Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5072 CsP�ea� �e7noc�eQe_ MaXAzi, SI 11110 lk-11- b 7 a - p� . 31014,2 /Lo/a z K 1©13/6 - (Zeue4w&t &DP co ) 1 (Wesi cle. e-d. • . �., .. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS sloi'L Mt „us._ Southold Town Hall Gerard P Goehringer ® "° N h46, , ,„ 53095 Main Road Lydia A.Tortora � P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ® '4"' Southold,Southold,New York 11971-0959 <AaRuth D. Oliva , Chairwcman , � 174:1 ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent OrlandotEl ,, Telephone(631) 765-1809 I- http://southoldtown.northfork..net BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 3. 50P' FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION / NO%� 411' . / MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2003 .r Action in accordance with the May 9, 2003 Memorandum Decision of thfic ` If WM P Clerk Howard Berler,J.S.C. (Index#28776/02) regarding the following: Appl. No. 5072 regarding Appeal filed by JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI, JOSEPH MACARI, concerning property Owned by James and Barbara Miller, at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; 1000-81-3-19.004 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. FINDINGS OF FACT In accordance with the May 9, 2003, memorandum decision of the Honorable Howard Berler, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the Board hereby makes the following findings and determination concerning application number 5072 submitted by Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli, and Joseph Macari, which challenged the issuance of Building Permit No. 2789Z and Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-28096: The Supreme Court annulled this Board's prior determination deciding that the Board had not considered the dimensions of the Heron Monument in determining whether it is an accessory use under the Southold Town Zoning Code. While the Board respectfully disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal of the judgment entered on July 16, 2003, it has received a written request from the attorney for James and Barbara Miller that this Board review the application based upon the prior record and in light of the Order and Judgment of Justice Berler. As a result of this request, the Board has determined to do so. The Board's prior resolution, as well as the findings, deliberations and determination adopted at our meeting held on October 3, 2002, are hereby incorporated into this resolution. Based on Justice Berler's decision, the Board hereby reconsiders the evidence previously submitted in connection with the application through documents, testimony, and the personal inspection of the property by the Board and makes the following additional findings of fact regarding whether the Heron Monument is an accessory use under the Southold Town Zoning Code: 1. The Millers' property is zoned R-80 and is approximately 3.25 acres. F3age 2—November 6,2003 Appl. No.5072—Callis&Others(v. Miller) 81-3-19.4 at Southold 2. The subject Heron Monument is a sculpture approximately 40 feet high. 3. The principal use of the Millers' property is a single-family residence. 4. The height of the Heron Monument has not transformed it into a separate and distinct principal use. On the contrary, the monument remains an accessory to the principal residential structure. 5. Specifically, the Board has considered the size of the monument, in relation to the size of the property and residence, as the Supreme Court directed. The Millers' property, consisting of over 130,000 square feet, creates its own environment. Their home, the principal structure on the property, is substantial in size, having an area of approximately 3,699 square feet with an additional detached garage of approximately 544 square feet. The Heron Monument is relatively small in comparison to the overall property and improvements and is subordinate to the principal use. 6. While tall, the Heron Monument is an artifact that, like a garden sculpture, is to be enjoyed by the occupants of the principal use. The Heron Monument is not, in fact, a separate principal use. No admission is charged to view it, and no separate access is provided to it. 7. While all sculptures and monuments are unique and of varying sizes and shapes, they are customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot. This is particularly true in this case, with such a large piece of residential property. 8. This monument with a height of 40 feet situated on a 3.25 acres parcel of land in the R-80 district with a substantial house is accessory, and its height does not change its accessory nature. The Board notes that describing the property as "the house with the Heron Monument" is far more appropriate than describing the property as "the Heron Monument with the house." 9. Additional support for this position can be found in the record before the Board. At the public hearing, held on March 21, 2002, the applicants' own expert, Theresa Elkowitz, stated that the Heron Monument was "clearly not a principal use. It must be an accessory use." 10. Because the sculpture is both a monument and an accessory use, it is exempt from the height restrictions pursuant to § 100-230 the Southold Zoning Code. Page 3—November 6,2003 Appl. No.5072—Callis&Others (v. Miller) 81-3-19.4 at Southold 11. The Board acknowledges the applicants' concerns that others might attempt to construct monuments as high as 150 feet. Such attempts, and applications, however, must be considered on an individual case-by-case basis. BOARD RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, it was RESOLVED, based on these additional findings, and those set forth in the Board's prior decision, the Building Department's issuance of the building permit and certificate of occupancy for this accessory use is sustained. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman) Goehringer, and Tortora. (Member Orlando abstained.) Abse as Member Horning. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). , , aiuLA Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 11/13/03 Approved for Filing f• t• APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,/ %3FFOL,1 •=., x,00 60 Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ��'�_ 'yam• : 53095 Main Road Lydia A.Tortora i''y z P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ^7 $ Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva y ������ ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando '='0 *a,1.� Telephone(631) 765-1809 �•••�''� http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072 —JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI, JOSEPH MACARI. Property Location: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; 81-3-19.004 (owned by James and Barbara Miller). In the matter of the application of Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari, appellants, to reverse and annul Building Permit #27894-Z dated November 13, 2001 and Certificate of Occupancy dated November 30, 2001, issued by the Building Department for an accessory "platform with monument" located on property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold: SCTM 1000-81-3- 19.4. RELIEF REQUESTED: This is an appeal to reverse and annul a building permit dated November 13, 2001 (#27894-z) issued to James and Barbara Miller for "construction of 60 sq. ft. platform, located 20 ft. from the apparent high water for a monument and to the conditions of the DEC and Trustees," and to reverse and annul a Certificate of Occupancy dated November 30, 2001 (#Z-28096) issued to James and Barbara Miller for an "accessory platform with monument". Appellants request the board to reverse and annul on the following grounds: 1. Appellants maintain that the 40-foot high heron sculpture is not a "monument" and therefore not entitled to the height exceptions enumerated in Section 100-230 (D)1 of the Southold Town Code. 2. Applicants allege that if the heron sculpture is as an accessory structure, it is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. 3. Applicants further maintain that the 40-foot high Heron sculpture, located on the Miller's beachfront property in the Town's R-80 district, is not,a permitted accessory structure or use pursuant to 100-31C, because it is not"customarily incidental" to a single-family residence in the town of Southold or elsewhere. 4. In addition, appellants allege the State Supreme Court order of June 29, 2001 collaterally estopped the Building Department from granting the building permit and Certificate of Occupancy, and the Board of Appeals from rendering a decision in the matter. I. • Page 2—October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a puolic hearings on this application on March 21, 2002, June 20, 2002, and July 11, 2002, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Subject/Description: The subject is a 40-foot high white steel sculpture of a heron, designed and created by sculptor Roberto Julio Bessin. The sculpture is displayed upon a 60 square foot platform, located approximate 20 from the mean high water mark on the Miller's beachfront property on Peconic Bay. The Miller's property is zoned R-80 Residential Low Density. SEQRA Determination: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. Relevant Code Provisions: 100-13 Code Definitions: Code Section 100-13 does not include a definition of the word monument. In the absence of definition, Section 100-13 B directs the board to Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary. "Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary(or latest edition)." Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary contains the following relevant definitions for the word monument. 3 a: something that by surviving represents or testifies to the greatness or achievement esp. of an individual or an age. 4: a structure (as a pillar, stone, or building) erected or maintained in memory of the dead or to preserve the remembrance of a person, event, or action. 6. obs (obsolete): a carved statue. 2 Page 3—October 3, 200 . - Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold 100-230 Exceptions and modifications: 100-230 (D) Height exceptions: The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transmission towers, excluding telecommunication towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that no television or radio aerial shall be located nearer to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than 22 volts than a distance equal to the aerial's height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached. 1. Finding of Fact: Is the Heron structure a monument? Appellants maintain the Heron does not meet Webster's definition of a monument, and that a private citizen cannot self-characterize a particular structure to be a monument. To affirm the Building Inspector's determination, appellants assert, would be to say that anyone could commemorate a, 50-foot, 100-foot or 500-foot whatever, and that as a monument, it would automatically be exempt from the code's 18-foot height limitation. a. In support, the Millers and their attorney maintain the heron sculpture is a monument because: a dedication ceremony was held on the beach the Miller's property in July 1998, entitled "Dedication of the Heron Monument ...Hope for Peconic Bay". At the ceremony the Heron was described as " a monument dedicated by James and Barbara Miller to the conservation and preservation of the fine bays, tidal wetland, and wildlife in the Peconic Bay System," and, a plaque was made. b. The sculptor, Roberto Julio Bessin testified that the heron monument honors past and ongoing efforts to conserve and preserve the natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. He further stated that making monuments is part of what he does for a living and constitutes the bulk of his creations. As example, he submitted photographs of two bird sculpture monuments, one erected in Oketo, Japan, as a tribute to nature, the other in Shari, Japan, to commemorate the founding of its Chamber of Commerce. c. The board has carefully reviewed the question of whether or not the heron sculpture is a monument under the strict confines of the town code directive at 100-13 B. "Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's 3 ., . . . _ 0 • .) • Page 4—October 3, 2002 Appi. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary (or latest edition) " d. Webster's makes no reference or correlation between public and private ownership of monuments, or between public and private display of monuments. Webster's does not say that say that a private citizen cannot self-characterize a particular structure to be a monument. Indeed, many of the world's great monuments were first proclaimed as such by their creators, benefactors, and owners. Nor does Webster's say that to be termed a monument, the object must be displayed on public property, or in a public place for x number of people to view. e. Webster's definitions of monuments include "a carved statue". Although termed obsolete, use of the meaning is not restricted under 100-13 B. No evidence was presented to suggest that the building inspector erred in relying on such definition. No evidence was presented to dispute the building inspector's determination that the Heron sculpture is "a carved statue" that meets Webster's definition of a monument. f. The board finds that the Heron structure is a monument under Webster's definition No. 4. The heron sculpture is a structure which has been erected and maintained to preserve the remembrance of past and ongoing efforts to conserve and preserve the natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's designation of the Peconic Bay system as part of the Federal National Estuaries program in 1993 was both an action and an event. Similarly, it is well known that federal, state and local agencies, as well as numerous groups and organizations have taken various actions to preserve the natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. 2. Finding of Fact: Is the Heron sculpture an accessory structure? If it is an accessory structure, is subject to Town Code's height limitation 100-33(a)? a. Applicants maintain that the 40-foot high Heron sculpture is not a permitted accessory structure or use pursuant to 100-31C because it is not "customarily incidental" to a single-family residence in the Town of Southold or elsewhere. Appellants allege that if the heron sculpture is as an accessory structure, it is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. b. The board agrees with the appellants that a 40-foot high Heron monument is not customarily found in Southold's residential districts or elsewhere for that matter. The relevant distinction here is that "monuments" are customarily found in Southold, and customarily in Southold, no two monuments are alike in size or shape. Southold has a 4 Page 5—October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold variety of different-sized, different-shaped religious statues and monuments, carved statutes ca ct statues, metal statues, and rock mon!iments, to name a few Most are located on pnvate property, many in the town's fesidenuel zoning districts. All are treated as accessory to the principal building. c. Appellants argue that the Heron monument cannot be an accessory structure because of its height. The board disagrees. The Town Code 100-230 (D)(1) specifically provides for accessory "monuments" and "flagpoles" and "radio towers". Under the same provision, these structures are exempt from the height limitations of the zoning regulations. Code provision 100-230(D)(1) states: "Height exceptions: The height limitations of this chapter(Chapter 100-Zoning) shall not apply to: ..."monuments". If the board were to agree with appellants' accessory/height argument, then flagpoles and radio towers, for example, would not be permitted accessory structures if they exceeded 18-feet in height. This is simply not the case in Southold. It is uncontested that there are many accessory flagpoles and radio towers in Southold that are taller than 18 feet. Appellants contention that the height of the heron structure precludes its classification as an accessory structure, is contrary to the plain meaning of the code. d. The board finds that there is no basis to support the appellants' claim that the heron monument is not an accessory structure, nor it there any legal basis for appellants claim that the Heron monument is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. 3. In addition to the above, the Board has considered all arguments and issues raised by appellants. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the standards of New York Town Law 267-b, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, to DENY appellants request to reverse and annul Building Permit No. 2789Z and Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-28096. The building permit and Certificate of Occupancy are hereby affirmed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehrin•- hair an), orto , - - • a Iiva. (Member Horning and Member Orlando w- - absent. his esolu ' w- - d y adopted (3-0). •proved for Filing - Gerard P. Goe ringer 5 _NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS T44URSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be heard at a public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002, at the times noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5072 — DR. JERRY CALLIS, et al., Appellants. This is an Appeal Application requesting a Reversal of Building Permit #27894-Z dated 11/13/01 and Certificate of Occupancy #Z-28096 dated 11/30/01, issued by the Building Department, concerning existing construction referred to as a 60 sq. ft. "platform with monument " located at property owned by JAMES and BARBARA MILLER, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-81-3-19.4. (On February 21, 2002, JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARI submitted authorization for Dr. Callis to appeal in their behalf.) The Board of Appeals,will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of this hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: March 4, 2002. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 � •' . Assigned No. • �� rFor difice Use Only: Fee$ 'IN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK al APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR. DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED: !•11/X30/01..(certificate of occupancy) TO THE ZONING BOARD OF-APPEALS: 1c(We) Jerry Callis1•,John Petrocelli and Joseph Maca (Appellant) .c%o,.Fs mks., Maftex.f.AQAge� „. , . (Tel # 631 369-1700 ) HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE ,BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED AU..Q.1-,.§:.iT/ 0/01 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AN APPLICATION DATED..t,Q/.t�(.Q1 ., FOR: ( g) Permit to Build APPROVED ( )1) Permit for Occupancy ( x) Permit to Use ( ) Permit for As-Built ( ) Other: • • 1. Location of Property 1610 Paradise Point Road Zone R-80 • District 1000 Section 081 Block 3 ,Lot(s) 19.004 , Current OwnerJames and Barbara Mill•r 2.- Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of-Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the law.) Article Section 100-" ' Sub-Section , _. *SEE ADDENDUM • 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map • ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. ' ( ) Interpretation of Article , Section 100- ,.., • (X) Reversal efinatlhog pf..01g•,13.1}41-.4448..iermit and certificate of occupancy referred to abs ve for noncompliance with sections cited 4. Previous Appeal, A previous appeal (has) XIIRNKNOy been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector(Appeal #4537 Year 1998 ) REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature): • *SEE ADDENDUM AREA VARIANCE REASONS: (1) An undesirable'..hange will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to n. ;rby properties, if granted, because: • • (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible • for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because; (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because; ' • (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or Impact on the physical or ' environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because:. (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at,the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety , and welfare of the } ( ) Check this box if USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are completed and attached. • 4 Sworn to • - ore me this ( .gnat,re of -'r • ant or Authorized Agent) 14th orf of , 4Ru.� 20 02• (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) •# Notary Public JERRY CAWS ZBA App 0; '0 • . , . •• ANTHONY C.PASCA I Notary Public,State of New York i No.02PA5055606,Suffolk County Commission Expires Feb.12,20 . ; i • ADDENDUM 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Article I Section 100-13 Sub-Section: various terms defined therein Article III Section 100-31 Sub-Section: n/a Article III Section 100-33 Sub-Section: n/a Article XXIII Section 100-230 Sub-Section: D REASONS FOR APPEAL: The building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because they violate the sections of the Zoning Ordinance referred to above, they violate the previous appeal #4537 of 1998, they violate decisions issued by courts of competent jurisdiction, and are otherwise violative of New York zoning law. • e 1 _ kt n -- J Al Q6 - P/- 3.-/9. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ---, .� /Y-/Y OWNER VILLAGE j STREET ,Gt✓t-ne,,,,4. &r.,,r.a..�Q.. .,"Th .. DIST. SUB. LOT • i ' I t-er )+L', -••e I A . L47i n /J• _ ...5...5-- -• . - FORMER OWNER N E 1 ,1 ACR. 1-1 fel �E? '(.C)a,r� i W • TYPE OF BUILDING • -_ - p'p RES. oR l SEAS. •VL. = i FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP• TOTAL DATE REMARKS L a All' g-o 4-6 Tao c*,c; ' 6 -,z J-,p 2-- �73/0,174s L 9494 'eFir-re z/y' elca,L d� wivt�- T 7cs/i,� f .9Cao / 1 6-7)1 ..f.- p.. 3 y'1 ea jeeh,,9 -�/f,'g92 /Nr�✓�Wel/..✓�CC'; o�do,,'�' 9 %36196 -Oat-d, ,4 tv ' r/t/Wer v-G0-4'- '4"99`./Do p a I . / Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER �/ Woodland 02 E "e ./.3--. 9ir2a �143 FRONTAGE ON ROAD '3-°Fr'@,}r,/ :} Meadowland .2s. v, 4 .z pT DEPTH • yi Hoose Plot �v� r;u vyiT' BULKHEAD Total - • __..., .i, r— . . .,. _ ... .., . . ._ _ _. ;,,,,,,,_,:i.,:_s!.:t.:,7,7:,,,,,..,,,:,,..,,,:.: sn:, �� � _! --- - - - -- y Yas~ ,e/..: i.t � tecr .It"' :. -,---"-''-•_.-..;---- •4r-- - - -1-1--- 1474.7*. 1.f.' 1.4,1"1/42...1 . L I6 /t//�S9"yl n .. M.81dg %' Foundation f77� Bath 5J i 3 7X,59 =/4,43 7z i , xtpnsion Basement /ul/ Floors OAS Wr'w Pi.tisrrti? /65(37 S'�L pp Extension o,ry F'Q 7•- ?-( / Ext.Walls yid,r41-.. Interior Finish �jp. / o2/a �- �5/0� Extension Fire Place Z Heat /4,A, /-le,�•�'r,,., . !s9-g4p /9YA/. 3�'r 7X P7- //9Is/8 3•t'.. /-1?1 - Porch / 340 i Pool Attic s., i2X�e= 34a Deck Patio Rooms 1st Floor /4n74 z•%sar, 4 11;Nco Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor Z" 7 474 R. Garage- '; .' :,-•/,':, S-•SLiL /UD c""<-z,!! -o:B. iI , . f — //333 7 - ru11�) CL [mini 1 NDW oC F02MCiZLy LANA OF roittt 4 SQAN FeT .oCCLL:1 Ilk CwrLL, • �� • • - ~1' -.1' RAY! i — aaoa. 1 \ . 17.1• r - - __ • I IW[.YR=hit- -- s 0.7' 1-71. 1.i'Sw.a �: DCI AIL (Y• se".") ,.1.1q..• -—_- —_ • 1Cf . 1 1 • y - 7� 1 , a ika Q. ,•,'� 5 Cj'� QQ 11 E E. • se"...~:e..•. a1G.Y 46l ��M�Sowa♦ ir.r• raj._ / r is.; 1 I nec i •a •. T— Mil 72 5 .9-2. a - 44.3' a 13 1 1 S't 34.3.IIIM 1 Z •- __4.7.0' . p • o 4 � ( IO N i 1 1 1 CI • 1 "rle . 1 i1�lrrcN o I /ce,sKaD ®At 1A7: •• • } _ ala la 1 . I / f,lYe ;" s•.•• ,a1. d . ' 'I n..• �� \ 2-STY ;:r ,� •;'r--Saar �- •• Q _ i •y °1 � �� i ,,,,, :.M f g, 14••• U I 1 1y 1 / \ \ ' D++'QU• It }: 5 /� tAtp \ 3 J HaA.Tlyq 1[.1L7 ? t• 4, —.1 - - • • dl Ad 40 • t i Rim '� :, Q It CAJ a �+ :�7 - r cv al.y ala 16 - ..........IM8[ Iji•41 11 — i VI 1 \\i:_1br 04. hr••.a, • ave......lx li! ✓ s— r s_ 3'wlee `ma Mayr w•err! ,..--k__._ _:___0. .tom c., 1•• rm —7 �, r cd 1 -' - �;�r7. t r.a e_•e _Me.rreee f[t $E ceeYee M. 69"— 55-Io " w. aaaga .. I,.t .. t4.• _ _ — 11 ..- or Mwc.wev nrC 2.7'r s.7' f VtS ao ra. �� SBO.$9- ' •N$ir O.L.,M/a• a•L•r w •us. Page 45,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript Town of Southol. justifies movi : it all that way into the side yard. Mr. Lauro really feels that he would like to see them •ut the deck back somewhat, at least several feet. And it shouldn't be a hardship. There's enty of room around the pool. They've got plenty of room on the other side, and they ,ent ahead without a permit and built an illegal structure. And he notified the Building Deo artment at an early stage, they did tell him they were busy and it would take a while to get `o it. But he did notify them right away. He would just like to see it cut back to whatever ye feel, as a Board, might be reasonable but he feels that five feet is just too close. Thank yo BILL AMATO: It's already been • t back five feet from the fence line. Now you're asking for another five feet, essential I don't know if Mr. Nicovic would go for that. Originally the plan was to give him his a. 'vacy, and I don't know how he could expect privacy moving his house within five fee It's even closer with the overhang to the property line. So I don't know how he couli expect the privacy by putting your house within five feet of a property line. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: We're only asking hii to comply with the ordinance. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the Board Members o either of these nice people? So the Board will then address the issue and will come up,with some amiable solution, we're not sure what that's going to be. BILL AMATO: Thank you. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak for o against this application? SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * Recess 8:55 to 9:00 9:00 p.m. Appl. No. 5072 —DR. JERRY CALLIS, et al, Appelants. This is an Appeal Application requesting Reversal of Building Permit #27894-Z dated 11/13/01 and Certificate of Occupancy #Z-28096 dated 11/30/01, issued by the Building Department, concerning existing construction referred to as a 60 sq. ft. "platform with monument" located at property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-81-3-19.4. (On February 21, 2002, JOHN PETROCELLI AND JOSEPH MACARI submitted authorization for Dr. Callis to appeal in their behalf.) CHAIRMAN: Mr. Angel, how are you tonight sir? STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I'm fine thank you Mr. Goehringer. t `! •+i Page 46,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscnpt Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: For the record could you just state your name and your address? STEPHEN ANGEL ESQ.: We're the applicants, Esseks, Hefter and Angel, 108 E. Main Street, Riverhead, New York by Stephen R. Angel of counsel. CHAIRMAN: Before you start I just want to set some ground rules and I'm going to go to Mr. Orlando, because I believe he's going to say something. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Chairman, I will be recusing myself from this application. CHAIRMAN: Fine, thank you. Mr. Angel we are going to ask for a couple of things tonight. The first thing we are going to ask for is that any spokespersons in the audience or anybody that would like to speak will be sworn in. Counsels will not be sworn in. Number two, we are centering ourselves on the germane issue that's before us and that is the issue of the building permit that granted this structure so to speak by our own definition, and we didn't create the building permit. It was created by another agency in this Town. We are not here to discuss any other issues unless those issues are germane to that building permit, which is presently before us and that I believe you are going to address. Is that correct? STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I'm ready. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I think before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I have a series of Affidavits of Posting and Mailing I think we faxed over before hand. As you know this is an unusual case involving an appeal by neighbors, so we are not coming before you in connection with property that our clients own. So I have a series of affidavits, which I would like to introduce in record at the beginning of the hearing, showing our substantial compliance with all your requirements. I won't burden the record with identifying that there are four affidavits related to the posting and the sending of the certified letters, as well as giving notice of application to the property owner. May I hand them up? CHAIRMAN: Surely. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Now as you stated, we're here on an appeal from the issuance of a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Inspector. The Building Permit, for the record is dated November 13, 2001 and it is number 27894 issued to James and Barbara Miller. And the Certificate of Occupancy is dated 11/30/01 and its number is Z28096. CHAIRMAN: What did you say the date was on that sir? STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: 11/30/01 I believe. The Certificate of Occupancy is November 30, 2001. As we perceive the appeal there are two basic issues, one is a zoning issue whether the Building Permit and the Certificate of Occupancy were properly • . T' Page 47,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Heanng Tianscript Town of Southold issued or improperly issued and whether they are legal or illegal under zoning and that the second issue is a more legalistic issue. It has to do with application of a legal doctrine which is known as issue preclusion as will be developed in my relatively brief presentation tonight. And as you most likely know, there has been substantial litigation among the parties to this dispute over the last two or three years. In the course of that litigation, the courts have dealt with what we believe to be the precise issue before your Board. We believe that the courts had dealt with that issue from our viewpoint, which would lead to the conclusion that the Building Permit and the C.O. were improperly issued and are in violation of zoning. In other words, there's only been a determination of that effect. Those are generally the two topics that I want to address tonight. Initially, I would point out that Dr. Jerry Callis is here, he'll make a brief statement and Mr. and Mrs. Petrocelli are here. Mr. Macari could not make it. I would like to hand up, at this time, a couple of things, and I believe I have multiple copies of both. One is a letter from a person who lives within ten or fifteen feet of the subject property, Alice Mineret, not spelled that way and she faxed that to me and I told her I would hand that up to the Board. The other thing that I prepared is brief discussion of all the prior decisions in this case, to which I've appended the prior decisions, starting with your decision which was I believe was undated but in response to the meeting on March 3, 1998 running through eight decisions, orders or judgment issued by Supreme Court by Justice Buhrer of the Supreme Court, culminating in a order denying an application to state enforcement of the judgment and that was dated June 29, 01. I have, is five copies enough, you have five members? CHAIRMAN: Yes. I never get one; mine goes to the file and I have to read it on the weekends. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I have a sixth. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'll take it. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I didn't hand up Mineret's letter. There are six of these also. Initially what I'd like to point out is one, I don't know if it's an important factor of the determination, but I want to make the record clear, that even though there's been substantial litigation on this matter, the substantial litigation was commenced by Mr. and Mrs. Miller. They were the plaintiffs in the litigation. All of those decisions, the eight court decisions that are attached to that document that I just delivered to you, or I just gave to you are decisions that were issued in connection with the case that Mr. and Mrs. Miller brought initially against the Town, against one of the Town Justices, Justice Price, and against the Building Inspector himself, Mr. Verity. That's critical to some extent on our legal argument because Mr. Verity, who issued the Building Permit and the Certificate of Occupancy would have been bound by the determinations in that underlying lawsuit. Before I briefly discuss our zoning positions I wanted to state something, and I'm not sure that it's directly relevant to the issue of the Certificate of Occupancy and the Building Permit. But its something that I think needs to be said. The Zoning Code in the Town of Southold and zoning codes in general when they deal with height limitations which is essentially what we have before us tonight, are esthetic • Page 48,March 21,2002 ' ZBA Public Hearing Transcript Town of Southold neutral, they're art neutral. There is nothing in the Zoning Code that says if you build a structure that's a house that's 35 feet or less, that it has to look a certain way. There's nothing in the Building Code that says if you have an accessory structure to a house of 18 feet or less that it has to look in a certain way. All it does is say that there's a height limitation on these structures. So we're not talking about any esthetic judgment, we're talking about a neutral code provision that has nothing to do with whether something is beautiful, something is great art or something is pedestrian and garbage. What we're talking about is just a height limitation. And I tried to use an example. The example that I've been using, since I've been involved in the case, that came to mind probably a year or two ago, is if in Southold I owned a valuable piece of property and I wanted to make an artistic statement and I wanted to hire the most renowned architect in the world, I wanted to hire Fred Gary who just did that museum, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilboa Spain; or I wanted to hire Richard Meyer who just designed the Getty Museum for$10 billion in Los Angeles and I told them I wanted a monument to my taste and wealth in the form of a house, it would have to be 35 feet or less in height. The fact that it is esthetically pleasing or that these people are in fact great artists, doesn't put it up higher. Also, if that house a garage or a cabana it has to be 18 feet or less, even though, you could apply for a variance but within the Zoning Code it has to be 18 feet or less even if designed by a world renowned architect, even if magnificently beautiful. Now, the Zoning issue. CHAIRMAN: I just don't know how that relates to a Building Permit, other than the fact that you're reiterating the fact that it's 18 feet. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I think the argument advanced Mr. Chairman, that art should not be subject to zoning, and I just want to clear the air on that. That's all, that's the only reason I say that. In fact, the Building Permit in this case is very specific, and now I'm going to get to the issue. The Building Permit is issued for an accessory structure, so we're dealing with a determination that this is an accessory structure to a single-family residence. Building Permit requires that as an implicit finding, because that's the way it was issued. And then it also says that a monument is that accessory structure. And I tried to analyze what ultimate facts were necessary for the Building Inspector to conclude in order to issue the Certificate of Occupancy. One of the facts, or legal conclusions that we had to conclude, was that this heron structure is a monument. Even though, as you will hear a little bit later from one of my witnesses, the expert Terry Elkewitz, the planner, even though it doesn't meet the definition of a monument. A monument deals with a some sort of edifice or structure for dead people or some historical fact. But the Building Inspector had to conclude that it was accessory and that it was a monument. Go back to number two. I said he had to conclude that it was a monument. Number two is, he had to conclude that this more than 40 foot high structure is accessory to a single family residential dwelling, and that means its customary and incidental under your Code. So he concluded that a monument of this size in this residential location is customary and incidental to the principle use which a single-family residence in a R80 district. And the third thing that he had to conclude was that a self-characterization of a structure by the property owner, was sufficient to make the structure immune from the height limitations that admitted under the code. I say, and I submit to you, that its not a monument, doesn't meet the definition of a monument and Terry Elkiwitz will read you the definition of Page 49,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Healing Tianscript Town of Southold that's been adopted by your Code. Its not accessory, and not customary and incidental to a single-family residence. I've given a lot of thought since we made this application, what would a true monument one that memorializes a past act of a dead person, where would a monument be an accessory? Well, the Village Green where some public gathering, or public commemoration can take place? In front of a courthouse, it would probably be an accessory to a courthouse. And I tried to think of private uses where a monument may be accessory. And the only thing that I could come up with is possibly a church, possibly a university, possibly a private school where they commemorate in a monument, their long deceased founder or somebody of that nature. The other third aspect is that I think its absolutely terrible public policy when you're dealing with something that has to have a public character to allow someone on an individual lot to self-characterize a structure as a monument, and that's what was done here. There is no public zoning in this particular area, in fact in the R80 District, and I'm sure you're aware in many of your decisions one of the factors that the courts take into consideration is the quiet and security of residential neighborhoods. That's contrary to putting a public monument on somebody's property. I thought of some examples. If you were to affirm the determinations of the Building Inspector and dismiss our appeal, so that a monument when somebody self-characterizes a particular structure to be a monument for whatever purpose he or she says he could build it without regard to the height limitations, I was thinking about my clients, who live within the area. Mr. Petrocelli's main business is the construction business; perhaps he would build a 50-foot monument to some person who is well known in the construction business, a big contractor or an edifice to a structure. Dr. Callis, who used to run the Plum Island Research Facility perhaps could commemorate with a 60-foot structure with somebody who is well known in the sciences who found something. Greg Ermendal the geneticist from the 19th Century, I don't know. . And Mr. Macari, who has the very obvious winery up here, could build an edifice to the Greek god Bacchus 100 feet in height because he wanted to commemorate the love of wine and good times represented by that mythic figure. The truth is that they're not going to do those things. I'm just joking. But these examples are real examples. 'What I think will happen is not that Dr. Callis will go out and build a 50 foot structure, Mr. Petrocelli will build a 60 foot one, and Mr. Macari will build a 100 foot one, but somebody who has valuable property either on the sound or on the bay will want to identify his parcel with a monument. And he will have the right to do it. And he will have the right to put a 60- foot monument or a 70-foot monument. And he will have the automatic right to do that without any restriction as to height. That's more likely. The second aspect of my argument clearly focused on the issue, is our position that determinations, copies of which you have in my submission to the Board, are determinative under this doctrine called issue preclusion by the courts. Another way of labeling the doctrine is the lawyer's call it the doctrine collateral estoppels. And I brought a copy of, and I'll just read a sentence of what it means, the doctrine of collateral estoppels or issue preclusion, in more modern terminology bars re-litigation of issues of ultimate fact between the same parties when those issues have been determined by a prior valid final judgment. In our case you will see in the package of papers there was a prior valid unappealled prior judgment. And you will see when you read those papers, if you care to do so, a couple of things and I'm going to read to quotes from the last of the documents submitted to you which is an order issued by Judge Berler June 29, 2001, and it's the final letter he issued so far in this • Page 50,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscnpt Town of Southold case and it was in connection with an application by Mr. and Mrs. Miller to stay the judgment, to stay his direction to remove the structure. When he first started out he says the instant application, and that's the application to stay the judgment, is hopefully the last of the series of actions taken on the part of the plaintiffs, and in this case the plaintiffs are Mr. and Mrs. Miller. Whereby they have installed a certain heron structure on the beach in the Town of Southold New York and have avoided having to remove said structure despite several decisions of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County and the Appellate Division second department finding this structure to be illegal. Now, specifically on the argument of whether this characterization of the structure as a monument somehow gives you a get out of jail free card so you can avoid the height limitations of 18 feet for accessory structures was discussed in the case before Judge Berler. And those papers also have the following statement, despite plaintiffs efforts in their own attempt to label the structure as a monument, the fact remains that accessory building and structures cannot be taller than 18 feet and it refers to the Southold Town Code, Section 100-33A. That concludes my comments but I'd like to introduce our planning expert Theresa Elkewitz who I believe has been before your Board on other applications. She will briefly explain her; she will give you a copy of her CV and also states some of her pertinent planning qualifications, and thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Miss Elkewitz would you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? THERESA ELKEWITZ: Yes Mr. Chairman, I do. Good evening Chairman Goehringer, Members of the Board. For the record my name is Terry Elkewitz and I'm a.principle of the firm Elkewitz Consulting Group with offices at 368 Veterans Memorial Highway in Commack. I was retained by the applicant in this matter as a planning expert and they asked me to review this and to render an opinion as to whether the Building Permit and the associated C.O., Certificate of Occupancy, were issued in compliance with the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. Now the Board is aware, Mr. Angel has brought you up to date relative to the issue. The height of the platform and the heron is approximately 40 feet, and the property owners have represented to the Town that this 40-foot structure is a monument. And I'm here to give you my opinions relative to this issue based upon my qualifications and my review of the matter. As Mr. Angel said I've testified before this Board on many occasions also before the Planning Board on many occasions. I'm going to give you a copy of my Curriculum Vitae and I will briefly my municipal planning experience with you if you would like to hear it. I've been a practicing planning and environmental consultant for over sixteen years. I am the president of the firm that I founded in 1988. In that capacity I have prepared and performed numerous planning and environmental studies and evaluations. I also serve, or have served as a consulting municipal planner to several municipalities, including but not limited to the Village of Lake Success, Sands Point, Brookville, Old Brookville, Manor Haven and Great Neck Estates. I provide consulting services to the City of Glenn Cove and the Town of Babylon. And I was retained this week as a Planning Consultant to the Village of Nesequague. In my capacity as municipal planner I reviewed applications such as this Page 51,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscript Town of Southold for compliance with Zoning Codes. I assisted drafting zoning districts and subdivisions regulations and I assist Boards in compliance with SEQRA. I also sit with Boards of Trustees, Planning Boards and Zoning Boards at public hearings and give planning and zoning advise. I am the Chairperson of the Suffolk County Council on environmental quality. A position I have held for over a decade. In addition to my municipal experience and experience which you are very familiar, I've testified before zoning boards, planning boards, town boards and village boards on behalf of private applicants in planning and environmental matters. I provide expert testimony and sworn affidavits in court cases on such matters. I also hold a Master of Science degree and am a member of numerous professional organizations, including the American Planning Association and the Environmental Assessment Association. Now the opinions that I'm going to present to you this evening, relate solely to zoning and planning matters. It's my opinion that the issue that's before you is not one of freedom of expression, nor is it one of art appreciation. It's one of land use regulation and the proper application of the zoning code to this matter. Now I've reviewed your zoning code and in the R80 District you can, if you don't have, you have principle uses, you have accessory uses. This is clearly not a principle use. It must be an accessory use. And if you define this structure as an accessory structure, the Code is clear relative to height. Section 100-33A of the Zoning Code specifically provides a maximum height 18 feet for accessory structures. And as this structure exceeds 18 feet in height it is my opinion that the Building Inspector did not have the authority to issue the Building Permit that he issued. I wanted to explain to you my rationale for this opinion. The R80 Zoning District sets forth various permitted uses. One-family detached dwellings, agricultural operations, building structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, school districts, park districts and fire districts and wineries. Those are the permitted uses. Now there are also various Special Exception uses upon approval by this Board. Accessory uses are also permitted but your Code is very clear, Section 100-31C1 specifically says relative to this matter,,permitted accessory uses must be and I quote, "any customary structures or uses which are customarily incidental to the principle use, except those prohibited by this chapter. I respectfully submit to the Board a 40-foot heron is not customary nor is it incidental to a principle residential use. In fact, I am personally not aware of any residential use in the Town of Southold or in any of the other municipalities in which I work that allow a 40- foot high accessory structure. One that clearly exceeds the maximum prohibited height of a principle structure. It's just not done. And it doesn't matter if it's a piece of art. Such a structure is not customary, incidental to a residential use. Now based upon your zoning code and my own experience, this structure no matter what it represents could not be defined as an accessory structure by the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold because its not customary. Now even if you were to consider the possibility of this 40- foot structure being an accessory structure, I submit that the Zoning Code precludes it from being constructed. Section 100-31C of the Zoning Code indicates that accessory uses are subject to conditions listed in Section 100-33. The pertinent requirement is as follows and I quote, "such buildings shall not exceed 18 feet in height. No one is disputing if this structure exceeds 18 feet in height. So it violates the Zoning Code and the Building Inspector should never have issued the Building Permit. Based on the property owner's application, it appears that they were very aware of this problem and in my opinion; they tried to circumvent the zoning code by unilaterally deciding to declare • Page 52,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Heanng Tianscnpt Town of Southold the structure to be a monument. As I am sure the Board is aware, Section 100-230D of the Zoning Code sets forth height exceptions, exceptions to those limitations. That Section specifically accepts spires, belfries, copulas and domes, not for human occupancy and monuments and transmission towers and several other things. What's very interesting is when one looks for the definition of a monument in your Zoning Code, such definition is not provided. But what your Zoning Code, which is somewhat unique, is it directs you to a specific dictionary. The Code specifically directs, in Section 100-13B, and I quote, "any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged or Latest Edition." And I see Mr. Angel was kind enough to point it out to you. I purchased that specific dictionary so that I could find the definition of a monument. And I would like to read to you, but I'm going to submit copies. The definition that's from the dictionary named in your Code as the source document for such a definition, but I'm going to read to you the current definitions of a monument, not those definitions deemed by this dictionary to be obsolete or archaic because you will also see that there are obsolete and archaic definitions. Monument: Something that by surviving represents or testifies to the greatness or achievement, especially of an individual or . A structure, such as a pillar, stone or building erected or maintained in memory of the dead or to preserve the remembrance of a person, event or action. A natural or artificial but permanent object serving to indicate a limit or to mark the boundary. A natural feature as a mountain or canyon or an area of special historic or scientific interest as a battle site or fossil remains that is set aside by a local or rational government as public property. A lock pinnacle or column resulting from erosion and resembling a man-made monument. A written tribute testimonial. And I respectfully submit that based upon those current definitions of the word monument, the property owners assertion that this structure is a monument is without merit. I further submit to the Board, and if,you are inclined to concur with the property owner's assertion that this structure is a monument, and as such is not subject to the height restrictions in the Code, you'd be contravening the purposes of the comprehensive zoning plan of the Town of Southold that is set forth in Section 100- 10 of the Zoning Code and there are many of them. But there are several that you would specifically be contravening. The maximum protection of residential and historic areas, the enhancement of the appearance of the Town of Southold as a whole, particularly its open and rural environment. The encouragement of flexibility of design and development of land in such a way as to produce the most appropriate use of lands to facilitate the adequate and economical of streets and utilities and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open land. And in addition to these purposes that I believe this Board would be contravening, you would also be setting what, as a planned professional I believe, is a very dangerous interpreted precedent. And Mr. Angel gave you some very real examples of what could happen. But I have some more that are even more absurd and I believe that people would, in general, find offensive. If the Board determines that this 40 foot structure is a monument, how could the Town deny a resident who may be the franchise owner of a McDonald's from erecting a 60 foot high Ronald McDonald in their backyard? It's a structure just like this heron is. How could the Town deny the construction of 150-foot high replica of the World Trade Center on a residential property? Someone declares it a monument you couldn't. And while these examples are absurd, they concur realistically, if this Board determines that a private citizen can Page 53,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Healing Transcript Town of Southold unilaterally define a structure, a nonconforming structure as a monument purely to circumvent your Zoning Code. This is not a matter of art; it's not a matter of free expression. It's clearly a zoning issue. You may like the heron; you may not like the heron. You may like a statue of David, you may not. But land use and zoning decisions are not made on the basis of personal taste nor do they defer to freedom of expression. They are dictated by the zoning code and land use regulations of the town in which the property is situated. I thank you very much for your time and patience. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Angel, is Dr. Callis going to make a statement at this point? STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I expect that Dr. Callis and maybe Mr. Petrocelli are going to make statements. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Callis how are you tonight sir? DR. JERRY CALLIS: Fine CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear the information is the absolute truth to the best of your knowledge sir? DR. JERRY CALLIS: I do. I too, as you've heard worked in the public sector in my case for 41 years. Thus I'm well aware its not possible to please all of your constituents all of the time. However, I found that it helped me to learn how your constituents felt about issues, even if you did not agree with them. Its in this spirit I come to you tonight to let you know I am disappointed and frankly upset with your determination to grant a permit for what has become known as "The Bird" to be positioned on the beach between Cedar and Paradise Points. Why do I not like this piece of artwork? My reason is simple; it seems so very out of place. Some, an Ode to the Bay, calls it yet it's barely 20 feet from the water's edge. Is not a memorial usually placed a distance from what or where it actually honors rather than in this case, adjacent unless, of course, it something like a sculpture of John F. Kennedy which is inside the JFK Center in Washington where the building and the bust of JFK both are actual memorials. But would the bust seem appropriate on the beach at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. This bodes the next question. Why do we need something to memorialize the bay, which is barely 20 feet away from the sculpture? Just stand back, look to the east and enjoy the unobstructed view of the bay. My concern is, what will be your determination if someone in the area, perhaps even on the same beach, decides a 40 foot or even higher replica of the Twin Towers would look good in front of their property, as well as honor those who died in this tragic event. I'm fearful your decision has set a dangerous precedent in this rapidly developing town. A decision, which should be revoked, less other petitions for similar items come to you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Petrocelli? Do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the best of your knowledge? Page 54,March 21,2002 , ZBA Public Hearing Tianscript Town of Southold JOHN PETROCELLI: I do. I just feel as though I can't reiterate what I said, everything has been said that I wanted to say. But I just want it known that Mr. Miller really never considered his neighbors in erecting the bird or whatever they call it. We asked them not to do it and we went to his house and he called us the Gestapo and then he went ahead and did what he wanted to do anyway. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak regarding this application that's before us? Sir? ROBERTO BISENE: I am the artist who built the sculpture. CHAIRMAN: We're not here to discuss art tonight. ROBERTO BISENE: I know, I'm going to address some of the points that were made here by the planner Ms. Elkewitz. CHAIRMAN: What's your name sir? ROBERTO BISENE: Roberto Bisene. CHAIRMAN: How do you do. Do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? ROBERTO BISENE: Absolutely. Yes, my name Roberto Bisene and I am the artist who built the monument. Certainly I'm not here to talk about art, however, I've heard some things that are pretty outrageous tonight. The notion that this is not a monument. I'm glad that Ms. Elkewitz brought forth the definition. CHAIRMAN: You must, at all times sir, express your opinion to this dais and not to anybody else. ROBERTO BISENE: Yes. I'm very glad that she provided the definition of monument because early on in the definition she very quickly worked over exactly what it is that I determined as my reason for declaring this a monument. This was not a unilateral declaration of Mr. Miller. This is, in fact, my designation of my artwork as a monument. Now, Ms. Elkewitz said that monuments can be created to the greatness or achievement of an age. That is not a past, deceased person or past event. That is something else entirely. And that's exactly what I intended for this monument. That's precisely what I had intended with this monument that it would be a monument to the environmental balance that we are starting to achieve at this time. This is a balance of development in nature. Mr. Callis talks about the beauty of the bay. That's exactly what this is about. Now I will say one thing about art and land use, and that is not a zero sum game. That is, is you have a game on the part of an artwork it does not necessitate a loss of some other value. You can have a win win situation. I just wanted to address the question of the monument because the statements that were made are not accurate. Thank you. Page 55,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Healing Transcript Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: Dr. I just want to address one issue that you brought up in the beginning and I'll let you speak if you would come back up to the microphone sir. I was a little confused by the beginning of your statement. Please be advised that we did not grant this permit. We're here to deal with this permit based upon on the application of your attorneys. DR. JEFFREY CALLIS: I stand corrected on that. CHAIRMAN: Okay. DR. JEFFREY CALLIS: The one issue that I neglected to discuss. We've been calling this a heron. Well let's set the record straight, it's not a heron, it's not a sculpture of a heron, and it's a sculpture of a bittern. A heron you would never find with its neck and its beak pointed towards the sky. It's a bittern, not a heron. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: We have to go to Mr. Arnoff now sir, and then we will let you speak. Mr. Arnoff. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Good evening Mr. Goehringer. Harvey Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York on behalf of the Millers. Artistic license, and we can call this sculpture anything we'd like. It is, in fact, a sculpture I'm not here to address the artistic aspect of it. It's been approximately four years and twenty-three days since I had the pleasure, not since I was here but since the date that I was here. And Mr. Forrester had posed a question to this Board. I sat here and I listened to the argument and I had nothing to do with this, I was here on another application and as a member of the community I rose and I said something to the Board then that it seems to be echoed in some indirect manor by my colleague Mr. Angel and that is the Code's not sufficient on its face. I said you need to define things. You need to set up rules; you need to do things now. Nobody did anything. We are here today with the same problem we were here with on that date in February 1998. There's been no definition of a monument added. There's been no definition of a monument added. There've been no rules and regulations applicable to monuments added by the Town Board during any kind of legislation propagation. This Board's job, and I'm not going to lecture on your job, is to interpret the law and to apply it not to legislate. Now. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: There are issues: 1. Has this property been properly posted _ since there is substantial compliance as alleged by Mr. Angel sufficient to get us beyond the cusp of jurisdiction. I have not observed the documents that he has handed up, but I'm sure that's something this Board will certainly consider. But let's be mistaken about certain things. We litigated and litigated for a long time on the issue of whether or not this work of art was a structure. Justice Berler did decide that it's a structure. I don't happen to agree with him. That's the law of the case, and we're bound by that. We chose not to appeal it. We did what Judge Berler told us to do, indirectly. Come back to the Town, make your application and do what you have to do. Now I will point out one Page 56,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript Town of Southold thing. In Justice Berler's decision, which Mr. Angel has provided you with a copy of so I need not do that? He specifically says, and it's the last paragraph, in addition parenthetically this court has been made aware of much public criticism suggesting it has initially held the subject matter as a structure not a work of art. It is emphasized that such is an outrageous interpretation of its home. The initial home simply states the subject matter bird does not conform to the requirements of the Zoning Board of the Town of Southold defining a structure or a building; which was the only issue to be decided by this court. They never determined whether it was a monument, they never' determined whether it met height requirements, they merely determined was it a structure. That's what Judge Berler did. In fact, it goes on to say on a contraries legion that in building a structure may be defined as a work of art such as was the case of the Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge when the same were constructed. The court further suggests that there may have been a contrary holding if it was required to define the subject matter bird as a work of art. Now let's look at what's before the Board and let's cut from this in a very simple fashion which is really what I intended to do because I don't want belabor this it's been four years and I'm tired. It's an accessory building. Does it meet the setback requirements? Yes, it does. Now does it meet the height requirements? No, it does not as an accessory structure. There's no question it's well over the height requirement. However, the Town in its infinite wisdom carved out certain exceptions and they've been read into the record and I'm not going to bore you with reading them again. A monument is an exception to this record, to these rules. Now, because this is what you have to hear, because the person who is missing tonight is the Building Inspector and I would ask that perhaps this matter be continued for this Board to take testimony from the Building Inspector. In reality the Building Inspector acted. He had an application for a Building Permit. He reviewed it; he reviewed the definition that was read into the record and other definitions .of monuments as well. He unilaterally made a determination and interpreted and said this is a monument and issued the Building Permit. Now, what do the Millers do? They didn't come to you. They didn't have to come to you. They got a Building Permit, which is what Judge Berler told them to do. Go get a Building Permit, you didn't do it. Now, what did they render, in reliance on that they acted and they constructed the bird, they put the bird back on its pedestal and then went back to the Town as they were supposed to do and said, we think we complied with the rules and mandates surrounding the Building Permit can we have a Certificate of Occupancy. And I believe Mr. Verity or another representative of the Building Department went and inspected and made sure everything was in compliance and issued the Certificate of Occupancy. And it's that narrow issue as you quite properly stated Mr. Goehringer to begin with; this Board has cause to inquire into. Now, if it's a monument I believe we have nothing further to talk about. Let me tell you why. This section which was read in regard to accessory structures if any customary structures or uses, which are customary incidental for principle, use has nothing to do with the height of anything. Are statues, religious icons, proper and customary or any type of statues that one puts on the lawn, are they monuments? Well, I'm not so sure they're monuments, but are they structures? Now we had this discussion Mr. Goehringer, I believe when I was here in February of 1998. That one views the Code that they're structures. So if I pour a little concrete base and put a statue on my front lawn, I need a Building Permit. Now the next question is the Code gives no guidance to the Building Department as to how high it can Page 57,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript Town of Southold be except, they say, if it's a monument there are no height requirements. It's very dangerous. Let's not minimize these hundred foot World Trade Center things that someone could put in their back yard. It's quite possible. Is it what we want in this municipality, no I don't believe it is? But until the Town fathers chose to promulgate legislation, we are left with what, its right here the Zoning Code in the Town of Southold and the definitions provided. Now, its my position with my client may not be heard at this point to change this determination of the Building Department because it is not clear on its face. In other words if somebody had examined the total stranger had read our Code cover to cover and examined it would they then say its clear that this is not a monument and we needed a variance. And by the way if we can hear them indirectly, that this Board chooses to act as Mr. Angel would act are we back here again, much like ground hog day making an application again for a variance. I'm going to read this again, because I'm not so sure what the net result of an adverse determination would be here. But be that as it may, I hope I don't have to address that in the future with this Board. Now, it isn't true that there aren't similar structures in the Town of Southold. There may be similar, there may not be 38 feet high structures, but there are many structures, we are now defining works of art and structures that violate technically speaking our Town Code. Nobody does anything about it. Now, I could go through the list or part of the file and there's certainly part of the judicial file and this Board could certainly be privy to it if it wants. MEMBER TORTORA: We don't have that in our file could you provide that for us? You said there are many. Could you provide that? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Yes, I could provide you copies of the photographs that we submitted as part of the litigation, yes I can and I would be glad to do that. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnoff? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry to say that I suffer from a case of glaucoma and I'm going to have to go get my hat very shortly, so whenever you're HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I'll be very quick. I'll shortly finish. CHAIRMAN: We're going to have to take a short break. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Do you want to do that now Mr. Goehringer? CHAIRMAN: No, you can continue. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Okay. Now, something was mentioned, I want to reiterate this. That the Code didn't envision a monument of this size, this is not customary a Page 58,Match 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscript Town of Southold monument of this size. Bare in mind, I must reiterate the Code never addresses that issue. Now, is this a monument? In 1998 a ceremony was held, the sculptor was dedicated and I believe someone else will be here to address or come before this Board addressing exactly what happened at that time, and if they don't I'll do it before the close of this hearing. There was a plaque made, the sculpture has been dedicated as a monument to the bays. I was pleased to be at that ceremony in 1998. If we call it self- characterization I don't think that's fair. Because Mr. Miller came and said to this municipality's Building Department I have an accessory structure, its 38 feet high. Its my position its monument, and these are the reasons why. You tell me Mr. Building Inspector and Mr. Building Inspector did exactly what he was supposed to do, he approved it. Because he felt it was a monument. Now that's the discretion that has been vested in the Building Department by our Town Code. Make no mistake about it, that's what's there. And if Miss Elkewitz, Mr. Angel, Mr. Callis, Mr. Petrocelli anyone else, Mr. Macari wish to disagree as to whether this is a monument, let us not also forget that reasonable people will disagree. But there comes a point when we have to rely on something. Now we as members of the community go to our Building Department and we make an application for a Building Permit and we all go there and I've done it, get our permit and act in reliance on that permit. That's what the Millers did. Now are we now going to say that when is somebody safe with their Building Permit? When are they safe with their Certificate of Occupancy? This is clearly an accessory structure. This is clearly a monument and I submit the Certificate of Occupancy, the Building Permit was properly issued. Thank you. Oh, and I have additional definitions of monument which are, which I personally forwarded to the Building Department and I would hand them up if the Board wishes to see them. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MEMBER TORTORA: I do have a copy of those from the Building Department file. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I can hand up other copies if you want. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not necessary, there are a lot of definitions, but they're not from Webster's and as you know, our Code directs us Webster's. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Fine, that's okay and that was one of the definitions that was along with the others. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down Mr. Arnoff, how do you draw the analogy and I'm trying to understand this, how do you get to that monument aspect. And that's what confuses me. And I say that because maybe it's the lateness of the hour, maybe it's the fact that I'm not understanding how you go, because this Board determines this to be a structure in 1998. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: No, the Board did not do that. The Board was asked a generic question. The Board rendered a generic decision. It made no fact finding as to this particular item. And I will remind the Board; I have the Minutes of that. You, Mr. Page 59,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Heanng Transcript Town of Southold Goehringer, started off the meeting by saying we are not here to make a specific finding on any specific CHAIRMAN: Let me change that philosophy then. Based upon that decision and the reliance of that decision members of the town then indicated that this was a structure. Is that correct? Am I incorrect in calling this a structure? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Not now, no you're not sir. CHAIRMAN: What has caused this to cause it, Judge Berler's decision? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Yes, I would say that that Judge Berler's decision finally determined that it was a structure, that's correct. There was a determination by the Building Department and a Stop Work Order, and then ultimately our litigation led to a determination that this was a structure. CHAIRMAN: And that was a four-year period? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Well no, it was a three-year period. June 2001 was when the final determination was made. CHAIRMAN: I'm not trying to get sticky about this; I'm just trying to understand this. • So during that period of time from 1998 to the year 2001 or wherever Judge Berler's decision was, if I refer to that this bird as a structure I would be incorrect? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ: Not necessarily. Not according to this municipality no. CHAIRMAN: So I just want to clear that up. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: No, you're fine. CHAIRMAN: So how do we get from the structure aspect to the monument aspect? Other than the fact that we go; there was a dedication and so on and so forth. I mean you can think about this because we're going to take a short break. But how do we get from that aspect to this aspect? I'm just trying to figure that out. MEMBER TORTORA: I think that, you correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you raise the issue of a monument, or tried to raise the issue that this was a monument and that an - exemption be put into the Code that the code had been modified and try to raise the issue before Berler, and he did not accept that. Is that correct? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I don't believe that is exactly correct. What we did, we did raise the issue of it being a monument, and however, he did not make a fact-finding determination as to whether it was or was not. He merely said it was a structure and did not determined either directly or indirectly that it was not a monument. • Page 60,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscript Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: I don't read his decision that way I'm just. He just says that parenthetically plaintiffs argue that 45A of the Town Code no building peg nit is required for a structure less than 100 square feet which obviously you attempted. And since the heron structure has a square footage of less than 100 square feet in floor area, it is allegedly exempt from the building requirement. However, the court notes that Southold Code 45A provides whether or not buildings permit is required. All structures must comply with provisions of the zoning. And it currently goes on with, the despite the attempt to label this, as a monument the fact remains the accessory structure cannot be taller than 18 feet. See it's very confusing because I think, when he says that it really appears that he is saying that the judge is saying 18 feet. Those are his words. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Well, no he was saying the structure is 18 feet. He did not make a determination on whether or not this was a monument and the fact, there was no fact-finding hearing ever conducted by Judge Berler from day one. No testimony was ever taken in this matter. Therefore, the determination, that type of determination would only come after fact finding by him. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnoff I just have to ask you one question, there was an issue raised regarding the 1998 hearing as to your capacity as being the Town Attorney were you the Town Attorney in the Town of Southold at that time? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: No. CHAIRMAN: Okay. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I had not been I think for four years. I think 1994 was when I was. CHAIRMAN: I just want to clear that issue up. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you address the issue of collateral estoppels? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Collateral estoppels would not apply in this case and the reason it would not apply is that the issue of, the thing that would apply on collateral estoppels is the issue of whether or not this is a structure. It's a structure. We were stopped from denying that this work of art or monument is what is not a structure. Whether it is or it is not a monument was not something that the court held on to when they made the fact-finding determination on it. And that issue is we are not precluded on and the Building Department properly acted when they issued the Building Permit and the Certificate of Occupancy. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as being accessory structure, that's kind of vague in my head really at this point. Customary and incidental is it customary? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: It is not customary. , Page 61,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Heating Transcript Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: A 40 foot high piece of art. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I said your making the quantum leap. Ask yourself the first question; are statues on people's property customary in the Town of Southold? The answer, yes. Is there an exception for monuments that are over, there's a height exception for monuments, answer yes? You can't ask the initial question, are 38-foot high monuments customary in this municipality. I would venture to say that 38-foot high monuments are not customary in any municipality in the United States or perhaps the world. That's not the issue here. The issue here is, is it customary and usual, the answer is yes. Throughout our community you will see statues all over the place. That's not the issue. CHAIRMAN: Are you raising the issue of compliance by the applicants for proper advertising based upon our code compliance? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I would see the documents to address that issue directly. CHAIRMAN: So you are going to review those. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Yes I am. CHAIRMAN: So at this time, we'll take approximately a 3 — 4 minutes break and I will get what I need to get from the office. Before anybody gets up, I just would like to know how many people would, by a show of hands, and I'm not putting anybody in a bad position. How many people would like to speak tonight? Again. Please be advised that we will probably have a second hearing. Also please be advised that it is my understanding that this Board does have subpoena powers, however, we don't like to use them. We will openly request the Building Inspector to come if it is of necessity for either counsel to speak to or ask questions of the Building Inspector. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I'll do that when you come back. Break CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnoff, you'll wrap this up right? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I will, I just wanted to, you asked me a question, which I always like to answer questions if I can. You asked me how do we get the monument. What made the monument? I would answer, whatever my client wanted it to be. Whatever Mr. Horning might want it to be. Whatever Mr. Goehringer might want it to be. Whatever anybody else. If you dedicate it to and make it fit within the definition as set forth and is read upon the record, that's all it takes because there are no definitions in our Code to make it otherwise. And my client went far beyond that. He didn't just merely pick that, at the end of Judge Berler's determination in the year 2001. In 1998 he dedicated this work of art as a monument. He went through a procedure, they held a ceremony, a plaque was prepared which was made and I believed that that would be • Page 62,Match 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscrtpt Town of Southold sufficient. Now will there be a requirement for some clergy to bless this thing. Would that make it a monument? Not according to our Code. Would it be taken after by Town Board or our legislature or County legislature? Not according to our County Code. It can be whatever that definition says it is. I think that's, I know that sounds kind of a like sarcastic, it's not. It's what our Code provides. And unfortunately, that's all it provides. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Arnoff. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: The gentleman in the back, yes sir. Would you state your name for the record and raise your right hand? THOMAS COBURN: Thomas Coburn. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your ability? THOMAS COBURN: I do. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. THOMAS COBURN: I came here tonight as a resident of Southold Town for the last 32 years. I knew somewhat about what was going on and the fact that they were arguing over this heron bird. I sense a lot of bitterness, whether it's a bittern or whether it's a heron. Who gives a crap? Southold town used to be about common sense and I think they have a lot specific definitions. In my lifetime the Webster dictionary has changed definitions many times over the years. There's bitterness about whether 8 feet or 40 feet. I think they will still argue this point whether it was 17 feet. They just don't like it their beach and they're going to try to find a way to knock it down no matter what happens. It's a piece of art, contrary to what the court said. I think its nice looking and have gone by it on the bay. It doesn't harm anyone's view or anybody's appreciation of the beauty of the neighborhood. I used to sit on Cedar Beach when I was in high school, and it was beautiful and its still beautiful. I don't know what the issue here is. Southold Town gave the man a building permit, he complied with the laws. The same Building Deparnuent that gave me a hard time about a latch on my fence for my pool, is giving this man a permit. And I think that should be the end of it. Enough of the taxpayer's dollars being wasted on this Town. Taxpayers aren't going to like paying more , and it's enough. The man complied with the laws and it should be over with. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Again we are going to have a second hearing on this to wrap up some of the issues, but anybody else that would like to speak, sir? State your name for the record please? MARK MILLER: Mark Miller. - 1 • Page 63,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscript Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: How do you do? Do you solemnly swear Mr. Miller that the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MARK MILLER: I do. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MARK MILLER: I just want to make a couple of points. One was when the planner was speaking to the group, I'm not sure if she specifically stated, but certainly was implicit that monuments were really only for public properties. I'm not so sure that that is really a fair statement because there are monuments that people have on their own property. A Madonna is certainly a monument. I would think it's a religious artifact and people would have something like that on their property as a monument and to say that only monuments can be displayed on public property I'm not sure is correct. And so the issue then, of course, is again the fact that monuments are exempt from the height restriction and it doesn't specifically state anywhere that monuments have to be a certain height. Is it customary to have monuments on private property and residential property? It is. It's all over town. And so, I think that that's really the question is whether their incidental, whether monuments are private property and if so, then, the exemption for the height restriction has to be examined. I thought that something was very interesting from the February 28th hearing to the ZBA, and Mr. Horning's comments were probably the best to sum everything up. He said, "Is a sculpture a building? Yes. If you strictly interpret the existing Code. It is a building because any combination of materials forming a construction is a building and I would interpret the Code strictly because that's what I thought-my job to be. So I reviewed it to be a building. However, 100-230 exempts monuments from these height limitations accessory buildings and a statue is a monument which is a sculpture and so, therefore, strictly speaking, I would interpret that the sculpture be exempt from height limitation which gives me a problem with the Code. Because the Code, again, is deficient and should be addressing these monuments in some fashion in terms of height and size and because it doesn't, we're at a loss and those are my comments." And I think that's really it. We have a bad Code and I think everyone has to acknowledge that. However, the Code, as has been applied, has been applied correctly. And if people are concerned about 60 foot and 70 foot and 100 foot monuments in the future, the Town should be urged to change that Code. But in living with the Code that we have today, everything has been done correctly. And I sat in on meetings with Mr. Verity. I went in with my dad and worked very hard in preparing information for him on definitions of monuments. We provided this definition that was referred to the default definition for the Town. And he reviewed this and everyone did as well. And it's too bad that the people don't feel that the deal was a good one at this point in time. But they should change the Code and not retroactively go back and try to create something that isn't the wording of the municipality's code now. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Miller. Next person? Okay, you are going to say something quickly in a rebuttal. • Page 64,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Tianscript Town of Southold STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Just a couple of legal issues fitting with my position in life. CHAIRMAN: Just let me stop you for one second. Just as I gave you the ground rules before which we will abide by Mrs. Tortora is going to make a final statement, we will recess this hearing until May 23, 2002. That is the way it fits into our calendar. Excuse me for stopping you at this point,just so everybody is aware. Mr. Angel. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: A couple of quick things. There are some statements about how the Building Inspector has discretion. The Building Inspector considered things, and we were involved in this consideration. But he considered things and that's the end of the story. That's not true. Section 267A of the Town Law encompasses upon you the obligation and duty on a proper appeal to review a Building Inspector's determination of the Zoning and I'm sure I don't mean to be patronizing, but I'm sure you recognize that. The Building Inspector's word is not the last word. Yours is the last word until the others give the next series of the last word. But you have the duty to review that on this proper application. So to say that the Building Inspector acted in the story is not true. Harvey mentioned that we're going to come back for a variance. Well, to get a variance you have to show that the application won't alter that particular structure won't alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Typical burden in this particular circumstance. Now, I would point out also in connection with the concept or the doctrine of collateral estoppels which is also called res judicata, or bishop preclusion I'm just going to read an introductory sentence that I pulled out of the commentaries to Section 267A of the Town Law in McKinney's which you people probably look at every once in a while. That's the one that gives your authority to act and defines your responsibilities and grants your powers. In their discussion the first sentence under res judicata says, principles of res judicata bar a party from bringing any issues, which were litigated or could have been litigated in a prior action. And it says res judicata also applies our essential determinations of municipal administrative agencies including Zoning Boards of Appeal. Now, finally, as all those, every once in a while you do research probably less than we should, and I researched this issue on customary and incidental use before I came here and I have a case that is relevant because when we're talking about customary, incidental and the largeness of this particular structure I think the case is especially relevant and I have one copy of it which I'll give you. Now the case title is "Allen Coriando,etal. Vs. Stanley Picanokin, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington. That case involved an application to pen-nit an oversized garage type structure on the piece of property for the property owner to store a 32-foot speed board. You can have a garage of 750 square feet but they wanted a 1,080 square foot garage to store this relatively large boat, compared to a car. The Zoning Board held that it was customary, incidental an accessory even though it was larger than all the rest. The courts, even though the Zoning Board, as you well know, has substantial discretion, which was from the Building Inspector, the courts annulled the Board's determination. The court determined that applicant sought to build a narrow an unusually large structure in which to store and service his boat in. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. Brown's, the applicant's neighborhood, the record is the proof that the type of structure proposed would be customarily found in connection with the type of one family residence to be built on the subject plot to as to qualify as an accessory building. Indeed there is no Page 65,March 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript Town of Southold proof that such structures exist in similar residential zones, much less the sub-structures on customarily found in said zones, this failure proof is fatal. So largeness is a component of customary and accessory. And I commend you to the case I have a copy. CHAIRMAN: What I'd like you to do, if its not an imposition Mr. Angel, is make six copies or seven copies and send one to Mr. Arnoff and send us the six copies tomorrow with a cover letter. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnoff? HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I just have one question. Could you possibly, I had another matter tonight before the Zoning Board of Appeals in Southampton. And I asked my associate to adjourn it to their May meeting, thinking that this might go two meetings and I would be here in April. Could you then possibly schedule this for your June meeting, is that possible? CHAIRMAN: Sure. We'll give you a date. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I'm sorry I just, I mean I've already done that as we speak, and I would feel that there may be some issues that would coincide. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll give you a date. Paula, we have to look for the June meeting okay. It will be the June Special Meeting, and we'll give you a date. If its not tonight, we'lF give you a date tomorrow. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry you wanted to say something? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, Mr. Angel, I'd like you to submit a very clear request of this Board. You raised a number of issues. You've raised the issue of accessory structure, the matter of res judicata, and the matter I'm not quite sure if you're asking for a Reversal of the Building Department's Determination based on Interpretation of customary, incidental. Based on interpretation of monument, you've raised a number of issues. You haven't raised one issue; it's a shotgun appeal. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: It wasn't meant to do that. But I can put our issues in writing and show how they impact what our application. MEMBER TORTORA: I want to know what's before us very specifically. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: No problem. MEMBER TORTORA: In the nature of the appeal. Yes, Harvey? l } • v 1 Page 66,Maich 21,2002 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript Town of Southold HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: I would like a copy of whatever he says. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: You will get a copy of everything. MEMBER TORTORA: It will be in public record. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Any time limit on that? CHAIRMAN: Usually when they're within two weeks of the commencement of the final draft. MEMBER TORTORA: If we could get it before that we would appreciate it, thanks. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I'll get it to you at least a couple of weeks, since we going so far in the future, before the next hearing. So you'll have it before, if that's okay? Is that enough time? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll recess this to June 20th SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:15 P.M. END OF PUBLIC HEARING Prepared by: Paula Quintieri � ns, Page 38—June 20,2002 Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Prepared by Jill Thorp,Transcriber 9:22 p.m.Appl.No. 5072. J.CALLIS&Others(Ref.Miller Property—Heron Sculpture). Mr. Angel: For the record Steven Angel. Esseks, Hefter and Angel for the applicants, Dr. Jerry Callis and others. This particular hearing involving the Heron sculpture was in my opinion eared fairly extensively when we appeared here in March. I sent you a fairly detailed letter of our positions which was requested by the board on June 6th. Mr.Arnoff responded to that letter just recently.I think in a letter dated June 14th.I don't want to repeat any of my arguments. I have a couple of comments of Mr. Arnoff said in his letter. I think the most important one is that he states I think in the second paragraph of his letter,that some sort of presumption of regularity legally attaches to a determination of the building inspector. I do believe it as a matter of law that that is correct.I think that under 267 a&b of the Town Law you have complete appellate jurisdiction to make the determination. The case law which I did not prepare for tonight, though I would be pleased to submit it to you if you want it. Chairman:Please. Mr. Angel: You have the right to look at that particular determination date ... in other words as if it didn't exist. You look at it on your own. I don't think that there is any presumption of regularity. a presumption of regularity attaches to a legislative act. Like the Town Board.It certainly doesn't attach to C.O.and Building Permit in this case. You have the statutory right to review it under 267 2 a&b of the Town Law.The other technical matter that I want to bring to your attention, is that Mr. Arnoff on the second page of his letter talks about the definition contained in the dictionary that is at issue.He mentioned that there is a definition though it was marked as obsolete. If you look at those documents that we submitted last time regarding the meaning of obsolete. It means that it hasn't been used. The particular definition has not been used since 1755.There is no realistic possibility of that definition being used today. So when they say in the dictionary that it is an obsolete definition,I think they really mean it. It hasn't been used. I really have no more to say. I think was in our presentation last time and in the extensive letter by wrote you on June 6th. I will be pleased to answer any questions and perhaps after Mr. Arnoff is finished, I may want to rebut or comment on something he said and I hope you will allow me to do that.Thank you. Chairman: Surely. Mr. Arnoff: I decided to leave my 45 page outline back in the office.There are standards of review which I think the courts have set up. You must look at whether or not the initial determination from the Building Department is arbitrary and capricious. Whether it was something that this board, although it has jurisdiction to review local return. Presumption of regularity is that he did it nght. Unless he acted in an arbitrary capricious manner, what basis to you have to review. You don't like it. I don't think that is a standard of review that we should apply certainly in Southold. The dictionary definition is kind of interesting. Obsolete doesn't mean anything other than it has fallen into disuse. It doesn't mean that the term doesn't mean what the dictionary said it says. It doesn't say that definition is no good anymore. It merely means that it has fallen into disuse as far as in common parts. Let's not be mistaken. It is there.The Building Inspector used it. I think that rule doesn't stand wrong. Mr Angel in his letter to you stressed that we don't fit within the third definition. Something that by surveying represents or testifies that greatness or achievements and then the letters esp of an individual or the name. Let's examine that. It doesn't mean just an individual or a name, it means especial them. Can it refer to other things such as the preservation of the bays?Yes it can.It is not an exclusionary definition,by any stretch of anybodies imagination. Isn't a lasting reminder of something notable or great? Mr. Miller I think wants to address the Board on one more occasion here tonight and I think Roberto the sculpture does as well and their comments will be brief. I think they will be to the point on this very issue.The customary and incidental argument which was raised, a site I also have to address. Mr. Angel is correct. I said that a 37' high line is not customary. But are monuments customary? If the Board finds that monuments are customary, then you must take the quantum leap that the statute provides, that the height requirements do not apply. It is interesting to Mr. Angel uses parallel comment about 20 car garage and how that is not customary but garages are. It is the same • , J • Page 39—June 20,2002 Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Prepared by Jill Thorp,Transcriber argument. If that language was not in the code that exempted height requirements from monuments, and that 20 car garage argument applies. But ladies and gentlemen it doesn't apply. Because if you take out that issue,then this board has to decide the other issue. Are monuments customary?And we know that they are. There are statues,their monuments on properties throughout the town. They may be 2'high,they may be 6' high,they may be of varying heights. Our code for some reason,I don't know the genesis of this particular element of the code or they particularly exempted heights,but they did. No board has chosen to change that I might add since we started this. The code can't give-and-take away. Whether it is an accessory structure or not and whether or not there are maximum height requirements to accessory structures, the exemption that is applicable to monuments applies to section 100.All of 100.Not just part of it. One other issue and I will be quite brief. Chairman: I need some requests from you also before you leave us.I need another look at the bird,a look at the structure pnor to making a decision. I think what we will do tonight just to hold up one second, I don't want you to loose your train of thought, is to again close this hopefully tonight to verbatim testimony and then close it for anything either attorney wants to submit on the next two weeks so we have it by July 11th. O.K.? Mr.Arnoff:The Board is welcome at anytime. Chairman:Mr. and Mrs.Miller were very gracious to us last time. Mr. Arnoff: I think Ms. Tortora brought up the issue of collateral stock or had some questions of me about it. And in this instance Justice ... was required to determined one issue and one issue only. Was this a structure that required a building permit? He made that determination. Everything else he says it is not the law of the case. It is not something from which we can spill over and say we are collaterally stopped from doing anything. He said and he never made the determination of the monument exemptions didn't apply. There was nothing else in there.Whether he was leaning one direction or not,does not dispose of any issues of this Board.The things that we have to think about are this,Mr.Miller litigated vigorous his right to have this burden on his property, this monument. During the course of the litigation, which took quite a bit of time and effort,a final determination was made against him. So what he did he do?He did what any citizen of this town would do under similar circumstances. A he was compelled to remove the quote offending structure. He did. He didn't leave it there he took it and went Greenport where we all know it rested on the dock for quite some time.Then he came to town with plans and went to the building department where he is supposed to go. He said here are my plans,here is the court decision. The court said I have to come to you for building permit. The very first time I believe in the state of New York that anybody ever got a building permit per statute. I found no other records anywhere. He came here and he said building permit.He got a certificate of occupancy a few days later,because unlike a house in this didn't require any kind of extensive actions by them. And he built it if you wish to refer to it, the heron and strict conformity with the building permit. As the gong was striking 12, D. Callis came in and filed an objection. Are we now going to have Mr. Miller remove this again? I submit that he is entitled to have this board say enough is enough, he is done what he supposed to do any is entitled to have this monument rest on his property. Thank you. Chairman: We need to get from you Mr. Arnoff, basically 2 or 3 things. I need the real height of the structure as it exists right now from the base to the top of the structure. Mr.Arnoff:From the bottom of the base or the top of the base? Chairman: From the base which includes that base. I don't care about the power pit that it is sitting on but from that base.The depth of the base to the top of the structure.I also need the to know the height of the hill that is m back of the structure. Of course on the Sound we call that bluff so on the bay we are going to call it the hill.The approximate distance that this structure sits from, on the sound we call it the toe of the hill. On the bay we will call it the base of the hill. That is what I need to know. After receiving that, I don't care if you use a laser as long as it is within a couple of inches. . Page 40—June 20,2002 Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Prepared by Jill Thorp,Transcriber Mr.Arnoff:That is my question,do you want us to get a surveyor. Chairman: No. I don't spend a lot of money. Just use a laser and get an approximate height. After I receive that I just need to come back and review that for about a half hour or so. Mr.Arnoff:I can get that in about a week and have that delivered to Ms.Kowalski. Chairman: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Angel anything further on this or would you like to wait for any other comments? Mr.Angel:I would like to wait.I have nothing pertinent to say this point. Chairman:Any comment from anyone on the left hand side of the room. Mr.Miller: Yes. I got some photo's here I would like you to take a look at. These are some photo's of my complaining neighbors properties. They have some accessory structures on their properties that certainly exceeding the 18' restriction. Some 35' high. One as high as 50'. There are accessory structures on their property certainly. I believe that they are exempt from the height restriction as the town code writes... and monuments are all exempt from the height restriction under the building code. They are exempt from the very same sentence that has monuments exempt. I believe it is appropriate. I also would like to make an observation at the section of the town code that pertains residential property and writes about the exclusions for exemptions, the height, are all about residential properties. It directly mentions that monuments are exempt. Certainly the right is of the town code to believe that monuments are a usual in customary use in a residential zone. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't of had that in a residential building code. Therefore I appreciated if you review this and maintained the building permit any certificate of occupancy has issued. Chairman:Thank you sir. Anybody else from our left hand side?Anybody in the center. Sir. Roberto Bessin. (handed in 6 copies)As the creator of the heron I would like to help the Board understand why the heron was erected here in Southold and why it is most appropriately characterized as a monument. There is no doubt in my mind that the heron stands on the shores of Peconic Bay as an on going monument to the resources to the area.While the Peconic Bay remains beautiful,we all know that it is at risk.Pollution and overuse have degraded Peconic Bay resources. The heron honors past and on going efforts by individuals and organized groups to conserve and preserve our natural resources. Through such support the Pecomc Bay is making a come back.The United State Environmental Protection Agency has singled out the Peconic Bay system as a nationally protected manne sanctuary. To recognize this achievement and related events, we dedicated the heron as a monument quote to the conservation and preservation of the fine bays, tidal wetlands and wild life in the Peconic Bay system. I have included a copy of the dedication ceremony for each of you. In the packet you will see that after the 2 page testimony I provided you with. In deed characterization of the heron as a monument, is consistent with my work as a whole. Making monuments is part of what I do for a living. It constitutes the bulk of what I am truly proud of. Proud to have accomplished in my professional lifetime. Some 50 tons of art work.For example,if you look at the photo's after the dedication information. You will see a white tailed eagle monument that commemorates the founding of the Chamber of Commerce in Shari,Japan.The other photo at the end of the packet,is of an 18' Jared Falcon erected in Okyto, Japan as a tribute to nature. Most recently I have been creating a 7 ton 40' tall bronze and steel osprey monument that will erected in Greenport here on Monday. I don't believe that any of you could have missed some of the publicity about that. The Osprey will stand permanently on steel beams that were removed from tragic ruins of the World Trade Center. I have chosen an Osprey for the Greenport location because the Osprey like Peconic Bay were endangered and through human efforts are now making a come back. Characterizing the Osprey and Heron as monuments are legal arguments challenging zoning restrictions, but a tribute to past, present and future conservation and preservation Page 41—June 20,2002 Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Prepared by Jill Thorp,Transcriber efforts. Both the Osprey and Heron are monuments to Peconic Bay. They truly represent hope for Peconic Bay.Thank you so much for your time. Chairman:Thank you sir.Anybody else on my right wishing to speak. Seeing no hands over here. Mark Miller. Just a quick comment. Mr. Angel's comment about the term being obsolete and not being used since 178 whatever. The Statue of Liberty is certainly a national monument and that is a term that is used every single day people go and visit that.The fact that the term is obsolete certainly doesn't mean that anyone in this room will not declare that statue as a monument. That is being currently used every single day. I think that trying to characterize it as a word that doesn't make any sense to anyone that is not used,is really false. Chairman:Anyone else.No.Mr.Angel. Mr. Angel: I have no ( ) comments. All I would like to do is, I haven't seen those photo's of my clients property. If I could... I don't think that we can deal with them realistically in the context if this hearing. I would be willing if necessary to look at them and make what ever comments I want to make in writing so you have them by the 11th.The connection with the submissions that you asked for Mr.Goehringer,if they could be done within as they said within a few days,I could look at them when I examine the file and I will comment on those as necessary. Chairman: Submissions that I am requesting? Mr.Angel:Yes,I want to see what those numbers are.I reserve the right to review those. Chairman: Of course.No problem Mr.Angel:That is it.I have nothing else. Chairman: We would like to thank everybody courtesy at this hearing and I am going to put forth a resolution to closing the hearing to verbatim testimony. If anybody has any written testimony, they have until approximately until 7:15 pm on July 11th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION End of Public hearings. Respectfully submitted by Jill Doherty Prepared from ZBA tape recordings of hearings. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �i/0 VFFO� •' $" ` "• Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �� �� 'yJ►: 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora t y Z P.O. Box 1179 George Horning � Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva 4 �0 � ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando '=�ol 4` 1►a,e Telephone(631) 765-1809 ••••'' ' http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072 —JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI, JOSEPH MACARI. Property Location: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; 81-3-19.004 (owned by James and Barbara Miller). In the matter of the application of Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari, appellants, to reverse and annul Building Permit #27894-Z dated November 13, 2001 and Certificate of Occupancy dated November 30, .2001, issued by the Building Department for an accessory "platform with monument" located on property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold: SCTM 1000-81-3- 19.4. RELIEF REQUESTED: This is an appeal to reverse and annul a building permit dated November 13, 2001 (#27894-z) issued to James and Barbara Miller for "construction of 60 sq. ft. platform, located 20 ft. from the apparent high water for a monument and to the conditions of the DEC and Trustees," and to reverse and annul a Certificate of Occupancy dated November 30, 2001 (#Z-28096) issued to James and Barbara Miller for an "accessory platform with monument". Appellants request the board to reverse and annul on the following grounds: 1. Appellants maintain that the 40-foot high heron sculpture is not a "monument" and therefore not entitled to the height exceptions enumerated in Section 100-230 (D)1 of the Southold Town Code. 2. Applicants allege that if the heron sculpture is as an accessory structure, it is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. 3. Applicants further maintain that the 40-foot high Heron sculpture, located on the Miller's beachfront property in the Town's R-80 district, is not a permitted accessory structure or use pursuant to 100-31C, because it is not "customarily incidental" to a single-family residence in the town of Southold or elsewhere. 4. In addition, appellants allege the State Supreme Court order of June 29, 2001 collaterally estopped the Building Department from granting the building permit and Certificate of Occupancy, and the Board of Appeals from rendering a decision in the matter. ' Page 2—October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearings on this application on March 21, 2002, June 20, 2002, and July 11, 2002, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Subject/Description: The subject is a 40-foot high white steel sculpture of a heron, designed and created by sculptor Roberto Julio Bessin. The sculpture is displayed upon a 60 square foot platform, located approximate 20 from the mean high water mark on the Miller's beachfront property on Peconic Bay. The Miller's property is zoned R-80 Residential Low Density. SEQRA Determination: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. Relevant Code Provisions: 100-13 Code Definitions: Code Section 100-13 does not include a definition of the word monument. In the absence of definition, Section 100-13 B directs the board to Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary. "Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary(or latest edition)." Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary contains the following relevant definitions for the word monument. 3 a: something that by surviving represents or testifies to the greatness or achievement esp. of an individual or an age. 4: a structure (as a pillar, stone, or building) erected or maintained in memory of the dead or to preserve the remembrance of a person, event, or action. 6. obs (obsolete): a carved statue. 2 ' Page 3—October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold 100-230 Exceptions and modifications: 100-230 (D) Height exceptions: The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transmission towers, excluding telecommunication towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that no television or radio aerial shall be located nearer to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than 22 volts than a distance equal to the aerial's height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached. 1. Finding of Fact: Is the Heron structure a monument? Appellants maintain the Heron does not meet Webster's definition of a monument, and that a private citizen cannot self-characterize a particular structure to be a monument. To affirm the Building Inspector's determination, appellants assert, would be to say that anyone could commemorate a, 50-foot, 100-foot or 500-foot whatever, and that as a monument, it would automatically be exempt from the code's 18-foot height limitation. a. In support, the Millers and their attorney maintain the heron sculpture is a monument because: a dedication ceremony was held on the beach the Miller's property in July 1998, entitled "Dedication of the Heron Monument ...Hope for Peconic Bay". At the ceremony the Heron was described as " a monument dedicated by James and Barbara Miller to the conservation and preservation of the fine bays, tidal wetland, and wildlife in the Peconic Bay System," and, a plaque was made. b The sculptor, Roberto Julio Bessin testified that the heron monument honors past and ongoing efforts to conserve and preserve me natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. He further stated that making monuments is part of what he does for a living and constitutes the bulk of his creations. As example, he submitted photographs of two bird sculpture monuments, one erected in Oketo, Japan, as a tribute to nature, the other in Shari, Japan, to commemorate the founding of its Chamber of Commerce. c. The board has carefully reviewed the question of whether or not the heron sculpture is a monument under the strict confines of the town code directive at 100-13 B. "Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's 3 I , Page 4—October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary (or latest edition)." d. Webster's makes no reference or correlation between public and private ownership of monuments, or between public and private display of monuments. Webster's does not say that say that a private citizen cannot self-characterize a particular structure to be a monument. Indeed, many of the world's great monuments were first proclaimed as such by their creators, benefactors, and owners. Nor does Webster's say that to be termed a monument, the object must be displayed on public property, or in a public place for x number of people to view. e. Webster's definitions of monuments include "a carved statue". Although termed obsolete, use of the meaning is not restricted under 100-13_ B. No evidence was presented to suggest that the building inspector erred in relying on such definition. No evidence was presented to dispute the building inspector's determination that the Heron sculpture is "a carved statue" that meets Webster's definition of a monument. f. The board finds that the Heron structure is a monument under Webster's definition No. 4. The heron sculpture is a structure which has been erected and maintained to preserve the remembrance of past and ongoing efforts to conserve and preserve the natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's designation of the Peconic Bay system as part of the Federal National Estuaries program in 1993 was both an action and an event. Similarly, it is well known that federal, state and local agencies, as well as numerous groups and organizations have taken various actions to preserve the natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. 2. Finding of Fact: Is the Heron sculpture an accessory structure? If it is an accessory structure, is subject to Town Code's height limitation 100-33(a)? a Applicants maintain that the 40-foot high Heron sculpture is not a permitted accessory structure or use pursuant to 100-31C because a is not "customarily incidental" to a single-family residence in the Town of Southold or elsewhere. Appellants allege that if the heron sculpture is as an accessory structure, it is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. b. The board agrees with the appellants that a 40-foot high Heron monument is not customarily found in Southold's residential districts or elsewhere for that matter. The relevant distinction here is that "monuments" are customarily found in Southold, and customarily in Southold, no two monuments are alike in size or shape. Southold has a 4 S Page 5—October 3, 2002 wh Appl. No. 5072—J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold variety of different-sized, different-shaped religious statues and monuments, carved statutes, cast statues, metal statues, and rock monuments, to name a few. Most are located on private property, many in the town's residential zoning districts. All are treated as accessory to the principal building. c. Appellants argue that the Heron monument cannot be an accessory structure because of its height. The board disagrees. The Town Code 100-230 (D)(1) specifically provides for accessory "monuments" and "flagpoles" and "radio towers". Under the same provision, these structures are exempt from the height limitations of the zoning regulations. Code provision 100-230(D)(1) states: "Height exceptions: The height limitations of this chapter(Chapter 100-Zoning) shall not apply to: ..."monuments" If the board were to agree with appellants' accessory/height argument, then flagpoles and radio towers, for example, would not be permitted accessory structures if they exceeded 18-feet in height. This is simply not the case in Southold. It is uncontested that there are many accessory flagpoles and radio towers in Southold that are taller than 18 feet. Appellants contention that the height of the heron structure precludes its classification as an accessory structure, is contrary to the plain meaning of the code. d. The board finds that there is no basis to support the appellants' claim that the heron monument is not an accessory structure, nor it there any legal basis for appellants claim that the Heron monument is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. 3. In addition to the above, the Board has considered all arguments and issues raised by appellants. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the standards of New York Town Law 267-b, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, to DENY app'7;!lnnts request to rn "erse and annul Pudding Permit b'n 2789Z and Certificate of Occupancy No. 2.-28056. The building permit and Ceniricate of Occupancy are hereby affirmed. Vote of the Board: A es: Members Goehrin,g hair an), orto , - •• liva. (Member Homing,.,�,n�dIMember�O�rl�do w- - absent�� his esolu " - d y adopted (3-0s. RE THE SOUTHOLD TOY ' '+�;•/ v pproved fo Filing - Gerard P. Goehringer DATE 10/02. HO n' 9;31r of,/ t 5 Town Clerk, Town of Southold _„ - ,� st'FQi APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ��,�®�O C®G � •Z• yam► ; Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringei ® :' 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora vs Z $ P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ® Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva , Chairwoman -'0761/ �`b��o.�, ZBA Fax (631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando , ,,.�� Telephone(631)765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net - POARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 13, 2003 To: Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esskes Hefter & Angel 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Harvey Arnoff, Esq. 206 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 329 Riverhead, NY 11901-2794 Re: ZBA File #5072 (Callis & Others) Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of the action taken by the Board of Appeals in accordance with the May 9, 2003 Memorandum Decision of the Hon. Howard Berler, J.S.C. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Board Clerk Enclosure Cc w/ encl: Building Department ,g�FFO�,�-= APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,' O 0 .. '48 Gy Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer c ; 53095 Main Road Lydia A.Tortora �` P.O. Box 1179 George Horning � **/ Southold,Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ,Chairwoman ; 'jlp! Agg .. ,,• ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando - ,.�1' Telephone(631)765-1809 http://southoldtowii.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Action in accordance with the May 9,2003 Memorandum Decision of the Honorable Howard Berler,J.S.C. (Index#28776/02) regarding the following: Appl. No. 5072 regarding Appeal filed by JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI, JOSEPH MACARI, concerning property Owned by James and Barbara Miller, at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; 1000-81-3-19.004 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. 'FINDINGS OF FACT In accordance with the May 9, 2003, memorandum decision of the Honorable Howard Berler, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the Board hereby makes the following findings and determination concerning application number 5072 submitted by Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli, and Joseph Macari, which challenged the issuance of Building Permit No. 2789Z and Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-28096: The Supreme Court annulled this Board's prior determination deciding that the Board had not considered the dimensions of the Heron Monument in determining whether it is an accessory use under the Southold Town Zoning Code. While the Board respectfully disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal of the judgment entered on July 16, 2003, it has received a written request from the attorney for James and Barbara Miller that this Board review the application based upon the prior record and in light of the Order and Judgment of Justice Berler. As a result of this request, the Board has determined to do so. The Board's prior resolution, as well as the findings, deliberations and determination adopted at our meeting held on October 3, 2002, are hereby incorporated into this resolution. Based on Justice Berler's decision, the Board hereby reconsiders the evidence previously submitted in connection with the application through documents, testimony, • and the personal inspection of the property by the Board and makes the following additional findings of fact regarding whether the Heron Monument is an accessory use under the Southold Town Zoning Code: 1. The Millers' property is zoned R-80 and is approximately 3.25 acres. • • • -•r ..' Page 2—November 6,2003 Appl. No.5072—Callis&Others(v. Miller) 81-3-19.4 at Southold 2. The subject Heron Monument is a sculpture approximately 40 feet high. 3. The principal use of the Millers' property is a single-family residence. 4. The height of the Heron Monument has not transformed it into a separate and distinct principal use. On the contrary, the monument remains an accessory to the principal residential structure. 5. Specifically, the Board has considered the size of the monument, in relation to the size of the property and residence, as the Supreme Court directed. The Millers' property, consisting of over 130,000 square feet, creates its own environment. Their home, the principal structure on the property, is substantial in size, having an area of approximately 3,699 square feet with an additional detached garage of approximately 544 square feet. The Heron Monument is relatively small in comparison to the overall property and improvements and is subordinate to the principal use. 6. While tall, the Heron Monument is an artifact that, like a garden sculpture, is to be enjoyed by the occupants of the principal use. The Heron Monument is not, in fact, a separate principal use. No admission is charged to view it, and no separate access is provided to it. 7. While all sculptures and monuments are unique and of varying sizes and shapes, they are customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot. This is particularly true in this case, with such a large piece of residential property. 8. This monument with a height of 40 feet situated on a 3.25 acres parcel of land in the R-80 district with a substantial house is accessory, and its height does not change its accessory nature. The Board notes that describing the property as "the house with the Heron Monument" is far more appropriate than describing the property as "the Heron Monument with the house." 9. Additional support for this position can be found in the record before the Board. At the public hearing, held on March 21, 2002, the applicants' own expert, Theresa Elkowitz, stated that the Heron Monument was "clearly not a principal use. It must be an accessory use." 10. Because the sculpture is both a monument and an accessory use, it is exempt from the height restrictions pursuant to § 100-230 the Southold Zoning Code. 4 Page 3—November 6,2003 Appl. No.5072—Callis&Others(v. Miller) 81-3-19.4 at Southold 11. The Board acknowledges the applicants' concerns that others might attempt to construct monuments as high as 150 feet. Such attempts, and applications, however, must be considered on an individual case-by-case basis. BOARD RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, it was RESOLVED, based on these additional findings, and those set forth in the Board's prior decision, the Building Department's issuance of the building permit and certificate of occupancy for this accessory use is sustained. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman) Goehringer, and Tortora. (Member Orlando abstained.) Abse , as Member Horning. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). , ,.9k, fc (c2a,(AA Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 11/13/03 Approved for Filing James Miller tep ; &- at e PO Box 1867 1610 Paradise Point Road �E� �- , /t- abet `�` P Hca Southold, NY 11971 Ply' , `��� /4 :.- I would like to submit a set of photographs of my complaining neighbors properties. As you can see in these photographs these properties also have accessory structures. The Town Code for residential building exempts accessory structures of greater than 18 feet if they are spires, belfries, copulas and domes, not for human occupancy, flagpoles, monuments, transmission towers and several other things. The same sentence that legalizes the structures on their property also pertains to my monument. I would also like to make an observation that the section of the town code 100®230 pertains to residential property and the writer included all of the exemptions for heights with direct mention of monuments. Certainly he believed monuments were a usual and customary use of an accessory building in a residential zone otherwise he would not have specifically included them in this code for residential properties. I therefore would appreciate the board's maintaining the building permit and certificate of occupancy as issued. 1 ., , Pk W A „:„,-,....i., ...,•ii' ,,,,.,,,,,j7,-;Ais „„s• 0 '• -' IA • .�C ! •r • ie =a0 -' 4, ' k.r \ , , ., , ..s. -.. ,. 01, .. -,.. •,..he •-.- -• Ilk :eV— 1 = ...;', 00, VP Atifrgair', 4,,,,.„1"....,„:,i,tik-* e.,, N.., . ' \ .• , -,. /# ,, ,..., . .,, , .„...,, .,. : 1 AA (° - - i. ,r �� " '1 Pth ;-; 4 R %*.'°. Wig.f rn yy. S, r€E i p! 4, t d' 9 ,44,1 t•ii.;07;":,I lie , . y r 44t ' ,.,, ^4 5 t,..441 i, '&1,4 i ...... --- ,.',_:_-, - -40; . i , ; ' --- $ ;''i iJ ' ;it,"•r r • y yt g_li 'iq' i tPre .::71 6 _+r4 ..,,}I 0,4,11111 '0 it - i ,,,1 x lilt 4 AP ,. �., li;1 rte, S'allttl ,� ,�t�{[� a , ... . ... _;. I tt -4 .. j w:. ` -get ' - '.• ��F"..rte Y i ;y}pjg`y/��/4� f �.{�__ ' i•, 'S•"i y. `t { d ' X, •rf f• �`w t W i, y~ r"4a, C..4' I,..• a. 't1# ? ''K ,Y, 1! f i �i }�' 1 ' f-- t *4+!E� =.F 1 fit,K y} . J ' .'..S r .�. ..,...,'.....:.-,2,: :•t•-,....:„;,,,,,,-.._ . . . fe** .74,...,4. i �Citi a A*�. .40 ilt , y (1 Y ?oleo *t I. '' . it otaild i A �: r -�� r g , , :,,x 4. ,. , 1,..; ‘4..., *,/ 1 .. . ,,,, ., .....„ ,.....,„: k... _ . .., , ..,....::,:...,, ,.. ._;:.,....,_. _, 4. ! . ,..,„•. )) „ _ . 4 _w wr * '.11 <nlc ' ,6,..,.$7. .i.,, 14 • t S • Liiik ,.... 1`y 1 41c. 4. ri• "4•. . j �yl fig' -:•ii'''../„' y.. ' y`' �''`�• 'i 1 % Q7,. f. ." .�-„Is i,' '•-' �rt ice' , VIS ---"2- --"';':'''''''''-''''. l�. t • . ` �s.• `--' 5 -. 4 li. !IIID 1.„A,., ' <r.V . 1 '' -•-..4 -,-,-E1:".!,44.,-...,t,‘„, .y --; ,, � ",Y#ict4,-,- °' ; '4' ,}is i w { �Y','t r _ ... #�-t s.r: "�y' „,447-,1-,--,,-,. •ad o- ”'-t. �,•. `,` 4 g ..r` " f`�' t :. ' : -• s„ V 1 t..t. f,/,low , • -, # fis • t., , ,;s : ' k ,...- '',' ,i,,' ' ,, , ,.- 4.z..1 ,:. • _ .,. • ., i .-7.,:', ' ...-*A'! - 4'»f; 1'd.' 1.):-. ' ' •' . ,1'. 1 3.•4• ' '`, ', - .f. ,. ' :•1-44‘‘.- . ..* .' . , ,,-"4 sk ,li . k -', - . ., ,'',, • ' Ir .. tit *I.!'‘ 1** ! I ;'• .',4,/,. , • ,, 11 ,t1,1144'. ft • ,-,`•,, ' 4#4 , 4, ,,s,„• * ' .14i. ' ' * — I - iv- . i 111, .. .. t' . ,,. .., ,... 1010,- ..--,- glee ii*:. 4- ... ,..,-1- _- - ...\ ot .46. ,- •iris -. .---.,..„. ilk A,:-- • - - ,, .-- Al........ ...,,, „,, ...,,,- : ....,-- te - -•:-.. " , Vt., - '.., mkt , . ..s t.,, , ../., / ,!' ,,'„ .•s.,s ,%.44.41,-,, 1.,,,'.., 42,..344.:,..,.,, ,,,,,r. -, .., , i ,...,,,, . ,, , . ;„-s.,41,,,,,, p,„.1 %Ali• --i, - - , , . , 1_ v, I Iiii'Sjiliti..... ...,,, . .,,,,. . . , .-, •., , , , , ---,..„, 11111' 4.. ilb ' • .. , - ....,_ ,..."....' .';' - NUL=...(4'. 4.11. !Alb 4 IF y • ,_.s„. , '.AI ,. „si,.:• Ak, ,s . .„ , ,. . ......, . ... .. „ :, ,, , ,,, ) , , . . . ,, _ . .. ,,, ,..„------ , .... -., . .. .,..,k; , --#4,1111 4 - . 7, , Ilk, ,..„, •” A` 4,,,,...V:,',V' • "' ' iih~-- . • •,,...ir, s / ...ks,e '.."....,,•• .4,10 . 1 , f .. es/ilAti . af:.. ,,,"----- /tir / jpo, , .. . ... .16 i .4., -d., .;"".. t , • :4,,,,` ,,,,, . . *, .*•4 1, , . . . . . j ., . , P t-,, , • .4.,, ity ...,z,... . : e , 4 . --1- ...„. _ N... _ . , , .., . ,, , - . . . ' , ''' • x . . ..„.. .. ... ,. Ik, IP, v, e it ... ...--.' I . r ".•it,......'i. ', , , , „ i .. s ff ,--- , , . a— -, I. i; 41 zei. ipli , ., . . -• +' 4: , . 4.... IC' ",114, ,„/-,-.. ... . . , . • '. API •-41.1-t•-leit• • ' t '4,/,. • - - •-•:, 1"--- .i•-• , . d . ; . . , . . • . ; . I . , • , ., „ - • •'-- , , . aT i� �r� �/ > '+ f a. „ Y ow.' ^ ;. P4 i , 'ft\ yl f Y . ? b i rv" . f , • ��/ � *- ap J ,fid ' I-f d'+, ' l' I .. / I I 0.4," ! *}k�,y 4 k, I r @�{yI ; 1,.., 'r;44,..4; /04.. , r Y o s E , 0 1!C- i Ao>t. ,, ;, a .f g - ,,, t� ,1**4 4 gift‘i , ru r , .k,}p 7 `` 4` ° , r + !° „--, , ,9"�_5�t�p ', w ... r'., -e',$i• , r •p * `, ,,, i r~+i •�,,.;, «,t. r ,�( , tif II •k 1 7 + „ .-.4 ' • . "if,'” ig llg'..—f ;, r .4. • 4 d - uL"41'1 j•.lri ✓r • • . ¢ 4`• F ..:, Axa �. , 1/4\iiiizi: gliikt ok , ntes ;�'.a�0 3 '!a•/, " ....." ' „ ' i ibk . i rt.. J VII � ate. � '+1 7 , • i ; ....., yevt �lte as..,. ..-010- • . -,,,, ,,,„ ,. , q 1 . _ _ , I.� . j or F� t'y ! v0.. t . k*:•.. f i,� !��r kis �t, 4. w ,-t! 4• ,r • .3 f 14$ 1,0 d. r * ..,./.. ..,,. .„ i , ,„.,,, .. „. , .,....., ; it ,... --,- ',.., , ,,,, ti .. 1. " et a �. .`• �jt a 04. ,, .. +.,. .r.3 - f ,,•••• e td M ,'tr kJ-tie' }< ��., ,r,—, vb.' Y r 1.4 / HARVEY A. ARNOFF Attorney At Law 206 Roanoke Avenue,P.O. Box 329,Riverhead,NY 11901-2794 .s• Harvey A. Arnoff b (631)727-3904 Bridget Fleming April 7, 2002 Fax No.:(631)727-3940 Paralegal Of Counsel Colleen Grattan-Arnoff 7 George F. Biondo Zoning Board of Appeals p �f_, John A. Maclachlan . Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Att: Linda RE: MILLER, James and Barbara 1610 Paradise Point Road, ,Southold, NY SCTM#1000-081-349.004 Dear Linda: Pursuant to our conversation at the last hearing,enclosed herewith please find copies of the photos I said I would send you with respect to the above captioned matter. if you should have any questions, please contact me. Very truly- 7o rs, Harvey /. rnoff HAA:dr Enclosures ,.°'' "�, o LL', ,.*. kms,, 1. ,7 4 ..,,,,,,,,,,,4,,,,...,..,,,,,,,,,-,...,:.„.:..„...` , : e ate A i ✓-"!i Wit•' A ., ..te° s .,_ .„7u. ` �u :'•'4.k..::.r b., - /lg. w¢w Ar ..A �y (• p I i l.. 1 4 t 1 ^-_ i� , I . Sr AA ... .L____-,.:5-•-•••:'. :...gyp r .^m. 110010111111111106= �l 4 • Vii*•"•A°r - .,:X`4 ,llya ,. qj, --- -• swRe ..t'r _ .„‘",....,:tri x ... .SL: n N ,:t....,....''''''4?*aE''r" ':. nk. '7' -. g ...� —, .. -., r.F m .CC - G'ss.. • .,... ��, ^' •--•^` +" 1.0'p.M ,ps Xa.,1w .ws. bu�lW+Pos ' ° . •.,.... .,. ..;,..-vs .._ .. A... „. ..,t. . . •4'.; eye 1'� , 4 • L - -a3`• 4 �{fig ': s .-... .. N • otr <: .0::)''''''"?./.'''''...,„?. ke v II ti• .y 1 • 1p. __._ ..,.. „„,,t-161”. e f - , gyp a. t ._ _ mow.. .. ' _. °. --'�- x4 '' �. ,iµ7, • '.'..4', .4 ... _. 4 .4 . 7 ,,, ,.. I , ..„,.,....:., ,,,,,,,,, ,.. 4 . .., `.„4.1_,-,,,liMi•V0tY!F y. mss:. � M ' _ +0��.+IC s5,.��_.....-�...w::i.ce.« .n+a.w�ta�r e..ra,,,-�sY'+4:�t 3tw",hnL �.••' -. •w _ _ - ., i , : id - a t \4Al!r 4, i 4 .' 'l+i. i$,*fid+ ‘,..# i' ..,maw.• -» �.' � 1, ' % <ki. • „eip• :� F i !' ' ” ,4 `tea .\�{kiii i It ,t Z.t:. sig,.. ` i' ., \ ,:,...''.14* 1 1 140 1 ay, ' r . —..,/-.,—.. ., ivir.,• ,...".^41,./.. 4.- ' , i . -,;1,"4....','\ + fir, (1 :,,-'v-za' fl . A pt k t ' t• - jam • .. or1if •iiv _ _ .,. f• : f a .. ^..c I . ^,. .n '-.tom -+ ilii . . e t •• } 1110 • 111111111111111111r E} d it a 11111 • - •r f,hT'- VFX 3�, ,n-.�a a '".,,.sem• u'Pnrc'^wr off+.,'."5 .+ >. • 1 4 ig yr rrgg 7 is r,4f y Q T• /M `T..,frier • n t Y a A . k 3x w .P L mow: . .. AFL � w e r • . . . ,, -:4:-4"4.' !'-f.,-.• 7'.' ' .. .. . -. * s . i, . lc,.... .1'• '.. ...'' :-: ;-i .. ..t... 1• . . • .,... ..-.1 \i ' J :. , ,..,,,,,,,?:'-4..:.,-,..:::$:. .ia-jeqt.;,,,,,' ,-' .,-- _. . ' • - .,, 4.. ' •:,';' ril ' ''' ,,..;,5•,•f,:41';i4.',:'i'''''4(','‘„ '',.1 ',.y ...-,t,i,,,,,, .tS "P. ,..*. • • \ •!'r• -. . .' , • , , ' 1, k, , '• If• •''':; ti.,t'",•••••',.1?•:•,•,' 14.1•41( X, „‘„„ .,-'",-, ' • . . ..24110i v•• *.- ''-"‘. • \\• , I'l' ' 't• ''•••••. ' ''''''''' •'••1 ,• ,', • - -,•••••''''•''- * . ••• ‘-.." ..• '•:'V- • i.'•' A, , .4. 16 • . ..fk• ‘Or 1. '. ' . .,..,...- II ' 4 .1. .4r4'''.':.„; ..-::.'.;',''''' '' • ., , ..:•:. ,.z.:,.!,. ! , , , , •,,,,::: , -17. '• ''':s,,.....,::t...,!,,.,.. ,„'...4..,-.4.m.H:4.•'..- .: ' ',.,,-;,,,,c,, mtili .7..,A1 . ,,i ,..,,,,,;:::,.“.. .....: . isiktp., -,,,.., , ' ,,,, .. ,, ,ii,1 e; . ..:'4.7... till. 7 ; ', , •''.4. .1,:%. .• •••gt,-( ,o, , ' .. ,•:::',' '' , t.,, .. ..a4.1,' ' .'i.* ;,- ' .1 II,. ...:,-i-,-;„"', ,•` - , —IL- : " • '7,: :i!':"'ilitia.---, , .-1,-i ,,,, • g:s... ,, „:„2.',it'.. .. . . •- ..• , jli'l,.. :: ,•j-1,',\,•..74'., 6 ri 1,1.6,1 -,• ,,,''''• ' .._ . •-- -y . '", ..",.', %,;',.,.;:ii..,,-,-,...,41,1;";7:!;,•',',,,,,. -‘----- • -.- _ -...14.4.•... ,,,„: , , - '6,•••';',404•V'';.0 • • ' . .. . •-•,.*: - •• ••,-•---TIC.' ''.' ,-., ,• ••• . . , ...! ...- . . ,,',,,..taieVa ,-,-,41,....,.• ',, ,, la -.. , .it"K-;-•••','•I 1444.;:ti.“3,°!,' :.,'-":;4.4:','-',. -II 'IA:"?'4 t4=-4. fl,:'" . 't` . ....„ . .. _. - . ,... .- ....,.. - ' - . _ .. . . . .. ....., .. „:. ..... ..• • .,.... . .. , , • .1- „..,..-- .... ,.- . ::::........:.. 2-• ..•:;, .• .•-,•i_ ...'2-‘, -;,---4.; :`:."'e2'.-,•;••:rk•'•!'''." .,;,0 v;•"t:.4,;'2:;'. it•,l' •• '''.';4 i'•••* *"•—•••.'. '- .• • •- - ,,..,_._ _.--,4-+_,4---,.'' --.:- ,,-. ;,;.,.,+i-...r.7..:"rt...+.4!•4P-';•''',, '••_:''t s:•k.----.--' -: "i'''• -. '— • . . . '.7.••";- 1.- • , • • J fie• r + : .."'-'F--•'•:*-.7.:_,.'.•'.--- , ...'. iE. I- 1 w*. i t ., ,,,,,,,,4,,, „_---- .... .. .. ... . n 4 . as in ow trig . •, !1..j .-...:.° '' • > m F_ 4n • r }q i-4.'R't�.�*w . Y.�a '' ,� ..t+a` ,.' ,_. "�• � ' t ! t.. , • � Z4. a -. • .-r 17 0 v a J • 4. � :11„.t:',74.:.::*:: j ., Ji ryt, , P .y :, .,::f::'i..'„ti''' y D a5.,:,,,;'",.?- r •r t � J r `. .,. 4 `•y4e. Q . it ...,i,: •--,-,,,-.141•' d• Ng f I d��, o,, it ;i l e •' . x�qy Y,F}} +fw." may, f _ '«a .� $,4 F •`ti,". `" "-•"• WAR.• ��. .. `�� •r' ' ""tit ,, .,� # M Y rt °".YR •'$e. &.*�a a,-, .': .fd tee .. "a;.-',;.*-4,...r.-.' c' "T.41� ¢ •i e,. . � Wiz.. stir ' 10 ,.:.`,1,,?, • ' � .,..,;141: t 'dam _ .•"•,.. �� � ��'*�+�'x .* ., Et,''x.r" ts... ` ,, y3 4 w..'t v.!. ,: f.. _d1- 4 • 4 Xr '�y.•A kn 4..',..1=',.;.0.. s.,�./� �t i \Y ',it ._� . Y �F� '. • - 3• t _ 4.1y�lI' �' it::"./;-.1 4. 4 • �l+ f J 7 e r� < I� t rix - �, f" 73 '�k ' 4 yt we 1146:. ♦, ' 1 uf'€6A F 4 . -s :c •.,1411- 'P'T N'.- i a te" ..,:!.......'.'4,..' } .ed # 77> ,. • ��'. : ,„, j p,, ��YY,,..���'� ; ' :F ,, n', rr%y:.'.4";,,(....t, :..':=41.:..,.."'..`',1-4-..9C.41'1:::!,:''. it d ,5 . ..,'° .rt r • • ' ' w:*' III f'4•iiirs '10:14, -..,"., ' , ::' : , . e• gat .t/ - . „A'-',' '4 , , t -- r i •w '�� • la . � 2 � '''f ''.',i" f 414411% 4°7 . _ - ''1 0 toe r .. r } r _ •.,'' . �wrw� arrM �_ _ - • r '' . ,',; kt ..,., .. ., .. . ., w ..... , ifa 4i �. M ��.,� �� •r .' i i ..,,,\ -, ,, , „ , , , r i ye„ f'* c .4 )!::'''''..47.' x Y f . : 'if , - I, . IN -\ ',x.. 4', : ..,,,,.: Vii .4 . . B 1 . ; . „I ,, t'� V.- -- V--V. ;I�1L ....,..„... ,,. .„.ti* ,....., . ., ..,....:ti.i, ... ... iiti: ..711,1,1.,..;.,, — , _,-:,, • ,-1---.,.,,,,,. SAS r its .s.01:••'.. ,.1- ',}3T , , V •• "'Z'�a 7 s +,1.�' > - as Av. u; t ''`” ;a` S4 "* 'g� x '.7 ' cJ tea R'� t 'r'°s�, ▪ °▪ � 10:116., _ g 4-1..447,,.7q.,-.„-- -4,-"*., ,'#sy x �' q, -,,,,a,,,,-,,,, i. �f � t a �. Y pi A. .: ;t;'Ll••- = nr ..K tte�t * i • b; y .„,. ,4 Y 4 •I j' it,k A. � �• �`s, : '� E, ' r i f .� " S. ,. ti { ' +; ' %� - ttAt, .,,,-rs ' # it , L, , A , . - - .4 pkii. .41,1prA $ tib: :,„ _ , , ,,, I , i I ill �� ', it f • *�lR� / �a..„-.......4 ,!:'t''i a"..2440'"'` i . .0r,µ d t 2 y I a.I ' .-. ,- . 'kJ, i 47q -7 .. om• •k. �x,.-0;.;: ,fin / _ r rk �'". x - : y. v +� i +w ' F + e�' �'y ,� "mo ` ° 4110. ro �. x $WL' 14411 f • in , v, I .. __ _ i4 /, r ,.., .11; \N 71-ei-e-n/ ,.5-6.7.,,? 4, • , • i , 1101111111110. atZtpLed /•.iro-2_ 1,1 41 Ili lic i i it I) j2 4 f , f: , „ I f l 'W E;(5?m , ( . 3f- m ) ! I 4 - -,_ ,,....-,,,./....,_ k' i / •fir 111.1,4 ,x).1. , , I e.13 /1 K.L..2_0-1 ci.c.i._&-pt-il I At '2) Pa oee.YYL" .-c../..t I aa44- Cai-ee-27/7); /2X if g.33 ' 1.-' i'l'' '1'1• II - '• . likb-af_4144) &In CL.2. 04-d 4 t 1 (ALG--1-11-vO atecap-Ixot. 6_0 7-1/-0Zw-hz....) l''- ,,.,. .., , K.t :ts'l ii-oc-69ani-Z5-, /e...e_ctol___ ilk , , - ., k,) 2602.-D 3-6 4 ' tilF 4frfiia-C 4li , , 7, , LFLA• \ivt°,4.ce,u:s , 1 , „ ,... . F. - ,c. .ei,. ' 1'4_. . . ' Le't .41` i% 7 -If i f i ' ;; ,1 ).- 1 'l r Li 4, A/ ,i. il j 4/ . --''' -,....--- --------- v.•,', ..4.,11S,,t.:A1/2P--...-. ^"'' ‘4,.7-P'.;. .... '1,-,;tf-V:P'',.'+.'..,-''}-."t'IN'' .1'.4,1t, " ''''''-" . ,- - ., • . • ..'"" ....., , '"''43'"? Vb:4K,V-if;!**'1:A',A4',"t'4>*,1,1,4-.. . ' . . , . . . , . . .. . , . , . • • • . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,i '�%FFOLt = 0 X49, Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Ooehringer, Chairman ��_ �: 53095 Main Road \� Lydia A. Tortora % 1=, P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ".1O � Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva 4 0-.0 ZBA Fax (631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando _�01 ►.111 Telephone(631) 765-1809 .....�'' http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 8, 2002 et1 Fa X AN a esular Pai.l Dr. Jerry Callis & Others c/o Stephen Angel, Esq. Esseks Hefter & Angel 108 East Main St. P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Appl. No. 5072 —Appeal Request (81-3-19.004 Miller) Gentlemen: With reference to the above application, we enclose a copy of the action taken by the Board of Appeals with respect to the above appeal application. The decision was rendered at the October 3, 2002 Meeting. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department Mr. and Mrs. James Miller do Harvey Arnoff, Esq. OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 6 s' ATTN: 14 f lam ms's �T/ DATE: /al s /2003 SUBJECT: 7 of Cd Go !/11#0,3 ,9-do MESSAGE: /2..17 4s/� ,�Ll�I�G,�' i� _ qui (4-ifyLt dato /bailed Please fel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8-4. Thank you. Pages attached: j . 44--"Let-1- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS v- ,ail OFFO(� 0 CSG` Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Lydia A.Tortora y 2 P.O. Box 1179 George Horning fi. �+ Southold New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva y ����� ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 -)X\ ute Vincent Orlando =.OI I 1►a0"i'� Telephone(631)765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN MEMORANDUM To: Building Department Attn: Mike Verity From: Board of Appeals Date: October 8, 2002 Re: Appeal Determination Regarding-B.P. #27894-Z, C.O. #Z-28096 With reference to the above application, we enclose a copy of the action taken by the Board of Appeals with respect to the above Appeal. The Board's Decision was rendered at the October 3, 2002 Meeting. End. cc: Town Attorney Greg Yakaboski WI end. 1/))/I / ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL jCOUNSELORS AT LAW IOB EAST MAIN STREET • P O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631)369-2065 P. O. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEYt 0S a t� i!v, 122.1 CARMELA M. DI TALIA July 10, 2002 j �'�1 --u -h---_..jF1 ANTHONY C. PASCA (I 1 NICA B. STRUNK1tl j 1 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members ` Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold . C�� 21 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - HAND DELIVERED Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari re: Miller Property Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: At the prior hearing, the Millers and their counsel suggested that this Board was somehow obligated to defer to the Building Inspector's decision. In other words, they argued that, unless the Building Inspector's decision was completely irrational, this Board was required to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. In response, I informed the Board that there were numerous authorities to the contrary and that I would provide them to the Board in writing. In this regard, I refer the Board first to Town Law § 267-b(1), which provides that a zoning board's appellate powers are unrestricted and its discretion is as broad as the that of the Building Inspector: The board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such local law and to that end shall have all the powers of the administrative official from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. (emphasis supplied). The Courts have interpreted this authority as granting zoning boards of appeal a "de novo review power," under which a board is "not bound by the fmdings of the [building inspector]." See Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 423, 654 N.Y.S.2d ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW July 10, 2002 Page 2 100, 107 (1996); Board of Architectural Review & Historic Preservation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton, 279 A.D.2d 523, 524, 719 N.Y.S.2d 663 (2d Dep't 2001). When, as here, "a statute grants an administrative body the power to hear and decide appeals, and to affirm, modify or reverse a decision, and the statute does not limit the scope of review, courts have ruled that the appeal board has the power to reverse the decision below even if that decision was not arbitrary and was supported by substantial evidence." City of N.Y. v. City Civil Svc. Comm., 141 Misc.2d 276, 532 N.Y.S.2d 626, 631 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co. 1988) (emphasis supplied). Chairman Goehringer asked the Millers and their counsel to provide the Board with certain measurements. You were provided with some information by Mr. Miller's counsel in a letter dated June 21, 2002. We engaged John C. Ehlers, a licensed land surveyor, to measure the heron structure. I enclose a copy of Mr. Ehlers' letter to our client, John Petrocelli. I ask that this letter be made part of the record. Res ectfully yours, bed, _ o SRA:md TEP N R. ANGE Enc. cc : Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq. Jerry Callis John Petrocelli Joseph Macari T O'd 14101 , --- --- iJohn C. Ehlers Land Surveyor j�0�`; 6 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY 11901 (631)369-8288 Phone (631)369-8287 Fax July 8,2002 Mr.John Petrocelli J. Petrocelli Construction 100 Comae Road Ronkonkoma,NY 11719 Dear Mr. Petrocelli, At your request, a field crew was dispatched to ascertain the height of the"big bird" off Paradise Point Road. Upon completion of field work and various in-office computations,we determined the height of the bird to be 40'above ground level. Please contact this office should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, John . hlers Land Surveyor lic.#50202 * ' ,ems Li, :f_ 's 0202 ��•i, ?� r •FC L.;N0 5�, f ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ •■ ■ ■ T0'd 62ZST869TS I11230Z118dr ZT:TT z00z-OT-1nr ■ A / HARVEY A. ARNOFF Attorney At Law 206 Roanoke Avenue, P.O.Box 329, Riverhead,NY 11901-2794 (631)727-3904 Harvey A. Arnoff Fax No.: (631)727-3940* Bridget Fleming *Not for service of legal papers Paralegal Of Counsel Colleen Grattan-Arnoff, R.N. George F. Biondo John A. MacLachlan June 21, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE & MAIL Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 RE: MILLER, James and Barbara Dear Chairman Goehringer&Members of the Board: Pursuant to the request by Chairman Goehringer, at the conclusion of the oral testimony portion of this proceeding, I provide the following information: • The site of the monument is approximately 40 ft.mounted on a base that is 16 inches above sea level. The base of the sculpture is approximately 30.1 feet from the toe of the cliff. The toe of the cliff to the top of the cliff is approximately 44 feet. The elevation of the cliff is approximately 25 feet. • Enclosed is a copy of a survey which was depicts the measurement which in large part sets the forth the measurements requested for your review and consideration. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the courtesies you have extended to my client and to all concerned in this matter. Should the board need any further information, kindly advise me or my client and I will be pleased to provide same. Very truly, : •`s IL HARVEY A. OFF : 4 ����� 2 HAA:rd I , v EnclosurepCLi '1 , cc: Mr. James Miller, Esq. Stephen Angel, Esq. "` i I7.7.0 l/M ••1•G 0) . 6$•O85 � '•Itt a""° •S i.i •t it t'z 7su A7f«!vW aO .f•K L' w f�� c�+ - /f �� I37iTiq' — — `M, 11 ,L'�1 .tN ._. . /L147 •N .100 */S 7 a b 9 'N 77T/a0� 9 S �\ -1 lin a• .4 O ...IV,�. C,i••-- L T ,41+s.w ti a a..N,t 41. • ' 1 lt f oi •"••••\ ,H Awl - • x Al Y -1 Co l • Y p I• 'i .O1 . • r • :61 41.411 d , ) .. H . .�'9� — — --� T UI r / 08911 gas _ rR. '� •f • of ( -� \ \ o ., 7 .r1 is 'r7 ��i �4It11Nv,/ I / 1_ �� Qt Me 2 Z • Y / A iia _ ~ „� , N': wry ��y„t 1 /1 \ I �� v ` ` `' J; 0 a, ! ti .--- '• ; s.es .4 ?r 1S,Z ... •,•.t ' wik•O + ! werr-� \ ` '_ �. Z '� t 9 t ft moat i —..� '�' rl • aYp ; oiwty• � / I ▪ •t•%•. '1 • a I • : �UIGIu IJ:a-,u um a a.•.•••. l i : I /1 11 i - - I 0 i ' 0 • ,oz1,-- - -� r Y �� _ 11 , / ,t.4C -pen :Aw.J • • AiNOS1P/1" �' Silir 'iw+M 1LLQf • .3 ��QO -,SS •V O • 31 P CMOs ltY�70 111N •7i atm, -fang \ . I invx,,, i My ,___—' - - • . ( �3M� • ,-----6 • 1-1197071.1.aQ NVor )1HOs JO QNb1 A-121zuzaod -aO MON r t fY f j _ - ! 7 II 7 ti '7*.. kZ; ',,S rt." ! 13-7 I14,11 t,...= �E_/ "-'t James Miller PO Box 1867 1610 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 I would like to submit a set of photographs of my complaining neighbors properties. As you can see in these photographs these properties also have accessory structures. The Town Code for residential building exempts accessory structures of greater than 18 feet if they are spires, belfries, copulas and domes, not for human occupancy, flagpoles, monuments, transmission towers and several other things. The same sentence that legalizes the structures on their property also pertains to my monument. I would also like to make an observation that the section of the town code 100-230 pertains to residential property and the writer included all of the exemptions for heights with direct mention of monuments. Certainly he believed monuments were a usual and customary use of an accessory building in a residential zone otherwise he would not have specifically included them in this code for residential properties. I therefore would appreciate the board's maintaining the building permit and certificate of occupancy as issued. 1 STATEMENT OP ROl3ERTO JULIO BESSLN BEFORE THE SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC BEARING ON JUNE 20,2002 As the creator of the Heron,I would like to help the Board understand why the Heron was erected here in Southold and why it is most appropriately characterized as a monument. There is no doubt in my mind that the Heron stands on the shores of Peconic Bay as an ongoing monument to the resources of the area. While the Peconic Bay remains beautiful, we all know that it is at risk. Pollution and overuse have degraded the Peconic Bay's resources. The Heron honors past and ongoing efforts by individuals and organized groups to conserve and preserve our natural resources. Through such support,Peconic Bay is making a comeback, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has singled out the Peconic Bay. System as a nationally protected marine estuary. To recognize this achievement and related events,we dedicated the Heron as a monument"to the conservation and preservation of the fine bays, tidal wetlands and wildlife in the Peconic Bay System." (I have a copy of the Dedication ceremony for each of you.) Indeed, characterization of the Heron as a monument is consistent with my work as a whole. Making monuments is part of what I do for a living and constitutes the bulk of what I am truly proud to have accomplished in my professional lifetime---some fifty tons of artwork. For example, if you look at the photos provided you will see a white tailed eagle monument that commemorates the founding of the Chamber of Commerce in Shari,Japan. The other photo is of an eighteen feet Gyrfalcon erected in Oketo,Japan as a tribute to nature. Most recently.I have been creating a seven ton,forty feet tall bronze and stone Osprey monument that will he erected in Greenport next Monday. I do not believe any of you could have missed it. The Osprey stands poignantly on steel beams that were removed from the tragic ruins of the World Trade Center. I have chosen an Osprey for the Greenport location because the Osprey,like Peconic Bay, were endangered and through human efforts are now making a comeback. Characterizing the Osprey and Heron as monuments is not a Iegal argument to challenge zoning restrictions but a tribute to past,present and future conservation and preservation efforts. Both the Osprey and Heron are monuments to Peconic Bay. They truly represent"Hope for Peconic Bay." Thank you for your time. gOPE OR P5 ale FAi moaamegiedediateed 4 pars Vaidena Widet tae eoftdervateopt agar Ai:ewe° Tr treffe ® If/4wd `�/ / eued P d ea rite paw& Sig Scee, / ate ju4 dM4 'cdoroft, Wel& 4044 & de Dedication cif The Heron Monument • 7:00 p.m. •Beverages and Hors D'oeuvres 7:30 p.m. . . Heron Dedication.On the Beach .. • , .0 .Welcoming Remarks -Mark Miller • Brief Remarks from Guest Speakers • . oberto Julio Bessin -Sculptor • ,0 Poem- Emily Miller • • • 0 Dedication of the Heron to the Peconic . Bay System- James and Barbara Miller 8:00 p.m, ,Retuirn to Top Side for Beverages, .. Hors. D'oeuvres and Music • Sunset . Illtunination of the Heron , . - • ' •-•.% - 4, ' , - • ., •, - --- -..4 4 • . : .,-,'...--.,...f,,' - •.'i.".., - • 1*91" * 7 ' :- _ -;•' 'Pi-t.' , ., Iiii, ....,7:.,,;_,_.,,,..- „.,-'.,'" -', - ,.. •• : ,,.., . -,,,-_,'...,,,, . •eismiq, i.--, -..- .,- ,',•. •- -..-.-i. ,- --: - . ' -,...7w*-_-;.' '-4:::::"'t .''• ' i .' f...*.•.:-,--'' -7.. r. --,--..7',,,....`„ , • .... •:•Y 44,• :. . ••;-----, ,_,...,0 .-• ... Ire •, . , - ' 'i . „ . • , ,,, . .... ..,, , • • .__ :- . •• . s• -•• •.) / , , ...,4. . • : . 1 . ._, . •,„ . ' ' -..,"/ ' / , • . • A it .1 . 1 1 /.. k• $ , . ,4 • . 1,, . ., tr., .- .1". •, l, • , , , % •4..;.4., : ',, •- '" •-• ?; . , . _ . . • s: / . •. . - p.-.. I , .. ...: \ ' •Ikri. - , .,,.. • , .. ' ,Srliti;ta Ir. , 1 - .."- t . , • • ....i. I t--,7•41i it —_.-- ....2.-..... .......... ir - 4111..;••-.., -. .,. • \ ' , ...... . . ''... ••4. , 't. . '' • • - •..Z......g.;,.... , . 'ff.1c1:4.11t4.? 0, • .. ' • ' # r.. ..f.- . t ..... t.•.:.,, ' ' % t. ^ '.. 0•.• 1,.' ' ' '' 4 fl'! , . %.1."14 $. .• " . . . ..''• ' • •Ir 'I, PIN,. • ....tkile.... "!... .,. ,lit.,1 .4. . 41111fr < i,,. , • ....."):: .. * • ••••••- j1,1' _, - ."--- -.4.......:4- -.....• •ii --•/at.' v; ,'' 4 _ .0 „ .... -:'''°It . '. A" -40, :' . • '11 kt. j • . '''r .1( ••111; •, • ' .‘ :4-IVit' . i$41*'" •i t it, 1 1 • .• Aiegiliip".-, 4 .i. Um , . . .. . .*4- • ., firilk. ' " •4, ,. a viiAt. . • . t. , ''' 4 ' , . .• Ilk. _ ..... i .:-'1, „ i . 1..- . •- ..., ......, ..... IF , . . r . . , • , ,... • _ • . --#1140.44.•?. - • - - ' s , dik• flelle . . • . . . . . . • . ,cl • . .4 . I,t , , ; • • . . , ...., .,. • • • „%!ei. .. ,ii.f: '4/1. '; ' il'I'''1:11.) (41'7 'r L*1 • : / i i/1,l'. ),/,‘ 1. 'r''''"i' ,.. .. . -v. ) i, t:!04//.4( 11:1, i , ,*,J.e,?,4.,; ..,. • • • . , •,,,,,,,, ,,i,, 1 t, •,;.'t!..,,7,, t, . t,,/,,,,f .11:8 if .; 1,i..: ...- .-. , , - ..,,1 .... .:. 1,1 1,-• , !•:.rt . , .. . .; ' .. ,, . ,•.-..: ta v. ,. . .,„-s7 'r,f•111.4.i',,,.',., '• it ' .'.'':*: ,.,.*::',. :'.. .1 ••."•. '• ; ' . ,'•4'.-‘-: •''''-"I''... • .: • •• 4• i y...e . t10 s ' ;r' * /'• '. ••; '' 4) • •, .,, ,•t Pi • '. -.1'..,' ' ,t . •'*)1 'i '.--..,„;IL, ' •: .. 1'1/ '.4." - .s'".NI,'t"•-,' *, I '• i .71 t 4 -,. `- 'vr-" — ' - - • ,:,t . 0 ! ••'?..'' 9 ,,fS..: -1,:'. q.4•.'; '. , . ' '. l. ' . -, •a.,• • - . V • , ''' l- ..'"‘''.:,. '7.' /..1, •"1.:'" L. . ..J.-..,_,.., ... • -'''• • • k• ' !' it.,,;4•1.•.. .. '• .''.•' ....'' It.,..'' '1 ' - - •''• •'''..-' ''.., ' • ' .:.:: .4.. •• I ''' 'TW/A ' ' '' '•'i. • ' .- ' iti''. . .. ' - , 111 1 .$4,$ fif.'4't4. ,,.,, t.. , k.. ':' '- ?f:- ' . L'-:4 --...' . ..,,,- ...,. . , • ,4A44i 4,,,t.lb „', ,4,, I , ,... .• •;• ./.,If,11114• 11,,i i s,.r:i'.-7'.:3,1,t. "i;, 't ',1 '••',4iti,••,n ' . '11' , '....'- . . •-.;1 ley, *.v ,;,',,,. 4.'-lit'4/it !,.:."Y. ",-,`7%.'-',.',...,'..:•.,:., '1“,' -,.., . "' 'A":: .4'rt 4 "17:4'/:'-'0-'. , ., .!•f 1, •-r' t ,--..i.T. ,.1-,•„: .. r.., ' ..'...',-;. '.. ' :Y.:.'.. ‘..•ti,'.",'.. $ i ....,'..4, :. --- •1,!!,, ,,,-,..',.-..4..„.,-.-0,-. . ..,. ..-.'-_:', ) . '"-,,--.,.i,P..:.•.',1! • '---*, - . ,,t....,,,‘,..:'-w,..,1 ; .i.,. ,., ...i'-,i7'' .:. „. — _ _.--Zn:.-,.,!..'t7i,,,1-.-• 114,4., ..:Z ..,.....7;.i...4.-!, : & si. -,, ii.:1•'' st, ,,, •4 S.-4,..tr,..34'..L.-",',"1".*'-1•r :' ,,.... r.-4., ,:i.',::4;:i.iii,a• !. it 40„,-4 f. : •1,.<7.iiYjcitr - l' ' fili,itt ' - • '' 7.:',,•,. 'S'k' 4; ..'• '• ................•••••••...--47 ' , , .4, 44, - -,.4,44,4 'ir;,,,,..11,,,,, '.-- It' ' •, i.t7,. ,4'',t.i .1.4!tilt, :,,. . •t , , '• '.4•7..1'.•-41,, -• 7:1• , .--* •,-.-, 't' .i 11-$ •X'‘'' 1.' ;-1!Ili!,(i,I'i ..,., ........a.- I • ' ' ' - -.1.1kft i4.7 . ' 'V -1. rt - 4, • - t • . l' --'I, 4, ,., y t• • el , ffft7t, ,"r, -4rs'tikilitT (It • , lilt ,;;,'iolk , ' , r Y,.4,; '' - .. -• - , 3 " , ,- 0, , .1. ‘• ...''' ' ' ;, l'.,i; ,, ,,, .f.,; ---- -.-" '' A " ,„-..::4 r.','' ' ,..,' '•,. t :1 ,#. , 4,,,,,.,, . , I ,,,* 1 rIO • %, c' ' - "t • .1., co: ,f t. A‘ v", i fr 1- '', 4.,:, ,!.‘,....; "P. .' ,.•-., , N4, tiji .. 4.-t - ' • ' °. s : .. .c ,411;I''/. ,..:-...,... -1 1,''. .-•,, ':,... ..., v ..-.. o 1 _ ,,. ,, ,,....,. ,,,) ,i ,. • p . • , • • • - r. ., .. i.. Irfi(1 /.''' ,„' --. . 1 '4•-•3' ,id:.' :1 I .. _..............•••.....•••••••..........•"'..- . . I' ..........•••••••.. , I:, . t 4, '.., •. : , V l ' - r.. ..,.. . ,. r . .. . ... • ... .. . , .. ., . .,,t. . .. ,. . . ., .. . . ... . . . _ r„ I A • 4 .... .., . . . . ' , . . . ‘. ; , -m ; ,_ , id g - . ), --. . 4 •. ., 0 ,' ...- lt i • 4 • .i., A. . .,# ., ,tt,.... f• ..... .. :#1 • ,t ,. .. , . . Ar-\(4- _ t_.....,.., ,,,,, F i."1 �T 1Nr, },;,rJ J t.• Now o IL Fo2MC2LY LAND of 3bltt4 4 .3-...N FUTROCCLL, • CDYvEU—, • . \ , v..... .... .� • . ''41• •" RAY! I - 1 ._- _� - 17.1' 0.9.11•1•11t to !� .71 -14•$. Lt.�i.L•s..!a 1l 1 J - • r•R• 1 / s • Q, ten• 5 51� OO II E /1 Pr a.a. 414.1' 4G2S WF % MjSoMIY APO rp MM. • 3E7JLN. —4 17.E Jr. .IaR 72 S . 9.2' ..♦ ^ 44.5. 0 13 7 , j.t • 2 - • s.., l �• Gec�; i ��• <a • _ ; __47.0' O 3 0 y / l CI N u? f *XII,iv naiiihruncw I 2 1._ ,t.7•am • :t• } / cns$ao 4 owe .al lA �? 1 I / atelle 28.6• µ t .a,4 µa. el � a ) PM�-� A, I \ `J / r 1 SMI ' CAME •t M '' f! '• 4.'1 2 CI 1 - 1 I /Goo 1• _ _ / L.. t L. } J V ra o•w,. �"'. \ 1 i •« {I .L . 4 le _— _ ! ,\ �/ mo sf 6•�• - at ~ •� Pu• nsW iii . ( A lr . 03 0( 17 lk W j v dist •--........... La �Y J 3ref44* bow .� — .1.*Ire •f me lrL✓ N•aIM= 41u•^ _ __ �tic —•�•/ • - •� Ed ? wa.•1;1 a=:...ft`r:a 3'w.a.• r! _Mt�r at * I 4•f Rows" ai \... Sera. coeMu. N. 6 9 p5 S t--/op" W u�IsA - �,` - v s•z S. r..• 1.,.4 t•a t _ MAG.IrLV nr[ 7.7.31.'EV o.o •• » as 5B0.$9 ' ``ns.s (� o.L., N/a; o,t•E •-. ws. �► 1 I HARVEY A. ARNOFF Attorney At Law 206 Roanoke Avenue,P.O. Box 329, Riverhead,NY 11901-2794 (631)727-3904 Harvey A. Arnoff Fax No.: (631)727-3940* Bridget Fleming *Not for service of legal papers Paralegal Of Counsel Colleen Grattan-Arnoff, R.N. George F. Biondo June 14, 2002 John A. MacLachlan Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman and Members1 �o� I Zoning Board of Appeals I� / ''331424.„)2 /! /li Town of Southold l , 53095 Main Road 00 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Application of Callis,Petrocelli and Macari re:Miller Property Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: On behalf of Mr. James Miller, I am writing in response to the June 6, 2002 letter written to the Board by Mr. Angel, wherein Mr. Angel follows up on issues raised by the Applicants in the above-referenced Application at the public hearing held on March 21, 2002. . The presumption of regularity stemming from the issuance by the Building Department of a Certificate of Occupancy and a, Building Permit in connection with the heron sculpture on Mr. Miller's property has clearly not been overcome by the Applicants. Therefore,the Board has no basis upon which to annul the permits, as the Applicants request. Mr. Angel, in his letter, continues to insists that the sculpture does not fall within the dictionary definition of the term "monument" and, therefore, should not benefit from the height exception granted to monuments in the code. Contrary to Mr. Angel's assertion, the sculpture is, in fact, a monument as was determined by the Building Department. The dictionary definitions cited by Applicants themselves support the Building Department's conclusion. Indeed, common sense dictates that the sculpture does and will in the future serve to celebrate LAW OFFICES OF HARVEY A. ARNOFF G. Goehringer jri___,._2_,_____„, ,, June 14 2002 I - 2 0 )2 ''; !{I' Page -2- 1 ,\, J� N '' ?l and to preserve a remembrance of the beauty of the Peconic Bay, the natural environment,and the heron itself. This common sense determination by the Building Department should not be disturbed absent the showing of clear error on the part of the Department. Such a showing has not been made. Further, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, cited by Appellants, does specifically include in its definition of a monument the definition "a carved statute" although such definition is termed obsolete. Certainly, it is within the discretion of the Building Department to rely on such a definition as is prescribed by the code. , Applicants clearly feel that a sculpture should not benefit from the exception to the height requirement that is explicitly provided for in the Code. However,based on its status as a monument, the sculpture does, in fact, benefit from that exception. Since the exception is clearly provided in the Code,this Board would be acting ultra vires were it to disregard said exception and disturb the determination of the Building Department. The sculpture is an accessory structure customarily incidental to the residence's primary use and, as such, is permitted by the Code. Applicants' contrary position is mistaken for two reasons. First,Applicants claim that monuments are not exempt from the use restrictions in the Code and that said use restrictions include a 18' height requirement. This is patently untrue. The height requirement contained in Section 100-33, cited by Applicants in their letter is a height requirement specifically directed at the rear yard requirement for accessory structures. A closer reading of the relevant section, reveals that in the case of waterfront parcels, accessory structures may be located in the front yard and, so are seemingly excepted from the rear yard requirement limitation of 18'. Even if this reading is not accepted, however, the 18' limitation does not apply. Applicants cite no authority for their claim that "monuments are not exempt from the use restrictions in the Southold Zoning Code." (emphasis in original) In fact, under section 100-230(d)(1), monuments are specifically excepted from the height limitations "of this chapter". Standard construction dictates that monuments are, therefore, excepted from all height limitations contained in Chapter 100, including the height limitations listed in the use restrictions of section 100-33. LAW OFFICES OF HARVEY A. ARNOFF G. Goehringer ! [ ;, � `=rf o June 14, 2002 I i<+, 2 , It Page -3- E___:___ 1 - Regarding the allowance for customary structures contained in the Code, Applicants are again mistaken in their insistence that the height of a structure determines whether or not it is customarily incidental to the principal use. A clear reading of the applicable law that has been cited by both parties demonstrates that(1) the Code allows accessory structures which are customarily incidental to the principal - use and(2)such accessory structures which are monuments are specifically excepted from the height limitations. Therefore,the determination of the Building Department should not be disturbed, as it was based upon a proper reading of the Code. Finally,Applicants cite a prior court decision to claim that the Building Department is collaterally estopped from granting the building permit and the certificate of occupancy. However, it is important to note that the court's order did not address the exception carved out by the Code for monuments. Neither did the court determine that the sculpture is not a monument. Therefore, that decision must not be relied upon in order to overturn the proper decision of the Building Department to issue the permit and certificate of occupancy. The Applicants' claim that there is no legal justification for the building permit and certificate of occupancy has no foundation in law or fact. The presumption of regularity that accompanies the Building Department's decision has not been overcome, and therefore the application must be denied. Very truly o rs, arv- - . :ff HAA:dr cc: Mr. James Miller Stephen Angel, Esq. OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski(a�Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Quintieri(a�Town.Southold.ny.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 3 to (---- 0204) -C ATTN: i( d d �-j . DATE: C / �O /2002 REF: C� o e.X,_ MESSAGE: Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: -4SMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT i- TIME : @6/20/2002 14: 35 DATE,TIME 06/20 14:33 FAX NO./NAME 3692065 DURATION 00:02: 07 PAGE(S) 04 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM L____ r ORIGINAL ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA June 6, 2002 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK 1-17) f\ 0`, (1T//7f.'1 P Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members /I Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of SoutholdJ J 6 )2 53095 Main Road f P. O. Box 1179 • 2Lot 3f53-,, Southold, NY 11971 - HAND DELIVERED °'(/ /aa/oz - Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari re: Miller Property Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: I have written this letter to delineate the issues raised by applicants at the public hearing held on March 21, 2002. I was requested to do so by the Board at the conclusion of the hearing. • Applicants seek to annul a building permit dated 11/13/01 (#2789Z), and a certificate of occupancy dated 11/30/01 (#Z-28096), which authorized the construction and placement of a 40 foot high sculpture (the "Heron Structure") on property owned by James and Barbara Miller. The property is in the R-80 Residential Low-Density District. • The C.O. authorizes the Heron Structure as accessory to a single family residence. The C.O. employs the word "monument" to describe the Heron Structure, presumably in an attempt to avoid the 18-foot height limitation on accessory structures in the,R-80 zoning district. (See §100-331A] of the Town Code ["Code"] for this limitation). Section 100-230(D)(1) of the Code purports to exempt "monuments" from general height limitations. Applicants' opposition to the building permit and C.O. - and their opposition to the Heron Structure on the Millers' property- is grounded in two legal categories: zoning and collateral estoppel. Both of these categories are discussed more fully below. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW June 6, 2002 Page 2 ZONING 1. The Heron Structure is not a "monument." As stated above, the building permit and C.O. depend upon the Heron Structure being classified as a monument in order to avoid the express height limitation for accessory structures in the Code. The term "monument" is not separately defined, but the Code contains a provision designed to supply a missing definition. Section 100-13B of the Code provides, in relevant part, the following: Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaning as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged (or latest edition). At the March 21st public hearing, we produced a copy of Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, and provided the Board with applicable definitions of the term "monument." They were the following: "something that by surviving represents or testifies to the greatness or achievement esp. of an individual or an age a structure (as a pillar, stone, or building) erected or maintained in memory of the dead or to preserve the remembrance of a person, event, or action a natural or artificial but permanent object serving to indicate a limit or to mark a boundary ... a natural feature (as a mountain or canyon) or an area of special historic or scientific interest (as a battle site or fossil remains) that is set aside by a local or national government as public property ... a rock pinnacle or column resulting from erosion and resembling a man-made monument ... a written tribute : ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW June 6, 2002 Page 3 testimonial ...' The Heron Structure was characterized by the Millers' representatives as a monument to Peconic Bay. Peconic Bay, of course, is an existing body of water. As a result, it is not a monument under the definitions in Webster's Third International Dictionary. It does not represent the greatness or achievement of an individual or an age. It is not a structure established in memory of a person, event or action. It does not mark a boundary. And, it is not a natural feature, a rock pinnacle or a written tribute. The Board should not lose site of the fact that even the Millers acknowledge that their use of the term "monument" is based upon their desire to take advantage of a perceived "loophole" in the Code; not because the Heron Structure is actually a monument. At the public hearing, the Millers' attorney, Mr. Arnoff, acknowledged that under his interpretation of the Code anyone could construct huge structures and avoid the height limitations by simply characterizing such structures as monuments. He suggested that the Town should amend the Code to do away with this "loophole," but he believes that the Board should allow his client to take advantage of the loophole by interpreting his sculpture as a "monument" (see page 57 of Minutes). Under no interpretation of the definitions contained in Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, however, can the Heron Structure be considered a monument. And, under no stretch of common sense, should anyone be able to avoid zoning limitations by unilaterally calling a structure a monument. If the Heron Structure is not a monument— as I suggest— there can be no excuse for violating the 18 foot height limit applicable to accessory structures. If it is not a monument, the building permit and the C.O. have to be annulled. 'The definitions reproduced in this letter are taken from the dictionary. They were read into the record at the public hearing (see page 52 of Minutes). The Minutes are not fully accurate, and, as a result, we quoted directly from the source. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW June 6, 2002 Page 4 2. A 40-foot "Monument" is not customarily incidental to a single family residence. Whether or not the Heron Structure is found to be a "monument," monuments are not exempt from the use restrictions in the Southold Zoning Code. As stated above, the Millers' property is in the Town's R-80 district. Section 100- 31C(1) of the Code permits, as "accessory uses," "[a]ny customary structures or uses which are customarily incidental to the principal use, except those prohibited by this chapter." In addition, such accessory uses are expressly subject to the limitations contained in §100-33, which include the 18 foot height limitation. Sections 100-31 C(2) through (11) of the Code list all the accessory uses which are expressly permitted in the R-80 and other low density residential districts. None of these enumerated accessory uses permit anything similar to the Heron Structure. In order to sustain the building permit and C.O., the Millers' 40 foot sculpture must be customarily incidental to a residence in the Town's R-80 zoning district. This is true even if it is characterized as a monument -- and is, thereby, exempt from height limitations — because only those structures which are customarily incidental to a principal residence are permitted. For example, though private garages (without a specific limit on the number of automobile spaces) are permitted as accessory uses to single family residences (see §100-31C[5]), we all would agree that a 20 car garage would not be customarily incidental. The size of the garage is a factor to be considered in determining whether it is customarily incidental. The same is true with a sculpture. If a sculpture, or monument, is customarily incidental to a single family residence -- which is questionable at best-- its size must also be customarily incidental. This understanding of the term "customarily incidental," in connection with accessory uses under zoning, is supported by an opinion of the Appellate Division, Second Department, i.e., Porianda v. Amelkin, 115 AD2d 650 (2d Dept. 1985), a copy of which was placed in the record when I last appeared before the Board. There, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington permitted the construction of a large "garage" in order to accommodate a 32 foot speed boat. The Board justified its decision by finding that the "garage" was an accessory structure customarily found in a one family residential district. The court, however, annulled the zoning board's determination, finding that there was no proof that such a large garage was customarily • �l 1 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW June 6, 2002 Page 5 found in residential zones. The court quoted the C urt of Appeals in Matter of Presnell v. Leslie, 3 NY2d 384, 387-88, as follows: "It is clear that, in the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible." Thus, the scale — or size -- of a use is a material consideraltion in determining whether it is customary as an accessory structure under a zoning code. Applying these principles to the facts in the ¶ecord before the Board, there is no rational way to sustain the building permit and C.O. issued to the Millers. Our planning expert, Theresa Elkowitz, testified at the public hearing as follows: In fact, I am personally not aware of any residential use in the Town of Southold or in any of the other municipalities in which I work that allow a 40-foot high accessory structure. One that clearly exceeds the maximum prohibited height of a principle structure. It's just not dor e. (page 51 Minutes 3/21/02). Rather than disputing this fact, the Millers' attorney actually admitted that monuments -- of the height proposed by the Millers — do not exist in the'Town of Southold or anywhere else. He stated: I would venture to say that 38-foot high monuments are not customary in any municipality in the United States or perhaps the world. (Page 61 Minutes) Thus, on the uncontroverted record before this Board, a 40 foot high sculpture is not customarily incidental to a single family residence, and, therefore, the building permit and C.O. should be annulled. f ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW June 6, 2002 Page 6 COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The doctrine of collateral estoppel is defined as follows: The doctrine of collateral estoppel or 'issue preclusion,' in more modern terminology, bars relitigation of issues of ultimate fact between the same parties when those issues have been determined by a prior, valid final judgment. 9 Carmody-Wait 2d §63:445 The doctrine applies to determinations made by administrative agencies such as zoning boards of appeal (Matter of Freddolino v. Village of Warwick Zoning Board, 192 AD2d 839 (3d Dept. 1993). Here, there has been substantial litigation involving all of the parties presently • before the zoning board. The prior action was brought by Mr. and Mrs. Miller. The Town of Southold and Mr. Verity, individually, and as Building Inspector, were joined. And, of course, applicants took part in the case as interveners. At the public hearing on March 21, 2002, I offered copies of relevant document from the underlying litigation and a synopsis of those documents. Among other things, the court found that no matter how the Millers characterize the Heron Structure — whether as a "monument" or in some other fashion — it is subject to the 18 foot height limitation applicable to accessory structures. The court's order of 6/29/01 provides, in this regard, the following: Despite plaintiffs efforts, and their own attempt to label this structure as a 'monument', the fact remains that accessory buildings and structures cannot be taller than eighteen (18) feet [see Southold Town Code, §100-33(a)]. This Board and all of the parties interested in this application are bound by the court's findings. A r .. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW June 6, 2002 Page 7 CONCLUSION The analysis set forth above is meant to comply with the Board's request to delineate the issues we believe govern this proceeding. Other facts, planning considerations, policy considerations, and the like, were presented at the public hearing and should also be considered along with these legal arguments. I respectfully submit that there is no legal justification for the building permit and C.O.; both should be annulled. I look forward to appearing before the Board on Thursday,June 20, 2002. Re ectfully yours, (,,,621, p SRA:md EPH R. ANGEL cc : Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq.-Hand Delivered • 5-4/L61) ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL !/ O /Ag COUNSELORS AT LAW \ 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA March 26, 2002 ANTHONY C PASCA C �� NICA B. STRUNK /�S� Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: I enclose six (6) copies of the opinion of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Matter of Porianda v. Amelkin, 115 AD2d 650, 496 NYS2d 487 (2d Dept. 1985). I referred to this case in my rebuttal statements. Re ectfully yours, c SRA:mb S( EPH R. ANGEL Enc. Page 3 11TH CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format. In the Matter of Alan Porianda et al., Respondents, v. Stanley P. Amelkin, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, et al., Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department 115 A.D.2d 650; 496 N.Y.S.2d 487; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55097 December 23, 1985 CORE TERMS: garage, accessory, annulled, use variance, customarily, qualify, hobby, zone JUDGES: [***1] as defined in the Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals also contends that the proposed structure is an "acces- Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., con- sory building," so that it is permitted as of right in this cur. residential zone (see, Code of Town of Huntington § 198-13 [B] [7]). We do not agree. The record estab- OPINION: [*650] [**487] In a proceeding pursuant to lishes conclusively that Mr. Brown seeks to build an CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning unusually large structure in which to store and service Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, the ap- his boat. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. peal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Brown's neighborhood, the record is devoid of proof County (Gerard, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which that the type of structure proposed would be "custom- granted the petition. arily found in connection with" the type of one-family residence to be built on the subject plot so as to qualify it , Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. as an "accessory building"(Code of Town of Huntington § 198-2 [B]). Indeed, there is no proof that such struc- Appellant Thomas Brown seeks permission to erect a tures[***3] exist anywhere in similar residential zones, 1,080 square-foot "garage"on his property in order to be much less that such structures are "customarily found" able to "park" his 32-foot speedboat. The Town[**488] in such zones. This failure of proof is fatal (see, Matter of Huntington, by letter dated February 16, 1984, in- of Presnell v Leslie, 3 NY2d 384). "It is clear that, in formed Mr. Brown that his proposed "garage"was over- the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may sized, in that Code of Town of Huntington§ 198-2 limits well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible" the size of garages to 750 square feet. Mr. Brown was (Matter of Presnell v Leslie, supra, at pp 387-388). In also informed that his proposed "garage" could not, as short, the proposed structure, more accurately described an accessory structure, be located in the front yard. Mr. as a boathouse than as a garage, has not been shown to Brown's wife, appellant Sandra Brown, thereafter ap- qualify as an "accessory building," and hence is not per- plied for a variance. After a hearing before the Town mitted as of right. of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, at which Mr. Brown was the sole witness in support of the application, We find that Mr. Brown has also failed to establish the application was conditionally granted. The instant a right to a use variance under the criteria set forth in article 78 proceeding was[***2] thereafter commenced Matter of Otto v Steinhilber (282 NY 71, 76, rearg de- by certain residents of Norfolk Drive, Huntington, who nied 282 NY 681). Indeed, there was no effort made to reside within 200 feet of the subject property and who establish the right to a use variance, since it appears that sought to have the determination of the Zoning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposed of Appeals annulled. Special Term granted this petition structure to be a "garage". Thus, the determination of and annulled the determination. This appeal followed, the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the erection of and we now affirm. such a structure can only be characterized as arbitrary, and Special Term properly ordered that said determina- Mr. Brown argues that the proposed structure is per- tion be annulled. In light of this determination, we pass mitted [*651] as of right as an " accessory building" on no [***4]other issue. \/ / Page 3 • 11TH CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format. In the Matter of Alan Porianda et al., Respondents, v. Stanley P. Amelkin, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, et al., Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department 115 A.D.2d 650; 496 N.Y.S.2d 487; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55097 December 23, 1985 CORE TERMS: garage, accessory, annulled, use variance, customarily, qualify, hobby, zone JUDGES: [***1] as defined in the Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals also contends that the proposed structure is an "acces- Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., con- sory building," so that it is permitted as of right in this cur. residential zone (see, Code of Town of Huntington § 198-13 [B] [7]). We do not agree. The record estab- OPINION: [*650] [**487] In a proceeding pursuant to lishes conclusively that Mr. Brown seeks to build an CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning unusually large structure in which to store and service Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, the ap- his boat. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. peal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Brown's neighborhood, the record is devoid of proof County (Gerard, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which that the type of structure proposed would be "custom- granted the petition. arily found in connection with" the type of one-family residence to be built on the subject plot so as to qualify it Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. as an "accessory building" (Code of Town of Huntington § 198-2 [B]). Indeed, there is no proof that such struc- Appellant Thomas Brown seeks permission to erect a tures[***3] exist anywhere in similar residential zones, 1,080 square-foot"garage"on his property in order to be much less that such structures are "customarily found" able to "park" his 32-foot speedboat. The Town[**488] in such zones. This failure of proof is fatal (see, Matter , of Huntington, by letter dated February 16, 1984, in- of Presnell v Leslie, 3 NY2d 384). "It is clear that, in formed Mr. Brown that his proposed "garage"was over- the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may sized, in that Code of Town of Huntington§ 198-2 limits well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible" the size of garages to 750 square feet. Mr. Brown was (Matter of Presnell v Leslie, supra, at pp 387-388). In also informed that his proposed "garage" could not, as short, the proposed structure, more accurately described an accessory structure, be located in the front yard. Mr. as a boathouse than as a garage, has not been shown to Brown's wife, appellant Sandra Brown, thereafter ap- qualify as an "accessory building," and hence is not per- plied for a variance. After a hearing before the Town mitted as of right. of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, at which Mr. Brown was the sole witness in support of the application, We find that Mr. Brown has also failed to establish the application was conditionally granted. The instant a right to a use variance under the criteria set forth in article 78 proceeding was[***2] thereafter commenced Matter of Otto v Steinhilber (282 NY 71, 76, rearg de- by certain residents of Norfolk Drive, Huntington, who nied 282 NY 681). Indeed, there was no effort made to reside within 200 feet of the subject property and who establish the right to a use variance, since it appears that sought to have the determination of the Zoning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposed of Appeals annulled. Special Term granted this petition structure to be a "garage". Thus, the determination of and annulled the determination. This appeal followed, the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the erection of and we now affirm. such a structure can only be characterized as arbitrary, and Special Term properly ordered that said determina- Mr. Brown argues that the proposed structure is per- tion be annulled. In light of this determination, we pass mitted [*651] as of right as an " accessory building" on no [***4]other issue. • • Page 3 11TH CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format. In the Matter of Alan Porianda et al., Respondents, v. Stanley P. Amelkin, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, et al., Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department 115 A.D.2d 650; 496 N.Y.S.2d 487; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55097 December 23, 1985 CORE TERMS: garage, accessory, annulled, use variance, customarily, qualify, hobby, zone JUDGES: [***1] as defined in the Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals also contends that the proposed structure is an "acces- Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., con- sory building," so that it is permitted as of right in this cur. residential zone (see, Code of Town of Huntington § 198-13 [B] [7]). We do not agree. The record estab- OPINION: [*650] [**487] In a proceeding pursuant to lishes conclusively that Mr. Brown seeks to build an CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning unusually large structure in which to store and service Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, the ap- his boat. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. peal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Brown's neighborhood, the record is devoid of proof County (Gerard, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which that the type of structure proposed would be "custom- granted the petition. arily found in connection with" the type of one-family residence to be built on the subject plot so as to qualify it Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. as an "accessory building" (Code of Town of Huntington § 198-2 [B]). Indeed, there is no proof that such struc- Appellant Thomas Brown seeks permission to erect a hues[***3] exist anywhere in similar residential zones, 1,080 square-foot"garage"on his property in order to be much less that such structures are "customarily found" able to "park" his 32-foot speedboat. The Town[**488] in such zones. This failure of proof is fatal (see,Matter of Huntington, by letter dated February 16, 1984, in- of Presnell v Leslie, 3 NY2d 384). "It is clear that, in formed Mr. Brown that his proposed "garage"was over- the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may sized, in that Code of Town of Huntington§198-2 limits well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible" the size of garages to 750 square feet. Mr. Brown was (Matter of Presnell v Leslie, supra, at pp 387-388). In also informed that his proposed "garage" could not, as short, the proposed structure,more accurately described an accessory structure, be located in the front yard. Mr. as a boathouse than as a garage, has not been shown to Brown's wife, appellant Sandra Brown, thereafter ap- qualify as an "accessory building," and hence is not per- plied for a variance. After a hearing before the Town mitted as of right. of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, at which Mr. Brown was the sole witness in support of the application, We find that Mr. Brown has also failed to establish the application was conditionally granted. The instant a right to a use variance under the criteria set forth in article 78 proceeding was[***2] thereafter commenced Matter of Otto v Steinhilber (282 NY 71, 76, rearg de- by certain residents of Norfolk Drive, Huntington, who nied 282 NY 681). Indeed, there was no effort made to reside within 200 feet of the subject property and who establish the right to a use variance, since it appears that sought to have the determination of the Zoning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposed of Appeals annulled. Special Term granted this petition structure to be a "garage". Thus, the determination of and annulled the determination. This appeal followed, the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the erection of and we now affirm. such a structure can only be characterized as arbitrary, and Special Term properly ordered that said determina- Mr. Brown argues that the proposed structure is per- tion be annulled. In light of this determination, we pass mitted [*651] as of right as an " accessory building" on no [***4]other issue. \/ " Page 3 11TH CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format. In the Matter of Alan Porianda et al., Respondents, v. Stanley P. Amelkin, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, et al., Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department 115 A.D.2d 650; 496 N.Y.S.2d 487; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55097 December 23, 1985 CORE TERMS: garage, accessory, annulled, use variance, customarily, qualify, hobby, zone JUDGES: [***1] as defined in the Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals also contends that the proposed structure is an "acces- Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., con- sory building," so that it is permitted as of right in this cur. residential zone (see, Code of Town of Huntington § 198-13 [B] [7]). We do not agree. The record estab- OPINION: [*650] [**487] In a proceeding pursuant to lishes conclusively that Mr. Brown seeks to build an CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning unusually large structure in which to store and service Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, the ap- his boat. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. peal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Brown's neighborhood, the record is devoid of proof County (Gerard, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which that the type of structure proposed would be "custom- granted the petition. arily found in connection with" the type of one-family residence to be built on the subject plot so as to qualify it Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. as an "accessory building" (Code of Town of Huntington § 198-2 [B]). Indeed, there is no proof that such struc- Appellant Thomas Brown seeks permission to erect a tures[***3] exist anywhere in similar residential zones, 1,080 square-foot "garage"on his property in order to be much less that such structures are "customarily found" able to "park" his 32-foot speedboat. The Town[**488] in such zones. This failure of proof is fatal (see, Matter of Huntington, by letter dated February 16, 1984, in- of Presnell v Leslie, 3 NY2d 384). "It is clear that, in formed Mr. Brown that his proposed "garage"was over- the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may sized, in that Code of Town of Huntington§ 198-2 limits well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible" the size of garages to 750 square feet. Mr. Brown was (Matter of Presnell v Leslie, supra, at pp 387-388). In also informed that his proposed "garage" could not, as short, the proposed structure, more accurately described an accessory structure, be located in the front yard. Mr. as a boathouse than as a garage, has not been shown to Brown's wife, appellant Sandra Brown, thereafter ap- qualify as an "accessory building," and hence is not per- plied for a variance. After a hearing before the Town mitted as of right. of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, at which Mr. Brown was the sole witness in support of the application, We find that Mr. Brown has also failed to establish the application was conditionally granted. The instant a right to a use variance under the criteria set forth in article 78 proceeding was[***2] thereafter commenced Matter of Otto v Steinhilber (282 NY 71, 76, rearg de- by certain residents of Norfolk Drive, Huntington, who nied 282 NY 681). Indeed, there was no effort made to reside within 200 feet of the subject property and who establish the right to a use variance, since it appears that sought to have the determination of the Zoning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposed of Appeals annulled. Special Term granted this petition structure to be a "garage". Thus, the determination of and annulled the determination. This appeal followed, the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the erection of and we now affirm. such a structure can only be characterized as arbitrary, and Special Term properly ordered that said determina- Mr. Brown argues that the proposed structure is per- tion be annulled. In light of this determination, we pass rnitted [*651] as of right as an " accessory building" on no [***4]other issue. Page 3 11TH CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format. In the Matter of Alan Porianda et al., Respondents, v. Stanley P. Amelkin, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, et al., Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department 115 A.D.2d 650; 496 N.Y.S.2d 487; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55097 December 23, 1985 CORE TERMS: garage, accessory, annulled, use variance, customarily, qualify, hobby, zone JUDGES: [***1] as defined in the Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals also contends that the proposed structure is an "acces- Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., con- sory building," so that it is permitted as of right in this cur. residential zone (see, Code of Town of Huntington § 198-13 [B] [7]). We do not agree. The record estab- OPINION: [*650] [**487] In a proceeding pursuant to lishes conclusively that Mr. Brown seeks to build an CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning unusually large structure in which to store and service Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, the ap- his boat. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. peal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Brown's neighborhood, the record is devoid of proof County (Gerard, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which that the type of structure proposed would be "custom- granted the petition. arily found in connection with" the type of one-family residence to be built on the subject plot so as to qualify it Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. as an "accessory building" (Code of Town of Huntington § 198-2 [B]). Indeed, there is no proof that such struc- Appellant Thomas Brown seeks permission to erect a tures[***3] exist anywhere in similar residential zones, 1,080 square-foot "garage"on his property in order to be much less that such structures are "customarily found" able to "park" his 32-foot speedboat. The Town[**488] in such zones. This failure of proof is fatal (see, Matter of Huntington, by letter dated February 16, 1984, in- of Presnell v Leslie, 3 NY2d 384). "It is clear that, in formed Mr. Brown that his proposed "garage"was over- the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may sized, in that Code of Town of Huntington§ 198-2 limits well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible" the size of garages to 750 square feet. Mr. Brown was (Matter of Presnell v Leslie, supra, at pp 387-388). In also informed that his proposed "garage" could not, as short, the proposed structure, more accurately described an accessory structure, be located in the front yard. Mr. as a boathouse than as a garage, has not been shown to Brown's wife, appellant Sandra Brown, thereafter ap- qualify as an "accessory building,"and hence is not per- plied for a variance. After a hearing before the Town mitted as of right. of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, at which Mr. Brown was the sole witness in support of the application, We find that Mr. Brown has also failed to establish the application was conditionally granted. The instant a right to a use variance under the criteria set forth in article 78 proceeding was[***2] thereafter commenced Matter of Otto v Steinhilber (282 NY 71, 76, rearg de- by certain residents of Norfolk Drive, Huntington, who nied 282 NY 681). Indeed, there was no effort made to reside within 200 feet of the subject property and who establish the right to a use variance, since it appears that sought to have the determination of the Zoning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposed of Appeals annulled. Special Term granted this petition structure to be a "garage". Thus, the determination of and annulled the determination. This appeal followed, the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the erection of and we now affirm. such a structure can only be characterized as arbitrary, and Special Term properly ordered that said determina- Mr. Brown argues that the proposed structure is per- tion be annulled. In light of this determination, we pass mitted [4.651] as of right as an " accessory building" on no [***4]other issue. - Page 3 11TH CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format. In the Matter of Alan Porianda et al.;Respondents, v. Stanley P. Amelkin, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, et al., Appellants [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department 115 A.D.2d 650; 496 N.Y.S.2d 487; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55097 December 23, 1985 CORE TERMS: garage, accessory, annulled, use variance, customarily, qualify, hobby, zone JUDGES: [***1] as defined in the Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals also contends that the proposed structure is an "acces- Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber,JJ., con- sory building," so that it is permitted as of right in this cur. residential zone (see, Code of Town of Huntington § 198-13 [B] [7]). We do not agree. The record estab- OPINION: [*650] [**487] In a proceeding pursuant to lishes conclusively that Mr. Brown seeks to build an CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning unusually large structure in which to store and service Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, the ap- his boat. While boating may be a popular hobby in Mr. peal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk Brown's neighborhood, the record is devoid of proof County (Gerard, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which that the type of structure proposed would be "custom- granted the petition. arily found in connection with" the type of one-family residence to be built on the subject plot so as to qualify it Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. as an "accessory building" (Code of Town of Huntington § 198-2 [B]). Indeed, there is no proof that such struc- Appellant Thomas Brown seeks permission to erect a tures[***3] exist anywhere in similar residential zones, 1,080 square-foot "garage"on his property in order to be much less that such structures are "customarily found" able to "park"his 32-foot speedboat. The Town[**488] in such zones. This failure of proof is fatal (see, Matter of Huntington, by letter dated February 16, 1984, in- of Presnell v Leslie, 3 NY2d 384). "It is clear that, in formed Mr. Brown that his proposed "garage"was over- the conduct of a hobby, the scale of its operation may sized, in that Code of Town of Huntington§ 198-2 limits well carry it beyond what is customary or permissible" the size of garages to 750 square feet. Mr. Brown was (Matter of Presnell v Leslie, supra, at pp 387-388). In also informed that his proposed "garage" could not, as short, the proposed structure,more accurately described an accessory structure, be located in the front yard. Mr. as a boathouse than as a garage, has not been shown to Brown's wife, appellant Sandra Brown, thereafter ap- qualify as an "accessory building," and hence is not per- plied for a variance. After a hearing before the Town mitted as of right. of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, at which Mr. Brown was the sole witness in support of the application, We find that Mr. Brown has also failed to establish the application was conditionally granted. The instant a right to a use variance under the criteria set forth in article 78 proceeding was[***2] thereafter commenced Matter of Otto v Steinhilber (282 NY 71, 76, rearg de- by certain residents of Norfolk Drive, Huntington, who nied 282 NY 681). Indeed, there was no effort made to reside within 200 feet of the subject property and who establish the right to a use variance, since it appears that sought to have the determination of the Zoning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposed of Appeals annulled. Special Term granted this petition structure to be a "garage". Thus, the determination of and annulled the determination. This appeal followed, the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the erection of and we now affirm. such a structure can only be characterized as arbitrary, and Special Term properly ordered that said determina- Mr. Brown argues that the proposed structure is per- tion be annulled. In light of this determination,we pass mitted [*651] as of right as an " accessory building" on no [***4]other issue. _4C\ P (f l�_ Rs ' Cedies/i/tiii:jFAHNE TOCK 6\102PAI) ESTABLISHED 1881 Fahnestock&Co. Inc. '�^C 200 Park Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10166 (212)9074000 (800)285-6200 (212)9074080 FAX Members of All Principal Exchanges Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall March 20, 2002 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Dear Board Members, As a frequent visitor to your Northfork Community over the past 40 years it troubles me when I read about a magnificent piece of art coming under such malicious attack. I've admired the heron in Port Jefferson and even more so in Greenport. Recently I've had the opportunity to witness the sculpture on Mr. And Mrs. Miller's private beach. The white heron to me is a celebration of everything that's good about the people and community of Southold. We found it impossible not to enjoy. I can't imagine in a township of thousands leaving three individuals to decide what is and isn't art. It also boggles my mind, giving recent world events,that tax payers dollars and resources are being wasted in assisting these three"appellants" in harassing Jim and Barbara Miller. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "Never lose an opportunity of seeing anything that is beautiful," The people of Southold have that opportunity everyday. It would be a travesty for them to lose it. Sincerely, K:J: Murphy '`" TRANSMITTAL MEMO cipr _ TO: ZBA Chairman and Members FROM: ZBA Office Staff DATE: 5/...21/62_ SUBJECT: File Update With reference to the above application, please find attached the following new information added to the official ZBA office file: " `AI4 • Comments: Number of Pages Attached: L., TrMemo.doc ,--(R* ESSEKS, HEFTER & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1 } 1 108 EAST MAIN STREET {` 2 0 2 1;� 11 tMAR {I P. O. Box 279 1 illi RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 ,, WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 f _ W-A --,.TER �'1ILL'OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER {==- "' `�y� �` MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. Q BOX 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N Y. 1 1976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA March 18, 2002 ANTHONY C PASCA NICA B. STRUNK Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Mr. Goehringer and Members of the Board: It is my understanding that the decision of the Building Inspector to issue Building Permit No. 27894Z and Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-28096 to Mr. and Mrs. Miller for the accessory "monument" may have either been 1) based on advice that the Building Inspector received from the Town Attorney's office, or 2) was the result of negotiations in which the Town Attorney's office participated. If my understanding is correct, the Town Attorney's office would be precluded from providing legal services to the Board in connection with this appeal. The Board's legal obligation is to provide the applicants and the respondent with a disinterested review of the facts and law. See Town Law§267-b(1). Assuming the Town Attorney's office participated in the decisions being appealed, the office has a conflict of interest. The Board can proceed without counsel, or, if the Board determines that counsel is necessary, retain independent attorneys. Respectfully yours, l SRA:mb ST PH R. ANG' ,r ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW March 18, 2002 Page 2 cc :Joshua Horton, Supervisor Town of Southold Gregory J. Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney Town of Southold Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli, Katherine P. Macari James and Barbara Miller / 0320-2002 01:50pm From-SCHACHTER CAPITAL +2129499871 T-236 P 002/002 F-752 A )})A2A FAFINE Z S T A B t 1 S ' 1 8 8 1 Fahnesrock4 Ca inc 200 Park Avenue 25;1t Roar New York,NY 10166 (212)907-1000 (800)285.6200 (212)9074080 FAX MenrDers of All Principal Exchanges Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall March 20,2002 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Dear Board Members, As a frequent visitor to your Northfork Community over the past 40 years it troubles me when I read about a magnificent piece of an coming under such malicious attack. I've admired the heron in Port Jefferson and even more so in Greenport. Recent' I've had the opportunity to witness the sculpture on Mr. And Mrs.Miller's private beach. The white heron to me is a celebration of everything that's good about the people and community of Southold. We found it impossible not to enjoy. I can't imagine in a township of thousands leaving three individuals to decide what is and isn't an. It also boggles my mind, giving recent world events,that tax payers dollars and resources are being wasted in assisting these three"appellants" in harassing Jim and Barbara Miller. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote,"Never lose an opportunity of seeing anything that is beautiful," The people of Southold have that opportunity everyday. It would be a travesty for them to lose it. Sincerely, K.J. Murphy 03-20-2002 01:50pm From-SCHACHTERPITAL +21294998x1 T-236 P 001/002 F-?52 ,CA Josephthal 8r Co. 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Direct Phone #212-338-5910 Direct Fax #212-986-5450 Email: kmurphy@josephthal.co,n From the office of Kenneth J. Murphy Senior Financial Consultant DATE: 3/20/02 FAX NUMBER: 631-765-9064 NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover): 2 TO: Gerard P. Goehringer Comments: 3/16402 l � tom- GZ / to: Z.B.A. Southold Town Hall 53095-Main Road Southold, NY. 11971 from: Joe & Stephanie Pagliaro 6 Quintin Court Port Jefferson, NY. 11777 We are sorry to see what is happening to Jim and Barbara Miller, and the Heron. At one time the Heron was located on Dansfords dock in Port Jefferson. Every once in awhile, my wife and I would go down to the Village of Port Jefferson and walk along the docks to visit the Heron, it was a very nice sight, it fit in with the ambiance of Port Jefferson Village. We took it for granted that this was the Herons home. Then one day while we were taking our little walk to the Village, we realized something was not right, at first we were kind of bewildered! then it sunk in, the Heron was gone, WHAT HAPPENED? Well we did find out the Heron had to go because of whatever. It was kind of sad. Then some time had passed and we found out the Heron had a new home in another very nice little village, Greenport!•well my wife and I went to visit the Heron in Greenport Village, It sure looked nice at the end of the little dock. Well, we were happy that we could visit the Heron again, and at the same time enjoy Greenport. Well some time had passed again, again we went to Greenport to have lunch and-of course visit the Heron, WHAT HAPPENED? the Heron was gone! well, we did find out that the owners had brought it to their home, where we thought, yes, that's where it belongs! why shoud'nt the owners be able to enjoy the beauty of their Heron right in their own Paradise. It seemed like the perfect place for its final resting place, END OF STORY! Not really. Jim & Barbara Miller thought they did everything right, building permit was issued, and the Millers had satisfied all of the requirements. They then hired a marine contractor to reinstall their artwork , C of 0 was issued. WHAT IS HAPPENING? why are these people still wanting the Millers to get rid of their artwork. All the requirements were taken care of. My wife Stephanie and I are wishing Jim and Barbara Miller good luck, and hope they are given their right to enjoy their beautiful peace of artwork. Thank u, C� - 1 - �` - 0-)b) Barbara J Matthei 2 Charlottesville Court Coram, New York 11727 March 16, 2002 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road,P.O.B. 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dear Mr. Goehringer: It was recently brought_to_my_attention_thatthereistobey_etanotherhearing(scheduled for March 21')regarding the Heron Monument located on the beachfront property of James and Barbara Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road in Southold. Although I do not reside in Southold, I am familiar with thislitigation. 1 worked part- time for Mr. Miller last year and also visited his gorgeous home on Paradise Point Road and saw the Heronlocated onhis beachfront—it was justheautiful. At onetimethis sculpture was located in Port Jefferson Harbor—just a few minutes from my home—and oftentimes I would go down to the Harbor to look at it The constantharassment (by some neighbors-apparently Messrs. Callis, Petrocelli and Macari)through litigation that the Millershave undergone_and continue to be_subj ected to, along with_the_ensuing costs, is utterly ridiculous! I am a retired person, having worked all my life in Manhattan. One of my last jobs was with Davis,Polk& Wardwell,one of the worldslargest_andmost prestigiouslawfirms. So I can easily understand how paperwork, legal fees and, most of all, time, mount up. To clog up the Courf_s time withsomethinglike this when there are.somany other important issues to resolve on Long Island is simply unforgivable. During the time'worked for Mr__Miller, Ifoundthathe wasahard-working,family_man who cared a great deal about the environment, There is obviously some other underlying issue here rather thanthe removal ofa beautifulsculptur_e,but it certainlyis not_one that should be dragged through the Courts. I strongly recommend that an end be brought to this issue once and for all. Thank you. Verynlr yours, ce•AalZ, Barbara J. Matt ut-r1c:i yr 'ONING BOARD OF APPEAL ' 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski(n Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Quintieri(a Town.Southold.n_y.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 36 7(9 6O S ATTN: � �i� 7�07J G /��,�� DATE: g/ ..2( /2002 REF: e ova 0 �,/ 64 Df ic, MESSAGE: ( f • /Z-412,.. i. / .�-. r ,- Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: 3 . / ANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT _I TIME_ : 03/21/2002 12: 23 DATE,TIME 03/21 12:20 FAX NO. /NAME 3E92065 DURATION 00:02:00 PAGE(S) 04 RESULT . OK MODE STANDARD ECM - i C___ ....--) U✓ e_.(...7. EssEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL 1 (A ‘N om , ) COUNSELORS AT LAW ,t ��00 108 EAST MAIN STREET l P 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N Y. 1 1976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY • CARMELA M. DI TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA r - "..- NICA B. STRUNK February 20, 2002 /ii', �`/I;'���_ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman r'; (;' ' ==j �,,!1 Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Southold I,/ii! FEB 2 I, �'�1 1 � 53095 Main Road n ' ! i,, P. 0. Box 1179 'Me_ —� --------6707 ?:_j_L Southold, NY 11971 - Attn: Linda Kowalski 4"--- 112' '`� �` ./2 Re: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Goehringer: Regarding the above, my secretary spoke with Ms. Kowalski today, and we are enclosing the following, pursuant to your request of 1/15/02: 1. copy of Callis deed; 2. copy of Petrocelli deed, with consent signed by Mr. Petrocelli; 3. copy of Macari deed in the name of Katherine P. Macari, with consent of Katherine P. Macari. Katherine P. Macari is Joseph Macari's wife. (Please amend the application accordingly). !f there is anything else you need, please let us know. Respect y lours, 4005',/i- /"" ACP:mb Anthony C. Pasca Enc. cc :Jerry Callis f / !`� FEB 0 r/ � 17/1//? /// 1, John Petrocelli, hereby authorize Dr. Jerry Callis to sign the Zoning Board application (File No. 5072) on my behalf. Dated: Januaty 2 3 , 2002 � Z Jol'ui Petrocelli • t..aA I Standard N.Y.B.T.U.Form 8007 Bargain and Sale Deed,with Covenant against Grantor's A«•—Individual or Corporation. CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS,INSTRUMENT—THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. 1:1130d 5 PAGE219 THIS INDENTURE, made the 13th day of May , nineteen hundred and eighty-two 4 0 BETWEEN CHARLES E. WARD and BEATRICE T. WARD, his wife, '7 31 ' residing at 85 Beach Road, Great Neck, New York, I 2E499 l/ / �11 V til /rlsJ' 1q w' y l fr� party of the first part, and i "�� 2 ; • JOHN PETROCELLI and JOAN PETROCFTT,I, his wife, residing at 250 Manor Road, Huntington, New York, - � party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of 0 o 0 TEN and 00/100 ($10.00) dollars, lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration, paid 9 /00 by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or 0.36 0 successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, /0 0/ 1°/ lying and being in the 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 Paradise Point Road, at the south- westerly corner of the premises herein described and being 231.52 feet northerly from the northwesterly corner of land of Gilbert (formerly Kent) when measured Wka along the easterly line of Paradise Point Road and frau said point of beginning RUNNING THENCE along the easterly side of Paradise Point Road, the following four \ \ courses and distances: ;ms 's (1) North 10 degrees 09 minutes 52 seconds West 73.67 feet, (2) North 10 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds West 90.44 feet, (3) North 10 degrees 07 minutes 48 seconds East 309.50 feet, (4) North 14 degrees 10 minutes 54 seconds East 29.63 feet to land of Callis; THENCE easterly along the land of Callis the following four courses: (1) South 69 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds East 280.67 feet, (2) South 49 degrees 22 minutes 30 seconds East 131.57 feet, (3) North 80 degrees 26 minutes 35 seconds East 93.35 feet, (4) South 69 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds East 448.0 feet to a concrete wall abutting Shelter Island Sound (Little Peconic Bay) ; THENCE South 28 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West, along said concrete wall, 480.68 feet to land being retained. by Ward; RUNNING THENCE North 69 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West along said last mentioned land 725.92 feet to the easterly side of Paradise Point Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. SUBJECT to any state of facts an accurate survey may show. \� SUBJECT to covenants and restrictions of record. s. r.; The party of the second part has simultaneously herewith executed and delivered a purchase honey mortgage in the sum of $400,000 .00 intended to be recorded simultaneously herewith. REC l , REAL ESTATE • \ 2� �� ,^t''( 21) l9 ? TRANSFER likX FUFFOtK .A . - . _ L16Eflvf �pAGE-4-) 2O TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof, TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. IN PRESENCE OF: GVv(. G / !��z� � � /./ ' (L.S.) ((r Charles E. Ward 2 (L.S.) Beatrice T. Ward . ,r-STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF N2 ss: STATE OF NEW YORK,' - INTY OF ss: On the 13th day of May, 1982 , before me' On the day of 19 , before me personally came CHARLES E. WARD and BEATRICE T. personally came WARD W to me known to be the individual S described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same. executed,the same. Rai HELEN A. EGL' D Nctary Public, State of New York No. 30-6156490-Nassau County Commission Expires March 30,1984 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF is: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: On the day of 19 , before me On the day of 19 , before me personally came personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. say that he resides at No. that he is the that he is the of of • , the corporation described , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. • Burgattt atib *ale Bea SECTION 81 WIIfi COVENANT AGAINST G A/N1'OR'S AC1S TITLE NO. T /1�� v C (O � , T BLOCK 3 Z LOT P/O 19.1 CHARLES E. WARD and BEATRICE T. WARD COUNTY BBC XO bf12L Suffolk TO JOHN PEa'ROCELLI and JOAN PETROCELLI RETURN BY MAIL TO: STANDARD FORM OF NEW YORK BOARD OF TITLE UNDERWRITERS Distributed by Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C . SECURITY TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY Main Road, P .O. Box 1424 Mattituck, N. Y. 11952 CHARTERED 1928 AIN IN NEW YORK Zip No. 4 r. L D 3 3 f� Lo .A° r — .1• Ca I=� —` 13 2 F': I 06 t°ml n' `z r C:, n +i u u 3 z. ,rl l Z ' FEB i r ' '-- -- 9 )p i e p, 1, Jh Macari, hereby authorize Dr. Jerry Callis to sign the Zoning Board application (File No. 5072) on my behalf. Dated: January 45 , 2002 Jgsrpkr Macari KCt�herrne. althC'B3 Standard N.Y.B.T.U.Form 800- —Warranty Deed With Full Covenants—Individual ' position(single sheet) "CONSULT YOUR LAWYER®MORE SIGNING THIS,INSTRUMENT—THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD RI USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. •THIS INDENTURE, made the ,9{ day of May , nineteen hundred and ninety—six • BETWEEN KATHERINE P. MACARI, residing at 121 Malba Drive, Malba, New York party of the first part, and ;� ' ' 1 1 2 KATHERINE P. MACARI QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST_II_,_having an address of 7 Eastview Lane, Old Brookville, New York party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the at Bay View, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Paradise Point Road, distant 504.97 feet northerly form the corner formed by the intersection of the east side of Paradise Point Road and the northerly side of Cedar Beach Road; THENCE north 24 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds east along the easterly side of Paradise Point Road, 200 feet; THENCE south 65 degrees 17 minutes 30 seconds east, 660 feet, more or less, to shore line of Peconic Bay; THENCE south along Shore Line of Peconic Bay, 203 feet, more or less, to land now and formerly of Weymouth; THENCE north 65 degrees 16 minutes 50 seconds west, 690 feet, more or less, to easterly side of Paradise Point Road at Paradise Point, at the point or place of BEGINNING. Said premises being known as Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York. TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. AND the party of the first part covenants as follows: that said party of the first part is seized of the said premises in fee simple, and has good right to convey the same; that the party of the second part shall quietly enjoy the said premises; that the said premises are free from incumbrances, except as aforesaid; that the party of the first part will execute or procure any further necessary assurance of the title to said premises; and that said party of the first part will forever warrant the title to said premises. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. IN PRESENCE ov: KATHERINE P. MACARI 17 4 STA�F EW Y P K, COUNTY OF _I V sin STATE OP NEW YORK, ITY OF mu On the (Yiday of May 19 96 , before me .On they day of 19 , before me personally came KATHERINE P. MACARI personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow i ged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same. executed the same. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OP ssr STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ssr On the day of 19 , before me On the day of 19 , before me personally came personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with say that he resides at No. whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly ; sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he is the of that he knows , the corporaticin described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he to be the individual knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- execute the same; and that he, said witness, tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. • Y�rer" Pct ccc'tSO° ln+ Roc-3i 8 =arrant? ;Dub District 1000 ITH FULL VENANTS SECTION 093.00 TITLE NO. Cl-"I , Ll q l4 BLOCK 01.00 LOT 002.000 KATHERINE P. MACARI COUNTY INIKKIMIANR Suffolk TO KATHERINE P. MACARI QUALIFIED Recorded At Request of, PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST II First American Title Insurance Company of New York RETURN BY MAIL TO: L. T. Service Corp. Louis J. Macari, Esq. &V Mathison .ifziefuce Macari, Messina & Ingber 110-06 Warren Street ✓re& kani, /1!y >0017 Elmhurst, NY 0122(fig-M00 • zip No. 11373 ".1 o - t2 z c er O 2 at U. O W N qQ�( W W UI NW W a t 1 GE 5U LIBfe6g apPdPA� Sale Deed.With Covenan-nst Grantor, X• .1t�B LUMBERG,INC,LAW BLANK PUBLISHERS StdtutoryForm.Individual,Photosta rding. HANGE PLACE AT BROADWAY, NEW YORK ?LEASE DO NOT -THIS INDENTURE,made the day of August1:16 , nineteen un re and sixty-six �) ' BETWEEN CHARLES IE. WARD'arid BEATRICE T. WARD, his wife, US k t resilling,at No. 85'Beach Road;, Great Neck, New York, L, C', . , ; • " parties of the first part, and, JERRY J. CALLIS and LOISANNE R. CALLIS, his wife, residing at Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York, , • ,paitie a'—._of the second part, ‘///111/-Q L WITNESSETH, that the part ie s of the first part, in consideration of ,',:.../,' r J fl,,r/F=H I f TEN ($10.. 00) -}:L / '!,'r;r ' -Ip `.;Doll`/9//; r/ lawful moneyof the United States, and other good and valuable considerations e� �'2 /'/��' • ---., / /,',/ / ` paid by the parties of the second part do hereby grant and release unto the parties-of_the second-part;/ • •, and assigns, forever, ALL that certain,plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New'York, bounded and described • ,Ir as follows: • ' ` • • • ' BEGINNING at an old .monument set in the easterly side of Paradise Point Road where,the division line between premises hereinafter described and premises now or ' formerly of Leonard E. Bruce intersects the easterly side of Paradise, Point Road; Running•,Thence South- 69 degrees 51 minutes 31 seconds East along said last men- tioned land, 340. 55 feet to land formerly of Byron now or former Ly of Little; Thence . along said last mentioned land the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. South 69 degrees 49 minutes 39 seconds East 208. 30 feet to an old monument; 2. South 69 degrees 52 minutes 26 seconds East 249. 18 feet to an old monument; ' 3. South 69 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds East through an old monument and partly along a concrete wall, 170. 04 feet to an angle point in said concrete wall abutting ' Shelter Island Sound (Little Peconic Bay); jThence south 28 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West along said last mentioned concrete wall, 151. 50 feet to other land now or formerly of Charles E. and Beatrice T. i • Ward; Thence along said last mentioned land the following four (4) courses and distances:. 1. North 69 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West 448. 00 feet; i 2. North 87 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds West 86. 18 feet; ,3. ' North 57 degrees 49 minutes 21 seconds West 125. 00 feet; \ 4. ' North'69 degrees 55.minutes•00 seconds West 280. 67 feet to the easterly side of Paradise Point Road; ! I Thence North 14 degrees 10 minutes 54 seconds East along the' easterly side of 1, 'Paradise Point Road.-• 101, 16 feet; Thence North 16"degrees-14"minutes 45 seconds /I 1 East still along the,easterly side of Paradise Point Road, •50. 39 feet to the•point or • ,• place of BEGINNING. SUBJECT to such state of facts as is shown on survey made by_�Charles E. Ward, 1 i� dated May 17, 1966.''•„r ' 1 • T SUBJECT to coenants and restrictions in Liber 731 cp 546� tand Liber 775 cp 224. OSUBJECT to an easement, recorded or unreco.rded, forfa utility line across the said tt premises as is shown on said survey. ' SUBJECT to right of the Federal Government to enter upon and take possession with- 'atll out compensation of lands now or formerly lying below the high water mark of Shelter ill Island Sound (Eittle Peconic Bay). SUBJECT to,Oight's-of'the People of the State of New York.in those portions of the pre- mises"now or formerly under the waters of She'lter'Island'Sound (Little Peconic Bay). SUBJECT to Riparian Rights of others than the insured in and to the waters of Shelter Island Sound (Little Peconic Bay) as same adjoins the premises described hereinabove. Excepting rights of others to use and maintain the Utility Line and poles on the premise . ` TOGETHER with all' right, title and interest of the sellers in and to land in•front of and I • adjoining said premises Lying below the high water mark of Shelter Island Sound,(Little • Peponic Bay) together with any jetties or structures thereon, I . TOGETHER with all right, title and interest of the part ie s of the first part of, in and to the land lying in + the 'streets and roadd in front of and-adjoining said premises. TOGETHER with'the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the parties,•• of the first part in and to said premises. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the'part ie s.^,='.'o;'tl second part, I - • 1'.. xis -moi, '��/AS ' and assigns forever. LIBER bUU i PACE DU The grantor, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the grantor will receive the consid- eration for'this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the Cost of the improvement and that the grantor will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of,the•;improvement,before using any part of the,total of the same for any other purpose: , ' '1;AND•the``said' ' •CHARLES. '; 'WARD`aria •BEATRICE T. WARD 'A•?;./ , - covenant that they have not done or_suffered,anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever. ' ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of the'•first part ha ve hereunto set their hands and seal s.'the day and year first above written. • I In presence of: ( • i/r. '/ ' 0244--.)--H7). . _ - - . • i , , - COUNTY OF• r -• ss.:- `- . STATE OF rNE W YORK- '`���i. , On the day of August , nineteen hundred and sixty—six before me came CHARLES E. WARD and BEATRICE T • r WARD • • • to me'known'and known-,to me to be the-individual s descri in, and who dxecuted; the -foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. -;;917 I ':' `' ^ T' - - RENSSELAER G. TERRY, J , ,•,1• • • Notary Public, State of NovYork I Residing in Suffolk County c. ° r.�r r-, .. , , ,.+ t, i�'r Cr y No. 5P3954850 y� ' 'ter .F.:,9 1 o,r ):yr - `-r .�.9�, ,'0� � 1 I E n I..,, f CJI Con mta ori Expires March'.iia 196 a • 1t s I�, c -L' ,"{,j`r9i• IE)��.,,.-:.,.. e.-.16.i t j�1 r Hj, 0� A ' ...!..*.f: ^4 I•Ji '- "I;Li,. A: �\ _� .tel• , \r • ^r fir. s ( 111 J rye •/- -F-lit, c r- J 'I� , - 1 .l' '.9)I. `t!'ul•qc.o0•vocc5f000aaa000000•o'• ioc,- 1 . , + '.•r ,..\ ,�L 2p r• I .,,) 1, •r,9.�[q. ® m, ,,SI \, t -l� I • % 1� c r Ht. : • I-( +' s6 ,5. ' .yya _ • �� 1 �Il f ; djS'1 {YyI/,.:Tlt1 ,j1141,�v G R �'1'0 ' rd 'l' alit n - - •' • T 11 - • 0 J �. d • rrr- -.. � -- — -- . -- r ..."'-••..----. .....w•+—_•_ 4.,1• ' ' —- ••.W,,,r",a-..- —.. • .+4++'rrr c ;, 4: ,•r.r;^•n ; 7 1 r --.,- . � • -1. ..,rr• ,T ,� 11^hT•;,r:^ -1 % ' ,T r 1 . _ — ,1„..9 _ all - n, ,f-T I+i „r. -t( rr, • N ' . ,a r r ^^ � . - � H p U • \ lcu H fJ A 4-1 toW F' . • x U414 r- W . ¢ `A '4 Z cl; • a. H z Pb4 .c i °+3 I gli" •-rO , , U PQ O f4 'CI cn •ri a)23 g ,p c3%. a - �ti .. e 2'; f.t.... • -„1,,,,i 0 _ L , ,(1.1_12.2Ce,r',..4c),0 , ) ,,,Q.L.11,1e.def.e:415.c) --• ' ,... •r(„.„4_,_•,,,,A,o,,,..• A .- .-•' 1 t tli$. it,. :'tr,I 00 ...; c,Vt V tr ri,-, ., E., $, --- . . .-.,.,N k- ft 0 • g•IV, ..c<t). ._ .... - "a`_, �' N "3 meati d•r ., -- ' '; .'4 � l' p > l lid ;ba • N , • - - - • 7 1 - , r. r, r.. r CD 41 Co . W -" 2 �.. • RECORDED-,. • 1 o CL. u AUG 9 1966 ) it, - ai Cc Q NORMAN E. KLIPP. �, a •q v o k of Suffolk County, • cr., • , - - - , LIBER bUURi PAGE DUD The grantor, in compliance wain section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that me grantor will receive the consid- eration for'this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the Cost of the improvement and that the grantor will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the;impfovement,before using any part of the,total of the same for any other purpose: .f. • i-thesaid'' 1" .' ,AND ,x :CHARLES. ; VITARD anti BEATRICE T. WARD • •• - ' ' • 'covenant that they have not done or suffered,anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever. '`•IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of the first'part ha ve hereunto set their hands and seal s''the day and year first above written. , In presence of: ( ".- ,.1--1-,,,-1,•,. , "' A2 ),'„9.). -....-- -:-.:--- . - - ( ' i , , / is 2././-4_,L., STATE OF NEW YORK ' - COUNTY OF- •Aset. D_ •4‹, c -'' ca.:- __ . On the day of August , nineteen hundred and sixty-six before me came • CHARLES E. WARD and BEATRICE T. WARD , to me•known'and known-to me to be the-individual a deseri in, and who executed; the-foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that they-executed the same. � '�'' �g� - _ - .JV.-T� K -!" ,• , i C'. . ._ ; • .� `. - . T Notary• PBbl c R G.to TERRY,ofor York state � — r -' . r.�� • 1-7- ( r' ••i.n - 1 Residing 'in Suffolk County '"W----.4 w 1; '"- i No. 52.3954850 `•..IT r/ ; �F r\r Li e r �� '\r 1 .x �t l riommJa*i Expires res tl�fCtl' 196 • r . ..;E::1.... _ t �`i h^1�•'7r ,rte .1 1p :n• '(:-" N r J A - 1,? C ,, a iiiii, �'D _ I b 6 t ,i��j��/y ru P 1.1 ,°_,. r: r c- ����b 1 ..y .fi __________/0%�' a•4 rl..A-4,_ jyLl•..L(. Of,cc5.�00ICCC000-00•O O•J Dcy�`•,,i�L4•i,��I� t . ': ..._2_:L...,..$!"../.1,'..„, 017 ! P4'll . ,�i��• a),/r---- �I/S ,;,..--1.,-,,,„, r�C�( ) _ - ( , .— - - 'Fr r. 7r� ` \per 1 .r. ,�7�� f .ri _ t'44' .0a.- J � R t.7`4 ��r'i J',� ! C �.'+�j�l �,1-' ( J'� F....4 � r _ _ .. pi,rri t _'"I.r ...1 .' 1 ° -Jste rte-- , •.''' ter• _ -.rt.,"'=•.'T t, - -- -"- •.._ _ —___..............,,,-...4.{*.-'— Grp_. ; -+•.w,:17:97.r ... r - _ - 1 y ; AliPEA4;S=BOARD MEMBERS oil SVFFO�� ��•' s$ co Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ���_� Gy : 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora t y = P.O. Box 1179 George Horning �,� Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva �� 0 let ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando 6l * �a ��� Telephone(631) 765-1809 ...,••'' �, http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 7, 2002 By Fax 369-8249 and Regular Mail Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks Hefter& Angel 108 East Main St. P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re• Appl. No. 5072—Appeal by Dr. J. Callis (Miller Property) Dear Mr. Angel. We received word today from the owners of the above referenced property that they have not received Notice of your Appeal Application. You may wish to contact either the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate in Riverhead, or the Town's Assessor's Office (765-1937) as to the current address of record for service of copies of the entire application, notice of the hearing calendared for March 21, 2002 by certified mail, return receipt requested, and regarding the posting of the sign required under Chapter 58 of the Town Code. The Notice of Hearing form with instructions was forwarded earlier today To assist you in identifying the lot owners that will be required to receive notice of the hearing, we enclose a copy of the County Tax Map with the lot numbers listed. Their addresses may also be obtained from either one of the above agencies. Thank you. Very truly yours, ZBA Office Enclosure 1 ZO tNG BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD X APPLICATION OF JERRY CALLIS, File No. 5072 JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARI AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING With respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller located at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19 . 004 X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS . : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Margaret Bizzoco, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 1 . I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age, and reside in Ronkonkoma, New York. 2 . On the 16th day of January, 2002 , I served a true copy of the within "Appeal from Decision of Building Inspector" dated January 14, 2002, upon: Building Department, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 and upon James and Barbara Miller 1610 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 the addresses designated by said Building Department and James and Barbara Miller, for that purpose by depositing same enclosed in postpaid properly addressed wrappers, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States postal service within the State of New York. r , r � Margare Bizzoco Sworn to before me this 16th day of January, 2002 . /7(0tA. CrIAdvetr NotaryOublic MARGARET LABATE Notary public, State o;N9422 ew York Qualified in Suffolk Commission Expires JulyCounty 31,20 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold( N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 27894 Z Date NOVEMBER 13, 2001 • • Permission is hereby granted to: JAMES & BARBARA MILLER PO BOX 610 ' CALVERTON,NY 11933 for : CONSTRUCTION OF 60 SQ. FT. PLATFORM, LOCATED 20 ' FROM THE APPARENT HIGH WATER FOR A MONUMENT AND TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEC AND TRUSTEES at premises located at 1610 PARADISE POINT RD SOUTHOLD County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 081 Block 0003 Lot No. 019 . 004 pursuant to application dated OCTOBER 12 , 2001 and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $ 75 . 00 774-'d:P-4/ Authorize ignat e • • • ORIGINAL Rev. 2/19/98 FORM NO. 4 . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: Z-28096 Date: 11/30/01 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ACCESSORY Location of Property: 1610 PARADISE POINT RD SOUTHOLD (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) (HAMLET) County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 81 Block 3 Lot 19.4 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. • conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated OCTOBER 12, 2001 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 27894-Z dated NOVEMBER 13, 2001 was issued, and conforms to- all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is PLATFORM WITH MONUMENT AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to JAMES & BARBARA MILLER (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. • SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A • Autho ized Sig ure Rev. 1/81 • 170 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,�Iii gOFFOtir ' �G�� Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer,Chairman ' y 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, y x ; P.O.Box 1179 Lydia Tortor Jr.r Southold,New York 11971 Lora S.Collins , �70 _0� �� ZBA Fax(516)765-9064 George Horning =,1 * ,,''° Telephone(516)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1998 Appl. No. 4537 - BUILDING DEPARTMENT by Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement, Town of Southold Location of Property: Town-Wide, Town of Southold Date of Public Hearing: February 26, 1998 Section of Code Interpreted: Section 100-13 (Definitions). WHEREAS, Application No. 4537 is a request for an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Article I, Section 100-13 (Definitions) of a "building," to determine whether or not a 40-ft. high sculpture is a building within the language of said provision; and if it is a building, whether or not it is subject to the height limitations of Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, after due notice a public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on February 26, 1998 in the Assembly Room, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York to consider this application; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, all testimony has been carefully considered and the following pertinent facts noted: 1. The definition of a "building" in Section 100-13 of the , Zoning Code reads as follows: "BUILDING - Any structure having a roof supported by such things as columns, posts, piers, walls or air intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no building was present. The term "building" shall include the term "structure" as well as the following: (1) signs (2) fences • (3) walls , (4) radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennas, amateur radio antennas and wireless communication facility receiving and transmitting antennas, except for radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennas, amateur radio • • • �1 Page 2 - March 3, 1998 171 • Re: ZBA Appl. No. 4537 Request for Interpretation antennas installed on the roof of a building and extending not more than 20 feet above the highest level of the roof of such building: ' (5) porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures.... 2. Section •100-33 of the Zoning Code limits the height of accessory buildings and structures at a mean height of 18 feet, and which section specifically reads as follows: Article III, Section 100-33 at pages 10052-10053 reads: 100-33... accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height..... 3. Also, Section 100-230 of the Zoning Code provides certain exemptions from the height limitations. ' 4. The Board of Appeals is not in a position at this time (and ' is unable) to respond to the request for an interpretation as to whether or not such as building is subject to the height.limitations because such a determination must be made on the basis of specific facts pertaining to a specific building, and no such facts were submitted to the Board in this interpretive proceeding. On motion offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Diaz io, 1 IT IS RESOLVED by the Board of Appeals that the application of Southold Town Building Department, requesting an Interpretation, is hereby ANSWERED as follows: A 40 ft. high sculpture is a building as defined in the Zoning Code under Section 100-13. VOTE OF THE BOARD: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO and COLLINS. (Absent were: Members To • - and - - This resolution was duly ADOPTED (3-0). / i ..GERARD P. GOEHRING Approved for Filing 1 ECj,IjED AND • TEE s013111':..a"' DF_TF r )..; A:1;cad 172 • : vg1�FFOL f • ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE :�� '; G�-� Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK L x: "= .�� P.O.Box 1179 t, .;?..,.. - : t� Z = Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS "" �" -i== � MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax(516)765-1823 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER ~�fr'j10TTelephone(516)765-1800 • 1 a� FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER -- OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals . FROM: Eiiiabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk • f` DATED: . January 7, 1998 1� RE: Zoning Appeal No, 4537 - Southold Town Building Department Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 4537 - SOUTHOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT submitted by Edward Forrester for an interpretation whether a sculpture platform requires a building permit. - There is no fee charged for processing this application. • • 173fi Vii. (-, /n` �� � ) • EDWARD FORRESTER 4r0 O Southold Town Hall G Director of Code Enforcement ; {; 53095 Main Road • P.O.Box 1179 otrl Southold,New York 11971 . p� Fax(516)765-1823• Telephone(516)7654802 RECEttirn - - JAN 6 =93 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NO Clerk Southold MEMORANDUM TO: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Ed Forrester, Director of Code Enforcemenr DATE: January 6, 1998 RE: Request for Interpretation The Building Department has recently received a building permit application for a sculpture platform. The applicant advises us that he plans to erect a forty foot tall sculpture of steel wire on the platform. I need an interpretation whether a forty foot sculpture is a building as defined in Southold Town Code §100-13. The definition says: BUILDING —Any structure having a roof supported by such things as columns, posts, piers, walls or air and intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no "building"was present. The term "building" shall include the term "structure" as well as the following: (1) Signs. (2) Fences. (3) Walls. (4) Radio and television receiving and transmitting towers and antennas, except for such antennas installed on the roof of a building and • extending not more than twenty (20) feet above the highest level of the roof of such building. (5) • Porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures. • 174 Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals January 6, 1998 Page 2 Clearly the sculpture does not have a roof and is not intended for shelter, business, housing or enclosing persons. However, the definition appears to include any combination of materials forming any construction. "Construct" is defined as "to build, form, or devise by fitting parts or elements together systematically." To date, the Building Department has not required building permits for small sculptures, like flamingos or lawn jockeys. However, the height and complexity of this sculpture is much greater than those. Are sculptures °buildings" under our code? Should only those sculptures of a certain height or construction complexity be considered "buildings" under our code? If the sculpture is not considered a building, the permit for the platform alone will be straightforward. However, if the sculpture is considered a building, I also ' need an interpretation as to the applicability of the height requirements of this code. Southold Town Code §100-33, Accessory buildings, provides: In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R- ' 80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Since the proposed sculpture is forty feet high, it will have problems unless the exceptions in §100-230 are applicable. That section provides: D. Height exceptions. The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transmission towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that any television or radio aerial shall not be located nearer than a distance equal to its height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than two hundred twenty (220) volts. . • 175 Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals January 6, 1998 Page 3 • (2) Bulkheads, observation towers, monitors, fire towers, hose towers, 1 cooling towers, water towers, grain elevators or other structures where a manufacturing process requires greater height, provided that any such . structures that are located on any roof area that exceed in height the limits in the particular district shall not in the aggregate occupy more than twenty percent (20%) of the horizontal area of the roof and are set back one (1) foot from the edge of the roof for each additional foot in height • greater than the specified height. This section exempts monuments from the height requirements. Does the term monuments include sculptures? Are any of the other exemptions, like towers, applicable? If so, the sculpture would not require a height variance. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please let me know if you need additional information. • • • 176 2 - Stop Work Order dated March 26, 1998 (Pages 176-177) • • STATE OF NEW YORK This is to certify that I, Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk of the Town of SUFFOLK COUNTY ce of the Town Clerk Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy ss: 'OWN OF SOUTHOLD of. . . Stop.Work order.. lsskahlf Building Department.o tTMAe.134pi�p g$1-3'19-4. 1610 Paradise. Point.Road,Southold,.N.Y. tl or gina�now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original , Stop.Work .Order.issued by Building al) on SCTM.No. .100-81.-3-19.11.Paradise .Point Road, dated •3/26/98 Southod,, .N.Y. and e whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affi ed the seal of said Town this .10th. day of .August. 17. .1998 a'ded.,ec,4440. Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, of uffolk, N.Y • • 177 0uFFOC,r�oG yam; Town Hall,53095 Main Road 2 1 Fax(516)765-1823 P.O. Box 1179 . try 1; Telephone(516)765-1802 Southold, New York 11971 0 OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OFSOUTHO D RECEIVED AND FILED BY STOP WORK ORDER THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CT,T?,?1K DATE 1-{ I 9 HOUR WOO fyi) TO: James & Barbara Miller = -- � - 'P.O. Box 610 Main Rd. Town Clerk, Town of Southold Calverton, N.Y. 11933 • • YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: 1610 PARADISE POINT ROAD, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. TAX MAP NUMBER -1000-81-3-19.4 Pursuant to Section 45-8 of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York, you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. 7/1 DATED: MARCH 26, 1998 • MICHAEL J. ,' ERITY ' BUILDING INSPECTOR. APPLICANT • TRANSACTIONAL DISCI'.,OSURE FORM , ..The Town of Soytholdls Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of • interest on the part of town' officers and employees . 'The purpose of ' this form is to provide information which can • alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it ' to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same . YOUR NAME: Callis, Jerry; Petrocelli, John; Macara, Joseph (Last name , first name , middle initial , unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. . If so, indicate the other person 's or company ' s .hame . ) • • NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply. ) Tax grievance ' Variance Change of zone Approval •of plat _ • Exemption from plat: or official, map • Other x (If "Other, “ name the activity. ) anneal frnm n huildin ierror a $—sp terminations • Do you personally (or through your company, 'spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood,' marriage, or business interest. "Business • , interest" means a business; including a partnership, in , ' • which the town officer or employee has even a partial • ownership of (or employment by)' a corporation in which the towri officer or employee owns more than 5% of the . . shares.. YES NO x s I . If you answered "YES, ". complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated; j • i . Name of person employed by the Town of •Southold i Title orposition of that person 1 Describe the relationship between yourself ( the applicant ) and the town officer or employee. Either check the ' appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space . provided . The town officer or employee or his or her spouse , sibling, parent , or 'child is (check all that apply ) ; A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant . is a corporation) , _______B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a • noncorporate entity (when the applicant iv not a • corporation) / • .__,0) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant, or ' ____,D) the actual applicant . • • • DESCRIPTION •OF RELATIONSUIP ' . • • • Ze02 , Submitted th ; /• , 'i day ofp • Signature 1► / � � Print name erry Callis • . • • • QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH' YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION • • ' A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) 'and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: . (Separate sheet may be attached. ) James and Barbara Mlller • B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for = sale or being shown to prospective buyers? ( ) Yes } No. / (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale. ) Unknown C. Are there any proposals to. change or alter land coatours? • { } Yes ( I No Unknown • . • . _ • NOT APPLI- D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? CABLE TO 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with ISSUES RAISED this application? (N/A) 3 . Is the property bulkheaded• between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4. , If your property 'contains wetlands or pond areas, have ' you contacted the Office oE• the Town Trustees 'for its determination of jurisdiction? N/A E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of "Proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea . level? (If not applicable, state "N.A.") N/A F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map •that you are submitting? If none exist, please state "none." N/A G. Do you have any construction taking place.at this time concerning your premises? If yes, please submit a copy . • of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department, If none, please state. N/A H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this • parcel? • If yes, please explain where or submit copies of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parQel _ single family home and . proposed use single family home and structure in violation of height and/or use limitations. • • , ed tune and Oat . • ' •• Callas 3 87, 10/901k { • • 2350 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 January 14, 2002 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Application to Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19.004 Dear Sir or Madam: I, on behalf of myself, John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari, hereby authorize Stephen R. Angel, of the firm of Esseks, Hefter & Angel, 108 East Main Street, P. O. Box 279, Riverhead, New York 11901, to act as our agent in the above-captioned matter. Jen Callis •1 X1115/2002 13:24 - •-631765901' ZONTNGAti?P fih: BO PAGE 01 �,,‘,,, _ ..= Southold Town Hall BOARD N[EJyiH RS ,�:: ` �� 1 S 5 Main Road APPEALS , , , 309 � �, ,�.y. = P.O.Box 1179 Gerard P. Goehriz►gert Ghanian ,� ` ; Southold,New York 11971-0959 James Dinizid;Jr.; ;i'r: ` 631 765-9064 Lydia A.'Portora :_',..4., fix' %' ZBA Fax( ) Lora S. `�' Collins / �,,� -, . , �' Telephone(631)7654809 , lle George Hornin=g _ , ,,,!, BOARD OF APPEALS , TOWN OF SOUTt OL,D January + 2002, Fax 36"-2Od5 , Stephen R. Angel, Esq. _ ' Esseks,Homer 8t Angel 108 East Main='St., P.O. Box 279 ' Riverhead, NY 11901 . Re: 'File-No. 5072 -Application of Jerry Callis (MillepPropertY) Dear Mr. Angel: In reviewing Dr. Callis' Appeal submitted today: Yyour office, it is noted that the following items are missing: u pn the Town's l uildi gyDaRartment; ) proof of service P �Mof ���' �-�!�,pfoPertY� of service upbo'the owners ., o; ,' .. •b)„proof � �� fil �ht �(Jerry' Callis) as an c) a copy of the property deed for the � = a ( f r y aggrieved party. . d) consents for Dr. Callis to sign in,behalf of John Petrocelli and Joseph Ma4ari; OR original notarized jignetutes 'by each; also if Messrs. Petrocelli and Macari,will be Appellants:g $hiS ppllcatior., copies of the property deeds showipg ownership byMit*etrocelli•and Mr. Macari. Please furnish the above-as soon as possible::'•Thank you. Very truly yours, . 404,w 2...Z."'"ice;, " ,. ,efic-440,4-06' • Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman 7' I � 1) ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE 11 *tea Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ; P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS , Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER ..a rye.;.;` � �I Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER -�®� ®lig Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ��� southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: March 4, 2002 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5072 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5072—J. Callis -Zoning Board of Appeals application for a reversal. Also included is a departmental memo, a copy of the building permit, a copy of Certificate of Occupancy, ZBA decision dated March 3, 1998, a letter form Town Clerks office to ZBA for interpretation, a letter from Ed Forrester requesting interpretation, a stop work order, an applicant transactional disclosure form, a ZBA questionnaire, a letter from Callis, a letter from Pasca, a letter from Angel, a copy of the deed, a letter from Petrocelli, a copy of Petrocelli deed, a letter from Macari, a copy of Macari deed, a letter from Bizzoco, a letter from Geohringer, another application for reversal, a building permit, a certificate of occupancy, a ZBA determination, a letter from Elizabeth Neville, a letter from Ed Forrester, a stop work order, an applicant transactional disclosure form, a ZBA questionnaire, and a letter form Callis. ,I��,®moo§VFF04�-co; --a ` ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE ���_ G'y�; Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK % o P.O. Box 1179 y Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS ��, Fax(631) 765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER -y_ 6?! ii, 4t. ie.�o, Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ��,,**Dsoutholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: January 24, 2002 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5072 Transmitted herewith is a receipt for assignment of a project number for Zoning Appeal No. 5072—J. Callis. DEPARTMENTAL MEMO TO: Town Clerk's Office FROM: Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chairman DATE: SO.n- IS 2.00 SUBJECT: Assignment of Project Number of . G g' prbr-)j,) According to the ZBA adopted rules of procedure, please assign Number 60 7 . to the above-referenced new submission. While the documentation may not be in complete form, it is assigned a number for the purpose of commencing reviews. The documentation has not as of today been accepted as a complete file by the assigned member. as A $ ODD. check is attached (which is required by your office for assignment of a project number). This number was assigned by our office on !/i S-/o 2, . (Projects are assigned chronologically.) Thank you. Attachment r `k11 ,/i/iii,,,_ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,iii VFFO[ ��•0 OP �c'®' Southold Town Hall G ` Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �'_ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora % y P.O. Box 1179 George Horning Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva 4.4? ®�of f ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 . Vincent Orlando = ® �'� 1 ,Iil Telephone(631)765-1809 ..,..•'' http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DEPARTMENTAL MEMO TO: Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville FROM: ZBA Chairman Jerry Goehringer DATE: February 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Filing of New Application by Callis, Petrocelli & Macari We enclose the above-noted Appeal Application for filing under Assigned File Number 5072, which number was issued on January 24, 2002. Thank you. Enclosures (complete file as of 2/21/02 for processing) `; .. ' ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK January 14, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold •.)J1 ? h 4 11 1t I �f 53095 Main Road '; FJAW P. 0. Box 1179 ;jai' `I ij Hi 3F ,,f 11 .1 Southold, NY 11971 Re: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We are the attorneys for Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari. We enclose six sets of the following documents in connection with an appeal from the Building Inspector's building permit dated 11/13/01 and certificate of occupancy dated 11/30/01 for the above-captioned property: 1. application with addendum; 2. building permit dated 11/13/01; 3. certificate of occupancy dated 11/30/01; 4. Town of Southold Board of Appeals Determination filed 3/5/98; 5. transactional disclosure form; 6. zoning board of appeals questionnaire; and 7. client authorization. In addition, we also•enclose our check, made payable to the Town of Southold, in the sum of$200.00. Please note that I was advised that this was the proper amount in a telephone conversation with the Zoning Board staff. Re ectfully yours, ilSRA:mb S 'EPH'N R. ANG Enc. cc : Jerry Callis Ofiteie,te r ✓4'.. J3072 S�oV 1 Jbz ' �'For�Ottice Use Only: Fee$'` dig_ p�(r„E g' se:1- - ,mss �„A�,� 4-Assigned No.�7� - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ORU3INAL APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED: 11(13(01 (building.ppxigi ) 11/30/01 (certificate of occupancy) TO THE ZONING.BOARD OF APPEALS: 1c(We) Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli and Joseph Macau (Appellant) xg..c/.o..Esseks..itafteac. (Tel # 631 369-1700 ) HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED 11,(13/01 & 11/ 0/01 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AN APPLICATION DATED..iI.4/. 2(41 FOR: (x) Permit to Build APPROVED ( x) Permit for Occupancy ( x) Permit to Use ( ) Permit for As-Built • ( ) Other: 1. Location of Property 1610 Paradise Point Road • Zone R-80 District 1000 Section 081 Block 3 Lot(s) 19.004 Current OwnerJames and Barbara Mil -r - 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the law.) Article Section 100- { Sub-Section *SEE ADDENDUM 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A Variance due-to lack of access as required by New York Town Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. ( ) Interpretation of Article Section 100 • - (x) Reversal ifflueihgecilf pf..thp,puAlding.permit and certificate of occupancy referred to ab've for noncompliance with sections cited 4. , Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has) Vititaltify been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector(Appeal #4537 Year 1998 ) REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature): *SEE ADDENDUM AREA VARIANCE REASONS: (1) An undesirable ..hange will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to n. Irby properties, if granted, because: (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief reguo sted is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in neighborhood or district because: . (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. This is the MINIMUM thgt is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box If USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are completed and attached. Sworn • to b- ore me this ( , gnat:re of •i• • +Fant or Authorized Agent) o f JanuarX 20 02. -, (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) JERRY CALLIS Notary Public ZBA App 0 $0 ANTHONY C.PASCA Notary Public,State of New York • No.02PA5055606,Suffolk County, Commission Expires Feb.12,20Li... ADDENDUM 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Article I Section 100-13 Sub-Section: various teams defined therein Article III Section 100-31 Sub-Section: n/a Article III Section 100-33 Sub-Section: n/a Article XXIII Section 100-230 Sub-Section: D REASONS FOR APPEAL: The building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because they violate the sections of the Zoning Ordinance referred to above, they violate the previous appeal #4537 of 1998, they violate decisions issued by courts of competent jurisdiction, and are otherwise violative of New York zoning law. FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 27894 Z Date NOVEMBER 13 , 2001 Permission is hereby granted to: JAMES & BARBARA MILLER PO BOX 610 CALVERTON,NY 11933 for : CONSTRUCTION OF 60 SQ. FT. PLATFORM, LOCATED 20 ' FROM THE APPARENT HIGH WATER FOR A MONUMENT AND TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEC AND TRUSTEES at premises located at 1610 PARADISE POINT RD SOUTHOLD County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 081 Block 0003 Lot No. 019 . 004 pursuant to application dated OCTOBER 12 , 2001 and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $ 75 . 00 • 7 i Authorize.eignat e ORIGINAL Rev. 2/19/98 • • FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: Z-28096 Date: 11/30/01 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ACCESSORY Location of Property: 1610 PARADISE POINT RD SOUTHOLD (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) (HAMLET) County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 81 Block 3 Lot 19.4 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated OCTOBER 12, 2001 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 27894-Z dated NOVEMBER 13, 2001 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is PLATFORM WITH MONUMENT AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to JAMES & BARBARA MILLER (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A Autho ized Sig , ure Rev. 1/81 c , 170 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,iii, SUFFOUr =, ,�'�O�' C OG Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ?:c 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. y x P.O.Box 1179 'Pr Lydia A.Tortora O /�� Southold,New York 11971 Lora S.Collins 4% ac)- 11 ZBA Fax(516)765-9064 George Horning of . 1 ,.�;��.t Telephone(516)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1998 r Appl. No. 4537 - BUILDING DEPARTMENT by Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement, Town of Southold Location of Property: Town-Wide, Town of Southold : Date of Public Hearing: February 26, 1998 ' Section of Code Interpreted: Section 100-13 (Definitions). • WHEREAS, Application No. 4537 is a request for an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Article I, Section 100-13 (Definitions) of a "building," to determine whether or not a 40-ft. high sculpture is a building within the language of said provision; and if it is a building, whether or not it is subject to the height limitations of Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, after due notice a public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on February 26, 1998 in the Assembly Room, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York to consider this application; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard ' were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, all testimony has been carefully considered and the • following pertinent facts noted: 1. The definition of a "building" in Section 100-13 of the . Zoning Code reads as follows: "BUILDING - Any structure having a roof supported by such things as columns, posts, piers, walls or air intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no building was present. The term "building" shall include the term "structure" as well as the following: (1) signs (2) fences (3) walls (4) radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennas, amateur radio antennas and wireless communication facility receiving and transmitting antenna, except for radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennss, amateur radio 1 • • Page 2 - March 3, 1998 171 Re: ZBA Appl. No. 4537 Request for Interpretation antennas installed on the roof of a building and extending not more than 20 feet above the highest level of,the roof of such building. (5) porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures.... 2. Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code limits the height of accessory buildings and structures at a mean height of 18 feet, and which section specifically reads as follows: Article III, Section 100-33 at pages 10052-10053 reads: 100-33... accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.... 3. Also, Section 100-230 of the Zoning Code provides certain exemptions from the height limitations. 4. The Board of Appeals is not in a position at this time (and is unable) to respond to the request for an interpretation as to whether or not such as building is subject to the height.limitations because such a determination must be made on the basis of specific facts pertaining to a specific building, and no such facts were submitted to the Board in this interpretive proceeding. - On motion offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Diniz io , IT IS RESOLVED by the Board of Appeals that the, application of Southold Town Building Department, requesting an Interpretation, is hereby ANSWERED as follows: A 40 ft. high sculpture is a building as defined in the Zoning Code under Section 100-13. VOTE OF THE BOARD: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO and COLLINS. (Absent were: Members To • - and - - •' • . This resolution was duly ADOPTED (3-0). ,.GERARD P. GOEHRING t • • 'MAN •' Approved for Filing AND -'11 D Bel r� i i-awl • • DATE 3Alfa' . ' '; •::.�,d_ Town G`.• .. is di4yi 172 ` ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE ;.;t, ., ' :L: G '- Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK • • P.O.Box 1179 Cs. •: •.,. °.:.�•}� Z = Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS �+' ="` �': O •• �"� �= Fax(516)765-1823 MARRIAGE OFFICER Telephone(516)765-1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER 'OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: . January 7, 1998 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4537 - Southold Town Building Department Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 4537 - SOUTHOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT submitted by Edward Forrester for an interpretation whether a sculpture platform requires a building permit. There is no fee charged for processing this application. 173 17-137 5./1 a"..)14 ri ,� SUffU1� / C rLLcEl6ytt:�C - EDWARD FORRESTER f 0�� COGS Southold Town Hall Director of Code Enforcement , j 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 • O �� Southold,New York 11971 */# �! � Fax(516)765-1823 RECEIV I- l �a d' Fax (516)765-1802 JAN c 1M BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Lown Cleric Southold MEMORANDUM • TO: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Ed Forrester, Director of Code Enforcemenfl DATE: January 6, 1998 RE: Request for Interpretation The Building Department has recently received a building permit application for a sculpture platform. The applicant advises us that he plans to erect a forty foot tall sculpture of steel wire on the platform. I need an interpretation whether a forty foot sculpture is a building as defined in Southold Town Code §100-13. The definition says: BUILDING —Any structure having a roof supported by such things as columns, posts, piers, walls or air and intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no "building"was present. The term "building" shall include the term "structure" as well as the following: - (1) Signs. (2) Fences. (3) Walls. (4) Radio and television receiving and transmitting towers and antennas, except for such antennas installed on the roof of a building and extending not more than twenty (20) feet above the highest level of the roof of such building. (5) Porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures. • 174 Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals January 6, 1998 Page 2 • Clearly the sculpture does not have a roof and is not intended for shelter, business, housing or enclosing persons. However, the definition appears to include any combination of materials forming any construction. "Construct" is defined as "to build, form, or devise by fitting parts or elements together systematically." To date, the Building Department has not required building permits for small sculptures, like flamingos or lawn jockeys. However, the height and complexity of this sculpture is much greater than those. Are sculptures °buildings" under our code? Should only those sculptures of a certain height or construction complexity be considered "buildings" under our code? If the sculpture is not considered a building, the permit for the platform alone will be straightforward. However, if the sculpture is considered a building, I also need an interpretation as to the applicability of the height requirements of this code. Southold Town Code §100-33, Accessory buildings, provides: In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R- 80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Since the proposed sculpture is forty feet high, it will have problems unless the exceptions in §100-230 are applicable. That section provides: D. Height exceptions. The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transmission towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that any television or radio aerial shall not be located nearer than a distance equal to its height above the roof or other permanent structure to • which it is attached to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than two hundred twenty (220) volts. • 175- Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals January 6, 1998 Page 3 (2) Bulkheads, observation towers, monitors, fire towers, hose towers, cooling towers, water towers, grain elevators or other structures where a manufacturing process requires greater height, provided that any such . structures that are located on any roof area that exceed in height the ' limits in the particular district shall not in the aggregate occupy more than twenty percent (20%) of the horizontal area of the roof and are set back one (1) foot from the edge of the roof for each additional foot in height greater than the specified height. This section exempts monuments from the height requirements. Does the term monuments include sculptures? Are any of the other exemptions, like towers, applicable? If so, the sculpture would not require a height variance. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please let me know if you need additional information. 4 176 2 - Stop Work Order dated March 26, 1998 (Pages 176-177) • r ' STATE OF NEW YORK This is to certify that I, Elizabeth A. Neville, SUFFOLK COUNTY e, Town Clerk of the Town of :e of the Town Clerk Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy ss: 'OWN OF SOUTHOLD of ' . Stop.Work order. issuer by 13uUdigg Department.on. . C.) wd Nr.fip821-3-19.4. 161Q Paradise. Point.Road,Southold, .N.Y.� t3nmanow on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and qtrue transcript of such original . Stop.Work .Order.issue d by al) on SCTM.No- .10Q-81.-3-19.4.Paradise Point Road, Southod Building.N.Y, dated .3/26/98 and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this .10th. day of .August; 17, .1998 4:144,irdia 1 . • Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, County of uffolk, N.Y. • f( l9L. wfix 177 c • o O • G• l`1 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road y _ Fax(516)765-1823 P. O. Box 1179u. n� t Telephone(516)765-1802 Southold, New York 11971 y ��°�►� • OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHO D RECEIVED AND FILED BY STOP WORK ORDER THE SOUTHOLD TOWN C17.?3K DATE 1.008 HOUR 14:60 ay) r, TO: James & Barbara Miller P.O. Box 610 Main Rd. Town Clerk, Town of Southold Calverton, N.Y. 11933 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: 1610 PARADISE POINT ROAD, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. TAX MAP NUMBER -1000-81-3-19.4 Pursuant to Section 45-8 of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York, you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded • BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. 2-71‘e--/1" DATED: MARCH 26, 1998 MICHAEL J. ERITY ' BUILDING INSPECTOR. 4 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORK • .The Town of Southold l s Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees. The Purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same . YOUR NAHE: Callis, Jerry; Petrocelli, John; Maestri, Joseph (Last name , first name , middle initial , unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person ' s or company ' s name . ) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply . ) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone Approval 'of plat • Exemption from plat or official map Other g ( If "Other, " name the activity. ). appeal from building inspector determinations Do you personally (or through your company, 'spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES • NO % • If you ,answered "YES, ". complete the balance of this form and ' ' date and sign where indicated. • Name of person employed by the Town of •Southold Title or position of that person • Describe the relationship .between yourself ( the applicant ) and the town officer or employee. Either check the ' appropriate line A) through 0) and/or describe in the space provided . The town officer or employee or his or her spouse , sibling, parent , or child is (check all that apply ) : A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation) ) • B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity (when the applicant i•s not a corporation ) ; C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant, or D) the actual applicant . DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP • • • Ze2a2 . Submitted th ; /7 day of e , • Signature '4 fl Print name erry Callis • QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH' YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION ' A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached. ) James and Barbara Miller • • B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale or being shown to prospective buyers? ( ) Yes ( ) No. / (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale. ) Unknown ti C. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? • ( } Yes• ( } No Unknown NOT APPLI- D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? CABLE TO 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map snhm•itted with TISSUES RAISED this application? (N/A) 3 . Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town. Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? N/A E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of 'proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea • . level? (If not applicable, state "N.A. " ) N/A F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? If none exist, please state "none." N/A G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. N/A H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? If yes, please explain where or submit copies • of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this paCel. _ single family home and proposed use single family home and structure in violation of height and/or use limitations. alp dr, I' icllo •• • ed :turd and Date . 3 Callis 3/'87, 10/901k 2350 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 January 14, 2002 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Application to Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19.004 Dear Sir or Madam: I, on behalf of myself, John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari, hereby authorize Stephen R. Angel, of the film of Esseks, Hefter & Angel, 108 East Main Street, P. 0. Box 279, Riverhead, New York 11901, to act as our agent in the above-captioned matter. Jeri Cal .s �� cod 1 Q � ''�� ]��f's� L. ; 'TOWN OF 6UU'rIIULU z �- `v / -R- ,,. ��f�\ • ' j'I MAR 2 1 ) ,:f Gl �O I� � ` iii Board of Ethics • • , Transactional Disclosure Form (Recusal) Pursuant to Section 10-24 of the Southold Town Code t'ersons filing disclosure statements are advised to consult Sec.10-11 of the Town Code(definitions) prior to filling out this form. 'LEASE FILE COMPLETED FORM WITII TUE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE Name of Town Employee/Official Vincent M. Orlando Title/positionzoning Board Member Matter on which you are recusing(check all that apply) Tax Grievance Variance Amendment to Certificate of Occupancy x Change of Zone Approval of Plat . Exemption from Plat or Official Map License or permit application Other : x . (If"Other",Please name the activity) Appeal of Building Permit . Please Describe the matter on which you are recusing (please include any hearing/and/or application dates that you are aware of) ' I am employed by Miller Environmental Group, Inc. which the Miller family own and operate. Jim Miller is defending himself against the applicant. , • • The above-described activity may result in compensation to: You A member of your household Your relative. _Your outside employer or business . The employer or business of a member of your household Your'customer or client • If you have referred to an outside business,employer or,client, please state the name, address and relationship to other person(or business). Additionally, please statposition position with outside employer and/or nature of financial interest in outside business `. Miller Environmental Group, Inc. 538 Edwards, Avenue . Calverton, NY 11933 I have been employed by the above company since 1990. My title is Vice President of Business Development ' ,i4 Submitted this 71 stday ofMarch 2oolsignature) (print name) Vi nr(mnt M. Orland() • • . 3/16/02Lfi , app 0%"" U___JC‘ 14' to: Z.B.A. Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY. 11971 from: Joe & Stephanie Pagliaro 6 Quintin Court Port Jefferson, NY. 11777 We are sorry to see what is happening to Jim and Barbara Miller, and the Heron. At one time the Heron was located on Dansfords dock in Port Jefferson. Every once in awhile, my wife and I would go down to the Village of Port Jefferson and walk along the docks to visit the Heron, it was a very nice sight, it fit in with the ambiance of Port Jefferson Village. We took it for granted that this was the Herons home. Then one day while we were taking our little walk to the Village, we realized something was not right, at first we were kind of bewildered! then it sunk in, the Heron was gone, WHAT HAPPENED? Well we did find out the Heron had to go because of whatever. It was kind of sad. Then some time had passed and we found out the Heron had a new home in another very nice little village, Greenport! well my wife and I went to visit the Heron in Greenport Village, It sure looked nice at the end of the little dock. Well, we were happy that we could visit the Heron again, and at the same time enjoy Greenport. Well some time had passed again, again we went to Greenport to have lunch and of course visit the Heron, WHAT HAPPENED? the Heron was gone! well, we did find out that the owners had brought it to their home, where we thought, yes, that's where it belongs! why shoud'nt the owners be able to enjoy the beauty of their Heron right in their own Paradise. It seemed like the perfect place for its final resting place, END OF STORY! Not really. Jim & Barbara Miller thought they did everything right, building permit was issued, and the Millers had satisfied all of the requirements. They then hired a marine contractor to reinstall their artwork , C of 0 was issued. WHAT IS HAPPENING? why are these people still wanting the Millers to get rid of their artwork. All the requirements were taken care of. My wife Stephanie and I are wishing Jim and Barbara Miller good luck, and hope they are given their right to enjoy their beautiful peace of artwork. Thank ypu, ,��i Ci i 1 "' %i ! ll i ls Barbara J.Matthei �t 2 Charlottesville Court Coram, New York 11727 P\-551; March 16,2002 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road,P.O.B. 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dear Mr. Goehringer: It was recently brought to my attention that there.is to be yet_another hearing(scheduled for March 2e)regarding the Heron Monument located on the beachfront property of James and Barbara Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road in Southold. Although I do not reside in Southold, I am familiar with this litigation. I worked part- time for Mr. Miller last year and also visited his gorgeous home on Paradise Point Road and saw the}Ieronlocated onhis beachfront—it was just beautifiil At one time this sculpture was located in Port Jefferson Harbor—just a few minutes from my home—and oftentimes I would go down to the Harbor to look at it_ The constant harassment(by some neighbors- apparently Messrs. Callis, Petrocelli and Macari)through litigation that the Millers have undergone and continue_to be subjected to,along with the ensuing costs, is utterly ridiculous! I am a retired person, having worked all my life in Manhattan. One of my last jobs was with Davis,.Polk&Wardwell, one of_the world's largest and most prestigious law firms. So I can easily understand how paperwork, legal fees and, most of all, time, mount up. To clog up the Court's time with something like this when there are so many other important issues to resolve on Long Island is simply unforgivable. During the time I worked forllh-_ Miller, I foundthat he was a hard-working,family_man who cared a great deal about the environment. There is obviously some other underlying issue here rather than the removal of.a.beau tiff sculpture,but it certainly is not one that should be dragged through the Courts. I strongly recommend that an end be brought to this issue once and for all. Thank you. Very 1ngily yours, cam.-4 /e5c- , Barbara J. Matt ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL ��• COUNSELORS AT LAW ,� 108 EAST MAIN STREET 4 P. 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 - WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIAZ. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631)369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA July 10, 2002 ' j a+•er,, �( `, f'`~ `" _ _ ANTHONY C. PASCA v NICA B. STRUNK LLGerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members „ ffJ � {rrlJ� Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold �� 53095 Main Road (97e �f ` P. 0. Box 1179 % Southold, NY 11971 - HAND DELIVERED Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari re: Miller Property Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: At the prior hearing, the Millers and their counsel suggested that this Board was somehow obligated to defer to the Building Inspector's decision. In other words, they argued that, unless the Building Inspector's decision was completely irrational, this Board was required to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. In response, I informed the Board that there were numerous authorities to the contrary and that I would provide them to the Board in writing. In this regard, I refer the Board first to Town Law § 267-b(1), which provides that a zoning board's appellate powers are unrestricted and its discretion is as broad as the that of the Building Inspector: The board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such local law and to that end shall have all the powers of the administrative official from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. (emphasis supplied). The Courts have interpreted this authority as granting zoning boards of appeal a "de novo review power," under which a board is "not bound by the fmdings of the [building inspector]." See Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 423, 654 N.Y.S.2d ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW July 10, 2002 Page 2 100, 107 (1996); Board of Architectural Review & Historic Preservation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton, 279 A.D.2d 523, 524, 719 N.Y.S.2d 663 (2d Dep't 2001). When, as here, "a statute grants an administrative body the power to hear and decide appeals, and to affirm, modify or reverse a decision, and the statute does not limit the scope of review, courts have ruled that the appeal board has the power to reverse the decision below even if that decision was not arbitrary and was supported by substantial evidence." City of N.Y. v. City Civil Svc. Comm., 141 Misc.2d 276, 532 N.Y.S.2d 626, 631 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co. 1988) (emphasis supplied). Chairman Goehringer asked the Millers and their counsel to provide the Board with certain measurements. You were provided with some information by Mr. Miller's counsel in a letter dated June 21, 2002. We engaged John C. Ehlers, a licensed land surveyor, to measure the heron structure. I enclose a copy of Mr. Ehlers' letter to our client, John Petrocelli. I ask that this letter be made part of the record. Res ectfully yours, LR d SRA:md TEP N R. ANGE Enc. cc : Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq. Jerry Calls John Petrocelli Joseph Macari --s y •..40'd 1H101 -- John C. Ehlers Land Surveyor j- 0',� 6 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY 11901 (631)369-8288 Phone (631)369-8287 Fax July 8,2002 Mr.John Petrocelli J. Petrocelli Construction 100 Comae Road Ronkonkoma,NY 11719 Dear Mr. Petrocelli, At your request, a field crew was dispatched to ascertain the height of the ubig bird" off Paradise Point Road. Upon completion of field work and various in-office computations,we determined the height of the bird to be 40'above ground level. Please contact this office should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, John - hlers Land Surveyor _ lic.#50202 .'- •!;;'. 4 0..Eik- .•\/,-;-,, ". *, Grp -`-,;;,-,-7-- e _ s 201.4;,/!gyp LAND ';_ f Al . T$ '- PS"? TRRgT..0 i7-m-InmI�.Jr 7T•TT 7raM7—MT_-Inr ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631)369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY - -------- ! ' -' '- -' CARMELA M. DI TALIA ? ("(-2 ANTHONY C. PASCA July 10, 2002 1 r I =� NICA B. STRUNK 1� ),1 ,1 JULti ; I;i I ' Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of SoutholdU f ' 53095 Main Road - Z �-C rn s P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 -HAND DELIVERED Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari re: Miller Property Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: At the prior hearing, the Millers and their counsel suggested that this Board was somehow obligated to defer to the Building Inspector's decision. In other words, they argued that, unless the Building Inspector's decision was completely irrational, this Board was required to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. In response, I informed the Board that there were numerous authorities to the contrary and that I would provide them to the Board in writing. In this regard, I refer the Board first to Town Law § 267-b(1), which provides that a zoning board's appellate powers are unrestricted and its discretion is as broad as the that of the Building Inspector: The board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such local law and to that end shall have all the powers of the administrative official from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. (emphasis supplied). The Courts have interpreted this authority as granting zoning boards of appeal a "de novo review power," under which a board is "not bound by the findings of the [building inspector]." See Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 423, 654 N.Y.S.2d ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW July 10, 2002 Page 2 100, 107 (1996); Board of Architectural Review & Historic Preservation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton, 279 A.D.2d 523, 524, 719 N.Y.S.2d 663 (2d Dep't 2001). When, as here, "a statute grants an administrative body the power to hear and decide appeals, and to affirm, modify or reverse a decision, and the statute does not limit the scope of review, courts have ruled that the appeal board has the power to reverse the decision below even if that decision was not arbitrary and was supported by substantial evidence." City of N.Y. v. City Civil Svc. Comm., 141 Misc.2d 276, 532 N.Y.S.2d 626, 631 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co. 1988) (emphasis supplied). Chairman Goehringer asked the Millers and their counsel to provide the Board with certain measurements. You were provided with some information by Mr. Miller's counsel in a letter dated June 21, 2002. We engaged John C. Ehlers, a licensed land surveyor, to measure the heron structure. I enclose a copy of Mr. Ehlers' letter to our client, John Petrocelli. I ask that this letter be made part of the record. Res ectfully yours, jc(*) SRA:md TEP N R. ANGE Enc. cc : Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq. Jerry Callis John Petrocelli Joseph Macari TO'd 1101 John C. Ehlers Land Surveyor jj�ilk``,. 6 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY 11901 (631)369-8288 Phone (631)369-8287 Fax July 8,2002 Mr.John Petrocelli J. Petrocelli Construction 100 Comae Road Ronkonkoma,NY 11719 Dear Mr. Petrocelli, At your request, a field crew was dispatched to ascertain the height of the'big bird" off Paradise Point Road. Upon completion of field work and various in-office computations,we determined the height of the bird to be 40'above ground level. Please contact this office should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, John 4.— ..t' hlers Land Surveyor lic.#50202 ,,/ O NEC .`,Zi- G.`EN `— � = '1's 202 01 Lam,V o 0,, , M. II II TWA Rc? tAA4TC rnmm1n>1iaar 7T.TT 7rAn7_rT_-Inr ' Yes ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 106 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0 Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIAZ. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631)369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY � 1\ f._3 CARMELA M. DI TALIA July 10, 2002 �r�(i'I p `' «- /�' �' �' 0F'-�---� ANTHONY C. PASCA {C•)// — _ I / f ti NICAB. STRUNK 1J�a ` li _ —�1,�I' dt1� I; JUS 0 j'1l Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, and Members ''/H/ 3 %i3 - ,,,,, \)2)2 Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold " _ %r 53095 Main Road g1aG/1yAj f P. O. Box 1179 4-e-- J Southold, NY 11971 - HAND DELIVERED Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari re: Miller Property Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: At the prior hearing, the Millers and their counsel suggested that this Board was somehow obligated to defer to the Building Inspector's decision. In other words, they argued that, unless the Building Inspector's decision was completely irrational, this Board was required to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. In response, I informed the Board that there were numerous authorities to the contrary and that I would provide them to the Board in writing. In this regard, I refer the Board first to Town Law § 267-b(1), which provides that a zoning board's appellate powers are unrestricted and its discretion is as broad as the that of the Building Inspector: The board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such local law and to that end shall have all the powers of the administrative official from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. (emphasis supplied). The Courts have interpreted this authority as granting zoning boards of appeal a "de novo review power," under which a board is "not bound by the findings of the [building inspector]." See Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 423, 654 N.Y.S.2d 3 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW July 10, 2002 , Page 2 100, 107 (1996); Board of Architectural Review & Historic Preservation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton, 279 A.D.2d 523, 524, 719 N.Y.S.2d 663 (2d Dep't 2001). When, as here, "a statute grants an administrative body the power to hear and decide appeals, and to affirm, modify or reverse a decision, and the statute does not limit the scope of review, courts have ruled that the appeal board has the power to reverse the decision below even if that decision was not arbitrary and was supported by substantial evidence." City of N.Y. v. City Civil Svc. Comm., 141 Misc.2d 276, 532 N.Y.S.2d 626, 631 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co. 1988) (emphasis supplied). Chairman Goehringer asked the Millers and their counsel to provide the Board with certain measurements. You were provided with some information by Mr. Miller's counsel in a letter dated June 21, 2002. We engaged John C. Ehlers, a licensed land surveyor, to measure the heron structure. I enclose a copy of Mr. Ehlers' letter to our client, John Petrocelli. I ask that this letter be made part of the record. Res ectfully yours, Lie . b SRA:and TEP N R. ANGE Enc. cc : Harvey A. Arnoff,'Esq. Jerry Callis John Petrocelli Joseph Macara y TO Id -14101 I John C. Ehlers Land Surveyorjji IQ`:• 6 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY 11901 (631)369-8288 Phone (631)369-8287 Fax July 8,2002 Mr.John Petrocelli J. Petrocelli Construction 100 Comac Road Ronkonkoma,NY 11719 Dear Mr. Petrocelli, At your request, a field crew was dispatched to ascertain the height of the"big bird" off Paradise Point Road. Upon completion of field work and various in-office computations,we determined the height of the bird to be 40'above ground level, Please contact this office should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Z-4,,,1 ,ka."1-- John . hlers Land Surveyor lic.#50202 .,' ! Q OF •>o,, tis 202 c1/44‘1e,,, i min • Moll A',I FS7 gTARcITC T-rm-VUll ,-If 7T•TT 7MM7— lT_1nr • T. fit SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI,LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 GRIFFING AVENUE,CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET • P.0. BOX 389 HOWARD M.FINKELSTEIN RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0203 FRANCIS J.YAKABOSKI PIERRE G.LUNDBERG OF COUNSEL FRANK A.ISLER (631) 727-4100 SUSAN ROGERS GRUN REGINALD C. SMITH GAIR G.BETTS FAX (631) 727-4130 1926-1983 JEANMARIE GUNDERSON E-MAIL sfliy@peconic.net PHIL SIEGEL VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY i7Ek March 11, 2004 MAR 1 5 2004 Motion Clerk Supreme Court of the State of New York Pj\ (al Appellate Division, Second Department ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 45 Monroe Place Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: Callis, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, et al. Appellate Division Docket Numbers: 2003-8341 and 2003-8624 Greetings: We represent the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, a co-appellant in the above-referenced appeal. Enclosed please find our Reply Affirmation, with annexed supporting papers and Affidavits of Service, for the motion currently pending before the Court. The return date for the motion is March 12, 2004. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Phil Siegel Enclosure cc Ruth D. Oliva Patricia A Finnegan, Esq. L SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT X In the Matter of the Application of Appellate Division JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI , and Docket Numbers : KATHERINE P. MACARI, 2003-8341 Petitioners-Respondents, 200 _: e'lLCI For a Judgment under Article 78 of the ��R 2004 Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE REPLY AFFIRMATION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Respondents-Appellants . X Phil Siegel , pursuant to CPLR 2106, affirms as follows : 1 . I am an associate of the firm of Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski, LLP, attorneys for the appellant, Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ("the Board") , and am fully familiar with the facts of the above- captioned case . I submit this reply affirmation in further support of the Board' s motion to expand the Record on Appeal . 2 . Initially, this Court should be aware that on the morning of March 8 , 2004 , with all parties present, the Honorable Daniel F. Luciano signed an Order to Show Cause brought on by the co-appellants, James and Barbara Miller, which temporarily stays the filing of the briefs and Record on Appeal in the above- captioned appeals . A copy of Justice Lucianols Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. • • 3 . The Millers' application seeks to transfer the respondents' related pending Article 78 proceeding, which challenges the Board' s November 6, 2003 , determination (Suffolk County Index Number 03-29918) , to this Court and consolidate that proceeding with these appeals . 4 . The Board supports the Millers ' application. The consolidation of the proceedings would provide this Court with an opportunity to address all the relevant legal issues at one time. Of course, consolidation would also be economical for the Court as well as the parties . 5 . If this Court grants the Millers' application to consolidate the cases, then the Board' s November 6, 2003 , determination would be included in, and become a part of, the Record on Appeal . Such a result would render this motion moot because that is the precise relief the Board seeks in this motion. 6 . In their opposition papers, respondents claim that it would be improper to consider the Board' s November 6, 2003 , determination in the context of these appeals . This Court, however, has acknowledged exceptions to the general rule prohibiting consideration of documents on appeal not submitted to a court below. Brandes Meat Corp. v. Cromer, 146 A.D. 2d 666, 667, 537 N.Y. S . 2d 177, 178 (2d Dept . 1989) . These exceptions include "incontrovertible official document [s] , " "reliable documents, " and "matters of public record. " Id. The Board 2 contends that its November 6, 2003 , determination fits within these exceptions because it is a factually accurate and reliable document that is also a matter of public record. Therefore, it would be proper for this Court to consider the determination in the context of these appeals . 7 . Respondents also claim that the Board "misleads this Court by misquoting from the Supreme Court ' s memorandum decision, which had confusingly directed the parties to ' Settle judgment annulling the determination of the [Board] without prejudice to review the Millers ' application in conformity with the zoning code . '" Angel Aff . , 1 5 . This claim is erroneous . Nowhere in the moving papers does the Board misquote Justice Berler' s decision, which is attached as Exhibit A to the moving papers . 8 . The Board disputes the respondents ' characterization that the decision was confusing. The language clearly and unambiguously directed the Board to review the Millers ' application. The Millers had applied for a building permit and certificate of occupancy to maintain the heron monument as an accessory to their principal residence . The only possible confusion stemming from the decision was self-created by the petitioners when they substituted the word "new" for "Millers '" as written by Justice Berler. 3 • WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an order directing that the Record on Appeal include the Board' s November 6, 2003, determination made on remand from the order of the Honorable Justice Howard Berler, and granting appellant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: March 11, 2004 Riverhead, New York 420 Phil Siegel 4 Exhibit A • • { `� OLSO ZZZ 008.1V031 31V1S 11V 7,,ArY }; .-._.It,rI +`.r: 2;4:ia`r,.'..i1-p''7rYi:'4E'.si3t=t�tYy.kr'.nxlat.t.'''1?".•,4,,':;'`'1r;!1kl'�ie l,,.'Vf/ i"s.'"s? vse'Lx :wvtk3` ,Efg�I` ti . 9, ..` , A? gs ;= -P+ ,; z ' Ptfl SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ''` t v y:; APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT � • 4+'x+'1:.•'-'.:f X z, gfi In the Matter of the Application of JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI, and ORDER TO SHOW KATHERINE P. MACARI, CAUSE Petitioners-Respondents, For a Judgment-under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Appellate Division - Docket Nos: - against - 2003-8341 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF 2003-8624 SOUTHOLD, JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Respondents-Appellants. X UPON reading the annexed affirmation of Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq., the Notice of Appeal of Respondents-Appellants, James Miller and Barbara Miller, filed September 19, 2003 to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, the Memorandum Decision of the Honorable Justice Howard Berler appealed from, dated May 9, 2003, and UPON all the proceedings heretofore had herein, LET Petitioners-Respondents,Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari, or their attorney, show cause before this Court, at a Motion Term thereof, located at 45 onroe Place, Brooklyn, New York 11201, on the 19 of March, 2004, at 9:30 , 1 o'clock in the forenoon of that date, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an rs . order as follows: 1. staying the filing,of the Record on Appeal and the Appellants' briefs in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, which must be filed on or before March 18, 2004, and the Cross-Appellants' Briefs, which must be filed on or by April 18, 2004, until thirty (30) days after the hearing and determination of this application to the Appellate Division, Second Department, or until such time this Court may determine; 2. transferring Petitioners-Respondents' Petition for a Judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 filed December 15, 2003 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk annulling the Findings, Deliberations and Determinations issued by Respondent-Appellant, Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, on November 6, 2003 to this Court; 3. consolidating the action currently on appeal with this Court under Docket Nos.2003-8341 and 2003-8624 with the Petitioners-Appellants'CPLR Article 78 Petition filed on December 15, 2003 upon its transfer to this Court; and 4. for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. SUFFICIENT CAUSE THEREON APPEARING, it is hereby ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of this instant application by the Respondents-Appellants, James Miller and Barbara Miller, the filing of the Record on Appeal and Appellant briefs and the Cross-Appellants' Briefs under Appellate Division Docket Nos. 2003-8341 and 2003-8624, be and is hereby stayed until thirty(30)days after the hearing and determination of this application or until such time as this Court may determine; and 9,641 Ult1 efi 4vIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that service by overnight mail of a copy of this Order VIIC�jr� O` ; e „-4,,,,l.,, , ,.r . " r, V S fw4a^4' , P14 (,;Par. yi.g st,z - , ein;� bW2� ., .. ".4e'L,o�,.4 o.,,r. pn-; i Caf(112"1"alit°TAX 2.114 and of the supporting papers upon the Petitioners-Respondents, or their attorne'on or before the 8r"day of March 2004, shall be timely and sufficient. Dated:iligniNgl, New T ork (NA g , 2004 As . Justice of the Appellate Division F•\CLIENTS\Miller\Order to Show Cause.wpd-rg 1 `` ' r, ' � (�• o _,1/•�1.�F+ � /j'''�� ��t'O ' (•rw�r`/w`/V�/,,��p^�` • t . °: .••• 'S •�PIWME,CQ'IJR`f.hY/,4" 2' �GT�ATE O�}[i E Y',Y 1�ORKK.. v1 ;, YC,•l"-•tv,. t , _ STA- 7i'''A"r ,.' _ _ -'' 'Sja i ,'fit r"`4,1.-','''t'y4r'4-rig'<;t•!--'K : • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS . . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) KERI MCCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says : I am not a party to this action, am over 18 years of age and reside at 471 Freestate Drive, Shirley, New York 11967 . On March 11, 2004, I served the within REPLY AFFIRMATION by depositing it in a wrapper properly addressed to the attorney(s) with postage thereon, in a post office or official depository of the U. S . Postal Service within the State of New York, as designated by the attorney(s) for that purpose at the last known address set forth after his (her) name. TO: Esseks, Hefter & Angel Attorneys for Petitioners 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, New York 11901 Law Office of Harvey A. Arnoff Attorney for Respondents JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER 206 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 329 Riverhead, New York 11901 C KE I MCCARTHY Sworn to before me this ( ( 1-14- day of March, 2004 . - li_r:g_A-.oe4C- Notary Public 1 ATHER(NE A.McERLEAN Notary Public,State of New York No 01MC5086460-Suffolk County Commission Expires October 14,, 00 c" • STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEY'S AFFIRMATION The undersigned,an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION , being duly sworn,deposes and says that deponent is the in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Sworn to before me,this day of 20 Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: CORPORATE VERIFICATION ,being duly sworn,deposes and says that deponent is the of the corporation named in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof,to-wit.its The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me,this day of 20 Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at That on the day of 20 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action,al the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me, this day of 20 Notary Public ti Index No SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT In the Matter of the Application of JERRY CALLIS,JOHN PETROCELLI,and KATHERINE P.MACARI, Petitioners, -against- For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Respondents. REPLY AFFIRMATION SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER and YAKABOSKI, LLP Attorneys for Respondents Zoning Board of Appeals Office and Post Office Address 456 Gaffing Avenue,P O.Box 389 RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK 11901-0203 Tel 631-727.4100 Fax 631-727-4130 E-MAIL sfliy@peconic.net Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated, Attorney(s) for Sir:Please take notice JJOTICE OF ENTRY That the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of a clerk of the within named court on 20 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named Court,' at on the day of 20 at M. Dated, Yours,etc. SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER and YAKABOSKI, LLP Attorneys for Office and Post Office Address 456 Gaffing Avenue,P O.Box 389 RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK 11901-0203 To Tel 631-727-4100 Fax 631-727-4130 Attomey(s) for E-MAIL sfliy@pecontc.net FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CHECKLIST FOR NEW PROJECTS LABEL APPL# j o ) ASSESSORS CARD (7 COPIES) NAME _, ,f_ CTY. TAX MAP (7 COPIES + 1) CTM# INDEX CARD (ATTACH OLD) TOWN , LIST ALPHA BOOK RESEARCH ALPHA COPY PRIORS SIX COPIES INSPECTION PACKETS COMPLETE REF: UPDATED NEW INFORMATIONII „9/2/2/ o2' 11.x- = -e-olasa-.,, �.0 .P� /02 . *_U C� 2 4 N7/c2.9/6,2, _ tpt. /or 3/7/�2-- o -- . d1/ 1'h 4lj214"t 10)doL, ity_ .4-0 g-t-nl-pett , Sir x\r\ St`,1.!-.8 ,.,--,,,-,1,7,,,,71 .51,-'-' _,_- ,,_;4�, \ �Q 7-}; :,,r`'y",: " T "" STATE OF NEW YORK) a 8>1'0 'p.m�i App1;:-,11\''9:;f6' ;;.,,11'9: 5117.;-Lucas Ford„This;'is a-reque'st�for�Varia,ces' )SS int,dersgdtions,l00-205D,�100-2051C CO O SUFF LK) fq '.100=206B,,;based on,r.the Butldiiig' ,/ Department's January 15, 2002•Notice,: wee, ) c& �•o6� . of Mattituck, in said ,•of,Di approvalconcerning four ground”` county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal s , . :_ signs,whtchexeeedtheSizerequir`emen't,�` ' ?iit.,,the,,,zoning "code.;'L'ocation,,of" la clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES,a weekly newspaper,pub- `"Properl000-49.-3 1-toir✓at e;'Southold;:,; lished at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of P;arce1-10Q0=59:3-32;1.,'•.'- " " ,. 8'.20 p:in AppL.No.,5058_F)'eter and- ' Suffolk and State of New York,and that the Notice of which Valerie teOniakt,etral,-Thisis.a retiiiii' ! the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly pub- -,39P0',.and_100',3;.15...ed on,,,the:.,1 lished in said Newspaper once each week :,Building D_epartment's�,November';29;•, for weeks successively, commencing '"2001 Aniend'ed Notice.`"ofiDisapproval. a Salk nts propos t,. • the �'d day The applicants`ro-p-iE`.. -"cieate`,two'; on A. -,1.„--_-, I ��� 200.v parcelsoubof`a5$;U,L'4sq?Tt'area_(iden- tifiedofFas Count .Tax'Ma :Lots 1$;`=16;y'•' - and-1,7itin;Block 1;'Sectiont 98)s Each+of, ' thetpropused',Parcels:wilLlia,"ve:aii-C", of lessihan-40,0D04sq.;ft: ?arcel- #1;wilI , :also have•a=lot,width;(frontage)rof less,,,} P. Principal Clerk `:than•-125 f(;'with an existing-accessoiy,,h 1 " gazage•on,�a vacantlo[ proposed;at+this�c time'without a pnncipal=use Location of ' Sworn to before �me�this 3 0 _.. Property:;12040 ?Pine%-,Tree ARoad?zand\- day of 20 d `, BittersweebLarie,_Cutchogue. •�-1--Y,-..., r- L�,(,tJ�-�i_ ( ,'.-8:25:pin:'41iI -No,,',5072:Dr.-Jerry\ (��2. et Ot e "Callas,&,: otheii.,(eOntiiiued','tiering,''•i LAURA E. BONU'ARCHUK ; ,carried;'from;wt le z•March .21;,2002 Notary Public, State of New York Hearing Cafendarj- No 01806067958 the Boazd"of Appeals ,will"hear all. Qualified in Suffolk County ;•persond ai,ach eating nd/or~; My Commission Expires Dec.24, 20g. 5— ' ing.,to,,,,-,2-,,e ea 'at teach"'hearing;aii ktili _ _ _ .:desiring.oto':subid tr v_iritten`.`;'statei enis = "^ ,.,';before the c"onclusion;'.of�ieach hear ngi i 7'Each hearing will,not.Startle"arltci:'than;..�1 - designated above:Files-arAailableiYor reviewsdurrng,reguiar,',Pown,Halli busi:',.,■ ' 61 -bCY .ate q °tit 4.,j'.nesslday t(froz 8 00sa:m to,3 004p m:): Ifyou'have questions please;donot hes-,, itate iocall 9.:,1)7b5kl.809- ;i ''°` fl D ated:May 22;',,,P.,92-;•;": :":.;-.,,,-;;---.;:-;- u`'� ' Southold wn Boarof.Appeals4 x.' `v`--:r `53Q95'Ia n:Road • -, ,-; z, <,; --`` _P.Q Box,1-179 1 7,' '/--- �SoutlioId;�Ny..„f197L=0959 • 'tr,—V4 ;?k`*-:•:':,t,. 1% !'ks §q`8O9� -, (Tell;63.16-7�5-1'80.9)' '2337-I'MYC<k=ate.;:-z,; '-- ' I:,, • • , , C� a ' \ c'1(J' ' LEGAL NOTICE STATE OF NEW YORK) ( \O SOU.THQLD,TOWN BOARD OF- SS: �` APEEALS :"/ - . ) ' , `H SDA I_WE,20,2002 K °- icSIMITY Of SU Fe LK) 1VBEICHEARINGS - -• �te,9,.) ,0,J , c26 of Mattituck, in said ..:ti,971rE,I-4;IEREBir.CIVEN,puri., suant tto Section 267 of the Town L,aw•,• county, being dul sworn, says that he/she is Principal -and dhapter,100:(,ZoninO,Code.of '• clerk of THE SUF OLK TIMES,MES a weeklynewspaper, ub- =T y,;?mg ti tiold;,the following upg 1;' palms p c tions;,will;je beard at polihc Hearin 5"_ , lished at Mattituc , in the Town of Southold, County of -h`Yethe-„SOLIibLI:'rr_oNiNe. oAld)n'_ Suffolk and State .f New York and that the Notice of which 0 4k9Ppz. LS,arthe Towralall-530,,9 1 ' t'Mairk.sRoad,Southold;New Yor1 19T. the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly pub- �r his r�ai£ • oiiiThvisaa$%June:20;,2002;;attheti res-.' lished in sal. Newspaper once each week ='rioter:below”(or,as''soon=therea ter'a ;i oas bled .'•"r'. :; : '=„::_',: -...1 for weeks successively, commencing :i;`6 20 in.Applf''No:5-1x35.lvlichao 3 i: .. t' on the day fid'.--at,,y envolars:-This.is,kr ue,s e9< `�oc:Yafiance�u�ilec�$eoiion,11,QQ:'24�8; ` of ,ei , 200. , ,.l aSeil-,on{,1tlie-;,Bui din '.17epar ts,', M r li 4 902_Noti e,of Dasa iovaljo? � ;gnrl,Ke:ran,'•,'exissting?orch;which has;a" -Y .'04$.Af gic1 sethaclii'ofIless.than,35-fe"et y, ' rT ea inNof pfat,e� .y:'}1'55; oveai ana;F, Principal Clerk }t' ;iV If ifiick *ao l o00-140"=;1:=20:- y,' ="y S#,ip.,-Apg1:No.',3 32'Jose.a>�d3 i Sworn to before e this 3®" 4Ivoitne"14ernandez This,,isa'request>"fd1.. r,'- a'V,aFiance'.ltricler_,$ection•100=33=asg�l�tday of b � 4k,-',--- 20 b. — `*.(tie March;21;=�,- ,�" 2002,Noticed£.Disapproval;to;=lgaatdsad?.• br �' C.iitA.CAAAA- ,--.access rrgarage,in:.ari1rea.otl er thafl`4 - LAURA E. BON DARCH UK 7-4i„aai yaixl f osigc ;of Eropoiiy:22 0 Notary -ublic, State of New York }I ain Road,Akent;-PA,ce i.00p-4.3 z`;',, No 016'6067958 �;= , �r , -:� �x�.f...; -� sx;.,;-�,;,,, Qualifi-d in Suffolk County ,�;z ' 35 pth App.','No;,553O Chfforc1 My Co mission Expires Dec.24, OS— `' a d°Regan Bani'ello This'is`aTecrti;st(br''k 20� ..,a;Varial4Ge:undei_Section,100-33,;based. ` -j,.oii the:"Ivlarc'h''7„ •2002 Noticea.of "-I'7'4)isapp%oy"a2-tor?locate=ap'accessory swi ri ipg poolip-an area other ttran a- • , rear-yard.'Location.of Property:"1725 1�4,Aivah.,s ane; utchogue'Pacoel1,000-1` 3;-�� ..,. ter, ;,, 1521,a r -10414::-1,c. -; _,a; '` ,.. .,: 7 OFFICE OF ONING BOARD OF APPEAL 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Li�owalski a,Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Quintieri a,Town.Southold.ny.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION p l l FAX# d 7-69 9S ATTN: j TC-X DATE: 7 / // /2002 REF: (Cab)) Offo /- . (P1 - ifcJ � p MESSAGE: i (J PS / OCA-11 Please feel free to call if ou did not receive all sheets' Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: / , 2j ?-1 N OA' �Go RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT / i _. TIME : 07/11/2002 14:45 / DATE,TIME 07/11 14:42 FAX NO./NAME 7270095 DURATION 00:02:36 PAGE(S) 06 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM Al;\.4(i\°\ 0 OFFICE OF la a � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS V 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski(a�Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Quintieri(a�Town.Southold.ny.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 / fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 30-02o65; 7.17-,044 ATTN: 1Q i jDATE: // /2002 REF: /l 170-/-41c96,1101(4,14/142127-0) MESSAGE: 7,tpte r;o 026`0 0? . d0_, i/t[Q 4. // / (./ 1/ d). . Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: . I, 7 b SUPS /10( '} r �,, M •/iii, APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS of OFFO4co , Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Lydia A.Tortora y Z P.O. Box 1179 George Horning 4 Southold,New York 11971-0959 O Ruth D. Oliva 'fj� � ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 ; � Vincent Orlando 1 * #00, Telephone (631) 765-1809 .....•'' http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Prepared 6/7 Agenda Thursday,June 20, 2002 Regular Meeting 6:15 p.m. Call to Order. I. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS/DETERMINATIONS (SEQRA): Type II Declarations(No further steps under State Law): Appl. No. 5135. Michael and Kathy Perivolaris. Porch setback. Appl No. 5132. Jose and Ivonne Hernandez. Accessory garage location. Appl. No. 5130. Clifford and Regan Batuello.Accessory swimming pool location. Appl. No. 5131. John C. and Margaret Biggane. Tennis court setback. Appl. No. 5133(A). Peter and Mary Jacques. Lot area variance for two principal uses. Appl. No.5118. Donna M. Cook. Addition setbacks. Appl. No. 5126. John and Sarah Miller. Addition setback. Appl. No. 5125. J. and E. Brittman. Addition/setbacks. Appl. No. 5124. Helen Sakatos a/k/a Eleni. Waiver to Unmerge. Appl. No. 5123. Michael and Cathy Lehrhoff. Additions,for front and rear setbacks. Appl. No. 5127. Nextel (A. Junge). Accessory equipment shelter structure yard location. Appl. No. 5115. K. and P. Johnson. Accessory garage location. Appl. No. 5111. Esther J. Rotella. Accessory garage location. Appl. No. 5116. Clifford Polacek. Front yard and lot coverage for additions. Unlisted Declarations with Negative Effect on the Environment: Appl. No. 5117. Lucas Ford. Four signs. Appl. No. 5119. G. and M. Kokkinos. Special Exception for a second apartment. HB Zone. Appl. No. 5133(B)- Peter and Mary Jacques. Based on Disapproval by Building Department which states that pool contractor business use is not permitted in this Hamlet Business Zone District. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued from previous hearing calendars): Written testimony in lieu of extensive oral testimony would be appreciated. All testimony should be limited to zoning issues properly before the Board. 6:20 p.m. Appl. No. 5135. Michael and Kathy Perivolaris. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's March 4, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to enclose an existing porch which has a front yard setback of less than 35 feet. 1155 Love Lane,Mattituck; 1000-140.-1-20. 6:25 pm Appl No. 5132. Jose and Ivonne Hernandez. Request for a Variance under Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's March 21, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to locate an accessory garage in an area other than a rear yard. 22950 Main Road, Orient; 1000-18.-5-10. 6:35 pm Appl. No. 5130. Clifford and Regan Batuello. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-33, based on the March 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to locate an accessory swimming pool in an area other than a rear yard. 1725 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; 1000-109.-1-24.1. . Page 2 of 4—Agenda Meeting of June 20,2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals 6:40 pm Appl. No. 5131. John C. and Margaret Biggane. Request for a Variance under Section 100-33C, based on the Building Department's January 25, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed tennis court at less than 60 feet from the front lot line when located in a front yard area. 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue; 1000-83.-1-34. 6:50 pm Appl.No. 5133. Peter and Mary Jacques. Request for a Variance under the Bulk Schedule and Section 100-91, based on the Building Department's March 21, 2002 Notice of Disapproval which states that a pool contractor business use is not permitted in this Hamlet Business Zone District. Also noted in the disapproval is a code requirement under the Bulk Schedule of 20,000 sq. ft. of lot area for each use, and this lot contains 21,780 sq. ft. with two principal uses proposed. 13000 Route 25 (Main Road),Mattituck; 1000-114.-11-12. 6:55 pm Appl. No. 5118. Donna M. Cook. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's March 3, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning the location of a new addition with insufficient front and side yard setbacks. 6900 Main Bayview Road, Southold; 1000-78.-6-8. 7:00 pm Appl. No. 5126. John and Sarah Miller. Request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.3, based on the Building Department's March 8,2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations,for the reason that the front yard setback will not conform to the code requirement. 1132 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-118.-1-18.4. 7:05 pm Appl. No. 5125. J. and E. Brittman. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's March 6,2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions,for the reason that the front and rear setbacks will not conform to the code requirement. 80 Glenn Road, Southold; 1000-78.-2-10. 7:10 pm Appl.No. 5124. Helen Sakatos a/k/a Eleni. Request for a Waiver to unmerge Lot 15-7-8 from 15-7-12, as provided under Section 100-26. The Building Department's January 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval states that the two lots have merged under Section 100-25. 820 Plum Island Lane(and Three Waters Lane), Orient; 1000-15.- 7-8 and 12. 7:15 pm Appl. No. 5123. Michael and Cathy Lehrhoff. Request for a Variance under Section 100-242A, based on the Building Department's May 13, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions, for the reason that the front and rear setbacks will not conform to the code requirement. 230 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 104.-11-12.1. 7:20 pm Appl.No. 5119. G. and M.Kokkinos. This is a request for a Special Exception for a second apartment in the existing principal building, as provided by Section 100-91B(4) of the Zoning Code. Zone District: Hamlet Business. 2575 Peconic Lane, Peconic; Parcel 1000-74.-5-9.2. (Open hearing and recess to July 11th for additional 6-day posting of sign by applicant/attorney.) 7:25 pm Appl. No. 5127. Nextel (A. Junge). This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-142 and 100- 165C, based on the Building Department's Amended March 11, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerning the location of an accessory equipment shelter structure in this Light Industrial District. The equipment shelter ® i• • Page 3 of 4—Agenda Meeting of June 20,2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals structure is proposed at less than 70 feet from the rear property line. 21855 C.R. 48 a/k/a Middle Road, Cutchogue; 1000-96.-1-19.1. 7:35 pm Appl. No. 5115. K. and P. Johnson. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.4, based on the Building Department's March 4, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning the proposed location of an accessory garage in an area other than a rear yard. 2375 Harbor Lane at Eugene Heights, Cutchogue; 1000-136.-1-19.3. 7:50 pm Appl. No. 5111. Esther J. Rotella. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's February 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning applicant's request to locate an accessory garage in an area other than the required yard. Location of Property: 830 Poquatuck Lane, Orient; Parcel 1000-27.-3-4.2. 8:00 pm Appl.No. 5116. Clifford Polacek. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-242-A, and 100-244, based on the Building Department's May 6, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations which will not conform to the front yard setback requirement and which exceeds the code limitation of 20% lot coverage for all building area. 2905 Westphalia Road,Mattituck; 1000-114.40-21. 8:10 pm Appl. No. 5117. Lucas Ford.This is a request for Variances under Sections 100-205D, 100-205.1-C, and 100-206B, based on the Building Department's January 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning four ground signs which exceed the size requirement of the zoning code. 3245 Horton Lane, Southold; 1000-59.-3-32.1. 8:20 pm Appl. No. 5058. Peter and Valerie Leoniak, et al. This is a request for Area variances under Sections 100-30A.3 and 100-31, based on the Building Department's November 29, 2001 Amended Notice of Disapproval. The applicants propose two parcels Parcels 1 and 2, each with less than 40,000 sq. ft. in area; Parcel #1 will also contain less than 125 ft. of lot width (frontage), and includes the existing accessory garage on the proposed lot (proposed at this time without a principal use). 2040 Pine Tree Road and Bittersweet Lane, Cutchogue; 1000-98.- 1-15, 16, 17. Need new owners to amend application by letter or other written confirmation. 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 5068 — Glenn and Christine Dawson. (Continued hearing from June 6, 2002 calendar as agreed). 150 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue; 104.-10-8. 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 5072—Dr. J. Callis & others. (Continued hearing, carried from the March 21, 2002 Hearing Calendar). End of hearings. III. POSSIBLE DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS on the following applications: A. Carryovers from previous meeting calendars: (1) Appl. No. 5099 — Mattituck Historical Society. (Hearing concluded 5/16, pending financial information from applicant.) • Page 4 of 4—Agenda Meeting of June 20,2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals (2) Appl. No. 5098 — Geert Martens and Murray. (Hearing concluded 5/16, pending submission of landscape plan.) B. Tonight's applications,those concluded tonight,Agenda Item II list above: (possible deliberations/decisions,to be determined by the Board at this time). IV. RESOLUTIONS/UPDATED REVIEWS/OTHER: A. Special Meeting confirmed for July 11,2002 for carryover deliberations/decisions, others as updated. B. New Hearings/Regular Meeting Date confirmed: 6:15 p.m. July 25,2002. C. V. POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE SESSION(litigation pending—t/b/d). a TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPO TIME : 06/18/2002 15:54 DATE,TIME 06/18 15:54 FAX NO. /NAME 369394,0 DURATION 00:00:00PAGED_ 00 RESULT(S) ESULT �`Bk MODE STANDAR `Vr‘" tka- top ?✓ BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE P. 1 * * * COMMUNICATION RESULT REPORT ( JUN. 19. 2002 9: 55AM ) * * * FAX HEADER: SOUTHOLD SUPERVISORS TRANSMITTED/STORED : JUN, 19. 2002 9:54AM FILE MODE OPTION ADDRESS RESULT PAGE 296 MEMORY TX 7273940 OK 5/5 REASON FOR ERROR E-1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL E-2) BUSY I1 E-3) NO ANSWER E-4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION Pi)" a - 46.4' 41 ..e, OFFICE OF �� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski( Town.Southold.nv.us or Paula.OnintleriQ,Town.Southold.nv_us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax(631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 349-02665; ,727"3Y4 / ATTN: tl f _f - • DATE: 6 /IP /2002 REF: / .I �_ '/ ! i� MESSAGE: 1 � �: .. . / 020-0 d J / ;• terrLTi .1 -e/v / 4A: irte. / • Please feel free to call if you did no /receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: _ . Mar 21 02 01 : 51p p• 1 Esseks, Hefter& Angel Attorneys at Lave 108 East Main Street P. O. Box 279 Riverhead, New York 11901 631 369-1700 631 369-2065-Fax No PAX CO R SNORT Date: March 21, 2002 To: Paula cr Southold Town Hail Fax No,: 765-9064 From: Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Re: t 'a/lis/Villief Total pages: 1.0 Comments: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents accompanying this telecopy transmission cotttaiil information which is confidential and/or legally privileged The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission sheet, If you arc not the intended recipient,you arc hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking(Warty action in reliance on the contents of this telecopicd information is strictly ptohibtted,and that the documents should be returned to this firm immediately. In this regard,if you have received this telecom,in error, please notify us by telephone immediately. DATF SF-TNT, March 2 I,2002 T11VML SENT, INI-Tii,S Mar 21 02 01 : 51p p. 2 e.iip TRW 10:23 6317659„."—ThZONINGAPPEAL5$OAR PAGE 03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD? NEW YORK -- -x In the Matter of the Application of Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli and AFFIDAVIT Katherine P. Mac_ari OF (Name of Applicants) MAILINGS CTM Parcel #1000- 81 - 3 - 19.4 • COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Margaret Bizzoco residing at Ronkonkoma, New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that. • On the eh day f• Mi• rchog , 2002, I personally mailed at the United States Post Officel�'�St reetx verhead , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (X) Assessors, or ( ) County Real Properly Office , for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of- way of record, surrounding the applicants property. 4 & g4 Margaret Bi ignature) (Sz co Sworn to before me this 11th ,,aY L PASTA day of, a ch , 2002 Notary Public,State of New Yort No 02PA5u55bO6,Suffolk Court ,/,1A Commission Expires Feb.12,29, ; ( ary Public) PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed, Thank you, Mar 21 02 01 : 52p p. 3 03/07/20C2 10:13 6317E591 ZONINGAPPEALSBOAR1' PAGE 02 NOTICE 9F PUBL.ICHEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002 NOTICE IS HERE:Y GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100(Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be heard at a public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hail, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on L1�RSDAY. 4 ARCH11 2002. at th:' times noted below(or as soon thereafter as possible): 0:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5072 — DR. JERRY CALCIS, et at., Appellants. This is an Appeal Application requesting a Reversal of Building Permit #27894-Z dated 11113/01 and Certificate of Occupancy 0Z-28096 dated 11130101, issued by the Building Departanent, concerning existing construction referred to as a 80 sq. ft. "platform with monument " located at property owned by JAMES and BARBARA MILLER, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; Parcel 1000.814-19.4. (On February 21, 2002, JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARt submitted authorization for Dr.Calks to appeal in their behalf.) The Board of Appeals will hear alt persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of this hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hail business hours (8.4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765.1809. Dated: March 4, 2002, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 p• 4 Mar 21 02 01 : 52p March 11, 2002 Page 2 Eric and Caren Heacock 1125 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-2-4 James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue Calverton, NY 11933 1000-8 1-3-19.4 John and Joan Peerocelli 250 Manor Road Huntington, NY 11743 l UUU-b 1-3-1 9.7 Robert W. Gilbert 1490 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 1 1971 1000-81-3-20 Peter C. and Alice C. Mignerey 0906 Dartmouth Avenue College Park, Md. 20740 1000-81-3-21 Aiiella Akscin 1400 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-22 Mar 21 02 01 : 52p p. 5 • , ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAtN STREET P.O. Box 279 RIvERHEAtto, N,Y. I19OI-oiw 7 9 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS 1631)369.1700 WATER MILL OFFICE, MARCIA Z. HEFTE,R MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN F.ANGEL TELECQPII:I; NUMBER.(631)3G9-?06:5 P. 0, SOX 570 JANE ANN 14 1<RATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 1197e JOHN M. WAGNER (631) 722.6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. I'i TALiA March 11, 2002 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA S. STRUNK Anella Akscin 1400 Paradise Puiut Rudd Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Califs, Petrocelli and Macani Dear Ms. Aksciii: • We tale the attorneys for•ferty Cailis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P, Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 538 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, New York 11 933 - Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3- 19.4. The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the Lu11st.1 uction and:maintenance of a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code, We enclose ct>hiE— rcOND LIV NY 11.5 pdstai Servtee :SENDER; COMPLY THIS S�CTlON„ • naPt ErFM rr lSs,cTloly CO CEFITIFIEb MAIL H.ECEIPT' ell Complete items 1,2,and 3.Albu vumpteto A, R000lvediby(Areas®Print Craerly) R. Date of Deliver (Dori)estic Mall Only No'Insur ince Coverag ROM 4 if Restricted 1)-1.:44,04; sired. ■ Printyour name al A.•title Sci;t lo: verse C. Signature r. so that we canY. y p Agent m o ■• Att210fl tf1Is ea to I•batik of UT. t='eoe, X i v r74� ( j ' '� A �t i rl or on the fron if g��C®permits. �•-�'��l �-�►,-► C Addtesae • p — 0. Is deIlvety address different from Item 1? Q Yes Postage • 1. Article Address-d to; 2002 It YES,enter delivery address below. No Certified Feo Ctl�e ll Q e tYt Rotum Receipt Fee Nix) �'' (Endoroomont naquh,d � C5�e lThcl� � 1V�� ` C+r'1 I G1 Reetdoted DL'llvety Feo 7 ` 1 3. S rvlce Type 90 to (Endowment Required) dotal Postage&Fees Certified Mail Express Mall RApistnrnd Return Receipt for Morchandil ru Nang Melee Print CtcaNy)(To be completed by nterler,J " ❑ru Insured Mall ❑CAD. m (fI1 ,, it e�l1Q �� JC(a1 4. RestYlCted Doltvery4(Extra Feet) • 0 Yes a-' Strvet, pt.No. r PO Box No. f Cr. 1t�tx) Q r COI f�01'fTt' nU4 Z 2, Arttioiet,Nnumber(copyt m•sevice label)�] �j caresia(e,,ZjP9 4, , ., f s,r1.a I {r)1 AD tX J �5.Ll0.�, I • r � p. 6 Mar 21 02 01 : 52p . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS A7 LAW 1011 EAST MAIN STRCC1 P 0 Dox 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 1190i-0279 WILLIAM W, Csst:ks (93I) 3ee-17c0 WATER MILL O1'rICE MARCIA Z HEFTER """ MONIAUK HIGHWAY $7¢@HEN 19, ANG7'CLECOPIER NUMBER teal)366-2065 P.0 Box 570 JANC ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y, 11976 Jowl M, WAGNsm (eal) 726.6633 WILi•iANI PoWI:R MALONEY r'� CARMCLA M, DI TALIA March 1'1, 2001 ANTHONY C. PASCA NVICA 8. $TRUNK Peter C. and Alice C. Mignerey 6900 Dartmouth Avenue College Park, Md. 20740 Re: Application of Calls, PetrocelIi and Macari Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mignerey: We are the attorneys for,jerry Callis,John Petrocelh and Katherine P. Macar'i. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to property owned by,James and Barbara Miller, 538 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, New York 11933 Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3- 19.4. The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the construction and maintenance 01 a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building hermit and certiheate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code. tl E SE q R COMP ET 7-f/5 S C710Ny ly i, CGIMA1ETl•THIS SSG-TION ON'D�t1VCRY ' •,,. ;i1 ..�l`• a•'h' '€� . M y �ii', PoSt'�I$er'vlce • r z.,, , , �, ® Complete items 1 2 and 3:Mb com ! ;, P OtE'� deCislved by(Ple9se print Gda,• . �. �� a G t T1FIED;MArt "F�EC,EIP,f item 4 if Restricted DelivQ is dooired. I ry� Daimon/ �! Ce.jI n. ,' pe- rr(t7otitestic A7 "il Only NoInsirr ire. sone lige, N Print your tame and addnaSS on the reverse ' ` ' so that we can return the card to you. C, Sign ArticlySf nt Tort' aF s ■ Attach this card to the back of fila mailpiece, r'Ur or nn the front If space permits. r _ r} Jr A:y b,o PIA i C net t, h. 15 delivery add ess different t iter Article Addressed to: If YES,enter dolivery address b. . rt Peetav� �r1 t (° �" .t e C Pilt`op e;rt.y � ti CeriltlCd ( Fee V 1 Dt!f l'�ot r�� TVE'(�((i' tieturn Rcoelpt Foo PC f r� OIL �7 ` (t ltticrsrgcnt R•jqulrrd) -- C r;`�l.e ' Pa! ` {1 d• c u 1qv -- J J t. Servlce'type • liostrlcted pcllYory Fee �II( (EiIdvrcment Nvqulleo) L t11 Certified Mail 0 t)press Mail • Total Poston a Fees $ 0 Registered 9(Ration Receipt for Merchandise U ❑ inoure,.1 Men 0 G.Q.U. U N nc(P1 ee pr:rft Cteyrry (iib a carnpr` rod by,,,errorj --• 4. Restricted Delivery'?(Sara Fee) E]Yes ✓ Street,Apt...........o.'or tae sox No. .;' 2. Article Number(Copy from service label) (7(1Ud� (�Af��'rrlou.d'F) iA—Oe ue �"iu� � o 3 Pitsea Ledo cr st•rc,Ztrfi a --- n 11w n.0 P1t I. ti'i4 . r 1F1,10 PS Form 3811..1uly 1A9A . • fl,w,, a Mar 21 02 01 : 52p p• 7 ESSEKs, 1-4EFTV2 & ANGEL COUNaG1.Or^. AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box 279 I IVFRki-AD. N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W, ESSEKs (631)369.1700 WATCR MILL Ovrlcc MONTAUK HIGHWAY MARCIA Z. HEf'YCR TELCCOPIER NuMbvI{(6,31)399-2065 STEPHEN r, ANun� P. C),BOX 57O WATER MILL, N.Y 11976 JANE ANN P. KRATZ (631) 725.6693 JOHN M.WP,GNER WILLIAM POWER MALONEY r, CARMfi:t.A M Di TALIA March 1 1, 2002 ANTHONY C. PA6cA NICA B. SiRUNK Robert W. Gilbert 1490 Paradise Pqint Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Mr. Gilbert:. We are the attorneys for Jerry Canis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupolILy with respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 538 1 clwarcls Avenue, Calverton, New York 11933 - Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3- 19A The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to hermit the construction and maintenance of a platform and structure extending 4U feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, +iiiviig other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code, WE enclose copse ' " SE;N*DER CQMPL TE THl SECTION. S.poQtal$ervlr'a . �� COMRCETE T SECTION ON qE RY HIS sive" C Fi tlpl D MAIL REORT.,. • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. ece'ye• by(Plea =tint of Or very (bomes'ti:c-Mn!!Onlyr No insuratice'Coverag- item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. c.. . r ' e41 / o Z. ., ti Print your name and address on the reverse — C. sl! :. re m se that we can return the card to you. - / • Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, ons i'i be r or on the front if space permits. ��,, _ ❑Addleasee - - - D, Is delivery address dill nt tr>7nt(tern 1? ❑Yes 1 Article Addressed to' m„ ruyirse a Ii YES,enter delivery address below, WJ Certified FOC U�� G1 lbt?{ - , NC.c) Paradise., Q T + 4val d I m Mum Rnr.�lhl r:n,a 0 pidomen,ont Rcgwroc) • -•-„ ,>+/t� mil hestncted Ociivcryrc f 5) I It SOt 1 l\Old) N mil 1 3. Service Type t9 (um-tort:merit Required •_ f 'roes Poctueo a rove $ Certified Mail In Express Mai( ck ill Registered Rouen Receipt for Merchandise nJNang(P1eose tart Clcwrly) b be cam slid by mailer) d I nsured Mail 0 C.O.O. frl v\c)ber � �()bed— 1 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes Street Apt.Honer op Fox P , - •• + _ . t7 Jr T0aU 2. Article Number (Copy ty servicelabel) crv.Siatk.xr «a. 1 -)�l� o( ' r 1%,3 4) h Mar 21 02 01 : 52p p. 8 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEt. COUIVSELORG AT LAw 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. Box279 R,vCRMEAO, N.Y. I1901-0P751 WILLIAM W ESSEks (631) 369-17QQ WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONYAUK HIGHWAY firer HtI4 P ANBEL 1 CLcco IcP NUMBER (630 368.2065 P n f3ov yNn JANE ANN R KIRATZ WATER MILL, N Y. 11976 JOHN M WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY r1(� CARMELA M. DI TALIA March 11 ,1 , 2002 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B STRLINN John and Joan Petrocelli 250 Manor Road Huntington, NY 11743 Re_ Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Mr. and Mrs. Petrocelli: We are the attorneys for Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to pi opet ty owned by Jalrles and Barbara Mille' , 538 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, New York 11933 - Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3- 19.4. The building Permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the construction and maintenance of a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code. • • ,. (lowing: , ' .`!.1.. U S P _ . CEI3�lt`tb MAIL RECEIPT 1 ' (Dtiinastr�.Ma!!Only,. No Insist nce:Covc�r gc Providedf Article Sent.Toi n which the subject property is shown in yellow FOCC- rrt Poatego $ _ J Ve • truly yours, Certified Fee • Po:fmprp n l Return ReceiptFeo HeroCnGoc. gnR41uo )1:71 .„ (), Q Reelected Davey re0 '5 +ll I C I (Endomemenl Requited)tri C YetetPo t'qj &FOee $ . 'EP 1EN R. ANC)), ru n.1 Nome Please Print Cla rly)(To be TAOmplate.d TAOM JONI) Johan rata--Vett' REQUESTED t., Street,Apt.Ne.;or PO Box No. E` Q150 i6-bxtf?l" 44)0ad 9 city,;oweeZPtj+ I -._ ,n I Itri a tit p• 9 Mar 21 02 01 : 53p ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL CoUNEELORs AT LAW 10$ AST MAIN STREET P.O. Box 279 I tVeRt-1EAQ, N,Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W, EssEic 1631)369-1700 WATCR MILL 017vICk MARCIA Z. HEFTER MOM•lAUtt HIGHWAY STEpHEN R ANOFL TELECOPIER NUMBER(8a1)399.2066 faux t'i7C-1 J r.nz ANN R. KHAVi WATCR MILL, N.Y. 11976 Jo,*i M. WAGNER (63 1) 726-6633 WILLIAM Pow MAI ANrY CARMCLA h4 DI TALIA 11 , 2002 ANTHONY C. PASCA March4 NllcA B. STRUNK James and Barbara Miller 538 EdWcn cis Avenue Calverton, NY 11933 Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller: We are the attorneys fol Jerry Callis,•John Petr ocelli and Kathel ine P. Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to property owned by you, i.e., Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3-19.4. The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the construction and maintenance of a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the 7r,inz code. We enclose copies ( Cr„nr,°'` COM LE��eels SFc71ON ` rifer - —. plele Itgrrt5 7 item it ,2.and;� Also cot !�e„trfcted Derive + plete • +.t Print your name and addre s o esltc�d. eeeive (P/eaga,Prilrt CI aT SlpbStal Sc4vfoo ''' '' r Sa that we n the ern rlyJ t3 Det®of CE13 IFIE[7 MAIL p3f�C ,lp7 can return tile r:2rd to you, tr attac)t this caro to the ba •=tu. • (Dontestrc7Mit!Ojily ''No !ns)(rgnce Cpvet?ge or ori the front tf space ok of lite nla)ipieoe, a permits r ,. 1. Article Addtossed to: 1- -��, l A y tzai 'c ArlrC,lef,SMt,t,To,: " r;, °r r, µV D. )adoiI � _ {� n era address diftemrtt from ft�j 17�rJ A�tln9eSet �l t �Q(�ll�y qc yak` bora_ i l f'i ler t(YC3,entr3t delvo 0 Yes j �J LCILL> ry address below; U Ne r + czr,� �enup Pontttgp -$— _ Lae 1 TiJnI N v � 10'33 cerlures roe ►1 -- -- 0 Return Receipt Fee (l:ndoem evu nwnulrw n _ erytCe Type q ------ _._.. ., Certified M311 - ---�� i Restricted Delivery Fee Retd Exprr3ss Mall En (Endowment 9Slated ____ _U insured Marl Return Recetpl for Mcrct,ar;dise Total Poetsge 8 Fees c.o.(�, t� 2. Article niumbcr --�--- 1. Re -- fill • --.-._-- ��PYrvbnt ----�._ strlcr@d DULve �+ --- h SetVWCe le — �,-- 7 ftJ NAnr (Plcanc Prlrt!CJc ry)(Ta be completed by msrterj UCC r bell -- 'Y ! .Yp�KerrJ — --- —_ m iY1e S Cr.-�AYu t'I c?&'' Ps Form 3811• Jc�r%?c7 000 j t�5t 3 — ---._ 0 Yes Street,apt,No.;or Pa BOX No. �� E.(.bA)c$( d5 1 d r�I m C D^ter*tJc Return Receipt ri cRAN A. iq'5 rd4ln Ri\_l 11(1b-3 102595.00 M nno Mar 21 02 01 : 54p _ p• 10 ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STRCE1 P. O Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N,Y, I1901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSGKS (6311 369-1700 WATCR MILL 01=)•ICE MARCIAZ I-1tEtEa MONYAUIc HIGHWAY TeLecoPIER NUMBER(631) 369.2065 STCPHCN R.ANGCL P. O, Box 570 JANE ANN R KRATZ WATER MILL, l`d.Y, I I9]6 JOHN M, WAGNCR (631) ?25-8633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. Di TALIA March 11, 2007 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B SIRUNK Eric and Caren Heacock 1425 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Canis, Petrocelii and Macari Dear Mr. and Mrs. l'leacock: We arc the attorneys for Jerry Canis,,John Peu uceni and Katherine P. Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 538 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, New York 11933 - Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3- 19.4. The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the construction ands maintenance of a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code. We enclose coprt"" SEr dER:COMP(. TE1TkIS TSECTJON COMK(;1:7C Tr IISIS'EGT(l7'N ON DELIVERY =' •U 5 l�dslal Se'rJICe ,.,, , •. ;GEf�l i'1ED,l AeI•L litCE1 f?T a Complete Items 1;2,and 3,Also complete A Heeelvea by(Please I eni deafly) 13, Date a.Delivery (comes tc/VIa7F only; yv rnsttY,ance,Ck'' , item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. 1a Print your name and addrt • the reverse •;AHlclt Ser,t,T.q: r $o that we can retur ap r . a e Altytrrh tr,ia vmU t una ece, rye,, grin( or on the front if ,r. �rmlts. i`*I' �r` P Addressee ' &C,O ' •-lively addles^.dilloretnt f•n Item'IT 0 Yes I Article Add •, ;, YES,enter delivery address below. 0 No iv,maQo $�—.— c t"i� ti till`(, .fieauevr• Certified Fee ILIa rtwisi n Receipnt Regt Fee �J 0 �'floic `,. pS,A ICnduruurnurrc ROgUlrrtlJ --_�� Restricted Delivery Fob , 3 Service Type (Endorsommt RegvIrod) Certified Mail 0 Express Mall Ybta1 Pestego&Fees $ t Reyibierov new Receipt fur Merchandise Name(Flaeso n t Ofeerly,1( be cam let y y ED Insured Mall t � � �Q�, R c0 b•mRller `r� e Cr +H eAC)C r1 4 Restricted DeliveIy?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes sure r,a I.Ntl or PO Box No. _..----- -- — i- I?af QG�ISc°,.. Ur'�k� jU�� z Article Numberc:cpyPmservice!abet) 1 tifun re.n>D� 1u l�f 5;0%0 coo':5 4157A L 1 Y3 :1 ► ■ : 1/' $SUP►- C.OMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete itebiSM;2,arid 3.Also`Complete t • •' A Received by'(Pleasie Pnnt Clearly) 'B 'Date of Delivery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired IN Print your name and addr- •• the reverse so that we can retur .ar._ C gn ture. ❑Agent • Attach this card t•,tn- • F. tz,mai e'ece, or on the front if,,:.-....is,`Permits CO V Addressee • rfr' : D s delivery address different fr• item 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addresse�•I t. f0. If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No 6-ie 4 tcCn tleav% 1'4 5 Paie i:° �,° � ; Soy l-ho ) g�f�hi;, �. 3. Service Type qtCertified Mail ❑ Express Mail 0 Registered Return Receipt for Merchandise , - , 0 Insured Mail b Co D , , 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2 Article Number(Copy from service label) 1ociej 3 o 00o3 151i3 f-1.1 kr- PS Form 381,1,July;1999 Domestic,Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid AP: USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • -- -- --- ----- --- - - -- --- -- ----- -ESSEKS, HEFTER, & ANGEL P.O.BOX 279 RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK Ilii ib ,J (cs ;. i,i,t . - MAR G 0 20112 ESSEKS, HEFTER �,.i', l WPW11114!AMAIN:146412 W/37-7=7/4,►airirwerninmirx iT7� . - ,mwrisuram m rentW2171111._ - Fl eaeoei< m Ofrk Postage $ ..o 1`- Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee Postmark 'n (Endorsement Required) Here - Restricted Delivery Fee 5III ['-' O y(Endorsement Required) Total Postage&Fees $ fU fU NaTp(Please Prkit Clearly)(T be completed by mailer) m ie Laren l�eix oc o-. Street,Apt.N or PO Box No. Er 10,5 -ara.dise QbI'( + AoK4 Cltbs StaLZIIP Al iv q.1bLI grJ :Ii :rxrarr rmq..,.., Certified Mali Provides: ■A mailing receipt ■A unique identifier for your mailpiece ■A signature upon delivery ®A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years Important Rerpinders: •Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First-Class Mail or Priority Mail. iii l,?ertified M8i1 is not available for any class of international mall. leNO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For valuables,please consider Insured or Registered Mail. •For an additional fee,a Retum Receipt may be requested to provide proof of delivery.To obtain Retum Receipt service,please complete and attach a Return Receipt(PSIFomi 3811)to the article and add applicable postage to cover the fee.Endorse mailpiece"Return Receipt Requested".To receive a fee waiver for a d plicate Endorser receipt,a USPS postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is ®Fo additional itional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or addressee'slauthonzed agent.Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the endorsement"Restricted Delivery". ■If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired,please present the arti- cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is not needed,detach and affix label with postage and mail. IMPORTANT:Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry. PS Form 3800.July 1999 (Reverse) 102595-994-1938 • ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 WILLIAM W ESSEKS (631)369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA March 11, 2002 ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK Eric and Caren Heacock 1425 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Mr. and Mrs. Heacock: We are the attorneys for Jelly Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 538 Edwards Avenue, Calverton, New York 11933 - Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3- 19.4. The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the construction and! maintenance of a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code. J We enclose copies of the following: 1 . notice of public hearing; 2. Suffolk County Tax Map on which the subject property is shown in yellow highlight. Ver truly yours, 1_12, //14-.{ SRA:mb S EPJENR. AN L Enc. CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y I 1901-0279 WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIAZ HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R. ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER(631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY , CARMELA M Di TALIA March 11 , 2002 ANTHONY C PASCA NICA B. STRUNK James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue Calverton, NY 11933 Re: Application of Callis, Petrocelli and Macari Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller: We are the attorneys for Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari. Our clients have appealed from the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy with respect to property owned by you, i.e., Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-3-19.4. The building permit and certificate of occupancy purport to permit the construction andl maintenance of a platform and structure extending 40 feet or more in height. It is our position that the building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because, among other things, the structure exceeds the permissible height requirements of the zoning code. We enclose copies of the following: , Postal COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY CERTIFIED M11.RE%EIG 1 e Date of Delivery 1 o a 1 Insurance Coverage SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ecelve lean e Pmt CI�rIY) (Domestic and 3.Also complete - e2 7/ . ■ Complete Items 1,2, is desired. i Sent Item 4 if Restncted DeliveryAa i a ■ Print your name and address on the reverse �/`� 0 Ad ressee I (�(�I`�er so that we can return the card to you- � ` 0 Y� �{ 1 1 t ■ Attach this card to the backpet the mailplece, D Is deliveryaddress different from dem 1. I IIOIINIIIIIIIor on the front if space s. kin Postage If YES,enter delivery address below p 1 Article Addressed to (1� ►l! Certified Fee Fe 1 tar �(� 1-- I s�(7leS t/ Return Receipt Fee �df�a�dS i1 C'nu� i n i,(Endorsement Required) I �� ,p Restncted Delivery Fee Ca V�� n i N O (Endorsement Required) 3, Service Type ❑Expotess Mail CI Total Postage&Fees [�Certdied Mad �{, t for Merchandise by mailer) 0 Registered Y�Return Receip RI Nam (Please Print Map)(To be completed ;1 I V _ ❑ C D RI b(� -__._______ ❑Insured Mail0 Yes M me 4 r_____.__1'.--_.__h?�-.- Extra Fee) _, ___._____ 4 Restricted Delivery �, Street,Apt.No.;or PO Box�N��S B J--------Er � p Cjty', at,Z►P+4 from service label) !!""� I CIO I`- Q�(�Qt n N See Reverse f'' 2 Article Number(Copy �n me 102595-00•M•095: PS Form 3800,July iTg99 p OO�i (Domestic Return Receipt PS Form 3811,July 1999 rr , �� • March 11, 2002 Page 2 Eric and Caren Heacock 1425 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-2-4 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4783 James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue Calverton, NY 11933 1000-81-3-19.4 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4790 John and Joan Petrocelli 250 Manor Road Huntington, NY 11743 1000-81-3-19.7 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 7563 4806 Robert W. Gilbert 1490 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-20 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4813 Peter C. and Alice C. Mignerey 6906 Dartmouth Avenue College Park, Md. 20740 1000-81-3-21 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4820 Anella Akscin 1400 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-22 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4837 03/07/2002 10:23 6317659064 ZONINGAPPEALSBOARD : PAGE 03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK _• - - x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT Jerry Callis, John Petrocelli and OF Katherine P. Macari MAILINGS INGS (Name of Applicants) CTM Parcel#1000- 81 - 3 - 19.4 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Margaret Bizzoco • residing at Ronkonkoma, , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 11th day fi MMaarch 2002, I personally mailed at the 1 Dox on Main , United States Post Officer Street, Riverhead , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown.on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (X) Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office _ , for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of- way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. I / / 1 • • (Slaanature) Margaret Bi'znoco Sworn to before me this 11th AN n rJY C.PASCA day ouch , 2002 Notae of New York No.02PA5055606,fSuffolk County., K . Commission Expires Feb. 12,202 (.�. ary Public) • PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. 03/07/2002 10:23 6317659064 ZONINGAPPEALSBOARD : PAGE 02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be heard at a public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY. MARCH 21. 2002. at the times noted below(or as soon thereafter as possible): 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5072 - DR. JERRY CALLIS, et al., Appellants. This is an Appeal Application requesting a Reversal of Building Permit #27894-Z dated 11/13/01 and Certificate of Occupancy #2-28096 dated 11130101, issued by the Building Department, concerning existing construction referred to as a 60 sq. ft. "platform with monument " located at property owned by JAMES and BARBARA MILLER, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-81.3-19.4. (On February 21, 2002, JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARI submitted authorization for Dr.Callis to appeal in their behalf.) The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of this hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: March 4, 2002. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 March 11, 2002 Page 2 Eric and Caren Heacock 1425 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-2-4 James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue Calverton, NY 11933 1000-81-3-19.4 John and Joan Petrocelli 250 Manor Road Huntington, NY 11743 1000-81-3-19.7 Robert W. Gilbert 1490 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-20 Peter C. and Alice C. Mignerey 6906 Dartmouth Avenue College Park, Md. 20740 1000-81-3-21 Anella Alcscin 1400 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-22 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari (re: Miller property) AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING Applicants Regarding Posting of Sign upon Land Identified as 1000-81-3-19.4 X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) David P. Moore, residing at Orient, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: On the 14th day of March, 2002, I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of the above-captioned application noted thereon, securely upon adjoining property located immediately to the north of the above- captioned property, and located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way facing the street, as near to the above-captioned property as possible, which was the area most visible to passersby, and that I hereby confer that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject,'earing date, which hearing date was shown to be March 21, 2002. David P. Moore Sworn to before me this 21st day of March 2002. Notary Pubic U U MARGARET BIZZOCO Notary Public,State of New York No. 01B14691045 Qualified In Suffolk County Commission Expires May 31,20 1.4—. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari (re: Miller property) AFFIDAVIT Applicants Regarding Posting of Sign upon Land Identified as 1000-81-3-19.4 X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLI ) David P. Moore, residing at Orient, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: On the 11th day of March, 2002, I personally verified the names and addresses shown on the current assessment roll, based on the official records on file with the Assessor of the Town of Southold, at Town Hall, for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street or vehicle right-of-way of record surrounding the property which is the subject of this application, and the list of the Suffolk County Tax Map numbers, names and addresses shown on those official records are annexed hereto. 4p " /l Da 'i P. Moore Sworn to before me this 21st day of March 2002. a Notary P4blic MARGARET BI2Z000 Notary Public,State of New Yovk No. 01B14691045 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires May 31,20�.,.. << Eric and Caren Heacock 1425 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-2-4 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003,E 7563 4783 James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue Calverton, NY 11933 1000-81-3-19.4 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4790 John and Joan Petrocelli 250 Manor Road Huntington, NY 11743 1000-81-3-19.7 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 7563 4806 Robert W. Gilbert 1490 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-20 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4813 Peter C. and Alice C. Mignerey 6906 Dartmouth Avenue College Park, Md. 20740 1000-81-3-21 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4820 Anella Akscin 1400 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 1000-81-3-22 CM, RRR No. 7099 3220 0003 7563 4837 OFFICE OF i)NING BOARD OF APPEAL = 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Email: Linda.Kowalski(a Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Ouintieri(a Town.Southold.ny.us (631) 765-1809 J fax (631) 765-9064 z(0,* telf)1 18--()171March 5, 2002 - Re: Chapter 58— Public Notice for Thursday, March 21, 2002 Hearing r 2/ Dear ' - _.:;m: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be now mailed with a map or sketch showing the construction area or variance being considered. Send the enclosed Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, with a copy of a map on Monday, March 11th, or sooner showing your project area, to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. When picking up the sign, a $15 check will be requested for each metal stand as a deposit (if needed). There is no cost for the sign without a stand. Please post the Town's official poster/sign no later than March 14th. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard.) The sign(s) must remain in place for at least seven (7) days, and should remain posted through the day of the hearing. If you need a replacement sign, please contact us. By March 14th, please submit to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers noted for each, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. Later, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us (but not later than the date of the hearing). If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing. By March 20th, and after the signs have been in place for seven (7) days, please submit your signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. (Please feel free to return the metal stands to our office for a return of your deposit.) If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Enclosures ZBA Board Members and Staff P.S. Please pick up the poster sign during the week of March 11th, but not later than March 14th. Thank you. • L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be heard at a public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002, at the times noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5072 - DR. JERRY CALLIS, et al., Appellants. This is an Appeal Application requesting a Reversal of Building Permit #27894-Z dated 11/13/01 and Certificate of Occupancy #Z-28096 dated 11/30101, issued by the Building Department, concerning existing construction referred to as a 60 sq. ft. "platform with monument " located at property owned by JAMES and BARBARA MILLER, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-81-3-19.4. (On February 21, 2002, JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARI submitted authorization for Dr. Callis to appeal in their behalf.) The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of this hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: March 4, 2002. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 " r J I ANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 03/07/2002 10:26 DATE,TIME 03/07 10:23 FAX NO./NAME 3698249 DURATION 00:02:28 PAGE(S) 05 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM -noA aiueyl ',,,p6 yale41J amp Jai;;ou;nq 'y,;;. yovejo„wwi. ay;6uunp usls Ja}sod ay;do void eseald "S"d mels pue slagwaw pJeos WIZ seinso!oua 'sxnoA Alru;AJan 'uo>;eJed000 JnoA Jo4 noA muegL •Al;dwoJd sn oe;uoo eseeld '1el;e! sly; ul pe;e;s seu!!peep eq; ;eau.: ;au op noA 4! (•;Isodep JnoA 4o wn;aJ a 104 eo!44o Jno o;spue;s !e;ew 5q4 wn;01 o4 55J3 1004 aseeld) -seo!;oN lie 4o 400.td se pJoneJ lueue:Jed ay; u! ;dem eq !!!nn O98LLL '80!440 Jno o; buw;sod ;o ;!nep!44V peu6!s JnoA;!wgns aseeld `sAep (A) uenes Jo;eoeld u! ueeq enet4 su6!s eta Ja;4e pue `I41Oz NoJeW 19 •6uueay eta;e pleas eta;astnpe aseeld `pSWf;OJ;ou s! plea eJn;eu6!s Aus;! -(6uueeq eta;o amp eq; uey;Je;ellou ;nq) sn o; wau; Jenllep Jo Hew aseeld 'eogI0;sod eta.Aq noA o;pewn;eJ cue spJe0 0Jn;eu6!s ueeJ6 eta uey, 'fele-! •eoy;0 ;sod eta. Aq pamrew;sod s;d!eo0J taw" ata; u;WW+t 4! wn48J pus '14090 JO; p0;Ou siegwnu !eoisd y;!nn (pesopue uuo;) bu!!!e!pl ;o ;!nsp!;}d JnoA ooy;o mo a; ;!wgns aseeld `yyy l NoJe!n: Ag •sn loeluoo aseeld 'ubls;ueweos!deJ a peeu noA 41 •611!Jeay 0143 40 Aep eq; gBnoJq; pe;sod uleweJ pinous pus `sAep (L) Uenes;see! ;e Jo; eoejd u! u!ewaa;snw (s)u6ls aqj (•pJsA;uoJ; !euori!ppe ay;Jo4 elgellmns s! uSis e1;xe ue `AennpeoJ Jo;aal;s euo ueia aJow Jeploq neA 41) -;eeJ;s eta; 6uuepJoq au!! A;1adold;uo.4 eq; WOJ;3004 0 L uey; WOW OU ;aa1;s eta 6u!oe4 Apedold JnoA uo u6!s eta eoe!d A!aJnoes -gip" yo. j uey;J0;e1 ou ut»!sfaa;sad le!owo s,unno1 ay; ;sod aseeld -pue;s a 4nog4!F u6!s ay; Jo; 3500 OU s! a.1e(1 -(pepesu 4!) ;!sodep s se puee;s-fe;eui floe° -ioj pe;senbei eq !!!m >Ioago SLS a `u6!s eta do 6uplold ue m "Hann SO ss9Jppe ;eta;o;aogou ay; puts O;;wenn Asw noA `JoqueleU a JO; sseippe leta30Ue 4o MOW! noA 41 •peetpeni J u! 93!440 A4aadoJd leeN A;unoO 0144 Jo (LE61.-S9L) 9014,40 .sJossessy unn01 ay; Aq peUI94U ew s11ol 3uowssesse ay; uo umotas sesseippe ;ue.uno eta esn •A;Jadold JnoA siepioq my; Aem 4o-;qOp Jo 309.1;s Aum 550139 pue! 6u!pn!3u! `sinoA 6ulpunollns (panoJdw!JO Iue3eA) pue! 40 sieuMo HU 04 'ease loefo.1d JnoA 6u!Mogs Jauoos Jo ` LL yfueyg `Aepuow uo dew s ;o Adoo is 44;!m 'alis tone! 1dI O ! NMf11g24 `l!b'W QSIAL I:ISO 00!40N pesolaue ay; puns -pasep!suo3 6u!aq SOue!JEA Jo ewe uo!4ofJ;suo3 eq; 6u!Mous yo;ams Jo dew a :atm pallew nnou eq ;snw 6uueeq pue uolleO!Idde JnoA Jo 09!;ou 1euJJo; '(pasopua Adoo) epo0 unnoj ploy;nog eta 40 eg Je;dsy0 o; ;uensind saw!L mlo44nS eta 40 ems!;xeu ay; u! pegs:tgnd eq II!m a ;oN ayj -uo!;eo!!dde ;ueieJ JnoA 6u!q!13sep eol;oN !eBe l ay;;o Acton s pesoloua pug aseeld .w � eap 6u!1seH ZOOZ 'LZ LioJsyJ `AepslntaL Jo;a040N 3I!gnd—89 Je;dst-!0 :2Z! zooz '9 U-' V11 t 906-59L C'CE9) xtj 608E-59L (t£9) sn•Au•ploy4nOs.W&01:e ul0t;u!fO-slnsd Jio sn'.{o-plaxl;nOs•u6No,)[,�n}olslsmo,rupu!1 :UCUIa 6560-TL6'Et AN 'P1oNauoS 6L11 xoa '0 d Peon u!eW 560£S S7ddddV AO a'av0131 DNINOZ 3O 33L-JPO NOIIO3 NNO0 31IWISOV AS S (i-3 lIVd 3NI1 NO3 do DNVH (MSNV ON £-3 NONN3 NOd NOSV3N 51 Osr �l A-5, 5/0 (6 (6-3 5902695 Xi AdOW3W 556 3JVd 11fS3ii SS3100V NOIldO 300W 31Id Wyll Ol ZOOZ 'L 'db'W 03O1S/0311IWSNVHI SdOSIA013df1S 0lOH1l0S :1130'd3H XVd * * * ( AV81. :01 ?OZ 'L 'HvW ) 1dOd3d 11f1S3I NOIld' 'WOO * * * l d T ' 4 , �•i/ilii��- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS x,01# SUFF04 ; ��I�O`0 COGySoutho� 530951d Town Main Road Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora y - P.O. Box 1179 George Horning . 1,S0• G " Southold,New York 11971-0959 �� Ruth D. Oliva1 ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando =�C1 +011•� Telephone(631) 765-1809 .....•''� http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DEPARTMENTAL MEMO TO: Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville FROM: ZBA Chairman Jerry Goehringer DATE: February 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Filing of New Application by Callis, Petrocelli & Macari We enclose the above-noted Appeal Application for filing under Assigned File Number 5072, which number was issued on January 24, 2002. Thank you. Enclosures (complete file as of 2/21/02 for processing) • te ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE ������® ; Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK . P.O. Box 1179 CO REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICSr Southold, New York 11971 CP MARRIAGE OFFICER �� �, Fax (631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER =_ ®� -0,„.” Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER •• ,�� southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: January 24, 2002 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5072 Transmitted herewith is a receipt for assignment of a project number for Zoning Appeal No. 5072—J. Callis. Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 . . Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: /01/1:6/02':-,/ , Receipt#: 749 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $400.00 Check#: 749 Total Paid: $400.00 Name: Esseks, Hefter&Angel P 0 Box 279 Riverhead N, Y 11901 Clerk ID: LINDAC Internal ID:47396 DEPARTMENTAL MEMO TO: Town Clerk's Office FROM: Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chairman DATE: .Q-cur). 152o02_ SUBJECT: Assignment of Project Number of So 40 — 2u)sa i According to the ZBA adopted rules of procedure, please assign Number 5o / 8 to the above-referenced new submission. While the documentation may not be in complete form, it is assigned a number for the purpose of commencing reviews. The documentation has not as of today been accepted as a complete file by the assigned member. a0 A $ qoo. check is attached (which is required by your office for assignment of a project number). This number was assigned by our office on /y1/Vol . (Projects are assigned chronologically.) Thank you. Attachment APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS FOL;P.-% Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ,0"** - ®Gym► 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. .: P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora ,� Southold,New York 11971-0959 uk-Lora S. Collins � ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 George Horning ;42? o-001 George Telephone(631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 15, 2002 Fax 369-2065 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks Hefter & Angel 108 East Main St., P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: File No. 5072 - Application of Jerry Callis (Miller Property) Dear Mr. Angel: In reviewing Dr. Callis' Appeal submitted today by your office, it is noted that the following items are missing: pp,c_, V --a) proof of service upon the Town's Building Department; ✓ b proof of service upon the owner(s) of the subject property, • a copy of the property deed for the Appellant (Jerry Callis) as an °'� aggrieved party. �G p ( d)/ consents for Dr. Callis to sign in behalf of John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari; OR original notarized signatures by each; also if Messrs. Petrocelli and Macari will be Appellants in this application, copies of the property deeds showing ownership by Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Macari. Please furnish the above as soon as possible. Thank you. Very truly yours, Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman zti 14 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ���" -,' - •di' OFFOLt =; Southold Town Hall ' Gerard P Goehringer, Chairman ili���®� C®�✓.y 53095 Main Road Al James Dinizio,Jr. '� ® - % P.O. Box 1179 �L .�v L Lydia A.Tortora a Southold,New York 11971-0959 —I Lora S. Collins '® keV 0 ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 George Horning ;_i1®� '` �.�0' Telephone (631)765-1809 -n..-,,, BOARD OF APPEALS ) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 15, 2002 , Fax 369-2065 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Esseks Hefter &Angel 108 East Main St., P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: File No. 5072 -Application of Jerry Callis (Miller Property) Dear Mr. Angel: In reviewing Dr. Callis' Appeal submitted today by your office, it is noted that the following items are missing: a) proof of service upon the Town's Building Department; b) proof of service upon the owner(s) of the subject property; c) a copy of the property deed for the Appellant (Jerry Callis) as an aggrieved party. d) consents for Dr. Callis to sign in behalf of John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari; OR original notarized signatures by each; also if Messrs. Petrocelli and Macari will be Appellants in this application, copies of the property deeds showing ownership by Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Macari. Please furnish the above as soon as possible. Thank you. Very truly yours, crstaysevos.r/zw,c04,74.--P Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT ., . '"a TIME : 01/15/2002 13:25 DATE,TIME 01/15 19 24�� FAX NO./NAME 3692065 DURATION 00:00:33 PAGE(S) 01 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM Form 8002*—Bargain and Sale Deed,with Covenant against Grantor's Acts—Individual or Corporation.(single sheet) r7g CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT—THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. 9 ri6q THIS INDENTURE, made the 307-1- , day of July , nineteen hundred and ninety six BETWEEN BEATRICE Ti, WARD, residing at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold,' NY 11971 DISTRICT SECTION BLOCK LOT ktl. o {=2 0, i2 17 21 hisAre Ovl din party of the first part, and JAMES MILLER AND BARBARAq � I�I�LER,tiresiding at APIP. 0. Box 610, Calverton, NY '11933 party of the second part, WITNESSETH,that the party of the first part,in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part,does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part,the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being ;_ + bounded and described as follows: i:EGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Paradise Point Road, distant 1,499 feet more or less from the intersection of the easterly side of Paradise Point Road ith the northerly side of Cedar Beach Road, said point being the northerly line of and now or formerly of Gilbert intersects with the easterly side of Paradise Point i'oad; rUNNING THENCE along the easterly side of Paradise Point Road, North 10 degrees 09 inutes 52 seconds West, 231.52 feet to land now or formerly of John and Joan Petrocelli; HENCE along land now or formerly of John and Joan Petrocelli, South 69 degrees 5 minutes 00 seconds East,. 725.92 feet to Shelter Island Sound (Little Peconic Bay) ; HENCE along Shelter Island Sound, South 28 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West, 202.01 feet to land now or formerly of Gilbert; HENCE along land now or formerly of Gilbert, North 69 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West, 580.89 feet to the easterly side of Paradise Point Road, the point or i•lace of BEGINNING. '-aid premises also being known as and by .1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York. Being part of the premises conveyed to Charles E. Ward and Beatrice T. Ward by deed dated April 29, 1965, recorded on June 2, 1965 in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk in Liber 5754, page 573. Charles E. Ward died on September 29, 1990, a resident of Suffolk County. 1 TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any,of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the TAX MAP second part forever. ESIGNATION St. 1000 AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything 081 whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. c. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration t• 3 as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other t(s):19.00, purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. IN PRESENCE OF: BE t,,W•�f+: 4 4711, , 4!' 24( lni a EDWARD P.Rt�IV4111a1E RECORDED. AUG. ,�6 OF SUFFOLK :I ' /' , i' day of =. , before me On the day of 19 , before me // came personally carne - • ,le known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who ' cuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the same, executed the same, - • • STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: On the day of 19 , before me On the ,day.of _ - 19 , before me • • worn, did depose and ieriai • .A. 35 .15 8 _f • - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . . ' ; "o Ars W$oas THESE PaEsaxra Saars ndi,CoGenernma• _-0. -- _- . - - v '- : sl; %CERTIFY raar _ LILLIE B,_ DOXhtl _ '''':I ' s41.4.-..- =___ __ corporation described -hose name is subscribed to the accompanying instnuneni ` as at the time oY signing the same a Notary Public • nstrument; that he a and for the District of Columbia,and duly commisionedtand authorized by the laws of said District of Colum- that the seal affixed is to take the acknowledgment and proof of deeds or r;onveyaacc of Janda, tenements, or hereditaments,and other seal• that it was so sstruments in writing to be recorded in said Distiio nd to'adniinister oaths; and that I am well acquainted with ., :tors�of said Cor ora- ,e handwriting of said Notary Public and verily beeve thatthe signature end impression of seal thereon are P enuine,after comparison with signature and impression of seal=on file in.thiia office:•- . ; .. -_ - . - :hereto by like order. x Wrnisss Wnaeao ,the Secretar7 to the Board of Commissioners of.the District of Columbia, has hereunto caused the Seal of the District of Columbia to be=affixed at the City of Washington, D. C., this. 29th day of A PflTLt.:;: . .r ,. • ' , 1965 ,..',';';',v,: . - ' —....0--", '"- -j -E.emet.sg,..31 of Commissioners. ' • i` . (- ' INTCkara.r.PUblia Clete '--...':;.1 ' _.. AC .c+ o - c) n s U n/ • � 1.43� v mn Mt o .. - , o 1.... ,...t.), A .F_ . ti 5' 1 eit--_,i, a 3 11 10 Z AN % • O .0 i Z,Nr Record and Return To. JUN1 196r h ..- ..c, 4 . sa,A,P0,„scijit,„ ,al,. r�. � ��,70 g. 1 �f 1--1 y ..tom m rhi ! ! Cl-ttA jt (� 0 c) .5 -LI A.9• ir— t. ., y lz: .4 2 ' - C6t-4-t- .L V W L _- � 1 . IL 4- 'a. Q 1eekli 6 ''0( RECORDED SU :&. ›- JUN 2 1 5 z. iw ter-- ° -cp NORMAN E KLtPP. m �l to L'..1 ( ) of Suffolk County �: :r ,C Clerk TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and / roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof, / TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to /1 said premises, •\ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or / successors and assigns of the pasty of the second part forever. _.) :: ...,.9.:„.--.7"7:-_ _ .:= .-,y i , ," `C-:-.9."----" ...C.,.. :-.. ..:=p." .:-•••.,A', -•-•-dow-.--""---h gj ;:---:11 -0---. —.7".--....E... t r.F... .' . • .3r t.----,b--- ---7.:Z,V--. j '--.if,If t7,.- ,S00,7.9.-.7''''''''':"'s'il .7 71 ‘f _1 -"1'7. 'Ix.' matt- '-. i':.1:!::-:_.........! ',/,'11,,2... ,2471,9'.-r- ',..,.. . ---;.;:i.;:al, 'i::::::...\i,f),-;,....._1(.11.'---'...,.;1.$i 4.11_ , . ::,: •; • ',&';,:t‘,t '; ,. :---:I,,,::...;,...,z,,,,,i,i--146 f-.,_-::‘,\,_..:,:,.:-_,..,„„..er....;_.;1,:.:64 ii:._fl.„:.. 4,,,,i;1 ___,.. - _,:,-,k,.......„. ;N...,42 , ,:t ,,e.?,,71:: :, ,.w.. ,..,:.,„..., , .,.. . Fi-,, ,,,,4,41-n : • 'TT. r r r r r r r r r .:r , . . . r . r r i 1 . 't: � , , , ` I3 of � ? 3 , % R3an , ..:.c vFr .ity W� ���I � i • - .=7:cf v"-r p•:7 74a-,---:.. -,,-: '. 1:1.'; • • II ( � • ,e ' .moi♦. . •;.••_ • • , „, r .S• t ,Z''� -9r•+ �Sf �4.- u 7 i 'i :; ,,' . si-•-•'” 1 e &! tar3 .r. < 2° xt'iwn` '8 r r (• ._ _ 1 • - AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything ` • whereby the said premises have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply '� / the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for , ) - any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. n (-1C--.1A--1,-. S i -vc--11/ ( TN PRESENCE OF: Carolyn Jane Proc ter 1• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.) SS: "� . ~ CITY OF :�IASIII?` CJi ON ) IJ f •) !� I - ,-V before me personally came CAROL, On the •x i day off , 1965 JANE PROCTOR, to me known to be the individual-_ described in and wh{ executed the foregoing instrument , and she ac11o.•tledged that she • executed the same. j�, • . • �' I L, ,�_i "�• �f• ,� { tart � Public. , — Notary //,cJ. l.G.'%r�•✓1 LCna4:.Z-r"v��`/ ve-l� /.t-G;P-_--.2,.'7.i.':1 u5754 PACE 575 THENCE South 69 degrees 51 minutes 31 seconds East, along said last mentioned land , 340.55 feet to a monument; RUNNING THENCE along land formerly of Byron, now or formerly of. Little, the following three courses and distances : ( 1) South 69 degrees 49 minutes 39 seconds East 208.30 feet to a monument; • (2) South 69 degrees 52 minutes 26 seconds East 249 .18 feet to a ra or,ument; (3) South 69 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds East 170.04, feet to a con- crete wall abutting Shelter Island Sound ( Little Peconic Bay) ; THENCE South 28 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West, along said con- crete wall, 834.19 feet to land now or formerly of Kent; RUNNING THErICE North 69 degrees 55 minutes 00' seconds ".Rest, along said last mentioned land, 580.89 feet to the easterly side of Paradise Point Road at the point or place of Beginning. TOGETHER WITH all the right , title and interest of the party of the first part in and to the beach, waters and lands under water of Shelte Island Sound in front of and abutting said premises. • • • • L '^ I CONSULT YOUR LAWYER of IORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUME --T �'7� '�, PIT ISIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD DE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY :Lk R i 54 T'AGE 1 4 U.S.I.R. —19 71I THIS INDENTURE, made the 29th day of April p , nineteen hundred and sixty f'iv e BETWEEN CAROL= JANE PR0CT0R,Lresid.ing at 2100 Massachusetts Avenue, • Washington, D.C., remainderman under the Last Will and Testament of Caroline L. Jenkins,,deceased, Com ' S + • = party of the first part,and CHARLES E. WARD and BEATRICE T.- .4TARD his y .f • ii � e, both L . t residing at . . ' . 85 Beach Road, Great Neck, New York • • • -•i 1 0 g party of the second part • , Lt,c,t WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of . • TEN ( 410.00) •- dollars, lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable c ons iderati on,paid • by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being ''r at Bayview, Southold, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk .and State of New York, bounded and described as follows :- BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of Paradise Point Road (which point is the southwesterly corner of the premises herein described and the'northwesterly- corner of land now or formerly of Kent running thence in a northerly and northeasterly direction along the easterly line of Paradise Point Road a distance of 885 feet, more or less, to land now or formerly of Leonard E. Bruce and wife; running thence in an easterly direction along said land of Bruce and along land formerly of Byron, a distance of 1020 feet, more or less, to ' ordinary high water mark of Little Peconic Bay (also known as Shelter Island Sound) ; running thence in a southerly direction along ordinary high water mark of Little-Peconic Bay, a distance of 840 feet, more or less, to said land of Kent; running thence in a westerly direction along said land of Kent, a distance of 625 feet, more or less, to the point or place of beginning, said premises containing by estimation 16.3 acres , be the same more or less. SUBJECT to covenants, conditions, restrictions , rights and rights o way of record, if any. • The aforesaid premises being more particularly boundedand describe as follows : ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the 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 Paradise Point Road, at the southwesterly corner of the premises herein described and the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Kent; and from 'said point of beginning RUINING THENCE along the easterly side. of Paradise Point Road, the following five courses and distances : ( 1) North 10 degrees 09 minutes 52 seconds West 305.19 feet, (2) North 10 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds West 90.44 feet, (3) North 10 degrees. 07 minutes 48 seconds East 309.50 feet, (4) North 14 degrees 10 minutes 54 seconds East 130.79 feet, (5) North 16 degrees 14 minutes 45 seconds mast 50.39 feet to landcZ•, or formerly of Leonard Bruce; n' \-7 'r ? i • : rIxa ti a r —<. ,t � t ;. y.eicy .�vx Z.L. , ;% • n/��«ti �' r Yr/7 arie, a � 1 : - � r` �. __31 , t IRT• '\ L, � -:J x.1 9^er ' f , 4,4 c,', AI l - - l9 ,r11 '' N� . rFF i r s / f Lt � ` s r 61 !I sa2�0� ,l Z S a s f " 1,41 ' ;y En ;gyp _ ` •rs -- _: _ .r lvi/f IJ ' • . FAT f-I •Fi:_itis; y , y 1b _ - - . u — e t A, . t 1 M.B ld g x3• ,�3 S> sr, Foundation /7�.. Bath e� — - Basement /Ceti Floors a 1 P xtens /G vz7 . ,�2_ Ak• kr/1.1 Extensyon /6,K2,/, a/Q� PQ 7•— [1?( 3 4,0s7 Ext.Walls W,t �.�lt� Interior Finish �Sf . fr Extension Fire Place Z Heat AeAfj 7xf ' //7�Si8 Sys jgS4L' Porch '7° r Pool - Attic Deck Patio Rooms 1st Floor l4nT6 a,ZBA „, J Vicar) �_ iil? ei ,2 / Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor - $9?ti R, i 9111/4-a!:e '. r, ' _s—'51.,,ili /U° ,5—e-/-5(-1 -0.-B. , . r /yt.333 - - 7C) q,. / 61 .__... , ,405 /(9--i'71°e'L 61-12 /41116111/22- ---) J , . • il3. /94 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD /0d6 — - - . /V—/'-I , . .. • OWNER --• STREET /6/0 VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT . , _ . . - - •:. , ‘-k;Urrl .,/4•• ..c.-..rb,0.-44.-• .1--- - , • r-)u.1 Ita- , tAivendi.s.e. AT / m7t, a. ,,. FORMER OWNER - N E ACR. ) TerA64 ..e/./41 /5ec oe,9y ,3*.a.r;ege] 1 -- s w . _ TYPE OF BUILDING • - • . :1 attrie., .,_._.u.) 4-0( 4 wIrk d / ;$.e .P.7-7:A4— ..----:---,- - ' . . ' Cd9kcs Z/4-44 V&A'irifil'S . i - - . ,..._ _RES. /0. SEAS. ''VL. FARM COMM. CB. MICS: Mkt. Value• , - - i LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS . . '. 07 OP'er 4-16, 1 9Coo / ... / .- -a. *(' e- -4 -•, - ?ae.2. )„,i )1c7 - 7,,v c.; .;c,ir,- --- / 0 4 4 u."(' '''•74, " QI/er v-:ap-1:—'4e999‘oc)a 1 • a il 1 , . . i11 . . i . , . . _. . . , Tillable . ' FRONTAGE ON WATER, 2, Are ,,e/4.(L.-- 9e7 s aPr ziTivr:- , 4173‘ Woodland ._ - FRONTAGE ON ROAD q -7 . Meadowland • - . DEPTH . Howe Plot BULKHEAD )r--- Total -- . - --- --'''- • . _ ... _ - NYSRPS ASSESSMENT INQUIRY _A.7 DATE : 03/07/2002 473889 SOUTHOLD SCHOOL SOUTHOLD SCHOOL" ROLL SEC TAXABLE -'RCLS 210 1 FAMILY RES TOTAL RES SITE 81 . -3-19 .4 TOTAL COM SITE 1610 PARADISE POINT RD ACCT NO 10 = OWNER & MAILING INFO === I =MISC 1 ASSESSMENT DATA MILLER JAMES & BARBARA IRS-SS 1 **CURRENT** RES PERCENT 538 EDWARDS AVENUE 1 1 ILAND - 9, 600 **TAXABLE** CALVERTON NY 11933 1 BANK (TOTAL 23, 900 COUNTY 23,900 **PRIOR** TOWN 23,900 ILAND 9,600 SCHOOL 23,900 1 (TOTAL 23,900 ==DIMENSIONS --- 1 SALES INFORMATION ACRES 3 .25 ( BOOK 11786 SALE DATE 07/30/96 SALE PRICE 999,000 ( PAGE 759 PR OWNER WARD CHARLES E & WF TOTAL EXEMPTIONS 1 1TOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3 CODE AMOUNT PCT INIT TERM VLG HC OWN CODE UNITS PCT TYPE VALUE 41854 1,040 99 IFD028 IWW020 ISW011 1 F1=NEXT PARCEL F3=NEXT EXEMPT/SPEC F4=PREV EXEMPT/SPEC 75 . 10- 03-050 F6=G0 TO INVENTORY F9=G0 TO XREF F10=G0 TO MENU ilLIE.LA-\LH-fi_711H1 1. i MAR 1 7 )2 1 f U ��'/ .\Q> ORIGINAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS cufP v TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEWYORK X In the Matter of the Application of Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari (re: Miller property) AFFIDAVIT Applicants Regarding Posting of Sign upon Land Identified as 1000-81-3-19.4 X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STEPHEN R. ANGEL, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the attorney for the applicants in the above-captioned matter. 2. On January 16, 2002, I caused to be mailed to Mr. and Mrs.James Miller— who are the owners of the property involved in this application — a copy of the application filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Annexed as Exhibit A is a copy of my letter transmitting the application to Mr. and Mrs. Miller. These documents were not returned by the post office. 3. On March 8, 2002, I mailed another copy of the application to Mr. and Mrs. Miller, this time by certified mail, return receipt requested, to two addresses for them in Calverton. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of my letter, together with a copy of the application and the signed certified mail receipts. 4. On March 8, 2002, I contacted the Zoning Board's staff to inquire whether it was necessary to post the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Miller, since the applicants were not the owners of the property which is the subject of this application. I was advised that it was the Board's policy to require such posting, but if the owner of the property in question refused, the applicants should post adjoining property as close as possible. 5. On March 8, 2002, I requested, in writing, permission from Mr. and Mrs. Miller to post their property. I asked them to respond on or before March13, 2002 because the property had to be posted on March 14th. My request was sent to them by certified mail, return receipt requested. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of my written request. This written request was included in the mailing by certified mail referred to in paragraph 3 above. An examination of the receipts shows that they were received on March 11, 2002, with sufficient time for Mr. and Mrs. Miller to provide the necessary authorization. 6. Without the written authorization from Mr. and Mrs. Miller, I was unwilling to post their property, because such posting would be, technically, a trespass. As a result, I caused the posting of the property immediately to the north, along the street, at a point as close as possible to the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Miller. STEPH N R.ANGEL Sworn to before me this 21' day of March 2002. 414/1/") Notary P e lic MARGARET BIZZ000 Notary F•uL'.n r.:;ci New York No : :;91045 ,o,k County Commission Expires May 31,20 L..4:.;� t , ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL ' COUNSELORS AT LAW - / - - IOB EAST MAIN STREET , P. 0. Box 279 - RIVERHEAD, N.Y, 11901-0279 - WILLIAM W ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTER MONTAUK HIGHWAY ' STEPHEN R.ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 P. 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R. KRATZ _ WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 JOHN M.WAGNER . (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY _ , CARMELA M. DI TALIA 7 ANTHONY C. PASCA ' NICA B. STRUNK January 16, 2002 , 'Mr. and Mrs.James Miller , - ; 1610 Paradise Point Road ' Southold, NY 11971 ' Re: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 ' SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19.004 V __ Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller: - _ V Enclosed please find a copy of an application filed with the Zoning Board of v , Appeals on 1/14/02, which seeks reversal of the Southold Town's Building Department's Building Permit and C.O. issued 11/13/01 and 11/30/01 , respectively, in connection with , 1 the premises owned by you. - ' We are serving you with these papers upon the instructions of the Zoning Board , of Appeals., V Ver truly yours, ' SRA:mb S EPI-I N R.-ANG Enc. - ,t I ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P 0. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. I 1901-0279 ' WILLIAM W. ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z HEFTERMONTAUK HIGHWAY TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 , P. 0. Box 570 STEPHEN R. ANGEL JANE ANN R. KRATZ WATER MILL, N Y 11976 JOHN M. WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY , - CARMELA M. Di TALIA - ANTHONY C. PASCA 8, �] NICA B STRUNK - March 2002 _ ,James and Barbara Miller , James and Barbara Miller , 538 Edwards Avenue P. 0., Box 610 , Calverton, NY 11933 Main Road - Calverton, NY 11933-0610 - . Re: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971, . , - , SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19.004 ' ' Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller: . As you know, we represent,Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and Katherine P. Macari,, who are seeking an interpretation from the Zoning Board Of Appeals with respect to the structure installed on your 'property. ,l enclose a copy of a notice that I received from the Board of Appeals asking us, among other things, to post a sign on your property. Would you kindly authorize us to post the sign in accordance with the ' requirements of the Zoning Board of Appeals by signing and returning this letter to me by fax on or before March 13, 2002. Our fax number is 369-2065. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation. - , ' ' V: y truly, yoUrs, _ ' LO i SRA:mb - - ANG ► . Enc. ►' - --i' t . . . . . , i., # i, , Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO POST OUR, PROPERTY Regular Mail ' ' , Miller , , 03/kJ//20r12 10:zi bjl luJJ.,-, -• ' c''':- OFFICE OF ' . • ' y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road P.Q: Box 1179 - • Southold, NY 11971-0959 Email: Linda.Kowals(:ciQTown•South0ld.nv.us or ,. Pa ula.Quitttier,S Town.Southold_nv•us fax (631) 765-9064 (631) 765-1809 ' $.e W 1 - March 5. 2002 Re. Chapter 58—Public Notice for Thursday, March 21, 2002 Hearing /¢ (?94 Dear m Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times - Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be now mailed with a map or sketch showing the construction area or variance being considered. Send the enclosed Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, with a copy of a map on Monday, March iith, or sooner showing your,project area, to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (785-1937) or the County Real Properly Office in Riverhead If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. • ' When picking up the sign, a $15 check will be requested for each metal stand as a deposit (if needed) There is no cost for the sign without a stand Please post the Town's official poster/sign no later than March 1414. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard ) The sign(s)must remain , in place for at least seven (7) days, and should remain posted through the day of the hearing If , you need a replacement sign, please contact us By March 14th, please submit to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers noted for each, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. Later, when the green signature cards are returned'to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us (but not later than the date of the hearing) If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing By March 20"', and after the signs have been in place for seven (7)days, please submit your signed Affidavit 'of Posting to our office. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. (Please feel free to return the metal stands to our office for a return of your deposit) If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly- Thank you for - your cooperation Very truly yours, Enclosures ZBA Board Members and Staff ' ` P.S. Please pick up the poster sign during the week of March 11th, but not lifer than March 14,h. Thank you. , f •• t i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD X APPLICATION OF JERRY CALLIS, File No. 5072 JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARI AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING With respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller located at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19 . 004 X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS . : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Sandra Woessner, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 1 . I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age, and reside in Riverhead, New York. 2 . On the 8th day of March, 2002, I served a true copy of the within Notice from Southold Zoning Board of Appeal dated 3/5/02 and correspondence from Stephen R. Angel dated 3/8/02 , by regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon: James and Barbara Miller James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue P. 0. Box 610 Calverton, NY 11933 Main Road Return Receipt No. : Calverton, NY 11933-0610 7099 3220 0003 7563 4776 Return Receipt No. : 7099 3220 0003 7563 4769 the addresses designated by said James and Barbara Miller, for that purpose by depositing same enclosed in postpaid properly addressed wrappers, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States postal service within the State of New York. Sandra Woessner Sworn to before me this 11th day of March, 2002 . W Nota4-/1-16tAiLir blic MARGARET BIZZOCO Notary Public, State of New York No. 01614691045 Qualified in Suffolk Coun Commission Expires May 31,201 _ A . . 7- . . . r4 U S Postal ServjCeY 7 yCOMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY �., ���,`, �;��, SENDER:. COMPLETE THIS SECTION CERTIFIEDrMA ` ,4 ./ AIL RECEIPir: , ', • Complete Items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A Beee by(PI se Print Clearly) B Date of Delivery (Domestic M,,e1- ,/y Nos)/n'SuranCe Cov ra item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. (0(-, C // 0Z .' ' `' k -i ,T6.44;•..;; ;g. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse C ture Article SentyTo. . ( ' ❑Agent (� rc so that we can return the card to you. X � I j N ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, iece, \Ittt�����\ � m I [I or on the front if space permits. ❑Addressee rn D Is delivery address different from item 19 0 Yes • Ix PostageIIMIIIII I 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No "' i j [ ' 6arbara ci [ler IN- Certified Fee fri • Return Receipt Fee 1 ��0 E dt,Oar S I c u e me 1:, -(Endorsement Required) I 1` n ' ❑ Restricted Delivery Fee ea E U.61 f011)•�1 I l i)• 1[q 3-3 i C3 (Endorsement Required) U 3 Service Type ❑ Total Postage&Fees - ckl Certified Mail 0 Express Mail f-I ❑ Registered Return Receipt for Merchandise Ill Name(pleasp�nt `o��o be 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O D. "1 Y mailer) p^ Street,Apt.---------------o. ---7--"------ 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes Er 5�� _ No. ❑ Ed w c, 2 Article Number(Copy from service label) R Ctty,State I + �..� -e - I • cetukrfon �D��� ,3��:� , ora 3; �51�3 77 N �[Cj`Dj3 i it i is Ilii ie ilii e i � ' _PS`Form 38 9104141y' 1:999 +,,I Domestic Return Receipt 102595.00-M-0952 I _ � PS Form 3811,July 1999 i _ SeeR,ve"rselfo" I I 1 r - - SENDER:COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY U.S.Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received b (Please Print Clearly) B Date of Delivery ' 1 (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverag item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ` � � • �� � G • Print your name and address on the reverse Article Sent To: • so that we can return the card to you. C. nature\ ) / Q' ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, x \\_��, )• Agent I f- 3 d�j Ile-ir or on the front if space permits. dressee = r'/ D Is delivery address different from item 19 0 Yes fv 1. Article Addressed to:, If YES,enter delivery address below 0 No • Postage $ .21 1 it �oX1�/\,ra Mille( e 4 Certified Fee I P.O, boxISJl o �9 f ) m /Return Receipt Fee M Abaci J Ili 1 I� , ndorsement Required) f 1 1Q t j1 4' U +O Restricted Delivery Fee ,"I l n I p (Endorsement Required) a luerion) I V�'�" it -Q l 3 3-0 c.D i'0 3 ervice Type 0 Total Postage&Fees $ j U Certified Mail 0 Express Mail fU I 0 Registered • Return Receipt for Merchandise ILJ Name(Please PilJt Clearly)( be ompleted by mailer) 0 Insured Mail C.O D. m d- 1l . Yes Street Apt.No.;or PO Box,(yq Er { '0 K oy (pit) , 1 lain(� cepa./�(� 2. Article rN�uQmber(Copp ffrromr service� label) -7 � ' Cli ate,ZIR+4 ! I�J� V�--I� •,7V'1� AJC7(+V O-1)5 -15031 /60'' iii ii ri , ' , i f P- 1 •' CTJ I " " See Revers PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.00-M-0952 PSIForm`389R.Juy 1999 _ _ .i. 11. I I I j = • ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL- COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST,MAIN STREET P. 0 Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y.,11901-027 9 WILLIAM W ESSEKS (631) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MARCIA Z. HEFTERMONTAUK HIGHWAY STEPHEN R ANGEL TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369 2065 P 0. Box 570 JANE ANN R INGEL WATER MILL, N.Y 11976 JOHN M. WAGNER (631) 726-6633 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M DI TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA p NICA B STRUNK March 8, 2002 James and Barbara Miller James and Barbara Miller 538 EdwarclsAveliue P. O. Box 610 Calverton, NY 11933 Main Road Calverton, NY 11933-0610 Re: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCTM:No. 1000-081-3-19.004 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller: Enclosed please fincl a copy of an application filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals on.1/14/02, which seeks reversal of the Southold Town's Building Department's Building Permit and C.O. issued 11/13/01 and 11/30/01, respectively, in connection with the premises owned by you. We are serving you with these papers upon the instructions of the Zoning Board of Appeals. U.s.alist l def UIEe U.S.tyostel SeI•iiice CEhtIliEb MAIL MECEIItt ' CEIItIFIEti MAIL hECEIIjt (ddHtestic Mail tiHly; hid INSUFdttce tdULYdde provided) (dditiestic Mail dtify; Nd CttsUlaFice Cot'ekdye provided) .._ . .,AlUcle S�Ht Td ..„.... Article Sent To: _ 6 miller p-P � �1iIle m restage jJ l(IC 10 I m Postage $ Ul Certified Fee Ln r• Certified Fee m Return Receipt Fee Postmark Return Receipt Fee Postmark (Endorsement Required) _ _ Here m P ndorsement Required) Here CI I Restricted Delivery Fee 0 Restricted DeliveryFee O (Endorsement Required) _ 0 (Endorsement Reuired) O Total Postage&Fees $ A Total Postage&Fees $ ru / RI (ii Name(Pl ase Print Clearly (To be completed by mailer) m Name(Please Prigt Cle rly)( be ompleted by mailer) j �e Iflt iter J JUi'(t r Er Street,Apt.No.;or PO Box No. Q-. sheet,Apt No.;or PO Box 5 i dit xtrzt s Pnie,i1tC� n' li'O.boy (plc) am �{oad City,State'�l it N C ate,ZI17+Qr / N z'� rtor1 N 11Q33 tt re) -- 'ID PS FtitNi 380U,JUI 1999.., See RI iit(-U tot.list)- Etld ?; pS„dHui 38U0,,,_tfy 099 ...,:... - Sed •etre}-s9 ol• 1 sttllt;tljh , -` Assigned No. . I ror Oftice Use Only: Fee $, . T( 4 OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED; •• 11• (certificatef ?ccupancy) • %�3o%O TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; V(We) Jerry Callist John Petrocelli apd Joseph Maca i i, (Appellant) �af..c/.o..Bseeks.,.l3nt ltex. ..Qnge t (Tel # 631 369-1700 ) HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED �,T.( ./,Q).. ..11/. 0/0l WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AN APPLICATION DATED,JQ/.t-Ai. .• FOR: ( x) Permit to Build APPROVED ( X) Permit for Occupancy ( x) Permit to Use ( ) Permit for As-Built ( ) Other: 1. Location of Property 1610 Paradise Point Road Zone R-80 District 1000 Section 081 Block 3 Lot(s). 19.004 Current OwnerJames and Barbara Mill •r 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the liyw.) Article Section 100- Sub-Section *SEE ADDENDHM 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal Is made herewith for: ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. ( ) Interpretation of Article , Section 100- (x) Reversal eFOthiew and certificate of occupancy referred to abc ve for noncompliance with sections cited 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has) 1) been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector (Appeal #4537 Year 1998 ) REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature): *SEE ADDENDUM AREA VARIANCE REASONS: . (1) An undesirable .,hange will not be produced In the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to n. ;rby properties, If granted, because; .,(2) The benefit sougtil by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief regoe sted is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in t:ie neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. This is the MINIMUM that Is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box If USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are completed and attached. Sworn to b- ore me this • 14th �.. of •,T�Ru�Fx 02. ( gnat�re of �� • ant or Authorized Agent) C , 20_ (Agent must submit Authorizgiion from Owner) • JERRY CALLIS Notary Public ZBA App 0; 10 ANTHONY C.PASCA • Notary Public,Stale of New York No.02PA5055606,Sulfolk County_ • Commission Expires Feb. 12,20(L.� AI)I)ENI)IUM 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Article 1 Section 100-13, s Sub-Section: various terms defined therein Article Ill Section 100-31 Sub-Section: n/a Article III Section 100-33 Sub-Section: n/a Article XXIII Section 100-230 Sub-Section: D REASONS FOR APPEAL: The building permit and certificate of occupancy were improperly issued because they violate the sections of the Zoning Ordinance referred to above, they violate the previous appeal #4537 of 1998, they violate decisions issued by courts of competent jurisdiction, and are otherwise violative of New York zoning law. • (� FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 27894 Z Date NOVEMBER 13 , 2001 Permission is hereby granted to: JAMES & BARBARA MILLER PO BOX 610 CALVERTON,NY 11933 for : CONSTRUCTION OF 60 SQ. FT. PLATFORM, LOCATED 20 ' FROM THE APPARENT HIGH WATER FOR A MONUMENT AND TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEC AND TRUSTEES at premises located at 1610 PARADISE POINT RD SOUTHOLD County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 081 Block 0003 Lot No. 019 . 004 pursuant to application dated OCTOBER 12 , 2001 and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $ 75 . 00 • '''',;.)1/4t>41!1:011, 4/16 Authorizes ignat e ORIGINAL Rev. 2/19/98 FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: Z-28096 Date: 11/30/01 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ACCESSORY Location of Property: 1610 PARADISE POINT RD SOUTHOLD (HOUSE NO. ) (STREET) (HAMLET) County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 81 Block 3 Lot 19.4 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated OCTOBER 12, 2001 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 27894-Z dated NOVEMBER 13, 2001 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is PLATFORM WITH MONUMENT AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to JAMES & BARBARA MILLER (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A Autho r zed Sigzr'z-ure Rev. 1/81 t t, 170 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ''i - 53095 Main Road 0�' (0Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �� �� James Dinizio,Jr. len z 1' P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora O ���' Southold,New York 11971 Lora S. Collins =,_y�lj Off' ZBA Fax(516)765-9064 %George Homing =�1 1„,40Telephone(516)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1998 , Appl. No. 4537 - BUILDING DEPARTMENT by Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement, Town of Southold Location of Property: Town-Wide, Town of Southold Date of Public Hearing: February 26, 1998 Section of Code Interpreted: Section 100-13 (Definitions). WHEREAS, Application No. 4537 is a request for an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Article I, Section 100-13 (Definitions) of a "building," to determine whether or not a 40-ft. high sculpture is a building within the language of said provision; and if it is a building, whether or not it is subject to the height • limitations of Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code; and • WHEREAS, after due notice a public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on February 26, 1998 in the Assembly Room, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York to consider this application; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, all testimony has been carefully considered and the following pertinent facts noted: 1. The definition of a "building" in Section 100-13 of the • Zoning Code reads as follows: "BUILDING - Any structure having a roof supported by such things as columns, posts, piers, walls or air intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so • as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no building was present. The term "building" shall include the tern "structure" as well as the following: (1) signs (2) fences (3) walls • (4) radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennas, amateur radio antennas and wireless communication facility receiving and transmitting antennas, except for radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennas, amateur radio • • • ' Page 2 - March 3, 1998 171 Re: ZBA Appl. No. 4537 Request for Interpretation antennas installed on the roof of a building and extending not more than 20 feet above the highest level of the roof of such building. (5) porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures.... 2. Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code limits the height of accessory buildings and structures at a mean height of 18 feet, and which section specifically reads as follows: Article III, Section 100-33 at pages 10052-10053 reads: 100-33. . . accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. . . . 3. AMC, Section 100-230 of the Zoning Code provides certain exemptions from the height limitations. 4. The Board of Appeals is not in a position at this time (and is unable) to respond to the request for an interpretation as to whether or not such as building is subject to the height.limitations because such a determination must be made on the basis of specific facts pertaining to a specific building, and no such facts were submitted to the Board in this interpretive proceeding. On motion offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Dini.zio IT IS RESOLVED by the Board of Appeals that the application of Southold Town Building Department, requesting an Interpretation, is hereby ANSWERED as follows: A 40 ft. high sculpture is a building as defined in the Zoning Code under Section 100-13. VOTE OF THE BOARD: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO and COLLINS. (Absent were: Members To andIa .• I . This resolution was duly ADOPTED (3-0). / ...GERARD P. GOEIIRIN ' r • " MAN Approved for Filing PLC IjJ�D AND 171.1:7,.D Bit TLI DI:TE 34/fr j.; . . /z: azd • • Town Cl.:: Ji L 1. • • • 172 • OrrF0/.4— • ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE . ' '' G ` Town Hall,53095 Main Road • 7 ri .t P.O.Box 1179 TOWN CLERK tt_:�= .,;�,,•. .:;;,;..y�• z = Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS "' i' ^t Fax(516)765-1823 MARRIAGE OFFICER 0!- Telephone(516) 765-1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER , � Ol FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD C.)/ TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals . FROM: Elisabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: . January 7, 1998 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4537 - Southold Town Building Department Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 14537 - SOUTHOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT submitted by Edward Forrester for an interpretation whether a sculpture platform requires a building permit. There is no fee charged for processing this application. 173• ra.pc V41)_� "S'' `� �0 CO" Southold Town Hall ° EDWARD FORRESTER O G cf�� � Director of Code Enforcement 53095 Main Road c ''{� P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 y o� Fax(516)765-1823 r► RECElVr9l * � Telephone(516)765-1802 JAPE 6 MF, BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD own Clerk Southold ,-MEMORANDUM TO: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Ed Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement DATE: January 6, 1998 • RE: Request for Interpretation The Building Department has recently received a building permit application far a sculpture platform. The applicant advises us that he plans to erect a forty foot tall sculpture of steel wire on the platform. I need an interpretation whether a forty foot sculpture is a building as defined in Southold Town Code §100-13. The definition says: BUILDING —Any structure having a roof supported by such things as columns,, posts, piers, walls or air and intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where, entirely underground so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no "building"was present. The term "building" shall include the term "structure" as well as the following: (1) Signs. (2) Fences. (3) Walls. (4) Radio and television receiving and transmitting towers and antennas, except for such antennas installed on the roof of a building and extending not more than twenty (20) feet above the highest level of the roof of such building. (5) Porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures. • • 174 Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals January 6, 1998 Page 2 . Clearly the sculpture does not have a roof and is not intended for shelter, business, housing or enclosing persons. However, the definition appears to include any combination of materials forming any construction. "Construct" is defined as "to build, form, or devise by fitting parts or elements together systematically." , To date, the Building Department has not required building permits for small • sculptures, like flamingos or lawn jockeys. However, the height and complexity of this sculpture is much greater than those. Are sculptures °buildings" under our code? Should only those sculptures of a certain height or construction complexity be considered "buildings" under our code? If the sculpture is not considered a building, the permit for the platform alone will be straightforward. However, if the sculpture is considered a building, I also need an interpretation as to the applicability of the height requirements of this code. Southold Town Code §100-33, Accessory buildings, provides: In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R- ' 80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Since the proposed sculpture is forty feet high, it will have problems unless the exceptions in §100-230 are applicable:That section provides: D. Height exceptions. The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transmission towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that any television or radio aerial shall not be located nearer than a distance equal to its height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than two hundred twenty (220) volts. • • 175 Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals January 6, 1998 . Page 3 (2) Bulkheads, observation towers, monitors, fire towers, hose towers, cl cooling towers, water towers, grain elevators or other structures where a manufacturing process requires greater height, provided that any such . structures that are located on any roof area that exceed in height the limits in the particular district shall not in the aggregate occupy more than twenty percent (20%) of the horizontal area of the roof and are set back one (1) foot from the edge of the roof for each additional foot in height • greater than the specified height. This section exempts monuments from the height requirements. Does the term monuments include sculptures? Are any of the other exemptions, like towers, applicable? If so, the sculpture would not require a height variance. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please let me know if you need additional information. `l • • 176 2 - Stop Work Order dated March 26, 1998 (Pages 176-177) • ' STATE OF NEW YORK This Is to certify that I, Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk of the SUFFOLK COUNTY Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the Town of 'ce of the Town Clerk ss: p foregoing copy OWN OF SOUClerk of. . II•• Stop.Work Order, js$uq(EY Building pepartasent .on. . �� d .Nri pg881-3:19_4. 1610 Paradise Point.Road,Southold, •N.Y. to genal now on file in this office, and that the same Is a correct and ��� true transcript of such original . Stop.Work •Order. `� on SC?M.No- .100-81.-3-19,4.Paradise .Point R ad, uy Building •al) dated 3/26/98 0�. Soutttod,, .M,y, In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set myha and the whole thereof. said Town this .10th, day of .August; 17. 19n98and affixed the seal of ad;z4,,,,to C ... . : Town Clerk of tile Town of Southold, County of uffolk, N.Y. 161,,,,1514; 1 i k,,/IL2( i `/ 177 ,, �gUFFO(,tc- /1? . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road i Fax(516)765-1823 P. O. Box 1179i Telephone (516)765-1602 Southold, New York 11971 ;A0 aO\s��,► OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED AND FILED BY, STOP WORK ORDER THE SOUTHOLD TOVIII CLERK DATE 1- I/JQ HOUR 14:60 AY) TO: James & Barbara Miller P.O. Box 610 Main Rd. Town Clerk, Town of Southold Calverton, N.Y. 11933 • YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: 1610 PARADISE POINT ROAD, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. • • TAX MAP NUMBER -1000-81-3-19.4 Pursuant to Section 45-8 of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York, you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded • BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. / � DATED: MARCH 26, 1998 ��• ' MICHAEL J. ' ERITY BUILDING INSPECTOR. ' : ,. I . . ' `---. -APPLICANT • TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE PORN The Town of Southold ' s Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of • • ' interest on the part of town' officers and employees . 'The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of passible •eanflicLe oC nbereet and allow iL • Lo take whatever action is necessary to avoid same . YOUR NAHE: Callas, Jerry; Petrocelli, John; Macara, Joseph ' (Last• name , first nameq middle initial , unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such ata . a company . If so, indicate the • other person ' s or company ' s :name . ) • NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply . ) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone . Approval 'of plat • Exemption from plat; or official map Other g ( If "Other, 'i name the activity . ) • , , . • . „ • , _ , • , • 4 I •terminat ons Un you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent:, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "business interest" means a business; including a partnership, in , which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by)• a corporation in which the Lown officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO X If you answered "YES, n• complete the balance of this form and 1 ' date and sign where indicated: 1 • Name of person employed by the Town of • Southold - Title or position of that Person • Describe Llie relaL•ionshlp between yourself ( the applicant ) and the town officer or employee . Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space ce ' The town officer or employee or his or her spouse , sibling, parent- , or child is ( check all that apply ) * A ) the owner of greater that! 5% of the shares of the • corporate stock of the applicant (When the applicant; ' is a corporation ) ) 8) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity ( when the applicant is nob a corporal ion) t C) an officer, director , partner, or employee of the applicants or D) the actual applicant- . . DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ' Z.mvZ . Submitted l:h . s , /'3/ day of , 71-99- • , Si• gnature .► /pP6 PC lr1L name Jerry Ca.111s • • • • • • • • • • QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH' YOUR Z.•B.A. APPLICATION ' A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: • . (Separate sheet may be attached. ) James and Barbara Mlller • • B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale or being shown to prospective buyers? [ ) Yes ( ) No. / (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of Sale. ) Unknown C. Are there any proposals to change or alter land coatours? [ } Yes• ( } No Unknown • . . _ • NOT APPLI- D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? CABLE TO 2 . Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with ISSUES.RAISED this application? (N/A) 3 . Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4. If your property contains wetlands qr pond areas, have • you contacted the Office of. the Town. Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? • 'N/A E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of 'proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea . level? (If not applicable, state "N.A. " ) • N/A F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that' you are submitting? If none exist, please state "none. " N/A G. Do you have any construction taking place. at this time • concerning your premises? If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. N/A H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this • parcel? If yes, please explain where or submit copies • of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel single family home and proposed use single family home and structure In violation of height and/or use limitations. 11 ,,, P-I1D`a • -d . - Dai • . • Collis 3/87,87 , 10/901k monthly 1466OzlZit/ lc i kr-,1,1r4-6-kr,oont'y1 • moneth,month,fr.OE mdnath. akin to 0110 mdndd month, not your mind you are no maiden but n,r—Shak.) 7:a of the people,but I would cheerfully gratify their humors— ON mdnarhr, Goth menoths month,mena moon—more at natural or artificial but permanent object sensing to indicate a Edmund Burke) TTMrrn can apply to it mood dominated by a 'loo'.] 1 : a measure of time corresponding or nearly cor- limit or to mark a boundary (as a lake,stream,blazed tree, single strong emotion,usu anger when the term is unmodified; responding to the period of the moon s resolution:as It:a iron pin) 8:a natural feature(as a mountain or canyon)or when modified by an adjceise indicating the controlling emo- period of approximately lour weeks.30 days,or MS of a year an area of special historic or scientific interest(as a battle site tion,the term indicates any humor manifest in a display of feel• based primarily on the period of the moon's resolution and or fossil remains)that is set aside by a local or national govern- ing(found his friend in quite a temper)(wake up in a foul cycle of phase changes—see ANOMALISTIC MONTH, NODICAL went as public property 9:a rock pinnacle or column result- temper) (find his boss in a pleasant temper) WIN is often MONTrt,SIDEREAL Mortise SY'iopiC MONTH.TROPICAL MO'TI ing from erosion and resembling a man-made monument— used in the sense of MooD,usu.suggesting greater transiton- b:one of the twelse portions into which the year is disided in compare I1o0000 10 : a written tribute : TTsrivsoivEst. (a nese. or of Huston but almost devoid of any implication of the Gregorian calendar;also:a similar portion of a year in model of appreciatise biography,a charming-,to a great man physical or temperamental cause(the whole is written in a rein any calendar a:a period of time about the length of a lunar —l.F Hamlin) of ironic seriousness—II 1 Laski)(be in a jubilant rein after month but not necessarily coinciding with a calendar month 'mon•u•ment \-,ment, -moot —see'vstvr\ et-rot-ivo/-s a small triumph)(make a request of a man while he is in as d . months. pl: on Indefinite usu extended period of time 1:to erect a monument to:signalire the memory of:cosi- affable and generous vein) (been asking you to come forward for---s—Oraham Greene) MENORATE 2 : to place or set up monuments on (erected 'mood \"\ it -s (alter (influenced by 'mood) of 'made) 2 a archaic:a lunar month in common law b:a period of chapels and altars there,and red the places of sacred scenes 1 0:the form of a syllogism classified according to the quan• time presumed by statute in the U.S and Great Britain to and associations—liezekiah Butterworth) 3:to mark with tity and quality of the constituent propositions and tradition• mean a calendar month 3 : one ninth of the typical duration monuments in surseying(in locating..--Ing,and mapping the ally shown by a sequence formed from the letters A.C.I,0 of human pregnancy(the was in her eighth-r)—month of boundary.extemhse use has been made of the geodetic maps such that the first letter indicates the major premise,the sec- Sundays usu capS:an Indefinitely long time(hadn't been any- of North America—U.S.Dally)) and the minor, and the third the conclusion — compare where for a month of Sundays) mon•u•mon•tal\:manya:ment'I\adJ(LL monumenralls,fr L mune 10.orroanioN 2a(2) b:MOUE lb 2 a:distinction of 'month•ly\'man(t)lhlS,-li\ads month 4- -ly (adv.suffix)] monumenrum monument + roils-all la obs:of or relating to form in a sorb to express whether the action or state it denotes :once a month:by the month(the annuity is payable semi- a sepulcher(that whiter skin of hers than snow,and smooth Is conceived as fact or in some other manner (as command, annually,quarterly,or-r—1.11.Maclean> as -r alabaster —SIIak) to : using as a monument (-- possibility,or wish) (the Latin verb has person,tense,rum. 'monthly \ad)[month+-ly(adj suffix)] 1:of or relating chapels of this style—Thomas Rickman) 2 : resembling a her,-r,and voice) b:a set of inflectional forms of a sub to a month. as a t payable esery 0 month(-r allowances to monument•as :basing imprecise bulk or size:IMMehSE, that express whether the action or state it denotes is conceived parents for the maintenance...ofthechild—Current Wog.) massive<the entrance on this side is vigorously indicated , as fact or in some other manner (the indicative --) (the :reckoned by the month(an average"-wage) C:based on by a great—'carriageway—Amer Guide Series N,Y.CIty) imperatise-r)(the sub unctisc-r)(the optatise'-) C:the a month(a--rate)(-r statistics) 2:having a duration done (the steps are flanked by-r sculptures—Amer.Guide Series part of the meaning off a verb form that consists of the ex. month:completed ina month(the resolution of the moon) La.)(he could paint superbly on a scale—Herbert Read) pression of whether the action or state it denotes Is conceited 3:occurring.appearing,or being made,done,or acted upon b:marked by outstanding quality : highly significant : is- as fact or in some other manner 3:MODE lb every month or once a month(produces a-'television show) gsrntwat.e(in this-,work the entire storehouse of the world's mood•1•ly \'mUd'II?. -dal], li\ ads : in a moody manner (a^-magazine) at is surveyed —oder) (he was too modest, and had too :DISMALLY,GLOOMILY 'monthly\"\it-Es 1:a periodical that is published regularly varied tastes . to care to be the—critic—T.S Eliot) 3:of. mood•i•ncss\-dgnls,-din-\n•ss:the quality or state of be. once a month 2 monthlies pl:a menstrualriod relating to, or belonging to a monument : occurring on a g moody:M +IQ04 ELA /OL.r,0100 monthly concert n:a monthly meeting formein r held In some monument(failed to carry the use of the arch into- arcltitec• mood swing n('mood):a marked change In mood em to Protestant Christian churches for the purpose ofoffering con- tore—A L. roeber)(a script—Maurice Vieyra) 4:very elation or depression (as in cyclothymia)(certain personality certed prayer for missions great—used as an intensive(potable for their—respectability characteristics such as mood swings,paranoid features and monthly coact n:ErAcr lb —John Kohler) ('- failures of the past —W b Swinton) self punishment doses—t;F Kerman) monthly meellagg n,wit cap both Ali 1:an organizational (their Inertia is as'— os their grief —John Mason Brown) 'moody\'mUde. di\ad)•ER/-rsr(ME mody.fr OE'While.fr. unit of the Soelety of Friends made up of one or several syn see MASSIVE,MOTSTROIiS mod mood,courage+ -ig•y—more at Moot)) 1 ohs:full of local congregations—see QUARTERLY same° 2:a session mon•u•mon•tal•!sm \,•.'ment'1,icscn\ n -s : a monumental wrath:ANGRY 2 a:subject to or characterized by depression of a Monthly Meeting style or discontent:situ IN,OLOOMY(mental depression made him month's mind it (MB moneth mynde, fr,moneth month + mon•u•mon•tal•I.ty\,••mao•'alad•0, -,men•- -lat8, -i\n -Es .. morose.—,and at times childish--C N Boyd)(grew•r mynde mind) 1 Roman Catholicism : a requiem mass for a : the quality or state of being monumental (differentiates and petulant and would not eat—Pearl Buck) b:subject to person a month after his death 2 Brit:strong desire: IN- modern design from the immobile and ponderous of the past moods:Tu.IPT1AMLVrAt (-r artist)(outscheming the--winds CUNATION(i see you have a month's mind to them—Shak) —Lewis Mumford) —K D Curtis) C:expressive of a mood(the meanings come mon•tia\'manna\n,cop(NL,fr.Giuseppe Monti 11760 Itat mon•u•men•tal.lie\,•.'ment'l,tz\ rt-rp/-mei/-s:to record through as a result of some fine--direction—Hollis Alpert) botanist& NL-la]:a small genus of densely tufted annual or memorialize lastingly by or os if by a monument:to make 'moody\'mUdi\tar o/Mottoes herbs (family Portulacaceae) having opposite fleshy leases, monumental mooed past of MOO flowers with two sepals and three white petals.and a three. mon•u•men•tal•ly \:msnya:ment'Is, 'li\ ods : in a mono- mooing n-t(fr gerund of'moo):smoo seeded capsule—see DUNKS.TOAO LILY,WATER CHICKWEED mental manner(-r shy—Robert Henderson))(built mostly of moot\mU1\n-s(by alter ) 1 dial Dell:'Nola I 2 dial Brit mon•U•e01.11to \,manta'se,llt, Abe- n -s (Teodoro Mona. sandstone. It rises- —Christopher Mand) :'MoLo 2b erlll (1845 Ital.naturalist 4- B-lee) : a mineral CoMgSiOs mon•u•mont•less calf:having no monuments moo•la or moo•lah \'mUla\ n -s (origin unknown] slang consisting of a colorless or gray calcium magnesium silicate re- monument plant n:AMraiCAN COLuao0 :MONEY(ninety grand is a lot of ti—Harold Robbins) toted to olivine mony\'mans,-n!\chiefly Scor lar of MANY mool•ey\'mUll\chieflydial rat of MULCT mon•U•cle\'mantlkal\n-s(F monticule—more at MOTETS- mon•zo•nhto\'m5nz,,,nit, mDn-\ n -s (I' fr. Mt.Monzonl, mool•ingu\'niUllnz,•10x\n pl(pl of mooting,gerund of Se cuLt):a little hill northeast Italy + F-Ire] 1 :a granular igneous rock corn- moot to crumble.Ir.moot,n J Scot:enuMD mon•tlo•u•lato\msn•'tikyallt\adJ[monticule+-ate]:baring posed of plagioclase and orthoclase in about equal quantities moolve0 rat of MAULvt monticules together with augite and a little biotite 2 : any of a large 'moon \'mUn\ n s often atrrib (ME mono, moony, fr.013 mon•U•culo\'menta,kyUl\n•s(F.fr.LL monticulus dim of group of rocks intermediate between the syen(te group and the mina; akin to O11G mdno L mom-,mons mountain—more at mower] 1:a little mount diorite-gabbro group—mon•zo•nll•ie\:••:nid•ik\ad) moon. ON mint, Goth mena :a smalelevation or prominence:IaLwcc 2:a subordinate 'mon \'mU\ rb-tDu' /- o/-s(brit] ri: to make the natural moon, L mends month, Gk d Oe cone of a volcano throat noise of a cow:Low —rr:to utter with a sound re. min month, min? moon, Skt0 1 O mon•U•cu•llp•ora \,rnentakya'Upara\ n, cop [NL, fr. LL semUm e lowing of a cow(meltingly--a religious ballad mai, masa moon, month, and 1 3 1_b monticulus+NL-pora):a genus of fossil bryozoans forming —Punch) perh to Skt min he measures— 4 1 1 massise zoaria similar to coral and composed of polygonal 'moo\"\n-s 1:the lowing of a cow 2:a sound that re- more at MEASURE] 3. a : the • mostly thin-walled zooecla and represented by numerous semblcs a moo earth's only known natural Q t 3 sr,e,4t 1 T species In the Ordovician and extending Into the Silurian— moo•ealt\'rnUka\n-s(prob by alter]:MARIJUANA satellite and next to the sun the will, a mon•U•cu•llp'o•rld.d•an\'• :ridtan\ad/or n—mon. 'mooch\'much)rb.et)/-'N0/-rs(prob.fr.F dial.muchler to most conspicuous object In the U•eu•llp•o•rold\:•••:••,rad\aril or n hide, lurk]N 1 dial chiefly Brit • to absent oneself : play heasens shining by the sun's re- li 6 8 mon•Ua•u•loso\man•'tikya.los\adJ(LLmonrlculus+B-ou] truant 2:to move slowly or apathetically;wander aimlessly fleeted light,revolsing about the 1 7 1 •covered with small eminences :AMOLP,SAUNTER(the crowd'--ed away in sullen disinterest earth from west to cast in about 0 1 0h moi•tic•u•lous\•.las\ad)(ML monrlculosus,fr.LL monticu- —Bruce Marshall)(hateful to be without a garden,there is 29)5 days with reference to tho hu+ L roes•oua]:MONmmCuLATB nowhere to sit or—'—Gladys IL Stern)(--Tri forward on to the sun or about 2714 days with OS mon•Uc•t•lus \•las\ n -Es (LL — more at MONrlcuanJ grass where he sat down ,. and emitted two short, gruff reference to the stars,having a 1:stownEULt 2(NL.fr.LLJ:the median dorsal projection barks—Mervyn Wall)(the destroyer-red around all over the diameter of 2160 miles and a phases of the moon: 1-8 of the cerebellum channel for two weeks—Irwin Shaw),sped):SUNK(heard I mean distance from the earth of showing the moon in orbit mon•tIh.la\man•'tlla\n-s(Sp,fr.Montilla, Iowa in Spain] had been-tint round his house and spying—John Buchan) about 238,857 miles, a masa around the earth;;a-h cor• •a very pale dry sherry 3:to take without giving:impose or another's hospitality or about one eightieth that of the responding phases as seen mont•mar•trlto\mans mar trIt\n-s(F,fr.Montmartre,sec- generosity:srotvor,cADOC(—ed on relatives for a Using so he earth and a volume about one from the earth;I new moon, tion of Paris. France, its locality + F-Ire] : gypsum from could devote full time to his art)(a rich young man addicted forty ninth, and rotating as it 3 first quarter.J full moon, ' Montmartre to-ring from his friends—Newsweek) 4 Nest:to troll(an revolves so that it always pre- 7 last quarter,a new moon. mont•mo.rU•Ion•Ito \,mantma'rila nit\ n -s (F, fr. Mont- for salmon)with a spinner or spoon(the angler may spin or-r sent'nearly the same face to the b waxing crescent. c half. morlllon,Dept.Vienne,France+ I1-ire):a soft clay mineral on the same trip, as fancy dictates —Fisherman's Eitcye) earth b : one complete moon moon,dgibbous,efull moon. RMitAlsSii1Ose(O1f)s'a11,O with R representing exchange- -.et 1:to take surreptitiously:make off with:SNEAK.STEAL cycle consisting of four phases /gibbous,a half-moon, able bases that is usu.white,grayish,pale red,or blue and that (-r an apple when the huckster isn't looking) 2:to get by (the old--in the arms of the h waning crescent consists of a hydrous aluminum silicate with considerable coaxing or wheedling:(-woos,DEO(a dark-eyed urchin came new) — see ruts. MOON, NEAPcapacity for exchanging part of the aluminum for magnesium, up and treed to—a cigarette—Newsweek)(forest ponies . Ll MOON; compare ccrse, olotious, UDRAT,ON, nue o:ass alkalies,and other bases—compare sucroatte—mont•mo- line the roads on Sundays to--tea buns from picnickers—A.1. satellite in the sky(observing the---s of Jupiter or Saturn) ril•lon•It•lo\:..:..:nWik\ad/ Liebling) (launching of a man-made----L.V Uerkner) 2:the time of a mont•p0•ller\(')mans:ptlya(r),' it-\ad),wit cop[fr. Mont- 'mooch\"\n-Es 1 slang:an act or instance of mooching synodic month(labored for many--sto complete this unusual pellet, VI]:of or from Montpeller, the capital of Vermont :reowL,swum sped):a jazz dance of the 1920s character- work of primitive art—Amer.Guide Series Conn) 3 1 MOON. (Montpelier granite) :of the kind or style prevalent in Mont- !zed by sensuous hip jerking and knee shivering 2 slang trolrT(keep out of the or it may turn your head—H R pelier a:MOODIER b:a customer looking for bargains.sped):an Haggard) 9:something that resembles a moon as a:a disk mont•pol•Uor green\:mtf"pelly8-\n,often cap M(prob.fr, Inexperienced stock speculator(suckers or-ret. .who hose on the face of a clock showing the phases of the moon(the Montpellier,city in southern France]:VERDtORnS 4 in the past bought blue-sky stocks—Industrial Digest) plate that carries the —James I erguson) b:a globe sot. monlppolller yellow n 1 usu cap hi:CASSE,YELLOW 1 2 often moo•cba \'mUcha\ n -s (Zulu unmutsha] : a loincloth of rounding a light(a green--of porcelain o'er a naked electric cap M:oartsrevr 2 animals'tails or strips of animal skin worn by native peoples bulb—Frances lowers) C:a slice bar with a nearly circular mon•tra•cbet\,ma°sra'sh3\n-s usu cap(F,fr Afonrrachet, of So.Africa blade perforated in the middle and used in tending a brickkilo '• vineyard in Dept.Cote-d'Or,France];a white Burgundy wine moocher \'mUcha(r)\ re -s 1 a slang : one that loiters or fire d:a highly translucent spot in old porcelain 0:LUNULI mon•tro \'m8°tra\ n -s (F, lit., show, display, fr. MF, fr, snoops b:an inspector of rivets and welded joints and seams a I:MOON KNITS B:something impossible or inaccessible monad'to show,fr.L monsirare—more at Mus-crR] 1:an of steel structures 2 slang:one that begs or takes surrept- (reach for the--.) 6 slang:'MOONsiun-e 3(five or six good open diapason or other pipe-organ slop having Its pipesds- tiously:CADOFn,ORArrLR 3 Wear:one that trolls for salmon stiff drinks of ti—Sherwood Anderson) 7:pLArr ' played as a part of the organ case 2:Pvaoucrnic CONE with a spinner or spoon 'moon V\ vb-to/-iso/-s er 1 archaic: to expose to moon- mon•tro•al \'man•srt:lel :man-\adf, usu cap(fr, Montreal, Inland\tn Inland Ud\re•s(ME mod,mood,fr.OE mad;akin to 011G light (the huge man not sunning, but -ring hlmteU— Canada):of or from the city of Montreal,Quebec:of the muot emotion, mood mind, purpose. ON mithr wrath, 7 oma'be Quincey) 2:to spend in idle reverie:DREAM— kind or style prevalent in Montreal moodiness, Goth marks coutage, anger, I.mos custom, Gk used with away (-- the afternoon away) 3 : to locale by mon•tro•al•er\-la(r)\n-s cop[Montreal,Canada + 8-B] malesrhal to strive, and perh. to Lith mewl to see, ()Slav sighting against the moon(—a possum)(darted along...MI•a native or Inhabitant of Montreal mould to look) 1 a: a conscious subjectise state of mind i could-r the house with the old stack —Joseph Furphy) mon•Ieoydlto \m5n•'tr0idlt\n -s (hfonrro d Sharpe, 20th : predominant emotion : tLeNo Tera (it had taken 4:to scrape(a skin or hide)with a moon knife ^-H:to 1# u cent.Am mine owner+ -lie]:a mineral IlygO consisting of possession of him again—that indomitable, conquering-"- behase in an abstracted way : most or gaze dreamily or ' mercuric oxide which seemed to give him the right of way wherever he went— absentmindedly: Dashing,°APE(--ed around the house all moats-de-p1618 pi of Mour-De-pstrst O.11 RO(vaag)(sometimes the---of one player may cause him day in a dream—Patrick Campbell) (got to-ring over her mon•tnro\'mancha(r)\n-s(F fr.MF,fr,monger to mount+ to change some detail of interpretation—S E Wier) (the ox dead father—Grace Metalous) (-ring up into his eyes— •ure—more at Moutrr] 1:a frame or setting esp.for a jewel was his companion...and he had walked behind and praised Jack Slater) (--s oser tape recorded music —Gilbert Mill. 1:a manner of mounting or setting(as a jewel) it and cursed it as his-r was—Pearl Buck) b:a particular stein) (-ring over a silken phrase and relaxing the flow of mot•tu•vlo \man•'tUvl,l)\ also mon•tu•bio \-bP,b\ n a state of rend predisposing to action:receptive spirit(in the-r melody to a point where the tempo becomes obscured— (AmerSp,fr Sp monte mountain,forested region—more at to listen to her—Mary Webb)(the House was,of that time,in Roland Gelatt> MONTE]:en Ecuadorian of mixed white,Indian,and Negro no giving -r —T D.Macaulay) 2 archaic : a fit of anger mootol or moonaul Par of NOTAL descen'mon•ut•ment \'manyamant\n -s (MP fr. L monumenrum, 3 a:Ja prevailing aIn ttitude:geeneral spirit:oisr•unto the osnroNrt h(aur moonbi moonbeam\,.\a,ISouth:RIN1:a ray of D tvEcxroight from tDUCK moonhe 1:EPwRl6b monimentum,fr,monire to remind+-mention-mint—more national-r has changed with our fortunes in battle—1 K. 'moon-blind\.:•\ad)['moan+blind):afflicted with woo at MINo 1 obs:a burial vault:sLPULQtEst(her body sleeps Little)(the Indians betrayed their-r by accepting only rifles blindness in Ca s-r,and her immortal part with angels lises—Shak) , and hatchets in payment for their furs —John Mason 'moon-blind\'.,.\n:MOON nue•or•rss 2 archaic :a written legal document or record TREATISE Brown) to : a distinctive atmosphere or emotional context moon blindness n : a periodic ophthalmia or recurrent In. (the critical study of the--s of Roman and feudal law — :tonal quality:AURA(a large open room that had the--,of a flammation of the eye of the horse resulting ultimately In Mark Pattison) 3 a:something that by surviving represents French commercial outpost somewhere in the tropics—D.W. corneal opacity and blindness that has been attributed to or testifies tot r greatness or acbiescmetst cap of an individual Dresden) (the emotional..,of the play—H F(felsenston) genetic factors and to infection but is now usu.considered to or an age(visible-••-s to the early struggles of the pppppploncers... <the ,of the landscape,achieved by the beauty of the esening be due to a deficiency of riboflavin in the diet are the old forts—Amer Guide Series Maine) $tt -he circular light—Kenneth Clark) in this book his-r is doggedly elegiac moon•bow\'.,b0\n['moon +' rainbow):a rainbow formed world map drawn on a'[nude skein of vellum. one of the —Anthony Quinton) C:a degree of activity or gradation of by light from the moon great cartographic---s—Bra.Book Ness)(w. s host life work Illumination : Asercr (the sea to all its—s —W II ra>lor) moon mho n:a small pastry filled with a mixture of meat end was a -- to pure science —H.1.Muller) b (l) : a con- (watching land and water, rocks and trees, and their ever• other ingredients traditionally associated with the Chinese a icuous instance:a notable example<the great Connecticut changing hues and-rs—Richard Semon) harvest festival dictionary stood as a—of New England learning—Van Wyck syn HUMOR.itairtwlt vEIN•MOOD is the comprehensive tum mooncalf \'•,•\n 1 a obs: uterine mole b I MONSTTR 2a Brooks)(that speech...was a model,or rather a-r,of beautl- for any state of mind in which one emotion or desire or set of 2:a foolish or absentminded person:DOLT,SIMPLETON ful English utterance—George Sampson)(that-r of dignity them is ascendant. stressing possibly more than the other moon daisy n.Brit:DAISY lb would oeser connive at anything —Margery Allingham) terms a persasiseness and compelling quality(the tense limbs moondlal\'•,••\n:Nioltr out 1 (2):one of unusual prominence•a distinguished figure(the of a body possessed by a single mood of rapt exaltation — moon dog n:PARAStlr'.E answer must be sought In the period before the man became a Laurence Binyon)(everything was going along smoothly and moondown \'•,•\ n (moon I• -down (as in sundown)] —O.W.lohnson))(made himself Into a within his own the men were in a happy mood—H A Chippendale)(the des- :srooNur lifetime—Walter hfIllis) 4:a structure(as•pillar stone,or gusUngly bilious mood which a nasty night at sea never fails to 'mooned past of 1.100Nbuilding)erected or maintained In memory of the dead or to produce—David Fairchild) (practicality was the prevailing 'mooned\'mUn(l)d\adf,archaic['moon+-ed):ornamented preserve the remembrance of a person,event,or action(the mood after the war—Dixon Wetter) (the normally sedate wttli or shaped like the moon esp in the shape of a crescent Lincoln Memorial is a--•to a great president)(-rs celebrating neighborhood relaxes in holiday mood—Amer Guide Seller (with his—train the strutting peacock ..flutters Into the the victories of war—R.D Fosdick)((the first---in Italy to Md.) HUMOR in this context applies chiefly to a mood resulting Ark—Michael Drayton)<the angelic squaron . .sharpen. depict Christ as a worker—Time) 6 archaic:on identify- from one's special temperament or physical or mental condi- Ing in--horns their phalanx—John Milton) Ing mark:EvtoR.ce;also:eonser ,T,SION(gaze...as If they tion at the moment,suggesting a capriciousness or whimsicality moon•er\'mUna(r)\ n -s('moon 3 •er] : one that moons' sawsomewondrous ,somoeometorunusualrodigy—Shak) (in no humor to be trilled with)(a man of siolent humors and sped):one that moons skins or hides 8 obs:a carved statue:EFFIGY(if the quick fire of youth light yet touching affection)(I would not only consult the interest moonoy van of MOO'.Y 2350 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY 11971 January 14, 2002 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1 179 • Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Application to Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New Fork 11971 SCI'IYI No. 1000-081-3-19.004 Dear Sir or Madam: I, on behalf of myself, John Petrocelli and Joseph Macari, hereby authorize Stephen R. Angel, of the firm of Esseks, Hefter & Angel, 108 East Main Street, P. 0. Box 279, Riverhead, New York 11901, to act as our agent in the above-captioned matter. Jerr UPI J • to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD X APPLICATION OF JERRY CALLIS, File No. 5072 JOHN PETROCELLI and JOSEPH MACARI AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING With respect to property owned by James and Barbara Miller located at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCTM No. 1000-081-3-19 . 004 X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS . • COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Sandra Woessner, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 1 . I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age, and reside in Riverhead, New York. 2 . On the 8th day of March, 2002 , I served a true copy of the within "Appeal from Decision of Building Inspector" Application and correspondence from Stephen R. Angel dated 3/8/02 , by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon: James and Barbara Miller James and Barbara Miller 538 Edwards Avenue P. 0. Box 610 Calverton, NY 11933 Main Road Return Receipt No. : Calverton, NY 11933-0610 7099 3220 0003 7563 4776 Return Receipt No. : 7099 3220 0003 7563 4769 the addresses designated by said James and Barbara Miller, for that purpose by depositing same enclosed in postpaid properly . addressed wrappers, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States postal service within the State of New York. Sandra Woessner Sworn to before me this 11th day of March, 2002 . �l I�c(JLe alt.e l' /) eec) NotaryjPublic , MARGARET,BIZZOCO Notary Public,State of New York No. 01614691045 Qualified in Suffolk County n3 Commission Expires May 31,2 NAot, �` CONSULTING GROUP, INC. '\' ' Theresa E'lleowitz, Presilent 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Hugo D. Freudenthal (Retired-1994) Commach, New FDA 11725 Tel: (631) 499-2222 �� CURRICULUM VITAE Fax: (631) 499-5928 �� OF THERESA ELKOWITZ OVERVIEW Theresa Elkowitz is the president of Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. (F&E), an environmental and planning consulting firm. She is well-versed in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process and has prepared numerous Environmental Assessment Forms (EAFs); Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements(DEIS and FEIS);planning and zoning studies, visual assessments;environmental assessments and associated evaluations. Not only has she worked with public and private clients on the administration of the SEQR,but she also serves as Chairperson of the Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ is responsible for recommending SEQR determinations, holding public hearings and administration of the environmental review process for actions proposed by the County of Suffolk. Ms. Elkowitz provides expert testimony and affidavits to various Town and Village Boards, Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Appeals on planning,zoning and environmental matters and has provided testimony and affidavits in court cases. Ms. Elkowitz has also served as Municipal Planner and/or provided consulting planning and/or environmental services to the Incorporated Villages of Lake Success,Manorhaven, Great Neck Estates, Old Brookville,Brookville and Sands Point and the Town of Babylon and City of Glen Cove. In addition, to ensure compliance with SEQR, Ms. Elkowitz provides environmental consulting services to various school districts including,but not limited to: Cold Spring Harbor,East Quogue, Half Hollow Hills,Jericho,Lindenhurst,Three Village,Plainview-Old Bethpage,Rocky Point,East Williston, Eastport-South Manor, Westhampton Beach, Harborfields, Patchogue-Medford, Port Washington, East Moriches, Smithtown, Bay Shore, Kings Park, Commack, Oyster Bay-East Norwich,Bellmore-Merrick,Seaford and Wantagh and to various public libraries including,but not limited to: Manhasset, East Islip and Hauppauge. Prior to forming F&E, Ms. Elkowitz spent several years managing environmental projects for a consulting engineering firm. She has been involved in many diverse projects including the preparation of Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, wetland evaluations, water use and conservation plans, municipal and private planning studies, grant applications,as well as solid waste management plans and Part 360 permit applications. 2 Before entering the field of environmental and planning consulting,Ms.Elkowitz was employed by the Town of Brookhaven Department of Housing,Community Development and Intergovernmental Affairs. She was responsible for preparing environmental assessments for community development projects in accordance with the SEQR Act and the National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA). Representative projects/documents which Ms. Elkowitz has supervised, prepared and/or had a significant preparatory role include,but are not limited to: - DEIS and related SEQR/CEQR Documentation for Kensico Water Pollution Control Program for New York City Department of Environmental Protection; DEIS and related SEQR/CEQR Documentation for Fresh Kills Landfill for New York City Department of Sanitation; EAFs, DEISs, Determinations of Significance and Notices for various School Districts; DEIS for Rezoning of 147+acre Nassau County Property for Nassau County; - DEIS and FEIS for Rezoning of 170+acre Roosevelt Raceway for property owner; Various Planning,Zoning,Environmental and Visual Assessments for Public Utility Communications Facilities and other Wireless Carriers; - DEIS and FEIS for development of 22+acre commercial center in Stony Brook for private applicant; LWRP and environmental and planning tasks for Incorporated Village of Manorhaven; DEIS and FEIS for 200+ unit Planned Retirement Community in Amityville for private applicant; DGEIS for creation of Incentive Zoning District for the Town of Goshen; DEISand FEIS for 23+ acre subdivision in the Village of Kings Point for private applicant,USACOE and NYSDEC wetland applications and presentations at public hearings; 3 - DEIS and FEIS for a commercial building in Woodmere, securing of NYSDEC and USACOE wetland permits,presentations at public hearings; Preparation of an EAF and environmental report for a proposed solid waste management recycling facility in Brookhaven; EAF and Environmental Report for proposed 40 unit residential development for the deaf in Coram; DEIS and FEIS for residential and commercial development in Riverhead,securing a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Permit; DEIS and FEIS for waterfront condominium complex in Freeport,expert testimony on wetlands and representation of client before Freeport Planning Board,preparation of NYSDEC and USACOE Wetland Applications; DEIS and FEIS for corporate park in Holbrook, data collection and preparation of economic analysis report for proposed corporate park; DEIS and FEIS for 80 unit residential condominium complex in Coram,preparation of wetland application; - FEIS for an affordable housing development in Riverhead, preparation of an Affordable Housing Corporation Grant Application; - DEIS and detailed water use and conservation study for Marriott Hotel expansion, Uniondale, expert testimony associated with SEQR process; DEIS and FEIS for residential subdivision in Beekman/East Fishkill, expert testimony associated with SEQR process; - DEIS and FEIS for an office condominium complex in Wantagh, expert testimony associated with SEQR process,preparation of NYSDEC freshwater wetland permit application; DEIS and FEIS for a shopping center in Patchogue,expert testimony associated with SEQR process. 4 EXPERIENCE Principal and Corporate President. Responsible for operations of a multi-disciplined environmental and planning consulting firm. Technical tasks include the preparation of environmental impact statements; environmental assessment forms; site assessments; waterfront revitalization programs;wetland evaluations;planning studies;and various permit applications and related analyses for public and private clients. Environmental presentations and expert testimony before various municipal boards and community groups. Administrative tasks include all business operations, personnel management, budgeting, billing, marketing etc. Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc., 368 Veterans Memorial Highway, Commack,New York. August, 1988 -Present. Environmental Project Manager/Planner. Responsible for the preparation of environmental impact statements, environment assessments and planning studies for private clients and municipalities. Environmental presentations and testimony to Town Boards and Planning Boards. Preparation of various New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Nassau County Department of Health and Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit applications. Coordination of State Environmental Quality Review procedures. Site evaluations and environmental assessments for real estate developers. Administrative functions including proposal and contract preparation, budget analysis, and billing. Supervision of professional and support staff. Baldwin&Cornelius, P.C., 210 Express Street, Plainview,New York. December, 1986 -August, 1988. Neighborhood Aide/Assistant to the Housing Rehabilitation Administrator. Completion of environmental reviews for all Community Development projects in accordance with SEQR and NEPA. Preparation of grant proposals. Assisted in the first affordable housing program for the Town of Brookhaven-the Neighborhood Homes Program. Credit feasibility analyses for SONYMA mortgage applicants. Interviewing for residential rehabilitation, materials grant and townwide handicap ramp programs,evaluation of applications and subsequent loan recommendations. Monitoring and coordinating of the Materials Grant and Townwide Handicap Ramp programs, monitoring of loan repayments and analysis of project income. Solicitation of consultants and engineers for public works projects. Coordination of public works projects and contract compliance with federal regulations. Preparation of budgets and recommendations for policy changes. Town of Brookhaven Department of Housing, Community Development and Intergovernmental Affairs, 3233 Route 112, Medford,New York. November, 1983 -November, 1986. Instructor. Preparation of and teaching biweekly recitations in algebra and introductory microeconomics, private tutorials, assigning and grading homework and examinations. Association for Public Policy and Management Summer Institute for Minority Students,W. Averell Harriman College for Policy Analysis and Public Management, State University of New York at Stony Brook,New York. Summer, 1983, 1984 and 1985. 5 EDUCATION M.S., Policy Analysis and Public Management; W. Averell Harriman College for Policy Analysis and Public Management. May, 1985. B.A., Liberal Arts; State University of New York at Stony Brook. May, 1985. SPECIAL,PROJECTS Consultant. Responsible for the formulation, implementation and administration of the Residential Rehabilitation Program for the Incorporated Village of Lake Grove. Tasks include interviewing clients, evaluating applications, program coordination, project monitoring and payments. Fall, 1985 -1987. Graduate Workshop. Statistical analysis of usage of the Mastic-Moriches-Shirley Community Library. Recommendations to the Library's Board of Trustees regarding how to increase community patronage and involvement. Spring, 1984. MEMBERSHIPS Chairperson, Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality American Planning Association Environment Committee of the Long Island Association Board of Directors, Long Island Builders Institute HONORS,AWARDS AND DESIGNATIONS Certified Environmental Specialist and Certified Environmental Inspector, Environmental Assessment Association, 1994. Magna Cum Laude Graduate, State University of New York at Stony Brook. May, 1985. Winner, Presidential Management Intern Program. Spring, 1985. MAR 21 '02 02:32PM CHEMISTRY & BIOCHEMISTRY U OF MD P.2/2 0 Alice C.Mignerey, \0 1480 Paradise Point Rd. � Southold, NY 11971 �J l� March 21, 2002 Gerard P. Goebringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall % , 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Dear Members of the Board of Appeals: ' Professional commitments make it impossible for me to attend this evening's public hearing regarding Appeal No. 5072. Therefore, I am submitting in writing my opposition to the building permit issued for the existing construction of "platform with monument" located at 1610 Paradise Point Rd. My property has been in our family since the early 1900s and is only 10 feet from the property with the"monument" in question. I strenuously object to the interpretation that the structure situated on the platform on the beach is a monument. It is a 40 foot metal sculpture which should not be confused with a monument. The aesthetic impact of the sculpture is not in question. Art is in the eye of the beholder and the choice of setting(such as on the pier in Greenport harbor) can make the an eyesore into something which can be considered quite attractive . The designation of a sculpture as a monument should riot be left to the whims and vanity of the sculpture's owner. This decision has a much broader impact than the immediate owner. Should the ruling stand, all of us surrounding neighbors will be condemned to live with the owner's vision every day,whether we like it or not. For these reasons I support the Appeal Application of Dr. Jerry Callis et al. requesting a Reversal of Building Permit#27894-Z and Certificate of Occupancy#Z-28096. Sincerely 1 c. ...(26/c re:/ve • Alice C.Mignerey • , .7 . ,r • c , , ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS iciZ - Y I # - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of O' I Jerry Callis,John Petrocelli and ' Katherine P. Macari (re: Miller property) Ijofik 1010v Applicants 121P t Regarding Posting of Sign upon Land Identified as 1000-81-3-19.4 X PRIOR DECISIONS RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED APPLICATION 1. Board of Appeals Determination issued in connection with meeting of March 3, 1998. 2. Order of the Hon. Howard Berler,Justice of the Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, State of New York, dated 10/21/98 in the action brought by James and Barbara Miller against William H. Price,Jr.,Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, The Town of Southold, and Michael J. Verity, Individually, and in his official capacity as Building Inspector for the Town of Southold (the "Miller Action"), granting intervention. 3. Order of the Hon. Howard Berler dated 12/17/98 in the Miller Action denying Mr. and Mrs. Miller's application for a preliminary injunction. 4. Order of the Hon. Howard Berler dated April 20, 1999, denying Mr. and Mrs. Miller's motion for reargument of the prior order which denied their application for a preliminary injunction. 5. Decision and Order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, dated 12/20/99, affirming Justice Berler's Order denying Mr. and Mrs. Miller's application for a preliminary injunction. In this Decision and Order, the appellate court held that Mr. and Mrs. Miller failed to pursue their remedies in a timely fashion when they failed to appeal Building Inspector Michael J. Verity's stop work order. In addition, the court stated that Mr. and Mrs. Miller failed to establish their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. 6. Order of the Hon. Howard Berler dated 10/25/00 in the Miller Action granting intervenors summary judgment and dismissing Mr. and Mrs. Miller's action. In this Order,Justice Berler confirmed, among other things, that Mr. and Mrs. Miller argued that the structure in question was a "monument" under the zoning code, and, therefore, should not be defined as either a building or structure - see page 5. 7. Order of the Hon. Howard Berler dated 4/19/01 in the Miller Action denying intervenors' application to hold Mr. and Mrs. Miller in contempt because there had not been a "clear and unequivocal order" directing them to remove the heron structure. 8. Judgment of the Hon. Howard Berler dated 5/24/01 entered 6/5/01 in the Miller Action. This judgment was issued in order to clarify what the court had determined in the Miller Action. The judgment contains two simple paragraphs: "ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Intervenors' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Intervenors' counterclaim is granted and Plaintiffs are enjoined to remove the "Heron Structure" erected by them and, after such removal, comply with the applicable zoning laws of the Town of Southold." 9. Order of the Hon. Howard Berler dated 6/29/01 in the Miller Action denying an application by Mr. and Mrs. Miller to stay enforcement of the judgment. This order contains the following relevant statements: "The instant application is hopefully the last of a series of actions taken on the part of the plaintiffs since 1998, whereby they have installed a certain "Heron Structure" on a beach in the Town of Southold, New York, and have avoided having to remove said structure despite several decisions of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County and the Appellate Division, Second Department, finding this structure to be illegal." . • r "Despite plaintiffs efforts, and their own attempt to label this structure as a 'monument', the fact remains that accessory buildings and structures cannot be taller than eighteen (18) feet [see Southold Town Code, §100-33(a)]." James Dltaizio,Jr. rdaP.O.Box 111 :' Lydia A.Tortora Q • . ��' Southold,New Yor• 119 Lora S. Collins _ '� • \�,'� ZBA Fax(516)76�-906 George• Horning J �`,�'' Telephone(516)7•�-181 BOARD OF APPEALS • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • % BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1998 • Appl. No. 4537 - BUILDING DEPARTMENT by Edward Forrester, f Director of Code Enforcement, Town of Southold F, Location of Property: Town-Wide, Town of Southold Date of Public Hearing: February 26, 1998 Section of Code Interpreted: Section 100-13 (Dafinitions). • WHEREAS, Application No. 4537 is a request for an !: Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Article I, Section 100-13 (Definitions) of a nbu lding,n to determine 'whether or not a 40-ft. high sculpture is a building within the language of said provision; and if it is a building, whether or not it is subject to the height limitations of Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code; and • • i WHEREAS, after due notice a public hearing was held by the • Board of Appeals on February 26, 1998 in the Assembly Room, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York to consider this application; and • • WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, all testimony has been carefully considered and the following pertinent facts noted: 1.. The definition of a "building" in Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code reads as follows: "BUILDING - Any structure having a roof supported by such i' things as columns, posts, piers, walls or air intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animaih property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so • as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no building was present. The term **building" shall include the term "structure" as well as the following: (1) signs (2) fences (3) (3) walls r (4) radio, television, receive-only satellite dish antennas, amateur radio antennas and wireless communi nation facility receiving and transmitting television, receive-only dish antes as, amateur radio 7i • • antennas installed on the roof of a building and extending not more than 20 feet above the highest level of the roof of such building. (5) porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures.. . . 2. Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code limits the height of accessory buildings and structures at a mean height of 18 feet, and IF which section specifically reads as follows: is Article III, Section 100-33 at pages 10052-10053 reads: 100-33... accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear -yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.... • 3. Also, Section 100-230 of the. Zoning Code provides certain exemptions from the height limitations. 4. The Board of Appeals is 'not in a position at this time (and is unable) to respond to the request for an interpretation as to whether or not such as building is subject to the height limitations because such a determination must be made on the basis of specific facts pe,tain;ng to a specific building, and no such facts were • submitted to the Board in this interpretive proceeding. • On motion offered .by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinzio, - IT IS RESOLVED by the Board Of Appeals that the application of Southold Town Building Department, requesting an Interpretation, is hereby ANSWERED as follows: A 40 ft. ."• soul.ture is a buil.' ' as defined in the Zo."• Code under Section 100-13.. VOTE OF THE BOARD: MEMBERS GOEIIEINGEEt, DINIZIO and COLLINS. (Absent were; Members To , _and - This resolution was duly ADOPTED (3-0). ;. .GERARD P. GOEHRING : , C altM.AN r Approved for Filing •t .7 PUBLISH INDEX NO. 16007/98 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL/SPECIAL TERM, PART 20 SUFFOLK COUNTY Present: MOTION DATE: 8/17/98 Hon HOWARD BERLER MOTION NO.: 002 - MG x PLTF'S/PET'S ATTY JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Plaintiff, HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. •`/ 206 Roanoke Avenue - against - P. O. Box 329 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 DEFT'S/RESP'S ATTY WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL Town Attorney J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official Town of Southold capacity as Building Inspector for the 53095 Main Road Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Defendant. x ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL ✓' (For Intervenors) 108 East Main Street P. O. Box 279 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901-0279 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 20 read on this motion for leave to intervene; Notice of Motion with supporting papers, pp. 1 - 18; Affidavit In Opposition with supporting papers, pp. 19 - 20; IT IS - ORDERED that this motion for leave to intervene is granted and the proposed intervenors herein are hereby granted leave to intervene in this action pursuant to CPLR §1013. All other relief requested is hereby granted, it appearing that said intervenors interests may not adequately be represented by the Town of Southold and thus a judgment herein may be binding on them. The foregoing constitutes the order of the Court. Dated: OCT 2 1 1998 r T 4 98 OCT 25 Pr`; 2: 55 EDIVAfi(i P 1,�.�,ir ;r{Ir`dE CLERPA' lir SUFFOI li rcioNr;a w _ ►c.Rj 1% K� INDEX NO. 16007/1998 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL/SPECIAL TERM, PART 20 SUFFOLK COUNTY Present: MOTION DATE: 9/14/98 (Orig. Date: 7/23/98) Hon HOWARD BERLER MOTION NO.: 001 - MD x PLTF'S/PET'S ATTY JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Plaintiff, HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. P. O. Box 329 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 - against - DEFT'S/RESP'S ATTY WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL Town Attorney J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official Town of Southold capacity as Building Inspector for the 53095 Main Road Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Defendant. x ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL (For Intervenors) 108 East Main Street P. O. Box 279 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901-0279 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 42 read on this motion; Order To Show Cause with supporting papers, pp. 1 - 26; Affidavit In Opposition with supporting papers, pp. 27 - 28; Affidavit In Opposition with supporting papers, pp. 29 - 39; Reply Affidavit with supporting papers, pp. 40 - 41; Reply Affidavit with supporting papers, pp. 42; IT IS ORDERED that, after conferring with the attorneys for the respective parties, John Petrocelli, Jerry Callis, Alice Mignerey, Joseph Macari, Robert L. Stott, Ruth Meyer and Nancy Smith, are hereby granted leave to intervene in this action; and it is further ORDERED that this motion for a preliminary injunction is denied in all respects. „ - 2 - MILLER V. PRICE, ET AL BERLER Index No. 16007/1998 Motion No. 001 • This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief stemming from defendants attempted enforcement of the Code of the Town of Southold, §§45-8 and 100-283, relating to building applications and "Stop Work” orders, respectively. It appears that plaintiff are the owners of real property located at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York. In July 1997, plaintiffs' purchased a "Heron Monument" from its sculptor Robert Julio Bernin so that, allegedly, they could display same in their rear yard on the shore of Shelter Island Bay as a monument to Peconic Bay. While said structure is apparently beautiful as evidenced by pictures of same which are appended to the moving papers, it is approximately 40 feet in height. Plaintiffs contend that they hired an entity known as Proper-T Permit Services of Cutchogue, New York, to ensure that they complied with all applicable Federal, State, County and Town Laws, regulations and ordinances. Thereafter, and on August 4, 1997, plaintiffs received Permit No. 4772 from the Board of Southold Town Trustees to proceed with the project as planned. Thereafter, and on September 8, 1997, plaintiffs received a letter from the N.Y.S. Department of State 'which stated that said Department had no objection to the authorization of the placement of the Heron Monument by Letter of Permission. In or around late September, the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, recommended, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation required, that plaintiffs move the location of the _ platform for the Heron Monument landward to a point above the mean high water line and they immediately moved the location of the platform as suggested and required. On October 9, 1997, plaintiffs received Permit No. 1-4738-01661/00001 from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to'proceed with the project as planned. • - 3 - MILLER V. PRICE, ET AL BERLER Index No. 16007/1998 Motion No. 001 On October 31, 1997, the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, send plaintiffs a letter indicating that "because the proposed work no longer appear[ed] to include dredging or construction activities over any navigable waters . . . a Department of the Army permit would] not be required:" Because the location of the platform was moved to meet the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, plaintiffs applied to the Board of Southold Town Trustees for an amended permit reflecting the new location of the platform. On November 18, 1997, the Board of Southold Town Trustees amended plaintiffs previously issued permit No. 4772 to reflect the new location of the platform. By letter dated November 24, 1997, Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement of the Town of Southold, asserted that the installation of the Heron Monument would require a building permit. Plaintiffs contend that because the Trustees have jurisdiction over the land upon which the Heron Monument stands and granted them a permit to proceed with the installation of the Heron Monument, and because the Code of the Town of Southold does not apply to the Heron Monument, they were not required to obtain approval from the Town of Southold Building Department. Thereupon receiving approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Southold Trustees, and acquiescence from the New York State Department of State and the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, plaintiffs began construction of the platform upon which the Heron Monument is displayed. On March 26, 1998, while installing the footers for the platform for the Heron Monument, Town of Southold Building Inspector Michael J. Verity • - 4 - MILLER V. PRICE, ET AL BERLER Index No. 16007/1998 Motion No. 001 issued plaintiffs a "Stop Work Order" on the grounds that plaintiffs were "constructing an accessory structure without first obtaining a permit." Plaintiffs contend that inasmuch as they had secured all requisite approval from the appropriate State and Federal agencies, they were entitled to continue with construction of the platform for the Heron Monument and, thereafter, on or about April 8, 1998, they displayed the Heron Monument on the completed platform. Thereafter, on or about April 24, 1998, the Town of Southold Building Inspector Michael J. Verity issued plaintiffs appearance tickets numbered 805 and 806 for "constructing an accessory structure without first obtaining a building permit" and for "violation of a Stop Work Order issued March 26, 1998, suspending all work at 1610 Paradise Point Road, respectively. Consequently, this proceeding ensued. In its Affirmation in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Town Defendants (Town of Southold and Michael J. Verity) assert numerous grounds for denying the motion for preliminary injunction, to wit: (a) That the violation of a stop work order is a separate and distinct offense which cannot be collaterally reviewed; (b) The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; (c) Failure to allege an irreparable injury; (d) Failure to demonstrate a strong likelihood of ultimate victory. Firstly, defendants contend that the prosecution of the violation of the stop work order cannot be collaterally attached in this action because it is a • - 5 - MILLER V. PRICE, ET AL BERLER Index No. 16007/1998 Motion No. 001 separate and distinct violation. The Court does not agree. In People v. Namro Holding Corp., 17 A.D.2d 431, 235 N.Y.S.2d 744 (1st Dept. 1962), aff'd, 14 N.Y.2d 722, 249 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1964), defendants brought a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the underlying violation order which resulted in his conviction. The Court held that "Where the meaning or validity of the statute is in question and no questions of fact are present, declaratory judgment is proper. It is also appropriate where the application of a statute to a given case is challenged. The fact that a declaratory judgment may serve to preclude a criminal prosecution does not affect the right to relief when it appears that a jural relation is sought to be stabilized and substantial property rights are involved." The Court added that the availability of an appeal to an administrative board "does not preclude a declaratory judgment action challenging the application of the statute and the rules to the facts of the case." The result is that while a notice of violation may not necessarily be challenged in a subsequent criminal prosecution, a declaratory judgment action, as in the case here, is indeed the appropriate avenue to mount such a challenge [See also, Dun & Bradstreet v. City of New York, 176 N.Y. 198, 206, 11 N.E.2d 728, 732 (1937); Seivert v. City of New York, Dept. of Buildings, 146 A.D.2d 473, 536 N.Y.S.2d 441 (2nd Dept. 1989)]. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted; and, (3) that the equities are balanced in its favor [see, Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 812; Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748; Sachdev v. Metro Resources, Inc., A.D.2d , N.Y.S.2d , Index No. 3705 D, 10/19/98 (2nd Dept. 1998)]. Southold Town Code Section 100-13 provides: "BUILDING - Any structure having a roof, supported by such things as columns, posts, - 6 - MILLER V. PRICE, ET AL BERLER Index No. 16007/1998 Motion No. 001 piers, walls or air intended for the shelter, business, housing or enclosing of person, animals, property or other materials; also any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely under- ground so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if no 'building' was present. The term 'building' shall include the term 'structure' as well as the following: 1. Signs 2. Fences 3. Walls 4. Radio and television receiving and transmitting towers and antennas except for such antennas installed in the roof of a building and extending not more than 20 feet above the highest level of the roof of such building 5. Porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures." It is undisputed that there is no provision in the Code of the Town of Southold which requires an individual to obtain a permit to put a statue or monument on his property. With regard to the applicability of the height requirements of this Code, Southold Town Code §100-33, Accessory Buildings, provides: In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, i• �'1 1 , - 7 - MILLER V. PRICE, ET AL BERLER Index No. 16007/1998 Motion No. 001 • R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Here, as noted above, the subject premises are approximately forty (40) feet in height. Additionally, while much is made of the fact that the rules seem to encompass virtually every structure, none of the examples given are structures that are very substantially less than forty (40) feet. Additionally, Southold Town Code §100-13 pertaining to the definition of a building evidences its concern for tall structures when it includes "radio and television receiving and transmitting towers and antennas" within the definition of a building. After viewing the exhibit portraying the structure in question, the Court finds difficulty in distinguishing same from "radio and television receiving an transmitting towers and antennas." Accordingly, the Court holds that this structure comes within the definition of a building and, therefore, this motion is denied. The foregoing constitutes the order of the Court. Dated: DEC 1 7 1996' 7_.i' J _ _ FI►_FD 98 DEC 28 PH 1: 10 EDW'ARO P. ii011,AINE CLERK F SUFFOLK COUNTY • . '-I I U a I I f INDEX NO. 16007/1998 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL/SPECIAL TERM, PART 20 SUFFOLK COUNTY Present: MOTION DATE: 3/8/99 (Orig. Date: 3/2/99) Hon HOWARD BERLER MOTION NO.: 003 - MD CASEDISP x PLTF'S/PET'S ATTY JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Plaintiff, HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. P. O. Box 329 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 - against - DEFT'S/RESP'S Am WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL Town Attorney J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official Town of Southold capacity as Building Inspector for the 53095 Main Road Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Defendant. x ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL (For Intervenors) 108 East Main Street P. O. Box 279 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901-0279 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 13 read on this motion for reargument; Notice of Motion with supporting papers, pp. 1 - 5; Affidavit In Opposition with supporting papers, pp. 6 - 13; IT IS ORDERED that this motion for reargument is denied in all respects, the Court, in making its prior order, neither misconstrued any principle of law, nor did it misapprehend any of the pertinent facts as presented to it. The foregoing constitutes the order of the Court. Dated: �R 2 '' 1999 J. S. . - 1V _ -, SUPREME JRT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y(_ APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 9139D C/jv AD2d. Argued - November 23, 1999 SONDRA MILLER, J.P. CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN LEO F. McGINITY NANCY E. SMITH, JJ. 1999-00613 James Miller, et al., appellants, v DECISION & ORDER William H. Price, Jr., et al., respondents. • Harvey A. Arnoff, Riverhead, N.Y. (Paul K. Siepmann of counsel), for appellants. Gregory F. Yakaboski, Southold, N.Y., for respondents William H. Price, Jr., Town of Southold, and Michael J. Verity. Esseks, Hefter & Angel, Riverhead, N.Y. (Stephen R. Angel and Anthony C. Pasca of counsel), for respondents John Petrocelli, Jerry Callis, Alice Migherey, Joseph Macari, Robert L. Stott, Ruth Meyer, and Nancy Smith. In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from maintaining certain criminal and civil proceedings against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 17, 1998, as denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. In March 1998, while the plaintiffs were installing part of a platform to be used to display a sculpture, the defendant Michael J. Verity, the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, issued a so-called "stop-work order". Instead of appealing the stop-work order to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs' failure to pursue their administrative remedies by a timely administrative appeal of the determination of the building inspector bars judicial intervention (see, Matter of Nautilus Landowners Corp. v Harbor Commn., 232 AD2d 418; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn. of the Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 AD2d 521, 527; Haddad v Salzman, 188 AD2d 515, 517; Matter of White v Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor, 190 AD2d 854). December 20, 1999 Page 1. MILLER v PRICE • In any event, me Supreme Court did not err in uenying the motion for a preliminary injunction. It is well settled that to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must establish: (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) that a balancing of equities favors the movant's position (see, Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517; Albini v Solork Assoc., 37 AD2d 835; Doe v Poe, 189 AD2d 132). Preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy and will only be granted if the movant establishes a clear right to it under the law and the undisputed facts found in the moving papers (Anastasi v Majopan Realty Corp., 181 AD2d 706, 707; County of Orange v Lockey, 111 AD2d 896). The plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to that relief. S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur. ENTER: James Edward Pelzer Clerk December 20, 1999 Page 2. MILLER v PRICE 1 INDEX 142. NO. 16007/1998 OO oc� � pal , - 5t'4 111E SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK ti,',A1 � ,r`� RIAL/SPECIAL TERM, PART 20 SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION DATE: 7/24/2000 (Orig. Date: 7/10/2000) Hon HOWARD BERLER MOTION NO.: 004 - MG • 005 - MD CASEDISP x PLTF'SIPET'S ATTY • JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, - Plaintiff, HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. 206 Roanoke Avenue P. O. Box 329 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 - against - DEFT'S/RESP'S ATTY WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL Town Attorney J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official Town of Southold capacity as Building Inspector for the 53095 Main Road Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Defendant. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL and (For Intervenors) JOHN PETROCELLI, JERRY CALLIS, 108 East Main Street ALICE MIGHEREY, JOSEPH MACARI, P. O. Box 279 ROBERT L. STOTT, RUTH MEYER and Riverhead, N. Y. 11901-0279 NANCY SMITH, Intervenors-Defendants. •x • Upon the following papers numbered I To 40 read on these motions; Notice of Motion with supporting papers, pp. 1 - 19; Notice of Cross Motion with supporting papers, pp. 20 - 33; Reply Affirmation with supporting papers, pp. 34 - 36; Reply Affirmation with supporting papers, pp. 37 - 38; Memorandum of Law, pp. 39 - 40; IT IS ORDERED that this motion by Intervenors-Defendants for an order granting them summary judgment is granted in all respects and the complaint herein is hereby dismissed as to them; and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion by 'plaintiffs for an order granting them summary judgment is denied. Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 2 As stated in the pleadings and in prior motions affecting the subject of this litigation, plaintiffs claim to own waterfront property located at 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold, New York. In July 1997, plaintiffs purchased a large sculpture of a heron bird, which they refer to as a "Heron Monument" and • which Intervenors refer to as a Heron Structure. Said structure is approximately forty (40) feet tall and is constructed of a network of welded steel plates and structural steel bars constituting the sculpture, placed atop a specially constructed platform. At all times relevant to the events in this case, Town of Southold Zoning Code (Chapter 100), §100-33(A), prohibited the erection of accessory structures taller than eighteen (18) feet. Plaintiffs sought permits from some, but not all, governmental authorities to place the Heron Structure on the beach of their property. At first, they received a permit from the Southold Town Trustees to place the project seaward of the mean high water line. The approval noted that it "should not be considered a 'determination made for any other Department or Agency" and the permit was specifically conditioned upon plaintiffs "obtain[ing] all other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit . . ." The United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, recommended, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation required, that Plaintiffs move the location of the structure landward of the mean high water line. When the Town Trustees approved the relocation, they again noted that such approval "does not constitute approval from any other agencies." By letter dated November 24, 1997, Code Enforcement Officer of the Town of Southold, Edward Forrester, sent plaintiffs a letter informing them :-_ _ that the installation of the Heron Structure would require a building permit. Thereafter, plaintiffs sought a building permit from the Building Department. On January 6, 1998, the Code Enforcement Officer sought an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to "whether a forty (40) foot sculpture is a building as defined in Southold Town Code §100-13" and, if so, whether the sculpture would be governed by the height limitation of §100-33. • Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 3 The Zoning Board notified plaintiff and his agent of a public hearing on the interpretation. The Zoning Board held the hearing on February 26, 1998, and both plaintiff and his agent participated therein. On March 3, 1998, the Zoning Board issued its decision, in which it answered the first question as follows: • A 40 ft. high sculpture is a building as defined in.the Zoning Code under Section 100-13. The Zoning Board declined to answer the second question prior to being presented with the specific facts and specific building. The Zoning Board sent its decision to plaintiffs attorney, but plaintiffs did not challenge the Zoning Board's decision in Court, but, instead, withdrew their building permit application within one week of the decision. Plaintiffs ignored the Zoning Board's interpretation and proceeded to construct the platform upon which the Heron Monument would be displayed. On March 26, 1998, the Town of Southold Building Inspector, Michael'J.Verity, issued plaintiffs a "Stop Work Order" on the grounds that plaintiffs were "constructing an accessory structure without first obtaining a building permit." Such Stop Work Orders are authorized by §100-283 of the Zoning Code. Plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the administrative remedy provided by the Southold Zoning Code. Under §100-271(A) of the Code, the • Zoning Board is empowered "to hear and decide appeals from and review any • order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Building Inspector." The Stop Work Order was filed with the Town Clerk on April 27, 1998. Plaintiffs neither complied with the Building Inspector's Stop Work Order nor took an administrative appeal therefrom. Instead, plaintiffs completed the platform and placed the sculpture on the completed platform. On or about April 24, 1998, Building Inspector Michael J. Verity issued plaintiffs appearance tickets numbered 805 and 806 for, respectively, "constructing an accessory structure without first obtaining a building permit" •w Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 4 and "in violation of a Stop Work Order issued March 26, 1998, suspending all work at 1610 Paradise Point Road." By Summons and Verified Complaint dated July 13, 1998, plaintiffs • commenced this action against defendants. The complaint sets forth three causes of action as follows: (a) The first cause of action alleges that the plaintiffs lawfully placed their Heron Structure on the beach, and the Town of Southold and its building inspector had no jurisdiction over the sculpture and no auth- ority to issue its Stop Work Order; (b) The second cause of action alleges that plaintiffs' first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression precludes defendants from regulating the "Heron Monument"; and (c) The third cause of action alleges that the Town Code definition of "building" and "structure" is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Based on these three causes of action, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief restraining the Town from enforcing its zoning code against plaintiffs and from exercising jurisdiction over the "Heron Monument", along with a declaration that the provisions of the zoning code are unconstitutional. By Order of this Court dated October 21, 1998, (Berler, J.), the Court granted leave to Intervenors to intervene as defendants in this action pursuant to CPLR §1013 and said Intervenors served their Verified Answer with Counterclaim on or about October 30, 1998. Intervenors set forth a single counterclaim for an injunction. The counterclaim alleges that plaintiffs erected a 40 foot high (or higher) structure, which is illegal under the Town of Southold Zoning Code and which irreparably 1 ~) i �l Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 5 harms Intervenors. The counterclaim seeks to enforce the Zoning Code through an injunction requiring plaintiffs to remove the offending structure. By Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraining Order dated • July 15, 1998, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restrainingorder prohibiting the Town from taking any measures, including civil or criminal proceedings, in connection with the erection and maintenance of the "Heron Monument." Plaintiffs argued tt there are a number of statutes, monuments, or ornamental structures located in the Town, none of which were cited or fined for failure to secure a permit. Plaintiffs also argued that their monument did not fall within the definition of "building" or "structure" under the Zoning Code and that the code was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and infringed upon their right to freedom of expression. Finally, plaintiffs argued that, because the Town Trustees had jurisdiction to issue a permit, the Town of Southold Zoning Code is inapplicable. By Order of this Court dated December 17, 1998, (Berler, J.), this Court denied plaintiffs motion, concluding that, based upon a legal interpretation of the Zoning Code, plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits and were not entitled to an injunction. Specifically, the Court analyzed the Zoning Code, including the definition of "building" (§100-13) and the prohibition against accessory buildings taller than 18 feet (§100-33[A]), and held that "this structure comes within the definition of a building." Plaintiffs sought leave to re-argue this Court's Order, but, by Order dated April 20, 1999, (Berler, J.), the Court denied plaintiffs' motion and held that, "the Court, in making its prior order, neither misconstrued any principle of law, nor did it misapprehend any of the pertinent facts as presented to it." Plaintiffs appealed this Court's Order to the Appellate Division; Second Department, making substantially the same arguments as it did to this Court. The Appellate Division, by Order dated December 20, 1999, affirmed this Court's denial of plaintiffs motion, citing two separate legal grounds for affirmance. First, the Appellate Division held that "plaintiffs' failure to pursue their administrative remedies by a timely administrative appeal of the determination of the building ' 1 I Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007!1998 Page No. 6 inspector bars judicial intervention." Second, the Appellate Division held that plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to the drastic remedy of injunction relief, namely, that they failed to demonstrate "(1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary • injunction, and (3) that a balancing of equities favors the movant's position." Because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the Stop Work Order is binding and bars judicial intervention. Southold Town Code §100-271(A) provided plaintiffs with an administrative remedy to challenge the Stop Work Order. Under the provision, the Zoning Board has the power "to hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the building inspector." Plaintiffs did not avail themselves of this administrative remedy. Having voluntarily rejected the building inspector's authority and having foregone their administrative remedy, plaintiffs are barred from seeking judicial review of that order -- or of the basis for that order -- under the requirement that persons exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. It is axiomatic that where the decision or order of a building inspector is subject to review by a zoning board of appeals, the failure to exhaust that administrative remedy precludes judicial review of the building inspector's decision [See, Nautilus Landowners Corp. v. Harbor Comm'n, 232 A.D.2d 418, 491, 648 N.Y.S.2d 627 (2nd Dept. 1996); White v. Inc, Village of Plandome Manor, 190 A.D.2d 854, 855, 593 N.Y.S.2d 881, 882 (2nd Dept. 1993)]. This rule applies ,to any judicial challenge to a building inspector's determination, whether couched as a plenary action or Article 78 proceeding. [Rattner v. Planning Comm'n of Village of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 526 - 527, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943 (2nd Dept. 1989)]. A"stop work order" issued by a building inspector is clearly an "order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Building Inspector" such that plaintiffs could have brought an appeal to the Zoning Board. In Jordan's Partner's v. Goehringer, 204 A.D.2d 453, 611 N.Y.S.2d 626 (2nd Dept. 1994), the Appellate Division, Second Department held that the Supreme Court could not review the propriety of a stop work order where the accused has not appealed the order to the • Miller v. Price,, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 7 zoning board of appeals, which has the primary jurisdiction of interpreting the applicable zoning ordinance. [See also, Knispel Construction Co. v. Missavage, 102 A.D.2d 1007, 477 N.Y.S.2d 883 (3rd Dept. 1984) (noting that petition challenging stop work order, brought without seeking review of the ZBA, was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies)]. The most compelling authority is, of course, the Appellate Division's order in Miller v. Price, 267 A.D.2d 363, 700 N.Y.S.2d 209 (2nd Dept. 1999), wherein the Court held: Instead of appealing the stop-work order to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action in the Supreme Court. the plaintiffs' failure to pursue their administra- tive remedies by a timely administrative appeal of the determination of the building inspector bars judicial intervention [citations omitted]. While not technically "law of the case" -- because it was made in the context of an application for a preliminary injunction - - this completely on-point holding is binding precedent on this Court. _ The rule requiring plaintiffs to appeal the Stop Work Order to the Zoning Board is not merely a procedural technicality that can be disregarded, but goes, instead, to the proper, respective jurisdictions of zoning boards and courts. Under New York law, an interpretation of a zoning regulation, as that regulation applies to a specific parcel of property, should be made first by a zoning board of appeals. [See, Fishman v. Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823, 825, 473 N.Y.2d 957 (1984)]. Furthermore, a zoning board's interpretation of its zoning code is entitled to judicial deference and should be upheld unless it is irrational or unreasonable, [Richard Dudyshyn Contracting Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Mt. Pleasant, 255 A.D.2d 445,, 446, 680 N.Y.S,2d 571, 572 (2nd Dept. 1998)], even if a contrary interpretation is also rational. [Brock v. Zoning Bd. of . Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 8 Appeals of Town of Queensbury, 237 A.D.2d 670, 671-72, 653 N.Y.S.2d 988, 989 (3rd Dept. 1997)]. Hence, because plaintiffs' action involves the interpretation of the Zoning Code and Stop Work Order, such claims must first be presented to the Zoning Board before this Court's certiorari jurisdiction is invoked. . Plaintiffs willfully chose not to accept the Town's authority and not to appeal the Stop Work Order to the Zoning Board, thereby failing to exhaust their administrative remedies. Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the Zoning Board's authority to interpret the Southold Zoning Code. As a matter of law, this Court has no jurisdiction to question the validity of the Stop Work Order, and, consequently, plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed. In their cross-motion, plaintiffs contend that the subject "Heron Monument" is not within the regulated boundaries which coincide with the boundary of the Southold Town Zoning Map, or that area of the Town of Southold, regulated under its zoning ordinance and zoning map. Said contention is rejected and the cross motion denied. Contrary to plaintiffs' suggestion that "the area upon which the Heron is situate is expressly exempt and excepted from the Southold Town Zoning Code or the Southold Town Code," apparently because it is located in "tidal town waters". Plaintiffs have failed to realize that the Zoning Code expressly includes such tidal lands in the contiguous zoning district: §100-22 District.Boundaries. - In determining the boundaries of districts shown on the Zoning Map, the following rules shall apply: * * * G. Unless shown on the Zoning Map, all tidal lands and lands under water shall be deemed to be within the use district to which they are contiguous. Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 9 [Southold Town Code §100-22(G) (emphasis supplied)]. This provision is consistent with Southold Town Code §100-20, which divides the entire Town of Southold, with no exception other than property within the Incorporated Village of Greenport, into the enumerated, categorized zoning districts. In other words, all Town lands -- publicly or privately held, in or out of the water -- fall within a zoning district and are governed by the Zoning Code. Plaintiffs' citation to the "Trustee-land exception" in the separate chapter on Wetlands regulations [Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code], is inaccurate because that exception, by its very terms, is limited to the Wetlands. The lack of a corresponding exception in Chapter 100 of the Zoning Code means that no such exception can be inferred in the Zoning Code. Had the Southold Town Board wished to exempt Trustee Lands from the purview of the Zoning Code, it would have provided for an exception similar to that contained in the Wetlands Ordinance. Accordingly, plaintiffs' cross motion is denied. It appearing that all other contentions in plaintiffs' opposition to Intervenors-defendants motion for summary judgment lack merit, their motion for an order granting Intervenors-defendants summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed as to them. The foregoing constitutes the Order of the Court. Dated: .00T2 5 2000 741TA oq I 01 INDEX NO. 16007/1998 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL/SPECIAL TERM, PART 20 SUFFOLK COUNTY Present: MOTION DATE: 2/5/2001 (Orig. Date: 1/3012001) Hon HOWARD BERLER MOTION NO.: 006 - MD CASEDISP x PLTF'S/PET'S ATTY JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER,, Plaintiff, HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. 206 Roanoke Avenue P. O. Box 329 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 - against - DEFT'S/RESP'S ATTY WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL Town Attorney J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official Town of Southold capacity as Building Inspector for the 53095 Main Road Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Defendant. ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL and (For Intervenors) JOHN PETROCELLI, JERRY CALLIS, 108 East Main Street ALICE MIGHEREY, JOSEPH MACARI, P..0. Box 279 ROBERT L. STOTT, RUTH MEYER and Riverhead, N. Y. 11901-0279 NANCY SMITH, Intervenors-Defendants. x Upon the following papers numbered 1 To 28 read on this motion; Order to Show Cause with supporting papers, pp. 1 - 18; Affirmation in Opposition with supporting papers, pp. 19 - 24; Reply Affirmation with supporting papers, pp. 25 - 28; IT IS ORDERED that this motion for an order punishing plaintiffs for contempt id denied. The applicationis not based on a violation of a clear and. unequivocal order [See, Obadiah v. Shaw, 266 A.D.2d 526, 699 N.Y.S.2d 124 Miller v. Price, et al Index No. 16007/1998 Page No. 2 (2nd Dept. 1999); Holland v. Holland, 234 A.D.2d 794, 651 N.Y.S.2d 239 (3rd Dept. 1996); Korn v. Gulotta, 186 a.D.2d 195, 587 N.Y.S.2d 960 (2nd Dept. 1992); Iv. app. dism., 81 N.Y.2d 759, 594 N.Y.S.2d 719; rearg. den., 81 N.Y.2d 835, 595 N.Y.S.2d 398]. The foregoing constitutes the Order of the Court. Dated: APR 19 2001 ORIGINAL At a Trial/Special Term Part XX of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, held at 400 Carleton Ave. Central Islip, New York York on Mayo?Si, 2001 PRESENT: HON. HOWARD BERLER. JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK X JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Index No. 98-16007 Plaintiffs, -against- WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official capacity as Building Inspector for the Town of Southold, JUDGMENT Defendants, JOHN PETROCELLI, JERRY CALLIS, ALICE MIGHEREY, JOSEPH MACARI, ROBERT L. STOTT, RUTH MEYER, NANCY SMITH, Intervenors-Defendants. X Intervenors-Defendants, JOHN PETROCELLI, JERRY CALLIS, JOSEPH MACARI and ROBERT L. STOTT ("Intervenors"), having duly moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting their counterclaim for an injunction directing Plaintiffs, JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER ("Plaintiffs") to remove the "Heron Structure" erected by them on their beach, and Plaintiffs having cross-moved for summary judgment, and said motion having regularly come on to be heard by the Hon. Howard Berler, a Justice of this 1 Court, and upon reading and filing the Notice of Motion dated June 26, 2000, and the Affidavit hi Support of Motion of Stephen R. Angel, sworn to on June 26, 2000, and the exhibits annexed thereto, and the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment dated June 26, 2000; and upon reading and filing the Notice of Cross-Motion dated July 19, 2000, and the Affidavit of Kenneth M. Woychuk, sworn to on July 18, 2000, and the Affirmation of Harvey A. Arnoff, sworn to on July 19, 2000, and the exhibits annexed thereto; and upon reading and filing the Reply Affidavit of Stephen R. Angel, sworn to on July 21, 2000, and the exhibit annexed thereto; and upon reading and filing the Reply Affirmation of Harvey A. Arnoff, sworn to on July 24, 2000, and, following due deliberation thereon, the Hon. Howard Berler, having granted Intervenors' motion "in all respects" and having denied Plaintiffs' cross motion, by an order dated October 25, 2000 and filed on October 31, 2000, NOW, on motion of Esseks, Hefter & Angel, attorneys for Intervenors, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Intervenors' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Intervenors' counterclaim isg ranted and Plaintiffs are enjoined to remove the "Heron Structure" erected by them and, after such removal,comply with the applicable zoning laws of the Town of Southold. A :1 ENTER GRANTED HOWARD BERLER c,� MAY 24 2x01 135J.S.C. 304 � ..� P�1'�1``, i rp ^rl^ni!t ,G� ��t�� 2 d • r - - A I t • r INDEX NO. 16007/1998 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL/SPECIAL TERM, PART 20 SUFFOLK COUNTY Present: MOTION DATE: 614/2001 (Orig. Date: 5/13/2001) Hon HOWARD BERLER MOTION NO.: 007 - MD CASEDISP x PLTF'S/PET'S ATTY JAMES MILLER and BARBARA MILLER, Plaintiff, HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. P. O. Box 329 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 - against - DEFT'S/RESP'S ATTY WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., Justice of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and MICHAEL Town Attorney J. VERITY, Individually, and in his official Town of Southold capacity as Building Inspector for the 53095 Main Road Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Defendant. _ - _ JOHN PETROCELLI, JERRY CALLIS, ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL ALICE MIGHEREY, JOSEPH MACARI, (For Intervenors) ROBERT L. STOTT, RUTH MEYER, 108 East Main Street NANCY SMITH, P. O. Box 279 Intervenor-Defendants. Riverhead, N. Y. 11901-0279 x Upon the following papers numbered 1 To 30 read on this motion; Order to Show Cause with supporting papers, pp. 1 - 7; A f f i r m at i on in Opposition with supporting papers, pp. 8 -24; Reply Affirmation with supporting papers, pp. 25 - 30; IT IS ORDERED that this motion for an order granting stay of enforcement is denied. . y J /- Miller v. Price Index No.: 16007/1998 Page No.: 2 The instant application is hopefully the last of a series of actions taken on the part of the plaintiffs since 1998, whereby they have installed a certain "Heron Structure" on a beach in the Town of Southold, New York, and have avoided having to remove said structure despite several_ decisions of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County ,and the Appellate Division, Second Department, finding this structure to be illegal. The history of these proceedings is most succinctly set forth in Intervenors- Defendants' Attorney's Affidavit (pp. 2 - 6). This motion seeks either a re-argument/renewal or outright vacatur of the prior summary judgment order based upon an allegedly "subsequent change in the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. Plaintiffs argue that such change requires judgment in their favor. The Court does not agree and denies this motion in all respects. Whether plaintiffs' instant motion is characterized as a reargument or renewal pursuant to CPLR §2221 or a motion to obtain relief from an order based on newly discovered facts, pursuant to CPLR §5015(a)(2), the fact that plaintiffs were aware or should have been aware of the amendment but did not raise it in opposition to the summary judgment motion precludes them from collaterally attacking the,summary judgment order at this time. With regard to motions for re-argument, under the express terms of CPLR §2221(d), a motion for re-argument (1) must be identified specifically as such, (2) "shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion" and (3) shall be made within thirty (30) days after service of the order being reargued. to the extent plaintiffs are trying to reargue the summary judgment order by way of the instant motion, they have failed all three requirements of CPLR §2221(d), since (1) they did not specifically identify the motion as one to re-argue, (2) the motion is based solely on new matters not argued in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and (3) the motion was made more than one-half (1/z) year after the summary judgment order was issued. Here, a motion for reargument must fail. With regard to the motion for renewal, under the express terms of CPLR §2221(e), a motion for renewal (1) must be identified specifically as such, (2) must be based upon new facts or "a change in the law that would change the prior determination" and (3) must contain a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion." Here, plaintiffs did not identify the motion as one for renewal. Also, the supposedly new facts or "change" in the law were not actually new, since the Miller v. Price Index No.: 16007/1998 Page No.: 3 amendments occurred, at the latest, in 1996, one (1) year before the motion for summary judgment was decided, and plaintiffs did not offer any excuse, much less a reasonable excuse, for their failure to present the zoning amendment at the time of the motion for summary judgment. [See, DelVecchio v. Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 636, 706 N.Y.S.2d 724 (2nd Dept. 2000)]. Here, a motion for renewal must fail. With regard to a motion for relief from a prior order pursuant to CPLR §5015(a)(2), pursuant to CPLR §5015(a)(2), a party can obtain relief from a judgment or order upon "newly discovered evidence which, if introduced at trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time to move for anew trial under §4404." Here, the fact that plaintiffs were aware or should have been aware of the amendment prior to the summary judgment motion means that the evidence was neither "newly discovered" nor "could not have been discovered in time." Thus, a CPLR §5015(a)(2) motion must fail. Parenthetically, plaintiffs argue that under §45-8(A)(1) of the Southold Code, no building permit is required for a structure less that one-hundred (100) square feet in floor area, and since the Heron Structure has a square footage of less than one- hundred (100) square feet in floor area, it is exempt froi,a building requirement under the building code. However, the Court notes that Southold Code §45-8(A) provides that "whether or not a building permit is required, all work, structures and buildings must comply with the provisions of Chapter 100, Zoning, of the Southold Town Code." Despite plaintiffs efforts, and their own attempt to label this structure as a "monument", the fact remains that accessory buildings and structures cannot be taller than eighteen (18') feet [see, Southold Town Code, §100-33(a)]. Moreover, as the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court both held, plaintiffs have no right to seek judicial intervention on their behalf since they failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of taking an appeal of the prior "Stop Work Order" to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, parenthetically, this Court has been made aware of much public criticism suggesting it has initially held that the subject matter"Bird is a structure not a work of art." It is emphasized that such is an outrageous interpretation of its holding. The initial holding simply states that the subject matter (bird) does not conform to the requirements of the Zoning Board of the Town of Southold,defining a structure or a building which was the only issue to be decided by this Court. On the contrary, it is legion that a ' l �) Miller v. Price Index No.: 16007/1998 Page No.: 4 building or structure may be defined as a work of art, such as was the case with the "Empire State Building" and/or the"George Washington Bridge" when same were constructed. The Court further suggests there may have been a contrary holding if it was required to define the subject matter "Bird as a work of art." Accordingly, this motion is denied. The foregoing constitutes the Order of the Court. Dated: JUN `f" ;�' J.S.C.