Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/05/1987APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- RTATE RI-lAD 25 SDUTHrlLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987 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; 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 13 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting (increasing to 30 towards the latter part of the meeting). Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting and proceeded with the first matter 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 and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3601 MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST. Fourteen-foot addition along south side of dwelling with insufficient setback from bulkhead and rear property line. ROW off E/s Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 7:40 p.m. 7:45 p.m. 7:50 p.m. 7:55 p.m. 8:10 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3599 - SAMUEL S. COHEN. Garage for storage purposes in front/side yard areas. S/s Private ROW off S/s Indian Neck Road, Peconic. No objections were received or submitted during the hearing. (See verbal transcript filed simultaneously herewith.) Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3598 - DANIEL AND IRENE McKASTY. Pool with fence enclosure and cabana within 75 feet of existing bulkhead. 13220 Main Road, East Marion. The ~pplicants did not appear at the hearing. No objections were submitted. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3595 DONALD J. GRIM. Two-story building with insufficient frontyard setback in this "C-l" Zone (for single office use incidental to principal use of established business). S/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. No opposition was submitted at the hearing. The applicant was present (see transcript for verbatim statements). Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3462 HERBERT R. MANDEL. Multiple area variances, etc. in this proposed three-lot Minor Subdivision. 9355 Main Road, East Marion. Abigail Wickham, Esq. appeared and spoke in behaTf of the applicant. No opposition was submitted during the hearing. (See transcript of hearing for verbatim statements.) PObli~ H6aring was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3590 THOMAS AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN. Addition to existing nonconforming structure exceeding 50% of fair value. 265 Rochelle Place, Mattituck. No objections were submitted during the hearing. The hearing was recessed until our March 5, 1987 meeting in order to allow sufficient time for the public to respond on the re-notices sent by Mr. Zimmerman today. (See transcript of hearing for verbatim statements.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 8:18 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3604 - ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI. Approval of access pursuant to Town Law, Section 280a. ROW off the east side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. No objections were voiced at the hearing. (See transcript of hearing for verbatim testimony.) 8:27 p.m. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Member Douglass, and duly carried, to recess for three minutes. 8:30 p.m. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, to reconvene at this time. This resolution was duly carried. 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3596 - TARTAN OIL CORP. Special Exception to establish partial self- service gas station in conjunction with full- service gas station approved 6/29/72 under Appl. No. 1584. 32400 C.R. 48, Peconic. (No obi.) 8:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3597 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER. Special Exception for Accessory Apartment in existing garage area. 355 Terry Lane, Southold. (See transcript of hearing for statements pro and con.) APPROVAL OF DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Member Sawicki, seconded by Member Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to set Thursday, March 5, 1987 as the date of the next Regular Meeting and Public Hearings by this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Member Grigonis, second6d By Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to APPROVE the Minutes of the January 8, 1987 Minutes of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3552: Application of JOHN SENKO for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article VII, Section 100-70, and Article VI, Section 100-62(B), for permission to establish shopping center use in this "B-l" General Business Zoning District with insufficient lot area at 49295 Main Road (a/k/a Ackerly Pond Lane), Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 70, Block 07, Lot 01, containing 30,084 sq. ft. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, public hearings were held on October 2, 1986, Octo- ber 22, 1986, November 20, 1986, December 11, 1986 and concluded on January 8, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of JOHN SENKO under Appeal No. 3552; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north (northwest) side of the Main Road (State Route 25), and along the south (southwest) side of Ackerly Pond Lane, in the Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold, further identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 70, Block 7, Lot 1. 2. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the requirements of Article VI, Section 100-62, for permission to establish shopping-center use for multiple retail or office business on a parcel of land having an insufficient lot area of 30,084 sq. ft., or .69 of an acre. The subject premises is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code. 3. The subject premises is located in the "B-l" General Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3552 - SENKO decision, continued:) Business Zoning District and is improved with: (a) one one-story building containing a floor area of 816± sq. ft. situated a distance of 14.8 feet from its closest point from the southwest corner of the premises, and (b) 24.4' x 16.3' accessory one-story frame garage. The accessory garage structure is to be removed entirely. The existing 1½-story frame structure would be used for '~professional or business office" use only, as regulated by the zoning provisions. 4. Proposed in addition to the use of the existing 1½-story frame structure for "professional or business office" use is a 3000 sq. ft. two-story building with multiple retail and/or office uses, 1500 total floor area on each floor of which 1300 maximum is for office or retail sales area. The total office area proposed for the existing 1½-story frame structure is 700 sq. ft. The setbacks of the new building will be a minimum of 55 feet from each property line along the Main Road and Ackerly Pond Lane. The number of parking spaces provided for these uses is 34, and the entrance and exit driveways will be only along Ackerly Pond Lane (a/k/a Lower Road), and not along the Main Road. It is the recommendation of this Board that the number of parking spaces be increased to 42, to provide parking for the handicapped in addition to the regular parking spaces required. 5. Article VI, Section 100-62, Subsection B, (and Article VII, Section 100-70, Subsection A(1)[d]), requires a minimum lot area of one acre, or 43,560 sq. ft. for a "building or combination of buildings containing retail stores, mercantile establishments, offices, banks and financial institutions, commonly known as shopping centers." 6. It is noted that exiting off of Ackerly Pond Lane onto the Main Road is very difficult and is partly due to the angles of the highway in both the east and west directions. This board has recommended a "One-Way Street" at this inter- section prohibiting exiting off the south end of Ackerly Pond Lane to the Town Highway Department (see our letter dated October 29, 1986, and response to us dated November 14, 1986). This board does not have jurisdiction over the town or state roads in question, but will continue to urge "no exiting" at this intersection. 7. The amount of relief requested by this application is 13,476 sq. ft., or 30% of the requirements. It is the opinion of this board that the relief requested is not sub- Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals -6- February 5, ~987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3552 SENKO decision, continued:) stantial under the circumstances. It is however the position of this board that limitations are necessary at this time concerning the point of access (only along Ackerly Pond Lane as shown) and for the number of business uses and occupancies. Any increase in the number of business uses and occupancies would be prohibited without this variance. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the variation is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) there will be no effect, if the variance is allowed, of increased population density; (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining proper- ties; (d) the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method other than a variance; (e) the circumstances of the property are unique; (f) in view of the manner in which the diffi- culties arose and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing a variance as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a variance for permission to establish multiple uses on this 30,084 sq. ft. parcel in this "B-I" General Business Zoning District under Appeal No. 3552 in the Matter of the Application of JOHN SENKO, permitting the construction of a 32000 sq. ft. two-story building as shown on Site Plan dated August ll, 1986 prepared by Garrett A. Strang, Architect, for a maximum of five office or retail uses, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No access shall be permitted along Route 25. Egress and ingress shall be only along Ackerly Pond Lane (not closer than 120 feet from the corner). Such egress and ingress must be wide enough to be suitable for truck deliveries, etc. 2. All existing signs (affixed to building, etc.) shall be removed. Only one wall sign and only one ground sign shall be permitted on the entire premises (as regulated by Section 100-62). 3. Minimum 12" by 24" sign shall be placed upon the premises along the southerly area near the Main Road to read "NO PARKING." 4. Evergreen screening (shrubbery) shall be placed upon the premises along the southerly area near the Main Road, commencing at the southwest corner and extending a distance of 100 feet, at a minimum height of three feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3552 SENKO decision, continued:) Such screening shall be maintained at all times. 5. Site Plan approval by the Planning Board (with recommended 42 parking spaces), which must include the following as regulated by Section lO0-112(K)[1 & 2] of the Zoning Code Screening from adjoining residential lot with a substantial wall, fence or thick hedge, not less than three feet nor more than eight feet in height. 6. Not more than one professional or business office in the existing 1½-story frame building, and no retail, unless application for re-consideration is filed and approved by both the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals. 7. Not more than five office or retail uses in the proposed 3,000 sq. ft. building, unless an application for re-consideration is filed and approved by both the Planning Board and Board of Appeals. 8. Any future expansion and new construction must be approved by the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board by formal application (prior to expansion or construction). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3461: Application of HELMUT HASS. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sections: (1) 100-71, Bulk Schedule, for insufficient lot area and lot width; (2) lO0-70(A) establishing existing resi- dential use as principal use of proposed southerly parcel; (3) lO0-70(A) and 100-71 for approval of insufficient livable-floor area in the existing dwelling of proposed northerly parcel. Zoning District: 35350 County Road 48, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-69-04-2.1. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 1987 in the Matter of the Application of HELMUT HASS under Appeal No. 3461; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south side of Middle Road (a/k/a C.R. 48), Peconic, NY, having a total area of 49,709 sq. ft. and 100 ft. lot width. 2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 69, Block 4, Lot 2.1, and is located in the "B-I" General Business Zoning District. 3. By this application, appellant requests variances from the Provisions of Article VII, Section: (a) lO0-71, Bulk Schedule, for insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel #1 of 20,774 sq. ft. and Parcel #2 of 28,935 sq. ft., and insufficient lot width of 100 feet; (b) lO0-70(A) continuing established residential use as principal use [in the existing two-story building] southerly Parcel (#1); (c) lO0-70(A) and 100-71 continuing established residential use in existing Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3461 HASS decision, continued:) one-story building which also has an insufficient livable floor area of 774± sq. ft. 4. Article VII, Sections lO0-71 and 100-70 of the Zoning Code require a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft of lot area and 150 ft. lot width, per parcel, in this "B-I" General Business Zoning District. The lowest allowable livable floor area in the "A" District is 850 sq. ft. The percentages of relief requested are: (a) 1,065 sq. ft. and 9,226 sq. ft., or .035% and 31% as to lot area; (b) the lot width is preexisting; (c) the insufficient livable floor area is preexisting. 5. It is noted for the record that: (a) by letter dated November 24, 1986, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services waived Article 6 Review; (b) the Planning Board by letter dated March 26, 1986 recommended approval. 6. It is the opinion of this Board that there will be no increase in density since the property is developed, and the variances requested are the minimal necessary under the cir- cumstances. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the percentages of relief requested are not substantial; (b) the circumstances are unique since the premises is developed; (c) there will not be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood since the variance will not create any increase in density; (d) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) that 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to approve the variances requested and as more particularly shown by survey map amended December 29, 1986, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Lot areas of each parcel #1 and #2 not be further reduced or changed in any manner (no lot-line changes or area adjustments); 2. Conveyance in legal form must be recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office after receiving appropriate Town, County and other agency approvals, within two years Southold Town Board of Appeals -10-February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3461 HASS decision, continued:) from the date hereof (copies of the deeds form of conveyance to be furnished to the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board). or other legal Office of the 3. Planning Board final approval; 4. Referral by the Board of Appeals to the Suffolk County Department of Planning in accordance with the require- ments of the Suffolk County Charter, Sections 1323, et seq. Vote of the BOard: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appl. No. 3572-SE: Application of MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use, .... an owner-occupied building, other than a hotel, where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three rooms. Location of Property: 50 Luthers Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 113, Block 03, Lot 7. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, public hearings were held on November 20, 1986, Decem- ber ll, 1986, January 8, 1987, in the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL AND JO¥CE MATTES under Application No. 3572; 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: Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3572-SE - MATTES decision, continued:) 1. By this application, applicants request a Special Exception under the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code for a "Bed and Breakfast" establishment, with owner- occupancy, for rental of three bedrooms to not more than six casual, transient roomers in an existing residence. 2. The premises in question is a 1.676+ parcel located along the east side of Breakwater or Luthers Road, Mattituck, more parti- cularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 113, Block 3, Lot 7.2, and referred to as Lot No. 1, Minor Subdivision Map #149 of Arlene Marvin. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A-80" and Agricultural Zoning District and is improved with a two-family dwelling and accessory metal storage shed. Residential two-story, 4. For the record, it is noted that a Certificate of Occu- pancy No. Z-9306 dated November 17, 1978 was issued to Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Marvin for a "Nonconforming Two-Family Dwelling" preexisting of the enactment of zoning (April 23, 1957). 5. The proposed parking area is shown at the most north- easterly section of the premises, with access from Luthers Road. 6. Extending along the northerly property line of the applicants' property is an existing right-of-way as shown by Subdivision Map #149 of Arlene Marvin to Lots 2, 3 and 3. It is the position of this board that access to the "Bed and Breakfast" establishment must be directly over the lands of the applicant, from Luthers Road, and the parking area must be suitably screened from adjoining lands. 7. It is the understanding of this board that the applicants propose to discontinue the use of the existing dwelling as a two-family use, and to establish the "Bed and Breakfast" use accessory to a single-family dwelling use. The single-family use of the dwelling structure will be occupied by the owners thereof. 8. Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection [16] makes exception for site-plan approval and reviews by the Planning Board for this use. In considering this application, the board also finds and Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3572-SE MATTES decision, cohtinued:) determines: (1) the proposed 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 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. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception for a Bed and Break- fast in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code as applied in the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES under No. 3572, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The grant of this special exception property (and shall not be deemed to include over which the applicants may have rights). is limited to this any other property 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. Ingress and egress by Bed and Breakfast roomers shall be from Breakwater (Luthers) Road, and a driveway area for such access shall be provided from Breakwater Road over lands of the applicants herein to the on-site parking area a distance at least 15 feet away from the northerly property line or right-of-way, whichever is closer. 4. Minimum of five on-site parking spaces at the east side area of the dwelling screened along the north and east sides thereof with shrubbery a minimum height of three feet and maximum height of 6½ feet, continuously maintained at all times. 5. Compliance with the N.Y.S. Construction and other applicable codes. 6. This Bed and Breakfast Use shall be deemed accessory to the main single-family dwelling use and not a principal use at any time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- (Appl. No. 3572-SE - MATTES decision, February 5, 1987 Regular continued: ) Meeting 7. This approval is subject to the requirements of Subsection 16 of Article III, Section lO0-30(B) of the Zoning Code, for the renting of not more than three bedrooms for up to six, casual transient roomers. 8. The premises shall be limited to one single-family dwelling use with accessory "Bed and Breakfast Use." -9. Covenants and restrictions containing the above restrictions shall be recorded in proper form in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Gri§onis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appl.-No. 3584-SE: Application of DONALD AND JOANNE RITTER for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B) (100-31) for per- mission to convert existing one-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling. Location of Property: 2585 Peconic Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-74-03-20. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 8, 1987 in the Matter of the Special Exception Application under No. 3584 for DONALD AND JOANNE RITTER; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, is situated along the west side of Peconic Lane, in the Hamlet of Peconic, Town of Southold, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 74, Block 3, Lot 20. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of ll,O00 sq. ft. and frontage (lot width) of 50 feet and is improved with the following structures as depicted by survey revised November 14, 1986, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C: (a) 2½-story, single-family dwelling structure set back 23 ft. from the front property line, and (b) accessory garage of a size 20' by 20' located in the rearyard area. 3. By this application, appellants request a Special under Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection (1) of the Code for permission to establish a two-family dwelling use existing single-family dwelling. Exception Zoning in the Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- February 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3584-SE - RITTER decision, continued:) 4. Column A-180 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule, and Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[1] permits a two-family dwelling by Special Exception, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, and a minimum lot area of 160,000 sq. ft., minimum lot width of 270 feet, and minimum lot depth of 250 feet. It is the position of this board that this application as requested for Special Exception use must be denied since this proposal is not in accordance with all the requirements of the zoning code, particularly the lot area, width and depth requirements. Accordingly, this Board is without authority to grant this application. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that in existing dwelling Application No. 3584 a Special Exception for two-family use be and hereby is DENIED as applied under in the Matter of DONALD AND JOANNE RITTER. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3594: Application of ANNE C. MASON for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient setback from tidal wetland area at premises known as 1250 Lupton Point, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 115, Block 11, Lot 12. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, public hearings were held on October 2, 1986, Octo- ber 22, 1986, November 20, 1986, December ll, 1986, and concluded on January 8, 1987, in the Matter of the Application of JOHN SENKO under Appeal No. 3552; 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 Southold Town Board of Appeals-16- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3594 MASON decision, continued:) WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to con- struct a 16' by 33' deck addition along the rear of the existing dwelling as sketched on copy of survey submitted under this appli- cation. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel containing a total area of one-half acre with lot width (frontage) of 100 feet along the south side of private right-of-way (which extends off the east side of Marratooka Road), and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 115, Block ll, Lot 12. 3. The subject premises is improved with the following structures: (a) one single-family 1½-story frame dwelling set back 96+ feet from the front property line and 66± feet to the existing bulkhead; (b) accessory 18' by 24' garage located in the frontyard area. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph (B) requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is the greater distance. 5. The addition as proposed would leave an insufficient setback of not less than 50 feet from the existing bulkhead and 67+ feet from the ordinary highwater mark along Deep Hole Creek. The percentage of relief requested is 33% of the require- ments. It has been found, however, that the area of the proposed construction is landward of an existing cement-structural wall. Each of the neighboring properties have attached decks with set- backs of 55 to 60 feet from the highwater mark. 6. It is further noted for the record that a conditional waiver was granted by the Southold Town Trustees September 25, 1986. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the immediate neighborhood along this area; (b) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to Southold Town Board of Appeals ~17- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3594 - MASON decision, continued:) existing construction; (c) the circumstances of the land are unique; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) there will be no sub- stantial detriment to adjoining properties; (g) in view of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) of the Zoning Code as applied in the Matter of Appeal No, 3594 for ANNE C. MASON, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The deck addition not exceed 16' by 33' as requested; 2. The deck addition not be roofed; 3. Proper building permit and start of construction within two years hereof. In the event a building permit has not been issued and construction commenced within two years, this variance will automatically become null and void. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18~ February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3591: Application of PAUL AND BARBARA STOUTENBURGH for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory windmill tower in excess of maximum-permitted 18 ft. height requirement, at 4015 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-98-1-6. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 8, 1987, in the Matter of the Application of PAUL AND BARBARA STOUTENBURGH under Appeal No. 3591; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is situated along the east side of a private right-of-way extending off the east side of Skunk Lane (a/k/a Bay Avenue), Cutchogue, and is located in the "A-80~' Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. 2. The subject premises is a ae§~Pibed parcel containing an area of 2.431 acres and is identified on the Suffolk County T~x Maps as District 1000, Section 98, Block-l, Lot 6. 3. By this application, appellants request permission to erect a private accessory wind tower at a total height of 72± feet. The setback requested from the north and east property lines is 30 feet each. 4. Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code permits accessory structures in the rearyard not exceeding 18 feet in height. -~ 5. It is the opinion of this board that relief is necessary for the additional height over and above the normal 18-feet in height required for the safe and efficient operation of the wind tower. The use of this windmill will be always for private use incidental to the residential and agricultural use of the premises and will not be operated for gain. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3591 STOUTENBURGH decision, continued:) In considering this application, the board has determined: (a) the relief requested is unique; (b) there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; (c) the relief as granted will not cause a substantial effect or detri- ment to adjoining properties since the structure will be located a distance of more than 100 feet from any existing structures (d) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (e) the public health, welfare, and safety of the town will not be affected if the relief is granted; (f) the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed by allowing the variance; (g) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements; (h) in ~iew of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that permission BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED in the Matter of the Application of PAUL AND BARBARA STOUTENBURGH to locate and erect a private accessory windmill tower for the purposes of generating electricity 6ccessory and incidental to the permitted zoning uses of the premises in this "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, and not to be operated for gain, at a maximum height of 80 feet, including blades, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the total 'height of the wind tower, including blades, shall not exceed 80 feet; 2. Two tiebacks (or stays) be placed out one-third of the distance, or 30 feet, with a cable satisfactory to maintain the weight of the structure against wind velocities; 3. Minimum setback from the north and east property lines at 35 feet each. 4. Written property owner consent for this (abutting property owners to the north and east, Marco Farm). location presently Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Sawicki, and Doyen. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20-February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3583: Application of FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK for Variances: (1) III, Section 100-31 for insufficient southerly side yard and total side yards, and (2) XI, Section 100-119.2 for insufficient setback from existing bulkhead along Arshamomaque Pond, for this proposal to construct garage addition to existing dwelling, at 90 Carole Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-2-4. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 8, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK under Appeal No. 3583; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request Variances from the Zoning Code: (a) Article III, Section 100-31 for insufficient sideyard setback from the southerly property line at 5.5 feet and 6.9 feet; (b) Article III, Section 100-31 for insufficient total sideyards at 11.6 feet; (c) insufficient setback from the exist- ing bulkhead at 30.7 feet, as established, for the proposed construction of a one-story 10' by 24' garage addition. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land located along the east side of a private road referred to as "Carole Road," Hamlet of Southold (at Arshamomaque), Town of Southold, having a total lot area of .125 of an acre and 50.00 ft. lot width, or frontage, along Carole Road and Arshamomaque Pond. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is improved with a one-story Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3583 - HRIBOK decision, continued:) frame, single-family dwelling of a size 28.3 wide by 24.3 feet deep. The existing setbacks of the dwelling are 4.7 feet and 6.2 feet from the northerly side property line, 30.7 feet from the bulkhead, 15.5 and 16.9 feet from the southerly side property line, and 44.9 feet from the front property line, all as shown on survey dated November 6, 1986,prepared by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. 4. Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires minimum sideyards at 15 and 10 feet, minimum total sideyards at 25 feet~ The amount of relief requested from the requirements as to sideyards is lO feet (21.6 ft~ to 11~6 ft.), and zero reduction in existing established setback from bulkhead at 30.7 feet. 5. It is the understanding of this board that the construc- tion of this 10' addition will not violate any other provisions of the zoning code, including the 20% lot coverage limitation, and will be used only for storage and garage purposes. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and deter- mines: (a) the relief requested is the minimal necessary under the circumstances; (b) the circumstances of this property are unique, particularly in view of its nonconforming lot area, width and depth; (c) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements; (d) there will be no substantial change in the character of the area and the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, con- venience or order of the town; (e) there will be no increase in population density resulting from the grant of this variance; (f) in consideration of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested in the Matter of the Application of Appeal No. 3583 by FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK to construct one-story 10' garage addition at the southerly side of existing dwelling, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no further sideyard reductions to less than the requested at 5.5 and 6.9 at the south side, nor 6.2 and 4.7 at Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- February 5~ 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3583 HRIBOK decision, continued:) the north side, (west/east corners respectively). 2. South sideyard area must remain open and unobstructed at all times; 3. Compliance with the maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage limitation of the Zoning Code (except by subsequent application for consideration); 4. Placement of two garage doors, one at the water side and the other at the road side; 5. Balcony and construction of garage as shown on building- construction plan filed under this application; 6. This variance shall automatically become null and void in the event construction is not commenced within two years hereof, and after proper issuance of a building permit. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: AppliCation No. 3585-SE. Application of ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B) for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use," an Owner-Occupied Building, other than a hotel, where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three rooms." Location of Property: 2500 Peconic Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-74-03-24.2. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 8, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS under Application No. 3585; 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: Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3585-SE - COMBS decision, continued:) 1. By this application, applicants request a Special Exception for a "Bed and Breakfast" establishment, with owner-occupancy, for the rental of two bedrooms for lodging and serving of break- fast to not more than five 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 containing a total lot area of 432560± sq. ft. w~th 150-ft. frontage along the east side of Peconic Lane, Peconic, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 74, Block 3, Lot 24.2. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is improved with a 2½-story, single-family dwelling and accessory building. 4. For the record, it is noted that Certificate of Occupancy No. Z7869 dated September 1, 1977 has been issued for private single-family use of the premises. 5. The parking area is proposed along the south side- yard area as shown by sketch submitted with this application for a minimum of four vehicles. 6. Article III, Section makes exception for site-plan Board for this accessory use. lO0-30(B), subsection [16] approval/reviews by the Planning In considering this applications the board also finds and determines: (1) 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 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception for a Bed and Breakfast in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3585-SE - COMBS decision, continued:) Section lO0-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code as applied in the Matter of the Application of ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS under No. 3585, 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 not more than two rooms and not more than five casual and transient roomers, as applied, and in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code; 4. Existing screening shall be maintained at all times along the south property line, or, new screening at a minimum height of three feet for a distance of 75 feet shall be planted around the east end of the proposed parking area; 5. Minimum of four on-site parking spaces, as proposed. 6. Compliance with the N.Y.S. Construction and other applicable codes; 7. This Bed and Breakfast Use shall not be deemed a principal use at any time. 8. Covenants and restrictions containing the above restrictions shall be recorded in proper 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: Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, This resolution was duly Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appl. No. 3585: Application of MARY J. MOONEY-GETOFF. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B) for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use, an Owner-Occupied Building, other than a hotel, where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three rooms." Location of Property: 1475 Waterview Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-007- 20. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 8, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ~ARYTMOD~E¥~GETOFF Application No. 3585; 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 break- fast 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 containing a total area of 6.8± acres with frontage of 50 feet along Water- view Drive and 273.12 feet along the west side of Cedar Avenue, Southold, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 78, Block 7, Lot 20. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is improved with a single- family dwelling structure and accessory shed. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3585SE - MOONEY-GETOFF decision, continued:) 4. The parking area is proposed along the north and east yard areas as shown by sketch submitted with this application for a minimum of nine vehicles. 5. Article III, Section site-plan approval/reviews by and Breakfast Use. lO0-30(B)[16] makes exception for the Planning Board for this Bed 6. Applicant has requested the conversion of four bedrooms total for lodging, with the option to alternate one single room for a double room, as needed. This Special Exception shall not include approval of a fourth bedroom for lodging. In considering this application, the board also finds and determines: (1) 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 for a Bed and Breakfast in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] of the Zoning Code under Application No. 3588 in the Matter of MARY MOONEY-GETOFF, 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 incidental and subordinate to the principal single-family use of the existing dwelling, 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 -27- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3585SE - MOONEY-GETOFF decision, continued:) not more than three bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than six casual and transient roomers, in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[T6] of the Zoning Code. (Rental of a fourth or more bedrooms is not authorized under this Special Exception.) 4. Minimum of five on-site parking spaces, as proposed on the sketch submitted under this application; 5~ Screening at a minimum height of three feet maintained continuously along the east side of the proposed parking area a length of 100+ feet, starting at line with the front (south) side of dwelling. 6. Compliance with the N.Y.S. Construction and other applicable codes; 7. This Bed and Breakfast Use shall not be deemed a principal use at any time. 8. Covenants and restrictions containing the above res- trictions shall be recorded in proper 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. E~N~IRONMEN?AL DECLARATIONS (SEQRA): After review of each of the following matters, the board took the following actions: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was R~OLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declara- tions in accordance with the N.Y.S. Enviornmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southotd: (a) Appeal No. 3599 - SAMUEL COHEN (Type II); (b) Appeal No. 3598 - DANIEL AND IRENE McKASTY (Type II); (c) Appeal No. 3604 - ROBERT AND E~LEEN VILLANI (Unlisted); (d) Appl. No. 3596SE - TARTAN OIL CORP. (Unlisted): (e) Appeal No. 3595 - DONALD J. GRIM (T~pe II)~ (f) Appeal No. 3462 - HERBERT MANDEL (Type II); (g) Appeal No. 3590 - THOMAS & C. ZIMMERMAN (Unlisted); (h) Appl. No. 3597SE - ROBERT & HELEN DIER (Unlisted); (i) Appeal No. 3601 - MARGARET & JOSEPH BEST (Type II); Southold Town Board ~f ~ppeals -28- Febr-~ry 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (a) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3599 PROJECT NAME: SAMUEL COHEN 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:Construct garage in the front and side yard area LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Indian Neck Rd., Peconic, NY 98-5-18 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures Southold Town Board of ~ppeals .-29- Feb~ru~ary 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (b) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3598 PROJECT NAME: DANIEL AND IRENE McKASTY 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ConstruCt swimmingpool with fence 'and cabana within 75' of exisiting bulkhead LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn ass Main Rd., East Marion, NY-31-14-12 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 a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA (3) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures Southold Town Board .of A~peals -30- Febrn4ary 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (c) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3604 PROJECT NAME: ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI 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 projec~ TY~'OF ACTION: ~ ['~] Type II Ix] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 280-A Approval of access LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Indian Neck Rd., Peconic, ~Y 86-6-30 & 10 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an,:~pplication concerning use over an existing traveled right-of-way and for requirements satisfactory for emergency access. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -3]- Febru~ary 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued: S.E.0.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.z 3596SE PROJECT NAME~ TARTAN OIL CORg, This'notice is i~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: . [ ]'Type II Ix] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION= Establish'a partial self-service gas station in conjunction with full-service gas station. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 32400 C.R. 48, Peconic, NY 74-4-7.1 (6 & 7) REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2] The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. ~ This is an application concerning use of ~remises and is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -32- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (e) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3595 PROJECT NAME: DONALD GRIM 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Construct two-story building for of'fice use with insufficient front yard setback LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: oregon Rd., Cutchogue, NY ~3-03-p/o 4.4 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) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quali~y REview Act, 6 NYCRR. (3) The property in..question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board Df A~peals -33- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Enuironmental Declarations, continued:) (f) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3462 PROJECT NAME: HERBERT MANDEL This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality R~view 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: Area Variances for p~oposed three-lot minor subdivision LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 9355 Main Rd., East Marion,.NY 31-03-11.25 REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction being a lot line or area variance as regulated by Section 617.13 of the S.E.Q.R.A. $outhold Town Board of ~ppeals .-34- Febr~ary 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (g) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3590 PROJECT NAME: THOMAS AND CATHERINE Z IMMERMAN 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: Construc~ addition to existing n0nconfo.rming structure which exceeds 50% of fair value LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 265 Rochelle Place., Mattituck, NY 144-04-09 & 08 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical enviromental area. (3) This project will not create any increase in density since the premises are developed. Southold Town Board_of ~ppeals .-35- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (En~ironmental Declarations, continued:) (h) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.I 3597 PROJEC~ NAME I + ROBERT AND HELEN DIER This'notice is i~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 ~ffect on the environment for the r~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. . .'.... TYPE'OF ACTION~ · [~]~Type II [x] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONJEstablis~'accessory apartment in existing garage. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 355 Terry Lane, Southold, ~Y 65-07-20 ~ASON(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 the premises which is not directly related to new construction. ~Southold Town Board Appeals. -36- Februar~ , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (i) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3601 PROJECT NAME: MA~G~RETANDJOSEPB BEST 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: Construc~ addition at southerly side of existing dwelling with insufficient setback from bulkhead along tidal water area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of SouthQld, County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck, NY 123-06-17 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) The relie~ requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the ~tate Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. ~3) Reviews and action have been finalized by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting UPDATE: Appeal No. 3605: TED DOWD (280-A). the pending application of Mr. Dowd for approval following additional information was requested: In reviewing of access, the (a) copies of documents filed with the County Clerk at Liber 2210 page 392 Liber 546 page 416 Liber 8541 page 192, as per title report submitted. (b) any other documentation or maps showing the legal width, traveled width, meandering of property lines, etc. for the part of the right-of-way over which 280-a is requested [i.e., surveys N.Y.Telephone Co. pole surveys, etc.]. UPDATE: New Application No. 3608 RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. The Board reviewed this new application for a variance f6r parking of employees of Mullen Motors in this "A" Zone, and indicated that upon receipt of input from the Planning Board by our advertising deadline (February 24th), this matter shall be permitted to be scheduled and advertised for p6blic hearing for March 5, 1987. UPDATE: New Application No. 3616 FLINT ST. CORP. and RIVER CIRCLE CORP. The Board reviewed the new file and deter- mined same incomplete at this time for the following reasons: (a) lack of a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector; (b) input from the Planning Board. Upon receipt of the above items, this matter would be placed on our calendar for the latter March Regular Meeting date. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3575 ROSA G. HODGSON. Written request in the form of an Affidavit was received January 29, 1987 from Mr. Harold W. Conroy concerning the pending application of ROSA G. HODSON, requesting a public hearing date subsequent to April 7th since Mr. Hodgson will be absent from Town until that time. The Board was advised that the Hodgson fil~ is incomplete pending additional information, which has not yet been received. The publi~ h6aring on this matter will hot be held before April 7th, as requested. UPDATE: Appeal No. 3607 JAMES P. O'NEILL AND P.J. McSHERRY. Variance for insufficient area, width and depth. Wiggins and Eighth Streets, Greenport. The Board indicated that this matter was not ready for public hearing, pending receipt of the following by our advertising deadline: (a) Planning Board input on the subdivision elements and general layout; (b) action. County Health, Article 6, Realty Development reviews and UPDATE: Appeal No. 3609: GULL PO~D DAWN CORP. Filed 1/21/87. Variance for insufficient setback from bulkhead at Dawn Lagoon, Dawn Drive, Cleaves Point, Section Three, Lot 70~ Greenport. The Board indicated that upon receipt of action from the Town Trustees and N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, this matter would be scheduled for a public hearing. UPDATE: Appeal No. 3606: J. GEDDES PARSONS. Variance to locate new dwelling with insufficient setback from wetland or bank area, West Harbor, Fishers Island. This matter w6Old be scheduled by the Board for public hearing following field inspections and action by the Southold Town Trustees concerning a wetlands permit application. Member Douglass indicated he would return next week to further review the matter. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- February 5, 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 10 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 7~11). **Recessed hearing from 8/23/84 awaiting Village of Greenport contracts to which this plan is contingent upon before action ~an be taken. Appeal No. 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 an~ 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/PORT OF EGYPT. Variance to construct 40-unit motel on insufficient buildable upland of 4.83 acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main Road (prev. Southold Fishing Station/Morris), Southold. (**Await corrected site plans, topographical survey including lowest floor elevations above mean sea level, Health Department approvals, N.Y.S. D.E.C. action, comments or input from Planning Board after review of site plan.) 10/9/84 Appeal No. 3183 - MARY N. CODE. Smith Drive North, S6uthold. Proposed reseparation of lots. Await DEC and Planning Board applications to be filed for coordination/action. Appeal No. 3274 BEST, SCHMITT, SYVERSON. Variances for insufficient area, width in proposed division of land. ROW off E/s Camp Mineola Road, along Great Peconic Bay, Mattituck. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6, N.Y.S. D.E.C., Planning Board before advertising public hearing. Recent change in title.) Appeal No. 2929 SAL CAIOLA. Project as proposed is questionable. Status/clarification awaited. N/s CR 48, Southold. Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variances for nsufficient 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. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6 action, and possible Town Trustees as to wetland grasses.) Building envelopes of buildable areas not shown. Contours 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. ~. R6senblum, Esq. Appeal No. 3514 GEORGE P. SCHADE. Variances for insufficient area, width and depth. (Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiver before advertising) 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 KOEHLER, 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 -41- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3371 FLORENCE ROLLE. Variances for area and depth, two parcels. E/s Ole Jule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Mattituck. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6 action.) A. Wickham, Esq. Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variances for area and width (two par~ **Recessed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County Health Dept. Art. 6 action (and DEC). N/s Pine N6ck Road (opposite Park Way), Southold. R. Bruer, Esq. Appeal No. 3191 HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change lot line and locate garage in front/side yard areas. E/s Linet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of Clempner and Mandel. (Await DEC action and PB input before adver~i§ing.) 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 pro~ess when file is complete. P.B. received 12/22/86; DEC received 11/6/86. Appeal No. 3537 - ROBERT AND SUSAN D'URSOT 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. Main Bayview Road, Southold. Await Co. Health Art. 6 a~t~ion. ~Area, ~width and depth variances. Alfred Skidmore, Esq. (Village water hot 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. Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -42- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting I**awaiting additional Other Matters Pendin~ Public Hearings information as noted), continued: Appeal No. 3299 -/DOUGLAS MILL~. Variance to include wetlands in subdivision which would not result in insufficient area. Kirkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC a~d.Co. Health DepertmBnt approvals of pending subdivision. Appeal No. 3412 -/THOMAS CRAMER. Variance to construct within 75' of wetlands. £/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck. **Await Trustees action/approval. (Healtl~ Dept. approval a~d.'DEC'waiver reCetved.)Transfer in title. ('~ 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. ( ~. Appeal No. 3214 -/HANAUER & BAGLEY. Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient upland, build- able area. DEC waiver and Planning Board received. **Await Co. Health And Trustees. Lighthouse Road and S/s Soundvtew Avenue, Southold. Application for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. E/s West |.ane and S/s North Lane (private), off the E/s Orchard Lane East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having insufficient area, width, depth, etc. **Await Notice of Disapproval after application to Building Department relssuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc. Appeal No. 3293 -/HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variance for approval of three parcels having insufficient area, width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview Road (~est of Waterview Drive), Southold. 280-a not requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and DEC approvals/action. Appeal No. 3252 -/JOHN CHARLES & M. SLEDJESKI. Variance appealing decision of Planning Board of 4/2/~4 that buildable area in proposed division is less than 80,000 sq. ft. (excludes wetland grass areas) for a one-family dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft. (~xcludes wetl6nd 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 for approval of two parcels having insufficient area and width. S/s North Qrive, Mattituck. **Awatt DEC. Build- lng envelopes and s'~tbacks not shown since enactment of Local Law - Wetlands Setbacks. Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3564 - JOHN DEMPSEY (Contract Vendee). Variances for insufficient setback from bluff and 280-a. No record of town approval on subdivision. C.O. not available. N/s ROW off the N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Appeal No. 3206 - HENRY P. SMITH. Variances for insufficient area a~ W~th (two lots). W/s-~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 in p~nding division). E/s Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. 1/295-acre described parcel. Await Co. Health Art. 6 approval. Rec. PB input and DEC permit (exp. 12/87). Henry Raynor, Agent. Appeal No. 3543 PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. New dwelling with insufficient setbacks from wetlands, bulkhead, rear property line, and variance as to height. S/s Cedar Point Drive, Southold. R. Bruer, Esq. repr. applicants. R.J. Cron, Esq. rep. S. DeLeo and Midway Inlet Residents Assn. J. K. McLaughlin, Esq. Await Trustees action. DEC waiver rec. 10/81 (updated action not'r~eived). To send letter requesting foundation plan of lowest floor above mean sea level and status as to height variance. Appeal No. 3593 THE QUIET MAN INN. Addition with insuffi- cient fr6ntyard setback. B-1 Business-Zone. E/s Hobart Road and S/s Main Road, Southold. 1000-62-3-7. Await application to PB and PB input as to site plan elements on revised seating location and parking. Appeal No. 3549 J. KALIN AND B. GIBBS. Variances as to 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.) Appeal No. 3556 EUGENE AND ANN BURGER. with insufficient setback from wetlands along 2515 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Await CO and requested from nearest wetlands. Photographs after flagging of construction area. Variance for deed Little Creek. exact setback may be furnished Appeal No. 3602 MARGARET McNAMARA. Wraparound deck within 75 feet of existing bulkhead and in excess of 20% lot coverage. 640 Takaposha (private) Road, Southold. (Await Trustee and DEC waivers before advertising.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- February 5, 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. ~7~'Pine Neck Road, Southold. Await Co. Health 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 further instructions from attorney or applicant. Await PB input on revisions. Appl. No. 3586SE - ROBERT AND HELEN 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 o~ 7.0516 acres zoned "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 hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MARCH 5, 1987: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are SCHEDULED for public hearings to be held on THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and it is further RESOLVED, that Board Secretary Linda Kowalski is hereby authorized and directed to PUBLISH notice of the following hearings in the local and official newspapers, to wit: The Suffolk Times, Inc. and Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. accordingly: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3590 THOMAS AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN. (Recessed from 2/5/87). Addition to nonconforming dwelling structure exceeding 50% of fair value as exists, 265 Rochelle Place, Mattituck; 1000-144-04-09 & 09. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3603 - JAMES CROSS (Subject to receiving Planning Board input). Variance to 100-31 for insufficient area (78,408 sq. ft. in this pending set-off division at N/s Main Road, Cutchogue; 1000-109-1-8.5. Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting (March 5, 1987 Hearings, continued:) 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3610 CAROL BARTHOLOMEW. Special Excep- tion for Bed and Breakfast. 7015 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-107=-5=-4. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3612 - PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO. Variance to construct addition at rear with ~nsufficient setback from wetlands along Great Pond, 7455 Soundview Avenue, Southold; 1000-59-6-8. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3511 - KAPELL REAL ESTATE INC. and LIMPET CORP. Variances: (1) lot area, ~ lot width, ~ lot depth of two parcels in this pending division. Greenport Driving Park Map, Lots 16 and 65. Linnett and Brown Streets, Greenport. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3608 - RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. Variance 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. Zones: Partly "A" and "B-l". E/s Cottage Place, Southold. 1000-62-3-19. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3592 - BENTE SNELLENBURG. Variances: (1) lO0-119.1(B) for approval of 8' high fencing along easterly property line a length of 72± feet; (2) 100-141 appealing the November 6, 1986 Order to Remedy Violation which mandates a building permit for new fencing along easterly property line. ROW extending off E/s South Harbor Road known as Private Road #10, or Old Woods Path, Southold; 1000-87-2-21. 8t20 p.m. Appeal No. 3611 - RAYMOND AND ELEANOR KERESYER. Variance for approval of lot width of three parcels, each con- taining 4.6+ acres. W/s Paradise Point Road and N/s North Bayview Road, Southold; 1000-81-1-25. SUPREME COURT DECISION: William Heins v. Z.B.A., Index No. 86-21779. Special Term, Part II. The Board was advised of the recent decision by Justice Doyle, J.S.C. dated 1/20/87 dismissing the Petition of the Petitioners, William and Katherine Heins finding ZBA determination neither arbitrary nor capricious. Copies of the Court decision were distributed to the Board members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- February 5, 1987 Regular Meeting There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Approved 315187 ~ / Respectfully submitted, ~ F. Kow~ary Southold Town Board of Appeals ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAmS MATTER OF HERBERT R. MANDEL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3462 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of HERBERT R. MANDEL. Variances for (a) lots having insufficient lot area; (b) lots having insufficient lot depth; (c) lot having insufficient lot width; (d) lot 3 as proposed with structure having an insufficient frontyard setback; (e) lots 2 and 3 will contain structures that do not meet princi- pal-use requirement for a single-family dwelling; (f) exist- ing barns on lots 2 and 3 as proposed will have insufficient setbacks from front property line (and boundary line dividing lots 2 and 3 running north and south). 9355 Main Road, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a plan most recent date was January 29, 1986 showing lot number 1 at 42 thousand square feet with a two-story house. Lot number 2, 30 thousand square feet with a garage and lot number 3; 45 thousand square feet with a barn. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Wickham would you like to be heard? Just in the knick of time. MS. WICKHAM: I know that there is comment that you will never hear variances before the hour of which they are appointed. So fortunately I was here on time. There are several reasons that I believe that Mr. Mandel is entitled to a variance. They men- tioned in the application; this subdivision is in its entirety was originally started in 1982 as a 3-section subdivision and that was shown on the original map that way. The section one and section two which contain approximately 49 lots of one acre were completed and approved and filed in 1984. They were far enough along in the subdivision process that when the two acre zoning came into effect, they were automatically entitled to proceed under the one acre zoning and they did so. The only reason that section 3 was not completed a~d filed along with the other two was, in order to complete a gift to the fire district of about 10 thousand square feet. The Fire District approached Mr. Mandel in approximately 1982 but it was some- time with their meetings as to when they actually gave them dimensions and location of property they were interested in getting. He subsequently made the surveys and made the trans- fer to them in 1984. By that time however, he had lost his rights (according to the Town) with the one acre zoning. We asked the Planning Board to proceed since the section 3 had been shown on the original maps and they were not willing to do so in light of the upzoning without the variance and that's why we're here tonight. The Planning Board has indicated (I believe in a letter to you) that this was recommended for one acre zoning by the Master Plan. So the first reason we think Page 2 Febru ~ 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Herbert R. Mandel Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM (continued): we're entitled to a variance is because it was shown as section 3 on one acre subdivision sometime ago. And it was only because he wanted to make a gift to the Fire District that he was unable to complete it in time. Another reason that we would like to request the variance is because of financial hardship. One lot would be allowed under your 2 acre zoning. And the difference in value between that and a 3 acre subdivision as we proposed, is a substantial financial hardship. Mr. Mandel was unable to be here because of travel arrangements he had made previously. But I have with me and I'd like to request that you allow me to submit an affidavit that he has signed as a person who is a licensed real estate broker and is familiar with property value. He~s obtained appraisels with the property as a one acre parcel. I'm sorry. As 3 acre parcel as it currently exists. He had an appraised value of approximately 29 thousand. As opposed to a parcel on the basis of 3 one acre lots, one of which contains the house, approximately 350 thousand. So there is about a 60 thousand dollar differential that he would suffer because he was delayed in being able to finalize his section 3 subdivision. The other reason is; as I mentioned in the application, that the proper- ty is surrounded by a variety of quarter, half and one acre par- cels. So we're not going to be doing anything that would be out of keeping with the area. If it's ok with the Board, I would like to offer you the application. I do not have a copy of the deed yet on the gift to the Fire District. But if you would like that for the file, I can obtain one for you. Would you like me to sub- mit that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don~t think it's particularly necessary. MS. WICKHAM: I have in the affidavit the date of the transfer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think it's necessary. MS. WICKHAM: Now I would just like to briefly, well I don't know if I could do it briefly, address that laundry list of specific reasons why this particular one did not meet the code. As it is proposed lot 50 shown on this map which contains the house and is on the road, we have an existing residence and there was really nothing much we can do about its location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that used as a one family dwelling or a two family? MS, WICKHAM: I submitted the c.o. to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes but I've been sitt~qg ~ihhi~his &p~l~- cation for a year. MS. WICKHAM: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I've been sitting with the application. only quickly reviewed the file before this meeting. Page 3 Febru 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Herbert R. handel Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: It's a two-story one family wood framed dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MSo WICKHAM: As far as the accessory structures on lot 51 which is one of the lots in the rear, one is a garage that can be uti- lized as an accessory structure to a residence and the framed barn is a shed which you could also be able to utilize as an ac- cessory structure. So I think the fact that they do not meet principal lot requirements, principal building requirements is irrelevant at the time a house is constructed. The existing barn on the third lot is a rather large structure and this basically is the only way they could design the lot lines to accommodate those buildings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you anticipate .... I know the appli- cation reads that there is no anticipation of doing anything with those. Is there any anticipation of converting that barn to a house? MS. WICKHAM: I spoke to Mr. handel about that. He says it is a fairly decent structure and it could be converted to a resi- dence. It probably, because of its size, would not be feasible to use it as an accessory structure if another residence were constructed on the property° I suppose it's possible that it could he moved to another location in the course of reconstruc- tion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Next. What else? MS. WICKHAM: I think that covers 7 and 8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. Ail in favor - Aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3601 Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for addition at south side of dwelling with insuf- ficient setback from rear property line and from bulkhead along tidal water area. E/s Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey by Young and Young indicating a proposed 14 by 33 foot (front porch) en- closed front porch extending out toward the bulkhead. Let's see if they show the distances in here, I have the figures here which is approximately 30 feet 6 inches from the south property line and which is primarily bulkheaded and in the front of that of course you have the high water mark. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on the Best hearing? Yes. Could you use your mike and just state your name for us. MS. DOUBVA: It has been very vital to ( ) uses parts of the building. Using these, we would like to have a 14 foot enclosed porch, They would like to use an existing window. And in order to use that window and the door, they need 14 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, we did grant 12 feet in our last hearing. So this is more or less like a re-application or a new application but itVs addressing the same issue. The Best's in this particular application did take physical measurements of all the properties on both sides almost all the way down to Camp Mineola subdivision and all the way up to the Morris Estate. And the~cloaest~ one contiguous to hers on the east side (I think) they have Mills and that's 23 feet 6 inches and they are down as close to 15 feet. So we will definitely address this issue and we thank you for coming in. Could I have the spelling of your last name again~ MS. DOUBVA: D-o-u-b-v-a. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF SAMUEL So COHEN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3599 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of SAMUEL S. COHEN. Variance to construct garage for storage purposes in front and side yard areas. S/s private right-of-way off the south side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a a proposed garage (I believe it's) 54 feet 6 inches from the north property line, 5 feet from the east property line and 68 feet from the west property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties. Mr. Jacobs would you like to be heard~ MR. JACOBS: You can see where it is all situated. It's out of the way of anybody and it's situated~, between some of the big trees so it won't disturb the big trees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you move a little further forward toward the west, would that create a problem? MR. JACOBS: Yes. It would be to much onto the driveway that's there. There wouldn't be enough': swing in room. Where itts sit- uated now it's better for the people behind. On the north side they're building a new house there, the Aliens and this wouldn't obstruct their view since they have a double porch erected off their house. They will still get a water view off it. If we did move it out further, you would be blocking their views. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How~,~high is the rear of the garage up to be- fore you hit the roof line? MR. JACOBS: Probably about 17 or less. 16 or 17 feet. It's a low pitch in there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a hip roof? MR. JACOBS: It's a hip roof with a low pitch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a one story garage? MR. JACOBS: A one story garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did notice the stakes and I thank you for putting them there so that we could get an idea of where it's going to be placed. And we occasionally run into problems walking on people's property particularly in situations like this where the houses are forward and in the rear and you can spend a good portion of the day just checking a couple jobs or a couple of applications Page 2 - February - 1987 Public Hearing S~muel S. Cohen Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): by introducing yourself so on and so forth. So in most cases, it's much easier this way when you have the stakes there be- cause we know exactly where it is and we don't have to make measurements and so on and so forth. So I thank you again. MR. JACOBS: You said that you're a week behind. When do we hear an answer on this? Not that it means that much in this kind of weather. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Probably March 8th, March 5th. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on this appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR. ALLEN: I have the house you spoke about. I just have a question really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did we grant an application for you for that house sir? MR. ALLEN. Yes. I have no problem with the garage. I was just wondering and I want to ask Mr. Jacobs because Mr. Cohen is not here. If they move the garage approximately 40 feet closer to the water, (I appreciate what they're doing for me) putting the garage where it's located because it does give me water view straight ahead. If they move it 40 feet closer to the water, I do have, I do get possibly a view of the other way and it would be closer to his home. As it stands now, the garage is going to be about 150 feet or more from his residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume they didn't want to .... MR. ALLEN: It's not an objection. Just a question really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume you did that and I'm not answering the question for you Mr. Jacobs but I'm assuming they put it in this spot so they didn't have to dig up any driveway. MR. JACOBS: Right. Well we have got to figure how we could come into the driveway. If we move it further, it would be crowding into his circle driveway. But we did originally have it where the little sheds are which would have completely blocked their portions and I talked them into going over onto the property line because I didn't want to cut all those big trees out. So anyhow, I think it is in the best place that we can put it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alri~ht. I'll go down and look at it again and see if we can accommodate anything at this particular point. I am not guaranteeing anything at this point but we will go down. Page 3 - February ~ 1987 Public Hearing - ~ muel S. Cohen Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ALLEN: If Mr. Cohen put it there, I'm not going to cause any problems. It's just that he ought to reconsider ga move it down a little further. I'd appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you really don't have an objection? Is that what you're saying Mr. Allen? MR. ALLEN: Not really. I prefer he move it closer to the water like I said but I'm not going to make an issue out of ito No. MR. JACOBS: The only way you can get anything like that is to talk to him. It wouldntt be up to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well if you intend to speak to him, send us a letter indicating such or have him ~ send us a letter. And at this particular point of course this is the way we have to and this is the way it's been advertised. So the only avenue that we would have if we don't hear from you is to deal with the application as it stands. And if he intends to change the place- ment of it or whatever the case might be~ we would have to turn the application down out of prejudice and have him reapply which of course would add timing onto this situation. That's all I can offer you at this point. Thank you again Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Allen. Hearing no futher questions. I'll make a motion closing the hear- ing and reserving the decision until later. Ail in favor aye. JUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPE~=S MATTER OF DANIEL AND IRENE MCKASTY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 p.mo Appeal No. 3598 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of DANIEL AND IRENE MCKASTY. Variance for pool with fence enclosure and cabana within 75 feet of existing bulk- head at 13220 Main Road, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey which appears to be 35 feet from the bulkhead and it's closest point 40 feet a little bit closer to the west and 50 feet from Dam Pond Inlet which again is bulkheaded. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area° Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Anybody for the McKasty hearing? It's going to be a quick night. I think we had certain questions concerning this application didn't you Mr. Douglas? Then I will leave it up to you if you want to recess it and ask them to come in or if you just want to close the hearing. MR. DOUGLAS: I don't see any need to recess it. It can be closed. The questions I have are easily answered just by looking at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody against the application? There's somebody moving this way. Maybe it's them. I have a motion, second. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF DONALD Jo GRIM THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3595 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of DONALD J. GRIM. Variance to construct two-story building with insufficient frontyard setback for office use incidental to principal use of the premises in this "C-I" Zone. S/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They have furnished us with a survey indicating an actual almost site plan for the piece on an ap- plication that we dealt with before. In this particular ap- plication we are dealing with a 35 foot setback from Oregon Road. The proposed building is 30 by 40 and adjacent to that is an asphalt paved parking lot for 5 cars. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Grim would you like to be heard? You said this was two-story. MR. GRIM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are both stories going to be utilized for office area or will one be storage? MR. GRIM: Probably both for offices. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're not planning on living in this building in any way though? MR. GRIM: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it would be a wood~ construction? MR. GRIM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will it have a full basement in it or will it be a slab? MR. GRIM: I'm not sure at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anytime in the future that you would be converting this to a house? MR. GRIM: Not that I know of, no. No. It's for if I'm work- ing in the back in the garage and I'm all like dirty and greasy and somebody comes up; instead of coming to me, they could see somebody up front and talk to them. And sometimes I'm not al- ways there and you have a person up front in the office. Page 2 - Febru, z 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Donald J. Grim Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No part of this is being used as a garage area or anything of that nature? MR. GRIM: That is what the garage in the back is for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're not putting any bays in this build- ing? MR. GRIM: No. No. That's what the back one is for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's going to be properly insulated and it's going to be a year around building? MR. GRIM; Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not a temporary structure is what I am saying. It's not a steel building or a butler building? MR. GRIM: No. No, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because if that was the case, we would require screening. MR. GRIM: No. It's going to be wood and it's going to be nice looking because the guy next door is a real nice guy, Alex Zuhoski. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. All in favor Aye. ~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF THOMAS AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 p.m. Appeal No, 3590 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of THOMAS AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN. Variance to con- struct addition to existing nonconforming structure which exceeds 50% of fair value of same as exists° 265 Rochelle Place, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers. The most recent date is March 4, 1986 indicating a one-story framed dwelling approximately 26.8 feet or 26.9 feet from Salt Lake Lane, and then in the rear a front cottage which is the nature of this application. showing a few additions. One 8 by 10 and one 12 by 30 and another structure in the rear of the property which is not the nature of this application. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Hi. Is there something you would like to say for the record? Can I ask you to use the mike~ MR. ZIMMERMAN: What should I say? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tell us the reason why you want it. MR. ZIMMERMAN: The cottage as it exists right now, as I ex- plained, has 5 rooms and the kitchen is very small. And what we want to do is to enlarge the kitchen. And at the same time, it made sense to square it off into adding a third bedroom which then allowed us to .... Because we both have large families and we just moved and we bought the house recently and we were hoping by having this additional space that we would be able to enjoy the dwelling a little better than we are currently allowed to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is presently a kitchen in that cottage~ MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes sir. There's a kitchen. There's a living room. There's a bathroom. There's 2 bedrooms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that cottage heated in any way? MR. ZIMMERMAN: I~ has electric heat, heaters I should say and has gas for the hot water system and it has gas for the kitchen for the stove. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it insulated in any way as a year around structure? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's insulated, poorly insulated but it is in- sulated. When we did that side we were going to obviously in- sulate according to the code. Page 2 - Februa 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Thomas and Catherine Zimmerman Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it on a foundation or is it particu- larly a slab? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's half on a slab and half just I guess on cinder blocks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the proposed extension appears to be somewhat of a slab. Is that correct? MR. ZIMMERMAN: The proposed extension will be (I guess) built on a half basement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you another family involved. Are you referring to someone else? alluded to the fact that there's you referring to in-laws or are MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. I am referring to our in-laws. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now who will be utilizing the cottage~ Would you be or would they be? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Probably them more than us because they have the time to be able to utilize that more than we would be able to leave our job. On weekends and of course during the summer time and in the fall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see what develops. % thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the appli- cation? Yes. We have indicated after researching the file or we have found (I should say) that there was somewhat of an error in the sending of the legal notices by the appli- cant. And we are going to ask at this particular time as he has done, indicating to the neighbors this hearing is occuring at this time. So we will recess this hearing until the next regular scheduled hearing which I believe will be March 5th. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I verbally placed 2 phone calls today in ad- dition to sending out those certified receipts and letters. With respect to the Montgomery's, I spoke to the daughter who is adjacent to myself and explained the situation. And she, at that time, indicated to me that she didn't see any objection by her father. And I said I would speak to him on the weekend because he'll be coming back from being away. In regards to the HanseLs, I spoke with the Hansens about a month ago because I needed their help in securing an affidavit for the dwelling itself and I explained to them at the time the situation and they had no objection. I tried to reach them today but as far as I know wasn't able to. But also I have been in contact with them. Again we did have conversations about the premises and they raised no objections at the time. Page 3 - February -, 1987 Public Hearing - -~omas and Catherine Zimmerman Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically the formality on the 5th will be just to close the hearing. And if anybody wants to send us anything in the interim, they're welcome to. I can't tell you that it's to your best interest not to show up because somebody may want to voice their opinions. But that's pretty much the situation as it stands. MR. ZIMMERMAN: When would the decision be reached? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We could uniquely make a decision on the 5th. Is it the 5th? I keep on saying the 8th. I apologize. We could uniquely make a decision on the 5th because the main part of the hearing is tonight. What we are doing basically is allowing the neighbors to have some time if they want to com- ment on the application. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If I close the hearing, then I can't ac- cept any comments and that's the purpose of the situation. MR. ZIMMERMAN: In that affidavit I did let the neighbors know the telephone number of Linda at the town as well as myself in case there was any objections. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you very much for sending those today also. MR. : Mr. Chairman. Does %hat bungalow have its sepa- rate water system, separate sewer system or is it connected to one? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It has its own... MR. : Well? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well no. It's all really basically the same water system. It has its own electric and gas heaters separate in tha~ respect. The water that is currently used all comes from the sa~e system. MR. : In other words, this all is going to serve two houses.~ MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about the cesspool system? Does the cesspool system drain into one? MR. ZIMMERMAN: There are 3, one main and two accessory cesspools. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know if the pipe goes into the one main and steps out or does it go into an additional one? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It leads into the one. I guess I'm not too ~famil~ar with that but I do know that the pipe goes towards the one. Page 4 February- 5, 1987 Public Hearing - nomas and Catherine Zimmerman Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that answer your question Bill? MR. : Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion .... Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against it? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - Aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:18 p.m. Appeal No. 3604 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI. Variance for approval of access. E/s Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of a survey indicating the right of way in question which appears to be a partially mechanized right of way of approximately 32.40 in this par- ticular case plus the width of the right of way before you go into the property off Indian Neck Lane and Peconic. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would ilike to be heard? Sir would you state your name for the record? MR. VILLANI: It's just to gain access to one lot. We own two lots there and we want to gain access to the second one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us the present condition of the blacktop since when a few of us went down? We noticed that it's pretty much covered with snow. MR. VILLANI: It's in pretty fair shape but I'll have to bring it up to grade, whatever is required. There's a few ruts in it but it,s not nothing that's... I've been going over it. I've been ouZ here for a few days and I've been going back and forth and there's no problem with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In no way is this dealing with the trans- verse right of way up above which is (I guess) primarily dirt? MR. VILLANI: other way? It's Woods Lane. Isn't that the one that runs the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. VILLANI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now you're just going up. MR. VILLANI: I have to cross over Woods Lane. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That crosses over Woods Lane making a sharp left and then into the property. Is that what you're doing? MR. VILLANI: Right. Pcge ~ - February 5, 1987 Public Hearing - 3err and Eileen Villani Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're not going into your property and then going across? MR. VILLANI: Noo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Alright. We'll see what develops. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing re- serving decision until later. Ail in favor - Aye. 3THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEA~ MATTER OF ROBERT AND HELEN DIER THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987r PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3597 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT AND HELEN DIERo Special Exception for ac- cessory apartment in existing garage area. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a split level framed home approxately 22,050 square feet which exists fairly close to the water, a long driveway back to Terry Lane. The parcel is approximately 97°93 feet to the water, 100 feet on the road and its longest distance, 282 feet deep. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody representing the Dier's tonight? We do this or not. We are going to swear everybody in in this hearing and I'm doing it for a specific rea- son. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give is the truth? MR. DIER: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you siro~ Is there~anything you'd like to say concerning your application? MR. DIER: I don't think so. I think I meet the rules down here for the accessory apartment. There's enough the apartment° I have parking for above paved ground. answer any questions you want. that are room in I'll CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there... This is on the first story of the house or is it on the second story? MR. DIER: There's one story up above the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. So it's basically above the garage. MR. DIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the part you can see probably most visible from the road? Is that correct? MR. DIER: It's nearest the road. Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you planning on renting this to a large family? MR. DIER: No. It's not going to have no more than two people. ~age 2 - February 5, 1987 Public Hearing - ~ert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you very much. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard concerning this application? Sir. Would you raise your right hand and state your name for us. MR. WAGNER: Good evening to the Board. My name is John Wagner. I'm an attorney with Esseks, Hefter and Angel, 108 East Main St., Riverhead, NY and I'm appearing on behalf of several people in the neighborhood in opposition to this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: DO you swear that the information that you are about to give is the truth? MR. WAGNER: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. representing? Can you tell us who you're MR. WAGNER: I'm representing 4 neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. John May who are the neighbors immediately to the east of the parcel in question. I'm representing a Mr. Philip Barth who is several lots to the west of the parcel in question. Mrs. Margaret Catzenbach who is two lots to the east and across Town Harbor Lane. I'm also representing Mrs. Joanne Walker who is one lot further over than Mrs. Catzenbach to the east. These are all waterfront owners and I have reviewed the file for this application and I've also re- viewed the town code requirements for the granting of the special exception in question and I have ascertained that the application is effective in several respects. There are both specific and general requirements for the granting of the accessory apartment exception under the town code. Amoung specific requirements are several that I felt the applicant has not met. The first of these is that the accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building. The application as it stands and the documentation sub- mitted on behalf of the application and as Mr. Dier has also tes- tified, the accessory apartment proposed is to be located above a detached 3-car garage. This is not the principal building on the parcel. And therefore, the applicant has not met this require- ment. Also there is nothing on file to indicate that there is any sign of a lease for a year around occupancy in the offering for this particular accessory apartment. Once again this is a requirement specifically stated forth in the town code. There is a requirement that a mimimum of 3 off street parking spaces be provided for the accessory structure, for the accessory apart- ment. Excuse me. As it stands, the house itself under the cur- rent town code, requires 2 off street parking spaces. The ad- ditional 3 parking spaces for the additional accessory apartment would bring the total number of parking spaces required to 5. There are not 5 parking spaces on the property. There is a 3 car garage which makes 3. There is another turn around area close to the house which is approximately 16 feet wide and which would make up another space possibly but is certainly not enough for 2 spaces. So the code requires that each space be at least 10 feet in width. There is also a requirement that the Suffolk County Department of Heath Services approve water supply and sewage disposal systems for the accessory apartment. I found Page 3 - February - 1987 ~ublic Hearing - ~ pert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. WAGNER (continued): no indication in the file that there has been any application made to the Suffolk County Department of Heath for this appli- cation. There is an approval from the Department of Heath dated 1977 which was for the principal building itself but does not concentrate any accessory apartment use at that time. This concludes my comments on specific requirements for the special exception. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Go ahead. MR. WAGNER: There are also general requirements that should be considered when considering such an application for a special exception and along these are the; safety, the health, welfare, comfort, convenience for the order of the town and any adverse effect that the application may have on that. I believe that the applicant has not addressed this issue in this application. And I think that all of these factors will adversely be effected if the accessory apartment is granted. There will be an increase in density of population because of the extra dwelling units. There will be further added traffic in the area~ Resulting in a hazard from people coming out of the driveway. There is also going to be a problem with emergency access because the apartment is set in a garage which is located well back from the Main Street. And the only access to the principal house and the accessory apart- ment would be over a 10 foot driveway. If there is substantial parking for the accessory structure and also the principal dwel- ling, it would be very difficult to get down that particular drive- way° There's going to be an increased impact on the water and sewage problems for the area. The property values in the area may decrease by the fact that there is a rental unit in the area and this will effect the character of the neighborhood as well. And in summary, I would just say that I believe that this par- ticular accessory apartment will detract from what is truly in- tended by the town code for the residential/agricultural use dis- trict which the property lies. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Wagner. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Sir could you use the mike and state your name please. Excuse me. I have to ask you to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the information that you're about to give is the truth? MR. BARTH: Yes I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR o BARTH: I'm a resident on Terry Lane a few lots west of the applicant's residence. And the reason I want to speak against this application is several. Number one; That the garage is not attached to the house which actually makes, if this request is granted, would make 2 dwellings on one piece of property which I think is not a legal thing to do. Number two; and al- though this might not be pertinent just to this area. The ap- plicant also has an application in for a Bed and Breakfast place. Page 4 February ~ 1987 Public Hearing - ~.IDert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. BARTH (continued): He also has a dock going out 250 feet out into the water where l~he's bringing in a big 42 foot boat. And my feeling is that the applicant is trying to make a commercial enterprise out of some- thing that just is supposed to be a residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Is there anything you'd like to say sir? MR. DIER: There certainly is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We usually run one round all the way up and then we come back. MR. DIER: Let me see if I can remember all the things he said. In the first place, I have a C of O for the house and garage as attached. It is attached° What else did they say? I don't know how true it is that you have to have 10 feet for every car° I have, according to the plan you've got there, 32 feet across the front of my garage. I always figured that 8 feet was probab- ly enough for a car to park. I don't know whether that's true or not. Then on what we call the turn around, we have some 16 feet. We park 2 cars there all the time. As far as I'm con- cerned, I've got room there with no problem whatsoever of park- ing 6 cars. Something else I said and I don't know how true that is. Is also they said you have to have 3 parking spaces for this accessory apartment. I was told by the Building De- partment when I inquired about it, that you have to have one. Two for the house and one for the auxiliary apartment. I don't know why an auxiliary apartment should require more than my wife and I require in the main house. So I have room for 6. I figure two for us and one for the apartment. Even two for the apartment is four. I have room for six° All paved and no problem at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to 3 in the front of the garage? MR. DIER: Four in the front of the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Four in the front of the garage and two over on the one side. MR. DIER: And two over on the other spot there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Go ahead. MR. DIER: Are there any others? What was said? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask you if you'd come up here for one second and just pencil in to us where (in fact I will give you a pen) exactly show is where the house and garage are attached. Page 5 - Februar· 5, 1987 YPublic Hearing - .obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. DIER: If you check in there, it's attached, my C of O shows it as an attached building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it above ground or fairly level with the ground? MR. DIER: It's about a foot above ground. What else was there that was... CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: I don't know. MR. DIER: As far as the too much traffic in the area. I don't think two people are going to create too much traffic. Right on our corner we have a town park and right next to that we have a boat yard. A commercial boat yard. So I don't think that two more people in the area is going to make the slightest bit of dif- ference. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much Mr. Dier. there anybody else who would like to speak? Mr. Wagner. MR. WAGNER: I'd like to approach the Board and show them the diagram I have of the parking facilities if I may. This was ob- tained from the file that was in the Building office. You can see here the dimensions of the area. Now my point is that the requirements for off street parking clearly require a minimum 10 foot width by 12 foot length for each parking space. Now you can see he only has 16 feet across there. This would not permit two parking spaces of the requirement. We further only have 16 feet back here which would not satisfy the length requirement either. Therefore, it's conceivable that cars parked there could actually block access to this garage. You can see that if you had two cars here and three cars here, the congestion in this area is going to be very severe. If there is a fire caused by the accessory apartment or something, firetrucks or other emer- gency vehicles are not going to get down here. I further under- stand that right now, and I'd like to point this out, this apart- ment is a functioning dwelling unit even though it does not have a permit. There are two tenants in there and they have girl- friends living with them and there are already a substantial num- ber of cars being parked there. I think this is a serious problem both for the safety of the people in the apartment and for the ser- vices of the town itself. All the diagrams I have and these were submitted by the applicant, indicate that the buildings are de- tached. I see no indication of any structure between these two buildings. And in fact, I think if I'm not mistaken, the appli- cant has expressed it as that as a detached 3-car garage. I may be incorrect on that° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we'll have the Building Department look at it. MR. WAGNER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Not to make this counter pro- ductive, but is there anything else you'd like to say? ?Page 6 - Februar. 5, 1987 Public Hearing - v.obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeal s MR. DIER: I've nothing further to say about what he said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very simply expressed Mr. Dier was the fact that he did not feel that there was enough room and I apologize for not asking you to come up here. MR. DIER: I do want to see. I know he brought a diagram up there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He brought the same diagram that's in the file that you pencilled between the dock and the house. He felt that there was not enough area (I assume) in width and square footage to require 6 parking spaces in this particular area and I don't want to get into that tonight. Principally, that's their presentation. We will make our own determination based upon our own parking schedule and what you have given us here and we may ask you to increase it. We may ask you to leave it in the same vein that it's in now. MR. DIER: Well besides what... This is what is paved. We have times in the summer time when we have company and things like that. We park a lot more people back there than that because we have other places where you can just drive off the pavement but there's plenty of pavement. You simply can probably go over there and see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I was there last Sunday. I had seen it. As I said, I didn't bother you. I didn't come up to the house or whatever the case might be. MR. DIER: Well if you go back there any time, feel free to go back there and check that area. There's plenty of parking spaces there. I didn't hear what else you said. MR. WAGNER: That was the substance. The parking. Could I make one more observation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Stay here so you can listen to this sir. MR. WAGNER: It would appear from everything surrounding this application that there's more here that meets the eye. Basical- Ily is what Mr. Barth stated. There is a dock of some 250 feet constructed out into the Bay and there is also a pending Bed and Breakfast application brought by Mr. Dier which I understand from talking to Linda, is currently being held in a pending status until this particular application is resolved. I think and the neighbors are very concerned that what we may be seeing here is an attempt the develop of some quaser commercial use. Namely a hotel or a transient use that is totally not befitting this area. It is conceivable that the access proposed is ac- tually from the Board. We may be facing a situation where boats may be pulling up there, spending the night, availing themselves of the Bed and Breakfast. And therefore, some reinteration be- ing exchanged for it. And I think this kind of commercial opera- tion however it may be characterized though, is just not in keep- ing with the town. Page 7 Februar~~ %, 1987 Public Hearing - _~obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: well we're not here to entertain that ap- plication. We will have a separate public hearing for that ap- plication. MR. DIER: May I say something about that dock? That dock is 250 feet long. That's a hell of a long dock. It's 250 feet long because at the end of it you have to go out to the end of it to get to 3½ feet of water. Everything else... The first 40 or 50 feet of it is on bare ground, the beach. Then you go out and wade out. It's only at the last 30 feet or so that you have room enough for my boat. That's why the dock had to go out that far~ Everything else is half a foot, a foot, a foot and a half or you can't even put boats in. I get my boat and it's a 37 foot boat and there's a 3½ foot draft, I had to go out 250 feet for it. Not for the length for the use of the dock but to get out to the water that is suitable for my boat. The dock has been there in various stages of completing for 8 years. The boat has never been there yet. It will come out. It was there once about 7 years ago. It will come back ..... TAPE ENDED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir° Anything else Mr. Wagner? MR. WAGNER: I would just say that what appears to be the ap- proach to this application and also with the dock, is to pro- ceed in the face of the requirements, not obtain necessary per- mits. The dock itself, as I understand it, permission was or- iginally .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. You can't hear him can you. MR. DIER: It's something about the dock he's saying. I'd like to be able to hear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're really bending the rules here because we do have an audience and we really do ask for the mikes to be used for that purpose. MR. WAGNER: Would you like me to go back to the mike? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Go back to the mike. make you come up here again sir. I'm sorry to MR. WAGNER: I don't want to dwell too much on the dock. I just want to point out that the structure of the dock as it is now is not what was approved by the applicant's permit. They have con- crete pilings installed now. It was originally approved for tim- ber and there's an application pending to bring it into conformi- ty. But bringing that up to illustrate that what we have here is .~an applicant that flies in the face of regulation. The accessory apartment is on going right now. It's operating without a permit. It's used as an illegal use. No special exception was obtained and I think we should consider that attitude in considering this application. Thank you. Page 8 - February ~ 1987 Public Hearing - ~ 3ert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRPLAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir~ Will you answer that? MR. DIER: There's one more about the dock~to get it out of the way. Every single thing that was done on that dock I have a permit for. If at the next hearing you want those permits or any time in between, I will bring those permits, everything for the original wooden dock. The concrete work that was put in later, I have a permit for. Every bit of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you this question since the question was raised by Mr. Wagner. Are you presently rent- int the accessory apartment? MR. DIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how long has it been rented for? MR. DIER: It has been rented for approximately 3 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Thank you very much° MR. DIER: And it may not have been legally rented but the traf- fic certainly didn't bother the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes. Let me just have your name again for the record. See we're taking that down. MR. BARTH: Again about the dock. Mr~ Dier says he has all the necessary permits. I have a folder about this thick of corre- spondence that you have, that the Board has had, that the trus- tees have had with the Corp of Engineers and thei~ answer was that Mr. Dier has a permit for an open timber dock. He does not have the permit for what he did with the concrete. That's the answer that we got from the Corp of Engineers and I have it in writing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state for the record your name again sir. MR. BARTH: My name is Phil Barth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: on the dock. Thank you. This is the last issue though MR. DIER: According to how the dock came to be. Eight years or so ago I got a permit from the Corp of Engineers to build a dock. It took a while to get the permit. All the people in the neighborhood fought like hell to stop me from getting it. Well I got the permit and I built the dock. The dock got taken down by ice. I rebuilt it. It got taken down again. I started. I made up plans to put concrete around it. I went to the Conser- vation Department and they are the ones who gave me the permit for it. They said you don't have to go to the Corp of Engineers. Page 9 - Februar· 5, 1987 :?Public Hearing - .obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. DIER (continued): for this~ We can give you a permit for this right here. No public hearing no nothing and they gave me the permit for it. I didn't do it to escape the Corp of Engineers. I had no rea- son whatsoever to believe that they'd even want to. The Con- servation Department gave me the permit for it. The permit still stands until December 30th of this year. The last day of this year my permit is good. The dock is now finished. Now if somebody came and contacted the Corp of Engineers, the Corp of Engineers contacted me and said that we should have been in on this. You should have gotten a permit from us too. Well that's not what the Conservation people told me. So now I'm going through the formality of getting the permit from the Corp of Engineers but there was nothing done whatsoever to avoid them. They never gave me any trouble. They gave me my original permit and I presumed they would have given me the permit for the concrete. But the Conservation people who had to give me the final permit to build the dock, because if any of you remember any of this, there was a period back there when there was a moratorium. You couldn't build docks or anything for some 3 or 4 years. When that moratorium ended, it was the Conservation people who gave me the final permit to put the dock in, the original wooden dock. So since that time, even though they have been dealing with, they are the ones who gave me the permits for the concrete and that's all it amounted to. Now the Corp of Engineers want their approval on it also and all the papers are there for them to give their approval after the fact. But I had my permits from the Conservation Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you for the record sir and you have already stated and I'll ask you to say yes again, that you have no intention of using this dock in conjunction with the application that is before us. Is that correct? MR. DIER: No. That dock has been out there, like I say, for 8 years in various stages. This summer it was out there com- pleted and last summer it was out there completed but except for a couple of pieces of concrete work that had to be done. There has not been one boat come out there to that dock yet except for my little 18 foot clam boat. My big boat hasn't come and no other boat has been near that dock. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any anticipation or any thought of renting this apartment if it is so granted by this Board, the premise to operate or use this apartment on a tran- sient basis and use the dock in conjunction with that? MR. DIER: None whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion clos- ing the hearing reserving decision until later. We thank you all very much for coming in and have a good evening. Ail in favor - Aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF TARTAN OIL CORP. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3596 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of TARTAN OIL CORP. Special Exception to establish partial self-service gas station in conjunction with full-ser- vice gas station approved 6/29/72 under Appl. No. 1584. 32400 CR 48, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the entire piece which appears to be 194.54 feet on Middle Road and at its greatest depth it's 182.89. I have a copy of the site plan. By~ the way, that was produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. The most recent date was February 6, 1985. And I have a copy of the site plan indicating the gas station as it presently has been constructed. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in- dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: I am here on behalf of the applicants, Tartan Oil. The application submitted was written with the requirements set forth in the ordinance in mind as well as the requirements set forth that the Board has to consider in granting the special ex- ception. I think our common experience has been that people are giving up full service and the four men use to come out and wash your windows, clean your headlamps and everything else, to save money. The Hess station in Riverhead is an example of that. The Hess station in Mattituck is an example. The price differential seems to be enough for people to want to forego that service for the break in price. We are presently operating a self-service under a temporary c.o. The equipment is all designed with the state of the art computerization. So that it is operated with the pay after the fact. And I am here to answer any questions you've got about the self-service portion. The fire suppression system was put in the canopy. I am more here to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who is Tartan Oil Corporation? MR. MOORE: Tartan Oil Corporation, the president is Barry Tallering. The vice president is Alan Leon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have spent several moments in looking at this particular site paln and I have gone past the place and watched the construction of the station as has the Board. I guess the first question to address and the following question is the issue of the self-service pumps. Which ones will be self-service and which ones will not? MR. MOORE: Ok. That site plan I submitted should show that al- though there's so much data on that plan you can't find it. Page 2 - February -~ 1987 Public Hearing - u~rtan Oil Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRFLAN GOEHRINGER: It's very busy. MR. MOORE: Let me see if I can point out where on that site plan where you can find that information. I specifically had these redone by Mr. Deutschman to show that. It's a little bit easier to point them out. It took me a while to find them too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Both of these will be self-service? MR. MOORE: These two will be self-service. These are more, if you're familiar with the pumps in Riverhead, the 3 types of gas on each side for the customer coming in. In other words, on any one side, only one car can come in and you have to make your selection of the 3 types. So you're talking about 1, 2, 3, 4 on this side. I think that's the present configurations they would like to see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any issues concerning sales area or the sale of merchandise or anything of that nature? MR. MOORE: The temporary certificate of occupancy that we have has a series of conditions imposed upon it. One... I can list them for you. January 22, 1987 the Building Department issued a temporary certificate of occupancy with conditions. One of the ones that is holding us up is the final coding on pavement. Final approval of a second curb cut by the County got all tangled up. We have approval. We're waiting for Mr. Cass's signature on the form but the form has been prepared. It's just a func- tion of getting a signature on it. The self-service approval was one of the things he had the approval subject to. And the canopy which was just erected which will, and we're still work- ing on that with Mr. Lessard. In fact, I've got the principals here and I'll meet with him later to talk about some of the problems with the County and the lights. Those are the conditions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no problem with the food or the sales of whatever occurs out of the sales area. MR. MOORE: No. We do. The site plan approval was conditioned upon a list of items that were going to be sold. I have not had any objections from the letter that I wrote the Planning Board indicating the types of things we're going to sell. It's my knowledge that they've not responded with objections to what we're going right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nor does Mr. Lessard at this particular time have any problem with it. Is that correct? I had 2 other questions and one of which is a statement of a request. The first one I'll deal with is; in the self-service pump, you could force the nozzle to stay open, could you not, with some sort of device be it anything from a piece of cardboard to a piece of rubber I suppose? ~age 3 - February 5, 1987 Public Hearing - ~TAN OIL CORP. Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MOORE: Not as an operator. I would imagine if the handle was touched, I presume it's a trigger handle with a guard on it. MR. TALLERING: There are little (What should I say?) like a lever which has been removed for the self-service portion. That was the lever with which, if you did stick it, it continues to flow gasoline. That has been removed for the self-service and there's an automatic shut off in the nozzle. As soon as it feels moisture, .it automatically stops it~ So that's for safety. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So virtually the only way you could dis- pense fuel would be if someone wanted to personally dispense it on the ground° Hold it outside of the... MR. TALLERING: Right° If you took it outside of the car and poured it on the ground you could. But if it was in there, as soon as it gets wet, it automatically shuts off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I thank you. The other question I have is not specifically the basis of this application but it's a sense of esthetics so to speak. And that is that it appears that there is a termendous amount of lighting in this particular station. And I was wondering if there was any possibility of shutting half of the lights off during certain periods of the night. This is not specifically the nature of this application. However, it is a personal request by certain members of the Board if not the public and we'll see what they have to say and I'm not specifically talking about the sign that's on the road. I'm re- ferring to the signs that's underneath the canopy, the lights, the flourescent lights or whatever those lights are underneath the canopy. It is rather bright and I've gone by it on a foggy night. I've gone by it on a rainy night. I've gone by it on a snowy night and it's still bright. MR. MOORE: I can adjust that. As you accurately pointed that out, that's not the subject of the hearing. In factk. I insisted that this Charlie, that Mr. Leon and Mr. Tallering come out this evening because there had been a number of complaints about the lighting and they brought their catalogues and we're going to sit and meet with Mr. Lessard in a couple of moments if he's got a moment, to try to remedy the problem. There are problems that hold 3 large lamps that run the perimeter. Just this week, the canopy went up. It had not been there prior to this week. We got hung up with snow. That's up. So we're going to be addressing those problems with Mr. Lessard and it's going to have to be to his satisfication because he's the one who is sitting there taking a lot of the phone calls as I'm sure everybody else is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I specifically did this tonight. We oc- casionally and if not for every meeting, turn a portion of the lights off in this meeting hall and do that specifically for 2 reasons. One; for the public and one for ourselves. Presently this light that's out and above me right here is causing a prob- lem tonight and I did it specifically just to show you that it is kind of bright in here and it's one of the problems that the Board has with addressing any issue concerning this particular facility and I hope you do address it because it is a problem. Page 4 -February ~, 1987 Public Hearing - . £tan Oil Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. TALLERING: We most certainly willo Mr. Lessard has kept on me very well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you Mr. Moore. We'll see what de- velops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Anybody like to say anything? Any questions from any Board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving de- cision until later. We thank you very much. Ail in favor - Aye. THE SO~JT,,tiOLD Town Clerk, Town of Southold ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF HERBERT Ro MANDEL THHRSDAY, FEBRUARY 5., 1.987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3462 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of HERBERT R. MANDEL. Variances for (a) lots having insufficient lot area; (b) lots having insufficient lot depth; (c) lot having insufficient lot width; (d) lot 3 as proposed with structure having an insufficient frontyard setback; (e), lots 2 and 3 will contain structures that do not meet princi- pal-use requirement for a single-family dwelling; (f) existr- ing barns on lots 2 and 3 as proposed will have insufficient setbacks from front property line (and boundary line dividing lOts 2 and 3 running north and south). 9355 Main Road, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a plan most recent date was January 29, 1986 showing lot number 1 at 42 thousand square feet with a two-story house. Lot number 2, 30 thousand square feet with a garage and lot number 3; 45 thousand square feet with a barn. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Wickham would you like to be heard? Just in the knick of time. MS. WICKHAM: I know that there is comment that you will never hear variances before the hour of which they are appointed. So fortunately I was here on time. There are several reasons that I believe that Mr. Mandel is entitled to a variance. They men- tioned in the application; this subdivision is in it~ 'entirety was originally started in 1982 as a 3-section subdivision and that was shown on the original map that way. The section one and section two which contain approximately 49 lots of one acre were completed and approved and filed in 1984. They were far enough along in the subdivision process that when the two acre zoning came into effect, they were automatically entitled to proceed under the one acre zoning and they did so. The only reason that section 3 was not completed a~d filed along with the other two was, in order to complete a gift to the fire district of about 10 thousand square feet. The Fire District approached Mr. Mandel in approximately 1982 but it was some- time with their meetings as to when they actually gave them dimensions and location of property they were interested in getting. He subsequently made the surveys and made the trans- fer to them in 1984. By ~that time however, he had 10st his rights (according to the Town) with the one acre zoning. We asked the Planning Board to proceed since the section 3 had been shown on the original maps and they were not willing to do so in light of the upzoning without the variance and that's why we~'re here tonight. The Planning Board has indicated (I believe in a letter to you) that this was recommended for one acre zoning by the Master Plan. So the first reason we think Pag~ 2 - Febru~ z 5, 1987 Public Hearing ~ Herbert R. Mandel Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM (continued): we're entitled to a variance is because it was shown as section 3 on one acre subdivision sometime ago. And it was only because he wanted to make a gift to the Fire District that he was unable to complete it in time. Another reason that we would like to request the variance is because of financial hardship. One lot would be allowed under your 2 acre zoning. And the difference in value between that and a 3 acre subdivision as we proposed, is a substantial financial hardship. Mr. Mandel was unable to be here because of travel arrangements he had made previously. But I have with me and I'd like to request that you allow me to submit an affidavit that he has signed as a person who is a licensed real estate broker and is familiar with property value. HeYs obtained appraisels with the property as a one acre parcel. I'm sorry. As 3 acre parcel as it currently exists. He had[ an appraised value of approximately 29 thousand. As opposed to a parcel on the basis of 3 one acre lots, one of which contains the house, approximately 350 thousand. So there is about a 60 thousand dollar differential that he would suffer because he was delayed in being able to finalize his section 3 subdivision. The other reason is; as I mentioned in the application, that the proper- ty is surrounded by a variety of quarter, hal~ and one acre par- cels. So we'Ce not going to be doing anything that would be out of keeping with the area. If it's ok with the Board, I would like to offer you the application. I do not have a copy of the deed yet on the gift to ~he Fire District. But if you would like that for the file, I can obtain one for you. Would you like me to sub- mit that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don~t think it's particularly necessary. MS. WICKHAM: I have in the affidavit the date of the transfer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think it's necessary. MS. WICKHAM: Now I would just like to briefly~.well I don't know if I could do it briefly, address that laundry list of specific reasons why this particular one did not meet the code. As it is proposed lot 50 shown on this map which contains the house and is on the road, we have an existing residence and there was really nothing much we can do about its location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: a two family? Is that used as a one family dwelling or MS. WICKHAM: I submitted the c.o. to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: cation for a year. Yes but I've been sitt~n~g~?M±b.h~ihh~s ~pp. Ii,- MS. WICKHAM: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I've been sitting with the application. only quickly reviewed the file before this meeting. I Page 3 - Febru ~ 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Herbert R. Mande! Southo!d Town Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: It's a two-story one family wood framed dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MSo WICKHAM: As far as the accessory structures on lot 51 which is one of the lots in the rear, one is a garage that can be uti- lized as an accessory structure to a residence and the framed barn is a shed which you could also be able to utilize as an ac- cessory structure. So I think the fact that they do not meet principal lot requirements, principal building requirements is irrelevant at the time a house is constructed. The existing barn on the third lot is a rather large structure and this basically is the only way they could design the lot lines to accommodate those buildings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you anticipate .... I know the appli- cation reads that there is no anticipation of doing anything with those, Is there any anticipation of converting that barn to a house? MS. WICKHAM: I spoke to Mr. Mandel about that. He says it is a fairly decent structure and it could be converted to a resi- dence. It probably, because of it~ size, would not be feasible to use it as an accessory structure if another residence were constructed on the property° I suppose it's possible that it could be moved to another location in the course of reconstruc- tion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Next. What else? MS. WICKHAM: I think that covers 7 and 8. CHAIRMAN GDEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you, Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. Ail in favor - Aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987~, PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p,m. Appeal No. 3601 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for addition at'south side of dwelling with insuf- ficient setback from rear property line and from bulkhead along tidal water area. E/s Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey by Young and Young indicating a proposed 14 by 33 foot (front porch) en- closed front porch extending out toward the bulkhead. Let's see if they show the distances in here. I have the figures here which is approximately 30 feet 6 inches from the south property line and which is primarily bulkheaded and in the front of that of course you have the high water mark° And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on the Best hearing? Yes, Could you use your mike and just state your name for us. MS. DOUBVA: It has been very vital to ( ) uses~ parts of the building. Using these, we would like to have a 14 foot enclosed porch, They would like to use an existing window. And in order to use that window and the door, they need 14 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, we did grant 12 feet in our last hearing. So this is more or less like a re-application or a new application but it's addressing the same issue. The Best's in this particular application did take physical measurements of all the properties on both sides almost all the way down to Camp Mineola subdivision and all the way up to the Morris Estate. And ~e~¢l~sest~~ one contiguous to hers on the east side (I think) they have Mills and that's 23 feet 6 inches and they are down as close to 15 feet. So we will definitely address this issue and we thank you for coming in. Could I have the spelling of your last name again~ MS. DOUBVA: D-o-u-b-v-a. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER, Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this aPplication? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. All in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF SAMUEL S. COHEN TRURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5__Z, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3599 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of SAMUEL So COHEN. Variance to construct garage for storage purposes in front and side yard areas. S/s private right-of-way off the south side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a a proposed garage (I believe it's) 54 feet 6 inches from the north property line, 5 feet from the east property line and 68 feet from the west property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties. Mr. Jacobs would you like to be heard~ MR, JACOBS: You can see where it is all situated. It's out of the way of anybody and it's situat&d~ between some of the big trees so it won't disturb the big trees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you move a little further forward toward the west, would that create a problem? MR. JACOBS: Yes. It would be to much onto the driveway that's there. There wouldn't be enough~ swing in room. Where it's sit- uated now it's better for the people behind. On the north side they're building a new house there, the Allens and this wouldnTt obstruct their view since they have a double porch erected off their house. They will still get a water view off it. If we did move it out further, you would be blocking their views. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How¥?high is the rear of the garage up to be- fore you hit the roof line? MR. JACOBS: Probably about 17 or less. low pitch in there. 16 or 17 feet. It's a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a hip roof? MR. JACOBS: It's a hip roof with a low pitch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a one story garage? MR. JACOBS: A one story garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did notice the stakes and I thank you for putting them there so that we could get an idea of where it's going to be placed. And we occasionally run into problems walking on people's property particularly in situations like this where the houses are forward and in the rear and you can spend a good portion of the day just checking a couple jobs or a couple of applications Page 2 - February 1987 Public Hearing - b~muel S. Cohen Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): by introducing yourself so on and so forth. So in most cases, it's much easier this way when you have the stakes there be- cause we know exactly where it is and we don't have to make measurements and so on and so forth. So I thank you again. MR. JACOBS: You said that you're a week behind. When do we hear an answer on this? Not that it means that much in this kind of weather. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Probably March 8th, March 5th. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on this appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR. ALLEN: I have the house you spoke about. question really. I just have a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that house sir? Did we grant an application for you for MR. ALLEN. Yes. I have no problem with the garage. I was just wondering and I want to ask Mr. Jacobs because Mr. Cohen is not here. If they move the garage approximately 40 feet closer to the water, (I appreciate what they're doing for me) putting the garage where it's located because it does give me water view straight ahead. If they move it 40 feet closer to the water, do have, I do get possibly a view of the other way and it would be closer to his home. As it stands now, the garage is going to be about 150 feet or more from his residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume they didn't want to .... MR. ALLEN: It's not an objection. Just a question really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume you did that and I'm not answering the question for you Mr. Jacobs but I'm assuming they put it in this spot so they didn't have to dig up any driveway. MR. JACOBS: Right. Well we have got to figure how we could come into the driveway. If we move it further, it would be crowding into his circle driveway. But we did originally have it where the little sheds are which would have completely blocked their portions and I talked them into going over onto the property line because I didn't want to cut all those big trees out. So anyhow, I think it is in the best place that we can put it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alri~ht. I'll go down and look at it again and see if we can accommodate anything at this particular point. I am not guaranteeing anything at this point but we will go down. Page'3 -IFebruary '~ 1987 Public H~aring - ~ ~nuel S. Cohen $outhold~Town Board of Appeals MR. ALLE~: If Mr. Cohen any problems. It's just it down ~ little further. put it there, I~m not going to cause that he ought to reconsider g~ move ltd appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you really don't have an objection? Is that what you're saying Mr. Allen? MR, ALLEN: Not really. I prefer he move it closer to the water like I said but I'm not going to make an issue out of ito No. MR, JACOBS: The only way you can get anything like that is to talk.to him. It wouldn't be up to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well if you intend to speak to him, send us a letter indicating such or have him~z send us a letter. And at this particular point of course this is the way we have to and this is the way it's been advertised. So the only avenue that we would have if we don't hear from you is to deal with the application as it stands. And if he intends to change the place- ment of it or whatever the case might be, we would have to turn the application down out of prejudice and have him reapply which of course would add timing onto this situation. That's all I can offer you at this point. Thank you again Mr. Jacobs~and Mr. Allen. Hearing no futher question,s. I'll make a motion closing the hear- ing and reserving the decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. JUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPE~,,S 'MA.TTER ~OF ~DANIEL AND IRENE MCK,ASTY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY '5~ 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3598 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of DANIEL AND IRENE MCKASTY. Variance for pool with fence enclosure and cabana within 75 feet of existing bulk- head at 13220 Main Road, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey which appears to be 35 feet from the bulkhead and it's closest point 40 feet a little bit closer to the west and 50 feet from Dam Pond Inlet which again is bulkheaded. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in 'the area~ Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Anybody for the McKasty hearing? It's going to be a quick night. I think we ~had certain questions concerning this application didn't you Mr. Douglas? Then I will leave it up to you if you want to recess it and ask them to come in or if you just want to close the hearing. MR. DOUGLAS: I donTt see any need to recess it. It can be closed. The questions I have are easily answered just by looking at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody against the application? There's somebody moving this way. Maybe it's them. I have a motion, second. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTROLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF DONALD 'J. GRIM THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3595 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of DONALD J. GRIM. Variance to construct two-story building with insufficient frontyard setback for office use incidental to principal use of the premises in this "C-I" Zone. S/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They' have'furnished us with a survey indicating an actual atmost site plan for the piece on an ap- plication that we dealt with before. In this particular ap- plication we are dealing with a 35 foot setback from Oregon Road. The proposed building is 30 by 40 and adjacent to that is an asphalt paved parking lot for 5 cars. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Grim would you like to be heard? You said this was two-story. MR. GRIM- Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are both stories going to be utilized for office area or will one be storage? MR. GRIM: Probably both for offices. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're not planning on living in this building in any way though? MR. GRIM: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it would be a wo'od~' construction? MR. GRIM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: will it be a slab? Will it have a full basement in it or MR. GRIM: I'm not sure at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anytime in the future that you would be converting this to a house? MR. GRIM: Not that I know of, no. No. It's for if I'm work- ing in the back in the garage and I'm all like dirty and greasy and somebody comes up; instead of coming to me, they could see somebody up front and talk to them. And sometimes I'm not al- ways there and you have a person up front in the office. Page 2 - Febru. / 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Donald J. Grim Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No part of this is being used as a garage area or anything of that nature? MR. GRIM: That is what the garage in the back is for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ing? You're not putting any bays in this build- MR. GRIM: No. No. That's what the back one is for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's going to be properly insulated and it's going to be a year around building? MR. GRIM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not a temporary structure is what I am saying. It's not a steel building or a butler building? MR. GRIM: No. No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: require screening. Because if that was the case, we would MR. GRIM: No. It's going to be wood' and it's going to be nice looking because the guy next door is a real nice guy, Alex Zuhoski. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. Ail in favor - Aye. ~JUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEA~S MATTER OF THOMAS AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8.:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3590 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of THOMAS AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN. Variance to con- struct addition to existing nonconforming structure which exceeds 50% of fair Value of same as existso 265 Rochelle Place, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers. The most recent date is March 4, 1986 indicating a one-story framed dwelling approximately 26.8 feet or 26.9 feet from Salt Lake Lane, and then in the rear a front cottage which is the nature of this application. showing a few additions. One 8 by 10 and one 12 by 30~and another structure in the rear of the property which is not the nature of this application. ~And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Hi. Is there something you would like to say for the record? Can I ask you to use the mikeY MR. ZIMMERMAN: What should I say? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tell us the reason why you want it. MR. ZIMMERMAN: The cottage as it exists right now, as I ex- plained, has 5 rooms and the kitchen is very small. And what we want to do is to enlarge the kitchen. And at the same time, it made sense to square it off into adding a third bedroom which then allowed us to .... Because we both have large families and we just moved and we bought the house recently and we were hoping by having this additional space that we would be able to enjoy the dwelling a little better than we are currently allowed to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is presently a kitchen in that cottage? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes sir, There's a living room. There's a kitchen. There's a bathroom. There's 2 bedrooms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that cottage heated in any way? MR.~ZIMMERMAN: I~ has electric heat, heaters I should say and has gas for the hot water system and it has gas for the kitchen for the stove. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: around structure? Is it insulated in any way as a year MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's insulated, poorly insulated but it is in- sulated. When we did that side we were going to Obviously in- sulate according to the code. ~age 2 - Februa 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Thomas and Catherine Zimmerman Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: larly a slab? Is it on a foundation or is it particu- MR. ZIMMERMAN: cinder blocks. It's half on a slab and half just I guess on CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the proposed extension appears to be somewhat of a slab. Is that correct? MR. ZIMMERMAN: The proposed extension will be (I guess) built on a half basement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you alluded to ~the fact that there's another family involved. Are you referring to in-laws or are you referring to someone else? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. Ii am referring to our in~laws. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now who will be utilizing the cottage~ Wouldqyou be or would they be? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Probably them more than us because they have the time to be able to utilize that more than we would be able to leave our job. On weekends and of course during the summer time and in the fall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see what develops, I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the appli- cation? Yes. We have indicated after researching the file or we have found (I should say) that there was somewhat of an error in the sending of the legal notices by the appli- cant, And we are going to ask at this particular time as he has done, indicating to the neighbors this hearing is occuring at this time. So we will recess this hearing until the next regular scheduled hearing which I believe will be March 5th. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I verbally placed 2 phon~ calls today in ad- dition to sending out those certified receipts and letters. With respect to the Montgomery's, I spoke to the daughter whO is adjacent to myself and explained the situation. And she, at that time, indicated to me that she didn't see any objection by her father. And I said I would speak to him on the weekend because he'll be coming back from being away. In regards to .the Hanse~,~ I spoke with the HansenJ about~a month ago because I needed their help in securing an affidavit for the dwelling itself and I explained to them at the time the situation and they had no objection, I tried to reach them today but as far as I know wasn't able to. But also I have been in contact with them. Again we did have conversations about the premises and they raised no objections at the time. Page 3 -. February -, 1987 Public Hearing - -~iomas and Catherine Zimmerman Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically the formality on the 5th will be just to close the hearing. And if anybody wants to send us anything in the interim, they're welcome to. I can't tell you that it's to your best interest not to show up because somebody may want to voice their opinions. But that's pretty much the situation as it stands. MR. ZIMMERMAN: When would the decision be reached? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We could uniquely make a decision on the 5th. Is it the 5th? I keep on saying the 8th. I apologize. We could uniquely make a decision on the 5th because the main part of the hearing is tonight. What we are doing basically is allowing the neighbors to have some time if they want to com- ment on the application. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If I close the hearing, then I can't ac- cept any comments and that's the purpose of the situation. MR. ZIMMERMAN: In that affidavit I did let the neighbors know the telephone number of Linda at the town as well as myself in. case there was any objections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: those today also. Thank you. Thank you very much for sending MR. : Mr. Chairman. Does %hat bungalow have its sepa- rate water system, separate sewer system or is it connected to one? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It has its own... MR. : Well? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well no. It's all really basically the same water system. It has its own electric and gas heaters separate in tha~ respect. The water that is currently used~all .comes from the same system. MR. houseso~ : In other words, this all is going to serve two MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about the cesspool system? Does the cesspool system drain into one? MR. ZIMMERMAN: There are 3, one main and two accessory cesspools. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know if the pipe goes into the one main and steps out or does it go into an additional one? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It leads into the one. I guess I'm not toot!familiar with that but I do know that the pipe goes towards the one. Page 4 - Februar~~ 5, 1987 Public Hearing - nomas and Catherine Zimmerman Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that answer your question Bill? MR. : Yes. CHAIRNLAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion .... Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against it? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - Aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:18 p.m. Appeal No. 3604 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI. Variance for approval of access. E/s Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of a survey indicating the right of way in question which appears to be a partially mechanized right of way of approximately 32.40.in this par- ticular case plus the width of the right of way before you go into the property off Indian Neck Lane and Peconic. 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 would you state your name for the record? MR. VILLANI: It's just to gain access to one lot. We own two lots there and we want to gain access to the second one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us the present condition of the blacktop since when a few of us went down? We noticed that it's pretty much covered with snow. MR. VILLANI: It's in pretty fair shape but I'll have to bring it up to grade, whatever is required. There's a few ruts in it but it!~S~ not nothing that's... I've been going over it. I've been ouZ here for a few days and I've been going back and forth and there's no problem with it. CHAIR~4AN GOEHRINGER: In no way is this dealing with the trans- verse right of way up above which is (I guess) primarily dirt? MR. VILLANI: other way? It's Woods Lane. Isn't that the one that runs the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. VILLANI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now you're just going up. MR. VILLANI: I have to cross over Woods Lane. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That crosses over Woods Lane making a sharp left and then into the property. Is that what you're doing? MR. VILLANI: Right. PAge ~i- February. 5, 1987 Public Hearing - )ert and Eileen Villani Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: then going across? YOu're not going into your property and MR. VILLANI: Noo CHAI~LAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Alright. We'll see what develops. I thank you. Is therelanybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing re- serving decision until later. Ail in favor - Aye. 3THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEA~ MATTER OF ROBERT AND HELEN DIER THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5~,..1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3597 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT AND HELEN DIERo Special Exception for ac- cessory apartment in existing garage area. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a split level framed home approxately 22,050 square feet which exists fairly close to the water, a 10ng driveway back to Terry Lane. The parcel is approximately 97093 feet to the water, 100 feet on the road and its longest distance, 282 feet deep. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody representing the Dier's tonight? We do this or noto We are going to swear everybody in in this hearing and I'm doing it for a specific rea- son. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give is the truth? MR. DIER: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir~, Is there.~.anything you'd like to say concerning your application? MR. DIER: I don't think so. I think I meet the rules that are down here for the accessory apartment. There's enough room in the apartment° I have parking for above paved ground. I'll answer any questions you want. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there... This is on the first story of the house or is it on the second story? MR. DIER: There's one story up above the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. So it's basically above the garage. MR. DIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the part you can see probably most visible from~the road? Is that correct? MR. DIER: It's nearest the road. Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you planning on renting this to a large family? MR. DIER: No. It's not going to have no more than two people. Page 2 February 5, 1987 Public Hearing - Robert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you very much. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard concerning this application? Sir. Would you raise your right hand and state your name for us. MR. WAGNER: Good evening to the Board. My name is John Wagner. I'm an attorney with Esseks, Hurter and Angel, 108 East Main St., Riverhead, NY and I'm appearing on behalf of several people in the neighborheed in opposition to this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you swear that the information that you are about to give is the truth? MR. WAGNER: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Can you tell us who you're representing? MR. WAGNER: I'm representing 4 neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. John May who are the neighbors immediately to.the east of the parcel in question. I'm representing a Mr. Philip Barth who is several lots to the west of the parcel in question. Mrs. Margaret Catzenbach who is two lots to the east and across Town Harbor Lane. I'm also representing Mrs. Joanne Walker who is one lot further over than Mrs. Catzenbach to the east. These are all waterfront owners and I have reviewed the file for this application and I've also reviewed the town code requirements for the granting of the special exception in question and I have ascertained that the application is effective in several respects. There are both specific and general requirements for the granting of the accessory apartment exception under the town code. Amoung specific requirements are several that I felt the applicant has not met. The first of these is that the accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building. The application as it stands and the documentation submitted on behalf of the application and as Mr. Dior has also tes-tified, the accessory apartment proposed is to be located above a detached 3 car garage. This is not the principal building on the parcel. And therefore, the applicant has not met this requirement. Also there is nothing on file to indicate that there is any sign of a lease for a year around occupancy in the offering for this particular accessory apartment. Once again this is a requirement specifically stated forth in the town code. There is a requirement that a minimum of 3 off street parking spaces be provided for the accessory structure, for the accessory apartment. Excuse me. AS it stands, the house itself under the current town code, requires 2 off street parking spaces. The ad-ditional 3 parking spaces for the additional accessory apartment would bring the total number of parking spaces required to 5. There are not 5 parking spaces on the property. There is a 3 car garage which makes 3. There is another turn around area close to the house which is approximately 16 feet wide and which would make up another space possibly but is certainly not enough for 2 spaces. So the code requires that each space be at least 10 feet in Width. There is also a requirement that the Suffolk County Department of Heath Services approve water supply and sewage disposal systems for the accessory apartment. I found Page 3 - February--. 1987 Public Hearing - Robert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. WAGNER (continued): no indication in the file that there has been any application made to the Suffolk County Department of Heath for this application. There is an approval from the Department of Health dated 1977 which was for the principal building itself but does not concentrate any accessory apartment use at that time. This concludes my comments on specific requirements for the special exception. CHAIRNUkN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Go ahead. MR. WAGNER: There are also general requirements that should be considered when considering such an application for a special exception and along these are the; safety, the health, welfare, comfort, convenience for the order of the town and any adverse effect that the pplication may have on that. I believe that the applicant has not addressed this issue in this application. And I think that all of these factors will adversely be effected if the accessory apartment is granted. There will be an increase in density of population because of the extra dwelling units. There will be further added traffic in the area resulting in a hazard from people coming out of the driveway. There is also going to be a problem with emergency access because the apartment is set in a garage which is located well back from the Main Street. And the only access to the principal house and the accessory apartment would be over a 10 foot driveway. If there is substantial parking for the accessory structure and also the principal dwelling, it would be very difficult to get down that particular drive-way. There's going to be an increased impact on the water and sewage problems for the area. The property values in the area may decrease by the fact that there is a rental unit in the area and this will effect the character of the neighborhood as well. And in summary, I would just say that I believe that this particular accessory apartment will detract from what is truly intended by the town code for the residential/agricultural use dis- trict which the property lies. Thank you very much. CHAIRNUkN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Wagner. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Sir could you use the mike and state your name please. Excuse me. I have to ask you to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the information that you're about to give is the truth? MR. BARTH: Yes I do. CHAIRNUkN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR. BARTH: I'm a resident on Terry Lane a few lots west of the applicant's residence. And the reason I want to speak against this application is several. Number one; That the garage is not attached to the house which actually makes, if this request is granted, would make 2 dwellings on one piece of property which I think is not a legal thing to do. Number two; and although this might not be pertinent just to this area. The applicant also has an application in for a Bed and Breakfast place. Page 4 - February -~ 1987 Public Hearing - k~oert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MRo BARTH (continued): He also has a dock going out 250 feet out into the water where [~h~'s bringing in a big 42 foot boat. And my feeling is that the applicant is trying to make a commercial enterprise out of some- thing that just is supposed to be a residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir~ Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Is there anything you'd like to say sir? MR. DIER: There certainly is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We usually run one round all the way up and then we come back. MR. DIER: Let me see if I can remember all the things he said. In the first place, I have a CoOl O for the house and garage as attached. It is attached° What else did they say? I don't know how true it is that you have to have 10 feet for every caro I have, according to the plan you've got there, 32 feet across the front of my garage. I always figured that 8 feet was probab- ly enough for a car to park. I don't know whether that's true or not. Then on what we call the turn around, we have some 16 feet. We park 2 cars there all the time. As far as I'm con- ~erned, I've got room there with nolproblem whatsoever of park- lng 6 cars. Something else I said and I don't know how true that iso Is also they said you have to have 3 parking spaces for this accessory apartment. I was told by the Building De- partment when I inquired about it, that you have to have one. Two for the house and one for the auxiliary apartment. I don't know why an auxiliary apartment should require more than my wife and I require in the main house. So I have room for 6. I figure two for us and one for the apartment. Even two for the apartment is four. I have room for six~ All paved and no problem at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: garage? You're referring to 3 in the front of the MR. DIER: Four in the front of the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Four in the front of the garage and two over on the one side. MR. DIER: And two over on the other spot there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Go ahead. MR. DIER: Are there any others? What was said? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask you if you'd come up here for one second and just pencil in to us where (in fact I will give you a pen) exactly show is where the house and garage are attached. .Page 5 - Februar~- 5, 1987 !?Public Hearing - _~obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. DIER: If you check in there, it's attached. shows it as an attached building. my C of O' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the ground? Is it above ground or fairly level with MR. DIER: It's about a foot above ground. that was..~ What else was there CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know. MR. DIER: As far as the too much traffic in the area. I don't think two people are going to create too much traffic. Right on our corner we have a town park and right next to that we have a boat yard. A commercial boat yard. So I don't think that two more people in the area is going to make the slightest bit of dif- ference. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much Mr. Dier. there anybody else who would like to speak? Mr. Wagner. Is MR. WAGNER: I'd like to approach the Board and show them the diagram I have of the parking facilities if I may. This was ob- tained from the file that was in the Building office. You can see here the dimensions of the area. Now my point is that the requirements for off street parking clearly require a minimum 10 foot width by 12 foot length for each parking space. Now you can see he only has 16 feet across there. This would not permit two parking spaces of the requirement. We [urther only have 16 feet back here which would not satisfy the length requirement either. Therefore, it's conceivable that cars parked there could actually block access to this garage. You can see that if you had two cars here and three cars here, the congestion in this area is going to be very severe. If there is a fire caused by the accessory apartment or something, firetrucks or other emer- gency vehicles are not going to get down here. I further under- stand that right now, and I'd like to point this out, this apart- ment is a functioning dwelling unit even though it does not have a permit. There are two tenants in there and they have girl- friends living with them and there are already a substantial num- ber of cars being parked there. I think this is a serious problem both for the safety of the people in the apartment and for the ser- vices of the town itself. All the diagrams I have and these were submitted by the applicant, indicate that the buildings are de- tached. I see no indication of any structure between these two buildings. And in fact, I think if I'm not mistaken, the appli- cant has expressed it as that as a detached 3-car garage. I may be incorrect on that° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: at it. Well we'll have the Building Department look MR. WAGNER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Not to make this counter pro- ductive, but is there anything else you'd like to say? ?Page 6 - Februar~ 5, 1987 Public Hearing - _~obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeal s MR. DIER: I've nothing further to say about what he said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very simply expressed Mro Dier was the fact that he did not feel that there was enough room and I apologize for not asking you to come up here. MR. DIER: there. I do want to see. know he brought a diagram up CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He brought the same diagram that's in the file that you pencilled between the dock and the house. He felt that there was not enough area (I assume) in width and square footage to require 6 parking spaces in this particular area and I don't want to get into that tonight. Principally, that's their presentation. We will make our own determination based upon our own parking schedule and what you have given us here and we may ask you to increase it. We may ask you to leave it in the same vein that it's in now. MR. DIER: Well besides what... Thi~is~wha~ is paved. We have times in the summer time when we have company and things like that. We park a lot more people back there than that because we have other places where you can just drive off the pavement but there's plenty of pavement. You simply can probably go over there and see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I was there last Sunday. I had seen it. As I said, I didn't bother you. I didn't come up to the house or whatever the case might be. MR. DIER: Well if you go back there any time, feel free to go back there and check that area. There's plenty of parking spaces there. I didn't hear what else you said. MR. WAGNER: That was the substance. one more observation. The parking. Could I make CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Stay here so you can listen to this sir. MR. WAGNER: It would appear from everything surrounding this application that there's more here that meets the eye. Basical- 1.1y~is what Mro Barth stated. There is a dock of some 250 feet constructed out into the Bay and there is also a pending Bed and Breakfast application brought by Mr. Dier which I understand from talking to Linda, is currently being held in a pending status until this particular application is resolved. I think and the neighbors are very concerned that what We may be seeing here is an attempt the develop of some quaser commercial use. Namely a hotel or a transient use that is totally not befitting this area. It is conceivable that the access proposed is ac- tually from the Board. We may be facing a situation where boats may be pulling up there, spending the night, availing themselves of the Bed and Breakfast. And therefore, some reinteration be- lng exchanged for it. And I think this'kind of commercial opera- tion however it may be characterized though, is just not in keep- ing with the town. · Page 7 - February- q, 1987 Public Hearing - _~obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we're not here to entertain that ap- plication. We will have a separate public hearing for that ap- plication. MR. DIER: May I say something about that dock? That dock is 250 feet long. That's a hell of a long dock. It's 250 feet long because at the end of it you have to go out to the end of it to get to 3½ feet of water. Everything else... The first 40 or 50 feet of it is on bare ground, the beach. Then you go out and wade out. It's Only at the last 30 feet or so that you have room enough for my boat. That's why the dock had to go out that faro Everything else is half a foot, a foot, a foot and a half or you can't even put boats in. I get my boat and it's a 37 foot boat and there's a 3½ foot draft, I had to go out 250 feet for it. Not for the length for the use of the dock but to get out to the water that is suitable for my boat. The dock has been there in various stages of completing for 8 years. The boat has never been there yet. It will come out. It was there once about 7 years ago. It will come back ..... TAPE ENDED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir° Anything else Mr. Wagner? MR. WAGNER: I would just say that what appears to be the ap- proach to this application and also with the dock, is to pro- ceed in the face of the requirements, not obtain'necessary per- mits. The dock itself, as I understand it, permission was or- iginally .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. You can't hear him can you. MR. DIER: It's something about the dock he's saying. to be able to hear. I'd like CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're really bending the rules here because we do have an audience and we really do ask for the mikes to be used for that purpose. MR. WAGNER: Would you like me to go back to the mike? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Go back to the mike. make you come up here again sir. I'm sorry to MR. WAGNER: I don't want to dwell too much on the dock. I j'ust want to point out that the structure of the dock as it is now is not what was approved by the applicant's permit° They have con- crete pilings installed now. It was originally approved for tim- ber and there's an application pending to bring it into conformi- ty. But bringing that up to illustrate that what'we have here is .,.an applicant that flies in the face of regulation. The accessory apartment is on going right now. It's operating without a permit. It's used as an illegal use. No special exception was obtained and I think we should consider that attitude in considering this application. Thank you. ~age 8 - February~, 1987 Public Hearing - ~ 3err and ~elen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you siro Will you answer that? MR. DIER: There's one more about the dock.to get it outed.of the way. Every single thing that~was done on that dock I have a permit for. If at the next hearing you want those permits or any time in between, I will bring those permits, everything for the original wooden dock. The concrete work that was put in later, I have a permit for. Every bit of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you this question since the question was raised by Mr. Wagner. Are you presently rent- int the accessory apartment? MRo DIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how long has it been rented for? MR. DIER: It has been rented for approximately 3 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Thank you very much° MR. DIER: And it may not have been legally rented but the traf- fic certainly didn't bother the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes. Let me just have your name again for the record. See we're taking that down. MR. BARTH: Again about the dock. Mro Dier says he has all the necessary permits. I have a folder about this thick of corre- spondence that you have, that the Board has had, that the trus- tees have had with the Corp of Engineers and theim answer was that Mr. Dier has a permit for an open timber dock. He does not have the permit for what he did with the concrete. That's the answer that we got from the Corp of Engineers and I have it in writing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: again sir. Would you state for the record your name MR. BARTH: My name is Phil Barth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: on the dock. Thank you. This is the last issue though MR. DIER: According to how the dock came to be. Eight years or so ago I got a permit from the Corp of Engineers to build a dock. It took a while to get the permit. All the people in the neighborhood fought like hell to stop me from getting it. Well I got the permit and I built the dock. The dock got taken down by ice. I rebuilt it. It got taken down again.. I started. I made up plans to put concrete around it. I went to the Conser- vation Department and they are the ones who gave me the permit for it. They said you don't have to go to the Corp of Engineers° Page 9 - Februar~ 5, 1987 ?Public Hearing - _.obert and Helen Dier Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. DIER (continued): for this° We can give you a permit for this right here. No public hearing no nothing and they gave me the permit for it. ii didn't do it to escape the Corp of Engineers. I had no rea- son whatsoever to believe that they'd even want to. The Con- servation Department gave me the permit for ito The permit still stands until December 30th of this year. The last day of this year my permit is good. The dock is now finished° Now if somebody came and contacted the Corp of Engineers, the Corp of Engineers contacted me and said that we should have been in on this. You should have gotten a permit from us too. Well ~that's not what the Conservation people told meo So now I'm going through the formality of getting the permit from the Corp of Engineers but there was nothing done whatsoever to .avoid them. They never gave me any trouble. They gave me my original permit and I presumed they would have given me the permit for the concrete. But the Conservation people who had to give me the final permit to build the dock, because if any of you remember any of this, there was a period back there when there was a moratoriumo You couldn't build docks or anything for some 3 or 4 years. When that moratorium ended, it was the Conservation people who gave me the final permit to put the dock in, the original wooden dock. So since that time, even though they have been dealing with, they are the ones who gave me the permits for the concrete and that's all it amounted to. Now the Corp of Engineers want their approval on it also and all the papers are there for them to give their approval after the fact. But I had my permits from the Conservation Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you for the record sir and you have already stated and I'll ask you to say yes again, that you have no intention of using this dock in conjunction with the application that is before us. Is that correct? MR. DIER: Noo That dock has been ou~ there, like I say, for 8 years in various stages. This summer it was out there com- pleted and last summer it was out there completed but except for a couple of pieces of concrete work that had to be done. There has not been one boat come out there to that dock yet except for my little 18 foot clam boat. My big boat hasn't come and no other boat has been near that dock. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any anticipation or any thought of renting this apartment if it is so granted by this~ Board, the premise to operate or use this apartment on a tran- sient basis and use the dock in conjunction with that? MR. DIER: None whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir~ Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion clos- ing the hearing reserving decision until later. We thank you all very much for coming in and have a good evening° Ail in favor - Aye. SQUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF TARTAN OIL CORP. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3596 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of TARTAN OIL CORP. Special Exception to establish partial self-service gas station in conjunction with full-ser- vice gas station approved 6/29/72 under Appl. No. 1584. 32400 CR 48, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the entire piece which appears'to be 194.54 feet on Middle Road and at its greatest depth it's 182.89. I have a copy of the site plan. Byt the way, that was produced by Roderick VanTuyl, The most recent date was February 6, 1985. And I have a copy of the site plan indicating the gas station as it presently has been constructed. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in- dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: I am here on behalf of the applicants, Tartan Oil. The application submitted was written with the requirements set forth in the ordinance in mind as well as the requirements set forth that the Board has to consider in granting the special ex- ception. I think our common experience has been that people are giving up full service and the four men use to come out and wash your windows, clean your headlamps and everything else, to save money. The Hess station in Riverhead is an example of that. The Hess station in Mattituck is an example. The price differential seems to be enough for people to want to forego that service for the break in price. We are presently operating a self-service under a temporary c.o. The equipment is all designed with the state~ofi.~the ~art computerization. So that it is operated with the pay after the fact. And I am here to answer any questions you've got about the self-service portion. The fire suppression system was put in the canopy. I am more here to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who is Tartan Oil Corpora%ion? MR. MOORE: Tallering. Tartan Oil Corporation, the president is Barry The vice president is Alan Leon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have spent several moments in looking at this particular site paln and I have gone past the place and watched the construction of the station as has the Board. I guess the first question to address and the following question is the issue of the self-service pumps. Which ones will be self-service and which ones will not? MR. MOORE: Ok. That site plan I submitted should show that al- though there's so much data on that plan you can't find it. Page 2 - February -, 1987 Public Hearing -'~rtan Oil Corp.. Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's very busy. MR. MOORE: Let me see if I can point out where on that site plan where you can find that information. I specifically had these redone by Mr. Deutschman to show that° It's a little bit easier to point them out. It took me a while to find them too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Both of these will be self-service? MR. MOORE: These two will be self-service. These are more, if you're familiar with the pumps in Riverhead, the 3 types of gas on each side for the customer coming in. In other words, on any one side, only one car can come in and You have to make your selection of the 3 types. So you're talking about 1, 2, 3, 4 on this side. I think that's the present configurations they would like to. see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any~issues concerning sales area or the sale of merchandise or anything of that nature? MR. MOORE: The temporary certificate of occupancy that we have has a series of conditions imposed upon it. One.°. I can list them for you. January 22, 1987 the Building Department issued a temporary certificate of occupancy with conditions. One of the ones that is holding us up is the final coding on pavement. Final approval of a second curb cut by the County got all tangled up. We have approval. We're waiting for Mr. Cass's signature on the form but the form has been prepared. It's just a func- tion of getting a signature on it. The self-service approval was one of the things he had the approval subject to. And the canopy which was just erected which will, and we're still work- ing on that with Mr. Lessard. In fact, I've got the principals here and I'll meet with him later to talk about some of the problems with the County and the lights. Those are the conditions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no problem with the food or the sales of whatever occurs out of the sales area. MR. MOORE: No. We do. The site plan approval was conditioned upon a list of items that were going to be sold. I have not had any objections from the letter that I wrote the Planning Board indicating the types of things we're going to sell. It's my knoWledge that they've not responded with objections to what we're going right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nor does Mr. Lessard at this particular time have any problem with it. Is that correct? I had 2 other questions and one of which is a statement of a request. The first one I'll deal with is; in the self-service pump, you could force the nozzle to stay open, could you not, with Some sort of device be it anything from a piece of cardboard to a piece of rubber I suppose? ~age 3 - February 5, 1987 Public Hearing - KTAN OiL CORP. Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MOORE: Not as an operator. I would imagine if the handle was touched, I presume it's a trigger handle with a guard on it. MR. TALLERING: There are little (What should I say?) like a lever which has been removed for the self-service portion. That was the lever with which, if you did stick i%, it continues to flow gasoline. That has been removed for the self-service and there's an automatic shut off in the nozzle. As soon as it feels moisture, ~it automatically stops ito So that's for safety. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So virtually the only way you could dis- pense fuel would be if someone wanted to personally dispense it on the ground~ Hold it outside of the... MR. TALLERING: Right° If you took it outside of the car and poured it on the ground you could. But if it was in there, as soon as it gets wet, it automatically shuts off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I thank you. The other question I have is not specifically the basis of this application but it's a sense of esthetics so to speak. And-that is that it appears tha5 there is a termendous amount of lighting in this particular station. And I was wondering if there was any possibility of shutting half of the lights off during certain periods of the night. This is not specifically the nature of this application. However, it is a personal request by certain members of the Board if not'the public and we'll see what they have to say and I'm not specifically talking about the sign that's on the road. I'm re- ferring to the signs that's underneath the canopy, the lights, the flourescent lights or whatever those lights are underneath the canopy. It is rather bright and I've gone by it on a foggy night° I've gone by it on a rainy night. I've gone by it on a snowy night'and it's still bright. MR. MOORE: I can adjust that. As you accurately pointed that out, that's not the subject of the hearing. In fact'~ I insisted that this Charlie, that Mr. Leon and Mr. Tallering come out this evening because there had been a number of complaints about the lighting and they brought their catalogues and we're going to sit and meet with Mr. Lessard in a couple of moments if he's got a moment, to try to remedy the problem. There are problems that hold 3 large lamps that run the perimeter. Just this week, the canopy went up. It had not been there prior to this week, We got hung up with snow. That's up. So we're going to be addressing those problems with Mr. Lessard and it's going to have to be to his satisfication because he's the one who is sitting there taking a lot of the phone calls as I'm sure everybody else is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I specifically did this tonight. We oc- casionally and if not for every meeting, turn a portion of the lights off in this meeting hall and do that specifically for 2 reasons. One; for the public and one for ourselves. Presently this light that's out and above me right here is causing a prob- lem tonight and I did it specifically just to show you that it is kind of bright in here and it's one of the problems that the Board has with addressing any issue concerning this particular facility and I hope you do address it because it is a problem. Page 4 - ~ebruary ~, 1987 Public Hearing - £tan Oil Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. TALLERING: We most certainly willo Mr~ Lessard has kept on me very wello CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you Mr. Moore. We'll see what de- velops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Anybody like to say anything? Any questions from any Board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving de- cision until later. We thank you very much. Ail in favor - Aye.