The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7060 KID J CHECK BOXES AS COMPLETED ( ) Tape this form to outs o Q a g ( ) Pull ZBA copy of ND c� N ( ) Check file boxes for p► o ( ) Assign next number o; outside of file folder E m - -u o ; - C) w v ( ) Date stamp entire oril a5 x 0 c N G) 0 0 ! = � c0 o �• ::E =3o file number U; J 0 o W j ( ) Hole punch entire ori o" ' Z o r o (before sending to T. w -< Q m ( ) Create new index car @ o co ( ) Print contact info &t o ( ) Prepare transmittalCD ( ) Send original applica to Town Clerk 5 n ( ) Note inside file folde 0 i and tape to inside of c� ( ) Copy County Tax M neighbors and AG to ( ) Make 7 copies and p o ( ) Do mailing label C3' 0 NO A6Q)GI E5 �Jo74<�?A e-f3 56 jlo Co avv( C-57 cQ +. Ash c a,4 n - m � I bCW I V&V"d Me r (ex,ei/nm) g vid -PO I-esia► Pnor 11 See. a90-lofi -5.S`6 V/o u c� 4,a rU 1-3 f57.1.vLE7 �(P ti v 3a-�S � f 7io.V - I AS ,. BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson °®� ®�� 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179 � _ �® �® Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora Office Location: Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank Gerard P.Goehringer �� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas PlanamentoC®UNTV Southold,NY 11971 9 http://southoldtownny.gov ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631) 765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064 RECEIVED FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION -V 44a f.,C)Li plyt MEETING OF DECEMBER 7,2017 bEC 1 1 2017e4o-&PA 0'. 1 • ZBA FILE# 7060 ScUthold Torn Clerk NAME OF APPLICANT: Robert Ragona PROPERTY LOCATION: 350 Wood Lane, Greenport,NY SCTM# 1000-43-4-30 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 further requirements under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was not referred as required to the Suffolk County Planning Department under Administrative Code Sections A 14- 14 to 23. LWRP DETERMINATION: The relief, permit, or interpretation requested in this application is listed under the Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for a code interpretation pursuant to Article 11, Section 280- 10A and the Building inspector's March 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval determination that the subject vacant lot had merged with an adjoining improved lot. The applicant requests; 1) that Board make an interpretation that the subject lot is exempt from merger pursuant to section 280- 10(C) of the Town; or, in the alternative 2) that the Board amend Appeal#3827 dated October 4, 1989 to remove the reference of"subdivision"; located at 350 Wood Lane, Greenport,New York. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In a Notice of Disapproval dated December 1, 2016, the Building Department determined that the subject lot (SCTM# 1000-43-4-30 has merged with the adjacent lot located at 410 Wood Lane (SCTM# 100-43-4-29) pursuant to Article II Section 280- 10A which states that a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of fifty (50) feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. The subject lots were merged due to common ownership of Edwin Kinscherf in 1983. In 1989 Edwin Kinscherf applied for and was granted an area variance (ZBA file #3827) to re-sub-divide the property into 3 parcels with the condition that future improvements to the undeveloped lot (lot 30) conform to all town zoning setback requirements (The three parcels consist of lot 35 fronting on Inlet Lane, measuring 10,000 sq. ft. and developed with a single family dwelling; lot 29 fronting on Wood Lane measuring 5,000 sq. ft. and developed with a single family dwelling; and lot 30, a vacant lot fronting on Wood Lane Page 2,December 7,2017 #7060,Ragona SCTM NO. 1000-43-4-30 measuring 5,000 sq. ft.). Town code required that the applicant obtain subdivision approval from the Planning Board to codify the variance relief that was granted by the ZBA. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Edwin Kinscherf died in 1998 and part of the property title passed to his daughter Elenor Kinscherf in 2004, while a portion of the title remained in Edwin Kinscherf s estate until 2013. The Ragona's purchased both properties in 2013. The Ragona's subsequently sold the developed part of the merged property known as 410 Woods Road, SCTM # 100-43-4-29 to Genevieve and Adam Neff in 2015. During the July 6, 2017 public hearing, the Board adjourned the matter so that the owners of lot 1000-43-4-29, Genevieve and Adam Neff, could seek legal counsel. During the November 2, 2017 public hearing, both individuals informed the Board that after consulting with an attorney they decided to ask the ZBA to make its determination, without further comment from them. Additionally, the Neff s indicated that at the time of their purchase they believed they were only purchasing the developed lot, and only recently learned that the developed and undeveloped lots were merged by operation of law prior to their purchase. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 6, 2017 and November 2, 2017 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Pursuant to §280-11,the Zoning Board finds that (1) The properties have been merged according to Article 11 Section 280-10A. The properties were in common ownership after July 1, 1983 and there is a common course of 50 feet between the properties. (2) The lot proposed to be recognized is not eligible for a waiver of merger pursuant to Section 280-11 (C) of the Town Code because the subject lot has been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected. The Ragona's purchased both lots 29 and 30 in the same name in 2013, which extinguished the right for a waiver of merger. (3) ZBA variance# 3827 runs with the land, and although Edwin Kinscherf did not finish the subdivision process there was no time limit placed on the variance; the Applicants have the right to apply to the Planning Board for a subdivision. (4) Southold Town Code Chapter 240 requires that a subdivision application must be submitted to and approved by the Southold Town Planning Board in order for land to be subdivided into separate lots. (5) There is no basis for the ZBA to rescind the language referring to a subdivision in prior ZBA decision#3827(October 4, 1989)which granted area variance relief for the subdivision of 3 lots that had been merged by operation of law in 1983. (6)The waiver of merger law was enacted in 1995. The code was amended in 1997 to exempt from merger non-conforming lots that had obtained a lot size variance from the ZBA (Section 280-10 C (2), provided the lots were recognized under Section 280-9 (Lot Recognition). Section 280-9 (A) states "a lot created by deed or Town approval shall be Page 3,December 7,2017 #7060,Ragona SCTM NO. 1000-43-4-30 recognized by the Town if any one of the following standards apply and if the lots have not merged". Section 280-9 (A) (4) states that a lot shall be recognized if"The lot(s) in question is/are approved and/or recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to June 30, 1983.The subject parcels were merged in 1983 and the ZBA granted relief for non-conforming lot size in 1989. Therefore, the subject lots are not exempt from the merger law. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: The Building Department, in an Notice of Disapproval correctly determined that the subject lots have merged pursuant to Sections 280-9 & 280-10 of the Town Code, motion was offered by Member Dantes seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried to INTERPRETATION DETERMINATION: Based upon the findings of facts cited above, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes an interpretation that the subject parcels are not exempt from the Town's Merger Law, and, although not applied for, that the subject parcels do not qualify for a Waiver of Merger: DENY the request for an interpretation that the subject lot is exempt from merger pursuant to section 280-10 of the Town code; and DENY the applicant's request to remove the language referring to a subdivision of land in prior ZBA decision# 3827. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman(Chairperson), Goehringer, Dantes,Planamento, and Acampora. This Resolution was duly adopted(5-0). Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson PZ/ Approved for filing PZ/ /2017 FORM NO. 3 PIECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VAR Q.7 2017 BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: December 1, 2016 RENEWED:March 8, 2017 TO: Patricia Moore(Ragona) 51020 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated November 22, 2016 For a permit for a waiver of merger at Location of property 350 Wood Lane, Greenport,NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 43 Block 4 Lot 30 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The subject lot (SCTM# 1000-43-4-30) has merged with the adjacent lot (SCTM# 1000-43-4-29) pursuant to Article II Section 280-10 A., which states; Merger. A;nonconforminiz lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of fifty 50) feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk s die r em Damon Rallis, Plans Examiner Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. u � FORM NO. 3 RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAR 0, �� ' SOUTHOLD,N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: December 1, 2016 TO: Patricia Moore(Ragona) 51020 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated November 22, 2016 For a permit for a waiver of merger at Location of property 350 Wood Lane, Greenport,NY County Tax Map No. 1000- Section 43 Block 4 Lot 30 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The subject lot SCTM# 1000-43-4-30 has merged with the adjacent lot SCTM# 1000-43-4-29) pursuant to Article II Section 280-10 A., which states; Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts w' parcel for a common course of fifty 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming 1 shall mer e until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk sched uirements Damo allis, Plans Examiner Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. Fee:$ Filed By: Assignment No. RECEIVED APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALSOAR -7 2016 AREA VARIANCE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS House No. Street � LQQC) LOL11e Hamlet P2✓L�J(�Y�" SCTM 1000 Section T3 Block q Lot(s) -30 Lot Size 6/DCS Zone 4Z-'O I(WE)APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED_ 1;-7-[- ( 6 BASED ON SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED ff?- I- l q Owner(s): Rcin"+- Q�Q orl o, nn Mailing Address: �-T, H cio TelephonS/o Fax: Email: NOTE:In addition to the above,please complete below if application is signed by applicant's attorney,agent,architect, builder,contract vendee,etc.and name of person who agent represents: Name of Representative: _T0_*(Q Ck- �&OC)Vf_ for(Owner( )Other: Address: S z o RC,C,t V1 Rom ,- c� �)o"*W o Teleph� l� � � ('�6 � Fax:7�jS- y L` Email: PC(/YI001fL Please check to specify who you wish rrespondence to be mailed to,from the above names: (°)Applicant/Owner(s), (Authorized Representative, ( )Other Name/Address below: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED G-1 " I y and DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED 11"oZo2-1(p FOR: (Building Permit ( )Certificate of Occupancy ( )Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ( )Change of Use ( ) Permit for As-Built Construction ( Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article,Section,Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers.Do not quote the code.) Article: 2_00 Section: Subsection: e. Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: ( )A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. ( )AVariance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. ( terpretation of the�T/o�w�n C de,Article,.(0 Section �. ( Reversal or Other ®T!7 rt I,, ��,s??/1 �:5R 277 A prior appeal( has, ( )has not been made at any time with respect to this property,UNDER Appeal No(s). B97--7 Year(s). 10- 4j-8C? . (Please be sure to research before completing this question or call our o fice for assistance) Name of Owner: F,�be4l. O tiG ZBA File# RECEIVED� Southold Town MAR 07 20U Zoning Board of Appeals re: Robert Ragona ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1000-43-4-30 (subject vacant parcel) The building department is directing applicant to apply for a"waiver of merger"because the daughter Eleanor acquired title from the estate prior to my client's purchase (as separate parcels and in separate names). The waiver of merger law states that"merger" does not occur if certain numerated exceptions are in place: Exceptions.Lots which are recognized under§280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L.No.4-1997;4-10-2007 by L.L.No. 10-2007] (1)The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet;or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board,or (3)If the lot is not on the maps described in former§ 100-12,[1]the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983,to date;or [1]Editor's Note:Former§ 100-12,Exceptions,was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L.No.23-1995, effective January 1, 1996. (4)If the lot is on the maps described in former§ 100-12,the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997,to date; (5)Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one;or (6)If the lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots,except that the lots shall not be held in common ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. The Zoning Board granted"area variances"to re-subdivided three parcels The adjacent house (tax lot 29) was acquired in 1959 by Edwin Kinscherf(husband). The adjacent lot(tax lot 30)was acquired by the wife, Doris Kinscherf. The adjacent house (tax lot 35)fronting Inlet Lane was acquired in 1959 by both Husband and wife Edwin&Doris Kinscherf. The wife die in 1967 leaving in her will everything to her husband. The properties were "merged" due to the death. In 1989 Mr.Kinscherf applied to the ZBA for area variances for the three parcels,pursuant to the laws at the time, prior to chapter 280-10 "merger"and the exceptions of 280-10 (Q. The Board granted the area variances. The lots had separate tax map numbers and were already split lots. Two parcels were improved with homes. It would appear that since the lots were already separate parcels,no Planning Board action was required. Nevertheless, even if a"subdivision"was required,the"waiver of merger"law was added in 1995. The law was amended in 1997 to exclude merger of"improved"parcels and parcels which had received"area variances". The waiver of merger law was again amended in 2007 as it appears today which continued to include the exemptions for parcels granted"area variances". When Edwin Kinscherf died in 1998 (after the waiver of merger law was in place)his daughter, Eleanor inherited the house and took title in 2004. The lot remained in the estate. In 2012 the estate granted the lot to Eleanor. Eleanor Kinscherf was in title from 2012 to 2013both properties. When Mr. and Mrs Ragona purchased the house and the separate lot (Tax Lot 29 &30) in 2013 this exception was in the code. They purchased two parcels, kept the parcels single & separate, and based on Town Code 280-10 (C) (2) the lots are exempt from merging. Alternative Relief: Amend Appeal#3827 dated 10/4/89 to remove reference to a"subdivision". Removing any reference to a"subdivision" clarifies to the Building Department that there is no further action or condition to the area variances. The house parcels are owned by separate individuals,the lot is owned by Robert Ragona who purchased the lot as a single and separate parcel and kept it single and separate. The Lot is in contract and has Health Department approval for the construction of a single family dwelling. The purchaser wants to be sure that he can obtain a building permit. —700 �y RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ly d MAR 07 2017 Name of Owner: ZBA File# ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REASONS FOR APPEAL (Please be specific, additional sheets may be used with preparer's signature notarized): 1.An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighbor or a detriment to nearby 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: / z* /�,0 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 Why: l Are there any Covenants or Restrictions concerning this land? No { } Yes(please furnish a copy) 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. Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent (Agent must submit written Authorization from Owner) Swo o before me this day of 20 i lo tary Pubis 17 BETSY A.PERKINS Notary Public,State of New York No.01 PE6130636 Qualified in Suffolk Coun 'f Commission Expires July 18, RECEIVED 7a MAR 0 7 2017 APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANT: abCA,/+- RCX0 f1 DATE PREPARED: 1Z- I 1.For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please describe areas being removed: lea r)e \/C.C,O AA I tit- H.New Construction Areas(New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): Dimensions of first floor extension: r VI Dimensions of new second floor: Dimensions of floor above second level: Height(from finished ground to top of ridge): Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed?If yes,please provide height(above ground) measured from natural existing grade to first floor: III.Proposed Construction Description(Alterations or Structural Changes) (Attach extra sheet if necessary).Please describe building areas: I V Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: IV.Calculations of building areas and lot coverage(from surveyor): Existing square footage of buildings on your property: Proposed increase of building coverage: Square footage of your lot: Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: V.Purpose of New Construction: VI.Please describe the land contours(flat,slope%,heavily wooded,marsh area,etc.)on your land and how it relates to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): Please submit 8 sets of photos,labeled to show different angles of yard areas after staking corners for new construction,and photos of building area to be altered with yard view. 4/2012 QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED FOR FILING WITH YOUR ZBA APPLICATION BAR 0 7 2017 A: Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? ✓Yes No ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS B. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? ✓No Yes please explain on attached sheet. C. 1.)Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? No 2.)Are those areas shown on the survey submitted with this application? A/ 3.)Is the property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the upland building area? W I A 4.)If your property contains wetlands or pond areas,have you contacted the Office of the Town trustees for its determination of jurisdiction?_Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: and if issued,please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved survey. D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? No E. Are there any patios,concrete barriers,bulkheads or fences that exist that are not shown on the survey that you are submitting? No Please show area of the structures on a diagram if any exist or state none on the above line. F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? Ro - If yes,please submit a copy of your building permit and survey as approved by the Building Department and please describe: G. Please attach all pre-certificates of occupancy and certificates of occupancy for the subject premises. If any are lacking,please apply to the Building Department to either obtain them or to obtain an Amended Notice of Disapproval. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land adjoining or close to this parcel? ►V n If yes,please label the proximity,of your lands on your survey. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel �0.CGylb L_0-- and the proposed use c5(VIC4(VIle -I . (ex: existing single family, roposed: sank with garage,pool or other) Au signature and Date RECEIVED AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT 7ok) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAR 0 7 2017 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WHEN TO USE THIS FORM: This form must be completed by the applicant for any special use permit, site plan approval,use variance, area variance or subdivision approval on property within an agricultural district OR within 500 feet of a farm operation located in an agricultural district. All applications requiring an agricultural data statement must be referred to the Suffolk County Department of Planning in accordance with Section 239m and 239n of the General Municipal Law. 1. Name of Applicant: a 2. Address of Applicant: a `IcoFYIyo 3. Name of Land Owner(if other than Applicant): 4. Address of Land Owner: 5. Description of Proposed Project: i in-n rr,im 6. Location of P p_erty: (roa and Tax map number) 5 Wpp.4 yl e-, 7. Is the parcel within 500 feet of a farm operation? { } Yesp {J'No 8. Is this parcel actively farmed? { } Yes {�-Wo 9. Name and addresses of any owner(s)of land within the agricultural district containing active farm operations. Suffolk County Tax Lot numbers will be provided to you by the Zoning Board Staff,it is your responsibility to obtain the current names and mailing addresses from the Town Assessor's Office(765-1937)or from the Real Property Tax Office located in Riverhead. NAME and ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (Please use the bac page if there are additional property owners) Signature icant Date Note: 1. The local Board will solicit comments from the owners of land identified above in order to consider the effect of the proposed action on their farm operation. Solicitations will be made by supplying a copy of this statement. 2. Comments returned to the local Board will be taken into consideration as part as the overall review of this application. 3. Copies of the completed Agricultural Data Statement shall be sent by applicant to the property owners identified above. The cost for mailing shall be paid by the Applicant at the time the application is submitted for review. 617.20 � ® Appendix B feCE VED Short Environmental Assessment Form WAR 0_7 2017 Instructions for Completing ZO VXM313OARD OF APPEALS Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1-Project and Sponsor Info ation Rbfq�e ✓t- Duca Name of Action or Project: RobAz-i"+ Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 3,5`0 \l oc�'J Lt'_-(rM , Brief Description of Proposed Action: 70 A 5 '5T 6 9's 9 U3K�* kaa Me_,,qCt::r/) 6-LLe- -t-c> deo-th e)(- co n/y,r1or) Name of Applicant or Spon s Telephone: V� 631.16j-N3 R 6 � Ra ar?n E-Mail:-RAp6(e @ Aoorca S- com Address: City/PO: se) .�A � C( State: Zipi CodMN e: 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? ��0'00AWEt�eres- b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? -acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres 4. Check all land uses th,*occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. ❑Urban GMural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial ❑Commercial Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Aquatic ❑Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of 4 RECEIVED 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? MAR 0-7 201,1 y0a b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? v/ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: I� 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: i x� 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? _ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? V11- b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑Forest ❑AA icultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional ❑ Wetland ❑Urban Ef Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? 0<0❑YES b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runo and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: ( � O❑YES GtCc¢,n Page 2 of 4 RECEIVED 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the dment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? MAR ,I .gyp If Yes,explain purpose and size: - I�lf^B®AR®®F APP 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor n +1C,1W C 00 ''2 Date: 1Z- Signature: ZSignature: Part 2-Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or qualityof the existing community? 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a.public/private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)? Page 3 of 4 No,or Moderate ��9� small to large MAR 0-7 impact impact may may iNG 50A1 D OF APPEAL occur occur 70 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and cumulative impacts. ❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. ❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer) Page 4 of 4 RECEN D MAR ®77 20jj _70b L, APPLICANT/AGENUREPRESENTATIVEZONING BOAR®OFAPPEALs TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM 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 possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: Wj f— k6Z qe317 el d �°eee,11& (Last name,first name,middleqtfitial,unless yo 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.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance j~f (�jj�gr�,/�i�t�Si�A� Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other _ (If"Other",name the activity.) lzzk i ! 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 X 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/agent/representative)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 non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this day of PtteitAW 200' Signature Form TS 1 Print Name v Town of Southold _ —7 C�q(,7 ROMM LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM BAR 9 7 20f7 A. INSTRUCTIONS ZONIP4f3 BARD OF APPEARS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by.a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations bf each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions,it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# P The Application has been submitted to(check appropriate response): 2 6A_ I n it ry m��n Town Board 0 Planning Dept. 0 Building Dept. © Board of Trustees l V� 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g.capital construction,planning activity,agency regulation,land transaction) (b) Financial assistance(e.g.grant,loan,subsidy) (c) Permit,approval,license,certification: Nature and extent of action: Rurr,-�.A 1 a- CS r ffiEle 1�&W UVA V, Ou vchrjvd 2- Ac,-,c 4 Lo+ �y hu b Liamd ON- 4b dku In cleakh D, Wn _ 1987 Vivi erk �f- ,a rte- U��aMC�S +-0 �cc js,io Gvzgl ac cQ qmrcei% `FJnmexge- e `i waver ►�►ro��r Ia W COOPIed in agpm �cw�61{v� �b'� �o� U,�d �16�c//�e in, c lvl � Location of action: zo iz. -lam 201 E� a6 � r Site K20 S� acreage: � d Z�+4 U if�� - Present land use: oa a a4,t� Present zoning classification: A19-- p AJAR 07 PQ�p 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of R&UQO&9FtW&OWwing information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: �O a ®0 G (b) Mailing address: �(0 I 02 C) mom.i V\ C�c�d -G�© 1a (c) Telephone number:Area Code( —7 43-3 O (d) Application number,if any: Will the action be d=ate require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ❑ No or federal agency? DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space,makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LVW Section III-Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. ❑Yes ❑ No Not Applicable v.kdcn rV .r+- nlr &— `c (A a WeA- E- L O c✓ � is +� --1 0 C Z Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III-=plicable ges 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria 0 Yes ❑ No Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III-Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria © Yes D No Not Applicable RECMED4-7 D MAR 0. 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III-Policies Page through 16 for evaluation criteria 11 Yes D No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III -Policies Pages 16 through 1 for evaluation criteria E] Yes © No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III-Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluatio �iteria. © Yes [] No Not Applicable RECEIVED MAR 0-7 ZpNI G 50ARD OF APPEA Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. ee LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes El No ; Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of outhold. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Ye❑ No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See WRP Section III—Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. ❑Yes ❑ No Not Applicable MAR IT�T�Q� ZONING BOARD OF APRALS Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town w ers. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes 1:1 No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for eva ation criteria. © Yes ❑ No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote ap opriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III—Policies; ges 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ❑Yes ❑ No Not Applicable Created on 512510511:20 AM �lJl7� RECEIVED MAR 07 20U Board of Zoning Appeals Application ZONING BOARD OF NPPF-AIS AUTIIORIZATION (Where the Applicant is not the Owner-) I, ,✓�' CA residing at vo—CA 0 O fGe 0U (Print property owner's na e) (Mailing.Address) (Z.Wt,v-�,2 A 90 1 do hereby authorize :�Z fi r c cA, C M 00r-e– (Agent) to,apply for variance(s) on.my behalf from the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. (Owner's Si ature) (Print Owner's Name) Mar 1313 09.17a 03-13-13.69:13 ia51856 p.4 1/ 5 n -70 Town of Southold Annex 3/I3/2013 RECEIVED 0v.�' 54375 Main Road w xr' Southold,New York 11971 BAR 07 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PRE EXISTING -706CERTI FICA TE OF OCCUPANCY No: 36169 Date: 2/21/2013 THIS CERTIFIES that the structure(s)located at: 410 Wood Ln,Greenport SCTM N: 473889 SedBlock/Lot: 43.-4-29 Subdivision: Filed Map No. Lot No. confonns substantially to the requireruents for a built prior to APRIL 9,I957 pursuant to which CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER 2- 36169 -_ dated 1/21/2013 was issued and conforms to all the requricmcnts of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is- one fano dwelling.* The certificate is issued to Kinscherf,'Eleanor _ - -- - _ ----•- -— (OWNER) ofthc aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPAR7•1VII4T OF HEALTH APPROVAL EI:ECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED *PLEASE SEE A171ACEII✓'171NSPECT ION X1A'0R'1'. Aut txl Signal rc Mar 1313 09:17ap.5 RECEIVED �-' 03-13-13:09.13 �fib 12!bt ei a MAR 0 7 2017 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOU[HOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HOUSING CODE INSPECTION REPORT } LOCATION: 410 Wood In.Greenport SUFF.CO.TAX MAP NO.: 43.4.29 SU13D1VISION: NAME OF OWNER(S)-Kinscherf,Eleanor OCCUPANCY: ADMITTED BY: - SOURCE OF REQUEST:-Kinscherf,Elcanor _ -- LATE: 2/21/2013 DWELLING: #STORIES: 1 #EXITS: 2 FOUNDATION: eementUmk CELLAR- CRAWL SPACE: BATHROOM(S): 1 TOILET ROOM(S): — -UTILITY ROOM(S): PORCH TYPE: DECK TYPE: PATIO TYPE: _ BREEZEWAY:— FIREPLACE: GARAGE: DOMESTIC HOT WATER: X TYPE HEATER: num furnace AIR CONDITIONING: TYPE HEAT: IX gas WARM AIR: HOT WATER: #BEDROOMS: 2 #IQTCHENS: I BASEMENT TYPE: OTHER: —� ACCESSORY STRUCI'URNS: GARAGE,TYPE OF CONST: S'J'ORAGE,TYPE OF CONST: -- SWIMMING POOL: GUIrSI',TYPE OT CONST: - OTHER: — VIOLATIONS: REMARKS: IINSPFCA BY: MMEV DATE OF INSPECTION: 2!1.8/1013 TAME START: 09:30 AM END: 10:30 PM lip�� i� �► :'':fir ��: _ � �.:.. I w t f S � E� { ,fE to ##• 1 y! r • wri., • r • + s �R• ilk, k � i ' {, @fr .00 IN ot 49 •, � f � • _rim 'y�_l�1"r'rS ' . y., r w , w ` yr �y y a • r f RAGONA 350 WOOD LANE, GREENPORT ,�►. ^,fir °. ,,� 4k&. it .1 - • -:L• a � � # f OL � -� " L aft jjjjjjjjjp;� 'tar � s w 4 - • * * r RAGONA r A �,•�„ lra,r, 350 WOOD LANE, G �ENPORT R mv N� �..� A6 t s= y TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD w N R U4� STREET iLLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT c� `- Due rr FORMER OWNER , f'p" F`r' r65 E ACREAGE l E : _t V� ti awl �lLl TYPE OF BUILDING L144144 n4 p��, W RES. /fl SEAS. VL. FARM comm. I IND. I CB. I misc. 1 Ln o LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE - L Ln cn _ ' A o5 v o /a� Zo o S 7-- 3 6 U I /3';L 12 2'> 27 O-r F- 0 AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEWS NORMAL BELOW ABOVE Z /U G Form Acre Value Per Acre Value M Tillable 1 _ _ `O Tillable 2 — �— co Tillable 3 Wcadla d 50 cYi CEO SH,amp�� ,+•o ,-+ �Brushfand00 Howse Plot ED — - --- ---- (� ToaL Ln m cr) _ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD m /c1JC VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT < OWNER STREET ��"' � FORMER OWNER E ACR. S W CJ TYPE OF BUILDING r /C-Y� `j�11-OF1?So17MbELAS C/C/ LO S SEAS VL. FARM COMM, CB. MICS. Mkt, Value N LAND i imp. TOTAL DATE REMARKS wf �p� �L 7 Ln Q C21ka a 1 a-3— �1Z �� aS O — N tet. LO Ln AGE BUILDING CONDITION un LO NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE `D FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre _ Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER m m FRONTAGE ON ROAD Woodland m DEPTHr N Meadowland j Gr m House Plot BULKHEAD m Total DOCK irowm OF Sa_U3`HoLD PR PERTY RECORD 'CARD STREET VILLAG DIST. SUB. LOT Lj )WNER a A - . ; FORMER OWNER N 16 EACR � • 1�-fl..� S' c W TYPE OF BUILLD]NG SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value Eun) 2�0 U) LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS �� 29aG Ln 3 J 0 En cloo So oc� �4 ao 2 4 r t 44`K9 311 11 - ! - AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FA Ac r Value Per Value Acre - o m Tillable 1LO m Tillable 2 o Tillable 3 /Voodland ® FRONTAGE ON WATER miwamplanda n i• m FRONTAGE ON ROAD / k - ✓G' m 3rushlond 6'e m DEPTH m Aouse Plot ^ .% BULKHEAD m - m DOCK Cotai 'itl - a , Sy '. r,' yrs` ._ z ,zlr- � 1:• AA1�� I!cd , °• �� I �� . kda.IS F- :I ��■!�� -��■�■■�■!��■!■!� ■■■■■�'' Wr��11 a11■■■■�■!�� M■■��`1■��■■■■� r J 4 PW-y tits t t mr r r r � 91 ot on . , , s:� !■■■■f�1t�� l It■■■■!■ice■■i!■■ ndation Basement Ext. Walls Boom ��■s�!■■■■!�1■� - ■■�f�ii'Q■ ��":�■t�,�l■■■■tom■■■■■■!■ ,y,. .., - SSS■■■■��Is■■■■■■!■si■■t■■moi o ifs■■■!�!�■s■■■■!�■■■■■■■s■ r •• . r • rr ' tea • e 8 v .. � . .. _ . - .l. ■�■■■■sem■■■�■■■■■■■■■ ■■■f■�l■ ! ■■■■■t■■■■ ■1■■■��S■■t■■■■■■■�f� ■■■■s ■� � e■i■■ RECEIVED CSAR 07 2017 -7 ZOlvzjTG" B P Local Law Filing NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE,ALBANY,NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Tbxt of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. Southold TownTown °f-; ----------------------------- - XCHPA�r�c ' Local Law No.-------2J.------- ----------------- of the year 10!Ll Alocal law_-in_Relation to Relation to Lot Creation and Mere _ VMW --- ----- - - -- -- - ---- - - - -� r- --------------- I --------—---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ Town Board i Be It enacted by the - --- --------------------------- ----of the C" ---S ofouthold---- Town -------------=----------------------------------------------- as follows: I. Chapter 100(Zoning)of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended i as follows: 1. Section 100-24(Lot Creation)is hereby adopted to read as follows: A. A lot created by deed or Town approval shall be recognized by the Town if any one of the following standards.apply and if the lots have not merged: 1) The identical lot was created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983 and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirement(s)set forth in Bulk Schedule AA as of the date of lot creation. 2) The lot(s) in question is/are approved by the Southold Town Planning Board. 3) The lot(s) in question is/are shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Board prior to June 30, 1983. 4) The lot(s)in question is/are approved and/or recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to June 30, 1983: (If additional space Is needed,attach pages the same size as this shect,and number each.) DOS-39(Rev.7/91) (1) rt (nom � �� RECEIVED MAR 0 7, zONYNG BOA11D OF APPEALS i B. All lots which are not recognized by the Town pursuant to the above section shall not receive any building permits or other development entitlements. . C. All lots are'subject to the merger provisions of Sec. 100-25. 2. Section 100-25(Merger)is hereby adopted to read as follows: A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983.An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in dis- tance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. Common ownership shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under Sec. 100-24 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this law: 1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, or 2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board,or 3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former Section 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1,1983 to date,or '• 4) If the lot is on the maps described in former Section 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997 to date. D. Proof of Merger. The Town may require a person seeking determin- ation of merger to provide any or all of the following documents for evaluation: 1) Proof of the date when the lot was created and the size of the lot, together with a copy of a legal description of the parcel, all to the satisfaction of the Town; -2- m�EIVED MAR 0.7 2017 BOARD OF APPEALS 2) A copy of the current tax map and survey of the lot; 3) A copy of the original survey of the lot; 4) A title search showing single and separate ownership of the prop- erty from July 1, 1983 to the present time,prepared by a Suffolk , County title insurance company indemnifying the Town of Southold with$25,000 of insurance; 5) Other additional information or documentation as may be deemed necessary. E. Effect of Merger. No building permit or other development entitlement will be issued by the Town until this section has been complied with. The Building Department will issue a written determination whether a property falls within an exemption to the merger provision. 3. Section 100-26(Waiver of Merger)is hereby adopted to read as follows: . 'A. if a lot has merged, the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and upon i finding that: i 1) the waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood; 2) the waiver would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of lots in that neighborhood; 3) the waiver will avoid economic hardship; 4) the natural details and character of the and character of the contours and slopes of the lot will not be significantly changed or altered in any manner,and there will not be a substantial filling of land affecting nearby environmental or flood areas. I 4. Section 100-244(Setbacks for Nonconforming Lots)is hereby amended to read as follows: r _ A. This subsection is intended to provide minimum standards for granting ofa building permit for the principal buildings of lots which are recognized by the Town under 100-24, are nonconforming and have not merged pursuant to 100-25. -3- r i RrCCEIVED MAR ®7 2 B.; Such lot shall be required to meet the following: Yard Area Lot Front Side Both Sides Rear (sq.Ft.) Coverage (ft.) (ft.) (feet) (feet) 120,000 to 199,999 10% 75 30 60 85 100,000 to 119,999 10% 75 30 60 85 80,000 to - ! 99,999 15% 60 30 60 85 40,000 to 79,999 20% 60 20 45 75 20,000 to 39,999 20% 40 15 35 50 Less than 20,000 20% 35 15 25 35 5. Section 100-244 C is hereby deleted in its entirety. - 6. Section 100-12(Exceptions)is hereby deleted in its entirety, as of January 1, 1996. 7. Section 100-32(Bulk,area and parking regulations)is hereby deleted in its entirety. 8. Section 100-281 A(7)(Building permits)is hereby deleted in its entirety. 9. Bulk Schedule AA is hereby added to read as follows: Bulk Schedule AA Lot Size Width Depth A.Prior to April 9,1957 any any any B. Between April 9,1957 and 20,000 100 150 December 1,1971 C.Between December 2,1971 40,000 135 175 and June 30,1983 II. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. -4- MAR 0 7 20V NEW TaTE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Local Law Filing 162 WASHI 17=1 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State_) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. - �fc xS3b5c of__._Southold ------ -----------------------------------___.. Town ------------------ ---- _�_ .; -- nA � a197 r A local law___— in Relation to Merger--------—_ ----------------------------------------------- O"M raw Be it enacted by the .Town-Board __—___—----------------------------------------- of the OCYC of ............ Southold ------.-------------------------------------_---- as follows: Town VMNPC I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 100-25 (Merger) is amended as follows: C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under §100-24 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter. (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former §100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997 to date, or (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one family. dwelling with a minimum eight hundred fifty (850) square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one. (If additional space is needed.attach pages the same size as this sheet:.and number each.) �5'?9(Rev.�5!) --- -- •- � / 3i II��'�(v"" ��- - -- MAR 0 ®NIN,130ARD of APPEALS D. Proof of merger. The town shall require a person seeking determination of merger to provide any or all of the following documents for evaluation, (1) Proof of the date when the lot was created and the size of the lot, together with a copy of a legal description of the parcel, all to the satisfaction of the town. (2) A copy of the current tax map and survey of the lot. (3) A copy of the original survey of the lot. (4) A title search showing single and separate ownership of the property from July 1, 1983, to the present time prepared by a Suffolk County title insurance company indemnifying the Town of Southold with twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.) of insurance. (5) Other additional information or documentation as may be deemed necessary. II. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. (ta) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Local Law Filing 41 STATE STREET,ALBANY.NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended.Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. RECED -70 Gity MAR 0 7 2097 Town of SOUTHOLD ZONING SOAR®OF APPEALS LOCAL LAW NO: 10 OF 2007 ' BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose–The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law,as currently constituted,unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Inasmuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law,it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: §280-10. Merger. A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common Ownership" shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. �Exc=frons.)Lots which are recognized under §280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet, of The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board,or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former§100-12,Editor's Note: Former §100-12, Exceptions,was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L.No. 23- 1995,effective January 1, 1996,the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983 to date,or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former§100-12,the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L.No.4-19971 or (If additional space is needed,attach pages the same size as this sheet,and number each.) DOS-239(Rev.11/99) ' 1 Awt ao m eUi– cg—aM -*-7 00 (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a (WARD 7 2MI minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and ZO'YZNG BOARD OF APPEALS which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by L.L.No. 4-1997] or (d) If the lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter, and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots,except that the lots shall not be held in common ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. I1I. SEVERABILITY If any clause,sentence,paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other th part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. 2 1225/2016 Town of Southold,NY Districts more restricted portion of said lot whi ?s within 3o feet of such district boundary. the purposes of this subsection,the "more restricted district"shall be deemed that district subject to regulations which: ""ce t (i) Prohibit the use intended to be made of said lot;or MAR 07 2017 (2) Require higher standards with respect to coverage,yards,screening,landscaping and similar requirements. ZONING BOAR® F �pp E. In all cases where a district boundary line is located not more than 15 feet from a lot line of record,such PounAPd ie shall be construed to coincide with such lot line. F. In all other cases where dimensions are not shown on the map, the location of boundaries shown on the map shall be determined by the use of the scale appearing thereon. 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. § 280-8 Effect of establishment of districts. Following the effective date of this chapter: A. No building shall be erected, moved,altered, rebuilt or enlarged, nor shall any land or building be used,designed or arranged to be used for any purpose or in any manner, except in conformity with all regulations, requirements and restrictions specified in this chapter for the district in which such building or land is located. B. No yard or open space required in connection with any building or use shall be considered as providing a required open space for any other building on the same or any other lot. C. No lot shall be formed from part of a lot already occupied by a building unless such building all yards and open spaces connected therewith and the remaining lot comply with all requirements prescribed by this chapter for the district in which said lot is located. No building permit shall be issued for the erection of a building on any new lot thus created unless such building and lot comply with all the provisions of this chapter. D. Nothing contained in this chapter shall require any change in the plans,construction or designated use of a building complying with the Zoning Ordinance in force prior to this chapter if the following is found to exist: (i) A building permit shall have been duly issued and construction shall have been started before the effective date of this chapter. (2) The ground story framework(including the second tier of beams) shall have been completed within six months of the date of the building permit. (3) The entire building shall have been completed in accordance with such plans as have been filed with the Building Inspector within one year from the effective date of this chapter. E. Any use not permitted by this chapter shall be deemed to be prohibited.Any list of prohibited uses contained in any section of this chapter shall be deemed to be not an exhaustive list but to have been included for the purposes of clarity and emphasis. [Amended 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989] F. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by any other provisions of this chapter, no building dredging or filling operation shall be permitted below the datum of mean high water of tidal waters unless such building dredging or filling operations have been duly authorized and are conducted in conformity with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of all governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereof.'] [i] Editor's Note:See also Ch.96,Boats,Docks and Wharves,and Ch.275, Wetlands and Shoreline. § 280-9 Lot recognition. [Added 11-28-1995 by L.L. No.23-1995;amended 7-22-1997 by L.L. No. 22-1997] A. A lot created by deed or Town approval shall be recognized by the Town if any one of the following standards apply and if the lots have not merged: http://ecode360.com/5162033 ��Jl�v� 214 V1215/20-1-6-\ Town of Southold,NY Districts �(i) The identical lot was created by di, ecorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's offic or before June 30,1983,and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirement(s)set forth in Bulk Schedule A01 as of the date of lot creation. [1] Editor's Note:Bulk Schedule AA is located a the end of this chapter. (2) The lot(s) in question is/are approved by the Southold Town Planning Board. (3) The lot(s) in question is/are shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Board prior to June 3o,1983• (4) The lot(s) in question is/are approved and/or recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to June 30,1983. B. All lots which are not recognized by the Town pursuant to the above section shall not receive any building permits or other development entitlements. C. All lots are subject to the merger provisions of§280-10. RECEIVED I iou § 280-10 Merger. (WAR 001 26J7 [Added 11-28-1995 by L.L. No. 23-1995] ZONING i30ARDOFAPPEALS A. Merger. A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1,1983.An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 5o feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lost shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. [Amended 4-10-2007 by L.L. No. 10-2007] B. Definitions."Common ownership"shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. [Amended 4-10-2007 by L.L. No. 10-2007] C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under§28o-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L. No.4-1997;4-10-2007 by L.L. No. 10-2007] The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet;or t) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board;or W1 ;) If the lot is not on the maps described in former § 100-12,111the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate � ownership from July 1,1983,to date;or S! p [1] Editor's Note:Former§7oo-72,Exceptions,was repealed 77-28-7995 by L.L.No.23-7995,effective January 7,7996. —n p4) If the lot is on the maps described in former § 100-12, the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate rnownership from January 1,1997,to date; ;) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one;or 5) If the lots would otherwise be recognized pursuant to this chapter and subsequently would have merged by operation of law as a result of the death of an owner or co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots,except that the lots shall not be held in common ownership after the death of the surviving co-owner. ' roof of merger. The Town shall require a person seeking determination of merger to provide any or all of the following ocuments for evaluation: Amended 3-4-1997 by L L. No.4-1997] i) Proof of the date when the lot was created and the size of the lot,together with a copy of a legal description of the parcel, all to the satisfaction of the Town. z) A copy of the current tax map and survey of the lot. ;) A copy of the original survey of the lot. http-/Iecode360.com/5162033 314 12/5/2016 Town of Southold,NY Districts 4) A title search showing single and -ate ownership of the property from July 1, 3,to the present time, prepared by a Suffolk County title insurance compady indemnifying the Town of Southold with$25;000 of insurance. ;) Other additional information or documentation as may be deemed necessary. ffect of merger. No building permit or other development entitlement will be issued by the Town until this section has been amplied with.The Building Department will issue a written determination whether a prop�er,t al ffalllss within an exemption to the ierger provision. 33ii 80-11 Waiver of merger. MAR 072017 10l00 ided 10-21-2008 by L.L. No. 14-2008] ZONING BOARD OF APPEAW has merged pursuant to the provisions of§28o-io,the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original -s upon public hearing and finding that: he lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was ffected;and pon balancing whether: i) The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to a majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood; t) The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation;and (3) The proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. a- rn O —h n O ZY j bco✓\ CCrJ e- hftp://ecode360.com/5162033 1p hftp.//ecode360.com/5162033 4/4 z Search No.TAI-4951 UAR 7 2017 � SAS®OF APPEALS 7 x SINGLE AND SEPARATE SEARCH ISSUED BY 4 TELLUS ABSTRACT, INC. , FOR ANY TITLE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS REPORT,PLEASE CALL: Michael F.Maloney,Esq.At: (631)208-1063 k Tellus Abstract,Inc.,101-09 Colin Drive,Holbrook,NY 11741 f a g� C a t MAR .Z®lUII��BOARD Vellus Abstract, Inc. OF 4PPEAM 101-09 Colin Drive Holbrook,NY 11741 Telephone: 631-2081063_ Facsimile: 631-20.8-1064 August 17,2016 Ms. Marie Ongioni,Esq. Ongioni&Borelli'LLP 15 Railroad Avenue, Suite 2 East Hampton,NY 11937 Re: Search No. TAI-4951 Premises: 350 Wood Lane, Greenport,NY 11944 Tax Map 1000 043.00 04.00 030.000 Dear Ms. Ongioni: This Company hereby certifies to the Town of Southold that searches have been made in the Office-of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk for the chain of title for the,above,premises from 05/08/1979 to 07/16/2016 and for all adjoining lots-to identify whether the properties have been held`in single and separate ownership. Said.search discloses the following: SUBJECT PREMISES TAX MAP: 1000 043.00 04:00 030.000 Record Owners as of 07/1.6/2016 is Robert Ragona. f i 1. DeedDated: 05/12/1959 Recorded: 06/01/1959 Grantor: Arnold H.L'Homniedieu Grantee: Doris Kinscherf Liber: 4634 Page: 11-8 Tell A str ct,In Y:. Michael F. Malo ey,Esq. Sworn to before me this ,SPRY P& , Day of ,2016. �>�P�oUN� N xp DU !0�1 Notary N NG �- My-Commission expires: �9�.�`�oLK Co` 0- -c U Q-CONTINU EX PAGE- S t VOOv'tl�`"tl Civ t MAR 07 2017 0 Page 2 ®Nt1v�BOARS Of AppEpLS Search No.TAI-4951 Tellus Abstract,Inc. Doris Kinscherf dies a resident of Nassau County on November 23,,1967,Nassau County Surrogate Court File No. 133530,leaving all,rest and residue of her estate to her husband.Edwin Charles Kinscherf. Edwin Charles Kinscherf died a resident of Suffolk County on April 11, 1998, Suffolk County Surrogate Court File No. 1538-P-1998. 2. Deed Dated: 01/03/2012 Recorded: 06/20/2012 Grantor: Eleanor Kinscherf,as Executrix,of the LWT of Edwin C.Kinscherf Grantee: Eleanor.Kinscherf i Liber: 12696 Page: 905 3. Deed Dated: 03/14/2013 Recorded: 04/02/-2.013 -Grantor: 'Eleanor.Kinscherf Grantee: Robert Ragona Liber: 12,725 Page; 305 t LAST DEED OF Ki CORD I Tellus Abs ct,Inc. hael F.M�l/ ey,IEsq. Sworn to before me this� ' Day, of 2016. µY PVe F � Notary 'No.01 DU49256$1 Exp.04104!20 My Commission expires: yj'c'c�CK.G y0Q` . FpP-N6� -CONTINUED ON NEX PAGE- i RECEM MAR 0,7 Page-3 S� ?dgbN9� 4UFAL5 3'ellrrsABstr�act,Lac. PREMISES ADJOINING NORTH TAX MAP NO: 1000 043.00 04.00 029.000- 1. Deed Dated: 05/12/1959 Recorded: 06/01/1959 Grantor: Isabel VHommedieu. Grantee: Edwin Kinscherf Liber: 4634 Page: 120 Edwin Kirscherf a/k/a Edwin Charles Kinscherf diedd-a resident.of Suffolk County on April 11, 1998,Suffolk County Surrogate Court File No. 1538-P-1998. 2. Deed Dated: 07/23/2004 Recorded: 1.0/1512004 Grantor: Eleanor-Kinscherf,as Executrix of the LWT of Edwin Kirischerf Grantee:, Eleanor Kinscherf Liber: 12349 Page:' 274 3. Deed Dated: 03/14/20:13 Recorded: 03%27%2013. Grantor: Eleanor Kinscherf Grantee: Robert Ragona,and Marie Ragona,his wife- Liber: 12724 Page: 779 i 4. Deed Dated: 06/11/2015 Recorded. 06/26/2015 Grantor: Robert Ragona and MarieRRagona,his wife Grantee: Adam Neff and Genevieve Neff-,his wife Liber: 12821 Page: -765 LAST DEED OF RECORD ;Tellu/sAtrbsInc. Mrhael F.M jdffi ,Esq. Sworn to before me this l Day of ,20,16. (�1( PQ DUgr�e�� Notary 4 No.01 DU49256 1 My Commission expires: Exp.04104/20 • N '9j• '��-KG _ yOQ SOF 1VE`N • -CONTINUED NEXT PAGE- Page 4 TellusAbstract;Inc. earch No.TAI-4951 Inc. �®(QQ, RECErVED PREMISES'ADJOINING EAST MAR 0,7 209 TAX MAP NO.: 1000, 043.00 04.00 035.000, 40NING BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Deed Dated: 08/2.1/1952 Recorded: 08/27/1952 Grantor: Inez Fordham Grantee: Edwin Charles Kinscherf and Doris Barbara Kinscherf,his wife Liber: 3398 Page: 362 Doris Kinscherf dies a resident of Nassau County on November 23, 1967,Nassau County Surrogate Court File No. 133530,leaving all,rest and residue of her estate to her husband Edwin Charles Kinscherf. Edwin Charles Kinscherf died a resident of Suffolk County on April 11, 1998, Suffolk County Surrogate Court File No. 1538-P-1998,specifically devising the premises to his children Edwin John Kinscherf,Karen Ann Weigand,Deborah Lynn Maguire,-Candace Ann Murray,Alice Doris Luciano and Susan Alice Jencen,subject to the Life Estate of his wife,Eleanor Kinscherf. j I i { Tell sAbstract,Inc. By: ) chael F.M�lbn ,Esq. ,SPRY PUe O 'P4 DUN Sworn to before me this Day of 2016. N6.OIDU49256 1 Exp:04104120go N 0�� Notary OF NE`s My Commission expires: -'CONTINUED NEXT PAGE- . � RECEIVED - MAR 07 2017 #-7c�'o ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 5 'Search Nb.TAI-4951 Tellus Abstract,Inc. PREMISES ADJOINING SOUTH- TAX MAP NO: 1000 043.00 04.00 031.00 1. Deed Dated: 05/08/1979 Recorded: 05/11/1979 Grantor: John A. Cavanagh,Executor of-the LWT,of Elizabeth E.Thompson Grantee: George Koutsoumbelas_and Vasilihi Koutsoumbelas,his wife Liber: 8623 Page: 4,49 2. Deed Dated: 11/19/1991 Recorded: 1'1/27/1991 Grantor: George Koutsoumbelas and Vasilihi Koutsoumbelas Grantee: Gus Koutsoumbelas aka Constantine Koutsoumbelas. Liber": 11377 Page: 362 I 3. Deed Dated: 03/18/2010 Recorded: 03/24/2010 Grantor: Gus Koutsoumbelas aka Constantine-Koutsoumbelas- .Grantee: 'Gus;Koutsoumbelas and Christine Koutsoumbelas-Loew_,tenants-in common Liber: 12620 Page: 26 4. Deed Dated: 03/19/2013 Recorded: 04/10/2013 Grantor: 'Gus Koutsoumbelas Christine Koutsoumbelas-Loew Grantee: Gus"Koutsoumbelas,-as to 5,0%interest Cluistine Koutsourribelas-Loew, as-to-25%interest Peter.A.Lowe,,as to 25%-interest Liber: 12726 Page: '118- LAST MED-OYRE,CORD Tel s,A tract, c. / Michael F.lWhIppey,Esq. ,�PpIY ;P'(7 Sworn to before me this �O'�PiV,DU,y� Day of ` ;2016. r * No.,OIDU492563 EXP.04/04/20,W NG Notary 'yT oCK C0� My Commission expires: �QF -CONTINUED NEXT PAGE- Page 6 Search No.TAI=4951 TeI[ns Abstract,Inc. PREMISES ADJOINING WEST off® MUM Wood Lane MAR 07 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL Said premises has been in single and separate ownership.since 03/14/20.13. 1 E Liability hereunder is limited:to,the amount actually paid for this search. II i TelluAstract,Inc. Y� Mi'chael.F.Mar(ne ,Esq. Sworn to before me this Day of ,2016. YE� R A. �T 6'L4— �0� 1'D Notary , No.01DU4925631 My Commission expires: EXP.04104120IJ � NG 9l��LK 1r Op N �! oo5vF�0(K�Dy - s 4 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765.1823 APPEALS BOARD REIEIVgD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN MAR 0,7 2gp 100 ,o CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JOSEPHH.SAWICKI ZONING f3®�16dD®�qpp mw JAMES DINIZIO,JR. Nsvember 27, 1989 Ms. Marie Ongioni 218 Front Street P.O. Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appl. No. 3827 - Edwin Kinscherf (Variance) Dear Ms. Ongioni: Transmitted for your records is a copy of the recent determination rendered by the Board of Appeals concerning your application. Please be sure to return to the Building Department and all other involved agencies for proper permits as may be necessary before commencing construction activities. A copy of this decision has simultaneously been transmitted to the Building Inspectors' Office for their files and update. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Doreen Ferwerda Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Inspectors' Office ti Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD -7U o MEMBERS (RECENED �7 GERARD P.GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. (WAR 0 s SERGE DOYEN,JR. ��[, JOSEPH H.SAWkCKI ZONING B®ADZ( OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO, JR. _ ACTTON OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3827: Application of EDWIN KINSCHERF for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article I, Section 106-20, (Article III, Section 100-31, as disapproved) for approval of insufficient areas in this pending subdivision. Property Location 2700 Sound Avenue, Greenport, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 043, Block 04, Lot 29, 30, 35. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and conclude on September 21, 1989 in the Matter of the Application of EDWIN KINSCHERF under Appeal No. 3827; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and •are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the west side of Inlet Lane, in the Town of Greenport, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 043, Block 04, Lots 29-30-35. 2. This is an application for a Variances from the Zoning Code Article I, Section 106-20, Article III, Section 100-31, for approval in this pending division of land, proposed subdivision will have insufficient areas. ®� 0 Page 2 Appl. No. 3827 Matter of EDWIN KINSCHERF MAR 0.7 2017 Decision rendered October 4, 1989 ZONING BOARD OF;APPEALS 3. The subject premises for the proposed subdivision is known and referred to as being divided into 3 lots, on the Survey by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. Dated June 23, 1986, the first Lot A will have 10,000+- sq. ft. , Lot B will have 5,000+- sq. ft. , and Lot C will have 5,000 sq. ft. 4. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by, Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of EDWIN KINSCHERF as applied under Appeal No. 3827 for a division of land, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That Lot Set off "C" shall conform with all setback requirements. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df ..57 yf�` .s�✓ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE h-'J�- 9� HOUR ZL'G$0�1. Town Clerk, Town of Southold TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST SUB. LOT - — z�-Qi '�- /1 d Lan a x�_ �D Jac— zeal OWNER 00 E ACR. ' L+ .:�" `C-GC•`�• tC .-� e�:',• 1 `� S v W TYPE OF BUILDING �j•I10uTSnc1F1t3E'LAS ��" f`"t( tom: �'-'`-c? RES: SEAS. VL. .yFARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS ICA �h AGE BUILDING CONDITION55 { NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre D Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER a Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD (I (► Meadowland DEPTH , House Plot BULKHEAD Total DOCK �I v.=r.• ...sru. � I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RE CORD CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT FORMER OWNER 1 (/ f E ACREAGE tiW I t TYPE OF BUILDING RES. 02l SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. JIND. CB. MISC. LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS- s AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE , C, 60 Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value Tillable ] Tillable 2 N Tillable. 3 z - ---- - — --- z ;a Woodland h Swampiado-w Brushland Q House Plot ' j^t 'Total �\ I 1r�� k• -= -�:: : ■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■www■ ■■■■EwwwwwwE■M■■■■�■ g _ ■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■■ww■■ y max. ■■EE■NI■MEMM■M■MNMME■ NEEM■NIMMEME■Ci■NM■■■ ■EM■MMEMMEMEEME■■ME■ ■■■EEPINOMMMME■■■■MM N■■ s Basement Ext. Walls Interior Finish Fire Flace Porch . . *t oo, Ce • -_ '. Rooms 2nd Floor • rte . • -� Driveway ._ d_ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARDzjo OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT bb�`S FORMER OWNER N EACR. S ��A W TYPE OF BUILDING 44 RES. SEAS. VZI L FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS a 3 '30 goZZ s1/`5. J3 37D l 3 o 'D 0 0 AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE z { FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre Tillable 1 Tillable 2 Tillable 3 s Woodland Swampland FRONTAGE ON WATER Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD House Plot DEPTH I ^ ^ BULKHEAD ;g Total DOCK 1 RECEIVED - LIAR 01 ��1 1 30 ZONING BUARE)®F APPEALS 2 questions, I ' ll make a motion for closing the 3 hearing, reserving decision until later. 4 At this time I make a motion to close the 5 hearing and reserve decision. All in favor? 6 (All ayes) . 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is number 8 3 864 . ZEaAaL4S 9 (Reading) . 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey 11 again introduced by Roderick n Tuyl , P. C. , 12 most recent date May 23 , 1 88. I have a copy of 13 this indicating a prop ed house approximately 14 28 feet from Bay Vi w Drive. It' s most closest 15 point is 20 fee from Spring Pond. 16 I have a copy of Suffolk- County tax map 17 indicatin this and surrounding properties in 18 the ar a. Somebody like to be heard concerning 19 thi application? 20 MR. WIGGINS: Merle Wiggins, Peconic 21 Association, for the applicant. 22 The application has to do with the 23 building of the house on the lot that is neither Erl 24 75 feet from the bulkhead nor the 35 feet rear C25 yard setback . The circumstances surrounding this RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 t � L Southold Town Board of Appeals A- MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765•i809 APPEALS BOARD 0(00 MEMBERS RECERVED GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. MAR 2097 SERGE DOYEN,JR. 5'E. JOSEPH RZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DININIZIOZfO,JR.. R. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3827 Project/Applicants: Edwin Kinscherf County Tax Map No. 1000- 43-4=29,30 , 35 Location of Project: 350 Wood Lane , Greenport , NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Approval of insufficient areas in pending subdivision. This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency.. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. t e MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET, GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 (1f 1 a) 477.2048 Jye 10�® ♦ FAX ('S 18) 477-8819 9,EcEIVED LIAR 01 ZONING BOARD OF APP EALS .3=OS� May 16, 1989 Ms. Linda Kowalski - Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Edwin Kinscherf Dear Ms. Kowalski: In accordance with your request, I enclose a certified copy of decedent's Last Will and Testament, together with a certified copy of the decree of probate'. By operation of law, the properties which are the subject of the Application for a variance merged with the property owned by Edwin Kinscherf, beneficiary named in the Will. This shall also confirm that this Application will be on the June agenda. Very, truly yours, MARIE ONGIONI MO/jb Enclosures�� ' % S Witi A".1 RECEIVED W O MR 0.7 2017 i,• o M 4" 11psi 2 G 30ARD OF APPEALS q. D, :j M T, M 4i q4e 4; 4,Stq e k, CL6 0 !ro�,axis, B t V th 4!qff and., Zspq d nd a -,a a*d c0*43-dr �7411 qrt0, ty 4 a ,f dd epubt eo1OL 0� s, to be ux: Pei pt" 't to 111 T- V tic t 4fiaei her tofqtB, V Q4 i Mot wtl� 1110i da, d�jed '-t49Lt #.4' un r4 `A�aih ap leab b bon art r i qi, I? th!"A 1 eat equ� e i,Jii, ve r 0- V, 0 or M or or:w i P my, 'Ale Witor at Myt a '4%pab� U�ely 6d :ro C MOO. b hib Idl re lrnoio-� L 14 'wal t '6f our tPre&,:;6bij r 0 WiMM, KAW p, Ii ab a th 1 qF4R M . age 10lease' a tbiK 4 ;;1 p 0f 47 P an 1! wfir. my-P % Los and upi termsas 4 A. dr 861d' aft oper I for hereby Ivesti,to f all powers with. spiet0,thovaIs,.diaposa�I Of toyyn� ,`oj my estate in t L -If IjUlcill Dy U Lruc cupy Llle-ul W her me apers as the p ers on so served to be the person mentio�ed and described in said p Sivorn to before me,this day of 19 ............. A b!D— -41, A" FOURTH:: I hereby nominate and appoint my said husband, EDWIN KINSCHERF as Executor of this my Last will and RECEN ED Testament, and in the event he is unable to qualify for any q reason whatsoever, then I hereby appoint as substitute Executrix MAR 01 201; ■ BEATRICE PROSEL, either one to serve without bond, any law or-eONI G Bt ARD OFAP statute to the contrary notwithstanding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name at the end hereof and set my hand and seal this 2f day of Marc]l, in the year of our Lord, One Thouaen d Nine Hundred and Fifty-Three. (L.S. WITNESSETH: R On this 1 1"day of March, 1953, the above named Testatri-. DORIS"KINSCHERF, in our presence subscribed and sealed the foregoing instrument and declared the same to be her Last Will and Testament, and we thereupon in her presence, at her request, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto subscribed our n s ae at�tjestin,(g� witnesses. residing at o t�;J 0JMqAJ un u t- residing at -2- c� - �,..,. er y:^.:"7g.7. :1•x.pyt•F'w,s+ �Ar ..®• , .. i ... •:rt.�."$ MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET. GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 MS)81 477_2048 FAX (5181 477.8919 �o 1 -kkl f RECEIM i(ki4u�ed MAR 01 April 19, 1989 Ms. Linda Kowalski Southold Town Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Main Road, State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal No. 3827 - Edwin Kinscherf Dear Ms. Kowalski: In accordance with your letter of April 3, 1989, Title USA searched the records at the Suffolk County Clerk's Office for the current deeds to the property which are the subject of the above application. The current deeds show single and separate ownership as follows: 1. Edwin Charles Kinscherf and Doris Barbara Kinscherf, his wife. 2 . Doris Kinscherf 3. Edwin Kinscherf By operation of law, at the probate of the Will of Doris Kinscherf, her ownership interest passed to her sole beneficiary and surviving spouse, Edwin Kinscherf. This terminated the single and separate ownership previously maintained and created a merger problem. It is this merger which we seek to terminate. I conferred with the Assistant Town Attorney earlier this afternoon regarding the Certificate of Title. It appears that wi.th ;othe proof of Merger from the Surrogate's Court, an abstract will � - Yz be required. However, J.f one is reTi i red ber.R se of certain unique facts of this application please advise. G Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, r MARIE ONGION MO/jb .- e-1.1 6..JI 4.1 M_t 203 2,41 iI{1 A `. rs STATE OF NEW YORK, i COUNTY OF NASSAU, SS.: f SURROGATE'S COURT, Ir hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy with thAlbert W. Petragl - a Chief Clerk of the Surrogate's Court of the County of N sau, do e original will of i DORIS B . KINSCHERF deccased. admitted to probate by Decree: of this Court, and recorded in this office, and find th to be a correct transcript thereof and of the whole of such original will. a same IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and affixed the seal of said Surrogate's Court, to each page thereof, at Mineola, Nassau County, New York, this Z 5 th day of f 15�::'�,.t April 1989 . It Jerk of tats: Surrogateirt z 0 ,� I At a Surrogate's Court, held in and for the County of Nassau, at the Surrogate's office at Mineola, New York, in said County, on the at;61 day of Mty, 1968. �0(oo PF.ESENT: I 2 v3�tzrtWr� RECENED V_i HON. T. MAR 012017 ?,1, Pc�Surrogate. J - - - - - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' In the Matter of',Proving the Last: { Will and Testament of DORIS B: KINSCHERF, DECREE OF PROBATE Deceased. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x The citat"on herein having been duly issued, served and ! returned, and the Surrogate having, on his own motion, appoints GEORGE BRAVER, E'sq., special guardian of the infants and or d incompetents her Iein, the allegations of the parties appearing; having been heard, and the proofs having been duly taken by the � Surrogate, amonof said other things, as to the execution � t bearing date March 28th, 1953, and the probate of instrumeneari! 1 the said Will not having been contested, and VINCENT H. IMcINLRNEY having attended this Court on the 3rd day of ,April, i 1 1968, having been sworn and examined, his examination having been reduced to writing and filed, and it appearing by such I proof that said Will was duly executed and that the Testatrix, at the time of executing it, was in all respects competent to Imake a Will an not under restraint, and that the other sub— scribing witness, JAMES D. O'DONNELL, was deceased, and the Court being a isfied of the genuiness of the, said will and Quit-,knc�,.,r4��A ;lko,e. eve Igbg the validity of its execution., it is ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the testimony of the ,# is hereby dis— said subseribi g witness JAMES D. 0 DONNELL, y pensed with, a d it is further i <3 ' neretn,Ly aeuverMg a true C?FY tZIUMUt w u yclavuwly,l/et1U11Cnt alletll Ind me therein. person so served to be the person mentioned and described in 19 papers as the Sworn to before me,this day of + � •i ORDLx:ED, AllJUDGLD and DSCMED that the instrument offered .for probate herein be and the same hereby is admitted ,7 to probate as' the Last Will and Testament of the said decedent, -� valid to pass realand personal property, and that Letters '1 Testamentary be issued thereon to the Executor who may qualify ` thereunder, and it is further 0HDisI&,D and j)LCkELD that GEORGE. BRAVER,Esq., the �v special guardian herein, is hereby allowed dollars as compensation for his services,9cLvxA' ;s�L"N4L-' 6(f_Clv.Gt A,F.c� Clt\E: Vit?:i � i.i.�lC�-<< •-T"t�t'1v1�C1� �:2t+.t?'rl, Cct�-�cY1� ric'caa �..oc- .- ro�at s Cr_«z �! �®(0o i MAR Q 7 2-0171 XONINr BOARD OF APPA i me I� ueicw,uy ueuvoruig a uue tT ww ew w u Hca avuauy.uaN�ucu�was Ulu person so served to be the person mentioned and described in said papers as the therein. Sworn to before me,this day of 19 y l COUNTY T 'SCOUR, SS: 0(_0 SURROGATE'S COURT.1 LI („j�1 1,PMON BOSWELL,Ill,Chief Clerk of the Surrogate's Court of the County of Nassau,do Ilr•eby c, My th.t 1 have compared the annexed RECEIVED copy of an iaz;•iginef thercef,as the same is fde .. ........R�..... ? ��. in theotticeotthe Surrogate of Va sz :`r -d c,�y t,a trcc and correct copy of tho said arigicai�.,�w ,.,.o<th_,ot. MAR 012-017 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I have hereunto subscribed my hand and affixed the seat of said Surrogate's ourt ach p er 1, Mi¢epI Nasse un ,NewY h,i�As� ,� 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �J��71WtragIia, Chie lerk Surrogate's Court of Nassau County 1 /era+e 1_� d.w�1rtr. M.�YS.La.a•t� �� A ffn&nhtri, Awna View YM& commay of 4—W 4y1 t�, mado the .fw�r of Au"t of J. 40.., it at a'cloob W.in MW A sefeen Hundred end P1fty•Two, at Maw at P%V ( Ca ®ARD of erfteeu IXRZ R^.RtlUX. resldin "'d esmniMd. oa the north aide, of the North Roado no r Oreeaport, 1a Mbls vowk ego* "1 of Seothold, Suffolk County. ler York. i r � lwrt T at tho A"bi*writ SIR► MARLM �IXSCWIF and DOM RANNAM II r at 9150 09th 3 rest, Noodbaren, Now Yost ,'• . ' �wtist � tAls as�ssrad �� • :r- 1 rl'Mw.a.rai t.t rA.pelee y w/tA.�t reit,to a+easld«wWs►a� , ,fir, �..�__ _�� _ __• _ �,/ , • � • Mme'• ' � c ?on n- r vs. .+ ....y�r'O LSO" horfw avoMay tAe�sJteei St.r«. and -that •al�tile sonsiaorfed ws pmWt ig A s f toe s rm4 pjA-pdw4 *as ort ,s . I Pffirheir ba l r r p�'� �Lass�s Ir+ww i, that certain pieeo or parcel of land near Greenport, 1n the or Suffolk County] Now York and more particularly doserLMd ss follows$, I I 8k'r;INV1.1.G at a 'conerete monument sot an the westerly liar of talo! tA" ` said monument beinLr three hurAred feet southerly a1Mrg said 1*800fty ' YV. line from the southerly lire of Manhanset Moot, bolo# awe M - a ` corner of land of Looter Pollock and the south4astofdAy *8VWr.it � 6 prebises herein deserlbod= and rennin westerly slated sdld li dd il' E 100.0 feet to s concrete s►onuma:t i thence rwPftorly al•y **W 4M A. l 1 of the party of the first part and parallel *Itf& sa44 uasierly X16-1 Y * Inlet Lane 100.0 feetr thence easterly alonlr other yard or 31ra pell�i� J Phi first part and garallel with said i-atherly In* or r 10d.0 feet to sold westerly line of lrllot Zonal tho"a aloWs" < 11-no of Inlet Lane S. 20 55" 004 W. 200.0 feet is tis v4bt`a' ..-..-mow-»I � .• i'moi•�.'•'.`{{ r • • '.` f,{• �N4 363 + T1 *Mth*wMMr w#"and an the wfadeand fighteaftAelpart •. �ii,Mt p+rt da weer h said prewsisps. �' "•+ t +1 To Woo WWI*wu the Pserwboo herefw tvanfed onto the part les of the Owes"petit. ¢�Itr As i ret R€CEIV a Pont rr. - MAR 0 7 2W7 P. } A ttW Nrt7 �' ass [free port ZONING BOAR®OF APPEALS - 3, renrwanf s as jvdk►u•e: pbw. argot sold party of tk- first rart io -� ® r slertple,and has p'"I rijht fo eonrell the sande: ~ Oak" the Apw►f Igoof Pb♦ evrnwrl Poor# shift/ quietly ewjr,tl the said atrolee/Rps t '�, '1'AaP the sola prenetses�Peau Jnrnr inrwnrhrrtnrrs, .i p4m 11w 8,60 part 7 of the Arst port uOf exernte err prurerrr any jedr116►► A*"w"me#sf#R,o title to said premises, +-� pMle.a'A.tMbd peony of ttu firs' Flirt � I ow I wwroad$to lisle to swirl promises. t- Titpi. its (�wapltw+rK with $ur. id e,J the Lien lard. the frawfor will t @N @p#leisfpetlti+ut jolr ebls tvtne•epaare and u il! he.hl Phe off po fn t ei , swrh �Mp tra d juad to be applimi/dpst to the l,urpr.sr r,j 1Kdlfi>•!the reret n/ p m d ojU t om!j.sprt�dAthe sdfu ul a je first ln the lbr Range'[,orang�ther pn ropee�r �• a �p Mlasria$ dhe n ). d1{the first Pravl ha a hereon to set her a► and spa taw slap weed troop Jlrat andwv writ fen. JAI r rte' , I A ' • '� _ -- : Ow dhia r y/ of MW ow folk er. .W4090 Raendr.ml aw.t !ft.�"eo , r haps of wj {bar,prrappear— IIbbZ FS::.LCii.K - ;� ,.,, ... E ► I r •. X i0o"and kno"to wee to be the game perann dvsrrihval in and ' 1 flap } . sap within bestrument, and a he u s d e+tiln•nr>•ed�d �p a�u! sh1 ealeentod CAW some. + c '^ •' a t• ) ft 41 #r Sax pen vow Von ft UPS Mov 27 fm ,.�t•to :l - i I s o.tr.a r.tt1°.0 Ird•iFfL ��•M�rA Id.D"=►G� A= 8.mwftd w omv—N+f U-4 i i ;* t ,rat. I rnatrws attar—wew•wa-Vmm mrwm w women mm w LAW""WADI haat►. ` 44l I IMOMMIUMmob dn 7? dap d Mat haa&A tatd firty–bins msv� AROLD ff. L'JDltKED30CU "Olding at 22 lfalker Avenue, iyesset. lawn of yster Bay, Nassau Comty, Vow yurk � ® r 71-W Pont d aha len past.and DORI>1,1CIJf3CliftDlf esidlag at h(street, ®asses County, not, TortAR01 i t . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I pFaRy of�.sassssl t� � • that pOF thP&d res,is eri#wsae of'Pea Dmm ad G*W VWWAb"W"al i ptsdl ly Iiia Nrr 0i fi19 easts0 JM Qmm!Sma m d-Mawr Mao the pety of alas woad pot.the beim ' er ssslsFran aFd snf�el pss�r M tMs ssatatd pawl fwevsr, , i ALL*0 wools Fds lbt/tsiiaistwos enema dsr� �Fd ittt hetes a% port, Tom of 9=07r. Connty or; lbt;fren ail state or Rory lark bounded sea described as follows$ I j m�f ins at au t � oft the sw4Mrly Ilse of !Teal lAasa` wmm 0+ is isterseetsk aro- Northerly Use of Iasd of b�ir IIris�ksii; rtnlaisg thssos "0 eastealy Ilse at We" Lane is a general 1 r north I7 dIMAA y0 lest. r OIN theaoe la a 906074 eas�lerla dirsstiaa mad lei to the northerly line of land Or. seR3anis briskell, 100 fee to land now or formerly of Msobsrr rnlnisg ; v theme in a souther! direction along land lief hssntien0d SC feet to Iasa seinjaain Priskell; muting tbe00e 1110 a gessral westerly dip"% along last mentioned land In rest th the i ' point or place ar beeginning, 8lI11�! the souther y half or taisee aodnregsd by Ines Tw4bam to ' Arnold V. L'Boommoilles and Isabel L'iiatssedlou. by 4004 dated isptt>su�smF 18 195A . recorded in the Suffolk County Clark'a Office on May 20. 153 i Libor 3689 at phage 226. •, • ,, . 7�G�C@i*El<trills d Fee s. sax of tln ru'ty of the�>x�t in amid to my stmas and i a ahaw hr 8a thr was IFaas thesvoi.•TOGFT1f Ela with the as a/the eatrsa e two of putyt of dw first pm is Fee tomd eesmmism• TO HAV 'A;M To 1 11OLD do pfssMiaes l+totset dw par of ON sosF I pu%the iwtr/or mus sad tssigsa of I' t rwq al fled osos4 pet ; { AND the pony of the(lest VW aavesasnt®that the pwq®f the fine part las not done at sagged anythrlm I • aiarii) d.'Ad pnrorisaa have enrumbcasd is esp say aiaM+ae,otaapt as ataa.md. AAfb the of the firA awa�pliu+c�with xe 13 of the hien Law.owenaaa teat the peetr d 1 . too Am Port el t��M for dais mmyls"m and will hold thr ritll�to receive areas rnn,id- ' , s:sdot o a trust bad b he fim for the purpm of psyaoq the coat of the' mW-11 apldy 1 A the ssr,ra Rest M the pFgwttse et am d else re hdoaging say parted%t acne for 1 MY saw N. I•rR 1%s frond 4�#A be as IV It and'pales'wherwi r the Vases of this indenture so requires. 3 0 VMVW s the I my of die sant part hna iehy ezecated this deed the day seal year asst shove • � tr.ia.w A l Its reusems W. I ttath{p IYNr rraa 9®trwt'r a !:ks UI• M PAL"OPM11 nuc Gomm M m4634 o ija the tit dat er way t iP a9. !wF.nr erw• Ort t1w day d 119 an e1W40I.L' H. L• !Eu i •�■M bNowA M M dtr itrditO&W i�tr.Itrird in turd a hm to tae 1-0 b 1a th• i•dlrid+d t1 — 1 1d h ltd Nu sms d 60 MOM-11L 004 atheonho W that •..n'tslr`d " r =wfawtr, aad adnwv%WOW tint f -tANib VAR 0 7 2017 .. ZONING BOAR®OF APPEALS , !1�O�a lite fr1R/iLM19 ae� .a>A sm"M ww'Vew ate Ow wa° +ar d 1t tnr<rry ato a ttte e.,d .brim r t pmwao*mowi be me b-"%w!^Witte kJ on •nom&d-k"am im subwr&" to boo• 4r lett to sv*Wg ta�fr�j�. sib e1 rM ' pre >rs b#atl at 11a. �� ! aw Trttl 1� ice%tt{d dope• ttq @a alt a I M do { Irtat Mea •�•• { I i Its SW fr"a WSW ow � date r � to 4>�rdww ' rtrrw. err MIR d ew tla tad labord iras In ati reale one" dw I � gmZ a till hte�mma is WWI om it sm co *a be. sari ,a tri6>.tet. t.as ratswt istatt ow ow di od it astir d As bwd of ar am d nil wpm*. tto wmo tb atm-,and do t>rld.11wb b Md Atte be turd b sea dwsw by Be Catlin at tis trtrr thm @*Wroot!A mess as vtisae® >plaAlb, 59 g S I ! I6 V y' + •Y r I Poi r �r s ' i v tnaLd K1.n t.Q,w MU•M faMM- -/Sib DaL-rttirrF r.-.Err,ILS-Leer r C.�r�r i+M7wN �f!pati aAMti�� tilts�R�IMA�Q�t?Ir eMf�jelr alee�r t#s1•�t,Alltar rR�. {soENNNIME.wad,�. �&V of May ,siadI ms baindmd an& f if ty-nilne ;»7fi= TBABIQ. LIHD ILV residing at 22 Valker Avenue, 'syosset, Town of oye er Bay, Nassau County, New York • piny of do fled part,and Ilf XMCiflW residing aE 89th street. 1 ,a Qtissns County, Now York �� MAR 012017 � Y pry of is sand put � ZONING BOAR®OF APPEAL* 7*,Mttea flb d Mt p�In emmiivalima Ed Ten Dallas and atlee veh§die mooktanles r"ti it fret d do mauMN &W�stall"If r.,,- mw the party of tba sewed pare.the bels or LmoraamLn sed amusef Ors d tm wow part hnvw. ALL ryes aarteia pfa�,�ilme er d lad.trio tfje trridittgr sad i■lww..eta tlwow aeaea�,sirttM� �lr lift�i at a rte lover or Southold, County of buffollt and Stat• tet !foie Yost, sa nail dtthribed as follower r 71tmI111lNs a! • geitl! on flet! •asttir'1 line of wood La/t• =00 feet r s 'sth r'iy fras ty i telseetion •t U easterly line of wood Lone and the seutberly ii • of ttarehans t Avenue, said point of booming b•i�,��gg also %bs southwesterly corner of land of Jsaes C. i Jensen and DsaIrlo• . Jensen; 7lJtnrtis9 thence in A 8404701 easterly direction 41.48 the outhorly lum of land of Jensen 100 f s1 to land noir or ferue ly of Linsoberf, running thence in a gs0eral souther! direetioa 40m last mentioned land 5o feet to land conveyed by Isabel L'Hmnsd104 to Arnold H. Le M? edleu by do" Sate4 April l 16, 1957 and reeerde4 April 17, 1957 in liber 4284, op 41 in the ` oftio• of the suffelA Oonnty Cleft, fanning these* in a general l westerly dir•stlon a d parallel to the southerly line of land at Jttr••m 100 feet tf tho easterly line of Wood Lane, thence Northerly aloha tbs 66storly line of wood Lane 50 feet to the point or place of b•#inning. i going Us northerly !calf of preaises conveyed by Inst ►ordbam to e Arnold A. L'Ifosmsedlot and Isabel L'mcmmedisa by deed dated September 18, 1954 and recorded XV 20, 1933 In Liber 3889 op 226. • .r u i �, IMMKK dei at rlaie,t U and Lte*ral.9 m7of dwipmr of On fns!�.rl in Lad to ally Stfal,aid i mob LI --1 g Mie shoo Levert pre�iae,a do emw Yaw tlrreod; POi,�I HF.It w"the 1! ad LM 1110 ads* aa�d risMa of Ile party ai dw tine pact is mail OD mW m prime*; TO HAV AND TO HOLD i tebe a .momerwam tin pnq of dm"end pati do Leis w weoonn and amps d a[Iia p Alt'!i the pre;.of is first part weemab Met do patty of thr Sear part has trot&we or mfored asyt" ��1M pari/ptaa Tyre hea�a encnarbrnd is�wy wYrLiwr,adapt w afr+rraad. AND tLe party ta( !te part,in eonnifianoe with Section IJ of the Uen Uw,oariqpints that the patty of tis,tint part till ree:lae ilia earredameoe for this aomseyaaee and evil bald the right 16 erre+.-mach con®d- F pain m a watt hod to be appied fiat for the pori of payirc the ova of the iwproretme"sed will apply iia jeans firs*to the pay of dw'csd of dw improaeaent before wing any part of the total of the amt Out, Mether The spaced-p rW0W_"be ma H as if it rod"partma. WIN Wier the Imo of this iwknture so inquires. N 1pRlflr WIDUM,din MM of tie lint part!pas duty mcm this deed rhe day and year fire!sbore trrieten. Is nssarca yr1 r ' ' I "ATT M am Tom esew"of { SAbbA;' IMAM M mw stow essm'T or m94634 ad= tfe thr .''� i tea" d NAY 1')It9 . 1wi-c nw On the db of 1!D ,LllilM! yel"Idil. l>IIIIiIIe I perwera ly cow r8AfILI• L'HMJW to!karts M be dw iiAndwl: downlad in trod wren 'to tem low to be d*ittlitielmf dmcptbd is and 111111110 waved �aK..ing romnsrxywe; I tleouaMdeed that esecvwd dw 16 @NMI �. seed ;*0 izr�'rro..�l� �r�A RECEIVED 0(00 1 ZONING BGARP Of APPEAL rlrw rlr tH11fl. v�i so t+"w am TOR soon"sp r . Or pe efeq of I! Wo" see 00 00. d"of 19 .ilt/iw iris w■+I wwbti bcilll;lry sr am dwt drpum and thr subKniag wetses® w die so an ag itlMrmum sr MY tlwt h 11s460 61 WQb whom i rr tspeisN4 miss.beim 1.F ask trwa�did 6"ssQ My OW M htd�01 w •t+r i 404wbkA tam llr Idi str/swlw dtwrheiA { S bow dm4 fir be at asWill of WIW ;• trmW a fhad *om%W 1. @4 wlm waWA do ~�w I ice!!: Is tlaa/ drt N titer to dw be. ttid treleleellietR sisrto. wt }wnnit !1 11wr 11�1a1 y alfa.ei 1M brrtld sI .o am ar*.n- wit the asd IV d/aeMr�a Mllb tltll t111t lr tied 11 anger y Phe oedee eR dee ttrsw N w1 .d .!as vatimmis rte. a s •N 4 a1 eK 14 183 • 1 3393 PAGE 363 Together with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the part y of the first part in and to said premises, To have and to hold the premises herein granted unto the parti-ew• of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. RECEIVED MAR 012017 And said party of the first part ZONING BOARD OF ovend LS s ¢s follows: First, That said party of the first part is seized of said premises in,fee simple, and has good right to convey the same.; Second, That the parti6s of the second part shall quietly enjoy the said premises: Third, That the said premises are free from incumbrances; Fourth, That the part y of the first part will execute or procure any further necessary assurance of the title to said premises; Fifth, That said party of the first part will forever Warrant the title to said premises. Sixth, That, in Compliance with Sec. 13 of the Lien Law, the grantor will receive the consideration 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 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. In Witness Whereof, the part y of the first part ha s hereunto set her hand �� and seal the day and year first above written. .J u prestutt of State of New YorkOn this ss. L � day of August County of Suffolk } Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Two before me, the subscriber,personally appeared INEZ FORDHAM to me personally known and known to me to be the same person described in and who executed the within Instrument, and s he duly acknowledged to me that she executed the same. / Notary Public NOTARY YHENRY BOOTH MOORE USLIC,STATE OF ORK %jiDENT OF SUFFOLK CO.,CLERK'S YNo.IM RECORDED COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 30,19.§.3 AUG 27 1952 9:31a•M R.FORD HUMES CLERK OF SUFFOLK COUNTY r i r RECORDED II PULL COVCNANT WITH LI[N COVENANT AUG 2 7 ;p19 f1U 3I tz 6.4. T GHES CLEIRZ4 OF ',;FF,LX% COWITY INEZ FORDHAM 1 TO } EDWIN CHARLES XINSCHE RF �t and DORIS BARBARA KINSCHERF,his ,m wife � AUGUST Z A 52 i f a 1 03. A � AND R. ® HENRY BOOTH bI00RE, ` GREENPORT, NOW YORK CWT. P,�6Ak1LY T0W LA1MY<aR Ift:ORf ftQfN�e t7Rf lIiTRUML9lT—THIL INETtitlMfNf fttOULO taR utMe f7 Y1Ytl !!CWT. - Lw4634 PAZ"� TM SVDFMIIM made the /it 'day of May ,nine4en hundred and. f ifty—nine BETVVF.FSi ISABEL L'HOMMEDIEU residing at 22 Walker Avenue, Syosset, Town of oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York CC 1 tut party of the first part,and EDWIN KINSCHERF residing at 91-50 89th Street, of Queens County, New York �t�CEIVE "k Deed i -634 MAR 0 7 2097 0� m Id party of the second part. J VI[ ONING BOARD OF APPFAL-S-- VWESSB1Ifi,that the party of the first part,in earin enation of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration lf- paid by the party of the seooitd part,does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part,the heirs 8 or successors and assigns of the party at the second part forever, ALL that certain plot,piece or paras of fsttd,with the buildings and improvements tbereon erected,sitnte, Iftandbeing4a4he at Greenport', Town- of Southold, County:,of Suffolk*;and State of New York, bounded and described as follows! 1 BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of Wood Latta goo feet southerly from the inte�'sSetion of the easterly line„of'WoQd Lane ; and the southerly line- of •Manhanoet Avenue, said poihat of beginning being also the southwesterly corner of land of James C. Jensen and Beatrice A. Jeneen; running thence in a general "Aterly direction along the southerly line of land of Jensen 100 feet to land now or formerly of binsoherf, running thence in a general southerly direction along last mentioned land 50 feet to laud conveyed by Isabel L'Hommedieu to Arnold H. L'Hommedieu by deed dated April 16, 1957 and recorded •April 17, 1957 in liber 4288, ep 41 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, running thence in a general westerly direction and parallel to the southerly line of land of Jensen 100 feet to the easterly line of Wood Lane, thence northerly along the easterly line of Wood Lane 50 feet to the point or place of beginning, Being the northerly half of premiees conveyed by Inez Fordham to Arnold H. L'Hommedieu and Isabel L'Hommedieu by deed dated September 18, 1954 and recorded May 20, 1955 in Liber 3889 ep 226. 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 encumbered in any way whatever,except as aforesaid. AND the patty of the first part,in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law,covenants that the party of i 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 avrd"party"shall beconstrued as if it read"parties"whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. 1N WITNESS VVHF.REOF,the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. 1 Ix ruest:Nct:or: X / STATE OF NEW YORK, County of Suffolk, �•� 1, NORMAN E. KLIPP, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and Clerk of- the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for said County (said Court being a Court of t Roo ord 0 HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the annexed copy of Deed 1 L Hommedieu oERR Kinscherf with the original recorded in the Suffolk O Cler t ffice, Riverhead , N.Y. June 1 , 1959 @11904a.m. in Deed Liber 4634 and that it is a just and true copy of such original record and of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and af- fixed the seal of said County and Court this 9th day ofFlab• 196 8 F 03 4i�e i •LDI s� Q V .. i/Zrc }xrwnslly cam of dEa� toS9 , tW an On the day oforis '�'�• we Persomlly came IBAHEL L'HOMMEDIgU 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 acknoxledged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that >t• executed the same, executed the stutm c - RECEIVED or ne rs1 C)U0 mrucx c x ,ro:.ar wsuc.Minor new tons BAR 0 7 2017 K.so-s:v�sa ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATS CW X11W Toak eogWy Of see STATS eN Mt{1Y Tong.COUNTY of on the day of aso penny Came - 19 , before me On the day of 19 to me known,who,being by me duly sworn,did depose and these subscribcoming witness to the foregoing t� 'before me say that he resides at o. , who, nbymt, with whom I am personally acquainted, who,being by me duly that he is the sworn,did depose and say that he resides at No. of that he knows in and which executed the Eorrgoing instrument; he to be the knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed described in and who executed the foregoing individual to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so that he, said subscribe witne fnrtrmtmrtt; affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora. execute the eserine and thwas at present and saw tion,and that he signed h name thereto by like order. at the same time subscribed h cess mess' name as wttae>ss thereto. a � o M S s 0 .pp QQ $° k qp m ti V �aktff d -j t 4 U 'A f� W W l � e� 'o'"cst . - _ xxoti rttis� �txoalv�3aO - -- �-• , _.__—'--- - ._. ._.,, _ .. i Ft 1�r�'�g5asioT�:_.. _ _ • $J{SAzIAiJ(iSC1N0`I-QixSN�71`!` _ _ `Gt _ - - � ^' ` ' i;so ,, .. l ;Jt ? irif,` t3:i trot ItF{a e:U d,R V I3J `??3r.13�%'', :.. - �t„t.t�?•*,;. ` = - - - -- 'i 4'�er.cti,>.s_ - - . . :'ti6?3:.1.'1��1�;�t:,'�fift�i.'�.c`�,+J:�1�2: 3a.�1{5'� �t�llG18dt1�"x JC'C'i�. ` � .GI': �^yr�%'a + r d.. F: G7 .L� ,3 3�k-!.;E. � 1•-;�',. ,t - •;1W33' - � :et''a,3 �x a- '}.:act.t•i.l�,yr,J�L. #-- .�:te,,,�f�;r�4;Lb�;'C.L;�"6'.'` a ",Q'Pin,•n�i;rtauvetkn Pr ad - .ttJ.�,'L'�4'.t..t,t.�.4 _ - r .t• intron_ ��.. d. t.....i :�%� _ ,�:_`. t` at4:9 ..Ica NL'afiw:etV ti VW a(, 'naf.Uan T{�7' i'ia tt ,1 ok i U � y-� art tv" •Ie - _ t F ail. t 1 t' .e nr, , - trWTfd<stinTrz:i V.Urn tit ad.ntaS a in1iu i•" Ju !tM - ++ —Vo < 0f�: eand u i < - 3 `�'s• ' :' M1di• .r atu! •4r .tr +k't PRRm«LxR t•1 �tf ^,I``f t':~:. 1-try :•.p. .�'., O Bks , -'y.• i :G n wrr lie (A n nr. .c"n w atrr : - an I^t .'i h. '7 E, E. FT ff t f% •�•• s„t��a �r e f•,r:;'•Y. v�., , -. +a t °tJ�!' µSl;70'tf3��• —'135 .. - .. -,+.�_�- - � - - - .. :N0t9WN ` V:L'O +'Iaq dWNX C1i - 74 �.... 3nr'CJF1.ON'd32JI :v6.t° ._ - .`^ • ,IVO' - \� a i; r - 4 'S”} _,�,'S:l..�.-- ( ia::l?'7:T.L1ixi~;' 't.,.,titi7if.?.r'N, a. , ,...-..._. � } � � E' •� �. 5^�C3', ."+.�1 '1".}igv�t�nV�:tf'it,-E, - _. ...____•__....: „F, _ .ti;• �Tsrr(..:s' ..I _'iF'SiK?"tlrtS9- ;,. ' y�y.,;,J1._. t . tX] kIND NOU.Dn8.,SNOZ) ! i•-. a JO H:LYFlAM d0 -_I,130 k.JT nq? N'10<�Jft$' - ' - :�.:_ �1.NW:11"ttidW, 'saalntars J•iJ.-lir*qtl :Jo�,%,a,:lr.(_C'10'>I'tOJjf15 Ii Ox. W2t0:O1V07 ( -r t - T, , ' 2 irr orsatj 01 tlNt„> 7 S1t11: 210 f7Yd3ih5f:IJJ) .. i •.i5Ckdblq'3JWM3S(INW {"lcleif7Fs'?13LbM.7 1, r;z_._...� 3: '; "f 'F."}.1 .'('t'l:=it't::~� i. 4:^t; {W. ( 7,t.Nt JO N 1. i-µ y ( 4U31W.IS. _ _ kz;',' - . ";QC3L1: .l'rtUf" •;,1 , t.`- " t� p - YI~ , �t4 r 4. tt f J 1 ♦�T fTod { \y y -4 `f +f f- - ^4 a,t• "S'y rt^ �4 9• ':•' a��a �.ti ''i'..` .ami= •7• :' llt00 MAR 0 7 20`17 S C T.M.NO DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 43 BLOCK.4 Lo7(S)JD ZQN1NG PTQL D F PPEALS #R10-14-0073 1 -c: 7�_ umi EXPIRES THREE YEAP._ ;,n DATE OF APPROVAL5 MANHANSET AVENUE w fn p p LANDF/F O f •C) ROBLRT RAGONA DWELLINGS N MARIE RAGONA W/PUBLIC WATER I 4 BEDROOM SYSTEM 150 1,200 CAL. SEPTIC DWELLINGS WA CL 86 8'OU1x3'DEEP LEACHING POOLS W/PU9 SO WATER f 100,00' ,So f � PROPOSED WATER SERVICE 387.'O5'OO"E 1 r_w �, EL 78 1 EL 8.1 r ' '-. - - - PROPOSED 145' b 1-i EL 9 5 OR�WAy ,MIN 'O w 1 Iz W w S.T. rN(EL 10.0) CE. _(EL,9,0) fn ��CL85 O a c- 425' 22.2'—O� ooz If O rcuK a O/:B ci I3 � PROPOSED O Z A o O T` r 2 STY FRM O O DWELLf3 NGS o Z+ W W PUBLIC WATERO 'O DWELLING 'ti 'O / ISO' ' O u .v rn 61 (FFL 128) �- J5.3'�EL J00) 425' (fL 90)b 4SHED U P3 v PIPE EL 9.2 EL 83 EL 8.2 — EL 9 8'' `L MON OVERHEAD WIRES .0 25 4'WIRE FENCE N87'05'00 W ' 100.00' \ m o j I CL 83 ` DWELLING I z 1 EL 9 7 1Y/PUBLIC WATER LAND OF/F o w F•i 60 GUS KOUTSOUMBELAS m 3 CHRISTINE KOUTSOOM13EL S LOEw 3 PETER LOEW ELEV. 9 5 VACANT DR BROWN 90' C LOCKING OL SANDY LOAM I COVER TO GRADEL 9 8 E EL 9 5FINISH GRADE FFL 12.8 z SM BROWN1 1• } ?U'N-2 MAz z 5 LOAMY SAND 1/4--F-T. F 6 LOVER 0_MI 1/8�-FT,� . 6'COVER 6' N 6'SLAB 65 PALE INVERT) NVER'NVERi SP BROWN 6 87 6.66 INVERT MEDIUM 6 16 6.08 TO 7.1' 8,0 3'COLLAR COARSE FOUNDATION FLOW POOL CLEAN SAND WALL BAFFLE MI COARSE ,_7„ 3'SANO& WATER TANK 3'MIN GRAVEL EL 0 3' WATER USE 4`OLA.APPROVED SEWER PIPE IN 1000 GAL. PRECAST ST. 3.5 SW MEDIUM ZONED R-40 z i SAND i NON-CONFORMING LOT ^� FRONT SETBACK 35'MTN 17� REAR SETBACK 35'MIN GROUNDWATER EL 0.3 SIDE SETBACK 10'WN(25-TOTAL) THE WAFER SUPPLY, WELLS ORYAn4S AND CE55POOL AUG 1, 2014 LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FROU FIELD OBSERVATIONS K. WOYCHUK LS AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS AREA.5,000 SQ.FT. or 0.11 ACRES REVISED 10-29-74 ELEVABONOARFM _NAV088_ __ UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY ISA YOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK SFATE EDUCATION LAW COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHDU THE SURVEY 15 PREPARED AND D11 HIS BEHALF TO THE TIRE COMPANY,GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON,AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF WE LENDING INSTITUTION,GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES,ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS EAS£MEN75' AND/DR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY El1DENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE 77UE OF SURVEY SURVEY OF-DESCRIBED PROPERTY CERTIFIED T0: ROBERT RAGONA. MAP OF FILED SITUATED AT.GREENPORT TOWN OF:SOUTHOLD KENNETH'M•WOYCHUK LAND SURVEYING, PLLC SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK I. Professional Land Surveying and Design h._. .�/ 41"-.& P.O, Box 153 Aquebogue, Neil York 11931 FILE $14-702 SCALE:1"=20' DATE:AUG. 1, 2014 'PIIoNE(831)290-1588 FAX(031)298-INS MYS LISC NO 050882 mslntafnln{Use re,;H.al P b-L J R..y y k K—tb U.eoxbuk Lot 'FYI 4� 3° S C T M NO DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 43 4 LOT(S)29 , i RECEIVED MANHANSET AVENUE MAR 012017 12097 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 0 0 0 N LAND N/F OF HELD y FIRM v GARAGE � PIPE S87*05'00"E 100.00' 2O'N 222 uPya ao MON Tn 26 0' CONIC N F—I STOOP CA CONIC 1 STY FRM W sro0P DWELLING 00 o W x n yalo LAND N/F o OF v 3 KINSCHERF ^ �' _ CELLAR 1--1 ENT Q ° 27 0' 26 0' 47 0' O � O CRUSHED STONE o O a DRIVEWAY 0 W N87'05'00"W 100.00' LAND N/F OF KINSCHERF THE WATER SUPPLY, WELLS AND CESSPOOL LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVARONS AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS AREA. 5,000 SQ.FT OF 0.1 1 ACRES ELEVATION DATUM. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERA77ON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO 774E PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INS77TV77ON LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITURON, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT 774E PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES ADD17IONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE 57RUMRES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE 77ME OF SURVEY SURVEY OR DESCRIBED PROPERTY CERTIFIED TO ROBERT RAGONA, MARIA RAGONA, MAP OF J P MORGAN CHASE BANK; FILED FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, SITUATED AT GREENPORT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD KENNETH M. WOYCHUK L.S. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Land Surveying and Design �► P.O. Box 3, Mattltuck, New York, 11952 FILE #13-20-1 SCALE 1"-20' DATE FEB. 19, 2013 10� �/2IP& PHONE (831) 295-1588 PAR(831) 29B-15BB N Y S UC NO 50227 maintaining the records of Robert J Hennessy H0(yx2s. (T l- a9� � FFOC� ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC ® ® Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax(631)765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER ,j► ® ®. Telephone(631)765-1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER ® www.southoldtownny.gov FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville DATED: March 10, 2017 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 7060 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 7060 for Robert Ragona-The Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is the Applicant's Project Description, Questionnaire, Agricultural Data Statement, Short Environmental Assessment Form, Applicant/Agent/Representative Transactional Disclosure Form, LWRP Consistency Assessment Form,Notices of Disapproval, Board of Zoning Appeals Application Authorization, Pre-Existing Certificate of Occupancy, Housing Code Inspection Report, Photos, Current Property Record Cards, Copies of Local Laws Nos. 23,4, and 10 Filings, Title Searches, Southold Town Board of Appeals Decisions, Copy of Survey Dated 1986, Past Property Record Cards, SEQRA Type II Action Declaration, Last Will and Testament of Doris Kinscherf, Letter to Southold Town Board of Appeals from Marie Ongioni Regarding Appeal No. 3827, Copies of Deeds, and Copies of Surveys. * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 03/10/17 Receipt#: 217035 Quantity Transactions Reference Subtotal 1 ZBA Application Fees 7060 $750.00 Total Paid: $750.00 Notes: Payment Type Amount Paid By CK#677 $750.00 Ragona, Robert Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Name: Ragona, Robert 96 Roanoke Ct Riverhead, NY 11901 Clerk ID: SABRINA Internal ID:7060 _71(417 ?,o—J mw JUV\ PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax:(631)765-4643 January 19, 2017 RECEIVED Q C� Bill Duffy, Town Attorney Town oSouthold JAN 2 0'2017 JUL m 1�1� Main Road, Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE' 3Y By Hand Re: Edwin Kinscherf/Robert Ragona-owner 1000-43-4-Lots 29 (improved), 30 (vacant) and 35(improved) Dear Bill: On October 19, 20161 submitted a letter on behalf of the owner of tax lot 30 who had retained me to review the history of the subject property and the "waiver of merger law". The lot has health department approval and the owner wishes to obtain a building permit but he is being advised by the building department that a waiver of merger is required. See attached notice of disapproval dated December 1, 2016. You asked me to provide you with research regarding the "intent" of the waiver of merger law. I have attached the following transcripts of the hearings, the proposed local law and the (final) adopted local law. In 1997 the first version of the waiver of merger law was adopted. The intent of the law was to give relief from the costly and lengthy two step process of obtaining first, area variance for the lot and second, re-subdivision from the Planning Board. The subject property, in 1989, before the 1997 exemption was provided, obtained the first step, an area variance for the lot. The 1997 law worked for many years till the Town Attorney, at the time, defended an Article 78 where the ZBA denied a waiver of merger and argued that the standard in the waiver of merger law, "economic hardship", should be the use variance standard. The Court stated that in the case appealed all the standards in the waiver of merger law had been met, the court had to give deference to the Zoning Board interpretation of"economic hardship". From that point forward practically all waiver of mergers were denied. The few waivers granted were for merger due to death. In 2007 the Zoning Board addressed the issue of merger by death of a co-owner. The Town Board specifically wanted to legislate, without delay, protection of properties which were , intended to remain separate. Since death could not be avoided, merger by death was an "exemption"from merger. According to the transcript of the 1997 hearing and the opinion of both the Town Attorney and Councilman Dan Ross Esq., if two properties were placed in separate names, but the death of one of the owners caused a merger, there was no need to do anything. The merger due to the death of the owner of the adjacent parcel was an automatic exemption from merger. � 4"1 Bill Duffy, Town Attorney Town of Southold January 19, 2017 Page In 2008 the waiver of merger law was again revised to provide for lesser and simpler standards to obtain the waivor of merger(short cut to the area variance and re-subdivision process). The revisions provided that if a parcel has merged, the owner may apply for the waiver of merger. The Zoning Board would then consider the standards listed in the "waiver of merger"Town Code 280-11. In the Kinscherf/Ragona case the waiver of merger law had not been adopted yet. The only law available to the owners and Zoning Board of Appeals was "area variance" and "re- subdivision" process. The Zoning Board granted the area variance#3827 dated 10/4/89. These were lots created by deed in the 50's but due to the death of the co-owner, the parcel merged. An example of merger due to death of co-owner. The Building Department reviewed the single &separate and concluded that the parcel was still merged because in 1989 the Planning Board would have had to set-off the lot after the area variance was granted. Alternatively the parcel qualified for an application for a waiver of merger. The merger occurred with the prior owners when the daughter inherited both properties, but the current owner's attorney applied the automatic ZBA exemption, Ragona purchased two parcels, and maintained the parcels as separate parcels. I prepared an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, appealing the notice of disapproval for the following relief: Interpretation of 280-10 C (2)The non-conforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board. (That provision of 280-10 in the "exceptions"to merger means there is no need to look further or require further application) Reversal or Other: amend decision Appeal #3827. The Zoning Board's reference in the decision to "subdivision" is stricken. A subdivision is no longer required because the law provides the exemption and due to the specific exemption to waiver of merger, i.e. area variance, the building inspector should issue a building permit. My application has not been rejected or accepted (because the Zoning Board Clerk has requested your guidance). My client is being denied due process by preventing the application to be filed. I am not seeking to waive merger, I am seeking to interpret the waiver of merger law as it applies to this parcel. The only Zoning Board condition in Appeal#3827 is "that the lot shall conform to all setbacks". The building envelope on the survey shows a conforming building envelope. We are ready to proceed, please direct the Clerk to take our application. Thank you for your consideration. If there is anything else you need please do not hesitate to contact me. ery trul urs, atricia C. Moore c: Tom McCarthy Robert Ragona David Olsen Esq. r / Town of Southold-Letter Board Meeting of February 27,2007 RESOLUTION 2007-242 Item_#38 ADOPTED DOC ID: 2667 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO.2007 242 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 27,2007: WHEREAS,there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York,on the 27th day of February,2007,a Local Law entitled"A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law"now,therefore,be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall,53095 Main Road,Southold,New York,on the 27th day of March,2007 at 4:45 p.m.at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled,"A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law"reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2007 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Merger Law". BEIT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose—The Town Board has received substantial public comment to the effect that the Town of Southold merger law,as currently constituted,unfairly subjects surviving spouses and other joint owners of property to the loss of the single and separate status of their adjoining properties merely by the death of one such joint owner. Insamuch as the Town Board believes this result is unjust and not the intended consequence of the merger law,it believes it necessary to provide for a limited exception to the merger of such properties. Generated March 1,2007 Page 53 r. Town of Southold-Letterle Board Peeting of February 27,2007 II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: §,280-10. A. M.A nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50 feet or more in distance.Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. B. Definitions. "Common ownership"shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining parcel. C. Exceptions.Lots which are recognized under§280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the=provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet,or (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board,or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former§ 100-12,Editor's Note:Former§ 100- 12,Exceptions,was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L.No.23-1995,effective January 1, 1996.the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983 to date,or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former§ 100-12,the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997,to date, [Amended 3-4- 1997 by L.L.No.4-19971 or- (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3-4-1997 by L.L.No.4-19971 or: -- -'n % 0 The lots would be considered merged merely by operation of law as a result of the death of a co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots,the lots are greater than 20,000 `s square feet and thelots remain in the ownership of_the_surviving co-owner. ' III. SEVERABILITY If any clause,sentence,paragraph,section,or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid, Generated March 1,2007 Page 54 1 Town of Southold-Letter Board Meeting of February 27,2007 IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. aja*2--�� Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupskl Jr. Generated March 1,2007 Page 55 c B. Definitions. "Common Ownership"shall mean that the parcel is held by the same person in the same percentage of ownership as an adjoining. C. Exceptions. Lots which are recognized under§280-9 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth above and shall not be deemed merged by operation of this chapter: (1) The nonconforming lot has a minimum size of 40,000 square feet,of (2) The nonconforming lot obtained a lot size variance from the Zoning Board, or (3) If the lot is not on the maps described in former§100-12,Editor's Note: Former§100-12,Exceptions,was repealed 11-28-1995 by L.L.No. 23- 1995,effective January 1, 1996,the nonconforming lot has been held in single and separate ownership from July 1, 1983 to date, or (4) If the lot is on the maps described in former§100-12,the nonconforming lot has been held in sinlge and separate ownership from January 1, 1997, to date, [Amended 3-4-1997 by L.L.No.4-1997] or (5) Each lot is currently developed with a one-family dwelling with a minimum 850 square feet which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a certificate of occupancy or would qualify for one, [Added 3- 4-1997 by L.L.No. 4-1997] or (6) The lots would be considered merged merely by operation of law as a result of the death of a co-owner of one or more of the adjoining lots,the lots are greater than 20,000 square feet, and the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause,sentence,paragraph,section,or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. About 12 years ago, the Town Board passed a merget law. Merger means if you have a sub-size, undersize lots, and if they are held in the same ownership, they will be merged into one lot. There were several exceptions built into that proposed law some years ago. This amendment today will expand those exceptions and add one more exception so that a certain condition will escape the merger that would otherwise be provided in that law and the new exception reads as follows: the lots would not be considered merged merely by operation of this law as a result of a death of a co- owner of one or more of the adjoining lots when the lots are greater than 20,000 square feet and they remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. During today's work session we have agreed as a Board to delete the 20,000 square foot requirement. So I will read it again with that new e interpretation. The lots would not be considered merged by operation of law as a result of a co- owner of one or more of the adjoining lots, provided that the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner. I will try to say it in more colloquial terms. If a husband and wife own a piece of property and one of the two spouses passes away, presumably one of the lots passes to the, at that time those two lots would be owned by the same person. We felt that while the surviving spouse is alive, those two lots should not be considered merged but it exists while the surviving spouse is alive. We don't anticipate the way the law is written giving heirs the opportunity to reach back, years previously, to undo a merger that was done at that time. That is the purpose and that is the legal reading of this proposed law. Now, I have before me a memo from the Town Planning Board. The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed local law and supports the amendment. Please advise if you have any additional questions. I have something here from the Suffolk County Planning Commission,"Pursuant to the requirements, etc.,this has considered to be a matter of local determination as there is no apparent county wide or inter-community impacts." I have got the notice that it has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board and it has also appeared as a legal in the local newspaper. And what else do we have here? I know I have seen some other commentary. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Well, this situation usually arises with a husband and a wife, where the husband or the wife owns one piece of property and next to it, the husband and the wife own it, so they are held really differently and maintained as separate status. This does not apply just to husband and wife situations, it is any situations where there are co-owners and because of the death of one of the owners, the two lots, the two properties become owned by one person and hence, merge. And that is what this is inteded to except from the merger law. To make an exception, so those things do not, those lots will not merge as a result of death,which was brought to our attention by counsel here today and I am sure we will hear from them later on. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I should also read a note, a memo from Mark Terry, our LWRP coordinator. "Proposed local law has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code,based upon the information provided on the consistency assessment form submitted to this department as well as the records available, it is my determination that the proposed action is consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP." SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Is that all? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to come up before the Town Board and address us on this specific issue. I see Pat,Ms.Moore. - PATRICIA MOORE: 1 figured since I was the squeaky wheel that caused all the problems a year ago, when I asked the Board to please put it on the agenda. My name is Pat Moore, I am a local attorney. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to explain to families why properties that they have paid taxes on,received tax bills and had always anticipated to be able to sell off in order to help pay for mom's nursing home or whatever circumstances, their particular circumstances might require, I have to explain to them that the law has merged their property.- Before I begin, I want to point out that I went to the 1995 adoption of this law and I paid the town$30 for all the copies of all the documents that appeared in the 1995 public hearing process for the adoption of this law. And for t ' 1®(06 the record, for the public and the news media, I want to put on the record who was sitting on the Board at that time because I don't believe that there was any harm intended, it was pure, when the law was adopted it was adopted to help people and it was very clear from the transcripts of that hearing that that is what the intent was. Mr. Wickham was supervisor at the time. Judge Evans was sitting on the Board, I think it was your first term. I see Ruth Oliva here, who now sits on the Zoning Board, she was on the Town Board. Joe Townsend was-on the Board, he now sits on the Planning Board. The rest of you were in other capacity but not involved in the law, I guess directly. At the time that this law was adopted, there was clearly put on the record that there was an intention to 1., recognize lots that were created by deed because that was the practice at the time and 2., that the, that what had been grandfathered subdivisions that were put into the code that were grandfathered from 1973 through the zone change of 1983 and then continued by reference with respect to certain exceptions until_ 1997 or 1995 through 1997 when you gave a short grace period for people to correct their deeds. But there was no publication as far as sending notices to the affected property owners and many cases if people do not get the newspaper, the local newspaper or were just not aware, this never became known to them. They continued to get tax bills as they would even today. I see very often people's property cards that clearly the lots have merged since 1997 but they are continuing to receive separate tax bills. What was done at that time and in the transcripts it says it, and at the end of the hearing so you are not distracted I am going to give to the Town Clerk my outline that I am not going to read from it,just as an outline and with a copy of the transcripts so you can see for yourselves what was said. But that that exemption list of all the subdivisions and many of the subdivisions that were approved in the 70's and 80's up through the time of that ordinance, there was a feeling that there was no need to put those exempt subdivisions back in the books, continuing them because this waiver of merger law would take care of it. There would be an escape valve, a mechanism to provide for hardship, if for some reason the waiver of merger law inadvertently took it into affect and that was the Zoning Board. Well, here we are 12 years later and two years ago, the Zoning Board ended any approvals except for the, really the only one that I remember got approved was a husband and wife situation when the spouse passes away but that was for the most part the limited exception. That, the waiver merger law was shut. It was completely shut out and what happened is, it took one case and lawyering done at the level of the . New York Supreme Court and then the Appellate division, that came to the conclusion that when you said economic hardship, that even a lot that was under contract for $400,000 did not equate economic hardship. So that is the kind of situation that I have been facing for the past two, and other attorneys that are here as well, have been facing for the last two, some years, where each property that comes before the Zoning Board is denied. I want you to go back to the legislative intent, what you said at the hearing, Mr. Wickham as Supervisor, and clearly throughout the whole transcript of that hearing, there was an intent to protect people. To give people a simplified method to have the lots that got merged, immerged. Well, that is in practice what has happened 12 years later is the direct opposite. So I urge you to take that issue before you. It is time. I asked you to do it a year ago. I certainly support the legislation you are proposing now. I think obviously it is something t hat is very necessary. But as Mr. Ross knew I was going to say,you haven't gone far enough. Well, you haven't undone the harm that this law has created. Also, another issue that again the transcript clearly says that the code speaks in terms of the merger occurs until you have conformity. Well, I have seen situations where you have one lot that is an acre and a half in a one acre zoning district. It gets sold off. The half acre that everybody thought, well, there have been situations where local attorneys, land use attorneys, very reputable, very respected attorneys were quite surprised by the circumstance because you had lots that, a lot that was clearly larger than intended and an extra lot. C ' Well, because when you go in,for the single and separate for the smaller lot, it refers back to the larger lot. It undoes the provision of the code that says you don't merge if you have got conformity. Well, you have got one lot that was conforming and another lot that wasn't. Well, you have just left behind a sterilized piece of property. That has also happened in Nassau Point, you have properties, I have one case where it was a family, one of the owners of the property was in a nursing home, they were trying to preserve the property. This was a third generation of ownership in this Nassau Point property. Clearly very valuable pieces of property. Three lots, two lots made conformity. I mean, you are in Nassau Point, these used to be exempt lots. They used to be half acre lots and the entire neighborhood is half acre lots. Alright, they accepted the fact that the one,that the two half acre lots brought about conformity. Well, now they merged the three lots. Clearly this lot exceeds, far exceeds the sizes of all the other properties in the neighborhood. That was declined at the Zoning Board level. Again, always using the economic hardship argument that, nope, still haven't proven the economic hardship and this has been upheld in the courts and I keep telling you please, if you want to create the fairness that was legislated in 1995 you have to do one of two things either put back the exempt list because that was the promise made, that you don't need an exempt list if you have got this fairness principle in the waiver merger or change the waiver merger. But to do both you are doing harm and you continue to do harm. And I know you are not sitting on the Board to do that. And I know even, I know two Zoning Board members are here today. I know they are good people, I know they are not intending to do harm but the bottom line is that that is the end result. Just want to be sure that I have got everything. One of the issues that I raised early on when I asked the Board to please consider this is that the fact is that people have been getting separate tax bills. They have been paying for your open space purchases, they have been paying school taxes, they have been paying all the taxes that are,that a single lot demands. When they finally reach a point in their life when it is their time to sell, you tell them, sorry, we have been taking your money but you really can't develop this piece. It belongs to the piece next door. That is not right. It just irks me, you know, I became a lawyer for justice and that to me smacks against the justice. We treat people, we know Enron and other corporations that have stolen people's money,taken people's money,well, isn't the Town doing the exact same thing? By taking people's money in tax bills, asking people to support them to support the services that they are not using; they are paying for roads, they are paying for schools,they are paying for open space,they haven't done anything and when they finally are ready to build on that lot, we tell them I am sorry, you can't. It is time for action and I do appreciate the fact that you have brought it and you have made a slight dent in correcting this law. I urge you, certainly the Board members that were on the Board in '95, there is no excuse that this can't,hasn't been done. And I know it is only two of you, you need that third and I am hoping that the rest of the three of you will, four of you, excuse me, will see the justice in it. And protect your constituency, protect the people that you have been elected to protect. I thank you and I hope that you will take my comments very positive. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Pat? MS.MOORE: Yes? COUNCILMAN ROSS: How would you define economic hardship? Or would you eliminate it? MS. MOORE: I would eliminate it altogether. Because there is no definition, unless you are very careful in how you define it. Economic hardship has been defined in zoning terms as a use C variance. And that is how the courts have interpreted. And the reality is and this has been argued in the courts but the courts don't seem to care, don't seem to listen; that the waiver merger law was intended to avoid having to go for a variance. That was the whole sales pitch in 95. Oh, we know that those lots that have merged have to go through a variance and then have to go through a re- subdivision and we all know that in 95 the variances were granted routinely because of the circumstances. People recognized that yes, this is an entirely half acre subdivision and you are asking one property owner to make his lot really non-conforming to the rest of the community. Property values are very high. Just because, it is funny, in one of the transcripts somebody talked about well, you have economic hardship. You are looking at spending, losing$150,000, one of the fears in changing the law and taking that exemption out. They were talking about a loss of $150,000. Well, lots now, in Nassau Point, in Paradise Point, in the exempt subdivisions, you are looking at $400,000 to $600,000. That is not insubstantial. And no offense but listen, if you have done your estate planning and you have left to one child that piece of property and given to another child your stocks and bond the equivalent. Is that fairness? I mean, most of the people have done estate planning with appraisals, with the expectation that the lot is developable. So, you know, I have heard you make statements Mr. Ross that you are not trying to protect the heirs. Well, aren't we all trying to protect our heirs? Certainly I don't want the government to get my money. I want my children to get my money. I want my children to have my property. As you do. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The point to the law, though, was to undo and the comments a year ago was you had a wrong through a death; a death creates the merger. And that is the purpose here. To undo that wrong. And the only person who is hurt in that circumstance is the co-owner. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. You have addressed that issue tonight. That is the only issue. But the law,when it was adopted and I,here you go... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Let me ask you about that... MS. MOORE: (inaudible) and please, Town Clerk, give it to all the Board members if you would. Read the transcripts. That is not the way the law was adopted. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The intent not to merge,you indicated two recognized lots by deed? MS.MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Was that lots that had been deeded prior to a certain date? MS.MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And recognize... MS. MOORE: Well, after that there was subdivision review, so there was no, there really was no issue. We were dealing, addressing a problem that Mr. Wickham's father was on the Planning Board and very, I mean, the farmers on the Board know, very routinely farm lots were split off by deed. If you had a lot that was made conforming, conform to the specifications, oftentimes there would be subdivision by deed. And in fact, when I went looking not too long ago, in the Planning Board's agendas for the early 80's through the 70's, it was a long process but I looked at every single agenda and every minutes of every meeting to look for a minor subdivision because it's just like,it can't be. It can't be that this lot was created just by deed. It was hard for me to believe. Sure enough, the Planning Board at the time dealt with major subdivisions and minors that were like 3 to 5 lots. Set-offs were routinely done by deed. And there is a recognition of that and that was good,it was good that it was corrected because there still exists out there lots that eventually passed down and were created by deed. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I just want to touch on the economic hardship issue, when that went to the courts and it was adjudicated,was that the court defending a Town denial? MS.MOORE: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Because that applicant didn't rise to the Town's view of economic hardship. In other words, it wasn't the court usurping the Town... MS.MOORE: No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, so that was basically defending what the ZBA.... MS. MOORE: At least the ones that I know about. It may have been a neighbor opposing that it could have been the other way around. But I think it is mostly supporting the position where the Town says, sorry, it is not enough economic hardship. And that is kind of the beginning. That case was pretty much the beginning of the end. That case pretty much left the road map for the Zoning Board at that point to really limit if not deny for the most part the majority of the waiver merger applications that came before them. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you,Pat.Mr.McLoughlin. KEVIN MCLOUGHLIN: I am Kevin McLoughlin, I am an attorney here in Southold. First of all, I would like to commend the Board on I know what has been a hard job, working their way through this situation. I think Pat has outlined very eloquently the equity involved h ere and the reason why this law has to be addressed. My concern is about the wording of the subsection 6 itself. I want to make sure that everyone is clear that this applies not only proactively from the date that this law is passed but also retroactively so that lots that had been deemed to have merged in the past, particularly the past couple of years when the Zoning Board took a different tact will be protected under this law. It doesn't seem to say in here when this is effective, and that concerns me. And the second thing that concerns me is the last sentence, `provided the lots remain in ownership of the surviving co-owner.' I understand the intent but what, many of these times when families kept lots separate by putting them in separate names, the whole purpose was perhaps someday one of their children could be deeded their property and therefore have a place to be able to build a house on and remain in the Southold Town community. I am not sure what this language means, so that if you have a husband and a wife owning one substandard lot and the husband owning the other substandard lot and the husband dies and the wife then deeds the other lot to one of her children, is it merged at that point or is it not merged because they remain in single and separate names? COUNCILMAN ROSS: Up until the point of death,they are separate by virtue of the exception. MR.MCLOUGHLIN: Right. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Upon the deeding, before death, they would remain separate because they are single and separate after that. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: In perpetuity. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: But what happens if, again, a husband and wife own one lot, husband owns the other one, the husband dies, I know right then there is not going to be a merger under this but what if after that,she then deeds the property over to one of her children? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The single, vacant lot? MR.MCLOUGHLIN: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:That would be an exempted lot. That would not be subject to merger. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: But then what is the, I am, what is the purpose of`provided the lots remain in the ownership of the surviving co-owner'? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: If you had a husband and wife who owned and just the husband passes away,the wife owns both, the wife passes it now goes into estate,those are merged. In other words, there is no surviving co-owner that has been injured in this. That is the intent. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: They merge when the surviving spouse dies. The exception goes away when the surviving spouse dies. So if they are not transferred, if the two that she holds aren't transferred, one of them isn't transferred during her life then the merger, the exception goes away when she dies and they are merged. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: The operative word is surviving. She needs to do something about it in her lifetime. COUNCILMAN ROSS: We struggled with the language. I think we are going to, you know, work on that a little bit. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Is it the position of the Board that this, if it is adopted, this paragraph 6 will be retroactive in its effect? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: If someone were to come in who has been,who was denied two years ago; told two years ago that those lots had merged. If that person is still alive, still holds both and holds both because the spouse died, if that person comes back in then they will not be merged anymore. The exception will apply. MR.MCLOUGHLIN: So we will have to come back in to the Zoning Board and say... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No. No. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Just go to the Building Department and say... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. Because they won't be merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What I had asked about was how do you undo previous ZBA decisions and the answer today was,you need to come back in. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Come back in. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Surviving co-owner. You need to come back in to the ZBA to have them reverse that decision. Because I was concerned, we have had years of decisions here that are probably going to have to more or less vacate decisions of the last few years. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: But that is the intent of this law, to allow anyone who falls within that exception, no matter when the date of that happening was, the death of the co-owner, to be able to have the merger exempted. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: (Inaudible) COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Provided the survivor survives. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Right. So what that is going to mean in some cases is, as soon as this law is passed,people had better get in quickly especially the ones that, and I have at least one case myself where I was denied by the ZBA under circumstances exactly like what this covers,we have got to go back in, I have got an elderly.... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Kevin, I don't understand. If one of the owners is still alive, you don't have to go anyplace. You just have to deed the property out. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But he said he was before the ZBA and denied. Which means he has to reverse that. COUNCILMAN ROSS: You were denied but this wasn't then. Now you have a new law. It is exempt, you have a law. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: So we don't have to go back to the ZBA. COUNCILMAN ROSS: That would be what I would say. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Let the Town Attorney speak to that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, Pat? I TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN:, I think that if you have a decision that said they were merged and you came in to unmerge them and they couldn't merge, I mean, they didn't immerge them, now you can come back in, you should be able to come back in now to the Building Department and have the exception apply to you. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: And that would be your legal opinion to the Building Department? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yes. MR.MCLOUGHLIN: Thank you. CURT KOCH: My name is Curt Koch. Let me go next just because I think he forgot one question. What happens when it is in both names and both parents die at the same.time? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It wouldn't have mattered because it was merged prior to their death. In other words,both of the ownerships,if Joe and Mary owned this and Joe and Mary owned this,those lots were merged when this law was passed back in 1993. Death isn't an issue here. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It is already merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is already merged by statute. MR.KOCH: Oh,no. Let me back up. If the husband owns one and the wife owns the other, okay, now,then they both die and now you are telling the children they are merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I don't know what the will says, I don't know how those, if Joe has a will and presumably Mary has a will,I don't know how they convey those parcels out. MR.KOCH: Regardless.. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, there is no singular estate, so you can't presume that they are merged. It depends on what the will says. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: And doesn't the law usually say one has to, in law, predecease the other even if they both died simultaneously? COUNCILMAN ROSS: We don't want to play lawyer. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Okay,anyway... MR.KOCH: Okay. Anyway,to me that seemed like the next question and just to add what they are saying, I appreciate,the steps that you are taking to rectify this because it does seem very unfair and in many ways, for lack of a better word, the whole merger concept is nasty legislation just because we all know who gets affected by that, it is people that aren't necessarily in tune with planning and subdivisions and lot purchases and not necessarily reading the legal sections of the paper and in many cases, this extra piece of property is a 401k for them. And just for the record, .I am not e ' r impacted at all with the existing merger code and the changes don't help me or hurt me in any way, I am just happy to see the changes or the attempt to make these changes. So if I were to at least, line G there, my suggestion is that the whole concept of it not going to the heirs is removed because the intent, if the parents had these things in separate names, the intent was to keep it in separate names and their passing really shouldn't change anything in any way and as far as going back and undoing the things that the attorneys were talking about, I mean, we all recognize the complexity in that because I guess the question is, how many lots are impacted? If it is 12, I think Southold and the traffic will survive that. And so the way everyone is kind of nodding, we don't have a number in terms of the impact. If we would just unwind all of this. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:The lady behind Dr. Pascoe. You had your hand up. EILEEN GALLAGHER: My name is Eileen Gallagher and I am a Southold Town resident. I am here tonight on behalf of Donna Wexler and her mother, Mrs. Iglesias. They were very personally affected by this law. They had bought two pieces of property that were individually deeded and they were owned by an unmarried couple, so this is a little bit of a twist on what you all have been talking about so far. This unmarried couple was a couple for 30 years. They each owned these adjacent lots. One owned one lot, the other owned the other lot. Their was a decision made by Ms. Collins, who was one of the owners, much prior to her death, she was dying from brain cancer. She was afraid apparently, with her will, that there would be some issues with her estate and she wanted to insure that her companion would inherit that land. So right prior to her death, while she had brain cancer, she decided to merge the lots. And at the time she was advised by her attorney not to do that but this was done exclusively for estate planning purposes. And we are not even sure if she understood the impact of her decision. After she passed away, her survivor, Mr. Devlin, wanted to unmerge the lot so he could sell them and he was under the impression that he could. He put both lots up for sale and they were sold and they appeared to be separate lots because again, all the tax maps, the Town and the County maps-all indicated that these were separate buildable lots. They both conform to the subdivision in Calves Neck. So Ms. Wexler bought one lot, her mother bought the other lot with the intention of putting up two houses because Ms. Wexler is now her mother's caretaker, they both wanted separate houses and they wanted to put separate houses up so that they could have individual homes together. Now you know with the land in the town,how often do you find two buildable lots that are together? That are suitable for this purpose? After they bought these properties, they were told by the Zoning Board that these properties, the second property was not buildable and therefore they could not carry out what they wanted to do. Now this puts a hardship on these two women because they are trying to do the right thing. At least Ms. Wexler is trying to take care of her elderly mother. And with this talk about estate planning,my question is I don't fully understand why,when you have a couple, why the land has to be merged at all? Especially because you have estate issues as it was pointed out by Pat Moore, you have some land maybe being left to one child and the other land being left to the other child. And especially when the records of the Town and the County are not clear that these are not buildable lots and these people have no way of knowing ahead of time what they are doing with their estate because they are going on the information available to them,why do these lots need to be merged at all? That is my first question. COUNCILMAN KR[UPSKI: Was Ms. Collins a member of the ZBA? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Yes. 4 - MS. GALLAGHER: I don't know. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I remember helping Ms. Iglesias with this. I believe at the time one of the problems was that as a prospective buyer I don't know that they did an adequate single and separate search on the vacant lot. MS. GALLAGHER: Well, they did title search and that is what came up, that they were separate. So when you are buying land,okay, if I was to go buy land today and I did a title search and that title search tells me that there are two separate properties, then that is what I think I am getting. Especially when-they are both conforming to the area. But the question I just asked was, why does the lots have to be merged at all when there is a couple involved? I mean, this is an unmarried couple. Okay? So this wasn't even a husband and a wife. But my question really is, I don't understand, especially since we have so many pieces of property around here that are owned by families and they expect to (inaudible)to their estate,why do these lands have to be merged? I don't understand. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The merger concept arises from the thought that land use changes. MS. GALLAGHER: Right. COUNCILMAN ROSS: For instance, in the 20's, 30's and the 40's you bought a Brooklyn Eagle and if you got a subscription, you got a 20 x 50 foot lot somewhere out in the Pine Barrens. Without a merger situation,those lots would still exist. MS. GALLAGHER: But those would be too small and they wouldn't conform to the area around..: COUNCILMAN ROSS: There is no merger unless there has been an upzoning that makes the lots that have merged smaller than the zoning in an area that they are in. So if you have... MS. GALLAGHER: So why do you have grandfathering clauses where you allow small lots, that are single lots to still be built on if you are concerned about the zoning changes which make the land you want bigger lots for people to build on? Why do you still allow small lots to be built on? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Well, because the people who bought those smaller lots, which are called at that point non-conforming lots, nevertheless, have the right, the bundle of rights that go with that land which includes the right to build a house there. Just because in the interim since the property was subdivided into let's say, one third of an acre, the zoning has risen to one acre zoning, you still have the rights that are associated,that were there in the first place. MS. GALLAGHER: Well, doesn't someone that had bought two lots, right; held them separately, still feel that they have the rights for those two lots? ,They bought them, they paid a purchase price for building lots and just because they are adjacent and now the area is still, all the houses have been built in the area, they are still half acre lots, these are still half acre lots; separately they are a half acre and one is actually bigger than a half acre. Why would they be merged? I mean, this was a voluntary merger but it was done for estate planning with the intention that after the state was settled o that they would unmerge them. So, I know it is a little bit of a twist in that the initial merger was done on a voluntary basis but you have to understand, this woman was very ill at the time she made this decision,she was trying to protect her partner and all of a sudden because they were next to each other and they are a couple, you can't unmerge them? You know, it is not just an economic issue, you have people that are trying to stay in this town both young couples and elderly people that want to stay here and live the rest of their lives and it is making it very difficult for them to do what they want to do for both their estate and their heirs and their own living circumstances. Anyone that takes care of an elderly person, an elderly parent or even an elderly relative understands how difficult it is to do that. And we should be encouraging those situations and allowing people to stay here, rather than pushing them away by saying no, you can't do this and no, you can't do that. I also don't feel that if these mergers have been taken place and they have been done, why can't the records be updated? Because you are misleading people, in thinking that they have individual lots of land that are valued because they have buildable lots. And I think that you either have it one way or the other. You merge them,you should correct your records. And I feel that you are trying to make changes to these laws to be more fair but I don't think it is always economic. I think you have issues of families here, estates and everything else that should be considered. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There were a couple of issues that you touched on. First, I do, when that law was first created,there was a small working group and I was an assessor in those days;I had been to some of the original working meetings and had advocated to a planner who has since left Town Hall, that we should notify single and separate lot owners of this pending law. The problem with this law is that it really rewards people that happen to be real estate savvy and people who aren't real estate savvy have gotten stuck in the cross hairs over the years. There was a process up until a few years ago where there was a relief valve for this law and there was an exception to this merger law and that had been administrated since this law was passed in 1994 and it has worked relatively well. There had been some blights in it,I had seen a couple in Greenport turned down for the lot next door to them, when a couple around the block with the same exact circumstances had been approved; so there is certainly lack of understanding of equitable distribution but on the whole that relief worked well. A couple of years ago, things changed. I just found out tonight that the economic hardship was something that we instituted and that simply the courts defended us. At least at the ZBA level. I think that what we need to do is revisit how to make this law more workable rather than just pick apart the little aspects of it, such as mergers by death etc. but you need to reinstitute a deliberative approach here so that the Zoning Board of Appeals can consider all the criteria when judging whether a lot is good or not. The community standard that is established by the existing houses. If you have 50 houses on half acre lots and one half acre lot left, those are the types of things the ZBA needs to bring to bear and in the old days, they would. They would go out and look; look at a lot and say, well, this person, their intent was to keep it separate, you know the lot is vacant, it is unused. But then in this other case, somebody has got a gazebo on it and perfectly manicured and landscaped, they would say, you know, they have been using that as a side yard for many years and we don't think that they probably now are entitled to that lot. There is a certain amount of discretion that comes to bear with that. It is probably better than the blanket approach, you know,just nickel and dimeing this law to death. MS. GALLAGHER: Yeah, I agree with you. I would like to see a more consistent approach with people getting, you know, answers from the Board as far as what their situation is versus their neighbors situation. You hear too many, this is just a base statement not having anything to do with k i . ^ this particular situation,but you hear too many situations where one person gets what they want and the other person doesn't and that is not right. I mean, you have to as a Town Board try to be consistent and I understand the difficulty in writing language that goes into law to try to figure out every situation that you could possibly ever get into. But the ZBA would have to be the only outlet for those big exceptions that no one else could have figured out ahead of time. You can't write laws that are that complicated but definitely when they get to the passing rules, they have to be able to say to the same person, you get it and you get it because you have the same situation and not treat one differently than the other. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, like I said,the one regret here was that when the law was passed, people who were real estate savvy got to keep their lots, people that weren't, they were simply two people working all their lives and didn't know any better .... MS. GALLAGHER: That is exactly what I am talking about. The records should be accurate so that people would know what they are doing and what they have... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, I want to touch on that, I am glad you reminded me of that. The issue of tax bills, the fact of the matter is just because you are receiving separate tax bills does not entitle you to a separate building lot and had we merged those properties, the taxes would have been identical only it would have been in one tax bill instead of two. MS. GALLAGHER: Well,that one tax bill tells you that land is merged,two doesn't. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah but a good, at the very least and the case, I know who you are representing very well and I do feel bad for her but at least in her case the law had already been passed when she pursued the purchase of those lots. My focus right now or my concern right now is for people who had those lots and just simply didn't know what to do prior to a purchase. The law sort of came down on them. MS. GALLAGHER: It was a voluntary thing done, it was done exclusively for estate planning, it had nothing to do whether or not the lands were suitable for building. They certainly conform to every other house in the area. So, here there was a little bit of twist but I think that the ZBA in certain circumstances like this should be taking a more objective look at these situations and hopefully, with the law as you rewrite it gets broad enough that you don't have to even have the ZBA look at these situations. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Thank you. Dr.Pascoe? DAVID PASCOE: Good evening, my name is David Pascoe. Zoning changes are never easy and they are always fraught with contention. The proposed law that you raise this evening, okay, I am not really here to speak against the proposed law, okay, the concept of a surviving spouse, right, okay,my concern is, right, okay, that you really appreciate the potential effects of creating a blanket exception,alright? I tried to bring some photographs,right,because I personally only really know of only one scenario where this exists, yes it is in my local community but I think you should be aware other than the fact, right, okay that substantial amounts of money are occasionally involved, right, okay? The zoning usually is implemented, okay, hopefully to improve the quality of a community right, okay and that was the purpose of this intention originally, alright? Some people have said things change, right, I think one of the specific situations that I want to try to bring up here, right okay. Nassau Point was originally partitioned and developed, right and intended for weekend cottages, alright? Small, you know, residences, right okay, this changes, right okay. We go from small, you know, residences like this to a scenario, right, where right next to these cottages, right okay, we are now building McMansions, alright. The use of the land does change. My concern is, right,that you don't go and create a blanket, you know, proposal right okay, which doesn't take this kind of thing into effect. Ahight? Not only is this happening in one or two situations right,they are building these things this big cheek by jowl, actually up to essentially minimum setbacks. So we have gone from small weekend cottages to this. Now this is specifically adjacent, right, to one of these contented properties, right. This particular piece of property, right okay, is going to affect not just the two adjacent properties, right okay, it is in a situation where it is going to affect nine surrounding properties. The problem is,right, that there are other houses right alongside, along the length of these properties, right, nine properties, right okay, are potentially going to have McMansions built in their backyards. This, right okay, is also going to happen right next to what I am told by one of my patients, was the cottage where Einstein wrote the letter to Roosevelt, alright. So you are talking, right okay about a dramatic change, right okay, in a neighborhood which has existed right okay, I have lived in my present location for over 25 years, alright. I knew these people very well. They used to have a Great Dane called Othello,they used to walk the property line in the evening, right okay, I used to talk to them over the fence. I offered actually to buy, they quote, the vacant lot. They denied,well,they said two reasons we can't sell it to you. Number one,they said it was worth more as one piece than it was as two pieces. The second thing was, right okay, we can't sell it to you, okay,because the garage for our house is in the back of the house and the driveway is on the adjacent property. Now, we come 25 years later, right okay, to a situation, right okay,where somebody wants to change this. The question is, is it the spouse that wants to change this, is it the estate, the potential estate that wants to change this? Who wants to change this environment and why do they want to change it? I am sorry but I personally believe, okay, that the change that they are looking for in this environment, right, I want to make sure I have got the right one,you have got the driveway on one part, you have got the house on the other part,the only motivation, right okay, in separating these two plots is avarice. I am sorry, right okay. This isn't hardship, right okay, it is someone here-looking simply,okay, to make a change here for money, alright? This family does not live in this community at the moment. Has got no interest in its preservation or future. If you create a blanket proposal here,right okay,to enable these separations,right okay, what you are really going to do, right okay, is you are not going to really, I believe, in every case solve everything. Right okay. In this particular situation, what is going to happen immediately is it is going to go right back to the ZBA, okay, because you can't separate them without more variances to get around all these other problems. My request is this, I urge you not to use a sledgehammer. Right okay, when-a scalpel is indicated. I think the original legislation was valid and I think it filled the intent of the electorate, right or tried to fill the intent of the electorate. Cases, right okay, are not all the same, alright. I think you find you need a forum, such as the ZBA right okay, and direct it appropriately, right okay so that each case is evaluated and resolved on its merits, right, and not write a blank check, right okay which is potentially going to cause as . many problems as it is going to solve. Thank you. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: I have a question. The piece of land you are referring to... r ' • OU0 DR. PASCOE: Yes? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Is it presently in the ownership of one person? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I can clarify. For the interest of clarity, in that particular case, the son, the father passed away. The property merged with the surviving mother. The house with the vacant lot. The mother has since been relocated, I believe, to a nursing home down south perhaps, and the son has been pursuing an exception to that lot,the waiver of merger law. The lot still remains in the mother's name,however. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Gotcha. So it does fall subject to this change. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Now, that is a good example of how the ZBA, some time ago, would have been able to go out and evaluate the use of that lot to see if the intent really was to keep it single and separate. And in this case, they built a garage, utilizing that lot for access. Where the ZBA in the old days could have said, you know, we don't see the intent here to keep this a single and separate lot. That has sort of been gone but... yeah,Rich? RICH BURDEN: My name is Rich Burden and I live in Mattituck, New York. I got a little education tonight because of some terms I never knew about with merging and situations like that. I am looking at this whole merger process, I am trying to understand what the benefit to the Town is. Because it is appearing to me that the Town is taking away people's values on their property. People that don't even know, you know, they thought they had this value and does the Town, does the merge really benefit the Town and what is that benefit, okay? Now, I am not a lawyer, I am just a regular guy going,to work. Mr. Ross, you have been in my house, right? For graduation parties. Mr. Krupski, you have been to my house to look at DEC issues, etc. I have been paying taxes on separate and single lots there. My lot, next to my house is larger than the lot that my house is on. But it appears, according to the conversations that we have had here tonight that unless I go out and apply for a building permit,I have no idea whether I have got a separate or single lot and I have been paying taxes for 25 years on that separate and single lot. And that lot is in my name, the house is in my wife and my name but I am looking at that lot,as a big retirement,part of my retirement. Now I could go out and try to build a house on that and you could tell me, hey, they have been merged for 25 years. I would have told you that you coulda had the lot. I wouldn't have paid any taxes for 25 years. Keep it. I don't need it. Just make sure you keep the grass mowed, okay? I mean, the situation is not good and I think that the Town, as a legislative body has an obligation to tell people what they have because you are kind of changing the laws here. When I read this page, with these six items or seven items on it, I have to tell you,I am bewildered. And I am not... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Rich. This law was done in 1994... MR. BURDEN: Okay. And I am going to go one step further,no one told me. I had no 'idea. Yeah, it was advertised, I saw but I always thought,separate and single, I was cleared. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think you came into me and I pulled out your cards at the time and realized that your particular case, based on the conveyance of those parcels that you would be k excluded from the lot merger law. And there is a reason why your attorney at the time knew enough to put the house in yours and your wife's name... MR.BURDEN: Oh,I knew that. I did that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, you knew enough then, you actually are someone who is real estate savvy, like I said earlier, that was protected from this law. Because you knew enough to do that. And I think your conveyance was back in the mid 70's or somewhere along those lines. MR. BURDEN: Yeah but I have to, I'll through a little oil on the fire, if you want to address this issue. You actually gave, because I researched this when I actually bought the house and I believe the attorney that I walked into at the time was Mr. Cron and Cron, those gentlemen. You actually, so you know how the Town was operating going back even further. The gentleman who built my house, Mr. Tuthill, built that house and built the house with the overhang of the roof on the,other parcel before he even owned it. And when I asked about that, they said well, he knew he was going to buy that piece. And they bought it from two different people that had Queens addresses. Today, my house sits on my property line by two feet. Okay? When I went to Mr. Cron about this, his argument said no problem, they just, this is normal business in the town, you have nothing to worry about. They take 15 feet down the middle and they make it no-man's land, okay, and so that both parties own both sides, okay, and again, I bought my house from a couple and I bought my lot from the estate of somebody and I sit here today and I am telling you, unless I go in and apply for a building permit right now,I really don't know that I truly have a single and separate lot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You might have a good point. MR. BURDEN: There was one more thing. There is another issue here, you know, it gets a little technical with estates and stuff but the wife and I are out driving one night, many years from now, and it is still the same situation and I die instantly and she lingers for two weeks and then she dies. Now,are they merged? COUNCILMAN ROSS: -If she does a deed during those two weeks and this law-passes, they won't merge. MR. BURDEN: Okay. But you understand the problem, I mean, there is a lot of loopholes in this thing,I mean, it really comes down to right now,to be on the safe side for me,that I have to take this lot out of my name and put it in one of my kids name,to really protect our family. You know,which kid do I put it in? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I appreciate everything you are saying, Rich, I really do. And that was some of the concerns that I raised but these are concerns that needed to be raised 13 years ago when the law was passed. That law has been part of the landscape for 13 years now. Tonight they are actually discussing undoing part of that law. Not, getting back to addressing the fairness, `the fundamental fairness of the original law, I think we need to have that discussion but tonight this law has been part of the landscape, that law where any damage that is done to your lot absent an encroachment,was done when the law was passed 13 years ago. You can't unring that bell. MR.BURDEN: But... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is not tonight where we are going to take any action on that. MR.BURDEN: But even back then you had people that aren't real estate savvy... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I know. MR. BURDEN: That don't have that and I am trying to understand the overall benefit to the Town by doing this. For example,the recycle law keeps litter off the street, there is a benefit to it. Tell me what the benefit of merging really does. Are we saying that we are going to build 50 less houses out here, is that what we are really saying? Is that really what we are trying to do? We are building 100 less houses or has some organization come to you and put a plan in effect and says if you kind of put these laws into place, we are going to keep 1,000 houses from being built? I don't understand... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It was done because the Town has zoning. It has zoning that has been the lay of the land since 1989 when the map was adopted. And how do you take these lots that were created prior to that zoning or prior to the zoning of the day and apply them? Because they were created under different standards a long time ago. We don't have 50 x 150 lots anymore because that is not suitable for the Town. We couldn't support that. Environmentally in terms of, we couldn't support that kind of, this lot merger law was designed to address those lots that had been created long before that master plan was adopted in 1989. What do you do, how do you recognize them, how do you not recognize them? So they put this criteria together on what would be considered single and separate and what would not be. And when they weren't single and separate, they put this safety valve in place to provide for a reasonable discretion be applied so that you can get your lot back. And I think the reason we are here tonight discussing this issue is because that safety valve has been clogged a little bit. MR. BURDEN: But, and I understand that now but if like Mr. Ross, you had a Brooklyn Eagle lot, the, okay, if you allowed that to be sold at that time and you designated that a building lot,then you have an obligation to that person who bought that, even if it was in 1920 and kid handed that law down, how can you take that value away from that individual and not let him continue to build that lot? You allowed it to be considered a building lot at that time, what you are really looking to do is change the landscape of an entire community by upscaling, what do they call it, upzoning the "community, by forcing it down some people's throats in a situation where maybe you let it go on previous and now all of a sudden it is coming back to bite you a little or it doesn't fit with your future plans and now you are saying we don't want to allow that anymore. COUNCILMAN ROSS: I don't think the community,the Town,really recognizes a lot as buildable until the building permit is issued. And I think what you said about your lot is correct. If you want to know,get a building permit. MR.BURDEN: Right. So then I got to go spend the money or do a single and separate check... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Which is what you need to get a building permit. MR. BURDEN: Well, okay but also, let's go back a step further. I don't want to build on my Iot. I am hoping it stays like that for another 25 years. I should know,my tax map is separate,it has got a separate tax map number, it,you know... COUNCILMAN ROSS: Rich,do a single and separate search. MR.BURDEN: Okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, I have got to tell you, Rich, you made a lot of good points tonight, they are just points that should have been raised when we were adopting a master plan in 1989, when we were passing the lot merger law in 1994. Those were the times. Tonight's law doesn't,just so you know, the proposal tonight on this doesn't restrict anything further, it actually releases some of that restriction. MR. BURDEN: The problem why I wasn't down here in 1994, was because I was paying taxes, I had three kids put through college and I was working 12 hours a day,okay? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. MR. BURDEN: So that I could have the luxury to come here at 4:30 or 5:00 in the afternoon. I could never be able to do this 10 or 15 years ago. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. There is too many people out there that are just too busy paying bills and they just hope that we are in here doing the right thing and they don't have time to pay attention to every little detail. MR. BURDEN: In 1994 I was hoping you were doing the right thing. All I knew is what I had bought and where my future was going.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Don't forget, a little bit in 1993 and 1994 you were taking the time to call me and yell over taxes. MR. BURDEN: What was that? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Don't forget about the times in '93 and '94 when you took some time out to yell about your taxes. MR. BURDEN: True. And serve on the school board... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's a lot. Quite a bit. Thanks, Rich. Would anybody else like to address us on this issue? Mr.Finora. JOE FINORA: Joe Finora, town of Mattituck. It seems like we are spinning a lot of wheels here. What benefit is the Town getting out of all of this? I am a dollars and cents guy. One of the gentlemen that spoke before asked how many lots are affected. And I see a few heads nodding up there like you don't know. You realize that we are probably foregoing maybe a half a million dollars in tax revenues that we could be collecting,if you permitted some of these people-to build on these parcels? 1 mean, has anyone considered that? Consider the additional tax revenues that it would generate. That coupled with the fact that if you want to be morally correct, you should refund the taxes that you are collecting on property that you are deeming to be worthless. If you couple those two things together, you are probably talking about more than a half a million dollars. And everyone is crying budgets, budgets, budgets. I mean, let's look at that. The other thing is, you mention several times that people are not real estate savvy. I,agree. These people in my opinion committed a major crime against themselves and the punishment that they are getting is undue. And I think the Town has to revisit the whole situation and look at each situation on an individual basis.` Also, you mentioned the relief provision, the relief valve. It too was not, you know, widely publicized. Just the people that were in the know or knew somebody in the Town or heard from a builder or whatever, they did it. But the other people didn't know. Right in this same room a few years ago,there was a big discussion about the zone change that took place up near the dump. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. Church Lane. MR.FINORA: Church Lane. And here too,they all reached the conclusion that the people were not notified, that the zone was changed from residential to commercial. These are people,some of them probably can't read. I mean, they can't read the newspaper, they don't get the newspaper. Give them some kind of a notice. This hasn't been done. This is not something new. It happens in a lot of jurisdictions. It happens on the federal level, state level, city level. Where there is differences, where people don't comply for some reason or other; either ignorance of the law or whatever or just non-compliance. But what do they do? They have an amnesty period that is very well advertised, in the newspapers, on the radio, on television. It is very widely advertised and these people have a chance to comply during this amnesty period. Why don't the Town do that? I mean, these are all law-abiding, hard working American citizens. And what you are telling them is, pay your tax and get out of here. That is what it amounts to. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Thank you very much,Joe. Anybody else like to come before the Town Board? JOYCE ORRIGO: My name is Joyce Orrigo. I don't really have anything new to add except what everyone else has said and these are sort of notes I typed up when I left work a few hours ago. I am glad to see that there was some discussion and amendments being proposed to the merger law. I also don't believe it has gone far enough. In my case, I inherited two lots, adjacent lots. One from my father, one from my aunt. When I went to sell them two years ago, I had a contract. When they did the single and separate search,it was found that they were merged,the contract fell through. I didn't know. There was no process of amnesty,no notification. I am still receiving two separate tax bills on these properties. We have been paying, this family has been paying taxes since 1966, Y believe. 40 years on two separate lots. And there has been absolutely no notification from the Town. Nobody knows. Real estates listed the two properties separately. They went to contract separately. And these are professional real estate people in your Town. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Are both lots unbuilt? &0 MS. ORRIGO: Yes, they are both vacant lots in the Eastern Shores development in Greenport. This is a development of 150 half acre lots. Over 150 half acre lots from 1966, alright? This is a modest development. And now this property is merged and I can't sell it as one acre. Now, I don't know how you determine hardship but that is why my waiver was denied. And the reason you have these problems now is because the property is worth something. This is why all this stuff is happening. And I just think you have a responsibility, the Town has a responsibility. The left hand, the taxing hand needs to be able to notify your zoning hand. And you have a responsibility. The people who are paying taxes here. I have been levied, or my family has been levied for water, fire, library, school taxes on two separate lots. I am still levied on two separate lots, for over 40 years. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Are the levies more or less equal? MS. ORRIGO: To the penny. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And like I said earlier, had we joined those two lots, your levy would still be equal to the sum total of those two. The taxing distinction is not... MS. ORRIGO: That is fine,you are allowed to... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: When this law was passed I was Chairman of the Board of Assessors, at the time there wasa, request that the Assessors start merging these parcels. I wouldn't do that for several reasons. First it is not for the Assessor to determine what single and separate is, it is for other jurisdiction to determine. Secondly, it is really, if a homeowner holds the two separate deeds that they are entitled to, I am allowed to take my backyard and convey out you know, one hundred square inch lots. Just the fact is, the Town doesn't have any obligation to recognize those lots,and that is what the issue is here. So as an Assessor, it wasn't for me to decide your lot is no longer two lots, if it is now one I am going to put them together. And that is why the Assessors did not do the merger when this law was passed in 1994. On top of that, you wanted to define those as single and separate or at least distinguish them as separate lots so that you could have an application process to pursue through the Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. ORRIGO: Which I did, and was denied. I agree because obviously something has gone wrong in your safety valve there. Because everyone assured me it is just a process you have to go through, make sure you hire a local lawyer and still denied. And denied on what grounds? One more house in Eastern Shores will make a difference? I don't buy it. 'I really don't. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, I agree with a lot of what you said but the economic hardship here, what they were trying to address was an injured party who was on the lot. In your case, you just simply didn't inherit as much as you thought you might have. That would be, probably in any court, difficult to determine as an economic hardship. In other cases, we have widows who are waiting for that equity to live off of or to pay medical bills. MS. ORRIGO: 1 understand that but I think as everyone has mentioned here tonight, the whole thing has to be revisited a little bit not just this one little thing. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree with that. • 0 MS. ORRIGO: Thank you. MICHAEL MONGELLO: My name is Michael Mongello and my father gave me, inherited the lot on Albo Drive and Wells Road in Mattituck and now they tell me, I cannot sell it. And for what reason, my father paid and I am paying taxes on that for 35 years. And I can't see why I can't sell it. And I have a heart condition and I need that money to take care of me. And I can't see why youse people won't give me permission to sell it. And I don't know where I am going to wind up. In the street or in the nursing home and I need that money to take care of me. I got a very bad heart. I don't know what you people are going to do but I need to sell that piece of property to support me. And my father and I paid the taxes for the past 40 years. And I just cannot sell it. I understand I cannot sell it. And I paid a separate tax bill and it is conforming and they are finding rigmaroles that I can't sell it. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Have you spoken to someone from the Town,sir? MR. MONGELLO: Have I spoken to someone? No, sir. No, sir. I could die right here and I don't know. Okay? And I want to know if I could sell it or not? Could you give me an answer? COUNCILMAN ROSS: No, but I am sure that if you brought your material in, someone from the Town would sit down... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think, Joe, you have actually done a lot of research on this, haven't you Mr. Finora? MR.FINORA: I have done some(inaudible) SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It is difficult to answer your particular question without looking at the deeds or the information. I would be happy to look at it for you. I am not an attorney but I have a reasonable understanding of the lot merger law. MR. MONGELLO: When can I see you? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Joe knows. Call me any day. MR. MONGELLO: Can I have your card? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. I think I have talked to Joe about it 50 times. You just have to remind me. It has been awhile. MR. MONGELLO: What? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You just have to remind me of all the facts. MR. MONGELLO: Oh, okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There was a lot line change on that,too,wasn't there? Conveyance? e ' . Idj® MR.MONGELLO: I don't know. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was one of the sticky problems. It wasn't really an original lot, it had changed because someone had conveyed out some of that lot. MR.MONGELLO: My father owned it. He took a piece of land from one piece and then he passed. What is it today,I can't understand. It is a big enough lot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Come and see me. Joe, Mr. Finora, I am sorry. Bring him in, we'll sit down and we will go over the whole thing,okay? MR.MONGELLO: Alright. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just as a point of clarity, I see my mother here. My mother and my father have a very good estate plan for the kids. They are spending every dollar that they have, so that there will be nothing to fight over. Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board? On this particular local law? This hearing was declared closed at 6:23 PM Eli eth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk 116 ?6i ved c;a27-117 at Y°# Mer w- Lew Waiver of Merger � OU Memo to: Supervisor&Town Board From:Pat Moore Esq. Adopt Exception: merger occurring by death of co-owner must be adopted but the size of the property is irrelevant. In my neighborhood by Founders Landing cottages on 50 x 100 lots are common. In 1995 when this law was adopted Mr.Wickham was supervisor,Zoning Board member Ruth Oliva was on town board,Planning Board member Joseph Townsend sat on the Town Board and finally Louisa Evans remains on the board. You made promises to the public and this law has been re-written by the Zoning Board.Your failure to correct this is causing terrible hardship to many residents of the community you serve. 2. Place back into the Zoning Code the list of exempt subdivisions (Formerly 100-12)- these lots were grand-fathered until the Town added the waiver of merger law (1997).(This is the simplest solution.) When the waiver of merger law was adopted it grand-fathered lots created by deed. However, the waiver of merger law hurt all those homeowners who owned adjoining lots in the Planning Board approved older subdivisions.The list of exempt subdivisions was added in 1973 after one acre zoning was adopted and the list continued to be incorporated by reference in the 1983 upzoning. In 1973 and in 1983 properties in these grand-fathered subdivisions would have merged. We took this list out in 1997 with the waiver of merger law because you said it was obsolete-the Zoning Board would provide relief to the property owner who did not protect themselves in 1995.. Not true-this list is needed to protect the few lots that remain in these subdivisions.. 3. Remove the from 100-126 (3)The waiver will avoid economic hardship The Zoning Board has argued in the Courts that this standard is to be the equivalent of a"use variance"-this has been proven impossible to show. Even when the result of the merger is that the lot can not be devloped the ZBA has denied a waiver of merger. A purchaser of a lot who had every permit in place could not close on the property. The lot is sterilized. 4. The Law was intended to apply that"nonconforming lots merge until the lot is big enough to conform to zoning". Except that in practice if you own 3 adjoining% acre lots you end up with a lot that is three times the size of neighboring lots. The double lot is conforming but it leaves behind the nonconforming lot. 5. You claimed at the 1995 hearing that this lave was intended to give equity to all land owners. You claimed that this would provide an expedited proceduAr since the ZBA 1 was granting variances for the undersized lots routinely. The opposite has occurred. 1#2 acre lots in approved subdivisions are automatically denied waiver of merger. You have penalized a few landowners in grandfathered subdivisions. Moore's Woods,Nassau Point,Jockey Creek one or two lots in 100-200 homes in these areas,all%acre in size,are denied relief. The ZBA re-legislated this code- eliminated the escape valve. You have sanctioned this by not correcting this law. Why should this be done: All your open space and density analysis for most recent Subdivision regulations worked on the premise that every tax bill represents existing population and development potential. Planning's analysis assumed that vacant lots could be developed. Grand fathering these lots does not change your density calculations. The taxes for these lots have been paid with the anticipation of development-they have paid over the years for our bonding of open space-land preservation-roads- drainage-garbage collection-schools- they have demanded no services from the community-yet we sterilize their property. The damage to these property owners exceeds the benefit to the community. Remember they have paid over the years without demanding any services. The lot owners have held on to their lots as an investment. Many lots are their retirement or children's inheritance. The sophisticated developers are not affected. Only long-time residents and people with non-local lawyers. But even the local lawyers have been caught unaware that if your client owns three%z acre lots they may have lost their rights to develop one of the lots. P9 7 PH 10C§0 . 7. Section 100-281 A(7) (Building permits) is hereby deleted in its entirety: (7) APFil 9-19.57- 8. Bulk Schedule AA is hereby added to read as follows: Bulk Schedule AA Lot Size Width Depth A. Prior to April 9. 1957 any anA any B. Between April 9, 1957 and 20.000 100 150 December 1. 1971 C. Betwegn Deremtler 2. 1971 40.000 133 175 and June 30, 1983 II. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. Underline represents additions. ** Strikethrough represents deletions. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during business hours. Dated: November 14, 1995. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: A public hearing was held on this ordinance, a very similar version of this ordinance In June. Comments were received from Abigail Wickham, and Bili Gardner, and this ordinance has been revised to address their concerns. This Local Law is intended to address current problems in determining of lots for legally created, and if they can exist today as separate lots. The current law provides that non-conforming lots merge with certain exceptions, but neither Town staff nor local attorneys have clear guidelines as to which lots merge, which leaves property owners in a limbo. The proposed ordinance provides clear guidelines for lot creation, and tot merger. In particular, it provides that non-conforming lots merge until the lot is big enough to be conforming. There are four significant exceptions to this. No merger occurs if the non-conforming lot is one acre, or if the non-conforming lot has a lot sized variance from the Zoning Board. In the past certain subdivisions were on an exempt list, while other subdivision lots merged. This ordinance takes away that inequity. In other words, there will no longer be a, grandfather list of lots to which this law doesn't apply, but recognizing from some of the comments that were made before, that this could work a hardship on some lot owners. This ordinance has revised to create a one year period in which lots, which are adjacent to 1 � 1 Vow u � pg 8 PH 0(s non-conforming could be placed in different names, so that they won't merge. So, any of these lots that were formally on the grandfather list have until' January of 1997 to put the lots in separate names, if they don't want them to merge. We felt that these changes were significant enough to require an additional public hearing, so that's why we're having this today. COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: I have two articles of correspondence. The one is from the Director of Planning. It says, Pursuant to the requirements of Section A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen M. .tones, Director of Planning. have another letter from the Planning Board to Thomas Wickham from Richard Ward, date November 21, 1995. The Planning Board joins me in urging the Town Board to adopt, the proposed legislation in relation to lot creation and merger. The proposed legislation accomplishes something our current code does not. It outlines a clear-cut procedure whereby a lot is determined to be either merged or created. The proposed legislation represents a compromise approach that was worked out by several departments within Town Hall. In some instances it is more lenient than the current code in that it grandfathers or recognizes more lots. In other instances it is more demanding in that it sets forth a uniform review procedure for all affected lots. At present, there is no written procedure within the Code and due to differences in interpretation, varying procedures are followed by different departments when reviewing inquiries of this nature. We find this proposal to be an improvement over the current situation. That is the end of the correspondence. I have an affidavit that it has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and an affidavit that this has been published in The Suffolk Times. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you, Ruth. Would anyone in the audience like to address the Board on the subject of this public hearing? Mr. Gardner? WILLIAM GARDNER; I'm approaching the Board as an individual, not a member of an organization. If anybody would like to go ahead of-me, because there are members of organizations. They have more effect than 1 will. No? Let me first ask a technical question, which you broached a little on one of your resolutions. I'm interested in knowing what the time period is between the time you put it in the papers, and the time you have the hearing? There must be some official period for that. TOWN CLERK TERRY: It must be at least five days. WILLIAM GARDINER: At least five days? At least this conforms to that. Just. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Yes, it does. P9 9 PH 1040 WILLIAM GARDNER: I was interested in your comments on what this did. My name is Bill Gardner, and' I live on Nassau Point, Cutchogue. I'm here to make a personal statement on the second proposal on Local Law on Lot Creation and Merger. I do not represent any organization, but I must say some concerned landowners, knowing my interest in this matter, have contacted me, giving me their opinions, and asked me to keep them up to date. I try to do that. The time frame on this proposal is interesting, in that the B&B work sessions, and hearings we had took about six months to go from scenario of right B&B back to relatively no change from the previous legislation. Now, this lot creation and merger proposal is well on the way to an even longer gestation period. In the case of this latest proposal only one sentence has been changed or added from the original proposal in about six months, and frankly, 1 don't understand many provisions, and map references in the first proposal, but the new sense is beyond my understanding. It says, if the lot is on the maps described in former section so and so, that that section exempted fifty-three areas from the present legislation. Then a non-conforming lot can be held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997 to date. Can anyone tell me what this means to someone who owns a lot of lots, which are less than one acre in the previously exempted areas? I have watched the televised Town Board meetings, and read the local papers, and I've heard, and seen comments by some Board members, that this provision is going to take care of all the problems, but nobody explains how. The deletion of the exemptions on the first proposal have bothered me, and I have contacted various town departments as to what this means. About August 25th I told by an employee of the Planning Board, that on the next proposal the exemptions would be reinstated, and continued on a new legislation. Attorney Gail Wickham, who was also interested in this proposal agrees that she had the same understanding that I have. Now the exemptions be still deleted in the new proposal, and can anyone tell me why this flip-flopping continues, and what it all means to property owners? With fifty-three areas involved, and maybe, as a guess, ten and a half owners in each area with the problem, the proposed change is going to be of deep concern to about six hundred owners, if they hear about it, and understand. As you can see I have many questions, and a lack of understanding of what this legislation is about. I'm glad to hear Mr. Townsend said he got together with various town groups to get on the zoning. It's a good move. 1 had written to Mr. Wickham on June 29, 1995, and asked him to have a combined Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Assessors Office town forum, where all concerned could talk out of one bible, and hold seminars on the impact of this legislation. He answered my letter on July 20, 1995, four months ago, by saying it was a good idea, and he supports it. I have this letter from you, if anyone wants to review it. I have heard nothing of him since then. In my mind it all comes down to a few basics of honesty and economics. If an individual has purchased two, three or more adjourning lots in Southold, in good faith, gotten a valid deed, title insurance, and paid taxes on each lot for five, ten, twenty, thirty or more years, he should have the right to build on this land, and to sell off unneeded lots as he could individual stocks or bonds, which he also has in his retirement investment portfolio. How can this right be legally taken away? But, this proposal provides that is the lot is not recognized by the town, it shall not received any building permits, or other development entitlements. In other words, a long term owner could suffer the loss of the current value of the lot, plus all the taxes assessed, and paid to 11�2� pg 10 PH the town, in an amount that could total $150,000. Why should he have to pay lawyers' fees to try to establish or compromise on an Investment he made for his future? It would appear that the Board thinks all problems have been solved. Maybe so, but I want some evidence that it is not being solved by tricky solutions, that can be overturned in a court of law. For example, 1 know that some feel that the problem can be solved by having adjourning oversized lots in the name of the husband, and the other lot in the wife's name. This is a gimmick which penalizes, and discriminates against joint ownership, living trust ownership, single man or woman, which some of them just thinks it's not legal. This law opens the door for many law suits against the town, because it discriminates against basic and historic law practices of recording ownership. It is evident to me that the Town Board has a long way to go in clearly understanding, and explaining to the citizens of Southold what all these words really mean. I hope that this Board as presently constituted will not take any precipitative action until all the citizens are given clear and detailed explanations along with numerous examples of possible actions. Don't dump this flawed legislation on the new administration. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Let me just comment that I have to say, I'm pleased with your reference to speaking from one bible, as you put it. It's a pretty thick bible, our Town Code, and we have made an effort to get the 'Planning Board, the Zoning Board, Town Board, and all of the different agencies in the Town government concerned about land use, to speak in the same tongue, and from the same point of view. That's exactly what this is all about. You did ask an important question, and that basically is, what is the meaning of the change, that we have inserted here since the last time? I would like to turn to our Town Attorney. if she can just summarize briefly exactly what this change does to the legislation. WILLIAM GARDNER: Can 1 make some comments after the explanation? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Sure. TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: Admittedly this may not make the most sense the way it's written in 1995, but this law should be in effect in 1999, so referring from 1997 to date will make sense. What this law is supposed to do is that for those lots that are on the grandfather list, which is Section 100-12 of the Code, those lots will be exceptions, will continue to be exceptions to the merger law, if they're held in single and separate ownership after January of 197. That gives you all of this upcoming year to put them in single and separate ownership, if it's the desire of the owners not to have the lots merged. So, that is what this section is intended to do. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Laury, there was a question, I think, that whether or not this step, that we're taking will stand a legal test, or would it be getting the Town into a problem of people who want to contest it? Do' you want to comment on the legal strength of the document that we have before us? TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: Yes. Merger laws (tape change.) SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Mr. Gardner, would you like to respond? 1 ` pg 11 PH WILLIAM GARDNER: Yes. The thing that bothers me is, what you say transfer- it to somebody else, that usually means a husband transferring it to a wife, so It's in two names. To me, that's a gimmick compared to somebody that can't do that, not just an unmarried person, a person that owns a living trust, his wife and he together, and the question of just a single person. That penalizes them. What do you do about that? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Is it limited to spouses? TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: It's not limited to spouses. The whole idea behind the merger law to buy into this philosophy, is that what we're talking about here is not every lot. It's only non-conforming lots. That means lots that are too small for the zone that they're in. The goal of the merger ordinance is to try to encourage lots to be the appropriate zone size, and so the idea is that it's not big enough for the zone, to try to encourage it by merging them if possible. So, that's the concept. That's the goal behind it. WILLIAM GARDNER: What if you have nobody to give them to, if you don't want to give up the lot? It's an investment in your retirement portfolio, and if you can't bind them, the Town's going to say you can't build, you can't do anything on that lot. Now, to me, that's just taking it over without paying. I think we're going to have a problem here. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I'm hardly an expert on this thing, and i hope I don't make a fool of myself, but to the best of my recollection many of these - subdivisions that got these grandfather exceptions at the various changes of zone going back to 1970, when we had, you know, a County mandated upzoning to one acre, several subdivisions were exempted from- that, and they were listed in those pages, that were referred to earlier. WILLIAM GARDNER: Nassau Point, for example. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Nassau Point was one. There's a bunch of them. Other people were not so lucky. Anybody else that wasn't in one of these filed subdivisions were not exempted. 1 know the property that 1 own, for instance, the owner immediately prior to me was surprised that when the property was sold to me, that the lots had been merged. So, many, many people have had their property merged, because of that. The purpose of a upzoning is to increase the area that people build on. What we're trying to do is to make it so it's not an exercise in legal wizardry to figure out who has a merged lot, and who does not have a merge lot, and to sort of make the whole playing field levet. On these filed subdivisions that got the exemption, now those people will have to develop, and take the other tack. It will create some problems, but it's always created problems whenever this has happened. This has always happened. It's happened over and over again. WILLIAM GARDNER: I have two lots, and I can't sell them, are you going to take the value of that lot away from me? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: It's happened to many, many people. I doubt if a solution can not be found. I feel that a solution can be found. WILLIAM GARDNER: That's what 1 say, you people make this law, but you don't say how to do it. h pg 12 PH `�— SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Let me just comment. If there is confusion, or a lack of clarity in this law, and they wish on the part of the landowner to protect his investment in various ways, I would advise the owner of the property to come in, and visit with the Supervisor, in the Supervisor's Office, which is adjacent to the Town Attorney's Office, and I think the Town officials will make every effort to help owners of property to protect their investment. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: On Section 126 of the proposed law, waiver of merger is hereby adopted to read as follows, and then the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger, and recognize original lot lines upon a public hearing, upon finding that the waiver will avoid economic hardship. So, those instances you're talking about you do have a method of avoiding this. WILLIAM GARDNER: That's going to cost that owner money. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Every time somebody now wants to have their lot un-merged, he has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It will cost many more people much less money once we have this in the works. The reason we did this was to avoid everybody who got surprised by a lot merger, going to the Board of Appeals, and then getting a variance. You many have as many as 500 lots that may be affected by this, but there is going to be more that are affected in the reverse way, that this will correct. WILLIAM GARDNER: You had exemptions in this bill before, right? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Yes. WILLIAM GARDNER: Did they have any affect in the past at all? Did they apply? I have two lots, and there's less than an acre on each, ,this exempts me from any problems. Now, you're taking that exemption away. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: But, we're putting in place another mechanism to get an exemption. WILLIAM GARDNER: Like what, selling to your wife, or your son? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Or a variance. WILLIAM GARDNER: That's a gimmick. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: It's perfectly appropriate. WILLIAM GARDNER: 1 know, but it's a gimmick. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Joe, did you want to comment on this? COUNCILMAN LIZEWSKI: 1 just wanted to say there's another side of this law that has me even more concerned, and that's the creation of lots by deed, and it's way that most of the time people left their children land by deed, and the date is 19..on this, 1983, but deeding was never really a way to create lots, and I don't know how many lots are really going to be,created by this on the other side. This is a lot creation and merger law. It has some flaws on both sides of this, as far as I'm concerned, but they'll decree lots Il1� �v pg 13 PH by a deed before 1983. 1 don't know how many there are. I don't know how many numbers there are. This law has more than one side to it, and I'm concerned about how many lots will created, where they are, and was deeding lot size? I know farmers split big pieces of property in half by deed, fifty acres to one son, fifty acres to another. That's something that was done to sort of get away with problems with wills, and people knew what they had, but actually have lots created by deed, 1 don't think it was ever meant to have that done. So, there's other problems that I see with it besides the merger end of it. WILLIAM GARDNER: l don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that this legislation will create that problem? COUNCILMAN LIZEWSKI: Yes, there are lots out there that were created by deed, and they will now become legal. They won't have to go through any planing process, or through any process at all. They will just be blessed as done. WILLIAM GARDINER: As long as they are more than an acre or more. COUNCILMAN LIZEWSKI: They have to meet some qualifications, but those things, most people when they have lots done, like the lot that you're talking about, were created through a planning process. They were created through a subdivision process, and they demanded roads, and they had a lot of demands to them, and they were expensive to do. They are all lots out there that will be created now by deed just because they were left to somebody. I don't think it's good, because I know where they are, and I think you're giving something to somebody that probably never went through any procedure before to get them, so you're legalizing a lot of things that shouldn't be made legal. WILLIAM GARDNER: As 1 say, people have called me up because they noticed my interest in this. i had a telephone conversation with one last night, a single man well up in his sixties, I guess, and he's not married, and has no children. 1 don't know what he's going to do on this thing. He's concerned about it. He's mentioned suing. I don't know if he will, but he mentioned it. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Why don't you invite him to meet with the appropriate people in the Town here to deal with it. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Zoning Board of Appeals. It certainly cost a lot less to file for a variance, than it does to sue. Let me make a comment to.. WILLIAM GARDNER: You don't know if you're going to get the variance. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Well, the whole point of this thing is that all these we were giving variances like hot cakes on this issue. ' In other words, if somebody complied, if it was in the character of the neighborhood, if the lot was the same size as all the neighbors, they were granted the lot. So, we were having these lengthy proceedings and hearings on case after case after case. That's why the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board requested that we do something like this, so we can eliminate a lot of the red tape. We are trying to eliminate governmental red tape, and make it pg 14 PH aJ" easier for .the people, the majority of the people, •which have to go through it. Joe brought up one problem. Some of these lots are created by deed. The vast majority of those lots that were created by deed were created in the early seventies and before, when the Planning Board had no subdivision requirements. But, many of those lots are perfectly legal in the sense that they are the right size, and they would qualify for any subdivision. What we're doing is specifying guidelines, so they don't have to go through the variance process, if they have a lot that would normally qualify. What we're trying to do is to reduce the• red tape, not put people through hoops. However there are a few people, that you have mentioned, that were informed were on a exempt list, that the Board of Appeals had to search through ever time something came in that may be adversely affected to the degree that they have to'get a variance. The overall result of this is the reduction of red tape, not an increase of red tape. WILLIAM GARDNER: Reduction of red tape for you, but not for the owner. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: I would like to respond to Joe's comment, also. The purpose of the changes here are to help owners of property escape from what could be a Catch 22 situation. The provisions of the lot creation aspects of this law are to provide clear guidelines, so that when lots had been created by deed, and it was a fairly common practice in this town for lots to be created by deed, so once that is done those people who own the property will now have a clear say as to what they can or can't do with it. It doesn't mean that every lot that is created by deed automatically becomes a buildable lot. There are criteria, and in some cases they will, some case they won't according the criteria. So, 1 don't think, Joe, that this opens up a tremendous number of inappropriate lots for development. WILLIAM GARDNER: Will this affect four or five hundred lots on Nassau Point created by deed back in the 1920s? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: I doubt. .maybe some of them, but I doubt it if most of them would. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: It doesn't matter because they have to conform. WILLIAM GARDNER: i know. That's what I'm saying, and you people are just saying, there's not going to be many, it's not .going to be this, it's not going to be that. Don't you know how many? Aren't you going to notify the people? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: We are not going to notify every conceivable person, who owns every conceivable lot of which there are probably thousands. In fact, I don't think either they or we know every permutation, and combination of land holding in this town, who fall within this law. Are there other people in this audience, who would like to address the Board on this Lot Creation and Merger Ordinance? THOMAS SAMUELS: Thank you. I think Mr. Gardner has raised some issues, which really bears some examination. I've long been troubled. I've known about this for some time., I think you have to identify the areas that are going to be affected. It wasn't fifteen minutes ago that you passed a resolution requiring the notification of adjacent property owners, people 4 pg 15 PH across the road, and everything else. I remember a piece of property 1 owned in Southampton, that was rezoned I was never even notified about. Apparently to some extent that's happening here. Give it some time. Identify it. The Planning Department should be, and the Assessors Office should be able to identify the properties that are affected. I think it's the fair way to ga. I mean, Mr. Gardner has been concerned. Others have been concerned. Others have been concerned. People have mentioned it to me. I'm not opposed to it. I'm not in favor of it. I just don't know where the properties are that are affected. Thank you. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: The properties that are affected, that might possibly be affected adversely, are those properties on the exempt list. Those if there's not some sort of arrangement that can't be made, and to the degree that they will be adversely affected would be the fact that they might have to apply for a variance, if they don't conform to some economic hardship. those are the properties that will be affected. All the other areas will only be positively affected, in that they would get something now that they would get by right, that they previously had to get by variance, and that's the entire rest of the town. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: I'd like to respond, also, to the question of where these place are. These lots extend from Laurel to Orient throughout the entire town. There is no one little segment of the town where they are important. Secondly, the question of holding on to this for a longer period of time. This is the second public hearing we've had 'on essentially the same thing. As Mr. Gardner commented we've been dealing with this for some number of months now. This Board, If anything, has the dubious recognition of moving very ponderously, and slowly, on many of these issue. THOMAS SAMUELS- I think probably, and certainly I'd agree with that, but again, identification of zoning issues, and essentially this is a zoning Issue. That's the way l look at It, and the Town Attorney is absolutely correct when she says if you believe philosophically in what this is doing. The question I have is, does the Board agree philosophically on this question of property rights, which Mr. Gardner raised? And if it does, then it will certainly pass this ordinance, but I believe it's flawed in that the questions that Mr. Gardner asked at the last public hearing haven't apparently been answered. I haven't followed it as closely as he has quite frankly. I don't have any properties that are involved. A great many people don't. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to find out- that their property is affected. I know there's a variance procedure. I don't think it's a terrible burden for the Z.B.A. to look through the list of exempt properties. I .really don't. I don't think it's a terrible burden for the Z.B.A. to make decisions. I really don't. I think they're probably one of the adept boards that we have in that they make decisions-. 1 think you should map, or at least get some identification of what properties are affected, and let those people know. Thank you. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: The Z.B.A. was one of the main crafters of this. It was at their recommendations that we did this, and they have been a principal part of that. We felt that we did address, and as to your first point, we felt that we did address Mr. Gardner's concern to our satisfaction. n ' pg 16 PH e 6JJ SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Let me just canvas the Board. There's no reason why we couldn't ask the Assessors, or the Zoning Board, or other people to investigate what it would take to contact the people, that we think fall under this. We ask. I have no problem. If there's support for that on the Board we could ask the appropriate offices of the town to assessed, or their views of various parcels that they think fall under this law. COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: 1 think they find It very difficult. I think that question was brought up, Tom, and except for the exempt list they really don't know some of these parcels that are out there. SUPERVISOR' WICKHAM: But, the exempt list is of some fifty-three different.. t COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: Right, and I think of our idea was to send out as many letters as we could to realtors, to property owners associations, anything like that to inform these people that they would have a year in which to change it. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Why don't we as a Board, if we do pass this, take out an advertisement, or have some other way.. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Why don't we discuss it after the hearing? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: After this hearing, why don't we discuss other ways of communicating to the public the concerns that Mr. Gardner has expressed. Are there any other comments from the audience? WILLIAM GARDNER: I have one last thing. You provided one method of getting around this thing, and that's what it is, getting around it. Now, you had come up with other solutions, that would be satisfactory. Putting my son's name, or my wife's name, or my daughter's name, that's a gimmick. There ought to be some way of doing it. Maybe I could use two names, William Gardner, William S. Gardner. Would that be satisfactory? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: There may be other solutions available within this law, that we can talk about. Are there other comments from the audience of people who would like to address the Board on this proposed Local Law? (No response.) If not, 1 declare the hearing closed. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk pg 7 P.H. 7. Section 100-281 A (7) (Building permits) is hereby deleted in its entirety. (7) a 'I-"tt ? v_, 8. . Bulk Schedule AA is hereby added to read as follows: Bulk Schedule AA Lot,Size Width PEAL A. Prior to April 9. 1957 ahy anv any B. Between April 9.195_7_and 20,000 100 150 December 1-1 971 C. Between December 2, 1971 40.000 135 175- and 75.and June 30.1983 If. This Local Law shall take effect upon it's filing with the Secretary of State. * Underline represents additions. Strikethrough represents deletions. Copies of this Local Law are available in the Office of the Town Clerk to any interested persons during businoss hours. Dated: .lune 13, 1995. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I do have certificates that the law was posted on the Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and an affidavit of publication in The Suffolk Times. We have Just two correspondence. Pursuant tot he requirements of Section A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is * no apparent significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval •or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stepheea� M. !ones, Director of Planning. :From our own Planning Board we have, n Mrs. Terry. The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed legislation pertaining to Lot Creation and Merger and finds that it is in support of the legislation as it is written. However, the Planning Board also suggests the following changes that it feels ihould be made to the proposal before it is adopted. 2. Section 100-25 , (Merger) B. In regard to common ownership, the definition could be changed:to eliminate the wording in reference to the same percentage of ownership. The Board feels that, from a technical standpoint, it will be an additional, difficult review step to determine the percentage of ownership. Ohe of the primary intents of this draft legislation was to streamline the review to the extent possible without compromising purpose of review.: Requiring this level of detail will represent a significant cost of time and money by the applicants and the Town. Additional changes that should be made to the Town Code if the proposed legislation is adopted. 100-281(7) Building Permits. This section conflicts pg 8 P.H. with the proposed legislation and should be eliminated. Sincerely, Richard C. Ward, Chairman. No further communications. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: This is one of the more compiicated Local Laws, that the Board has attempted. It was initiated by our Town Attorney in association with several of the different offices of town government. We have the Building Department, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, the Town Board, all getting together to try to treat the issue of merger and creation' of lots, particularly small lots, in a common way, so that we can deal In one manner to the public. i wonder1f I could ask the Town Attorney to cut through a lot of the legal language, that's in this Code, but just present briefly what we're trying to do, .and why, and the summary of it. TOWN ATTORNEY DOWD: The ;purpose of this legislation is to fill a sort of a black hole in it's existing Town Law, as regards to two aspects of lots. One is, was your lot every validly created, or was it created sort of by an Informal process, that means that it will not be recognized? We haven't had clear rules on that, and so for a long time, for example, people were just deeding off lots, and not going •through any formal subdivision process. This is going to create some uniform rules, that will treat , all these kind of situations fairly, and hopefully, equitable. What we've decided is, that if your lot was created for example by deed before 1983, we will recognize it. It was a common practice before 1983, to do that without going through the formal procedures. After 1983 we feel that everybody was sophisticated enough *to know that you had to go through the subdivision process. Therefore we are not going to i create recognized lots that' were created by deed after 1983. Then, of course, any lot that- has been approved by the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, as a legally created dot we're going to recognize. So, that's one aspect, was your lot ever .validly created? The question, that this is intended to address is, if your lot was validly created, but because of zoning- it's become a non-conforming lot, which means it's not as big as the zone requires a lot to be. Then this talks about what happens if you happen to own two of these nonconforming lots next to each other. The idea behind this is that non-conforming lots, lots that are smaller than the zoning allows are not really desirable. That we'd like to have everybody up to the zoning. That's why the Town Board felt it was appropriate to put in that Toning. So, the- tendency is that if you.have non-conforming lots they merge:until they become big enough to conform to the zone. However, we recognize that this would create a hardship, so we put in some safeguards, or safety valves, to protect people. One is that, any lot that's bigger than forty thousand square feet, we're saying it's not going to merge. It's big enough; we can live with it. If the nonconforming lot got some kind of lot size variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we're going to recognize it's not going to merge. Finally, and this is kind of obvious, but it's always worth saying even the obvious, if one lot is held in a different name from a second lot, and they're both non-conforming, they don't merge unless they're held: in the same ownership. You can't merge it with somebody, you know, who Molds a lot in a different name. So, this law is intended to address these kinds of Issues in a uniform way, that has not really been the way that it has; been working in the past, and so we think that this way everybody can have some clarity as to what the status of their lot is. This has a couple of other minor points. i'll just touch on them briefly. As another safety valve; the Zoning Board Is able to waive mergers, if the waiver would result in significant increase in the density of the nouo pg 9 P.H. neighborhood, and is consistent with the size of other lots in the neighborhood. So, there's a safety valve there, if you had never meant these lots of merge, and it's going to create a terrible hardship, you can go.to the Zoning Board, and they can decide, oh yes, 1 guess It doesn't really merge after all. One other safeguard we try to build in was that in terms a lot creation. As I said, if this lot was created by deed before 1983, we're going to recognize (tape change) SUPERVISOR WiCKHAM: This is a hearing. We're here to listen to what people in the audience wish to inform the Board about. May I ask each speaker to keep his or his comments within ten minutes. Would anyone else to address the Board? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham. I'd like to, first of all, just recognize the' tremendous effort that obviously went into the drafting of this legislation: It's certainly an area of the Code that's crying out for some reform. I have a few substantive and technical comments, which,l hope will be instructive. I'd like start with the substantive comments. On Section 100-24A, ;Lot Creation, I'm troubled by the words, if the lots have not merged, and I'm not sure that this should really be a criteria at this point, particularly as to those lots which now fall within Section 100-12, which is being's deleted, or which were approved at some point by the Planning Board, as set forth in Subsection two, three•and four of this section. The non-merger provision automatically apply only to lots over 40,000 square feet, and i!m not suggesting that you approve postage stamp or very small lots, but :I do think the law Is a little erroneous in that respect, as drafted. Anyone with concerns about size of lots with respect to water quality and sewerage should be advised that actually the Health Department sometimes has more control over these types of density issues, than the Town does in 'many, many respects. That's something that they should keep a very careful;eye on. My second point in that same section 100-24B is the language all lots :which are not recognized as above shall not receive any building permits, or other development entitlements. That almost sounds like you are not permitting a variance application. 1 know you do have variance application further back, but the Board of Appeals or someone could read that very narrowly, and I think that language maybe needs to be clarified. My third comment has to do with the elimination of 10012. I'm relating back to my prior comment before, but my main point here, and this Is one of the major points I'd bike to make, is I think that this will take a lot of people by surprise. This' law has just been advertised. I don't know how many people know about it, and we need some form of grace period. i don't know how many people ark here from Nassau Point, but this is really going to have a major impact oh. a lot of areas that are currently exempted under 100-12. I'd ask the Boa;d to consider, while the law does go into effect immediately, allowing a three month, or some period of grace period, for people to be able to react to this law. My next point, and again this is the second important point I want to make, is the bulk schedule AA. I feel very strongly that this is an ajrbitrary schedule which cuts off many lots, which conformed when they were created, but not others. It draws a line, and I'm not sure that it's a fail line. It's discriminatory, I think, to many lots which were created by dee oror otherwise, in accordance with standards that were permitted at the time. Again, it's not clear that there's a provision ,for a variance there. I think that needs to be addressed. Those are my substantive comments, and I'd just like to make a couple of technical pg 10 P.H. notes, if 1 may. On Section 100-25, the merger section. The last sentence non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements. I think that's an excellent idea, because now the whole thing would merge, but I'm not sure what it means, whether you have three lots you can pick two that merge, and one that doesn't. I'm not sure really how that would work in practice. 125-B with deference to the Planning Board' comments i thought that that language about the same percentage of ownership was one of the more brilliant parts of this legislation. I really think it's a good idea. I think this is an excellent provision. I think the word field by the same person should be persons, but I would strongly urge the Qoard in that direction, to keep that language in there. On Section D and E of that section, In section D, proof of merger, you state the Town may require. proof of certain things, and then E says no building permit will be issued luntil this section has been complied with. There could be some..certainly: in the Building Department about whether they may or have to deny a building permit sander certain circumstances, and on Section C a copy of an griginal survey of that lot. I don't know what that means, original survey, wilhether you mean a original plan, or do you mean any survey that was madei of that lot. So, again, my main comment is, first of all, that the grace period should be provided in order to comply with lots, that otherwise would; be not exempted under this language, and number two, that the bulk schedule AA be examined. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: ' Thanki you. Would anyone else like to address the Board on this rather complicated'piece of legislation? BILL GARDINER: My name is Dill Gardiner, and 1 live in Cutchogue on Nassau Point. Since 1967 when I bought my lot, built my present home, I have appeared many times before your Board, the Board of Appeals, and the Board of Trustees, on matterg which have affected me personally, and others, which did not effect t e, but which had an important effect on residents of Southold, and Nas1sau Point. Recently, I presented to your Board my objections to reducing the requirements for establishing B&B's. I was very pleased when you reconsidered. your proposal, and basically kept the old restrictions, and based on all the bad publicity on these establishments in residential zones, you even tightened the requirements. Tonight I'm here to make somg comments on your proposed Local Law in Relation to Lot Creation and Mef ger. Now, I think everybody here tonight, and there's not too many here, !has seen and felt that this thing is a very complicated matter, and I doubt that many people in this town understand it. Without a great education and knowledge on the present, and what is proposed in this complicated, legislation, I believe the average resident in Southold will have no understa ding of how this legislation could seriously harm their ffinancial planning and status. I thank Ms. Wickham on points of excellence. She mentioned Nassau Point, and many points that I agree on. This is complicated procedure, land if you throw It at people they're not going to understand it. They're snot going to get a chance to comment on it. in general It proposes that adjoining lots held by one owner, and in the case of Nassau Point, encompassing leiss than one acre will be merged, will riot be eligible for a building permit �.ithout permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In speaking to Miss Spiro, who prepared this proposed legislation, she told me that while the prlsent law in general had carried the same restrictions, that In general, thb law has not been clear, and this proposal is to tighten and enforce RAI which would result in`� my opinion, to • ; '' •, 11 P.H. i®(a, P9 the detriment of many. Under the old law, I believe Nassau Point was excused from these requirements. Nassau Point was subdivided before 1920, and the lot map was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, and all the individual lots are shown on the County Tax Maps. Owners, and prospective owners have relied on these maps. 1 have registered my objections to Miss. Spiro, and the probable results of this proposed legislation, and how It could-affect present, and future property owners. Her comment was, let the buyer beware. 1 dare say, that very few residents are aware, of this proposal, and have not be warned of the impact. For anyone to beware they have to be aware of the problem. I feel strongly that this Board has responsibility to publicize the details of this proposal, so that all present and future owners are made aware of it's affect on them, and given a chance to raise their objections. This• proposed legislation Should not be another B&B proposal which eliminated. any Board review. It should receive the complete light of any of the day, give everyone chance to comment on all unfavorable aspects. I ask the Board to actively make more information available on this complicated proposal, and not to rush into factions until the effected population has a chance to respond. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Board on the matter of this publlc hearing? (Ido response.) If not, I declare this hearing closed. Au�th . Terry/yG Southold Town Clerk J lQ�� 4 ' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING September 9,2008 7:35 PM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman Albert Krupski Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando This public hearing was called to order at 8:11 PM - COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York,on the 12`h day of August,2008,a Local Law entitled"A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall,53095 Main Road, Southold,New York,on the 9'h day of September,2008 at 7:35 p.m.at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law"reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2008 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Amendments to the Waiver Provisions of the Merger Law". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. Purpose—The purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional path by which owners of lots deemed"merged"may apply to waive those mergers under certain circumstances. II. Chapter 280 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: §280-11.Waiver of merger. j Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 2 September 9,2008 A. _ If a lot has merged pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-10,the Zoning Board of Appeals may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon public hearing and finding that: (1) The lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was effected; and TT ie—waiv.'r ill not no»lt. � n m.s4igninar*innvnn nn in the denniFy nf1hn we:ghb (2) Upon balancing whether: (a) The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is as large,or erg ater in size than a majority of the improved lots within a 1000 foot distance from any lot line of the lot proposed to be recognized; The lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and has historically been treated an maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation; and U The proposed waiver and recognition will create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The .waiver- wetila ..aGoenize/. lot giat is A iste t.Mth the size-of (3) The waiver-will a-void eeenefnie hardsW. (4) The nafmd de4ails and ehameter of the and!he ehar-aeter-of the contoums and slopesof the let .M • ll not be s „,fleantly nl�.anged n altered.r rI: � mmner- 1 and there vAll not be a substantial filling ef land affeeting neark efivirenmenW or flood areas. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence,paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. I am sure that this means that the proposed waiver and recognition will not create an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I hope. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The rest of it is just text that goes along with that. So that is the additional text that has been proposed for this public hearing tonight. This public hearing has been noticed in the local newspaper as a classified. It has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board outside and it has been forwarded to the Planning Board for their comment. The Planning Board has Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 3 September 9, 2008 commented in a memo dated yesterday, `The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed local law regarding amendments to the waiver provisions and it supports the proposal. It has also been sent to the County of Suffolk for its comments. The County of Suffolk has responded `Pursuant to the requirements of the Suffolk County Administrative code,this application is considered to be a matter of local determination as there is no apparent significant county wide or inter-community impact.' We have a memo dated yesterday from Mark Terry, the principal planner, regarding the LWRP content and the relevant sentence is `The proposed action is consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP.' There is a short environmental assessment form that has been filled out and signed and that completes the notes in the file. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody like to address the Town Board on this matter? Mr. Lewis? DR. ROBERT LEWIS: Good evening. My name is Robert Lewis, my wife who owns our property with me is here and we would appreciate if I could make the first point and she could follow in continuity because in our family she has the last word. Our home is at 570 West Cove Road on Nassau Point. We purchased our land in 1971, it consisted of a main parcel that consisted of a fraction over an acre and a vacant lot of.59 acres. It was designated vacant residential lot. A few months ago,while estate planning,our local attorney told us that our separate vacant building lot had probably been merged and we therefore could not put the lots into our separate estates in order to reduce the future tax burden on our children. Needless to say, we were shocked that our constitutionally guaranteed right to our property, which we understood was guaranteed along with our life and liberty, could be taken from us without due process by the Town of Southold. We are defining due process as a legal proceeding which is done fairly, I found that on Google. I am not a lawyer and I am sure there are all kinds of definitions for due process but that seemed like a pretty good one to me, to us. The Town did not notify us, the two parcels remained unchanged on our tax bills all these years and we have with us a notice which we found in the Town records from the Southold Town regarding the merger law: It appeared in 1995 in a document called the Traveler Watchman,I may be getting some of the details wrong but I think they are substantially correct. We did not subscribe to the Traveler Watchman and it is dated misleadingly and incorrectly,"If you own more than one undersized lot,consult your attorney or the Southold Town." Had we,by some stroke of luck, seen this notice, we still would have been mislead, because we do not own more than one under sized lot. And in fairness to everyone, I think the legislation is so complicated that mistakes are apparently made, depending on which clause you look at. I have a copy of this if anyone is interested in actually seeing that I am not making.the story up. We welcome the amendment being discussed tonight as an attempt by the Town to address what we feel, what feels to us to be a violation of our trust. Number two, we are hopeful that paragraph 280-11 of the local law 2008, which Mr. Wickham read, will provide us relief in the hardship imposed by the merger law because we believe our lots meet with the conditions for waiver of merger. But we are very concerned about how the specific language describing the lot size under paragraph 280-11 capital A to small a, how that language differs from the language in the original waiver of merger law. The new amendment says"The proposed waiver would recognize a lot that is a large or greater in size than the majority of the improved lots within 1,000 foot distance from any lot line of the lot proposed." I believe Mr. Wickham just read that to you. the original law states that "the waiver would recognize a lot that is consistent with lots in that neighborhood."' We find, my wife and I, that the 1,000 foot condition is somewhat arbitrary and that the amendment does not seem to take into account that the waterfront k '11nC® Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 4 September 9,2008 building lots, at the time they were created, had to be, were 100 foot wide on the water. Anybody with more waterfront footage and therefore more acreage got that offering by buying an extra lot or dividing a lot with their neighbor. Which is why we, for instance, have over an acre on our Barger parcel. The point, for instance, a 300 or 400 foot circumference around us would be much more, a truer measure of how we fit into our neighborhood which involves a lot of pieces of land on the water. The point that I am trying to make is that this law could be passed, I think you said this evening, and the Zoning Board might still disqualify us for the waiver of merger because our lot, established sometime around 1900 might be several hundreths of an acre smaller than the average of a number of interior lots on our peninsula which are in no way comparable to the waterfront property which we are on. So we are very concerned about that and why the language is specific this way and SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I address, really quick? I had actually proposed many of the drafts of the law. The problem was with the current law, it says that if it is consistent with the community, they should have the lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals has been saying no, to be honest, to everything. They haven't considered the character and content of the community, so that when you have a community of half acre lots and then you have this one separate lot that was merged by no fault of the owner, they would look at it and they would say no to that. And I thought that was not the intention of the law because that half acre lot is completely consistent with the character of that community and they ought to weigh that more heavily than they have been. I tried to make it more empirical, so that they had to waive it based on those criteria. I actually did talk to Pat the other day and Pat, I am sorry, Pat Moore the attorney, who had said well, the problem with that is you don't want to lose sight of the community itself and the 1,000 feet is a little too empirical and a little bit too,perhaps, strident. I agree with that. My only intent was to get the Zoning Board of Appeals to start looking at the community again, because I don't feel like they've been looking at the community for a few years now. They've been virtually saying no to almost everything and that was not the intent of the law. The idea was to have them look at your lot, recognize it's the same size, virtually,just about every lot down in that community, I know where your live, because I grew up right around the block from you and say there is no practical reason to want to keep this lot from be recognized as a building lot. Pat,I know you wanted to raise your hand. You could probably do this and address it much more artfully then I have, so. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Why don't we let him finish? DR.LEWIS: ... my specific point. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry,doctor, I'm sorry. DR. LEWIS: You had specific point that when we went yesterday or two days ago and looked at the interior lots, a lot of them are .65 and we are .519 and if the Zoning Board is doing a mathematical formula... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I don't know if it's, there are two parts to this, these changes. The first part is to protect the town against, really, developers that come in and buy two lots that have been merged and then try to get a really good attorney to try to really cash on a wronged situation. So that's to protect the Town. The second part is 2A,B, and C. It's a balancing test. The ZBA is going ! t V Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 5 September 9,2008 to look at all those components and I don't think it's a mathematical test, I think it's more of a balancing test to see whether your lot is going to meet the character of the neighborhood. As opposed to trying to just do a mathematical formula on a calculator and saying yes or no. DR. LEWIS: Ok,that's what I was concerned about and Barbara just wanted to ... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We had a lot of, we had a long discussion. Town Board has worked really personally,long and hard on this. DR. LEWIS:Mr.Wickham? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to hear what people in the audience have to say about this. Not so much what we are saying. I'd like to use the hearing,to hear what you and Mrs. Lewis had to say. BARBARA LEWIS: I would like to speak up in support of Law 2008, we understand that the purpose of the merger law Article 320-12, was to reasonably control and prevent the unnecessary loss of those currently open lands and within the town containing large continuous areas of prime agricultural soil. Our lot, created about a hundred years ago, has always been zoned residential and is in a community that has been largely developed. We have been told that the original law was intended to stop high density development by parties, as you said Mr. Krupski, who assume they could unmerge large properties after they bought them. We are here to give voice to the unfairness and inappropriateness of the application for the above law to people like us. We are the same owner for thirty-seven years on this property. The party before had the land for fifty years and we have kept it rustic,no lawns,'no pesticides,no tennis courts,no swimming pools,no sprinkler system. We converted the garage thirty-five years ago into a play room and still live in the 40 x 40 foot summer home. As a matter of fact, Mr. McGannon,who is now 103 years old,he is the original owner's son, visited us last summer and was happy to see how few changes had been made. We fought and helped defeat our neighbors proposed dock because of the negative environmental impact. In fact we believe the ratio of structure to land mass on our property is very close to what is described in the 1883 booklet, Peconic Heart, which details how, you call it Nassau Point, was back then. We have still most of the original plantings. Ours is a true bird sanctuary. We grow blueberries and don't use pesticides. In conclusion, selling our vacant lot has always beer a sail safe option, which we hope never have to exercise because we and our children love our property and would do anything to hold onto it. But it is also very close to our existing home. This property like for which we paid in 1971, and in the event of illness and in the face of constantly rising taxes as we age,having the possibility of selling the lot would prevent our having to give up the entire property. As everyone knows in our area, if the matter were to occur, having to give up the property, our house would be torn down, and a huge mansion would be put on this prime piece of real estate, we have 256 feet of water front with a 50 foot bluff. The highest point in our cove. In other words, in our case the merger law could likely have an outcome quite the opposite of its stated purpose. We know we can't tum back the clock. Cutchogue is more and more losing-its agricultural and rustic charm. But if there is a chance to delay this process, the Town should take advantage of it by working with people like us., Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Thank you very much. I am going to go to Pat Moore first. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 6 September 9,2008 PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Thank you. I have to say thank you, thank you, thank you for finally putting this back on the burner. I know it's a difficult issue because I know that your intention is good to prevent the speculation that you all are concerned with, but I have to tell you in all the years that I was practicing and applying the old merger law, I don't think I had one speculator come before that board at the time and ask to undo something that was clearly a parcel that had been merged intentionally or merged in such a way that it did not conform to the rest of the community. So, I think that your concerns, I appreciate your concerns but on the other hand I think that the language that you have incorporated into this, I think hurts more people and does not address the issues that I've been,that I've had my clients come and appear before you and explain the circumstances where this gentleman points out that in his estate planning, he just recently learned this, well, that's pretty much how everybody has learned that their parcels had merged. By estate planning or someone passes away, they've actually inherited the piece of property and they go and try to develop it and find out that all the plans that their parents had went out the window. What I would like to point out, I think you mentioned. Well, let me back up. I think that the simple solution here is just to take out the economic hardship language out of the old merger law. It is as simple as that because we have a very good Zoning Board. We've always had a very good Zoning Board and there were times when they denied waivers and they approved waiver mergers. They saw right through applications that really didn't have merit. So for the most part I can say that I agreed with them 90% of the time whether I was an applicant's attorney or I was watching from the sidelines. We have skillful people and I give you credit for always appointing people that are well intentioned and bright. That is a very good Board. We don't need all this language. The balancing test is the language of the waiver of merger. That is what they should be doing. It only occurred 5 years ago that somebody got real cute and took out what was the philosophy behind economic hardship. It was purely, economic hardship, at the time of the adoption, if you go back to the adoption of the law, was to prevent the speculators. What happened is that 5 years ago, we lost our institutional memory, and we suddenly warped it into something that it wasn't and from that point forward, all waiver mergers were denied. Not because the board was not being reasonable, looking at the neighborhood. It was that the law, now based on the courts rule, used the economic hardship language, is a use variance criteria. So, they the courts, look at the language that historically in the variance language, the Town Law, has defined as an economic hardship. So that is truly, you are trying very hard, and I commend you for your effort, but my concern is when I take the examples that I have in my file cabinet, waiting for this waiver merger law to get fixed, I apply it and I look at it and say, well, they are now creating a whole new set of problems. You can very simply adopt tonight the removal of the waiver of economic hardship,and it would open up the door again for everybody who is sitting here,relief that they had not that long ago. The courts have told you what the problem is. Now all you need to do is just address that problem. If you find that after using the modified language, that-it's still not working, then maybe step 2 needs to take place. I commend you again. A year ago you cleaned up the problem with the spousal automatic merger because of death, but I pulled out one from my files today, to compare the language and I looked and I said well; that happened one owner before, and it wasn't recognized,and all of this and now I have a family that was hurt because when this occurred there was no recognition that a waiver, excuse me that a merger had occurred. The situation the gentleman, I'm sorry I don't know your name, but he raised an excellent point, which is, and I tried previously in my memos to the board, numerous times I have said the problem is that when the law was adopted, very experienced zoning practitioners out here, before my time,because it was adopted before my time, saw the law and the advertisement and when he read it, I went ah ha, that's where d Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing September 9,2008 they got the idea from. They took, there was a 1 acre parcel that was conforming. The person, the family owned a %z acre parcel next door. The fact was that all the practitioners, because of the Ianguage as it was advertised, because they didn't own two non-conforming parcels, disregarded it. It wasn't a problem because there was already a-conforming parcel. The non-conforming, did not make the conforming parcel bigger. That wasn't the intent of the law. But here we are again ,institutional memory. We go five, ten years down the line and all of a sudden, that advertisement, or the notice,which I never saw before and when he read it, I went that explains it, because I looked back a waiver merger example that some very experienced practitioners, said how can they have not seen this, because I'm looking at the way it's interpreted today. Not the way it was advertised at the time. So, very simply just take out that economic hardship and we can move forward. I will point out, you asked me to explain the provision in the law here, if you do choose to push this one, the thousand foot, I have, I took Mrs. Meryl, that the lovely lady that grew up in the Soviet block and came to you and said essentially what you said, which is this is un-American. I came from the Soviet country, and you've taken my property, this un-American, in her lovely little lady in white. She told me she was coming over here, and I said I'm not coming over there. You'll have to deal with her. I took a thousand feet from her parcel, and she's in probably one of the most developed areas in town, and I will show you what impact that has.Now I understand what you meant by it but I don't think it comes out in the language. So you can see that when you measure a thousand feet, it takes you way outside the.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, but in her case that would be beneficial because you are only counting that farmland to the east,I'm sorry to the west, as one lot. We've discussed that thoroughly and let me just, but it wasn't perhaps the most artful way but you need to understand this wasn't designed to give the ZBA more criteria. This was designed to be a waiver of the merger itself to avoid the whole process, if you have something that is consistent with everything else,it's a waiver of the merger. But I would think in this particular case she is in excellent shape. MS. MOORE: She is. Well, that's a very good example but even in an example like that where the lots are very small, you can see that the thousand feet is a tremendous area. Now, that's one example but you have other areas where the subdivisions, adjacent subdivisions, may be three times the size.. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. MS. MOORE: and now you've thrown all the numbers, the averages, because what happens is the Zoning Board, one application up through the tenth application they ask you to come in with statistics. We start getting into the minutia of whether or not, what is the average lot size? You know you go into the real numbers crunching. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure and that's fair. What we tried to do, the original proposal was for 500 feet. What we tried to do is say let's define what we mean by community, the area and it was probably too empirical, again not most artful, but it was well intentioned to say well, look this is an area where you have a built out community. and you have a lot that is the same size as everything else. What is the environmental benefit of negating that lot? MS.MOORE: Absolutely. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 8 September 9,2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I could tell you, in their particular case, that these are people that have done everything right for 30 some odd years. MS. MOORE: Exactly. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And Pat, can we characterize your views as saying before you pass this thing tonight, take a look at the original waiver of merger and just delete the portion on hardship?Is that basically what I hear you saying? MS. MOORE: Well what I'm saying is, you don't have to delay this action any further. This law, the notice, had deleted that portion. "lou can choose not to adopt the rest of it or hold off and just adopt the portion that takes care of it most immediately. I do not want to see any further delays. It has been a 5 year process. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But let me point out though,that you haven't removed the Zoning Board of Appeals from many of the processes. This law, if passed, would do that. Now maybe we need to re-visit the 2,000 foot issue and define community better. MS.MOORE:That's not the way I read it. I see it as... TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: It still goes El►rougn the Zoning Board. ' SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: It still goes through the Zoning Board of Appeals. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN:No,No it's not exempt. MS. MOORE:No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The reason for the economic hardship,was because of the ZBA decision and the court supported them in that. I am not, if;we can try it that way. MS. MOORE:No,No,No. Let's back up. Economic hardship, for about 10 years, when we were, when I applied,I think I did my first waiver merger Iaw,as the law first got adopted. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand. MS. MOORE:The economic hardship was not interpreted, neither by the town, the Zoning Board, by the legislative authority that adopted it, that was not the definition, that was not the intent of that language. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right,I understand that. MS. MOORE: It only became, when, 1 don't know who, the Zoning Board as a group, with legal guidance... Q Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 9 September 9,2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Right. MS. MOORE: ...said we want to say no, this is the way you say it, by economic hardship and now the courts say, well yeah economic hardship is the way. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: So but if there intent is to say no with out better guidance, then they're still going to say no and then your going to be in an Article 78. I don't want to create work-for the attorneys. I want to do something that's fair for the landowners. MS. MOORE: 1,1, 1, 1 wish that this would make things easier. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Okay. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that this language is really making the job easier. I think that in fact in many cases it's going to preclude applications because of the first issue which is whether or not it is the same related entity. I must have had 5 or 6, throughout the course of applications,where it was not noticed until the second owner and that poor person, that individual had bought a lot thinking that that lot could be develop. Everybody believed it could be developed and all of a sudden it comes that, that two owners ago, or when the subdivision was approved it was held for too long by the original developer in the 70's. It was held for more than the period of time, and all of a sudden you,you,you.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's exactly what who don't want to un-merge though. Caveat emptor, well, you are a knowledgable buyer, you need to do your homework when you're buying a vacant lot. This law is designed to offer relief to people who are effected specifically by this law not by people who came later. MS.MOORE: But you're assuming that.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That's what title searches are for. MS.MOORE: Now it is but you're assuming a perfect world,okay? There are situations, where it is not known. There are errors that are made. There are, the waiver merger, again your belief goes through the subdivision process. So I'm not so sure that you want to exclude everybody, including entities estates. The next in line. You know you have people that have inherited properties, that's just,I don't believe that's right. They inherited properties that their parents specifically believed... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They are excluded. They are part of the group we are trying to offer relief to. This is related parties. MS.MOORE:That's what I wasn't clear whether this entity, or unrelated,because it speaks in terms of transfer to an unrelated person or entity. I don't know of an estate, when it goes to the children of the heirs or the family of the heirs, whether that is an entity or a related entity. I think it should be open. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is an issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals to sort out. 0 Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 10 ,\0 10 September 9,2008 MS. MOORE: But it sounds like you are trying to give the Zoning Board the flexibility to say yes but you've precluded them right from number 1. You can't walk in the door if you are not the right entity. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Right COUNCILMAN WICKHAM:A related, a related entity. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That was the intent. If I just bought 2 pieces of property a few years ago, and I'll give you an example. I bought a house with a vacant piece of property. I bought a house and a vacant lot but I bought that years after that law was passed. I went into the equation knowing that that was a merged lot. I don't think that I should be looking toward the Zoning Board, I mean I made an application, but I don't think I should be entitled to some automatic exemption from this law because I was a knowledgeable buyer. I did my homework. I knew what the title was on the house and on that vacant lot. We talking about people like Dr. Lewis and his wife, who have been sitting there for years doing everything right, and just didn't know that this law was passed. That's who we are trying to offer the relief to. I agreed with some of the artfulness that we can re- visit but I'm not sure we want to start mandating un-merger of everything. That wasn't the intent. It was to go after the injured properties or to help the injured parties. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Okay. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Pat, I have to say, while on the Zoning Board for 4 years,seeing you and seeing Gail, the only two applicants I saw there were death by merger, which we fixed, and the other one was estate planning, as the Doctor's doing right now. I didn't see builders trying to come in. But the one common denominator they all had, they all... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Hey, you have to mention Deborah Doty, we are trying be an equal opportunity. . . ANK qu COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Oh. DEBORAH DOTY:Actually in transfer's MS.MOORE:Yeah,there are other examples where the transfer COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Scott, let's let the people speak,let them... COUNCILMAN RULAND: But the one common denominator is they always got the separate tax bills from the county and that was their,they felt they were still separate. People during the 80's and 90's were building careers and raising families,didn't see the paper like the doctor. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me ask you something. Would the Town Board consider tabling this,or adjourning this,keeping it open so that we could fix some of these glitches? Q Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 11 �P September 9,2008 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM:No.. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I think... MS.DOTY:I would like to address the board. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:I mean after we listen to everybody. Okay. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: As a procedural thing, I would like to be able to hear everybody who wants to speak tonight and I think we should just be in a listening mode. Then at the end, we'll decide what we want to do. I like your suggestion of giving some more thought to it and not necessarily voting on it tonight. But meanwhile I would just like to hear, one after another, what people have to say. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But it's good to give clarification to people... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:That's right. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: ...who,that's the intent of the law. That's the intent of the changes. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Go in the direction of helping not hurting. MS. MOORE: No, I want the feed back because many of the questions, if they are my questions, there are other people in the audience that have the same or similar questions. So... MS.DOTY: If I may,I just want to... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Deborah Doty, Cutchogue. MS.MOORE: Yeah MS. DOTY: Deborah Doty, attorney in Cutchogue. Mr. Orlando I actually dispute what you just said because I represented a client who bought a vacant lot, in Orient, and they bought it from the children of the original owners. The original owners, and this goes to transfer as well, the original owners owned the adjacent lot, which was developed. In 1996, a local attorney named Gary Olsen, wrote to the Building Department and gave them the information, gave them the deeds. The head of the Building Department wrote a letter to Gary Olsen saying, if you do deeds and get them recorded before the end of the year, to these parcels and get them in separate names, they will not merge. So Gary went ahead and did that. Ok, so it was done before the end of 1996. Three years later, the house parcel was sold. I think it was in 2003, the vacant land was sold to some individuals. Now, their attorney was from up west but he got a copy of the Building Department's letter. Building Department stationery saying if you do this you're okay. So he said okay. So they bought the parcel. Now I would find it very reasonable to rely on letterhead issued by the Building Department. The building permit application was pui in. Denied. It had merged with the adjacent parcel that had previously been sold to somebody else. Now these people,with vacant land, wanted to build a house on it and I had to make an application for a waiver of merger and there was some question as to 0 Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 12 ® September 9,2008 whether or not it was actually going to be granted. And then the question was,who was going to pay my clients, what was then the outrageous sum of$166,000.00 for the vacant land that they bought, that they couldn't do anything with. Well, the board granted the waiver. So... MS.MOORE:And I had one that was very similar to that, too. MS. DOTY: That actually goes to two points... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: See and I gave you the waiver. MS. DOTY: Yeah,well I asked you if you were going to pay them the$166,000? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO:Persuaded then. MS.DOTY: That persuaded you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: But it's an unfortunate problem but that's how the process, those mitigating factors should be. MS. DOTY: And that goes to the two points, that... MS.MOORE: Right MS.DOTY: ....goes to the subsequent transfer after the merger had occurred... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right,okay. MS. DOTY: ...as well as the merger issue. MS. MOORE: But let the applicants go forward. If the Zoning Board sees through it and has a problem with it, they will deny it. In your case and the one very similar in my case, they realized everybody here was innocent. Innocent purchasers. There was reliance on governmental permits, governmental vacant land, C.O.'s. There, at this point those documents are some what meaningless because you go back to the single and separate that you rely on. But in the days when those vacant land C.O.'s where being issued,nobody debated single and separate. So,my caution is please, don't take such hard and fast rule to get in the door, allow the people to get in the door. Let the circumstances be explained and if the Zoning Board feels that it's reasonable, let them decide. So far they have done a pretty good job. So.... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: But Deborah, I don't remember that application in details but I bet you they both'got separate tax bills from the County. Didn't they'? MS.DOTY: Yeah. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: That's the false security that people get, that the County can't be wrong. I get two separate tax bills,they are two separate pieces. t ' 0 Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 13 ACP September 9,2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I'm sorry, but I don't think this particular proposal precludes them from coming in the front door and maybe gyve just need to simply strike the economic hardship issue. But they can still come in the front door. What this does is spell out under which the ZBA has a perfunctory obligation to waive. You still have those discretionary hearings. What this says is if these criteria are met, it has to be waived. So, I want to,again I know I'm already saying we should table it. MS. MOORE:I sure I particularly agree with that because. Pat, is that... TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: No. The first criteria. You need the first criteria to get in the door. MS. MOORE: Right which is the one that.... TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN:_The other three are a balancing test. MS. MOORE: Right. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: ...for the Zoning Board to decide. Whether they decide... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But you get to argue you case, whether you make... MS.MOORE:No. The first criteria... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Who judges that? MS.MOORE:The Zoning Board will not accept an application for a waiver of merger... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:For any waiver? MS. MOORE:Any waiver of merger. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Because,well, that was not my intent either. MS. MOORE: Because of number one. MS.DOTY:It would get denied in the Building Department. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, that certainly wasn't my intent either. My intent was to say look, we hear your cases but you've got circumstances here that you have to weigh more heavily, such as these vacant lots that have been. So I think, I don't know how the board feels but I would be willing to table it and work on a better law. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Let's hear everyone else. 0�90 �Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 14 September 9,2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. I certainly want to hear everybody else. MS. DOTY: If I may continue. I first want to compliment the Lewis' for being here. I think they gave the Town Board the flavor of what your citizens go through in these situations. I have had numerous clients come in and you just sit there and say I know you get two separate tax bills but. I know you get two separate tax bills, but. And it's very difficult to explain to them how, in their mind,the town has stolen their property from them. UNIDENTIFIED: You must kill the messenger. MS.DOTY: I'm still here. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Good thing that was an almost MS. DOTY: You know and to sit there and try io say, well this is what the town thinks. Just, it doesn't work. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. MS. DOTY: I took this proposed law and I actually looked at two different areas, which are very densely populated, and attempted to calculate a 1,000 foot radius. One of the problems was, where on the lot line do you go, because the lot line moves. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:Any lot line. Yeah. , MS. DOTY: But on Nassau Point, in one particular instance, I went into the middle of Nassau Point and it was 128 lots that you had to look at. In Fleets Neck, it was 130. I went up to Duck Pond which you know is, it's got(inaudible)and so on and so forth. It was 33 lots. That's a lot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MS. DOTY: It's a lot to deal with. When I was speaking with the Lewis' about it, they said, well how do we find out? Do we calculate it from the tax map? What,do we do? I said well, you go to the Assessor's office and pull out the books. 130 lots, that's a lot of time and a lot of energy. And who in the town is going to check up, number one, and who wants to pay an attorney that kind of money? I don't know. I would suggest, you know attorneys, we have to disagree. I'm not really sure that removing the economic hardship is necessarily appropriate. I think perhaps guidance as to what that means is appropriate. I have found, and I haven't done one recently because I tell clients it's not worth it, that the Board has been applying severe or extreme or extraordinary economic hardship. We just had one involving Medicaid, Medicaid application. Do you think that's going a little far? And I would suggest that there is some reason in there, some balancing, some consideration for what people like the Lewis' are going through. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I agree. MS.DOTY: Thank you. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 15 September 9, 2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board on this issue? LINDA GOLDSMITH: Hello, I'm Linda Goldsmith from East Marion. I just have a couple of questions maybe you could help me with. The word merge is in quotations. Could you explain to me what you mean by merged lot if it's in quotations. Does that mean a lot that has two separate tax bills but has some how gotten merged? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well merged by, yes, by statue. You can have two separate parcels, in other words it doesn't mean physical merger it means merger by ownership or by past ownership. MS. GOLDSMITH: But that would be two, that would be two lots that have separate tax bills? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Could be,yes. MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, the reason why I am asking is there are, and I know of a couple of examples, um in town where there are some people who had built a house, I know one in Orient, a big farm lot, I think 1.9 acres or something and had left a big clump of it out on one side, saying oh look, you know now I'll have a lot later on for someone. And of course now because it's not 2.25 acres, when the zoning when the house was built was a .25 acre zoning. She was told if you have 2.25 acres you might be able to separate two acres and leave your house on a quarter acre, but you can't do that. So this does not address something like that?Is that correct? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:No. MS. GOLDSMITH: Ok. My second question is does this address, um, any of the lots that are and always have been not merged but one acre lot, not one acre, one house lots that someone has built a second house on? Will this allow them to come into the ZBA? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:No. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO:No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. MS. GOLDSMITH: ...and say oh well you know um I have a second house here but it must be a merged lot and can I please get a C.C.on Lhaf? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:No. MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay,thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This is about lots that have been recognized, at least at some point in the code life of Southold Town. Mr. Finora? I'm sorry ma'am, I meant to go to you but you are right after Mr.Finora. n 0 Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 16 September 9,2008 JOSEPH FINORA: Joseph Finora, Mattituck. I just have a question,a couple of questions. First of all assuming, I don't have any too much of a problem with part 1 but part 2. What do you exactly mean by upon balancing?Does that mean that these three conditions must be met? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I think it gives the ZBA the discretion to say they don't all have to be met. They all have to be considered. MR. FINORA: Okay. My other question is that with B the lot proposed to be recognized as vacant and has historically been treated as maintained as separate and independent residential lot. How far back will it go,you know, for a historical.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That would be for the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine for themselves. Typically it would go back to the creation of a lot and look at the character and the use of that lot since its inception. Certainly since they can go back, I mean the Assessors inventory probably goes back to the late 50's before that you're probably going to be stumped. So, that would ® be at the discretion of the ZBA. MR. FINORA: Okay. Assuming, if you assume that you met all the criteria here, do you still have to file an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals or is this a perfunctory... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN:Yes. MR. FINORA: It would still have to be filed? Good.Thank You. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: To answer your one question, which was pretty hypothetically, if you have two lots next to each other,and you hypothetically took all the debris from it and you put grass and mowed it as if it was one big lot, it would be looked at as you only maintained it as one lot and you didn't keep it separate as a wooded lot. Something hypothetically like that. MR. FINORA: What I had in mind was two separate parcels, that they receive separate tax bills on and... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Well that's one of the big issues I had while on the Zoning Board. Everyone stills gets two County tax bills,they don't recognize that they have been merged. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:The Town tax bills COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: The Town tax bills. They get two separate ones. MR. FINORA: Alright. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 17 September 9,2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Again I would recommend if,ma'am? I'm sorry. Do you want to go? JOYCE SIRICO: I don't want to interrupt your train of thought. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:No, go ahead. JOYCE SIRICO: I'm Joyce Sirico. I'm a taxpayer here but I can't vote obviously because my primary residence is up the island a bit. I am grateful also to see the Town deal with this issue. If you are familiar with my situation, 1 inherited two separate lots in Eastern Shores in Greenport from my father, one, from an aunt a year later and they were next to each other. I have been maintaining them separately as two investment lots for, you:snow, the family has been paying the taxes for over forty years and when I went to sell them, I found that they had been merged as one and we've been through this before. I was denied a waiver of merger, I think in '05. What the problem I have with the language here is that there are these qualifying terms. The Board of Appeals may waive the merger. This is the same thing that happened before. Before it said they may waive it. It didn't say it had to meet all these qualifications. Which they asked us, in my case, they wanted all them met. Then again later on, upon balancing, whether. These are very, very subjective. And this is, I understand you guys want to instruct, I guess, the ZBA to, to do this reasonably but you don't have control over the decisions they make and what they're going to be looking at. Do they take field trips and actually look at the character of the development? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes,yes they do. MS. SIRICO: They actually do? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: They're supposed to go take a look at all the sites. MS. SIRICO: Alright. In my case, I mean these 100, over 160 half acre lots that were created in 1966 or 1963. 150 houses on those half acre lots, in that development. The lots I happen to own are down in the southwest corner of it. So if you're going to draw a circle, 1,000, I mean there's preserved land, there's Town land, I believe, and there's undeveloped. What is an improved lot? Has a house on it? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. MS. SIRICO: Okay. What if you're next to preserved land? And the majority of.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me, again just explain,my original draft for this had a checklist and the ZBA shall waive or the lot is waived if, and you meet these three or four criteria. We looked at that, a farm lot, if it is the majority, and again my original proposal had 500 feet, a farm lot is one lot. So you look at the majority of the lots. Even if they are all to the east of you, you are still the overwhelming majority of improved lots are supporting your application. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 18 ACP September 9,2008 MS. SIRICO: Isn't that also up to... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well,my original proposal said they shall be waived if this,this and this is met. This is something of an amalgam of Town Board that says, well, we don't want to remove the discretion completely from ZBA and they sort of moved along those lines and that is the give and take you have in legislating. But I would like at least, in certain circumstances, to create a law that just says these are waived. I can't speak to. you specifically,I don't know the circumstances... MS. SIRICO: First of all, I am not sure, I haven't even gotten an answer from the Town if I am even legally allowed to reapply because I think originally in the language you were allowed to do it once and if you were denied,you were never allowed to do it again. I think that was somewhere. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But you would be allowed,if we changed the law. MS. SIRICO: If you changed the law. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Under the current code, you can apply for a waiver once. If you are turned down, you can always come back for a variance. It is a more expensive process and the likelihood of success isn't any greater but.... MS. SIRICO: Right. Alright, so if the law is changed,well then I would definitely recommend it be changed, so that I could reapply. But I don't know what is going to make the ZBA always judge reasonably. l SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Right. That is a good point. MS. SIRICO: I mean,how do you,unless you are going to give them meet A,B and C or meet three out of four,how are you going to be sure they are doing it? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well,the... MS. SIRICO: One of-the things, it was so clear in my case that it was definitely staying in the character of the development. It was so obviously clear. And they threw that right out. And they said if you build another, an extra house in that development, you are affecting the environment. You know,and again, I know people keep bringing it up but here it is, I am still paying two separate tax bills. Still. Two library levies,two fire district levies. Two everything. And I am just going to throw this out, a year ago when I spoke Mr. Russell, you said in your case I just don't think you inherited what you thought you inherited. And I drove the whole way home stewing about that and I just want to answer it now that I have a chance.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure. MS. SIRICO: I know exactly what I_inhented. Two separate lots. And I kept them as two separate lots. For my family, for my children. For a future house,whatever. And you know, and again, the Town took them in a way. 0 ' ' Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 19 0� September 9,2008 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. I agree with you. That is why I proposed easing the law. And my comment might have seemed curt but it was an honest effort to say... MS. SIRICO: And I understand and I appreciated that.... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We have a law that actually that was passed in the early 90's, that merged lots based on ownership back to the 801s. So you couldn't have even done anything to address the law as it was being passed because it was almost like it was de facto, well,we are going to merge them as of June 10, 1983 which was when we passed two acre zoning, which really wasn't pertinent to lots but point well taken. MS. SIRICO: Well, I think Mrs. Moore has brought up in the past too, that this was not made to punish residential property owners,it was more or less to keep speculators from you know, doing... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: We are trying to give relief for homeowners here. MS. SIRICO: yeah. But it isn't doing that, I mean it wasn't. I mean, I hope this will change things a little bit. But I am still a little wary at some of the language. The qualifying statements like may and upon balancing whether. They are very vague. Okay? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Jim? JIM DINIZIO: James DiNizio,Jr. I have been a member of the ZBA for the past 25 years and I can tell you if you don't subscribe to the Suffolk Times, many people have applied to us, evidently don't and I ask that question all the time. This law, this merger law has been the bane of my existence since I have been on the Zoning Board. It has, it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, actually until I heard tonight because it seems to me like there is an underlying idea emanating from this Board that they are trying to protect the Town from developers and I understand that there developers and sometimes people develop land, that is how we all got here, most of us are sitting on homes that were developed. I suspect that there are lots that are out there that are still owned by people who develop them many, many years ago:got agreements from the town that said that this is the size lot that they can build on, however no one has ever showed me that example but I just, I am assuming that that is what is pushing this law. These two fine people right here should have no more trouble unmerging them lots than going into,the building inspector and showing him their deed. And I am assuming that your lot are in the same name. and if they are in the same name, they have been in the same name for the past forty years and they don't have cesspools on them, they don't have swimming pools, they don't have tennis courts on those lots, this shculd be as simple as, okay,here is your building permit. Your lots are uiunerged. This shouldn't be, comparing them to the rest of the lots. These lots were approved,at some point in time by somebody in this town. They were recognized. Somehow they got a deed and 1, you know, I listened to Ms. Moore every time she comes up, she has very cogent, they make almost perfect sense to me, her reasoning and it seems to me that for whatever reason they don't get approved. Now I agree with the economic hardship,I can tell you, I rode hard on that economic hardship. Because quite honestly,that is a bugaboo. You,this is thrown in there and it is so subjective. so subjective, I mean, we have people telling us that economic hardship is I can't sell the lot. I have people, we have people that are affected by this Iaw o Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 20 ®� September 9,2008 who need to sell the lot because the husband had cancer. If that is not economic hardship, I don't know what is. Yet, somehow the Board couldn't be convinced. Even the law as you have it written here honestly,to me,if you took out C,could be handled by the building inspector. I mean, certainly any person can prove that the lot hasn't been transferred. Okay, where is the balancing act to that one? Now if you are saying upon balancing A,B and C, you gave specific criteria in A,that must be greater or equal to. Okay, for any lot that is smaller, you can't grant a variance on that. You have already specifically said what we are supposed to do in this law. Now if they meet that one but they don't meet another one, fine. But specifically, that lot, 25 feet, square feet smaller, it is not getting approved. The first lot is recognized as vacant and has historically been treated and maintained as a single and separate independent, hey, anybody can testify to that. Any person can say no, look, I don't have cesspools on, I don't have tenni courts, I don't have, okay, then they should just go and get their building permit or if they have a lot,they can sell it,do what they want. C,to me,makes no sense at all. The proposed waiver recognized will, or well, it is will not create and that is the way it is in our law, an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Okay, well listen, I have listened to people tell me what their neighborhood is. I have heard people say, well, if they cut down the trees on that lo,, we are going to lose our parks. Okay? I mean, people are human and so are.Zoning Board members. And they can be swayed by those kinds of things. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: I have no place to dump my leaves. MR. DINIZIO: Some people care about trees more than others. But in any case, I appreciate, Scott, that this pretty much mirrors what i gave you folks about a year ago. Okay. It pretty much does. And you know, I don't want to. I know of at least one person is going to benefit from this. Okay. One person, I know of one that came befbre us, that we turned down, that would meet this criteria. Okay? I would not want that person to wait another day, okay, riot to get their lot. However, and it is a big however, you have got to do better than this. You can't Dave out so many people who expected to have these lots as their retirement, as their children's inheritance. They purchased those lots for those reasons and they were taken away from them simply because they are married. Think about that. And it seems to me and I am hearing from up there,more like,not tough but they have to do their homework. Well, no. honestly, they don't have to do their homework. I don't read the Suffolk Times, I just skim through it. lNever read th.- legai notices. I got this because I am a member of the Zoning Board and11 get -mails that have this stuff in here. I got it this morning.The hearing that I believe, the code committee; meeting that you had on this,I tried to attend. That door was closed. This is where, and I am.-I iiave got to applaud you for that for wanting to listen to the people because you have to listen to tie people. 1 have listened to them for the past 20 years about this. And if we can't get it right,right now, it is never going to happen. People have died waiting for this law to be changed and I can tell you Deborah Doty,a perfect example, she will disagree with me but two people died in a car accident and because one person died five or it was within the day, 20 minutes? Forty minutes apart, the wrong way. If they would have died the other way, they would have had two lots but because they died. those lois were merged. We turned them down. Now, there were extenuating circumstances on that but this is ;row crazy this law is. I am just hoping that, you mentioned nothing in here about the decisions that have been made already. People have read the law, people have complied with the law; didn't ask for waivers, didn't, didn't bother because they read the law. Do those people get co come back now? How do we let those people know? Maybe they sold that lot already. Maybe they sold the entire house and lot together at a lesser price. Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public Hearing 21 September 9,2008 You know, I understand, time moves on but this law quite honestly, in my opinion, took it away from them in a not so democratic way. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I understand that, Jim. This is to try and revise that law and make it fairer and if it is not perfect,we need to talk about how to make it a better law. A better revision. MR. DINIZIO: I don't think we need a perfect law but I think you need a lot more than what you are giving them and you know, if anything if you are going to pass it tonight, if you can strike C, I think you will at least, you are on the right road. Certainly you have got the economic hardship out of there, this C basically leaves it, the door open for a bunch of people from the neighborhood to come in and complain about the fact that they are going to lose a lot that has trees on it. Quite honestly. And I don't think that we need to go down that road on a lot that a person had a deed to, that person is, you know, basically a buildable, a building lot. I mean, I am saying that if you can put a house on it with it there not be a variance,that is a building lot. So,you know,I would like for you to pass it tonight but I would like you to strike C and then I will come anytime you would like but you have got to become a little more consistent with your meeting. I would like to see at least do a better job for people like this. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Well that is understood. But I have to tell you just to come in on one thing and I know, Tom, you don't want me to talk but I have to. If you said at the hearing tonight that people better do their homework, that hasn't emanated from this Board. I made point before to say this is to undo the people that you just talked about, the people that have had their lots and intended to build their lot, intended to have a lot for years, not someone who bought an injured lot and they knew it was injured. That might sound a little crass but you that's, you are the one that recommended that we put that criteria in there to say that you are the same party or that you are related to that same party. It was actually your recommendation as to why we included that in this original draft. We were trying to meet that. MR. DINIZIO: I agree with you there, and I don't think that's, that's really not my point, my point is that people still have made decisions based on the law as it exists today. And a lot of those people got hurt. And I think that, you know, sure, the faster you can do it, the better but from, Ms Moore comes in with I can think of five applications where they weren't people who were not savvy about it,they were people, it really wasn't even a question of legality, it just happened. You need to give the Zoning Board or somebody more leeway and the 'Zoning Board certainly needs to look at it individually. They can't take the whole(inaudible)thing, like we are saving an entire town because we are going to keep one lot undeveloped there in a development that was approved. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, I agree with that. MR. DINIZIO: And that was what the other lady was talking about. I mean, you know, Moore's Lane, Moore's Lane North, come on, the town approved those lots. And now we are taking them away? Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you,Jim. Dr. Lewis? .7 V Amendments to the Waiver Provisions Public liearing 22 September 9,2008 DR. LEWIS: I thought I heard Mr. Dinizio just say that provision A, I thought I heard him agree with my concern, he is on the Zoning 'Board, he said if it says the majority has to be as large or greater in size and you cane out.59 and the average is .63,you get denied. I think that was what he just said. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah. Well.... DR. LEWIS: So the reassurance that the,% =a not oing to get mathematical. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL:That is a point,and I think in the beginning we recognized that as a well- intentioned but probably poorly worded pari of the law. And again,I would ask everybody to afford us the opportunity to table it and get baelc to work with some of the attorneys and come up with something better. I hate to delay it for people who have been merged for these many years but I would rather do that than pass something that is not going to achieve the affects we wanted. Anybody want to speak on the lot waiver merger law? GAIL WICKHAM: Hi,Gail Wickham. This will be short. I think concern is a good one, it was one I had and perhaps it could be cured by just suggesting that the waiver would recognize a lot that is comparable in size to the majority of the neighborhood lots. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL,: That's,that.lis a much,that is a much better. Okay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We did pretty well, actually, out of A, B and C; various people didn't like either one of them. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sir? UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, can we, we will address it when we get through with the public hearing, then we will go to that. JUSTICE EVANS: I make a motion we close the hearing. This public hearing was closed at 9:15 PM Eliz eth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Wwl gv�l t, � l Lt 4 1 JUL 195-2- cil VL al 77) J t9gq- ZaA w CK t6 �- -M�-- I V-Ao-" :2 k Jr, ' - u sl.l,a,la N.x. -�m esm•lo-sL�era_elrel�.va s,�a„a..�a la,mm,�,m„el,o<.,•.M.-t.a�; -mpelaWs!sem 5hm) ��f VW C)VCONSULT NYlR Duane SlaNINO THIS tNSMIRENT—THIS INSTRUMENT Sffcl',�a`S®6Y LAWYERS ONLY. Il8ER4bJ'#PAGE�rrV W3P P"K 1) /-)-1 17 � - TIM WENTUM made the litW'&-v of May ,ninet ca hundred and f if ty-nine BETWEEN ISABEL L'HOMMEDIEU residing at ZZ Walker Avenue, J�� Syosset, Town of oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York 4,11 0 r f l : party of the first part,and EDWIN KINSCHERF residing at 91-50 89th Street, q� Queens County, New York .. R W1P w r, IVRv11lA7En0• S � E � f party of the second part, I =u WTfNQS THj that the party of the first part,in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the poly 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 the erected,situate, lying andbeulg4n-*t at Greenport, 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 Wood Lane 200 feet southerly from the intersection of the easterly line of Wood Lane and the southerly line- of Manhanset Avenue, said point of r beginning being also the southwesterly corner of land of James C. t Jensen and Beatrice A. Jensen; running thence in a general easterly direction along the southerly line of land of Jensen 100 feet to land now or formerly of Kinscherf, running thence in a general southerly direction along last mentioned land 50 feet to land conveyed rby Isabel L'Hommedieu to Arnold H. L'Hommedieu by deed dated April 16, 1957 and recorded April 17, 1957 in liber 4288, op lel in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk, running thence in a general westerly direction and parallel to the southerly line of land of Jensen 100 feet to the easterly line of Wood Lane, thence northerly along the easterly line of Wood Lane 50 feet to the point or place of beginning. Being the northerly half of premiers conveyed by Inez Fordham to Arnold H. L'Hommedieu and Isabel L'Hommedieu by deed dated September 18, 1954 and recorded May 20, 1955 in Liber 3889 op 226. 1 S C T M. NO DISTRICT 1000 SECTION:43 l BLOCK:4 LOTS)30 - -- F --. -- 0�® #R10-14-0073 SUFFCLcCOti`:': =. ``r:,,` i:;':: :'9 _nyiGES qj Jz _ } '�ij'- I Foa nlaxt+,t r;t`7t'; �ar�vta:, o ¢ `" t-xa EXPIRESTHREEYEAFSFR I ZDATEOFRPPRJVAL cn w _ - MANHANSET AVENUE ;U Z Oo 'i� LL4 yp I LAND N/F O OF _ O ROBERT RAGONA DWELLINGS i N 4 BEDROOM SYSTEM MARIE RAGONA W/PUBLIC WATER ! 1,200 GAL. SEPTIC 150 DWELLINGS CL 8.6 .` 8'DIAX3'DEEP LEACHING POOLS I W/PUBLIC WATER PROPOSED WATER SERWCE S87"05 X00"E 100.00 r 1501 EL 81 Tl I� PROPOSED - 4 5' o 9.5 DRIVEWAY MIN w 7 -' IN CEL 10.0) C.E. (EL 9.0) O \ N p76 CL 8 5 O h1 0 0 42 5' 22.2'- O N z o z '3 r o a PROPOSED O g 2 'DWELLINGS i O w o 0, ."_' 2 STY FRM. O O o W/PUBLIC•WATEt�. o L� _ DWELLING n 'O w 1510, i O w O /X .' n t^ (FFL 12.8) _- _ 42 5' 35.3 42 10 0) (EL 9.0) SF SHED UP 3o EL 8.2 4.2` J • L_____ PIPE EL 9.82 _" EL 9.2 EL 8.3 MON _ • ' -- -- - O.2'S 4' WIR ^FENCE - OVERHEAD WIRES c� j CL 8.3 ( N87'05 X00"W i00.00 \ DWELLING EL 9 7 IN/PUBLIC WATER LAND N/F o o tOF U > 60 GUS KOUTSOUMBELAS m U CHRISTINE KOUTSOUMBELAS LOEW Q� Z _ PETER LOEW ELEV 9.5 VACANT DR BROWN 90 CI.LOCKING, OL 7 COVER TO GRADE - DY LOAM EL 8.8 EL 9.5 FINISH GRADE FFL z - - SM I BROWN 1 1. TWIN-2'MAX 3 LOAMY SAND 1/4_'-FT.. 0 MI 1 jg`=� ,o 6"COVER - 67 COVER. 6 6;SLAB- PALE WERT,. N6.5 SP BROWN INVERT J - 6 66 INVERT -INVERT MEDIUM 6 16 6.08. I 70 7,1' 80 '3'COLLAR I COARSE FOUNDATION FLOW: POOL CLEAN SAND WALL BAFFLE: MI ., COARSE -7„ 3'SAND& WATER TANK YMIN GRAVE EL 0.3' I J WATER USE 4' DIA.APPROVED SEWER PIPE IN 1000 GAL. PRECAST S.T. 3 5 SW' MEDIUM ZONED R-40 _ z SAND NON-CONFORMING LOT FRONT SETBACK 35'MIN 17' REAR SETBACK 35'MIN GROUNDWATER EL 63 -- SIDE SETBACK 10'MIN (2570TAL) THE WATER SUPPLY, WELLS, DRYW£LLS AND CESSPOOL AUG. 1, 2014 LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVA77ONS K. WOYCHUK LS AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS AREA:5,000_SQ.FT. or 0.11 _ACRES REVISED 10-29-14 ELEVATION DATUM -UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDIBON TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SEC77ON 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYORS EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY, GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN 7 ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE 177LE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INS7717J7/0N LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INS777U270N, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE EREC17ON OF FENCES,ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED_OR_UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OFSURVEY SURVEY OF:DESCRIBED PROPERTY CERTIFIED T0:-ROBERT RAGONA: MAP OF FILED, SITUATED AT GREENPORT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD KENNETH M WOYCHUK LAND SURVEYING, PLLC SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Professional Land Surveying and Design P.O. Box 153 Aquebogue. New York 11931 FILE 1'=20' DATE•AUG. 1, 2014 PHONE(831)298-1588 FAX(831)298-1580 8 14-102 SCALE. N Y S LISC. NO. 050862 melntatning the mmrd.of Robert J.Rennet y It Kenneth Y.Koynhuh' sna dMy B, iSON-470•IObt-Wimhi.DerA-t.&,W dvc j..C_(60 shm) !- V CONSULT YI_ EYER swaRE siGnma Tmis miT7mmim--Tuts mmUmmw scoot' r uED fir LAWttm way. um4634 Pa I16 TM UM NI' M made the /z IE7 day of May ,nineteen hundred and fifty—nine RETWF.M ARNOLD H. L'HOMMEDIEU residing at 22 Walker Avenue, Syosset, 9h Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, Hew York 0 U _ ' a rros party of the first part,and ISABEL L'HOMMEDIEU residing at 22 Walker Avenue, Syosset, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York i 9 - a _ party of the second part, - i WUNESS£TFI,that the party of the first ppaarrti,m consideration of ten dottara paid by the party of the second part,does hereby remise,release and guitc(aim unto the patty of the second part,the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, 3 � ALL that certain plot,piece or parcel of land,with the buildings and improvements thereon crested,situate, lying and being min-the at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: 3 'BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of Wood Lane 200 feet southerly from the intersection of the easterly line of Wood Lane and the southerly line of Manhanset Avenue; Said point of beginning being also the southwesterly corner of land of James C. Jensen and Beatrice A. Jensen; running thence in a general easterly direction along the Southerly line of land of Jensen 100 feet to land now or formerly of Kinscherf, runnng thence in a general southerly direction along last mentioned`„5 feet to land conveyed by Isabel L'Hommedieu to Arnold H. L'Hommedieu by deed dated April 16, 1957 and recorded April 17, 1957 1n liber 4288, ep 41 in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk, running thence in a general westerly direction and parallel to the southerly line of land of Jensen 100 feet to the easterly line of Wood Lane, thence northerly along the easterly line of Wood Lane 50 feet to point - or place of beginning. 0n�. q[,►, Being the northerly half of premises conveyed by Inez Fordham to n/+(� Arnold H. L'Hommedieu and Isabel L'Hommedieu by deed dated / OI uuu 9 , recorded y , n er �9 op 226. This deed ie given for the purpose of correcting an error in the � description in s deed made by Arnold H. L'Hommedieu to Isabel t L'Eommedieu on April 16, 1957 and recorded on April 17, 1957 in Liber 4288, op 43 in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk. a �.`NM l .u � `"=`•'•' `6151��y Cavmnnt eilh Tdm CoxT. Tun_ a.s*e..o�s nwx o•nee b81X1 1017.CbaP OSL Chap•947.Imw.o!19321 � �� ToM`-, ;nl PuGlishe/s RN/a/nO% Jo- tl.S.1.R5..l.:L.w�+rr Made the //� day of September 17neteen Hundred and fifty-four Between INEZ FORDHAM, retiding at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, w part y of the first part, and ARNOLD H. LIHOMMEDIEU, and ISABEL LtHOMMEDIEU his wife, residing at 18 Walker Avenue, Syosset, Long Island, N. Y. as tenants by•the entirety, parties of the second part, Witnesseth that the party of the first part,in consideration of ten and OU/100ths - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dollars ($ 10.00 ) lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable considerations paid by the part ies of the second part,do es hereby 5rant and release unto the Parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever, All that certain piece or parcel of land situate at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and describe as follows:- BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of Wood Lane, two hundred (200) feet southerly from the intersection of the easterly line of Wood Lane and the Southerly line of Manhanset Avenue, said point of beginning being also the northwesterly corner of land hereto- fore conveyed by the party of the first part to James C. Jdnsen and Beatrice A. Jensen, running thence in a general easterly direction along the southerly line of land of Jensen, one hundred (100) feet to land now or formerly of Kinecherf; running thence in a general south- erly direction along land last mentioned, one hundred (100) feet to land of BenJamin Mlskel=, running thence in a general westerly direction along land last mentioned, one hundred (100) feet to the easterly line of Wood Lane, thence northerly along the easterly line of Wood Lane, one hundred (100) feet to the point or place of beginning. 100 I ,) Wand kq.,� I(9U X /0 0 6 C Fuentes, Kim ��17 From: Fuentes, Kim Iii•—� �� Sent: Wednesday,July 05, 2017 8:37 AM To: Duffy, Bill; Eric Dantes; Dantes, Eric; Gerard Goehringer;Jerry Goehringer- 2nd Qpgnfli@gmail.com);Weisman, Leslie; Planamento, Nicholas; Patricia'Acampora Cc: Sakarellos, Elizabeth; Cappabianca, Lucille Subject: Regona #7060 - Hearing July 6, 2017 Board of Appeals, Southold Hearing Notice: 10:30 A.M. - ROBERT RAGONA#7060- Request an interpretation pursuant to Article II, Section 280-10A and the Building Inspector's March 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on a permit for a waiver of merger. The applicant requests; 1) that the applicant be exempt from the Town of Southold Waiver of Merger Law; 2)that the Board amend Appeal #3827 dated October 4, 1989 to remove the reference of "subdivision;" located at: 350 Wood Lane, Greenport, NY. SUM #1000-43-4-29 &30. Please see below email. Ms. Neff purchased the improved parcel 29 in 2015. She appeared at the counter on Monday to inform us that Ms. Moore does not represent her and did not notify her of the hearing. As advised by Town Attorney's Office, I suggested that she request an adjournment so that she can seek legal counsel. Kim E. Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 631-765-1809, Ex. 5011 E-mail: kimf@southoldtownny.gov -----Original Message----- From: Adam Neff[mailto:adamdpw@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:06 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Hearing July 6, 2017 Board of Appeals, Southold Dear Ms.Kim Fuentes, Please be advised we are the current owner living at 410 Wood lane. 43-4-29.. We were not notified of this hearing which will have a direct impact on our land parcel. We are requesting a postponement until our legal counsel can review the submitted documents. We did not receive notification of this hearing by mail. Be advised that Mr. R.Ragonas legal representative, a Ms. Patrica Moor does not represent this address, land parcel lot or its owners. Thank you, Mr.& Mrs. Adam Neff Sent from my iPhone i Tile EdiV,VienU'�r OeLRL�'i 143-4-29 0 iv- ' f s6W61: 2 01 6�JC�0 Yv aml Res-Roll Ye�rI5_T�!I -iA bff Adurn- , 1. 1 � I A Lb r E�I i6 12:dk�"te sTotal'AV 2;'700 .`fAd r dltibnwl,�"Is 0 r S' nd I Assessment As, IS,p, nd�Co Codes:'e n&&136 b ee a 8:, —S ti T A t a e -Ype� Jill -jt? ,on fter(s) D6edBodk`,-'� D6b,d:T 'ps, J c- mages:v `d �1#(e 12 �w C5� 00 Contract DI Orre W! All Site(1),Rq s Verify'. c Dat te',(1�),Res,.4 p :U,Sale03J1'417.3 ,; -IS61e:1 -t Full'Sele Price:-x Jr.: 6,0 UL _M(T - A' Personal Pr`6p, r*('Y' es, Rersonal;Fra 77, 7,77_1 Sale Rricp.orPbrs site(1),R- ,L-LIS610712NO4 et S e' rice:� 336,000 rExcl6�: 114d on - cl, 616ati bf Co Exmid4 'Nd No,Per ' l' 1 OR Part•ofaParcel. f`' A- th Y rms; eng (S- Currie `06/1111201:5',, 116iif r.- 'MI -r. J Addm bff-I" irst Na"rib 8red J -�e, - --.1 1 � 11 1 1, Ge'n"e-viev'e' .NO 06?1,,j/;0T� rF, fail) r - ria y 77, -7- 7ii- , JJJ Z", Z7- �p, o U Ready WNW -fir c Us Parcels:' #0002135910 ' STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck,in said county,being duly sworn,says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES , a weekly newspaper,published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks(s),successfully commencing on 10/26/2017 Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this �0-day of 0 C+tc D . ut�� CAD* lizabeth Werkmeister NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK No.01 WF,6365418 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires Oct.02,2021 TYPESET Mon Oct 23 15:34 23 EDT 2017 — 280-15; Article XXHI, Section 280-124; LEGAL NOTICE and the Building Inspector's June 1,2017 SOUTHOLD TOWN Notice of Disapproval based on an applica- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS tion for a permit to construct additions and THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 2,2017 alterations to an existing single family PUBLIC HEARINGS dwelling and to a pre-existing accessory NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to (boathouse)building;at: 1)Single family Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code dwelling located less than the code re- Chapter 280(Zoning),Town of Southold,the quired minimum side yard setback of 20 following public hearings will be held by the feet; 2) Accessory building located less SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF than the code required minimum side yard APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main setback of 20 feet;at:1350 Paradise Point Road,P.O. Box 1179,Southold,New York Road, (Adj. to Southold Bay),Southold, 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, NOVEM- NY,SCTM#1000-81-3-23. BER 2,2017. 1:00 P.M.—SEBASTIAN HEATH AND 9:30 A.M. -MATTITUCK 2012, LLC SARAH BURNES #7105 — Request for #7098—Request for Variances under Arti- Variances under Article XXHI, Section cle IX,Section 280-42A and the Building 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July Inspector's January 11, 2016, Amended 319 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an March 30,2016 and June 19,2017 Notice of application for a permit to construct addi- Disapproval based on an application for a tions and alterations to an existing seasonal permit to construct additions and alter- dwelling;at:1)located less than the code ations to an existing single family dwelling required minimum rear yard setback of 35 with a business office;at:1)less than the feet;2)more than the code permitted maxi- "'code required minimum rear yard setback mum lot coverage of 20%:located at:435 of 75 feet;2)less than the code required Skippers Lane(a.k.a.State Street),Orient, minimum side yard setback of 20 feet;3) NY.SCTM#1000-24-2-3. less than the code required total side yard 1:15 P.M -JOHN WICKHAM#7101— setback of 45 feet;at:36570 NYS Route 25, Request for a Variance under Article IV, Cutchogue,NY,SCTM#1000-97-3-2. Section 280-14 and the Building Inspec- 10:00 A.M.-ROBERT RAGONA#7060 tor's May 23,2017 Notice of Disapproval —(Adj.from July 6,2017)Request an inter- based on an application for a permit for a pretation pursuant to Article H, Section lot line modification(to combine two lots 280-10A and the Building Inspector's and then create a new lot);at:1)proposed March 8,2017 Notice of Disapproval based lot measures less than the code required on an application for a waiver of merger. minimum lot area of 80,000 sq.ft.at:744 The applicant requests;1)that the appli- Old Pasture Road, Cutchogue, NY, cant be exempt from the Town of Southold SCTM#1000-103-11-21&22.1. Waiver of Merger Law;2)that the Board The Board of Appeals will hear all persons amend Appeal #3827 dated October 4, or their representatives,desiring to be heard at 1989 to remove the reference of"subdivi- each hearing,and/or desiring to submit writ- sion;"located at:350 Wood Lane,Green- ten statements before the conclusion of each port,NY.SCTM#1000-43-4-30. hearing Each hearing will not start earlier 10:30 A.M.-55500 MAIN ROAD,LLC than designated above Files are available for ERIC AND SUSAN RUSSELL#7100—Re- review during regular business hours and quest for a Variance under Article XIX, prior to the day of the hearing.If you have Section 280-85 N(1),and the Building In- questions,please contact our office at,(63 1) spector's July 18,2017 Notice of Disap- 765-1809, or by email KimF@ proval based on an application for a permit southoldtownny.gov to install a wall sign;at:1)proposed wall Dated October 19,2017 sign to project more than one foot from the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS exterior wall of the building; at: 55500 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, NYS Route 25(Main Road),Southold,NY, CHAIRPERSON SCTM#1000-62-3-1. BY:Kim E Fuentes 10:45 A.M.—WILLIAM GRELLA AND 54375 Main Road(Office Location) GARY OSBORN #7104 — Request for 53095 Main Road(Mailing/USPS) Variances under Article III, Section P0.Box 1179 280-15; Article XHI,Section 280-55C(1); Southold,NY 11971-0959 and the Building Inspector's July 19,2017, 2135910 Amended July 20,2017 Notice of Disap- proval based on an application to legalize an"as built"accessory outdoor shower;at: 1)located in other than the code required rear yard;2)more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 30%:located at: 1200 First Street,(Adj.to Cutchogue Har- bor)New Suffolk,NY.SCTM#1000-117-7- 30. 11:00 A.M. - PAUL PAWLOWSKI — CAPITAL ONE BANK #7102—Request for a Variance under Article XIX,Section 280-86C and the Building Inspector's May 25,2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to erect a free- standing sign; at: 1) more than the code required maximum number of free- standing signs allowed on subject parcel, located at: 11600 NYS Route 25, (Main Road),Mattituck,NY.SCTM#1000-122-3- 17.1. 11:15 A.M.-EDWARD L.DALEY AND DIANE L. DALEY #7099 — Request for Variances under Article III, Section ,J C BOARD MEMBERS ®� so Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179 �® �® Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora Office Location: Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank Gerard P.Goehringer ® a 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas Planamento ��C®� Southold,NY 11971 9 http://southoldtownny.gov ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2017: 10:30 A.M. - ROBERT RAGONA #7060 - Request an interpretation pursuant to Article Il, Section 280-10A and the Building Inspector's March 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a waiver of merger. The applicant requests; 1) that the applicant be exempt from the Town of Southold Waiver of Merger Law; 2) that the Board amend Appeal #3827 dated October 4, 1989 to remove the reference of"subdivision;" located at: 350 Wood Lane, Greenport, NY. SCTM #1000-43-4-30. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: kimf@southoldtownny.gov Dated: June 15, 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON By: Kim E. Fuentes 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1 st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net June 5, 2017 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 -Public Notices for Thursday, July 6, 2017 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: 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. 1) Before June 19th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Southold Town Assessors' Office, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible: AND not later than June 26th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, along with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later June 28th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at the subject property seven (7) days (or more) prior to hearing. (it is the applicant/agents responsibility to maintain sign until Public Hearing) Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, not 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 supplied for posting on both front yards. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before July 3, 2017. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Ends. N ! #0002082220 14A TATE OF NEW YORK) -6 )SS: 4 �6COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) (p�f Karen Kine of Mattituck,in said county,being duly sworn,says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES , a weekly newspaper,published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks(s),successfully commencing on 06/29/2017 Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of 4v C TINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No.01V06105050 Qualified in Suffolk County My Commission g%plrg6 F®51Uuly 28,2020 r - TYPESET-,Mon Jun 26 15:59.26 EDT 2017 tor's January 17, 2017 Notice of Disap- LEGAL NOTICE proval based on an application for a two lot SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING residential subdivision,at:1)proposed two BOARD OF APPEALS residential lots having less than the code THURSDAY,JULY 6,2017 required minimum lot width of 175 feet,at: PUBLIC HEARINGS 2050 Platt Road,Orient,NY.SCTM#1000- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to 27-1-9. Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code 11:15 A.M. — THEODORA TSATSOS Chapter 280(Zoning),Town of Southold,the #7067-Request for Variances under Arti- following public hearings will be held by the cle IV, Section 280-18, and the Building SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF Inspector's March 22,2017 Notice of Dis- APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main approval based on an application for a sub- Road,P.O Box 1179, Southold,New York division to create two residential lots,at:1) 11971-0959,on THURSDAY,July 6,2017. proposed residential lots having less than 9:30 A.M.-ROSE M.WELLS#7058- the code required minimum lot width of Request for a Waiver of Merger petition 150 feet,2)proposed residential lots having under Article II,Section 280-10A,to un- less than the minimum lot depth of 175 feet, merge land identified as SCTM No. 3) proposed residential lots having less 1000-88-3-9, which has merged with than the required 40,000 sq.ft.in area;at: SCTM No. 1000-88-3-8.1, based on the 1565 Greenhill Lane, Greenport, NY. Building Inspector's February 17, 2017 SCTM#1000-33-2-24. Notice of Disapproval,which states that a 1:00 P.M.-KARRAS UPSTATE,LLC non-conforming lot shall merge with an #7070-Request for a Variance under Arti- adjacent conforming or non-conforming cle HI, Section 280-15 and the Building lot held in common ownership with the Inspector's April 7, 2017 Notice of Dis- frst lot at any time after July 1,1983 and approval based on an application for a per- that non-conforming lots shall merge until mit to legalize an "as built" accessory the total lot size conforms to the current building (pool house), at: 1) located in bulk schedule requirements (minimum other than the code required rear yard; 40,000 sq,ft.in the R-40 Residential Zon- located; at: 11920 Bayview Road,South- ing District); located, at: 700 Gin Lane, old,NY.SCTM#1000-88-5-28. Southold,NY.SCTM Nos.1000-88-3-9 and 1:15 P.M.-LOUIS BONETTI#7071 - 1000-88-3-8.1. Request for a Variance under Article 9:45 A.M.-ORIOLI&SON RENTAL XXHI,Section 280-124 and the Building EAST,LLC#7059-Request for Variances Inspector's March 29,2017 Notice of Dis- under Article X,Section 280-46; and the approval based on an application for a per- Building Inspector's December 22,2016, mit to construct additions and alterations amended January 12,2017 Notice of Dis- to an existing single family dwelling,at:1) approval based on an application for a per- less than the code required minimum front mit to construct additions and alterations yard setback of 35 feet;at:170 Silver Lane, to an existing commercial building at: 1) Greenport,NY.SCTM#1000-47-2-3. proposed additions to provide four(4)sep- The Board of Appeals will hear all persons arate uses upon a single parcel less than the or their representatives,desiring to be heard at minimum allowed 80,000 sq. ft. in total each hearing,and/or desiring to submit writ- area(or 20,000 sq.ft in area per permitted ten statements before the conclusion of each use); located, at: 13175 NYS Route 25, hearing Each hearing will not start earlier Mattituck,NY.SCTM#1000-140-3-38.4. than designated above.Files are available for 10:15 A.M. - PATRICK AND DIANE review during regular business hours and SEVERSON#7062-Request for Variances prior to the day of the hearing If you have under Article IH,Section 280-15F and Ar- questions,please contact our office at, ticle XXH, Section 280-116A, and the (631)765-1809,or by email Building Inspector's March 3, 2017, KimF@southoldtownny.gov amended March 13,2017 Notice of Disap- Dated-June 15,2017 proval based on an application for a permit ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS to construct additions and alterations to an LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, existing single family dwelling and to legal- CHAIRPERSON ize an"as built"shed,at:1)"as built'shed BY Kim E Fuentes,Board Assistant located less than the code required mini- 54375 Main Road(Office Location) mum front yard setback of 50 feet;2)"as 53095 Main Road(Mailing/USPS) built"shed located less than the code re- PO.Box 1179 quired 100 feet from the top of the bluff-,3) Southold,NY 11971-0959 additions to the single family dwelling lo- 2082220 cated less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff,at:9202 Bridge Lane,(Adj.to the Long Island Sound)Cut- chogue,NY.SCTM#1000-73-2-3.1. 10:30 A.M.-ROBERT RAGONA#7060 - Request an interpretation pursuant to Article II, Section 280-10A and the Building Inspector's March 8,2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a waiver of merger.The applicant requests; 1) that the applicant be exempt from the Town of Southold Waiver of Merger Law; 2) that the Board amend Appeal #3827 dated October 4,1989-to remove the refer- ence of "subdivision;" located at: 350 Wood Lane, Greenport, NY. SCTM #1000-43-4-29&30. 11:00 A.M. - EVE MACSWEENEY AND VERONICA GONZALEZ #7063 - Request for Variances under Article III, Section 280-14, and the Building Inspec- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------x Ole In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT Robert Ragona appeal # 7060 OF (Name of Applicant) MAILINGS CTM Parcel #1000-43-4-29 & 30 -------------------------------------------------x J9 2 2 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, BETSY PERKINS, residing at Mattituck, New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the �00'day of June, 2017, 1 personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Southold, 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. J i tature) Sworn to before me this ®� day of -:3-ONE- , 2017 A (Not ry Public) MARGARET C. RUTKOWSKI Notary Pubiliic,4 tate of New York Qualified in Suffolk County commission Expires June 3, 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. 4 r r� D `,- - m® , ,©Y';o m �`'y�'i^,�G:ek�`�r 'i - - -e,,.• " "r v", r hk ''�� - ru Ln '�r ° CO) [FIFO QUAL° , L2 315°. t,�% C3 Certified Mail Fee ` A I "-J Certified Mail Fee E3 $ Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ C3 ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ /- •+ st ark -/�--- Postmark ❑Certmed Mail Restricted Delivery $ V�4{{�r);�'j 0 ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ \ f/p^• \ (� ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ "_" �` Here []Adult Signature Required $ E]Adult Signature Required $ �` i C3 []Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ E:3 Postage f []Adult Signature Restricted Delivery r`%- ,® �Q7 n p pin, Postage ` 4 rO $ LL 4 C3 w �� ly Laura Heldru ! Gus Koutsoumbelas�, Lori Cohen ----------------- `n Christine Koutsoumbelas`Loewr rr- 455 Inlet Drive o � 138-19 14t''Ave ----------------- N ----------------- Greenport NY 1944 L=testone NY 11357 ca I 1r Certified Mall Fee f r-3 Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt(electronic) $ _ Postmark I C3 ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Here f-3 ❑Adult Signature Required $ 9' C3 ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ C3 Postage to N $ ti ' Edwin Kinscherf ��1✓/�/''� fU' -------------- r-1 0 395 Inlet Lane �7�g�� r�- Greenport NY 11944 �___._�---------------- r , s s DELIVERY SENDER;comPLE-TE�THIS■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. Signature ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by(Printed Na e) C. Date o Delivery or on the front if space permits. elbe 1. Article Addressed to: CC�/"'A b.�Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1f YYES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Edwin.Kinscherf395 'Inlet Lane Greenport NY 11944 �. tltlllll IIIIItlt�llll� IIIItIIIItIIIlIIlOI�II 3 Service Type ❑Priority Mall essQ Q Adult Signature Q RegisteredMalVrn ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restricted ❑Certified Mail® Delivery 9590 9402 2672 6336 6188 99 ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 1:1 Return Receipt for ❑Collect on DeliveryMerchandise 0 Collect on DeliveRestricted Delivery ❑Signature Confirmation r"' 2. Article Number(Transfer from service labeO ❑Insured Mail Q Signature Confirmation El Insured Mad Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery (over$500) PS Form 3811,July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 — � Domestic Return Receipt f RAGONA APPEAL # 7060 Dennis Zervos Sr. Gus Koutsoumbelas 385 Wood Lane Christine Koutsoumbelas-Loew Greenport NY 11944 138-1914 th Ave sctm: 1000-43-4-22 Whitestone NY 11357 L 7016 2070 0000 4070 5500 — scam-1000_43-4-31 Maria errvos— -- 7016 2070_0000 407.0 5.5_31__ 72026 th Avenue _ Edwin Kinscherf Brooklyn NY 11209 395 Inlet Lane sctm: 100043423 Greenport NY 11944 70_16 207_0 _0_000 4_07. 0 55.17 sctm: 1000-43-4-35 Laura Held Lori Cohen 'L 7016 2070 0000 4070_5548 455 Inlet Drive Greenport NY 1944 sctm: 1000-43-4-28 7016 2070 0000 4070 5524 ® © m ME C3 /• • 0 e }meg {S p [� (' e e e L; Sim li - 53 ¢ • e-€ 1;':'xce u'a S' iP':s• '',:� e(j', O Ln O �....- z3 �. fit':A I �'- i.,E M1 Certified Mad Fee 1 M1 Certified Mail Fee O $ O $ -r Extra Services&Fees(checkbox,add fee as appropriate) ,7' FJttta Services&Fees(checkbox,add tee as appropnate) ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ - ❑Retum Receipt(hardcopy) $ r,�t O ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ Postmark 0 ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ J 6"'7 Q ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ Here O ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Qnna, ❑Adult Signature Regwred $ f ❑Adult Signature Required $ ( C:3 ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ C3 ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ 110161 A � i 0 Postage AN. 0 2 Postage 6 1 6Y or 3 j C3 T ru I Maria Zervos �� `, 0� Dennis Zervos Sr. 0 Brookl NY 11209 � 3 � 385 Wood Lane 7202 �®"�- tyn Greenport NY 11944 ---------------- OWDELIVERY • SECTION ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. Si ature ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee i so that we can return the card to you. ' l') � Received by( rioted Na ) C.Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, { or on the front if space permits. L 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different f Item i? ❑Yes — - — if YES,enter delivery address below: p No t < aura Held 4 Lori Cohen t • 455 Inlet Drive I Greenport NY 1944 i I 3. Service Type ❑Priority Mail Express@ i II [IAdult Signature Q Registered Maii*M I I IIIIII IIII III I II I II I III i II I I I IIIIII I III I III Q Adult Signature Restricted Delivery Q Registered Mail Restricted i ❑Certified Mad® Delivery 9590 9402 2672 6336 6189 12 ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Q Return Receipt for i M Collect an Delivery ❑Signature Confirmation'" i El Collect on Delivery' ndise Delivery ❑Signature Confirmation 2. Article Number(transfer from service labeq ❑Insured Mail Restricted Delivery ❑Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over$500 Ps Form 3811,JUIy 2015 PSN 7560-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt s I 1. SENDER"66MPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. 7v) 106pj■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Agentso that we can return the card to ou. Addressee y B. Receive (Printed Name) C. Data Dell ry ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, C> br vn the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes = s` If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No c`G is Koutsoumbelas Christine Koutsoumbelas-Loevv- 1,1,11 138=19 14t"Ave Whitestone NY 11357 II I IIIIII IIII III I II I II I III I II I I I IIIII I i II I I III 3. Service Type ❑Priority Mail Express® ❑Adult Signature Q Registered MailT°^ Q Adult Signature Restncted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restricted I ❑Certified MaIIO Delivery I 9590 9402 2672 6336 6189 05 ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Q Return Receipt for U Collect on Delivery Merchandise 2. Article Number(Transfer from service label) 13 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑Signature ConfirmatlonTm ❑Insured Mail ❑Signature Confirmation q Insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery"" over$500) PS Form 3811,July 2015 PSN'7530 02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt , 13FCTIONI ON DELIVERY ONCOMPLETE SENDERr COMPLETE THIS SECTI A 'Si nature n•_4 I ■ Complete iterrlx,l,;2,and 3. ; , E3 Agent I ■ Print yout`name•and°address on the reverse it eL—� ��Addressee so that we can return-the card to you. 'u° i ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery c or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ❑Yes f If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Dennis Zervos Sr. i 38'5•Wood Lane I Greenport NY 11944 —� 3. Service TypePriority Mail Expresso II I IIIIII IIII III I II I II I III I II I I I IIIIII I III I III 13 Adult Signature Q Registered[I Mall ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restricted� ❑Certified Mail0 Delivery 9590 9402 2672 6336 6189 36 ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery ❑Return Receipt for q Collect on DeliveryMerchandise Q Collect on DeliveRestricted Delivery Q Signature ConfirmationTm 2. Article Number(Transfer from service labeq q Insured Mall A Signature Confirmation Q Insured Mail Restricted pelni_ery Restricted Delivery (over$500) Domestic Return Receipt •PS Form`3811`,`July2016 PSN 7530``-02-01)0-9053 i i D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD `706 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT OF In the Matter of the Application of POSTING �-O,G ®-o�4 �Doc) (Name of Applicants) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as SCTM Parcel#1000- '30 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK)YAEKTA 1, C1 A � `40residing at 'J0eE- C-4 C6t�Ok r4 . ,New York,being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 21 day of 3 inn e— _, 201-7 , I personally placed the Town's Official Poster,with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten(10) feet or closer from the street or right-of- way(driveway entrance)-facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance,* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven (7) dayj prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be 0(`S -S-kc.( lQ, 2 o I� (Signature) Sworn to before me this Day of�U �� , 201 6ETSYA.PERKINS tOrl j Public,State of New York t (Not ublic) No.01 PE6130636 Qualified in Suffolk CounpA � Commission Expires July 18, * near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passerby. r , ON DELIlAtRY,: CQMPLETE.7 T141;3 ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. Signature ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ll Agent so that we can return the card to you. ❑Addressee ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Reoeived by(Pnnted Name) C. Date of Delivery or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address differen`ffroniite ? 0 Yes !f YES,nter delivery address bel :, ❑No O Maria Zervos ( ' C14 2 7202 6 Avenue Brooklyn NY 11209 r�, ' ��`> II I IIIIII IIII II I II I II I I IIII IIII I III II I I 3. Service Type 0 Priority dd aII TMC� s •Adult Signature O Registered Ma1T� Q Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restricted ❑Certified Mad® Delivery 9590 9402 2672 6336 6189 29 [3 Certified Mad Restricted Delivery ❑Return Receipt for Fl Collect on Delivery Merchandise 2. Article Number(transfer from service label) Q Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery El Signature ConfirmationTM p Insured Mail ❑Signature Confirmation ❑Insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery (over$500) PS Form 3811,July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt • ++ r fiI� .l i ,. N �T I041m'O' E 01" F HEARIN '� The following application will be heard by theSouthold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall , 53095 Main Road , Southold : NAME : RAGONA , ROBERT # 7060 SCTM # : 1000 -43-4-30 & 29 VARIANCE : WAIVER OF MERGER REQUEST : INTERPRETATION OF MERGER LAW & RESCIND PRIOR APPEAL #3827 DATE : THURS . , JULY 6 , 2017 10 : 30 AM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall �r S�U�y 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson � Ol0 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora Office Location: Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank Gerard P.Goehringer • �O� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas Planamento lil'CQU Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtownny.gov ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 December 11, 2017 Patricia Moore Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: ZBA Appeal Nos. 7060 Robert Ragona SCTM No. 1000-43-4-30 Dear Mrs. Moore; Enclosed is a copy of the Zoning Board's December 7, 2017 determination filed today with the Town Clerk regarding your application. Sincerely, Kim E. Fuentes Board Assistant Encl. cc: Building Department E----- _ 4 $.8 10 x SEE SEC.NO.036 ANSFr � ms MATCHMAyy10a m 27 S10Ac) TONOF . _T_OW NN C- LINE 9 $ ,p SOUTHOLD r SOUTHO b 81 NNSEawnFeR k,. I 12A(c) - L4W +3 s 9 7 7 8 a• 1 3A(c) I 2 6A(c) a ¢ 1 t,) cv ro 3 4 z 14 a 9 6A(c) U1 roT 6 6 S z y I (var vndlh) z a v2I") m t2 s 18 U3 m 7 8 _ 19 8 27 34 s s 9 � um _ la a 13 (11)3 8 @ R m ,m 20 8 \; 1: ,a S No 21 S a 28 o' TON OF I O a _ g 144 1.) 22 s 29'm s , o` SOUTHOLC OF 0 4 Isl 9 mo 8+358 2 rd OA- O� ns S + 23$ 30 R Z, 4 g o x4 ` 15 ns) 2 253 A 31+ 8 3 17 a m m `Vv\ 10 3 36 = sa Q e 252 9 32 9 4 am�p s 18 H ST TE ,� +' Z 40 pa" tN,mEIM'ATERIA1m) �O In B g 16 Om '- Q w y 11 „s O g 33m 5 8 37 Z 19ne'13 Q "&/(Oz 870`40 a 26TOWN to �AoRr 9 i SOUTHO o r s 38 - 6 20 a c,�y. $ I NEWYORK j STATE "�X B (var vadth) m � 9 .P e 7 8. 8 21 8 8 39 40 i q° 10 22 $ o, 0323 O¢ 4 41 8 _ 4 4D 1 0v 42 Cl) y � NEW YORK I O� Is 9 (j�� %/Q ,lsfl, STATE �,/a "� c �3 10A(D) 4 1 6th� I 3 "/�(�� m� 12 � 44 z L g � STERLING CREEK wa1 l E R 4s v O +oz a 8 sv ,-3 ' _ as �S 13.1 3 v $ I — — �!y N32s36096 Q 4� 1 I .4512W 74 q3 3/ 142 i 21A(c) $ y' 3 y - m� �5n I, 14 1 \ 1 24 0 \- B \x\3/6' NOTICE ! COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © E K 0 OcMa Lrc --H� um.monANMOTNERV.15EnLLPRCPERiIES � V•rr• y nod Oare lme � � MyCrad N,E yNTONTHE iOLLON,NG OSTRICTS �3Y Safoo� TD SExER VIVOMAIMENANCE,ALTERATION SALE OR � H Real Property Tax Service gency KYORANT DISTRIBUTION OF ANY PORTION OF THE r County Center Riverhead,N Y 11901 m 00 ,D Hae,GIT a<,I+.o--IST RRE T v&nER SUF FOLK COUNTY TAX MAP IS PROHIBITED SCALEEET L� 48 m A ,io,D611N Lmo _W� DGHT S L__ pgRK- BEEUSE VNTHDUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE :,�,53 P m pu,M LAro NMubda msn WAStENATER Waanna�momnaL e--'1'A"T-- AN'evNN� REAL PROPERTY TA%SERVICEAGENCV ma Dn�na Lnc _S--