HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/09/1981 r
o
Southold Town Board of Appeals
• �- MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS M I P U T E S
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER - -" - - - - -
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI REGULAR MEETING
JULY 9, 1981
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held
on Thursday, July 9, 1981 at 7 : 15 p.m, at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, New York. 11971 .
Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. , Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr. ;
Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki .
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7 :17 o ' clock. p.m,
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No, 2842. Application of Amelia Vaskelis,
P.O. Box 522, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient rear
yard area at the corner of Jernick Lane & Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, NY;
also known as Harvest Homes Estates Subd. Filed Map #5337 Lot 22; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-3-16 . (c/o Inland Homes, Box 117, Mattituck, NY) ,
Mr. Grigonis abstained from the hearing of Amelia Vaskelis (and left
the meeting room until the following hearing) and requested that Member
Goehringer act as Chairman in his place.
Member Goehringer opened the hearing at 7 : 17 p.m, by reading the
appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and
affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official
newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and. letter
from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was
made; fee paid $15.00.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the County Tax Map showing the
surrounding properties in the area and we also have a survey indicating
the placement of the house, proposed house, approximately fifty feet from
Oaklawn Avenue, fifty feet from Jernick Lane, indicating twenty eight
feet on the east side to lot #23 and indicating a proposed rear yard of
fourty three feet. Is there anybody who would like to speak in behalf
of this application? You're on,
L, Southold Town Boa-- of Appeals -2- July 9, 1981
AMELIA VASKELIS : Well, I'd like to-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we ask you a favor?
AMELIA VASKELIS : Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to tape all of this. Could I ask you
to speak in the microphone?
AMELIA VASKELIS : Can you hear me?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Beautiful.
AMELIA VASKELIS : Alright. This is what I would like to do--is to
really get on with the job, because I thought, it 's just my sister and I,
and when we purchased this lot, 170 by 125, I thought that was going to
be ample for two little old ladies, so I was quite surprised. when I was
informed that it was short of property, and it 's the first time I didn't
bring my plans into your building department, because I was in a hurry
to get this house built to bring my sister back from Florida, where she 's
been for five years. So I'm very anxious to get this house going, and
then again we must have it up before the snow flies because the car in
Florida doesn't have snow tires. We have to be driving back, But I
would appreciate whatever consideration you could show me. Thank. you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to
speak, also in favor of this application, anybody else, rather?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anybody like to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Any questions?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Hearing no further=,questions, I'll make a motion to approve this application
as applied for.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Seconded.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows :
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct new
one-family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback of 43 '
in trying to maintain frontyard setbacks of 50 as required by the
zoning code. The premises in question contains an area of 21,250
square feet with 170 ' road frontage along Jernick Lane and 125'
along Oaklawn Avenue. The dwelling proposed is approximately 92 '
by 32 ' . The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicant.
Southold Town Boas_ of Appeals -3- July 9, 1981
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect .
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is
unique and not self-imposed; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief as requested.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Amelia Vaskelis (by Inland Homes, Inc. ) in- Appeal No. 2842 be
granted as applied for.
Location of Property: Corner of Jernick Lane and Oaklawn
Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-70-3-16 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki . Mr. Grigonis abstained.
Member Goehringer left the meeting hall at 7:25 p.m. and returned
at 7 :26 p.m. , before the start of the second. public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2841 . Application of Tom Crowley &
wife, 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY for a. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct addition to
dwelling with insufficient side yard. area at 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion,
NY; bounded north by Reich; west by Cedar Drive; south by Kapassas; east
by Vasquez and Frumenti; County Tax Map Item No . 1000-22-2-42 . (by Peter
R. Stoutenburgh as agent) .
The Chairman opened the heating at 7 :27 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this
property and the surrounding properties . We have a sketch showing the
location of the house and the proposed addition of the garage. Is there
anyone here who would like to add anything to the application?
TOM CROWLEY: I'd. just like to say that when we built our house
seven years ago that we'd always hoped to put a garage on the north side.
Southold Town Boi of Appeals -4- July 9 , 1981
J
L '
TOM CROWLEY (CONT. ) : And at the time we thought we'd left enough
sideyard to put a garage, but. since then we've added on a few members of
the family--two., since we built the house, and we just decided that we'd
try to make the garage, instead of a car and a half, a two-car garage.
We'd like to save the south side of the house, later on possibly, to add
some kind of solar sun space on the south side, so we really would not
want to obstruct our sunlight on the south side. We'd like to keep the
garage on the north side, if possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Anyone else to speak for it?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: In considering the location and the size of
this garage petitions, we tried to minimize the width of it as much as
possible. For a two-car garage, eighteen feet' s about as narrow as you
can possible make one. Twenty feet:.is more customary and twenty two and
twenty four is not uncommon. We did run it a little bit longer than most
garages, thirty two feet in order to give some storage on the sides and
accessibility in bad weather and stuff like that to get it (word was
inaudible. ) One thing that .was also a consideration, that even if the
garage was going to go on the south side, although Mr. Crowley had
mentioned that they've got plans for possibly some solar collecting on
the south side there, there are cesspools in the back of the house on
the south side and if the garage was located in that area it would make
it very difficult to ever get to them if they needed to. It' s right
now a big open yard and they do own a small stretch of land to the
south of it so there' s plenty of access at the moment to get equipment
and machinery in there if they have to. Their ideas are very good about
a garage on the north side, it' s good insulation and makes a nice buffer
to 'the winds that are so common in that area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stoutenburgh.' Anyone else to speak
for it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anyone to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
I have a Litter here addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals.
(The Chairman read a letter from Mr. Kim T. Dzenkowski of 1000 Cedar
Drive, East Marion, NY, dated July 8, 1981 , and received by this Board
on July 9, 1981 . )
Anyone else? Mr. Goehringer has a question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Peter, this is a one story garage?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: This is a one story garage although there
will be storage area over the garage -to more resemble a two story
building. It is not meant to 'be a flat roof garage, it will be more
or less a salt box pattern (remainder of statement was inaudible. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from you gentlemen?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
Southold Town Bo"— of Appeals -5- July 9, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution to close the hearing and
reserve the decision until a little later.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 2841 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2837. Application of Frank A. Battel,
c/o Municipal Building, Teterboro, New Jersey (by Richard J. Cron as
attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31
for approval of insufficient area and/or width of five proposed parcels
known as Shorecrest Subd. Filed Map #5584, Lots 10, 11 , 12, 13 & 14; also
known as south side of Bayberry Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map
Item No. 1000-52-3-15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:37 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documernts, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the Tax map showing these lots
and the surrounding lots in the area. Is there anyone here that would
like to add anything to what's been stated in the application? That
would be you, Mr. Cron.
RICHARD J. CRON: Yes, Richard J. Cron for the applicant, Frank
Battel. The lots that are involved here are on the map of Shorecrest
at Arshamomaque. This is a ten year old subdivision and to which all of
the roads, all of the sump areas and all of the (word was inaudible)
required by the Town of Southold have been installed. When this sub-
division was created, it was made up of lots consisting of about two
thirds of an acre and for some unexplainable reason, when the ordinance
was adopted, which required greater than quarter acre parcels and half
acre parcels and up to the one acre parcel, some reason this map was not
included in the exceptions. Notwithstanding, at the time the lot sizes
were greater than would have been required with respect to other sub-
divisions. Apparently, the owner of the subdivision never picked it up,
and there came_a time when we had to make appeals with respect to the
other property owners, to wit, Mrs . Rusch, who owned=a lot of the lots
which she inherited. through her husband 's estate and J. . C. Cornell, who '
owned and bought some of these lots. At the time we made the application
for the variance, we didn't represent Frank Battel though in some instances
he had notice of the fact that variances were being made. Of course, it 's
indicated in the application, the variances were granted in. each instance
with respect to the Rusch application and to the Cornell application.
This is not really a subdivision of property, it's a map that has existed
Southold Town Boaiu of Appeals July 9, 1981
i
in its present form, as I say, for about ten years . With all of the
improvements having been made a substantial time ago, to deny the appli-
cation would obviously impose a great deal of practical difficulty and
hardship on the applicant and even more important, would probably lead
to a most unattractive area in that portion of the subdivision, so in
order to meet current requirements, and in particular as to width require-.
ments and area requirements, you'd end up with substantial road frontages
because of the depth of the lots. So, in the light of the fact that we
have had prior approvals for similar applications and that these are the
only lots that now remain in the subdivision, I would. respectfully re-
quest that the Board grant this variance application. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Is there anyone else to speak
for this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anyone to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Do any of you gentlemen have any questions?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared. closed, Appeal 2837 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and. Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2845. Application of James R. Giambalvo,
72 Columbia Road, Rockville Centre, NY (by Richard J. Cron as attorney
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for per-
mission to divide property into Minor Subdivision of four lots and
approval of insufficient frontage of Lot #1 of said lots at east side of
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; bounded north by Schlumpf; west by Indian
Neck Lane; south by Pontino and Harvey; east by Richmond. Creek; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-5-9.
The Chairman opened. the hearing at 7 :47 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related. documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to amend this now, Mr. Cron?
Southold. Town Boa-,., of Appeals -7- July 9, 1981
L
RICHARD J. CRON: I'd like to, if I could, make an interjection, move
to amend the name of the applicant to correctly read Peconic Bay Gardens,
Inc, rather than James R. Giambalvo. If you would amend that lung pro
punct, so to speak, I would be very happy if the Board would consider it,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any objections from any of the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : No.
MEMBER SAWICKI: No,
MEMBER DOYEN: No .
(The Chairman amended the applications to read Peconic Bay Gardens,
Inc, and continued to read the appeal application,:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map of the area and a section of County, Tax
Map showing this property and the adjoining properties, and the smallest
lot would. be nearly two acres, 1 .960 and from there they run up to 2 .561
acres, 2.481 acres, 2.392 acres, and. the smallest one is 1 .960 acres ,
Is there anyone who would. like to add to what has been stated in the
application?
RICHARD J. CRON: If it pleases the Board, Richard J. Cron on behalf
of the applicant, Peconic Bay Gardens Inc. I don't think there 's much
that I can ad.d, I think the application itself pretty well speaks for
itself, and. I think the examination of the map will show that we 're
dealing with rather large, substantial lots in a minor subdivision. I
would. point out to the Board that the Southold Town Planning Board has
already basically approved the subdivision. The Suffolk County Planning
Commission has likewise approved the subdivision, subject to-their usual
types of conditions, and I would only add that in terms of percentage
wise, the variance that we 're requesting with respect to the width re-
quirements come to about nine and three quarters percent, which is
rather significant in relation to the width requirement of 150 feet.
So I would ask, in light of the fact that this is an area variance, it 's
not going to be any substantial change in any of the neighboring prop-
erties. The density.- is not going to change, in light of all the approvals,
and the insignificance of the area variance requested, I would respectfully
request that the Board. approve it ,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr, Cron. Anyone else to speak for this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anyone to speak against this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing--any questions, gentlemen?
(TP ERE WERE NO QUESTIONS . )
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Seconded.
Southold Town Bo&.,, of Appeals -8- July 9, 1981
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared. closed., Appeal 2845.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No . 2838. Application of James Cooper,
865 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to
dwelling at 865 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Love Lane;
west by County Road 48; south by Bell Est. ; east by Ashton; County
Tax Map Item No . 1000-141-3-26 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 59 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related. documents, legal notice of hearing and. affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official. newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this
property and the surrounding properties and sketches showing the prop-
osed deck addition and the house. Is_ there anyone here who would like
to speak for the application? That would be you, Mr. Cooper.
JAMES COOPER: We decided to, being so close and that Mr. Ashton
didn't want it done, we decided not to have it done. He didn't speak
to. me, he spoke to my wife one moaning and I'd say, being neighbors, that
we don' t see him that much, but still we 're neighbors, and we would. like
to get along with everybody in town so we decided not to have it done.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that makes it easy for us . I'll offer a
resolution withdrawing the application of James R. Cooper, 2838.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the application be declared withdrawn without
prejudice, as requested, Appeal 2838.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
The, Chairman called a recess from 8:04 p.m. to 8: 12 p.m.
� -x-
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2843. Application of Phebe M. Bridge
Estate, (Robert W. Gillispie, III, P.O. Box 1112, Southold, NY as agent)
for a Variance to the Town- Law, Section 280A Subsection 3 and a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insuffi-
cient area of proposed parcel #1 , approval of insufficient area and
tSouthold Town Boa u of Appeals -9- July 9, 1981
4
width of proposed parcel #2, approval of access of proposed parcel ##3
of three proposed parcels at south side of Main Road, Southold, NY
(R-O-W off south side of Main Rd. , west by boundary to Burns Real Estate);
bounded north by Dubovick, Hagerman, Town of Southold, Burns and State
Road. 25; west by Schneider; south by Bridge; east by Cummings, Scott
and Methodist Church; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-4-2, 9.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8: 12 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property avners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey showing this property and the
proposed divisions; we have a section of the County Tax Map showing this
property and the adjoining properties. Is there anyone here who would
like to add to anything that's in this application? Do you have anything
you wanted to say, Bob?
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, III: Mr. Chairman--
YR. CHAIRMAN: Could you use the mike, Bob, in case Missy doesn't
get it all, it'll pick it up better.
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: Mr. Chairman, all we can do. is reiterate
basically what' s in the application, that these two lots would very
closely meet the area requirements of the use district. Mr. Bridge,
who is here tonight, al-so wishes to acquire what is shown as lot #3 on
the survey for access to his home, which is in the rear of his property.
We feel that by subdividing this property into two parcels basically,
the character of the district will be preserved. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gillispie. Anyone else to speak for
this?
JIM DUBOVICK: Yeah, I just would like to know, I'm Jim Dubovick,
is there any problem with any of the adjoining properties, as far as
access or anything George, Mr. Gillispie, in as far as where I would be
concerned?
GEORGE BRIDGE: I don't think so, I don't see how.
JIM DUBOVICK: Yeah, I don't either, I'm just asking for the record,
you know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think it would be--
JIM DUBOVICK: I don't see how it would either, but--
MR. CHAIRMAN: The map shows 20 feet for the right of way.
JIM DUBOVICK: It wouldn't really affect my--
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
JIM DUBOVICK: On any access to it or anything like this. No.
I haven't seen the survey (remainder of statement was inaudible. )
,Southold Town Bogy_ _ of Appeals -10 July 9, 1981
L
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, can you and George come up here for a minute?
We've got an, Jerry's got an idea here, we're trying to see if we can
think about.
(At this point, Mr. Bridge, Mr. Gillispie, Mr William Smith, and
Doctor James Dubovick approached the dias to confer with Board members. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to run through that again, Jerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you, is he planning to build on this lot,
eventually, or you want--
GEORGE BRIDGE: Possibly,
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Possibly.
GEORGE BRIDGE: Possibly, yeah. I cb n't want to not be able to,
if I could, someday. I cb n't have any plans for it, but I wouldn't
want to--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We were just thinking about the natural topo-
graphy. of the land. It seems like a pretty darned difficult lot to
build on.
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: Don't be mislead--
G:BORGE BRIDGE: No, no.
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: Because I think you'll find that the (word
was inaudible) on this property is pretty well off that lot.
GEORGE BRIDGE: Yeah, it's--no, no, no.
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: There is a gully in there..
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I know there is. We measured the hundred
and,- we measured from the corner of the house all the way back, came all
the way back. We pretty well know where the lot starts and we pretty
well know where the lot, where the lots--
MR. CHAIRMAN: We used to plow a garden for you back there.
GEORGE BRIDGE: Yeah. Where it comes, this property comes .just =to
right where the gully starts.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. Yeah, I know. It's all that brush over
there on that one side.
GEORGE BRIDGE: 127 foot.
MEMBER GOEI-MINGER: Okay. That's all the question I had, it's just
a question we couldn't pose to you without having you up here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks alot. Anyone else to speak for it?
(THERE WAS NO. RESPONSE. )
,Southold Town Boai-u of Appeals -11- July 9, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN (CONT. ) : Anyone to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Any of you fellows have any questions?
(THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS. )
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the decision
until later on.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 2843.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: ,; Appeal No. 2839. Application of Colonial Corners,
Inc. , Main Road, Southold (William B. Smith, 220 Mechanic Street,
o-77hold, NY as agent) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VII,
Sec. 100-71 for approval of insufficient area and yard setback of two
proposed parcels at south side of Main Road, Southold (east parcel to
Dubovick) , NY; bounded north by State Road 25; west by Dubovick; south
& east by Methodist Church; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-4-7.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:25 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid 515.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have .a survey of the property and a section of
the Tax map showing this property and the surrounding areas. Is there
anyone here who wants to speak for this, with something that's maybe
in the application?
WILLIAM SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I don't have much to add to it, except
that Colonial Corners intends - to refurbish the building, and their
reputation so far is very good, I think they'll fix it up to be a credit
to the village. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill, while you're up there, Mr. Smith, can you tell
us a little history on who, when it was built, who owned the building
and stuff? I remember when it was being built, I thought it was two
people building it together.
WILLIAM SMITH: Yeah, the big building that is owned by Andrew
Krupski was built by George Terry, but before they built the building,
'Southold Town Board of Appeals - iz- July 9, 1981
WILLIAM SMITH (CONT. ) : George Terry lived in the front in the house
and he moved the house back and built the new brick building. And Mr.
Bussey lived in the house next to it which was also back, and that left
him a little bit out in the sticks, so he had to add on to the front of
his house, which now makes the brick front of the Bussey building which
is owned by Andrew Krupski. I though you'd remember that Charlie.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I remember everything but Bussey. That's where I
got my first haircut I think.
WILLIAM SMITH: I'm older than you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Gee, I wouldn't say that, Mr. Smith. That makes you
real old. Is there anyone else to speak?
JIM DUBOVICK: Can I, is there any chance of me seeing the survey
on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
(At this time, Mr. William Smith and Doctor James Dubovick approached
the dias to see the survey and to confer with Board members. At.many
times, more than one person was speaking, and it was. unclear as to what
the statements were. Since all statements could not be heard in context,
a verbatim transcription was not possible. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution recessing this until 4:45
next Thursday.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I second that.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared recessed until Thursday,
July 16,- 1981 . Appeal # 2839.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2840. Application of David L. Mudd,
North Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art.
III, Sec. 100-30 A & C, 100-32 for permission to construct accessory
shed with insufficient side & rear yard setbacks at property located on
the north side of C.R. 48, Southold; bounded north by Lieblein; west by
Doroski; south by C.R. 48; east by Morris, Aliano and Latham; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-59-9-28.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that-notification to adjoining property .gwners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
t
*,Southold Town Boa_ of Appeals -13- July 9, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have maps of the property and the County Tax Map
showing this property and the surrounding properties. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak for this application?
GAIL WICKHAM: Yes, I'm Gail Wickham, the attorney for Mr. Mudd and
I'd like to first indicate to the Board that there are two aspects of
this appeal and I'd like to put it on the record in order to clarify it.
The first aspect-- we are not applying for a variance at the outset, but
rather are appealing from a decision of the Building Inspector which
denied this application because it was not, the building proposed did
not, in his opinion, fall within 100-30 A (2)- (dl) which refers to- barns,
storage buildings or other related structures. It' s our contention that
this is not that type of building but rather it is a private garage that
is permitted by the ordinance under 100-30 C and 100-30(2) . It's a
building which is accessory to the principal use of the property which
is farming. In the event that the Board decides to uphold the decision
of the, or the construction of the buildin5 inspector, stating that the
proposed building falls within 100-30 A (2 (d) then, in that event we
would apply for a variance for the location of this structure as applied
for on the grounds of hardship, to put the building 5.4 and 4.6 feet,
respectively, off the line. I'd like to start then with the first appeal
which appeals not as a variance but from the decision of the Building
Inspector. I'd like to have Mr. Mudd, who is here tonight, first of all
describe what he intends to do and tell you for the record what the use
of property and the building will be. Mr. Mudd could you tell me, tell
the Board what the principle use of your property is now on the north
side of Middle Road?
DAVID MUDD: Commercial agriculture for grapes, peaches, apples and
raspberries.
GAIL WICKHAM: Is your agriculture operation only use of the property?
DAVID MUDD: That' s right, it is.
GAIL WICKHAM: Could you describe the type of building and the use
that you propose?
DAVID MUDD: Well, the building is 35 by 60 and it' s going to have
a 12 foot wide door on the front of it and a four foot wide door to the
east side both facing the County Road 48. The windows will be (this
section of the statement was inaudible due to interference on the tape)
and have a new roof put on it and we're going to, expect to use it for
a garage and a storage area for agricultural vehicles.
GAIL WICKHAM: What is the inside going to be like? Are you going
to have it a big open area?
DAVID MUDD: It will be all open.
GAIL WICKHAM: And can you, do you intend to use it for anything
other than the storage of vehicles, what type of vehicles are you going
to store in it?
DAVID MUDD: ' Tractors and trucks,_ the implements we use on the farm
and the farming operation.
,Southold Town Boa�.d of Appeals -14- July g, 1981
GAIL WICKHAM: Will these vehicles be those that are owned by you?
DAVID MUDD: They'll all be owned by me.
GAIL WICKHAM:' Is the building necessary, or would it be necessary
and accessory and incidental to your principle farming use on the prop-
erty?
DAVID MUDD: Well, it' s necessary because at the present time we
have equipment stored in three different areas besides the present place
and that's why we acquired the building so we could coordinate it to get
it on one location.
GAIL WICKHAM: Three different areas off the property?
DAVID MUDD: Off the property.
GAIL WICKHAM: Equipment that's used on the, for farming that
property?
DAVID MUDD: On a regular basis.
GAIL WICKHAM: Would you consider this proposed billeting to be a
garage or would you consider it a barn or storage type building?
DAVID MUDD: Well, I'd consider it strictly a garage because a barn,
I'm not going to house any animals in there and I'm not going to have any
hay or storag facilites for animals or anything of that type. It's
strictly goin to be a garage operation.
GAIL WICKHAM: Will you house or store any fruit or other agricul-
tural products in it?
DAVID MUDD: No I will not. There won't be any electricity down
there; there won't be any water or anything of that nature.
GAIL WICKHAM: Will it be as big as what you would normally consider
a barn to be,
DAVID MUDD: No.
GAIL WICKHAM: How high will the building be?
DAVID MUDD: It's going to be 15 feet, the top of it®
GAIL WICKHAM: It's our contention that the definition of an
accessory building is contained in the section 100-13 of the code:
defines as accessory use as a building or use clearly incidental or
subordinate to and customary in connection with the principle building
or use on the same lot. There' s no requirement in the code that there
be a principle building for this propos.ed1building to be accessory to;
it could be. accessory to the use;. .And that's the basis on which this
application is made, that there need not be, according to a strict
reading of the code, a principle building,that your accessory building
can be incidental to the use, and the use being, as Mr. Mudd indicates ,
a commercial agricultural operation , primarily vineyard and fruit farming.
Southold Town Boai-d of Appeals -15- July 9, 1981
GAIL WICKHAM (CONT. ) : I'd also like to call your attention to the
definition of a private garage which is also contained in 110-13 of the
code. That indicates a private garage is a building used for the storage
of one or more gasoline or other power driven vehicles owned and used by
the owner or tenant of the lot on which the garage is erected. And a
section which does not apply for us, for the storage would not exceeding
two additional vehicles, not trucks owned or used by others. So the
building that he' s proposing is what you>would consider under the code,
a private garage. He's going to be storing vehicles in it for,.-housing -
them in there fose on his farm. The section 100-30 of the code permits
not only agricul Ural operations but accessory uses thereto, and 100-30 C
specifically enumerates what some of those accessory uses are, and one of
those uses is a private garage and there are limitations on how many
vehicles you can use for belonging to others but those do not apply to
us because this would be only his equipment. Also 100-32 regards or
defines accessory structures as buildings which do not exceed 18 feet in
height, shall be setback not less than three feet from any lot line ,
and do not occupy more than 40 percent of the area, and this building
does qualify under all of those, would qualify under all of those defin-
itions. I have a map that I'd like to submit to the Board; we had Mr.
Van Tuyl go up and, it's a rather large map, I don't know why he did it
this large, but it does show right at the rear of the property where the
proposed building would be located with the exact setbacks so we know
exactly what we're talking about. So, if you'd like that for your file.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
GAIL WICKHAM: I'm probably going to be referring to that again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright, we'll leave it here for the time.
(The map was entered into the file for David L. Mudd, appeal ## 2840. )
GAIL WICKHAM: So, in summary, we are requesting the Board make a
determination that the decision of the Building Inspector, considering
this to be a barn or a storage or other related building, is not correct,
and that this is a private garage which is permitted in an agriculture or
-residential district in the proposed location. As I indicated there was
a second aspect to our appeal and this would be contingent on the Board
not making that requested decision, and in that event we would like to
request a variance from the Zoning Ordinance on the grounds of hardship.
And I'd like to first of all have Mr. Mudd describe for you the hard-
ship that would be created if he had to locate his garage fifty feet from
the rearyard and at least fifteen feet from the sideyard. Could you
describe what problems you would run into if you had that problem?
DAVID MUDD: If we had to move the building out to accommodate
those marks, it would be a quarter of an acre loss in agriculture, of
course, forever, prune agrcultural land. Secondly, it' s 18,000 dollars
an acre in the grape business to bring a acre of grapes from the time
you plant them to bring them into production which takes three years.
So, a quarter of an acre lost by moving that building out and forcing
us to put it to those restrictions would be approximately 450 or there,-
about a year loss in revenue forever.
r
,Southold Town BoL_ _ of Appeals -1 July 9, 1981
GAIL WICKHAM: If I could, I'm not sure, I want to clarify that.
Did you mean to-- dndicate that it costs $18,000 over a three year period
to develop grapes to production?
DAVID MUDD: It does, yes.
GAIL WICKHAM: So that would be $4,500 per three years per quarter
acre.
DAVID �NDD: 45. That's correct.
GAIL WICKHAM: And those are the types of costs you've incurred.
DAVID MUDD: To rip that out and to start over again would take that
amount of money to put it back in.
GAIL WICKHAM: Where did you, how do you compute that you would
require about a quarter of an acre? You would have .50 feet and then
the width of the building is how much?
DAVID MUDD: Thirty .five. Then it would have to use another 50
feet in front of the building for a turn around area to get in around
the building and in and out of it.
GAIL WICKHAM: And that comes out to approximately a quarter of an
acre?
DAVID 14MD: About a quarter of an acre.
GAIL WICKHAM: What is your net profit per year for farming an
acre of grapes?
DAVID MUDD: At the present time it's figured at about $1 ,800 a
year per acre.
GAIL WICKHAM: Per acre. So that would be $450 per year per quarter
acre.
DAVID MUDD: That's right.
GAIL WICKHAM: Of lost net profit. This is after all expenses.
DAVID MUDD: That's correct.
GAIL WICKHAM: If you had to remove a quarter of an acre from
farming.
DAVID MUDD: That' s right.
GAIL"WICKHAM: I'd like to point out that he would not only lose a
lot of prime agricultural land, which is a diminishing quantity and
particularly on a 23 acre farm which is not a large farm. But it' s also
a loss of a diminishing natural resource and once you put a building on
it you just don't, you aren't able to just start farming again with,
probably with a garage type structure, with the oil and whatnot that is
going to be around there, I don't think it would be suitable to return
,Southold Town Bc,-_ 1 of Appeals -17- July 9, 1981
to farming, and that's another reason he; would like to put it as far
back in the property as possible. You indicated that you had some
vines that would have to be ripped up? How long have they been there?
DAVID MUDD: Four years.
GAIL WICKHAM: Were they planted by you?
DAVID MUDD: Yes, they.�were;
GAIL WICKHAM: Are they producing now?
DAVID MUDD: They are.
GAIL WICKHAM: I think that this, the fact that he vo uld have
vines here is not what you would consider your normal type of self-
imposed hardship. He's been using the land as an agricultural operation
in the ordinary and usual course of business and it's not the usual
type of thing where you go in and you do something or you buy a piece
of property with insufficient setback or whatnot and then are stuck
with it. I don't think it's your normal type of hardship, self-imposed.
I think that the problem he has is unique; he mentioned before that his
building had been cut off. When did you buy the property?
DAVID MUDD: 1962.
GAIL WICKHAM: And was it, what were the bounds of the property?
DAVID MUDD: It included all the way back to the previous north
road there, then C.R. 48, the County Road 48 that's presently there
confiscated, condemned the house and the barn that's about four times
bigger than the one we presently have, and then put, they took three and
a half acres away from us to put that drain pit out there on one side
and the four lane road on the other, plus the road directly between
Doroski's and my place.
GAIL WICKHAM: When did the road divide the property?
DAVID MUDD: I think it was 164-165.
GAIL WICKHAM: It was after you acq u ired the property?
DAVID MUDD: Yes, well after it.
GAIL WICKHAM: Has the farm been farmed since you acquired it?
DAVID MUDD: Yes, constantly.
GAIL WICKHAM: And was it farmed as one single unit until the
road divided it?
DAVID MUDD: It was, yes.
GAIL WICKHAM: And were the buildings on the south side of the road
used for part of the farming operation?
.Southold Town Bo4-_ _ of Appeals -1 July 9, 1981
DAVID MUDD: The house that was there was used as a tenant house for
Mr. Case when he had it, and after he sold it to me he still used it as
a tenant house and also the barn that was back there was used as a
storage area for their operation.
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you find that vineyard farming is more labor and
equipment intensive than other types of farming in the surrounding area,
for instance potatoes?
DAVID MUDD: It' s more labor intensive and I think I would have to
say that it' s equally if not more equipment intensive.
GAIL WICKHAM: So there was a definite value to your having a building
right on the farm in terms of economy?
(At this time the tape was replaced and the verbatim recording was
temporarily interrupted for a matter of approximately 15 seconds. The
recording resumed with the following. )
GAIL WICKHAM: I'd also like to point out that the proposed building
would not change the character of the district. Mr. Mudd indicated that
it's a fairly low building, about I think he said 15 feet in overall
height. It will be painted to look attractive. Right now it doesn't
look that way but he' s in the process of construction and he would be
fixing it up. It's consistent with the agricultural use because it' s
directly accessory to it, and the neighboring properties would not be
hurt by the building in that location and I'd like him to, Mr. Mudd to
describe what some of the neighboring properties in the immediate
vicinity are.
DAVID MUDD: Well, the property to our east is Latham's sand pits
which is approximately 20 feet deep which is adjacent, about 20 feet to
the east of the present building location. The building to the, the lot
to the north of us has a high-line running through it. It also has a
sand pit in it, so they'd find. extensive area of sand pits in those
particular two locations.
GAIL WICKHAM: Are there trees behind the building which would
screen it?
DAVID MUDD: There are.
GAIL WICKHAM: And on the side of the building?
DAVID MUDD: And on the side.
GAIL WICKHAM: Have you spoken to several of your neighbors, for
instance, Mr. Doroski and Mr. Morris and Mr. , who else?
DAVID MUDD: Aliano.
GAIL WICKHAM: And did .they indicate any objection to this building?
Southold Town Boa_ _ of Appeals 9- July 9, 1981
DAVID MUDD: Mr. Aliano sent a letter in originally voicing an
objection and I called him on the phone and talked to him about it, he
said he did not have an objection and he didn't, he said to feel free to
express that to the Board. He would not send another letter saying that
he didn't have the objection, but he does not have the objection to it.
Mr. Aliano, I mean, Mr. Morris, who has since passed away, but his
daughter was here at the last time and she said that she didn't have any
objection to it. Mr. Doroski did not have any objection to it. Mr.
Latham I have not heard from so I presume he did not have any objection
to it.
GAIL WICKHAJ4: I don't have any further. If the Board has questions,
if per4aps something else would come up later I'd like to reserve the
right to reply.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have any questions?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I was just interested in one thing here, how is
your operation listed? Is it a corporation?
DAVID MUDD: At the present time it's an individual owner.
GAIL WICKHAM: Mr. Mudd owns the property. You acquired it in 162
as an individual and you continued to own it in that sort of ownership?
DAVID MUDD: Still the same ownership.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's it for the moment?
GAIL WICKHAM: That's all I have right now, yeah.
MR. CHAIP24AN: Is there anyone else to speak for this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anyone to speak against it?
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: Yes, I am. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board,
I'm Herman Lieblein and I'm the owner of the property directly north of--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you come a little closer to the mike? Thank you,
Mr. Lieblein.
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: I'm Herman Lieblein and I'm the owner of the prop-
erty directly to the north of the property on which Mr. Mudd wishes to
build the garage and storage building. As you know, he has already con-
structed the foundation, four feet from my property line. (This phrase
was inaudible) and moved half of an old building on top of it. Which
incidentally is, I have a picture of it here (the remainder of the state-
ment was inaudible. ) Since our last Board meeting, Mr. Mudd has added
what seems to be a frame of a greenhouse, to the rest of his foundation,
also within four feet of the property line. The zoning law states that he
must be 50 feet from my property line, and I'd like to see this law en-
forced. In the process of moving half of an old dilapidated building on
top of the foundation, Mr. Mudd or his contractors drove onto my land
leaving large ruts and also tore out a tree by the roots. As you will
see by the photo which I have here, and I also have a photo which shows
{, , Southold Town Bo"__ of Appeals -2„- July 9, 1981
(H_ERMAN LIEBLEIN CONT: ) the frame of the greenhouse, and one which
shows a number of logs which were on my property and belong to him (re-
mainder of the statement was inaudible. ) I'm particularly upset for
several reasons: in the spring of 1977, I -looked at my property and saw
between 20 and. 25 cords, mostly oak trees, stored on his property next
to my line, since there are no trees on Mr. Mudd's property in that
vicinity and many of my trees were gone except for the stumps, I leave
it your imagination where the wood came from. Some time later, my Bon-
in-law asked me for some firewood, and I went to my property and found
Mr. Mudd's son and what is now I think his son-in-law, loading the remains
of 40 foot diameter oak tree on his pick-up truck. I asked him who gave
him permission to cut the tree and he told me--
GAIL WICKHAM: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt?
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: That his father, I'll finish, Miss, that his
father--
GAIL WICKHAM: I'd like to object to this. I don't think it's
relevant, If you'd like to hear it (remainder of the statement was
inaudible. )
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: Yes, it is relevant (remainder of sentence was
inaudible. ) Told me that his father gave him permission, that- he owns
about fifteen feet into my land, Then, I pointed out to him where the
monuments were and I told him that in the future he was not to cut any
more my trees without my personal permission. Several months later I
went to pick up some wood with my son-in-law and asked to park on Mr.
Mudd's property line and Mr. Mudd's son ordered me off his property and
called the police to have me arrested for trespassing. (Beginning of
sentence was inaudible) but I felt that cutting down half my trees, he
had alot of nerve and accuses me of trespassing. Now he has put (word
was inaudible) on my, into my roots, tore out trees by the roots, parks
his logs on my land, it seems to me that Mr. Mudd feels that the rules
only apply to others and not to him. If he is allowed to construct this
building on the present foundation, I'm sure he will continue to trespass
on my land since he only left himself four feet. Besides that, he' s got
plenty more room without his grapes being planted there. He has at least
50 feet in front of where he is right now. I didn't .take a picture of the
grapes, bu�Nthey are there. I've got the other pictures with me. Besides
that I feel the structure he plans to erect is an eyesore and I feel he
should not be allowed to use it at all unless there is some guarantee that
it will be rehabilitated, certainly when it' s four feet from my property
line. Please remember that someday I may want to build on my land, and
I have to look at this structure which will be blocking my view from the
better half of my property. My property is partly, part of it is excav-
ated, but the .part of the property which this building obstructs is on
the good part of my property. Gentlemen, I know you will do the right
thing and uphold the zoning laws which are written to protect the rights
of other property owners. Sincerely, Herman Lieblein.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lieblein. Is there anyone else to
speak?
Southold Town Bo-- d of Appeals -21 - July 9, 1981
L '
(At this time, Mr. Lieblein presented seven photographs to the Board of
Appeals as evidence in the appeal of David L. Mudd, Appeal ##2840. He
offered the explanations of the photographs that appear below. )
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: I've got these photographs. This shows you the
foundation of the building that he has there and the, you can see partially
the heighth of the building. This one, this will show you some of the
ruts over here and you can see a tree torn out by the roots over here.
This is a picture of the logs which are on my side of the property line.
Here is another picture of the tree torn out and the ruts over here, which
are about 15 .-to 20 feet inside my property line. Here is another picture
of it, over here, this also shows you the height of the building, gives
you an idea. And here is a picture taken from the rear, this is, from
here back is my line.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lieblein.
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Do you have something you want to say
now, Gail? Miss Wickham?
GAIL WICKHAM: Yes. As I indicated, Mr. Lieblein' s testimony is
completely irrelevant and I think it should be stricken from the record
as well as the pictures he took which (one word was inaudible) to
evidence some sort of boundary line dispute apparently between the two
people. He didn't give any testimony or reasons why the property would
hurt hit, why the building would hurt his property except for two reasons:
number one because of the likelihood of trespass, well that's something
that there are other legal recourse to and apparently there has been a
long history of dispute here. Number two, because it' s an eyesore and
will block his view. Well, no one is denying the fact that right now
this building is an eyesore. It doesn't look good. Mr. Mudd testified
that it would be fixed up, it would be painted. It's going to be prac-
tically reconstructed. He' s just using his shell as a basis for starting
his garage, and :as far as blocking his view, no property owner in New
York state has any right a scenic easement over another person's property.
The reference to a greenhouse is totally inapplicable, that's got nothing
to do with this case, and as I understand it, the Building Inspector is
not even requiring building permits for greenhouses. I'd just. like to
ask Mr. Mudd if he' s had any disputes in the past with the gentleman who
just objected.
DAVID MUDD: We did have a dispute with Mr. Lieblein because he
was driving on the property and then he was going into his property with
his son-in-law cutting lumber and wood in there and he was asked not to
do it--
GAIL WICKHAM: Driving on your property?
DAVID MUDD: On our property, coming down our road, down the road
there on our side, and I wasn't there the time that the police were
called but my son asked him :to please leave the property and drive out.
He wouldn't do it, he said he was staying there and he wasn't going to do
it until my son called the police.
GAIL WICKHAM: I'd like to just let that indicate some of the, to
cast a light on the nature of the objection . Also Mr. Mudd indicated
Southold Town Bo I of Appeals -22- July _9, 1981
(GAIL WICKHAM, CONT. ) : that this property is subject not only to the
sand pits but the high power lines which certainly affect the value of
the property in any event for a residential dwelling. Mr. Mudd, I would
like to ask you, Mr. Lieblein indicated and he showed pictures of a
building, can you indicate to the Board exactly why the foundation was
put it? Did you, first of all have occasion to apply fora variance
prior to this?
DAVID MUDD: Yes, it was in February when we located the building,
and--
GAIL WICKHAM: Did you apply for a variance at that time?
DAVID MUDD: We applied for a variance at that time when we found
the building, we came over and applied for the variance, for the
building permit.
GAIL WICKHAM: And was that to put a building three feet off the
line?
DAVID MUDD: Yes.
GAIL WICKHAM: And then what happened?
DAVID MUDD: And I had a, after I was, applied, I had a discussion
with the Chairman of the Appeal Board as to whether it was possible to
get that and he indicated that it was within reasonable bounds that I
more, could more than likely get it approved. So I did go ahead, put
the foundation in, because in order to move the building I had to do it
before they planted potatoes and while there was still frost on the
ground, I went to Mr. Doroski' s property with his permission to take the
building around our place and put it on the foundation, so we did con-
struct the foundation down there.
GAIL WICKHAM: If you hadn't done it then, when would you have been
able to do it?
DAVID MUDD: The next time would have been in the fall, after the
potatoes were dug and after the frost went back in the ground.
GAIL WICKHAM: I don't have anything else.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: May I ask a question? Was there a Stop-Work
Order issued on that foundation?
DAVID MUDD: On the building.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mm hm.
DAVID MUDD: Yes, sir, and the work was stopped.
GAIL WICKHAM: Does that answer you question?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mm hm. If you're going to put it all in the
minutes, put it all in it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Lieblein?
MRS. HERMAN LIEBLEIN: Yes, four feet from our property line is like
from here to here, now over here is a foundation that' s higher than the
way I stand. Plus, a building that's almost two stories high at the peak.
.Southold Town Boa,.- of Appeals -23- July 9, 1981
MRS. LIEBLEIN (CONT. ) : And it takes in, I imagine, over fifty feet. I
should've measured it, I didn't, across. It' s, I think, around 60 feet.
It' s the back wall, and on some piece of our property, that' s what we're
going to look at, four feet from our property. If we ever intend to
build. And it' s a residential section all in there.
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: And the power line is way on the other side of
the property.
MRS. LIEBLEIN: On the other side of the property.
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: There' s nothing to do with the property itself,
it' s way to the north of the property,on the, in the north side. Actually,
it is a part of a residential section, and the part where this building is
going is the part that was flat, had not been disturbed, it' s a wooded
area. It is to the west of this particular part of the lot that is, that
has the explanations where it was set up. And I have permission from Mr.
Doroski to use tYa t road from Route 48 up to my property anytime I wish
to . The only reason I drove on Mr. Mudd' s property is, when I wanted to
take a tree out it was easier to get that one tree out of there, that's
the only reason I drove of his property, where he is .on my property,
stealing my trees, that' s not -trespassing,
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's--
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: That' s all I want to mention.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. Anything else?
GAIL WICKHAM: I think there was testimony as to the size and the
height of the building and the foundation, you didn't say how high the
foundation is off the ground.
DAVID I4UDD: Four feet.
GAIL WICKH_AM: Four feet.
MRS. LIEBLEIN: It' s higher than me and I'm more than four feet.
GAIL WICKHAM: Well, I was just there and it wasn't higher than I
was,
MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s alright, I'll walk--
GAIL WICKHAM: If I could just make a, ask the Board for permission
to raise an objection later on the grounds of possible abstention of a
member of the voting without making it now but reserve ,the right to do
so later. .,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright.
GAIL WICKHAM: Because I don't think that part was (remainder of
statement was inaudible. )
MEMBER DOUGLASS: They said something about a greenhouse, what's
that?
;Southold Town Boa_- of Appeals -24. July 9, 1981
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you have a, would you explain what the green--
(The question was directed to David Mudd. )
MEMBER DOUGLASS: What do they mean by that?
DAVID MUDD: I don't know, I haven't--
MRS. LIEBLEIN: There's a frame there for a greenhouse.
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: If you look at the photo, you'll see the frame
on the photo there..
DAVID MUDD: I guess I can answer it, I don't know, since it' s on
my property, but if they want to answer for me, let them. It's a 14 by
8 foot wide aluminum frame that is in four by fours and portable, and I
use it up at the barn this past spring and I had plastic over it and we
had heat in it and we hardened over some cuttings we have up there for
the grape operation and after they were hardened over and we took the
plastic off the building and rather than take the four by fours off and
dismantle the rest of the aluminum, we've moved it down there on our
property and it' s sitting down there now.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Is it a stationary thing or--
DAVID MUDD: No, you can, we can put it on a pick-up truck and,
in fact there' s two men picked it up on the pick-up, put it down there.
But then, it' s not on his property, and it--
GAIL WICKHAM: Would you consider it to be what is called a portable
hoop house?
DAVID MUDD: Very definitely, it can be put on a pick-up truck, taken
anywhere.
GAIL WICKHAM: Does that answer your . question?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah.
GAIL WICKHAM: May I look at the pictures that he submitted. I
didn't see them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, they're part of the evidence, record now.
GAIL WICKHAM: Well, over my objection, or, in .light of my objection.
Well, these trees--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this, this is what they're talking about here?
GAIL WICKHAM: What?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That portable thing?
GAIL WICKHAM: I don't know what he' s talking about. There was a
hoop house up there. Here. It' s just one of those aluminum frames.
DAVID MUDD: There's just a frame, it's an aluminum frame.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yeah.
-Southold Town Bo_ _ J of Appeals -2� July 9, 1981
(The previous statements were made in reference to photographs presented
by Mr. Herman Lieblein earlier during the public hearing, to be used as
evidence in the appeal of David L. Mudd #¢2840, over the objection of
Abigail Wickham, attorney for Mr. Mudd.
GAIL WICKHAM: Anything else?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think so, no,. I'll offer a resolution
closing the hearing and reserving the decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 2840.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2844. Application of Mark & Frances C.
Squires, 88B Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-35 for permission to extend existing fence
(6 feet high) into frontyard area at 2495 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY;
Nassau Point Subd. Filed Map #806, Lot 357; County Tax Map Item No.
1000-111-6-;6.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:28 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers ,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee '
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch on a survey of where the house is
goings where the house is and how far they intend to go with the fence,
how far the fence is, and we have a County Tax Map showing the area and
the surrounding area. Is there anyone here to speak for this application?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Do I understand that you're going to go down to within 55 feet of the
road and then from there on there'll be no more, no fence at all.
MARK SQUIRES: That's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak for this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anyone to speak against this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
I'll offer a resolution to close the hearing and reserve the decision
until later.
,Southold Town Boa_ _ of Appeals -26. July 9, 1981
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 2844.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC REHEARING: Appeal No. 2766. Application of Rose Dansker,
300 East 56th Street, Apt. M. , New York, NY 10022 (by Gary Flanner
Olsen, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-
31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels
located at Wells Road, Peconic, NY; bounded north by Wells Road; west
by Groben; south by Richmond Creek; east by Krueger. County Tax Map
Item No. 1000-86-2-10 & 11 .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next item on the agenda is appeal number 2766,
on behalf of, this is a rehearing. Could I dispense with reading some
of these legal notices?
ANTHONY TOHILL: Wonderful.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
The Board members discussed a new development concerning the appeal
of Rose Dansker with Anthony Tohill, who was representing Rose Dansker,
A Certificate of Occupancy issued to the dwelling had been discovered,
and its relationship to this appeal. was considered. The C. of 0. had
been issued on April 17, 1981 - and was reviewed at this time. The speakers
were not speaking through the chair and not all statements could be heard
in context.. For this reason, a verbatim transcription was not possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN (Addressing members of the audience) : This is something
that dame up today just a few hours ago, so we were discussing it with
the attorney here. Would you use the microphone, oh, you're going to
read it?
ANTHONY TOHILL: No, no. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary,
Miss Secretary, and members of the Board. Knowing that the Chairman
occasionally had indigestion, and that Mr. Goehringer has nothing to do
this summer, and that Mr. Doyen has a long ride back $ome, and that
Mr. Douglass needs something .to read out in the boat in the morning, and
Mr. Sawicki is looking for something to start the fire with here.
(Each Board member received a copy of an affidavit prepared by Mr. Tohill. )
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to read this in five minutes, Mr.
Tohill?
ANTHONY TOHILL: I have prepared an affidavit which attaches to it
the history of the case so that each of you has in one place something
that you can look at that will refresh your recollection of what has
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- July 9, 1981
�ANTHONY TOHILL, CONT. ) : occured in this particular Dansker matter.
Over the past two or three months, I guess now, the effort also is ex-
pressed in an orgainized form, the applicant' s position with respect to
the Catch 22 in which she finds herself. You'll note that I have reviewed
in that affidavit a family situation, the Dansker family situation, and
I will leave it to the affidavit as to how that situation stands after
nine weeks of my personal efforts to get some movement in resolving the
situation. I have failed completely, and I haven't had to admit com-
plete failure too many times working as hard as I have on a project of
that. But I have failed completely to get any results of any kind. The
affidavit also refers to the absence of bad faith, I hope the presence of
good faith but what I'm dealing with here is the good faith or the bad
faith of a man whom , 1 never. knew and who is deceased but I have put it
in there because Bob Tasker raised it, I found it an intriguing point; I
had never had to deal with it before, and so I covered it as best that I
could. I've also referred only briefly to the character of the area, the
standard problem in an area variance case, and I respectfully ask that
you simply incorporate the documents and minutes of the prior meeting
with respect to that problem, I think that Mr. Olsen, who is away this
evening as a result of a family death, covered that point as best could
be covered. On the water potability problem, which is you recall with
a firm basis for your decision the last time, I have met with Robert
Jule, who.-many of you know, at the Suffolk County Health Department. He
is Roy Reynolds superior, Roy Reynolds is the gentleman who wrote the
letter to the Board at the time of the last hearing. In a sentence, after
I concluded making a presentation informally to Mr. Jule, he said to me
in his eighteen years as a member of the Suffolk County Health Department
and as a member of the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Health De-
partment since it was adopted, or since it existed, he had never seen
such as intriguing state of facts or such an unusual case,in any event,
_he did confirm what I had reported to you ,earlier, that Roy Reynolds
letter was essentially a form letter, one that is written by the Health
Department without any personal inspection of properties. It would be
written and the Board knows this, on almost any property which is water
front, where there is brackish problems, water potability problems, any-
where south of the highway in all of the Town Of Southold and Riverhead,
and I've seen them in Noyack, the same letter. The effort was not to re-
port to the Board in that letter a personal and scientific assessment of
what might occur if there were a subdivision with respect to that problem.
The Suffolk County Department of Health now has pending before it, before
its Board of Review,this property and we are asking them to inquire as to
whether or not there is a scientific solution to the problem of placing
a septic tank and a well point on the property. Already, the Suffolk
County Department of Health has told me that their, and they have not
assured me at all there would be any success on the application, but they
have told me that .this kind of problem is not unique to these two parcels
at all, and that there are various recommendations that they follow,
including the driving of extremely deep wells which go into aquifers or
water levels way below the existing area wells and completely different
from what has always been the practice here in the Town. of Southold. I
know that my own home, when I lived here, we were twelve feet to water,
and late in every summer we ran into terrible water problems, and late in
every summer they -told us that if we would spend a few dollars, they could
assure us of good water, just go down a few hundred feet and there'll be
water and there'll be good water and it won't bother anybody. And the
` s
-Southold Town Bo l of Appeals -2E July 9, 1981
(ANTHONY TOHILL, CONT. ) : Health Department has already indicated that
probably would be a solution that they would rant io look to. Another
solution which is acceptable to Mrs. Dansker would be that there would
be an easement placed on an area of the Dansker house parcel in favor of
the vacant parcel, if the vacant parcel ever were to be developed, in
which, in that easement area, a water pipe could be placed down. The
well could go in there. For example, a five foot strip by twenty foot
strip along the edge of the road in front. of the Dansker house, and they
would drive the well there and then bring it over the strip onto the
vacant lot and solve the problem that way. That way they get the hundred
feet, they don't interfere with any other neighhorog well,. they go
down as deep as they can, and effectively, they have the solution that,
I guess, many homeowners probably would have liked to have adopted fif-
teen or twenty years ago instead of having the problems that we have now.
So, in short, the matter is before the Health Department, we expect a
date shortly- _from the Board of Review and we're going to try our luck
at seeing what the :.f.ield of-science can do for this woman and her Catch
22. Now, I have in the affidavit, I think, everything but the kitchen
sink, and I simply ask that you try to stay awake when you try to read
it, prop yourself up or stand on your feet and _flip through it as quickly
as you can. I'm going to conclude by simply offering some oral testimony
from Lew Edson who is here. You'll notice that attached As Exhibit I
to the affidavit is a fourteen page appraisal which Mr. Edson prepared
for purposes of this hearing. As Mr. Doyen pointed out last time, there
was no economic proof the first time this case came up. I think he's
absolutely right, and I think that the economic proof was necessary if
the Board were to act having all the factors before it. So I would like,
if I could, to elicit answers to about ten questions from Lew Edson,
and that would be it. Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one question for you. Isiit alright if we do
this in installments?
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yeah, it is. Lew.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Edson.
LEWIS EDSON: How are you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright.
ANTHONY TOHILL: For the benefit of the Board I will hand up I
think something else that wasn't in the record before, which is a photo-
raph on the top of the house and a photograph on the bottom of the
the remainder of the statement was inaudible. )* Mr. Edson can you state
for the Board your trade or occupation?
LEIS EDSON: I'm a licensed real estate broker.
ANTHONY TOHILL: And for how many years have you been so engaged?
LEWIS EDSON: Five years as a licensed real estate broker and I had
about ten years of previous real estate experience.
ANTHONY TOHILL: And are you familiar with the premises of Rose
Dansker and a vacant parcel to the south of the premises of Rose Dansker
on the east side of Wells Road at Peconic?
*Mr. Tohill presented two photographs, one of the subject house and one of
the vacant lot, which were entered into the file for Rose Dansker, #2766.
,.Southold Town Boa of Appeals -29. July 9, 1981
LEWIS EDSON: I am.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Alright. And have you, at my request, prepared
an appraisal consisting of fourteen pages, attached as Exhibit I to the
affidavits submitted to the Board this evening?
LEWIS EDSON: Yes, I did.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Alright. And do you affirm the contents of that
appraisal, submitted to the Board this evening?
LEWIS EDSON: I approve.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Alright, now, have you personally inspected the
Dansker residence and the vacant parcel?
LEWIS EDSON: Yes, I have.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Alright, and on the basis of your personal
inspection can you report briefly to the Board what the appearance is
of the vacant lot and then again the appearance of the residence.
LEWIS EDSON: Well, the property with the subject, the vacant
parcel along with the parcel with the house on it is ringed by a fence
containing both parcels. When you go on to the interior of the property
the vacant parcel is separated by a hedge from the house parcel, and it' s
also separate as far as the bulkheading is concerned. It would give the
appearance to any layman who walked on the property, of being a completely
separate parcel and not part of the house property.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Has the vacant parcel been improved at all or
are the improvements restricted to the house parcel?
LEWIS EDSON: All of the improvements are to the house parcel.
ANTHONY TOHILL: On the basis of your inspections and your ex-
perience, can you. establish a value for the house and can you report
to the Board how you can establish a value for the house? This is the
house only.
LEWIS EDSON: The house, in my opinion, is up valued at $110,000.
We. have a ready, willing and able buyer under contract to purchase it
for that amount, and based on numerable comparables in the area, and in
Southold Town, $110,000 is a fair market value.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Okay, and have you also included in your appraisal
a :replacement value analysis for the residence and the lot.
LEWIS EDSON: Yes, I have.
ANTHONY TOHILL: And with respect to the vacant parcel to the
south, can you establish a value for that?
LEIS EDSON: Given it's a single and separate parcel and buildable,
it' s, I have valued it at $30,000n
ANTHONY TOHILL: And are there comparables with respect to that
parcel in the area?
.Sbuthold Town Boa of Appeals -30- July 9, 1981
LEWIS EDSON: There are numerable parcels that are comparable.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Fine. And if the owners ' of the respective
parcels were unable to obtain municipal approvals with respect to the
house parcel, can you assess the value of the house parcel as an non-
marketable, atileast, without municipal approval parcel improved with
a 'residence.
LEWIS EDSON: .For the house parcel?
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yes.
LEWIS EDSON: Yeah, I would judge the house parcel to be worth
about a third, or about $35,000. The risk being unmarketable title,
not: mortgageable, many years of trying to get clear title to it,
enough of a down price to create an interest in a possible profit over
a very long period, and then to back it up, maybe to rent it out as
a summer rental for somewhere in the vicinity of four to $4,500 for a
summer season, and maybe after eight or nine seasons to recoup the.
money.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Alright.
LEWIS EDSON: But in fact, that may also be a very high number.
ANTHONY TOHILL: To the extent--
LEWIS EDSON: A big risk.
ANTHONY TOHILL: To the extent that there' s no market for people
buying houses that would not receive the approval of the municipality
in which they're located.
LEWIS EDSON: Yeah.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Alright. And with respect to the vacant parcel,
can you establish how the value would drop 45 to, ten, from 45,000,
assuming it' s a buildable, single and separate parcel.
LEIffIS EDSON: I would, my opinion would be that the parcel, if it
was not buildable, would be worth about $10,000 for somebody as a park
to use or as a boat basin or some purpose like that for an auxiliary
use for somebody off the water in that area.
ANTHONY TOHILL: And similarly with respect 'to that, would there
be limitations on the value by reason of the fact that it has no build-
able status under the municipal code.
LEWIS EDSON: Yes, yes.
ANTHONY TOHILL: If the Board has any questions of Mr. Edson. Yes.
MEMBER DOYEN: Yeah, will you kindly go over that again, the
finances involved, the buildable or not buildable, or in other words,
complying with the municipal law.
LEWIS EDSON: Well, if, the secret, in my opinion here, is that
Southold Town Bogy_ _ of Appeals _ I- July 9, 1981
(LE1,1IS EDSON, CONT. ) : you would have a non-marketable, unmarketable
title to the property. You could never get clear title to the property.
Because you could never get a C.O. from the Town. If you can't get that
then you've got a big risk, as to what you can do with the property, for,
you can't take it to the bank and get five cents for it.
MEMBER DOYEN: But what were the actual figures again, just,
LEWIS EDSON: 35,000 is what I would estimate, about a third of
the, of the appraised. value.
MEMBER DOYEN: But then again- would you say, if it were, if it
did comply with all the municipal laws, how much would' the land and the
house be worth together, you said.
LEWIS EDSON: 110.
MEMBER DOYEN: 110. The land--
LEWIS EDSON: The land, being---
-MEMBER. DOYEN: - Plus the hous e.
LEWIS EDSON: Yeah.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
ANTHONY TOHILL: No.
LEWIS EDSON: No
ANTHONY TOHILL: The land--
LEWIS EDSON: Separate parcel?
MEMBER DOYEN: No, wait,
LEWIS EDSON: Parcel two.
MEMBER DOYEN: The house, the parcel that contains the structure,
the house,
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yes.
LEWIS EDSON: Porn hm.
MEMBER DOYEN: What is the difference between--
LEWIS EDSON: - In total.
MEMBER. DOYEN: the house, yeah, the total or in both, either way,
I mean, the land, the house,
LET.ffIS -EDSON: The land and the house I would estimate to be about
110,000.
MEMBER DOYEN: The land and the house.
Southold Town Bo,__ of Appeals -32 July 9, 1981
LEWIS EDSON: The land and the house.
ANTHONY TOHILL: In short, a $75,000 loss, if I may have this right.
MEMBER DOYEN: Yeah, okay.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yeah, 75.
MEMBER DOYEN: That' s what I was getting at.
ANTHONY TOHILL: 75.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s all on page 1 , Exhibit I.
MEMBER DOYEN: Yeah, I know, but I haven't read it, that' s why
I'm asking.
ANTHONY TOHILL: The problem is, as Mr. ',Edson has indicated, is
that the only value of the house would be to somebody who would plunk
down 35,000 in cash, would deal with a purchase money arrangement with
the owner, and then use it as a rental, knowing that they would pay
otherwise $4,500 for x number of summers and they'd get their money
back but in the meantime there'd be 75,000 loss. So, on a replacement
level, on a sale level, on a comparable level, it' s worth 110. On a
real'level, unless we can establish the right to a variance with the
Board, it' s worth 35. So it's a genuine problem.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pending the opinion of the Health Department,
of course, is something that we would like to have.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yeah, okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you suggest that we---
ANTI-iONY TOHILL: No. Here' s what I, the only way that I could see
doing this would be that, and I have no objection to this, and I have
consulted with Mrs. Dansker who candidly, still doesn't understand what
I'rn trying to say, but if the Board were to. approve the application, I
have no objection to it conditioning its approval on the Suffolk County
Department of Health granting an approval. In other words, I'm not
asking this Board to approve water potability or the hundred foot re-
quirement or any of that. I don't see how you could and I don't think
you should be asked to stick your necks out in that direction. That's
supposed to be what that Board of Review with the Health Department is
there to do, they work pretty hard trying to do that, and if they can
establish scientifie._.'evidence to indicate that it can do done without
harming anybody in the area, they'll grant an approval. If they can't
they're quick to say no.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Do you know how long you would have to wait?
ANTHONY TOHILL: They're pretty good. It would certainly be
within, I would think, a month. But it's conceivable, with the summer
vacation, there are three members on the panel and then they always
have a fourth sitting there in the event that somebody can't be present.
We may have ppoblems with the delay, but Mr. Jule didn' t indicate too
much in that direction.
Southold Town Boa.L-u of Appeals -3�- July g, 1981
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was my question, Mr. Tohill, I know that
the timeliness of this has gone all the way back to last February. Do
you want us to leave this - open until our--
ANTHONY TOHILL: I would prefer if::it -didn!'-�, 6hly because I would
like to proceed in as businesslike way -_as I can, and Mrs. Dansker is
not doing well under the tension of the experience. Candidly, I'm not
doing so fancy either, because I'm tired of making telephone calls to
important bankers and lawyers in New York City trying to get some coop-
eration and being met with stone walls. And I would like to get at
least one part behind me so that I can concentrate my efforts -there.
If the Board insists, then you have the right not to make the decision
until we can get before the Suffolk County Department of Health. I'd
like to get one thing behind me on my way to the (word was inaudible) .
There' s still the Planning Board as well, so that the Board' s decision
here would be conditioned upon their approval too. It's a long trip
that we have. The secretary' s also not so fond preparing a ten-page
affidavit.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ...I think it' s a point of discussion that we
should' have before we make the decision. Mr. Chairman, why don't we
recess for a second and discuss that in another room and then come
back (the remainder of the statement was inaudible. )
ANTHONY TOHILL: Some people may want to speak before the Board. -
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh yes, definitely.
(Mr. Tohill made an inaudible statement regarding his wish to hear any
statements from anyone opposing the variance application. )
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on
this hearing? It's the Dansker hearing.
MR. STAIGER: Only that I have no objections to your suggestion.
I happen to live on the road.
MRS. STAIGER: We have the same problem.
ANTHONY TOHILL: That was brief and very much to the point.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we have your names?
MRS. STAIGER: We have no objection whatsoever. That property is
hers, the other parcel should have nothing to do with her. That is not
hers.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we have your names?
MR. CHAIRMAN: What's your name please?
MRS. STAIGER: Staiger, s t a i g e r. She has lived there for so
many years that she, it' s hers, and she should be able to get rid of it
if she warts to.
Southold Town Bo .d of Appeals - -.- July 9, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: There' s several parcels in the same sort of a
situation.
MRS. STAIGER: Yes, we have 110 feet next to our house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s surprising since this came up how many more
we've became aware of.
MRS. STAIGER: ' We thought it was two parcels and now we understand
it's one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So its got to be resolved sometime.
MRS. STAIGER: I don't know when that happened.
MEMBER DOYEN: Mrs. Oliva has a question.
RUTH OLIVA: I believe I stated, Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environ-
mental Council, I stated last time that we opposed it, number one,
because it wasn't even near the acre zoning that' s required, number two,
if it is allowed, it' s only going to be a very small acreage and we are
very concerned about the water and especially the sewerage -from- the Board
of Health, that' s just draining into the creeks, the creeks are becoming
more polluted and the more houses you have the more polluted it' s going
to get. And more and more people are just not coming here summers,
they're coming out and staying all year long. And you're going to have
more and more problems with our creeks. So I'd be very concerned with
the Board of Health, and unfortunately I feel the Board of Health has
been very lax in some of their judgments and I'm very skeptical on their
decisions.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Two responses. One, if the only opposition were
that it were not an acre, this Board would be out of business, because
it's when they're not an acre that the problem comes to thi0oard and
it has to use its experience and judgment in deciding things. In other
words, it' s here as an application for a variance.
RUTH OLIVA: I can't hear you.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you use the mike over there?
ANTHONY TOHILL; I said, if you're only objection were that it were
not an acre--
RUTH OLIVA: I don't disagree with you, but this is a third of an
acre.
ANTHONY TOHILL: If your only objection were the size of the parcel,
then the Board would be out of business, that' s the function of the
Zoning Board, it' s there to act as an escape valve for the pressures
that are caused by up-zonings,°whieh-. are, across the board, a good idea.
Its sometimes they work a hardship on some people. The second point
you made is that the pollution of the creek or ground water potability,
but that's a scientific problem I'm incompetent to deal with and I'm a
layperson, as to scientific problems, and I, the Suffolk County Depart-
Southold Town Boa_ _ of Appeals July 9, 1981
(ANTHONY TOHI.LL, CONT. ) : ment of Health is employed to deal with exactly
that problem and I would just ask for the opportunity to have them--
RUTH OLIVA: Yeah, I know, you have to go along with what they say
but then again the poor person who's stuck with that other piece of lot,
if the Board does decide to divide it, is going to be stuck with an
unbuildabl e lot.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Well—
RUTH OLIVA: It' s worth practically nothing.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Ono� of the things that I can report to. you--
RUTH OLIVA: Where if you have the whole thing and divide it up
it's so much easier.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yeah, one of the things that I can report to you,
but, you should not find it chiseled in granite is that there is virtually
no intention to build on that parcel. The only reason we're here is that
we're trying to sell the house and we can't sell the house because the
parcel, the vacant parcel has attached itself by reason of the up-zoning
to the house parcel. So, we're caught in a very difficult position.
RUTH OLIVA: Would there be any covanents put on that other piece
there that' s, would be left over if the lot was divided that it would
not be built upon.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Can't do it; we don't own it. That' s one of our
problems. If -we owned it, we'd be happy to talk to you and try to do
something sensible, but we are really caught in a massive Catch 22 out
of which I can't find any solution. And I've been trying for nine
weeks.
RUTH OLIVA: I think you've got a problem.
ANTHONY TOHILL: I don't like being a failure at things, and I've
confessed by failure already this evening.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How about going out and recess for a few minutes and
see if we can come up with something on this.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mm hm.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Have a recess out there for a few minutes, see if
we can come up with something on this.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I think we ought to go back to Tasker on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no. We're talking about if we should
recess it with a date or if we should close the hearing. Recess it to
the next meeting pending the Health Department.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: What, there' s no possibility of you coming in
with anything else, if--
.Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- July 9, 1981
ANTHONY TOHILL: No, I'm finished.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just the Health Department.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, the Health Department, if you close it, .
we've got sixty days.
ANTHONY TOHILL: I have no objection to extending the sixty days,
if you end up in a pickle on that.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: And then he should be able to get that back to
us by then.
-ANTHONY TOHILL: Yeah, I would consider that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think you can extend the sixty days.
ANTHONY TOHILL: I'll do it. If I sign my name to it I'm stuck.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can't extend it; I don't think you can
extend it.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Well, what you can, yeah, you can. You can do it
this way, you extend it but not closing it except for the submission of
the results of the Department of Health, Board of Appeals. Then it' s
not closed until the Board of Health thing, and the sixty days doesn't
start running.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Recess it.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Well, but you close it, but for that item, then
it's still not finally closed for the sixty day rule until you get it,
then the sixty day rule starts when I have to give you that.
M.R. CHAIRMAN: Close pending the Health Department.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Yes, yeah.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: See if there's anybody who wants to speak--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: So, the hearing is closed except for the
Health Department findings.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER DOYEN: Except for the Health Department findings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, I'll offer a. resolution closing the hearing
pending the final decision on the report from that, the Board of Health.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll second it.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that decision be reserved by this Board pending receipt
of written decision of the Suffolk County Department of Health con-
cerning this project.
,Southold Town Boa., of Appeals -37- July 9, 1981
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki, and Grigonis.
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer and
carried, to recess the regular meeting in order to go into "closed
session for deliberations" at 10:05 o'clock p.m, (approx. ) .
Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. .Grigonis, and
carried, to reconvene the regular meeting at 10:20 o'clock p.m. (approx. ) .
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2772 (as amended) . Application of
Emanuel M. Kontokosta 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by
Richard F. Lark,;, Esq. � for a Special Exception (as amended) to the
Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Section 100-50 for permission to construct
additional residential units, a coffee shop, administration office and
swimming pool in an M-1 Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel units
as previously granted 1/17/80) . Location of property: West side of
Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY: bounded north by Parkside Heights Co. ;
east by Shipyard Lane: south by Gardiners Bay; west by Parkside Heights
Co. ; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of Lot 4.
A public hearing was held and closed on this matter on June 11 , 1981 .
After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to erect 45 residential units, a coffee
_ shop, an administration office and a pool at premises located in an
11M-1 Multiple Residence District. " For the use requested herein, a
Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant' s Site Devel-
opment Plan as revised 5/6/81 appears to be in conformance with all
the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has
been informed that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
permit application appears to be approvable as revised 6/1/81 and the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit application appears
to be approvable as revised 5/27/81 .
The Board finds that the circumstances pc'esent in this case are
unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes
that the grant of a Special Exception in this case will not change the
character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the
ordinance.
On motion made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 43 West 54th Street, New
York, NY 10019, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance
for permission to erect 45 residential units, a . coffee shop, adminis-
tration office, and pool as per the revised Site Development Plan dated
5/6/81 , and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1 , Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
= 'Southold Town BOL_ _ of Appeals -38 July 9, 1981
2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
3. Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan.
4. Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant
to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County Charter.
5. Approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the
sewage disposal systems.
6. No further subdivision except by application and approval from
the Southold Town Planning Board and Board of Appeals, and appropriate
other agencies when .required.
7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of
the mean highwater line.
8. No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed
within 100 feet of mean highwater line.
9. A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of
50 feet shall be established along the shoreline.
10. No storm-water runoff resulting from the development and
improvement of the pending subdivision and any of the lots shall be
discharged directly into Gardiners Bay.
11 . No loudspeakers or. other noise-making devices may be per-
mitted which would disturb the neighborhood.
12. The coffee shop is permitted (50 seat maximum) to be used
exclusively for the occupants of the dwellings and shall not be per-
mitted for use by the general public.
Location of property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion;
bounded north by Parkside Heights Co. , east by Shipyard Lane, south by
Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. County Tax Map Item No.
1000-38-7-part of Lot 4.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- July 9 , 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal. No. 2841. Application of Thomas
Crowley and wife, 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to
construct addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyard area at
745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Reich; west
by Cedar Drive; south by Kapassas; east by Vasquez and Frumenti;
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-22-2-42.
A public hearing was held and closed on this matter same date
hereof.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellants seek. permission to construct an
18:''. �,by.-3.2 ' addition to existing dwelling with a minimum sideyard
setback from the northerly property line .of eight feet. Existing
on the subject premises is a:;..1 2:=.story:._-frame house. . The Board
agrees with applicants' reasoning.
The Board .finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse .effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the circumstances are unique; and that
the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief
as requested and restricted as�'_below-noted.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded, by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in Appeal No. 2841, by
application of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Crowley be granted, SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. There shall be no living quarters in the garage addition;
2 . The garage addition shall have a maintained frontyard. set-
back as exists for the main dwelling. [The addition shall not
protrude ahead of the front of the house. ]
Location of Property: 745 .Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-22-2-42.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs.. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
Southold Town Boara of Appeals -40- July 9 , 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2837. Application of Frank A.
Battel, c/o Municipal Building, Teterboro, NJ, (by Richard J.
Cron, Esq. ) for a Variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of
parcels known as Shorecrest Subdivision Filed Map No. 5584 ,
Subdivision Lots No. 10 , 11, 12 , 13 and 14 ; more particularly
known and located at the south side of Bayberry Lane, Greenport,
NY; County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-52-3-, 15 , 16 , 17, 18 and 19.
A public hearing was held and closed on this matter same
date hereof.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant seek approval of insufficient area
of Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 and
insufficient road frontage of Subdivision Lots No. 13 , 12 , and 10 .
Shorecrest Subdivision is not one of the "excepted subdivisions"
in Article I, Section 100-12 of the zoning code but has been an
approved and filed subdivision as of April 6 , 1971 pursuant to
the records of the Southold Town Planning Board, Suffolk County
Clerk and information received from the Suffolk County Health
Department. Each of the lots proposed .contain an area of approxi-
mately 30 ,000 square feet, which is similar to 'those within the
neighborhood as to size and character. The Board agrees with
applicant' s reasoning.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is
unique and not self-imposed; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief as requested.
On motion by: :Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Frank A. Battel in Appeal No. 2837 be granted as applied for and
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning
Commission pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Suffolk
County Charter;
2. That this matter be approved by the Southold Town Planning
Board.
Location of Property: Bayberry Lane, G"reenport,,NY; County
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-52-3-15 , 16 , 17, 18 and 19.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
Southold Town Boar of Appeals -41- y 9 , 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2845. Application of James R.
Giambalvo (later amended to Peconic Bay Gardens., Inc. ) , 72 Columbia
Road, Rockville Centre, NY, (by Richard J. Cron as attorney) for
a Variance to. the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for per-
mission to divide property into Minor Subdivision. of four lots and
approval of insufficient frontage of Lot #1 of said lots at the
east side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; bounded north by
Schlumpf; west by Indian Neck Lane; south by Pontino and Harvey;
east by Richmond Creek; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-86-5-9.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant..-,.seeks approval of insufficient road
frontage of 135. 16 feet along Indian Neck Lane of one of four
proposed parcels, for which appellant states the Planning Board
has recently approved as a minor subdivision. Each of the parcels
will contain an area of :substantially more than 40 ,000 square feet.
The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicant.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is
unique and ..equitable; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief as requested.
On motion by Mr. Gk..igonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested - in the application of
James R. Giambalvo, recently amended to Peconic Bay Gardens, Inc. ,
be granted as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) That this matter is subject to referral to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission pursuant to the . rules and regulations
of the Suffolk County Charter;
(2) That this matter be referred to the Southold Town Planning
Board for approval.
Location of Property: East side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic ,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-86-5-9.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Sawicki
and Grigonis. Mr. \Goehringer abstained.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- July 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2844 . Application of Mark and
Frances : C. Squires, 88B Vanston Road, Cutchogue, . NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission
to extend existing fence (6 feet high) into frontyard. area at
2495 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Subdivision, Filed
Map No. 806 , Lot No 357; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. . 1000-
111-6-6 .
(A public hearing was heard and closed on this appeal July 9 ,
1981. )
After investigation . and .personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows :
By this appeal, appellants seek permission .to erect fence
along property lines not closer than 55' east towards dwelling
from Vanston Road. The:-pr:emises in question contains an area of
approximately 30 ,000 square feet, and the existing one-family,
dwelling is setback 110 feet from a tie line from .Vanston Road.
The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicants.
The Board finds that the .relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the circumstances are
unique; that the variance if granted will not .change the character
of the neighborhood; that the relief requested is within. the
spirit of the zoning ordinance; and. that .the interests,::of justice
will be served if this variance is granted.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it
was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Mark and Frances C. Squires in, Appeal No. 2844. is granted SUBJECT
•to the following CONDITION:
No further fencing (over four- feet high) within 55 feet to the
front property line.
Location of Property: 2495 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-111-6-6 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- juiy 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2818 . Application of Herbert W.
Davids , by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq. , 634 First Street, Greenport, NY
for a Variance to .the zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
approval of insufficient area and width of three proposed parcels
known as Seawood Acres Subdivision Lots 25, 26 and 27 , Filed Map
No. 2575; bounded north and west by Reese, south by McDermott,
east by Seawood Drive; County. Tax Map Item No. 1000-79-7-64 , 65
and 66 .
(A public hearing an this appeal was held and closed on May 14 ,
1981. )
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows :
By this appeal, appellant seeks to divide premises located at
the west side of Seawood Drive, Southold, into three parcels, each
containing an area of approximately 12 ,500 .square feet and with
road frontage of approximately 100 feet. The lots in question appear
to have been transferred to applicant prior to the .change of zoning
to 40 ,000 square feet in 1971.
The Board finds that the relief .requested is substantial in
relation to the Code requirements of 40 ,000 square .feet and 150
feet road frontage; that the circumstances present are not unique;
that the premises are not suitable for three dwellings; that. the
spirit of the zoning ordinance would not be observed if the variance
were granted; that a hardship or practical difficulty has not been
shown to be sufficient to warrant the granting of this variance; and
that the interests of justice would be served by denying the variance
as applied for in Appeal No. 2818 .
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded.-by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief as requested in Appeal No. 2818 ,
application of Herbert W. Davids, is hereby denied without prejudice.
Location of Property: Seawood Drive, Southold, NY; Seawood
Acres Subdivision Lots 25, 26 and 27 ,. Filed Map #2575; bounded north
and west by Reese; south by McDermott; east by Seawood Drive;
County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-79-7-64 , 65 and 66 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass and Goehringer.
Nays: Messrs. Grigonis and Sawicki. '
This resolution was duly passed by majority vote.
J
•Southold Town Bo-_ .I of Appeals -44- July 9, 1981
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and
unanimously carried,to set the next regular meeting of this Board to
be Thursday, August 6, 1981 at 7: 15 o' clock p.m. to be held at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Member Sawicki left the meeting at 11 :00 o'clock p.m.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board
held Wednesday, June 24, 1981 be approved.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,. and
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
,Motion was made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, that
the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public hearings
to be held at the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, August 6,
1981 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York:
7: 15 p.m. Appeal of Donald C. DeLalla. For permission to dock and
moor two boats not owned and used by owner of premises for his
personal use, between existing pilings. 5545 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue.
7:50 p.m. Appeal of Patricia Bailey. To subdivide three merged
lots, and approval of insufficient area of proposed lot #2,
approval of insufficient front yard of proposed lot #3 of said
lots at 2155 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
8:05 p.m. Appeal of Gunter Morchel. To construct an inground
swimming pool in the front yard area at the corner of Nassau
Point Road & Old Menhaden Road, Cutchouge.
8:20 p.m. Appeal of Warren A. Sambach. To construct addition with
insufficient side yard area and rear yard setback at Dogwood
Lane, East Marion.
8: 30 p.m. Appeal of Salvatore Caiola, (by Samuel J. Glickman as
attorney) . To amend Building Permit #11152 Z, which was issued
for storage building, a permitted use, to living unit, which
is. not permitted without a Variance since therEis an existing
dwelling on premises. 49975 County Road 48, Southold.
8:45 p.m. Appeal of Frederick T. Horn. For approval of access of
Case' s Lnae Extension,, Cutchogue. Bounded north by Path Way,
west by Fairway Farms, south by Case' s Lane Ext. , east by
Horn, Bouffler.
8:55 p.m. Appeal of Northville Industries Corp. For permission to
use part of premises for commercial oc ing and mooring with
with parking storage area in an A Residential-Agricultural
Southold Town Bo-.d of Appeals -45- July 99 1981
Zone. 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen, and '
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Donald C. DeLalla, Appeal No. 2848:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
Action not having a si ificant adverse effect upon the environment for
the following reason(s
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The applicant has obtained all necessary permits from the N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers.,. and the Board of Southold Town Trustees to install
four pilings in Baldwin Creek, Little Peconic Bay, Cutchogue.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made for
any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any
other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, and
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to delcare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Patricia Bailey, Appeal No. 2846:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Lava, and Section 4.4-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
Action not having a si nificant adverse effect upon the environment for
the following reasons :
-,OSouthol d Town Bo.-.J of Appeals -46- - July 9, 1981
Y
An Environmental Assessment in thelShort Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor
for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, and
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration
conerning the matter of Gunter Morchel, Appeal No. 2847:
c
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, and Section 44=4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given
that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject
project as proposed herein is hereby classified as . a Type II Action
not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the
following reason(s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the- Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The property in question appears to be located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a road or similar
type of barrier.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for
any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Warren A. Sambach, Appeal No. 2849:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
f` -)"Southold Town Boas d of Appeals -4',-- July 9, 1981
Law, and Section 44-4 of the ,Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
action not having a Significant adverse effect upon the environment for
the following reason W:
An Environmental Assessment in -the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor
for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Salvatore Caiola, Appeal No. 2851 :
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
for the following reason(s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The project in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor
for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
q r 1
?'Southold Town Bc_,.,J of Appeals -48- July 9, 1981
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the .matter of Frederick T. Horn, Appeal No. 2850:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of. Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
for the following reason(s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for
any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Northville Industries Corp,,
Appeal No. 2833:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town 'Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type I
Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
XI the following reason(s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form and Long Form has
been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The project in question appears to be located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a bulkhead
or similar type of barrier.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any -,.,,other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for
any other project.-not ,covered by the subject appeal application.
t .
Southold Town Bc,u. d of Appeals -49- July 9, 1981 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent. )
Being there was no further business to come before the Board,
the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 11 : 10
o ' clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eileen M. Carey, Recording cretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPROVED
Chairman 'Board of
eats
APPRUVED
Chair m n Board of Appeals