HomeMy WebLinkAbout3148
MAIN RE]AD- ~TATE Rr'IAD 2:5 srnUTHI3LD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (5161 765-1809
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 3148
Application Dated June 15, 1983 (Public Hearing '7/28/83)
TO: Abigail A. Wickham, Esq., attorney for
ROKE'S MARINA, INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD
Main Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
[Appellant(s)]
At a Meeting of
the above appeal
on your [
the Zoning Board of Appeals held on August 17, 1983
was considered, and the action indicated below was taken
] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property
New York Town Law, Section 280-a
Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance
Article , Section
] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section
[X] Request for Appeal to Vacate Order to Remedy Violation
The public hearing on this application was held on July 28, 1983,
at which time the hearing was declared closed, pending deliberations.
Upon application for ROKE'S MARINA, INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD,
by A.A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY appealing a decision of
the building inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to
Article XII, Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80(B) [14] [15];
XIV, 100-144(A) [2] (B); XI, 100-118. Location of Property: East Side
of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117-
5-28 and 29.
The board made the following findings and determination:
This is an appeal to vacate an Order to Remedy Violation dated
April 22, 1983 issued per Articles II; Section 100-23(A); VIII,
Section 100-80(B) [14] [15]; and Article XIV, Section 100-144(A) [2] (B)
of the Zoning Code, which states, "...Boat storage and boat sales
has been expanded to the northwest corner of premises without a
Certificate of Occupancy to extend land use .... A Special Exception
from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Approval from the
Planning Board is required... "
Signed statements have been submitted for the record indicating
that the area of which is the subject of this application has never
been used as a sales or storage area for boats, equipment or any
other shipyard accessory. A petition with 26 residents' signatures
was filed inopp~si~ic~. Two affidavits have been submitted for the
record which show that the premises was used as a shipyard from.
the period approximately 1954 to 1972 and was engaged in sales,
repair and storage of boats. The area which is the subject hereof
is the most northerly section, particularly that area along the
south and east sides of the parcel identified on thelCounty Tax Map
as District 1000, Section 117, Block 05, Lot 27, now of Jeffrey D.
and Susan E. Miller (containing a residence).
The premises in question is identified as CountylTax Map
strict 1000, Section 117, Block 05, Lot 29.1 (28 and 29) and
(Continued on Page Two)
August
.~ (rev.
26, 1983.
12/81)
CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
Page 2 - Appeal NOo 3148
Matter of ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a
NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD
Decision Rendered August 17, 1983
contains an area of approximately 2.6 acres, located on the east
side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. The premises is in a
"C-Light Industrial" Zoning District.
In considering this matter, it is apparently evident that
the premises has been used for the sales, repair and'storage of
boats continuously since on or before the adoption of zoning in
1957. Although prior court decisions prevail (People v. perkins
282 N.Y. 329, and People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Mis Reports 2d 242)
it is the opinion and recommendation of this board that the areas
which adjoin the residential zone, particularly along the northerly.
section, should be cleared of all boats and materials within 15
feet of the property line for safety reasons.
Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED~ that Appeal No. 3148, application of ROKE'S MARINA,
INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD to vacate Order to Remedy Viola-
tion, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDA-
TION:
That all boats and materials within 15 feet of the residential
areas/northerly property line be cleared for safety reasons.
Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suf-
folk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29 (29.1).~
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWi'~ CLEmK
DATE ~}~3 HOUR
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj71
TELEPHONE (5t6) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAW[CKI
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold,
a Regula~ Meeting and the following Public Hearings will be held
by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals at the Southold Town
Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983
commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and as follows:
7:30 p.m. Recessed Hearing: Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP.
7:35 p.m. Application of THOMAS KENNEDY, 120 Log Road, Pat-
chogus, NY 11772 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-30(A) for permission to use property for business pur-
poses, to wit: Video Tape Rental and Equipment Sales, at premises
located at 33260 S.R. 25 and 225
Minor Subdivision Map 72, Lot 1;
097-02-016.5.
Eugene's Road, Cutchogue; Filla
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
7:40 p.m. Application for ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT,
by Garrett A. Strang, 54655 Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance
to the Ploodplain Management Law,~Chapter 46, Sections 46-7 ~nd
46-18B for permission to construct sanitary facilities with first
floor below minimum required flood elevation level. Location of
Property: North Side of Main R~ad, East Marion, NY; County Tax
Map Parcels No. 1000-017-05-006 and part of 007; 1000-023-2-part
of 001 and 003.
7:45 p.m. Application for RVSS, Inc. (Razmataz), by Garrett A.
Strang, Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to'the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-112H for permission to develop and
use parking on adjacent (leased) property identified as County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-125-01-19.1; 1000-122-6-36.
7:50 p.m. Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III, Main Road,
East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII,
Section 100-71, and Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area,
width and sideyard setbacks of building in this proposed two-lot
division of property located at the northeast corner of Beckwith
Avenue and Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No.
1000-061-02-005, 006, 007.
Page 2 Legal Notice of Hearings
Regular Meeting of July ~, 1983
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
8:00 p.m. Application for RICHARD DeMARIA, by Garrett A.
Strang, Main Ro~d, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permis-
sion to construct addition with reduction in rearyard setback
at 900 Minnehaha Boulevard, Sou~hold; near Laughing Waters;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-087-02-006.
8:05 pom. Application of SOUTHOLD EQUITIES, INC., 195 Youngs
Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, Section 100-70 for permission to establish residential
and studio use of an existing building in this "B-1 General Business"
District, located along the south side of Traveler Street, Sou~hold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-61-01-015.
8:10 p.m. Application of DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, 900 ~aywaters
Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-119B for permission to erect 6' fence which would
exceed the maximum-height requirement along the front yard, at
premises known as 900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue; Nassau Point
Properties Map 763, Lot 11; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-03-06.
8:15 p.m. Application for ROKE'S MARINA, INC., by A.A. Wickham,-~
Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY, appealing a decision of the building
inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to Article
Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed:
I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80(B) [14] & [15];
100-144~A) I2] (B); XI, 100-118. Location of Property: East
Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-
117-5-28 & 29.
8:25 p.m. Application of PHILIP FRUMENTI, 3825 Stars Road,
East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-32 for permission to construct carport in the frontyard
area, at 3825 Stars Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-022-06-026.
8:30 p.m. Application of JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, (F.J. Christie,
and wife, owners), 25 Downing Avenue, Sea Cliff, NY 11579 for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for
permission to construct one-family dwelling with an insufficient
frontyard setback, at premises located on a private right-of-way
off the north side of Summit Drive, which premises also fronts along
the south side of Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, Cpt. Kidd's Estates
Part of Lot 11; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-01-042.1.
8:35 p.m. Application of JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East Road, Matti-
tuck, NY for a Variance the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
Page 3 - Legal Notice of Hearings
R~gular Meeting of July ~f, 1983
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
100-34 for permission to construct deck addition with ~n insufficient
frontyard setback, at 155 East Road, MattituCk, NY; Cpt. Kidd's
Estates Map 1672, Lot 111; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-03-009.
8:45 p.m. Application of HENRY AND VIRGINIA STEINBRECHER,
1525 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct
addition with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 1525 Haywaters
Road, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Subdivision, Section D, Map 806,
Lot 333; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-4-12.
DATED: JUNE 30, 1983.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
For further information, please contact Linda Kowalski
at the Sou~hold Town Hall 765-1809 (or 1802).
Copies to the following on or about July 11, 1983:
Mr. Alfred J. Terp
Mr. Thomas Kennedy
Mr. Garrett A. Strang
Mr. Robert W. Gillispie, III
Southold Equities, Inc. - Loretta DiMaggio, President,
Street, Massapequa Park, NY 11762
Mr. and Mrs. David Pascoe
AbSgail A. Wickham, Esq. for Rok~'s Marina
Mr. Philip Frumenti
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Lefkowitz
Mr. John Antoniou
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Steinbrecher
Suffolk Times, Inc.
L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc.
Supervisor
Town Board Members
Z.B.A. Members
Building Department
Planning Board
Town Clerk Bulletin Board
390 Rose
TOWN OF SOL'HOLD
N~W YORK
APPEAL NO.
DATE
APPEAL F~DM ORDER OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO: THE ZCNING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOU~HOLD, N.Y.
Roke's Marina, Inc. d/b/a New Suffolk Shipyard, a New York
Corporation with Offices at no ~ New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, New
York, HEREBY APPEALS, to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS frc~ the OE43ER TO
~F/~EDY VIOLATION of the Building Inspector dated April 22, 1983,
WHEREBY the Building /nspector ordered Applicant to comply with
Chapter 100 of the Zoning Ordinance and obtain a Special Exception from
the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Approval from the Planning
Board in corm~ction with boat storage and boat sales in the northwest
corner of property.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: East side of New Suffolk Bad, New Suffolk,
New York
C Li~at Industrial Zc~ing District
Suffolk County Tax Map a1000-117-5-28 &29
P~VISIONS OF ZONING O~!NANCE APPEAT.~:
Article I, ~ k90-13; Article XI ~ 100-118
Article II,~ 100-23A
Article VIII Sec. 100-80 B(t4) & (15)
Article XIV Sec. 100-144A (2)B
3. TYPE OF APPEAL: Appeal zs made for decision to vacate order to Remedy
Violation, pursuant to Article XII, ~ 100-21A of the Zoning Ordinance.
PREVIOUS APPFJ~L: A previous appeal has not, to applicant's knowledge,
been made with respect to this order of the Building Inspector or with
respect to this property.
REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant appeals on the grounds that as a pre-
existing or non-conforming, it is not necessary for it to cbtain a
special exception or site plan approval for boat storage and sales on
the premises. ~he premmses have been used in 'their entirety for such
purposes stance well befo~eavthe enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1957.
Applicant ~ not in any_ /changed the use of the premises. Boats have
always been stored throughout the shipyard property, at various places
at different ~n~s. Until recently, several boats were stored on the
north side of the residence on the premises. During recent renovations
of the house, the boats were moved across the driveway to the area adja-
cant. to Miller, a distance of about 50 feet. ~his is hardly an "expansion"
or "ckange of use" to the shipyard busmness, as alleged by the order.
While hardship end practical difficulty are not re~]~rements of
this appeal, applicant would incur hardship if required to obtain these
approvals due to the high cost of obtaining a survey and site plan, as
well as financial burdens resulting from any conditions or requzrements
which might be imposed by either of the boards in granting those approvals.
The applicant acquired the shipyard in a state of poor repair and dis-
organization, and intends to improve its appearance as quickly as possible,
and an additional expense of site plan work would divert its funds from
the much needed clean up and i~rovement effort.
~3pplicant respectfully requests that the Board vacate the Order to
Pemedy Violation and dispense with the necessity for site plan approval.
ROKE ' S MARINA, INC.
Abfgail'A. Wickham, Attorney
STATE OF NEW YORK
.SS.:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Sworn to this 15th day of June, 1983.
NO, 4742040, Suffolk
Comm. Expires Mam~ ~,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- August 17, 1983 Special Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3148.
Upon application for ROKE'S MARINA, INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD,
by A.A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY appealing a decision of
the building inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to
Article XII, Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80(B) [14] [15];
XIV, 100-144(A) [2] (B); XI, 100-118. Location of Property: East Side
of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117-
5-28 and 29.
The public hearing concerning this matter was held on July 28, 1983,
at which time the hearing was declared closed, pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
This is an appeal to vacate an Order to Remedy Violation dated
April 22, 1983 issued per Articles II, Section 100-23(A); VIII,
Section 100-80(B) [14] [15]; and Article XIV, Section 100-144(A) [2] (B)
of the Zoning Code, which states, "...Boat storage and boat sales
has been expanded to the northwest corner of premises without a
Certificate of Occupancy to extend land use .... A Special Exception
from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Approval from the
Planning Board is required... "
Signed statements have been submitted for the record indicating
that the area of which is the subject of this application has never
been used as a sales or storage area for boats, equipment or any
other shipyard accessory. A petition with 26 residents' signatures
was filed in ~Dposition. Two affidavits have been submitted for the
record which show that the premises was used as a shipyard from
the period approximately 1954 to 1972 and was engaged in sales,
repair and storage of boats. The area which is the subject hereof
is the most northerly section, particularly that area along the
south and east sides of the parcel identified on the County Tax Map
as District 1000, Section 117, Block 05, Lot 27, now of Jeffrey D.
and Susan E. Miller (containing a residence).
The premises in question is identified as County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 117, Block 05, Lot 29.1 (28 and 29) and
contains an area of approximately 2.6 acres, located on the east
side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. The premises is in a
"C-Light Industrial" Zoning District.
In considering this matter, it is apparently evident that
the premises has been used for the sales, repair and storage of
boats continuously since on or before the adoption of zoning in
1957. Although prior court decisions prevail (People v. Perkins
282 N.Y. 329, and People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Mis Reports 2d 242)
it is the opinion and recommendation of this board that the areas
which adjoin the residential zone, particularly along the northerly
section, should be cleared of all boats and materials within 15
feet of the property line for safety reasons.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- August 17,
1983
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
Now, therefore,
Goehringer, it was
on motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr.
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3148, application of ROKE'S MARINA
INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD to vacate Order to Remedy Violation,
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RECOMmeNDATION:
That all boats and materials within 15 feet of the residential
areas/northerly property line be cleared for safety reasons.
Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New
Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29 (29.1).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3152.
Upon application of JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East Road, Mattituck, NY for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 for per-
mission to construct deck addition with an insufficient frontyard setback,
at 155 East Road, Mattituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd's Estates Map 1672, Lot 111;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-03-009. ~
The public hearing concerning this application was held on July 28,
1983.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks approval of a 21' deep by 37.3'
width deck (which includes an existing 8' by 12' wide deck), leaving
an insufficient frontyard setback from the northerly property line along
East Road at approximately 22.9'. The setback of the existing one-family
dwelling without the deck area is 34.9' as shown on survey dated Septem-
ber 23, 1974 prepared by Young & Young.
Upon investigation and inspection, it has been found that the
dwelling on the east of the subject premises has a setback from the
East Road northerly property line of approximately 32½ feet. The
average setback of dwellings along this road is not closer than 34.2
feet. The relief requested is approximately 11.4 feet, or 31% of a
variance.
The board members have visited the site in question and are
familiar with the land, improvements and immediate surroundings.
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that
the variance request is not substantial in relation to the require-
ments of the zoning code [31%]; (2) that the circumstances are not
unique; (3) that by allowing the variance as applied, other
properties may be affected; (4) that the difficulty can be obvi-
ated by a method feasible other than a variance; (5) that the
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y, 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
December 27, 1983
Mr. Victor Lessard, Administrator
Southold Town Building Department
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Appeal No. 3148 - New Suffolk shipyard
Decision Rendered August 17, 1983
Dear vic:
The attached letters are herewith transmitted for
consideration by the Building Department and its prosecut-
ing attorney inasmuch as we have been recently advised
that enforcement is not within the purview of the Z.B.A.
If additional information is needed, please let us know.
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
lk
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs.
J.D. Miller
~xRS. JEFFREY D. MILL. ER
BOX 152
~~,,
Board of Appeals
Seuthold Town Hall
Southold, NY llP?l
Box 152
Suffolk, NY 11956
Dear Sirs:
It recently came to our attention that you decided in favor of the applicant
in t~e Roke's Marina (dba New Suffolk Shipyard) case and ~antcd their request that
their orde~ to ~emedy be vacated with the reco~e~atton t~t beets and m~ine equip-
ment not ~ par~ withi~ ~5 feet of t~ M~ller 9ro~rty line. We ~e ~so aware that
Abigail Wlek~, t~ Rokes' attorney, has ~itten a 1etteT (dated ~6~) requestfn~
you to drop that.~eco~endat~on. ~
We cannot emphasize enou~ how stron~l~ we op~se that =eq~st. '~Re~aTdtess cf
Ms. Wiekh~'s co~e,tLon that t~ Ro~s wil~ ~ eve~ effort/to k~p t~ area ~at
a~ clean a~ to st~. the boats ~B a sa~e ma~=~ we bel~ ~t ~'fs your
btlity to ~oteet t~ hea~th a~ safety of residents within y~v~jurisdiation to '~ __
extent that the laws you %nforce allowS. To vemo~ the onIy ~s you allowed us
the way of ~otact/on ~uld, we feel, do us a ~oss injustice. ?
~w you a~t%ed at t~ decision' to vacate the o~er to =6~dy is, i~eed~ a
to us inasmuch as we pv~ided afiidavits a~ a wit~ss who asse~ed that the
of t~ prope~y in question has aever~ in t~ histo~ of the sh~ard, been used for
a~hi~ ot~r than .parking space for the residents of the hou~we now o~.
Rokes' affidavits stated ~rely that ther~ is a shipyard on New Suffolk Road -- the
~sue of ~at that ~rtiaular section was used fey was completely evaded.
~ l~e would greatly appreciate it if you ~uld s~d so~ lig~ on the rationale
behind t~ decision. Also, w~ cannot affo~ an attorney to appv~e us of t~ tegal
r~iftcations of a "r~co~endation" as bp~sad to a "~ndition",, ~at is the dtfference~
and are the Rokes legally bou~ by your reco~dation?
We ~plove that you not be fooled by Ms. WickMm's statement in her letter regarding
t~ fact that the Rokes h~e- put up a fence along our ~o~rty ,line. She apparently
Mpes to mislead you into thinking that that was done for our benefit~ and safety.
~ever, the truth is that at the h~a~ng before your boa~ ~ husband,~, mentioned that
we ~re research%ng the ~ssibflity ~aequ~ng a 9rescr[pti~ ,~asement for }~ ~all
area where cars Mv6 historically ~en pared pa~ally on the pro~rty of our residence
a~ 9~tially on the shipward 9ro~rty. Within a week of the '~ing, the fence was
erected to deter us in our effort. ' '~
we h~ alve~y decided to drop ~y pursuit of ~ easement, h?gh ~ ~t every
cvite=~ ~eT the laws' because of cost. We are n~ p~king on ~v pro~rt~ and
~e having a parki~ bay ~avaled, so it should be cle~ to you that O~ motivation
in opposing Ms. 'Wickh~'s request is sincerely based solely on concern for our safety
and rights as pro~cty ~ners in this to~. As cur witness test~ied before you at
the public hearing, ~ near ~uld ha~ ~ught the house in the ,first place tf
~ea fl~ed/ately adjacent to ~v ~rcel (one-eighth of an acre) had been used by the
'shipyard.
Fu~he~ores we have absolutely no reason to believe that the Ro~s proud to you
tMt t~ order to ~dy issued by t~ building department should ha~ been vaeated~
espeeially since you set a precedent 'in the case of ~rong's Marina se~ral ~ars ago.
By the way, despite your veco~e~atfon~ t~ Ro~s continue to store b~t trailers
~d decrepit signs ~ g~bage ea~ within o~ foot of our property l~e. · So much for
theii honorable intentions.
If you~lere In any way sward by ~. Wickham's contention at the public he.ina that
this is s~91y a do~stia avg~ent that ~ose over the p~king of o~ cars, ~ are
s~ly mistaken. Tbm facts ~m just as we stated them in ~evious letters to you: They
wanted to b~ o= house, a~ ~en we were unable to sell to them ~ ~y 1~ they sa~
~ey ~uld ~gin parki~ boats on our ~o~rty li~. All other disputes c~e up much
later.
m~gh~ be L~terested in our 1/mt encounter with the Rokes about a month agog' While
ou~ ~n our yard, I noticed that on~ of the survey markers -- a spltnter~, ~thless
st~¢k w~th a red ribbon ti~ ~ound ~t -- lying on our p~. T~ sti~had
previously been plaid by ~ ~ an o~n ~st hole left ~ t~'Ro~s on their property
line at the ~o~ of New Sutfolk Road, I wa~ed passers~to be aw~e th~ there was
a hole the~ .' . .' ~
~n I saw ~e st~ck ~ our ya~, I ass~d the Ro~s or one o~ t~17 ~mpI~es
h~ t~ ~t theft sptte?lly. ~.f~rst ~st~ct ~as to throt~ it bac~b~ ~ dec~ed
that t~re ~ul~ ~ ~ pomt ~n mak~g trouble, ~ I took t~ sti~. to.~r g~bage can
to accuse ae of s~aling t~ wort~ess p~ee ot trash. ~en I ~Id ~% I t~ew it out
,~cause it w~ g~bage~ sba sa~ s~ wanted It back ~aau~e she~aM.~Or it. ~ough
. I was u~er t~ ~P=sss~n t~t th~ to~paM tot t~ s~ S~ ~rfo~d it, I
~mp1~d ~ith her de~d Dlaced it ca.fully along~r fence: res~ti~the ~pulse
to throv it to.her, agai~ t~ i~erest of ~aee. ~ls is th6~ntality that ~ h~
~en deali~ w~th s~nce ~e ~o~s ~ught the shi~d last Fermi Her a~tfon ~ consistent
with ever~htng else they] ha~ done to us since t~y took over~i~' ,
Plebe stop th~ t~ continuing to =a~ us the b~t of t~ abuse. At the .~ry . '/
least, uphold your ~co~ndation. or, ~tter ~t, ma~ It a ~itlon to re~ ~y
doubt as to ~ts entorceab!l lty. If there ~re a ~e-ex~ti~ ~ door~ you
wouldn't let them ~t tab/es along our property li~ ~ st~t ~ople. ~ is .:
this different?
Miller
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGOfllS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
October 6, 1983
Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler,
Main Road, P.O. Box 1424
Mattituck, NY 11952
PoC.
Re: Appeal No. 3148 - Roke's Marina
Request for Reconsideration
Dear Gail:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation
that the following action was taken by the board at its
Special Meeting held on September 13, 1983 pursuant to
your request dated September 6, 1983 in the above-entitled
matter:
RESOLVED, not to change, amend, alter, modify or
rehear this board's decision rendered August 17, 1983 in
the matter of Roke's Marina, Inc., Appeal No. 3148.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
Secretary
WICkhAM, W~CKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C.
MATTITUCK LONG ISLAND
New YORK 11952
516-298-83S3
September 6, 1983
Board of
Ton of $ou old
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Roke's Marina (New Suffolk Shipyard)
Appeal No. 3148
Gentlemen:
I have received your decision and have reviewed it with
my clients. We are concerned about the recommendation that
the 15 foot area be kept clear for safety reasons.
The basis of the application was that the property has
been used in its entirety for sales and storage of boats
since prior to 1957. The Rokes need the entire property for
this purpose and do not believe they are legally precluded
from using the area when needed for these purposes. They
will of course make every effort to keep the area neat and
clean and to store the boats in a safe manner for their own
liability protection and have erected a fence along the Miller
property line.
We would appreciate your reconsideration of this matter
with the request that the recommendation be omitted.
Very truly yours
Abigail A. Wickham
AAW:emu
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Roke
New Suffolk Shipyard
Southold
Town Board of Appeals
SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
August 29, 1983
Abigail A.
Main Road,
Mattituck,
Wickham, Esq.
Box 1424
NY 11952
Re: Appeal No. 3148
Roke's Marina (New Suffolk Shipyard)
Dear Ms. Wickham:
Attached hereto is a copy of the official determina-
tion rendered in the above matter and filed this date with
the Office of the Town Clerk.
Yours very truly,
Enclosure
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
Secretary
Southold Town Board ~Appeals -18- July 28, Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3147 - DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, continued:)
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that
the variance request is not substantial in relation to the require-
ments of the zoning code; (2) that the difficulty cannot be
obviated by a method feasible to appellants other than a variance;
(3) that the circumstances are unique; (4) that by allowing the
variance, no detriment to adjoining properties would be created;
(5) that no adverse effects would be produced on available govern-
mental facilities of any increased population; (6) that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and (7) that the interests of justice will
be served by allowing the variance as requested.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3147, application of DAVID AND
BONNIE PASCOE for permission to erect a six-foot high fence
be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED IN THE SUBJECT APPLICATION
filed June 14, 1983.
Location of Property: Nassau Point Properties Lot 11, Map 763;
900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
111-03-06.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RiNUB~IC HEARING: ADp2al N~. 31~8. Application for ROKE'S
, INC.d/b/a NEW S~FFOLK SHIPYARD, by A. A. Wickham,~sq.,
~-~attituc-~, N~, ~~decision of the building
inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to
Article XII, Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordi-
nance Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80(B)-
[14][15]; XIV, 100-144(A) [2] (B); XI, 100-118. Location of Property:
East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map
No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:28 o'clock p.m. and read
the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIR~N: Miss Wickham.
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: You might be tired of hearing variances,
so this will give you something else to think about. It's actually
unfortunate I think that we have to be hear to argue and discuss this
case tonight because really I think what happened was, this Spring
a dispute arose betweenthe Rokes and their neighbor as to parking of
cars along this area on the northwest corner, which resulted in a
complaint to the Building Department, and dragged the Building Depart-
ment into trying to settle the dispute. However, I think there are
factual legal issues here, or issues here that would resolve this
case clearly. The Shipyard that we're looking at is without question
Southold Town Board~ Appeals -19- July 28,~983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S M~RINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
MISS WICKHAM continued:
a nonconforming use to the full extent of the premises. Although they
were not able to attend tonight, I have affidavits from Alvin Smith
and Michael Wieczorek, who are two prior owners of the shipyard--if
the board would accept them in their action. They merely state that
the shipyard was in operation on this entire premises from the period
from 1964 to 1972 under their respective ownership.
(Miss Wickham submitted the two affidavits with a copy of a survey.)
I can also state of my own personal knowledge that since 1972 when Mr.
Wieczorek sold it, the shipyard was used in its entirety as a shipyard,
and that encompassed sales and storage with care and maintenance of
boats and motors, related, et cetera. This use is continuing without
change, and therefore it would not be necessary to implement any site
plan or other provisions of the zoning ordinance as required by the
order of the building inspector.
Section 100-144(A) [3] states that a C/O and therefore the other
requirements of the code are not necessary unless there is a change
in the use of a nonconforming use. We don't have that here. We have
merely a continuation of that use. Section 100-13 defines a noncon-
forming use as the use of a building or, and I quote, "a tract of land"
or both. So the use would extend to the property, not to any particular
portion of it. And 100-118 indicates that a lawful use of the building
on the premises may be continued. There is also quite a bit of case law
in New York State, which supports this argument.
The building inspector did state an expansion of use. I don't know
any facts that could support that--but even if there were an expansion
of the use, the Court of Appeals of New York, and more recently, the
Appellate Division, which is the second highest court in New York, have
stated that even though there has been an increase of volume of use, it
does not mean that the nonconforming use has exceeded its boundaries,
and I'd just like to mention those cases. The Court of Appeals' cases,
People v. Perkins, 292 N.Y. 329 and the 2d Dept. of the Appellate Divi-
sion, which is within our jurisdiction, this portion of New York State,
is People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Misc. Reports 2d 242.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MISS WICKHAM: In summary then since the entire property has
been used for these purposes, I don't believe that because a boat
is stored on one particular portion or another it can be said to be
a violation. And since the property is a nonconforming use, I
believe that it does not fall within the guideline of the code in
terms of when a Special Exception, et cetera is needed, unless what's
happened takes it out of that section by changing the use or doing
something that would terminate in some way the nonconforming use.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be heard
in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Mr. Miller.
Southold Town Board~Appeals -20- July 28~983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
JEFF MILLER: Jeff Miller, New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. There
can be no doubt that the parking of boats and related equipment on
the north side of the driveway of the New Suffolk Shipyard constitutes
a new and expanded use of the shipyard property.
Affidavits submitted to the Building Department by the vice presi-
dent of the New Suffolk Civic Association -- a lifelong resident of the
area, as well as a former owner of the shipyard, for more than a decade
prior to Mr. Roke's purchase, make this fact perfectly clear. In
addition, many other long-term New Suffolk residents have attested to
this fact; this is an expanded use of the shipyard.
In further agreement is the Southold Town Building Department,
which issued the applicant an Order to Remedy, which directed him to
move the boats and equipment by May 6, 1983. That Order was ignored.
The applicant applied for relief from the Order of the Building
Inspector well after that date on June 15th. In his application, he
contends that the premises have been used in their entirety for boat
storage and sales since before the enactment of the zoning ordinance.
This is untruee.
Furthermore, he states that it was during recent renovations of
the house on the property that the boats and equipment were moved to
the northern boundary line. This, too, is untrue. They actually
were moved well prior to the renovation immediately following our
refusal to sell the Rokes our house. After several offers to pur-
chase our residence, which we were unable to accept because of the
unavailability of real estate within our price range and the impend-
ing birth of our daughter, Mr. Roke stated, and I quote, "If you
don't sell me your house, I'm going to have to start parking boats
on your property line." Shortly thereafter, between Christmas and
New Year's, he acted on his threat and parked first, one large cabin
cruiser, then a smaller boat, a trailer and a saw horse sign in a
line along our southern boundary. Construction on his house didn't
begin until several months later.
Regarding the contention of his appeal that the applicant would
incur a financial hardship if he were required to comply with the
order, we respectfully submit that moving the boats and equipment
now in violation of the zoning ordinance to an accepted site on the
premises would involve no expense whatsoever. Moving the boats is
not even mentioned in his appeal. Instead, he refers to the high
cost of obtaining a survey and site plan. Although we realize that
it is up to this board to determine whether or not this is a valid
argument, we feel that the cost of such items should not even enter
into the question of hardship; especially since it would be an
expense he chose to bear over the simplier and cost-free task of
immediate compliance.
As former shipyard owners have verified, there is absolutely
no need to utilize the small northwest section of the shipyard
property for storage or sales. There is a great deal of available
Southold Town Board Appeals -21- July 28~983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S ¥~RINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
MR. MILLER continued:
space now vacant in areas where boats have traditionally been stored.
Therefore, we believe that the new practice of parking boats and
equipment along our lot line can be attributed to pressure tactics
and spite, not hardship or established usage.
Furthermore, we also object to the delaying tactics used by
the applicant in avoiding compliance. The boats and equipment, as
well as the illegal sign as per Section 100-110A of the Town Code,
have been stored in violation since before January 1, 1983. We have
had to endure this unsightly and dangerous situation for some 8 months,
yet still the applicant has made an effort only to get the Order to
Remedy vacated, not to apply for the necessary variance for continued
usage of the area in question.
Anyone familiar with baots including former shipyard owners have
agrees that this is a hazardous condition. Boats with gas tanks are
parked no more than 12 feet from our house and three feet from our
property line, in violation of Section 100-114 of the Town Code, which
prohibits in all districts any fire hazard or anything which might
cause injury, annoyance or disturbance to surrounding properties and
their occupants.
For the past eight months, when looking out of our living room
windows, we have been unable to see anything but a cabin cruiser which
rises nearly to the height of our second-story windows. This is an
annoyance and a disturbance inasmuch as this particular boat obstructs
our view. Also, it is not impossible that a boat could catch fire or
topple over onto our property, damaging our house and anyone in its
path. We submit that a neighboring property owner should not have to
endure these hazards and that the town is obligated to protect the
health, welfare and safety of its residents by prohibiting this new
use. Also, there can be no doubt that the new storage area will have
a negative effect on our property value.
A legal precedent was set by this board under Appeal #825,
Strong's Marina, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. In 1971, the ZBA
approved outdoor storage of boats at the marina with the conditions
that they not be stored closer than 25 feet to any property line.
To disregard our plea that the same conditions be imposed at the
New Suffolk Shipyard, we feel would be inconsistent on the part of
this board.
We ask for the same protection granted the neighbors of Strong's
Marina. At the time of the board's decision, Strong's Marina was
an existing shipyard and boat storage facility. Additional boat
storage was considered an expansion of use by this board.
As an analogy, we point to the case of a restaurant that
suddenly decides to set up tables and begin serving in an area of
its lot not previously used for food service. The fact that the
entire parcel may be zoned business does not give its owners the
inherent right to expand their seating capacity -- say along a
neighboring lot line, at their own discretion. Such a move would
Southold Town Board ppeals -22- July 28,~983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
MR. MILLER continued:
require site plan approval by the Planning Board at the very least.
In closing, we respectfully urge this board to verify that the
recent storage and sale of boats and equipment in said location does
in fact constitute a new use, and to enforce the Order to Remedy with
all possible haste. Furthermore, we strenuously object to the
issuance of any variance or approval that would circumvent this
order to comply.
I'd like to submit the transcript of this as well as photographs
of the situation. (Mr. Miller submitted a three-page transcript and
nine photographs of the subject premises and storage area for the
record.) Also, a 26-name petition signed by area residents protest-
ing the extension of the shipyard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
MISS WICKHAM: May I ask Mr. Miller a question about them?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, would you stand at the mike please.
MISS WICKHAM: I see a picture of a brown car here next to the
fence on the shipyard property. Is that your car?
MR. MILLER: Yes, it is.
MISS WICKHAM: Thank you. I see a blue car on the shipyard
property next to the fence in the area in dispute. Is that your car?
MR. MILLER: Yes, partially on their property.
MISS WICKHAM: Partially on who else's property?
MR. MILLER: Mine.
MISS WICKHAM: Your property extends southward of the fence?
MR. MILLER: Yes, it does.
MISS WICKHAM: There's another photograph here with two cars--
a brown car and a blue car on the shipyard line there. Are those
your cars?
MR. MILLER: Yes they are.
MISS WICKHAM: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Regarding them, if I may speak again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
MR. MILLER: Cars of the owners of my house have been parked
Southold Town Board Appeals -23- July 28,~983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S bI~RINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:
MR. MILLER continued:
there since the house was built in 1940. This has been attested to
by former owners and area residents and former shipyard owners. We
are currently researching a move to establish a restrictive easement
on that narrow strip that has caused all this hullabaloo.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How much of an area would you say that would be,
Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Fifty square
purchase but were turned down.
your house."
feet at the most, which we offered to
They said"if you want that, sell me
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, there's one picture here that reflects
debris. Could you tell me where on the southeast property line?
MR. MILLER: That's right on the property line behind my house
and right on the line between the two houses. That was the condition
I would say for, up until very recently there is still open storage--
open garbage cans have been on the lot line--things have not improved
on that location since they moved in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak
against this application? Please state your name, Ma'am.
MARY FERGUSON: I'm Mary Ferguson and I live on the north side
of the Miller property between Withers, Millers and the boatyard.
I've been a resident here at that property for 29 years, and for
the 29 years that I have been there, most boat owners, whom I have
seen come and go, have kept that property in an orderly manner. Now
since the new owners took the property, they have parked boats right
along the side of Miller's property. They have put trailers along
side of Miller's property which never has been done in all the 29
years I have lived there. And to me I think that is a terrible
hazard, and the debris that's piled in the back which stayed clean
that they have not enough available space while they're renovating--
if they would remove the debris or use the open stalls, they would
have had no problem to store boats next to the Millers' property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, ma'am. Would anybody else
like to speak against the application? Miss Wickham, do you have
anything in rebuttal?
MISS WICKHAM: I think Mr. Miller's comments and his pictures
illustrate that this is in fact a neighborly dispute that should
be settled as he admitted in the Courts in terms of who has the
right to use that property and not drag it into the building
department and the ZBA. The law is very clear, and in fact the
case I gave you, People v. Perkins directly addresses the issue
of expansion, whether boats were ever stored there before or not
is not the issue. The issue is that the entire property was used
as the shipyard and they were stored at various places throughout
the shipyard during that period.
Southold Town Board Appeals -24- July 28, Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
MS. WICKHAM continued:
When Mr. Miller bought the property, he new there was a shipyard
there, and I can't see that he is getting into anything that he
didn't know as there ahead of time. Section 100-114 on the other
items he mentioned regarding safety and fire hazard were not cited
by the building inspector as a violation. I would think that if they
were, he would have certainly mentioned it.
As to Strong's Marina, he did not show that they were the same
circumstances that it was a nonconforming use and that the storage
issue was in any way related.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MRS. FERGUSON: May I say something. Again I say, at no time
in all the 29 years that I have lived there, I have ever seen a
boat next to the property that Miller lives in now. When Miller
bought the property, there were other owners in that boatyard. The
people that haven't were not there. And had he seen the condition
that he sees now, I'm sure that he would not have bought that
property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: I underscore that heartily, plus the issue of
cars never came up until well after this whole situation happened
when Mr. Roke bought the shipyard. Even before he was in I was
made an offer on the house which I could not accept not being able
to find one. It was that that lead to this dispute and nothing
else. The parking of boats is nothing but an irritant I feel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would
like to say anything concerning this application? Mrs. DeMaggio.
MRS. DeMAGGIO: I am not an interested party at all. I just
have a question and it just comes to mind as a preexisting business
use. And I don't know if it's proper to ask it of this board.
Since we have a similar situation not in this area--if it's a
preexisting use and the property owners come in and this use has
existed I understand even before 1954, even though the property
owner that comes in changes the position of various vehicles if
it were vehicles or boats as it applies and this has not been
traditional, why would the board have to rule on it. I don't
understand what's happening here. Mr. Lessard, could you tell me?
Other than a personal dispute- I can see that. But I'm concerned
with the nonconforming use because we have been interested in
purchasing property with a nonconforming use. We would be new
owners in a similar position.
MR. LESSARD: What are you asking?
MRS. DeMAGGIO: What I am asking you is, why does the Zoning
Appeals Board have the right to tell the new owners that they must
Southold Town Board~ Appeals -25- July 28,~983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
MRS. DeMAGGIO continued:
change the way they want to operate in a nonconforming preexisting use?
Would you have that right? I don't know if I'm making that clear.
I'll try and say it again. If I were to own this boatyard, assuming
I intended to buy it, and I wanted to change the geography but within
my lines, I just wanted to change it around, ok? Moving things that
normally can be moved, for instance, cars, boats, trailers, or areas
related to whatever the preexisting nonconforming use would be. Why
would I need to have a ruling by this board before I am allowed to do
that? It's very pertinent to a purchase that I intend to make.
MS. WICKHAM: I think I can answer that.
MR. LESSARD: The law is very specific. It says that a noncon-
forming use, if it exists, cannot be expanded. And the question
before this board from where I'm sitting is, was it or wasn't it
expanded? I'm not about to elaborate one way or the other on that.
MRS. DeM3~GGIO: That's exactly my question. How are we to
find it expanded? Are they going out of their boundary? And that's
why I'm asking. I formerly owned a house almost adjacent to this
boatyard, so it's a concern to me but not now. I no longer own it.
But I'm concerned as to the ruling by this board on expansion. Has
there been an expansion is my question. I don't know the situation.
So that is what I would like to know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. DeMaggio, I think you have to bear in mind
and some people lose sight of this, and you haven't I don't think,
but most people don't realize that we only act upon a disapproval of
the building inspector. So in this particular case, we weren't the
ones making the determination of what was supposedly violated, or
whatever way you would like to state it. So to answer your question,
it's really a legal question that I think the Town Attorney should
answer. Ok? However, I just want you to be aware that we do some
times ask the Town Attorney these questions, and--.
MRS. DeMAGGIO: I thought it might be. I was just concerned
with another property which we intend to purchase, and I know that
there's always some sort of a residual when a new owner comes in
and asks for the preexisting nonconforming use, and that's what I
wanted a ruling on, whether you have the right to rule on whether
in fact it was an expansion. And that would be a legal question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MRS. DeMAGGIO: Ok. I'm sorry I~ve taken your time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other statements from either side concerning
this application? Ok, hearing no further questions, I'll ask the
board members if they have any questions? (None) Hearing no
further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
Southold Town Board ~Appeals -26- July 28,~83 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision until later
in the matter of Appeal No. 3148, ~or ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK
SHIPYARD.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr.
Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to*recess temporarily for approximately five minutes,
at which time the Regular Meeting would be reconvened. *8:54 9:05 p.m.)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING: At 9:05 p.m., the meeting was
reconvened, after motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen,
to RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3149. Application of PHILIP
FRUMENTI, 3825 Stars Road, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to
construct carport in the frontyard area, at 3825 Stars Road, East
Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-022-06-026.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:05 o'clock p.m. and read
the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of
this application?
PHILIP FRUMENTI: It's what you have said there. I have no
other place where I can put the carport except where it is now
in that driveway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Frumenti, is there any reason why you can't
push the carport back a little bit farther?
MR. FRUMENTI: A few reasons. One of the reasons is that I
have some huge white pines right behind there. I also store some
of my work equipment in that general area. If I moved that, I'm
stuck. That's about the only place I have.
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose storage expansion
recently begun by the New Suffolk Shipyard to include land
immediately bordering the Miller property. We also oppose
any fencing all along the shipyard's New Suffolk Road fron-
tage when a fence setback of 100 feet or more would serve.
As citizens who have established homes in the area, we protest
these negative impacts on the neighborhood.
ADDRESS
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose storage expansion
recently begun by the New Suffolk Shipyard to include land
immediately bordering the Miller property. We also oppose
any fencing all alone the shipyard's New Suffolk Road fron-
tage when a fence setback of 100 feet or more would serve.
As citizens who have established homes in the area, we protest
these negative impacts on the neighborhood.
ADDRESS
STATEMENT FOR THE 7-28-85 ZONING BOARD OFf,PEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
HEARING ON APPEAL OF NEW SUFFOLK SBIPYARD
STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. & JEFFREY D. MILI~
TH~I~E CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PARKING OF BOATS ~ RELATED EQUIPMENT
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY OF THE NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD CONSTITUTES A
NEW AND EXPANDED USE OF THE SHIPYARD PROPI~TY.
AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIA~.-,-A LIFE-LONG RESIDENT OF THE AREA .- AS
WE~ AS A FORMI~ OWNER OF THE SHIPYARD Ei2~;~__ 3:.--__ -"
1~ FOR MORE THAN A DECADE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO MR. ROKE'S PURCHASE,
MAKE THIS FACT PERFECTLY CLEAR. IN ADDITION, MANY OTH2~ LONG-TERM NI~ SUFFO]~
RES/DENTS HAVE ATTESTED TO THIS FACT; THIS IS AN EXPANDED USE OF THE SHIPYARD.
IN FURTHER AGRE~T IS THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMI"~NT WHICH
ISSUED THE APPLICANT AN ORDER TO RF-MEDY WHICH DIRECTED HIM TO MOVE TEE BOATS
AND EQUIPMENT BY MAY ~, 1983. THAT ORDER WAS IGNORED.
THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR RELIEF F~OM THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
WELL AFTER THAT DATE ON JUNE t9. IN HIS APPLICATION HE CONTENDS THAT THE
FREMISES HAVE BEEN USED IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR BOAT STORAGE AND SALES SINCE
BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS IS UNTRUE.
FURTHERMORE, HE STATES THAT IT WAS DURING RECENT RID;OVATIONS OF THE HOUSE
ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE BOATS AND EQUIP~tENT WERE MOVED TO THE NORTHER}; BOUNDARY
LINE. THIS, TOO, IS UNTRUE. THEY ACTUALLY WI~E MOVED WELL PRIOR TO THE
RENOVATION IFJiEDIATELY FOLLOWING OUR REFUSAL TO SET,T, THE ROKES OUR HOUSE. AffTI~
SEVERAL OFFERS TO PURCHASE OUR RESIDENCE, WHICH WE WERE UNABLE TO ACCEPT BE-
CAUSE THE UNAVAILABILITY OF REAL ESTATE WITHIN OUR PRICE RANGE AND THE IMPENDING
BIRTH OF OUR DAUGHTER, MR. ROKE STATED: "IF YOU DON'T OET.T. ME YOUR HOUSE, I'M
GOING 21~ HAVE TO START PARKING BOATS ON YOUR PROPERTY lINE." SHORTLY THEREAFTI']~,
B~?fWEEN CHRISTMAS AND iNEW YEAR'S, NE ACTED ON HIS THR~T AND PARKED FIRST ONe'.
LARGE CABIN CRUISe, THEN A SM~/J~ BgAT, A TRAII~ AND A SAWHQRSE SIGN IN A
LINE ALONG OUR SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. Qn~4~,'c~'~'^
REGARDING THE CONTENTION IN HIS APPEAL THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD INCUR A
p.2~ STATEMF~NT OF J~FF AND SUE MILL~
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IF HE W~RE R~UIR~D TO COMPLY WITH. THE ORD]'~, WE RESPECT~"JI.I.Y
sUBMIT ~T MOVING THE BOATS A~ ~UIP~ NOW IN VIO~TION OF THE ZONING ORDIN~CE
TO AN ACC~ SITE ON THE ~S~ WOU~ INVOLVE NO E~SE
~E ~ATS IS NOT EV~ ~ION~ IN ~IS APPEL. INST,, HE R~S TO T~ HIGH
COST OF OBTAINING A S~VEY A~ SITE P~N. ~OUGH WE R~ZE ~AT IT IS
~ ~IS ~D TO D~MINE ~ OR NOT ~IS IS A VA~D ~GU~, ~ Fz~.
T~T T~ ~ST OF SUCH iTE~ SHOU~ NOT ~V~ ~T~ IN~ ~E 9U~TION OF ~DSH~
~P~CIA~Y SINCE IT WOU~ BE AN E~SE HE CHOS~ ~ B~ OV~ THE SI~ A~
~ST-~ TASK OF I~IATE ~LIANCE.
IN E~INING HIS R~SONS F~ ~P~, ~. RO~ A~O STAT~ ~AT HE SHOU~
WIN SOME FAV0~ BECAUSE OF HIS EF~RTS TO I~0VE ~E ~P~ANCE OF ~E SHIPY~D.
W~ CONT~ T~T ~E AT3.F~ I~OV~ENTS ~E S~F-S~VING ~R ~E P~SE OF
IN~ING PROFITS. SINCE ~. ROKE BOU~T ~E SHIPY~D, ~ ONLY I~OV~
OF ~E ~OP~TY EVIDENT TO AN~NE BUT HIS CUS~S IS ~E R~OVATION OF T~
HOUS~ ON THE ~IS~, A~ THIS WAS DONE SO~LY ~USE HIS F~ILY N~ A
HO~. ~OM O~ V~TAGE POINT, THE ~P~ANCE HAS ONLY WORSEN~ ~-
E~, ~BA~ CANS-~AL B~R~ WITHOUT L~S -- ~E NOW STOR~ IN ~ V~W
OF O~ R~O~ ~D N~ SUF~ RO~ THOU~ ~IOR ~ HIS P~S~
~ B~I~ A F~C~ O~ OF SI~T. ~N HIS BAS~NT ~AS ~ING ~CAVAT~,
RATS ~ ~ N~T ON ~ N~ O~ ~oP~TY ~I~ R~U~ I~V~ION BY
COU~ H~TH D~T~T. IN ~DITION, ~ BOATS ~ ~AI~ ST~ IN VIO~TION
AT O~ ~T LINE N~ ONLY O~S~UCT O~ VI~, ~Y ~E IN ~R ~ITION
UNSI~TLY. A SIGN STATING ~ SHIPY~D'S BUSINGS HO~S AS~ T~T A
ON D~Y. F~C~ O~ ~OP~TY IN SUCH A WAY T~T IT ~U~ N~ ~NSTIT~E AN~HING
B~ SPITE SINCE IT IS NOT EV~ VISIB~ ~OM THE SHIPY~D.
A~ D~IS ON ~E ~0UND AT THE R~ CORN~ OF O~ Y~D.
AS ~ SHIPY~D OWN~S HAVE 9~IFI~, THeE IS ~SOLUT~Y NO N~
UTILIZE ~ S~ NORT~T S~ION OF ~E SHIPY~D PROP~TY ~R S~RAGE OR
S~.F~. ~E IS A ~T D~L OF AVAI~ SPACE NOW VAC~T IN ~S ~E BOATS
~VE ~ITIONA~Y B~ STOR~. TH~E~RE, WE B~LIEVE ~AT T~ N~ PRA~ICE
OF p~NG ~ATS A~ ~UIP~ A~NG O~ ~ ~N~ CAN ONLY
FRESSURE TACTICS AND SPITE, NOT HARDSHIP OR ESTABLISHED USAGE.
FURTH~MGRE, WE ALSO OBJECT TO THE DELAYING TACTICS USED BY THE APPLICANT
IN AVOIDING COMPLIANCE. THE BOATS AND ]~UIPM~NT, AS WF. YJ.'AS THE ILLEGAL SIGN
AS P~ SECTION lOO-lqOA OF TH~ TOWN CODE HAVE BEEN STONED IN VIOLATION SINCE
BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1983- WE HAVE }{AD TO ENDURE THIS UNSIGHTLY AND DANG]~OUS
SITUATION FOR SOME EIGHT MONTHS, Y~T STILL THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AN
ONLY TO GET THE ORD]~ TO RF~Y VACATED, NOT TO APPLY FOR TH~ N~CESSARY
VARIANCE FOR CONTINUED USAC~ OF TH~ AR~'.A IN qUESTION.
ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH BOATS INCLUDING FORM~ SHIPYARD OWN~S HAVE AGR~:zn
THAT THIS IS A H~ARDOUS CONDITION. BOATS WITH GAS TANKS A~F. PARK/~D NO MORE
TH~ T~ELVE FF~ FROM OUR HOUS~'- AND THRF2~ FF~ FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION100-114 OF T~ TOWN CODE WHI~'H PROHIBITS IN ~ DISTRICTS
ANY FIRE HAZ~ OR ANYTHING ~HICH MIGHT CAUSE INJURY, ANNOYANCE OR DISTURBANCE
TO SURROUNDING PROP~TIES AND TH~-'//~ OCCUPANTS.
FOR TH~ PAST EIGHT MONTHS, ~ LOOKING OUT OF OUR LIVING ROOM WINDOWS,
WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO SF~ ANi"i~ING ~UT A CABIN URUIS~ WHICH RISES NEARLY TO
THE F~EIGHT OF OUR SECOND STORY WINDOWS. THIS IS AN ANNOYANCE AND A DISTURBANCE
INASMUCH AS THIS PARTICULAR BOAT OBSTRUCTS OUR VIEWl AL.SO, ~IS NOT IMPOSSIBI2~
THAT A BOAT COULD CATCH FIRE OR TOPPL~ OV~ ONTO OUR PROP~TY DAMAGING OUR
HOUSE ~ ANYONE IN ITS PATH. WE SUBMIT THAT A N~iIGHBORING PROP]~TY OWN]~
SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ,.~URE THESE HAZARDS AND THAT T}IE TOWN IS OBLIGATED TO
FROTECT THE H~.ALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ITS RESID~TS BY PROHIBITING THIS
A I~L PRECEDF. NT WAS S~.T BY THIS BOARD UND]~ APPEAL ~82~: STRONG'S MARINA,
CAMP MINEOLA ROAD, MATTITUCK. IN 1971, THE ZBA APPROVED OUTDOOR STORAGE OF
BOATS AT THE MARINA WITH THF. GONDITION T~AT THEY NOT BE STORED CLO$~ THAN
~FEET TO ANY PROP~TY I/N~.. TO DISREGARD OUR PLEA THAT THE SA~ CONDITIONS
BE IMPOSED AT TH~ N51~ SUFFOLK SHIPYARD WF. FE~/L WOULD BE INCONSIST~T ON
PART OF THIS BOARD. WE ASK FCR TH~ SAM~ PROTF~TION GRANTED TH~ ~C~S OF
P.4 STATEMenT OF jEFF AND $U£ MILL~
STRONG'S MARINA. AT THE TIME (FTHE BOARD'S DECISION, STRONG'S MARINA WAS AN
EXISTING SHIPYARD AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY. ADDITIONAL BOAT STORAGE WAS
CONSIDERK~ AN EXPANSION OF US£ BY THIS BOARD.
AS AN ANALOGY, WE POINT TO THE CASE CF A RESTAURANT THAT SUDDENLY DECIDES
TO SET UP TABLES AND BEGIN S~VING IN AN AREA OF ITS LOT NOT PREVIOUSLY USED
FOR FOOD S]']~VICE. THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRz PARCEL MAY BE BUSINESS ZONED DOES
NOT GIVE ITS OWNERS THE INH~ENT RIGHT TO EXPAND THEIR SEATING CAPACITY --SAY
ALONG A NEIGHBORING LOT LIN~. -- AT THEIR OWN DISCR~.TION. SUCH A MOV~' WOULD
REQUIRE SITF'. PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD AT THE V~Y LEAST.
IN CLOSING, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS BOARD TO VERIFY THAT THE RECENT
sTORAGe'. AND SALE OF BOATS AND EQUIPMENT IN SAID LOCATION DOES IN FACT CONSTITUTE
A NEW USE)AND TO ENFORCE THE CRD~ TO REMEDY WITH ALL POSSIBLE HASTE. FU~T~MOR$,
WE STRENUousLY. OBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY VARIANCE OR APPROVAL THAT WOULD
CIRCUMVENT THIS ORD~ TO COMPLY.
SUSAN ~-. MILL~
NEW SUFFOLK ROAD
N~%4 SUFFOLK, NY
PEOP~.E V. PEaZmS. 329
Statement of ease. [282 kg. Y. 329]
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, l~espondent,
v. ]RALPH thnmrxNS, Appellant.
zoning law -- municipM corporations -- villages --
of vills~c zoning ordin&nce construed to permit con-
of l~on-con~orming uss estsblished prior to adoption
o--defendsnt charged with conducting business
district as defined in zonin~ law- information
tn absence of evtdenc, s that defendant did mor~ th~n
non-conforming use.
of article 1 of tho zoning ordinance of tho village of l>ort
must bo construed as permitting tho continuance of non-
uses on properties in such village, where tho properties had
ho enactment of tho zoning ordinance.
of the record of the trial of defendant on a charge
.f section 3 of article 2 of tho zoning ordinance, in conduct-
premises located within a residence district, the infor~na-
dismissed where no evidence can be found to justify a finding
than eontlnuo a permitted non-conforming uso.
of the business does not warrant a finding of
in essence, the business is the same.
22, 1940; decided March 5, 1940.
by permission,' from a judgment of the Brooms
Court, entered January 20, 1939, which affirmed a
of the Justice's Court of the town of Dickinson
J.) convicting the defendant of a violation of
3 of article 2 of the zoning ordinance of the village
Dickimon in conducting a business on premises
~l within a residence district in such village. Section
~ar~icle 1 of such zoning ordinance provides in part as
~,ows: "It is not intended by this ordinance * * * to
~ere with, or abrogate or annul any easements, cove-
· ~ or agreements between parties or with the present or
~guse, location or condition of any structures * * *"
~.oxle~ p. O'Brien for appellant. The prior non~con-
use invalidates the ordinance as to defendant's
(Matter of Collins'v. Moore, 125 Misc. l~p. 777;
v. Leo, 178 lq. Y. Supp. 851; Matter of Empire
330 PEOPLE 9o PERK/NS.
]282 lq'. Y. 329] Opinion, .Per Cur/am.
City Racing Assn. v. City of Yonkers, 132 Misc. Rep.
Wightman v. Foster, 261 N. Y. Sul~p. 1002~)
A. E. Gold and Frank E. Thomas for r'espoudent.
ordinance is not invalid as to defendant's property
reason of prior non-conform;~g use. (Matter of
v. Moore, 125 ~Vfisc. ~ep. 77?; Town
151 Misc. Rep. 613.)
Per Cu~am. The defendant has been convicted
vinlation of the zoning ordinance of the village of
Dickinson in conducting a business within a zoned r
residential district. The defendant is the owner of
adjoining lots, on one of which there is a house which is
defendant's residence, and on the other of which there
greenhouse. Before the zoning ordinance was adopted~
the village in June, 1924, the greenhouse had already
built and the defendant was engaged in a business
plants and flowers, vegetables and fruits grown on'
premises, and also vegetables and fruit that he
for resale. We construe the second section of article,
the zoning ordinance as permitting the continuance of
conforming uses which had dated from a time prevlous
the enactment of the zoning ordin~uce. The business.
the defendant conducted and which has been found
of the ordinance is the same business in character as
conducted by ~he defendant before the ordinance
adopted. To be sure the business has increased
He buys and sells considerably more than he did before 1
tie has added the sale of some novelties, consisting of
and wooden lawn ornaments. He has made use of
space on the lot on which his house is built. In
the business is the same. We find no evidence in the
to justify the finding that the defendant was doing
than continuing the permitted non-conforming use.
The judgments should, therefore, be reversed, and
informatinn dismissed.
LE~a~, Ch. J., LovGn~a% FINCH, i~IPPEy,
LEWIs and Co~vA~ J J, concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.
tha~
~her
lng.
2.
of o
men
M~.~OaA~DU~. Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.
In view of the decision in Berlowitz v. Horomitz ':(250 App,
Div. 728 [2d Dept., 1937]), we are constrained to affirm the
judgment (cf. ffavr/des v. Z~ricl~ I~s. Co., 5 .Cal. 3d 698).
Concur--GROAT, P. J., SCHW~RTZW~LD and MA~o~r, JJ.
Tm PEOPLE OF THE; STATE OF NEW YORE, Respondent v. OLXWR
BONNEI~W ~x'n, Appellant.
Supreme Co~t, Appe~ate Tern, Second Depa~ent, March 22, 197~.
M~cip~ corpora~ons~zo~vaHd nonconfo~i~ b~e~, tho~h
le~t~a~ly increased ~ vol~e, does not ~olate zonin~ ord~ce.
1. ~ pe~on who has a valid noneonfo~g use, and whose bus~ h~ l~-
mately ~cre~ed ~ vol~e, do~ not ~ola~ a zon~g ord~ce. Jud~ent of
eon~efion ~ reve~ed and eompla~t di~d.
2. ~ere ~e m~imum sentence could be s~ months, ~ere ~ no co~titufion~
~ht ~ j~ ~.
~po~d below, 69 M~e 2d 516.
~P~ from a jud~ent of the Justice Court of the Town of
~hi-ebeck (H~AN H. T~, J), ~nvicting defendant of
~olat~g the L~al Zoning Law of the To~ of Rhineb~
Carl P. U}~k for respondent. Bernard Kessler for appeUant.
ME~O~.U~. Jud~ent of con~ction unan~ously reversed
on the law and facts and complaint dismissed.
Defendant was not entitled to a ju~ trial, since the ma~m~
sentence he ~uld receive was s~ months' incarceration(Bat&
w~ v. New York, 399 U. S. 66) and there was no basis in fact
for def~d~t's claim that the Justice below was biased against
him.
However, defendant may not be convicted of a zoning violation
where he has sho~ a valid nonconforming use (Peop~ v. M~ler,
3~ N. Y. 1~; 2 Rat~off, ~w of Zoning ~d Planing [~ ed.,
1~2], p. ~1), even though there has been a legitimate increase
~ vol~e (People v. Perki~, ~2 N. Y. '329; Matter of
v. Zoning ~d. af App~ of Rochester, ~ Misc. ~1, 945).
Concur--Hoa*~, P. 'J., P~x and F~sr,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW Yom, Respondent v. NICHOLAS
A~cm~co~o, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department April 30, 1974.
Crimes--animals--judgment convicting caretaker of failing to provide
proper sustenance to horse, afl~rmed.
STATE OF NEW YORK :
ss
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK :
H. ALVIN SMITH, residing at New Suffolk Avenue,
Mattituck, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I was the major stockholder of New Suffolk Shipyard, Inc.
the owner and operator of the New Suffolk Shipyard between
approximately 1954 and 1962. The shipyard was located on the
property shown on the attached map dated May 10, 1972. The ship-
yard engaged in the sale, storage, maintenance and repair of
boats and accessories.
Sworn to before me this
28th day of July, 1983
H. Alvin Smith
STATE OF NEW YORK :
ss
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK :
MICHAEL WIECZOREK, residing at Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck,
New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I owned New Suffolk Shipyard from approximately 1962 to
1972. During that time, the entire property, as shown on the
attached survey, was used as a shipyard, including the area next
to the Miller residence (shown as Allen on the survey). The
shipyard was engaged in both sales, repair and storage of boats.
Michael W~
Sworn to before me this
28th day of July, 1983.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-
EN pursuant to Section 267 of..
the Town Law and the Provi-
sions of the Amended Code of
the Town of Southold,
Regular Meeting and the
following Public Hearings will
be held by the Southold Town
Zoning Board of Appeals at
the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, New York, on
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983
commencing at 7:30 o'clock
p.m. and as follows:
7:30 P.M. Recessed Hear-
lng: Appeal No. 3138- A£-
FRED J. TERP.
7:35 P.M. Application of
THOMAS KENNEDY, 120
Log Road, Patchogue, N.Y.
11772 for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article IH,
Section 100-30(A) ?or permis-
sion to use property for
business_ .~ouruoses. _to_. wit:
0~:~ P.M. Application for4
KE'S MARINA, INC., by
.A. Wickham, Esq., Mal~.~
oad, Mattituck, N.Y., ap-
aling a decision of the
uilding inspector to vacate
rder to Remedy Violation,
ursuant to Article XII, Sec-
~.,~tion 100-12IA. Provisions ofl
~,~he Zoning Ordinance Ap-'
pealed: Articles I, 100-13; II,~
100-23A; VIII, 100-80(B) [14]
& [IS]; xIv, 100.144(A) [21
(B); Xl, I00-118. Ix)cation of
Prope.y: East Side of New
Suffolk Road, New Suffolk,
N.Y.; County Tax Map No.
~ 1000-117.5-28 & 29.
8:25 P.M. Application of
PHILIP FRUMENTi, 3825
Stars Road, East Marion, N.Y.
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-32 for permission to con-
struct carport in the frontyard
area, at 3825 Stars Road, East
Marion, N.Y.; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-022.06.
026.
8:30 P.M. Application of
SACK AND LEE LEFKO-
W1TZ, (F.J. Christie, and
wife, owners), 25 Dow
Avenue, Sea Cliff, N.Y. 11579
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article HI, Section
100-31 for permission to
struct one-family dwellin
:' with an insufficient frontyard
setback, at premises located
on a private right-of, way off
the north side of Summit
Drive, which premises also
fronts along the south side of
Sound Beach Dr/ye, Mattituck,
Cpt. Kidd's Estates Part of Lot
I1; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-106-01.042.1,
8:35 P.M. Application of
JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East
Road, Mattituck, N.Y. for a
Variance to the Zoning'Ordin-
ance, Article Iii, Section 100.
34 for permission to construct
deck addition with an insuf-
ficient fruntyard setback, at
155 East Road, Mattituck,
N.Y.; Cpt. Kidd's Estates Map
1672; Lot 111, County Tax
0~P Parcel No. 1000-106-03- [
8~45 P.M. Applicati~m' o~ ~[
HENRY AND VIRGINIA~b
STEINBRECHER, IS2S Hay- [
waters Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK
Patricio Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a punic newspaper printed at Southold, in. Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Long Island Trav~ler-Watch-
man once each week for ....................... ../. .............. weeks
successively, commencing on the //~'
day .......... .~ ............ ~ ......... ,19..~...Q
Swam to before me this /,9/-a~ day of
.......... .................. ,
N CLEMENT j. THOMPSON
0TAR¥ PUBLIC, S~ate of New York
No. 52-9321 ?25 '
R~ding in Suffolk ~umy ~
~m~ ~r~ March 30, lg~
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEt
GIVEN, pursuant to
267 of the Town Law
Provisions of the
Code of the Town of
a Regular Meeting and
following
be held b)
Zoning Board of A
the Southold Tow
Road, Southold, New Yorh
THURSDAY, JULY °8, 198.~
commencing at 7:30 o'clocl
p.m. and as follows: ~
7:30 p.m. Reeessei
Hearing: Appeal No.
ALFRED J. TERP.
7:35 p.m. Application
THOMAS KENNEDY, 120
Road, Patchogue, NY 1177:
for a Variance to the Zonin
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-30(A) for permission to
use property for basineoi
purposes, to wit: Video Tape
Rental and Equipment Sales,
at premises located at 332~
S.R. 25 and 225 Eugene s
Road, Cutchogue; Filla Minor
Subdivision Map 72, Lot 1;
County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-097-02-016.5.
7:40 p.m. Application f~r
ORIENT-EAST MARION
PARK DISTRICT, by Garrett
A, Strang. 54655 Main
Southo~mm)/Y for a Variance t~
the Fld~lain Management
Law, Clearer 46, Sections 46-7
and 46-18B for permission to
construct sanitary facilities
with first floor below
minimum required flood
elevation level. Location of
Property: North Side of Main
Road, East Marion, NY;
County Tax Map Parcels No.
1000-017-0f~006 and part of 007;
1000-023-2-pert of 001 and 003.
7:45 p.m. Application for
RVSS, Inc. (Razmataz), by
Garrett A. Strung, Main Road,
Southold, NY for a Variance to
County Tax Map P~I~ No.
8:30 p.m. Applicauon of
JACK AND LEE
LEFKOWITZ, (F. J. Christie,
and wife, owner~), 25 Downing
Avenue, Sea Cliff, NY 11579
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100.31 for permission to
construct one-family dwelling
with an insufficient frontyard
setback, at premises located
on a private right*of-way off
the north side of Summit
Drive, which premises also
fronts along the south side of
the Zoning Ordinance, Article Sound Beach Drive,
III, Section 100-112H for Mattituck c~t. Kidd's Estates
permission to develo.~ and i Part of ~o-t~l; County Tax
use parking on adjacent .i. Map ParcelNo. 1000-106-01-
(leased) property identified as !' 042.1.
County Tax Map Parcel No. i~: 8:35 p.m. Application of
1000-125-01-19.1; 1000-122-6-36 ~ JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East
· 7:50 p.m. Application of '~!'ii Road, Mattituck, NY for a
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE IlL ;'~ Variance to the Zoning
Main Road, East Marion, NY ~ Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-34 for permission to
construct deck addition with
an insufficient frontyard
setback, at 155 East Road,
Mattituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd's
Estates Map1672, Lot Ill;
County Tax Map Parcel No.
8:45 p.m. Application of
HENRY AND VIRGINIA
STEINBRECHER, 1525 Hay-
waters Read, Cutchngue, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100.31 for permission to
construct addition with an
insufficient frontyard setback,
at 1525 Haywaters Road,
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article VII,
Section 100-71, and Bulk
Schedule, for approval of
insufficient area, width and
sideyard setbacks of bullcZng
in this proposed two-lot
division of property located at
the northeast corner of
Beckwith Avenue and Main
Road, Southold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-061-
8:00 p.m. Application fo~
RICHARD DeMARIA, by
Garrett A. Strang, Main Road,
Southnid, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34
for permission to construct
addition with reduction in
rearyard setback at 900
Minnehaha Boulevard,
Southold, near Laughing
Waters; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 10(M)-0~-02-006.
8:05 p.m. Application of
SOUTHOLD EQUITIES, INC.,
195 Youngs Avenue, Southold,
NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article VII,
Section 100-70 for permission
to establish residential and
studio use of an existing
building in this "B-1 General
Business" District, located
along the south side of
Traveler Street, Southold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1060-61-01-015.
0:10 p.m. Application of
DAVID AND BONNIE
PASCOE, 900 Haywaters
Road, Cutchogue, NY for a
Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100.119B for permission to
erect 0' fence which would
exceed the maximum.height
requirement along the front
yard, at premises known as
900 Haywaters Road,
Cutchogue; Nassau Point
Properties Map 763, Lot 11;
- County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-111-03-06.
R0:15 p.m. ApPlication for~
OKE'S MARINA, INC., by
A. A. Wickham, Esq., Main
Road, Mattituck, NY,
.appealing a'decision of the
building inspector to vacate
Order to Remedy Violation,
pursuant to Article XII, l
Section 100-12IA. Provisions oil
the Zoning Ordinance~
Appealed: Articles I, 100-13;
II, 100-23A~, VIII, ·100-
80(B)[14] & [15]; XIV, 109-
144(A)[2](B); XI, 100-119.
Location of Property: East
Side of New Suffolk Road,
New Suffolk, NY; County Tax
Map No. 1000-117-5-2~ & 29.
8:25 p.m. Application of
PHILIP FRUMENTI, 5025
Stars Road, East Marion, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-32 tot permission to
construct carport in the
frontyard area, at 3~25 Stars
· Cutcho~.e, NY; Nassau Point
' Subdivision, Section D, Map
1 806, Lot 333; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000.111-4-12.
DATED: JUNE 30, 1983.
· . BY ORDER OF
' THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD p. GOEHRINGER
· CHAIRMAN
Fo~ further information,
please contact Linda Kowaiski
at the Sauthold Town Hall 765-
1809 (0r 1802).
1TJy14-4297 '
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
Joe~n ~'. Gustavson of Greenport, in
said County, being duly sworn, says that I~/she is
Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly
Newspaper, published ut Greenport, in the Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk end State of New
York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is
a printed copy, hms been regularly published in
said Newspaper once each week for o11~
weeks successively, commencing on the 1 4th
day of July 19 83
HELEN K DE
RY PUBLIC, State ot New
· 4707878, 3uft0;k
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me thin 1 4'~1~
deyof .T~I ~ 19 83
JUDITll T. TERRY
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
To:
June 15, 1983
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Appeal No. 3148, application of Roke's
Marina, Inc. d/b/a New Suf£olk Shipyard for a Special Exception.
Also included is Short Environmental Assessment Form, Notice to
Adjacent Property Owners, Survey of the property, Order to Remedy
Violation from the Building Department.
WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c.
June 15, 1983
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
Re: Roke's Mar ina, Inc.
In connection with the above application, we enclose:
1. Copy of Order to Remedy Violation.
2. Application in triplicate.
3. Short Environmental Assessment Form.
4. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
5. Five copies of survey (reduced).
6. Check for $~5.
Please schedule for your next available meeting.
Very truly yours,
'g ' · Wickham
AAW:kad
Encs.
APPEAL FROM ORDER OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO:
THE ZCNING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF sOg~HOLD, N.Y.
B0ke'~ Marina, Inc. d/b/a New Suffolk ~ipyard, a New York
ODrporation with Offices at no # New Suffolk }{Dad, New Suffolk, New
York, HEREBY APPEALS, to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS from the O~DER TO
P~NEDY VIOLATICN of the Building Inspector dated April 22, 1983,
WHEREBY the Building Inspector ordered Applicant to comply with
Chapter 100 of the Zoning Ordinance and cbtain a Special Exception from
the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Appro~-al from the Planning
Board in connection with boat storage and boat sales in the northwest
corner of property.
LOCATION OF PNOPERTY: East side of New Suffolk ~Dad, New Suffolk,
New York
C Light Industrial Zcning District
Suffolk Ooanty Tax Map #1000-117-5-28 &29
PNDVISI(/qS OF ZCNING O~D!NANCE APPEALED:
Article I, ~ 100-13; Article XI § 100-118
Article II,§ 100-23A
Article VIII Sec. 100-80 B(14) & (15)
Article XIV Sec. 100-144A (2)B
3. TYPE OF APPEAL: Appeal is made for decision to vacate order to ~
Violation, pursuant to Article XII, § 100-2lA of the Zcning Ordinance.
PREVIOUS APPEAL: A previous appeal has not, to applicant's knowledge,
been made with respect to this order of the Building Inspector or with
respect to this property.
REASON fOR APPEAL: Applicant appeals cn the grounds that as a pre-
existing or nm-conforming, it is not necessary for it to cbtain a
special exception or site plan approval for boat storage and sales cn
the premises. ~he premises have .been used in their entirety for such
purposes since well befo~vthe enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1957.
Applicant ~as not in ~/changed the use of the premises. Boats have
always been stored throughout the shipyard property, at various places
at different times. Until recently, several boats were stored on the
north side of the residence on the premises. During recent renovations
of the house, the boats were moved acrcss the driveway to the area adja-
cent to Miller, a distance of about 50 feet. 9his is hardly an "expansion"
or "change of use" to the shipyard business, as alleged by the order.
While hardship and practical difficulty are not rec~n~irements of
this appeal, applicant would incur hardship if required to obtain these
approvals due to the high ccst of obtaining a survey and site plan, as
well as financial burdens resulting frc~ any conditions or rec~lirements
which might be imposed by either of the boards in granting those approvals.
The applicant acquired the shipyard in a state of poor repair and 8~-
organization, and intends to improve its appearance as quickly as possible,
and an additional expense of site plan work would divert its funds from
the much needed clean up and improveraant effort.
Applicant respectfully requests that the Board vacate the Order to
Remedy Violation and dispense with the necessity for site plan approval.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
SS.:
ROKE ' S MARINA, INC.
g 1 . Wlckham, Attorney
Sworn
NOtary Public
to this 15th day of June, 1983.
· FRANKLYN A. F~RRI~ F'~K~N :.
~O~'ARY p [lc $,
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yo ~'Y PUBLIC. '. ·
No 474
NO, 4742040, Suffofk County .474~Z~ j...
Corem Expires M~rc, 30, 19~.(,c°mm.
/--
r~ _~
;71173
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Petition of :
ROKE' S MARINA, INC.
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold :
TO:
Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. withers, 653 East
14th Street, New York, New York 10009,
Mr. Jeff Miller, New Suffolk Road, New
Suffolk, New York 11956
NOTICE
TO
ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
to request a ~.~lXi~k~i~~XS~'~}(R~Rrkt~ (the following relief: An appeal from
Order to Remedy Violation issued by the Building Inspector dated April2~.~ 1983
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribedasf011ows: East side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. N.Y.. bounded north
by Miller and Withers, East and South by Schoolhouse Creek, West by New
Suffolk Road.
3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict:
C Liqht Industrial District.
4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersigned willrequestthefoUowingrelief: to xrn~av~ order
to remedy violation.
5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signedare: Article 1 ~ 100-13 Non-conforming Use, Article XI: ~ 100-118,
Article II § 100-23A, Article ~ 100-80 B(14) & (15), Article XVI ~ 100-114A(2)¥
6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will
he filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there
examine the same during regular office hours.
7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the
Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such
hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the
Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the
right to appear and be heard at such hearing.
Dated: June 10, 1983
ROKE'S MARINA, INC.
~Petitioner ~igail A. Wickham, a~ Attorney
Post Office Address
New Suffolk Road
New Suffolk, NY 11956
NAME
Mr. & Mrs. Michael J.
Mr. Jeff Miller
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF
ADDRESS
withers
653 East 14th Street,
New Suffolk Road,
New York, N.Y. 10009
New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956
f_ol_k
NY 119 5
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
/kd
P28
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MA.
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED--
NOT F0~IONAL MAIL
(See~rse)
SENT TO
P.~TATE AND Z~P dODE
~ --~ SPE~[DELm~ERy ~ ~ ~ =
~ ~ DELIVEREDW~TH~6STRCTE[
Karen A. Domaleski , residing at No. $ Oregon Road, Cutcho~ue, N.Y.
, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 10 thday
of June ,19 83 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re-
verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective
names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on
the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of-
fice at Mattituck ~ N. Y. ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
(certified) (~X~ mail.
Sworn to before me this 10th
day of June ,19 83
Notary Public
GAlL A. COMER
NOTARY PUBLIC, S~m of New Y(x'k
CemNe. 4735GSG Suffolk County
mimim Exj)irt hr. 30,
FORM HO. 5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION
Rokes Marina Inc.
(owner or authorized agent of owner)
.
(address of owner or authorized agent of owner)
11956
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of:
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 100
Other Applicable Laws, Ordinances'or Regulations ............................................
at premises hereinafter described in that .............................................................................................
(state character of violation)
SEE ATTACHED RIDER
in violation of SEE ATTACHED RIDER
(State sectidn or paragraph of applicable law, ordinance or regulation)
YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the law and to remedy the
conditions above mentioned forthwith on or before the .... ~..~..x..t...~.......(..6..~.}.i ....................................
day of ........... ~.X .................................... , 19..8..3....
The premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers are situated at
..~.?..5...0.....~..e..¥....S..?..P..~.o...1.~...~..q.e..,...fl..e,?. ................. County of Suffolk, New York.
Suffolk,
Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law
may constitute on offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
......
TOWN OF SOUT~OLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
RIDER ATTACHMENT
ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION--ROKES MARINA INC.
Boat storage and boat sales has been expanded to the
north west corner of premises without a Certificate of
Occupancy to extend land use.
A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals and
site plan approval from the Planning Board is required to con-
form to statute.
In violation of:
Art. II, Sec. 100-23 A
Art. VIII, Sec. 100-80 B
Art. XIV, Sec. 100-144 A
14)(15)
(2) B
EFH]ec
4/22/83
Memorandum from ~..
BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE
TOWN OP SOUTHOLD
TOWN I-IALL, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
765-1802
Feb. 15, 1983
Jeff Miller
New Suffolk Road
New Suffolk
Town of Southold.'
According to dozens of long-time residents of New
Suffolk, the north side of the New Suffolk Shipyard
driveway contiguous to my property has never been
used as a boat sales or storage area. This is also
attested to by several former owners of the shipyard
and by many boaters who have used the shipyard for
decades.
The combined testimony verifies that recent activity
by new shipyard owner Bert Roke constitutes a new
use of the area in question.
In spite of my repeated requests that he desist, Mr.
Roke is storing boats within a few feet of my
southerly lot line. Of the two boats there now,
one is a large cabin cruiser up on skids, virtually
eliminat~ng any view from my southerly living
room window. In additions, I have been informed by
boat owners end a former shipyard o~ner that if a
truck or car were to back into one of the boats,
the boat could topple onto my property.
Since my lot llne and the cabin cruiser are only 10
feet from my house, it is not incoceivable that the
boat could actually roll ~nto my southerly wall. In
about one week, my wife is expected to give birth to
our first child. Whether or not the boats are likely
hazards, ~ feel that a homeowner should not have to
live with even notential threats of such magnitude.
I strongly object to Mr. Roke's needless use of
property bordering mine and to the potential threat
to my home and family. I request that the boats be
relocated to areas which have traditionally been
used for storage.
Sincerely, ~~
This is to attest that, to my knowledEe, the north side of
New Suffolk Shipyard driveway contiBuous to the Miller property
Bas never been used as a sales or storage area for boats, equipment
or any other shipyard accessory.
X
~RY PUBLIC, State of New York
No. 4707878. Sulfolk Co~mt~
lerm Expires March 30, 19~-
This is to attest that, ~my knowledge, the north ~ide of
New Suffolk Shipyard driweway contiguous to the Miller property
has newer been used as s sales or storage area for boats, e~uipment
or any other shipyard accessory.
HEI. EN K DE VOE
~'~OTAR'! PU~qllC, Stale of New York
\ No 4707878, Suffol~ Count,/
~ , em~ Exp~r~s ~]a[ch 30,
BAY
f