Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/02/1987APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAW[CKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 !'~OUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y. 11cJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987 A Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the Southold Town Board of Appeals were held on THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 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.; Robert J. Douglass (arr. 7:58 p.m.); Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting the five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building- Department Administrator; Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, 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 hearings have been prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office for reference. 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing was held (reconvened from 3/5/87) and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3611 for RAYMOND AND ELEANOR KERESTER. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. appeared in behalf of the applicants and submitted the survey maps depicting the wetland areas as requested previously. (See verbatim transcript.) Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to conclude (close) the hearing pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Sawicki and Goehringer. (Member Douglass was absent during this hearing.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 7:50 p.m. 7:58 p.m. 8:03 p.m. 8:15 p.m. 8:22 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of ANA G. STILLO, File No. 3619. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. of the Law Offices of Edson and Bruer spoke in behalf of the applicant. [See verbatim transcript for statements. No verbal opposition was submitted during the hearing.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to conclude (close) the hearing pending deliberations. Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Sawicki and Goehringer. (Member Douglass was absent during this hearing.) This resolution was duly adopted. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of SUKRU ILGIN and MINE PEKSEN d/b/a OCEAN HOLDING CORP. Andrew Goodale, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicants. [See verbatim transcript for statements. No verbal opposition was submitted during the hearing.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to conclude (close) the hear- ing pending deliberations. Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Sawicki, Goehringer and Douglass. This resolution was duly adopted. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of GULL POND DAWN CORP., File No. 3609. Mr. T. Ford Prime, President of Gull Pond Dawn Corp. spoke in behalf of the application. [See verbatim trans- cript for statements. No verbal opposition was submitted during the hearing.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. DouglaSs, to conclude (close) the hearing pending deliberations. Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Sawicki, Goehringer and Douglass. This resolution was duly adopted. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of FLINT ST. CORP. and RIVER CIRCLE CORP., File No. 3616. Mr. David Kapell spoke in behalf of the application. [See verbatim transcript for state- ments. No verbal opposition was submitted during the hearing.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to conclude (close) the hearing pending deliberations. Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Sawicki, Goehringer and Douglass. This resolution was duly adopted. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of GREGORY PAULOS, File No. 3613. Philip J. Car- dinale, Esq. spoke in behalf of the application. Opposition was received. [See verbatim transcript.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goeh- ringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to conclude (close) Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) the hearing pending deliberations. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. The Board awaits the distance from the center of the deck at the outer edge which appears to be the closest point from the bluff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the March 5, 1987 Regular Meeting Minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS (SEQRA): After review and consideration of the complete files in 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 on each 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: [1] Appeal No. 3611 [2] Appeal No. 3619 [3] Appeal No. 3609 [4] Appeal No. 3616 "Type II" Action~ RAYMOND AND ELEANOR KERESTER-"Type II"; ANA G. STILLO~- "Type II" Action; GULL POND DAWN CORP.~Type II"Action; FLINT ST. CORP./RIVER CIRCLE CORP.~ [5] Appeal No. 3613 GREGORY PAULOS "Type II" Action; [6] Appeal No. 3618 SUKRU ILGIN, MINE PEKSEN, OCEAN HOLDING CORP. ~ "Unlisted" Type Action; [7] Special Exception File No. 3615 - CARMINE AND DONNA DISPIRITO. "Unlisted" Type Action. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Ill S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~LENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3611 PROJECT NAMe: RAYMOND AND ELEANOR KERESTER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variances for insufficient lot width of three proposed parcels, each containing 4.6 acres. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: S0uth0]d; ]000-8l-0]-25. Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more North Bayview and Paradise Point Roads, REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction as regulated by Section 6]7.]3 for a ]0t-line variance. FOR FURTHER INFORM3~TION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals,.Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -5- April 2 , 1987 Regular Meeting (EnvironmentaI Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3619 PROJECT NAME: ANA G. STILLO This notice is is'sued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE'OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of insufficient lot area, width, and depth of two parcels in this pending division LOCATION OF PROJECT~ Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Private ROW extending off-the n/s of Main Rd., Orient, NY 1000-14-2-26 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance. (3) Construction proposed is landward of 10 feet elevation contour; no disturbance of land seaward of the 10 ft. contour will occur. Southold Town Board of A~peals -6- April 2 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:). [3] S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL N0.~ 3609 PROJECT NAME: GULL POND DAWN CORP. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.°made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similhr project. TYPE'OF ACTION: · IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construc~ single-family dwelling with an insufficient setback from existing wood bulkhead along mean highwater mark of Dawn Lagoon LOCATION OF PROJECT~ Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly k~gwn as: e/s Dawn Drive, GreeDport, NY 1000-35-5-17 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or tidal area is other construction and/or bulkhead in good condition. (3) The relief requgsted is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -7- April 2 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:), S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3616 PROJECT NAME~ FLINT ST. CORP. AND RIVER CIRCLE CORP. This'notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 Of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. . .... TYPE'OF ACTION: . [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approvai of insufficient lot area, depth and width of two parcels in this pending division of land LOCATION OF PROJECT~ Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly k~Qwn as: Linnett and Flint Streets, ~reenport, NY 1000-48-2-32 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; . (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance. (3) The property in,question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical ~en~i~onmental area. ,Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -8- April 2 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:). [5] S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3613 ~ PROJECT NAME~ GREGORY PAULOS This'notice is is'sued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 Of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adversa effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similhr project. .. -. TYPE'OF ACTION: . [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permissibn to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient setback from blmff along L.I. Sound LOCATION OF PROJECT~ Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly k~gwn as: n/s Sound. View Road~ Orient, NY 1000-15-3-4 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 located more than 75 feet from the mean highwater mark or tidal area. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of A~peals -9- April 2 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:). [6] S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.z 3618 __o PROJECT NAME z SUKRU ILGIN AND MINE PEKSEN 'd/b/a Ocean Nolding Corp.- This'notice is is'sued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines cant adverse effect on the below. the within project not to have a signifi- environment for the reasons indicated Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE'OF ACTION: . [ ] Type II Ix] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Permissi6n to operate convenience store, in addition to existing gasoline-service station uses LOCATION OF PROJECT~ Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly kppwn as: 7400 Main. Road, Laurel, NY- 1000-122-7-1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; . (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction. (3) The property inwquestion is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -]0- April 2 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:). [7] S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3615 SE PROJECT NAME~ CARMINE AND DONNA DISPIRITO This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. , ~.. ~ TYPE 'OF ACTION: . [ ] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to construct and establish a two-family dwelling LOCATION OF PROJECT% Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly kqpwn as: 6030 Youngs Avenue,. Southold, NY 1000-55-2-1.4 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in tho short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction. (3) The property inwquestion is not located within 300 ft. of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3412 WILLIAM D. MOORE and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG (previously CRAMER AND HERZWEIG).- The Board reviewed the written request dated March 26, 1987 from Mr. Moore to schedule the public hearing on this matter and withhold a decision until the Trustees have rendered their decisions. The board took the following action concerning this request: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to affirm that the File under Appeal No. 3412 is incomplete pending receipt of: (a) finalization of the SEQRA process, including submission of the Final EIS and Final SEQRA reviews and determination; (b) copy of the wetlands-permit action by the Town Trustees as required by Ch. 97. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. The Board was advised that the Town Trustees expect to act upon the above if the Final Environmental Impact Statement is submitted no later than April 10th for action at their April 29th meeting. The Board further requested that six copies of the Final EIS be furnished to our office to help to expedite the SEQRA process under joint review with our and other offices at this time, as well as copies of all communications and actions by other agencies, and photographs of the "flagged areas" and areas between the flags and water area for the record. The Board chose not to schedule this matter for our next meeting until such time as all of the above have been completed. TEMPORARY RECESS: and 9:18 p.m. The Board took a recess between 9:03 9:18 p.m. Messrs. Douglass the Board: Ayes: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by and Sawicki, the meeting reconvened. Vote of All. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appl. No. 3610-SE: Application of CAROL A. BARTHOLOMEW for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast" use, incidental and subordinate to the proposed single-family dwelling use, in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16]. Location of Property: 7015 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 107, Block 5, Lot 4. Following deliberations, the board made the following findings of fact: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 5, 1987, in the Matter of the Application of CAROL A. BARTHOLOMEW under Applica- tion No. 3610; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, applicant requests a Special Exception for a "Bed and Breakfast" establishment, with owner-occupancy, for the rental of three bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than six casual and transient roomers, which will be incidental and subordinate to the principal single-family use of the existing dwelling, in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land located along the north side of Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, containing a lot area of 43,560± sq. ft. and frontage (lot width) along Wickham Avenue of 185± feet. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A-40" Agricultural and Residential Zoning District and is improved with the following structures: (a) single-family, 2½-story dwelling set back 75± feet from the front property line along Wickham Avenue (a/k/a Middle Road); (b) accessory 20' by 19' private garage structure incidental to the Southold Town Board of Appeals-13-April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3610-SE BARTHOLOMEW, decision, continued:) residential use of the premises, and not operated for gain. 4. For the record, it is noted that Pre-Certificate of Occupancy No. Z9098 dated July 6, 1978 has been issued for a private one-family dwelling with accessory garage concerning these premises. 5. The parking area is proposed as shown by sketch sub- mitted with this application for a minimum of three vehicles. A total of five parking spaces, three for the bed-and-brakfast roomers, and two for the existing single-family use, will be required. 6. Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection [16] makes exception for site-plan approval/reviews by the Planning Board for this accessory use. In considering this application, the board also finds and determines: (1) that the proposed accessory use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts, (2) the use will not adversely affect the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience, health, or order of the town; (3) the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of zoning. The board has also considered subsections (a) through (1) of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code, for a Bed and ~reakfast, in the Matter of the Application of CAROL A. BARTHOLOMEW, No. 3610, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The grant of this Special Exception is limited to this property (and shall not be deemed to include any other property over which the applicants may have rights). 2. This Bed-and-Breakfast use shall be accessory to the single-family use of the premises, with owner occupancy, and shall be permitted only while the dwelling is the permanent residence of the property owner (not to be operated while the dwelling is rented or vacated). 3. This Special Exception shall be for the renting of Southold Town Board of Appeals-14~pril 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3610-SE - BARTHOLOMEW, decision, continued:) not more than three rooms and not more than six casual and transient roomers, in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code; 4. Minimum of five on-site parking spaces, as proposed with three for parking of vehicles by the bed-and-breakfast roomers, and two for the existing single-family use; 5. Compliance with the N.Y.S. Construction and other applicable codes, including those requirements for more than five roomers; 6. This Bed and Breakfast use shall not be deemed a principal use at any time. 7. "Third floor" area shown on the sketched plan submitted with this application shall not be converted for bed-and-breakfast use. 8. Covenants and restrictions containing the above restric- tions shall be recorded in proper legal form in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the Office of the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3619: Application of ANA G. STILLO for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of two parcels in this pending division located on a private right-of-way extending off the north side of Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 26, containing 3.2 acres total. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 2, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ANA G. STILLO under Appeal No. 3619; 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 Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3619 STILLO, decision, continued:) documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land con- taining a total area of 3.2 acres which extends at the northerly end of a private 20' right-of-way 300.43 feet from the northerly side of the Main Road, Orient, Town of Southold, and is more particularly designated on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 014, Block 2, Lot 26. 2. The entire premises is vacant. 3. This is an application requesting: (a) approval of the proposed insufficient lot area and width of Lot #1 of 1.6 acres, (or 69696 sq. ft.) and 155 ft., respectively; (b) approval of the proposed insufficient lot area and width of Lot #2 of 1.6 acres, (or 69696 sq. ft.) and average width of 153.50 ft. 4. Town records show that the subject 3.2-acre parcel was conveyed to the applicant on July 20, 1983, Liber 9393 cp 136. 5. The amount of relief requested as to the total area of each proposed parcel is .1288% of the requirements, or 10,304 sq. ft., and as to lot width .1143% of the requirements, or 20+ feet of each proposed parcel. 6. It is noted for the record that: (a) by letter dated March 12, 1987, the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation waived jurisdiction; (b) the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved this division as revised March 9, 1987 and October 21, 1986; (c) an application is pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for a minor subdivision which has not as of this date been finalized. 7. It is also noted for the record that: (a) the subject premises received a conditional approval of access as rendered under Appeal No. 3562 December ll, 1986 for Ana G. Stillo; and as of this date, the necessary improvements for acceptance have not been done; and (b) premises to the east consist of two minor subdivisions finalized prior to the enactment of the 80,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area requirement, to wit: the most northeasterly five-lot subdivision (approved November 29, 1972, Frank Stillo), Southold Town Board of Appeals-16~pril 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3619 - STILLO, decision, continued:) and the southeasterly three-lot minor subdivision June 12, 1979, P. Sledjeski). (approved In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) the percentage of relief requested as amended is not substantial, being a variance of approximately 12% of the requirements; (b) the circumstances of the property are unique; (c) there will not be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood; (d) the relief requested is not unreasonable under the circumstances; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than the variances requested; (f) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to APPROVE the insufficient lot area and width of proposed Parcels #1 and #2 of 69695 sq. ft. and 153.50± feet, respectively, as applied in the Matter of the Application of ANA G. STILLO under Appeal No. 3619, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No lot-line changes or adjustments as to lot area; 2. Conditions rendered under Appeal No. 3562 concerning the pending 280-a status; 3. This variance is temporary for a maximum period of two years, except where the pending division of land has been finalized by all involved agencies and the parcels have been transferred by deed or other legal document to reflect the subdivision lot lines accordingly. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING: Appeal No. 3609 - GULL POND DAWN CORP. The Board agreed to hold off action on this matter for additional inspections. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~17- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3603: Application of JAMES CROSS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot area (78,408 sq. ft.) of parcel proposed to be set-off in this pending division of land. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 109, Block l, Lot 8.5. Mr. and Mrs. Cross were present during deliberations and decision making. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 5, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of JAMES CROSS under Appeal No. 3603; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, for approval of the insufficient lot area of 78,508 sq. ft. of proposed "Parcel 1" in this pending set-off division of land. 2. The premises in question is situated with a frontage of 436.35 feet along the north side of the Main Road at Cutchogue, and contains a total area of 28.458 acres. Parcel "1" to be set-off has a lot width (frontage) of 187.60 feet, and the remaining Parcel "2'~ has a frontage along the Main Road of 248.75 feet. The entire 28.458 acre-parcel is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 109, Block 1, Lot 8.5 and is zoned "A-80" Residential and Agricultural. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3603 - CROSS decision, continued:) 3. Abutting Parcel 1 along the proposed 283.96-ft. easterly line as shown by the survey mapped April 3, 1986 by Roderick Van- Tuyl, P.C. is an existing 16± ft. right-of-way extending in a northerly direction from the Main Road. Also existing is a substantial freshwater pond which starts at a point approximately lO0 feet north of the property line along the Main Road (upon Parcel 2). 4. One of the reasons lending to the difficulties in this case is the narrowness of the lot down to 80 feet at a point 345.95± feet from the Main Road and extending north. The right-of-way is shown to be along the existing bank of proposed Parcel l, and the applicant prefers the right-of-way to remain on Parcel 2. 5. It is noted for the record that by letter dated March 4, 1987, the Southold Town Planning Board recommended a 50-ft. wide easement over the Lowe property, directly abutting Parcel 1 along the north side, and 50 feet of the applicant's property, to the Main Road. The applicant has confirmed that Mr. Lowe was not in agreement at this time to consider such a proposal, and no additional input was received from the Planning Board concerning their letter. 6. This Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant in the general layout of this proposal; however, one of the requirements in granting this variance is that the applicant/owner reserve in writing an easement a total width of 40 feet within the existing right-of-way area, for a total length of 283.96 feet, if necessary in future applications. 7. It is also noted for the record that proposed Parcel consists of varied contours ranging from 35± feet to 15± feet, and is presently vacant land. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) the percentage of relief requested is not sub- stantial in relation to the requirements, being a variance of approximately 19%, or 1492 sq. ft.; (b) the circumstances of the property are unique; (c) there will not be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood; (d) the relief requested is not unreasonable under the circumstances; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue feasibly; (f) in view of the manner in which the difficulties Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3603 - CROSS decision, continued:) arose and in considering all of justice will be served by tionally noted below. the above factors, the interests allowing the variance, as condi- Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a variance of the insufficient lot area of 78,508 sq. ft. of proposed Parcel 1 in this pending set-off division of land as applied under Appeal No. 3603 in the Matter of the Application of JAMES CROSS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. An executed covenant reserving a total 40-foot wide easement in the area of the existing driveway for a total length of 283.96 feet; 2. New construction shall be as regulated under Column "A-80" for this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Following action, Mr. and Mrs. Cross inquired as to the reasoning for the 40-ft. wide easement since the Planning Board no longer is requiring it and the neighbor directly north (Lowe) is not interested in giving an easement over his land. The Board explained that the 40-ft. right-of-way easement is for possible future development or division of his property to the north which may necessitate better access and maneuver- ability in the area along the Main Road. The Board also indicated that this condition does not require widening of any physical part of the road at this time, but does require preparation of an easement agreement in writing by his attorney. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3612: Application of PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct addition at rear of dwelling with an insufficient setback from wetlands along Great Pond at 7455 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 59, Block 6, Lot 8. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was 1987 in the Matter of the Applicati under Appeal No. 3612; and held and concluded on March 5, on of PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOM_~O 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 test mony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section t00-119.2, subsection C, for per-O mission to locate a 5'6" by 13'8" wide addition at the rear of an existing single-family dwelling structure, all more particularly shown by Plot Plan revised 1/26/87 by Noel Phyllis Birkby, R.A., Sheets A1 and A2. 2. The premises in question is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 59, Block 6, Lot 8, and contains a total area of 10,321.24 square feet, more or less, and frontage along Private Road (off the north side of Soundview Avenue) of 50.61 feet. The premises gradually widens to 93.24 feet at the rear (waterfront) edge of the ~remises. 3. The setback of the existing dwelling structure at the most northeast corner, when scaled as shown on the Plot Plan amended 1/26/87, appears to be not less than 55'6". The dwelling structure is situated at an angle, and the most northwest corner scales at a setback of not less than 60 feet from the rear property line. Applicants have requested a variance to permit a setback of not less than 50 feet from the edge of the shoreline along Great Pond for the construction of a 5'6' by 13'8" wide porch extension. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3612 BELLOMO decision, continued:) 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph C, requires all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to any freshwater body to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the edge of such water body or not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the landward edge of the freshwater wetland, whichever is greater. 5. The amount of relief the established nonconforming rial under the circumstances. requested is 5'6" less than setback, which is not substan- 6. It is the opinion of the board that the relief requested, as amended from the previous application under Appeal No. 3484, is the minimal necessary. 7. It is also noted for the record that it has come to the board's attention that the accessory building presently under construction is not in compliance with the previous conditions set by this Board under Appeal No. 3483, In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the relief requested is not unreasonable and is not substantial in relation to the existing setbacks, although the total insufficient setback is substantial in relation to the zoning requirements; (b) there will be no substantial detriment to properties in the immediate area; (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the district; (d) the practical difficulties are sufficient to warrant the granting of this variance; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as condi- tionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested for permission to construct a 5'6" by 13'8" wide porch extension/addition at the northerly end of the existing dwelling BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL NO. 3612 FOR PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING .~NDIT'~ONS: Southold Town Board of Appeals -22-April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3612 BELLOMO decision, continued:) 1. The setback be not less than 50 feet from the closest shoreline edge, as applied; 2. The proposed extension not protrude further than the northeasterly section as exists and as applied; 3. Compliance with any zoning violations concerning recently rendered decision under Appeal No. 3483 before issuance of building permit for this addition. the Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3608: Application of RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-112(I) for permission to utilize subject premises for a paved parking area for the employees of Mullen Motors, an established business abutting this parcel along the north side. Zone Districts: Partly "A" Residential and Agricultural and "B-l" General Business. Location of Property: East Side of Cottage Place, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 62, Block 3, Lot 19. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 5, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. under Appeal No. 3608; 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 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 and the to WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from Provisions of Article XI, Section lO0-112(I) for permission use premises located partly in the "B-l" General Business and Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3608 MULLEN, decision, continued:) partly in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning Districts as a paved parking area for the employees of Mullen Motors, an established business located on the adjacent property immediately to the north. 2. The premises in question is located along the east side of Cottage Place, Southold, with frontage of 104.60 feet, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 62, Block 3, Lot 19. 3. The subject premises is presently vacant. 4. Article XI, Section lO0-113, Subsection (I) of the Zoning Code prohibits such parking spaces on a lot in any residence dis- trict, unless the use to which they are accessory is permitted in such district or upon approval of the Board of Appeals. 5. The Site Plan prepared December ll, 1986 by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. depicts a proposed parking area of 12,930 sq. ft., grass area of 3,800 sq. ft., and a total of 26 parking spaces, two of which are located in the "b-l" Zone District. The total square footage of the lot in question is 17,409 sq. ft. Also proposed is a six-foot high chainlink fence encompassing the borders of the north, east and south property lines. A variance as to the restricted four-foot height require- ments along the front yard areas has not been appropriately applied for and accordingly is not a part of this application. 6. Article XI, Section lO0-112, Subsection (K) of the Zoning Code and the relief granted hereunder requires continued maintenance and appropriate screening from adjoining residential lots and from the view of lands across the street from other residential properties, by a substantial wall, fence or thick hedge approved by the Planning Board, generally at a height of not less than three feet. 7. It is the understanding of this Board that this property will not at any time be used for vehicles sales, vehicle repairs, storage of equipment or vehicles or related items, and will be used solely as an accessory use to permit parking by employees of Mullen Motors, Inc., the established business on the lot immediately adjacent to the north. In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a) that the use proposed is not inconsistent with the general Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3608 - MULLEN, decision, continued:) purposes and intent of zoning; (b) the circumstances are unique; (c) the accessory use applied for will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (d) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or adjacent use districts; (e) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by this use; (f) the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3608 in the Matter of the Application of RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. for employee parking of Mullen Motors only, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: 1. Fence must meet current code restrictions for a maximum height of four feet along the front yard property lines, unless application is made separately for additional relief. 2. The approved parking area is restricted only to the residentially zoned portion. 3. Planning Board site plan approval (including surfacing, screening, drainage, egress, ingress, etc. as per Section lO0-112(K), et seq. of the Zoning Code). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis abstained.) This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING APPEAL NO. 3581 GEORGE DAMIEN. The Board acknowledged receipt of Mr. Damien's letter dated March 13, 1987 and correspondence dated March 27, 1987 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The County Health Services Department confirmed Chairman Goehringer's meeting with Mr. Reynolds, Sr. Public Health Engineer, and the Damien Development does not appear to be exempt from Article 6. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Douglass and Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -25z April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Updated Review, Appeal No. 3581 - DAMIEN, continued:) RESOLVED, to reaffirm the Board of Appeals' position concerning the pending application by Mr. Damien with the Suffolk County Depart- ment of Health Services, and incomplete ZBA file. The Board further reiterated that upon receipt of Article 6 approval, we will be in a position to continue his ZBA application and a public hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. UPDATED REVIEW: File No. 3542-SE TIDEMARK/CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES. The Board members are in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted March 20, 1987 by the applicant's attorney. Also received March 10, 1987 is a copy of the Water and Sewer Contract with the Village of Greenport signed by the applicant and expected to be signed by the Village in the near future (per Henry Raynor, agent). The Board concurred with the Planning Board's recent designation as lead agency under SEQRA concerning the site plan of the Amended Project for the 76 motel units. It is the Board's opinion that the site plan elements, including parking, drainage, curb cuts, screening, egress, ingress, etc. will require the land and construction directly. is for the use and is not directly site changes. The Board indicated with the Planning Board closely on issues concerning traffic safety al entering). To date, action by the concerning the applicant's pending a broader review since it affects The Special Exception review related to new construction or they would like to coordinate this matter, particularly the ong the Main Road (exiting and Suffolk County Health Department application has not been submitted, but Mr. Raynor said he would keep us advised of developments since that application has been pending for quite some time. COURT DECISION: WETLAND AREAS/INCLUSIVE AS LOT AREA FOR LAND DIVISIONS. The Chairman advised the Board that he has recently spoken with the Town Attorney, Robert W. Tasker, con- cerning the inclusion of wetland areas or lands under water in proposed or pending subdivisions. The Chairman said he was advised that the Town cannot delete the wetland or land under water when calculating the area of lots in pending divisions or proposed divisions of land. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Sawicki and Douglass, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (Wetland Areas/Subdivisions, continued:) RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeals hereby concurs with the recent Opinion of the Town Attorney, and February 19, 1987 Memoran- dum of the Southold Town Building Inspector, that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of lot(s) in pe~din§ or proposed divisions of land, and it was further RESOLVED, that the applicants or agents in each of the following pending files be notified of the above action accordingly. Appeal No. 3252 - John Charles and Maryann Appeal No. 3299 - Douglass.Miller; Appeal No. 3214 - Hanauer and Bagley. Sledjeski; Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. NEW FII~ES FOR REFERRALS, ETC. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that additional information or referrals be processed concerning the following matters as soon as possible (as noted below): Appeal No. 3620 THOMAS BALL. Referral to Soil and Water Conservation District; Appeal No. 3621 MICHAEL S. GILLILAND. Referral to Soil and Water Conservation District; Appeal No. 3622 C.B. SALMINEN. Await DEC, Trustees approvals or action. Request placement of flagged construction area as proposed. Referral to Soil and Water Conservation District. Appeal No. 3602 - MARGARET McNAMARA. Await N.Y.S.D.E.C. action. (Trustees action received.) Appeal No. 3543 PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. Receipt of Trustees action. Referral to Soil & Water Conservation District, request flagging of proposed construction areas and completion of amended ZBA questionnaire. Photographs needed. Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting FILE NO. 3597: TARTAN OIL COt SPECIAL EXCEPTION RENDERED March 5, 1987. The Board reviewed the correspondence received about March 16, 1987, and it was unanimously agreed to authorize and direct the Chairman to forward the following response: "...With reference to your second and third paragraphs, please be advised that the Board would not offer a motion to reconsider our previous decision based on the reasons given in your request in order to allow self-service kerosene and diesel. Although "partial self-service gasoline service stations" are listed as a permitted use by Special Exception under Article VII, Section 100-70(8)[5], the self-service operation of diesel and kerosene fuels is not specifically listed as a permitted use (by Special Exception). The specifics necessary to permit the self-service operation for the sale of kerosene and diesel did not appear sufficient in the Board's opinion and the Board accordingly disallowed it as indicated in our March 5, 1987 decision .... ...With reference to paragraphs 4 and 5 of your letter, please be advised that the amendments requested were not part of the previous application under No. 3597, and accordingly, may not be considered except by separate formal application... " APPEAL NO. 3462 HERBERT R. MANDEL. Decision Rendered March 5, 1987. The Board members acknowledged receipt of the March 20, 1987 response from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, who commented that the project "appears inappro- priate as sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable variance criteria .... " The following matters were updated a~ noted for the record: ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- April 2, 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 fan be taken. Appeal No. 3558 - 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 advertising. (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 - GEORGE DAMIEN. Jackson St., New Suffolk. Variances for insufficient area, width, depth. Await Art. 6 Action per Co. Health Dept. communications. Appeal No. 3298 - C & L REALTY,~OR~_O_~_EG~[~. Variance to construct 40-unit motel on insufficient buildable upland of 4.83 acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main Road (prev. Southold Flshin§ Station/Morris), Southold. (**Await corrected site plans, topographical survey including lowest floor elevations above mean sea level, Nealth 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 reseparation of lots. ~it DEC and Planning Board applications to be filed for coordination/action. Appeal No. 3274 - BEST, SCHMITT, SYVERSON. Variances for insufficient area, width ~n 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. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3271 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. RE1NHARDT. Variances for area and width (two parcels)~-. **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 MAND£L. Variance to change lot line and locate garage, in front/side yard areas. E/s [inet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of Clempner and Mandel. (Await DEC action and PB input before advertising.) Appeal No. 3249 DONALD P. BRICKLEY. Variance for insufficient 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 "C" Zone. Planning Board denied 9/84. (**Await DEC and Co. Health Art. 6 action after formal applications.) Appeal No. 3542 - TIDEMARK/CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES. Await copies of Co, Health approval, 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. Await 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. Mai~ Bayview Road, Southold. Await Co. Hea-T~-~-~t~--~ 2~6n. Area, width and depth variances. Alfred Skidmore, Esq. ~V~llage water not available.) Appeal No. 3546 - GREGORY FOLLARI. Relief of ZBA Condition requested concerning disturbance of soil at Sound bluff. Await DEC action (after application) to alter bluff areas before proceeding. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- April 2, 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. )(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. ~/s'Sound Road and N/s Main Road, Greenport. Await furtt)er instructions from attorney or applicant. Await PB input on revisions. Appl. No. 3586SE ROBERT AND )IELEN DIER. Special Exception for Bed and Breakfast.: Await determination on Special Exception for Accessory Apartment expected about 3/5/87 before proceeding. 355 Terry Lane, Southold. Appeal No. 3600SE - T. LUCAS AND G. & A. BELIS. Special Exception to allow 70 motel units on 7.~5~l~-~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 insufficient area, width and depth. N/s Main 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.) to Appeal No. 3556 - EUGENE AND ANN BURGER. Variance for deed with insufficient setback from wetlands along Little Creek. 2515 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 bul hl~-~-~-~ and in excess of 20% lot coverage. 640 Takaposha (private) Road, Southold. (Await Trustee and DEC waivers before advertising.) Appeal No. 3564 - JOHN DEMPSEY for insufficient setbac~ from bluff town approval on subdivision. C.O. the N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. (Contract Vendee). Variances and 280-a. No record of not available. N/s ROW off Appeal No. 3206 HENRY P. SMITH. Variances for insufficient area a~ Wi~th (two lots .--~---~§--'P~ic Lane, Peconic. P. Ofrias, Esq. Multiple business uses. P.B. recommends 24 parking spaces. (No communications received since 7/26/84.) Appeal No. 3548 FRANK R. ZALESKI. Variances for insufficient area, width and depth {three parcels--i~ p~nding division). E/s Deep Hole Drive, Mattit'uck. 1/295-acre described parcel. Await Co. Health Art. 6 approval. Rec. PB input and DEC permit {exp. 12/87). Henry RaynOr, Agent. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3439 ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variances for insufficient area and width in pending division for two lots at Cedar Lane and Beach Court, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Lots 151 through 172 incl. adjoining roads. (~A~i-~ Co. ~calth Art. 6 action, and possiblc Town Tru~tee~ os to wetland gra$$e~.) Building envalop~ of build~bl~ ~ro~ not ~hown. Con~ours not shown. Appeal No. 3445 JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient area and width. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road, Southold. (**Await Art. 6 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 Co. Health Art. VI action, corrected maps to show third parcel, and P.B. application/comments after submission of maps.) P. 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 St. and N/s King Street, New Suffolk. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6 action after application.) Appeal No. 3426 GERALD DOROSKI. Variance for approval of access (280-a). N/s C.R. 48, Peconic. **Await additional informa- tion to clarify ROW and P.B. input on pending division. 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.R. R6senblum, Esq. Appeal No. 3514 area, width and depth. advertising) GEORGE P. SCHADE. Variances for insufficient (Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiver before Appeal No. 3495 JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Variances for ~ insufficient area, width and depth. (Two Lots~. N/s Pine Tree Road, Cutchogu~. (Await Art. 6 waiver/action before advertising. Appeal No. 3496 FREDERICK KO£HLER, JR. Cabana/beach house within 75 feet of water along Cutchogue Harbor, N/s Old Harbor Road. (Await Co. Health approval before advertising). H. Raynor, Agent. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~32- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATES, continued:) Application for LOIS AND FRANK IlIORP. E/s West ldne and S/s North Lane (privat~)~'~'FF-{-~e E/s Orchard Lane East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having insufficient area, width, depth, etc. **Av~ait Notice of Disapproval after appltcatie~ to Building t)ul~artm(~n~ reissuance of filing fee, p(~stm, arked certified-~all receipts, etc, Appeal No. 3293 -YHAROLD AND JOSEPI4INE DENEEN. Variance for approval of three parcel~ving insu~-£ient area, width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s 8ayview Road of Waterview Drive), Southold. 280-a net requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and DEC approvals/activin. Appeal No. 3252 -/JOHN CItARLES & M. SLEDJESKI, Va~'iance appealing decision of Planning-8~ard of 4/~i'4 that bulldable area in proposed division is less than ~0,000 sq. ft. (excludes wetland grass areas) for a one-family dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft. {6xcludes we~ljnd grass areas) for an existing two-dwelling usage. E/s Narrow River Road and S/s Main Road, Orient. **Await Co. Health Art, VI and SEQRA. Appeal No. 3367 ~LOIS AND PATRICIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance ~Or approval of two parcels having t~-T~u--~]~]~}i'{' area and width. S/s North qrtve, Mattituck. **Awatt DEC. Build- l~g envelopes and s'~tbacks not shown since enactment of Local Law Wetlands Setbacks. (.~ Appeal No. 3412 -'THOMAS CRAM~!~. Variance to construct within 75' of wetlands. E/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck. **Await Trustees action/approval. (Health Dept. approval apd.'OEC'watver recetved;)Transfer in title. ('j Appeal No. 3355 ~ PAUL & MARIETTA CANALIZO. Variance to construct with insufficient setback in frontyard and from wetlands~ **Await'DEC and wetland setbacks map.-.. Trustees reviews pending. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting HEARINGS FOR APRIL 23, 1987: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to schedu e the following matters for public hearings to be held THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, S6uthold, New York, at the following times, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Board Clerk, Linda Kowalski, is hereby authorized and directed to advertise notice of same in the official and local newspapers of the Town, to wit: The Suffolk Times and Long Island Traveler-Watchman: 7:35 p.m. File No 7:40 p.m. File No 7:45 p.m. File No 7:55 p.m. File No 8:05 p.m. File No 8:10 p.m. File No Vote of the Board: Doyen, GREGORY FOLLARI; THOMAS BALL; MICHAEL S. GILLILAND; PETER MARKOPOULOS; LARRY AND SANDRA STAHL; THE QUIET MAN INN. 3546 3620 3621 3623 35B2 3593 - Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. There being no further business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 o'clock p.m. /'Approved-~Apr{q 2:987 Respectfull.¥ submitted, ~ Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD TO~'~ BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF RAYMOND AND ELEANOR KERESTER THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3611- Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of RAYMOND AND ELEANOR KERESTER. (Recessed from 3/5/87) Variances for insufficient lot width of three proposed parcels, each containing 4.6± acres. North Bayview and Paradise Point Roads, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the Kerester hearing, this was recessed from the last regularly scheduled meeting and we were asking for ~ the staking of the specific foot print areas of the buildings and the maps. Ms. Moore. MS. MOORE: Could I come up? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MS. MOORE: Ok. This is hot off the press. You had some concerns based on that letter from the Ecology Department on the wetlands on this property and you can see that there is a low spot where the natural basin that's created down on the southerly portion of lot 8!. U]i~Therekis~ a' some meadow in the center of lot 2. And one of the areas that was of some concern was around the proposed building envelope on lot 2 which you can see there is some dry meadow but nothing significant. There are some minor (as I said) dry meadow fragmit~ but nothing really of environmental significance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What did the D.E.C. say about this again? MS. MOORE: I have here the D.E.Co decision. They had no objection to the subdivision and they are the ones that requested the building envelope be shown on the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At this spot? In these areas? ~' .... ..~. MS. MOORE: Yes. These are the building envelopes that were for the purpose of the D.E.C. application and they had no objection to the building envelopes. The only conditions that were placed were; no disturbance of natural vegetation or topography within 75 feet of the tidal wetlands. All proposed construction develop- ment shall be a minimum of 100 feet from tidal wetlands. And as you can see, the building envelopes which are usually larger than the building will actually encompass, they're 165. So they're sub- stantially further from the 100 that is required. The proposed de- velopment of these lots will need additional application approved by the D.E.C., Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection. So when they go in for the building permits, they will have to reapply for a specific building permit application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why the house was set back ~so far on,~,lot number 3? Page 2 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Raymond and Eleanor Keres~er Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: I believe it's the location of the higher land as that is where the cesspool water, I think, was chosen in that location on the advice of the survey. I think there are other reasons other than the topography of the land. I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: changing that? There wouldn't be any possibility of M$.~MOORE: I doubt it. No. If they were to change it, it would have to be with the D.E.C. approval one way or another. Then it would have to be shown that the area was an area that can support the construction. We can't really guess what they plan to do. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I'm only going to say for the record, that having this map in front of me now, I will recommend to the Board (and I have no idea what their opinion will be) that we close the hearing tonight and I can use this map and go down and look at those particular sites now that I know the elevation fac- tors in that area. Because you kind of lose sight of things when you're going down the meadows and up hills and so on and so forth and walk on this° MS. MOORE: The properties, the building envelopes have been staked. So you'll see specifically where they're talking about. Another thing. What I asked the Department of Environmental Ecology which is a new subdivision of the Health Department, it's purely an ad- visory similar to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. But this department is strictly for the Health Department. And unfortuantely, in this case, they got involved. Their jurisdiction started maybe ' January and they got involved in'these applications really after the D.E.C. had the application in hand and was already considering all the environmental factors and all the points they usually con- sider. And the Health Department has given us approval, March 9tho We got approval from the Health ~epartment for the individual cess- pool and well location. So the letter should be considered in light of the timing in which it came out and the information that was sub- mitted. Here's the letter. I asked them to please give me an idea of what the office is involved in and what they're rule was and they provided me a letter with it. So if you would file it for future reference when they come up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. We'll see what else de- velopes. 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? Any opinion about what I mentioned now that we have the map? MR. GRIGONIS: The only thing is that I had a call from Dr. Callis and he was concerned a little bit about how they were going to be divided. He said there were parts in there where it gets wet some times. If you go down there, to them, he'd appreciate it if you gave him a call. ~ Page 3 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Raymond and Eleanor Kerester Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The statement was that Mr. Grigonis re- ceived a call from Dr. Callis and he did indicate that there were areas on the property that were wet. MR. GRIGONIS: His concerns were he didn't know which way they were being set up. He said are they set up in certain ways where sometimes they might need a bridge to get from one end of the lot to the other. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other question is; how does one get to lot number 1, the building envelope, to the house or the pro- posed house. And I just mentioned that through the right-of-way of course. But since that is within the subdivision, the Plan- ning Board has jurisdiction over that. MR. GRIGONIS: The law says you must get to the building. MS. MOORE: You're saying from the right-of-way to the building? MR. GRIGONIS: From the building itself. The fact that you just get on the land, most people say that's fine. But where there are extraordinary conditions, the law also says you must get to the dwelling. To get on the land is fine. But if the house is surrounded by water, you can't save it. I just thought that make mention of that. MS. MOORE: Would that be yours or the Planning Boards? MR. GRIGONIS: They'd probably bust your nose on it. MS. MOORE : For a question. It's just that I'm an advisory council to the office of the colleage and I just wondered what kind of remarks they made. I read some of the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was just referred to as whether that any decision out of this Board would probably restrict the se- vere movement of the soil in the areas that were meadow or wasn't. ~Lnd we would suggest and not enforce because we don't enforce any- thing. We clearly state as a matter for the record, that drive- ways in the areas that are wet would be suggested to use culverts underneath the roads so that the water runs through not tempting. Because in natural areas of drainage, what you have is total wash- outs in situations like that. MS. MOORE: The property owner is already aware of that and I con- sulted Mr. VanTuyl's office and he suggested that the contour of the driveway to get at access to the house could be done in such a way as to not effect the wetlands and to go with the flow of the land rather than against it creating disturbance to the wet areas. So he's aware of the fact that these lots are going to require some kind of adjusting. Page ~ - April 2, 1987 P~blic Hearing - Raymond and Eleanor Kerester Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was just going to say that we are going to make that a recommendation within the decision if we grant this. MS. MOORE: That's right. May I make one other comment? Last time you spoke to the doctor and you mentioned that you would place a restriction on no further subdivision of these lots. I haven't spoken to Mr~ Kerester about that. But it would be my opinion that Possibly preventing any further subdivsion at this time on 4.6 acre lots, may be too restrictive and you need that open for a future'Planning Board to consider and the Zoning Board at that time. I think that making that decision at this point, may not be the best way to handle it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But that doesn't necessarily mean that as a matter of right, they couldn't have a two-family house by the special exception on this. What, in fact, we are saying is that we don't want to see a horizontal division of the property. MS. MOORE: By that, you're saying no further subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Remember that we don't know how much usable property we have here. MS. MOORE: But what I'm saying is... Because I know that might be one of the considerations you'll make in creating the condi- tions on the property. And I would suggest that maybe avoid put- ting that condition on, that no further subdivision. Leave it open to Planning Boards discretion at a later time or Zoning Boards discretion, future Boards rather than imposing the conditions at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask you. C&R's for the Planning Board on this? Have you done any MS. MOORE: Not at this time. No. I think they're waiting on your decision and recommendations and then we'll do that. If there are conditions placed at that time, the Planning Board would probably place it on us. It's easier for us to take from the Planning Board than it is from the Zoning Board, as a matter of record and is not with covenants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just give me an idea why? MS. MOORE: It was just my opinion that a 4.6 acre parcel should be prevented from being subdivided into two 203 acre parcels if that area in the proposed Master Plan allows for I acre zoning. Or if the area with the wetlands included or excluded from compu- tation, would allow a 2 acre parcel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oko But the only thing with that Pat is; you're really creating a subdifusion in that particular case° Because then what you're doing is creating a 6 lot minor which you are not permitted to have in the Town of Southold. Page 5 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Raymond and Eleanor Kerester Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: Right. What I'm saying is that there are going to be three lots. These property owners are going to be one of the lots and then they are possibly going to want to set off for something at that time. I'm not talking about the property owner. The present owner. I know the present owner has no plans to further subdivide. But what I'm trying to avoid is conditions that would prevent future property owner of a 4.6 acre parcel from possibly applying for a set off at that time. It's purely discretionary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later and a field inspection to look at the staked area. All in favor - AYE. (Chairman Goehringer, Member Grigonis, Member Doyen, and Member Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent during this hearing.) SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS HATTER OF ANA G. STILLO THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3619 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ANA G. STILLO. Variances for approval of insuffi- cient lot area, width and depth of two parcels in the pending division. ROW off N/S Main Road, Orient. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey most recent- ly updated January 29, 1987 indicating lot number 1 at 1.6 acres, lot number 2 at 1.6 acres. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding propertie~ in the area. Ms. Moore, you'd like to be heard again. MS. MOORE: This Stillo application is the second time around that you're seeing it. The first hearing was number 3562, Novem- ber 20th. At that time, the Board made a recommendation that the subdivision not be approved into a three lot minor subdivision. We went back, we continued with the Health Department. We re- ceived the Health Department approval. We do have no jurisdic- tion determination by the D.E.C. and we went back to the Plan- ning Board with a two lot subdivision. And they recently, which I believe there should be a letter in your file, they made a recom- mendation and approved it this time. So we're back before you and I'd like to incorporate the arguments and all the exhibits from the prior hearing. Not to continue this much more than needed to be. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. CHAIRM3%N GOEHRINGER: I believe this is the one we approved the right-of-way but denied the subdivision. MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. Chairman Ooehringer, Member Doyen, Member Grigonis and Member Sawicki, (Member Douglass was absent during this hearing.) SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF SUKRU ILGIN AND MINE PEKSEN THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3618 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of SUKRU ILGIN AND MINE PEKSEN d/b/a/ OCEAN HOLDING CORP. Variance to operate convenience store in addition to existing gasoline-service station uses. 7400 Main Road, Laurel. B-1 Zone District. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a skewed triangle parcel skewed to the west with an existing ser- vice station of significant size toward the east side of the property indicating the gas pumps, the asphalt paving and a pro- posed parking lot for the convenience store of (it appears to be) 8 parking spaces. And the map~ was produced by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers and dated (most recent date) is February 13, 1987. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Goodale, would you like to be heard? MR. GOODALE: Yes. Let me presen~ to you, we have very rudimen- tary notice of appearance on behalf of Mr. Sukru and the Ocean Holding Company. This is a matter where the criteria is basical- ly indicated by the notice of this approval from Mr. Lessard. In going over the various items in the map itself, I find that the minimums of the one acre zoning lot apply to a shopping center. This~ is not basically a shopping center in terms of have a mul- titude of departments within a certain building. This is more or less a situation where, particularly in other states, it is com- mon where we have a convenience store and a gas station combined. I think that from the legal point of view, if we can over come the hurdles which are manifested in the notice of disapproval and then move on to the nitty gritty of the map itself, I think we can solve this thing favorably for Ocean Holding Company° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was just wondering, I noticed that most of the parking is to the rear of the existing building. I understand the building really has three sides° It really has four sides but it really has three sides that face most of the existing trafficed areas. I was just wondering, is there going to be a rear door into that convenience store? MR. GOODALE: Yes. There would be a rear door, obviously, so that people could come and go from the available parking. No problem there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would this also, this convenience store~ be cons%~t%~gf, of goods that would be primarily packaged as opposed to a true delicatessen? Page 2 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing Sukru Ilgin and Mine Peksen Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. GOODALE: This would be something that would appeal, from the conversation I had with Mr. Ilgin, for such items as ciga rettes, crackers, whatever comes to mind in terms of .... CHAIRM~ GOEHRINGER:Packaged stuff. NO deli items like cold Cuts. MR. GOODALE: NO. There's none. And I will confirm that with him. He has no plans. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:Alright. We'll see what develops. I than~ you sir. MR. GOODALE: Alright. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? Would there be any additional lighting at the premises? Would everything stay pretty much the way it is now? MR. GOODALE: The lighting is usually now pretty well for the pur- pose of the filling station, also the gas station. The only other lighting that might possibly be would be a sign of some kind indi- cating the presence of a convenience store. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask that question is because as you know, there was a new station erected recently on the North Road in Peconic and there has been much criticism from the neigh- bors concerning the light that appears to exist in that particular station. SO we wouldn't want anything... If the Board was so, to a certain degree, made a modification possibly of your application and granted the application the way you want it or in the form or a sense; we would not want any additional lighting of any more than what you have now. So as not to disrupt. MR. GOODALE: Saying from the traffic point of view, there is a certain amount (shall we say) of light generated principally by the gas station or the gas pumps themselves. But beyond that, I foresee nowhere where there would be any objection on the part of any surrounding neighbor. CHAIPJ~AN GOEHRINGER: Did he have a question? MR. ILGIN : Would it be possible if we put in lights behind the building or in the parking spaces? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That would definitely have to be lighted. MR. ILGIN : Just mainly one flood light would be needed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor AYE. (Chairman Douglass and Sawicki, Goehringer, Menubers Doyen, Grigonis, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF GULL POND DAWN CORP. THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING '[~8 p.m. Appeal No. 3609 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of GULL POND DA%~ CORP. Variance to construct single family dwelling with an insufficient setback from existing wood bulkhead along mean highwater mark of Dawn Lagoon. East side of Dawn Drive, Greenport, Cleaves Point, Section 3, Lot 70. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey on behalf of Gull Pond Dawn, Corp. produced by Peconic Surveyors most recent date is December 25, 1987, (I think that should have been Decem- ber 25, 1986) indicating a one family dwelling of two stories with its closest distance to the bulkhead of Dawn Lagoon at 42 feet on the Sound side, 45 feet on the north side, 33 feet from the south property line. And I don't think I have a distance on the front property line. I think the other survey has it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Would you like to use the microphone and state your name if you wouldn't mind. MR. PRIME : I'm president of Gull Pond Dawn Corp. I be- lieve the information we submitted is fairly correct. I believe, in the file, an offset shown on the front property of 35 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe it's on the original. MR. PRIME : It was on the drawing that was submitted. CHA]IRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. You're right. That was submitted. MR. PRIME ing of that. It was showing the architects final render- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm not finished~ Can I just ask you why you have chosen this type of house? I know you mentioned it in the application but maybe you could elaborate a little bit more on that. MR. PRIME : The design of the house? The design was to fit (number one) the property and to make the best use of the view which is really basically to the southeast corner of the property. And we are going to try to fit it in with the design of the existing houses as they exist along the Lagoon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the proposed deck? Do you have any intentions of enclosing MR. PRIME : No. as a front deck. That would be strictly, as it shows, .Page 2 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gull Pond Dawn Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to a restric- tion of not ever enclosing the proposed deck? MR. PRIME : No I don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ih measuring the house to the north, I found that that was approximately 45 to 46 feet from the edge of their deck to the beginning of the bulkhead. So we're in the general range. MR. PRIME : That was why we tried to get about this size_house with the facilities but we were also trying to keep in closer to the water than approximately the line of the house to the north. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If the Board so grants this application, the only thing I'd like to mention to you is that that 10 foot setback from the north property line has got to be adhered to. So please be very careful. Make it 10.6 in any case. Because we have had these things end up 9o6 and 8o6 and so on and so forth° That's a real problem° MR. PRIME : No. I'm very tight. The reason was to get the angle and to get the design of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for coming in. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this ap- plication? Anybody like to speak against the application? Ques- tions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. Chairman G0ehringer, Members Doyen, Grigonis~ Douglass, and Sawicki. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF FLINT ST. CORP. AND RIVER CIRCLE CORP. THURSDAYL, APRIL 2, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8~O~ p.m. Appeal No. 3616 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of FLINT ST. CORP. AND RIVER CIRCLE CORP. Variances for approval of insufficient lot area, depth and width of two parcels in this pending division of land. Linnett and Flint Streets, Greenport Driving Park Lots 68 and 76, Greenport. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating lot ~76 at 5,628 square feet with a 1½ story framed house three feet from the rear property line. Parcel ~2, 5,628 square feet also, lot #69 which is vacant. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And an analysis summary indicating what lots are built on and what are not provided to us from the applicant or the agent of the application; to be incorporated in the file. Would you like to be heard Mr. Kapell? MR. KAPELL: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. The application is pretty self explanatory. If I can emphasize a couple of points. These are two existing merged lots which still show on the Suffolk County Tax Map as separate lotso They are unusual in that they do run .... It's narrow in its merged form, it's a narrow deep lot which would have minimal use as one lot and it fronts on two sepa- rate streets. In addition, the lots in the neighborhood for the most part, are identical if not very similiar to the proposed lots that would result in approval by this Board. Both lots... Excuse me. The existing house is already served with village water and the proposed lot will be served with village water and sewer. And it's another opportunity for the Zoning Board to give an approval which would result in the addition to the inventory of smaller lots which would be affordable in lower prices to people of lesser means and who are out of the market for large one acre or two acre lots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just tell me if the existing cess- pools on lot 476 are on lot #68? MR. KAPELL: I don't know. I honestly don't know. It's a ques- tion that we have thrown around. Yesterday as a matter of fact. I don't know° I can't say that if they're located on lot that we will relocate them or tie into the sewer. Because ob- viously, they pose a problem to the use of the proposed lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other question that I had was, you have no indication or intention of repositioning tha~ house on lot ~767 MR. KAPELL: No I don't. That house, by the way, predates, as far as I can tell, the subdivision in the area. That's an old house. It's been there for a long time. · Page 2 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Flint Sto Corp. and River Circle Corpo Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But it's salvagable. MR. KAPELL: Oh Yes. Habitable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no sewer system on the unpaved part of Flint Street° Is that correct? MR. KAPELL: There is no sewer system on this part of Flint Street. That's right. I think there is sewer now at the other end. There is sewer to Brown Street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On Leonard Street and Brown Street or just Leonard Street? MRo KAPELL: No. Just on Leonard Streeto CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was that recently put in? MR. KAPELL: No. It's been there for quite some time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It has. And that runs off of 6th Street and comes in through the back? MR. KAPELL: It runs off of 6th Street and then it loops around on 9th Stteet and runs down to Driftwood Cove. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: So this is actually the sewer line that runs down Driftwood Cove. MR. KAPELL: To the best of my knowledge. Whether there was another connection to the Front Street, there may be. There may also be a connection to the sewer on Front Street. I'm just not familar with it. But I know that it makes the turn from Leonard Street and runs down Leonard Street toward Front Street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Let's see what develops. I thank you very much Mr. Kapell. MR. KAPELL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no fur- ther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv- ing decision until later. All in favor - AYE. Chairman Goehr~nger, Members Grigonis Doyen Douglass and Sawicki. ' ' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF CARMINE AND DONNA DISPIRITO THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING ~8~:~ p.m. Appeal No. 3615 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of CARMINE AND DONNA DISPIRITO. Special Exception to establish and construct two-family dwelling on 4± acre parcel. 6030 Youngs Avenue, Southold. Minor Subdivision Map 378, Lot 4. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey done by Robert VanTuyl, P.C., his most recent date is January 27, 1986 indicat- ing a 4.1 acre parcel with a house of proposed two-family resi- dence built approximately in the center of the property 108 feet from the south property line and quite a distance from the road. And in fact, over 300 feet from the road. And I have a copy of the plans of the house. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Sir. MR. DISPIRITO: Good evening. As a point and case, I went around to the surrounding neighbors on Saturday and I'd like to say that everyone I spoke to received this very favorably. I had no objec- tions at all from any of the neighbors that I spoke too I spoke to Mr. Fawn and he felt this was a good use of 4 acres to de- velop additional houses for the areao Mr. and Mrs. Solomon had a few questions which I answered~ Mro Grigonis was in favor of it. Mr. Randazzo owns two parcels that border up to the northern side of the property. And I did not personally get to speak with him. But Mr. Fawn relayed to me that he had been a friend of his for 20 or more years and he had no problems with this. Mr. and Mrs. Cohen are in Florida. I did not get any feed back on them. I'd like the Board to know that I'd be willing to conform with the zoning requirements as set by the Zoning Board. This would help to meet the need for housing by supplying the extra unit. It's not a change of zone as you know. The property meets or exceeds the requirements on the footage and the setbacks. An-acknowledger must be. attached on the one roof. As far as the general knowledge, it's not a condominium as we are all aware. At least the Board and myself. It is a variance application and I acknowledge a minimum of 850 square foot for each apartment. And it's something that people have done for years and are continuing to do and will do illegally. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. I just want to tell you that I have one letter of objection that we received today and I have a copy of it for you and you're welcome to address the issue before I close the hearing if you want to. I just want to ask you a cou- ple of questions. Is the apartment going to be in the house or above the garage area? Or will it be on the second story of the house? MR. DISPIRITO: I want to keep them so it does not look like an apartment. I think it would look nice being over the garage area if there is no objection from the Planning Board or the Zoning Board to that. Page 2 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Carmine and Donna Dispirito Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As lOng as it's attached. MR. DISPIRITO: As long as it's attached it will be under the continuous roof. These three proposals I have, these configu- rations of the different ways which it can be done. We'd like to build a good sized house. It wouldn't certainly be a mon- strosity where it would look out of place. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a house for yourself? MR. DISPIRITO: F~m myself in one unit. I can rent out. And then the other unit CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MR. DISPIRITO: And it would be attached by the one roof. So if it's okayed by the Boards, I would probably go with it over the garage area. It's a big three-car garage. The Square foot- age of that would exceed the requirement of 850 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. That's great. Let's see what else develops through the hearing. You might want to study that for a second. The letter that I just gave you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? Is there anything else you would like to say? MR. DISPIRITO: Just in relation to the letter. Everyone, of course, has the same concern when they see something that might sound a little ou~ of the ordinanry. And I can appreciate the gentleman's concern for this. Where his property is exactly, I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's in the back. It's around the corner. MR. DISPIRITO: You mean that little circle? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think... I'll show you up here. MR. DISPIRITO: Ok. I see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's up Old North Road. MR. DISPIRITO: We're quite a distance from it where I am. And again, I can only attest to my own personal neighbors sur- rounding my own property that there was no anomosity toward it and no hard feelings at all. So the gentleman lives in Lake Grove which is quite a distance away and I guess he's got a concern there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Well, we thank you very much for your courtesy. You've been very nice to us and supplying us with all this information and we'll do the best we can. ~Page 3 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Carmine and. Donna Dispirito Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. DISPIRITO: Ok. I appreciate it. If there's anything that has to be done to conform that isn't on there, there's no prob- lem with t'hat as I mentionedo CHAIRb~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you~again sir. Hearing no further questiOns, I'll make a motion closing the hearing re- serving decision until later. All infavor - AYE. Chairman Goehringer, Members Doyen, Doug- lass, Sawicki, Grigonis. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF GREGORY PAULOS THURSDAY, APRIL 2., 1987, PUBLIC HEARING -8~:~2-2 p.m. Appeal No. 3613 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of GREGORY PAULOS. Variance to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient setback from bluff along L.I. Sound. N/s Sound View Road, Map of Orient By-The-Sea Section Two, Lot 46, Orient. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of a survey produced by Roberu VanTuyl undated indicating a 1½ story framed house aproxi- mately 82 feeu plus from Sound View Road and approximately ..... It does not indicate the actual setback of the house from the bluff. But it does indicate that with the proposed deck, exclu- sive of the storage area, it would be approximately 40 feet from the deck. From the bluff rather. And I have a copy of the Suf- folk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding.~properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? How are you sir? MR. CARDINALE: Appearing at the request of the applicant who is here. Mr. and Mrs. Paulos are here as is Mr. Teraboka who is the contractor on it in case you have questions relevant that I can't answer. I reviewed (I think) all the documents in your file. I haven't seen the letter of Mr. McLou~hlin. Kevin's letter. If I could take a look at that. If I could get a copy, I might be able to address it. I know basically, the substance of it. To try to be quick about this, we obviously know that the problem here is the 100 foot line. The argument of the applicant is simp- ly that the practical difficulties obviously, or necessary hard- ship unique to this piece would result if you decline to grant the variance requested. And that granting of the variance request- ed would be constant with the contractor of the surrounding neigh- borhood. Initially, let me just get ouu of the way the County's letter. I think the County raised concern which were relevant to your considerations. And I think in that letter they raised basi- cally two concerns. One is; if I recollect the letter, no vegeta- tion of the slop and the other was in regard to the runoff. For- tunately, which is not unusual but sometimes they do it,~'~hhey !offer the solution. And raising the height of the berm at least 12 to 18 inches. They suggested the solution for, well they perceive, a storm water service runoff problem and vegetate the bluff. My clients have indicated that they have authorized me to consent to those conditions which the Board feels that they're helpful° So on a side note, the contractor asked me to point out that he, as a matter of professional objectivity, such that he would like me to make a point that he doesn't see how it would (in fact) increase the runoff since there are slots in this deck. It's not an imper- vious surface. So that he feels the water would eventually wind up exactly where it's coming down now. Through the slots. But that aside, we're willing to certainly have no objections to con- ditions, as indicated by the County, solving these two problems. ~Page 2 - Apmil 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CARDINALE, (continued): The uniqueness of the situation and perhaps the difficulties is pretty apparent alSo. It's a pre-existing structure. It was built (obviously) prior to this statute which, I think, is an '85 statute. It is virtually impossible, as you know fo~il our clients, to build on that piece 100 feet from... I don't think if they built ~n front, they could build 100 feet off of the Sound bluff and still be in~conjunc~ion-~i~h-Y~he~j frontyard requirements. The neighborhood, unlike what was said in Mr. McLoughlin's letter, you probably know better than to that because you've been up there. The neighbor directly to the east of the Ebert, I believe, has a deck which .... Ex- cuse me. To the east of the objectant. T~aEb~ts have a deck. And the deck as it presently exists, is in fact, not a ~?reLa- t~Ye!y~ greater distance from the bluff than would be the deck as proposed by our petitioner. So I think that in view of what the neighborhood, which is an overlooking Sound neighborhood and a view of the surrounding, that deck and other houses that it would be consistant with the neighborhood. The other comment in the let- ter which states (I'm sure) to some extent of the objections. It indicates' there are no structures in the neighborhood that are any- where near that close to the top of the bluff. We would urge that that is not true. And would urge that that particular deck I elud~ ed to to the east of the Evers is an example of that. Another point in the letter I'd like to comment on is that the nature of the objections by the Eberts~.~e~9 I think, objections which are understandable but are more objections of principle to the new construction than they are objections of substance. And what I mean by that is this; they say that it would increase the noise. Certainy none of us here could urge that they can't come down the existing stePs, (I have pictures I'd like to... I think you have seen it) an existing short little stoop, and sit on their lawn. No one would decline to give them 'that right. So the noise factOr, to me, seems to be irrelevant° If you can make equally amount of noise by sitting on the grass and standing on the grass particularly if you put a light in the back of your yard, than you could by standing on a deck. So I don't think that's really relevant to our considerations. So in view of the line problem and the neighborhood density problem, it is my un- derstanding that, and these pictures seem to show that, that the distance between where the deck would be and the house is approxi- mately 25 to 30 feet. Further, that there's a tree presently in a position which does more than this deck (~cer%aih~y) to inter- rupt the view of the neighbor to the. south. The neighbor is ac- ctually not to the west where this house is located b~ta~ct~al~y straight out. So as to the issue of noise, I made my point. As to the line and the neighbor density, I don't think the problem is as great as one would think by reading that letter. Because I think, as I understand it, as 25 to 30 feet and that the view line would not be obstructed to any greater extent that it pre- sently is to the water by this structure that we're suggesting will be permitted to build. The other alternative we conceed, I think, would be more destructive of the situation. If we put ~Page 3 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CARDINALE (continued): in a patio or sometning of that nature, it would be an emper- vious substance. We'd have additional problems. We, as I said certainly are willing to comply with the County's re- quests. The other thing I'd like to point out which again, is pretty obvious, the way the deck is proposed. We're only building off of the existing line. We're flush at the corners and maybe we're out a few feet in the middle. We're not build- ing it off. We're building it into the house so to speak. So we're actually only moving our~line out (at its best~ a f~ew feet. We certainly would be willing to consider any suggestions the Board might make. But it seems to me that the positioning of it and the way we've set it up tries to minimuze the concerns that have been addressed by the neighbor. Any conditions of safeguards other than the ones~ you've conceeded to, we'd be glad to comply with. But clearly, the objections that ques- tion safety, welfare of the public or the spirit of the chap- ter, they go more to principle objections that we would prefer not to have a deck. Well, that's true. I suppose those people would prefer that we not have a deck. But I would ask you to consider what a substantial injustice would be done to simple deny the application. Certainly to impose conditions is un- reasonable. But to deny, I would urge that it not be substan- tial justice. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a couple questions? What is the approximate size of the deck Mr. Cardinale? MR. CARDINALE: The size of the deck at present, and I'll state to Mr. Paulos. And if I am off, he'll tell me. It's 10 feet at the sides, 16 at the middle. It's kind of beheveled out or whatever you would call that. And it's 10, 12 and 10, 30 feet across the middle in length and 12 .... Do you have a diagram? CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: I don't seem to and that's the reason why I asked that question. I apologize. MR. CARDINALE: than I would. That probably says it a heck of a lot better CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The second question I usually have is; is it going to be roofed in any way, incorporated within the house? MR. CARDINALE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there going to be any obtrusive light- ing, overhead lighting that would cause an adverse effect to the neighbors? MR. CARDINALE: No. ~Page 4 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Most important factor in building on bluffs that we ask all the questions today, Mr. Teroboka, is; can you construcn the deck without anchoring it to the house? MR. TEROBOKA: It could be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to that? It could be. Do you have any objection MR. TEROBOKA: No. Not really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I think that's about it at the moment. We'll see what else developes. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Board. I'm here representing Fred and Arlene Ebert who own property im- mediately adjacent to the subject property to the east. The prob- lems that we perceive are several and most have been eluded to already by Mr. Cardinale. Initially, the proximity of the deck to the top of the bluff. And I think the letter from Soil and Water Conservation District amply sums up the problems there. It does give some ideas as to how the procession of the top of the bluff may be minimized. However, I think the real problem is the angle of repoze of the existing bluff~ a one to one ver- tical. And I think it's under the best conditions and even if the vegetation is placed on the face of the bluff, there is still going to be recession there. Even without the recession, you're talking about a deck, withoun counting the steps in, that's with- in 40 feet of the top of the bluff. I think everyone understands there's a 10O foot setback requirement under the zoning code. When the applicant~ purchased his property within the last year, he is deemed to be aware of that fact. That provision of the code has been in effect for approximately 2 years now. It was certainly in effect at the time Mr. Paulos purchased the property. So I think even at the best, you're talking about having a deck, when the steps are included, that is going to be 30 some odd feet from the existing top of the bluff. And again, the top of the bluff does appear by any circumstance, to be receeding landward to some degree. The deck on the house that's approximately two houses down to the east; I think if one would take a look, that~- whole house is set back substantially from the top of the bluff than the Paulos residence and it's a similiar deck addition that"s been put in there. Once you start granting variances that's going to place a deck within 30 some odd feet of the top of the bluff, I guess the next application is going to be for 25 and 20. And I think at some point threre has to be line drawn in order to protect this very sensitive area. In addition to the concerns of the top of the bluff, my clients have some very substantial con- cerns about the restricted view of the Sound that's going to occur ~Page 5 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of A. ppeals MR. MCLOUGHLIN (continued): as a result of this proposed deck addition~ I have a couple of photographs here which I would like to hand up, which do, and I apologize some whan for the quality~ But I think if you look carefully, you can see some at least of the stakes shows the outline of the proPosed deck. And you can also see how the applicant's property very considerably slopes downward toward the east resulting in the deck being substantially higher off the ground on its eastern end than it would be on its western end. And I'd like to hand up these photographs at this point. Mr. Cardinale mentioned the existance of a tree which (in its natural form) does some what block out some of the view. But again, we have a natural object doing that and it's part of the beauty of the landscape. I also have two other pictures here which I'd like to hand up. And I think what it shows is that' the addition of this deck does substan- tially interfer with my clients view from their westward side of their house, of the Sound. And in fact, coupled with the existing tree, it's just about going to wipe it out. Because I believe if you take a look at the first photograph I'm go- ing to hand you, the deck in its present position on the west- ward side of the applicant's property, is raised up approxi- mately to the top of the garage door and will come out, approxi- mately out, almost as far as that tree and that is virtually going to eliminane any view from the western side of my clients premises. The deck is also going to be in very close proximity to the western side of my client's premises which contains two bedrooms and a bathroom and they were certainly concerned about additional noise that may be caused as a result of that. Basical- ly, my clients position is this; two major concerns. Setting aside whether or not there will be additional noise produced as a re- sult of the addition of a deck, or the proximity and location of the deck which is substantially going to impair their western view of the Sound. And certainly the proximity of the deck to the top of the bluff. My clients have been working with a local landscaper and are involved in trying (on their own) to establish the top of the bluff as it presently exists. They are going to do some planting on the face of the bluff and also do some on the face of it. They're very concerned about this. They have spent considerable amounts of money. And purchased this house several years ago on the reliance on the neighborhood as it exists. Their hopes that this could be a home that would pro- vide them with the type of environmental they would like to live in and indeed would like to pass down to their children as being a beautiful scenic plact to come and spend time. And I think at least one of my clients would also like to address the Board this evening. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sirs How do you do? kindly state your name for the record ma'am. Would you ~Page 6 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of Appeals ARLENE EBERT: I'm Arlene Ebert, your neighbor. And I'm here this evening to meet and respectfully ask this Board to uphold natures boun~y and the dignity of life. It's the very essence of what our North Fork has stood by and come to mean. When so many areas of the southern tip seem almost to be straining by the stress of careless progress, the north tip has stood by as a conservative beacon of what humanity must hold on to if it is to survive. Our attorney, with great professionalism and dedi- cation, has described the means to hold our very fragile shore- line which struggles valiantly to maintain itself against na- ture's tricks and agressions but it must not be exposed to fur- ther erosion by human error or possible human agression. And to parallel the need of protecting the precious shoreline, I respectfully ask the Board to consider favorably our needs to preserve and maintain the truest quality of privacy and dignity outside our bedroom windows which this proposed deck would in- vade and encroach upon. We bought our home for a clear and mag- nificent view of the sunset as well I'm certain, was a compelling priority of many other neighbors. However, instead of this, we will now be faced with a raised and built up deck structure which (at best) will permanently obstruct and shield our view. And at worst, and geander the magnitude of noise or cooking that its size can promise. Maybe we would have never bought our home if the landscape was so marred by this intrusive and insensitive structure which would be out of harmony with our natural shore- line. We are currently involved with one local professional, Terry Latham, at our own great personal expense, because we care to preserve our bluff and natural landscape from erosion with the approval of the Ecology Agency. Fred and ~ thank you for our considerations and we home some day that we can stand up and help improve our community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: There are three pictures. you. They basically show the same thing. I'll give them MR. CARDINALE: I don't want to add to this time period we have already taken. If I can, from the Board, between the two things the county recommended and what ever you would impose as condi- tions such as this, not be made a catch to or bound to the house. We certainly would like to make this as unobtrusive as possible, for our neighbors. However, I honestly don't see how it could be much more obtrusive. Again, I think that the noise issue is real- ly irrelevant because there's going to be noise because of people. Not because of the deck. As to the site line, you'll make a judg- ment by your view of the site in the pictures. Just to foreclose the possibility of any deck in that location, I think, would be an apprentice of substantial justice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mrs. Oliver. Page 7 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. OLIVER: This is neither pro nor con. But I may I ask the Board a couple of questions? Normally, is the bluff eroding at the present time? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Uniquely, I was rather impressed with the bluff area. They have taken the down spouts from this house in question and ran it through the lawn and actually ran the down spouts all the way down to the bottom of the cliff. When I was there, it was a day or to after an extensive rainsmorm. I did see some sediment at the bottom of the cliff. However, I don't know if that was caused by the rain pouring off the Cliff, off the normal activity that exists or if it actually came from the top. I saw no erosion at the top. It was fully grassed. MRS. OLIVER: Ail the way down to the bluff? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the bluff itself (as you know) when you have sand, is not a fully vegetated bluff but is was probably a lot better looking than I've seen some of them. MRS. OLIVER: And from my understanding, that the ground more or less slopes down toward the bluff rather than the bluff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really didn't get that impression and I'll tell you the reason why. Because there was a west to east slop. I didn't get the impression where the east slope would actually cause water runoff to come out the top of the bluff. I guess it was... I have to admit to you and to the record that I was impressed With the down spout system. I thought it was very unique and that it was done in good taste (basically) in order to preserve the bluff. MRS. OLIVER: And the Soil and Water Conservation people, did they give any inclination of the structure of the soil substrate? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't remember. Do you have a copy of it? I'd be very happy to lend you our copy if you'd like to look at it. MRS. OLIVER: So that we're not faced with the same soil substruc- ture that we have at Perry's Pike. That if the weight of anything is too much and you have substantial rainfall or the wind just changes substantially, that you not only get erosion from the top but from wave action and there goes the deck. I'm thinking more of the people's personal property that's going down the drain. Any addition weight on some types of substructure will cause, in the rain, that the whole thing is just going to slide right off because we have had that problem in Orient in other sections. Those are my only questions. CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: Ruth, why don't you take a look at this for a minute and you're welcome to comment before we close the hearing. Is there anything you'd like to say Mr. McLoughlin? Page 8 - April 2, 1987 Public Hearing - Gregory Paulos Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I could just make a couple of comments. think in my letter it was referenced that this deck is going to be built virtually on top of my clients residence and that real- ly had kind of a two part meaning. On top of, I think, has to be taken in view of the photographs and the sloping of the land at that point from it's high point to the west is that anyone looking out from the westward side of Ebert's house, is going to be looking basically up into the bottom of this deck. And I think the photographs, the second two photographs I handed up, show that quite well. They were both taken out of a west win- down in the house facing westward and I think that will also in- crease the noise problem. You're going to have the structure up above them causing this additional noise. And additionally, one of the main purposes of my clients purchasing this property was the view of the Sound and the beautiful sunsets that are provided when the sun sets in the west. And I think as the second two photo- graphs will indicate, the view of those sunsets on an evening are going to be virtually wiped out from the west side of my clients house if this deck is allowed to be built. Thank you. MRS. OLIVER: First of all, it's a very good report. I would just like to advise the client that the average erosion on the Sound was 1 foot per year. But in some areas, as in Petty's Pike by section of Orient, it has in the past 7, 8 years, gone back probably almost 100 feet. I just like the applicants to be aware of it. Now, I know the gentleman here is shaking his head and I have referred to this before at the Break Dock property which per- haps Mr. Cardinale is familiar With. He said for 30 years he had no erosion problems on that bluff and he didn't. Then we had storm Nelsom which was about (I believe) 3 years ago 2 days ago. And at that point right after that, one third of his bluff started to erode. So I just feel that their recommendations are very good to him. To increase the berm, if you're going to do it. I don't know. It's up to the Board's decision whether it should be so large and it should. But you should prevent any type of runoff that you can. And frankly, for the plantings on the bluff, I know no one likes poison ivy, but perhaps honeysuckle. Something that has a very good entangling root to hold that soild together. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there any further comments from anybody? Ok. The only think I ask of the applicant is that it appears that the most westerly corner is 40 feet from the bluff. I would like you to go out there and stake the distance of the exact deck and tell us exactly what the center of the deck would be from the approximate bluff area. Because we heard Mr. McLoughlin say that it's 35 feet, 36 feet or whatever the case may be. We don't know exactly and we'd like to know what it is. It's nothing you have to do tonight by moonlight or flashlight but we'd appre- ciate you giving us that information. We also appreciate the cour- tesy that this particular group has give us tonight and we thank you all very very much and we hope that you have a very nice evening. Hearing no further testimony, I'll make a motion closing the hear- lng until later° Ail in favor - AYE. Chairman Goehringer, Members Doyen Grigonis Dou,glass and Sawicki. ' '