HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/17/1982 F oil(
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 M I N U T E S
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. — — — - -
SERGE DOYEN, JR. REGULAR MEETING
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JUNE 17, 1982
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held
on Thursday, June 17, , 1982 at 7 :00 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town
Hall , Main Road, Southold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis,
Jr. ; Serge Doyen; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Also
present were: Mrs. Shirley Bachrach (League of Women Voters) and
Mrs. Ruth Oliva (North Fork Environmental Council) .
The Chairman called. the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and proceeded
with the first public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3000. . Application of Bouton Services
Inc. , for JOHN J. BOGERT, Fox and Crescent Avenues, Fishers Island, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for
permission to erect antenna tower exceeding the height limitation for
accessory 'structures.. Location of Property: Private Road, Isabella
Beach, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-10-6-3 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :01 p.m. and read the appeal appli-
cation in 'its entirety and legal notice of hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketch indicating the
proposed tower on this particular property and a copy of .the County Tax
Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties. We did go
to Fishers Island on Tuesday, two .of us were there and the secretary,
and did take pictures. . The antenna is directly in back of the enclosed
pool that the . Bogerts own. There is a rock approximately five to seven
feet from the rear of the house from where this antenna would be mounted.
Is there anybody that would. like to speak in behalf of this application?
MEMBER DOYEN Have you received communications from the Bogerts?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we have. Is there anybody that would
like to speak against the application? (None) Any questions from any
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- June 1 /, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 3000 - John J. Bogert, continued: )
CHAIRMAN continued:
of the board members? (None)
(It is noted in the file that a telegram was received at 3:15 p.m.
this date regarding opposition to this proposed tower from an adjoining
property owner (Guido Goldman Trustee/MFG Management Co. , Gay Fugate)
which was as follows :
. . .Gentlemen:
Notice to adjacent property owner for high variance relief received
on June 16 , 1982 . Insufficient time to arrange for representation at
June 17 , 1982 7P.M. meeting. Given limited information available.
. Believe telescopic aerial in particular location could have serious
drawbacks on esthetics and environmental characteristics of the area.
Am opposed and hereby request the board to reject the variance
relief.
Guido Goldman Trustee/MGF Management Co. (Gay Fugate) . )
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comments on either side,
I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing subject to receiving a communi-
cation that we 're going to get from a Gay Fugate, who called this
afternoon and indicating that she would be sending us a mailagram
indicating her opinion of this particular application, in hopes that
the closing of this hearing will incur a five-day lapse. In other
words, it will be closed subject to that, and if we don' t receive it
within five days , it will be officially closed.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing subject to receiving communication
from Gay Fugate within five days of this date.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis , Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
The Chairman announced that the application for SERPENTINE REAL
ESTATE CORP. , Appeal No. 2999, has been requested by the attorney
for the applicant to be WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2999, application for SERPENTINE REAL
ESTATE CORP. , be and hereby is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE as re-
quested.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- June _LI, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
PUBLIC HEARING: . Appeal No. 2989. Application of LUCY E. MICHAELS,
3570 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addi-
tion to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback at 3570 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold; bounded north by Laughing Waters; west by Tschiember;
south by Minnehaha Boulevard; east by Young; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-87-3-7.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :05 p.m. and read the appeal
application and legal notice of hearing in its entirety.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketch indicating the
46 ' rearyard, which would be reduced to, I believe; 30 feet if this
depth was granted, is that correct, sir?
MR. MICHAELS: It' s about right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this property and .the surrounding properties in Laughing
Waters. Would you like to speak in behalf of the application, Mr.
Michaels?
MR. MICHAELS: We received the letter from the D.E.C. today,
and because there is a bulkhead there more than 100 feet in leghth,
a permit is not required. Would you like to have this? It just came
today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the original.
SECRETARY: We can mail you a copy back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're having-trouble with the copier machiner
tonight. Is there anything else you would like to say, Mr. Michaels?
MR. MICHAELS: No, that' s all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is . there anybody else that would like to speak in
behalf of this application? (None), Anybody like to speak against the
application.? (None) Any questions from any board members? (None)
Hearing no further questions, I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing
and reserving decision until a later date.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2989, application of LUCY E. MICHAELS.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- June i /, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
z
PUBLIC HEARING:. Appeal No. 2805. Application of VINCENT W. ANNA-
BEL, Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient
road frontage of one parcel proposed in a two-lot division of property
located at Stillwater Avenue,. Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Still-
water Avenue, Kiernan, Annabel; west by Stillwater Road; south by
Stillwater Road; east by East Creek; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
137-3-8.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :10 p.m. and read the appeal
application and legal notice of hearing in its entirety.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of .the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties. And we
have a copy of .a sketch prepared by VanTuyl on March 15, 1981---I
should say a survey. . . indicating Lot No. 1 which is approximately
40 ,000 square feet and Lot No. 2 which is approximately 55 , 000 square
feet. Mr. Annabel, would you like ..to speak in behalf of your applica-
tion?
VINCENT W. ANNABEL: Yes, I understand that the Planning Board
recommended that I drop that line 20 feet down to make a little bit
more road frontage there. Well the reason, I didn' t do that, and I
really can't do it is that the D.E.C. won't permit me to build any-
thing south of say a 40 ,000 .square-,foot area on Lot No. 2. . .so the
. property is practically worthless as any kind of a building lot. So
if I drop that line down and went south any more with the first lot,
Lot No. 1, the second lot would practically be rendered useless
because it wouldn' t be considered as a 40 ,000 square-foot building
area any more. All that south area is wetlands, and the D.E.C. won' t
let us do anything with it. I went through that with the D.E.C. and
this is the boundaries that they come up with.
.CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. This is our problem. . If we were to
close the hearing tonight, and the Planning Board did pursue that 20
feet that they want the::rear.:..adj.ustment' for, if it was not a unanimous
vote, the vote would be a void vote and therefore my suggestion . to you
is .that we recess the hearing until the next regularly scheduled hear-
ing, which is the 8th of July, at which time we should then know if
the Planning Board is going to pursue this 20-foot adjustment. And at
that particular time we will then be able to deal with the application
and thereby render a decision sometime thereafter. Do you have any
objection to that?
MR. ANNABEL: No, I don't. I'd just like to show you. . .you have
the survey yourself —but this is as I wanted to subdivide it once
before. I'm only getting two 40 ,000 acre lots and actually anything
below this area is considered wetlands. And if I was to move this
down 20 feet, that means I 'd have a sideyard setback of 35 feet or
more—and with that I'm coming down into the wetland area where I
can't put a house. So this is my big problem.
:CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You see, they-..may. be talking 20 feet here
down to a point of zero (triangular section) . . . I don' t know. I don' t
know if they're talking 20 feet altogether. Maybe just by adding a
little more road frontage on this. So before we .make any --
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- June i/, 1982
-s
.(Appeal No. 2805 - Vincent W. Annabel, continued: )
MR. ANNABEL: All right, so I' ll talk to Henry then. I have
talked to him and I understood he wanted 20 feet straight across, you
see, and that wouldn' t do me any good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ask him to send us communications, and this--
MR. ANNABEL: If he' s talking about 20 feet here coming out to
a point here, well I think that probably would work out. You know,
I don' t see any objection. But I'm trying to keep my 40 ,000 square
feet above .anything below here (wetlands) . That' s the big problem
that I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You understand though that .if we - close the hearing
and then there ' s an adjustment, then you would have to go through the
whole process again.
MR. ANNABEL: Right. I'm agreeable. Look, anything to help me
out, I ' ll appreciate. I first started in 1978 but then I dropped it.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're very welcome. Anybody wishing to speak
also in favor of this application? Anybody" like to speak against
the application? (None) Any questions from any board members? (None)
Hearing no further comments, I' ll make .a motion recessing this parti-
cular hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which we
would assume to be July 8th.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 2805, application of . VINCENT W.
ANNABEL to the next regularly-scheduled meeting of JULY 8 , 1982.
. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis , Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2988. Application of JOSEPH W.
HAWKINS, 7085 Horton Lane, Southold, NY fora Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32A for permission to
construct windmill exceeding the height limitations for accessory
structures. Location of Property: 7085 Horton Lane, Southold, NY;
bounded north by Horton Lane; east by Sheffield; south by Kramer
and Kempner; west by Booth and others; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-54-7-1. 004 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :15 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in .its entirety and appeal application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketch indicating
Mr. Hawkins ' house and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map showing this lot and the surrounding lots in the area. Is
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- June 1 / , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
-31
(Appeal No. 2988 - Joseph W. Hawkins, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
there anybody wishing to speak in behalf of the application? (None)
Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Are there any
questions from any board members? (None) All right., I'll make a
motion closing the hearing subject to the following, and that is that
we send a letter to Mr. Hawkins indicating that we want an exact
description of where this windmill is proposed to be constructed,
in _f.eet.,from both the north and west lines of his property. We're
closing it subject to that.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing in Appeal No. 2988 subject to
receipt of the exact setback- distances _for the-. p-ropo:sed-tower _.from
the side and rear yard lines (north and west property lines) .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringe-r, Grigonis , Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2991. Application of MIRIAM BAT-
SON, (by David Kapell as agent, 443 Main Street, Greenport, NY) for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for
permission to construct an addition to existing dwelling with a
reduction in rearyard setback at Bayview Drive, East Marion; more
particularly known as Gardiners Bay Estates Filed Map No. 275 , Lots
123 and 124 ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-37-4-3.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 20 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER We have a copy of a survey indicating the
house as it exists right now on the property, and the proposed deck,
which lies adjacent to a brick wall, and the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this property and the surrounding properties in -,'the area.
I would ask the public tonight, please, since we are recording this
particular hearing-dually, and that is, one because we're going to
ask you to state your name if you have anything to say and use of
the microphones, and, two, our secretary up here is taking it in
shorthand. I would ask you also, please., if there is one spokesman
for an entire group to please do so, and in no way am I trying to
limit anybody tonight, but we have an extremely long agenda and we
want to give everybody equal time. Ok? Mr. Kapell , would you like
to say something in behalf of this application?
DAVID KAPELL: Kavid Kapell, 443 Main Street, Greenport, speak-
ing in behalf of the application. Gentlemen, this is a .fairly straight-
forward request. There' s a preexisting house built quite some time
ago close to the lot lines . We request permission to construct a deck
setting off from the building basically to the west and towards the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2991 - Miriam Batson, continued: )
MR. KAPELL continued
water, which is a use that is similar to many in the surrounding
neighborhood and identical to the one directly across the canal on
which this property is located. I'd like to offer a couple of
photographs that I took the liberty of taking this afternoon to
show you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Three photographs showing the
deck on the house across .the canal and the subject house were sub-
mitted for the record. )
MR. KAPELL: This is the side of the house upon which we pro-
pose to construct the deck, and it would rest on this wall which
is up on the right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, as soon as Mr. Kapell gets done here,
if anybody would like to come up and look at these, you're welcome
to , ok?
MR. KAPELL: This is a photograph of the house that is directly
across the canal--
MR. CHAIRMAN: We took pictures recently.
MR. KAPELL: Oh, you did. It' s directly across the canal. I 'd
like to point out that not only does it not meet the setback require-
ment, it actually extends over the water. . .this particular deck
extends over. . .it' s kind of leaning over the water. And this photo-
graph Is simply . to show you j:iist the position of these two properties
and their proximity.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . Thank you.
MR. KAPELL: In addition to the one that' s such an obvious mirror
of what we want to do, there are at least four or five other properties
within viewing distance of the applicant' s where similar uses have been
undertaken. They're not as .necessarily close to the water as this
particular deck .would be, but there are many that are nonconforming.
There are many that are nonconforming. . .there are many that are of new
construction. And that' s basically all I. .have to say. It' s a cut
and dry application, and I'd be glad to respond to any questions.
We're willing to live again to live with. .any reasonable conditions
that the board would want to place on the variance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question while you' re up.
MR. KAPELL: Certainly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you furnish the board with the approximate- -
square footage of the lot and the approximate square footage of .the
house as it exists now without the deck.
MR. .KAPELL: Can I borrow a ruler by any chance?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we have one.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- June 1 / , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
• (Appeal No. 2991 - Miriam Batson, continued: )
MR. KAPELL: I don' t think we have one. I ' ll do the best I
can if you' ll give me a couple of minutes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -It' s really not necessary tonight because I' ll
close the hearing subject to that. .
MR. KAPELL: Very good. I ' ll give you that information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like the.:square footage of the lot, the
square footage of the present dwelling, and the square footage of
the proposed deck.
MR. KAPELL: The first floor square footage of the dwelling
or the --
MR. CHAIRMAN:. Well , basically it would be called a high ranch
I guess, something of that nature. I would like the second story to
include those decks.
MR. KAPELL: Very good. Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
in behalf of this application? Just state your name, please.
CHET ORLOWSKI : I'm Chet Orlowski. I'm the builder of the
house. I built that house about 15 years or so ago. The house is
roughly I guess about 1200. square feet on the floor area, which is
two stories and I know the area how we built this house. The area
of the house with that lot I would dare say would be almost close to
40 ,000 square feet. . . I'm not sure. I don't have my survey with me.
But I know when we built the house we built this retaining wall
back from the bulkhead about six feet and this is where we wanted
to construct this deck. I'm the contractor that is supposed. to
construct the deck, and I built this house originally and have done
a lot of work for Mr. and Mrs. Batson, and we are not extending out
over the water . We're only extending into that main wall which is
the retaining wall , which is about six feet back from the bulkhead.
And it ' s going to off the second story which is past the D.E.C.
requirements. So we're not involved with that department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak in behalf of the application? Is there anyone wishing
to speak against the application?
CARL (PHEIL?) : My name. is Carl (Pheil) (Field) ?, 2235 Cedar
Lane, East Marion, Gardiner' s Bay Estates. We have eight members
of Gardiner' s Bay Estates Homeowners Association here tonight, and
I am speaking for them. . We have a what we call a "building and
real estate committee" which pools off additions, corrections ,
whatever, in construction. This committee recommends to the Board
of Directors that this addition be disapproved, and the Board of
Directors upheld them. . .that is why we are here. This , while it' s
true it' s on a large lot, it' s right down on the water; and the house
did have a deck and an open porch which were closed in by the present
owners. We think this addition will not enhance .the neighborhood.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
Y
(Appeal No. 2991 - Miriam Batson continued: )
MR. CARL (PHEIL?) : It' s true that there are other decks, but they
are way back from. the water, and this one would almost be over the
line. Have you received a letter from Brad Brown--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was just going to mention that.
MR. (PHEIL) : Who is directly opposite. I am on a line about
100 feet from this proposed deck.. Mr. Brown is opposed to it. . . I'm
opposed to it. I believe eight members here tonight are opposed to
it for aesthetic grounds and other grounds.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I received three letters—one from Bradney N.
Brown, one from Richard and Judith DiBlasi, and one from the
Chairman of the Real Estate Committee Warren A. Sambach. The board
has read those.
MR. (PHEIL) : That' s all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak against the application?
FRED WINGATE: The house that the picture that you took there--
MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have your name?
MR. WINGATE: I'm Fred Wingate, Gardiner' s Bay Estates. The house
on the property that you have a picture of as we commonly know it in
our development is the "boat house" and that was built 50 years ago
when there were no kind of restrictions whatsoever, and it certainly
cannot be used as an example.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in behalf of this application? Does anybody wish to speak
against it? Does anybody, when I say in behalf of, I mean any rebuttal.
I . apologize.
MR. KAPELL: Well, I just would like to make a point there' s
clearly a precedent for this type of deck that' s been established,
whether it' s before or after the zoning ordinance was enacted. And
I think that maybe if one looked, they' ll find -that the deck across
the way was not built 50 years ago, it' s more like 15 years, and this
deck does not present a precedent in any way. . .the precedent has
already existed in the neighborhood. It' s not going to change anything,
it' s existing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Sir? Thank you.
HAROLD SHEAVEY: My name is Harold Sheavey. I'm also a resident
of Gardiner ' s Bay, and I want to emphasize that this deck that they' re
talking about on what we call the "boat house" has existed there for
at least 20 .years, has existed there way before zoning. I also want
to emphasize that the Batson porch or deck that they're proposing now
they had the identical deck and porch area that they are now request-
ing on the original house they bought and they closed it completely in.
Thank you.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
p
t_
(Appeal No. 2991 - Miriam Batson continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? Sir?
BENNETT CLYDMAN: Resident of Gardiner' s Bay, 250 Bayview Drive.
I 'd like to ask a question. I understand that the deck is being built
strictly on the .west wall, the west portion of the house is it going
to occupy any other portion of the house?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not to my knowledge, sir. May I have your name?
MR. CLYDMAN: Bennett Clydman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on either
side? Mr. Orlowski again?
CHET ORLOWSK:I: I 'd just like to make a comment that these weren't
decks. They were put on the original house. . .they were just porches
with a roof over a porch, and the porch was closed in by me, myself,
and they were closed in because they were just porches. . .they were
roofed over originally. . ' They were no decks. A deck is an open deck,
but these were roofed over right from the main part of the house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other comment from anyone? (None)
Hearing no further comments, I' ll ask the board members if they have
any questions?. (None) Hearing no further questions , I ' ll close the
hearing subject to the receipt of the information I asked from Mr.
Kapell.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision pending
receipt of the square footage of the total lot coverage and the
dimensions of the proposed deck.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
After the hearing was declared closed, a few of the neighbors
came up to examine the photographs in the file.
APPEAL NO. 2999. SERPENTINE REAL ESTATE CORP.
The Chairman announced again that this matter has been withdrawn
without prejudice as requested by the applicant' s attorney. (See
Resolution on page =2-.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
PUBLIC HEARING:. Appeal No. 2994 . Application of ESTELLE L.
WEINRIB, 27 West 86th Street, NY, NY 10024 (by Norman Addy) for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for
permission to construct accessory building. in the front and/or
side yard area at 3400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by
Wood; west by Canal ; south by Kimmins; east by Ole Jule Lane; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-4-20 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :36 p.m. and read. the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketch from the back
of the building permit application and a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating -this property and the surrounding properties in
the area. Mr. Addy, would you like to say something?
NORMAN ADDY: Well, the only reason we're doing it this way, it' s
only a 10 ' by 12' building. . .there' s a tree and would have to go on
the other side of the tree back to back, is because of Mr. Wood' s
house—the. lot, I mean it' s way over on the other side of the lots
next to the house, so it' s not interfering with anybody or anything.
It' s out of the way. Nobody probably sees it. They put a deck on
this year, and the furniture and things we want to put inside because
the cellar, being close to the water, gets wet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What type of construction would this be?
MR. ADDY: This would be an "A-frame" just a 10 ' by 12' wood.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you furnish us with the footage from Ole
Jule Lane and the footage from the closest property line on the right
side.
MR. ADDY: Well, I'd say it' s at least 100 ' back from Ole Jule
Lane, and probably I'd say 60-70 ' from the property line.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How far is --
MR. ADDY: It' s two lots .and the house is on one and this here
is sitting just on the edge of the other one next to the house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How close to the steel storage building will it be?
MR. ADDY: To the storage building? Oh, I'd say about two feet.
The reason was they don't want to take the tree down, so it would be
back to back with the trees there so there will be about two feet or
SO .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you call our secretary Monday and just give
us a footage from Ole Jule Lane and from that close property line on
the righthand side?
MR. ADDY: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Addy. Anybody else like
to speak for the application? Anybody to speak against the application?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- June 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2994 - Estelle L. Weinrib, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued) : Is there anything any of the board members
wish to say? Bob ..;
MEMBER DOUGLASS: He made a statement that that is two lots, and
the house is on one , right?
MR. ADDY: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s merged.
MR. ADDY: I mean it' s combined now.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Is it one lot now?
MR. ADDY: It' s one lot now.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: It' s not still held as two lots?
MR. ADDY: No. The taxes are paid and everything as one lot.
Originally there were two lots. The house was built on one and this
was next to it. . They're together now. One lot, right.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I' ll make a motion closing:...the hearing and reserving
decision until a later date.
MEMBERS DOUGLASS AND GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Grigonis and
Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and .reserve . decision until a later
date in the matter of Appeal No. 2994, application for ESTELLE L.
WEINRIB.
Vote. of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2993. Application of GERARD
GALLIANO, 2125 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to
construct garage in the frontyard area at 2125 Pine Tree Road,
Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Farms Subdivision, Filed Map No. 1179, Lot
No. 19; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-98-1-13.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7 :42 p.m. and
read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey indicating this particular
property and the garage which appears to be a 12 ' by 20 ' , proposed,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- June _L7 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2993 - Gerard Galliano, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued) : sitting in the frontyard. And. I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surround-
ing properties in this area. Mr. Addy?
NORMAN ADDY: Yes. We want to set a regular grape-barber, you have
the map there. That' s the only place it. can. .be because it' s bulkheaded
in front and there' s no room on the side, .so it has to be in the front.
MR. . CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what the approximate'-.dimension
is to the south line?
MR. ADDY: To the south line? Well, to the south line it would be
about six to eight feet. Right to the south.
MR. CHAIRMAN: South line.
MR. ADDY: South line, about six to eight feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could .you give us the exact amount on that, Mr.
Addy, some time?
MR. ADDY: Yes.
. MR. CHAIRMAN: You see, the reason why. I 'm asking you this is
because it' s extremely difficult to prepare the final draft without
knowing the exact distances.
MR. ADDY: Shall I call that in too?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. And also the distance from Pine Tree
Road, which seems to be a rather . vast distance.
MR. ADDY: Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. ADDY: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else wishing to speak in behalf
of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application?
Hearing no further comment, any question from any board members? (None)
I ' ll make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision until a
later date.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until a later
date in the matter of Appeal No. 2993, application for GERARD GALLIANO.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
f
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2990 . Application of HENRY S. KOZEN,
1520 Donna Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to construct six-foot-high
fence in the frontyard (which would exceed the 4 ' height limitation) ,
at 1520 Donna Drive, Mattituck, NY; Deep...Hole Creek Estates Subdivision,
Filed Map No. 4256, Lot No. 33; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-15-
14 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :45 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We .have a copy of a survey indicating this property
which has three frontyards, basically, two on Theresa Drive and one on
Donna Drive. Is there anyone wishing to speak on behalf of this
application.? I'm not sure that mike is working--
LINDA KOZEN: I'm Linda Kozen, and if you would like I'd translate
my husband' s writing. That was disconcerting. And I'd like to assure
you it wouldn' t be setting a precedent because there are several other
fences that are . six feet high in the area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody wishing -to speak against
the application? Questions from any board members? (None) .Hearing no
further questions or comments, I' ll make. a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until a later date.
MEMBER SAWICKI. Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2990 , application of HENRY S. KOZEN until a later time.
Vote of the 'Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehr.inger, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2992. Application of STANLEY AND MARY
MOISA, 46 Sunset Lane, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordin-
ance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct addition to
dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback at 46 Sunset Lane, Greenport;
bounded north by Mellas and Ahaesy; east by Romei; south by Dinizio; west
by Sunset Lane; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-4-63.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :50 p .m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch on the back of the build-
ing permit application which indicates an 8 ' extension across the rear
of the garage extending approximately 2115" . Is there anybody that would
like to speak in behalf of this application? Does anybody wish to speak
against the applicati . ? (None) Any questions from any board members?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- June 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2992 - Stanley and Mary Moisa, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN . (continued) : Just for the point of record, we were down
last week .and we did take a picture of the rear of the house, and the
picture is in the file. We are aware of the proposed addition area.
Hearing no further comments from any board members, I' ll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2992, application- of STANLEY AND MARY MOISA.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2946 . Application for PETER KUJAWSKI,
by. Stanley C. Corwin, Esq. , 634 First Street, Greenport, NY for a
Variance: (1) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31
for approval of the insufficient yard setbacks due to location of new
lot line, and (2) to New York Town Law, Section 280A for approval of
access. Location of Property: 3275 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY-;
bounded north by Bay Homes Subdivision, and Kujawski; east by Pontino
and another; south by Marco; west by Skunk Lane; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-97-9-10 . 1.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :55 p .m. and read .the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey prepared by Mr. VanTuyl
on April 18 , 1980 .indicating the Lot No. 1, which is 1. 167-acres which
is to be set off from a 10-.acre parcel, Lot No. 2, and a sketched-in.
plan indicating the right-of-way over the, is it "Billard Farm, " sir?
Is the farm to the south the "Billard Farm" or is that Marco?
STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ. : That' s Marco.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Marco Farm 51 . 06 feet extending 29.7. 39 feet to the
east. We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
property and the surrounding properties in this area. Mr. Corwin,
would. you like to say something in behalf .of this application?
STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ. : These people make a contract back in
December of last year and going back and forth between this board
and the Planning Board, mostly over the right-of-way. The same people
own the property except that they have different entities in that
Mrs . Marco owns the property where the right-of-way is, and the
property that' s being bought by Mr.. Kujawski is owned by a .corporation
which is Mrs. Marco' s husband of which he is the principal stockholder.
..By the creation of this set-off line to accommodate the one . acre parcel
there where Peter is going to live, we put it on a jog in order to
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- Jun,-_- 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
` (Appeal No. 2946 - Peter Kujawski, continued: )
MR. CORWIN (continued) :
put in a well for irrigation -purposes on the farm. Actually, we are
not creating any new situation where buildings are closer to anything
else. Existing buildings are there. The variance is simply asked for
because of the creation of nothing more than an artificial lot property
line going between the existing buildings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are no encroachments as it exists right now
with that property', is that correct?
MR. CORWIN: Exactly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak in
behalf of the application? Sir?
RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ. : Rudolph Bruer on behalf of Mrs. Marco, one
of the owners of the property to the south. We request that the
board grant the application as applied for. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to -speak for the application?
Anyone wishing to speak against the application? Questions from any
board members? . (None) Hearing no further comments or questions, I' ll
make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2946 , application for PETER KUJAWSKI.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2995. Application of ELWOOD AND
CAROL HUGHES, 1711 Meadow Lane, East Meadow, NY 11554 , for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission
to construct addition to dwel ing with an insufficient sideyard at
6125 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue; Nassau Farms Subdivision, Filed Map
No. 1179, Part of Lot 130; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-4-1.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :10 ' p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch survey indicating
the porch enclosure which is connected to the present dwelling and
which lies approximately seven feet from the north property line.
We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
property and the properties in the surrounding area. Is there anybody
to speak in behalf of this application?
ELWOOD HUGHES : I 'm Elwood Hughes in case the board has any
questions .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
6
(Appeal No. 2995 - Elwood and .Carol Hughes, continued) :
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody wishing to speak against this
application? Are there questions from the board members? (None)
Hearing no comments or questions, I' ll make a motion closing the
hearing and reserving decision.
On motion- by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. . Grigohis,: it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2995 , application of ELWOOD AND CAROL. HUGHES.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2964. Application of RAYMOND AND
JOAN YOUNG, by Richard F. Lark, Esq. , Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for
approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels at
the corner of Horton Avenue and Shirley Road, Mattituck; bounded north
by Young and others; west by Shirley Road; south by Horton Avenue;
east by Bergen-:.and others; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-1-37.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :15 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey prepared by Roderick
VanTuyl on February 19, 1982 indicating Parcel 1 to be 17 ,178 square
feet with 106 . 66 road frontage along Horton Avenue and 145 . 92 feet
along Shirley Road, and. Parcel 2 having 18 ,600 square feet with
100 feet along Horton Avenue. We also have a copy of the County Tax
Map indicating this property -and the properties in the surrounding
area. Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application?
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ. : I would like to give the board, as you
know the Planning Board has approved this as a "set-off" . . . when the
application was made we applied to both the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board of Appeals , and they have approved the set-off. The
application, Richard Young, has lived there all his life. His
mother purchased those lots as indicated in the application. There
are a lot of this in Mattituck, and this was the way it wound up
many years before zoning in the neighborhood. So I went to the tax
office and got the assessors looking through their maps as to how
many affect the owners today. Interesting, this map shows that over
80% are 50' in width, .and' the rest 75'" ` and 100 ' which is exactly what
the applicants, Raymond and Joan Young are requesting, two 100 ' lots.
(Mr. Lark submitted a subdivision map dated March 1948 of "Edith M.
Young" and is marked for the record as 'Amended Exhibit B. ' ) . The
applicants are requesting two 100 ' lots advent of the recent zoning
changes. They were 4-acre lots (in 1948) , but now they require the
approval of both your board and the Planning Board, for which they
have deemed to be a "set-off. " Thank you.
Southold Town Board of ApNCals -18- Jun- 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2964 - Raymond and Joan Young) :
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for this
application? Anyone wishing to speak against the application? Any
questions from any board members? (None) I' ll offer a resolution
approving this as applied for (and indicated below) :
By this appeal, appellants seek approval of insufficient area of
two proposed parcels, 17,178 square feet and 18 ,600 square feet, and
approval of insufficient width, 106. 66 feet and 100 feet along Horton
Avenue , respectively. Parcel I is a corner lot. Both proposed parcels
are zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural" and were part of a major
subdivision entitled, "Edith M. Young, Mattituck" of 1948 , consisting
of four 50-foot lots. A majority of lots in the surrounding
neighborhood are generally of the same lot size and shape, and it is
the feeling of the board that by not allowing the variance, the
property will be substantially larger than those in the surrounding
area.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no
substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other
than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief
requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of
zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing
the variance as applied for and as specified below.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the application for RAYMOND AND JOAN YOUNG for
approval of insufficient area and width for two parcels located at
Horton Avenue, Mattituck, be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR
in Appeal No. 2964.
Location of Property: Horton Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-141-1-37 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2962. Application of GERTRUDE K.
REEVES, by Richard F. Lark, Esq. , Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a
Variance 'to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for
approval of insufficient depth of parcel located off Cedar Birch
Road, Orient; bounded north by Main Road; west by Brawner and Cedar
Birch Road; south by Gardiner' s Bay; east by Cedar Birch Road; County
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-115-8-20 , 21, 23 , 26 ..
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :30 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in 'its entirety . The Chairman was authorized by
Mr. Lark and the audience to waive the reading of the entire appeal
application.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- June 17 . 1982 Rea. Mta.
(Appeal No. 2962 - Gertrude K. Reeves, continued: )
MR.,-`".CHAIRMAN- We have a copy of a survey prepared on March 5 , 1982
as amended showing this parcel, which is on a private road-, which appears
tb.:'..be`.51 feet width, the end close to the Main Road, and we`have :.a__copy
of the Suffolk County'-.:Tax Map indicating this parcel and the surrounding
properties in the area.
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ. : I probably want to start off by apologizing
for even having to have this application before the board. Mr. Lessard
is here tonight, no disrespect to him, but this is an abhoration of the
Building Department. As you know, that the initial, as you have as one
of your exhibits there, back on February 10 , 1982 , the elliptic building
inspector George Fisher denied the application of the applicants for a
vacant lot C.O. As it turns out, the applicants were in the process of
selling the property which they received from their mother so they could
use the money for the support of their mother who lives just right down
the street, when the building inspector decided he could not issue a
vacant lot C.O. thereby squashing the real. estate transaction involved.
I then got into the act, and when I asked him, he said this isn't a
legal lot, and when I went through the map, which you have a copy of ,
of which the Board of Appeals, this Board of Appeals has granted
approval of the right-of-way and de facto have granted approval for
some of the set-offs of some of the land particularly Reich and Braddick
and when I asked him about that, he shrubbed his shoulders.
So taking the path of least resistence which sometimes is the best
method, we applied to both the Planning Board and. the Board of Appeals.
As you know, the Planning Board has given approval of a set-off and
it was referred back to the Board of Appeals. They did that by resolu-
tion on May 24th of this year.
The Planning Board asked me in detail, "Why the application?" I
said, "You tell me. You've got the regulations. You read them. "
They then in turn queried the building inspector again to specifically
get from him why this application was even before them for a set-off.
On May 21, he wrote a letter, you may not have a copy but which I
will give you. . .the next result of it is, he said -the lot doesn't
technically comply with zoning completely doing away with any previous
court decisions of what' s been going on in the Town for the previous
20 years. This lot has been in de facto set aside when the Board of
Appeals and the Building Department granted building permits to lots
on either side and then gave approval for the road, the private road.
When I asked him about what the applicant was to do, he had no
answer. And then when I questioned him closely, he said, "Well, I
guess I made a mistake. " The mistake .has been somewhat costly to
the applicants, and that' s why I apologize being before you.
The application speaks for itself. I urge for its approval.
The technical deficiency is that the lot only has 150 '. depth as
opposed to 175 ' depth, but all the lots on that side of the road
which are the only side that' s developed have only 150 ' depth, and
' that' s all that was required at the time that the thing was put in.
And this lot was' let off , if you would, or set-off more or less as
Southold Town Board of appeals -20- --ne 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
' (Appeal No. 2962 - Gertrude K. Reeves, continued : )
MR. LARK continued:
an orphan. It does meet all the other zoning requirements by the way.
The only technical requirement it doesn't meet, it' s only got 150 ' of
depth if you face the lot off of the house on the right-of-way, as
opposed to 1751 , but other than that the lot in all ways conform. The
right-of-way has been approved, not only once but twice by this board
at different times. And I respectfully urge its approval, but I do
think that you probably need, for the record, his letter to the Planning
Board trying to defend his position on it. The only other thing is that
maybe they could move the right-of-way. When I pointed out it would have
to go back to the Board of Appeals to move .the right-of-way and get the
approval of six other lot owners, he said, "I guess that' s not such a
good idea. " I normally don't appear before you and take .umbrage at any
of our town officials, but this is an application that shouldn' t have
had to have been made in any way, shape or form. . .Mainly because he has
issued about a half a dozen C.O. ' s down there, and your board has given
approval twice to the right-of-way and to the approval of the set-off,
and before we had all the rules and regulations he had been before the
board on several occasions. But taking the path of least resistence,
the -Planning Board said, "Well, ok, we' ll approve the set-off- under our
new regulations. "
By the way, just so you have it for the record, when the mother, Mrs.
King gave the lot to her four children, which are the basically the
owners and the applicants before you, we did not have the set-off provi-
sions under the zoning. They have come since then, 9/23/80 and so Mr.
Raynor said, "Ok, since we had it now and the building inspector has
taken this course, we will give you a set-off. " So they treated it as
a set-off rather than as a subdivision. And they have given approval.
You have a copy of that, but I don' t think you have a copy,...I believe,
of the May 21 letter of the building inspector, which I' ll handup, and
again. I apologize for being before you and respectfully ask for your
approval of this . And I think this will put this matter to bed for
once and for all. And I hope Mrs. King doesn' t have to come back some
time in the future to get approval for the sale of her house which has
existed there for many years. And I know Mr. Douglass laughs , he knows
right where it is and knows what the situation is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the one that says "residence?"
MR. LARK: Yes, right. Ok. Thank you .very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak in. ,behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak
against the application? Any comments from any board members? (None)
Hearing no further comments, I' ll make a motion closing :the ..hearing
and reserving decision until a later date.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2962 , application for Gertrude K. Reeves.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- uune 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2970 .. Application of JAMES MANOS, by
Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. , Main Road, Southold, NY for Approval of Access ,
New York Town Law, Section 280a. Location of Property: 400 feet easterly
off Mill Road, Mattituck; bounded north by Bungalow Lane; west by a pri-
vate right-of-way; east by Boechman and others; County. Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-113-6-14 .
The. Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :45 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch, or survey, showing the
four lots, Lot No. 1 being one acre even, Lot No. 2 being 1. 5 acres,
Lot No. 3 being 1. 165 acres, and Lot No. 4 being 1. 2 acres. The right-
of-way requested appears to be on three sides as mentioned in the
application, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing
this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Bruer,
would you like to say something on behalf of the .applicant?
RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ. : We request that you grant the application.
I believe that it has been the practice of the board 'to go out and
observe the property. Assuming that you've continued your practice,
you will have observed the roadways here, and I think it meets all
the requirements of the board with respect to the quality of the roads
to the area so that it could probably be serviced for emergency access ,
fire vehicles, et cetera. I believe the property. and the -board' s
observations, assuming that they have observed the property and can
speak for itself, I think the property should be granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone . else who would
like to speak on behalf of the application? Is there anyone who would
like to speak against the application? Sir, could you kindly get up
and state your name?
MR. JOHN: I have the adjacent property. I adjoin- these five
acres in question. I adjoin them about five hundred feet on the
south side and about 250 feet on the west side. All the four lots, I
have no question or_:ob-jection persay, this part of the use of the road.
But we do presently - have a severe drainage problem._.already. My property. . .
I-_am talking now about the southeast corner lot, which would entrance on-
to the right-of-way. Now the road from my property up slants at least
30 degrees and there are about 5 houses up there at the present time.
All the driveways and land of which drains into this right-of-way. Now
when we get a heavy rain the water j ust !comes:.down'._that.._-road".like a :rabbit.
And my property is about 3 or 4 feet below the road level. So that water
rushing down there has no place to go, it goes into my property, I have a
lake 3 or 4 inches deep, from the heavy rain.. In addition to that, the
other half of the water coming down'.:that_right-of-way goes to my land,
which-I._own toward the Mattituck Inlet. It is about four hundred and
fifty feet,-_and'•.the .water rushes down there all the way into the ad-
joining property of a neighbor, and also I get gulleys at least 3 foot
deep, which were washed out from the drainage. thi,S
last week, I had another one, the actual beach itself is all washed out.
So we have a terrible drainage problem, as is of the moment. Now this
new property, they built. on there an access driveway, the property is
cleared, that additional water drains into this right-of-way, on this
southeast corner. l'de are really going to have a terrible situation.
Southold Town Board of Appeals --22- JuiiC 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2970 - James Manos, continued: )
MR. JOHN continued :
At least I will, as far as my property goes. . . I have a lot of adjoining
properties. So I have a lake. I can show you pictures. . . it' s like a
skating rink in the winter time. It' s full of water, it' s frozen, plus
the drainage into the Mattituck Inlet, which .is also very bad from the
D.E.C. ' s point of view or whatever. So my objection is if this property
is ok'_d, I think some provision must be made that the drainage from
that new property, building or whatever may go up, is adequately . . . the
drainage problem is adequately taken care of so that it doesn't drain
into this right-of-way. And it' s a very serious objection, I assure you.
Now, what you people can do about it, or the building codes of it, I
don 't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: May I answer your question, sir? In the application or
rejuvenation of this.-. ..is _the _proper common phrase to use I think at
this point, but this board would set upon the .applicant in approving this
right-of-way would probably involve, upon whatever we ask for, a request
of the Town Engineer, Mr. Davis, to go down and observe what you were men-
tioning, and we do have several conditions that we impose on those speci-
fications, one of these roads happen to be in what I would say fairly
excellent condition, and that is of course the macadamized roads. So
we're basically, _.we 're talking about the ones adjacent to your property,
that' s correct_. So that' s all I can tell you at this particular time.
I don't know what the board is going to do, but we have in the past when
we have subjected the applicant to certain road conditions, upon his
completing the conditions or during that time, we do again, -.let me
reiterate, send the Town Engineer down, and at-that particular time, he
will I am sure be privy to your problem. And whatever he feels should
apply to rectify this situation, we hope he will then give us--
MR. JOHN: After the then?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The approval would be subject to certain. conditions.
I don 't know what those conditions are because we haven't deliberated
upon them. Ok? And one of those may be that the Town Engineer come down
and inspect it prior to any application. When I say "application, "
surface application.
MR. JOHN: Or building?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. We're only talking access now for the right-of-way.
We're not talking about. . . the_.app•lication before us tonight is not for
the division of the four lots, is not for the construction of any house
on the four lots. It is merely for the legal access, which has to meet
certain specifications, which we set up. The one major specification is
that the road has to be cleared 16 feet and that is free of any brush to
allow fire vehicles to get in, which are approximately 82 to 92, and
sometimes 10 feet wide depending upon what apparatus they have.
MR. JOHN: It is going to be difficult because nobody has 16 feet. . .the
road is not that much now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that is all I can tell you at this particular point.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23_ Juiie 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2970 - James Manos, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope I . haven't confused you by saying this to you. If
you want to come back with another question, I' ll attempt to answer.
MR. JOHN: Well, as I mentioned per se, I'm not objecting to .access over
the right-of-way, but I am pointing out that there' s. going to be created
a worse problem than we already have. We already have a bad one. That
is the point I wanted to make.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Yes, sir?
ANDREW S. PIETRE: I, too, am a resident of the area .as described by Mr.
John. As a matter of fact I own the property to which he refers is
falling when the rain cascades down, the whole proclaimer falls onto the
southern part of Holbrook Lane, the easterly corner right down past my
house. . .as a matter of fact during. this last rain storm, the was so
heayy, we were up at 6 o' clock in the morning pumping out the water. The
saturation of the ground is so intense the hydrostatic pressure goes right
through, goes right off the wall. . .all of us were there pumping it out. It
is a serious situation. Mr. Chairman, you say that this may be covered by
the Town Engineer or the Building Department. . .isn't it possible to have a
restrictive covenant with the granting of this application to assure us
that we 're not going to be flooded?
MR. CHAIRMAN: A covenant, to my knowledge. . . I'm not an attorney, Mr.
Pietre, is a restriction or .a statement placed upon a deed. We adminis-
ter in this board our conditions, so we may be dealing with the same
terminology.
MR. PIETRE: Can the board put in the condition?. I mean all probabilities. . .
the owner of the premises, the owner of the property will do that anyway,
but we would just like to have that issued.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it will probably be in the form of a condition.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will we hear first from you or what?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't guarantee you, as you' ll notice a bunch of people
have just walked in. . . I don' t know what t me we're going to be done with
it tonight, done with the meeting tonight and I doubt -if there will be
any decision forthcoming. As I mentioned to the attorney out in the rear,
if we don't make any decisions tohi:ght,-:_the decision will be forthcoming
probably a week from this coming Saturday, which would be our next
regularly scheduled Special Meeting. And it may be forthcoming at that
point, and I just want you to know that we do have 60 .days as of the date
of closing this hearing, which will be tonight, to make a decision on this
application. Ok?
MR. PIETRE: Ok. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Yes, sir?
GENTLEMAN FROM AUDIENCE: You're saying you're mainly concerned with the
.access roads. Couldn't the Planning Board. . .these are four lots involved
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24-=- Juht-_ 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2970 - James Manos, continued: )
SAME GENTLEMAN FROM AUDIENCE :
in a five-acre. . .couldn' t the access roads all come off another road?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't appear that that could be the case, sir, because
there are two lots--
SAME"=GENTLEMAN: I don' t understand it. . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I wasn 't privy to that conversation, .but Lot No. 1 is
primarily on which is referred to as "Young' s Right-of-Way; and Lot
No. 4 is solely on Holbrook Lane, so-_that would be the reason, I guess
that the applicant and his attorney--
SAME GENTLEMAN: What you're calling Holbrook Lane I'm calling ( ) road.
I think there are three lots that enter off what' s called Holbrook Lane.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The road to Young' s Point. . .there are three lots . And the
lot that is adjacent to your property on the north. That is primarily
on the right-of-way, not the "Young' s Point Right-of-Way" . . .the other
right-of-way, because it has 315 feet on that right-of-way-.and it has only
191 feet on--
SAME GENTLEMAN: Three of the lots would come off Miller Road, and one
would be off the one under .discussion. My point is wouldn' t it be possi-
ble7_for one entry let' s say to the four proposed lots?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that .question because we did not deal with
this map, and this is a Planning Board matter and I can' t answer the
question. If you'd like I will ask the Chairman of the Planning Board
his opinion on .it. But I can' t do it formally. Thank you. Is there
anybody else that would like to speak. Any rebuttal from you, Mr. Bruer?
MR. BRUER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I feel sorry for the
gentleman and his flooded basement and all that, but number one this is
an application for an access variance under the Town Law. We're talking
about a situation where you have an existing situation here where possi-
bly water runs down this gentleman' s property.. I believe that it
probably does . We' re talking about a small. cut for a driveway possibly
coming out to this road. That cannot really seriously change the condi-
tion that' s already there. If anything, if you look at the elevations
on that survey, I believe the slope falls off to the north and not down
that driveway. . .if this driveway was put in it'would probably .fall the
other way. I think it' s unreasonable to ask my client to be denied the
use of his property because of existing situations. That is not going
to be corrected by a denial of the application as to these lots. Thank
you very much.
MR. PIETRE: I '.didn't mean to say in any that I deny the application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf
of this application? Either for or against? Any questions from any
board members? (None) Mr. Bruer, we were down to the site on the
-Saturday of that very heavy rainstorm and we did observe the right-of-way
Southold Town Board of Appeals =25- Uu.Ll` 17 , 1982 Regular Mtg.
` (Appeal No. 2970 - James Manos, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
in their worse shape at that particular time, and I don't know if they
were any worse after that but I'm saying that one Saturday. , And it was
not raining at the time we were down there, but we are aware of what the
property looks like, and every one. of the board were there. Ok.
MR. BRUER: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not hearing any fufther comments, I' ll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later date.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until a -later date
in the matter of Appeal No. 2970, James Manos.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass
and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2975. Application .of NORTH .FORK BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY, by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. , Box 1424 , Mattituck, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article .VII, Section 100-71 for
permission to construct drive-in banking facility with canopy extending
into the frontyard area, Location: Mattituck Shopping Center, Main
Road, Mattituck•,. NY.; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-142-1-26 .
The Chaiinan. opened-they-thearing at 9 :00 p.m. and read the legal notice
of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of. a sketch/survey indicating the
canopy as it appears within the impanted area of the parking lot, and a
copy of the Tax Map indicating. the .shopping center and the surrounding
properties in .the area. Miss Wickham, would you like to . say something?
ABIGAIL .WICKHAM, ESQ. : Yes, ,,thank you. I'd like to add to what we
have in the application- by addressing first of all, the question of
hardship. There . are two aspects of hardship: . one as .it affects the
applicant,. the North Fork Bank, and secondly, the situation as it
affects the owner of the shopping center, Cardinale. I've a:re-presentative
flrom'.�the bank; here,_:'Mr':..:_Fickiessen, and also. Mr. Cardinale is here with
usoif you have any questions. As to the North Fork Bank, as you're
aware, they have an existing drive-in facility in their main branch at
Love Lane, and it is limited to a one-window facility and it does spill
out onto Love Lane street considerable traffic difficulties. As you
also know, the town recently purchased the property behind Love Lane
with the intention of developing a parking lot and in connection with
that acquisition, they work with the bank in common development of the
facilities for parking in the Love Lane area. One of the aspects of
that arrangement was that the bank would eventually try and phase out
their Love Lane drive-in facility in order to solve some of the Love
-Lane traffic difficulties. And since the parking lot in Love Lane would
Southold Town Board of Appeals June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2975 - North Fork Bank, continued: )
MISS WICKHAM continued:
provide, with a pedestrian walkway to Love Lane would provide pedestrian
access to the stores, we felt that. we could do without the drive-in there
eventually. However, because of the nature of banking, a drive-in facility
is essential, and we would like to before phasing it out be able to
relocate one in the Mattituck Shopping Center area.
The question then . came up as to the best place to locate such a
facility, and I 'd like to emphasize. that this is just a drive-in facility. . .
not another branch. It would not have branch facilities other than drive-in
capabilities. There were, first we did a survey of what was available in
the Main Road area of the_:Route 25 business district in Mattituck, and
found that there are only a couple of vacant parcels in that area. . .one
.directly across us from the Shopping Center owned by Sbhoenhaar , I think
that was his name. He does not have the property for sale. The only other
vacant parcels are the Boucher parcel down by the Carvel which is very
low and unsuitable and also the Kart parcel which is right by the curve on
the Main Road. and therefore unsuitable for additional traffic. In addition
a vacant lot requires a tremendous amount of improvement in terms of paving
and grading before you even get the building up. . . it would just be finan-
cially unfeasible.
The only other properties that are available for sale in that stretch
along the Main Road are the Kron Gallery which is for sale and is obviously
too small. . .the Grabie building, again a bad location and a few of the
residential buildings in the business district are also available, but
not suitable because of the type of building and the location. The best
place it was determined would be in Mattituck Shopping Center because that
is the locale for the shopping in that area, and we felt that once people
were shopping in that area it would eliminate them from going in -and out
onto the . Main Road.
Also the Shopping Center and Mr. Cardinale I'm sure will address this
when he has an opportunity to speak, does have a need to encourage business.
They've had a few additional stores open up .but they still have a large
vacancy. They have had a vacancy for the Grants Building for six or seven
years and a number of other stores, including the westerly store, and it
was felt that a drive-in facility would help generate some sort of traffic
flow into the center and therefore encourage some of the existing businesses
and new businesses to be in a better financial position.
The question then came where to locate the building, the facility in
the Shopping Center. There had been discussions with the Planning Board
originally on some earlier plans, and we are meeting with them again on
the 28th to discuss this particular plan and the impact on the traffic
flow within the center. I do however have some of the plans just to give
you an idea of what attempts have been made in order to find the best
location and to show that this is really the only feasible location for
a number of reasons.
The first thing that came up was the fact that :there'-s a tremendous
--amount of drainage facilities in the parking lot. . .drainage rings all
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27-- June 17 , 1982
(Appeal No. 2975 - North Fork Bank,. continued : )
MISS WICKHAM continued:
throughout because of the elevation. I would like to submit this map
which was verified by George Fisher after the actual installation of
the rings, verified by the Building Inspector',s Office, and it shows
that all throughout the center of the Shopping Center are drainage rings
upon which you could not build without doing -some major work to relocate
them. So you are therefore left with .some areas up in this area in
order to put in a facility (southwest end) .
One of the first locations we worked on was over. on the west side
behind the Sunocco Station, . and we tried several possibilities. They
ranged in dimension in terms of elimination of parking spaces from about
35 to 59 stalls. And we felt that was an excessive. amount at least at
that point to try and eliminate it. If the board cares to look just to
see what some of the alternatives might have been. (The board members
reviewed the plan of the shopping center showing the drainage rings and
which plan was submitted for the record ..and .placed. in the file. ; Also
submitted for the file and reviewed at the hearing was the preliminary
site plan of Sacco, Ahlers .and Associate indicating the. parking areas
and and remaining property of the Mattituck Shopping Center with build-
ings. )
There are two there, this is another one involving the elimination
of 34 spaces which is a better number but it only involved two windows
and limited stacking area. The facilities that we looked at. and the
location on the west side of the Shopping Center have a problem because
as I said more spaces would. be used up, the- visibility from the road is
very limited. The main problem is one of security because of the
limited visibility we felt a banking facility.-may have a security
problem being back in that dark corner at night.
Putting the facility in the middle of the Shopping Center is
`infeasible not only for the drainage but because it would block the
view of other stores.
Another possibility that was considered was, and I believe, this
is the Suffolk County National Bank plan, would be in the Grants
Building. I understand from Mr. Cardinale that that space is not
available. It also involves an additional curb cut and elimination
. of parking spaces. . .fewer but it does present a problem and the space
is not available in any event.
The existing building as I mentioned in the application are unsuit-
able for a facility because of their layout and the access.
So we came up with this proposal which places the facility in
really the least used part of the parking facility in between the two
entrances and exit-: areas. The board should be aware that in discussions
with the Planning Board and the Building Inspector it was determined
that we would not come in and ask for a variance on parking spaces. . .
that there would be a trade-off. That however many parking spaces
were eliminated, corresponding amount of the unused retail floor area,
currently unused retail floor area in the buildings .in the back would
be eliminated so that we.'-re not creating a problem of not having enough
parking spaces for what' s there. And that figure that..�.was determined
Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2975 - North Fork. Bank, continued: )
MISS WICKHAM continued:
was 100 square feet per, of retail floor area to be eliminated per each
parking space that is being cut down. That' s another reason why we want
to limit the number of parking spaces that .we loose.
The proposed location. . .we will have to work with the Planning Board.
There are some questions, I believe, that they raised at their last meet-
ing on Fishers Island as to traffic and we are going to address that with
the Planning Board in terms of how that can be alleviated with signs and
barriers and lanes and whatnot.
But we still feel that it is the best place to put it and the only
place to put it. With three-window lanes, . you. wouldn' t have a large
stacking problem. of flowing out. There is plenty of. stacking anyway
and it would keep traffic down, but because of the length of time of
each transaction of the window there would be staggered exits for the
vehicles.
Now I would like to give Mr. Fickiessen from the Bank an opportunity
to describe a little bit some of the aspects of the building as it
particularly pertains to this variance for a frontyard setback. Can
you tell the board what the size of the building will be approximately?
MR. FICKIESSEN: We' re looking to build a building about 12' by 401 .
This will facilitate having future use in ATM` (automatic teller machine) ,
which seems to be the going thing now and we feel that we have to make
a provision for it in the building otherwise we could cut down the length
of the .building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I-J.ust ask you a question?
MR. FICKIESSEN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you use. the mike please because I saw some
people in the back straining to hear you. You don' t have to reiterate
everything(.,.-
MR. FICKIESSEN: There' s a double-drive-up window. We need a large
viewing window. One car parks here at the station and the other one has
to park a little bit ahead of it. The teller must see who is at the
steering wheel to identify the . customer, so again that is the length of
the building. The building will probably have three tellers. . .there
will be a laboratory and facility for ".,:a'.:-.hot plate and for a refrigerator
and lunchroom of course.
MISS WICKHAM: Could you tell the board why you feel that three
drive-in lanes are going to be required?
MR. FICKIESSEN: Yes. When we first started building drive-up
windows. . .I' ll use the Southold Office as a fine example—we had our
window located on the west side of the building. That let four cars
stack up. At that time drive-ups .were not. popiilar, but we felt let' s
have one, ,�everyone else has one. We soon found out that they are very
Southold Town Board of Appeals -29= June 17 , 1982 Regular Mtg.
` (Appeal No. 2975 - North Fork Bank, continued : )
MR. FICKIESSEN continued:
popular so we located the window on the east side of the building, and
that gave us about 12 cars to stack up. In no time. the cars were again
stacking up to 25. So in Southold we had to again put a second drive-up.
We could actually,_.use three windows and still have plenty of people lined
up , but again our property line ended there. To give you a percentage
figure, about 25% of our customer uses strictly drive-up window, and if
it was more convenient I'm sure it would be closer to 50%. Again, this
facility is not a full-service branch. We will have a drive-up night__
depository, which can access from a car. A drive-up window where you
can make your deposit and withdrawals, et cetera. And somewhere down
the road we will have an; automatic teller machine, ..again from the car.
We won 't have any lending facilities there. We won' t open new accounts
there. This is actually a service area. Right now we have as Gail has
mentioned one drive-in in Mattituck which exits onto Love Lane, which is
a definite problem. We've got a dual drive-up in Cutchogue which a lot
of the Mattituck people are using and the one up at Jamesport.. Again
they're going out of their way because of the facility.--iri Mattituck.
And we feel that by building. ::..this facility, we can help the customers
in the Mattituck area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank. you very much.
MISS WICKHAM: I 'd like to just address briefly the question of
canopy because that is the focus of this variance. As the application
stated, the building itself will be within the setback restrictions of
the code. It is this canopy or lightweight overhang that' s going to
extend. It' s not a solid structure. I have a plan here to give the
board an idea although it' s probably just your basic. These I do need
back. This is just from another bank out of town that indicates there
are a few pillars and overhang with a roof structure. It' s very light.
The need for the canopy is not only to keep the customers dry in the
rain, but to protect the equipment . and to enable use to obtain the
appropriate guarantees from the manufacturer of the equipment.
There' s a strip of grass that would be in front. The canopy would
not extend into the grass area, and that would be landscaped and we
would be. . . I know you hear that. a lot when people come in they' re going
to make a building beautiful. . .well we would be willing to accept that
as a condition that appropriate landscaping be put in to make the
facility look nice because it could use some sprucing up and make the
whole Shopping Center area more attractive.
So basically it will be a low, one-story building with a small
canopy coming out. . .the dimensions are indicated on the sketch map in
the application.
I also would like the board to be aware that the cost of this
facility is far from minimal, and again this requires careful planning
in terms of its location. It is anticipated that the building will
probably, with the equipment and the equipment is extremely expensive,
cost in excess of $150 ,000 to nut�_-in. . . so we have to make sure that it
--is something that' s going to be feasible.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3a� June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2975 - North Fork Bank, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MISS WICKHAM: I don't have anything to .add, but if the board has any
questions , we ' ll be glad to answer them. And again as I say, we will be
meeting with the Planning Board to consider the site plan of the building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want these back?
MISS WICKHAM: You can keep them if you like, it 's just to give you
an -illustration, but if you would like to keep . them. . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question? When did you say you were
meeting with the Planning Board.
MISS WICKHAM: On June 28th I believe is the next meeting date. They
had a meeting at Fishers Island, which I was unable to attend where they
discussed it and I understand they have sent some correspondence to you,
but we have asked for a meeting to follow-up on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like us to recess this until the next
regularly scheduled meeting?
MISS WICKHAM: Well, I feel that the question of the Planning Board
determination is really separate from your consideration of the variance
in terms of the frontyard. If the board wants to recess, fine, but we
would certainly have to get Site PLan approval from the Planning Board in
any event in order to proceed. And we 're here strictly on a question of
the hardship and the uniqueness and the type of effect it would have on
the appearance and character of the Shopping Center. And I think we 've
addressed that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The only question I:ihave _is that if they ask for any
increase or decrease, reduction as to frontyard, then we' ll have to
readvertise.
MISS WICKHAM: Yeah, you could. keep it open for that purpose. When
is your next meeting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably July 8th. Which is really not that far into
the future. I have no .idea how the board feels about it. Does anybody
have any objection to a recess?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, I think it should be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to recessing it?
MISS WICKHAM: No, we don' t have an objection to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in behalf of the application. Mr. Cardinale, would you like to say
something?
ALAN CARDINALE: I realy don' t wish to belabor the board .any more.
1 I think I indicated to the board previously. . . I think it will be in the
Southold Town Board of Appeals =31- June 17 , 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2975 - North Fork Bank, continued : )
MR. CARDINALE continued:
interests of everyone. As most people in town we're trying to create
a viable tax base and naturally the banking is a necessary facility will
hope improve the overall base. Thank you for your cooperation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in behalf of the application? Mr. Douglass?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. Fickiessen., you have given us stack-up informa-
tion on the other places. With the three lanes that you are proposing
there, what is the stack-up going to be there before they end up out on
Route 2 5?
MR. FICKIESSEN: I believe the. plan shows 15.
MISS WICKHAM: He shows seven, although that' s based on a rather
expanded ( ) and it would probably be closer to 10 .
MR. FICKIESSEN: Thirteen, but again with the volume that' s going
through, you're going through three at a time, too, rather than one.
Again like I_-.said in Southold, we had 14 cars lined up. That' s one
window taking care of it. Now we've got two, and I don' t usually see
any more than seven in each line.
MISS WICKHAM: This would be one more than any of the other facili-
ties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Again, I' ll make the motion recessing
this particular. hearing. until July 8, 1982, if that is the next
regularly scheduled Regular Meeting.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded. by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Appeal No. 2975, North Fork Bank
and Trust Company, until the next. Regular Meeting of this. board, to wit,
July 8 , 1982, 8 : 20 p.m.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
i
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
PUBLIC. HEARINGS : SOLWIN INDUSTRIES LTD. APPEAL NOS. 2971 and 2975.
Applications of SOLWIN. INDUSTRIES LTD. , c/o Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy and
Angel, Esgs. , 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for : [1] a Special
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-90A, for a
"windmill farm" to be located. on premises zoned "C-1" , and [2] for a
variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-90 and Article
VIII, Section 100-80 for: (a) permission to construct towers exceeding
the height limitation of the .zoning code and (b) ' an interpretation of Sec-
tion 100-90A to the effect that a "windmill farm" is a permitted industrial
use in this "C-1" zone. Location of Property: Off the north side of Main
Road, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Tomias and East Marion War Memorial
Association; west by Koch and others; south by Begora (or Brown) , Ketcham
and others; east by Terry. County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 22,
Block 3, Lots 11 , 12 , 14 and 15 .
The Chairman opened both hearings simultaneously at 9 : 36 p.m. and
read the legal notices of hearing pertaining to these applications in
their entireties and the applications, which were filed with the Office
of the Town. Clerk on April 12, 1982 . The Chairman asked that anyone
wishing to speak shall :speak'_Anto the microphone and state their name
for the record, and that questions should be addressed to the board
directly to prevent counterproductiveness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, would you like to speak in behalf of this
application.?
WILLIAM W. ESSEKS, ESQ. : I anticpate,:.that I,1.11 do this on more
than one evening.
SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE: I can't hear you.
MR. ESSEKS: Well, I' ll speak as well as I can.
ANOTHER PERSON: Here' s the microphone.
MR. ESSEKS: All right, he asked that everybody be nice, and I ask
that everybody be nice, or else we can do it somewhere else. Ok?
PERSON FROM AUDIENCE: I can' t hear you.
MR. ESSEKS : Well, I 'm sorry if you can't hear me. I'm speaking
quite loudly now. Let me try Let' s try to make it as easy on each
other as we can. It does not come. as a surprise to me that probably
everyone except for my clients who are here is opposed to the applica-
tion—probably mostly out of ignorance , .it' s`:.our fault for not
explaining it well enough in advance. And so I'm hoping that I will
be able to speak tonight, hoping that I' ll be able to speak other
nights. . .and our engineers will be able to meet with you on a smaller
basis. I'm hoping that if you have experts who are going to testify
this and other meetings in opposition, that they will meet with our
people. Arid then when it' s all through, either we' ll convince you or
you' ll convince us to go away, one or the other.
Now, let' s try and understand the parameters of what we 're trying
to do and .why we 're here at this time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - 'Solwin Industries Ltd. )
MR. ESSEKS continued:
Many years ago, Mr. Latham.mined sand and gravel and other things
from the earth out of this property— about 26 acres at East Marion.
And the Legislature—the Town Board of this Town in its legislative
wisdom decided to make this property industrial. The property all
around it was residential . This property is zoned in an industrial
fashion. If it were not zoned in an industrial fashion, my clients
would not have contracted to buy it from Mr. Latham and they wouldn' t
be here and you people could be home doing something else on this warm
night. But the. Town did zone. it in an industrial fashion, and we did
contract to buy it and we want to use for what we think is a legal use.
Let me try to explain it to you, and I. hope I do a reasonably good job.
You will all find out.
Now, there are certain things I am going to say that I hope are
just facts; and nobody will doubt the truth of them, and then there are
certainthings I want` to say that are argument, and you are all entitled
to your opinion as you may disagree with me. But it is factual that the
property is zoned industrial. And pursuant to your zoning ordinance,
Article IX, Section 100-90 , certain things can be done on this property
today as a matter of right no matter what anybody says. . .and if you don' t
like what I say about what can be done about the property, your remedy
is to buy it or to get the Town Board to change the zoning. It' s
probably easier to try to get the Town Board to change the zoning. It ' s
probably easier to try and get the Town Board to change the zoning than
it is perhaps to buy it. But you can do virtually anything on that
property right now because this Town in its wisdom has decided that an
industrial zone that you can do anything that' s legal. That's what it
says in the ordinance. Now if you want a Special Exception, let me
read the things you can do if you get a Special Exception—an abattoir. . .
acetylene gas manufacture. . . acid manufacture. . .arsenal, asphalt manufac-
turer. . . glas furnace, coke ovens, crematories, fireworks manufacturer. . .
ore reduction—potash works. . .rolling mill. . . saltworks. . . sauerkraut
manufacture. . . those are the things that you can' t do unless you get a
Special Exception. Well, we don't want to do those things. We want
to have a windmill farm.
Now, .I believe that it' s true, and this was argued, you don' t have
to keep my word for it—but I think I'm reasonably accurate. . You can
check with. your own lawyers or you can read the book yourself. I
talked to the members of the board. I believe that we can have a
windmill farm on that property tomorrow by going with a building permit
and putting up our windmills, and I think we can have a heck of .a lot
of windmills. But they'd have to be under 35 ' tall. And I have brought
with me, and I've delivered today to the Board and I apologize to the
board for delivering it today. . : I should have delivered it weeks ago,
but I didn't and that' s my fault and my client is suffering because of
my tardiness in delivering it. I've delivered up to a'.;�20+=.page report
from my client. So it' s my client' s theory, but a lot of the facts are
from the Federal Government and the State Government in the publications
they make to the State and Federal Energy Departments. And I'm going to
make that report available to anybody who wants it. . . ( ) with the cost
of money to reproduce it. If you end up agreeing with me and perhaps
with the Town to allow yourselves to appoint some people :to be on a com-
mittee .to meet with us, between this meeting and the next meeting and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- June 17 , 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. ESSEKS continued:
other meetings, perhaps you could all take the opportunity to read these
reports and understand them, and perhaps you will be less fearful and you
might even be interested if you think it' s a good idea.
The situation is that if we have—we want a certain amount of cower
out of that property, and .it' s zoned so we can have a windmill farm there.
But we can' t just put a windmill farm because we're bored. . .we have to :do
it in order to make money because we 're going to sell it to LILCO, and
LILCO has agreed to buy it . . . at a very nice profit for us. But there' s
a question.. of how much is it going to cost. If it costs $100 to produce
$10 of electricity, we won't do it. We' ll do something else. We' ll use
the money somewhere else.
Now, would you read this report and when you talk to the experts
about the subject, you' ll find that there's a very strange ratio. . .the
higher you go, the more power you get. I didn't know that. . .that' s hot
my job. But that' s supposed to be a true, scientific principle and if
it' s true, our clients have a good argument. If it' s falso, our clients
should save. their money and go somewhere else and do something else with
their energy. But if our clients are correct and if ' the Federal Energy
Commission is correct, if the State Energy Commission is correct, and the
higher you go , the more energy you get, we can by bizilding::.towers by
having fewer towers higher up get the same amount of energy, or we can
have more towers lower down to get the same amount of energy. What we
have to do is , the higher we go the cheaper it is for us. The lower we
go, the more units we have to have. So we have to multiply and divide
and get a lot of calculators and mathmaticians and economists and see
whether we can put up enough towers below 35' and we can without having
to come here to make enough money to justify the whole project.
Now, we believe that we can' t .make the amount of money we need to
go ahead and do this unless we have 40 towers 110 ' tall, and also ten
towers 150 ' to hold water. Let me tell-you how it works:
The windmills are there and these are not bladed windmills. I
can't pronounce the thing they are but when you look at the report and
you see the models, you' ll see there are cylinders that spin and they' re
stacked with 12 to a tower, three tubes., four in each tube, and I should
know how wide they are but I don' t. But they spin when the wind hits
them.
Now, when they spin they generate power to the ground and that
pumps water up into the ten water towers , that when the wind stops
the water is released from-..the%. water :towers and drives the turbine.
The theory is that the wind blows a certain percentage of the time,
and the rest of the time the water comes down out of the water towers
and causes the turbine to work to supply electricity. As a back-up
which they will do if the situation warrants, there' ll be a diesel
generator theme-._-. That..is .not a necessary, but it. is a logical thing
in order to have a constant supply between wind, water and the diesel
to supply the energy to a community that wanted to contract to buy it,
or to LILCO.
Southold Town Board of Appeals _35- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. ESSEKS continued :
We`1ve got to have electricity. You can get it from oil, you can
get it from coal , you can get it from nuclear. If I were here suggest-
ing coal or nuclear out here, we 'd have a much larger group and it would
be even noiser than it is.
We're proposing to do this . We 're proposing to do it in other
parts of the Northeast. And you will get someday I hope to read this
brochure, I mean this memorandum that my client produced. You' ll find
there are only certain parts of the Country where there' s enough con-
stant wind above 18 miles per hour to .warrant something like this.
For better or for worse, you're in one of those areas.
Now, we are prepared, . I believe, to go ahead and built a lot of
units below 35 ' or this number of units above 351 .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you .people hear in the rear there? Are the speakers
working?
LADY FROM AUDIENCE: I don't think he' s speaking into the mike.
MR. ESSEKS: I' ll try better. I don' t think anybody wants me to start
all over again.
LADIES: No. No.
MR. ES.SEKS: Well we have a unit liberty on that. Now, let me .tell you
the sequence. I have more energy if I stand up if you don' t mind.
Let me tell you how we propose to phase it. The first thing we
want to do is to get permission to build one tower 1101. tall, put the
12 cylinders on top of it and let it start spinning, and they will
produce the electricity for the site.
Once that first tower is up and working and the wind is the way
we think it 's going to be and everything is working all right, we' ll
built nine more towers to have a total of ten. And then we' ll build
one water tower and then we' ll build 30 more windmill towers and
finally nine more water towers. And that would be over a period of
two or three years. And obviously, we won' t build a second one, and
a third one , and a fourth one unless the first one is working effi-
ciently enough as we believe it will. There are studies in construc-
tion and it will take two or three years before the full 40 towers
are on line.
Now, let us say that for some reason for another everybody thinks
it' s a lousy idea including the board, and the board doesn' t want to
give us the variance to go over 351 . What we then do is we have to
probably clear the site and start building towers under 35 ' . . .the same
type of towers , they1.11 -look' just the same but they're lower, and see
how many are necessary considering the winds that blow all yearround
there to warrant the investment to get the elect-rical ..output• to -:sell ' to
LILCO. I can't tell you the answer to that tonight. It may very well
be that I will have to answer that before the next meeting. Now, let
us assume for sake of argument that everybody here except my clients
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. ESSEKS continued:
think it ' s a lousy idea. . .and I think we ' ll go on that to start with.
My suggestion, unless I misread you and .you're all here in support of
the application, my suggestion is that you consider appointing some
number of people—it can' t be everybody. . . some number of intelligent
local people who would want to, through their lawyers or themselves,
meet with us and our. engineers , and perhaps representatives of the
town, between now and the next meeting so you can read our proposal
so you can have some input into what we said we want to do. . . so you
can present us with your feelings. 'Just.._the fact that you don't want
to have towers is one response, but another response which I think is
a better response from you is to look at it, touch it, smell it, feel
it, understand it,. .and then come back to the next meeting and say you
still think it' s a lousy idea. At least it will be a more educated,
and less gut reaction.
Now, members of the board, I would hope that this report which
I have presented will be made part of the record. I would hope that
you would consider allowing us to adjourn the matter after you've had
as many comments as you want.. I don' t see any reason for me to
present engineers tonight because you haven't had a chance to read
the report because I just gave it to you today. These people here
are going to have a great deal of difficulty following what we say
about the report if they haven't had a chance to read it. I .didn't
want to bring 200 .with me tonight j.ust to pass out willy milly. I
wonder whether the board would consider: (1) the request that we
meet again, (2) to request that this be made. part of the record,
and (3) whether you' re interested in having a model brought here. . .
you should know, I wrote a letter to the Town a couple of months ago
and we said, "Could we put one of these on the front lawn?" I
thought it was a great idea.. I thought the Town was going to think
it was a great idea. I was mistaken. I think it was partially a
question of insurance. . . but we have one and we're ready to set it
up for people to look at it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I address two issues that you just said.
MR. ESSEKS : Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Counsellor, there are two problems. The first problem
is the fact that I don' t know if you can stand up here and ask for a
citizens ' committee. This board is not— it is not under our purview
to do so. They would have to .petition:..the Town Board and the Town
Board would have to then organize upon request.
MR. ESSEKS: Or they can do it on their own.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just saying, don' t ask this board for permission
for any type of participation that there would be a citizens' committee.
If it does happen, fine. Ok? We'-re not in that position. The other
problem is, I don'.t know when this rescheduled. Do you want it
rescheduled at the next monthly--
MR. ESSEKS: When is your next meeting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It will probably be on July 8th.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. ESSEKS: It will have to be the meeting after that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting after that— around the 29th of July?
MR. ESSEKS: No problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, before we make -any decisions on this tonight, this
board will caucus after we take testimony and discuss that request. Ok?
I think that' s primarily all I have to say.
MR. ESSEKS: I 'don' t want to offer testimony tonight other than this
report, which I ask you to take as the first portion until I . . . I' ll
go through that again. . . I want to offer this as the first and then
I 'm prepared to offer written testimony from my. engineers as to how
many units above 40 .we would have to have if the towers were lower,
Such as 80 feet, 60 feet, in order to produce the same amount of elec-
tricity notwithstanding the question of cost until we get down to the
point where we have "x" number of units at below 35 feet. That' s is
something I' ll offer at the next time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would. like to speak in behalf
of the application? I think what we' ll do in reference to comments is
we ' ll start over on the east side of the room and we' ll bounce back and
forth'. We' ll start on the east side of the room, any person wishing to
speak against the application?
RICHARD.."'J. CRON; ESQ. : If it pleases the board. Richard J. Cron on
behalf of Cove Beach Associates.. I don' t believe I want to offer any
comments in opposition to that application which I-am"_her:e for incident-
ally, until I know what the position of the board is going to be with
respect to this application this evening. If this board is going to act
on a recess , then I see no reason why it should take any testimony in
opposition until the applicant puts in his whole case, sort of speak.
So I'd like to know which way the board is going to act.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think at this particular time, Mr. Cron, we can
caucus and discuss that particular issue and then come back. I would
assume that the caucusing probably would not take a tremendous amount of
time. I' ll make a motion to caucus for five minutes.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass and duly carried,
the board caucused in "closed session" .
On motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr. Douglass and .duly carried,
the meeting reconvened at 10 :10 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cron, I' ll address the issue first. I think that
this board has never, and Mr. Gillispie is sitting in back of you who
was a member of this board and in fact I took his place some three
years ago, never restricted anybody from any opinions or feelings that
they have had, and I think that we will have to take some testimony
tonight. But I will ask everybody that does speak to restrict it to
approximately one minute because you will be allowed and asked to
speak again if you so desire on the 29th, if that is the second meet-
ing that we will have. Does anybody have any objection to that? Mr.
Edeen?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. EDEEN: Objections to what you said, no.
RICHARD OSBOURNE: My name is Richard Osbourne, and it seems to me those
of us who are here came prepared and we had less knowledge than this
gentleman had to be prepared, and it seems to me we're here and we're
way over time and we have to say what.we have— so I don' t see any need
for a recess. If he had gotten his papers here on time,. we all would
have seen them .and you would have known what they're talking about. . .
delayed tactics and trying to wear us down by getting us to come back,
and back, and back., is not something that we should be subjected to.
That' s my objection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I make a statement, is there somebody else that
wanted to say something- over there? Could you just hold one second--
I ' ll be right with you. Ok? This goes back to the other comment, Mr.
Esseks. It is, the natural opinion of this board to grant one recess.
We probably will not grant another one, ok. The reason being that we
have a tremendous agenda, and. I know this doesn' t affect you personally
but if affects our board and the town because we have many, many people
who want variances and special exceptions throughout the summer, and it
becomes extremely necessary to clean many of these hearings up within
two meetings. So I sincerely hope. you will be prepared at .the next--
not the next but the following meeting to present the entire case.
MR. ESSEKS: I will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You will? Ok, thank you. Mr. Cron, did you have anything
else that .you wanted to say?
MR. CRON: If I understand you correctly that you're granting- the recess
to put intheir entire case the next time this is scheduled? Is that
correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s the way .the board felt, sir.
MR. CRON: Ok. That:' s all I want to know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, sir, you had . a question? Could you state your
name please?
OTTO UHL, JR. : My name is Otto Uhl, Jr. I have a homesite in East
Marion on which I am going to build. My property overlooks this
property, the use of which is being discussed this evening. I want
to add something to this height variance applied for, raising it from
35 feet to between 110 and. 150 feet. The only thing I want to see
higher than 35 feet in this area is the steeple of a church. Does
anybody agree with me on that? (Audience clapped their hands. ) Do
you agree with me.. Ok. That was a good response. You know, this is
an important issue. affecting all of Southold Township setting a
precedent if approved. And especially bothersome to the East Marion
people. We don.' t want our area looking like a Texas oil field. How
high is the Greenport Water Tower, does anybody. know?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: 90+ feet.
MR. UHL: Ninety something feet. Well ,. that' s going to. be high because
Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. UHL continued:
I didn't know and I wanted something to compare it with. I do know the
Statue of Liberty itself, not the pedestal on which it stands , is 151
feet in height. That' s the height of these water towers. Now you can' t
hide the initial, the beginning installation of 40 windmills and ten
water towers by surrounding them Let' s say with trees. Trees don' t
grow that tall around here. And then the Seqoya Redwood, they do. They
reach a height of 200-300 feet. That' s in California. Besides. you can' t
hide these windmills and towers by .surrounding them with. anything that
would cut off the wind supply for the operation.- Timing?.".. Time out. Ok,
one more paragraph. So the. ugly structures have to be exposed right out
in the open for everyone to see. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to go over. to the opposite side of the room and
then we' ll bounce back. Anybody over here on the east side that would
like to say something again?. Actually, Mr. Uhl started in the beginning.
r of the somewhat negative comments so we' ll continue with those I guess.
Starting again on the east side, is there anybody. that would like to speak?
To the center? Ok. We' ll go to the west side. Mr. Edeen?
RONALD EDEEN: My name is Ronald Edeen. I'm a lifelong resident of the
Main Road, East Marion, and my property abuts the property where Solwin
proposes to establish a windmill farm. My home is approximately 7,00 feet
from the farm site. I'm opposed to the construction and () of this
industry for the following reasons: (1) , I believe that the noise will
be resulting from multiple operating windmills and would accellerate to
an . unbearable level.. Number (2) , I believe that pumping in excess of
one million gallons of water out of the ground would endanger the
delicate acquifier. I..understand that this is more water than Greenport
pumps in a week from the. East Marion site where they have a well. I
wonder if 40% -of evaporation would occur on return of the. water to the
ground. And I wonder if any pollution would occur through the siphon.
I believe that 40-110 ' or 140 or 150 ' towers would be unsightly, and
since they would have to be illuminated at night would be a detrimental
lighting effect disturbing this residential area. I notice there was in
the paper a suggestion of coupling this industry with waste treatment,
and I wonder if there would be undesirable pollutants discharged from
this sort of process. I wonder if there has been an environmental
impact study performed. We have considerable wildlife that might be
displaced by this industry. I am certain that .aside from the many
threats from the residential ( ) for East Marion residents for the
proposed wind farm would cause surrounding real .estate values to
definitely decline. If industry is to be permitted in this otherwise
residential, nonbusiness community, there should be a sizeable barrier
zone to eliminate discomfort to the residents. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN Thank you. Somebody in the center, sir?
FRANK RUSSELL: My name is Frank Russell. I own property abutting the
proposed windmill farm, and I believe that granting , a variance of
height restriction from the legal 35' limit to 150 ' is stretching the
meaning of reasonable,far beyond the meaning of the word. To grant a
variance of this type would .not be in the best interests of East Marion,
. Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- Jude 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. RUSSELL..;continued: )
and would not bring justice to the meaning of the building code nor the
zoning codes. They would open the doors of justification to anyone who
requests outrageous variances, which this is , outrageous. These water
towers will be an eyesore, visible not only in East Marion but 'on .a clear
day all the way over to Connecticut. Furthermore, as for the waste
management problem, which is a very.:.�polite way of' saying a garbage
problem, and that' s what they want to do. . . a recycling plant or a
separation plant with all the noise and . bad odor that would be 'associ-
ated with.ithis type of operation, is not a desirable use of the property.
A lovely area such as East Marion should not. be subjected to this type
of program, a testing area for the disposal of waste products of any
kind,.. nor should it be the center of a windmill farm. As for the .claim
that they will provide an alternate. to fire electricity. for Long Island
Lighting Company, . I believe they are in error. And when they claim
they will supply at a lower rate, they are also in error.. Furthermore
the use of all the water necessary for the operation of::=this 'farm will
in effect usurp all the .water rights of. the area. This property has
been abandoned for years, and should have been zoned residential years
ago. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going over there and then I' ll come back. Sir?
CHARLES REESE: My name is Charles Reese and I'm a partner in a
partnership called "Cove Beach- Associates. ',' We own 7.0 acres approxi-
mately directly abutting the proposed site. We are against it. Several
of us already have homes on the North Fork. Our. counsel has advised us
to withhold our arguments proposing this installation until the next
meeting. I just want it to go on . record tonight that we are very much
opposed to it for lots of reasons.. Thank you very much.
RICHARD OSMER: My name is Richard' Osmer and I also the property adjoin-
ing this proposed site. Mr. Esseks in his wisdom directed you to what
the pits were before they became a whole new ground.. He also directed
you to how the property became zoned industrial. It seems to me that
one came before the other. It. seems to me when the idea .for zoning came
along it was to stop things such as the pits. So as far as" I think that
you might find, that in this day and age, that the original. zoning of the
gravel zoning is out of line with what is happenin.g. out on this end of
Long Island. .. I would direct.. and .ask the board to, look into that and see
if there is something that .we might do along those lines. Also, I would
like to say that the technology and the ideas behind this plan do. not ' seem
out of wack. or. out. of line, they .just seem to be in the wrong place.
Even do we do have lots of wind as Mr.. Esseks pointed out, I am a
fisherman and have been up and' down. this Coast. in many places and there
are many places that have equal amounts of wind..as well as the mountains.
The idea to put it on a piece, .of land that already has .trouble and has
already rented out some of its water rights to the Town of Greenport to
.do a water technology combined .wi.th wind is out -of the question. I
agree with Mr. Russell and the people who spoke .before about noise and
other problems-, that it' s also .germain to where .we are because of the
amount of water moisture. in the air which will carry sound from Greenport. . .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
(Appeals No. 2971 and 297.5 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
MR. OSMER continued:
we can go and meet the trains when our friends come in. There are many
things to consider in this problem, and I do not think it should be
taken lightly. I do not want to see this thing happen here. I think
there are many other places much better suited, environmentally,
physically and even economically which is what this is all about.
Those .of us who moved here knew about the economics of this .region,
you know, and we moved here with that in mind and we also moved here
knowing what the zoning. ordinances were. And I think .in this case
you should inspect them. It' s much too out - of line, for what -we need.
I do have a lot more to say and_ am_ constrained;. to one minute. I
could have ..written .20 ..pages as well, and I .think they would have made
as much sense. to keep it short. . . it' s getting hot and it' s late. I
have two letters from other people who would like to be represented
here who cared . enough. to get this in to me several .weeks . ago, which
I would like to give the board. And it states their position on what
they think about this plan. . That' s all I have to say 'for now. I'm
sure I' ll be back in in .two months--
MR. CHAIRMAN: One month.
MR. OSMER: One month, it seems a long time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.. We' ll go back to the center. I believe some-
body had their hand up. Sir?
GEORGE LONG: I would like to say that I am a resident of. East Manion. . .
George Long. . .for the past 12 years. A- question of Mr.: Esseks'
view on that Latham sandpit. He had made a statement there was . 26 acres
of mining. I think anyone that lives- in the area and community resi-
dents would realize that of the 26 acres I would probably estimate..maybe
six or seven acres would be. the only thing that was mined in that area.
And a proposal and-:-the maps that have shown where he places the wind-
mills that' s been farmland and -that' s never .been mined. The other _
question that I have and that .I woul.d. like to ask the board, the
ingress and egress .of this area. . . I don't know where he. proposes to
use this , and I know the right-of-way that abuts the adjoining area. . .
the legal acrss is presently. only A A inches. ... 8. 4 feet, right. . . just
trying to get it down shorter, that' s all. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else from the east side? Mr. Cron?
MR. CRON: I would just like to indicate to the board in behalf of Cove
Beach Associates that ..I do oppose the recess of this particular applica-
tion for the applicant to submit further proof to the board at a recessed
date. I do however reserve- all. rights to submit whatever proof in opposi-
tion at that time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cron, I think what we will discuss with counsel .during
this recessing period is a time limit. for .Solwin Industries, because again
I say to you our agenda is extremely, extremely heavy during the summer
months as you are aware and. as: every other attorney in-;_this town and .every
]serson that wants to get a variance from this board, or at least have an
application for it before the board. Anybody else? Mr. Kapell?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
1
(Appeals No. 2971 and 2975 - Solwin Industries Ltd. , continued: )
DAVID KAPELL: David Kapell and I appear here on behalf of Herbert Mandell,
owner of a 58-acre parcel west of the proposed project. Mr. Mandell has
asked me to app.ear. and inform .you that he is opposed to this project, that
it . is our feeling that .the ,.value of our land which we are in the process
of subdividing will be greatly undermined by the proposed use, and that in
fact it' s my feeling that the hardship that the applicant claims will be
transmitted very directly to the surrounding property owners in the form
of devaluation of real estate. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other, any rebuttal, Mr. Esseks?
MR. ESSEKS : None.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Seeing no further hands, any questions from
any board members? (None) Hearing no further comments on their side,
I 'll make a motion recessing this particlar hearing to the -- not the
next available date but the date thereaf.ter. which will probably be the
29th of July. Please remember we -:do not have to. advertise.
MR:.-., CRON: You' re going to have to affix a date., Mr. Chairman-.
SECRETARY: 29th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I ' ll have to check. with the board members, do you have
.any objection to the 29th .of July as the following regularly scheduled
meeting after July 8th? (No objection. ) The board feels that the
29th of July is appropriate. We will ask- the Supervisor on Monday if
he will allow us to advertise it not as lengthy as it was advertised
before but we will advertise it as a normal agenda item being the last
hearing.
MR. CRON: Does the board wish to set a time on the 29th?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be somewhere in the area of 9 o' clock, unless
I read faster, Mr. Cron. Does anybody else have any --
PERSON FROM AUDIENCE: What time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be in the newspaper. We will assume it will be
in the area of 9 :00 p.m. I wish before I close the .hearing to thank
everybody for their courtesy, and I would like to thank you all for
coming out and regratifying the board in its deliberations after the
next meeting to take everybody' s interest to heart. I' ll continue with
that motion then, gentlemen.
MEMBER GRI@ANIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Appeals No. 2971 and 2975, applica-
tions of SOLWIN INDUSTRIES LTD. until July 29, 1982. .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass
and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- JuiiC 17 , 1982 Regular Mtg.
At this point in time, the Chairman declared "closed session
for deliberations" , after makiftg.:'_a<mot ion:'.for.: same:;: ,:seconded by Mr.
Douglass, and duly carried.
At approximately 10 :55 .p.m. , motion was made by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr. . Grigonis, and duly carried,. to reconvene the Regular
Meeting of this board.
APPEAL NO. 2351. Matter of CHARLES G. and MARY .A. TANGNEY.
Decision Rendered December 1, 1977, for approval of access over a
private--right-of-way off Little Neck Road, Cutchogue.
On June 1, 1982 Building Inspector Curtis W. Horton requested
through our office a .determination as. to whether or not the condi-
tions set by the board on -December 1, 1977 in .this matter were
satisfied. On June 5 , 1982, tinembers of the Board of Appeals
re-inspected the right-of-way and found -same to be elevated lower
than the surrounding parcels and clue to the enormous amount of
rainfall recently, the right-oflway.was entirely underwater.
On,-June 8 , 1982 this board forwarded a letter .to John W. Davis,
Engineer, requesting :his recommendations, which were received on
June 12, 1982.
In reviewing the recommendations of Mr. Davis, it is the opinion
of this board that those recommendations should be followed, and that
a reply be forwarded over to Building Inspector. Horaon indicating the
same.
APPEAL N.O. 2846 . Matter of PATRICIA A. BAILEY. Decision
Rendered November 13, 1981, which denied the relief as requested
in the application dated June 23, 1981 for approval of insufficient:
(1) road frontage of proposed Parcel 3 and (2) area of, proposed
Parcel 2 , at the northwest side of Leslie Road and the. east:7side%;of
Bay Avenue, CutcYiogue, NY; '
On June 7, - 1982, our office received correspondence with enclosures
giving. an.Fexglaf ation Y.bf_'.details..'between herself and the past Chairman,
Mr. Grigonis. Mrs. Bailey requests reconsideration of this application
and submits the amended survey dated November 12 , 1981 prepared by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. showing the square footage of the proposed par-
cels and distances to existing property lines.
Itcwas the feeling of the board members nbt,'-to reconsider or. rehear
the decision previously rendered in Appeal No. 2351; however, if Mrs.
Bailey desires to submit a new application, the board. would .possibly
consider same. The secretary was instructed to send a reply to Mrs.
Bailey advising that a rehearing could not be held without unanimous
vote.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- June 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2989.
Upon application of LUCY E. MICHAELS , 3570 Minnehaha Boulevard, South-
old, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Section 100-31
for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient
rearyard setback at 3570 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NY; bounded north by
Laughing Waters; west by Tschiember; south by Minnehaha Boulevard; east by
Young; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-3-7.
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
The board deliberated, and made the following .findings and determina-
tion:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 20 ' by 16 '
deck addition to the existing dwelling, leaving an insufficient rearyard
setback at 30 feet from the existing bulkhead. The premises in question
has approximately 60 ' road frontage and an average depth of approximately
134 feet. Existing on the premises is a private one-family dwelling.
Along the entire length of the water-lying edge of this property is
a functional bulkhead in very good condition. Correspondence has been
furnished by the applicant from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation indicating that no permit for this project is required.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no
substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated.. by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a. variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of LUCY E. MICHAELS for permission
to construct deck with - an . insufficient rearyard setback, be and hereby
IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR in Appeal No. 2989.
Location of Property: 3570 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-3-7.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- June 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2990 .
Upon application of HENRY S. KOZEN, 1520 Donna Drive, Mattituck, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for
permision to construct. 6-foot high fence in the frontyard (which would
exceed the 4-foot height limitation) at 1520 Donna Drive, Mattituck;
Deep Hole Creek Estates Subdivision, Filed Map No. 4256 , Lot No. 33 ;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-15-14.
The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier this
evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deliberations.
The board deliberated, and made the following findings and deter-
mination:
By this appeal , .appellant seeks permission to construct a six-foot
high "L-Shaped" fence a length of 32 ' by 16 ' , a distance of 45 feet from
Theresa Drive. The parcel in question is pentagonal in shape with three
sides fronting public streets, lending itself to the practical difficulties
herein. If this parcel were not considered a "corner lot" as defined by
the zoning code, a variance for the relief requested herein would not be
required. The board agrees with the reasoning of appellant.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no
substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated. by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a. variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of HENRY S. KOZEN for permission to
construct "L-shaped" 6-foot high fence . in the frontyard area be and
hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR in Appeal. No. 2990 .
Location of Property: 1520 Donna Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000=115-15=14.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was unanimously. adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals =46- June 17; 1982 Reg. Mtg.
z
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2992.
Upon application of STANLEY AND MARY MOISA, 46 Sunset Lane, Greenport,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for
permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard
setback at 46.. Sunset Lane, Greenport; bounded north by Mellas and Ahaesy;
east by Romei; south by Dinizio; west by Sunset Lane; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-33-4-63.
The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct an 8 ' by 2115"
addition attached to the rear of the existing dwelling., leaving a rearyard
setback at 3216" ,
The premises in question is a .parcel of land zoned "A" Residential and
Agricultural, with road frontage of 75 feet and a depth of 105 feet. The
total area of this parcel is 7,875 square feet. Due to the character and
size of the lot and .the location of the dwelling, applicant is not. able to
obtain this relief without a variance. The board agrees with the reasoning
of the applicants.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no
substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated. by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a. variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of STANLEY AND MARY MOISA, for per-
mission to construct an 8 ' by 2115" . addition with an insufficient setback
in the rearyard, be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 46 Sunet Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-33-4-63.
Vote of the Board: Ayes :. Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- June' 1982
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2946 .
Upon application of PETER KUJAWSKI, by Stanley C. Corwin, Esq. , 634
First Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance: (1) to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the insufficient yard setbacks
due to location. of new lot line, and (2) to New York Town Law, Section
280-A for Approval of Access. Location of Property: 3275 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue, NY; 'bounded north by Bay Homes Subdivision and Kujawski; east
by Pontino and ano. ; south by Marco; west by Skunk Lane; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-97-9-10 . 1.
The public hearing was held earlier this evening, at which time the
hearing was declared closed, pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this .appeal, appellant seeks approval of insufficient yard area
extending three feet, more or less, from the proposed new division line
to the existing farm building on Parcel II. Appellant also seeks approval
of access over a right-of-way 297 . 391 in length and 51. 06 feet in width
extending along the southerly side of property now or formerly of Anderson
155 feet,more or less , and extending approximately 142. 39 feet along the
southerly side of the properties in question of appellant. Parcel I will
contain an acreage of 1. 167 and Parcel 2 , 10 . 0 acres.
The Planning Board on May 24 , 1982 granted a conditional "set-off"
division pursuant to Chapter 106-13.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no
substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated. by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the application for PETER KUJAWSKI for (1)
approval of the insufficient yard setbacks due to location of new lot
line, and (2) approval of access, be and hereby IS APPROVED, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1. This access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet
and be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width
of 15 feet.
2 . This access road shall be improved in either of the following
two methods :
Southold Town Board of Appeals -49 Jul,,-- 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2946 - . Peter Kujawski, continued) :
(a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed
three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency
vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface
and shaped, .or the surface may be. excavated to permit the application
of packed blend to a depth of four inches, OR
(b) Have topsoil removed to a depth of eight inches and then
filled with eight inches .of a good trade stone and sand bank run. The
surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of
three-quarter-inch stone blend, or in the alternative oiled with a mini-
mum of_ifour-tenths of a gallon of road oil per square yard.
3 . No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the construction
of any buildings or structures, or any existing buildings or structures,
on the premises to which this access is referred until all .of the condi-
tions set forth herein have been complied with.
4 . Where the terrain of the land over .which this access road is
traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant and/or
owner shall be required to construct such drainage facilities as may be
recommended by the Town Engineer.
5. That this access road be approved by the Town Road Inspector or
Engineer, Town Building. Inspector, or Board of Appeals, as to meeting the
above requirements .
6 . That this access road must be maintained at all times in good
. satisfactory condition as stipulated above for access. by. all vehicles.
Location of Property: 3275 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 10.00-97-9-10 .1.
Vote of. the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- June 17, 1982 Reg. Mtg.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2995.
Upon application of ELWOOD AND CAROL HUGHES, 1711 Meadow Lane, East
Meadow, NY 11554 , for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an
insufficient sideyard at 6125 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue; Filed Map No. 1179,
Part of Lot 130; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-4-1.
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a 9 ' 4" by
1314" addition to the kitchen area, leaving a setback to the northerly
property line of seven feet, a total reduction of four feet from the
existing house. The board feels that the relief requested is minimal
and practical under the circumstances, and therefore agrees with the
reasoning of appellants.
In considering this appeal , the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no
substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated. by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a. variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, that the application of ELWOOD AND CAROL HUGHES for
permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient
sideyard, be and hereby is APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR in Appeal No. 2995.
Location of Property: 6125 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-104-4-1.
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5.1— June 17 , 1982 Reg. Mtg.
RESERVED DECISION: - Appeal No. 2962. GERTRUDE K. REEVES.
Upon application for GERTRUDE K. REEVES , by Richard F. Lark, Esq. ,
Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient depth of parcel located
off Cedar Birch Road, Orient, NY; bounded north by Main Road; west by
Brawner and Cedar Birch Road; south by Gardiner' s Bay; east by Cedar Birch
Road; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-15-8-20 , 21, 23 and 26 .
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening,
at which time the hearing was declared closed after *rdceiving testimony
and decision was reserved pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this . appeal , appellant seeks approval of 150 ' depth of a parcel
located off the west side of Cedar Birch Road. The parcel in quesion
contains an area of 40 ,500 'square feet and road frontage of 270 feet.
The board agrees with appellant' s reasoning, and that the relief , in
the board' s opinion, cannot be obviated by any method other than a
variance.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements (14%) ;
that the circumstances are unique; that by allowing the variance no
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that no adverse
effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any
increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with
and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of
justice will be served by allowing the variance as applied for.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that the application for GERTRUDE K. REEVES for approval
of insufficient depth of a parcel located off the west side of Cedar Birch
Road, Orient, be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR in Appeal No. 2962.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
y
Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- June 17 ,' 19.82
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2997 . Application
of ANNETTE GOLDEN CARNES. Variance for .approval of construc-
tion of pool and deck with insufficient side and rear yard
setbacks.
On motion by Mr. Douglass,
u� seconded by Mr . Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Annette Golden Carnes:
E'WiRONMIENTAL DECLPRATION . `
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y. S . Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town
notice is hereby given that the Southold m Code,
: as determined that the subject . Town Board of Appeals
a°meal application is hereby�classif'L, as proposed in this
d as a Tvice II Action,
.paving a significant adverse effect upon the environment=o= -he . foilowing reason (s) . -
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has bee:;su-,:iitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implements
planned. � d as
By permit #10-81-0270 , the applicant has received condi
tional approval from the N.Y. S. Department of Environmental
Conservation for this project.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Location of Property: 1445 Bay Shore Road, Green.port, NY.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Grigonis, .Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki
Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- Jute - 17, '
1982
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2998. .Applica-tian
of MARGARET DELLANNO. Variance for permission .to .use -preexisting
_tourist home altered to ,.a -three-apartment building for use as
three•-dwelling apartments in an A-District..
On :notion by Mr. -`Douglass,
seconded by Mr.. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concernin mar aaret D
g the matter of M .
. .— ell.anno• ' -
E:iVIEON:•1ENTAL DECLA??TIOZi:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y. S. Department art_ment of
"rironmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4
no`ice is hereby given that the �' the SoutholdTown Code ,
g SOu�hold Town Board of Appeals
:^as deter;;ti r.ed that the sub ect �-�
appeal application is her projec�. as proposed in this
hereby classified as a Tvice II Action,
of having a sig:�ifi cant adverse affec� ,r
Upon the environment
-or the following reason (s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short
been
su--mitted which indicates that no significant ad erss were likely to occur should e effects
this project be implement planned. zd as
The property in question is not located within 300" feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered
ti
made for any other department or agency. which may alsobe in-
onvolved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: 51255 C.R. .48 and 50 Clark: Road,
Southold, NY.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki .
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-54 Jude 0`,1982
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No 3001. • Application
of HAROLD. E. WALTERS. Variance for approval:-of' suitable—,
screening 'around�-periphery of exi sting .junkyard
On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Harold E. Walters.,.
�:i�JI�O�Ii•SE�ITAL DECLI%-RATION:
Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the N.Y. S. Depart*nent of�n%•i=onmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold To.vn
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Code ,
has determined that the subject project as. Y Appeals
��-,.� 7 p�oposed in this
acceal application is herebv classified as a Tvice II L� r
nc� having a significant �� - �ct_on,
_ adverse e_.
=or the following reason ;s) : �c` aeon the environment
An Environmental Assessment in t;,e ShortFora has Fo has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this aro;ect bplanned. J e implem` -
-ed as
The premises in question is not located within 300 feet of -
a critical environmental area.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency. which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: 400 Nokomis Road, Southold:, NY..
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . G
Douglass and Sawicki. oehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Southold .Town Board o Appeals -55-
} Jun e_ 17, 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARAT2ON: Appeal No. 3 0'05. -Apploa-tion
of WILLIAM & PAULA TUITE. Variance for permission to construct .
addition to existing dwelling with reduction in sideyard.
'On motion by Mr.. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to dec-lar:e the fo1"lc:•7ing Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning -:the matter o.f William & Paula onme•.
`E:1V1 O'I_•iENTAL DECLA_?ATIO�-I:
Pursuant to Section 617. 1.3 of the N.Y.. S. Department of
^•vironmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservat.i,on Law, and :Section 44-4 of the Southold 'Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold To.vn Board of Appeals
: as determined that the subject project as proposed in this
app=al application i.s hereby classified as a Tvo ;
not having a -,; •- � __ _ e II
g sic:-4 ,7ican�. adverse effe ^on t._
::or .the zoilowing oa ( ) ; ct u_. �e environmment
reason s
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project d be implemented as
planne .
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
apceal application.
Location of Property : Sls Midway Road, Cedar Beach Park
Lot 113 , Southold, NY.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Grigonis Douglass, . and Sawicki. , Doyen,
Southold Town Board of Appeals =56- Jurie 17 ,i982
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 3004'. Application
of PAUL & BARBARA LEARY.
Perri 's-sion to construct deck addition with insufficient -.-sideyard
setback (and rebuild existing steps) .
On motion by Mr. Douglas
it was s, seconded. by Mr. .Sawicki,
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Paul & Barbara Leary:
:1VIRONNIENTAL DECLAR7 TION :
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y. S . Department of
.7nvironmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code ,
^cz:'ce is herebygiven that A t m ,g- the Southold Ic.en Board of Appeals
as determined that the subject project as proposed in this
_,pPeal application_ is hereby classified as a Type II " r.
�ct_o ,
nc`_ having a significant adverse ef=ec"' ucon the environment
for the following reason (s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
su_-;aitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. y
This declaration should not be considered a determination.
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not cov
appeal application. ered by the subject
Location of Property: 165 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY;
1000-117-10-20..5.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
} Southold Town Board of Appeals -57-
June 17.-, 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 3003 . A plication
of GEORGE & BEVERLY BOEHLE. Variance for. permi.ssi.on- o
re-separate two parcels , each with area and depth.
On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of George & B
evenly Boehle-
;VIR0�1-MIENTAL DECLAZATION:
Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the N.Y. S. Department of
F.- ironmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section qg-a of the Southold Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals
as determined that the subject project as proposed in this
_'pp-eal application is hereby classified as a Type T +;
I Action,
`_on,
ot: having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
.;ror the following reason (s)
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be i
planned. .�nmpleented as
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Westview, Mayflower and Woodcliff
Drives, Mattituck, NY.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goerhinger, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass, and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -58- June 17 ,1982
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 3006. * Application
of VERA GRETCHYN MAR INO. Vari.ance, for, approval *of.. access over
a private r-o-w.
On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded ;by "Mr. ,Sawicki, . it was
RESOLVED, to dec?are the following Negative Environmental
Declaration ccncernir_g the "matter of Vera G
re. hyn Marino:
E'WI??ONNIE�,ITAL DECL?R?TIO�.i: 1
Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the N.Y. S.. Department of
E^vi_onmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Co^nervation La:•r, and Sectio:i 44-4 01::- the Southold Town .Code,
ro�i ce 'is' hereby given that the* Southold Town
hardhas deter-mined that the subject loan Board of Appeals
er-mi �; je Project as proposed in this
-ca�._on is hereby classified as a Tvpe -II t
ct having a significant adverse effect u_on the environ.*�ent
:or the foilocaing reason (s) : _ _. - _ .
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
su-mitted which .
indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to oc-cur s;iould this project be iinplementad as
planned.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved , nor for any other project not appeal application. covered by the' subject
-
Location of Property: Soundview Avenue and referred to as
"Hyatt Road" , Private Road #18, Southold, NY.
VOtZe Of the
Douglass, andoSawickiyes : Niessrs . Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
} Southold Town Board of Appeals -59:. June 17�, 1982 '
I_
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2805. Application
of VINCENT W. ANNABEL. Variance for approval of .insufficient road
frontage for one parcel.
On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr,. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Vincent W. A-nnabel:
E'7WIRONtiiENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed in this
appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II .Action,
not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
or . the following reason (s) : ,
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Grigon:is, Doyen,
Douglass, and Sawicki.
t Southold Town Board of Appeals -60- -June 1.7 , 1982,
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. .2987'. . " Application
of NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST CO. Variance for permission to . . '
construct drive-in banking facility with canopy extending .
into -the frontyard area.
On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of North Fork Bank & Trust- Co.
ENWIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y. S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code ,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed in this
acceal application is hereby classified -as a Type II . Action,
not having a significant adverse effect up
: on the environment
nor the following reason (s) ,
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project he planned. implemented as
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Mattituck Shopping Center
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Grigonis , Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -61- June 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
J e T
1-
RESERVED DECISION PENDING: Appeal No. 2970. . Application of JAMES
MANOS, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for approval .of access. The public
hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the
hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
In further discussing this matter, it is the opinion of the board
that Mr. John W. Davis ' be.-.requ:ested to inspect this property and sub-
mit his recommendations as to the right-of-way and the flooding problem.
The secretary was instructed to send this request to Mr. Davis as early
as possible.
NEW .APPEAL..NO. 2930. Application for a Special Exception for
SAL CAIOLA, by Mr. David Kapell as agent to .construct condominium
units at premises located at the south side. of .C.R. 48 , Southold, NY,
adjacent on the east side by Southold Town Beach Motel.
The board reviewed this new application and .determined. the file
to be held in abeyance pending further information as to .the D.E.C.
permit approval under #10-81-0226 and requesting a copy of same.
The secretary was also instructed to forward letters to the Southold
Town Trustees, Southold Town Conservation. Advisory Council, Suffolk
County Health Department, and the Suffolk County Soil and Water Con-
servation District as to their comments and jurisdiction in this
matter.
AGENCY REFERRALS: 2996, CHARLES & KATHRYN. NELSON. Await Suffolk
County Health .Department comments. The-secretary was requested to
send a second request to the Suffolk County Health Department.
APPEAL NO. 3007 - NORMAN J. MURRAY. Proposed division - of property
at Oakwood Road, Laurel, NY.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to table Appeal No. 3007 , application for NORMAN J.
MURRAY, pending review and- approval by the Southold Town Planning
Board of this proposed division, pursuant to the January 1, 1982 set
of procedures of the town.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer; Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -62- 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
f:
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that the following matters be scheduled and advertised
pursuant to law for the next regular meeting of this board, to wit,
Thursday, July 8, 1982, to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold, New York:
Appeal No. 2997. Annette Golden Carnes for approval of pool and
deck. 1445 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
Appeal No. 2998. Margaret Dellanno for permission to use home
for a three-apartment building for use as three-dwelling
apartments. 50 Clark Road, Southold.
Appeal No. 3001. Harold E. Walters. Suitable screening around
periphery of existing junkyard. 400 Nokomis Road, Southold.
Appeal No. 3003. George and Beverly Boehle for permission to
re-separate two parcels. Westview/ Mayflower and Woodcliff
Drives , Mattituck.
Appeal No. 3004. Paul and Barbara Leary. Construct deck addition
at 165 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY.
Appeal No. 3005. William and Paula Tuite to construct addition
at. S/s Midway Road at Cedar Beach Park, Lot 113 , Southold.
Appeal No. 3006. Vera Gretchyn Marino for approval of access.
Hyatt Road, Private Road #p18, Southold.
Appeal No. 2805. Vincent W. Annabel. . Approval of insufficient
road frontage requested. Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
Vote.of - the. Board': Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
APPEAL NO. 2914. NORMAN C. BOOS. The public hearing on this
matter was held on May 26 , 1982.
The board is in receipt of a reply from the Suffolk County
Department of Planning dated June 14 , 1982 requesting an indication
as to the number of boat slips and available parking spaces on' that
portion of the premises to be used for marina purposes. Mr. Boos
was forwarded a copy of same on June 16 , 1982, and the board asked
that the secretary send a transmittal letter to Mr. Boos ' .attorney,
Stephen F. Griffing, Jr. requesting same.
Being there was no further business properly coming before the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -63- Jt;— 17, 1982 Regular Mtg.
l-
board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting closed.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11 :20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
n
Lift a F. Kowalski
Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
FW
Word Of Appeals
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATFllgleq xova).1 .,36,4.M,
/ftwn( le;?, fio*l?—of old