Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/21/1989 HEAR 1 1 r.- l 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 4 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARIRMAN 5 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. 6 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. 7 DOREEN FERWERDA, 8 Secretary to Board - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 Town Hall 10 State Road 25 P. O. Box 179 11 Southold, New York 11971 12 September 21, 1989 7 :30 P. M. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORIGINAL, 21 22 23 f 24 I 25 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are ready to welcome 3 you all tonight on this rather foggy evening . 4 This is the first meeting we' ve had since the 5 early part of September. So we can ' t call out 6 the regularly scheduled meeting. We ' d like to 7 introduce Doreen Ferwerda. We have a court 8 reporter, and we ask you to use the mike when 9 you speak . There may a time when certain words 10 may not be available to this lady, so we' ll ask 11 you to repeat what you said. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: The first appeal on the 13 calendar is Appeal Number 3861 . 14 (Reading) 15 THE CHAIRMAN: A copy of the survey dated 16 January 20 , 1980 from Roderick Van Tuyl , P. C. , 17 indicating a two-story brick building with an 18 addition. I 'm sure everybody is aware of the 19 building , being in the area of Southold . I have 20 a copy Suffolk County tax map indicating 21 surrounding properties near it. 22 Anyone like to be heard on behalf of this 23 application? 24 (Show of hands) 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Use the mike , please, RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 3 2 sir , and use your name . 3 MR. SAMUELS: Mr . Chairman and members of 4 the board , my name is Tom Samuels, architecht 5 for the Southold Free Library . My office is in 6 Cuthogue on Main Road. I would like to go 7 through the application so you understand the 8 reason for the appeal , and the reason why the 9 library considers the application to be a 10 hardship and is looking for a variance. 11 The library is here; the existing 12 building. The Main Road is to your right. The 13 building sits on a relatively narrow lot that 14 runs between the Main Road and Travelers Street. 15 Basically the library has been for years 16 and years, looking to raise funds to build an 17 addition onto the building . As you know, the 18 library is a a masonry building from the 1800 ' s. 19 It was the Southold Savings Bank . It was 20 subsequently converted to a library in the ' 20s . 21 The library is making this appeal 22 basically in order to add onto this building 23 without disturbing it too much because it is 24 historic and because it is very heavy masonry, I 25 mean two-foot thick walls. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 4 2 The library and us as the architects have 3 come up with a plan which attempts to both 4 respect the path entrance and also create a new 5 entrance to the building. In the past the 6 entrance was from the front door . Up until this 7 day, at the front door. Now they ' re putting 8 more parking in the rear. However , seeing as a 9 lot of the traffic in the library has been 10 determined to be for the traffic from people who 11 are doing other things in town, we have tried to 12 create a plan which links the Main Road with the 13 parking lot via a pedestrian route which runs 14 along the property line and also abuts Feather 15 Hill Shopping Center. By doing that, we have 16 essentially located our entrance about midway 17 along that path into what would be the center of 18 the building . 19 Again, it ' s been determined from design 20 study and a lot of exhaustive consultations with 21 the library staff that a central entrance and 22 central circulation would work the best for them 23 because they have the children on one end and 24 adult section on the other end. So with this 25 site plan, we ' ve tried to create a situation RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 5 '-1 2 where we are lining up the parking area with the 3 Main Road and also have the building function as 4 efficiently as possible via the central 5 entrance. Instead of coming in, for example, at 6 the very end and having all the kids traipse 7 through the main space or some kind of hallway 8 or something which would take up space and not 9 yield any utility. 10 It' s been also determined from meetings 11 with the staff that the central relationships 12 include a need for control for the building, who 71 13 is coming in and out and going in and out and 14 who is going up and down the stairs and who is 15 going up and down the elevator . All the control 16 functions, meaning the control desk and the 17 administration , area, are located central to the 18 the building and the main door and the stairs 19 and elevator, in a sense, have to be close by to 20 that control point. 21 Even this working drawing, what you will 22 see is the exterior wall of the existing 23 building , which runs as such, and then the 24 exterior wall of the new building, which runs as 25 such. The new entrance , as I said, is towards RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 6 2 the center, you ' re coming up in the handicap 3 door , where the control desk is. Close by, as I 3 4 said, are located the stairs and the elevator so 5 the staff would have control over their use. 6 As I said originally, the library is a 7 masonry building, which means it' s difficult to 8 alter the existing structure very much. 9 However, we do need to maintain an open clear 10 path from the new to old building so it 11 functions as one. We tried to do that. The 12 emphasis in design had been to use the existing 13 openings as much as possible because of the 14 expense and the structural problem with making 15 new large openings in the existing masonry 16 walls. 17 So basically the existing windows are 18 located here, here and here. We are trying to 19 reuse all of those things and at the same time 20 keep the functions of circulation and control 21 close to that center point in the building . So 22 what we found, again, after truly exhaustive 23 design study, the best place for those things 24 was against the existing exterior wall of the 25 building here. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 7 2 What we did, therefore, was locate the 3 stair in the center between the two windows . It 4 just fit and the elevator behind the stairs , 5 again, on the other side of the existing 6 opening. That left us sticking out from the 7 existing building face three feet eight inches, 8 and that is the encroachment which even though 9 itself does not violate the side yard setback , 10 when added to the setback on the other side of 11 the building , something around twelve feet 12 violates the needed total setback . 13 We tried locating that elevator in many 14 other locations, for example out here or over 15 here. Or where the stair is , and then put the 16 stair other places. Basically we are sliding it 17 all around this control administration area, but 18 found that it just wasn' t working for an 19 efficient -- in an efficient means, and it was 20 causing us to add on great deal excess square 21 footage just to make the main reading room 22 function. 23 So the reason for the request for a 24 variance had to do with the location of that 25 elevator and the fact that it was sticking out RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 8 2 from the building that three foot eight inches. 3 Since it ' s a total side yard situation, it 4 occurred to us, well , we can maybe place it up 5 on the other side , meaning on this side . But, 6 again, finding, and -- with the idea we were 7 trying to link the Main Road and pedestrian 8 circulation that the library has always gotten, 9 the patrons of the library are familiar from 10 walking from the Main Road and the parking in 11 the rear. 12 So we were in a sense bound by that site 13 planning decision and found that the entrance 14 was -- could not be pushed back into the 15 building to make up the distance. Again, the 16 side yards are maintained on this side , the west 17 side , but together with the side yard on the 18 other side of the building it basically did not 19 meet the total side yard requirement. 20 So the hardship basically that we are 21 claiming in -- in the first aspect of the 212 hardship that we are claiming in this was the 23 hardship of this building that we are working 24 with, the old building , being rather intractable 25 and on a narrow lot and having to add onto it in RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 9 2 a way that the library can afford without any 3 additional square footage . It ' s as bare bones, 4 if you will , as it can be . 5 The library is strapped for funds. They 6 haven-' t raised the total amount they need yet. 7 They are trying desperately to get the amount 8 and go to bid and hopefully start construction 9 at some point, pending approval here or 10 something else. But the building is a difficult 11 building to add onto, is what I ' m getting at. 12 With existing openings and the library' s need to 13 control the buildings or staff' s need to control 14 the building in the most efficient possible way, 15 it kind of led us to this path. 16 We believe the hardship is unique because 17 the building is unique in this district and in 18 this town, being heavy masonry, as opposed to a 19 frame building which you can cut open and make 20 all kinds of changes. A masonry building you 21 can' t. You have to respect it. Therefore, at 22 that level the building itself is unique. 23 Also in the district the building is 24 unique because it was intended as a bank . At 25 the time it was seen as sitting alone on a big RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 10 2 site and all the other buildings were built 4 3 right up to the property line and therefore Main 4 Street is now a continuous store front. Then 5 the zoning ordinance changed and now we have 6 side yards that -need- to be respected. However , 7 this building does not -- is not like the other 8 buildings in the center of the hamlet but it 9 has these setbacks and now has to respect them 10 whereas the others don' t. 11 Also, it has an existing second floor, 12 which these days in a public building means it 13 needs an elevator . It has an existing second 14 floor which they can' t use. They can only use 15 it now for their occasional trustee meeting of 16 which even so, if you looked at it, they 17 shouldn' t be having a second floor of the 18 building without an elevator , as a public 19 meeting. 20 We were also proposing a second floor 21 meeting room which seals the fate of that. We 22 are looking to save construction costs by 23 limiting the size of the foundation. The roof 24 area, by building a two-story building , which 25 generally speaking is less expensive than a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 11 2 larger one-story building would be. 3 Furthermore , we believe that the variance 4 would observe the spirit of the ordinance 5 because it does not change the character of the 6 district. 7 The third drawing we have shows the 8 eastern elevation, which is the site of this 9 encroachment. And basically what you see here 10 is the existing building coming back this far . 11 This is the side that faces the old post office. 12 The addition is in the rear . As a link between 13 them in a sense on the elevation, at least, is 14 this elevator which sticks out three and a half 15 feet, three foot eight, off the building . 16 It ' s a non-residential district for the 17 most part , all the neighbors are 18 non-residential . The building, the existing 19 library has established a character of its own 20 in its own setting. We are trying to remain 21 faithful to the style of the building in all 22 ways , and the encroachment on the side yard, 23 seeing as it comes at this time, does not affect 24 the character of the district because all the 25 other buildings in the downtown of the hamlet RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 12 2 have zero side yards. 3 So with our ending up with an eleven foot 4 side yard, we don ' t feel that that will disturb 5 the character of the district in any way. 6 Basically by adding on this in this same style 7 we are hoping we can in fact enhance it to an 8 extent. And also this is virtually invisible 9 from the street because it ' s behind the building 10 on a narrow lot. 11 That' s basically it . 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: Mr . Samuels, I notice you f 13 have the proposed addition on the first floor as 14 2 ,324 .5 square feet. Is that approximately the 15 same on the second floor also? 16 MR. SAMUELS: The second floor is less . 17 Because we do not want to build over the 18 entrance lobby, because we were trying to 19 maintain light to the existing historical books 20 collection on the second floor . We did not want 21 to wrap the second floor addition around the 22 existing building, because we would cut off all 23 the light. 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: Give us the square 25 footage figure for the second floor . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 13 2 MR. SAMEULS: There are meeting rooms 3 below, total sqare footage of the new building 4 would be in the neighborhood of 6500 square 5 feet. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. 7 MR. SAMUELS: You ' re welcome. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to 9 speak in favor of this application? 10 (None) . 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 12 against this application? 13 (None) . 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions for Board 15 members?. 16 (None) . 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further 18 questions, make a motion to close the hearing 19 and reserving the decision until later? 20 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 22 (Ayes) . 23 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for 24 coming in. 25 The next appeal is 3857 . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 T Southold Town hoard of Appeals Lr] MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOU.THOLD, L.I., N.Y � 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN September 21 1989- CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. p SERGE DOYEN,JR. S.E.Q.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3861 Project/Applicants: Southold Free Library County Tax Map No. 1000- 61-1-14 Location of Project:. Main Road, Southold, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct addition with insufficient sideyard setbacks. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted_ with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an. involved agency under SEQRA 617.23 For further information, - please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. .I . tr 'f w: Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. ' No. 3861: Matter of SOUTHOLD FREE LIBRARY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-102, as Disapproved, (nonconforming Bulk area and parking requirements of the Hamlet Business District) Proposed construction will have insufficient total side yard setbacks. Property Location: 53705 Main Road, Southold; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 61, Block 1, Lot 14. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of SOUTHOLD FREE LIBRARY under appeal 3861; and . WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: I. The premises in question is' located along the north side of Main Road, Route 25, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000,- Section 61, Block 1, Lot 14. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article IX, Section 100-102, for permission to construct addition on to existing building, (nonconforming bulk and parking requirement of the Hamlet Business District, Proposed construction will have insufficient -total side yard setbacks. Page 2 - Appl. No. 8.8-59 - SO-UTHOL'D-. FREE L I B.RARY -. Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3 . Article IX, Section 100-102, requires. no building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or alter in the B District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules incorporated into this chapter by reference. 4. The subject premises is known and referred to as having Lot the total area of .832 acres, the existing building is approximately 2333 sq. ft. first level, proposed construction on the first level will be 2324.5 sq. ft. , for the total addition of all three floors will be approximately 6,500 sq. ft. inclusive. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: ( a) in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied and conditionally noted below. (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) it is the position of this Board that granting the 11 feet on one side and that of 11 1/2 ft. on the other side, this would not be out of character with the general existence in the immediate area. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the Application of SOUTHOLD FREE LIBRARY as applied under appeal NO. 3861 for the construction to existing dwelling with insufficient total side yard setback, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The one side yard will be that of 11 feet and the other be that of 11 1/2 feet on the other side of this building. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df ell GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN l 1 14 2 (Reading) . 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey dated 4 December 2 , the most recent date, 1-84 by 5 Roderick Van Tuyl , P. C. , indicating a rather 6 large two-story frame house which presently is 7 almost directly in the center of the lot from 8 the bank , from the lip of the bank to North Sea 9 Drive some 48 feet from the road , 75 feet from 10 the top of the bank or lip of the bank , as we 11 say. And the applicant is proposing a 16-by-32 12 foot swimming pool, skewed a little more toward 13 the west side , . and which would leave us an 14 insufficient area to the bulkhead. We have a 15 hundred foot under the guise of 23 D. We have a 5 16 county tax map indicating this and surrounding 17 properties in the area. 18 Would you people like to speak? 19 MR. SCHWARTING: I own Southold Pools . 20 I 'm the one contracting the swimming pool . We 21 are seeking the variance to build this pool 22 within 45 feet. 23 MR. GOEHRINGER: The deck area will be in 24 45 feet. 25 MR. SCHWARTING : The deck will be brick RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 15 2 and sand at grade level. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: So the pool is 45 feet? 4 MR. SCHWARTING: Right. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: What about from the west 6 side or west side of the property line? 7 MR. SCHWARTING: 25 feet, which is a code 8 within the community. 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Had this building been 10 roofed in any way? 11 MR. SCHWARTING: No. 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: It will remain open. 13 What will be the total grade of the deck and the 14 pool above the existing grading? 15 MR. SCHWARTING : It will be within grade . 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: Totally within grade? 17 MR. SCHWARTING: Yes . 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: Had there been any 19 changes to the overall character of the rear 20 lawn now when the pool is completed? 21 MR. SCHWARTING: No, just a swimming pool . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. 23 Anybody else like to speak in favor of this 24 application? 25 (None) . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 16 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: Now you ' re welcome to 3, stand, sir. 4 MR. LORE: Dominic LoRe, I live at North 5 Sea Drive in Orient. 6 My objection -- I have a letter in the 7 file, there . 8 My objection to . the thing is the safety 9 factor . I 'm concerned about my children and the 10 other children in the area. I think personally 11 that swimming pools are dangerous things. This 12 past summer in Phoenix, Arizona they were losing 13 a child a day, one little human being every day. 14 That scaress me. It sounds like murder to me, 15 particularly 25 feet away from me or next door 16 to me. 17 That' s about all , except that the 18 filtering system will be 25 feet' away from my 19 porch, which is the best part of the house 20 overlooks the sound, that ' s why we spend so much 21 money buying the house to sit on the porch and 22 view the sound. I 'm going to have a filtering 23 system buzzing in my ear. 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who 25 would like to speak against this application? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 17 2 (None) . 3 MR. SCHWARTING: Could you please tell . us, 4 concerning the placement of the fuel filter and 5 state law, concerning the fencing around the 6 pool somewhat do you have a copy of the survey? 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes . 8 MR. SCHWARTING : Pool filter be 9 approximately 25 feet away from his property 10 line, and we can enclose it. As far as the 11 buzzing sound, it ' s not very loud at all. The 12 fencing will be around the whole property to 13 code, four foot high. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: The entire piece of 15 property. 16 MR. SCHWARTING: Not the entire piece of 17 property. As far as you can see around. 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: The whole rear yard? 19 MR. SCHWARTING: Right, the rear yard. 20 Self-closing gates. 21 As far as the safety factor , ninety 22 percent of these drownings are because of 23 parents neglecting the children, that ' s the 24 reason they' re drowning . The reason it' s become 25 an issue now, is because swimming pools are more RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 18 2 popular now. He' s worried about people drowning 3 in the swimming pool , why does he live on the 4 sound? I don' t understand that. Everything is 5 to code . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 7 any other comments, sir? 8 MR. LORE: The sound thing is a fact . The 9 sounds makes sense. When we send our children 10 to the beach we go down there and supervise. We 11 can' t supervise our children every moment in the 12 day, It they' re in the backyard they may climb 13 over the fence. They' re under total supervision 14 when they' re on the beach. 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: I see. 16 Is there anybody else who would like to speak in 17 reference to this particular hearing either pro 18 or con? 19 (None) . 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further 21 comments, motion to close hearing reserving 22 decision until later? 23 MR. DINIZIO: Second. = 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 25 (All ayes) . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 t 4 Southold Town Board of Appeals ^ '. L'1hLM14we. ..'. :yy(ti;Lam.• ' ,.P, MAIN .ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN September 21 , 1989 CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H.SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. 4 TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3859 Project/Applicants: Emanuel Piperal'is & Dimitrios Argiropoulous County Tax Map No.. 1000- 15-1-3 Location of Project: 3410 North Sea Drive, Orient, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct pool within 100 ' of Sound bluff 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other. agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .233 . For further information, please contact:..the Office of. the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at ' (516) 765-1809. tr Ln Southold Town Board ®f Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., NiY. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516) 765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H.IN SAWZIO,CKI JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS DAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl. No. 3859 Matter -of EMANUAL PIPERAKIS AND DIMITRIOS AGRIROPOLOUS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d (A) ( 1) , as disapproved, for permission* to construct an inground pool with deck and fence, within 100 feet from the Sound in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 3410 North Sea Drive,. Orient; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 15 Block 1, Lot 3 . WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of EMANUAL PIPERAKIS AND DIMITRIOS AGRIROPOLOUS. under appeal 3859; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired' to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: I. The premises in question 'is located along the north side of North Sea Dfive, Town of Orient, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000-1 Section 15, Block 1, Lot 3. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d (A) ( 1) for permission to construct an inground pool with deck and fence, proposed construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound. • 11 1 page 2 - Appl. No. 3859 Matter of PIPERAKIS AND AGIROPOLOUS Decision rendered October 4, 1989 1f 3. Article XXIII, Section 100-239d (A) (1) , requires all buildings located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound and upon which there e1xists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not less than one hundred (100) feet from the top of such bluff or bank. 4. The subject premises from the proposed pool is known and referred to as being 40' from the top of the 151 high contour and 65' from the bluff, they are 22' from the property line on the west side and 53' from the east side of the property line, the pool will be 161 x 321 in width and length. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and v determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed pool and deck in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief; (c) that the area chosen for pool and deck is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally notes below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was Page 3- Appl. No. 3859 Matter of PIPERAKIS AND AGIROPOLOUS Decision rendered October 4, 1989 -Y RESOLVED, to GRANT-a Variance in the matter of the application of EMANUAL PIPERAKIS AND DIMITRIOS AGRIROPOLOUS as applied under Appeal No. 3859 for the placement of a 16 ' by 32' pool (as described in the above Finding Paragraph *3) , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the pool be approximately 22 feet from the West property line, based upon the updated site plan. 2. That the entire enclosure be fenced in with a minimum of a four foot fence,, unable to be climbed by youngsters or children and that the gates should be self closing and locked from the outside. 3 . That the filter be enclosed with a structure composed of sound deadening material (wood or other composition) so as not to cause noise for surrounding neighbors. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, /,CHAIRMAN .1: 1 19 2 Thank you for addressing this. We will be 3 addressing this on October 5th. Call us on the 4 6th of October and thank you very much for 5 coming in, all of you. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next application is 7 application number 3798. 8 (Reading) . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: A copy of a site plan 10 together with a type of survey from Chandler in 11 Norwich, Connecticut dated March 3rd, 1988, most 12 recent date revised is March 13 , 1989 , 13 indicating lots one, two, three and four as 14 mentioned; all of which have houses on them at 6 15 this present time. I have a copy of the Suffolk 16 County tax map. 17 I think you ' re representing the applicant, 18 Mr. Lark? 19 MR. LARK : Thank you. Richard Lark , Main 20 Road, Cutchogue , New York , 11345 . 21 If you read the petition, I can' t add much 22 to it. It ' s more or less making the best out of 23 a bad situation, here. The Planning Board has 24 basically agreed to all the lot lines that are 25 on there now. The reason that the fourth lot RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 20 2 was included, that ' s probably the only dwelling 3 on the premise year round rented to Mrs . 4 Pickett. That property lot number 4 was added 5 to the parcel solely as a protection. The Board 6 has seen it. They know that they' re all 7 dwellings are on there just as the way they are 8 portrayed on the map. I can' t add much more to 9 the application. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Can we get into the 11 seasonal aspect of the dwellings or is it simply 12 pre C. O. ' s? 13 MR. LARK : I 'm going to hand up to you 14 tonight the certificatess of occupancy had on 15 the property going back to 162 . All of the 16 dwellings on there have C. O. ' s. So you can have 17 this as part of your record. 18 Now, the buildings themselves, all of them 19 are year-round buildings , with the exception of 20 what' s going to be utilized by the family' s old 21 chauffeur ' s cottage--guest cottage on there. 22 It' s not to be used as an independent dwelling. 23 The owner would be happy to file a covenant on 24 lot number three . 25 The building on lot number one is a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 21 2 substantial building and has a C. O. going back 3 to 162 . There was an add-on when they added on 4 a deck and everything there. 5 The one on number two did not have a C. O. 6 until Mr. Lazaar issued one there when he issued 7 C. O. ' s on one lot for all three dwellings. The 8 only modern house there was the one on lot 9 number three, built in 1978, and got a C. O. 10 Lot number four got a C. O. from Mr. Lazar as an 11 independent one and that' s an old house. The 12 others are all used for family. 13 As Mr . Dinizio knows, talking to Mrs. 14 McCance, I put in the application, the reason 15 for this, this has been kicking around in town 16 for a number of years. She ' s trying to make the 17 best out of a bad situation. She acquired the 18 parcel through her family with the exception of 19 lot four . That she bought independently. The 20 houses were there. It ' s the old Furgeson 21 estate. The houses were there. 22 Now she has gotten to the point, 78 years 23 of age , she wants to deed over lot one to one of 24 her children; two to the other one; three and 25 four will remain as is. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 22 2 As I say, kicking around for a number of 3 years , they were going to co-op it. I advised 4 them against it, because that would lead to 5 nothing but problems , even though legal . It was 6 at the Planning Board and with the Town 7 Attorney' s assistance that lot number four got 8 included so it would be all a package situation. 9 So it ' s one great big thing for variance for the 10 whole thing . 11 In ,my talks with the Planning Board, 12 they' re going to go along with the lot lines the 13 way they are now. They tried to move them, but 14 it ' s like that jigsaw puzzle, once you move one 15 thing, you move five other things . Because of 16 the topgraphics, they' re going to leave 17 everything the way it is . So that' s the request 18 for the variance. Again, it' s to clean up one 19 of those old things that existed from an old 20 estate over there. Now the time has it come to 21 divide it up to the kids. 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: I remember looking at the 23 C. O. ' s before you handed them up. You mentioned 24 about lot number three concerning the butler ' s . 25 MR. LARK : It was originally the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 23 2 chauffeurs ' cottage on the estate. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: The cottage to the left 4 of the building that was built in 171 , what were 5 you referring to in reference to the covenant? 6 MR. LARK: That' s not going to be an 7 independent structure. Strictly accessory 8 structure. Any assurances wanted by the 9 Planning Board or Board of Appeal , the applicant 10 has no objection to filing a covenant making it 11 in effect a guest cottage . They put the 12 grandchildren in there or her 13 great-grandchildren. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: So there are no cooking 7 15 facilities in there? 16 MR. LARK : There was one time. If you go 17 in the building you take one look in there and 18 shake your head. There was an old gas stove in 19 there. But that' s not a problem. They ' ll take 20 it out. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to 22 speak in favor of this application? 23 (None) . 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 25 against the application? Questions from Board RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 c��FFOLi n Lu.nn Southold T Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y' 11371 TELEPHONE 1516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS September 21 , 1989 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S,E.Q.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION 1 Appeal No. 3798 Project/Applicants: Elizabeth McCance County Tax Map No. 1000- 6-5-3 & 5 . 1 Location of Project: Fox Avenue & Sappho Drive , Fishers Island Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Subdivision of three lots insufficient area. 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. An Environmental .Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .23'3* . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at i (516) 765-1809. f tr n aj Southold Town Board ®f Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.;"N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JA EPH H.IN SAWZIO,CKI JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl. ' No. 3798 Matter of ELIZABETH McCANCE Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article I Section 106-20 (Article III, Section 100-31 as disapproved) for approval of insufficient area in this pending division of property. (R-80 Zone District) Property Location: Mansion House Drive, Fishers Island; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 06, Block 05, Lot 3-5.1. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of ELIZABETH McCANCE under Appeal No. 3798; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. the premises in question is located along the east side of Fox Avenue, Fishers Island and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 06, Block 05, -Lot 3-5.1. 2. this is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article I, Section 106-20 (Article III, Section 100-31, fore - approval of insufficient area in this pending division of property. 3 . Article III, Section 100-31, as disapproved by the Building Inspector, in this pending division of improved land, ? in a R-80 Zoning District. Page, 2 - Appl. No. 3798 • Md-t'-ter of ELIZABETH McCANCE Decision rendered October 4, 1989 4. The subject premises for the proposed lots are as follows, approximately 1.51+- acres for lot one ( 1) , Lot two ( 2) is 1.00+- acres, lot three (3) is 1.54+- acres and lot four (4) is 0. 689+- acres. (a) For the record, each lot is improved with preexisting dwellings, except for lot #3, which consists of a main dwelling and a cottage. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of ELIZABETH McCANCE as applied under Appeal No. 3798 for approval of insufficient area in this division of land. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (a) the only requirement is that the kitchen be taken out of the accessory cottage in lot 3, and it only be used for sleeping quarters. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN 1 24 2 members? 3 (None) . 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing none, I ' ll make a 5 motion to reserve decision and make decision 6 later. 7 MR. DINIZIO: Second. 8 (All ayes) . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you again. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is 3863 . 11 (Reading) . 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of the survey most 13 recent date is November 18, 1986 on behalf of 14 the surveyor, Roderick Van Tuyl, P. C. , 15 indicating a footprint of a dwelling 16 approximately 30 by 46 , approximately 50 feet 17 from the lip of the cliff. And approximately 35 18 feet from Sound Drive. I have a copy of the 19 Suffolk County tax map indicating this and 20 surrounding properties in the area. 21 Is there somebody who would like to be 22 heard? 23 MR. TSIRKAS : Things now stand with a foot 24 set back from the lip and 40 foot from the 25 street, I end up with about 16 percent of the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 25 2 lot to build on. I have a minimum requirement 3 within the community of 1 ,200 square-foot plus 4 an attached garage. The house on the left is 5 built on the bluff. The house on the right is 6 19 feet back from the bluff. The effect, if I 7 don' t. get the additional five feet is , I 'm going 8 to be way back from- those houses and I 'm going 9 to end up building a long narrow house, totally 10 out of the character with the houses that are 11 there now. 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: I know that you went 13 before the trustees concerning this application 14 that was concerning the rear yard. 15 MR. TSIRKAS: Right. 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: That was for leveling 17 that particular area? 18 MR. TSIRKAS : No, originally I had wanted 19 to build within 35 feet. Then you ruled in 186 20 it was 50 . At that time I didn' t build it. 21 When I went back this summer to start filing I 22 found out the rule had been changed earlier this 23 year . 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: So what rule was that? 25 MR. TSIRKAS: The front yard going from 35 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 O 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 September 21 , 1 989 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3863 Project/Applicants: Nicholas Tsirkas County Tax Map No. 1000- 33-1-11 Location of Project: 2700 Sound Avenue. Greenport, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: .Construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback at 351 , as previously considered under prior Variance #3471. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area. of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved- agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.23'3* . For further information, please contact' the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr F� Southold T®w gar ®�' Appeals `•'�� � MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl . No. 3863 Matter of NICHOLAS TSIRKAS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as disapproved, for permission to construct a one family dwelling with insufficient 40' frontyard setback in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location 2700 Sound Avenue, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 033, Block 01, Lot 11. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of NICHOLAS TSIRKAS under Appeal No. 3863; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north side of Sound Drive, Greenport and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 033, Block 01, Lot 11. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244, for permission to construct a one family dwelling with an insufficient 40 ' frontyard setback. Page 2 - Appl. No. 3863 Matter of NICHOLAS TSIRKAS Decision rendered October 4, 1989 J. 3 . Article XXIV, Section 100-244, (B) A nonconforming lot separately owned and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at the effective date of this Article and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at any time subsequent to such date may be used, or a building or structure may be erected on such lot for use, in accordance with all the other applicable provisions of this chapter, provided that proof of such separate ownership is submitted in the form of an abstract of title showing changes of title to said lot, which abstract shall be in the usual form, shall be certified by an attorney or a company regularly licensed to examine and ensure title to real property in Suffolk County and shall contain a . certification that no contiguous property was owned by an owner . of the property involved since the date of any previously applicable Zoning Law. 4. The subject premises is vacant and consists of a total lot area of 25,250 sq. ft. , lot width of 100 feet and total average depth of 261+- feet. , The proposed dwelling will have insufficient 401 frontyard setback. 5. It is noted for the record that by a prior application under Appeal No. 3471 , a variance to locate a new single-family dwelling with an insufficient setback from the edge of bank along the Long Island Sound, was approved conditionally under the following stipulations. 6. It was the opinion of the Board that: (a) no construction be located closer than 50 feet at the nearest point from the top of the bank. 7. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established - nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed dwelling in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief ; Page 3 - Appl. No. 3863 Matter of NICHOLAS TSIRKAS Decision rendered October 4, 1989 (c) that the area chosen. for this single-family dwelling is not unreasonably located; (d) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application. of NICHOLAS TSKIRKAS as applied under Appeal No,. 3863 for the construction of a single-family dwelling (as described in the above Finding Paragraph #3) , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the single-family dwelling be no closer than thirty five feet to sound Drive. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted. df � ltlxl � /GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,/ CHAIRMAN 1 26 2 to 40 . 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have no particular 4 problem with it. We ' ll see if the Board does. 5 We thank you. Nice seeing you again. We hope 6 we can dispose of it at this particular point. 7 Anybody else like to speak in favor of 8 - this. application? 9 (None) . 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 11 against the application? 12 (None) . 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions from Board 14 members? 15 (None) . 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion to close hearing 17 making motion to reserve decision until later . 18 (All ayes) . 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. The next 20 appeal is number 3827 . 21 (Reading) . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey most 23 recent date June 8, 1988, indicating three 24 parcels in question and copy of Suffolk County 25 tax map indicating this and surrounding RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 27 2 properties in the area. 3 Would you like to be heard? 4 MS. 0NGONI : I think the application 5 itself is fairly straightforward. I would like 6 to explain the circumstances of the merger 7 problem. Mr . and Mrs. Kinscherf purchased these 8 three separate parcels .at separate times back in 9 the 1950s. Parcel A, they purchased house 10 presently occupied in 1952 in their joint names . 11 In ' 59 they purchased B. Mr. Kinscherf 12 purchased lot B. Mrs. Kinscherf purchased lot 13 C. 14 However at the time of Mrs . Kinscherf ' s 15 death in 1967 , Mr. Kinscherf , as being her sole 16 beneficiary and inheriting the lots, the three 17 lots merged. He ' s now faced with the situation 18 of having a merger problem here. That one 19 parcel collectively currently has two houses on 20 it . The house which faces on Inlet Lane, which 21 is occupied by Mr. Kinscherf and then there is a 22 house on lot 29 , which is currently rented. 23 Mr . Kinscherf would like to build a house 24 for one of his six children on parcel C, lot 30 . 25 He is unable to do so because of the merger RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 28 2 problem. We are now making this request to 3 split the lots in accordance with the original 4 filed map Fordham Acres . 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: Could I ask you again, 6 lot C was purchased by Mrs. Kinscherf in what 7 date? 8 MS. ONGONI : Let me double check . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have the deeds also but 10 I don' t recollect. 11 MS. ONGONI : That is right, lot C was Mrs. 12 Kinscherf and lot B was Mr . Kinscherf . 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: When did he purchase the 14 lot? 8 15 MS. ONGONI : She purchased lot B May 22 , 16 1959 . 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: That was lot B. Lot C 18 was purchased when? 19 MS. ONGONI : C was purchased the same date 20 in 1959 by Mr. Kinscherf. 21 MS. ONGONI : She died in ' 67 and he has 22 been sitting for over 20 years with this merger 23 problem and he' d like to correct it for the 24 records. 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Very good. They have RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 29 2 town water down there, right? 3 MS. ONGONI : That is correct. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: I notice you have a 5 proposed building envelope on lot C. Does that 6 presently. conform to the new zoning ordinance, 7 do you know? 8 MS. ONGONI : The structure itself? 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Well , the setback . 10 MS. ONGONI : The setbacks do not conform. 11 So we ' d also require a variance from the 12 setbacks. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: I don' t know if we 14 advertised for that. We ' ll see what we can do 15 on this . 16 Anybody else like to be heard on behalf of 17 this application? 18 (None) . 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 20 against the application? 21 (None) . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions from Board 23 members? 24 (None) . 25 MR. GEOHRINGER: If there are no further RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 ZZ2 Southold Town Board of A eats 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. S,E.n.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3827 , Project/Applicants: Edwin Kinscherf County Tax Map No. 1000- 43-4-29 ,30 , 35 Location of Project: 350 Wood Lane , Greenport , NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This. Board in this Project: Approval of .insufficient areas in pendf►ig subdivision . 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .23'3* . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr XWF C= Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. ACTT.ON OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3827: Application of EDWIN KINSCHERF for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article I, Section 106-20, (Article ITI, Section 100-31, as disapproved) for approval of insufficient areas in this pending subdivision. Property Location 2700 Sound Avenue, Greenport, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 043, Block 04, Lot 29, 30, 35. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and conclude on September 21, 1989 in the Matter of the Application of EDWIN KINSCHERF under Appeal No. 3827; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS,' the Board Members have personally viewed and •are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the west side of Inlet Lane, in the Town of Greenport, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 043, Block 04, Lots 29-30-35. 2. This is an application for a Variances from the Zoning Code Article I, Section 106-20, Article III, Section 100-31, for approval in this pending division of land, proposed subdivision will have insufficient areas. ' T Page 2 Appl. No. 3827 Matter of EDWIN KINSCHERF Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3. The subject premises for the proposed subdivision is known and referred to as being divided into 3 lots, on the Survey by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. Dated June 23 , 1986, the first Lot A will have 10,000+- sq. ft. , Lot B will have 5,000+- sq. ft. , and Lot C will have 5,000 sq. ft. 4. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by. Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in' the matter of the application of EDWIN KINSCHERF as applied under Appeal No. 3827 for a division of land, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That Lot Set off "C" shall conform with all setback requirements.* Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN I 1 30 2 questions, I ' ll make a motion for closing the 3 hearing, reserving decision until later. 4 At this time I make a motion to close the 5 hearing and reserve decision. All in favor? 6 (All ayes) . 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is number 8 3 864 . 9 (Reading) . 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a ' survey 11 again introduced by Roderick Van Tuyl , P. C. , 12 most recent date May 23 , 1988. I have a copy of 13 this indicating a proposed house approximately 14 28 feet from Bay View Drive. It ' s most closest 15 point is 20 feet from Spring Pond . 16 I have a copy of Suffolk County tax map 17 indicating this and surrounding properties in 18 the area. Somebody like to be heard concerning 19 this application? 20 MR. WIGGINS: Merle Wiggins, Peconic 21 Association, for the applicant. 22 The application has to do with the 23 building of the house on the lot that is neither 24 75 feet from the bulkhead nor the 35 feet rear 25 yard setback . The circumstances surrounding this RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 31 2 was a subdivision as of 1927. The present 3 applicant owner purchased it in 1975 . The lot 4 is not deep enough so you can get the 75 feet. 5 The other bit of information that has a 6 bearing on it is that the Spring Pond, which is 7 the total bulkhead property is not public waters 8 or town waters but privately owned which the 9 owner pays a yearly fee for that. Not that it 10 makes any difference, but that' s one of the 11 things that was perhaps not clear in the 12 beginning. 13 The owner purchased this a long time ago 14 with the hopeful anticipation that he could have 15 a retirement type home and move to this 16 property. Now he' s faced with insufficient rear 17 yard setback . 18 Since the application was made for 19 variance, there has been some further discussion 20 with the building department with the suggestion 21 made that if the house could be moved further to 22 the east, it would increase the rear yard 23 setback . 24 Now, when this was originally laid out the 25 small portion of the lot was considered having RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 32 2 two front yards on Larch Lane and one on Bay 3 View. 4 You can see that' s not a straight clear 5 cut front yard, because it' s at an angle. 6 - Also the lot next to it on the east is 7 zoned so that it is not a buildable lot. He uses 8 that as an access dock for people who rent in 9 the area. It ' s not a buildable lot and not meant 10 to be a buildable lot. 11 That brings out the circumstances. 12 Any questions? 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Are you actually 14 suggesting that you change -- 15 MR. WIGGINS : To consider that a side yard 16 of 15 feet rather than a front yard would 17 increase the distance from the bulkhead by about 18 three or four feet. 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: This is the one on 20 Orchard Lane? 21 MR. WIGGINS: Yes . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: You ' re thinking about 23 pushing the house over to 15 feet . 24 MR. WIGGINS: Yes, legal side yard 25 setback . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 33 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: Do you have a copy of 3 that, or superimposed anything for that? 4 MR. WIGGINS: I will submit that tomorrow. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: Can you do that? 6 MR. WIGGINS: Yes . 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: We ' ll leave the hearing 8 open until October 5th and close it pending 9 receipt of that. And hopefully we can make a 10 decision expeditiously thereafter . I want to go 11 down there and make a few more measurements. 12 MR. WIGGINS : Fine, thank you . 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 14 Anybody else like to speak in favor over this 15 application? 16 (None) . 9 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anydody like to speak 18 against the application? 19 (None) . 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: The only question I had 21 was this is a one-story house . 22 MR. WIGGINS : Two-story. The square 23 footage would be around 1300 , 1500 square feet 24 on the lot itself. 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 a . a , South Id Town �. Board ®f 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. S,E.O.R_.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3864 Project/Applicants: Leopold Stern County Tax Map No. 1000= 37=5-22 Location of Project: 1390 B•ayview Drive , East Marion , NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct one family dwelling with insufficient rearyard setback ,' 75 ' from bulkhead. 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. An Environmental .Assessment(Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section .617.2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .23j . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at i (516) 765-1809. , tr `L `oC �L d Town Board of A eats S'®ugh®1 MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 " TELEPHONE(516) 765-1809 FAX No. (516) 765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3864: Matter of LEOPOLD STERN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, (Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as disapproved) for permission to construct a one family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback, approximately 75 feet from the bulkhead in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 1390 Bayview Drive, East Marion, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 37, Block 5, Lot 22. WHEREAS,. a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the. Application of LEOPOLD STERN. under Appeal 3864; and WHEREAS, at said heating all those .who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south side of Bayview Drive, East Marion, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 37, Block 5, Lot 22. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B. (Article XXIV, Section 100-244) with insufficient rear yard setbacks, approximately 75 feet from the bulkhead. 4, r , Page 2 - Appl. No. 3864 Matter of LEOPOLD STERN • Decision rendered October 12, 1989 3. Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, all buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy five (75) feet from the bulkhead. Article XXIV Section 100-244 (A) , this subsection is intended to provide minimum standards for granting of a building permit for lots made nonconforming or continued in a state of nonconformance by the adoption of this Article and that were singly and separately owned as of the effective date of this Article. 4. The subject premises is vacant and consists of a total lot area of . 301+- acre, the proposed dwelling will have nonconforming setbacks, in front and rearyard areas. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order .of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally notes below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was r Page 3 - Appl. No. 3864 Matter of LEOPOLD STERN Decision rendered October 12, 1989 } J RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of LEOPOLD STERN as applied under Appeal No. 3864 for the placement of a single-family dwelling, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the existing setbacks remain the same, with the exception of the setback of Spring Pond which will be 21+- feet, as shown on survey; dated 9/26/89, prepared by R. Van Tuyle P.E. 2. A suggestion in the construction process that straw/hay bales be placed approximately 15 feet from the bulkhead, running the distance of the construction, during construction period so that there will be no soil intrusion into Spring Pond. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, (absent, Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joe Sawicki) . This resolution was duly adopted. J df 01 'GERARD. P. GOEHRINGER, 'AIRMAN 1 34 2 Hearing no further comment I ' ll make a motion 3 recessing until October 5th pending the receipt 4 of another footprint area on the parcel and for 5 further measurements for the Board. I ' ll offer 6 that motion, gentlemen. 7 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: Are all in favor? 9 (All ayes) . 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you . 11 I want to change that meeting day. It' s recessed 12 until October 4th, not October 5th. 13 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken. ) 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is appeal 15 number 3865 . 16 (Reading) . 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are waiting response 18 from water conservation. 19 I have a copy of the surveys, Roderick Van 20 Tuyl , P. C. , amended date of June 27 , 1989 . 21 Indicating one and a half story framed 22 house presently. Approximately 7 feet from the 23 northeast property line and approximately four 24 feet from the southwest property line, 30 feet 25 from the bulkhead of the creek and quite a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 35 2 distance from the right-of-way to Windy Point 3 Road. I have a copy of tax map indicating 4 properties in the surrounding area. 5 Anybody like to be heard? 6 MR. BREWER: Rudolph Brewer , Main Road, 7 Southold. His architect is here, Mr. 8 Schoenstein. 9 I noticed, Mr . Chairman, you mentioned the 10 fact you should have a letter from the Town 11 trustees that they recommended the approval of 12 this application. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: That was the one dated 14 August 1 , 1989 . 15 MR. BREWER: That is correct. Mr . Burst 16 told me outside a little while ago he received 17 in the mail, and I didn' t, a statement that the 18 D. E.C. has approved this. I would submit this 19 to the Board as soon as I get a copy of it . 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: Great. 21 MR. BREWER: You will notice we are 22 appealing a provision of the ordinance that says 23 basically: "No building or premises shall be 24 used or no building or part shall be erected in 25 low density R zone unless same conforms to above RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 36 2 parking schedule. With the same even force as 3 regulations set forth herein. " 4 If you look at the existing dwelling that 5 sits there now could not comply with the 6 ordinance. It seems kind of funny that the Town 7 insists upon creating restrictions where they 8 know houses that exist can' t conform. There is 9 a hardship here but more definitely a practical 10 difficulty with respect to this application. 11 The downstairs of the existing house doesn' t 12 conform to the existing zoning code in that it' s 13 approximately 615 square feet -- a hundred 14 square feet. 15 What the applicant really wants to do is 16 enlarge his house so he can enjoy it. Mr . Burst 17 is an individual who has owned this property for 18 some 20 years. He has indicated that he would 19 like to proceed with this addition after a great 20 deal of thought. The only way to do it is to go 21 upwards, which is basically what we are doing . 22 We have an existing structure. He can ' t 23 go out to the side yards really that much. You 24 can ' t go anywhere but basically up. 25 Aesthetically, what he has submitted to the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 37 2 building inspector is the logical plan. 3 The existing house goes out, I think , two 4 feet, I think , on either side--the upper 5 level--other wise it ' s pretty much on the same 6 footprint as what exists, and that includes the 7 decking. 8 The only exception, I might say, is that 9 on the eastern side the decking goes out to the 10 property of Patricia James maybe a little closer 11 than the existing decking. But other than 12 that--and into the rear, on the west a little 13 bit in that corner, north-west corner, it' s 14 pretty much within the footprint. Yet, again, we 15 are not that close to the side yard to the 16 property on the west, this -- existing stoop is 17 approximately that distance from the property 18 line. 19 We are where we are with respect to the 20 waterfront. As you have already noted, the Town 21 trustees have indicated their approval . 22 This situation is definitely a unique one . 23 It' s unique due to the size and dimensions of 24 the property and where it is. Look at the 25 survey I believe you all have before you, you RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 38 2 can see that basically although a little bit 3 larger than this piece of property, all of them 4 are small. It definitely is nothing to change 5 the character of the neighborhood . The 10 6 neighborhood is going to remain the same , going 7 to continue to be a one-family dwelling, 8 continue to be the same owner. He and his wife 9 come out and enjoy it occasionally with their 10 two grown-up children. 11 We respectfully request that the Board 12 grant the application. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: This deck is going around 14 the entire circumference of the second story; is 15 that correct? 16 MR. BREWER: No. It goes just on the 17 water-side front. 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: So the dotted line is 19 showing what? 20 MR. BREWER: Showing , basically, a little 21 bit of the building going outward and the roof 22 line. I believe it goes out, if I ' m not 23 mistaken Mr . Schoenstein can tell you? 24 MR. SCHOENFELD: Cantilevered two feet. 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Cantilevering the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 39 2 building over the existing structure two feet. 3 MR. SCHOENFELD : That would come off. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: The only problem that we 5 have, or that I have, we went down on Saturday 6 morning, again, Mr. Dinizio and myself, we have 7 to provide access to the rear yard, for fire 8 vehicles or whatever the case might be. There 9 are some overgrown hedges that are probably 10 going to be taken out anyway. You have a stoop 11 there appears to be placed in a different spot, 12 that ' s the stoop against your neighbors' line, 13 the James ' . 14 I notice, there, also on the survey that 15 you ' re showing approximately a clear seven feet 16 between the house and that property line, is 17 that going to exist, that seven feet? Is it 18 going to survive? 19 MR. SCHOENFELD: Yes , it will . . 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: It will survive. 21 MR. BREWER: What are we talking about? 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are talking about this 23 seven feet, right here. This is all closed up. 24 You can' t get through. We normally ask for 25 eight feet, we probably could with live with RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 40 2 seven feet. This has got to remain open. 3 MR. BREWER: Let me talk to Mr. 4 Schoenstein. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: Referring to the east 6 side, the stoop is going to be placed in a 7 different spot, or will the stoop remain there. 8 The stoop is closer to here, which reduces the 9 side yard that much greater. It ' s tight. 10 MR. SCHOENSTEIN: The deck is cut off to 11 an angle. The big thing that you ' re talking 12 about getting around would be the shrubbery. 13 That would be eliminated. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: The only intrusion we 15 have is the second floor, which is going to be 16 elevated above that anyway so there would still 17 be access. 18 MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Yes. 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: In writing the decision 20 when we get to that particular point if we call 21 for a seven-foot side yard on that particular 22 side , so the encroachment is -- on the lower 23 level any encroachment would be two feet above, 24 approximately how high Mr. Shown 16 . 25 MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Ten feet up from grade RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 41 2 level . 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: All right. 4 MR. SCHOENSTEIN: You have to consider the 5 foundation and eight feet for the first floor. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: So we get that straight. 7 MR. BREWER: I want everybody to 8 understand what you ' re talking about. 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have no further 10 questions at this particular point. I thank you 11 very much for getting that area cleared up. 12 Anybody else like to speak concerning this 13 application in favor? 14 (None) . 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 16 against? 17 (None) . 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: If there are no further 19 questions, I ' ll make a motion to close the 20 hearing, reserving decision until later. 21 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 23 (All ayes) . 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: We will be addressing 25 this on October 4th. Thank you. Have a good RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 �. . out ®1 TownBoard ®f Anneals 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. S E,n.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3865 Project/Applicants: Charles & Carol - Burst County Tax Map No. 1000- 87-4-6 Location of Project: 705 Windy Point Rd . ,Southold , NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct addition with insufficient side and rearyard setbacks . 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 . 2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .23' 3' . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr Southold Town D®ard ®f Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.;N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H.IN SAWZIO,CKI JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS DAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl. 'No. 3865 Matter of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST. Variance to the Zoning_ Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3 , as disapproved, for permission to construct addition with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 705 Windy Point 'Road, County Map District 1000, Section 87, Block 4, Lot 6. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of CHARLES. AND CAROL BURST. under Appeal No. 3865; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south of Bayview Road, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block 4, Lot 6. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3 , for permission to construct an addition with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. J II � n a I, Page 2 - Appl. No. 3865 Matter of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST Decision rendered October 4, 1989. 3 . Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth hearin in full. 4. The subject premises on the northeast side of the house will be 7+- feet from the property line, .there is approximately .21 acreage at this location. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that -the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, Seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST as applied under Appeal No. 3865 for approval of a addition with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That on the northeast side that the bushes be trimmed back to 7 feet so to remain open and unobstructed, of a height of minimum of 10 feet, for fire apparatus or other emergency -vehicles to have access around the house. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINGE1/, CHAIRMAN 1 42 2 evening . 3 The next appeal is number 3866. 4 (Reading) . 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: A copy of a survey dated 6 May 3 , 1988, Roderick Van Tuyl , P. C. , indicating 7 this parcel . Don' t have a total acreage figure 8 on it. We ' ll ask the attorney that question. I 9 have a copy of the Suffolk County tax map 10 indicating this and sounding properties in the 11 area. 12 . - What is the actual square footage of the 13 parcel? " The date on this map is July 28th, 1989 14 from Roderick Van Tuyl, P. C. The lot in 15 question is lot number 4 of this particular 16 subdivision which I believe is the only business 17 parcel of the subdivision. 18 MR. BREWER: It used to be more. 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: It is totally a -- 20 79 ,222--I believe it should be 80 ,000 ; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. BREWER: That' s the reason we are 23 here . ° -. 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: You ' re on. 25 MR. BREWER: Rudolph Brewer, Main Road, RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 43 2 Southold, on behalf of Mr . Arbeeny. 3 This is a file that started out and is 4 still with the Planning Board going back to, I 11 5 guess, December of 1985 . And due to their 6 typical speed we are now here because the zoning 7 ordinances changed in January loth of this year. 8 This . started out being, I think , a seven lot 9 subdivision of which there were going to be 10 three business lots for which we had 11 approximately, I think , most if not all the 12 approvals except the final one. What held it up 13 for a while was the water problems with 14 Greenport and the architect asking for fees that 15 were double really what they finally settled for 16 after very numerous months of negotiations. 17 What you basically have here is the 18 ordinance changed in January. Instead of having 19 three lots of 20 ,000 square feet which we 20 thought we had, we now have one lot of 79 ,222 . 21 That is the only business lot on the property 22 and the hardship here is that the Town Board has 23 shown that it wants .this property to be limited 24 business zone and yet it ' s a piece of property 25 that technically doesn' t comply with the 80 ,000 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 44 2 square feet. 3 If we don' t get that, we basically can' t 4 use 79 ,222 square feet of the land which is 5 designated for business. 6 I think that would be some type of inverse 7 taking either by the Town or somebody in this 8 Town. I think it would be a great injustice to 9 Mr . Arbeeny who has been proceeding in good 10 faith along with this subdivision which all of a 11 sudden the Planning Board reidentified in March 12 that they had to stop and refer this matter to 13 us to refer to here. 14 I think it' s a unique situation. I don ' t 15 think you ' re going to find too many pieces of 16 property in the town having the problem being 17 mostly residential but having a substantial part 18 of its property like 79 ,000 square-feet-plus 19 designated this year as being business property 20 and not being able to use it for that purpose. 21 I think that in itself is a hardship, plus 22 I think it ' s unique. It ' s not going to change 23 the character of the neighborhood. You' re all 24 aware of the businesses that are up there on the 25 Main Road to the east and to the west and across RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 45 2 the street from this property. 3 You ' re aware of the residential property 4 to the north. Again, if you have -- I would 5 request that you grant the application. I think 6 this is clearly one of hardship. I think this 7 is the "hardship" hardship case. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: You ' ve got me speechless 9 on this one. I don' t have a thing to ask , and 10 that' s it . 11 MR. BREWER: Great. About time. 12 Anything else? 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: No, I don' t think so. 14 Have a good evening . 15 Anybody else like to speak in behalf of 16 this application? Against this application? 17 (None) . 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further 19 comment, and seeing no further hands , make a 20 motion closing the hearing reserving decision 21 until later . 22 MR. DOYEN: Second. 23 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 24 (Ayes) . 25 MR.GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 y r --� ® ®Id To wn Board ®f 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. S.E.O.R.A JOSEPH H.SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3866 Project/Applicants: Henry Arbeeny County Tax Map No. 1000- 59-7-31 Location of Project: Route 48 , Kenny' s Rd. ; Southold , NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This. Board in this Project: Approval of insufficient area in pending subdivision } (Light Bus.iness .Zoning District (LB) . 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 444-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, . however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .2jj , For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr F� �r Southold Town E®ard ®f Appeals ��: •� 1 MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L. .,--N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H.IN SAWZIO,CKI JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS DAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl. No. 3866 Matter of HENRY ARBEENY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,. Article VIII, Section 100-82, as disapproved, for approval of insufficient area in this pending subdivision, "(Light Business Zoning District (LB) , Property Location: Route 48 Kenny' s Road, Southold, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 059, Block 07, Lot 31. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of HENRY ARBEENY, under Appeal 3866; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and- the surrounding areas.; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the west side of Middle Road, Route 48, Town of Southold and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 059, Block 07, Lot 31. 2. This application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article VIII , Section 100-82, for approval of insufficient area in this pending subdivision. Page 2 - Appl. No. -:38.66 Matter of HENRY ARBEENY Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3. Article VIII, Section 100-82, bulk, area and parking regulations, except as otherwise provided herein, no buildings or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the LB District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full. 4. The subject premises for the proposed subdivision is as follows, Lot 1, is 80,000+- sq. feet, Lot 2, 80,001+- sq. feet, Lot 3, 91,502+- sq. feet, lot 4, 79,222+- sq. feet. 5. In considering this applications, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of HENRY ARBEENY as applied under Appeal No. 3866 for approval of insufficient area . in this division of land, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki, and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN 1 46 2 coming in. Have a good evening. 3 MR. BREWER: Thank you. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is number 5 3849 . 6 (Reading) . 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of site plan 8 indicating structure approximately 5 feet from 9 Pettis (ph. ) Beight. The closest point in line 10 about 50 feet from the top of the bank , which is 11 a swimming pool and decking area attached to the 12 structure, dwelling. And I have a copy of 13 Suffolk -- I 'm sorry, that was produced by Ward 14 Associates. The most recent date is 4/17/89 15 received by 4/28/89. Suffolk County tax map 16 indicating this and surrounding area. 17 MR. SEELEY : Lawrence Seeley from Ward 18 Associates speaking on behalf of the applicant. 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 20 MR. SEELEY: The relief that ' s sought is 21 obviously the rear yard setback as described. 22 What we did here is simply to map it out for you . 23 and show you the building envelope would be 24 given the setback which is required, which is 25 this dark area as indicated on the map, which RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 47 2 leaves us very little area obviously to create a 3 structure to maintain as a residence. Basically 4 that' s what we are seeking relief for. The 5 other setbacks are all conforming to the zoning . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are waiting for an 7 evaluation from Soil and Water Conservation. 8 They have indicated to us that we will 9 receive that in the very near future. I haven' t 10 made a decision if we are going to close the 11 hearing or recess it until next session or close 12 it upon receipt of that. 13 It' s a pro forma action to receive that. 1 G 14 If we had any comments concerning it we would 15 reduce it to writing at this particular point 16 when we closed it . We will inform you and 17 anybody else that had an interest in this 18 particular hearing . So I will make that 19 decision at the end of this hearing if we are 20 going to close it or recess it to the next 21 hearing. 22 In reference to the swimming pool area and 23 the decking, what is the elevation factor above 24 grade? 25 MR. BREWER: Pool bottom is 10 . 5 . RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 48 2 Elevation 10 .5 . 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: How about the elevation 4 of the deck above the existing grade that exists 5 now. 6 MR. BREWER: Deck would be elevation 20 , 7 which is approximately five feet above existing 8 grade. And diminishing as it goes toward the 9 east. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Okay. The decking is 11 rather extensive. Is there any particular 12 reason why it ' s that extensive? 13 MR. BREWER: Just a requirement of the 14 owner. 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: What are we talking about 16 in reference to total square footage on. the one 17 story, the first story, or -- I don' t know if 18 it ' s a two-story structure . 19 MR. BREWER: Yes, it is, two-story. I 20 believe it ' s 2600 . 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are talking 26 without 22 the deck or with the deck? 23 MR. BREWER: Without the deck . 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: Can you calculate the 25 square footage for us with the swimming pool and RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 49 2 let us know within the next two weeks so we can 3 have that information for the closing of the 4 hearing on October 4th? 5 MR. BREWER: Thank you, thank you. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to 7 speak on behalf of this application? 8 (None) . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 10 against the application? 11 MS. ONGONI : Representing neighboring 12 property owners George and Irene Malis. Mr . 13 Malis is deceased. Mrs . Malis currently 14 occupies the property to the east of this 15 parcel . Mrs . Malis is concerned that this 16 application is precedent setting in nature. The 17 area itself is relatively undeveloped. There is 18 quite a bit of open space out there. And many, 19 actually, most of the lots fronting on the Sound 20 have not yet been improved. 21 The granting of this application and the 22 variance to the hundred foot setback could 23 indeed be a precedent for other future 24 applicants before this Board. In that case, the 25 purpose of amending the statute to the hundred RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 50 2 foot setback could indeed be -- render the 3 purpose of the statute completely null and void. 4 It is in that spirit that Mrs. Malis is opposing 5 the application. In addition she fears 6 aesthetically this construction could interfere 7 with her view of the coast, which would 8 negatively impact on her . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Could you give me an 10 indication of where her house is basically? 11 MS. ONGONI : I went out there yesterday . 12 Her house is very close to the bluff. She, too, 13 has a pool with decking around the pool . 14 Actually, she has several decks, levels of 15 decks. But it is close to the Sound. I don' t 16 know if its 50 or a hundred feet from the bluff. 17 She owns a ten acre parcel which runs from the 18 Main Road all the way back. Her house is right 19 up on the Sound. 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: If you should speak to 21 her , I will go out and look at this again, 22 particularly after we receive Soil and Water so 23 she might find at least two or a couple of us 24 roaming around out there. 25 MS. ONGONI : Thank you very much. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 Southold. Town Board of Ameals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 .,v TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. September 21 , 1989 SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3849 Project/Applicants: Cipitelli Bros. Realty County Tax Map No. 1000- 14-2-24 Location of Project: Petty's Drive, Orient, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This. Board in this Project: Relief of setback from top of bluff. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .23' 3' . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr J I. i Southold T®�v ®ard of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 u TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3849 Matter of CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, A.1, for permission to construct a one family dwelling with insufficient setback and within 100 feet from Long .Island Sound in this R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 90 Petty' s Drive, Orient, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 2.4. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of CIPITELLI BROS REALTY, under Appeal No. 3849; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning; and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the east of Petty' s Drive, Town of Orient, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 24. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.1, for permission to construct a one family dwelling, proposed construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound. Page 2 - Appl. No. 3849 Matter CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY Decision rendered October 12, 1989 3 . Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.1, requires all building located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound and upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not less than one hundred ( 100) feet from the top of such bluff or bank. 4. The subject premises for the one family dwelling is known and referred to as being built within the building envelope, as identified on the site plan from Ward Associates, also a copy of the Survey from Roderick Van Tuyl, Dated 4/17/89. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue, and placing the proposed dwelling in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief ; (c) that the area chosen for the dwelling is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was Page 3 -- Appl. No. 3849 Matter of CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY Decision rendered October 12, 1989 .RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the . application of CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY as applied under Appeal No. 3849, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That there not be any construction that includes decks, swimming pools (Building Envelope) , not be any closer than 60 feet to the top of the bank. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, and Dinizio, (absent Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joseph Sawicki) . This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINnER CHAIRMAN 1 51 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: You ' re welcome. Anybody 3 else like it speak concerning this hearing? 4 (None) . 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: Seeing no further 6 comment, I ' ll make a motion recessing this 7 hearing until October 4th, waiting for an 8 evaluation from Soil and Water Conservation. 9 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 11 (All ayes) . 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is in 13 behalf of Richard DiBlasi? It is a file number 14 3852 . 15 (Reading) . 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: A copy of a site plan 17 from Sandbeck Associates dated 3/3/89 , 18 indicating a -- actually its about a one 19 and-a-half story, one and-a-half story out of 20 the ground and one above it, probably a loft, 21 existing residence 41 feet from Bay View Drive, 22 48 feet. 4 feet at its closest point. 23 Applicant is requesting a deck on what is 24 basically the rear yard but in this particular 25 case we have a regular curvature and RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 52 2 approximately 23 and a half feet from existing 3 pond shoreline in question. Mr. Sandbeck , would 4 you like to be heard. 5 MR. SANDBECK : Did I hear you say you ' re 6 waiting for -- 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: We do this on all 13 8 parcels. We asked Suffolk County Soil and Water 9 Conservation to do an evaluation. We either 10 accept or reject based upon their findings . 11 MR. SANDBECK : I was wondering whether I 12 had to file something else. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: No. 14 MR. SANDBECK : Here, again, this is R-40 15 zone Gardiner ' s Bay Estates subdivided back in 16 1927 . Most of the properties are very irregular 17 shaped. This particular piece of property is a 18 pie shape, has a big radius on Spring Pond. The 19 front of the house faces Spring Pond and the 20 owner originally wanted to put a deck on the 21 bottom at the lower level? 22 Due to the right-of-way and the 23 possibility of people coming down to launch 24 their boats and take their boats out, he decided 25 he would like to expand the upper deck four RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 53 2 feet. The existing deck as now constructed on 3 the house is encroaching on the front yard 4 setback . Whether we call this a front yard or 5 rear yard. 6 MR. GOEH-RINGER: I didn' t want to get into 7 that. 8 MR. SANDBECK : It ' s quite a problem. 9 The upper deck would give them more privacy? 10 They would like a little more room for their 11 family when they come out. In the decision from 12 the building department it calls for parking . 13 Now, we have plenty of parking on this parcel . 14 We have parking at the lower level in front of 15 the garage, and there is parking on the upper 16 level where we extended the building a couple of 17 months ago. 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are elongating the 19 upper deck. What are we doing with the lower? 20 MR. SANDBECK : Nothing whatsoever. We are 21 going to add four more feet to the upper deck . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: So I didn' t understand 23 when we to the existing balcony we had 35 and 24 now we have 22 , or 23? 25 MR. SANDBECK : Right. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 54 i 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: That ' s a lot more than 3 four feet. 4 MR. SANDBECK : Four feet out and 23 feet 5 wide in front of the existing deck . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Very good. We thank you 7 very much. 8 MR. SANDBECK : Thank you, gentlemen. 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to 10 speak on behalf of this application? 11 (None) . 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 13 against the application? 14 (None) . 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions from Board 16 members? 17 (None) . 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: No further questions, 19 motion to close the hearing pending receipt of 20 the evaluation for Soil and Water . All in 21 favor? 22 (Ayes) . 23 MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion, gentlemen, for 24 five minute recess . 25 MR. SAWICKI : So move. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 . ;v1zrrz� . r Y r � t 4 Southold 'ownBoard of Appeals V �.."'" � MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 1, a TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. September 21 , 1989 SERGE DOYEN, JR. S,E.Q.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3852 Project/Applicants: Richard DiBlasi County Tax Map No. 1000- 37-4-1 Location of Project: 360 Bayview Drive, East Marion, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct deck with insufficient front yard setback. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest. as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr _ ✓• t �;'' . a"E S®�thold T wn Bard ®f Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl. ' No. 3852 Matter of RICHARD DiBLASI. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A 3, as disapproved, for permission to construct open deck in front yard, nonconforming with bulk area and parking regulations in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 360 Bayview Drive, East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 037, Block 04, Lot 01. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the application of RICHARD DiBLASI, under Appeal 3852; . and - WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and. WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south side of Bayview Drive, Town of East Marion, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 037, Block 04, Lot 01. 2. this is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article 100-30A.3, for permission to construct open deck in front yard, nonconforming with bulk area and parking regulations.- J Page 2 - Appl. No. 3852 Matter of RICHARD DiBLASI Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3. Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 Zone District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. 4. The subject premises consists of a proposed open deck to be 4 feet by 28+- feet and will be located in front yard area, 20+- feet from the property line at its closest point. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed open deck in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief; (c) the area chosen for the open deck is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of RICHARD DiBLASI as applied under Appeal No. 3852. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinzio. This resolution was duly adopted. df , r GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN 1 55 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 3 (Ayes) . 4 (Whereupon, a five minute recess was 5 taken. ) 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion to reconvene? 7 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 9 (All ayes) . 10 MR'. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is number 11 3 851q 12 (Reading) . 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey Joseph 14 Aingegno, most recent date is March 2 , 1988, 15 indicating one-story framed structure with a 16 raised wood deck and a lower deck just above 17 ground level , which I believe is the nature of 18 this application, in the rear yard of these 19 premises. A copy of the Suffolk County tax map 20 indicating this and surrounding properties in 21 the area. 22 Anybody like to be heard on behalf of this 23 application? 24 MR. CUDDY: Mr. Chairman and members of 25 the Board, Charles Cuddy, with offices at 180 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 56 2 Old Country Road, Riverhead, New York . I 3 represent the applicants. Mr . Paskoff is with 4 me to night. 5 The parcel in question at North Sea Drive 6 in Southold runs between North Sea Drive and the 7 Sound. Because of its proximity to the Sound, 8 Mr . Paskoff suffered on this piece of property a 9 great deal of erosion around 1986 , 1987 . 10 Because of that, he had to move the house that 11 was located there, which was a small house, 12 back a considerable distance. He hired a 13 contractor to do that. 14 The contractor in fact did move the house. 15 The instructions from Mr. and Mrs . Paskoff were 16 to move it precisely from the center of the lot. 17 For reasons not known to them or anybody at this 18 point, the house was angled towards the west 19 side of the lot, and it shows that clearly on 20 the survey. Because of that angulation, when 21 the entrance way to the house is built, which 22 involves the deck , the deck was slightly over 23 for a vertical distance of about six feet was 24 over the side line . 25 At the time all of this was done, it was a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 57 2 ten foot setback line in January of this year , 3 of course it was changed and now it is 15 feet. 4 What happened is for a distance of about six 14 5 feet -- it was in 1988 -- any way, six inches 6 too far. This was mainly because there had been 7 no updating of the survey. That was done 8 because Mr . and Mrs. Paskoff had been in an 9 accident. They weren' t able to oversee what was 10 being done by the contractor . 11 As I say, the contractor moved it to an 12 unfortunate position because it shouldn ' t be 13 there. To remove the house at this point is an 14 enormous expense based upon what would have been 15 a six inch variance , which is now five feet six 16 inches because the distance now is 15 foot set 17 back on that side . 18 This is a case, because of all the facts, 19 because the Paskoff' s made an effort, filed a 20 permit, they understood the permit covered all 21 of this, including the deck, removing of the 22 house, certainly the neighbors are not going to 23 be hurt by this . Nobody' s health and welfare is 24 going to be adversely affected. I submit to the 25 Board it would be appropriate under the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 58 -. r 2 circumstances what would have been a six inch 3 variance is 'now five foot six inch variance. 4 Mr. Paskoff talked to his neighbors. They have 5 no objection. 6 That' s one part of the .application. We 7 have a second part of the application. That' s 8 for a trellis located in the front yard and 9 covers the driveway. There' s a reason for that. 10 If I could give you a copy of the Suffolk Pines 11 of 14 September , just last week , there is an ad 12 for Cliff' s Lobster House. The claw of Cliff' s 13 Lobster House is across from Mr . Paskoff' s 14 house. The parking field, and I think most of 15 you are familiar with the parking field, was 16 extended to the east. The macadam in that 17 parking field is directly across from the 18 entrance to the Paskoff house. There is no 19 screening. There is no buffering. So what ' s 20 done is that the sand was flattened out and 21 macadam was put there for probably upward of 22 more than a hundred feet. What the Paskoff ' s 23 used to look out was an unthreatening sand area 24 with some vegetation in it. There' s virtually 25 nothing in there now except black top. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 59 2 To try and solve even that, they thought 3 they ' d build a trellis there. It' s not complete 4 yet. It ' s about two-thirds complete, and they 5 were told to stop because it violated the fence 6 ordinance. It ' s nine feet. It' s higher than 7 four feet. The reason for it is across the 8 street there is absolutely no buffering and no 9 screening on the parking lot. 10 I think , aesthetically, when it ' s finished 11 it will be an addition. It ' s going to be 12 finished with lattice, roses or clematis on it. 13 I don' t think its offensive in any way to the 14 neighborhood. I would hope the Board, in 15 looking at this would think that the fence 16 ordinance I don' t think is really designed for 17 trellises? Trellises all over don' t have 18 building permits. This didn' t have a building 19 permit at the time. 20 I don' t think Mr . Paskoff or the fellow 21 working on it realized they needed a building 22 permit. They now know that they do. I would 23 submit to you if you move it back a few feet and 24 move the bushes back a few feet, you could have 25 bushes or statues in the front yard eight or RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 60 2 nine feet high. I don' t think this is offensive 3 to the neighborhood . I think what was done 4 across the street, this Board should allow this 5 type of thing as screening effect that the Town 6 didn' t require on the other side of the street. 7 He ' s trying to do it on his side of the street 8 to screen out the parking lot. I. would ask you 9 to permit the trellis to exist. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I want to ask 11 a question, Mr . Cuddy? Is this trellis to run 12 the entire distance of the property? 13 MR. CUDDY: The outline of the trellis is 14 there right now. 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: Indicated at 13 feet. 16 MR. CUDDY: The total distance is closer 17 to 14 . 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: How close to property 19 line is it? 20 MR. CUDDY: Setback as far as I can 21 determine is two and a half, three feet. 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. 23 MR. CUDDY: Thank you . 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else would like 25 to speak in favor of this application? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 r - E3 SoutholdTown ®ard of Anveals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y1. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN September 21 , 1989 CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S,E.n.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. TYPE II ACTION' DECLARATION Appeal No. 3853 Project/Applicants: Elliot Paskoff County Tax Map No. 1000-54-4-4 Location of Project: North Sea Drive, Southold, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Sideyard variance for deck and approual' of trellis.-height. Both additions are presently in existence. 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 444-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, .however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at ; (516) 765-1809. tr Southold Town Board ®f Appeals 04��� 1*��� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y. 11971 1 •, TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN,JR. JOSEPH H.SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No 3853 Matter of ELLIOT PASKOFF. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, (Article XXIII, Section 100-231 ('A) , as disapproved) for permission to construct an attached deck with insufficient side yard and accessory fence (trellis) in front yard at the height of more than required four ( 4) feet. Lot area is nonconforming in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location 205 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 54, Block 4, Lot 4. WHEREAS, a public hearing -was held and concluded on September 21,. 1989 in the matter of the application of ELLIOT PASKOFF, under Appeal No. 3853 ; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and •are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north : side of North Sea Drive, Town of Orient, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 54, Block 4, Lot 4. 2. This is an application for Variance from the Zoning Code Article III A, Section 100-30A.3 , (Article XXIII, Section 100-231 (A) , for permission to construct an attached deck with insufficient side yard and an accessory fence (trellis) in front yard atthe height of more than required four ( 4) feet. h , Page 2 - Appl. No. 3853 Matter of ELLIOT PASKOFF Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3. Article III A, 100-30A.3, no building or premises . shall be used and no building- or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. Article XXIII, Section 100-231 (A) , Fences, .walls, hedges or other live plantings within five ( 5) feet of the property lines may be erected .and maintained, subject to the following height limitations: A. When located in the front .yard along the front lot line, the same shall not exceed four ( 4) feet in height. 4. The subject premises consists of a proposed deck to be 9' 6" from west property line, and proposed trellis will be located in front yard area and will approximately 12' 3" in height, 18' in length-_. and within 3 feet of the front property line. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed deck or trellis in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief; (c) the area chosen for the deck and trellis is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was Page 3 - Appl. No. 3853 Matter of ELLIOT PASKOFF Decision rendered October 4, 1989 RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of ELLIOT PASKOFF as applied under Appeal No. 3853, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the trellis will be approximately 12' 3" in height and within 3 feet. from the property line, a length notto exceed 20 feet. 2. That the deck (trellis) be no closer than 9 ft.. 6 inches from the west property line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df j!GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, HAIRMAN 1 61 2 (None) . 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 4 against the application? 5 (None) . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions from Board 7 members? 8 (None) . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further 10 questions, motion to close the hearing reserving 11 discussion until later. 12 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 14 (Ayes) . 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for 16 coming in, gentlemen. Next appeal is on behalf 15 17 of Nancy Stein, appeal number 3854 . 18 (Reading) . 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey dated 20 dated at this point -- I 'm sorry, July 4 , 1972 . 21 It indicates an existing one-family dwelling . 22 Penned-in on this survey is a deck area, 23 somewhat irregular in conformity , indicating 24 approximately a reduction of 35 feet to the high 25 water mark . I have a copy of the Suffolk County RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 62 2 tax map indicating this and surrounding 3 properties in it the area. 4 MR. STEIN: My name is Kenneth Stein, my 5 wife is Nancy Stein. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: How do you do? 7 MR. STEIN: We have to build a deck to 8 replace the one we had to take down because it 9 rotted. Our house is sitting there ten feet 10 above the ground so if you walk out the living 11 room you just drop. That' s the way it ' s been 12 all summer . 13 The old deck, which I think is shown on 14 the survey as a porch, was too narrow to be 15 usable, anyway. When you open the windows to 16 the living room and you put chairs in, nobody 17 can pass by anybody else. Now it all rotted and 18 we have to do it. We spent the last number of 19 years trying to find a design that would not 20 wind up -- the property slopes down. We tried 21 to find a design that wouldn' t wind up with a 14 22 or 20 foot wall facing the water, which I guess 23 would be offensive to everybody. It would also 24 interfere with other people ' s sight lines . 25 Having gone through two architects, landscape RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 63 2 fellow, and various secondary types we came up 3 with Lou Fisher from Penny Lumber came up with 4 the best idea. Because of the stepdowns, he 5 extends it in the irregular fashion that you ' ve 6 noted. I think I enclosed one of these what 7 he' s labeled bird ' s-eye view. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: I think I only have the 9 Penny Lumber View. 10 MR. STEIN: Didn' t that have a second 11 page? 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: No. 13 MR. STEIN: If I might hand up, I do have 14 two spare copies of this so called bird ' s-eye 15 view. This would be the view from the water . 16 It' s in the upper corner here. I magnified it a 17 little bit. Even that--by the way we are 18 thinking of softening the wall by moving the 19 deck area back slightly and stepping the wall to 20 reduce the impact of the size of the wall. If 21 you step and put some plants there , you step it 22 up and solve even it . 23 We think this proposed deck permits us to 24 utilize the property effectively. It creates an 25 attractive addition to the property, is RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 64 2 inoffensive architecturally with the area 3 because it matches the bulkheading that' s there. 4 We don' t interfere with the sight lines on the 5 properties to the north because we step it down 6 and they can still see out their livingroom 7 towards the bay, which is to the east. 8 The old deck , as I said, was within, I 9 think , the house, is within 75 feet of the 10 water. By the way, that ' s been there since the 11 late 301s. 12 I just hope to have you people grant me 13 the application. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: Maybe I could ask you to 15 step over here, if you wouldn' t mind. 16 MR. STEIN: Sure. 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: This is the proposed deck 18 that is going to be in the rear view of the 19 house, is that not correct? 20 MR. STEIN: That would be the part -- you 21 could walk right out of the house. That would 22 be level. This was the old section, was torn 23 away, then you do that so' s to get to this, 24 which is the real deck. You get down four 25 rises, so you drop the thing down. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 65 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: What' s going here where 3 the old deck was? 4 MR. STEIN: I guess you would call this a 5 level. It is a level . It would be benched 6 around here. It probably have a kind of service- 7 area here with maybe a little .rail right there. 8 But this is really what we are trying to get to, 9 because that ' s the main area. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: This is elevated four 11 feet down, approximately? 12 MR. STEIN: Four rises down. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Four rises, okay. 14 MR. STEIN: That would come out to two and 15 a _half feet. 16 MR. 'GOEHRINGER: This is what, existing 17 wall or proposed wall? 18 MR. STEIN: That' s an existing curb. 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: That we see of the 20 picture over here? 21 MR. STEIN: Right. We ' ve also tied in to 22 the existing, this is a retaining wall that' s 23 been there for years. We have tied this to come 24 down again to provide access from this walkway. 25 We ' ve had to -- this has been a kind of RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 66 2 structure on the whole thing, because we ' ve tied 3 into these existing cement steps. You have to 4 get to that path way, as well. You have to kind 5 of configure it . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: It ' s a little difficult 7 to understand. That' s why I asked. 8 MR. STEIN: This wall exists as you come 9 down this wall narrows down to next to nothing . 10 This is only about six inches. 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: I viewed there by the way 12 from your next door neighbors ' property. 13 MR. STEIN: From north or south? 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: South. 15 MR. STEIN: Both the neighbors are happy 16 with it. 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: You get a pretty good 18 view from the south? 19 MR. STEIN: It ' s about 900 feet. Existing 20 house and garage is 2115 . 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: You ' re adding 900 square 22 feet on a multi-level deck? 23 MR. STEIN: Right. 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you so much, Mr . 25 Stein. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 �. X, . == . Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y1 11971' TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD " MEMBERS September 21 , 1989 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3854 Project/Applicants: Nancy Stein County Tax Map No. 1000-37-4-10 Location of Project: 2535 Cedar Lane, East' Marion, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This. Board in this Project: Construct deck within 75 ' of bulkhead. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr i �R M. ' V moo ;•::.. f:, Southold Town Board ®f Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN,JR. JOSEPH H.SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. .ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Anpl. No. 3854 Matter of NANCY STEIN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-119.2. (Article I, Section 97-12C) , for permission to construct a deck addition within 75 feet of water or wetlands, in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 037, Block 04, Lot 10. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of NANCY STEIN, under Appeal .No. 3854; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1 . The premises in question is located along the north side of Pine Place, Town of East Marion, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 037, Block 04, Lot 10 . 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article III, Section 100-119.2, (Article I, Section 97-12C) , for permission to construct a deck addition within 75 feet of water or wetlands. 1 Page 2 - Appl. No. 3854 Matter of NANCY STEIN Decision rendered October 12, 1989 :t 3. The subject premises for the proposed deck is known and referred to as being 35 ft. from the existing bulkhead, from Spring Pond. . 4. In considering this application, the board finds and determines: (a). that the circumstances of . this. application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed deck in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief;, (c) that the area chosen for the deck is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of NANCY STEIN as applied under Appeal No. 3854 for the placement of a deck, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the deck be no closer than 35+- Feet to the existing bulkhead, from Spring Pond. 2. That the deck not exceed 20a of the lot Coverage. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, and Dinizio (absent Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joseph Sawicki) C-ERARD P. GO HRING , CHAIRMAN 1 67 2 MR. STEIN: Thank you. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else would like 4 to be heard on behalf of the application? 5 (None) . 6 MR. . GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak 7 against the application? 8 (None) . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions for Board 10 members? No further questions, motion to close 11 hearing reserving decision until later. 12 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 14 (Ayes) . 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: Next appeal in behalf of 16 Michael Toffalis is number. 3857 . 17 (Reading) . 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: What is the square 19 footage? 20 At this particular time , we are reflecting 21 a, I believe, ten by twelve deck is the nature 22 of this application, which appears to be side 23. yard plus really the rear yard in this 24 particular application? Would you like to speak 25 in behalf? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 68 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. 3 Mr . Toffalis, at the time , he is away in Europe. 4 He did ask me, as a favor , if I could come over 5 and speak for him. Any questions you have you 6 may address to me. I am familiar with the 7 situation. I would like to answer them to you. 8 Now, as far as my own personal opinion of 9 this, I live in the area, he has one of the 10 nicest homes in the area. There is no objection 11 from either side of the neighbors . What he 12 wants to do is to enhance and improve the 13 appearance of his property and in general the 14 neighborhood rather than what he has done at 15 present. The present deck he has--I wouldn' t 16 call it a deck . It' s more like a fire exit. As 17 you see it ' s extremely small , something like two 18 and a half to three feet by four feet. And it' s 19 completely -- he only wants to put a couple of 20 chairs out and a table, maybe, and get a few 21 evening breezes. Nobody has any objection to 22 that. 23 MR. GOEHRINGER: There' s an existing 24 cement patio there now, is there not? 25 THE WITNESS: This is on top of that. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 69 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea how 3 high it would be elevated? 4 THE WITNESS: No more than eight feet. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: Strictly opened? 6 THE WITNESS: Strictly opened. 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Attached to that side of 8 the house . 9 THE WITNESS: Thanks. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to 11 speak in favor of this application? 12 MR. MARKAKIS : Mr . Markakis of Southold. 13 I happen to be President of the Hellenic 14 American Association. Mr . Toffalis is a member , 15 so are the neighbors. I ' m very 'familiar with 16 the area. I have been there very often. I ' m 17 involved deeply with the Greek Church. I try to 18 help them solve their problems through the local 19 authorities such as insufficient lighting during 20 the night or flood in areas . 21 I like to offer my humble opinion, in this 22 case. From what I have seen it ' s a beautiful 23 house. It' s unfortunate Mr . Toffalis had to be , 24 for family reasons, in Cyprus and couldn' t be 25 here to night. It ' s a beautiful site. The RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 70 2 neighbor to the left of the house has a sizable 3 deck to the back of the property. This proposed 4 extension does not obstruct any view, because I 5 went to the neighbor next door , Mr. Plessis. I 6 went to the back to Mr. Masskudis ' property, and 7 tried to see if there would be any obstruction 8 by reason this piece of deck . 9 Personally, I couldn' t see any 10 obstruction. It is my opinion that it ' s really 11 going to beautify not only the place but the 12 immediate environment also. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. 17 15 Anybody else like to speak in favor or against? 16 (Show of hands) . 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. 18 MR. TOFFALIS : My name is Chris Toffalis . 19 My father requested this variance. I took it 20 upon myself in addition to these nice gentlemen 21 here who represent my father, I had contacted 22 the Town Hall this morning just to confirm that 23 the request would be submitted today and it was. 24 It was also given to me the information that 25 there might be a problem by one of the RAM COtRT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 71 2 neighbors , the request of the actual deck . 3 Now, I was in support of building this 4 house for my father. He had purchased the 5 property back in the early 160s . The property 6 itself is approximately a quarter of an acre. 7 The house on that was a very small home. As the 8 gen`tlemen did say, the house. is pretty. My 9 father takes great pride in his home, in 10 addition to that a small area requested for a 11 deck to be built. Small deck put on the actual 12 floor where the kitchen is located. 13 They are an elderly couple. To go 14 downstairs to the actual yard at present is not 15 a problem. I don' t think that is an issue. But 16 as they get older , I think it would be nice for 17 them to have something they can go from their 18 kitchen and go outside and relax and have a cup 19 of coffee. 20 As the gentlemen both expressed there 21 would be no obstruction whatsoever. He 22 requested that in the past. I believe there was 23 a denial by one of the neighbors again. My 24 father had stopped that request back in early 25 1987. We are resubmitting one more time. I RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 72 2 think hopefully we ' ll get past it this time. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 4 Anybody else would like to speak for or against? 5 MR. TOFFALIS : May I add something I 6 forgot to mention before? The neighbors on 7 either side of him, they received a letter in 8 which they both approved this extension. I 9 omitted to say this before. 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you again. 11 Hearing no further comment, I make a motion 12 closing the hearing reserving the decision until 13 later. 14 MR. DINIZIO: I would like to know who 15 Nicholas Cyprus is? 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: Is Nicholas Cyprus in the 17 audience? 18 MR. DINIZIO: I see a letter here. 19 Does anybody have any idea? 20 MR. MARKAKIS : I know Mr . Cyprus. He' s a 21 summer resident. I saw him and discussed the 22 matter with him. He has no objection at this 23 time. I don' t think he could be here because he 24 works in the city. 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Again hearing no further RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 Ss rtt - Southold Town Board of Appeals ,.�,•-` -�;, .:��,'I is ' 0 o% '' 4�� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y: 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN September 21 , 1989 CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3857 Project/Applicants: Michael Toffalis County Tax Map No. 1000- 106-3-28 Location of Project: 50 Captain Kidd Drive, Mattituck, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This. Board in this Project: Construct deck with insufficient rearyard setback. 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 444-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. . It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 .2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,' NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr rl?J z, . Southold Town Board ®f Appeals 1itF v +` �� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.; N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516) 765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H.IN SAWZIO,CKI JR. ACTION OF TEE BOARD OF APPEALS DAMES DINIZIO, JR. Appl. ' No. 3857 Matter of MICHAEL TOFFALIS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition insufficient rear yard setback for nonconforming lot in a R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 50 Captain Kidd Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 106, Block 03, Lot 028. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of MICHAEL TOFFALIS, under Appeal No. 3857 ; and 0 WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north side of Captain Kidd Drive, Town of Mattituck, and is identified on the Suffolk county Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 106, Block 03, Lot 028. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244,for permission to construct a deck addition with insufficient rear yard setback for nonconforming lot. Page 2 - Appl. No. 3857 Matter of MICHAEL TOFFALIS Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3. Article XXIV, Section 100-244, a nonconforming lot separately owned and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at the effective date of this Article and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at any time subsequent to such date may be used, or a building or structure may be erected on such lot for use, in accordance with all the other applicable provisions of this chapter, provided that proof of such separate ownership is submitted in the form of an abstract of title showing the changes of title to said lot, which abstract shall be in the usual form, shall be certified by an attorney or a company regularly doing such work in Suffolk County or by a corporation duly licensed to examine and ensure title to real property in Suffolk County and shall contain a certification that no contiguous property was owned by an owner of the property involved since the date of any previously applicable Zoning Law. Such lot shall be granted . relief for front side and rear yard dimensions as follow. 4. The subject premises is 9669+- sq. feet, from the dwelling it is 10+- feet from the north property line, 35.1+- feet from the west property line, 10. 5+- feet from the east property line and 44. 5+- feet from the south property line. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the deck in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief; (c) that the area chosen for the deck is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was Page 3 - Appl. No. 3857 Matter of MICHAEL TOFFALIS Decision rendered October 4, 1989 RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of MICHAEL TOFFALIS as applied under Appeal No. 3857 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the deck does not exceed 10 ft. by 12 ft. in location applied for and not to exceed 8'+- above existing cement slab. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df GERARD P. GOEHRINGE CHAIRMAN 1 73 2 comments , make a motion to reserve decision 3 until later . 4 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 6 (Ayes) . 7 MR. GOEHRINGR: The next application to be 8 heard is number 3858. 9 (Reading) . 10 Copy of a survey from Roderick Van Tuyl , 11 P. C. , dated February loth, 1964 . In that area 12 we have a penciled-in deck of approximately -- 13 not seen here, approximately 30 feet in length. 14 Half of the house in the rear yard area and 15 approximately 54 feet from the bulkhead. 16 Somebody like to be heard concerning this 17 application? 18 MR. DELUCA: My name is Jim DeLuca . I 'm 19 here representing Mr. Cosimano in this matter . 20 Basically, we have obtained D. E. C. approval to 21 construct this deck . We had submitted the 22 prints, but Mr . Cosimano started the deck before 23 he received the final permit. In the meantime 24 before he received it , he thought everything was 25 okay, but he received a rejection letter after RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 74 2 he submitted the papers. So he started 3 construction of the deck . He was told to stop, 4 he did stop. 5 I submitted the papers on his behalf . The 6 size of the deck is about 450 square feet. He 7 has no patio or other structures in the rear 8 yard. To the west of him, .I believe, there ' s an 9 association beach that would be on the 10 right-hand side of his property. To the left 11 there ' s a single family residence. I didn' t 12 hear any objections from the neighbor . 13 He would just like to complete the deck . 14 That is the only, as I said before, the only 15 structure in the rear yard. He wants to use it 16 for lawn furniture. 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: The only thing the deck 18 is missing now is railing, is that correct? 19 MR. DELUCA: Railing and steps, that' s 20 about it. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr . Deluca. 22 Anybody else like to speak in favor of this 23 application? 24 (None) . 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Against the application? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 , r r ' f Lr34nYuSouthold 'own ®ard of Appeals !;'a •` e� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 - TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN September 21 , 1989 CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S,E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3858 Project/Applicants: Bernard Cosimano County Tax Map No. 1000- 88-5-63 Location of Project: Watersedge Way, Southold, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct deck within 75 ' of rearyard bulkhead. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr 05 112 41 Southold Town Board of Appeals • '� ''_� ��+�®� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H.IN SAWZIO,CKI JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS DAMES DINIZIO,JR. Appl. No. 3858 Matter of BERNARD COSIMANO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B. (Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as disapproved) for permission �to construct a deck addition within 75 feet of bulkhead., Construction has insufficient total side yard setbacks in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: Watersedge Way, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 88, Block 5, Lot 63 . WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of BERNARD COSIMANO, under Appeal No. 3858; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded;' and - WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south of Watersedge Way (private road) , also south of Main Bayview Road, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 88, Block 5, Lot 63 . 2. This is an application for Variances from the zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, (Article XXIV, Section 100-244, for permission to construct a deck addition within 75 feet of the bulkhead, construction has insufficient total side yard setbacks. l Page 2 - Appl. No 3858 Matter of BERNARD COSIMANO Decision rendered October 4, 1989 3. XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, All building located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the bulkhead. XXIV, Section 100-244, a nonconforming lot separately owned and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at the effective date of this Article and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at any time subsequent to such date may be used, or a building or structure may be erected on such lot for use, in accordance with all the other applicable provisions of this chapter, provided that proof of such separate. ownership is submitted in the form of an abstract of title showing the form, shall be certified by an attorney or a company regularly doing such work in Suffolk County or by a corporation duly licensed to examine and ensure title to real property in Suffolk county and shall contain a certification that no contiguous property was owned by an owner of the property involved since the date of any previously applicable Zoning Law. Such lot shall be granted relief for front side and rear yard dimensions as follows. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related-to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed deck in any other location on the premises will require other variance relief; (C) that the area chosen for the deck is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety,health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Page 3 - Appl. No. 3858 Matter of BERNARD COSIMANO Decision rendered October 4, 1989 RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of BERNARD COSIMANO as applied under Appeal 3858, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That it not exceed the size of 14+- ft. by 30+- ft. and the east side addition of 3+- ft. by 9+- ft. , and to remain unroofed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen; Sawicki and Dinizio. this resolution was duly adopted. df .� LvZi �L-- GERARD P. GOEHRING6R CHAIRMAN 1 75 2 (None) . 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands, 4 questions from Board members? 5 MR. DINIZIO: None. 18 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion to close hearing 7 saving decsion until later . 8 MR. DINIZIO: Second. 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 10 (Ayes) . 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is on 12 behalf of Cliffside (Tide Mark) , 3542 . 13 (Reading) . 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of several site 15 plans, the most recent one that I have received 16 or we have received in our office is one from 17 Douglas P. Herlin. It is dated receipted our 18 office 6/27/89 . I have a copy of Suffolk County 19 tax map indicating this and surrounding 20 properties. 21 I will mention. to the attorney I see 22 moving around we will be closing this hearing on 23 the 4th of October pending discussion with Town 24 attorney concerning acceptances of Planning 25 Board and final determination of impact RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 76 2 statement. 3 I ' ll refer to that at the end. So don' t 4 worry about that. 5 MR. HAEFELI : This I just is received this 6 evening. This is a copy of the improvement plan 7 which contains drain annual , et cetera, and 8 everything else. This is to be filed tomorrow 9 with the Planning Board. 10 Here is, for purposes of to night, here is the 11 schematic which follows that. 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: Could you state your 13 name, please? 14 MR. HAEFELI : Richard Haefeli , 184 Main 15 Street , West Hampton Beach, on behalf of the 16 applicant. 17 First thing I would like to point out, 18 there is a modification to the application. It 19 is not for 76 units it' s for a total of 68 units 20 plus a manager ' s unit or total of 69 units . 21 Number of units reduced downwards. Locate in 22 R. R. district which permits a resort motel by 23 way of special exception and with approval of 24 the Planning Board. 25 In order for it to be permitted in that RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 77 2 district you need a minimum area of five acres , 3 maximum number of units with water and sewer and 4 for the Board' s purposes, we have signed paid 5 contracts for both public water and public sewer 6 with Greenport Water District and Greenport 7 Sewer District. One per every four thousand 8 square feet, that would work out to 78 units. 9 As I said this particular application reduced 10 downwards to six units. 11 The other two things you have to have in 12 the use, no music or loud speakers audible 13 beyond the property and no lighting beyond the 14 property. This plan does not provide for either 15 of those. 16 As far as special exceptions provisions 17 are concerned, even general standards and 18 specific standards. As far as this particular 19 application is concerned, the property and the 20 adjacent properties are used for motel on the 21 east. The properties to the west are used 22 either for the vacant property, condominiums and 23 motel on the west. A and B would be complied 24 with since this use is compatible with and same 25 as other current properties in the area. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 78 2 The safety and welfare and health would 3 not be adversely affectd. As this Board knows, 4 there was an extensive environmental review of 5 this particular application that took two and a 6 half years. There was a final environmental 7 impact statement adopted by the Planning Board 8 in March of this year. 9 Among the recommendations by the Planning 10 Board was a reduction in the number of units, 11 reduction in the sizes of the buildings and a 12 reduction in the square footage of the units, 13 and a requirement for a 30-foot buffer on all 14 sides. 15 There is no provision in the code as to 16 the sizes of the units, but the applicant has 17 agreed that the units will be 600 square feet in 18 size. 19 As far as the buffer, I think the maximum 20 is 25 feet? We 've also agreed to 30 feet that 21 the Planning Board has set forth in FEIS? 22 As a result of the reduction of the number 23 of units are also reduced footprint and the size 24 of the buildings . 25 As far as adverse effect upon the traffic, RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 79 2 this is a proposal no left turn coming out of 3 the project onto County Road 48. It has to be a 4 left turn only. Part of the concern in the 5 environmental process was the number of units 6 and the reduction down and the number of units I 7 think accomplishes the concern as far as 8 traffic. 9 As prior to the recent changes in the 10 zoning code this property was zoned for resort 11 motel uses. There was an extensive review by 12 the Town with respect to what uses should be 13 permitted what zoning districts. This 14 particular property was rezoned and the same use 15 was permitted. Therefore I think it' s 16 compatible with the area. 19 17 All of the other provisions that are set 18 forth in both 1263274 I believe have been met by 19 the applicant and are being met by the applicant 20 as far as this application is concerned. Almost 21 all of those were considered and taken into 22 consideration in the environmental review 23 process. I' m open to any questions which any 24 members of the Board may have. I have Mr. Samet 25 hear from the engineering firm He can answer RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 80 2 any of the technical questions you may have. 3 The architect is also present. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: When we originally came 5 before the Planning Board concerning the 6 objections of the traffic plan which now are 7 somewhat minimized by your discussion concerning 8 the left-hand turning lane, there was some 9 discussion about the actual widening of County 10 Road 48 at that particular point. To my 11 knowledge County Road 48 is going to remain in 12 the present state. No center lanes turning into 13 the project at all, from westbound to eastbound 14 direction. 15 MR. HAEFELI : I think that' s correct. I 16 don ' t know of any, let' s put it that way. 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: During the period of the 18 correspondence between our office and your 19 office, basically, the contracts that you had 20 just mentioned with the Village of Greenport 21 concerning water and sewer, it ' s been my 22 understanding that they have been taken care of 23 as you just mentioned. If this particular =� 24 project was to be started tomorrow and so as 25 completed in five or six months, you would have RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 81 2 the use of those two facilities; is that 3 correct? 4 MR. HAEFELI : That was considered in the 5 environmental impact. They found the same 6 thing. 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Under the present 8 mandates of Greenport Water has -- whatever 9 problems they have based on their requirements 10 from Suffolk County. . 11 MR. HAEFELI : This project is in their 12 calculations. That ' s what I have been told. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: On the top of the list. 14 MR. HAEFELI : The contracts have been 15 signed. All of the money for them have been 16 paid to Greenport. We also have Health 17 Department approval . 18 Just on the traffic question, I think the 19 major concern were cars coming from the east to 20 the west and the sight distances were somewhat 21 less coming from the east to the west. Steve, 22 you can correct me on this. 23 Whereas coming from the west and going to 24 the east, which would be a turn in, I think it 25 was determined that there was adequate sight RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 82 2 distances. 3 MR. SAMET: You have good sight distance. 4 If you stay in the site and look east, you have 5 adequate sight distance, about 500 feet. As you 6 look from the site towards the west, it' s 7 slightly less. From an engineering standpoint, 8 that having .a left turn into the site and/or out 9 of the site would be acceptable. 10 The claimant is willing to limit the site 11 to only a right turn out if the Board so choses. 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you . 13 MR. HAEFELI : That was considered in the 14 environmental impact statement. 15 MR. GOEHRINGER: The other concern 16 basically was , did he follow the bank or 17 encounter any particular problems during the 18 type of construction that may affect the lip of 19 the bluff, which is not really a bluff, it ' s a 20 bank , so to speak , okay? 21 I don' t think this was properly addressed 22 when it was a concern of ours, but it may have 23 been a concern during the period of time that 24 the other Boards have looked at it. 1 25 MR. SAMET: That was addressed in the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 83 r-� 2 environmental impact statement. It was 3 requested they would keep back a hundred feet 4 from the bluff, which is this line over here, as 5 you can see the it. All development with the 6 exception of the .ramp coming down to the beach 7 would be kept within outside on the hundred foot 8 setback . We have erosion control plans within 9 the plans to show protection of vegetation 10 within that area. 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anything else you want to 12 mention, Mr . Haefeli , concerning this? 13 MR. HAEFELI : Absent recitation of each of 14 the provisions in the general and special 15 provisions, as I say the impact statement which 16 is part of this entire process has covered all 17 of that. 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: Our concern with the 19 impact is something we want to discuss with the 20 Town attorney. So we will recess this hearing 21 again only to discuss it with him and close the 22 hearing with no other oral testimony on October 23 4th at our next meeting. It only concerns the 24 remaining findings of that final impact 25 statement. It shouldn ' t affect anything at this RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 84 2 point but we want to make sure we are correct on 3 that. 4 If you have any questions I ' ll do the best 5 I can to answer them at this particular point. 6 MR. HAEFELI : I 'm not sure of -- 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Planning Board voted in 8 March of 1989 to accept the final impact 9 statement? 10 MR. HAEFELI : That is correct. 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: We are not sure if there 20 12 , had to be a reduction of findings at that 13 particular point. In other words, culled from 14 that particular impact statement the actual 15 findings themselves, rather than having them 16 imbedded in that particular statement. 17 MR. HAEFELI : They adopted the D. E. I. S. 18 and all other things as the final environmental 19 impact statement. 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: We were unable to contact 21 the Town attorney today, we want to make sure 22 that that' s fine with him. 23 MR. HAEFELI : Okay. Very good. 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: It ' s nothing of great 25 significance. We noted this project was RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 85 2 earnestly on the fire for a few years. We want 3 to make sure we are correct . 4 MR. HAEFELI : If I could get the schematic 5 back , when the Board is finished with it. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to 7 speak in favor of the application? 8 (None) . 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody in the audience 10 who has not had time to review these documents, 11 would like to sit down with them, place them on 12 the table, here, place them on the side, welcome 13 in the audience to take a look at them, and get 14 back to the after the next hearing if you have 15 any comments that you would like to review. 16 (None) . 17 MR. GOEHRINGR: Anybody would like to 18 speak against this application? 19 (None) . 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further 21 comments, I will make a motion recessing this 22 hearing. No more oral testimony simply just 23 from the legal standpoint of reviewing the final 24 D. E. I. S. with the Town attorney. We will close 25 it on October 4th at our special meeting. I ' ll RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 86 2 offer that as a resolution, gentlemen. 3 MR. GRIGONIS: Seconded. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 5 (Ayes) . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much , 7 gentlemen, for coming in. The next appeal is 8 appeal .number. 3770 . 9 (Reading) . 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: We ' ve had several site 11 plans. I 've had at least one informal 12 discussion with members of the planning staff, 13 not necessarily the Planning Board. One 14 discussion with the member of the Planning 15 Board. Before me I have a site plan that has 16 just been received. It is received on August 17 18th, 1988? 18 It says it' s checked by Roderick Van Tuyl , 19 P. C. , and probably printed by him, but it was 20 probably prepared by consultant. I have a copy 21 of the Suffolk County tax map indicating this 22 and surroundinging properties in the area. 23 The issue at hand is a proposed boat 24 storage building of approximately 125 feet in 25 width and rather extensive enough in size placed RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 87 2 on the east side of Port of Egypt property. 3 I ' ll ask Mr . Wiggins if he would like to 4 speak . 5 MR. WIGGINS: First I would like to review 6 the variances and the differences in the code 7 and explain some of the history and background 8 hardship that goes with it. 9 The first is for excessive lot storage . 10 Code 30 percent, or less than one percent. 11 Front yard is 20 feet the code is 50 . The front 12 yard borders what we term colloquialy as Old 13 Route 25 . That is no longer used as state 14 highway. It' s been used for various people for 15 parking and other uses. 16 Mr . Leibline is in the process of getting 17 a long term lease or a purchase of that piece 18 that' s in front. But this probably will take 19 over a year because the State does not move 20 rapidly on disposition or disposal of their 21 property. The rear yard is approximately 40 22 feet and it goes to 75 . 23 The rear yard 40 feet is made into a small 24 section of boat basin. If the rear yard was 25 used to go back to the waterfront, it would be RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 88 2 over two hundred feet, but the portion of the 3 boat basin used for boat launching is within 40 4 feet of the proposed rear end of the building. 5 This is located there particularly to 6 facilitate movement of boats from storage out of 7 the building and into the water. The side yard 8 is approximately 15 feet. The .code says 30 . 9 This is based on the critical nature of the 10 width of the building . 11 The parties involved in the discussions 12 have no objection to the location of that 13 particular 15 feet. 14 The background of this has been quite long 15 and varied. There was originally a proposal to 16 put in a motel. Through suggestions and 17 unofficial input from Town officials this whole 18 idea was dropped. The proposed dry rack storage 19 which is an extension of the owners ' present 20 operation, and also is a permitted use under the 1 21 definition of a marina. 22 There ' s been extensive discussion and 23 revisions and input from the Town Planning 24 Board. we ' ve indicated every one of their 25 requirements. The size of the building, the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 89 2 critical size , is width. For dry rack storage 3 the length of the boat, the movement of the 4 forklift, turn-radius is based on a lot of 5 experience and a lot of people doing this. 6 Billy Leibline .spent months developing 7 this . It has been submitted to you as a 8 package, also the economics that go with it. 9 The D. E. C. approval has been given. What 10 remains is a final planning board approval. And 11 the approval of the GBA. I ' ll be happy to 12 answer any questions anybody might have. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: The last time -- I 14 believe the last site plan we received was 15 twelve and a half feet on the east property . We 16 are now back at 15 . That' s a figure that we can 17 live with on one side , assuming the Board is so 18 inclined to grant this series of applications 19 which we have gone through which are embodied in 20 this one package, so to speak . 21 I notice that you had changed the parking 22 to slightly skewed instead of being 23 perpendicular to the building and perpendicular 24 to the bulkhead. I also notice in particular 25 that the sizes of the building is pretty much RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 90 2 the same, 125 by 212 . 3 MR. WIGGINS: The ideal width is the 130 4 feet. We reduced it by making plans, the owner 5 made plans to locate the smaller boats on one 6 side, which would restrict some of his 7 versatility. We also moved the building 8 somewhat away from the east property line to 9 make diagonal parking. Doing those two things, 10 he ' s able to reduce the width of the building 11 and move to the building to 15 feet of the 12 property line. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any 14 particular questions at this time. My 15 discussions with the planning consultants were 16 in reference to the drains and so on and so 17 forth. I did see the drainage plan. That 18 basically, although it' s not the nature of this 19 application, that was one of the concerns that I 20 had had. We are talking about a maximum 21 elevation here of 45 feet. 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: How many racks is that on 23 the side of the building? 24 MR. WIGGINS: I think it ' s 116 racks . 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: What' s the elevation on RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 91 2 those racks , three rack high? 3 MR. WIGGINS: Yes, three racks high. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: He would be placing a 5 certain size boat on one side of the bill and a 6 larger side? 7 MR. WIGGINS: Yes. Two things on the 8 narrow width. One side to the shorter length 9 and on a third height rack would be a real small 10 boat by shortening it actually five feet or 11 narrowing it extra five feet. 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We ' ll see 13 what develops throughout the hearing . 14 Anybody else would like to speak in favor 15 of this application? 16 (None) . 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody in the audience 18 that has not had a chance to take a look at this 19 site plan most recently? If you would like us 20 to furnish a copy again, we ' ll place it on the 21 table, and you' re well come to look at. 22 Anybody like to speak against the 23 application? 24 (Show of hands) . 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes , Mr . Flynn? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 92 2 MR. FLYNN: My name is F. M. Flynn Taupin 3 Drive, Southold. 4 I consider this an important complicated 5 matter , one that my very well set precedence for 6 the future. I have some questions. I would 7 like to make some comments. I would like to 8 explain some calculations that I ' ve made . 9 In the first instance in the environmental 10 assessment' in the application that I ' ve seen, 11 the site is listed as being somewhere in the 12 vicinity of two acres. 2 . 1 acres, I believe. 13 However , in the environmental assessment form, 14 it states that the continuous acraege owned or 15 controlled is seven acres. If this is correct, 16 what we have here is- a classic example of 17 segmentation. We are now explaining the use of 18 the entire property for the benefit of the Board 19 and anyone else who may be interested. 20 Segmentation is relatively easy to 21 explain. Presuming somebody has ten acres of 22 land with 30 percent coverage , they can cover 23 three acres of that land or 125 ,000 feet. Now 24 should they choose to build all 125,000 feet of 25 structures at one end of the property, they RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 93 2 certainly can' t come in later and say that the 3 other end of the property is vacant land and 4 plan a structure for it. 5 Now, that appears to be what ' s happening 6 here. 7 There' s another question involved and a 8 rather serious one . 9 The application states, again, that the 10 contiguous acreage owned or controlled is seven 11 acres. This is the easterly two lots which are 12 currently the main site of the marina operation. 13 But there' s another lot there that is owned or 14 controlled by Mr . Leibline and that ' s the site 15 of the motel . 16 Then, if you add all three of those lots 17 together , you have a total of 9 . 1 acres. Now, 18 this question of segmentation is a very 19 important one. It goes right back to SEQRA and 20 SEQRA approval . Because SEQRA does not permit 21 segmentation. And this, again, I state is an 22 obvious case of the same. 23 Now, if you were to take the total area of 24 9 . 1 acres, including the motel site, we have an 25 entirely different piece of property to deal RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 94 r-- 2 with. What we have -- incidentally, there ' s 3 another lot there that may very well owned by 4 Mr. Leibline. I believe it is. I don' t have 5 enough detail on it. That' s lot 2 . 2 , 1 . 7 acre 6 site , currently the site of Albertson Marine. 7 I can' t, at this moment, go into detail . 8 If you ' d like the information later , I ' 11_ supply 9 it to you. 10 If you start off with 9 . 1 acres, you have 11 to subtract from that the three-acre minimum 12 requirement for a motel . You ' re immediately 13 down to a property of 6 . 1 in area. No reduction 14 has been made on my part for the 6800 square 15 foot Albertson Marine building on the same 16 parcel or the fish store of approximately 3800 17 feet, which totals 10 ,400 square feet. It might 18 very well require 40 ,000 feet of site for their 19 operation, or if not that, would have to be 20 deducted from the net buildable area for the 21 marina. 22 Now, we have the 6 . 1 acres after having 23 deducted the motel. Now, we have a restaurant 24 on the site. The restaurant requires 80 ,000 25 square feet, which totals 1 ..8. That leaves us RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 95 2 with 4 . 3 acres. Now we have two basins cut into 3 these lots. I calculate them to be 4 approximately 7 ,000 square feet or , again, 1 . 8 5 acres. So the net for marina operations on this 6 property is actually approximately 2 . 5 acres. 7 2 . 5 acres equals 108, 900 square feet, at 30 8 percent coverage, all.ows for 32 ,670 square feet 9 for buildings . 10 I don' t have and it may very well be on 11 that site plan you have there, I don ' t have the 12 exact area of the existing storage building , but 13 I believe it to be in excess of 30 ,000 feet. 14 Now you have already on the proposed site area 15 an office and shop of 3 ,078 square feet and 16 sales area of 720 feet or 38 square feet, so 17 essentially you have, say, 34 ,000 square feet 18 plus already on the site where the total 19 coverage could only be 32 ,000 square feet. We 20 are now being told that it' s proposed to put up 21 a building of 28,000 square feet where there is 22 simply no area to build it. 23 To grant this application is to, in 24 effect, rezone the property, contrary to the 25 newly revised zoning ordinance. The proposed RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 96 2 new building is 28 ,210 square feet. There is 3 also a boat washing pad there which constitutes 4 a building of 3800 square feet. So we propose 5 or it is proposed, I 'm certainly not proposing 6 it, that 32 ,010 feet of structures be erected on 7 this site, newly. 32,010 feet divided by 30 8 percent, the coverage allowance, indicates 9 106 , 700 square feet, or approximately 2 . 45 acres 10 additional would be required to put up this new 11 building. If you grant this variance it ' s 12 equivalent to giving Mr . Leibline a present of 13 two and a half acres of land. 14 That' s putting it as succinctly as I can. 15 You cannot do this . It is not within your 16 power . 17 I ' ve even gone into there based on 3 18 the seven acres, which is stated in the 19 environmental assessment form. I don' t believe 20 this, and were it to be contested at law, it 21 would be nine acres. But for the sake of the 22 proof of the matter, we go into it based on the 23 seven acres of entirety, which is conceded by 24 the applicant. From this you would have to 25 deduct, again, the area of the restaurant, or RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 97 2 1 . 8 acres. And the area of the basins, another 3 1 . 8 acres , which is a total of 3 . 6 acres, and 4 leaves you with an operational marina site of 5 3 . 4 acres. 6 Now, 3 . 4 acres is 148,104 square feet, 7 again times the 30 percent coverage, equals had 8 44,435 square feet. Then you have to deduct 9 existing 35 plus or minus square feet, and what 10 you have left, there, obviously is less than 11 10 ,000 feet of building area, versus the 30 some 12 odd thousand feet of building that' s proposed. 13 Again, it makes absolutely no sense. I 14 question who came up with these figures to 15 support any such thing. I also question what 16 kind of site analysis has been made of this 17 property. 18 Now, there ' s another action made by 19 Peconic Associates with respect to this easterly 20 area which they have arbitrarily apportioned 21 from an entirety which it can' t do. It' s 22 against SEQRA and it' s against any normal 23 planning procedure. You have to account for the 24 entire property. What they say on that plan, J 25 and it may very well be on the plan in front of RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 98 2 you, that the planned area of development is 3 82 , 430 square feet. You ,have a building of 4 28,210 square feet, that' s 217 by a 130 . A 5 boat wash of 3800 square feet, that' s the pad. 6 An - office and shop of 3 ,078 feet. And a sales 7 office of 720 feet or approximately 36,000 8 square feet. 9 36,000 square feet divided by 82 ,430 10 indicates 43 percent coverage, or approximately 11 45 percent more than is permitted by the zoning 12 ordinance even if we go along with this 13 arbitrary chopping off of two acres from an 14 overall parcel, which, again, I say you can' t 15 do. So there is no way that this meets 16 anybody' s standards within the Town. I 'm 17 surprised that this application has gotten this 18 far . 19 Now we come up to the question of parking 20 analysis, which may very well be on the site 21 plan that you have there. This was prepared by 22 Peconic Associates, I believe. They say with 23 respect to parking that for the marina 24 operation, for the boats in the water, there 25 should be 122 spaces. For the current dry RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 99 I 2 storage there should be 80 spaces, and for the 3 proposed dry storage in this new proposed 4 building, there should be 160 spaces. There 5 should be for the employees four spaces, and for 6 the restaurant 43 spaces. This totals 429 7 spaces at 350 square feet is a 150 ,150 square 8 feet, or 3 .49 acres, which is more than they 9 have to begin with to operate on. 10 What they have done here is arbitrarily 11 reduce the Town' s parking requirements. They 12 have submitted a schedule where for the boats in 13 the water they have reduced .parking 14 requiremements by 50 percent. Rather than 15 having one parking place , they propose to have 16 half a parking place. For the dry existing 17 storage, they propose to provide one quarter 18 space. And for the dry proposed storage, again, 19 one quarter of the space . 20 Now, this is very interesting because 21 particularly with respect to this dry storage 22 area what you have is a parking requirement that 23 is as much or as little as one sixth of the 24 parking requirements of some of our neighboring 25 communities who also launch boats on the common RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 100 2 facility here of the Peconic Bay. The obverse 3 of this is, if you cut the parking requirement, 4 you can then launch six times as many boats . 5 This is far from an equitable sharing of a 6 common resource . 7 At any rate, to follow this thing -- I was 8 going to say to it is a logical conclusion but I 9 guess it ' s an illogical conclusion, under their 10 proposition, you would be providing for 188 4 11 spaces rather than 402 spaces or 65 , 800 hundred 12 square feet of parking or 1 .51 acres. The 13 shortfall in terms of acreage against the 14 existing ordinance is 1 .93 acres or 241 parking 15 places. 16 Now, no parking reduction has been made in 17 addition to these figures, if I were to accept 18 them, for the motel or marina operations, 19 charter or party boats. People come in to use 20 the ramps and leave a vehicle with a trailer 21 there on the site as well. So this in my 22 opinion, if I may use the term, is a thoroughly 23 ridiculous projection of parking requirements. - 24 Now, entirely overlooked in this 25 situation, and I 'm sure you ' re aware of it, is a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 101 2 requirement marine II zoning for 20 percent 3 landscaping. Now, even based on seven acres 4 rather than the -- first we ' ll take it on the 5 9 . 1 . You require 1 . 8 acres of landscaping. 6 That' s going to detract from the- parking, it ' s 7 going to detract from other uses on the 8 property. But it' s in the ordinance. Based on 9 the seven acres, it still requires a reduction 10 of property that couldn' t possibly be used for 11 parking of 1 . 4 acres or 60 ,984 square feet. 12 This is the equivalent for reduction of parking 13 for 174 cars. 14 There simply isn't enough land area here 15 to support this application. I don' t know how I 16 can say this again without sounding endlessly 17 repetitive, this , in my opinion, is a clever way 18 to segment the application and in effect pull 19 the wool over the eyes of the Board. 20 And the Board of course doesn' t simply 21 grant variances like passing out peanuts . 22 There ' s some proof needed on the part of the 23 applicant. We have none of the usual proof 24 here. There is a distinct type of proof that is 25 required for waterfront properties, at least by RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 102 2 the New York Department of State, with respect 3 to their waterfront management program, 4 waterfront revitalization program or however you 5 want to term it . 6 They say that in effect they have adopted 7 the premise that marina construction or 8 expansion is based on need demonstrated need. 9 This subject property for the last several 10 years , any of you have driven by Route 25 , and I 11 presume you have all observed the sign out there 12 continuously "slips available" . As a matter of 13 fact, there was a sign out there : "Slips 14 available until after July 4th of this year. " 15 I guess I inadvertently caused its removal 16 because at one of the meetings before the 17 revitalization committee I mentioned the fact 18 that there was apparently no shortage of slips. 19 If there ' s no shortage of slips there is no 20 demonstrable demand. And this is all an 21 exercise in futility. 22 Now, I ' ve heard mention of the fact that 23 the eaves of the building will be 25 feet in 24 height giving a maximum of 45 feet at the ridge 25 and an average height of 35 feet. Frankly, I RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 103 2 believe 45 feet is pretty excessive height to 3 build any place . And I question whether you ' re 4 going to get boats three high within an area -- 5 against a wall height of 25 feet. 6 What has been -ignored here also is the 7 question of health, safety , and general welfare. 8 What is proposed is to put this ponderous 9 structure in close proximity to the east of the 10 property line . 11 Now, this is an extremely dangerous 12 building. Boats are stored in it with full fuel 13 tanks or even worse, with partially filled fuel 14 tanks. You have the potential for an explosion 15 of fire or other types. of catastrophe to which 16 marinas are particularly prone. I speak from a 17 background of 45 years exposure to shipyards and 18 marinas. What you have here is possibly 19 presuming on the ignorance of the neighboring 20 property owners, as to what a potential for 21 catastrophe you ' re locating in direct proximity 22 to their property and in general direct 23 proximity to Route 25. 24 Another aspect of it is the traffic 25 problem, which hasn' t been touched on. I know RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 104 2 some mention has been made of parking on the 3 north side of Route 25. This in itself is a 4 hazardous situation. You ' re going to have 5 numerous, if it ' s permitted, you will have 6 numerous drivers strolling across Route 25 . 7 There' s no traffic control whatsoever. It' s 8 heavily traveled road, particularly during the 9 boating season. There' s no traffic control . 5 10 And the possibility of injury to pedestrians is 11 extreme . 12 You also have a situation there that 13 certainly should be brought to the attention of 14 the Department of Transportation where in effect 15 Route 25 is used as part of the marina 16 operation. Boats are transported across Route 17 25 routinely by forklift, truck or other 18 instance by travel lift. These are bulky slow 19 moving vehicles and present a hazard to the 20 motoring public. This is a question that has 21 been ignored in this context. 22 Now, I am coming to the end of this, I 'm 23 presuming you will be glad to hear . 24 There are other things here that really 25 should be gone into. There' s the question of RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 105 2 boat storage. 122 boats in the water. 122 3 boats in the water require winter storage. Now, 4 my experience with boats of this type and 5 particularly where you intend to have rack 6 storage for smaller boats, is that these 122 7 boats in the water would be boats of medium to 8 large size. When you handle these boats with a 9 travel lift, you require somewhere 1000 to 1 ,250 10 square feet of upland area per boat to allow for 11 the use in maneuvering of travel lift and 12 required space between the boats. 13 What you obviously have here is a 14 requirement for winter storage. Incidentally, 15 some--few of the boats that are stored in the 16 water -- moored -- docked in the water in the 17 summertime may not be stored in the upland 18 storage area in the winter time. I have to 19 concede that. 20 But on the other hand one of the most 21 remunerative sources of marina business are 22 private boat owners store boats at their own 23 dock side in the summertime and bring them to 24 the marina site for winter storage . Presume 25 these two things to cancel themselves out, you RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 106 2 have a requirement for winter storage for boats 3 other than the ones in rack storage in the 4 building of approximately 122 ,000 feet, or three 5 acres, of ground storage . 6 So in conclusion, I would suggest that 7 somebody go over this thing methodically. I 'm 8 sure they' ll. come to the same conclusion that I 9 have : That there is absolutely no room on this 10 property for the proposed erection of the -- 11 erection of the proposed structure. 12 If you' d like, I realize what I 've said is 13 somewhat complicated, I ' ll be glad during the 14 course of the coming week , to present this. to 15 you in written form so you can analyze it in a 16 context of the site plan. I ' ve come to the end 17 of my over long presentation. If you have any 18 questions I would be happy to try to answer 19 them. 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: Appreciate you coming in 21 Mr. Flynn and we appreciate your suggestion to 22 us to reduce it to writing. But we do have this 23 very nice lady over here. She will transcribe 24 it for us. 25 MR. FLYNN: I ' m not the most eloquent RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 107 2 speaker. I recognize that. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: When we get the 4 transcript back , we ' ll analyze it based on the 5 transcript. We appreciate your comments. 6 MR. FLYNN: Thank you. 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 8 MR. WIGGINS : Mr. Chairman, can I finish 9 up? 10 MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes. 11 MR. WIGGINS: Two things. The site 12 coverage , lot sizes, ' was based on survey by Van 13 Tuyl. The area to the west, which is -- was 14 excluded also all of the basins was excluded. 15 We did not exclude the property owner across the 16 street. Those were itemized on the site plan. 17 I would like to request an adjournment to 18 this hearing, get a copy of the transcript and 19 give the owner and the applicant a chance to 20 respond to those for your information. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: Sure. Could you supply 22 us, possibly with whatever deed you may have 23 concerning not the original, of course , but 1 24 copies so we can take a look and see if there is 25 apparent rights here, or whatever the situation RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 108 2 might be, concerning this marina in total 3 basically. I would appreciate that. 4 MR. WIGGINS: yes, will do. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: At this particular point, 6 I guess -- unless anybody else would like to 7 speak . 8 MR. FLYNN: Mr . Van Tuyl submitted to you, 9 I believe, a survey of the property which 10 encompasses the motel site. So I would consider 11 that as being rather proof positive if the issue 12 arises as to whether it belongs to Mr . Leibline 13 or not. It says I believe it was entitled 14 property of the marina operation. 15 Also, there' s a little bit of a trick 16 involved, here. It may be shown as being in the 6 17 ownership of the Suffolk County Industrial 18 Development Corporation. However , I checked 19 that with the Suffolk County Development 20 Corporation. They said they are only the 21 Titular owners. Mr. Leibline actually owns the 22 property and can put it back into his name 23 whatever he pays, whatever the balance due to 24 them is. And in fact, their ownership makes the 25 property tax exempt. That was part of the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 109 2 reason for pits being may have had in that 3 ownership. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: You ' re referring to the 5 motel , not to the marina. 6 MR. FLYNN: I 'm not Albertson Marina. I 7 haven' t checked in Riverhead. The assessment 8 shows Bud Pine (ph. ) is the owner . Mr. Leibline 9 is the an officer of the Bud Pine. I do know 10 Mr . -- the proprietor of Albertson Marina leases 11 at least some of the property from Mr. Leibline. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 14 At the request of consult, we ' ll recess 15 this hearing with no date, waiting for the 16 transcript to be transcribed and reduced to 17 writing. 18 MR. DINIZIO: Can I ask a question of Mr . 19 Flynn? 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes. 21 MR. DINIZIO: Is what you ' re saying, and 22 I ' m relatively new to the Board of Zoning, what 23 you ' ve said tonight is fairly new to me, that 24 the buildings that are on the property -- that 25 may not include the new building but the old RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 110 2 buildings, you feel that in effect the lot 3 coverage of this new building -- 4 MR. FLYNN: They approximate the maximum 5 lot coverage that would be permitted on the site 6 without adding this new structure. That ' s what 7 I 'm saying. 8 MR. DINIZIO: Say a restaurant needs a 9 certain amount of parking -- 10 MR. FLYNN: The inimum requirement of 11 80 ,000 square feet, which is approximately 1 . 84 12 acres for a restaurant. In the ordinance it 13 says that. 14 There is a requirement not of builders 15 acreage but actual acreage of three acres for a 16 motel. And for any other use, special exception 17 use, you would also require a minimum plot of 18 80 ,000 square feet. 19 So the property is there. You have to 20 take out the prior developed areas and end up 21 with the net area for marina operations. 22 MR. DINIZIO: This is all included on that 23 particular site plan, the restaurant is on 24 there. 25 MR. FLYNN: The restaurant is. The motel RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 111 2 isn' t. What I 'm maintaining, the motel site 3 should be, because as stated in the application, 4 the question in the application was what was in 5 contiguous and current common ownership. I 'm 6 maintaining that the motel is also part and 7 parcel of that contiguous portion of the south 8 side of the road. 9 MR. DINIZIO: Even though it' s under a 10 different name? 11 MR. FLYNN: It doesn' t make any 12 difference . 13 MR. DINIZO: You' re saying that the use of 14 that and the amount of land that would be 15 applied to the motel would -- 16 MR. FLYNN: -- have to be three acres. 17 MR. DINIZIO: To this new building also? 18 MR. FLYNN: Over 9 . 1 acres . 19 By way of clarification, it says in the 20 application not only in effect owned by, but 21 also says controlled by. And this Suffolk 22 County Industrial Development Corporation told 23 me in effect no matter what it may appear on the 24 surface, it is controlled by Mr . Leibline. 25 MR. DINIZIO: Thank you very much. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 Southold Town Board of Appeals • � 0°i `` �'�,� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y'. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD Date: September 21 , 1. 989 MEMBERS S.E.Q.R.A. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. UNLISTED ACTION SERGE DOYEN, JR. SAW JA ES INH. ZIO,CKI JR. Notice of Determination of Non-Significance DAMES DINIZIO, JR. — Appeal No. 3542 Project/Applidants: Cliffside (Tide Mark) County Tax Map No. 1000- 45-1-1 Location of Project: 61475 County Rd. , Greenport Relief Requested/Jurisdiction before this Board in this Project: Construct 76 Motel UKits in this Resort/Residential (RR) ZoQ?his 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned, and: { X } this Board assumes Lead Agency status and determines this project to be an Unlisted Action (uncoordinated) noting these findings: { ✓} the project is proposed in .an area with land contours 10 or more feet above mean sea level; { } the area seaward of the proposed construction is bulkheaded; { } the project is proposed landward of existing structures; { } this Board does not wish to be Lead Agency since the area of jurisdiction is minimal and not directly related to new construction ( such as nonconforming use variance or use permits) ; { } this Board wishes to assume Lead Agency status and urges coordinated written comments by your agency to be submitted within the next 20 days. For more information, please contact our office. Copies to: Planning Board, Town Trustees, N.Y.S. D.E.C. and/or Suffolk County Department of Health Services. tr (_. Off. Solithold wn Board of Appeals rYr MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX NO. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3542 Matter of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK) . Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50B (Article XIII) , for permission to construct 76 Motel Units in this Resort/ Residential (RR) Zone District. Property Location: 61475 County 48, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 0451 Block 011, Lot 01. • WHEREAS . a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK) under Appeal No. 3542; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in. question is located along the north side of County Road 48, Town of Greenport, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 045, Block 01, Lot 01. 2. This is an application for a Special Exception from the Zoning Code Article V, Section 100-50B, (Article XIII) , for permission to construct 76 Motel Units. • Page 2 - Appl. No. 3542 Matter of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK) Decision rendered on November 2, 1989 3. At the time of this hearing on 9/21/89, by letter to the attorney for applicant, the Code sections. were changed to indicate updated Section of present Code, Article VI, Section 100-61B( 4) , as corrected. - (1) Article VI, 100-61B ( 4) , the nature of this present application is for a special exception for 68 motel units and one manager' s unit on this 7+- acres. As directed by Final Draft Environmental Statement on this project. (2) Hotel or motel uses as set forth in and regulated by 100-61B( 4) of the Resort Residential (RR) District. R ( 3) Definition of a Motel: Buildings or Building providing overnight accommodations for motorists (p.764, Language of Zoning, taken from New York Zoning and Practice, Third Edition, By Robert M. Anderson) . 4. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the area chosen for the Motel Units are not unreasonably located; (c) that the Special Exception will not in turn cause substantial effect on the safety, health welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (d) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the Special Exception, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, its was i Page 3 - Appl. No. 3542 Matter of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK) Decision rendered November 2, 1989 ; RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception in the matter of the application of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK) as applied under Appeal No. 3542 for the placement of 68 Motel Units and 1 Manager Unit, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. l That the 68 Motel Units not - ped 600 sq. ft. in size. [Article VI , Section 6IB. 4 (e 2. That a sign be placed on west.-side of turning lane, to be added on the island, as shown on Site Plan of Henderson and Bodwell, Dated 11/6/89, indicating right turn only, the sign is to be approximately 2 sq. ft. in area and placed in full view of all vehicles exiting from complex. 3. That all construction be setback a mii}imum of 100 ft. from the bluff, with the exception of the ramp leading down to beach. 4. That together with erosion controlled plans, as indicated in DEIS, it is the suggestion of the Board for this Special Exception, that Hay/Straw bales be placed outside the 100 ft. mark ( landward) during construction. 5. That it is the understanding of this Board that only the Managers Unit will contain kitchen facilities. 6. That a contract with the Village of Greenport exists at the commencement of this construction project, for water and sanitary facilities. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. df Z4� GERARD P. GOE RINGER CHAIRMAN 1 112 2 MR. FLYNN,: Thank you. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Getting back to the 4 motion. I 'm offering a motion to recess this 5 particular hearing without a date and specific 6 reason for it is to reduce the testimony that 7 was put before us tonight to writing so that we 8 may study it. In the interim so will the 9 applicant. 10 We will then get back to the applicant as 11 he will get back to us and we will readvertise 12 this for the new date when everybody has 13 digested this information. 14 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 15 , MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 16 (Ayes) . 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much 18 everybody for coming in. 19 The second to last hearing is appeal 20 number 3842 . 21 (Reading) . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the 23 buyer plan. We are talking about building 24 number 16 , here. The construction on that 25 particular parcel , that particular site. I have RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 113 2 a copy of the Suffolk County tax map and 3 surrounding properties. Referring to the site, 4 referring to tax map -- not the tax map but the 5 overall site of 4 . 8 acres of Crescent Beach 6 Condo. 7 I believe, Pat, you would like to speak . 8 MS. MOORE : Yes , thank you. Patricia 9 Moore, law offices of Moore & Moore in 10 Mattituck . 7 11 I have packaged together everything so you 12 don ' t have to search through the file . 13 We represent the Crescent Beach 14 Condominium Association. As you can see from 15 the audience, the majority of the people here, a 16 little over dozen people, are members of the 17 condominium association, they' re owners. 18 This property is located in East Marion 19 off of Maple Lane. The reason we are before you 20 tonight is that in 1979 a condition was imposed, 21 a variance for setbacks. The condition was that 22 a certain patio, which was a substantial patio 23 built out of wood, be restricted to screening 24 material so a deck could be improved with 25 screening. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 114 2 The decks were approved and there was 3 various communications back and forth. In 1986 4 the Association stated that they would like to 5 replace the screening with glass. At that time, 6 there was some communication between Mr . 7 Hinderman, who was the building inspector at the 8 time and back and forth between the Asociation 9 and Mr . Hinderman. 10 Mr . Hinderman' s recommendation or opinion 11 was that the original variance was unnecessary 12 and that the reason for that was that the 13 internal roadway system was not a street within 14 the definition of street in the code and 15 therefore a setback was not required. That 16 along with an application by one of the owners, 17 I believe unit number 21 , which obtained the 18 building permit and the C. 0. for their 19 renovation. 20 The occurrencs of 1986 resulted in some 21 confusion by the property owners. After that 22 time, they began to replace the screening with 23 windows. At this time, when they went in for 24 future refinancing or whatever the purposes were 25 to obtain C. O. ' s or updated C. O. ' s for the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 115 2 units, they were advised that the glass was not 3 a permitted material and that we should appear 4 before the zoning board and possibly add the 5 condition that was -- prior condition imposed. 6 At this time, the 20 of the 21 -- 19 of 7 the 21 units have the glassed-in porches. This 8 would result in a great hardship to replace and 9 restore the units to their original screening 10 material . The windows themselves do not change 11 the character of the community. The structure, 12 and I refer you to the diagram which was 13 included as part of the application in' 79 , shows 14 a wood frame structure with openings that show 15 screening as the material used. This has not 16 changed the outside dimensions of the structure 17 remain the same. The difference being that the 18 screen was replaced with windows , in fact 19 improving aesthetically and structurally the 20 integrity of the building. 21 With that in mind we would request that 22 this Board rescind or amend the conditions 23 imposed in 1979 in appeal number 2552 and allow 24 the porches to be screened with glass screening 25 that is currently there. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 116 2 In addition, we noticed in the file 3 number -- we reviewed the file for any 4 correspondence, the Board may have questions 5 about parking or barriers . We saw two notes and 6 were trying to decipher what that meant. If you 7 would like to discuss it with the owners here. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: Being honest with you , 9 every time I had gone down there, there was a 10 chain across the road. It was a cold day. I 11 didn' t know if anybody was going to take a gun 12 out and go after me, kiddingly. I didn' t 13 transverse the chain. However , I did go down, I 14 guess, sometime in July. I was curious to see 15 that that road does exist. It goes around and 16 wraps around the rear of the major group of the 17 buildings. 18 My concern was how much of that area is 19 used for parking and how well used is that road. 20 MS. MOORE: Well, just to start with some 21 points. The road itself is in very good 22 condition if you noticed. It is in fact going 23 to be upgraded again. It is going to be 24 resurfaced, engineers have worked on some 25 drainage so the integrity of the road continues RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 117 2 in the condition it his now. 3 The parking , each of the units has a very 4 restricted parking that is self imposed by the 5 Association. Some of the units park behind in 6 the circle. The ones that are facing the water 7 park behind -- the ones facing the water, park 8 seaward of the driveway -- parallel parking . 9 And the ones in the back park behind their 10 building. So it is strictly enforced. There is 11 adequate parking. It has not changed, parking 8 12 needs have not changed really since the ' 79 13 appeal, which at that time the site plan was 14 referred to the building inspector . 15 There was a letter in the file, I can get 16 one for you if you ' d like , that talked about the 17 adequacy of the parking and that it was 18 sufficient. That is still the case today. If 19 you ' d like to ask any one of the property owners 20 if there is any problem with parking, I 'm sure 21 they would enlighten you . 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: Let me understand this 23 again. Buildings D through J are the ones that 24 primarily wrap around the circle and are on the 25 east side. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 118 2 MS. MOORE: Those were the ones that face 3 the water. 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: They park in front of the 5 buildings primarily. 6 MS. MOORE: Well, not all along the front 7 of the building. There is a designated area for 8 parking. They park parallel. to the road. 9 MS. MOORE : No, perpendicular to the road. 10 In front of the buildings . 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: What is the purpose of 12 the road? 13 MS. MOORE : Purely for access to the 14 individual units and to the beach. Internal 15 access system. 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: Let' s assume on the 17 weekend we have several people staying with us 18 as guests in one particular unit. 19 MS. MOORE: As guests. 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: Would . guests use that 21 road to park next to or near those units? 22 The reason I ask that question, when I 23 viewed the grass in the rear of this unit, the 24 grass looked like it was in very good condition. 25 It didn' t look like it was parked on. Now, that RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 119 2 doesn' t necessarily mean that whoever parked 3 there was probably a transient person and didn' t 4 leave their car there for a long period of time . 5 Is that the case? Could you have parking there? 6 A PERSON: In other words, when you come 7 off the driveway, you just park in 8 perpendicularly into the building. If you have 9 a guest, he just park alongside of you. On that 10 circle, nobody parks in back of the building one 11 to six, or 21 , which is the little independent 12 building. They just pull in front of the 13 building . Nobody parks behind the building, 14 that' s all lawn in there. One to six would be 15 where they put the extensions on, that that' s 16 all on the lawns facing west. 17 MR. GOEHRINGER: what about the buildings 18 across? 19 A PERSON: The buildings along the water, 20 they come down to the road and park 21 perependicular to the water. 22 MS. MOORE: There ' s enough room there for 23 guests. 24 A PERSON: Always on the east side of the 25 road. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 120 2 The other thing I wanted to comment is 3 that one of the reasons you found the grass in 4 good condition is at that in most cases, the 5 primary use of the place is on the weekends 6 during the summer months. It ' s not as if it' s 7 heavily used all week all the time. 8 MR. GOEHRINGER: When would somebody park 9 in the area closest to the porches? 10 A PERSON: Nobody, never . 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: Nobody would ever park 12 there . 13 A PERSON: No, never. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: Why is that area not 15 chained off, then, so that there is really 16 ingress or egress through there? 17 Why is it not chained up? 18 MS. MOORE : It ' s self regulateing. Each 19 of the owners regulates their own. 20 MR. GOEHRINGER: What I was concerned with 21 when I saw the project , I ' ll be honest with you, 22 there was a significant amount of parking down 23 in that area. Not in any way degrading your 24 structures in any way, manner or form, I was 25 concerned with vehicular traffic down there and RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 121 2 proximity to those buildings from the reverse 3 side. That was the purpose of the question and 4 the purpose of the area in question concerning 5 the barrier. 6 . To screen the building not in a practical 7 sense from the roadway if it was an active 8 roadway and it, was used by all the residents for 9 overflow or for very simply your own particular 10 use. So we' ve taken care of that particular 11 problem. We thank you for that. 12 MR. GOEHRINGER: The only other question 13 is, how have you -- how has this particular 14 enclosure enhanced your unit? You know, I mean, 15 pragmaticly I know how it ' s enhanced it. Tell 16 me particularly. 17 A PERSON: Well , it-- primarily and 18 practically in inclement weather, it keeps the 19 furniture, and so on, from getting ruined, 20 allows us more time to spend in that area. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: These structures are only 22 used during what particular periods of time? 23 A PERSON: Summer months from April until 24 October. 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Good , then the water is RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 122 2 shut off . There is really no way to get to it 3 unless you have a key to the chain. How are 4 they heated, in any way? 5 A PERSON: The units have radiant electric 6 heat. They have always had that. 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: You could come out in the 8 winter if the heat was on but not use the 9 plumbing? 10 A PERSON: That is correct. 11 MR. GOEHRINGER: That ' s not a violation of 12 any ordinance? 13 A PERSON: A little inconvenient to travel 14 a hundred miles and not have use of the 15 facilities. 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: Is this the first time in 17 the existence that I have been on the Zoning 18 Board that we have had a joint meeting where 19 everybody has spoken. 20 MS. MOORE: For the record, I believe one 21 of the conditions imposed in the original 22 application was that restriction on the use, 23 months, the April through the October . 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any further 25 questions. I ' ll see if anybody else has any RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 �r {} Southold Town Board of Appeals • ',� `f""" �� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y'. 11971 a. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN September 21 , 1989 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. S,E.O.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3842 Project/Applicants: Crescent Beach Condo Association County Tax Map No. 1000- 38. 1-1-Units 1-21 Location of Project: End of Maple Lane, East Marion, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Rescind Condition #3 under previous Appeal #2552 in which decks or patios were not to be enclosed. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) . Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617 . 2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .233' . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr In. Sollithold Town Board of Appeals • '%�a+�l �•�®� MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3842: Application of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOMINIUMS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXVIII, Section 100-271 (D) , for permission to enclose decks or patios of units with glass windows with insufficient setback. Property Location: End of Maple Lane, East Marion in this Resort/Residential (RR) Zone District, County Map No. 1000, Section 38.01, Block 7 , Lot 21 units. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOS. Under Appeal No. 3842; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south of Route 25, Town of East Marion and is identified on the Suffolk county Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 38. 01, Block 7, Lot 21 units. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning code Article XXVIII, Section 100-271 (D) , for permission to enclose decks or patios with glass windows with insufficient setbacks. Page 2 - Appl. No. 3842 Matter of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOS. Decision rendered October 12, 1989 3 . Article XXVIII, Section 100-271 (D) , in addition to such powers as may be conferred upon it by law, the Board of Appeals shall have the following powers: D. Interpretations: on appeal from order, decision or determination of an administrative officer or on request of any town officer, board or agency, to decide any of the following: (1) Determine the meaning of any provision in this chapter or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions of this chapter. (2) Determine the exact location of any district boundary shown on the Zoning Map. 4. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines; (a) that the circumstances of this application are uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (c) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOS as applied under Appeal No. 3842 for the enclosure of existing decks or patios with glass windows. Vote of the board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Dinizio. (Absent Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joseph Sawicki) . This resolution was duly adopted. dff GEREARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN 1 123 2 concerning this. 3 (None) . 4 MR. GOEHRINGER: We ' ll discuss it. We do 5 still have two members on there that were there 6 in 1979 . 7 MS. MOORE : I was noticing Mr. Grigonis 8 and Doyen were still on . the board. 9 MR. GOEHRINGER: How old is this 10 condominium project? 11 A PERSON: I have been there since 165 . 12 We finally got it approved in 167 . 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for 14 coming in. This is a unique hearing. 15 Hearing no further questions, I ' ll make a 16 motion for the close the hearing. Make a 17 decision later. 18 MR. SAWICKI : Second. 19 MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 20 (Ayes) . 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: The last hearing in the 22 agenda is Dr. Paul Mitchell. We apologize for 23 putting you on as the last hearing , Doctor . And 24 you, Mr. Garrett and Mrs. Mitchell , is that who 25 that is? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 124 2 DR. MITCHELL: Yes , it is. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Number 3860 is the next 4 appeal . 5 (Reading) . 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a 7 Suffolk County tax map. Mr. Strange, would you 8 like to be heard? 9 MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening. We have 10 two matters I guess before the board this 11 evening. One obviously is the 280 A action for 12 access to the site. Simply, we did submit 13 photographs of the site. I assume someone from 14 the Board has been out to observe the right of 15 way, would find it as we did to be the first 16 half of it paved and well-maintained and second 17 half of it to be unpaved but maintained and 18 travel on a regular basis as well right-of-way 19 not only serves the Mitchell property but 20 several surrounding properties that are used on 21 a year round basis for full time residents. 22 Thusly, it is kept in a relatively good state of 23 repair . 24 I think with regard to this point, unless 25 the Board had any questions about the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 125 2 right-of-way access, I have no further comments 3 other than it appears to be adequate for 4 criteria normally set down with right-of-way and 5 private roads and adequately serve this parcel 6 and other that abut it. 7 MR. GOEHRINGER: Are you willing to 8 improve the portion that ' s dirt as to minimum 9 requirements? What would be the nature of those 10 improvements? 11 MR. GARRETT: To the hedges. 12 My client mentioned to me earlier someone 13 had done something to the road when they made a 14 recent inspection about a week ago. . I hadn' t 15 been to the site in six weeks. So it obviously 16 happened since I have been there that there has 17 been improvements made . There may be a normal 18 occurrence in the area that they improve the 19 road for the winter traveler . I 'm not exactly 20 certain or at all knowledgeable at the moment as 21 to what the extent of the improvements were. 22 MR. DINIZIO: That road has always been 23 very well maintained for a dirt road. No way is 24 it -- 25 DR. MITCHELL: It ' s really pebbled. It' s RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 126 2 very nice. 3 MR. DINIZIO: It' s a good road. I grew up 4 on that road. It was definitely not the stone 5 blend that' s there now. But I have no trouble 6 with my -car . 7 MR. GARRETT: It' s a serviceable road. 8 There are numerous vehicles that use it on a 9 day-to-day basis. My initial response to your 10 10 comment is it maybe an unfair burden to place 11 upon my clients to improve and extend part of 12 this rode to the mutual benefit of all the j 13 neighbors. 14 MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, we can do one of 15 two things. We can ask the fire department to 16 go up there and appraise it and see if they are 17 happy with the extent of how much time they have 18 if for any reason there is a brush fire or a 19 house fire. Or we can simply impose what we 20 would consider to be minimum standards after the 21 house is built so any disruption of the 22 right-of-way existed would be taken care of and 23 go back and look at it. We ' ll talk about it. 24 That' s all I can tell you. 25 MR. GARRETT: Okay. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 127 2 MR. GOEHRINGER: And possibly, you know. 3 It' s something that I don' t want you to walk 4 away and think that there aren ' t some minimum 5 improvements that need to be done. 6 MR. GARRETT: The second aspect of our 7 application deals with the request for relief 8 from the front yard setback. The property as 9 indicated in the application is somewhat unique 10 given the fact that it has a requirement for two 11 front yards as well as a requirement for a 12 setback from Long Island Sound. 13 What we are asking for is relief from one 14 of the two front yards and the nature of the 15 reductions from 50 to 40 feet . The site and the 16 uniqueness of the site in addition to the given 17 setbacks and the Long Island Sound, some 18 graphical criteria, being the topography of the 19 site is such that there is a depression pretty 20 much right smack in the middle of the site. 21 Well, we do have to meet certain Federal 22 Flood Plain requirements for which there is, if 23 you will knows on the map, line of F . E. M.A. , 24 flood plain elevation setback , elevation ll , 25 runs through the site at elevation 11 . It' s a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 128 2 dotted or dashed line with X' s through it. 3 We also, in an attempt to be somewhat 4 aware of this area, although we since have come 5 to find out it ' s a misnomer, it ' s been 6 - designated as a wetlands area, is not considered 7 to be a wetlands area since it ' s not in any way 8 connected to Long Island Sound and doesn ' t meet 9 any criteria of definition of a wetland. 10 We still do want it to be aesthetic to its 11 existence and want to pull the house and deck as 12 far as possible from that, and still maintain an 13 envelope that would be adaptable to our design 14 approach. 15 Another consideration we had in setting 16 this up is aside from the site constraints, the 17 geographical constraints that we have is the 18 fact immediately to our south the property noted 19 as the Robesen property. There is an existing 20 dwelling there. Right now the Robesen do enjoy 21 a view of the Long Island Sound. Our attempt to 22 hold the house to what I ' ll refer to as the 23 south-westerly corner as it ' s depicted was done 24 also in an attempt to minimize or eliminate, if 25 possible, the impact on the Robesen' s view. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 129 2 There is also a house on the Tuttle 3 property, which is to the east. And, again, the 4 attempt is to keep as far away from Tuttle as 5 possible to minimize the impact on him, although 6 our distance from him is less critical I think 7 he ' s pretty far away , and I don' t think will be 8 of any impact to him. More importantly was the 9 impact to Rosa. 10 Again, to reiterate the nature of our 11 request, was to reduce a second front yard 12 requirement from 50 feet to 40 feet. 13 MR. GOEHRINGER: Where would the ingrees 14 and egress be on this site? 15 MR. GARRETT: The ingress is immediately 16 in the south-easterly corner right where the 17 right-of-way comes in and splits , the 18 intersection of the Robeson, Veil , Tuttle and 19 Mitchell plots. At that -point we ' ll enter the 20 site, come along the southerly boundary of the 21 property, or hug the southerly boundary of the 22 property, not necessarily right on the property 23 line, but in that area between, let' s say , 24 within the area of 50-foot zoning requirement 25 would be the area where the drive way access to RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 130 2 the house would be. 3 MR. GOEHRINGER: Certainly -- quite a 4 gully there . 5 MR. GARRETT: There certainly is. We try 6 to deal with it as best we can. We are making 7 attempts to design the house around and work 8 with that gully so we don' t have problems to 9 deal with, especially with the flood plain. 11 10 For the record, if the Board doesn' t have 11 it in their title, we do have a D. E. C. permit. 12 We also have approached the Southold Town 13 trustees who had a hearing and had indicated it 14 really wasn' t any significance to them and 15 granted a waiver accordingly. 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: We do have that. I don' t 17 think we have the D. E. C. That would be good for 18 us to have, if you wouldn' t mind supplying it 19 with us . 20 MR. GARRETT: With the D. E. C. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes . 22 MR. GARRETT: I ' ll make a copy of that and 23 get it to the board. 24 MR. GOEHRINGER: I have no particular 25 problem with the placement of the house as you RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 131 2 have so designed its placement. It' s very 3 difficult to understand when looking at the 4 site. There' s lot of poison ivy up there . 5 MR. GARRETT: That' s for certain. 6 MR. GOEHRINGER: Or down there. 7 Therefore, I didn' t go down. I attacked this 8 site from the beach. 9 I have no particular problem with it. I 10 don' t know if any of the other Board members do. 11 I ' ll go back and look at the right-of-way 12 before we make a decision to see what we can do 13 about that. We thank you again, Doctor and Mrs . 14 Mitchell . We apologize for this most sincerely. 15 Thank you for your indulgence . 16 MR GARRETT: Two pointed questions, the 17 references you made to soil and water , what is 18 that and what is involved and how long a process 19 is that? 20 MR. GARRETT: That is simply a 21 recommendation from them concerning any areas 22 that they feel could be minimized in the 23 construction of the dwelling. We don' t have a 24 cliff or a lip or anything of that nature. So I 25 don' t know of anything they' re going to be RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 132 2 concerned with. I tend to think probably not 3 much. 4 We are not bound to wait for their 5 decision. We think we will have it within the 6 next two weeks. It' s something that you know, 7 if we were 165 feet in the area and 70 feet lip 8 of the bluff. We are not concerned with it in 9 this situation. We deal with soil and water 10 whenever it concerns anything on the water, 11 usually on the Long Island Sound. 12 That' s the primary reason. 13 MR. GARRETT: If the point comes to being, 14 I think part of the one of the D. E. C. 15 requirements was to during the course of 16 construction was to protect the area below the 17 ten foot contour we will do with. 18 MR. GOEHRINGER: That is probably the same 19 situation. 20 MR. GARRETT: That seems to be standard 21 fare these days. 22 The other question is, is it possible the 23 Board may act on its decision at the next 24 meeting? 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes. Because I 'm sure RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 133 2 you want to start this construction. 3 MR. GARRETT: Yes, we are awaiting the 4 Board to take action on this in addition. 5 MR. GOEHRINGER: On the 280 A aspects, 6 briefly, if we so desire to ask for 7 improvements, we will -- they can be done after 8 the construction and we ' ll come back and look at 9 them. This is nothing that an engineer has to 10 look at because of the pretty good situation 11 exists there. 12 We have no idea what it will look like 13 during the spring thaw. That' s our concern 14 DR. MITCHELL: We ' ve been out there many 15 seasons. Thank you . 16 MR. GOEHRINGER: Best of luck . Have a 17 good night. 18 Hearing nothing further, motion to chose 19 the hearing reserving decision until later . 20 MR. DINIZIO: Second. 21 MR. GOEHRINGER: The hearing is closed. 22 (Time Noted: 11 :30 P. M. ) 23 24 25 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y'. 11971 1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. September 21 ,. 1989 SERGE DOYEN, JR. S,E.n.R.A. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI - JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 3.860 . Project/Applicants: Dr. Paul Mitchell County Tax Map No. 1000- 17=2-8. Location of Project: 10.1.5 Munn ..Road , Orient ,. NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Construct a- single family dwelling with insufficient front . yard setback 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board' s area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj , this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency' s interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617 .2jj . For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at ( 516) 765-1809. me i.. `, FOur Southold Town Board ®f Appeals .............. MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 l TELEPHONE(516)765-1809 FAX No. (516)765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. , SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H.SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ACTION OF THE .BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. " No. 3860 Matter of DR. PAUL AND ELLEN MITCHELL. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 ,A.3, and 280-A Access for Right of Way, for permission to construct a single family dwelling with insufficient front Yard setback in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 1015 Munn Lane, Orient, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 017, Block 02, Lot 08 . WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of DR. PAUL AND ELLEN MITCHELL, under Appeal No. 3860; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north side of Main Road 25, Town of Orient, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 017, Block 02, Lot 08. 2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning Code Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, 280-A Access of Right-of-Way, for permission to construct a one family dwelling, , with insufficient front yard setbacks. Page 2 - Appl. No. 3860 Matter of Dr. Paul and Ellen Mitchell Decision rendered October 12, 1989 3 . Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations wee set forth herein in full. (A) 280-A Access of Right-of Way. 4. Subject premises for the proposed dwelling is known and referred to as being on 1,3756 Acres, the proposed house, with decks and catwalk will be 5, 890+- sq. ft. , the proposed location of the house will be 40+- ft. away from the west Property line, 15+- ft. from the north property line, 115+- ft. from the south property line, and 165+- ft. from the high water mark. 5. In considering this application, the Board finds and determines: (a) that the circumstances of this application are • uniquely related to the premises and its established nonconformities; (b) that there is no other method for appellants to pursue; and placing the proposed one family dwelling in any other location on the premises will require other variance- relief; (c) that the area chose for the dwelling is not unreasonably located; (d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and/or order of the Town; (e) that in carefully considering the record and all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was s 7 Page 3 - Appl. No. 3860 Matter of Dr. Paul and Ellen Mitchell Decision rendered October 12, 1989 RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application of DR. PAUL AND ELLEN MITCHELL as applied under Appeal No. 3860 for the placement of a one family dwelling with setback and a 280-A access Right-of-Way, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That within the findings of the Board that it is our understanding that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Town Trustees are dealing with the erosion control aspects of this construction, and we suggest that all possible precautions be used in the construction of this one family dwelling. A. Setback for the one family dwelling as shown on Site Plan, By Garrett A. Strang, Dated 3/28/89 B. It is understood that the erosion control aspects of this project have been mandated by the other agencies of the Town and the State, however, it is the suggestion of this Board that a retaining wall may be deemed necessary on the side of the proposed dwelling that is closest to the property line (151 ) sideyard, and that the distance of this wall not exceed the distance of the dwelling. 2. 280-A, Access be granted from the unpaved access to the edge of the property line, a distance of approximately ( 525'+-) , subject to the following improvements: (a) after construction a minimum of 2 inch 3/4 stone blend at a minimum width of eight feet and a suggested width of ten feet, after completion it is to be inspected by Members of the Zoning Board before a certificate of Occupancy (C.O. ) is granted for the property. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis and Dinizio (Absent was, Joseph Sawicki and Serge Doyen, Fishers Island) . This resolution was duly adopted. . df GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN 1 3 2 CERTIFICATION I 3 4 I, JENNIFER MAUE , a Notary Public in 5 and for the State of New York , do hereby certify: 6 THAT the witness (es) whose testimony is 7 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me; 8 and 9 THAT the within transcript is a true record 10 of the testimony given by said witness (es) . 11 I further certify that I. am not related, 12 either by blood or marriage, to any of the parties 13 to this action; and 14 THAT I am in no way interested in the 15 outcome of this matter . 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set 17 my hand this 6 day of October , 1989. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Res-pe'c't,fu'I`-1 u "mi tted , ENNIFER MADE 4 24 Acting .Clerk to the 25 Board of. Appeals RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE 5f r�,�i • cs•...��,r•r. opw Town Clerk, Town of Southold