HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/18/1987Southold Town Board o£ Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 1197]
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987
A Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the Southold Town
Board of Appeals were held on THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987 commencing
at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge
Doyen, Jr.; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and
Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present were: Victor Lessard,
Building-Department Administrator; Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Clerk,
and approximately 15 persons at the beginning of the meeting.
Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting and proceeded with
the first public hearing on the agenda, as follows. The verbatim
transcripts of all the following hearings have been prepa~
under separate cover and filed simultaneously with the Town
Clerk's Office for references:
7:38 p.m.-
7:48 p.m.
Public Hearing held and concluded Matter of
TED DOWD. 280-a over right-of-way extending
off the north side of Main Road, Southold.
(No verbal opposition was submitted.) Mr. Dowd
was present and spoke in behalf of his application.
7:48 p.m.-
7:55 p.m.
Public Hearing was reopened in the Matter of The
NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER. Variance for
esta~ishment of Day-Care Center at the "Veterans
Community Center," Pike and Hill Streets, and
east side of Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
(No verbal opposition was submitted.) Glen
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings, continued:)
7:55 p.m.-
8:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.-
8:10 p.m.
8:10 pom.-
8:12 p.m.
8:12 p.m.-
8:28 p.m.
Moller, Director, was present and spoke in behalf
of his application. Following testimony, motion was
made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
and duly carried, to close (conclude) the hearing.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of Appeal No. 3637 C. KAPOTES AND A. HOMAYUN~I for
a deck addition with insufficient setback from
Soundview Avenue, Southold. Mrs. Kapotes spoke
in behalf of their application. (No verbal opposi-
tion was submitted duning the hearing.) Following
the hearing, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to
close (conclude) the hearing, pending deliberations.
public Hearing held and concluded in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3641 - BRETT AND JANET KEHL. Accessory
building with height in excess of maximum 18 feet;
or in the alternative, addition to dwelling with
an insufficient sideyard setback at 5500 Main
Bayview Road, Southold. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq.
spoke in behalf of the application. Mr. Kehl was
present and also poke. No verbal opposition was
submitted during the hearing. Following testimony,
motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, to close (conclude)
the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the
Board: Ayes: All.
Public Hearing held and concluded in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3634 RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. Fence in
frontyard area above min. four-feet. East Side of
Cottage Place, Southold. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq.
spoke in behalf of the application. Mr. Mullen
also was present. No verbal opposition was sub-
mitted during the hearing. Following testimony,
motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, to close (conclude)
the hearing, pending deliberations.
Public Hearing held and concluded in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3412 WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG.
Proposed new dwelling with: (a) insufficient setback
from wetlands and (b) insufficient setback from front
property line along Meadow Lane, Mattituck Estates.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings, continued:)
8:28 p.m.-
8:36 p.m.
8:36 p.m.
8:45 p.m.
8:45 p.m.-
9:16 p.m.
William Moore, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applica-
tion. Verbal opposition was received. (See verbatim
hearing transcript prepared and filed separately.)
Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goeh-
ringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried,
to close/conclude the hearing pending deliberations
at a later date.
Public Hearing was reconvened and conclude in the
Matter of App!. No. 3629 - IRWIN AND SONDRA THOMPSON.
The hearing was previously recessed as requested
on May 21, 1987 by the applicants' architect.
Garrett A. Strang, R.A. spoke in behalf of the
application. No verbal opposition was submitted
during the hearing. Following testimony, motion
was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
and duly carried, to close/conclude the hearing,
pending deliberations.
Temporary Recess.
Meeting reconvened. Motion was made by Mr. Goeh-
ringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to convene the
Regular Meeting at this time.
Public Hearing held and recessed without date
pending receipt of Health Department preliminaries
and submission of alternatives. Patricia C. Moore,
Esq. and Brian Shore, Architect, spoke in behalf
of the application. James Cron, Esq. spoke in
opposition. Also speaking in behalf of the
applicants were Mr. Herbert Davids, private
consultant.and Mr. Peter Herz, applicant.
Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goeh-
ringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried,
to recess the public hearing without a date
pending receipt of preliminary approval or other
input after application by the property owner
of the Suffolk County Health Department concern-
ing the location of the wells and cesspool systems
which appear to be creating practical difficulties
in this project. It was noted that the Suffolk
County Health Department permit dated 1982 has
expired and can no longer be used, and a new
application is necessary. The Suffolk County
Health Department confirmed by telephone to the
Z.B.A. Office that alternative locations may be
made available.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings, continued:)
9:16 p.m.
9:16 p.m.-
9:21 p.m.
9:22 p.m.
9:22 p.m.
9:23 p.m.-
9:47 p.m.
Member Sawicki left the room until 9:22 p.m.
Public Hearing held and concluded in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3640 for FRANK AND EDITH SAWICKI. Variance
for approval of insufficient width of three proposed
lots in this pending subdivision at the north side
of C.R. 48, Southold. Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr.
spoke as agent for the applicants. No verbal
opposition was submitted during the hearing.
Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goeh-
ringer, ~econded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried,
to close/conclude the hearing, pending deliberations.
Vote of the BQard: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Doyen. (Member Sawicki was absent.)
Member Sawicki returned.
Public Hearing held and concluded in the Matter of
Appl. No. 3625 PUDGE CORP. for a Special Exception
for mini-storage ~dings. No oral testimony
was permitted or received as agreed at the prior
hearing on May 21, 1987. Coordination of the final
map was made between the applicant and Abigail A.
Wickham, Esq., Attorney for the abutting property
owner(s). Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, to
officially conclude the hearing at this time and
commence the 60-day time period for deliberations.
Public Hearing held and concluded in the Matter of
Appl. No. 3638 JAMES AND MARY TYLER for a Special
Exception modifying Appl. N~. 3400 in this establish-
ment of a public garage (100-70B4 of the Zoning Code)
to eliminate Condition which required vehicle doors
to face north (rearyard) at 6795 Main Road, Laurel;
Mattituck Holding Co. Minor Subd. Lot #3. Richard F.
Lark, Esq. and~applicant James Tyler spoke in behalf
of the application. No verbal opposition was sub-
mitted from the audience. The Board asked whether
the applicant had a copy of the landscape and
sprinkler plans available and they did not. Motion
was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
and duly carried, to recess the hearing without
date pending receipt of the landscape and sprinkler
plan. (Once the hearing is conclude, no additional
submissions may be made as required by law.)
[See verbatim hearing transcript for statements.]
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
DELIBERATIONS/~ENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3546:
Application of GREGORY FOLLARI for a Variance from prior Appeal
No. 3507 rendered July ~l, 1986 to permit the regrading of area
within 50 feet of the top of the existing bank/bluff along the Long
Island Sound in accordance with N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation Permit #10-86-1233 issued March lO, 1987. Location of
Property: North Side of Sound Drive, Greenport, '!Map of Section
Four - Eastern Shores'' Lot No. ll7, Map No. 4586; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-33-1-15.
Following deliberations, the Board took the following action:
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
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning,
and the surrounding areas; and
are
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant seeks relief from
Condition No. 2 to regrade a 50' by lO0' area at the top of
the bluff area along the Long Island Sound as restricted by
this Board's action under Appeal No. 3507 rendered July 31,
1986.
2. The premises in question is located along the north
side of Sound Drive, Greenport, is identified on the Suffolk
County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 33, Block l, Lot 15,
and is more particularly referred to as Lot 117, "Map of
Section Four Eastern Shores," filed in the Suffolk County
Clerk's Office as Map No. 4586,
3. The subject premises has previously been vacant and
is presently improved with a single-family dwelling, constructed
under Building Permit #15255Z issued September 10, 1986, and
pending at this time.
4. The subject premises consists of a total area of
32,007 sq. ft., lot width of 100 feet, and lot depth of 322.7±
feet. The shortest distance from the southerly property line
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3546 FOLLARI decision, continued:)
along Sound Drive to the top of the bank/bluff area, as
scaled on the April 1, 1981 survey prepared by Roderick Van-
Tuyl, P.C. is shown to be 195± feet.
5. By prior action of this Board, appellant was granted
permission to locate a new single-family dwelling with a
setback at its closest point from the edge of the top of the
bluff/bank at 65 feet. Article XI, Section 100-119.2,
subparagraph A(1) requires all buildings proposed on lots
adjacent to the Long Island Sound to be set back not less
than one-hundred (lO0) feet from the top of the bluff or bank.
6. Condition #2 of the Board's prior action stipulated
as follows:
"...2. There shall be no disturbance of land area
within 50 feet of the top of bank, except for maintenance
of vegetation, shrubs, etc .... "
7. In the application, it is stated that without
permission to regrade this area, the property would be nearly
worthless as waterfront property. No evidence has been
submitted as required by the Courts to support this
claim.
8. It is the position of this Board that it is the
intent of Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph A(1)
of the Zoning Code to prohibit any and all construction
within 100 feet of the bluff; and that the relief condi-
tionally granted under the prior Appeal, No. 3502, is
an alternative to that initially applied for. Such condi-
tions must be adhered to. Construction commenced and has
and continued without consideration of possible alternatives
for the dwelling construction during the process of this
pending application. Removal of an eight-foot high berm
in an area 50 feet deep by 100 feet is extensive, and the
existence of this berm area was relief upon in granting
the prior variance.
9. It is the position of this Board not to allow
alterations of this bluff area to remove an eight-foot (dirt)
berm of an area 100 feet wide by 50 feet deep for waterview
purposes, as applied herein.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3546 - FOLLARI decision, continued:)
In considering this appeal, the Board also finds and
determines:
(a) the relief requested is not the minimal necessary;
(b) the difficulties claimed are not sufficient to
warrant the relief as requested;
(c) the information submitted is not sufficient to
support a granting of this application;
(d) the circumstances are unique;
(e) to grant the relief as applied is not within the
spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance;
(f) there are alternatives available other than a
variance;
(g) in view of the manner in which the difficulties
arose and in view of all the above factors, the interests
of justice will be served by denying the application, as
applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to DENY the relief requested under Appeal
No. 3546 in the Matter of the Applications of GREGORY
FOLLARI, as applied.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
adopted.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was unanimously
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
DELIBERATIONS/PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3641:
Application of BRETT AND JANET KEHL for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-~ for approval of the construc-
tion of an accessory building with height in excess of maximum 18 feet,
or in the alternative, Article III, Section lO0-31(A) for permission
to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard setback.
Location of Property: 5}30 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-78-4-32.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held, and concluded, on June 18,
1987 in the Matter of the Application of BRETT AND JANET KEHL under
Appeal No. 3641; 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
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning,
and the surrounding areas; and
are
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(A) of the Zoning
Code for approval of the construction of a 24' by 32' accessory
garage/storage structure at a maximum height, as defined by
Section 100-13, at 21 feet. (The total height from ground
level to the top of the roof is 26 feet, and 25'2" from the
top of the roof to the top of the foundation.)
2. The premises in question is located along the south
side of Main Bayview Road, approximately 310 feet east of Corey
Creek Lane, Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold, and is iden-
tified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section
78, Block 4, Lot 32.
3. The subject premises is located in the "A" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District, contains a total lot area of
.60+ of an acre, and is improved with the following structures:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3641 KEHL decision, continued:)
(a) two-story, single-family frame house set back approximately
39 feet from the front property line along Main Bayview Road, 26
feet from the easterly (side) property line, 47 feet from the
nearest westerly (side) property line, and 98± feet from the
nearest rear (southerly) property line; (b) accessory building
(depicted "shop" on the survey dated Aug. 26, 1954 prepared by
Otto W. VanTuyl & Son, and updated June 12, 1987 by Roderick
VanTuyl, P.C.) set back 43± feet from the nearest (easterly)
property line and 92± feet from the front property line, and
of a size 12' by 20'; (c) accessory garage structure of a
size 15' by 10' and situated ll+ feet from the nearest rear
property line; (d) accessory chicken coop structure of an
approximate size 4' by 7' situated on the rear property line
at the most southwesterly corner; (e) the subject 24' by 32'
accessory garage structure set back not less than six feet from
the nearest westerly (side) property line and 65± feet from the
front property line.
4. For the record it is noted that a Certificate of
Occupancy of Nonconforming Premises #Z13913 was issued
October 9, 1985 for structures (a), (b), (c) and (d), supra,
and that Building Permit #15142Z was issued July 28, 1986
for the accessory garage/storage structure of a size 24' by
and 26 feet high, with one garage level and storage above,
and is pending at this time.
32'
5. Article III, Section 100-32(A) permits the construction
of an accessory structure for storage and garage purposes
accessory and incidental to the residence in the rearyard only
and at a maximum height of 18 feet.
6. It is the position of this Board that the difficulty
cannot be obviated by some method feasible for applicants to
pursue other than a variance, particularly in view of the fact
that the accessory building has been constructed and appears
to be in accordance with the pending Building Permit.
In considering this appeal, the Board also finds and
determines:
(a) the relief requested is not the minimal necessary;
(b) the difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant
the granting of this variance;
(c) there is no other method feasible for appellants
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10-June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3641 KEHL decision, continued:)
to pursue other than a variance;
(d) the circumstances are unique~
(e) the granting of the relief, as conditionally noted
below, is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance;
(f) in view of the manner in which the difficulties
arose and in view of all the above factors, the interests of
justice will be served by granting relief, as conditionally
noted below,
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to APPROVE the construction of a 24' by 32'
accessory garage/storage buildingat a height of 21 feet and
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Accessory building to remain the size requested of
24' by 32' without additions or expansions.
2. Accessory building not to exceed height requested
of 21 feet (height as defined by Section lO0-13) as exists;
3. No overhead or other lighting which will be adverse
to neighboring properties;
4. No sleeping or habitable quarters and shall be
limited to storage and garage use incidental and accessory
to residence;
5. Setback from nearest westerly property line shall
not be less than six feet, as requested.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION/DELIBERATIONS: Appeal No. 3632 as Amended.
Application of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A) to permit the
establishment of a Day-Care Center, at premises referred to as the
Veterans Community Center, north side of Pike Street, east side of
Wickham Avenue, and south side of Hill Street, Mattituck, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140-2-39, containing 1.75± acres.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held initially on the Application
of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER under Appeal No. 3632 on May 21,
1987, on its application to establish a nursery school, to vary
Conditions under Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[3](a) and (d); and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1987, an Amendment to reopen Appeal
No. 3632 was filed to establish a Day-Care Center under the
guise of a use variance in an existing building; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1987, a public hearing was held, and
concluded, on the Amended Application for a Day-Care Center; 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
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning,
and the surrounding areas; and
are
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by
Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code fronting along the north side
of Pike Street, the east side of Wickham Avenue, and the south
side of Hill Street, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of
Southold, further identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as District 1000, Section 140, Block 2, Lot 39.
2. The subject premises contains a total area of 1.41
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3632 - N.F. EARLY LEARNING, continued:)
acres, is located in the "A~40" Residential and Agricultural
Zoning District, and is improved with one frame and metal
building of a size 51.5 by 41.4 feet, as more particularly
shown on survey and site plan prepared by Peconic Surveyors
and Engineers, P.C. May 12, 1987.
3. By this application, as amended, the appellant
requests permission to continue the operation of a "Day Care
Center" (referred to as the "North Fork Early Learning Center"
with both half and full day programs for a maximum of 29
children. This operation is not a school as defined by
the Education Laws of the State of New York and accordingly
does not qualify as a private, nonprofit school under Article
III, Section 100-30(B)[3] of the Town's Zoning Code.
4. Properties to the north (along Hill Street) are
located in the "C-Light Industrial" Zone; properties to
the west, east and south are located in the Residential and
Agricultural Zone.
5. The May 12, 1987 survey and site plan prepared by
Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. depict a frame and
metal building, having a total first floor area of 2,340±
sq. ft. for use in the day-care center's operation. Also
shown are a minimum of 15 parking spaces, including two
handicap spaces, and a fenced-in playground. The existing
building is setback at its closest points 87.6 feet from
Hill Street, 13.7 and 21.8 feet from the southeast
property line (n/o/f Kramer), 68.4 feet from the east
property line, and 173 feet from the westerly property
line along Wickham Avenue. The existing playground area
is set back 27 feet from Hill Street, 18 feet from the
easterly property line, 46 feet from the northeasterly
property line (along Kramer), and 198 feet from Wickham
Avenue.
6. To the best of this Board's knowledge, the subject
premises has never been used as a residence since prior
to the enactment of zoning, and has been used only as a
meeting place or community center. No building permits
have been issued since the enactment of zoning, and the
building does not appear to have been changed or altered
in any manner since prior to zoning.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3632 - N.F. EARLY LEARNING, continued:)
7. It is the opinion of this Board that: (a) the
grant of this variance will not in effect "down zone"
the existing nonconforming use as a meeting place, or
community center; (b) that the land in question cannot
yield a reasonable return, particularly in light of the
size and character of this building, except through great
expense to convert this pre-zoning structure and transform
the lot into suitable residential property; (c) that
the neighborhood consists of an industrial use directly
to the north and Fire Department at the southwest corner
of Pike Street and Wickham Avenue.
In considering this application, the Board also finds
and determines: (a) the land in question cannot yield a
reasonable return if its use is continued as a "community
center", or altered for residential use; (b) the plight
of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions of the neighborhood; (c) the
proposed Amendments to the Master Plan depict this
parcel for "R-40", permitting "nursery schools" by
Special Exception; (d) the use authorized will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr..Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under
Appeal No. 3632 as Amended in the Application of the
NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER for the establishment
~ operation of a Day-Care Center in existing building,
at premises referred to as the "Veterans Community Center,"
as applied.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION/~ELIBERATIONS: Appl. No. 3626-SE.
Application of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER for a Special
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[3]
for permission to establish private (nursery) school [or day care
center] as a nonprofit organization, at premises referred to as the
"Veterans Community Center," north side of Pike Street, east side
of Wickham Avenue, and south side of Hill Street, Mattituck, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140-2-39.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on May 21,
1987 in the Matter of the Application of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING
CENTER under Special Exception Application No. 3626; 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 a corner lot as defined by
Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code fronting along the north side
of Pike Street, the east side of Wickham Avenue, and the south
side of Hill Street, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of
Southold, further identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as District 1000, Section 140, Block 2, Lot 39.
2. The subject premises contains a total area of 1.41
acres, is located in the "A-SO" Residential and Agricultural
Zoning District, and is improved with one frame and metal
building of a size 51.5 by 41.4 feet, as more particularly
shown on survey and site plan prepared by Peconic Surveyors
and Engineers, P.C. May 12, 1987.
3. By this application, applicant seeks a Special Excep-
tion under the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[3]
of the Zoning Code to operate a nursery school in an existing
building, at premises referred to as "The Veterans Community
Center." The nursery school operation is proposed for a
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appl. No. 3626-SE N.F. EARLY LEARNING, continued:)
maximum of 29 children, with four teachers and one adminis-
trator, and with both half and full day programs.
4. Properties to the north (along Hill Street) are
located in the "C-Light Industrial" Zone; properties to
the west, east and south are located in the Residential
Agricultural Zone.
and
5. The May 12, 1987 survey and site plan prepared by
Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. depict a frame and
metal building, having a total first floor area of 2,340±
sq. ft. for use in the day-care center's operation. Also
shown are a minimum of 15 parking spaces, including two
handicap spaces, and a fenced-in playground. The existing
building is setback at its closest points 87.6 feet from
Hill Street, 13.7 and 21.8 feet from the southeast
property line (n/o/f Kramer), 68.4 feet from the east
property line, and 173 feet from the westerly property
line along Wickham Avenue. The existing playground area
is set back 27 feet from Hill Street, 18 feet from the
easterly property line, 46 feet from the northeasterly
property line (along Kramer), and 198 feet from Wickham
Avenue.
6. To the best of this Board's knowledge, the subject
premises has never been used as a residence since prior
to the enactment of zoning, and has been used only as a
meeting place or community center. No building permits
have been issued since the enactment of zoning, and the
building does not appear to have been changed or altered
in any manner since prior to zoning.
7. Article III, Section lO0-30(B)
schools, colleges and other educational
subject to the following requirements:
permits ..."Private
institutions,
(a) No building shall be less than 50 feet from any
street or lot line;
(b) The total area occupied by all principal and
accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent [20%]
of the area of the lot;
(c) Any such school shall be a nonprofit organization
within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16-June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appl. No. 3626-SE N.F. EARLY LEARNING, continued:)
registered effectively thereunder as such;
(d) Any such school shall occupied a lot with an area
of not less than five (5) acres plus one (1) acre for each
25 pupils for which the building is designed .... "
8. In the understanding of this Board after reviewing
this case that the use proposed does not meet the State's
definition for a "school," under the Education Laws, and
that the use intended is a "day care center," and the cir-
cumstances of the property do not lend to the conditions
under such a Special Exception permit.
9. Simultaneously herewith under Appeal No. 3632,
a use variance was granted to this premises for the
operation of a "Day Care Center" in the existing building
as applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the Application for a Special Exception
as applied under No. 3626 NORTH FORK EARLY LERANING CENTER
BE AND HEREBY IS DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: After reviewing each of the
following matters, the Board took the following action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it
was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations
in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the
Town of Southold:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -]7-
(En¥ironmental Declarations, Continued:)
June 18, ]98'7 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECI,ARATION
Notice of Determination of__N_on-S_i_Qnificance
APPEAL NO.: 3605
PROJECT NA~: TED'DOWD
This notice is issued pursuant to l'art 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 oi the N.Y.£;. Environmental.
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within proj~.~ct not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for th(% 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 tile same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of Access (280-a)
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly.known as: ROW off the north side,of-Main Road, Southold,
1000-56-1-5~1
NY
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) Ah Environmental Assessment in the [d~ort 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 -]8-
(~n¥ironraentat Declarations, Continued:)
June 18, ]98'7
Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECI,ARATION
Notice of Determination of__N_!on__-~_~.Qnificance
APPEAL NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
3637
C. KAPOTES AND A. HOMAYUNI
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of th~.~ implem~nting
regulations pertaining to Article 8 o~ the N.Y..q. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conserw~tion Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to hav~3 a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that thi:; d~c]aration should not be
considered a determination 'made for any othu~; 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: Deck addition to dwelling with insufficient
frontyard setback
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Soutbold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Goldin Ave. and Soundview Ave., Southold NY
1000-135-2-2~ ,
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) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures.
South]old Town B0a~o o{ Appeals -]9-
(~nVironmental Declarations, Continued:)
[~une i~, ]98 7 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
Notice of Determination_o_~_.~_on-.~[i_gnif[cance
APPEAL NO.: 3641
PROJECT NA~E: B'RETT AND 'JANET KEHL '
This notice is issued pursuant to l'art 6].7 of th(.~ implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 oi the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Enviroumunta]. Conscrw~tion 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 lfor the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that thi:] 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: [i ] Type II [Xi Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Aacessory building with height in excess of
maximum 18 feet, or in the alternative, addition to dwelling with an
insufficient sideyard setback.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Tow~ of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 5500 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY
1000-78-4-32
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the [~hort form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be impic-
mented as planned;
(2) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating
that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses
or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands.
Southold Town Board o{ Appeals -20-
(~Jnyironmental Declarations, Continued:)
June i~, J9~7 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DI]CLARAT~O~
Notice of Determination of Non-~_i_gnificance
APPEAL NO.: 3634
PROJECT NA~iE: RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR.
This notice is issued pursuant to J'art 617 of the implem(~'nting
regulations pertaining to Article 8 oi the N.Y.S. Environment.,]
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conscrw~tion 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 thi:; d{_,claration should not be
considered a determination 'made for any othc~ department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simi]hr
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Fence in' frontyard area above min. four-feet
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk,
particularly knpwn as: East side of Cottage'Place,-Southold, NY
1000-62-3-19
more
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 question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2]-
(~nVironmental Declarations, Continu~d:)
June 18, ] 987 R(;gu]ar Meeting
S.E.Q.]{.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DiiCI,ARATION
Notice of Determinstion of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3638
PROJECT NA~iE: JAMES AND MARY TYLER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of th(.~ implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 oi the N.Y.£;. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines
cant adverse effect on the
below.
the within project not to have a signifi-
environment for the reasons indicated
Please take further notice that thi:; d(;c]aration should not be
considered a determination 'made for any othc¥ department or ag(~ncy
which may also have an application pond[n(3 for tile sa~ne or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [>.] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Rxception modifying Appl. No. 3400
to permit vehicle doors facing street side as constructed in this
establishment of a public, garage. ~
LOCATION OF PROJECT. Town or Southold, County of. Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 6795 Main Road, Laurel, NY 1000-125-1-19.6
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in thc nhort form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environi~ent are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Matter of FRANK AND EDITH SAWICKI.
Appeal No. 3640 - Variance for approval of insufficient lot
width of three proposed 80,000+ sq. ft. parcels, at the north side
of C.R. 48, Southold.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it
was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declaration
in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the
Town of Southold:
(continued on page 23)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- June 18, ]98'7 Regular Meeting
(~ ¥lronmental Declarations, Continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A ·
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL [)I,:Cr,ARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-~i_~nif.icance
APPEAL NO.: 3640 '--
PROJECT NAME: FRANK AND EDITH SAWICKI
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of thc ~mplementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 oil 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 ngt 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 simi~hr
project o
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approvai of insufficient width of three parcels
in this pendig Minor Subdivision, each having a minimum lot area of
80,000 sq. ft.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. suffolk, more
particularly known as: North side of C.R. 4.8, Southold,NY
1000-51-3-12'~ i
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment itl the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely go occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is lot-line variance as regulated by Section 617.13,
6 NYCRR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declaration, continued:)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen
and Douglass. (Member Sawicki abstained entirely.)
REVIEW/SCHEDULING NEW MATTERS FOR PUBLIC HEARING__S_:
by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
On motion
RESOLVED, to schedule the following matters for public hearings
to be held before this B~ard at the Regular Meeting of THURSDAY,
JULY 16, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New
YOrk:
1. Matter of Appeal No. 3639 - WILHELM FRANKEN. Accessory
garage in sideyard. Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. ~Property is
bulkheaded.)
2. Appl. No. 3635 - ARTHUR JUNGE. Variance to establish
business use in this A Zone. North Side of C.R. 48, Cutchogue.
3. Appl. No. 3592 - BENTE SNELLENBURG. Hearing to be
reconvened on requests for: ~ fencing at excessive height and
(b) appeal of determination of Building Inspector regarding
building permit for fence. ROW off the East Side of South Harbor
Road, Southold.
4. Appl. No. 3631 PUDGE CORP~ Variance to establish
business use in this A Zone. Nort~ side of North Road, Cutchogueo
5. Appl. No. 3496 FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Variance to
place accessory building with insufficient setback from wetlands.
575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. Subject to confirmation from
Health Department as to hook-ups.
6. Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN. Variance for area,
width and depth. Corners of Jackson St., Main St., and First
Street, New Suffolk.
7. Appl. No. 3642 PETER AND DINA MASSO. Variance to
place boathouse below bluff with insufficient setback from
waters edge. Nassau Point Road, Cutchgoue.
8. Appl. of FOREVER GREEN if filed by July 1st.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings for July 16, continued:)
9. Appl. No. 3644 FRED WIGHTMAN and JOSEPH REINHART.
Use variance and Interpretation. Shopping center/multipT~-uses
in this "A" Zone. North Side of Main Road, Peconic (just east
of Wells Pontiac-Cadillac Corp.) Subject to receiving the
following on or before July lst:
(a) Copy of Contract of Sale pending disclosing persons
and parties having interests concerning these premises and terms
and conditions of sale [Questionnaire Form #10].
(b) Copies of Pre-C.O., Certificates of Occupancy,
or pending Permits (if any);
(c) Confirmation as to the livable floor area of the
upstairs apartment for the record;
(d) Confirmation as to the layout of Building #2
of the first floor, retail area, storage area, total square
footage) for the record;
(use
(e) Confirmation as to the
December 1st of Building l, if any.
during December 1986 or thereaboutS);
present use since
(Carpentry shop vacated
(f) Sketch or map indicating the placement and size
of existing sign, if to be retained.
10. Appl. No. 3636V - TARTAN OIL CO. Variance to permit
convenience store accessory to existing gasoline service
station. (Additional information as requested must be
received by July 1st newspaper advertising deadline)
ll. Appl. No. 3633SE TARTAN OIL CO. Special Exception
to establish self-service pumps. (Additional requested informa-
tion must be received by advertising deadline.)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
NEW REVIEWS/REFERRALS: The Board authorized the following referrals:
(a) Appl. No. 3496
input/inspections/report
Conservation District.
FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Referral for
from the Suffolk County Soil and Water
(b) Appl. No. 3642 PETER AND DINA MASSO. Input/inspections-
report from the Soil and Water Conservation District.
DELIBERATIONS: Appl. No. 3624 ERNEST TARMIN. Public Hearing
held and concluded on May 21, 1987. Accessory structure(s) with
insufficient setbacks from bluff/bank along Long Island Sound.
ROW off the north side of Main Road, Orient. Board requested and
awaits specifications for stairs and Town Attorney opinion as to
jurisdiction for stairs construction. The Board Clerk advised
the Board of her conversation with Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq.,
Special Town Attorney, who advised that buildings or structures
within 100 feet of the top of the Sound bluff and seaward are
within Zoning Board and Trustee jurisdiction.
DELIBERATIONS/UPDATE: Appl. No. 3439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR.
Await area merger/dwellings information as requested at May 21st
Z.B.A. Hearing. Hearing held and concluded on May 21, 1987.
Information as to building-envelope setbacks received 6/11/87.
No action was taken pending receipt of the merger/dwelling
information.
CORRESPON~,N,CE/COMPLAINT: Appeal No. 3510 - RICHARD ZEIDLER.
The Board members acknowledged receipt of Mr. and Mrs. Bertram
Walker'~s letter of complaint and referral to Francis J. ~akaboski,
Esq., Special Town Attorney pursuant to the Chairman's letter
of transmittal dated June 16, 1987. This matter has recently
been reviewed by Mr. Yakaboski in behalf of the Building Depart-
ment concerning enforcement of possible violations on the
wetlands permit issued by the Town Trustees, etc.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
UPDATE: Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (awaiting
additional information as noted below):
Appeal No. 3259 NICHOLAS ALIANO. Special Exception to
establish four two-story motel buildings containing l0 motel units
for transient use, and an office building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area
6n this 3.721-acre parcel, zoned "B-Light Business." S/s Main
Road, Greenport (along the east side of 7:ll). **Recessed hearing
from 8/23/84 awaiting Village of Greenport contracts to which
this plan is contingent upon before action ~an be taken.
Appeal No. 2558 NICK AND ANNA PALEOS. Variance for
insufficient area, width and depth (three proposed lots). S/s
C.R. 48, Peconic (formerly Hass). Await Art. 6 Subdivision
Action before advertis, ing. (P.B. review 10/6/86). H. Raynor, Agent.
Appeal No. 3561 DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON. Variance for
insufficient area, width and depth (two lots). S/s Northview Drive,
Orient. Await Art. 6 Action before advertising. R. Bruer, Esq.
Appeal No. 3581
Variances for insuffic
Action per Co. Health
GEORGE DAMIEN. Jackson St., New Suffolk.
ient area, width, depth. Await Art. 6
Dept. communications. Public Hearing ?/16/87.
Appeal No. 3298 - C & L REALTY/PORT OF EGYPT. Variance to
construct 40-unit motel on insufficient builda~l~ upland of 4.83
acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main Road (prev.
Southold Fishing Station/Morris), Southold. (**Await corrected
site plans, topographical survey including lowest floor elevations
above mean sea level, Health Department approvals, N.Y.S.D.E.C.
action, comments or input from Planning Board after review of
site plan.) 10/9/84
Appeal No. 3183 - MARY N. CODE. Smith Drive North, S6uthold.
Proposed re.~J~paration of lots. Await DEC and Planning Board
applications to be filed for coordination/action.
Appeal No. 3274 - BEST, SCHMITT, SYVERSON. Variances for
insufficient area, width in proposed division of land. ROW off
E/s Camp Mineola Road, along Great Peconic Bay, Mattituck.
(**Await Co. Health Art. 6, N.Y.S.D.E.C., Planning Board before
advertising public hearing. Recent change in title.) ~
Appeal No. 2929 - SAL CAIOLA. Project as proposed is
questionable. Status/clarification awaited. N/s CR 48, Southold.
S'outhold Town Board of Appeals -28- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(UPDATE, continued:)
Appeal No. 3371 FLORENCE ROLLE. Variances for area and
depth, two parcels. E/s Ole Jule Lane and N/s Kraus Road,
Mattituck. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6 action.) A. Wickham, Esq.
Appeal No. 3342 PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variances for
area and width (two parce--~-i~-~-.- **Recessed from 5/25/83 as
requested by attorney for County Health Dept. Art. 6 action
(and DEC). N/s Pine N6ck Road (opposite Park Way), Southold.
R. Bruer, Esq.
Appeal No. 3191 HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change lot
line and locate garage' in front/side yard areas. E/s Linet
Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of Clempner and Mandel.
Await DEC action and PB input before advertising.)
Appeal No. 3249 DONALD P. BRICK~E~. Variance for
nsufficient area and width. S/s Bay Avenue and E/s Broadwater
Drive, Cutchogue. (**Await DEC, Art. 6 action and contour maps.)
Appeal No. 3268 J. KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance for
insufficient area, width and depth of lots proposed in this
"£" Zone. Planning Board denied 9/84. (**Await DEC and Co.
Health Art. 6 action after formal applications.)
Appeal No. 3542 TIDEMARK/CLIEFSIDE ASSOCIATES.
Await copies of Co. Health aph~oval, updated certification
on amended maps by Building Inspector, and continuation of
SEQRA prodess when file is complete. P.B. received 12/22/86;
DEC received 11/6/86.
Appeal No. 3537 ROBERT AND SUSAN D'URSO; Breezy Path,
Southold. ~ait DEC, Co. Health and Trustee actions (after
formal applications) to complete file. New dwelling with
insufficient setback from wetlands and bulkhead. R. Bruer, Esq.
Appeal No. 3545 - PATRICK STIGLIANI. Main Bayview Road,
Southold. AWait Co. Health Ar~. 6 a~on. Area, width and depth
variances. Alfred Skidmore, ~sq. (V~llage water ho~ available.)
Appeal No. ~546 GREGORY ~OLLARI. R~li~r uF ZBA_~O~uJ-~-~-~,
requested concerning disturbance of s ' luff. Await
DEC action ~af_t~~alter bluff areas before
· p; ...... g
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -29- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(UPDATE, continued:)
Appeal No. 3575 - ROSA HODGSON. Variances as to insufficient
area and width of proposed 45,000~ sq. ft. lot from 7.152-acre
parcel. ~?~'Pine Neck Road, Southold. Await Co. I(ealth Art. 6
action. Garrett A. Strang, Architect, to send letter clarifying
ROW ownership, etc. (Public Hearing not to be held before 4/7/87).
Appeal No. 3389 - THEODORE PETIKAS. Variance to use
residential portion of premises for restaurant use. ~/sFSound
Road and N/s Main Road, Greenport. Await further instructions
from attorney or applicant. Await PB input on revisions.
Appi. No. ~)%r86-SE - ROBEttT ^HD IIELEN DIER. S~pecial [x~
for Bed and Breakfast. : Await determi ' c~a Exception
for Accessprv An~+ about 3/5/87 before proceeding.
355 ~P~ry lane, Sn~thnld.
Appeal No. 3600SE - T. LUCAS AND G. & A. BELLS. Special
Exception to allow 70 motel units on 7.~lS'-~-~--~oned "B-Light"
Business, 4,000 sq. ft. of land area per unit with Village water.
S/s Main Road (prev. golf range), Greenport. Await §ix items
per our Resolution 1/8/87, before advertising for public hearinq.
Appeal No. 3549 J. KALIN AND B. GIBBS. Variances as to
insufficient area, width and depth. N/s MaTn Road, Orient.
Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiver and copies of current deeds.
(As of 2/19/87 Co. Health Art. 6 appl. not filed.)
Appeal No. 3556 EUGENE AND ANN BURGER. Variance for deed
with insufficient setback from wetlands alon~ Little Creek.
25~5 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Await CO and exact setback
requested from nearest wetlands. Photographs may be furnished
after flagging of construction area.
Appeal No. 3602 - MARGARET McNAMARA. Wraparound deck within
75 feet of existing bull~-~-~-~ and in excess of 20% lot coverage.
640 Takaposha (private) Road, Southold. (Await Trustee and
DEC waivers before advertising.)
Appeal No. 3564 - JOHN DEMPSEY (Contract Vendee). Variances
for insufficient setback from bluff and 280-a. No record of
town approval on subdivision. C.O. not available. N/s ROW off
the N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
Appeal No. 3206 HENRY P. SMITH. Variances for insufficient
area a~ Width (two lots.--)-~---~'P~nic Lane, Peconic. P. Ofrias,
Esq. Mu)tiple business uses. P.B. recommends 24 parking spaces.
(No Communications received since 7/26/8~.)
Appeal No. 3548 FRANK R. ZALESKI. Variances for insufficient-,
are~, width and depth (three parcels' in pdnding division). E/s
Deep Hole Drive, ?~ttit'uck. ~/295-acre described parcel. Await
Co. Health Art. 6 roval. Rec. PB input and DEC permit (exp. 12/87).
Henry RaYm'or, Aqen~.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
Appeal No. 3514 GEORGE P. SCHADE. Variances for
insufficient area, width and depth in this pending
division. (Await Co. Health Art. VI waiver/action
before advertising.)
Appeal No. 3495 JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Variances
for insufficient area, width and depth of two proposed
parcels. North Side of Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
(Await Co. Health Art. VI waiver/action before advertising.)
Appeal (incomplete) for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. East Side
of West Lane and S/s Nor~--[~--~ivate), off the east
side of Orchard Lane, East Marion. Variances for approval
of insufficient area, width, depth, etc. of lots in pend-
ing division. (**Await Notice of Disapproval after
application to Building Department, reissuance of filing
fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc.)
Appeal No. 3293 HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variances
for proposed insufficient a~-~'-w~-~ ~th of three
parcels. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview Road (west of
Waterview Drive), Southold. 280-a not requested. (**Await
Co. Health Art. VI and DEC approvals/action.)
Appeal No. 3367 LOIS AND PATRICIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance
for approval of two proposed parcels with insufficient
area and width. S/s North Drive, Mattituck. (**Await
DEC, building envelope setbacks, and setbacks from
wetland grasses.)
Appeal No. 3355 PAUL AND MARIETTA CANALIZO. Variance
to construct with insufficient setback in frontyard from
wetlands. (**Await DEC and wetland setbacks map.
Trustees reviews peeding--new application may be necessary
for Trustee action-and DEC action updates.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Updates, continued:)
Appeal No. 3445 JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for
approval of insuff~area and width of two pro-
posed lots. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road,
Southold. (**Await Art. VI action and copy of C.O.)
Paul Caminiti, Esq.
Appeal No. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA. Variances
for insufficient area, width and depth in this pending
division (three parcels). N/s Main Road, East Marion.
(Await P.B. application/referral comments after sub-
mission of corrected maps (for three rather than twoi
await C.O. of record, if any.) Paul Caminiti, Esq.
Appeal No. 3403 - ANNA LORIA. Variances for approval
of two parcels having insufficient area, width and depth
in this pending division of land. W/s First Street and
N/s King Street, New Suffolk. (Await Co. Health Art. VI
action after application.)
Appeal No. 3426 - GERALD DOROSKI. Variance for approval
of access (280-a). N/s C.R. 48, Peconic. (Await
additional information to clarify ROW and P.B. input
on pending division abutting premises to the east.)
Appeal No. 3411 - ANDREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore
existing building for habitable use (additional dwelling
unit). S/s Lipco Road, Mattituck. (Await scaled floor
plans and C.O.) Helen Rosenblum, Esq.
The Board Members agreed to hold a Special Meeting during the
next 10 days for deliberations, actions, and updates.
There being no other business properly coming before the Board
at ~this time, thai Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The
Meelting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Approved -
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. K~owalski ~ ~ ?
~ Board Secretary
~.~)..~Sout~oid Town Board of Appeals
30, 1987-Ger'a~ Goehri-~-~r, Chairman
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE ~TTER OF TED DOWD
THURSDAY., JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
7:38 p.m. Appeal No. 3605 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of TED DOWD. Variance for Approval of Access (280-a).
ROW off the north side of the Main Road, Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
I have a copy of a survey map
in the respect that-particular 7 plus acre parcel is on the north
side of the railroad and the access is through a long right-of-way
over at least two other persons /pr0pertie$ and the copy that I have
that was prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. on March 29, 1983 and
amended June 21, 1983 indicates the beginning of the right-of-way
off of Main State Highway. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrQunding properties in the area. Mr.
Dowd, would you like to be heard.~ Would you like to be heard Ted?
MR. DOWD: Does anybody else have anything.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let'~ see. Is there anybody who
would like to speak on .behalf of this application? AnybOdy like
to speak against the application? I guess 'you're on.
MR. DOWD: Everything I had to say is actually in the two letters.
The one on January 27th which accompanied the application and then
recently the letter to the Chairman citing my inspection with Chief
Westerlund. Basically, it took a long time before I could get to the
point where I could go for access because I had to seek approval
to get electrical power to the p~operty and what not. I guess about
a year and a half ago, I met with Pat Kelly who is the principal resi-
dent down there and has the most knowledge of the property and w'ith
Jack Davis. At that time, we discussed what it would take to ~-
prove the access and 1 did make ~mprovements in conjunction with
Long Island Railroad. Later on, you requested an insDection and
it appears they wanted more exteDsive improvements. Both Pat Kelly
and myself are pretty much against that as I've expressed in my
second letter. Primarily because we're just going to open up his
property and mine to a major tho[oughfare if you take the recom-
mendation~ of the Building Department. I'm sorry. The. To~ High-
way Engineer. ~ Also, he did recommend thati.the Chief of the Fire
Department or the Fire Departmen~ go down and look at i.t, So I
met with Chief Wes~erland and/,.h~e' drove hils ~ehicle doWn[.Andcfollowed me
all the way to the property and lie made some recommendations, 'Our
recommendation, of course, of wh.~t I'd like to see is I conform to
whatever Chief Wes~erland~q~ir
in that conformance, I be grante,
would like to start with the barl
lead to a home. This is my own
best to address the whole thing
stand I can build the barn by it
~s for the access. And upon being
permission to build. I basically,
But eventually, I'm going to
ersonal home. So I thought it
~efore I start thebba~n. I under-
~elf but that's not my intent. My
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
3Public Hearing - Ted Dowd
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. DOWD (continued):
intent is to build a homestead, barn~ h0use, etc.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was the nature of the discussion with
Chief Westerland from the Southo~d Fire Department concerning the
width of the right-of-way?
MR. DOWD: He had no problem with the width of the right-of-way.
He did state that in the last portion of the right-of-way, two
or three trees would be needed to be taken down. Thev're not
very large trees but they would impede the access by emergency
vehicles. Basically he said if you can take these couple of
trees, that would be fine. I asked him for a letter and that's
when he said it would be best to contact the Chairman and tell
him to contact me. That's the reason I wrote the letter. Other-
wise I would have .... I just didn't think it was appropriate tc
insist on a letter. So he was very positive. He drove his own
vehicle merely so he could drive it down there.
CHAI~MANGOEHRINGER: Ok. Now, going down the road recommenda-
tions, you object to the width widening to ten feet. That's the
first thing you object to.
MR. DOWD: That's the primary.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the primary one. Where it says num-
ber two grade railroad crossing with additional fill to provide
for grade is not more than 8% with a 1 to 4 slide slope using ma-
terial containing 15% or more small gravel or sand and 15% more
of 10am. Do you have any objection to that?
MR. DOWD: I'd be glad to do it. I had done that with conjunc-
tion with Lonq Island Railroad previously but I guess I did not
do it to satisfy the Highway Departmento
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And number three, place two inch...
MR. DOWD: I would like to point out that a major portion of that
road over the years, has been filLed~i~h~b~.ick etCo I mean, it's
a very strong surface, i understand the problems with the crossing.
I have written Long Island Railroad and coordinated with them when
I did the initial work on the approaches where you see the blue
stone.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
they?
Ok.
Did you put that blue stone in or di~
MR. DOWD: It was their blue stone but I put the fill in. I filled
it and their workers were there and then they broughH the blue stone.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the two-inch compacted surface of three
quarter inch stone blend. Do you have any objection to that?
MR. DOWD: I don't see any need for it and we had a long discussion
about a year and a half ago with Pat Kelly explaining exactly what
Page 3 - June 18, 1987
-Public Hearing - Ted Dowd
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
MR. DOWD (continued):
he did when he surfaced the road over the years~ My gosh. Ten
wheelers have gone down there, bulldozers when I was clearing
the property. The property has been farmed. Three acres that
I have nursery stock has been farmed as late as the fifties. So
that required extensive clearing to clear that portion that is
was farmed. So it took quite a bit of equipment to get down that
right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. The last Part, of course, you've read
and you're aware of in reference to the removal of 12 inches of
top soil. I assume that's within the last 250 feet where it at-
tempts (I assume) to run into your property at that particular
point.
MR. DOWD: I've walked that particular portion. I've walked pro-
bably the last 6 to 8 hundred feet with Chief Westerland. He
pointed out that particular aspect. It's strong enough to support
the weight and the vehicles pass and etc., etc. His only concern
was with removing some of the trees. He had no concern. He was
very positive and he discussed with me about the surface and the
load bearing capability.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we assume at this particular time, we're
really talking about the servicing of this rightmof-way for two
houses. One; the Kelly house that exists. And two, your house
that you intend to build in years to come. At the very least..~
MR. DOWD: I don't think there would be anyway I could do any-~
thing else. Once I build the house, I'm committed. I don't
think I could every go to subdivide.
CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: At the very least, we're talking at this
time, Mr. Kelly's house and your barn initially. You want the
approval to build a house and that's why you're here~
MR. DOWD:
a home.
The reason I'm here is because eventually, I'll build
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I thank you very much. We'll
take a look at it again. I was down there about six weeks ago
and I'll go back down again bearing in mind what you said about
with Chief Westerland and we'll see what develops. I' think you
very much for coming in Mr. Dowd. Anybody else lik~ to speak on
behalf of this hearing. You have to raise your hand fast because
we move it right along. Hearing no further questions, I~ll make
a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
7:48 p.m. Appeal No. 3632 - Public Hearing commenCed in the
Matter of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING. Variance for establish-
ment of Day-Care Center at the "Veterans Community Center",
Pike Street, Wickham Avenue, and Hill Street, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is the re-opening of a
prior appeal from two meetings ago. We had a special meeting
in between the last one and that is concerning the North Fork
Early Learning Center. On June 10th, we voted to re-open this
hearing and I will not reread the application but I'll ask Mr.
Muller if he has anything he'd like to add to the application.
You want to shed some light so in case the public ....
MR. MULLER: Since the last time I spoke, it just became clear to
me that the point to emphasize is that it's not just that there
was community center building there that was designed as a communi-
ty center and used as a community center for 37 years. But that
the property itself was carefully laid out to be community proper-
ty and that it has a memorial and a flag pole and other Darts of
its design that make it clearly unsuitable as a residence.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about the nature of... As you know, I'll
point out to you that we very rarely open a hearing again. If we do
it once a year, it's just a rare situation. In your particular case,
would you shed some light on why we re-opened it. Are you familiar
with the legal reason?
MR. MULLER: Yes. The application~.~.was filed in such a manner ini-
tially as to be a special exceDtion. And it was felt that in terms
of setting precedent toward the establishment of future institutions
of schools and day care centers, it was more benefiCial for the town
in managing its district to change the nature of the application to
the current filing which is a use variance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what is that use variance specifically
for rather than a school at the moment?
MR. MULLER: Well, technically the problem (I think) that arose~ in
my initial application, I included the words day care center being
aware of state language myself of different labelling. Unfortunately~
in the educational world, there is no limit on the names you can
give your school. North Fork Early Learning Center is a legal and
fine name for my institution. Which in fact, serves both nursery
and day care needs. We have a multipl~e usage of this space. WU
serve half day programs as well a full' day. So in effect, we are
a nursery and day care. But the permissions needed for a nursery
school are just about nil. Where the permissions for a dav care
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - North Hork Early Learning Center
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR, MULLER (continued):
center is the significant thing on the Board. SO that the appli--
cation was amended also to clearly state that it was for a day
care center since that's the nature of the permits that are
quired,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe at the last hearing you did men~
tion something about the severe hardship that would exist if we
did not so grant your application. Could you tell us what would
happen if this Board so chose not to from a financial standpoint.
MR. MULLER: Well sure. W~nen I surveyed the need for the building
and the property and what has become a permanent institution, it
was clear that this center was about to close. And at that time,
I approached all of the non-profit community groups in the communi-
ty and I approached the Town of Southold and there was a strong re-
sponse from the community groups and the Town of Southold to main-
tain what is the only day care center in the township. And the
cost of finding the site, I was a knowlegable person in the field
when I chose this site. I searched for nine months every weekend
and this was the best available site in the township. I can say
that with some authority. ~knd it's very difficult to find an ap-
propriate site. To build such a site, would be impossible on the
budget of the current center. So it's a question of whether we'll
have such an institution at all in the community for this or not.
CHAIPdV~AN GOEHRINGER: AS you know, that this particular application.
if the Board so desires to grant it, actually goes along with the
land. It does not specifically deal with your name as it clearly
is stated as your business name (so to speak) or your trademark or
your logo or goodwill or whatever the situation. Ok. Well we thank
you very much. I just thought maybe the community or people here
might want to know the reason why we re-opened the hearing, So I
appreciate you're going through this. So basically, we're changing
this from the idea of the school to the situation of basically a
day care center.
MR. MULLER: Right. buy nursery school that operates for more than
three hours.
CHAI~ GOEHRINGER: Thank you. One question that our assistant
had discussed, Mr. Muller, was the fact that .... Well let me ask
the question, Has this property ever been used for residential
purposes?
MR. MULLER: No it hasn't. In researching the deed which was done
by both the surveyors and the law firm of Wickham, Wickham and Bres-
sler and myself, I did some research on the deed myself and it was
clearly donated to the community from Seth Wickham and it was laid
Out to be a community space and the memorial was planned and the
flag pole, etc. ~hnd the building was built by veterans of the com-
munity clearly to be a community center. It was named the Veterans
Community Center. But the property in its inception was designed
for these purposes initially.
Page 3 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - North Fork Early Learning Center
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else
who would like to speak either pro or con before we close this hear-
ing for the second time? Hearing no further comment, I make a mo-
tion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank
you for coming in.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF C. KAPOTES AND A. HOMAYUNI
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HFJIRING
7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3637 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of C. KAPOTES AND A. HOMAYUNI. Deck addition to dwel-
ling with insufficient frontyard setback from Soundview Ave-
nue, Southold. (Corner lot)
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey c6n~&ihiugaaoQne
story framed home approximately 25.7 feet from Soundview Avenue
and 16.8 from Golden Lane. And I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. An appeal in 1959 granting permission to construct this
house. Would you like to be heard ma'am?
MRS. KAPOTES: Nothing, except that we'd like to build a deck so
that we could sit and enjoy the beautiful view and be able to have
our coffee outside.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you want an elevated
deck as opposed to a deck that would be on the ground?
MRS. KAPOTES: It's the way the ground is sloped.
built lower on one side than the other.
The house is
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. Is this house a duplex?
MRS. KAPOTES: No. It's a two-family. We all live together and
this is my daughter. We want to be able to be able to get to each
other without having to go down the steps.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would this deck ever be roofed or enclosed?
MRS. KAPOTES: No. Definitely not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And approximately how high would it be placed?
Would it be even with the doors.
MRS. KAPOTES: Yes.
side.
Definitely.
It would be higher on the one
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I can see that from the aerial photograph
that the property falls away more toward Golden Lane. Ok.. I thank i
you. We'll see what develops. Is there anybody else wh° would lik~
to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the applica-
tion? Questions from Board members? Hearing no furthsr questions,
we'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until
later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND JANET KEHL
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3641 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter
of BRETT AND JANET KEHL. Accessory building with height in excess
of maximum 18 feet, or in the alternative, addition to dwelling
with an insufficient sideyard setback. 5500 Main Bayview Road,
Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAI~V~N GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey prepared by, (it's
a copy of a survey) Roderick VanTuyi, P.C. dated June 12, 1987, in-
dicating the two-story garage, deck and a garage in the rear which
is approximately 6 feet from the north property line and attached
to the rear property line approximately 11 feet with the other two
attachments to the deck and the garage. And I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area. Mr. McLoughlin, would you like to be heard?
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Just very briefly, I think I've outlined to the
Board the situation as it developed which led us here this evening.
My client did submit plans to the Building Department upon which a
building permit was issued. Upon completion of the building, my
client applied for a certificate of occupancy and was denied on the
basis of the height of %he ~etached garage being in excess of .the
maximum allowed for an accessory building. At that point, we sub-
mitted this application. We're looking primarily, for a variance
allowing this as a detached garage and giving us a variance on the
height restriction. And secondarily, it would be possible, to my
understanding, to attach the garage to the house by means of a wooden
walkway an~ then we would not be in violation of the height restric-
tion since it would be an attached garage. But we would be in vio-
lation of the sideyard restriction as being six feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you Mr. McLoughlin~ in where the
house and garage is constructed and so on and so forth~ What was
the nature of the purpose of building it so high?
MR. MCLOUGHLIN:
second floor.
They were planning on putting storage area on the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then your applicant has no objection has no
objection to us placing a restriction that the (house, excuse me.
I'm stuck on houses tonight and I apologize.) structure be used
as only for storage purposes and that it not be used for a habita-,
ble second level or something of that nature.
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: No problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that Mr. K~hl? Alright. Let's see what
develops throughout the hearing. Thank you very much. Is there
anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application?
Anybody like to speak against the application? I should pause in
between those. I'm sorry. Any questions from Board members?
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Brett and Janet Kehl
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued):
Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hear-
lng, reserving decision until later.
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I could just make one comment. My clients are
involved in a refinancing of their property out tt~ere and we need
a C.O. in order to close on the refinancing. So any consideration
that could be given to a swift decision on that, would be greatly
appreciated.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Thank you.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR.
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3634 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter
of RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. Fence in frontyard area above minimum
four-feet. East Side of Cottage Place, Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRFLAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a plan which appears to be
a similar plan of a submitted one when we had granted the prior
application. I don't see a date on it. But in any case, it's a
piece of property of approximately 109 by 165.78 and the applicant
is requesting a 6-foot chainlink fence to be constructed surround-
ing the parking lot. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this and s~rounding properties in the area.
Would you again like to be heard Mr. McLoughlin.
MR. MCL UGHLIN: As the Board I'm sure is aware, I was before you
several months ago on this. We have received conditional site plan
approval. The only thing that we have to put on the site plan be-
fore it's signed is an indication that along the frontyard the Plan-.
ning Board has requested that we put some shrubbery or plantings as
opposed to grass. And we have gotten a variance from this Board in
order to construct a parking area for employees of Mullen Motors.
What we're simply here this evening is to clarify that we wish to
have a 6-foot chainlink fence totally surrounding the property.
There will be two gates on the fence. One for ingress and egress.
But there is a four-foot limitation on the fence height on the front-
yard and we're requesting a variance to allow us to make it a 6
foot chainlink fence across the front as well.
CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Would this be a steel fence or would it be
of a green color or that green-poly vinyl color?
MR. MCL' UGHLIN: To my understanding, it would be steel.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would there be any slats placed in the fence
on the side where there is residential property or would it strict-
ly be chainlink?
MR. MCL UGHLIN: Well, we would be willing to go along with what-
ever the Board determined. If it is best..~
CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Did the Planning Board address that issue in
reference to slating the fence on the side to .... ?
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: No they did not. Ail they requested W~Sra that
we do put shrubbery along both the side (I've forgotten what
rection it is) that abutts the adjoining residential and now they
have requested that we do the same along the frontyard with Cottage
Place.
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Richard F. Multen, Jr.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I assume that's adequate. I thank you.
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Thank you.
CHAIk~AN GOEHRINGER: Is there, anybody else who would like to speak
in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further
questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving de-
cision until later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:12 p.m. Appeal No. 3414 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter
of WILLIAM MOORE and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG. Variances to locate new
dwelling structure: (a) with an insufficient setback from wetlands
and (b) with an insufficient frontyard setback. 675 Meadow Lane,
Mattituck Estates, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a plan produced by Young & Young. A
survey I should say. The most recent date is June 4, 1987, I apolo-
gize, June 5, 1987 indicating a single-family residence of approxi-
mately 28 by 56 variable. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who
would like to be heard? Mr. Moore.
MR. MOORE: Good evening. William Moore on behalf of Ben Herzweig
and myself. My office is at Cross Commons in Mattituck. Let me
give you three exhibits that I put together and marked A, B, and Co
"A" is a letter from John Nichols, a realtor with his qualifications.
"B" is a survey of the property which I've drawn to make the indica-
tion of these boundaries, frontyard and 35 foot line. And "C" is a
copy of an earlier decision of this Board, Appeal No. 3286. ~ust to
have the information before you. We're here, as the Chairman pointed
out, for the two variances. The frontyard and the 75 foot, within
75 feet of the wetland. If you look at the survey which I believe
I marked as exhibit "B", the practical difficulty jumps right out.
To comply with the 35 foot frontyard line, I've indicated that set-
back line with a straight line across the property. We then drew
a variable 75 foot line which followed that wetland boundary. The
area that has been highlighted is the negative overlap of the two
lines crisscross. If you comply with both, you can't build a house.
That establishes practical difficulty right there. Our particular
concern though, is the environment and we had long sessions with the
Trustees working this plan through, over and over again. I think
Concluding in an environmental impact statement. So there we are
with the practical difficulty. We're asking to put the house ten
feet closer. In terms of frontyard setback, we're reducing from
35 to 25 and a lot of the environmental concerns for that rearyard
and the geographic topography of the property, that variance to
the frontyard really becomes relative and significant in light of
the rearyard problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. Can I just ask you what the width
of the house is on the south side?
MR. MOORE: I would have to get a ruler and scale out~ I~m sorry.
The width on the south side, it's not quite 28 feet in depth.. What
they do is they square it off. The entire width of the house is
28. It narrows there.
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was actually notched I assume, at that
point to make it 28 feet. Is that correct?
MR. MOORE: Right. In fact, there had been a proposed deck. I
had a survey. This one is dated June 4th on which they showed
a proposed porch type of a deck. And the~total width having it
been there, would have been 28. But we scaled those off. Let
me see if there are any more of those. I don't mean to confuse.
I'll get myself all confused.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll take one of those.
into your presentation.
I'm sorry to break
MR. MOORE: No, that's ok. We'll take the questions as they come.
I think, as I said, the practical difficulty is immediately apparent
when you cross over the two lines. A house physically can't be built
if those setbacks get complied with. As opposed to giving in on one
or the other, I think pressing toward the front makes more sense in
light of the rearyard. The Board has granted variances and that was
the reason for the Grasso decision I've given you there. It's a very
similar type of application in some respect. I'll explain some dif-
ferences in a moment. The Grasso appeal, you granted a 20 foot front-
yard setback. The house as it was proposed and approved, was to be
35 feet from the edge of the pond. I don't believe the Trustees had
input on that one. It was an earlier decision. So we're in the same
kind of situation here. Here we propose to be 38 feet from the back
of the wetlands and 25 feet. So we're not quite as burdensome as
being as close as 20 feet. That house as proposed on the survey
there, was 38 feet in width. We're talking about a house 28 feet in
width. That house as proposed, was designed by an architect. It's
a custom home. This is a much more stock type of a home with plans
which we have been playing with and far less elaborate in their scope
and design. I think in terms of any neighborhood impact, any detri-
mental effect there, there's been a lot of concern ~aised th.ere with
the Trustees about prior covenants that existed throughout this sub-
division requiring a particular setback. As this Board is well
aware, those are prior covenants that the owners have to deal with
on their own. We're addressing a 35 foot setback and asking for a
variance from that. However, the purpose of the letter from Mr.
Nichols in which his qualifications are appended, is to indicate in
his professional opinion as an experienced realtor and appraiser,
that granting a 25 foot variance would not effect the adjacent proper-
ty's value in any event° Back when those particular covenants were
set forth, the original plans with the Planning Board on these par-
ticular pieces, were to have the property built in with that. So
there was no consideration given at that time to easing that 50 foot
requirement. I think that if they were to be redrawn %oday'~ they
may be considered differently. Certain lots would be given different
treatment. Corner lots, for example, are given treatment. These
would be as well. I don't really think that difficulty we've got
here would be obviated by any means other than a variance. For
the very fact that at some point, there's one portion of the ordi-
nance another has to give in order for them to have a variance 'and
be permitted to construct. It's one thing that the house isn't
substantial in size and we talk about the Grasso house. We had
originally proposed decks, a deck and possibly a patio for the rear
Page 3 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. MOORE (continued)
yard. The Trustees have asked us to remove that and the survey
before you, we have taken that away. When you take a deck away
from home, it's 15 hundred square feet approximately in size which
includes the garage. I believe my figure is accurate but I can
check that if you need it. You are restricting the outside use of
the property and the size of the house becomes all that~ore imporm
tant. If you're going to say; in the summer time you can't go out
one,he deck and spread that living area out onto a deck, the house
(in our opinion) we can't really scale it down at this point. The
Trustees considered a smaller house alternative on the lot and af-
ter long ~ebate and consideration, it was agreed that the environ-
mental impact created by this house to whatever extent, either sig-
nificant or not significant or some effect, wasn't going to be les-
sened by a somewhat smaller house. The impact is the fact that
human beings were living on a piece of property and we went through
that entire process with them and they ultimately decided the per-
mit could be granted if the difficulties were mitigated to all ex-
tent practical and would not be a significant impact on the environ-
ment. The final thing I think you've got to consider is in light of
all of the above and all that's gone on before with the Trustees
and all the elements we considered in this practical difficulty ap-
plication, whether ~or not justice is served by granting the appli-
cation. And in this case, I submit that it is simply because con-
struction can not occur if a variance isn't granted. And that cer-
tainly is a prime standard for practical difficulty. Lastly, I
would ask that the Board incorporate as part of its file, the draft
impact statement and the final impact statement which I believe you
already submitted to it, as part of the SEQRA process. The bulk of
which and for all intents and purposes, seems to be the total sum
of which we did with the Trustees. That's my presentation, if
there are aDy questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you tell us what the width is and scale
it for us and let u.s know exactly what the width of the south part
Of the house is.
MR. MOORE: Certainly. I'll point out that that is the living por-
tion of the house. The garage is to be to the north end~ I will
scale it for you.
CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. Let's see what develops.
Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this ap-
plication? Anybody like to speak against the application? Sir
would you kindly yse the mike and state your name?
MR. PFAFF: I'm a homeowner in Mattituck Estates. I live on Car-~
dinale Drive and I just felt compelled to come tonight to listen
to the variance. I haven't been able to make any of the othSr
meetings but I just feel that our Trustees in this case, have sort
of passed the buck on this and I feel that if w~ continue to cram
houses in-these narrow spaces, that environment won't be able to
endure it much longer. That's my feeling.
Page 4 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak against the application?
MS. OLIVER: It's just a shame that properties like this that
really should not be built upon. That will definitely have an
effect on that pond beneath it. Being it's headwaters are De-
port. It just seems a shame that we don't have funds available
to buy these pieces of property. You could buy the two percent
tax by budgeting something or for the D.E.C. finally taking the
bull by the horns and spending some of their own tidal wetlands
money which is still available. That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak? The only other thing I wanted to address Mr. Moore,
is the issue of the width of the house. I realize that you may have~
from your expectations or plan, cut do%m the house in width, and
again, some people call it depth, to 28 feet. I think that possi-
bly, an alternate type of house might service itself and possibly
something that could be a little narrower in width and we'll take
a look at that situation.
MR. MOORE: Can I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MR. MOORE: I do appreciate the concern. I don't believe that 28
feet is that particularly large a home. And .that really was the
purpose for the photocopying and providing you that Grasso deci-
sion in which you gave a 38 foot wide house. And ~he property in
that question was 200 feet frontage on the road. We've got 115
here. So that there you had the opportunity to really expand a
house and that became quite a large house. When you take away the
decks that the Trustees requested be removed, you have reduced the
liveable portion of ~he property. And I would just ask the Board
to consider that for the quality' of lifestyle that would go on
that piece in light of some of the other decisions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Hearing no further comment, I make
a motion closing hearing, reserving decision until later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF IRWIN AND SONDRA THOMPSON
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:28 p.m. Appeal No. 3629 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter
of IRWIN AND SONDRA THOMPSON. (Recessed as requested from previous
Regular Meeting). Variance for approval of insufficient sideyard
setback to buildings resulting from change in lot line- B-1 Zone.
North Side Main Road, $outhold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and. application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed hearing from the prior
public meeting. Monthly meeting I should say. 3629 on behalf of
Irwin and Sondra Thompson. .And we'll ask Mr. Strange if he would
like to present the file.
MR. STRANGE: Good evening gentlemen and thank you for recessing
this meeting last month since I was unable to attend. I apprecm-
ate that. The application as presented, is relatively straight
~forward. It deals with two parcels that adjoin each other here
on the Main Road in Southold. Being that these parcels are on
the north side of the Main Road east of ( ) Avenue.
The corner parcel presently has the Thompson Emporium building
on it. The parcel immediately to the east of that ms, at this
time, vacant but it did at one time have a structure on it and
it has been removed recently. The two parcels in question; the
westerly parcel has a two hundred and almost 45 foot road frontage
on the Main Road. However, the easterly parcel only has and 85
foot frontage. The intention here was to move the lot line and
widen the 85 foot parcel making it 100 feet in width. The 85
feet, as I'm sure you're aware, is non-conforming to the zoning~
The 100 feet would also be non-conforming to the zoning but it
would be less in non-conformity. The reduction of the foot-on
the westerly lot would still allow us in the area of 230 feet of
~rontage on the Main Road. So it certainlv isn't Going to have
any adverse effect on that parcel. The moving of the lot line
does have the ramification that it does bring it closer to the
existing framed structure whmch ms on the westerly lot. Reduc-
ing the sideyard to 16 feet as opposed to the required 25 feet.
And that is basically the nature of the requested variance~ We
are looking for approval for a reductmon mn sideyarG on that wes-
terly parcel to 16 feet as opposed to the 25. The problems that
we feel exist wi~h the easterly lot having only 85 foot frontage
is that by the time you meet the required 25 foot sideyard and
meet the 30 foot curb cut that the State is now'requiring, you
are left with a relatively small amount of building frontage
that you could have facing the Main Road. Although the 15 feet
is not much, it's still an additional 15 feet and I also ~hink
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Irwin and Sondra Thompson
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. STRANGE (continued):
it is 'an advantage to have 100 foot parcel with Main Road frontage.
A hundred feet Main Road frontage as opposed to the 85. One of the
other thoughts that came out of our submission to the Planning BOard
as well on this is that they felt they would like to see that we
agreed and we discussed and there's been no objection, we agreed to
maintaining a 50 foot separation between (again) that building that
exists on the westerly lot and anything that would be constructed on
the easterly lot. In that way, we could maintain this spirit of the
ordinance for the dictated 25 foot sideyard setback.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that approximately what is there now in
reference to its present proposed plan of 50 foot distance between
both buildings.
MR. STRANGE: Well, there'is no building on the easterly lot now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
the plan.
No.
I mean the proposed one that I have on
MR. STRANGE: The proposed one that is shown on the plan really deals
with the westerly lot only. And that the east sideyard of that pro-
posed new structure would have the same distance as the existing two
story framed house as it's shown this survey provided by VanTuyl. In
the line so as not to encroach any further than the 16 feet which is
actually what VanTuyl shows. He shows 16 plus or,.minus.
CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: So in other words, the building would not be
built any closer than 19 feet to the old property line which would
be 16, 15 and 19 which would be a total of 50.
MR. STRANGE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, just briefly, the property is presently
in the name of Thompson, the two applicants that I had just read
and they then in turn have no intentions of dividing the, and I~m
not talking about the parcel in question that we may add 15 feet
to, but they have no intentions of doing any divisions on the Thomp-.
son Emporium piece which has the house on it at this time?
MR. STRANGE: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Thompson is here.
He could address that also. But I don't think we could divide
that inasmuch we would need 40 thousand square feet of the property
for the uses that are there and we would be, although we're slightly
over 40 thousand feet, with the lot line changed, we still meet the
40 thousand square foot criteria and there would be no way to subdi-
vide that any further without another variance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I thank you. Let's see what else
develops. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against
the application. Any questions from Board members? Any further
comments before I close the hearing? Mr. Thompson.
Page 3 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Irwin and Sondra Thompson
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
MR. THOMPSON: In answer to your question, we have no reason to
subdivide the lot that you're talking about.
CHAI~4AN(~OEHRINGER: Do you hold the present lot, the 85 foot
lot in single and separate ownership or is it one name 6r is it
merged with the other parcels?
MR. THOMPSON: It is in merge with the other parcel.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak? Excuse me. Hearing no further questions, I
will make a motion closing the hearing, reserving the decision un-
til later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF PETER AND BARBARA HERZ
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3543 - Public Hearing commenced in the matter
of PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. Variances to locate new dwelling struc-
ture with'insufficient setbacks from bulkhead and highwater areas
along Midway Inlet and Hog Neck Bay, Southold. 70 Cedar Point Dr.
(Recessed as agreed from previous meeting.)
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to be heard Pat?
PATRICIA M00R£~5$Q~his evening I have with me Peter and Barbara Herz who are right there and Brian Shore who came in last time,
Davi who is the expert from former department head of the Health
Department who is familiar with the Health Department and the files
and any information that you want relating to the septic system. I
intend to respond to some of the'issues raised to use from the May
21 hearing. First, I wish to establish that the cesspool must re-
main in its proposed location. Herb Davids J s here and is a pr~0-
fessi0na] engineer and former director of Suffolk County Health De-
partment. For the record, I'd like to submit Mr. Davids' curriculum vitae
and a copy of the letter which was sent to you. The letter is dated
June 2nd, '87 and it was sent to you June 5th or there about and
it's in your files but I'll give you another copy for this evening's
hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
wouldn't mind.
Can'I ask you, Patti, to use the mike if you
MS. MOORE: I made copies for everyone. At this time, I have a
survey also showing the distances and location of the cesspools
and wells and the wells and the cesspool locations of the adjacent
property, f have one original and copies of it. At this time~ I'd
like to bring Mr. Davi~ up to the microphone so he can answer any
questions you have regarding this location. This is the original.
CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. T~.~topic came up the last hearing about
the placement of the cesspool sanitary system which we']] refer to as
a sanitary system and the possible placing of that a little mere
towards the, in this particular case, a very unique piece of property more
toward frontyard in this particular case.--Thereby, permitting the
house to be moved a little more toward the frontyard and not speci-
fically against the bulkhead as it is presently proposed. And you
know, maybe you can shed some light on the matter for us.
MR. DAVI~.~: Well, the cesspool, the septic tank and ~eeching pool
system is, in this case, a five p00]- shallow pool system because
of the depth of groundwater. And it does take up more area than
it normally would, than a single-pool system when you have 20
feet to groundwater. The problem here is; there are surface bodies
of water. The bulkhead on Peconic Bay ~s the 'highwater mark there
and then the pond to the west. We're locked in~n~
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. DAVIDS(continued)
several times. You're locked into the location there within a
couple of feet. It just happens that both cases~ the nearest
leeching pools is exactly 100 feet from <z~ each body of water
which is required. That is a requirement of the Health Depart-
ment as well as the D.E.C. And so shifting at all, at best you
could shift it five foot, the cesspool system $ to the east and
near the other dwelling of the other property line. I wouldn't
say thcs w0u]d really accomplishing anything. The well has to
be located up by the road for practical reasons. That's the only
place you're going to get fresh water in this area. And secondly,
it's locked in by the existing house to the east who's well is
up by the road and the sewer system in the back of their dwelling.
CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: So you feel that the cesspool or sanitary
system can not be placed any closer to the body of water which
we will refer to as a landlocked pond at this particular time.
MR. DAVID No it can't. It's just the bare minimum, 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has the house ever been constructed over the
top of a sanitary system?
MR. DAVIDS: That's illegal. The leeching pool must be five foot
from the nearest part of the foundation, crawl space, a slab or a
basement. A septic tank has to be at least five foot from that
wall if there is no basement a~d ten foot if there really is a
basement. But the leeching pools are really the key issue here
because they are exactly 100 feet from both bodies of water at
this point.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could the sanitary system be placed on the
front part of the lot and still possibly be placed 100 feet from
the well point? Bearing in mind that the lot is 191 feet deep at
that point.
MR. DAVID Up by the road? No because it would jeopardize the
neighbor's well right off the bat and there would be no way we
could get fresh water 100 foot if you came towards the other
body of water.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We called Suffolk County Health Department
and of course we speak to them quite regularly on ma~y~3~f'~h.e ~.ses
a~d we did speak to a sanitary engineer. He did indicate to us
that to his knowledge, the cesspool leeching system could be placed
within 15 feet of the next door neighbor's system~ Now, w~ don't
know exactly where the next door neighbor's system is~
MR. DAVID The cesspool system?
building, the dwelling.
It's in just to the rear of the
MS. MOORE: It's shown on there in pencil. I~d like to add that
is a copy of what is in the Health Department records~
Page 3 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. DAVIDS: That's in the Health Department's field inspection.
CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER:
Go ahead Mr. Davids.
Excuse me just one second sir.
Excuse me.
MR. DAVIS: I was just going to say, this particular application
was approved by the Health Department back in 1982 with this pre-
sent layout. We have it subject to renewal and one of the condi-
tions is the well must be resampled. -That was one of the original
c0nditi0ns~because it is b0rderl.ine water~ in this area because of salt
water intrusion and also the temik problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In our discussions with the sanitary engineer~
he had suggested that possibly you get Health Department approval
before you proceed with the application. So I'll address any is-
sues tonight. But I think that what we should do is let you pro-
ceed with the Health Department approval, the reapproval from the
Health Department and then see what exactly we can do on reference
to the setback. We are going to address the setbacks tonight and
we'll see what can be done.
MR. V. LESSARD: Can I ask this gentleman a question through the
chair. On your sanitary system where the grease ~rap is, what is
that minimum distance before that grease ~rap in the house?
MR. DAVIDS: Septic tank?
MR. V. kESSARD: No~ no. The grease trap.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Same thing.
MR. DAVIDS: Restaurants have to have a grease trap~ a house a sep-
tic tank.
MR. LESSARD : Ok.
dation?
What is that minimum distance to that foun=
MR. DAVIDS: To the foundation? If there's a basement, it's ten
feet. If there's no basement, it's five feet.
MR. LESSARD :
leeching pool?
Ok. Then the distance from that to the first
MR. DAVIDS: You've got to be at least five foot between the sep-
tic tank because of the practical thing of construction.
MR. LESSARD : Ok. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much sir. Ms. Moore, when
we had spoken to the Health Department, they had indicated to us
that the original Health Department permit was granted in 1982
and that for some reasons they had felt changes had been made
since then and that was their suggestion in gaining H,ealth De-
partment approval. Whatever changes they were referring to at
this point, I don't know. Maybe they lessened the distance be-
tween the septic system and the pond. I have no idea at this
Page 4 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIP~4AN GOEHRINGER (continued):
point. But that's what we were anticipating at this particular
point. I think it's to everybody's benefit and I will address
any shrinkage of the house that you dealt with or that you might
come in 50%, 60% tonight.
MS. MOORE:
partment?
So you would give your decision subject to Health De-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to see Health Department ap-
proval before we proceed to be perfectly honest with you and
fore we make a decision. So what I would like to do is address
the issue of setbacks now and then recess the hearing without a
date and let you get the Health Department approval and then we
will go and reconvene possibly in August some time.
MS. MOORE:
proval.
It takes about two weeks to get Health Department ap-
CHAIR{AN GOEHRINGER:
this.
Ok.
As soon as you get it, we'll readdress
MS. MOORE: We have to submit a survey showing the location of
the house before the Health Department will stamp the map. /here-
fore, which comes first. So I think maybe we would need some
kind of determination by you as to the loCation of the house.
That issue, I think could~ addresssed from the information at
tonight's meeting. And from that point on, we could go and you
could make your decision subject to... Well, the C.O~, the
building permit, won't be issued unless Health Department approv-
al is received. Therefore, we can't look forward to getting a
building permit.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let's see what you have first and we
will make that determination.
MS. MOORE: Fine. I wish to respond to Mr. ~r0n'$comments where
in the dimensions of the house and where you raise it again~ at
this point. I just want to make a point for the record that we
are permitted 20% lot coverage on this property and on ths 27,450
square foot lot, we can build (as of right) a 5,490 square foot
house. The size and architectural design of the house is up to
the landowner. So comments that were made by Mr. Cron about the
architectural integrity of the home is relevant but irrelevant.
That is something that the property owner has a right to deter-
mine. What is beautiful to one is not to another. Ths proposed
house that is before you is 11% of the lot coverage and that
cludes the decks. I would also like to point out that it seems
no matter where the house is located, we would be within the 75
feet of the water body. Because it's the Health Department, the
cesspool is stationary and through Mr~ David$~ expertise, we"Ye
proven that that is a fixed issue. The house has to revolve
around that septic system. No matter where you would put the
house, you're within 75 feet. It was also discussed in your
records, I won't submit it again at this point but Thomas Cramer
Page 5 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Pete~ and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE (continued):
presented an opinion to the Trustees wherein he discussed the
location of the cesspool and house and so on. And it was pre-
ferred to keep everything where it was rather than moving it
closer to a contained water body which would be the p0~nd. The
location of the cesspool, another argument which can be made for
keeping that cesspool where it is, is the fact that it is closer
to a flowing body of water rather than a contained system which
is the pond. I also have a survey which was prepared by Young
& Young dated June 16, 1987 which one of the comments you made
was; one of the conditions or the thoughts that were going to
be brought up tonight, the location of the house and sideyard~
We moved the house over as close as we possibly could to the
DeLeo property creating a ten foot sideyard increasing the side-
yard on the inlet by 20 feet. So if you compare this survey to
the one that you have that was originally submitted, you can see
that the house is moved over. At this time, I'd like to present
Brian Shore again. You spoke to him last time. And I~d like
him to discuss with you the size of the house and moving it over
and so on~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Shore, can I just ask you
one question before you give me your presentation? The deck that
is fixed to, what we refer to as the rear or refer to is as the
water side of the house.
MR. SHORE: That would be on the south side?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's right. That is correct.
above the ground deck or is it a patio?
Is this an
MR. SHORE: It's above the ground.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so therefore, it was part of this setback?
MR. SHORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Go ahead. Thank you.
MR. SHORE: I'd just like to address myself to a few issues and make
a couple of comments if I may. The new survey prePared by Young &
Young does show the ten foot property line, ten foot s~ethack to the
east as requested by the Board or suggested by the Board. It's a
setback or an approach 1 am not particularly in favor with, ! would
like to point out again and emphasize again that this brings the
house closer to the neighbor rather than further away. The closest
neighbor that is. I think for the benefit of both parties, ! pre~
fer the sideyards split. However, I just bring that up as a point
of information. I think it's been the location of the sanitary sys-
tem that has been well defined this evening and justified~ I would
like to make a statement that my clients will move the house as
close to the sanitary system as possible. In other words, our sani-
tary system will be depressed and the house will be shifted north as
Page 6 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. SHORE (continued):
as far as we can. That is a calculation done by Young & Young
whoever the engineers might be. We're talking about a matter
of feet here, inches rather than in terms of 10 or 20 feet. I
do not have ~he capability. It's all computerized today and
the surveyors are quite capable of making that determination.
But what I am proposing is regardless of how the sanitary sys-
tem is drawn, we will compress that and pull the house north
those few feet to the legal or practical minimum that the en-
gineer and Health Department will permit us to do. So I'd like
to make that known to you. Again, I'd like to emphasize that we
are, in terms of footprints, developing slightly over more than
half of the area than we are permitted. I'd also like to empha-
size that due to the fact that the sanitary system is fixed
in terms of location, that the size of this house will not im-
pact its location. I picked up this house at half, virtually,
I'm not making that as an offer. But I'm saying if that house
was cut in half, the location of the house would remain substan-
tially in the same area. So I~don't think the size of the house
is an issue. I think the real issue is the practical 0r legal
location of that sanitary system.
CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you sir. Go ahead.
MS. MOORE:
the Board.
Peter Herz would like to speak to the Board.
Address
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. H0w do you do.
MR. HERZ: I'm not going to address the legal requirements which
I know nothing about. I just want you to understand why I want
to have a house out there. I grew up in Manhatten when I was a
little boy. -I enjoyed water sports. I enjoyed fishing. I en-
joy swimming. We have three children; ages 10, 13 a~ 18. I
am a very private person. I'm not one to throw parties and this
is something that I always wanted for myself. It's something that
I wanted to pass as a legacy to my children that they could enjoy
in the future. So I'm not intending to be a transient kind of
person. This is something I'd like to pass from generation to
generation. I just want you to understand that and I thank you
very much for your attention.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anything else you
would like to say? Based upon my first request, I still think
that we should have Health Department approval and we should see
that and I'm not stealing words from somebody but we should see
that compression of how far you can really push that sanitary Sys-
tem. And of course, for all intensive purposes, what we're do-
ing is pushing the Health Department to its max. As far as they
can go and then we can make a better decision. That is my sugges-
tion. However, I have no idea how my fellow Board memb~si~e~l.
What would be the situation here. Personally, that's what I would
do. We, could of course, close the hearing pending receipt of
Page 7 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued):
the Health Department approval. It's the summer time. busy.
It took us two days to get in touch with them. I work in the same
building occasionally with them and I have trouble getting a hold
of them sometimes. It's entirely up to you. Personally, I would
not close the hearing. We'll see what you want to do.
MS. MOORE: We can submit all the information to you about the
compression of that system. We can get that to you~, relatively
quickly. I think Mr. Davids I know for a fact he has submitted
applications for our office and he is very capable and he has
been able to accomplish what I don't think a lot of other people
have tried and have been unable to do. So I'll have to ask my
clients whether they're willing to keep it open only because it
requires the Board to take another meeting and set aside time for
this application. Where I think that all the information will be
before you before that next scheduled meeting.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you are aware of the fact, however, that
if we do close this hearing, the only thing you Will submit to us
is the Health Department approval.
MS. MOORE: No. It will be pending the receipt of ....
BOARD SECRETARY: Once the hearing is closed~ the file is sealed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really can't even take the Health Depart-
ment approval and that's where the problem is.
(Mrs. Moore consulted with her clients momentarily.)
MS. MOORE: Alright. We will keep it open. I believe that if we
can get all the/information to you, we could request to be scheduled
for the next scheduled meeting. We will have this compressed sys-
tem and the Health Department approval.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
heard?
Thank you.
Mr. Cron,
would you like to be
JAMES CRON, ESQ:Our office represents __ (James Cron 0fthe offices of
Cron and- Cr0~) -- We represent Mr. DeLeo, the neighbor immediately
adjacent to the proposed construction of this new house. I would
like to submit to the Board at this time, copies of the proposed
map which would meet all of the requirements without any variances
whatsoever. I think it needs a little explanation and that is ex-
actly what I propose to do at the present time. Obviously, speak-
ing in opposition to this proposed plan. It has not considered all
the alternatives. I address in par ticular, the letter of June 2,
1987 number 5, where Mr. Davids states the cesspool system could be
shifted 5 feet to the east maintaining the 5 foot minimum between
the outer edge and the nearest cesspool t0 the property line. This
would not accomplish anything except possibly upsetting the neigh-
bor to the east. As a representative to the east, it will not up-
set him and accomplish quite a bit. You will see in the proposed
new sit e plan, an area in green. That is the house that can be
built meeting~-all of the requirements. In particular, it would have
a 75 foot setback from the bulkhead, 10 foot on the west side. 27
Page 8 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Feter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CROiN (continued):
feet on the east side and would have a 5 foot setback on the east
side of the property line for the pool basically in the same lo-
cation but moved 5 feet closer to the east. The blue areas that
you see on the map, represent number two; the 10 foot setback on
the west side and the 27 foot setback on the east side. Essenti-
atl~ gentlemen, all that has changed from that proposed site plan,
is the reduction of the width of the house. We are talking about,
instead of a 53 foot wide house; reducing the house to 40 feet on
the north side, 47 feet on the south side and 43 on the east and
west lines with the deck which is 31 plus 12. The first total
area would basically be reduced by something in the neighbor of
408 feet. This meets all of your requirements. And I would sug-
gest that if the applicant is indeed interested in trying to meet
the requirements of the law and as a matter of fact, the law which
dictates what type of house one can build within certain limits,
that he reduce the house and the architect has already said they
would be interested in reducing it and I'm sure he~d be willing to
do it as long as it's reasonable. And reducing the width by 13
feet, I think is quite reasonable. Especially in light of the fact
that they're asking for a 70% reduction in the 75 foot setback from
the bulkhead line. Ok. If you gentlemen have any questions, I'd
be happy to entertain them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No.
you.
Not at this time. We'll study
Thank
MR. CRO N: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
tion recessing ....
Hearing no further comment,
I~ll make a mo-
MS. MOORE: I'd like to respond to Mr. Cr0n'$ comments, The first
comment I'd like to make is that the green area is not the archi-
tectural or the requested or proposed house size and Mr. and Mrs.
Herz made a request and presented that application to the Board.
As far as the red area .... Well, the green area is on top of the
septic system. And this house ~resume$ we have the or-
iginal sideyard; the survey that we presented to you tonight has a
20 and 10 sideyard. Upon closer observation, you will see that it's
not what the applicant'~s requested nor is -it as we discussed before,
it's on top of the septic system and that's something that can not
be moved.
MR. CRON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address that. And Mrs.
Moore is making a mistake. The area in red is the area where the
septic system will be relocated to. You now have a five foot s.et-
back from the property line and a total of 27 to the side of the
house. The area in red is where the new septic system w~ll be lo-
cated not where it was present~ located. You're moving it 5 foot
east.
CHAI~AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Why don't you study the 'plan over
the next, going through it the next time. That's all righ~ w~th
you unless Mr. Davis has something because he may not be here the
next time.
Page 9 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. DAVIDS: This proposal, the leeching pool system will be too
close to the property line. It must be 10 foot from the wall...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to have to use the mike.
MR. DAVIDS: This proposed layout, the cesspool system, the nearest
pool to the property line should be maintained 10 foot from that
property line -the 5 foot.
CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll
make a motion recessing the hearing with no date pending a letter
from the applicants or appe]lant's attorney requested that we will
reconvene.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF FRANK AND EDITH 'SAWICKI
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
9:16 p.m. Appeal No. 3640 - Public Hearing commenced in the matter
of FRANK AND EDITH SAWICKI. Variance for insufficient width of three
lots in this pending subdivision. North Side of C.R. 48, Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason for the appeal is of course, the
proposed lots are less than the width required by the zoning or-
dinance. Number one; should the applicant produce proof for un-
necessary hardship because the applicant would be forced into cre-
ating a roadway for building lots. This would create a negative
impact on the remaining farmland currently in operation. And num-
ber two; the hardship created is unique. It does show the other
properties like the ones in the nearest vicinity in this use dis-
trict because (presently) Mr. Sawicki is the only remaining active
farmer in the neighborhood. The remaining properties are residen-
tial dwellings and are not in agricultural use. And number three;
the variance proposed does not change the characteristic of the
district because lots in the surrounding area are considerably
smaller in size or in area. And number two; the granting of this
variance would help preserve the additional farmland. And three;
in keeping with the current zoning lot area in AR-80 signed to and
sworn by the applicant on the 28th day of April, 1987. I have a
copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. on January 6,
1987 indicating lot number one; 80,030 square feet, approximately
135.79 by, I have to add the two together so I won't even mention
it. Lot number two of 80,028 square feet, approximately 137~56
feet on Soundview Avenue and 80,029 square feet, 133.35 on Sound-
view Avenue. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in-
dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you
like to be heard Mr. Raynor?
MR. RAYNOR: Yes. Good evening gentlemen. My name i~ Leonard
Raynor and I'm the agent for the applicant; Mr. and Mrs. Sawicki
of Southold. We believe that the proposed three lot subdivision
that is before your Board, meets all the current zoning standards
of Section 100 of the Town Ordinance with theexception of the lot
width which has been indicated. Presently, the applicant is seek-
ing approval before the Planning Board to get the plan subject to
your decision this evening. By approving this type of a variance,
it enable the town as well as the applicant, to design a subdivi-.
sion which will leave more acreage in agricultural. Presently',
Mr. Sawicki and his brother, farm this tract of property and as
Mr. Sawicki has reached the age of 70; the proposed sale of these
three lots would be his income as well as social security and this
would enable him and his brother to continue the farming operation
as they presently have over the past 40 years. The applicant has
chosen, voluntarily, to accept one less lot than the minor subdi,
vision regulations of our Town call for. And again, this is to
keep this farm operation of the size that would be economically.
PaGe 2 - June 19~ 1987
Dublic .Hearing - Frank and Edith Sawicki
Southold Town Board of A ~eals
MR. RAYNOR (continued):
feasible. I believe that the proposed variance request is to-
tally in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as it
is an ARA, agricultural residence and this form of permit as
proposed, would be a benefit to both the neighborhood as well
as the applicant. I would be happy to field any questions this
Board might have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically, this is really not a four
lot minor subdivision. It's really a three lot. The remaining
acreage then, remains as farm acreage and is not necessarily the
fourth lot in the subdivision.
MR. RAYNOR: That is also correct.
CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: So that the Planning Board has not compelled
themselves to put any restrictions on that four lot of whatever the
12.1 acres or whatever the remaining acreage is.
MR. RAYNOR: Not at this junction.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. However, it is probably the situation
that it would have to be a major subdivision of something was done
with that in the near future. Is that correct?
MR. RAYNOR: I would presume that there would be some restriction
to that nature if somewhere along the line as we process it before
the other bodies.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the specific agreement that they had in
1982 with South Kiola is nulled and voind and no% necessarily....
MR. RAYNOR: This agreement, I just received this tonight courtesy
of your secretary. I've been informed that about 5:30 this evening
that upon investigation, there had been some questions with regard
to the property. There was a contract of sale to South Kiola for
3.6 acres which were on the easterly side of the proposed subdivi-
sion. This was to have a closing date of January ist, 1983. This
closing never came to be and Mr. Sawicki told me that this was the
case. In regard to this, I feel that the settle off debt that was
granted by the Planning Board at that date, should be withdrawn and
discussed same with applicant and would stipulate to this Board as
well as the Planning Board that it will be withdrawn.
CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you. Is there anybody else
who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like
to speak against the application? Questions from Board members?
Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hear-.
ing, reserving decision until later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF PUDGE CORP.
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
9:22 p.m. Appeal No. 3625 - Public Hearing commenced in the matter
of PUDGE CORP. Special Exception for mini-storage buildings. {No
oral testimony~. Resolution to conclude hearing at this time start-
ing 60-day deliberations period.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The second to last hearing is for Pudge Corp.
which is a recessed hearing and I'm here very simply to close the
hearing. We have been in receipt of the final plan from Mr. Grey,
telephone communications and he has sent it to us. And at this par-
ticular point, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving
decision until later.
Ail in favor - AYE.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES AND MARY TYLER
THURSDAY, OX/NE 18, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
9:23 p.m. Appeal No. 3638 - Public Hearing commenced in the matter
of JAMES AND MARY TYLER. Special Exception modifying Appeal No.
3400 in this establishment of a public garage (100-70B(4) of the
Zoning Code to eliminate Condition which required vehicle doors to
face north (rearyard) at 6795 Main Road, Laurel; Mattituck Holding
Co. Minor Subdivision Lot 3.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a plot
area of 52,530 square feet, most recent date is amended June 21st,
1985 and then amended On May 19th, 1986. And the date is stamped
by the Health Department of May 23rd, 1986. And I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper-
ties in the area. Mr. Lark, would you like to be heard?
MR. LARK: Good evening. Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, NY.
I've been requested by Mr. James Tyler and his wife, Mary Tyler to
represent them in this proceeding. As the petition which you just
read, indicates the Tylers here requesting the Board to modify con-
dition nuuflDer 7 of the Special Exception which you previously grant-
ed by your decision dated January 16, 1986 and which you carry as
Appeal NO. 3400. The purpose of this hearing, for the purpose of
this hearing, I will not dwell or review the findings or facts in
that decision nor the specific factors which the Board stated that
they considered in the listing that is set forth in 100-121 of the
Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. Another section the Board re-
quired the jurisdiction to here and rendered; the special exception
application. It is my guess that the main reason that we're here
is primarily due to the ignorance, confusion, and misunderstanding
that surrounds what a special exception is. I, as I indicated, was
not involved with the Tylers earlier for their application for that
special exception as well as their application for the site plan ap-
proval and the subsequent applications for the building permit which
was all handled by somebody else. I only became involved when the
Building Inspector informed the Tylers they were building the bui!d-
ing in violation of condition number 7 of which the Board of Appeals
had placed in the prior special exception. As I stated before, the
Tylers are still in a state of confusion surrounding this matter and
really do not understand why they're before the Board tonight except
that I told them that it was required to be here. AS hard as I've
tried to explain it to them, they do not understand why if they are
B-1 zoned business property which allows the property to be used for
a public garage, why they have to have such things as special excep-
tions, Planning Board approval, curb cut approvals and the like I
think it's important for you to understand this because in large
measure, it explains why we are here tonight. I would dare say that
the average citizen has no idea what a special exception is and what
powers the Town Board has conferred on the Board of Appeals and al-
lowing conditions to be attached to permitted uses and certain cre-
ated zoning districts. When Mr. and Mrs. Tyler first came to see me,
they were insistant that the building in all respects complied with
the building plan and what the Planning Board and Building Depart-
ment wanted them to do. When Mr. Tyler wrote the Board back in
Page 2 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - James and Mary Tyler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
LARK (continued):
January after I got involved and reviewed the file and correspon-
dence and .what had happened, we wrote the Building Department,
Planning Board and your Board. I noted that he had written you
concerning condition number 7 and explaining his thoughts at that
time that the doors had to open on the southerly part of the build-
ing due to the large trucks and buses that he works on and that you
have as part of your file.
TAPE ENDED
MR. LARK: .... the Planning Board in discussing it with him and
their subsequent certification of the site plan on June 23rd of
that year. And further, when the Building Department stamped his
building plans and issued the building permit on November 10th,
1986, he thought everything was all taken care of. And consider-
ing his misunderstanding or ignorance of just what a special ex-
ception and position of what the conditions are, I can .... He'll
speak to you in a little while and you can ask him questions. But
I can understand it. Now, as the application indicates, the Tylers
find themselves in a very awkward position. They can't get a cer-
tificate of occupancy unless this conditions is modified. If they
don't get a C.O., they will not be able to close on the building
loan at the bank. And since the Tylers do not have the money to
pay off the upaid balance of the building loan to the bank, the
mortgage (no doubt) be foreclosed and they will lose their life
savings in which is very substantial and what has gone into this
project to date. So you can see their position is very precarious.
Further, they've been advised by the builder, because I asked if
there was any way they could modify the building to accomodate
everything, and the builder informed them that it would be very
costly, almost prohibitive, to redesign the building at this stage
and ~impractical for them to modify the building due to the position
of the building on the property and the whole purpose for which the
building is correct or was constructed. So even if money was no
object, the building; if it were modified putting the doors on the
north end, wouldn't be suitable for what he wants to do and what
he proposes to do especially since he works on buses and large ye-,
hicles. I will let Mr. Tyler tell you how the building will operate
when it's finished and how he intends to conduct his operations on
this property. Before turning it over to him, I would like to re-
mind the Board that Mr. Tyler's proposed use meets all the stan-
dards and conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, that the
Board in placing conditions on special exceptions, can only use
the criteria set forth in the enabling legislation which in this
case, is the Zoning Code, Section t00-122. That section sets forth
the various matters which the Board is licensed to impose condi-
tions. I could find no where in this section 121 or in section
170B(4) which refers and allows public garages to be located in
B-1 business district, any reference to building entrances and
exit doors concerning vehicles. From a legal point of view, the
condition which is in question this evening, the~ Board I beli.e~e,
does not have license to impose such a condition. However, be
that as it may, in the proposed new zoning regulations, which
Page 3 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - James and Mary Tyler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. LARK (continued):
hopefully will get adopted here in a reasonable, forseeable fu-
ture, does set forth these concerns precisely on this number 7.
So that's something that I think you should take into considera-
tion. Also, the proposed regulations I submit to you do go a
long way and eliminate the confusion which surrounds the word
special exception and I wish we would call it special permits or
something else because I know there is a great deal of confusion.
I've encountered it in other matters and as I said, as late as
two weeks ago when I had both Mr. and Mrs. Tyler in trying to ex-
plain what Was going to happen tonight and what would be done and
so on and so forth. I'm unable to... By using the words that we
use; special exception and you're familiar with, for them to un-
derstand it. So at this time, I would like to have Mr. James
tyler come forward and explain the situation.
MR. TYLER: Chairman, the Board, thank you very much for hearing
me this evening. I'm here completely because I undoubtedly made
a mistake and I didn't understand. And one thing I didn't under-
stand is that when the Planning Board did approve the plans, site
plan, I didn't think there was a problem anymore. I didn't rea-
lize that the Board of Appeals had the power to have something
taken into consideration of what I was going to do. It wasn't
until about the fourth inspection that I found out it was wrong.
It was at that time that Mr. Horton notified me that I had to
come down and see him right away and that's what I did exactly.
I came down right away. What I have with me tonight, though, I
did bring some pictures just to show you what the building looks
like, setback and everything. If I can present them to you so
you can see. I don't know if you've seen it or not. This shows
the front of the building. This one here shows how far it's set
back and where the berms are going to be for the shrubs and etc.
This shows another one of the front and as you'll notice. It is
at this point that I would come upon your personal endeavor if you
could see your way to help us out here because we're really caught
in a bind because my wife and I have put everything we had includ-
ing our house up, to go all the collateral we could so that we
could have this building to ensue this endeavor as an automotive
repair.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir.
MR. TYLER: The other thing is; he wants me to tell you how the
building is going to work. Just so you know, on the south side
of the building as you come in; it's going to be all paved and
blacktopped. All the parking for the customers will take place
in the front and the rear will be strictily for any storage of
any vehicle that's going to be there for a long period of time.
The customers will come in, there will be a place to sit inside
and wait for the car and then they'll go back and they'll drive
right back out the main area. They don't have to drive around
to the back of the shop or anything like that. Ok? Thank you
very much.
Page 4 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - James and Mary Tyler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lark, can I speak to you please? Mr.
Lark, I still have a time trying to prepare myself for this hear-
ing and I probably shouldn't say what I'll say, but I'll say it.
I think this is the closest thing to a hypocrisy that I've seen
in a long time. And if I'm wrong or out of line by saying that,
I apologize. But, the sequence of events and the only sequence
of events that I see in this particular hearing is that the
Morton buildings are put up very quickly. Within two days after
that building was put up, I informed the Building Inspec~ that
that building was put up incorrectly. At that particular time,
that building should have been stopped. The entire ceasing and
desisting of the construction of that building should have stopped
at that exact point. And that exact point sir, was sometime in
the later part of March or in April. Now, at this particular
point, to compound the issue even more, I spoke to the Building
InspectOr last week and I said now they are putting in a curb
cut which precludes us from dealing with any appropriate screen-
ing which should be the nature of this particular situation.and
probably the only way this building can be shielded from the road.
I'm going to ask you at this particular time, to please submit to
this Board as quickly as possible an appropriate screening plan
to screen this building from the road and that was the purpose of
Article number 7 of the prior decision for the special exception.
And I would have appreciated it. And at that Particular point,
we will reconvene this hearing and take a look at it. One of the
conditions of that will be that, and I would appreciate to see
this in the plan, there be appropriate irrigation to the bushes~
shrubs and architectural landscape plan is existing or will exist
with the berms as Mr. Tyler had mentioned. And a condition from
this Board from me will be that they be continously maintained.
We will play around with the... I shouldn't say that. We. will
adjust the ingress and egress regardless of what exists at this
particular time. And in order to take care of their problems
financially, as I said in earnest, as quickly as you can submit
it, we will reconvene the Board and deal with it.
MR. LARK: Anything else?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No.
MR. L~RK: Your apology is accepted. Mr. Tyler, do you have the
building permits application that was given to you by the Build-
ing Department? When were you first notified that there was a
violation on this building?
MR. TYLER: The first notification came on April 21st, 1987 and
there was three inspections prior to that; 3/18,' 3/23 and 4/10,
MR. LARK So I think that addresses the first thing that you
brought up.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sometime in April, as I said, was the firs~t
time. When was the building actually constructed?
Page 5 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - James and Mary Tyler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. TYLER: As it started, March the 17th, sir. In answer to your
question about the irrigation and everything, the irrigation, the
landscaping and everything is all going to start taking place in
the next couple of days and there~is irrigation going in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
submit to us?
Ok.
You have a plan for this that you can
MR. TYLER: I don't have it. I can give it to you tomorrow.
have to get a hold of the contractor that's going to do it.
I'll
MR. LARK: Who is doing the work?
MR. TYLER: Felix Domaleski.
MR. LARK: He has a plan? That's what he's asking.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to see the elevations because I want
the elevations to be high enough so that they at least, somehow
shield the building.
MR. LARK: I wish to also address the Board's attention. If you
loot at the photographs that he submitted, the Building Department
has granted an application for a building permit ~o a neighbor to
the west to construct a secohd building on the property. No problem
with but I do want to address or show you or have you take a look
that even though it might be an accessory building, two-bay garage;
those doors do face the front and they are high on a hill and there
is probably no type of shielding that can prevent that. I understand
one of the Board's concerns as to shielding the property from the
road and to some people ~s objectionable. Used cars and battered
cars and things like that. The way the building is situated 185
feet baCk and the way he excavated or the builder excavated in the
rear of the property, it will be virtually impossibly' once it's
screened and fenced for any vehicles that are parked which is the
requirement, in the rear of the property, to be seen from the road.
I think that is a big plus. So you won't have what youldo with. a
lot of big automotive repair places, a virtual junkyard sitting
around because that will all be very well screened just due to the
topography and the amount of fill that had to be taken out of there
and it's become a depressed area topography-wise and the surrounding
backyard with the banks and everything that are put in there and the
eventually the fencing that will go around there, I think you will
find you won't be able to see any damaged vehicles or vehicles that
are being worked on or work in progress, especially buses and things
like that won't be seen from the road. So I think that's a consider~
ation. The other thing that I think you should be aware 'of also,
is that the School District is in somewhat of a hind and the~ are
mo~e and more going to be required due to the situation, to acquire
more and more buses which they will own. Andl£hey have been urging
and pushing Mr. Tyler to get his garage done because he will do the
servicing of the then, district owned buses and that will save the
Board of Education considerable expense because they won't have to
erect a garage. Because they were probably confronted with. having
Page 6 - June 18, 1987
Public Hearing - James and Mary Tyler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. LARK (continued):
probably to erect their own garage down in the Cutchogue East fa-
cility. And the contractual arrangements which they are in the
process of w~rking out with Mr. Tyler, they won't have to do that.
They've got a home (so to speak) to maintain their buses and that
was another large factor apparently, that went on during the early
part of this year that encourage him on to get this thing under way
and done.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
now?
How many buses does the School~District own
MR. LARK: Right n6w, I can't tell you exactly. I'll say 6, he's
telling me. They're going to go to 12 eventually. And unfortunate-
ly, their going to get into their own busing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They are going to be stored though in back.
MR. LARK: No. That isn't the contemplation. It's mainly for the
repair. But because of the regulations of the Commission of Motor
Vehicle Bureau, they have to be inspected quite frequently. Almost
every 30 days or whatever it is; every 60 days. Mr. Douglas would
know to get that sticker on there that convey to the public.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok.
MR. LARK: Ok. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else have any comments concerning this
hea~ing? I make a motion recessing it without a date until we re-
ceive the architectural plan.
Ail in favor - AYE.