Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/13/1983 Y S�FF�Le o� y s Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOL,D, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN,JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13 , 1983 ,.' A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 13, 1983 at 7 : 15 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, Jr. ; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present were: Mr. Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator (Building Department) ; Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters; Mrs. Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 :15 p.m. PUBLIC. HEARING: Appeal No. 3063. Application of MR. AND MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER, by Environment East Inc. as agent, 3075 Indian .Neck Lane, Peconic , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct residential addition with reduction in frontyard setback, at 110 Grove Drive, Southold, NY; Reydon Shores Filed Map No. 631 , Lots No. 4 and 5 ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-080-04-024 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :15 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated October 10 , 1966 indicating the present two-story. frame dwelling and one-story frame garage, and. we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this parcel and the parcels in the surrounding area. Mr. Stoutenburgh, would you like to speak? PETER STOUTENBURGH: Mr. and Mrs. Pressler are present. MR. CHAIRMAN,;: Oh, certainly. Mr. Presser. MR. PRESSLER: The fact that you have the survey here showing L T T , Southold Town Board o= Appeals -2- January ij , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3063 - Edward Pressler,, continued : ) MR. PRESSLER continued; the structure on there, I 'd like just to point out that the obvious way of adding to the existing house by means of fact that it leaves less problems as far as the structure of the house. . .had I gone the other way, I would ingringe on the garage. Also the 'oil tank that' s buried below there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a one-story structure, sir? MR. .PRESSLER: No , it' s a two-story. MR. CHAIRMAN: Approximately 12 ' by -- MR. PRESSLER: 12' by 20. There' s the existing porch there now, which is just the old glass windows construction which are leaking air tremendously right now--heat loss is what I'm referring to. But I'd like to be able to enclose that and insulate properly and then be able to utilize it as a living space. I have four children so we need larger living quarters . for eating and such. That is the purpose of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. PETER STOUTENBURGH: I'm sure you gentlemen when you were down there you noticed that even though. there 'are dimensions on the survey this frontyard appears to be far bigger. There is a right-of-way that' s given for all in this particular development and it ' s a relatively good-sized right-of-way. , They only intend to use about a half of that. And for some reason in this particular location that half came out of the opposite side of the right-of-way on both roads. The frontyard is a fair size frontyard and the direction of the water on Lake Drive appears , when you look at it, appears for practical purposes , unless they plan on taking out a lot of trees and moving the road. . .there' s another 20 some odd feet on the actual ( ) of the survey. We're only asking for a reduction on that one side of approximately 35 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: To 35 feet, is that correct? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes . To 35 feet which is still a far larger frontyard than in the direction of Grove Drive, the way the house was originally set up. That' s something in the neighborhood of about 24 feet if it' s at its best location. The appearance of the building will continue the same with exactly the same siding. It will only be a one-story addition on that end, second-floor bedrooms upstairs, and there are no plans right now other than to roof it. I had sent out letters and I believe Mr. and Mrs. Pressler had spoken to at least their nearest neighbor, and there was no response that we had gotten back. We hope that whatever decision you gentle- men come up with could be as quickly as possible because today may have been about the last day above freezing. We still have a couple of days I think we can work down there but not much more than next Monday or Tuesday. Thank you. C ? Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3063 - Edward Pressler, continued : ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Was there something else you would like to say, Mr. Pressler? MR. PRESSLER: No, I. was just also going to point out that I had discussed with my neighbors and they are all in favor of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone wishing to speak against the application? Questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further comments , I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 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. 3063, application for MR. AND MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER. Vote of the. Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, . Grigonis , Doyen, and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent at the time of this resolu- tion. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. (Member Douglass arrived [7 : 25 p.m. ] ) . PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3061. Application of ANITA M. SAMUELS, Box 89B, Haywaters Road, ,Cutchogue, NY for Variances: (1) to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III, Section 100-30 (A) [1] for per- mission. to construct inground pool on a vacant lot , (2) to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access. Location of Property: South Side of Haywaters Road (a/k/a 155 Fisherman' s Beach Road) , Cutchogue, NY; Lot No. 2 , Map of Peconic Bay Properties , Inc . , Filed Map No. 786 ; County Tax Map Parcel ID No: 1000-111-1-41. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :25 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy .of a survey prepared on Septem- ber 27 , 1982 indicating the pool and deck area, which is. approximately 16 feet to the fence line, 20 ' on the survey to the east side of the property on Lost #2. Does. anybody wish to be heard in behalf of this application? (None) Is there anyone wishing to speak against the application? (None) MRS. JEAN TIEDKE : Neither for or against. Where is the water coming from for all these swimmingpools? MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no idea. . That was the question I was going to ask the board if they would like' to recess this until .we write a letter to the Samuels and ask them to come down. We have certain questions we would like to ask them. Would you gentlemen care .to r. t r Southold TbW.1n_:Board of Appeals -4- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3061 - Anita M. Samuels, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued- recess this application until such time as the Samuels could be here, or some representative of theirs? MEMBER GRIGONIS : I' ll offer -a resolution to recess this until February 3rd. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. Grigonis made a motion, I' ll second it, recessed until February 3rd, Mrs. Tiedle. Ok? On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3061 , public hearing of ANITA M. SAMUELS until February 3, 1983, the date of the next Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3062.. Application of OTTO ZAPF , by J. Hayes Kavanagh, as attorney, 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103, for a Variance for approval of alternative access over rights- of-way located off the North Side of Main Road, Orient, NY over lands now or formerly of Kyrkostas and Demarest. Location of Parcel in Question : R-O-W off the North Side of Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-13-2-4 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7: 30 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch referring to the proposed access road made November 1982, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating the rights-of-way in question and the parcel to which this right-of-way is referred. Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application? J. HAYES KAVANAGH, ESQ. : The proposal as stated is for the approval of access that includes a portion of the driveway which is presently used by Mr. Demarest and his brother, and Mr. Zapf has proposed to Mr. Demarest, that he assure the use of this road and of course the maintenance of it in lieu of his constructing a road right along side it. You may recall that the board approved an application for a variance for the use of a right-of-way which is only 10 ' wide because that was all we had, and of course we could construct a driveway on that right-of-way but Mr. Demarest has indicated a willingness to grant us a right-of-way and to use his driveway and that would make it easier for us and it would eliminate the need to build a parallel road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Am I with the understanding that you're still going to use the access through the original owner' s property? i t i Southold Town. Board of Appeals -5- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3062 - Otto Zapf, continued: ) MR. KAVANAGH: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And then it wouldn' t be between the barns or anything of that nature? MR. KAVANAGH: No. It would be over the 15 ' right-of-way of that property still owned by Kyrkostas. MR. CHAIRMAN: So that would be improved? MR. KAVANAGH: That would be improved. Then we would just cut over to the existing drive all the way down to the Demarest property and then cut back over onto the property which Mr. Zapf has in the mean- time. MR. CHAIRMAN: That would also be improved up above the area where you cut off the Demarest right-of-way? MR. KAVANAGH: Yes , it would. It consists of what the specifications in your decision are. MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that there is no agreement at this particular time. between yourself, the owner, and Mr. Demarest. MR. KAVANAGH: We felt we could possibly save ourselves the trouble of doing all the paperwork necessary for a right-of-way, if we could .first find out whether we could get it approved. We do not have an agreement. I believe one could be reached. I would of course be happy to accept the approval subject to there being an agreement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you what your time limit is on construc- tion? MR. KAVANAGH: Well, construction isn' t going to begin until the Spring, and weather permitting I suppose the beginning of April , although probably the last thing that we would like to do in the construction would be that right-of-way, the driveway, because there are heavier trucks or equipment going over the newly constructed road, they might damage it. So the thought was to either use-- the thought was that if we. could use Mr. Demarest' s drive to drive over an exist- ing path which is not exactly on the right-of-way over the Kyrkostas' property, but there is a right-of-way which Mr. Kyrkostas has dedicated a willingness to let us use it "as is , " until. we are ready to construct an improved driveway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking for a "no-improvement" status over the Demarest right-of-way? MR. KAVANAGH: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s basically what you're asking? MR. KAVANAGH: Yes. Southold Town Board or Appeals -6- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2062 - Otto Zapf, continued : ) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have one little problem in reference, to our inspections-- we like to inspect these right-of-ways usually in wet weather. And the last time we went out on inspections it was very dry and we therefore did not get what we consider to be a viable estimate of what the rights-of-way -in general looked like. And I'm saying, there were other rights-of-way in general that we were in- specting. So I do want to go back and reinspect this right-of-way, and that probably won' t be for another two weeks. If you do allow us to take a little time, we do have 60 days, I think it will take us a little time to come up with a decision. MR. KAVANAGH: Well , to be perfectly honest there isn' t a great urgency right now because there' s no construction contemplated over the next few months, although Mr. Zapf is, of course , anxious to know the finality to it , but I can appreciate your desire to-- weather--we' ll have to cooperate of course. A few days ago we had an excellent opportunity. Perhaps Mr. Demarest can at least-- I see your concern with the water conditions after a heavy rain with other accummulations of how the run off is. MR. CHAIRMAN: And the ability to support fire vehicles during or after the Spring thaw, when the ground has a tendency to be very over saturated. This is. one of the things that we deal with. MR. KAVANAGH: There are of course two alternatives to consider, one is unimproved and the other would be with an improvement to the Demarest driveway now which is not what we would prefer if we' re going to end up having to do that. I suppose we end up constructing our roads depending on what types of improvements the board may desire. I 've been there and as a lay person I can say that it seems like it' s in good shape. It has been used for awhile and Mr. Demarest says it stands up well under adverse weather conditions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Demarest, would you like to say something? MR. DEMAREST: Only that I have used it for 21 years. When I first used it wasn' t too good in the winter time after a bad thaw, but over the years we 've added bankrun and gravel at times and it' s fairly stable. It might get a little soft in spots in the winter time , but there has been no time that we haven't been able to get up and down in the cars. MR. CHAIRMAN: How many people use the right-of-way? MR. DEMAREST: Just my brother and I. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody wish to speak against the appli- cation? Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further questions , I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv- ing decision until a date some time in the near future. i Southold Town Board of Appeals -7 January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3062 - Otto Zapf, continued: ) 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. 3062, matter of OTTO ZAPF. Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. WILINSKI PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3064 . Application of CATHY by Robert Ketcham, Box 295 , East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII, Section 100-70 (C) [1] for permission to place wall sign on existing building at 27980 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-86-part of 006 . Zoning District: B-l . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :40 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: ' We have a copy of the approximate placement of the sign on the building, and we have a copy of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding parcels. Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application? Is there anyone wishing to speak against the application? (No one spoke regarding this application:) 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. 3064 , matter of CATHY V&T =-WILINSKI. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3068 . Application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con- struct enclosed pool and deck areas , which will exceed the maximum permitted 20% lot coverage requirement of the zoning code. Location of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel .ID No. 1000-107-07-028.. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :44 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. Mrs . Kaminsky, is there something you would like to. say? Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3068 - Cynthia Kaminsky , continued: ) MRS. CYNTHIA KAMINSKY: If I may .address myself to a couple of the problems that came up at the last meeting (Re : ' Appeal No. 3060 , hear- ing held 12/22/82) , I think I can answer some of the questions. There was a question brought up about run-off from the back of my garage. . We put gutters on the garage and set up a cement block retaining wall against the back of it. That should eliminate that problem completely. There was another question about the size of the garage that we had put up. And I went back and checked the application. The appli- cation put in as for 'a 24 ' by 241. garage and we did build a 24 ' by 24 ' garage. The 17 ' by 2.3' figure that was brought up was the dimension of the old garage which was attached to the house previously. Aside from that, I would just like to offer to the board a copy of a letter that I received from Dr. James Sellars who is the property owner of a vacant lot directly behind me, and he indicates no objection to our request for a variance and indicates that he is also the owner of the small lot, and understands the type of predicaments that we can run into. (Mrs . Kaminsky submitted the handwritten letter from Dr. and Mrs . Sellars for the record. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody against the application? Sir? MR. BUCKLEY: Since Mrs . Kaminsky brought up the objections that I brought up on the next hearing we're supposed to have, I feel that I can speak on this too. At the last hearing (Appeal No.. 3060 , 12/22/82) , she stated it would be a hardship on that because they do have a small lot. Well I have a small lot, .too, right. Now what I objection to at this time is, in asking for a variance they are infringing somewhat on my rights, and at the last meeting you, as Chairman, brought up the point that if Mrs . Kaminsky turned that building the other way, there would be no variance required for side yard. She told me and the board that at that time, that there wouldn' t be any light to her kitchen, but she ' s asking me to give something up. Why can' t she give something up. Skylight could more than rectify any light in her kitchen. Now I'm willing. to compromise on this thing. I like and I told Cindy that we do not object to the pool , but we object to the fact that they are applying for a variance. Now if they turned the building the other way, we have no objection to the variance on the bulk. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Does anybody else wish to speak against the application? Ma' am, could you state your name please. MRS. McCOURT: I live directly across the street from Mrs. Kaminsky, and I have no objections to the pool but I would like to know what the building is going to look like because our house looks directly out on it, and if it' s a building that' s attached to her house and it' s going to go almost the way the length of the property. It could have an effect on our house, on the value of our property. I would like to know what it' s going to look like. MR. CHAIRMAN: It came up at the last hearing. that we are not a board that specifies the type of construction. The construction is really mandated by the Building Department. They' re the ones that have to pass judgment on the construction of it. I can' t tell . , Southold Town. Board of Appeals . -9- January 13 , 19,83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3068 - Cynthia Kaminsky, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: you what it going to look like. The board at 'this particular time has .not asked Mrs. Kaminsky for any type of architectural drawings or anything of that nature. MRS. McCOURT:. Well once. the' variance is granted., that' s it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well it' s up, to the Building Department to meet - the specific snow-load qualities .to do whatever is designated to meet the 'State Code, Building Code, so on and so forth.. ,MRS . McCOURTs I 'see. Thank you.. MR, CHAIRMAN: Did.. you want :to say anything on that,. Vic? MR. LESSARD: No, I ,think you answered it right. It will be de- signed so that it meets the Codes and I'm pretty sure that it won' t be an eyesore. MR. - CHAIRMAN: . I should , to make you feel more relaxed, note. that we do have the power to ask for proper screening of that build- ing when it:' s proposed to, be added to her dwelling.' Are you thinking in those lines , or what did-- MRS. McCOURT: 'Well , whatever.. Just so long as it isn' t going to ,look like a cement factory or whatever. . I have- no idea what she ' s planning to do. I wanted to make,' sure - that it' s. not going to be an eyesore or something that will detract from our property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Kaminsky? MRS. KAMSINKY If I could just answer. that as best I could. We have not yet had a meeting with the architect. I have an appointment with" h'im very shortly. I will be designed by an architect to be as tasteful as poss.ible , ,certainly in keeping with the neighborhood. ." We're not looking for .something that' s. going to be an eyesore. It will be a regular addition to the house. . . it will not be just a balloon type dome or something over .a swimmingpool. And we will endeavor to make it as attractive as 'possible. I can' t tell you- right now what it will look because I haven't met with the architect yet. But it ' s not something we're just going to throw, together but it will be designed as properly as' possible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to say anything in behalf of this particular application? (None') Hearing no further comments , I ' ll make_ a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. . 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. 3068 , matter of CYNTHIA KAMSINKY. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3060 - Cynthia Kaminsky :.) RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 3060 . Application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 for permission to construct addition (enclosed pool) with reducion in the rearyard (sideyard) setback at 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028 . The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7 :50 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: I will reopen Appeal No. 3060 , which was the nature of the last meeting on December 22 , 1982 and ask Mrs. Kaminsky if she would like to say something concerning the old application. MRS . . KAMINSKY: I don't think there' s anything I can add at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? MR. BUCKLEY: I 'd like to thank the Kaminsky' s for doing what they did-- they've corrected the water problem, and I feel the new building will generate no water problem now. , But I still stand on �what I said on the previous application (Appeal No. 3060 on 12/22/82) . I feel there should be a compromise. I 'm more than willing to give up the bulk area variance , but I feel that the side area should not be granted; and if they' re willing to do this , I have no objection to the bulk. But if not, I object to the bulk variance. You yourself mentioned that at the last meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I didn't mention it-- I asked the question. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that it could be done. And Mrs . Kaminsky made the statement that she did not want to give up the light in her kitchen. Yet I'm supposed to give something up. Now I think there should be fairness in this--give a little, take a little. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against this application? Any questions from anybody concerning this application? Nothing? (Nothing) . Hearing no further comments, I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until some time in the near future. 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. 3060 , matter of. Cynthia KAMINSKY. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki This resolution was unanimously, adopted. Southold Town Board u,- Appeals -11- Janua_1 13, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2930... Application for SAL CAIOLA, by David E. Kapell as agent, 143 Sixth Street, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50 (B) [3] and Article VI, Section 100-51, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct condominium units (multiple dwelling units) to be located at the south side of C.R. 48 , Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-51-5-2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :54 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN We have a copy of several sketches. Would you people like to see the sketch. We have a table down below we can put it on. (For the record, the Chairman asked Mr. Kapell during the reading of the application whether the "12" unit figure should be 1110 , " and Mr. Kapell agreed that it should read "proposed 10 units" rather than the 12 originally planned. ) DAVID E. KAPELL: Mr. Chairman, if I may just for a moment to erase any confusion that might be raised by the prior reading. The swimmingpool and the paved parking areas have been removed from the project. (At this point a few persons were out of order when they were reviewing the map. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell , would you like to speak in behalf of this application? DAVID E. KAPELL: I would, thank you. May I not use the mike? MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly unless somebody has some objection. MR. KAPELL: My name is David Kapell. I appear on behalf of Sal Caiola , the owner of the property for which the condominium project has been proposed. I 'd like to go over, just for a minute, the history of how this project has evolved. Number One , Mr. Caiola acquired a piece of property that' s Zoned M-1 , which is the General Multiple District Zone in Southold Town, in which one could build condominium-residence units. One can also build a motel. This particular property is of sufficient size wherein we could apply for the 12 units that were initially asked for in the original application filed the 14th of November of last year. The area is sufficient to sustain that number of units . In addition, the original application that was filed read just a couple of minutes ago , included a proposal for a swimmingpool, numerous paved areas around the swimming- pool and a blacktopped driveway and parking area. What has happened in the course of the application--review process on this project is that we have become more familiar with the site and also more familiar with the concerns of this board and the neighbors and have taken a number of mitigating steps in an effort to render this project environmentally acceptable. Number One, was that we immediately reduced or initially reduced the project to ten units from the 12 that we could still ask for. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- Januaiyvl3 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MR. KAPELL continued : Number Two , we have .removed the swimmingpool from the proposal. Number Three, was we switched from a paved parking area and driveway to a gravel surface parking area and driveway, so as not to allow for any run-off containing any contaminates that would run with the storm water off a macadam surfaced area. Number Four, .in response to this board ' s request, we prepared or had the H2M Corporation prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which looked in depth at the issue particularly, the issues of storm- water run-off and the issue of sewage disposal. What evolved from that process was a sewage system that involves a process known as "nitrification "de-nitrification, " which is a system I don' t believe exists anywhere else in Southold Town as of this date, -- does that exist (to Mrs. Oliva) ? MRS. OLIVA nodded negatively. MR. KAPELL: I think actually, we are the first project that will install this type of a sewage system, and we do propose to do so. We have at this point Health Department approval of a plan including such a system and the net effect is that the sewage, the effluent that will be emitted from the end of the system will essentially, with the exception of the florination will be potable water. There would be no toxic waste. There' s no contaminating waste eminating from this system. It' s essentially a complete sewage treatment system that will be contained on site and therefore no organic material would be placed back into the groundwater or into the adjacent salt-water area. In addition to that, we took into consideration the issue of stormwater run-off and designed the project in terms of the location of the building and in terms of the grading of the driveway and park- ing area so as to contain all stormwater run-off on site. We went over this in depth with the Planning Board and have submitted a plan to the Planning Board, that it' s my understanding it' s acceptable to them in terms of its ability to keep' all stormwater run-off on site. In addition as was described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, during the construction phase, we will set up essentially a berm on the south end of this property to prevent any stormwater run-off during the construction phase before this final grading takes place from entering Arshamomaque Creek. We will also plant that berm to make sure that it remains stable during that phase. So we believe we have taken all those steps that is reasonable .to expect us to take to prevent any stormwater run-off from entering Arshamomaque Creek or to prevent any contaminated substances coming out of the sewage from this property, from entering either the ground- water or Arshamomaque Creek. One other thing I would like to say is that initially in review- ing this project were the Department of Environmental Conservation from whom, by the way we got today our permit for the driveway area, Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MR. KAPELL continued: so we now have all approvals from the D. E.C. and I' ll provide you with a copy tomorrow. We have relocated the buildings and such a manner to make sure that they are either at locations or elevations that .would keep them from adversely affecting the adjacent wetland area. These are basically the things that we have done. We ,feel that to reduce the density any further would render this project economi- cally unviable. Ten units is the minimum number that would allow us to realize a profit from the construction of this project, and essen- tially what the alternative use would be frankly, would be a motel- use. And we feel that a condominium use is a more attractive use in that it will improve property values in the area. It will not generate the type of traffic that the alternative use would, and we feel. that we have taken all the steps that we can. . .and all those steps that we can . . .and all the steps that we've been asked to take .to mitigate any potential adverse environmental impact resulting from the project. That' s essentially what I have to say, and I'm here to answer any questions this board might have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Kapell. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? (None) I should note that I have five pages of a petition with person' s signatures of :persons in the immediate area. . . it appears to be the immediate area on the addresses , objecting to this particular applica- tion. Now we will go into the people who would like to speak in objection, MR, H. LYTLE: May I ask one question? What' s directly across the road from 48? MR. CHAIRMAN: The beach area, MEMBER SAWICKI: The town beach. MR. LYTLE: Town beach. Ok. Thank you. MR. SMULCHESKI: My name is Mr. Smulcheski. Will this is any way affect the marshlands that are there. Are they going to fill that up? They called it here meadows , but if -you were there within the last two days , you would have seen the tide move in there. It's a santuary for our birds and whatever else. I just want to know what there plans are . as far as that is concerned, MR, CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell? MR. KAPELL: Can I ask you to point out that area that you're concerned with? a Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued : ) MR. SMULCHESKI: All the area along (the east side area) . MR. KAPELL: That is not tidal water. That is an 'area that' s been declared by the Department of -- . MR. SMULCHESKI: That was changed. MR. KAPELL: That is not tidal wetlands. MR. SMULCHESKI : Originally it was , but it was changed. (There were several interruptions at this point and more than one person was speaking. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Ma' am, you haven' t been called upon yet-- MR. SMULCHESKI: The question I want to ask now is , has the board been there to visit .the area and take a look? Then it would be much more clearer to what I'm trying to bring up. MR. CHAIRMAN: I ' ll answer that question in one second, Mr. Smul- cheski. Mr. Kapell, could you come here please and tell us where these people were pointing to, so that we could put it in our record as the area they were referring to? MR. KAPELL: Initially, let me say that, one of the things . . .the area that they are talking about is this area which is a low area on the easterly boundary of the property. This is an area that my under- standing from Mr. Cichanowicz who is Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Council , when I met with that group, was that this was a ditch that was actually dug. It' s called a mosquito-control ditch and is a manmade feature and not a natural feature of the land. And we intend only to disturb that area to the extent of grading this parking area properly to keep the water on .site. And it is not an area that is protected under the Tidal Wetlands Act of the State of New York. MR. SMULCHESKI: The question I want to know is , are they going to fill that marsh area up? MR. CHAIRMAN: And you asked if we have seen the area. MR. SMULCHESKI: Yes, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are welcome to look at the file if you would like. We have pictures that were taken on several occasions indicat- ing, and we do not have the greatest camera in the world I should point out, nor am I the greatest photographer I assure you.' But yes, the entire board has been there, and two of the board members do live in Southold, so they are very well familiar with the area. MRS. KIRNER: I am Mrs. Kirner and I live right on Carol Road, down the street— the private street where the motel is. 1 " Southold Town Board of tippeals. -15-- Januar, _3 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No, 2930 .- Sal Caiola,' continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN: ' Mrs.. Oliva was. next. MRS. KIRNER_: Oh,. I 'm sorry, .Mrs. Oliva. MRS. RUTH OLIVA: I disagree with Dave Kapell. I don't care what Mr.. Cichanowicz. has said, because I was even was down there last Spring and in that low area there, there is definitely spartina grass, which is classified as wetlands under the Tidal Wetlands Act of the State. MR. KAPELL: We have a letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation which states that they do.,not consider this area to be active. tidal wetlands and 'does not fall under their ,purview, which is why we were able to obtain the permit. They have the same plan that we've presented here tonight and that we 're asking for approval, and it is -,,not tidal wetlands for the purpose of their .jurisdiction. And I-- MRS. OLIVA: How much fill is . going in there, Dave? MR. KAPELL: Actually we' re not talking about, much fill- Were talking about regrading it- to the extent of allowing us to build a driveway. It is not our intention to fill - that.. thing entirely. . It' s right here. You can see the' proposal, and the ;grading ,liries. It' s right here. Everything is on the map, MRS. OLIVA: Because even that little wet area if it can be preserved is still important for the different birds and so forth coming through there. They. are on. -the Atlantic flyway and I'm sure they do come in there. MR. KAPELL: T'm sorry. I feel that the issue of the protection of the tidal wetland is an issue that falls before the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, and they have ,inspected the site at our request and essentially de-mapped this area. And it is not protected for the purposes of the Department of Environ- mental Conservation. I'd be misrepresenting if I said we could build this project without disturbing that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you have any .objection-- (interruption) MRS." OLIVA: How much of it is going to 'be filled? Will there still be some water lying there. MR. , KAPELL: Definitely. MRS. OLIVA: With the grasses. MR. KAPELL: You can see where the grade is going to be changed. Do you,.see 'where this comes in here, that' s going to be altered to this extent. Our fill will come into this area. It' s low right down to the property line. . MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you _a .question:, Mr . .Kapell?,. Do you have any objection before this board makes a decision to have us contact the D.E.C. and make sure that there' s- y Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MR. KAPELL: I' ll provide you with the documentation. That' s no problem. And I think I have provided you with that documentation. I believe it' s in the file. But any further documentation there' s no problem: That' s definitely been done. And I have a permit from the-- (interruption) MRS. KIRNER: If I may put in something-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I just want you to know that we go in order. MRS. KIRNER: I understand. I do understand. But I have been in touch with Chuck Hamilton for so long, over a year since this project first began, and they were very much against it at that time until plans were revised and the units now are going to be built above the high mean water mark, which means whether they like it or not, it is out of their jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction, whether they want the jurisdiction or not. And he said to me, "I have it in writ- ing. I have a letter from the D.E. C. " And he told me on numerous occasions . But what concerns me is the man is a little incorrect where it does not show private roads down by that motel. . .now there are only, what, six homes on the road. And I am second to the end. So one more house and you're in the drink. So I am at the end. Now when the tide is high, I. am surrounded by the pond on three sides. . . to the east, to the south, and to the west. The only thing that separates us is a little bit of private road. We can' t even walk down there or you go in. . .when your neck, but at high tide. . . at real , real low tide or when the moon is full , you can sort of walk down there and get squishy feet. But this is all tidal. That' s why I ask, have you been and really looked and seen? How you could fill that in—the swams , the Canadian. . .they all nest there. It' s unbelievable. The mallards. They are up on our lawns. All right. Maybe you're not interested in wildlife, fine. But I'm interested too in this land. I 'm sure the baymen are very interested. I know Jarvis Verity and you' ll see his name on the petition. And he signed on behalf of the whole Baymen' s Association. We are very concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs . Kirner, the reason I asked you the .question what you wanted to say, we are all very involved and very, very aware of the way people feel concerning this project, so please, don' t ever take the view that any one member of this board doesn't -- we all care very, very much concerning everybody' s opinion. So we-- MRS. KIRNER: And on the other hand can .we feel Mr.. Caiola bought a piece of property and he has a right to build something. We all do. But within reason. When you're talking about filling in the marshes and part of the wetlands. MR. KAPELL: We ' re not talking about filling in part of the wetlands. MRS. KIRNER: But the piece that you' re talking about. We know it' s tidal. We live here. We 've lived here for a number of years, Southold Town Board c_ _appeals -17- Janua. _ 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MRS . KIRNER continued: and when we haven ' t lived all year round , we've been coming out here. And vacationing for 25 years these people. I mean, we know what it' s like . We 've seen the water come up almost on our lawns , and cover the road. This is tidal. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Kapell. MR. KAPELL: The only thing I can add really to clarify the issue of that. . .there ' s no question that the marsh area that shows on this plan , as a meadow area, up to this point is tidal wetlands. But this entire area is in fact tidal wetland, it shows on the map and is protected tidal wetland. But at this point there is most definitely a berm, and the tidal flow is interrupted. The D.E .C. has been down there to inspect it, and at our request, and what they did instead of actually-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Point to it so everybody can see. MR .KAPELL: Right in this area here. There is essentially a dam, and there is no culvert and there' s no tidal flow in and out of there. What they are seeing is probably rainwater collecting in that low area, draining off the rest of the side. MR. SMULCHESKI: That dam you' re speaking of . . .there was a culvert in there and it' s probably plugged up now, because from the North Road to the water at one time was open until Mr. Haas , I believe it was Mr. Haas, built that little piece in there. But he did have .drains in there at one time. I wonder if it' s plugged up or what. . . I don't know. It' s overgrown. . .the regular marsh, weeds or whatever. We're. not objecting to the upper part past the dam towards the North Road. We' re objecting to the other part, which is the lower part which is the marsh part now. MRS. KIRNER: It' s right on the pond. MR. KAPELL: The only thing that I can add is that this is the permit that we received from the D.E.C. They have reviewed the same plan that we' ve presented to you and this is a permit specifically for the road work and the regrading that' s required in connection with the road work. And I ' ll provide you 'with a copy of this tomorrow. MRS. KIRNER: There' s something more. We want to put a second story on our house and we're on a lit bit of l. nd, 501. by 100 ' and we wrote to the D.E.C. and as far as they' re concerned, we can do anything we want because we were bulkheaded before 1979. It is out of their jurisdiction. This is out of their jurisdiction. Of course we would have to have the approval of Southold, but I'm saying just because the D.E.C. says that they' re not saying it that it' s ok. They are not saying it' s ok. They are saying it' s out of their jurisdiction. They have no say. MR. KAPELL: I. take exception with that. The area in which the gravel driveway and parking area is going to be constructed-- (interruption) . Southold Town Board o- appeals -18- Januar L3, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MRS. KIRNER: I have it in writing. MR. KAPELL: I'm sorry, ma' am. I have their permit here. We do not claim. . .and we would love to be able to claim that it is out of their jurisdiction , and that would have made it a lot easier for us. . . but the area in which we propose to build the gravel driveway and parking area is definitely within the D.E.C. ' s jurisdiction and we duly applied for a permit and this is the permit that we were issued. So the issue of grading and regrading, construction of that driveway, is not something that has not been reviewed by the. D.E.C. and approved by the D.E.C. The area which falls outside their juris- diction is the area in which the buildings are located. And that area which is above the 10 ' elevation is out of their jurisdiction. But that is not the driveway area and it is not the low area which these people are referring to. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Mrs. Oliva? MRS . OLIVA: I would just like to make a comment neither for, nor against. It seems to me that this is just another case of a piece of property that was incorrectly zoned in the first place. This small piece of property and now zoned "Multiple, " so we are stuck no matter which way we do it— either condominiums or motel unit. Frankly, I , do go along with Mr. Kapell' s idea that a condominiums are a far better idea. I do believe to Mr. Kapell ' s credit and to the Board of Health' s credit and the Planning Board that as far as I can see except for this one little disagreement here about the driveways, they have taken into account and tried to do the best they possibly could with the denitrification system out of the grade to any stormwater run-off to prevent any type of pollution into the meadows and into Arshamomaque. I just, of course, yoiu never know what' s going to come about when they start building and the project is in place. We only have to wait and see how it-- but I would just like to point out this is the importance of our update of the Master Plan to not get into this situation again. MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask the audience if they know the ramifications of the M-1 Zone. Do you know what Mrs. Oliva is referring to? MRS. KIRNER: Oh I agree with her completely. I think it' s completely zoned wrongly. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you' re aware of the fact that the property is already zoned "M-1?" MRS. KIRNER: Oh I :am aware. I happen to agree with Mrs. Oliva and feel that it' s wrong. And I happen to agree with Mr. Kapell that we'd rather have condominiums than a motel, but either one causes concern, and at that particular location I feel it should be resi- dential. And now. the law is one acre, one house. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Kapell, did you have anything else you would like to say? No? Anybody else concerning this hearing? Southold Town Board oL -ippeals -19- Januaxi 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - 'Sal Caiola, continued : ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I make any judgment concerning the closing of this hearing, I would like some feedback from my board, and I 'm going to ask the audience' s indulgence for a period of about five minutes. We would like to go into closed session and I would like to discuss something with them. We will recess for approximately five minutes. Can I have a motion, gentlemen? On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to recess for approximately five minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The entire board left the room to discuss the subject hearing. The board returned to the meeting room at 8 :40 p.m'. and motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki , and unanimously carried to RECONVENE the public hearing in the matter of Appeal No. 2930 , for .SAL CAIOLA. The hearing reconvened at 8 :40 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell, could you tell us if the Department of Transportation has looked at this? MR. KAPELL: I'm not aware of it. Nobody has ever asked me. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a question that the setback is proper enough from the County Road at 50 ' bearing in mind that certain appli- cations that we 've had, through the wisdom through some of the gentle- men on the board, they have required setbacks of 70 to 72 feet from the property line, and we would like within the next three weeks to investigate that. So we would like to recess this hearing until February 3rd, 1983 , and send a letter to the County asking them to review the project if they have any objection to that. Do you have any objection to that? MR. KAPELL: Well I only have an objection to the lateness , you know, to the late nature of the request because the project has been before this board for 14 some odd months. I don' t understand why that wasn' t raised some time ago. The 501. setback is the setback that is been proposed from Day One. Frankly, . I'm not sure to what degree they're involved in. What right of review do they have? MR. CHAIRMAN: On the setback. MR. KAPELL: Why was it not forwarded to them earlier? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would. tend to think because we thought the 50 ' was adequate. r Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- January 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MR. KAPELL: It meets the Town requirement. MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s correct. This is based upon , the Fanny Behlan application which was before our board two years ago, up past the Nursing Home, and they had a 68 ' setback. MR. KAPELL: Wouldn't that be an issue for site plan, Mr. Goehringer? Wouldn' t that be an issue for the Planning Board as opposed to this board? It would seem to me that that cites a specific issue and would be an issue for the Planning Board to take up as opposed to this board. MR. CHAIRMAN : I don' t know. But I would be very happy to contact Henry Raynor if you would like. MR. KAPELL: I'm afraid I 'm not an attorney. I would definitely like to say that I do object to the extent that it' s coming very late in the process , and that we've made every effort possible to comply to this board ' s requests. This has never been brought up. MR. CHAIRMAN: I will -be perfectly honest with you and tell you that it' s something that has been relatively new, and we just feel that we would like to check it out. We did investigate the timeliness involved , and it takes approximately 19 days to get something back from the County, and we feel that three weeks is sufficient between the two meetings to get that. Or maybe sooner. MR. LESSARD:. Mr. Chairman, if I may interject something. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes , Mr. Lessard. MR. LESSARD: Under 239K of the County Municipal Law, any property that touches the border of a County Road, the County has to be notified, and they will lay down the rules and restrictions on construction or anything else before any permits can be issued by the Town. Under the law here , Dave, you know, that' s why I brought it with me. . . I read the law and I re-read it. What I 'm trying to say . in a nice way, it would be very foolish of this board to grant anything and then two weeks later have you stopped dead in your tracks if it went your way. MR. KAPELL: I appreciate that— MR. LESSARD : What they' re trying to do, because they are lead agency and to make sure that everything has been covered and nobody winds up getting arrogant. MR. KAPELL: I would definitely. . . I take exception and place objection to the extent that this application has been revised and re-revised at the applicant' s substantial expense to meet the various considerations of this board and the various considerations of the Planning Board with regards to all the site' s specifics , and that for us to be delayed again and for us to perhaps to redesign the site plan around the new issue that was. not raised earlier on the process I think is unreasonable. To that extent I do object. 1 Southold Town Board o: ppeals -21- Januar L3 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MR. LESSARD: I understand your position, sir', but what I am also stating is-- MR. KAPELL: I would like it on the record to that extent I object. MR. LESSARD: True , I agree with you. But what I am saying, be- cause you 'have been into this so long, for three more weeks to clarify all the problems rather than gunshot the thing and have it kicked back later on. . .whether it' s an oversight on my part or whatever. . .the fact is the problem is there , and whether it ' s my mistake or whoever ' s , all right, it will not go away until it' s properly resolved. And I know where you are coming from, and after 14 months I would have been climbing the wall. myself. But the. fact is this problem has arisen, whether it' s my oversight or whatever —the problem is here and for 14 months, we 're asking you a couple of weeks more. . . that' s all we ' re asking. MR. KAPELL: I'm in no position to force this board to take action but I do want it on the record that I do Question the timing of it. (Recording tape was changed. ) MR. KAPELL: I would like it on the record that we question the timing of this request .on your part. We feel , I certainly feel that this should have come up .a long time ago as opposed to this point in time after we 've gone to the extent that we have with the site plan process. MR. LESSARD: It could be nothing. It could be a formality. I don 't know. But I lust don' t want it. hanginq. MR. CHAIRMAN: I should also note, Mr. Kapell , that we are going to now, since we have had the first part of this hearing, going to send this application to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their comments , and they would not have looked at it of course unless we had the hearing, so now we've had this part of the hearing and we 're going to send it up. MR. KAPELL: So that' s going to take place now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we 're going to do both. We' ll send out the County Road issue and briefly send it up to them and tell them we need their comments back by February. 3rd. Ok? On your part, Mrs. Kirner , if you have any specific information concerning the area in question that you feel is endangered area, kindly come to the February 3rd hearing and supply us with the information that you may have. MRS. KIRNER: May I ask one thing? We do have several neighbors that are very concerned and could not come here tonight. They were either out of town or out of state. Will they be allowed to raise any objection at the hearing February 3rd? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The hearing is still open. Southold Town Board o-L Appeals -22 January �3, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued: ) MRS . KIRNER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments from anyone? David? (None) Hearing no further comments , I' ll make a motion recessing the hearing until February 3 , 1983 . On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Griqonis , it was RESOLVED, to recess the hearing of Appeal No. 2930 , SAL CAIOLA until February 3 , 1983. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. DATE FOR NEXT MEETING: On motion by Mr. Griqonis, seconded by Mr . Douglass , it was RESOLVED, that Thursday , February 3, 1983 at 7 :30 p.m. shall be the date for the next Regular Meeting of this Board, to be held at the Southold Town Hall , Main Road, Southold, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : On motion1by Mr. Griqonis , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was i RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the December 22 , 1982 Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehrinqer, Doyen, Griqonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. i CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS : On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for "Deliberations in Closed Session. " Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of hppeals -23- January 3 , 1983 Regular Meeting RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING: After approximately 11-, hours in closed session, the board reconvened the Reaular Meeting. On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Goehrinqer, it was RESOLVED, to RECONVENE the Regular Meeting. (The Regular Meeting reconvened at approximately 11: O.O .p.m. ) Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3060 . Upon application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 for permission to construct addition (enclosed pool) with reducion in the rear- yard (sidey,ard) setback at 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028. The board finds and determines as follows : By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 33 ' by 42 ' addition (including an 18 ' by 36 ' swimmingpool) in line with the southerly line of the existing dwelling and with a setback from the westerly property line at 15 ' 8" . Existing on the premises is a one-story one-family dwelling with attached garage and accessory 24 ' by 24 ' storage building in the northwest corner of the premises. The premises in ques- tion is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-34 of the zoning code and contains an area of 16 ,875 square feet. In reviewing this matter, the board finds that the proposed addition would create excessive lot coverage by a total of 275 square feet over the permitted 3 ,375 square feet, and applicant was advised of same at the original public hearing held on December 22, 1982. On December 29, 1982 , the applicant filed an application for a variance due to the excessive lot coverage, which is determined as noted in Appeal No.. 3068 , same date hereof. It is the opinion of the board that. the proposed addition could be turned lengthwise to the house which would allow more of a setback from the rear property line, or the applicant could reduce the size of the pool area to an 16 ' by 32 ' , and therefore a maximum reduction at 20 feet from the rear (west) property line should be yielded. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the circumstances are unique; that by allowing the variance as indicated no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner in which the difficultv arose and in consideration of all the above factors , the interest of Justice will be served by allowing the Southold Town Board of Hppeals -24- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3060 .- CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, continued: ) variance, as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3060 ,. application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, for permission to construct addition (ingrouhd swimmingpool) be and hereby IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the pool addition shall not be set back closer than 20 feet from the rear (west) yard property -line. Location of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3068 . Upon application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY�for —a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31. for permission to construct enclosed pool and deck areas, which will exceed the maximum permitted 20% lot coverage requirement of the zoning code. Loca- tion of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028 . The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening. The board finds and determines as follows.: By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 33 ' by 42 ' addition (including the 18 ' by 36 ' swimmingpool) in line with the southerly line of the existing dwellinq to be set back from the rear property line at 1518" and exceeding the maximum permitted lot coverage by 275 square feet. Existing on the premises in question is a one-story one-family frame dwellinq with attached garage and accessory 24 ' by 24 ' storage building at the northwest corner of the premises. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-34 of the zoning code and contains an area of 16 , 875 square feet. The total lot coverage permitted by the zoning code is 20% of the lot area, or 3, 375 square feet. The total lot coverage proposed is 3,650 square feet. It is the opinion 'of the board that the lot coverage. as proposed is not excessive, approximately 8% of a variance from the zoning requirements. For the record, it is noted that a decision has been rendered. .simultaneously herewith under Appeal No. 3060 granting a variance for a 20 ' setback from the rear property line for this same _. proposed construction. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the r .Southold Town Board of appeals -25- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3068 - CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, continued: ) variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow- ing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated . by .a method fea- sible for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested will be. in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner. in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grig.onis , it was RESOLVED., that Appeal No. 3068 , application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY for approval .of excessive lot coverage at eight percent for the con- struction of a pool and deck areas , be and herebv IS APPROVED, PROVIDED THAT THE SET BACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE (WEST LINE) IS NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET. Location of Propertv: 75 Woodcliff Drive , Mattituck., NY: Countv Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer , Doven, Griaonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimouslv adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3063. Upon application for MR. AND MRS. EDWARD. PRESSLER, by Environment East Inc. as agent, 3075 Indian Neck Lane , Peconic , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con- struct residential addition with reduction in frontyard setback at 110 Grove Drive, Southold, NY;. .Reydon Shores Filed Map No. 631, Lots No. 4 and 5; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-080-04-024 . The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deliberations.' The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a 12 ' by 20 . 9 ' addition at the northerly end of the existing one-family dwelling, which would leave a setback from Lake Drive at approximately 35 feet as shown on survey submitted with the application and dated October 10 , 1966 . The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-34 of the zoning code and fronts along Grove and Lake Drives of Reydon Shores Major Subdivision, Map No . 631 , Filed Julv 2, 1931. Exist- ing on the premises is a two-story frame dwelling and accessory frame garage in the rear yard area. Upon inspection of the premises and the immediate vicinity, the board finds there are several homes set back closer to Lake Drive. It is the opinion of the board that the area chosen for this addition is Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- January _L3, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3063 - MR: &. MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER, continued: ) the most feasible under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is. not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow- inq the variance no substantial detriment to. ad�oininq properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method fea- sible for appellant other than a .variance ; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors , the interest of justice will be served by allowinq .the variance , as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr. Griqonis , it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3063 , application for MR. AND MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER for permission to construct addition to dwelling, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property : 110 Grove Drive, Southold, NY; Reydon Shores Subdivision Lots 4. & 5 ; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000= 80-04-024 . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3064 . WILINSKI Upon application for CATHY V-9b K , by Robert Ketcham, Box 295 , East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII, Sec- tion 100-70 (C) [1] for permission to place wall sign on existing building at 27980 Main Road , Cutchoque , NY.; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000- 102-.86-part of' 006 . Zoning District: B-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 , appellant seeks permission to place a wall sign, to be attached at the west side wall of the existing business structure, advertising the business conducted within this building, which at the present time is "The Alleluia Shop - A Christian Family Gift Store. " The premises in question contains an area of approximately 6 ,175 square feet with approximately 65 feet of frontage along the Main State Road, .and is zoned "B-1 General Business. " Currently .under Article VII of the Zoning Code, there are. no provisions--or .requlations concerning signs , which have inadvertently been left out. It is the feeling of the board that the provisions stipulated in Article VI , Section 10060 (C) [2] should be applied to the B-1 Zoning District as well as the B-Light District. i Southold Town Board of tippeaals -27- January 13, 1983 Regular Meetinq WILI (Appeal No. 3064 - CATHY V-&L SKI, continued : ) In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow ing the .variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method fea- sible for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the. general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowinq the variance, ' as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3064 , application for CATHY for permission to attach sign to west side .wall of existing building, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : 1. That the subject wall sign shall not be illuminated; 2 . That the subject wall sign shall only advertise the busi- ness being conducted in such building; 3. That the provisions of Article VI, Section 100-60 (C) [2] (b) shall be followed; 4 . That this approval is subject to review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter, Sections 1323, et seq. Location of Property: 27980 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-6-part of 006 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3031. Upon application of THOMAS AND JACQUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO, 77 Vander- bilt Boulevard , Oakdale , NY 11769 , for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to re-locate dwelling with insufficient front, side and rearyard setbacks at 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold, NY; Corey Creek Estates Filed Map. #k4923 , Lot 28 ; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-78-04-019. The public hearing on this application was held on December 22 , 1982 , at which time the hearing was declared closed pending re-inspection and deliberations . The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to relocate the proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback from the east property line at Corey Creek Lane at 13 feet and rearyard setback at 45 feet from the ordinary high water mark in order to locate the house on the filled dredged spoil area. The N.Y. S. Department of Environmental Conservation has approved this location over the previously approved Southold Town Board o�_ hppeals -.28- January _L3, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3031 - THOMAS & JACQ.UELINE OCCHIOGROSSO, continued: ) location, approved during 1979 by this board in Appeal No. 2610 and by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation under TW #15276- 0186A, and Town Board Wetlands Permit #27 dated September 11 , 1979. It is the feeling of the board that the new dwelling structure should not be located any closer than is necessary to the high water mark, and practical difficulties in relation to the insufficient rearyard setback relief requested has not been shown. The premises in question contains an area of approximately 20 ,000 square feet and is vacant land. It is noted for the record that previous applications have been made to this board under Appeals No. 2610 dated September 14 , 1979 and No. 2547 dated May 2 , 1979. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow- ing the variance no substantial detriment to. adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method fea- sible for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interest 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 Appeal No. 3031 , application of THOMAS AND JAC- QUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO for permission to construct new dwelling, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : 1. That the rearyard setback shall be. no less than 50 feet from the high water mark (rear property line, whichever is closer) ; 2 . That the frontyard setback from the east property line at Corey Creek Lane shall be no closer than 20 feet; 3. That this approval is subject to compliance with the Flood Plain Management Laws of the Town of Southold. 4 . That this approval is subject to review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold, NY; Corey Creek Estates, Filed Map No. 4923, Lot 28; Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-78-04-019. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board ,, Appeals -29- Janua�j 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3013 - East End Supply Co. , Inc. ) RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3013. Upon application for EAST END SUPPLY CO. , INC. , by Irving L. Price, Jr. , Esq. , as agent, 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-81, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct warehouse iri this "C-Light Industrial" Zoned District with insufficient front, rear and side yards as shown on building plans accompanying the appeal application. Location of Property: South Side of Corwin Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-48-2-2 & 3. The public hearing on this application was held on November 18 , 1982. The board made the following findings and determination: The premises in question is located at the northerly side of Corwin Street in Greenport and is more particularly identified on the County Tax Map as District 1000 , Section 48 , Block 02 , Lots 2 and 3. The subject parcel contains an area of approximately 51,000 square feet with approximately 875 feet along Corwin Street, inclusive of a 25 ' strip from Seventh Street and 50 ' strip from Eighth Street , which road strips have been abandoned by the town. Existing on the premises are two dwelling structures in disrepair, accessory building, and a 32 ' by 156 ' one-story storage building . located on the easterly portion. By this appeal , appellant seeks permission to construct a warehouse building with an office of approximately 21 ,000 square feet first-floor area on the westerly portion of this property, eliminating existing dwelling structures and accessory building thereto. The existing building on the easterly portion will be exterior-modernized and is to remain a . one-story structure. The proposed new construction at the westerly portion of the premises will be approximately one-half, two-story, .and one-half, one-story construction. In considering this appeal , the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow- ing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and the interest 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 Appeal No. 3013, application of EAST END SUPPLY CO. , INC. for permission to construct warehouse with insufficient front, rear and side yard setbacks in this "C-Light Industrial" Zoned District, be and hereby IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : 1. All construction from the rear property line shall be . no closer than 13 feet; 1 y Southold Town Board u- Appeals -30- Janua_l 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3013 - East End Supply Co. , Inc. , continued: ) 2. There shall be a minimum of twenty [20] parking stalls on the premises; 3. All loading and unloading must be done on the premises only [with no protrusion of vehicles onto the streets] ; 4. Screening shall be provided as submitted on the applicant' s 10/16/81 plan; 5 . All storage must be contained within the buildings ; 6 . Acquiescence by the Planning Board of the above conditions ; 7 . Suffolk County Planning Commission review pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter, Sections 1323, et seq. Location of Property: South Side of Corwin Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcels ID No. 1000-48-2-2 & 3. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. SET-UPS FOR NEXT REGULAR -MEETING: On motion ,by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby ARE SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THIS BOARD, to be held at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY commencing at 7 : 30 o' clock p.m. . Appeal No.. '3066 . FRANK TARULLI. Horse & stable at 1540 North Bayview Road, Southold. Appeal No. 3070 . LAST ASSOCIATES. New dwelling - reduced front and rear setbacks at Birch Avenue, Southold. Appeal No. 3067 . GRACE E. KENNEY. Additions increasing lot coverage over 20o allowable, and reducing front and rear setbacks at 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion. Appeal No. 3071. GEORGE & NATALIE WIESER. Accessory garage in f-r.ontyard .area at 1415 Harbor Lane , Cutchogue. Appeal No. 3014. EAST END SUPPLY CO. , INC. Special Exception for warehouse building with office in C-Light Industrial Zone at Corwin Street, Greenport. Southold Town Board ur Appeals -31- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting (.Set-Ups .continued: ) Appeal No. 3061. ANITA M. SAMUELS. Recessed from tonight until our next regular meeting. (1) Ingrouhd pool on vacant lot; (2) Approval of access. Appeal No. 2930 .. SAL CAIOLA. Recessed from tonight until our next regular meeting. Condominium units at S/s C.R. 48 , Southold. Appeal No. 3073. RONALD J. ROTHMAN (V.. L'EPPLATENIER, JR. ) Variance to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks at Lakeview Avenue, Peconic. Appeal No. 3069. WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR. (B. . NORRIS) .. Green- house addition with reduced sideyard at 105 Love Lane , Mattituck. Appeal No. 3074 . JOHN & SABINA. BASILE. Addition to dwelling with reduction in frontyard setback at 510 Custer Avenue, Southold. Appeal No. 3075. JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO. To reinstate noncon- forming dwelling use in B-Zone (in addition to business use of premises) . Main Road, Greenport. Appeal No. 3072. POPPI & IRENE PAPADAKIS. To use premises for business (skin care clinic) in this A-Zone at 26165 Main Road, Orient. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declarations pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, to wit: 'Southold Town Board c Appeals -32- Janua 13, 1983 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. : 3066 . . PROJECT NAME: FRANK TARULLI. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: House horse and construct stable for horse on less than two-acres , inclusive of one-family dwelling use of subject premises . LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1540 .North Bayview Road, Southold, NY; 1000-79-06-002 . 1. REASON (.S,).- SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Project in question is. not located near critically-designated areas. APPEAL NO. : 3070.. PROJECT NAME: LAST ASSOCIATES. This notice is/ issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project.' TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: New dwelling with reduced front and rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North side of Birth Avenue, Southold, NY; 1000-77-01-021. ' REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Subject premises is not located near critically-designated areas. I` l 1 Southold Town Board c appeals -33- Janua: 13, 1983 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. : 3067. PROJECT NAME: . GRACE E. KENNEY. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also , please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Additions with excessive lot coverage and reduced front and rear yard setbacks. . . LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion; 1000-38-03-020. REASON.(.S,) ,.,SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as plann e( ) Parcel in question is not located near tidal wetlands or other critical area APPEAL NO. : 3071. PROJECT NAME: GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project: TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage structure in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY; 1000-97-06-010 . REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Proposed garage location is farther away from wetlands area than existing dwelling structure. 'Southold Town Board c appeals -34- Janua; 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. : 3014 PROJECT NAME: EAST END SUPPLY CO. , INC. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also , please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to construction warehouse building with office in C-Light Industrial Zone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as : South Side of Corwin Street, Greenport, NY; 1000-48-02-002 and 003. REA$ON:(_S)., SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) The premises in question is not located near tidal wetlands or other critical environmentalarea. APPEAL NO. : 3073 . PROJECT NAME: RONALD J. ROTHMAN (V. L'EPPLATENIER, JR. , Owner) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project: TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: New dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as : Lakeview Avenue, Peconic, NY; 1000-67-3-02 , 03 and 13. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (Southold Town Board o ►ppeals -35- Januat 13, 1983 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. : 3069. PROJECT NAME: WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR. (B. NORRIS, Owner) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Greenhouse addition with reduced sideyard. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 105 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY; 1000-141-04-031. REA80N.(.S) ,SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as plann d. e(2) Premises is not located near tidal wetlands or other critical environmental . APPEAL NO. : 3074. PROJECT NAME: JOHN AND SABINA BASILE. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice- that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project: TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Addition to dwelling with reduction- in frontyard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 510 Custer Avenue, Southold, NY; 1000-70-08- 033. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located near tidal wetlands or other environ- mental area of particular Critical concern. Southold Town Board o appeals -36- Januai 13, 1983 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. : 3075. PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To reinstate nonconforming dwelling use in B-Zone in addition to business use of premises. in LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk more particularly known as : 73265 Main Road, Greenport, NY; 1000-45-03-002. REASON.(_S) ..SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as plann d 12j Premises is not located near tidal wetlands. APPEAL NO. : 3072 . PROJECT NAME: IRENE & POPPI PAPADAKIS. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project: TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To use premises as skin care clinic in addition to residential use. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as : 26165 Main Road, Orient, NY; 1000-18-03-023. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located near tidal wetlands or other environ- mental area. r Sowthold Town Board o-L appeals -37- Januaix 13 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued: ) Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PENDING DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 3062 - OTTO ZAPF. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed, pending a reinspection and deliberations. Being there was no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11: 00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski , Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals WrRULD a Chairman Board of APPUIS I `.TZCEIVE h(D FILED BY 79 Town Clerk, Town of Soutliold