Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/08/1987APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ~r% J. Douglass JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 BDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES P~EGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 A Regular Meeting was held by the $outhold Town Board of Appeals on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr., Member Serge Doyen, Jr., Member Robert J. Douglass, Member Linda F. Kowalski, Board Secretary. Absent was: Joseph H. Sawicki, Member (due to illness). The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first items on the agenda, as follows: PUBLIC HEARINGS were held on the following matters. Verbatim transcripts of the statements made during the public hearing are prepared under separate cover (attached for reference purposes): 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3651 - DEAN KAMEN 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3592 - BENTE SNELLENBURG. 7:53 p.m. Appl. No. 3668 - GERARD C.KEEGAN 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3657 - CLYDE FRITZ 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 3663 - MARIO CASTELLI 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3653 - NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES 8:37 p.m. Appl. No. 3593 - QUIET MAN INN Appl. No. 3659 - QUIET MAN INN 8:52 p.m. Appl. No. 3664 - ANA G. STILLO 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3670 - ROBERT H. FREY 9:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3669 - MICHAEL AND ELIZABETH LADEMANN Appl. No. 3651 - DEAN KAMEN (Reconvened and Concluded Hearing from earlier tonight.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appeal No. 3602: Application of MARGARET McNAMARA for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct wooden deck attached to existing dwelling with an insufficient setback from existing timber bulkhead and Peconic Bay. Location of Property: 640 Takaposha Road (Private Road #15), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-06-10. The Board began deliberations and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing ~as held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter bf the Application of MARGARET McNAMARA under Appl. No. 3602; 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. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct open, wooden deck construction around the existing dwelling structure resulting in an insufficient setback from the existing timber bulkhead at 36 feet and at 30 feet from the stairway construction (at its closest point). 2. The premises in question is located along the northerly side of a private road referred to as Takaposha Road (or Private Road #15), which extends from a point at the south side of Main Bayview Road in varied south and southeasterly directions, to the subject premises, which is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 87, Block 6, Lot 10. 3. The subject premises is improved with a single-family, two-story frame dwelling set back 24 feet from the front property line along the private road and 48 feet from the timber bulkhead (along Peconie Bay). 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subsection (B) of the Zoning Code requires all buildings and structures to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from a tidal water body, tidal wetland edge, or freshwater wetland, whichever is the closer distance. 5. The percentage of relief requested in relation to the existing established setback from the bulkhead is 12 feet, or 25%. 6. The total percentage of lot coverage is less than 20%, and more specifically 18% (see letter of amendment received July 24, 1987). Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3602 - MCNAMARA, decision, continued:) 7. For the record, it is noted: (a) that the subject right-of-way has been the subject of a prior application, under No. 1223 granted on January 2, 1969, (G. Campbell), with the condition(s) that certain improvements be placed (for the entire right-of-way extending back to Main Bayview Road); (b) that premises to the north, now or formerly of Wagner [1000-87-06-04] and of Harford [1000-87-06-2] have received conditional variances as noted therein for similar relief; (c) that by Permit No. 10-87-0828, a conditional approval was rendered by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation for this project; and (d) that a conditional waiver was rendered by the Southold Town Trustees for this project on February 26, 1987. 8. In passing upon this application, the Board has considered all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, all standards necessary for area variances of this nature, and finds and determines that: (a) the relief requested is not substantial, being a variance of 25% from the existing setback; (b) the project as proposed will not be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (c) the circumstances are not personal in nature and are directly related to the property size, etc.; (d) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (e) there will not be an increase in density created by the grant of this variance; (f) the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (g) that in view of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the following relief as an alternative to the requested relief. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3602 - MCNAMARA decision, continued:) RESOLVED, to GRANT permission to construct open, wooden deck construction in the Matter of the Application of MARGARET McNAMARA under Appl. No. 3602, with the following restrictions and limitations: (1) that the setback from the front property line be not less than 16 feet [exclusive of stoop area, which may be added if excluded as building area defined by Section 100-13, page 10009 of the Zoning Code, paragraph (2)[bi thereof]; (2) that the total lot coverage not exceed 20%, as proposed; (3) that the setback from the existing timber bulkhead not be less than 30 feet [exclusive of stoop area, which may be added if excluded as building area defined by Section 100-13 page 10009 of the Zoning Code, paragraph (2)[b] thereof]; (4) that the deck construction remain open and unenclosed, as proposed herein. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3647: Application of JOHN AND JOAN WETZEL for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-31, and Article XI, Section 100-119.2, to construct additions to dwelling with reductions in the sideyard, and to construct addition landward of existing dwelling structure 70± feet from the nearest wetland edge or highwater mark along Eugene Creek. Location of Property: 4635 Pequash Avenue (Fleetwood Road), Cutchogue, NY; FleetwoQd Cove Lot No. 12; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-137-04-06. The Board deliberated and ~ook the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of JOHN AND JOAN WETZEL under Appl. No. 3647; 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. By this application, appellants request Variances from the Provisions of Article III, Section lO0-31, and Bulk Schedule, and Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct extensions to existing dwelling as more particularly shown on survey dated February 2, 1987 prepared by Peconic Surveyors & Engineers, P.C., reducing the south (southeasterly) sideyard setback from the estab- lished at 8½± feet (when scaled) to 5'6" as shown on the sketched survey (or 6' shown on the original survey). 2. The premises in question is located along the east side of Pequash Avenue (a distance of 91.62 feet from its intersection with Fleetwood Road), in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, containing a total lot area of 8800± sq. ft. and frontage along Pequash Avenue of 80.00 feet. 3. The subject premises is shown on the (preexisting) 1938 Map of Fleetwood Cove as Lot No. 12 and is improved with an one-story, single-family frame dwelling structure having the following setbacks: (a) from the front property line along Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3647 - WETZEL decision, continued:) Pequash Avenue at 25.9 feet; (b) from the northerly side property line at 9.8 feet; (c) from the southerly side property line at 8½± feet; (d) from the rear property line at 78± feet; (e) from the approximate highwater mark at 59± feet; [all as shown by the February 2, 1987 VanTuyl sur- vey. 4. Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code requires minimum sideyard setbacks at not less than lO and 15 feet, or the established (which presently are 9.8 feet and 8.6+ feet), and total sideyards at 25 feet. 5. Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B) requires all build- ings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, which- ever is the greater distance. 6. It is the position of the Board that inasmuch as the southerly sideyard is presently nonconforming at 8.6+ feet (rather than the required 15 feet) and that the present percentage of lot coverage is close to the maximum-permitted 20 percent, that this Board is without authority to grant the relief as requested herein. 7. The Courts have held that the area setback variance must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering at least the following: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) the project as proposed is not out of the character with the neighborhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will no~ in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) the variance requested shall be the minimal necessary; (f) there is no other method feasible for appel- lant to pursue other than a variance. 8. It is the opinion of this Board that: (a) the relief requested in relation to the requirements is substantial, being a variance of 55% from the total sideyard requirements although a minimal variance from the setback requirement from the high- water mark; (b) the setback of the dwelling to the east Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3647 - WETZEL decision, continued:) [presently of Lambert] is shown by survey dated May 20, 1983 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. to have sideyards at 14 or more feet; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature, particularly due to the noncon- forming lot size, lot width, limited buildable area, etc.; (d) the variance if granted as applied would in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience, or order of neighboring properties; (e) there will not be an increase in population density thus created by this variance; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance [except overhead second-story construction]; (g) that in view of all the above factors, the interests of justice will best be served by granting the alternative relief, as further indicated below. 10. It is also noted for the record that the April 6, 1973 survey prepared by Young & Young, L.S. for the owners submitted under Building Permit #10767Z issued July 8, 1980, indicates new deck construction at the rear of the dwelling with a setback of 18 feet and with a lot coverage of 20± percent. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the following the Matter of the Application of JOHN Appl. No. 3647: alternative relief in AND JOAN WETZEL under 1. Proposed extensions at the subject southerly sideyard area not to exceed 8½ feet; 2. Both sideyard areas must remain open and free of obstructions at all times; 3. Any construction in excess of that shown on the February 2, 1987 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. and which will exceed the maximum-permitted lot coverage requirement shall not be permitted without reapplica- tion to this Board (for relief from the lot-coverage require- ment, and any and all other provisions of the Code applicable thereto). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town'Board of Appeals -8- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3656: Application of NICHOLAS IPPOLITO for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, and Article XI, Section 100-119.2, for permission to construct garage addition to dwelling with an insufficient southerly sideyard setback, insuffi- cient total sideyards, insufficient setback from bulkhead along Arshamomaque Pond, and excessive lot coverage. Location of Property: 230 Carole Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-052-02-007. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of NICHOLAS IPPOLITO, under Appl. No. 3656; 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. By this application, appellant requests Variances from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-31, and Bulk Schedule, and Article XI, Section 100-119.2, for permission to construct 12' by 25' garage addition at the south- erly side yard area with setbacks at 2½ and 3 feet from the south property line, 27± feet from the existing bulkhead (along Old Cove), and with a total lot coverage at 23.8 percent, all as more particularly shown on survey amended August 7, 1987, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 2. The premises in question is located along the east side of Carole Road (a private road) at Arshamomaque, Southold, contains a total lot area of 5500 sq. ft. and lot width (frontage) of 50 feet. 3. The subject premises is improved with a single-family dwelling set back a distance of 25 feet from the easterly side of Carole Road, 45 feet from the front property line (along the westerly side of Carole Road), 17± feet from the existing bulkhead, and sideyards at 7 ft. and 14½ ft. 4. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum sideyard setback at not less than 10 ft. and 15 ft., or the established, whichever is less; total sideyards at 25 feet, or the established; not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead or the established; lot coverage at 20% or the established. Southold Town Board of Appeals - 9- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3656 - IPPOLITO decision, continued:) 5. The relief requested by this application are as follows: (a) existing conforming Aideyard setback at the 6outh side to be reduced to 3 ft. and 2½ ft. (at its closest point), and total sideyards at 10 feet [7½ + 2½]; (b) setback from the existing bulkhead at 27± feet [which is more than the existing established setback at 17± feet]; (c) lot coverage at 3.8% over the maximum 20% limitation, or 208 sq. ft. 6. It is noted for that record that: (a) by prior Appl. No. 2317, a conditional variance was rendered August 4, 1977 in which applicant set-off the subject parcel in question from the property to the northwest and north, now or formerly of H. Haas, and the subject structure was to be used only for single-family residential use starting January 1, 1978, and the building was to conform to the Southold Town Codes with respect to minimum floor area. (b) on October 21, 1982, a rearyard variance was granted under Appl. No. 3044 concerning "Parcel 1" [the subject parcel] for permission to construct an addition to existing single-family dwelling with a limitation of 20% lot coverage, and as noted therein. (c) on August 22, 1985, a conditional variance was rendered under Appl. No. 3377 in the separation of the subject 5500 sq. ft. parcel from the westerly abutting parcel, "Parcel 2," now of 17,000 sq. ft., and requiring each parcel be limited to single-family dwelling use [prohibiting the reestablishment of the previously existing nonconforming motel use]. 7. It is the opinion of this Board that the preexisting circumstances of the premises and preexisting building lend to the unique difficulties created; and there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than variances. 8. In passing upon this application, the Board has further determined: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the existing (as established); (b) the project as proposed will not be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town; (c) the circumstances are not personal in nature and are directly related to the property; (d) there will not be an increase in density created by the grant of this variance since the premises contains an existing single-family dwelling Southold Town Board of Appeals -]0- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3656 - IPPOLIT0 decision, continued:) and the use will not be changed; (e) the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (f) that in view of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Messrs. Doyen and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3656 in the Matter of the Application of NICHOLAS IPPOLITO in the proposed construction of a 12' by 25' garage addition, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That two eight-foot wide overhead doors be placed on the west end and east end of the proposed garage addition, and operable at all times (in order to gain access by emergency fire vehicles from the water side); 2. That the northerly sideyard area remain open and unobstructed at all times at the existing setback at 7~ feet and 7 feet as shown by sur~y amended August 7, 1987, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 3. That the lot coverage not exceed 23.8% as requested, which prohibits further lot coverage by new construction without a variance. 4. That the setbacks not be further reduced to less than that applied for and that the garage addition not be converted to habitable quarters (as proposed herein). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board~,of Appeals -ll- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3644: Application of FREDERICK WIGHTMAN/DAVID FREY/JOSEPH REINHART. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A) Article XI, Section lO0-118(E) for establishment of business uses, and/or interpretation, to permit the following activities: retail sales and storage, business office, professional office, govern- mental office, contractor office, personal-service store or shop, as described for the '~B-Li§ht Business'~ Zoning Distr.ct, Section 100-60(A)[2],[4],[8] inclusively, in conjunction with existing single-family dwelling unit on second-floor having a livable floor area of 900 sq. ft. Zone District: "A-40." Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 75, Block 1, Lot 16, containing 1.0194 acres. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and on July 16, 1987 and continued on August 20, 1987, at which time the hearing was concluded, in the Matter of the Application of FREDERICK WIGHTMAN/DAVID FREY/JOSEPH REINHART under Appl. No.-3644; and WHEREAS, at said hearin9 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 a described parcel of land containing an area of 43,560± sq. ft., lot width (frontage) of 185± ft., lot depth of 240± feet, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 75, Block 1, Lot 16. 2. The subject premises fronts along the north side of the Main Road (State Highwat), Peconic, and is improved with three buildings, all as depicted by sketch prepared by Garrett A. Strang, Architect, and survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. dated November 8, 1986: Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/REINHART, decision, continued:) (a) Building "l," or barn structure, containing a total floor area of 2400± sq. ft. and which at the inception of zoning in 1957 and and for a number of subsequent years was used for potato storage and packing, a permitted agricultural use in this zoning district; (b) Building "2", a two-story brick and frame build- ing, containing a total first floor area of 1200 sq. ft., of which 450± sq. ft. was used as office area, 464± sq. ft. for retail-sales area, and 286 sq. ft. storage area incidental to the retail and office uses. Both uses have existed as legal nonconforming uses continuously since before the inception of zoning until about 1977. During 1977, the westerly 286± sq. ft. portion of the building was converted from storage area to a car wash, and then back to accessory storage area. The second floor of this building contains a 900± sq. ft. single- family apartment, a legal conforming use in this Zone District. (c) Building "3", a one-story masonry building containing a total floor area of 1656± sq. ft. located approximately 24 feet from the east side of Building "2", is and has continuously been used as a storage garage, having received a Variance under Appeal No. 2210 on Novem- ber 4, 1976. 3. For the record it is noted that a carpentry wood- working shop existed in a portion of Building "1" and which received a conditional variance under Appeal No. 3515 on July 31, 1986. This use was vacated during December 1986, and the prior variance has become void its entirety, thereby reverting the use of Building "l" to the same use which existed previously, to wit: agricultural barn. 4. It is also noted for the record that Building "l" was partly converted from warehousing of potatoes to warehousing of antiques about 1978 and was discontinued during about 1985. No variances were found of record permitting the conversion from agricultural warehousing to commercial or wholesale-sales warehousing. 5. The property is nonconforming also as to lot area (having an area of less than the current two-acre zoning requirement), and is located in the "A-40~' Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. The buildings were built prior to the enactment of zoning in 1957, and fronts along Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/REINHART, decision, continued:) a State Highway. 6. No record has been found of the issuance of any building permits, Certificates of Occupancy, or Site Plan approvals by the Town concerning the premises, building conversions, and changes of uses since the inception of zoning in 1957. 7. Article XI, Section lO0-118, Subsection (E) of the Zoning Code provides that: "...A nonconforming building may not be reconstructed or structurally altered during life to an extent exceeding in aggregate cost fifty percent (50%) of the fair value of the building, unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use .... '~ its Subsection (A) reads: "...The lawful use of a building or premises existing on the effective date of this chapter... may be continued although such use does not con- form to the provisions of this chapter, and such use may be extended through the building lawfully acquired to said date .... 8. Appellants have requested a use variance to permit the expansion of '~...preexisting, nonconforming business by nature of converting existing garage bays to business use and linking same via an addition to existing westerly building..." and/or interpretation on the term "use" verses "tenancy.'~ 9. There are a total of three buildings upon the subject premises, and the buildings referred to in the preceding paragraph hereof are the two front buildings, Buildings "2" and "3". Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that this Board make the following deter- mination: -14- (a) that the use referred to as "garage bays" existing in Building #3 is a use in conformity with the 1976 variance, rather than a preexisting nonconforming business use. (b) that only the first floor area of 1200± sq. ft. of Building "2" has continuously since before the enactment of zoning been maintained and used for retail and office areas, and (c) that the Town may permit expansion of such area as regulated by Section lO0-118(E) of the Zoning Code within stated limitations (also see Cordes vs. Moore 1955, 308 N.Y. 761), and that such an expansion would be permitted provided it does not exceed 50% of this 1200± sq. ft. area of Building "2". (d) that the Town has not restricted the premises to certain tenants or owners, and accordingly has considered only the area and use of the premises and buildings. (e) that such an expansion of the preexisting nonconforming use of Building "2" from 1200± sq. ft. to 1800± sq. ft. shall be permitted to those uses which will require higher standards with respect to yards, parking, and similar requirements [such as restaurants, etc.]; (f) that the existing use of the single-family 900+ sq. ft. dwelling unit on the second floor of Building "2~' and the use of Building "1" for storage shall be permitted to continue and shall not be permitted to be converted to a nonconforming commercial use. (g) that the existing use of the garage bays for storage in Building #3 shall be permitted to continue and shall not be permitted to be converted to a nonconforming use [except that the storage use may be income-producing]. (h) that any portion of the square footage of the buildings may be utilized for the requested retail or office use provided same does not exceed the maximum permitted 1,800 sq. ft. [1200 sq. ft. existing plus 50% as permitted under lO0-118E of the Zoning Code] and provided further that the remaining portions of the buildings shall be permitted for the existing "garage bays," for -15- commercial or accessory storage use, permitted in this "A-40" Residential District. and any other uses and Agricultural Zoning (i) That by the grant of this variance, this Board hereby revokes any other variance(s) which may have been previously granted for the use of these premises. (j) that a proposal to expand the nonconforming retail/office area in excess of that permitted by the Code should be via application to the Town Board for consideration on a change of zone or other legislative action since the extent of the use variances permitted on this property has been utilized to the maximum possible under our jurisdiction. (k) that there be no storage of vehicles, materials, or any other items in the open yard areas. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, and Doyen. (Absent resolution was duly adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, was: Member Sawicki.) This Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3658: Application of PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI for a Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory building in the frontyard area. Location of Property: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-5-21. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 1987 in the Matter of the Application of PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI under Appl. No. 3658; 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. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code for permission to locate 16' by 26' accessory storage building/garage structure in the frontyard area at a point not closer than 50 feet from the front property line along the west side of Haywaters Drive and not closer than five feet from the northerly (side) property line. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a lot area of 34,035 sq. ft. with 139.68 ft. frontage along Haywaters Drive and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 104, Block 5, Lot 21. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A" Resi- dential and Agricultural Zoning District and is improved with a single-family, two-story framed house set back 96+ feet at its nearest point from the front property line and set back very closely to wet meadow areas in the rear yard (to the west). 4. A waiver has been issued by the Southold Town of Trustees August 27, 1987 from the requirements of a Wetland Permit of the Town of Southold as noted in its September 1, 1987 letter. Board 5. Information has been furnished by appellants to the 10, Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3658 - FERDENZI decision, continued:) the Board to indicate that the area chosen for this accessory structure is not an environmental area. 6. Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code permits accessory buildings only in the rear yard area. 7. The rear yard area of the appellants' property consists mainly of meadow grasses and wet areas, and is not a feasible location to place the requested accessory structure. The Board is in agreement with the appellants under the circumstances. 8. It is the opinion of the Board that: (a) the relief requested is not substantial; (b) the project as proposed is not out of character with the general neighbor- hood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and lend to the difficulties created herein; (d) the circumstances are not personal in nature; (e) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (f) there will not be an increase in density created by this variance; (g) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (h) that in view of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance requested and as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested in the Matter of the Application of PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI under Appl. No. 3658 for the construction of an 16' by 26' accessory garage/storage structure, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the accessory garage/storage structure not used for habitable quarters and must be accessory to and incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain [as proposed]; be 2. That the accessory building be located not closer than 50 feet to the nearest point at the front property line [as proposed]; 3. That the accessory building be located at least five feet from the northerly side property line [as proposed]; Southold Town Board of Appeals-18- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3658 - FERDENZI decision, continued:) 4. That the garage doors face the rear of the property (if feasible); 5. No plumbing facilities to be permitted [as rroposed]; 6. All water runoff must be retained on the site; 7. Any alteration in the roof design other than as applied will require re-application and re-consideration before this Board; 8. Accessory structure not to exceed 17 feet in total height (to the top of roof line). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis and Doyen. (Member Sawicki was absent.) resolution was duly adopted. Douglass, This Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3654 Application of WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to establish "building envelope" with setbacks of not less than 38 feet from nearest wetlands along existing two-foot contour and not less than 30 feet from the front property line (as approved under Appl. No. 3412, June 30, 1987). Location of Property: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck~ NY; Mattituck Estates Lot No. 42; 1000-115-5-7. The Board began deliberations and took the following action: WHEREAS, public hearings were held on August 20, 1987 and September 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appl. No. 3654; 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. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the prior decision of this Board rendered under Appl. No. 3412 on June 30, 1987, and from Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to establish a '~building envelope" with setbacks as modified at not less than 38 feet from all easterly corners at its nearest points from wetlands (along the existing two-foot contour), all as shown by survey dated July 21, 1987 prepared by Young & Young, P.E. 2. The previous application requested specific setbacks from the easterly (rear) portion of the proposed dwelling at 43 from the northeasterly corner and at 38 feet from the southeasterly corner. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3654 MOORE & HERZWEIG decision, continued:) 3. The premises in question is known and referred to as Lot #42, Map of "Mattituck Estates, Inc." filed in the Office uf the Suffolk County Clerk on September 8, 1965 as File No. 4453. 4. The subject premises is located along the east side of Meadow Lane in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, with a frontage of 115 feet, is vacant land, contains an acreage of .51+, and has a frontage of 95.94 feet along pond meadow and wetland areas. 5. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, requires all buildings and structures to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from a tidal water body, tidal wetland edge, or freshwater wetland. 6. In this Board's prior decision under Appl. No. 3412 in which alternative relief was granted for insufficient setbacks from wetlands as well as insufficient setback from the front property line at 30 feet, it was determined that the project met the "practical difficulties" standards set by the Courts. 7. It is also the determination of this Board that the requested modification is minimal and meets the "practical difficulties" standards for this amended area variance. 8. It is noted for the record: (a) that conditional approval was rendered by the Southold Town Board of Trustees for Wetland Permit No. 312 for the construction of a single-family dwelling, (b) that a Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted to the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617, NYCRR, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Chapter 44, Code of the Town of Southold; (c) that both well and sanitary systems were conditionally approved by the Suffolk County Department of Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3654 - MOORE & HERZWEIG decision, continued:) Health Services on September 13, 1985 under Ref. No. 85-S0-164; (d) that lot point[s], with catch basins, are to be incorporated into the westerly driveway area to collect storm- water runoff; gutters and leaders to be connected to dry-wells; no construction of sewage-disposal systems or water-supply facilities will be constructed below the 10-foot contour; "natural buffers" are to be designed uithin the entire area below the 10-foot contour line; there will be a natural buffer during and after construction adjacent to the wetlands; (e) a September 4, 1985 Waiver has been issued by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation waiving a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling land- ward of the existing 10-foot contour elevation above mean sea level (on a gradual, natural slope). Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the Modification of the easterly setback of the proposed "building envelope" for the construction of a single-family dwelling, with set- backs at not less than 38 feet from the nearest wetland boundary, along the present two-foot contour (as well as a setback of not less than 30 feet from the front property line at its closest point), as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appeal No. 3669: Application of MICHAEL AND BETH LADEMANN for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate new dwelling with insufficient setbacks from the northerly front property line along a private right-of-way and from the nearest wetland grasses, premises known and referred to as Lot No. l, Map of Blum and Littell, located along the East Side of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-103-1-19.6. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on October 8, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL AND BETH LADEMANN under Appeal No. 3669; 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 known and referred to as Lot #1 on the Minor Subdivision Map of "Blum and Littell" approved by the Southold Town Planning Board under Map No. 220 with frontage alon§ the east side of Stillwater Avenue of i20.79 feet and along the south side of a private right-of-way of 287.54 feet, and containing a total lot area of 40,017 sq. ft. 2. The subject premises is located in the "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, is vacant, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 103, Block 1, Lot 19.6. 3. By this application, appellants request Variances to locate a new single-family dwelling structure with setbacks at not less than 20 feet from its closest point to the northerly front property line along the private right-of-way and not less than 41 feet from the nearest edge of wetland grasses, as more particularly depicted on survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3669 - LADEMANN, decision, continued:) amended lastly September 3, 1987. 4. Article III, Section lO0-31 of the Zoning Code requires minimum frontyard setbacks at not less than 35 feet, or the average established setbacks in the immediate area within 300 feet. 5. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph (B) requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is the greater distance. 6. It is the position of this Board that the location requested by this application is the most feasible and does meet the "practical difficulties~' standards set by the Courts since the circumstances of (a) the and contours and wetland areas limit the buildable portions of the property, and (b) the lot is a corner parcel as defined in Section 100-13 of the Code having dual front yards. 7. Accordingly: (a) the project as proposed will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (b) the circumstances are not personal in nature; (c) the relief requested is the minimal necessary under the circumstances; (d) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (e) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the require- ments, being variances of 43% of the requirement for the northerly frontyard setback, and 45% of the wetland setback requirement. 8. It is further noted for the record: (a) that special attention must be given regarding final grading plans of this site since the property contains ravines, as well as dwelling elevations, via the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District [see September 28, 1987 letter for comments]; (b) that the Southold Town Trustees have waived the requirement for a Wetland Permit on August 27, 1987; (c) that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a condi- tional permit under #10-87-1148 for this project with no clearcutting or placement of fill within 20 feet of "edge of wetlands," etc. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3669 - LADEMANN, decision, continued:) NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3669 for the proposed location of a new dwelling structure as described in paragraph No. 3, supra, in the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL AND BETH LADEMANN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no further reductions in either the northerly frontyard area at 20 feet, or the setback from the nearest wetlands edge at 41 feet, as requested; 2. The deck remain open and unroofed at all times, as proposed; 3. Outside lighting shall be toward the ground and not adverse to neighboring properties; 4. The wetlands areas must be protected to the maximum extent possible, including rain gutters draining into dry wells (rather than upon the site); 5. Durins time of construction, a temporary berm must be placed with the fill from the foundation excavation in order to aid in the prevention of storm-water runoff and in full compliance with the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation conditions (particularly Condition No. 1 thereof). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolu- tion was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3622: Application of CHRISTIAN B. SALMINEN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling and accessory stairs, both with an insuffi- cient setback from edge of Marion Lake, or landward edge of freshwater wetland, whichever is closer. Location of Property: 240 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-9-15. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of CHRISTIAN B. SALMINEN under Appl. No. 3622; 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. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 to locate a proposed one-story, open surface deck construction of a size 16' by 20' by 12' by 20' at the rear of existing dwelling and accessory stairs 30 ft. long set back 6.5± ft. from the west side property line and 8 ft. from the shoreline along Marion Lake. 2. The premises in question contains a total lot area of 5,000+ sq. ft. and frontage along a private right-of-way of 40 feet, and is improved with a single-family dwelling set back 42 or more feet from the lake shoreline and50 feet from the front property line. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is more particularly iden- tified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 31, Block 9, Lot 15. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3622 - SALMINEN decision, continued:) 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2 requires all buildings and structures to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from a tidal water body, tidal wetland edge, or freshwater wetland. 5. The Courts have held that the area setback variances must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering at least the following: (a) that the relief requested is not sub- stantial in relation to the requirement; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) that the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town; (e) that the variance requested is the minimal neces- sary; (f) that there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance. 6. It is the position of this Board as follows: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to those established in the area; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and not personal in nature, particularly due to the nonconforming lot size, width, setbacks of existing building, etc.; safety, town~ (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the (e) the variance requested is not unreasonable; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance. 7. In view of all the above factors, the Board finds that the interests of justice will be served by granting the variances applied for the construction of the accessory steps and open-deck construction attached to dwelling as shown on sketch received August 10, 1987. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3622 - SALMINEN decision, continued:) Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the Variances requested under Appl. No. 3622 for the construction of the 30' long accessory stairs (to be set back 8 feet from the shorelien of Marion Lake) and open-deck construction (12" above ground, more or less) attached to existing dwelling with a setback at not closer than 29± feet to the shoreline (as proposed) in the Matter of CHRISTIAN B. SALMINEN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The deck construction must remain open and unroofed [as proposed herein]; 2. Precautionary measures must be taken by the applicant and builder when constructing as to prevent erosion problems. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion ringer, it was RESOLVED, pursuant to the (SEQRA): (continued by Member Douglass, seconded by Chairman Goeh- to declare the following Environmental Declarations New York State Environmental Quality Review Act on next page Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- Oct. 8, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3668 PROJECT NAME: Gerard C. Keeqan This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination~made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: · [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of construction of fence'in the easterly frontyard area at a height of six feet. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Founders Path and Hobart R®ad, Southold, NY 1000-64-4-10 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the ehvironment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- Oct. 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3657 PROJECT NA~: CLYDE FRITZ This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: . [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approvai of insufficient lot area,~ width and depth of two propsed parcels LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn aS:cedar Lane, Southold~ NY 1000-78-7-45.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is~not directly related to new con- struction as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- Oct. 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3670 PROJECT NA~: ROBERT H. FKEY 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 $outhold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. .~ . TYPE OF ACTION: . [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to ~ocate open deck cohstruc- tion with an insufficient setback from existing bulkhead. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Windjammer Dr., Southold, N~ 1000-79-04-08 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or tidal area is other ~onsturction 'and/or a bulkhead in good condition. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3]- Oct. 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3669 PROJECT NAME: MICHAEL AND ELIZABETH LADEMANN This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_~ffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project TYPE OF ACTION: . [~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Permissi6n to locate new dwelling with insufficient setbacks from front property line and from the nearest· wetland grasses LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County~of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY 1000-103-1-19.6 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that the p~oject will nat involve the disturbance of wet- lands grasses or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands. (3) The relief requested is .a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- Oct. 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination~ of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3663 PROJECT NAME: ~ARi0cASTELLI This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similhr project. TYPE OF ACTION: · [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approva~I ~of sign as exists ~f excessive size in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zone LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: North Road (C.R. 48)., PecoD-ic, NY 1000-69-4-1.3 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in questio~ is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental areas. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- Oct. 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3664 PROJECT NAME: ANA G. STILLO This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_~ffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ~ [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Rescinds'prior decision for conditional 280-a and deleting Cond. #2 of Appeal #3619, and as alternative being subject. to 280-a over the existing ROW LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly kn~w~ as: N/s Main.Road, Orient, NY ~ 1000-14-2-26 & 12.2 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use over an existing traveled right-of-way and for requirements satisfactory for emergency access. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of and Grigonis. duly adopted. the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was Matter of JOSEPH J. LIZEWSKI (previous decision under #3350 & 3322SE): On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to confirm that the subject accesso.ry building: (a) is located in excess of the setback requirement for this "B-Light" Business Zone District; (b) shall continue to be used as an "accessory on this lot and customarily incidental to the permitted use(s) and not involving a separate business" per Article VI, Section 100-60C(2) of the Zoning Code, and (c) will meet such construction code regulations as apply (before issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for this building), a variance is not requiored for further interpretation, etc. The Board also made the following findings concerning this request for clarification (received from Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. as attorney for JOSEPH J. LIZEWSKI concerning premises identified as 1000-102-02-12.1 and situated along the easterly side of Depot Lane and the north side of the Main Road, Cutchogue; 1. The provisions Zone do not provide for buildings; of Article VI regulating this B-Light setback limitations of proposed accessory 2. On May 2, 1985 conditional approvals were rendered by this Board under Special Exception No. 3322 and Variance No. 3350 concern- ing this site and based upon the April 6, 1984 Site Plan Map prepared by Garrett A. Strang, R.A. 3. Subsequently, on June 3, 1985, the Buiding Inspector certified this project as to meeting all zoning regulations; and on July 19, 1985, the Chairman of the Planning Board endorsed the subject Map. It is our understanding that the project is in its final stage under the site-plan review process. 4. The subject 30± ft. by 60± ft. accessory structure was considered in the above Board approvals in the general location now exists. as 5. Permits have been issued concerning the new construction, as well as the re-positioning of the accessory building (provided for in Permit #15716Z issued 2/28/87). 6. The subject accessory structure is located at a distance in excess of 40 feet from the property line along Depot Lane and 20 feet from the northerly property line, more or less (although not yet placed upon a permanent base). -35- (Lizewski matter, continued:) Also, it is the position of the Town in precedents that setbacks for accessory buildings in the commercial zoning districts, including the B-Light Business Zone District, must be not less than that required for principal structures. The "B-Light" Zone District requires a minimum of 35 feet from all front property lines. It must be understood, however, that in the event an additional principal use is proposed by an expansion into this accessory building or otherwise on this site, further approvals will be necessary by both the Planning Board and the Building Department, as well as this Board, particularly if such (new) principal use is in addition to those uses previously applied and approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Ail. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MEETING: On motion by Member Douglass, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to schedule and authorize advertising of the following matters in the Suffolk Times, Inc. and Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc..t0 be held TUESDAY, N0¥EMB£R 10, 1087: Appl. NO. 3674 Appl. No. 3675 Appl. No. 3667 Appl. No. 3677 Appl. No. 3676 Appl. No. 3514 Appl. No. 3679 Appl. No. 3564 Appl. No. 3672 Appl. No. 3673 Appl. No. 3678 Appl. No. 367 Appl. No. 368 - Mullen Motors - Mullen Motors - John H. Mulholland - Robert Mohr - Anthony Robustelli - George P. Schade - Robert and Dolores Schissel - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn - Anthony Gambino - Nick Mihalios - Penny Lumber - Jerry Shulman/Penny - VanOudenallen by J. Horton. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Ail. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting Appl. No. 3564 - JOHN R. DEMPSEY. The file was declared incomplete pending direct submission from the applicant or his attorney of three prints of a survey certifying to the current owner/or contract vendee the entire acess route, legal widths, and any and all obstructions of recent date within the subject right-of-way to be considered at the next available hearing date. The expected deadline for the next hearings calendar is October 16th, although it is expected that the file should be complete by that time. TOWERS UNDER 300 FEET: AVIATION ADMINISTRATION UPDATE: Board Secretary Linda Kowalski reported that today she received a call from Mr. John Silva of the Federal Aviation Administra- tion from Burlington, MA. Mr. Silva confirmed that any tower under 300 feet in height would not interfere or require approval from the Aviation Administration at this time. In the future, inquiries may be made to the EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE at: Federal Aviation Administration ANE-535 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01830. RECONVENED and CONCLUSION OF HEARING: Appl. No. 3651 - DEAN KAMEN. At this point in time, a motion was offered by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and duly carried, to CONCLUDE (close) the hearing in the Matter of DEAN KAMEN, pending deliberations by the board at a later date. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals _37_ October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting RECENT CORRESPONDENCE/DISCUSSIONS ITEMS: 1) Discussion was held concerning Town Attorney Francis J. Yakaboski's recommendation to allow final site plan approval by ZBA when a Special Exception approval is required, and with Planning Board's jurisdiction concerning site plan review, consideration, report, inspections and possibly a preliminary approval, subject to final by ZBA. Mr. Yakaboski's letter was distributed to the Board Members, and the Board members were in agreement with Mr. Yakaboski that this procedural change has many benefits and would reduce the chance of possible conflicting conditions by two separate jurisdictions on the same project. 2) The Board members received and reviewed the proposal by Sidney B. Bowne & Sons for engineering services to the Town, by contract as approved by the Town Board. There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Kowalski, Secretary ..~ ~/.Go/eh~rn~ger' Southold Town Board of Appeals Approved - Gerard ~P. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl. No. 3651 Applicant(s): DEAN KAMEN Location of Property: North Dumpling Island County Tax Map ID No. 1000-13~ 1 - 4 Board Memhers present were: Chairman Goehringer' P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent Was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed hearing from the last meeting° We had Dean Kamen. We'll ask his architect if he would like to add something to the hearing. Sir, how are you t6night? MR. MAHER: Dean apologizes. He's on the West Coast. He wasn't able to be here. I know that you've received a letter from the U.S~' Coast Guard DiStrict I signed by a particular Captain who's name escapes me at the moment because I was dealing strictly with Lieutenant Hagen who is mentioned in that letter. When we received the letter after numerous discussions w~h Mr° Hagen, we were a little surprised because we had strongly encouraged the Coast Guard in Boston, to come down and take a look at the situation. When we first called their office, they didn't even know where North Dump- ling Island was because they just recently inherited that particular district. And once we explained it all to them and gave them a proper reference in their terms as far as the numbers, so on and so forth for location, they proceeded to take a look at the situ- ation. He lost the paperwork a couple of times. That cost me ten days. And when we received this back, we were a little sur- prised with what he said. So we called him to ask him why. And he said; well that's the best we can do from where we sit. And we had offered to transport him since Mr. Kamen happens to own a heli- copter, at his convenience, down to the Island to inspect it and take him out in one of our boats at any time of the day or night to see what the situation would be if the tower were constructed in'that area. And he had not had the time to take us up on that opportunity. He was contacted by a Lieutenant John Brooks who's skipper is Coast Guard Cutter Redwood who tried to explain that he felt that there was no way that the tower would ever confuse any- body navigating by the Island or obscure the light. Upon his con- serva~ion between Lieutenant [~rooks and Lieutenant Hagen, Lieu- tenant Hagen has agreed to take another look at the situation. And hopefully, over the weekend, inspect and visit the location. Page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Dean Kamen South~ld Town Z.B.A. MR. MAHER (continued): I know you'Ve received this letter and that is their, of this moment, official ruling on the matter. But we're just asking the Board's indulgence to a point that; if you could possibly postpone your decision for another .... When do you meet again? · wo!~weeks~ o~!a month? A month. It's getting a little wintry out there too. We're losing time construction wise. We don't want to have to start from square one because we've been at this Since July. The ~hole idea of putting the wind~turbine generator out there is to be far more self sufficient because for any num- ber of reasons, we can lose power at any time as we have had in the past. And if the generator runs out of propane like it came within two hours of doing the last time we lost power, everything goes out including the~i~li~hts which is also a concern of ours~and a concern of the~CoaS~<Guard,s I might add. This present location puts it on the opposite end of the Island which happens to be closer to South Dumpling Island, closer to Fisher's Island~ ~It is fur-. ther back from mean high tide and it is possibly five feet higher in elevation althOugh yQur plan wouldn't show that~ I have a photo- graph. It's not too clea~ but some people are fairly familiar with the Island such as Mr. Doyen. Th~re'.g~an earth mound thatiwas placed there wSen Mr. Leavitt did his landscaping that he calls his moon watch mound with a number of benches on it and that's the most logical?.? to put the tower and the wind turbine generator. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically, you're looking for another recess is what you~e looking for. MR. MAHER: If you could be so kind, yes. Because if you did..° It's far more logical to put it where we wanted to in the first place. The~ectrical service for the entire island enters the Coast Guard building which is immediately next to the Grant Land- scaped Mar~elettes and it's .... If you've got a 10KW wind tur- bine generator, the further away you go before you start distri- buting the power, the more you're going to lose plus the cost of doing that in the first place and tearing up all kinds of land- scaping that's been done over the years. So... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll recess the hearing until the end of the meeting. And then we'll discuss the possibility of closing it at that particular point because I don't want to hold up the agenda at this point. I'm not recessing it yet. sir. I'll be right with you. And then we'll kick it around at that pOint and see if we want to close it at that point and go with the location the Coast Guard is talking about which would of course, cost you a square one situation which you had men- tioned. Page 3 - October 8, 1987 P~btic Hearing - Dean Kamen SouthOld Town Z.B.A. MR. MAHER: If we went with the acceptable location that the Coast Guard mentioned? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, because you would want to come bach with another application'at that point and that's one thing we would like to preclude if we possibly could. SO, at the closest outset, I'll make a motion after this gentleman wants to speak here, recessing the hearing until the end of the meeting and then we will see. We may just leave it recessed at that par- ticular point. We'll see what happens. I thank you. Is there some picture you wan%~d~'~ to show us? We,ll be right with you. MR. MAHER: It's just a little photograph. I didn't take it. That clump of green right here, it's basically a pile of gravel with grass growing all over it and a pack that winds u~ the sides wi~h three benches, three wooden benches on the top. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I put a circle around it? MR. MAHER: You certainly can. As matteu of fact, you can hold onto that. It iS not shown once,he plan of 1980 because it did not exist. Therefore, it falls in approximately this location~ and it is built up in the range of (I'd say) 12~to 15 feet wheat would put it at an elevation of approximately 27 to' 30 feet above mean high tide. MR. : Did you explain the possibilities of what could happen if you closed the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's familiar with that. MR. : That's why it would be originally where you applied for it, if once it's closed, you're stuck with that. But if you decide to go with it... Well, it all depends what your decision Was. But that's one possibility of the Board if they make a de- termination. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only time we can close the meeting is if we were waiting for a survey or a proximate location of whiCh you would either call in or wrote in. But in here, we're talking about an actual relocation change which does not allow the public to re- act to that. So therefore, we couldn't close the hearing because it would preclude the public from allowing to speak and send let- ters ~ither in favor or protesting the situati0n~ MR. MAHER: So basically, you could not close the hearing tonight because-~t~he~location has changed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can close the hearing. But you're telling me that you don't want the hearing closed because... MR. MAHER: It's definitely a Catch-22 situation. ' Page 4 - October 8, 1R87 Public Hearing - Dean Kamen Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no question about it. down for a little while and think about it. Just sit MR. MAHER: Think I'll make the 9 o'clock ferry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the~.~record. Yes. Would you kindly state your name for MR. CAMPBELL: I much appreciate the opportunity for two minutes if I may. I came over from Stonington tonight after work so I couldn't very well stay until the end of the meeting. I represent the Nasatucket Landtrust which is a conservation organization. I'm a director of the landtrust. The conservation organization~that operates in the southern states of southeastern Connecticut as well as New York State and Rhode Island and we're the owners recently of South Dumpling Island which is the closest neighbor. And for that reason, I Understood that it was desireable to establish contact or touch base on this plight. I'm also director of the old light- house museum which is the historical museum for Stonington. It's the old lighthouse there and i'~m very much concerned with the light- house preservation~ Several conserns have come up and they may very well be in the process of resolution but I just wanted to register the particular conserns thatlwe would have and hope they would not become a Confrontational situatiOn, One is, the concern which has aleady apparently been discussed. That is the effect of this tower on the function of thei~lighthouse and we're very much concerned with safety navigation and the effectiveness of the lighthouse. It's ap~ parent that the light be in that lighthouse functioning. Another concern is for~me, being dedicated for preserving natural areas and wildlife. If there is any concern about the possibility of birds flying into these propellers, the large towers and also the question of environmental concern of noise if some years down the line the rust sets in and that sort of thing. I think if full insurance could be given on-~these points and careful review by the D.E.C. or other authorities, and/or authorities, that would decidedly helpful. And finally, the plans that we saw'showing the tower, this proposed tower very close to the lighthouse. This struck us as being visual and im- parant to the historic integrity of the lighthouse itself. And if the lighthouse is to be moved, and hopefully this would not~ be as much of a consideration. But there is a great interest in lighthouse preservation at this point. The Lighthouse Preservation Society which has been very active in the last two years, that'S showing much con- cern with the preservation of integrity of the lighthouses and his~ toric monuments. Gentlemen, I thank you very much for the oPportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Have a safe trip to New York. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this particular hearing? Is there anything you WOuld like to add Mr. Maher? Page 5 - October 8, 1987 Public~i<Hearing - Dean Kamen So~thold Town Z.B.A. MR. MAHER: Ye~:$,i~I believe I do. I don't hapPen to have any pub- lications with me. We are also members of the Lighthouse Society. I don't happen to have any publicationsLwith me that show the ex- tensive uae of wind powered turbine ~enerators throughout the world. A lot of which are in very isolated areas that could~ be considered refuges of all~i~!~.different types. ~_Believe me, the last thing we're going to do is put (if we get permission to put it up), it up to let it deteriorate. We would maintain it on a very regu- lar basis because we would be relying on it and we would not make the kind of investment necessary to erect it in'%~he first place just to ignore it and let it deteriorate. I might also like to add that the light did not go back on top of the main house until the early 1980's. From the 1930's until that time, it sat on top of~!~!~..ai~tower in excess of 120 feet hiqh which was approximately right next to where we proposed to put up a 60 foot tower. And the light was moved at the expense of the previous property owner, DaVid Levitt. And Mr. Kamen did not buy this property to ~et it become run down and he has maintained it and (believe me) will maintain it because ~e has a sizeable investment out there. CHAIR~CAN GOEHRINGER: Thah~ yO~ sir and we wish you a safe trip home also. Hearing no further comments, I make a motion recessing the hearing until the end of this hearing-or to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - AYE. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Maher, can I ask you a question before you leave. Do you have any idea when you will get this new pro- posal from the Coast'Guard? MR. MAHER: W~'~e been told by Lieutenant Hagen that he would, if there is a change in heart on their part, it would be by next Tuesday or Wednesday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: DO ~O~ have any objection to informing the concerned adjacent owners so to speak and so on and so forth, as+ suming'we consider leaving this hearing open rather than starting... MR. MAHER: I have no concerns whatsoever and I would be more than happy to contact anyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: B~se i~ causes a problem. I've had a tremen- dous~amount of calls at night. And of course the file is here and I'm at home and there are specif~ questions answered and the ques- tions are then communicated to the Board~during the day~ and so on and so forth. So this is a concern of the Board's at this particular time. So as long as you're willing to do that..." MR. MAHER: that matter. months. I'm agreeable to do that and talk to anyone else for I've talked to Linda quite a bit over the last few CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: cilitate the issue. Ok. we'll see what we can do.to better fa- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDA~,-OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl.-No,,3592 App_licant(s): BENTE SNELLENBURG Location of Property: E/s So~th]]Harbor Road, Southold County Tax Map ID No. ]000-87 ~2 -21 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (B~ilding Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately _persons~]in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tb~ next h~aring is on behalf of Mr. Snellen- burg. It's a recessed hearing. It goes back a~couple of meetings. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on behalf of this hearing? Ok. Hearing no further comments from anybody, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later~ Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT.OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, O~TOBER 8, 1987 Appl,-No,.. 3668 App_licant(s): GElqARD C, KEEGAN Location of Property: w/s Founders Path and g/s Hobart Road, Southold. .County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000- 64 ~ 4 10 Board Members present were: Chairman G0ehringer P. G0ehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept). Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:53 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER' I have a copy of a sketch of a survey produced by Sealand SurVeyors, Inc., mosS, recent date is July 18, 1986 in- dicating the approximate placement of the fence approximately five feet to the east northeast of the deck running parallel (a~.little off parallel) to the property line. It doesn't say exactly how far. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Mr. Keegan. Are you for or against? Against. You'll have to wait sir. Go ahead Mr. Keegan. MR. KEEGAN: I only want to make one point. I mentioned in the ap- plication, we have actual, ly (I think it says in the application) two frontyards. That means we don't have a backyard. This is our back= yard. This is where our deck is. This is where our deck faces. As a matter of fact, the fence is three quarters Of the way up. Twin Forks built the fence, started to build a fence with a building per- mit. And then-it was determined that the building permit was issued improperly and what we're facing now is the fence is three quarters of the way up. It's in our, we consider that to be our backyard. We never knew we had two frontyards until we were told. This fence gives us pri~cy from-~our deck. We sit out on our deck. And with- out the fence we face our neighbor's driveway and garage and we con- sider that not[)to ~be ',off ~he b~s. taintere~t-.of~myi.fa~lily. CH~t~AN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you how far ~he fence is off from the (believe that's probably) north property line or the neigh- bor? MR. KEEGAN: Lot 9? P~ge 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Gerard C. Keegan Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let me point to you here if you don't mind. Give me an approximate figure from here to here. MRii KEEGAN: W~i,t, it's six feet here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: F~.O~ the property line? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. And it's approximately 3½ feet here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: WO~ld you.i~say it starts about five feet past the deck, six feet past the deckT? Did you happen to question the Building Department WHat their position would be if you were talk- lng about bushes, green bushes, evergreens of some sort? MR. KEEGAN: We've had a problem with evergreens and can',~t get them to live. It seems they die because we're right in a very windy part of the property and we're high up. We tried to plant them in the back of the property without success. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Old. I thank you.'sir. who would like to speak in favor? Ok sir. for the record. Is there anybody else Kindly state your name MR. MARRONE: My name is George Marrone and my wife Anita owns the property. Before I start, I'd like to snbmit these pictures which I'd like to comment on. They're numbered in the upper right hand corner. This statement is addressed to the Zoning Board?6f Appeals, Town of Southold. And we respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the variance to Appeal 3668 for construction of a six foot high fence where a four foot high fence is the maximum height there is~for the following reasons: Number one; the Zoning Ordinance permits the cons~ruction~of a six foot high fence on lot number 10. The ordinance says; the six foot high fence to be in five feet from the property line not two feet as requested in the appeal. Because a six foot high fence can be readily built in com~ pliance with the law, there's no practical difficulty or hardship present. The applicants can still achieve his intended objective and not dealing with unsightly conditions stated in this appeal. However, if I had a choice, I would prefer no fence at all. Land- scaping with shrubs and trees is a much more~civilized way of achieving privacy. Number two; we'd like to submit photographs one two and three which were taken on October 5th which clearly shows that the unsightly condition is actually a well manicured grass driveway and a brick home. Number three; we submitted a plot plan dated October 8th showing the six foot high fence would block out the present view from the sitting porch of our house, photographs 4 and 5. Whereas, a six foot high fence does not interfer with th~ applicant's views due to the fact that the fence is adjacent and parallel to our house and it's distant and perpendicular to theirs. The fence will appear as a barricade to us. It's not a most welcome decorative addition that the ap- plicants state. The fact~that the fence only occupies 46 feet of a boundary 270 feet long between lots R and 10 only re-enforces the fact that the so called fence is-in fact, a harridade limiting Page 3 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Gerard C. Keegan Southold Z.B.Ao MR. MARRONE (continued): our access to the Sound right near where we presently enjoy. And right near is really protected by the height and bulk of the Zon- ing Board. Number four; the fact that the applicant's property has two frontyards is really not unique. Our property has two frontyards also. It fronts on Founder's Path and the rear of the property fronts to Hobart Avenue. Our open backyard~'iis found by the side.of the applicant's house on one side and a garage-house and driveway on the other. That's photograph 6. We have no ob- jection to this condition. We do not wish to block out the appli- cant's house which is only 9 feet away from the prQperty lineo Our privacy in our backya~d is severly restricted by the presence of homes only a few feet from both boundaries. That's in photo- graphs 6 and 7. <This is South61d. We accept it as wonderful as it is. An open quite beautifully landscaped town. ~Number five; a six foot high fence where there is a five foot setback area, will only encourage others in the neighborhood to erect fences when one neighbor doesn't like the looks of another neighbor. This will certainly change the character of the neighborhood. The photographs are indicative of the present openness of the neighborhood. Number six; the proposed fence will ohtyi_.be two feet from the lot line. A problem will be created in regards to the maintenance of this two foot strip of land on her side of the fence. How will the applicant access the strip for maintenance without tresspassing? The strip will most likely not be maintained. In summary; the Zoning Board~!.offAppeals should deny the applicant's request for a variance of the Zoning Ordinance because the applicant is able to erect a decora- tive and classy fence within the confounds of the ordinance. The applicant will face no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship if he complies with the ordinance. Finally, granting the variance will have an adverse effect on our property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Than~ you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Mr. Keegan, would you like to say something in rebuttal? MR. KEEGAN: The Only thing I'd like to say that is I don't con- sider it to be an ugly fence. We spent a lot of money for it. It's an open face fence. It's the same on both sides. W~ didn't try to create an obstruction to anyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to cause a problem or any counter pro- duction here, at it's closest point, it is 3½ feet from the proper- ty line? MR. KEEGAN: I believe it is, yes. Page 4 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Gerard C. Keegan Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else you'd like to say sir? Ok. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. We thank you all for coming in. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R'EGULAR'MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl.-No, 3657 Applicant(s): CLYDE FRITZ Location of Property:O'ooW/S Cedar ~ane, Southold County Tax_.Map ID No. 1 - 78 - -45.1 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doy~ and Sawicki. Goe hri nger, Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Buidling Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:05 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record, CHAIRMAN GOEH~INGER:__ I have a.qopy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., dated December 6,~985 indicating the house lot which is lot B-i~ 182 square feet and'parcel A at 13,046 square feet on. the corner of Bayview Road and Cedar Lane. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: I have a copy of information, some of which will be repetative from the file but I present it to you~ight now so that you have everything in front of you as a packet. Mr. and Mrs. Fritz have applied for a setoff of a lot which was previously divided but has since merged. The property was originally owned by Mrs. Fritz's grandmother, grandparents; James L. Grant and Marie Grant. In 1956 Mr. and Mrs. Grant purchased the entire property with the two lots from John and Marianne O'Brian. You'll see that as exhibit "A" in the packet, in 1965, Mr. and Mrs. Grant., the applicant's grand- parents, decided to divide the property into two lots. Southold Town, at the time, had quarter acre zoning. Therefore, the two quarter acre..lots were created. That is, you'll see in exhibit "B" a survey of ~e~.tWo lots and the lightly marked line between the two. For the division of the two 10ts, Mr. and Mrs. Grant conveyed one of the newly setoff lots to Mr. Grant and you'll see that as exhibit "B-2" That sends the deed from the husband and wife to the husband. Unfortunately, in 1984 James Grant died leaving all his property to his wife. And the. properties passed from Mr. Grant, through the terms of his will, to Mrs. Grant. You'll also see as exhibit "C", is a copy of Mr. Grantts estate records~what was sent to the tax commission. That shows two separate descriptions or liber Page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Clyde Fritz Southold Z.B.A. MRS. MOORE (continued): and pages of the two deeds and it was intended to show that these were two separate lots. Then in 1985, Mrs. Grant decided to con- vey her lots to her grand-daughter and her husband. This way, the inter-family transfer, this was, and continued to be an inter- family transfer. Mrs. Grant believed~that she conveyed the two separate lots and that she had Detained them in separate owner- ship. You'll see as exhibit "E", the separate bill. Mrs. G~ant continued to receive separate tax bills on the separate lots. And Mr. and Mrs. Fritz as well, received a separate tax bill. So as'far as the Assessor's Office or to a layman looking at the paperwork, it would appear that the lots remained as separate units. The facts in this case would create undue hardship and practical difficulty. The family, Mr. Grant in particular, took great pains to separate the lot and keep them separate. Themer- ger occurring at his death by way of the will. The character of the neighborhood would not be effected. The recreation of the two ~lots would have no change of appearance to the neighborhood. The surrounding areas, if you notice the tax map~ich is also part of that packet, shows the two lots as separate tax map num- bers. So that, the town in a quick review of the record, would see that these lots are (again) single and separate. So taking all the facts together, these two lots would have always intended to remain separate but not for the unfortunate death. We also have also received a Health Department approval for the resepara- tion of the lots. The surrounding community consists of quarter acre lots. And the Health Department, I believe, has received other applications of similiar nature from surrounding property and they have denied those or some of the applications are pend- ing. However, this application was approved and the Health De- partment did recognize these two lots as being subdivided prior to the enactment of Article VI. So in light of everything you have before you, we would request that you grant this setoff and we thank you. CHAI~VLAN GOEHRINGER: Just before you leave. Was there any in- dication that there was any Planning Board authority to divide the lots in the manner in which they divided in 19557 MRS. MOORE: the time? I'm not sure if the Planning Board was around at MR. : I have some personal knowledge of that. I know (TAPE ENDED) The practice at that time; the division of property, the ordinance was not particularly as clear as it is today with respect to divisions of property and it. was very common to take a piece of property and cut out something on a one unique situation. Like for instance; typical o'f a farm. You'd cut out a piece and you give it to your son or your daughter and they'd live in it. It was an occasional division. Page 3 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Clyde Fritz Southold Z.B.Ao CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AS long as it... MR. : Similiar to all the divisions that Mr. Booth and Mr. Korus and various individuals you~see around, i~ town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're saying as tong as it adhered to the 12,500 square foot minimum. Ok. Alright. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this applicaB tion?~ Is there anybody who would like to speak against the appli- cation? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R-EGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl. - No, · 3663 App] i cant (s): MARIO CASTELLI Location of Property: ~0/~ C.R, County Tax_.Map ID No, 1 - 69 48, Peconic 4-1.3 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Goehri nger, Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the ap- proximate plac~hent of the sign.'!~And I~ have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and-~ have a handwritten... When I was there I didn't have a tape and it appears that one of our more astute members did have one and he did take a ruler and measure the sign and it appears to be 6' 6 high, ~he sign itself, not the height from the ground, by, La,proximately 12 feet and it's .doubte sided so it's times two. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map which I said. Would you like to be heard Mr. Munzel? MR. MUNZEL: Yes. JOhn Munzel for the applicant. At this time, I would like to offer as evidence the building permit and three photO- graphs. I .think the photographs probably tell the story as clearly~ as anything else. Other signs in the area are approximately the same size. They are double-sided although they are on one' particular board painted..on both sides. This particular sign varies from that in that, there 'is actually two signs. The back of each sign is blank. If you just close them up together, you~'d have the same thing as you have on the other signs. I don't think that's a substantial difference from the other signs. The neighborhood is one that has a rather of signs. Th~.:.n~e~ighbors apparently, have, if they could put three signs in the area, they ha,~e all put signs side by Side in order.to achieve a large size. Mr. Castelli hired somebody. He obtained a building permit. They constructed that pursuant to the building permit. The cost of that was some 3,500 dollars. The dimension of the sign are substantially in conformity with the ~ordinance. The major difference being the fact that it's on two pieces of wood rather than the single piece of wood. There is really, it's-an ~P.age 2 - October 8, 1987 P~blic Hearing - Mario Castelli Southold Z.B.A. MR. MUNZEL (continued): undue hardship obviously, to tear down the sign that you spent 3,500 dollars for and to construct a new sign. Assuming that this would grant it, I don't think it's setting any precedant in the~area. I Rnow it's always an area of considerable con~- cern. I think there's a fundamental distinction here in that the applicant did make all the necessary applications. He got his building permit, put it.up and it was only after it was up, tha~ ~.the problem occurred. We don't know anybody else who could fit into that fact pattern. We're very very remote. If you looked at the photographs, you'll see photograph number one; is looking west from the opposite side of the street. I think that shows you pretty clearly what the situation is with regards to the!'neighboring signs east. And number two; is looking east~ that was before the~mound, the area underneath was landscaped. But you can see the string of signs u~ the line. They're all substantially the same.· And west of course, the third picture, is facingl. West from the same side of the street. It would ap- pear that this is one of ths~classic examples of why a variance should be granted. DO any members have any questi6ns? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the actual size of the sign as it was measured? Approximately 6' 6 by 12'? MR. MUNZEL: I bHli~ve so, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: WSlt, we'll see what developes. is presently not lighted. Is that correct? This sign MR. MUNZEL: That~"s correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ ThHhk you. MR. MUNZEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who'would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against? Mr. Bruer. MR. BRUER: Rudolph Bruer on behalf of KHvin Kn~bboch, the neighbor. Mr. Chairman, could I see those photographs? Mr. Chairman, I"d like to take particular issue with the statement made with respect to the sign being in conformity or similiar to the other signs~in the neigh- borhood. I know the Board has been out there and I wouldn't be sur- prised if you've measured some of the other signs. And it is my un- derstanding that the other signs~that are up there along that strip of land in this residential zone and even those of them are not, do conform to the ordinance. In other words, they are 4 by 6. There might be two signs like my client has ~two S~gns on his property. He has informed me and I do believe him, the signs~do conform to the 4 by 6 requirements as do the adjoining signs on the street including._ the rug down to the Cornell piece which i believe is business proper- ty. I don'~t believe here, the applicant has shown substantial undue hardship. Although he might have shown some type of practical dif- ficulty in the sense he did (as he did say and i will not dispute him) spend 33 or 35 hundred dollars for~he sign. However, I don't 'Page 3 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Mario Castelli Southold Z.B.A. MR. BRUER (continued): think that that price is something that is a real hardship under the circumstances. You have to realize and I'm sure you~all know that the variance, if granted, is a variance that runs with the land. ~It"s not particular to the individual. The Board will now be saying that because the Building Inspector gave me a building permit, therefore in all instances, you can have a sign g~eater than what is required by the ordinance. The unnecessary hardship situation is something ~ that must run kind of with the property. It's got to be a uniqueness that deals with the property and I don,~t think i~ does in this particular instance in that the rest of the neighborhood, the rest of the signs that are there. And the majority of them were put up prior to this sign. So the gentleman, is by his own observation, prior'_'to erecting this sign, probably should have had a fairly decent idea of what the sign should have been rather than, as my client described it, a sign that dominates the area. It is something that comes in there and it just takes over. It is so big. I go up and down that road everyday and it's been brought to my attention and ~ ~'ve noticed the sign and I was wondering why myself prior~.to Mr. Knobboch speaking to me about, it was so large. I don't think the applicant has met the, I was going to say the standard oN proof. But I'm not sure how the Board~3is addressing this matter. Is it addressing it as an area variance or is it addressing it, in this particular instance, a use variance. Have you decided yet? Or as you!know, the requirements for a use variance, is substantially greater than the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: can I just ask you~a question? Have I spoken to you at all concerning this application? MR. BRUER: Not that I recall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has your client had any problems with the Building Department in reference to the type of signs that he has erected there in reference to the wording on those signs or any- thing of that nature? MR. BRUER: He's right.here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you~have any trouble Kevin, in the Build- ing Department concerning the wording on the signs or something? MR. BRUER: His own sign? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: His own sign on his property. MR. BRUER: Nothing in writing. P~age 4 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Mario Castelli SouthOld Z.B.Ai~ '~?.~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to clarify that for us. Because I have a particular problem with understanding this application and maybe you could help me clarify it. MR. KNOBBOCH. SUre. ~Originally, Victor Lessard didn't like the wording Kevin Knobboch, Lawn Care because that's not (quote unquote) considered an agricultural operation. That~is the name of my opera- tion as far as lawn and maintenance. It's 6% of my total volume. Therefore, I'm not going to be changing the name of my operation under those circumstances. As far as, Vic had mentioned the wording but that was~it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Do you want to continue? MR. BRUER: I d~on't want to prolong th~hearing. I think I made my point subject to further comment. I don"t think the gentleman, un- der the circumstances has suffered a real injury. I'm saying, I know it's a lot of money. But weighing the balance of the neighbor- hood, the signs and so on and so forth, I don't think 35 hundred dol- lars under this circumstance is so substantial that a variance should be granted. I looked at the application. It doesn't talk about uniqueness. It doesn'-t talk about the area. You remember, this is an agricultural area. It does.Change the character of the neighbor- hood because the measuring of the signs you will find that the other signs do comply. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Munzel. MR. MUNZEL: FirSt of all, it is fairly obvious that this is not a use variance because signs are an allowed use and this is a sign. · 'f ~ anything, it's an area variance. I would also state that this is one of the ways that theoretically, comply with the ordinance is simply take a chainsaw and go up the sign and split it twice and make three little signs out Of it. That would give you three signs at 72 square feet. I don't think that would be aesthetically pleas- ing. Although, it may conform with the ordinance. I think perhaps I'm prejudice, but frankly, it's the nicest sign in the area. It's most artistic. It's well layed ou' It does not obstruct anybody else's sign. And I think, quite fl borhood. I wish some of the other you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thahk you. like to say anything? ankly, is a credit to the neigh- ~igns would be as nice. Thank-' s there anybody else who would MR. ~RUER: Just one more comment. of my client and his property in re property, it has to be understood t nesses. No question about it and I my client would be happy to be able sign as big as he and he'd be happy in conformity with the~spi~it of th back to what I was just trying to s they have a common right-of-way accass. spaaking in particular on behalf la%iOnship to the applicant's hat they are in competing busi- don't think that's... I think to say alright, let m~ have a with it. But that's really not a neighborhood again, Getting my, the property comes in and And as such, in ths way Page 5 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Mario Castelli Southold Z.B.A. MR. BRUER (continued) that sign is layed out, it really, if youl~look at it, dominates that spot and unfairly takes advantage of the other properties in the neighborhood, particular a competing property. It is a dominant sign. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else that would like to be said? Ok. Hearing no further.~comments, I make a motion clos- ing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT,OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R-EGULAR'MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl.-N0. 3653 Applicant(s): NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES Location of Property: N/s Main Road County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000- 18 - 4 - 1.3 and 2 Board-Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. G0ehringer, Members: Gr±gon±s, Douglass, Doy~ and SawicN±. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor 5essard (Build±rig DePt.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 q'c]0ck p.m. and read 'the notice of hearing and app]icati0n for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEH~!_NG'ER: We','~ll as~ Mrs. Moore of she'd like to speak. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. if we could go over the recommendations 'tha~ Mr. Douglass was able to provide for us. And we thank Mr. Douglass for taking the time during a busy day. I had an oppor- tunity to speak to the client about these recommendations and I believe we can comply with most of..them and we do have some kind of a course. The first one being that the cesspool existing un- der the right-of-way, of course, we will do what ever we ha~e to to make sure that Mr. Droskoski (I believe his name is) that his cesspool is moved. So my client is going to undertake that cos~ of moving that cesspool. .The second comment is a 25 foot width of the road to be constructed, we would request that the road " not be 25 foot wide. ~e are only servicing four lots. Probably a 15 foot road would be sufficient in this case, a maximum 20 feet. But the larger the road, the-more of a thruway it appears. This is going fo be a dead end going towards the north~and we would request that it remain of 'residential character rather than as a town type of road. Number three; all bushes and trees, hedges, roadway from Route 25 to be removed. Of course we will. We have to sta~ w£~hin the perimeters of the right-of-way and the Planning Board's area, designated road. So we will be clearing that area. That is no p~oblem. No roadwork started until the state road cut is approved. We are proceeding with that and I' believe we have to under state law or county law', receive that approval. Number five; we have no objectiOn to that. As far as.a sump, I'm not sure the difference between having a sump, maybe you could.provide me some expertise there, versus a drainage basin. Wo~ld drainage basins provide a simi- liar water? ~Page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - North Road Associates Southold Z.B.A. MR. DOUGLASS: They won't handle ~he ~ater and they close up in a matter of one storm. The top soil that moves down, will close them up. You have a perfect example of it, one houSe and then the state sump just past it. MRS. MOORE: Alright. I'll have to explain that %o %he client. Thank you. The berm constructed along the wes% side to keep the water from draining onto Route' 25, I don't believe that will cre- ate a problem as long as the berm is unduely large. We don't have that much room. And obviously, %he wider the road, the less area we have for a berm on that side. So it would seem kind of a con- tour so that the runoff would not go into the adjacent property. Number seven; that's fine. That was reasonable. ~hat~~, was the recommendation that we had received. Number eight; four inches of compressed three quarter stone blend. We have no objection to that. Number nine; the blacktop from~he entrance of Route 25 the sump, we would prefer to have blacktop at the entrance and somehow or another enough so that it would be blue stone blend and would not run off into Route 25. That's important to our client as well. A hundred and seventy feet of blacktopping is .... I be- lieve that, I may be mistaken, but the bushes that you described where the sump would go, is about 170 feet north of the .... MR. DOUGLASS: It's right behind the hedge. MRS. MOORE: Maybe I'm mistaken which hedge you're talking about. But I thought, from the survey, it looked[like the furthest hedge behind the property. MR. DOUGLASS: It's right behind Brenda Chuck's house. MRS. MOORE: That's about 170 feet I believe. MR. DOUGLASS: No, it's not quite that. MRS. MOORE: We would request the minimum block copy if possible. And then the curb cut, we will comply with the state highway en- gineers. So that will be subject to whatever they imposed and that's still up forl review. The sump to be safely fenced, if the sump is shallow, it may not need the fencing that you suggest. But again, that all depends on the size of the sump. MR..DOUGLASS: You have to go to a certain drainage. MRS. MOORE: Are you talking four feet or two feet? MR. DOUGLASS: About eight feet, as deep as eight feet back there. MRS. MOORE: Again, that fencing, we would request that it not be fenced unless absolutely necessary. And the clients would obvious- ly, not want liability problems. So if they thought the require- ments of the sump would be, if needed, would be deep. Then, ob- viously, it would be fenced for their own protection and properly maintained. That's no problem. So outside of. the few commentaries, we %hank you for the input. .Page 3 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - North Road Associates Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only question, Bob, are you going to be able to .... Are we actually drawing the specs for a sump or are we going to .... You are going to draw the specs for the sump. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. You can see also, Gerry, the other place they've used them they've ended up taking out, ca~celling out the pools and going to sumps as down in Orient by the Sea. It's all sumps there now because the other seal right up. MRS. MOORE: So in lieu of the drainage basins, there would be one sump. As long as the Planning Board is consistent with~the Zoning Board's recommendation, I believe there would be no prob- lem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you. Alright. Is there any- body else who would like to speak in favor or against this appli- cation~ North Road Associates? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending (what I would refer to) an engineer's report from Mr. Douglass on the type of sump he's referring to at this point. And we will, of course, furnish you with a copy of that. All in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R-EGULAR MEETI'NG OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl.-No,,3593 Applicant(s): QDIE? $~N INN Location of Pr0perty:S/s Main Road and E/s Hobart Road, Southold .County Tax_.Map ID No. ]000- 62 - 3 - 7 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building DePt.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:37 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The hex5 ~ppeal is again, a recessed appeal from the las~-regularly schedul'~ meeting on behalf of the Quiet Man. There's two of them. And we'll ask Mr. Moore if he'd like to approach us. Is this a husband and wife team? MR. MOORE: No. A separate operation. You needed some informa- tion from me and we provided it to you very quickly. One thing was a copy of an affidavit from Mr. Gilbert about the ..... He's submitted one before and I think you asked for another copy. While I'm up here, I'm not a sketch plan artist, but I tried to draw di- agonal parking. I wasn't sure whether you meant diagonal facing what direction? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: _Can we grade this or what? MR. MOORE: ~qell, if I had known we ~were going to grade, I would have~ been more careful. Sure you can grade it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. I was a teacher for 10 years and that's the reason. MR. MOORE: This is diagonal slinging the pieces to the north,~.- I didn't put the scale on it. It's one to ten. And then I turned around and drew it the other way which is probably what you were thinking of. I really didn't think about it so I went this way. It doesn't change anything unfortunately. We still have.~.. I did ask someone els. e who has got more experience with surveying and that was Mr. VanTuyl and I sent a copy of the letter that he sent back to me dated September 25th to your office. I'm not quite sure if it had been received and put in the file. But he does agree that you can only put two cars in diagonally either way. So I'm glad to see that my drawings were pretty close. He didn't mention the third 'Page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Quiet Man Inn Southold Z.B.A. MR. MOORE (continued): spot which is back behind the buildings but his real question was solely, how many diagonal spots could be obtained if we tried it that way. Those are the~two drawings I've done and his letter to confirm, or my drawings to confirm his letter.is the, best way %o put that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i notied that you didn't get to stake the property. Is that true? MR. MOORE: I went by today and I didn't see the stakes. I had put the request in and he acknowledges that request and apparent- ly it hasn't been done as of this afternoon. I will call him in the morning and ask him. Ibelieve one ~corner is marked with a monument. That may help. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't see that one. MR. MOORE: I think I did see on Mr. VanTuyl's site plan survey a monument there assuming it's still there. I will hunt for it but I will ask him to get out and put the~ribbons out so we can find it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What else would you like to say? MR. MOORE: One other request I would like to make is at this time, we don't really know which if any of the sketches we've submitted to the Planning Board would be ruled upon and approved or denied. We originally submitted a proposed sketch plan/site plan that would keep four parking spaces on the property or provide four off-street parking spaces. And the question came up, how many spaces are needed for this variance. I think the Planning Board's memorandum that we got back in September, indicates a total of 9 spaces. If you count 8 for the seating capacity and one for the accessory apartment, you need as many as 9. Under the proposal that we submitted, the re-~ quest for the variance would then be a variance of 5 spaces that we can not physically provide on the site were you to grant the vari- ances from the frontyard setback to permit the construction of this porch. If however, the Planning Board goes with this sketch of which you also have, together with curb, sidewalks and plantings, we can't physically put any parking spaces off-street. In which case, the variance goes from 5 lots or 5 spaces variance to a none space vari- ance and that's the problem that I have here in asking the Board to consider as an alternative request. Not to know at this stage which plan would be preferred[by the Planning Board. We have their input memorandum fromlast month and it's just their position that we shouldn't get a parking variance for the reasons set forth. One other comment about that and I think you've already mentioned it. The seating capacity, the human being'capacity and I think there's 57. I believe we cited that number at the last hearing and that is the number from the Building Department. I don't believe 49 is ~Page 3 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Quiet Man Inn South01d Z.B.A. MR. MOORE (continued): the proper figure from that memorandum. The seating capacity is 38 and that figure came from the seating capacity, the number of seats that were physically in the building when it was bought by Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert. As far as I know, those are the seats that Mr. Farrell had and we really can't go back any further not to really know. I'm trying to dig up and see if I can't get any in- formation from the State LiquOr Authority to confirm this. I'm not Sure I'm allowed to get into those prior applicants' files to find that out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your figure of 57 is .... MR. MOORE: That's the capacity of human beings. The Building De- partment~o.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the maximum capacity. MR. MOORE: Maximum capacity, right. The capacity that we state as far as seating goes, is 38 and that's the present capacity and the Building Department has our pre-existing certificate of occu- pancy which was mailed to me yesterday and I believe they've got it sitting in the office there. You have it now but I haven't seen it. I believe they do their capacity based on square footage and that's where the 57 comes from. We would ask, and readily accept a condition of a variance that we retain a seating capacity of 38 and that's been the premise all along. Then we can'continue on our merry way With 38 seats in there, not change a thing and the parking is as it is an~ forget this variance, depending upon the way the Planning Board elects to lay the parking out. It will not cange the parking situation at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How did you arrive at the five parking spaces? MR. MOORE: As a requested variance applies, I believe it was re- quested by this Board, of the Planning Board, how many spaces were needed. With 38 seats, you use one parking space for five seats° Seven parking spaces would be thirty-five and a fraction. So you take 8 right there. I dispute whether the accessory apartment in a busness zone should be included for a parking space. But for argument sake, I'll accept that and then there's nine. If we keep with our proposal for the Planning Board, the parking the way we suggested it, we can provide four off-street spaces. Keeping your number of 9, our ability to provide four which leaves us with a need for 5~/~ This is all within the context and framework of the parking across the street at Thompsons', the parking at Wayside and the parking on the street. Agreements with which we have with Thompsons' (orally) anyway to allow us to park there which I think is significant in light of the fact that he operates under different business hourS than we do. That's where we're at. The two variances, the frontyard variance which is because the corner lot and Hobart is one way, I think is less of~a concern than it would otherwise be .Page 4 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Quiet Man Inn Southold Z.B.A. ' MR. MOORE (continued) if Hobart had been a two-way street and the request for the park- ing variance which depending on the way the Planning Board would see that, those parking spaces layed out, will depend on actually how many spaces we really need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the approximate width or depth of the ad- dition again, is ten feet? MR. MOORE: Ten feet, right. And I think I scaled it out correct- ly on those drawings there based upon the sketch plans, the site plans that were done by the architect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not which you gave gave us today. MR. MOORE: Yes, my drawings. I think that addition is on there. I have shown it in the hatched area. That shows the addition on the property with an attempt to provide as much parking as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm in a[little bit of a quandry and I don't really know what to do at this point because I have not seen the stakes to do the measurements that I propose to do. So I really don't know what to do at this particular point. I would like to close the hearing and readily, I guess that's what we'll do. But I'm sincere in .... MR. MOORE: I'll get the ribbons out so you can take a look. think the measurements will bear out, if the architects used proper numbers and the surveyor used correct numbers,...' The architect took Mr~ VanTuyl's survey and I took the architect!~ site plan and the numbers would bear out the distances they are. So I would be glad to get Mr. VanTuyl to po±nt!~them' out for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. I'll see if there's any- body else who would like to speak in favor or against this hearing. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Both hearings. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT, OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R'EGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OC~©BER ~, 1987 Appl,-No,,3664 App_licant(s): ANA G. STILLO Location of Property: N/s Main Road, Orient .County Tax_.Map ID No. 1000~ 14 ~ ~2 - 26 and Z2.2 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Dougalss, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were:. Victor Lessard (Building Dept.). Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:52 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING'ER: The next ~peal is No.~3664 on behalf of Aha G. Stillo.~-Is there anybody'~%~o would like to be heard? Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: Actually, I'm here mo~e to answer any questions.. I believe the letter speaks for itself. We are requesting that you rescind the 280A access by that 20..ffot right-of-way to the west and grant 280A over the right-of-way which is for the Brokoff property which was approved for the Brokoff property in which we have a right to by way of that deed that was enclosed in that let- ter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please excuse me if I don't remember grant- ing that right-of-way.. I thought it was done by the Plann~nq Board. MRS. MOORE: ~ardon me. It could b~ the Pl.anning Board. CNAIRMAN GOEHR. INGER.: Could you supply us with the conditional ap- proval of the Planning Board on the right-of-way so that we know exactly what ....... MRS. MOORE: Sur'e'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, i don't remember it but it doesn't mean that we didn't do it. I don't think we did though because it's outside the subdivision. MRS. MOORE:' It was within the subdivision. It was within the Brokoff subdivision. I can g~t that for you. .Page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing -Ana G. Stillo Southold 'Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? Hearing no further comment, I make a motion reserving the decision until latero Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT, OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R'EGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8~ 1987 'Appl.-No..3670 Applicant(s): ROBERT H. FREY Location of Property: Harbor Lights Estates, SoUthold · County Tax_·Map ID No, 1000~ 79 ~ ~4 - 8 Board Members present wePe: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also presnet were.: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, ~Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:55 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a Qopy of a large site plan house produced by Br~rcliff Landscape'~ndicating a deck, proposed deck to be constructed. It was to move into the 35 foot area closer, however, there is a letter from the Town Trustees which says that n~mber one condition; hereby request the appeallant~request per- mission to construct an open deck to be constructed 35 foot land- ward0.of existing bulkhead. So we'll consider the application; 35 foot landward of existing bulkhead and it wraps around the one side of the house and the rear of the house except for the pDrti6n of the garage area. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who. would like to be heard on this application? Is Mr. Frey here? How do you do sir? MR. FREY: I just came to answer any questions that you might have. I think we've~had a chance to go over all the sketches and pictures of this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The measurement o~ the actual deck are shown where? MR. FREY: Th~r'~son this came about is I originally submitted my plans ~ithout a deck and the Building Inspector told me I could amend the pians at any time. I didn't think it would take this long. In the meantime, the setback line had changed. And they told me to submit it as large as I could possibly dream of so that I wouldn~'t' ~ave to come back again. I don't propose to build it as big ~s Briarcliff suggested and stay back 35 feet from the bulkhead. And possibly on t~at'.westerly side, the distance of 30 feet. ,Page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Robert H. Frey Southold Z.BoAo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to width? MR. FREY: Yes. I won'~ be joining the deck from the back door to the front. I think I'll put two sets of staircases in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: rear of the house. So it would Primarily then be only on the MR. FREY: Yes. Somewhat to the side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you give us approximate measurement? Not specifically tonight but could you drop them off to us, spe- cifically what you're talking about so that we can deal with it in the way of a decision when we're~ ready to make a decision on it? If you would not mind. The typical questions that we ask Mr. Frey, will the deck be unroofed? MR. FREY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will there be any obtrusive lighting, over-~ head lighting so as to light the deck that may cause ajproblem for your surrounding property owners? MR. FREY. Myi[~lighting is in place already~on the building itself. I don't know if the pictures show any of ito CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't notice[it. MR. FREY: They're down wash lights. On the west side of the house there are several lights in the overhang° CHAIRMANGOEHRINGER: And the only other condition is that we place upon it is that it always remain open and not a part of the dwelling not to be used as a dwelling but to be used as an adjunct to the dwelling at the same time it always have a characteristic of a deck. Because sometimes they become enclosed and so on. Ok. We thank you. And if you'd drop that off for us,~ it would be very helpful for us. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until la%er. Ail in ~avor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT, OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R-EGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY[ OCTOBER 8, 1987 Appl.-No~",3669 Applicant(s): MICHAEL AND ELIZABETH LADE~LANN k0ca{i0n of Property: E/s Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue County Tax_ Map ID No. ]000-~3 ~ 1 19.6 Board-Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members : Gr±gon±s, Douglass, Doyen and saw±c2±. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:00 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING'ER: I have a copy of t~e survey produced byRoderick VanTuyl, P.C. ~-the most recent d'~te is September 3, 1987 indicating ['.th~'tot~'with the proposed house superimplanted approximately in the center more toward the north property line adjacent to the right-of- way; 88 fee~ from Stillwater Avenue, ~1 feet from the edge of the wetlands. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indi- cating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. }{all, would you like to be heard? MR. HALL: Thank you. I'm reading tonight. Before I being my pre- sentation tonight, I want to.emphasize the~appl~cants have already obtained, obviously after, a lengthy process, a permit from the folk County Health Department, the D.EoC. and we have also obtained a waiver from the Southold Trustees. I point this out because these are the three agencies really entrusted to control and protect the wetlands. It3s my intention tonight to touch on the areas not spe- cifically addressed in the application which you just read. When the Zoning Board considers the granting, of an-area variance from the Town Code, it is guided by the standard of practical difficulty. The applicant does not have to show hardship, no reasonable return or even unique: circumstances as for a use variance. Robert Anderson, in Anderson Zoning, at page 211 wrote; an applicant for an area vari- ance can satisfy the requirement that he is experiencing practical difficulties as a result of a literal application of the Zoning Or- dinance by showing that he can not make a reasonable use of his land due to its peculiar size, shape or grade. The wetlands ordinance requirements hard effectively reduced the size of Beth and Michael~ Lademann's'parcel by almost~ a third and.it reduces depth by at~.least 25 feet and by as much as 106 feet. Thus, there are practical dif- ficulties. Anderson goes on to say on page 212; where the application ~of setback regulations to the applicant's corner lot will limit the :page 2 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Michael and Elizabeth Lademann Southold Z.B.A. MR. HALL ~ (continued): useable portion of the land, he suffered practical difficulties and was entitled to a variance which would permit construction of a building of reasonable size. The house that Beth and Michael plan to construct is approximately 1,800 square feet. Certainly' reasonable to say the least. And it is the setback requirements that limit the useable portion of the Lademann's land. Given that there are indeed practical difficulties, which would call for the granting of the variance sought. This mighti~be negated, again, to quote Anderson, if the difficulties are self created or if they bought into them. According to, and Please let the record reflect the following: Michael and Beth Lademann purchased the lot which is the subject of this application on May 17, 1985. After the en- actment of the wetlands ordinance which is Why we~re here today. They went to contract on this lot on February 27, 1985. I'm pre- pared to give to the record if you want it, a copy of the original contract. This is before the enactment of the wetland setback re- quirement which was enacted March 27, 1985. I point this out to the Board tonight so that your record accurately reflects the fact of hardship and practical difficulty are not self-created but are a result of a law passed after they signed a binding contract. Moreover, the wetland of Beth and Michael's property is a wetland rest and the nearest action of water, as indicated on the minor subdivision map of Blum and Littel,'which is on file with the town, is approximately 800 feet from-[~hhe proposed house and deck. Also, the Board should be aware that this lot was purchased out of a minor subdivision which was fully approved by the town in 1984 and that vacant land c.o. Z-12766 dated September 12, 1984, was issued for this lot indicating at that time, it was a buildable lot. The ap- plicants and their attorney relied in good faith on that approved map and that c.o.. in purchasing this property. As a final criteria, the Board must consider whether the application if granted, would injure the immediate neighborhood by nonConformance. To the con- trary, this lot is on the corner formed by Stillwater Avenue and a private right-of-way which is opposite Peconic Bay Vineyards. Thre are only four lots on this right-of-way. Those lot created in the Blum Littetl subdivision. Two of which already have homes completed. The setbacks sought here today would conform to this minor subdivi- sion and leave a large buffer from the wetlands grass. It is also important for me to note tonight that the present site and location of Beth and Michael's proposed house and deck are the result of countless conferences with the Health Department, the D.E.C. and Trustees and that the frontyard and wetland setbacks sOught here today are absolutely innermost. Stricter application of the set- back requirements could actually create a situation which might in- jure the neighborhood by forcing the construction of an extremely narrow or shallow house or one without a useable backyard. On a slightly different issue, no application of any Southold Town body would be complete today without some mention of the affordable housing issue. I realize that this is a consideration for the Town Board, but I ~think"~.it/.is-~relevant~andi~important~!for~he izoning Board to cOnsider in that the purpose and provision of the Zoning Ordinance and under Section 100-12lB off,the Zoning Ordinance quote; "so the spirit of the chapter be observed and substantial justice is done". Page 3 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Michael and Elizabeth Lademann Southold Z.B.A. MR. HALL (continued): Beth and Michael Lademann are the epitamy of the people who need and are entitled to affordable housing. Michael and Beth paid 28,000 for this lot two and a half years ago. I get emotional about this. At that time, they had a one year old baby and they both worked full time for a combined.... Excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: was pretty well. I was just going to comment on your reading MR. HALL: ...for a combined gross income of about 25,000 dollars a year. And I know of my own knowledge, that since %hat time, they have paid off the mortgage on this lot in full with literally every dollar they could spare. I would also not that they plan to build their home with their own hands, (I did the same thing when I got married21) because they couldn't afford to hire a general contractor. Beth walked into my office in tears back in May of this year when she received a notice of disapproval instead of a building permit. She has worked to bring the house as nearly as possible in confor- mance since that date. I am very aware that variances apply to the land and are not to the person. In this case, however, I~ithink Beth and Michael Lademann, as applicants who represent the type of class of ~Pplicants who deserve every consideration this Board could possibly give in order to do substantial justice. They, or any other working class applicant before this Board can not afford to write off an unbuildable lot as a real estate developer could. If this vari- ance is not granted, then strict application of this ordinance will be much more than a hardship. It will be a personal tragedy and a real loss to Southold. One more paragraph. Finally, I'd like to point out that Beth Lademann have already relocated and reconfigu- rated their house and deck several times in order to satisfy the requirements of the Trustees and the D.E.C. Accordingly, I would ask that the Board approve this variance as applied for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't see you too often any more Mike but that was great. Before you leave, I just want to ask you a question and I realize that the size of the house, the conformity of the house is of utmost importance to these people~ There are two things. One thing I have to ask for and the other thing I wanted you to think about, if there's a possibility. There's no possibility of moving the house a little farther to the east which would give you a little bit farther distance away from the wetland grasses. MR. HALL: ready. We've already moved it. We've moved it three times al- MRS. LADEMANN: That would be my only yard. That's the reason why I kind of hate to do it because I only have that short distance for the back behind the deck which I can't really use. So that would be my only .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that whole low area is going to be your yard. Page 4 - October 8, 1987 Public Hearing - Michael and Elizabeth Lademann Southold Z.B.A. MR. HALL: The whole area between their house and Wick's would be effectively, their backyard because they can't go downhill towards the wetlands. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How wide is the right-of-way presently? So basically the brush starts approximately 5 feet from the actual property line. Is that what we're saying? Could you stake that approximately in the front of the house where the actual right-of- way starts and your property actually starts in other words? MR. HALL: The question is not only where the pavement right-of-way is but where the gravel is. Is that right? That's what they want to know. 'CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to know how far the house is actually going to be from the gravel. MR. LADEMANN: Twenty-five, twenty-six feet, somewhere in there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I saw poison ivy and I didn't want to enter. Ok. [So you will stake that for us approximately where the house starts. MR. AND MRS. LADEMANN: It is staked. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is staked. I didn't see the staking of it. I just saw the property lines down below in the hill. Ok. I'll go back and look at it. Thank you. Anything else you'd like to say for the record? Mr. Winters. MR. WINTERS: Thank you. I'm Richard Winters, father of Elizabeth Lademann. I was going to try to fill in a cOuple of things. How~ ever, I think counsel has done a very adequate job. I don't think he missed a thing. I would like to ask for the Board's sympathetic consideration of the request. And without beating a path over that area already covered by counse!~ ~ can confirm that they did buy the lot. The money that they used to but it, for the most part, was borrowed from a local bank. And through their own efforts, they have now repaid the loan and now own the property free and clear. They did go to a great amount of trouble when they purchased it to make sure that it was a legal building lot, that it was a lot of land on a fully approved minor subdivision map. .They went to the trouble of getting a vacant land c.oo And when they submitted an application for the building loan, were somewhat shocked, or build- ing permit, shocked to find that'they had to go through'the gauntlet of the DoE.c. because they needed the Zoning Board off!Appeals. Ii think I'd like to address just for a moment, the big picture as it relates to all lay people and the public in general when purchasing a piece of property off a file or approved map that has been through the various bodies and Boards of review with not only the town but with other county, state agency. It would see to me that in those cases.~where you are buying a legal building lot, something that has received a full approval of these bodies, that that approval should say for the future. I don't think it's fair. Yes, in this case we Page 5 - October 8, 1987 PUblic Hearing - Michael and Elizabeth Lademann Southold ZoB.A. MR. WINTERS (continued): have a young couple that's struggling. A very local couple. They are not developers. They want to build their home. And it's par- ticularly unfair in their case because they can't~ They not only don't understand why they have to go through this, but they can't afford it as well. And obviously it cost money and time. And the more time that goes by, the higher the cost of two by'fours. But it would seem to me that the general public, if they buy a piece of property off a filed or fully approved map, that that's what they should be able to rely on. They should not have to go back through this Board, through the D.E.C. I'm not sure how that question or problem should be addressed or by what level or by what body. But it certainly is an unfair situation for them to have to face and I appeal to this Board to give favorable consideration in this particular case and hopefully somehow or other, the town can face the overall issue and see if that problem can't be cured. I think that's a serious problem. I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anything that would like to be said by the couple? Would you like to say something else? Beth? Nothing° Oko Anyone like %o speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND F~LED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK D~TEI To-~=