HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/05/1984 Southold Town hoard of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE'. ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS M I N U T E S
JOSEPH H.SAWICKI - - - - - - -
APRIL: 5 , 1984
REGULAR MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Southold. Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday , Apr.il' '5 ; 1984 , at 7. : 30 o ' clock p ._m. at the
Southold Town Hall , Main Road , ' Southold, New. York..
Present were : Gerard P. Goehringer , Chairman ; Charles
Grigonis , Jr. ; Robert J . Dougl.ass and Joseph ,H . Sawicki . Member
Serge Doyen , of Fishers Island , was absent due to illness .
Also present were, Victor Lessard , Building Department Adminis-
trator , and approximately 30 persons in the audience .
ID
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. and
proceeded with the first public hearing .
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No. 3210 . RECESSED FROM 'MARCH 2 , 1984.
Upon application of JAMES F . DRUCK .III , Box 355 , Laurel , NY for a
. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 ,
Article XI , Sectio-n IAN-118 , to alter and construct addition to a
nonconforming second dwelling exceeding 50% of fair market value
and leaving insufficient sideyards . Premises : 7015 Peconic Bay
Boulevard , Laurel , NY ; County .Tax Ma.p Parcel No . 1000-126-10-.013 .
The Chairman opened :.the hearing at approximately 7, 33 p .m. ,
however , our office was informed earlier that Mr . Druck may not
be able to attend until approximately 9 :30 p .m. due to another
meeting .
On motion by Mr . Sawicki , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , to recess the hearing in the matter of JAMES F. DRUCK
"III , until later this evening , approximately 9 : 30 p ..m.
i
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3210 , JAMES F. DRUCK III - continued : )
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass
and Sawicki . Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent . This resolu-
tion was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present.
PUBLIC HEARING: . Appeal No. - 3208. Upon application of JAMES A .
and EDNA-MAE CHRISTIE , 675 ,North Oakwood Road , Laurel , NY for a .
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 for
permission to re-separate Lots 21 and 32 , Map of Laurel Park , Map
No . 212 , with insufficient area and width and sideyard setback of
existing dwelling . County Tax Map Parcel No . 10007127-7-15' and 16 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7 : 40� p .m. and
read the legal notice in its entirety and appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map and a copy of the`:maphdated February 23 , 1984 surveyed by
Roderick VanTuyl ,. P . C . indicating Lot #31 , .which is the lot in
question , approximately 80 by 200 '._ on North Oakwood Drive . Doctor
Christie , would you like to be heard in behalf of your application?
JAMES A . CHRISTIE: Yes , that ' s what it is as far as what I
wrote down , as far as I deliberately kept these lots separated
for over 20 years with the... hopes of my son or my daughter building
next door to me , and the fact that the surrounding area and the
road itself. They ' re all equal as far as size is_ concerned and
less . . Th_a.t ' s. all- I have to say .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . Is there anybody else
that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Anybody
like to sPeak against the application? Any questions from any
board members? (None ) Doctor, we made a physical inspection. of
the premises and we do agree with you ; the board .does _concur th.at
most of the houses , if not all , are on=-particularly on your side--
are on., single lots; and therefore ; 'bear.i.ng that i n mind .and seeing
that there _are. no objections from the adjoining property owners ,
I ' ll make a motion granting this as applied for.
MEMBER GRIGONIS : Second.
(continued on page 3 )
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3208 - JAMES A. and EDNA-MAE CHRISTIE , continued : )
The .board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal , applicants request permission to re-separate two
parcels as existed. on. the 1925 Subdivision of "Laurel Park , " Map No .
212 , Subdivision Lots 31 and 32 , which are substandard to the present
zoning requirements . The lots each contain approximately 16 ,000 sq .
ft . in area with a lot width of 80 feet along North Oakwood Road .
Existing on the northerly parcel is a one-family , lz-story frame house
which is set back approximately 10 feet from the front property line .
Upon personal inspection of the premises and the neighborhood in
question , the board finds a majority of the surrounding parcels to be
of similar size and character as these parcels . Also , in researching
the history of this property , town records show that each lot has been
in single and separate deed since prior to 1961 when the zoning
requirements were 12 ,500 sq . ft . minimum lots .
Therefore , in view of the above and in considering the circum-
stances of this appeal , the board determines : (1 ) that the practical
difficulties have been shown and are sufficient to warrant the granting
of the application as noted below; (2 ) that the relief as noted below
is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code ;
(3 ) that the circumstances are unique ; (4) that the relief as approved
will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning of the
protection and promotion of the public health , safety , and welfare ;
(5 ) that the interests of justi.ce would be served by approved the
application since the character of the neighborhood will not be
adversed changed .
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Grigonis ,
it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3208 , application for JAMES AND 'EDNA-MAE
CHRISTIE , to re-separate Lots 31 and 32 of "Laurel Park" Subdivision at
North Oakwood Road , Laurel , BE AND HEREBY ' IS APPROVED AS APPLIED .
Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel Identification , District 1000 ,
Section 127 , Block 7 , Lots 14 and 15 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass
and Sawicki . Member Doyen of Fishers Island was abs.ent . This resolu-
tion was unanimously adopted . ... _
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3224. Upon application of ROBERT A .
CAMPBELL , 140 Bay Avenue , Greenport , NY for a -.Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance , Article III , Section 100.-31 for permission to locate
dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback from Washington
Avenue . Location 'of Property : Southwest corner. of Washington
Avenue and Middleton Road , Greenport; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-041 -02-001 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7.: 42 p .m . and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application .
M'R. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of. .the Suffolk County Tax Map , and
I have' a copy of a su.rvey , :sketch of .a s.u.rv'ey , done by Howard Young--
the date is.. cut_.._ off, indi_cati'ng the proper'ty_ which is approximately
13 ,664 sq . fta , s_h:owing a proposed setback of feet from Washington
Avenue a.n.d 35 feet from Mi ddl_eton ' Road. Would..-. somebody 1 i ke to be
heard in behalf .of this application?
ROBERT A . CAMPBELL : The only other thing I.-can... say is that
what I ' ve been told by. the science people around in :the,. area -- the
winter sun is only 300 high and according to the hedge , like it said
on the form, the hedge an.d the house would definitely .hi-.nder the
back side of the house .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there any reason , Mr. Campbell , why you selected
18 feet as opposed to--
MR. CAMPBELL : Well , also the water collectors on the roof , the
companies I " have- talked to said the best an,g_le of ,the house would be
to have an east-Wes_t ridge so that the flat .._side of your- roof woul d
be on the south side which would gather_-_more sun , th.at' s why as you
see on the map it ' s. kind of stran_ge--but that ' s why , it would , 17 ' ,
because I wan.ted to keep a.s much ,of the house into the appropriate
area that I should be i..n as shown .on the plot plan .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok . When you say in the application 17 feet
closer to__ the property line , and when I looked at the survey it ' s
18 feet.
MR . CAMPBELL : Eighteen feet is what I want.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Eighteen feet is what you want.
MR. CAMPBELL : We ' d. have to go by scale to be sure , but I think
it ' s. 18 .
MR. CHAIRMAN : And how big is the house square footage-wise?
MR . :,.CAMPBELL : It ' s 1 ,096 .
MR. CHAIRMAN : The board has not talked about this . We have
only viewed the . property . So I can ' t. guarantee you a decision this
evening . We h.ave to deliberate upon i_t. So we .will try as we do in
most.-cases do the best we can solar-w.is-e . Thank yo.u .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5 April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . . 3224 - ROBERT A . CAMPBELL , continued : )
MR. CAMPBELL : Thank you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anyone else to speak in behalf of this
application? Anybody to speak .against this application? . Questions
from board members? (None ) . . . Hearing no quest.i.ons , I ' ll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until later..
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , to cl'ose 'the 'hearing and 'reserVe decision until later
in the matter of 'R.OBERT "A. CAMPBELL , -Appeal. No . _3224 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs .. Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass
and Sawicki . . ' Member Doyen of. .Fishers Island was absent . This resolu-
tion was adopted 'by unanimous vote of .the members present. '
PUBLIC - HEARING : Appe.al. No. 3192. Upon application of LINDA
MILLER FAULKNER , Box 787 , C_utchogue ,. .:NY for a. _Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance , Article III , Section. l00=,31__ for permission to re-separate
two parcels wi.th.. insuffi.cient area and. .wi.dth . Location of Property :
Southwest_ Side of ,West. Creek Avenue , C.utchog_ue ,__ 'NY; County Tax Map
Parcel Nos . 1000-103-13-4 and. 5 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7.: 50 p .m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application..
MR. CHAIRMAN : !. I have a copy of the Suffolk County. Tax Map
indicating this property and surrounding properties, and ' a copy of
the survey map dated July 26 , 1966 from. VanTuyl and Son.; indicating
Parcel No . 1 of 34 , 124 .sq . ft.. which has the existing dwelling and
.garage , and. 33 , 101 sq . ft. which is Parcel No . 2 which shows a
proposed dwelling. of approximately 30 ' by. 50 ' with a. 50 ' setback
from West Creek Avenue... Would somebody _like to be heard in behalf
of this application? Would you kindly. state' your name?
JOHN FAULKNER: My name is John Faulkner . I 'm :the husband
of the accused--my wife . I don ' t know whether you have a' letter
there from the Planning Board. It may come up later in the meeting--
but I would like to address that now." Basically our application wall
stand--'as you have it there . The Planning. Board , ..Wd did receive a
letter from them about two months .ago . __It simp.ly said that they
were . in favor of this proposal . I ,wrote to th_e_ Planning Board twice .
I ' haven ' t. had a_ reply yet. But I did talk to the secretary ; and she
looked at the minu.tes ._of ..their meeting , -and I ' ll quote you from the
_minutes ; and I do have a copy here if you don ' t have one . It says
that they"are concerned with the fact that the lot slopes toward
Wickham ' s: Creek . " As I said , I .hadn ' t been able to get a reply
from the Planning Board. The secretary did talk to t-he Chairman
of .the' Planning Board , and - he said that he was.n ' t, going to reply
because .,he was. too busy , and he just wanted to leave it up ..,to the
Zoning Board. So that' s why I ' m. her..e tonight. Yes , our .land does
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 5 , : 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, continued : )
MR. FAULKNER continued :
slope down towards Wickham ' s Creek . As I pointed out to the Planning
Board in one of our letters , so do the other 18. 1ots that are on that
side of Wickham ' s Creek . And our lot -- it h_as been in the family ,
and used by the family for 50 years . It' s. the only lot that just' a
lot. Everything else , there is a house on it.
I ' ve re-surveyed all of the buildings that are on our side of
West Creek Avenue . All of .them are closer to the water than our
proposed building would be . All of .the lots are smaller . There ' s
one lot that ' s. only 12 ,000 sq .. ft.__ We will need , I think it ' s 34 or
33 ,000 sq . ft. for each . lot. Most. imp.o.rt_ant, since the, letter from
the Plannin.g. Bo..ard, we ' ve rece.ive'd approval from the Department of
Environmental Conservation , of .which... I think you also have a copy
of, which states that there won ' t be any sign_ifica.nt effect on the
environment. I suspect that the Planni,ng. B.oard was concerned about
the effect on the environment because we ' re on the Creek . We are
concerned about that also . But I think that that becomes irrelevant
if the Department of Environmental Conservation is w.i.11ing to -.issue
a permit for it.
I also want to stress here that we ' re not asking you to sub-
divide one acre lots in the middle of two acre lots . If you know
Fleets Neck , all the houses there are older , the lots are half
acre , quarter _a.cre , three-quarters of an acre at the most . And
the new lot that w.e ' re pro.posin.g--not the new lot, the lot that
we thought that we had .unt.il about five months ago , is certainly
as big or bigger than anything that is around there . So what we ' re
asking I think is reasonable . We talked to the neighbors and we
have no objection at all . In fact the fellow on the other side
of the street , he ' s going to be glad to, s_e_e the grass go because
it ' s about 12 feet. from the road , or 15 ' from the road , right in
front of his window. He looks out and he just sees 'my grass . And
we ' re going to take that .out and remove it or get rid of it .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Excuse me , before you sit down , Mr . Faulkner--
are you, aware, of the concern .of .Mrs . Schubeck concerning_ your
parcel ?
MR. FAULKNER : I was not aware until I just read your Notice
of Meeting tonight. I did not know that, he had replied. ' The
only thing that I can say there is that I spoke to .Mr. Schubeck
as. I did to my other nei.ghbor about three months , I think you have
a copy of the- letter and. the dates that it was officially mailed
to him. The address that he was mailed to i:s from your Tax
Assessment rolls , which is what I ' m. required to do ...as according
to the zoning .law. And I -- he lives , I guess , in the City . We
haven ' t seen him in six mon.ths . _ Surely_; :I ' m. not to be penalized
any more , because he hasn ' t been out here in six months. and hasn ' t
changed his address . I really--
MR. CHAIRMAN : We have received a telephone call indicating
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN : continued :
that since they were unable to appear tonight, that they request a
postponement of this hearing until the next regular meeting . At
that particular point , we had asked Mrs . Schubec* if she would have
somebody that could represent her here--it appears that Mr . Hall ,
sitting in the back row is going to represent her .
MR . FAULKNER: Ok . Fine .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would like to speak in
behalf of the application? Al1.: rig.ht ,._ Mr. Hall ?
MICHAEL HALL , 'ESQ . : . First of all , I think I can set the board
and Mr. Faulkner at ease . I looked. .back at the tax listings after
I look at the purportedly faulty notice , and in fact my client '. s
address is incorrectly _l i s_ted i n the ma..i l i'ng , so_ I am not. going to
contest notice tonight .and we ' re not asking .for a recess . I also
want to say that in behalf of .my ,clients , my clients are not
vehemently opposed to the application . ' They ' ve asked me to be
here tonight to be sure that -the board takes all its normal factors
into consideration before they grant the variance sought--th.at they
consider whether or not the applicant has shown practical difficulties ,
that they consider the environmental aspects . I looked at-the file
brief'ly.; yesterday. I did see the Department of Environmental Con-
servation approval . The board is still empowered to , of course ,
consider within the spectrum of considering the health and welfare
of the community how another house or lot might affect the drinking
water situation in the area . Again , I ' ve been empowered to let
the board , grant the board its discretion ,: of course which is to
speak in be..half of the Schubecks . I realize that the lots proposed
are at least similar or larger than a lo.t of the lots in the area ,
and the board is aware of that.
The most important reason why I ' m here and I don ' t. think ,the
Faulkners will have any objection. and I don ' t think the board will
have any objecton , but the Schubecks have asked me to ask the
board in its power under the zoning ordinance under Section 100-122
to impose a condition on the Faulkners and it'. s a favorable condi -
tion for the whole neighborho_od ,_ that if in fact the variance is
granted that the trees. which separate the Faulkners ' property from
the Schubecks which are on-- we don ' t even know which side of the
property line they ' re on , put that covenant in , that that condition
be--
MR . FAULKNER : They ' re on the north side of their property
and south of ours .
MR . HALL : Meaning what? Whose property are they on?
MR. FAULKNER: They ' re on the property line .
MR. HALL : That' s what I thought .
r
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER , continued : )
MR . FAULKNER: They were planted by my wife ' s father-if that
makes any difference .
MR. HALL : The condition that we ' re asking for, that if a variance
is granted , that the Faulkners covenant not to remove any of the trees
or destroy any of them, _and that if during the course of construction
any of them!aare uprooted or destroyed , that a replanting take place .
The reason that I ' m asking , my clients want to maintain a good neighbor-
hood relationship with the Faulkners , and they feel that this barrier
will in effect prevent them from seeing any proposed house , and they ' re
very glad about that. They would just like the board to impose a
condition that that barrier stay there , thus enhancing the aesthetic
character of the community . That is it.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Before you sit down . We run into a tremendous
problem with trees . With rights-of-way and everything else . And I
will admit to you and I will be the first to admit to you , when we
went out and inspected this property , we have not been. too lucky in
the past two or three times that we had gone out . It has been
raining like you would never , ever believe , the Saturdays that we
had gone out and inspected properties . We had gotten to this
gentleman ' s lot , and it was coming .down in torrents , a.nd we did not
walk the property which we normally do . So I would ask you , please--
I don ' t want any problems with tr..espassing here or anything else .
I ' d like a mutual agreement between the t_wo of you to.. please stake--
tell us which trees you ' re talking about so that we can go back and
investigate the property , re- investigate the property , and reinspect
the property , and you can either do that by tieing something around
the trees , staking the line with a cord , whatever , so that we know
what trees you.'-re talking about in question . And we ' ll make the
determination whether that particular covenant should..or:. should not
be so enforced .
MR . HALL : That ' s fine with me . I think it ' s easier and I
think it would make sense to legally if the covenant would state
that any trees within two or three feet of the property - l :ine;._:that
would become unknown-- I don ' t know if that ' s workable ,_ but I
think it would be pretty finite--
MR. FAULKNER: It ' s workable as far as I ' m concerned . Yes . We
have no intentions of touching .any trees within 10 feet of .the
property line along the Schubecks.. We ' re not--the trees are a
barrier., ,and they will be a screen to us to give us our privacy
the same as they. would be for the Schubecks . The same applied_
on the other side , unfortunately , a few of them . blew down in this
last storm but we ' re already in.. the process of replacing those ,
so I know exactly the trees you ' re talking about.- ..- They are on
the property line in between the Schu.becks ' property and our
property . They ' re right on the line . And we have no objection
of' .you .putting in a condition like that to even four or five feet
from the property line., as we .will not touch any trees there . We
don ' t want to .
S6uthold Town Board of Appeals -9- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, continued : )
MR. HALL : I think that would suffice . I was just researching
Anderson on Zoning as to how finite a condition has to be , or how .
unvague it has to be , and I think that would suffice if ,we said , for
example , within five feet of .the pro-per. ty l inea I 'm.. sure. it would
satisfy the' Schubecks_ as to that .issue.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Is there some way. of stak.i'ng that line so we
would know where it would be when we went down. there .
MR. FAULKNER: Sure .
MR. CHAIRMAN : We ' ll be going :out again on. inspec.ti.ons , Mr.
Faulkner , within the next two- we.ek:s , 'pr.o.bably. two. we.eks. from this
coming Saturday , we I .guess is pretty.... -o Easter at- that point--
but--
MR. FAULKNER : I guess the easiest .thing. would be to• ca.11
before you came , and I-...co.ul'd show -.you .wh.er.e. they ' re. at.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you out most weekends?
MR. FAULKNER: I live here .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Oh , you live here . . The minute I :a.ske.d that
question I remembered .the address . O.R .
MR. FAULKNER: If .you want, we '.11 stake it also .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Oh , well then be prepared that we,',11 knock on
the door if .we ' don ' t. call some' Saturday _morning of, -so.me_:,ev.e.ning .
MR. FAULKNER: Yeah , I have a big dog .
MR. CHAIRMAN : We,',11 call first .
MR. HALL : Thank you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Is there anybody else that would
1 i ke to speak against the _app.l i cati on? Yes_, ma ' am...
MRS . WARREN SHEP.PARD : My ::name is Mrs . Warren Sheppard . We ' re
asl o residents on West• Creek ,_Avenue . ' I ' would l i ke. to _bring up. the
question whether or. not this. idea of ,resepa.rating. lots w.i.1_1 set a
precedent so that people ._all over t_he. Nort . Fork._ c_an. take_ some
_little small, lof a_nd have permission if this._ one is granted, w,i.11
_you be opening yourself to_ gran.ting al.most any reseparation question ,
and will.. that i.n:'fact, make all the zoning 1 aw_s that have been
passed_ by the town at this po_i nt--.i t ' s a. general principle. that
I w.o,ul d _1 i ke to speak about.
MR. CHAIRMAN : I just want to refer back to the f,i.le for one
second in order to answer your question . Mr. Faulkner., were
these purchased at two separate - timeO,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, continued : )
MR. FAULKNER: Yes , they were . Originally. They were purchased
as two separate lots..
MR . CHAIRMAN : That ' s one of the criteria that we use .
MR. FAULKNER: Fifty years ago .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes .
MR. FAULKNER: They were purchased in 19'63 I believe by my wife ' s
parents , and then she willed them to her in.. an estate when she„ died
a few years:.ago. That was the sequence of .events . They were originally
purchased -- the deeds I think you have a:_ copy of_, indicate they were
always two parcels . I ' d. also like to re.mi nd. you that this is the only
lot in that area--there isn ' t—another situation that I know of in that
particular area .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Two more t-hing.s.--,Mr. Lessard wants to say something .
In taking into ' consideration, . we do_n ' t. sp.ecifi.cally call it the.
. redivision , we call it the division , ok ,_ of .any ..properties . We try
and take eve'rythin.g into perspective, What the surrounding properties
look like. What does the Suffolk County Health Department say about
it. What is the New' York State- Department of .D. E._C . , Department of
Environmental Conservation say , so_ on and so-forth , and we then also
go back , was in it a subdivision , was it not in a subdivision , does
it lend itself to the character of the neighborhood'. All of these
things are taken into consideration . I don ' t know. Is there anything
else I can tell you?
MRS . SHEPPARD : No .
MR. CHAIRMAN : . Mr. Lessard has something to add.
VICTOR LESSARD ,. BUILDING DEPT. : To put. your fears at ease , ok ,
when two acre zoning was passed -in Loca Law #7 , it.. upzoned everything .
Before that in the middle ' 70s , the State passed a law saying that
if your property--if you had two pieces of property that were contigu-
ous and touched. each:_other , one of those lots wasn ' t. developed .within
three years , that it automatically merged. That ' s what started every-
thing ._, Then last year , when the.y_. passed Local Law 7 , and had two-acre
zoning , automatically everything. that was under. two acres in the same
name , boom-: it came together. Ok . All the work that the Planning
Board had done ,. all the work that the Board of Appeals had done , went
down the drain . So then they realized what th'ey,_did.. and they passed
Local Law #8 . And that didn ' t. do it. ' Then they passed Local Law
#9 and_. that didn ' t. do it . So finally Local Law_ #l0 said anything
that was approved on a signed map between the Planning. Board and.
the Board of Appeals , or. whatever , 'before 195.7-.-no , .after 1957 when
zoning went ignto , e.ff_ect , be automatically be put on an. exception list.
So that reseparate_d_.•-everything again . _Unfortunately ,. everything .
before, 1957 was. laid out by description , before zoning , left those
people stuck with lots. that they thought they had , they _had merged
together a,gain :- ' A-nd now, from .-that period back , the Zoning. Board has
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- .April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3192 - LINDA MILLER 'FAUL'KNER, continued : )
MR. LESSARD continued :
to take all these things into consideration and reseparate them.
So , yes , it is a problem, and no it isn ' t . It ' s going to be a lot
of work , but it can be done officially . Officially , you ' re not.
creating houses all over the place ... Does that an-swer. your question .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Does anybody else wish to be heard
in behalf of this application? No one . . Hearing no further ques-
tions , I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision
until later.
MEMBER SAWICKI : Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED , to 'cl'ose 'the hearing 'and 'reserve -deci'si'on , until
later in the matter .of LINDA 'MILL'ER 'FAUL'KNER, Appeal No . 3192 .
Vote of the. Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass
and Sawicki . Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent. This resolu-
tion was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present . -
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3176 . Application of 'CAROL PLOCK,
10003. North Bayview Road , Southold_., ' NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-3_l ,ffor permission to re-separate
two parcels with insufficient area _and. width , and a. Variance for
approval of access , New' York Town Law; 'Sec-tion 280-.A. Location of
Property : 10007 North. Bayview Road , Southold , NY;_ County Tax Map
Parcel No . 1000-.79-5-77 and 21 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 09 p .m . and read the. legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal a.p,plication . _
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map and sketch.. of .a survey indicating a .right-of-,w:ay:. 50 ' in- wi_dth
running a distance to the house lot which is approximately 400 ' off
I believe that' s North. Bayview Road , indicating the house lot of,
44 ,074 sq . ft. and the:.:proposed lot in this subdivision on this case
of 41 ,888 sq . ft. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in..
beh.al f ,of this_ application?
'CAROL PLOCK: When the two lots were purchased , it was at two
different. t_imes , and of .course we purchased them in our joint names ,
and of course they merged together... We had been planned- to build a
sma.11.er house when the children grew up and got older ; and we had
been_.worki'ng on that particular lot , I think about six years in
planting of different trees and planting them in the right place .
. It';s. not something we had just done overnight. So of course when
we found out they had merged them together., then I of .course went
Southold Town Board of Appeals -1 1 - `,Ap-r-i"1 5,. 1 984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3176 - CAROL PLOCK, continued : )
MRS . PLOCK continued :
ahead with .the application to see if we could get them separated.
There ' s no sense doing anything further because there ' s no way of
putting a house on that particular piece of property. And of course
I would like to build a smaller- home ; I had lost my husband and now
with three children. getting. much older , I ' d like to build a smaller
home , a solar home-- and that' s. why I ' m submitting the application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mrs . Plock , I can ' t guarantee you a decision
tonight. We haven ' t dis.cuss.ed this . ' We haven ' t, deliberated upon
it. But I can at least in some way. say we probably. will have one
within the next 10 days to two weeks;
MRS . PLOCK: . Fine .
MR. CHAIRMAN : And., I tha.nk you. very much for coming in .
MRS . PLOCK:. Tha.nk you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : You ' re welcome . " Is there anybody else that would
like to be heard in behalf ,_of this ap.pl i ca.ti on? . W_o.u1_d anybody like
to speak .'against the application? . Ques.tions from board members?
(None ) Hearing 'no questions , 11',11 make a motion .closing the hearing
and reserving decision unt,il, later.
On motion 'by Mr. Goeh.ringer , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , to close 'the hearing 'and 'reserve deci'sfon . unti 1 later
in the matter of the application of :CA.ROL 'PLOCK, Appeal No. ' 3176 . '
Vote .of the. Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass
and Sawicki . Member Doyen_ of ,Fishers Is was absent. This resolu-
tion was adopted by unanimous vote of the members p,resent . -
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . .3224. Upon application of 'GEORGE
AND. 'NATALIE 'WIESER , 1415 Harbor Lane , Cutchogue , NY for a. _Vari_ance
to the ' Zoning. .Ordinance , Article III.., Section 100-'.._32_ for permission
to construct accessory ,swimmin_gpool in an area._ other .than: the rear
yard at 1415. Harbor Lane , Cutchogu_e , NY; County Tax Map Parcel
No ., 1000797-.6-10 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 12 p .m. and read the. legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and ap.pea..l.. ap;plication .
MR. CHAIRMAN : We have a copy of .the Suffolk County. Tax Map
showing this - and surrounding properties , an_d I have a,., copy of a
sketch. of .a survey indicating a pool proposed of approximately
20 ' 'by 40 ' in' dimension and deck_: I will ask about,.which appears
to lie 1.50 feet from the tidal area and 60 feet from, it appears
to be the northerly property line , 45 ' from the south side .
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -12 ,Apr_i1 5 ,_-,, l984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3234 - GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER , continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued: )
Mr. Wieser , would you like to be ,heard in behalf of this application?
It ' s nice to see you again .
MR. WIESER: How are you . What would' you, l.ike to ask', me?
MR. CHAIRMAN : How for are you from the actual beginning of
the property?
MR. WIESER: The actual beginnIng? ,:fThe tidal wetlands?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No , 'no .
MR. WIESER: From the road. Well there ' s. a. lot that I. have in
front - of the property which is .approxi.mately 220 ,_feet. Then we
,have back to .the_. pool I would say__ another _M-aybe. 500.:.feet;
MR. CHAIRMAN : And how large is the deck surrounding the pool ?
MR. WIESER: Ok . The deck will be approximately 1600,..
MR. CHAIRMAN : ;., Sixteen-hundred what?
MR. WIESER: Sixtee.n-hundred square feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is that in actual width around?
MR. WIESER: Width , one section is the she.11 under the pool
it would be about 10 -by 20. Going over the sides it.' 11 be
about .approximatel_y se_v_en _feet , on the back portion by_ the deep
end it ' s. be another to 7 feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Do you have any intention of enclosing this
pool ?
MR. WIESER No.
MR., CHAIRMAN : Do you have any intentions of .p.utting any
highlighting in that wo,ul d disrupt your neighbors _i n any__ way_?
MR. WIESER: No. The o.n'ly. 1ighting I '.11 be putting in would
be submersed., .l.ighti ng which w.oul..d be i n_si de. .the pool , and there
will be some ..facing garden lighting which wJ.11 be fo_oting, 1ights .
May_be 15. bights at_ best.
MR. -CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . Is there anybody else
that would, like to beiheard in be.half ,of this. ap.plication_?
Anybody. _like to speak against the ap,pli.cation? .A'ny questions
from any board members?__ (None ) Having been over to. your
_property many times , Mr. ' Wieser , we. have inspected the property
i, n ..full__ force and I see absolutely nothing wrong' with the appl_i-
cation,_, so I ' ll offer it as ..a resolution with the restriction_ that
it not have any overhead lighting , so that it does not disrupt any
neighbors on either side . , Ok?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 322.4 - GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER, continued : )
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
MR. WIESER: That ' s all right with me . '
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal , applicants seek permission to construct an inground
swimmingpool with deck of an area totaling approximately 1 ,600 sq ., ft.
and approximately 150 feet westerly from the ordinary highwater mark
which is shown on the April 24 , 1980 survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl ,
P . C . . The pool will be situated forward of the existing 12-story frame ,
one-family dwelling and will have a setback from the north and south side
lines approximately 60 ' and 45 ' , respectively.
The premises in question is located at the east side of Harbor
Lane , Cutchogue , contains approximately 2 .0 acres in area , and has a
width of 168 feet (average ) . For the record , it is noted that the
property in question has received conditional variances on February 25 ,
1983 , Appeal No . 3071 for an accessory storage building and on
November 25 , 1983 , Appeal No . 3177 for conditional approval of access
over applicants ' 15 ' wide right-of-way.
In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that, the
relief requested is not substantial ; (b ) that by the granting of
the requested relief, a precedent has not been set and therefore
will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood ; (c )
that by allowing the variance , no substantial detriment to adjoining
properties would be created; (d ) that no adverse effects will be
produced on available governmental facilities of any increased
population ; (e ) that the relief requested will be in harmony with
and promote the general purposes of zoning ; and. (f) that the
interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance ,
as indicated below.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr .
Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3224 , application of 'GEORGE 'AND
NATALIE. 'WIESER for permission to construct accessory .pool struc-
ture in the frontyard area , BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED -AS "APPLIED
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION :
No lighting shall be permitted that may disturb neighboring
premises .
Location of Property : 1415 Harbor Lane , Cutchogue , NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-97-6-10 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen , Grigonis ;
Douglass and Sawicki . This_ resolution was adopted by unanimous vote .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
4
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No. 3221 . Upon application of 'R.OBERT
BROWN , Main Road , Greenport.., NY fora Variance to the Zoning Ordi -
nance , Article VII.I, Section 1.00-81 for permission to construct
addition with an insufficient-_ frontyard setback . Location of
Property : 74450 Main Road , Greenport; County. Tax_ Map Parcel
No. 1000-45-06-006 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :25 p .m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal a.p.plication .
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of .the Suffolk County
Tax Map showing th_i.s and surrounding pro,per.tie_s , and I have a copy
of part of a survey indicating' the _p.roposed addition of ..approximately
14 feet wide , leaving a fron'tyard setback area. of .appro.xi_m_ately 35 _
feet. Is there somebody, that would. like to be .heard. .in. beh.al.f .of
this application? Your name? _
STANLEY GARREN: Stan Garren . Would you need the-
MR . CHAIRMAN : This .is a .one-story structure?.
MR. GARR.EN : Yes . It,',11 just be ext.ended .right .out from the
existing building .
MR. CHAIRMAN : It will conform to the existing b.uil.ding , 'Mr.
Garren? .
MR. GARREN : Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I mean, there won ' t. be any changes of .roof .design
or anything of -that nature? _
MR. GAR,REN : No .
MR. CHAIRMAN : And it will be used as an office .
........_..
MR. G.ARREN : Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anyt.hi.ngy.ou would like to say?
MR . GAR-R.EN : We do need it. The business is. gro.wing . The office
space , i s cramped. With ,a'11 the_ County. vehicles records _that we have
t_o keep . We ..need more room, and that` s. the only .place to go .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok . Thank you very much . Would anybody else
like to speak in behalf of the _application? Would. any body. like to
_speak against the ap.p.l_i ca._t.i on? Questions from board memb_e.rs-? (None )
A1.1 right , 'gentlemen, a mo.tion is in order on this one .
MEMBER .GR.I.G.ONIS: I ' ll move to grant the ap.pli.c.atio.n as.,appl'.ied.�for.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Gri"gonis says he ' ll move to grant it as applied
for.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15 April 5 ; 1984 Regular. Meeting
[Appeal No . 3221 - ROBERT BROWN . (Sunrise Coach Lines ) , cont-inued : ]
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Second.
The board made the following findings and determination :
B. this applicant , appellant seeks to construct a 14 ' by 20 '
office addition to the existing Sunrise Coach Lines business structure
which would leave an insufficient frontyard setback at 35 feet . The
premises in question is located in a "C-Light Industrial " District and
contains an area of approximately 403 acres with 205 ' frontage -along
the Main (State ) Road . The present office is located at the front of
the building and the board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant
in that due to the location of the "garage doors , ". it would not appear
feasible to expand the .office in any other location without extensive
changes . Also , neighboring properties have similar setbacks from the
Main Road as that proposed by this application .
In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that
the relief requested is not substantial ; (b) that the circumstances
are unique ; (c ) that by. allowing. the variance , no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created ; (d) that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population ; (e ) that the relief requested will be
in harmony with and. promote the general purposes of the zoning code ;
(f) that the interests of justice will be, served by allowing the
variance , as indicated below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Messrs .
Douglass and Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No . ' 3221 ,. application of ROBERT BROWN
for permission to construct 14 ' by 20 ' office addition with a front-
yard setback of 35 feet ; 'BE ANDHEREBY IS -APPROVED -AS APPLIED .
Location of Property : 74450 Main Road , Greenport , NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-45-06-006 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis , Douglass , Goehringer
and Sawicki . Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent . This resolu-
tion was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC .H.E:AR.ING: , Appeal. No . '322'8. Upon application of. 'BERIT
'LAL'L I ,. ._1.40.5 Narrow Ri ver. _Road_,,: .0r.i ent;. _NY for a. _Va.ri ance to the
Zo.ni ng. Ordinance , Article I I I., Se.cti on, 1.00=31 for per.mi ssi on to
construct garage, additi_on with an .i.n.suffi;ci.e_nt rea'ryard setback .
Location of .Property: 1405. Na.rrow. v_.R.i. er :Road,. :Orie`n_t ,. 'NY; County
.Tax Map Parcel. No . 1000-.02741_0.06'. 3 ..
The Chairman opened the hearing .at 8':30 :p.m. and read the legal
notice of ,hearing in its, .enti.r.e:ty .,1 a_ppe,al. ap,p.li_cati.on :
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16= April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3228 - BERIT LALLI , continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN : We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties , and I have a copy of a
survey produced on June 3 , 1981 , amended August 4 , 1983 , indicating
a proposed addition--it appears to be , I ' ll ask . Is:..there someone
who would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Would
anybody like to speak against the application? Is Mr. DeVoe present?
CHARLES DeVOE: Yes .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Mr . DeVoe , what is the approximately size .of the--
MR. DeVOE : I built the--. I can ' t, hear too well .
MR . CHAIRMAN : What is the appr.o.ximate'isize of the proposed
addition?
MR. DeVOE: I think it ' s. 24 ' --the garage there . I think it ' s
24 this way . I was surpri°sed..'with the back of the garage , I thought
it was the .. side , you know.
MR. CHAIRMAN : This is the proposed addition right here .
MR . DeVOE : There ' s. nothi.ng over here . That ' s all Indian land.
Well , let' s say there ' s another 1o.t there and then the ..I_ndian land .
The-re ' s. another. little house right here--two of them.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Could you give us the approximate". dimensions of
it and call the office tomorrow or Monday?
MR. DeVOE: Sure . The dimensions of this garage itself?
MR . CHAIRMAN : Yes .
MR . DeVOE: All right. I ' .11 call back with the exact dimensions .
Thank you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of
this application? Against it again? ... (No... one ) . Hearing no further
comments , I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , to close the 'heari►ig a►id reserve decision until later
in the matter of .the application of. BERIT 'LALLI , Appeal No .. 3228.
.. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass
and Sawicki-e Member Doyen . of Fishers Island was absent_. This resolu-
tion was adopted by una.nimous .vote of the members present . - _
., Southold Town Board of .Appeals -17- Apri,l 5 , 1984. Regular 'Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: - . Appeal No . 3223.. Application of 'THO.MAS
AND 'BARBARA D. 'ME.RCI.ER ;. .New.. Suffol k Avenue, Matti tuck.,. NY by
Wi ckham, Wi..Ckh..m & Bressa er,` P C . ) for a' Va:.ri ance. to. .thee Zo.n_i_ng
Ordinance, Article III ; :Section 100-30 (A) for .permission to
convert an exist%ng"single famll.y dwelling_ use into -two profes-
sional offices . Location of Property-. 4905 Mid:dle . Road (C , R 48 ) ,
Matti tuck,: NY;:._ County. Tax -Map Parcel_. No-. 1000-14.1 -01.-2,1
of Clara W. R. Reeve #2.12" , Part._ of Lot: 5.m
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :27 p .m. and read the
legal notice of .hearing in its entirety and --appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : We have a copy of the County. Tax Map. indic.at-
ing this and surrounding propert.fe.s ..and a copy _o.f -,the ' parcel
which appears to be 60 by_ 1 1.5` '60'. .on Lowe .Lane , 'and an i n.d,i cati on
of where the proposed parking area is to be .„placed. Mrs . :Wickham,
would you like to be heard .in behalf of .thi-s_„application?
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ. : ' I have a couple of .peo.ple here I
would like the board to hear from tonight to _try _and show as we
stated_ in the application. a hardship , .that ,the .character of .the
district will not_ change and the application is unique . First
I ' d like Dr. Mercier to, speak to th_ e_ board about his` i_ntended use
and some of.-,the background.
THO,MAS MERCIER: I 'm Thomas Mercier. I live on New .Suffolk
Avenue , Mattituck . My wife and I - bought this house on L.ove__ Lane ,
Mattitu.ck ,. for the purpose of ,having' 'my professional office there .
The intended use is_ just 'to -practice pediatrics in the building
and I intend to practice alone , `by my-s_elf,. without any othe-r
doctors . There will be one receptionist working with_me at all
times , and - approximately I would be having .offi,ce hours approxi-
mately 30 '.hours per week , 28 to. ' 30 hours a ..week . ' We have planned
to maintain the .exter. ior_ of' the house the way it is , and we ' re
planning not to remove any trees to �pr.eserve the residential
atmosphere of .the house. The only changes 'that wil be made
will be brick walkways ,_. a ramp , and handrails . Inside there
wil._l be a cou,ple., of .c.hanges made , like putting a partition in
one room to make it into .two rooms and exchanging the entrance
into the bathroom into .the bedroom, entering .the_._bathroom from
the kitchen .
MRS . WICKHAM: Could you tell the board how long y.ou have
been looking, for , office space , i.n._what area, and what experience
you had .
DR. MERCIER: Well , we. were . looki'ng for a space for
approximately_ six months , and during that, time , .we looked at
_,a number ofplaces . For the most part, everything that we
felt was suitable in a suitable, location was in very bad repair
and required a .l.ot of money to restore it .
. MRS. WICKHAM: What area were' you looking? .
Southold Town Board of Appeals' 18- 4/5/84
DR. MERCIER: Well, we were looking in .Mattituck and Cutchogue.
My patients come from all over the North Fork. . I wanted to have
my office in Mattituck.
GAIL WICKHAM: So, you didn' t see any other property in the
area that was suitable? What was the price that you paid
for the property?
DR. MERCIER: We bought it in December of 1983 and we paid
$52 ,500 . 00.
GAIL WICKHAM: Did you buy it because it was residential?
DR. MERCIER: No, we bought it to use it as an office?
GAIL WICKHAM: So, you bought it only with the intention of
applying for permission to convert it, is that (vrrect?
DR. MERCIER: Yes .
AIL WICKHAM: Would you have bought it otherwise?
DR. MERCIER: No.
GAIL WICKHAM: Was there any reason .you bought it prior to
getting the change of zone?
DR. MERCIER: Yes , there was . The previous owner...of the house
Mr. McMillan, was not willing to wait for a zoning change or
a variance. Mrs . McMillan was ill , she had a brain tumor and
they were anxious to sell the house.
GAIL WICKHAM: Could you tell the Board what your carrying charges
on a monthly basis are?
DR. MERCIER: Presently we pay $525 . 00 per month for . the mortgage ,
$75 . 00 per month for the taxes ; $35 . 00 per month for insurance;
and repairs have. been approximately since we have been there,
during the first three months , so about $100.. 00 per month.
GAIL WICKHAM: Are there additional repairs that you are going ,
to have to make to the property?. Other than the renovations?
DR. MERCIER: There may be some dither plumbing repairs. that may
be necessqry.
GAIL WICKHAM: You indicated that right now you are a single
practitioner and your hours would be 28 to 30 per week. Is
there a possibility that could change? What then would be
the anticipated maximum use of the building?
DR. MERCIER: Well , there is a possibility that I would have
a partner and my intention, if that ever occurs , would be to
have my partner thereat times when I , wasn' t, so that there
would not be two doctors practicing at the same time.
Southold ZBA -19- 4/5/84
GAIL WICKHAM: You would stagger your office hours and
therefore alleviate any parking problems?.
DR. MERCIER: Yes .
GAIL, WICKHAM: Do you feel that the use that you are asking
for would adversely affect any of the neighbors ' properties?
DR. MERCIER: No, I don' t. I think because we are very interested
in maintaining the grounds and landscaping and we are going to
be very careful to put in shrubbery and landscaping, which shields
parking from neighbors and stuff like that. I have also spoken
with several of the neighbors , Mrs . Deborah Orlowski, who told
me personally that she had no objection whatsoever to my relocating
my office . Also, Mrs . Gladys Nine, who said the same thing.
Mrs . Guiliarno, who is the neighbor on the west, I did not speak
with her personally, but she relayed a message through Mrs . Nine
that she had no objection.
GAIL WICKHAM: Thank you. Mrs . Nine and Mrs . Guiliarno are the
two houses to the north and west. Does the Board have any
questions of Dr . Mercier?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes . It appears in situations like this ,
Mrs . Wickham, we are not specifically concerned with replacement
of the house as it exists right now. But, as you know in a
piece of property of this limited size, that we would kind of
object to any expansion of the existing dwelling because , it
would limit the parking area and that' s a .very difficult area
to park in, so we would think of that, some sort of restriction
that if you do any expansion, the. expansion would have to be up.
Do you -have any problems with that?
DR. MERCIER: No.
GAIL WICKHAM:" I don:,t . think that he had any plans to expand.
But I am not sure if he did, if he expanded to the east or west
it would be a problem. Parking would be along the private road.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I haven' t officially spoken to the Board
in toto, concerning this . However , if they should express a con-
cern in the parking., which I will get to in one second, and I do
agree with you that if there were any expansion and if we did not
have that condition, that certainly the expansion would be less
fragile on the west side , there is no question about it. The
other thing the Board was concerned with, Dr . , was the private
road or the paper private road which exists between your property
and. the existing house toward the creek. We 'noticed that this
road really doesn' t exist. It exists on the map but there is
no improvement. . Are you intending to do any improvements to
the road at all , to the driveway?
SOUTHOLD ZBA -20- 4/5/84
DR. MERCIER: Yes.
GAIL WICKHAM: Whatever he has to do to make it passable. He
has met with Ray Nine , and I am sure Ray would make sure he could
get in and out.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We assume that the property line, and that
little fence that goes down there on the one side.. You do have
a right of way over that private road, right?
GAIL WICKHAM: Sure, it' s .on the filed map.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish us with some copy of
that? To the fact that you have a right of way.
GAIL WICKHAM: It' s on the filed map. and that by virtue of it
would give title, actually title to the center of the road, and
an easement over the entire road, as any lot on that map would
have. It' s the map of Clara Reeves .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That',s about all we have at this particular
time. Thank you very much.
GAIL WICKHAM: . In addition to Dr . Mercier ,. I would like to present
some testimony from real estate people and I have .asked Ellen
Tomson from Celic Realty. to come in. Would you give the Board
your name, address and qualifications?
ELLEN THOMPSON: My name is Ellen Thompson, I live on Peconic
Bay Boulevard in Laurel and I work with Celic Realtors . I am
a broker.
GAIL .WICKHAM: How long have you been in the. real estate business?
ELLEN THOMPSON.: About 15 years and about 5 or 6 years in this area.
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you consider yourself fully aware of residential
and commercial property values in this . area? Are you personally
familiar with the Mercier property?
ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes , I .showed it.
GAIL WICKHAM: The property was listed with your agency for sale?
ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes .
GAIL WICKHAM Do you recall . when and for how much?
ELLEN THOMPSON: It was in around 1983 , May, sometime around
:there.
GAIL WICKHAM: And you showed the property to how many parties?
SOUTHOLD ZBA -21 - 4/5/84
ELLEN THOMPSON : I would say four or five.
GAIL WICKHAM: And did any of those people make an offer?
ELLEN THOMPSON: No.
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you know why not?
ELLEN THOMPSON : It didn' t lend itse'lf ' for residential use;
it' s on a 4 lane highway and it'.s very damp. THe only use I
could see was for somebody with a boat, perhaps .
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you feel that the surrounding business properties
also affected it for. non residential use?
ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes .
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you consider the property to be a good
investment. as residential real estate?
ELLEN THOMPSON : Not really, for the reasons I just gave. It
is an old house and it needs a lot of work. The porch sags .
GAIL WICKHAN: In. your opinion, what would a fair rental value
for the property be?
ELLEN . THOMPSON: I would say about $300 per month.
GAIL WICKHAM: Given the carrying, charges that Dr. Mercier says
he has , do you feel as a real estate broker , that the property
potential rental value could yield reasonable return?
ELLEN THOMPSON: I. wouldn't. think so. I just don' t see how.
GAIL WICKHAM: Considering that his mortgage was $525 and taxes
were . $75 and insurance was $35 .
ELLEN THOMPSON: No.
GAIL WICKHAM: In your opinion, what is the fair market value
as a residence?
ELLEN THOMPSON : At that time, I would probably say $45 , 000.
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you think that the property as a residence ,
would show good appreciation?
SOUTHOLD ZBA -22- 4/5/84
ELLEN THOMPSON: No,- not as it stood,. because of its location.
GAIL WICKHAM': What. do you feel. would be the value of the
property if the use variance applied for were granted?
ELLEN THOMPSON: It would go up. AT least $55 , 000. 00.
GAIL WICKHAM' Are you aware if there were any offers that
were made on the property?
ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes , there was one in our office. It was not
through me , it was through another broker and I think it was
for $54 ,000 , a little under full price , and then of course , you
have our commission about $3 , 000 , so it would be a net of about
$52 , 000.
ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes .
.GAIL WICKHAM: Did that deal close?
ELLEN THOMPSON: No. I was away at the time .
GAIL WICKHAM: As a .real estate broker, do you feel that a use
variance , if granted, would adversely affect the neighborhood
property values?
ELLEN THOMPSON : No.
GAIL WICKHAM: Does the Board have any questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No.
GAIL WICKHAM: Thank you. I had also asked Robert Celic to be'
here tonight to give testimony. He was unable to due to a meeting
in Riverhead that he had to . attend. He did prepare an affidavit
on the question of valuation. I know normally the Board wants
someone here, but I would like to ask you if you would have any
objections to being offered this affidavit?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No objections .
GAIL WICKHAM: Would you like me to read it first?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes please.
GAIL WICKHAM: (Read affidavit of Robert Celic) .
I also have a copy of a letter from the McMillan' s , who owned the
house and moved out of the area. They are down in Virginia.
They did send me a letter indicating that the property had been
on the market since April of 1983 and they only had the one
offer , which was not close, other than the Mercier ' s. I believe
you have a copy of the map indicating surrounding zoning.
CHAIRMAN' GOEHRINGER: Yes , I do.
SOUTHOLD ZBA -23- 4/5/84
GAIL WICKHAM: Just to summarize, I would like to point out
here that the hardship is twofold based on insufficient
return on a rental basis and that the secondary hardship
is limited values .of residential properties , due to location
and proximity to business property. And also I might mention
that there is almost no setback from the road, due to the
fact that it was widened. It may appear to the Board, that
the - hardship is somewhat self-imposed. Dr . Mercier has just
recently bought the property. But they purchased it only with
the :intent to seek this zone change. The sellers could not
wait for them to get the use change, due to their age and health
problems and the Dr . had no :o.ther alternative available to him.
So by purchasing, he did succeed to the McMillan' s pre existing
hardship of having residential property in a business area,
which we have presented here tonight, Secondary part of this
application, the character of the district, I think we have
shown it will actually be an asset to the neighbors , rather
than continuing as a marginal residence. And it will also
act a buffer between the business property on the one side
and the residential property on the other side, by being a
fairly unobtrusive type use as a professional office. I.t is
a unique application. ` The only property which is even similar
is. the house next door owned -by Guiliarno, but that' s in much.
better shape, has more room,. better water view and is not on
the intersection like this house is , nor is it next to that
business property on the other side . of Love .Lane. I might
mention that the Planning Board has indicated by letter dated
February 17th, .by Resolution, that they recommend that the
Mercier ' s proceed with the use variance rather than a change
of zone. Do you have a copy of that correspondence?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes-.
GAIL WICKHAM: I believe there are letters in the file, all
from the medical staff of ELIH , indicating their support of
the application. Do you. have any questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes : As you know this Board doesn' t like
. to restrict professionals , particularly in this case. We were
just wondering , however , what. would be the nature of the office
in the doctor's .home now. Is that going to exist? . Are you going
to have an office in your home on New Suffolk Avenue and a dual
office on County Road .48., or what' s the deal?
GAIL WICKHAM: I think I know the answer to this . He bought
the property over there with the thought of perhaps converting
the- garage into an office , and decided that that was not feasible,
so this would be his single office.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much.
SOUTHOLD ZBA -24- 4/5/84.
GAIL WICKHAM: One more thing for the record. His current
office in Cutchogue has a lease, which is expiring and that
is the reason he does need the space.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak
for the application? Against the application?
MRS . EHLERS: I would like to clarify something in my mind.
I live on New Suffolk Avenue. Am I correct in understanding
the statement that if Dr . Mercier has this sanction he is not
going to convert his barn into an office?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct.
MRS. EHLERS : Thank you.
GAIL WICKHAM: I am not sure that was going to be a condition.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, she was just asking as a general
question.
GAIL WICKHAM: I am not sure you can condition one property on
another .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we wouldn' t do that. That' s why I
said this Board does not. like to restrict professionals . Any
questions from anybody else in the audience? Questions from
Board members? I make a motion closing the hearing , reserving
decision until later .
8 : 57 p . m. Public Hearing in the Matter of Appeal No . 3184 ,
PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ by Wickham , Wickham and Bressler , P . C .
for (a ) approval of insufficient width of two proposed parcels
(b ) approval of access . R-O-W off N/S Sound Avenue , Private
Road #11 , Mattituck .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8: 57 p . m. and read the legal
notice of hearing and appeal application for the record .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
and a copy of a survey which was mentioned in the application
dated October 3 , 1983 indicating the house lot , which is
approximately 2 . 0975 acres and the lot in question , area of
2 . 0871 acres . Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of
this application ?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ . : Let me first explain that the applicants ,
the Lenzes , are contract vendees . They have a contract with
the Rothmayers who own the property contingent upon obtaining
the subdi:vision:. and variance . The primary hardship here is that
you have over two acres on each lot and they ' re approximately
91500 sq . ft . each . The limited factor is the width of 100 feet
Board of Appeals -25- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
. (Appeal No . 3184 , Matter of PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ, continued : )
MISS WICKHAM continued :
on each lot . The lot to the east of this owned by Anderson is
100 feet , and has approximately the same dimensions as the
two proposed lots in this application . In addition there are
other lots further east , just north of the Harbes Farm , which
are 100 feet , 125 feet and 75 feet respectively . So this
proposed division is really within the-. pattern of the area
and if denied would force a_ division that would be not in
keeping with that pattern . Two of the potential divisions
would be to divide the property front and back , _, and in that
event you would lose your waterfront for one lot resulting
in a significantly lower value for the property . You could
leave the property as one large piece , but then you would
have a house that . is way off center with an un sideyard
on the east . You could , I believe , probably divide this
property and meet the width requirement with the building
lines by slanting your center division line , but then you
would have very awkward configuration , and the building lines
on the vacant lot would be way back from the bluff and
essentially give up the waterfront aspect . The board should
be aware that these two lots that we are asking to be
redivided were acquired as two separate parcels in two
separate deeds , many , many years ago . The house lot was
purchased by the Rothmayers on July 1 , 1946 . The vacant
lot was purchased in 1949 , and I have copies of those two
deeds .
In fact that entire up there north of the Koroleski
Farm was set up with this pattern of long , narrow lots in
the 1940 ' s by Mattituck Park Properties . The lots . have
always been taxed separately . . I have copies of the ' 82-83
tax bills and I confirmed with the Assessors Office that the
' 83-84 assessments are also still separate . These bills are
' 82-83. There ' s also a separate bill there for the road
interest. The lots have always been used separately . The
vacant lot is overgrown and is not used in conjunction with
the house lot , with the small exception of a lz ' encroachment
of the tin shed , which would-be removed . There is ample
sideyard , 12 . 8 feet , from the garage to the sideyard _o_f the
center line , and I don ' t think that anything that any of
this proposal is at all out of keeping_ with the character
of the neighborhood . I miight;.:juSt. mention the roadway ,
which I know the board is concerned about. That roadway--
there is a deeded 1 /10th interest for each lot, this would
have 2/10ths . It is . owned and maintained by all of the
lot owners up . there . The deeds will show a maintenance.
clause . It is kept open all year . _ I know that this is the
worst season , and right now it ' s no doubt it does need work.
I ' ve been up there a number of times myself, not recently
but the road is general a good one , a solid road , but there
are bad spots which would have to be repaired to board
specifications . And that is understood . I ' ve asked Andy
Stype.. of Val Stype Real Estate to just briefly give the
Board of Appeals -26- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3184 PETE.R 'AND 'PATRICIA 'LENZ,. continued : )
MISS WICKHAM (continued) :
board some real estate background on the hardship here .
ANDY STYPE: My name is Andy Stype and I ' m. from Mattituck and
own._ the._ Stype - Real Estate , _Inc .-_--_ And I just wanted to make a
couple of points .first. I ' d. like to poi.nt out that there are
individual tax bills on each of these lots here . I ' d also
like to point out.-- that I was up there just the other day after
all these storms we ' ve been having , and found that the road
going up is in excellent shape because you know, I was there
just the other day , - after all these you storms we ' ve been
having , and I found that the__ road going up is in excellent
shape because you know , 'I was alto„ a little concerned.- about
the road , but it ' s in very fine shape .
MISS WICKHAM: Could you tell the board basically how long
you have been a broker in this area?
MR. STYPE : I have been a sales person for almost nine years
and I ' have been a real estate broker five Years .
MISS WICKHAM: Are you therefore fully familiar with the
value of the residential real estate in the Mattituck area?
MR . STYPE : Yes , I am.
MISS WICKHAM: In your opinion , would a division of property
into a waterfront lot and a nonwaterfront lot in the rear
be financially advisable?
MR . STYPE : No . It wouldn ' t .
MISS WICKHAM: Can you just elaborate on that?
MR. STYPE : Well if you had a back lot , of course , you know,
it didn ' t have . any _waterfrontage , you would lose a lot of
value obviously then anything that has some waterfrontage .
MISS WICKHAM: In your opinion , would there be a difference
in value if the two parcels were kept as one lot as opposed
to dividing them as requested?
MR. STYPE : Yes , there would be . I had , I have here an
estimation of value on the house and land , number one , on
the house itself-- I estimate the house to be about $80 ,000
and I estimate the lot to be about $125 ,000 . Yes , about
$125 ,000 . The house_ and land , one , I added riot up to have a
value $225 ,000 .
Board of Appeals -27- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3184 - PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ, continued: )
MISS WICKHAM: By that , you mean just a single lot?
MR. STYPE: Right. Just the lot and a house . And I estimate
the other lot to have a value__ of about $125 ,000 , and that
would have a combined total of approximately $350 ,000 . Now
if you took the house and also two lots , I._estimate that
would have a value of approximately . $285 ,000 . So I feel you
would have a difference of approximately $65 ,000 .
MISS WICKHAM: Sir , do you believe that in terms of real
estate value , the owner wo.uld ._ have a hardship if the property
could not_. be divided at requested?
MR . STYPE: They would have a hardship . Definitely .
MISS WICKHAM: Does the board have any questions?
MR . GOEHRINGER : Of, Mr . Stype? .
MISS WICKHAM: Anyone .
MR. GOEHRING.ER: We have no questions of Mr . Stype .
MISS WICKHAM: Ok . That ' s all I have to say also .
MR. GOEHRINGER: The only question I have is that in the
beginning of the application , you mentioned that , -it says ,
the right=of-way must be approved by the Planning Board , "
and I assume thats " . . : 280-a application is not required . . . . "
MISS WICKHAM: Yes . That--the reason I put that down was
that was what my Notice of Disapproval said . Now I under-
s.tand _that: since that time there has been some discussion
about it . The Planning Board approved it but didn ' t say
anything about the right-of=way. That was _what Mr . Hinder.mann
had indicated on the Notice of . Disapproval and that ' s why I
put that in the application there .
MR. GOEHRINGER : Ok . I just wanted you to be aware of the
fact that since we did find out it ' s._ going to be under our
jurisdiction , that we did take the liberty of asking the
town engineer to go up and inspect the road . He has informed
me that he was waiting for a little better weather to go up
there , and as of yet he has not submitted a report to us
concerning the condition of the road . So that any-- if we
do close this hearing tonight , it will be pending receipt
of that recommendation from him , or that evaluation from him ,
whatever he intends to give us at this particular time . So ,
we can ' t give you a decision immediately .
Board of Appeals -28- Apr.i..l 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
MISS WICKHAM: I would just like to mention that the real
hardship here is that the sellers are very anxious to close .
This matter has been pending a long time . They are elderly
and they have really suffered by waiting for us to conclude
this application . If you are able to make a decision subject
to the roadway meeting the Board of Appeals specifications--
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : I would assume , had--
MISS WICKHAM: I have also asked him if he could go up there
fairly soonJt would help us along .
:CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : I would assume in about two weeks . Is
that all right? _
MISS WICKHAM: Yes .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Thank you very much . Is there anybody
else that would like to speak in behalf of this application?
Behalf or against? _.
MRS. ROSE KOROL.ESKI : Well , I ' m a neighbor .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Please use . the mike and state your name .
ROSE KOROLESKI : Weave been maintaining part,-of.`the road since
1942 . And all the trees and the bushes and all. , we keep
cutt.i,rlgt-th:em�'down- we even did it last, year , all the way down .
And they don ' t seem to appreciate it , but it is in bad shape ,
very bad . Lots of times you can ' t get through . A tree fell
down the other day and it ' s right on the right-of-way . It ' s
my. tree--you should know that. But they have , Mr. Lenz had
it surveyed , and they have the surveying markers on my side
over the right-of-way . They say they are bounded by Koroleski ' s .
They are not. They should be bounded by the right-of-way.
That road belonged to the Dundee ' s Corporation Farm, and it ' s
been a right-of-way since 1930 . We purchased the farm in 1942 ,
and we ' ve been . maintaining it for many years . But it is in a
bad position . Especially on the north side . But they are
bounded as the paper says by the Koroleskis , which they ' re
supposed to be bounded by the right-of-way and not by Koroleski .
The markers are there . Do. you know what I mean? They consider
this ri"ght-of-way over that property that they have .
CHAIRMAN .. GOEHRINGER : I think I know what you ' re saying , Mrs .
Koroleski . Is there anything else you would like to say?
M MRS. KOROLESKI : No . That ' s it.
Board of .Appeals -29- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Ok . Thank you very much .
MRS . KOROLESKI : You ' re welcome .
CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would like to speak against
the application? Kindly state your name , .sir .
WILLIAM C . HEES: My name is William C. Hees . I own property to
the east of the applicant . I shouldn ' t say the applicant
because the applicant doesn ' t own that property . I have a
25 ' right-of-way for access , across the southern boundary of
the property in question . 1,:.di.d..-_nat:. r.eceive a legal notice
from the applicant, and I haven ' t had a chance to talk to my
attorney regarding any action on the application . I feel since
I had a. vested interest and since I have_ LILCO rights and New
York Telephone rights across that property, . that I should have
been notified .
Additionally , a question has come up now as far as road
improvements . The road that is in question , I think as far as
improvement--is the private road which is a north-south road ,
is I think identified as Private Road No . 11 , which I own 3/10ths
interests . Some point was made that we ' re all going to be
approved-- I would like to know who is going to pay for the
improvement of that road?
CHAIRMAN : Are you asking that question right now , Sir?
MR . HEES: That ' s correct . If you want to put that into the
minutes , we can-- but apparently it was brought up as far
as the attorney for the applicant .
CHAIRMAN : To answer your question , Sir , this board does not
deal with who pays for the improvements . We very simply
impose the improvements . Since it is the perspective or
proposed applicant that is coming before us here , he or she ,
them, th: question , are looking for in this particular case a
Certificate of Occupancy , then I would assume that the
burden is placed upon them at that time . That ' s the only
thing I can tell you .
MR . HEES : Again , since I own 3/10ths of that road , I was not
legally notified. I felt I should have been . I would like
to make those points clear .
CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . Would somebody else like to
speak against? Yes , Sir .
MR . MAITREJEAN : I ' m Mr . Maitr.ejean , and I wrote a letter to
you stating most of my reasons why -- I was just wondering--
Board of Appeals -30- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
MR . MAITREJEAN (continued : )
about the-- I mentioned that I thought this property should be
divided into two plots , and I was taking Mr. Stype ' s figures
here . Apparently , , the footage , the $1 ., 250 a foot . I came
up with $374 ,000 for the value of that property without a house .
Now , maybe my arithmetic is incorrect , but I wonder how Mr.
Stype came up with that . If you divide it into two properties ,
he said it would lose a lot ' of value . I don ' t see where it
would lose any value .
MISS WICKHAM: I :'ju'st indicated there would be a difference in
value if the property had . to remain together as opposed to if
it could be divided . It would be an additional increment in
value if you could divide the property .
MR. MAITREJEAN : Well , just taking his figures , as I say , I ' m
not too sure of my arithmetic . But I just came up with
$374 ,000 for the value of the land , and an $80 ,000 house ,
that ' s come to roughly about $450 ,000 . So , i.f,...they ' re talk-
ing about $350 ,000 , by dividing it , I don ' t see where there ' s
any loss or any hardship . I think the hardship is if you do
divide this property . The main thing is as I mentioned in
those , that house has no--that property has no waterview
whatsoever . And if you set a house some 100 feet, which I
think you have to do if I ' m correct through the Department
of Environmental Conservation . The only thing they can do
to get a waterview at all is to knock down that bluff. You
knock that bluff down and you ' re going to have plenty of
erosion . And that is going to take Mr. Lenz ' s house , future
house , if he buys it , and it ' s also going to take my bluff ,
10 steps , which are right along side of it . You cannot do
that up there . We ' ve had as you know plenty of trouble with
Levon through the years and we ' ve lost an awful amount of
property up there , and to repeat this , this is going to be
a hardship on us and on Mr . Lenz ' s property also . I think
this should be considered. And I think you have most of my
reasons . I think we could--those properties , speaking of
making it lengthwise , you can give a piece of beach down
there , you know--you don ' t need , all you need is a right-of-way
of 10 feet and you wander all over that beach , if that ' s what
they want to do . And the possibilities of ten houses are up
there , so I think that should also be considered . That road
is a . thing--the maintenance thing up there , I say that is a
difficult road . Believe me . And I ' d like you to add that
to - Mrs . Koroleski ; she ' s here . That property has just
recently been surveyed. The road has just recently been
surveyed for very obvious reasons . Because a good number
of those markers were taken out and that is our private
road , as you know , we ' re taxed on this road . Mrs . Koroleski
had nothing to do with it at all . And I think what she said
Board of Appeals -31 - April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3184 - PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ, continued : )
MR . MAITREJEAN (continued) :
would, hot bear any account for anything at all because she
has nothing to do on this road. Thank you .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Thank you , Sir. Would anybody else
like to speak against the application? Miss Wickham, do
you have anything to add?
MISS WICKHAM : May I bee the letter that Mr . Maitr. ejean sent?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : (Gave Miss Wickham letter to read. )
While you ' re reading that , could I address Mr . Hees for a
minute? Mr . Hees , I should make you aware , if I close this
hearing , there is no further input into this . And I wanted
you to be aware of that. You--are aware of that?
MR. HEES : The only input I would have and it ' s a legal input
is that, if you do act affirmatively , I do not want to
relinquish any of my rights of access , which include the
road access , LILCO right-of-way across the southern boundary ,
New York Telephone right-of-way , which is-- the New York
Telephone poles--LILCO apparently subleases those poles--
so,_ I . just want to make sure if you do . go. in the affirmative
that any written document that you should pass does not
include _my rights of access . I really don ' t see any
problem of that.
MISS WICKHAM: I don ' t think anything the board does can
impinge upon a deeded right-of-way that you have and
certainly your access or your . LILCO right or your telephone
right could not be affected because you have those rights
and there 's no intention nor would there be any opportunity
for them to do that .
MR. HEES : Right . The applicant also has a right of access
across the southern boundary of my.- property . And that ' s
what led me to wonder about the road improvement-because I
happen to be the last one on the totem pole , sort of speak ,
and I do not want to have to pay to improve the road for
this application . And I realize that once the hearing is
over with , that ' s it .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you to be aware of that
because you did mention that your attorney has not had a
chance to read your file .
MR . HEES: Yes . May I ask a question? Is it just the public
notice that is in force . I believe the attorney present had
notified me on another application that you were handling for
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3184 - LENZ, continued : )
MR . HEES (continued ) :
my neighbor. on the other side , anybody that ' s either bounded
or has some right on the property- should be legally notified .
Is that correct?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We usually deal with surrounding
property owners . .. Contiguous surrounding property owners .
MR. - HEES: How about joint property owners , for example the
private road?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : It depends upon really what the name
is in ; and I ' ll be honest with you, I had thought that a
good portion of this right-of-way belonged to the applicants-
I ' m sorry-to the owner , 'rather than any other other people
up there . This is one of the reasons or the problems that
we had had with the Planning Board in dealing with who was
going to have jurisdiction . . And in this particular case ,
the Planning Board first , based upon the Disapproval of
Mr . Hindermann I believe , stated that the Planning Board
had jurisdiction because. it was within the ;_subdivision , and
Mr . Lessard had stated however that that was no correct ,
but now we ' ve had jurisdiction . So , in dealing with the
issue , I had thought that the property had belonged the
Rothmayers . And you just had rights-of-way over them.
MR . HEES: We have two situations . We have a private road
which is a north-south road approximately one mile ; long ,
which each of the property owners owns a_ certain _ percentage .
I own 3/10ths . I believe the Rothmayers own 3/10ths as well .
The second road is an east-west road across the base of all
of the . property owners , a 25 ' right-of-way across , for
example , the Rothmayers property , my property , Mr. Maitre-
jeans ' property , Cannons ' property . _ So we ' re talking about
a right-of-way, . east-west right-of-way across various lands
in question , and we ' re talking about a private road which
is a north-south , „ .
CHAIRMAN : So that the east-west road belongs to--
MR. HEES: The east-west road is a right-of-way across each
property ' s land--each owner ' s property. ' ,, That ' s what one of
my issues here is , that I do not want. any ruling by the
board to negate my access across the 25 ' . road across the
southern part of the applicants .
CHAIRMAN : We wouldn ' t do that . Now, as the ownership of
that right-of-way . Who owns that right-of-way? The individual
property owners . .
MR. HEES : That ' s correct.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3184 - LENZ , continued : )
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok . And the other right-of-way, the one in
question--
MR . HEES: It ' s not a right-of-way ; it ' s really what they call a
private road on the tax maps . _
CHAIRMAN : Yes . A tenth , or 2/10ths , 3/10ths belongs to each owner.
Good . Thank you . Would you like to address that letter , Miss Wickham?
MISS WICKHAM: Yes . Just briefly regarding Mr . Maitrejean ' s comments .
Certainly , if�_.w601,dnit be the Lenz benefit- to do anything , it would
cut down our- own bluff and I don ' t think that would- be permitted. .
We do have D . E. C . permission to divide and certainly upon building
any conditions that they dmpose would be adhered to . Also , he men-
tioned the downzoning--it ' s not a downzoning : There is_ a variance
but I don ' t think it' s considered a downzoning.
CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Is there anybody else that would like to be
heard in behalf of this application? Yes , Mrs . Koroleski ?
MRS . KOROLESKI : Sir , in 1930 , in the early 1930s , that right-of-way
belonged to the farm and was sold to the people up north . Mr . , of
Dundees Corporation had to give them the right-of-way , and that ' s a
25 ' right-of-way from Sound- Avenue all the way up north , all the way
up . That ' s _ a 25 ' right-of-way the Dundee Corporation had to give ,
and now we do pay taxes on that right-of-way because it comes from
our farm.
CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Yes , Mr. Maitrejean .
MR. MAITREJEAN : I think we had to straighten something out . There
are five of us paying taxes on that road , and Mrs . Koroleski is not
one of the people - paying taxes on that road . As a matter of fact ,
there are many problems on it , caused by Mrs . Koroleski , and the
board should settle this matter any time the board can check this out .
CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Hearing no further comments , I ' ll ask the board
members if they have any questions . (None ) I ' ll make. a motion
closing the`!hearing and reserving decision until . later , pending
receipt of a�_report from Jack Davis concerning road recommendations .
Thank . you .. everyone for coming in .
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision pending receipt
of road report from Jack Davis concerning recommended improvements .
in the Matter of Appeal No . 3184 - Peter and Patricia Lenz .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis ,
Doyen , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolytion was ado-pted by
unanimous vote of all the members . _
l
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3219.
Application of CROSS SOUND'- FERRY SERVICES, INC. , Box 33 ,. New London ,
CT 06730 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII , Section
100-70 (A) and Section 100-71 for permission to : [a] construct principal
building with an insufficient frontyard setback from the easterly property
line and [b] establish a ferry-terminal use in this B-1 Business District .
Location of Property : 42175 Main Road , Orient , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel
Nos . 1000-015-09=11 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9: 27 p .m. and read the appeal
application and legal notice of hearing .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
and a copy of the proposed plan dated January 21 , 1984, received
February 16 , 1984 showing the approximate placement of approximately
40 ' from the east side , 30 ' from the west side of the property , adjoin-
ing property -- I ' m sorry , this is upside down-- so my coordinates
should be 40 ' from the west side and 30 ' from the east side ; a. building
of an approximate configuration with irregularities of 45-50 . Mr.
Young , would you like to be heard?
HOWARD YOUNG : I ' m Howard Young. Young & Young , Riverhead , New
York. I 'm the surveyor for the applicant . I ' ll just say a few things
on their behalf, and Mr. McMahon would like to say a few. Cross Sound
Ferry Services , Inc . has asked me to appear here tonight to answer
any questions that the board may have or the public . I certainly don ' t
want to intend to be very knowledgeable of your zoning ordinance , but
I believe that the use has been established for a good many years here
as a ferry terminal , , and a ferry terminal is a very unique land use .
And the Cross Sound Ferry Services is very interested in upgrading
their service to the public and wish to build .a new terminal . The
terminal building will be mainly a waiting area , lounge , ticket office ,
toilet facilities . In order that , .to build this building here with the
new flood zone requirements , we had to elevate the building at a
considerable height , and will require a good , large amount of fill
to be brought into the site to obtain a finished floor elevation of
I believe 11 feet. Because of this and the unique use of the property
and trying to stage cars in an orderly fashion to loak onto the ferry,
we have had to squeeze the building to the eastern side of the
property , which is adjacent to a 5-foot strip of land , now or formerly
owned by Mary Hicks . This parcel of land separates Cross Sound Ferry
terminal ' s property from the Main Road or the State property on the
east premises . We have maintained a sideyard there to the building of
27 feet , which is well within the sideyard requirements of the- ordi -
nance since we have also a street-- a setback on a side street is
required to be underi.iyour ordinance of 35 feet , and we ' re asking for
a variance there to 32 feet , or a three-foot variance . Because of
the fill and the slope that ' s required on the other side and the
situation of the drive-in window happen to be the road they' re elevated
so that people can use a drive-in like you do at a bank . Every foot
of distance that we could get away from the westerly property line ''
'Southold Town. Board of Appeals -35- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(.Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES , INC . , continued.: )
MR. YOUNG continued :
helped on a slope for proper access for vehicles . I think that ' s all
that I would like to say at the present time . I would be glad to
answer any questions of the board or anyone else .
MR. CHAIRMAN : There is other property the ferry district owns--
not the ferry district but Cross Sound Ferry?
MR . YOUNG : Cross Sound Ferry Services owns the property on the
east side of the Main Road .
MR . CHAIRMAN : That ' s where the existing hold station is or
ticket office is or whatever , right now?
MR. YOUNG : Right . The former ticket office was at the head
of the Main Road and now they have moved it over temporarily, into
the snack bar to try and provide better service temporarily until
they get this ferry terminal .
MR . CHAIRMAN.:_cAridthen it will be .di s (--- ) .
MR . YOUNG : Yes , then the ticket office would be removed to
this site if this plan is approved. The other thing , . I don ' t
know whether the board ' s familiar -- at:.the Planning Board ' s meet-
ing last week , I guess, the week before , they had approved the
site plan .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . .
MR. YOUNG : Thank you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr . McMahon?
JAMES McMAHON : Good evening . Just. to give you a little informa-
tion how this proposed project got started . I , as the Director of
Community Development for the Town of Southold , was contacted by
Rich .McMurray in Cross Sound Ferry asking whether or not there were
any monies available for them to improve their existing site . They
were looking to enhance the facility and prevent some of the problems
that the traffic during the summer months was causing out on Route 25.
The cars , because there was not an adequate staging area , cars were
backing out onto Route 25 and causing a problem. What this proposal
intends to do is to eliminate Number One , that problem of the staging
area , getting the cars off Route 25 and putting some rhyme and reason..
into t.he .parking . Previous to Mr. Young ' s site plan , cars would come
in off Route 25 and there was no rhyme or reason . They could go into
the overnight parking area . They could just go and drive around .
There were no signs directing them to the ticket booth--the old
ticket booth was totally inadequate and didn ' t have -- in using the
ferry quite a number of times myself, than any more than a half
dozen of people , there was just no room for you to get in out of
the weather, if you were waiting for somebody to pick you up-- a
lot of times it was just not the adequate terminal facility that is
needed with the volume of traffic that Cross Sound Ferry is.-handling .
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 -= '.C.ROS:S '.S.O.U.N.D 'FER`RY 'S.E'.RVICES ;. '.TN'C,. , continued.: )
MR . McMAHON continued :
The bathrooms were totally inadequate . The ticket area , as I
said , was totally inadequ.atee -_ The... reservation 'system was inadequate .
In a Cross Sound- Ferry study that was done , the State of New York
looked at a number of different sites and found that the Orient Point
site. was the most advantageous . When I was contacted by Cross Sound
Ferry as the. Town of Southold is a member of the Suffolk County
Community Development Consortium, we arranged for' $100 ,000-loan
that , with a low-interest rate , with the premise that the Cross
Sound Ferry would come up with , and as. part of their contract create
10 permanent fullt.ime jobs at the site .
The staging area would be corrected. They would build a new
reception center with adequate toilet facilities . .They would improve
the overnight or day parking facilities ; and they would put in moor-
ings or dolphins that would enable boats to dock in inclement weather .
As part of our negotiations , we ' ve met with the Cross Sound
Ferry and they have agreed to have a boat originate from. Orient Point
with a local crew. As it stands now , the boats all originate from
New London and we thought it would be a nice idea and if they could
guarantee that a boat would originate from Orient , we could have a
guarantee of jobs . They also promised us in writing that they are
going to put in a computerized reservation terminal at the Orient
Point facility. As this is one of the first , or the first part of
Long Island that people visiting our area see , we have a meeting with
Cross Sound Ferry and Mr . Young to try to devise a plan . that is
going to be aethestically pleasing . We ' re looking to enhance not
only the facility but also the benefits to local commerce , getting
a market--markets in the northeast where our fishermen , or people
who are engaged in nurseries , farming , can find additional markets
in the northeast , and we think since Southold depends heavily upon
recreation and tourism that things can be worked out with the local
chambers of commerce to bring..people into the shopping area.s of
Greenport , Southold and Mattituck .
One of the problems that in meeting and talking with the
Department of Transportation , because the Department of Transporta-
tion in looking at this project made this project part of the
transportation - bond issue that was passed in November , they are
contributing $400 ,000 to the project . The Suffolk County Community
Development Consortium through the Town of Southold is putting in
$100 ,000 of low-interest money into the project. One of the
problems that we talked with the D .O .T . about is the traffic on
Route 25 and on Route 48 . They have assured us that they are
going to work with us in seeing that the problems that are there
possibly can be. limited , and you ' re not going to in any way reduce
the volume of traffic . They ' ve got roughly 300 ,000 cars using that
ferry . The idea with this terminal is not to expand the ferry' s
use or its ridership , but more or .less to provide an adequate
ticket area , an adequate reservation system , an adequate bathroom
facility , and upgrade the whole area .
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- April 5 ; 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC . , contin.ued : )
MR . McMAHON continued :
We ' ve spent. a lot of time , Howard Young and I , in meeting with
the Cross Sound Ferry , and I know they are concerned about the
volumes of traffic. They have made a proposal -- I ' m sure everybody
lives out here has seen at least in the newspaper the Cape Hanolopin--
the new boat that Cross Sound Ferry purchased , that is capable of
.carrying 85 cars . and 8.00 passengers .
One of the things that they are working on- is to take very
shortly , maybe even by the end. of this year , . the Cape Hanolopin
out of service . It. may be , -as I understand , leased to the State
of New York , and put one or two ferries the size of the New London
that carries 45 cars so you won ' t have the impact on the local
traffic that the Cape Hanolopin has .
If .you have any questions , I ' m sure Mr. Young , or I , am familiar
with this project to quite an extent--if you .have any questions ,
I ' d b.e glad to try to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Not at the moment. Thank you . Would somebody
like to also speak in favor of the application? (No one ) . Would
somebody like to speak against the application? Sir? Would you
kindly use the mike and state your name.
NATHAN HICKS : Nathan Hicks, Skippers Lane , Orient . I
represent my Wife, who is the owner of the property directly east
of the property in '.question . I ' m here really on two behalf.s , Mr.
Chairman, one : the proposed development is as shown is a totally-
usurps any beneficial use my wife "could ever have in the future
of that property. That should not -be permitted. That ' s a very
simple set of technical. arguments I ' ll be very brief with them.
I came down under very difficult road conditions from Boston
today through the courtesy of the canceled ferry , which I had a
reservation on . More to implore on the board that through the
zoning process that' s available., this is a private for-profit
monopoly. I have a 35-year history riding with that , and I am
a very substantial user of it now. Very nearly twice a week ,
year in , every month of the year. Certainly in the range of
70 or 80 trips a year . The people-- we send peopl.e away from
the Town of Southold with 'a distaste for our. community because
of the lack of service that' s provided down there , and this is
an organization of a long history of maintaining that lack of
service . So quickly let me say , in regards to my wife ',s property ,
you have a .plan before you that raises a level bear in mind that
if you went down there , the way people used to go down in the old
days , for a ride on a Sunday afternoon , it was. nice to go to the
end of the road ,. to buy an ice cream cone . They can ' t do it now..
The beneficial use of Route 25 has been taken .away from the
general public because it ' s :nothing but , it ' s 'a swap over from
an operation that can ' t operate on its own property. The new
scheme would be even worse. It ' s ' not an improvement . It ' s an
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES , INC. , continued : )
MR . HICKS continued :
aggravation of an existing scheme . And I ' 1.1 be specific as to why
I believe it is .
Their proposed -- the elevation of the road in front of the
Jiffy Bite is eight feet. They ' re proposing to go 25 feet from
my wife ' s property line at an elevation of 11 feet. But her
property is at an elevation of five feet. They ' re showing a
12-foot driveway in which they propose all of this traffic from
the ferry to exit . through a 12-foot driveway . That ' s my _own
home driveway glorified. They have to be raising the . level of
the pavement at our property line either in the range of three ,
three and one-half, or they' re going to slope down and make us
a catch basin .for their whole problem. I don ' t think that a
three-foot vertical wall is in keeping with normal construction
standards . You have loaded tractor-trailers coming over there .
I see no provision for a curb to control water . runoff even if
it were permitted. I see no problem for a. safety fence . If it
is stepped back . to normal two feet for one foot in elevation ,
they ' ve suddenly taken away seven feet of that 12-foot driveway
and left with five feet. . Every tractor-trailer , almost every
tractor-trailer--and I don ' t belittle the trucking industry--
the cars are equally guilty of this., but the problem is that
the trailers are bigger and you ' re more aware of it. Almost
every one you ' ve go,t sitting at the ferry at this .end stops
to either call their office , or book another reservation .
That ' s all you do . Put them in this 12-foot driveway , and the
whole situation is stuck. The .ent.ire operation then bails out
onto 25 again . There isn ' t a hardship involved. The ferry
isn ' t going to go out of there . The intent of the zoning ordi -
nance is to do away with nonconforming uses .. The entire area
down there should be zoned commercial under , in--where the
ferry terminal is permitted , in directing these people to come
.in with a proper master plan that addresses traffic control not
only in 1984 , in . 1994, in. 2004 . I go back 35 years . That
time .goes by like nothing . We ' re involved what is the
saturation point of -Route 25 . How much can we push on this
community of Orient , the people . Over the years this . '
unregulated agency .has developed -a tremendous under-current
or dissatisfaction within the community. This, should be an
opportunity to provide for a public hearing so that. proper
authority can hear. What .is that dissatisfaction? Where does
it input properly into master plan zoning for the area and
provide either you people or some other regulatory authority
of the Town. of Southold who as a condition to granting the
approval of such a plan , to place regulations on it . These
ideas ; they ' re great. I 'm happy that somebody is trying to
stir up : things like Mr . McMahon . But they ' re figme-nts of an
imagination . They ' re not contracts in writing . They haven.' t
materialized in the past' and `I don ' t believe they' re going to
materialize in the future .
I think the Town of South--yo.ur constituents are dissatis-
fied with' the operation . I think you have an opportunity to
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No.. ' 321'9 'GROSS 'S_O.UN.D. '_TNC. continued.: )
MR. HICKS continued :
regulate it through the zoning process , and I hope that you. don ' t
bypass that opportunity.
MR. CHAIRMAN : .. Thank you very much , Mr. Hicks . Is there
anybody else that would like to speak against. the application?
(No response. ) Anything- in rebuttal , gentlemen?
JAMES McMAHON : I , just -- in reading the Long Island ferry
study , would have to agree to a lot of what Mr. Hicks , as far as
the Cross Sound Ferry ' s reputation in the past had been is true .
What we are attempting to do here is correct the reservation system
that was totally inadequate . You call up and they just weren ' t
able to guarantee you the ability to get on the boat. One of the
things unfortunately with the way that the ferry system is set up
now without the proper dolphins and bulkheads , they are not able
to provide the kinds of services they would like to provide and
having this boat run back and forth without being affected as they
are now by the weather when they have weather such as we had over
the last couple of days . They need additional dolphins to enable
this boat to .dock properly. If the State of New York is willing
and has seen the need for the service , all these proposals that
are presented to. the State of New York under the transportation
bond issue were: on a competitive basis . The State of New York
granted $400 ,000 to Cross Sound ferry with no strings attached
other than Cross Sound Ferry provide decent ferry service , and
that ' s what the $400 ,000 Department of Transportation granted--
Cross Sound Ferry is attempting to do . With the $100 ,000 that
came through the Community Development Office , in writing and
signed by the Town of Southold. and the Cross Sound Ferry , they
have to guarantee ten permanent jobs . They have to guarantee
that a boat_. is .going to leave Orient Point , and I think , .you
know , I don ' t . like to see the increase of traffic on Route 48
or Route. 25 , but I also don ' t like to see farms . go out of busi -
ness .simply because -- or if we ' re trying to keep agriculture
on the North .Fork , we have to have a place for our farmers to
send their produce . We have to have a place for our nurserymen
to send their produce . And. .if we can expand the markets into
the northeast and maybe give these guys another breath of air,
then I think that the inconvenience of the traffic on Route 25 ,
or Route 48 , is something that is not going' to get any better.
It ' s probably going to get worse. But I would like, to see as
a benefit to the community here , because we do benefit so much
by tourism, is that the people are going to use. the ferry terminal
no matter what. What I ' m suggesting is that we have a decent
reservation system , .a place w.her.e people can get in out of the
weather, where they can secure their tickets if they get off the
boat . or they ' re waiting for the boat; there is_ adequate restrooms
there . I think those are the types of things that without this
change that we ' re talking about tonight , we ' ll just have the same
kind .of conditions that is existing there n.ow. What you have
'Southold Town Board. of Appeals -40- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal N o . 3 2 T 9 C.R O S.S' '.S.O.0 N.D. F.E:RR Y 'S E.R,V .'C'E S;. _INC. , 'c o.n.t.to u e d.a )
MR. McMAHON continued :
there now is a smaller room no .bigger than the jury box that i-s
supposed to provide. over the.--course of the summer _a restroom
facility for' 300 ,000 .peopl.e . , . .That ' s...not adequate . ' The dirt , ` the
dust.., the .. lack of rhyme .or .r.eason for cars coming off of Route 25 ,
they get there and there ' s. no direction as to where to go . . It' s
a mess , and I ' ll be the first one to admit , it is a mess . And
what we ' re attempting to do here is to correct that mess_. If
the application is denied , well then we sit with a mess-- I don ' t
know. We sit with a mess . We_' re. back to Square One .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Mr. McMahon . Mr . Hicks?
MR. HICKS: Can I just comment briefly. I didn ' t-- I neg-
lected to point out that one of my problems with the site plan
is the one safety factor you have down there now in alleviating
any traffic situation is i.f that was open and a tractor-trailer
blocks the lane directly coming out from the ferry , the next one
blocks Route 25 and you still have room to squeeze around, the
staging area that ' s .presented here is no larger. They have the
room right now. They don ' t have to create an impervious surface
down there to put on . The little building that ' s going up there
isn ' t that much better than what they' ve got now, although I
don ' t think they should be using that building . They 've taken
away a restaurant facility from the general public down there and
it ' s not, a permitted use in that zone . As : it ( inaudible _ )
half the use of what they,' re applying for right now. They ' re
only grandfathered under. half of, this site . They took over this
other .half of the site from. a . private home and they converted it
to ferry use , and they don ' t come to you asking for the proper
permission . . . They ' re an unregulated monopoly is what they are .
To . put that building in there locks you into a problem. If The reservation service is in now. The staging area is in now.
They need a better terminal . But this isn ' t it . It needs to
be bigger than this . It needs to be better planned. That ' s
what we: need. This i.s going to create a -- aggrava.te the hazard.
You take away one of the. safety valves for traffic to get out of
there .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Yes , Howard.
MR. YOUNG : I would be glad to answer .any -- the technical.
merits of this plan that the board may have . Certainly some of
the things that Mr. Hicks has pointed out are incorrect. We ' ve
taken quite some care not to dis.turb his property complaining of
this and slopes from his property up . . And when he mentions that
we .would. distroy the use of his property , I don ' t know what that
use is , being that it ' s five-feet wide. I also believe that the
Cross Sound Ferry has attempted to purchase the property from
the owners , and the present =- the part of the trucks-unloading
truck drivers are some of the best drivers in the world; usually
they ' re not the ones that cause traffic jams . The intent , as long
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -41 - April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND 'FERRY SERUICES ; 'I`NC. , continued : )
MR. YOUNG continued :
as they can off load in the same manner that they have been , and I
don ',t see that that has changed any--we have provided an additional
12-foot with a cross through the property adjacent to Mr. -as well
as the existing way that they come off the ferry onto 25.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Has anything been taken into consideration con-
cerning the. elevation factors that Mr. Hicks has mentioned and the
drainage problem that might exist on his property?.
MR. YOUNG : Yes . They ' re shown on the plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN : . And what will be the difference in elevation
between the two?
MR. YOUNG: The property is , and he says ,. the property. here is ,
between elevation five and six , and our proposed contour here of 6 ,
or 7 wraps . around here . The majority of the slope to get up to the
building here is on this grass part here where we have a one on two
slope . We also proposed drainage bins on the' (:change tape :to side:, B)..end ,
which is going to be excavated d'o.wn. to: cl e.an s.and _and ba.ck.f..i l 1 ed' with
;gravel there so that any, runoff .fr.om our_ pavi ng Would ente.r _a._ gravel
landscaped area there and recharge into the ground. We ' ve provided
those places here .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Has anything been done concerning the no-parking
areas for ,the discharge of: trucks and cars and such as . Mr. Hicks
has. mentioned so that this problem doesn 't exist that he eluded to?
MR. YOUNG : So that--
MR. CHAIRMAN : So that we have no problems with cars stopping
short as they have °done before?
MR. YOUNG : Certainly that could be a problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN : I know they do that. I ' m just asking.
MR. YOUNG : We certainly have provided parking spaces on the
12-foot exit there that is on the property of Cross Sound Ferry
here so that people want to stop for some reason could go into the
terminal and pick somebody up . The people now stop at anyplace
but doesn ' t pick up people . There is no We have a state road
which they park on and we don ' t anticipate interrupting traffic
there any more than we have . I believe he also mentioned about
taking the restaurant away. It is the intent of the owner to
move the ticket office back to the new terminal and to continue
that as a snack bar. But that is a (.inaudible ).piece of property
right now. The only use as far as a variance goes on that property
is the overnight parking .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Are there any other comments?
`Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY_ SERUICES, INC. , continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
Mr . Hicks , we will take another look at this site prior to any deter-
mination from this board. We will go out , reinspect it again as
we have done in the past , and we will try and protect your interests
to the best of our ability . That is all I can tell you at this
particular time and we thank you very much for driving down all the
way from Boston . `Oh , I ' m sorry -- Mr. Douglass has a question .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : I would like to ask Mr. McMahon one thing .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Sure .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : You mentioned ' in :your arguments that Cross
Sound has .promised this__ town so many permanent jobs . Are you of
the knowledge that there are none on board_-those present boats at
the present time and that they are importing from Connecticut all
machinery and equipment that is doing the job that Mr . Young has
surveyed?
MR. McMAHON : Yes , I' ve spoken to Cross Sound Ferry about that.
One of the reasons for having a boat docked . at Orient was that it
would provide for a local crew , that you would have a crew from the
Southold Town or North Fork that instead of having the boat take
off from New London , it would almost require you to live in New
London because the boat is going to be back in New London each
night . Having a ferry leave from Orient Point makes it advantageous
for Cross Sound Ferry, and they have indicated that they would be
willing to have a crew that is made up of men from or women from
the North Fork .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Do you know how available those people are
here?
MR. McMAHON : I have talked and sent two gentlemen that have
recently graduated from the naval , Fort Schyler there--
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Maritime Academy .
MR. McMAHON : The Maritime Academy , and they are Southold Town
residents and they ' re going to make a good effort to hire those.
MEMBER DOUGLASS.: They ' re working for me , because they weren ' t
taken on .
MR. McMAHON : That ' s correct. But if we put on , and they are
in- the--Cross Sound -Ferry is ,. in the process now of moving up from
Louisiana , I believe , an .off-shore workboat that is going to be
used as a ferry; and they are in . the process of building a new boat
.very similar to the New London to replace the Cape Hanolopin and we
have with the Department o.f Transportation money because that is
coming from the Town of Southold as is the $100 ,000 from the County
`Southold Town Board of .Appeals -43- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3219 .- CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. , continued: )
MR. McMAHON continued :
is coming through the Town of Southold . We have as many hooks into
Cross Sou.n.d Ferry as we can to insure that all the permits that are
required or obtained that the jobs that are promised are real jobs .
We have their assurance instead of locating .the reservation system
in New London that it will be here in Orient and that we will have
computer operators on hand and they. will : be local people that will
run the reservation system. I was myself as you mentioned when they
came and filled part of that parking lot with trucks from New London ,
I mentioned to Rich McMurray that it is not a good practice if you ' re
looking to establish a ' business here that you should hire local con-
tractors , and that has always been 'my conting.ent of local contractors--
should be hired with any kind of a gown or community development.
project.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Is it a legal practice?
MR. McMAHON : A legal practice? In this particular case under
the Department of. Transportation , they don ' t have to go out to. bid.
The contractor can select whoever he wants .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : I don ' t mean that. I know it doesn ' t have
to go out to bid . I don 't mean that at all . I mean as a legal
process to hire illegal operators to work over here .
MR. McMAHON : I wasn ' t aware that that would have-- .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Just wait one second , please . Are you done , Bob?
Just briefly, Mr.. Hicks .
MR. HICKS: Mr. Young ' s comments regarding any contact between
the ferry and my wife are wrong . I think it ' s wrong for him to stand
up here and say something like that as a statement before the board
that I have to rebut it . They not only have never contacted us with
that in mind , they have never discussed with us this particular plan
with any attempt to ameliorate any problems that exist between their
development .and our site . A prudent developer would do that , wouldn ' t
they? Back in the Fall , he suggested there was going to be a develop-
ment scheme and that they would furnish us with a map . When I went
to New London to pick up the map it was not available . She said it
would be sent over the next week . They carefully -ignored the thing
ever since . When I seen the plan , when I came up and got mine:,
through the courtesy of Linda '(ZBA secretary) and the xerox machine
in the Assessors Office which I paid for, that. was my first look at
it , and. w.hen I had, seen the plan , I know why they wouldn ' t approach
me with it. It ' s a disgraceful plan and they could recognize my
reaction . The cognizance of Mr. Young purported in expertise of
a situation down there at the Point indicate that he is not an
expert on it . He ' s . very unfamiliar with the day and day situation
down there with the problems that exist , and it should be considered
by this board in that light.
'Southold Town Bo.ard of Appeals -44- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES , INC, , continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you , sir . Yes , Mr . Young.
MR. YOUNG: I apologize if I was in error about them contacting
you , but I was with the boss or the owner of Cross Sound Ferry when
he asked one of his Vice-Presidents there if he would contact Mrs .
Hicks . If they didn ' t do._ so , 'I apologize .
MR . HICKS : I ' m also amazed at how a sideyard setback shows on
a confident survey or .plan through to the far dimension of my
property.
MR. YOUNG : That ' s. sh.o.w4ng the road setback , sir. 'And the
setback o.n the plan is to your_proper'ty. It shows 27 feet from
your property line .
MR. HICKS: All I see is a 30-foot dimension .
MR. YOUNG : Would you like to look at it?
MR . CHAIRMAN : Howard, would you point it out to him please?
MR. HICKS: That ' s two dimensions .
MR. YOUNG : You can ' t add? It says 27 feet here , 13 plus 12 , right?
MR. HICKS : There ' s the dimension of 30 feet.
MR. YOUNG : Right. That ' s. what we asking an appeal on because
the ordinance says it has ' to be' 30 feet back from the . street line .
MR . HICKS : I think you have an . obligation to spell out like that
far more clearly . It' s almost an obvious attempt to try and produce
something that ' s really not accurate . This plan doesn ' t show any
grades there . Where is your elevation at that 12-foot point? What ' s
your finished elevation of .the .pavement? It isn ' t there !
MR. YOUNG : I don ' t want to get into an argument here . It is
there ; sir .
MR. LESSARD: We don ' t. want this to get into a verbal debate--
MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes , I understand that .
MR. YOUNG : If you would like to take the plan to an engi:neering
firm and .have them review it , I don' t know what Mr. Hicks is--
MR. HICKS : If he ' s down to our grade there , he ' s got a driveway
that goes like this .
MR. YOUNG : It ' s not that way.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Let me have that--we'.re going to go back out on
'Southold Town :Board of Appeals -45- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3219 - CROSS SOUND 'FERRY 'SERVICES, 'IN-C . , continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued :
Saturday morning and reinvestigate this and I don ' t know if we ' ll be
in need of your expertise , Mr. Young .
MR. YOUNG : I' would also like to mention one more thing that I
believe the Hicks have been very aware of this thing. Mrs . Hicks
called me and asked me to survey her property there .and that she
would like to put up a fence on the property . And I told her that
I was working for the Cross Sound Ferry and I didn ' t think it would
be right if I got into any kind of legal problem with the ferry
company , and Mrs . Hicks , she was very nice , and I thought I was
being very cooperative with her.
MRS . HICKS : I was really -- I didn ' t say a fence , I said I
wanted to put up a sign just in case when I first heard about this
plan . But that ' s very true I did call him up and he was very nice
(remainder of statement no audible . due to shuffling of papers.) .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I am going to ask the board after this hearing
if they will go out again and investigate this plan on Monday,
excuse me , Saturday morning at ev.erybody '.s convenience , and we
will be out there ; we will be viewing the-cars again . Of course
it ' s not the busiest season of the year. If we ' re in need of
your expertise , Mr. Young , we ' ll call you also . And as I said to
you before , Mr . Hicks , we will do the best we possibly can . Thank
you all for coming in .
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision pending
reinspection in the, matter of Appeal No . 3219, for 'CROSS SOUND
FERRY SERVICES , INC .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent
due to weather conditions . ) This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
10 : 13 p .m. Public Hearing in the Matter of 'MARY GRIGONIS ,
Appeal , No, *- 3211 , fpr a. Variance._. to Article III , Section- 100-31 for
approyal .of insufficient area of -two proposed parcels located. at
the west side of- Wells Avenue, Southold , 'NY ; County Tax Map
Parcel No . 1000-61 -03708 .
The. Chairman opened the hearing at 10 : 13 p .m. , read the legal
Southold Town Board of Appeals . -46- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(.Appeal No . 3211 - MARY GRIGONIS , conti.nued : )
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the Suffolki"County Tax
Map showing this and the surrounding properties , and a copy of a
survey dated December 27 , 1983 indicating the house lot of 50 , 327
sq . ft. with 242 . 56 foot frontage , and the parcel to be set.-off
from the house lot , with an existing agricultural barn , of approxi -
mately 56120:,sq . ft. in area .
(No one appeared in behalf or against the application )
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing pending deliberations and a
decision in the Matter of Appeal No. 3211 , for MARY GRIGONIS.
(Member Gragoni s was not present fr.,om :the:!openi ng of the
hearing until after the hearing was closed. )_ _
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Douglass
and Sawicki . (Member Grigonis was absent . ) This resolution was
adopted by unanimous vote of the four members present .
1017 p .m. Public Hearing - Appeal No . 3210 . Matter of JAMES F .
DRUCK',_ III , _ which_ was recessed earlier this evening to allow.- more
time §Jnce rthe applicant indicated he may be late . _ ,.The {f .rst : hearing
on,,thi-s_ 1application initiated March 2 , 1984 . Mr . - Fred Druck was
present and- spoke in behalf of the application .
FRED -DRUCK: At the last meeting you asked me to sUop1y.,,a; :?
Cbxtiificate of Occupancy on both dwellings which I believe,-you
have a copy of. If_ not, I have it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : We didn ' t get the C. O . We got the
affidavit, which indicated that from the pri-or °owner this property
had been used , and so on and so forth .
MR. DRUCK: I was under the impression that--
SECRETARY : When did you get it , today?
MR. DRUCK: Yes .
SECRETARY : We did not get a copy as yet .
.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Is this for the
MR. DRUCK: Both dwellings .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Certified that the building accessory . . .
is this for the new building.- that you built , the storage building
in the back?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3210 - JAMES F . DRUCK III , continued : )
FRED DRUCK: The accessory building they ' re talking about there is
the storage building in the back . The two dwellings and one accessory
building .
CHAIRMAN : Ok . . This is for the little building built in the back .
Do you have another one there?
MR . DRUCK: They only gave me one copy of that . Oh , here ' s everything .
CHAIRMAN : There we go . "Two private one-family dwellings and one
accessory building . " _ That ' s what we wanted .. All right . Is there
anything_ else . you would like to add to this?
MR . DRUCK: Well , I talked with my architect again , and what we would
like to do , the- total width of the property at that point is 55 feet ,
and the addition we ' re proposing is.. 32. feet wide , which would give us
combined setbacks of 23 feet , which means we are still two feet shy
to be legal . So we.. would still actually need a variance on the two
feet, and on the west property line , be- believes he can stay off the
property line 3 feet 812 inches--
CHAIRMAN : The west property line?
MR. DRUCK : Yes . West property line . Our plan was to make this-was
slab- run a solar wall along there which faces southwest . He believes
if we sit back more than - the calculated footage , then we would be
losing a substantial amount of sun - until - about 1 : 00 o '..clock in the
afternoon .
CHAIRMAN : Ok . Can you tell us how high the building is going to be
at that point?
MR . DRUCK: How high .
CHAIRMAN : You don ' t have to give it to us today . You can call it in .
Just ask him how high it is going to be along that west property line .
What I want is the highest point and then a mean-- depends on how the
structure , the addition appears if it is going to have a gable roofline
from what I can see here . ._ Just to give us an. idea . As I told you ,
the reason why we want that affirmation is so that a ladder can . be
placed on the, base without standing on your neighboring property , and
so , what else did you have to add?
MR. DRUCK: Well that was basically it . The only other additional
information since the last meeting-- I had purchased the front house--
so I now own both pieces of .property , or will in another two weeks .
But that ' s something wei.i were attempting for a long time . The rear
house will be my main - dwelling , and the - front one probably as a
seasonal - rental .,
CHAIRMAN : Is there any reason for the configuration of the addition
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3210 - JAMES F . DRUCK III ., continued: )
CHAIRMAN (continued) :
that you have proposed. In other words , if you went 3 feet 82 inches ,
you would go with, the proposed addition. but wo.uld be cutting it back
by that.. amount?
MR . DRUCK: In my original plan I was 34 feet, I would be cutting it
back to 32 feet , so . I would not be going east to make up the additional .
I would be shrinking it down by two . _
CHAIRMAN : Ok . And you ' ll get that information in reference to the
height , and hopefully we' ll be able to act on it in about a week or
so . . We thank you for all - the input. We do need a copy of this .
The copy machine is not- on . _
SECRETARY : I could get a copy tomorrow. Just need the number .
CHAIRMAN : That ' s all right . We can get a copy. Thank . you , Mr.. Druck .
Would anybody else like to speak concerning this matter?, (None )
Hearing no further co.mments , .. I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing
and reserving decision until later .
MEMBER SAWICKI : Second .
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision in the Matter of
Appeal. No . 3210 , JAMES F. DRUCK III .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Douglass and
Sawicki . (Member Grigonisuawas absent . ) This resolution was unanimously
adopted.'-:,,
NEW APPLICATION : APPEAL NO . 3231 .- Recent application of DOUGLAS
MILLER. Application for 280-A approval at Laurel Lake , _Laurel__.
The board reviewed received correspondence dated. A.pril 2_, 1984
from George Guldi , Esq . ,. attorney for the applicant and Mr . Guldi
explained the rights-of-way in question briefly . The board felt
right-of-way was not properly shown . Mr. Guldi said he would provide
accurate map within the next three weeks of traveled right-.of-way .
Mr . Guldi indicated the right-of-way does not appear to overlap
Kirkup Lane and .the traveled part is ..west . of Ki.r_kup right-of-way
as deeded . Mr . Guldi indicated that contract calls for a closing
by April 15th , however they will ask for a 30-day extension from
the seller .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting
Pending Decisions : The board indicated they would inspect the
premises of Cross Sound Ferry Services , Inc . on Saturday , April 7 ,
1984 at 11 : 00 a .m. at Orient . and premises of Henry Smith on
Thursday , April 12th at 6 : 30 .
Pending Decision : Appeal No . 3218 = NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH .
Following deliberations , the board took the following action:
WHEREAS , a public hearing was held and concluded on March 2 , 1984
in the Matter of the Application. of the NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH ,
Appeal . No . 3218 ; and
WHEREAS , the board members have considered all testimony and
documentation entered into the record in this matter; and
WHEREAS , the board members are personally familiar with the
premises in question and the surrounding properties ; and
WHEREAS , the board made the following findings of fact :
1 . By .this application , appellant requests permission to
locate a mobile home for single-family residency for the paster
and his wife in :an area 60 feet from the west side of Westphalia
Avenue , 25 feet from the north side of property now of Rosenfeld ,
and 15 feet from the northerly yard area along McCaffery ' s property
line .
2 . The mobile home is proposed to be 8.50 sq . ft . of livable
floor area .
3 . The applicant has assured the board that if approval is
granted for the placement of this mobile home , the existing struc-
ture located just east of the "concrete basketball court" will be
removed entirely and the foundation filled.
4 . Many objections have been received objecting to this
particular location as proposed .
5. For the record it is noted that on January 24 , 1984 , under
Appeal No . 3197 for the North Fork Baptist Church , a' conditional
variancw as granted for permission to replace an existing dwelling
with a modular home and reinstate the one-family dwelling use ( lo-
cated just east of the "concrete basketball court . "
6 . It is the opinion of this board that a relocation of the
subject single-family dwelling to the requested .location is . not
the most feasible area , particularly in light of the available
Southold Town Board of' Appeals -50- April 5 , 1984 Regular. Meeting
(Appeal No . 3218 - NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH , decision , continued : )
'bui.-Idable 'area on the entire 3_5' acres. in question .
7 . In granting this appeal , one : of the, r.equirements is that
the mobile home be placed in the area within_ the "yellow-colored"
block on the survey amended April 14 , 1983 ,. dep.i.cted _by the
Chairman same date hereof (to be attached to board ' s decision
when filed with the Town Clerk) .
In considering this appeal , the board finds and determines
that : (1 ) the relief requested will not be detrimental to
adjoining properties ; (2 ) there will be no substantial change
in the character of this district ; _ _( 3 ) the relief requested
will not cause a substantial effect of any increased population
density ; (4 ) the . circumst_ances of this appeal are unique ;
(5) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible
for appellant to- pursue other than a variance ; (6 ) the
interests of justice will be served by granting the variance
applied as noted below.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, -_it was
RESOLVED , that the single-family mobile :(modular ) home
structure previously granted under Appeal No . 3197 , for the
NORTH FORK 'BAPTIST CHURCH , BE AND HEREBY IS PERMITTED TO BE -
RELOCATED ONLY AS 'STIPULATED BELOW:
1 . The mobile/modular home to be located only within the
yellow-colored area depicted by the Chairman on the survey
submitted with the application under Appeal No . 3218 ; and
2 . The subject dwelling shall be located."no closer than :.
30 feet from the rear property 1._ine along. Hannafin (or Whitmarsh ) ;
located no closer than_ 11.5 feet_ from the front property line along
.C. R . 48 ; located no closer_ than . 60 feet from the most° westerly
corner monument of land now of Rosenfeld; all as .:shown to be
within the yellow-colored .:area..referred to in No . 1 , supra ;
3 . The dwelling shall not exceed lZ stories in height;
4 . The existing foundation just east of the concrete basketball
court must be filled to grade after removal of the damaged building
(as agreed ) .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis ,
Doyen , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unani -
mous vote of all the members .
BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD ADOPTED APRIL 19 , 1984 , THIS RESOLU-
TION WAS RESCINDED AND APPEAL NO . 3218 WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT .
,Southold Town Board of Appeals -51 - April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No ., 3211 .
Application for MARY GRIGONIS , 550 Wells Avenue , Southold , NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 for
approval of insu.fficient area of two proposed parcels located at the
west side of Wells Avenue , Southold , NY; County Tax Map Parcel No .
1000-06.1 -03-08 .
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening ,
at which time the hearing was declared closed- pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal , applicant seeks approval . of a parcel of .land to
be set-off from the existing dwelling which would contain 56 ,120 sq .
ft. with 282 feet of .fronta.ge along Wells Avenue ® The existing
dwelling will be retained on the. 50',327_ sq . ft. lot -with 242. 56 feet
of frontage . Existing on the northerly parcel to be set-off is a very
large barn , approximately 1 . 5 feet from Wells Avenue and which is
structurally in good , sound condition .
In personally visiting the site and the neighborhood in question ,
the board finds. a_s follows : (a ) the premises to. the north and' the
premises on the east side of Wells Road opposite this property are
zoned B-1 Business and which require a minimum of 30 ,000 sq . ft. ;
(b ) the parcels wouth of this property and east of Wells Road contain
an area of less than 40 ,000 sq . ft . The courts have in the past held
that the denial of such an area variance is improper where there were
numerous lots .in the neighborhood which were as small or smaller than
the subject lot (Krueger v . Zoning Board of Appeals ,: 368 NYS2d 63
(1975 , AD) . _
In considering .this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that
the relief requested is not substantial ; (b ) that the circumstances
are unique ; (c ) that by allowing the variance , no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created ; (d ) that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population ; (e ) that there are numerous lot in the
neighborhood which are smaller than that proposed; (f) that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of the zoning code ; ' (g ) that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance , as indicated below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr. Goeh-
ringer , it was.
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3211 , application of 'MARY GRIGONIS
for approval of lots having 56 , 120 sq . _ft. and 50_,327 sq.. ft .
located at the west side of Wells Avenue , Southold , 'BE 'AND 'HEREBY
IS APPROVED 'SUBJECT 'TO 'THE. 'FOLL:OWING '.C.OND.ITI.ON :
Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3211 = MARY GRIGONIS, decision , continued : )
That the building existing on the northerly parcel noted "barn"
shown on the survey map dated December 27 ,. 1983_ shall not be con-
sidered a principal structure or dwelling ; and in the event that at
any time in the future this "barn" building is permitted to be used ,
renovated or occupied as a principal building , the same must be
moved so as to conform with all front, side and rear yard require-
ments of the code for principal buildings .
Location of Property: West Side of Wells Avenue , Southold , NY;
Co.unty Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-61 -3-8.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Douglass and
Sawicki . Members Grigonis and Doyen were absent . This resolution
was unanimously adopted with a qu.orum of three members .
J
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS :
The board reviewed each of the following matters : :.
Appeal No . 3229 - VINCENT GRIFFO ;
Appeal No . 3238 - JAMES ANDERSON ;
Appeal No . 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM AND OTHERS :
Appeal No . 3225 = JOSE V . RODRIGUEZ ;
Appeal No . 3239 - JOSEPH FISCHETTI ;
Appeal No . 3240 - JOHN AND PATRICIA DINIZIO:
Appeal No . 3237 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL :
Appeal No . 3238 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL :
Appeal No . 3235 - GERTRUDE M. ALI ;
Appeal No . 3118 - KATHRINE FARR ;
Appeal No . 31-17 - KATHRINE FARR :
Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARJORIE WALKER.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr . Goehringer , it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations
determining each project to have a "nonsignificant adverse effect"
on the environment in accordance with .Article 8 of the N .Y .S .
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental
Conservation Law , and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold ,
as follows :
Southold Town . Board of Appeals 53 April . 5,. 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environme-ntal Detl'A. tions , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3117
PROJECT NAME: KATHRINE FARR --
This notice is issued pursuant to Part;•-617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.:
project.
TYPE- OF ACTION: [11 Type II [ ]. Unlisted [. ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Speci-a.l Except-ion to -use premises for
marina and brokerage in this C-Light Industrial Zone.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold,., County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: West Side of Manhan_set Avenue , Greenport , NY ;
1000-34-5-21 .
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form -has been
submitted which indicates that no. sigriificant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- .
mented as planned;
(2) A new and extended bulkhead appears to have been built since
certain permits issued by the N'.Y. S . D . E . C . , t:he U . S . Army Corps of
Engineers , and. the Town Board ; have been authorized .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued: )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3118
PROJECT NAME: KATHRINE FARR
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE- OF ACTION: [ X] Type II ( ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for in'sufficient yard setbacks
for a proposed marina office structure in this C-Light Industrial Zone .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of .Southold- 'County of . Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1100 Manhanset Avenue , Gre_enport , NY;
1000-34-5-21 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no. significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) A new and extended bulkhead appears to have been built since
certain permits issued by the N . Y . S . D. E . C . , the U . S . Army Corps . of
Engineers , and the Town Board , have been authorized ..
Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3239
PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH FISCHETTI
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To erect ground sign with less than
four-foot clearance from the ground..
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 52800 C . R . 48 , ..Southold , NY ; 1000-51 -5-002 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple=
mented as planned;
(2) The proposed sign is landward of existing structures .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Dedl'arations, continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3232
PROJECT NAME: ' 'BE.RTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Interpretation: (a ) for existing cottage
and garage to be valid, preexisting uses and structures ; (b) for approval
of Wogden deck as an ac essory structure in sideyard; (c) reduction of livable floor area
of bU}88 Wq f8 r� J Z,.nsu ,owneo SS�ouYtalioid, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Edgemere Park,.. MacDonal_d ' s Path. off Peconic
Bay Boulevard , Laurel , NY; 1000-145-4-14 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The premises is bulkheaded seaward of existing structures the
total length of the property ;
(3 ) The .relief requested is not directly related to new construc-
tion ( interpretation ) .
Southold Town Board of Appeals =57- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3236 and 3237
PROJECT NAME: GOLDSMITH AND TUTHILL
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE- OF ACTION: [ XI Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception - and Variance for
permission to construct office/storage building in this C-1 General
Industrial Zone with insufficient frontyard setback (s ) .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1515 Youngs Avenue_ , Southold , NY; 1000-60-
001 -006 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The premises in question is not located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area .
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -58- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3222
PROJECT NAME: JOHN WICKHAM
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X.] Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to perm it small office for
marine contractor with accessary storage use with repair of contractor ' s
own vehicles and equipment .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 67575 .Main Roa.d _(and Albertson Lane.) , Green-
port , NY ; _.1000-52-5-58 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no. significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The premises in question is not located within 300 feet of
an estuary or critical environmental area .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -59- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3235
PROJECT NAME: GERTRUDE M. ALI This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this . declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for permission to construct
new dwelling which places accessory storage building in the frontyard
area .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold,' County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: South Side of Eas„t . Road , Cutchogue , NY;
1000-110-7-18 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The premises in question is bulkheaded seaward of the
proposed dwelling location and is at an elevation of 10 or more
feet above mean sea level .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -60- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Env.ironmental "Decl'arations , continued: )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3238
PROJECT NAME: JAMES ANDERSON
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
.regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar. .
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ X] Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Reinstate dwelling use of structure
located in this. B=1 Business District.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 300 Moore ' s. Lane ...(Linden Avenue ) , ..Cutchogue ;
1000-109-03-008 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The premises in question is not located within 300 .feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area .
(3) _ Structure in question is existing ; _the relief requested is
not directly related to new construction .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -61 - April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations , continued: ) -
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3229
PROJECT NAME: VINCENT GRIFFO - ----
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- .
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar. .
project.
TYPE- OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for.,the construction- of
accessory storage building in an area other than the . requir.ed
rearyard.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County: of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: . 280 Basin Road , Southold , NY ; 1000-81 -01 -19 .
. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be , imple-
mented as planned;.
(2) The premises in question is bulkheaded and the location of
this shed is at an elevation above 10 feet above mean sea level .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -62- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3225
PROJECT NAME: JOSE RODRIGUEZ
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for .any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE- OF ACTION: [ XI Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to construct dwelling -in this
B-1 Business District .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: West Side of Fox ...Lane , Fishers Isl_.and , NY ;
1000-012-01 -001 . 002 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The project in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area ;
(3 ) The elevation above mean sea level is more than ten feet .
r
Southold Town Board of Appeals . -63- April 5 , 198.4 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3240
PROJECT NAME: 'JOHN .AND 'PATRICIA DINIZIO
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE- OF ACTION: [ XI Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF' ACTION: Variance to construct inground .-
swimmingpool in the sideyard area .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 315 Brown Street ,_ Greenport , NY ; 1000-48-3-42 . 3 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The premises in question is not located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area .
r
Southold Town Board of Appeals -64- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations , continued : )
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass and
Sawicki . (Member Doyen was absent due to illness .) . This resolution
was duly adopted .
APPEAL NO . 3223 - THOMAS 'AND BARBARA MERCIER . (Public
hearing was held and concluded earlier this evening . ) This board
instructed that-. a letter be sent to the applicants ' attorney'
requesting a copy of an affidavit or .othe_r .document which would
indicate .an easement to the applicants for. ingress and egress over
the "private road" to the parking area in question .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLANNING. BOARD 'RESPONSES: The board acknowledged receipt of
the following respon.ses._requested by the. Board of Appeals concerning
appl_ica_tions jointlylpending with both departments :
(a ) Mary Grigonis - P. B'. has no objection to lay-out of
proposed division .. and reiterates insufficient area .
P.. B . will require, additional reviews if ZBA approves .
(b ) Kathrine Farr proposal P.- B. amended resolution of
1313/83 to reflect con,c,1 u-rrent of Attorney Lark ' s
resolution dated March 20 , 1984.
(c ) Cross Sound Ferry proposal - P.. B. approved site plan .
(d ) Davi.d and Jeanne Brawner - P . B . disapproves set-off and
reiterates insufficient area as noted , but does not
object to layout . Z.. B . A. application has not been
received for.- processing as _Yet .
(e ) Richard and Sophie Greenfield P . B . approved minor
subdivision subject_ to 280-_a app.roval by ZBA outside
subdivision, 1imits . ZBA a.p,pIication has not been
filed as of this date .
h
`? Southold Town Board of Appeals -65- April 5 , 1984 Regular Meeting
Appeal No . 3233 - McKay and Greenly . Area variance for insuffi -
cient size of two lots at MaIn.�Street, New Suffolk . ZBA requests
pre-certificate of occupancy as exists as one lot from applicant
prior to hearing .
Appeal No . 3230 .= JEAN 'C . o HOLLAND . Variance t re-separate
lots with amended lot lot and each having. insufficient area and
width , 'at Meadow B each-__ Road, or. Vanston _Road;: Cutchogue . The
board_ agreed that this matter be held in abe-yance pending Planning
Board review and comments,- and N.Y . S : Dept . of Environmental
Conservation action prior, to sche,d,uling .for public hearing.
FIELD INSPECTIONS *D.ATE . The board members agreed to field
inspection's on- Saturday , Apr.il ' 7, 1984 (and';Thur, sday , April 12 ,
198.4 at . 6 : 30 p .m. concerning the Henry P. Smith property ) .
Tentative dates were also set for. Thursday , May 3 , 1984 , or
Saturday , May 7,, 1984.
NEXT REGULAR MEET.ING 'D.ATE: The board members agreed to
set Friday,"_May _l.l;., 1984 at _7: 30 p .m. at the date and time of
the next _Regular ._Meeting and p.ubl_ic .hearings to . be held in the
Assembly Room_,. Town Hal-1 , Main Road, Southold , New York .
- - - - - - - - -
NEXT SPECIAL MEETING: The board members agreed to set
Tuesday, -April 17,, -.7984 as the date for a Special Meeting , which
will be cbnf .rmed with each of the board members next week .
(The Special Meeting was changed to April 19th , for the record . )
There being no other business properly coming before the
board - at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting- adjourned.
The meeting was adjo6rined."at :.12 :45 a .m. , April 6 , 1984 .
Respectfully submitted ,
Linda F. Kowalski , Secretary
_Southo_7 d Town:_ Board of Appeals
Approved - :Cha ._rman
TIMIDill
�y sM K+B'��•y