~: ,. .... . .:'~' b. Project acreage developed: .40' acres initially; 43 acres ultimately.. .:' . .... Project acreage th"remain undeveloped all ~e~s r~ired under cluster development Length of project, tn miles: -1 (if appropEiate) If project is an e~panston of exist!n9, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age ) developed acreage ,,u~ber of off-str~--t parking spaces existing ~'~ '"'~ ;ropos;d ' 60 ~axi~um vehicular trips generated per hour ZL~ ~upon completion of project) If residential: Hu~.&er and type of housing units: · . One'Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial ~1 Ultimete 31 build(ng'squar~ fcot- Coffee,iai Industrial Orientation Neighborhood-Clty-Regiona{ Estimated E~nployment Total height of tallest proposed structure much natural material reck, earth, ere,) will be re~ove~ the site 0 tons ~ cubic yardSl How many acres o? vegetation (trees, shrubs, g~un~ covers) will be removed from site - 5 acres. ~ill any mature fores~.{over 100 years old) or other locally-Important vegetation be re~oved by this project? ._____Yes Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that re~oved during construction? X Yes __~o If single phase project: If ~ulti-phas~ project: AnHctpated period of construction months, (including demolition). a. Total number of ?hoses anticipated ~_.No. "['-' - b. Anticipated date of corr~nence~ent phase 1 ZO month 8~ year {including demolition) ¢. Approximate co~pletion date final phase ~0 r~nth 87 ' ~. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? ~ O. Yes No ~o. If yes, explain: . 8. liill blasting occur during constr~Jction? .~Yes ~ No 9. Humber of jobs generated: during construction 10. .; after project is complete 10. ltu,rher of jobs eliminated by this project O, _- ll. 'gill project require relocation of any projects or facilities) ~ Yes E~i~ting .water service line ~rc~ ~ to ho~Jses. 13. 14. 15. '16. 17~ 18. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~ Yes b. If yes, indicate typo of waste {se~age, industri~l~ etc.) se~LTe ~ ~$t~ c. If surface disposal n~me of stream into which effluent ~ill be discharged Will surface area of existing lakes~ponds, stre~s, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? .... ~es Y~ ,~o. Is projec~ or any portion of project located in the 1QQ year Flood plain? ~ Yes No a. ~oes project involve disposal of solid waste? ~_.Yes .__~No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ~ ,yes No . c. If yes, give na~e: ~±v~t~ san±t~t~on i location d. ~lill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal ': or a _...___No sys~m into sanitary landfill? ~_~Yes X Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes ~ _No Will project routinely produce odors' {r~ore than one hour per day)? .._~Yes X Ho . Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ~,btenco noise levels? . Yes Will project ~esult in an increase in energy use? .Yes ..,7~ If yes, indicate type(s) 21. If water supply iS fro~ wells indicate pu~plng c~p~city Total an:icipetad water usage per day jals/day. Zoning: a. What is dominant'zoning classification of site) b. Current s~ecific zoning ciassiflcation of site __ ¢.. i$ proposed use consistent with ~resanC zoning? d. If no, indicate desired zoning ,gais/minute. P~ident ial A 2 Acre Pesidential See P~e]ow ~xisting cottages ~re nonconform{ng Applicant seeks to reduce noh~onformity. 25. Appr~!~ls: a. ls any Federal pemt: required? 7es X ~Xo b. Does project involve Stere or Federal funding or financing? c. Lo~al and Regional approvals: Approval Required (~es, rio) (Type) Yes Submi ~tal Approval (~ate) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies · State Agencies Federal Agencies YES C]u$~c er Develolm~nt '~E~ SS]bdi_vision. i YF.q V~r~ Attach any additional.infor~atton.as, may bp' needed/~o cl~ify your project. If there a~ or may be any " adve~e impacts associated ~ith theTp~, pl~se ali/cuss, such t~pacts and the measures which c4n be RE?££SEflTP(G: DA~-ff~.~ ~E~/~EIJC~),fl3IN'T CO~(~~. DATE: September 17, 198A ~,RMAND P D'AMATO JEFFREY D FORCHELLI JACK L LIBERT DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R MINEO KENNETH J WEINSTEIN THOMAS J DUNCAN RICHARD C GOLDBERG STEPHEN GUARNER[ PETER ALPERT D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERL SCHWARTZ, MINEO g WEINSTEIN COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P O BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK Il501 (516) ~48 1700 (516) 742-1400 December 26, 1984 JAMES W PARE'5 OF COUNSEL Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. Premises: District 1000, Section 053, Block 5, Lot 1 Sage Property Greenport, New York Dear Chairman Goehringer: In connection with the above application, I would like to ad- vise you that there are five buildings that have a proposed sideyard of less than ten feet. However, none of them ar~, less than five feet. Very truly yours~,~ / JEFFREY \D. FOk~HELLI JDF/js JUDIIH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICEOFTHETOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 31, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 19 84 To: Southold Town Zonina Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3320 application of Bayview Development Corp. for a variance. Also included is Notice to Adjacent Property Owners; Environmental Assessment Form; letter relative to N.Y.S. Tidal Wetlands and Land Use Regulations; Notice of Disapproval form the Building Department; and survey. ,5~>gudith T. Terry ~z~- , Southold Town Cl~rk ARMAND P D'AMATO JEFFREY D FOR. CHELLI JACK L LIBERT DONALD ,JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R MINEO KENNETH d WEINSEEIN TI-lOMAS d DUNCAN RICEIARD C GOLDBERG STEPHEN GUARNERI PETER ALPE RT D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, .SCHWARTZ, MINEO 8 WEINSTEIN COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P O BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 1lB01 (516) 248 1700 (516) 742-1400 December 28, 1984 JAMES W PAR~S OF COUNSEL Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. Premises: District 1000, Section 053, Block 5, Lot 1 Sage Property Southold, New York Dear Sirs: in connection with the above, I enclose herewith ].owing: a. The application in triplicate. b. The Notice of Disapproval. c. The Environmental Assessment Form. This is the same form that has been submitted to the Town Planning Board. The Town Planning Board has declared itself the lead agency. d. Four copies of the survey showing the proposed subdivision. the fol- D'AMATO, FOR_CHELLI, LiBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO g WEINSTEIN COUNSELORS AT LAW Southold Town Board of Appeals RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. December 28, 1984 Page Two e. Our check in the sum of $50.00, which represents the filing fee. f. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners with Affidavit of Service. I have not enclosed copies of building plans because no new dwellings are anticipated. If there is anything further which you require, me and it will be provided at once. JDF/js Enclosures kindly notify Very truly you~s,~ /, P.S. Also enclosed please find the additional letter regarding setbacks. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE .]:~.q~t~,l;:~r..~....Z.984 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOU,THOLD N. c/o Jeffrey u. Forchelli 1, ............. of ..... Name of Appellant Street and Number MLneola New York HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED: 10/11/84 FOR: Cluster Development WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) (X) .... B/~V,It~8:. DBY~.0.P..H~...T...¢..O...RR.., ........................ Nome of Applicant for permit of .1..2..0. ~.e..o. la Blvd; P.O. Box 31 Mineola New York Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY CLUSTHR PERMIT TO LUiLD 1 LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .6738.0..~:dzu,RQo, d;...$.:~-f?~.;qli:lg.¢Lt. ................................... ..A. ......... Street and H~le~t , ~ Zone SEction Block Lot uq~o~e Sage, James P. Sage, ....... 10OO .................. O~ .................. :~ ............. ~ .....OWNER(S): ~4i~ha~.l.$..Sage.&.Patricia. T. Sage Mop No Lot No. DATE PURCHASED: c.o.n..~.a.q~..S.i.~.e.d..1.2./.2.2./83 2 PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article III , Section__ 100-31. Article I, Section 106-20 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 (~r.~) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for o special permit ( ) request for o variance and was made in Appeal No .............................. Dated ...................................................................... ( ) (X) ( ) REASON FOP, APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsechon 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ~s requested for the reason that we would like to remove twelve (12) cottages and divide, bvwav of subdivision, the rem~inina nineteen (19) cottages on nineteen (19) lots. The total area would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the clustering would not. Fmmn ZBI (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1 STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because there are presently thirty-one (31) non-confon~J_ng dwellings on the subject premises. It would cause unnecessary l~utdship to require all thirty-one (31) to be removed in order to c~mply with current zoning. Applicant herein seeks removal of twelve (12) cottages, thereby ]_eaving nineteen (19) which would all be legal conforming lots as varied by this Bck~rd. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicindy of this property and in this use district because the aottages were bu±Zt many years ago, prior to the existing zoning and on a piece of property never subdivided or improved with adequate roads. The granting of this w~riance would permit develop- ment in accordance with current standards as varied by this Board. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CI IARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because it would remain wit~ one family dwellings. However, the number of dwellings would be less intensified. Sworn ,o this ............... ~...~.../~ ....... day of ............~'g.~]~' .......................... 19 84 x._) Notary Public SALLY BLADOS hIO'[ARY PUBLIC, Slate c~ New Yark ldo. 4799955 Qualified in Suffolk Counl~ Commission Expires March 30. TOWN OF SOUTNOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. -FO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TO'¢V,~ OF SOUT~tOLD, N. ,Y c/o Je~fre~ 'D. Forckclli Nome o~ Aopellcnt Streel and Number ............................. N~ York HEREBY APPEAL TO Municip~.]Hty ' State THE ZGNtNG BO/,F~D OF APPEALS PROM "F~E DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON WHEREBY THE BUlL.DING INSOECZOR DENIED TO of Name aF Applicant for permit 120 tlin~Za B'lv~ P.O. Bo'¢ 31 t~in,~ ................ ;'~ ....... ~ ~ New Street and Wumbe~ ~,,.;.;~-,.. ....... ~ ......................... PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ~US~] PE~IT TO ~ L.O~ATO ~ CF THE PROPERTY ~ =r ~, , _ ~?c~zon ,.1~.< F~t cJ~lot:.La r~ge, Ja~:~s p. Saqe. . p ~ Street ~]d H~let Zone ~ ' ~;~' O _00O 053 5 ] ('(: ~ER (s) :>~gb~. ~,. ~g0. f~]. P~rJ-g$~. % Sage ~' Lat No - DATE PURCHASED: PROVISION (5) OF THE" ' ' O~DINANCE APPE,^,.LED (Indict:re tim Articl~ Section, Sub- z. ONING sechof c;rld ParagraFd of the Znning Ordin::nce by number. Do hal quote the Ordinaqce, ~4~'1~. ~_ ~ ~kic4q 2o05].3~5? rypF OF APPEAL A~pe;:~ is made herewith for A VARIANCE to the Zomn; Ordinance or Zoning Map A VARIANCE due to, lack of acce:,s (State af New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons Laws Art 16 Sec 280A Subsc, ctian ~ 4 PREVIOUS &PPEAL A prewous appeal f~,ee) (ha:; not) been made with respect to this !ec~sion of the Building tnspectnr o, with respect to thi~ properh Such apr~e3l was ( ~ reque*t for a special permit ( ) request for o varinnce and was made in Appeal No ..................... Dated REASON FOR APPEAL ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsect on 3 A Variance ~o the Zoning Ordinar:~e ) ~s requested for the reason that wa would like to r~ve C~eZve (12) eaSY. gas ~d divide,, by way of s~:iivis'ion, ~e r~/mg n.mete~ (19) cot~ges on n~e~r, (19) lots. ~ne to~l ~'ea ~uld c~ly wi~ eJle 7~n~g Ordin~ce. However, ~he cl~t~jng would not. ~Continue or: other side) REASON FOR A, PP£AL Conth ~ued I STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINAl'iCE would produce practical difficulties or unnecos. sary HARDSHIP because t~ere are presently thirty-one (31) non-conforming dwellings on the sul~ject pr~-nises, zt would cause uz~lecessary hardship to reqtttre all t2~irty-ono (31) to be );'emov~..~ in order to ccaply with current zonJ_ng. A[~?lica_nt b~rein sc~ks reJ~oval of twelve (12) cottages, ~hezcby lea~g ninet~..'~n (19) which would all be legal conforming lots as vaz'i¢~ by this Boa]:d. 2 7!e ho~dsi'd~, created is UNIQUE and Js not shared by cji1 pro?erties oJik. e Jn the ,mmediate v~c,~i~/ o~ this property ar~:l ia this use district because t~e cot~ges were built zr~y years ~go, prior to the exJst~g ?~n~g ~:nd on a piece o~ pro~uty never s'~l]vided oz' ~%~roved ~.~ilfl] ade~te r~ds. fl~e g.:~tnting of t~is v~i'i~ce v~uld ~r]~t develo[:-- n~mt in e.ccor~cf~ wl-~% c~rent sta~%~rds as v~u-ie<t by ~'~is The Va~ic:n,.-e would observe the spirit of the ,_ro,nohce and WOULD NO'T' CNA,NGE /HE h,',R,~',CTEF: OF "Flee DI~TR1 .T becc~use ~_c wculd re~ztin with one fa~d. ly c~wel]ings. Ho~¢ever, t~te nt:r~h3r of dwellings would be less intensific~., STATE L- NEW YORK Cai JN'FY OF NASSAU BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or' the Petition of BAYVIEW DEVELOPM~N~ CORP. to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of 5outhold to request a (Variance) ~ ~eeei~L.i~m~ (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: Th~ 31 ~a~c~_s and surrounding area known as the "Sage" propertv and kpr~ as Br~_zy .qh~r~s 67380 Main Road. Greenport 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: variance of area and wideh r~q~llr~q~l~n~.~: and varlan~= nf fron~: side and rear yard r _equire~nts to permit r~aoval of 12 cottages with the r~mlaininq 19 cottaqes on leqal lots. 5. That the provisic~J~Tof the Southold Town Zclr~,~.~C~ode applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are ~'ticle -I- S~etic~ 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island 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 tight to appear and be heard a% such hearing. ~A~v-r_~ D~V~OPMg~J~ CO~b~. Petitioner Post Office Address c/o Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. 120 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, New York 11501 ~JR~AY JACOBS JOSEPH SUDA JOnaH KNIZAK W/T.T JAM KILIAN P & C CCNSTRUCTICN, ]/~C. HAROLD REESE SEYMCX3R & ADP~.~ BRITTMAN FRANK ~ PROQF OF MAILING OF NOTICe1 ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIP? 5 Diamond Drive Plainview, New Yo~ P.O. Box 65 Greenport, New Yo~ 5 Pedigree Drive Stony Brook, New P.O. Box 186 Greenport, New Y~ 117 Swan Lake Patchogue, New Yo 855 Sunrise Hig~ Lynbrook, New 14 Leland Street East Northport, 220 Colonial ~oad North Babylon, New York 11703 FRANK M. FLY~q JAMES POSC~Z.ICO POSTLT.ICO CCNSTRUCTIC~, INC. HCT~ARD Z~NER P.O. Box 144 Southold, New York 11971 31 Tennysc~Avenue Westbury, New York 11590 31 Tennysc~Avenue Westbury, New York 11590 Box 250 Greenport, New York 11944 STATE OFNEWYORK) COUNTY OF:UTF~L~) NASSAU SS.: d-~'l~: A. SYM]iqGTC1N , residing at East Norwich, New York , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 28th day of December , 1984 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Mineola. New York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) 'j:g:.::c::~) mail. J.'.k~ A. ~TCN Sworn to before me th s 2Rfh d.y Notary Public .... _Olta FROM: Jeffrey D. Forchelli D'AMATO, FO~C~Rr.T.I, LIBERT, SCHNARTZ & M~N~O, ESQS. 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O. Box 31 Mip~ola, New York 11501 'TO: Robert Chilton Bccc2m~od Lane Southold, New York 11971 · 27793530 Weight / L EXPRESS MAIL S~RVICE ~,~, ,. ~/ I Customer TO: Robert Bracken 32 Lichtfield Road Port Washington, New York 11050 Clerk P.O. ZiP Code B2 EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE w,~,, ) ' Customer Receipt FROM: Jeffrey D. Forchelli D'A~ATO, FO~C~r~.T.I, L]]~RT, SC~rv~ARTZ & MIN~O, ESQS. 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O. Box 31 ~iineola, New York 11501 TO: P. O. BOx 159 New Suffolk, New York 11956 FROM: Jeffrey D. Forchelli D'AMATO, FORC~RT.T.I, LIBERT, SC~5~%RTZ & M2BNF2D, ESQS. 120 Mineola Boulevard TO. Anasth~sia Group, P.C. c/o Bertram S. Holder, M.D. 356 C!:inton Avenue Rlr,:~'!;:l~:'n~ New Y. ~,, ]'1.238 Clerk (A~ldltional fee required) Receiving Qerk P,0. ZiP Return Recelp~ Sef~ce (AdcIIIJOr, al Iai requlrld) ~ TO Whom. Date & Addrp'.l of Del. B 27793535 EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE B 27793538 Customer Receipt APPLICATION OF BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal No. 3320 PREMISES: Sage Property, Southold, NY The following information is submitted in connection with the Subdivision Sketch Plan last revised January 21, 1985: 1. The acreage of salt water wetlands is 11.551 acres. However, this acreage is entirely in Section two. Section one does not include any salt water wetlands other than the beach areas which are outside of the described property and the island which is to be dedicated to nature which is 1.566 acres. 2. The area of fresh water wetlands in section one is ± 3.4 acres. 3. The total area of section one is 43.756 acres. It is made up as follows: a. Northwest portion - 29 acres Area around small basin (This does not include area of the basin itself) 2.5 acres c. Roadbed - 4.7 acres d. Nineteen lots and community beach area - 6.0 acres e. Disconnected island at east end (to be dedicated for nature preserve) 1.556 acres TOTAL . · 43.756 acres LESS ROADWAY 4.7 acres 39.056 acres NET AREA . AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) Re: APPLICATION OF BAYVIEW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal No. 3320 JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. That I am a shareholder, officer and director of BAYVIEW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. and make this Affidavit in connection with the above application. 2. That the shareholders,officers and directors of BAYVIEW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. are as follows: RICHARD MOHRING, RICHARD MOHRING, JACK L. LIBERT, 3. That a new Affidavit will be Sworn to before me this 16th day of January, 1985. ~/Notary Public JR., ARMAND P. D'AMATO, JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI, DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ and PETER R. in the event the officers or di~ filed with the Board. NOTARY PUBUC, State of New No. 6247663.t2 iEO. rs change, ~. FORCHELLI ZONING BOARD OF APPEAl~ '[OV~'N HALL MAiN ROAD - S.R. 25 $OUTHOLD, N.Y...11971 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, APRIL 11,~1985, and as follows: 7:30 p.m. EMILIA T. PIKE, by A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and insufficient lot width of Parcel 1, located at the North Side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County TaR Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-26. 7:35 p.m. COLGATE DESIGN CORP., by W. Esseks, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII~ Section 100~1 for permission to construct accessory building within the westerly sideyard area. Location of Property: 7-11 Store, North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-05-24. 7:40 p.m. BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT COR~/SAGE, by J. Forchelli, Esq., 120 Mineola Blvd, Mineola, NY 11501 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule and Article XIII, Section 100-136A for approval of insufficient area of each lot in this proposed 19-lot cluster development or subdivision and ~nsufficient setbacks. Location of Property: 67380 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-053-05-001,001.3, ~12.3; known and referred to as "Breezy Shores." 7:55 p.m. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, 29205 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[6] for permission to construct building for private membership with an ~lnsufficient setback from the easterly property line. Location of Property: N/s Main Road and E/s Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-02-12.1. 8:00 reconvene ship club. p.m. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI Special Exception hearing to concerning establishment of racquetball/private member- 8:05 p.m. TOMAS HIGGINS, Ruch Lane, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory garage in frontyard area, at 850 Ruch Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-02-30. Page 2 Legal Notice of Hearings April ll, 1985'Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:10 p.m. HAROLD CARR, Box 1416, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 2045 Marratooka Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-02-003. 8:20 p.m. DOMINICK VARANO, by R. Lark, Esq., Box 973, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area of proposed Lot 3, at premises 6750 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-07-004. 8:30 p.m. WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER, by R. Lark, Esq., Box Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[13] for permission to establish and build one-story building as a funeral home business, at premises of Dalchet Corp., S/s Main Road and W/s Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-97-6-part of 15; containing 2+ acres in area. 973, The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear all persons interested in the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to or during the hearing in question. Dated: March 28, 1985. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By L. Kowalski, Secretary (516) 765-1809 (alt. 1802) Instructions to Newspapers: Please publish once, to wit: THURSDAY, APRIL 4, nine affidavits of publication by April 9th to: Main Road, Southold, NY t1971. 1985 and forward Board of Appeals, ~L~.~V'~' D~:~P~E~T CO~:~. QUEST!ONNAIRE TO BE COMPL£TED AND FILED WITH APPLICATION TO THE Z.B.A. The New York State Tidal Wetlands and Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, requires an application to the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Analysis Unit, Building q0, S.U.N.Y., Stony Brook, NY 11794, (tel. 516-75J-7900), if you have checked Box #1 and/or Box #6 below. Please either call their office or personally visit them at their Stony Brook office for instructioos and application forms. Once you have received written notification of approva please provide our office with a copy (with the conditions) as early as possible in order that we may continue processing your Z.B.^. application. I ] I. lxl 2. I ] :3. I 1 4. [ ] 5. I ] 6. [ } 7. Waterfront without bulkheading Waterfront with b~lkheading in good condition [ ] the full length of the property [ ×] at least 100' in length Not located within 300' of waterfront or wetlands area May be located within 300' of waterfront or wetlands area; I~owever, the following structure separates my property from this environmental area: I ] I ] 50' existing road existing structures bluff area more titan 10' in elevation above mean sea level This proposed addition/expansion of an existing building will be more than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands/waterfront areas, This proposed addition/expansion of an existing building will NOT be more than 75~ from the landward edge of tidal wetlands/waterfront area. Please be aware that any and all subdivisions and new dwellings will also require an application to the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation for their review and approval. If you are able to provide them with recent photographs of the project and wetlakd areas, it would help expedite the processing of your applica- tion. This questionnaire is made to explain the requirements of this State Law and to prevent any unnecessary delays in processing your application(s). 101831k TO~N OI~'S~U Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 9, 1984 Mr. Jeffrey D. FOrchelli Attorney at Law 120 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Re: "Sage Propert~'cluster subdivision located at Greenport Dear Mr. Forchelli: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, October 8 , 1984. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare themselves lead agency with regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the major subdivision of the "Sage Property" located at Greenport. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the major subdivision of "Sage Property" to the Town Board for their approval of the cluster concept, subject to receipt of the building lay-out for Section Two. The Board also requests that an application be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances needed. Please submit twelve (12) copies of the lay-out for Section Two; and see the Building Department on the procedure for applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you have any questions, pease don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN ~OUTHOL~,~OWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, ~ecretary Southold Town Board o£Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATIE ROAD 2S r~OUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11c:J71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOENRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH fl. SAWlCKI October 31, 1984 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Weinstein 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appeal of Bayview Development Corp./Sage Location of Property: Sage Boulevard, Greenport, NY Dear Mr. Forchelli: We must return the documents in the above matter for the following: (1) Notice to Adjoining Property Owners' Form, Affidavit of Mailing, and postmarked certified receipts are required in the filing of a variance application. Copies of the required form are enclosed. Please check with the Assessors Office (765-1937) for the current names and addresses of the adjoining property owners as shown on the tax rolls, for properties in District 1000, Section 53, Block 5, Lots 9 (Jacobs), lO (Suda), ll.1 and ll.2 (Knizak), 12 and 12.2 (Kilian), 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; and Block 4, Lots 44.1, 44.2, 46.1 (Poscillico), and Section 57, Block l, Lots 38.1, 38.2 and 38.3 (Zehner). (2) Also, in order to prevent delays, it is requested that the survey plan reflect all front, side and rear yard setbacks of buildings to be retained-from the proposed lot lines; and that if variances are required, the plan be reviewed by the building inspector for his amended Notice of Disapproval, in order that you can include all the necessary relief simultaneously with the area and width variance requests. Please feel free to call us at any time if you have questions. Yours very truly, lk Enclosures cc:. Building Inspector GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN 947 0Id Country Road Weatbury, N. Y. 11590 z,//.&~/; ,I z ;3/_/,~/o^,~//o,'~ THE BOWERY SAVINGS BANK CHECK NUMBER 1-7011 6254 2260 D'amato, Forchelii, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Weinstein, Esqs. 120 MINEOLA BLVD. MINEOLA, N. Y. 11501 OPERATIONS ACCOUNT October 29, 1984 *********************************-- and ............ **************************************** ~er ~on~n9 ~ o£ ,~q~_.als - ~ of Soub'~ld plication of Bayview Development Corp. ZI DSIGNA'IURE r/ ARMAND P. D'AMATO JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI JACK L LIBERT DONALD JAY SCHV/ARTZ PETER R MINEO KENNETH d V/EINSTEIN THOMAS d DUNCAN RICHARD C GOLDBERG STEPHEN GUARN ERI PETER ALPERT D'AMATO, FOR_CHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO g WEINSTEIN COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11601 (516) 248- I?00 (516) 742 - 1400 October 29, 1984 JAMES W PARERS OF COUNSEL Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. Premises: District 1000, Section 053, Block 5, Lot 1 Sage Property Southold, New York Dear Sirs: ing: In connection with the above, I enclose herewith the follow- a. The application form in triplicate b. The Notice of Disapproval. c. The Environmental Assessment Form. This is the same form that has been submitted to the Town Planning Board. The Town Planning Board has declared itself the lead agency. d. Four copies of the survey showing the proposed subdivision. e. Our check in the sum of $50.00, which represents the filing fee. D'AMATO, FOR. CHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO ~ WEINSTEIN COUNSELORS AT LAW Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold RE: Application of Bayview Development Corp. October 29, 1984 Page Two I have not enclosed copies of building plans because no new dwellings are anticipated. If there is anything further which you require, kindly notify me and it will be provided at once. ~~Very truly y°Ur 'ELL~i ~ JDF/js Enclosures cc: Mr. Henry Raynor Howard W. Young, L.S. £App Southold Town Board o eals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I,, N.Y. 11¢~71 TELEPHONE (~16) 785-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI June 20, 1985 Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Iovino, Schwartz and Mineo 120 Mineola Boulevard, Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appeal No. 3320 Bayview Development Corp. Dear Mr. Forchelli: Please find enclosed a copy of the determination rendered last evening and with the Office of the Town Clerk. Board of Appeals' filed this date Copies:of same are being transmitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, Southold Town Planning Board and the Town Building Department for their records. .:~ - Yours very truly, GERARD P. CHAIRMAN lk Enclosure cc: Suffolk County Planning Commission Southold Town Planning Board Building Department Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. GOEHRINGER ~' P / P E S C 0 V' E SEE SEC NO I:~ PIPES CO!ZE 18 . p / P E S C 0 V E / ~, ooo ~.F :oo, Ooo ~. ~ ® PROP05EP 5OUTHOLD EBAYVIBW D6V~.LOPM6N7' COLOR / / COY E 104 X xIOS LOCATION MAP X 6.2 -- 2.9 ~( or 65 X X X X X XSO 2.8 X X 2.5 x 2.8 X 78 X X X 13.9 I0 8 X 14.2 X g.o X X XS.4 -- I0 X X L7 XS.S ZO X DOCKS ZO 8S X 9.9 X 88 x I03 X 5.3 X 2.9 x X 79 S.O X 2·S+ H.6 X OXI X6.5 78 X &2 X 7. OX 5.4 X I00 300 0 I00 200 CONTOUR INTERVAL* 2' GENERAL NOTES: I MAP PREPARED BY LOCKWOOD~KESSLER 8, BARTLETT~INC Ely PHOTOGRAMMETR[C METHODS. DATE O.F PHOTOGRAPHY MARCH 10~1984 2 9RIO SHOWN HEREON IS iN THE NEW YORK STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (LONG ISLAND ZONE). S. VERT[CAI~ DATUM IS THE NATIONAL OEOOETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 {MEAN SEA LEVEL~ SANDY HOOK,N.J*) LEGEND PAVED ROAD 58 X FUTURE SECTION Area = 2(~* Acres X 95 X ~Orr~ Groo~ '~r/y · 66 7.0 X X 67 ~ 8,8 TI X X UNPAVED ROAD TRAILS BUILDING WOODED AREA INDIVIDUAL TREE WATERLINE CULVERT MARSH FENCE - LIGHT POLE UTILITY POLE POLE MANHOLE RETAING WALL BULKHEAD PIER OR DOCK RAILROAD TRACKS CONTOURS SPOT ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION o OMH v V V K SS 85 X NO AREA (SO. FT ) I 25,000 2 12,800 3 11,250 4 15,000 LOT NO xs.i / ~ Io' ?o' 7o' 7o' SAND 3.0 SO' 4.2 X Area = t. 566 t AREA(SO FT) 9,000 9,000 [0,500 9,000 I 0,000 13,000 BEACH AREA NOTE TOTAL NUMBEROFEXiSTINB RESIDENCES = SI TOTAL NUMBEROF LOTS IN SECTION I = 19 IOTAL NUMBEROF LOTS IN FUTURE SECTION SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN PREPARED FOR BAYVIEW ·DEVELOPMENT CORP. SAGE PROPERTY VI LLAGE OF GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. INDICATES EXISTING RESIDENCE TO REMAIN YARD SETBACKS FRONT - 25 ' 3NE SiDE -ID'TOTAL SIDE YARD- 25' LKB LOCK , KF_. LF_ & BARTLETT, INC. 6.2 0 6 X X X .% x 15.2 X 59 X 2.8 3.0 X 2.5 X X 28 X 2S X X 76 X X 6.5 X 2.9 Or, IF.- 7.8 X 8.2 X ~O'- X 11.7 54 X II 7. OX I00 0 I00 200 ~00 SCALE I": lO0' CONTOUR INTERVAL 2' COVE 136 X 14 7 x 7O X I0 7 DOCKS X MH X 130 or x 1SS X X ZO X 14.2 x 90 x X 5.4 9.9 x ~ si 83 X 88 X LOCATION MAP X 9¸9 53 58 FUTURE SECTION Area: 2Q,~ ~ Acres X r66 70 X X 7O x EXISTING BITUMINOUS 67 X 105 · X51 70' 8.3 X , d / sOUTHOL D BAY INDICATES EXISTING RESIDENCE TO REMAIN YARD SETBACKS FRONT - Z5 ' )NE SIDE -ID'TOTAL SIDE yARD- GENERAL NOTES= I MAP PREPARED ~ ~CKWOOD,KESSLER ~ BARTLETT~INC BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY MARCH 10,1984 2 GRID SHOWN HEREON IS IN THE NEW YORK STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (LONG ISLAND ZONE). 5 VERTICAL DATUM IS THE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF IS29(MEAN SEA LEVEL, SANDY HOOK,N J) LEGEND PAVED ROAD UNPAVED ROAD TRAILS BUILDING WOODED AREA INDIVIDUAL TREE WATER L I NE CULVERT MARSH FENCE LIGHT POLE UTILITY POLE POLE MANHOLE RETAING WALL BULKHEAD PiER OR DOCK RAILROAD TRACKS CONTOURS SPOT ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION o OMH v v v 2 3 4 S 6 AREA ($O. FT) 25,000 12,800 Jl,ESO 15,000 18, OCO 13,600 12,000 10,500 I0,500 9,000 10,500 10,500 10,500 LOT NO AREA(SO FT ) 14 9,000 I? 9,000 AREA SAND S,O X 3.8 /xreo SUBD[VISION SKETCH PLAN PREPARED FOR BAYVIEW 'DEVELOPMENT CORP. SAGE PROPERTY VI LLAGE OF GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK 60UNTY, N.Y. LOCKWOOD, KESSLER & BARTLETT, INC. DEC. 18, 1984 NOV 12, 1984 JULY Il , 1984 REVISED= JULY 9 , 1984 YOUNG · YOU~I RIVERHE~D~ N.Z L K B.~4022~ 4/e4 I0[ -% :1 _.~_ p_TXLT_u c ~. , : ,4..'~'. ¢,