The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2772 West Side Shipyard Lane, E.M. 6/II/8I UA-construct additional residential units, a ~offee shop, administration offiCe anda -pool in an M-I Zoned District-(and deleting the 2I motel units as previously granted I/I7/80). TO~'N OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2772 by application Dated May 12, 1981 (as amended) ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta 43 West 54th Street New York. NY 10019 (Richard F. Lark, Main Road Cutchoque, NY at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 9, 1981 was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property (X) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Art. V, Esq. Appellant 11935) the appeal Section 100-50 I. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be eon.firmed because Public Hearing: 6/11/81: 9:20 P.M. Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Special Exception (as amended) to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Section 100-50 for permission to construct additional residential units, a coffee shop, administration office and swimming pool in an M-1 Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel units as previously granted 1/17/80). Location of property; West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co.; east by Shipyard Lane; south by Gardiners Bay; west by Parkside Heights Co.; County Tax:Map Item No. 1000- 38-7-part of Lot 4. 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because difficulties or unnecessary (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) umque and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordlnanee and (would) change the character of the district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (would not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested vat that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confir (SEE REVERSE SIDE) FORM ZB4 ZONING mnoo ( ) he__granted ( ) be denied and e ECLrI d'AND FILED BY souTzom TOW ~O~D OF ~LS O~/- ~ To~ ~erk, To~ of Southold After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect 45 residential units, a coffee shop, an administration office and a pool at premises located in an "M-1 Multiple Residence District." For the use requested herein, a Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant's Site Development Plan as revised 5/6/81 appears to be in conformance with all the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has been informed that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con- servation permit application appears to be approvable as revised 6/1/81 and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit application appears to be approvable as revised 5/27/81. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a Special Exception in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect 45 residential units, a coffee shop, administration office, and pool as per the revised Site Development Plan dated 5/6/81, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND- ITIONS: 1. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 3. Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan. 4. Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County Charter. 5. Approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the sewage disposal systems. ~ 6. No further subdivision except by application and approval ~rom the Southold Town Planning Board and Board of Appeals, and ~'appropriate other agencies when required. 7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of the mean highwater line. 8. No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed within 100 feet of mean highwater line. 9. A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of 50 feet shall be established along the shoreline. 10. No storm-water runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the pending subdivision and any of the lots shall be discharged directly into Gardiners Bay. 11. No loudspeakers or other noise-making devices may be permitted which would disturb the neighborhood. 12. The coffee shop is permitted (50 seat maximum) to be used.. exclusively for the occupants of the dwellings and shall not be per- mitted for use by the general public. Location of property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, and Sawicki. LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, the following matter will be held for public hearing (in addition to those previously advertised 5/28/81) to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, June 11, 1981: 9:20 p.m. Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Special Exception (as amended) to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Section 100-50 for permissionlto construct additional residential units, a coffe~ shop, administration office and swimmingpool in an M-1 Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel units as previ- ously granted 1/17/80). Location of Property: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co.; east by Shipyard Lane; south by Gardiners Bay; west by Park- side Heights Co.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Dated: June 1, 1981. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CHAIRMAN Instructions to Newspapers: Please publish Thursday, June 4, 1981 and forward one affidavit of publication to: Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. (516) 765-1809. Copy to: Richard F. Lark, Esq. as attorney Town Clerk Bulletin Board ZBA files FORM NO, ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................................................. Date ..'-~'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_~..,~,,.~,..I~..~./~..'~......../....~......., 19...,~..C]l ...C& .z-c-~.....c~..~.~....-:........,~..:. ~ ................ / / ~;r~ ';~/~ o - o PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your ~ dated .... ~..~.~Z~...~ ........ 19.~.0 for permit to construct~...(~Z~.~....at fl~e premises Jocafed at .~/~J~ ........... · ~/.~.~....~. .................... ~~r ~,~, ~-~. Map Z~.~.~...~.~ ..... Block ........ ~..Z ............................. Lot ~.~..~...~..~.~:.~ ............. is returned herewith and disapproved on the follow;ng grounds ..~..~.~..~..~.~../~...~.....~...~.........'~,./Z~ ~Z.~ ~......~.~......~../.~.:./'~o.;......,..~..~.t~-~........~z~.~.~z~¢....Zo.~ ~.bz.~..c.....~2~-2~r~....~ ~ ...... ~/;~.....z.~.~.~....~z../ ........ Building Inspector FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 (~C/~ e~j ~ TEL.: 765-1802 ..... · f~,)~cd a/c ........... '~' ] ' . · (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT ( y Application No .................. STRUCTURE #:.,~ Date .S.e.p.l;,..~.9., ........ 198.0. INSTRUCTIONS .~ application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in triplicate to the Building .. with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. .t plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets ,nd giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- · work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. ,,n approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit , .pt on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. 5uilding shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy · ~,een granted by the Building Inspector. :CATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the 'one Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other'applicable Laws, Ordinances or · ~s for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described · ..ant agrees to comply wzth all apphcable laws, ordinances, bmldmg c~ode, housmg code, and regulations, and to I ~u:t~orized inspectors on premises and in buildings for necessary inspec}f~ns.)-3 ./ (Signa'gt-ure of applicant, o'g-aarfle, if a corporation) 43 West 54th Street, New York Ci.ty. (Mailing address of applicant) 10019 · '~.r applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. wner, Engineer Emanuel Kontokosta · -er o£ premises ............ ~. ................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) ~ a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. '~me and title of corporate officer) . License No .......................... "Lmense No ~ ,n's License No .................. · ..... ~-O ~./ .~ ,de's License No ...................... 'flandonwhichproposedworkwillbedone. North Side of Shipyard Lane, 2,808.97 fee .uth of the Main (North) Road ~ber Street Hamlet ~ Map No. 1000 Section ....0.3.8 ........... Block . .7. ............. Lot..P..a.r.~;..4 ........... ..................................... ed Map No ............... ot ............... (Name) ug use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: · qse and occupancy - ,l Use and occupancy Residential-Multiple Dwelling 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building ... }(X ..... tition .......... Alteration .......... Repair .............. Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work ............... (Description) 4. Estimated Cost ..... ~.3.5.0., .09.0.:99 ................... Fee ...................................... (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units .... 1..4 ......... Number of dwelling units on each floor .... 7. ........... If garage, number of cars ........................................................................ 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ..................... 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............... Rear .............. Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stories ........................................................ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. Depth ...................... Height ...................... Number of Stories ...................... 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front 125 ' Rear 12 S ' Depth 62 ' - 6" Height 19 ' - 10" . Number of Stories two 9. Size of lot: Front ... 40-5 ' ............... Rear .... 570-' .............. Depth var.5, able ............. 10. Date of Purchase ... 12./.6/78. ................. Name of Former Owner D a wa..r, s t a.t o s. S.bo p ,..I.n ¢ ,. · 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated... M.-.1 .............................................. 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation:N o.-.S e e..ap p: d..s 5 tr..p ] an ....... 13. Will lot be regraded ... ,Y.e $ ..................... Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes x No 14. Nam e of Owner of premises [ · Ko. ri t O J(.o. ~ t ~ ......Ad dress4.3., ld,..5. 4.5 .t. ,.l~, y ...(Phone No 212.-. 582 .-.6100.. Name of Architect K. 9 .n.t.qk. 9 .s.t.a..A..s.s.qc. ~..a.t.e.s... Address4.3..~....5.4...S.t.,.N.-',~.Y...CPhone No21.2.-.5 ~2.-.6.100.. Name of Contractor N/A ..... Address Phone No. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. SEE APPROVED SITE PLAN BY PLANNING BOARD STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY OF.... N.ew- Yo.rk .... ....... .-.~.m.a. rl.u. ~ .]. 'iK.q .n .t.o.k.q .s .t.a .................... being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applican~ (Name-of individual signing contract) above named.- (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, m~d is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file thi application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that th, 'work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this ,~ October 80 ~'...~. ....... d.a,~e f~. .................... ,19... County C e r? f~ ca ~ [iee ~ illend I~ n°C~k[ea~ dy oCrCkU ~toYu ~.. /'~ (S~pplicant commission [x~ rim M#t~ts TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK AMENDED APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. DATE .[~y....12.~....1981 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ...Bm~nue 1...M .....K~ntoko. ata ................ ~ ..................................... Name Street and Number Municipality State hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE V SECTION 100--50 SUBSECrrON B (3) & C (2) On December 24, 1980 the Petitioner filed with the Board of Appeals an application for a Special F~ception copies of which with attached exhibits are on file with the Board. The Petitioner desires to amend the Site Plan dated November 20, 1980 deleting the marina and 48 residential units to provide for 45 residential units. The revised S~te Plan,dated May 6, 1981 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As in the previous application for a Special Exception all the residential units will be in the condominium form of ownership which will require approval from the Attorney General's Office, and contain a coffee shop, aaministration office and swimming pool as accessory uses. ) ~s B~ ................................... CO~Y OF ~ ) -- S~a[ure Richard F. ~rk, as Attorney S~r~o th~ ...,~.~. ......... ..~ of ...~,.~X .............. 19...~.~ ....... ........................................ BA~TT~ CO~H1H~ ' NOTARY PUbLiC, S~c~e o~ ~'~w Yor~ FORM ZB2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 December 28, 1982 TEL. 765-1802 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Subject: Cleaves Point Village Site Plan revision #2, dated 11/11/82 Gentlemen: With reference to item #1 of letter dated December 7, 1982 for certification of this site plan revision, please refer to certification dat'ed November 5', 1982 for tefinis ~ourts. Item #2 (chain-link fence): the only chain-link fende indicated on site plan is shown as a backstop for tennis court, as such I would consider it to be an integral part of the tennis courts. The original approved Site plan did not include the two sections of 8'-0" high stockade fencing as shown along front- yard area at south entrance. In the M-1 district there are no regulations for fencing. Fencing (screening) would come under site development, Art. III, Sec. 100-134 D (5) & (6). The one objection under zoning would be the closeness of the garages to dwellings. The 'Zoning Analysis' on site plan states a distance separation of 20'-0". This complies to Art. V, Sec. 100-52 B. However, the site plan does not scale to 20'-0". It would be advisable to move garages on site plan to scale to a 20'-0" separation and show a setback dimension such as was done for distance separation of principal buildings. In the M-1 district, accessory uses are permitted under Art. V, Sec. 100-50 C (1). There are no regulations for loca- tion of accessory structures, this would come under Art. XIII, Sec. 100-134 D (1) for site development. Sec . EFH:ec xc ZBA / This certification is made in accordance with Art. XIII, 100-133 C, relative to zoning requirements. You~ truly, Edward F. Hindermann Building & Housing Inspector Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P, GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR SERGE DOYEN, .JR ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI November 29, 1982 Mr. David E. Kapell 143 Sixth Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Cleaves Point Village Condominiums Site Plan Revised November 11, 1982 Dear Dave: In reviewing the site development plan submitted by you on November 17, 1982, it will be necessary to receive the following before we may proceed on this proposal: 1. Amended permit from the D.E.C. pursuant to discussion with Mr. Dennis Cole; 2. Submission to the Building Department for their review and referral to our office for specifics (i.e. variances needed); 3. Amended Special Exception application forms; 4. Approval of the amended plan by the Planning Board. We will hold the copies of the site development plan in our file pending your filing of the Special Exception. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. lk cc: Building Department Planning Board Yours very truly, DAVID E. KAPELL 143 Sixth Street Greenport, New York 11944 516-477~1~X9403 November 17, 1982 14r. Gerard Goehrinser Ch~t t~mn Sou~old Town Board of Appeals Town of Southold Sout~old, Ney York 11971 Dear GerzT~ Hy client, Emonuel Kontokosta, wishes to revise the site plan for his Cleaves Point Vill~e Condominiums project on Shipyard Lmne, E~st H&rion, for ~ich · Special Exception was gr~ed by your ~a~d on July 9, 1981. In connection with this matter I enclose the following: 1. 4 copies of revised site plan. 2. Copy of let~r dated 11/12/82 to Henry R~ynor from Hr. Kontokosta detailins the revisions. 3. Copy. of Spect~l Exception granted by your board on 7/978l. Would you please, at your earliest convenience, coemence review oi this matter and keep me posted of any actions relatinS to s~meo Sincerely, Enclosures as Rent. '<ON~,.)KO3D~, ~.~SOCIATES · E GINEERS/ARCHIT~-CTS '" ,,w,,~, , S~::~r:t new york cly new york 10019 i 212 582-6100 e.m kontokosla p.e. gary rogers ra November 12, 1982 Mr. Henry E. Raynor,Jr,Chairman' Planning Board Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Re: Cleaves Point Village Condominiums Revised Site Plan Dear Mr. Raynor: Enclosed please find a revised site plan for your review and approval regarding Cleaves Point Village Condominiums on Shipyard Lane in East Marion. The revised plan shows the following changes: 1. Two tennis courts approved by the Planning Board on 8/30/82 have been incorporated on the overall plan 2. Propose the installation of an 8ft high fence at the southerly entrance to the project so as to screen the Unsightly loading dock of the Oyster Factory. 3. Propose to revise the location and size of Bldg #3 and #4 so as to increase the setback from the shoreline and thus better con- form to the Setback location of the bull.dings on the proposed project to the west. 4. Propose to provide one car garages for each of the units in Bldg #3 and #4 along with an additional driveway parking space for each of said units. This will increase the number of parking spaces for the entire project from 44 required to 72 actual spaces. 5. Propose to reduce number of units from the approved 45 to the proposed 44 dwelling units. Your expeditious review and consideration will be greatly appreciated. Yours- .~.Kontokosta~p.e. EMK/ck Enclosure- Four (4) copies of Site Plan TO~VN OF SOUTtIOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF Al'PEALS Appeal No. 2772 by application Dated May 12, 1981 (as amended) ACTION OF T~EZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tn Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta 43 West 54th Street New York, NY 10019 ~t a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property (X) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Bequest for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) (Richard F. Lark, Main Road Cutchoque, NY .July 9, 1981 Art. V, Esq. Appellant 11935) the appeal Section 100-50 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .....: .............. Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be confirmed because Public Hearing: 6/11/81: 9:20 P.M. Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Special Exception (as amended) to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Section 100-50 for permission to construct additional residential units, a coffee shop, administration office and swimming pool in an M-1 Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel units as previously granted 1/17/80). Location of property; West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co.; east by Shipyard Lane; south by Gardiners Bay; west by Parkside Heights Co.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 38-7-part of Lot 4. 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinar/ce (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) difficulties or unnecessary (would not) be shared by all properties (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (would not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested valid ( that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confim (SEE REVERSE SIDE) FORM ZB4 ZONING ) be denied and e E d'AND FILED BY THE SOU/~HOLD TOwN CLERK After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect 45 residential units, a coffee shop, ~n administration office and a pool at premises located in an "M-1 Multiple Residence District." For the use requested herein, a Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant's Site Development Plan as revised 5/6/81 appears to be in conformance with all the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has been informed that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con- servation permit application appears to be approvable as revised 6/1/81 and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit application appears to be approvable as revised 5/27/81. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case ~are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a Special Exception in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect 45 residential units, a coffee shop, administration office, and pool as per the revised Site Development Plan dated 5/6/81, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND- ITIONS: 1. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 3. Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan. 4. Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County Charter? 5. Approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the sewage disp~3sal systems. . ~ . ~ 6. No further Subdivision except by application and ~rom the Southo!d Town Planning Board and Board of Appeals, .and Cappropri~te other agencies when required. 7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of the mean highwater line. ~ 8. No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed within 100 feet of mean highwater line. ~ A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of 50~-feet shall be established along the shoreline. 10. No storm-water runoff resulting from the development improvement of the pending subdivision and any of the lots'shali be discharged directly into Gardiners Bay. 11. No loudspeakers or other n~ise-making devices may be permitted which would disturb the neSghborhood. 1~. The coffe~op is Permitted (50~seat maximum) to be used.. exclusively for the~ccupants of thedWell~ngs and shall not be per2 mitted for use by ~\general public. ' Location of property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, and Sawicki. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (516) 360-5513 LEI:' £. KOPP£LMAN December 1, 1981 Town of Southold Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the following applications which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decisio~ of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant M,m{cipal File Number Emanuel M. Kontokosta 2772 GGN:Jk Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner VETERANS MEMORIAl-HIGHWAY ' HAUPPAUGE, ~.. ,.. HZW voR~ 11788 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-180g Pursuant to ~zrticle XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: __ Variance from the Zoning Code, Article , Section ~a~iance fromDetermination~of~Southold Town ?Bui~d±ng>Inspector ~ Special Exception, Article V , Section 100-50 __ Special Permit Appeal No.: 2772 Applicant: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Location of Affected Land: West side of Shipyard Lanes East Marion, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 38-7-part of Lot 4. Within 500 feet of: __ Town or Village Boundary Line ~X Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) Gardiners Bay __ State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway __ Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally- Owned Land -- Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or Other Recreation Area __ Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Estab- lished Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant __Within One Mile of An Airport. COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to construct addit~Qn~l ~es~den~i~l units~ a coffee sho~. administration office and swimmin~ pool ~ ~n ~-1 Zoned Dist. (and deletin.~ the 21 motel units as ious!~ ~ranted 1/17/80~. Public ~earin? 6/11/81. Decision on 7/9/8% Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed herewith for your review. Decision enclosed. Dated: October 1, 1981 Secretary, Board of Appeals Today' s Date; blembers Absent, if any: Appeal No. 27?2 Agenda Item/~Xlatter of: KONT_0KOSTA: EMA~JEL M, ' Type of Variance or Appeal: _~ Ex~._~or ad_~kiJ2%on~l residential units, Resolution made by: Seconded by: coffe~shop, administration office, swimming pool. G~rharles Robert ~%~een ~. Gerard Joseph. lgonls DougIass ~aW~CK~ ( ) ( ( ) (/) ( ) (/) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) a Action: ( ) Approve as applied for ( ) Den)' as applied for ( ) Deny ( ) Deny without prejudice ( ) Withdrawn without Approve with the following conditions: (~Su~,ject to County Planning referral Prejudice · (~Subject to Planning Board approval ( ) ( ) Subject to D.E._C. r_.~_~_q~lations ( ), Other: Not Within the Character of the Neighborhood Variance is Substantial in Relation to Code If so~ Hardship not sufficient Hardship or Difficulty Not Unique Will set a precedent in the neighborhood Area is already very congested Interests of justice served by denyin§ Other: (~/) Granting the Relief Requested is within spirit of the zoning 6ode ( ) Relief is not substantial (~/) Burden of hardship or difficulty shown and is unique (~ Variance will not chang~ character of the neighborhood ( ) Interests of Justice served by granting ( ) Vote of the Board: Ayes: (~ CG (/~ SD (Y~ RD (/(GG (~J$ Nay: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Abstain: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Absent: ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Notes: TO~ OF $OUTHOLD, ~¥ ¥OHK ACTION OF THE ZONinG BOAI~D OF A~PE~S Appe~No. 2579 Dated July 24, 1979 ACTION OF T~ ZONING BOARD OF APPE~ OF ~E TOWN OF SO~OLD To Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta (Richard F. Lark, Esq. 26 Court Street Main Road Brooklyn, NY 11201 Cutchogue, NY 11935) DATE 1/22/80 Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 17, %vas cor~idered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ~ Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance Art. ( ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) 1980, the appeal V, Section 100-50 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Bo~d it was de~rmlned that a special exception ( ) be ~anted ( ) be denied pursuant to Art~le .................... Sect~n .................... S~seetion .................... para.apb .................... of the ~ning O~inance and the decision of the Bu~ding I~pector ( ) be reversed ( ) be co~irmed b~ause 1/17/80: 8:05 P.M. Application of Emanuel M. Konto- kosta, (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50B(3) (4) and c(2), for permission to erect 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard'Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. (SEE REVERSE) 2. ~A~ By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because (SEE REVERSE) ~lifficulties or unnecessary (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (~vould) change the character of the district because (SEE REVERSE) (wou!d not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( be cordirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS After investigati nd inspection, the Boar inds that the applicant requests permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and an accessory coffee shop ak premises located in an "M-1 Multiple Resi- dence District." The present zoning ordinance would allow for boarding or tourist houses, or multiple residences for not more than four families; however, for the use requested herei~ a Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant's Site Development Plan as revised 11/28/79 appears to be in conformance with all the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has been i~ormed that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit applications appear to be approvable as revised 11/28/79. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical dif- ficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a Special Exception in this case will not change the character of the neigh- borhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and accessory coffee shop as per the revised Site Development Plan dated 11/28/79, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 3. Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan. 4. Approval frOm the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County Charter. 5. Approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the sewage disposal systems. 6. No further subdivision except by application and approval from the Southold Town Planning Board and Board _of Appeals, and appropriate other agencies when required. .~ ~ ~ 7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of the mean highwater line. 8. No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed within 100 feet of mean highwater line. 9. A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of 50 feet shall be established along the shoreline. 10. No storm-water runoff resulting from the development and improve- ment of the pending subdivision and any of the lots shall be discharged directly into Gardiners Bay. 11. No loudspeakers or other noise-making devices may. be permitted whi~ld disturb %h~'neighbo~hood. ~ ~127 ~he coffee shop is permitted for ~se exclusively for the motel- ap~me3~ occupants, and shall not be permitted for use by the general public. Location of property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parksi~e Heights Co. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7- part of Lot 4. ~ ~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Absent: Messr. Dogglass. APPROVED . Grigon~s, Tuthill and Doyen. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H, July 15, 1981 Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta Kontokosta Associates 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Board of Appeals Re: Shipyard Lane Project, Property W/S Shipyard Lane, East Marion, (T) Southold Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Your request to appear before the Board of Review of the Suffolk County De- partment of Health Services has been received. A review of this case has been scheduled at the County Center building, Riverhead, in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Conference Room, 2nd floor, North Wing, on July 29, 1981, at 10:30 a.m. You and interested parties may appear with or without counsel and you may produce any information or evidence concerning the above referenced project. Very truly yours, Aldo Andreoli, P.E. Chairman Board of Review AA:cah cc: Mr. James L. Corbin Mr. Paul J. Ponturo Mr. Robert W. Jewell Mr. Royal R. Reynolds Southold Town Board of Appeals/ HENRY E RAYNOR, ,Tr,, Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. TO D S Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 June 10, 1981 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on June 1, 1981. With the exclusion of the marina on the proposed application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, the Southold Town Planning Board concurs with the findings of the Southold Town Board of Appeals with re- gard to the Environmental Assessment Form filed with you by the applicant. Yours truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Linda Kimmins, Secretary COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town L~w and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of South- old, the following matter will be held for public hearing (in addition to those previously ad vertised 5/28/81) to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thurs- day, June 11, 1981: 9:20 p.m. Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by Richard F. f~rk, Esq.) for a Special Exception (as amended) to the Zoning Ordinance, Ar~. V, Section 100-50 for permission to con. struct additional residential units, a coffee shop, admin~s. tration office and swimming pool in an M-1 Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel units as previously granted 1/17/80). Location of prop- erty: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co.; east by Ship- yard Lane; south by Gardiners Bay; west by Parkside Heights Co.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Dated: June 1, 1981. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN' BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. Chairman IT, 6/4/81 (9) Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; a:~d that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- mon once each week for ............. ..~. ........................ weeks successively, commencing on the ...... ~ ......................... 19...'~...~. day Sworn to before me this ........ ..~.~i .................. day of i. ................. , Notary Public OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY' GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, the following matter will be held for public hearing (in addition to those previoasly advertised 5-28-81) to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, June 11, 1981: 9:20 p.m. Application df Emanue{ M. Kontokosta, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Special Exceptions- (as amended) to the ZOning Ordinance, Art. V, Section 100- 50 for permission to construct additional residential units, a- coffee shop, administration office and swimmingpool in an M-1 Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel units as previously granted 1-17-80). Location of Property: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY; bounded ~Y ~P,a~. kside Heights Co.; ~Yar~t?yard Lane; south by A Parks~lLIgHeights Co.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35.7. part of Lot 4. Dated: June 1, 19~1. BY ORDER OF,-' THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. F SUFFOLK, { NEW YORK, ~ss: .... Tr. Oy..0V~.~.v.$0~ ................ being duly Sworn, says that . .he. .... is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published at Greenport, in said county: and that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the said Suffolk Weekly Times once in each week, for . . . .o.b.e. .................... weeks successively commencing on the ....4.~..h. .................. day of ...... ~l~rl ~ ....... ~ ........ Sworn to before me tbi~ ....... I .............. °'" .... HELEN K DE VOE NOtARy PUBLIC, State ol New York No 4707878, Suffolk U~unty Term Expires March 30, 19~.~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. T r' ~,":,;' T U T', '.', L L ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawickt Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 1i~71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 June 5, 1981 Richard F. Lark, Esq. · Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appeal No. 2772 - Emanuel M. Kontokosta Dear Mr. Lark: Please send three additional copies of the amended site plan at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CHAIRMAN Eileen M. Carey ' d Temporary Secretary CG:ec Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD' MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. TC~ 7, ',' TUT:',:LL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GER%RD P. GOEHRINGER N.Y.S. Joseph H. Sawicki NOTICE OF DECLARATION PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Appeal No. 2772. Application of: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Location of Property in Question: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Project Proposed by Appeal Application: Amended Site Plan and Application indicates deletion of the marina and three residential units and to provide for 45 residential units, coffee shop, administration office, pool. /ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type I Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Long Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This department is in receipt of correspondence dated May 27, 1981 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating a preliminary incursory review of this project indicates the 45 condominium units equals 27,000 gallons per day sewage flow; ancilliary buildings are rated at 2,450 gallons per day; indicating a total daily sewage flow from the site at 29,400 gallons which is under the Department's current limitation for use of individual sanitary systems; and therefore their office has no objection to the application. This department has also been assured by the N.Y.S. Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation by conversations had May 29, 1981 at the Stony Brook office that they also agree with this Board's determination of non-significance for this amended project and that written correspondence would be submitted as early as possible. NOTICE OF DECLARATION APPEAL NO. 2772 - EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Dated: CG:lk Copies: June 1, 1981. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN Richard F. Lark, Esq. as attorney for Applicant Town Clerk Bulletin Board N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Health Services Conservation Advisory Council Southold Town Board New York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 516-751-7900 F. Flacke Town 0[ .%nthold Commissioner June 1, 1981 Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southotd, New York 11971 Re: Application by Emanuel K~ntokosta - Shipyard Lane Project - Proposed 48 '5 Condominium Units and Administration Building and Coffee Shop i~? ~ D/W Dear Mr. Grigonis: The Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the amended site plan and related documents submitted with your letter of May 21, 1981. We agree with your determination that the project as revised would not have significant environmental impacts and will meet New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulation's requirements. We will await your formal Notice of Negative Declaration and instruct the Applicant by copy of this letter to submit the revised plan with regard to his New York State Tidal Wetland Applicat~m~ pending witk this Department. Thank you for your cooperation with regard to this matter. DDR:ll cc: E. Kontokosta D. Middleton A. Candela Sincerely, David De Ridder Associate Environmental Analyst for ) ) ) ) ( ) ZBA Chairman/Members copies £.:,~!!~ ~ ~77 h:;.~ Agent Origi~ml for Z~A fil~ Comments o= Reply Eeque~ted, th Id To lapp Is Sou o wn Board o ea MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 c:OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 1197] TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GR1GONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GER'~RD P. GOEHRtNGER N.Y.S. Joseph H. Sawicki NOTICE OF DECLARATION PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Appeal No. 2772. Application of: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Location of Property in Question: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion. County'Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Project Proposed by Appeal Application: Amended Site Plan and Application indicates deletion of the marina and three residential units and to provide for 45 residential units, coffee shop, administration office, pool. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type 2L~ Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the LongForm has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This department is in receipt of correspondence dated May 27, 1981 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating a preliminary incursory review of this project indicates the 45 condominium units equals 27,000 gallons per day sewage flow; ancilliary buildings are rated at 2,450 gallons per day; indicating a total daily sewage flow from the site at 29,400 gallons which is under the Department's current limitation for use of individual sanitary systems; and therefore their office has no objection to the application. This department has also been assured by the N.Y.S. Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation by conversations had May 29, 1981 at the Stony Brook office that they also agree with this Board's determination of non-significance for this amended project and that written correspondence would be submitted as early as possible. NOTICE OF DECLARATION APPEAL NO. 2772 - EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Dated: June 1, 1981. CG:lk Copies: BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN Richard F. Lark, Esq. as attorney for Applicant Town Clerk Bulletin Board N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Health Services Conservation Advisory Council Southold Town Board Southold Town Planning Board Village of Greenport Mr. Robert F. Flacke, Commissioner, DEC, Albany COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHSERVICES May 27, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road State Road 25 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attention: Charles Grigonis, Jr. RE: Shipyard Lane Project Proposer: Emanuel Kontokosta Dear Mr. Grigonis: Please be advised this office is in receipt of your letter of May 21, 1981 in regards to the above referenced project. A preliminary incursory review of the project indicates 45 condominium units rated at 600 gallons per day,per unit equals 27,000 gallons per day sewage flow. Additionally, ancilliary buildings include an administrative office and coffee shop rated at 2,450 gallons per day indicating total daily sewage flow from the site as 29,400 gallons which is under the Department's current limitation for use of individual sanitary systems. Accordingly, this office has no objection to this application. Mr. Konto- kosta will be advised by separate letter of the requirements of the Department. Very truly yours, ~ General Engineering Services RWJ:ljr cc: Emanuel Kontokosta Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2,5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Josoph H. 8awick± To: May 21, 1981 Army Corps of Engineers N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Health Department Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Re: Appeal No. 2772 - Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta For a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Property: West Side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion Gentlemen: Continuing on our letters of February 17, 1981 and April 8, 1981, please find enclosed the following documents concerning the above matter: (a) Environmental Statement submitted date hereof; (b) by the applicant herein same Amended Site Plan dated May 6, 1981 with Amended Special Exception application received May 13, 1981. It appears after reading the correspondence submitted by each agency involved that the portion of this project particularly of concern and which may adversely effect the environment (the impact of the dredging on local ground water) is the marina. Upon reviewing the amended site plan and related documents and being thoroughly familiar with the site in question, it is the general con- sensus of the members that the project as revised would not have any adverse effect upon the environment and provided of course they are able to meet all other department/agency requirements. Your thoughts are requested as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and assistance. Yqurs very truly,~ CHARLES~S, JR. CHAIRMAN Enclosures cc: Southold Town Board Village of Greenport RICHARD F. LARK May 18, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 ATT: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman RE: Emanuel M. Kontokosta - Shipyard Lane Project Dear Mr. Grigonis: In connection with the above-captioned matter I am enclosing an Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I, II and III executed by me as attorney for Mr. Kontokosta. As to your request for a Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement concerning the marina project, be advised that Mr. Kontokosta has cancelled the preparation of same as he has previously withdrawn this portion of the project and sees no relevancy in completing the Impact Statement when it primarily involves the dredging and install- ation of the marina and its impact on the local groundwater supply. Kindly advise when this matter is placed on the Board's hearing agenda. RFL:bc Enclosure cc: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Very truly yours, TOWN OF $OUTHOI~D ENVI~O~TLENTAL ASSESSMENT - PA~T I AFiENDED PROJECT I~-F ORMAT IO~ shipyard Lane Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road - P. O. Box 973 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Emanuel M. Kontokosta 43 Wes't 54th Street New York,' New York 10019 ~U~.~Ecc P~u£: (212) 582-~100 (sr~?l¥ descr%be type 0f ~mjac'. :r ac:lan) 45 residential ~.nits in condomini~ form of ownership amd office add ~wi~inq pQol as accessorv uses. (PL~SE ~PL~ ~C~ ~UE~ON - ~ndi~ce ~.A. ~f hoc 3a~llc~Te) -. S[~ (Phy~f~l ~att~ng of ove?~ll p~j~. both devetoa~ an~ I. ~ner~1 ~arac~ar ~f c~e 1~d: c~ne~{ly unifo~ ;loae X , C~erally ~even and n:llinq or irregular · Su~u~an , , .~ur~I' X , FO~_~: Pres~cly Altar Unve~ecac~d ;cad~, 3uildin~$ ,v.e qet aced. Sand below top soil 9_,_2_!cres 7., 7 tcr!s 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Approximate percentage oF propose~ project site with slopes: O-lO:l NC) ~; lO-15- greater -- :- Is p~ject can:fguouS to. or contain a building or s~te listed on the National Reg~ste~ o~'H~sto~c Places/ Yes ' X No What ts the dep~ to :he water table? 3-15 .fee: ~ hunting or fishing oppo~untt~es presen:l~ ex~s: ~n the pro,oct area? .Yes ~es pro,eot s~:e contain any species of plant or ani~al life ~a[ ~s ide~:~f~ed endangered - Yes ~ ~lo. accusing tO - Iden:~f~ each species -- Are there ang un(quo or unusual land fo~s on the pm~ec: s~:~? (~.e. c1~ffs, dunes, othe~ geological fo~at~ons - ~es X :flu. (0ascribe Is ~e pm~ect s~te present1~ us~ b~ the ~unity or netghborhoo~ as an open spate ama- ~es ~ ~ ~e present site offer ne tnclude scenic v~ews or vts~s ~no~ to be ~mpo~ant to .~e St~ within or ~nt~guaus to pm~ect a~a: a. N~ of strata and na~ of river ~ which it ~s tribuCa~ None Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or c~ntiguous t~ project ama: a. Name Gregt' Peconic Bay ; b. Size (in acres) _ -- unknown What is the dominant lan~ use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-~) and the scale of development (e.g. ~ story). .- Industrial and commercial PROJECT O[SCRIPTION I. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate} a. Total contiguous acreage owned by ~mject sponsor None acres. Project acreage developed: ~.-[/.~cres tnitlall¥;].~]_/_2acres ultimately. .- o. Project acre. age to remain undeveloped 7.7 d. Length of project., in mites: N/A (if appropriate] e. If proJ. ect is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age N/A .; developed acreage N/A f. Ntm~er of off-street parking spaces existing _None ; proposed ~- g. Maximu~ vehicular trips generated per hour ~ 5 (upon completion of project) h. If residential: ,~u~ber and type of housing unitS: · . One'Family Twa Family Multiple Family C~ndominium Initial - - building'square foot- Ultimate Co,martial Industrial Orientation Neighborhood-ti ty-Ragional R, eg~'onal Total height of tallest pmposed structure Estimated E~ploy~ent 40 er~(during construction) 22 feet. How much natural materia .e. re~k, earth, etc.) will be re~ve m the site -- cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegete/~ion (trees, shrubs, ~round covers) will be removed from site - No.~n~cres. 4. Will any mature fore~:~ (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes X Ho S. Are there any Plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes .... No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 12 months. (including de~lition). 7. If multi-phased project: g. 10. 11. a. Total nu~nber of phases anticipatedN/~ No, ' b. Anticipated date of con,~encement phase 1 N/Amonth (len~lition) C. Approximate co~pletion date final phase ~N/A ,month . d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No Nt~ber of Jobs generated: during construction 4~0; after project is complete Nu~ber of jobs eliminated by this praJectNone. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? year (including . . Yes X Ho. If yes, explain: a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes Ho. b. If yes, indicate type of waste {se~age, industrial, etc.) R~gP c. If surface disposal name of strea~ into which effluent will be discharged N/~ 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, strea~s, bays or other surface wa(arways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. ' 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 10O year flood plain? X Yes No 15. a. noes project involve disposal of solid waste? .Yes X_..__~ b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? N/A,,.Yes ,.No o. If yes, give name: N/A ,; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system ar into a sanitary landfill? ~ ,Yes X 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X _,No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (~re than one hour per day}? Yes X 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local embfence noise levels? Yes X No lg. Will project result, in an increase in energy use? × ,Yes ._..j~o. If yes, indicate type(s) Fuel used for heating purposes ~0. If water supply is from we)la indicate pumping c~pacity N/A gals/minute. Zl. Total anticipated water usage ~er day_4~000 gals/day. ~'~. Zoning: a. What is dominant'zoning classification of sits? M-1 b. Current specific zoning classification of site M-1 C.' ES proposed use Consistent with F',reSant zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning N/A ~o -3- 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Ye~ X~,.~o b. Does project involve State or Federal lundin!; or'financing? ¢. Legal and Regional approvals: ', Approval Ragu ~red (Yes,)[o) (Ty;e) Submittal (Date) Z~, Town, X~IX~I)~:~ X)~:~{XTown, X~ Planning goard X~Xrawn, Zoning Board ~xCounty Health Oepar~ent O~er local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies- DEC ~deral Agencies · Ho No Site Plan,, -Yes -Ye~ SPDES .... ' NO Approval INFOPJtATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional int'ormatian as may be needed ta clarify your project. If th~re ar~ o~' may Ue iny adve~e tm~ac~ associated with ~e p~posal, pl~se discuss Suc~ impacts and the ~asures which ~n bm ~ken ~o mitigate or avoid ~. ~ ~_ /~ ~~manuel ~ Kontokosta, Owne ,, May, 16 , 1981 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PAt{T ~ PROJECT I~CTS AND THEIR ~AGNITUDE General Information (Read Carefully) In completing the Form the reviewer should be guided ~y the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable.? The reviewer is nat expected to be an expert environmental analyst. Identifying that an affect will be potentially large (column 2} does not mean that it is also necessarily sionificant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PARC 3 to determine significance. ~y.identifying an ~fcec: in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. ' The £xam.nles provided are to assist the reviewer b? shewing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of m~ that would trigger a response in col:rn 2. ~he examples are generally applicable thrnughout the State and for most situations. But, for any s=ect~ic project or si~ other examples and/or lower thresholds may be ,,.-ore appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. ~ach prelect, on each site, in each'locality, will very. lqmrefore, the examples have been effere~ es ~utdance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impecta and thresholds to answer each question. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each questto~. INS~RUCTI0~IS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PA~T 2. Answer Yes if there will be an~ effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. ~. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the aporooriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals ~r exceeds any example provided, check column ~. If impact will occur but threshold is lm~er than examole, check column I. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact ~j~Q~_.consider the imf. act as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduc-'d by a change in the project tn a les$.t~an large m~gnitude, place a Yes in column ~. A Mo response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. t. Z. IMPACT ON LANQ WILL THERE BE ~,4 £FF£CT AS A R:ULT OF A PHYSI~ CFAY:GE TO PROJECT SITE? Exa:les that Wou)d Apply ~ ~l~ 2 No SNALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT [HPACT PRO. iECT C."ANGE X NO YES ©® Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (Ii foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on Land where the depth t~ the water table is less than 3 feet. Ye s No.. Construction of oared parking area ~r l,~OO or ~cre vehicles. ~ C~nstructicn on land ~here bedrock is exposed or ~e~erally within 3 feeC of existing ~und su~ace. Construction chat will continue for more than 1.._.'xo~- or involve more than one phase or stage. ~o £xcavetion for mining ~urposes that would ~m~ve ~ore than 1,000 '" tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) ~er year. ~o Construction of any new sanitary landfill. .S- No .~tALL TO POTE:ITIAL c~l l;U'RLI ~ ~DEP. ATE LARGE REOUCKD BY IlllPACT I~I?~CT · P,OOJECT ¢!~A~IGE,. Construction in a designated ~lood~ay. Other impacts: )]0 YES WILL THERE gE A~ EFFECT TO AI(Y U)ItQUE OR U~;USUAL LANQ FOPJ.IS FOUN~O~I ~E SITE? (i.e. cliff~, du~es, geological form~- ~ns, etc.) Specific land roms: . ~IPACT 014 WATE~ '~ILL P~JEC~ AFFECT ~Y WA~ BODY DESi~ATED RS .......... PROTE~ED? (Under Articles 15. 24, 2S of the Envir- V oriental Conservation Law, Exa~les,, that Would A~ply to Col~ ~ g~dging more than lO0 cubic yards of ~terial from channel of a protected strew. :onst~ction in a designated f~shwater or tidal wetland. O~er impacts: WILL PROJECT AFFE~ ~Y tIOt(-P~TECTED EXISTItIG OR ~ NO YE~ .......... ~amples. that Would Apply ~ Column ~ A lO~ increase or decrease in the suvaco area of ~ny body ' of water or ~rm ~an a lO ~cre increase or decrease. Construc~on a~ a body of water that exceeds 10 acres su~ace ~rea. Other impacts: NO WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROU)IO~ATER OUALi~? Exam=le~ that Would Apply to Col~ Z " P~ject will ~qui~ a discharge pe~it. P~Ject requi~S usa of a source o~ water ~at does not have apparel t~ serve p~posed P~ject requires water suoply f~m wells with g~ater ~ than 45 ~allons per minute p~ing capacity. Const~ction or ooeration causing any contamination ~ of a public wata~ supply system. p~ject will adversely 'a~fect Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site ~o ~ facilities which ~resently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that ~ould use wa:er excess of ZO,OOO gallons per day. P~ject t.~ill )ikely cause siltation or ot~er discha~e - into an exitting body of water :o Che extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast :o n~tura) c~nditio~s. Other ImpaCts: WiLL PROJECT ALTER Dp. AINAGE FLO;I. PATTER.OS OR SURF;'CE !:ATER "(0 YES RU:(OFF? ................................................... ~xamole, that ~ould Aoply to Colunm 2 Project would impede flood water ?lc,~s. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Oth.er impacts: '-' IMPACT ON Als ~ YES WILL pROJECTAFFECTAIRQUALITY? ........ '.-'~ ............... GO Examoles that Would Apply to Columo 2 Project will induce 1,CO0 ormorevehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration ofmore than t ton of refuse par hour. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 ' lbs. per hour or · heat source producing more than tO million 8TU's per hour. Other impacts: [MP4CT 0.~! PLANTS WILL PROJECT AFFECT A~(Y THR~AT~t~O OR ~qOA~(GER~ SPECIES? Examples that Would Apply to Column ~ Reduction of one or more species listed on the ~:ew York or Federal list, using the site. over or near site or found o~ the site. Removal of any portion e! a critical or significant wild- life habitat. Amplication of Pesticide or herbicide over more than twice a year other ~an for agricultural puroosas. Other impacts: ~tLL PROJECT SU~STAHTIALLY AFFECT ~!O;I-THREATEiiE~ OR cNDA,,G~E~ SPECIES? .. ' ........... Exe~ole that ~lould Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially interfere with any resident or ~igretory fish or wildlife s~ecies. Prnject requires the removal of more than lO acres of mature forest (over IQ0 years in age) or etna. locally i:pqrtant vegetation. IL TO POT~4TIAL CA,'I [)IPACT RATE LARGE REDUCED BY I,MPACT llgPAOT PROJECT CHA~IGE ) -7- ll. IZ. 1. ?-. 3. I)'PACI' ON VISUAL ~ESGURCE WILL THE PPOJECT AFFECT VIE,RS, VISTAS OR THE VISUAL CHAP~CTER OF THE I(EIGHBQRHOQD OR COP!M'JNITY? .............. Exam31es that t,'ould Apply to Column 2 An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or for~J in contrast to the surrounding lands'cape. A project easily visible, not easily screened, that is obviously different fr~m others abound it. Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: NO YE: ®® IMPACT ON HISTORIC ,RESOURC~ ,~IiLL PROJECT ii,~PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCI'URE OF HISTOF~IC, NO YE PALEONTOGICAL IMPORTANCE? .. GO PRE-HISTORIC OR ............... Examoles that Would Apply to Col~ ~ Project occurin(3 wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Register of. historic places. A~y impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Ot~er impacts: IN.~PACT ON OPEN SPACE & ~C~EATIO~I WILL Yl~E P~OJECT AFFECI' THE OU~IT[TY O~ QUALI~ OF EXISTING NO OR ~TURE OPEN SPAC~ OR R[cR~TIO~IAL OPPOR~IITIES! ...... ~ Examoles ~at Would Apply to ~l~ Z ~e pennant lo.closure of ~ future rec~ational oppo~unity. A major ~du¢tion of ~ o~ space i~ortant to the co.unity. Other i~ac~: "' IMPACT AN T~NSPORTATIOr! t3. WILL THERE 8E AN EFFECT TO EXISTING T;~ANSPORTATiON SYSTB~S? ............................................... Examoles that Would Apply to Column ~ Alteration of present patterns of ~ovament of people ~ and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic problems. NO Other tmRacts: ~ ~,LL TO POTENTIAL CA~ I~IPACY .UR ~OUERATE LARGE REDUCED MPACT IMPACT PROJECT cH. AR~ S YES 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CO.UNITIES SOURCES OF VEL gR NO E.ERG¥SUPPLY? ........................... Examoles that ~ould Apply to Col~n 2 Project causing greater than ~% increase in any fo~ of ener~ used in municipally. Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission er supply system ~ se~e mare than )0 single or ~o ~mily residences. Other impacts: IMPACT OH NO[$~ lB. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE O00RS, )~ISE, GLARE, /:: ~TION NO YE~ Examoles that Would Apoly to Column Z Blasting within 1,~O0 Feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility· Odors will occur routinely ~more than one hour per P~Ject will o~duce operating noise exceedin~ ~ = local ~ien:'noise levels for noise outside of strictures. P~Ject w~ll r~ve natural barriers that would act as a Other impacts: NO Examples that Would Apply to Column Z Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of h~zmrdous substances {i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of occident or upset conditions, or ~ere will be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" {i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, s~i-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe Facilities for :ne million or ~ore gallons af liquified natural gas or ot~er liquids. Other imoacts: m~LL TO POTEI4TIAL CA~'( !:~.PACT'CE'" ~OEP. ATF. LARGE RE'dUC~O ~Y IMPACT ' ~IIPACT PROJECT CHA~IGE S ) Ii,PACT L*IPACT PROJECT 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER AF THE EXISTI~IG ))0 YES CO:.t'.~N I TV? .................................... . . ~ ......... /~ Examale that Would Apply to Column 2 The population of the City, Town or Village in ¥~hich the project is located is likely to grow by mare than 5~ cA resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than $~ per year as a result ef this project. Will involve any aermanant Facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district er remove prime agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will replace ar eliminate existing facilities, structures ar areas of historic importance to the community. Oevelepment will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project ~ill set an important precedent far future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one er more businesses. Other im~.acta: NO ' YE~ IS TIi~RE PUSLZC CONTROVERSY CONCER~iING rH~ PROJECT? ....... Exa~npl.es. that Woul~ Apply to Colur~q 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition ar rejected the project or have not been c~ntacted. Objections to the project from within the community. 'I ~F A'J ACTIO~ IN PART ~ IS IDE.~(TIFIED AS POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CA:(::OT 0ETERi4I~IE ThE MJ, G~(IT1JDE OF IMPACT, PROC~.E~ TO PART OETK~qMI,qATION PORTIONS OF EAF CO~PLET£O FOR T'dIS PROJECT: PART I ~ PART 11 X PART 3 ~. Upon revie~ of the information r~cor~ed on this EAF (Parts l, Z and 3) and considering beth the magnitude and im!~ortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: The ~roject will resul~ in no major im~acts and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. 8. Although the project could have a significant effect On the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation ~easures describe~ in PART 3 have been included as part of the ~roposed ~ro~_c:. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse imaacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to the environment. iv~ 1;6, 1~9781~ , S~g~a~ure ~f~Pr.~ar~£ (i.f qif e~- " . ~ ible officer) Emanuai M. Ron:oKos:a PREPARE A h'E~ATIVE OECLARATIOX PREPARE A NEC~ATIVE O£CLARATION PREPARE POSITIVE OECLARATION PROCEED WITH ___© Signature of R~s?onsible Official in Laa~ Agency ~rin~ or t~pe name of responsible official in Lead Agency TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF TH~ IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS,. Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact ar effect is considered to be potentially large. The a~ount of,,vriting necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the question: In briefly co~pleting the insCructions below have I placed in t~is record sufficient informs, orion to indicate reasonableness of my decisions) INS17.UCTIO~S Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in 'Column ~ of Part 1. Briefly describe the impaot. ~escribe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro- ject change. Based on the infor~,,ation available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is tmoortant to the minicipaltty (city, town or village) in .nic~ the project iS located. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring - The duration of the i~act or effect - Its irreversibility, including permanently los~ resources or wlues - Whether the impact or effect can be cont~lleU - l~e regional consequence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence from local needs end ioals - Whether known objections to the project apaly to this (mpact or effect. An action is considered to be signi?icant i?: ~ One (or more) impact is determ, ined to both la~ and its (their) consequence, based on the review above, is imoortant,,. -' ~RT !II (Continue on A~achments. as needed) ~his project is a Type II action and will have no adverse impact on the environment. The domestic water is to be supplied by the Villag~.of.GrQenport Water System. The Sanitary Disposal system will be designed to meet the Suffolk County Health Department requirements. The proposed use of the pro- perty conforms to the existing zoning of the Southold Town Master Plan. -I1' RICHARD F. LARK May 12, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 B°a of Appe, !s .Town oi ATT: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman RE: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Shipyard Lane Property, East Marion, N.Y. Dear Mr. Grigonis: On December 24, 1980, the Petitioner, Emanuel Kontokosta filed with your Board an application for a Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold. The inordinate delay in time in obtaining a public hearing on this application has caused considerable economic hardship to the Petitioner. Therefore, he has decided to amend his application by deleting the marina portion of this application and reducing the number of residential units from 48 to 45. Accordingly, I am enclosing an amended application for a Special Exception and six copies of the revised Site Development Plan dated May 6, 1981. In order to expedite matters I have also forwarded a copy of this letter and the revised Site Plan to the Planning Board and Building Inspector for their comments. I do not believe it is necessary for the revised Site Plan to have an Environmental Impact Statement as the Board did not require such a statement when they granted the original Special Exception for 28 apartment units, 21 motel units and the accessory coffee shop on January 17, 1980. In any event I would appreciate your scheduling this for a public hearing at the earliest available time. RFL:bc Enclosures Very t~3~ yours, cc: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Planning Board Building Inspector TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK _~4~.NDED APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. DATE..M..a.Y.... ,]:.2..,t ....19 81 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Name Street and Number New York Municipality New York 10019 s~ hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE V SECTION 100- 50 SUBSECTION B(3) & C(2) On December 24, 1980 the Petitioner filed with the Board of Appeals an application for a Special Exception copies of which with attached exhibits are on file with the Board. The Petitioner desires to amend the Site Plan dated November 20, 1980 deleting the marina and 48 residential units to provide for 45 residential units. The revised Site Plan dated May 6, 1981 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As in the previous application for a Special Exception all the residential units will be in the condominium form of ownership which will require approval from the Attorney General's Office, and contain a coffee shop, administration office and swimming pool as accessory uses. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUffOLK EMANUEL M. K~OKOST~, PET~ONER ~/--Slgna~ure~,/ Richard F. Lark, as Attorney Sworn to2/.h/~ .....1...2,...t...h. ............ day of ~ ........ ..M...a,7~ .............. 19...~..1.. ....... Notary Public FORM ZB2 eCOUNTY OF SUFFOLKe DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARI~IS, M.D.. M.P.H. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Stephen V. Cary Health Department Royal R. Reynolds, P.E.~'~ Public Health Engineer March 31, 1981 Dredging Project Attached is a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Control concerning a dredging project. I feel that you are probably in the best position to cogent on the project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. RRR;ljr cc: State DEC, Dave DeRidder Charles Grigonis attachment APR 8 1981 Bldg. 40, ~f - Roc~ 219 St~y ¥~o~c, h%' 11794 (516) 751-7900 .Charles Grigonis, Jr., C~'~3~,.m'* Sour_hold Tcwn ~ of A~>aals ~ P~ad - k~ute 25 Soul,old, NY 11971 App.] ~ca'~ton of D,~n,,~,_! H. D':,-ut~<<~ta for a ~ceptio~ at tJ~ ~- ,~cst Side of ~i~ya~] ~.~_~, E. In response to l~ur letter of 2/17/81 plca~a ~ aahrLs~d %~hat ~ q Also, %~ c~nsider t~h~ project as one ~-']i~ ~ray =]%~rsely i~,.,~ct the e, nvircc~nt ~ ..... F~e.~;w~a"~.on of an Env~ven"~l L?ac~c Stat~m~ut. ~ proposal ~:) excavate 265' ir~l_~nd to oo~tr-~t a la~3e n~rina h~s the pote,~{~! to create decre~aed fre. F2~ ,~-]ter supply in stora.c~ of ~alt water intrusion Luto ~arlry uell su~, pli~3 (see reuol~ - -~n of S~hold Inves~[gation of ~ter ,-~ources-J=~e 19G7, by :.[%loolm Picnic .Engineers). ~hank ~u for =he o?~rtuni~, to com~nt. Please cD: D.J. C. T. Eamiltu~ J. R. · 'David .~m~&dd~ A~sociate Envlr~tal ~mlyst APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, .JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 April 8, 1981 To: Re: N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County Department of Health Southold Town Board Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Appeal No. 2772 - Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta For a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Location of Property: West Side of Shipyard La, East Marion Gentlemen: As you know, the Board of Appeals as lead agency determined the above project to be a Type I Action per the State Environmental Quality Review Act. At a regular meeting held April 2, 1981, the Board of Appeals also determined this project as proposed to have a significant effect upon the environment and requested that applicant submit a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Upon receipt and acceptance of the Draft EIS, copies shall be submitted to your office immediately. Enclosed herewith are copies of written correspondence from each of the agencies involved in this action. Yours very truly, CHARLES GRIGONIS, CHAIRMAN CG:lk Enclosures JR. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. T~-~',' T~T: :I,~-L ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals 1',4AIN ROAD-STATE RnAD 25 SI:3UTHr'JLD. L.I.. N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 April 8, 1981 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appeal No. Dear Mr. Lark: 2772 - Emanuel M. Kontokosta Please be advised that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at a Regular Meeting held Thursday, April 2, 1981: BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board as lead agency determines this project as proposed to have a significant effect upon the environment and it is hereby requested that applicant submit a Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning this matter. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Yours very truly, CHAIRMAN CG:lk cc: Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta HENRY E, RAYNOR, Jr.. Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI. Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Apri 1 1, 1981 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The Planning Board has reviewed the proposal of E. M. Kontokosta to construct a marina at his property at the end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion. It appears that the depth of nine feet as proposed is excessive. The primary concern of the board would be salt water intrusion into the fresh water interface. It would appear that if the orientation of the basin were turned 90% this possibility would be minimized. Yours truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Muriel Tolman, Secretary Oj~ccr$ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN JOSEPH M. PUFAHL WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN ROBERT T. WEBB SUPT. OF LITILITIES JAMES I. MONSELL / lla. e of t'eenloo,r'g 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 March 30, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N. Y. ll97L A tten: Re: Application of Emanuel Kontokosta for property located at Shipyard Lane, Mast Marion Charles Grigonis, Chairman Dear Mr. Grigonie: Please find enclosed a col:st of the letter dated March l~, 19~1 from our consulting engineers - Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. regarding the application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta for a special exemption to the Zoning Ordinance concerning proposed dredging and construction on Shipyard Lane~ East Marion. At a meeting of the Village of Greenport Bnard of Trustees held on March 16, 1981 a motion was made and carried to forward a copy of this letter to the Southold Town Board of Appeals to be entered into their record.. Enc. If you wish further information, please feel free to contact my office. Very truly~rs, // James I. Monsell Q// Superintendent of Utilities cc: Mayor & Village Board of Trustees ViLlage Attorney, Village Clerk H2M Corp. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS March 4, 1981 Board of Trustees Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta for a Special Exemption to the Zoning Ordinance West Side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion Gentlemen: As per your request, we have reviewed the above referenced application for the dredging and construction of the 420' by 120' and 9' deep (6' below'water) marina. In our review we have concentrated on the impact of the dredging on the local ground- water and the Village of Greenport Pumping Station No. 4. Pumping Station No. 4 is located approximately 4,000' north of the proposed marina. Chloride concentrations have been grad- ually increasing in the three wells at the site but to date have not surpassed the recommended 250 mg/1 limit. We believe the increasing chlorides are primarily due to the proximity of the wells to Fordham Canal and Dawn Lagoon. Well No. 4-6 is located approximately 2,000' from Dawn Lagoon and 2,500' from Fordham Canal. These inlets should never have been permitted, or if ~ermitted, not without the construction of a deep rela- tively impervious barrier to maintain water levels by restricting underground flow. To the north of the well'field lies Long Island Sound approximately 2,500' away from Well No. 4-8. Since the location of the proposed marina is substantially further away from the Pumping Station than the other bodies of existing salt water it will have no measurable impact on water levels at the Pumping Station. Although the marina will have no measurable impact on Pumping Station No. 4, it will have an impact on the ground- water in the immediate vicinity of the marina. The ground- water elevation Qf the northern end of the marina is approx- imately 6" above mean sealevel. This will be reduced t~ ~ sealevel with corresponding reductions in water levels near the marina. These reductions in water levels and depth to salt- water may impact the ability to develop nearby parcels with on-site water supply systems. This potential impact can prob- ably be mitigated by supplying those parcels within the Greenport Water service area with public water and extending the service area to properties east of Shipyard Lane. This is feasible since a 6" main presently runs to the south end of Shipyard Lane. In June 1967, a report entitled "Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, NY; Investigation of Water Resources" by Malcolm Pirnie Engineers, recommended "the discontinuance of the approval of projects which include dredging channels inland from salt water estuaries or bays." This recommendation is as applicable now as it was then and any construction of these marinas, particularly those which cut deeply inland will have very detrimental effects upon the water supply in the area. Consideration may be given to opposing the construction of this proposed marina to deter continued proposed development of this sort. They can be very harmful to the already limited fresh water resource available. Please call if you wish us to do further study in this matter. Very truly yours, SCM/jm HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & t P.E. MURRELL, P. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Bldg. 40, SUNY -Rocm 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 March l8, 1981 Robert F. Flacke Commi881oner Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals ~n Road - Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Application of Rnanuel M. Kontokosta for a Special Exception at the West Side of Shipyard Lane, E. Marion In response to your letter of 2/17/81 please be advised that this Department agrees with the Town Zoning Board designation as lead agency for the Type I action not~ above. Also, we consider th~ project as one which may adversely impact the environment and as an involved agency rec~L,~end the preparation of an Envlronmaneml Impact Statement. The proposal to excavate 265' inland to construct a large marina has the potential to create decreased fresh water s~pply in storage and the possibility of salt water intrusion into nearby well supplies (see report - Town of Southold Investigation of Water Resources-June 1967, by Malcolm Pirnie Engineers). Thank you for the opportunity to c~,L~nt. Please send a copy of the DEIS wb~_n available. Sincerel y, DDR: cr cc: D. J. Larkin C. T. Hamilton A. S. Candela J. R. Renkavinsky Associate Environmental Analyst MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN JOSEPH M. PUFAHL WlLLIAM H. LIEBLEIN ROBERT T. WEBB SUPT.OFUTILITIES JAMESLMONSELL i[[a e of -Ot'een?od 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman, Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 March 6, 1981 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta to construct a boat marina at the foot of Shipyard Lane - East Marion has been forwarded to our Consulting Engineers Mr. Samuel McLendon, P.E. for study and recommendation. The Village of Greenport, Water Department is very concerned about the digging away of land for this purpose as it may have an adverse effect on the ground water reservoir. We are planning to drill a new public water supply well north of Shipyard Lane near our East Marion well field. If the above applica- tion were granted, we may not be able to continue with our proposed new well field, which we feel is essential due to our near critical water supply. Would the Board of Appeals be kind enough to await the recormmend- atton from our engineer before taking any action on this matter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very tru~ours~ // JIM:nr cc: George Hubbard, Mayor Ail Village Trustees Allen Smith, Attorney Samuel McLendon~ P.E.~ Engineer March 6, 1981 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ]]m:i:l of DAVID HARRIS, M,D., M,P.H. COMMISSIONER Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, Property W/S Shipyard Lane, East Marion Dear Mr. Grigonis: A preliminary and cursory review of the above referenced revised applica- tion indicates that the total daily flow will exceed the Department's maxi- mum limitation of 30,000 gallons per day. Accordingly, this application would now require a sewage treatment plant and public water. By virtue of carbon copy of this letter to Mr. Konto- kosta, he is notified that revised site plans will be necessary in order to accommodate these needs. This office is in agreement that the Town of Southold should assume lead agency status. The writer will be in touch when revised site plans have been prepared and submitted to this office. Very truly yours, Robert W. Jewell, ~.E. Public Health Engineer General Engineering Services RWJ:cah cc: Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Southold, N. Y. March 26, 1981 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council made an inspection of the property of Kontokosta on Shipyard Lane at East Marion on March 21, 1981. The group agreed with the proposal if it can be shown that there will be no damage to the water table. Therefore, the board will reserve making a recommendation until they are shown where the fresh water table is and whether there will be a chance of salt water intrusion. They suggest test wells be put in at 100 foot intervals in the center line of the proposed marina. They also would like to know what is proposed to retain the soil to keep the mouth ~ open and what is proposed to retain the soil in the whole facility. Yours truly, FRANK CICHANOWICZ III, CHAIRMAN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL By Muriel Tolman, Secretary BOARI ISTEES Telephone 516-765-1938 [1971 March 6, 1981 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The trustees feel as a body that the application for a marina at the bay at the end of Shipyard Lane is unacceptable because of problems with the canal to the west and the public safety as far as drinking water goes. Yours truly, ANNA T. HATAIER, PRESIDENT BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES By Muriel Tolman, Clerk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.,CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE RDAD 25 ~;OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 February 27, 1981 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road, Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appeal No. 2772 - Emanuel M. Kontokosta Dear Mr. Lark: Please find enclosed herewith for your file concerning the above application excerpt of minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals held February 12, 1981. Very truly yours, CG:lk Enclosure CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CHAIRMAN Page 17 Bo~ar Southold Town d of Appeals February 12, 1981 Regular Meeting Matter of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, by Richard F. Lark, Esq., Appeal No. 2772. WHEREAS, this Board has under consideration an application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta dated December 23, 1980 requesting per- mission to: (1) construct a 58 boat man-made marina approxi- mately 420' by 120' and 9' deep; (2) construct 20 additional residential units rather than the 21 motel units which had originally been granted during January 1980 by this Board; (3) amend site plan as submitted herein; all to be located at the west side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York; WHEREAS, a large portion of the property in question is located in a V-5 Flood area and a large portion of the property in question is located in an A-5 Flood area and accordingly this Board makes the following determinations: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, 'NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED~ tha~the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold hereby declares ~tself lead agency in the subject application dated December 23, 1980 and determines that this project is a Type I Action as proposed herein and thereby subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of this Board is hereby directed and authorized to coordinate review with any and all other agencies which may be involved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Matter of Robert J. Piscioneri, Appeal No. 2696, Application dated April 18, 1980. WHEREAS, this Board has received correspondence from Mr. Robert Piscioneri for R.J. Piscioneri and S. Goldman concerning the above appeal, requesting that their application be withdrawn, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of R. Piscioneri and S. Goldman, Appeal No. 2696, be withdrawn without prejudice. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 c~OUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS ~ E R AREI P, ,GOF..~ R IN, G E,R. osepn H. ~aWlCK1 TO: Army Corps of Engineers N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation ' Suffolk County Department of Health Southold Town Board Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Village of Greenport Board of Trustees.-.~ RE: Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Location of Property: West Side of Shipyard La, East Marion. DATE: February 17, 1981 Gentlemen: Pending before the Board of Appeals is an application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta for a Special Exception for approval of: (1) a 58-boat man-made marina approximately 420' by 120' and 9' deep; (2) 20 additional residential units rather than the 21 motel units which had originally been granted during January 1980; (3) accessory building to be located at the head of the marina to be utilized as a coffee and maintenance shop and offices for the complexes; (4) swimmingpool at the head of the marina --all to be constructed on premises located at the west side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, as shown on the attached Amended Site Plan. This agency has determined itself lead agency and has determined this project to be a Type I Action per SEQRA and likely to require an environmental impact statement. At this time you are respectfully requested to provide any informa- tion available which might identify possible significant environ- mental effects, the position you will be taking as an involved agency, and your comments regarding the subject application. Page 2 February 17, 1981 Re: Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta If you have any questions regarding this matter or wish additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our Secretary, Linda Kowalski at 765-1809 (alt. 765-1802) between 9:00 and 4:00. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CG:lk Enclosures: Amended Site Plan Environmental Assessment Short & Long Application for Special Exception Related Documents Transmittals DOGWOO0 LANE SNUG HARBOR ROAD 'OSPREY Zone B H ~illage of ,reenport ARE NOT INCLUDED V5 RICHARD F. LARK January 30, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 ATT: Charles Grigonis, Chairman RE: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Appeal No. 2772 Dear Mr. Grigonis: In accordance with your recent request I am enclosing the following relative to the above captioned matter. 1. Six (6) additional copies of the survey/site plan showing the contour elevations. 2. Long Environmenal Assessment Form. Very~ly your s~ RFL:bc Enclosures cc: Emanuel M. Kontokosta APPENDIX A EAF ENVIRO;IMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I ~roject Information NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on ~he environment. Please comolete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the ~pplication for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS ~ and 3. it (s expected that eomoletion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or inves~tqation. If information requiring such additional work is unavai~ble, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF PROJECT: ADDRESS AND NA~tE OF APPLICANT: (Name} ~ . , /?o. x (Street) (P.O.) (State) (Zip) NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) (Name) (St~ BUS~NESS PHONE: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) (State) (Zip) ~I~- ~c~ (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloped areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope V~/ Generally uneven and r~llin~ or irregular Present land use: Urban , Industrial , Conmercial , Suburban , Rural ~_, Forest __, Agriculture ,~r Total acreage of project area: 7~acres. Aoproximate acreage: Presently After Completion Meadow or Brushland ~)~acres ~'.~_~_acres Forested acres acres Agricultural acres acres Hetland(Freshwater or Tidal as net Articles 24, 25 or ~.C.L.) 9/1/78 '¢hat is oredominant soil type(s) on nroiect site? a. Are there b~drock outcropoinos on nrni~ct 'site? Presently After Completion tiater Surface Area ~ acres ~__ac~es m Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) acres ..... acres Roads, buildings and other paved ~'acres Other (indicate tyne) acres acres What is deoth to bedrock? ____.~/~_.~__, ........ (lo Feet) 7, 8, g, 10. Approximate oercentage of proposed ~)roj site witk slooes: 0-10% .%: ln-15% ; 15% or greater %. Is project contiguous tjx, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Htstortc Places? ~ Yes ~/~No What is the denth to the water table? feet DO hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes)//No Does pwoJect sire'contain ~y species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered- Yes V~ :~o. according to - Identify each species there any unique or unu)~al land forms f~rmattons - Yes ~/No. (Describe on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological 11. 12. Is the project site p,~resently used o¥ the con~nunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes V' No. 13. Does the prese~,t stteoffer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream'and':name of river to which it is tributary ~'/~'- 1S. Lakes. Ponds, Wetland areas wtthth or contiguous to project area: a. Name ~Y~ ; b. Size (in acres) 16. What Is the dominknt landuse and zoning classification within a I/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. . single f~mlly residential. R-2) ~nd the scale of development (e.g.'2 sto~y). PROJECT, DEiS~R I PT I ON · 1:~P~:(~tm~l~(.(o~i~a~d'scale' o:¢proJect"(f:tll in dimensions as appropriate) . ~ ~-~, · , / '~:.:. ~7~r~b~t'tgueO,' a~weag, ow,~[d, b~ p~Ject: sponsor ~ff~. acres. b. Project acreage develooed: ~e~ acres' initially; ~,~acres ultt~tely. ;c. P~Ject acreage to remain uhdevelooed- d. Lengthof project, (n miles: ~ (if appropriate) e. If p~Ject is'an expansion of existtnq, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age ,~ '~ ; developed acreage ~. . f 'Nj~'o; of~[str,t par, t~g :spaces existina g ~axJ~um vehicular trios generated per hour ~ Zf residential: Number ane type of housing un, ts: One Family Two Family Initial ~ t'~ ;~ Ul'tinia~e -" i. If: oriei~afio~ :)eighUorhood~i~ty~ Regal onal Commerci al '~"' Multiple Family Condominium Estimated Employment /49 Industhial Total'heign~ of tallest nPonoseo structure feet. -2- How much nature) material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - cubic yards· 3. How many acres of veqetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site ' . . ature forest ~er lO0 Years' old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes %/ No 5.. Are there andy plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? ~,/ Yes !;o 6;: If~singl~P~ase project: Anticipated period of construction /Z months, (including demolition). If multi~p~ed oroje6t.: a. Total number of phases anticipated No. ///"' 7; b.' Anticipated date of commencement phase I ~month ~year {including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final chase month year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes NO 8, ~ill'iblaSting o~cur..during con)trUction? __Yes ~/~No 9; Number of jobs generated: during construction ~00; after project is complete lC. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 1l. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes V/~No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? t/X/Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) ~c~.~ iF~ . c. If surface disposal name of stream into w~ich ~'fluent will be discharged · 13. Will surface area of existin~/lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal ? ~/' Yes No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? /Yes No 15. a. Do~s~*project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes v/'No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disnosal facility be used? ~ Yes -'--No c. If yes, give name: - : location d. !lill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 16. Will· project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes 17. Will p~oJec~ routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes ~No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes /No lg. Will pr°je~ r~ult in an inchease in energy use? ~Yes __No. If yes, indicate type(s) 20. If water s~ly is from wells indicate cupping capacity w~-7'~-,,~' gals/minute 21. Total antidt~a~d water usag~ per day ~/_~, gals/day. 22. Zoning: a. ¥~hat is dominant zoning classification of site? b~ Current soecifi~ zoning class fication of site c. Is proposed use consistent ~.~ith nresent zoninq? Yes ~No d. If no, indicate desired zoning 26. ApprOvals:~ a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes /No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (gate) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, 'J~ii:;: Planning Board City, Town, Zoning'Board~a~>~EAc~ City, County. Health Department - Other local'agenctes Otherregl6nal agencies State Age'ncies --Y"~,~.~ . Federal Agencies C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional informtion as may be needed to clarify your project. adverse impact).,associated with the~posal, ))lease disctF,~-tg~Lim~pacts taken to mttig~t~ or avo~d_.~ /~ PREPARER'S SIGNATURE/~~~__/~__T~ .~_.~~ ~ TITLE: ~ ~0~"'. ~'~//¢~'--';~- REPRESENTING: gATE: ~~7 If there are or may be any and the measures which can be -4- EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is al so necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an effect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating, - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. - The nun~Jer of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Ye~s if there will be any effect. b. Ma.vbe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (columo 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact ~en consider the impact as potent ally large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1, a. IMPACT ON LAND NO YES PROJECT SITE? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ~ Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, {15 foot ri se per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. ~.+' Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is less ~/~ than 3 feet. ronstruction of nBved Darkinq area ~or l,?9~ or more vehicles. ~ Censtruction on land where bedrock is exQosed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. f~O Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. ~ Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,O00 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. ~/ Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- SMALL TO POTENTIAL ' CAN IMPACT BE PmODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE L~//~Constructton in a designated floodway. Other impacts: 2:., WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LAND FOItqS ~.. FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, peolopical form- /, tSmns, etc.) Specific land forms: ~PACT ON WATER 3. WILL PR(k)EDT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DE$IG/iATEO AS .......... ~ PROTECTED? (Under Articles lB, 24, 25 of the Envtr- onmontal Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Exan~oles that Would Apply to Column2 Dredging more then 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. . Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: YES 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXIST)NR OR NEW NO/YES BODY OF WATER? ............................................ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2' A 10% increase or decrease in the surface eree of any body ~ of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of e body of water thee exceeds 10 acres of --- surface area. Other impacts: 5. 14ILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNOWATER OIIALITY? Examples that Would Apply to Column:2 Project will require a discharge pemtt. Project requires use of e source of water that does not have aporoval to serve ))roposed project, Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operatlon~causing any contamination Of a public water supply system. Project will adversel~ affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist on have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would uae water ir excess of 2n,~O0 gallons per day __ P,oJect will likely cause sil{atton or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. m ;UALL TO POTENTIAL DAN ).~P~CT BE ~nDERRTE LARGE REI)UC£D BY I)IPACT IHPACT PRO~ECT CHANGE Project wnuld tnt~ede flood water flows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: XLIPACT ON AIR 7. PILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ........................ (~8 Examples that Would Apply to Column ~ ~ Project will induce 1,oOO or more vehicle trips in any given hour, __ Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. ~ Project emission rate of all contaminants will ~xceed 5 lbs. Der hour or k hea~'s6~ ~ro-~)'~ than 10 million BTU's per hour. Other tmoacts: Z/~ACT ON PLANTS AND ANZRAI ~ 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? Examples that Would Apply to Colum 2 ~ Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any nortion Of a critical or stqnificant wild- ~ life hablblC~ ~ A~licatinn of Pesticide or herbicide overmore than tv,ice a year ether tren ~o~4)lj~i~liaral purl~es. __ Other i~oacts: ;ItALL TO P(1TENTIAL CAN II1PACT BE ~)DERATE LARGE REDUCED CY I:4A~C? I'°nACT PR~ECT CHANGE ) S ) g. !¢ILL PROJECT SUBSTA TIALLY APFECT HON-THREATEIIED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES) ' .Examole that Would Apply to Colu~ 2 __ Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. ' ~ Project reoutres the removal Or.re than l~ acres of mature forest (over lOO years in a~e) or other locally important vegetation. ' -7- i"P&CT 0:~ ¥1SU~L RESOURCE dILL THE pnoJECT ~FECT ViEIIS, uISTAS OR TH~ V~SU~L CHARACTER OF THE ~IE~GH~RN~D ~ CO~H~TY? .............. Examnles that k~ould Apply to Column 2 ~n incompattbl~ visual mffect cmused by thp introduction of n~ materi~ls, colors and/or forms in contrast to the sur~undino landscape. A mroject easily visible, not easily screened, that Is obviously different f~m ethers a~und it. P~Ject will result ir the elimination or major ~creentn~ of scenic vt~s or vistas known to be t~rtant to the area. Other impacts: Nn. IMPACT ON HIRTOgIC RESOyRC~ Il. WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, PRE-HISTORIC OR P~LEOtITOGICAL i~PORTANCE? Exanmles that Would Aoolv to Column 2 Pro.iect occurino wholly or earttally within or contiguous to enyCac(litv or site listed on the National Reetster of historic place~. Any impact.to an archeologtcal site or fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: NO IMPACT ON' OPEN ~PAC~ & RECREATIOH 12. W1LL THE PI~!OECT AFFECT THE OuANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTIHG NO OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUtlITIES? ...... Examples that Would Applyto Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational ooeortunity. __ A major reduction of an open space important to the con,unity. Other tmoacts: I.PA~T nN TRANSPORTATIQN 13. HILL'THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ~X~TING TRANSPORTATIDN SYSTDaS? .............. ~ ............................... Examples that Would Aoply to Column 2 Alteration of present Dot,ems of ~ovement of people and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic 3roblems. NO Other i~oacts: ;)4RLL TQ nOTEt!TIAL CA;I I)!PACT BE IODE~ATE LARGE REDUCED ~Y I~PACi I'~PACT PRAJECT C?.Ar4GE 14. Project causing qreater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. IMPACT ON ENERGY WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO.YES ENERGY SUPPLY~ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOIS~ 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBP~RTION NO y YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... ~y~/,~ Examples that Hould Aooly to Column 2 __ Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. __ Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per da.y). __ Project will produce operating noise exceedinn the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. __ Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARDS 16. !.IILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC IIEALTH AND SAFETY? ............. ~/~ Examples that ~¢ould Rpply to Column 2 __ Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances {!.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or emission. __ Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., includinm wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe ~acilities for one million or more gallons of liouified natural gas or other liouids. Other imoacts: SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAll IMPACT CE :~JDERATE LARGE REDUCED BY I IMPACT I'IPACT PROJECT CH~.SE ' 17. IMPACT OU GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF CO!41!UNITY DR NEIG!;ROR;IO(~D WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTE, nF TUE EXISTING NO y/YES COMMUNITY? ................................................ Example that Would Apolv to Column 2 The population of the City. Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to prow by more than 5% oF resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by mere than 5% per year as a result of this project. Will involve any oermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district Or remove nrin~ agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities. structures Or areas of historic importance to the comnunity. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or mere businesses. Other tmoacts: 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ~ Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the prolect or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. NO I~!PAC~ ! ]IIPACT PROJECT CI~NGE IF ANY ACTION IR PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A I POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETE~INE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONSOF.~F COMPLETED FO,~THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I~PART II A// PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1. 2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude a,qd importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and. therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the proposed project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts that cannot be reduced'and may cause significant damage to the envt ro nm~L~/_~/~ ~/~y ~//~ Signature of ~e~arer (i~~~f~er) PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NEC~TIVE DECLARATIOH PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS Signature of Responsible Official in Lead Agency P'F~t or tyoe name of ~esponsible official in Lead Agency KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES · ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS 43 west 54th street / new york city, new york 10019 / 212-582-6100 e.m. kontokosta p.e. gary rogers r.a. January 7, 1980 Mr. Charles Grigonis,Jr., Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road, State Road 25 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Shipyard Lane Project East Marion Dear Mr. Grigonis: We are in receipt of a copy of your letter dated 12/30/80 to our attorney, Mr. Richard Lark, concerning the Shipyard Lane project. We are in the process of preparing for submission to the Appeals Board the information requested therein. However, since time is of the essence in that we plan to complete this project in 1981, we would like to meet with both you and the chairman of the planning board, Mr. Henry Raynor, for an informal meeting to discuss your thoughts on the project and how we can possibly expedite its approval in order to meet our construction schedule. Would you be so kind as to arrange such a meeting with Mr. Raynor at a mutually convenient time, and let me know so that I may attend. Your cooperation in this matter would YE. M.~K15h~o kos ta, p~ be greatly appreciated. EMK/ck c.c: Mr. He'nry Raynor, Chairman Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RrlAD- BTATI[ RDAD 25 SI3UTHI3LD, L.I., N,Y. 11~J71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOERRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki TO: Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Southold Town Board of Appeals DATE: January 7, 1981 SUBJECT: Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta - Gentlemen: Appeal No~ 2772 As you know, Mr. Kontokosta has made an application for a Special Exception dated December 23, 1980 to amend the previously granted Special Exception concerning property located at the west side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion. The Board of Appeals in its original grant of the Special Exception approved 28 multiple-dwelling units and 21 motel units on the site. The new application proposes to eliminate the motel units; add an additional 20 multiple-dwelling units; and add a 58-boat marina. As to the multiple-dwelling units, the Board of Appeals in passing upon the application must determine that each multiple dwelling unit has a minimum of 9,000 square feet of land area available. The Board cannot at this time make this determination without first knowing what land area the Planning Board will require for the marina use when passing upon the Amended Site Plan. Therefore, the Board of Appeals would suggest that the Planning Board consider the Amended Site Plan at this time with particular reference to the marina use, including all parking and other facilities related thereto, in order that we may give consideration to the multiple-dwelling use. Very truly yours, CHARLES GR[GONJS, CHAJRHAH CG:lk Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER doseph H. Sawick~ December 30, 1980 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road, Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Appeal No. 2772 Dear Mr. Lark: Please be advised that the application and request that the mitted: Board reviewed the above appeal following documentation be sub- (1) Six additional copies of the survey/site plan showing the contour elevation; (2) Three surveys showing the proposed lowest floor (cellar, basement slab, crawl space, etc.] elevation from mean sea level. (a) If the lowest floor is below the 8' minimum require- ment elevation for this A-5 Flood Zone, the following documentation: (1) copy of development permit and disapproval from the building inspector, (b) application and related items for a variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, if you desire to take this step, to be heard simultaneously with Appeal No. 2772 filed December 24, 1980. (3) Copies of all permits and approvals from the N.Y.S. Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation and County Health Department. (4) Letter from the Southold Town Planning Board in effect stating that they do or do not concur with the Amended Site Plan as proposed. (5) Long Environmental Assessment Form. Please do not hesitate to call cerning this matter. CG:lk Enclosures if you have any questions con- erely ,vpu'cs,, ~R LE~S ~ '., CHAIRMAN K JUDITH T. TERRY · TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Southold, L. 1., N. Y. 11971 December 24, 1980 To [ Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2772 application of Emanuel M. Kontokostka for a special exception. Also included are notification to adjoining property owners as follows: Parkside Heights Company, 8020 Colonial Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11~1. Town Clerk JTT/bn Enclosures RICHARD F. LARK December 24, 1980 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold, New York 11971 RE: Emanuel M. Kontokosta - Special Exception Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: the 10. 11. 12. In connection with the abov-captioned matter, following: 1. 2. I am enclosing Application for Special Exception in triplicate. Exhibit A: Approval of Special Exception from the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated January 17, 1980. 3. Exhibit B: Site Plan Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board dated June 30, 1980. 4. Exhibit C: 5. Exhibit D: 6. Exhibit E: 7. Exhibit F: 8. Notice to Adjacent Property Owner with proof of mailing together with certified mailing receipt attached hereto. 9. Notice of Disapproval from the Southold Tow~ Building Inspector. Short Environmental Assessment Form. Building Permit #10924. Building Permit #10925. Amended Site Plan dated November 20, 1980, 5 copies. Excerpt of Building Zone Map of Town of Southold. Wetlands letter. My check for $15.00 payable to the Town of Appeals so a date may be Southold. If all is in order, please place this matter before the Board of set for a public hearing. Very truly yours, RFL:bc Enclosures TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SHOR?~ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer wiiI use currentIy avaiIabie information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additionaI studies, research or other investigations wilI be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a compIeted EnvironmentaI Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If ail questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) En-~ronmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? · ~ Yes No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? ......... Yes ×No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on existing body of water? ...................... Y~s ×No 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? ...................... Yes ×No_. 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ....................... Yes ×No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or ~nimol species? .... Yes ×No 7. Will project result zn o major odverse';~f;~ ' on air quality? .............................. Yes ×No 8. Will project hove o major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes ×,No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated as o critical environmental oreo by a local agency? ............. ~.. ....... ,.... Yes ×No 10. Will project have o major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ......... × Yes No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause o major effect to existing transportation systems? ....................... Yes × No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable ~ odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance os o result of the project's. o~erotion? .... Yes × No or safety? ..... Yes × No directly causing o growth in permanent population of more than 5 percent over o one year period or have a major negative effect on the charac'-~-er of the community or neighborhood? ................................. Yes × No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ...... .~...~ ........... x~. ....... ' Yes × No PREPARER'S SIGNATURE~ / ] ¢ as ~tto:~e~ REPRESENTING ~ma~uel M. ~o~toko~ta DA~E Dec~mbe~ 22, 1~80 December 23, 1980 (Today's Date) To: Re: Southold Town Board of Appeals blain Road Southold, NY 11971 Appeal Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta Location of Property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that the subject property in the within appeal application: (please check one box) [ ] blay be located within 300 feet o~ tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the w~ter-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length.* May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately feat in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in length. Ix] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing on the premises. [ ] Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge.* [Starred items (*) indicate your property does not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S. D.E.C.] Sincerely yours, ~chard F. Eark~, as Attorney TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. 77J--' DATE .~.c.~mhe','..2.3, 1980 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. ¥. ~ Emanuel M. Kontokosta ~ 43 West 54th Street Name S~reet and Number New York New York 1001,9. ............................... Municipality State hereby apply to TH~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE V SECTION 100-50 B 2 & 3 and C 2 Petitioner received a Special Exception from the Southold Town Board of Appeals under Appeal No. 2579 to erect a 28 unit apartment complex, 21 motel units and accessory coffee shop on January 17, 1980. (A copy of said approval is attached hereto as Exhibit A) o Subsequent to that approval, Petitioner received Site Plan Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board on June 30, 1980. (A copy of that approval is attached hereto as Exhibit B). On October 20, 1980, the Southold Town Building Department issued building permits ~10924 and #10925 to construct two multiple dwelling buildings each containing 14 living units. (Copies of these permits are attached hereto as Exhibits C & D respectively). The amended Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit E, provides for: The addition of a 58 boat marina, approximately 420 feet long, 120 feet wide, and 9 feet deep, with a 50 foot wide access into the bay; the deletion of all the 21 motel units and provide in lieu of 20 residential units for a total of 48 units; the addition of a swimming pool; new locations for the westerly residential units and the accessory building to be located at the head of the marina so it can be effectively utilized as a coffee shop, maintenance shop and offices for the complex. The new plan provides adequate off-street parking, ample screening and landscaping. All the residential units will be in condominium form of ownership requiring approval by the Attorney General's Office. Simultaneously with this application approvals and permits are being sought from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health. As seen from the Zoning Analysis on the Site Plan all the buildings will be located 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Gardiners Bay and will meet all the bulk and parking requirements for a "M-1 General Multiple Residence District." The proposal for the additional residential units rather than motel units will not change the character of the surrounding neighborhood which is basically residential as seen from a portion of the Building Zone Map attached as Exhibit F, except for the Long Island Oyster Farms oyster processing plant zoned C-1 General Industrial District located on the easterly side of Shipyard Lane. EMANUEL M../KON~OKOSTA, PETIT~R COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) R.k'cnard F. LarkSignatu ey Sworn to this .....2..3...r..~ .............. day of .~,~.~.~,~.r. ......... , 19...~.Q ........ .... ...................... Notary Public BABETTE CORNINE NOTARY PJ2?~ilC, $!cHe c.,~ New FORM ZB2 BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: PARKSIDE ~TEIGHTS COMPANY 8020 Colonial Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11201 NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ~ra~l(~(Special Exception) (~ve~K[l~e~(the following relief: TO amend the existing Site Plan and construct a marina. ). 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and i~d~- ~ cribedasfollows.On the westerly side of Shipy.ard Lane, East Mation, .NY, bo~naea on the north by Parkside Heights Company, east by Shipyard Lane, scut5 by Gardiners Bay; west by Parkside Heights Company. 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict: "M-i" General Multiple Residence District 4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersigned willrequestthefollowingrelief: To amend the existing Site Plan and construct a marina. 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are: Article V, Section 100-50 B 2 & 3 and C2. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: December 23, 1980 EMANU E ~'~IT~A~I T I ON E R By ///L~Aw~/ //f ~w-~u-t Petitio~erRlchard F. LUrk, attorney Post Off, ce Addr~s Main Road - P.O. Box 973 Cutchoque, New York 11935 NAME PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ADDRESS PARKSIDE HEIGHTS COMPANY 8020 Colonial Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11201 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS.: Barbara Diachun , residing at School House Road. Cutchoque, New York 11935 ,belngdulysworn, deposes and says that on the 24~-h day of December ,19 R (] , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Cutchogue. New York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (~:d) mail. Sworn to before me this 24~-h ~er /~ , 19 80 - Notary Public Barbara Diachun BABETTE CORNINE NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York Suffolk County No. 52-5792800j~..~ Commission Expires Ma*ch 30, lq ~ TO'fiN OF SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOAI~,D OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2579 Dated July 24, 1979 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To Mr. Emanuel M. Kontokosta (Richard F. Lark, Esq. 26 Court Street Main Road Brooklyn, NY 11201 Cutchogue, NY 11935) Appellant at a meeting o! the Zoning Board of Appeals on was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ~ Request lot a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance Art. V, ( ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) January 17, 1980, the appeal Section 100-50 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be ~anted ( ) be de.ed pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... oi the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Budding I~pector ( ) be reversed ( ) be co~irmedbecauze 1/17/80: 8:05 P.M. Application of Emanuel M. Konto- kosta, (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50B(3) (4) and c(2), for permission to erect 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard'Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. (SEE REVERSE) 2. ~/¥i~. By resolution o! the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce hardship because (SEE REVERSE) practical difticultles or unnecessary (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (SEE REVERSE) (would not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied anti that the previous deelsions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS EXHIBt After investigatJ, on and in:~pection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and an accessory coffee shop at premises located in an "M-1 Multiple Resi- dence District." The present zoning ordinance would allow for boarding or tourist houses, or multiple residences for not more than four families; however, for the use requested herei% a Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant's Site Development Plan as revised 11/28/79 appears to be in conformance with all the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has been informed that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit applications appear to be approvable as revised 11/28/79. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, a~d that strict application of the ordinance would produce, practical dif- ficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a Special Exception in this case will not change the character of the neigh-' borhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and accessory coffee shop as per the revised Site Development Plan dated 11/28/79, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1, Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 3. Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan. 4. Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County Charter. 5. Approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the sewage disposal systems. 6. No further subdivision except by application and'approval from the Southold Town Planning Board and Board of Appeals, and appropriate other agencies when required. 7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of the mean highwater line. 8. No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed within 100 feet of mean highwater line. 9. A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of 50 feet shall be established along the shoreline. 10. No storm'water runoff resulting from the development and improve- ment of the pending subdivision and any of the lots shall be discharged directly into Gardiners Bay. Il. No loudspeakers or other noise-making devices may be permitted which would disturb th~'neighborhood. 12. The coffee shop is permitted apartment occupants, and shall not be permitted for use by the general Location of property: Westerly side'of Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside IIeights Co. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7- part of Lot 4. for use exclusively for the motel- public. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. DQ~glass. APPROVED. HENRY E RAYNOR. Jr.. C~airman FREDERICK E GORDON JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI. Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. Southold. N.Y. 11971 August 7, 1980 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 Richard Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Mr. Lark: For yo~mr records, the following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held June 30, 1980. RESOLVED to approve the site development plan for the Shipyard Lane Project as prepared by Kontokosta Associates, Engineers and Architects, said plan dated 2/7/79 with revisions on 8/6/79, 10/24/79, 11/28/79 and 6/5/80, subject to the recerti£ication of the building inspector as to compliance with the Code of the Town of Southold. Mr. Kontokosta picked up the site plan from the office. Yours truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIILMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Muriel Tolman, Secretary EXHIBIT INSPECTION REPORT TO: Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent Town Highway Department Southold, New York 11971 FROM: John W. Davis NO. 134 DATE: May 28, 1980 · SHIPYARD LANE at EAST MARION RE:_ (Grading amd Water Reten+ion) COMMENTS: Review of above plans, dated received 2/8/80, as follows: Grading: ' 1. A survey of the existing ground elevations was made by V~n T~yl, for the owners. Copy of this survey (50 ft. grid) attached. All contours shown based on this information. Existing contours and existing contours to remain are reasonably close to the Van Tayl work. 2. Access roads and parking areas are shown with minus grades to Shipyard Lane; Profiles for the access roads should be submitted and to show that no drainage runoff will go into Shipyard Lane. 3. Plans show an elevation of .2~9 at intersection of Shipyard Lane and the dual access roads. Van 7hyl has a road elevation of 5.5 only 50 ft. south. Road elevations on Shipyard Lane should be submitted where new construction wcrk is adjacent. The Van lhyl information starts at the R.O.W. line and with the exception of two roadway loca- tions, all elevations are off the road. Drainage: 1. Do not .agree with designer's 50% absorption for one inch of rain runoff at L.P.'s. The L.P.'s are limited to one ring due -gal the water table at Elev. 0.00 and infiltration will not be very effective. The adjacent access roads and parking areas are crowned to the center. The 2 northerly L.P.'s in the larger area are at the low ooint, Elev..5.~33. If these L.P.'s were pipe connected and with a discharge line into the westerly open area, drainage relief could be pro~-ided during heavy S torres. 2. The smaller access road and parking area appears to have the s~me drainage relief. problem. The northerly L.P. here is also the low point at Elev. 5.33. A discharge pipe from this L.P. to the swale area along Shipyard Lane could provide some drainage relief. ~ 3. Grading between the two road and parking areas shows contours that slope to Shipyard Lane. Drainage runoff would go to the same swale area. Use of the swale for drainage~ purposes should be further investigated by the o~mers. C.C. Southold Town Planning Board C.C. Highway Committee C.C. L.M. T~thill~ P.E. __ SOUTHOLD TOWN HWY. FORS! NO. 2 TOWN O~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERM, IT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE woRK AUTHORIZED) 10921 Z Date 0otobep 20 Permission is hereby granted to: EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA 43 WEST ~th STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 Build Unit #1 - a multiple dwellin buildin of 1 units ~o ........................................................................................ .6. ................... $. ........... ..~ ............................. 2820 SHITYATUD LANE at premises located at ........... '",W.A'ST' ' '~T./:HTO ~T;'" II ;~Z; ....................................................................... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 38 Block ' 7 Lot No....~..:..3.....~.....~..,~ pursuant to application doted September 29 19...8...0.., and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $ 630.30 Development Permit No. 7F Building Inspector Rev. 6/30/80 T, -tr T_T T 1-.,'. T q· FORM NO. '~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT N°. (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) 10925 Z Permission is hereby granted to: ....... ~i~.. ~..o..~.9.~..q .s.?.,. ............................. ....... .~.t. ~.~.~...,%.t..~.. ,s ~i~-~ ........................... N2~/.~0~, ~ ¥ORI( 10019 Date Octobez- 20 at premises located at 2820 3HIT~ARD LkNE EAST MARION, NEW 'YORK,~. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...... ,~..8. ............. Block ...... 2. ............. Lot No....~.,.~...~....~.,..~ '" pursuant to application dated ....... .~..?..~..~..?..~.b.?..~.....~.? .................... , 19.8...0...., and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $..,6. ~.0..:.~ .0....'.:.:i ' ............ ../......v...~....?.~....../....y......./..~.~ ............ Building Inspector Developmen~ Permit Rev. 6/30/80 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN REiAD- STATE RIDAD 25 -~I:3UTHnLD, L.I,, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD' MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, .IR. TCr, R',' TUT:::LL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GER~,RD P. GOEHRINGER wv ~**~^se~ H. Sawicki N.Y. S. NOTICE OF DECLARATION PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Appeal No. 2772. Application of: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Location of Property in Question: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4. Project Proposed by Appeal Application: Amended Site Plan and Application indicates deletion of the marina and three residential units and to provide for 45 residential units, coffee shop, administration office, pool. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type I Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the LongForm has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This department is in receipt of correspondence dated May 27, 1981 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating a preliminary incursory review of this project indicates the 45 condominium units equals 27,000 gallons per day sewage flow; ancilliary buildings are rated at 2,450 gallons per day; indicating a total daily sewage flow from the site aG 29,400 gallons which is under the Department's current limitation for use of individual sanitary systems; and therefore their office has no objection to the application. This department has also been assured by the N.Y.S. Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation by conversations had May 29, 1981 at the Stony Brook office that they also agree with this Board's determination of non-significance for.this amended project and that written correspondence would be submitted as early as possible. NOTICE OF DECLARATION APPEAL NO. 2772 - EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Dated: June 1, 1981. CG:lk Copies: BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN Richard F. Lark, Esq. as attorney for Applicant Town Clerk Bulletin Board N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Health Services Conservation Advisory Council Southold Town Board EXHIBIT souL~Ho~o APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD ~5 SOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 December 29, 1980 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road, Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Emanuel M. Kontokosta Appeal No. 2772 Dear Mr. Lark: Upon reviewing your application for a Special Exception dated December 23, 1980, the following documentation are requested prior to scheduling this matter for public hearing: (1) Four surveys certified by an engineer also showing the proposed lowest floor [cellar, basement slab, crawl space] elevation from mean sea level. (2) If the lowest floor is elevated below the 8' minimum requirements for this A-5 Zone, the following documentation: (a) copy of development permit and disapproval from the build- ing inspector, (b) application and related items for a variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, if you desire to take this step, including the reasons stated in the building inspector's disapproval, (c) one set of plans for the proposed buildings. (3) Copies of all permits and approvals from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and County Health Department, upon receipt. (4) Letter from the Planning Board that they approve of the Amended Site Plan as proposed, in the interim. Please do not hesitate to concerning this matter. call if you have any questions Sincerely yours, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CG:lk CHAIRMAN cc: Building Department SEQRA Procedures Anticipated for APPEAL NO. 2772 - Emanuel M. Kontokosta Date Completed Date Requested or Filed /4[rt i. 12/24/8o ~_/~/~] II. 12/30/80 Major Projects: Procedure Application for Special Exception. Applicant to file Long Form Environmental Assessment Form with ZBA. III. 12/30/80 Applicant to file: Six surveys showing contour elevations. Three surveys showing proposed lowest floor, elevation above mean sea level. Copies of DEC approvals/permits. Copy of Health Dept. approvals. Letter from PB in effect stating their position on approval of Amended Site Plan. Lead Agency Status within 30 days of comple~e~ Items ! ~ III, and [ ] Negative Declaration - SEQRA or [1-'] Position Declaration - SEQRA ~pplica~ to file. Draft.EIS. ~Fg~war~.to*) and ~, reparation of No~lce ot bomp/e~on ~rorward to-). ZBA to set date for SEQRA hearing for / /81. (SEQRA hearing to be between 15 and 60 days of filing of Draft EIS). Coordination with other agencies (within 30 days of completion of Item I, above): [~'~ DEC [~my~Health Dept. [~Town Board [v~Planning Board [~T_~Conservation Advisory Council SEQRA Hearing to be held / /81. If positive SEQRA declaration, request applicant to file Final Env. Impact Stmt. (to be filed within 60 days of Draft EIS, or 45 days after close of SEQRA hearing). VII. Follow-up with Town Public Hearing procedure, and file determination with: *DEC Co~issioner in Albany, N¥S Clearinghouse in Albany; Tri-State Regional Planning Commission in NYC; DEC in Stony Brook; County Health Dept., Town Clerk, Town Supervisor. -34- A , 1979 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Armando Cappa and Ann Hocking, Main Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct an addition to an existing building with insufficient rear yard setback. Location of property: Old Main Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Old Main Road; east by Reiter; south by Budd's Pond; west by Port of Egypt Enter- prises, upon the following conditions: (1) 'The proposed addition shall be no closer than 35 feet-to the bulkhead. (2) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning ~ommission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. C ~RA~ING: AD~al No. 257 Upon application of Emanue~' M. K~ntokosta, 26 Court Street, BrooKlyn, New York (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50 B(3) & (4) and C(2), for permission to erect a'28 unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and a coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Parkside Heights Co.; east by Shipyard Lane; south by Gardiner's Bay; west by Parkside Heights Co. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Parkside Heights Company. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: There are several things in this that will he desired and needed to be done, and the way it stands right now the Town of Southold desires lead agency status in the above matter. I would like to read the following letter into the record: Mr. Roy L. Haje, Regulatory Affairs, Building 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 RE: TW 15278-0143, Emanuel Kontokosta. Dear Mr. Haje: The Town of Southold desires lead agency status in the above matter. There are several steps which the applicant must take to proceed with this project. (1) Apply for and receive approval of[ a subdivision of the property. (2) Apply for and receive approval SQUTHOLD TOWN BOARD~F APPEALS -35- Aug~ust 16, 1979 from the Board of Appeals for the proposed apartment complex. (3) Apply for and receive site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. This matter will not be acted upon until the above have been complied with. It would appear that the Board of Appeals would assume the lead agency status for the Town. Yours truly, HENRY RAYNOR, JR., Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board by Muriel Tolman, Secretary. What this means is that we, the Board of Appeals becomes the lead agency in the determination of this plan in what is called SEQRA, which is encironmental impact. We have to assume the responsibility for getting all the stuff together and seeing that it is followed in its right track and determining the evaluation. We have written to DEC. We have several things the proposed contractor has got to do and we have a sketch here which I would propose that any of you who are interested in the audience, and it appears to be quite a bit of interest, come up and take.this and. pass it amongst yourself so ~you can see what the contractor proposes. Then it is my intent, we have his sketch, the County Tax Map showing the area, to have anyone who disapproves this plan speak before we go on with the Contractor..and his' agent, which you will see what we further have to have done, If anyone would like to come and'get-this map and pass it amongst yourselves and see what is proposed for your area, why, you will have a better idea of what we are talking about. While they are looking at that I will try to answer any questions. MARIE SMITH: Will you please explain the 28 and the 21. Does that come out to 49 or 21 units in the 28? MR. DOUGLASS: It is 28 apartments plus 21 motel units. MARIE SMITH: Making a total of 49 units? MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. RICHARD KNUDSEN: This land is zoned residential? MR. DOUGLASS: It is zoned multiple use. MR. KNUDSEN: Then motels are Permitted, right? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. KNUDSEN: That wouldn't be commercial? MR. DOUGLASS: Oh yes, it is commercial. Multiple dwelling. ~RJORIE VOLINSKI: I live on Shipyard Lane. You read a statement before that they said it would not make an vehicular traffic on any existing Town of Southold roads. According to this map he has three access roads off Shipyard Lane. Shipyard Lane is a dead end street. I4R. DOUGLASS: He only has t%.~o accesses. One going in and one coming out. You will see they are one way streets on the plans. The SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -36- August 16, 1979 divided is a one way street. MRS. VOLINSKI: Excuse me. One is a road going in and the other is going out. Then at the other end of the property he has another road. That makes three roads. Either in or out. -> MR. DOUGLASS: That's right. MRS. VOLINSKI: You are still going to go down a dead end street,' Shipyard Lane. going be no MR. DOUGLASS: Shipyard Lane is a two way street. But they are to go down it. MRS. VOLINSKI: What I am saying is that he says there will increase ......... in traffic. . ~ -~..~._ ~ ~ .. .~. ~.. ~. ...~.. ~r MR.DOUGLASS: This is his thing, -. - PATRICIA VOLINSKI: We already have 5 tractor trailer~ a day ~own that. road. WILLIAM McDERMOTT: May I ask a question? You are the lead agency. This does have to have before anything else goes on, I understand the approval of the Zoning Board. MR. DOUGLASS: It has to have a lot of approvals. MR. McDERMOTT: DEC, Zoning Board, and God knows what else, is that right? MR. DOUGLASS: There is more before that. MR. McDERMOTT: But you cannot act on this aside from being lead agency. All you are doing is supervising the direction. Am I correct? MR. DOUGLASS: We can'tact on it until all the other stuff is approved. MR. McDERMOTT: That's what I thought. I don't believe...There are 49 units there and how much acreage, 9 acres. Does that fit in with th~ Master Plan. MR. DOUGLASS: It does. It meets all the zoning requirements. MR. McDERMOTT: In your zoning code. Do y6u know if it meets the approval of the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASS: This is something coming up you will MR. McDERMOTT: This is unusual, is it not, to lead Board of Appeals before it goes to the Planning Board? hear later on. through the ~ MR. DOUGLASS: No, it is not unusual, it is something that we SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -37- August 16, 1979 have to revert back. MR. McDERMOTT: It is not the usual procedure? MR. DOUGLASS: It is the usual procedure because we have to be the'lead agency in SEQRA in the determination of the environmental impact.. JAMES CAVANAUGH: On the west is Parkside. Is that the same outfit that is developing this concept. MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know. I can't determine that until after I talk to them. MRS~ SMITH:-. ! d0n,t live.on Shipyard Lane, but I think ~veryone here wi-ll agree with me that most df t-he problems iu ~ast Mari6n come from this sort of housing. Do you agree with me?. My husband.and I have lived in East Marion for'seven years and whenever we come to Town Hall for an answer to a problem/we have on inevitable answer, from several different people.. A deep sigh followed by it's a shame, East Marion used to be such a nice place to live. Number one you-have no'noise ordinance. Have you ever suffered through hours music? MR. DOUGLASS: M'am, I've lived here and my family date~ back to 1700 and something. MRS. SMITH: But if you have no rules, how can you allow an increase in this type of housing? MR. DOUGLASS: I'm not crowded. MRS. SMITH: You live in Orient. MR. DOUGLASS: I think East Marion is still a nice community. MRS. SMITH: Would you like to spend a hot Sunday with us? Would you like to try to get out on the Main Road? Would you like to have people visit you and ask "For God's sake, why did you build here?". Six cars scattered on the lawn of a one family dwelling, boats? MR. DOUGLASS: I think you are getting a little bit off the trail of this matter. MRS. SMITH: My whole point is that shouldn't there be rules first? MR. DOUGLASS: We have rules. MRS. SMITH: Anti-noise? MR. DOUGLASS: That has nothing to do with us. I'm afraid that is not in our jurisdiction. MR. TUTHILL: That is with the Town Board. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -38- August 16, 1979 MRS. VOLINSKI: What type of sewage treatment do they plan on using? MR. DOUGLASS: It states in the application that whatever the Board of Health requires. What they will require, I cannot answer. They are very strict. I know for instance they will require the land to be at an elevation of a minimum of 8 feet for it. Right now- the highest ~point is 5 feet and the lowest is 2.4 feet. MRS. VOLINSKI: Isn't there a law that cesspools have to be 10 feet above sea level? ~.~. DOUGLASS: No. Two feet above the water. MRS. VOLINSKI: But when we get a storm the Town road floods and all this property floods. MR. DOUGLASS: That's right. That is why land has to be raised. They will require .... MRS. VOLINSKI: They will have to raise the land so the sewage will not go into the bay? MR..DOUGLASS: That's right. That would be taken care of by the Board of Health. JOHN BLACKWELL: I live in East Marion. To tie in all this type.~ of question, when will the environmental impact statement be available? MR. DOUGLASS: minutes. MR. BLACKWELL: This you will hear if you are patient for a few It is current? MR. DOUGLASS: It has to be provided. LESTER SHAPIRO: I may have missed something. But what is the.. variance for exactly? One is for ~ coffee.shop, am I right? And the other has to do with requesting permission to erect an apartment complex? MR. DOUGLASS: It is all under the same application. This is a special exception.~ MR. SHAPIRO: Under current zoning they can erect a motel unit? MR. DOUGLASS: Permitted uses under multiple dwelling. (Mr. Douglass read the part of the Zoning Ordinance applying to this application) MR. SHAPIRO: Then I understand they are asking the Board of Appeals to grant a special exception which is not granted under "M-I",~) but they are asking for permission to erect an apartment complex and motel units and coffee shop. C MR. DOUGLASS: It is a use permitted under the Zoning Ordinance if the Board so determines. MR. SHAPIRO: That is what I am trying to get at. We as the people interested in it have it within our view to object to the Board's granting the special exception. MR. DOUGLASS: This is perfectly within your right. MR.SHAPIRO: At one time I was under the impression that the M-1 automatically granted this. MR. DOUGLASS: No it is a legal special exception. MR. SHAPIRO: We~have enough authority to object to it. This is not automatically granted? MR. DOUGLASS: ~ou mus~'uhderstand one other thing.' If they meet the equlrements of the Town ordinances which on that drawing you r ' will see that he is under the zoning code regulations, he has met them down the line to this point, then he cannot be denied this special exception. As long as he stays within the legal equlrements of the zoning. MR. CAVANAUGH: Do I understand there are 0nly four'dwellings to an acre? MR. DOUGLASS: Not under this type of unit. GUNTHER STOTSKY: I live in East Marion. I am rather confused because we have no details regarding water supply. MR. DOUGLASS: The water supply is his least problem. He has Greenport water. MR. STOTSKY: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. STOTSK~: MR. DOUGLASS: He will tie into the Greenport water. He has no problem there. What about details in terms of sewage removal. This is controlled by the Board of Health. MR. STOTSKY: But you are asking us, and I am a little confused at this point. I am confused about the Board of Appeals sitting on this type of variance, which has just been announced in the newspaper with no environmental impact statement yet. MR. DOUGLAS~: You are jumping ahead of me. MR. STOTSKY: If you could clarify why this is in front of the Board of Appeals, rather than the Planning Board. As Bill McDermott tried to question this. I still do not understand how you can have 49 units on 9 acres of land which is about 2 feet above sea water. No details in terms of sewage disposal will be or what solid waste SOUThOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -40- August 16, 1979 will be. Now, hopefully they will tie into Greenport water. It seems to me that until this Environmental Impact Statement is filed, that we should have a chance to look at this instead of just being given a copy of a map this evening without any time toulook at it, this pro- posal should either be tabled. MR. DOUGLASS: I told you there would not any decision here tonight. I'm giving you the opportunity ~ talk and get answers. MR. STOTSKY: There will be no decision tonight? Thank you. MR. McDERMOTT: I think it would be worth going through once again the lead agency status that the Board of Appeals must follow before anything can be done:on this. It would clarify a lot of people's questions, I think. MR. DOUGLASS:' As i explained before, we end up wlt5 the job' dropped in our lap as lead agency in what is called SEQRA. Environmental Impact developed by the State of New York.- W~ have-forms that We have to follow, and when we run down through these forms and answer the questions it puts us in a determination of What we must require'of the Contractor before we can make a decision. We as the Board of Appeals, they came before us first because they are after a special exception to do this construction. Now we have to go back with them and tell them what is required. This is what will be coming. MR. SHAPIRO: Again, I ask what kind of impact we can have on thc Board's decision? I think you have gathered the flavor of all of us here this evening. We are agin this. We like the character of East Marion. We've been here 18 or 19 years. We don't want this {o become the south fork. We don't want a motel. We don't want a coffee shop that will expand into a disco or something. Does this have any impact? MR. DOUGLASS: It all enters into the thinking of the B~ard, certainly. MR. SHAPIRO: Because before you said that if they conform to the Code, you have no alternative, but to grant this. MR. DOUGLASS: This is possible. We have the determining factor whether or not it does. MR. SHAPIRO: Let's pursue this a little further. They can legally conform to the code, but we are the neighborhood say, "Heck, we don't want it." I trust the Board will take that into consideration. MR. DOUGLASS: We always do. MR. SHAPIRO: The final decision, as Dr. Stotsky asked before, will be delayed until the Environmental Impact Statement is filed? Is it also that a decision will not be made until we hear what the thinkino of the Board is and what the findings are of the Board? MR. DOUGLASS: I am going to take one more person, and then I am '$0UTHOLD TOWN BOAR~F APPEALS -41- A~st 16, 1979 going back over to the Contractor. happens. From then on you will see what PATRICIA VOLINSKI: I have only one question. How much property does he own? Did he buy the garden as well as the Fisher,Estate? MR. DOUGLASS: This is something I have to find out yet. MRS. VOLINSKI: Oh, okay, you don't know? MR. DOUGLASS: We know that the land has been bought, but how we have to find out. Hold it up now and let me go back to Mr. Lark and Mr. Kontokosta, the contractor who is proposing this. We have... I would like to give Mr. Lark a minute to explain their side, just a short bit, and then I will go over with him on what we require and will rgqui~,e and this.~ill all have to be recessed until the stuff is brought'before us that has to be done. Would you take over for a minute, Mr.3Lark. _ . ~ RICHARD F.~LARk, ~Q: I woul~-.jus~ like to ask the Board whether ~ not you have been granted the lead agency status by the New York State Departmen~ of Environmental Conservation? MR. DOUGLASS: We are still waiting for a letter, but the Town has made us the lead agency. MR. LARK: But has the State acquiesced the lead agency in this matter? MR. DOUGLASS: We have not had a letter back from them yet. MR. LARK: Then I understood that you are going to give us a list of requirements and recess the hearing. I would like to hear what you had in mind. MR. DOUGLASS: In the first place, it has to go back to the Planning Board. Let me ask a question of Mr. Kontokoska. When you purchased this land, it was 14 acres, right? MR. KONTOKOSTA: No. I purchased the 9 acres. MR. DOUGLASS: Who purchased the rest? MR. KONTOKOSTA: Parkside Heights purchased the rest. MR. DOUGLASS: 14 acres? Did Parkside Heights originally purchase the whole MR. KONTOKOSTA: No. The deed went from the prior owner t~ myself. MR. DOUGLASS: For the 14 acres? MR. KONTOKOSTA: For the 9.199 acres. MR. DOUGLASS: And the deed went directly from Kaplan Brothers to Parkside Heights on the rest? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -42- August 16, 1979 MR. KONTOKOSTA: We have the care to look at them. here, Mr. Chairman, MR. DOUGLASS: No, that'S all r it. You've got them. We will see t~ question that has been raised. The f is that you have to go back to the PI supply us with an Environmental Impac any further. You have got to go to t requirements on what they will requir t. I'll take your wo later anyway. This w ~t thing that has to b :lng Board. You have ~ .Ttatement before we cai Board of Health and g~ for the sewage. I haw to them since we saw you, and I know .ey have certain requir( that will have to be met. They will ~'> over that with you. been there before. You have to go on . subdivision basis to Planning Board, and ~ave an Environme~ al thing worked up. through the Board of Health and back +.~ us. It will be a pub/ hearing again. We intend to recess tl '.s until October. How do you want, Dick?_ MR. LARK: I still ask the ques' ion. Did the State make lead agency? Or is the State going %-, assume the lead agency ~ if the New York State Environmental A ency assumes lead agency they going to deem this a minor project, which makes a differe~ of rules and regulations then if they deem it a major project, know. So I can't answer your questio,~ until I know what the De. of Environmental Conservation is going to do. MR. DOUGLASS: We will still be the Town's lead agency ant MR. LARK: What happens if the state supersedes you? MRS. CONROY: If the state overrides us, we are under them we have no control. That is what he is asking. MR. LARK: I don't know how much time we need until we°fin~ what the Stonybrook people are going to do. We have written to t~ MR. DOUGLASS: We have written them, too. We told them we an answer before tonight, but we didn't get it. We proposed to it until October 18, 1979. MR. LARK: That would be satisfactory pending on what thet. up with. MR. DOUGLASS: You will all know that it will be October 1~ 1979 at 7:30 P.M. Hopefully we will have all the information back then. Then Mr. Lark and Mr. Kontokosta will be through with the Planning Board by that time. MR. STOTSKY: I hope that prior to that October meeting that all this information will be available for all the parties involvt~ so we can see what it is. MR. DOUGLASS: You know government agencies as well as I do. MR. STOTSKY: DEC is really sort made here. Inasmuch as you are the Board of Appeals, the a secondary agency. Th~inal decision will be SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAROF APPEALS -43- 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: agency. If they take over they are not the secondary MR. STOTSKY: If they take over, I understand you are going to maintain control. All the people who are here and interested should have access to the files before that October meeting. MR. DOUGLASS: Everything is open t© them at our office. MR. STOTSKY: Is there some date prior to the October meeting that all the infomation will be available to us? MR. DOUGLASS: We have no way of knowing. MR. STOTSKY: Will it be published in the paper? MR. DOUGLASS: No. It's been published once, and that!s all it will be published. You will just have to stop in the office and talk to our secretary from time to time. MRS. BACHRACH: Can you hold a public meeting before all this available? MR. DOUGLASS: This is a public meeting right now. MRs. BACHRACH: I'm talking about this particular case. MR. DOUGLASS: If the information is not available then, it will h~e to be recessed to a later date. MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a member of the local press here? DOUGLASS LOVE: Yes. PETER BOODH:: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: Would you two be kind enough to follow this up so we have some kind of way to follow this? Please keep a close watch on this. MRS. McDONALD~ Just as a point of information. Has this been zoned M-1 for a very long time? MR. DOUGLASS:- Yes, quite a while. MR. CAVANAUGH ~ Ail of 15 years. ANGELO PANAGOPOULOS: Live in East Marion. You said in the beginning of the meeting about the traffic. Do you think in your opinion that a little road like Shipyard Lane will be able to handle all the traffic. You are talking about 49 units. MR. DOUGLASS:: This is not for me to say. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: It still was in the plan of the Town. SQUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -44- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: This is for the Planning Board to say, not me. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: When you start reading the Code and start talking about traffic... MR. DOUGLASS: That was his statement in here. That was the Contractor's statement. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Doesn't the construction have to blend with the environment of the Town? MR. DOUGLASS: That iS all controlled by your Planning Board. MR. KNUDSEN: When this comes before the Planning Board we can voice our objections there, too? MR. DOUGLASS: You sure can. I'm sure it has.to be published. MR. KNUDSEN: Do you know when that will be by any chance? MR. DOUGLASS: No. We will turn it over to them and Mr. Lark and Mr. Kontokosta will get in touch with them, and they will receive a date there just like they did here. MR. STOTSKY: Just as a point of information. Why is this coming before the Appeals Board instead of the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASSS: We have already read it to you. It has to have a special exception. MR. STOTSKY: Has it been to the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASS: Not at this time. MR. STOTSKY: I still don't understand with this zoning require- ment they are putting in for a variance. MR. DOUGLASS: No, they are putting in for a special exception. Not a variance. MR. STOTSKY: I don't understand what the special exception is that they are applying for. MR. DOUGLASS: They are putting in for a commercial use of the multiple dwellings and motel use down there which are allowed under M-1 under a special exception, with the coffee shop. MR. STOTSKY: This type of zoning is M-i, special exception which means no matter who owns this and they want to put up this type of operation in that zone, they will have to come before the Board of Appeals and get a special exception? {~_~. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. SOUTItOLD TOWN BOAR~ APPEALS 16, 1979 MR. STOTSKY: This M-1 zoning is not a commercial zoning?; MR. DOUGLASS: This is a special exception, and a special exception is a legal use. MR. STOTSKY: Now, I get it. It is only zoned c0mmercial with the special exception. It is zoned non-commercial unless they get a special exception. MR. DOUGLASS: It is an M-1 zone which allows it. WALTER SOSINSKI: Suppose the rest of the property up %o the Main Road is rezoned for motels and all. MR.DOUGLASS: Your town board is the one who controls that. MR. SOSINSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. $OSINSKI: this is rezone~, why can't the r~st. They are not rezoning anything. A special exception? MR. DOUGLASS: 7Tha~~' is not rezonlng. in that area. That is a'granted use CONRAD VOLINSKI: Now I'm going according to letters. M is for multiple dwellings? MR. DOUGLASS: Right. MR. VOLINSKI: C is for commercial. MR. DOUGLASS: Light industry. MR. VOLINSKI: Now, what you are going to do is go from an M to a C? MR. DOUGLASS: No. C is industry. This is not considered in- dustry. You have C right across the way at the Long Island Oyster Farms. HELEN DEMAS: The remaining property you are talking about. There is a 9.9 acreage, for the motel and apartment use. The remaining property owned by Parkside Heights? That would you please repeat what zoning that area is? MR. DOUGLASS: It is all M-1. MR. SHAPIRO: When was the subdivision made for those properties? MR. DOUGLASS: I can't tell you. MR. CAVANAUGH: We are really not talking about anyting until he goes before the Planning Board for the subdivision. MR. DOUGLASS: That's right. MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know who the principals are in the Parkside Heights? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -45- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: No, I don't. If you want to go to the tax library, it is public information. (~ STOTSKY: Will there be an impact statement ready by October MR. 18th? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know sir. you that. I don't know until it comes is a decision. I told you si~ 'I cannot tell in. There will be before there MRS. VOLINSKI: You said it was M-1 from Cavanaugh's over? What I meant was from the Bay the other way. MR. DOUGLASS: It is only M-1 back to his property line on this map. In back of him towards the Main Road is A residential. M_RS.. VOLINSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: him and Cavanaugh. MRS. VOLINSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: Parkside? .!' Parkside is along side of him. Parkside is After you have what he owns, Yes, M~am. between' it becomes A-l? MRS. VOLINSKI: A-residential? MR. DOUGLASS: In other words the land that Sep farms is all ) Yes. PAUL KALUNAS: I'm from East Marion. There is just one thing on 'my mind. You said before that the feeling of a large group of people such as this one would have a bearing on your decision. MR. DOUGLASS: It always does. met, MR. KALUNAS: YOU also said that if all the requirements are that the special exception .would have to be granted. MR. DOUGLASS: If it Conforms to zoning. MR. KALUNAS: Even if it may be contrary to more people than just this? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I would say if they meet the law, you cannot stop them. MR. KALUNAS: What you say then is that our objections do not mean anything. MR. DOUGLASS: I'm not saying that at all_ You might be expressing something the contractor is glad t~ hear. So he knows what is what. ~ NATHALIE RACKETT: If the state should take over as lead agency SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAR~F APPEALS -46- A~st 16, 1979 instead of the Board of Appeals here, that means they would make the decision instead of the Board of Appeals? MR. DOUGLASS: They would then tell him if he was in violation of environmental things or not. MRS. RACKETT: The decision would still lie here and not with the stat~ MR. DOUGLASS: He would still have to come here for the special exception. He would have been cleared environmentally. MRS. RACKE~T: Will any hearings be held or anything of that sort in their courts rather than here where the majority of the people would attend? MR.~D0~GLAss~'~ Nb. You have your biggest value here. MR. STOTSKY: That's not true. If the DEC does in fact hold a hearing, everybody should be informed and has a right to be heard be- fore the hearing officer and make any complaints they want to make. MR. DOUGAASS: You can write anyone a letter you want% MR. STOTSKY: They just would have to have a hearing on this. MR. DOUGLASS: They don't have to have a hearing on anything. MR. STOTSKY: If we insisted on it, they would have to.' MR. DOUGLASS: No, they don't. They are up there somewheres. MR. SHAPIRO: Is the Army Corp of Engineers involved in this? MR. DOUGLASS: No, they are never involved in anything closer than 35 feet to the tide line. MR. SHAPIRO: This is above that? MR. SHAPIRO: I ho~e so. MRS. MCDONALD: Does the 9 acres inclUde the land that is under water so much of the year? MR. DOUGLASS: That is all open ground if you look at the drawing. The poor area of that he has left as open ground. He is not touching or effecting that at all. He's working on the area which is the highest which is down towards the shore front. MRS. McDONALD: The part right off Shipyard Lane. The kids ice skate there every winter. MR. DOUGLASS: I know where you are talking about. the back section. It is in MRS. VOLINSKI: Right up to the water. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -47- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: The waterfront has 5 feet of elevation. MR. SHAPIRO: I think we are all caught up in the thing of special exceptions. It would appear to me that if all a special exception meant was that the person complied with the Code, that is not a special exception to.me. That would just be the rule. MR. DOUGLASS: Special exception is for the use of it. MR. SHAPIRO: It would seem that the special exception would be granted where there are special circumstances. MR. DOUGLASS: That is not the way it reads. Special exception gives them the right to do what · read to you. MR. SHAPIRO: It would be granted under special conditions? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, that they meet'all th~-conditions. This is a much more restricted variance. I hope I have answered some of the things. More will be answered at the meeting in October that's for sure. . On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2579 on behalf of' Emanuel Kontokosta, 26 Court Street, Brcoklyn, New York, be recessed until Thursday, October 18, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, se6onded by.Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, September 6, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) and set the following times on that date as the time of hearing upon the following applications? 8:10 P.M. (D. siT.) Upon application of Diane Gazza, c/o North Fork Equities, Inc., North Road, Southold, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III, Seciton 100-30 for permission to have a non-farm, barn storage building as the main structure on a lot which is not permitted in an A residential and Agricultural District, and a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct said building with an insufficient front yard setback. Location of property Cedar Beach Road, Southold, New York, known and designated as part of Lots 21, 22 and 23 and 24 on Map No. 90 of Cedar Beach Park. 8:20 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Frances N. Frisbie, Clear- water Lane, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance to the Zoning ~rdinanq ] Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission {~J Sguthold Town Board Appeals -18- Novembel 5, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, I will thank all of you for your testimony. We have to ask Mr. Perricone and his partners to go back before the Planning Board and have the Planning Board either okay the parking that you suggest, or suggest a parking schedule. We will recess this until we get that notice back from you, at which time we will set a time of decision. We also need in our possession papers showing your legal possession or lease, or whatever involvement with the properties. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of STEPHEN J. PERRICONE and PENELOPE KOUSOUROS, Appeal No. 2587, be RECESSED until the applicants obtain Planning Board approval of the proposed parking plan, at which time a date will be scheduled to recon- vene this matter. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Tuthill, Doyen and Grigonis. Contining on the above appeal, several discussions were had. Mr. Tu%hill thanked the audience for their courtesy, good mannersf attention and seriousness of the remarks. Mr. Tuthill said the behavior of the audience is to be admired and that hearings should be dealt in the same fashion more often. Mr. Perricone asked why the parking plan submitted to the Boar~ of Appeals was not appropriate, and Mr. Tasker and Mr. Doug- lass explained that it was not to scale, and that it would be a good idea for the applicants to clarify which parking spaces were for which businesses on the property and that it should be to scale in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code when submitting it to the Planning Board for their approval. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2579. Application of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York (Rich- ard F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935) for a Special Exception to the $oning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50 for permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York; bounded north and west by. Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:57 P.M. c c £ Southold Town Boar~ ~f Appeals -19- Novemb, 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: I reopen the hearing, by going back to Mr. Kontokosta's attorney, Mr. Lark. RICHARD F. LARK: Mr. Douglass, on August 20th, 1979 Board of Appeals wrote me, and this was after we determined that the Board of Appeals would be the lead agency in this matter and requested the following information: subdivision approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board. The public hearing on the minor subdivision was held last night, and as of this moment to my knowledge the Board has not rendered a decision on it, ok? That was the first one. The Board of Health approval - they have seen the preliminary plans and asked for a re-design of the sewage system and also they wanted test holes dug, and I under- stood that one was dug but the inspector didn't show up and it's waiting for the inspection out there. And so that's the second item that you requested. The third item was the Department of Environmental Conservation and environmental impact statement. Now as I understand it, the Department of Environmental Conserva- tion has the matter before it, and they have to come up with a determination as to whether or not it's a minor.or a major project under their regulations. Now if they come up with a major'project, then a formal environmental impact statement will have to be filed both with them and with you as the lead agency in the situation. If they come up with a minor, it's a minor project, then they will give-what recommendations, what input to the Board since you are the lead agency and under the Act as I understand it an environmental impact statement is not required. So they have not made that determination, the Board of Health, the Department of Health hasn't made a final approval which was what you wanted for the Special Exception; and we haven't received the formal approval from the Planning Board for the subdivision. So these will all take a little bit of time, and so I'm going to respectfully request, depending on your hearing agenda, that, this is the middle of November, that it probably be put off some time toward the middle of January, which would be about 60 days away. I think I can have all of those approvals or determinations from those agencies which you request by that time. ~ MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right, sir. meeting in January. That would be the first MR. LARK: That would be fine. Whenever that would fall, think we would have everything by then. MR. DOUGLASS: We've probably some people in the audience here that would maybe like to say a few words on this applica- tion. With them here I would hate to have them go home and not be able to say something, so we will grant anybody that desires to be heard on this application say it now. Is there anybody desiring to make a statement? Yes, sir? ANGE PANAGOPOULOS: Mr. Douglass, the las~ meeting, your- self you asked Mr. Kontokosta about the subdivision. When will Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 15, 1979 he subdivide. And he said, "I don't know." Now we hear from the counsellor that last night the Planning Board was going to subdivide that land. I mean, it doesn't jive. He said that he bought the place and it was subdivided. And the other guy was Parkside Incorporated. And he didn't know even who was Parkside Incorporated. All of a sudden now we hear, you know, that last night he's going for a subdivision. It's a little bit sinister, from the~beginning. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Tha~ you. Is there anybody else wishing to say something? MR. ARMSTRONG: Where can we see, my name is Armstrong, where can we see a copy of the plans and what they intend to do with that? MR. DOUGLASS: In our office, sir. Any day from 9 to 4, Monday through Friday. Mr. Armstrong, what's,your full name? MR. ARMSTRONG: Harry. Could we get a photostat copy there of the plans that they intend to do and the usage of it? MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah. MR. ARMSTRONG: I think it involves two pieces of our property. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, but you will have to pay for the costs. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MARIE SMITH: I'm Marie Smith from East Marion and I was here last night, and we were very puzzled last night and what we asked was, why does this have to be subdivided if the intent tonight is to build 28 units and 21 units, and who is Parkside Heights, because we saw a very important piece of property that was part of.the subdivision appeal last night, and it touches on Mr. Kontokosta's property. Is he Parkside Heights, Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: No. MRS. SMITH: Some people say he is, and some say he isn't. We keep getting different answers.' We!re just curious. MR. LARK: The answer is no. MARY GREGORY: We were told yesterday or the day before yesterday that- MR. DOUGLASS: Ma'am? Would you please give your name to the steno. Please do not talk across the hall~ MARY GREGORY: Mary Gregory, I'm through. 0 ,-3 0 0 ,.-3 0 MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. .' ~outhold Town Boar( Appeals -21- Novemb~5, 1979 MRS. SMITH: I think wkat most of these people want to know is, why if we want to know what's going on do we have.to go to two hearings, the subdivision and the one for building 28 units and 217 MR. DOUGLASS: Ma'am, you don't have to go to any hearings, but this is the way the law is written up. Certain. parts are taken care of by the Planning Board and certain parts by the Zoning Board. MRS. S~ITH: And as we were told last night, they really have nothing to do with this, so we just have to show up. and. they didn't have to show up, is that it? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know what they said, ma'am. MR. ARMSTRONG: Excuse me, does somebody know what the variance is for? Why do they need a variance? MR. DOUGLASS: It's a Special Exception; it's not a variance. MR. ARMSTRONG: What is the Special Exception? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, it's zoned multiple dwelling right now, but he wants to put in a motel section of it and a small coffee shop. MR. ARMSTRONG: So he wants it commercial? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, a multiple dwelling could be commercial too. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not-- sir? GORDON RACKETT: Gordon Rackett, Shipyard Lane, East Marion. Most of my'questions, I~think, ~are still unanswered because differ- ent Boards and commissions and so forth haven't rendered a verdict or a decision on what they're doing, but one thing that I hope that you people keep in mind when you make a final decision, is the fact that East Marion is very, very much over-burdened with hotels, motels, taverns and so forth.. On a human side of it, we really don't need any more here. MR. DOUGLASS: This is in Greenport territory. MR. RACKETT: No, it's East Marion fire district. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing to speak? If not, I will put a motion on the floor to recess this appeal till the first meeting in January. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -22- November 15, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, Appeal No. 2579, be RECESSED until the first meeting in January of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2598. Application of Philip A. WENZEL, Main Road, Peconic, New York 11958, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permis- sion to subdivide with insufficient area. Location of property: Main Road, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Koraleski, south by Leslie Road, west by Bujnowski. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:05 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: This is for a division of a farm near Peconic. I believe Mr. Cichanowicz, who is interested in it, is here. This will have to be recessed again until December 6th because it will' have to be republished. I'll again say here if there is anybody here wishing to give testimony on it, we will take it now. RUDOLPH BRUER: I would just like to know why. Why does it have to be re-published. This is an adjourned hearing. MR. TASKER: The reason for it is that on the first recess they did not set a date to reconvene the hearing so that no one would know when the recessed hearing would convene, so therefore t~ey.have to do that. It's a question of legal notice. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. I'll make a motion that this appeal be recessed until the December 6th meeting after proper publication. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of PHILIP A. WENZEL, Appeal No. 2598 be RECESSED un~il December 6, 197'9 after proper publication. Vote of the Board: Tuthill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2615. Application of MATTITUCK HOLDING CO., Mill Road, Matti%uck, New York for a.Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80B(15) · for permission to construct a boat storage shed. Location of Southold Town Board Appeals -63- Novemb~ 15, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that in the matter of the application of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, Appeal No. 2579, this Board has under consideration an appeal of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, represented by his attorney, Richard F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, New York 11935, involving property located at Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co., and for which permission is requested to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and a coffee shop pur- suant to Article V, Section 100-50, and WHEREAS, a large portion of said property is located in a flood plain, and accordingly is a Type I Action and which may have a significant effect upon the environment; NOW THEREFORE be it RESOLVED, that the applicant be required to complete and file with this Board an Environmental Assessment in the~Long Form for consideration by this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~essrs. Doug~lass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the October 11, 1979 meeting be approved and that the Minutes of the September 27, 1979 meeting also be approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, December 6,.1979 at 7:30 o'clock P.M., and that the following times be set as the time of hearing upon the following applications: 7:40 P.M. Recessed hearing. Application of PHILIP A. WENZEL, Appeal No. 2598. 7:50 P.M. Recessed hearing. Application of RALPH H. DICKINSON, Appeal No. 2629. 8:05 P.M. Public Hearing. Application of Vincent J. Acunto, Appeal No. 2637. Southold Town Board~f Appeals -25- Decembel 27, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be scheduled for Thursday, January 17, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M., and that 'the following applications be advertised for a public hearing at the below specified times for the next meeting: 7:30 P.M. LARSON, Robert F., Appeal No. 2658, for per- mission to keep pony & horse for personal use with less than 40,000 square feet devoted to such use on subject premises, and for permis- sion to construct accessory stable in frontyard area. Location of property: Nassau Point Road and Bridge Lane, Cutchogue; Nassau Point Amended Map A, Lots 130 and 129. 7:40 P.M. BERG, Sol (by John Bertani Builder Inc.), Appeal No. 2659, for permission to construct accessory structure in frontyard area. Location of proper- ty: N/s Pine'Neck Road, Southold. County Tax Map Item No. i1000-70-6-33. 7:50 P.M. WADDINGTON, Robert Jr. (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) Appeal No. 2655, for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient frontyard setback and for approval of access. Location of property: Miami Ave and Sound View Avenue (private street), Peconic. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-67-6-16. 8:05 P.M. KONTOKOSTA, Emanuel M. (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) Appeal No. 2579, for permission to construct 28-unit complex with motel units & coffee shop. Location of property: E/s Shipyard Lane, East Marion. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7- part of Lot 4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of ROBERT F. LARSON, Appeal No. 2658 for permission to keep pony & horse for personal use on dwelling premises with less than 40,000 square feet devoted for such use, and for permission to construct accessory stable in frontyard area, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32, this Board has, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with this application, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 617.13 Southold Town Boar~f Appeals -24- Decembe 27, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that in the matter of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 112'01, by Richard F. Lark, Esq., Appeal No. 2579, this Board has received from the applicant a "Site Development Plan" revised October 24, 1979 relocating and increasing leaching pools (eight) and providing for handling surface drainage and regrading to minimize runoff entering adja- cent waters, and a completed Environmental Assessment in the Long Form, WHEREAS, this Board as lead agency has received written comments from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation indicating that the application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta for a State Tidal Wetlands Permit and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) appears to be approvable if the project is implemented as planned in the revised plans, supra, and WHEREAS, this Board as lead agency has received written comments from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating that due to the proposed water supply to be received from the Village of Greenport an on-site water supply will not be necessary, and the proposed septic tank leaching pool system(s) may require the placement of fill to raise the grade in the areas of the sewage disposal facilities and for which the applicant understands this will be required before such approvals, and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Planning Commission has advised they will not consider this application until after this Boars has made its final determination and has submitted copies of all documents pertaining to this matter, NOW, THEREFORE, this Board has determined that by the means of revised plans submitted by the applicant as stated above, the SEQRA declaration of this Board made November 15, 1979 shall be reversed and deemed a Negative Declaration having no significant effect on the environment. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, Appeal No. 2579, BE SCHEDULED to reconvene its public hearing on Thurs- day, January 17, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Tuthill. -( . 00 / \ \ \ J I SEE SEC. NO 031 PD. 65 REFERENCEf ZONING, CHAPTERIOO FROM TNE COPE THE TOWN OF 5OUTHOLD ZONE P'I-1) GENERAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT ARBA',9,19OAC~Bf OR 400,~pB, ~FT. LOT COVERAGE; AU~WABLE~ R~, P~KH-4G ~ BULK 5GHEBULE A5 AMENP~P 5/~O~S ~Y L,L. NO, 5-?5 25}':', PROPOSED :~4) DWB~m, BL~C~ =~ ~5~ ~ ~I)ACCESSOR¥ SLOG TOTAL '% COY 400,708 DWELLING UNIT ALLOWABLE/ ' ,,_F O0,111~) PROPOSED~ .4.~:~-~-~UNIT5: ,4-~& ,000 ]1 4-~C 'sOO LJ] >4o07,.C,% I~LDG LENGTH ALLOWABLE; J~5' hqAX LENGTH SEPARATION REQUIRED J ~0~ OR Zx, BLDG HEIGHT /liEF: 10O 5Z) HEIGHT OF BLDG, RED. [O0,13~FOR 5LOPED ROOF ~EAN HEIGHT BETWEEN EAVE AND ~DGE TO FINISH GRAD~ PRONT O~ BLDG, PROPOSED', LENeTH: lES' HEIGHT: 20' DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDG5: OI5T BET, BLDG,&A~ES~ I IV~BLE FLOOR ~iN, ALLOWED ;~,C PROPOSEDf ~41 ~ ( 6TODIO UNIT) ~,ET BACKS PROPOSED~ Ioo~ iHIPY'A D l ANI PLAN _PROJECT ~C)UTHOBO,l'd,Y' Title Date Scale Job No. Dwg. No. ] /,/ / % / / / / ¸%, / / J / / / / iI1/?1t/ / // / /.// // I / / ;/i I //k~f~ ~ ¢___.L.C-,c~V~-r~ ¢'¢IN'F VIL, I.,.~.Cc~-- AT' ¢',ek~1' '¢'~'4¢1110 N, ~ U'm'¢'O L"¢' 4-4~ R~FERENCE~ ZONING, CHAPTER lDO PROI~ THE COD~ THE TOWN OF GOUTHOLD 5[:TE/, ZONE fYi-t; GENERAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT AR~A¢9,i99 ACRE~ OR 4OO, qOg, SQ FT. AS A~ENDED BY L,L, NO. ~-q5 ( 1 )~CCESSOR~ : T 0T-AL 5 I/U-/~. 7~ COVERAGE, 51 u7~ ~ELL~NG UNiT ALLOWABLE; 9000 ~ LOT ,.EF, IO0. it6) PROPOSED~ _ ~ RIDGE TO FI NISH GRADE ~ F~ONT 0F BLDG, PROPOSED', LENGTH: 1~5' HEIGHT: 20~ DISTANCE BETWEE~ BLDG~:40~ DI9%, BET, BLDG,&A~6~¢, = ~0~ i IyABLE FLOOR M~N, ALLOWED ;Goo ~5 FUDIO~$ A~EA', PROPOSED', ~11 qJ.( STUDIO UNIT) ~E~, ~oo,s5) :~-STRE~T (REF, PARI<~N~ & ~JLK 5Ei- BACKS (REF, P&RKI~ & BULK ¢6HEBULE) BOTHe ~E,'r~&D:REQ~J'IRED; 45' P ¢OP056 D', IO0~ REA~ yARD f REqUiRED', ~0t FSI_pC, HEIGHT:(REF, PARKING & BULl<. 5CHEDULE~ PROPOSED f ZOI IZ~ vle.4~tJ ~ J ~evJ.=i~n= KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 43 WEST 54TH STREE~ NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10019 PR gPOS D: L$_HI_'_PY'_AP.D LAN E Date ~OV .Job No. Dwg. No.