HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/15/1990 HEARING r SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS rAPMR
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW .YORK
1
2 -----------------------------------------
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -
3
PUBLIC HEARING
4
-----------------------------------------X
5
Main Road, Route 25
6 Southold, New York 11971
7 March 15 , 1990
7 : 30 P.M.
8
9 B E F O R E
10 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
11 Chairman.
12
BOARD MEMBERS:
13
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
14
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
15
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
16
17 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI (Absent)
18
19
20
21
22 .
23
24
25
1 2
2 THE CHAIRMAN: This is the regular
3 public hearing of the Southold Board of
4 Appeals .
5 The first appeal is on behalf of
6 Umbrella Home Care, Appeal Number 3917 . The
7 legal notice reads as follows:
8 Upon Applicant Number 3917 , Umbrella
9 Home Care. Variance to the Zoning
10 Ordinance, Article VII , Section 100-71C, as
11 disapproved, for permission to construct a
12 sign, proposed sign is not permitted in this
13 Residential/Office space (RO) District .
14 Property Location: 28455 Main Road,
15 Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number 1000 ,
16 Section 102 , Block 02, Lot 12 .1 .
17 I have a copy of a sketch of this
18 proposed sign. We did ask because there is
19 a marquis in the center approximately five
20 feet in length and it is elevated above the
21 ground. I have a copy of the Tax Map in-
22 dicating this and surrounding properties in
23 the area.
24 Would anybody like to be heard on
25 behalf of this?
1 3
2 MR. COSTANZO: Could I ask you a
3 couple of questions about the sign?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. For the record,
5 state your name for the stenographer please.
g MR. COSTANZO: Robert Costanzo.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I have three inches
8 and three inches, and one foot three and a
9 half inches . What is the approximate size
10 of this sign?
11 MR. COSTANZO: I didn't look at the
12 number today, but it matches . It is within
13 the conformance, the lineal footage.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you give us a
15 call tomorrow and give the total size,
16 including the borders on the sign?
17 MR. COSTANZO: Yes .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: And the elevation
19 above the ground is how much? It doesn' t
20 show it here.
21 MR. COSTANZO: I will give that also.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, where approxi-
23 mately on the premises are you placing it?
24 MR. COSTANZO: It is going on . . .
25 there is an extension . . . the porch
4
2 extension . . . between the columns . It will
3 be within the columns itself .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: In the center, more or
5 less? On one side or . . .
6 MR. COSTANZO: It is going in between
7 each column. It will be one long sign
8 placed so it centers in between each column.
9 The only area that there is some confusion,
10 I noticed on the drawing today the architect
11 shows the handle of the umbrella coming
12 down. That would be an objection of the one
13 way, and it would be omitted.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You are having Umbrel-
15 la Home Care Service . . . or each one is
16 going to say Umbrella Home Care Service?
17 MR. COSTANZO: The center will say
18 Umbrella Home Care Service and each plaque
19 coming down will have a description of each
20 individual service it is providing.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You gave us the
22 other information.
23 Do you have any questions on this?
24 MR. DINIZIO: No, none at all .
25 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that 's all we
1 5
2 really have. My problem is that for some
3 strange reason I just couldn' t identify with
4 the signs . I apologize.
5 MR. COSTANZO: The architect didn't
6 put the dimensions in, but it does meet with
7 them. I 've got the dimensions .
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
9 Anybody else that would like to be
10 heard on behalf of this application?
11 Anybody that would like to speak
12 against the application?
1 13 Seeing no hands, I make a motion
J 14 closing the hearing, reserving decision
15 until later. All in favor?
16 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
17 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
18 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Second, anyone? ,
20 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We are closing the
22 hearing subject to receiving additional
23 information which is his response to the
24 actual lineal footage of the sign. Thank
25 you.
l 6
2 The next appeal is Appeal Number 3909
3 on behalf of Joseph Cornacchia. The legal
4 notice reads as follows:
5 Upon application, the applicant,
6 Number 3909, Joseph Cornacchia. Variance to
7 the Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Section
8 100-33, as disapproved, for permission to
9 construct an accessory shed in front yard
10 area. Property Location: 835 Kimberly
11 Lane, Southold, County Tax Map Number 1000 ,
12 Section 070 , Block 13, Lot 20 .5 .
13 We have a copy of the survey for the
14 penned in area. The shed is to be placed
15 approximately 24 feet from Kimberly Lane,
16 approximately 24 feet from the northern
17 property line. The shed is approximately 10
18 by 20, and 20 feet is the most recent
19 change, I assume, running along the distance
20 of Kimberly Lane. I have a copy of the
21 Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
22 surrounding properties in the area.
23 Is there somebody that would like to
1 24 be heard?
25 How do you do, sir? Your name, for
_13 -
1 7
2 the record, please.
3 MR. WADE: Mike Wade. I am the
4 caretaker for the property.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: What is the purpose of
6 the shed?
7 MR. WADE: It is for garden equip-
8 ment .
g THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any
10 utilities in there?
11 MR. WADE: No.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: No electricity or
13 plumbing?
14 MR. WADE: Nothing.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: It will be hidden
16 amongst the . . . what kind of foliage do you
17 have there?
18 MR. WADE: Well , there is going to be
19 more pine trees put in. He also has
20 landscaping, mountain laurel , things like
21 that .
22 THE CHAIRMAN: So will it be visible
23 from the road?
24 MR. WADE: By the time the pine trees
25 go in, not at all .
8
2 THE CHAIRMAN: What is the reason for
3 the location in the front yard area rather
4 than placing it in the side yard?
5 MR. WADE: It is on the waterfront .
6 You would not want to obstruct any view from
7 the other side of the house. Plus, that
8 spot is the most secluded spot on the
9 property.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: The only .thing I want
11 to mention is that the granting of this
12 particular shed really sets a precedent for
13 the neighborhood since actually the mansion,
14 so-to-speak, on the north side of this
15 particular house has no other accessory
16 structures except, I assume, the cabana on
17 the. other side of the swimming pool .
18 MR. WADE: Right. That is on a
19 separate property.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: That is about the only
21 precedent sitting there, is that cabana,
22 which is not as far forward . . . for the
23 record.
24 MR. WADE: Right . That shed will be
25 40 feet from the road. It is 24 feet from
I S�
1 g
2 the property line.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to put
4 it . . . did you say 60?
5 MR. WADE: Forty feet from the
6 property line.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: You changed it from 24
8 to 40 , I see, because turning around . . . .
g MR. WADE: No, the property line is
10 16 feet from the road.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, right . So it is
12 24 feet from the property line and it goes
13 actually 40 feet from the road.
14 MR. WADE: Right .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right . I under-
16 stand. We will see what we can do. We did
17 grant one down in the corner of Kimberly
18 Lane, but that gentleman had two front
19 yards . That is all the way down in the end
20 there . . . at the last meeting.
21 MR. WADE: Also, Roxanne Road comes
22 in directly behind this , where the shed is
23 going.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much
25 for coming in.
Y'. J
L
1 10
2 MR. WADE: Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
4 would like to speak in favor of this ap-
5 plication?
6 Anybody that would like to speak
7 against the application?
g Board members? .
9 Hearing no further questions, I make
10 a motion closing the hearing to reserve
11 decision until later. Thank you. We hope
12 to have a decision later.
13 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
15 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
16 MR. DOYEN: , Aye.
17 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
19 Number 3916, in behalf of . George Reinhardt .
20 The legal notice reads as follows:
21 Upon Application Number 3916, George
22 Reinhardt . Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
23 nance, Article III , Section 100-31, as
24 disapproved, for permission to construct
25 deck addition, proposed construction exceeds
v ,
1 11
2 permitted lot coverage and has insufficient
3 setbacks from property line. Property
4 Location: 1380 Private Road, #3 Trumans
5 Path, East Marion, County Tax Map Number
g 1000 , Section 31 , Block 12 , Lot 10 .
7 I have a sketch here, and significant
8 pictures indicating the deck in question. I
9 have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
10 indicating this and surrounding properties ,
11 and I was just wondering if we have a per-
12 centage of your lot coverage? We do here.
13 Is there somebody here who would like
14 to be heard on this?
15 Right here. How do you do, sir?
16 MR. REINHARDT: Thomas Reinhardt .
17 THE CHAIRMAN: These decks are exist-
18 ing at this particular time; are they not?
19 MR. REINHARDT: Yes .
20 THE CHAIRMAN: When were they built ,
21 Mr. Reinhardt?
22 MR. REINHARDT: Originally built in
23 the spring of ' 89, and the addition in
24 question was built in late summer . . . fall
25 of ' 89 .
1 12
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Tell 'us what the
3 reason is, or the. need for this particular
4 deck.
5 MR. REINHARDT: Well , there is a
6 patch of land between the end of the deck
7 and the outdoor shower. It was built bet-
8 ween the deck and the shower.
g THE CHAIRMAN: How high above the
10 ground would you say these were?
11 MR. REINHARDT: The original deck is
12 about , I would say, no more than eight
13 inches and the addition is maybe two inches .
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You do not have a
15 percentage of the lot coverage of how much
16 , you are over.
17 MR. REINHARDT: No, I don't .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could do
19 some calculations, and we' ll do some also,
20 and see if we can arrive at a figure. Only
21 because we would like to incorporate that in
22 the decision. You have the figures here. I
23 mean, you can multiply and divide them
24 yourself .
25 I would just like to confer with you,
1 13
2 that we .are arriving at the same figures.
3 Give us a call next week with yours,
4 as well . Whenever you can, within the next
5 couple of weeks .
g MR. REINHARDT: If I could just say
7 that my father wanted me to state that he
8 had spoken to Victor Lessard, who approved
9 the original permit , and he told him that as
10 long as the deck blended in with the grounds
11 or remade the grounds the blend in with the
12 edge of the deck there would be no need for
13 another permit for that addition.
14 He wanted me to state that.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We thank you
16 very much.
17 -MR. REINHARDT: Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
19 would' like to speak in favor of this ap-
20 plication?
21 Anybody that would like to speak
22 against the application?
23 Any question from any Board members?
24 MR. DINIZIO: No.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further
1 14
2 questions, I make a motion closing the
3 hearing and reserving decision until later.
4 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
6 MR. GRIGONIS : Aye.
7 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
8 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 The next appeal is on behalf of
11 Charles Colombo, Number 3906. The legal
12 notice reads as follows :
13 Upon Application Number 3906, Charles
14 Colombo. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
15 Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, as disap-
16 proved, for permission to construct a deck
17 addition to existing dwelling, proposed
18 construction will have insufficient side
19 yard setbacks . Property Location: 350 Oak
20 Street , Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number
21 1000 , Section 136, Block 1 , Lot 48 .
22 I have a copy of the Suffolk County
23 Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
-I 24 properties in the area. This applicant
25 wishes to construct a deck in the side yard
15
2 area, which we will discuss with him in a
3 second.
4 Is there anyone here representing . . .
5 How do you do, sir? Kindly state
6 your name for the record, please.
7 MR. COCH: George Coch.
g THE CHAIRMAN: You are the contrac-
9 tor?
10 MR. LOCH: Yes . We did work for Mr.
11 Colombo.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you
13 would like to say in reference to this
14 project?
15 MR. LOCH: This is pretty much what
16 is on that application for the variances .
17 The deck on the side street is at ground
18 level , and on the creek side it is maybe two
19 feet from ground level and from the road the
20 deck is not visible. It also serves as an
21 entryway to the house.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Our only problem is
23 that we request usually, from an applicant,
24 that they not close up one side of their
25 side yard on the waterfront property, there-
1 16
2 by gaining egress to the rear of the proper-
3 ty which is at the waterside in this par-
4 ticular case. We are looking usually for
5 eight feet .
6 I do not have a measuring utensil
7 with me at the time, but could you tell me
8 how close this deck is?
g MR. COCH: I believe there is ap-
10 proximately five to six feet between the
11 property line to the south and the edge of
12 the deck.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to go out
14 and remeasure this . We may request the deck
15 be shortened, for that particular reason.
16 So I am just really putting you on notice,
17 that you can mention it to Mr. and Mrs .
18 Colombo.
19 All right . We thank you very much
20 for coming.
21 MR. LOCH: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
23 that would like to speak in favor of this
24 application?
25 What is the approximate size of the
1 17
2 deck, Mr. Coch?
3 MR. COCH: The deck is approximately
4 12 by 15 , or 12 by 16.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 Hearing no further questions, I make
7 a motion closing the hearing reserving
8 decision until later.
9 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
11 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
12 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
1 13 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
�1 14 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
15 behalf of Linda Dambassis, Appeal Number
16 3903 . The legal notice reads as follows :
17 Upon Application Number 3903, Linda Dambas-
18 sis . Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article
19 III , Section 100-33 , (Article XXIII , Section
20 100-239. 4 (A) , as disapproved for permission
21 to construct accessories : garage, pool and
22 additions to dwelling in front yard area.
23 Property Location: 2430 Dignan's Road,
24 Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number 1000 ,
25 Section 83, Block 2 , Lot 7 . 2 .
1 18
2 I have a copy of the site plan
3 prepared by Samuels and Steelman indicating
4 the approximate additions to this particular
5 existing premises, and a copy of the Suffolk
g County Tax Map indicating this and surround-
7 ing properties in the area. For the record,
g the site plan is dated 12/7/89.
9 Who is here, representing?
10 MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman. I am
11 from Samuels and Steelman, Architects, in
12 Cutchogue, New York.
13 We are basically trying to seek a
14 variance for two aspects of this project .
15 One is that the proposed addition is within
16 100 feet of the bluff line . . . the existing
17 residence . . . is approximately 55 feet from
18 the bluff . We are going for the pre-exist-
19 ing condition. We are going to be adding to
20 the west of the existing house, primarily
21 along the foundation line of the existing
22 house.
23 The other aspect of this is we are
24 seeking a variance to construct a pool and
25 garage in the front yard. This is a
1 19
2 situation where the house is located cur-
3 rently on the sands . The bluff is
4 approximately a 70-foot drop down to the
5 beach and to locate a pool and garage within
6 that rear yard would be definitely a hard-
7 ship in this case. We are seeking relief on
8 that , to locate the pool and garage in the
9 front yard.
10 Probably, the additions that are
11 being added to the house are mainly to
12 upgrade the existing residence which is
13 approximately 1400 square feet. It is a one
14 bedroom house, which we are looking to
15 upgrade to a three or four bedroom house
16 with potential to full-time residence some-
17 time in the future.
18 The house was built many years ago.
19 It is about 50 years old. It was originally
20 built as a small shed. It was renovated in.
21 1970 for the house. They feel their proper-
22 ty has much value to warrant some additional
23 changes . I think one of the things we are
24 trying to do here, and you can probably see
25 on the site plan, is that we added one
1 20
2 bedroom just to the west of the existing
3 house, and have drawn back another bedroom
4 because of a situation where the existing
5 topography becomes a little steep. We are
g trying to mitigate that by jogging a back
7 portion of the building to prevent any
8 additional erosion in the area.
9 Are there any questions I can answer?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes . The building at
11 this particular time is how far from the
12 bluff , including the deck? Is it 55 feet at
13 this particular time?
14 MS. STEELMAN: To the deck there is
15 approximately . . . as you can see on the site
16 plan, there is one deck that is a little
17 larger than the other. I think that deck is
18 approximately six feet out from facing the
19 house. That would bring it down to 49 feet
20 to the face of the deck.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Off an existing 49
22 feet , at this time?
23 MS. STEELMAN: To the deck.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: So the house is still
25 planning with an addition to be no closer
1 21
2 than 55 feet .
3 MS. STEELMAN: As you can see on that
4 site plan, I believe we are 49 feet also to
5 where the next deck is being extended.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to talk
7 about the house.
g MS. STEELMAN: The house is 55 feet
9 from the bluff line.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: The reason I ask that
11 question, when we get into a situation of
12 this nature, we request that the construc-
13 tion of the deck not be in accord to the
14 house.
15 MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: So that we are able to
17 delineate the two in the case of any
18 problems . As you know, there are multiple
19 changes in that deck right now. Of course,
20 the deck doesn' t look like it was the most
21 well constructed in the world. Anyway, I
22 did not even attempt to walk on it .
23 So I just want you to be aware of the
24 fact we are requesting, if we so grant this ,
25 that the deck not be in accord to the house.
1 22
2 MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very
4 much.
5 MS. STEELMAN: Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
7 would like to speak in favor of this ap-
8 plication?
9 Anybody that would like to speak
10 against the application?
11 Any question from the Board members?
12 Hearing no further questions, I make
13 a motion closing the hearing, reserving
14 decision until later.
15 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
17 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
18 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
19 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
21 behalf of Edward and Corrine Birdie. The
22 legal notice reads as follows :
23 Upon Application Number 3912 , Edward
1 24 and Corrine Birdie. Variance to the Zoning
25 Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A. 3,
1
23
2 for permission to construct additions to one
3 family dwelling, proposed construction will
4 have insufficient side yard setbacks .
5 Property Location: 380 Parsons Boulevard,
6 East Marion, County Tax Map Number 1000 ,
7 Section 037 , Block 01, Lot 17 . 1 .
8 We have a copy of a site plan and a
9 set of the overall construction plans . I
10 don' t have a date on it . It does show from
11 Warren Sambach, Consulting Engineers, and we
12 are requesting . . . or he is requesting to
13 enhance an existing residence by placing two
14 additions and a garage on this particular
15 premises .
16 Would you like to be heard, sir?
17 MR. SAMBACH: Yes , sir. Thank you.
18 Warren Sambach.
19 Once again I come before you
20 representing the owner and Garden Bays
21 Estates, with an irregular piece of property
22 that was developed many years ago with a
23 small summer home. As you know from
24 previous applications , the various lots of
25 Garden Estates are less than one acre and
1 24
2 cannot conform to the new Master Plan
3 zoning.
4 The unique situation of the proposed
5 expansion and alteration to the existing
6 dwelling is that it would conform to the old
7 zoning, A, which the existing side yards
g setback shown on the survey of the old
9 zoning,, A, was a 25-foot . . . a total of 25-
10 foot side yard. The site plan shows the 12-
11 foot plus and 13 foot plus side yards .
12 I respectfully request consideration
13 be given with reference to these side yard
14 setbacks .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: There appears to be no
16 front yard problem.
17 MR. SAMBACH: No front yard problem.
18 No rear yard problem.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I would say that, for
20 the record, that the additions appear to be
21 well-placed. We thank you very much again,
22 Mr. Sambach.
23 MR. SAMBACH: Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else .that
25 would like to speak in favor of this
1 25
2 application?
3 Anybody that would like to speak
4 against the application?
5 Seeing no hands, I make a motion
6 closing the hearing, reserving decision
7 until later.
9 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
10 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
11 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
12 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
1 13 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
YJ 14 behalf of Walter Rafferty, Appeal Number
15 3911. The legal notice reads as follows:
16 Upon Application Number 3911, Walter
17 Rafferty. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
18 Article XXIV, Section 241A, (Article XXVIII ,
19 Section 100-281 [3] ) , as disapproved, for
20 permission to construct additions and al-
21 terations to garage with apartment . Proper-
22 ty Location: East _End Road, Fishers Island,
23 County Tax Map Number 1000 , Section 3, Elock
24 7 , Lot 5 .
25 I have a copy of the site plan, which
1 26
2 I will not refer to in the record at this
3 time, and I have a copy of the Suffolk
4 County Tax- Map indicating the surrounding
5 properties in the area.
6 MS. TRIVAS: Brooke Trivas .
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Brooke, this is a
8 letter from Fishers Island Nature Conservan-
9 cy. I notice you have not had a chance to
10 review it . We just received it today. It
11 was faxed to us .
12 Is there anything else you want to
13 put on the record later? We will hold off
14 concerning it .
15 MS. TRIVAS: I guess the only thing I
16 would want to add for the record would be
17 that we would take all necessary precautions
18 in building a project , since it is close to
19 the wetlands . There is , as noted in the
20 plan, an existing one-foot concrete wall
21 which we think would help to create a bar-
22 rier during construction. We would also use
23 two rows of hay bales during construction.
l 24 The project was originally con-
1 25 structed in the Twenties . The house and
1 27
2 caretaker's house was part of the original
3 plan and we just wanted to revise that
4 intended original use.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I feel kind of bad
6 asking you to come all the way down here
7 from Boston to represent Mr. Rafferty in the
g respect that it appears on this particular
9 application the cart was placed before the
10 horse, in respect that it appears that this
11 building structure has lost its conformity
12 as a building to be used or to house per-
13 sons , habitable dwelling-wise, and I think
14 possibly what should be dealt with in this
15 particular case is an application to
16 reinstate that nonconformity rather than to
17 deal with the setback first . And that is
18 where the problem is at this particular
19 point .
20 But if you would like, you are very
21 welcome to reflect anything in that letter
22 that you just received into the record
23 before we close this hearing. If you want
24 to look it over for a little while, we can
25 reconvene the hearing.
3 4-
1 28
2 MS. TRIVAS: Are you suggesting it is
3 a setback problem issue?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: No . I am saying it is
5 not a nonconforming. It has lost its non-
6 conforming at this point . It has not been
7 denied, but I discussed that with the prin-
g cipal Building Inspector yesterday and I
9 told him it should have been denied for the
10 lack of nonconformity at this particular
11 point , and then we would go into the other
12 aspects of the case.
13 In climbing up there last Saturday
14 morning, it appears it has not been used for
15 about thirty years . . . I mean, just as a
16 guesstimate, and you will see in that letter
17 that it probably . . . I think it reflects
18 thirty years in there, but it's probably as
19 much as fifty years it has not been used.
20 MS. TRIVAS : What are you suggesting,
21 at this point , in terms of . . .
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I am suggesting that
23 we deny this case without prejudice and if
24 you would like to come back and deal with
25 any aspects of the fact that the building
29
2 doesn' t conform presently, we will deal with
3 that first and then we will go back to the
4 setback situation.
5 Okay. But do you want me to recess
6 and you want to reflect upon that?
7 MS. TRIVAS: Yes . I would like to
8 read the record.
9 MR. DINIZIO: The letter that he just
10 handed you indicates that the building has
11 not been occupied for thirty years .
12 Is there proof that it has been
13 occupied within that time period? I mean,
14 can you show us that it has not lost its
15 nonconformity due to nonuse?
16 MS. TRIVAS: At what point is that?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Two years .
18 MS. TRIVAS: I would have to check on
19 that . I couldn' t , at this point, tell you
20 if it has been occupied within the last two.
21 So if the only way this can go through is if
22 it has been occupied within the last . . .
23 MR. DINIZIO: No. It certainly would
24 help matters .
25 THE CHAIRMAN: No. Probably that
30
2 really is the case, but there has been some
3 mention that it has been used as a bunk
4 house. The question is to what extent and
5 for what period of time?
6 Remember, this application came
7 before us as Notice of Denial from the
8 Building Inspector, denying this particular
9 addition. So we are not denying for any
10 particular conformity or nonconformity.
11 What we are reflecting here, really what we
12 should do is , it should be redenied for that
13 particular nonconforming issue. That would
J 14 be added to this application. It does not
15 mean we would readvertise it.
16 We really have two options . We can
17 close the hearing after you speak and
18 reflect upon the letter from Mr. Thatcher
19 (phonetic spelling) , or we can recess the
20 hearing without a date and then add to the
21 file and readvertise for both the setback
22 and nonconforming.
23 MS. TRIVAS: Okay.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: It is up to you.
25 MS. TRIVAS: I would like to review
1 31
2 this and see.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Take about twenty
4 minutes .
5 Anybody else from Fishers Island or
6 the mainland here that would like to reflect
7 upon this case of Walter Rafferty?
8 Seeing no hands , I make a motion
9 recessing this hearing . . . and until after
10 . . . I guess we go after the John and
11 Catherine Simicich hearing, which is Appeal
12 Number 3918 , somewhere around 8 : 30 . . . a
1 13 quarter to nine.
�J 14 I make a motion.
15 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
17 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
18 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
19 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal "is on
21 behalf of Michael Herbert, Appeal Number
22 3924. For the record, before I read the
23 legal notice, I have five letters in the
24 file, in particular, continuous or adjacent
25 property.
1 32
2 The legal notice reads as follows :
3 Appeal Number 3924, Michael Herbert.
4 Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance,
5 Article IX, Section 100-91 (B) , for change
6 of use from Bed and Breakfast to a three
7 family dwelling in this Hamlet Business (HB)
8 District . Property Location: 795 Pike
9 Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map Number
10 1000 , Section 140 , Block 2 , Lot 23 .
11 I have a copy of a sketch of the
12 plans made by the applicant concerning this
13 particular property and the individual
14 location of the proposed apartment . I have
15 copies of the Suffolk County Tax Map
16 indicating this and surrounding properties
17 in the area . . . properties, for the record,
18 on Pike Street in Mattituck, and I do not
19 have the road frontage figure, but it is
20 approximately 87 . 5 by 225 . 22 .
21 Is there anybody that would like to
22 be heard?
23 Mr. Herbert .
24 MR. HERBERT: Michael Herbert . I am,
25 at this time, seeking to convert my bed and
1 33
2 breakfast into a three family home status .
3 I propose to reside in one of the apart-
4 ments, and also propose to maintain it in
5 the extent of the quality I have .maintained
6 my bed and breakfast facility.
7 One thing I do ask of the Board in
8 consideration, if my appeal is .granted,
9 least of all , permit me to operate my bed
10 and breakfast facility throughout this
11 season, and after the end of this season to
12 convert the house into a three family.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: When you refer to
14 "this season, " you are talking about the end
15 of the summer?
16 MR. HERBERT: Until Labor day.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I will be honest with
18 you, Michael . We have not had an appli-
19 cation such as this , which you are aware of ,
20 under the new Master Plan, and we have not
21 had an application really divesting you as
22 the person, most importantly, the property
23 :-of the special --exception of the bed and
24 breakfast use. It is something that is
25 somewhat new to us .
1 34
2 Is there anything you would like to
3 state for the record in reference to the
4 apartments; their size, their location, the
5 parking?
6 MR. HERBERT: The parking is
7 certainly ample, as it is proposed on the
g site plan. The apartments, there would be
9 two one-bedroom apartments which would be
10 more than adequate in size. The apartments
11 that I would contain would have two bed-
12 rooms, but all the apartments would be
13 comfortable in size and nature. I think it
14 would just be a very positive thing for the
15 area.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: The only thing I
17 wanted to state for the record is that under
18 the section of the code, it only reflects
19 apartments, as a matter of right, which is a
20 special exception or a special permit is to
21 be placed over retail stores , which I think
22 you are aware of and we had discussed when
23 you originally filed the application. You
24 are in a business zone and we are perfectly
25 aware of that .
1 35
2 The area of the code that we are
3 dealing with in this particular application,
4 an area that concerns the multiple dwelling,
5 is not necessarily the area that concerns
6 the nature of the apartments or the retail
7 stores because considerably we do not have a
8 retail store here. We have a nonconforming
g dwelling, meaning retail dwelling in the
10 business zone, as well as all of these
11 dwellings on that one side of the street are
12 all actually nonconforming. They are retail
13 only because the uses that are around in
14 that particular area district , but they are
15 all basically one family dwellings , are they
16 not, to my knowledge?
17 MR. HERBERT: Yes , they are from Ed
18 home down to Barbara and
19 David Tuthill ' s (phonetic spelling) home.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to state
21 that for the record, because we do not have
22 a clear picture at this particular point of
23 what is permitted and what is not permitted
24 in that particular zone. We must be
25 respective of the retail store apartment
36
2 situation, which we refer to as "the old
3 taxpayer. " In other words , we are not
4 specifically clear in the code and we don' t
5 clearly state that as being the case.
6 MR. HERBERT: Because the way I am
7 trying to interpret it with the apartments
8 that would be considered in conjunction with
g the retail stores . . . I mean 450 square feet
10 and parking spaces and the apartments . . .
11 which with regards to the section where it
12 deals with retail stores and it describes
13 the layout of the apartments and parking
14 spaces, I would assume that that would . . .
15 and it also states that there will be no
16 more than three apartments or three apart-
17 ments to any single family dwelling. It is
18 not clear to me really where the problem is ,
19 if that is what it reads .
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Well , it is the point
21 of the problem that we have, that if you had
22 a retail store you would be allowed this as
23 a matter of right, based upon the divided
24 footage and we refer to those as standards
25 in the codes, multiple dwelling is not an
4�3-
1 37
2 apartment . . . more, a townhouse, not
3 necessarily construed to be an apartment .
4 MR. HERBERT: What would a multiple
5 dwelling be considered?
g THE CHAIRMAN: Well , I discussed this
7 with the Planning Board. They are referring
8 to multiple dwellings as condominiums or co-
g ops , and referring to townhouses as the
10 same, except the difference between the
11 townhouse is that we have a two story
12 structure and that is where basically the
13 definition comes from.
14 What I am trying to tell you here is
15 that . it is very difficult for us to deal
16 with this on this basis, as I mentioned to
17 you when you originally filed this
18 application. So let 's see what develops,
19 okay?
20 Thank you very much.
21 Anybody else that would like to speak
22 in favor of this application?
23 Anybody that would like to speak
24 against the application?
25 MR. KEOGH: John Keogh. Our fears
1 38
2 are not with Mr. Herbert . He is an
3 excellent neighbor since he has lived next
4 to us, and his bed and breakfast facility we
5 have had no problem. at all . Our fears are
6 with the fact of more tenants moving in on a
7 permanent basis . Plus the fact that in the
8 event that the apartments are allowed, I am
9 sure that they would all be there.
10 We bought our property not on
11 speculation. We bought it as a home, and
12 we intend .to stay there. We are just
13 protecting what we think may happen in the
14 future if Michael decides to move elsewhere
15 or sell 'the house. Whoever buys it again
16 would not convert it back to a single family
17. dwelling. That is our fear, mostly. Plus
18 the fact on whatever environmental impact it
19 would have on having three apartments in-
20 stead of the one single family house.
21 Once again I repeat that we have had
22 no problem at all with the bed and break-.
. 23 fast . It has been a seasonal thing and
24 Michael has always kept his property up well
25 and we have had no problem at all with that.
_q s-
1 39
2 Those are our fears . That is the
3 only reason we even question it .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to mention
5 to you, and I reiterate or reinforce the
6 fact that if there was a retail store in-
7 volved here, as a matter of right under the
8 special permit, a person is allowed to have
9 this . They still have to come to this Board
10 to get the special permit , but because of
11 the way the code is written and it clearly
12 states the minimum and maximum footage
13 requirement for the apartment, he would be
14 permitted to have that.
15 In this particular case, it doesn' t
16 clearly state that apartments can be granted
17 in an area where you have a nonconformity,
18 and we refer to the nonconformity as a house
19 that is being used for a residence purpose.
20 It is a primary purpose of that particular
21 piece of property right now.
22 Where in the case of the retail
23 store, the primary factor is the retail
24 store. The secondary factor are the apart-
25 ments , and this is a situation . . . and it is
1 40
2 definitely going to exist for a very long
3 period of time in those Hamlet Business
4 Districts under the new Master Plan. Not
5 your district, but other districts that have
6 been placed in this particular area.
7 MR. HERBERT: Fine. I understand all
8 that . I just wanted to explain to you what
9 our fears were.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Wonderful . Thank you
11 very much.
12 Anybody else that would like to speak
13 concerning this application?
14 Hearing no further comments, I make a
15 motion closing the hearing, reserving
16 decision until later.
17 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
19 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
20 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
21 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
23 for coming in.
24 Appeal Number 3918, in behalf of John
25 and Catherine Simicich. The legal notice
1 41
1 2 reads as follows :
3 Upon Application Number 3918, John
4 and Catherine Simicich. Special Exception
5 to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Sec-
6 tion 100-31, for permission to have a winery
7 for production and winery sales . Property
8 Location: 4250 Bergen Avenue, Mattituck,
9 County Tax Map Number 1000 , Section 121,
10 Bock 1, Lots Part of 001 .
11 I have a copy of three penned-in site
12 plans of which I am sure will be referred to
13 by noted counsel , and I have a copy of a
14 Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
15 surrounding properties in the area.
16 Mr. Cuddy, would you like to be
17 heard?
18 MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy, for the
19 applicants, Mr. and Mrs . Simicich, who are
20 both here with me.
21 This is a piece of land that is about
22 5 . 6 acres located north of Sound Avenue,
23 just east of Bergen. That is the corner
24 as you turn into Bergen Avenue. On the
25 right now are vineyards. There is also an
42
2 old barn.
3 Mr. and Mrs . Simicich's proposal to
4 take that barn, enlarge the barn, and use it
5 for a winery. The plan is presently before
6 the Planning Board. This Board will note
7 that the Planning Board sent a letter to us
8 and had some concern about two aspects of
9 the application.
10 One aspect is where the ingress or
11 the entrance way will be . The Simiciches
12 have agreed to effectively remove the
13 entrance way from Sound Avenue and place it
14 approximately 150 north of South Avenue, on
15 the east side of Bergen Avenue. They have
16 presented several plans to the Board to do
17 this . I think there are four plans that
18 have been submitted to you; A, B, C and D.
19 They also, they being the Planning
20 Board, had some concern about what they call
21 the buffer area between the parking area and
22 the neighboring property. The Planning
23 Board, for some reason, seemed to think that
1 24 the Zoning Board has set up the rules that
25 require 50 feet as a buffer between the
1 43
_2 parking area and the neighboring property.
3 I am not sure there is any rule to
4 that effect , although they alluded to the
5 fact .you had a prior application. I am not
6 sure that application is actually the same
7 as this one, but I would point out to you
8 that what is proposed by the various
g proposals before you, A, B, C and D, is
10 effectively to have a 10-foot buffer between
11 the parking area and the property line of
12 the neighboring property and then there is
13 some 80 feet or more between the line and
14 the house.
15 If there is a residence instead of a
16 winery at this location, he can put in the
17 swimming pool within three or four feet of
18 the property line and we have it here, night
19 and day. This will be used only during
20 daylight hours . It is a winery, a seasonal
21 type of use. It could be used all year
22 round.
23 I would propose to the Board that it
24 is an appropriate place for the winery to
25 be. There is another winery, not on Sound
1 44
2 Avenue, in Southold, but on Sound Avenue in
3 Riverhead, two miles from the west of this .
4 I would think that it meets the criteria.
5 This is a special exception, not a variance.
6 It meets the criteria proposed by the code.
7 I know of no offensive odor it is going to
8 emit , and I believe it is not contrary to
9 the public's health, safety and welfare.
10 We have, if the public would like to
11 see it, a copy of the designs for the build-
12 ing. I will just hand it up to you. I have
13 two copies .
14 THE CHAIRMAN: This is utilizing the
15 existing barn.
16 MR. CUDDY: It is utilizing the
17 existing barn, and the existing barn will be
18 a total of 7 ,000 plus square feet when they
19 get all through with that shown on the
20 plans .
21 I would ask the Board if they would
22 entertain perhaps Plan A or Plan B. The
23 reason for that is I think the parking in
24 these plans are more appropriate. Plan C
25 has a parking diagram that shows parking
' -sr-
1 45
2 really all over the place. So you have to
3 put it around the back and on the side.
4 I think it would be appropriate to
5 keep the parking close to the building so
. 6 people can get into the winery, but this is
7 going to be utilizing an existing structure
8 which is about 3 ,000 square feet and it will
9 extend that structure and that is shown on
10 the plan, the site plan. Also the plan that
11 is in exhibit to you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I see the depth of the
13 parking is about the same of that to the
14 building. The parking here is 72 feet on
15 the A Plan, and that doesn' t show the actual
16 depth. When I say "depth" , I am referring
17 to the width of the parking in Plan B.
18 MR. CUDDY: Plan B is the same as the
19 site plan that was submitted, except that
20 the entrance way is on Bergen Avenue.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, right .
22 MR. CUDDY: That includes all of the
23 33 spaces in one location. Plan A has
24 broken it into two units , so it is 11 and
25 22 .
1 46
2 THE CHAIRMAN: When you were alluding
3 to the 50 feet, that is what is mentioned in
4 the letter. . That was a figure that was
5 basically dealt with on the Gritano
g (phonetic spelling) winery in Cutchogue, and
7 there was some concern because several
8 houses had backed up to that particular
9 parking lot, as in the case of this one
10 house that backed up to this parking lot,
11 and I don't know. I will have to take a
12 look at it .
13 MR. CUDDY: I would propose we Put in
�J 14 two screening areas . We can put in maybe
15 something epiphytic screen, perhaps five or
16 six feet high, which grows fast and we could
17 put along the edge different types of other
18 plantings in front of it . This is only
19 going to be open essentially during the
20 daylight hours .
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask
22 you for the record. I realize that the
23 winery is only a portion of this application
24 that is before us . However, the special
25 exception really covers the entire lease on
_S3 -
1 47
2 the property.
3 How many acres are we talking about
4 on this particular site?
5 MR. CUDDY: The site itself is a
6 single piece of property, 5 . 6 acres . It
7 originally was more. There was a piece
g divided off it , which is a two acre piece.
9 It was 7 . 6, and now it is 5 . 6.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
11 Mr. Cuddy.
12 Anybody else that would like to be
13 heard concerning this application?
14 Any questions from Board members?
15 Is there anybody that would like to
16 speak against the application?
17 Seeing no hands, I make a motion
18 closing the hearing and reserving decision
19 until later.
20 Thank you very much for coming in.
21 MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
23 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
24 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
25 MR,. DINIZIO: Aye.
1 48
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to recon-
3 vene the Rafferty hearing for approximately
4 five minutes .
5 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
7 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
g MR. DOYEN: Aye .
9 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Brooke, you' re on.
11 MS. TRIVAS: I guess this is in
12 regards to the setback issue from the wet-
13 lands, and I just want to raise one issue.
14 I did speak with John Thatcher (phonetic
15 spelling) several days ago and he was look-
16 ing at the wrong site plan. I don' t know
17 if the Board members know about that . He
18 was looking at the site plan for a different
19 project and he was concerned we were build-
20 ing towards the wetlands . As you know, we
21 are building away from the wetlands .
22 It seems he outlined three issues in
23 here; that it is close to the reservoir and
24 he makes recommendations no pesticides or
25 herbicides be used and that' s in the
1 49
2 building. When I spoke with him several
3 days ago, he indicated he did not have a
4 problem with this as long as we were not
5 using pesticides or herbicides on the
6 property, and which we are not .
7 It is a cottage in the woods and we
8 are keeping it as it is . He did not have a
9 problem with it . So, I am not sure. I
10 don' t understand what this setback issues
11 are involving. The septic is a minimum of
12 110 feet from the wetlands and the new
13 addition is . . . we are building away from
14 the existing house.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I am just saying we
16 can' t address those issues until we address
17 the use. If you were to come to us and say,
18 "We just want a storage building," all
19 right, we could grant it tonight or deny it
20 tonight . But you want a specific use. You
21 want to use it for a habitable dwelling.
22 Regardless of its use, summer,
23 seasonable, or whatever, it is used whenever
24 the people are there or whenever they want
25 to use it . In propping myself up in that
50
2 building, as best as I possibly could, and
3 avoiding the nails and so on and so forth, I
4 can tell you the building was not used for
5 thirty years . If it has, you are going to
6 have to tell me. I don' t know.
7 MS. TRIVAS: I heard rumors it had
g been used. I am just saying in general I
g couldn' t . . . you know . . .
10 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a situation that
11 we cannot deal with in reference to the
12 setback now. So we deal with . . . until we
13 deal with the use of it . What you are
14 going to do is come back, if you want to
15 address it in this form. We can recess this
16 hearing without a decision.
17 You can ask the Building Inspector
18 for another notice of disapproval for the
19 conformity in this particular case. It has
20 lost its conformity, whatever section of the
21 code that has to be dealt with, and we can
22 reschedule it for sometime in April , or we
23 can deny this particular application without
1 24 prejudice and you can come back with a new
25 application addressing those particular
_S? _
1 51
2 issues . It is entirely up to you, at this
3 point, whatever you would like to do and
4 we' ll kick it around up here and see what
5 you want to do.
g MS. TRIVAS: Do I have to answer the
7 question right now?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: No. You don' t have to
9 answer the question right now. If we close
10 the hearing now, we will make it a judgment
11 call and the judgment call will be to deny
12 it without prejudice.
l 13 MS. TRIVAS : Okay. I am not sure
�J 14 what . . .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Which means you would
16 have to come back anyway. So it is . . . the
17 only difference is you have to pay another
18 fee.
19 MS. TRIVAS: We would rather not pay
20 another fee. I was not quite clear on what
21 the differences were.
22 THE CHAIRMAN-: Right . That is the
23 basic difference.
24 So would you like us to recess it and
25 give you enough time to research remaining
1 52
2 parts of what we are requesting?
3 MS. TRIVAS: Yes .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
5 I make a motion recessing the hearing
6 without a date.
7 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
g MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
10 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
11 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We will take an ap-
13 proximately three minute break and get set
14 for this particular hearing. I make a
15 motion.
16 MR. DOYEN: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
18 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
19 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
20 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
21 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken
22 at 8: 40 p.m. and the hearing resumed at 8 : 50
23 P.M. )
24 THE CHAIRMAN: The second to last
25 appeal is Nicholas Aliano.
1 53
2 I make a motion to reconvene.
3 MR. DOYEN: Second.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: So moved.
5 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
6 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
7 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: This is Appeal Number
9 3907 , in behalf of Nicholas Aliano. The
10 legal notice reads as follows :
11 Application Number 3907 , Nicholas
12 Aliano, Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, '
13 Article IIIA, Section 100-30A. 2 (Article
14 XXV, Section 100-253A) , as disapproved, for
15 permission to construct a retail office
16 complex, proposed construction is not per-
17 mitted in this R-40 Zone District . Property
18 Location: 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash
19 Avenue, Cutchogue, Suffolk County Tax Map
20 Number 1000 , Section 102 , Block 03 , Lot 01 .
21 I have a copy of the site plan dated
22 June, 1989, indicating the nature of the
23 project and I have a copy of the Suffolk
24 County Tax Map indicating this and surround-
25 ing properties in the area.
1 54
2 Would somebody like to be heard?
3 MR. RAYNOR: Henry Raynor, represent-
4 ing Mr. Nicholas Aliano on this property
5 entitled Pequash Commons.
6 As the Board is well aware, this
7 parcel pre-existed the Zoning Board
8 ordinance of the Town of Southold and has
9 only the business use. We begin the site
10 plan before you, a processing of which
11 commenced in August of 1987 . Prior to that
12 1987 , 1986 Mr. Aliano removed the gas tanks
1 13 from the existing gas station in contempla-
J 14 tion of building the new structure you see
15 before you. on the site plan.
16 Our first meeting with the Planning
17 Board was October of 1987 , and subsequent to
18 that, in December, we revised the site plan
19 before you pursuant to requests by the Town
20 Planner. Again, revisions were forthcoming
21 in January of 1988 by the Planning Board.
22 Mr. Aliano revised this plan with the
23 Fleet 's Neck Civic Association, and in our
24 possession is a letter of endorsement dated
25 in January. of 1988, also a subsequent
1 55
2 endorsement dated as of two days ago.
3 In April of 1988 , we submitted a
4 revised site plan and we made further
5 revisions . On January 10 , 1989, the change
6 of zone . . . a new zoning ordinance . . . we
rezoned the property to R-40 . We received
8 no notification whatsoever to stop process-
9 ing from the Planning Board at that time.
10 In April of 1989, we finished plans
11 pertinent to septic and water with the
12 Suffolk County Department of Health Services
13 and in June we submitted our final site
14 plan. We paid our fees to the Town of
15 Southold.
16 Then on August 12th, I again
17 requested this for the second time, the
18 final approval for the site plan from the
19 Planning Board. Subsequent to that , on the
20 20th of September, I received a notification
21 from the Planning Board, all of a sudden, to
22 stop processing because of the changes of
23 the zone that was instituted back in
24 January.
25 At this point, I would like to note
1 56
2 that the fees and engineering, charges of the
3 applicant is over $25,000 on a very, very
4 small project .
5 We had a meeting with the Town Attor-
6 ney on the 13th of October, the Assistant
7 Town Attorney, and the outcome of that
8 meeting was to instruct us to come over
9 before this Board -for the variance hearing.
10 So that, hopefully, will continue the site
11 plan processing which is now stopped at the
12 Planning Board level . We firmly believe
13 that this project is a type and character
`-J 14 improving the property as the existing . . .
15 pre-existing business and also it is going
16 to be an asset to the neighborhood.
17 I think this is reasonably endorsed
18 by the- Fleet 's Neck Property Owners Associa-
19 tion. After two and half years of process-
20 ing, we respectfully request support of this
21 Board with this determination. I will be
22 happy to answer any questions from the
23 Board.
1 24 THE CHAIRMAN: The size of the struc
25 ture that is on the property now is, I
a yy
1 57
2 believe, a three bay garage?
3 MR. RAYNOR: That is correct . Plus a
4 separate office is being used for real
5 estate. That is going to stay a separate
6 office.
7 MR. ALIANO: That is correct . The
g small building.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: What is the approxi-
10 mate size of the three bay garage? Do you
11 have any idea? You don' t have to tell me.
12 MR. ALIANO: I would say approximate-
13 ly in the neighborhood of 2 ,500 square feet .
14 THE CHAIRMAN: And the approximate
15 size of the seven unit structure is how
16 large?
17 MR. ALIANO: It is about 5, 900 square
18 feet . Also, I should conform with all the
19 site plan elements involving landscaping.
20 We have gone through the permit . Everything
21 is in place up to notification in September.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: This is a retail
23 office complex?
24 MR. ALIANO: That is correct .
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Strictly for office
1 58
2 purposes, not for retail business?
3 MR. RAYNOR: It is a mixed use.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: At any one time, how
5 many uses existed on this particular piece
6 of property?
7 MR. RAYNOR: I can think of at least
8 four.
g THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about
10 when they had the car sale there and so on?
11 MR. RAYNOR: Car sales . There was a
12 landscaping operation. There was a fuel oil
1 13 delivery. There was a gas station garage
�J 14 . . . auto body, at one time. There were at
15 least five uses and some of those were mixed
16 uses . They were not like business or retail
17 we are proposing.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: More recently we had
19 one single person renting a three bay garage
20 and the real estate office.
21 MR. RAYNOR: No. They are two
22 separate and distinct rentals presently.
23 Yes , that is the case.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: How long has the
25 gentleman been in the three bay garage?
1 59
2 MR. ALIANO: About a year and a half .
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record note
4 that is Mr. Aliano .
5 MR. ALIANO: The man there now does
6 some auto body work and sheet metal -
7 fabricating.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Who was there before
9 him?
10 MR. ALIANO: An auto body shop and a
11 gas station prior to that in 1986 . I still
12 had a garage there I used.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else
14 you would like to state for the record?
15 MR. ALIANO: I don' t believe so.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I received a call from
17 the Planning Board tonight . They asked me
18 to leave the hearing open for the purpose of
19 dealing with parking plans and I , in some
20 hesitation, do not like to leave hearings
21 open, but in this particular case I will
22 grant them the request and I assume that
23 means they are going to ask you to go back
24 and address the parking plans .
25 MR. RAYNOR: The entire site plan is
1 60
2 in conformity with the zoning ordinance.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Let 's go back to that
4 October meeting for the moment, and was it
5 that time with the Assistance Town Attorney
6 that you had requested the completion of
7 this particular project? Is that correct,
8 and it was at that time that they told you
9 that you would have to come in here for the
10 various variances?
11 MR. RAYNOR: That is correct . It was
12 subsequent to the notice that the Planning
13 Board gave us on the 20th of September. It
14 is very unfair to the applicant that from
15 the loth of January all the way through to
16 the 20th of September, in dealing in good
17 faith throughout processing and going for-
18 ward with this in the very straightforward
19 fashion, that there were no responses from
20 the Board.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Based upon your ex-
22 perience and wisdom in cases of this nature,
23 is there a special time limit that an ap-
24 plication would be permitted to plead any
25 particular problem before another Board,
J '
1 61
2 other than this Board, concerning this
3 change of zoning, by which I believe was
4 Business in the old Master Plan?
5 MR. RAYNOR: Yes, it was Business .
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Would be one at that
7 time?
8 MR. RAYNOR: Yes .
9 THE CHAIRMAN: It is now R-40 .
10 MR . RAYNOR : That is correct .
11 (Discussion held off the record . )
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you feel there
13 would have been a time or do you . . .
14 MR. RAYNOR: I am not sure. I don't
15 understand your question. If you are talk-
16 ing about the time generally extended by the
17 Planning Board, usually around 180 days .
18 That 's a rule of thumb, however, that is the
19 discretion on their part .
20 THE CHAIRMAN: What was the first
21 contact you had with them? Again, you must
22 excuse me not thinking about it after the
23 inception of the new zoning ordinance, after
24 January 10 , 1989.
25 MR. RAYNOR: We had served them
1 62
2 notification in April of ' 89 that we were
3 processing or were about to finish the
4 processing with the Department of Health
5 Services and would be, at the time of agree-
6 ment with that agency, returning to their
7 Board with a final site plan.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess that will do.
9 At this particular point, I am taking ques-
10 tions from the audience. We thank you, Mr.
11 Raynor and Mr. Aliano. At the completion of
12 this hearing we will recess it until a later
13 date and come back.
14 Is there anybody else that would like
15 to speak in favor of this project?
16 Anybody that would like to speak
17 against this project?
18 MR. ISAACS: Bruce Isaacs . I am
19 speaking in behalf of the North Fork En-
20 vironmental Council , and we are opposed to
21 this appeal . The area is basically a
22 residential area and this would be a spot
23 zone change. We think it encourages other
24 zone changes and before you know it, you
25 could have another commercial strip along
r
1 63
2 this area.
3 As I say, ,it is basically a residen-
4 tial area and we hope that the Board will
5 disapprove of this appeal .
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Isaacs .
7 Hearing nothing further . . . yes?
8 MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : Nancy
9 Sanactynowicz . I would like to say that
10 that area is horrendous with the traffic,
11 with the Christmas tree farm across the
12 street , trying to get out of Pequash Avenue,
13 your life is in jeopardy every time you come
14 out of there. I would like the Board to go
15 there and try pulling out of that road and
16 see what they think. Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 Any other comments?
19 Hearing no other comments , I make a
20 motion to recess the hearing until the 19th
21 of April , assuming that is the night of the
22 meeting. We will readvertise in this case.
23 Mr. Raynor, would you give us a call
24 around the 15th and we will , at that par-
25 ticular time, tell you if it is on for the
�+ _76.
R
1 64
2 19th.
3 Thank you all for coming in and your
4 comments .
5 I offer that as a resolution. All in
6 favor?
7 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
8 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
9 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you again.
11
12
13
�J 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
n
" 1 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2
-----------------------------------------X
3
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 PUBLIC HEARING, In the Matter of
5 JORDAN' S PARTNERS,
6 Applicant .
7 -----------------------------------------X
8 Main Road, Route 25
Southold, New York 11971
9
March 15, 1990
10 8 : 20 P.M.
11
B E F O R E
12
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
13
Chairman.
14
15 BOARD MEMBERS:
16 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
17 SERGE DOYEN, JR.
18 JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 2
2 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is the
3 last appeal , Number 3915. We have Jordan's
4 Partners . The Legal Notice reads as
5 follows:
6 Applicant Number 3915 - Jordan's
7 Partners . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
8 Article VII , Section 100-71, as disapproved
9 for permission to construct office and
10 retail stores , proposed construction is not
11 a permitted use in this district . Property
12 Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main
13 Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000 ,
14 Section 34, Block 2 , Lot 1.
15 I have a copy of the site plan that
16 was submitted with the appeal . It is JAL
17 Land Surveying, and I see it is undated, and
18 indicates the concrete footing and the
19 proposed foundation on the east side, and
20 their approximate location to the property
21 line. I have a copy of the County Tax Map
22 indicating this and surrounding properties
23 in the area.
24 MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, Members of
25 the Board, my name is John C. Tsunis, and I
n
1 3
2 am a principal and an attorney concerning
3 this application, in connection with the
4 application for a Use Variance.
5 The subject parcel is located at the
southeast corner of Main Road and Main
6
Street, in the Hamlet of Greenport . The
8 applicant is seeking a Use Variance to
9 permit the construction and operation of
10 retail shops and offices at this site. The
11 project received site plan approval , Health
12 Department approval , and a building permit .
13 And relying on these items, the owners
14 poured a foundation.
15 This application has become necessary
16 due to the fact that in January of 1989 the
17 parcel was rezoned by the Town pursuant to a
18 New Master Plan which changed the zone of
19 the subject premises from Business to
20 Residential/Office.
21 For the record, the owners purchased
22 this property in February of 1988 for
23 $590 ,000 . Obviously, the purchase price for
24 the parcel reflected the fact that an ap-
25 proved shopping center site plan was in
4
2 place. Suffolk County National Bank, at
3 that time, granted an acquisition loan of
4 $440 ,000 , which would have been recast in a
5 construction loan at a later date. Two
6 years of delays later, the loan is due and
7 the land cannot be developed under the
8 current zone without losses in the hundreds
9 of thousands of dollars.
10 Although zoning and the Health
11 Department and site plan approvals were in
12 place in 1986, the owners were advised that
13 a building permit could not be issued until
14 arrangements were made for water service
15 through the Village of Greenport . As you
16 may know, the water mains are right in front
17 of the property. I would like to reiterate
18 that although a site plan was approved in
19 ' 86, and water was requested from '86, no
20 water was permitted to be connected. A1-
21 though the connection was promised to be
22 forthcoming, it was never received, and at
23 that time, up until 1989, the Building
24 Department rejected the idea of the water
25 well , although we had water tests and we
n
1 5
found the water was clean.
2
3
Since municipal water was not avail-
4 able, a permit could not be issued. Time
5 and substantial sums of money had been
6 expended until finally, in May of 1989, a
permit was issued when the Suffolk County
8 Board of Health advised the Town Building
s Department that a well could be drilled if
10 municipal water was not available upon
11 completion of the project . Construction
12 commenced approximately two months after the
13 building permit was issued.
._ 14 Prior to this time, serious negotia-
15 tion for leases proceeded in 1988 and two
16 leases were in fact executed, you have
17 copies of the leases in your package, and a
18 letter of intent for McCrory, which is the
19 largest retail store in the State, having
20 1, 600 stores, was signed for the total
21 commitment of approximately 1 ,300 square
22 feet for the site. Interest, at this time,
23 peaked because the land was clear and con-
24 struction was commenced.
25 However, on May 30 , 1989, a Stop Work
n
1 6
2 Order was issued advising us the zoning was
3 now improper and we halted construction
4 after pouring the foundation. The founda-
5 tion, I believe, was completed in early
6 September.
7 To date, Mr. Chairman, the applicant
8 has expended nearly $75,000 toward construc-
9 tion, and $115,000 for architectural , en-
10 gineering, legal and other soft costs, in
11 addition to monies expended for the acquisi-
12 tion of the land. At present , there is a
13 foundation in place for the proposed center.
14 The applicant is seeking this
15 variance because a little application of the
16 zoning ordinance will result in an unneces-
17 sary hardship.
18 Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 NY 71,
19 (1939) , established that the Zoning Board
20 may exercise its discretion and grant a
21 variance upon the ground of unnecessary
22 hardship when it is shown three things :
23 1. The land in question cannot yield
24 a reasonable return if used only for the
25 purpose permitted in that zone.
n
V-
1 7
2 2 . That the plight of the owner is
3 due to the unique circumstances and not the
4 general conditions in the neighborhood.
3 . That the use to be authorized
5
will not alter the essential character of
6
7 the locality.
8 I would like to ask that the Board
9 keep in mind that when determining whether
10 or not the applicant may realize a
11 reasonable return through developing in
12 accordance with the permitted uses , you
13 consider the following factors , which ac-
14 cording to the Court of Appeals, must be
15 weighed:
16 1. Amount paid, in this case
17 $590 ,000;
18 2 . Present value of the parcel as
19 zoned, you will hear testimony tonight,
20 approximately $150 ,000;
21 3 . Amount of mortgages, in this
22 case, $440 ,000 ;
23 4. Income of the parcel , when
24 developed;
25 And other relevant factors, in this
8
2 instance, this includes the expenses in-
3 curred by the applicant in developing the
4 parcel , and the particular leasing market
5 situation.
6 These factors compromise what has
7 been termed the "Dollars and Cents" rule as
8 set forth by the Appellate Division in
9 Blumberg v. Siegel , 87 AD 2d 650 , 448 NYS 2d
10 522 , (1982) .
11 That the plight of the owner is due
12 to the unique circumstances and not the
13 general conditions in the neighborhood. In
14 Ellentuck v. Klein, 51 AD 2d 964, 380 NYS 2d
15 327 , (1976) , indicates that expenditures
16 made in good faith reliance upon subsequent-
17 ly invalidated building permit may properly
18 be considered in the variance proceeding.
19 Additionally, the granting of a use variance
20 is proper where the applicant has spent
21 large sums of money in reliance upon the
22 building permit and denial of the variance
23 would be financially devastating.
24 Similarly, you may also consider the
25 possibility of the applicant to cover debt
n
1 9
services with the permitted purposes . In
2
3 this case, residential plots of about three
or four units . Debt service, in this case,
4
5 could only be paid by the sale of these lots
s
or the houses upon them. You will hear
testimony this evening that it would be
8
economically disastrous in that the value of
s
these lots would be approximately $150 ,000
10 and the owners have already invested ap-
11 proximately $800 ,000 .
12 There can be no question that the
13 plight of this applicant is due to unique
14 circumstances relating specifically to this
15 parcel of land, and that it is not shared by
16 other land in a larger area. Testimony will
17 show that in the immediate area it was only
18 the applicant 's land which was rezoned from
19 Business to Residential/Office, and that no
20 other nearby landowner has had its building
21 permit revoked after construction had com-
22 menced.
23 The use variance to be authorized
24 will not alter the essential character of
25 the locality in this instance. The
1 10
2 testimony you will hear tonight will show
3 that the granting of the requested variance
4 and the subsequent development of the
5 proposed center will not alter the essential
6 character of the neighborhood.
7 The Appellate Division in Hanna v.
8 Crossley, has held that the existence of
9 similar or identical uses in the vicinity of
10 the proposed site reduces the likelihood
11 that the essential character of the neigh-
12 borhood will be altered. Directly across
13 the street is Porky' s Restaurant and the
14 parcel is located on a major intersection in
15 Greenport . The development of the shopping
16 center at this business intersection is
17 compatible with the immediate area.
18 I am sure you will agree that upon
19 hearing the testimony offered tonight , the
20 applicant has indeed met the burden that
21 there is unnecessary hardship for which the
22 Board may grant the requested Use Variance.
23 On a personal note, I would like to
24 say that my family and I have made every
25 effort to build aesthetically beautiful
n
1 11
2 buildings throughout Suffolk County. Our
3 finished products meet or exceed that which
4 is represented in our renderings . This
5 particular rendering before you is a build-
6
ing which was completed in the Historic
District in Mt . Sinai , in the Town of Brook-
8
haven. I have pictures . I have pictures
9 showing the completed project .
10 We build our buildings . We operate
11 our own buildings . We don' t sell them to
12 others . We live and work and are sensitive
13 and respectful to the needs and wishes of
14 our neighbors . I hope you will agree that
15 the present circumstances are due to a
16 series of events that are out of our control
17 and the relief requested tonight is jus-
18 tified.
19 I will introduce now Mr. Edwin Tuc-
20 cio.
21 MR. TUCCIO: I am a real estate
22 broker and appraiser representing the Town
23 of Riverhead and Southold, and in the County
24 of Suffolk. The purpose of my testimony is
25 to establish to the Zoning Board that if a
1 12
2 Use Variance is not granted to the
3 petitioner, it will create a tremendous
4 economic hardship.
5 There are different types of
6 scenarios that affect the value of this
7 property. For example, before the Town
8 upzoned to RO (Residential/Office) , the
9 property was purchased with the intentions
10 for a retail shopping center (29,000 square
11 feet) . With this type of approval , the
12 value of vacant land with an approved site
13 plan. could be worth up to $850 ,000 to
14 $950 ,000 .
15 Under the type zoning (now RO) only
16 three or four lots would be allowed on this
17 property. Even if this were allowed by the
18 Town, what average person would want to
19 purchase a vacant lot and build a home that
20 close to the Main Road?
21 It is in my opinion that each lot
22 would only sell for $25 ,000 to $30 ,000 each.
23 If this were the case, the petitioner would
24 only realize, at the most , $120 ,000 . You
25 must remember, they paid $590 ,000 for
1 13
2 this parcel .
3 Another scenario is Residential/
4 Office. Currently, there is no demand for
5 office space in the Town of Southold. I
6 doubt very much that the Town wants to make
the same mistake as Riverhead has done, and
8 that is approving more office space than
9 needed. Currently in Riverhead, we have
10 around 250 ,000 square feet of vacant office
11 space. That is unheard of in the real
12 estate industry. If this Board does not
13 approve the Use Variance, it may be promot-
14 ing more office space.
15 One thing that I think you should be
16 aware of is when such a high vacancy exists
17 in a town such as Riverhead, most landlords
18 are able to have their assessments reduced
19 because of a vacancy factor. When real
20 estate investors grieve their taxes and are
21 reduced by the Town, they lose a large chunk
22 of our tax base when overbuilt . That could
23 happen here.
24 The bottom line is that the only way
25 a reasonable return can be realized for this
1 14
2 property is to develop it as what it was
3 zoned, for business use. The tax benefits
4 are far greater to the Town if it is built
5 as a retail shopping center versus Residen-
6 tial/Office.
7 On a final note, I think it is in the
8 best interest of the Town as well as our
9 client, to grant the Use Variance and allow
10 this project to realize its full potential .
11 Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tuccio.
13 MR. CORRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, my name
14 is Robert Corrigan. I have been asked by
15 Mr. Tsunis as to the financial ability of
16 the project as a retail center.
17 I have been in real estate since
18 1973 . I have worked at the Dime Savings
19 Bank and the East River Savings Bank as a
20 mortgage lender. I rose to the rank of vice
21 president . Today I am actively engaged in
22 mortgage banking. I hold an MBA from St.
23 Johns University in finance and banking.
24 I am a member of various real estate
25 organizations and various real estate groups
n
57r_
1 15
in the City of New York and Long Island.
2
3 Since 1985 , I have been underwriting
4 mortgage loans exceeding one billion dollars
5 for both construction and permanent
s
financing.
During my career I have provided
8 permanent financing for Mr. Tsunis and have
9 worked on construction financing for his
10 projects, and always found him to be fair
11 and reasonable in his approach and has
12 always acted according to everything he ever
13 said he would do.
14 At Mr. Tsunis' request I analyzed a
15 proposed shopping center to determine what
16 would be available under the present market
17 conditions in the way of financing for both
18 the construction and permanent loan. I
19 determined that a construction loan of 1 . 9
20 million dollars is reasonable. This loan
21 would be inclusive of the existing financing
22 of $440 ,000 of already existing land.
23 Financing could be arranged and that would
24 be fair and reasonable, and that is based on
25 a proposed construction budget of $2 , 475 ,000
1 16
2 and the existing preleasing that is in
3 place.
4 In regards to permanent financing, we
5 believe that we could arrange $2 , 475,000
6 based on typical underwriting procedures . I
7 do have that methodology.
8 Based on the previous testimony, if
9 the project was to only have the residential
10 use and the estimated market value on the
11 land of $150 ,000 , we feel that the best
12 financing that would be available would be
13 $75 ,000 , which is 50 percent of the value of
14 the property, which is typical of this type
15 of project , residential project .
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir .
17 MR. KRAMER: Stuart Kramer, Director
18 of Leasing for Tsunis Associates .
19 Tsunis Associates is the broker
20 responsible for the marketing and leasing of
21 the "Greenport Commons" .
22 With Tsunis Associates, I have suc-
23 cessfully leased 200 ,000 square feet of
24 retail space at the Sunshine Mall in Med-
25 ford, Long Island, and I have been involved
n
1 17
2 in many other projects in Suffolk County. I
3 believe my specialty is leasing shopping
centers .
4
5 I have been involved in the leasing
s
of Greenport Commons since June, 1988 . From
June 16th until the present time, advertise-
8
ments were placed in the appropriate
s
newspapers seeking both national and local
10 tenants .
11 As a result of these efforts , I have
12 secured two signed leases and one letter of
13 intent . The first lease is with Shop With
14 Us for 3 ,300 square feet . Shop With Us is a
15 five store chain of superettes .
16 The second lease is with Poon's
17 Chinese Takeout for 1 ,000 square feet .
18 Poon' s is a four store chain of Chinese
19 takeout restaurants . Since the signing of
20 the lease, the tenant has expressed interest
21 in doubling its square footage.
22 The letter of intent received is from
23 McCrory Stores for 8 ,000 square feet .
24 McCrory' s is a national variety chain store
25 with 1 , 600 stores nationwide.
18
2 These three agreements alone repre-
3 sent more than 13 ,000 square feet , or over
4 42 percent of the total center.
5 I believe that these tenants were
6 attracted to our center because of our
7 unique abundant parking, our location being
8 at a major intersection and because of our
9 New England Architecture that will blend
10 with the town.
11 After these commitments were received
12 and construction commenced, we received a
13 tremendous amount of serious inquiries ,
14 including the following categories : phar-
15 macy, dress shop, florist , haircutter, dry
16 cleaner, print shop, card shop, Greek res-
17 taurant, pancake house, pizza takeout,
18 doughnut shop, and two banks . Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
20 MR. GREBER: My name is Norman
21 Greber. I am a consultant in an independent
22 firm. My offices are in Amityville, 7 Green
23 Avenue. I hand up my credentials , but very
24 briefly, I have a Masters degree in planning
25 from Cornell University. I work for public
n
1 19
2 and private firms , and since 1971 I have had
3 my own firm, Norman Greber Associates .
4 I have been retained by the appli-
5 cants to look at this particular situation
s
with respect to the overall planning charac-
ter of the area, traffic and related mat-
8
ters . Very interestingly, actually what is
9 being asked for is nothing more than what
10 was already proposed by the Town of Southold
11 with respect to the site plan. What is
12 being asked for is just a renewal of that
13 site plan that was deemed to be quite suffi-
14 cient by everybody concerned a couple of
15 years ago.
16 This is an area that cannot be con-
17 sidered a residential area. Not only is
18 there Porky's across the street , which is an
19 LB Zone, but a short distance to the east of
20 the north side of Truck 25 , just to the east
21 of Manhasset Avenue, there is a large, very
22 large RO Zone where an old mansion was built
23 which has professional offices in it .
24 It is also at a very important inter-
25 section where many streets and many roads
1 20
2 come together, where there is a blinking
3 light . The homes that are in the surround-
4 ing areas are in basically good shape, but
5 they are on fairly small lots with respect
6 to the subject property.
7 The subject property if developed,
8 the single family residences would require
9 40 ,000 square feet each. Basically, that
10 would lay out four rectangular lots facing
11 Main Road, facing Porky's and Porky's park-
12 ing field. That is essentially the way this
13 property would have to lay out four deep
14 lots that way. These lots would be between
15 three and five times the size of the lots in
16 the surrounding areas .
17 So in my opinion, it is out of
18 character with the surrounding area, not-
19 withstanding the fact that it was rezoned
20 and the Master Plan saw fit to recommend
21 such a change. The fact that it is unique
22 is the result of the fact that this is the
23 only zone that , at least in my studies ,
24 indicates this was the only one that was
25 changed in the immediate area.
n
1� 21
A professional office was discussed
2
3 earlier, but that is not really permitted
4 use in RO Zone. The RO permits , as a matter
5 of right , only single family homes on 40 ,000
s
square foot lots, for all practical pur-
7 poses . Special exceptions asked for and if
8 granted by this Board could produce . . .
9 professional offices could produce a funeral
10 home, could produce other things if asked
11 for. As a matter of rights, only single
12 family detached homes on 40 ,000 square foot
13 lots could be allowed.
14 Greenport . . . downtown Greenport is a
15 busy, active, often congested area with
16 respect to the street system, parking
17 facilities and particularly in the summer
18 time, of course, sometimes spaces are hard
19 to come by. Oftentimes you must park and
20 pay money in the meter in order to park.
21 There is no question that the proposed
22 shopping center, where a merged facility,
23 retail and office together totalling' 29,000
24 square feet, would relieve the pressures on
25 Greenport Village downtown and, I might add,
1 22
2 at a very convenient location.
3 It is precisely what the Town of
Southold has done with the Hamlet of
4
5 Southold, in the five miles where we are
6 today, about five miles to the west of the
7 subject property. On County Route 48 there
8 are two shopping centers , seven-tenths of a
9 mile away from the downtown area. The same
10 as the subject property . . . is eight-tenths
11 of a mile from the intersection of Front and
12 Main in downtown Greenport . There are two
13 shopping centers there, totalling 24,000
14 square feet . They are not all rented but
15 there is 24,000 square feet, plus or minus ,
16 of retail . This proposal is 29,000 square
17 feet of merged retail and office.
18 It is my opinion it is very similar
19 to what has happened here if , in fact, it is
20 approved further to the east . There is no
21 shopping at all on CR 48 or Truck 25, from
22 essentially Youngs Avenue and CR 48 , all the
23 way out to Orient , 12 miles . . . nothing . . .
24 zero.
25 In the thinking of the Town putting
n
1 23
2 shopping just north of downtown Southold,
3 which relieves the pressure or whatever the
4 reasons were, it would be exactly the same
5 as relieving the pressure in Greenport . . .
s
almost virtually the same distance due north
of where the business district is .
7
8 There is no question also, based upon
9 my studies, that a substantial amount of the
10 traffic is in fact already on the road,
11 particularly east of the subject property,
12 because once you go east you have no choice.
13 You have to go to East Marion or Orient .
14 All of that traffic will necessarily pass
15 the subject property. Whether they want to
16 stop there or not is not the point . They
17 are already on the road.
18 Traffic studies that were done in the
19 Master Plan indicated there were no traffic
20 problems in that area. Current traffic
21 counts that I have obtained from the New
22 York State DOT indicate a very similar
23 situation to what was in fact the traffic
24 situation back in the early ' 80s , where peak
25 hours in that area generated approximately
1 24
2 300 to 350 cars in the main direction during
3 peak hours . The same situation today as it
4 was in those days .
5 My observations of traffic flow at
6 the blinking light indicates that there are
7 no problems . Yes , you must wait for cars if
8 you are going north and you want to make a
9 left-hand turn, but those are normal delays .
10 They are shorter than they would be if , in
11 fact, there was a regular red light situa-
12 tion as opposed to the blinking red light
13 situation.
14 I also feel that this facility, as
15 proposed, in terms of aesthetics will look
16 very much like a professional office build-
17 ing. If , in fact, a professional office
18 building was being sought , that rendering
19 you have before you could very well be a
20 professional office as opposed to retail .
21 Remember, this is retail and office.
22 So that amount of traffic that would be
23 generated is softened by that merged use.
24 In conclusion, unless you have ques-
25 tions , I believe that the character of the
n
25
2 area is such that this facility as presented
would not detract from the area. I would
3
4 also like to add, with respect to this
5 facility, that this facility is producing
s
rear buffers . The shopping centers near
here do not have rear buffers . The parking
that is behind the store and the office that
s
s
is proposed in the site plan you have before
10 you, I submit there are 50 spaces in the
11 area. It is my opinion, and I suggested
12 this to the applicants , that John, if he
13 wanted to, could land bank those spaces . I
14 don' t know if they will be needed.
15 There are 203 spaces on the site
16 plan. I don' t think you need more than 150 .
17 Those 50 spaces , while they are necessary to
18 satisfy the code, may not be necessary to
19 satisfy reality and if you land bank them,
20 the homes, there are eight homes that back
21 up to the subject property . . . this is on
22 Knapps Place. Those homes would have addi-
23 tional buffering . . . if in fact the parking
24 was not provided. If it were provided,
25 there still would be the buffering. I
1 26
2 suggest there could be greater buffers
3 without any lots of utilities to the shopp-
4 ing center.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
6 MR. TSUNIS : Mr. Chairman, that
7 concludes our presentation. Again, if I may
8 reiterate in the final remarks , if the Town
9 of Southold Building Department would have
10 permitted me to construct this parcel pur-
11 suant to drilling a well , as they were
12 subsequently advised by the County Board of
13 Health, I would not be before this Board
14 today. I certainly would not have expended
15 $800 ,000 for what I was told is a $150 ,000
16 piece of property.
17 Honestly, we relied on what we were
18 told. We relied on the site plan. We
19 relied on the Board of Health' s approval .
20 We listened to people telling us that we are
21 getting municipal water soon and the time
22 slipped by. We never were aware that this
23 parcel was being changed in January of ' 89.
24 Obviously, the Building Inspector did not
25 either, otherwise he certainly would not
1 27
2 have issued the building permit .
3 However, substantial funds were in
4 good faith expended. We submitted these
5 plans to the Building Department . We
s received your approvals . I would be happy
to work with anybody in the Town, to
8 eliminate any problems that may be suggested
9 and we hope that the Board will look
10 favorably upon this application.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: The only question I
12 have is did you think about asking the Town
13 Board for another rezoning?
14 MR. TSUNIS: Again, Mr. Chairman, as
15 the other gentleman indicated, I received a
16 telephone call to stop work out here, not
17 knowing what in the world was going on. We
18 poured twenty-something thousand feet of
19 concrete to build storage. I ran out here.
20 I met with the Town Board. I met
21 with the Town Attorney. The Town Board said
22 they sympathize with me. They felt very bad
23 about it . They would like to rectify it ,
24 but they indicated the direction should be
25 made at the Zoning Board of Appeals and in
1 28
2 that it was a unique situation in and of
3 itself , it was not a broad rush and that
4 there was a case to be handled on an in-
s dividual basis due to the uniqueness of the
6 situation.
7 This is where they directed me to
6 come, Mr. Chairman.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 MR. TSUNIS: Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: If there are any
12 spokepersons in the audience that would like
13 to speak, after we ask if there is anybody
14 else that would like to speak in favor of
15 this application . . . I would refer to the
16 spokesperson, I refer to them as possibly
17 leading a group first and individual persons
18 in the community.
19 Is there anybody else that would like
20 to speak in favor of this application?
21 MS. GOHOREL : My name is Jane
22 Gohorel , and I have written out what I have
23 to say. I must say I am amazed at what I
24 just heard about the plan for Greenport and
25 the amount of trouble these gentlemen have
29
2 gone to to get all the wrong answers .
This is to the Southold Town Board of
3
4 Appeals :
5 The proposed Greenport Commons com-
b plex is an example of the kind of misuse of
the open spaces which the long-awaited
8 Master Plan was designed to prevent . The
s
construction at this important intersection
10 of yet another row of stores and offices ,
11 offering goods and services of the type
12 already abundantly available within the
13 Village itself and elsewhere, nearby, would
14 not only adversely effect Greenport 's com-
15 mercial center, but would needlessly and
16 unalterably damage the rural character of
17 the whole area.
18 There are at present numerous stores
19 and offices in Greenport and throughout
20 Southold Town, including space in the newer
21 malls, that remain empty after more than a
22 year, some much longer. This proposed
23 development has been extremely unpopular in
24 the community at large, has been criticized
25 in the press and Chambers of Commerce. It
1 30
2 has nothing new or attractive. to offer,
3 except to the developers who will take their
4 profits and move on, leaving us with the
5 mess . It is opposed by environmentalists as
6 well as those who care about preservation of
7 the historic and rustic charm of the North
8 Fork. And it is in conflict with the Master
9 Plan which went into effect in January,
10 1989 .
11 Yet, a building permit was issued
12 last spring . Inexplicably, this error went
13 apparently undetected until after the foun-
14 dations had begun. It is difficult to
15 believe that Jordan's Partners remained
16 totally unaware all along of the illegality
17 of the situation and even harder to under-
18 stand why the Town waited so long to take
19 this proper action.
20 Granting the requested variance on
21 the grounds of financial hardship suffered
22 by Mr . Tsunis will only compound the error
23 and set a very sorry precedent . It will
24 very likely open the way for further excep-
25 tions to the rule and future random
n
1 31
commercial invasion to the west and east
2
3 along a stretch of highway that has so far
4 managed to escape the blight of suburban
5 sprawl .
s
We urge that the requested variance
be denied.
8
Thank you very much.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
10 that would like to oppose this particular
11 project?
12
13 MS. WATSON: I am not as eloquent as
14 this lady. I am Mae Watson. I own Sterling
15 Square, downtown Greenport . It was
16 established in 1973 , and we took preexisting
17 buildings and restored them to what they are
18 now. If anybody here knows what they look
19 like, you know they are in character with
20 the community.
21 I want to say that up until last year
22 I have never had full occupancy and my
23 square footage costs my tenants under $10 a
24 square foot . We have three shopping centers
25 in the Village of Greenport and without
1 32
2 counting them I would say there are ap-
3 _ proximately 17 to 20 more shops that are
4 empty. One has been completely empty for
5 quite a while.
6 Our businesses are basically seasonal
7 and based on tourist trade. We have already
8 five Chinese takeouts on the North Fork,
9 plus one regular restaurant . We have three
10 drug stores on the North Fork, in the
11 Southold/Greenport area. We have a variety
12 store. I don' t think we need any more of
13 these.
14 The North Road at that intersection
15 to Orient Point , there are four restaurants
16 which people traveling from New London and
17 New England can go well serviced. As well ,
18 in the Village of Greenport , there are four
19 more . . . or more . . . I can' t even count .
20 I am totally against it . I want it
21 on the record this would be an incredible
22 hardship on the Village of Greenport .
23 If you look at the Village of River-
24 head, you see what the strip of shopping
25 centers has done to that community.
n
1 33
It is totally out of character
2
3 without colonial community. The North Fork,
we are more of a resort and retirement area,
4
5 and I don't see the population going. I
think the economics in real estate do not
6
warrant this kind of expenditure, and I am
8 really sorry these people went to that kind
s
of investment without looking into that .
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 MR. TOWNSEND: Joseph Townsend,
12 former Mayor of the Village of Greenport and
13 former Town Councilman. I am prepared to
14 speak, so I will be brief .
15 I would like to say, as Councilman I
16 have sat in on it and worked on the Master
17 Plan as it exists today from almost the
18 beginning. There was a decision made to
19 change the zoning at that location, because
20 of what you heard tonight , the impossible
21 impact on the Village, the nature of traf-
22 fic, the general improbableness of that site
23 for this kind of development . This was made
24 known in all the Town meetings , the meetings
25 going on from ' 85 to the final adoption of
1 34
the Master Plan.
2
3 I am not familiar with exactly what
4 happened with 'the existing site plan and the
5 building permits . All I know is that the
6 zoning was . . . we had hoped the zoning would
7 be changed from the very outset of the
8 process .
9 The new zone is inconsistent with the
10 overall goals of the Master Plan and if a
11 hardship has been created, it seems to me it
12 should be corrected, not by any group but by
13 Article 78 for some sort of procedural
14 basis . Because, as far as I know, the
15 Master Plan was passed properly.
16 These people had notice of that, as a
17 property owner, and I feel that this is not
18 the proper area for their redress .
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Coun-
20 cilman. Anybody else who would like to
21 speak?
22 MR. ISAACS: Bruce Isaacs, President
23 of the North Fork Environmental Council .
24 We are opposed to this project for
25 all the reasons expressed by the speakers in
n
—joS-
35
2 opposition. There is no sense repeating
3 them again.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4
MS. WIESEHAHN: Ruth Wiesehahn. I
5
s
have a short letter from the Greenport
Historic Preservation Commission.
"Dear Members :
8
9 As members of the Greenport Historic
10 Preservation Commission, we are deeply
11 concerned about your decision regarding
12 'Greenport Commons ' .
13 If Greenport Commons is commercially
14 developed, we feel that Greenport 's commer-
15 cial district will be adversely affected.
16 Much of that commercial district is
17 officially designated a historic district .
18 Therefore, we urge this Board to hold
19 firmly to the zoning spelled out in the
20 approved Master Plan. "
21 This is signed by the Members of the
22 Greenport Historic Preservation Commission.
23 Thank you.
24 MS. WADE: Randy Wade. I just want
25 to make a point , that the one commercial
1 36
2 district is the only one downtown that is
3 directly on the waterfront being economical-
4 ly strong and vital . The Master Plan recog-
5 nized a retail shopping center on the out-
s skirts of the Village would stop the
7 vitality of Greenport and zoned this proper-
8 ty up towards residential .
9 Since the Village has a huge retail
10 vacancy rate right now, it seems in the best
11 interest of the applicants to appropriate
12 the Master Plan and seek the proper varian-
13 ces to get four houses , the four that they
14 stated they were going to be able to build
15 there. As especially there, if they were
16 landscaped properly and compatible with the
17 character of Greenport, and new houses are
18 in great demand. Retail rentals are not .
19 This intersection is our gateway. It
20 signifies a transition between the main
21 thoroughfare of the North Road and the
22 residentials running around the commercial
23 town. It should not be like a strip mall
24 landscaped by a parking lot .
25 MS. FLYNN: My name is Ingeborg
0
1 37
2 Flynn. I am a resident of the Town of
Southold. I would like to express my
3
opinions critical of this application.
4
Before doing so, I would like to cite,
5
briefly, some of my background and
6
experience which, as in a legal proceeding,
7
8 serves to qualify my opinions .
I have been a licensed real estate
9
10 broker for over 20 years and am a graduate
of the Real Estate Institute.
11
12 I conduct my business from an office
13 in the Village of Greenport .
14 I have been active in the sale,
15 leasing and financing of commercial , in-
16 dustrial and income properties , as well as
17 vacant land in various zoning districts, as
18 well as residential property .
19 Over a period of seven years I was
20 progressively: Secretary, Treasurer and
21 Vice-President for Suffolk County of the
22 Long Island Board of Realtors . I served in
23 this latter capacity for three years .
24 In addition, I was a director of the
25 New York State Association of Realtors and
1 38
2 the chairperson of several committees .
3 To address the subject application,
4 in my opinion it represents yet another
5 attempt to circumvent , or try and end run
6 around the Southold Zoning Code by seeking a
7 rezoning disguised as a variance. It is my
8 understanding that rezoning requires legis-
lative enactment and is a function reserved
9
10 to the Town Board.
11 It is also my understanding that the
12 basis for this application lies in the
13 erroneous issuance of the building permit ,
14 subsequent to the adoption of the Master
15 Plan, and a later Stop Work Order. I fail
16 to see where an error on the part of the
17 Building Department overrides an existing
18 zoning ordinance.
19 I believe you will agree with me that
20 the preparation of a comprehensive, or
21 Master Plan starts , or should start with a
22 blank piece of paper. The overall planning
23 of the Town is to be considered in terms of
24 needs and effects , now and in the future.
25 Not of least importance is the long-term
n
39
2 effect on the character and viability of
established communities .
3
A review of the situation reveals
4
5
that the Town had long since made its inten-
s tions clear. Preliminary Land Use Plans for
Southold Town were released to the public in
8 January of 1984 . These plans were prepared
9
by the Town's consultants , Raymond, Par-
10 rish, Pine and Weiner, who placed the
11 property in a Hamlet Density Residential
12 District . This was approximately five years
13 before the adoption of the Master Plan.
14 By January of 1987 , RPPW's plan had been
15 revised to Residential/Office use.
16 I rarely find myself in agreement
17 with the actions of the Southold Town Board
18 with respect to zoning. Their overall
19 actions with respect to the Village of
20 Greenport have been particularly harmful .
21 They have demonstrated a predisposition to
22 locate all of the intensive, undesirable
23 uses unwanted elsewhere on the perimeters of
24 the Village on the false premise of adequate
25 and safe water supply. Contrary to its
1 40
2 stated policy, the Board has strip zoned
3 Route 25 , the major access road to the
4 Village.
5 Having said this , I find myself in
6 agreement with the zoning of the subject
7 property. Any observer of the real estate
8 scene has observed the adverse effects of
9 the development of highway business when on
10 established downtown business areas . I need
11 only cite Babylon, Bay Shore and Patchogue
12 as examples .
13 The downtown business district of
14 Greenport is suffering. Stores are vacant .
15 And newly erected shopping centers are doing
16 badly. Many tenants are of marginal
17 quality. A shopping center to the west on
18 the North Road has been foreclosed recently.
19 The Village of Greenport is making valiant
20 efforts to restore its image as a tourist
21 attraction and commercial center.
22 To establish, contrary to the zoning
23 ordinance, a shopping center on a traffic
24 artery not in the Village would repeat the
25 mistakes of the past and serve to undue the
n
1 41
efforts of the Village.
2
3 The subject Appeal Number 3915 is
classified as an Appeal from decision of
4
5 Building Inspector. I am sure there has
s
been enough legal precedence set in this
area to require no comment from me.
However, the application appears to
s
be in the nature of a dual attack. It also
9
10 seeks a variance from the zoning ordinance.
11 The Board of Appeals is empowered to
alter the strict letter of the law or to
12
13 alter the application of zoning regulations
14 so that their spirit is observed. The
15 zoning change which would be required is
16 hardly altering the letter of the law. As
17 for the spirit of the law, this is a
18 nebulous concept . The zoning ordinance is
19 the actual law, clearly defined.
20 Hardship and practical difficulties
21 as the grounds for a variance must be in-
22 herent in the property; not its ownership .
23 Hardship is measured is measured in finan-
24 cial terms, by proof that the property as
25 regulated is valueless . A frequently cited
42
2 test is that the property has only "a bare
residue of value" .
3
4 As far as practical difficulties are
5 concerned, they too must be inherent in the
land and not the owner' s intentions or
6
7 operations . With respect to the owner' s
8 submission of a Short Environmental Form, I
9 would like to make some short comments :
10 Question Number 12 apparently dis-
11 regards traffic problems at a major inter-
12 section.
13 - I did not prepare for that , but I
14 would like to add to that that the planner
15 estimates that the traffic was about the
16 same as 1980 . We know that even now in the
17 summertime, the ferries run around every
18 hour. In 1980 , we had about four ferries
19 running a day, and the traffic must have
20 certainly doubled or even more than that .
21 Don't tell me there are no major problems .
22 Question Number 14 states that the
23 project will have no major effect on the
24 character of the neighborhood.
25 Question Number 15 answers the
1 43
2 question of public controversy with a
3 no and _'I .do,n'' t think we can even say
4 that tonight .
5 In summation, what is sought here is
6 a zoning change, not a variance .. This is
a matter for legislative enactment . Granting
8 the variance to accommodate the owner ' s
9 objectives would go ,far beyond both the
10 letter and the spirit of the regulations .
11 Errors on the part of the Building Depart-
12 ment cannot void zoning regulations nor can i
13 they serve as the basis for granting a
14 variance .
15 Thank you.
16 MS . CROSSER: Diane . Crosser , resident
a
17 of the Town of Southold.
0
18 The first question I would like to
s
19 address to Mr . Tsunis would be you stated
20 that . . . .
0
21 THE CHAIRMAN: You have to address it
W
22 to the Board . You cannot cross-examine an
23 applicant , first of all . He is not bound to
24 answer the ' question, also, unless he 'wants
25 t O .
1
44
2 MS . CROSSER: What I would like to
3 know is Mr. Tsunis states the project would
4 not change the essential character of the
5 neighborhood, yet Mr. Greber stated the
6 center would look like a professional office
7 building. I would like to know what the
8 definition of the essential character of the
9 neighborhood is .
10 My second question, this would be
11 asked of the Board, would be that when
12 excavation began we were told that five
13 leases had been secured. Tonight we are
14 told only two leases have been secured and
15 this one letter of intent . I am just
16 curious to find out what happened to the
17 other leases .
18 My third question would be . . .
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Before you go to the
20 third, that question was addressed not to
21 us . That was addressed also to these
22 gentlemen.
23 MS. CROSSER: Okay. What I would
24 like to know, as a resident of Southold,
25 would be what will happen if the rest of the
n
1 45
leases are not secured as we initially were
2
3 told they had been?
THE CHAIRMAN: I can' t answer that
4
5 question, but go ahead.
s MS . CROSSER: My last one, I guess
7 this will be an open ended question as well ,
is that Mr. Tuccio, Mr. Kramer, and Mr.
8
Greber all stated their credentials and
9
10 testified at this meeting as experts in
their field.
11
12 My question would be, apparently I
13 won' t get an answer on this , is whether or
14 not they received any financial compensation
15 or if they stand to gain financially from
16 seeing Greenport Commons come to fruition.
17 Those are my questions .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 Would you like to answer that?
20 MR. TSUNIS: I will answer the last
21 one first . They are getting paid, but they
22 are getting paid whether it is approved or
23 not . These people are experts in their
24 field, and took monies to speak. They
25 certainly, I don' t believe as professionals ,
1 46
2 would come out and not get paid for their
3 time. I paid them. I paid for the time
4 they spent out here, expended out here.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: You only have one
6 question here. That ' s the part of the firm
7 that spoke, is that correct , that 's the
8 gentleman on the end here?
9 MR. TSUNIS: Yes , and he gets paid on
10 a commission basis .
11 THE CHAIRMAN: The other question was
12 about the leases , I assume, and that was
13 what would happen if I guess you had several
14 more leases prior to . . .
15 MR. TSUNIS: I only had two leases
16 secured and one letter of intent .
17 THE CHAIRMAN: What happens to the
18 project if you don' t rent . it? I assume that
19 is the ,question.
20 MR. TSUNIS: Well , I suppose there is
21 a question over there, if the entire project
22 won' t be built in one stage, either build in
23 one stage or if the Town would be giving a
24 permit we could build it in two or three
25 stages . But there is 13 ,000 committed, also
n
1 47
road, which is over 40 percent of the
2
3 project .
I also would like to suggest
4
apparently some retailers are seeking per-
5
mits to the location and to the fact there
6
is a large parking lot . The traffic that
we are talking about there, before, is not
a
s
going to result or increase due to the
10 shopping center.
11 I would like to point out that the
12 traffic that was discussed coming off the
13 ferries , I believe, that is not going to
14 increase traffic because they may stop at
the intersection.
15
16 So, was there another question?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: About the character of
18 the neighborhood.
19 MR. TSUNIS: Well , the character of
20 the neighborhood, I believe, would not be
21 altered due to the fact that the shopping
22 center, with the Planning Board acting
23 consistently with their input of the store
24 towards the intersection. There is a 63
25 foot buffer from the property line to the
1 48
2 building line. It is far enough away, I
3 believe, for it to be properly screened by
4 fences and/or shrubs .
5 The alternative would be lots of rows
6 facing that very heavily traveled road.
,7 That certainly would be out of character.
8 I would just like to reiterate one
9 more time, if I may, I am sensitive. I
10 appreciate what was said tonight by the
11 residents . I just hope that the residents
12 are appreciative of my point of view, as
13 well .
14 I have been literally held hostage
15 since 1988 , and having my approval in hand
16 and not being able to get a building permit
17 due to the fact that municipal water was not
18 available. I was constantly told the well
19 could not be obtained. Subsequently, all of
20 a sudden, I could go ahead with the well .
21 If this well was permitted by the Town
22 Building Department two or three years ago,
23 I would not be here. I could have built in
24 accord with the existing zoning.
25 I am concerned that . . . I am
n
1 49
2 appreciative, again, what we are talking
about with retail uses downtown. I think a
3
a
relationship could develop with this one
location, with the store downtown. I cer-
5
s
tainly am not going to seek out uncomplimen-
7 tary uses , but complimentary uses to what is
a
in existence. But again I feel a little bit
9 grieved in this particular situation.
10 I can honestly tell you I was never
11 notified that there was a change of zoning
12 in January, otherwise certainly I would have
been out there. The fact of the matter is
13
14 the Building Department issued me . . . did
15 realize that the zone was changed in this
16 parcel , and if the Building Department is
17 within a municipal building that these
18 changes of zones are authorized, my office,
19 being in Hauppauge, I would hope that people
20 could understand that I would not know.
21 I am an attorney. I would not build
22 without a permit and/or disregard the or-
23 dinances .
24 I think our case was stated. I would
25 hope that the Board would review the package
1 50
2 we submitted, and we would like to incor-
3 porate our records for your review to
a
analyze our case. I believe we have sus-
5 tained a burden necessary to obtain a Use
6 Variance.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
8 MR. HOLLAND: Everett Holland. I am
9 a resident of Greenport . I have a state-
10 ment as well as a question. If I understand
11 correctly, the Master Plan was changed in
12 January of 1989 .
13 THE CHAIRMAN: January 10 , 1989.
14 MR. HOLLAND: The land in question
15 was bulldozed sometime at the end of the
16 summer, I believe, and then it was in Sep-
17 tember . . . October the foundation was start-
18 ing to be poured. I don' t understand why he
19 was not informed in January that this was
20 changed.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I don' t know. I can' t
22 answer that question.
23 MR. HOLLAND: I don' t have a degree
24 in it . I don' t have an MBA or anything like
25 that .
n
1 51
I do not understand why it is so bad
2
3 to have a shopping mall here, which is
4 predominantly empty and have no shopping
mall on that North Road, all the way out to
5
Orient . I see nothing wrong with having
6
trees , grass . . . I do feel that it is very
unfortunate that this has gotten this far
8
out of hand. I don' t know what can be done
9
10 to rectify this or how it happened, but I do
feel that there is an extreme amount of
11
12 traffic throughout that intersection.
13 The major part of the Village of
14 Greenport has three shopping centers; one
15 totally empty, another one maybe 95 percent
16 empty, another one equally empty. Plus also
17 there are quite a few stores there, out in
18 other buildings , that are also empty. The
19 Village of Greenport is having a tremendous
20 problem in business , in the business dis-
21 trict . The last thing we need is another
22 strip mall on the outskirts of the Village.
23 The traffic in downtown is a problem.
24 Parking is a problem. It is a small , old-
25 fashioned village. You do have to put a
1 52
2 nickel in the meter . I don' t see any harm
3 in that . It is not a huge amount of money
4 you fork over, for the upkeep of that
5 property.
6 That is basically all I have to say .
7 Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir .
9 MS . SCHEER: Linda Scheer . I am
10 thinking back to the statements Mr. Tsunis
11 made at the beginning. The petitioners have
12 come to determine economic hardship, and
13 determined that the proposed development
14 does not alter the character of the area.
15 The Master Plan was in process for many
16 years . I find it hard to believe that a
17 professional developer would not know that
18 property was going to be rezoned.
19 Secondly, I believe their planner
20 made the point that there is no shopping on
21 Trunk [sic] 48 from Southold to East Marion.
22 Building, no matter how aesthetically pleas-
23 ing, will definitely alter the character.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25
n
1 53
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : Nancy Sanac-
2
tynowicz . I am opposed to the shopping
3
center. I think it is really not needed.
4
5 The Master Plan was put into effect to
6 protect the character of our town, and I
7 hope we can follow it otherwise it will set
8
a terrible precedent for shopping centers to
s
spring up all over.
10 I have one more question. Where is
11 this going to be? It is not going to have
12 an Environmental Impact Statement done, I
see.
13
14 THE CHAIRMAN: We have not determined
15 it yet .
16 MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : I would like you
to determine. It needs an Environmental
17
18 Impact Statement , though. Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir?
20 MR. ROWSON: Michael Rowson. I am
21 from Preston' s , down in Greenport .
22 It is a pretty drawing. I can see a
23 lot of people come out here as tourists and
24 support our Town of Greenport . They don' t
25 come out here to see shopping centers . I
1•
j../V-
1 54
think a lot of them come out to see the
2
3 parks out in Orient , enjoy the waterfront ,
4 and enjoy the open spaces .
5 I think it is up to the Zoning Board
6 to oppose this . Based on the facts that
7 many of the taxpayers here who have busi-
8 nesses , and live here on a year-round basis ,
9 enjoy the open spaces and being that the
10 Town Board represents the taxpayers , it is
11 in their best interest to do what is going
12 to keep the taxpayers happy.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
14 I just want to address one issue, so
15 that the applicants and the residents of the
16 Town are aware, we . . . and Mrs . Flynn will
17 attest to this because she sat in on several
18 hearings with her husband on it . . . that we
19 are not closed on the Port of Egypt . We did
20 not have a Town Attorney until February 22 ,
21 1990 . So what we are going to be doing
22 tonight , again, asking this very nice lady
23 here who is taking this record down, to pull
24 this record out tonight and we will discuss
25 this record with the Town Attorney and we
n
25—
1 55
2 will recess this hearing until sometime in
April , and we will let you know. We believe
3
the next hearing is going to be April 19th,
4
and we will convene at that time.
5
s
My question basically is is there
anybody that might not be here on or about
s
approximately . . . that is , that date is
s
subject to change based upon when we get the
10
hearing record and when we get the chance to
11 discuss it with the Town Attorney, who is
12 Harvey Arnoff . We will recess until that
13 date or approximately that date, and then
14 conclude the hearing, hopefully in about 45
15 minutes . We would not want to shove anybody
16 out who might not be available at that
17 particular time.
18 If there is anybody here tonight that
19 has not spoken that may be away . . . we
20 realize that is during the Easter holidays
21 . . . you know, give a week before or a week
22 after . . . so will you please speak? I know
23 I have to read that letter.
24 Ma'am, you have a question?
25 MS . OSTROSKI : I own a luncheonette
1 56
2 in Greenport . One of the representatives
3 from this group came and suggested we might
4 want to move our business to their develop-
5 ment , and I don' t think that is in the best
6 interest of the community.
7 Mariella Ostroski (phonetic spell-
8 ing) .
9 THE CHAIRMAN: The request from the
10 gentleman in the rear of the room for Alice
11 Green.
12 "Dear Members of the Board:
13 This letter is being written with
14 mixed feelings in regards to the proposed
15 construction project . While it is under-
16 standable that a business expects a return
17 on investment, it is difficult to comprehend
18 why a businessperson would expend a large
19 amount of capital at a time of weak economy
20 in an area where there are many business
21 storefronts vacant (ie. Sterlington Com-
22 mons, Victorian Village, Kontakosta' s
23 storefront) .
24 Perhaps there are other reasons which
25 the general public is unaware of , but in the
n
1 57
minds of many local people this project
2
3 appears to be five or ten years premature.
Another area of unkept vacant stores with
4
5 broken or boarded up windows and trash
s
blowing in the breeze is not desireable.
The traffic problems have not
8
diminished and the new traffic pattern at
the intersection of Routes 48 and 25 is
9
worse than ever . Add to this a traffic flow
10
11 due to retail shops in operation and there
12 may be a hazardous situation to the general
13 public . It is hoped that this has been
14 thoroughly researched and considered.
15 This is no question that the thoughts
16 of noise pollution become apparent . A
17 retail shop operation requires truck
18 deliveries at all hours of the day and
19 night . Depending on the type of retail
20 shop, it is possible to have store hours
21 around the clock and perhaps not the most
22 desireable clientele inhabiting an area
23 adjacent to residential homes . It is not
24 uncommon for business people and investors
25 who are not residents to do whatever it
1 58
2 takes to proceed with their project to
3 accomplish a bottom line. Sometimes it is
4 done without regard to how it effects the
local inhabitants who will live with the
5
6 situation for many years .
Please consider these concerns before
8 approving a project which can have so much
influence on us .
9
10 Sincerely,
11 Alice Green"
12 I should say we received another
13 letter, or there is another letter in the
14 file.
15 Yes , ma' am?
16 MS. McDONALD: Marion McDonald. May
17 I ask a question? What are you basing this
18 Board's approval of this variance on? I
19 don' t understand.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: There are three traf-
21 fic areas . The most important one is the
22 one that was clearly defined by Mr. Tsunis
23 in the beginning. That is dollar and cents
24 proof .
25 MS . McDONALD: This Board would rule
n
1 59
2 on something like that .
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Dollar and c,ents
4 proof . It cannot be used in its present
5 situation. That is the most important .
s Okay. At this particular time, I am
going to offer a resolution to recess this
8 hearing. I am sorry .
9 MR. DINIZIO: After reading the
10 Suffolk Times today, that reminded me of a
11 letter that my wife had written, too. I
12 live in the general area behind Porky's
13 Restaurant .
14 She wrote a letter to Joe Sawicki ,
15 State Assemblyman, and he had the State
16 Department of Transportation come out and do
17 a study on that corner . The study indicated
18 that at that time, which was August 26,
19 1987 , there was no problem as far as traffic
20 on that corner which I use daily and my wife
21 uses daily and plenty of people in this
22 audience use.
23 I just wanted to offer that into the
24 record, so you can read it . It may help, it
25 might not help, or . I don' t know what . But
n
- 13a-
1 60
my personal intention is to ask the Planning
2
3 Board if this particular project was taken
a
into account when the study was taken and
5 just what type of traffic your project will
entail .
6
I understand your hardship, and it
certainly is very clear tonight . But I just
8
did not want anybody to think that this was
9
10 going to be something . . . I want to keep it
11 out in the open. We did receive this letter
12 and it will be part of the record. It does
13 exist and it has an on-going thing, at that
14 particular point .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jim.
16 MS. FLYNN: I would like to remind
17 you, mapping on the traffic counts are
18 available from the Department of Transporta-
19 tion in Suffolk County, but I also would
20 like to ask you to check the date when these
21 maps have been updated, very carefully,
22 because I do know from experience they have
23 not been updated sometimes for six or seven
24 years in certain areas .
25 So if the traffic counts are
1 61
2 submitted, sometimes these are taken from
3 accounts that are quite old.
4 I also received maps from Suffolk
5 County Planning and you can get the maps
6 there, but in certain areas you have to
7 really watch the dates of when they are
8 being updated, and sometimes it is six or
9 seven years they have not been updated.
10 I have been working as a broker with these
11 quite frequently.
12 If I may address the comments . I
13 think you are alluding to the development
14 east of this parcel .
15 MR. DINIZIO: Yes . This letter
16 states that when that parcel opens, a three
17 light traffic signal will be required at
18 that intersection.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about
20 Manhasset Avenue.
21 MR. DINIZIO: No. The other inter-
22 section of Route 48 and State Road 25 .
23 THE CHAIRMAN: That is what this
24 letter states . . . in this letter . . . was
25 back in ' 88 approximately, it was, when we
1 62
2 received it , and they are going to be re-
3 quired to put that light in.
4 MR. TSUNIS: I think that could only
5 enhance this particular project .
MR. DINIZIO: I don' t want to enhance
6
7 or do anything to your project . All I am
8 stating is that this letter exists , and I
9 fully intend to see that the traffic study
10 in your site plan, the site plan that was
11 approved, if that was taken into account .
12 MR. TSUNIS: I honestly don' t know if
13 it was or wasn' t .
14 MR. DINIZIO: I intend to ask that
15 question. I just wanted you to know that
16 question is going to be asked.
17 MR. TSUNIS: I would suggest to the
18 Board, it can only enhance this project
19 because of that installation of that light .
20 But I would also like to add that any traf-
21 fic from that parcel would have to go west
22 one time or another, whether or not my
23 project exists .
24 So whether they stop at Greenport
25 Commons or downtown Greenport , or Southold,
n
_1 3 3 -
1 63
I don' t think would matter to this
2
3 particular project . They would have to pass
by this project no matter what , if they are
4
5 living east of this project .
s MR. DINIZIO: That was not my con-
7 cern. I just wanted to enter this letter.
MR. TSUNIS: I would like to get a
8
9 copy.
10 MR. DINIZIO: It will be part of the
11 record.
12 MS. HAMILTON: Joan Hamilton, in
13 regard to Mr . Tsunis ' dollars and sense and
14 what he does if this doesn't go through and
15 he chooses to split up these pieces of
1s
property.
17 I am a licensed broker. My office
18 was approached by Mr. Tsunis ' office to come
19 down here and speak on his behalf . No one
20 in Greenport would do it . They had to go as
21 far as Riverhead to speak on his behalf .
22 I also think, dollars and cents , that
23 lot was sold for $35 ,000 . . . he better go
24 back to the group Board and come up with
25 better numbers because better numbers do
1 64
2 exist than the numbers he gave tonight .
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Before we close this ,
4
I have to ask Nancy a question.
5 It has been my interpretation, Nancy,
6 in dealing with the SEQRA process , SEQRA
7 usually runs laterally with a project . In
8 other words, they run parallel .
9 It is really a two part question.
10 1 . The statement . I have a problem
11 in dealing with the SEQRA process on this
12 until we actually make a decision on the
13 rezoning action, unless you can clearly
14 define for me, at this particular time, what
15 developing areas except for traffic, you
16 feel the project should have an effect upon.
17 You refer to the character of the
18 neighborhood. Are you referring to other
19 specific areas?
20 MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : All the impact on
21 downtown Greenport .
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Any point in question?
23 Is this a learning experience, because we
24 have never requested DEC in a Use Variance
25 hearing to my knowledge.
n
1 65
2 I stand before you, ten years on this
3 Board. I can tell you we have had between
six and seven Use Variance hearings , one of
4
5 which, to my knowledge, this Board has
6 granted and that was over on Young Avenue
7 and County Road 48 . That is , to my
s
knowledge.
s
So, at this particular time, you are
10 requesting this Board to go back and review
11
the SEQRA process and establish the pos-
12 sibility of running laterally with this
13 hearing a DEC statement?
14 MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : It wouldn' t hurt .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask
16 you, is that what you are suggesting?
17 MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : Yes .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right . Because I
19 would have to review this with the Town
20 Attorney at the same time. That is basical-
21 ly where we are at this point . I don't want
22 to sidestep any particular issues , at this
23 time.
24 First of all , we have no knowledge of
25 what these gentlemen intend to present to us
` 1 66
2 prior to this hearing. So I had no idea
3 what was going to occur, and that's basical-
4 ly the issue.
5 There was a question from the lady in
6 the back.
7 MS. WADE: A friend of yours called
me at the real estate office I work for a
8
9 couple of years ago, after you bought the
10 property, and said, "I am going to buy
11 commercial property on the North Fork,
12 because a friend of mine got this property
13 really cheap. So I want to put in a strip
14 mall . " It was just a little . . .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further
16 comments , we will recess the hearing and
17 resume at the April 19th hearing. We would
18 appreciate it , as I mentioned, if you would
19 give us a call around the 15th to make sure
20 we are on. We will readvertise, even though
21 we are not required to. If we recess to
22 that particular day, we definitely will do
23 that . We have all the input .
24 We will discuss the SEQRA issue with
25 the Town Attorney. Around the 5th of April
n
y _
.
! 1 67
or so we should have the transcript . So if
2
you want copies of the transcript , we will
3
have copies to furnish to you.
4
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : One more ques-
5
s
tion. Why wasn' t the environmental assess-
7
ment ever done anyway?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe there should
8
have been a short form done. We have one in
9
10 here. The date on it is 1/30/90 .
11 MS. SANACTYNOWICZ : Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Again, making the
13 motion to recess the hearing to the next
14 regularly scheduled hearing which is , we
15 assume to be, April 19th. As I said, please
16 bear with us . It will be based upon when I
17 receive the transcript , when we review this
18 with the Town Attorney, and when we can
19 reschedule it . It may be one week later .
20 Thank you all for the courtesy.
21 (Time noted: 10 : 40 p.m. )
22
23
24
25
d , 68
2
3
4 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
5
6 I , GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
7 I am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
8 constitutes a true and correct transcript according to
9 my official stenographic notes .
10
11 - — --
GAIL ROSCHEN
12 Official Court Reporter
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25