HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/17/1984 Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
Ol TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M I N U T E S
REGULAR 'MEETING
'MAY 1.7 ; 1.984
A Special _ Meeting - of - the - Southold. Town Board of Appeals
was held - on THURSDAY ; . MAY 'l'7, 1984 at 7: 30 .o ' clock p .m. . at the
So-uthold Town Hall , . Main Road ; . Southold , New York . .
Present were : Gerard P . Goehringer , Chairman ; Serge Doyen ;
Charles Grigonis , Jr,, ; Rober.t J. DOuglass ; and Joseph H . Sawicki ,
constituting all five members of the_ board. ' Also present were
Victor Lessard , . Administrator ( Building Department ) , and approxi -
mately 16 persons in the audience at the opening of the meeting .
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p .m.
and proceeded with the first pu.bli_c hearing :
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal. No . 3229 =. V.INCENT -GRIFFO for an
accessory storage b,uildi'ng in an area other- than the required
rearyard area at 280 Basin Road , Paradise Point , Southol. d , 'NY .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 35 p .m. and read the
legal notice of .heari.ng in its entirety and appeal application .
MR . CHAIRMAN GOEHR.INGER: I have a copy of a survey dated
December 29' 1981 i,nd`icati'ng the placement, _of . the tool shed which
I ' ll ask 'about' during the hearing , and a copy of _the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this property and properties in the
surrounding area . Mr. Perricone , would you like to be heard in
behalf of this application?
STEVE PERRICONE : My name is Steve Perricone and I ' m.
President of Twin Fork Contracting . If there are no objections
to the application , 'I will sustain from saying anything further .
r ,
'Southold Town.. Board of Appeals -2- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
" (Appeal No . 3229 - VINCENT GRIFFO , continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN : Can I ask you how far is it off the line , Steve ,
the actual setback?
MR. PERRICONE: It ' s five foot .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Five foot exactly .
MR . PERRICONE : Yes . The fence is about three foot . The line
goes over . a little bit more . They..di.& cover, i .t up :.-with shrubs. to
make it look as nice as possible . - You can' t. see .it from the street
and you can 't see it from the neighbor ' s. property either . The two
neighbors don ' t object to :.. it ':either .
MR . CHAIRMAN : We were over there , I think it was last:.Wednesday
evening . What' s presently in the building?
MR . PERRICONE : Flower pots , fishing rods , that ' s. about all
they keep in it . They.. don ' t.__have any tractors or anything. like_ that.
Doroski handles the landscaping so they don ' t. have any tool.s. ,
tractors or lawn mowers :
MR . CHAIRMAN : Do you have any objection to a restriction be
placed on it that it be- used only for storages purposes .
MR. PERRICONE : No , not at all .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . . Would anybody else like
to be heard i n ' behal f of thi s' appl i cation? . Anybody;. wi shi n_g to
speak against this application?.. .Q.uestions from board members?.(None )
MR . CHAIRMAN : Hearing no other comments , I ' ll make a motion
granting the application with the restriction. that it only be used
for storage purposes .
MR . SAWICKI::, :. Second .
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal , applicant seeks' approval of .the construction
of an accessory 8 ' by 12' one-story tool shed located in the
westerly sid'eyard area- a minimum of five feet from the west
property line . A variance is requested from Article III , Section
100-32 of. the zoning code which requires_ accesso'ry _ buildings to
be located in the rear yard. The premises in' que.stion is , l.ocated
at the north side of Basin Road at.- Paradise Point ; Southold , with
frontage along Town Harbor (Bay ) of...a minimal setback' from the
retaining wall. (at the top of the bank) . ' The. board agrees with
the applicant inasmuch as,- there is a very limited buildable rearyard
area. .. l
r
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -3- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
. (Appeal No . 3229 - VINCENT GRIFFO , continued: )
In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the
relief requested is not substantial ; (b ) that the granting of the
requested relief , the character of the neighborhood will riot be
adversely affected; (c ) that by allowing the variance , no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created ; (d ) that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population ; (e ) that the relief requested will be
in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning ; and (f )
that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance ,
as indicated below.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Sawicki ,
it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3229 , application for VINCENT GRIFFO
for approval of the location of an 8 ' by 12 ' accessory storage shed
a minimum of five feet from the westerly side line within the sideyard
area , BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED , PROVIDED THAT THIS ACCESSORY BUILDING
NOT BE USED FOR SLEEPING , HABITABLE QUARTERS ONLY STORAGE PURPOSES ) .
Location of Property : 280 Basin Road , Southold ; 1000-81 -1 -19 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was unanimously adopted .
D
PUBLIC 'HEARING : Appeal No . '3239 .JAMES 'ANDERSON , 16 Waverly
Place , New York , Y for a Variance to Art cT�e XI ; _ Section 100- 11.8 (D)
to . reinstate nonconforming dwelling use of b.ui 1.di ng in this. B-.1 --,-
General Business Zoning District , ' 300 .Moore ' s. Lane. (a/k/a Linden
Avenue ) , Cutchgoue , 'NY; 1000-109-03-008 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 71. 38 p .m. 'and read the legal
notice of this hearing in ::its :errti_r.'ety and appeal a p p I i cati on ,
MR . CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey dated March 26 , 1984
indicating a =-it ' s shown as a__ one-story frame house , approximately
1 . 9 feet from., I assume it ' s. the north property line ; and 14 . 7 feet
from Linden Avenue; and a framed gar age_ approximately • 14 . 9 feet
from Linden Avenue . Would-somebody like to be heard_._ in' behalf of
this application?
JAMES ANDERS.ON : I don `t. kn'ow what' you ' d. like to ask me ?
MR. CHAIRMAN : All right. Mr . Anderson , right? . Did you have
anything you would like to say? '
MR. ANDERSON : Well , just that the house had been lived in at one
'Southold Town. Board of Appeals -4- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3239 - JAMES ANDERSON , continued : )
MR . ANDERSON (continued ) :
point , and that as far as we know , it was never used as a business ,
and we would just like to restore the house to its original purpose .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Two things come to mind when you mentioned that .
The first thing that comes to mind is the garage . What do you
intend to do with that? _
MR. ANDERSON : Well , the . garage at this point is in very unstable
condition . We hope that at some point that we will be able._ to
resurrect it , 'and-leave the garage as a garage .
MR . CHAIRMAN : What do you intend to do with the zoning on the
piece itself? ' I ' ll answer your question and then you can question
me about it. Do' you intend to , or do you object to our taking away
the rights of .the use of the business zoning--
MR . ANDERSON : I would love for you to take it back .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Well , I ' m. not physically taking it away-- I ' m. taking
the use of .it - away .
MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
MR . CHAIRMAN : With the right , 'of course , of reinstating , which
is one .of the issues here , . of reinstating the residentiality of
this particular structure ,
MR. ANDERSON : Yes , definitely we. would like that .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anything that I said that you w.ould like
to question me on?
MR. ANDERSON : Our main purpose is to reinstate the property as
residential and discontinue the„ bu_siness .
MR . CHAIRMAN : What is your timeliness on this thi.ng? . When are.
you looking for a decision?,_
MR. ANDERSON : As soon as possible .
MR. CHAIRMAN : We havew a very lengthy meeting tonight , I doubt
serious'ly if you 'll see any decision on, this tonight . We have not
talked about it . _ We have not deliberated on it yet . . Possibly
within two.'. weeks' we will start the deliberation on it , ,- and hopefully
we will have a decision for you , you know, within the next three
weeks.. or something of that nature . That' s the best . I can do for
you at this particular time .
. . Southold Town, Board of Appeals -5- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
V (Appeal No . 3239 - JAM.ES'_ANDERSON � continued : )
MR. ANDERSON : Ok . Thank you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would like to speak
on this application? Against?. Questions from board._ members ?- (None )
Hearing no. further comments , I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing
and reserving decision pending deliberations .
MEMBER GRIGONIS : Second .
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, 'to close the 'heari ng - and . reserve deci'si on peridi ng
deliberations in the Matter- of.. JAMES 'AN.D_ERS.ON , Ap.pe41. N. o . . 3239.
Vote of .the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehri'nger , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution Was adopted 'by unan.imo.us vote
of all the members of the board.
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3222 : JOHN WICKHAM, 'by Wickham ,
Wickham. and Bressler , :P . C . , Main Road ,. Mattituck ; 'NY fo.r a. Variance
to Article VI , Section 100-60 .to use premises as a 'b.u_siness office
for marine contracting , with accessory use for storage and repair
of contractor ' s. own vehicles and equi.pment ,.,_ at . 67576._ Main Road ,
Greenport , 'NY ; County. Ta.x Map Parcel.*INo-e .:1000-.052=05=058 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 43 p .m. and read the legal
notice of .this hearing in its enti.re'ty and appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a- copy of a survey prepared by Roderick
VanTuyl , P . C . on October 21 , l_9.73 . ..ndicating . the. pencilled-in
areas and approximate. .Toca.tio.ns 'of .where th.e. equipment would be
stored , a building of ,approximateay. 30 ' by 60 '. . and parking._ spaces ,
parking lot , and so on and so forth . , And., I have' a copy of .the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding.. properties
in the area . Would you like to .be heard in behalf of._-this
application , -Miss_ Wickha.m? _
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ . : Thank you . I would just like to
briefly- start by saying that - this .application._ is.- being made on
the basis of a hardship primarily that the property has been
unproductive and. a drain„ on resources for a number—of ,years and
has not been able to be sold . The b'uy;er current-ly int.erested in
the property is.._ the first bonafide offer that ' s. b.een available
probably in- about 15.-years , and he . is here tonight ,' Mr. Melrose ,
to answer a.ny questions you may have I ' ve ar.eady given the
board a fairly„ extensive... description-. I won ' tl.. rep,ea.t that if we
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM, continued: )
MISS WICKHAM:
could have that stand in the record , but if you do have any questions
we can answer them. Also , I'' ve asked John , Wickham to come. , He owns
a minor portion of the, property which is owned by five different
people now , and I' d like him to discuss the exact nature of the
hardship . Before I have him -come up , I do just want to mention
that the proposed use is not something that.,-would be out of
character with the types of uses in the area . The' main point is
that the vehicle that would be here would be the owner ' s.- own
vehicles . They would not be for public repair or ingress and
egress .by the .public, in general . A. B,-1 zone allows a public garage .
m Certai y thi s.,, i s.. a much,.. 1 e s s .offensive use than that type of .zon.i ng
would allow.- And I don ' t .think,;it' s, going to inhinge at.,,:all,_on
the values of ,the neighboring proper.t.i.,es < John? .
JOHN WICKHAM: John Wickham; I 'm. a licensed real estate broker.
I ' ve. also been engaged in zoning and pl,a_nning 'for 61m6st ,..
30 years , 28 to be exact , and a_m currently on ..th.e L. I . -Regional
Planning Board. I mention this because ..this. vehic,le , , a variance
with special exception by the. Board of Appeals is one which the
Planning Board in
.,. previo.us years has recommended to developers.
a.nd builders as a means of .controlling the use . If it is ._down-
zoned , than any use in th.e lower zone,.-,can be hazardous as a matter
of right . -If .it is a. Special, Exception , then only those exceptions
allowed by Zoning Board of Appeal.s can, be used,.. ' You have really
rigid control . This praticu.l,ar case I feel that. .screening is . one
of._the important things , and in this re.gar.d, the adjacent property
owners , Cassidy , came to me=- I didn ' t. go to them--and they sai-d ,
"We understand- that this is- going -to come before..:. the board and we
Want you to know that we do..-not oppose it so long as there is
screening To get to the point a_s far as this case is concerned,
this was part ' of,..,my grandfather' s. es,tate , ,'My grandfather was an
attorney ,:,. rather interesting, he was district ,atto.rney for four
different terms ., He - did in 1881 without leaving - a w.i.11.,, anal this
estate has really never been., settled. ' It,..was divided by the
courts at that., .time , and it hasn ' t. been settled; and as long as
it could be farmed and the Rempe ' s-across the road on the other
side-rented _it for agricultura_.]. land for a good many years-but
when they could,_, no l onger, farm , i t; of course , they .have since sold
it; it b.eca,me, a hardship.
There are Gail said five . owners , and we have .had absolutely no
income on it f.or ,the past several years,; About 15 or more years
ago , we were h,ol.di'ng it for $70 ,.000 a We had no .t.akers ' at all . :At
that time , B.ill ,. Wi.ckham , who was then one of ,the owners , suggested
that we change,._the back.'.part to "B" so the .entire parcel would be
"B Previo.us'ly it had .only 300-'. depth , Which was don and still
no- takers , and ..we have had,__in all the` years since , we have had no.
real inquiries . We had good bites , "but no real inqui,'ry . I hate to
C I
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3222 = 'JOHN 'WICKHAM, 'continued : )
MR. WICKHAM , continued :
thi.nk of what would happen if a few of us were to meet our demise at
this time because two of us are well past 70 and it would be even
more entangled. And it seems to me that 100+ years to settle an
estate is about all one could ask . And we would really appreciate
serious consideration by your board. I would -be gla.d. to .answer any
questions .
MISS WICKHAM : I wonder if I could direct a couple of questions
to you .
MR. WICKHAM : Certainly .
MISS WICKHAM: You stated that about. 15 years the property had
been ' offered' for about' $70 ,00*0 And I belie.v,e in abou.t,. 1974, .i.t was
rezoned for b_us'iness for the entire piece.. Was the same-., price
continued since it wa.s in that zone?,,.
MR . WICKHAM: I can ' t tell you exactly , Gail , but very soon:_
thereafter we put the price .to $75 ,0'00.
MISS WICKHAM: And is it currently listed at that price?
MR. WICKHAM: No . It is currently listed at $100 ,.000 . It was
in my opinion as a real estate broker a;: ve-ry ,. very._reasonable price .
In view. of .the fact that we just sold a piece of ,property that was
in my wi f.e ' s. name in Cutchog.ue whi c,h was„ only two„, ac,res for $75 ,000 .
MISS WICKHAM : So you feel the price of $70 ,000 .during the
period of about ' 1969 or 1970 .until .it was raised some time in
the last ' 70s was reasonable for a 32-acre parcel of property?
MR. WICKHAM: Yes . With 3Z acres ; and a good many hundred feet
of highway frontage , .this is , or at l.e_ast 'part of it ,on Route 25 .
MISS WICKHAM : Now the current offer that we have now , can you
tell us what the price of ,that is? .
MR . WICKHAM: Well , it was based on' $100 ,000 . Actu,a.l'ly , Mr.
and Mrs . Melrose , 'Sr, have been friends of our.s, . 'f.riends.,_.of .a ' lot
of people - in Southold Town for many , many,.years , and as usual in
this sort of .a deal:, you simply take off the commission . These
will be no commission paid o,n a straight deal for., actually 1 $90 ,000
in this case . ...
MISS WICKHAM : Is that the contingent arrangement?
MR. WICKHAM : Gail , I can ' t. tell you . I think it is , but I
don ' t. sign the - pap,ers.e_.
r
`Southold Town Board of Appeals =8- May 17 , iv64 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM, continued: )
MISS WICKHAM: You mention that the property has been unproductive
and isn ' t currently. having any income since. the_ Rempes left farming .
MR. WICKHAM: We had one other piece of income and this again
bears out the point that it was listed with the real estate brokers .
The Wetmore Agency had an office.- on that property for some years
which went pretty_ well towards paying the,_ ta.xes ,._ but when they
that office off , we have had no income at all .
MISS WICKHAM : I would just like to confirm that the one offer
that is now before us that has been the first in 15' years since the
property has been on the market is contingent upon getting the
variance. ' They cannot use the property without. it . , So the hard-
ship is that. unless this property is s,pld according to this deal ,
we _will be una.b7_e to settle the ,estate and distribute the propexty
that has been going Ion since 1881 : I ' d. also just like to ,giv,e the
board copies of ta,x bills . I..._we;nt back as- far. as 1979 , ' 80 . At
that time the taxes were about $600 .a year . They are now $800
or $900 .a' year , and that has been the constant o.u.tflow in addition
to the . survey and fil'ingi:expenses ..for the rezoni.ng .and there has
been very little income- t1o. .offset _that leaving the property totally
unproductive .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Thank you .
MISS WICKHAM: If the board has any questions , we,',ll be glad to
try and- answer them...
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there any reason why the area on Albertson ' s.
Lane ' was selected as opposed to the Main Road frontage? .._
MISS WICKHAM: Well , first of all , I ' ll let Mr . Melrose see if
he has anything ' to adde Well that location _ .n the rear is
probably .the least obstrusi,v_e, locati_on . in the property . It would
also I . suppose at some future time leave the-.�fron,tage. but that
would have- to be s.u�'jectuto a further application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you asking for a variance to use this particular
entire piece of property or just, that area slated? .
MISS WICKHAM: It' would be the property but you had asked for a
si to ' plan and this is on that .prope,rty. i s ,the actual operation.-. of
the b.u.s_i ness ' that would occur..._
MR. CHAIRMAN : So then you wo.uldn ' t have any objection that if
there was - future use or any,__fut'ure _expansion that a restriction be
placed on it that they would„__have' to ,come back to conform to another
application?
'_Southold Town Board of Appeals -9-A May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM, continued : )
MISS WICKHAM: In terms of something other than a " B" Zone?
MR . CHAIRMAN : Right . Or an expansion of the original , of this
original application?
MISS WICKHAM: I think he understands that . I ' ll agree to that
condition then . (Mr. Melrose Sr. was present : )
MR . CHAIRMAN : The other questions will be of Mr . Melrose
concerning fences and such . Thank you ,
MISS WICKHAM : Ok .
BOB MELROSE , S'R, : My name is. Bob Melrose , and I ' m. a. Vice President
ofMel.r.ose:: .Marine Service., Corporation . - We ' ve .,been in business since
1968, and we do marine construction work , 'docks , bulkheads , marine
railways and underwater structures . We operate along the North Shore
of Long Island , 'essentially College Point,.__to Gree,npo.rt . My song James
Melrose is President an.d..:Owner .of th,e company and ,I work for him. , We
both live in Greenport , and we would like,.__to. _set - Up a site here where
we' could establish; a business offi.c_e ,and have space. to do maintenance
and repair work on our l and-bas,e_d equipment. We ' curr.en.tly'-rent_.space
at Jacobson ' s.* ( ? ) Shipyard in 'Oyster- Bay where our fl.oat: :nggq.uipment
is located . But we have very little land scape the.re , and' we._ ha.ve
no facilities - for doing main.tenanc,e work . An.d this is' what ' s holding
us back right now. So.. we would like you . to consider the change in
zoning to permit us to use th.e property in this way . If you ,b.ave any
further questions , I ' ll be glad to try„ and answer ,them..,, .,
MR . CHAIRMAN : The building you are going to use as an office--you
have two. buildings here sl_a_ted: 30 ' 'by 60 ' Would' one of those buil_d-
ings be an' accessory building and the other an ,o_ffi_ce? ,..
MR . MELROSE : Well , there ' ll be an office in that first 30 '. by 60 '
bui 1 di ng ' and eventually we woul.'d plan to .bu.i 1 d another; 3V by 6.0' ' .
building .
MR. CHAIRMAN : For the purpose of storage?
MR. MELROSE : For the purpose of storage and inside space. where we
can work "o,n equipment .
MR. CHAIRMAN : And what kind of .fenci'ng would you be entertaining ,
a stockade type or--
MR. MELROSE : Well we were thinking of terms of anchor-post fencing
to kee_p people , espec.i.ally kids out of th,e property becaus.e,,,,they have
a habit ,of ,throwi n.g.. ro.ck_through windows .
r�
R i
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9-8 May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM , continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN : I don ' t know, you know, what type--if that would
suffice to completely obstruct whatever view might occur here con-
cerning the stacking. of the types of materials that you ' ve enter-
taining. What types of materials would you be placing within this
area?
MR . MELROSE : I would say at this time that we ' re not considering
the storage of any ""significant amount of materials . It ' s mainly the.-
equipment--in- fact we store very little, material now in our operations .
We have the material brought in._ t.o _ the job , and we maintain a . very
small inventory . The only materials we buy are things we need for
overhauling and -,repairing.. our equipment ,
MR. CHAIRMAN : In going 'back briefly to the fencing , Mr, Melrose .
I have . no basic objection . I don ' t . k.no.w. how the.. board., feels about a
chainlink 'fence . I just that , however , there may be something in
the decision if the board so sees to grant this ,particular application
that some sort.,. of ,stop gap measure , that if one person , , an a,dj:oi.n.ing
property , was upset with what they -were looking at , then you might
.hay.e to slat this fence to make-it in =some tray a :l.ittle more aestheti-cally oriented.
MR,. MELROSE: Actually , on this particular property., one of the
things that has attra.ct,ed -us to it is the- fac.t. t,hat .there are a lot
of trees growing up on this property , anal what we would propose to do
is to leave as many of the small trees there as possible., a,nd within
a very„ short time they are going to surround the.. area that we intend
to use . And that ' s. one of the things we liked about this piece of
property . And I can assure you that it ' s. our plans to make this an
attractive place ,
MR . CHAIRMAN_: The only other thing that I , in drawing up any type
of findings , we would :have. a little difficulty in stating. the actual .
dimensions , Somewhere within. the, next two or. three weeks , I don ' t
know if you were sitting here WHEN I was talking to the prior appli -
cants , because we will not entertain this for at least two or three
weeks because of the lengthy meeting tonight--could you just give us
some idea of area that you ' re talking about here ,.- in,,-reference to
square footage?
MR. MELROSE : I have a drawing that I made myself that shows the
dimensions . and I can leave a copy of that .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Oh , that would be good . I just want to know if
we ' re talking about-- You ' re going to send us, something? I ' m just
looking .for an approximate area .
MR. MELROSE : It would be approximately one acre .
MR. CHAIRMAN : That you ' re entertaining? One last question in
relation to the fences . , Are you entertaining anything over 6 ' 6 "?
�S -outhold Town. Board of Appeals 10- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM ,- continued: )
MR . MELROSE : No . We 're mainly interested in putting the fence
up to keep small children or people from coming in on the property ,
and it would have agate on it and b.e .closed off .
MR. CHAIRMAN : So you wouldn ' t be going over 6 ' 6 " ?
MR . MELROSE : I don ' t see a reason to , no .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . 'You ' ve been very helpful .
Is there anybody else that would_. like to .speak in behalf._ of .this
application.? Anybody like to speak against the application? Ques-
tions from board members? (None ) Hearing no further questions ,
I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later .
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Douglass ,
it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision until later ,
pending deliberations in the . Matter of
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer , Grigonis , Doyen ,
Douglass a.nd Sawicki . This resolution was adopted .by unanimous ,
vote of all the members .
PUBLIC 'HEARING : Appeal No . 3225 : JOSE V . RODRIEGUEZ, Box 113 ,
Fishers Island , NY fora Variance to construct dwelling in this ...
B-1 General Business- District at the West Side, of Fox Lane , Fishers
Island , NY_; 1000-012-01 -001 . 002 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 08 p .m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey , last date appears to
be revised 3/28/80 , and a copy._.of a Suffolk County Tax Ma.p i.ridicat-
ing this and surrounding properties in.- the area , and a picture
indicating the existing building . Mr . Lark , would you like to be
heard in behalf of this application?
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ . : I thank you , Mr . Goehringer . I ' m. not
sure that the board. is aware of the history of this . , The property
as well as the surrounding property as you;. rea'd in the app.licatio..n
is zoned "B-1 : " Back in 1980 the .FIDCO, the prior owner ,.. decided
to get rid of some of their holdings over on the Island. There was
a need for , ghat Mr. Rodrieguez runs is an upholstery business--so
originally he had been there with a very small building and they
decided-to sell him what was at that time really a, postage stamp
piece of property . But the Planning Board is s,plit.ting that off
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11 - May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3225 - JOSE V . RODRIEGUEZ, continued : )
MR . LARK (continued) :
ereating . a set-off, if you would . Since it was B-1 , decided it to
be 30 ,000 sq . ft , and that ' s as you see it on the survey before you .
That ' s what _ it is , and then Mr . Rodrieguez went ahead and built
this building that is presently on the site , which I think most of
you are familiar with ,._ and moved off the little shed that was there
that actually was an encroachment at the time., and cleaned up the
situation over there . Now due to his personal situation , finds
himself in need of housing , and the only place that he can '. move
to and._ stay on the Island and stay in business i.s.:to the only
property that he owns , which is this one , and due to the tremendous
influx in price of .real estate on that Island , it.`. s. impossible for
him- to go ahead and to.. do anything, to buy any suitable hous.ing _ or
much less rent yearro.und suitable_. housing, So he is applying .to you
for permission .to put a mobile _home . _
As I understand it a mobile home which he proposes to construct
on there basically is a 60 ' by 14 ' and then ha.s_. extension which
comes as part of-,-the 'home whi..ch_. is 14 ' by 8' granting 'a .952 sq .
ft . unit which meets the zoning standards . As far as other
properties in the area , basically on a nonconforming basis that
have residences , I am informed._ t.hat to the north Mr,. Gada and
his business area has four or five apartments , and on._:the school
property there is a house that '.s. used as a residence whi.ch.. is in
a 1 ,000 ._yards of this property . So this is not a precedent in the
sense that this is the; only area in the B-1 area th.at ' s. used for
residential or a mixed residential and business purpose , ok . So ,
I was quite careful to find -out that . - The mobil.e' home will be
tucked. away as you . can see on the survey up in the back s..o_ it will
not be obstrusive or be right in the road _because he ' s going to _,
live there , 'that ' s. the whole point . And he has been there for many
years , so it ' s not a situation where he ' s trying to do something ,
sell it and leave . He wants to stay . And that." s. his problem.
The water will be supplied 'by Fishers Island Water Company and
because of the present confusion, with the Federal and State Govern-
ments on the sewage system over there, the County Health Department
prefers that he prefer cesspools at- the present moment rather than
hook into the present sewage system which runs- also right by the
property. So the Health Department said, 'Yes ,' you can. do .it but
you ' re going to have to build your own cesspool .r_ ather than hook
into the sewer line; because as' you know in.-that area it goes
directly overboard and they ' re trying to get that straighened out .
But the water is furnished by the water company on the Island so
there ' s no problem. It will be on a foundation , in other._words ,
even though- it is a mobile home , wha.:t you..and'l understand to .be
,a mobile home , it will b,e a permanent structure . It will be there--
1
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -12- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
,. (Appeal No . 3225 - JOSE V . RODRIEGUEZ, continued : )
MR. LARK (continued) :
it won '-t. .be .on .wheels to come and go , And I think- all things being
considered, his mai_n_ 'fin.anci,al hardship is that in this particular--
wh.ich ' is unique to Fishers Island in particular--there are no small
sized pieces.- Of pro,per'ty. This end of the town., which is part of
old Fort Wrigh.t.,__:'by._enlarge is all spoken for , and the board has
granted many._ variances . in.. those portions which are residential and
some which are business to construct to reconvert some of the old
two-family - and one-family officers ' quarters as residences , and
that_ is not too far from_the., area , and it is in keeping with the
overall situation . And with -what' s. going to be possibly in the
future with the remaining holdings that FI.DCO. has , this_._will not in
any way interfere and I know,_that the residences and people that
reside__ on the- Island both i n . summer and yearround do wan_t,. to keep
this business , and that was eui.denced by- the fact that they went
out of .their way to make this proper'ty .affordable to him originally
back in 1980 so we could build a permanent site and stay economically
in business . So without belaboring this point , 'I would- respectfully,.
urge that he does have a hardship in the sense that t_he community._ ,.
itself would tend . to suffer with the loss of the business if he is
not allowed to _live on the Island , because due to the nature of his
work and everything , he can ' t.,. commute , - And - Connecticut , of course ,.
is the nearest place he could commute:_ and he ' s. stuck kind of between
a rock and a hard plate , s'ort of speak , . the euphonistic phr.ase , so
I think he--and this isn `t. the., fi.rst , .'so you ' re . not establishing a
precedent for other people who dovetail in . * As you know all the
land surrounding it .is _s_poken for and has been in the same.. ownership
for many , many years . It is rather stable climate over there as
far as exchanging properties are concerned. _ So it ' s. not something
that you ' re going to be starting a floodgate of, and I think there
is a definite need , and considering ahe ,size , shape and topography
of the parcel and where he ' s. locating it , 'I think it w.i l l be
innocuous and tucked in rathe.r.. nicely back there .
Does anybody have any questions? . I think most of them have-
MR . CHAIRMAN : We ' ve been by it. But what kind of business is it ,
Mr . Lark?
MR . LARK:. He ' s. an upholsterer . An upholstery business . Right .
It ' s ' a custom situation , where he takes in. w_ork throughout the year
and you know , then delivers it and his sole clientale are those that
live on the Island .. He ' s. been in it for many., many years . I guess
ever since he ' s. gotten out of the Coast Guard . Ha.sn ' t. he., Mr . _ D'oyen--
in that particular business?,_ ___ _ ._ .. ..
MEMBER DOYEN : Oh , many years .
MR . LARK: Right on Fishers Island .
Southold Town.. Board .of Appeals -13- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3225 - JOSE V. RODRIEGUEZ, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Was this entire piece of property bought as one
unit , or was it , or were pieces of it purchased?
MR. LARK: Ok, originally back in 1980 FIDCO , Fishers Island
Development Corporation agreed to convey him , oh I would say about
a 12,000 sq . ft . parcel . That was in contract . It had to be
approved by the Planning Board . The Planning Board said no .
That ' s all . he needed for.-his business, " If we ' re going to approve
a set-off .with any time out of this 10 ,* 12-acre piece on this end
of the Island , we want you :to have a _. 30 ,000 sq . ft. piece . " And
that ' s why you see that as such as irregular shaped parcel. The
Town still is using at FIDCO ' s. grace some- of the - old- gunning places ,
they tell .-Me something in a burning ground ,.__ refuse .- area , and the
FIDCO didn ' t. want to interfere with. that , and so that ' s. why you
see the screwy property lines there . And was it Fox Street , .-Fox
Lane , is somewhat -an' en,i.gma. Before Mr. Rodriegu.ez 'put his .. ,."
building there nobody. ever -really knew where it- went legally .
Buildings al lover it. And as .. I say., he cleaned all that. u,p
because. he moved the shed off and we got that all -straightened
out . And , no , it went as one piece in one deed . . In fa,ct , 'the
contract. back in 1979 was with FIDCO , but by the time, they had
gotten straightened out with'..:th.e Planning Board . and powers to be ,
the deed to that piece as you see,- it on the survey was dated
10 June 1980 , Liber 9023 'page 370 . So it ' s. in one piece .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank .you ,' sir . I don ' t. think I have any
other questions , Mr" Lark.. I tha.nk'. you . We '.11 see if .anybo'dy
else does . Including-Mr , Doyen , Mr. , Doyen always has._- some-thing
to say .
MEMBER DOYEN : ' Mr. Lark covered the situation very well .
MR . LARK: I don ' t. know what :.else=-
MR. CHAIRMAN : All :-right , hearing no further questions , I ' ll
ask if ,anybody else w.oul d., 1 i ke to be., heard i n behalf? Nothing?_.
Anybody to sp-eak 'against the application? Questions from board
members? (None ) Hearing no further questions , I ' ll make a:.,mo.tion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until later .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Second .
On .motion by Mr . Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass ,
it was
RESOLVED , to 'cl'ose 'the 'h6ari ng and reserve decision unti l l ater ,
pending .deliberations in the. Matter of .JOSE. 'V . .RODRTEGUEZ,. Appeal
No . 3225 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted. by._. unanimous vote
of all the members of the board.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3239 :
Upon application of JOSEPH FISCHETTI , Hobart Road , Southold , NY
for a _ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article V , Section 100-50 ( C) [1J
for permission to erect sign with less than four-foot clearance _
from ground , at 52800 C . R . , 48 , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel
No . 1000-05145-002 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 20 p .m. and read the legal
notice of .this hearing in its entirety and appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey indicating the placement
of the .; sign Mr . Fischetti is proposing , and I have a copy of- the
Suffolk County.- Tax Map showin,g. t_hls and surrounding properties in the
area . . Mr . Fi.schetti ,_would you like to be heard in behalf of your
application?
JOSEPH FISCH.E.TTI : Are there any questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN : The sign does not exceed the total square footage?
MR . FISCHETTI : No , it does not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you-: like to add anything to the application
as to why--
MR. FISCH.E.TTI : It ' s. basically a cedar sign , with gray stain on
it . " We ' re trying to' just keep iit_...very unobstru.,sive and low. We
felt four feet off ,the ground_ --it just makes it more visible , which
is, not the, case (remainder of..state.ment inaudible) .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Do you have any intentions of lighting it?
MR. FISCH.E.TTI : No , not at all . Just h.ave landscaping around it .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Is there anybody else to be heard in
behalf ,of .this application? Anybody again.s_t the .application? Ques-
tions from board._ members? (None ) Hearing no furt.h_e_r. comments ,
make 'a. motion granting the application as applied for , based upon _
the fact that we had visited . t.he . site and d_o_.. agree. that a large sign .
around a --turn like that 'might have visual defects to a driver--and_.
that' s. the major reason why_ I `m. maki'ng the m.o.tion .
MEMBER D.OUGLASS: Second .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- May 17 , 1964 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3239 - JOSEPH FISCHETTI , continued : )
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal applicant seeks a variance from Article V, Section
100-50 (C) [1 ] of the zoning code to erect 52" by 108" , the lower edge of
which will . be two feet above the ground , rather than the required four
feet above the ground . Said sign will advertise only that use permitted
on the premises in question and shall comply with all of the supplementary
sign regulations of the code pertaining to this zoning district .
The premises in question is zoned "B-1 Multiple-Residence" and
contains an area of approximately 2 .8 acres . " For ,the record it is
noted that the premises is presently being improved with multiple
dwelling structures , which shall be in compliance with this board ' s
conditional approval of a Special Exception__ application in accordance
with Section 100-50 (B) [3] of the Zoning Code as-- granted February 19 ,
1983 , and any and all other approvals required for same .
. The board members agree that the property in question and this
type of advertising lend itself to the granting of the relief requested ,
as well as being more in keeping with the landscaping .
In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the
relief requested is not substantial ; (b) that the granting of the
requested relief , the character of. the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected ; (c ) that by allowing the variance , no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created ; (d ) that no
adverse .effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population ;. (e ) that the relief reques-ted will be
in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning ; and (f)
that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance ,
as indicated below.
Accordingly , it was recommended that the visibility must remain
clear and unobstructed for at least 10 .feet from the front property
line , and the following resolution was adopted:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3239 , application of 'JOSEPH 'FISCHETTI
for permission to construct 52 " by 108" .sign advertising on--premises
business , at a minimum of two feet above ground ; 'BE 'AND 'HEREBY 'IS
APPROVEb 'AS APPLIED .
Location of Property : 52800 C . R . 48 , Southold , NY; County
Tax. Map Parcel No.. 1000-051 -05-002 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote .,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No . 3240 : JOHN AND PATRICIA DINIZIO by
Robin E. Carr for a Variance to Article . III , . Section 100-32 for
permission to construct inground swimmingpool in the sideyard area ,
at 315 Brown Street , Greenport , NY; 10007048703-042 . 3 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 20 . p .m . and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application . _
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey dated September 15 , 1975
indicating the approximate::.placement of the house on the property ,
the approximate .pi. acement .of the swimmingpool it! the sid'eyard area ,
approximately 35.. feet from the house and a 'swimmingpool approxi -
mately 16 ' by 32 ' .. Mr. Carr , would you like to be heard- in behalf
of this application? r _
ROBIN CARR: Just if .there are any questions .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you sho.wi'ng the deck area on this pool or--
MR. CARR':. As far as I understand they were going to have cedar
or something around it .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Can I just ask you , over here , a question on
dimensions? The really why I asked you this , y ou see it says
.10 feet here .
MR. CARR: That ' s why he ' s. talking about as,_far as fencing .
This exterior line is fencing .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Ok . So the fencing will gods far as. l0 :feet .
But to your :kn:owle'dge, th.ere ' s. no decking?_ _
MR. CARR: Not to the best of .my knowledge . No . What he intends
to do later , you know
MR . CHAIRMAN : --is not a part of .your application here . Ok .
Thank you . Do' you have' any idea if .he intends.. to do any lighting?
MR, CARR: As far as I know, there ' s. a light by that set of doors
off of the side of .the house ,
MR. CHAIRMAN : But no total lighting around , 'court lighting , or
whatever?
MR . CARR: None that I know of.
MR. CHAIRMAN : What ' s your timeliness on this , do you want to
get going as quickly .as possible?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3240 JOHN AND PATR,ICIA DINIZIO, continued : )
MR . CARR : Well , I think he was talking about a 4th of July
weekend party. The time frame as far as that goes , yes , it ' s
important . _
MR. CHAIRMAN : All right . I have not discussed this with the
board , so , what ' P lj.' try::and do=- I ' m going to close the hearing--
but - what I ' m going . to try and do is deliberate after this meeting .
I don ' t know if we ' ll get to it tonight. If not , we ' ll be having-
a Special Meeting within the next week or so . And we ' ll be dealing
with it at that particular time , Thank you for pointing that out
to me . Is there anybody else that would _ like to - speak in behalf of
the application? Against the application? Questions from board
members? (None )
On motion by Mr . Goehringer, seconded by Mr ; Douglass ,
it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision until later ,
pending deliberations in the Matter of JOHN 'AND 'PATRICIA DINIZIO ,
by Robin Carr , Appeal No . 3240 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted_ 'by_. unanimous vote
of all the members of the board.
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3241 :
Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III , Box 1112 , Southold , NY
for a Variance to Article VI , . Section 00-.60 (C) for permission to _.
erect sign with insufficient setback from the front (street )
property..-,.line at N/S Main Road , Southold , NY; .1000-061 -02-07 and
part of 05 .
The; .Chair.man opened the hearing at 8 : 31 p .m . and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a a survey prepared on April 2 ,
1984 ; indicating the. 9 ' setback that Mr . Gillispie is referring to
of his ex.isting . building , and a copy of the ,_Suffolk County Tax -Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in. _the .;area . Mr.- Gillis-
pie , would you like to be heard .in behalf of this application?
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III : If there are questions--
MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes . You ' re putting this on .the east side?
MR. GILLISPIE : Of .the building ,Iyes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : The maximum size restrictions are 4 ' by 6 " . . You
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 17 , 1984 Regular . Meeting
(Appeal No . 3241 - ROBERT GILLISPIE , continued : )
XR . CHAIRMAN (continued) :
mentioned five by six . Are you talking about that marquee.- on-"-top
of the sign . Does that violate anything , Victor?
MR . LESSARD: I don ' t know off hand.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Because anything.-that we grant is 4 ' by 6 ' and
we ' re not going to go over that figure 4 by 6 .
MR . GILLISPIE: So that scroll work should not be there .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Well , I think that ' s up to the interpretation of
the building inspectors Sign restriction , isn ' t. it based upon the .,
actual lineal° footage of the building , Mr. Lessard?
MR . LESSARD: Yes , ii i4a11 sign is . A ground sign' is not .
He ' s ' talking about._ a ground sign, right.
- MR. CHAIRMAN : We ' ll look into it before we make a decision .
And what ' s your timeliness on the erection of the s.ign? .
MR. LESSARD : He ' s looking for the variance . He can argue
with the building inspector on the size . I would think.
MR . GILLISPIE: The basic problem is the setback .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I understand . I don ' t think there ' s any contest
on the setback , we ' re aware of that situation .
MR. GILLISPIE: The s;ideyard setback .
MR. CHAIRMAN : We ' re aware of that , we ' ve been by the property
several times since you filed the application . What I will do is .
close the hearing and try and give you a decision within the next
few weeks if that ' s all right with you . And so we don ' t violate
anything yet in reference to size and whatever . And thank you .
Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of
the application? Questions from board members? (None ) I ' ll make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later .
On ..motion .:by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Douglass ,
it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decision until later ,
pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No . 3241 , ROBERT _ W.
GILLISPIE III .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
- Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by . unanimous vote
of . all the members of the board.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19 May 17 , 1yz34 Regular Meeting
JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS : Appeals No. 3237 and 3236 :
Applications of GOLDSMITH AND TUTHILL , INC . by R. F . Lark , Esq . ,
Main Road , Cutchogue , NY for :
(a ) a Variance to Article IX, Section 100-93 of the Zoning
Ordinance for permission to construct office building with an
insufficient frontyard setback ; _
(b ) a Special Exception to Article IX , Sections 100-90 ,
100-91 and Article VIII , Section 100-80 (B ) for permisdsion to
construct office - and storage building in this "C-.l " General
Industrial District .
Location of Property : 1515 Youngs Avenue , Southold , NY ; County
Tax Map Parcel N.o . 1-000-60-.1 -6 .
The Chairman asked if there was any objection to combine the
hearings in the above applications , and it was agreed that they
be held jointly . The Chairman opened the hearings at 8 : 37 p .m.. ,
read the ..legal. _notice of these two hearings- and each application
accordingly . _
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have- a copy of what appears to be a site plan
showing the actual position of_the proposed _ office-storage building .
It appears to be 1740 .sq . ft . . Is that . a loft .-for 6.60? _
MR. LARK: Storage purposes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Storage part , for a total square footage of 2400 .
(The Chairman passed each board member a copy of the site plan for
viewing . ) I have a copy of a site plan dated 1 /3/84 which appears
to be the most current.-one ....
MR. LARK: That ' s correct .
MR. CHAIRMAN : And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in .:the ..area . Mr.- Lark ,
RICHARD F . LARK, ESQ . : Ok . I think one of the first questions
th'at',the:-,board.; i s . go jng _ to have to resolve in any decision rendered
is whether or 'not a special exception is required.' My reading of
the Zoning Code does not . . The building inspector' s. reading of the
zoning ordianc.e , .. it is . Basically - the ,. reason I ' m bringing_that to
your attention is that we :are.J n.;a "C-l " General Industrial District ,
and buildings and premises may be used for any lawful purpose , �iexcept ,
and then it- goes on , "no building or premises . s:hall be used dwelling ,
boarding house , tourist home, motel , 'and uses hereinafter set forth _
permitted only by Special Exception . " And all the uses hereinafter
set forth in that section do not mention anything that ' s related. to
'$outhold Town Board of Appeals -20- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No . 3237 and 3236 , GOLDSMITH& TUTHILL , continued : )
MR. LARK (Continued ) :
this business . But by some method the building inspector goes back to
the prior section , which is the ".C-Light Industrial " District , and I
think it ' s clear in that zone use district that for yard for the sale
or storage of fuel and building materials , you do have to get a
special exception. And as .precedent to that , the board some years
back did grant a variance to locate a fuel tank that was located
there . And that needed to be .. because of the sideyard , rearyard.
No question , variances are needed here to put the,
_proposed office
building in the site where it' s proposed . _ But as a matter of law ,
I question as to whether or not a special exception is needed . .. But
neither here nor ' ther.e , since they did deny it , we did apply also ,
the board does agree with the building inspector , then we ' ve given
you sufficient reasons on both pages of the application which . f.ul:fi.11
the criteria in the zoning ordinance for the granting of a special
exception . But I respectfully submit that I don ' t think one - is
necessary . However , as to a .. variance , one is necessary , and the
hardship., the practical difficulties that the petitioner finds himself
is , as you know from reading the application and visiting.. the site ,
. the premises have been there a long time . Since 1946 as a matter of
fact , it ' s been used for this precise business that is there . The
office at the present. time to conduct the fuel business , Goldsmith
anal Tuthill , is they rent space from Southold Lumber , which is right
across the..-street; and Southold Lumber is in the process of trying
to expand its office space , so actually in essence is asking u.s to
leave , even though it ' s a related company . So they thought the
most practical thing to do was to go ahead and build an office
building with some , ...if you would , covered storage for petroleum
products that can be .carried to and from the site . It' s not a good
idea to mix these types of products .in the lumber area , so the
building and the . pla.ns speak for themselves .
We went before the Planning Board some time back . They had no
objection , and- they understand the reason why the building. . has to
be so close to the . road . It ' s not necessarily to _be.. in conformity
with the neighborhood . All the buildings there are right -o.n the
sidewalk. That wasn ' t the main reason.
Initially , we tried to set it back , but the further back we went
with tractor trailers coming in to make deliveries 'to the both the
undergro.und and above ground fueld tanks , they need maneuvering room.
So as . you can see from. page . 2, or lA as it_`.s.--r.eferred to there , the
Planning Board wants some_ delineation of parking spaces and with no
problem.- at all we were able to get the ..re.quired, nine . The beauty of
the way the parking is laid out , in the rear , can .be used for-
employee parking as well. as any type of customer parking , but it
leaves some maneuvering room because most of the deliveries by the'
tractor._trailers`.are i.n', the evening hours ,*. know, when. it ' s. closed
Southold Town, Board of Appeals -21 - May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . ' -32.37 'and' 32�3G.'- .GOLD SM`I_TH TUTNILL , continued : )
MR . LARK (continued) :
to the public . So they will be able to come in and we ' ve made it
one-way . The northerly entrance as you can see is a one-way
entrance coming which will serve both for automobiles and for
the heavier , not only the Southold Goldsmith and Tuthill fuel
trucks but also for the delivery.. tr.ucks , and then the exit will
be for the south , And by .situating the building where it is ,
if we move closer to the road , we couldn ' t. put a driveway in .front
of the building , which most of the general .public would use .
Mainly , they ' d.- come in to pay- bills and stuff like that. That ' s.
the main traffic that you '..d. 'get, .'vehicular type . And by moving
it back , we ran into t.he .exist ing garage so we couldn ' t get the
tractor trailers through . So this- seemed to be the best-
compromise that we can.-work out. And therein lies the practical
difficulty , considering the size and - shape of . the parcel_ in the._
existing .tanks to . allow-:-and we also took_ into consideration to
allowing , God forbid , any 'type of._.emergency vehicles to get in
and to get_out, by the one-way ingress and .egress ,._this would-
prevent congestion and leave- sufficient space in_ width , the
driveway to get in and out . ' And as you can see , `spots:, 7 , 8 and 9
will be primarily for pub.lic ' s. use a.s well as thep..wil;l,`..stop in
the driveway i n_ the front of .the building . ' Parki,;ng the rear
is probably- primarily. _fnr empl'oy,ees because it ` s removed And
with the type of .st.orage i n ._the„rear , 'it woul d be sort of a
loading dock .fo.r a 'pi ck'-'up truck ,. 'if' you would ,. it' could pull
up to it and put bulk fuel , you know, ..cases- of oil and stuff
like that. That ' s. the . prma;ry reason for the back .
I am told by both Mr . Rich and the building inspector that
the building that they have proposed to be.^constructed which is
i.n the remaining pages of the. exhibits before you'; does- conform
to the building code for both an office building, size., shape ,
lavatories , ramps for the handi cap,p.ed, one thi n.g. or another._,that
.you have to put in ..now ad'ays , and .the. fire wall separation is ok ,
since you are storing flammable products in t_h,e . s.ame buildings
that you have peopl e:_working
So the main emphasis is for the frontyard and the sideyard ,
the variance for the yards :. and_ then:,.:you ' 1-1 have to rule -o.n
whether a special exce'pti on. i s re_qui red. :`'If' you claim one i.s ,
in your interpretation of the code; then _we—respectfully submit
we,- met . wi th all, this cri.teri a of that. a board- is s enti t.l ed to
grant a special, exception . And_ unless you have . any questions--
I have Mr.. Rich here., As,,. far as time table., 'I know' you might
ask that , sin ce' you ' ve asked it of _other applicants ,. we ':ve__started
this back in December with the Pl.anni ng Board. As I say ; .,'o`ur.
biggest problem is we felt we ne-e.ded variances right up front
and it was a.:.question of,...where from a site plan. point of view,. '
the Planning Board taking in other: consi:der.at.ion and some of .the
Southold Town Board of Appeals, -22- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3237 andand'_3236:_ -_ GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL , continued : )
MR. LARK (continued ) :
practical difficulties we had, and they ' ve agreed with our site plan
pr.ov-.i:ded we amended it on the parking ,,-which we ' ve done . They ' ve_-
-approved that , and the official site-plan approval would wait,-your
approval , because there ' s-_no question we have to have that in an
industrial district , too . There ' s. no quarrel with that. It ' s just
a question of getting it now.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Can I ask you , when you refer to existing fence
in the . frontyard . You ' re referring that as being a property line ,
is that not?
MR. LARK: Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok . So therefore the southerly most portion ,
since the building appears not to. conform to -the road , might be.,
a little less than 22 feet. Is that correct? . .
MR. LARK: The survey--
MR . RICH: The front of .the building, 1 think , would be 2.5 feet
from the property line . The fence .is not right on the_.,,prope�rty.. line ,
there ' s a 6 ' .. high board fence.- there now , 'picket fence . .:_. The reason
we picked the d stance back , as Mr . Lark said , Is so that we can get
tractor trailers between the new -_buil-ding and .that .first shed on the
.north side , and also it ' s. exactly in line with the Agway Store . The
. Agway Store is 23 ' from the prop-erty line at one cor.ner._-and 27 on - the
other , cocked. to the. road. then . _. So we ' re kind of splitting that
difference .
MR. LARK: The fence is just slightly off the property line , on
.the property side , not on the street_ si.de .
MR. CHAIRMAN : So it' s. really a little more than 22 feet.
MR. LARK: Yes . That being the closest spot , I think is what
he was trying to show there , where the vehicle would be turning 'in .
MR. CHAIRMAN : So assuming , .-going by what we have-- Idon 't know
if we have a copy of the survey°
MR. RICH : I had a lot of copies of Mr. Va.nTuyl ' s:_:sur.vey made ,
I thought that' you had them, .but. maybe,_they only -went to the . Planning
Board . - (A copy.,_of .the survey was given to-the.-Chairman . ) _..._._
MR. LARK: Mr . Chairman , 'it ' s..basi.caljy , the map that you have `
is really a tracing off the.. VanTuyl survey_ . ' .I mean it won ' t show
you anything different. ' It ' s. really a tracing 'off of it . 100
That ' s what. we did . In other words.,. that does , show .the dimensions
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- May 17 , 1yz34 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No . 3237 and 3236 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL , continued : )
MR . LARK (continued) :
and everything .
MR. CHAIRMAN : So in other words , if the board so granted to
approve this application , and we placed in the application that the
building be placed no , closer than 22 feet__--.
MR. RICH: That ' would be great .
MR. LARK: That ' s fine . Because it was a juggling act .that ' s
how it was derived .
MR. CHAIRMAN Let me -g.ive' you an example as -to why we said that.
We recently granted a house in the' Southold Hamlet area which says
that it wi11 _confor.m to all side yards . And instead of placing the
house straight on the lot_.th'ey cocked it , and now it ' s 9' 8" -
MR. LARK: I ' m. very muchiiawar.e.,.of:-that.
MR. CHAIRMAN : So we ' re being very careful about this because
there really is no reason to hear._ the _applicat_ion twice , but we do
have to hear the application before the._e,,xisting-
MR. LARK: That will be no problem , and I see what you ' re getting
_at. What he ' s. saying .s , the road .runs at a bias as to- what we have--
that was done del. ,berately because of-.-
MR. RICH : Did you want to keep this one--
MR . CHAIRMAN.: It ' s. the same exact thing . There 's. no reason for it.
MR. RICH : The only difference is is that the plan you::gentlemen
have referred, is drawn to-.a 1 " to 20 scale , and th_i.s was one to 40 ..
We thought this would sh.ow .be.tter , and when we came back after' going
to the Planning Board , we wanted to show and if you turn to the next
page , it '..11 show the, parki.ng , 'or. somewhere there'.s. a parking plan on
there ..._ This one shows the .parki'ng , and this wa.s drawn to t.he _same
scale _ but after we went to the Planning Board 'so th.at it would meet
with their requirements . Now,,
_a:py questions we would be delighted
to ,answer them.
MR . CHAIRMAN : This .is a one-story structure?
MR. RICH : Yes .
MR: CHAIRMAN : With no basement?
MR. RICH: There i-s a basement . Look .on the last page, there ' s
a basement under the office part .
MR. LARK: Only .
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -24- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No . 3237 and 3236 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL , continued : )
MR. RICH : Only .
MR. LARK: The other is on a poured slab . That ' s right .
The main storage area . .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Yes , but it shows the basement also .
MR. LARK: Yes , so you can get a" furnace and everything else .
You don ' t have them mixed in with fuel . _
MR. RICH : Well , also , we wanted to be able to run the piping
and be able to get,.out , rather than have it in a slab . I don ' t
like plumbing and piping in the slab . We have to . put several
bathrooms in there . .-The water for that will come from the Town ,
the Village water runs right in- the front . ._ There.' s no pump .
MR. CHAIRMAN : This . will be a stucco masonry structure?
MR. RICH : Well , the back will be . The front wb"1 1 probably
use vinyl siding . .
MR . CHAIRMAN : On the whole structure .
MR. RICH : No . .Just vinyl siding on the front. Actually , some
of the detail we haven ' t. worked out yet, I think we ' re. go, .ng to
have. to hire. an architect to get thi-s. building actually the way we
want it in order to get a building permit . T.he point ,is , I didn ' t.
want to do that and spend the._,mon:ey for the arc.h.i.tect i f_ I could
not get permission to._ bu.ild it . So we ' ve done the start on it.
The best-we could.
MR. LARK: Generally , it ' s. my information that-- he ' s. right--
we ' ll probably have to get an architect ' s. seal . But the overall
plans as to what is encompassed in it does -meet .with the building
code-building requirements .
MR. RICH : Would it be possible if' you feel so inclined to
grant us.: permission to go ahead wi.th this befo,re. we ha,ye . a complete
plan--
MR . CHAIRMAN : Oh , 'definitely.
MR. RICH : Yeah . Because I would rather not spend the money for
the architect if .we're not going to,, be able to build it .
MR. CHAIRMAN : No . We ' re not in building design in a,ny way,
manner or form. -
-MR. RICH : Because I understand before we get the building permit
we have to have it . I understand that. „
Southold Town. Board of Appeal.s -25- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No . 3237 and 3236 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL , continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN : No , I just as a matter of going through the plan
ask the questions of what the exterior of what the building was
going to have . That may be a question that some one in the audience
Might have .
MR. LARK: All right . From here if the board so grants it , we
have to go back to the Planning Board to finalize the approval and
then we would be in a position- to formally apply for approval .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Mr . Lark .
MR . RICH : If there are any questions , we ' ll answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok .. We" ll see if anybody in the audience has
anything they 'would like to.. say . I.s . th.ere "anybody else to speak
in behalf of this application _for Goldsmith a.no. TuthJ.11 ? . Anybody
like to_ speak against..-"the application? Questions from board".members?
(None ) .
On._�mot:i:.on:. by Mr . Goehringer, "seconded by Mr. Douglass ,
it was
RESOLVED , to 'close: 'the hearing and reserve - decision =until later ,
pending deliberations._ i n the Matt.ers-:of ..GOLDSM.ITH: 'AND. '.TUTHIL.L _j_n
Appeals No.. 3237 and 3236 . _
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs Goehringer, . Doyen ," Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was ado.pte.d by__ unanimous vote
of all the members of .the. board. _
9 : 05
TEMPORARY RECESS : Motion was made 'by Mr. "Dougl-.ass , seconded 'by
Mr . GoehringerT.to' recess for approximately :three.-.. minu,tes. Th-is
resol uti on was.:du"ly ca.rrite.d�
9 : 10 .. " "RECO.NV.E_NE : ' Motion was made 'by Mr. "Douglass, seconded "by
Member_Sawi.cki , to reconvene the Regular.._,Meeti"ng . This resolution_,
- was unanimously adopted _ .
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . ' "3235:
Upon application for 'GERTRUDE 'M. 'ALI by R . F. Lark,. Esq . , Main
Road , . Cutch.o.gue , .'NY for a;_Va.ri ante . "to.. the Zo.ni ng ;Ordi nance, ...Arti cl e
III ,: Section 100
3_� for permission to constru.ct ,.new -:dwe.l l i'ng .w.h.ich,
places accessory "storage building in the frontyard area ,_,."_ Location
of Property : S/s Ea:st Road,,._Cutc.hogue ,. 'NY; 1000-.110-07-018�
.Southold Town Board Appeals -26- May 17 , 15.. . Regular Meeting
(Appeal �No . 3235 - GERTRUDE M. ALI , continued : )
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 : 11 p .m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey showing the proposed
location of a new dwelling to be set back 151 feet from East Road
and an existing frame ..garage which is the subject of this application .
We also have a copy . of the . County Tax Map indicating this and surround-
ing properties in . the . area . Mr . ..Lark , would you like to be heard?
RICHARD F . LARK, ESQ . : The one thing that the survey that you
have doesn ' t . show is that the existing driveway goes rights to the
east of the framed garage . In other words , it__comes in off East
Road if you ' ve been down to the property , you know. That was
another consideration . That and., the fact .that the „building is
still in pretty good shape and Mrs . Al .i , as I indicated ; .th.is
property has been in her- family since 1915 , was faced with maybe
taking it down and then her builder told._her , " I don ' t. see the. - sense
of that when I can fix it up , .and when I take- it down I - would
rebuild it in- the same spot.' anyway . " So . That' s. what happened
there . As I say , the garage has been there for many , many years
and it conforms_., to , as I understand it , the exi sting,._ thi'n.g for
an accessory building- such as it did not exceed 18 feet. It is
closer than . 3 feet from the property line , but that is preexisting .
So that ' s not part of this a.pplicat.i.on . And it.: do'es not. occupy
obviously more-than 40% of . the.,:area . The main reason is that our
zoning is kind of unique even know the - property owners are living
on the bay or the sound and treat the bay or sound side as their
front yard which in reality it is their backyard. And as I say
we couldn ' t. locate it and move it to the rear , because you see__
how the building is , how the proposed building is being_,_constructed ,
it would be ._rig,ht in the way of the view.__ And the building itself
a's indicated in the application does conform. The .Cou.nty wanted_ ._.
it back 50 feet off the_ top of the bank,-...'and so - did the'- Planning
Board to covenant. it to that effect . Again ; 'consideri'ng ;the
neighborhood as you go up both-on East Road . and West Road , which
is on the other .side._ of .Fleet' s. Neck Road or Pequash Avenue , .•
there are numerous garages right in the. fron.tyard area there .
I know the board is familiar with that fact . So it is in keeping
with the neighborhood, and since the: Town. Board decided not to,-., .-- ,
change our zoning to allow an optional frontyard in . either one ,
but to keep it to the b.oard ' s. discreti.o.n each and every application ,
I think yo.0 can see the practical difficulty met 'by the peti..tioner
here to grant this yard requirement of allowing an . accessory
structure to be which wi l.1 n'ow .be the..; front yard . ' Any questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. .Lark , this is very difficult for me to
say , but as you know, . we appreciate' you. comi:n_g..'befor_e us because
you at all times usually have" the answers to .eye'ry ' questi.on that
we have . . The board is.,..extreme'ly upset with this piece `of
property because for. some reason , when this property was in the
nature of .a minor._ subdiv'i'sion ., it appears that .it. has not been
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3235 - GERTRUDE M. ALI , continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN (continued) :
brought before this board.. And it appears that it is undersized .
The board did., not want to entertain this application until we
went down and looked at it , ok and actually viewed it. And it
appears that it does not meet the 40 ,000 at the time of the nature
of . the application , which appears to be a problem of the Planning
Board because they didn ' t send it over . So could you please give
us the square footage of the parcel , and if it is under 40 ,000 ;
we would like to hear the application first , being it an undersized
lot at -the time it was subdivided.
MR. LARK: There has been no difference since the lot was
bulkheaded , it has been bulkheaded for many ,, many years .
MR. CHAIRMAN : This .was not the nature of the--
MR. LARK: As I understand it , what the surveyor is showing you
there is from the bulkhead back . That ' s. Young and Young . Ok . That
bulkhead was put in--must have been 15 or 20 .years or better . And
originally it..was put back to hold the bank and there was beach
area which the owner did own , going out some maybe 20 or 30 feet ,
and -then -that was even further._, increased when . they dredged East .
Creek and the ,Coun'ty put the spoil on there . This surveyor for
some reason , _I see that on the._ survey , your comment , has__ only shown
from the bulkhead back. On the survey that was used , Mr. VanTuyl ' s
survey that ..was used for the Planning.. Board,, originally it was . just
slightly over three acres if _my memory is correct,. a_nd they divided
it- into- three parcels . ' And this one was a the - on'ly requirement they
had was 150 feet at the bui'ldi'ng , which you: see:. i.t has there, and it...
was as I . remember ,it on that survey , a 40,0'00 sq . ft . I was not
aware that Howard Young Kad reduce..d i..t , but I can see why he has .
Because the dimensions" o_f the proper'ty., haven `t changed So the only
thing I can explain is he just__to.ok from the bulkhead - back , which _is
at the bottom of .the bank and _doesn 'I allow .for,.,any beach area , which
they do own ., That' could be my only exp_l.'anation . Nothing has changed
down there . _-
MR. CHAIRMAN : Could you possibly supply us. with the original
subdivision map so that we might
MR. LARK: Yes , .that ' s. no problem. . I don ' t have that in this
file - here .
MR . CHAIRMAN : No , no . Some time . We ' re not going to deliberate
upon it tonight anyway .
MR. LARK: No . I have that in the .file .
MR. CHAIRMAN : The board was very concerned about that when we.
went - down there because it didn ' t. certainly appear. to. be an acre lot
Southold Town Board or Appeals -28- May 17 , 15u4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3235 - GERTRUDE M. ALI , continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN (continued) :
and we didn ' t understand why it didn ' t come before us first . We feel
with the subdivision--
MR . LARK: .'It was 40 ,000 sq . ft . I can show you that on the
Va.nTuyl' survey . I remember .that . ,. In fact I think it was 40 ,000 and
a little bit more , to be honest with you . Which is three and a
fraction acres , as I remember it . _
MR. CHAIRMAN : So you ' ll supply us with that.
MR. LARK: Yes . That is no problem, and as you can compare it ,
there has been no change . I think the only difference being the
beach . And there is a- beach there . I don.'t. understand why.-he didn ' t
show it .
MR . CHAIRMAN : It was so close to the hearing when we looked at
it , we decided just to ask you at the hearing as ,_opposed to--
MR. LARK: I can furnish that map . It was an actual survey that
it he did it . That ' s.-no problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much . Is there anybody else that
would like to ' be heard for the application? Anyone -against__the
application? Questions from board members? (None ) Hearing no
further questions , I' ll make a motion closing the hearing pending
a receipt of the .orig .nal subdivision map approved 'by the' --Planning
Board.
On motion by Mr.. . Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki ,
it was
RESOLVED, to 'close.'the hearing and reserve decision until later,
pending rece i pt...of....the on g:i nal subd,i vi.si on map ` approv-ed . by __the .
Planning Board , in the matter of Appeal. No . 32135 ' _GE:RT.R.UDE_:M: 'ALI .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . 'Goehringer, :Doyen , Grigonis .,
. Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution wa.s adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members of .the board. _ .
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3243:
Upon .. application of :KEVIN 'AND 'LESLE'Y MILOWSKI , Box. 134,- 'Cutcho.gue ,
NY for a Variance to Ar.tic e l6 , 5ect7on 2 of the. Tow_ n.. Law , _
for -approval of access . ' Priv_ate- -Right-of-Way located at the- west
side o.f Cox -Neck Road , Mattituck , NY (now . or. formerly W. 'Chudi.ak ) ;
1000-113-7-part 'of .12 .
-Southold- Town Board of Appeals -29- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3243 - KEVIN AND LESLEY MILOWSKI , continued : )
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 : 25 p .m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application .
M.R. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey prepared January 5 , 1984
prepared by Roderick. VanTuyl , P , C . indicating _a .parcel of approximately
80 ,000 sq . ft . , which appears to be approximately 258± feet from, or
.312 . 16 feet to the maximum, from Cox Neck Road . - ..And I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax. Map indicating this and surrounding properties
int he area. Kevin , would you like to be heard in behalf of your
application?
KEVIN MILOWSKI : We just need the application for the right-of-way
for access ; and I guess the people that live on _.Cox ' s Neck have been
using the road for,.23 years to the back of . t.heir. property , and there is
no other access to my .property .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Can' you give me the approximate placement of where
you will be placing the house? .' So we -know where we.--.are' going with
this right-'of-way .
MR . MILOWSKI : Well , we ' re going 150 in , so my driveway would
come right -in . _
MR . CHAIRMAN : You' re not going to change that in an-y .way .
MR. MILOWSKI : No , 'I ' m. not going to go back or anything . I Just
want to come up and go right in.-,..
MR. CHAIRMAN : You are aware of the fact that this right-of-way
appears to be an active right-of-w-ay:, 'that if there are a.ny -other
lots to be produced here.
MR. MILOWSKI : This' was also purcjased within the time that we
were doing - this , and this rig.ht-o,f-wa,y_ does come down here and I
hear that this road is going._to__come -through . And far as Bill
Chudi ak says , he says this s a proposed r:i.ght�of�wa-y , this p_art
here , was proposed and never went t-hrough . _ That_A -don.' t. know°
MR. CHAIRMAN : I just want-you to be aware , and when we do so
grant it , and we ' re d.i. scussing-`-will b.e discussing hte road improve-
ments as you know. The right-:of-,way will only be granted to here_,
and that ' s the reason why I asked' you .the que_s.tion.,_ so if there is
any further development along this right-of�-wa.y , ._there will not be
any active 280A ' s.5 from this part.icul.ar _point on .
MR. MILOWSKI : Fine .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Now, I ' ll ask you the perverbial question I ask
- everybody . What is your timeliness on this? . When- do.- you need the
decision.?
s
Southold Town Board of Appeals. -30- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3243 - KEVIN AND LESLEY MILOWSKI , continued : )
MR. MILOWSKI : As soon as possible .
MR. CHAIRMAN::.. You also want to build as soon as possible .
MR. MILOWSKI : Right. When I got the iot , I didn ' t even know
about this ..until the lot was approved and then I was on 'my way to
the right-of-way .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Well , I, can ' t. guarantee you anything on it
tonight , but probably within two weeks. Ok? And_ than.k' you very
much for coming in . .
MR. MILOWSKI : Thank' you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anybo'dy else that would like to speak
in behalf of the application . ..Anybody to speak against the
application? (None ) ,.- 'Questions from board members? . (None )
MR. CHAIRMAN : Hearing no further comments , I ' l .i. make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until Eater .
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second .
On motion by Mr . Goehringer, seconded 'by Mr . Grigonis ,
it was
RESOLVED , to 'cl'ose�"the 'hearingg and reserve decision until later,
pending deliberations , i. n- the ._M.a.tt.er of Appeal.. No ,' 3243 , for 'KEV.IN
AND LESLEY 'MIL'OWSKI .
Vote of .the Board : Ayes-: Messrs . Goehri'nger.,. Doyen;' Gr'igonis,
Douglass andSawicki " This resolution wa.s adopted 'by unan.i.mous vote
of all the members of .the board..._..
The Cha.irma,n at this point in time asked Stanley Corw.i.n and the
audience- if .a'nyo-ne had objections to the combination - of . heari.ngs
on Appeal s_.No ..-_31' 1 7-''.and 3118 i n the Matters. of X. R.INE FA'RR. _,;There
were no objections concerning 'this request : :.:
Sauthold Town Board of Appeals -31 - May 17 , 19b4 Regular Meeting
lc
PUBLIC HEARINGS : Appeals No . 3117 (Special Exception ) and
No . 3118 (Variance ) in the Matters of the Applications for KATHRINE
FARR ,_ by Stanley S . Corwin , ' Esq . , First Street , Greenpo.rt , NY for:
F1_)_ a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VIII , Sec-
tions 100-80 (B ) and 100-81 , for permission to construct buildi.ng
for marina and brokerage office use in this "C-Light Industrial "
District , at 1100 Manhanset Avenue , Greenport , NY; and
(2 ) a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VIII , Sections
100-80 (B ) and 100-81 for permission to construct building for
marina office in this " C-Light Industrial " District , at 1100
Manhanset Avenue , Greenport , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel N.P .
1000-034-05-021 .
The Chairman opened the hearings at 9 : 30 o ' clock p .m. and
asked Mr. Corwin and the audience if there was any objection to
his opehing .both hearings at the same time . Mr. Corwin stated
that he felt they should be considered together because the variance
was of no value without the special exception . Accordingly , the
Chairman read the legal notices pertaining to both applications
and in addition read both applications for the record, the-Variance
and Special Exception applications , respectively .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of the map dated March 7 , 1983
indicating a proposed structure for the variance of 16 ' by 23 ' .
It appears to be a two-story structure . It appears to be four feet
to the closest part of the .bulkhead.
SECRETARY : That was my notation on the map , and I ' m. not
sure that ' s accurate . and..,we._:should.. check.
MR. CHAIRMAN : All right , I ' ll ask the question . And I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area .- Mr. Corwin .
STANLEY S . CORWIN , ESQ . : I think that the board is familiar
with the contents of our application . Our first application to the
town goes back to. June' 1982.0._. We landed one- of ',those.. chicken- and-
egg
things where we have to have a site plan -first , or a variance
first . Those matters have been resolved _up to this point as a
result of working with the Planning Board. They have given us
a co__nditional site ,plan approval subject to further action , pend-
ing hte action of .this bo_a_rd. I ' m: not supposed to relate the
facts because I '.m. sure that''you " re ,all familiar with them. We ' re
_dealing with a very small piece of .property there . The application
for. _which we ' re making _as .far as use is concerned is - about _the only
thing for which it could be used other than to remain sterile . I_f
you _care to ask questions , and r"d1like to reserve a T.ittle time in
the event that there'.-s: s.omeone here that may be opposed to the
application so th.at I could reply .
MR . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Mr. Corwin , do you have any idea
the exact distance of„ the proposed ' structure is supposed to -be from
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3117 and No . 3118 - KATHRINE FARR hearings continued : )
MR . CHAIRMAN (continued) :
the--the proposed structure that you would like it to be from the
existing bulkhead? I have pencil.led-in .figures that we had taken
when we had gone down there and .you know with a tape some time ago .
I think there was even snow on the ground at that time to be honest
with you . At that time we were talking , our figures were four feet.
MR. CORWIN : Something on the order of four feet, about the
width of the walk at the edge of the bulkhead.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At any time during the negotiations with the
Planning Board , were there any other locations that either you or
the Planning Board had suggested concerning the placement of this
building--
MR . CORWIN : The Planning. Board suggested that the property
be put down in ''the southwest corner . We presented to them the
practicalities of that situation , and they acceded that and agreed;
when they considered well what actually happened , unless we changed
the configuration of the building and .made it an rhomboid rather
than square or rectangular. . So .they withdrew that and agreed that
the best place to put it was where we had originally asked.
MR. CHAIRMAN : The area indicated :of 3 ' by what appears to
be 13 , appears to be an open deck area?
MR . CORWIN : Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : So 16 times 2 , so you ' re talking basically
a bu.i Tdi ng of _about 640 sq_e ft.
MR. CORWIN : Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : What would be basically be occurring within
this structure?
MR. CORWIN : In the first place the structure is going to
have to be_ el-evated so that the ground floor is some distance above
the tidal bulkhead because of the flood plain situation . So
there ' s really going to be nothing .on the ground floor . to speak of.
On the second. fl.00r., what it really is is the first floor , it ' s
going to be an_ office building , dimply with offices ...n it .
MR. CHAIRMAN : At any time that this was discussed with the
Planning.- Board , was there any suggestion on anybody ' s part about
using the , I guess you would call it the first_ floor of this building
for the purposes of .parking?
MR. CORWIN Yes . At one time the Planning Board suggested
that we enlarge the building so that we can._ get two cars in*.there ,
when we were talking about the number of .cars_. The bottom of .the
Southold Town .Board of Appeals -33- May 17 , iyPbA Regular Meeting
(Appeals No. 3117 and 3118 - KATHRINE FARR hearings continued: )
MR. CORWIN (continued ) :
building can and will be used for parking of cars .
MR. CHAIRMAN : So the building then will be open? With
possibility an enclosed stairwe.11., that ' s what. -you ' re proposing?
MR. CORWIN : True .
MR. CHAIRMAN : With whatever retaining is required , steel
lolly columns , cement block piers , whatever the case might be?
MR. CORWIN : That ' s correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN : The present parking that was required by the
Planning. Board is how many cars?
MR.. CORWIN : Five . And that is subject to further..=-they
have indicated to us .,that they ' re not going to--it ' s going to have
to comply precisely with the .total number _of square feet and each
parking area required, as long as _we have the minimum width and
length .
MR. CHAIRMAN : You ' re talking about 10 .by 20?.
MR. CORWIN: Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : . As opposed. to 350 sq . ft. that they require?
MR. CORWIN : Yes .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there any specific reason why you or .
your applicants have suggested this proposed position as. opposed
to any other one? The. placement:
MR . CORWIN : No . Not really.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Do you feel that you could live with some
other position other than this particular one?'_._
MR. CORWIN : If the board would ever mind to discuss the
alternatives of moving. the building one way or the other , . not
beyond the possibility that we_ could sit down and do it , but I
don ' t see any reason . We went all through that with the Planning
Board. It seems .to me the best situation for what they wanted
with respect to parking , and they ' re. considering where they wanted
the curb cut , and the. _landscapi"ng that they hoped to persuade us
to put in , and things __like that. I think. the :1 ocatio.n as proposed
is not only practical .from the point of view of ,the applicants but
I don ' t. see any reason why it should be changed as far as either
one of the board ' is concerned.
MR.. CHAIRMAN : Ok , at present , with the proposed structure
that you - have before the board at this time . You are basical'ly'
talking about a 13 ' setback from Manhanset .,Avenue?
MR. CORWIN : That ' s correct .
Stiuthold Town Board of Appeals -34- May 17 , 19b4 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No . 3117 and 3118 - KATHRINE FARR hearings continued: )
MR . CHAIRMAN : Ok , and thereby going back on my original
question of total square footage , you are in effect saying that
the total usable area of this building for office purposes will
really only be 320 sq . ft .
MR. CORWIN : That ' s right .
MR. CHAIRMAN : And you don ' t object to any restriction on
that basis?
MR. CORWIN : No .
MR. CHAIRMAN : I don ' t have anything else . Does anybody
else have any questions of Mr. Corwin? (None ) Ok , let ' s see :
what develops. Thank you , Sir . Does anybody else have any questions?
In behalf of the application?
MR. GUASTIN.I : My name is Guastinelli , I built a house--
MR. CHAIRMAN : Guastina?
MR. GUASTINI : G-u-a-s-t- i-n-i .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you .
MR. GUASTINI : I just moved in my house located on the next
block , and it seems to work on that building on their property now
t.o keep it in good shape and neat and well landscaped , and I think
that it would be ' a definite asset to let it expand. Thank you .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you , sir . Is there anybody else that
would like to be heard in behalf .of this application? Anybody
wishing to speak against the application? (No one ) . Is there any-
thing you would like to add , Mr. Corwin? Is know that this has
been a very long process .
MR . CORWIN : No , thank you . It has been a long process .
We lost two summers . And we ' d like not to lose another.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Sir. Hearing no further comments ,
gentlemen? Any questions?.. Hearing no further comments , I ' ll
make_. a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until some
time later in the future .
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Douglass , it was
RESOLVED , to close the hearing and reserve decisionsi".unti.l.
later some time in '-the future in the matters af::KATHRINE FARR, in
Applications No . 3117 and 3118 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Doyen ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted unanimously by
all the members .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- May 17 , lyo4 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3232 . Application for BERTRAM AND
MARGERY WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli , Esq . , Box 757 , Riverhead , NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 , for :
,(a ) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid
preexisting , nonconforming uses and structures.; (b) approval of a
wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c) . approval
of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion
to 500 sq . ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards . Premises
located at Edgemere Park , MacDonald_' s. Path off Peconic Peconic Boule-
vard , Laurel ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-1.45-4-014.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 :48 p .m. and read the legal
notice of hearing and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have letters in the file that the board
has read and I will not read at this time . I have a copy of the map
indicating two lots , Parcel A , which I will refer to as the house lot
which is 16 ,857 sq . ft. and it does not appear to be the nature of
this application , and Parcel B , 15 ,118 sq . ft. , which appears to be
the nature of this applicat_ion . prod_uced by Howard Young , most recent
date March 21 , 1984. Parcel B indicates a one-story frame cottage
garage of approximately 24 .4 ' by' 32 . 4 ' . It includes the garage . A
deck of various quantities . An existing storage building . It appears
that the location wants to be changed . ,. ,."Of :appr.oxima.tely 8 . 5 ' by 12 . 2 '
and an existing - it appears to be and I hope you _ don '.t mind my saying
this -- delapidated shed of 8 . 0 ' by 7 . 6 ' . And I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in
the area . Mr . Haefeli , would you .like to be heard?
RICHARD T. HAEFELI , . ESQ. : You ' ve read the application , Mr .
Chairman , and in ' support of the first part of that .app.lication I have
two affidavits and a letter from various people . I have an affidavit
from Beatrice Fechtig , which indicates that the property with this
particular building was used for residential purposes as early as
1953, and from Frank Fulcher and Virginia Fulcher , an affidavit stat-
ing it was used for residential purposes prior to 1955; they are the
prior owners of the property. The Walkers purchased the property
from them. We als6:.,have .-a letter from a Walter Dohm, who Is .- i n the
plumbing and heating business and is familiar with the property , and
again indicates that the structure in question was used for resi -
dential purposes prior to 1957 .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you going to supply those?
MR. HAEFELI : Yes . (Mr. Haefeli handed the Chairman the
affidavits for the record. )
MR. CHAIRMAN : In anyone of these affidavits , has anything
been addressed Mr. Haefeli concerning seasonal and- opposed to
yearround use?
MR . HAEFELI : No . Just that it has been used for residential
purposes . I don ' t know if there ' s::a distinction in your code or a.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued: )
MR . HAEFELI continued :
distinction in the zoning law generally , as between a residence used
on a seasonal basis verses a residence used on a yearround basis--
provided it ' s a residence .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Well , there have been in the past C/0' s issued
by the Building Department on the basis of -a seasonal dwelling .
MR. HAEFELI : No . I don ' t. believe that he has a C/O in
existence for either a summer or yearround.
The. applicants' position. is simply that at the time they pur-
chased the property they purchased the piece of property that had a
separate residential dwelling on it. According to your code , the
lots in this particular filed subdivision map are considered , do not
have to meet under the bulk, ,.�.area o.r the width requirements' of the
code . And in essence they' re single and separate lots . We have got--
Mr . and Mrs . Walker own four lots , two of them -- the main dwelling is
on , that ' s Lots 17 and 18 . Lot,- 16 is covered by the- cottage and
the garage , and Lot 15 is a vacant piece of property , as to which
there is a shed that is going to be moved to a different location
and put it into a conforming location as to which we ' ve received a
building permit. Since , we are really directing ourselves to Lot 16
The question comes down--there is insufficient evidence to establish
a preexisting residential nature of the cottage prior to 1957 , whether
or not the Walkers are entitled to variances on the basis .of practical
difficulty.
Lot 16 being a separate lot would entitle the Walkers to put a
house oni.t. -: The only question then is , is there any place on that
particular lot that a house could be put in a conforming location
without requiring variances . And I think the answer is fairly simple .
In looking at . Lot 16 , it ' s not totally impossible , . but to do it , you
would have to. have a house that is 1.5 ' in width , and it' s reasonable
to have a house that ' s 20 to 30 feet in width . To have a house of
that size , you would require variances .
Number 3 , the actual building itself, whether this board finds
it was used as a yearround residential. dwelling prior to 1957 , summer
residential dwelling prior to ' 57 , was in existence at this location
since prior to 1.957 . And the conversion or creation of a yearround
dwelling in this building , as a yearround dwelling , to move it anyplace
on this particular.•property , to make it conforming we cannot do , and
we ° created a hardship for '.us,ito have to take this particular building
down and come in with a building that would conform which would be
approximately 15 feet in width . And that .`based upon either the
aff.i.davit. and letters that have been introduced establishing the
preexisting , residential character of this particular structure ,
and/or the fact that we. are entitled as of right to have a structure
put on here , has been on here , and we have a practical difficulty in
putting any other structure on it reading the requirements , we would
be entitled to a variance .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37-
(Appeal No . 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. HAEFELI continued:
As far as whether or not this is going to have any adverse
impact upon the neighborhood , I think the board may have some
familiarity of the houses in the area ; but I would like to point
out that directly across the street , Mr. Ziedler owns three houses ,
I believe , 12 , 13 and 14 , and then in 1982 he applied for and I
believe received a building permit to add onto his existing dwelling .
In doing so , he brought his existing dwelling to within eight feet
of the sideyard. It looks like approximately 14 or 15 feet of the
front yard. Now that ' s the house, directly across the street and is
has a similar setback situation as we ' re. requesting. here ..
Across the street on the other side , Mr. Carey owns Lot 7
and Lot 6 . His house is situated on Lot 1 , and as .to one of the
sideyards , it '-s approximately 2 . 1 feet from the northerly side yard.
Again, the house itself cannot meet the current zoning requirements
of the code .
Right next to the Zeidler property is Chitham ' s . They' re on
a single lot having a width of approximately 40 to .41 feet , and I ' d
have 'to .say they have little or no sideyards with respect to the
westerly side and approximately 15 to 16 ' sideyards on the east side .
And Mr. Gannon owns a house down the street and as far as his
is concerned , he has a sideyard setback of about 5 ..2 , 5. 3 feet.
Therefore most of. the homes , if not all of the homes in this area
have substantial. setback reductions from what' the code would require .
And the request that they are making is similar to any of the
other setback requir.ements 'of the other homes in the area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else you would like to say?
MR. HAEFELI Not at this time . I believe there are going to
be other people that may .speak.
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have one question that I want to ask you , but
I ' ll wait at this particular time until some time at the latter part
of the hearing . I have more than one ' question , but one in particular .
Would anybody else like to be heard. in behalf of the_..application?
(No .one . ) . Would anybody like to speak against the application?
JAMES CRON , ESQ . : Good evening , gentlemen . My. name is James
Cron.. I ' m with the Law Offices of Cron and Cron , Main Road , Cutchogue ,
New York. I am speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs . Frederick S. Carey
in opposition to this particular application . I would also at this
time hand up the affidavit of Frederick S. Carey . (Exhibit B1: ) . That
exhibit , Mr. Chairman , sets forth the .construction which took place in
1980 .
As the board is aware , the application concerns a preexisting
nonconforming use which is alleged to have taken place prior to the
present zoning ordinance , whi._ch was instituted in 1957 . As I 'm sure
the board is aware ; a preexisting ,' nonconforming use entitles, that, user
C
Southold Town Board . of Appeals -38- May � 17 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued :,) .
MR. CRON continued :
only to what preexisted zoning It cannot be expanded upon . Therefore ,
if in 1957 , this particular structure which is a garage , was a two-car
garage with a small bedroom and a small bathroom, if th.at preexisted
zoning , that would be the entirety of. the usage which would be exempt
from the zoning board requirements . Anything constructed subsequent
to 1957. would have to comply ' with the zoning as it existed at that time .
We ' submit and I think the affidavits of Mr . Carey and the
testimony which you will hear later , will indicate. that the particular
structure which was a garage and is a garage have only a seasonable use
and was used only during the summer time as the main house on the
property was- only. summer usage also . Prior to 1976 , no one lived on
that property yearround.. It was not until the Walkers moved in and
Mr . Walker .di d substantial alterations. to both the house in.:p.utting::a..
heating system and the garage in putting a heating system that
yearround occupancy became available .
Prior to that time , there was -- and I 'm talking about 1957 --
and also prior to. 1980., a smaller .two-car garage with a small bedroom,
small bathroom and a common sewer with the main household. The
structure which now exists and which is the subject matter of this
particular application and which is reflected. in the map the board
has before it , is the structure that is completely different from
the one: i.n 195.7.; with a completely different use from the one in
1957 . And approximately in the Year 1980 , substantial renovations
were made in this . particular building. The renovations consisted of
in squaring off the b.uilding ,. raising the roof , rais.ing the foundation
approximately three feet, adding a living room, two bedrooms , a full
kitchen , and also . a full bathroom. The living area in particular ,
well as stated in the application is 500 feet , that a . substantial
variation of the living area required by the zoning ordinances in
1980 and also prior to that time . There ' s been mention that Lot. No:. 16
is a buildable: lot . In fact, Lot No . 16 is not a buildab.le lot.. All
four lots are in common ownership , and as you gentlemen_ are aware , a
merger would have taken place . Furthermore , gentlemen , if you look
at the map , yo.0 will see Lots 15, 16 , 17 and 18 ,.. those lots . were con-
veyed to the Fulchers to the present owners , the Walkers . At one
time the Walkers also owned , excuse me -- the Fulch.ers , also owned
Lots 12 , 13 and 14 , at the time Mr.. Fulcher sold to the Kelly ' s , who
were .the predecessors to th Zeidl.ers . I believe , gentlemen , he
requested . a minor subdivi.sion and set-off. If that is the case ,
gentlemen., I 'm sure you are aware that one of the conditions of that
would be that there be no further subdivision of any o.f the lots .
That would also include Lot 15 , 16 , 17 and 18 which. were in common
ownership at that time and in common ownership at the present time
by the Walkers .
Reference has been made that the requested variances are not
substantial , and obviously gentlemen we contest they are substantial .
In particular , it is to be noted that this issue .was litigated in the
Town Justice Court. The petitioners here were defendants in an action
which Mr. Lark prosecuted as Special Assistant . District Attorney on
S(Putnold Town Board of Appeals . -39- May 17 , 1y- Regular Meeting
(Appeal No.. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, .continued : )
MR . CRON continued:
behalf of the town . The applicants were found guilty , and I would
like to read to you--the board may obtain a copy of the decision of
Justice Tedeschi , People v . Walker , decision dated October 11 , 1983 ;
The relevant portion;"With respect to Docket No . 421 , this court
finds that the testimony and evidence presented at the trial herein ,
the Defendants did in fact alter and convert a detached two :car garage
accessory structure in the front yard by installing a bathroom, :kit-
chen facilities:; two bedrooms , a living room, a wooden deck , and that
same were being occupied as a second dwelling on the premises without
first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. . . . "
This decision was not appealed from, gentlemen , and it stands
as a conviction against . the applicants .
What the applicants propose to do here tonight , gentlemen , is
to ask you to exempt them from the zoning laws of the Town of Southold .
They were found not to be in :conformity with those zoning laws ; they
were convicted after a trial ; they did not appeal that conviction .
They , however , wish you to reward . them , reward them for violating the
law. The. applicants here tonight have' steadfastedly refused to obey
the zoning requirements . All these alterations took place not in
1957 , but in fact , in 1980 . And in fact, gentlemen , I believe you
have .a map in front of you by Mr . Young dated 1984. I also have a
map from Mr. Young dated 1978e That map shows a garage on Lot 16 .
That map also shows a dwelling--excuse me , a structure substantially
different from the one in front of you . It shows a garage which is .
not rectangular as is the particular structure in front of you , and
.it shows a struct.ur.e wi-thout a deck on it.
We content , and I think the facts will prove it out , this
particular structure was a garage , was used as a . garage , was converted
illegally as a garage , and now 'the applicants are asking that you set
if off , make it a legal structure after having been found guilty after
trial that it is not .a legal structure , and somewhat exempt them from
not only the laws of New York State but the zoning requirements of the
Town and the State of New York.
I would at this time. offer the map of Young & Young dated
February 9, 1978 ( Exhibit B-2 ) .
Mr. Chairman , at this time , I have nothing further; however , I .
believe. there . are some other individuals who have other pertinent
information as to t•he particulars as to ..the ..par.t:icular use of that
structure
MR. CHAIRMAN : You ' re _represent ing Mr. Carey?
MR. CRON : That is correct .
(End._of.:.Tape._2 :. )
(Mr . Cron submitted the affidavit of. Frederick S. Carey for the
record marked Exhibit. B-1 . )
MR. CRON : I think the affidavit sets forth all the pertinent
facts .
Southold Town Board of Hppeals -40- May 17 , 198 , .regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank.,,-you , Sir .
MR . CRON : Thank you .
MR.. .CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would . like to speak
against the application? Mr. Zeidler..
RICHARD ZEIDLER: I am Mr. Walker ' s neighbor , and I have seven
letters here from the neighbors which I will give you . We would like
to see the garage go .back to being.;a : garage jike it was five years ago
when I bought my' home . If you have been down there the location , you ' ll
notice it ' s a gravel road . We all kind of feel that we don ' t want to
see anybody else split their property up or anybody convert their gar-
ages into dwellings. And ;I think if out of being kind , everybody would
like to see , well I would and several other people , if it ' s possible
for Mrs. Walker to live there until she no longer lives there , that
this thing convert back to a garage . There ' s a problem with water ;
there ' s a problem with sewage. There are times you can stand on the
boat basin and the water is all white from the cesspools running , I
don ' t know whether it ' s Walkers ' , the mother ' s , or somebody; but it ' s
there .
This whole thing has become a mess and we ' d like to see it
revert back to a garage . I ' ll give you these letters .
(Mr . Zeidler handed the chairman a letter from each of the following
for the record : Dorothy- Gannon , letter and envelope postmarked - 4/24/83;
-Elizabeth C. Jessup , letter and envelope postmarked 5/23/83 ; George F.
Kendall , letter and envelope postmarked 5/4/83 ; '. Julian M. Bayuk, M. D . ,
letter and envelope postmarked 4/22/83; . Arthur L . Smith , Jr. , letter
dated-Apri 1, , 212 198.3; ::::_':Edward M. . Cummi ngs , D., D. S. , l etter and envel ope
postmarked 4/23/83 )
MR ZEIDLER continued : These are people that couldn ' t be here tonight
who have all sent letters .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would like to speak
. against the application? Yes , ma ' am. Kindly state your name when
you use the mike .
ANN KELLY : My name is Ann Kelly and the Fulkchers sold us the
property. When we moved there , the structure that they ' re referring
to was _a garage with a very small bedroom and a bathroom. We had
offered Mr. Fulcher and Mrs . Fulcher many times to use our water off
season , and ,as long as I ' was .there , it still was a garage . We moved
there in 1979; it was a garage . I .I know that they had no facilities
at that time .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -41 - May 17 , 19of Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. HAEFELI : You said they had a bathroom and a bedroom there?
MRS . KELLY : It was a room -- at the time I saw it they. had no
bedrooms ; it was empty .
MR. HAEFELI : But it was a room that people were living in .
MRS. KELLY : Not at the time I saw it.
MR. .HAEFELI : That ' s how you saw it. You weren ' t there in-season
then to see all of it and how it was being used.
MRS. KELLY : Well I lived there all yearround .
MR. HAEFELI : But in-season , were you in that particular
structure to see how it. was being used?
MRS. KELLY : No I don' t recall being in there then .
MR. HAEFELI : It was jsut at off-season?
MRS. KELLY : Yes .
MR. HAEFELI : And it had a bathroom in it?
MR. CHAIRMAN : Excuse me , Mr. Haefeli , you have to address the
question to the board first so we - can take - it down , and then the
problem of question and answer--
MR. HAEFELI : I thought she said a bathroom and a bedroom and
I wanted to clarify it.
MR. CHAIRMAN :. Ok , so just ask the question forward and then
we ' ll have her answer it =-_ just so we can get it . Go ahead.
MR. HAEFELI : I would like to know if she did say she saw a
bathroom in the structure .
MRS . KELLY : There was bathroom facilities . The room I saw I
would assume was a bedroom because Mr.. Fulcher said they used it as
a guest room during the season . However , it was not furnished at
that particular time that I saw it.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Any other questions?
MR. HAEFELI : No .
MR.. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much (to Mrs . Kelly ) . `Would you
like to ' say something i`n rebuttal , Mr. Haefeli ? I do .want to say-
this--that it was the chairman ' s option of not swearing in any witnesses
at this particular time . When we start to get into more conflicting
testimony , it may be required .
Soqthold Town Board of Appeals -42- May 17 , 1964 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, con.tinued : )
MR. HAEFELI : The first thing I would like to do is hand up
copies of the surveys of the Gannon' s property , which I referred to
earlier as to what their setbacks are . The Chisholm' s property. t
The Zeidler property . . And the Carey property .
MR. CHAIRMAN : By the way , the statement was made for both
parties , not just--
MR. HAEFELI : I assumed that.
(Pause . )
(The Chairman marked the exhibits in blue ink . and made them
part of the file . )
MR. CHAIRMAN : If you wish to caucus . with your applicants ,
you ' re very welcome to do_ so . In no way am I trying to restrict
anybody in that.
MR. HAEFELI : I ' m just waiting for you .
MR . CHAIRMAN : I ' m sorry.
MR. HAEFELI : A couple of points I would like to bring out
at this time--there ' s no question that there was a Justice Court
proceeding . There' s no question of the decision that '.s on file .
There ' s no question that you can go read that decision . (There
was another conversation going on in the audi.ence . ) There ' s also
the fact that a building permit for the shed which is shown on
this survey has been issued after the date of those proceedings .
Also , the fact as far as the proceeding affect this part of the
application of. this building , there are additional proceedings
pending in the Justice Court. I 'm not familiar with them because
my partner is handling them. But it has been put over for an
additional period of time . One of the reasons for it is to allow
the applicant to make an application to this board . Unless I 'm
wrong , the Law of th.e State of New York and the Code of the Town
of Southold gives this board the jurisdiction to determine ques-
tions arising under the zoning code . And the fact that there may
have been a conviction in the Justice Court does not preclude an
applicant to come into this . board and request either appropriate
variances o-r appropriate interpretations of the code which-� this
board has-:-the power to give . So. I don ' t want the board to become
totally colored by the fact that there was. a Justice Court pro
ceeding . I will have to , between now and . the next hearing date ,
find out the exact status of that proceeding as-.:it .rel.ates to
this part of the application .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Haefeli , we ' re aware of".:that---this.
has happened many,, many times_, not only in this particular insta-nce;
we are exactly a ware that there are sometimes court proceedings
prior to applications . Sometimes court proceedings are held. up
Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- May 17 , 19u4' Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 = `BERTRAM 'AND. 'MARGERY 'WALKER, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
prior to applications .
MR. HAEFELI : As far as what is' existing there , and assuming
the worst on behalf .of the W.a.lkers , that they don ' t. have a preexisting
one-family residenti,al . dwe,lli:ng as that term is supplied in- your Code
today ; what they do have is . th_e protection of .your Code with
to the lots that they purchased.:_. Not only the _ Walkers have it , but
the Zei.dlers have it , the Careys have it ,_._ and the'.. Chisholms have it.
There ' s a specific exception in' your Code as to whether these lots
have to meet the area and the width .requirements ; and they do not.
They have to meet the area and width requirement of .the lots as they
were filed in the Suffolk County Clerk ' s: Office . In this case , you.' ve
got one and I believe.. it ' s 50 .feet in'.,.width_, approximately. It gets a
little bigger down on the bulkhead side . Therefore , they__ are entitled
to place a dwelling on that lot provided they can meet the other
provisions of the code , and .if they can ' t meet the other provisions
of the code , they ' re entitled to come before this board based upon a
practical difficulty and a_sk for the requisite variances . And _that' s.
exactly what the. Walkers are doing here tonight.
I think they have established the fact that they ' re entitled to
a variance based upon a practical difficu_,lty , based upon the .size of
the lot , based upon the exi.sting_. nat_ure of .the structures that are _on
the -property . And the fact that it .wo.uld" be more expensive to take
that structure down , which I .think this._ board can accept offhanded ,.
than to convert what may already be there than :to; put .up a_._new
structure . No structure can go on that lot that can be in a con-
forming location , Number One . ..Number Two , every other house in .this
subdivision has variance problems of the same or similar nature
because of the size of the lots. They ' re all entitled to have homes
placed omit.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Can I ask you -.a quick question before you, lose
that train of thought. Are you referring to. Lot No . 16 . and _L_ot _No . 15
as being in „single and separate ownership?
MR. HAEFELI : In single and separate ownership? . No . They ' re
not in single-.- they' re in -the same name . What I 'm. saying . is ; there ' s
a specific. exclusion in your Code with respect to these lots because
they ' re part of this particular filed subdivision . If they weren ' t.,
then they would have to either meet their current area requ.irement:,.
or be hel.d,.i n: si ngl a and separate . And what I ' m. s*ayi n.g to you i sr.
your Code provision in essence creates single and separate . lots .with
_respect to all ' the .lots within this subdivision . We do have another
person that we were. going to have come here to testify tonight with
respect to the status of the use of that cottage prior to 1 .957 .
Unfortunately , due to an illness in the family , she was unab a to
be here , and therefore I 'm. ,_going to ask that _i.t be put over at least
until the next meeting so I have an opportunity to do so to further
testify as to what was in existence o_n the lot_ prior to 1957:.,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN : This board prior to closing or recessing this
hearing will caucus to discuss that request. Do you have any objec-
tion to that (to J .. Cron , Esq . ) ?
JAMES CRON , ESQ . i Yes , Mr . Chairman , I do . I also would like
to clarify a couple of the things raised by counsel . _
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let ' s just take the first objection first.
MR. . CRON : Well , I��.would object to it being put over without
di..scl.osure who this witness is and what the alleged illness is .
Obviously , I can say that I have a witness , to'o ,._ but that doesn ' t
make it the case . I think the board should go into who this person
is , what the relationship to the property is , and what the particular
illness was rather than there being an adjournment .
MR. HAEFELI : Beatrice , Featig , is her sister is in critical
condition , and I believe it ' s i.n Pennsylvania. She left within the
last several days to be down at her side.. She submitted an affidavit
and I wanted to bring her .in to further clarify that affidavit. There
is one other po.int in reference to the fact that this is a nonconform-
ing use . I don ' t think this use is nonconforming at all . It ' s a
residential use . from the start, always has been . So we..' ve got a
-proper use. The question is"do we have a use on a proper.:size piece
of property , a preexisting piece of property, or do we need variances
in order to permit the conformity with the area requirements of the
code . " This is not putting a business use in a residential district.
That ' s a nonconforming use . This is a residential use , a permitted
use in a residential district:
MR. CHAIRMAN : Do you want to continue , Mr . Cron?
J . CRON ; Yes , Mr: Chairman ; The first thin.g that I ,w.o.uld like
to address , Counsel has stated that there is a building permit for an
accessory building_., and that isn ' t correct . There was a building
permit which was withdrawn on March 27 , 1984 , and I . submit now that
withdrawal by.,.Mr. Lessard. (The Chairman marked the 5-page exhibit
as Exhibit "E . " )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. CRON : One other point that I wish .to address--there has
been reference made to the other members' of the subdivision , that
being I:.believe . the Chisholms , the Walkers and the Gannons , and also
the Zeidlers . No reference has been made to the square footage of
those particular buildings . As you gentlemen are aware , they ' re
asking . for a substantial deviation from the 8.50 sq . ft . requirement
of a .residential dwelling . They ' re asking for a 500 ft. use of
this particular- structure . I think that .is substantial . I think
it ' s something that the board should way very heavily..,_.
Furthermore , the board , while the variance . application is
before it , does not have to grant it . It' s solely within your
discretion . A number of things which are. to be considered which
Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- May 17 , 19u4 Regular Meeting
(App.eal No . 3232 - 'BERTRAM 'AND 'MARGE'RY -WALKER, continued : )
MR. CRON continu`e`d::
this; bo'ar-d- -.sho.u7;d.: t&k-e: `%nt�o. �acccou-Kt is discretion of the heal th ,of
the neighbors . If you have a common sewage system here obviously
it. does pose a .heal:th hazard. They are very .low to water there , I
believe the water table--there ' s. w.ater abutting this particular piece
of property. As far , as the sideyards are concerned, I believe the
application is only asking as concerns the lot on which the structure
is on . They' re talking about a 16-foot on one side and nine foot on
the other , obviously , i:f.-:.the other parcel was being considered there
is a. greater sideyard than 16 foot ,,. so I believe the example i.n :the
exhibits before the board is inaccurate. We ' re only talking about
this particular lot , not Parcel B as shown on your. _map . I believe
all of these reasons are enough for the board in its discretion to
turn it down . This was a garage in 1957 . It continues to be a
garage with extension modification--il.legal modification . I will
not re-hash again what I ' ve already put before the board. Yes , Mr.
Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN : I don ' t understand , originally you said to me
that you felt that Lots No . 15 and 1.6 were merged.
MR. CRON : I believe all of those lots were merged under common
ownership , 15 through 18 .
MR. CHAIRMAN : All right. But now you ' re addressing your
statements to Lot No . 16 only.
MR. CRON : Yes , sir . I ' m doing that because in .the application
itself, on Number '3 on the rider, "that the following variances .be
granted. " They were talking about reduction of. one sideyard from 10
feet to nine feet. They ' re. talking about reduction of both sideyards
from 25 to 16 .40 feet. If both those lots were taken into account ,
obviously there would, be .a larger sideyard than nine feet and. 16 .40
on the other. I believe we ' re only talking about that one particular
lot . Counsel. may clarify that , but I think that it ' s something that
the board should look into because it would obviously be a mistake to
consider both lots when there are only asking for a variance on one
particular lot--in which case they could build--according to counsel ' s
argument , on the other lot that ' s vacant. Thank you'.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Haefeli .
.MR. HAEFEL'I : Yeah . As to the letter that you have that was
submitted by Mr. Lessard-- I haven ' t discussed it with Mr . Lessard , and
maybe we will either have to get Mr.'. Lessard in here or an affidavit
from Mr. Lessard to explain it to me--the background to this board.
But a building permit was issued for that accessory structure by Mr.
Lessard on the basis that there were three separate and distinct lots
here . Pursuant again , pursuant to the provisions of the code and
these lots being exempted from the area requir-ement.s of the code ..
One of the lots contained a main dwelling--the second one contained
a garage and apartment , . and a third was vacant. '. - Based upon that , Mr.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -46 May 17 , 19o,+ Regular Meeting
(Appeal .No . 3232 - BE.RTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued: )
MR. HAEFELI continued :
Lessard issued a building permit for that, for the one structure. It
was subsequent to that that apparently certain people , he came to the
conclusion that the Walkers were claiming they had .only two lots . One
being Parcel A shown on the survey., and the other being Parcel-B. I
informed Mr. Lessard both in person and by letter that the Walkers are
not giving up their right to having three separate and distinct lots--
Parcel A being . one , 'kLot 15 and 16 being the other , and Lot 17 being
the other. And to answer the prior question--yes , it is our position
that Lot 16 alone constitutes a separate building lot . . -Lot 15 consti -
tutes::af:sep;ar_.ate building lot, and Lot._:17 and 18 which were not part
of this application would be a separate lot; and we ' re directing
ourselves specifically -with respect to Lot 16 and a request for
variances on Lot 16 as far as the sideyards. are concerned, because
it ' s obvious that if 15 and 16 were together we would have two
problems , the first of which we would have a corner lot which would
require two frontyards , and Number Two , we would only have one side-
yard , therefore we wouldn ' t be making the same request for sideyards
as we a.re in fact making..
MR. CHAIRMAN : : Thank you . Mr. Zeidler. Oh , excuse me--go ahead.
MR. HAEFELI : I just wanted to further point out that one of
the witnesses came up and said to this board the fact that there .was
a bathroom and there was a bedroom or living accommodations in that
garage apartment.
MR . ZEIDLER: After listening . to the attorney , I feel real , real
sad tonight. I moved to your town five years ago and built ':a .very nice
home , in a very nice area , not with the idea of splitting my lots to
sell them . fo.r profit .some.. time-' in the future; and . I think there are
other people that split those lots also . But this man sad we ' re
dealing with Lot 16 , not the other lots . To me I 'm kind of said that
maybe this. is being done so they can sell them for a lot more than
what they have , and I think you �I-should take that into consideration .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Yes , could you use the mike please .
I 'm sorry to ask you to do that , I know it ' s out of the way , but we
are taping this .at the same time .
ANN KELLY : When we bought the three lots in Edgemere Park--
MR . CHAIRMAN : Could we . have yourname please?
MRS. KELLY : Oh , yes . Ann. Kelly. When we bought the property
it consisted of three lots--we were told we can only build one house--
that it was one property . At no time did anyone ever give any indica-
tion that we could possibly build three different houses on three
different lots . They abut the water -just after we bought it I think
the new rule was that you:-.have to be 100 feet away from the water--
the cesspools , et cetera . But.-..never did anyone indicate that it was
anything less than one piece of property--in no way would we have
Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- May 17 , 19u4 . Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER,. continued : ) .
MRS . KELLY continued:
gotten a permit to build three houses . Mr. Fulcher in fact wished to
split that lot--the three lots in half,, and sell a lot ,and a half
from the lot and a half, and they would not allow that in the s:ubdivi -
sion , of the conversations he mentioned. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Mrs . Kelly. Mr. Haefeli , could I
ask you two questions please_?
MR.. HAEFELI : Yes , sir? .
MR . CHAIRMAN : The existing storage building that ' s on the
property which appears to be on ,Lot No . .15 at this.. time -that
particular storage building :is to be moved to a new location closer
to the adjacent cottage that we ' re referring to in this application ,
is that correct?
MR. HAEFELI : That ' s correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok. You are also substantiating that the deck
is not attached to the house and that it is an accessory structure .
MR. HAEFELI : That ' s correct. That there is no actual physical
attachment of the deck to the house , and as such it would constitute
an accessory structure which would be permitted. in the rearyard but
would not be permitted in the sideyard.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Is there anything else that you
would like to say?
MR. HAEF.ELI : No .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Anything in rebuttal , Mr . Cron , before we make
a decision here one way _or another?
MR. CRON : No , thank you , Mr. Chairman .
MR. CHAIRMAN : For the record , Mr. Haefeli , I could ask you
this later , = if we _so grant this extension_, .could you_ address
the cottage please and tell us what ' s in there now?
MR. HAEFELI : Kitchen , two bedrooms , bathroom, living room , or I guess
kitchen-living room together, or kitchenette .
MR . CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Are there any questions of any board
members - before we caucus?
MEMBER SAWICKI : None . Everything ' has been covered.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Any further questions from anybody . in the audience?
(None ) All right. I will_ take approximately five __minutes recess to
discuss the extension . Iwill address though Mr. Cron and I will tell
him that usually it has been the nature' of .this board in situations
,like this to .ggrant at least one recess . I am not in any way influencing
my board to do so ., I. am going to speak to them and that ' s the issue at
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- May 17 , 1..984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued :
hand , ,and see what .they so desire . Do you have any comments about that?
MR. CRON: Not until you make your decision , Mr. Chairman .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok .
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, to recess for approximately 'five minutes , at which
time this hearing will be reconvened.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis , Douglass , Doyen ,
Sawicki ,,:;Goehringer. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
The board took a recess and left the room to' caucus for approxi -
mately 10 minutes .
RECONVENED 'HEARING : On motion by Mr. Sawtcki', seconded by
Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , that the public hearing in the matter of. :BE.RTRAM 'AND
MARGERY WALKER.' BE 'AND HEREBY 'IS RE.C.O.NV.ENED.
Vote of .th:e. Board : Ayes : Messrs . 'Grigo:nis , �Doug.lass , Doyen
Sawicki and Goehringer. This resolution _was:,-.unan_imou,s'ly adopted. _
The public hearing reconvened at. 10 : 52 p .m.
MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER) : As I had mentioned to Mr. Cron ,
we ' ll grant ' the ' extension. __. We can ' t. give you the exact date of .
the_ next meeti.ng--we haven ' t. voted on_ it yet. We only uniquely
grant one extension . Secondly , I ' ll be perfectly honest with ,you-
both gentlemen , both attorneys . The time that we spent in there
in the caucus was not specifically timed--it was devoted to the
nature of granting, the extension and not granting the extension .
There are several issues in this particular case which seem to be
somewhat difficult to grasp and we implore you to clear them up
either with expert testimony or whatever .at the next hearing . That
does not mean any of the testimony that we ' ve received was not
taken , in the sense that it should have been taken , and that is
of course we are considering expert testimony , but we would. like
more . Ok? Thirdly, we will be dealing with... sworn testimony.- at
the next hearing on everyb_ody ' s. part. I have received affidavits
from people . I would assume... that' s. just as good as swearing
someone in. And fourthly, II wouldlike to commend everybody for
a very well presented way in which this particular. group handled
themselves . Fifthly , we have been very,. very successful in the
past and in caucusing , within a meeting , this was not- the last .
application--sending.,the entire group .out into the hall and
hammering o.ut something that they would be happy with_..-. I think
the one thing that we all have to be aware of -i"s we are all
Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- May 17 , ltizs4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
property owners and for.,some right in this particular town ; and cer-
tainly the hamlet of Edgemere Park is a unique subdivision . , I ' d
like to see if there could be some agreement , and I ' m not specifically
talking about major changes--asking something , and you say , "Well , we
do agree on this particular point" or "We don ' t agree on that;- particular
point . " And I realize there may be litigation involved here . I guess
that ' s all I have to say . Mr. Zeidler?
MR. ZEIDLER: On the seven letters that I brought you from the
property owners i.n Edgemere Park considered the same as that sworn
testimony?
MR. CHAIRMAN : I certainly will consider them as such , sir;
however , you have to understand that we are unable to question these
people , so if anybody would like to come forward, it would certainly
be well appreciated....
MR . ZEIDLER: All right. One more thing . Will we get a notice
of the next 'Meeting? We did not get a notice of this meeting except
in the newspaper. And I 'm an adjoining property owner. (sic )
MR. CHAIRMAN : No. You will have to 'call the town hall , but
we ' ll certainly ; be rest assured., that both attorneys will be aware
of -when the next meeting will be . We run into a major problem with
that , and that is if you don ' t call . one person , then they get upset
and so on and sol-Jorth . Unfortunately , this board has. only really
one full-time and one part-time person for the summer , and it ' s. very ,
very difficult to do that continuously.
MR. ZEIDLER: Well , I came in front of your board--and when I
came in front of.. your _board for my variance , I had to notify my
neighbors by registered mail. . This was not done in this case .
MR . CHAIRMAN : What we will do in this particular case , is ,
we will hammer out a date tonight prior to your leaving , ok , and
we will do that for the sole purpose that we will not have to
readvertise this hearing .
MR . HAEFELI Mr. Chairman--just one point?
MR . CHAIRMAN : Surely .
MR . HAEFELI : That on March 21st , notice of this application
was sent to Mr. _ Zeid,ler and to Mrs ._._ Chisholm by certified mail ; and
I think it ' s on the back of .the ' application .
MR. ZEIDLER: Do you have a receipt that I signed for it?
MR. HAEFELI : We didn ' t have to .
MR. ZEIDLER: Well , I never received it.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- May 17 , . 1yu4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. HAEFELI : Well , then , it must have gotten lost in the mail .
MEMBER."DOUGLASS: They didn ' t have to notify them by certified
mail because they ' re across the road..
MR .. CHAIRMAN : The law, Mr. Zeidler, as,'.Mr . Douglass had men-
tioned , only requires those property owners that are within that
area of the road confines , so therefore , I don ' t know wher..e the
ownership of the creek is and so on and so forth , in respect to
this ting--so that ' s probably the reason why. They can do it
gratuitously , but they ' re not required to so it : Ok? Are there
any further questions , counsellor? (None )
MR. CHAIRMAN : Prior to recessing this to the next regular
monthly meeting , it was brought to my attention that Mr. Esseks
is going to be out of the country on. the Truckenbrodt application ,
and the only physical time that we could get together bearing in
mind he ' s coming back on the 21st would be Friday night of the 22nd .
And I realize , Mr. Douglass , Friday night is extremely difficult
for you , do you think that would be a problem, and Mr. Sawicki ?
SECRETARY : That is court night. I would have to check
the schedule of meetings .
MR . LESSARD: Friday is court night. That's out.
MEMBER SAWICKI : Why do.n ' t you leave that open , Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN : Well , at this particular time for the purpose
of not readvertising this hearing , we ' ll go along with the 22nd
unless there ' s some conflict with one of the Judges . Is that .
all right?
MEMBER SAWICKI : Well , do we have to make a date ,~right now?
MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes . Well , we don ' t.
SECRETARY: The 21st is Thursday.
MR . CHAIRMAN : Mr . Esseks will not be back on the 21st. He ' s --
SECRETARY : The letter said until the 21st.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Oh . All right .
MEMBER DOYEN`s Excuse : me , Jerry . I don' t understand why we
have to wait for Mr. Esseks .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Because he is representing one of the applicants
in the Truckenbrodt application which. w.ill be the nature of the next
regular meeting .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok . It appears that the 21st of_ June , which is
a. Thursday evening . So at this. particular time I ' ll.., make a motion .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -51 - May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3232 .- BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued :
scheduling the next Regular Meeting as June 21st, unless changed.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Second..
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED, to recess the hearing of Appeal No. 3232 , matter of
BERTRW AND .'MARGERY `WALKER until the next Regular Meeting of THURSDAY ,
JUNE 21' ; 1 984, : unl:ess:.:changed.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution wa_s adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr . Haefeli , could..you present us with a..
copy, off the : or.iginal filed map_ of "Ed.gemere Park , " that was filed
with the Suffolk County Clerk_. Thank. you very much .
. Mr. Haefeli nodded affirmatively,;
The Chairman thanked everybody for coming in , and Indicated
to the audience that the time will probably be in the area of about
9 :00 o ' clock p .m. , prior to the .last hearing that night.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3223 .
Upon application for THOMAS R. AND BARBARA D . MERCIER, New Suffolk
Avenue , Mattituck , NY (by Wickham, Wickham & Bressler , P . C . ) for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-30 (A) for
permission to convert an existing single-family dwelling use into two
professional offices . Location of Property : 4905 Middle Road (C. R.
48 ) , Mattituck , NY; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-141 -01 -21 ; "Map
of Clara W. R. Reeve #212 " , Part of Lot 5 .
The public hearing on this matter was held on April 5 , 1984, at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations and
receipt of other documentation
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal , applicants seek a variance from Article III ,
Section 100-30 (A) for permission to convert an existing- single-family
dwelling into professional offices for not more than two professionals ,
to wit : medical practitioner and assistant . Article III , Section
100-30 (C) [1 ] permits a professional office of a doctor as a home occu-
pation , however , one of the requirements is that the practitioner must
reside in the dwelling (Local Law No . 2-1983 ) . Also , professional
offices are permitted in the "B-Light" and "B-1 General " Business
Districts subject to site plan approval of the Planning Board . This
being a use variance for a "B-Light" or "B-1 General " business activity ,
this project must also receive site plan approval from , the Planning
Board .
All of the members of this board are familiar with the property .
in question as -well as the surrounding neighborhood . The property in
question is located on the north side of County Road 48 (a/k/a Middle
Road ) and the west side of Love Lane Extension . Abutting the premises
on the north is a "paper road , " which is shown on the filed subdivision
map of "Clara W. R. Reeve , " as filed in the Suffolk County Clerk ' s
Office on 12/4/22 as Map No. 212 . It is the intent of the applicants
to use this "paper road" for access into the proposed parking area of
this parcel . The parcel in question contains an area of approximately
5 , 750 sq . ft . with 115 ' frontage along C . R. 48 and 60 ' frontage along
Love Lane Extension . The premises is only improved with an 888 sq . ft.
one-story frame dwelling set back 12 feet from C . R. 48 and 32 . 5 feet
from Love Lane Extension .
For the record , it is noted the premises on the east side of
Love Lane Extension and extending easterly along C . R. 48 to Wickham
Avenue are zoned "B-1 General Business . " Also , premises located
on the south side' of C . R. 48 , easterly along Love Lane , are zoned
"B-1 General. Business " ; and premises located westerly of Love Lane
Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- May; 173- . 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal. No . 3223 - T. MERCIER, continued : )
south of C. R . 48 are zoned "C-Light Industrial . "
An affidavit has been submitted for the record -in support of
this application as well as those statements introduced at the
public hearing April 5 , 1984 . Although the record does not show
a substantial economic hardship , it is apparent that since a
professional would be permitted to have an office as a "home
occupation , " and since the applicants do not intend to change
the residential character of this structure and property , that
this proposed use would be within the interest of the community.
Accordingly, the board determines : (1 ) the plight of the
owner is due to the unique circumstances of the land ; (2 ) the use
under a variance would not alter the essential character of the
locality ; D ) that the use will not prevent the orderly and
reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in adjacent
use districts ; (4 ) that the safety , health , welfare , comfort ,
convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected
by the proposed use and .its location ; (5 ) that the interests of
justice wwould be served by allowing the variance , as indicated
below.
On motion by Mr . Sawicki , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3223 , application for THOMAS 'R.
and BARBARA 'D : 'MERCIER for permi.ssion to convert an existing
single-family dwelling for a two-professional -office use for
a medical practitioner and a medical assistant , BE AND HEREBY
IS APPROVED SUBJECT 'TO 'THE FOLLOWING :
1 . Compliance with the 20% maximum-lot-coverage requirement
in the event of. future construction ;
2 . Limit of two medical practitioners (as requested ) ;
3 . Site/parking approval by the Planning Board ;
4 . A legal right to use the present "paper road" for access ;
5 . Referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant
to Sections 1323 , et seq . of the Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property : 4905 Middle Road (a/k/a 1045 Love Lane ) ,
Mattituck , NY ; Part of Lot 5 , Map No . 212 , "Map of .Clara W. Reeve" ;
County Tax Map Parcel No . .1000141 -01 -21 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
.Dougl.ass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote .
Southold Town Board or Appeals -54- May 17 , 1So-t Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3225 .
Upon application of JOSE V . RODRIGUEZ , Box 113., Fishers Island ,
New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII , Sections
100-70 (A) and 100-71 , for permission to construct dwelling in this
B-1 Business District . Location of Property : West Side of Fox Lane ,
Fishers Island , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-012-01 -001 . 002 .
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening ,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
This is an. application for permission to locate a 64 ' by 14 '
prefabricated , modular home with 12 ' by 7 ' vestibule/stoop approximately
13 feet from the northeasterly front property line_ and approximately
30 feet from the northwesterly side property l.ine . This modular home
is proposed for one-family use by the applicant/owner . The premises in
. question is located in the B-1 General Business District , contains an
area of approximately 30 ,000 square feet , and is improved with a
32 ' by 35 ' structure presently used as an upholstery business ,
" Island .Interiors , " having a setback from the front property line
of 35 feet . Since the premises is polygonal in form , the .proposed
structure technically has less of a distance from the front
property line although the building will be set back behind (westerly)
the front of the existing bu.il_ding towards the northerly section
of this lot , [see sketched plan submitted 3/l /84] .
For the record , it is noted that a prior action concerning this
property was rendered March 20 , 1980 under Appeal No . 2656 for the
Fishers. Island Development. Corp . which denied insufficient area in
a proposed subdivision .
In considering this application , the board has determined :
(1 ) that the use hereby authorized will not alter the essential
character of the immediate vicinity (2 ) that the safety , health ,
welfare , comfort , convenience and order of the town will not be
adversely affected by the granting of this permit ; (3 ) that the
use will be in harmony with and promote the general. purposes and
intent of zoning ; (4 ) that the circumstances are unique and
that by allowing the variance , no detriment would be created to
adjoining properties ; ( 5 ) that no adverse effects will be
produced on available governmental facilities of any in
population ; (5 ) that the interests of justice Will be served by
allowing the relief requested.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr. Doyen , seconded by Mr. Sawicki ,
it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3225 , application for JOSE V . RODRIGUEZ
for permission to construct and use 64 ' by 14 ' prefabricated building
with a setback from the front property line of 20 feet , and 13 feet
inclusive of: vestib.u.l.b_/stoop : area) ,_FOR::ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BY THE
APPLICANT/01WNER`OF 'THIS:�P.REMISES ; 'BE 'AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS SHOWN
ON THE SKETCH OF 3/l /84...
Location of Property : Fox Lane , Fishers Island., NY; County Tax
Southold Town Board o . .,ppeals -55- May 17 , 1S_ . Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3225 - JOSE V . RODRIGUEZ, continued : )
Map Parcel No . 1000-012-01 -001 .002 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . (Member Douglass abstained for additional time for
inspection . ) This resolution was adopted by majority vote .
PUBLTG 'HEARINGS 'FOR '.JUNE '21 ; '1984 : The board reviewed each
of the _fol_1owi.ng__matters _ and . tbok -the following action :
'On motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded 'by Mr .' Goeh.ringer , it was
RESOLVED, that the following matters. 'BE 'AND 'HEREBY 'ARE
SCHEDULED for pub-tic hearings to be held at the `next_ Re.gul:ar Meeting
of - this board , _to_.wi.t : 'June -'2l' , l984 ,.:..and that the Secretary.' is
hereby authorized and. directed to_,_a_dirertise notice of same pursuant
to law in the local and official newspspaper-s of the-town
accordingly :
7 :35 p .m. Appeal No . 3244 = FATHER 'JOHN 'DE.NNY ;
7 :40 .p .m. Appeal No . 3220 = 'GEORGE 'R. '.TUTHILL :
7 : 45 p .m. Appeal No . 3245 = 'DAVID 'AND JEAN 'BRAWNER;
7 : 55 p .m. Appeal. No . 3247 - 'ERNE.ST 'AND 'JEAN S.TUMPF;
8 : 05 p .m. Appeal. No . 3227 ,:"EUSTACE C . 'ERIKSEN;
8 : 15 p .m. Appeal No . 3248 JOHN 'GRI.GONIS :
8 : 20 p .m. Appeal No . 3246 PATRICK 'CARRIG and 'MARK 'MtDONALD;
8 : 25 p .m. Appeal. No . 3206 'HENRY 'P . 'SMITH;
8 :40 .p .m. Appeal No . '3231 = D.OUGLAS -MILLER;
8 : 55 p .m. Appeal No . 3232 =. 'BERTRAM 'AND '.MARGERY 'WALKER;
9 : 15 p .m. Appeal No . 3234 ARTHUR R .' 'TRUCK.ENBRO.DT.
Vote of ,the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehr.nger, Doyen., Gr'igoni.s ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution :was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members of the board.
ROAD -REPORTS TO 'BE 'REQUESTED: The Secretary was authorized
and instructed to request an;_ inspection and road _report on each
of the following matters from John W., Davis ,. whi.ch _should be
received prior to the date- of the public hearings :
Appeal No . 32.46 Carrig . and. McDonald;
Appeal No. . 3231 - Douglas Miller .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- May 17 , lyu4 Regular Meeting
NEXT 'SPECIAL MEETING : It was the agreement of the board to
hold a Special Meeting .wi.thin the next two weeks to deliberate and
take action on those matters pending and for those other business
matters properly coming before the board at that time . It was
expected that a_ Special Meeting would be held on or about May 31st .
COORDINATION 'AM.ONG':'BUILDING ; 'ZONING 'AND PLANNING : The board
members .discussed -_the past practice prior to six or -seven months
ago ) in which an applicant would take -the following . steps , . and
which the th.r.e,e departments . have been 'expediii ousl,y- and_i ri 'an
orderly manner coordinating reviews : Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 . Applicant applies at BUILDING INSPECTOR"S- 'OFFICE with
proposed plan- _„for rev.i.ew ,as _to- comp] i.ance-.,or.-_:noncompliance
under Ch . 1-00 .._(Zo.ning ) and -Ch . 46 _-(Flood Law) .
2 . Applicant proceeds to file applications with :
(a ) Planning Board office as to Ch . A106 (Subdivisions )
and Art. XIII (Site .Plans ) ;
(b ) If .necessary , loning. Board of Appeals as to Ch . 100 .
(zoning rel-ief) . _.
3 . Applicant receives recommendations from Pl'ahhing 'Board
for _.transmittal to Zoning Board of Appeal-s pri_or_ to,,_.
public hearing .
The board agrees that 'these steps :sho.ul'd ..be 'continued to eliminate.
delays for the applicants an - a ditiona ur en . on . each . depar. tment .
The practice 'withi'n 'the 'last `six 'or seven months.. "i.nvol'Ves 'ten or
more steps . The Chairman was math_orized_ to._corr.e_spond .wit.h the -
Zoning and Planning Commission to resolve this problem.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS : Pursuant to Part 617 of Article 8
of the . S . nvironmenta - QuaTity _Review Act of the Environmental
Conservation Law and Local .-Law #44-4 of -,the - Town_ of - Southold , - the
board declared the follow ng 'Negati've Environmental''Declarati'ons
for each project and for the reasons - as - noted below;
Appeal No . 3206 - Henry P. Smith
(Continued on next page )
Southold Town Board of .Appeals -57- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental De(flarations , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3206.
PROJECT NAME: HENRY 'P : 'SMITH
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S . Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on -the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered & determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X ] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: , Var iance for insufficient area and width
of two proposed .lots .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County, of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Wls Peconic Lane , Peconic, NY ; 1.000-.74-5-9 . 2 (2 and 3 ;
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question i_s not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area ;
(3 ) The property in question is at an elevation of 10 or more
above mean sea level : _
Southold Town. Board of Appeals . -58- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
EnVfronme-ntal Decl'arations , , continued': )_,
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3247._. . _ _
PROJECT NAME: MR. AND MRSe 'ERNEST STUMPF
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Raised deck with insufficient setback
in side and rear yards .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: W/s South Oakwood Drive , Laurel , NY ;
1000-145-03-00.5..
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures .
,y
f
Southold Town Board of ppeals -59- May 17 , 19 Regular Meeting
IL
T '
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3248
PROJECT NAME: Jdhn 'Grigdriis
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or : similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: New Awelling with reduction of sideyard
setback ;
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 860 Main Bayview Road , Southold ; 1000-.070-07-16 . 2 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has. been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within . 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
" f
Southold Town Board oi -ppeals -60- May .17 , 1 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3220 .
PROJECT NAM?', : George 'R.Tuthi'l1
i
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area and width in a proposed lot set-off.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: N/S. Bay Avenue , Cutchogue ; 1000-140-04-033 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within .300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area . _
Southold Town Board of - )peals -61 - May 17 , 198 °egular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3227
PROJECT NAME: ' 'EUSTACE 'C . ERIKSEN
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [ X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Request for reversal of the December 12 ,
1983 Decision of .the. Building_Inspector to permit-conversion and_...
renovation of ."guest cottage:"-. or ;s-econd dwe1.1 ing .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more .
particularly known as: 1085 West View Drive , 'Mattituck ; 1000-139-1 -3 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) A-road or structure exists between th-e activity proposed
and tidal ;wetlands (or other critical environmental area ) .
w
Southold Town Board of Appeals -62- May 17 , 19E , Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3244
PROJECT NAME: FATHER JOHN DEN'NY
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
.project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ X] Type II [ ] Unlisted . [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory building in frontyard.. '
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1255 Private. Road #1 (Goose Creek Lane ) , Southold ;
1000-.078-08-009 . _.._
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) A road or structure exists between activity proposed and tidal
wetlands .
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -63- May 17 , 198, ,egular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3245 . -
PROJECT NAME: DAVTD RND JER.NNE BRA.WNER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulationspertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please. take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for- any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of insufficient area
of plot to be set-off containing approx - 1 ,,121 acres .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: S/s Main Road ,. 'Orient ; 1000-20-3-part of 11 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
-the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area .
i
Southold Town Board of -„Npeals -64- May 17 , 198 regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
r-
APPEAL NO. :J 3246
PROJECT NAME : PATRICK CARRIGG 'AND MARK S . Mc.DONALD
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment' for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Access over private right-of-way' (280-A)
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: R-O-W N%S. Bergen Avenue , Mattituck ;
1000-112-01 -01.8 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new
construction .
y
j, `S0%thold Town. Board of Appeals -65- May 17 , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued : )
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members of the board. _
There being no other business to be transacted at this time ,
the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned . The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 12 : 15._.a .m.. , May 18 , 1984 .
Respectfully submitted ,
i da F. Kowals i , Secretary
Southold Town,_,Board of Appeals
ZLZ r'5 ""
Approved . -. G rard - P . oehringer
Chairman
AND
D ATE A
/
lJ��i
1 "tr C:Ic.rIc, t7'Tn x�� Of Sol, Y.
i