Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2933
MAIN R:OAD- STATE RQAD 25 SOUTHI3LD. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BQARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2933 Application ~ated November 24, 1981 TO: Richard J. Cron, Esq. Mr. David Strong Main Road Private Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mattituck, NY 11952 [Appellant(s)] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on December 17, 1981 the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section Request for Variance pursuant to Appeal No. 825, Decision Rendered July 8, 1971. By this appeal, applicant seeks approval to construct additions at the northerly and southerly ends of the existing one-story frame marina building, as required by the decision of the Board of Appeals July 8, 1971 at a rehearing under Appeal No. 825. Building Permit No. 9648Z was issued by the building inspector on March 29, 1978 apparently without knowledge of the restrictions under Appeal No. 825. Applicant intends to use the additional area for office and work areas. The addition at the north end is proposed to be 12'4" by 15", and the southerly end 16' by 18' and then 24' by 18'. The board feels that the areas chosen by applicant are the most feasible and practical under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justic~e~ .... will be served by allowing the variance. /- On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,_ it was RESOLVED, that David Strong be granted a variance as applied for in Appeal No. 2933. ~ -,,. Property: ?4Q0 Cara/p Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; Location of County Tax Map Parcel No. lg00-I22-9-6.1.~ vote of ~he Board: T~LE SOUTi{©LD TOWN CT.~.I:LK DATED: January/~, 198 Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, ZONING BOARD CHAI~-AN, OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) LEGAD - NOT.ICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV~r p~brsuan~, to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, a Regular Meeting and the following pu~01ic hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, S~uthold, NY on Thursday, December 17, 1981 commencing at 7:15 o'clock p.m~ as follows: 7:15 p.m. Application of Frank E. Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient front and side yard setback at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Grathwohl & ano.; west by Martin; south by Wetzet, Grathwohl and ano.; east by Second Street. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20.7. 7:25 p.m. Application of James P. Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approximately eight feet above mean sea level in this V-5 Coastal Flood Zone and without structural support and anchorage by pilings or columns. Location of Property: Private Road (Peter's Neck Pt.), Orient, NY; bounded north by G. Latham and Gids Bay; west by Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss; east and south by Orient Harbor. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-32-1-12. 7:35 p.m. Application of Janet A. Davis, Carrington Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A, B for permission to operate an antique shop in an A-Agricultural & Residential District. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Scharadin; west by S.R. 25; south by Pequash Avenue; east by Carroza. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-3-7. 7:50 p.m. Application of Peter S. Terranova, Box 77, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduction of frontyard area and beyond property line. Location of Property: 1170 Huntington Blvd (a/k/a 565 Sound Ave.), Peconic, NY; bounded north by Murdock; west by Sound View Ave.; ~:ag~ 2 - Legal Noti~ ~ .board of Appeals R~Tar Meeting of December 1.<.~ 1981 south by Huntington Blvd.; east by Hof£man; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-2-1. 7:55 p.m. Application of David .Strong, by Richard J. Cron, Esq.,-Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article XIV, Section 100-141(D) for permission to construct ~ddi~ions to existin~ building pursuant to Appeal No. 825. Location of Propert~o 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Strong; west by Witsberg, Strong and James Creek; 'sou~"l by Kreh &ano.; east ~ Kreh & ~o. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-9-6.1. 8:05 p.m. Application of Jay P. & M. Joanne Davis-Stot~in, Box 950, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to establish professional medical offices on premises zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural at 50 Ackerly Pond Road (a/k/a 49725 Main Road), Southold, NY; bounded north by Johnson; west by Baker and eno.; south by Ackerly Pond Lane; east by Main Road. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-5-4. 8:20 p.m. Application of Martin Nets~n, Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with reduction in frontyard area at 2835 Great Peconic Bay Boule- yard, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Williams; south by Gt. Peconic Bay Blvd.; east by Blvd. Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-5-4. west by Wendy Drive; and Kennedy. County 8:25 pom. Application of William J. Clark, Esq. for Joseph Yaboni and Myron Ea~ptman, Middle Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30(A) and 100-32B for approval of insufficient side yard areas of exist- ing buildings due to location of new lot lines. Location of Property: Oregon Road and Etijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by North Road and Reliable A~sociates; west by Elijah's Lane; south by Tuthill; east by Yaboni & eno. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 100-4-6. ~age 3 -~ ~ Leqal Notice Board of Appeals Re,tar Meeting of Dec~ber 17, 1951 8:40 p.m. Application of William A. Krietsek, 9030 Sound- view Avenue, South,!d, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of the construction of attached deck and pool with reduced rearyard set- back at 9~30 SoundvieW Avenue, east by Grattan; se~th by Mudd; Parcel No. 1000-59-7-27.2. Sou~aold, NY; bounded north and wes% by Kreitsek. County Tax Nap 8:45 p.m. Application of Richard A. Miller, 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ~II, Section 100-32 for permission to construct wind generator exceeding the maximum height requirements at 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; bounded north and west by Town of Southold; east by Aldrich Lane; south by Boschetti. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-125~2-1.5. Dated: December 5, 1981. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS In's~ructlons tonewspapers: Please publish Thursday, December 10, 1981 and forward 10 affidavits of publication to Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971, on or before December 16, 1981. FORM NO. 3 '~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWh' CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF .DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ To ...... .>.mY ~.0.....~..7~.0.,.~...~.. .... .. ~:.. (..o.~ ..... ~? .................... /.( .~..~. ....... for permit to constmct~d~ .~.~.~..', .T. ! &/)' .~...~'.0...~...~..-!5.T!~.~( .Z~...~-/C~(4~(r>~ ....... at to=,on omop,~..R ~ ..... ~?. ~.. ~ ~<9.q 5...T~ 5 ?, ..... ~.~ Ho~ No. St~t Hamlet County T~ Map No. lO00 Section ..... [.~ .~... Block ....... ~ ..... Lot ...~.'. [ ....... S~bdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No... 7. ........... ~ is r~turned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . .~fl.t.C~ .~-...~.. O. 0.~..~.., .0 ?...~.~...~?.~ ~ .;~ .?:~ 9.s. ! ~. ~. 7. ~. ? ?.... o. ~ . .T ~ ~. . . . .z. ? ~. ~ /~. . .~ o. :~. ~ .~. .... .o. C . . .~. ~ ~ ~ . .~. . . . Building Inspector FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUI LD] NG DE?ARTM EN'i' TOWN HALL SOUTNOLD, r-LY. 1197't TEL.; 765-1802 Examined ................. I9... Al~plication No.; ............ Approved ................. 19... Permit No ............ DisapproYed a/c ....... : ........................... '. ' . (Building InSpector) ' :~- . - -" } APPLICAT[ONFORBUILDINGPERMIT' '.:/' "~ "'i ' INS"/RUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled iu by typewriter or in ink and submitted in triplicat~ to the Bull Inspector, with 3 sets of plnns, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee accordin~ to schedule. b. ;Plot t~lan showing location of lot and of buildina~ on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public st or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must l?e drawn outhe diagram which is part of this a catiom c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Buildin8 Perm. it. d. Upon apprc'.'aI of this applicatiop, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such pe shall b~ kept on the premisds available for inspection throughout the work. e. No bu[Iding shall be occupied or used in whole or in pa'rt for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occup: sh~t have been granted by the Building Inspector. ABPLICATION IS HEREBY ~IADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant tc Buitdirm Zone Ordinance of the Town })f Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinanc, Regulahons, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein dezcff The applicant agrees to comply with ali applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, ~ admit authorized inspectors on premises and in buildin~ for necessary inspections. ?.J....>L;-;¢., A ..... (Mailing address ox applicant) - State whether applicrmt is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or bui! ............. ~..~. ~.s~.. ...................................................................... ~ne ofo,vno~ofpr~nises ..... O..,~.:'.X/ .... .3[¢..~..~.:. .......................................... (as on the tax roll or latest deed) I f applizant is a corporation, signatu re o£ duly muthorized officer. (Name and tnle of corporate officer) Builder's License No .......................... Plumber's License Nv ......................... Electrician's License No ....................... Odmr Trade's License No ...................... ' Location of land on which proposed work wilt be done...."'~.. ............. f ./Y.~. '.~. .............. .... .... ........ ........................... House Number ~ ~c~ Street Hamlet CountyTax bfap No. 1O00 Section . ].~..'~ ~ -~'/ Block ..... Lot.. Subdivision ................................... Filed \lap No .............. Lot ............. (Name~ State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy ~..~6.~ w, ~',~,;~' :'- Repair .............. Removal .............. D,..no ....... Otb. er iVork (Description) ~_:.:...~:..: £..: ............ ~ .~.~. ................... i-..-.' ................................... (to be paid on filing this application) 1. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor .............. If garage, number of cars ...................................................................... i. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, spec;fly nature and extent of each type of use ................... ~. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front .... t/.~ .... . ..... Rear . .~'? .......... Depth .~.~ ........ Hei,ht', ../.~. ........... N'umber of Sro,les- ..... /. ............................... Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ...... ~.-4~.....~.o... Recr ii [ ' '.t~. [ !i Depth ........ 9~. [ .......... Height .... 7~.r. ............. Number of Stories . (. ................. t. Dimensions of entire new constrtiction: Front .... Z~.~./~. ..... Rear ...?~.--t'~. ...... Depth .~.~'.~/..&, .... Height .... ./ff. ........ Number of Stories ............................................ [ ......... ). Size of lot: Front .. ~4.g.....-,'~-~ ........ Rear ...................... Depth .................... ). Date df Purchase .... lff~).~ .................... Name of Former Owner ........................... 1. Zone or use district in which, premises are situated ................................... : ................ 2. Does prouosed construction '.lo!ate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..................... '. t. Wi~ lot b'e re~_raded ...... ~.O..... ................. Wit! e ×cess filI be removed from premises: Yes :r.Name of Owner of premises . .~9,,/,.qi~...,,9.~.,~j .... Address . t~'[,eff../~i~.x./g ......... Phone No .............. Name of Architect ......................... -.. Address ................... Phone No .............. Nme of Contractor .......................... Address ................... Phone No .............. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dhmensions fro roperty l/nes. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate wh, th =rcfior or corner lot. 'fATE OF NEWdT~'RK, / ' ou Y s.s - ~ove named. being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applic:.: e is the ..................... J .... . .................................................... (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) f said owner or ownem, aatd is drily authorized to perform or have performed fit,: said work and to make and file 2plication; that all statements contai..ned in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that 'ork w/Ii be performed in the manner set forth fit the application filed therewith worn to before me this ........... /..~ .... day of .... ~' -fl~~z, 19 or--Public ...--.,. ,,..,~ .., ~ Court v TOWN OF<SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOTHE.ZONING BOARD OFAFrI~EALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N.Y. : : .- Muni~polity S~te [THEE ZQN~N~BQ~ OF'~P~EALS FRoM ~HE DECISION OF THE B~ILD NG INSPECTOR .ON ,WHEREBY T~E BU[~D~NG.:~NSPE~OR DENIED TO DAVID S~O~ Name of Applicant for permit of Private Road ~t tituck ( ) (X) New York Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) ,]. LOCATION 'OF THE PROPERTY Private Road, Mattituck - "A" Residential Street Use District on Zoning Map t~op No. Lot No 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- ~ection and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not auote the Ordinance. Article XIV - Section 100-141 (D) ;3 TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 Pern~ission of Zoning-Board of Appea~s as per Appeal ~825 ~. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (~.~ been made with respect to this decision of the Building Ihspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ~ ) request for a special permit ( ) r..eqgest for C variance ~enearzng on Board's motion and was made in Appeal No ........ 825 .................. Dated 7/8/71 REASON' FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 { ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ~"~. ( ) Permission of Zoning Board of Appeals is requested for the reason that Appeal ~}825 requires such action on the part Of applicant for-any type of building permit. ~orra ZB1 (Continue an other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaldifficultiesorunneces- sory HARDSHIP be~u~ to deny the applicant the use and occupancy of suffi- cient office space and work area as necessary and incidenta~ uses to his conduct of a marina would be contrary to the spirit.and intended uses as set forth by the Board of Appeals under ~ppeal #825. If it were not for the fact that Appeal #825 requires prior approval of the Appeals Board, the Building Inspector would grant approval to the applicant of his proposed plans. This is immediately evident from the prior approval of the Building Department of increased work area which was previously constructed under Permit #9648Z--thereafter revoked by letter of 7/24/78 becanme of required permission of Board of Appeals. The present plan foradditional office space would but for the ApPeal #825 also be granted by the Building Inspector. 2. The hardshio created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties olike in the immediate vicinity of this propert~and n this use district becaus~be approval of the ~oning Board o£' Appeals is solely applicable to 'the applicant's premises by virtue of the requirements of Appeal ~825. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordincnce aha WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the additional work area has already been constructed by the applicant under a previously issued building permit. The proposed additional office space together with the existing build- ing Will not detract from the purposes of conducting a marina. The use of the premises and the building will remain the aame. The en- larged area will merely permit the applicant to properly conduct his marina. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS DAVID STRONG ~A~E FLA'fLk~f NOTARY PUBLIC, S~ote of Ne'~ york No 52-4665418, Suffolk Ceuntyc~ ~ (~,4~mmis~ion ~,xp re~ M~rch 30, Ilc~?'- 20th Novanber Sworn to this .............................................. day of .................................................... 19 81. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold Board of Appeals (516) 360-5513 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 decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant Municipal File Number William Killian & Wife Frances N. Frisbee Frank E. Brophy Frank & Robert Klos David Strong Martin Nelsen Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. 2905 2913 2922 2931 2933 2934 2938 GGN:Jk Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner Southold Town Board of Appeals Pursuant to Article 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~NP4~ ~c~c, Artlc~e , See~ion Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article , Section Special Permit 3,/ o Location of Affected Land: Unmf County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- /~ ~- ~- ~, / Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruwa~ 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 Channe~ Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed herewith for your review. Secretary, Board of Appeals $outho!d Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD STATE ROAD ~5 ¢:OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 785-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONtS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER JOSEPH B. SAWICKI January 20, 1982 l~ohard J. Cron, Esq. Main l~o&d Cut~hoqum, NY 11935 ~. David ~. S~nq Pr~va~c~ad ~ttit~k, ~ 11952 Dear Sir: Attached herewith is a copy of the formal findings and determination of the Board of Appeals recently rendered and filed with the office of the Town Clerk concerning your appeal. In the event your appeal has been approved, please be sure to return to the Building Department for approval of any new construction or for a certificate of occupancy of the premises, as may be applicable. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either our office or that of the Building Inspector at 765-1802. Yours very truly, GG:lk Enclosure GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By: Linda Kowalski Secretary Legal Notice to the following on or about Monday, Dec. Suffolk Times, Inc. L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Mr. Frank E. Brophy Mr. James P. Latham Ms. Janet A. Davis Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. Mr. Peter S. Terranova Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. Mr. David Strong Inc. for Davis for Terranova Richard J. Cron, Esq. for Strong Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. for Davis-Slotkin Mr. Martin Nelsen William J. Clark, Esq. for Yaboni & Hauptman Mr. William A. Kreitsek Mr. Richard A. Miller 7, 1981: JUDITH T. TERRY Tow~ CLERK REGISTRAR OI VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 November 24, 1981 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2933 application of David Strong for a variance. Also included is notification to adjacent property owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form; Letter relative to N.Y.S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; and survey of the property. Town Clerk JTT/bn Enclosures 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 RmAD. B'I'ATE Rtl,AD 25 ~tlU'I'INI3LD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 January 4, 1982 Richard J. Cron, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appeal No. 2933 Application of David Strong Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that the following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at a Regular Meeting held on Thursday, December 17, 1981 concerning the above appeal: RESOLVED, that the application of David Strong in Appeal No. 2933 for additions to existing building pursuant to Appeal No. 825, be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR. An official determination and findings will be filed with the office of the Town Clerk as soon as possible and simultaneously forwarded to you for your records. . - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. If you wish~to star~ construction as early as possible, please return to or call th~ Building Department for issuance of your building permit at 765-1802. CG:lk Yours very truly, CHAIRMAN ' rs~lay, December 17, 1981 Tbday' s Date: I~Ierbbers Absent~ if any: _ Appeal No. 2933 Agenda Item/~Iatter of: DAVID Type of Variance or Appeal: A~roy~l of adaitlons to exlstzng Dui±ding pe= ~625. 2400 C~mp Mineo±a Ra, Matt .~Charles Resolution made by: ~(1k~r goms ~ Secon deal by:~y.// ( ) Action: (,%'J/Approve as applied for Deny as applied for Deny Deny without prejudice %~qthdrawn without Prejudice ~eorae _Robert .. Gerard Joseph. y]~n 13ouglass ~oenrmger ~aWlCKl ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ()f../ ( ) ( ) ) Approve with the following conditions: ( ~ubiect to County Planninq referral ( ) Subject to Planninq Board approval ( ),Subject to D.E.C. requlations ( ) Other: Findings of the Board are as follows: f~f ,f~t~ // Other: ) Not Within the Character of the Neighborhood ( ) Granting the Relief Requested is wighin Variance is Substantial in Relation to Code Not in ha~_ ~.o. ny ~with purposes of the Code Hardship not sufficient Circumstances are Not Unique Will set a precedent in the neighborhood Area is already very congested Interests of justice served by denying Vote of the Board: A),es: ( z'~CG Nay: ( ) Abstain: ( ) Absent: ( )~SD ( ( ) Notes: spirit of the zoning code ( ) Relief is not substantial ( ) Burden of hardship or difficulty shown ( ) Circumstances are unique ( ) Variance will not change character of the neighborhood ( ) Interests of Justice served by grantinc~ ( ) Dthe~ for Special Exceptions () () () () () () () () () · Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- December 17, 1981 MR. BRUER: Thank you, gentlemen. Would you please keep in mind the smallness of this lot, 50 by 92. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for this application? (None) Anyone to speak against it? (None) Do any of the board members have any other questions? I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision till we write out all the figures and everything to see where we're at and come up with a decision in the near future. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Peter S. Terranova in Appeal No. 2928. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2933. Upon application of David Strong, by Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-141(D) for permission to construct addi- tions to existing building pursuant to Appeal No. 825. Location of Property: 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Strong; west by Wilsberg, Strong and James Creek; south by Kreh and ano.; east by Kreh and ano. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 122-9-6.1. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:02 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation ~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to what you have stated in the application? RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: If it pleases the board, I can only again emphasize to the board that we are here this evening solely because of the requirements of Appeal 825 which this zoning board, not consisting of the same members of course, imposed a require- ment upon Mr. Strong, that if he sought to do any other improve- ments to the marina premises such as building construction, et cetera, that it required the approval of this board. This appli- cation deals, doesn't deal at all with a use variance or an area variance or anything like that. It deals solely with securing your permission to do that which he would be legally entitled to do but for the requirement imposed by Appeal No. 825. We had previously, I don't mean "we", I mean Mr. Strong had secured the approval to do the very work that we seek from the approval of Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- December 17, 1981 (Mr. Cron continued:) this board this evening.' Unfortunately, at the time the application was made, neither he or the Building Department had in mind the requirement that was imposed under Appeal NO. 825 and therefore he went ahead and did part of the work, the part that had that little L-shape off the existing building as you see on the drawing attached to the application. I believe you have that, don't you? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CRON: And he had gotten approval to do that and unfortu- nately as I said, neither the Building Department or himself was aware of the imposition of Appeal No. 825 as far as securing approval from this board. The result was that a stop order was put on the structure, but if it had not been he would have been able to complete not only that portion but the other portion which constitutes office space. I would like to just indicate to the board that if you look at Appeal No. 825, let me see what paragraph it is, you will determine I am sure as I determine, paragraph third, third paragraph of the board's decision on page 2. I'd just like to quote to you a portion of that paragraph. In fact the last sentence where it says "...The Board interprets this to mean that a marina business may be conducted under the original ordinance together with a limited range of incidental but necessary services directly related to the accommodations of boats moored or stored in the marina." This decision came about on the board's own motion to the purpose specifically of vilifying certain areas of use and nonuse as far as the marina was concerned. And I respectfully submit to you that having an office and having sufficient work area to conduct a marina as Mr. Strong so conducts his are neces- sary and incidental uses to the operation of a marine. I think if you've seen Mr. Strong's operation both on the Main Road and at the marina premises, I'm sure you'll agree that he conducts a very fine business and tries to do well as far as the Town of Southold. Therefore, in light of the requirements of that prior Appeal No. 825, we respectfully ask the%board to grant the appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Anyone else to speak for this application? Anyone to speak against it? (None) Mr. Goehringer has a question. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We, I think hastily said, Mr. Cron, that we had a copy of the "L" that you were referring to. MR. CRON: You don't? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MR. CRON: Would you just like to look at mine, and if you would like a copy of it I'll be glad to give it to you. I thought-- Do you have this? Yes, that's it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're talking about this "L" here? Ok. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2933 - David S. Strong continued:) MR. CRON: In fact it's reference to what was basically done. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are referring to this? This is with the stop order? MR. CRON: Yes. This part was constructed here. This part was not yet constructed. But the building permit that was granted basically covered the whole thing, but we never got that far. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other questions from any of the members on the board? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution granting this application as applied for. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll second it. The following are the findings and determination of the board: By this appeal, applicant seeks approval to construct additions at the northerly and southerly ends of the existing one-story frame marina building, as required by the decision of the Board of Appeals July 8, 1971 at a rehearing under Appeal No. 825. Building Permit No. 9648Z was issued by the building inspector on March 29, 1978 apparently without knowledge of the restrictions under Appeal No. 825. Applicant intends to use the additional area for office and work areas. The addition at the north end is proposed to be 12'4" by 15", and the southerly end 16' by 18' and then 24' by 18' The board feels that the areas chosen by applicant are the most feasible and practical under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse~effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that David Strong be granted a variance as applied for in Appeal No. 2933. Location of Property: 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-9-6.1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Legal Notices LEGALNOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Seuthold, a Regular Meeting and the fol- lowing public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, December 17, 1981 commencing at 7:15 o'clockp.m.as follows: 7:15 p.m. Application of Frank E. Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an in- sufficient front and side yard setback at 75 Second Street, New Suffulk, NY; bounded north by Grathwohl & ano.; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Grathwohl and ano.; east by Second Street. County TaxMapParcelNo. 1000-117-10- 20.7. 7:25 p.m. Application of James P. Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY for a Var- iance to the Flood Damage Pre- vention Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approximately eight feet above mean sea level in this Coastal Flood Zone and without structural support and anchor- age by pilings or columns. Location of Property: Private Road (P'eter's Neck Pt.), Orient, NY; bounded north by G. Latham and Gids Bay; west by Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss; east and south by Orient Harber. County Tax Map ParcelNo. 1000-32-1-12. 7: 35p.m. ApplicationofJanet A. Davis, Carrington Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100.30A, B for permission to operate an antique shop in an A-Agricul- rural & Residential District. LocationofProper[y: Cornerof Main Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Scharadin; west by S.R. 25; south by Pe- quash Avenue; east by Carroza. County Tax Map ParcelNo. 1000-102-3-7. 7:50p.m. ApplicationofPeter S. Terranova, Box 77, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permis- sion to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduction of frontyard area and beyond property line. Location of Pro- perry: 1170 Huntington Bird (a/k/a 565 Sound Ave.), Pe- conic, NY; bounded north by Murdock; west by Sound View Ave.; south by Huntington Blvd.; east by Hoffman; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-2-1. 7:55 p.m. Application of Davnl Strong, Dy l~ichard J. chogue, NYTOr~ 'v a rlanc~ to t'ti6 Z~_o~ifi~'~ e~ Article XIV,-g~'ctid~ ~'6~-~41(D) for per m is~-6~ ~r~'~const r uc t ~ffdit i o rYS l~ ~xq's~i~ ff'ff6iI-d~ p u r s U~V~--A~ff~hT'N o. 825. 'q~o~W:fo-n 0f ~'rop~ Ch~'~MV~eola lt.oad, Matti:_ t.u.c--~ 'N¥i 'b~un~d north by-' St~g~- ~v~-C I~ ~vilsberg, ~o~ganff3ames Creek; south a~_YnKr~h ~ ~ffo: ~ byKren ~[ ~C~u~-T'~ ~ap Far c~._l - ~:o~ p.m. Applica'tion of Jay P. & M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin, Box 950, Cutcbegue, NY for a ~ nee ~o me ~omng oru~n- ah~,ArticleIII, Sectionl00-30 I£WYORK ) for permission to establish pro- fessional medical offices on ) SS: premises zoned "A" :SUFFOLK ) Residential andAgrieulturalat 50 Ackerly Pond Road (a/k/a ~i'1 Rysko of Greenpert, in said County, 49725 Main Road), Southold ........................................................... NY; bounded north by Johnson; west by Baker and ano.; south by Ackerly Pond Lane; east by Main Road. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-54. 8:20 p.m. Application of Martin Nelsen, Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with reductionin front- yardaroa at 2835 Groat Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Williams; west by Wendy Drive; south by Gr. Peeonic Bay Blvd.; east by Blvd.andKennedy. CountyTax MapParcelNo. 1000-128-5-4. 8:25 p.m. Application of William J. Clark, Esq. for Jo- seph Yaboni and Myron Haupt- man, Middle Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tions 100-30(A) and 10tP32B for approval of insufficient side yardareasof existing buildings due to location of new lot lines. Location of Property: Oregon Road and Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by North Road and Reliable Associates; west by Elijah's Lane; south by Tuthill; east by Yabeni & ano. County Tax Map ParcelNo. 1000-100-4-6. 8:40 p.m. Application of William A. Kreitsek, 9030 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for ap- proval of the construction of at- tachod deck and pool with re- duced rearyard setback at 9030 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north and east by Grattan; south by Mudd; west by Kreitsek. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-27.2. 8:45 p.m. Application of Richard A. Miller, 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct wind generator exceeding the maximum height requirements at 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; bounded north and west by Town of Southold; east by Aldrich Lane; south by Boschetti. County Tax Map ParcelNo. 1000-125-2-1.5. Dated: DecemberS, 1981. BYORDEROF THESOUTHOLDTOWN BOARDOFAPPEALS 1TD10-3823 ., is a representative of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly published at Greenpert, in the Town o! Southold, County rate of New York, and annexed is a printed copy that has irly published in said newspaper once in each week ..... week(s) successively, commencing the..**'J..~..~.~, day .q.~.~.~'. ....... 19..._8...J. ................. :!ore me tn~s ............................................ c .e,_gl.b.~ :V. .................. 19..~J ............................... NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provi- sions of the Amended Code of the Town of Soutbold, a Regular Meeting and the following public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold N.Y. on Thursday, December 17, 1981 commencing at 7:15 o'clock p.m. as follows: 7:1S p.m. Application of Frank E. Brophy, .7S Second Street, New Suffolk, N.Y. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article III, Section 100- 31, Bulk Schedule, for permis- sion to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient front and side yard setback at 7S Second Street, New Suffolk, N.Y,; bounded north by Grath- wahl & aha.; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Grathwohl and aha.; east by Second Street. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20.7. 7:2S p.m. Application by James P . Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient, N.Y. for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approxi- mately eight feet above mean sea level in this V-S Coastal Flood Zone and without struc- tural support and anchorage by pilings or columns. Loca- tion of Property: Private Road (Peter's Neck Pt.), Orient, N.Y.; bounded north by G. Latham and Gids Bay; west by Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss; east and south by Orient Harbor. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-32-1-12. 7:3S p.m. Application of Janet A. Davis, Carrington Road, Cutchogue, N.Y. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article III, Section 100- 30A, B for permission to operate an antique shop in an A-Agricultural & Residential District. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Pequash Avenue. Cutchogue, N.Y.; bounded north by Schar- adin; west by S.R. 2S; south by Pequash Avenue; east by Carroza. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-3-7. 7:50 p.m. Application of Peter S. Terranova, Box 77, Peconie N.Y. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduction of frontyard area and beyond property line. Location of Property: 1170 Huntington Blvd. (a/k/a S6S ~ Sound Avenue). Peconic. m N.Y,; bounded north by Mur- dock; west by Sound View ecAvenue; south by Huntington eE Blvd.; east by Hoffman; Coun- ~.h ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 7:SS u.m. A~diication _of 61 David Strong, by Richard IN' Cron. Ess., Main Road. Cut- '~ , choeue. N.Y. for a Variapt'o tn I°'{the Zonin{~ Ordinance, Article t XIV, Section 100-141 {DI for :6 tions to existing building pur- ~q suant to Appeal No. 82S. Location of property: 2400 ~ Camp Mineola Road, Matti- tuck, N.Y.; bounded north by Strong; west by Wilsberg. Strong and James Creek; south by Kreh & uno.; east by Kreh & aha. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-9-6.1. 8:05 p.m. Application of Jay P. & M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin. Box 950, Cutchogue, N.Y. for a Variance to the Zoning [Ord nauce, Article IlL Section u 100-3{) for permission to estab- lish professional medical COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricio Wood, being duly sworn, soys that she is the Editor, of THE LONG tSLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in. Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ................. .~ ..................... weeks successively, commencing on the ...... .~.1~. ...................... day~ ~~~ ............. 19...~.~..k. % Sworn to before me this ................................ day of Ct.EM ENT J, THOMPSON NOTkRY PUBLIC, State d Nam Yods ~. 52-9321/25 FEE: NOTIFY BY: JILDING DEPAR AT REQUIR. ED 1. BEFORE FOUNDA- TiON OR 2. FRAMIHG lION 3. P~*'S OF ANY KIND 4. GMPLETED NOT )N$1~LE D~SIGN OR ON 0~5 5. ALL g~,l MEET TOWN HOUSING __ __'~'~" X/o'o~ O./L J ?'o" TEL. 765-1802 July 24, 1978 Nr. David S. Strong Camp Hineo!a Road ~,=~c_uuck, York 11952 Dear Mm. Strong, The building permit= = 9648Zissued to you on March 29, 1978 is hereby revoked. This building permit was issued in error and should not have been issued. The reason being, David S. Strong was granted by the Zoning B~a~a o~ Ap~ea_~ (Appeal ~ 825) -- ~ things and number 1-c of their decision applies and I quote "No building permit may henceforth be issued for additional construction of any kind related to marina use on this property without the specific authorization of the Board of Appeals in writing." A STOP 0Pd3ER is issued that no further work or use of this building is to be made. That everything done under this permit is to be returned to the existing condition prior to March 29, 1978 unless othemvise authorized by the Board of Appeals. Yours truly, G~O,,~ H. FIS?~R Senior Building Inspector XC: EPic J. southold To n of Appeals -9- 8, 1971 The sign to be set back 35 feet from North Ba2view Ave~Ae; 10 feet from Brigantine Road. The sign to be reduced to a maxinnm size of 2~ sq. ft. Vote of the Board= Ayes~- 1/essrs. Oillispie, Bergen, Grignnis. Following is the action of the Board on REHEAR]2~G (on the Boa~d,s m~tion) held at 8:b~ P.M. (E.D.S.T.) on ~une 17, 1971. S.TRONG MARINA - rehearing on I958, 1959 and 1966 Actions. Appeal 1/o. 126, Peter E~eh, ~., Appeal I~O. 237, Peter E~eh, ~r., Appeal 1~o. 825, David $. Rtrong, Camp 1/lneola Road, Mattituck, l~ew York: By investigation and public hearing the Board determined the following facts pex~lnent to the decision: A rehearing oonoex~ning the STRONG' I~RXNA, James Creek, ~attituok, New York, was held partly because of misunderstanding of former actions and in order to make clear precisely what activities may be permitted in the conduct of the ma~ina business, in view of the g~vowth of boating and residential constm~ction in the a~ea. The Board notes the complaint addressed to the ~upervtsor of the Town of $outhold by the Salt Lake Village Association, Inc. l~either the To~n Board or the Board of Appeals are enforcing agents of the Zoning O~dtnance. T~is function is performed by the B~ilding Inspector. Other questions posed by the ~alt Lake Association concern advertising and buildi~ pex~nits. The Board of Appeals does not control the advertising of the Strong Earina. At the time the second aoceszox-y building was constructed, approximately 1960, a building permit was not requi~ed for acceesox-y buildings. This was discussed with Peter K~eh, ~r. (previous owner) and noted in the minutes of October 27, 1960. It is pertinent here to review briefly the bistro-~ of this marina. A small marina-type use existed at this location prior to the passage of the Zoning O~dinanoe in 1957. This was expanded with ancillary faotlitiew in 1958 and 1959. In 1966 a ~a?ge structure for the storage of boats was denied, an action which ~as supported in the hlghe~ cou~ts. Nearby marinas are several miles distant, and the need for this facility has been demonstrated by frequent rescue operations as a result of calls from the Bay Constable. The ma~ina is ~egarded as being unusually adequate in size and is well protected from ordinar7 weather and tide ~onditions. A long time policy of the To~n of Southold has been to encourage sum~r visitors and leisure activities, a policy whose im~ortanoe to the T~ ~s been doo~nted ove~ t~ ye~a ~ Ra~o~ & ~ (z~t~ =onsultants), Co~ne~ Unive~sity, a~ t~ ~ Southold Town Beef Appeals ~ly 8, lC)?1 The policy was recognized in the original Zonir~ Ordinance of 19%7 by pe~m~tti~ the oo~uct of a ~na bus,ness ~n the A Hes~dent~a~ ~d A~ou~tu~a~ Zo~ b7 ~peo~a~ ~oep~on o~ Bo~d of Appeals, subject to t~ guidance c~ite~ia set forth tn the ~dinance conoe~ni~ actions of t~ Bo~d of Appeals. It should also be pointed out that a Boa~d of Appeals empowered to g~ant Special Exceptions is required to g~ant a special exception where the applicant san reasonably be Judged as havi~ met the standards ~equired for such exceptions. At the public hea~ing which was well attended by an estimated 60 to 75 persons, concern was expressed by some individuals rega~dins the extent of ~%usiness and commercial activity" while others indicated objection to the storage of boats. Many others indicated substantial approval of the manner in whloh the marina has been conducted, and several hundred l~attituck residents signed a petition indicating their approval. In the opinion of the Boa~d the p~incipal question which has been raised concerns whether or not the Strong Ma~ina now has the right to store boats on marina land when not moored in ma~ina waters. The Boa~d denied permission to construct a storage building in 1966, a prohibition which was upheld in higher oou~ts. However, the Boa~d believes that a special exception g~antinS permission for a ma~ina which involves the mooring of boats in the waters of the ma~ina ca~ries with it the right to accomodate these boats by safegua~ding and storing them on ms, ina land, unless a condition has been imposed in the ~anting of the special exception which prohibits such a use. ~any ~Ai, owners do not have adequate space on their own property. 1~o such condition was imposed either in 19~8 or 19~9. The word "Marina"' ia defined in the o~dinanoe in effect in 19%8 & 19%9 as.follows, under A~ticle 1, Seotlon 100, subsection 17A - "I~ARINA OR BOAT BASIN"~ Any premises containing one or more piers, .wharves, docks, bu~eads, buildings, slips, basins or land under water designed, used or intended to be used prima~il~ for the docking, mooring or accomodation of boats for compensation, whether compensation is paid ~irectly or indi~ectly." Boats have always been stored on the lands adjoining L. I. waters, and boats a~e currently stored throughout the To~n on the residential property of owners. The Strong Ma~ina acreage appea~s unusually adequate for storage purposes. Other sexwices which have been performed for the users of the ma~ina are regarded as minimal convenienoes$ these include fresh water, the sale of gasoline, motor and boat service, fishing tackle, bait, soft drinks and sandwiches from machines housed in the two small accessory buildings. The Board finds that the policy of the Town of $outhold has been to encourage leisure activity; that the purpose of permitting a ma~ina business by special exception in a residential zone is to provide a boating facility for recreational use subject, however, to controls designed to encourage ma~ine uses reasonably compatible with the su~roundins use a~ea. The Board interprets this to mean that a ma~ina business may be ac conducted under the original ~outhold Town Bo~of Appeals -11- JUly 8, 1971 Ordinance together with a limited range of incidental but necessary sex-vices directly ~elated to the aecomodation of boats moo~ed or stored in the _marina. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will be sexwed and the legally established or permitted use of neigt~orhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially onJ~ed and the spirit of the 0~dinance will be observed. On motion by F~. Gillispie, seconded by l~m. Grigonis, it was RE~OLVED David ~. ~tror~, Camp Hineola Road, Matti~u~k, New Yo=k, be G~ ~r~ssion as 1. T~ ~lgi~l actions of t~ Board in 19~8, 19~9 ~d 1966 are ~e~f~d and additio~l specific conditions ~e ~re%y imposed to c~ify w~t Is ~t ~ "accomodation of boats": A. 2er~sslon ts he,by ~ for open sto~age of boats up to ~ feet in length in t~ ~ea ~tween the newest accesso~ Bui~i~ and t~ ~ecent~ constructed St~o~ residence. -No boat s~ be stored closer t~ 2~ feet to any property line, and the ~i~m occupancy of t~ ~i~ a~ll not exceed 100 boats at any one ti~, whet~r Boats ~e in o~ ~t of the wate~ fo~ s~ekeepi~ oP ot~P peaso~s. B. Pe~mission ts fo~l~ G~ fo~ the follo~ ~no~ se~ces to be f~nished to users of the ~i~ f~esh water) sale of gasoline (a~eady ~itted), min~ ~to~.~d boat ~patr, sale of fishi~ tac~e, bait, ~d soft ~i~ and s~dwic~s f~om old accesso~ buildi~. Per~ssion is speciftca~y D~ to operate a resta~t as defined by ~Bo~d of ~alth. C. No ~ui~i~ pe~tt ~y ~nceforth ~e issued fo~ additie~l construction of any ki~ ~ted to ~ina use on this without t~ specific ~tho~ization ~ t~ Boa~ of Appea~ 2. T~ Board reserves t~ ~i~t to ~eview ~d eva~ate all uses which ~ve ~en ~tted to date in order to ins~e compatibility ~th the su~o~ding use ~ea unde~ t~ reasoni~ set forth In this decision. Vote of t~ B~d: A~s~- ~ssrs. Gillispte, Bergen, ~lse, G~igonis. A motion was made l~y F~. Gillispie and seconded ~y Grigonis that the Board approve display of poster for'the Cutchogue Fire Department Parade and Drill on July 2~, 1971, and for the display of poster for Chicken Ba~hecue on August 28, 1971, and that the Board reply in the same manner as in the past. vm~a of %he ~oa~d~ Aves~- Messrs. GtllisDie, Bergen, Hulse, -8- I~BLIC ~&RIN6:8:45 P.~, (E.S.~.), ~suant to ~ctton 267, ~bd~v~sion 6 of t~ To~ ~w, off the Brats of ~ew Yo~k, ~ t~ Bond,s mot~on~ ~ehe~i~s will be ~ on Ap~a~ No. ~6 Pete~ ~eh, J~. - Appea~ No. 2~7 ~ete~ ~eh, ~. - Appeal No. 825 David S. St~o~ - a~ ~e~ttve to establish~ and operating a marina at t~ no~th side of Camp Mlneo~ Road, on Ja~s O~eek, ~ttituck, New York. The Chairman opened the' hearing by reading the legal notice of hearing and affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. The action of the Board on the first ma_~ina request was dated December 18, 1958 and was as follows: Board ~ants special exception to establish a ma~lna as provided under A~ticle IIX, ~eotion 300, ~ubsection 3a in a residential area with mooring spaces fo~ mooring approximately 35 boats and a launching ramp together with a parking lot in a southeasterly di~ection from the present structure. ~ervioes to be provided fo~ privately owned boats under 26 feet. ~ubJeot to the following c ondit ions: 1. There shal.1 be no services provided for party Boats and/or commercial operationS. 2. Bo boats will be rented or leased. Location of property: James Greek, Mattituck, N. ¥. bomnded on the north by J. Zebroaki, on the east by Camp Mlneola Road, south by R. ~akee, and on the west by J. Zebroski. A request for enlargement was acted on on date of November 27, 1959, as follows: t Resolved that the application be GRANT..'D as applied for, under the following conditions: The gasoltne service facilities be located at the southerly end of the made land adjoining James Creek which runs to the west of this proper~y. F~ther conditions: that the original special exception permitting 35 berths be expanded to include permission for up to 100 boats of a class no larger than A-2 (26 to ~2 feet). Ail of the same conditions except as to the number of bertha which applied on special exception No. 126 also apply to the g~anting of this special exception. The third application dated'Januar~ 13, 1966 was acted on on February 10, 1966 - Appeal No. 825, 'David 9. Strong- for permission to erect a storage building. The Board determined as follows: After investigation and inspection the Board finds that in approximately 1965, David ~trong purchased 7 acres of this 16 acre tract of land. Peter I~eh, J~. included all the ma~ina facilities -9- which he formerly operated. Mm. Btrong has applied for permission to build a 60 foot by 60 foot by 20 foot aluminum boat storage shed to be used solely for the purpose of physical storage of boats of local home owners. To date some accommodation of this demand has been furnished by leasing a building several miles distant on the North Road. The projected building would be located approximately 500 feet easterly of the present marina facilities building. Objections of local adjoining residents~ are concex~ned with the depreciation of property values as a result of changing the naturally attractive and highly resident~al character of this neighborhood by including a commercial building and other activities associated with storage and movement of boats, such as painting and trailers. (In spite of restrictions it is ur~veasonable to assume that a boat sto~ed for the season would not be painted at the point of storage). The Board finds further that the location of this marina in a rictus-al meadow area is highly visible from most Of the sux~ounding residential areas. In considering the above the Board finds: 1, That the proposed storage use would adversely affect the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent properties. 2. That the character of existing and probabl~ development of residential uses in the area would be adversely affected. 3. That the conservation of property values and the encouragement of appropriate uses of lend would be adversely affected. 4. That the Board finds itself in general agreement with the position advanoed byWilliamWiokham, Esq., attox~ey fo~ Salt ~ke Vll~ge Association, t~t the ~ne, 196% revisions of t~ 3~tho~ T~Bul~l~ Zone 0rdi~nce concernl~ ~lna uses pe~mitted in the several zones ~equ~e a new a~ li~ted interp~etation of pe~mitted residential ~na uses$ specifioal~, limited to oonside~ing m~inas fo~ the dookl~ a~ moo~ing o~ acoo~ation of not ~re than six (6) non-oc~oial boats. Boat sto~age y~ds ~epermitted under Article IV, as ~evised, ~B" Business District, ~ction ~00, Subsection 19. T~re is so~ domb~ whether a sto~age facility ~y be pe~mitted a "B-l" ~sineaa District o~ a "B-2" Business Dtst~iot, howeve~ we.~eo~vinoed ~t t~ limitations noted above ~st p~event favorable eonsidera~ion of this application in a ~esidential zone. Until now, storage facilities have not been requested. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will not be served and the legally established or pex~mitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use dis- tricts will be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will not be observed. Therefore, it wac RE~OLVED David S. Strong, Ca~p Hineola Road, Mattituck, New York, be DENIED permission to erect a storage building for boats on the premises of a m~rina that is now subject to a special exception use on property located on Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, l~ew York, bounded north by Peter ~eh, Jr., eas~ ~y Peter ~eh, ~., sou~h ~ Pe~e~ ~eh, ~.- Allen, wes~ by Ja~s Creek. T~ C~= T~se a~e the Actions of ~he Bo~d of Appea~. The ~p=e~ O~rt upheld t~ Board of Appeals in thei~ decision. I will now ~ead ~ou t~ ~lnion of the Court- ~mo~an~m by ~i~, J.~.O., Sup~e~ O~rt, ~ffo~ County: . Riced ~. Cron, Es~. Dominic T. Au~ichio, Esq. Attorney fo~ P~intiffs Attorney fo~ Defendant Action ~y p~lnt~f fo~ a decl~ato~ Jud~nt establishi~ the foll~i~ 1. T~t t~ Zoni~ ~dinance of t~ T~ of Zoutho~ does not p~ohi~it p~nt~f fro~ e~ecttng a suitable boat storage faotlity upon the premises at which a ~i~ is ~eing operated as a non-co~ormi~ use. 2. T~t the action of the ~Outho~ To~ Zoni~ BOard of Appeals in denying p~int~f a special exception to e~ct a Boat storage facility De declared ~ and void. 3- That the Court determine the validity of the Zoning 0~dinance, and the extent to-which the Zoning Ordinance affects the plaintiffts proposed use, enJ~l~aent, improvement and develop- merit of his land. The plaintiff acquired title to-a parcel of land consisting of 7 acres from Peter K~eh on l~ay 1~, 1965. A zoning ordinance was adopted in April, 19%7 and the I~eh property was placed in an "A" Residential and Agricultural District. A ~e~tna is pro- hlbited in this district unless permitted by a special exception of the ZoningBoard of Appeals. . K~eh, prior to the Zoning OA~dinanoe, improved about 2 acres of his property by placing a smallbuilding thereon and d~edging the same to accommodate eigt~t boats of app~oxl~te~ t~en~-s~ feet in length. On December 10, 1950, he obtained a special exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals to operate a non-commercial marina adjoining the dredged portion of his premises. The following restrlotions were imposed: 1. Mooring spaces to be provided for 35 boats and a launching ramp together with a parking lot. 2. ~e~vices to be provided for privately owned boats under 26 feet. 3. No services shall be provided for party boats and/or commercial operations. 4. No boat shall be X-shred ox' leased. On November 27, 1959 this special exception use was expanded to permit mooring facilities for 100 boats of a class no longer than ~2 feet. On ~anuary 13, 1966 plaintiff made application for a special exception to the Zoning Bo~d of Appeals to erect a boat storage building on the premises a~ which he continued to condust the marina business of his pre<~ecessor in title. The application was denied. Plaintiff brought this action to deteX~nine what rights he possesses with respect to ~he conduct' of a marina business, firstl~ as a non-conforming use, a~d secondly' by virtue of his right to conduct such business as m special exception to the Somthold Town Zonir~ Ordinance. A use of land which !~-ully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance alth~u~ it does not comply with use re- strictions applicable to t.he area in which it is situated is commonly referred to as a "non-conforming use" (Rhyne, ~nioipal Law Sec. 32-26). The only non-conformitY: use established by the plai~iff was the accommodation of sigh: yoats on two acres and nothing more. The right to continue a n.on-~onfcx~ning use'does not include a ri~t to extend or enlarge ?, (Van Auken v. Kisser, 1930, 1~1 l~iso. 105, 252 N.Y.S. 329). It is evident that ~-~eh real, zed that' his non-conforming use was limited and on two se~a.-ate occasions applied for special exceptions to extend his ~se. Plaintiff,s contenti~ ~hat the special exceptions g~anted are pa~t of the non-confc~mlng use and the right to dock one h~nd~ed boats automatically included the right to'build storage facilities is without foundation. ~ustice Fred ~. I~under while sitting at ~pecial Term. ~eme Oou~t, ~uffolk Oou.nt_y, _on' S~Ptember 10, 1965 in ~'$e~ of Ooun~ of ~ffolk, 39 stated: "Both sides hav~ referred to this situation as one resulting in a #nm-conforming use"; but that term is applied onl~ ~c a structure or.use existing at the time of the ~dc~tion of a zoning ordinance that does not confo-~'m ~o the new restrictive regula- tions and which hence :s permitted to be continued. The subsequent ores=tom of a non. conformance is not permitted. In other words, a p~,t7 cannot by erection of buildings or other acts in viola.ica of a zoning restriction establish a legaX right to a ~om-oonforming use. ~tating the rule somewhat mo~e b~o~, tn~-co~o~mi~ ~ uses c~noed subsequent to a zoning regulation or restriction a~e not entitled to protection under o~dinances, statutes or constitution." ($ l~cQuillin, Municipal CorT0orations (3d ed.), Sec. 2%.186. ~urthermore, plaintiff'seeks to extend the non-conforming use from 2 asres to ? acres. An extension of a non-conforming use to land not used for that purpose prior to the ordinance is an unlawful extension (Breed v. Clay, 21 Misc. 2d 856, 201 N.Y.-~. 2d 939). Plaintiff produced an expert in the m_a~ina business who testified that a ma~lna could not be narrowly circumscribed so as to limit the use of the present facilities to the mere dockage of boats but ~as required to be interpreted in its broadest aspect including the right to build restaurants and motels. The plaintiff contends that the g~ant of a special exception to operate a marina automatically includes the right to build any facility in connection with the marina without approval of the Boax~t. The special exception technique was never intended to give a pa~t-y unlimited rights. The theory behind special exceptions is to soften the impact of certain uses upon a~eas where they will be incompatible unless conditioned in a manner suitable to a particula~ location (see Zoning in New York State, 10[~ N.Y. Dept. of Commerce, 1961). PlaintiffWs definition may be ideal from a commercial point of view but not from the facts in this case. We a~e not concerned in this case with the operation of eve~ facility which could possibly be embraced within the term "ma~ina". The p~emises of the plaintiff a~e not situated in a business district but in a residential area and the o~dinance specifically restricts the business of operating a ma~ina to those g~anted under a special exception. Consequently whether a full and complete ma~lna business may be conducted is wholly dependent upon the pa~tioula~ district in which it may be conducted. It is clear that the plaintiff does not have an unlimited right to operate every facility which may be included in the broadest interpretation of the word "marina". Plaintiff ts predeaeuor recognized this fact as evidenced by his two previous applications to extend his business. Thus it is olea~ that the business can only be extended by approval of the Zoning Board and not as of right. The plaintiff purchased the premises with his eyes open and well knew, or is presumed to have known that at the time of the purchase his business was restricted to the conditions embodied in the special exceptions. The Court sympathizes with the plaintiffts economic situation but is not a ~uarantor of profits. The town fathers have appointed oitisens of the community to sit on the BOard and this Court is not so vain as to substitute its Judgment for that of the citizens closest to the situation. Tbs Cotter finds tb~ Board has not acted a~bitraril7 or capriciously and will not upset the decision of the Board (Re Oosden, 64 N.Y.S. 2d 37, aff*d. 270 A.D. 1018, 63 N.Y.C. 2d 640. The foregoing constitutes the decision of the Court pursuant to C.P.L.R. Section 4213. Settle Judgment. THE CHAIRX~N:' That is the record, and the reason we a~e here tonight is that it is perfectly appropriate to ask for. a rehea~ing of any hearing. It should be further pointed out that this Board may reverse, modify or annull its original order, decision or determination. With all of the foregoing as back~ound, I will also read a letter addressed to Hon. Albert l~a~tocchia, Supervisor, Town of Southold; written by Artemas E. Ward, P~esident of S~lt Lake Village Association, F~ttituck, New York: Dea~ l~v. Na~tocchiaz The Board of Directors of Salt Lake Village has asked me to write to you to call your attention to, and to protest, the continued commercial operation of Strong*s Ha~ina directly across James Creek Channel from Salt Lake Village. I should like to review the background of this operation. P~ior to April 27, 1957, when the Town of Southold enacted its zoning ordinance, this property was owned ~ry Fred and Peter K~eh. It was placed in a hA" Residential and Agricultural district. Prior to the zoning, Ereh had improved the two acres by placing a small building thereon and clredging a former inlet for use in operating what they termed a *'~arina~, which, however, became limited in its scope to seven.or eight boats for no more than 26 feet in length. On December 18, 1959 the K~ehs applied for a special exception pursuant to the provisions of the zoning ordinance and were ~anted such exception upon the following conditions: 1. Mooring space having approximately thirty-five boats of twenty-six feet in length or less, and a launching ramp~ 2. A parking lot. 3. No service for pa~tyboats and/or commercial operations. 4. ~o boats rented or leased. No appeal from that decision was taken by the applicants and apparently Kreh operated under that special exception until on or about November 27, 1959. At that time, aforesaid special excep- tion was further expanded as follows: 1. Location of gasoline facilities; 2. The space for thtrtu-ftve berths (as provided in the preceding exception) was to be expanded to include permission for 100 boats up to ~[2 feet in length; 3. Ail other conditions were continued. No appeal from that speolal exception was ever taken and it appea~s that both K~eh and his successor in interest, David Strong, have operated under that special exception ever since the date of the decision. The Ifrehs, however, erected a building 301 x [~01 on the property for which we believe no permit was ever obtained. 'The property was sold about May 1~, 1965 to the present owner and operator David Strong. On January 13, 1966 Strong applied for a special exception for permission to erect a storage building for boats on the premises of a size of 601 x 60~ x 20~. This application was denied and in an extensive decision the Board of Appeals pointed out that the permitted use was in a Residential District and the boat storage yards were not permitted in said district, l.~o appeal from that determination was made within the 30 day statutory period. There- after, Strong commenced an action in the °~upreme Court of Suffolk County for a declaratory Judgment establishing the following: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold did not prohibit plaintiff from erecting a suitable boat storage facility upon the premises at which a ma~tna was being operated as non-conforming use. 2. That the action of the ~emthold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in denying plaintiff a special exception to erect a boat storage facility .be dec]aped r~All and void. 3. That the Court determine that validity of the Zoning Ordinance, and the extent to'whAch the Zoning Ordinance affected the plaihtiff~s proposed use, enjoyment, improvement and develop- merit of his land. The Court on ~a~ch 31, 1967 found the Board had not acted a~bitrartly or capriciously and would not upset the decision of the Board. This decision was later affirmed by the Appellate Division on l.~rch ~, 1968. 'It sh~Ald be pointed out that although the Town of So~thold was represented by Special Counsel, the Association retained its own attorneys to look after its interest along with other property owners and the community at large, both in the Supreme Court and in the appeal to the Appellate Division. They prepared all the brief work and attended the hearings before both judicial bodies. Strong continues to conduct the premises under a complete commercial operation ilaclading sale and repair of boats, storage of same during winter season and other services incidental to his operation, all contrary to the law. Further, he has advertised publicly as set forth in the hereto attached xerox copy of an "ad" which appeared in the Thursday, September 2~, 1970, issue of the L. I. Traveler. In view of the length of time whish has elapsed since the decision by the Appellate Division, it is imperative and the bounden duty, pursuant to the high court decisions and the statutes, for the Board to cause this illegal operation to cease not only because it is at variance with the statutory requirements covering the residential zone in which it is located but that it is detrimental to the a~ea and contributing to the diminution of the value of residences on both sides of the channel. Further, please keep in mind the necessity for maintaining the environment, and avoidance of polluting the waterways incidental to this operation. Your attention is called to the ten kodakolor prints of photographs taken by me of the subject "Strong Ma~lnal'. I believe you ~ill agree that it does not enhance the beauty of the environment - a disgrace and an imposition on the community and town. It is suggested that a personal inspection be made in the near future by you and you~ associates of the Town Board in which the undersigned and Association counsel would be happy to J sin. Appreciating an early reply, with regards Respectfully, A. E. Ward, President TEE CHAIRI.~N: I have been reading the record of this case but some of the things that l.~. ~trong has done are incidental to operation. We do not consider them violations. I received espies of the "ads~' that were placed in Suffolk Life on June 9th and June 16th, 1971 advertising ~acto~y Authorized Service". At one time people came out here and saw boats riding uP and down in front of them and thought it was wonderful, but later they became disillus- ioned. Today a ~arina is not a popular activity to have in front of your house. Tho whole concept has changed. At one time Mr. Ereh had 35 boats; prior to that it was six or eight rowboats. We put into the original actions what we thought was pertinent to keeping a marina residential. However, ttts a contradiction in terms. There are all kinds of marinas. There are some whore you can sleep, some where you can eat, and some where you can lmy a new boat; ~Ar purpose was to maintain a residential ~marina and we have tried to cooperate as we believe that marinas are necessary. We will be glad, first, to hear from each of you who wishes to speak for the continuation of this marina. It seems to me that we are going to find that this Board has the pe~er to put I~. Strong out of business, and we are not happy to have this power. When you give your points against the contln~ation of this marina, try not to repeat what somebody else has said. We are aware that 1,M. Strong is storin~ boats, and we are also awa~e that the Supreme Court told him that he could not store boats. RICHARD J. CRON, ~Q.: I am representing Mr. David Strong. I thtuk there are some corrections to be made. The Supreme Coquet, Appellate Division, never decided the issue as to whether storage was prohibited on the premises. The only thing brought to the S~preme Court was the application for erecting a building. The Supreme Court prohibited the erection of a building 60 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet. Thatts all the Appellate Division upheld. There was nothing determined in connection with existing storage. -16- The Supreme Court has not decided that particular factor. I donJt know why the application dealing with the storage building is subject to review because there has been no astion by to reenact that application. We are not dealing with other types of storage. Ue are dealing with a particular building. The application for that building was denied. THE CHA~2II~H: I take exception because the ordinance became clearer in 1965 in that storage yards are placed in business zone. He is in a residential area. ~. means by TEE the Salt CRON: Perhaps we can define, if the Boa,vd will, what it storage, if he is being accused of storage. CHAIRI, IAN: You have heard the com~plaint whish I read from Lake Association. I,~. CRON: I would like to clarify what the issues are this evening. I assume the hearing was brought on by the Board as a result of inspection. I think we should define the a~eas that the Board has some questions on. THE CHAPfalleN: What constitutes storage? ~That doesntt con- stitute storage? ~,~. CR~: In what way is he violating the ordinance? THE CHAIRI~N: f would say that if you can see 30, 40 or 50 boats in a meadow, that's storage. ~. DAVYD STRONG: As far as hauling boats to other buildings, there is no other way ~t can be done. ALmost all of the residents are in favor of us. (I~. Strong presented a petition to the Chairman containing approximately 400 names.) THE CHAIRMAN: The petition reads "I am in favor of Strong~s ~rina continuing to provide the services it presently offers. They are as fellows: Gas sales, dockage, service repairs and winter sto~age." i~. STR~IG: Ninety per cent of the people are in favor - only the Salt I~ke Association is against. THE CHAIRMAN: I should think a solution would be to change the zone. I~. STRONG: If it becomes Business zoned it would open up to restaurants and motels. My intention has never been to build anything of that nature. THE CHA~I~A~: ~'fhat we are dealing with is what has happened in the past. t~. STRONG: In the original application "services to be provided for privately owned boats (26 feet to 42 feet)". realize this is open to interpretation but the action did not say this is limited. t ~,R. CRON: When the special exception was originally granted this Board saw fit to enumerate items which were prohibited. Iu light of the fact that outside storage was in uo way a prohibited item, I think it was intended and rightfully so. You can't run a 100 boat marina with boats 42 feet in length without providing services. I dontt think that this Board ever intended that that should happen. I will take the issues one at a time. I dontt know what the specific complaints are. I am concerned that the Board is holding a rehearing. THE CHAI~: I think our Job is to try to establish the facts and also to go over the complaints as presented. ~. JA~S McCARTHY: Should it not be brought to a vote the majority? Fifty percent of the people own boats. This ma~ina has been in existence for years. of THE CHAIRMAN: ~Uaen the Town Board passes an Ordinance you dontt get a chance to vote on it. It is not a popularity contest. 2~, PAUL EDWARDS, 0lo Jule Lane, Mattituck: I live 100 yards northwest of ~.~. Strong~s marina. I have yet to see any pollution coming from ~-~. Strong~s marina but I have many times noticed grass clippings coming from the direction of Salt Lake Village. ~S. J~AN EDWARDS, Mattituck: I live immediately attached to that ~arina. It is about 2~0 feet from it, ~eeve Avenue and Craig Road, east of the marina. I see nothing wrong in that marina. Actually it's nice to see people down there. ~. OTTO F. BO0~ILIER, 0lo Jule Lane, ~.~ttituck: I store m~ boat there. I feel that it is very convenient, and I don~t think it's an eyesore. ~,~. JOSEPH E. DO~BRAVA, 01d ~ule Lane, Mattituok: I utilize Strongts marina. People are complaining about ecology and they think it's an eyesore to the neighborhood. I dontt believe that it is. THE CHAIRF~N: According to the advertisements this is a business. ~. CRON: Would there be an objection if he discontinues advertising sales of boats? THE CHA~i,~N: We have not heard from those "against". i,~. CRON: Some of the reasons for the marina are that it is convenient; that I can't afford to buy a trailer; the Town of Southold provides no facilities to launch boats; It's a clean operation; it's a convenience because I can use it from m~ house; we are very limited ~n being able to utilize our boats; it's a necessary service; we have no Town ramps. We want a resort area and yet people are constantly bringing up arguments to destroy. A marina is important. We discourage people from utilizing water facilities. ~. PETER SWAN: I have been a friend of Davets for six years and I have stored my boat for about three years. I know Ereh who originally owned the property. They started with rickety docl~s and unpainted buildings. Dave Strong has improved the facilities 10~ each year ~tth improved bulkheading. One section that faces Salt Lake Village has floating' docks. I don't think that any house in Salt Lake Village faces directly toward Davels marina. Ail the way down he has improved it ever since I have known him. I also give him credit for sinking everything he has made into improvements. He has built a house on his property and he pays taxes on that. He is a resident of the Town. I think you should take that into con- sideration. MR. ARCHI'E LIVI~GSTON: I think he is doing a terrific Job. THE CHA~}L~J~: this application? Is there anyone else who wishes to speak £or (There was no response.) THE CHALW~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? RICHARD PELLICANE, ESQ.: I represent the Salt Lake Associa- tion. Everything that has been said in favor of the maintenance of Strongts marina certainly points out that ~. Strong is a nice person and is running a good operation. However, the issue is something different. I wonlt repeat the history of the special exception which is the legal authority of Strong~s operation. The facts are that the special exception is being violated by the sale of food on the property. ~aat we want is not cessation but rather that it be operated ~ithin the authority given by this Board. The rationale that something is being done is not'Justification for continuance of violations. Nor are petitions, because we are not dealing with an election. The pattern in all zoning provisions is that when violations are pe~mitted to exist it becomes a creeping paralysis until the person in violation ends up with something he is not legall~ entitled to. ~e feel this is a very real danger and that it will affect property values, cause increased traffic, and we feel it is a danger to the wetlands and a possible ca~se of pollution. There is a definite distinction between the storage of boats and a marina. ~e ~ould respectfully request that the Board see to it that all violations cease. If Ma,. Strong and the people of the Board feel that something other than that would be Justified, then the proper thing would be to change the zone. THE CHAIR~.~2~: The subject has been explored for a possible change of zone. The Town Board is the authority for that. It was not favorably received. I do not know whether the Board would change their view on that. Please list your principle complaints. ~. PELLICA~: The special exception has not been complied with. Commercial business is being carried on. t -19- THE CHA~RS~N: What specific instances can you give me other than the advertisements2 ~R. PELLICA~: Storage of boats and sale of food. THE CHAPMAN: He has some sort of sandwich machine and a coca cola machine. Is there more than that involved? The coca cola machine could be considered a use for a marina. Mr. Strong told us that he was tired of going down town to get a coke, so that point I think is minor. MR. HULSE: This advertisement says '~Facto~y service", it doesntt designate "sale". I~. JOHN MORSE: I believe the legal definition of advertising leads to sales. What is a service but a sale? Letls take it prima facie that advertising is sale. THE CHAIRMAN: I believe that fishing tackle and the coca cola machine are primarily for the use of the marina. I think we should concentrate more on storage. 1,~. PELLICf~: Storage and advertising for service are commer- cial operations. I would like to show pictures of the house ~M. Strong has built. It is an outsize building and amenable to the repairing of boats. }R, PETER SWAN: I would also like to submit a picture of ~. Strong~s house. Itts very nice from the other side. PR. PELLICA~: We submit that's a subterfuge and a way to get around the Supreme Court, and the Appellate divislou. My final remark is that we have two dozen people out in the hall and they do want to come in. ~. EDWARD STEELE: Most people here are interested in one side or the other, kq~y can't this hearing be held where we can all hear the proceedings? I am sure none of us would be here tonight if we were not concerned. THE CHA~I,~N: If Counsel are willing we will adjourn this hearing to a larger establishment some time in the future, probably July 8th. P~. CRON: On behalf of ~f~. Strong, I will voice an objection. THE CHAIR~: Perhaps some of the people who are in the room now will move out into the hall, and let the people who are waiting come in. 1,R. JOHN MORSE, Salt Lake Village: I would like to direct ~y comments to the actual reasons for this hearing. According to the facts, on P~reh 31, 1967 the Court of Appeals found that the local Board was not arbitrary in refusing to grant an increase in zoning. -20- THE CHAL-QMAN: The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of this Board in denying a storage building. ~v~. MORSE: Would it not be right to examine and see if the covenant was broken? THE CHA~I~,IA!~: In my view, I don~t believe the Judge was too clear in what he said. I think there is room for 2,~. Cron~s side of the case in that decision. The Judge did not say that you can't store boats on the premises. He said that you can't have a storage building. MR. CRON: Let me give some cf the legal background. Because no appeal was taken in 30 days I slated it for declaratory Judgement. We had non-¢onfarming use. There were eight boats and it was dredged tc accommadate more. We argued that under special exception. By virtue of the definition of the word "marina" the only thing was the issue of whether ~e had the right to have a 60 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. storage building. Anything else is not germaine. THE CHAIR~N: A special exception was never intended to give a party unlimited rights. MR. RICHARD PELLICAI~: It is t~ue that the Judge decided against that 60 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. building and found that this Board did not act arbitrarily. Considering that the Judge considered all the facts and circumstances you can not say that the decision stands only for a 60 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. building. That is not true. I~. CRON: It is true. There were no facts brought fcrth about storing boats. MR. PELLICAI~: A principle was what was decided. l~. CRON: ~,~e are not dealing with an Ordinance today. We are dealing with special exceptions. THE CHAIRMAN: The area is "A" Residential and at the time they applied the Board of Appeals was guided by a long list of rules and regulations and was required to impose restrictions to make the special exception conform to the area. Then, on April 6, 1965 it was amended so that the Board could not consider a special exception for a marina for mare than six boats~ There is only one other approash, assuming you are correct about the storage of boats. I, personally, believe that the Judge has nut clearly defined whether boats can be stored in the open; so, the next approach would be violations. i.~. CRON: There was no reason to raise the issue of taking boats out of the water and putting them on land because what we wanted was a building where we could store the boats inside. MR. PELLICAt~: You are Justifying because it was something that was always dona. This is a commercial operation. Under -21- the special exception and the conditions set forth, the sto~a~e of boats does not come into it. There should be two paragraphs; one for mamina, and one for storage. ~. C~O~: I am sure this Board understood that in the winter time these boats would be put on land. Where would the boats go? tTior to his asking for a storage building, the boats were always taken out of the water. ER. JACE SAMMIS, Mmttituck: Where sma we going to put the boats? I~R. CRON: Pulling boats out of the water is not storage. -~torage is a building. ER. DAVID STRONG: We have stored boats since we were first there. Everybody is running amc,and renting chicken barns for the purpose of storing boats. ER~. GERTRUDE REYNOLDS, Salt Lake Village: 0u~ understanding was that i5..~trong was denied the exception he asked for. We are ordinary home owners. It' is ou~ feeling that l~m. Strong has not abided by the law as such. The only reason we are here tonight is to complain about this. ~ny has he not abided by the law? a~e not asking for any more than was agreed upon. ER. ARTE~AS WARD, President, Salt Lake Association: ~ refer to the petition. The petition was left in a luncheonette and customers would come in and be asked to sign. They did not read it. They were told to ~'Just sign it". We are not trying to put 1~, Strong out of business but we believe that the law of the land should be upheld. I will be 86 years old in August and I love this village we ame living in, and I want to see that we will be protected not only on this marina but on other laws. I lived in East }la, ion for fifty years. %{Hen zoning came in, a person turned a barn' into a rooming house to take care of eight families in the summer. Then he thought he would serve some food. He was denied. Then he put up a sign "Lunch". He was fined. He paid a fine of $10.00 and kept on that.way until he sold the property, Just ignoring the law. Ail we are asking for is that Ym. Strong comply with the law. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are trying to determine Just what the law is. My personal interpretation would be that in no way could you construe anything that has happened as permitting storage of boats. That is why this housing is being held. ER. E. ROGER, Salt Lake Village: Has it been admitted that they are selling food at the msmina? ER. STRONG: We are dispensing sandwiches from a ~tewart sandwich machine. ~. ROGER: You have 100 boats stored over there, some a~e 2~ foot and 26 foot boats. On these boats, I assume they have sleeping quarters. If so, I would like to know what happens to waste material. X would not eat a elam out of that creek. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any boats that have sleeping quarters? MR. STRONG: We provide utility facilities. T~E CHAIRMAN: That would be a matter that would be up to the Tows or County to decide. MR. WARD~ Has M~. ~trong ever applied for a license tO sell food? 1,~. CROH: He doesnlt have to apply for a license to put in a vending machine. THE CHAIRMAN: He is trying to find out if you ever applied for a license to sell food. 1,~. S~ONG: You are supposed to have a permit to sell gtewart sandwiches. THE CHAIR~N: Technically, you did not apply. MR. WILLIAM ~RI[ER, Salt Lake Village: I Just moved to Salt Lake and I would like to make a statement. We enjoy seeing some of these boats go in and out of James Creek. We all like some boats but we all don~t lik~ lO0 boats. The people who have boats there enjoy having them. There a~e people who do not have boats and they doubt object to a few boats. They approve of moderation. When do you stop? A little bit is good but finally it gets out of hand. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in our power to enlarge a residential marina. Iris a residential area and we are only able to consider six beats since 1966. You see the concept has changed so much. According to Wesley L. Wheeler, a marine specialist, and a witness in behalf of the plaintiff at 1966 Appeal: A marina should have everything you could possibly need~ bars, cocktail lounges, in- boards, outboards, ets. That, in his opinion, would be the perfect marina. Initially, the Zoning Board set up an arrangement whereby a distinction was made. We were thinking of party boats and o~tboa~ds as compared to a residential ma~ina where it is convenient for people to keep their boats. So, there were two concepts. Later, in the Ordinance, boat storage was i'ucorporated in business marinas. Our original thinking, in granting, was that it should be permitted to furnish gasoline at a marina as it's a fire hazard to transport five gallon cans. N~w, in the latest ma~ina we are denying that. ~. WARNER: If I may comment, I think all the people who have boats are aware that they can get gas. I would object to a big sign that says GA~. It's a residential marius; does that mean you can't hire a boat there? Are they all privately owned boats? One thing we fear is havingthis beautiful area become so commer- cial and so crowded that it will be like Freeport. ~. Strong has a very good business goin~ now. How big does he want to get? THE ¢t~IRMAI{: The real issue is storage. I~R. EDWARD BURKE: (Bay Ave. & James Creek) marina a necessity when you live on the creek. operate as a marina. I consider a A marina should THE CHAIRMAN: We have two concepts: a residential ma~ina as compared to a marina in a business zone where all services would be provided. MR. BURKE: Gas and pulling boats out of the water wo~ld be basic facilities. I dontt see why people object to a variance that was given legally. ~s there a majority that rules this? MR. ~WAY~: Sometimes it ma2 not be the letter of the law. As a point, the fence erected ~ut in the Bay might be because of some law. I can understand why he put it out there. THE CHAIRI.~I~: ~'~en is a line not a line? When the O~dinance said you had to be 35 feet back, it was later amanded Irj a Judge in Westchester who said one or two feet didntt make any difference so, I say, we don~t always know exactly'what the law is. Where speed limits are 30 or 50 miles an hour, many go a little faster. ~l. BURKE: What are their objections? Is it obstructing their view? He is limited as to what he can do. He can't limit clients. Every property owner has boats. In our creek there Mst be 2~boats. ~. ~SE= It should be zoned business. I~R. BURKE: }~. 2trong feels that if ha applies for Business zoning, many people would object to it. THE CHA~RMAI~= Permission is never granted to an individual. concerns the use of land now or in the future. I~R. CROI~: ~f~ou are concerned about limiting the operation, a change of zone is no way to do it. I~R. STRONG: The bone of contention seems to be how many boats are on land. ~. STEELE~ ~peaking of minor violations of the law, the State contends that there has to be a certain amount of space in a public building. I believe we are violating the law tonight so I would like to back up m~ objection that these proceedings be held in a proper place at a proper time. Tt~E OHAIRMAN: I questton~hether we would get any more pertinent information than we already have. I am ihclined not to adJot~vn this hearing. I~R. S~AE~ Thar~ are people in Salt Lake Village who do like 1~. Strong but they question whether he should sto~e boats there in the winter. Some people who live there store their boats there. F~. CRON= I believe it boils down to the business of storage. I would like to indicate to the Boa~d that, in my opinion, the special exceptions that were g~anted to Peter Ereh and David ~trong in no way prohibit his taking boats out and storing them on the land. I dontt think we are in violation of anything notwith- standing the decision of the 3upreme Court dealing with a storage building. The original special exception in no way prohibits and we a~e not in violation. ~R. PELI~OANE~ There is no authority to store boats. I~R~. WAR~= We have onl~ lived here a month. We even took down a hedge so that we could see the boats but we have been told that l~v. Strong wants to enlarge and wants to build a restaurant and motel. Thatts why we a~e here. I think it is fine the way it is now as long as it doesn't g~ow. THE CHAIRMAN~ l~aybe ! can explain. ~e is limited to 100 boats and he is not up to capacity. A restaurant is out of the question, and a motel is out of the question in that a~ea. You heard the lawyer on storage of boats on land from an esthetic viewpoint. The services provided are mostly for residents who use the marina, and are so advertised. ER. CRON: Where is it illegal to advertise? There is nothing wrong. At the time the special exception was granted he contemplated a certain amount of repair work, and certainl~ he is in there for compensation. ~ C~IAIRMAN~ Xt may be that what will come out of this is that ye will t~y to establish more definitely what you can or can not do, HR. STRONG: A lot of misunderstanding has been going on a~out these two advertise~nts that wer~ offered. There would never be any question of a restaurant or a motel. We a~e in a ma~ina and intend to stay there. I fail to see from reading theexoepttons where it says anything like that. It says "services", not wetlands, or restaurants. IA~S. WAREER: Is there a difference between a ma~ina and a boat~ard? · A'~ CBA~RMAI~: ThatJs where I thtnk M~. Cron and I may disagree a little bit. I think it borders on being a boatyard. Boat storage is provided in a Business zone. ! think there is a lot that has been unclear. HR. CRON~ From a practical point of view, could you say that one could operate a ma~ina without furnishing some type of services relative to repair and pulling boats out of the water? T~ O~AIP~ There are some but there is no money in it. The~e is one in 0~ient that has 7~ boats. ~R. CRON: May I ask a question? Who are the Southold Town Home Owners Committee? I llve there but I donlt belong to it. They have an advertisement in the newspaper. ER. PELLICANE~ Is this pertinent to this hea~ing? ~E CHAIRMAI~= We will adjourn the hearing at this time, and the Board will study all the information that we have, and that we have heard tonight. For the Record: Letter from Suffolk County Health Dept., dated June 7, 1971, addressed to Mr. James Wa~ner, Royal Flush S.tables, RFDBox 173, Oregon Road, Cutchogue, New York: Dea~ ~ir~ An inspection by representatives of this department of your property on June 3, 1971 revealed that you are improperly storing horse manure. The Suffolk Oounty Sanitation Code requires that all manure be properly stored so as not to create a public health nuisance. This department recommends that all manure be kept in tightly covered containers and removed to the public dump. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. A reinspection will be made in one week. Very truly yours, James L. Oorbin S~nior Sanitarian Appeal No. 1~35, Robert Feaker, Cutchogue, New York: After investigation and ihspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to establish and operate a riding academy and pony rides on land of Agnes D. McGunnigle, north side of Middle Road (CR 27), Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant desires to conduct a riding academy specifically limited to Pony Rides for children. The ponies will be housed and cared for on the premises for which the special exception is sought. The academy will be open for ~iding only on weekends and holidays. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit o£ the Ordinance will be observed. November 23, 1981 (Today's Date) To: l),e: Southold Town Board of Appeals :.lain Road Southo!d, NY 11971 Appeal Application of Location of Property: DAVID STRONG Private Road, Mattituck, Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Pa~t 661, and Articl~'~ 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation La~, please be advised that the subject property in the within appeal application: (please check one box) May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-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-lyihg edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately 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 less than 100 feet in length. £ ] May be located within 300 fee~t 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.* not appear to [Starred items fall within the (*) indicate your property does jurisdiction of the N.Y.S.D.E.C.] Sinc er e/L~r s, ~ :~ "*] NSTi~UCT t ONS.: '-~ ~ (a) 'Ill order to answer tile questions in this short EAF it is assumed tho{ the preparer ~'lill use. currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigotlons will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it ~s likely that this project is not significant. .. .: (d) E~vironmen~al Assessmen~ 1. W£11 project result in a large physlcal change '' to the project site or phys£cally alter more than 10 acres of land? ........................ Yes X No 2. ~'1±11 there'be a major change to any unlque or -unusual land form found on the sit~? .......... Yes, X NO 3. ~'till pro3ect alter or have o large'effect'on existin9 body of water? ....................... yp$ X No '4.. Will pro3ect have o potentially large impact , - on 9roundwoter quality? ....................... Yes X, No 5. ~'1ill project significantly,effect drainage '- flow on adjacent sites? Yes × No 6. 1'/~11 project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ........... Yes ~ No 7. Wlll pro,eat result in a ma~or adverse effect ' '' o1~ quality?, ~ Yes X No' on · 8. 1'Ii1~ pro,eat have o ma~or effect on'visual ' character of the community or scenic views or. v~stos known to:be important to the community?. 'Yes.×'~o ~. Will pro,eat adversely impact any site or .. structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated os a crltical environmental area by local agency? Yes × No 10. Will pro,eat have a ma~or effect on existing or future ~ecreationol opportunities? ......... Yes X No '11. Will pro3ect result in.ma~or t~affic problems o~ cause a ma~or effect to ex$sting transportation systems? ....................... . Yes × No 12. Wi~i pro,eat :regularly cause objectionable odors~ noise~ glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a ~esul¢ of the pro~ect's tion? : Yes X No 13. Will Project have any impact on public health or.safely? .................................... Yes X No 14. IVill p~oject affect the existing community by directly causing o growlh in permanent population of more than 5 percegt over a one year period or have o major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? Yes No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the '' . pro'oct? .... .~-~.~ .... Yes No REPRESEUT]NG ~'DAVID STRONG ~ ~ DATE 11/23/81 REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because to deny the applicant the use and occupancy of suffi- cient office space and work area as necessary and incidental uses to his conduct of a marina would be contrary to the spirit and intended uses as set forth by the Board of Appeals under ~ppeal #825. If it were not for the fact that Appeal #825 requires prior approval of the Appeals Board, the Building Inspector would grant approval to the applicant of his proposed plans. This is immediately evident from the prior approval of the Building Department of increased work area which was previously constructed under Permit #9648Z--thereafter revoked by letter of 7/24/78 because of required permission of Board of Appeals. The present plan fc~additional office space would but for the Appeal #825 also be granted by the Building Inspector. 2 The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district becaus~he spproval of the Zoning Board of Appeals is solely applicable to the applicant's premises by virtue of the r quzrements of Appeal #825. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the additional work ares has slread¥ been constructed by the applicant under a previously issued butlding permit. The proposed additional office space together with the existing build- ing will not detract from the purposes of conducting a marina. The use of the premises and the building will remain the same. The en- larged area will merely permit the applicant to properly conduct his marina. DAVID ST ROJ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) / /-~ ~r (~ror~, as attorney Sworn to this 20th day o~z/N,gY~P~{ .................... 19 81. NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 52'46654i8 SuffoJk Count~ Camm ~ion ~ir*s M~tch ~0, l~~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. APPEAL NO. ""~ '~3 DATE 11~/81 DAVID STRONG by 1, ~)~ ............. of Private Road Name of Appellon.t Street and Number Mattituck New York, HEREBY ......................................................................................................................... APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON Nov'. 18, 1980. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO .................................... DATED .................................... : ............... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ' DENIED TO ( ) (X) ) DAVID STRONG Name of Applicant for permit of Private Road Mattituck New York ..... ~;"~i '~ '~; .............. '~"u~'icip~i;~y ................... ~i~; ....................... PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..... ~.~..~..t...e....Road, Mattituck "A" Residential Street Use District on Zoning Mop Map No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance) Article XIV - Section 100-141 (D) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 Permission of Zoning Board of Appeals as per Appeal #825 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (~c~:~tJJ:been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) r~¥est for a variance ~ nearzng on Board's motion and was made in Appeal No ........ 825 .................. Doted 7/8/71 REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Permission of Zoning Board of Appeals requested for the reason that Appeal #825 requires such action on the part of applicant for any type of building permit. Form ZB! (Continue on other side) BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of : DAVID STRONG, : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: JULIUS ZEBROSKI Southold, NY 11971 PETERKREH Mattituck, NY 11952 ERNEST WILSBERG Mattituck, NY 11952 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER FOLLY BEACH, LTD. c/o C. E. Allen 405 E. 54th St. New Yo=k, NY 10022 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (gza~mx:~ek~:qamiat:~l~xJ~:m~ (Special Permit) (the following relief: Permission to construct additions to existing building 2. That the proper~ which is the subject of the Petition is located adiacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: ~rzvate ~oad, Mattituck~ NY 11952 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: "A" Res~dential - AKr~cultura~ 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: To build additional office space and work area to existing b u i ld lng $. That the provisions of the Southold' Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article XIV Sectio~n 100-14[ (D) 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be fi[ed in the Southold ToWn Clerk's Office at Main Road. Soutbold, New York and you ma)' then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 745-1809. 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: Nov. 20 , 1981 DAVID STRONG By: RICHARD J. CRON, as attorney Petitioner PostO~ceAddress Private Road Mattituck NY 11952 NAME PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS Julius Zebrogk~ Peter Kzeh .~=. Southold, NY 11971 Mattituck, NY 11952 Folly Beach,,~ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED-- ~ NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) SENTTO ~ Julius Zebroski STREET AND NO P.O, STATE AN D Z~P CODE Southold, NY 11971 POSTAGE CERTIFIED FEE ~ SPECIAL DELIVERY--~ R~ RESTRICTED DELIVERY SHOW TO WHOM AND ~ '~ DATE DELVERED ~ ~ SHOWTOWHOM DATE AND ADORESS OF ~ ~ SHOWTOWHOMANDDATE i ~ ~DELDELVEREDWITHRESTRCTEDvERY Mattituck, NY 11952 e/o C.E. Allen 405 East 54th Street New York, N.Y. 10022 JANE FLATLEY , residing at .Mattituek, New York , being dUly Sworn, deposes and says that on the :~3rd day ,.deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- Sworn to before me this 23rd RICHARD J. CRON NOTARY PUBLIC, Stere ei New york No. 52-5861280 ' Suffolk Count's,(,._ ~ Conu'ni~on Expires/V~rch 30, of November ,19 8~ 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 roil of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Cutcho~ue ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) ~[~41il~ll:oe~) mail. i83A(c) 5 6 7 8 9 3,,I ~ 36 $4 5 4 2;3 {UNDERWATER LAND) 44,,2 3.0A(C) 7. 8 6(.I , 5.2Nc y 7.0A(c)