Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/23/1983 Southold Town Board of Appe als 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 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 23 , 1983 .at 7 : 30 o' clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall , Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Charles Grigonis (due to illness) . Also present were approximately 35 persons in the audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 o' clock p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing. RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeals No. 3125 and 3126 . No. 3126 - Upon application of JACK LEVIN, 59670 C.R. 48 , Greenport (Southold) , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 (B) [1] and 100-31 for permission to use the existing dwelling- for two-family use, second-dwelling unit having less than the required 850 square feet of living area, at 59670 C.R. 48, Greenport; more particularly identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-44-4-5. No. 3125 - Upon application of JACK. LEVIN, 59670 C.R. 48 .(North Road) , . Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 (B) [1] for permission to convert existing dwelling into two-family dwelling use on a minimum two-acre parcel located at the south side of C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; more particularly identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-44-4-5. The Chairman reconvened the hearings at 7 : 33 p.m. Mr. Levin was not present and no one else appeared in his behalf. r ` Southold Town Board or Appeals -2- June 23, 15.., Regular Meeting (Appeals No. 3125 and 3126 - JACK LEVIN, continued : ) There were no objections and no comments were made by persons in the audience. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearings and reserve decisions in Appeals No. 3125 and 3126 , matters of JACK LEVIN. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen , Douglass and .Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3134 . Upon application of HANS H. RIEGER, 370 Harbor Road, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory garage in the front- yard area at 370 Harbor. Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-027-04-006 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 35 o' clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER) : We have a copy of a survey dated September 22 , 1975 by Roderick VanTuyl , P. C. indicating the proposed garage area which was shown as an update on 5/13/83 approximately 13' from Harbor Road, 3 ' side line setback on one side and the garage is approximately 20 ' by 221 . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Rieger, would you like to be heard in behalf of your application? Could I ask you to use the mike, please. HANS H. RIEGER: I would very much appreciate approval of my demand. First of all, I cannot locate the garage at any other possible location. The back is excluded because of the D. E.C. rules and the garage is almost necessary since I purchased a new car in 1979 and within a year, heavy deterioration occurred on the car. In other words it started rusting ..away. I wrote a letter to the company who produced the car and they told me that the car could be painted for one year without charge, and that' s the extent of any damage or any further coverage they would pro- vide me. So it' s really necessary for me to build a garage. Now if it isn't possible , I would appreciate any comments or any suggestions other than what I asked for. MR. CHAIRMAN: While you' re up there, can. I ask you some questions. MR. RIEGER: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to understand the reason why I can't ask you these questions when I'm standing in your driveway is because this is open for public comment. Is .t_here any reason why you couldn' t push the. garage back farther toward the house? Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- June 23, 19uj Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3134 -. HANS H. .RIEGER, continued: ) MR. RIEGER: No, no. It' s clearly aesthetic reasons. .I mean it basically an architectural reason: I am an. architect, and the reasons for it are for .the building to the garage is somewhere relative from an aesthetic point of view. The volume of a building which is of this dimension are indicated on the .plan. Certainly it ' s not compatable with the dimension of. the house, which is not existing. In other words , it would not-design-wise, it .would be very difficult to design a garage to this property in porportion to the rest of"the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: So that' s your reason for placing it so far away from. the house? MR. RIEGER:' The only. reason I :can think of. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask- you-= some of the . board members had asked me , concerning the picture, is- there a garage in 'the house' existing now? MR. RIEGER: Yes, there was one. I had to' use it-=in 1979 I converted the house to solar heating, and.- in order to heat my house , I had to purchase a solar heating--a 600 gallon tank. Now I could either have two options, to either install the tank in the ground or put it in the. then garage. In the ground it is impossible to look at anything because. of the shallow. ground, the situation. I mean I 'm practically- in the water, . so I cannot bury anything in -the ground, and the only alternative was to place the large storage tank in the garage which is actually located beneath the bedrooms and originally I placed the car in the .garage, and I never would do it again because of the heavy odor coming from the cars upstairs was just impossible. MR. CHAIRMAN: I' ll go back on one other question I asked you before , and that is, you've explained to us the architectural difference between-, what you propose in the garage and what you feel that you have with the house and I will agree with you, it' s , the house is much different than what .you propose, .from what I understand.. Do you feel that it could be any closer to the house? Let me give you an. example the reason why I say this. It' s very difficult to place a garage in the frontyard . area of. 13 ' because most cars today, even though your car .is smaller, is at least a minimum of '16 ' which would allow, even though the property line , maybe not exactly on the road, would allow, cars to be protruding out maybe into the road. Maybe not only for yourself--maybe if you had intended to sell the house, ok? What I would like you to tell'me is , is there any other distance a little bit father toward the house that you would consider. MR. RIEGER: Well , just ' say for example three to five _feet-- I think any distance further, more than 10 ' away from what we propose now would be very -hard--too close. So I think,- up to ten feet would really be the maximum it could be placed. Southold- Town Board of Appeals -q June 23 , 1t,,, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3134 - HANS H. RIEGER; continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten feet from. the house. MR. RIEGER: Ten feet, yes. Well now_ it is 20. feet from the house. MR: CHAIRMAN: It' s 30 feet from the house. MR. RIEGER: Well I mean 10 feet toward the .house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Closer to the house. Ok. And you wouldn't have any objection being placed on this garage .that ,it" only, be used for storage purposes. MR. RIEGER: Only for -cars. MR,. -CHAIRMAN: And boat implements and so on and so forth. Thank you, Mr. Rieger. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? (None) .- Anyone wishing to speak against the application?' (None) Mr. Rieger, what's you timeliness on this , ' do you want to get started right -away? MR. RIEGER: ' Well, if possible, yes. MR CHAIRMAN 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. hearing 'and ..reserve decision until later in the matter;of the. application of HANS, H. RIEGER,, Appeal No. 3134 . Vote of the Board:.' Ayes : , Messrs . Goeh.ringer, Doyen, Dotuglass and Sawicki. - (Member Grigonis was,.absent).. This resolution w'as unanimously adopted PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal .No. 3132 . Application of BRUCE AND PATRICIA STEWART, Schoolhouse Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct garage addition to dwelling with an insufficient side- yard setback at 870 'Schoolnouse Road, Cutchogue, NY;. County Tax . Map Parcel No., 1000-102-05-014. . The Chairman openedthe hearing at .7,: 43 o' clock p.m. and-read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER) : We have a copy of a survey produced June 2, 19,75 indicating the one-story building and pencilled-in area of a proposed garage .of .24 ' by 261 , 'approximately 40 ' from Schoolhouse Road, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax -Map indicat.- in.g this. property and properties in the surrounding area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of your application, Mr. Stewart? 'r Southold Town Board or Appeals -5-June 23 , 1983 rcegular Meeting (Appeal No. 3132 — 'BRUCE STEWART, continued: ) Would you use the mike? BRUCE STEWART: You have before us our application for an addition. As you see we are applying for this variance because of the plans that we presented before you have taken about four or five years. to materialize. We've been through a lot of designs and we feel for what we need, what you have before us , is in our best interests. I have been to the neighborhood and I've asked different residents what they thought. We've showed them our plans and I asked them what their feelings are. And I do have three letters with me from three area residents in favor of our zoning variance application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you give me those, it is my understanding that this garage is to be attached to the house, is that correct? MR. STEWART: Yes , it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, I' ll take those from you. Mr. Stewart submitted three letters in favor of the variance application signed by the following: Mr. and Mrs. George Mullen Rose Diachun George Diachun Mary O. Eves . These letters were made part of the record and file. MR. CHAIRMAN: It is also my understanding that you would not be opposed to any restriction concerning this particular garage as the nature of it always remaining as- an accessory building? v MR. STEWART: No, I wouldn' t. . MR.* CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Would anybody like to speak against the application? Would you use the mike, sir, please. WALTER DEBOWSKI : I would like to oppose the building of the garage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your name , please? MR. DEBOWSKI : Walter Debowski. Not the building of the garage , I understand that. I understand the possibility of some sort of residence above the garage which I believe he may want to do. And I think there' s more room to the back than there is to the side , and as far as the rest of the neighborhood, I don' t know what the rest of the neighborhood has to do with the garage other than the adjacent house . And also I'd like to make a complaint, I don 't know if it does any good of vehicles being driven onto our r Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- June 23, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3132 - BRUCE STEWART, continued: ) MR. DEBOWSKI continued: property during times of when people are having ,a party and being drunk and turning away the complaints from the neighbors , or some neighbors mentioning of a lot of noise. And excess number of vehicles. Two cars that have been sitting there have been sitting there two or three years. They haven't been repaired or sold. There are two boats sitting there. I don' t see why anyone this day needs two boats if it' s such a hardship. Or two cars. Two cars that are used. Two cars that are sitting there. And two boats . It' s not necessary. Especially people that have a hard- ship. That' s extra. And plus because it has to this point upset my mother, who ' s having heart problems and this has affected her even more. And I .think there is more room to the back of the house or more to the back, which wouldn' t be closer to my mother' s house. There' s more room to the back than there. is to the side. A lot more room, and as far as construction of something like that it' s very feasible. And that' s all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak against this application? Would you like to say anything in rebuttal, Mr. Stewart? MR. STEWART: As far as the charges on the vehicles go, I do have a car in my yard that I've had for two or three years that is running, is movable under it' s own power, and is under- cover. It' s something that I've had as a project and I do intend to restore the car, but as you can see my time has been occupied with other things. I do have a small pleasure boat in the yard that' s on a trailer, and I do have a boat that I scallop with and I clam with, and as you can see , the two of them--you can' t have a pleasure boat and work out of it too. And you can't have a work boat and expect to take the family out on an outting with it. And 'as far as those other things, you know about the plans and the hardship I'd have if I would have to move the structure out back.. I'd have to have a heck of an addition to connect the garage to the house should it be in the back. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Yes , Mr. Debowski? I'd just like to say though-- MR. DEBOWSKI : I'd like to say though for a person who needs to work a lot and where does he have time for his recreations? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, I just want you to know that things become counterproductive after awhile so I don' t want it to go round and round, ok? MR. DEBOWSKI: No, I just wanted to bring that up. MR. CHAIRMAN: You seem to be phrasing these things in the way of a question, and I think you should just be making state- ments to be honest with you. Ok? Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf or against this application? (None) Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- June 23 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3132 - BRUCE STEWART, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: Any questions from any board members? (None) I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by .Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of BRUCE STEWART in Appeal No. 3132. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki . (Member "Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3135 . Upon application of PETER and CALLIOPE PAPANTONIOU, 55370 C.R. 48 , Southold, NY for a VarTiance to the Zoning Or finance , Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to increase size of existing garage which is located in the sideyard area, at 55370 C.R. 48 , Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-052-03-026 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :51 o' clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER) : We have a copy of a sketch indicat- ing the garage, which is 7 ' off the line and somewhat in proportion to the house as to frontyard. And I have a copy of a sketch plan, pencilled in of an addition. It appears to be 10 ' by 12 ' . And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of this? MRS. PAPANTONIOU: Well, I would appreciate having this approved. It would make life easier for us as far as shoveling. We' re retired now, much older, and we would have an additional 10 ' and it really won't affect anyone or anything by extending in the front rather than the back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea how much that would reduce your frontyard? MRS. PAPANTONIOU: What do you mean? MR. CHAIRMAN: How far with the proposed addition you would be from there to the front property line. MRS. PAPANTONIOU: Oh, about 30 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: About 30 feet. MRS . PAPANTONIOU: We would have 30 feet left. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Is there anybody else that would like to .'tM Southold Town Board u= Appeals -8- June 23, i7o3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3135 - PETER PAPANTONIOU, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: be heard in behalf of this application? (No one) Anyone wishing to speak against the application? (No one) Any questions from any board members? (None) 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. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of PETER AND CALLIOPE PAPANTONIOU in Appeal No. 3135. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . ' Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki . (Member Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3136 . Application of RICHARD and DONNALEE RELYEA, 1060 Foxhollow Road., Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building (horse barn) in the frontyard area of premises known as 1060 Foxhollow Road , Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-113-006-023. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :56 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketch of a survey dated --the date is cut off-- it shows this proposed storage building horse barn which will lie approximately 73 ' from Deer Path Road, approximately 52 ' from one right-of-way, 42 ' from the other right-of- way and approximately 62' from the rearyard. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the. area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of- your application? DONNALEE RELYEA: Yes. Because of the property being of unique shape and elevation, I would like to see this barn in the front. It' s the only realistic place for it. As far as I know, none of my neighbors object to it. I have spoken to all surrounding properties except- for one, .and all of them said it was fine with them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no .further comments, gentlemen, a motion is in order. MEMBER SAWICKI: I move that it be granted as applied for. 4 Southold Town Board or Appeals -9- June 23, iy$3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3136 - RICHARD AND DONNALEE RELYEA, continued : ) The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal , appellants seek permission to construct a 20 ' by 15 ' accessory horse barn to be located in the frontyard area of the subject premises , more specifically 73 ' from Deer Path Road, approximately 52' from the northerly "right-of-way" , and 175 ' from the existing one-family dwelling. Due to the frontage of this parcel along more than one access road or right-of-way, the building area of this parcel is technically considered all "frontyard area. " It would be impractical and unfeasible to build in any other yard area of the premises in question. The board agrees with the reasoning of appellants. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony . with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Sawicki ; seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3136 , application of RICHARD AND DONNA- LEE RELYEA for permission to construct accessory horse barn in the frontyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 1060 Foxhollow Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-113-006-023. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki . (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3138 . Application of ALFRED J. -TERP , 1435 Hobart Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct bathroom addition to dwelling leaving an insufficient sideyard setback, at 1435 Hobart Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-064-002-012. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :00 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a survey dated May 11, 1983 indicating the nature of the proposed addition, which is approximately 9. 6 ' in width. It does not give the dimension of the length which is a portion of the width of the house, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and a Southold Town Board a= Appeals -10- June 23 , LA3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: the surrounding properties in the area. And I have one letter of opposition in the file. Mr. Terp, would you like to be heard in behalf of your application? Could I ask you to use the mike please. ALFRED J. TERP: Yes. The map that snows that 9. 2 , I think it is , feet to the north, I did not wish to extend all the way of . that 9. 2 feet, and I wish to go only north about six feet, and- there is a slab- there over a foundation, which was originally built as a root cellar in the years that go back. And as I stated in the application, any of the other places that put it -would either put the bathroom off of a kitchen or off of a dining room or a living room. And it will only be a one floor---in other words it would not be the height of a two-story house. I.t would only be the height of the existing one-story addition which was there ever since the house was built and we would only move that wall 6 ' further to the north from where it is now and that would certainly allow me to put it in. Now another reason, maybe you gentleman and ladies don't know, many of the houses that are in the Founders Development have -- and we 're going around the area -- are inadequate according to the new law-- .a side yard, and as I say I really don't think it would really detract on any value or the aesthetics of the character of the neighborhood of that particular development. That' s been there since 1931 , I think, was when it was started. MR. CHAIRMAN: You' re presently using this as a patio, is that correct? MR. TERP : My wife is , yes. Well we both do. MR. CHAIRMAN: That ' s the only question I have at this time. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Would somebody like to be heard against the application? Ok, would you please state your name? MRS. STELZER: I'm Emmy Stelzer and I live next door to Mr. Terp. As I understand it, and I think Mr. Fisher is familiar with this. When he built that side, it was supposed to be a patio on low level ground which was built up with tiers of block and the .dirt was piled up around it. Now I spoke to Al; he asked me; and it' s going to hurt the sale of my property to have him right on the line. There' s just about this much room to .walk through. He has a 6 ' fence up there now, a hedge--you can' t walk through there and it' s going to be right on my living room side, this bathroom that he is applying for. They have a bathroom upstairs. There' s plenty of room in the back. And I can' t understand -= my air is going to' be cut off. I have fences on both sides of me and houses and I only have a 75 ' lot and I think it' s within my interest to protect my property. If it. was a hardship, it would be a hardship for me. It' s practically in my yard now '.on the side porch. Have you people been down to check this? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Southold Town Board or Appeals -11- June 23., 19b-, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP, continued: ) MRS. STELZER: Is there a cellar under there now? (Mrs. Stelzer was directing comment/question to the Terps . ) MRS. STELZER: May I ask what is the excavating (remainding statement unclear as Mrs. Stelzer was facing the back of the room) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mrs. Stelzer--you have to address the questions to the board because we're taking this down. MRS. STELZER: Oh, I 'm sorry. I don' t know-- and I don' t want any trouble--but I do think I 'm in order to protect my property. For the past week or so they've been taking sand from the back cellar door--load after load. Now where it' s coming from, I don't know. It' s coming from the cellar. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, would you 'like Mr. Terp to respond to your requestions? MRS. STELZER: If it ' s in response to my difficulty, yes. I don't know what' s going on. I understand .you can't go in the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir , would you come over to the other mike, maybe you could answer the questions , because we' ll site of some of them if you don' t. MRS. STELZER: He has a cellar under that and it wasn't supposed to be there. It was supposed to be a patio. MR. TERP: What would you like to know first? MR. CHAIRMAN: The lady asked if there was a cellar under there and you had indicated .there..was? MR. TERP : There has been a cellar under there before the change in the zoning law with the sideyard--that was put in there when Howard Terry was in charge of the Building Department. Now what I'm doing is taking sand but for the last week. I'm lowering the cellar floor in my house because I 've .put a new heater in and I'm having a new cellar floor put in the existing building. Now, was there something else? MRS. STELZER: Well, Al , as I understand it, that was not supposed to be a cellar. It was only supposed to be a flat-- you didn't get a permit for that. MR. TERP : You didn' t have to get a permit for that, Mrs. Stelzer. MRS. STELZER: Mr. Fisher told me it was never to be built on. You built that patio that you have- MR. TERP: That ' s why I 'm down here now. But I said that originally it was built with a cellar and you saw it was built Southold Town Board oz Appeals -12- June 23 , 1_7o3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3138 ALFRED J. TERP, continued: ) MR. TERP continued: with a cellar. MRS. STELZER: Yes when they came down there. MR. TERP That' s why I'm before' the board now asking for a variance, Mrs. Stelzer. MRS. STELZER: Well, I'm opposing this because of what happened before because you're not supposed to have that foundation. MR. TERP: This foundation, sir, was put in when Mr. Terry was down and then 'he was down three different times, and. I assured the man, I built it ,that it was a patio, .now that' s our reason. 15 years ago. Now in 15 years times have changed. Things have changed and this is why I've asked the board to grant permission. It' s not all the way over like Mrs. Stelzer says. It' s 6 ' over.. There will be . at least--if you look at the map there=-there will be another 8 or 9 foot from that wall to her line. MR. CHAIRMAN 8.1 feet. MRS. STELZER: Are you knocking part of the patio out? That' s what- I would .like to. know. MR.. TERP : Yes. I'm not .go.ing over the whole thing. I didn't ask for that. MRS. STELZER: Well I didn' t know, Al. You .didn't .come back and say anything to me so I didn' t know what was . going on. And I do object very strongly. It is right on my line,' on. my living room line. He doesn' t want a bathroom on his --where the dining area is. MR. TERP: If you looked 'at the existing houses to the north and .including. Mrs. Stelzer, I believe you will find that one of her bathrooms was very close to. the. main that' s next door and his porch is about 3''. from the line; ;and many.- of the houses- that had these insufficient":or deficient 'say-, sideyard , properti.es there , and every-. . body' s been getting along for many, many years. MRS. STELZER: The" man who owns the house on the left is my attorney. I asked him to appear. here. tonight, but he was unable to, 'to explain this. That property that was built before was. put there before zoning 'came in, "and it is practically in my driveway. which this of course ,i's"�-.on the other side of my house. Have. you people been down to see this? Do you see what �a hardship it is going .to cause me? MR. CHAIRMAN: We were down last Friday night. MRS. STELZER, Taking the wind out and so forth. I don't, get enough air now through the window. Southold Town Board o.L Appeals -13- June 23 ,. 1783 Regular Meeting (Appeal, No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP , -continued :) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Terp. MR. TERP : I believe if Mrs . Stelzer and I' ll recollect to refresh Mrs. Stelzer' s memory that that porch that' s. .she is referring to was built there before the house that she' s living in was built. MRS . STELZER: The porch was there but not the room, Al. I' ll refresh your memory-- MR. .TERP : Yeah, I agree with you, but I'm saying, in other words , the porch existing structure that didn' t get any larger than it was , was there before Mr. Dunn built that original house. MRS . STELZER That' s right, the porch, but it was an open porch. It was not an enclosed porch. The same as yours, it' s an open thing. That was just an open porch and when I gave permission when Elsie was sick to have that. MR. TERP : I think that was done before the zoning was in effect that you would have to get permission, Mrs. Stelzer. MRS. STELZER: They asked us. Mr. and Mrs. Therby (?) asked our permission if we had any objections and she was an ill person-- but the porch ( ) that we built on has nothing to do with this--it' s not on my property. MR. TERP : I'm talking about the one that' s very close to your line. MRS. STELZER: That' s right. That ' s right. MR. TERP : Well, we 're arguing again-- MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s becoming counterproductive here. Mrs. Stelzer, I only have one question to ask you. Would you feel better if you were represented by an attorney? MRS. STELZER: I would certainly like him to speak, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to recess this hearing assuming Mr. Terp wouldn' t have a severe objection, to the next Regular Meeting so that-- MRS. STELZER: Yes , I will until he can be here. He ' s not from around 'here. He' s in New .York. MR. 'CHAIRMAN: Do you think he could appear for you on July 21st? MRS. STELZER: He could be out here tomorrow-he comes out on weekends. MR. TERP : Do you have any objection to that, Mr. Terp? Southold Town Board o= Appeals -14- June 23, 196-, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP, continued: ) MR. TERP : The only question I would like to have is , could this lawyer in this instance if he were here, change the facts? MR. CHAIRMAN: No it most certainly does not change the facts, but what this lady is telling us is that. she would feel better if she was represented by counsel and we have granted these requests in the past. The timeliness involved here is basically a three to four week period. We still have 60 days to make a decision. We don' t have to make an immediate decision. MR. TERP Do you want me to come back another night? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. TERP : Do you know the time? MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be advertised. MRS. STELZER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to be heard against this application? Anyone else to be heard in either case? MARIE TERP : I am Mr. Terp ' s daughter. I 've been away for about five years now and I have just come back for the summer. I am a graduate of Washington University, a pre-med student and I'm into pharmacy. I basically see here that there' s a difficulty that we have, but because of the existing structure and the foundation that he has and because he would like only to extend six feet, I see no reason there should be an objection. I also have observed that because of the existing structure that he 'has there--how shall I put it--in essence it' s really, it would not depreciate Mrs. Stelzer ' s property and as far as the purpose of the proposed structure are that it ' ll be used just for a bathroom and the rest of it he would just like to use for the wood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have your first name, please? MISS TERP: My name is Marie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to say anything concerning this hearing? (None) Hearing no comments , I' ll make a motion recessing this hearing until the next Regular Meeting. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki , RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3138 , application of ALFRED J. TERP be .and hereby is recessed until the' next Regular Meeting of this board (tentatively July 21, 1983j . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. r ` Southold Town Board or Appeals -15- June 23, 1yd3 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3111. Application of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 (B) (1) to establish library use in the existing building in this B-1 District, at 28735 Main Road, Cutchogue , NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-05-022. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :17 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketch plan dated June 8, 1983 (received June .13 , 1983) indicating the nature of the application, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax- Map indicating this property and the surrounding property in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? Sir? Kindly state your name. WILLIAM PETERS, CHAIRMAN, CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY EXPANSION: I 'm William Peters , Chairman of the Cutchogue Library Expansion, and the whole subject has become rather confused. To give you some past history, in September 1981 the Cutchogue Library purchased the courthouse building in the Town of Southold to eventually use it as the new library. It was used for library purposes during 1981 and the early part of 1982. Then we established enough money and enough plans to where we wanted to expand that building so that it could become the eventual new library. We went to apply for a building permit and it turned out that we couldn' t get a building permit for certain reasons. We also could not get a Certificate of Occupancy for other reasons. We had been using this building without a Certificate of Occupancy. That' s the purpose of #3111 and #3112 , which are both under discussion this evening. I made up a truth chart here which I have copies of. (Mr. Peters gave the Chairman copies of the chart which shows the requests of Appeals #3109, 3110 , 3111 and 3112 of the Cutchogue Free Library. ) Special Exception #3111 - the Town Code does not allow us to have a library in a B-1 Business. It only allows it to have a library in a Residential or Agricultural area. We would like to have a library where we purchased the building. Either that or change the zoning to residential/agricultural. No. 3112 - The Town Code says that you have to own whatever parking you use for any business or any purpose, such as the school or a library. We are presenting leasing our parking facili- ties . We have an option to buy these parking facilities , but do not want to buy these facilities until such time as we are assured that we can get a building permit from the Town. At the end of these discussions , I would Pike to discuss the building permit also , because one appeal drops out if these two, 3111 and 3109 are both the same essentially. Now, the drawing as you are referring to , is the drawing of J Southold Town Board o= Appeals -16- June 23, -LI,33 Regular Meeting (Appeal No, 3111 - CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY, continued: ) MR. PETERS continued: , the site plan, and that is' for the expansion of the library and has to do with sideyard setback reductions and frontyard setback reduc- tions . These are part of the site plan, and the site plan was approved by the Planning Board this past week. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don' t want to address the addition tonight if you don' t mind. Is there anything else you would like to say in this case? MR. PETERS : No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. PETERS : Could I just say--could we get on the docket next month for the building permit, which is 3110? I 'd like to be on the docket next month, let' s put it that way. I don' t expect an answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s very difficult for me as a Chairman to answer that question for two reasons : Number One, I haven't discussed it with the board and Number Two , we haven't received anything per- manently from the Planning Board which stated that you had gotten the site plan approved. Until such time that we do both of those things , I can' t guarantee you anything. Ok? Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application, No. 3111? Anybody wishing to speak against the application? (No one) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr, Peters , could I ask you concerning the egress and ingress to this building? Where do you intend to go into the building from the rear of the property? I 'm talking about the existing now. MR. PETERS: The existing building will be strictly from the front. Because that is , when we're .using the existing building for library functions--not necessarily as a library, but for library functions, the entrance and exit will be strictly from the front. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I know I didn't want to address this issue tonight, but when the new addition, which would be the nature of the next application, you're proposing to enter it from the east side--is that correct? MR. PETERS : That ' s correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: East side toward the rear? MR. PETERS : Well, I library cannot have two public entrances and exits because if you are watching one exit, the books leave out the other exit and so forth. So what we have done , we' ve had an architect design the building that has an entrance essentially in the center with a vestibule on the easterly side and, a covered walk running from both the front and rear, so from the outside it gives the impression that on the street side there ' s an entrance on the street, .and on the parking lot side there ' s an entrance on the parking Southold Town Board or Appeals -17- June 23 , �.--3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3111 - CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY, continued: ) MR. PETERS continued: ) lot, and once you're within the covered walk, you have the feeling that you' re within the library. However, there is a single point of control which is in the library itself when the personnel at the desk can watch the exit and entrance door, and also watch the books , and check books and check these books out, and observe all the patrons in the library. Have I overkilled? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Could you furnish this board with a copy of the floor plan of the existing library and a floor plan of the proposed library for the next applications? MR. PETERS : We have given you an architect' s drawing of the proposed drawing. We do not intend using this building as it presently is for library purposes other than having a meeting, the Board of Trustees or Friends of the Library, or various library functions , therefore, we felt it was not necessary to show you a plan of the existing building. MR. CHAIRMAN: But there will be a plan when we go on with the following-- MR. PETERS: You have them in your possession. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have nothing that shows me what is or what will be changed internally in the existing building. MR. PETERS : Ok. I' ll get with your secretary within the week and straighten that out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Against the application for the second time? (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 hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3111, Special Exception applica- tion of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3112 . Application of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-112 (H) for permission to use accessory off-street. parking area adjoining this premises for the proposed library use. - Location of Properties : North Side of Main Road , Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-102-05-22 and 23. Southold Town Board oz Appeals -18- June 23, -_ _3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3112 -, CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY, continued: ) The. Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :26 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the variance sketch plan as requested. And I have a copy of the County Tax Map again indicating this property and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of the off-street parking, Sir? W:ILLIAM PETERS, CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY: Well , the Town Code says you have to own. We' re leasing it with an option to buy. As soon as we get a building permit, we' ll buy our parking lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: I did speak to Mr. Lark the other day, and he indicated to me that you have signed the option. Is that correct? MR. PETERS : We have the option to buy. Oh, yes . We haven't bought the property yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you have signed the option to buy? MR. PETERS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you feel, at any one time that it may involve the further enhancement of that parking lot, and I ' ll explain' to you what I mean. Going into the grassed area and macadamizing that area also? MR. PETERS : No , no. There' s more than adequate macadam surface there right now for more parking than is needed for the library. In fact we intend using that grassy area for library functions over the summer months , such as outdoor films , egg-rolling contests--name some more. MRS. Book sales. MR. PETERS : The book sale. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you estimate any occupancy for the library at all? MR. PETER: I think we have seating-- I wrote it in the site plan and I'm going by memory now. I think we have seating for 25 adults , 20 children, and I think the code says that you have to have one parking spot for each five seats, so we estimate that we really only need parking for five patrons plus parking for three staff-- the normal usage of the library, and we have parking now .for 17 cars . We have a -- Mr. Lark and the library will continue to share that parking lot. Mr. Lark requires , we estimate three to five parking spaces himself, so we have about twice as much parking as is necessary for both functions . MR. CHAIRMAN: . Ok, thank you very much. Anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from board members? (None) Southold Town, Board oz -.rappeals • -19- June 23,, 'lyo3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No .3112 - CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY, -continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN continued Hearing .no further comments, I' ll- make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER. DOUGLASS : Second. On .motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr: Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. `3112 , CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY. . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis- was'. absent) . This resolution was unanimously . adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3140 : Application for KATHRYN REEVE, by S.R. Albrecht, West View Drive, Mattituck, NY ,for a Variance to the. Zoning. Ordinance, Article III,. Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building (garage) in the side yard area, at 855 West View Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-139-01-019. The. Cnairman opened the hearing at 8 : 30 p.m. and read the legal notice of .hearing 'in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have' a copy of a sketch indicating this 16' by 20 ' garage, ten feet . from the present structure- or dwell- - ing, and three feet from _i.t "appears to" be the east property line. And I have one letter o"f objection in the file. Would somebody like to be heard -in behalf of this application? Sir? SCOTT ALBRECHT Well,_ I would just like to say that the reason why the garage is in the side yard because I have waterfront property and. it. wo.uld obstruct my view in the .front. yard of the water, and- plus I'd have to make a. driveway through the. sideyard extending all the way to the frontyard, and it" would be a lot easier and that' s what most other people have with waterfront property. MR. CHAIRMANc Those are the` correct dimensions , 1.6 ' by 201 . MR. ALBRECHT: Yes, it' s only a one-car garage. ,. MR. .CHAIRMAN: And. it would only be used as a garage-storage. MR.. ALBRECHT: A little storage,. yes. MR: CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like .to speak in behalf of the application?, Anybody to, speak against the .application? Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no other ques- tions I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision.. until later. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- June 23, i.ya3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3140 - KATHRYN- REEVE, continued: ) MEMBER DOYEN: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of Appeal No. 3140 , KATHRYN REEVE. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3141. Application of DOUG AND KARIN CONSTANT,, 555 Village Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard set- back, at 555 Village Lane, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 25-2-5. 1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 25 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We crave a copy of a map prepared on September 5 , 1973 and amended May 6 , 1983 to show the proposed addition of a 4 ' by 21' . And I have a copy of the Suffolk County. Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? KENNETH STRACHAN: My name is Kenneth Strachan and I will be building this addition if you go along with it. It' s simply a 4 ' extension on an existing 8 ' by 21 ' room which is presently not practical. Bordering this rearyard is a vacant parcel of land approximately 10-15 acres. And that' s about it. The neighbors go along with this. They are for the interests of the Constants as far as restoring this building in Orient. MR. CHAIRMAN: What does that reduce the rearyard to? MR. STRACHAN: Approximately 21' . It' s 252' now. MR. CHAIRMAN: So the 21 that I see here now is not the width of the house , it' s what would be left. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: What' s basically the width of this house in the nature of this application, 4 ' by-- MR. STRACHAN: Four feet by 211 . MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, that' s 21' also. MR. STRACHAN: Yes , that would increase the existing structure Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- June . 23 , 1981 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3141, - DOUG AND KARIN CONSTANT, continued : ) MR. STRACHAN continued: by four feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Leaving an approximately 24 ' rearyard. MR. STRACHAN: Twenty-one feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Twenty-one feet, I 'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you, Mr. Strachan, is this a one or two-story addition? MR. STRACHAN: One. Simple shed roof. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I noticed not by our picture but because it' s rather dark but I understand the foundation is in already, is that correct? MR. STRACHAN: The existing. MR. CHAIRMAN: The proposed. MR. STRACHAN: No, it' s not in. There' s an existing founda- tion, 8' by 21 ' exposed to enlarge this room by 41 . MR. CHAIRMAN: Four feet over and above that foundation that exists right now. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Douglass. MR. STRACHAN: You are familiar with the land behind there. MEMBER DOUGLASS : Yes. What he is doing is taking the old porch out? MR. STRACHAN: Yes , demolishing it. MEMBER DOUGLASS : And then making it one--there was an old glass-in porch there. That is what that old foundation was, the old porch, right? MR. STRACHAN: Yes. What he is doing is increasing the width by 4 ' and thereby decreasing the setback from 25 to 211 . But you' re familiar with the land behind it--the vacant fields? MEMBER DOUGLASS : Yes, well it cuts up in there behind him. The field runs closer to him there than it does in other parts. But I took it that that foundation was the one that the old porch was on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to speak Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- June 23, lyu3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3141 - DOUG AND .KARIN CONSTANT, continued : ) in behalf of the application? Anyone wishing to speak against the application? Further questions from board members? MEMBER DOUGLASS : I ' ll make a motion that it be granted as applied for. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, may I have your name? DOUG CONSTANT: My name is Doug Constant. Since we have these letters from our. neighbors , perhaps you would like to have them in the file. The reason we took that porch off, Mr. Douglass , -- MEMBER DOUGLASS : It wasn 't any good. MR. CONSTANT: It was rotted. There wasn' t much holding it up any more. MEMBER DOUGLASS : I know. I remember when it was built and who built it. MR. CHAIRMAN:, Do you want to make that motion again, Mr. Douglass. MEMBER DOUGLASS I ' ll make a motion granting this request as applied for. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second. (Continued on Page 23) Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- June 23,' 17d3 Regular Meeting The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a new 4' by. 241 'addition at the rear of the dwelling, which would leave an insufficient rearyard setback of 21 feet. The present setback of the subject dwelling is 25 feet from the rear property line. Also exist- ing on the premises is an accessory .barn structure located south 'of the:-dwelling in the rearyard area, approximately one foot from the rear property line. It is the opinion of the board that due to the narrowness of. the lot and the location of .the dwelling that there ..is minimal rearyard area; and that the relief requested is reasonable . and practical under. the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the .board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing ,the variance no substantial detriment ,tb adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by .a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available -governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will- be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be. served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr-. .Douglass., seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3141, application for DOUG AND KARIN CONSTANT for permission to construct addition with an insufficient . setback from the rear property line'of' 21 feet, BE. AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Vote- of the Board Ayes Messrs. Goehringe'r, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki . (Member Grigonis". was -absent. ) - This resolution was .unanimously adopted. ) Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- . June 23 , _Ly83 Regular Meeting At 8 :42 p.m. , motion was made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawici , to temporarily recess for approximately five minutes . This resolution was unanimously carried. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING: At approximately 8 :46 p.m. , motion was made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki , to reconvene the Regular Meeting. This. resolution was unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3142. Application for GRACE E. KENNEY, 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct addition (two-car garage) with variation to previous appeal, No. 3067, in the front and/or sideyard areas at 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-038-03-020 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :51 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a survey produced on 8/19/82 by Roderick VanTuyl, with a pencilled-in area of the proposed two-car garage making it approximately 24 ' by 24 ' , and the application is dropping what was granted by this board in the prior appeal of No. 3067. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application. Sir? ROBERT KENNEY: My name is Robert Kenney, husband .of Grace E. Kenney making the application. I just wanted to remind that we call to the board the fact that the previous application which the board approved had called for a room approximately 13 ' by 19 ' which we have eliminated. And what we were proposing now is a two-car garage instead of a one-car garage as previously approved by the board which will be less than the square footage of the room. I 'm sure the board was aware of this but I just wanted to mention it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from any board members? MEMBER DOUGLASS : I' ll make a motion that it be granted as applied for. MEMBER SAWICKI : Second. (Continued on Page 25) Southold Town Board of Appeals -25 June 23 , l.yd,� Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3142 - GRACE E. KENNEY, continued: ) The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek a modification to the previous Appeal No. 3067 , eliminating the 16 ' by 19 ' bedroom addition, in order to allow for a two-car garage originally applied for (rather than the one-car garage conditionally granted) . The size of the proposed two- car garage would be 24 ' by 24 ' with deck attaching same to the dwelling, having a total square footage of approximately 1,140 , which would be less , by 29 square feet, than that originall approved in Appeal No. 3067. The total amount of excessive lot coverage is 531 square feet, or 18% of the permitted 2 , 918 square feet. The lot in question is a corner lot and contains an area of 10 , 989 square feet with frontage along East Gillette Drive of approximately 102 feet and along Cleaves Point Road approximately 91 feet. The premises is improved by only a one-family dwelling. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced .on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and .that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3142 , application for GRACE E. KENNEY BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED provided that the garage addition not be converted or used as living or habitable quarters , AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the February 4 , 1983 decision of this board rendered in Appeal No. 3067, BE AND HEREBY IS RESCINDED. Location of Property: 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY; Marion Manor Subdivision Map No. 2038, Lot 47; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-038-03-020 . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board or Appeals -26- June 23, lya3 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3143. Application of FRANK MESSINA, Box 368, Ronkonkoma, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 . for permission to construct swimmingpool in the frontyard area, at 4355 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Filed Map, Lot 222, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-012-006 and 007. The Chairman opened the .hearing at 8:55 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a map dated April 9 , 1983 with the proposed 20 ' by 40 ' pool, which shows it 195 ' from Wurineweta Road, 140 ' from Bayberry Road and 120 ' from Bayberry Road. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and surrounding properties in .the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? WILLIAM B. SMITH: I 'm William Smith and I signed the applica- tion only because the people that are building the swimming pool, Bee.de Construction Co. of Huntington, couldn' t be here that day--it would have to be done that day to get in on time. The owner is Daniel Silverman. It' s on the old Cartnick property and the property is in two parcels. The main parcel of almost three acres is owned by Mr. Silverman and the one acre to the north is owned by his Corporation, 158 State Corporation, a New York Corporation, the same address. The so-called road that was claimed by the Building Department to be in the rear was a road that the original owners , ( ) and Hollock purchased from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association as I understand it many years because the road has never been used. It 's a paper road. It' s only used part way up to get to the house at the driveway. for Mr. Silverman or the original owners . They get a tax bill on this parcel of property of $54+ a year of which they have been paying for the better part of 20+ years , and the lots that back up to this road on the east are fronting on the Nassau Point Road. It goes the whole length of Nassau Point, so there are no lots backing up to the road to the east, and therefore this little paper road splits lots that front on other roads , and therefore I would determine myself that it was a rearyard; the man owns 32 of land. It doesn' t seem practical that he has two front- yards . That' s the way we looked at it. And I would want the board to . look at it in the same light. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is an enclosed swimmingpool or an enclosed swimmingpool? MR. SMITH: Open. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no other questions. Let' s see what develops. Thank you. Is there somebody else that would like to Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- June 23, lyo3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3143 - FRANK MESSINA (for D. SILVERMAN) , continued : ) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: speak in behalf of this application? Somebody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None.) Hearing no further questions, I' ll make a motion -closing -the hearing and closing decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS : Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of FRANK MESSINA for DANIEL SILVER- MAN, in Appeal No. 3143. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent) . This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3137. Application for DAYSMAN MORRIS, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. , Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to. the Zoning Ordinance,. Article VI, Section 100-60 (A) & (B) to store materials in the open area upon this parcel , zoned B-Light Business. Location of Property: 405 Kirwin Boulevard, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-53-02-006 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 :02 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a survey of the property indicating the property with a variance of 140 ' ' by 254 ' with a proposed storage area of which I don' t have the distance of off the road , the frontyard, but it' s approximately 60 ' by 1501 . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Bruer, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? RUDOLPH. H. BRUER, ESQ. : On behalf of Mr. Morris , I would like to state, when Mr. Morris purchased this property, he purchased it with the understanding that this was a permitted use, that he would be allowed to store his material, septic tanks , on his premises . He was advised by competent people at the time and as you can see, the building inspector disagreed with him with respect to this use in a business district. Mr. Morris purchased it as I said specifically for the purposes of being able to store his material. He in his own mind believed that was a proper use of that property at that time. His hardship would be basically that he would have this piece of property and he would not be able to use it for the purposes that he purchased it for. He would have no other reason to own this property, and would Southold Town Board .of Appeals =28- June 23, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137. - DAYSMAN MORRIS , continued: ) MR. BRUER continued definitely suffer a hardship because of his owning of it and not being able to use it for the designated purpose. Now, the property is zoned for business. I :believe, . :-- conceded that it could be' used for a retail store, a laiindromat, a noncommercial marina, bank, and various other offices. It also says in the` ordinance it -could be used for "business.. " The word says "business ,professional offices and governmental offices" with a comma after the word business. He is a business person and he .is using it for business in .his mind. The interpretation of the building inspector is that this is storage. I believe the only reference to. storage other than marina storage and agricultural storage has to do with the light industrial-- .they call it warehouse storage. This isn't warehouse storage. And - the only other place that I. could see that this might be covered is in the heavy industrial where it .'says it can be -used for any lawful purpose because it' s not `one of the numerous exceptions listed there- after in that section. :So I really "believe tnat. possi.bly the board can interpret that this is.. a business use and that this is his business. He' s not really warehousing his material. This is his equipment. It' s not really storage. As the application pointed out, there is industrial use across the street, immediately. across the street, there . is- a fish market, and then behind that adjacent to this is a boatyard or construction of boats , there' s a lumberyard and there ' s an asphalt plant.- So it really .is and would be consistent with the neighborhood, particularly with Mr. Morris agreeing that he would 'hide, sort-of-speak, his equipment that he uses. by way of shrubbery or whatever other aesthetic devices the board might deem necessary. Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Morris is here if you have any questions of him. - MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one question, Mr. Bruer. I don't know if you can answer . it or Mr. Morris. How far in is that proposed storage area from the road--in approximately dimensions. MR. BRUER: . I really don' t know. DAYSMAN MORRIS: , Ten feet off the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears to be a. little- bit more than that right now. MR. MORRIS: It can be moved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would anybody -else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- June 23 , 198.s Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137 - DAYSMAN MORRIS , continued : ) WILLIAM B. SMITH: William Smith, again, Southold. I didn't know anything about this application until tonight when I got here. I happened to have sold the property to Mr. Morriw with the under- standing he could use it for storage of his materials , which is not being warehoused. He gets it as he uses .it. As Mr. Bruer pointed out, of course, the property across the road is industrial--the lumberyard and it' s also adjacent to it on the east, a very heavy- duty welding shop that I would assume that would be under Light Industrial-which is zoned business , unless B-1 would take care of that, I don 't know at this moment. But I would see no harm at this particular point when along side a railroad track that this man would be devaluing anybody' s property storing material along said a railroad track. Thank you. MR.. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of the application? People against the applica- tion. Kindly state your name, Sir. ROGER BANCROFT: My name is Roger Bancroft. I have the good fortune to be President of the Peconic Bay Estates .Property Owners Association. This Association is incorporated and consists of 119 dues paying, taxpaying members , most of whom belong to Pipes Neck Road, Kirwin Boulevard and BayShore Road, and Island View Land. We are unalterably opposed and quite unanimously so to this --to the granting of this variance. The chronology of this opposition seems to be a relevant factor. Two of the ten members of the board of directors of this association are here and participated in these protest activities that seem pertinent, that they bring the matter up-to-date as far as they were participating. Mr. Joe Riemer was the first one involved. JOE RIEMER: Mr. Chairman. Members of the Board of Appeals. As Roger Bancroft has indicated, I am Joe Riemer. I live on Bay Shore Road, which I think most of you know is the blacktop continuation of Kirwin Boulevard after you enter Kirwin Boulevard on the Main Road. It was over a year ago when I visited the Building Department of the Town of Southold and made inquiry as to whether or not the con- crete sections in this cesspool construction for a permitted storage or use in that area, a piece of property that Mr. Morris is asking a variance from. When I walked in, Mr. Hindermann happened to be there and he asked if he could 'help me. I -told 'him what my concerns were. He looked to see whether or not, as I explained it to him, whether or not that was a legal use of the property. He informed me that it was a nonconforming use. That was over a year ago. Mr. Hindermann inquired of me whether I was asking personally or for someone else. I told 'him I was asking personally and also in behalf of the property owners association on which I serve as a board of director. Gentle- men, that' s a year ago. And I want you to know that. And I think this is a very, very sad comment and a very unfavorable one, of the Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- June 23, iy83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137 - DAYSMAN MORRIS , continued: ) MR. RIEMER continued: Building Department of the Town of Southold, that one year,' in excess of one year after I .raised the .issue , you have before you an applica- tion for a variance , because during this entire period of' time no " action was taken. . "Anal his conversation with me, Mr. Hinderma_nn' sug- gested that I read a letter so that the. Town Building Department wouldn'.t be looked upon, ' if you will, as nit-picking on people. That letter was written and it was written very shortly after my visit; by the then .president of the association, Mr. Richard Deale. Before I surrender the mike to Dick, I just want to .point something out. - I 'can't take stronger exception to the thought that if you 'deny the application, that there is a hardship. Goodness _ gratious , there must be by the present zoning of: the Town of Southold umpteen pieces of property within the town for the storage of - such items as Mr. Morris is presently storing there. There is a thing that you are very, very familiar, with.. Shall we call it contiguous pieces. of property? Shall we call it continuous zoning? Surely a piece of property which abuts another piece of property doesn't 'necessarily call for that zoning to continue. Other- wise why have zoning at all? Why: not call" the entire Town of Southold, "one type of zoning and every piece of property thereafter must follow. " I think that' s sheer nonsense. And. you too I believe will agree that : it' s sheer nonsense. And in my conversation again with Mr. Hindermann; I asked. him, "Are you sure because I pointed out .that directly across .the street from the subject property 'is John Rempe' s retail fish store. " I also. pointed out to him is! -the lumberyard around the corner, the Greenport position, if you ,will, : of Penny. I also told him about the asphalt plant- That. doesn' t affect the zoning at all , because if you were to climb upon one of .the stacked pieces of property and if you were to presume.that John 'Rempe' s fish store if .you ,will is a. 12 :00 o'clock high and if you were then.`to position yourself at 8 :00 and climb upon a piece of concrete. and looked out. at the lovely piece of water known as Pipes Cove, I tell .you, and I've known Bi11 . Smith, for many years , that this kind of an entry into this area can only cause' . for ,a depreciation of property. -I object strongly to this application. Thank. you MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Riemer. RICHARD DEALE: My- name is Richard Deale. I'm, the immediate . past president-of the °Peconic Bay Estates . Property Owners Association-, Incorporated. I had the honor of se-rvingin those positions from 'July of 1980 to July of 1982. I'm sure you have in front of you a copy of my letter dated June 2 , 1982. There' s no point in reading It at this hearing: I'in' wasting -.your time. . I would point out that after, Mr. Riemer talked to Mr. Hindermann, I decided to double-che' ck. it myself because I was being inundated by phone calls from the- people in our association asking me what it was , why it was , what were we going to do about it. So I .went down to the Building Department and I talked to. Mr. Fisher,, who I believe at that 1 F Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- June 23, 198o Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137 - DAYSMAN MORRIS, continued: ) MR. DEALE continued: time was Senior Inspector. Mr. Fisher reiterated to me what he told to Mr. Riemer. It is indeed in violation of the zoning. I told 'him exactly what was being stored there and under what conditions, and it should absolutely not be there. And if you want to talk about the hardship, the hardship is not upon Mr. Morris. The hardship is upon .our people in the Association. We have a beautiful little cove down there and we don' t need this type of obsenity on our landscape. The people strongly object to it. We could pack this room tonight if you want to spend the evening an entire night. listening to them. We could have done that. But we felt that three of us were sufficient. That' s the reason we 're here. My letter is obvious. The conversations I had were obvious , as recently as last Fall one of the town board whose name shall remain anonymous, asked my wife if we would accept a fence. And my answer is absolutely not. You can' t make something aesthetic that is not aesthetic. I don' t care what you do with it. We don' t want it there. There' s nothing personal involved 'here. When you drive into our piece of property and if you have the opportunity to do it, it' s just a few feet off the road, probably the 10 feet that Mr.. Morris indicated it was. There are piles of dirt all over the place. It has cut off the view � of ' the water you could have seen before as you drove in there, and it ' s piled 'nigh with cesspool tops and cesspools themselves. We don' t need that. We don 't want that: We pay the highest taxes in the Town of Southold. The highest tax rate in the Town of Southold , and we' re entitled to something better than that. He knew, if Mr. Bruer says that he was informed by competent sources that this was a conforming use, I wonder how competent the sources were because obviously� it was not a competent source. We found it out simply by inquiring at the Town Hall--Mr. Riemer and myself. We strongly objection. We will continue to object. We will not accept this in our area. I refer you now back to our present President, Roger Bancroft. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say something. This board does appreciate your coming down here. We do appreciate your coming the three of you and not the entire area because of course you end up with redundancy and that' s not what we' re interested in. We ' re interested in facts. Thank you. MR. DEALE: Thank you. May I put this microphone down for Mr. Bancroft to use sitting down. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. BANCROFT: I have a very recent hip surgery to contend with, that' s why I ask this consideration. My advice when I visited the Town Hall in this matter was that most reasonably we should present as many reasons as possible why we oppose this variance. These are some of those reasons : 1. This is illegal. There has been illegal storage. It is not storage to be done. It has been there for over a year and has Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- June 23 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137 - DAYSMAN MORRIS , continued : ) MR. BANCROFT continued: ) been illegal all that time and nothing has been done about the legality of it. It is insulting to 119 taxpaying citizens to have cesspool storage at the entrance and exit of a section of the Town of Southold that we spend a lot of time and effort maintaining and improving. We think we have a very nice little corner of the world and we 're very proud of it, and it' s rather obscene as Mr. Deale has said that every day, in and out, we have to look at cesspool operators before we get into or go from our homes. I ask the board to consider how they would feel if some morning on their way to work as they leave their street they found a whole pile of cesspools, concrete, stacked not far from the entrance to their street , and that' s exactly what happened on Kirwin Boulevard. It' s aesthetically very, very detrimental. The Town of Southold agrees with our position in this matter. In March, on March 5th we had a Board of Directors ' Meeting to which the Supervisor of the Town of Southold was invited and to which he came seeking general advice and assistance in some other matters as well as this. It was at that time that he said that procedures were in place to make this. a criminal proceeding to get rid of this problem. As I understand it those papers still have not gone through a final process. My informa- tion this afternoon from one of the people who is involved directly in this matter said that tomorrow morning, the proper signatures will be on those papers. If that' s the case and this variance should be accepted, we would have the very interesting situation of the Town of Southold bringing criminal procedure to get something set aside where the Board of Appeals had already granted a variance. I think that would be a very interesting occurrence. We've been very active honestly active to do something about this from the very beginning; Mr. Riemer and Mr. Deale have cited a couple of points of the chrono- logy. I told you about the March 5th business . As far back as November 17 , 1982, I went to the Town Hall, talked with Mr. Pell who personally escorted me into Mr. Fisher' s Office. Mr. Fisher gave me a slip of paper on which he made a notation of this second complaint and the second effort to get something done for this. If it happened tomorrow morning, than it' s happening just about a year from the first .time that we asked for some considera- tion. The very fact that there is a request at this plant in June 1983 for a variance to the zoning ordinance which forbad the use of that property for the purpose that it was put to indicates that the thought is that it is not legal to store that cesspool operation there. So again for a year there has been illegal activity which I think should not be condoned. We do not seek penalties. We seek only that this variance not be granted and that material now being stored illegally on that property be taken away immediately. Thank you very much.. Southold Town Board or Appeals -33- June 23 , 1J83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137 - DAYSMAN MORRIS, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor. Is there anybody else that would like to -speak against this application? Mr. Bruer, would you have anything in rebuttal? MR. BRUER: Just a couple of things with respect to--to say something positive about the Building Department. The application is being made because Mr. Morris was served with a violation--that ' s why we 're here. Two , with respect to this type of application where we ' re not dealing with septic .tanks and things like that, the board has granted variances with respect to business property and the use of property for storage. I believe they did it with respect to a recent application of a Mr. Munz. I'm not sure, but didn' t they do it with. Strong Marina for the storage of boats, which required a similar type of application. And one other point with respect to the availability of industrial property in this town, there isn't any available. I think,Mr. Goehringer, you're with real estate and Mr. Smith can verify that right now. Thank you. MR. DEALE: With all due respect to Mr. Bruer , that doesn't make it right. He still. bought the property knowing full well , and I'm sure they knew full well when they bought the property it was a nonconforming use. Because anybody could ask a simple question as I did and Mr. Riemer did. We found out it was a nonconforming use. Therefore , had it been investigated properly before the fact, we wouldn't be here tonight discussing it ,and wasting everybody' s time. It is nonconforming. It should remain that way. The fact that it' s industrial area--Kirwin Boulevard is not in itself in a heavy industrial area. There is a fish store on Kirwin Boulevard. There' is a plant. on the Main. Road. There is a lumberyard on the Main Road. It is not on Kirwin Boulevard, neither one of these facilities are on Kirwin Boulevard. This is the area we' re con- cerned with. I don' t care ( ) on the Main Roads. That' s the Town of Southold' s problem. This is our problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank .you, Sir. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in either side? Questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further questions , 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 until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3137 , DAYSMAN MORRIS. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Saawicki. (Member Grigonis was basent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. o Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- June 23, 198.3 Regular Meeting RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. . 3099. (Recessed from April 20, 1983) Upon application for DOROTHY REISE (Owner) and RIAL. REALTY CORP. . (Contract V.endee)., . by' Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. , Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 (A) and (B) for 'permission to construct garage and tennis court with fencing for principal use on this vacant :par,cel. Location of Property: . 675 Private Road No. 18A (East Hyatt Road) , Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-50-3-9. . The Chairman ,'reconvened_ the hearing at,,. 9:28-pom. _ MR.-_CHAIRMAN__GOEHRINGER: This is a rece-ssed 'hearirig from the April . 20 , 1983 meeting. Mr Bruer... . RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ. : It was pointed out tome very vividly at the. last meeting when we were here that there was . reasonable strong objection to the application. Mr. Capone is here which is the reason it was adjourned the last time, and the second time We' re willing to. proceed 'here with this particular hearing but on the basis of an amended application. We realize that a lot of the concern of a lot of the residents in the area was that there was no residence on the property--that it ,was just a garage and a tennis court. And Mr. Capone feels that it, would probably be in the best interests of. the application and the area if he were to amend his application to instead of having a garage but to put in a seasonal residence there. , This would probably be in more character with the . neig.hborhood, and if the board- will near the application based upon that. . . in other words., we would ..put in a. seasonal residence meeting the requirements of the town for a seasonal residence, and a - tennis court on it as shown on the . survey and diagrams that are before the board--only, instead of calling it a -garage, we will call it a residence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer, ..I am sure the board is . aware of what a seasonal .residence is, however the seasonality of it somewhat escapes me. I'm. assuming that. a seasonal residence is a residence that has no heat in it. Is that correct? MR. BRUER: That' s right. It' s a residence that can be used May.. until September I believe, as Mr. Fisher defines it. MR. CHAIRMAN.: You are aware of the fact, however, that the legal notice reads garage .,and .tennis court on vacant parcel. . MR. . BRUER: I understand that, Mr. Goehringer.- MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything you would ..like to add before I enter my decree? ANTHONY -B. - TOHILL, ESQ. : ' .On' the record- 'Anthony B. Toni ll, - 6 East Main Street,.: Riverhead, NY. I represent --I`m looking at my notes---it' s .approximately 14 surrounding families who own property contiguous and about this property, and- I would like to object to' the application at this point--at this preliminary point t Southold Town Board or Appeals -35- June .23, .l�o3 Regular Meeting (Appeal 'No. 3099 - D.' REISE, ' contiriued: ) MR. TOHILL continued: for two reasons., three reasons : (1) on a very practical level , . .I haven't changed my office since April -- nowhere. it was before, and my phone number is in the book. Somebody should have called me to tell me I was opposing. a very different application here tonight from the one that' s advertised. (.2) 4 I think that if someone checked on Anderson or Rathkoff,' we 're going to find out� as the Chairman has already pointed out--that you can't have a hearing if it ' s on a subject matter completely different from-.,'that adver- tised because you don't have any jurisdiction. You 'have to post and publish as to the event to occur. or the event that' s occurring can occur. But then there' s a third . t.hing which is more .suttle and which I would have gotten to later on," and if it comes back . again, I will, but I'-11 do it now because it seems appropriate, and that is that I .don:t think the board has jurisdiction to hear the application at all. The reason is that this is .not a single and separate lot.. And the reason for 'that is that this applica- tiori is being made with respect to a' lot which is Number 9 on the Suffolk County Tax Map. If you look to the records , you' ll see that' it.' s Lot' No. 9 , the last digit. _ Lot No. .9. and contiguous Lot No. ' 23 were purchased by Mr. and .Mrs. Riese as one parcel in 1960 . In' 1971, this subject parcel-, Lot No. 9 was conveyed out. Mr. Riese then died in 1983. His Last Will and Testament was filed on St. Patrick' s Day of this year in the Suffolk County Surrogate' s Court. All of his real estate under that Last Will and Testament goes to Mrs. Riese. , . ,I've read it. ' I 've read the original document.. ' I've had it in my hands. The result of all of what I have just said is that Lots 9, and 23 as of the date of this application was filed is one lot. You only have one-half of one ' lot,- before the board. There-is. no .single •and separate search,. that George Fisher wrote ten days before the Will was filed, but two months after Mr. Riese was dead that this was a single and separate parcel because I. suspect George . Fisher _didn't know what had occurred at Eastern Long Island Hospital some time in January. So that as a result before the board can hear even an amended application, . it would nave .to. hear a .subdivision application in order . to determine whether this lot is going to stand as a separate parcel. MR.. CHAIRMAN No, I � think you.'re wrong in that respect, Mr.. Tohill. . I think what Mr. Bruer' would have .to do is apply for a- vacant land C/O, and if the vacant land C/O- was granted to him, then he could apply. . If the vacant land C/O was denied him, then he would have to .go for the-- MR.- TOHILL.: By operation of law, there was a merger on January 23 because the man died. The vacant .land C/O was issued on March 7th. On March 17th a Will was filed which was ' in ,effect. on January 23 as . much ,as it was in. effect 'onMarch. l7tn. `The result is there' s a merger. I had up at this time, and-.I ask that this be made part of . the board' s record, the original. stamped death certificate of. Michael Riese together, 'with an original -arid three affidavits which I've signed and sworn to' to reflect my'research in the Surrogate's Court, Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- June 23, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - D. REISE, continued : ) MR. TOHILL continued: Suffolk County, and the deed records of Suffolk County, which would indicate that this is a merged parcel, and that the application then cannot be heard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Assuming that this is all true, Mr. Bruer, what would you like to do concerning the present application? MR. BRUER: Well, just for the record I would like to say to Mr. Tohill with respect� to his telephone number, the decision with respect to the amendment of the application here was decided about 8 : 30 this evening in this room--outside in the hall actually. MR. TOHILL: I hope that comment is on the record that it was decided at 8 : 30 this evening. MR. BRUER: Mr. Capone -is here and can verify it. As to the rest of what he said, I'm not prepared at this point to debate it. MR. TOHILL : I should nand to Mr. Bruer a copy of this affidavit which I neglected to do and I apologize. MR. BRUER: My office has always been where it is for the last two years, Tony. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a matter of semantics? MR. TOHILL: Started out with that cat out in the back of the room-- I 've never had that tactic .used against me (jokingly) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Bruer. Would you like us to-- MR. BRUER: I'd like to say this. If as Mr. Tohill says the property is merged and that the vacant land C/O is , I believe , in your file, is improper , which would make it invalid, we certainly would not be in a position to want to purchase the property. At least at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you. feel that you would want to withdraw this application at this particular time? MR. BRUER: Would you give about a minute .and a half to talk to my client? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. BRUER: Thank you. (No other comments were made during the time Mr. Bruer spoke with his client. ) MR. BRUER: If the board feels the Certificate of Occupancy on the vacant land is a valid C/O allowing us to proceed with this Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- June 23 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - D. REISE, continued: ) MR. BRUER continued: particular property, we would like to proceed on the basis of an amended application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can' t permit that, sir, because of the adver- tising problem: And that' s the problem right here. MR. BRUER: Well, on the assumption that the C/O is a valid C/o, we would withdraw it. and make a future application as I outlined here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We could act upon that now, just as long as you send us something for the file indicating this. And you will resubmit that for a new vacant land C/O application (to the building inspector) . MR. BRUER: Do you want me to apply for a new vacant land C/O? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, or ask if the present one is still a valid one. MR. BRUER: Ok. That' s fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer, you are aware of the fact that you will be needing a. new disapproval .(from the building inspector) indicating the new dwelling that you propose? MR. BRUER: Well, the dwelling would be all right. It' s the tennis court that' s the problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you are going to be disapproved--it will require a new disapproval (new processing) . Other than the disapproval I have in my domain right here. MR. BRUER: That' s correct. I understand that. MR. TOHILL: Could I ask as a courtesy that we be (given) a copy of the letter of application to the Building Department for the vacant lot C/O so that we can respond and ( ) the record before Mr. Fisher or Mr. Lessard or whoever is handling it in the Building Department. That would be fair. Because if there is some information that they don' t have that they. didn't on March 7th., which if they had they might not have done , but they did, then we should be given an opportunity to save everybody an appeal-. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what I will do , Mr. Tohill , -- I don't know if you are aware of the fact--Mr. Lessard has been out. MR. TOHILL: I know. He ' s ill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. And he has promised us by telephone call tonight that he will be in tomorrow. MR. TOHILL: I'm not pressing that. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- June 23, iy83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - D. REESE, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. But I would like to apprise him of this informa- tion. Is that what you would like me to do? MR. TOHILL: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I' ll put it right on his desk. Is that all right with you, Mr. Bruer? MR. BRUER: That you put it right on his desk? Fine. . MR. CHAIRMAN: I don' t want to .get- anybody upset here. MR. TOHILL: There' s a reasonable chance you will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately that is the case. MR. CHAIRMAN:. Gentlemen, I' ll need a motion withdrawing Appeal No. 3099. MEMBER DOYEN: I' ll move. On motion. by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was RESOLVED, to WITHDRAW APPEAL NO. 3099 , application for DOROTHY RIESE/RIAL REALTY CORP. , as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki . Member Grigonis was absent. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3129. Application for IRENE PAPADAKIS, by Michael J. Hall , Esq. as attorney, Front Street, Greenport, New York for an Interpretation of "skin care clinic" as a home occupation under Article I, Section 100-13 , Definitions . Location of Property : 26165 Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-018-03-023. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 :50 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch plan indicating square footage for the first floor excluding garage, 1992 square feet. I 'm sorry-that' s total. Living area is 1600 . Office space is 392.. Office takes up 19% of the first floor. The lot size is approximately 35 ,675 square feet. House coverage including garage is 2.530 square feet--house covers approximately 7%. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Hall, would you like to be heard in behalf of your application? MICHAEL J. HALL, ESQ. : Yes, please. Good evening, ladies, Mr. Chairman and everyone else here. I'd like to break the ice by saying 1 ` � Southold Town Board of Appeals -39 June 2.3, 19oi Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 312.9 - IRENE PAPADAKIS, continued : ) MR. HALL continued : that a cosmetologist does not store septic tanks on the property-- so there will be no septic tanks there (jokingly) . How about a little laugh, ok'; Before I begin my talk, what I would like to do is ask some specific questions for the record of Irene if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN : Do you want - to use the other mike? MR. HALL : ' Sure. (Miss Papadakis used the other microphone. ) MR. HALL: Irene, how many people or cars are likely --customers that is , are likely to be at your shop, at your home occupation at a given time? IRENE PAPADAKIS : Per day, or--- MR. HALL: No, at any one time. MISS PAPADAKIS : One. MR. HALL: What is the average number of clients that you are likely to see in a day? MISS PAPADAKIS : Three to five. MR. HALL: How long do you stay with a given client? On the average. MISS PAPADAKIS : An hour. MR. HALL: Ok. Do you have an average number of clients you see in a week or plan to see in a week? MISS PAPADAKIS : I'd say 18 to 2.0. MR. HALL: What is the 'average amount of time between visits of a particular client?' How often does Mrs. Jones come to visit you? MISS PAPADAKIS : How often? On the average two weeks to a month. Every two weeks to every month. MR. HALL: Do you cut or style hair in your office? MISS PAPADAKIS : No. MR. HALL: Do you ever plan on cutting or styling hair in your office in the future? MISS PAPADAKIS : No. MR. HALL: Are you willing to accept a condition imposed by the board if the interpretation you seek -is granted, not to ever cut or style hair in your shop? MISS PAPADAKIS : Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- June 2.3, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 312.9 - IRENE PAPADAKIS , continued: ) MR. HALL: Do you provide off-street parking for those clients you do have? MISS PAPADAKIS : Yes. MR. HALL: I have no further questions of Irene, but I would like to speak. I'd like to first address that everyone here I'm sure is well aware that Irene. appeared here without myself on February 4 , 1983, and that was an application for a business-use variance. There were many objections raised. I read the transcript of the hearing, and the gist of those objections--and I personally agree with them 1000 , if I was here I would have objected also--was that (1) , a business use variance of that type would have created a very danger- ous precedential value because if you let her go in there and get a business use variance for a skin care clinic--then what' s to stop if you set a precedent, someone right down the road from opening up some other shop, and Orient is a non-business-type area, granted for the record, and it should stay that way. The other reason that there were objections to that application was that once the variance was applied to that piece of property for her to run a business on it as a business use, a variance probably would have run with the land and if she had left with her--relatively innocuous skin care clinic , maybe a pizzeria could have come in on the variance. So there was bad precedent of the original application, and the opposition was very well founded. But I would like to point out that what is being sought tonight is merely. an interpretation by the Board of Zoning Appeals to interpret what constitutes a home occupation, and specifically, is a cosmetologist--does a cosmetologist fit within the definition of home occupation. I'd like to say that if the board grants such a thing, there is no precedential value at all. A barber can't come a week later and say, "I want to open up a shop in Orient. " And a pizzeria can't come up and say, "Well , you gave Irene Papa- dakis such a use" ; because it wasn't such a use. It' s merely an interpretation of the code we're working with. So there' s no dangerous precedential value , and it wouldn' t apply to any other business use anyway in Orient or any where else in the Town of Southold. Such an interpretation does not run with the land, and if Irene a year from now is either so successful or needs to spread her wings , if she leaves that building and goes someplace else, then that building is strictly a home and it will stay that way. And as I said, the interpretation now will only apply to cosmetolo- gists , and will not apply or set any precedential value for any other occupation. And it will not set a precedent for a high- volume business , like a barber because we hope to make a clear distinction tonight between a haircutter or a barber, and Irene has said on the record that she will not cut hair on the premises or a hairdresse , is not that type of business. Southold- Town Board of Appeals -41- June 2.3., . 1y83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 312.9- - IRENE PAPADAKIS, continued: ) MR. HALL continued: As to the specifics of the interpretation of. cosmetologist, I'm . reading from ,a N.Y.S. published brochure, published by the Depart- ment of. State, and it' s on hairdressing: and cosmetology; and it defines cosmetologist as "one trained and professionally engaged in the practice of beautifying and _improving the complexion, skin, hair or nails. The Southold Town. Code defines home occupation, and I won't read-the whole thing because. you° re very familiar with it, but "home occupation-this shall be understood to include a professional office or'..studio of a doctor, dentist, teacher, artist , architect, engineer, .physician; lawyer, magistrate or practioners', of a similar character; et cetera,, et cetera. I would hope the board will- agree and the residents of Orient who are here that a cosmetologist or an aesthetician,, as they' re called in Europe, is very similar in character to a. dermatologist, to a pediatrist, to a medical doctor, to a dentist, except in one better category--the business is of much lower volume--and that' s one of the reasons . there' s a ,home occupation being applied for here. It' s a low volume business , and perhaps couldn't be supported in a commercial area. The character o£ a practice, as 'I said, is similar as the code states, .to the practices :"above. And the interpretation, I believe would fit very clearly into the code. and the board wouldn 't be going out on a limb. to .fit in such an interpretation. The code is not exclusive and doesn't say "these are the only home occupations. " The code says., such and such, or "professions of similar character. " One of the reasons her practice is as similar in character to - those names is .that she uses materials that are not available to the public, that are only available to a licensed cosmetologist. What :she does is , she treats. acne conditions, ( ) skin or veins that come out in the skin, permanent,--hair removal , internal and external mild skin peeling. and skin ailments in general. These are something that you cannot get taken care of' perhaps anywhere in the Town of Southold that I am aware of, and the occupation and the profession in the locality which serve a need but again that' s not why we're here. We're here. because the code defines home occupation as naming certain types of things and says "or occupations of similar character. " And the character of the nature of. her business does fit in with the occupations that are tradi- tionally considered home occupations. She stated on the record she will- not cut hair .on the premises.. It.' s not going to be a beauty parlor or hairdresser. She' s got off-street parking. . As every one wells knows , she was in- business in the past before the, previous; applicati.ons were made because of, I 'guess many misunderstandings, and I hope her'. ,neighbors agree .that the volume of people that went in and out at the time was, low, to say the least ' from what 'I understand, and -should be innocuous , and. Southold Town Board o.L Appeals -42- June 2.3 , -_ _3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 312.9 - IRENE PAPADAKIS , continued: ) MR. HALL continued: there could potentially be a doctor in there, or a dentist, who could see 30 or 40 people a day. And this is not the nature of that prac- tice . And it does serve a need for the people in the town, and I believe the board will agree that the interpretation is clearly within the realm of the code. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.' Would anybody else like to be heard, in behalf of this. application? (No one) Would anybody like to speak against the application? Could we start with the middle first? Anybody in the middle? Sir? EDMUND PAPANTONIOU: My name is Edmund Papantoniou. I'm an attorney, and I represent the adjacent property owners of the petitioner, Carol Meyer and Joanna Ashberger, who own the property directly to the west of the petitioner. Although. I appreciate Mr. Hall 's advocacy on behalf of his client, unfortunately we aren' t just talking. about advocacy here. I don' t believe the.:arguments he advanced this evening really have a basis and legal precedent either because of the statutes of the State, because of the cases in the State , or because of our own zoning code in Southold. The first point is there was an attempt to distinguish what Miss Papadakis is doing this evening. She' s requesting an inter- pretation as a home occupation that is something within a resi- dential zone from what she did earlier this year requesting a variance. Although the form is different , the substance of what she is doing is identical. Iri January, she was under the impression and she believed that a skin care clinic is not allowed in a residential area. When that appeal was denied , she is turning around. and saying, "Well if you put it in this cubby hole, it is allowed. " But still what she is doing is the same. And I just don't think there is a legal basis for finding a skin care clinic . as. a home occupation. Finally the distinction that Mr. Hall has used between the barbershop and cosmetology is not shared by the State of .New York. I read from the General Business Law, Article 2.7 , which says that, "a beauty parlor means any place during hairdressing and cosmetology or practice. " They are thrown together in the statute, and ironi- cally it' s because they are thrown together that a skin care clinic has been seen as a home occupation in certain townships in the State. Let me go then the legal basis of my argument. The first point that I want to raise is that the language of our statute in Southold enumerates under the definition "home occupation" , specific professions are spelled out--architect, doctor. And it' s a well accepted legal principle that when certain items are spelled out, those that are not spelled out are excluded--inclusio unius est exclusio alterius-- including one excludes the other. As I eluded earlier in the one case that I found where a skin care clinic was allowed as a home occupation, the definition of home Southold Town Board o.L Appeals -43- June 2.3, -L-,83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3129 - IRENE PAPADAKIS , continued: ) MR. PAPANTONIOU continued: occupation specifically included ''masseur -.in italics , identifying the activity of massaging and cosmetology and saying, because of this , because this particular statute, which is Hempstead Statute, allows a masseur as a home occupation we can allow a skin care clinic. Southold does not. Southold is narrower. When we enacted our statute, we didn't want to include that sort of activity. Other words in the statute that might give rise to allowing a skin care clinic--a profession-- is a skin care clinic a professional office? I agree with the Court in Davidson v. Hoover, although a Tennessee Court, which found that there was no connection between cosmetology as a=.profession like medicine or dentistry. .One other word that the Southold definition of home occupation uses is an ".artist. " The identity of a skin care clinic or a hair- dresser, which is identical from, New York's purposes, a hairdresser and a cosmetology form the same category, that was no considered to be an artist, in Lng v. City of Fort Worth. But without getting bogged down in the semantics of the statute, let' s think about the general purpose of a home occupation. Why is that in there? It' s in there to allow a use which is accessory to the primary use, which you all know is -residential, to be performed in that home. What you, .allow as a home occupation must be a customary incident. Is a skin care clinic a customary incident of a residence? The Courts of the State of New York- don' t believe so , People v. Nicosia. A beauty parlor is not a customary home occupation in a 1963 case. Furthermore, the concept of a home occupation is , as I said , is a use. accessory to the primary purpose, and a New Jersey Court has found-.that even accessory uses will be limited when such activity impinges upon the residential character of the neighborhood. And in effect what we 're coming down to is that there is a dintinction that has been made by New .York Courts between professional offices., which are countenance by the statute on business offices . And we really do have a business office over here. Bennassy v. Board of Adjustment found that a beauty shop is not a professional office--rather it' s included in a business district applicable there. And that definition Pennsylvania Statute said that in business districts were personal- service shops which is remarkably similar to what we .have--service shops in our Zone "B" of the Southold Statute. The State of New York I think says the last word on whether cosmetology is a professional acitivity or a business commercial activity. I read you Article 2.7 of the General Business Law which in its preamble .states that the reasons that cosmetology was regulated was because of the "hazardous nature of the equipment methods and materials. . Frequent occurrence of both minor. and serious accidents. To diminish the number of and ultimately prevent such accidents , and to safeguard and protect the lives , health and well-being of those Southold Town Board or Appeals -44- June 2.3, iti33 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3129 - IRENE PAPADAKIS, continued: ) MR. PAPANTONIOU continued: people who patronize beauty parlors. This is not a use accessory to a residence. Finally, other people aside , I think our own zoning code doesn't countenant this sort of behaviour- in a residential area. The reason I say this is- at Section 100-10 , specifically enumerates certain purposes for our zoning code. "To provide for the privacy of families. To prevent traffic' congestion. The maximum protection of residential areas and elimination of nonconforming uses. " All of these will be frustrated by allowing a skin care .clinic in a residential area. Certain traffic--there will be a certain increase of traffic regardless of numbers. Further, chemicals could possibly be added to the already fragile water table. Certainly, nonconforming uses would be encouraged and lastly but certainly not least, there would be outsiders disturbing the privacy of my clients. For these reasons , ladies and gentlemen of the board, I respect- fully submit that the petition should be denied. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, sir. Would anybody else like to be heard against the. application? Sir would you kindly use the mike and state your name? WALTER SMITH.: Walter Smith of Orient. The gentleman before. me has. sort of taken a lot of wind out of my sails and put down most of the things I was going to say and a lot more eloquently. I repre- sent the 2.00 people that have signed the petition against this. As I look over my notes, most of it being covered by the gentleman in front of me, except one thing really shook me up a few minutes ago. As a man with degrees in chemistry, something was mentioned about the various things that she uses. And I think this is the real difference between a professional and a vocation. A professional knows when something is toxic, .potentially hazardous and 'now to dis- pose of it. And this is one of the prime keys that we have to consider in this situation. Can a person who has a superficial knowledge of chemistry or ( )cology actually be in: a position to safeguard the people ' s in the area water supply? The tremendous problems . that we' re having with organic materials now and parts per billion leave me to believe that unless someone really has a real good background in this field and is competent, this should be denied just on that basis alone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Is there anybody else wishing to speak against this application? Mrs . Oliva? RUTH OLIVA, NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: Hello , Ruth Oliva. I think the NFEC would just like to add and agree with Mr. Papantoniou who has spoken before me. I think we are against any changes of zones in: a primarily residential-agricultural area of what I could read, and I 'm certainly not a lawyer but Mr. Papantoniou is , is that the code does not allow for this accessory use , and we do feel it would set a precedent in the area, and Orient is residential-agricultural,. and we would like to keep it that way. Thank you. Southold Town Board __ Appeals -45- June 23 , 1 3 Regular- Meeting y (Appeal No. 3129 - IRENE PAPADAKIS, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Hall, would you like to say something in rebuttal? MR. HALL: The reason this is a second application is not to try to subvert anything, but as I said earlier, specifically, a business-use variance would due harm to the community. It would run with the land and it would create a dangerous precedent. An interpretation of the code such as this of the cosmetologist would not run with the land and would not create any precedent that I 'm aware of because it just runs to, this -1board determines that a cosmetologist is a home occupation. That' s all it does. As to the latin phrase, inclusio unius, that doctrine applies that if things are included, it excludes everything else, is true; but this code doesn' t do that. It says "or practitioners of a similar character. " It doesn' t even say professionals of a similar character. Just practitioners of a similar character, which does as I believe, and it' s not my job it' s your job--include anything that' s similar to the previous listed ones. As to whether cosmetology is a profession, I'm reading here a letter from Basil Paterson when he was Secretary of State of New York, and the first sentence of his letter is to protect the public, as the attorney stated, "to protect the public interest and to assure high standards for the hairdressing and the cosmeto- logy profession, the State of New York has established certain regulations" , et cetera, et cetera. It is a profession. As to whether a beauty parlor is a professional office, I don 't think a beauty parlor is a professional office and I would not want one in my residential neighborhood. But a medical doctor is, and a lawyer is, and a pediatrist is, and an optomologist is, and a cosmetologist is. Again, that' s for the board to decide. As to the materials and the danger to the water, Irene assures me that all of the materials she uses are so-called "all natural" ; that they' re made with natural ingredients, herbs, minerals and they' re put together by a chemist, who is a licensed professional-- no one could disagree--for her, but they are made with all natural ingredients and should not pose any threat whatsoever to the Orient water supply, which is precious. That' s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Papantoniou, would you like to say anything? MR. PAPANTONIOU: Without belaboring the point, just one thing I would like to say--one thing disturbs me about Mr. Hall' s reasoning. He implies that if a variance had been granted in February or January, then that would have been a big bad; that would have been something really wrong because that would go with the land. Of course, what she would have done in January is what she is going to do in June is the same thing. But this is just the little bad because she can take it with her when she goes. Southold Town Board __ Appeals -46- June 23, )83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3129 - IRENE PAPADAKIS, continued: ) MR. PAPANTONIOU continued: I disagree. The substance of what she' s doing is inconsistent with the area and with the statute. MRS. BRANDS : I'm Mrs. Brands (spelling?.) from Orient. I think there ' s another precedent maybe being set here. This parlor has been in operation before there was a variance granted or new interpretation, and I think that if that is .permitted, then there might be other people doing the same thing.. MR. CHAIRMAN.: I understand your question, and I think it' s well placed. It was the nature of this board and the feeling of the board at the last application, which was the use variance appli- cation, to tell Miss Papadakis to cease and .desist in her operation. It would then go--as we are not a board of enforcement--it then goes to the Building Department, and at that particular time it was their interpretation to allow her to operate until such time that she had her time. And this is her time right now. Ok? MRS . BRANDS : Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir? MR. HALL: I' d like to clarify the record- just so everyone is aware. Irene, pursuant to the Building Inspector' s determination, did stay in business for a short while and then was stopped by the Department of State because she was an unlicensed shop. Granted the reason she was unlicensed and I had a hearing in Hauppauge about it, is because she doesn't have zoning approval. It' s chicken and egg, but there is no other reason. In other words, assuming the board grants the approval sought today, this shop will become validly licensed. I' d just like the public to be aware of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments from anyone? Hearing no further- comments, I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you all for coming in. MEMBER SAWICKI : Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3129, IRENE PAPADAKIS . Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously -adopted.. "Southold Town Board Appeals -47- June 23 .983 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES : On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the May 19, 1983 Special Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. REVIEW OF APPEAL NO. 3149 - PHILIP FRUMENTI. In reviewing the new file of Mr. Frumenti, the board noted that the total lot coverage with the existing and proposed structure may exceed the maximum 20% permitted, and it was the opinion of the board that this be reviewed by the Building Inspector. to prevent any further delays of the application (in-case of a lot coverage variance which would also be required, if appropriate) . The board agreed, however, to schedule this application for public hearing at the next regular meeting in July, if the lot coverage was less than 20% and thereby not requiring an amendment to the application. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3149, PHILIP FRUMENTI be returned to the Building Inspector for certification pertaining to lot coverage, and in the event the application need not be amended to include a variance for excessive lot coverage, that this application be scheduled for public hearing, pursuant to law, for the next Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. The secretary was instructed to send a letter to the applicant requesting the figures pertaining to the structures in order .that a determination could be made by the building inspector. REVIEW - APPEAL NO. FL-14 . ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT. In reviewing the above application, it was the consensus of the board that the applicant be notified as to obtaining a permit from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation as early as possible. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was Southold Town -Board Appeals -48- June 23, B3 Regular Meeting a RESOLVED, to set THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1983 commencing at 7 :30 p.m. as the time and date of the next Regular Meeting of this board to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR JULY: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting, to wit, JULY 21, 1983 , commencing at 7 : 30 p.m. and as '. follows: 7: 30 p.m. Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP (recessed from tonight) . 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3133 - THOMAS KENNEDY 7: 40 p.m. Appeal No. FL-14 - ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT 7: 45 p.m. Appeal No. 3151 _ RVSS, Inc. (Razmataz) . 7: 50 p.m. Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III, PAUL CAMINITI , ESQ. AND MR. KAPLAN. 8 : 00 p.m. Appeal No. 3146 - RICHARD DeMARIA 8 : 05 p.m. Appeal No. 3145 - SOUTHOLD EQUITIES , INC. 8 : 10 p.m. Appeal No. 3147 - DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE 8 :15 p.m. Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE 'S MARINA (a/k/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD) 8 :30 p.m. Appeal No. 3150 JACK & LEE LEFKOWITZ (F.J. CHRISTIE) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member' Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS - S.E.Q.R.A. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declarations pursuant to the regulations of the N.Y. S. Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4 of the Town Code, as indicated supra: Southold Town Board c." Ippeals -49- June 23., -83 Regular Meeting " (Environmental Declarations, continued: ) APPEAL NO. : 3133 PROJECT NAME: THOMAS KENNEDY This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8-of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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 use property zoned "A" for retail store. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 33260 S.R. 25, and 225 Eugene' s Road, Cutchogue, NY; 1.000-097-02-016. 5. REASON (.S) ,.SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) The premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. APPEAL NO. : 3151 ' PROJECT NAME: RVSS; -Inc . (RAZMATAZ,) ".-by G. Strang as agent This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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 develop and use parking on adjacent (leased) property. LOCATION OF PROJECT : Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side of S.R. 25, Mattituck/Laurel. 1000-125-01-19. 1; 1000-1.22-6-36. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located within. 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. r ,Southold Town Board c - ?kppeals -50- June 2.3, .3 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued: ) APPEAL NO. : 3139 PROJECT NAME: R.W. GILLISPIE, PAUL CAMINITI, ESQ. &ANOTHER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ##44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Divide business premises into two parcels with existing buildings. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/E corner of Beckwith Avenue and North Side of Main Road, Southold. 1000-061-02-5, 6 and 7. REASON (.S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the _ environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Subject premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. APPEAL NO. : 3146 PROJECT NAME: RICHARD DeMARIA This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ##44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Addition with reduction in rearyard.- LOCATION OF PROJECT : Town of Southold, .County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 900 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. 1000-87-2-6. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. ,Southold Town Board -4 Appeals -51- June 23, 1003 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued: ) .A APPEAL NO. : 3145 PROJECT NAME: SOUTHOLD EQUITIES., INC. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) Of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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 establish residential and studio use of an existing building in this "B-1" Business District. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as : S/s Traveler Street, Southold. 1000-61-01-15. REASON (.S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located near tidal wetlands area. APPEAL NO. : 3147 PROJECT NAME: DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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 6 ' fence which exceeds maximum 4 ' height along the frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue; 1000-111-3-6 . REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- June 23, IQ83 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declax.,,Ions, continued: ) •, APPEAL NO. : 3148 PROJECT NAME: JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ (F.J. CHRISTIE, Owner) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: One-family dwelling with. an insufficient frontyard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as : N/S Summit Drive, and .along S/s Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. 1000-106-01-042. 1. REASON (.S) ,SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Building area proposed is on top of bluff. APPEAL NO. : 3148 PROJECT NAME: ROKE 'S MARINA (a/k/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #k44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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 vacate decision of building .inspector and order to remedy violation that "boat storage and boat sales expanded to N/W corner of premises without C/O for extension of land use. " LOCATION OF PROJECT : Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as : 6750 New Suffolk Lane, New Suffolk.; 1000-117-5-28 and 29 . REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) No new construction is proposed by this application. -- •r y w Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- June 23, ij83 Regular Meeting • (Environmental Declarations, continued: ) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. Being there was no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting adjourned officially at approximately 11 : 05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, - f Linda F . Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Appr-ved - Gerard . Goeh, inger, Chairman Southold Town Board of peals RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE f/7/f 3 HOUR�•'l�Ii� Ao n C1erX!;iov� ' 'I