HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/08/1987Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE RriAD 25 E~nUTHnLD, L.I., N.Y. llC:J?l
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8,
1 987
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 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 Adminis-
trator; Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 25
persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting
(increasing to 60 towards the latter hearings).
Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting and proceeded with
the first matter on the agenda, as follows. (The verbatim trans-
cripts for all of the hearing have been prepared under separate
cover and filed with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference.)
7:35 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the
Matter of Appeal No. 3587 - ROBERT AND EILEEN M.
JOHNSON. Addition with insufficient setback from
ti~ water area at 430 Corey Creek Road, Southold.
Mr. Robert Johnson spoke in behalf of the
applicants. Following the hearing, an unanimous
vote was taken to conclude the hearing, pending
deliberations at a later time.
7:40 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the
Matter of Appeal No. 3594 - ANNE C. MASON. Deck
addition to dwelling with insufficient setback
from tidal water area at 1250 Lupton Point,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings, continued:) - See verbatim transcripts under separate
cover:
Mattituck. Mr. Bob Koch spoke in behalf of the
applicants. No objections from the public were
submitted during the hearing. Following discussion,
the board unanimously concluded the hearing, pending
deliberations at a later time.
7:45 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of Appeal No. 3585 ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS.
Special Exception for "Bed and Breakfast" estab-
lishment in existing dwelling at 2500 Peconic Lane,
Peconic. Mrs. Combs spoke in behalf of her applica-
tion. No objections from the public were submitted
during the hearing. Following discussion, the board
unanimously concluded the hearing, pending delibera-
tions at a later time.
7:51 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of Appeal No. 3588 - MARY J. MOONEY-GETOFF. Special
Exception for "Bed and Breakfast" establishment in
existing dwelling at 1475 Waterview Drive, Southold.
Mrs. Get-off spoke in behalf of her application.
Opposition was received. Following discussions,
the board unanimously concluded the hearing, pending
deliberations at a later time.
8:08 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of Appeal No. 3591 - PAUL STOUTENBURGH, JR. Accessory
windmill tower in excess of 18 ft. height require-
ment at 4015 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Mr. Stoutenburgh
spoke in behalf of his application. No opposition
was received during the hearing. Following discussion,
the board unanimously concluded the hearing, pending
deliberations at a later time.
8:15 p.m,
Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKQ. Shopping-center use
on 30,084 sq. ft. parcel zoned "B-I." Intersection
of Main Road and west side of Ackerly Pond Lane,
Southold. Stephen R. Angel, Esq. gave a brief
update on the applicant's proposal and reiterating
his letter to the Z.B.A. received 1/7/87 limiting
the use to "professional offices and business
offices" of the existing structure. No additional
public opposition was received at this time. Follow-
ing discussion, the board unanimously concluded the
hearing, pending deliberations at a later time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings, continued:)
cover:
See verbatim transcripts under separate
8:20 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3583 FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK. Garage
addition with: (1) insufficient southerly and total
side yards; (2) insufficient setback from bulkhead
along Arshamomaque Pond at 90 Carole Road, Southold.
Mrs. Patricia C. Moore from the Law Offices of
Rudolph H. Bruer appeared in behalf of the applicants.
No public opposition was received during the hearing.
Following discussion, the board unanimously concluded
the hearing, pending deliberations at a later time.
8:42 p.m.
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of Appeal No. 3461 HELMUT HASS. (1) Insufficient
lot area and lot width, (2) establishing existing
residential use as principal use of proposed southerly
parcel; (3) for approval of insufficient livable-
floor area in existing dwelling of proposed northerly
parcel. "B-I" Zone. 35350 CR 48, Peconic. Samuel J.
Glickman, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant.
No public opposition was received during the hearing.
Following discussion, the board unanimously concluded
the hearing, pending deliberations at a later time.
8:46 p.m. Temporary recess. Unanimous vote.
8:55 p.m. Reconvened Meeting. Unanimous vote.
8:55 p.m.
Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of
Special Exception Application No. 3572 - MICHAEL
AND JOYCE MATTES. "Bed and Breakfast" establish-
ment in existing dwelling at the Intersection of
Breakwater and Mill Roads, Mattituck. Barbara L.
Coughlan, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicants.
Opponents also gave additional statements for the
record. Following testimony, the board unanimously
concluded the hearing, pending deliberations at a
later time.
with
9:17 p.m.
The last hearing concluded
the agenda, as follows:
Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of Special Exception Application No. 3584 DONALD
AND JOANNE RITTER for establishment of two-family
use at 2585 Peconic Lane, Peconic. J. Kevin
McLaughlin, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicants.
No public opposition was received during the hearing.
Following discussion, the board unanimously concluded
the hearing, pending deliberations at a later time.
at 9:30 p.m. The board proceeded
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3579:
Application of CHARLES AND SANDRA BLAKE for a Variance for Approval
of Access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, from the east
side of South Harbor Lane along Old Woods Path (Private Road No. 10),
to premises known and referred to as 695 Old Woods Path, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-1-23.7.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on December ll, 1986
in the Matter of the Application of CHARLES AND SANDRA BLAKE, Appeal No.
3579; 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. This is an application for a Variance pursuant to the
Provisions of New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of
access over a private right-of-way referred to as "Old Woods
Path," or Private Road No. 10, which extends from the east side
of South Harbor Road, Southold, in an easterly/southeasterly
direction 600 feet, and thence 242.85 feet to the existing
driveway.
2. The premises to which appellants are requesting access
to contains an area of 4.282 acres, improved with a single-family
2-½ story frame dwelling, as more particularly shown on survey
amended June 3, 1985, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., and
garage structure accessory and incidental to the residential
use of the premises, for storage and garage purposes only.
3. For the record, it is noted that the right-of-way was
improved in accordance with the conditions of Appeal No. 3432
(J. Holzapfel) rendered April 3, 1986, for the portion extend-
ing from the east side of South Harbor Road to the Holzapfel
Southold Town Board o, Appeals -5- January 8, 1~67 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3579 BLAKE decision, continued:)
premises (1000-87-1-23.8), and conditionally accepted
resolution of July 17, 1986.
by
4. It is the opinion of the board that the remaining
242.85 feet leading to the beginning of the Blake driveway is
in need of minor improvements, as noted below.
5. It is also noted that this 280-a conditional approval
is not to be recognized as approval of access for any other
lots which may be subject to 280-a updated approval in the
future, or any future set-off divisions or subdivisions, unless
so recommended in writing by the Building Inspector and filed
with the Office of the Board of Appeals.
6. Under Building Permit #13481 issued October 19, 1984,
new construction has been finalized and is pending issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and 280-a action.
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a)
the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the
requirements; (b) there will be no substantial change in
the character of this district; (c) the relief as condi-
tionally noted below will not cause a substantial effect or
detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circumstances of
this appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible
for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (e) in view
of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of
justice will be served by allowing the variance, as condi-
tionally noted.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that relief be and hereby is GRANTED in the
Matter of the Application of CHARLES AND SANDRA BLAKE for
approval of access as required by New York Town Law, Section
280-a, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That there be a minimum open and unobstructed access
width of 12 feet to be paved with two inches [2"] of compacted
stone blend, and potholes filled, for the additional 242.85
feet (from a point approximately 590 ft. from South Narbor
Road to the existing open driveway area of the Blake parcel).
2. That the entire right-of-way
tained in good condition at all times
Road to the driveway area, supra).
be continuously main-
(from South Harbor
3. That acceptance of the improvements as conditioned
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3579 - BLAKE decision, continued:)
above be submitted in writing to the Office of the Board of
Appeals.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member
resolution was duly adopted.
Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Grigonis abstained.) This
PENDING DECISION: Appl. No. 3570-SE:
Application of PAUL HENRY for a Special Exception to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] for permission to estab-
lish "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: 236 (68555 C.R. 48) North Road,
at intersection with McCann Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map
District lO00, Section 033, Block 05, Lot 13.1.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November
1986 in the Matter of the Application of PAUL HENRY, Application
No. 3570; and
20,
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
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 single-family dwelling.
_ 2. The premises in question is a 2.7±-acre parcel located at
the north side of Middle Road (C.R. 48) and the east side of McCann
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appl. No. 3570-SE HENRY decision, continued:)
Lane at Greenport, Town of Southold, and
identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
33, Block 5, Lot 13.1.
is more particularly
as District 1000, Section
3. The subject premises is improved with the following
structures as more particularly shown by survey prepared July 31,
1985 for Irwin and Tamara Wieder by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C: (a)
single-family, one-story and 1½-story frame dwelling; (b) one-
story frame building containing two-dwelling units. [See building
permit #12410 issued 7/8/83 for conversion of barn to two-dwelling
units and prior Z.B.A. Appeal No. 2098 rendered 2/5/76.]
4. The subject premises is located in the "A-80" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District. For the record it is noted that
the applicant purchased the subject premises in November 1985,
and a Certificate of Nonconforming Premises No. Zl1769 was issued
July 8, 1983 by the Building Department to William A. Jacobs
(prior owner).
5. On July l, 1986, Local Law No. 5-1986 "Bed and Breakfast
Use" was adopted by the Southold Town Board.
6. The existing
the applicant for the
Breakfast and present
circumstances.
"stone" driveway area has been depicted by
area proposed for parking by the Bed and
uses which appears sufficient under the
7. It is the position of this Board that it is the intent
of Local Law No. 5-1986 to permit a "Bed and Breakfast" use in
a zoning district which conforms to the regulations proscribed
for that zoning district.
8. The subject premises received a variance allowing a
third nonconforming dwelling unit during 1976. In May 1983,
the minimum lot area requirement was increased from 40,000 sq.
ft. to 80,000 sq. ft. The premises contains a total area
of 2.7+-acre, or 117,600± sq. ft., and is occupied by three
dwelling units. A two-family status by Special Exception
approval requires a minimum of 160,000 sq. ft. of lot area.
The uses of the subject premises do not conform to the
requirements for this zoning district. The granting of
the Bed-and-Breakfast Use would create an over-intensifi-
cation of uses for this parcel, which would be injurious
to the neighborhood or community plan. The present three-
dwelling use status of this property appears to be the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3570-SE HENRY, decision, continued:)
highest and best use of the property, and it is the under-
standing of the Board that the "Bed and Breakfast" use is
being requested in addition to the present nonconforming
uses of the premises.
9. The Board members have also considered subsections
[a] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the
Zoning Code in making this determination.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to DENY the Special Exception applied under
Application No. 3570 in the Matter of PAUL HENRY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
adopted.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was unanimously
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3574:
Application of DR. JOHN LORETO for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32, and Article XI, Section 100-119.2
for permission to construct storage building with an insufficient setback
from bluff along Long Island Sound for storage purposes accessory and
incidental to the existing dwelling adjacent to these premises. Location
of Properties: Lots #3 and #2, Map of Vista Bluff #5060; North Side of
Glen Court, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 83,
Block 1, Lots 9 and 8.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November 20,
1986 in the Matter of the Application of DR. JOHN LORETO under Appeal
No. 3574; 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
Southold Town Board ot Appeals -9-January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3574 - LORETO decision, continued:)
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. This is an application for Variances from the Provisions
of the Zoning Code as follows: (a) Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B)
to construct with an insufficient setback at 30 feet from the edge
along the top of bluff along the Long Island Sound, (b) Article
III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32 to construct for use as storage
incidental and accessory to the existing dwelling adjacent to the
west of this parcel. The construction proposed is a 10' by 14'
wood-design storage shed.
2. The premises in question is a substandard parcel known
and referred to as Lot No. 3, Map of "Vista Bluff" filed March 15,
1968, at Cutchogue, and is shown according to Building-Department
and Assessors records as vacant land. Applicant has depicted a
gazebo structure on this property situate approximately 15 feet
from the easterly property line of Subdivision Lot No. 2 (the
applicant's dwelling parcel), although town records show that
a building permit and certificate of occupancy was issued under
Permit #11239 and CO #13326 during 1981 for a gazebo on the
dwelling parcel a minimum of three feet west of the easterly
property line.
3. The premises upon which the requested 10' by 14' accessory
shed is to be located contains a lot area of approximately 25,000
sq. ft. and lot width of lO0 feet. The buildable area (as shown
by the sketched survey prepared December 20, 1977 by Frank H.
Atkinson, L.S.) is a size of approximately 100 feet wide by 120
feet deep [to the top of bluff], or 12,000+ sq. ft. It is
the position of the Board to locate the shed a distance 40
feet from the top of bluff and approximately 70 feet from the
front property line along Glen Court. This location would
allow for proper placement of a new dwelling in the future
in accordance with the required setbacks of the zoning code
(without additional relief).
4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph A[1] requires
all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to the Long Island Sound
to be set back not less than one-hundred (100) feet from the top
of the bluff, or bank. The board finds that compliance with this
lO0-ft, setback restriction would be placing same in the front
yard very close to the road (front) property line.
In considering this appeal, the board also finds and
Southold T6wn Board o Appeals -lO~anuary 8, 198, ,<egular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3574 - LORETO decision, continued:)
determines: (a) although the percentage of relief requested
is substantial in relation to the requirements, the difficulty
cannot be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to
pursue, other than a variance; (b) the placement of the
10' by 14' accessory storage building at a point not closer
than 40 feet to the top of the bluff and a distance of 70±
feet from the front property line is not unreasonable and will
not be detrimental to adjoining properties, or change the
character of the district; (c) the circumstances of the
property are unique; (d) the practical difficulties are suffi-
cient to warrant a conditional granting of this application;
(e) that in consideration of 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 GRANT a Variance to locate a 10' by 14'
accessory storage s~-~--upon Subdivision Lot No. 3 applied
under Appeal No. 3574 in the Matter of the Application of
JOHN A. LORETO, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Accessory shed not exceed 10' by 14' in size;
2. Accessory shed not be closer than 40 feet to the top
of bluff and not be closer than 10 feet from the west (side)
property line;
3. Accessory shed shall be used only for storage purposes
accessory and incidental to the residential use of the adjacent
parcel, also owned by the applicant herein (Lot No. 2), or
accessory and incidental to the future residential use of this
parcel (Lot No. 3);
4. Any dwelling proposed in the future upon this parcel
(Subdivision Lot No. 3) must conform to the front, side and
rear yard setback requirements of the zoning code.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3557 As Amended:
Application of ROBERT G. EGAN to amend Conditional Approval
Rendered 11/3/86 under Appeal No. 3557 to allow reconstruction of
dwelling with insufficient setbacks upon foundation as exists at
5 and 12 feet, rather than 7 and 12 feet, at 330 Knoll Circle,
East Marion, NY; "Map of Section Two, Gardiners Bay Estates,"
Subdivision Lots 27 and part of 28; County Tax Map District 1000,
Section 37, Block 5, Lot 12.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a conditional approval was granted by this Board under
Appeal No. 3557 on November 3, t986 as noted therein; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested reconsideration of
Condition No. 1 which restricted the westerly sideyard setback
at seven feet; and
WHEREAS, a resolution was adopted by this Board on November
1986 by unanimous vote of all the members to re-open the hearing
to re-consider the variance requested under Article III, Section
100-31 as to the westerly sideyard setback reduction; and
20,
WHEREAS, notice was published and posted as required by law
on this public hearing, which was held on December 11, 1986; 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, a
Condition No. 1 of this Board's
1986 which reads as follows:
Variance is requested from
decision rendered November
"...Minimum setback from the west (side) property
line at seven feet..."
2. Applicant proposes to reconstruct new dwelling upon
Southold Town Board o, Appeals-12-January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3557 EGAN decision, continued:)
existing foundation, rather than new foundation, which presently
is set back five feet at its nearest point from the northwest
property line (at the northwest corner) and 12 feet at its near-
est point from the southwest property line (at the northeast
corner), as more particularly shown on Drawing SP-1 dated
September 5, 1986, prepared by Garrett A. Strang, Architect.
3. The premises in question is a substandard parcel con-
taining a total area of 7,511± sq. ft. with 56 ft. frontage
along the west side of Knoll Circle and widening to 69± feet
in width along the bulkhead area.
4. The subject premises is located in the Hamlet of East
Marion and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as
District 1000, Section 37, Block 5, Lot 12 (also referred to
as Lot 27 and part of 28, Map of Section Two, Gardiners Bay
Estates filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office September 23,
1927 as Map #275). This parcel is improved with a single-family
one-story frame dwelling structure set back five feet (at the
closest point) and 7± feet (at the farthest point) from the
west side property line, 28 feet (at the closest point) and
40 feet (at the farthest point) from the front property line
along Knoll Circle, and 40± feet from the outer edge of exist-
ing concrete bulkhead, as depicted on survey prepared October 6,
1958 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
5. It is noted for the record that the Variances granted
by this Board on November 3, 1986 included:
(a) Minimum setback from the east side property
line at 12 feet [as established by existing foundation];
(b) Minimum total sideyards at 12 and 7 feet;
(c) Minimum frontyard setback not closer than 28 feet
from the closest point;
(d) Minimum setback from existing concrete bulkhead
along Spring Pond at 35 feet for the newly proposed deck addi-
tion [at the closest point], and 38 feet for the newly
proposed two-foot cantilever.
In considering this application, the board also finds and
determines: (a) that the variance requested is substantial in
relation to the requirements, being a variance of 50% of the
required 10-foot sideyard setback and a variance of 32% of
the required total 25-foot sideyards; (b) there will be no
increase in population density and this project will not
produce an undue burden on available governmental facilities;
Southold Town Board o~ Appeals-13-January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3557 - EGAN decision, continued:)
(c) the grant of this variance will not produce a substantial
change in the character of the neighborhood or create a sub-
stantial detriment to adjoining properties since the setbacks
are established with the existing foundation structure; (d)
the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible for
appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) the circum-
stances of the property are unique; (f) the practical
difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a granting
of this variance; (g) that in consideration of all the above
factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing
a variance, as conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the proposed recon-
struction of the single-family dwelling upon existing
foundation in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT EGAN
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The reconstruction of the dwelling, including cornices,
overhangs, steps, etc., shall be not closer than five feet from
the west side property line and not closer than 12 feet from
the east side property line (at the closest points as estab-
lished and shown on survey dated October 6, 1958 prepared by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
2. If foundation is reconstructed, setbacks from the side
property lines shall not be closer than seven feet from the
west side and 12 feet from the east side (including cornices,
overhangs, steps, etc.) at the nearest points at the north
corners.
3. This approval shall be an amendment to the prior
Decision rendered November 3, 1986, and Condition No. 1 thereof,
and incorporates Conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 herein.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis abstained due to his
absence at the public hearing [illness].) This resolution
was adopted with a majority plus one votes (4) of the five
members present.
Southold Town Board of Appeals-14-January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3580:
Application of NICHOLAS BABALIS for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct
new dwelling with insufficient northerly side yard and insufficient
total sideyards at 3360 Rocky Point Road, East Marion, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-04-09.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on December
1986 in the Matter of the Application of NICHOLAS BABALIS under
Appeal No. 3580; and
ll,
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from
the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of
the Zoning Code, for permission to construct new single-family
dwelling structure with insufficient: (a) northerly sideyard at
11 feet and southerly sideyard at lO feet; (b) total sideyards
at 21 feet.
2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land
located along the east side of Rocky Point Road, Hamlet of East
Marion, Township of Southold, New York, having a total lot area
of 12,629 sq. ft., frontage along Rocky Point Road of 68 feet,
and lot depth of 211± feet.
3. The subject premises is located in the "A" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District and is presently vacant.
4. Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning
Code requires minimum sideyards at 15 and 10, and a minimum
total of 25 feet. The amount of relief requested is four feet,
or 26% of a variance from the requirements.
5. It is the opinion of the board that the percentages of
Southold Town Board o7 Appeals -15- January 8, 1~87 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3580 - BABALIS decision, continued:)
relief requested is not substantial in relation to the require-
ment, and that the width of the lot, from 68 feet along Rocky
Point Road to 52 feet along the rear property line, lends to
the uniqueness and practical difficulties imposed.
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 the property are
unique; (c) the relief requested is not substantial in realtion
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, convenience
or order of the town; (e) there will be no increase in popula-
tion density and this project will not produce an undue burden
on available governmental facilities; (f) in consideration of
all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served
by allowing the variance, as further noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT Variances as applied in the Matter of
the Application of NICHOLAS BABALIS under Appeal No. 3580, for
the location of a new single-family with insufficient setbacks
at ll feet from the north side property line and 10
feet from the south side property line, for total sideyards
at 21 feet.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis abstained from vote due
to absence at the public hearing.) This resolution was duly
adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16-January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3216:
Application of EUGENE DAVISON for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A)[1] for permission to establish
dwelling unit upon 9.8±-acre parcel over existing horse stable.
Location of Property: South Side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY;
Lot #4, Minor Subdivision of Strawberry Fields, which received
Sketch Plan approval July 8, 1985 by the Town Planning Board; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-121-3-5 (containing 12.6± acres).
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Decem-
ber ll, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of EUGENE DAVISON
under Appeal No. 3216; 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. This is an appeal from a Notice of Disapproval from
the Building Inspector dated November 10, 1986, under Article III,
Section lO0-30(A). Appellant requests permission to build living
quarters for one-family unit at the east section of the second
floor of an existing horse stable structure.
2. The subject premises contains a total area of 12.6372
acres, which has received a four-lot minor subdivision sketch
map approval by the Planning Board as more particularly shown
by map surveyed by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., amended January 7,
1986. The second-floor apartment under consideration is
proposed on the 9.8-acre parcel referred to as Lot No. 4.
The subject premises is located in the "A-80" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District.
3. For the record it is noted that Article III, Section
100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum
habitable area of 850 sq. ft., and appellant proposes 1,020±
sq. ft. of living area.
Southold Town Board of Appeals~lT- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3216 DAVISON decision, continued:)
4. The premises has been and is used for the keeping,
breeding, raising and training of horses, domestic animals
and/or fowl, as regulated by Subsection (b) of Section
lO0-30(A)[1] of the Zoning Code. It is the understanding
of this Board and the Building Inspector that a variance
is requested for this single-family apartment over the
stable in addition to the present use occupying this 9.80
acre parcel. A conditional variance was approved by this
Board on June 13, 1985 under Appeal No. 3254 for the 9.8-
acre parcel as noted therein.
5. It was also noted that an application for the
"proposed house" as shown on the January 7, 1986 survey
has not been submitted to the Building Inspector for his
determination and has not been included in the Notice of
Disapproval rendered November 10, 1986.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and deter-
mines: (a) the relief requested will not be adverse to the
safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of
the town; (b) there will be no substantial increase in
population density and this project will not produce an
undue burden on available governmental facilities; (c) the
circumstances of the property are unique; (d) the difficulty
cannot be obviated by a method feasible for appellant to
pursue other than a variance; (e) that in consideration
of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the establishment of
a single-family dwelling unit at the east end of the second
floor of the existing horse stable structure applied under
Appeal No. 3216 in the Application of EUGENE DAVISON, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That this dwelling unit not exceed 1,O00 sq. ft. in
livable floor area;
2. The grant of this variance is limited to this single-
family dwelling unit (apartment) at the east end of the second
floor of the existing horse stable structure as applied.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis abstained due to
absence at the public hearing.) This resolution was duly
adopted with a majority plus one vote of the five members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18-January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3577:
Application of FRANK AND DELORES DAVIES for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to
replace accessory shed in the north sideyard area at 2285 Pine Tree
Road, Cutohogue, NY; Lot #15, Map of Nassau Farms filed March 28,
1935; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-3-2.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Decem-
ber ll, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of FRANK AND DELORES
DAVIES under Appeal No. 3577; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from
the Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-32 for permission to construct an accessory shed structure
at a distance of 2.4 feet from the south (side) property line
in the sideyard area as more particularly shown on survey
dated June 23, 1986 prepared by Peconic Surveyors & Engineers,
P.C.
2. The premises in question is referred to as Lot #15, Map
of Nassau Farms filed March 28, 1935, and is located along the
east side of Pine Tree Road at Peconic. The Suffolk County
Tax Map Designation is District 1000, Section 104, Block 3,
Lot 2.
3. The subject premises contains an area of approximately
19,200 sq. ft., lot width of 67.88 feet, and is improved with
an existing 1-story, single-family framed dwelling set back
approximately 77 feet from the mean high water mark along Little
Creek (at the closest point, exclusive of steps).
4. For the record, it is noted that on August 26, 1974, a
Southold Town Board oi appeals -19- January 8, lsm7 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 3577 DAVIES decision, continued:)
Building Permit was issued under #7500-Z for an accessory build-
ing, in the rear yard (in line with the rear of the existing
dwelling at that time). Subsequently, the rear of the dwelling
was extended, which placed the accessory building in the side-
yard. Appellant proposes to construct a replacement storage
shed in this same location.
5. It is the opinion of the board that the relief
requested is minimal, and to locate the accessory building
in the required rear yard will require an additional variance
under Article XI, Section 100-119.2.
In considering this appeal, the board also finds and
determines: (a) that the project proposed is not out of
character with the neighborhood; (b) the relief requested
is not substantial; (c) the circumstances of the property
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
appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) there will
be no substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (g)
in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and 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. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the location of an accessory storage
shed in the sideyard area in the Matter of Appeal No. 3577, by
FRANK AND DELORES DAVIES, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Minimum three-foot sideyard from the south side
property line;
2. Not to exceed a size of lO~ by 12';
3. This shed structure be used onlY for storage or garage
purposes accessory and incidental to the residential use of the
premises and not to be operated for gain, living or sleeping
quarters.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis abstained due to absence
at the public hearing~) This resolution was adopted with a
majority plus one votes of the five board members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-20- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3578:
Application of ARTHUR ESSLINGER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate accessory
storage shed within 75 feet of existing bulkhead and wetlands area at
1515 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY; Lot No. 21, Map of Beixedon
Estates; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-66-3-11.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on December ll,
1986 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR ESSLINGER under Appeal
No. 3578; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from
the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) to construct
an 8' by 10' accessory storage building a distance not closer
than 25 feet from the existing bulkhead along Petty's Pond and
not closer than three feet from the south (side) property line.
2. The premises in question is located along the north
(east) side of Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, referred to as
Lot #21 on the Map of Beixedon Estates, and is designated on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 66, Block
3, Lot ll.
The subject premises is improved with a one-story,
one-family 40' by 24' dwelling structure.
4. It is noted for the record that a Waiver has been issued
by the Southold Board of Town Trustees dated November 28, 1986
for this proposed construction not closer than 25 feet from
the existing bulkhead.
5. It is also noted that the sloping of the property
restricts the area for a feasible placement of the building,
and the Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant.
Southold Town
Board of Appeals
-21- January 8,
1987 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 3578 - ESSLINGER decision, continued:)
In considering this application, the board also finds and
determines: (a) that the variance requested is substantial in
relation to the requirements, being a variance of 66%, except
however that the accessory shed is landward of an existing
structure; (b) there will be no increase in population density
and this project will not produce an undue burden on available
governmental facilities; (c) the grant of this variance will
not produce a substantial change in the character of the
neighborhood or create a substantial detriment to adjoining
properties since similar setbacks have been established in the
neighborhood; (d) the difficulty cannot be obviated by a
method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance;
(e) the circumstances of the property are unique; (f) the
practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a
granting of the variance; (g) that in consideration of 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. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the proposed construction
of an 8' by 10' storage shed in the rearyard area with an
insufficient setback from bulkhead at not closer than 25 feet,
as applied in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR ESSLINGER,
Appeal No. 3578, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The 8' by 10' structure be used solely for storage or
garage purposes, accessory and incidental to the residential
use of the premises and not to be operated at any time in the
future for gain;
2. The structure be not closer than 25 feet to the existing
bulkhead, as requested;
3. The structure be not closer than five feet to the side
property line;
4. The structure not exceed one-story height.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Sawicki, and Doyen. (Member Grigonis abstained due to absence
at the hearing on 12/11/86.) This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22-
January
8, 1987 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3519:
Application of STEVEN P. SANDERS & ANO. for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insuffi-
cient lot area, width and setbacks in this pending set-off division
of land. Location of Property: Private Right-of-way located off the
north side of Bay View Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District
lO00, Section 106, Block 06, Lot 36.
Chairman Goehringer left the room and abstained from discussions.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November
1986 in the Matter of the Application of STE VEN P. SANDERS & ANO.
under Appeal No. 3519; and
20,
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 east side
of Bay View Avenue, Mattituck, having a total area of 66,600± sq.
ft. in area (inclusive of "beach" areas and right-of-way), and is
identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000,
Section 106, Block 06, Lot 36.
2. By this application, appellants request an area variance
for proposed Lots #1 of 27,000 sq. ft. and #2 of 39,600 sq. ft.
(36,000 sq. ft. plus 3600± sq. ft. "beach" area), as shown on
Sketch Plan Map amended April 30, 1986, prepared by Roderick Van-
Tuyl, P.C.
3. Existing upon the premises are two one-story, single-family
dwellings with patios. It is noted that Certificate of Occupancy
#Z-14091 has been issued dated December 13, 1985 indicating the
preexistence of the nonconforming lot area, second dwelling, and
insufficient sideyard setback.
Southold Town
Board of Appeals -23-
January 8, 1987
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3519 - SANDERS & SCHWARTZ, decision, continued:)
4. In viewing the character of the neighborhood, it is found
that five of the eight immediate lots surrounding this property
are smaller, having an area of less than one-half acre. The
remaining three immediate lots contain an area of approximately
43,000 to 30,000 sq. ft.
5. It is the understanding of the board that the well and
sanitary systems servicing the two residences have been in exist-
ence and use since prior to April 1957, (see Affidavits of
Steven P. Sanders dated October 14, 1986 and Dorothy Z. Byrne
dated November 20, 1985).
6. It is the position of the board that the improvements
have existed since prior to the enactment of zoning (1957), and
therefore will not create an increase in the density of the
residential nature of the property.
In considering this appeal, the board also finds and
determines: (a) the relief requested is substantial in rela-
tion to the requirements, at percentages of more than 30%;
(b) the nonconformity of the property is unique; (c) the
relief requested is the minimal necessary under the circum-
stances, and there is no other method, feasible for appellants
to pursue, other than a variance; (d) there will be no sub-
stantial change in the character of the area since each lot
as proposed is improved with a single-family dwelling with
separate well and sewage systems; (e) the variance will not
in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort,
convenience or order of the town; (f) there will be no
increase in population density since each lot will contain
an existing dwelling; (g) in consideration of all the above
factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing
the variance.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the insufficient area of proposed
Lot No. 1 of 29,000 sq. ft. and Lot No. 2 of 39,600 sq. ft.,
(inclusive of "beach" area), and insufficient width and depth,
as more particularly depicted by Sketch Map prepared by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. amended April 30, 1986, for STEVEN P.
SANDERS AND ALBERT SCHWARTZ.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Goehringer abstained.) This
resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Douglass, it was
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held
Thursday, December ll, 1986.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer,
Sawicki and Doyen. (Member Grigonis abstained due
[hospitalization] at the 12/11/86 Meeting.)
Douglass,
to absence
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
the following areas:
The board members discussed
P. 15 Farm Labor Camps. Reviews are required by both
Z.B.A. and Planning Board. No change.
P. 19
100-32A - Provision for lots under 40,000 sq. ft.
to be exempt from A-80 requirement if on Subdivision
Maps approved by the Planning Board prior to 1971.
(Involves approximately 60 major subdivisions).
P. 38
100-80C(2) LB, HB, RR. GROUND SIGNS. No provision
has been provided for Ground Signs for existing
established setbacks at 25 ft. or less. (Majority
of business properties have established nonconforming
setbacks.)
P. 97 SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCEDURES. 100-262.
changes in this area as follows:
ZBA urges
P. 82
P. 82
(A) Insert Board of Appeals instead of Building
Inspector. (Forms and review of application
to ZBA, and processing must remain with the
Board of Appeals. changes in our present
procedure which has been most efficient and
effective since 1957 would create delays,
errors, and confusion as well as additional
responsibilities on the Building Inspector,
re-routing, etc.)
(B) Delete 45-day time limit from date of receipt.
100-232. CORNER LOTS. Repeat from 100-119.
100-23~. FENCES, WALL, HEDGES, ETC. Repeat from 100-119.1
(continued on page 25)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Master Plan Review, continued:)
P. 55.
Bulk Schedule. Current Zoning Code allows reduction
for lots containing less than 40,000 sq. ft. in
frontyard, sideyard, total sideyards, and rearyard
setbacks. Request "Column A" of present zoning Bulk
Schedule be retained, as exists:
Front yard 35 ft.
One Side Yard l0 ft.
Both Side Yards 25 ft.
Rear yard 35 ft.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the above recommended changes be transmitted
by the Chairman to the Town Board on or before the scheduled
public hearings of the Master Plan Amendments Proposal.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS (SEQRA):
After review of each of the following matters, the board took
the following action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental
on each of the following new files in accordance with
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617,
and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold:
Declarations
the N.Y.S.
6 NYCRR
(a) Appeal No
(b) Appeal No
(c) Applic. No
(d) Applic. No
(e) Appeal No
(f) Appeal No
(g) Appeal No
(h) Applic. No
· 3587 Robert and Eileen M. Johnson;
3594 Anne C. Mason;
3585 Alvin and Patricia Combs;
3588 Mary J. Mooney-Getoff;
3591 Paul Stoutenburgh, Jr.;
3583 Frederick and Helen Hribok;
3461 Helmut Hass;
3584 Donald and Joanne Ritter;
(continued on pages 26 through 3 )
Bouthold Town Board o~ Appeals -26- Januar,~8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3587
PROJECT NAME: ROBERT AND EILEEN M. JOHNSON
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 determinations'made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similhr
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Additio~ with insufficient setback'from
tidal water area.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 430 Corey Creek Road, Southold, NY 87-05-03
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 propsed is alndward of existing structures.
(3) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided
in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR.
Southold Town Board ~ APpeals -27- Janu. ~y 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
(b)
$.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3594
PROJECT NAME: ANNE C. MASON
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: Deck addition to dwelling with
setback from tidal water area.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1250 Lupton Point, Mattitu~k, AY 115-11-12
[ ]
insufficient
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 Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR.
Southold Town Board c~ ~ppeals -28- Jan~ y 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
(c)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3585 SE
PROJECT NAME: ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination.'made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similhr
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [. ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special'Exception for "Bed and Breakfast"
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 2500 Peconic Lane, PeconicL NY 74-03-24.2
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not di~e~a~ related to new building
construction.
Southold Town Board ~ ~ppeals -28- Jam~ y 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3588 SE
PROJECT NAME: MARY J. MOONEY-GETOFF
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 determinations'made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ } Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special'Exception for "Bed and Breakfast"
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as:1475 Waterview Drive, SouthQld, NY 78-07-20
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new building
construction.
Southold Town Board ~ ~ppeals -29- Jan~-- y 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
(e)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3591
PROJECT NAME: PAUL STOUTENBURGH, JR.
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 determinations'made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory windmill tower in excess' of 18 ft.
height requirement.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly knQwn as: 4015 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue~ NY 98-01-06
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) Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other
critical environmental area.
Southold Town Board ~ ~ppeals -30- Jam y 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3583
PROJECT NAME: FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK
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 determinations'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: Garage addition with (1) insufficient southerly
and total side yards, (2) insufficient setback from bulkhead alon~
Arshamomaque Pond.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of°Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 90 Carole Road, Sou~hold, NY 52-02-04
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or
environmental area is a bulkhead or concrete barrier in good condition.
(3) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided
in Section 617.13 of the StateeEnvironment~Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR.
Southold Town Board
of Appeals -31- January 8,
1987 Regular
Meeting
(Environmental
(g)
Declarations, continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
346l
HELMUT HASS
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
cant adverse effect on the
below.
the within project not to have a signifi-
environment for the reasons indicated
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: ~X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: (1) Insufficient 10t area and width; (2) estab-
lish existing residentia~ use~a$ pr~ipal.u~ ip~th~ B-Business ~st~ict on ~
proposed southerly parcel; {3) insufficient ~vao~e ~oor area-nortner~y parcel.
LOCATION ~F PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 35350 C.R. 48~ ~ec0nic, NY; ]000-69-04-2.].
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
~2) The Suffolk County Health Department-has approved or issued
compliance with their reviews.
(3) The relief requested is an area/lot-line variance which is
regulated by Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, 6 NYCRR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(h)
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3584-SE
PROJECT NAME: DONALD AND JOANNE RITTER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NoY.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: Special Exception to convert existing
0ne-family dwelling to tw0-fami]y dwelling use.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 2585 Peconic. Lane, Pec0nic, New York;
1000-74-03-20.
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;
('~) This is an application conce~ni6g us~ of premises and
is not directly related to new construction.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawickio This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR NEXT MEETING: On motion by
Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to schedule the following matters
to be held on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1987 at the
Main Road, Southold, New York, and BE IT
for public hearings
Southold Town Hall,
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board Secretary, Linda Kowalski, is
hereby authorized and directed to publish Notice of the following
hearings in the local and official newspapers, the Suffolk Times
and Long Island Traveler-Watchman accordingly:
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3601 MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST. Addition
at the southerly side of existing dwelling with insufficient setbacks
from existing bulkhead and rearyard property line. ROW off the east
side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. 1000-123-06-17.
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3599 - SAMUEL S. COHEN. Garage in front
and side yards. ROW off S/s Indian Neck Road, Peconic. 1000-98-5-18.
7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3598 - DANIEL AND IRENE McKASTY. Pool
with fence enclosure and cabana within 75 ft. of bulkhead. 13220
Main Road, East Marion. 1000-31-14-12.
7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3595 - DONALD J. GRIM. Variance for
insufficient frontyard setback in this "C-I" Zone. S/s Oregon Road,
Cutchogue. lO00-83-3-part of 4.4.
7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3462 - HERBERT R. MANDEL: Six area
variances resulting from proposed three-lot minor subdivision.
9355 Main Road, East Marion. 2.918 acres. 1000-31-03-11.25.
8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3590 - THOMAS J. AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN.
Addition to existing nonconforming structure which exceeds 50% of
fair value. 265 Rochelle Place, Mattituck. 144-04-09 and 08.
8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3604 - ROBERT AND EILEEN VILLANI. 280-a.
E/s Indian Neck Road, Peconic. 1000-86-6-30 & 10.
8:15 p.m. 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 No. 1584. 32400
CR 48, Peconic. 1000-74-4-7.1 (6 & 7).
8:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3597 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER. Special
Exception for accessory apartment. 355 Terry Lane, Southold.
1000-65-7-20.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
UPDATES: The Board was updated on each of the following
pending matters:
Appeal No. 3542 TIDE MARK (CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES).
76-motel units in six buildings in this "M-l" Multiple
Residence Zone District. N/s CR 48, Greenport.
Received from Planning Board 12/22/86 copy of requested
affidavit from Nell Esposito, partner of Cliffside
Associates as to Village installations and hook-ups
for 76 motel units. Await County Health Department
approval and copy of signed Village contract.
Appeal No. 3592 BENTE SNELLENBURG. Appeal from Order
Requiring Building Permit to replace fence at 1935
Private Road #10, Southold. The Board had no objec-
tion to scheduling this matter for our next meeting;
however, it has been requested by the applicant to
calendar this matter during mid February since they
are out of State at this time.
Appeal No. 3602 - MARGARET McNAMARA. Addition to
dwelling within 75 feet of bulkhead and in excess of
maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage. 640 Takaposha Road,
Southold. The board indicated that this matter could
be scheduled for a public hearing following receipt of
the following information:
1. Three copies of a sketch or survey indicating the
square footage and percentages of all existing and
proposed construction, including accessory buildings.
2. Confirmation of the distance at the closest point
of the existing, and proposed construction, from the
bulkhead.
3. Waiver or other action by the Town Trustees;
4. Waiver or other action by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. (661.5).
Appeal No. 3439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variances for
insufficient area and width in re-division, Cedar Lane
and Beach Court, East Marion, Gardiners Bay Estates,
Lots 151 through 172, inclusive incl. adjoining roads.
Await PB, Health Dept Art. 6 approvals/comments.
[Building envelopes of buildable areas to be provided.]
Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals -35- January o, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Updates, continued:)
Other Hatters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional
information es not,dj, continued:
(.) Appeal No, 3299 - DOUGLAS MILL£1_!~. Variance to include
wetlands in subdivision which would not result in
.. Insufficient area. Klrkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC
a~d.'Co. Health Department approvals of pending subdivision.
Appeal No. 3412 - THOMAS CRAHER. Variance to construct
within 75~ of wetlands. E/s l~adow Lane, ~attttuck.
**Await Trustees action/approval. (llealth Dept. approval
and.'OEC'waiver received.)
(';
()
Appeal No. 3355 - PAUL &'MARIETTA CANALIZO. Variance to
construct with insufficient setback tn frontyard and
frem wetlands. **Await DEC and wetland setbacks map.-..
Trustees revtews pending.
Appeal ~o,'3214 - HANAUE~ & DAGLEY. Variance for
approval of two lots having insufficient upland, build-
able area. DEC waiver and Planning 8oard received.
**Await Co. Health and Trustees. .Lighthouse Road and
S/S Soundvte~ Avenue, Southold.
.Application for LOIS AND FfiANK TItORP. E/s blest l. ane
and S/s North Lane (private), off the £/s Orchard Lane
East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having
insufficient area, width, depth, etc. **Await ;;otice
of Otsapprova'l' after application to Building Department
relssuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mall
recetpts,~etc.
Appeal No. 3293 HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variance'
for approval of three parcels having insuf~-T~ient area,
width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview I(oad {west
of Watervtew Drive), Southold. 280-a no~ 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/i)4 that
bulldable area in proposed division is less than
sq. ft. (excludes wetland grass areas} for a one-family
dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft. (6xcludes wetland
grass areas) for an existing two-dwelling usage.
E/s Narrow River Road and S/s Main Road, Orient.
**Await Co. tlealth Art. VI and S£QRA.
) Appeal No. 3367 LOIS AND PAYRICIA LESUIKOWSKI. Variance
for approval of two parcels having insufficient area and
width. S/s North qrlve, Mattttuck. **Awuit I)EC. Build-
tng envelopes and s~tbacks not shown sinc(~ euactment of
Local Law - Wetlands Setbacks.
Southold Town Bo~,d
Other pendtna
Information as noted),
of Appeals -36- January 8, 1987 Regular
Public tleartngs (**awaiting additional
continued:
(' .) Appeal No. 3371 FLORENCE ROLLE. ·Variance for approval
of two parcels having insufficient ar6a, width and depth.
E/s 01e Oule Lane and N/$ Kraus Road, Mattltuck. **Await
Article VI application/approval by Cu. tlealth and poss. DEC.
(') Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variance for
approval of two parcels having insu(~ area and width.
**Reces. sed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County
Health Department Art. VI approval/clearance(and DEC);
( ) Appeal No. 3216 'EUGENE DA'~']SO+~. VaF~a,~ce ~o~
living quarters over stable.
postponemen~n_t~_~L~tJL)-~"rUl'~o--t-t-(~ and Plannin9 Board reviews.
.$/-s-~Ou niY-A ¢ e n u c,.
( ) Appeal No. 3191 - HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change
lot line and construct garage in front/side yard areas.
E/s X~let Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of R.E.
¢lempner and Herbert Mandel are contiguous. **Await DEC & PB.
(. ) Appeal No. 3949 - DO[IALD P. DRICKLEY. Vdriance
approval of lots having insufficient area .and width.
S/s Bay Avenue and E/s Oroadwater Drive, Cutchngue.
**Await DEC, Art. VI by County Health, and contour maps.
( · ) Appeal No. 3263' ROGER ~IUCJZ. Vari.a. nce
Coudition No. 7 and the May 2?~_]]JJJ~dec-i~d"~nf-i~-iTd~.~red
Appeals ~q'=:"'"~-~-Reces~ed frum 9/13~),l'as
~tcant: Requests for status have been
,~d.e.:(uitbout respm~se}.. Prcnisec have beech soJ~J~-
( . ) Appeal No. '3268 ~ J. KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance
approvai.;of parcels having tnsuff~E-iont area, width and
depth in this "C". zone. /~*Awoit DEC and Co. Health Art. VI
application/actions. Planning Doard recommended denial
( .l' Appeal No.'-3537 ROBERT AND SUSAN D'U~O. Breezy Path,
Southold. Await D.E.C., ---C~-T-~l~a-~l-t-h and Trustee after formol
applications to (complete ZBA'file.
/ ~ Appeal No. 3545 PATRICK STIGLIANI Main [~ayview Road
Southold. Await Co. Health Art. Vl and PB Coordination.
( ) Appudl Nu. 3S42 as
Await copies of DEC, Co.
SEQRA process pending.
~eeting
Amended _i'.!.DEMARK/CL IFF S I DE ASSOC IAT/:S.
Health and PB ~o
( / Appeal No. 3546 - GREGORY FOLLARI. Relief' of ZBA condi-
tion requested concerning disturbance of soil at Sound bluff.
Await DEC actibn to alter b]uff areas before proceeding.
~f ) Appeal No 3564 - JOHN DEMPSEY. No record o~' approval
LOt #~, Mino~ Subdivision of R~6urn-Murphy (1979). ROW
off N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. R. Bruer, Esq.
. . pa'~e, 37
(Updates,
( )
(.)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
January 8, lg87 - Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
continued:)
Other Na~te~s Pendtng Publtc Itearings (**awaiting additional
lnformatlonJ continued:
Appeal No. 3259 - NICItOLAS ALIANO. Special Exception Lo
estabJtsh and build four two-sLory motel buildings contain-
lng 10 motel units for transient use, and an office
building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3.721-acre
parceJ, zoned "B-Light." S/s Main Road, Greenport (alo,g
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 approval may be given.
Appeal No. 3298 - PORT OF EGYPT/C R L REALTY. Variance
tO construct forty-unit.mot~[~n'-i~-~{~T~Tt bulldable
upland of 4.83 acres and having insufficient sideyards.
S/s Main Road (prey. Southold Fishing Station/Morris),
Southold. *tAwait corrected site plans, topographical
surve~ Including lowest floor elevations above mca sea
level, Suffolk County Health Department approval, N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation approval, comments
or input after review of the site plan by tile Planning
Board.- 10/9/84~
Appeal No. 2929 -'SAL CAIOLA,
tionable as to representat{~n.
N/S ~.R. 48, Southo]d.
Pr~)ject proposed is ques-
Scatus/clart fication awaited.
Appeal No. 3183 MARY N. COD__E_. Smith Drive, North, Southold.
Proposed resepara~t.on of lots. Aw,~it DEC and t']annin9 I;oard
applications to be completed and filed for input.
Appeal No. 3274 -'BEST, SCHMITT, SYVERSON. ROW (~ff E/s Camp
Mineola Road along Great Pecon-t~-]~-~--r~tituck. **Await
Co, Health, DEC and Planning Board before public hearing.
Appeal No. 3558 - NI'CK AND ANNA PALEOS. 3 lots-insufficient
area, width, depth. S/s CR 48, Peconic (formerly Hass).
Await Art. 6 subdivision approval before scheduling.
(P.B. review 10/6/B6). Henry Raynor, agent.
Appeal No. 3561 DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON. Area, width, depth
two lots. S/s Northview Drive, Orient. R. Bruer, Esq.
Await Art. 6.
Appeal No. 3581 GEORGE DAMIEN. Jackson
Area, width, depth variances. Await Art.
Department communications.
Street, New Suffolk.
6 per Co. Health
Southold Town
Board of Appeals -38- January 8,
1987 Regular Meeting
Appeal No. 3445 JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for approval
of two lots having insufficient area. E/s Waterview
Ortve and N/s Bayview Road, Southold. **Await Article VI
approval and ~opy of C.O. for existing land and buildings
[previous lot line changes and conveyances?]. P8 comments
received. '
Appeal No. 3458 FRANK ZALESKI. Three-lot division with
lots having insuff~ient.arqa, width and depth. Await
Co. Health Art. 6 and DEC.
Appeal No. 3549 J~AN KALIN AND BETSY GIBBS.~L~.'~.
Appeal No. 3511 - K~L[ REAL ESTATE/LiMPET. Area,
width an~.depth variances. Brown St, Greenport.
**Await Co. Health approval/waiver by advertising
deadline.
(,)
Appeal Ho. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA.' Variance for
approval o('thmeeparcels having insufficient area, depth
and width. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await County
H~alth Art. VI, corrected maps and P.B. reviews after
submission of maps.
()
Appeal No. 3403 - ANNA. LORIA. Variance for approval of
tWO parcels h~ving tnsuffi-~Tent area, width and depth.
W/s First St. and ~/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await
Co. Health Art. VI app,1, and approval/waiver.
Appeal No. 3426 GERALD DOROSKI. Variance for approval
of access (280-a). H/s C.R. 48, Peconic. **Await
additional information to clarify ROW and P.B. input.
Appeal N°.. 3411.
existing building
unit), W/s Lipco
plans and C.O. or
ANDREW FOHRKOLB.
for habitable use
R6ad, Mattituck.
PreCO.
Variance to restore
(additional dwelling
**Await scaled floor
( ) Appeal No. 3514 -GEORGE P. SCHADE. Area, width and
depth variances. (Await C. Health Art. 6 waiver before
.................. a'd'V-~-r't-i~ing).
( ) Appeal No. 34gS - JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Area, width
and depth variances. N/s Pine Tree Road, Cutcho§ue.
(Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiver/approval before adv.)
( ) Appeal No. 3496 - F~EDERICK KOEHLER, JR~ Cabana/beach
house structure within 75 feet of water along Cutchogue
Harbor. N/s Old Harbor Road, Cutchogue. (Await Co.
Health approval before advertising).
Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Updates, continued:)
Appeal No. 3600-SE: T. LUCAS AND G. & A. BELIS. Special Excep-
tion to allow 70 motel units on 7.0516 acres zoned "B-Light"
Business, 4,000 sq. ft. land area per unit with Village water.
S/s Main Road (previously golf-driving range), Greenport.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it
was
RESOLVED, to hold the Matter of T. LUCAS AND G. & A. BELIS
(filed by Peconic Associates) under No. 3600 temporarily in
abeyance pending receipt of the following:
1. One complete set of each building floor plan (including
heights above ground elevation);
2. Map showing contour variations of the property;
3. Copy of executed agreement or contract with the
Village of Greenport concerning public water;
4. Affidavit from the property owner that the premises
will be served by Village of Greenport water utilities;
5. Input as to recommended changes under site plan
elements which may be in conflict with layout of
buildings under consideration from the Planning Board.
6. Copy of preliminary approval or other action from
the Suffolk County Health Department for this development
and types of sewage systems to be installed.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
DISCUSSION: Correspondence dated December 10, 1986 from the
Board of Town Trustees concerning marinafor not more than six
noncommercial boats granted August 10, 1966 under Appeal No. 941
to Ernest H. Wilsberg, West Creek Estates, Glenn Road, Southold.
The Town Trustees have asked for an investigation of the property.
(No action was taken by the Board at this time except for
monitoring.) Enforcement of any violations must be initiated
by the Building Inspector and/or other enforcing office of the town.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
NEW APPEAL: Appeal No. 3603: JAMES CROSS. Variance for
insufficient lot area. Property located on the north side of
the Main Road, Cutchogue. In reviewing the application, the
board noted that upon receipt of input concerning the subdivi-
sion elements from the Planning Board, this matter would be
scheduled for the next available hearing date (expected latter
February).
CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3589: MARY MOONEY-GETOFF.
Variance for insufficient lot area, width and depth in this
proposed five-lot minor Subdivision at W/s Cedar Avenue,
Southold. The Board reviewed Mrs. Getoff's request that
her area variance application be scheduled for public hearing
without requiring application to the Town Planning Board.
Her reason is that if the Z.B.A. denies the variance appli-
cation, the Planning Board subdivision application fee would
not be refundable. The Secretary said that she was asked
Mrs. Getoff to reiterate her request and that Mrs. Mooney's
cost for filing a new application with the Planning Board
was indicated to be about $650.00,'or $1,600 for a five-lot
major. Four lots could be a minor. The Board indicated
that they are awaiting County Health, Article 6 comments
after appropriate filing by the applicant, and are not in
a position at this time to schedule this matter for a public
hearing.
PENDING COMPLIANCE: Appeal No. 3347: ALICE SZALA.
Pending 280-a conditions adopted by the ZBA June 13, 1985.
Acceptance of the improvements to the right-of-way in
question, located along the south side of Main Bayview
Road, known as "Williamsburg Drive," Southold was requested
verbally in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Erik Hansen. John W.
Davis Report No. 558 dated December 20, 1986 (to the
Planning Board) was reviewed and the right-of-way was
inspected. The board took the following action:
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, that the improvements as inspected by John W.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- January 8, 1987 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3347 SZALA right-of-way, continued:)
Davis (Report No. 558 dated December 20, t986) and approved by
the Planning Board (Resolution of December 22, 1986), BE AND
HEREBY IS ACCEPTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
1. That the right-of-way be maintained at all times in
good, satisfactory condition;
2. The conditions hereunder shall apply to all lots
abutting and requiring access over this right-of-way.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
adopted.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was unanimously
Being no other business properly coming before the board
at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
~~r.=~//x/~z__~.Southold Town Board of Appeals
×~lYl6roved 2/5/87 - ~a~d ~. ~oehringer, Chairman
Pp. 1-41
Sf 7HOLD TOWIq BOARD OF APPEAL
MATTER. OF ROBERT A~D EILEEN M. JOHNSON
THURSDAY~ ~ANUARY 8, .19.8L7~,~UBLIC HEARING
7:35:~p.m.~App'eal No. 3587 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of ROBERT AND EILEEN M. JOHNSON. Addition with in-
sufficient setback from tidal water area~ 430 Corey Creek
Road, Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey produced by
James Eo Williams dated June 28, 1966 indicating a one-story
framed bungalow on a lot of approximately 75 by 100 which is
on Corey Creek and to the rear of the particular one-story
bungalow is a proposed addition that's approximately 11 feet
from the west property lineo The Addition zs approximately
20 by 22 and is a little offside from the house° It's a lit-
tle more towards the west side. And I have a copy of the Suf-
folk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard?
Are the Johnsons here? Could you use the mike Mr. Johnson?
I'll ask you a couple of questions. Is there anything you'd
like to say?
MR. JOHNSON: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is going to be an addition to the
house of which will be living quarters also. Is that correct?
MR. JOHNSON: What we are basically doing is we are knocking out
interior partitions in the existing cottage to eliminate 2 bed-
rooms to incorporate that into a large living room. That's a
small living room, a kitchen and 2 small bedrooms° We're taking
out the interior partitions. We're putting 2 bedrooms on the back
to take the place of the bedrooms that we're knocking out. And an
additional bathroom We're add,n§ an additional cesspoolJ,-- we're
attaching it to the same. There's no increase in occupancy at all.
It's just giving us a larger living room. That's what the proposal
would be.
CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: Are you putting a full foundation underneath?
MR. JOHNSON: We are non putting a cellar underneath it. It's
just having a foundation wall that's true° But it would be like
a crawl space underneath.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And when would you anticipate starting tlhis
work? In the Spring?
MRo JOHNSON: Well as soon as I possibly can. If we get a thaw
in January, I'd like to start it because we like to occupy it when
we come here in the Spring. We come here every year for 15 but
I doubt we'll make it this year.
Page 2 - January 8, 1987
Public sHearing - t eft and Eileen Johnson
Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that is the reason why I'm asking
the question because we are closing the hearing. We will close
the hearing tonight but we~will.not render a decision until the
next meeting because we ha~' several decisions we have to deal
with from the prior meeting° So we're just going to close the
hearing sometime in the next few minutes, So don't expect a de-
cision tonight°
MR, JOHNSON: As soon as we can possibly start~ would be great.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for coming in. Is
there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this ap-
plicationo Anybody like to speak against the application? I
should hesitate in between that so that at least if somebody
wanns to raise their hand there's a period of time. Any ques-
tions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I'll
make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later°
Ail in favor - Aye.
SOUl OLD TOWN BOARD~OFVAPPEALS
MATTER OF ANNE C. MASON
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3594 - Public Hearing commenced in the
M,atter of ANNE C. M~SON. Deck addition to dwelling with in-
sufficient setback from tidal water area. 1250 Lupton Point,
Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIR>~N GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated February 23, 1961 showing the
existing dwelling and a penned in area to the south of the
exisking~dwelling and adjacent or~ attached t~ a_prQposed deck
of about 40, <it does non gzve the dimensions of the deck', so
!'Ii ask him~ that may run the rear part of the house and ~50
feet from the bulkhead. And I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties.
is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of
this application? Mr. Koch. How do you~do sir?
MR. KOCH: i have a letter here from Mrs. Mason and a letter
from her neighbor no the west, Mrs. Robert Barker.
CH~aI~MAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. KOCH:
by 33.
The deck size that you questioned on would be 16
CHairMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember reading it somewhere but i
couldn't get my hands on it when i was reading the thing.
b[R. KOCH: We have gone to the D.E.C. and they have approved
the plans to do this. I've also gone to the Board of Trustees
and they have approved this. She had the bulkhead
and if you will look at the pictures that we have taken, most
of the neighbors have decks very similiar to what she would
like to have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other two additions that are on this
house are non specifically a part of this application?
MR. KOCH: They're not oart of this application.
CHAIR>biN GOEHRINGER: You by right, can build those with just
a building permit. Is that correct?
MR. KOCH: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can by right, can just build these
by nature of a building permit.
MR, KOCH: They're all there. Ail that she would like to do
is have a deck put out in front~
~a~e 2 - January 8~ 1987
~Public'Hearing - f ~e C~ Mason
~ Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I meant the two partitions that are shown
on the west of the one; 10 feet and the 12 foot one.
MR. KOCH: They're there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They are there.
MR.~KOCH: They're existing. The deck would not come any closer
to her neighbors than the existing. It would not come as close.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that deck 16 feet at it~widest ~oint?
MR. KOCH: 16 feet at its widest point,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that the west side is probably
about 13 Let me just show you what I hav~ and maybe it's not
exactly what you have.
MR. KOCH: It would be 16 here and 33.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you.have any idea what this one is?
The reason I ask you, one of our members just mentioned that
they. had 18 by 32, Now you notice the penned in areas that I
was referring to. They.are~there~
MR. KOCH: They are there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: Ok,.
MR. KOCH: This is 12 feet.
They are existing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: About 12 foot there~ So you say it's 12
feet on the west side, 16 feet on the east side and approximately
33 feet along the rear of the house. The whole length of the
house. Ok. The only. other question that]I have Mr. Koch is
that this will remain unroofed?
MR. KOCH: Unroofed.
SECRETARY: The D,E~C. permit was approved for 18 ft.
MR. KOCH: That's the way they wrote it. Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And mainly for the summer enjoyment and
seasonal enjoyment of the occupants. Ok. Thank you very
much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak On ~e-
half of this application? Anybodylike to speak against the
application? l. Questions from Board members? Hearing no fur-
ther questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later~.~
Ail in favor - aye.
St ~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF~APPEAL
MATTER OF ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS
THURSDAY, ~ANUARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
7::45 p.m. Appeal No. 3585SE - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS. Special Exception for Bed
and Breakfast. 2500 Peconic Lane, Peconic.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The information that I had just read in the
legal notice. And I have a copy of a sketch of a survey. It's
actually a copy of a survey from Roderick VanTuyl P.C. dated May
]8,1976 indicating a 2~ story' framed house approximately 20 feet
from the north property line, 65 feet from Peconic Lane and a
pencilled in area indicating parking within and around the ex-
isting c~rcu]ar driveway~ The lot size is 4,356 square feet.
And I have a copy of the ~uffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties. Is Mrs. Combs present? Hi there.
How are you tonight? Is there anything you'd like to say on be-
half of your application?
MRS. COMBS: No. It's alltthere.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In looking at the property, I noticed that
your lot is just a little better than an acre in an area that is
10 antes around you or something of that nature~ So your closest
house to yours is about 150 feet to the north.
MRS. COMBS: To the north. Yes. The Ritters.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has anybody .... I don't really usually
ask this question but I'll ask it. Have you gotten any indi-
cation that anybody is objecting to this?
MRS. COMBS: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask that question is
probably the largest span of property that we've seen around
a specific house~being vacant.
MRS. COMBS: Franklin Reich from~Stranton, Connecticut owns the
property completely adjacent to the house, north, south, east,
west, across the street and naturally he was not~f~ed~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MRS. COMBS: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Let's see what develops~
Maybe I'll have more questions. Is there anybody who would like
to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who- would
like to speak against the application? This is going to be a fast
night. I can see it now'. Mrs. Combs the only other question that
we need to ask you is; do you have any problems dealing with. the
presenn ordinance as it's written right now'? Any_changes in that
additional persons, that you'd be using additions± rooms or any-
thing of that nature?
P~ge 2 - January 8 1987
~ublic Hearing - ~in and Patricia Combs
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. COMBS: No. I myself, put.in for two rooms Simply be-
cause our married children. In particular our daughter who comes
back and visits occasionally. I have 2 children that live in the
house. I can't forsee that I would use more than 2 rooms for the
simple fact that I have 6 children and 5 grandchildren, So two is
more than I am ever going to be interested inn
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason I-]asked you that question is be-
cause I want you to be aware that couched within the decision cer-
tainly if this Board so desires to grant it, is the requirement
that you must meet Building Department requirements for the com-
pletion of this part of the application and we don~t deal with that
issue but you do have t o meet certain fire code and building code
requirements.
MRS. COMBS: My question is; do they call and say they'd like to
come out and at that point we make an appointment and they come
in regarding the fire code and things like that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think what's basically happened is once
you receive the decision, it would be encumbant upon you to con-
tact the Building Department and ask them to come out and see
what they would, specifically want as a recommendation before you
would start any or commence any minor work that would have to be
done,
MRS. COMBS: There's really no minor work th~t~s needed. There's
no physical change to the house whatsoever other than sheets,
blankets, pillows. That's it. There's no changes whatsoever. Ok?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. ! thank you again~ Hearing no further
questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the
decision until later..
Ail in favor - aye.
Transcribed from cassette tapes
recorded during the hearing~
~ JTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEA_ _
MATTER OF MARY J~ MOONEY-GETOFF
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
7:51 p.m. Appeal No. 3588SE - Public Hearing Commenced in the
Matter of MARY J. MOONEY-GETOFF. Special Exception for Bed and
Breakfast. 1475 Waterview Drive~ Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating ingress
and egress from Waterview Drive indicating the parcel in question
which is irregular in size and a one-family home fairly placed zn
the. center aske~ed a little more toward the water with a circular
driveway also indicating parking spaces in and around surrounding
the driveway. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in-
dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is Mrs.
Getoff here? Hi. I would ask that you use the mike. It seems
we have a run on Bed a~d Breakfast and setbacks from creeks to-
night.
MRS. GETOFF: I don't have a creek but...Y0u have received a let
ter from my closest neighbor Rose and Joseph Petrozel!i in favor
and a 1 tter from Gladys Wexler who li~es almost directly across
the street from my driveway and that's in favor. You· have re-
ceived one letter (I believe) in opposition from Mr. and Mrs.
0rt,~r~ % made a mistake in notifYing them. They are not ac-
tually adjacent neighbors, They are neighbors~ But as you can
see from the map, they are rather a good distance from my home.
I am separated from them by a small lot belonging to Mr. Tuccio.
Would you like to see those marked on this map? I have so many
adjacent neighbors that I'm afraid I did~make a mistake. Ok.
Wh~re are we? This is Mr. Tuccio and this is the Ortner pro-
perty~ This is Petrozellis wh~ is the closest one to.me and this
is my house. So you can see that I really should not have noti-
fied them° So I would just ask that you consider their letter as
a neighbor but not as an adjacent neighbor~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you~ Is there anything you'd
like to say concerning your appliCation?
MRS. GETOFF: Yes. A couple of things, One is that I~m only
going to use 3 rooms but I plan to prepare 4 ~ooms, In fact,
I already have the fire signals and so forth there. My reason
for that is I have 2 doubles and 2 singles and you never know
what people want. They might be 2 couples and one child and
they wmnt two doubles and a single or it might be a family with
a boy and a girl and they w~nt one double and two s~gles. So
I plan to get all rooms ready. The other thing I want to say
is this; there was a statement made at the21ast meeting --It
was~n't backed up by anybody's name. But somebody claimed that
if there is a Bed and Breakfast in the neighborhood, that the
property values could be reduced by up to as much as 20%. Well
I didn't believe that so I did a little investigation of my own.
I called a Mr. Joseph Schilling who is the director of marketing
of the New York State Department of Commerce° I have been in con-
tact with him at the time that I was preparing the presentation
~age 2.~ Janaury~, 1987
Public Hearing Ma~,j J. Mooney-Getoff
Southold Town Board.-of Appeals
MRS. GETOFF (continued):
for the Board~ He had testified in a case with a complaint
that had been brought against somebody on Horton and Hudson°
He testified in. that case that Bed and Breakfast was good for
the economy of small communities. So I contacted him. And
what he said about this statement~that if there's a Bed and
Breakfast in your neighborhood, there goes the neighborhood.
Property values are going to go down. He said this is a ploy
that's frequently used by groups of individuals t6 manipulate
public opinion against something'~they oppose. He said in his
experience in New York, this had never happened He was really
amazedJthat I was raising this question with him. He said Bed
and Breakfast was good for the economy of small communities.
He promised to write a letter to you which you~should get some-
time next'week. I also spok~ to Ju,e Albertson who is a life
long resident of So~thold and has been a realtor in this com-
munity for 15 years. He said that's ridiculous. Another thing
he said was that the old residents here in Southold Town know
that having accomodations for visitors and the tourists has
always been the custom in this community. Years ago they were
tourist homes. TodaY it's Bed and Breakfast which is a bit
more upscale than tourist homes,but there's never been a ques-
tion raised in the past with tourist homes that the neighbor-
hood was going to go down or that people's property values
were going to be effected. As a matter of fact, people are
very much in favor of tourist homes because the money that is
brought in trickle do~ and help all the people in the communi-
ty. I also spoke to Mr. Tuccio whose property, I don't know
whether you'd call adjoining mine. He's in that corner and I
was advised that I should get in touch with him.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:~ I~s not ContigUoUs.
MRS. GETOFF: I guess it ~touches maybe one millimeter, Any-
way, he's a realtor in Riverhead and he thoughttthat Bed and
Breakfast was a great idea, That it would be a benefit to
many people and he did not feel that it was going to effect
property values. That's Rll that I really wanted to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much~ Is there anybody
else that would like to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody like to speak against the application? · Yes Mrs. Shaw,
VALERIE SCOPAZ: Valerie Scopzas. I met the Board before.
I would just like to address one point that was raised by
Mary Mooney-Getoff in her accounting of'what the gentleman
from the State said. The important point here is that if
tourist homes have been common in Southold--I personally
know of one former old lady, who is unfortunately not with
us any longer, who from time to time would take in people
who were visiting residents in town as opposed to a motel,
and she took a little money for it, and nobody said anything
about it. Everybody knew it was helping her out, maintaining
her house. She was a widow. The key difference here is that
in legitimizing these, ok, a lot of people did them during the
Page 3 - January 8, 1987
Public Hearing - Mary J. Mooney Getoff
Southold Town Board of Appeals
V. SCOPAZ {continued):
summer to help out the neighbor down the block who had more
people than they could handle in their house, and it was a
neighborly kind of a thing. Here the difference is that
now you're granting a Special Exception Permit and that
Permit runs with the land. It runs forever and ever. And
what happens when Mrs. Mary Mooney-Getoff, Mr. and Mrs.
Combs, Mr. and Mrs. Mattes, Mr. Herbert, and whoever else
gets a Permit goes to sell their houses, chances are they're
going to sell it and say to the potential buyer, "you know,
by the way, I can run a Bed and Breakfast here. You can do
the same. That's why I'm asking an extra $25,000 for my
house, or whatever the price is." ~tnd I think that's they
key difference and I just think the Board should be aware
of this. Thank you.
CHAIRMA/~: Thank you. Would anybody else like to ~peak?
Yes, ma'am. Would you kindly use the mike and state your
name because it's being taken down. Mrs. Shaw, if you
can't understand what's going on, let us know and you're
welcome to come sit up here.
MRS. SHAW: Ok. Thank you.
ELIZABETH KRUK: My name is Elizabeth Kruk, and I'm a
resident also of Southold. I want to point out geographically
that there is also a five-family very close to this area also.
[ also want to point out that the large and vast amount of
motels that have-- the Cove, no longer being there, going
condominium. A lot of motels going co-op. We at the East
End and myself having come from here, lived here, moved
away, come back as an adult, we need something that is
going to, Number One, not give us the influence of the West
End by coming out with large plastic motels. We have enough
property to actually be able to do that, although we do have
a conservative board where we entrust you with not allowing
that type of thing to happen, upzoning, lack of commercial
property, business zoning. However, we are basically a
tourist area. We can't really get away from that, I don't
think. We do attract that kind of thing. People making
their livings. ]Lad if we are going to preserve a certain
status of the East End without the plastic fabrication, a
lot of large motels, which they will eventually' get here.
To think just for a moment what the future will look like
if we have a lot of stately Victorians that do become
Bed and Breakfasts. It's delightfully New England. It
can be very much Long Island. The flavor of people here to be
open, friendly, giving, and to run these type of boardinghouses, has
been here since Day One. ~Lnd I think it's a real shame that you can't
do something to not only make up for the lack of motel rooms that we
don't have here by allowing this to go, to happen in the neighborhoods,
people's homes to be run efficiently and effectively by the owners.
And you are also curtailing the growth
(continued on page 4)
Page 4 - January 8, 1987
Public Hearing ~- Mary J Mooney-Getoff
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. FdlUK (continued):
of those particular motels that would come here eventu-
ally. We have so much to make up for for the tourism, that we've
lost just by closing down a large majority of the rooms that were
available before. So this is in favor definitely of it. I also
own a large house. It is not going to be a Bed and Breakfast but
it eventually it might be and I'd like to know that I would be able
to do that. And I'd like to know that if it were my idea, I would
have the freedom of choice to be able to do that and accomodate the
economy of my community and myself for a livelihood without being
told that you can't do it. And if it is a matter of the permit
running with the land, then it should be granted to just the people
who run the business as sort of a business permit and not go with
the land, not run with it as a special exception but to be granted
more as a temporary thing for while it's being run. Or else go for
business zoning. But then you have a whole entirely different thing
of turning it to a Bed and Breakfast which is very simple and which
adequately fulfills a lot of people's needs as well as the tourists
and you don't have to worry about the business zoning. Ok.
CHAIPJ~tN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much.
MRS. ~UK: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes sir. Just state your name again.
MR. HAHN: I don't have much to say really. It's just that the
northfork is a very vacation type area and a lot of people like to
come out here to enjoy the luxuries of the lack of concrete and the
waters and everything else. I think Bed and Breakfast would be very
nice to have on the northfork, and as she said, in big nice vic-
torian homes. However, too, the concept of the Bed and Breakfast
should be really limited to as where it could be opened. There are
a lot of big beautiful victorian homes on the Main Road near busi-
ness zoned areas already and there, I don't see any harm in it.
AS a matter of fact, I think it would enhance the neighborhood.
Those beautiful victorian homes should be shared by people who are
still able to enjoy such homes which, are no longer made an]~more.
But to set up or allow Bed and Breakfast just helter skelter any-
where especially in concrete 100% residential areas upsetting
thereby the res!denrial flavor of that particular area where peo
ple have invested a lot of money to not be in a business zone as
ir were. I feel there that a Bed and Breakfast is really totally
out of place. But that's not to say that a Bed and Breakfast con-
cept should be out of place all across the Board. If it's on the
Main Road, if it's near a marina, if it's near business zoned areas,
I feel that a Bed and Breakfast in one of these beautiful Victorian
homes would give very much the flavor of the northfork. And I don't
see anything wrong with that. But to have it helter skelter any-
where, anyone who has a big home suddenly wishes to have a Bed and
Breakfast without the concern of their residential zoning, I find
that a bit going over board and that's really all I wanted so say.
Page 5 - ·
Pnblic~ He~
Southold
CHAIRMAN
to respon
MRS. GETO]
is in a p~
and when
tention ti
it would
jection t~
come out
They don'
near a co~
they want
go either
I travel,
downtown.
CHAIRMAN
before I
make a mo
Ail in fa~
January g 1987
~ring - ry J. Mooney-Getoff
7own Board of Appeals
~OEHRINGER:
to that.
Thank you.
Yes Mrs. Getoff.
You'd like
F: The very essence of Bed and Breakfast is that it
~ivate home. And when we brought this to the Town Board
~hey made Bed and Breakfast legal, it was with the in-
,at it would be in residential areas. Now I agree that
~e nice to have homes along the Main RQad. I have no ob-
that but I feel that the majority of people who may
~ere to the country, don't want to be on the Main Road.
w~nt to be next to a marina. They don't want to be
~nercial area unless they don't have a car. I think
to be in a nice quite residential area. And when I
in Europe or this country for Bed and Breakfast when
that's what I look for. I don't look for something
~OEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there any other comments
~lose the hearing? Hearing no further comments, I'll
~ion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
~or - Aye.
~ %~. )UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPL ~S
MATTER OF PAUL STOUTENBURGH, JR.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:08 p.m. Appeal No. 3591 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of PAUL STOUTENBURGH, JR. Accessory windmill tower in
excess of 18 feet height requirement. 4015 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated August 28,
1957 indicating the placement of a windmill on a lot which is ap-
proximately 2.431 acres which is to the rear of the Stoutenburgh
house. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Stoutenburgh,
would you like to be heard?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: It's just a word I'd like to ask. I think the
Board has a requirement that the windmill must be placed a height
of the windmill away from the edge of the land. And I'm wondering
if they could possibly waive that in the sense that where this is
and you have a map before you. It is in the extreme corner which
has farmland all around. And I would not do it unless I had the
permission from the farm. t mean the adjacent person who owns that
farm. If I could get that, would it be permissable? And the only
reason for that is that I have a photograph here which will show,
and I think you saw this, the land runs off and I'm trying to use
the height of the land to get the elevation because the trees around
in the nearby area will give a problem as far as wind goes. So
that's the only thing I would ask is that if I could get permis-
sion from this farmer that it could be closer, then I could do that.
Could I show you this photograph.
CHAIRMANGOEHRINGER: Sure. Definitely.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I think it also shows the windmill on a truck
which I didn't have. So I couldn't tell you too much about height
and everything but there it is right there~ And what I hope to do
is erect it in that far corner.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's 30 feet from each property line,
approximately right now?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
the property line.
In fact, I notice here you have 30 feet from
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes The windmill is actually high~e~ than that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that.
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
that.
There's only 20 feet or something difference in
P~ge 2 - January 8 1987
~ublic'Hearing - il Stoutenburgh, Jr.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The height is 39 feet and 28 feet.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: That's not correct. That is merely to show
you the type of windmill it is. The windmill is probably more
in the 50 foot range. That's why I need that extra 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
the 50 feet.
Ok.
Is that to the top of the rotors,
MR. STOUTENBURGH: The top of the windmill.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then the 6 foot windmill goes on top of
it. Can I ask you, we always ask this question and I don't know
if it's pertinent in this particular application as it is in some
of the Other ones because some of the electronical generating wind-
mills, they give off a certain drone. Have you seen one of this
nature operate?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Well let me tell you where there is one so that
you can check and there's one right at Donald Tuthill's here right
outside of Southold and there's also one right on the North Road
about a quarter of a mile down from that and both of these are right
alongside of a home. These are slow motion. This is an old type
thing. It isn't the high speed windmill that generates energy and
gives off a whirling sound. This is the old type.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
storm type of...?
Would you be shutting this down in a wind
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: WOuld you be shutting it down in a wind storm?
MR. STOUTENBURGH. Yes. ~bsolutely. They have a mechanism whereby
you turn it and that takes the wind out of the sails so to speak
and it will no~ turn ~ all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ..... The only thing you're going to give us is a
letter from the surrounding property owner.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. That's right. And if that would be, then
I could use the 30 foot instead of the 50 foot.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you sir, Is there anybody else?
TAPE ENDED
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision until later and we thank you
very much for coming in.
Ail in favor - aye.
~ UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPE~
MATTER OF JOHN SENKO
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of JOHN SENKO. Shopping center use on 30,084 square
foot parcel zoned "B-I". N/s Main Road and W/s Ackerly Pond
Land, Southold. (Recessed from last Regular Meeting as requested)
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a request from an applicant's at-
torney present. He has another meeting on the south shore which
he must attend and it is not the opening of the hearing. It is
the continuation of a hearing. So we will complete this hearing
very expeditiously. So we'll open it for Mr. Senko and we'll ask
Mr. Angel. It's not that we don't know you Mr~ Angel.
MR. ANGEL: For the applicant, Mr. John Senko. As you know, this
has been (I think) the third time that I've appeared and the last
time I appeared there was some suggestion from the Board to con-
sider limiting the use of an existing structure on the southwest-
erly side of the lot. You identified a problem that had become
apparent especially in the summer months, with an ice cream par-
lor operating there and the cars parking along the street. What
we have done is we have written you a letter which I want to iden-
tify just in breif for public comment, that indicates that our
client, Mr. Senko would be willing to voluntarily covenant that
the use of that existing structure on the southwesterly side of
the property would be used for professional offices and/or busi-
ness offices. And we pose that particular designation because
that is a term that is used in the residence office district of
the proposed Master Plan and I felt that it would be a term that
would have some meaning to the town rather than try to draft a
particular type of use, we could use something ~it-h its indepen-
dant meaning.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I like something a little more tripe, in
parenthesis; no retaill
MR. ANGEL: I don't think that's objectionable. We discussed
that and he understood business and professional offices not to
include retail sales. I assume that's what they ~eant.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was there anymore dialogue concerning the
egress in the area along the Ma±n Road and egress from the park-
ing lot?
MR. ANGEL: None whatsoever. Our position has been (.and Mr.
Strange is here) that I think that it was originally designed
only with an emergency egress on Main Road with all the traffic
coming in from the side, Ackerly Pond Lane. But as we indicated
when this issue came up a couple of times in the past, if there's
a better mind on the Board or if anybody else has, if theresa
difference of opinion or you want us to do it any differently, we
have no objection to changing it. Did you discuss it with our
people before we did it?
~Pa~2 -~January 8, q87
.,~ ~*Public Hearing - JoLt. Senko
~ Southoid Town Board of Appeals
MR. STRANGE: No it hasn't been discussed with the five people
but from a point or a sense of planning, it made good sense for
the vehicular access, emergency vehicular or egress rather than
acess to have an easier way to leave the site then trying to back
around the odd configuration of the site.
MR. ANGEL: We discussed blocking that off with some sort of a
piece of equipment that the fire deparnment would have access to
and we certainly would agree to that also. And ! also pointed
out last time than to some extent, whatever we decide upon, that
would be determined maybe by the State D.O.T. which also has a
say in whatever we do.
CHAI~kN GEOHRINGER:
Do you have...
Do you have to...
Excuse me.
I'm sorry.
MR. ANGEL:
-c~zeb cut,
You have to make application if you want an eme~%gency
CHAI~.iAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you for coming in. We'll see
if there's any other discussion concerning this application. Is
there anybody else who would like to soeak in favor of this appli-
cation? This is the John Senko application at the corner of Ackerly
Pond Road and Main State Highway, Route 25. Is there anybody who
would like no speak against this application. Ok. Hearing no fur-
ther com~en~, i'ii make a motion c±osing the hearing reserving de-
cision un~il later.
All in favor Aye.
S~OTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL~
MATTER OF FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3583 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK. Garage addition with:
(1) insufficient southerly and total side yards, (20 insuffi-
cient setback from bulkhead along Arshamomaque Pond. 90 Cir-
cle Road, Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey dated November 6,
1986 indicating a one-story framed dwelling and it says proposed
second story and a proposed garage on the south side of the prop-
erty indicating a setback at its nearest point of 5.5 feet. And
I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties mn the area. Ms. Moore would you like to
be heard?
MS. MOORE: I don't think there's any opposition. I contacted
all the neighbors. At this time I apologize to you and I have
to amend our application to include something that was brought
to my attention at 4:30 this afternoon. So had I known earlier,
it would have been part of the application. The plans that were
prepared, the finalized plans, include a balcony along the second
story'. I'1'1 have one on this side and one on the other side so
it will be easier. Obviously if I had known about that from the
beginning, it wouldn't have been a surprise to you at this time.
But in any case, dealing With the balcony and the application,
I have shown Mr. Lessard earlier before the meeting. Recognizing...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a tendancy to cut people off and I
apologize. That will probably necessitate readvertising.
MS. MOORE: That's what I... To avoid that problem, I had con-
tacted the adjacent property owners and have signed waiver of a
formal notice of application. I'll read it to you. I, the prop-
erny owners hereby waive formal notice of the application to the
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals made by Frederick and Helen
Hribok from a variance for insufficient rearyard as required by
tha town code bulk and parking schedule to construct a second
story balcony across the rear of the house. I've already re-
ceived notice of their request for variance for insufficient
sideyard and for construction within 75 feet of wetland and bulk-
head. So I have that from the property owners. There was one
property owner that was named VIP and LPD which I would have to
contact. I tried calling and it's some corperation with an ad-
dress that would require mw contacting after the fact but they
were notified originally of the application and I believe the
notification was sufficient to be clear that there is something
going on with this property and that there is construction being
dona. The fact that the balcony is being put on the second floor
is not a substantial deviation from the application and notice
that they received. So I have these signatures and they're vari-
Page 2 ~ January 8 1987
Public'Hearing - i ~derick and Helen Hribok
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE (continued):
fied. They've been notarized by me. If you have any questions.
If you need a case cite, I did some research and I have a case
which states that where notice deviates from the relief requested
and granted, no new hearing is required if notice would have alert-
ed to the nature of the relief requested~ So the property, all
the property owners were alerted to the fact that we are doing,
we are requesting a variance. And the fact that we've requested
75 feet from the wetland, construction in the rear or would pre-
sume to be in the rear presents some notification at least that
there is something going on here. And if there was any opposition
at all, we would have heard about it either at this hearing or be-
£ore hand. If you need the cite, I have it~ It's not drawn but
I have it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically this is going to reduce the
rearyard down from 30 foot 7 to 26 7.
MS. MOORE: Four feet less. I believe it's 30.7°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 30.7 to 26.7.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I did take some pictures earlier. And if you
would just note that the pictures I present to you, if we have
one v~ew going towards the east and you can see that the property
owner to the east is substantially closer to the water~ So the
location of the house, of this house is one of the furthest or
narrowest house, shortest in depth. I don't how the construction
term of it is. But there are other houses in the area which are
much closer to the water than this one. There's another view
from the east and a view to the west wh~re you can see that the
properties have decks in the rear and so on. There's been sub-
stantial construction along those houses because they're summer
cottages wh~re people are living full time and finding themselves
very cramped. I have a survey, a photocopy of the survey which
I put in red where the balconY would go as well the distances for
sideyard that is requested. The sideyard variance that we show
is much less than what was requested by other variances, Mr.
Smalcheski in particular which I believe you have a copy of the
decision in your file~ I had one prepared for you just in case,
but the decision which limited Mr. Smalcheski to build a ten foot
garage because you were concerned with the sideyard distances to
our property owner. And in light of Mr. Smalcheski's construction
and the concerns of the Board, we limited our garage to the ten
foot garage which result in .... The distance between the garage
and the adjacent property owner, Kerner which is one of the sig-
natures y os have, is 11.6 which is actually larger than way back
in '80 when you approved the other property owner adjacent on the
other side where it would be the westerly side. Mr. Smalcheski,
you approved a 10 foot 5 difference between the construction and
our property owner. Now, today we are requestiong 11~6. So it's
still within the sideyards that you permitted in the past~ There
is a survey of the ....
Pag~ 3-~ January ? 1987
~ Public Hearing - ~=ederick and Helen Hribok
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just figuring lot coverage.
MS. MOORE: Sure. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
with the calculator.
I'm listening at the same time playing
MS. MOORE: I believe it is within the lot coverage. Mr. Lessard
it's one of the things that we were concerned with and it still
would meet the 20% lot coverage requirement. I have further pic-
tures that I took there just on Tuesday. So once you go to make
an inspection, you'll see that the photograph of the same proper-
ty. I have a photograph of Mr. Smalcheski, the adjacent property
owner, his garage addition. Our property owner wishes to do a
similiar garage construction.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you remember what Mr. Smalcheski's south
property line setback was?
MS. MOORE: I don't know if the decision actually mentioned it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have
MS. MOORE: This property as well as the other properties in the
area along Co~ Road which is where our property is, is completely
bulkheaded. I have a photograph of the bulkhead~ Prior to the
change in the balcony, ! had received from Kathleen Russell from
the D.E.C. a verbal ok that we had received the D.E~C~ approval~
I hgve to go back to her and explain to her that now we have a
balcony that's on the second floor. I don't believe it will change
anything because they're concerned with any effect on the wetland
and a balcony on a second floor will have absolutely no impact on
their concerns. I know that from our discussion and you can only...
I swear to you that this is what we spoke about. The approval was
based on the fact that the we are not going further towards the
water than the concrete patio showed. So they saw the survey that
was in the file. They asked me specifically; were you going closer
than the concrete patio and I said no we're not going closer than
the concrete patio. We're not touching the concrete patio~ .Again
another photograph of the Smalcheski property. The sideyard set-
back which was the ten foot six sideyard setback between Mr. Hribok,
the Appants and Mr~ and Mrs. Smalcheski is right here in a photo-
graph. So you can see that our setback to the Kerner property
owner will be larger than this. And I have two photographs. Each
of these photographs have a tax lot number~with it so that it can
be identified but these tax lot~number 1000-5223 is Mr. Smalcheski
and I have a photograph of the distance that would remain with our
construction.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware of Why we placed the restric-
tion on the property owner to the north concerning the garage
doors.
Page 4 January 8, 1987
Public Hearing - I Sederic and Relen Hribok
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it.
If you would repeat it.
CNAIRMiZN GOEHRINGER: We allow for, we would lik,~ to have 9 feet
on any one side of a waterfront lot for the purpose of ingress and
egress to the rear yard. There have been times ~his Board has
varied it and I can remember a spot~ down on Braus Woods where we
varied it to 8 but we have never golpe less than 8 and we do that
specifically for the purpose of working on the bulkhead or what
ever manipulation has to be done to the rear of the property. My
question to you is; does this applicant have any objection to put-
ting two garage doors in?
MS. MOORE: I haven't asked him that. I can ask him and give you
an answer tomorrow if you like. I kmow that there is a back door.
I know you're talking about a second garage door in the back.
CHAIRMJLN GOEHRINGER: That's so that you can get equipment from
the front to the back.
MS. MOORE: Although I think if the reasoning for that back door,
I'm not saying one way or another which way he... I'm sure there
was no objection but I haven't asked.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't have to be an oYerhead garage
door. It cab be a swinging type.
MS. MOORE: But if the reason is for allowing the 9 foot distance,
I believe that the distance between the end of the garage and the
beginning of Mr. Kerner's house is 11.6. So any equipment could
go through the sideyard rather than going through the garage.
CHAIPd~A-N GOEHRINGER: That's true but it may require the taking
down of a fence. And, Mr. Kerner may sell his house which would
preclude them from using the property if the neighbor wouldn't
allow it.
MS. MOORE: Ok. I will present that to Mr. and Mrs. Hribok and
I'll give you an answer. Just to emphasize that ~e did have ap-
proval from the adjacent property owners. I have a letter that
states Dear Mr. Goehringer. we are Mr. and Mrs. iKribok's neigh-
bors and we have been informed that they wish to build a second
story and garage addition to their home. We support the vari
ance requested. This was dated January 5th. I have the waiver
of notices that were dated today and the same property owners
are still in favor of it. They were even willing to sign waivers.
The original has the fingerprints, That's Mr. Kerner's oily
fingerprints so that you know that they're real.
CHAIRMA~N GOEHRINGER: I don't really want to ruin your evening.
I really don't because you've done a really nice job on the pre~
sentation but we feel you're 40 square feet over the lot coverage
with the deck. So any decision coming from this Board w~ll be
that you not exceed the 20% lot coverage. A-nd if you so choose
to cut that portio~ of the deck off, it would... Assuming that
my calculations are correct and assuming the Board goes along
with this application, then that's fine. If you want to come
back for the 40 feet, you're going to have to file a new appli-
cation.
Pa~e 5 ~ January 8 1987
.P~blic Hearing - 1 2derick and Helen Hribok
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE: Ok. Could I have the figures that you've used so
that I can varify them?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have the existing house, 687.69. Pro-
posed garage, 240. Proposed deck, 112.8. A total of 1040.49.
MS. MOORE: You're using the entire parcel not exclusively of
the right-of-way correct?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I'm using the map
to me from Peconic Surveyors.
that was supplied
MS. MOORE: Ok, The square footage of the entire parcel. Al-
right check that and you're not including a concrete patio?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. The structures as they appear.
MS. MOORE: If we have to cut it back, the drawings could be cut
back I'm sure. And I understand that there's no notice to ad-
joining properties of anything regarding the excess over 20%.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's been the Board's feeling and that is
an extremely tight area. I hate to use that word but in reference
to the position .... None of the houses are staggered in any way.
They all pretty much run in one line. So that is not to say we
haven't granted applications in those areas. We are not going
to discuss what would be the nature of the application and dis-
cuss at this time. But we don't consider 40 square feet as be-
ing a substantial application. I mean I don't if you were-to
deal with it on a percentage basis, it's a very small percentage
only.
MS. MOORE: I understand. It's 20 by 20.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 5 times 8, 40. 20 by 20 is 400.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. That's why I'm not involved in building.
Do you have any further questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. We're primarily interested in the
garage doors at this point.
MS. MOORE: Ok. I will check on the garage door.
garage door is irrelevant as long as it opens.
The type of
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it remains open and it remains able to
be opened borrowing the moving of whatever paraphanalia is in the
way. Alright. We'll see if there is any other decision. Could
I have my pen back. Let's see. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak
against the application? Any questions from Board members? Hear-
ing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later,
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOB=RD OF APPEAL
MATTER OF HELMUT HASS
THURSDAY, JT~UARY 8, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING
8:42 p.m. Appeal NO. 3461 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of HELMUT HASS. (1) Insufficient lot area and lot
width, (2) establishing existing residential use as principal
use of proposed southerly parcel; (3) for approval of insuf-
ficient livable floor area in existing dwelling of proposed
northerly parcel. "B-i" Zone. 35350 C.R. 48 (s/s) Peconic.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
records.
CHAIthMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by
Roderick VanTuyl P.C. January 22, 1970 indicating the front
parcel of the parcel closest to the railroad. It would be
the rear parcel in this particular case of 20,774 square
feet which houses a two story framed house or comprises a
two story framed house. The front parcel which is 28,935
square feet which is a one-story framed Shop and a one story
framed house. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this and surroundin9 properties in the area.
Sir, how are you tonight? Would you state your name.
MR. GLICK~4AN: I"m an attorney at law, 114 Main Street, Green-
port. If the Chairman would kindly the two-story as lot number
one and the parcel on 48 parcel number two. Those maps were
just handed to me. I don't have very much to say. I believe
that from the Suffolk County Board of Health I have a letter
here dated November 24th where they have no objection unless
the Board does. At the Planning Board, have granted it con
ditions therein which I have complied with for the 25 foot
right~of-way as you can see in the survey, we have c.o.s
running back from 1963 I think it is and they've been there.
There's no other land to build on. You can not improve it
any more. What is there is what you see and that's what you
are going to get. We're asking to cut them in h~lf. Not in
half but undersized lots. Not 40,000 square feet. There's
a question. The reason being is that according to this man's
will and testament, we want to leave something for the wife
and something for the children and there's no way that you
can leave it all. The only way to satisfy everybody is to
cut it in half and say one is yours and one is 2heirs. You
can't build any longer in there. So there's no really other
method. We've complied with the Planning Board, the Health
Department and I'm here today to ask the Board to grant the
petition.
CHAIPJ~AN GOEHHINGER: Is it the house on nun~er two lot that
is the undersized house?
MR. GLICKNAN: It's the one nearest the 48, Thats right. It
is the 20,000. No I'm sorry. I'm wrong. It's the one that's
right along on the railroad, 20,774 and the other one running
from Middle Road up is 28, 0O0 almost 29,000 square feet. This
goes back to ].963. we have all tha co's, for every building
Page 2 - January 8~ 1987
Public Hearing- ~ ~mut Hass
Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals
MR. GLICKMAN (continued):
built. We have not violated any laws. And the reason that I've
just explained is one that has to be satisfied to satisfy every-
body else.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we thank you for coming in Mr. Glick-
man. We'll see if there's any questions in the audience. Is
there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this ap-
plication? Anybody like to speak against the application? Ques-
tions from Board members? Hearing no further comment, we'll make
a motion closing lhe hearing and reserving the decision until later.
Thank you Mr~ Glickman.
Ail in favor - Aye.
S JTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAiL~
MATTER OF MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES
THURSDA~_~ JANUARY 8~ 1987 PUBLIC HEARING
RECESSED FROM DECEMBER 11, 1986 Meeting
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do we have a spokesperson for the Mattes ?
Mrs. iC0ughlan is hereo
MS. BARBARA COUGHLAN: I am here on behalf of the Mattes'. My name
is Barbara Cough]an I'm an attorney in Riverhead at 13.0
Ostrander Avenue..As I seated, I'm here on behalf of Joyce and
Michael Mattes, the applicantso They're before your Board this
evening for a special exception permit to operate a Bed and Break-
fast in their home located on Luther and Mill Road in Mattituck.
It was my understanding from the last meeting that this applica-
tion was held over for one reason. That reason '~being that there
was some question in respect to the deed of the Mattes'. Both the
Mattes' and myself are here this evening to help you resolve that
issue if we could.~
CHAIP~WZN GOEHRINGER: The issue has been held in abeyance pending
the fact that our legal council is indisposed at the moment. He
is in the hospital and we will discuss it with him after the hear-
ing is closed. We have gathered the information that we are look-
ing for and we think we have pretty much everything that we need.
So I don't see that there's any further reason to go any further
with this. That's pretty much the situation on our part. We will
give the other side the right to respond and we will give you the
right for rebuttal. We will limit that to the 4~ minutes that I
mentioned before. So we'll ask if there's anybody 'else that would
like to speak in favor of the application. Not asking you to seep
aside but... Seeing no one, we will ask the other side to respond.
Yes ma'am. Would you kindly state your name.
MRS. HAHN: Good evening. ~ name is Mary Jean Hahn and I'm the
adjacent property owner to Mr. and Mrs. Mattes. One thing that I
would like to bring up to the Board that I don't believe has been
addressed before. With respect to the right-of-way; it was my un-
derstanding that if something were to happen to one of the guests
of the Mattes' on the right-of-way, that we could be sued as well.
I would ask the Board to consider requiring the Mattes' to issue a
cernificate of insurance for the liability including us as named
insured. So that we would not then be sued privately because of
the fact that they have a Bed and Breakfast and we have a residen-
tial home. And we would just request that we not be responsible
for their clientele .so to say and that the Board require that
they submit that with us with our names on it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Hahn, I just wane to reflect breifly
upon that and that was that I had.:asked Mr. Mattes at the last
hearing if he was willing to run an egress adjacent to yours and
the other 2 property owners egress, ingress and egress. There-
by, precluding use of that right-of-way at this particular time~
one was in conjunction with the Bed and Breakfast operation
Page 2 - January 8, 1987
~Public Rearing - J¢ ~ and Michael Mattes
~Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN' GOEHRINGER: (continued)
if this Board so choose~ to grant it. So I~m not sure that that
is going to be needed assUming we deal with. it in that particular
way.
MRS, HA~N: In other wOrds, you are then requesting the Mattes'
to redesign their driveway. Is that it? And not use the right.-
of-way.
CHAI~-~N GOEHRINGER: That'was basically the way that %... That
was the question that was askedo We had not dealt with that.
MRS, HAHN: Are there any plans or any diagrams?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have not received any from them. We have
not asked anything of them at this particular time. Basically, it
was probably a situation where I was not thinking about the holiday
season in dealing with all of the information that I might have
gathered, that would have supplemented what I needed. But I don't
feel that I need any additional information from either the appli-
cant or the other 3 properny owners at this time. If for some rea-
son that situation was to change, then we might open the hearing up
at that particular time. Reconvene the hearing is the proper term,
phrase to use° But at this particular time, I don't see that that
is of necessityo So that's all I can tell you.
MRS. HAHN: I just hope that this question will be
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
tioned.
That is an interesting area that you just men-
MRS. HAHN: It was a concern to me because of the fact that strangers
would be using our property and you never know. People are sue crazy
these days and I just don't want to open ourselves up to that liabili-
ty.
CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: I happen to live in the community around the
corner and I'm aware of the fact that there is underground power
lines running adjacent to the right-of-way. My question was basic-
ally, which side do they run on. Do they run on the Mattes' side
or do they run on your side of the right-of-way?
MR. MATTES: You're talking about our power line right?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right°
MRS. MATTES: It runs in the middle of the right-of-way.
MR. MATTES: It runs from the right side by the phone pole which
is right on the edge of the right-of-way (diagonally) very slight-
ly diagonally. So over a distance of 150 feet, it goes over 4 feet
and then it cuts up to our house~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's more on the north side then it iSoo.
MR. MATTES: It's entirely on the south half.
Page 3 - January 8, 1987
.Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's on the south half.
MR. MATTES: It goes from immediately on the property line to
about 4 feet in and then it goes about an 80 degree turn and
then goes back across our property all the way up to the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Just let the tape reflect that I am
speaking to Mr. Shaw at the same time that I'm speaking to Mrs.
Hahn. The only thing I ask from you Mr. Shaw if you wouldn't
mind, is to give us some sort of dotted line indicated on the
four lot subdivision of exactly where the power line is. I may
have it here but give it to me as close to as you can. You don't
have to give it to me tonight. You can give it to me... You
know. We'll close the hearing pending the receipt of that. So
that we know exactly where the power lines are and there are no
problems with any excavation or whatever the case might be in
those particular ameas. Because we would hate to see anybody
have their lines cut or whatever the case might be. Ok. Thank
you very much. Yes. Ma'am we're going to split this up. We've
already used... We were only going to go for 2 or 3 more minutes
here. So we'll let Mrs. Shaw speak and then we'll ,again allow
Mr. Hahn or anybody else quickly. Go ahead Mrs. Shaw.
MRS. SHAW: I would
to the right-of-way
ers share the right
right-of-way to the
of it?
like Mary Jean in regard
to the water,with which all four property own-
of. Are the Mattes' going to give up their
water so that we are not liable for their use
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That again is an interesting question and we
have been toying with the situation that deals with that particu-
lar question. So that what in effect I'm saying is; that it opens
the entire spectrum or scope of an issue here and it was an issue
that we had discussed. Not specifically based upon this particu-
lar application but it was minorily discussed last night at the
co-committee meeting in reference to rights-of-ways and the li-
ability of other persons using them in a transient sense as opposed
to just having guests visit you and using the right-of-way. And
these are legal questions which we are going to attempt to address
at the summation of this hearing which should be the decision. So
we have a lot of homework to do within the next 60 days particular
on this individual application. So we will be dealing with that
and toying with that. ~. Mattes has a question. Do you have any
objection Mr. Hahn, if we go back and have Mr. Mattes go at this
particular time? Sir.
MR. MATTES: Good evening. I just want to clarify one thing that's
all. The telephone pole of which the lines go down and then bends
under the Hahn's house and the Shaw's house and not the Brandesforte's.
They get it off Mill Road. That telephone pole is on my side of
the right-of-way. And the issue of liability I think, I didn't
question any liability issues when the Brandesforte's decided to
use the right-of-way to get into their property or I wouldn't ques-
tion the liability issue when~ the Hahns had guests at their house,
when~ the Shaws had guests at their house or business associates
over. So I think we're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Page, 4 - January 8. 987
~Public Hearing - Micmael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're up there Mr. Mattes, I just
wanned to ask you, we have, and this was going to be one of the
last things I wa going to ask, you have given us the indication
that you are willing to discontinue the two family, not that you
are using the two-family, but you presently have a two-family c.o.
for the premiseso Is that correct?
MR, ~TTES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN G~EHRINGER: In doing so, we may ask for a covenant filed
in the Town Clerk's Office that you discontinue the enjoyment of
that second family use.
MR. MATTES: I don't see any problem with that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. And we're going
to have Mr. Hahn and hopefully we'll wrap it up if you have any sum-
mation you'd like.
MR. HAHN: This is the closing remarks because I can see that t]here
are a lot of Bed and Breakfast maybe coming up on the northfork and
we're now just starting off when it's a child and we certainly do
want to make sure that any future Bed and Breakfast will be handled
in the wise manner that is to the advantage of the people that live
here all year long. I was born in Europe and was always brought up
with Bed and Breakfasts It's something totally unnew to me. But I
feel that certain houses based on their geographic location, are just
not condusive for that type of exposure to the residents that live
theme all year long. We live in a 100% residential area. There is
absolutely no commercial ventures at all in our area. And to just
change that for them or for the Mattes, we could have them in any
residential area. That it can just suddenly pop up left and right
in a haphazard manner without any regard for the residential prz-
racy that people have chosen and therefore, invested and paid proper-
ty taxes on. I'm all for Bed and Breakfast but it has to be located
where it doesn't change or alter the actual the inherent nature of
where that Bed and Breakfast is located and that's pretty much all
I have to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. You have a question.
MR. HAHN: One more thing if I may in closing to rebuttal on Mr.
Mattes as to the liability. If I have a guest coming over, my
homeowners will protect me for that liability. However, if there
is a commercial exposure going on, I am suddenly being exposed to
not a normal day to day use of a home where there is guests or
business associates. But we're talking about people coming in and
out at all hours of the night perhaps, depending on if it's New
Year's Eve or whatever. After all, the Hamptons, the life up
there stay up until four in the morning. They could come at four
in the morning to spend the night and that's a different type of
exposure that is being imposed upon our small private community~
That's all I wanted to say.
Page 5 - January 8, 1987
~Public Hearing - MJ eel and Joyce Mattes
~Southold Town Board of APpeals
MR. SHAW:
OUt.
One very small factual thing that I wanted to b~ing
CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're over time now so keep it quick.
MR. SHAW: I'll go real fast. I'm quoting from memorandum of
law on behalf of applicant~,~ Michael and Joyce Mattes in sup-
port of an application. Next, the neighbors propose to limit
the Mattes access to a 25 foot right-of-way. The Mattes' deed
gives some access over that right-Of-way and there's no reason
they should relinquish .that right. However, if the Board ident-
ifies a problem with the right-of-way as a means of exit from
the subject property, the Matte~' have agreed to install an exit
on their property for use by the guests of the proposed Bed and
Breakfasto That indicates that they are not willing to yield the
right-of-way as long as they do not yield the right-of-ways Our
homeowners policy will not cover a commercial use. We will be ex-
posed and would have to pick up an additional policy to cover our
liability. And I believe that in that little list of things the
Board has to consider~that would be actionable under Article 78~
that would be something. We have to deal with the right-of-way
problem. Both rights-of-ways; to the water and also the ingress
and egress.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MS.
MS. : What is the definition of a legal two-family
house according to the Town Code?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
house.
I believe this is a pre-existing two-family
MS. : What is the definition? What qualifies a
house as a two-family house? Two kitchens? What's the fine line?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Four acres. Four acres.
MS. : Four acres.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Four acres of property.
MS.
: You mean four acres of property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 160 thousand square feet and a special excep-
tion from this Board.
MS. : For their requirement insofar as that they may
be separate living quarters or two kitchens-or...
CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: We don't deal with that issue.
Lessard's issue.
That's
MS. : Second question that I would like to ask you;
I understand that a letter was put into the file by the fourth proper-
ty owner. Could it be possible for the Board to read this into the
record?
Page 6 - January 8, 1987
Public Hearing - M~ ael and Joyce Mattes
~'Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ You're welcome to read it or Doug is wel-
come to read it. But by the mere fact that it's placed in the
file and we received it today, it's in. But if you'd like to
read it, we'll give you the time to.
MS. : I would like to read it into the record° It's
directed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. It's dated January 8,
1987. Attention Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman in regards to ap-
peal 3572; Michael and Joyce Mattes. Dear Mr. Chairman, I repre-
sent Sid Brandesforte and.-John Mi~kolowski, owners of premises lo-
cated adjacent to the above referenced p'remises which are subject
of the application. I understand that the applicants seek special
exception pursuant to Section 100~30, subsection B of the Southold
Town Code to establish a "Bed and Breakfast" in their homes. My
clients vehemently oppose that application for a number of reasons.
They purchased their property basDd on the premise that it was akin
to~.~ private estate° As you can see from the attached surveys, they
have no private entrance to their private from Mill Road due to traf-
fic congestion but rather have access by means of a 20 f~ot right-of-
way. This right-of-way is in conjunction with ( ) estate
and it's uniquely designed to create a "communiny effect". Use of
it is granted to my client by deed dated October 28, 1986 attached
hereto which use they share with 6djoining property owners including
the applicants. All adjoining property owners are responsible for
maintenance of the right-of-way° It is respectfully submitted that
any additional use of the right-of-way rather than the owners, an
aGess to all of these properties, it will creane increased traffic
to the area and subject my client and other adjoining owners to a
legal liability in the event of a
cident. Furthermore, New York St
ficient ingress and egress for em
properties. I submit that the ad
private road, endangers my client
Possibly preventing any access to
an emergency. The right-of-way w
community limited use. Not to pr
Please be aware that the applican
dwelling on the subject premises
as a Bed and Breakfast would cons
the use of the premises and burde
tion 100-30, Subsection B-16, Sub
street parking for a Bed and Brea
in giving them a ten parking spac
rent two-family residenee~up to 6
Thus creating a mini parking lot
My client's home is appraised at
upon the residential location of
the hue of the adjoining property
clearly depreciate the value of t
that the applicants maintain a gi
It specializes in handcrafted ite
fully so, that this business ente
subject premises as an added appe
the premises come open to public
that the Board deny this applicat
n accident or other torturous in-
ate Law requires that there be suf-
ergency vehicles to residents and
ditional traffic congestion on this
and the surrounding neighbors.
their properties in the event of
es created to accomodate a private
~vide access to
ts maintain a legal two-family
~t present. Use of the property
titute an overintensification of
~ adjoining property owners. Sec-
section A; mandates adequate off-
kfast establishment. Realistically,
~ as required to accomodate a c~r-
proposed guests and employees.
in the midst of a residential area.
$350,00 which appraisal is based
the subject parcel. A change in
allowing use by the public will
~eir home. The Boards may be aware
ft shop in the immediate vicinity.
ns. My client felt concern, right~
~prise could easily extend to the
~1 to perspective guests should
ase. My client, therefore, request
ion as not being in the best in-
terest~of the health, welfare and general harmony of the community.
Very truly yours, Terry
Page~ 7 - January 8, 4'987
~ ?nblic Hearing - Mi. ~ael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you° Ms~
MS. : Just a couple of things. I'm not that familiar
with the question of liabilityo I would like to research it and
submit some kind of ( ) in response to the comments
that were brought up by the neighbors this evening. I do know from
research that this particular right-of-way was given to the Mattes'
in their deed and the language of the right-of-way is very generalo
Case law provides that since it is so general, to change the use,
to become a more intensified use, the right-of-way still remains
and they are still entitled to the use because the language is so
general. I do have a case cite for that. Zoobly v. Community
Mainstream Associates, Inc. This cite is 423, New York subsecond
982. It's a 1979 case and I've got a copy for the Board if you
would like to see ito And it also cites a New York Court of Ap.-
peals case° Finally, I would like to stress that it is not a com-
mercial use. The neighbors keep on saying that it's a commercial
use. It's a principal use as a residenceo It's just an accessory
use to that residence. Thank you°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I
make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision untill,
later.
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF DONALD AND JOAIiNE RITTER
THURSDAY~ JANUARY 8, !98~ PUBLIC HEARING
9:17 p.m. Appeal No. 3584SE - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of DONALD AND JOANNE RITTER. Special Exception to con-
vert existing one-family dwelling to two-family use. 2585 Pe-
conic Lane, Peconic.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey, the mos5 re-
cent date of November 14, 1986 indicating a 2% story framed house
approximately 23 feet from Peconic Lane and basically on the north
property line and a garage in the rear of the property. And I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property
and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. McLoughlin would you
like to be heard? -
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I represent the Ritters. i'm an attorney at 828
Front Street, Greenport. The building in question is approximately
200 years old and I believe up until approximately 4 years ago, it
was being utilized as a two-family home° The Ritters purchased the
property in 1985 at which time it was not in use as a two-family
home. There are only very very minor alterations that need to be
done to re-establish it into two plats or two homes. The neces-
sary methods of ingress and egress are already .there° It's just
a matter of cutting out a former doorway and re-establishing a
separate front entrance for the upstairs° Also if you'll notice
on our survey, we have indicated an addition to the existing earth
driveway to the north of the garage to continue on and provide for
additional parking space. There's a two garage here. With the ad-
ditional space we would have 3 off street parking spaces at least
and certainly room for more. The neighborhood surrounding the sub-
ject property is by in large, multi-family and co_mmercialo Direct-
ly across Peconic Lane from the subject property are two houses.
One of which contains 3 apartments. The other one of which con-
tains 2. The post office is just slightly north of those two houses.
That building also contains a store and a laundromat. Directly
north of the subject property is the Henry Smith Fuel Oil Company.
Directly behind the property and to the south of the property is
vacant land. I think with the character of the neighborhood as it
presently exists, the reconversion of this premises into a two
family house certainly would have no adverse impact on the neigh-
borhood. So we would respectfully submit and request the Board
to grant the special exception to reconvert this house to a two
family dwelling.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask one question. Is there any...
I'm aware that the applicant and you being his agent, have (more
than an agent, an attorney) applied to us for the two-family use.
And as you know, in the audience the question was asked; what are
the requirements for a two-family use~ I was just wondering bear-
ing that in mind, it's encumbant upon me to tell you that we are
not' allowed to vary a special exception. We are not permitted to
do so. And I would invite the applicant or the applicants to (If
PR. ge 2 - January m. 1987
P~blic Hearing - nald and Joanne Ritter
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (continued)
they so desire) come back for the accessory apartment which I
think by special exception, we could grant it in an instance
like this. You know the acreage is a standard thing and you
will note in many of the past applications before this Board
we'have not varied it in any way manner or form. So we will
definitely discuss it. We will see what we can deal with. We
have gentlemen on thia Board that have been here for 30 some
years and remember these houses so on and so forth. So you
know we're definitely going to deal with it. But if the situ-
ation does not go in that particular fashion, I might suggest
to the applicants that they come back for that particular use
which I consider to be very close to the two-family status. ~
Except of course that it requires owner occupancy and I assume
they are occupying the houSe at this time.
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Currently they are.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So possibly that might be a better ave-
nue if we were to turn it down and that was the purpose of the
establishment of that law because we know of the quite restric-
tive nature of the two-family status and that was the purpose
of the installation of the accessory apartment which we have
granted in a few instances and even in properties probably small-
er than this. So we thank you for coming in and presenting this
and we invite you that if the situation does not come to f~uition
that you deal with it on the other basis. Alright.
MRo MCLOUGHLIN: Thank you.
CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
like to speak in favor?
Is there anybody else who would
MRS. 'COMBS: I live to the south of Mr. Ritter and I
personally have no objection if he goes accessory to the family
because it may
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Mrs. iC_~b$. Is there
anybody who would like to speak against? Hearing no further
questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
Ail in favor - aye°
Town