HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/25/1984 r j ;
�o��FFOCk��o
y
Southold Town Board of Appeals
• �' MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR•
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS M I N U T E S
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI _ -
REGULAR 'ME.ETING
-OCTOBER '25 1-984
A Regular Meeting of the . Southold Town . Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday ; October '25 � `T984 , at 730 o ' clock. p :m:. at the
Southold Town Hall ; Main Road ,. Southold , New York .
Present were : Gerard P. Goehringer , Chairman ; Charles Grigonis ,
Jr . , Member; Serge D-oyen ; Jr._., Member; and Joseph H 'Sawicki _Mem-
ber . ' Absent was -Robert J . Dou,gl ass , 'due to _i l l ness o Also present
were Victor Lessard ,. Building=Department Adm,i_n_istra_tor , and approxi -
mate'ly 30 person.s in the._ audience .
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 .p .m'. and
proceeded with the fi_r.st public . hearing .- The . public'- hearing in
the matter of .Appea-1 No . 3282.3 Winds 'Way. BuiTding 'Corp . commenced
at 7 : 34 p .m..... and....the minutes of .same -have - been prepar._ed under
separate cover. -
Following the public hearing , the board made the following
findings_. and determination :
This is an appeal from Article - III , Section 100=31 ,. Bu.lk
Schedule of .the Zon_i ng_ Code wh.i ch requires a mi.nimum _rea'ryard set-
back for a one-family dwe.,lling structure to be not less 'than' 35 -
feet. Appl i ca_n_t. has- requested approval of the construction of
the dwelling with an i nsUffi.cient rearyard setback at. 15 . feet,
The parcel in question fronts along three -private rights-.of-way
and technically has three front yards . The westerly fro nty_ard._ .
setback is approximately 47 feet; the northerly frontyard setback
is 24 feet and the easterly _frontyard setback -i_s 50±._._" The parcel
is of a size 149± by 97± feet, with a total area of -14 ,489 sq . ft..
as shown on survey ._dated August 29, 1979 . __..
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2 October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3282 - WINDS WAY BUILDING CORP . , continued : )
During. 1979 , an application was. made requesting an insufficient
frontyard setback at 24 feet and an insufficient setback from the
southerly property line at 24 feet , a.nd approval of access , which was
conditionally approved on October 11 , 1979, under Appeal No . 2627
(filed under- Gertrude C. McLean ) . Some time subsequent to the
earlier appeal , the applicant was authorized to start construction
and at the time of the foundation inspection , it was found the
rearyard setback is less than that originally granted by the Board
of Appeals . _.
The board agrees with the reasoning of .the applicant that the
premises is of unique character and that the relief_ as requested is
not unreasonable under the circumstances .
In considering this appeal ; "the board determines : (a ) that
the relief .as approved is not substantial ; (b) by :allowing the
relief., no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be
created ; (c ) that no--. adverse effects .will b,e -produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased__-popul-ation ; (d) that the .
relief will be in-_ harmony with and promote the general purposes of .
. zoning ; _(e ) the circumstances are unique ; (f) that the interests
of justice will best be served by allowing the.--.variance , as applied and
noted below.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Sawicki ,
it was
RESOLVED , that the relief requested under Appeal No . 3282 in the
matter of the application of 'WTNDSWAY 'BUILDING 'CORP . for _approval of .
an insufficient setback of 15 feet from the go..utherly_. property line ,
BE AND HEREBY ' IS 'APPROVED 'AS 'APPLIED .
Location of Property : Private Road No . 11off .the North Side .of .
North Bayview Road, Southold , NY ; County. Tax _Map Parcel No . 1000-.
077-03-025 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was - absent _(due to illness ) '.-
This
resolutin was adopted by.- unanimous vote of the members present .
At 7 �41 - p .m, , . a ..public - hearing.-wa.s - held_ in .the matter of Appeal
No . 3233 ;. 'Jose_ .h. 'As `McKay-`and Michael' So `Greerily. Th.e. minutes of
same have been .__prepared u_n'der _sep_a_r.ate _cov.er. _ ,-
t'.
Southold Town Board or Appeals .' -3- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
At 7 : 52 p .m. , a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal
No . 3230 for Jean C. Holland. The minutes of same have been prepared
under separate cover.
At 8 :07 p .m. , a public hearing . was held in the matter of Appeal
No . 3273 , for Academy Pri'ntirig 'Servid0s , 'Inc . The minutes of same _
have been prepared under separate cover.
APPROVAL 'OF 'MI.N.UTES : On motion by Mr. Grigo'nis , -seconded 'by
Mr. Sawi c chi,yif--was -- -. --
RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of .the October 11 , 1984 meeting
as submitted.
Vote of .the. Board : 'Ayes : Messrs . Goehri'nger,. Doyen, Grigonis',
and_ Sawicki_. Member Douglass was absent_..(due. to ,illness ) . _;,. This
resolution was adopted 'by unanimous vote of ,the members present.
At 8 : 22 p .m . , . a - public - hearing -was - held in the matter of .Appeal
No . 3283 , .f.or. 'BERN:ARD AND 'GERALDINE DEMPSEY. The minutes of_ same
have been prepared under sep_arate cover_..
At 8 : 25 p .m. ,.- a public . hear- i'ng was held in the matter of .Appeal
No . 3276 , for _Col gate Design Corp. The minutes' of same have.- been
prepared under separate cover and subsequently fi,l_ed wi.th the. Office
of the Town Clerk . Following the 'publ i c hearing the fol l owi n_g.
actions - were taken concerning this hearing :
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED to close the hearing . '(N67:v6te::taken )
A motion was further made by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr .
Grigonis , to withdraw the previous "moti.on , and the following action
was taken :
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Doyen , it was
RESOLVED , to recess the hearing in the matter of CdT 'ate 'Desi n
Corp . until the next Regular Meeting of November 9, ._1984, (or
November 15 , 1984 ) .
r"
Southold Town Board ur Appeals -4- October co , 1984 Regular Meeting
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent ( illness ) This resolution
was adopted by unanimous _vote of the members present. -
At 8: 40 .p .m• , a public hearing was held in the matter of .Appeal
No . 3275 , for Southl'and 'Corp . The minutes of same have been prepared
under separate cover and subsequently filed with the. Town Clerk .
Following the public hearing , the following resolution was _adopted:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the matter of 'Southl'and 'Corp .
until the next Regular Meeting of .November 9 , 1984 (-or_N6v_ember. l5 , -
1984 )
Vote of the. Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was - absent __( illness ) .- This ._resolution
was adopted by - unanimous vote of the members present .
At 8 :56-p-'m,,o y.. aypu.bl:ic :he ar. ing; wa.s : held in the matter of .Appeal
No . 3272 , for . Ernest ;G: Curran The hearing was offi.cia,lly _closed
by unanimous vote after receiving testimony; and the minutes of same
have been prepared and subsequently filed with the. Town Clerk under
separate cover .
The board briefly discussed Colgate Design Corp . , and it was
the consensus of ,the_.-_board to co.nsul,_t wi.th the. Town_-Attorney as
to whether or not a change in the location of .the proposed .-building
from the east side to the west side would require re-_noticing _to
neighbors , re-advertising , et cetera , althou_gh the hearing i.s still
in .open recess .
DATE 'OF. 'NEXT REGULAR MEETING : Inasmuch as the As.sem.bly Hall
is not ava.ila.ble - on. Thursd'ay_,.- November 8th , 'it was the consensus of
the board to h_ol d the regular meeting on the fo.l l owi ng. Thursd'ay ;
November 15th ; and the following action was taken :
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that - the date - of .,the next - Regular - Meeting of -.this
board 'BE 'AND HEREBY ' IS SCHEDULED FOR. THURSDAY ;. 'NOVEMBER_ T5_;, 'T984
commencing at 7 : 30 .o ' clock p-.m._, _Southold. Town._ .Hal_l , - Main Road;
Southold New York
( It was al-so noted that two- members may not be able to attend.
the meeting if ,same were held on the 9th of November . )
l
Y
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent ( illness ) . This resolution
was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present .
APPEAL NO . 3287 - ALFRED N . AND BARBARA H . DiNUNZIO. The board
members are in receipt of the October 23 , 1984 road report from
Mr . Davis , and the board members will be field inspecting the
premises and area prior to the next. Regular Meeting .
APPEAL NO . 3251 - RENATE RIEDEL/W. SMITH. The board members
are in receipt of correspondence from the ' N ' Y .S . D .E .C . received
yesterday indicating that their department wo.ul_d 'not recommend the
dwelling be any closer than 72 ' as approved under their Permit
No . 10-84-0042 . The Chairman indicated,:that he tried on several
occasions to contact Mr. Hamilton , and that our calls were not
returned. The Chairman said he would try again to...contact Mr .
Hamilton tomorrow.
APPEAL NO . 3242 - HENRY DOMALESKI . This public hearing on
this matter was held and closed : on October ll ,_1984. It was the
consensus of .the board to reserve decision until the next Regular
Meeting to allow all the members to provide their input on t_he
access.: road _improve_ments . No:::action^:was taken .
. . . . . . . . . . .
APPEAL NO . 3234 - ABBOTT, AND 'S.WANSON/TRUCKENB.RODT. The public
hearing„ on_ this matter wa.s - hel d-:lastly on AuguS.t 3 ,, _1 984 ; 'a n.d to
date the hearing has not been_..offi.ci_a7ly declared c_lo_sed for
deliberations . _ It was the cons ensus .of ,the board to place this
matter on the. agenda of ,the next Regular Meeting when_ Member
Douglass i s:°pr.esent:,to.,sdetermi ne wh:et e_ r additi-onal . information
is needed , or whether deliberations should commence . No action
was taken .
APPEAL NO . ' 3293 - HAROLD 'J . AND 'JOSEPH 'DENEEN . The board
reviewed this application for a three-lot minor .subdivision with
insufficient area , -%w �dth and depth at_-Main. Bayview Road , and it
was the consensus of the board not',:to schedule this matter for
hearing until comments have been received from the Planning:. Board
pursuant to .Chapter A106 , and that the applicant submit their
proposal to the_ Suffolk County Health Department for their input
or approval , pursuant to Article 6, " Realty Subdivisions and
Dev.elopments . "
Southold Town. Board of Appeals 767 October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
APPEAL NO . 3295 - FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION/WADE .
The board reviewed the file in the .above matter ,--16rl,wh-i,chr-arh_.appeal
application and notice to. neighbors ' form with affidavit of mailing
and certified receipts have been submitted in the evening of
October 11 , 1984 : It was the consensus of the board to field
inspect. and research this matter prior to scheduling for a public
hearing . No maps were submitted with this application for review.
APPEAL NO . 3299 = DOUGLAS 'MILLER. In reviewing this application
filed October 15 , 1984 , the.,.,f;o.1.7.ow_i.ng action was taken :
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded 'by Mr . Grtgonis , it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No. '3299 , 'application for 'DOUGLAS. MILLER
for a variance in order to allow inclusion of wetlands - in - lot .- area�
for approval of .a three-lot -minor subdivision ; ..BE 'AND 'HERE:BY 'IS
HELD TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE pending receipt of the following docu-
ments :
1 . N .Y . S . Department of ,Environmental Conservation approval or
comments ;
2 . Suffolk County8 Department':of Health Services review ,
comments and/or approval ; in accordance with Article. 6 ,. Realty
Subdivisions and Developments .,
Vote':of;�the ;8oard : Ayes : Messrs . Goehri'nger. , Doyen , Grigo.nis
and Sawicki . Member Dou,gl ass was ' absent __ i 1 1 ness) Thi s' re_sol__uti on
was adopted by unanimous__ vote of :the members _ prese-nt .
APPEAL NO . 3294 = P.ETE.R 'AND 'MARGARET. 'TROYANO . It wa.s noted
that the deed wh.i.ch' conveys legal access .-over _this right-of-.w:ay; and
map certifying the traveled road_-is within the 'boundaries_'of the
legal right-of-way have not been submitted for -review prior to
field inspecting ._.- The secretary was directed to send_. a letter
to the applicant requesting same , and to send a letter to_ Mr . Davis
requesting his inspection and report * ' This action was moved-_ 'by
Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. _Grig_anis', and unanimously carried .
APPEAL NO . 3300 .- 'JO.HN BE.RTANI . On motion 'by Mr. 'Grigonis ,
seconded by Mr. Goehringer, _it was"
RESOLVED, that the following Environmental Declaration be and
hereby is_ adopted pursuant -to the. rules and regulations of S. E .'Q . R.A:
Southold Town Board o , "ppeals _7- Octo-ber 25 1984 .Regular Meeting
(Environmental' •Decl'arati'ons, continued: )
S.E.Q.R.A'.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3300
PROJECT NAME: JOHN' BERTANI
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 simildr.: '
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ' ] Type II EX ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area— of--,-I of 31 ,000±- sq .- ft. is -in-- excess
of requirement for B-1 Business parcel but is less than 40 ,000 sq . ft.
required for "shopping center ., "
LOCATION OF PROJECT:, : Town of Southold, .Courity of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: North Side C . R. 48 ,_ Southold.
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(.1) An Environmental Assessment in the .short form has been
submitted which indicates that no. sigriificant adverse effects to
the environment are likely .to. occur. ,should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
The property in question i.s not located near tidal wetlands or
other critical environmental area '.
Vote of .the Board.:. Ayes : Messrs . Goehri'nger.,, Doye.n,' Grigonis
and Sawicki_._ Member Douglass 'was ' abseht _(illness ). .This re_.so_ l_ution
was adopted by unanimous.—vote of the members_ present .
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 8- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
APPEAL NO . 3292 - K & L PROPERTIES (DUCHOW) . The board
reviewed the file and the following action was taken :
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , to request an inspection and road report concerning
this right-of-way from John .W:: :Davis; : a.nd that this matter is
tentatively scheduled for public hearing for the Regular Meeting
of December 13 , 1984 provided the road report is received prior
to the advertising deadline .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was " absent'-..(illness ) . This resolution
was adopted by unanimous vote of the members. present .
APPEAL NO . 3257 - ALEXANDERSTOL•L•MEYER . The following action
was taken :
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, that the notice��bfr.hearing be-' published November 8 ,
1984 , scheduling this matter for.- public . hearing _at the next Regular
Meeting of this board of ;NOVEMBER 1-5 ,- '1'984 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen ; Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was " absent'_.( illness) . This re..solutio.n
was adopted by unanimous. vote of .the members- present .
APPEAL NO . 3301. - -A ' BEHRER 'by W. Jacobs.. On motion by Mr.
Gr. igoni..s;.'seconded by Mr.. 'Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED , that this matter be placed on the early December
Regular Meeting agenda for pu.blis hearing ( tentative'l_y. December, 13th ) ,
and that " the f.o1 l..wi ng Negati v.e::Env i ronmental Dec1 arati on. 'BE 'AND
HEREBY IS ADOPTED pursuant to the rules and __regul._ations of -.the ' .Y . S
Environmental,_.Qual.i'ty Review Act* (S ._E. Q . R'.'A:. )
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- October 25 , 1y84 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declaration , continued : )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3301
PROJECT NAME: A . BEHRER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.:
project.
TYPE. OF ACTION: , [XI . Type II [ ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:. Accessary garage in front yard -area .
LOCATION OF PROJECT:. Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Nassau Point Road ,_ Cutchogue ; . 1000-111 -12-2 . 1 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the .short form has been
submitted which indicates that no. sigriificant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur. .should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
—-----Separ-a-ti n-g..-the pro ject-4 n question—f"m - the env-i ro,n-mental.
area is a 50-.foot traveled roadway ;
(3 ) The relief re-quested is a setback variance which does not require
further processing under "Type II" Actions .
(4 ) Construction is located more than 75 feet from tidal wetlands .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member .Douglass was absent (illness ). This resolution
was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present . _
I
, 1
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No. 3267 :
Application of CONSTANCE KLAPPER , Box 291 , Cutchogue , NY (by Esseks ,
Hefter , Cuddy & Angel ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article
III , Section 100-31 , for approval of insufficient area of lot in this
proposed two-lot division (redivision ) of land and for approval of insuf-
ficient livable floor area of existing principal building . Location of
Property : 3300 Dignans (private ) Road , Cutchogue , NY ; County Tax Map
Parcel No . 1000-83-02-005 .
The public hearing on this matter was held on September 13 , 1984 , at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending receipt of a .requested
affidavit concerning the use of the cottage/studio structure_ on proposed
parcel 2 , and pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
This is an appeal from Article III , Section 100-31 of the Zoning
Code for: (a ) approval of insufficient area of 1 . 2± acreage in this
proposed set-off of Parcel "2" from Parcel "l " wh.ich will contain 2 . 2±
acres, and (b ) approval of" the insufficient_ livable floor area of a
studio/cottage structure of a size 1,2 ' by 20 ' as shown on survey mapped
December 20 , 1983 , by Roderick VanTuyl , P . C . and existing on proposed
Parcel "2 . " Existing on Parcel " I " is a two-story , one-family dwelling
structure and accessory s,wimmingpool .
Current town records show that the northerly parcel is now of
Constance Klapper and contains approximately 2 . 4_l. acres , and that
the southerly parcel is of Murray Klapper , _per deed dated 4/19/83
at Liber 9358 cp 595 and contains approximately one acre with 185-
foot frontage along a private right-of-way . .The relief requested
by this application appe,ars to adjust these lot sizes as noted , supra.
For the record , it is noted that the premises in question was
the subject of a prior appeal , No . 2232 , for the applicant herein , in
the set-off of a 48 , 147 sq . _ft . parcel. and for approval of _access ,
which was conditionally granted on December _22 , 1976 . It is also
noted that under App.e_al No . 3170 conditional approval of .acces,s over
this same right-of-way. was granted to Daniel Shelley. on March 2 , 1984.
Since it is the opinion of the board that this right-of-way has n_ot
been brought up to the standards required for emergency vehicles
pursuant to New York Town Law , Section 280-A, no building permit
therefore shall be issued until such improvements ha.,ve been made
and accepted , .or a subsequent ,application for approval of access is
made .
Southold Town Board ,__ = Appeals -11 - October ., _ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3267 - CONSTANCE KLAPPER, continued : )
The board members have personally visited the premises in question
and are familiar with the statements presented at the public hearing and
an Affidavit of Constance Klapper dated September 19 , 1984 , was received
as requested by the board indicating that the studio-cottage is a year-
round dwelling with its own heating and plumbing systems and separate
septic system , and has been used as a dwelling continually for more than
20 years , that the subject premises was acquired approximately 10 years
ago , during the 40 ,000 sq . ft . lot. area zoning requirements of the
town , and referring to a Certificate of Occupancy dated June 13 , 1975 ,
No . Z6523 (for premises containing a total acreage of 5 . 0± as existed
prior to conveyances during 1977 and 1983 ) . On August 27 , 1984 , a
recommendation was made by the Planning Board that this application
be approved ..
In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the
relief requested is not substantial ; (b ) that by allowing the relief
no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created ;
(c ) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental
facilities of any increased population ; (d ) that the relief will be
in harmony with and .promote the general purposes and intent of zoning ;
(e ) that the circumstances of this appeal are unique ; (f) that in
view of the manner in which the difficulty arose , .the interests of
justice would best be served by allowing the requested relief.
Now , therefore , on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Mr .
Goehringer , it was
RESOLVED , that the application in behalf of CONSTANCE KLAPPER
for approval of insufficient area of proposed Parcel 2 ' of 1 . 2± ,acres
and for approval of the insufficient livable floor area of the
existing cottage structure on. proposed Parcel 2 , BE AND HEREBY 'IS
APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1 . That no sideyard reductions to less than that permitted by
the code be authorized ;
2 . That in the event road improvements have not been made and
accepted by the Town as required (under Appeal No . 3170 of 3/2/84)
by New York Town Law , Section 280-a , no building permit shall be issued
until such improvements have been made and accepted by the .town .
Location of Property : East Side of Dignan ' s Road (private
right-of-way) , Cutchogue , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-83-02-
005 (6 . 3 and 6 . 4) .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent .. This resolution was adopted
by unanimous vote of the members present .
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 12- ,October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3272 :
Upon application of ERNEST G . CURRAN , 485 Rabbit Lane , East Marion ,
NY (by S. Glickman , Esq . ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article
III , Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of par-
cels with existing buildings in this proposed division of land located at
the north side of Rabbit Lane , East Marion , NY; County Tax Map Parcels
No . 1000-31 -17-13 .
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening , at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this appeal , applicant seeks a variance from Article III , Sec-
tion 100-31 of the Zoning Code for approval of insufficient area of
8 , 500± sq . ft. and insufficient lot width of 42± feet of two proposed
parcels located at the North Side of Rabbit Lane in the Hamlet of East
Marion . Existing on proposed Parcel "B" is a one-family , one-story frame
dwelling set back at its nearest point from Rabbit Lane 24 feet and
three feet from the easterly side line as proposed. Existing on pro-
posed parcel "A" is a one-family , two-story frame dwelling set back
42 feet from its nearest point from Rabbit Lane , nine feet from the
easterly- side property line and 10 feet from the proposed westerly ' '
side property line , and a 12 ' by 24 ' accessory storage-garage building
situate in the frontyard area 16 . 5 feet from Rabbit Lane and 3. 5 feet
from the easterly side line .
In viewing the general character. of the neighborhood , the board
has found that to the east of these premises are several parcels of
the same or similiar size , dimensions and character as .proposed by
this application . Also , the board finds that the two dwellings exist-
ing were constructed prior to the inception of zoning ( 1957 ) and that
by allowing the relief requested no change will be made since the
premises would each be improved with one , one-family dwelling . Each
of the dwellings have separate cesspools and a public water station
services each .
It is further noted that the Planning Board at its September 10 ,
1984 meeting approved the set-off division of this property subject
to approval of this board and consideration of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission .
In considering this appeal , the board has determined that : (1 )
the circumstances of this appeal_ are unique ; (2 ) that by allowing the
relief no detriment to adjoining are
would be created; (3 ) no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
Southold Town Boar _ _ f Appeals. -13- October 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3272 - ERNEST G . CURRAN , continued : )
of any increased population ; (4 ) the relief will be in harmony with
the intent of zoning ; (5 ) in view of the manner in which the difficulty
arose , .the interests of justice would best be served by granting the
.application as noted below.
Now, therefore , on motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr . Goeh-
ringer , it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No . 3272 in the
matter of ERNEST G. CURRAN for approval of insufficient area and width
of parcels as proposed , 'SUBJECT TO THE 'FOLLOWING 'CONDITIONS :
1 . That there be no further sideyard reductions on either parcel
to less than that permitted by the zoning code ;
2 . Referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in accordance
with Sections 1323 , et seq . of the Suffolk County Charter .
Location of Property : North Side of Rabbit Lane , East Marion , NY ;
County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-31 - 17-13 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis and
Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent (due to illness ) . This resolution
was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present .
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No. 3233 :
Upon application of JOSEPH A. McKAY and MICHAEL S . GREENLY , 14 East
60th Street , New York , NY 0 22 , y G. Olsen , Esq . for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 for approval of insuf-
ficient area , width , and depth of parcels with existing dwellings in this
proposed division of land located at Fourth , Third and Main Streets , New
Suffolk , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-117-09-16 .
The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this
evening , at which time the hearing was declared closed pending delibera-
tions .
The board made the following findings and determination :
This is an appeal from Article III , Section 100-31 of the Zoning
Code for approval of : (a ) Parcel 1 of insufficient area of 12 , 185
sq . ft. , lot width along Main Street of 123 . 20 feet , and lot depth of
90 . 75 feet along the easterly property line , and (b) Parcel 2 of
insufficient area of 7 ,260 sq . ft. , lot width along Main Street of
80 feet, and lot depth of 80 feet along the southerly property line .
1.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3233 -. McKAY AND GREENLY , continued : )
Existing on proposed Parcel 1 are a two-story frame structure
presently used as a one-family dwelling located 27 . 5 feet from the
Main Street property line and 33 .8. feet from the Fourth Street property
line , and a one-story frame structure also presently used as a one-
family dwelling set back 1 ± foot from the southerly property line and
10 feet from the easterly proposed property line . Existing on proposed
Parcel 2 are a one-story frame structure presently a one-family
residence set back 9. 9 feet from the northerly ,front property line
and 6 . 2 feet from the easterly front property line , and a second
one-story frame structure also a one-family residence set back 11 . 9
feet from the easterly front property line and 10 feet from the southerly
property line . All of these structures have received a Certificate of
Occupancy of Nonconforming Premises No . Z-12708 dated August 17 , 1984
from the building inspector.
The board members are familiar with the site in question , and
it has been found that the general neighborhood consists of lots
of the same size as that proposed , and smaller . The testimony of
the licensed appraiser and all other statements during the public
hearing has been considered .
In considering this appeal , the board has determined that :
(1 ) the circumstances of this appeal are unique ; (2 ) that by
allowing the relief no detriment to adjoining properties would. be
created since the dwellings are existing and no additional dwelling
uses are permitted; (3 ) no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population ; (4 )
the relief will be in harmony with the intent and purposes of zoning ;
(5) the character of the district would not be changed; (5 ) in
view of the manner in which the difficulty arose , the interests of
justice would best be served by allowing the variance , as noted
below.
Now , therefore , on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr.
Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED , that the relief requested in Appeal No . 3233 ,(for
Joseph A. McKay and Michael S . Greenly ) for approval of insufficient
area of 12 , 185 sq . ft . and 7 ,260 sq .. ft . , insufficient. lot width of
100 . 75 feet and 90 . 75 feet , and insufficient lot depth of 90 . 75 feet
and 80 . 00 feet , of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 , respectively ; BE AND
HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO 'THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1 . No further lot area reductions of either parcel (for
further division ) ;
tt
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 15- October :zo , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3233 - McKAY AND GREENLY , continued : )
2 . No sideyard reductions to less than that permitted by code
(for any new construction ) .
Location of Property : Main , Fourth and Third Streets , New
Suffolk , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-117'-09-16 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Doouglass was absent (due to illness) . This
resolution was adopted by .unanimous vote of the members present .
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3283 :
Upon application of BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMPSEY , Stillwater Avenue ,
Cutchogue , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Sec-
tions 100-31 and 100-32 , for approval of excessive lot- coverage and
construction of pool in an area other than the required rearyard located
at 5705 Stillwater Avenue , Cutchogue , NY ; Fleetwood Cove Subdivision
Lots 16 and 17 ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-137-04-004 .
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 appeal to Article III : (a ) Section 100-31 for approval
of the construction of a 14 ' by 28 ' swimmingpool which will exceed the
20% lot coverage requirement for all structures , and (b ) Section
100-32 for permission to locate an accessory pool and storage shed' in
,the sideyard area .
Article III , Section 100-31 permits a maximum of 20% of the total
lot for construction . Th.e premises in question fronts along Stillwater
Avenue 100 feet in length and contains an area of approximately 7 ,250
sq . ft .. Existing on the premises is a one-family, one-story dwelling
and attached garage , which cover approximately 1 ,268 sq . ft . Twenty
percent of the total lot area is 1 ,450 sq . ft. By an addition of the
swimmingpool and 6 ' by 8 ' storage shed , the total lot coverage would
be 1 ,708 sq . ft . , in excess of approximately 258 sq . ft . The appli -
cant does not intendtat this time to construct a deck and therefore
is not under consideration by this board . The only other structures
to be placed is a fence as required by Section 100-30 (C) [2] enclosing
the pool yard area .
Article III , Section 100-32 requires all accessory buildings to
be located_ in the rearyard area . The rearyard area of this parcel
is limited with the dwelling set back 12 . 5± feet from the wood retain-
Southold Town. Board of .Appeals -16- October 25, . 198.4 . Reg.ular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3283 - BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMPSEY , CONTINUED: )
ing wall . The pool would be set back eight feet east of the dwelling
within the sideyard area ; the shed would be placed towards the rear
along the easterly side of the dwelling . The board agrees that the
areas in question are the most practical under the circumstances .
In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that
the . relief as approved is not substantial ; (b ) by allowing the
relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be.
created; (c ) that no adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased population ; (d ) that the
relief will be in harmony with and . promote the general purposes of
zoning ; (e ) the circumstances are unique ; (f) that the interests
of justice will best be served by allowing the variance , as applied and
noted below.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer ,
it was
RESOLVED , that the 'relie.f requested under Appeal No . 3283 , in
the application for BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMPSEY for approval of
the location and construction of a 14 ' by 28 ' sw.immingpool and 6 ' by
8 ' accessory storage building in the sideyard area , BE AND 'HEREBY IS
APPROVED , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1 . There be no adverse lighting to neighboring properties ;
2 . There be no elevated deck (above ground level ) unless reappli -
cation is made for the additional lot coverage pursua.nt to- Article III ,
Section 100-31 ;
3 . There be no roofing ;
4 . The accessory shed be used for storage purposes only .
Location of Property : 5705 Stillwater Avenue , Cutchogue , NY;
Fleetwood Cove Subdivision Lots 16 and 17 ; County 'Tax Map Parcel
No . 1000-137-4-4.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent (due to illness ) . _. This
resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present .
'.E.NV.I.RO'N.ME.N.TAL DE'CLARAT.I..ON - Appeal. No . 3207 = '.SVA.NTE: 'J0HN.S.ON®
-On -motion- by-.Mr- -'Gri-'go'nts sec-onded. by Mr.. 'G-oe-h.r:i=.rrger- --i-t -wa.s
RESO-LVED to de;cl-are---the. --fol l owing. Neg-at.i ve Enviro-n-mental Declara-
tion in accordance with the. 'N'.Y`."S . E.nvironmental .Quali.ty ;Review Act :
Southold Town Board oT Appeals - 17- October 1984 Regular Meeting
h NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
!llr Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3207
PROJECT N SVANTE JOHNSON/WINDS WAY. BUILDING 'CORP.
47
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated :
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [XI Type II [ ] Unlisted [
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area/lot-Line variance .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: North Side. of Cedar Point Drive East ,
Southold; 1000-90-3-18 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief ,requested is a, 1 ot-line vari ance' which does not
require further processing under ."Type II" Actions of .the SEQRA rules .
.(3 ) Approval and SEQRA determinations have been made by the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation under Permit No .. 10=.84-0226 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , 'Doyen , Grig.onis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent (illness ) . o.This resol_u-tion
was adopted by " unanimous_ vote of .the members_ present . '
Southold. To.wn.. Board of Appeals -18.- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS OF NOVEMBER 15TH : On motion by Mr. Goehringer ,
seconde by Mr. Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED , that the Secretary be and hereby is directed to
ADVERTISE the notices of hearings in the official and local news-
papers of the town pursuant to law for each of the following
matters , to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this Board ,
to wit : November 15 ; '1984 commencing at 7 : 30 o ' clock p .m. and
to be held at the Southold Town Hall , Main Road , Southold , NY :
Appeal No . 3257 = ALEXANDER 'STOLLMEYER;
Appeal No . 3288 = JOHN 'WICKHAM/RB 'MEL'ROSE
Appeal No . 3250 .- JAMES AND 'BEULAH RICKETTS;
Appeal No . 3217 - 'JOSEPH 'WANAT (recessed from July Regular Meeting ) ;
Appeal No . 3266 - A.NTONE 'MILESKA:
Appeal No . 3207 = SVANTE 'JOHNS.ON/W.INDS WAY "BUILD:ING '.CORP. ;
Appeal No . 3277 = 'MARIE 'PA.TTERSON;
Appeal No . 3280 = ROBERT DeTREY .
It was also suggested that a notation be printed in the news-
papers concerning the recessed hearings of:
Appeal No . 3276 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP . ;
Appeal No . 3275 - SOUTHLAND CORP .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent ._( illness ) . This resolution
was adopted by unanimous vote of the members_ present . -
PUBLIC HEARINGS OF 'NOVEMBER 295 1984 : On motion by Mr . Goeh-
ringe_r , seconded b.y Mr . Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that the date, time and place of .the - second Regular
Meeting of the month of November shall be THURSDAY , N.OVEMBER 29th ,
1984 , commencing at 7 : 30 p .m, , at the-,- South-ol-d Town.- Hall ;- Ma_i-n
Road , Southold , New York;. and that the Secre-tary is hereby - directed
to advertise the not,ices . of .hearings for each of ,the following
matters to be held on November 29th 1984 , commencing- a_t 7 : 30 .p .m. ;
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 25 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(November 29 , 1984 Public Heariings , continued : )
Appeal No . 3279 - ERNEST GUETTINGER;
Appeal No . 3285 - JOHN AND MARILYN FLYNN ;
Appeal No . 3287 - ALFRED N . 'AND BARBARA H . DiNUNZIO ;
Appeal No . 3286 - JOSEPH 'GRASSO;
Appeal No . FL-15 -JOSEPH GRASSO;
Appeal No . 3284 - RICHARD SLEDJESKI ;
Appeal No . 3290 - GENERAL WAYNE INN (S . DOROSKI ) ;
Appeal No . 3291 - ANTHONY PAGOTO.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis
and Sawicki . Member Douglass was absent (illness ) . This resolution
was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present .
Being there was no further business properly coming before the
board at this time , Mr. Goehringer moved that th.e meeting be
adjourned , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , and unanimously carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 55 o ' clock p .m.
It is noted for the record that the minutes of each public
hearing of October 25 , 1984 has been prepared under separate cover
by Barbara Strang , and that upon submission , same will. be filed
with the Office of the Town Clerk .
Respectfully submitted ,
Linda F. Kowalski , Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Gerard P . Goehringer, C, `airman
November 15 , 1984 - A -roved -
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE 13OUR
Town Clerk, TOwn of Southold
THURSDAY
October 25 , 1984
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At 7:34 p.m. - .Public hearing was held in the matter of WINDS WAY BUILDING CORP.
for approval of an insufficient rearyard setback of a new dwelling. The
Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application
for the record.
MR. ROBERT WENDELL :
Good evening. In 1979 , there was a variance on this property,
which I was aware of and at this time I thought it was 24 ' off
the right-of-way for a sideyard. I submitted a plan for house
and got a building permit from the Town and it left 24 ' on the
lefthand side, which I thought was a sideyard. My son lives on
the lefthand side, looking at the property and my daughter and her
husband live on the other side, and their backyards are towards the
north. I went in to get a building permit in August and spoke to
Mr. Hindemann and said here' s the 24 ' and the sideyard could be
11. 6 ' put into the old acreage and at that time he agreed and said,
yes , there is no problem, so I went ahead and asked permission to
go ahead with the foundation because the concrete man was going -to
leave the North Fork for two or three weeks and go to the South
Fork and the Building Department was good enough to say go ahead ,
in the meantime your building permit will be issued, and you can
ask for inspections on your foundation. Then I got a call from
Mr . Hindemann , who said he .looked up the old records and found
out that actually next to my son was considered a rear yard back
in 1979 . I said I don'..t understand and I did not remember that.
So, he said, well that' s your rearyard. And I said, well, my
daughter is over here, my son is here and their rearyards are the
largest part of the property going this way, like 96 , whatever it
is , to 149 or 150 , I don' t have it in front of me, but and that ' s
where this house is set up with the sundeck in the back of the
house. And he said, no, technically, legally, it' s the lefthand
side next to my son, not a sideyard. I said that' s ridiculous
and, he said it doesn' t matter , you have to go before the gentlemen
for it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the 15 ' is merely a rear yard?
MR. ROBERT WENDELL ; Yes , it is and if you look at the houses
it is not, it is a sideyard. It happens to be a strange piece
of property because of the right-of-way.
CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you very much, let' s see if any
board members have any questions and this , of nurse, is a one-family
dwelling?
MR. ROBERT WENDELL : Yes , it is .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you want to get started quickly because
you' ve been held up for. two months , now?
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Two
MR. ROBERT W.ENDELL : I would, If you could do anything about
that it would be appreciated.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good.
MR. ROBERT WENDELL = Anything you could do gentlemen, I would
appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Would anyone like to speak
against the application? Questions from board -members?
Mr. Wendell , because of the uniqueness of this piece of
property, the board has looked at. it and I don' t see any' par-
ticular reason why we couldn' t grant it to you tonight, so, I ' ll
make the motion, I ' ll offer the motion, to grant it as applied
for . (Findings .and determination in official minutes filed with
Town Clerk . )
MR. . ROBERT WEND ELL Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor.
MEMBERS; Aye.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Aye.
----------------------
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: opened the hearing at 7 : 41 p .m. in the matter of
Joseph A. McKay and Michael S. Greenly. Legal Notice reads as
follows: " . . .by Howard' Young, indicating Lot #1 of 12 , 185 s .f .
and Lot #2 of 7 ,260 s .f. both of which have dwellings on them. "
Mr. Olsen, would you like to be heard on behalf of this application?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ: My name is Gary Olsen and I am the attorney for
the applicants. As they pointed out in the application, my clients
would like to take the piece of property that has frontage on=
three streets , has' four buildings on it and . make it two parcels .
Parcel 1 or Lot #1 would have an area of over 12 ,000 s . f. , it would
have frontage on Main Street of about 123 ' . and frontage on Fourth
Street of 100 ' on that piece of property there are two buildings .
All the four buildings on both pieces of property pre-exist
zoning and we have submitted, pursuant to your request, pre-
existing certificates of occupany for all the buildings . The two
lots on Parcel #1 basically tend to. . .the little house in the back
on the south. . .tends to face towards Farth Street and the main
house faces towards Main Street. On Lot #2 there are also two
buildings , two one-story frame houses , and you look at the
Young and Young survey and you will see that those buildings
are way to the east side of the property: It would have an area
f
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Three
(MacKay and Greenly hearing , continued : )
of about 7 ,260 s.f. , with frontage on Main Street of 80 s .f. ,
of 80' , and on Third Street of 90 ' . I think if you look at
the property, drive by it and take a look at it, you would
almost think, not knowing the situation that these are two.
separate pieces of property anyway. I respectfully submit
that the granting of the division, this is a natural place
to draw the division 'line .between .the two halves. of the pro-
perty. Density is not being increased, both lots #1 and 2
have their own cesspools and their own well points., so the
pieces right now are distinct, separate and apart from each
other from that standpoint. I have also made some photocopies
of the tax map, which I ' ll pass to you. I 've marked the sub- .
ject property in red ink. You' ll see when you look at the tax
map that this piece of property is an oversized parcel, over-
sized in looking at the rest of the neighborhood. The granting
. of the variance basically would . create two parcels of property
which generally would be in size, shape and character of the
other parcels in. the neighborhood, so 'I ' ll pass these up to you. .
As the board' is aware., Article 12 , Section 100-121, SS B
does permit the Zoning Board of Appeals to vary or modify the
application of the zoning regulations, so that the spirit of
the Chapter will be observed and the public safety and welfare
and substantial justice will be done. This whole area, the
whole community pre-exists zoning. All these parcels were cut, '
up and created way before the zoning code, so to try to apply
the 1984 zoning code in this community it' s really inapplicable
in my opinion. A 3airi, I don' t think that the granting of
the variance to create the two pieces would 'in any way have an
adverse effect on the community and would be in keeping with the
spirit of the ordinance. As the board knows , in making these
determinations you consider among other things the character of ,
the existing uses , the district, the conservation of property
value, the effect that the proposed use may have in conjunction
with traffic congestion, availability of water supply and sewage
disposal that may be created by the variance, whether or not the
use will produce noxious gasses, etc , and whether the area is
sufficient for the use anticipated. Again, those standards , I
don' t think would` be in any way .violated. There' s nothing about
what we're asking to do that would violate any of the normal. stan-
Bards that the zoning board would normally look at, in deciding
whether. a ,variance would be granted or not. To requiremy client
to have the oversized parcel, to have the four. houses , I think
is not Only a practical difficulty, but an--- unnecessary hardship,
not only from' the practical standpoint, but also there' s an
economic hardship requiring' him to have one piece of property
with four structures , I do have here tonight, an independent
appraiser , by the name of Lance Larsen, whom I am sure you all
know, and I would like to ask Lance to come forward and tell us
what he can about this piece.
October 25 , 1984 .
ZBA
Page Four
(McKay and. Greenly hearing;; continued: )
LANCE LARSEN: My name is' Lance Larsen. I am a real estate
appraiser, with an office here in Southold. I have been in-
volved in the appraisal of real estate for over twelve years
and the Town of Southold since 1977 , both with Southold Savings
Bank and since operating Larsen Appraisal Service since 1982 .
I have been doing properties in the Town of Southold since
that time, 'a period of approximately seven years , and I am
significantly aware of the market value trends in both the
neighborhood of New Suffolk and Southold Town as a whole.
Mr. Olsen has requested that I take a look at .the property
for the purpose .of determination of market;` walue, one as
the property existed and predicated on the redrawing of the
subdivision between the two parcels , which 'I 've done, and
with your indulgence I' ll either read you the report or
read you the outcome report.
CHAIRMAN GOEHR'INGER: Read us the outcome.
LANCE LARSEN: Predicated on the existing use, it' s my opinion
based on market sales , which I 've had to extrapolate from the
entire township, but including the Village . of Greenport there
were a limited number of properties. The property is currently
worth $144 ,500. 00 . But the split, if allowed on the property,
being the highest and best use of the, property, would be as
two separate parcels would have Lot #1 being $98 ,900 and. Lot
#2 being worth $80,600 for an increase in. marketabil.ity
of , to $179 ,50.0. 00 . It 'represents an economic hardship to
the owner currently "of approximately $35 ,000 . 00. This split
would also be of benefit to the Township, as it would entail
or allow the use' of additional assesed valuation on each parcel,
as .. opposed to a single parcel.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank.'you very much. Mr. Olsen, you in-
dicated here about c/o_s . I understand that you made the appli-
cations.. Did you receive the c/o's?
GARY OLSEN: Yes , I did.. I did mail it to the board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I didn' t get a copy.
GARY OLSEN: I' have the original here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: . Okay. Yes , we received it. I. just hadn't
seen all four of them mentioned on one particular form before and
I was looking for four separate ones .
GARY OLSEN: They are all on one certificate of occupancy
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
t
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Five
(McKay and Greenly hearing , continued: )
GARY OLSEN: Again, in sort of in conclusion, unless you have
questions that you want to ask. . .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, go ahead.
GARY OLSEN: The two buildings on Lot #1 are towards the west
side of Parcel #l, and building on Parcel #2 are way on .the east
side, and again .fr'om just viewing it as a stranger would, you would
almost think that they were two separate and distinct parcels any-
way. The variance isn' t going to change anything as far as the
use is concerned. It just gives the applicant the fullest and
best use of his property. The parcel to be created would be in
keeping with the. size and shape with the parcels in the neigh-
borhood.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can 'you give us some light as to the reason
for the subdivision? Is' it for sale, is it an estate situation?
GARY OLSEN: It' s interesting that the buildings on the east side
of the property were built by the Navy many, many years ago. It' s
the applicants' intention to renovate the buildings and put money
into them, but they. wouldn' t want to do that unless there was a
possibility of having' that as a separate piece. He wants to -up-
grade it, but then. again. .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I th'ink .one of the concerns of the board,
Mr . Olsen, is what happens in future years .
GARY OLSEN: Well, certainly 'the density could never be increased
more than it is now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but would there be the possibility of
another subdivision?
GARY OLSEN: Well, we would certainly be willing to put a restrictive
covenant on the property if the board should .so request, that the
property would never be resubdivided. Again, if the buildings
weren' t there to ask- for the subdivision would be difficult.
Simultaneously with the application before the ZBA, we also have
an application pending with the Planning Board, but because each
of the parcels are under two acres, the Zoning Board will have
to act first before we get the blessings of the Planning Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else
who would like to be` heard on behalf of this application? Would
anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from
board members? No further questions. I make a. motion to close
the hearing, reserving decision. until later . Thank .you very
much for coming in
1
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Six
Chairman Goehringer opened the hearing for Jean C. Holland at 7:52 p.m. , read the
appeal application and legal notice of hearing in i s en irety.
Jean C. Holland, Legal Notice reads as follows: Upon the
application by Michael"Hall, Esq. ,for a variance to Zoning
Ordinance, Article 3 , Section 100-31 for approval insufficient
area and width of parcels in this proposed division of land
known as Lots 36 and 37 on the Map of W. C. Grabie, Nassau
Point, Lots 327 and 328 on Map of Nassau Point Club Properties
Section C , Low Lane Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map,1000-111-10
. . . .Lot 327 at approximately 58 ,000 sf and L.ot 328 approximately
56 ,200 sf. These are penciled-in figures and I have a copy of
SC Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. Mr. Hall, would you like to be heard?
MICHAEL HALL: As you are aware, the appeal involves the re-
subdivision of two "Lots from an old subdivision map, known as
the Amended Map of Nassau Point, which to the best of my records ,
was filed in Nassau County before 1931. It does involve the
lots 327 and 328. The two lots created will also encompass those
two little lots , which are known as lots .#36 and 37 on the sub-
division Map of Walter Grabie, dated March 29 , 1938.
M.ICHAEL. HALL ,-_con' t: So 'wha't this variance in effect will do is
create two lots from what are now two tax lots , but on the sub-
division maps , four lots. As the record reflected, each of the
proposed lots is about 57 ,000 sf, nearly 1. 2 acres , which means
each of the*.lots created is nearly twice the. s.ize 'of almost every
. other parcel in the immediate vicinity, and the tax map will
believe bear me out on that. The entire section 111 on the
SC Tax Map shows parcels , most of which are under/,aweliruAder ,
many of which are under half an acre, even though it' s Nassau
Point. The present, size of the parcel, if it' s considered as
one parcel, is about 115 , 000 sf and for an individual, both from
a tax and maintenance standpoint, it is quite a drain. It' s a
drain on this owner and it could be. a drain on any subsequent
owner. I have filed already with the Suffolk County Clerk a
covenant and restriction that the lowland part, that' s lots #36
and 37 can never be built on. It's already been filed and I
did it at the request of the DEC. As the board is aware, I believe,
the board wouldn' t entertain this application until we got DEC ap-
proval of our application. We did receive that approval and I
believe a copy of the DEC permit is in thefile. If it' s not, I
have the original wi.th. me. As I said, the, covenant is that that
part, the little parcel would never be built on, with the exception
perhaps of . a bulkhead or dock, in accordance .with. any permit
requirements ;.that are necessary. I would also like to submit . to
the board, if it doesn' t have it in its file already, an agreement
between the Nassau Point Causeway Association, Inc. and the pre-
vious owner of the parcel. The agreement goes back to 1957.
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Seven
(Hearing of Jean -C.Hol 1 an,d, continued.: )
The agreement specifically allowed the resubdivision of the
two big parcels . The reason why, as you can see from this tax
map, the location of the house some person inadvertently put
the house almost on the cutoff between the .two parcels and back
in 1957 the entire planning association of Nassau Point at that
time. specifically 'approved the placement of another house on
lot 327 . I would like to hand that to the board right now.
I would also like the board to be aware that on or about
.April 13 , 1984 shortly after I sent out the legal notices, I
spoke with Mr. William Baxter , who is the adjoining owner. He
called me from Connecticut, I guess he is an absentee owner , but
he called me from Connecticut and said that he was not in any
way opposed to this application. He had no problem with it at
all. I just want the record to be aware of that and the board
to be aware of that. I ' ll just conclude briefly. The area
variance sought is one not really substantial in relation to the
requirements even of the new zoning requirements of 80,000 sf ,
and .here we have almost 60 , 000 for each lot. It would .produce
no significant .effect on population density or governmental
facilities . There is plenty of room up there, and if the board
visits the parcel where a house would be built on the new lot,
would be well back, well set back and well high from any water
salt water , any marshlands , so there' s plenty of room to build
up there without any crowding or increased density. It would
also produce no change in the character of the neighborhood,
as my application stated. The neighborhood itself consists of
a lot of small lots . This particular lot is huge and the tax
map will bear that out. And' the two proposed lots are even still
better , I think, than the character of the neighborhood, so there
wouldn' t be any detriment. I believe that it would be in the
interests of justice to approve the application as it sits .
HAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hall, in 1959 , when this agreement was
brought about, had there been any change in the house since then:
Okay, has the house been added to or subtracted from. In other
words , was the house built over the line in 1959 also or . . . .
MICHAEL HALL: The answer to your question is no. Since 1959
the house was extended on the other side of the lot, but it
crossed the line as it shows on the survey back when that. agree-
ment was made.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish us with a copy of the
restrictive covenant you had placed on the . . .
MICHAEL HALL: Sure, I have it here. For the record, Parcels
1 and 2 on that refer to the upper big parcel and the lower
little parcel. If I may, I would just like to say one more
thing, the DEC approval approves a minor subdivision, creating
two lots from four with construction of a proposed single-
family dwelling, with appurtenant sewage disposal on one lot
and retaining exsiting single-family dwelling, on. the other.
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
. Page. Eight
(Hearing of Jean C. Holland , continued : )
So, that part of it has already been approved by the DEC.
CHAIRMAN .GOEHRINGER: Are you placing any restrictions on the lot,
the vacant lot, the proposed vacant lot on this particular appli-
cation, that would..force the whomever to build a house higher than
the existing house?
MICHAEL HALL: That is one of the concerns of my client. For the
specific purposes of not .visual and esthetic reasons , so that the
owner of the existing house would never have to look down toward
the water at a house. So the answer is , the intent is yes , to
create that restriction, so that the house would have to be built
upland if you .would from the present house, yes .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Also, was there any other entertaining of
any other type of conformity of subdivision rather than this
particular conformity, or did you just feel. that you established
the original lot line , thereby cutting the house out. In other
words , was there anything else thought about? Did you think of
cutting the property, or dividing the property in any other way?
MICHAEL HALL: No, I sat one day with my clients and put pencil
lines a bunch of different ways and did try to find alternatives
but I believe I also consulted someone in the building department
to try to find the least obnoxious way, . if. you would, to cut
the land up.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do have a letter of objection from the
Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I have a copy for you
Mr . Hall. We received it on October 24th, sorry, October 25th,
it' s dated October 24th. Is there anybody else. I ' ll give you
a chance to comment on that Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to
speak against the application? Any questions from board members?
Mr. Hall would you like to. I can recess this for a little while
to go over this letter with your clients and come back and read
something else into the text if you would like.
MICHAEL HALL: I believe I am prepared to address this now, if I
may. As to the water supply down there, my clients have been
there for about over twenty years and 17 years , correction, and
have adequate water where they are. They have deep wells , 90 '
down, because you know they are very high. I am not familiar
with the Baglivi or the Borger application, but I don' t know
their respective sizes or what they are looking for or where
they are. I would like to take specific exception to the
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Nine
(Hearing of Jean C. Holland , continued : )
M. HALL , ESQ . (continued : )
last paragraph where they say that their right-of-way on Meadow
Beach Lane into Lowland Road would be eliminated. There is no
proposal here to do that. . And last they're concerned about
the fact that these lots would be across Lowland Road. It wouldn't
change anything from it presently exists. Lowland Road would still
be on. the subdivision map.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I thank you very much. Any comments
from anyone concerning this application? If there are no further
comments , I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decisicn
until later. All in favor. Aye.
MEMBERS: Aye.
---------------
Chairman ..Goehringer opened the hearing for Academy Printing at 8: 07,
with the reading of the legal notice and appeal a.pplic.ation .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .Application on behalf of Academy Printing
Services . Legal Notice reads as follows: . . . .since 1972 indicating
the entire parcel of property, including the printing services
building indicating a division approximately 25 ' to the rear of
that building and giving us a parcel of approximately 19 ,375 s .f .
indicating a parcel of approximately, I don' t have a road frontage
figure here, 115' by approximately a variable of 124-5 . And I
have a copy of the Suffolk County .Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. When you are ready, Mr. Hall.
MICHAEL HALL: At the end of my last presentation, I briefly
outlined five factors that were derived from one of the on
Supreme Court cases that has ever come close to defining/practical
difficulties are, which is thetstandard which is needed for this
area variance. The case wa.s Wachberger vs. Michaelis , Supreme
Court 1959 . The five factors are one, how .substantial the variance
is in relation to the requirement. Proposed lot here is 20,000 s. f.
the B-1 requirement, as far.. as I know, is 30 ,000 s.f. so we are
looking for something that is 2/3 of what the zoning ordinance re-
quires. The second factor is the effect,, if the variance is al-
lowed, of the increased population density produced on available
governmental facilities. . I think the board will agree with me.,
that even if this variance is allowed, it wouldn' t put any more
strain on the property than the present owner just chose to build
on it.. - Obviously, it' s commercial property and they could expand:
what they've got. The whole reason .we are here tonight, as I 'm
told by Mr. Hagerman from Academy, is that they have no .need to
increase the size of their' building; they have no need to increaBe
what :they've dot now in the red_ Academy bui_lding_, which is right __
October 25, 1984
ZBA
Page Ten
(Hearing of Academy Printing , continued : )
M. HALL (continued ) :-
behind us , so there would be no additional drain on the Town, on
.the services or on the traffic , whether you subdivide or again
it' s built on as it exists . The third factor is whether substantial
change will be produced..-in the character of the neighborhood. The
character of the neighborhood is business, a lot of what -is back
here on. Traveler Street is undeveloped property, woodlands . The
first thing going up, as you know, is the ,new postal service
building , which is almost. finished. So, there is no change in the
character of the neighborhood. As to size, I took the liberty of
measuring the square foot of every single parcel between Hortons
and Beckwith and Main Road and Traveler ' s and the average size of
a parcel was just under half an acre, just about 20 , 000 s .f .
and that' s exactly what the proposed parcel is . If you look at
the tax map, there are a couple of huge:.parcels , the Town,
Pudge Corp. a couple parcels over , but for them, most of the
parcels are tiny, some of them are 4-5 ,000 s . f. specifically
over by Beckwith and over there,,,soI don' t think there'.s any
depreciable impaction the character of the neighborhood. Im-
mediately adjacent to the parcel is the Town' s 50 ' right-of-
way and Mr . Stankevich' s property, which is at .this point is
a large parcel. Across the .street from the proposed lot is
the LIRR. There would no additional traffic strain or any-
thing by building across the street, .which I think is a bonus
here. The fourth factor to be considered is whether the dif-
ficulty can be obviated by some feasible method other than a
variance. The only other feasible method I can think of , and
I don' t think it would behoove the Town and I hope I don' t
contradict myself six months from now, if I have to do it,
would be move to upzone the property from B-1 to B , where
20 ,000 s. f. parcels are allowed. I don' t think that would
help the Town and I don't think it would serve anything.
If the variance is allowed, there would be another parcel granted,
and as you know better than. I do, the Planning Board through its
site plan approval could control what went there and how many
off-street parking spaces went there, just as well as they could,
.if again; Academy chose to expand build on the existing parcel.
They want _ to subdivide it strictly for economic reasons . It' s
too i .f r what they need now and they want to cut it in half
and/ ehla die other parcel. The last mentioned factor is whether ,
in consideration of all the above factors , it' s in the interests
of .justice for the Zoning Board to grant the appeal. I hope the.
board agrees that in balancing whatever harm there might be, and
I can' t think of any, in granting the subdivision, it' s in exact
conformity size-wise. withthe neighborhood, there ' s an avowed need
1 I .
October 25, 1984
ZBA
Page Eleven
(-Hearing of Academy Printing , continued : )
M . HALL (continued,:
in the Town for business space and this , - if you will, is off
the beaten path.: It wouldn' t put any strain on the Main Road
and it will share whatever traffic is being brought off the Main
Road to the new post office , so if the board looks at all the
factors here, I hope they' ll agree anyway that the variance is
appropriate. That' s all I have to say for now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr . Hall.
MICHAEL HALL: I hope I don't get any surprise letters.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Would anybody like to speak
against the application? Questions from board members? We are
aware of .wher.e. the property is , Mr. Hall and we have not discussed
this in any .way, imn.ner or form, so for that particular reason, I 'm
going to offer a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
.until sometime in the very near future.
MICHAEL HALL: Fine. I don' t know if the board has these yet.
These are August 14 , 1984 , map of the proposed subdivision.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don' t think we do. You gave us too many
of that so I 'll give those back. Thank you very much. All in
favor. Aye.
At 8 22 p .m. public hearing for. 'B.ERNARD DEMPS'EY commenced .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGE.R: I have- a copy of -a -survey dated July 11,
1973 , indicating on .'that 'survey a sketched in area of a pool ap-
proximately 12 x 24 in the side yard, approximately 8' , I assume
from the fence, or, yes :from the fence, which is approximately
4 ' from the property line. I now have a copy of a proposed
change of a pool 14 x 28 , again approximately 8 ' from the
east property line and again, approximately 3. to 4 ' from the
side yard. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like
to be heard on behalf of this application? Mr. Dempsey.
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Thank YRRu, my name is Bernard Dempsey, and I
have nothing additional/add except that in calculating the square
footage there ' s some 900 s .f. on the south side of the bulkhead,
which has been excluded from the lot coverage. I realize that
probably part of the. Town in calculating the
square foot, but I just wanted to make a point of that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: South side, meaning to the high water mark?
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Twelve
(Hearing of Appeal No . 3283 - BERNARD DEMPSEY , continued : )
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Right. I don' t know if that shows on the
application or not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you own to the high tide mark?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Yes .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you indicate to us . . .
BERNARD DEMPSEY: I think it' s on a revised sketch.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ' Okay. Oh, I see. As of right now,
you exceed the lot coverage by a little over 200 s . f. , is that
correct, Mr. Dempsey?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: I 'm not too sure how to calculate the lot coverage,
to include a fenced in area or just the pool. Just with the pool
area it' s about 200 s .f.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'was wondering. I ' ll pass on that question
for the moment. I was wondering if you were planning to put any
deck, elevated deck around the pool, which would then increase the
lot coverage?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So. anything that you would be placing would
be either cement slab or interlocking blocks , on the ground?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would there be any overhead lighting,
high overhead lighting?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You had mentioned in a telephone call to our
secretary the possibility of a small storage shed.
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Yes , it .was an afterthought and she suggested that
we include that rather than come back at a later date for a variance
because if I submitted that later sketch the smaller shed, the 6 x 8
shed, to be included in the. . . .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you come down to the Building Depart-
ment and revise your building permit also to include that?
I
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Thirteen
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Sure..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This storage shed will be only used for
storage purposes, is that correct?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will not be a dressing room, shower or
anything of that nature?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: That' s correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let' s see if anyone else has any questions .
Thank you, very much: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against
the application? Questions from board members? Did you bring with
you anything to indicate the need for this particular pool for a
theraputic reason? Any doctors ' notes or reports or anything of
that nature?
BERNARD DEMPSEY: Nothing other than physical evidence.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Do you have anything that you would
like to add? Alright. Hearing.-no further questions , I make
a motion to close the hearing, reserving decision. We have not
discussed this application in any way manner or form. We have
gone down individually ' and 'looked at the property and so we are
not ready to make a decision on it right at this particular moment
and I hope you understand that. Okay, we will try to make a de-
cision as quickly as .possible. I know our discussion late summer ,
okay, that you want to get it done as quickly as possible.
Hearing no further comments , again I reiterate the motion.
All in favor. Aye.
At 8:25 p.m. Chairman Goehringer.opened the hearingg for;COLGATE' DESIGN'.CORP. by
re dingq the legal notice of hearing .and appeal appTicati
CH IR1�iAN GOEHRINGER: . . . . . -. . . indica ing a proposed-storage- buildig
adjacent. to the east side of"-Cutc1ioge -7=I7 building , approximately
10 x 12 and I have a copy .of the Suffolk County .Tax map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Esseks .
WILLIAM ESSEKS: All the 7-11' s that the client owns in the County
are making applications to the various boards of appeal, in order
to construct prefab buildings measuring 10 x 12 to receive bottles
because of the bottle law. Theoretically, they could be put inside
the building, but , two things occur . One is almost all the 7-11' s
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Fourteen
(Appeal No . 3275 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP . , continued : )
W. ESSEKS , ESQ . (continued ) :
including the ones in your Town' are fully used. for either storage
foodstuffs or the sale of foodstuffs and generally speaking that
the buildings are non-conforming or had been built in the past
with the approval of the municipalities to the full setbacks of
the then existing zoning. In many instances the zoning situations
were rigorous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .so variances are necessary. To put
the return can's or bottles inside does not meet with normal respective
health standards; 'People who return bottles and cans for the most
part do not clean them partly full of beer or soda and they sit
there for days or weeks and if there are more than a dozen different
vendors the soda, beer and pick it up ..at various times , depending
on the time of the year. we feel, as do many other purveyors of
sodas and beers that the storage should be kept outside in a unit
that can . be sealed so people can' t get into it, that can be hosed
down with hot water , etc .to keep it clean and sanitary to meet
the health code requirements. As .you know, at 7-11, food is served,
not sit-down food, but sandwiches , beer and things like that. Cold
meals, hot meals , take out and you have to meet more rigorous health
department requirements than .other stores. Theoretically, this
could be put in the backyard but for our own safety purposes, we
think that it is . not a wise 'use .of the property because the vendors
come in with their trucks they can' t really get to the back. Tore-
qurie them to go out to the back is' I think a practical difficulty
for them, stacks up the trucks and also we have a .practical problem
with employees in the store having the back door open , returns
in and out the back door. We think that is a safety hazard and
the owner of the franchise is here, 'and I believe he will testify
to that fact. We believe that the. proposed temporary structure
that could be put at either the west or east side should be erected
in a side' yard,. slightly back from the front yard, and this applir
cation is for the side yard on the east. Alternatively, if you
feel the east side is not the most reasonable place, we would be
willing to place it .on the west side. The third alternative of
putting it in the rear yard, we both respectfully request that
you not consider . Mr . -Langan is here, the franchisee. Could you
explain to the board why you think it is- inappropriate to have
the storage facility in the rear yard?
MR. LANGAN: It ' would make it very inconvenient for pickups or
taking stuff out of the store and putting it back there. In bad
weather it would be very hard to get back there. In snow, or rain,
and I prefer people working at night do not have to go into the
back to do any work. It' s not very safe for them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr . Langan.
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Fifteen
(Hearing of Appeal No . 3276 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP . , continued : )
WILLIAM ESSEKS: Those are the really practical, practical
reasons that we request that you consider this application and
you can put it in either the east or west yard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Esseks , will there be anybody housed
within this structure?
WILLIAM ESSEKS: Absolutely not. The pure purpose is sealed storage
of beer and soda cans..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, therefore, you had mentioned or alluded
to the fact that it was going to be a temporary structure. Of
what kind of construction?
WILLIAM ESSEKS: . It is metal, put on blocks or a slab, in modules
of 10 x 12 , or alternatively 8 x66 either way. They come precast.
My client is literally buying hundreds of them for various 7-11' s
throughout the United States , the northeast. All .the state legi-
latures are doing the same thing as New York. . . .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, there would be no windows placed in this?
Housing anyone that would be collecting bottles at certain times
of the day. No electricity, air conditioning or any other. . . .
WILLIAM ESSEKS: You would ,real'ly have to. be heavy into bottles
and cans to want to live there. But it' s possible that you will
find someone who is really into them., Imt we will make. a special
application at that time.
CHAIRMAN. GOEHRINGER: That would be a use variance. Moving over
to the west side. . . .
WILLIAM ESSEKS: It' s such an unusual use, you might not want to
grant it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Moving 'over to west side of the bulding for
a second, I believe what exists over there is the garbage dumpster.
WILLIAM ESSEKS: That' s correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. So in other words , you would have no
objection to moving that dumpster either farther to the rear or to
the rear of the building.
MR. LANGAN: If I put the dumpster in the rear of the building ,
then I would have to run the very large.� garbage truck that picks
up the dumpster over all the away around to the back. You are
creaming another difficulty. We think it' s more practical to
have the dumpster on one side and the storage building on the
other
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Sixteen
(Appeal No . 3276 = 'COLGATE 'DES T.GN. '.C.0'RP . , continued.: )
MR. LAN'GAN- contin-ued : -
What' s interesting is that I can make the same presentation
wherever I go. I am going to go, I hope to the Village of
Southampton, as soon as you are through here, it will be the
same exact lot location, the exact same problem and then we
go to some other municipalities .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only concern of this .board is there
is no access to the rear of the property, therefore, barring
any access would therefore not allow any fire access to the
rear of the building if there was a fire, and that' s the con-
cern of the board at this particular time, and that' s the
reason I asked you the question about the west side of the
building.
WILLIAM ESSEKS: If it would be more appropriate, and I have
anticipated your concern, we could reduce it from 10 x 12 to
8 x16 , and move the fence right over to the line, which would
give you a 9 ' side y _.ard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That wouldn' t help, because the average
firetruck is 11' .
WILLIAM ESSEKS: Also, as a practical matter, the .hoses , the
truck with the hoses could get around the back. It could also .
come in through the school field. We do have all the problems
that you .mention; the day by day mandated by the State of New
York with the problem of the -bottles is also present, and the
owner of the franchise is concerned with his employees , and that' s
why I thought this metal shed on the blocks , is not an inappropriate
use of the side yard.
CHAIRMAN 'GOEHRINGER: You 'said the alternate size was what?
WILLIAM ESSEKS: 8 x 16 . I don' t think you care too much about
the depth, it' s the, it' s how f.ar it sticks into the side yard
that is a concern of this board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What if you placed the shed on the west
side of the building `in that little jog , where it says 18' from
the side yard and put an 8 x 16 building there, then putting .
the dumpster next to it?
WILLIAM ESSEKS: Before the meeting started, I considered that
with my clients who elected to go to the Village of Southampton
as an alternative you would accept. I tend to think you have
. . . . . .on that, I don't know, but it is a different side yard
and it would affect a different neighbor , but I would accept
that if the board were willing to grant that, but what you
could do is adjourn this to the next meeting and rea,.:d.ve.r.tise .
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Seventeen
(Colgate Design Corp . Hearing continued : )
CHAIRMAN. GOEHRINGER: Okay, let' s take that into consideration.
WILLIAM ESSEKS: And you will let me know if you do intend to
re�K .15� so. I can get back and represent this.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes . Okay. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like
to speak against the application? Questions from board members?
There being no further questions , I make a motion closing the
hearing, reserving decision until later .
-------------------
g 40 p .m Puic Hmin� was held in the m�tter . of SOUTHLAND CORP .
The 1 Ual no ice o ea. i ng. an appea ap� 1 c1ti on WaS
CHAIRMA GOEHRINGER: . .Just basica ly the exact same appeal
as 3274 , correct, 3276,, which reads as follows , again, Upon the
application of Southland Corp. , 300 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge. . .
WILLIAM ESSEKS: I thought that the necessity of this application
could be obviated by 'my client using the proposed unit a little
bit to the south, put it flush against the east wall of the
building and we are trying to arrange to meet with the building .
inspector and make an applicat-ion for a permit, therefore I would
request that you adjour this application to see if the necessity
can be obviated.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, We will see if . I ' ll take that up
into consideration after I see if there' s anybody in the public
that would like to speak. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak in favor of this application? Would anybody like. to
speak against the application? Mr . Hunter.
JOHN HUTTER: My name 'is John Hutter I live next-to
7-11. I object to any storage or building to be erected and put
closer to my property. The manager down there, he has no regret
of the way the customers throw the papers and cups and stuff all
over the yard, it looks like a garbage dump. Even the kids hang
around all hours of the night. Pickups and deliveries , all hour
day and night. . It' s becoming a. . .can' t sleep. . . .they come and
pick up in my yard—they throw the papers over. . .I 've already
erected a snowfence because I am downwind from 7-11, I got all
their garbage. Somebody who is in business should not only be
interested in the money that he takes , he should also be interested
in where the garbage goes .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN.GER: Thank you, Mr. Hunter Is there anybody else
who. would like to speak against the application? Mr . Esseks .
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Eighteen
(Appeal No . 3275 - SOUTHLAND CORP . , continued: )
WILLIAM ESSEKS: I heard what the gentleman said and I will ad-
vise my client of the concerns voiced of the allegation that there
is litter and poor management and if that .is correct, I will re-
quest them to correct the situation, pick up the litter and in
all ways comply with the intent of the various ordinances of
the Town. . Notwithstanding that, and in anticipation of thefact
that we can build a storage building without the necessity of
applying for a variance, and in order to avoid readvertising,
in the event that we can' t do that, I would request that the
board consider adjourning this matter until the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would be the effect of closing the
hearing, MR. Esseks?
WILLIAM ESSEKS: The ' only effect would be that if it turned out
that we were unable because of my. calculation as I attempted to
discuss with you on the phone last week, that my calculations
were incorrect and the measurements are not as I anticipated
them to be, it would then be necessary to resubmit and readvertise
and get back for another hearing. If the building inspector will
not give us a permit for a 10 x 12 building, a little bit further
to the south, against the wall," instead of the setback of the
proposed structure or if we can't build an 8 x 16 structure, as
I have proposed for Cutchogue, then it will be necessary to start
all over again. Obviously, it is your choice.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' I really don' t see the effect of closing
this hearing. It really has very little effect on the outcome.
I understand what you are saying, Mr. Esseks , but I respectfully,
I don' t see the .real problem here. The problem is that you are
going to try to obviate this situation with the building depart-
ment. Now, if you don' t, we certainly are not going to make. a
decision tonight. If .you let us know within the next two weeks
if you have come "to an agreement with the building department,
it would be sometime thereafter that we would be. making a deci-
sion with you. Okay. What you are in effect saying to me is
you may consider to change the location if you can' t make a
deal with the building department?
WILLIAM ESSEKS: It .may be that we can get a building permit as
a matter of right without going into the side yard. IF we cannot
do that, we would then want to reassert our request for a variance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So then you would be placing more evidence
in testimony. Okay, we will grant your request, Mr . Esseks , we
will recess until the next regularly scheduled meeting. It .will
either be the '9th or the 15th of November . I need "a second
gentlemen. All in Favor. . Aye.
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Nineteen
At 8 : 55 p .m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of ERNEST G .
CURRAN , Appeal No . .3272 . The legal notice of hearing and appeal
application were read aloud.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER�: . . ... .Rabbit Lane, East Marion. . . . . .
March 28, 1962 , indicating the westerly lot is approximately
I can' t read the dimensions , referred to as parcel B , and
parcel A in both cases they have depths of variably 200 ' .
Mr . Glickman, would you like to be heard on behalf of this
application?
SAMUEL GLICKMAN: I would like to..point out to the board.
First let me show you a p.:icture of the dwellings we are talking
about. As you well know; in my application, it shows a water
line which is supplied by the Rabbit' s Lane Association, it
supplies all of Rabbit Lane and is under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Health. This one large well, which supplies
the water to all of the residents. This is basically a summer
area. The water goes off about .the second week of November and
it starts again in April of the following year . It' s just, I
would say, nine months or perhaps in that area. The property, .
is houses that were there purchased in 1962 by Mr. Curran,
they were built much before that zoning which took effect here
in Southold Town in 1957 . The house there, the original plot
plan, which was Les . . . , they are all 25 ' lots. There is houses
across the street only on 25 ' lots . Lots in the subdivision I
ask for right now is approximately a little over 40 ' . You've
noticed a picture. The one which we call Parcel A which is a
two story which we have a certificate of occupancy when it was
remodeled, and I' believe that there is a c/o on Parcel B , too.
When it was remodeled. That will not change the character of
the area. It will not make 'any more density .to it. As a matter
of fact, if you look at the picture, they made a big improve-
ment to the area. You will find smaller houses on 25 ' lots
Mr . Curran occupies -the 'house which is on- Parcel A. His children
at one time occupied for the summer , the Parcel B and when they
didn' t, Mr. Curran rented that house out for the season. It
would not bring any more people. . It would not make any more
traffic . It wouldn' t do anything to the area as it now stands .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr . Glickman. Do you want your
picture back? We are 'trying to figure out how you had that
picture taken? Did you have a cherry picker?
MR. CURRAN: .The new building across the street has a height
of 30 ' , it was taken from the roof of that building. It was not
by aircraft.
SAMUEL GLICKMAN: Let me point out that there' s a difference
between the width between Parcel A and B buildings approximately
13i ' apart, even though they have been split much lower than that,
October 25 , 1984
ZBA
Page Twenty
(Hearing of 'ERNEST. .G.. CURRAN ,AA. ppeal :.No . 3272 , continued: )
and also the rooms will -not look into the other rooms , . if
that was any concern to the board. Now, we have a contract
for Parcel A. and a 'tentative for Parcel B. I would appreciate
it if I was able to give an answer from the board in a short
space of time. Mr Curran is moving to Tennessee.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are. aware of that and we and as I
indicated to Mr. and 'Mrs. Curran, on Thursday when they were
in the office is 'that we haven' t discussed the applications
and the merits of the applications , but we will be discussing
them, if not tonight, in the very near future and we are aware
of their concerns and I thank you Mr. Glickman.
SAMUEL GLICKMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ' Is there anybody 'else who would like to
be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak
against the application? - Questions from -board members? If
there are no further questions, I make a motion reserving
decision and close the hearing. All in favor. Aye. Have a
good night everybody.
* * *
Respectfully submitted ,
B,ar.b.ara, A. Strang
Pp . .1 -.20 ,_
*The.se mi:nutes were transcri.be_d from tapes as recorded (.in 'my
absence ) .
ECEIVED AND FILED B
THE SOUTHOLDIi.TOWN CLERK
DATE �//t?/P'a__HOUR
�-- _Town-.Clerk, Town of Southold;