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..'~'.
¢,