The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3915 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3915 - Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission to construct retail stores in conjunction with office building uses; proposed retail construction is not permitted in this RO Zone District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1. WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appeal No. 3915; and WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, the physical characteristics of the land, its present zoning, its previous zoning classification(s), and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. This is an appeal of the January 31, 1990 Notice of Disapproval in which an application dated May 9, 1989 was considered by the Building Inspector to construct office and retail stores, which was disapproved on the following grounds: "...Under Article VII, Section 100-71, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this district. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals... " 2. The premises in question consists of 4.75+- acres with frontages along three streets: (a) North Road (a/k/a State Route 25) along the northerly end of the premises, (b) Main Street (a/k/a State Route 25) along the westerly end of the premises, and (c) Knapp Place (a town street) along a southerly 79.97 ft. portion which is situated in the Residential Zone District, Hamlet of Greenport, Town of $outhold. Page 2 - Appeal No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 3. Since January 9, 1989, most of the subject premises has been situated in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District, and only a small section (approximately .30 of an acre) has been situated in the R-40 Residential Zone District. The entire tract is vacant land, except for partially completed foundation construction which includes footings and concrete wall extending 372.6 feet in an east-west direction. 4. Surrounded on its southerly and easterly boundaries are residential communities in the R-40 Residential Zone District. To the north are State Route 25, and to the north thereof a preexisting restaurant located in the Limited Business (LB) Zone District and residential communities in the R-40 Residential Zone District. To the west are Main Street and residences in residential use districts. 5. The following facts and events are additionally noted for the record: (a) On October 3, 1985, the Southold Town Board adopted a moratorium concerning all business and industrial zone districts; (b) On October 10, 1985, an application was pending before the Southold Town Planning Board (referred to as "280 North Road," applicant) and which was under a town-wide moratorium affecting all business and industrial zone districts in the pending "Master Plan Revisions"; (c) On October 22, 1985, the Town Board denied the request of the applicant (by his attorney, John C. Tsunis, Esq.) for the requested Waiver under the provisions of Local Law #14-1985 for the reason that the uses proposed were inconsistent with the proposed Residential-Office Zone District provisions~ (d) It is apparent that during 1985 and 1986, and up until January 9, 1989 (the date of adoption of the new zoning regula- tions), the subject premises was being considered by the Town for a change in the zoning use district to Residential-Office (from B-Light Business). In the applications before the Town Board and Planning Board during the period from 1984 through 1985, a site plan dated September 9, 1985 was filed for an office mall area in excess of 12,000 sq. ft., together with retail stores and bank facility. (See copy of site plan on file with the Southold Town Clerk and Planning Board). Page 3 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 5. (e) Again, on January 13, 1986, John Tsunis, attorney for the property owner, requested a second Waiver under the provisions of the moratorium, and the record is clear, as is also shown in the February 4, 1986 Town Board minutes and in its resolution granting a waiver at the same meeting, that: "...the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential-Office Zone District... " (Emphasis added) (f) Following the grant of the waiver to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential-Office Zone District, the applicant/property owner proceeded to make amendments to the Planning Board under the site plan process. (g) On June 23, 1986, the Planning Board adopted a resolu- tion approving a site plan for the building and on-site changes. It should be noted that although the Planning Board proceeded under the site plan process, the Town Board waiver was strictly for those uses which would conform to those in the Residential- Office (RO) Zone District. (h) It is noted for the record that the Planning Board is and has always been without authority to consider a chan~e of use, change of zone, or use variances, and the proper forum for those requests are before the Town Board as a legislative agency and/or Board of Appeals as a quasi-judicial agency. (i) The applicant has also furnished the board with copies of canceled checks, invoices, and a list of expenses which the applicant asserts was expended during the course of this project. The Board has evaluated the record and notes that the expenses are not itemized and are without a clear breakdown for the total claim, thus the Board questions the validity of some of these claims, including real estate taxes on vacant land; fees for consultants as well as attorney fees to review the town files and represent the applicant in the proceeding before this Board; certain expenses for real estate commissions (which are normally paid by the seller rather than the purchaser if the commissions were for the sale of the premises); closing costs were not itemized; mortgage payments with interest were claimed without specific time periods or any breakdown as to how the figures were arrived at; the amount given for the purchase of the land differs from that shown in the Suffolk County real estate transfer records; insurance expense was given without a breakdown as to type or coverage or time periods covered; purpose of payment of corporate tax and miscellaneous expenses was not provided; and the purpose of incurring certain expenditures as a necessity in the process to the extent charged is not provided. Page 6 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 16. With reference to the third requirement, it is the opinion of this Board that the essential character of the locality will be altered. The locality consists mostly of single-family residences, and there is one preexisting restaurant. 17. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) sufficient proof has not been demonstrated as required by the statutes to show that: (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return with underlying facts in dollars and cents proof; (2) the burden of proof of unnecessary hardship or that literal application of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship has not been sufficiently met (Otto v. Steinhilber); (3) the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the locality; (b) the uses proposed are not permitted uses in this zone district and will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance; (c) the current uses of the property and the zone district regulations are not so restricted that the premises could not be used for reasonable purposes; (d) the Board does not dispute that the circumstances and events which have taken place are unique; (e) the property in question is centrally located in center of other Residential Zone Districts, and although the Residential-Office Zone District does permit office use as well as residential use; (f) this Board cannot under the semblance of a variance exercise legislative powers; (g) the denial of this use variance will not cause a building to be destroyed or replaced since the land is vacant with the exception of the foundation wall/footings as mentioned previously; (h) this variance may not be granted because the applicant claims a higher return for retail uses rather than office use or other uses authorized in this RO use district; Page 7 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 (i) Good faith reliance on an invalid permit does not automatically entitle the applicant to a variance {See Rejman v. Welch, 112 AD2d 795, 492 NYS2d 295 (1985, 4th Dept.)}; (j) The issue of a use variance is not whether the use as presently zoned is the most profitable use, but merely whether that use will yield a reasonable return, (see Bellanca v. Gates, 97 AD2d 971, 468 NYS2d 774 (1983, 4th Dept.), affd. 61 NYS 2d 878, 474 NYS2d 480, 462 NE2d 1198.) (k) An application for a change of zone is not without merit and has not been exhausted. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the relief requested in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appl. No. 3915, for the reasons stated above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,~IRMAN ,,"-CEIVED AND FILED BY SOUT oLD TOW Town Clerk, Town of So~thold APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990, at the following times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3954 PHILIP SALICE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30A.4 (100-33), Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 B, for permission to construct an accessory shed and deck with gazebo. Aqcessory shed is less than 3 ft. from a lot line, gazebo is located in the front yard and gazebo and deck are less than 75 ft. from the bulkhead. Property Location: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 106, Block 06, Lot 37. Page 2 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of July 25, 1990 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3960 - THOMAS & ALLISON SARGENT. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, for permission to subdivide a non-conforming lot. Proposed construction of new lot will have insufficient width, depth and total lot area for this district. Property Location: Private Road of Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 06, Block 06, Lot 07. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3955 - DOMINICK SBLENDIDO & A. AURICCHIO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30.3, Article XXIII, Section 100-230 (A), Article III A, Section 100-30A.2 A(1) (100-31A), for permission to construct an addition to existing one family dwelling. Proposed construction is not a permitted use (1) one-family detached dwelling not to exceed one (1) dwelling on each lot (a two family dwelling is not a permitted use). Property Location: 185 Inlet Lane, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 43, Block 004, Lot 37. Page 3 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of July 25, 1990 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3956 - LLOYD GATES. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-101B, for permission to Occupy and use as a Billiard parlor for commercial recreation. Property Location: 46250 County Road 48, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 55, Block 5, Lot 7. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3701 - CHARLES ZAKRA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXV, Section 100-243, Article XXV, Section 100-244, for permission to continue to use the second floor apartment as a non-conforming use. Property Location: 140 Pike Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, Block 4, Lot 5. / ---~-'-/~ 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3915 - JORDAN'S PARTNERS. the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission to construct office and retail stores. Proposed construction is not a permitted use in this District. Property Locations: 1000, Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 34, Block 2, ~.~Lot_ 1. Variance to Page 4 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of July 25, 1990 The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time allotted. Additional time for your presentation will be available, if needed. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated July 17, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GEP3%RD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIP/~AN By Doreen Ferwerda FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . .~..~..~. ,19.0~_~. House No. ' .... · ............... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .... '~--~. · .' .... Block . . .~... ~ ....... Lot . .. ?. ......... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No ........ ' .......... · .... ,~ln~//~nspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL F HEALTH ........... 3 SETZ OF PLANS ............ SURVEY ..................... CHECK ...................... SEPTIC FORH ................ SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 Approved .~- · ·., 19.~.~. Permit No. ). ~.}.~2 .~. a. Tiffs application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is parr of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throu-~hout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or i-n part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by ~e Building Inspector. ' APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectom on premises and in building for necessary inspections. .... .J .OR. D. A. N. S PARTNERS (Signature of applicant, or name, if a cort~orat~c~n) 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge NY 117.88 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ..... OW.N.E.R. Name of owner of premises JOR. DANS PARTNERS (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signatme of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No .......................... Plumber's License No ......................... lectr c an s L~cense No ....................... Other Trade's License No ...................... Loeation ofland on whieh proposed work wil! be done ..... ~ M~±n St. &.~.eGreenport tIouse Number Street, Halnlct County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 9-4 .............. Block 2 .1 Subdivision ..................................... Eiled Map No. (Name) .............. Lot ............... State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Vat-.ant b. Intended use and occupancy . .E~'gp.o.s~ecl. D.££$c~ .&. R.e/qa.$1 Stor s 3. Nature of work (check whic plicable): New Building x. on .......... tSdteration ......... Repair .............. Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work 4. Estimate'd Cost .$.9.2..8.,.0.00,00 (Description) ............................. Fee ...$5,700.00 · (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelhng, nmnber of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor ...... ' If gars:e, number of cars 6. If business. COmmercial or re:xed occupancy s"ec;"- ' '"-' · ' ...................... -, v -y nature ana extent of each type of use . Ret.ail & Office .. ' ' 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............... Rear ............... Depth Height ............... Number of Stories .... · .............. Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. D.epth .. ~ .................... lleight .............. Nu e ' 8. Dimensions of entire new construct o-' ~:--.-- ,.., o o ....... mb r of Stones ..... Hmght . .1.7: 6:' ....... Nu nber of Storie~ 1 ...... Rear ./~.3.2.3 ........ Depth . .143 '.3.". 9. Sizeof ot Front 498' ' '.~ ...... ~a>''$; ........... '. ' ..... .... "d ................ zqear, uzu re.et ,, _ ~'4'5T ............... I0. oa~eo[t'urchase r. el~r~r~ .18, 1988 '[; .... ;U ........... ueptn ........... ................... ~ame o~pormer Owner .~e~o$kos, .Tsaveros, et al 1 I. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ZONE B . . 12. Wdl lot be reoraded Yes g , ordinance or regulatmn...I~Q ............. ,., D.oes proposed construction violate any zonin law .... ' ............. ~ ' '. ............................... ~'~' ~, . ................ Wdl excess fill be removed from prem scs: Yes No ~ame of Owner of premises .J. QI~D. AJ~S. ~P~R.T~.EJ~...'. Address /t/qJ.P.Pb[Jg.E~..Ny ...... Phone No. (51 ~. of Architect .ROBERT GRUBER .......................... Address . .~.DFORD~ NY Phone No (5.],6) 65/*,4949 Name of Contractor TSUNIS ASSOCIATES Address H^I~015~0~E~ 'I~ ...... Phone No. (516) 582-/*000 IS.Is this property located ~althln300 feet of a tidal wetland? ~y~.$ .... · If yes, $outhold Town Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAG RAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or COmer lot. (SEE SITE PLAN) STATE OF NEW YOI~K. ,- CO UNT~Y OF ...... 2:~6 .S ............................................... being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is thc applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. is the .... · (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) ' ' · of said owner or owners, and is duly aut mrized to perform or have e application: that all statements containe in thi~ - ,- , .. p rformed the .sa:d work and to make and le this Wort- .,;n ~.~ -.. c ~., · .,. .d: ....:~ uppvcaugn are true to the best of Ins knowledge and belie ;an ~at the ...... , u~. vcrio.n~u m the mariner set lorth m tile application filed therewitt f Sworn to before me this . l. ....................... dayof .... ~ ........ 19.~/~ /~/ ~ // ·" ' ................. Count // ¥ / 'Signature of applicant) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ~ ~} I ¥ DATE .............................. JJ~-r~ T~OEOZqONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. // L .............................. ....................................... Seuthol~ I'OWl~ c/m,-" Name of Appellant Street and Number .H...A..U..P.P...A..U..q.E. ................................................................................ blE~..~(QP..K ...... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO...LS/87...Z .................... DATED ...d~ae..8,..~Lg~9 ........................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ~EE~EI~×~( revoked orior Building Permit as issued in error by Stop Work Order dated 11/30/89 (see letter attached hereto). ...... J.Q~D~N.'.S..2AR~E~$ ......................................... Name of Applicant for permit of ..8..0..]...~ .o..t..o.r...Ua.r..k..w.~ y. .............. H~up.p.~ ................ ~.~..X~r.k .......... ~L7..8..8. ........... Street and Number Municipality State (×) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ].O. QQ...Fia~.[L.~.t;/;¢¢.t; i~n~ J,.~.0 [~fl~p...]~gfl~fl.t;.~.,..2~.m~r.e.~.Bp..q?t, NY Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section 034Block 02Lot O1 Current 0wrier JORDAN'S PAI~NJ3RS & PAN~iI,TS PAPAZOSLOJ Map No. Lot No. Pri or 0~ner 3SPJ)AN'S PAJ~ ~,_AC~, L~D. a~d 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article V]i Section 100-71 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( × ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous ~J ~ (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... ) X) ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance requested for the reason that lmorm ZB! (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP becousethe applicant will be unable to yeild a reasonable return inasmuch as the purchase price paid for the land was based on an appraised value taking into consideration the fact that the land was (then) zoned for Business Use. Additionally, site plan approval had been obtained for a proposed Shopping Center and substantial time and money have been invested in pursuing the develop- ment of a Shonping Center at this site. Finally, a building permit was issued and construction of the center has commenced. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because this garcel is the only parcel in the immediate vicinity that had been zoned for business use and was subsequently changed to Resident/Office use. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the ~arcel is located on the corner of a major intersection (State Route 25 and Main ~treet) with an already heavy traffic f~ow. Porky's Restaurant is directly across the street from the proposed center and is a high volume landmark restaurant with substantial patronage. Additionally. the architecture of the center will blend in well with the surrounding area. In fact, a center nearly identical in stvle developed by the applicant's principal in Mt. Sinai was the recipient of an historical society architectural award for design excellence. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ~1~//'_ ~' .,~' ) ss COUNTY OF~l~'~) f ....... ~ ................ Sworn tothis .............................................. dayo ...... ~~. .................. ,9~ ....................... ............................. DE..A Notary Public, STate of N~ No. 4885588 Qualified in Suffolk Count~ Commission Expires June 20, ~,Yv- _/ TOWN OF HOLD ~TY RECORD CARD -- ES. SEAS. LAND IMP. STRE~ TOTAL FARM DATE REMARKS ACREAC~ ~, f~c' TYP£ OF BUILDING CB. J MISC. ~ ~ - ~, ~:.-,. LOT AGE NEW NORA&Al. BELOW Farm Acre Value Per Acre liable 1 liable 2 liable 3 oodland ~mpland ~,shlond ease Plot B01LDING CONDITIOF JEst. Mkt. Value Value FRONTAGE ON ROAD BULKHEAD DOCK .,--t ~ :- TOWN OF UT OLD ~ RECORD CARD I LOT YNER STREET VI LLAC-,-,-~ DIST. SU~. . ~..'~ ~,.& d ..., ' , ' .~ ....--./-. /o }~mOWNER, . ~, ~, ,, //Z ~, ~O'~.~ft'~'~/~ ~.~?) .~5-o . ,. S~S. ~ ~ II FA~ ~. CB. MI~. ~t. Val~ ~ND IMP. TOTAL DA~ R~ ..(.~ ~/~/ ,~ .~. ~,,-'/).? t ,, .' -' '.( ,~. ~-.~ / h r '' &, ' " ' - . , ~ ~ ~, ,. . .~ C AGE BUILDING C~D~I~ * ' - , " ~ NOeL BELOW ~0~ ~ Acre Votue Per V~lue able FRONTAGE ON WAT~ . ~dowland DE~ / ~ 7 ' ~se Plot BUSHED al ~K I 'gU_~NDATIO,U (1st) 'OUNDATION (2nd) IOUGH FRAME & -PLUMBING ~NSULATION PER N. Y. STATE ENERGY CODE il FIi;AL ADDITIONA'L COMMENTS: f (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) ........................ >f said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed tile said work and to make and f~le this :Ppi/cation: that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his kno~vlcdge york will be performed in the manner set forth in tile application filed therewith. 3.~ belief; a.~.'~hat the worn to before me this .... /.0. ......... aay or .... . ..... ~9. ................. County ~'t '' V Ig ....... %~'~' ~ t)~O.~ t$ignature of appllc~n t) TO~VN Of: $OUT~OLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL $OUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT ~HIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) N~ 18187 Z Date Permission is hereby granted to: ....~..~...~~ ................. .......~..~.~ ....... ~.~..~~ .......... · .1/"1 ~.......~(..~.~.,....~....y..., ....... ~ ................... ,o ..~.~......H. t,.:,.,...~...~..~....~.....~.~.....~...~ .... at premises located at ../...~..~...~......~..~..~,....~......~..~...~.........J~...~.-.'-.?~.....~..., ...... ...~f,~..... .... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...... .~..~.~. ...... Block .....~....~:.. ........ Lot No ......~..~ ............. pursuant to application dated ........ ~...(~ ..~. 19...~...~.,' '~ ....................... , 6nd 'approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $....~.....~.....0~....:.....~'~ Building Ins~ctor Rev. 6/30/80 OWNER STREET / VILLAGE DIST' SUB. LOT RES. S~S. ML ~ I~ FARM CO~. CB. MICS. Mkt. Volu~ ~ ~ ~, .. AGE BUILDING CONDITION . . N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE ' FA~ Acre Value Per V~lue ~llable FRONTAGE ON WATER W~land FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowland DEPTH Hou~ Plot- BULKH~D , ~. ~.- s~ . ~ w~,/ ~ ~ ~: co~ I~. ~ ~ Ice~?~,r~ / AGE NEW Fa rm Tillable 2 i Tillable 3 BUILDING CONDITIOI' NOR/vtAL~,_.~_ . , BELOW Acre ' '~ I Value Per Acre Woodland ~,~,, Swampland Brushlond House AB~ r FRONTAGE ON WATER Value ..... '" FRONTAGE ON ROAD .... ..~-' BULKH~D .: .. . . Town of gouthold Bu£idinw Dept, Mal~ Rd, P,O. Box 728 Soutnho]d, N,Y, Ii971 Re: Greenport Commons Main St. & North Rd. Greenport. N.Y. ........ eL to confirm my telephone ..... ;-n'~- wl~h ~e;~ard to the above referenced ~ng the h, ui]ding piano to i~clude const- ., ~ic.n'~ of a ~ hour ~;~nr,.~cr~.-~ block fire wall !o~a~ed at .... ,~.~ e×pansion Join~. Revised b~lilding plans follow. R~Sert J. Gruber R.A. TSUNIS ASSOCIATES, IN~ ~=r~=~=~l~ ~=~~)~=~=~ 801 Motor Parkway WE ARE SENDING YOU ~g~ Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] Shop drawings ¢ Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ~For approval [] Approved as submitted [] Resubmit [] For your use [] Approved as noted [] Submit [] As requested [] Returned for corrections [] Return [] For review and comment [] copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] FOR BIDS DUE 19 [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ...... ,~Ai'~,l~wT',: ,3082 ,S.A'...,, · [2' ,,,: 100% · .524 ~ :f.A&fi25c,4P/~ :'. 2275 $,:F ~ · 17 ~ /.5 ~ , · _ ~ :t-:" · -. 7.or,,~z,.'..,s~'o~4c~ ,m~c~n. · USE ~ ?AV~h,ZE~IT; . 10, t33 5.~. x , t? x I!DO% = 172~ C.f. f I ~oo~ : 9,570 s,~. x -t7 ~ /00% . f u~[ 7 P~ zO'~ ~ 7'a~p - 49 v:z · 385~ c,A p~ovz~o ~ : /2, G90 5,F. ~ ,/7 ~ /~ % , . 2157 c,~ ~__ u~ ~ ~ /0~ ~ x 8~ ~ = -~4 ~ A + /00 ~F/~T~ ~. 5TA~ ~E: ,'", ~0' ' ~OPO~D OFFICE f ~zcK VAN Tu~ .~.' ,c ~ / = ~O ' , -" . ~'~ 4-Z~-8~I I ob rt J Grub r Rrchit t :'-:: FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD. N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ..... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ...~./...~. .................... 19 .~.~... ' ~oca,lo~ o~ PFoperty . /o.~.o ,~. . ~,. . ~ ?.~ .~,~:?. . . .~. .~./~,~/- · House No. ' ' ' ' ............. Hamlg~ .. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .... ~-~...' .... Block ...~. ...... Lot ... ?. ......... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. .Lot No .... ' ....... ...d.~,~.' .... ./~.o..-.:..r/ .... ,?,~z~,~.~,,,.,~....,,,~:.~: ~ ~ ~ , ~Xlln~/&nspector . RV 1/80 UILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK STOP WORK ORDER (Ow r P YOU ARE HEREBY NOT~IED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: (A~ress where wor~ i~ to be stoppe~; are notified to immedla~ely s~pend ~1 work ~d bu[l~ng act[~ies ~til this order h~ been resc~nde~ - COXDITIONS UNDER WHICH ~VORK MAY BE RESUMED: ~~ Failure to remedy the c6nditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. VICTOR LESSARD PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR (516) 765-1802 FAX (516) 765-1823 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STOP WORK ORDER TO: JORDANS PARTNERS 801 MOTOR PARKWAY, HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: 1000 MAIN STREET & 160 MAIN RD-Rt. 25, Greenport, N.Y. TAX MAP NUMBER 034-02-01 Pursuant to section 100-282-B of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded. BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: Permit was issued in error, Zone was changed by the Master plan from a B zone to a Residential Office Zone. Office and retail stores are not allowed in this zone. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: Work may be resumed as soon as this zone change is resolved ty the Town Board and okayed by the Planning Board. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offen~e'~punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. CURTIS W. HORTON SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 IELEPHONE ($16) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - CONFIDENTIAL TO: FROM: DATE: --RE: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector v Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner November 30, 1989 Greenport Commons The Planning Board has been informed of the decision to revoke the building permit for Greenport Commons. They are in complete support of that action. The Board's position with regard to Section 100-11. C. is that the site plan approval is not a rule, regulation or a permit. The change of zone by the Town Board overrides the site plan approval that had been granted pursuant to the prior zoning designation. I am in agreement with their position. The understanding is that the permit was issued in error. The Planning Board's site plan approval had been ir~validated by the Town Board's action in adopting the new zoning classification of Residential Office for the subject property. STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE, CERTIFIEO MAIL FEE, AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES. (see front) t. If you want this receip postmarkeq, stick lhe gummed stub to he righ~ of the return address taavmg the receipt attached and p esent the article at a post office service Wiflpow or hand it to your rural carrier, no extra charge) 2. If you gO not want Ibis receipt pos marked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address of the article, date. detach and ,retain the rece p. and mail the art c e. 3. If you ward a return receipt, write the certifieh mail number and your name and address on a return rece pt Card, Form 3811, and attach it ~o the front rd the article by means of the gummed ends if space per- mits. Otherw se. affix to back of article. Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED adjacent to the number. 4. If you Wa0l delivery restricted o the addressee, or to an au ho zed agent of the addressee, endorse RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the articta. 5. Erde~ fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt. If return receipt is requested, check the applicable blocks in item T of Form 3811 6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inqmry PS Form 3800, June 1985 o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o b ~O&~OH 'M SI&~D I~ SENDER: Complete items and 2 when additional services are desired, and ~u.,,v~=~= Items Put vour address n the "RETURN TO Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will pre~e.n.t thl~. care(from be na returned to you The return receipt fee wBI orovida vou the name of the oereon ee.vers~ to and the dst;of de ivery. For additional fees the foBowmg serwoes are,available. Consult postma~ar for fees an~ checl( box{esl for additional service(s) re,q. ueeted. · , . , - .~ ~,~ I ~] Show to w ~h~,.m delivered, date, and addressee s address 2 'D Reatr}cted Delivery ~ ,~. 3. Article>.,]'OR]}z~ sAddressed HD RR HD R-80 LIO VICTOR LESSARD PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR (516) 765-1802 FAX (516) 765-1823 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STOP WORK ORDER TO: JORDANS PARTNERS 801 MOTOR PARKWAY, HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: 1000 MAIN STREET & 160 MAIN RD-Rt. 25, Greenport, N.Y. TAX MAP NUMBER 034-02-01 Pursuant to section 100-282-B of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded. BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: Permit was issued in error, Zone was changed by the Master plan from a B zone to a Residential Office Zone. Office and retail stores are not allowed in this zone. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: Work may be resumed as soon as this zone change is resolved ty the Town Board and okayed by the Planning Board. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. CURTIS W. HORTON SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sourhold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PL~N~G BOARD OFFICE TO~ OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - CONFIDENTIAL TOVVi"! OF ~ (~L.~THOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector v Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ?5 November 30, 1989 Greenport Commons The Planning Board has been informed of the decision to revoke the building permit for Greenport Commons. They are in complete support of that action. The Board's position with regard to Section 100-11. C. is that the site plan approval is not a rule, regulation or a permit. The change of zone by the Town Board overrides the site plan approval that had been granted pursuant to the prior zoning designation. I am in agreement with their position. The understanding is that the permit was issued in error. The Planning Board's site plan approval had been invalidated by the Town Board's action in adopting the new zoning classification of Residential Office for the subject property. TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ~TOP WORK ORDER ,,, .YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: ~Aaa~ess where wo~ i~ ~o be smppea~ - ~rsuant to section/~-~-~_ ~ of the Code of the Town of Southotd, New York you are notified to immediately s~pend ~1 work ~d buil~ng acti~ties ~til this order h~ been tescinde~ - CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: ~~ ~ ~ Failure to remedy the cdnditlons aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprigonment or both. WE ARE SENDING YOU ]g3, Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] Shop drawings '~Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] ~For approval [] For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE THESE ARE TRANSMI'I-I'ED as checked below: [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections [] 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit__ [] Return copies for approval .copies for distribution corrected prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US '7,'" SIGNED: ' INDEX TO EXHIBITS 1. Site Plan. 2. Building Permit. 3. Contract of Sale. 4. Appraisal Report. 5. Mortgage with Suffolk County National Bank - $440,000.00. 6. Correspondence regarding water service from The Village of Greenport. 7. Lease abstracts and Letter of Intent. 8. Stop Work Order. 9. Hard and Softs Costs. 10. Correspondence to and from Mr. & Mrs. William Kart. PARCEL No. I SANITAR"/ DESI~,I _/6H~-,tNJ IE¢£ND · £mE£1FIC,4 T/ON / mooer~ J. Grut:~r - Rrchitect. TOWel OF SOUT'dOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING P£R,~IT CTHIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) f Dote ....... ~'J>..:~ .T .'t?~.....?. ..................... , 19..~..? Permission is hereby granted to: ~ ' ..... ~..~?.=~..:~?. ...... ~....~...q~ ................ . .~.~.J. ..... ~..~'"..Z:~:~;~ ......... to ..~ ....... ~ b..;,~,..~ .......... ~, .......... ~ .... .................................................................................... at promises lmat~ ,. .................................................................................................... ~ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...... ..~....~..~ ....... Black .....~....~:.. ........ lot No .......~...~, ............. "x,~.~ 0..~., C~ 19..~.~., and opproved by the pursuant to application doted .................. ; ....... ~. .......................... , Building Inspector. / Building Inspector Rev. 6/30/80 ISSUED TO · ,notice must be rned to Build y upon corn DATE~ constrUCtion dring tO get a cerl~ifi'~'te ""'of work 'Ion"" OF ill ST. I) t '1 . O0 J H2.00 NO I E: FII{I". I.OSSI{S. 'I hi: f.H. :,f co:lh.'Ic I Coltl,'iill:; IiO c~l:leS] Ohli[ali,,: I nw will nl:ldy. '1 Ms seclkm als, places lisk of luss i:lJo[ Io dosi,[. 'llllg,':,l;ITl{lil:ll{Nl,m:idelhe 2C) d:~yof ,January ,m.c~e. ln:d~edn~d eighty-eighl.: Ut l (;I~'.()RGE MIgSAIKOS: resJd[lig at ]30 West 23[d Street:, N:~w Y()l k, Nqw Ym:k ] () 0 Ir I/ PAN'fEI,IS PAPAZ()GI,OU~ resJdJ, nq at 82-26 235lh Sl:l:o~,t~ lh~J. lecross Manor, Now York ] 142'1, CONS'I'AIITIlNO[; ZERV()f;, [esJdJli(j at NaJll Road, Ouiell[, Ne~ YorA 1~957 and GEORGE TSAVARI: c-(~siding a~ The gl:rand, F:ast Nation, Now Y~)rk 11939, hci:i.,'lllel desclibcd as lhe seller~ nnd Jordan'sPark Place, Ltd.: 801 Motor Parkway, Ilauppauge, New York 11788, hclei,,'~fler (lesclibed as Ihe pUlChaser, I';I INILSSIil II, th:Il Ibc seller ,'igfecs lo sell ami C(lll':/e],',,'llld llle mlch:Iser nUces lu .ildi,1~l', :,II llml ceil:in Id-l, piece or j:3tcel o[ l,'llltl, :vith lite buildi.Bs nml imlifOVelllelllS lheleOll elecl¢,J0 sihtalel lying aml COtlllt~/ Of Suf[()ik, Tows of Sotlthold aud State of New York, botlllded [llld described as IH':iiINNING at the northerly end oE a liue which connects tile eastorJy side of Haiu Street with tile southerly side of North Read and Er(mi said pOJllt of beginniug; running thence North 74 degrees 08 (10 socmlds East sion9 the southerly side or North l/(:ad 498.74 feet I,: land now ~>l" [m;m,~ly]y o[ DavJda; thence along aaid Jast-i,enti.,m,d lal:d ;llJ(I Iland el ZevJLs, AngevJ. l~e, Thilberg and Cr[[chtow, SoLiLh 33 37 IIIJllll[-~s ~O seCOll~S Base 343.07 ieee to land now or [ol-Iller~ ()l~ F]a[]ey; thence alollg sald lasL-mellt:ioned land slid [and el Moot:o, ;1lid Sl:avoh, South 74 d(,gre(~s 33 lllillULos 30 seciHlds Wont 194.1U I:,(,t; Ihencn a[.(}llg tile westerly side el said land ]IOW or lei;marly el };lavl:Jl l;*mLh 26 degra~s 26 lllilltlLes 10 aaCollds Eas~ 1G4.64 leer Io Jhe i.~ Ih-i'ly ~;ido el I{llapp l:]ac~:} [JlollClJ ~lllJl ~] deg~:oe~ 43 IiIJllLIJ(~s 40 So('(HHII; alr)n9 tJl~ II()rtlJOL'].y side or Kllap[) Place 79.97 [eel to land IiOW I)): ~,[ Green; thence Horth 26 d~grees 23 m.inuEes 40 seconds West al(mq ~aid JaaL-mm~tioned laud .[67.24 reel; thence still along said land or Green and lands ()[ o~hers Sou~h 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds Wont 352.65 [eot' ~o [he easterly side of Main S~ree~; ~hence along th~ ~,asLer]y side o~ Main S[ree~ North 25 degrees 25 m.illuLos 20 re,colitis 236.36 reel; Lhance along Lhe aEoresaid line which cmmecLs tim side or North Road with the easterly side of Hain S~r. ee~ North 19 25 minutes 40 seconds Ease 109.04 [ee~ Lo ~he southerly side or North Road at Ihe poi. n~ or place or beginning. JleJllg slid in. tended to be tile Sallie prr, m]ses conveyed to the [arLl. es hr?tell! by deed recorded ill l.iber 9185 cp.438 and tiber 10080 cp.537. Subject to ally state of facts all accurate survey or personal ilJl-- spection may show, provided same does not render title unmarketable; covenants, utility easemeuts, restrictious, rights of way and agreements of record, if any, provided same do not violate existing structures or the use thereof. Tile violations of any coveaaI~ts slid restrictions by existillg improvemelltS shall lief be deemed all objection to title provided the title company illSUrillg title shall agree to insure that such improvements may remain in their present location as long as same shall stand. CONTINUED ON RIDER ATTACI1ED HERETO. I. lhi~ sale htchldes nil rlghl, lille aml I,tcrc:l, if .',Ill,,. of the seller i. ,'md h, ,'my l:,ud l)li'Ig h, Ih? bcd o[ :,,y shtcl, mall ill ~?~llll~ Ol:~.~d or [lel:.S~. iii [lOl~J orol :d]oi.ili[ s:lid J:l~lllJ~[, Ju lh~ ~tnl~ Ii,,? lli?l~:,[.and J.?lliiscs J:~ It::~lll o[ ~h~li[~ o[ [l:d~ ~[ ~ll¥ Mit?l; ~llll ll,~ :dh'; will [~llJ~ 2. 'lhel,,icei, Three hundred ninety-three thousand three hundred thirty-three and thirty-four cents ($39-3,333.34)-I)°ll~s'l'aYableasl°ll°w~: TWId',!'I'Y-[;'IVI!: TIIOUSANI) ($25.000.00) .................................. (m die sigui.fi of Ihis co.hacl, by check '~ubjecl lo coll¢cliu., Ihe receil,I of which is hereby ackm~wlc,lf, ed; Three hundred sixty-eight thousand three hundred thirty-three ...... ~lh,lla~s, and thirty-four cents ($368,333.34) i. cash ur flood ccH,lied clleck lo Ibc mde~ of die sellel 3. ^.y boml ol .ole a.d mOllfinge Io he givetl he,e..der shall be d,awu o. lime sla.dald fu.u~ ¢)[ New Yolk Iloaul o['iille ll.dr~wdle~s I.t .mHgngen ut like lie.; nmi ~hMI be d~awuby Ihe alto.icy fo~ Ihe seller al the eXl,en~e of Ihe p.tcha~eh who shMI also pay Ihe modgage Icco~di.g tax and lecmdl.g s.(h l,.ichasc UltUle)' I.(~llgn~e in fCducliOll of the I~linc'il';d Ihelc.[. ~uch Imfcha~e money ]ltOllg~[~e shall al~o j~.)~idc IhM mu h I,ny.lelll h, the 1.4des Ihe=eo[ sh.II .c',l nllcl ~l ;died the ~Clt.t~E in~l~iJmclit~, nmi sh:dl h. lhcr I,.wide Ih:il Ihe I.dde~ Ilmelro[ will, (.i drlnnn(I and wilhoul cha~ge Ihc~cloh cxccule, ack.owlc(Ige ~ If liIcIr I)e n IIIoil~:lg~ (~11 thr Iqrllli~c:; Ihe ~('11,'~ :q~rcc; h) drlivc, t. thc i.,,j.r~ ( cslilicnle rxr,'.trd Slid fl~ [;I.,wlcdlmd by Iht h,,hl,'. (,I ~.~h . ~,l }'.F.e ;md itl I~,llll I~f IC~,,.,li.l~. cctlil)'i.g a~ h) Ih,' IIl(lllg~Re ~ill .~d hc ill dcf~.lt al {)[ an n scs.it of lite delivery ol the deed'heieu.dcr a.d Ih;H ileilhc, ~aid IIIOIIgagq,lioI ally theseus by icasou of Ibc dclivciy ol the deed hcfc..dc~. 6. Said I.;ct.isc~ n,¢ s,)ld ami a,e to be cuuvcycd xohjcd a. Zo.i.p. ;cgulad..s a.d old,ns.ecs of the city, lu~. o~ village i;t which the p~cmi~es lie xxhkh ale ilo, vioLdcd by exisll.g ~lluChllt'~. c. [~lictoaclu.c.ls of stOOl,S, a,eas, cella, steps, Ili.i a.d cot.ices, if a.y, ulx}n an~ sheel o~ hi~lway. 7. All uotes o, oolices of violalious of law os municipal ofdinaoces, o~de~a os fequi~emeuts .oled iu or issued by the Depa~t- mu. Is ofllousi.g and gulldingt, Fite. Labor, llealth, or olher SfateorMu.icip~ Department havi.g jt.isdiction, ag~i,~st o~ ~flecti.g Ihe I.emises at Ihe date hereof, shall be comldied with by the seller a.d the p~emines shMI be conveyed the same. a.d this pmvisiou of tldn conhact shall st. vive dciive~y of Ihe deed hefeu.de[. ~he selle[ shall [u.flsh tl~e chase[ with aft aothofizatio, lo make the ileCeSSary searches thelelbl. ~. All ohhgatmns nffectmgX~e i.e..s¢~ hicu.o~lde~ die I.metge.c~epai~n ~;ovis.ms of the Admlulshatl e Code ()f the City of New Yo~k~ctio.s 564-18.0. elc.l'l,,io[ lo the dehve,y ol'tl~e d~ed shall be paid a.d d,scha,ged by thescl- leg~m, rite delivery of thCdeed. ~his ptovisiou sl~bll su~e Ihe dui,yeW o~he ~eed. 9. If. at the li.ie of ~he dui,rely of Ihe deed,~e ),emis~ .r ally ~nU thereof shall be or sh~l have bce~baffecled assess'u~.t or assess.~l~ts which aT~t may I~olue ,a)'at)l~ift n.lU~M~.slalh.cl~s, of which~lh~.l.sl mxlalhooot chat~e ordie., of has bce. ¢aid, Ihe. Jor the I t.poses ~ f ~his c~ .t~ct 311 the t ~id .n ~h.cnin ,4 auRs.c 3sses~;e i.cludi.g l~9f¢ whirl are Io become d~e a,~ payald¢ afl. lfl$ delivery of Ihe deed diMl_bc dee.t~l Io be due ami (. be li¢~x . ~on the p~cmiscs afl.cd Ihe;d~y a.d sha~ ~ paid a.d disch~gd~y lhe scl~¢r..po~ Ihe d~hve~y td Ihe deed. "xx X ~X x 10. 1he followi.g a~e Io he I I. If Ibc closi.g of tl~c lille sba:! occ.r I~efl.¢ thc I:~x rate is fi~cd, thc nl,p(~diem. Clll of Inxcs ~hall be .l~Of~ RII]F:R /¥1"l' :1 'ID JLND FOILMtNG PAI~I' OF CON'I'I~ (JF L;~I,F; BI':IWI':I':N · (;I~I)I~GI'; ~SA1KOS, ~I'I~LIS P~AZ~I.DU, CONST~L'JNOS ZERVOS ~qD G~R~g TSAV~S, ~ SLL~I~, ~D dORDAN's ~ PUI~I~ER. PARK PLACE, LTD. hr,:ein a libel: r,[ ;iny (:l)jq{:li,ul~; ~,1' Vilrllfll JrlllS whitth III;ly ;:l,t:ear on viol;il i~lll~; nl~p();ir rill said til I(~ eX~llllill;ll i{lll fllld (:;lllllrll ])r~ (,.l' o. ared vi-lalinns, lhdhillg hnrein ~dla.ll h{~ deemed I:n I:equilr~ Ill,, sellers I~, lu*](I h;lt'llllo313l all(1 illtl(-illlli r¥ I hr? ~;ol I. ol78 Thin COIll. I ;I,TI Ila;ly Bt)l; I)t~ ~l!In[yllt!tl ~[I.luml: Lh..xpt .:m wt Il I,,11 I:nli!t,,nl Tho nulmtlnni,m ,)1' till. col~t.t'nul: loon I1.1; d61snl [lllt*, ;m .fl,.i ;u.l II [lu, lr! I~ ri ~',,.fllcl: I.?lw.r,n Ill*~ i,ilnl{~d p,,~l.l,,.~: ,,r Iisi!: The down i,:~ym,,nl hr~l*.nudr, r ~d,,all I)f? I.;Id lit e~:[,l{~w I,y I:'1~.,I-~ i~'1: J. 'l'nd~n~:lsl, ;ll l,:llu,y [*~t' th~. [If'] [1'1'~ :In ~n{'lTM n'l~nt Illll il ('l,,~llll':l t:ltln. Th,, ~'f:~'l~SV/ ;l*l~.lll: nlusll I.,1: Iw. I~.,l~lllO,I In any w:~y I,, dl~l~.lnliu,' -Itt:h tscl IlSll ,I,.Itl,,ll,tl I nl ,.n had [n I I h. '1'11~. i)111 t.h:l~lr.l' ;lll,I I h,. .,, I It.l II~l;~h~, ~tllll,~l [;'~, Ih,~ ~lUl:~ ngolll, III Ihq t~Vol~l Ihr. y I,t~t"'lU~' ill llll~aLi,,n hy ~-amm .[ thin ~:.llll;w~l- -[ ~wllp I. d,.I,*mll wllh lira wl.~k ,,I Ih,, f'-ml: In ~hlwh m~(dl tltlqal, l-. I~ I,-mliu'l, all ~lpllv[~l.d 1,~ Ih,. ,,m~l~w nq,.lll: h.loul.h,l: nmi IIw. l,..l-,n, Ih,. ~,~l~l~,v/ nhall h- lully t,,llnw, d and dlnt:ha~g-d -f n.y fmlh-~ the pvent: il i~ Ihl~al.qllml ~ll.h Ittlgal:l-n, I. Ii~lp,l,lr.;wl all parLlen in any ~',m~ I: -[ ~:.mt,~l_msl: jm:indi~.:l I.n nml I-d-I,'-:lL with I1,,. [h~ enclm¢ n,:l.nl ~dmll he [.lly l.ll~ved and dln~'hn,q,'d -I' ;~ny [ul llu'~: nn~ .[ tim I'umln d.p,mtl.od ~[Ih il: hnr~umlpr at.I nhall .,,1 h- IatUs. Tho |mt; l: I I.. lu'th~ I!v~.nl Ill I. ..halt [nit I:. I:l{~nq dne'l.- ti.' willful d,~raulL ,~1 UIO Jlll~t~Jln[1ot, Ihf. rlt~wll jwl'fnlqlll: Jlf~lp~llltJ01- nmdo, hi: I Jlo ,~1,1 J,,u ~1- l il- ill ISO ~antelis Papazaglou is a seller herein for the purpose of conveying his /~ike interest to himself} with no consideration to be paid to him under this contract. ' Purchaser shall have the r~ght to assign this contract to a corporation to be formed in which he shall be a p~incipal and his liability shall terminate upon such assignment. The agreed upon value of these premises is five hundred ninety thousand ($590,000.00) dollars. ,.,.-. I tile jlrelllise~:, lite srller ~;Itall Illllli leallinl~ to a ~l;ite not IllOle Ihan Ihilty ~la)'s the inlelvenin§ lime shall bt al,l)oHioned on Ih¢ basis el such last leadi.§. lequiled by s.bdivision .S of Section 13 of thc Lien Law. ils Itoa.I of I)hectols aulholiziu~ the sale ami d,.'li'.'cly .t flit deed, aud a celli|icnlt by the Secrehltv or ^ssistanl leq. ileulel'H~t (d Secliou 909 (ff the Ih,si.ess C()ll.)fali(.~ l.aw. 'lhe deed in such cast' shall emil:ii,, a lecihd sulli~ieul eslablish c()l.ldifl.ce wilh smd section. 14. At Ihe el.sing el Ihe lille die selh![ shall dcli%'el Io 1he pu,chasef ~ ceflilied (heck Io (Ill. -lder ill' Ihe ic~l.dlr thttclc, iii aCcoldauce ',villi A,licle 31 c)l Ihe Tax Law, a.d a rellilied check Io die mdc. ~,1 Ihl. alqu.i)liah' Ii, any othel lax payahl¢ hy ltasou of lite deli%ely ol Ihe deed. a,d a ~'¢tl, n. il a,)he icq,i,'d, d,ly siRIwd ;iud sw.)lu i dclivclcd Id Iht al~l)lOllliMe idficer I~r.ml~lly alt¢l the al.sinC .I lille. A, ~ t..I ~l ; . I,u l.h, ; Il, ~ ()'1 rfc (cai '.;pc,iv I f:m~h'~l;~ ilnl,.';cd I,v '1 tile II .1~( ){i ,h'r .ll,.~l' lite Adntiu~\l!:i'l~ ulali u';."lsst eli .usu;)! I~.~the a.lli"~otily Iheu'-I~lldv s;I ned :md.,. s',,.,~l~ 1o I;y~he ~lh'l; It~',~l..,~:!'~¢f ag~ies I~',iy,. 16. 'lite scllcl sit:ill I..ive a.4 tile llllltltasel sh;,il ;H'Ct'III a tilh' snch ;is ~lly L i I. 1 (~ cOlnl)an)' (lei lic~ ~ll.~3 J lit i Il ~tl F fo] k (.!()lllllty aud . a I%h'mhel .I Ihe Nc','./ %l'otk Ito.'ud o[ lille th~d,:t'.'.',ih']s, x;ill approve ;l[r,l I lis ~:~". ~ v.' II q~ ' ' ~ ' I 'd~' ~,, ~;f .1~' ..'~,,i.. ~'7~. .~ . e~ a.,b,.,i, ks.I. .. ,~'ls~,;,I .,~..'llyr:. mchld,:. b(lxes, stv.~dovls, mail'ff~xts, weMhe~'.'anes. Ila.~l,.le'L i...l~.shud)l~tl.~and out(~ol slalua~x V A C A N '1' b A N D. lo Ihe ii;lie cll clod[q; uf lille, al, lets Io I,cvide al tile cl,~siu~', S('l,,Hatt ccltilied ( I,'~ k~ ;,s rcq,c';tcJ, ;tltcle§;itin~ Iht s¢llel ,,,,,ill be Io r(~{UlU] Io tile [)ulclloser tile aUlOUnl paid on ,qceounl (,r Ihe I.IlchaNe pdce~,,.d l,) pay tile net examinin~ lilt tide, which cost is riot to exceed tl~e chaqTe~ lixed hy 1he New Yolk Boaul o[ I ide I ht,ie[wfilels, alid Ihe this conlt~cl sh;mll he considered canceled. ~.L 'lhedeedshM{bedelive~eduponlhefec~ipto[saidPaYmentsattheo[ficeo~ ~O~i~k J. '~'~ch~, 'clockon ~~9~ 19 at ]O:OOAH o 24. 'lhepaHiesag~eethat no broker isthcbmke[ and a[tees 1o take title "as is" and ill their ptesen( condition and sul~ject to leasonable use, weal, leah alTd natural dete[iof~ lion between the date theleof and the closing of ~6. ]hH agreement may not be changed or te.,illated orally, the stipulathms aforesaid ate io apply to aud bind ~7 f tw) o~ nnle ~elsons co s u e elle[ lie seler or epu chaser the wo~" iici" of the wo~d "p [c ase~ JN TVII'NESS T~[[EREOF, this agreement has been duly executed by the pa[ties ~', :T~RTE*e)F flEW,YOnK. COUNTY OF ~: On I1.~ day of I% ,bcfote me petsonal]~ came to me known to be the individual described In and who ex- ecuted Ibc fo~egoh:g inshmnent, and acknowledged that execnle2 the same. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 4: ()ti the day of 19, , befme me pel~sonally cattle to me known, who, being by me dnly sworn, did depose and say he lesides at No. that he is tide . the colpo~ation de:,cdbed it! and x~hieb executed the foregoing inst~umeut; that he knows me,t is snch colpotale seal; that it was so affixed by olde~ of boald of ditech. S of said cou~o~atinn, and that be signed h name Iheteto by like older. ;TATE OF NEW UNTY OF On lite 19 , befole per sonal.l¥ canle to me known to be the individual described In and who ecutcd tire foregoing inshumeut, and acknowledged that executed tile same. STATE OF NEW yORK. COUNTY OE On tile day of 19 , before me pcrsoually came to me knowu and known to nde to be a partner hi a paltnelship, a[l(I knowu to me to be Ihe pellon described in and who executed lite fo]egoing inshmnent In ~e parhlersbil~ nalne, and said duly acknow edged that he executed the folegoing Inshument fo{ and ou behalf of said partnership. 19. , at Closing of title under the within conhact is he;eby adjmmled to ; title to be closed and all adjustments to be made o'clock, at as of 19 I)ated, 19 Fo~ value received, the within contract and all the fight, title and intelest of the puichasel Ibeleunder a~e heleby assigned, tlansfet{ed and set ovel nnlo and said assignee hereby assnules all obligations of tide purchase! thereunden 19 Dated, -- ~ GEORGE MESAIKOS, PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, CONSTANTINE ZERVOS and GEORGE TSAVARIS, TO JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. tDI.IFE TITLE INSURANCE Compan~ of New Yolk SEC1 ION BLOCK cOUNTY OI1 TOWN I'REMISF.$ U:I. IFE TITLE INSURANCE FREDERICK J. TEDESCIII ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET - BOX 562 GREENPORT, N. Y. l1944mpm. 516 477-2048 'FILE OBSERVANCE OF 'FILE FOLLOWING SUGt;ESTIONS %~II.L SAVE lIME AND TROUBLE AT .FILE CLOSING OF .Fills Tll'LE ~lte SELl. ER slnmhl bring with him all insntance policies and dnldicates, lcceipled bills roi taxes, assessments and water rates, and any leases, deeds or agleement~; affecting the p~opedy. ~eu Ihese is a wate~ meter ou the p~emises, be shonld order it icad, and bdng bills Ibe~efor to the closing. If Ihe~e a~e mollgages on lite properly, he shonld promptly at[ange to oblaiu the evidence tcqni~cd nndcl Paraglaph 5 of this conhact. lie should h.nish Io the lmrchase~ a full Iisi of tenant% giving the napxes, ~ent paid by each, and date Io which file lent has been paid. 'Ibc ptJRCIIASER should be prcpaled with cash or certified check dlawn to lbo o~dcr of the ~,:llen The check nlay be cefti(icd for an nFI,mXimate :nl~odnl aiR] CaR}l ilia)' be p[ovJdcd [o1 lite balance of the settlement. AL ESTATE APPRAISER 158')' G R-~-DY AV~NUl HOLBROOK, NY 11741 (516) 585-9111 · (516) 737.6319 February 18, 1988 Mr. Peter Almasy, VLce President Suffolk County National Bank 6 West 2nd Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: S/E corner of Main Road (SR 25) Greenport, N.Y. Dear Mr. Almasy: in accordance with your request to appraise the above captioned property, please be advised that I physically inspected the above captioned property on February 16, 1988. The subject property is vacant 'land and is designated on the suffolk County Real Property Tax Maps as follows: District 1000; Section 034; Block 02; Lot 001. The subject is approximately 4.7 acres i~% area. The subject is zoned B Light Business by the Town of Southold. B zoning is defined in the zoning cede for theTown of Southold in Article VI paragraphs 100-60 thru and including paragraph 100-63. (See Addendum B). The subject property has access from: 1. Main Road (SR 25); 2. Main Street and 3. Knapp Plaoe. Therefore, it is the opinion of this appraiser that the highest and best use for the subject property would be retail storss as permitted by zoning code. Income Approach - not applicable Cost Approach - Not applicable Co~parabke Sales Approach. Note: There have been no re-sales of parcels six months, outside the 1001-4-10-28.4 Front S~reet, Sale Date: Sale Price: Plot Size: vacant "B" Zoned in the subject's ares within the last therefore all comparables used are subject area. Greenport, N.Y. 12-87 $140,000 .30 acres 1000-61-4-1 Main Road, Sale Date: Sale Price: Plot Size: Southold, N.Y. 10-87 $435,000 2.3 acres 3. 1000-122-7-3 Main Road, Mattituck, .... le Date: 4-87 Sale Price: $350,000 Plot Size: 4.1 acres N.Yo Rased on the research and analysis of the comparables listed ~ove, it is my opinion that a Fair Market Value of the suki:~ct, as of February 16, 1988, is Five Hundred and Ninety TWO '£housan~ nollars 15592,000.00) . A..I. : ~ ~.II;(]A, f.;A-S, AAC;A _ /THIS MORTGAGE, madethe 18th dayof February , nineteen hundred and eighty-eight ~TWEENJORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD., 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, ,,~ ~New York 11788 c~ ~A,~r~-I~ P'~P/lv-O~aoc/ I'~'~,'c~,~' ~- ~z-ZA ~ DIST. 1000 SECT. 034.00 BLOCK 02.00 LOT 001.000 and the mortgagor, THE SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, a national banking corporation having its principal office at 6 West Second Street, Riverhead, New York 11901 , the mortgagee, WITNESSETH, that to secure the payment of an indebtedness in the sum of FOUR HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND AND NO CENTS .................... ($440,000.00) ........ -dollars, lawful money of the United States, to be paid with interest thereon to be corn ted per annum, and to be paid on the~..'~ day of 19 , next ensuing and . , according to a certain bond, note or obligation bearing even date herewith, the mortgagor hereby mortgages to the mortgagee ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lylngandbelng'~IxRIg near Greenport, County of Suffolk, Town of Southold and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northerly end of a line which connects the easterly side of Main Street with the southerly side of North Road and from said point of beginning; RUNNING THENCE llorth 74 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East along the southerly side of North Road 498.74 feet to land now or formerly of Davids; THENCE along said last mentioned land and land of Zevits, Angevine, Thilberg and Critchlow, South 33 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds East 343.07 feet to land now or formerly of Flatley; THENCE along said last mentioned land and land of Moore, Begley and Stavoh, South 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds West 194.18 feet; THENCE along the westerly side of said land now or formerly of Stavoh South 26 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East 164.64 feet to the North- erly side of Knapp Place; THENCE South 72 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds West, along the northerly side of Knapp Place 79.97 feet to land now or formerly of Green; THENCE North 26 degrees 23 minutes 40 seconds West along said last mentioned land 167.24 feet; THENCE still along said last mentioned land of Green and lands of others South 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds West 352.65 feet to the easterly side of Main Street; .. THENCE along the easterly side of Main Street North 25 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds West 236.36 feet; THENCE along the aforesaid line which connects the southerly side.of North Road with the easterly side of Main Street North 19 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds East 109.04 feet to the southerly side of North Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. TOGETHER with all right, title and interest of the mortgagor in and to the land lying in the streets and roads in front of and adjoining said premises; TOGETHER with all fixtures, chattels and articles of personal property now or hereafter attached to or used in connection with said premises, including but not limited to furnaces, boilers,, oil burners: r,a, diators and piping, coal stokers, plumbing and bathroom fixtures, refrigeration, air conditiomng aha sprinkler systems, wash tubs, sinks gas and electric fixtures, stoves, ranges, awnings, screens, window shades, elevators, motors, dynamos, refrigerators, kitchen Hbinetsi. incinerators, pl.ants and shrubbery and all other equipment and madfinery, appliances, fittings, and fixtures of every kind m or used in the operation of the buildings standing on ~id premi ,s~s. j together .with any and all replacements thereof and additions thereto; TOGETHER with all awards heretofore and hereafter made to the mortgagor for taking by eminent domain the whole or any part of said premises or any easement therein, including any awards for changes of grade of streets which said awards are hereby assigned to the mortgagee, who is hereby authorized to collect and receive the proceeds of such awards and to give proper receipts and acquittances therefor, and to apply the same toward the payment of the mortgage debt, notwithstanding the fact that the amount .owing thereon ,m,ay..not then be due and payable; and the said mortgagor hereby agrees upon request, to matte, execute ano aenver any and all assignments, and other instruments sufficient for the purpose of assigning said awards to the mort- gagee, free, dear and discbarged of any encumbrances of any kind or nature whatsoever. AND the mortgagor covenants with the mortgagee as follows: 1 That th~..morga~gor wi!l p~ the |ndebte4ness as hereinbefore provided. 2. That the mortgagor ~zill keep the buildings on the premises insured against loss by fire for the benefit of the mortgagee; that he will assign and deliver the policies to the mortgagee; and that ,he will reimburse the mortgagee for any premiums ~paid for insurance made by the mortgagee on the mortgagor s default in so insur- ing the buildings or in so ass,gning and delivering the policies. 3. That no building on the premises shall be altered, removed or demolished without the consent of the mortgagee. 4. That the whole of said principal sum and in?rest s.ba. II become due at the, option o.f the, m.o~ga, ga?.: after default in the payment of any instalment of principal or of ~n. tetest for fifteen ?ys; o,r,atter o?~amt~n m,e ~ay.: ment of any tax water rate, sewer rent or assessment .for t?rty days a.f.ter .not~ce. uno uema.n?.; or arte.r aetanit after notice and demand either in assigning and dehvenng the pohc~es msunng the .budd. mgs aga:n, st,loss by fire or in reimbursing the mortgagee for premiums paid on such insurance, as herembetore prowuen; or after default upon request in furnishing a statement of the amount due on the mortgage and whether any offsets or defenses exist against the mortgage debt, as hereinafter provided. An assessment which has been made payable in instalments at the application of the mortgagor or lessee of the premises shall nevertheless, for the purpose of this paragraph, be deemed due and payable in its entirety on the day the first instalment becomes due or payable or a lien. 5. That the holder of this mortgage, in any action to foreclose it, shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver. 6. That the mortgagor will pay all taxes, assessments, sewer rents or water rates, and in default thereof, the mortgagee may pay the same. 7. That the mortgagor within five days upon request in person or within ten days u~on request by,mail will furnish a written statement duly acknowledged of the amount due on this mortgage uno whether any o~sets or defenses exist against the mortgage debt. 8. That notice and demand or request may be in writing and may be served in person or by mail. 9. That the mortgagor warrants the title to the premises. 10. Tbat the fire insurance policies required by paragraph No. 2 above shall contain.the usual extended cover' age endorsement; that in addition thereto the mortgagor, within thirty days after nottce and demand, will keep the premises insured against war risk and any other hazard that may reasonabl~ be required by the mort. gagee. All of the provisions of paragraphs No. 2 and No. 4 above relating to fire insurance and the provismns of Section 254 of the Real Property Law construing the same shall apply to the additional insurance required by this paragraph. I1. That in case of a foreclosure sale, said premises, or so much thereof as may be affected by this mortgage, may be sold in one parcel. 12. That if any action or proceeding be commenced (except an action, to foreclose this mortgage or t.o collect the debt secured thereby), to which action or proceeding the mortgagee ~s made a party, or in which it becomes necessary to defend or uphold the lien of this mortgage, all sums paid by the mortgagee for the expense of any litigation to prosecute or defend the rights and lien created by this mortgage (including reasonable counsel fees~ shall be void by the morteagor, together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum, and 'a'ny.such s'mn an'd the intere~ s~ there%n shall be a lien on said premises, prior to any right, or titl~ to, interest m or claim upon said premises attaching or accruing subsequent to the lien of this mortgage, and shall be deemed to be secured by this mortgage. In a~.y', action or proceeding to foreclose this mortgage,'or to recover or collect the debt secured thereby, the provisions of law respecting the recovering of costs~ oVis~ourse- ments and allowances shah prevail unaffected by this covenant, and the holder of this ,mortgage, in any action to foreclose same, shall be entitled to reasonable a~ ~ney's fees to be fixed b~he Court. il'~ 'rh~t the mort~'ao, or hereby assigns to the mortgagee the rents, iss~-es and profits of the premises as further ~'~uri~,'f'or the pa~,,~'~nt of sa~d indebtedness, and the mortgagor grants to the m,ort~ge.e, the rig.hr to enter upon and take possession of the premises for the purpose of collecting the same anu to let the premises or any part thereof, and to apply the rents, issues and profits, after payment of all necessary charges and expenses, on account of said indebtedness. This assignment and grant shall continue in effect until this mortgage is pald..Tbe mortgagee hereby waives the right to enter upon and take possession of said premises for the purpose of collecting said rents, issues and profits, and the mortgagor shall be entitled to collect and receive said rents, issues and profits until default under any of the covenants, conditions or agreements contained in this mortgage, and agrees to use such rents, issues and profits in payment of principal and interest becoming due on tlds mortgage and in payment of taxes, assessments, sewer rents, water rates and carrying charges becoming due against ~id premises, but such right of the mortgagor may be revoked by the mortgagee upon any default, on five days written notice. The mortgagor will not, without the written consent of the mortgagee, receive or collect rent from any tenant of said premises or any part thereof for a period of more than one month in advance, and in the event of any default under this mortgage will pay monthly in advance to the mortgagee, or to any receiver appointed to collect said rents, issues and profits, the fair and reasonable rental value for the use and occupation of said premises or of such part thereof as may be in the possession of the mortgagor, and upon default in any such payment will vacate and surrender the possession of said premises to the mort- gagee or to such receiver, and in default thereof may be evicted by summary proceedings. 14. That the whole of said prindpal sum and the interest shall become due at the option of the mortgagee: (a) after failure to exhibit to the mortgagee, within ten days after demand, receipts showing payment of all taxes, water rates, sewer rents and assessments; or (b) after the actual or threatened alteration, demolition or removal of any building on the premises without the written consent of the mortgagee; or (c) after the assignment of the rents of the premises or any part th?eof without the written consent of the mortgagee; or (d) if the buildings on said premises are not maintained in reasonably good repair;or (e) after failure to comply with any requirement or order or notice of violation of law or ordinance issued by any governmental depart- meat claiming jurisdiction over the premises within three mofiihs from the issuance thereof; or (f) if on application of the mortgagee two or more fire insurance companies lawfully doing business in the State of New York refuse to issue policies insuring the buildings on the premises; or (g) in the event of the removal, dem- olition or destruction in whole or in part of any of the fixtures, chattels or articles of personal property covered hereby, unless the same are promptly replaced by Similar fixtures, chattels and artldes of personal ro ert at least e ual in quality and condition to those replaced, free from chattel mortgages or other encum- P P Y q ...... ":~,, da s' notice to the brances thereon and free' from any reservation of title thereto; or in) axter L,,,,,: y mortgagor, in the event of the passage of any law deducting from the value of land for tile purpose of taxation any lien thereon, or changing in any way the taxation of mortgages or debts secured thereby for state or local purposes; or (1) if the mortgagor fails to keep, observe and perform any of the other covenants, conditions or agreements contained in this mortgage. 15. That the mortgagor will, in compliance with Section 13 of the L. ien Law, r,.ece, iv, e the. ad~nces secured, hereby and will hold the right to receive such advances as atr, ust fun.d to be appoe.a .,nrst xo.r ?.e, pu. rpose _o_t paying tile cost of the improvement and will apply the same nrst to me payment ut me cost ox me tmprove- ment before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. 16. That the execution of this mortgage has been duly authorized by the board of directors of tile mortgagor. 17. In the event that any payment shall become overdue for a period in excess of fifteen (15) days, a late charge of two (2) cents for each dollar ($1.00) so over- due may be charged by t/~e ~Drtgagee for the purpose of defraying the expense incident to handling such delinquent payment.~ 18. This mortgage shall becc~0e due and payable forthwith at the option of the mortgagee if the mortoagor shall convey away said premises or if the title thereto shall bec~me %~sted i~ another persc~ or persons in any manner whatsoever. 19. The obligor shall have the privilege, at any time, to prepay this obligation in whole or in part, ' ' ~ ' ~ 20. The u~paid principal s%m~ secured by this mortgage shall bear interest at a rate per ann~ eq,~] to Prim~ (as fixed by chase Manhattan Bank for substantial New York City commercial bor~owers) plus one (1%) percent as said rate may change frcm /_otO time, and shall be adjusted q~,_,a~terly c~ th~ rate in effect on the 1st day ach quarter hereafter, ~mtil the entire principal s~.hereof has been fully paid, notwithstanding an)., default hereusder, or cc~demnat~on of the mortgaged premises. This mortgage may not be changed or t?rn~.in~, ted orally..T~ae cov~.~..ts contained m this. mo~gage run with the land and bind the mortgagor, the heirs, persona~ represenmuves,.s.u, ccessors, ann as.si .gns. ox u~ mortgagor and all subsequent owners, encumbrancers, tenants and subtenants ox.me pr.e~..ise% uno snan e~, ~.e to the benefit of the mortgagee, the ~ers°ua~ reoresentatlves,, successors and asmgns ut. the. morteagee,~, ann an. subsequent holders of this mortgage. The worc~"mortgag,o,r' shall be ,construed as if it read. ,m. ortga.gors and the word ' mortgagee" Shall be construed as if it read ' mortgagees whenever the sense ut this mortgage so requires. IN WITNESS WHF. REOF~ this mortgage has been duly executed by the mortgagor. IN PRRSgN~E OP: STATE OF* NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS: to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that 13C~ executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, Store of New No. 47395~12 - Suffolk County~(:~ STATE o, NEw SS: Onthe 18th dayof February, 1988 ,beforeme personally came JOHN C. TSUNTS to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and saythat he resides at No. 108 High Street, Port Jefferson, New York 11777 that he is the President of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. . , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- tion, andthat he signed h i ~ame thereto by like order. N~' SU~AN p').e.T ~OC~Rg UTARy PUBLIC, *Bl~fo Of New Yor~ No. 473954;? - Suffolk County ~ Commission Expires, April 30, tR..~/ TITLE NO. JORDAN' S PARK PLACE, LTD. TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK STANDARO FORM Of NEW YORK OOARD OF TITLE UNDIE~WIlITERS Distributed by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS: On the day of 19 , before'me personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the same. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS: On the. day of 19 , before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I ara personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present an.d saw execute the same; and that he, said w~tness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. 5E~'rlON BLOCK LOT COUNTY OR TOWN Recorded at Request of CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Return b7 Mail to SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI AI'roRNLIY~ AND OOUNSELORS AT I.~W ~ GRIFFING AVENUE P.O. BOX 389 Zip No. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 ~ '90 03'15 14:12 ~727'2~,10 MAIN OFFICE THE SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK 6wE~rSECONDSTREET'P,O, BOX269' RIVERHEAD, N~WYORK 11901 .(510) 727,2700 March I5, 1990 JOBDAN~S PARK PLACE, LTD. c/o John C. Tsunis 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge~ ~ew Yo~k 11788 Prop~rt~: S/~ Corner Main Street and North Road, Greenport, NY (Town of Scuthold) Gentlemen* As per our conversation of March 13, 1990, you have ag=ced to re- duce the mortgage note #54671 from $440,000.00 to $340,000.00 and wo have aqr~d Lu ~%~D~ the note for twelve (12) months £~O~ February 18, 1990 to February 18, 1991. The continuance of our first mortgage position is required. Interest only will be payable quar=erly at the prime rate plus one (1) poroont until the fina~ paymen~ ~% maturity, when the entire principal balance of $ 340,000.00 plus interest will be due and payable. The interest rate will be the Prime Rate as set by the Chase Manhatta~ Bank plus one (1) percent and will be determined at closing. The interest pay- able each quarter will be computed and adjusted from time ~o time aS the Chase Manhattan Ban~ announces changes to the Prime Rate. Mortgage title insurance and a current survey quaranteed to Suffolk County National Bank are required. Title question~ and legal matters are subject to approval of the Bank's attorney with legal fees and ~isburse- manta to be paid by you as well as recording fees. pREPAYMENT There is to be no prepayment penalty. RESTRICTIONS: If the property is so!d or conveyed, this loan must be prepaid in full unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Bank. LAT~ CHARGES* A penalty of 2% of the amount due will be assessed if any interest payment or the final principal and interest payment is calved more than 15 days after the due date. pRePAID FINANCE CHARG..E: A fee of one (1) percent of the extended mortgage amount will be pai~ by you, the mortgagor, at closing. APPROVALS: This commitment is subject to compliance with all laws, rules~ regulations ~nd d£=eotivea of governmental bodies and agencies controlling or affecting this transaction and execution of all documents required and approved by our attorneys. THE SI.]FFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BA~K S ~ ~NATUKES: ACCEPTANCE: The closing instruments must be signed corporately and individually by John Tsunis, James Tennis, charles Tsunis and Pantelie Papazaglou. This commitment to be effective must be signed and returned to the Bank within fifteen (15) days of the above date. This co~itment will be void l~ assigned. Copies of our note an& mortgage forms will be made available to your aKtorney ~r4or to loan =losing upon receipt of a writtol~ loan request by oloslng attorney. EXPIRATION DATE: This commitment will expire on April 30, 1990. NO extension will be granted. INSURANCEi A general liability policy (binder not acceptable) insuring the Bank and its assigns as first mortgage for at least $340~000.00 must be delivered at closing. BANK'E CLOSING ATTORNEYS: Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Islet and Yakaboski, 456 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901 (727-4100). pLACE OP CLOSING: OTHER CONDITIONS: The closing of ~his loan will take place at Suffolk County National Bank, 6 Wast Second Street, Riverhead, NY 11901. (1) Interest on $440,000.00 loan due February 18, 1990 and interest accrued since maturity must be paid to the date of closing. (2) Personal and corporate accounts to continue to be maintained at the ba~k's Medford Branch for the life of this loan. Aggregate balances are not to fall below $50,000.00. If you should have any questions regarding this commitment (except for matters pertaining :o the closing which should be referred to our attorney), please call Peter M. Almasy, (516)727-2700 ext. 55. Very truly yours, Peter M. Almasy, Vica-Dresident Commercial Loans Approved and Accepted by: John T~unis Charles Tsunis MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES STEPHEN L. CLARKE JEANNE SI. COOPER DAVID S. CORWIN GAlL F. HORTON SUP~. OF UTILITI ES /AMES 1. MONSELL 236 THIRD STREET P.0, BOX AH GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 119;4 May 16, I988 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (5 I6) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (5 t6) 477-0172 Mr. John Tsunis 80I Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York Dear Mr. Tsunis: 11788 Re: Greenport Commons North Road & Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 Your proposed project of a 29,000 square foot Shopping and Office MaII with water and sewer services has been under study with the Village of Greenport since 1986. Sewer service with the ViIlage of Greenport is not avaiIable at this time. Your projected sewer Ioad was 2,022 gaI1ons per day. You should make other arrangements for sewage disposai. Water service wilI be suppIied by the ViIIage Water Department at your projected load of 3,000 gal/day with a peak demand of 30 gaI/min. When we have the capability to serve you, we will enter into a contract. We shouId be in a position tb enter into a contract within the coming year. If I may be of further service, JIM:nr cc: George Hubbard, Mayor Ali VilIage Trustees Utility Committee VaIerie Scopaz Victor Lassard please calI. Very truly ~/~s,. ~ James I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities JOHN C. TSUNiS CEO 8C" MOTOR PARKWAY HAUPPAUGE LONG ISLAND NEW ¢C~K 1 ! 788 5~ 6-582-,¢060 January 26, 1989 Honorable Edward Romaine 640 Montauk Highway, Upper Level Shirley, New York 11967 Re: Greenport Commons Route 25 Greenport, New York Tax Map 91000, 34, 2, Dear Ed: I hope all is well with you and your family this new year. I am a principal of a group interested in de- veloping the above referenced parcel. I have ob- tained Town approvals to build a 29,000 square foot shopping center (see sheet enclosed) a couple of years ago, but have been unable to connect to the municipal water system. It is my understanding that I am "nearing the top of the lis~" to connect, but in reality, can- not afford to wait any longer! A water test has been made, and I can drill a well on my property to service my needs, but the County Board of Health will not permit it since there is a water main in front of the property! I am in a real catch-22 since the Board of Health says there is municipal water at the site, but the water authority says I can't tap into it. I would appreciate it if you could inquire"on my behalf at the County Health Department and/or Greenport Water District, if I can drill a well for my needs now, until municipal water is avail- able. JOHN C. TSUNIS CEO 801 MOTOR PARKWAY HAUPDAUGE LONG ISLAND NEW 'rC[~K ~, 1788 51 e-sa2-,::oo0 ,/ JCT/krh Your help would be most appreciated. Best r~gards, MAYOR * GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRU. STEE~ WILLIAM D. ALLEN STEPHEN L. CLARKE DAVID $. CORWIN GAlL ~;. HORTON Mr. John Tsunis Greenport Commons 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, N. Y. 296 THIRD STREET · P.O, BOX AH GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 11788 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 47%1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477..0172 FAX (516) 477-1877 SUPT. OF UTILITIES JAMES I. MONSELL SUPT. OF WATER & SEWER H. B. SHERMAN August 30, 1989 Dear Mr. Tsunis: Over the last several years the Greenport Water department has had a severa shortage of water wells which has resulted in our inability to hook up new water customers. This inability to hook up new customers has resulted in a backlog list with priority for hook up going accordingly to date of application beginning with the oldest date. The Greenpoct Water department is currently on an ambitious expansion program and anticipates being able to hook up a significant number of new customers over the next 12 to 18 months. In order to enhanse our planning we m~st now update the current water backlog list and determine what the "Up Front" fee will be. Prior to September 12, 1989 please forward in writing the following: 1. Name of Development 2. Number of Units 3. Date of Const~action (i.e. 36 units in 1991; 20 units per year commencing in 1991 for 4 years, etc.) 4. Date you are prepared to sign a contract and pay the "Up Front" fee. If your answer is not received by September 12, 1989 it will be assumed you are not currently pursuing your development and it will be dropped from the list. Additionally, your proposed development is in an area that has the potential to take advantage of a sewer plant expansion project. I00 Years of Community Service August 30, 1989 Page 2 The current sewer plant is 50+ years old and must be updated and expanded to meet potential growth in the area around Greenport Village. To determine the size of a new Sewer Plant, an accurate count of the number of potential customers must be determined. In your response to the water questiorus above indicate if you desire to enter into a contract to hook up to the sewer plant and pay the "Up Front" fee. For additional information please call Hoot Sherman, Superintendent of Water Sewer at 477-1748. Very truly yours, Superintendent of Water Sewer September 1, 1989 SrlJ 'XlS JOHN C. TSUNIS CEO 801 MOTOR pARKWAY HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11788 516-582-40~ PAX: 516-582-4256 H.B. Sherman, Superintendent of Water Sewer VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 236 Third Street Post offic Box AH Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport Commons Greenport, New York Dear Mr. Sherman: Thank you for your letter dated August 3G, 1989. Please be advised that Greenport Commons is presently under construction, and shall complete 29,000 square feet of commercial space by March, 1990. We are prepared to sign a Contract for water and pa~ a reasonable up front fee immediately. Further, we are also interested in hooking up to the Sewer Plant, and pay the necessary up front fees for that as well. Inasmuch as this project is presently under construction, we would appreciate receiving assur- ances that we will be able to avail ourselves of these services, so that we do not have to expend monies for substitute water and sanitary. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, JCT/krh LEAgE EXPIRES: JORDANS PARTNERS GREENPORT COMMONS MAIN ROAD, GREENPORT, RENT ABSTRACT ALEX POON NY LEASE EXECUTED: LEASE COMMENCED: LEASE EXPIRES: DIMENSIONS: SECURITY DEPOSIT: AUGUST 24, 1989 APPROXIMATELY 1,870 LEASEABLE SQUARE FEET $2,500.00 1ST YR: MINIMUM CAM 2ND YR: MINIMUM CAM 3RD MINIMUM CAM 4TH YR: MINIMUM CAM 5TH YR: MINIMUM CAM 6TH YR: MINIMUM CAM 7TH YR MINIMUM CAM $ 28,050.50 $ 2,337.50 $ 29,453.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 30,925.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 32,471.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 34,095.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 35,800.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 37,590.00 $ 2,337.50 8TH YR MINIMUM CAM 9TH YR MINIMUM CAM 10THYR MINIMUM CAM $ 39,469.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 41,443.00 $ 2,337.50 $ 43,515.00 $ 2,337.50 INSURANCE: 6.45 % CAM: TAX RENT: 6.45 % UTILITY RENT: SPRINKLER 6.45 % GRACE PERIOD: RENT DUE BY THE 1ST USE: A CHINESE TAKEOUT !;IIOI'I'IN(~ I;I:N IF. II I.I:A~;I~ 'ltll,'l'l,l~^;:l:. ,,,.,h. Ihl., lOth ,t,,y ,,I August ~&/ , 11'89 , I,y .,,,I of i es ~' I,.h',rr,, JORDAN'S PARTNERS, c/o John C. Tsunis, Esq., 801 Ho[:o~'.Pork~oy, llaup mage, Ne~ York 11788 Alex Poon, 127 Rivington Street. Apartment 1-C , ~ew York, New York 10002 (I,,.,,,h~,,Ih.t r.lh.d I .~.;,. Ih,. r:,t,I I.,'~,','. ,,u,f ~:,1,1 I.,..,,r I,,'~, h~..rP,,'t h, Ir~.~' ~,ml I,,I.- hr~,hu~ll,.,.i,l,,.~,lh,.h,ll,,,d.l~eh~H,,,dl,r,,i,,,~l?. ApproxlmateJy 1,000 square feeL..Ja. the shopping cente~ to built at the southeast corner of gasL Main Street and Notth Road, Greenport, New York. To be knowa as unit '1 I;IIM ~. ( ) ( , , ~ f · · .' . , , ,,f ,I, , ,.. .~,,,,,'. ,~,j~],,,, t,, ,,,~ ,,.,,t.~B,,,fl ,, . .,. ,, ,,, ,, ( . . ,,,.~,,,,,,,~.~:~,,.,,,,,,,,,,.t.,...,,,,'. {h) I1,~ ,l:~lr ,,. whhl, I.['~rt th. Il ~'1'"" I1.' I,..~fql I,,,'~,,l~t~ f,- I~tl,,h]t~:. h, Iht I,.I,1-'. ~vhlt h,'~[, th,.ll h[ .I ., I,..l,l--I.I.t...llh,t I.,Ih Iht ,Inl~ .I tq,llllll~ll~tllll'l~l fll~(I Iht d.h- .I ~l,h.ll.- ul II,r I~,,..[ Ihh h ,,~t. II,) '1.,,,, ,,1 I.tt,xn -'l he I,,., .1 lid. h~,~ si,MI I,~ I,,t -10- ,,.~1,.~. I.lly It~l.~r~l ~1,,~1~ ~,,I ~1 h~l ~.111,1. Iht ltm~ I~,~r I~,,~ ?u,lll,..,'.l,~ .,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, .,,,..,,,, .,, ,.,,,.,,,,, ,,,.,,,,, ,,,,,,,~,,,, ,:,,, ,:,,,, ,,,:. ,.,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,.,,, . ,,, ,,,,,,.~,,,. ,,,,, .,,,,.~~~?'.'t"'?,":"~ ':.'? , , ,..,,. ,~~~;',',;",','"' ::,;,,: :,.. 60. Landlord will carry fire~ building and common area liability insurance covering the shopping cemter and common areas and tenant hereby agrees to pay the landlord its proportionate share of the insurance costs pursuant to paragraph 3(b). 61. This lease is subject to the t~fian~ obtaining the necessary permits for any and all municipal agencies to operate the subject premises at the tenants sole cost and expense. The tenant shall diligently file necessary papers to obtain same. 62. Tenant, at his sole cost and expense, will install his own septic tank, cesspool and any other improvements to satisfy any and all requirements of Suffolk County Department of IIealth and the Town of Brookhaven. Maintenance for the septic tank and cesspool sj~a~l be paid ~y the 63. Tenant shall commence any and ~[1 work within fiftee~ (15) days of receipt of notice by the landlord to commence said work.~ Tenant shall complete ali undergrouad improvements within sixty (60) days of commencement of said wor k~ · required by ~he m ' ' ' ue to the tenants use, including, ~ ,.~'. :~:.,~:tcJ ts, i.n.~ta!lati~n cf grcaoc trap. 65. In addition to base and maintence rent, any charges incurred by the landlord as a direct result of tenants use (i.e. cleaning of tenaats greasetrap), shall be charged to the tenants as additional maintenance rent, and such rent shall be due upon demand. 66. In the event Lessee conveys its interest in the subject premises or the principals of the lessee transfer their interest ia the lessee, within~t .... L~ f~ur months of occupancy, the lessee shall submit a copy o~ the contract providing for said sale, and the Lessor shall be paid by the lessee twenty-five percent (25%) of the sales price, in cash, upon consumation of said transaction 67. Lessee agrees to place a "coming soon sign" in window with fifteen (15) days, and agrees to install an overhead sign within five (5) weeks. JORDAN ' ~A~S~~ ,LANDLORD JOIIN C~T§(NI~', PARM~ER / ,TENANT By: ~ ~~~ ~ Date ~ m L EX~ 0~ ~-~~--' ~/ (16) $11OI'P NG cENTEI! I. EASF. q ,I.v ,,r _h!~g~. 0e'l'' 9 . I,. 89 , .I,)..,,d """~ "~'^:;'" '"""" '"'" ~ ~..1~,,,,,~,' b,.,~%.,~'. ~.'"'" I,,:t.~*,, JORDAN'S PARTNERS, c/o Jo~n C. Tsunis. Esq., w t o f ce ( - ~0~. ~9.tor, Parkway, Ilauppauge, New York 11788 SIIOP WITII US CORP., Post Office Box R Mi[I~g.':Plac,¢, New York 11764 h~.~ehmller .l,l,w,~, Ihe h,H~ ~ g ,.s Hhr~l I"" ,mty: Approximately 3,300 S(1uMre feet in the shopping center built at the southeast coraer of East Main Street and North Road, Greenport, New York. To be known as unit f with the approximate dimensions of 60' x 55'. 'IT;It~I cm,.i,r.ce o. Ih. entlirr -f th. [.Ih)wl.lJ (Inte~: (.) Ih(~ ,late which I~ thhiy 5.1..rvi~ll,l~ mchih.~tl ~. I,~r~.r tmtiflit. Ih. I.m=~,',' lit wlltl.~ tl,,,I tl.~ wi.l( (b) Ihe dale .. whhth I.r.se. ~hall "1"'" the I,m~ml I.[',ui.~s ft,t bu~:in~ss Imf di,'m I.ml. (,mlculah. I o. Ihe I,.~is o[ . Ihhly ~l:,y .re. Ih) re,Iii II.' Ii,si d.y or Ihe im,.Ih wi,mi IIH' h,.,e.[ ami Ihe, ralh'J Ihe .,.,i .u t t n[ slmll I.t m.I I. i.qm,I m,mlhly i.~;h,ll..mls o. Ihe Ii,st d~y ,,r ,.,,,:h Jm ~l~l-opti.te ~lth~ forth th~ ilnle .[ cf..lnellC~lttmt[ n.d Ihe (late .[ eXl}i*alit}ll o[ (h~ lc.ti ~)[ this lca~. (b) '1¥.. (~1 l..~m~.' 'Ih. ti. mt of thin I~'m~e shall be h~r -].0- yrms :md -0- mmdh~ (.r u.til ' EE PARAGRAPH 66 OF LEA ') · ,,,,,,,.,,., ,..,,..,,d ,,,, ,,.,,,,.,,,.. 60. Landlord will carry fire, building and common area liability insurance covering the shopping center and common areas and tenant hereby agrees to pay the landlord its proportionate share of the insurance costs pursuant to paragraph 3(b). 61. This lease is subject to the tenant o~taining the necessary permits for any and all municipal agencies to operate the subject premises at the tenants sole cost and expense. The tenant shall diligently file necessary papers to obtain same. 62. Tenant, at his sole cost and expense, will install his own septic tank, cesspool and any other improvements to satisfy any and all requirements of Suffolk County Department of Health and the Town of Southhold. Maintenance for the septic tank and cesspool shall be paid by the tenant. 63. Tenant shall commence any and all work within fifteen (15) days of receipt of notice by the landlord to commence said work. Tenant shall complete all underground improvements within sixty (60) days of commencement of said work. 64. Tenant shall pay to the landlord, prior to possession, for any work not provided in the work letter attached, or any work required by the municipality due to the tenants use, including, but not limited to, installation of grease trap. 65. In addition to base and mai~tence rent, any charges incurred by the landlord as a direct result of tenants use (i.e. cleaning of tenants greasetrap), shall be charged to the tenants as additional maintenance rent, and such rent shall be due upon demand. 66. In the event Tenant wishes to extend its lease an additional five (5) years, Tenant must notify Landlord by certified mail not later than ninty (90) days prior to expiration of the lease term. Upon receipt of said notice, Landlord and Tenant shall i__n good faith negotiate a new rent schedule. In the event that a new rent schedule cannot be agreed to prior to the termination of the current term, then in that event, no extention of lease shall be in effect, and the lease shall terminate as provided in this lease. 67. In the event Tenant excersises its rights to the five (5) year option provided for in paragraph 66 above, then at the expiration of the extended five (5) year term, Tenant shall have the right to extend the within lease for an additional five (5) years pursuant to the same terms and conditions as provided for in paragraph 66. 68. Tenant shall have the exclusive right in the center to sell beer, milk, ham and bolongna for off premises consumption. Not- withstanding this paragraph, another tenant may sell ham and/or b01ongna sandwiches. 69. Tenant shall have the right to make interior changes as long it conforms to all codes in order to fit the needs of the above mentioned business. JORDAN'S PARTNERS, ,LANDLORD By: ~ .~/ Date JOH~ TS~NIS, ~ARTNER... SHOP WITH CORP., ~ ,TENANT By: ~~/Dat~f/~ gTE~F/N P~ESNIK~-PRESIDENT · IH~N'[' CllANG]~S: LEASE EXPIRES: JORDANS PARTNERS GREENPORT COMMONS MAIN ROAD, GREENPORT, RENT ABSTRACT SHOP WITH US NY LEASE EXECUTED: LEASE COMMENCED: LEASE EXPIRES: DIMENSIONS: SECURITY DEPOSIT: OCTOBER 9, 1989 APPROXIMATELY 3,300 LEASEABLE SQUARE FEET $7,426.00 1ST YR: MINIMUM CAM 2ND YR: MINIMUM CAM 3RD YR: MINIMUM CAM $ 44,550.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 44,550.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 46,778.00 $ 4,125.00 4TH YR: MINIMUM CAM 5TH YR: MINIMUM CAM 6TH YR: MINIMUM CAM 7TH YR MINIMUM CAM 8TI{ YR MINIMUM CAM 9TH YR MINIMUM CAM 10TtIYR MINIMUM Ci~M $ 49,116.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 51,572.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 54,151.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 56,858.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 59,701.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 62,686.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 65,821.00 $ 4,125.00 INSURANCE: 11.38 % CAM: TAX RENT .' 11 · 38 % UTILITY RENT: SPRINKLER 11.38% GRACE PERIOD: RENT DUE BY THE 7TH - 4% LATE CHARGE USE: A SUPER MARKET OPERATION, BUT NOT LIMITED TO BEER, SODA,MEAT PRODUCTS,DAIRY PRODUCTS,PRODUCE, AND ALL ITEMS NORMALLY SOLD IN A SUPERMARKET DIVISION OF McCRORY CORP, 50 TICE BLVD., WOODCLIFF LAKE, NJ 07675 201 -930-9333 FAX: 201-930-1833 EXECUTIVE DMSION November 10, 1989 Mr. Haig Soltanian TSUNI$ ASSOCIATES, INC. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Proposed McCrory Store Dear Haig: I am writing to confirm my understanding of the terms for a new lease in this proposed Greenport Commons. Specifically, I would be willing to recommend to my Real Estate Committee the following proposal: LOCATION: S/E Corner Main Street and North Road, Greenport, NY STORE SIZE: 8,000 sq. ft. ground floor area and 2,400 sq. ft. of mezzanine area. TERM: The building shall be constructed in accordance with the "TK-I" plans and specifications dated August 1, 1989. This letter acknowledges your receipt and approval of plans and specifications. 10 years plus four 5 year options; six months prior written notice for exercise of option. MINIMUM RENT: Initial Term Years 1-5 6-10 $72,800/yr ($9.10 psf) $82,800/yr (10.35 psf) Options Years 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 $94,000/yr $106,000/yr $118,000/yr $130,000/yr ($11.75 psf) ($13.25 psf) ($14.75 psf) ($16.25 psf) Mr. Haig Soltanian November 10, 1989 Page: 2 PERCENTAGE RENT: COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE: INSURANCE: REAL ESTATE TAXES: Rent to commence the earlier date of 75 days after Landlord delivers physical possession of the premises 100~ complete to McCrory Specifications, or the date McCrory opens for business, whichever shall be earlier. Initial Term Years 1-5 44 over $1,950,000 6-10 44 over $2,000,000 Options Years 11-15 44 over $2,350,000 16-20 44 over $2,650,000 21-25 4~ over $2,950,000 26-30 44 over $3,250,000 McCrory to pay, on an annual basis, its pro rata share. Estimated first year charge $6,000 = 8,000 sq. ft. x $0.75/sq. ft.) Administration fee not to exceed 10~. McCrory reserves the right to audit Landlord's CAM books and Landlord agrees to reimburse any over- payments to McCrory. First year's CAM charges will not exceed 1254 of first year estimate and will thereafter be capped at 7.54. McCrory to pay, on an annual basis, its pro rata share. Estimated first year charge $2,000 = 0.25 sq. ft. x $8,000/sq. ft.. McCrory to pay, on an annual basis, its pro rata share. Estimated charge $8,000 = 8,000 sq. ft. x $1.00/sq. ft.. Ima--~%~&t~ Mr. Haig Soltanian November 10, 1989 Page: 3 PRE-OPENING ALLOWANCE: MAINTENANCE: Landlord to pay to McCrory (on the date it opens its store for business) the sum of $~5,000, for pre-opening expense;~4 ~ Landlord: Exterior, structural, roof, HVAC (replacement), exterior electrical and plumbing and sidewalks. INDUCEMENT TENANT: McCrory: Interior, HVAC (repair and maintain), interior electrical and plumbing. Shop With Us food market, ~,~O sq. ft.. Should Inducement Tenant cease operations and Landlord has not replaced within 6 months, McCrory has option to cancel the Lease. SIGNAGE: McCrory to install its typical signage upon the premises. Also, McCrory to be permitted prominent signage upon pylon, if any is allowed by local laws. EXCLUSIVE: Landlord shall not lease any space within the shopping center to any tenant for the operation of a variety store; a bargain, budget or close out store; or a general merchandise retailer occupying 1,500 sq. ft. or more, located within 100 feet (on either side) of the McCrory Store. LEASE FORM: McCrory Lease form. If the above meets your approval, please sign and return to me the enclosed copy of this letter. It is understood that approved in behalf of parties. there is no agreement until proposal is McCrory and a lease is executed by both Mr. Haig Soltanian November 10, 1989 Page: 4 In the meantime, should me. Very truly yours, McCRORY STORES ~_/David W. Ambrose ReaI Estate Director DWA: lac cc: John C. Tsunis you have Accepted and agreed to any questions, please contact this ~ , 1989. VICTOR LESSARD PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR (5 163 765-t802 FAX (516) 765-1823 TO: OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STOP WORK ORDER JORDANS PARTNERS 801 MOTOR PA~_KWAY, HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. Town Hail. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 11788 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WOrK AT: 1000 MAIN STREET & 160 MAIN PdD-Rt. 25, Greenport, N.Y. TAX MAP NUMBER 034-02-01 Pursuant to section 100-282-B of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded. BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: Permit was issued in error, Zone was changed by the Master plan from a B zone to a Residential office Zone. Office and retail stores are not allowed in this zone. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUMED: Work may be resumed as soon as this zone change is resolved ty the Town Board and okayed by the Planning Board. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. J~/ ~w~ DATED:NOV. 30t 1989 -~URTIS Wi HORTON' SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR ROOSEVELT SAVINGS BANK PAGE 2 GREE~FCRT COHMCNS JORDAN'S PARK PbACE, LTD. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET DATE : SERTEHBER 3, 1989 HARD COSTS DESCRiPTiON SCHEDULED VALUE 1. CONCRETE WA~ES,FTGS SiTEiSLAS,FOUND. 2. EOHESTiC ~ATER SERVICE S. DRYWALL INTER FINISHES 4. ELECTRICAL ROUGHING, SW[TCHES,FINISHiNG 5. EXCAVATION 6. HVAC & GAS PIPING 7. MASONRY 8. PLBG ROUGHING & FINISHING 9. ROOFiNG,DRAINS,DOWN SPOUTS 10. SANITARY ONSITE DP, AINAGE 1!. STRUCTURAL STEEL 12. WOODNORKZNG,STOREFRONTS, DORHERS,INSULA,SHEATHING 13. ~WN ~RRiGATION I4. LANDSCAPING ~15. PAVING,STRIPING 16. CONTINGENCY FEES 17. PAiNTiNG 18. HANSARD & FRAHING 19. FLOOR COVERING 5i57,300.00 S5,000.00 S71,050.00 Si18,000.00 567 000.00 $146 000.00 S145 000.00 S46 600.00 $30 000.00 $72 000.00 S43 500.O0 $325 000.00 S6,000.00 $15,000.00 $4i,000.00 S4,550.00 $20,000.00 S60,000.00 S30,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS $1,41o,OOQ.OO PAGE GREENPORT C~MMONS JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. CONSTRUCTION ~UDGET SOFT COSTS OESCRZPTiON SCHEDULED VALUE 1. L&ND 2. ARCHITECTURAL FEES 3. BROKERAGE FEES 4. LESAL FEES 5. INTEREST 6. ACCOUNTING COSTS 7. D~ELOPER FEES 8. ADVERTISING 9. BONDS 10. SURVEYS TOTAL SOFT COSTS S59C · $20 S42 $25 $!00 000.00 000.00 .500.00 OOO.O0 000.00 $5 000.00 S65 000.00 $5 000.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $700,000.00 TOTAL HARD COSTS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $1,410,000.00 $2,it0,000.00 TSUNIS JOHN C. TSUNIS CEO 801 MOTOR PARKWAY HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11788 516-582-4000 FAX: 5~ 6-582-4256 March 1, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. william Kart 611 Bailey Avenue Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport Commons Greenportr New York Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kart: I received your letter addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated February 28, 1990. I am sorry that you are experiencing a "con- tinue flow of garbage into your yard". This is in- deed the first time I have been apprised of this situation and you may rest assured that a barrier fence is immediately installed. As a home owner and attorney, I am most sensi- tive to ones' quest .for privacy and quiet enjoy- ment, and I will see to it that you are not pro- vided with "some relief", but com~lete~relief from this nuisance. > It is my earnest desire to build a most aes- thetically pleasing building to be called Greenport Commons, which would not only provide necessary and convenient services and products to the greater Greenport area, but.will also be a compatible and sinsitive neighbor. Should you wish, I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these plans and would seek to accomodate any and all reasonable concerns that you may have concerning this property. Thank you for your kind attention. cc: Southold Town Board~als William & Joan Kart 611 Bailey Avenue Greenport, New York 11944 February, 29, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our concern regarding the current construction of the "Greenport Commons" located on Route 58 in Greenport, New York. Our property is adjacent to the rear corner section of this area and there is a continuous flow of garbage into~our yard. This is substantially interfering with our privacy and with the quiet enjoyment of our property to the extent that we are considering commencing a legal action against this concern for "private nuisance." We would hope that a fence separating our property from this activity will be erected by ~Greenport Commons" as soon as possible in order to provide us.with some relief. We are also anticipating the lighting arrangement that will be installed for the parking lot and can foresee a problem arising there. In essence~ we are registering this formal complaint to apprise you of the situation with the expectation that you wilI taka these factors into consideration when granting "Greenport Commons" ~ varisnce. In addition, we would like to notify you regarding a dangerous situation at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Main Street. We are already aware of ~'minimum of four Deaths at that point within the last two years and hope for the safety of our family and the public in general that a remedial measure is taken' within the near future (i.e. stop light, traffic light, etc.). Any assistance that you could give us would be greatly appreciated and we would ask that this letter be kept on file. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Res.pect. fully, ~ William & Joan Kart cc: Greenport Common's THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY April 3, 1990 Mr. Jmes ~%~loski Region~Director . Dept. ~ :ansportatlon Veterans h morial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Enclosed June 27, 1988 Letter to Joseph Sawicki from Former Regional Director, Michael J. Cuddy - Our Request for a Three Color Traffic Signal at the Intersection of County Road 48 and Main Street in Greenport Dear Mr. Kuzloski: During 1987 and 1988 on behalf of residents of the Sound Road vicinity in Greenport I requested that your Department perform a study as to the feasibility of implementing a three color traffic signal at the potentially dangerous intersection of County Road 48 and Main Street in Greenport. Enclosed is the final response to our quest dated June 27, 1988 in the form of a letter from your predecessor. Specifically, in the last paragraph on the first page of that letter, Mr. Cuddy addressed the new condominium subdivision, as well as future retail stores, and the impact it would have on this intersection. He indicates that when and if the condominiums and retail center are built, that a traffic signal will be installed. He also indicates that the developer will be responsible for improvements to the existing traffic signal. From all indications, the new condominium complex is scheduled to begin construction soon; and to further complicate the situation, the new 29,000 square foot shopping mall has already begun construction. Enclosed please find for your information the advertisement indicating that "Greenport Commons" will be available soon. Apparently, the Southold Town Planning Board has indicated to residents of the Sound Road area that they had no knowledge of Mr. Cuddy's indication that the developer was to install such a new three color traffic light at this very dangerous intersection. As you can see, time is now of the essence~'-since Mr. James Kuzloski Page Two April 3, 1990 these two new traffic generating plans will impose a great amount of traffic congestion and confusion at this intersection. Would you please have your Department investigate this matter again and contact the Southold Town Planning Board, if necessary, if the developer must install the three color traffic signal. In any event, I must reiterate to you how important a traffic signal is at this intersection, especially with the upcoming projects just months away. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and I eagerly await your response so I can pass it along to those concerned residents in the Sound Road area, as. well as to the other town residents who must travel this intersection. .~, .~inc e re.~l y,. .. · ~ JOSEPH SAWICKI, JR. Member of the Assembly JS:tf Enclosures cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Dinizlo, Jr. Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (S16) 768-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD August 2, 1988 Dale Grippo Tsunis Associates 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York 11788 RE: Greenport Commons Site Plan S/e/c State Route 25 and Main Street, Greenport SCTM# 1000-34-2-1. Dear Mr. Grippo: As per our telephone conversation on Thursday, July 28th, both reviewed the file for the above-referenced project and discussed same with the Planning Board. I The site plan was approved in 1986. The approval still appears to be valid at this particular point in time. The policy, copy enclosed, of which I and my staff spoke, pertains to all site plans seeking approval from the Board. In the future, site plan approval will be granted after water (and sewer) contracts, have been satisfied to the Village's standards. However, for site plans with approvals already, the issuance of a building permit is still dependent on written notification by the Village to the Town that all terms of the water and sewer contract ~ave been met to its satisfaction. The Village's May 16th letter'to John Tsunis indicates that there are no contracts for ~ter om sewer in effect at this time. I trust this answers ~oUT' questions. Sincerely~ Valerie Scopaz Town Planner jd Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Chairman Victor Lessard, Building Administrator James Schondebare, Town Attorney PERM 42f (11/85) . '~TATE OF N~YORK/'~EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT/14ilDN /~ :: ,~ 1~ 1719 PermitF~ $ ~.~0 00.. : Est. CompLOate Liability Inmran~ De.sit Rec. for $ Policy No. Expiring Che~ or M.O. No. Di~bility Benefit Cover~ Dat~ Poli~ No. or s $~nnn. Per~i(t~ G~eenpo~ Colons LCd. Chargeable to Bond No. Q~7] ] ~ ~ Addre~ R~e. 25 or U~taki~ on F~le City G~eenpo~ State NY Zip ] lq44 Workmen'sCom~n~tJon Policy No. Mailing Address for Return of Bond or De.sit Relurn of Deposil Ma~ Payable To: (C~ptete only if different from ~ve.) Name Name Address Address City State.__ Zip ~ City State Zip Under theprovisions of the Highway Law or Vehicle & Traffic Law permission is hereby granted to the p~rmittee to open s/s/0 Rte. 25 e/o Knapp PTacer Greenport for the purpose of installinq two 30'0" intersection tvpe .curb cuts: asphalt in entrance areas shall be traffic h~arin9 (4" dpnc;p ha~: 9½" tn,n) .if required; replace or repair any sidewalk ~ich maybe necessary, in the county of Suffolk as ~t forth and repre~nt~ in the attached application; at the pa~icular I~ation or area, or over the routes as stat~ therein, if required; and put.ant to the conditions and r~ulations, whether general or ~cial, and moth.s of ~rforming work, if any; all of which are ~t forth in the application and form part Oat~ at Hauppauge , N.Y. Commissioner ~Tran~r~ti~/ Oat, Sign~ 9/29/86 / ~ IMPORTANT SHALL BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE ANY WORK IS STARTED. NOTICE - It is ab~lutely ne~arv that the ~rmitt~ notify H.R. THYR~RR - D.fl _T_ Pe~its ~ Engineer, who~ address is NYS OFFICE BLDG..VETS HWY.: HAIIPPAIIRF:NY 24 HR. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED TeL No. 360-6025 before work is sta~ a~ upon its completion. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK AUTHORIZED, TH E FOLLOWING WILL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY THE PREMIERE AND DELIVERED TO THE RESIDENT ENGINEER Work authorized by this Permit was completed on (Date) Refund of deposit or return of bond or reduction of amount charged against bond or deposit on file for this permit whichever is appropriate, is requested AUTHORIZEfl AGENT (IF ANY) Upon acceptance of work performed as satisfactorily comoleted, the Resident Engineer will sign the following and forward to the Regional Office. Work authorized by this Permit has been satisfactorily completed and is accepted. The Regional Office will forward this form to the Main Office with the appropriate box checked. To: HIGHWAY PERMIT SECTION: [] Refund of Deposit on this Permit is authorized. [] Return of Bond furnished for this Permit is authorized. [] Amount charged against Blanket Bond for this permit may be canceUed. [] Retain Bond for future permits REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER The issuing authority reserves the right to suspend or revoke this permit, at its discretion without a hearing or the necessity of showing cause, either before or during the operations authorized. The Permittee will cause an approved copy of the application to he and remain attached hereto until all work under the permit is satisfactorily completed, in accordance with the terms of the attached application. All damaged or disturbed areas resulting from work performed pursuant to this permit will be repaired to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation. Upon completion of the work within the state highway righhof-way, authorized by the work permit, the person, firm, corpora- tion, municipality, or state department or agency, and his · its successors in interest, shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of such work or portion of such work a' '~ within the terms and conditions of the w. ork permit. PERM 33e (11185) PREPARE 3 COPIES HIGHWAY __ STATE OF NEW YORK D~RTM ,F:~ OF TRANSPORTATION WORK PERMIT ~,PPLICATION FOR NON-UTILITY WORK Application is hereby made for a highway work permit City ~ State ~--~ Address Highway Work Permit NO. 10-8~-0659 Effective Date 9/29/86 RETURN OF DEPOSIT/BONO TO: (COMPLETE ONLY IF OtFFERENT FROM PERMITTEEJ Name Address City State Zip Cily State Zi~) 1. Requested duration from 19 ; 2. Protective Liability Insurance covered by Policy No. 3. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy No. 4. Disability Benefits Coverage Policy No. thru 19 , to apply to the operations~s) checked be~ow: ; expires on 19 __ expiring Chow ins. Fee in Ami.TMlt Amount · Gua~afllee Chock or CHECK TYPE OF OPERATION Permit or PERM 17 or of Fie ind/e~ Oeposd AatOUAI Bond ~ Cornmercial - Minor 150 2.50 152.50 5,000 92071112 Demolition [] Moving NC WORK MAY BE DESCRIBED BRIEFLY AS FOLLOWS: TO o_o~ s]~/O RiSe 25 e/O ~,]3~OO PlAce, ~U~e~DO~Z ~O~ ~ p~o~a o~ ~n~tal~ t~ 30t-O" ~nteraect~ tTpe curb cuts: ag~t ~ entrance a~eao shall be LOCATION (on along across __ ) State Route 1719 between Relerence Marker and Reference Marker _ in the Town of Rn.~hnlR County of ~..~=-~ known as G~eeapo~E SEQR REQUIREMENTS: (Check appropriate box) ~ Exempt ~ Ministerial ~ Type II ~ ElS or eElS Lead Agency I~ project is identified to be ministerial, exempt, or TYPE [I, no further action is required. If proj~t is determin~ to ~ other than ministerial, exempt, or ~PE II, refer to M.A.P. 7.12-~ Appendix A SEQR REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHWAY WORK PERMTS. Accep{ance of the request~e~ sub~ perm~ttee to the restrictions, regulations and ob~at~ns ~tated on this applicahon and on the permit, ~Apphc.~tSign,ture~:~ ~,',!--__~ Date--/~ 19 ~ For Joint applicalion an~r~ ~e name and address of Second Applicant below: Second Applicant Signature Dete 19 ~, PERMIT IS ISSUED CONTINGENT UPON LOCAL REQUIREMENTS BEING 5, ~- E'' T~¥P,:: [: PERM33e (11185) REVERSE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERMITTEE 1, PROTECTIVE LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE Permittee must have protective liability insurance coverage in accordance with Department requirements. (See Certificate of Protective Liability Insurance for Permits on State Highways Form PERM 17) Expiration of or lack of, liability insurance automatically terminates the permit. Insurance coverage may be provided by furn sb ng the Department with one of the following: a, A Certificate of Protective Liability Insurance for Permits on State Highways (Form PERM 17. NYSDOT. b. A $2.50 remittance (check drawn on a New York State Bank or Certified) for coverage under the Departmental Blanket Policy. c. Undertakings are limited to Public Service Corporations and government units. They must be executed through an insurance/bonding company and are subject to approvalby NYSDOT Office of Legal Affiars. . 2. COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND DISABILITY COVERAGE The applicant is required to have compensation insurance and disabiiity coverage as noted in the provisions of the Worker's Compensation Law and Acts amendatory thereof for the entire period of the permit, or the permit is invalid. 3. NOTIFICATIONS Notify Commissioner~ through Regional Office, one week prior to commencing work except emergency work by public serv ce ut I ties whcn should be reported ~he next work day. Work must start within 30 days from date of permit. Notify area gas distributors 72 hours prior to any blasting. Notify utility companies with facilities in work areas (permission must be obtained before doing work affecting utilities' facilities) before starting work in accordance with Industrial Code 53. Notify Departmen[of Transportation at conclusion of work and return original copy of permit to Resident Engineer. Annual Maintenance Permit Notifications: Notify by telephone the Regional or Resident Engineer's office one week in advance each time regular maintenance work is to be performed. In emergenc es, not f cation by teJephone should be made the next work day. 4. SITE CARE AND RESTORATION An Undertaking~a bond or certified check in an amount designated by the Department of Transportation may be required by the Megionai Office, before a permit is issued, to guarantee restoration of the site to ~ts original condi- tion. If the Department is obliged to restore, the site to its original condition, the costs to the Department will be deducted from the amount or,he permittee s guarantee deposit at the conclusion of the work. The permittee is responsible for traffic protection and maintenance including adequate use of signs and barriers during work and evening hours. Anyone working within the R.O.W. will wear an orange vest and hard hat. No unneccessary obstruction is to be left on the pavement or the right-of-way or in such a position as to block warn- ing signs or between work hours. NO work shall be done to obstruct drainage or divert creeks, water courses or sluices onto the right-of-way. All falsework must be removed and all excavations must be filled in and restored to the satisfaction of the Regional Maintenance Engineer. 5. COSTS INCURRED BY ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT All costs beyond the limits of the protective liability insurance, surety deposits, etc., are the responsibility of the permittee. The State shall be held free of any costs incurred by the issuance of this permits, direct or indirect. 6. SUBMITTING WORK PLANS The applicant will submit work plans and/or a map as required by the Department. This shall include such details as measurements of driveways with relation to nearest property corner, positions of guys supporting poles and a schedule of the number of poles and feet of excavation necessary for completion of the work on the ~State right-of- way. A description of the proposed method of construction will be included. Plan work with future adjustments in mind, as any relocation, replacement or removal of the installation authorized by this permit and made necessary by future highway maintenance, reconstruction or new construction, will be the responsibility of the permittee. Driveway plans should be prepared in accordance with the POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR ENTRANCES TO STATE HIGHWAYS. The permittee must coordinate his work with any state construction being conducted. 7, TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE A plan detailing how the permittee intends to maintain and protect traffic shall be submitted with work plans. Traffic shall be maintained on the highway in a safe manner during working and non*working hours until construction is comJ~leted. The permittee is responsible for traffic protection and maintenance inclu~ling adequate use of signs, burners, and flag persons during working and non-working hours until construct on s comp eted. All sketches will be stamped with "MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SHA,,LL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 8. COST OF INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION Prior to issuance of the Highway Work Permit, thepermittee will be required to sign a SUPERVISION AND INSPEC- TION PAYMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY WORK PERMITS {FORM PERM 50) agreeing to the payment of inspec- tion and supervision charges for Department employees. Supervision and inspection charges will be §used on number of work days. NOTE: Work day is determined on basis of minimum of four (4) hours of inspection. 9, SCOPE a, Areas Covered Permits issued are for highways bridges and culverts over which the New York State Department of Transporta- tion has jurisdiction. (Local governments issue permits for their own ur sd ct on.) b. Legal The privilege granted by the permit does not authorize any infringement of federal, state or ~oca~ laws or regula- tions is limited to the extent of the authority of this Department inthe premises and is transferable and assignable only w th the wr tten consent of the Comm ss oner of Transportat on, c. Commissioner's Reservation The Commissioner of Transportation reserves the right to modify fees and to revoke or annul the permit at any time, at his discretion without a hearing or the necessity of showing cause. d. Locations Work locations must be approved by the Department. e. Maintenance Property owners having access to a state highway shall be fully responsible for the maintenance of their driveway in accordance with POLICY AND STANDARDS FOR ENTRANCESTO STATE HIGHWAYS. 10. COMPLETION OF PROJECT U,pon completion of the work within the state highway right*of-way authorized by the work permit the person and his or its sucessors in interest shall be responsi§le for the maintenance and repair of such work or port~on of such work as set forth w th n the Terms and Conditions of the H ghway Work Permit. , MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD STEPHEN L. CLARKE JEANNE M. COOPER DAVID S. CORWIN GAlL F. HORTON SUPT. OF UTILITIES JAMES 1. MONSELL (- 236 THIRD STREET P.O. BOX AH GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (5 ! 6) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 May 16, 1988 Mr. John Tsunis 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York Dear Mr. Tsunis: 11788 Re: Greenport Commons North Road & Main Street Greenport,r. New York 11944 Your proposed project of a 29,000 square foot Shopping and Office Mall with water and sewer services has been under study with the Village of Greenport since 1986. Sewer service with the Village of GPeenport is 'hot available at this time. Your projected sewer load was 2,022 gallons per day. You should make other arrangements for sewage disposal. Water service will be supplied by the Village Water Department at your projected load of 3,000 gal/day with a peak demand of 30 gal/min. When we have the capability to serve you, we will enter into a contract. We should be in a position to enter into a contract within the coming year. If I may be of further service, please call. James I. Monsell )erintendent of Public Utilities JIM:hr cc: George Hubbard, Mayor All Village Trustees Utility Committee Valerie Scopaz Victor Lassard I00 Years of Community Service T LD 6outhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 25, 1986 Mr. Robert Gruber ARchitect 476 Espressway Drive, Medford, NY 11763 So RE: 280 North Road Dear Mr. Gruber: The f011owing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 23,1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan for 280 North Road for construction of office and retail complex located at Main Street and North Road, Greenport, survey dated as revised June 17, 1986, tax map no. 1000-34-2-1, subject to: 1. Receipt of a curb cut permit from the NYS Department of Public Works. 2. Removal of the term "parcel two" from the residential land owned by the applicant. The Board does not want it to be construed that this has been subdivided. Upon receipt of the curb cut permit and amended surveys eliminating the term "parcel two", the Chairman will endorse the surveys. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 11, 1986 Mr. Robert J. Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive So. Medford, NY 11763 Re: Site Plan for "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 9, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan for 280 North Road, Greenport for the construction of office and retail stores located at .C~ R~u~t~ ~, to the Building Department for certification. Survey dated April 23, 1986. Upon further review of the site plan, some site plan elements are not indicated'. Would you please add the following site plan elements to the plan and forward six (6) prints to our office so we may make the necessary referral to the Building Department: -Landscaping or screening on the southerly and easterly property lines -Location of proposed signs -Location of loading areas. -Location of Outdoor lighting -Location of utilities coming onto the property -Actual retail sales area. It appears that there is a discrepancy in the site data, the retail sales is indicated as 29,000 square feet and also 30,000 square feet. Robert Gruber Page 2 6/11/86 Please note,these site plan elements are required pursuant to Section 100-134 of the Town Code. Would you also provide a copy of the curb cut approval when it has been obtained. Thank you. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very_ truly yours, . BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department T~O~.~I~ 'OF~SOU-~H. OLD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 13, 1986 Robert J. Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive So. Medford, NY 11763 Re: "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: Please let this confirm our conversation of May 6, 1986 regarding the above mentioned site plan, and the comments of Richard G. Ward, Planning Board member. It appears that the location of the building with respect to the 20' ingress and egress would create a problem with exists and entrances into the rear of the building. It is suggested that the building be moved North to allow for more circulation around the building. The concept indicated by the enclosed map shows vehicular circulation completely around the building or buildings. The campus style layout is preferred, however, if one building is insisted upon by the applicant it would be better if it were centered on the site. Enclosed is a site plan for your review and consideration. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN S~UTHOLD TO~WN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary enc. ( JOHN C. TSUNIS 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMAC~ LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK 41725 January 13, 1986 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at ~G~eenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. My client wishes to conform the use presently proposed and therefore my client respectflly requests a waiver of the moratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this application may proceed. Please advise of any hearing concerning this r~equest. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis JCT/le cc: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou ~ennett 0rlowski, Jr. JUDITIt T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 January 14, 1986 To: From: Re: Southold Town Planning Board~/ Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Elizabeth A. Neville, Deputy Town Clerk Request for a Waiver - Local Law No. 14 1985 Please submit all pertinent data in your files pertaining to the request of "280 North Road" at Greenport for a Waiver from the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985. Attachment JOHN C. TSUNlS RECL~VED JAN ! 1985 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMACI~ LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11725 January 13, 1986 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. My client wishes to conform the use presently proposed and therefore my client respectflly requests a waiver of the moratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this application may proceed. Please advise of any hearing concerning this request. Thank you for JCT/le your courtesy and cooperation i/~this /? Very~ru~y you~ Joht . Tsunis matter. CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou Bennett Orlowski, Jr. JOHN C. TSUNIS 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMAC~ LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK (5T6) 499-8070 11725 October 16, 985 Supervisor Frank Murphy and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. I respectflly request a waiver of the moratorium and ask that the Board notify other Town Departments of same. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis JCT/le CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou C~ennett Orlowski, Jr. JUDITII T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 4, 1986: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road", has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with respect to their application presently pending' before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis~ Esq. appeared before this Board and explained the nature of the uses for which he proposes to use the premises in question, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses ina Residential Office (RO) District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Welner, Inc.'s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and they hereby are granted a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 to the extent of permitting such uses on said premises as set forth in their 'application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval, subject, however, to the applicant obtaining any and all permits and approvals required by all Town and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereof. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk JOHN C. TSUNIS 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMACK. LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK 11725 October 16, 985 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. I respectflly request a waiver of the moratorium and ask that the Board notify other Town Departments of same. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis JCT/le cc: Robert Gruber, Architect ~entelis Papazaglou nnett Orlowski, Jr. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE ($16) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2.2, 1985: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road!', has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law NO. lU, - 1985 with respect to his applica- tion presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to construct a retail shopping center, and WHEREAS, this Board deems such us inconsistent with the uses in the R-O District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine F, Weiner, Inc.~s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and he hereby is denied a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with respect to his application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk 8outhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 10, 1985 Mr. Robert Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive, South Medford,N¥ 11763 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: The Southold Town Board has recently adopted a moratorium on site plans in B,B1,C, and C1 zones, which became effective on October 3, 1985. Therefore, the Planning Board cannot take any further action -on the site plan known as, "280 North Road" until authorized by the Town Board. Enclosed is a copy of the moratorium for your review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board. dms enc. ,:20 - 5 1990 ........ UES FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY Index 9: 90-23777 Date Purchased: FULL TITLE OF ACTION JORDAN'S PARTNERS AND PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU IAS Entry Date: Petitioners/Plaintiffs, -against- Name of Assigned Judge-. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JAMES DINIZIO, JR., all constituting the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, VICTOR LESSARD, Principal Building Inspector, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. Respondents/Defendants. Issue joined (date __Bill of particulars served Date of Assignment: ;L4. L FEE PAID NOV SO EDWARD p. ROMAINE COUNTY CLERK ) NATURE OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION X __ Request for preliminary conference __ Note of issue and/or certificate of readiness __ Notice of motion (return date ) __ Order to show cause (return date ) __ Other ex-parte application __ Notice of petition (return date December 20, 1990) __Notice of medical or dental malpractice action Statement of net worth __Writ of habeas corpus __Other (specify) __ Relief sought: NATURE OF ACTION OR PROCEEDING TORT Motor vehicle __Medical or dental malpractice Seamen Airline __Other tort, including but not limited to personal injury, property damage, slander or libel SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS X Tax certiorari Condemnation Foreclosure __ Incompetency or conservatorship __Other special proceedings including but not limited to Article 75, 77, 78 OTHER ACTION Matrimonial Matrimonial Contract Other (contested) (uncontested) ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 (516) 543-2200 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: NAME OF INSURANCE CARRIERS: RELATED CASES: (If none, write "NONE" below) Title Index 9 Court Nature or relationship NONE I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, OTHER THAN AS NOTED ABOVE, THERE ARE AND HAVE BEEN NO RELATED ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS, NOR HAS A REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTER- VENTION PREVIOUSLY BEEN FILED IN THIS ACTION OR PROCEEDING. Dated: Commack, New York. November 21, 1990 H~. Pachman, Esq. PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 (516) 543-2200 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 November 9, 1990 John C. Tsunis, Esq. Scott Zamek, Esq. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Appeal No. 3915 - Jordan's Partners Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith for your information and file is a copy of the determination received by our office today from the Suffolk County Department of Planning concerning the above application. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER lk By Linda Kowalski Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE NOV - g Igl~ ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING November 8, 1990 Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of "Jordan's Partners" (#3915), Town of Southold (SD-90-26). Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission ou November 7, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following reasons: Sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable use variance criteria; It constitutes an apparent infringement upon legislative powers exclusively delegated to the Town Board; It would tend to establish a precedent for further commercial development in the locale along N.Y.S. Rte. 25; It will further diminish the safety & traffic carrying capacity of said roadways in the vicinity of premises; e There are ample lands in the surrounding area available for retail commercial purposes; It contravenes established policy objectives in the Town Master Plan which calls for the discontinuance of strip commercial development within the Town major highway corridors; It is inconsisteut with the Town Master Plan which designates this area for residence purposes; and, It is inconsistent with Suffolk County Master Plan objectives in promoting identifiable communities limiting commercial development along major roadways and providing for rehabilitation and enhancement of existing business/commercial infrastructures, particularly downtown areas including Greenport. VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, L,I,. NEW YORK 11788 Page -2- Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning Planner GGN:mb APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Ooehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53'095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Pursuant 'to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: XX Variance from the Zoning Code, Article VII , Section lO0-T1 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector. Special Exception, Article , Section Special Permit Appeal No.: 3915 Applicant: Jordan's Partners Location of Affected Land: 1000 Main St. & 160 Main Rd., County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 34-2-1 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line Greenport, NY Body of Water (Bay, Sound or'Estuary) XX State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed Boundary of Existing or Proposed Other Recreation Area County, State or Federally Owm{ed County, State or Federal Park or Land or Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Drainage Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Lines, Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. Channbl Channel COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to construct retail stores in conjunction with office building uses-Proposed retail construction is not permitted in the RO Zone District Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: October 23, 1990 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Ooehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~c~ ~c! ~ ~ October 19, 1990 scoq'F L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 John C. Tsunis, Esq. Scott Zamek, Esq. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Appl. No. 3915 - Jordan's Partners Gentlemen: Transmitted for your records is a c0~¥ of the official findings and determination in the above matter which was rendered by the Board of Appeals at our October 17, 1990 Special Meeting. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Matthew Kiernan, Asst. Town Attorney Supervisor and Town Board Members Suffolk County Department of Planning Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD. N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date..../..~. ,.~./ ............... 19 .~.~. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ...~.~...~. .................... 19 .~.~... House No. ' ..... · .............. Haml~ ' County Tax Map No. lO00 Section .... ~.,~...' .... Block . . .~.. Lot Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No ........ ' .......... ...d.~.' .... .,,,,. o. .-. .r/. .... ~..~,,,.~.....,,,,~.~:..~....,,.~. . ~../,-z~,,.d.....,,~ .... ~....~.~...~~ ...................... U~ln~/~nspector RV 1/80 Page 7 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 (i) Good faith reliance on an invalid permit does not automatically entitle the applicant to a variance {See Rejman v. Welch, 112 AD2d 795, 492 NYS2d 295 (1985, 4th Dept.)}; (j) The issue of a use variance is not whether the use as presently zoned is the most profitable use, but merely whether that use will yield a reasonable return, (see Bellanca v. Gates, 97 AD2d 971, 468 NYS2d 774 (1983, 4th Dept.), affd. 61 NYS 2d 878, 474 NYS2d 480, 462 NE2d 1198.) (k) An application for a change of zone is not without merit and has not been exhausted. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the relief requested in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appl. No. 3915, for the reasons stated above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk JOI~N C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW' JOHN C. TSUNIS SCOY[ ZAMEK Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 August 31, Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street Greenport, New York Dear Chairman Goehringer: This regarding matter. shall confirm our telephone conversation of this morning the closing of the hearing on the above referenced You advised me that on September 6, 1990, the hearing would be formally closed, but that additional written evidence may be submitted by concerned parties at that time and that no oral test- imony would be permitted. Accordingly, there would be no need for someone to appear on behalf of the applicant. Additionally, if any written evidence is offered, you will so advise me and provide the applicant with an opportunity to rebutt or respond to same prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting on or about September 27, 1990. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNG5 SCOTT EK, E Q. 80t MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG iSLAND, NEW YORK t t788 · TELEPHONE 5t6-582-4000 · FAX: 516-582-4256 ~S 15Ac~ T~ R~E: Tsunis, et al. Jordan's Partners Greenport Commons Mr. Bennett Orlowski Chairman,southold TownS°Uth°ldHall Town Planning Board.~-~=(~~r~ll~L-~ Main Road ~L ~/./.~I Southold, New York 11917 2 August 1990 Dear Mr. Orlowski: From Mr. G. Goehringer's secretary, we've learned that the Jordan's Partners case has been tossed BACK INTO YOUR COURT. Whyever for? This is another case of planned usage directly · violating the Master Plan. And common sense. For the Record: We are vehemently opposed to the strip mailing(mauling?) of Southold Town. Downtown Greenport(rife with vacant business properties), her local business people and her local populace will be the big losers, if this gang of outsiders prevails. Economically unsound, Greenport Commons is antagonistic to our planning goals and focus...as well as, our shared rural environment. One developer's short-term greed will, however, be satisfied...for the moment. Jordan's Partners; Tsunis, et al.is not alone. Most developers share their modus operandi. Buy land. Abjure rules and regulations that impinge on maximized profitability. When in doubt or when constraints are in place, ruthlessly despoil the landscape(kill trees, defoliate, shove dirt around, start rudimentary foundations, etc. ad nauseam. All, I might add, at magnificently inflated, developer-concocted "costs-out-of-pocket".). The hope,here,is that the usual local apathy and the "well-it's-too-late-now" mentality will deaden the opposition. If found out, though, said developer claims ignorance of the process and its strictures. The newly chastened one's "woe-is-me" whine soon escalates into the outraged scream of "hardship"! What mockery and arrogance. Why do land speculators get special treatment? Allowing wholesale(literally and figuratively) exceptions to the rule---our hard won Master Plan...is corrosive to the public trust. It is expensive for the taxpayer, time-consuming for the jugglers of local officialdom and mortgages our future. It must stop. Read the Letters-to the-Editor, go to public meetings or social gatherings and it's obvious that the natives are restless. And cynical about just who is taking care of v~hom. ~lhen ALL public officials are elected and, therefore, accountable, is the day when access will be equitable and the rule of law...observed. With a well-oiled patronage machine in place, putting in the "fix" or exerting undue influence is easy. Just the way to get things done. But for whom? It is damn well time for Real Estate...manipulators and stooges..to get out of the business of government. .Conflict of interest must be exposed and eradicated. The guys that can be got to, ought to be gotten out. Further on this tack, isn't it time that Real Estate investments be treated like any other. Some you win. Some you lose. Why is is that our Town is always left holding the bag? Pleading hardship and the mitigating circumstance is ludicrous but it seems to work. Real property investments evoke priviledge, i.e. private law (from the Latin). Yet, this "priviledge" is not sacrosanct. Common Law does evolve! Land speculators and "improvers" who plunder the commonweal should NOT be protected. Page 2. Take this Tsunis( or Jordan's Partners or whatever corporate umbrella they wiggle). His is a case in direct violation of the Town Planning Code. How legally prescient and morally satisfying to penalize the fellow. Make him compensate SoutholdTown for time wasted. For the eyesore across from Porky's(how come we don't have a Tree ordinance like East Hampton???). For the display of mindful arrogance and cite him for contempt. Tsunis should be jumping through the legal hoops, not the Town. Jordan's Partners should be spending its time and money and energy to get thin§s right, not the Town. It is Southold, particularly the villagers of Greenport, who should be seeking redress and crying foul. Respectfully, CC: Scott Harris G. Goehringer Lili Ann C. Motta P.O.Box 128 East Marion, New York 11939 i'~r. G. Goehringer~ Chairman Zoing Board of Ao eals S3uthold Town Board Town ?all $outhold~ ~T.¥. I am writing to state my 3~vosition to the provssed across from Porky's ~est~urant in ~reenport. stri~ mall With the record of unused~ unattractive and p~ofitless strip ~alls that already defile the beauty of "the North Road" between q~ver- head and Greenport there is absolutely no necessity for c~ntinuing the defilement. Furthermore~ this will be one more divisive entry in the sweep- stakes t~w~rd oblivion that blight the overconstructed and nearly half-empty commercial area of Greenpert. ~hat kind of planninM allowed this to haooen? Obviously~ the Greenoort qilla~e Board was vary much at f~utt here. I pray that the Southold Town Zoni~? Board ~ A~meals will not be guilty of the same kind of destructive action. ~aven't we "uglified" the North Fork enough as it is? Yours truly~ '~[onse~ Thomas ~ ~' COMMENTS TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS CONCERNING APPEAL 9 3915 OF JORDAN'S PARTNERS " The North Fork Environmental Council offers the · following comments to the Board of Appeals concerning the appeal of Jordan's Partners for a variance from the use regulations of the Residential Office zone in order "to construct office and retail stores." Firstly, we would comment on the w'or'ding of the public notice, partially quoted above. It is our understanding of zoning appeals that permission, to construct is not within the power, of · the Board ~to grant. The Board may properly grant a use variance, which should be the subject of the proceedings on--this appeal. We respectfully ~-~mind the Board that the existing site plan for the proposed shopping center is null and void. According t6 Southold Town Code, section 100-255 A; "An approved site development plan shall be valid for a period of t~ree (3) years from the date of approval. All work proposed on the plan shall be completed within three (3) years from the date of approval unless a longer period was approved or the applicant obtains an extension from the Planning Board." The date of approval for the proposed shopping center is June 23, 1986. We would request that the Board respect this provision of the code and refuse to entertain any claim of hardship based on the expiration of the site plan. Furthermore, upon our Leview of the Board's files and the Planning Board's files, we note that SEQRA review seems not to have been completed on the original site plan application in 1984. A long Environmental Assessment Form was requested and completed indicating that the Planning Board had determined the action as a Type I or Unlisted. However, there are no records indicating that the Planning Board initiated or completed a coordinated review or made a determination of significance. According to Southold Town code section 100-254 E, "No decision on the application [for a site plan] shall be made until the State Environmental Quality Review Act process is completed~" This would seem to indicate that'the site plan approval was invalid upon issuance on June 23, 1986. We contend that this ~furth~r.militates against any consideration the Board might ~l,~n~erta:in as to a claim of hardship based on eXpiration of the a nonoproflt organization for th~ preservation of land. aea. air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled p~per During the course of this hearing the appellant has contended that he was ignorant of the proposed zoning change intended for the project site. This can not be believed. A letter dated October 10, 1985 from Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman of the Planning Board to Robert Gruber, Architect for the appellant, states, "The Southold Town Board has recently adopted a moratorium on site plans in B, B1, and C1 zones which became effective on October 3, 1985." A resolution adopted by the Town Board on October 22, 1985 responding specifically to a request by the appellant to waive the provisions of the moratorium, reads in part, "WHEREAS this Board deems such use [shopping center] inconsistent with the uses in the R/O District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine, & Weiner, Inc."s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions,". It is clear that the appellant knew thaH the propo~=d ~h~=~in~ ~enter site would be re-zoned to more restrictive uses. Nevertheless he proceeded to re-petition the Town Board on January 13, 1986, for a waiver to the moratorium which inexplicably was granted. He also proceeded with the above mentioned site plan review and other permit review processes. Th~ appellant seems to have willingly taken a risk to beab the clock of the official adoption of the new zon'ing district. He has lost the race and now claims a hardship. The Planning Board file contains a site sketch for a three unit professional complex. Additionally there are Planning Board comments to the appellant requesting him to develop along R/O guidelines. From these documents it is clear t~at the appellant had ample oportunity to reshape his project. His claim of hardship based on financial g~ounds is spurious. Once again, he knew he was taking a risk. Based on the above information and information in the hearing record submitted by Greenport/Southold residents, The North Fork Environmental Council strongly urges the Board to deny this request for a variance. March 15, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals~ Southold Town Dear Members: As members of the Greenport Historic Preservation Commission, we are deeply concerned about your decision regarding "Greenport Commons". If Greenport Commons is commercially developed, we feel that Greenport's commercial district will be adversely affected. Much of that commercial district is officially designated a historic district. Therefore, we urge this Board to hold firmly to the zoning spelled out in the approved master plan. ~~/~~r n . ~~,mbe , ee port Historic Preservation Commission APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,~§CO'I~ L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 July 25, 1990 TO: John Tsunis, Esq. & Scott Zamek, Esq. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Tsunis and Mr. Zamek, Please forward to us a statement disclosing those individuals forming each corporation (owner) to include: directors and officers of Jordan's Park Place Ltd. Partners, which must be furnished for the record. Thank you Very truly yours and Jordan's Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZlO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE I~,OAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y: 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 FAX NO. (516) 765-1823 TYPE II March S.E.9.R.A.- ACTION DECLARATION 15, 1990 Appeal No. 3915 Project/Applicants: County Tax Map No. Location of Project: Jordan's Partners 1000-34-2-1 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport,NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Permission to construct o~ffice and retail stores. Proposed construct is not a permitted use in this District. This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant. adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at [516) 765-1809. tm TO GREENPORT COMblONS! pposed to the proposed in Greenport, We the undersigned center on State Road 25 and Main Street #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: 1. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous i 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a any proposal should be carefully considered--ret rejected outright. c~truction of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map Name Address ANO TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned a.opposed to the~proposed ruction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map ~ # 1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: / 1. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. f.Mx/ 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. ~:l/~ 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. ~V 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district,- any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use shou~td be rejected outright. Name ~'~_~."0 G~EENPORT COMMONS! ~ We the undersigned are o~)~)posed to the proposed cons~uction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map # 1000-34-2-}, for the following reasons: ]. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. it is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to. Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address N~TO GREENPORT COMMONS[ We the undersigned are ~posed to the proposed cons center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, #1000-34-2-I, for the 2. 3. 4. uction of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. It is surrounded oo three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address N GREENPORT COMMONS! ~ the undersigned are opposed to the proposed cons~ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: 1. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is sarrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address O GREENPORT COMMONS! ~ ~e the undersigned are opposed to the proposed cons~ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #~000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on thr~e sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be re j e c t~ outright. ~------~.~.,,/%" carefully considered--retail use should be ,,,": ,~,,, ,,', , GREENPORT COMMONS! ~ Me the undersigned are opposed to the proposed cons ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name / Address O GREENPORT COMMONS! ~-~f~-~-- We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed cons ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #~000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address NO O GREENPORT_ COMMONS{ t~tion of a shopping ' We the undersigned are opposed co the proposed cons center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #{000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: |. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2, Increased traffic flow Co au already hazardous interse:tion. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenpor[, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address N GREENPORT COMMONS! ~ We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed cons~ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #!000-34-2-!, for the following reasons: |. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address N GREENPORT COMMONS! ~ We the undersigned are opposed to*:'th-~proposed cons~ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: I. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Address N 0 GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are osed to the proposed consl center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, #1000-34-2-~, 2. 3. 4. ~ction of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway to Gree~nport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Address ...,, GREENPORT COMMONS! ~ We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed cons ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map # 1000-34-2-], for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address N~O GREENPORT COMMONS! - We the undersigned are c,~posed to the proposed con~ctio~ of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map # 1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: 1. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Address N, GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are sed to the proposed consl center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, #~000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: 2. 3. 4. ~ction of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed c ]tion of a shopn~2~.o center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax~f~ #~000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: / ~ I. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. ' //~/ 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. ~ 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name / Address TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned pposed to the proposed c ruction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address ruction of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map NO TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned ar~posed to the proposed co~ center on State Road 2~and Main Street in Greenp #1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: |. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenpo. rt. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address ~Z~ U NO~ GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are o~sed to the proposed const center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, #1000-34-2-1, for the 2. 3. 4. of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Na~e Address 2. 3. 4. ~TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are ~posed to the proposed tion of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map # 1000-34-2-l, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address N~TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are Wposed to the proposed conJ ~uction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #!000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name~ ~ ~ Address NO ~ GREENPORT COMMONS{ We the undersigned are op~sed to the proposed const ~tion of a shopping center'on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport~..~..S, u ffolk Tax Map #{000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: 1. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It i$ surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be rejected out right]¥ carefully considered--retail use should be NO ~REENPORT COMMONS! r~ion of a shopping We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed const center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: I. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address ~(~O GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are o~osed to the proposed cons! ~ction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: |. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. ~ /~ ~ Name Address NO~,.TO GREENPORT COMMONS! We the undersigned are o~osed to the proposed cons Oction of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map # ~000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: |. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Address We the undersigned are op~'~sed to Iht center on State Road 25 and Main Street #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: I. Economic hardship on the village of 2. 3. 4. r posed const in Greenport, ion of a shopping Suffolk Tax Map Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. i[ is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway ro Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name Address NO TO GREENPORT COMMONS!1 We the undersigned are opted to the proposed constr~tion of a shopping center on State Road 25 a~ Main Street in Greenport,~ffolk Tax Map #~000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: 1. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Address ~ c _N{.~O GKEENPOR'I' COMMONS! We the undersigned are o,.~osed to the pr~9~posed cons~ of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map I/~000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: I. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. iC is surrounded on three sides by a rc~idencial area. The site is ~he gateway to Greenport, ad'ihs a historic district, amy proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. N a~~~~// m d d r~~/~ I , - _ ~ - ~. / "/ I the undersigned ar~po~ed to the proposed construl Ion of a shopping ~nter on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map ~ 1000-34-2-], for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use shouJ~ ~ rejected outright. Name Address REENPORT COMMONS! ~ We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed constru on of a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, fuffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-~, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. Name ~.~'~/~. Address 'We the undersigned are o ed to the proposed constr a shopping center on State Road 25 and Main Street in Greenport, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: I. Economic hardship on the Village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. NO TOI ~ENPORT COMMONS! ~ We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed construcyon of a shopping center ~ ~tate Road 25 and Main Street in Greenpor~, Suffolk Tax Map #1000-34-2-1, for the following reasons: Economic hardship on the village of Greenport. 2. Increased traffic flow to an already hazardous intersection. 3. It is surrounded on three sides by a residential area. 4. The site is the gateway to Greenport, adjoins a historic district, any proposal should be carefully considered--retail use should be rejected outright. America the Beautiful USA15 Philadelphia: William & Joan Kart 611 Bailey Avenue Greenport, New York 11944 February, 29, 1990 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our concern regarding the current construction of the "Greenport Commons" located on Route 58 in Greenport, New York. Our property is adjacent to the rear corner section of this area and there is a continuous flow of garbage into our yard. This is substantially interfering with our privacy and with the quiet enjoyment of our property to the extent that we are considering commencing a legal action against this concern for "private nuisancei" We would hope that a fence separating our property from this activity will be erected by "Greenport Commons" as soon as possible in order to provide us with some relief. We are also anticipating the lighting arrangement that will be installed for the parking lot and can foresee a problem arising there. In essence, we are registering this formal complaint to apprise you of the situation with the expectation that you will take these factors into consideration when granting "Greenport Commons" a variance. In addition, we would like to notify you regarding a dangerous situation at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Main Street. We are already aware of a minimum of four Deaths at that point within the last two years and hope for the safety of our family and the public in general that a remedial measure ~s taken within the near future (i.e. stop light, traffic light, etc.). Any assistance that you could give us would be greatly appreciated and we would ask that this letter be kept on file. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. cc: Greenport Commons s~ec~fully, /1 William & Joan Kart Town of Southold Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, N,Y, 11971 Dear Members of the Board: Re: Jo~'dan's Partner's Tllis letter is being written with mixed feelings in regards to the proposed construction project. Wllile it iS understandable tl~at abusiness expects a return on investment, it is difficult to comprehend why a business person would expend a large amount of capital at a tirne of weak economy in all area whel'e there are many business store fronts vacant ( ie. Stem ington Comrnons, Victorian Village, Kontakosta's storei~ront ). Pert~aps tllere are otlle~' ~-easons whicl~ the general public is unaware of, but in the minds of many local people this project appears to be 5 or lO years premature. Anotl~er area ol' unkept vacant stores with broken or boarded up windows and trasll blowing in tile breeze is not desirable. The traffic problems llave not diminislled and tile new traffic pattern at the intersection of routes 48 and 25 is worse than ever. Add to ttlis a traffic flow due to retail shops in operation and the~-e may be a haza~'dous situation to the general public. It is hoped tl~at this l~as been tt~oroughly researched and considered. This is no question tllat tile tlloughts of noise pollution become apparent. A retail sllop operation requires truck deliveries at all hours of tile day and night. Depending on tile type of retail sllop, it is possible to have store hours a~'ound the clock and perl~aps not the most desirable clientele inhabiting an area adjacent to residential homes. It is not uncommon for business.people and investors who are not residents to do wl~atever it takes to proceed witll tl~eir project to accomplislla bottom line. Someth'ne it is done witllout regards to how it effects the local inhabitants who will live witl~ tile situation t'or many years. Please consider tl~ese concerns befoi'e approving the p~'oJect wl~ich car/ have so rnucll influence on us. Sincerely, A1 ice Green Town of Southold Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Dear Members of the Board: This letter is being written with mixed feelings in regards to tile proposed construction project. While it is understandable that a business expects a return on investment, it is difficult to comprehend why a business person would expend a large amount of capital at a time of weak economy in an area where there are many business store fronts vacant ( ie. Sterlington Commons, Victorian Village, Kontakosta's storefront ). Perhaps there are other reasons which the general public is unaware of, but in the minds of many local people this project appears to be 5 or lO years premature. Another area of unkept vacant stores with broken or boarded up windows and trash blowing in the breeze is not desirable. The traffic problems have not diminished and tile new traffic pattern at the intersection of routes 48 and 25 is worse tllan ever. Add to tt~is a traffic flow due to retail shops in operation and there may be a hazardous situation to the general public. It is hoped tl~at this has been thoroughly researched and considered. This is no question tllat tt~e tlloughts of noise pollution become apparent. A retail SllOp operation requires truck deliveries at all hours of the day and night. Depending on the type of retail shop, It is possible to have store hours around tile clock and perhaps not the most desirable clientele inhabiting an area adjacent to residential homes. It is not uncorllmOll for business people and investors who are not residents to do whatever it takes to proceed witll their project to accomplislla bottom line. Sometime it is done without regards to how it effects the local inhabitants who will live with tl~e situation for many years. Please consider these concerns before approving the project which can have so much influence on us. Sincerely, Alice Green 15 March 1990 To the Southold Town Board of Appeals: The proposed Greenport Commons complex is an example of the kind of misuse of our open spaces which the long, awaited Master Plan was designed to prevent. The construc- tion at this important intersection of yet another row of stores and offices, offering goods and services of the type already abundantly available within the Village itself and elsewhere nearby, would not only adversely affect Greenport's commercial center but would needlessly and unalterably damage the rural character of the whole area. There are at present numerous stores and offices in Greenport and throughout Southold Town--including space in the newer "malls"--that remain empty after more than a year, some much longer. This proposed development has been extremely unpopular in the community at large, has been c.ritized.in the press and chambers of commerce. It has nothing new or attractive to offer (except to the developers who will take their profits and move on, leaving us with the mess). It is opposed by environ- mentalists as well as those who care about preservation of the historic and rustic charm of the North Fork. ~ it is in conflict with the Master Plan which went into effect in January, 1989. Yet a building permit was issued last Spring. Inexplicably, this error went apparently undetected until after the foundations had begun. It is difficult to believe that Jordan's Partners remained totally unaware all along of the illegality of the situation and even harder to understand why the Town waited so long to take the stop-work action. Granting the requested variance now on the grounds of financial hardship suffered by Mr. Tsunis will only compound the error and set a very sorry precedent. It will very likely open the way for further exceptions to the rule and future random commercialinvasion to the west and east along a stretch of highway that has so far managed to escape the blight of ~m- urban sprawl. We urge that the requested variance be denied. PO Box 224 New SHffotk, N.Y. 1195b March 20, 1990 Zoning Board of appeals Town Hall SoUthold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Sirs: I wo~ld like to add my voice to those opposed to the requested change of zone in application #3915 called Greenport Commons. aside f~om ~his action being a drastic variance with respe~to the Master Plan as it is, the consequences of s~ch a project in adding hazardo~s traffic to an already b~sy and dangerous corner seem too enormo~s and Unnecessary to contemplate. Please ~o not allow acceptance of application ~3915. Sincerely yo~3rs, ~Iarch 22, ~990 $outhold Town Bcard of Appeals Main Road State Road 25 Southold, N.Y. ~1971 Dear Gerard P. Goehringer~ Chairman: In regard to appeal No. 3915- Jordan's Partners, Greenport Co~ons shopping center. Please disapprove his request for retail stores. The b~ster Plan was revised on this land which was top priority. The town changed the zoning of the property in an effort to limit development of the area and preserve more open space. At a time when Long Island is becoming overdeveloped. Lets hold up to the pressure~ The ~Iaster Plan took alot of time and money. We don't want to set a precedent overriding the zoning ordiance. This shopping center will have an environmental impact to our Town. After talking with the Town A%torney, he states the Southold Town Board of Appeals may make themselves Lead Agency. To request a Full Environmental Impact statement to be done under the basic SEQR Process. This project will most definately have an impact. Please request one be done. Thank you, GREENPORT ACTION COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED CITIZE] P.O. Box 61g Greenport, New York ~944 June Il, 1990 Supervisor Scott L. Harris Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York ~97~ Dear Supervisor Harris: We are a community group devoted to good planning and supportive of the Greenport downtown business district. There is a variance request to Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals that would be devastating for downtown Greenport: Jordan Partners' "Greenport Commons". We do not want Greenport to be victimized by a Building Department error. (They issued a permit for retail construction contrary to the passage of the Master Plan by Southold's Councilmen which ruled it a residential/office zone.) It would be a serious error for the ZBA to undermine the Town Councilmen's responsibility for zoning. We hope the Southold Councilmen and Planning Board will meet with Greenport officials and citizen groups to come up with a solution. In the meantime, we respectfully ask you to advise the ZBA that you do not want to abdicate zoning responsibility to that appointed board and that they should deny the variance and refer 3ordan Partners to the elected officials for a zone change. The public should be consulted and involved in the process of pursuing other uses for this property that would both benefit Southold Town and the Village and not unduly penalize the applicant for his ultimate responsibility in not researching the legality of his actions. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in any discussions or meetings on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, "Commons" Comm. Joanne Dolinar "Commons" Committee Decia Fates "Commons" Comm. cc; Southold Councilmen, ZBA & Planning Greenport Trustees "Commons" Comm. and Planning Colett~7 Clayton Board ~. ~anaea ~e~guaon 66230 Nort~ Road~ Box s8~, Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals, Gerard P. ~oehringer, Chairman Request for Variance to ~he Zoning Ordinance June 26, 1990 With reference to the aforementioned requebt, I would urge yuu ko consider the impact of granting this variance. The master plan was i~pleme~ted ~or a reaeon~ to rezone wi=~OU~ J~$tification makes no sense whatsoever eepecially oon~idering the nee~ for affordable housing in Greenport. To use Mr Tounis' financial situation as a Justification for re~oning is totally unacceptable to me, a resi4ent living within sight end hearing of ~he location in ~ucstion. Whale Mr Tsunis may suffer a financial loss by selling the lots for reei~ential instead o~ commercial use, I, a taxpayer in =he ~owfl of Southold, coul~ also realize a depreciation of my property living ne~ to a strip mall. The big di~ference is that Mr Tsunis can write off his loss; I cannot. Considering the vacant commercial ~roperties in the village of Green~ort, building additional s~ores would be ludioroue; creating competition for existing ~uaine~ses would only drain business away from the village ~hat we are intent on revitalizing. A strip mall in Greenport is totally out of character, a vacant strip mall would be an eyesore. I am also requesting that a DEIS be done and a long form EAF be completed before any decision is made. Thank you for your attention. i. ect ully you , O~ee~por~ ~Y L~044 Southold Town ~:;~%rd of Appeal~, Gerard P, C, ooh~l~ger, Cha{r~:an Jordan's Partners June 26, 1990 bear Sir, the ~forement&oned re~e~t, I would urg~ i~pact of 9ranting thi~ variance. ~a~ter plan w~ Im;lemented for a reason; to rezone .~ ~unz~ :~a! sit~%~on a~ a Justification for re~oning is ~-~2 ': ..~b!c ~o ~, , a resident living within sight and h~aring of i,e location In qu=stion. io~: ...... ~: rs~ld~ti~l in~tead of ~ommerc~a] uae, I~ a tawpayer in th~ ~own of 9o~¥ ~-d, ' ~ ~ '~ ~ ~o strip mall The b~g CoPs~derin$ ~h ..... ,:. ant commercial properties in the village of Greenport, builc~i~ ~ditional store~ would be ludicrous; re'~%t~izin~. A strip rail in O~een~ort is totally out of chaaacter~ a vacant ~trip mall wo,dld be an eyesore. i am a]~o reques~in,~ that a bETS be done and a tong form EAr be :omp~et~d before .*~; ,q~c~sion is made. Thank you for ~ou'r attention. 13 Oune Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road, Southold, 11971 New York Re: Greenport Commons Dear Sir: The following is the text of a statement made before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its March 15th hearing on the above subject, and signed by a number of Greenport and East Marion residents: "The proposed Greenport Commons complex is an example of the kind of misuse of our open spaces which the long-awaited Master Plan was designed to prevent. The construction at this important intersection of yet another row of stores and offices, offering goods and services of the type already abundantly available within the Village itself and elsewhere nearby, would not only adversely affect Greenport's commercial center but would needlessly and unalterably damage the rural character of the whole area. "There are at present numerous stores and offices in Greenport and throughout Southold Town--including space in the newer malls--that remain empty after more than a year, some much longer. This proposed development has been extremely unpopular in.the community at large, has been criticized in the press and chambers of commerce. It has nothing new or attractive to offer (except to the developers who will take their profits and move on, leaving us with the mess). It is opposed by environmentalists as well as those who care about preservation of the historic and rustic charm of the North Fork. And, it is in conflict with the Master Plan which went into effect in January, 1989. "Yet a building permit was issued last Spring. Inexplicably, this error went apparently undetected until after the foundations had begun. It is difficult to believe that Jordan's Partners remained totally unaware all along of the illegality of the situation and even harder to understand why the Town waited so long to take the stop-work action. "Granting the requested variance now on the grounds of financial hardship suffered by Mr. Tsunis will only compound the effor and set a very sorry precedent. It will very likely open the way for further exceptions to the rule and future -2- random commercial invasion to the west and east along a stretch of highway that has so far managed to escape the blight of suburban sprawl. "We urge that the requested variance be denied." Now, three months later, because of continued public opposition and increased awareness of environmental and economic concerns, it seems unlikely that Greenport Commons will become a reality. The problem remains of what to do about this parcel, currently in a ravaged condition; how to reasonably compensate Mr. Tsunis for his costs thus far and how to appropriately use this large area in a way which will benefit Town residents and not violate the essential character of Greenport, upon which tourism on the North Fork depends to a large extent. Perhaps some combination of needed housing and recreational space can be the solution. Or a public park with tennis courts, etc. and hourly fees. In any case, the residents of the Town should be allowed a voice in the final decision. Increasingly, people are dismayed by the waste of precious open land and resources sacrificed forever to foolhardy projects. Here, we have a second chance. Let's make the most of it. Respectfully yours, ,~Jane M, Gohorel East Marion, N.Y. To: The Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Att: Mr.Gerard Goehringer 1870 Stars Rd. East Marion 11939, N.Y. 18 July 1990 I understand that on July 25th a final decision is to be rendered on Greenport Commons. Mr. Tsunis' request for a variance to proceed with commercial strip development opposite Porky's restaurant in Greenport should be denied. This project is utterly inappropriate for Greenport. Not only is it in conflict with the Master Plan--which should be upheld--but it is completely out of character and would have a negative effect on the commercial heart of the Village. Mr. Tsunis' plea of extreme financial hardship is unconvincing. As a professional developer, and a lawyer, he must surely have had more than an inkling of the restrictions on the use of this parcel. It is not uncommon for a developer to deliberately proceed with razing a parcel and commencing construction, in order to force acquiescence, after the fact, by local govern- ments. Please don't fall for this. Greenport must not be sacrificed because of a series of errors and imprudent actions by Town officials and Mr. Tsunis. Financial compensation to the owners of the property must involve a careful determination of their actual costs--not what they might have realized had the project gone through. And these costs should not include the bulldozing and beginning of construction, leasing arrangements, etc. None of these should count because they were illegal and premature. Why should a speculator in real estate be compensated for a gamble gone wrong at the expense of an entire community? Mr. Tsunis can undoubtedly write off any losses. Can the same be said of shopowners in Greenport and Southold who would be adversely affected? This project was a mistake from the beginning and was done with no public input. Besides the total redundancy--stores and services whichwould duplicate many already available, it will disfigure the face and image of a historic Village. It will also set a precedent for blithely putting aside the concept of the Master Plan--something that has evolved after much study and public input and which is essential to saving our way of life on the North Fork. Assuming that the Board of Appeals will make the ri§ht decision, what is to be done about this parcel, currently in a ravaged condition? The very recent example of an overwhelming public reaction to the threatened loss of precious parkland--"67 Steps"--and the quick response of the Town to the voice of the People, sparks an idea. - 2- The Town does not need more strip development; there are already too many empty stores and office space. There is a lack of affordable housing, a lack too of recreational space for local people as well as for tourists. Why can't the Town acquire this land--perhaps Mr. Tsunis might now be amenable to making a deal--and reserve it for parkland or future appropriate middle income development, or perhaps a mix of the t~o? In view of the public opposition to Greenport Commons and the growing dismay at increasing random development which could eventually destroy the essential nature of this area as it is doing all over the world, please vote N~o on Greenport Commons. You will thus be aiding in the preservation of a very precious environment, You will also give a lift to local shop-owners who really need it. We really need them too. They are a ~vonderful group, very interesting, very diverse. We could lose them all and that would be sad. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, This letter is to inform you, that my wife opposed to the const~dction of Greenport Commons. We many of the residents of Greenport, that this Strip not necessary and will spoil the rural-agricultural the East End. and I are feel like Mall is ~ature Gf The people of Greenport and of Southold township feel there are enough empty stores in the area. All these people have signed petitions, which I am sure you have rec~¥- There is a Chinese take-out in the village. There is another one on the North Road in Southold. There is a~Ch~nese restaurant in Southold. We don't need another one. My wife and I purchsed the Tasker family house on the North Road and have put a lot of money and our health in restoring the house. If Greenport Commons is built it will depreciate the value of my house. I can't write off my loss like Mr. Tsunis can. The intersection of Main Street and Route 48 (North Road) is a dangerous corner. There have been many accidents even a death. Imagine how much more dangerous this inter- section will become with the added traffic from the Mall. The Greenport Commons will create a hardship to the stores in the village. The Master Plan calls for this property to be zoned residential-office. So please do not change the zoning of this coner property. ~~~Y°u~s true_. . // Joseph J.~Misuraca ~/ 232 North ~oad Greenport, N. Y. March 15, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Town Dear Members: As members of the Greenport Historic Preservation Commission, we are deeply concerned about your decision regarding "Greenport Commons". If Greenport Commons is cormnercially developed, we feel that Greenport's commercial district will be adversely affected. Much of that commercial district is officially designated a historic district. Therefore~ we urge this Board to hold firmly to the zoning spelled out in the approved master plan. ~reenport Historic Preservation Commission .... l,~a,,_o~ 71~ ( Jordan's ?'~rtn~r~) resident of the I weuld li?e to exorese my opinions critical of this spolication. ~eror~ doing so, I would like to cite, briefly, ~ome of 77 backcreund ?nj experience which,as in a legal proceedinz, serve to qualify my opinions. I have been a licensed real estate broker for over twenty years and ~ a graduate of the ileal q~tate institute. i conduct my business fro~ an office in the Village of %'eenport. I have been active in the sale, iessinz, and financin'~ of co'~mercial, industrial and income properties as well as vacant land in variouszoninz districts ~% residential ~] ~o ,~rty. Over a period of seven years I w~s ?o.?~ssively: secretar]'~ treasur.~r and vice - sresident for Suf fol~~ County of the Lone Islan~J 2ard of Realtors. I served in this latter capacity for three years. In addition, I was a director of the ~ew Vcr'< State Association of Realtors and thrchairperson of several com~ittees. ~o address the subject application, in ~ly oDinion it r}presents yet ~mother atte~?t to cireu~;~w~nt, er try an en~ run, around the ~utho! Zonin~ Code by ~ . s .~zn= a rezonin[] diguised as a vari~nce. It is ~ny understandinz that rezoninS requires lezislative en~ctrmnt and is a function reserw~d to the Town hoard. It i[~ :~'.z understanding that thc basis for t~'~is ?plicatlou lies in the erroneous i~s~nnce of a nuil~linq Permit, subsequent to the adoption of the U:~stcr Plan, and a later 2ton Uork i fail to see where z,n arror on the part of the Build, inZ D~par-~ent I b:.~lieve you ~.~!ii ~'~,,a , . -~'-" .... of . The ovar~ll pl!nnin? of the ~ ' ill %.~s of needs and effects, now and in t'ne future. 'bt sf !.~ast imoortu, nce ~s the lonx term ,~f~ce on the .e .: - established eo rmunities. m review of the si%uation reveals thst the To~l had l. on7 since ~td~ its intantion}c!ear. Preliminary Land Use Plans fop ,qouthold ,~l..~a to the ~,h''~ ' plans ?ePa .elated fha pron}rty in a Na'nl.!t Y}lsitv ~esidentil! D'~ 1..,,..~,~.~.. -~' --'--,:~- v ~ot ~ h}le n~ pc' · of Cf lice use. I rarely fi'n2 ~ ..... n r iu ~ ~re:*ment ~ith the actions ~f the ~,outnola Town o~r~: ....... ~ ~c~ to zonin-~ Their overall actions .~ml~a e o~ r~n&,~ t have oeu~ particularly harn~ful. ~ith respect to the .... .l ~ g ~ They have demonst~de a predisposistion to !oc-~te all of the intansive, on the false prt..nl .... of adequste azld ' ~'~ ~.h = water supply. Contrary to .s~ated policy, the R~irq 'nso~' ,-~o~'~ "il0 zonqd ~oqu,.' ~ ~ "~:;, the ~ajop access route to the ~' ' .;zllaye. uav].m~ sai{this, I find 'nyself in a~reement with the zoning observed the adverse ~,=~ ~ ' ' ' ,.~..cto oF the development of r~rlhway bnsiness one and Patcho~sue as examples. The dot,mto~,,~] bu:~i~ess district of is surf erinS. Stores are vacant and newly ~ ~ct~d sho~oin~ centers are doing badly. ~ny tenants are of ~rginal q~lity. A shppin~ cente~ to the west on the North Road has been foreclosed recently. ?[~e Villase of ,qreenport ~ "~akinE '~?.li~nt ,.~??orts rmtore its i~mSe ~s a tourist ~ttraetion und co~?~e~,c~ ~i To es%~blish, contrary to the Zonin~ O~din~nee, a s~?~af c z. nte~ on a traffic artery north of the villaze would reD,at ~ e ~ist~kes of the Dast an[~ serve to unalo the ~fforts of ~he villa~'o. The subject appeal ~o. 3915 is cla:~sifi,~ as ~n Appeal from ~ecision of quildin~ Inspector. ~ a~ sure t~re have been enough lethal precedents set in this area to require uo co:~,nent fron ~e. [~owever, ~e application ~ppears to be in th.~ nature of a ~ual attack. It also seeks a varianca or~:n t~e ZoninU Or?inance. The 2oard of ~%pe:~!~s ~:~ ~'~owere to altair th~ strict !~tter of the law or to alter the ~p]~lic~tion of zonin~ re~[u]ation~ so ~J~at their spirit is observed. The zoninv ~h~mqe ~.fnich woul[ b~ r~quired is hardly alterinG the letter of th~ ~aw. As for t~e spirit of law, this is a nebulous conce~t. Th~ Zon~nE Crdin;~nce is the actual !aw, c!carly ~[efi~ed. Uardship and sractical ~lfficu].tias as t~ zroundsfor a variance must be inherent in the property[ not its otmership, qardship is ~easured in financial terms, by ~roaf that the property as reEulate~ i~ valueless. Afrequently c~t~; ~ ~ ' - ~-, -~ ...... s,~ ~s that t:.~ prop~rty nas only" baD~ r~sidu~ of value?. As f~ir as practical ~lifficultie.~ ~?~a concerned, they too ~nust be inherent in the land and not thoe o~ners iatentions or operations. Uith respect to the o'.,mer's subr~isaion of a Short Enviro~nental For~.b ! would like make some short cor~'~ents: Q~estion [[o. t2 apparently disre:far~ tr-~ffic ?robl~s ~.t a ~mjor intersection. ~)uestio~ Uo. 14 states that thc proj~ct ~ill haw~ no ~ajor effect the chy. racter of the co~t'~unity or ~uestion Uo. 15 answers the ~uestion o~ public controversy with a (3) This ia a matter for !ezis!ativ~ enactr~ent, irant~-,~ 2 vari~tnce to ac~om~date the o~,~er's objactives ,;ould ? far b~,~Zond ',;otb t~,,~ ]~ttc~ and spirit of the rogulations. Errors on the part o-~ the ~n(ldinz ~,ey~aPt?~nt cannot void zoninz regulations ~or can they ser,~e ss the b~si3 for granting a variance. BOARD MEMBERS P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 October 24, 1994 Matthew E. Pachm~n, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Re: Proposed Application - Jordan's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou Dear Mr. Pachman: In response to your most recent communications, this will confirm that our position remains unchanged. BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 October 15, 1994 Matthew E. Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Re: Proposed Application - Jordan's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou Dear Mr. Pachman: Our Department has reviewed all of the documents delivered to our office by you pertaining to the proposed filing of an appeal application. It is our Department's position after reviewing these documents that the application is found to be unacceptable for filing for the following reasons: 1) The appellate jurisdiction for a Board of Appeals is limited to hearing and deciding appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination nmde by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted (l{ef. New York Town Law~ Section 267-a4)). The copy of written correspondence from the Town Attorney dated August 16, 1994 is not an "order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the adminintrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or lo(mi law adopted...n and therefore is not acceptable as the basis for filing the appeal; 2) Also, an appeal must be taken within sixty days after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such ordinance or local law by filing with the Board of Appeals a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof and the relief sought (Ref: Town Law, Section 267-a5). The Stop Work Order which is requested by the applicant to be reviewed was issued in 1989 and, therefore, is not acceptable as the basis for filing the appeal; Page 2 - October 15, 1994 To: Matthew E. Pacbm~,% Esq. Re: New Proposed Appeal - Jordan's Partners 3) The appeal application states that you are requesting an Appeal for an Interpretation of Section 100-255. There is no order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement of Section 100-255 of the Zoning Code of record dated within the last 60 days; 4) No other documentation, as submitted, was found to satisfy the requirements of New York Town Law as an appropriate basis to appeal. We therefore return the documents submitted. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER~_//CHAIRMAN Via F~ T~s~ssion to 543-2271 ~d Re.ac ~ail HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney MA'ITHEW (3. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Town Board Zoning Board of Appeals E~t~ildiog I~][~tor annlng Matthew G. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney September 30, 1992 RE: Jordan's Partners Annexed hereto please find a Notice of Appeal which has been filed by the petitioner in the above-referenced matter, for your information, Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NE~ YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK JORDAN'S P&RTNERG and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF APPEAL -against- Index #90-23777 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JANES DINISIO, JR., all constituting the Southold Town Zoning of Appeals, VICTOR LESSARD, Prlnclpal Building Inspector, Town of Southold, Respondents/Defendants. SIR: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, JORDAN'S PARTNERS and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, hereby appeals to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York 11201 from each and every part of the Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 20, 1991, (GOODMAN, J.), entered July 1, 1991 and served with Notice of Entry on September 2, 1992. DATED: COMMACK, NEW YORK Yours, etc. September 25, 1992 HOWARD E. PACHMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 (516) 543-2200 TO: HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ..... ~- ~v~= ,, SUTFOLX COLSqTY !O-~DAN'S PARTNERS and PA/rikLIS PA~AZOOLOU, Peddoner~/Pl~ntiffs, GERARD p. GOEI'ZP~!GER, Chairman, CI--L, LRL~ GRIGONI$, JR., SERGE DOTE.N', JR., ]OSEPH Il.. SAWIC,KI, JA~flSS DINIZIO. J'R., all constimmag *-he $ouuhold Tow~ Zonin~ Bo.,~d of Ap.p,~s, VICTOR LESS.~idLD, Pri~ci~zl Bundmg Luspector, Town of Soumzld, R~pondents/Defendan~s. P.M~,T t6) BY: GOODMAN, LS.C. DATED: ~ ,~o, 1991 NO.: ~-~377 7 MOT D PACI-~%LAH & OSI'~ZIN, P.C. Attorney for Petitioners 356 Vet'emns Memo~al Highway P.O. Box 2D Commack, NY 11725 HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ. A~tomev for Respondents 53095 ~ia Road Soutnold, NY 11971 .~ j.. In fi, is, hybrid .A)'dcle 78 procee~g mud de¢l~,-ato,-, iud~m~_nr ~_~,l',~,, ,,,~'..,.~ .12',~ .-v.~-~-~: ~:a..a u?nlea peutloners' reouest for a Pi; non o. an m,,enament or ale zoning ordlnm!¢e conslatuted an uncollstltutional takine of neddm,,.,-~, ,,.^,.,..-,,,..:x ~: - . . diremin~, ,h~ ,,o,,,,..~.., ~.]:,=..-~}~ ~..~y~,¥, .,j ~ juclgment m me nature of mandamus to corn 1 budding permlt: 4) a Judgment d~el.~r,5, c, ~ ."~i,~"~,-~ ·*.`vt, ~ori~ omer. an-, to reinstate a prior · ordinnnc'~ uthie, h ,.~.-.I-~--'M ,,: .....? ,-,,- ~.:~-~m m',allthty ot an amenament to the zonSl~, ................ -*.~,ta~llIleO I>etlUoner ,'" -'~ , ',- ' · . . · . .. s p.,~De.,} t, onkL~ ht Bu",mes damages Ior ~e unconsutuuon~ takine of v,~r-.',;~, .... relief re~trainino th~ Builm-,, r ....... ~=. ~ ~.~ ...... p~o~,.pe.rty, mad 5) permanent mjuacuve · ~ '~"'6 'ut-wr~',a,~r ~u omer towR O~IlClSllg from Lq -terfe.,!ng with or · · . , . . - - ,- .........For ~e reasons set forth, bdow, peuuon,.rs den:and/for relier vur~umn to CPLP. Article 78 are dismissed. declaratory judgment, damages'mad permanent injm<tive relief ve severed Pe~,.ioners demands for plen ,,m,y action, and continued ~ a [PAGE 2 .. IN,"D~'X NO. 90-2377 Petitioners are the owners of a .~.75 acre parcel of land ioc=~:d in ~e Village Gre~nr)oi't, Town of Southold New York Lq i984 ,,e'.mo,~e.-o' -,-~-~.~,,,,-o ;~- :-- o . . ~.~.~,.~,-~¥- ,*-, ,... ~iannLng ~oar~ of trio. lOWn of $ou~old for ~DD£OV~ of a sir~ n)~ to me:.armm'~s. ',vi~ ~ offlca/teL, di shopping .mall. At ~e time 0f'tl:e submis~io, n o,5'Tthat ....... ? appncz.',on, the. premises were zoned Light Businezs - "B". Duffmg the pendenay of the st.e', plan ap¢ication, the'" , ' - ~ own Boa.rd ~mvosed a momtonum winch prohibit~ new con,traction in all z.ol~.d=,b~s~?e~s, or Lndu~.a-ia~. ~ ~e Tows Boa.rd wax then considering a m~or rezoning tinder a ne(,,, ~as:::,.p,m. AS a resuit ct me moratoN.~m, effecd,,e October 3, 1985, the Pl~ning Boa.rd declin~ :m't%er; review of the ~m plmu application for the tub jeer gremdse~. :. On Fe~ru=y 4, 1986, me owner of ~,~ mbjee: premise~ obtain~ a waiver from the moratorium prohibiting development of t,%e subject premises from k~e Town Board. This waiver en~.le_~ .'.he Planning Board to resume its revi':w of :he vre%-~usly submitteU th= proposed 198o, L~e p,!rmning Board adopted a rzsolu:ion granting'sire ni~q aovrova! :0 sit= plan. On lune 23, offieeYremii shopping mall. ' ' ~ ...... ' ' "* " ',-"'5- Greenpor, However, petitioners were a,,cu,,, ware, .e~:ce to melt prepeay from ,ne '" i'~ .... of ' advise~ ~at municipai water sen'lc: was act ava:iatte :':om .'.he Viiiage .'~qd the Town of SouO. old e.xplor¢ o~her sources of water :'orthe:tm 2ren::..~.. ,'.-- .......... ti., ~,. ,-o.,.,.~ o.,h,anc,, too'.< eft.c., pursuant :o .vmch, petitioners' propert? w~ :e.z.:o~a L-om L;g!:t 2us/.¢ss :o Residential/Office except for a 30 acre por'aorlmereofwhici~was,;!aa?~tied~sR-.~Cr'e~icer,,i~ buudmg pc,mc to ,.o,,sr:'~,.: or.~ and r.c.",{ ?,opp?,g cem~r as apphed for" and approved by the Planning Board. In September of 1989, tootings aha a p~mai tbundation were conm:uct~ on the premises. However, th~ Building rasptctor issue~ a stop work order on November 30, 1989, pronibi~ng ~rther ¢onst.~e:ion on the ¢ '+,'" .... .~ : ~, ~u,4,-., p.,.m.s,..< ,,e stop work order indicated that the origin.2.1 bui!dNg permit, dated June $, ~.,o9, ?.ac: :,e.m . _. in error because the disL"icr in · ' - ,~ - ~,.' .<'~ o L;°~' Bas,.ess to R=adenual/Offlce. wmch ,'.% premdses are located i-act b¢en r,,.a~.,.,e~, from .o,,, ..... Under:this classification, ~mcn ¢¢=~, ,,~ ' ,,,-,~ · ' ' took e ..... , prior :c '"-' ts~.,.,.ce of the building permit, use of the subject premises for re,mi sacs w,,s not a use .... ;, =~ e"-. m,.t., as of right. ~ suomm~,, an ,~o~':,c:mon ' ,' ~ respondent Zoning Board of Appeals for ii use van;ance xllowing ,hem to ,.aCe ,h~'ir p"'~-misos for re'~,~il store¢ p hr,- n~.rI~gs w=re conduct=n on foul occ0~o~.s between .March ID, 1990 and July 25, 1990. On'Oetc 1990, thc respcndent Zoning Board d,-nied "' ~ .... "' ;"" ' pc,mort,.., ~prl.,.-uon for a use v '~ '-- Petition,'rs rr,c~em,..=, dec.a.r~,,ory ju,.,=me, · a,.d.~r', for the relief ouflineA abov¢.~ : BY ;heir firat cause o£ action, ~*;,( ...... on.,s demand :judgment · - ' '. pur~u.~,ut ,o Amcte 7g of the C~LR reve.rsing an.4 annuiiing the Oc:obet !7, 1990 determination ct' the re,Tondent, Zoning ~er 17, Board" PAGE 4 rezidu~ ~ereof (Fred French Investing Co., Inc. v City of New York, q9 NYPd 587, 385 ~S2 5 t19761). ' To prev~ aa a dim that ~e zoning classifica~oa c~n~n~ ia me ordin~c~ m app~ to o~o's yro~ is u~onabte ~ ~x: k deprives the owner of ~e use of h~s pro~y wi~out ~ue p~e~s ~d just compenmuon, the c:.mLn~er- ~ o must overcome d~e pr~sumpaoa of ~ioaa~m We~thester Pmjes~on~ Park ,4~oc~es v Town of Bedfo~, 60 ~Y2~ 192,470 350 [I~83]); ~e fac~ ~at ~e property would have a rnuc~ grmter v~ue ~f zea~ for .~soc~eS v ~edfoM, sunni.. . Here ,~,e ~'~a~n_.",- ~-. ~ave r.., ~ :o , ,~,~ esmb!ish ~y proof beyond a r~senable doubt, hha[ C~e ': -~' : ' ' zpp~,c~uon ofme amende~ .onmg~ ormn~nce consulu[~ ~ . .., ..... m~nt ro & use v~c~ is ~w~0h~,, ~ ~n~ons~tuuon~ geg~a~on df n~ .... uncens~:u~cn~ ~3ng c!~m .ceu.r~_. :2 nmner: cu~,~um, er ,proof. AccoraingIy, pefitiongrs' dem~a r , ',,~o ' ..... ~,~, .... ~,. - .......... cea .e,,,,,z ordin~c= unconmmfion~ ~d for damages ~eg~ly sus~ine~ ey reason of s~ch appi.canon. ~e dixmisse~, .... cne.~ r.,, .... C~..,&qa a/~=..,=n[ ?u_'sa~n[ :o Ankle 78, in the nature of m~oamm to compel, dkec~ng, the. Ougdiag rasper:ar :a :ese:nd :ne Navemeer 30, i989 atop work order md to reinstate me p,~v,ca,lv ;5suea ~ulic[n~ permit ,Jatet~ r ,~.. 3; '"" ~ '- .' ~ ' clams for suca relief ~-e =.a~.~ anon :.:=~r :r::Tremtlon ot the proviiionx or' {100-255~) of t~e ZOning Ordin~c, '.vmc~ ~-..'-~/ ' ' That edI sire plans v. hich rec:b,'ea final plat approval prior to the enactment of [his a~cI: sh~I rem~n v~id for a 7c~cd of three ye~s from ~e date of such cna:tment. This penud will : begin to mn when ~" ",,, ...... ~. ~ .............. zpprovM has { ' ~een ob~nld. Pet~.oner. emph~ize ,h.. th~ _pp.~.~ c~ ..... sn. p,.n w=: gr~tefl by t~e Pl~ning ~c~d in lune of 1586, whic5 predamC h~e enactment of the :~u~' 9, !999 amendment to me zoNng 0rdin~ce, pursumqr to which, ~e pe~donerf premises were eezon~ fram Liter ~.nqlnp¢q to · Remdem~O~fice. Peuaoners c!mm ~t pursumat :o ~ 100-2550), their premises enjoyed I) J~qu~W 9, 1992 - ~r~ ye~s Rom :he dpm of enactment of the amendment ro ~he zoning ordbzaqce; or 21 lune 8, i992 - three ye~; Rom the aa~e that the building permlt'(the gcve~mea~ approve) w~ iszced. P~tkioaers assm t~at the Building Inspector wronghlly ,, of Appeais, w.hich denied ~dfioners' ~,<'-~,;~ r~- ' -pr.~,.,-~n .,., a u~e v~ce. To be g~nt~ a use l~d m que~don c~no~ yield ~ r~enabl~ -,, ~; ..,= ' 2) hhZt ~ plight of me owner i~ du~ m unique ,-'- ~,~ .~c..m._n..~ ~d not to the genem~ coudidons'in u~c neighborhood; ~d 3) ~at ~: use to be aufi~ofi:~ bv ~he v~fim~c~ '~,L'm ..Or ~ ~Ite' '"¢ cssenfi~ ' 440 NYS2d 908 [19~]). ' '" '-' ' ~%~e u,¢r..,~on~e,,,,~ ' -' Zc:nLag 2o~z~ of Ap~e-~s found ah~t --'; i , ..~..m~,.¢s were ur~u¢, it found ",- ~e,.uo.,.,s t~:¢d to demcns:m[~ ~h~t ~hc suoi~t ~r~e~ co,Id not )'/e!~ ~ r~onable return for ~)- u~ ~r~r~t1~d ~y, ~he zo:Jng ordinance ~d ~t · ¢ pro~s~ use would not ~tcr uh¢ ¢sscnfi~ ch~actcr of ~¢ neighborhood, It is w~ es~bHsh~fl thai judici~ review of a~¢t-- ~ ~*m.n~aon~ **' of ~.on.nD ~ " '~o~' is ' hm~t~ ~d ~a~ fl.. ~o~a ~ d...~,n~uo, must be, -~- ' ~,h..c .- ..~ ,~.d. . .. ~.[..~9.). ~oa. ,~,,.~or,ner._o ...... r ......Loua hr. as ,nat,h¢Oc;~¢¢r ~, 1990 d ........ n.~cn ol $. r~spcnccat Zoning Bo_. v ~,.~ .~ ~ ~:,., as .~p~n.d :u~s~t:a evidence in thc r~cord ,.~u,.l,.;~',- doil~: ~d cant: .9foof thal~hhe ..~i..," ~ ~" ~.c,,,L~.', ~ ~ '*ou[~ not ', ,.,u-'-' ' a r~soname'' rote of ~u., .~ ordinmnc~. While the ~,;~' .~.: no~ m~nda~¢ the issuance ,'; ~ ,,<, ~ -~-~ Ii - ' ' ~,=, ..... yen satt:aa that ~q applicant for a u~e V~Cl is not e- ',i~ ~ ., Nghesz ~d best us¢ ot ma ~d or because :he v~,..q, .=. will ~ie!a a higher return than pe,,,~it:~ by ~e zoning ordin~qze (Govema!e, . v 3d. of Z~nit:g Appeals, 121 AD2d 539,503 ~S2d ' -"~" ..,..l~n~.~ ,,,. use '<~c~ sought because 597 [1986]). Nor w~ ~h= bo~i requ:ren ,o s-~,, :r,e .... , ..... · · ev..,.c.=.a expenses m .... . ~n= in good !~h cn :-:e ~mgropcny ~ssued ou.ui.g' :' ~'~ perm:: (Rejman' v We&h, 1 I2 AD2d 795,492 NYS2~ ~ . Li~wis, ~ismisxe~ ~e petitioners' ci~mz that ;he an~iicatioa ol the amended zoning ordinmqce to meir eropeay conxfituted a uern,~-o..~.,.o..ers propeay ~gh~s without due Process of law ~d resulted in ~ ', ~ ~"' ," ~, .- t~-; - .... ~ o.,..o...: prope~y. These cl~ms ~e cogni2able in the ;-'~ - Aa,~. 78 portion of thi~ ~','bNd ..... ~'~"" . ,.~,..,~ i~ not to · e ~Cia vMidity of ae ordin~ce, but tamer to ;he a=,o!ica;icn of 'h~. .- -.me..ced"," ~gnln='' ' ~ ordinance; t0 uhe~peEfioners' pro~ (Seaboard Contrac:ing ,U~g/mls, Inc. v Town of Smithtcwn~ 147 AD2~ 4, 541 NYS2O 286.[1989]). populOu$ (Pmvsey v Vii~ge ofKen.rin~oa, ~ NY :e' 177 5~ 427 [i931]). As wnh ~v exerc~ie 0t 2.e ponce ~wer, a zoning or0inaqc, ..... tae re:~son23:e, anco the ¢oJlca power n~¢lf i~ not Un!imit~ (Charte~ v ~mond, 41 NY_~ o:u, 392 ~v~*~ ~9. [1977}5. The .eqmren,en[ that cie:else ot me ~h.e ~ow~. be m~sonabi, m~dams not only that the regulatiot: rda.. ,o a legifimmc punic p~¢ose, but ~so thor ir does net . --~ , ' ', .a...sonao, de,five the owner of benefici~ use of his property " ' ' " ' ' , , ' ~ (&loaies,~ Si~n 3~u~*~o~', lac. v Boric, ~3 NY2~ .7., -C_ .~ ,S.d 359 [1979D. A zoning ordinate is unr~:onable ~a ri,as c=n:titu:es a deprivation of propeav withoEt due prccusx of !aw where it - a ~ <ub''~' ,--*., ~ ' ~ ~- ,en.e.x the income 'produc:i{e u:e or .. je~, p~..e..n.m.~b ~ for ~y other p~vare u:e for which it is adapted ad :hun 0,.o. oy~ ,s economic vaue or al but a .. / ?AGE ,.~ ,~,:.-. NO. 90-2377 u,,. No~e.,,a.r ~0, !989 '"' ..... to ~ apF0 d~e ~i~-2,55~) of m~cmd me sro work order mad remsm,e ,~e June 8 1989 b,,;' ' =-* ;~ ' . P · - · , .udm. p.~,.. .... . - ........................... . ~,,, .~.o., [1981]). k may be g~nt~ oar where ,h. ~, so,.gr.t ,o be ccmpeil~ il m/n/siena in naare '-,' ' ex~-~se of discrea& mad where '~ ~ '~ u,.mves no ..... ~m.~,r h~s dcmon~tm.ed z ct~. l:g~ fight , ~r~to (Say.one v Prevost, 66 N~/Id ~7, 495 ~JgSIa 6 [1985]). ~¢re, the act sought to bc c~mpcE~ ii neiaer camman~ by !aw nor mLnistefiM m nature. Inst~d, k is ~a ac~ 9.~y.s.~,,s o,., ..... nms ~u,,,anc~, some of w'hic~ ~e suOlecl t~ --- r ,-~., z ............ :o ,ntemr=: ,:n~ :ro'e~smns of the zomng ordinance ~ x corcllmw to me:r junso;c:ion to *-*_,..n, .... .~.~,...,~ .... ~d :c a:~ appeMs from toe de:erin/harlem cf zoning of~cizds (Ma~, v ~n~ng fid. of.4poca.x, ;W/age o/-,n,,~' ';"' .wecx," ' 137 AD2d 333, _~9S~ N . o,~ .~30 [1?081,_ .51o~w¢. v P/~n/;z/lg ~.c. e/;/1* [~ge oj'" ~oatz~urg,e' ' 119 AD2d ~88,' .~ ...~,~, ~ issue, ce of the stop ,'..' ,- -~. :o · --vo,-,~ ..... ~a .~=~ ,h,..,~. to meir appilc~on for a use ....... ~ '~- ¢,% ~ .... ,- prope~y was exemp: from t '¢ ~' ' ,~ ~he ¢~ ~a~'Z 2;~' r~-i ~¢~.~-~'* ~.,. ~ ;U' " * o m~.e fi.. issue b..ore,, re..o, ..... o ..... _ oo.~a .... ~.~m~ (a,,~e~ v. ~..zps, b0 ~D2d Scnumaker zown of Court.edt, t4. AD2d ~99, 5~3 NYS~dW6 752; 542 NYS~d 202 [!989]; ' ' v ~ Petitioners next dem~d judgment :ursu~nt :o CPLR 300 [ d~c!~ng r~e amznd~ zoning ordln~ca unconsU,uUm.m -S ~ .... ~a.c,,a.,~ ex~.c,5~ or ,h~ ~!.c~ ~o~e~ and .~ .... ~m.ges ,or me unconsamnonM ~ of et/der, ars' ~*emi~es ~e'~rioners c~am ~h% s' -h enactment b~s -o rela~oa t0 ~e public ~P - } ........ t u., · , .. ,, ...... ~s ~xc~s,v_ ~qd :bus consdtu:ed ~, ~,; ....e..,.one,~ further dem~d eerm~ent injunctive re~ning the Buildin~ [nsuector mad ~1 ot.~. town offici<i from ; -; * me provisions of ~c mended 2anin' or~inm~ce Th*se c'Mms ~e ~c¢-:-~b e in ,he *~'~- d mnt -o~o~ of · zs hybrid proceedmg./actlca (Peekxk:!f Suhurgs, Inc. v Mor:bita, 74 ADId ']~3,%25 NYS2d $19801, ~"d 51 NY2a 941, ~3'4 v~. .~,~. oia summons d compl~nt, ~e not tubiect, to sumrr, a~'. ,Jtspos;don' ' -.s v,.e,c--:h¢~r~.lt,on.rs'': a ' demands tbr judgmer.~ ~u..u~, to .~clc 78 (ace CPLR ~u9to;). Acco:drag[y, 4'; ~ ' . . ?et.~one. s demands fo~ a judgment u.~,~..~ ..e ,,,e ........ m~,.[ to :ne zen;ag oromImce ~,d lc[ compcnsatto}l i'O."'~.M',I'$ V. SOL ,r'I"PiOLD ~qDEX NO. · ' ' or ~_,~o.,ers property and for ~:~rmanent iniunctiv6 resu',m;g Il'om h",.e unconstitutional taking -~*'" -~ ' . ~ :~iA~f ~a ~ver~ anc[ ~atinued ~a a plenary ",~aon, , In view of the foregoing, the petitioners' demands for judgment pursuant to Article 78 are ,s,'Taa.~ed. The pc=goners' demar, dx for declaim, tory judgment, damagei and pe~'-mlhnent injunctive ie~f ar~ severed ;md continued as a p!ena-9' action. May, 93) iNDEX PLAINTIFF(S): PAPAZOGLOU For Clerk.' Only P~EQUE£T FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION SUPREME (~ COURT, S~LK COUNTY /.~ ~. IKS ~NTRY DATE JORDAN'S PARTNERS and PAN'±'~IS G//DG E ASSIGNED R J t DATE DEFENDANTS (S): BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SCUTHOLD, add GERARD p. GOEHB//qGER, Chairman, and SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., et. al. Date issue joined: Bi!l of pa~icuiars served (Y/N): NATURE OF ~DICIAL' INTERVENTION (check ONE box o~i; ~'~n~'i~f~m~io~) [ ] Request for preliminary conference [ ] Note of issue and/or certificate of readiness [ ] Notice of motion (return date ) Relief sought [ ] Order to show cause (clerk enter return date Relief sought ( ] Other ex parte application (specify [ ~ Notice of petition (return date 12/7/94 ) Relief sought Art. 78 [ ] Notice of medical or dental malpractice action (specify [ ] Statement of net worth [ ] Writ of habeas corpus [ ] Other (specify NATUPd~ OF ACTION OR PROCEEDING (check ONE box only) MATRIMONIAL [ ] Contested - CM [ ] Uncontested - UM TORTS' COMMERCIAL [ ] [ ] ( ] - CONT Corporate - CORP insurance (where insurer is a party, except arbitration) - INS UCC (including sales, negotiable instruments) - UCC ]* Other Commercial - OC REAL PROPERTY [ ] Tax Certiorari - TAX [ ] Foreclosure - FOR [ ] Condemnation - COND [ ] Landlord/Tenant - LT [ ]* Other Real Property - ORP OTHER MATTERS [ ]* -OTH Malpractice [ ] Medical/Podiatric - MM [ ] Dental - DM [ ]* Other Professional - OPM [ ] Motor Vehicle - ~V [ ]*Products Liability - PL [ ] Environmental - EN [ ] Asbestos - ASB [ ] Breast Implant - BI [ ]*Other Negligence - OTN [ ]*Other Tort (including intentional) - OT SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS [ ] AI~c. 75 (Arbitration) - ART 75 [ ] Art. 77 (Trusts) -- ART 77 iX] Article 78 - ART 78 [ ] Election Law - ELEC [ ] Guardianship - (MHL Art. 81) ~\ - GUARD 8t [ ]*Other Mental Hygiene - ~{YG [ ]*Other Special Proceeding - OSP *If aeter$s~ u~sd, please specify furt~e{~. ._/~ ~,~-~_~w Check "YES" or "NO" for each of the following questions. Is this action/proceeding ~aihst a YES NO YES NO [~ [ ] Municipality:,. [ ] k] (specify Town of Southold .) (specify Public Authority: YES NO ix] [ ] Dces this action/proceeding seek eTaitable relief? [ ] iX] Does this action/proceeding seek recovery for personal injury? [ ] iX] Does this action/proceeding seek recovery for property damage? ATTORNEY{S) FOR PLAINTIFF{S}: (NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), PHONE NO.) PAC~UIAN, PACHMAN, BRf/WN & FARNETI, P.C. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 273 Com~ack, New York 11725 516-543-2200 ATTORNEYS(S] FOR DEFENDANT{S): (NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), PHONE NO.) BOARD OFAPPEALS OF THE TOWN OF S(XYI/-IOT~ Southold Town Hall 53095MainPoad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 516-765-1809 Parties appearing pro s__e (without attorney) should enter information in space provided above for attorneys. INSURANCE CARRIERS: RELATED CASES: (IF NONE, write "NONE" below) Title Index % Court Nature of Relationship NONE I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PEP~IURY THAT, TO ~Y F~NOWLEDGE, NOTED AEOVEf THEP~ ARE A~D HAVE BEEN NO RELATED ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS, PROCEED ING. Dated: November 9, 1994 ~(SI~NAI ~TURE) OTHER THAN AS NOR HAS A ACTION OR PACHMAN. P~. BRf~N & ~. (PRINT OR TYPE NA~E) Petitioners ATTORNEY FOR Attach rider sheets if necessary to provide required information. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK JORDAN ' S PARTNERS and PANTELI S PAPAZOGLOU, cc~ Town Board Town Attorney Stype Agency Wm. F. Mullen,Jr. ~ -ZBA Bldg. Dept. Petitioners, For a judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws & Rules -against- BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman and SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, and RICHARD C. WILTON, constituting the Appeals Board Members of the Town of Southold, Respondents. ....................................... X NOTICE OF PETITION Index No.~-~Q ~ DATE FILED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE: F)LED NOV I0 1994 CLERK OF 3UFFOLK COUNi"¢ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the petition of JORDAN'S PARTNERS, verified the 9th day of November, 1994, the affirmation of MATTHEW E. PACHMAN, dated November 9, 1994, and the exhibits and documents attached, copies of which are annexed hereto, an application will be made at an IAS term of the Supreme Court, to be held in and for the County of Suffolk, at the courthouse at Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 7th day of December, 1994 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for a judgment of certiorari and mandamus, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, vacating, setting aside, reversing and annulling the determination and decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS, dated the 15th day of October, 1994 and compelling and directing the BOARD OF APPEALS to forthwith accept petitioner's application and conduct a public hearing on the issue of interpreting the Southold Town Code and reviewing the decision of the Southold Town Building Inspector, dated August 16, 1994, upon the grounds that: a) the determination and decision to refuse to accept the petitioner's application was arbitrary, 'capricious and totally without any basis in law; b) the respondents have refused to interpret the Southold Town Code and review the decision of the Southold Town Building Inspector, duties enjoined to it by law; and deems c) for such other and further relief which the Court just and proper. PLEABE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to CPLR of the proceedings under consideration and legal memoranda shall be served at least five (5) days before such time. Dated: Commack, New York Yours, etc., November 9, 1994 PACHMAN, PACHMAN, BROWN & FARNETI, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioners 366 Veterans Memorial Hwy. P. O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 (516) 543-2200 TO: BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1809 7804, answering affidavits, a certified transcript of the record SUPREHE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CO~ OF SUFFOLK JorDAN'S PARTNERS and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, Petitioners, For a judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws a Rules -against- BOSSED OF~i~PEA/~$ OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and GERARD P. GOBHRINGER, Chairman and SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, and RICHARD C. WILTON, constituting the Me~bers of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. Index No. DATE FILED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE: TO THE sUPREI~E COURT, STATE OF NEW YORK: The petition of petitioners, JORDAN'S pARTNERS (hereinafter "JORDAN'S PARTNERS") and pANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU (hereinafter .PAPAZOGLOU"), respectfully shows: N~TUR~ OF PROCEEDING 1. This certiorari and mandamus proceeding is brought by petitioners to review, annul and set aside the determination and decision of the respondent, ToWN OF SOUTHOLDBOARDOFAPPEALS (hereinafter "BOARD OF APPEALS"), contained in the letter of its Chairman, Gerard P. Goehringer (hereinafter "GOEHRINGER"), dated October 15, 1994 (a copy of which is attached as E~HIBXT which refused to accept the JORDAN'S PARTNERS' application (hereinafter the .APPLICATION") for all interpretation of the SOUTHOLD ToWN CODE (hereinafter "TOWN CODE") and a review of the decision of the TOW~ of Southold Building Inspector (hereinafter "BUILDING INSPECTOR"), dated August 16, 1994, refusing to review Stop Work Order No. 181877 (hereinafter "STOP WORK ORDER,,). It is also brought to compel and direct the BOARD OF APPEALS to forthwith accept petitioner's application and conduct a public hearing interpreting the TOWN CODE and reviewing the decision of the BUILDING INSPECTOR, dated August 16, 1994. STATEMENT OF F~CTS 2. JOROAN'S PARTNERS and PAPAZOGLOU are partners and owners of a parcel of real property (hereinafter "PREMISES") constituting approximately 4.75 acres in the Town of Southold and more specifically located at the southeast corner of North Road (State Road 25) and Main Street which i~ outside of the Incorporated Village of Greenport, also known as tax map number 1000-034-02-01. 3. In 1984, JORDAN'S PARTNERS entered into a conditional oontract to purchase the premises, eubject to it being able to obtain the necessary approvals for the construction of an office building/retail ~hopping center. 4. JORDAN'S pARTNERS made application for site plan approval to Southold Tow~ Planning Board in 1984. On June 23, 1986, the Planning Board, under Southold's Site Plan Review process, adopted a resolution approving the JORDAN'S PARTNERS' site plan for the requested construction of "an office and retail store shopping center". Obtaining a building permit was ~ubject to JORDAN'S PARTNERS having access to an approved water supply. 2 5. In February 1988, JORDAN'S PARTNERS took title to the premises and continued to pursue their application for water service from the Village of Greenport. 6. On January 9, 1989, the Town of Southold (hereinafter the -TOWN") adopted major revisions to the TOWN zoning code and map. That local law amended the zoning classificatlon affecting the subject premises and would prohibit JORDAN'S PARTNERS' Construction of their project. As of the date of the zoning change, JORDAN'S PARTNERS had not obtained a building permit because of the longstanding problem ~ith obtaining an approved supply of water. The availability of a water supply was resolved in May, 1989, by Suffolk CoL%nty Department of Health Services (hereinafter "SCDHS"). 7. On May 18, 1989, JORDAN'S PARTNERS made formal application for a building permit to the Southold Building Department. On June 8, 1989, the building permit was issued for an "office and retail store shopping center" in conformance with the site plan approved by the Planning Department nearly three years earlier. 8. With the building permit in hand, JORDAN'S PARTNERS commenced ¢onstrucHion in September, 1989. It installed footings and the foundation- However, on November 30, 1989, the Principal Building Inspector issued a STOP WORK ORDER which stated that the original building permit was issued in error. 9. The BUILDING INSPECTOR's invalid STOP WORK ORDER stated that an intervening change of zone of the premises, 3 adopted by the TOWN BOARD in January, 1989, prohibited the use of the premises for which the building permit was issued. The zone change amended the zoning classification from a business zone to a new "RO" (residential office) zone classification. An "office and retail store shopping center" became a prohibited use in the new zoning classification. 10. Among the new provisions added to the Zoning Code in the 1989 Zoning Amendment was ~100-255 entitled, Duration of Approval, which became in effect in May 23, 1989. Paragraph A addressed site plans approved a£te~ the effective date of the local law. Paragraph B addresses site plans approved prior to the effective date of the local law. It states in full: All site plans which have received final approval prior to the enactment of this Article, shall remain valid for a period of three years from the date of such enactment. This period will beqin when ~1 governmental approvals have .been obtained. (emphasis supplied) 11. At the direction of the Southold Town officials, JORDAN'S PARTNERS appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance as relief for the change of zone. This application was made on January 30, 1990. The Zoning Board of Appeals, as required by law, scheduled a public hearing which was initially held on March 15, 1990. The hearing was adjourned numerous times over a period of six months to take extensive testimony in support and in opposition to the application. Adjourned hearings were held on May 30, 1990, June 27, 1990, July 25, 1990 and concluded at a special meeting held on September 6, 1990. 4 12. On October 17, 1990, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a decision denying JORDAN'S PARTNERS' request for a u~e variance. 13. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County and theAppellate Division, Second Department. By its decision, dated May 9, 1994, the Second Department determined that the proper procedure for JORDAN'S PARTNERS was to apply to the BOARD OF APPRALS for an interpretation of the applicable. zoning ordinance concerning the grandfather clause. A copy of this decision is attached as EXHIBIT "B". 14. Under any interpretation of S100-255(B), it is true that, in May, 1989, JORDAN'S PARTNERS had obtained the necessary approvals and the statutory exemption was applicable. 15. The language of S100-255 is clear and unambiguous, its purpose is obvious; and its application to JORDAN'S PARTNERS is compelling. The Board of Zoning Appeals must look to the plain and unambiguous language of the local law in interpreting 16. The JORDAN'S PARTNERS' project is tailored to ~he statutory criteria~ -- JORDAN'S PARTNERS' site plan had received final approval in 1986, prior to the enactment of the Article and subJeot to a water supply, and; -- The site pla~ had received the final government approval, -- permission from the SCDMS for a temporary on-site well, in May of 1989. 17. The date of final governmental approval was May, 1989. Under the explicit language of this S100-255(b), JORDAN'S PARTNERS obtained "grandfather" rights for the approved site plan. JORDAN'S PARTNERS obtained the building permit promptly after receiving SCDHS approval. 18. The matter has been in abeyance pending the challenge, by way of Article 78 proceeding of the origina! decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated October. 17, 1990. Thus, only five'months of the three year peri°d has run; the remaining time has been tolled pending the outcome of the litigation. 19. The STOP WORK ORDER (a copy of which is attached as EXHIBIT "C") reads, in part: ...you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this o~der been r®soin~ed (emphasis added). Thus, it is a continuing, on-going order, subject to interpretation, at any time. The Appellate Division decision did not address the issue of the interpretation of the TOWN grandfather clause, and its applicability to JORDAN'S PARTNERS. 20. Instead, the court specifically s%ated, it is the duty of the BOARD OF APPEALS, in the first instance, to do so. Thus, the issues as to the interpretation of Section 100-255(B} and the propriety of the BUILDING INSPECTOR'S arbitrary and illegal refusal to lift the STOP ~ORK ORDER is ripe for review by the BOARD OF APPF2tLS. 21. Pursuant to the decision of the Appellate Division, JORDAN'S PARTNERS, through its attorneys, PACI~AN, 6 PACHI~AN, BROWN& FARNETI, P.C. (hereinafter "PACHI~AN"), requested in a letter, dated July 19, 1994 (a copy of which is attached as ~EHIBIT "D"), that Building Inspector Thomas Fisher (hereinafter "FISHER") lift the STOP woRK ORDER and reinstate the Building Permit, in light of Southold Town Code Section 100-255(b), which grandfathered the prior Zoning Classification of light busines~ district. 22. In her August 16, 1994 letter, Town Attorney Laury Dowd (hereinafter "DOWD"), as the agent and attorney for FISHER, stated that FISHER did not plan to do so because, presumably, he did not feel that Section 100-255(b) applied to the JORDAN'S PARTNERS' application (a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "E"). 23. In PAC}~4AN's August 30, 1994 letter, it requested that the response come directly from the BUILDING INSPECTOR himself (a copy Of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "F"). 24. In the September 23, 1994 letter, DOWD, again as FISHER's agent and attorney, reconfirmed his belief that the Town Code Section in question does not apply (a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "G"). 25. Section 100-271(D)(1) of the TOWN CODE states, in pertinent part: In addition to such powers as may be conferred upon it by law, the Board of Appeals shall have the following powers: A. Appeals: to hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or 7 determination made by the Building Inspector. D. Interpretations: on appeal from an order, decision or determination of an administrative officer or on request of any town officer, board or agency, to. decide any of the following: (1) Determine the meaning of any provision in this chapter or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions of this chapter. 26. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 100-271, JORDAN'S PARTNERS filed an application with the BOARD OF APPEALS seeking an interpretation of the TOWN CODS and a review of the BUILDING INSPECTOR's decision. The documents constituting the application were submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 11, 13, and 14, 1994. A copy of the application and its addendum, without ancillary documents, is attached hereto as ~HIBIT "]~'. 27. Pursuant to letter, dated October 15, 1994, GOEHRINGER, without the full BOARD OF APPEALS, at a public meeting, taking any action, pursuant to a vote of a majority of its members at a duly constituted public meeting, in violation of Section 41 of the New York State General Construction l~w, the New York State Village Law and the TOWN CODE, returned and rejected the application with a ,cover letter claiming that the application was found unacceptable for filing, because: a. Such an appeal did not fall under the Appellate jurisdiction for the Board of Appeals; That the appeal is not taken within sixty (60) days of the action of the administrative official charged with enforoement of the ordinance; and There was no order, requirement decision, interpretation or determination of an. administrative offioial charged with the~ e~forcement of the section of the Town Code which the applicant was seeking an interpretation of within the last sixty (60) days. 28. Pursuant to letter, dated October 17, 1994 (copy of which is attached hereto as E~HIBIT "I", PACHMAN requested that the BOARD reconsider its position, since it was based upon a false premise. 29. This letter pointed out that, in response to paragraphs "1" and "3" of GOEHRINGER's letter of October 15, 1994, the August 16th letter was, in fact, a "...decision, interpretation or determination" made by the administrative' through his agent and attorney. Further requests on JORDAN'S PARTNER's part seeking to have the Building Inspector respond' would clearly be fruitless; the law does not require one to perform acts of futility. 30. It also noted that, in response to paragraph "2" of GOEHRINGER's letter of October 15, 1994, the STOP WORK ORDER specifically states it is effectige "until rescinded" and, thus, is on-going and subject to interpretation at any time. It was the applicant's position that it should appeal directly to the Suffolk County Supreme Court, since the issue was one of law, not fact. The Appellate Division, however, determined that the request must first be presented to the BZA, so as to exhaust the applicant's administrative remedies. This is exactly what the applicant is attempting to do. 31. Notwithstanding this, pursuant to a letter, dated October 24, 1994 (copy of which is attached hereto as E~HIBXT ~J'~), GOEHRINGER, again, without action by the BOARD OF APPEALS at a duly constituted public meeting, stated that, in response to PACHMAN's letter o~ October 17, 1994, hiw position remained unchanged. 32. The printed rules of the BOARD OF APPEALS (a copy of Which is attached as EXHIBIT "K") do not authorize the chairman or the Clerk to consider and rule on applications to the BOARD on its behalf without a vote Of a majority of its members. A~ AND FOR a CI~XM FOR RELIEF 33. Four months have not expired since the receipt of Exhibit "A" by petitioner. 34. sixty (60) days have not expired since the: petitioners' demand and the respondents refusal to perform its duty. 35. Petitioner is a party aggrieved. 36. petitioner has no adequate remedy at law. 37. There are no previous applicationsfor the relief sought herein to this or any other court. 38. This proceeding has not been assigned Justice, pursuant to the Individual Assignment System. to any 39. The action by the BOARD OF APpEAI~, as contained in Exhibit "A", is arbitrary and capriciOus and totally without 10 any basis in law and fact. 40. The determination contained in Exhibit "A" was made, although the BOARD OF APPEALS is and at time ti~$ hereinafter mentioned was charged wit~ a non-discretionary duty to file ~hs application and set it down for public hearing and, thereafter, review the interpretation of the TOWN CODE end decision of the BUILDING INSPECTOR. WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully request an order of this court: A. of October, B. Voiding and annullingthe decision, dated 15th day 1994, as being arbitrary and capricious; Compelling and directing the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS to forthwith proceed with acceptance of the application and interpreting the SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE and reviewing the decision of the Building Inspector, dated August 16, 1994, which refused to review the STOP WORK ORDER; and c. Such other and further relief as this court may deem Just and proper, including an award of counsel fees to the petitioners. Dated: Commack, New Yor~ November 9, 1994 JORDAN'S PARTNERS , By= HN~ JO 11 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) JOHN TSUNI$, being duly sworn, says: I am the Partner of petitioner, JORDAN'S PARTNERS, in the within action. I have read the foregoing PETITION and know the contents thereof; the same ia true to my own knowledge, except as to the ma~ter$ therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are aa follows: books, records and documents contained in my partnership files. Sworn to before ne this 9th day of ~ovelabe~, 1994. Not~ Public NoIary public, $~a~e Of New York 12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK JORDA/~'S PARTNERS and P~NTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, Petitioners, For a judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws & Rules -against- BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and G~ P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman and SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, and RICHARD C. WILTON, constituting the Members of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. AFFIRNATION Index No. MATTHEW E. PACHF=~N, an attorney duly licensed to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following under the penalty of perjury: 1. I am a member of the firm of PACHMAN, PACHMAN, BROWN & F~d~NETI, P.C., attorneys for the petitioner, JORDAN'S PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU (hereinafter "JORDAN'S PARTNERS and PARTNERS"). 2. I submit this affirmation in support of the petition of JORDAN'S PARTNERS seeking an order, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, in the nature of both certiorari and mandamus, to review, annul and set aside the determination and decision of the respondent, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS (hereinafter "BOARD OF APPEALS"), as contained in the letter of its Chairman, Gerard P. Goehringer (hereinafter "GOEHRINGER"), dated October 15, 1994, which refused to accept JORDAN'S PARTNERS' application (hereinafter the "APPLICATION") for an interpretation of the SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE (hereinafter "TOWN CODE") and a review of the decision of the Town of Southold Building Inspector (hereinafter "BUILDING INSPECTOR"), dated August 16, 1994, refusing to review Stop Work Order No. 181877 (hereinafter "STOP WORK ORDER"), in light of §100-255(B), to wit: that the prior zoning classification was grandfathered. 3. JORDAN'S PARTNERS is not requesting that this court pass upon the merits of its application; only that it be given an opportunity to participate in a full and fair public hearing. At such a hearing, it will be able to create a detailed record, so that if the BOARD OF APPEALS chooses to disagree with the applicant's position, a proper review may be conducted by the appropriate court, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. 4. Up to now, JORDAN'S PARTNERS has been denied this opportunity. If the actions of the Town officials are not overturned, then the applicant would have been prevented from presenting its case before the Board, which is statutorily authorized and charged with the duty in the first instance of hearing the application, without even consideration by, and a vote of, the majority of the Board at a duly constituted hearing. 5. Furthermore, there would be no avenue for this or any other court to determine whether JORDAN'S PARTNERS' applicant is meritorious and that the relief it seeks should, under law, be granted. 2 WHEREFORE, d onent respectfully requests that within petition be, in all respects, granted. Dated: Commack, New York November 9, 1994 the 3 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 October 15, 1994 Matthew E. Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Re: Proposed Application - Jordan's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou Dear Mr. Pachman: Our Department office by you application. has reviewed all of the documents delivered to our pertmining to the proposed filing of an appeal It is our Department's position after reviewing these documents that the application is found to be unacceptable for filing for the following reasons: 1) The appellate jurisdiction for a Board of Appeals is limited to hearing and deciding appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted (Ref. New York Town Law, Section 267-a4}). The copy of written correspondence from the Town Attorney dated August 16, 1994 is not an "order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the admini.~trative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted..." and therefore is not acceptable as the basis for filing the appeal; 2) Also, an appeal must be taken within sixty days after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such ordinance or local law by filing with the Board of Appeals a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof and the relief sought (Ref: Town Law, Section 267-a5). The Stop Work Order which is requested by the applicant to be reviewed was issued in 1989 and, therefore, is not acceptable as the basis for filing the appeal; Page 2 - October 15, 1994 To: Matthew E. Pachm~n, Esq. Re: New Proposed Appeal - Jordan's Partners 3) The appeal application states that you are requesting an Appeal for an Interpretation of Section 100-255. There is no order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of an administrative official char~ed with the enforcement of Section 100-255 of the Zoning Code of record dated within the last 60 days; 4) No other documentation, as submitted, was found to satisfy the requirements of New York Town Law as an appropriate basis to appeal. We therefore return the documents submitted. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER /~.HAIRMAN Via Fax Transmission to 543-2271 and Regular Mail 626 611 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES dren, despite the objeciions of the natural father, the respondent herein. The petition- er's daughter, who is the children's natural mother and ~he respondent's wife, disap- peered on December 12, 1990. The Family Court correctly found that the disappearance of the pet~tfioner's daughter was a eircum- s~nce "[in] which equity would see fit to intervene" (Domestic Relations Law § 72). [2] However, there is sufficient evidence in the record to suppor~ the Family CourCs der~,qninat~on that such visitation would not be in the children's best interest (se~ Matter of Emam~el S. v. 2oseph E., 78 N.Y2d 178, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E2d 27; Lo Presti v. Lo Presti, 40 N.Y2d 522, 387 N.Y.S~d 412, 355 N.E.2d 372). The evidence established ~hat the ped~oner believed that the respon- dent was responsible for the disappearance of the children's mother and communicated these suspidons tn o'.hers, including the spondent. The independent evaluaters rec- ommended supervised visitation because of the risk that the postponer would convey her suspicions to the c~Aldren. Yurther, the re- spondent tesLLfied that the petitioner made him uncomfortable and fi'ritable and that ff he had to deal ~th her it would affect how he deals ~th h/s ch/Idren on a day-to-day basis. The Fam/ly Court found that visite- r/on ~th the petitioner would be detx/mental because it would confuse the ch/ldren in their rela~ionsh/p and feel/rigs for their father and would create great difficulty for the respon- dent to properly raise the children. Further, the Family Court held that it would not place the ch/ldren at further risk in view of the loss that they had already su~ered. Since there was sufficient evidence in the record to sup- por~ the Family Court's exerc/se of discre- r/on, we decline tn d~rurb its determiner/on. In the Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNEP~ et al. Appdlants, v. Ge~ p. GOEHR~GER, ' et al. Respondent. Supreme Co~ Appellate Second Dep~enu May 9, 1994. ' L~d~e~ who sought ~ cons~ pe~d ~ ~es brought ~e 78 ~e~ng, see~ ~ ~mpel b~ng Es~ W res~d sW~work order, wMch in~ ~at o~n~ b~ding pe~t had been in e~or. ~e Supreme Co~. S~o~ Co~ ry, Goodman. J. domed pe~on. L~d~ em appe~ed. ~e Supreme Co~ la~ ~sion, held ~at m~nding s~ order ~ nei~er ~mmanded by law n~ 1. Zoning and Planning Where landowners, st~uct reu~il shopping center in district which ret~l uses were no longer did not seek to have Zoulng Board peals (ZBA) review propriety specter's issuance of stnp~work order rather, simply applied for use cour~ properly declined to ordinance de novo propriety of building inspector's 2. Zoning and Planning ~=354 Zoning Board of Appeals mary jurisdiction of interpreting zon/ng ordinance. MeK/nney's Tow~ § 267-b, subds. 1-3. 3. Mandamus ~10, 12 Mand~nus to compel performance ficia] duty may only be granted sought to be compelled is m/nist~-~l ture and involves no exer~e of and where applicant h~s legal right thereto. 4. Mandamus Landownez taH shopping ce permitted re~ ~'rit of mand~ wr to rescind ed that ori~::= issued in erro: commanded by but rather. rare based prov~ions of Ho~rd E. F appellants. Harvey A_ .~ Kiernan. of o=,= Before BRAC SANTUCCI MEMOtL~_\~ In a hybNd ~de 78 ~ ~pondent Zom- Octo~r 17. e~' request for i~ ~ ~ de '~ amen~ent ~eat of ~e Sup: i~, J.), b~ of- fs rest. a s~. ORDERED ~ appei · ey seek plan ~d E · e subje~~ the pefitk the of~L :d SERIES :er of JORDAN'S PARTNEI~ et al., Appellants, ~d P. GOEHRINGER, :t al., Respondents. ~- Court, Appellate Div~ion, Second Department. May 9, 1994· acrs who sought to eonsl:ruct re- center in dista-iet that no longer ta~ uses brought Article 78 pro- ~ng to compel building inspector op-work order, which indicated building permit had been issued e Supreme Court, Suffolk Court- · J., denied petit/on. Landown- The Supreme Court, Appel- held that rescinding stop-work either COmmanded by law nor ~ nature. Id Planning ~'642 mdowners, who sought to con* shopping center in district in :ses were no longer permitted, to have Zoning Board of Ap- :eview propriety of building in. :ance of stop-work order, but ~ applied for use variance, trial Y declined to interpret zoning aovo for purpose of determining anilding inspector's action. d Planning nard of Appeals (ZBA) has pri- :ion of interpreting applicable nco. McYdnney's Town Law :s. !-3. ~10, 12 s to compel performance of of- ~y only be granted where act :ompelled is ministerial in na- Ives no exercise of discretion, ~licant has demonstrated clear 4. Mandamus ~'87 Landowners who sought to construct re- tail shopping center in district that no longer perrnittsd retail uses were not entitled to ~-rit of mandamus to compel building inSpec- tor to rescind stop-work order, which indicat- ed that original building permit had been issued in ercor; such rescinding was neither commanded by law nor ministerial in nature, but rather, that act was of discretionary na- ture b~ed upon interpretation of esrtaln prov~ious of town's zoning code. Howard E. Pachman, P.C., Commack, for appellants. Harvey A. Arnoff, Southold (Matthew G. Kiernan, of counsel), for respondents. Before BRACKEN, j.p., and O'BRIEN, S.-LN'TUCCI and JOY, J$. MEMOR,-LNDUM BY THE COURT. In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR arr. icie 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals, dated October 17. 1990, which denied the petition- ers' request for a use variance, and action, inter a//a, to declare that the application of an amendment of the zoning ordinance to the petitioner~' property constituted an unconsti- tutional taking, the petitioners appeal, as lim- ited by their brief, from so much of a judg- ment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Goodman, J.), dated June 20, 1991, as denied that branch of the petition which was to compel the respondent Budding Inspector to rescind a stop-work order dated Nero, tuber 30, 1989. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed iusofzx as appealed from, with costs. The petitioners own a parcel of land on which they seek to bnild office space and reta~ stores. In 1986, their Predecessor ob- teined site plan approval for such a develop- ment, and in 1988 the petitioners acqnired title to the subject parcel. In 1989 the Town e~actod a zoning amendment, effectively pre- ciuding retail uses on the subject premises. Subsequently, the Town Building Inspector issued the petitioners a building permit to coustruct the office and retail shopping con- JORDAN~ PARTNERS v. GOEHRINGER ~r. However, ~e foao~g mon~ he ~ed a s~work' o~er P~Mbi~ng ~ ~n- · at ~e ofi~n~ b~ng P~t ~ ~en lon~r pe~d in ~e subject ~s~eL . ~e pe~fions~ responded by appl~g ~ ~e Zoning Bo~d of Appe~ (herfi~r ~e ZBA) for a ~e V~anee. but ~d not ~. lenge ~e propfieW of ~e s~rk o~er. ~r ~e ZBA deMed ~e ~ v~ ~e pe~on~ ~ ~ h~fid p~_ b~g i~pec~r ~ ~d ~e ~rk o~ ~d ~i~ ~e p~o~y ~ed b~g pe~ We find ~at ~e Sup~me Co~ properly de~ed ~at br~ of ~e pe~on wM~ ~ ~ ~mpel ~e To~ B~d- lng Iespec~r ~ resdnd ~e s~work o~. [I, 2] At ~e ou~e~ we no~ ~at ~ ~ · appH~on before ~e ZB~ ~e ~on~ · d not seek ~ have ~e ZBA ~ ~e prop~e~ of ~e b~g ~pec~Ms ~ of ~e s~work order. Ra~er, ~ey s~ply app~ed for a ~e V~ance. ~Un~ of ~e fact ~at a Zon~g Bo~d of App~ h~ ~e p~m~ J~c~on ~f m~re~ng ~e appH- ~is zo~ng orinoco (z~ Ma~ v. M~ B~ of A~e~ of V~ of M~ N~ 137 ~D.2d ~, 5~ N.Y.S.2d ~0; z~ T~ Law ~ 267-b[1], [2], [3] ), ~ ~d ~ ~e Supreme Co~ p~perly de~ed ~ ~. pret ~e ~ng O~ce ~ ~ for ~e p~ose of de~ing ~e P~p~e~ of ~e b~ng ~pe~Ms scion (se~ E~ ~. Phillips, 150 ~D.2d 752, ~ N.Y. S2d ~; ~9, ~ N.Y.S~d ~; T~ ~ ~ ~). [3, 4] In ~y ~en~ we ~d ~t ~e ~- may o~y be ~d ~e~ ~e ~ so~t ~ be compelled ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d Wolves no oxeye of ~e~on, ~d ~ ~e appH~t h~ demobbed a d~ 1~ right ~ere~ (~e~ M~ of Sav~ v. Prez~s~ ~ N.Y2d 47, ~, 495 N.Y.S~ 6, 4~ N.E.2d 213; ~s~mn v. C~ 61 N.Y.2d 5~, ~9, 475 N.Y.S~d ~7, 4~ N.E~d ~; M~ of Ha~p~ Ho~. & 628 611 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT. 2d SERIES Meal Ctr. v. Moore, 52 N.Y~2d 88, 96, 436 N.Y~S.2d 239, 417 N.E2d 533). As the Su- preme Court properly determined, rnscind- lng a stop-work order was ueither command- ed by law nor ministerial in nature. Rather, that act was of a discretionary nature based upon the interpretation of certain provisions of the Southold To~a Zoning Code (see e.#. Southold To~'n Zoning Code §§ 100-282[B], 10~283, 100-255[B] ). In the Matter of CARLTON (Anonymous), Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 9, 1994. Juvenile was adjudged in the Family Court, Queens County, Schindler, J., to be juvenile delinquent, and was placed on proba- tion. Juvenile appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that com- plainant's identification testimony was adnfis- sible. Infants ~173.1 Family court properly refused in juve- nile delinquency proceeding to suppress plainant's identification testSmony; complain- anfs viewing of juvenile on front steps of cou~t, house on return date of petition was by mere happenstance and was completely spen- taneous rather than result of any improper conduct by police, and, since identification proceeded from complainant's independent recollection, identification was not tainted by any alleged unlawful arrest. Trevor L.F. Headley, Brooklyn, for appel- lant. Paul A. Crotty, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner, Tim O'Shaughnes~y, and Fay Leouesis, of counsel), for respon- dent. Before BALLETTA~ J.P., and COPERTINO, H.~RT and KtLa_USNL~N, JJ. MEMOR.~NDUM BY THE COURT. in a juvenile deI/nqueney proceeding put-' suant to Family Court Act article 3. the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated June 28, 1991, which, upon a fact- finding order of the ~xrae ceurt, dated March 4, 1991, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, committed by an adult, would have constitet~ ed the crime of rohbem.- in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 4. 1991. ORDERED that the order of disposition affu'med, without costs or disbursements. The appellant contends that the Court erred in failing to suppress the plainant's identification testimony. We dis- zg-rce. The Family Court's determination that the complainant's viewing of the appel- lant on the front steps of the courthouse on the rema'n date of the petition was by mere h~ppermtance and completely spontaneou~ rather than the result of any improper con- duct by the police is fully supported by the record, and we shall not disturb it (see, Peo- ple v. Rodrigue~ 194 A.D£d 634, 599 N.Y.S.2d 46; People v. Johnson, 145 A.D.2d 573, 536 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. Goodizon, 129 A.D.2d 812, 514 N.Y.S.2d 802; People W' //*o~ 112 A.D.2d 746, 492 N.Y.S.2d 242). Since no pe~ice-arranged ~dentSfication proem' dure was involved, CPL 710~0 is not impli-' cated (see, People v. Jenk/ns, 176 .&D~2d 143, 574 N.Y.S.2d 29; People v. Crr~e:n, 149 A.D.2d 919, 540 N.Y.S£d 51). Furthermore, since the ide~tilication proceeded from the com- plainants "independent recollection", the'~.: identification was not tainted by any alleged unlawful arrest (see, U~ited States v. 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, People v. Ple~ar~t, 54 N.Y~d 972, 446 VICTOR LESSARD INCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR TO: OFFICE OF BUILDEqG LNSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STOP WORK OPJDF~q JORDANS pAi~TR ~S 801 MOTOR pAP~KWAY, HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. Town Hail. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 I79 $outhold. NcwYork !1971 11788 YOU ARE~L~2~FZ~Y NOTIFIED TO SUSP~ ALT, WOrK AT: 1000 MAXN STREET & 160 MAIN RDiRt. 25, Greenport, N.Y. TA/(M2AP NIR~BER 034-02-01 Pursuant to section 100-282-B of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building aCtivities until this order has been rescinded. BASIS OF STOP ~OP~K ORD,: Permit was issued in error, Zone was changed by the Master plan from a B zone to a Residential Office Zone. office and retail stores are not allowed in this zone. CONDITIONS UN~F~qWHICE WOP~KMAY BE RESUMED: Work may be resumed as soon as this zone cha~ge is resolved ty the Town Board okayed by the Planning Board. Fail%ute to remedy the conditions ~oresaid and to comply with the a~Dlicable provisions of law may cons~i%%z~e an offenae p,~4 ~h~le b~'fine or imprisor~nent or both- {~/~~. ~~ DA_~_D:NOV. 30 ~ 1989 ~LWRTIS W. HORTON' SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR PAC. HMAN. PAGHMAN. BROWN 8,: FARNETI. P.G. ATTORNEYS VIA CERTIFIED M~IL, July 19, 1994 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Thomas Fisher Building Inspector Town of Southold Building Department Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Jordan's Partners Premises: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, New York Dear Mr. Fisher: As you may be aware, a decision was rendered by the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department on May 9, 1994, which determined that your issuance of the stop-work order, dated June 8, 1989, with respect to construction at the premises located at 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, New York, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 034, Block 02, Lot 01 was a discretionary act. Insofar as the prior zoning classification of light-business district was grandfathered, pursuant to Section 100-225(B) of the Town's Zoning Code, Jordan's Partners demand that the stop-work order be lifted and the building permit be reinstated. Please advise me, in writing, that ~ou have lifted the stop-work order, so our client can proceed with construction. Ver~ , ~T(THEW E. PACHMAN ~ MEP/blb cc: Jordan's Partners Laury Dowd, Town Attorney 'rNDEX NO. EUPREI(E COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK coUNTY OF SUFFOLK yF,~R L994 JORDAN'S PARTNERS and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, For a judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws & Rules Petitioners, -against- BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, and GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, and SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, and RICHARD C. WILTON, constituting the Appeals Board Men,hers of the Town of Southold, ~Respondents. NOTICE OF PETITION AND SUPPORTING PAPERS PACHI~A/~, PACHMAN, BROWN & FAi~NETI, Attorneys for Petitioners 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 (516) 543-2200 P.Co sir: Please take notice NOTICK OF ENTRY: that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on , 19 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: that a which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named court, at on , 19 at A.M.. Dated: TO: Attorney for Yours, etc. PACHMAN, PACHI~L~N, BROWN & FARNETI, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioners 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 Z.B.A. RESOLUTION PROPOSED AT REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 30, 1991: The Board of Appeals of t~ '£ow~ of Southold hereby amends its Rules of Conduct and Procedure to include the following: GENERAL RULE AS TO THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPEALS TO THIS BOARD MAY BE TAKEN, pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 267: A. In the event the applicant is not the landowner, that person or party must, before the application is deemed complete and further processed, submit written proof that he or she is either: (1) an aggrieved person or party, or (2) is an officer, department, board, agency, or bureau of the town, or (3) authorized by the landowner(s) to make the application, or (4) a contract vendee of the land in question. B. In cases of appeals, variances, notices of appeat~, and/or interpretations, a written order, requirement, decision, or determination of an official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations must be filed, together with all of the papers which constitute the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. C. In the event that a written order, requirement, decision, or determination, noted in paragraph B, supra, is affected by an amendment to the application for a building permit or other application under the zoning regulations, then then notification must be filed with the Office of the Board of Appeals that the Notice of Disapproval is!being withdrawn or otherwise acted upon, by the official or department charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations~ BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER DETERMINATION, WHICH MUST ALSO INCLUDE THE REASONS THEREFORE. D. Variances, appeals, and/or interpretations, must be accepted or filed with the office of the Board of Appeals within the earliest of the following prescribed periods of time: (1) Within sixty (60) days of the "commencement of construction of the foundation- b~m~ ~ -~ .... APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 October 24, 1994 Matthew E. Pachm~n, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Comnmck, NY 11725 Re: Proposed Application - Jordmu's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou Dear Mr. Pachman: In response to your most recent communlcations, this will confirm that our position rel3~in-q unchanged. Very truly yours, ~ ~ GERARD ]2. GOEHRING~:R/ -/ CHAIRMAN ~ Page 2 Gerard P. Goehringer, chairman October 17, 1994 In the September 23rd letter, Ms. Dowd, again as Mr. Fisher's agent and attorney, reconfirmed his belief that the Town Code Section in question does not apply. Thus, in response to paragraphs "1" an~ "3" of your letter, the August 16, 1994 letter was, in fact, a ".~..decision, interpretation or determination" made by the administrative through his agent and attorney. Further requests on our part seeking to have the Building Inspector respond would clearly be fruitless; the law does not require one to perform acts of futility. With respect to paragraph "2" of you~ letter, the stop work order specifically states it is effective "until rescinded" and, thus, is on-going and subject to interpretation at any time. It was the applicant's position that it should appeal directly to the Suffolk County Supreme Court, since the issue was one of law, not 'fact. The Appellate Division, however, determined that the request must- first be presented to the BZA, so as to exhaust the applicant's administrative remedies. This is exactly what we are attempting to do. I trust that the documents enclosed, which were already in the Town Attorney's file, will clarify the procedural background of this appeal and allow the application to be filed. If I can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours. MEP/blb enclosures PACH*f.~.N. PACHMAN'. BROWN & F^RNETI. P.G. VIA F~CSIMILE ~ REGULAR ~AIL October 17, 1994 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Application - Jordan's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou Dear Mr. Goehringer: I am in receipt of your facsimile letter dated October 15, 1994 with respect to the above-referenced application. I respectfully request that you reconsider the Board's position, since it is based upon a false premise.. Enclosed please find copies of my letter to Mr. Thomas Fisher, dated July 19, 1994; a letter from Town Attorney La%%ry Dowd, dated August 16, 1994; my letter to Ms. Dowd, dated August 30, 1994; and Ms. Dowd's letter to me, dated September 23, 1994. As you can see, I had requested that Building Inspector Thomas Fisher lift the stop work order and,~instate the building permit in light of Southold Town Code Section 100-255(B), which grandfathered the prior zoning classification of light business district. In her August 16, 1994 letter, Ms. Dowd, as the agent and attorney for Mr. Fisher, stated that he does not plan to do so because, presumably he did not feel that Section 100-255(B) applied to the Jordan's Partners application. In my August 30th letter, I requested that the response come directly from the Building Inspector. The matter has been in abeyance pending the challenge, by way of Article 78 proceeding of the original decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated October 17, 1990. Thus, only five months of the three year period has run; the remaining time has been tolled pending the outcome of the litigation. Under any interpretation of §100-255(B), it is true that, in May, 1989, Jordan's Partners had obtained the necessary approvals and the statutory exemption was adopted. Notwithstanding this, the Building Inspector has refused to vacate the "Stop Work Order" and reactivate the building permit. store shopping center" became a prohibited use in the new zoning classification. Among the new provisions added to the Zoning Code in the i989 Zoning Amendment was §100-255 entitled, Duration of APProval, which became in effect in May 23, 1989. Paragraph A addressed site the effective ~ate of the local law. plans approved after Paragraph B addresses date of the local law. site plans approved prior to the effective It states in full: Ail site plans which have received final approval prior to the enactment of this Article, shall remain valid for a period of three years from the date of such enactment. This period will beqin when all qovernmental approvals have been obtained. (emphasis supplied) The language of §100-255 is clear and unambiguous, its purpose is obvious; and its application to Jordan's Partners is compelling. The Board of Zoning Appeals must look to the plain and unambiguous language of the local law in interpreting §100-255(B). statutory Under the obtained Partners The Jordan's Partners' project is tailored to the criteria: -- Jordan's Partners' site plan had received final approval in 1986, prior to the enactment of the Article and subject to a water supply, and; -- The site plan had received the final approval, -- permission fr~m the SCDHS for on-site well, in May of 198g. government a temporary The date of final governmental approval was May, 1989. ~xplicit language of this §100-255(b), Jordan's Partners "grandfather" rights for the approved site plan. Jordan's obtained the building permit promptly after receiving SCDHS approval. ADDENDUM On January 9, 1989, the Town of Southold (hereinafter the "TOWN") adopted major revisions to the town zoning code and map. That local law amended the zoning classification affecting the subject premises and would prohibit Jordan's Partners' construction of their project. As of the date of the zoning change, Jordan's Partners had not obtained a building permit because of the longstanding problem with obtaining an approved supply of water. The availability of a water supply was resolved in May, 1989, by Suffolk County Department of Health Services (hereinafter "SCDHS"). On May 18, 1989, Jordan's Partners made formal application for a building permit to the Southold Building Department. On June 8, 1989, the building permit was issued for an "office and retail store shopping center" in conformance with the site plan approved by the Planning Department nearly three years earlier. With the building permit in hand, Jordan's Partners commenced construction in September, 1989. It installed footings and the foundation. However, on November 30, 1989, the Principal Building Inspector issued a "Stop Work" Order which stated that the original building permit was issued in error. The Building Inspector's invalid "stop work" order stated that an intervening change of zone of the premises, adopted by the Town Board in January, 1989, prohibited the use of the premises for which the building permit was issued. The zone change amended the zoning classification from a business zone to a new "RO" (residential office) zone classification. An "office and retail REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP becouse inapplicable. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by oll properties alike In the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because inapplicable. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DIS'FRICT because, inapplicable. STATE OF NEW YORK ) BY..'......~4n ..... ~:" ........................................... Sworn to lhis .............................. doy ol ........................................................ 19 r'AT RIC~& A. ~ TOWH OF *;Ob ._-,~, · :W APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE ...O~....tQJ;~Jl~ ...... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. jOpD.z~llS p~..R~......&....P~..I..S_. ...... of 801 Mo~or Parkway 1, (We) ............. I~l~;;"~i' Appellant P/~)J~'~ Street and Number ..... ~ ................... HEREBY APPEAL TO ...... J~'~..P,~J.C.~, .......... J ......................................................... State Municipality for an interpretation of the Southold Town Code and THE ZONING BOARD OF APpEALS/FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECT'OR:~J~ refusing to review the ,,StQD Work Order" re: August 16, 1994 .~j~J[~,~%J)~/PERMIT NO. ,-.~:.,8.1..8..7..7. ......................DATED .................................... ~ ................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ refused to reconsider the stop work order dated June 8, 1989, although the prior zoning classification of light business district was grandfathered, pursuant to Section 100-255(B) of the Town's Zoning Code. Name of Applicant for permit S~-mle as of 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, , NY Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY (X) Building Permit · , and 160 Main 1%oad, Rte. 25, Gree~port, NY I. lOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .LQO.~.~k%~%..~..t.:::-.-.~ ....... .: .............. :'"': ........... _ '": ..... 7: .... Street /Hamlet / Use D~stnct on ~;;n.ng' r~ap District 1000 Section 034 Block02Lot 01 ...................... Current Owner Jordan's Partners and pantelis Map No. 'Lot No. Prior Owner Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. PapazogloL 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article vii Section 100-255(B) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewHh for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cans. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 (X) An intez?retation of the Southold Town Code Section 100-255(B) and a review of · - thebuilding insuecbor's refusal to vacate the stop work order and reactivate the building 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) ~)~) been mode with resp?t to ~ pe~mJ.t. · · · with respect to this property. ' Such appeal was ( ) request for o special permit J x) request for a/,~anonce 3915 _ , January 30, 1990 and waS mode in Appeo! No ................................. uotea ............................. , ........................................ - REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 2BOA Subsection 3 ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (X) ' An interpretation.of the Southold Town Code~ and a review of the building inspector' s refusal aS described above. Is requested for the reason that ~ ADD~4DLI~ attached (Continue on other side) 1411/:iJ ,~ A~ ,, LAURY L. DOWD Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southoid, NewYod< 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 September 23, 1994 Matthew E. Pachman, Esq. Pachman, Pachman, Brown & Franeti, P.C. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Pachman: As I stated to you in my previous letter, the town sees no reason for reconsidering the prior stop work order on the Jordan's Partners property. The recent court decision did not call for such a reconsideration. I have spoken to the building department and they advise me that there is no pending application by your client upon which they have been asked to respond. Please be advised that the building department will not be making any future response on the 1989 decision. Very truly yours, ,,aury L. %Do~d Town At tourney cc: Building Department PAGH~IAN. PAGHHAN. BROWN ,~ FARNETI. P.G. August 30, 1994 Laury L. Dowd, Esq. Office of the Town Attorney Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Jordan's Partners, Greenport, NY Dear Ms. Dowd: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 16, 1994 wherein you advised me that the Building Inspector does not plan to modify the November 30, 1989 stop work order. I attempted to contact you by phone on August 23, 1994 and left a message. You have not had an opportunity to return that call. I believe that such a determination must come directly from the Building Inspector himself under New York State Law. Thus, I respectfully request that the Building Inspector notify my firm of whether he intends to lift the stop work order by return mail. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, MA~~E · PAC"6MAN MEP/blb LAURY L. DOWO To,w~ Attrm~f OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 16, 1990, Tovm Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. N®w Yon~ 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Matthew E. Pachman Pachman, Pachman, Brown ~, Farneti P.O. Box 273 Commack, NY 11725 Re: Jordan's Partners, Greenport, NY Dear Mr. Pachman: I am responding to your letter dated July 19, 199[t in which you ask the Town Building Inspector to advise you that he has lifted the stop work order on the above-described property which .wa.s issued on November 30, 1989. In your letter you cite the Appellate Div~ston, Second Judicial Department decision at 611 NY$2d 626 changed, to Suggest that the decision re the stop work order should be The Building Inspector does not plan to modify the November 30, 1989 stop work order. The grounds you raise now were the same ones raised at the time. The appellate court's opinion suggested that the building inspector acted properly. Please call me if you have any questions. cc: Thomas Fisher Oj~C¢ ri' ($ 16) 477-2385 GEORGE W. HUBBARD ~COnPOnATE o ~a~ LORNA M. CATU$ WILLIAM D. ALLEN A ¢~' STEPHEN L. CLARKE · . · ~ '%b~ TREASURER DAVID S. CORWIN ~~~'-_~'~~~..~ .-a MARY E. TIIORNItILL GAlL F. HORTON 236 THIRD STREET · P.O. BOX AH GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 TO: Mayor Hubbard and the Board of Trustees FROM: Planning Board DATE: May 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Meeting between Greenport Board of Trustees, Greenport Planning Board and Southold Town Board, Southold Zoning Board and Southold Planning Board. At the May 7, 1990 meeting of the Oreenport Planning Board motion was made by Mike Rowsom, seconded by Penny Coyle and carried requesting that Mayor George Hubbard schedule a joint meeting of the Village Board of Trustees, this Board and the Southold Town Board, Zoning Board and the Planning Board to discuss pending development of the Greenport Commons shopping ma]] to be located at the corner of Main Street and the Main Road, Greenport. The Planning Board feels that this development, along with the possibility of similar and larger development of the Brecknock Hall site, pose a major and potentially catastrophic threat to the future of the Greenport business district and the Village itself. The Board requests that this meeting be scheduled as quickly as possib]e so as to occur prior to Town Zoning Board action on the Greenport Commons variance request which is currently pending. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone ~$16) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOT' L. HARRIS ~ervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~ FROM: Bennett DATE: May 22, 1990 RE: Greenport Commons / Jordon's Partners SCTM~1000-34-2-1 The following is in response to the Appeals Board request for the Planning Board's comments on the above referenced application for a variance, application No. 3915. The Planning Board is not in favor of granting a variance to construct a shopping center in this residential office zone. The Master Plan completely considered all factors when the zone was changed from business to residential office. The Board is in favor of the present zoning. JOHN C. TSUNIS JOHN C. TSUNIS May 4, 19 9 0 5C017 ZAMEK ATTORNEY AT Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Doreen Re: Jordan's Partners Greenport~ New York Dear Doreen: This shall confirm our telephone conversation of today where- in you advised me that your office is in receipt of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted on behalf of the above referenced applicant pursuant to the Chairman's request. Also, the recess date for my client's hearing has not been scheduled and will not be scheduled until June of 1990. Your office will notify me as to said date when it is scheduled. If you need anything further, please contact me. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs Enclosure KRH/1-GREENPORT: ZBAPPEL1 ~ ZAMEK, ESQ. 80t MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK t t788 · TELEPHONE 5t6-582-40g(] · FAX: 516-582-4256 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Gentlemen: April 16, 1990 Application of "Nicholas &~.~;s tartners", / Town of Southold (Appeal #'s 3907 Please be advised that pursuant to Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above captioned application will not be reviewed because of noncompliance with requirements for notice and maps as stipulated in Informational Bulletin No. 8 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The following information will only be accepted upon submission through the offices of the municipal referring agency. Please provide the following: (1) indicate exact variance(s) and or special permit(s) being sought with reference to specific section(s) of the zoning ordinance; (2) submit information demonstrating compliance with applicable variance(s) and/or special permit criteria; (3) finalized information relative to the SEQRA process; (4) a transcript of the minutes of the public hearing; (5) any other available explanatory or supportive information relating thereto; and (6) the analysis and conditional findings of the ZBA. Thank you. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning GGN:mb S/sGerald G. Newman Chief Planner IOHN C. TSUNI$ JOHN C. TSUNIS SCOt1- ZAMEK HAND-DELIVERED April 26, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Doreen Re: Jordan's Partners Greenportt New York Dear Doreen: Pursuant to the request of Chairman Goehringer, I am enclos- ing a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form in connection with the above referenced applicant's requested Use Variance. Please advise me as to the status of any future recessed hearing date. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. sZ/krs Enclosure KRH/1-GREENPORT: ZBAPPEL1 SC~TT ZA~EK, ESQ. 801 MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK tt788 · TELEPHONE 5t6-582-4000 · FAX: 5t6-582-4256 14-t C2 i,'1- 7c, Stats Qudty .. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Pu~'~oed: The full gAF is desig~j to h~lp al)~icants am:l ap~m ~' · ~ m ~. yet flex~ble to ~1~ m~ Full gAF Com~n~ ~ full [~ b c~ of ~ Pa~ 1: Pr~i~s ~i~ d4~ 4~ inf~m4t~ i~t i liven ~o~t I~ ~ ~e. 8y ~enti/yinI basic pro~ data, ~ assis~ a ~er ~ ~ anal~is ~t ~k~ place ~ Pa~ 2 ~ 3. Pa~ ~ F~u~s ~ ~emifyml ~ tanle of ~sible im~c~ t~t may ~cut h~ a ~o~t m act~. It prov~ ;uida~e as to w~t an ~pact is likely to ~ consider~ ~allao ~rate large ~mpact. T~ t~m aim ~ntifies w~t~r an im~ can ~ m~pt~ Pa~ 3: If any impact in Pa~ 2 is ~ntif~d as ~tentially-lar~e. t~n Pa~ 3 b impact is actual~ DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisled Actions Idenli~ the Portions o! gAF completed for this project: l~ Part 1 -- Part 2 I~Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this lA,r (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropr,ateL and any other supportinl information, and cons~dermI bo~h Ihe malitude and importance of each impac% ~1 ~s reasonably d~termined by th~ lead alencY that: A. The prolect will not result ~n any large and :mportant ,mpacl[s] and. ~herefo~e. ~s o~ which will rmt -- have a s:imficant ~mpact on the environment, therefore a n~lati~ declaralion will be prepared.. -- B, AIthouih the Proiect could have a significant effect on the envlronrr.m~, there will not be a significant effect for th*s Unlisted A~:tion because the mitigation measures descnl~l in PART 3 ~ve been required. therefore a CONDITIONED n~lative declaration will be prepared.' -- C. The prolect may result m one or more larle and important impacts ~t may have a significant impact on the envKonm~nt, therefore a positive declaration will be prep,ued. · A Conditioned Negatn, e Declaration ,s only valid for Unlisted Actions Greenport Mall Name of Action Name of Lead Agency ",~.~int Or Type Name of Responsible Offices lit Lead A8ency Title of Ilesponsible Officer Silnature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from ~ponsible officer) Date rea l - PRCUECT II~I:~I~TI~ red by Project Sl:x~sor I~TICE: This docutent is designed to assist in deten~ining ~hether the action proposed ~y have a significant effect on the envirorme~t. Please CmlOlete the e~tire form, Parts A through E. ~swers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and nay be subject to further verification and I:ublic review. Provide any addi- tional infommtion you believe will be needed to c~,,~,lete Parts 2 axl 3. It is expected that CmlOlet'ion of the full FAF will be dependent on infonmtion cur- rently avai labia and wi I I not involve new studies, research or investigation. I f infonm- tion requiring ~ additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. }~E OF ~CTIf]q: Greenport Mall L~CATI~N OF ~CTICN: 280 North Road Greenport, N. Y. .... ~01 Motor Pky. Hauppauge,N.Y. ~ ~ T~ I~IFI~TI~ ~: 1000-34-2-1 ~l~l~l~: TO construct a 29,000 S.F. BL~. F~C~E:582-4000 Shopping Mall _PLEASE ~ X..SITE I::ESCRIPT'Ia',I: Physical setting of overall project, beth developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: / I Urban / / Industrial / I Commercial / I Residential Suburban / / Rural (non-farm) / /Forest .' I,~1 Other / /(Specify) ~'-£~=~/z~d; ~xJ~ 2. Total ~/square footage of the project area (circle o~e): ,m s m.Y Beach, Dune or Bluff j Tidal Wetlands Freshwater Wet lands ,, Oak Forest Pine/Oak Forest Brush It~t~qMt Pasture or Cropland ....... ~Landscaped Old Field Surface Water R~ads, I~Jildings, Inl~ervious Surfaces Other (Please specify) C'~-~i~~ /~/~J~0 / ,6~. r icul ture ,3. II1~t is, prec~mlnant soil t~l~s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: Well drained Moderately ~ell drained [r~ % of site % of site Poorly drained % of site b. If a~/ agricultural land is involved, haw rmny acres of soil are classified within soil group I throuc~ ~1 of the NY~ Land Classification Syst~.~ /~/~ acres. (See I 3701. ~1. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ~ 0-10% 10-15% I$% or 9reater e Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site or district, liste~ on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ! / Yes /~'/ No Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Ragister of Natior~al Land- rearks? I I Yes /,~/ No 7. What is the depth of thewater table? I~-P (in feet) 8. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer 9. Do / hunting, fishing or shell / Yes /~,'/ No IN/Yes I / No fishing of:~ortunities presently exist in the project area? lO.a. hoes project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? / ~ / Yes /~/ No Identify each species b. ¥,t~at wildlife species have been confinTed or w~uld be expected to occur on site? c. Do any rare, protected or species of special concern use tills site? d. Are there any, rare or protected plants or unique plant cc,..unites present on site? 11. Are there any unique or urusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological fonrations) / / Yes /J~dr/ No ~IBE: 12. Is the project site presently used by the conTnJqity or neighl~rho~ as an open space or recreatio,~ area? / / Yes /~;~/ No If yes, 13. Does the present site include scenic views k, no, n to be irrportant to the camunity? I' ! Yes /~l NO If yes, please describe: :, .... rl~e within or contiguous to project area: I'J~kal~ ::~-..' of Stream and name of River to which it is tribuary: 15~ Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: I a. Name: b. Size (In Acres) 1~o Nme of any Cre~k, r~a~t or Harbor within or contiguo~to a. Nme of waterbody to v, hlch it is tributary: b. Width of Creek or waterway at project si re: 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? 19. project area: D~/ Yes / /No a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allo~ connection? /~1 Yes I / No b. If Yes. will improvements be necessary to al Icky correction? I / Yes I~'1 No Is the site located in or substantially conticjuous to a Critical Envirorrrental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NM~R 6177 I I Yes Io~'1 No Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazarr~__,s wastes? I /Yes /~/ No I / ~ B..PRCUECTDESCRI~I~: Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill a. in dimensions as appropriate} b. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sPOnsor: Z~-,'~ c. Project acreage to be developed: /_J,,~; acres initial ly; /J ,4 acre~ultimetely. Project acreage to remain undeveloped ,~ acres. " d. Length of project, in miles: ~_.~(If"appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion', indicate percent of expansion proposed 1~/~ %; f. NuTber of off-street parking spaces exist no ~-P ; proposed ~?~ . . g. Maxintm vehicular trips generated per hour ~ (upon c~pleti~ h. ' projec't) ~ If residential: Nu~er and type of housir~' units: /~A, Or~e Family Two Family ~Vt~ltiple Family Condcrniniu~ Initial ly: UI t inetely: How ~uch natural material C~ tons/cubic yards Dimensions (in ft) of largest proposed structure ...~_~t. t~'7'width; ~-I~-~ L.clth i Lin. Ft. of frontage along a I:ublic thorcxx:jhCare project will occur, iN ~g!~ ~,' (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed fram the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? / ~ Yes / / No / I H/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site heincj reclaimed? b. ~ill topsoil be stockpiled for recl,~ation? I~C"I Yes ~, '/ No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclaration? I~/ Yes / / No q. How n~ny' acres (square feet) of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be rmx:rved from site? ('"~ acres (square feet) / / N.A. ii* How acres ( are feet of ferti i er- e ndent vegetation is pr sed for si re, including lava's, trees and shrubs ~_~,~ ~,~,, t~ ' If single p~ase project: Anticipated period of co~tmcti~x~ dem~l i t ic~). ~/~ .rmnths, (including If mul t i-I~ased: I?~l~a a. Total ntzrber o sas anticipated (ru~er). b. Expected date of cumencere~t phase 1 month year, (incl. c~ition) c. A~proxin~te cu.pletion date of final phase rm~th year. d. Is I~Se I f~z~ctior~lly deperclent o~ subseclue~t phases? I I Yes I I No 8. No. of jobs generated: during co~structio~ [ c",~'2; after project coq~lete SO I I N.A. g. bl~nber of jc~s eliminated by this project ~ / I N.A. 10. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? / / Yes Yes, please e,x~lain: If 11. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? /' '/ Yes ~ NO I / N.A. a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and b. NaT~ of water ~ into which effluent will' 'be~discharcjed 12. Is sul~surface liquid waste disposal involved? /,,~ Yes I I Ho / / N.A. 13. Will surface area of an existing wate~ bo:fy increase or decrease by proposal? I / Yes /,~"/ No / / N/A If yes, explain: lq. 1S. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year floed plain? / /Yes /~'~NO Will the project generate solid waste? I.,Y/I Yes / / No I / N.A. · a. If yes, v/nat is the ~rount per rr~th? ~ tons b. If yes, will anexisting solidwaste facilitybeused? J~'~.'Yes I / NO c. If yes, give name "T~.-~,,~ ,~'~o',-v'); Location: d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal syst~or into a sanitary landfill? / / Yes I,~1 No e. I f yes, EXPLAIN: 16. 17. 18. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? 1 a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? I Yes /~1 No / / N.A. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? / / Yes /~// No tonslrm~th / / N.A. Will project produce odors (rmre than one hour per day)? I / Yes I~,/I No I I N.A. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local a~ie~t noise levels? I I Yes I~C'I No I I N.A. J0; Will project result in ncrease in energy use? I~1 If yeS, indicate Types) 21. If' water st~ply is frc~walls, indicate pu~ing capacity: 22. Total anticipated Water usage per day: ~_.~..gal le~s/clay. 23, Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If yes. please EXPLAIN: I I NO l I N.&. ?al Ior~/minute. / lyes L~NO 2q. Approvals Required: Tomq, VI I lage Board /~/Yes I /NO T~, Village Planning Board /G/Yes / /No To~m Zoning Bcard /)4/Yes / ./No CoMqty Health Department /.<'/Yes / /NO Loca I Acjenc ies / ~'/Yes / /NO Regional Agencies / /Yes State Agencies /)<'/Yes / /NO Federa I Agenc i es / /Yes ~./No C. ~INO ~ PL~N~JIPJC II~q::I~ATICN Type St~ni t ta I Date e Does prol:x~sed action involve a planning or zoning decision? I~1 Yes If Yes, indicate decision required: / /Zonir~ ,~endmnt / /Zoning Variance / /St~ecial Use Permit I / /Site plan / /New/Revision of Land Use Plan V~at is the zoning classification(s) of the site? / /No /S~f~J_ ivi s i on / /Resource Managment Plan 1M~at is the rrexin~n potential develol=rent of the site if develol:ed as permitted by the present zo~incj? ..~ . . ~i. Iff~at is the FRQ:C~6ED zoning of the site? 5. Ii, at is the maxir~potential devel~n~ of the site if devel~ as ~itt~ ~ t~ ?~) I~ the ~r~s~ acti~ consistent with the recame~ uses in ~t~ or rec~e~ I~al la~ use ~lans? / / Yes /~ ~ · 7. Y~at are the prec~ina~t lar~se(s) a~d zoning classificatic~ithin a !/~ mile Is the proposed action cc.~,~atible with adjoining/surrcx~ding lard uses within a 114 mile? ~ Yes / / No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, hew n~ny lots are proposed? a. lt~,~at is the mininun lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the fonmtion of se, er or water districts? / / Yes /J('~ No / / N.A. 11. Will the proposed action create a significant demand for any c~ity provided servic- es (recreation, education, police, fire protection? / / Yes ~ No a. If yes, is existing capa~:ity sufficient to handle projected defend? I / Yes / / No 12. Will the proposed action result in the 9eneratio¢~ of traffic significantly above present levels? / / Yes ~ NO a. If yes, are existing roads adequate to handle the add'l, traffic? / / Yes / /NO JI~CFI~TICNn~_ DEFAI I ,~ Attach any eddition~l inforn~tion as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or n~y be any adverse in"pacts associated with your proposa!,' please discuss such inl~acts and the measures v. hich you propose to mitigate or avoid then. · E. VI~I F ICATICH: I certify that the infornation provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Na~e of Appl icant/Sponsor ' ' Sicjnature _ ~(~~~' --~ Title ~sses~rent Fora) ~re pr~e~i~ with this asses~t. Part 2--1~JECT IMPACTS AND THEIR M~NITUDE ResponsJbilily of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the rewewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst · Identifying that an impact wdl be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that ~t ~s also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impacts of each project, on each site. in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 'icj questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be ~,ny impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 'i or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ON• O-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 1S% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the proiect area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction o~ land where bedrock is exposed or 8enerally within 3 feet of existing ground surface.' · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. 2 Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)l-IN• OYES · Specific land forms: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] O []Yes ' []]]NO [] 0 OYes []No [] O OYes •NO O [] []Yes i"-INo [] O []Yes ONo ~ O OYes []No [] [] I"']Yes []No [] O []Yes ON• [] [] []Yes []]No [] O []Yes ["].'No 2 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Moderate Large (Under Articles 15.24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) Impact impact ~,NO ~]YES Examples that would appJy to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. [] /'-I l~Yes I-INo · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a f-I [-] i-lYes J-]No protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body [] J'-'l l-'}Yes i-]No · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. [] [] I-lYes [-INo · Other impacts: __ [] [] []Yes ["lNo 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water~ · f~NO /qYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water '[] or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. [] · Other impacts: 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? i~NO C1yES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage i,fjcilit es. !!~??~t~he, impacts:__ 6~ Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? I-INO i-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change [] /--lyes I~No [] []Yes ~No [] ~Yes i--INo [] [-']Yes [-JNo [] I-lYes I"'INo [] []Yes ['~,No [] [-']Yes [~No ~ ~Yes ~No [] [-]Yes [-~,No [] []Yes eno [] []Yes [-'~No [] []Yes ENo [] []Yes [] r-]Yes ~No [] []Yes I-'INo [] []Yes i~No · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed action affect air quality? ~INO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · ~Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour, · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? i-lNG ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list. using the site. over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other than for agricultural purposes, · Other impacts: 9 Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? I-iNO ,~'iY E S Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish. shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation' IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? [:]NO [:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 1 Small to Moderate Impact D [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 0 [] O O 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated By Impact Project Change O OYes •No [] OYes [-]No O OYes []No [] OYes •No O OYes J-]No [] OYes [-]No O OYes l-IN• O OYes ON• O OYes I-1No [] '--lYes ON( O OYe~ •No [] OYes i'-I No [] OYes ONo [] OYes •No [] OYes I'"! No [] OYes ON• [] OYes I-IN• · Construct,on activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an ^gricu[tutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches. strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ~!_~!Ci~. ~i Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities,~ Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO I-lyES · The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. · ^ major reduction of an open space important to the community. · Other impacts: Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change F~ O OYes [],~o [] [] []Yes ONo [] [] []Yes J--iNo O [] OYes ONo [] [] []Yes r-:No O [] OYes i-ho i- [-i OYes i--No [] ~ [~Yes [:No O [] OYes [:No [] [] []Yes ONo [-~ [-1 OYes rmNo t._, OYes ENo [] ~ OYes ~,,No O [] OYes []No [] [] OYes []No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact -any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? r~NO Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Invento~f. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources~ ONO OYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix 13.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural · Proposed land uses, or proiect components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: ' * IMPACT ON T~II)ANSPORTATiON 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · AlteratJon of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other imDacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? I-IN• ~IYES Exam~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in ff:e use of any form of energy in the municipality, · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmissk>n or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ON• OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facili~ · Odors wiU occur routinely (more than one hour per day). · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a no, ise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ON• []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances [i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc,) in the event of accident or upset conditions, o~ there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts: Small to Moderate Impact O [] [] [] [] [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 0 3 Can Impact Mitigated By Project Change [-]Yes ON, []Yes ~-]No OYes I'"INo [-]Yes •No OYes r-]No []Yes []No I-lYes []No []Yes I--IN• []Yes []No I-lYes i-]No []Yes FIN• []Yes I--IN• I-]Yes [:]No OYes ON• [] Yes [] NO l-lYes ON• · . IMPACT ON GROw'~AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community; fi'NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the c~ty, town or village ~n which the proiect is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget tor capital expenditures or operating services will increase b~ more than 5% per year as a result of this prolect. · Proposed actioo will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed acti~ will cause a change in the density of land use. · Proposed Actioo will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future proiects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: W 2 3 Sma'Il to Potenlial Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By impact Impact Project Change C [] []Yes []No [] i-1 []yes []No [] [] DYes []No [] [] []Yes []No ~ ~ ~e~ ~o ~ ~ ~tes ~o ~ ~ ~es ~o ~ ~ ~Ves ~o ~ ~ ~es ~o 19 Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? r~NO ~YE$ If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3.-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead ABency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answe~ the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its POtential divergence from local needs and goals ~ i1~i1~ · Whe*.~her known objections to the project relate to this impact. ....... (Continue on attachments) JOHN C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNIS SC O'Yi' ZAMEK HAND ~DE L~I~V-ER~D April 26, 1990 AFl{ 3 0 Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Doreen Re: Jordan's Partners Greenportt New York Dear Doreen: Pursuant to the request of Chairman Goehringer, I am enclos- ing a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form in connection with the above referenced applicant's requested Use Variance. Please advise me as to the status of any future recessed hearing date. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ery truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs Enclosure KRH/1-GREENPORT: ZBAPPEL1 801 MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK t t788 ' TELEPHONE 5t6-582-4000 · FAX: 516-582-4256 4 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Puq~ose: The lull gAF is 6esilned ~o h¢lp aPPfican~ and a~ T~ full gAF is inte~ ~o ~ a ~L~ w~re i lican *-, ~-,~G~ m ~. yet tlezime to al~ m~ ~ ~,* ._ ,~- --- ~ ............ Full gAF Com~n~ ~ full E~ b c~ o( ~ ~m: fail ~ F~u~s ~ ~entify~l ~ ranie of ~sible im~c~ t~t may ~cut h~ a ~oj~t ~ acrid. It ~ov~ ~uida~e as to w~r an impact is likely to ~ consider~ ~all-lo ~rate m W~r it is a ~tential~ large ~mpact. T~ f~m al~ ~ntifJes w~t~r an im~ can ~ mmlat~ ~ r~. Pa~ 3: If any ~mpact in Pan 2 is ~ntJfied as ~tentially-lar~e. impact :s actual~ DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE_ Type 1 and Unlisted Ac/ions Idenlily the Portions of EAF Completed for this project: I~ Part 1 -- Part 2 C]Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if apmop.ateL and any other SUplX)rtinl: information, and consldermi bo~h the mag,rude and importance of each impact.. *t ~s reasonably determined by the lead agency that: -- A. The protect will not result maflv larle and important ,repacks] and. ~herefo~e. ,s 0~e which will -- have a s,in,licant ,mpact on the enwronment, therefore a ~elative e~eclarafion will be prepared., -- B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environme~L there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted A~tion because the mitigation measures descnbed in PART 3 have been required. -- therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration ~11 be pre. red.' -- C. The ptotec! may re's~lt in o~e or more large and im~x:~'tant impac~ bt may have a significant impact on the env.onmenL therefore a Positive declaration will be · A Conditioned Negatrve Declaration ~s only valid for Unlisted Actmns Greenport Mall Name of Action Name of Lead Agency ~.-Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agenc~ -- Title of Responsible Olticer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible office~) PA~ 1 - PRCUECT II~FCI~ATICN Prepared by Project :Sp~sor N3TICE: This docurent is designecl to assist in determining ~hether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the envirorrm~t. Please cceplete the entire form, Parts A through E. A~swers to these questions wi II be considered as part of the applicatie~ for approval and trey be subject to further verification and public revim. Provide any addi- tio~al information you believe will be needed to cc,,,plete Parts 2 a~l 3. It is expected that cu,~letio~ of the full FAF will be dependent on info,~,etion cur- rently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If informa- tion requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spacif¥ each instance. ~a~E ~F ,aCl'l(]q: Greenport Mall L~TIC~q OF ~'rlC~: 280 North Road Greenport, N. Y. ~01 Motor Pk¥. Hauppauge,N.Y. · 8L~. Ph[~E: 582-4000 ~PL~K C[~rry TAX ID~qTJFJC~TICN NL]V~R: 1000-34-2-1 CE-SCRIFTIQ%IOF~CI'IQ, i: TO construct a 29,000 S.F. Shopping Mall _PLEASE ~ ~ Q.F. STICN - II~ICATE N/A IF t.F)T APPLICABLE: Physical setting of overall project, beth developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: / / Urban / / Industrial / / C~mmercial /~,// Residential Suburban / / I~ral (non-farm) / /Forest .' Other / /(Specify) ~-t.~=~rv-~(p /.~xJ~ 2. Total ~/square footage of the project area (circle one): . .PI~B~TLY ' Beach, D~ne or Bluff h I'. Tidal Wetlands Freshwater Wet lands ,, Oak Forest Pine/Oak Forest Brush l?!l~l~t~ Pasture or Cropland ........ Landscaped Old Field Surface Water Roads, Buildir~js, Impervious Surfaces Other (Please specify) C'~-~f~.~/) /~*JD / ,~. r icul ture ,.3. ,ll~at ~s predominant soil ~e(s) o~ project site? a..Soil drainage: Well drained Mederately ~el I drained J~r.~ ~ POorly drained t of site % of site % of site b. If are/ agricultural land is involved, how rreny acres of soil are classified within soil grotJp 1 throucj~ # of the ~ Land Classification System? t'J//~ acres. (See I NYO~ 370). Approxin~te percentage of proposed project site with slq3es: ~ 0-10% 10-15% 15% or greater $. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a 1Ouildircj, site or district, liste~ on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ! I Yes /)~'/ No 6. Is project s~bstantially conticjuc~ds to a site listed on the Register of National Land- mark~? I I Yes ~Gl No 7. Vihat is the depth of thewater table? , I~ (in feet) 8. Is site located over a prirr~ry, principal, or sole source aquifer / I~I Yes I I No hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? / Yes I)('/ No 10. a. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? / ' / Yes I~)(x/ No Identi fy each species b. l,',hat wildlife species have been confirmed or would be expected to occur c. Do any rare, protected or species of special concern use this site? d. ,~re there any. rare or protected plants or ~iclue plant cmnuqites present on site? 11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? other geological fontations) / / Yes /,5~J No CES(~IBE: {i.e. cliffs, dunes, 12. Is the project site presently used by the ccam~qity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? / / Yes /~;~/ No If yes, EXPLAIN: 13. ,Does the present site i ! Yes /~'/ No include scenic views kJqo~n to be important to the cc, m~nity? If yes, please describe: 1.1~i~i[Strean~ within or contiguous to project area: ..... La, Name of Stream and nam of River to which it is tril:uary: 15~.,I.~kes, por~s, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Narre:... b. Size ( In Acres)_. '., 1.6. Nam of any Creek, ~t or Harbor within or contigu~ · ', , K Ic,~i~, a. Nam of waterbedy to which it is tributary: b. Width of Creek or waterway at project site: to project area: 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? 18. 19. ~x~/ Yes / / No a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allo~ conrectien? I~/ Yes / I No b. I f Yes, will improvenents be necessary to a llo~v connection? I / Yes I~f'l No Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Envirormental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NM~R 6177 I / Yes /c~'l No Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? I /Yes I~X~ No / / unknov~ Be e · PROJECT DESCRIPTIQq: Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill a. How rruch natural material _ ~ tons/cubic yards in dimensions as appropriate) b. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: Project acreage to be developed: /_],,~ acres initially; c. Project ~,._.~_~acre~ultimately. acreage to renein undeveloped ,~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles:~(if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansionproposed ~/~ %; f. ~r of off-street parking spaces existing ~ ; proposed ~. ". g. Max im,~nvehiculRr trips generated per hour ~ (upon c~Tpletion of project)? h. If residential: Norther and type of housir~ units: One Fam. ily Two Fanily Multiple Family Condaniniun Initially: Ultimately: i. Din~nsions (in ft) of largest proposed structure ~ Hgt.t~.~7_.~.width; 4-~-~ I.g h j. Lin. Ft. of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occul:h, is? ~c~,~ (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be re'roved fran the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? /-~Yes I / No / / H/A a. If yes, for what intercled purpose is the site being reclaimed~ b. ~ill topsoil be s~ockpiled for reclamation? I,¢~1 Yes ~ '1 No ¢. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for re¢laretion~ ~. Mow n~ny acres (sqUare feet) of vegetation (trees, shrubs, gro~qd¢oversl will be rc~'~:Ned fram site? O acres (square feet) / / N.A. How many acres {square feet) of fertilizer-dependent vegetation is proposed for site, Including lawn, trees and shrubs _ ': i~" If ~slngle r~ase project tlclpated period of constnJC ~ ,,p~x~ths, (including demol i't icx~). ® If f~l t I-I:~ased: a. Total nurber o ses anticipated (ruff)er). b. Expected date of ccm,encment phase 1 month year, (incl. d~oit'ion) ¢. Approxirmte cczrpletion date of final phase month ,, year. cl. Is I:f~ase I ftr4tionally dependent on subsequent phases'.~ I I Yes ! ! No No. of jobs generated: during constr~ction .[()c'~; after project cc, plete ~ I / N.A. ~J. NuTber of jebs eliminated by this project ,/~ I / N.A. 10. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? I / Yes If! No Yes, please explain: 11. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? /~ '/ Yes /.~/ No I ! N.A. a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and arnou~t b. Narre of water into which effluent wi I I be discharged 12. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? /,,~ Yes / I Ho / / N.A. 13. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ! ! Yes /~/ No / / N/A If yes, explain: If lq. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? / Will the project generate solid waste? /Yes /,~("~No /)('~ Yes / / No I / N.A. · a. If yes, what is the amunt per rronth? i-~y tons b. If yes, will an existing sol id waste facil be used? ~., Yes I / NO c. If yes, give r~re "TT,.-~t ,~r,~-~o,,.~); Location: d. Will any wastes not go into a sew-age disposal s/stem or into a sanitary landfill? / I Yes I;~1 No ' e. I f yes, EXPLAIN: 16. Wi'Il the project involve the disposal of solid waste? / I Yes /~1 No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? / / Yes /~'1 No i / N.A. I I N.A. ; 18. Will project produce odors (more than one hour per day)? I / Yes I~'"1 No I I N.A. .... '~. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local arbient noise levels? ~ result Olncrease ine~ercjyuse? I~'1 I INO I 21. If ~ater simply is frcmwells, indicate pu~ing capacity: 22. Total ar~ticJp~ted water usage per day: 2~c~O gal Ions~day. 23. Does project involve Local, State or Federal ftx~ding? / / Yes ~ No If yes, please EXPLAIN: I N.A. _qal Ions/minute. 2~. Approvals Required: To~n, Village BOard /~/Yes / /No Type To.q, Vi I lacje Planning Board /~'/yes / /No To~ Zoning Bcard /,'~/Yes / /No ~o~e(~x,,~,¢", -- Cot~ty Heal th Depertnent /~<'/Yes / /No Local Agencies /~/Yes / /No Regional Agencies / /Yes I,~lNo State Agencies /X/Yes / /No /~) ,,/,~, qo. Td. -- -- Federa I Agent les / /Yes ~,/No -. C. _ZCNING ND I:Lq~ll~ IM::CR~TI~ Subnittal Date Does propcsed action involve a platting or zoning decision? I~.~1 Yes / / No If Yes, indicate decision required: / /Zonircj *~enctrent / /Zoning Variance / /Special Use Permit / /Subdivision / /Site plan / /New/Revision of Land Use Plan / /Resource Mar,.acjemnt Plan 2. Yfrk~t is the zoning classification(s) of the site? 3. ~l~at is the n~xim..m pOtential develogrent of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? ~I. ~l'tat is the I~ zoning of the site? _ /~ /..~ 5. What is the r~xirr~mpotential developrent of the site if developed as permitted by the .:l!;Li~!~ Is the proposed action consistent with the recanmended uses in adopted or recc~r,~nded Io~al land use plans? / / Yes /~ No · 7,' ~1~at* are the preck~ina~t la use(s) and zoning classlficatll within a 1/~, mile radius of. p~eposed 8. Is the p~oposed action ccnpatible with adjoining/surroundircj lard uses within a 1/~1 mile? /~ Yes / / No 9. If the proposed action is the st~:livision of lard, how many lots are proposed? a. 1Rhat is the minint~m lot size proposed? / 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the fomation of sewer or water districts? / / Yes /~'~ No I / N.A. ii. Will the pr~sed action create a significant deTend for any o'-,,,~ity provided servic- es (recreation, education, police, fire protection? I / Yes /~'1 No a. If yes. is existir~j capa~:ity sufficient to handle projected de, end? / ! Yes / / No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? / / Yes /~ No a. If yes, are existing roads adequate to handle the add'l, traffic? / I Yes / /NO INI:GNATIOq~L D:'TA115 Attach any additional infonretio~ as ~y be needed to clarify your project. If there are or nay be any adverse impacts associated with your propose!,' please discuss s~ch irrpacts ~ the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. .~4~,1F ICAT C~h certify that tl~e info,~'.ution provided above is true to the best of m~, knowledge. Narre of Appl icant/Sponsor - ~sessment Form before proceeding with this asses~rent. Coastal Part 2--~OJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR ~NITUOE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the rewewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst · Identifying that an impact wdl be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that ~t ~s also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine s~gnificance Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further · The Example~ provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impact~ of each project, on each site. in each locality, will vary. Therefore. the examples are illustrative and have been offe~,~d as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any ~mpact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2] to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible, This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? r~NO IDY£S Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of .15% or greater. ('15 foot rise per .100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface.' · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. ;il~i~ii~ Other impact~ 2 Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? {i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)[]NO I-lYES · Specific land forms: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] f-JYes ' r-JNo O g OYes i~No ~-~ [] DYes []No I-] [] []Yes I-1No ~ [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes [-]No [] [] I-"lYes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes J~.' No IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 1S. 24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECL) ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? i'~NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity, · Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require tl~e storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage ...... ~acilit es ! II[~ ~ther impacts:_ 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ring 0-1YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 0 [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change OYes I-lNg []Yes OYes ONo []Yes [~No i-lyes ONo []Yes []Yes i~No []Yes i-]No []Yes I~No OYes [~No []Yes •No I--lYes []No []Yes F-1No []Yes []No i--lyes [-~No []Yes []No OYes E~No OYes []No []Yes ["]-No []Yes ENo []Yes · Proposed Action may caus~ substantial erosion · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed action affect air quality? l"iNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · ~Proposed Action w~ll result in the incine~'ation of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action wiU allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. e. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? []NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? I-IN• ,~'ly E S rxamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migrato~ fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? [NO ny£s Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. J 1 Small to Moderate Impact 0 [] 0 [] 0 [] [] 0 [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Yes ON• [-]Yes ['~No []Yes i-IN• []Yes I--1No I--lyes i~No OYes •No []Yes I']No []Yes []No []Yes I'-lNo ,'--lyes I-IN• OYes []No []Yes [-]No · r'lyes I-IN• []Yes []No []Yes ['~, No i~Yes ON• []Yes mN• · Constructmn activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. 12. Will Proposed Action impact-any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? eNO [:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts:.., 2 Small fo Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact :Project Change ~--~ [] ~-]Ye~ [~ ['-] /-]Yes [-!No C] I-lYes [] [] [-]Yes ~ [] I-~Yes ~..~ No [] [--] I-lYes ~ ~ [-]Yes ~--No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches. strip cropDing); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ~NO [:3YES (If necessa~, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21. Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural, · Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION !i~1~1~3 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or .... .;i~. future open spaces or recreational opportunities.~ Examples that would apply to column 2 ~3NO dYES · The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity, · A major reduction of an open space important to the community, · Other impacts: IMPACT ON~AN:SPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ONO F~YES E~ample~ that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of peg[Die and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other imDacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? F'INO ~YES Ezamides that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in t~:e use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmiss~°n or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action~ C1NO I'qYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting v, ithin 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facili~ · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside ot structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a no, ise screen. · Other impacts:. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ,'-IN• [~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release ot hazardous substance~ [i.e. oil. pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form lie. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating infectious, etc.) ' · Storage faolities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. ..... · '-,-· Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts: Small to Moderate Impact 0 [] 0 [] 0 2 Potential Large Impact 0 [] 0 [] 0 [] [] 3 Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change OYes •No OYes ~]No OYes []No []Yes ~No OYes J-~No ~]Yes I'-iNo F'-lYes ~r~No []Yes []No I-lyes I-lNg OYes OYes I-lNg OYes []No OYes OYes •No OYes •NO [:]Yes ON• 18 Moderate IMPACT ON GR,O~I AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community,' [~NO E3YES EXamples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village m which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase bt more than 5% per year as a result of this project, · Proposed actio~ will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Propo~,d acticm will cause a change in the density of land use. · Proposed Actio~ will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire. etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: Impact Potential Large Impact [] [] [] 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ~NO Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change f-lyes i-]No l-lYes I--)NO []Yes i-]No ['-lyes [r-]No t-lYes J-]No []Yes []-]NO l-lYes []No []--lyes [-]No I-'lyes ~No If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared jf one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Columq 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Ba_sed on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibi]ity, including permanently lost resources of value · Whet~her the impact can or will be controUed · The regional consequence of the impact · Its Potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whe*.J~er known oblections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) JOHN C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNIS SCOI~ ZAMEK Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 April 12, 1990 Re: Jordan's Partners Variance Dear Mr. Goehringer: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 3, 1990 requesting that the above referenced applicant complete a Long Environmental Form in connection with its application. However, no such form was provided for this purpose. So that I may be able to timely comply with your request, I respectfully ask that you supply a long form for my use. If there will be a problem in providing me with this form, please advise me of same. Additionally, I have been advised by Doreen, the secretary of the Board, that the tentative recessed date of April 19, 1990 has been postponed to some time in May. Please confirm this with my office so that I may verify that there will be no need for Jordan's Partners to appear on the 19th. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNGR 80t MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK t 1788 · TELEPHONE 516-582-4000 ' FAX: 5t6-582-4256 JOHNC. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNIS SCO37 ZAMEK Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 April 12, 1990 Re: Jordan's Partners Variance Dear Mr. Goehringer: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 3, 1990 requesting that the above referenced applicant complete a Long Environmental Form in connection with its application. However, no such form was provided for this purpose. So that I may be able to timely comply with your request, I respectfully ask that you supply a long form for my use. If there will be a problem in providing me with this form, please advise me of same. Additionally, I have been advised by Doreen, the secretary of the Board, that the tentative recessed date of April 19, 1990 has been postponed to some time in May. Please confirm this with my office so that I may verify that there will be no need for Jordan's Partners to appear on the 19th. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNGR 801 MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK '~ 1788 · TELEPHONE 516-582-4000 · FAX: 5t6-582-4256 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 April 3, 1990 Mr. John Tsunis 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 RE: Greenport Commons Variance By an unanimous vote of the Board of Appeals at our Special Meeting on March 29, 1990, we are requesting that you kindly furnish this Board with a Long Environmental Form regarding the Application of Jordan's Partners, Appl. No. 3915. We respectfully request that you provide us with this information (LEF% on or before April 30, 1990. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN GPG/df JAMES A. KUZLOSKI REGIONAL DIRECTOR STATE Of NEW YORk DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 FRANKLIN E. WHITE COMMISSIONER April 4, 1990 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Tow~ Planner Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Scopaz: Our Case # 89-229 The Breakers @ Land's End Route 25, Town of Southold Your March 28~ 1990 Letter Our review of the subject plans is being coordinated by Mr. James Lentini of my staff. The developer's present proposal includes upgrading of the traffic signal at Route 25 and County Road 48 from a flashing device to three color operation. We are still awaiting the developer's $120,000 bond for this work but have been assured that we will receive it in the near future. If you have any questions, kindly contact Mr. Lentini at (516) 360-6020. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yo~' Region~ Traffic Engineer TCH: JL: BT AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACT/ON EMPLOYER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 28, 1990 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Michael J. Cuddy Regional Director Department of Transportation Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 RE: Intersection at State Road 25 and County Route 48 and Main Street, Greenport Dear Mr. Cuddy: A copy of your June 27, 1988 letter to Assemblyman Joseph Sawicki, Jr. regarding the above-referenced intersection was brought to the Planning Board's attention on March 16, 1990. As you may be aware, the "Breakers at Lands End" project has received site approvals from the Town Planning Board and curb cut approvals from the State Department of Transportation. However, this office has not received any documentation as to whether the developer in question has been bonded for improvements to the traffic signal as noted in your letter. It would be appreciated if the status of the traffic signal's upgrade and supporting documentation could be made available for our records. Page 2 Michael J. Cuddy Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner for Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk James Dinizio, Jr., Zoning Board of Appeals Joseph Sawicki, Jr., Assemblyman THE ASSEMBLY STATe Of NeW YORK ALBANY JOSEPH SAWICKI, JR. RANKING MEMBER COMMITTEES Ms. Joan Dinizio Sound Road Greenport, New York Dear Joan: July 12, 1988 11944 Enclosed is a copy of the response which I have finally received from the Regional Director for Long Island of the New York State Department of Transportation regarding the intersection at Porky's Restaurant. Then, as a follow-up, I am writing again to Mr. Michael Cuddy inquiring as to when their field engineers and inspectors performed their investigation. I am curious to know whether they, in fact, studied this intersection during the busy times of the year. I know that this is not all that we had expected, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. Please call me at concerns and ideas. JS:tf Enclosure anytime should you have erely, JOSEPH SAWlCKI, JR. Member of the Assembly additional June 27, 1988 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUgE h~.Y. 1~788 Honorable Joseph Sawicki, Jr. Member of the Assembly 1380 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Dear Mr. Sawicki: Route 25 at CR48 and Main Street, Greenport Our September 8, 1987 Letter Your August 26, 1987 and September 30, 1987 Letters This reply will address the safety and operational concerns at the subject intersection which includes the subsequent three color traffic signal request to Mr. T. C. Hoffman. Our 1985 project at this intersection, improved the drainage, provided for pavement resurfacing, channelized turning movements and upgraded the signing. These improvements, along with the existing flashing traffic signal at the intersect ion, were intended to address safety and operational problems previously indentified at this intersection. The investigation requested showed that a three color traffic signal would not improve traffic operations at this time. Our investigation considered the frequency and conditions surrounding accidents occurring at the intersection, the number of pedestrians- and vehicles that pass through the intersection, and the delays they encounter while attempting to enter this intersection safely. We found very few acoidents occurred at the intersection and no pattern of accidents that a signal would have prevented. Installation of traffic signals that do not meet minimum requirements can cause increased traffic congestion and a rise in the frequency of accidents. Field observations showed Sound Road traffic to be very light. Vehicles traveling north from Main Street to Sound Road did have room to proceed to the middle of the roadway before making a left turn to Sound Road and ~ did not see any operational difficulties associated with this movement. We will install a warning sign for northbound traffic on Main Street, Route 25 that would indicate the intersection of Sound Road. Because of your concerns, we asked for and received a revised Traffic Impact Study for "The Breakers at Lands End", a large condominium subdivision with a group of retail stores which will enter Route 25 approximately 1200 feet east of the Main Street intersection. This study showed additional traffic from the development would have an impact on the Route 25 Main Street/CR48 Honorable Joseph Sawicki, Jr. June 27, 1988 Page 2 £ntersection and the present flashing signal should then be converted to a three color, semiactuated signal with a left turn arrow for westbound tn southbound left turning traffic. This matter will be pursued by us and the town as plans for "The Breakers at Lands End" are finalized. The developer will be responsible for improvements to the traffic signal. We also evaluated the speed on CR48, which enters the intersection from the west, with the Town and State Police. A 45 MPH speed limit has been established on CR48 from Moore Lane to Main Street. This is consistent with the 45 MPH speed limit on Route 25 east of the intersection, and addresses your concerns of traffic speeding through the intersection from west to east. We appreciate your concerns for the safety of the public and thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. Very truly yours, Regional Director cc: Mrs. Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 FROM: DATE: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Zoning Board of Appeals~ March 28, 1990 RE: Traffic Reports In regarding .~.ordan's .Par_tne~., Breaker's Lands End and Aliano, we are requesti~ation received by your office concerning traffic studies done on these parcels. We would also like any environmental aspects done on Aliano. Since we have as of recent date, received applications on Jordan's Partners and Aliano, we are requesting any communications affecting these three parcels on or before April 16, 1990. Thank you for your cooperation. ZBA/df Edwin Fishel Tucdo 547 East Main Street Riverhead, New Yodt 11901 (516) 727-6644 29, 1990 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUPPOLR ) EDWIN FISHEL TUCCIO, being duly sworn, deposes and says= That I am a licensed real estate broker, License No. 157661 issued by the State of New York, residing at Roanoke Avenue, Rlvarhaad, New York, with offices at S47 East Main Street, River- head, and Paquaah and Main Road in Cutchogua. That I have successfully completed Course I of Real Estate' praisers and am a former graduate of the Suffolk County Realty Institute. ! received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in business from Long Island University at Southampton, New York. I am a licensed business instructor duly licensed by the State of New York, member of the Eastern Federation of Real Estate Boards, the New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers, and the National Association of Realtors. I have been actively engaged and have been a broker in sales of over ninety million ($90,000,000.00) dollars in volume of real estate in the County of Suffolk, consisting of residential, commercial and industrial properties. I have extensive experi- ence in appraising lands for the Town of Riverhead H.U.D. pro- gram, aa well as extensive appraisal work for private individuals and firms in Rtverhead, Southold, Southampton and Brookhaven Towns. This report is prepared to furnish as a guide as to the sale price that the property should command if exposed for sale on the open market' on tho date of this appraisal. DEFINITION OF NAREET VALUE The estimated price in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale in the open markatv allowing reasonable time to find a purchaser who buys with knowledge of all the uses to which the property is'adopted and for which it le capable of being used. HIOHEST AND BEST usg It in the opinion of the appraiser that the subject property aa found on the date of lnapeotion wan ~mproved in accordance with the principle of highest and best use. By highest and best use it is meant that the program of land uxe or employment which will preserve the utility of the land and yield a net income flow that forms when capitalized. THE CAPITALIZATION PROCEE8 This analysis presumes that the property will be resold at some future data, at a price which ia agreeable to buyer and seller, with the highest possible mortgage amount and the lowest possible interest rate. The rate of return on the equity position is normally higher than the mortgage rata, and reflects the other possible investments, in stocks, bonds, U.S. Government securities and such possible investments whose posture and stature may be readily checked in the financial pages. Alee considered is the potential increase or decrease in value of the property in normal holding period at the time of resale. CERTIFICATE OF VALUE The undersigned does hereby certify that, except ae otherwise noted in the appraisal report~ 1. I have no present or contemplated inte.reet in the real estate that ie the subject of this report. 2. I ~ave no personal interest or bias in respect to the subject matter of the report or the parties involved. 3. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of facts contained in the report, upon which the analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed herein era based, are true and correct. 4. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting condi- tions affecting the analysis, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The only relevant approach to valuation for the subject property is the market data or direct sale comparison approach, · process whereby sales of comparable properties are researched, analyzed, and related to the subject to indicate an estimate of fair market value. The appraiser has also made a study of sexes of comparable prop- erties in a competitive and informed market, with consideration given to the characteristics of the parcels sold and adjustments made where necessary for time, location, topography, size, and other factors affecting marketability or price. In researching the records for available data, the appraiser has discussed the market with local brokers, municipal authorities and real estate appraisers. ! have personally inspected the property hereinafter described and ! have no personal interest, present or future, direct or indirect, in said property which might influence or affect my Judgement regarding the fair market value, and I further state that the market data approach was used to establish the fair market value set forth herein. The property was appraised as if the property was free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Market value as applied in this report is the price at which a willing seller would sell and a willing buyer would buy. My employment in end compensation for making this appraisel ars in no way contingent upon the value reported and, es noted above, I have no financial interest of any kind in the subject premises. The subject premises on the market value of pal objections. presently exisi.s. This appraisal is based said property existence with no munlcl- Ed*in Fishel T~ccio Sworn to before me of May, 1990 NOTARY PUBLIC MAO~ MOORE ~ ~ub[ic. Stale of N~ Yodl No. ~912~ ~mi~ ~ires ~ri127, 19~ this APPRAIBAL PROBLBM The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel o£ Rastdentiel/Of£1ce zoned land, being 4.7 ~ acres in size, located in a mixed residential/commercial area in ~reenport. The appraisal problem ia to estimate the highest and best use of the subject property if it vere for residential use only. The appraiser has conducted a market study for the purpose of finding sales of comparably vacant residential parcels to estimate the subject's market value. OgNER z Jordan's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou 801 Horst Parkway Hauppaugs, New York gUaYULE CO. TAX HAP NOot 1000-34-2-1 ~iled in ths Suffolk County Clerk's Office on Hatch lO, 1999 in Liber 10814 Pg 149 (see attached deed for property description data) LOCATIONs Southwest cornsr of Stats Route 2S and Hain Street, Grsenport, Town of Southold, Su£folk County, Stats off New York LOT glZEI 4.69 acres ZONINGs AREA TR~NDB~ TOPOGRAPHY~ Rssidantial/Offics~ Town of gouthold Harkst values ars reflectivs of downward trends. The subject is level on edJoin~ng street qradeo The soil and drainage conditions ers qoodo OTXLXTXES~ Hunicipal water, private drainage and sewer systems SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION 10814 149 Till{ {NI}ENTUIIK~ wrade the ,I.y o{ Fehruary . "{'~ ~ ~ ~i {hty-.in~ ~i HOnOr Porkvoy, He. plm. Ro, .c/o ~1 ~)Lor Parkway, ]{muppaule, ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~., ~ JORDAN'S 801 No;o; Parkay, Hnuppnuse, New York (2/3 interest) and PA~IS PAI'A~ ~/~ 801 ~r ~ b~ tl~ ~ ~ I~ ~1 ~d, ~ ~7 K~nt ~ r~ u.to I~ ~dy .{ t~ ~ ~d, I1~ I~ Y{~ ~ ~et Southold, ~Ult~y O~ ~U~OXk, TO~ O~ SouLhoLO ~d ~O~e Of Sou~h 72 de{re~ 43 mtnu~e. {0 socond~ ~est, elon8 the norLhor3y hide o~ Knnpp minutes ~ neconds Mest 352.65 foot ~o CI, m easterly side of Xoin Screen; thence ~ _ ~r~ h~r~in by d~dd~{d F{btumry i{ECEIV~.¢ %,;~ IN mmn.~ ~1 $ lUmxu~ a.~ to mi known, NEWYORK COMPARABLE SALKS Daaarest to Oraskosk! Sold August 18, 1999 for $62,SO0 Lot mlzel 66' x 133' Locattonl Knapp Place, Gte·aport Tax Nap No. 1OO0-34-3-4 Lathaa to Major Assocs. Tax Map No. Sold July 28, 1989 for $400,000 Lot lize: 13.90 acres ($28,000 per acre) Locationl King Street, Orient 1000-26-2-42 Shalney to Dubner Tax Map No. Sold March 10, 1989 for $390,000 Lot size% 23.90 acres ($16,300 per acre) Locatlonl Mlddle Road, Pecontc 1000-84-1-8 Mohrinq Enterprises to Blmset T&a Map No. 1000-113-7-19.2 Sold March 10, 19S9 for $990,000 Lot ~tza~ 40 acrea ($24,750 per acre) Locatlon~ Cox Neck Road, Matt/tuck ~Ot~PARABLE #2~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ,~..., :50UTHOLD Real Property Tax Service Agencyl,~.=z0, County Center Jm~UCT m JO00 Riv.,h.ad, t. I., N.- York lee. ~._~_ Tax Hap No. Date of Sale Location Selling Price Lot Size P~ice/ac~e Net Adjustments Indic&ted Value Pe= Lot 1000-34-2-1 G~eenpo~t 4.69 ac. $45,000 1000-34-3-4 8/89 Greenport $62,500 66' x 133' $62,500 (-28%) $45,000 COMP. t2 i000-26-2-~2 7/89 Orient Sd00,O00 13.9 ac. $28,000 (+30%) $36,400 coHP. t3 1000-84-1-8 3/89 Peconic $390,000 23.9 ac. $16,300 (+40%) $23,000 1000-113-7-19.2 3/89 Mattttuck $890,000 40 ac. $24,750 (+35%) $33,350 Comperebls ~1, vhich is remtdentisl, sold on August lB, 1989 for $62,500° This sale would be reflective of market value to the subject if the subject was used for residential purposes. Comperablas #2, 3, and 4 were large tract sales that e~s not subdivided, but indicates a price per acre value for acreage of 2 It is in the appraiser's opinion that the land value for the subject property, based on one acre lots each would be ~45~000 per lot. FINAL VALUE ESTIHATE Comparable #1, which is located Just south oF the subject property; sold for $62,500. The appraiser feels that thin parcel is the most reflective of market value of the subject but has adjusted downward for location. Comparable il, which is located on Knapp Place, is off the Hain Road and is more desirable for residential use, i.e. less traffic, noise and privacy. Comparables #2, 3, and 4 are all large tracts of land in which the appraiser made adjustments for subdivision approval, lot fees, road cuts and drainage. Based on a declining real estate market, residential Iota are in great supply with less demand due to the economy and property taxes. It is in the appra~ser°s opinion that the market value per lot of $4S,000 would give the subject property a value of ... d.69 acres s $d5,000 = $211,000 based on a S lot minor subdivision. If the Town only allows 4 lots... $180,000. CLIENTS Teddy Cohn 1666 79th Street Causeway The Center Building Miami Beach, Florida Cruiser & Hill, esq. 206 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 IRS East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Anthony Conforti 611 East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Raf[e & Corrigan 747 East Main Street ~iverhead, N.Y. 11901 Scheinberg, Schneps, 1 Union Square Aquebogue, N.Y. 11931 DePetris & DePetris Suffolk County National Bank 2nd Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 North Fork Bank & Trust Main Road Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Town of RiverNead 200 Howell Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Grumman Aerospace Swan Lake Road CalYerton, N.Y. 11933 First American Title 210 Court Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Federal Land Bank Route 58 Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Twomey, Latham, Shea 33 West 2nd Steer Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 & Kelley James Schondebard, esq. 206 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 McNulty & DiPietro East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Arnoff & Czygier Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 North Fork Preserve Sound Avenue Jamesport, N.Y. 11947 Riverhead Pistol Deep Hole Road Calverton, N.Y. 11933 & Rifle Club John Serpico, esq. 186 Ooralemon Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Gregory Blass, esq. Court Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 C T LD Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 25, 1986 Mr. Robert Gruber ARchitect 476 Espressway Drive, Medford, NY 11763 So RE: 280 North Road Dear Mr. Gruber: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 23,1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan for 280 North Road for construction of office and retail complex located at Main Street and North Road, Greenport, survey dated as revised June 17, 1986, tax map no. 1000-34-2-1, subject to: 1. Receipt of a curb cut permit from the NYS Department of Public Works. 2. Removal of the term "parcel two" from the residential land owned by the applicant. The Board does not want it to be construed that this has been subdivided. Upon receipt of the curb cut permit and amended surveys eliminating the term "parcel two", the Chairman will endorse the surveys. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIR~NJ ' SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY July 12, 1988 Ms. Joan Dinizio Sound Road Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Joan: Enclosed is a copy of the response which I have finally received from the Regional Director for Long Island of the New York State Department of Transportation regarding the intersection at Porky's Restaurant. Then, as a follow-up, I am writing again to Mr. Michael Cuddy inquiring as to when their field engineers and inspectors performed their investigation. I am curious to know whether they, in fact, studied this intersection during the busy times of the year. I know that this is not all that we had expected, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. Please call me at concerns and ideas. anytime should you have erely, JOSEPH SAWICKI, JR. Member of the Assembly additional JS:tf Enclosure STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'flON VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE. N,Y MICHAEL J. CUDDY REGIONAL DIRECTOR June 27, 1988 Honorable Joseph Sawickt, Jr. Member of the Assembly 1380 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Dear Mr. Sawicki: Route 25 at CR48 and Main Street, Greenport Our September 8, 1987 Letter Your August 26, 1987 and September 30, 1987 Letters This reply will address the intersection which includes to Mr. T. C. Hoffman. safety and operational concerns at the subject the subsequent three color traffic signal request Our 1985 project at this intersection, improved the drainage, provided for pavement resurfacing, channelized turning movements and upgraded the signing. These improvements, along with the existing flashing traffic signal at the intersection, were intended to address safety and operational problems previously indentified at this intersection. The investigation requested showed that a three color traffic signal would not improve traffic operations at this time. Our investigation considered the frequency and conditions surrounding accidents occurring at the intersection, the number of pedestrians- and vehicles that pass through the intersection, and the delays they encounter while attempting to enter this intersection safely. We found very few accidents occurred at the intersection and no pattern of accidents that a signal would have prevented. Installation of traffic signals that do not meet minimum requir~nents can cause increased traffic congestion and a rise in the frequency of accidents. Field observations showed Sound Road traffic to be very light. Vehicles traveling north from Main Street to Sound Road did have room to proceed to the middle of the roadway before making a left turn to Sound Road and we did not see any operational difficulties associated with this movement. We will install a warning sign for northbound traffic on Main Street, Route 25 that would indicate the intersection of Sound Road. Because of your concerns, w~ asked for and received a revised Traffic hnpact Study for "The Breakers at Lands End", a large condominium subdivision with a group of retail stores which will enter Route 25 approximately 1200 feet east of the Main Street intersection. This study showed additional traffic from the development would have an impact on the Route 25 - Main Street/CR48 Honorable Joseph Sawicki, Jr. June 27, 1988 Page 2 intersection and the present flashing signal should then be converted to a three color, semiactuated signal with a left turn arrow for westbound to southbound left turning traffic. This matter will be pursued by us and the town as plans for "The Breakers at Lands End" are finalized. The developer will be responsible for improvem~nts to the traffic signal. We also evaluated the speed on CR48, which enters the intersection from the west, with the Town and State Police. A 45 MPH speed limit has been established on CR48 from Moore Lane to Main Street. This is consistent with the 45 MPH speed limit on Route 25 east of the intersection, and addresses your concerns of traffic speeding through the intersection from west to east. We appreciate your concerns for the safety of the public and thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. Very truly yours, MICHAEL J. CUD~Y Regional Director cc: Mrs. Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk LONG ISLAND Planned Greenport Mall in Appeal By Mitchell Freedman A proposed shopping center just ont~ side Greenport Village which would become the easternmost major shop- ping center on the North Fork has fallen into a legal limbo. While the foundation has been poured for the 29,000-square-foot Greenpert Commons shopping center. it is being constructed in an area zoned for residential nsc. And, while the Santhold Town build- ing department originally had issued a building permit for the $2-mitlion shop- ping center -- which is strongly opposed by merchants in the village the town later ordered the work stopped. The developer, John Tsunis, went be- fore Southold's zoning board of appeals Thursday night, asking for permission to complete his shopping center. The board voted to adjourn the hearing for a month, until the matter can be re- viewed by the town attorney. The shopping center is one of several projects blocked by rezonings that fol- lowed the town's master plan review. The land about four acres on the south side of Main Road and Main Street originally was zoned for com- mercial use but was rezoned for one acre of residen- tial and residential-office use in January, 1989. Tsunis. whose firm purchased the land for $590,000 in February, 1988, told the planning board that he had all the required permits to begin con- struction except one permit that would have allowed him to use village water. Tsunis said the village op- posed his efforts to dig his own well and finally al- lowed him to use the village water supply after the rezoning was put in place. The village buff ding department also issued a permit for the project, and Tsunis said the foundation footings were poured and work was stopped in November, 1989, only after tbe village filed a stop-work order. Tsunis had experts testify to the zoning board of appeals that, at that point, an additional $225,000 had been spent for engineering, design and construc- tion work. A stop-work order posted at the site of the proposed mall His ~rm is seeking relief ~rom the ~w~'s code to ~low the shopping cen[er to be completed, ar~ing that the new zoning would reduce the value of the land to no more than $150,000, while the shop- ping center would be woRh $2.4 million. Norman Gerber, the independent planning'consul- tant for Broo~aven Town who appeared on beh~f of Tsunis, said that "what is being asked for is nothing more than what was approved by the Town of South- old" before the rezoning. More than 40 Greenport-area residents opposed thc appeal, with several of them saying the planned shop- ping center would h~m existing stores in the busi- ness district and destroy the ch~acter of the area. Joseph Townsend, a former Greenpert mayor and former Southold Town Board member, told the zoning board of appe~s that he work~ on the town's m~ter pbm review from the be~nning, and that tokening tbe site of the shopping center was a top priority "because of the inappropriate- ness.., we hoped it would be changed from the very onset of the process." The town changed the zoning of the 'property in an effort to limit develop- ment of the area and preserve more open space. Town officials have repeatedly said keeping open space is vital to pre- serving the character of Southold, a town whose year-round population is less than 22,000 people. Ingeborg Flynn, a real estate broker for 20 years, said that even if the build- ing department made a mistake in issu- ing a permit, "I fail to see where an error on the part of the building department overrides the zoning ordinance." She said Tsunis was attempting "an end run around the zoning ordinance." Another issue, yet to be resolved is whether the proposed shopping center would have a significant environmental impact. The developer claims no signifi- cant environmental changes would be caused because of the shopping center, and the town planning board currently is reviewing its records to see if any en- vironmental determination was made on the project. Gerard Geehringer, chairman of the Southold zon- ing board of appeals, said his agency would eventually have to make a determination on the shopping cen- ter's impact on traffic, the existing community, and other aspects of environmental impact. Tsunis ran into a similar environmental problem two years age on his 194,550-square-foot Sunshine Mall, which was built on 25 acres in Medford. In 1986, then-Bruokhaven Town Planning Com- missioner Vincent Donnelly ruled that the mall would have no significant environmental impact because the construction was taking place on a farm field on an underused county road. But local residents said the traffic the mall would create was the proper subject of an environmental review, and took the town to court. Ultimately, an environmental review was done by the bui!der afmr the mall was 80 pereent to 90 percent completed. STATE OF MEW YORK ) ) COBNTY OF SUFFOLK ) March 14, 1990 EDWIN FIBKEL TUCCIO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a licensed real estate broker, License Mo. 167661 issued by the State of New York, residing et Roanoke Avenue, Riverhesd, New York, with offices at 647 East Main Street, River- head, and Pequaeh and Main Road in Cutchogue. That I have successfully completed Course I of Real Estate Ap- praisers and am a former graduate of the Suffolk County Realty Institute. ! received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in business from Long Island University et Southampton, Mew York. I am a licensed business instructor &uly licensed by the State of Mew York, member of the Eastern Federation of Real Estate Boards, the New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers, and the National Association of Realtors. I have been actively engaged and have been a broker in sales of over ninety million ($90,000,000.00) dollars in volume of real estate in the County of Suffolk, consisting of residential, commercial and industrial properties. I have extensive experi- ence in appraising lands for the Town of Riverhead M.U.D. pro- gram, as well ae extensive appraisal work for private individuals and firms in Rlverhead, Southold, Sqfithampton and Brookhaven E~ Fishel Tu~ci~ -- -- Sworn to before me this (q'~b, day of March, 1990 NOTARY PUBLIC Southold Town Zoning Board of March l~, lggO 8=20 P.M. Appeals RE: Application of Use Variance for Greenport Commons Main Rd., Greenport, New York The purpose of my testimony is to establish to the Zoning Board that if a use variance is not granted to the petitioner, will create a tremendous economic hardship. it There are different types of scenarios that affect the value of this property. For example, before the town upzoned to RO (residential/office), the property was purchased with the inten- tions for a retail shopping center (29,000 square feet). With this type of approval, the value of vacant land with an approved site plan could be worth up to $850,000 to $950,000. Under the current zoning (now RO), only 3 or 4 lots would be allowed on this property. Even if this were allowed by the Town, what average person would want to purchase & vacant lot and build a home that close to the Main Road? It is in my opinion that each lot would only sell for $25,000 to $30,000 each. If this were the case, the petitioner would only realize at the most $120,OO0. You must remember, they paid $590,000 for this parcel. Another scenario is residential/office. Currently, there is no demand for office space in the Town of Southold. I doubt very much that the Town wants to make the same mistake as Riverhead has done, and that is approving more office space than needed. Currently in Riverhead, we have around 250,000 square feet of vacant office space that is unheard of in the real estate indus- try! If this Board does not approve the use variance, it may be promoting more office space. One thing that I think you should be aware of is when such a high vacancy exists in a town such as Riverhesd, most landlords are able to have their assessments reduced because of a vacancy factor. When real estate investors grieve their taxes and are reduced by the Town, they lose a large chunk of our tax base when overbuilt. The bottom line is that the only way s reasonable return can be realized for this property is to develop it as what it was zoned - for business use. The tax benefits are far greater to the Town if it is built as a retail shopping center versus residential/office. On a final note, I think it is in the best interest of the Town as well as our client to grant the use variance and allow this project to realize its full potential. PERGOLIS SWARTZ; INC. 29 WEST 35TH STREET · NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 / 212-947-1313 FAX 212-629~o592 GREENPOINT COMMONR INCOME. AND EXPENSES INCOME Alex Poon Shop With Us McCrory's To Be Leased Gross Income 1870 s.f. 3300 s.f. 8000 s.f. 15.830 s.f. @$14 Less Vacancy and rent loss Effective Gross Income OPERATING EXPENSES Structural Repairs Management Total Expenses NET OPERATING INCOME Assume financing 10 1/2% 30 years .75 x .11 - .0825 .25 x .08 = .0200 Financing Cap Rate .1025% $28,050 44,550 72,800 221,620 367,020 (14,710) 352,310 $ 2,900 10,600 13,500 $338,810 Estimated value Loan based on asset value Loan based on debt service coverage Maximum loan $3,300,000 x .75 $2,478,000 $2,565,000 $2,475,000 ($85.34/s.f. REAL ESTATE FINANCING -- INVESTMENT SALES PERGOLIS SWARTZ, INC. 29 WEST 35TH STREET · NE~V YORK, NEW YORK 10001 / 212-947-1313 FAX 212-629~592 GREENPOINT COMMONS INCOME. AND EXPENSES INCOME Alex Poon Shop With Us McCrory'S To Be Leased 1870 s.f. 3300 s.f. 8000 s.f. 15.830 s.f. Gross Income Less Vacancy and rent loss Effective Gross Income OPERATING EXPENSES Structural Repairs Management Total Expenses NET OPERATING INCOME Assume financing 10 1/2% 30 .75 x .11 = .0825 .25 x .08 - .0200 Financing Cap Rate .1025% years @$14 $28,050 44,550 72,800 221,620 367,020 (14,710) 352,310 $ 2,900 10,600 13,500 8338,810 Estimated value Loan based on asset value Loan based on debt service coverage Maximum loan $3,300,000 x .75 $2,475,000 $2,565,000 $2,475,000 ($85.34/s.f.) REAL ESTATE FINANCING -- INVESTMENT SALES Town of Southold Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Dear Members of the Board: This letter is being written with mixed feelings in regards to the proposed construction project. While it is understandable that a business expects a return on investment, it is difficult to comprehend why a business person would expend a large amount of capital at a time of weak economy in an area where there are many business store fronts vacant ( ie. Sterlington Commons, Victorian Village, Kontakosta's storefront ). Perhaps there are other reasons which the general public is unaware of, but in the minds of many local people this project appears to be 5 or 10 years premature. Another aFea of unkept vacant stores with broken or boarded up windows and trash blowing in the breeze is not desirable. The traffic problems have not diminished and the new traffic pattern at the intersection of routes 48 and 25 is worse than ever. Add to this a traffic flow due to retail shops in operation and there may be a hazardous situation to the general public. It is hoped that this has been thoroughly researched and considered. This is no question that the thoughts of noise pollution become apparent. A retail shop operation requires truck deliveries at all hours of the day and night. Depending on the type of retail shop, it is possible to have store hours around the clock and perhaps not the most desirable clientele inhabiting an area adjacent to residential homes. It is not uncommon for business people and investors who are not residents to do whatever it takes to proceed with their project to accomplish a bottom line. Sometime it is done without regards to how it effects the local inhabitants who will live with the situation for many years. Please consider these concerns before approving the project which can have so much influence on us. Sincerely, Alice Green JOHN C. TSUNIS CEO 80'1 MOTOR PARKWAY HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 1 '1788 516-582-4000 FAX: 516-582-4256 March 9, 1990 HAND DELIVERED ZONING BOARD of APPEALS Town of Southold Main Road State Route Southold, New York 11971 25 Attn: Doreen Re: J_ordan's Partners Dear moreen: Enclosed please find photographs of the pro- posed "Greenport Commons" located at the inter- section of Main Road and Main Street in Greenport. Sincerely, Stuart Kramer SK/sg Enclosure SUN]S JOHN C. TSUNIS CEO 801 MOTOR PARKWAY HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK '1 '~ 788 516-582-4000 FAX: 5'16-582-4256 March 1, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. William Kart 611 Bailey Avenue Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Greenport Commons Greenportr New York Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kart: I received your letter addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated February 28, 1990. I am sorry that you are experiencing a "con- tinue flow of garbage into your yard". This is in- deed the first time I have been apprised of this situation and you may rest assured that a barrier fence is immediately installed. As a home owner and attorney, I am most sensi- tive to ones' guest for privacy and quiet enjoy- ment, and I will see to it that you are not pro- vided with "some relief", but complete relief from this nuisance. It is my earnest desire to build a most aes- thetically pleasing building to be called Greenport Commons, which would not only provide necessary and convenient services and products to the greater Greenport area, but will also be a compatible and sinsitive neighbor. Should you wish, I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these plans and would seek to accomodate any and all reasonable concerns that you may have concerning this property. Thank you for your kind attention. ce: Southold Town Board~als APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOFF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the times allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Please feel free to call our office prior to the hearing date if you have questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, GERARD p. CHAIRM3kN dff . .~n¢1~. humid4 a.d e ighty-tvO .THISINDENTUR~,"~th' o~ ~yol Ap~i~ :.~ office mt 100 Bzoa~ay, in ~e ~rough si ~ Park, Co~ ~:~ ~9~, S~te ~ g~ Jersey 07407, ~st 24~ Street, ~ew YorK, -~ ~.~r~ss'Mano~, ~'Yo~ 114'27~ residing at a2-26 23s~ Street, '~m~ UT:.~':2.- ~-icrib~ in Schedul. "A" execute 1}? lame; lIN{ th&l b~ LIM ~L DI~T. 1000 034.00 BI,OCX 02.00 001.000 R.turbea~, ReM York along said lant m4~ttlone~ 1~ and lam8 Of ?hilberg and criteblov, ~oath 33 Sta~b~ ~u~ 74 ~ along t~ wsterly sAM of Mid erly side o~ ~a~ Place/ ,. ,. .,.., ~ .'.~ .. ~Cg ~uth 72 s~de o~ ~8~ P~oce ~ntl~ed land 167.~4 f~tl ..~,,:"~2,~ ,,-.* ,,. ~th 74 ~rNI 33 ~lnuteo 30 roWS ~lt Ii& of ~ Street1' ~, me knmm m ~ ~ i~di~nd d~cn'~d In u~d who E SU~POL~ COUN~ RATIONAL BANK CERTIFICATE JORDAN'S PARK PLACE LTD. The uadersignedo for th~ purpo~ of forming I ¢orporatlml lmemm,~ ' ~ S~L-tiem Ji~ c~ ti~ Bus~ss C~)rporation ~,/~w ~ the S~ ~ ~ he~ ce~ify and s~ fo~h: ~R~: T~ ~ ~ t~ ~r~t~ it JORDAN~ PARK ~E LTD. SECOND* The pu~tes for ~ich the ~rati~ it ~ To engage m an~ I~ul ~ ~ ~ivity for which ~riti~s o~amz~ under the busi. est ~ration 13w, p~id~ that t~ ~ratmfl is ~t fo~ to engage in any act or activity which the Kt or a~ll ~ any state official, d~a~nt. ~, ~ othe~ise priam, p~kage, and to exchange, distrib~e, eMI othe~ise des~se ~. handle, ~rk~, store, i~, e=~, d~l arid ~ra~ in f~ and f~ p~ucts of ~eW kind, and ~nfKt~ns, drinks and ~verag~ of ~ kind and ~'cript,*~n, i~ cubes, c~s~ su~hers, p~are~, servers, and disinters ~ f~ ~ d~ Kqui~. and to hold. use. ~ui&. outfit, franchise ~he ~rit~ su~ly. Se~. mintain. ~rate. s~l and othe~te dls~ fountains, bakeries, kitchens, bar~0 cocktail lounges, b~nqu4{ IN ~VtTNESS V/HEREOF, th~ c~r(ificate hl~ ~ s~H~ ~ ~ ~ 14th day ~ July, 1~7 b'/ t~ u~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ % ~ Sta~ St~ A~ny, ~ Y~ *~ m! · Subject Lo coeonan-a0 reoeF;at/ona° raatrlct/o~s, ~l~b~ of ~ ~a~ o~ ~rd, tf any. o~ ~y obJ~tl~s oF violat~e ~ch ~y a~ ,m a~ p,~r '..I clos~ of titlv, tMn ~ ~l~f, at his ~tion, l~tl Ml~r to ta~ a~y leqal action or providing to ~re any de,acts ~e ~:cha~: repre~nts that .o real esto~ bF~ J~qht out ~f ~Nr'l Ktl. DZ$?o 1~oo 034 b'2. oo CONST~NTINOS gERVOS residing at Ino f} Main Road, P.O. BOX 2035, Orient, New Yolk 11957 and GEORGE TSA1FARIS, r~siJlng at (no #) The Strand, East Marion, New York 11939, hw~l mm~y of :~ O~l~ ~es. and other valuable considerations and to ' ~r~4~mnear Creenpor~, County of Suffolk To~ of ~uthold and BEGI~ING at the northerly end ofallne which connects the eas~er,y side of Main Street with the ~outherly side of North Road and f~om said point of ~glnning: running then~ north 74 ~egrees 08 minutes 00 seconds east ~long the southerly ~ide of Nor~ Road 498.74 feet to land ~ow or for~rly of Davids~ thenc~ along said last ~ntioned land and la~d of Zevits, Angevins, ~il~rg and Critchlow, south 33 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds east 343.07 feet to land no'. or fo~rly of Flatleyl thence along said last ~ntt~ed lan~ and land of Moor~, ~qley and Stavoh, south 74 degree 3~ minutes 30 ~st 194.18 feet~ thence along the ~aterly side of ~aid land now or for.~rly of Stavoh south P6 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconJs eas~ ~64.6~ f~t to ~ ~t~rly st~ oi Kn~p ~la~= +~ce s~th 7~ ~es 43 minutes ~0 ~onda west, al~g the horsefly side of Knapp Place 79.97 ~eet to la~d now or tor~rly of Green- thence north 26 23 minutes 40 ~econds ~st along said last ~nti~ned lan~ !6~.24 feet; thence still along said last ~nt]oned land of Green an~ lands of o~rs south 74 de,tees 3~ minutes 3G ascends west 352.65 feet to the easte[ly side of ~tn Street~ thence along the easterly sid~ of ~in Street north 25 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds west 236.36 feet~ thence aleng ~he afore~id line which connects the southerly side of North Road with the easterly ~ide of F~ln Street north 19 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds e~st 109.04 feet to the %outherly side of l]orth R~d a~- the point or ~ozge ~saikos anu P~nteli~ Papazoglov by deed recorded In Liar 9185 ~.438. ~e premises herein conveye~ are not encuF~red by a credit line ~tga~. · ]TRAnsit ~ TAX ~ lilY'lOS ]CAT.~A~ l S ?0 CON~TIIIO~ ~I~RVOS afl~ GEORGE TSAVARXS TflJe USA ~atgam an~ l~alt ~ftb !, /,4/\(( :~1 TITLE GUARANTEE- NEWYORK SCnTT Z,',."!E£. ESQ. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (5Z6) 765-~.938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM - CONFIDENTIAL FROM: DATE: - RE: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector~ Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner f5 November 30, 1989 Greenport Commons The Planning Board has been informed of the decision to revoke the building permit for Greenport Commons. They are in complete support of that action. The Board's position with regard to Section 100-11. C. is that the site plan approval is not a rule, regulation or a permit. The change of zone by the Town Board overrides the site plan approval that had been granted pursuant to the prior zoning designation. I am in agreement with their position. The understanding is that the permit was issued in error. The Planning Board's site plan approval had been invalidated by the Town Board's action in adopting the new zoning classification of Residential Office for the subject property. CERTIFICATE OF JORDAN'S PARK PLACE LTD. UncUt Section 4(,2 of th~ Busme~ C, ml~.m-ation Law. ~,: ,- ~he undersigned, for the purpo~ of forming a corporetkm l~ursuwnt Sectkm 4G2 of t~e BuSiness Corporatiofl L~w of the 5tat.~ New Y~, / ~ he.by ce~ify ~nd s~ fo~h: ~ ;IR~: T~ nm ~ t~ c~r~t~ Il JORDAN~ PARK PLACE LTD. .. SECOND' The pu~ses for which the ~rati~ it fo~ To engage m any 1~ul a~ ~ a~ivity for which ~ration* my ~ o~ani~ed under the busi, ess ~ration I~w, p~vid~ that t~ fountains, baker,es, kitchens, bar~. cocktail k~ng*~, banquet halls, ¢~Jterm9 ~stablls,mten~. ~s~s ~ ~her eatd~9 I~ d~nki~pl~ and eitabh$h~t; ~ ~ kind and ~c~t~. TELEPHONE ~ (S16) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 2, 1988 Dale ~rippo Tsunis Associates 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York 11788 RE: Greenport Commons Site Plan S/e/c State Route 25 and Main Street, Greenport SCTM# 1000-34-2-1. Dear Mr. Grippo: As per our telephone conversation on Thursday, July 2 h, both reviewed the file for the above-referenced project an~ I discussed same with the Planning Board. The site plan was approved in 1986. The approval still appears to be valid at this particular point in time. The policy, copy enclosed, of which I and my staff spoke, pertains to all site plans seeking approval from the Board. In the future, site plan approval will be granted after water (and sewer) contracts, have been satisfied to the Village's standards. However, for site plans with approvals already, the issuance of a building permit is still dependent on written notification by the Village to the Town that all terms of the water and sewer contract b~ave been met to its satisfaction. The Village's May 16th letter 'to John Tsunis indicates that there are no contracts for ~ter om sewer in effect at this time. I trust this answers ~0UT' questions. Sincerely~ Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 25, 1986 Mr. Robert Gruber ARchitect 476 Espressway Drive, Medford, NY 11763 So RE: 280 North Road Dear Mr. Gruber: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 23,1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan for 280 North Road for construction of office and retail complex located at Main Street and North Road, Greenport, survey dated as revised June 17, 1986, tax map no. 1000-34-2-1, subject to: 1. Receipt of a curb cut permit from the NYS Department of Public Works. 2. Removal of the term "parcel two" from the residential land owned by the applicant. The Board does not want it to be construed that this has been subdivided. Upon receipt of the curb cut permit .and amended surveys eliminating the term "parcel two", the Chairman will endorse the surveys. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department 1000-034.00-02.00-001.000 Josephine Franconi pierre De Lalio Helsn De Lalio, his wife Perry W. De Lalio Omni Investing Corp. to The Grand Union Company B&S w/coy. L6791 cp 456 D: 2/2/70 R: 2/6/70 The Grand Union Company to Fotlos Katsamakls George Mesaikos Pantelis Papazoglou Tax Stamps $113.30 ~otois Katsamakis to Constantinos Zervcs George Tsavaris coverted $28,000 B&S w/cov. L9185 cp 438 D: 4/28/82 R: 5/21/82 28,500. Contract of Sale L10018 cp 58 D: 4/5/86 R: 3/16/86 (as to a one-thIrd {1/3) interest) Price listed as $80, ~n $20,000. on the signing of contract. $60 000. on ~elivery of the deed. Fotios Katsamakis to contantinos Zervos George Tsavaris (as to one-third (1/3) interest) Tax stamps $320.00 converted B&S w/coy. L10080 cp 537 D: 7/14/86 R: 7/18/86 $80.000. This conveyance del~neate~ ownership of premises * George Mesaikos - ~:ne-tilird (1/3) interest * p=~ntel~s Papazcglott - .t~e-.~]~rd (1/3) ~nterest ~elw~, and George Taavari£ - together one-~hird ~1/3) interes~ as follcw£: CHAIN OF TITLE PAGE 1 OF 2 George Mesaikos Pantelis Papazoglou Constantinos Zervos George Tsavaris to Jordan's Park Place Ltd. (2/3 int.) Pantelis Papazoglou (1/3 int.) as tenants in common B&S w/coy. L10549 cp 324 D: 2/1@/88 R: 2/26/88 Tax stamps $!574.00 converted $393,500.00 Jordan's Park Place Ltd. [2/9 int.) Pantelis Papazoglou (1/5 int. to Jordan's Partners (2/3 int.) Pantelis Papazolou (1/3 (no consideration) B&S w/coy. L10814 cp 149 D: 2/15/89 R: 3/10/89 CHAIN O F TITLE PAGE 2 OF 2 Fotios Katsamakis to Constantinos Zervos George Tsavaris Mortgage Ll1530 mp 320 D: 4/5/86 R: 4/16/86 Amt: $20,000. Constantinos Zervos George Ts~varis Satisfaction Ll1784 mp 480 D: 7/14/86 R: 7/18/86 Jordan's Park Place Ltd. Pantelis Papazoglou to The suffolk County National Bank Mortgage L13857 mp 131 D: 2/18/88 R: 2/26/88 Amt: $440,000.00 *This mortgage ccvers property princIpally improved or to be improved by one or more structures containing in the aggregate not more than 6 residential dwelling limits, each having their own separate cooking facilities. {J L B as agent) The Suffolk County National Bank to Jordan's Park Place Ltd. Jordan's Partners a partnership comprised of: John C. Tsunis James G. Tsunis Charles J. Tsunis (all as partners & individually) Pantelis Papazoglou Mortgage Agreement L16038 mp 51 D: 2/18/90 R: 6/1/90 (Note: John C. Tsunis, President, Jordan's Park Place Ltd. ) MORTGAGES Certificate of Incorporation ,,jordan'S Park Place Ltd." Place of business: 801 Motor Pkwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 #48 D: 7/4/87 Filed: 8/12/87 MISCELLANEOUS JUDITII T. TERRY TO~,~ CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY q, 1986: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road", has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with respect to their application presently pending' before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq. appeared before this Board and explained the nature of the uses for which he proposes to use the premises in question, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in'a Residential Office (RO) District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc.'s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and they hereby are granted a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 to the extent of permitting such uses on s Id premises as set forth in their application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval, subject, however, to the applicant obtaining any and all permits and approvals required by all Town and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereof. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk REC~VED January 13, 1986 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 JCT/le CC: Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: ~i~ ~Z~eB~ove matter bec- ~hey wzll tak~ - a ' rd has advised that . . D~ uUse oz the ur ~ no turther -~ease be · P esent mo - 1984, whic~d~sed.that the above -~. ratorlum. r- · · preceaes th~ ~ _ aPpAlcation ~vls~ons pursuant to ~ '"~[acorium and has ~Was made on May wishes ~ann~ng Board SUggesteren U~der nUmerou~ client ~n. my Client to COnform the use presently proposed and therefore my respectflly requests a Waiver of the mOratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this apPlication may proceed. Please advise of any hearing COncerning this request. Thank you for your COUrtesy and COOperation~this matter. Joh.~Ts~uni~ Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou Bennett Orlowski, Jr. HN C. January 13, 1986 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at ~G~eenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. My client wishes to conform the use presently proposed and therefore my client respectflly requests a waiver of the moratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this application may proceed. Please advise of any hearing concerning this request. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis JCT/le CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou w~ennett 0rlowski, Jr. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1 i971 'I'ELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 1985: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road!', has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law NO. 14 - 1985 with respect to his applica- tion presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to construct a retail shopping center, and WHEREAS, this.Board deems such us inconsistent with the uses in the R-O District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, lnc.'s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and he hereby is denied a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with respect to his application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval. Southold Town Clerk - Southold, N.Y. 11971 · (516) 765-1938 October 10, 1985 · Mr. Robert Gruber Architect 476 Expressway Drive, South Medford,NY 11763 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Mr. Gruber: The Southold Town Board has recently adopted a moratorium on site plans in B,Bi,C, and C1 zones, which became effective on October 3, 1985. Therefore, the Planning Board cannot take any further action '-on the site plan known as, "280 North Road" until authorized by the Town Board. Enclosed is a copy of the moratorium for your review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board. dms enc. JOHN C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNIS SCOTr ZAMEK July 30, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street Greenportr New York Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter dated July 25, 1990, below you will find the information requested concerning the principals of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. and Jordan's Partners: 1. Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. Tsunis and John C. Tsunis are the shareholders. Charles J. Tsunis, James G. sole officers, directors and 2. Jordan's Partners Charles J. Tsunis, James G. Tsunis and John C. Tsunis are the only general partners and there are no limited partners. For your information, the change in entity was an economic decision inasmuch as the losses incurred as a result of the con- tinued delays in obtaining a building permit could only properly be a deductible to individuals in a partnership and not to share- holders in a corporation. If you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs BY:~__ KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNG4 801 MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK t 1788 · TELEPHONE 516-582-4000 * FAX: 5'~6-582-4256 TIlE P. 02 JOHN G. TSUNiS JOHN C. TSUNI$ SCOI~ ZAMEK July 30, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairm=n Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ATTORNEY AT LAW Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street G~eenport, New York Dear Mr. Chairman: ~,~ response to your =ett~r dated July 25, 1990, below you wzl! find the informat.~on requested ~ ' concerning the principals of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. and Jordan's Partners: ~. Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. Charles J. Tsunis, James Ts~nis and John C. ~su~,~ are the sole officers, directors and shareholders. 2. Jordan's Partners - Charles J. Tsunis, James G. Tsunis and John C. Tsunis are the only general partners and there are no limited partners. For your information, the change in entity was an economic decision inasmuch as the losses incurred as a result of the con- tinued delays in obtaining a building permit could only properly be a deductibi~ ~ indivlduals in a partnership and not to share- holders in a corporation. If you require anything ~urther, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs KRG/$-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNG4 JOffN G. TSImIS JOHN C, TSUNIS $C~OTT ZAMEK ATTORNEY AT July 30, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street GreenDort, New York Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter dated July 25, 1990, below you will find the information requested concerning the principals of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. and Jordan's Partners: 1. Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. Tsunis and John c. Tsunis are =he shareholders. Charles J. Tsunis, Ja~es G. sole officers, directors and 2. Jordan's Partners Charles J. Tsunis, James G. Ts~nis and John C. Tsunis are the only general partners and there are no limited partners. For your information, the change in entity was an economic decision inasmuch as the losses incurred as a result of the con- tinued delays in obtaining a building permit could only properly be a deductible to individuals in a partnership and not to share- holders in a corporation. If you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHP.NG4 801 MOTO~ PA~kIA/AY, HAUPPAUGE. LONG IS'LAND, NEW YO~K I 4788 · TELEPHONE 516-582-,~000 · FAX; ~t6-582..42§6 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Gochringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 · Telephone (516) 765~1800 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERlq: Our Regular Meeting of September 6, 1990 has been cancelled, we will be rescheduling another meeting date sometime in the middle of September. If you have any questions please call this department at (516) 765-1809. Yours very truly, Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman By Doreen Ferwerda APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Ooehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 FROM: DATE: RE: Southold Town Planning Board ./// June 29, 1990 ~ ~ Evaluation of Greenport Colons During our Regular Meeting held, Wednesday, June 27, 1990, this Board requested that a site plan evaluation be conducted on Greenport Commons, by the Southold Town Planning Board based upon the Residential/Office {RO) District that presently exists. Enclosed you will find a copy of the application for a variance and the Agenda of June 27, 1990. If you require any further information please don't hesitate to ask. Enclosure ZBA/df PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Lathara, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Bennett Orlowski, Jr..~O~'/~ Chairman Greenport Commons / Jordan's Partners SCTM# 1000-34-2-1 July 27, 1990 Appeals The following is in response to the Zoning Board of Appeals' memorandum of June 29, 1990, requesting the Planning Board's evaluation of the site plan for the above referenced property. The evaluation is based on the present Residential/Office (RO) District Zoning. The site plan was approved under the prior zoning code. However, the site plan is not valid under the current code. The proposed use of the property for office and retail stores is not a permitted use by right in the Residential/Office (RO) District. However, if the proposed use were to be limited to a use (or uses) permitted by Special Exception, e.g., professional and business offices, then the site plan could be reviewed in that light. The Special Exception section permits one use for every 40,000 square feet of land area. Since the site is more than 4.6 acres in area, the applicant could apply for 5 separate special exception uses, e.g. 5 offices. The site plan before your Board shows 29,000 square feet of building area. If you use 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area as a standard for offices, approximately 290 spaces would be required. Page 2 Greenport Commons/Jordan's Partners However, the site plan shows 203 parking spaces based on "usable" floor area of 20,300 square feet. The use of the remaining 8,700 square feet which represents 30% of the total floor area, is not designated but presumably would be used for storage. If the number of office uses is restricted to 5, it may be possible to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces that would be required to be installed. A corresponding increase in the landscaping area would help mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection.. The site plan me~ts all other setback and bulk requirements for the Residential Zoning District. This review is not to be construed as site plan approval or endorsement of same. If the Zoning Board of Appeals sees fit to grant one or more Special Exception uses, the Planning Board reserves the right to review a new site plan application and to process it as it would any other site plan. JOtlN C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNI8 SC01T ZAMEK Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 July 20, 1990 Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street Greenportt New York Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed please find an Affidavit of Mr. Stuart Kramer, Leasing Agent, Greenport Commons, and a letter from Mr. Edwin Tuccio, Tuccio Real Estate, in support of the application as re- ferenced above. The information which I am supplying at this time is intended to address the Board's concern regarding the realization of a reasonable return to the applicant through the development of business/professional office space at the subject premises. This information should reinforce the independant research conducted by Board Member James Dinizio, Jr. to the effect that there is a substantial amount of vacant space in the immediate area which although useable as business/professional office space continues to remain vacant. I hope this documentation will be sufficient to enable the Board to reach the conclusion that the only way the applicant can realize a reasonable return is through the development of the sub- ject premises as retail/office space. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SZ/krs Enclosure KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNG3 Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. BY: 80t MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 1 t788 · TELEPHONE 516-582-4000 · FAX: 516-582-4256 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS coUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC HEARING, In the Matter of : JORDAN ' S pARTNERS Applicant AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Appeal No. 3915 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS.: STATE OF NEW YORK: I, STUART KR32r~IR, being duly sworn depose and say: Long Beach, New York. 2. That I am making this affidavit in support of cation as captioned above. That I am over the age of eighteen years and reside in the appli- 3. That I have been involved in leasing out space located at the corner of Main Road and Main Street, Greenport, New York on behalf of the applicant, JORDAN'S PARTNERS, since June of 1988. 4. That advertisements were Placed in the Suffolk Times offering both retail and office space (see copy of advertisement attached hereto as Exhibit A) and said advertisements were run for many months. 5. That I did receive some inquiry for business and pro- fessional office space, but there were no follow-up inqUiries or negotiations from any of the interested parties and no leases for these uses were signed. .- 6. That as I have previously testified, during this period of time I received many, many inquiries from prospective com- mercial tenants which resulted in the signing of two leases (for approximately 4,300 square feet) and the receipt of a letter of intent from McCrory Stores for an additional 8,000 square feet. 7. That based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the relief requested by the applicant be granted inasmuch as a reasonable return may only be realized by developing and leasing the property for commercial purposes in accordance with the appli- cant's previously approved site plan. Swo~n be before me this ~_ day of July, 1990. ~ R. HOFF/VlAN Public, Stem of New No. 4937545 fT~ART KRAMER y Water Hazards he Ground tm Island ,,cks to local dcljvcdcs and 'brough traffic" from the club a ~ninhabil. Od .b y- villagex$ (more commonly known ) w~ ¢~ccUcd. "Local dclivcr- ~ffccti¥c~y banncd loads of ~rOvisions ns well ~s as.~ned ccssides [rom mc vill,~c's way, regardless of d~e fact village residcn~.~ ~ze club and. as such, enjoy thc tU'~,nL ; Getting ~Wetter : through thc woods ha~ long ~_ water hazard 1o · since thc viU-§c established board (and thc county health always looking at what's go- ¢ ncw dcvcJopmcnt's high- ] to have contributexl [o t water on the street, ~he ,f d~ wclls by the dcvclopcr ;nd that thc sign on the ndica~c all o¢ l~y Bc~ch is ; club. Il he pcrr~cvcrc~ a few ecl beyond thc gates, thc -ill rr. alize he has Cravcrsod a ~markcd road ~ thc Island's for suddenly hc will come :Il anllouncing Dinah Rock he f'u~t such indication that csldenL~ ca.~t of ~c gaLC~, doesn't say many don't play gott or other,vise, hobnob with thc golfing ifa- ternity, don't cvcn liv~ alongside thc fairways, but it is true. Thc fitst.timc ~isitor )mt can't rcallz~ he is about to cnt~r a t~idcntial area which cvcn boasts an asiociation of homeowners bent on envLronmcn{al issue3 and slOW- ing heavy4'ootcd motorist5. But. Il'tis a.ma, known aa flay Beach, iS whexe onc may find himself after mut- ing through thc take behind, yet in. De. ring l-larboc, one of Long Island's 95 villag~ and thc m~allcst in New York Siam, And there is a chance that this lake will disappear oncn there arc new homes in the new (levelopmcnL Rcai- dcn~ who build on a miniraum three. acre plot won*t build shacks and they axe not likely to sit sull for a lake at the entrance to the cul-d¢.$acs on which they will llve. And Lhcrc arc always thc highways in thc l'{~{ghts to look [o, Patc.%d, tcpatched and then patched again Over the. past half-cenluty, many of thC$c recently got a smooth new over-coating of bcaudi'ulJy ~mooth hard- top, All one necd~ is paQcnc¢. while, some entrepreneur ma7 try to estublisll a bo~t rental facility on Man- h~n~t Rc~td -- or Dcring ~ Road, it' you i~$ist -- to aid motori~ who don't cart7 even/week, only in · Suffolk Times) eenport 1111110118 · ~,iX~ sq. ft of retail epecialty ahoppee ~ocated at 1he Mter~n of Main St. a~ ~h Rd-, Gteenpo~ · ~ ~ road frontage, New ~giand atchlt~ure drlv~ wlnd~ - ~3 ~r ~tkJng * ~up~n~ ~rch 1990 All ~1 tr~as we~me tO b~. ~ un,er ~t~n. For Le~e Informatio~ ~*~J 516-582-4000 O01 Molor Parkway Hauppauge, Long I~land, NY 11768 Edwin Fishel Tuccao LIc~'q~D REAL }~I~ATE BROKER 547 East Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-6644 July 21, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Board of Appeals Town of SoutnolG 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Soutnold, N.Y. 11971 Chairman Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road and Main Street Greenport, N.Y. Dear Mr. Chairman; In support of the application of JorGan's Partners, to again reiterate that there is a lack of demand for professional space in the Greenport area. woul~ like office or When I appeare~ at the March 15th Southold Town Zoning Board meeting, I nad stated that "currently there is no demand for office space in the Town of Southold." I doubt very much that the Town wants to make t~e same mistake as Riverheaa in approving more office space then is needed. Currently in the Towns of Riverhead and $outhold there is over three hundred and fifty thousand (350,~00) square feet of vacant office space. The current market will support a price per square foot of seven and 50/100 ($7.50) dolars, and yet tr~e extensive vacancies still exist. If this board does not approve the use variance, it atay be promoting more office space! One thing that t think you should be aware of is when such a high vacancy exists in a town such as Riverhead, most landlords are able to have their assessments reGuceG because of a high vacancy factor. When real estate investors grieve their taxes and are reduced by a court order, the town loses a large c~unk of t~eir tax base when overbuilt. when you apply t~e income approach to value, it attempts to measure the intrinsic values of property converting income predictions to a capital figure Dy formula. It represents what a buyer should pay rather than w~at ne actually would pay. He apparently considers the capitalization of net income. Tne pre~erred tecnnique is the approach that gives the most probable selling price, which is found only in the market. In t~is particular case, Jordan's Partner's would need to lease space at $15.~0 per square foot to carry the property based on current market aata. Although no businesses or professional office users executed leases for the Greenport Commons, t~ere were retail users for approximately 50% (fifty percent) of the available space at per foot cost sufficient to carry the center. It is my opinion that based on the current information that I have supplied to the Zoning Board, the Board should only consider the applicant's proposal for a mixed retail/business use which would enable the applicant to realize a reasonable return. In conclusion, t~e Center would be a financial disaster in today's market if the applicant were forced to lease it only for office use. HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney MATFHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD James Dinizio, Jr., Member Zoning Board of Appeals Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Your note to me of~u~y 6, 1990 July 13, 1990 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 - Greenport Commons The following response is being made: 1) The two lease agreements, to the extent I am able to review same, as the entire leases were not provided appear be legal and valid. to 2) The letter from McCrory indicates only an interest to rent in accordance with certain terms subject to the approval of McCrory and does not constitute a letter of intent. It is merely a letter saying that they will "recommend it to the real estate committee a certain proposal". 3) Finally, I have gone through the list of costs and highlighted those things which I believe are not a valid price. Finally, if you wish to talk to me in regard to any of of the foregoing, please feel free to do so at Tuesday's meeting. 59 Sound Road 8reenport, NY July &, 1990 11944 Harvey Arnoff, Esq. c/o Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Breenport Commons Dear Harvey: Nith reference to the above-mentioned matter I am enclosing the following items which were submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals by representatives of 8reenport Commons. The submitted items were in support of a Use Variance at 1000 Main Street and 100 Main Road in 8reenport. 1. Two (2) lease agreements. I would like your opinion as to the legality and validity of these agreements, particularly if the structure was completed on time. 2. One (1) Letter of Intent from McCrory Stores. How binding would this agreement be if the building had been completed? Is it, indeed, letter of intent to lease this 8,000 square feet? a A copy of the contracts of sale concerning all of the transactions on this property from May, 1982 until the present time. Mr. F.M. Flynn indicated in his statements to the Board that there may be something wrong with these documents. Please comment as to the legality of these and also the Certificate of Incorporation. 4. A copy of the cost incurred by the applicant up to and including May 24, 1990. I would appreciate your comments as to which of these costs should be applied to the monetary hardship that this applicant is claiming. For example, is the purchase price of this land ($590,000.00) a valid price or Harvey Arnoff, Esq. page two July 6~ 1990 should only a part of this amount be considered? (It is my understanding that any cost incurred while relying on an invalid building permit may also be applied to this appeal.} It is very important that I receive this information from you - in writing -- prior to July 20 as this appeal has been closed to all but written comments. If I do not hear from you I will assume that all of the above-mentioned items may be considered valid. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, James Dinizio, Jr., Member Zoning Board of Appeals JD, Jr./jld APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals ~ DATE: June 29, 1990 RE: Evaluation on Greenport Commons During our Regular Meeting held, Wednesday, June 27, 1990, this Board requested that a site plan evaluation be conducted on Greenport Commons, by the Southold Town Planning Board. Enclosed you will find a copy of the application for a variance and the Agenda of June 27, 1990. If you require any further information please don't hesitate to ask. Enclosure ZBA/df JOHN C, TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNIS June 1i, SCOT[ ZAMEK Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 1990 Re: Jordan's Partners Dear Mr. Goehringer: At the hearing of May 30, 1990, a resident introduced testi- mony regarding the recorded mortgage agreement between the above referenced applicant and the Suffolk County National Bank. His testimony concerned a clause in the mortgage agreement relating to development of the subject premises. In response thereto, I am enclosing the following items in rebuttal to that testimony: Affidavit of Peter Almasy, Vice President of Commercial Loan Department for Suffolk County National Bank. 2. Affidavit of John C. Tsunis; and 3. Affirmation of Scott Zamek, Esq. Please place these items in the applicant's file and advise my office when a hearing date has been set. If you require any further information, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs Enclousures KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNGR 801 MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 1 t788 · TELEPHONE 5t6-582-4000 ' FAX: 516.582-4256 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK: I, PETER ALMASY, being duly sworn depose and say: 1. That I am over the age of eighteen years and am a dent of the County of Suffolk. resi- 2. That I am Vice President, Commercial Loan Department of the Suffolk County National Bank and have been so employed since April of 1987. 3. That in February of 1988, I was present at a commercial mortgage loan closing between Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. and the Suffolk County National Bank in connection with premises located intersection of Main Road and Main Street, Greenport, New at the York. 4. mortgage That I was actively involved in processing the commercial application of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. and was fully familiar with the details of the proposed development. 5. That I was fully aware that the parcel was zoned B-Light Business and that an approved site plan was in place from June 23, 1986 for a proposed office and retail complex known as Greenport Mall. It was my understanding that the owners proposed to con- struct a 29,000 square foot office and retail complex. 6. That it has now been brought to my attention that a clause was inserted into the mortgage which seems to indicate that the mortgagor and the mortgagee intended that the subject premises be improved with residential dwellings. 7. That inasmuch as I was present at the loan closing, I can affirmatively state that that clause was not inserted by any- one from the bank (I do not know whose initials follow the clause) and that it was not the bank's understanding that the owners ever proposed to have the premises residentially improved. 8. That I have also been advised that since August 1, 1987, the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, Mortgage Tax Department, re- quires all mortgages for recording to include one of three clauses, one of which is the clause in question, as a prerequisite for recording, and that is why the clause, although it is the in- correct one, has been added to the mortgage. The clause which was added in order to record the mortgage was "this mortgage covers property principally improved or to be improved by one or more structures containing in dential dwelling units, facilities." The clause the aggregate not more than six resi- each having their own seperate cooking which should have been added was "this mortgage covers property not to be improved by one or more structures containing in the aggregate not more than six residen- tial dwelling units, each having their own separate cooking faci- lities''. 9. That in conclusion, the loan to Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. was given by the Suffolk County National Bank with full knowledge that from the inception of the transaction, the proposed develop- ment on the parcel was for office and retail space and the owners never intended residential development. Sworn to before me this ~ day of June, 1990. Notary Public, State of New Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires June 30, SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK ~.TER AI'.MA$¥, vi¢o ProsJ. on Coramerc±al r.oan Dopartment COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss.'. STATE OF NEW YORK: resi- I, JOHN C. TSUNIS, being duly sworn depose and say: 1. That I am over the age of eighteen years and am a dent of the County of Suffolk. 2. That I am the President of Jordan's Park Place, New York Corporation, and am fully familiar with the circumstances surrounding its commercial mortgage of premises at Southeast corner of Main Road and Main Street, with the Suffolk County National Bank. 3. That prior to February 18, 1988 I, Ltd., a facts and the Greenport, New York, on behalf of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd., Bank through its mortgage in the sum of Dollars. 4. That at that made application to the suffolk County National Vice President, Peter Almasy, for a commercial Four Hundred Forty Thousand ($440,000.00) time, I indicated to Mr. Almas¥ that an ap- proved site plan for the commercial development of the premises was in hand and that it was the intent of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. to develop the parcel commercially in accordance with those plans. 5. That on behalf of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd., no intent to develop the parcel residentially was ever expressed to Mr. Almas¥ or the Suffolk County National Bank. 6. That on February 18, 1988, the aforementioned loan with the Suffolk County National Bank closed with myself in attendance on behalf of Jordan's Park Place, Ltd., and Peter Almasy representing the lender. The loan was made contingent upon development of the parcel commercially as indicated in the approved site plan. 7. That neither he nor I were aware at that time that the clause concerning residential development of premises had been or was going to be inserted into the mortgage document, and I know that it was not inserted at the closing inasmuch as it was not brought to my attention, and my fully executed file copy of the mortgage does not contain the clause. 8. That the first time I became aware of the existence of this clause was at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing held on May 30, 1990 when Mr. Flynn presented a copy of the recorded mortgage to the Board. 9. That despite the inclusion of the clause, which I have since learned is one of three clauses which is required as a condi- tion for recording by the Suffolk County Clerk's office, the loan to a commercial loan and continues Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. was made as to be classified as such. Sworn to before me this ~') day of June, 1990. NOTARY PUBLIC TM JOH~ ~~ SCOTT ZAMEK, ESQ., hereby affirms the following under penalty of perjury: 1. That I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and am making this affirmation in support of JORDAN'S PARTNERS application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, for a Use Variance. 2. That on May 30, 1990 at a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, a Mr. Flynn introduced into evidence a copy of a page from the recorded Mortgage agreement between Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. and the Suffolk County National Bank which contained a hand- clause concerning residential improvement of the property as written follows: e Place, Ltd. "This mortgage covers property principally improved or to be improved by one or more structures contain- ing in the aggregate not more than six residential dwelling units, each having their own seperate cook- ing facilities. J L B, as agent" That I have reviewed the closing file of Jordan's Park and found that the executed file copy of the aforemen- tioned mortgage agreement does not contain the above clause. 4. That my further investigation has revealed that Mr. Peter Almasy, Vice President, Commercial Loan Department, Suffolk County National Bank, was not aware that that clause was inserted into the mortgage document either during or after the closing of the loan, and that the transaction was and continues to be classified by the bank as a commercial loan. In fact, the loan was approved in part by the bank in reliance upon the approved site plan for a commercial office/retail center. 5. That I also inquired of the Bank's attoneys, Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski, and was advised that they were unaware that the subject clause had been inserted into the docu- ment after the closing of the loan and that they did not know who ini- tialed the clause as agent. 6. That I was advised by the title company which provided the title insurance and which had a representative present at the closing that they did not know who initialed the clause nor did they know why that particular clause was inserted. They were however able to pro- vide me with a copy of a memorandum circulated by the Mortage Tax De- partment of the Suffolk County Clerk's office (see copy annexed) which advises of a new law which requires all mortgage documents that are to be recorded to contain one of three clauses concerning development of the mortgaged premises. 7. That the conclusion of all parties to whom I have referred is that for purposes of recording, someone (apparently "J L B" - al- though no one knows who this person is) inserted the subject clause after the closing of the loan and evidently the clause was not the correct one which would accurately reflect the intentions of all parties concerned. 8. That the clause which would have accurately reflected the parties intention as to development of the subject premises and which should have been inserted into the mortgage is as follows: "This mortgage covers property not to be improved by one or more structures containing in the aggregate not more than six residential dwelling units, each having their own separate cooking facilities." 9. That based on the foregoing, I respectfully submit that the clause which appears in the recorded mortage was placed there in- correctly, and should not be construed so as to limit the mortgagor's intentions as to development of the parcel. KRH/1-GREENPORT COMMONS: AFDVTSZ JOHN C. TSUN1S ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUN~$ scott ZAMEK ,une 11, 199o Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street Greenport, New York Chairman Goehringer: Enclosed please find a letter which my client received in connection with its property as referenced above. I am delivering this to you so that it may be placed into the applicant's Appeals file, and so that the board can more fully appreciate the hardship which my client is laboring under. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. SZ/krs Enclosure KRS/8-SZ Misc.: GOEHRNG1 Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SCOTT ZAMEK, ESQ. 801 MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK ~ 1788 · TELEPHONE 516-582-4000 * FAX: 516~582-4256 "Quality Products - with that personal touch" 321 Neighborhood Road, Mastic Beach, N.Y. 11951 (516) 281-9834 June 6, 1990 John C. Tsunis Jordan Partners 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 Dear Mr~ Tsunis: This letter is to terminate the lease agreement which was held for Greenport Commons. As per page 2, paragraph F "In the event that construction of the leased premises is not sub- stantially completed on or before June 1st, 1990, the leasee has the right to terminate the lease by giving the other par-' ty notice in writing within 15 days of the above date". It is unfortunate that you are having problems with Southold Township but I cannot stop my growth by waiting for decisions to be handed down. I would appreciate it very much if my amount of $7,426.00 would be returned Miller place, N.Y. 11764. security deposit in the to me at P.O. Draw R, If by some chance in the near future the township reversed their decision, I would appreciate it very much of notifica- tion of same and we could once again sit down and discuss this location as a possibility for a "SHOP WITH US FOOD STORE". It was a pleasure meeting you and your associates. SP:jp Very truly v~nurs, Stephen Plesnik, Pres. SHOP WITH US CORP. Greenport Commons EAST MARION RLING )ungs P~ f i~av Beac~ P~ ~REENPORT , CLeues P~ 50UTHOLD L MEMORANDUM OF LAW FACTS /~,~ ~,~, j This Memorandum of Law is submitted in support of Jordan's Partners application for a Use Variance to permit construction of a retail/office center. The land in question was purchased by the applicant's principals in February, 1988 for $590,000.00 (herein- after referred to as the "PARCEL"). The PARCEL, located at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Main Road and Main Street in the Hamlet of Greenport, was purchased with the intent of de- veloping and operating retail shops and offices. The PARCEL was granted the requisite approvals to construct the proposed center including site plan approval, Health Depart- ment approval and a building permit. However, this application has become necessary due to the adoption by the Town of Southold of a New Master Plan which has changed the zoning of the PARCEL from Business to Residential/Office. The RO zone permits as of right development of single family homes on one acre lots. The PARCEL (4.699 acres) was purchased with the proper zon- ing, site plan and Health Department approvals in place. Although the applicant was ready, willing and able to commence construc- tion, a building permit was not issued from 1986 through June, 1989, because water service, although promised by the Villa~e~.. Greenport, was not forthcoming. During this three year peri~,~4. : the Town Building Department rejected the applicants proposal of drilling a well even though laboratory tests performed by the ap- plicant indicated that a well was feasible for this location. Inasmuch as the parcel was in effect condemned by the applicant's inability to build on the parcel, the applicant appealed to the Suffolk County Department of Health, which advised the Building Department that a well could be drilled if municipal water was not available upon completion. A building permit was issued on June 8, 1989. In 1988, negotiations proceeded for the leasing of the PARCEL and two businesses entered into and signed lease agreements: (1) a grocery store and (2) a chinese take-out restaurant. Also, McCrory, a national department store chain, signed a Letter of In- tent for 8,000 square feet in the center. Approximately 13,000 square feet, almost half of the available square footage, was com- mitted to Tenants. Interest in the PARCEL peaked in late Summer 1989, after the land had been cleared and construction began. However, on November 30, 1989, a Stop Work Order was issued advising the owners that the Zoning was now improper for the con- struction of retail shops as the zone had been changed with the adoption of a new master plan in January of 1989. As of today, the PARCEL has been cleared, and over eighty (80%) percent of the foundation has been poured. No additional work has been performed on the PARCEL since the Stop Work Order was issued. The appli- cant's expenses, including the purchase price of the PARCEL, are currently in excess of Eight Hundred Thousand ($800,000.00) Dollars. ARGUMENT The law in this State is well of discretion by a Zoning Board of granting of a Use Variance. settled regarding the exercise Appeals in connection with the A zoning board must grant an applicant's variance upon the ground of unnecessary hardship when the following three criteria have been met: 1. That the land in question cannot yield a reasonable re- turn if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone; 2. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circum- stances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; 3. That the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. This three point test was established in 1939 by the Court of Appeals in the leading case of MATTER OF OTTO vs. STEINHILBER, (282 N.Y. 71) and has been used as the standard of proof ever since. I will address each of these criteria in an effort to set forth precisely what must be shown by an applicant, so that it can be said that he has met his burden insofar as showing unnecessary hardship, and that accordingly, the variance must be granted. I. THE LAND IN QUESTION CANNOT YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN It is a well-established rule that a landowner who seeks a use variance must first factually demonstrate, by dollars and cents proof, that he cannot realize a reasonable return by de- veloping or utilizing his property under the existing permissible use. (MATTER OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF FAYETTEVILLE v. JARROLD, 53 N.Y. 2d 254, Ct. of App., 1981). The Court, in the Matter of Fayetteville, supra, determined that the requisite dollars and cents proof had not been substan- tiated, and that the granting of the use variance was not warrant- ed. The court found that the conclusory testimony of both an architect and real estate broker for the purpose of establishing the unfeasibility of residential development were insufficient, in that neither supported his testimony with concrete facts. There were no estimates for special construction costs or competitive market values in the area. No substantial proof as to the unsale- ability of the PARCEL was offered and there was no evidence con- cerning the purchase price of the land or its current value. Ac- cordingly, the record was found insufficient to substantiate the Board's granting of the variance. The case at hand clearly can be distinguished. The record shows that the PARCEL was purchased in February of 1988 for $590,000.00. This cost reflected the fact that an approved site plan for a retail/office center was in place. Additionally, the applicant has produced proof of expenses related to the carrying and developing of the property in the amount of $236,000.00. It should be noted that approximately $75,000.00 of these expenses were incurred in reliance upon a building permit issued in June of 1989, and subsequently withdrawn in November of that year, and may be included by the applicant in making its proof. "Expenditures made in good faith reliance on a subsequently in- validated permit may be properly considered on an application for a variance on the ground of hardship". (MATTER OF JAYNE ESTATES v. RAYNOR, 22 N.Y. 2d 417). Further, in ELLENTUCK v. KLIEN, (51 A.D. 2d 964) the Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the granting of a use variance where the applicant "...had made vast expenditures in good faith reliance on the previously issued alteration permit" and "...the denial of a variance would inflict a devastating financial blow" (Supra, at page 964). The applicant has also submitted proof from a licensed real estate broker, that the present value of the PARCEL would be $180,000.00 if forced to be developed or utilized under the existing use. The unfortunate and irrebuttable result is that the applicant will suffer a horrific economic loss in excess of $645,000.00 if the use variance is denied. It should also be noted that there are additional costs which the applicant would incur in order to make the PARCEL suitable for residential de- velopment which have not been calculated into this damage amount (i.e. removal of existing foundation, subdivision apprvoal etc.) To put this in proper perspective, it has been held that a yearly rent of thousands of dollars less than the annual debt service is not a reasonable return (FOSTER v. SAYLOR, App. Div., 447 N.Y.S. 2d 75). Clearly, this applicant will not realize a reasonable return if it must develop the PARCEL residentially. Surely, the applicant's burden in this regard has been met. II. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES Prior to the granting of a use variance, it must also be shown that the plight of the landowner is due to unique circum- stances, and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself (MATTER OF OTTO v. STEINHILBER, supra). The court in Matter of Otto, held that the burden had not been met with respect to "uniqueness", because the owner had failed to produce evidence showing that his situation was unique and distinct from that of other owners whose properties fronted on the commercial road in question. This deficiency is not present in the case at hand. Expert testimony offered on behalf of the applicant has but- tressed the contention that the plight of the applicant is in fact due to some very unique circumstances which relate only to this PARCEL, and cannot be said to be a result of general conditions in the neighborhood. The PARCEL had initially been zoned for commercial develop- ment, a site plan for a retail/office center had been approved and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, and prior to the issu- ance of the Stop Work Order, the land was cleared and a foundation was poured. For no other PARCEL in the area is this true, nor was any other PARCEL changed from a commercial zone to a residential/ office zone and the testimony offered has brought these facts out. The subject PARCEL is also located at the only major intersection in the locality and directly across the street there is located a large established restaurant. At this intersection, there is currently a blinking traffic light, and plans for a three color traffic light have been developed and its installation is immi- nent. These conditions are all very unique and distinct to the sub- ject PARCEL and to no other in the neighborhood. For these reasons, a hardship is created which precludes residential de- velopment of this PARCEL. As a matter of law, "Uniqueness does not require that only the PARCEL of land in question and none other, be affected by the condition which creates the hardship. What is required is that the hardship condition be not so generally applicable throughout the district as to require the conclusion that if all parcels similarly situated are granted variances, the zoning of the district would be materially changed". (MATTER OF DOUGLASTON CIVIC ASSOC., INC. vs. KLEIN, Ct. of App., 1980, 435 N.Y.S 2d 705). In applying the above rule of law to this case, it must be concluded that the applicant's plight is unique as there are no similarly situated parcels of land in the locality. III. THE USE TO BE AUTHORIZED WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY The final proof required is that the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the local- ity. In making this determination, the Board must take a number of factors into consideration. The PARCEL is located at the intersection of north Road (State Route 25) and Main Street and fronts on North Road. This intersection is the major intersection in the locality and is currently controlled by a blinking traffic light. Directly north of the site there is a large restaurant, Porky's, located in a limited business zone. Although there are residences abutting the parcel to the east and south it should be noted that they are situated on lots which aeverage less than 10,000 square feet. If this variance is denied, the applicant could rightly build only four single family homes on the PARCEL on 40,000 square foot lots. Consequently, residential development of this type would not be in conformity with the essential character of the locality. Also, all but three of these homes back up to the PARCEL, are set back a significant distance from the property line, and have ample buffering. Inasmuch as I have found no case which is precisely identical to the situation at hand, I will analize a number of cases to sub- stantiate that the granting of this use variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Robert M. Anderson is a leading scholar in the area of New York Zoning and his work is often cited and relied upon by the courts in this state in rendering their decisions. In his book, New York Zoning Law and Practice, Third Edition, Volume 2 (1984), he deals with this last criteria and discusses what must be considered in determining Whether or not the granting of a use variance will alter the essential character of a local- ity. He cites the case of Di BARI v. BOARD OF STANDARDS & APPEALS, 1 NY 2d 756, for the proposition that a variance for com- mercial development in a residential zone was properly denied be- cause it appeared that the instrusion of retail stores would dis- rupt the residential neighborhood. However, in Di BARI, the ap- plicant's property was located in the midst of a neighborhood and surrounded by residences. Additionally, there was no proof offer- ed that the property could not be practically utilized for a resi- dence. Because of its location within the neighborhood, the court felt that the granting of the use variance would disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood (emphasis supplied). The subject parcel however, does not present these problems. It is not located within a neighborhood but instead, fronts a major thoroughfare at the busiest intersection of the locality. Accordingly, it cannot be said that commercial development of the parcel would intrude upon and disrupt a neighborhood. In assessing the effect of commercial development on a neigh- borhood the courts have pointed out that: "The objecting property owners who have selected this neighborhood as a quiet residential district in which to live and bring up their children are entitled to the pro- tection of the court" (MATTER OF HOME FOR HEBREW INFANTS v. HAND REALTY CORP., 131 Misc. 581). In that case, the applicant sought a variance to build a public garage on a residentially zoned piece of property which he pur- chased in a residential section of the Bronx. The Court vacated the permit which had been granted upon a finding that the testi- mony before the Board did not establish any unnecessary hardships, and noted further that "the practice of buying sites in restricted districts in the lively hope the Board may find that it would be an "unnecessary harship" to compel the erection of a residence or residences should not be encouraged" (MATTER OF HOME FOR HEBREW INFANTS, Supra, Page 584). This case is dissimilar to the one at hand. The homeowners in the area of the PARCEL cannot point to this type of reliance upon a zoning district which would compel the court's protection due to the fact that prior to January, 1989, the zoning of the parcel permitted the development for which this variance is sought. No resident can be heard to say that they purchased their home with the knowledge that no commercial property would be developed in the immediate vicinity. Further, as previously stated, this parcel is not located within a residental neighbor- hood but rather, abuts it and fronts on a main artery. Also, this is not a case where the applicant purchased pro- perty in the hopes of proving a hardship in order to develop in a nonconforming manner. On the contrary, the applicant purchased "with his (its) eyes open" and sought only to do what was pre- viously approved by the municipality. A further consideration which must be weighed by the Board in rendering its determination is the effect the proposed use will have on traffic in the locality. A number of decisions have cited the increase in traffic which would result from the granting of a variance as a ground for denying the proposed use. For instance, in MATTER OF ROSTLRR ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. AMELKIN, 503 N.Y.S. 2d 902, the Appellate Division determined that a use variance should be denied when the evidence indicates that the proposed use would generate extensive traffic and thus create a commercial atmosphere in the neighborhood. Once again, such is not the case here, where the evidence produced is to the contrary. Most of the users of this center will come from traffic already on the roadway, and there will be no impact on the adjacent neighborhood, inasmuch as there is no direct access from it to the center. Also, expert testimony indicates that there is at present no traffic problem in the area and there will be none created if this use variance is granted. Another aspect to be considered is the compatibility of the proposed use with the area around the subject PARCEL. The holding of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in the MATTER OF KONTOGIANNIS v. FRITTS, 516 N.Y.S. 2d 536, 1987, cited the work of Mr. Anderson for the statement that "if the variant Use is compat- ible with the area, it will not change the essential character thereof, although it is inconsistent with the zoning restrictions of the district" (2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law & Practice, Section 23.29 at 198 [3d ed.]). In KONTOGIANNIS, the applicant sought a use variance to build a multi family dwelling in a zone that previously permitted this type of development but was rezoned to single family residences. He sought to convert an obsolete recreation facility by altering the interior without change to the existing building and was sub- sequently denied by the Zoning Board. In reaching the conclusion that there was. no showing that the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered the court made a two-fold analysis. First, the subject parcel had initially been zoned for the proposed variant use, although developed at that time for a different use. Second, the applicant proposed no exterior changes to the existing building which evidently was aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. The court concluded, that under these circumstances there would be no alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood through the granting of the use variance. The situation at hand closely resembles that found in KONTOGIANNIS. The subject PARCEL was previously zoned for the use sought, and the proposed development will use New England Archi- tect so as to be compatible with the locality. Accordingly, the conclusion that there will be no alteration of essential character should be reached. Finally, the existence of similar uses in the vicinity of the proposed site must also be considered. In the MATTER OF HANNA v. CROSSLEY, 40 A.D.2d 577, App. Div., 1972, the court noted that there was a commercial greenhouse and a service station in the im- mediate area of the proposed commercial use and, inasmuch as the record was demonstrably lacking in evidence sufficient to support a finding of alteration of essential character, the board's determination as to same was found to be erroneous. As previously stated, in the vicinity of the parcel there are a number of compatible uses. Directly North, there is a large established restaurant, Porky's, which can seat upwards of 200 people. To the East there is a large limited business zoned parcel which currently houses a number of professional offices. And finally, I once again must point out, that these uses, and the proposed use, all front on to a main thoroughfare, State Route 25. Under all of the foregoing circumstances, I believe that the only conclusion which can be supported by substantial evidence is the granting of the applicant's use variance. Any other determ- ination would be arbitrary and capricious, and hence, an impermis- sible exercise of the board's discretion. KRH/1-GREENPRT COMMS: MEMPG1-5; MEMP6-10; MEMll-13 JOHN C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNIS SCOl'r ZAMEK May 30, 1990 HAND DELIVERED Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street Greenport, New York Dear Gentlemen: In connection with the above referenced applicant, please find the following: Deed to Jordan's Park Place, Ltd.; and Deed from Jordan's Park Place, Ltd. to Jordan's Partners. enclosed Please place these items into the ZBA hearing file for Jordan's Partners. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs Enclosure KRH/1-GREENPORT: ZBAPPEL3 80 t MOTOR PARKWAY *' HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK I 1788 '~ TELEPHONE 516-582-4000 · FAX: 516-582-4256 TAX MAP I )ESIGNATION 1000 t3 34.0( O2. OG I..t(,): O~L 0Or CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS IHSTRUMENT--THIS INSTRUMENT SIIOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS OHLY. 10814 Ttil~ INDEKll/RF~ made the day o[ February , niuctcen hundred and eighty-nine BETWEEN JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, I/i'D. 801 Motor Parkway, llauppau§e, New York (2/3 interest) and ..'. PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU c/o 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York (1/3 interest) party of tfie first part, and JORDAN'S PARTNERS 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York (2/3 interest) and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU c/o 801 Motor Parkway, tlauppauge, New York (1/3 interest) party o[ the secoud paR, . . WlTNF..~E'TIJI, ti,at tfie party of t,e first art, in co,,sideration i)a d by the party of tfie second part, dees ~ereby grant ami release unto the party ol the secoou par., .a ....... or successors and assigus of tfie party of the second part lorever, ALL that certaiu plot, piece or parcel of ImM, witfi the buildings and improvemeuts tbereoa erected, situate, lyi.gandbeingh~ at Sou thold, Couaty of SuffolR, Towu of Southold aud State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING, at the northerly end of a line which connects the easterly side of Main Street with the southerly side of North Road and from said point of beginning; tuna,rig thence North 74 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East along the southerly Side of North Road 498.74 feet to laad now or formerly of Davids; thence along said last-meutioned land and land of Zevits, Anger,ne, Thilberg and Critchlow, South 33 degrees 37 miuutes 20 seconds E~st 343.07 feet to land now or formerly of Flatley; thence along said las't-mentioned land and land of Moore, Begley and Stavob, South 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds West 194.18 feet; theuce along the westerly side of said land now or formerly of Stavoh, South 26 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East164.64 feet to the northerly side of KuaRp Place; thence South 72 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds West, along the northerly side of Knapp Pla~e 79.W7 feet to land now or formerly of Green; thence North 26 degrees 23 minutes 40 second's West along said fast-mentioned land 167.24 feet; thence still along said last-mentioned land of Green and lands of others south 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds West 352.65 feet to the easterly side of Main Street; thence along the easterly side of Main Street North 25 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds West 236.36 feet; thence along the aforesaid line which connects the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Main Street North 19 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds East 109.04 feet to the southerly side of North Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. Being and intended to be the same premises conveyed to the parties of the first part herein by deeddated February 18, 1988. TOGlrfflllr. ll witb all right, title aud inlerest, i[ any, o[ tfie party o[ the first part in and to auy streets and r.ads alaflting the above described l)remises to the ce.ter lioes tbcreol; TOGI£TIIER with tim appurtenances and all lite estate aud rlgbts of the party of the first Part iu aod to said pre.rises; TO IIAVI£ AND TO I lOLl) tbe premises herein granted u.to tfie party of rise second part. the fieirs or successors and assigns of the party o{ the seco.d part forever. AND tim party of tim first part covenants tlmt the party of the first part has oot doue or suffered anything whereby tte sa d preunses have beeu ellcu nbered n any.way wl,atever, except as aforesaM. AND the party o! the first part, iu complla.ce with Secuon 13 of t ,e Lcu Law. corena, s t mt the party t e first I art will recc ve Ibe coasiderat os for t s co lveyance and will bold tfie right to receive such cousld- erafion as a frost fl.,d to be applied first for the purpose o[ payi.g t ~e cost o[ tle ml~rovcment a. wi I aI ~ly the same first to the p,%'n,e.t of tbe cost o[ the improvement befme usiug auy part ol tbe total of the same for a.y other purpose. The xvord party shall be coustrued as ii it read "parties" xvbenever tbe sense of this inde.ture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part bas dud executed tlus deed t'he day and year first above xvritten. -"~ [[~}J I~ [iD I1~ rueseHcl~ o1~: $ .~.ff__.___.. . ORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. I/l l. ll'~a2r~:,* 5~X ~hn lC. Tsun~s ~resident Pante]AS n the. i5R]! day of February 19 89 , before me rsonally came PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU f=~o ule k.own to be tim individual described in and wbo · l~xecuted the foregoi.g instrume.t, and acknowledged that executed the sa,ne. ~0~1' ZAMEK NOTARY PUBUC. State el New No. 524894049, Sulfolk Term Expires April 20, STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss~ On the 15Tlfday of February 1989 , before me personally came John C. Tsuni~ to me kuown, who, being by me doly sworn, did depose and say that lie resides at No. 801 Motor Parkway Ilauppauge, New York 11788 ; that be is the President o! JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. , the corporation described in and whiclr executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; tlmt the seal affixed to said instrumeut is such corporate seal; tlmt it was so alt]xed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- tie., aud that be slgued lu= nanle thereto by like order. SCOTT ZAMEK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York Ne. 52-4894049, Sulfolk Cou.olJ[ Term Expires April 20, 191~t,~ On the , day of 19 , before me personally came to me kn0ivn~ to be the individual described in and who executed tl,e foregoing instrument, and ackoowledged that executed the same. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: On the day of 19 , before me persoually cmue the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, w/th whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworu, did depose and say tlmt he resides at No. tlmt lie knows to J~e the indlvidRal described in and who executed tire foregoing instrument that lie, said subscribiRg wlmess, was prese, t and saw execute the same; and that lie. saki witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, TO JORDAN'S PARTNERS and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU TITLE GUARANTEE- NEWYORK ATICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SECTION 34 BLOCK 2 LOT 1 COUNTY O~ TOWN Suffolk Tax mLLm~ a~ss 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 Recorded At Requesl of The Tille Guarardee Company RETURN BY MAIL TO: SCOTT ZAMEK, ESQ. 801 Motor Parkway ftauppauge, New York 11788 Zip No. SECT. 034.00 02.00 LOT 001.000 CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE~ING THIS INSTTIUMENT--THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE US ED BY LAWYERS ONLY. / Thislndenture, madethe /C- ~da¥of February nineteen hundred and eighty-eight Between GEORGE MESAIKOS, residing at 430 West 23rd Street, New York, New York 10011, PANTELI~ PAPAZOGLOU, residing at 82-26 235th Street, Bellcross Manor, New York 11~27, CONSTANTINOS ZERVOS, residing at (no #) Main Road, Orient, New York 11957, and GEORGE TSAVARIS, residing at 2170 The Strand, East Marion, New York 11939, /rtyofthefirstpart, and JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD., 801 Motor Parkway, HaqppaDge, New York 11788, ~/~ party of the second part, Witnesseth, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by iii() i)ilrl¥ nf tim t~oi;opd pill I, dou~ h,)l ul)¥ {,) rtlllt Rlld r~hm~o IIIitO Iha Iml ty ()[ ihu ~w.t il)ti D~iII, thu hnit s o~ t~ucco~sul ~ ,ll)l mr,d)$ll,)Ill Ih, I,Illy III Ih))))l~ht)llll II~tll hlloVl)l~ A~thatcertainp~t~piece~rparce~f~nd~7e~t~x~i~;~ii~;~X~R~R~situate~yingand being ~ at Southold, County of Suffolk, ~o~n of $outhold and Slate of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northerly end of a line which connects the easterly side of Main Street with the southerly side of North Road and from said point of beginning; running thence North 74 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East along the southerly side of North Road 498.74 feet to land now or formerly of Davids; thence along said last-mentioned land and land of Zevits, Angevine, Thilberg and Critchlow, South 33 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds East 343.07 feet to land now or formerly of Flatley; thence along said last-mentioned land and land of Moore, Begley and Stavoh, South 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds Wes~ 194.18 feet; thence along the westerly side of said land uow or fornterly of Stavoh, South 26 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East 164.64 feet to the northerly side of Knapp Place; thence South 72 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds west, along the northerly side of Knapp Place 79.97 feet to land now or formerly of Green; thence North 26 degrees 23 minutes 40 seconds west along said last-mentioned land 167.24 feet; thence still along said last-mentioned land of Green and lands of others south 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds west 352.65 feet to the easterly side of Main Street; thence along the easterly side of Main Street North 25 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds west 236.36 feet; thence along the aforesaid line which connects the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Main Street north 19 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds east 109.04 feet to the sout~terly side of North Road at the point or place of beginning. Being and intended to be the same premises conveyed to the parties of the first part herein by deed recorded in Liber 9185 cp.438 and Liber 10080 cp.537. Together with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; Together with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights o[ tile party of the first part in and to said premises; To Have And To Hold the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part. the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. And the party of the first part covenaots that the party o[ the first part has not done or suffered anything wlleleby the said premises I~ave been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. And tile party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that tl~e party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment o[ the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "pa~y" shall be construed as if it read "parties" wl~enever the sense of~is indenture so requires. In Witness Whereof, th eparty o[ theft rst part has duly executed this de~~~st above written. IN PRESENCE OF: ~ ~~~ ~~ /~ ~/~~ ~ ~antelis -Papa'z~;~u X~ / Geor savarfs STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: On the//(~L"~-dday of February 1988 , before me personally came GEORGE MESAIKOS and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU to me known to be tile individualS described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that 'cheyexecuted th.e.-~r'4~e. _L""~r' // ~ / Notary P~lic f /4fEDERICK J. TEDE$CJtl . ~DTARY PU~UC, Slalo of N~w ~ No. 52-3945400 Qualified In Sutlolk County ~ T,s~mrnission Expires Mcach 30, I.~'~/ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF sa: OD the day of 19 , before me personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he is the : : Df · · , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seat of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation, and tbat he sig~]ed h name thereto by like order, STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: personally came CONSTANTINOS ZERVOS and GEORGE TSAVARIS to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they execute e same.~.- //~ ~ // Notary/~u lC . FREDERICK' ). TEDESCHI ~J~OTARY PUBLIC, Slale o1: New' No. 52'3945400 Qualified In Suffolk Count./ '~nmi.ion Expires ~'Rarch 30, l~r~ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF / ss: On the day of 19 , before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No, ; that he knows · to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that be, said witness. at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. With Covenant Against Grantor's Acts · Title No. GEORGE MESAIKOS, PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, CONSTANTINOS ZERVOS and GEORGE TSAVARIS TO JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. S~andard Form of New York eoard o! Titre Underwriters Distributed by LDMFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of New York SECTION BLOCK LOT COUNTY OR TOWN Recorded at Request el · I.~.IFE TITLE INSURANCE COmpany of New York RETURN BY MAIL TO · SCOTT ZAMEK, ESQ. OFFICE OF JOHN C. TSUNIS,ESQ. 801 MOTOR PARKWAY HAUPPAUGE, N. Y. 11788 Zip NO. I I ~ ~ ~ I I I~ I · I I~ % Ill ~ · I ~l' I ' ) ~ ' i LONG ISLAND ~',~-'~,-,~ ~/,.f-~/ ~ o Planned Greenport Mall in Appeal By Mitchell Freedman A proposed shopping center just out- side Greenport Village -- which would become the easternmost major shop- ping center on the North Fork -- has fallen into a legal limbo. While the foundation has been poured for the 29,000-square-foot Greenport Commons shopping center, it is being constructed in an area zoned for residential use. And, while the Southold Town build- ing department originally had issued a building permit for the $2-million shop- ping center-- which is strongly opposed by merchants in the village -- the town later ordered the work stopped. The developer, John Tsunis, went be- fore Southold's zoning board of appeals Thursday night, asking for permission to complete his shopping center. The board voted to adjourn the hearing for a month, until the matter can be re- viewed by the town attorney. The shopping center is one of several projects blocked by rezonings that fol- lowed the town's master plan review. The land -- about four acres on the south side of Main Road and Main Street -- originally was zoned for com- mercial use but was rezoned for one acre of residen- tial and residential-office use in January, 1989. Tsunis, whose firm purchased the land for $590,000 in February, 1988, told the planning board that he had all the required permits to begin con- struction except one permit that would have allowed him to use village water. Tsunis said the village op- posed his efforts to dig his own well and finally al. lowed him to use the village water supply after the rezoning was put in place. The village building department also issued a permit for the project, and Tsunis said the foundation footings were poured and work was stopped in November, 1989, only after the village filed a stop-work order. Tsunis had experts testify to the zoning board of appeals that, at that point, an additional $225,000 had been spent for engineering, design and construc- tion work. A stop-work order posted at the site of the proposed mall His firm is seeking relief from the town's zoning code to allow the shopping center to be completed, arguing that the new zoning would reduce the value of the land to no more than $150,000, while the shop- ping center would be worth $2.4 million. Norman Gerber, the independent planning~consul- tant for Brookhaven Town who appeared on behalf of Tsunis, said that "what is being asked for is nothing more than what was approved by the Town of South- old" before the rezoning. More than 40 Greenport-area residents opposed the appeal, with several of them saying the planned shop- ping center would harm existing stores in the busi- ness district and destroy the character of the area. Joseph Townsend, a former Greenpart mayor and former Southold Town Board member, told the zoning board of appeals that he worked on the town's master plan review from the beginning, and that rezoning the site of the shopping center was a top priority "because of the inapprupriate- ness· . . we hoped it would be changed from the very onset of the process." The town changed the zoning of the 'property in an effort to limit develop- ment of the area and preserve more open space. Town off~cials have repeatedly said keeping open space is vital to pre- serving the character of Southold, a town whose year-round population is less than 22,000 people· lngeborg Flynn, a real estate broker for 20 years, said that even if the build- ing department made a mistake in issu- ing a permit, "I fail to see where an error on the part of the building department overrides the zoning ordinance." She said Tsunis was attempting "an end run around the zoning ordinance." Another issue, yet to be resolved is whether the proposed shopping center would have a significant environmental impact. The developer claims no signifi- cant environmental changes would be caused because of the shopping center, and the town planning board currently is reviewing its records to see if any en- vironmental determination was on the project. Gerard Goehringer, chairman of the Southold zon- ing board of appeals, said his agency would eventually have to make a determination on the shopping cen- ter's impact on traffic, the existing community, and other aspects of environmental impact. Tsunis ran into a similar environmental problem two years ago on his 194,550-square-foot Sunshine Mall, which was built on 25 acres in Me&ord. In 1986, than-Bruokhaven Town Planning Com- missioner Vincent Donnelly ruled that the mall would have no significant environmental impact because the construction was taking place on a farm field on an underused county road. But local residents said the traffic the mall would create was the proper subject of an environmental review, and took the town to court. Ultimately, an environmental review was done by the builder after the mall was 80 percent to 90 percent completed. Pub hed Weekly at soUt id, Lo, 119 NO. 40 (UPSS 1318-470) Subscription $1,5 Per Year SOUTHOLD--The chairman of the Town Board o f Appeals, which is reviewing a proposal to create a shopping mall on the North Road in Greenport, said the developer has failed to substantiate his claim that the four-acm site could not be us- ed under its currant zoning aa a pro- fessional office complex. "There is only one thing that bothers me~' Appeals Board Chair- man Gerard Goehringer told de- veloper John Tsunis at the close of last Thursday night's hearing. "You have not shown me that this pro- ~:~::., The Official Newspaper of the Town~ of ~outhold, Riv~ and $ I ' "~ :~ L ~ Green ort Stores. An Unpro en Case _ ' Official Claims Builder Hasn't ShoWn a Hardship perty cannot be used for profes- sional offices." tion? said Randy Wade, a leader in ' the opposition movement. "I am sure that a compromise could be worked out." : ..~:. ~ No White Elephant ' " "Yes, there are a lotof empty stores in Greenport but they don't have any parking;' said Tsunis. "It's not going to be a white ela- phant." . :. Tsanis, who has been involved in numerous shopping center projects, including the Sunshine Mall in Medford, said he had advertised for professional office tenants and r~ceived only one response. He did Thc question is key to the case · because Tsunis maintains that he invested $800,000 to build the 29,000-square.foot complex op- posite Porky's restaurant on Route 25, and was unaware that the town had rezoned the parcel from business to residential office use in 1989. Several month~ 'after the new zoning went into effect, Tsunis ap- plied for--and received--a building permit to start construction. After Tsunis poured the foundation, the Town Building Department realiz- ed its error and last fail issued a stop work order on the project. · Tsunis met with the Town Board in December to discuss his dilem- 'ma, and he was advised that he could apply for a' zone change to allow the business use, or seek a ',usc variance" from the Appeals Board. Opposition to the project from Grecnport's business and resi- dential community has been ada- mant throughout the hearings, which began in March and con- cluded last Thursday. They say that the shopping center would drain bus'ness away from Greenport s al- ready troubled commercial district; and would destroy the rural charac- ter of the area. "1 hope you deny this applica- not indicate the financial terms of thc proposed lease agreements. The need for office space "is void in this ama;' said Tsunis. · He also argued that the Village of Greenport caused his hardship by delaying for three years his bid to tap into the village water system· But Joseph Townsend, formerly both a Greenport mayor and Southold Town councilman, told the board that he had worked on the town's master plan and rezon- ing ordinance. From thc early '80s, hc said, the site had been slated for rezoning "to prevent urban sprawl:' Ignorance No Defense "All of the changes in the master were talked about at great length at meetings, in the papers.. :' Town- send said. "Them was an error on his [Tsunis's] part for not knowing that the zone had changed:' "My gripe is that I didn't know that the zone changed and the town issued me a building permit~' m- plied Tsunis. "I would not be hem if it weren't because of the three- year delay from Gmenport:' That type of hardship, said Townsend, is not a matter for the Appeals Board's review but for a Supreme Court's determination. "Have you taken them to Continued on Page 9 Greenport Stores ~l Continued fi'om Page I i ' court?" h~ asked 'l~ufl~s. · "1 have to exhaust all adminis- trative remedies first;' Tsunis replied. The board closed the hearing to verbal testimony but will take writ- ten comments until its next meet- ing on July 25. --Lydia Tortora MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEE~ WILLIAM D. ALLEN STEPHEN L. CLARKE DAVID S. CORWIN GAlL F. HORTON [/ afe of t'eenfloft 236 THIRD STREET · P.O. BOX AH GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 TELEPHONE (516) 477-2385 CLERK LORNA M. CATUS TREASURER MARY E. THORNHILL May 30, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE: Greenport Co~nons Varxance Gentlemen: E~closed please find copy of a memo submitted by the Planning Board of the Village of Greenport to the Mayor and the Board of Trustees expressing acute concern about the subject variance application and further requesting a joint meeting between the Village Planning Board and Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. We hope that you will allow such a meeting to take place prior to taking any action on the Greenport Commons Project which the Planning Board feels represents a major threat to the health of the Greenport business district. ~erely, ~ ~avid Kapell, Chairman Greenport Planning ~ard DK:lc enc Edwin Fishel Tucao ~47 East Main Street ~d, New York 11901 (5 6) 727-6644 Hay 29, 1990 STATE.OF NK# YORK ) ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) KDHIN FISHKL TUCCIO, being duly sworn, deposes end aaya~ That ! am a licensed rail estate broker, License No. 167561 issued by tbs State of Mae York, residing et Roanoke Avenue, Rivarhead, New York, with officel et 547 gist Main Street, River- head, end Pequeah end Hain Road tn Cutchogue. That ! have successfully completed Course i of Real Estate" Ap- praisers end am · former graduate of the Suffolk County Realty Institute. ! received a Bachelor of Artl Degree in business from Long Illend Un/varsity at Southampton, Now York. ! am a licensed business instructor duly licensed by the State of Ney York, mambar of the Eastern Federation of Real Estate Boards, the New York State Society of Reel Estate Apprllllre, and the National AiIOCiation of Realtors. ! have been actively engaged and have been · broker in sales of ever ninety million ($90,000,000.00) dollars in volume of real asters in the County of Suffolk, consisting of residential, commercial end industrial properties. I have extensive experi- ence in appraising lends for the Town of Rtverhead H.U.D. pro- grim, el well aa extensive appraisal work for private lndividuall and firms in Rlverhaed, 8outhold, Southampton end Brookhaven Townlo This report is prepared to furnilh ss · guide es to the sale price that the property Ihould command if exposed for sale on the open Ilrkl~ on tho date of thil eppralaal. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE The ·slim·ted price in terms of money which · property will bring if exposed for male in the open ··rket, ·llowlng re·gun·bls tim· to find · purch·ser who buys with knowledge of 811 the ugel to which the property ix'adopted and for which it le capable of being used. NXGNEHT AND BEST USE It lg .the opinion of the appraiser that the found on the date of inspection w·s improved in accordance with the principle of highest ·nd best By high·mt end best use it lg meant that the progr·· of land use or employ·est which will preserve the utility of the lend end yield · net income flow that forms when capitalized. THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS This ·nmlysis presumes that the property viii be resold ·t mom· future date, at · price which is ·grew·bi· to buyer and geller, with the highest possible ··rte·ge amount ·nd the lowest possible interest r·te. The r·te of return on the equity position il normally higher thin the mortgage rate, end reflects the other possible investments, in stocks, bonds, U.S. Government securities and such possible investments vhog· posture and ge·Sure may be rm·dily checked in tho financial p·ges. Also considered is the potential Increase or decrease in value of the property in hormel holding period et thl till of res·lt. CERTIFICATE OF VALUE The undersigned does hereby certify that, except es otherwise noted in the appraisal rep·rtz i. I have no present or contemplated inter·st in tho reel estate that ia the subject of this report. 2. Igeve no personal interest or blew in respect to the subject · meter of the report or the part/es involved. 3. To the beet of my knowledge end belief, the et·resents of facts contained in the report, upon which the enelystg, opinion· and conclusions expressed herein ar· beside ere true ·nd correct. This appraisal report seat forth ill of the limiting condi- ti·mi affecting the snalysis, opinions ·nd conclusions contained this report. ~UMMARY AND CONCLUSION The only relevant approach to valuation for the subject property ia the market data or direct aalm comparison approach, · process whereby ·ales of comp·table properties ·re researched, analyzed, and related to the subject to lndicate an eetimata of fair market value. The appraiser has alee made a study of aais· of comparable prop- artiee in a competitive and lnformed market, with consideration given to the charactariltic· of the parcels sold and adjustments mede where necessary for time, location, topography, siz·~ and other factors affecting marketability or price. In researching the records for nv·liable data, the appraiser has discus·ed the larket with loci1 brokers, municipal authorities end real estate appraisers. I have personally inspected the property hereinafter described and I have no personal interest, present or future, direct or indirect, in laid property whlch might influence or effect my Judgement regarding the fair market value, and I further ·tats that tho market data approach we· used to establish tho fair market value sat forth herein. The property v·· appraised a· if the property was free and clear of all llama and encumbrances. Market value ae applied in this r.port I. th. pric.-,~ which . willing 1~ would ..11 .nd · willing buyer would b . My employment ~ compinlation' for making thil apprlil·l Ire In no way contingent upon tho value FlpOrtld lad, ii notld ibovl, ! hlVl no financial interest of any kind in the subject premises. The subject premises presently exists. This appraisal is based on the market value of laid property,s existence with no munici- gworn to before me thin~O~U-day Of May, 1990 NOTARY PUBLIC NADiA MOORE Natl~ I~blic~ State of N~V Y0~ No. 4~912~ mi~ ~ir~ ~i127. 19~ APPRAZBAL PROBLE# ?h· ·ubJact property l· an irregular ·haped parcel o£ Reeldentl·l/Offlc· zon·d lend; being 4.7 ~ acrs· In ·i2·; loc·t·d in · mi~ed ra·identt·l/commerci·l area in ffreenport. The ·pprei·al probl·m l· %o estimate the high·et and bast uae of th· subject property if tt were for residential use only. The appraiser ha· conducted · market study for the purpose of finding ·ales of comparably vacant residential parcels to SOEJECT PROPERTY DATA Jordan's Partners & Pantelis Papazoglou 901 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York TAX MAP NO.t 1000-34-2-1 Filed In the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on March 10, 1999 in Libor 10914 Pg 149 (see attached deed for property delcrlption data) LOCATIONs Southwilt corner o£ Stats Route 25 end Main Street, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, State of New York LOT SXSE~ 4.6g acres Relldential/Office; Town of Southcld AREA TRENDEs Harket values era reflective of dovn#erd trends. TOPO~RAPMY~ The subject lB level on adjoining street grade. The so11 end drainage conditions ere good. UTXLXTXESI Municipal water, private drainage and lower myrtles SUB.CT PROPER~ LOCATION (D 10814 149 ~ I1~ mede the day M Fehruary , a;n~,m ~ .mi etshtF_aiao c/o Ki ~cor ~rk~y, ffeu~u~, hv York (1/3 Ln~oreet) ~ ~ wet ~tl,old, ~vn~y o~ Su[[olk, T~ of ~uc~Xd ~d State at ~v York, ~nded lad doKri~ fin ~h 33 dtKreea ~7 ~nu~wm ~ ~nds ~s& ~.07 (~ ~o )end fl~ or ~o~r17 Stash, ~th 74 delrKo 33 atnutes ~ seconds Welt 194.18 ~L; C~nce along ~e m~erly ILdff o~ io~d land a~ or ~armerly si SLovMt, $~th ~ d~r~l 26 side oF North R~d ~th the btm aM lflt~ to be the ~ prmoes conveyod to the MFC~Ol Q[ the ftrlt ~rc hrein by dnddated / ,,, Jhmppevle, #.T. ll~ NEWYORK .il CO#PARABLZ gALZB Demote.% %o Dra.kouk! Bold Augu.~ 18, 1989 £or $62,600 Lo% I~=e: 66' x 133' Location: Rnapp Place, Gee.aport 1000-34-3-4 e Lathan to NaJor Axxoca. Tn. Nap No. 1000-26-2-42 Bold July 28, 1989 £or $400,000 Lot Il.e; 13.90 lerel (828,000 per acre) Loc&atone Ring Bare.%, Orient Bholney to Dub,er Tax Nap No. 1000-84-1-9 Bold Naroh 10, 1999 for $390,000 Lot mizos 23.90 eerie (816,300 per acre) Lo,talent Ntddle Road, Peeonic Hohrlng ~nterprllll to alalot Tie Hep No. 1000-113-7-19.2 ~old Hatch 10, 1989 £oc $9g0,000 Lot IXzos 40 acre. ($24,750 per ieee) Locations Cox Neck Road, Nittltuck :) (~) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK r~.~, sOUTHOLD Real Property Tax Service Agency ¢**,o~y Ce,*mr IOOO ~'~e:~,~.~l. L. I.. New YeA O26 Legend Sd~,O00 SOBJEC~ COMP. Jl COMP. J2 COHP. Tax Map No. I000-3d-2-1 1000-3d-3-d 1000-26-2-d2 I000-8d-1-8 Date of Scle 8/89 7/89 3/89 Location Gceenpo=t Greenport Orient Peconic Selling BFicm $62,500 SdO0,O00 $390,000 Lot Size d.69 ac. 66' z 133° 13.9 ac. 23.9 ac. Price/acre $62;600 $28,000 $16,300 (-28%) (*30%) (+40%) Net AdJumtmmntm $46,000 $36,400 $23,000 Indicated Value Per Lot COMP Jd 1000-113-?-19.2 3/89 Mattituck $990,000 40 ac. $2d,750 (+35%) $33,360 Comparable ~l, which ia reaidan%tal, aold on Auvua% 18~ 1989 for $G2~S00. This aalm would be ra£1ective of market value to the lUh~ict if the aub~ect vel uaed for relldintlil purposes. Compatibles t2, 3, end 4 vere llrga tract Illel that e~e not lubdivlded, but indicetel i price per acre value for acreage of 2 lCfii.or more. It Il in the appralaar°a opinion that the land value for the eubJect property~ baaed on one acre lots mach would be ~gStO00 per lot. FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE Comparable $1, which is located Just south of the subject property, aold £or $62,500. The eppraillr fOlll thlt thil plrCll le the moat reflective o£ market value of the subject but ham adjusted downward for location. Coeparable ~1, which ia located on Nnapp Place, is offf the Main Road and is morn desirable .for residential usa, i.e. less traffic, noise and privacy. Comparebles 12, 3, and 4 era ell large tracts of land in which the appraiser made adjustments for subdivision approval, 1o% fees, road cuts and drainage. Based on a declining real estate market, residential lute are in great supply with leas demand due to the economy end properly taxes. It ia in the appraiser's opinion that tho narket value par lot of $45,000 would give the lubJect property a value of 4.69 acres x 845,000 · 8211,000 based on a S lot minor subdivision. If the Town only allows 4 Iota... $180,000. CLIENTS Teddy Cohn 1666 79th Street Causeway The Center Building Miami Beach, Florida Cruiser & Hill, esq. 206 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 IRS East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Anthony Conforti 611 East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Raf£e & Corrigan 747 East Main Street ~iverhead, N.Y. 11901 Scheinberg, Schneps, DePetris & DePetris 1 Union Square Aquebogue, N.Y. 11931 Suffolk County National Bank 2nd Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 North Fork Bank & Trust Main Road Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Town of Riverhead 200 Howell Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Grumman Aerospace Swan Lake Road Calverton, N.Y. 11933 First American Title 210 Court Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Federal Land Bank Route 58 Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley 33 West 2nd Steet Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 James Schondebard, esq. 206 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 McNulty & DiPietro East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Town of Southold Msin Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Arnoff & Czygier Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 North Fork Preserve Sound Avenue Jamesport, N.Y. 11947 Riverhead Pistol Deep Hole Road Calverton, N.Y. 11933 & Rifle Club John Serpico, esq. 186 Joralemon Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Gregory Blass, esq. Court Street Riverhead, N.Y. 119~1 Rockwood, Edelstein & i Water Street White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Robert Tooker, esq. 1380 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Allen M. Smith, esq. 737 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, N.Y, 11901 Platt, Platt & Platt 70 Main Street Southampton, N.Y. 11968 The Salvation Army 120 West 14th Street N.Y., N.Yo Duffy, P.C. Saland Real Estate Main Road Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Bagshaw Real Estate East Main Street Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 The Furst Foundation 1 Old Country Road Carle Place, N.Y. 11514 County of Suffolk County Center Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 Suffolk County Public Administrator County Center Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section. 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southnid, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS '~at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main i Road, Southold, NY 11971, on WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990, at the following times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3954-- :'~PHILIP SALICE. Variance to ~he Zoning Ordinance, Article i: Ill A. Section 100-30A.4 ~. ~(100-33). Article XXIII. Section ..100-239.4 B. for permission to =~ construct an accessory shed and deck with gazebo. Accessory ' shed is less than 3 ft. from a lot' ,~ire, gazeb° ig located in the ~ 'front Fard and gazebo and deck .. are less'than 75 ft. from the bulkhead. Property Location: ' 1945 Bayview Avenue, Matti- tuck, County Tax Map No: 1000, Section 106, Block 06, Lot 37. 7:35 p.m.' Appl. No. 3960-- THOMAS & ALLISON SAR- GENT. Variance to the Z6ning Ordinance, Article III A, Sec- tion 100-30A.3, for permission to subdivide a non-conforming lot. Proposed construction of new lot will have insufficient width, depth and total lot area for this district. Property Loca- tion: Private Road of Fox Ave- ~lue, Fishers Island, County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 06, rBI0ck 06, Lot 07 ' .::' 7;40 p.m. Appl. N°. 3955'~ ~DOMINICK SBLENDIDO ~ {~. AURICCHIO. Varianc6 tO' ] ~he Zoning. Ordinance, Article" ~!1I A, Section 100-30.3, .'.~.~l~ll'~:a Section i~007230 :';~tide III~A, 'Secfi6n .!A(I) (100~31A), for permission: ; ~o construct an addition to e~st' ::Ting one famil~~ dwelling. Pro-' . posed construction is not a per- 'mitred use (1) one-family de- ~COUNTY OF SUFFOLK .STATE OF NEW YORK Sworn to before me this .................... day of de XXV, Section 100-243, Ani~ ~, t cie XXV, Section 100-244, for... ~ Notary Public BAR~ARA A. ~CHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, Stale of New York ~!0 4:t0G846 C ':",~ ' ~',% k ¢cun,t~ / :"~ needed. For more information, please call 765-1809. · ""Dated July 17, 1990 "~ BY ORDER OF ........... THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHR1NGER CHAIRMAN ' By Doreen Ferwerda, ·. IX, 7/19/90 (3) permission to continue to use the second floor apartment us a non-conforming use. Property." Location: 140 Pike Steer, Mat- tituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, Block~. ~, Lot ' ~'~ '~nl~ .~.- ~ro.: ~-- J~n~PA~ Vazi- an~ to the Zoning Ordinarice, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission construct offic~ and retail sto~. Proposed construction is not a permitted ~e in this District. Property Locations: 1000, Main' Street and 160 Main Road,. G~eenport, County Tax Map' No. 1000, Section 34, Block 2,. The Board of Appeals will at Article X, Section 100-10lB, for permission to Occupy and use as a Billiard parlor for commercial recreation. Property Location: 46250 County Road 48, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 55, Block 5, Lot 7. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 3701- CHARLES ZAHRA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- SS: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for ...................... ~.... weeks successively, commencing on the ........... ?..~'..~'. ..... day or. ....... ~ .... 1 9..~.v... tached dwelling not to exceed . . said time and place hear any and ~* one (1) dwelling on each lot (a all persons or representatives de- two family dwelling is nOt a per- i siring to be heard in each of the mitted use). Property Location: ~ above matters. Written com- 185 Inlet Lane, Greenport, [', merits may 'also be submitted County Tax Map No. 1000, Sec- prior to the conclusion of the tion 43, Block 004, Lot 37. , . subject hear ng Each hearing 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3956-- '~ will not Start before time allot- LLOYD GATES. Special Excep- . i'~ted. Additional time for your tion to the Zoning Ordinance, ' presentation will be available, if NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, purzea~ to Section 267 of the Town La~ and tbs..Cede of the Town Southold, the following hearings will be hem by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at · Regular Me~.'~uL at the Sontheld Town haH, Miin Road, Soutbold, NY 11971, 9a WEDNESDAY, ;ULY ~. 1.~ ~ Pm~ ~ SA~c~I V~' t~ Section !00-30A.4 (100-33). XXXIZ Section penni.ion to, c~sm~c~ sow shed and deck with gazebo. Accessory shed is less ~m~ ~ fr~n a lot line, gazebo is J0emed ~n the f~nt ~.rd and~gazebo and ~ at~ less'than 75~h. from ibc bulk; head. P~opert~ Location: 1945 7:35 p.m~ AppL N6.3960 THOMAS '&~LLISON ~SAR- GEXT. Vallanc~ Io d~ Zmin8 Ordi- nance, Article tn A<Secti~ 100- 30A.3, f~ pemlissi~n to.mlxlivide a non-confoflnthg lot. Proposed conm'uc~i~l of new 1o~ will have insufficient wldtb, d~ nd ~ l~ ama for this diJtri_c~..~fly Location: Private Road of Pox Avenue, F~shers Island, CG~tty Tax Map No. 1000, Section!.O6~Elock 7:40 p.m. Appl~, ~f~3955 ~-~ DOMINZCK SBLENDIDO & A. AURICCHZO. V~'to d~e lng Ordinance, Aflicle m A, Section 100-30.3, A~ielc XXIIZ Section 100-2~0 (A), A~cie m A 100-30A.2 A(I) (100-3IA), fca per- ex~ing one fdhi~ dw~lllni~, Pm- use (1) on~Jatnily detached dwelling ~t0 exceed one'O) dwclllng m~ each lot (a two family dwelling is not a pennitted use). Oreenport. Count), T~x M~ap No. 1000, SecUre 43, Block 004,'t~ 37. ~ '7:45 p.m. AppL No. m ~ Z~ing Ordinance, Anide X. Senior ~00-101E, for permission occupy and use ~s a Billiard fe~ c~nme~iel ~cmatimJ. Property Locotion: 46250 Cotmty Road 48, Southold~ County Tax Map No. 1000, Secti~fl 55, Block 5, L~ 7. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 370J -- CHARLES. ZAHRA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXV, Scctim~ 100-243. A~cle XXV, Scc- tim~ 100-244, for permissinu to ceo- Pr~efly Locotien: 140 Pike Mattituck, Cotmty Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, BIo~4, l~t STATE OF NEW YORK) )ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Yvonne Lieblein of Mattltuck, In said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck~ in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which tho annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published iff once each week for~91.L weeks said Newspaper successively, commencing on the day of , July 1990 No. 3915 -- Vaf~nce to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V]L Sectlee 100-7] · for permission to cm~Jmuct, ~istrieL Property Locations: 1~ and place htir a beard in each of the alx~ Wilton cmnmems mitred pe~r to abe co~clusim ~ ~ subject he~;inL ~.th hearing wU. mx slm be~o~ thnc allctted. Addi. be available, if needed. For mo,, infonn~m% idease call 765-1809. ~ed: July I?, 1990 ' -'"HY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD ' GERARD P. .- CHAIRMAN (, , By [k~.en Ferv~rda APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516} 765-1809 FAX NO. (516) 765-1823 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the times allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Please feel free t~ call our office prior to the hearing date if you have questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN dff auutnubt~ ~UDE § 10~-71 '. 'p RT .C..LE . sidentml Office (RO) District [Added 1-10-89 by L.L. No. 1-1989~4] § 100-70. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Office (RO) District is to provide a transition area between business areas and low<lensity residential development along major roads which will provide opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas. § 100-71. Use regulations. In the Residential Office (RO) District, no building or premises shall be used and no building'or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the followin~ A. Permitted uses. (1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one (1) dwelling on each lot. (2) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, school districts, park districts and fire districts. (3) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by fraternal organizations and utilized for activities typically conducted by a fraternal organization, including but not !imited to public meeting places, charitable and fundrais- lng events, patriotic observances and catering for public and private functions. [Added 11-28-89 by L.L. No. 22- 19891 B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The fo]lowing uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, provided that not more than one (1) use shall be allowed for each forty thousand (40,000) square feet of lot area: 14 Editor's Note: as amended. This local law abo rel~aled former Art~ VII, B-] General Busine~ Di~rict, § 100-71 ZONING ~ § 100-71 (1) Special exception uses as set forth in and regulated by § 10t)-31B(1) through (7) of the Agricultural-Conservation District. (2) (s) (4) Professional offices and business offices. Funeral homes. Bed-and-broakfast uses as set forth in and regulated by § 100-31B(15), except that no site plan approval is required. (5) Libraries, museums or art galleries. (6) Wineries. [Added 8-1-89 by L.L. No. 15-1989] (7) Apartments may be permitted over business and professional offices as regulated by § 100-91B(4)(a) through (f), inclusive. [Added 12-12-89 by L.L. No. 23- 19891 C. [Amended 5-9-89 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses and, except for residential accessory uses and signs, which are governed by Article XX, are subject to site plan review: (1) Acesesory uses as set forth in and regulated by § 100- 31C(1) through (7) of the Agricultural-Conservation District and subject to the conditions set forth in § 100-33 thereof. (2) The following signs, subject to the supplementary sign regulations set forth in Article XX: (a) One (1) indirectly illuminated nameplate or profes- sional sign not more than two (2) square feet in are~ (b) One (1) real estate sign, either ~ingle- or double- faced, not larger than twelve (12) square feet in size on any one (1) or more lots, advertising the sale or lease of only the premises on which it is maintained and set back not less than fifteen (15) feet from any lot line; where acreage or a subdivision has a continuous frontage of five hundred (500) feet or more, said sign may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in size. 10070 ~- 25- 9o ' 10071 ~. ss- so § 100-71 (3) SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-81 (c) One (1) bulletin board or other announcement or identification sign for uses permitted by § 100- 31B(3), (4), (5) and (6), not more than eighteen (18) square feet in area, located not less than fifteen (15) feet from any street or lot line. Accessory uses set forth in and regulated by § 100-42C(3) of the Hamlet Density Residential District. § 100-72. Bulk, area and parking regulations. No building or premises shall bo used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Residential Office (R0) District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules incorporated into this chapter, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full.'s ARTICLE VIII Limited Business (LB) District [Added 1-10-89 by L.L. No. 1-1989~s] § 100-80. Purpose. The purpose of the Limited Business (LB) District is to provide an opportunity to accommodate limited business activity along highway corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas, that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that existing and future uses will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural character of the area. § 100-81, Use regulations. In the LB District, no building shall bo used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, 15 Editor's Note: The Bulk Schedule is included at the end of this chapter, and the Parking and Loading ~cl~dules ar~ in H 100-191 and 100-192. tS Editor's Note: This local law also repealed former Art. VIII. C Ligh~ Industrial District. ~ amended. § 100.11 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-12 /"~. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this · chapter shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare. Except where specifically provided to the contrary, it is not intended by this chapter to repeal, abrogate, annul or in any way to impair or interfere with any rules, regulations or permits previously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to law relating to the use of buildings, structures, shelters or premises; nor is it intended by this chapter to interfere with or abrogate or annul any easements, covenants or other agreements between parties. [Added 1-10- 89 by L.L. No. 1-1989] § 100-12. Exceptions~ [Amended 10-30-73 by L.L. No. 5-1973] All of the lots on the following subdivision maps shall be excepted from the lot area and lot width requirements of this chapter, and the lot areas and lot widths applicable to said lots shall be as shown and designated on said subdivision maps: Green Acres; Stratmors; Marion Manor: Cleaves Point, Section II; Fordham Acres, Section I; Fordham Acres, Section II; Sterling Homes; Eastern Shores, Section I; Eastern Shores, Section II; Eastern Shores, Section III; Eastern Shores, Section IV; Eastern Shores, Section V; Southold Shores; Sunny Shores: Moose Cove; Nassau Point; Deer Park; Village Manor; G.I. Tuthill: Edgemere Park; Willow Terrace; Soundcrest Woods; Gardiners Bay Estates, Section III; Harvest Homes, Section I; Bayview Woods Estates; Willow Point; Harbor Lights Estates, Section I; Terry Waters; Bay Haven; Corey Creek Estates; West Creek Estates: Northwoeds; Vista Bluff; Jacksons Landing;, Bennett's Pond; Rosewood Estates; Sunset Knolls, Section II; Smithfield Park; Paradise Point; Harbor Lights Estates, Section III; Highwood; Nunnakoma Waters; Yennecott Park; Downsview; South Harbor Homes; Peconic Shores, Section I; Pecenic Homes, Section I; Peconic Homes, Section II; Pecenic Bay Oaks; Laurel Country Estates; Orient- by-The~Sea, Section II; Cleaves Point, Section III. 10012 2-2s-s9 1000-034.00-02.00-001.000 Josephine Franconi Pierre De Lalio Helsn De Lalio, his wife Perry W. De Lalio omni Investing Corp. to The Grand Union Company B&S w/cov. L6701 cp 456 D: 2/2/70 R: 2/6/70 The Grand Union Company to Fotlos Katsamakis George Mesaikos Pantelis Papazoglou B&S w/cov. L9185 cp 438 D: 4/28/82 R: 5/21/82 Tax Stamps $113.30 ~otois Katsamakis to Constantinos Zervos George Tsavaris coverted $28,000 28,500. Contract of Sale L10018 cp 58 D: 4/5/86 R: %/16/86 (as to a one-third (1/3) interest) Price listed as $80,000. $20,000. on the signing of contract. $60 000. on delivery of the deed. Fotios Katsamakis to Contantinos Zervos George Tsavaris (as to one-third (1/3) Tax stamps interest) $320.00 converted $80,000. B&S w/cov. L10080 cp 537 D: 7/14/86 R: 7/18/86 This conveyance delineates ownership of premises as * George Mesaikos - one-t~ird {1/3) * Pantelis Papazcglou ~ne-third (1/3) * Constantinos Zervos and George Tsavaris one-third {1/3) follows: interest interest together interest CHAIN OF TITLE PAGE 1 OF 2 George Mesaikos Pantelis Papazoglou Constantinos Zervos George Tsavaris to Jordan's Park Place Ltd. Pantelis Papazoglou (1/3 as tenants in common (=/, int) int. ) B&S w/cov. L10549 cp 324 D: 2/18/88 R: 2/26/88 Tax stamps $1574.00 converted $393,500.00 Jordan's Park Place Ltd. (2/3 Pantelis Papazoglou (1/3 int.} to Jordan's Partners (2/3 int.) Pantelis Papazolou (1/3 (no consideration) int. ) B&S w/coy. L10814 cp 149 D: 2/15/89 R: 3/10/89 CHAIN OF TITLE PAGE 2 OF 2 FotiOS Katsamakis to Constantinos Zervos George Tsavaris Mortgage Ll1530 mp 320 D: 4/5/86 R: 4/16/86 Amt: $20,000. Const~ntinos Zervos George Ts~varis Satisfaction Ll1784 mp 460 D: 7/14/86 R: 7/18/86 Jordan's Park Place Ltd. Pantelis Papazoglou to The suffolk County National Bank Mortgage L13857 mp 131 D: 2/18/88 R: 2/26/88 Amt: $440,000.00 *This mortgage covers property principally improved or to be improved by one or more structures containing in the aggregate not more than 6 residential dwelling limits, each having their own separate cooking facilities. (J L B as agent) The Suffolk County National Bank to Jordan's Park Place Ltd. Jordan's Partners a partnership comprised of: John C. Tsunis James G. Tsunis Charles J. Tsunis (all as partners & individually) Pantelis Papazoglou Mortgage Agreement L16038 mp 51 D: 2/18/90 R: 6/1/90 (Note: John C. Ts~lnis, President, Jordan's Park Place Ltd.) M 0 R T G AGE S Certificate of Incorporation ,,jordan'S Park Place Ltd." Place of business: 801 Motor Pkwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 #48 D: 7/4/87 Filed: 8/12/87 MISCELLANEOUS ~11flSINOF./cruIt~..,madc~e e~'~)~ ~yof April ,nGne~..ahtmd~linde£~ht-Y-L'v° ~ oe~ce at ~00 Btoa~ay, ~n ~e ~rough Of e~ Pa~k, CO~ ~:lll~ng at 82-26 23S~ S~eet, Be~ec:ole H~O:,~ York Z~4271 ~dt a ~tt ~teoe, recordS' Patricia Wood,' being dul,~,orn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAN'~TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for ...................... .,( .... weeks successively, commer, cir, g on the .......... ~./(..~. ..... Sworn io before methis .......... ..~./...~..... clay of ....... : . .~.~ ...... 19. ~...~ NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on WEDNESDAY, June 27, 1990, at the following times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3949-- FRANCES FRISBIE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Artg cle Ill A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), as disapproved, for permission to construct an ac- cessory building in the front yard area. Accessory buildings may only be located in the re- quired rear yard. Property Loca- tion: 8050 Nassau Point Road. t, Cutchogue, County Tax Ma~bV No. 1000, Section 118, Block 5, Lot 2.!. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3948-- MGH ENTERPRISES, INC.- ORIENT BY THE SEA. Special Exception to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article Ill, Section 100-31 C.9 (e), as disapproved, for permission to construct an off-premises sign. Property Location: 66040 North Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 04, Lot 01. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3947-- JAMES MARK. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as dis- approved, for permission to construct an addition to a one family dwelling. Proposed con- struct will have insufficient front yard setback. Property Loca- tion: 450 Parsons Boulevard~ East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 37, Block 1, Lot 18. . 7:45' p.m. Appl. No. 3946-- MATTHEW KAR. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Arti- cle XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproyed, for permission to construcg an addition to a one family dwelling· Proposed con- struction will have insufficient rear yard setback· Property Location: 155 (Pvt. Road Birch Drive S, Laurel, County Tax Map NO. 1000, Section 128, Block 4, Lot 4. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 3944-- ANTHONY MERCORELLA. Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article Ill, Section 100-33, as disapproved, for per- mission to construct a two car accessory garage in the front yard area· Proposed construe-/ tion only permitted in the quired rear yard. Property Loca- tion: 2260 Peconic Bay Boule- vard, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 145, Block 04, Lot 04. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3951- JAMES, PETER & CHRIS MESKOURIS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100,30 A.3, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.(2). Proposed construction will not meet side yard setbacks and will exceed the permitted lot cover- age and will be within 100 ft. of the ordinary high water mark~ Property Location: 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, Coun- ty 'Fax Map NO. 1000, Section 106, Block I, Lot 36. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3952-~ BRUCE & TERESA BLASKO. Special Exceptioh to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 B (14), for permission td have an accessory apartment. Proposed accessory apartment Notary Public BARBARA A, S~'HllEIBBI NOTARY PUBUC, ~*tate of New V~ No, 4°~06846 Qual~fLd i,: 3uff~;k ~ Commi~i', ~xpires ~/~//~ ~ in an existing one family dwell- ing will contain less than 1600 sq. ft. of livable floor area. Pro- perty Location: 23 Middleton Road, Oreenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 5, Lot 9. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3950-- JACQUE KASABA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle III A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), Article Ill A, Section 100-30A.3, Article XXlV, Sec- tion 100-244, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to dwelling and acces- sory pool. Proposed accessory structure not permitted in the front yard area and proposed construction will exceed permit- ted lot coverage. Property Loca- tion: 80 Lakeside Drive & 675/ Cedar Point Drive, Southold$, County Tax Map No. 1000, Sec- tion 90, Block 3, Lot 14. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3953-- PETER & CHERYL ZI~RILLO. Variance to the Zon- ing Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, Bulk, Area and Parking Regulations, as dis- approved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing one family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive lot coverage. Pro- perty Location: 505 7th Street, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 48, Block 01, Lot 17. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 3831~ RALPH & PATRICIA PUGLIESE. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti~ cie III, Section 100-30B (14), for a Winery for the Production~g1 Storage and the Retail Sale Wine. Property Location: 34876 ] Main Road, Cutchogue, Coun- ty Tax Map No. 1000, Section 097, Bock 01, Lot 12.1. . 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3701- CHARLES ZAHRA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle XXV, Section 100-243, Ar- ticle XXV, Section 244, for per- mission to continue to use the second floor apartment as a non-conforming use. Property Location: 140 Pike Street, Mat- tituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, Block 4, Lot "~'8.'25 p.m. Appl. No. 3915~'~-~'~ JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Variance to the Zoning Ordi- naoce, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for per- mission to construct office and retail stores. Proposed construc- tion is not a permitted use in this District. Property Location 1000 Main Street and 160 Mai~ Road, Greenport, County Ts: ~.~Map No. 1000, Section 34 ock 2, Lot 1. ~ ,The Board of Appea s will at saMtime and place hear any and all persons or representatives de- siring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written com- ments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time allot- ted. Additional time for your presentation will be available, i.f n.eeded. For more information, please call 765~1809. Dated: June 19, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHR1NGER CHAIRMAN By Doreen Ferwerda ~o0 IX, 6/21/90 (18) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, persuant to the Section 267 of the ., Towfi'Law and the Code of the Town of ~o~_::.~:g, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road. Southold, N.Y., 11971, on WEDNESDAY, June 27, 1990, at the following times: ~:30¥.m.'APpl.- - No. 3949 -- FRANCES Fbret - %fiance to the zoning Ordinance, Article IlI A, Seainn 100-30 A.4 (100-33), as dis- approvedq,for permission to con- street an t~cessory building in the front yard ~rea. Acd~ssmy buildings may only ~e located in the texluired rear yard.*Property Location: 8050 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 118, Block 5, Let 2.1. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3948 -~ MGH ENTERPRISES, INC.~ ORIENT BY THE SEA. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 C.9 (e), aa disapproved, for permission to construct an off-p~,ises sign. Prop- erty Location: 66040 North Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 10~0, Section 40, Block 04, Lm 01. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3947 -- JAMES MARK. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIl A. Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXI~ 'Section 100-244 B, as disapprove~ for permission to construct an addi- tion to a one family dwelling. Pro- posed construction will have insuf- finiont front yard setback. Property Location: 450 Parsons Boulevard, East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Se~tlon 37, Block 1, Let 18. 7:45 p.m. AppL No. 3946 -- MATYHEW KAR. Variance to the Zen(ag Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as duapproved,.' Location: 155 (IN't Road #6) Birch 7:50 p.~r/ A_ppl. No. ~944 -- A~CHON;/-/-MERCORELLA. Vail- '/:55 p.m. Appl. No. 395!'9~ lAMES, PETER & CHRIS MESK- OURIS. variance to the Zoning Or- dinmce, A~cle HI A, Se~ion 100- 30 A.3, Article XXIII, Section 1.00- ' 239<1 A.(2). ~9P~:a~onstmct~°n age and will be within 100 ft of tbe ordinary high water mark. property BRUCE & TERESA BLASKO. Speci~ll~xceptionJo the Zoning Ordir~4~ Section 100- 31 B {~', for permissim to have an accessory apartment, Proposed ~ Property Location: 23 Middle- Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block Lotg. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3950 ~ 2ACQUE KASABA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH A, .]~ection 100-30 A.4 (100-33), A~i-~ cie Ill A, Section I00-30A.3, Arti~.? XXIV, Section 100-244, as dis- ,, ,.d/?Try Iool Pro oseil .e LegalsL. the front yard area and proposed lot coverage. P~perty Location: 80 Lakeside Drive & 675 Cedar Point Drive, Seathold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 90, Block 3, Lot 14. 8:10 p.m. AppL No. 3953 -- PETER & CHERYL INZERILLO. Variance to the Zoning ~Or;t?.inance, Article Ill A, Section lt~-3_0 A.3. Bulk, Area and Parking ll~.~ulations, as disapproved, for permission to c~stmct a deck additlqa to exining one family dwelling. Prolx~ed con- yard sctbacha and excessive 1~ cov- et-age, Preperty Location: 505 7th Street, Greenpe~ Ce~nty Tax Map No. 1000, Section 48, Block 01, Let 17. 8:15 p.m. AppL No. 3831 -- RALPH & PATRICIA PUGLIESE. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IlL Section 100- 30B (14), for · W'me~ for the ductinn, Strange.md tl~ P,~tail Sale of Wine. Property Location: 34876 ~ Road, Cuteao~e, Ceumy Tax Map No. 1000, Section 097, Bio? 01, Lot 12.1. g:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3701 Zoning Ordinance, Article XXV, Section 100-243, Ani'% XXV, .Sec- tlon 244, for penniuion to to use the secc~ ~ apam~em · non-conforming t~se. Property Location: 1~et, Matti- tuck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Sectim 141, Block 4, L~ 5, STATE OF NEW YORK} } SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK} Yvonne Lieblein of MattRuck, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES) a Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the I/otice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks successively, commencing on the 21 _ day of June 19 90 Principal Clerk /~'~i25a~p AppL No. 3915 -- to the Zonin for permission to construct offine I tion is not a permitted use in this District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 34, BIo~k 2, Lot L Th~ Board eft Ai~ will at said time and phce bear any and aE per. sons or rap~sentatives dealing to be heard in each o{ the above matters. Written commem$ may also be sub- mlUed Ini~ to the c~ndusion ~ the subject hearing. Each heating will net start bafo~ time allotted. Addi- tional time for your p~s~tation will be available, if needed. For more information, please call 765-1809. ~ BY ORDER O~ THE SOUTHOLD I TOWN BOARD OF APPEAES ] I By Do~on Fe~vertin I Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD ° STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, gl., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 FAX NO. (616) 765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your. application. Your public hearing will not start before the times allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Please feel free tQ call our office prior to the hearing date if you have questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, dff GERARD P. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Hearings for May 30, Long Island Watchman Suffolk Times Clerk Bulletin Board ZBA Bulletin Board Mr. Robert Bohn Box 55 Peconic, NY 11958 (A. Lios) Mr. Henry Raynor P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, Ny 11947 (Nicholas Aliano) Richard Lark, Esq. P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 (Eva Halla) Ms. Pamela Valentine 249 West 29th St., Apt. New York, NY lO001 Scott Zambek, Esq. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 (Jordan's Partners) Dan C, Ross, Esq. Wickham, Wickham & P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 (Robert and Ethelle 1990 - Legal Notices sen~May the following: 12 Bressler Schroeder) 22, 1990 to ~UIIUE UI" HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to the Section 267 of the Town Law and the . .Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be ~:~held by the SOUTHOLD ~TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~i~at a Special Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on : WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, at the following times: . 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3920-- A. LIOS. Variance to the Zon- ing Ordinance, Article Section 100-244, as disapproved, for permission to construct deck additions. Proposed construc- tion exceeds permitted lot cover- age, and will have insufficient side yard setbacks. Property Location: 310 Linda Road, Mat- truck, County Tax Map No. ~ 1000, Section 10~!.Block 1, Lot 14. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3933-- PAMELA VALENTINE. Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-231 A, for permission to construct an 8 ft. fence in the front yard area. Fence in the front yard area not to exceed 4 ft. in height. Pro- perty Location: 34655 Main Road, Orient, County Tax Map No. ,1000, S~ction 019, Block 01, Lot 5 & 6. . 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3914- EVA HALLA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244, Bulk, Area and Parking, Article :XXIII, Section 100-239.4, build- ing setbacks from water or wet-~ lands, for permission to con- struct a one family dwelling. Property Location: 55 Glen Court, Cutchogue, County 'Pax Map No. 1000, Section 083, ~ Block 01, Lot 01.. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 389~-- ROBERT AND ETHELLE SCHROEDER. Variance for re- versal of the building inspector for change of use of land and existing building without obtain- ing a Certfficate of Occupancy. Property location: 4380 Main ~.. Road, East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 35, Block 5, Lot 4. ':~ 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3907-- : NICHOLAS AL1ANO. Variance to the.Zoning Ordi- Znance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.2 (Article XXV, Sec- tion 100-253 A), as disapprov- ed, for permission to construct a retail/office complex, pro- posed construction is not per- mitted in this R-40 Zone Dis- trict. Property Location: 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 102, Block 03, 4. Lot 01. ,~ ,.~' id COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~[~Ii STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood, being duly sworr ...... ~--* -~-~ ~. ~k.. Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for · · ~/ .... weeks successively, commencing on the ...................... Sworn to before me this .?.. day of ............ /..}?.~; ....... 19 ..~.~ . Notary Public //'~7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3915- JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved for permission to construct office and retail stores. I Proposed construction is not permitted use in this District. Property Location: 1000 Main --Street_.and .160 Main Road, _Greenport, County Tax Map No. I000, Section 34, Block 2, LOt L The Board of Appeals said time and place hear any and aH.persons or representatives de- s~nng to be heard in each of the above matters. Written com- ments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time allot- ted. Additional time for your presentation will be available, if needed. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: May 21, 1990 ; BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ,GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Doreen Ferwerda ........ . ........... IX, 5/24/90 (7) IBA~ARA A. SCHNEIDER '~ '" ' ~ State of New York i'J,,, ~I ,? ..... APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZI0, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STAT£ ROAD 25 SOIJTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time. date and place of the public hearing concerning your application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the times allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Please feel free to call our office prior to the hearing date if you have questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, CHAIRMAN dff APPEALS BOARD MEMRERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRtGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1990, at the following times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3917 - UMBRELLA HOME CARE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 C, as disapproved, for permission to construct a sign, proposed sign is not permitted in this Residential/Office (RO) District. Property Location: 28455 Main Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 102, Block 02, Lot 12.1. Page 2 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of March 15, 1990 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3909 - JOSEPH COP~NACCHIA. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory shed in frontyard Area. Property Location: 835 Kimberly Lane, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 070, Block 13, Lot 20.5. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3916 - GEORGE REINHARDT. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, as disapproved for permission to construct deck addition, proposed construction exceeds permitted lot coverage and has insufficient setbacks from property line. # 3 Trumans Path, East Marion, 31, Block 12, Lot 10. Property Location: 1380 Pvt. Road County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3906 - CHARLES COLOMBO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X~IV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing dwelling, proposed construction will have insufficient sideyard setbacks. Property Location: 350 Oak Street, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 136, Block 1, Lot 48. Page 3 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of March 15, 1990 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3903 - LINDA DAMBASSIS. Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, (Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 [A), as disapproved for permission to construct accessories' garage, pool and additions to dwelling in frontyard area. Property Location 2430 Dignan's Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 83, Block 2, Lot 7.2. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3912 - EDWARD AND CORRINE BIRDIE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, for permission to construct additions to one family dwelling, proposed construction will have insufficient side yard setbacks. Property Location: 380 Parsons Boulevard, East Marion, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 037, Block 01, Lot 17.1. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3911 - WALTER RAFFERTY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 241A, (Article XXVIII, Section 100-281 (3), as disapproved, for permission to ~construct additions and alterations to garage with apartment. Property Location: East End Road, Fishers Island, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 3, Block 7, Lot 5. Page 4 - Notice of Hearings $outhold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of March 15, 1990 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3924 - MICHAEL HERBERT. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-91 (B), for change of use from Bed and Breakfast to a three family dwelling in this Hamlet Business (HB) District. Property Location: 795 Pike Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 140, Block 2, Lot 23. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3918 - JOHN AND CATHERINE SIMICICH. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for permission to have a winery for production and winery sales. Property Location: 4250 Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 121, Block 1, Lots part of 001. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 39~07 - NICHOLAS ALIANO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30A.2 (Article XXV, Section 100-253 A), as disapproved, for permission to construct a retail office complex, proposed construction is not permitted in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 102, Bloc 03, Lot 01. ?age 3 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of March 15, 1990 the 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3915 JORDAN'S PARTNERS. Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, Variance to ~ as disapproved for permission to construct office and retail stores, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 34, Block 2, The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time allotted. Additional time for your presentation will be available, if needed. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated March 6, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN by Doreen Ferwerda NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY given, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the follow- ing hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1990, at the fol- lowing times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3917- UMBRELLA HOME CARE. Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article VII, Section 100-71 C, as disapproved, for permission to construct a sign, .... I~oposed sign is not permitted in this Residentiai/Officc (RO) District. Property Location: 28455 Main Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Sec- tion 102, Block 02, Lot 12.1. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3909-- JOSEPH CORNACCHIA. Var- iance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory shed in frontyard Area. Property Loca- tion: 835 Kimberly Lane~ Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section070, Block 13, Lot 20.5. 7:40 p.m. AppL No. 3916~ GEORGE REINHARDT. Vari- ancc to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article Ill, Section 100-31, as disapproved for permission to construct deck addition, pro- posed construction exceeds per- mitted lot coverage and has insufficient setbacks from pro- perty line. Property Location: 1380 Pvt. Road ~ Trumans Path, East Marion, County Ta~ Map No. 1000, Section 31, Block 12, Lot 10. ~'l 7:45 p.m. AppL No. 3906-- CHARLES COLOMBO. Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permis- sion to construct a deck addi- tion to existing dwelling, pro- posed construction will have in- sufficient sideyard setbacks. Property Location: 350 Oak Street, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 136, Block 1, Lot 48. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3903~ LINDA DAMBASSIS. Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, (Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 (A), as disapproved for permission to construct accessories' garage pool and additions to dwelling in .frontyard area. Property Location: 2430 Dignan's Road, Cutchogue, County.Tax Map No. 1000, Section 83, Block 2, Lot 7.2. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3912- EDWARD AND CORRINE BIRDIE. Variance to the Zon- ing Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, for per- mission to construct additions to one family dwelling, pro- posed, construction will have in- sufficient side. 3~ard setbacks. Property Location: 380 Parsons Boulevard, East Marion, Coun- ty Tax Map No. 1000, Section 037, Block 01, Lot 17.1. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3911- WALTER RAFFERTY. VariJ ance to the Zoning Ordinanc~ Article XXIV, Section 241A,' (Article XXVIII, Section' 100-281 (3), as disapproved, for ' permission to construct addi- tions and alterations to garage with apartment. Property Loca-, tion: East End Road, Fishers Is- land, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 3, Block 7, LOt 5) 8:05 p.m. AppL No. 3924-- . MICHAEL HERBERT. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article IX, Section 100-91 (B), for change of use from Bed and Breakfast to a three family dwelling in this Hamlet Business (HB) District. Property Location: 795 Pike Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 140, Block 2, LOt 23. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3918- JOHN AND CATHERINE SIMICICH. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle III, Section 100-31, for per- mission to have a winery for production and winery sales. Property Location: 4250 Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 121, Block 1, Lots part of 001. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 3907-- NICHOLAS ALIANO. Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nan!:e, Article Iii A, Section 100-30A.2 (Article XXV, Sec- tion 100253 A), as disapproved, for permission to construct a m- tail office complex, proposed construction is not permitted in this R-40 Zone DistricL Pro- perty Location: 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash Avenue, Cut- ~ chogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 102, Block 03, Lot 01. fo:2° RDAN S PARTNERS. Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as ~!apProved for permission to construct office and mail ston~ proposed construct is not per- mitted use in this District. Pro- perty Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Seedon 34, Block 2, Lot L ~ The Board o f Appeais will a'{'~ said time and place he~r any and all persons or representatives de- siring to be heard in each of above_.matte~. Written _.c~- _ ment~ may als0 be submltte~ prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before time al- lotted. ^Aditionai time for your presentation will be available, if needed. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: March 6, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN by Doreen Ferwerda IX, 3/8/90 (28) ~/~s~¢ICE OF HF. ARINOB B IS HEREBY GIV .EN, Somho¥~, the following hearing* will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a RegMar Meeting, at the Somhold Town Hall, Main Road, SuntEnld, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 19~0, at ~e fo~owin~ 7:30 p.m. AppL No. 3917 -- U~IERELLA HOME CARE. Vail- cie VH, Set,on 100-71 C, ns dis- approved, for pan, is#inn to con- street a sign, v,v~osed si~n is not (RO) Distr~ct. Property Locatio~ 28455 Main Road, Cutchogu~ County Tt~ Map No. 1000, 102, Block 02. L~ 12.1. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3909 IO~EPH CORNACCHIA.-Var~anc~ Sectinn 100-33, as disapproved, for' shed in frontyard Area. Property. Southold, County Tax Map No., 1000, Section 070, Block 13, L~ 2~5. 7:40 p.m. AppL No. 3916 --~ GEORGE REII~HARDT. Variance. Section 100-31, as disapproved fo~. penniszlon to construct deck edda-' permitted lot coverage and has, inmff'tcimt setbeaks fr~-n ~ llne. Pmpe~/L~catiom 1380 P,~ R~d # 3 Tmmam pa~, Fast e~, Ceunty Tax n~p No. 1000, Se~ tim 31, Block 12, Lot 10. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3906 -~- CHARLES COLOMBO.' Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as dis- approved, for permission to con- st~uct a deck addition to existing. dv~llhlg, proposed constmrtion wiB Property Loc~un: 350 Oak St~ct,. Cutchogue, County Tax Map No.. 1000, Sectio~ 136, Block 1, Lct 48.. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 3903 LII~A DAMBASSIS. Variance to Z~ing Ordinance, Anicle Ill, See- tim 100-33, (Ankle XXIIL Se~ic~ 100-239.4 (A), as disapproved for pemilssion to c~mtmct accessories? garage pool and additions to dwelling in fl~ltyard are~ Property Location 2430 Dignan's Road, Cmchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, S~,~--~n 83, Blc~k 2, Lc~ 7.2. 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3912 -- EDWARD AND CORRINB BIRDIE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Anicin HI A, Section 100-30A.3, fot permission to street additions to one family rivalling, prope~d constmcdun will have insul~tc~mt s~de yant setl~aks. Property Loeatinn: 380 Parsons Boblev~d, East Marion, County T~ Map No. 1000, Sec~ 037, Block 01, L~ 17.1. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3911 -- WALTER R~'~'~t~TY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Anlcle XXIV, Section 241A, (Article XXVI~, Sectlon 100-281 approved, for permission to con- stru~ additions and alterations to sarage with apenmont. Property Location: East End Road, Fi#hen Xsland, Ceonty T~x Map No. 1000, Section 3, Block 7, Lot 5. 8:05 p.m. Appl, No. 3924 -- MICHAEL HERBERT. Special ..Pm.~-~,. ~catinu: 795 Pike ~ Mattttdck, County Tax Map No. 8:10 p.m. A~I. No. 3918 ~ JOHN ~D CA~E S~- CICH. Speci~ ~ption m ~e w~e~ f~ p~ ~d w~e~ sales. P~eny L~ag~: 4250. Be~ A~, ~. ~ T~ Map No. 1~. Smi~ 121. B~ 1,~1. 8:15 plm. A~I. No. 39~ ~ ~S ~O. V~ m ~fi~ I~30A.~ (Affi~c ~V. ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~is R~ ~ D~ ~ ~ti~: 29950 ~ain Road, 30 Pequash caption to Ge Zoning Ordinance, Avenue., Cutchogun, County Article IX, Sectlen 100-91 m), fo~ Map No. 1000, Secsiun 102, Black chngc of use from ned and'~reak- 0?,,~L?.OI. - '"' fasttoathrcefnmilydwelllnginthis / s:zup;m. ~t_pp~l--~o_. Hamlet Business (HB) District. /IORD.IN S. p~ .~. F-,~. I tO the Z~m# Ordmmice, Article See Legals, ~ext pago~v~ s~,~ 100-71, as dlsq~ptoved '"~ peflnltsiun to coustmot office: / is nm p~'''ifl''a use in this Dimict' [ properly ~, 1000 Main S~ct _[ and 160 Main Road, Or~enpof~ [ County Tax Map Nb 1000. tin~ sad ld~ce ha~' any sad 'n ~.~.. mm er ,.v. ~,m~d~s de~in~ to~ sul~.t he~rlng. ~ hearing.will not start befo~ 6n~ =hinted. Addi- tion] gme fm ye,~ pmserdali~m will be available, if needed. For more infom~,~d.~, please ~11765-1809. Dasd March 6, 1~0 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD E GO1DIR.~GER by Dem~ Fe~erda 6600-1TM8 /-~'/ ok, In :lpal per, ~ of ~hich ~ed in eeks lay of Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y.-11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 FAX No. (516) 765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZI0, JR. March S.E.O,.R.A. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION 15, 1990 Appeal No. 3915 Project/Applicants: County Tax Map No. Location of Project: Jordan's Partners 1000-34-2-1 1000 Main Street and 160 Hain Road, Greenport,NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Permission to construct office and retail stores. Proposed construct is not a permitted use in this District. This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44~4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant. adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tn D T ~LD Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 25, 1986 Mr. Robert Gruber ARchitect 476 Espressway Drive, Medford, NY 11763 So RE: 280 North Road Dear Mr. Gruber: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 23,1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan for 280 North Road for construction of office and retail complex located at Main Street and North Road, Greenport, survey dated as revised June 17, 1986, tax map no. 1000-34-2-1, subject to: 1. Receipt of a curb cut permit from the NYS Department of Public Works. 2. Removal of the term "parcel two" from the residential land owned by the applicant. The Board does not want it to be construed that this has been subdivided. Upon receipt of the curb cut permit and amended surveys eliminating the term "parcel two",the Chairman will endorse the surveys. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 June 23, 1986 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 SUBJECT: Gentlemen: Greenport Mall Main St. & North Rd. Greenport, N.Y Site plan--revised 6-17-86 This will certify the above site plan in meeting zoning regulations. EH:hdv Building Inspector J.: - rchite~-.".-':-. Dm, e ~. A6ed~o~l. N.Y.'t176~ ; '~ .... -KEY H~I P /', /ooo' FEBRUARY. 4~ 1986 ~_~_~ ~ ~ Supervisor to schedule date for interviews. (4, 5, 6) Requests for waivers from the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 - applicants to appear at 2:00 P.M. (7) Letter from Historian Goodrich relative to preservation of the historic quilt now on display in the Meeting Hall. Board feels quilt should be encased in a cabinet and Supervisor will make arrangements for the construction of same. (8) Letter from Harbor Master Clavin which was discussed in item (1) above. (9) Letter from the NYS-DEC with respect to the Sewer Use Ordinance for the Fishers Island Sewer District. Town Attorney Tasker will be asked for review same. (10) Councilwoman Cochran asked the Board's feelings on the proposed allocation of funds for updating and reprinting the "Southold Town Resource Book of Service Agencies and Related Associations" by the CAST Substance Abuse Committee. The Board was in agreement and it was suggested a large portion of this could be done on the Town Hall copy machine. (11) Request of the Conservation Advisory Council to use the Town Hall meeting hall between 9 AM and 2 PM on Saturday, March 8th and the use of their budgeted / funds for refreshments, when they will meet with CAC's from Southampton, East Hampton, Riverhead and Shelter Island. Board agreed. (12, 14, 15) Waiver requests-- applicants to appear at 2:00 P.M. (13) Date for interviews for Building Inspectors will be coordinated by the Supervisor's Office in conjunction with the Building Depart- ment. (16) Letter from Pelletreau & Pelletreau relative to approval of site plan for premises zoned M-Multiple at New Suffolk Avenue and Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck was discussed with the Planning Board at their 9:30 A.M. appointment. (17) Receipt of report from Attorney General Robert Abrams with respect to Sanitary Landfills in New York State and the Potential for Hazardous Waste Dumpings in which the town of Southold is mentioned. (18) Proposal by Phone-Review, Inc. to report discrepancies to the New York Telephone Co. and obtain credit was accepted by the Board (see resolution No. 25). EXECUTIVE SESSION 12:25 P.M. - The Board discussed personnel and wages. 12:50 P.M. - Recess for lunch, 2:10 P.M. - Work Session reconvened and the Board met with the following applicants for waivers of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985: Andrew E. Goodale, relative to the consturction of an office in an existing dwelling l at 7655 Main Road, Mattituck (see resolution No. 26). Garrett A~ Stranch on behai of Gordon Schlaefer, relative to changing the status of the Wedgewood Shop, North Road, Southoid, from home furnishing accessories to home furnishings and accessories. This request is being held pending the redefinition of uses in a Limited Business District in the proposed zoning code. Charles Cudd¥, on behalf of Barbara Schriever, with respect to the uses of her premises located on the west side of Tabor Road, Orient (see resolution No. 27). Gary Flanner Olsen, and Edmund and Joan Pressler, with respect to the use of the Pressler premises located on the north side of Route ~ /25, Southold (see resolution No. 28),~John C. Tsunis, on behalf of "280 North Road","X ~-- ~w. ith respect to the premises on the south side of Route 25, Greenport. A. waiver was ~,~ .denied with respect to a proposed use and now Mr. Tsunis stated the a,p.p cant proposes~ /to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential Off ce D strict (see__..~ L_,re~olution No. 29). Katherine Fart and her husband with respect to their premises at 110 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport (see resolution No. 30). Patricia Moore, rep- resenting Rudolph Bruer, and Mrs. Janet Tucker, with respect to Mrs. Tucker's premises at Fishers Island (see resolution No. 31...which was denied). 3:05 P.M. - Jeanne Marriner, representing] the League of Women Voters, appeared before the Board to urge them to undertake a program of public education about the proposed zoning law amendments before going further with the process of enacting the new amendments, and the League's offer to assit the Board in informing Southold Town residents in whatever way they feel is most enlightening and appropriate.--- Mrs. Marriner also addressed the Board, as a private citizen, with respect to the Master Plan and her opinion that the Town Board are going for short-term profits without considering the long term economic vitality of Southold Town; there is no L marketing plan to develop the economy around. In a prepared statement Mrs. Marriner stated, "We do have a potential unifying concept - the unique character for which there is and could be a great demand. The North Fork could be another Williamsburg, Virginia for example - attracting tourists and our seasonal residents year round and providing dollars for our local businessmen." She offered to explore her concept further at another time, but urged the Board to think long range plans and what they are building for the future when they consider zoning changes, and urged that they talk with the Economic Advisory Committee before they are pressured by the developers into making serious mistakes with the North Fork. 3:15 P.M. - Tony Blados and two colleagues met with the Town Board to discuss possible life insurance coverage for certain Town officials, the overall cost of which will be analyzed by the Board before further consideration. JUDITlt T, TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 4, 1986: WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq., on behalf of "280 North Road", has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with respect to their application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, John C. Tsunis, Esq. appeared before this Board and explained the - nature of the uses for which he proposes to use the premises in question, and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential Office (RO) District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc.'s Master Plan Update Zoning Code revisions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and they hereby are granted a waiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 to the extent of permitting such uses on said premises as set forth in their application presently pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval, subject, however, to the applicant obtaining any and all permits and approvals required by all Town and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereof. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 January 24, 1986 John C. Tsunis, Esq. 35 Vanderbilt Parkway Commack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Tsunis.: The Southold Town Board discussed your letter of January 13, 1986 with respect to "280 North Road" at their~January 21st Board meeting. The purpose of your letter is ~unclear since the Board denied a waiver on October 22, 1985. The Town Board would llke to meet with you at 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986 to further discuss your request, to which you have agreed to be present by way of a telephone conversation with me. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN EQAD- STATE ROAD 25 ~OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVED GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Linda Kowalski, Secretary January 17, 1986 Pending Applications Moratorium Reviews In response to your recent requests, please be advised that we presently do not have an application pending or under consideration by our office for either of the following: "280 North Road" (presumed to be at the southeast corner corner of Main Road and Main Street), Greenport. William J. Mills III or Ballan Ford at the south side of Front Street, Greenport (abutting Celic Estate Agents). TOWN OF $OUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR · P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 January 17t1986 To: Elizabeth A. Neville Deputy Town Clerk From: Victor Lessard &~ Exec. Admin. Re: Waiver Request "280 North Road Corp." Upon researching our files I find that we have nothing more on file since your last request of October 17,1985. VL:dsm attachment RECEIVED JAN 16 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 16, 1986 Mrs. Elizabeth A. Neville Deputy Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Request for Waiver "280-North Road" Dear Mrs. Neville: In response to your correspondence of January 14, regarding the above mentioned site plan, please refer to our correspondence of October 18, 1985. The Planning Board has not received any additional information since that referral. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary J UDITIt T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 January 14, 1986 To: From: Re: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Elizabeth A. Neville, Deputy Town Clerk Request for a Waiver - Local Law No. 14 1985 Please submit all pertinent data in your request of "280 North Road" at Greenport prgvisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985. files pertaining to the for a Waiver from the Attachment JOHN C, TSUNI$ REC~IVED JAN 1 35 VANDERBILT PARKWAY COMMACK. LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK January 13, 1986 11725 Judith T. Terry Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan at Greenport "280 North Road" Dear Ms. Terry: The Planning Board has advised that they will take no further action on the above matter because of the present moratorium. Please be advised that the above application was made on May 4, 1984, which precedes the moratorium and has been under numerous revisions pursuant to Planning Board suggestion. My client wishes to conform the use presently proposed and therefore my client respectflly requests a waiver of the moratorium as it applies to this parcel, so that this application may proceed. Please advise of any hearing concerning this request. Thank you for JCT/le your courtesy and cooperation~ this Very :ru y you s ' Tsunis Joh( matter. CC: Robert Gruber, Architect Pantelis Papazaglou Bennett Orlowski, Jr. JUDITH T. TERRY To: OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Dated: January 31, 1990 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal NO. ~ordan's Partners 3915 , application of for a variance. Also included is: Notification to Adjacent Property Owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form; letter relative to NYS Tidal Wetlands Land Use; Notice.of Disapproval from the Building Department; survey of property; and any other attachments relative to this application. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk IOHNC. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW January 30, 1990 JOHN C. TSUNIS SCOT[ ZAMEK HAND-DELIVERED Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jordan's Partners Greenport~ New York Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find the following items submitted in con- nection with an application on behalf of Jordan's Partners for a use variance for property located at the intersection of Main Street and Main Road, Greenport New York: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Application for a use variance (3 copies); Short Environmental Assessment Form; Board of Appeals Questionnaire; Photograph and Site Plan; Foundation Survey (4 copies); Radius Map; Proof of Mailing of Notice to Adjacent Owners; Check in the amount of $150.00. and If any further information is required, please let me know. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis SZ/sg Enclosures 801 MOTOR PARKWAY ', HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11788 ', TELEPHONE 5t6-582-4000 · FAX: 516-582-4256 Mr. & Mrs. Walter Sledjeski~-305 North Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Mr. & Mrs. Walter Sledjeski -75 North Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Harry B. Sinuta - North Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Jem Realty Company - c/o Kontokosta - 43 West 45th Street, New York NY 10019 FORM NO. a TO~,VN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO;VN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD. N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . .~..~...~. .................... 19 .ff.~... House ~o. ' ...... · ............... County Tax Map No. I000 Section .... ~ ...... Block .. ~.. ~.. Lot / Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No ........ ' .......... ..~~ .... ~.~/ .... ~..~~~:..~..~ .~. ..... ...................... ............. ....~ ..... ~.~.~. .~ .... ~... .~~. ,~X~ln~//~nspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD. N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date..../../~ / ............... ,19 .~. ~. .... ~/~. ,..~..~,.,//~ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ...~/...~. .................... 19 .~.~... Location of Property ...~.~O ~ ~ ~/~.~~ ~~ ' House No. ' ' ' ..... · ............... County Tax Map No. I000 Section .... ~..' .... Block .. ~ .......... Lot ... ~ ......... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No ........ ' .......... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds. ~..~.~ .... · .~~ .... /~..rz .... ~..~~~:..~...~ · ~..~~ ~~ _ ~ , '"~ ..... .... ~4X~ ln~/~nspec tor RV 1/80 Appendix C Slale Environmental Quality Review SHORT EN~/IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTZONS Only PART 1~PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by ADDlffc=nt or Project sponsor) 1. APPLi~NT ISPQNSQR ~A~T~S ~. PROJECT NAM~ . 3. PROJECT LOCATION: ~ ~un~c,oa,,,~ GREENPORT SUFFOLK 1000 MAIN STREET AND 160 MAIN ROAD - ~dUTE 25 - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND MAIN ROAD. ' 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 29,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER FOR RETAIL AND BUSINESS OFFICE USE. T. AMOU,'JT OF LAHD AFFECTED: ~ lailiall. /4.7 4.7 ~ [~]Ye$ ~J~r~o ffNo,~e$c. Debriefl~ will need a use variance as a result of zone change from CO;4PL~ WITH ~ISTING ZONING OR OTHER ~ISrING ~NO USE RESTRICTIONS7 gight-Buslness 2o Residential O~f&ce a[~e~ si[e pla~ approval was gra~ed. ~he~e ate res&de~ces ED [he sou[h and e~t o[ sub~ecE pTemises and a large co~ercial res~auTant acToss the stTeet [o ~he no~h o[ the pTemlses. STARE OR LOCAL)? ~ Ye= ~--~ r~e If yes. Iisi agency(si and permiuapptoval~'- Use variance from Town Board, reinstatement of Building Permit from Town Building ~ector. . DOES A.'~Y ASPECT CF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLy VALID PER~.tlT O~ APPROVAl.? ~ ]~¥,s ~'~tlo ! 7e:~ hs! .lgcncy name and Petm,llap~,oval Health Department Appr~l and Approved site plan, from Suffolk County Department of Health Services and Town of Southold Plannin Board, respectively also New York State Highway Department Highway Work Permit. ~,,c~.,,,.o. so..~.: . JORDAN'S PARTNERS · ~ cfionis in the Coastal Area, and you are asta oa=tal Assessment Form botor~ OVER --~ ~ 1 (Continued on reye~se Side) · The N.¥ S Environmental QualAt¥ Review Act r pro~ect and the likely impacts Of the action. It is not expected that (b) If any qnestion has been answered Yes the project may be sig- (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not Significant. 11. 12. 11. 14. En_~v~rOnmental Ass~essmcn~t I. Will project result in a lar=e ~hysical chan=e to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? 2. Will there be a major change to any Unique or Unusual land form on the 3. Will project alter Or have a large effect om 4. Will project have a potentially large, impact on groundwater quality? ~.Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? --i__yes ~ No Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Will project result in a major adverse effect on~¥es air quality? Will project have a major effect on Visual char-' Yes acter of the community or scenlc views or vistas known to be important to the community? . Yes ~ NO Will project adversely imuact any site or struc ute of hlutoric, Prc-nis=6r~c, or paleontological, importance or any site designated as a critical envArcnmental area by a local agency? . Yes . Will project have a m~jor effect on e~istinq or future recreational Opportunitlcs? Will project result in major traffic problems or systems? Will PrOject regulari~ Cause objectionable odor=, Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Will PrO]ect affect the existing community b~ ~Yes ~ charact~r of ~he CO~uoA=y or nexghborhoo~? I~ there P~lic controvor=y COncernin~ tho ~/TStinq=~- ~Yes ~ ::O QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATION FO~4S TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Board of Appeals with your completed application forms. If "Yes" is answered to any questions below, please be sure to depict these areas on your survey (or certified sketch), to scale, and submit other supporting documenta- tion. 1. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? Yes 2.a)Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.) Yes~ b)Are there any areas open to a waterway without bulkhead? Yes 3. Are there existing structures at or below ground level, such as patios, foundations, etc? Foundation laved pursuant to building permit issued June 8, 1989. 4. Are there any existin9 or proposed fences, concrete barriers, decks, etc? If project is proposed for an accessory building or structure, is total height at more than 18 feet above average ground 1--~-~17 State total: ft. Se If project is proposed for principal building or structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above average ground level? State total: ft. Se 7. Are there other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? If yes, please submit copy of deed. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership, if any)? State Permit # and Nature: Building Permit isUed 6/8/89 #18187Z - Revoked as issued in error 11~30/89. ~ No Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes ~ No Do state whether or not applications are pending concerning these premises before any other department or agency (State, Town, County, Village, etc.): 10. 11. 12. Planning Board Town Board Town Trustees County Health Department Village of Greenport N.Y.S.D.E.C. Other Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes, please submit copy of names or pu~rchasers and conditions of sale. (from contract) Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at 5 feet or less as exists? If new construction is proposed in an area within 75 feet of wetland grasses, or land area at an eleva- tion of five feet or less above mean sea level, have you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under the requirements of Ch. 97 of the Town Code? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ 13. Please list present use or operations conducted upon the subject property at this time vacant and proposed ret~i] And ~ffice space Please submit photographs for the record. I certify that the above statements are true and are being submitted for reliance by the Board of Appeals in considering my application. Signature (Property 0 ~Au~'horized Agent) 1/88 WETLANDS [Amended 8-26-7(; by L.L. No. 2-1976; 3-26- 85 by L.L. No. 6-1985]: A. TIDAL WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with, or ~vhich border on, tidal waters, or lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mcan Iow tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of 'five (5) feet, including but not llmitcd to banks. bogs. salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other Iow lying lands subject to tidal action: (2) ; All banks, bogs. meadows, fiats and tidal marsh subject to such tides sad upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following: salt hay, black grass, saltworts, sca lavender, tail cordgrass, high bush, cattails, gronndsel, marshmallow and iow march cordgrass; and/or (3) All land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven- ty-five (75} feet landward of the most landward edge of such a tidal wetland. FRESItWATER WETI.ANDS: (1) "Freshwater wetlands" as defined in Artlc]o 2,1, Ti- tle l, § 2,1-0107, Subdivisions l(a) to l(d) inclusive, of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York; and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a "freshwater wet- land," us defined in Subsection B(1) and lying with- in seventy.five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a "freshwater wetland." 9705 2-25-{45 CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT--THIS INSTRUh,~NT'-qI~" SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. THY INDF_.I~l'~RF~madetbe day of February ,nineteen hundred and e±§hty-n±ne JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. 801 Motor Parkway, Uauppauge, New York (2/3 interest) and .". PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU c/o 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York (1/3 interest) party oftbe firstpart, and JORDAN'S PARTNERS 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York (2/3 interest) and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU c/o 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York (1/3 interest) TAX ['TAP I)I~SI(;NATION 1000 ~3 34.Ct O2.0G party of the second part, w rN s ., that ,he par,y o' the first part; ,. eons,der?t,o,, o' Te,,. paid by tbe party of the second part, does nereoy grant an.~ release unto me p,~.~y ........ r , or successors and assigns o{ the party of the secona part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings aud bnprovernents thereon erected, situate, lying andbeing~ at Southold, County of Suffolk, Town of Southold and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING, at the northerly end of a line which connects the easterly side of Main Street with the southerly side of North Road and from said point of beginning; running thence North 74 degrees 08 minutes O0 seconds East along the southerly side of North Road 498.74 feet to land now or formerly of Davids; thence along said last-mentioned land and land of Zevits, Angevine, Thilberg and Critchlow, South 33 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds East 343.07 feet to land now or formerly of Flatley; thence along said last-mentioned land and land of Moore, Begley and Stavoh, South 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds West 194.18 feet; thence along the westerly side of said land now or formerly of Stavoh, South 26 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East164.64 feet to the northerly side of Knapp Place; thence South 72 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds West, along the northerly side of Knapp Pla~e 79.97 feet .to land now 0)7 formerly of Green; thence North 26 degrees 23 40 seconds West along said last-mentioned land 167.24 feet; thence still along said last-mentioned land of Green and lands of others south 74 degrees 33 minutes 30 seconds West 352.65 feet to the easterly side of Main Street; thence along the easterly side of Main Street North 25 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds West 236.36 feet; thence along the aforesaid line which connects the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Main Street North 19 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds East 109.04 feet to the southerly side of North Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. Being and intended to be the same premises conveyed to the parties of the first part herein by deed dated February 18, 1988. TOGIt. TIIEF, with all rigbt, title and interest, if any, of tbe party o{ the first part io and to any streets aod roads abutting the above described premises to the ceoter lines thereof; TOGI£TtIER with tbe appurtcoances and all the estate aod rlgbts of the party of the first part io nod to said premises; TO IIAVE AND TO ]lOLl) the premises bereln graoted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the seco.d part forever. party of tim first part covenants tlmt the lmrty of the first part bas not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises bave beeo encombered iu any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND tim party of the first part, i. compliance with Section 13 of tbe Lien Law, covenants tlmt tbe party ol~ tbe first part will receive the consideratiou for this conveyaoce and will bold the rigfit to receive such consid- eration as a trust fond to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the lmyment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any otber porpose. The xvord "party" sball be construed as il it read "parties" whenever tbe sense of this iodenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed fins deed the day aod year first above ,vritteo. ~ [:."'~-'~ '"'" [N PRESENCE OF: $ _.~____ ORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. l~-~.,:f~ lC. Taunts ~es~den~ ~'~On the ~5THday of February 19 89 , before me ~'~ersonally came PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU to me known to be the individual described in End who _4xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that e executed the sasne. SgOTT ZAMEK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yo'dl No. 52.4894049, Suffolk l'e~m Exp,'es April 20, STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: On the 15THday of February 1989 , before me personally came John C. Tsunis to me koown, who, being by me duly sxvorn, did depose and say that be resides at No. 801 Motor Parkway ttauppauge, New York 11788 ; that lie is the President of JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said iostrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of tbe board of directors of said corpora- tion, and that he signed ht~ name thereto by like order. $C01'r ZAMEK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New YArN No. 52.4894049, Suffolk le(m Exp,;es April 20, On the day of lJersonally came 6 19 , before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the same. STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ss: On the day of 19 , before mc personally came the suhscribing witness to the foregoing instrnment, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me doly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. ; that he knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that be, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. JORDAN'S PARK PLACE, LTD. and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU, TO JORDAN'S PARTNERS and PANTELIS PAPAZOGLOU SEC'nON 34 BLOCK 2 LOT 1 COUNTY OR TOWN Suffolk TriX mLnlNO Amn~RSS 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 Recorded Al Requesl ol Tho Tille Guamnlee Company RETURN BY MAIL TO: TITLE GUARANTEE- NEWYORK A TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCOTT ZAMEK, ESQ. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Zip No. ~) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~o..~ SOUT~ Im~ f~-~-~ '°° ~°lReolPro.ertyToxSorviceAgency]~,~,m , t 34''1~5 C NP MOULINOS GERASIMO$ & W ouu $&.-1-6 COI FERGUSON FRANCES M 600 3,200 600 3,200 ~ "'-~&;;1-? ....... C PB MAZZAFERRO EUGENE~& AN ..... 500 ..... 500 ........ 500 500 I $&.-1-8 CPU VALENTI FAITH A &O0 &DO 400 400 3&.-1-9 ............. C QN-HENKEL-THEODORE C ......... ~00 ....... 1;700 ..... 400 i;700 $&.-1-10 C KQ WOODHULL JAMES R & JUD 500 3,500 500 3,600 ! ]&-'1°11 lt.-1 -12 I ~t.-1-14 3t.-I -15 ......... C L3 NEW YORK STATE ........ 500 ........ 500 500 ' - 500 C MC HASSETT MICHAEL J & &O0 2,600 400 2,600 .... C MV SPERLING ESTHER L 300 .... i~000 ]00 - 1~000 C NO SPERLING ESTHER 300 1,100 300 1,100 ....... ¢ bH-'POELoc~ ARTHUR M .......... ~00 ...... i;~00 ...... ~00 ~ IL~O0 C PA STRA~SSNER-ANTONE~ 1,100 ' C LH JORD~'S p~TM~oS_Z' A~:~ ' 8;700 7.,200 1,100 7,200 -~8;?00 8~700' -- ~,700' 210 311 210 210 821 210 210 210 210 210 311 ~ff~' MA DAVIDS ROBERT L 600 6,900 600 6,900 210 · ~"~MT VANTUYL RODERICK - - - 600 .... ~;?00 ' 600 4,700 210 /.~q~ NM O'NEILL GERALD P ~ WF 7.00 3,400 700 3,400 210 210 St. -2-~~ 3t._~.5/ .......... ,,~r'".'~F-~N~EVIN~ ~OSEPH F JR & - 600 ......... ~;100 600 4,100 ~t..2.6~ b..L" OY THILBERG HAROLD T 500 3,100 500 3,100 IlO .... 500 ---2;800 ' 500 ' 2.800 210 ]&..~.7~ -: ....... t.~"~R~'~ART'Wi[LiAM ] $ WF tt.-2-8 ~QK UDELL CLIFFORD 7.00 3,700 700 3,700 210 ' ~-'B[GGS THERESA ' ' ' ]00 ~,~00 ' ~00 3,300 210 ]&'*2'g~t.-2-10 ~LG HARRIS PETER W & WF 300 3,000 ~0 $,000 210 ~t.-2-11~ ......... ~EZ ~LATL'EY GLADYS ..... 300 ....... ~;900 0 2~q00 210 ~00 2,500 ~.-2-12~ ~MS GIORDANO DENNIS A ~00 2,$00 210 ~t.-2.~]~ ....... ~NL BEGLEY-~HESTER A & HEL --' ~00 ......... 3;~00 &DO 3,10~ 210 ~00 2,900 210 ~.-2-1~ ~OE STARON PETER & WF ~00 i&;.~_15~ ' ' ~Ox ~HEREPOWICH JOSEPH-& 0 600 '3~&O0 - 600 3;&O0 210 I~.-~-1~ ~PQ CZUPRYK ANORE~ J & ~F 300 _._ 2~00 ~OO 3t.-~-18.1 ~ ....... ~y ~NO'~-'MiCHAEL ............... &O0 ..... ],~00 600 ~;600 lt.-~-lqv ~V KAYSER ~ARGARET 500 2,~00 500 I4.-Z-20 ' ~LY'~RoSSER MICHAEL &'WF - ~00 .... 5~000 &O0 5,000 $&.-~-I CLX HEINS ROBERT H 500 2,900 500 4~600 C MQ BEGLEY CLARENCE & CLAR .... 600 .... 5,000 600 5,000 C NJ SYRETT LYMAN & HILDA &O0 ],900 400 .... COC DROSKOSKI STANLEY g PA .... 500 ........ ~,400 500 5,400 C OV PRUITT WILLIAM S & WF 300 ]',600 300 ),600 ........ E-~O--MARCZEWSK[ MACY W-'& WF ....... 300 ...... 3;500 300 - 3,50~ C QH DAVIS WILLIAM L & WF 300 ;!,500 ~00 2,500 .... CRA BIGGS ROBERT D & WF -- 300 ...... ~,800 '- ' 300 ' 2~800 CRT CONKLIN BRADLEY C & AN 500 Z.,&O0 500 4,400 ............ C-~rJ~MON'-KENNET~H ~ WF ......... 500 L~200 ........ 500 '4,200 C M~ kORKELUN AGq~S 500 :!,100 500 ~,103 C qI ~E~ CLarENCE 300 3,300 300 3,300 210 ' 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 17 17. 17. 17 17 17 17 17 17 17. 17 17 17 17. 17 17 17 17 17. 17 17 17 1Z 17' 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17' 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 ,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - 0 - -- - * I ~u~golk County, New York 516- 765-1801 ~. 34450 ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki Sames Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fnx (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 October 22, 1990 John C. Tsunis, Esq. Scott Zamek, Esq. 801 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Appl. No. 3915 - Jordan's Partners Gentlemen: Receipt is acknowledged of your payment of the following copies, which are transmitted herewith as requested: May 30, 1990 Hearing Transcript June 27, 1990 Hearing Transcript July 25, 1990 Hearing Transcript September 6, 1990 Resolution to conclude (close) the hearings and to commence deliberations. all portions of Very truly yours, Enclosures Linda Kowalski JOHN C. TSUNIS ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. TSUNI$ SCOTr ZAMEK Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 October 18, 1990 Att: Linda Re: Jordan's Partners Main Road & Main Street Greenportt New York Dear Linda: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of yesterday, I am enclosing a check in the amount of Nineteen and 50/100 ($19.50) Dollars, payable to the Town of Southold to cover the costs in- curred in providing me with copies of transcripts for the hearings concerning the above referenced applicant: 1. May 30, 1990 - 39 pages 2. June 27, 1990 30 pages 3. July 25, 1990 8 pages 4. September 6, 1990 1 page Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John C. Tsunis, Esq. SZ/krs P.S. This shall also confirm that you will be forwarding to me a copy of the written decision regarding this application. GREENPORT (1): TWNSTHLD MOTOR PARKWAY · HAUPPAUGE. LONG IS. AND. NEW YORK '~ '~788 · TELEPHONE 5"~6-582~ ' FAX: 5~6'582'4256 Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- September 6, 1990 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3701 - Zahra decision, continued:) 6. On November 17, I988 the Supreme Court rendered a decision remanding the issue of the nonconforming apartment use back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and reinstated that portion of the building permit which relates to the permitted restaurant use. 7. On January 10, 1989, the subj6ct premises was · re-designated Hamlet Business (HB) under the new Master P1an ~'revisions. 8. During 1990, additional hearings were held by this Board, and deliberations commenced July 25, 1990 "... concerning the status of the second floor apartment as a nonconforming use..." (as per the Supreme Court's decision rendered November 17, 1988, Index No. 7725-88). NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, that based upon the record and personal knowledge of the beard, reinstatement is hereby GRA~T~ for the apartment use on the second floor for single-family occupancy, with renovations and new construction as exists and as furnished for the record, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS= 1. That the apartment not exceed 825 sq. ft. in total floor area~ 2. That the apartment comply with all other codes, rules and regulations applicable thereto, including local and state fire construction codes. Vote of the Board= Ayes= Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, and Dinizio. (Absent due to hospitalization was Member Sawicki.) This resolution was duly adopted. RESOLUTION TO CONCLUDE. Appl. No. 3915 - JORDAN'S PARTNERS. On motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to conclude all portions of the hearing in the Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under App1. No. 3915 at this time and to commence deliberations. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- September 6, 1990 Regular Meeting (App1. No. 3915 - JORDAN'S PARTNERS, resolution, continued=) Vote of the Board= Ayes= Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Member Sawicki was absent due to serious illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. HEARINGS FOR ~ REGUI. d~ I~ING= On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to schedule and authorize advertisement of the following applications to be held on Wednesday, September 26, 1990 commencing at 7=30 p.m. at a Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY: 7=35 p.m. Appl. 7=40 p.m. App1. 7=46 p.m. App1. 7:55 p.m. Appl. 7=58 p.m. App1. 8=00 p.m. Appl. 8=05 p.m. Appl. CHRIS No. 3961 - VENETIA McKEIGHAN No. 3966. PETER BLOOM. No. 3964 - KENNETH MINNICK. No. 3967 - KIM CAMPBELL. No. 3963 - FPJtNK CUERAN. No. 3960 - THOMAS AND ALLISON SARGENT. Nos. 3951 and 3957 ~ JAMES, PETER AND MESKOURIS. 8:24 p.m. Appl. No. 3955 - DOMINICK SBLENDIDO and A. AURICCHIO 8:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3938 - VILLAGE MARINE. There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. Respectively submitted, Doreen Ferwerda, Secretary Board of Appeals 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : HEARING, : : Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 9:45 P.M. BEFORE: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Absent SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, Absent JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ALSO PRE S EN'T: DOREEN FERWERDA, Secretary GAIL ROSCHEN Official Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 point, I think the documents speak for them- selves, and if they do not I will be pleased to answer anything in writing with respect to those files. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further commen I make a motion closing the hearing. MR. DOYEN: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: Appeal Number 3915, and let Mr. Tsunis Aye. On Jordan's Partners, we took it out of sync go. There were other people tonight, and we took it out of sync. What we did, we gave him a letter requesting that he divulge the members of the corporation. We further recessed the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting, waiting for a decision from the Planning Board on the evalu- ation of the site plan and we will close the hearing if -- or if we do not receive the site plan evaluation at the next regularly scheduled meeting. (Time noted: 10:55 p.m.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATION 45 I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes taken on July 25, 1990. G~%/1~' ~.OSCHE'N--- L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : HEARING, : Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 June 27, 1990 7:35 P.M. BEFORE: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ALSO PRESENT: DO~EEN FERWERDA, Secretary GAIL ROSCHEN Official Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The last appeal is Appeal Number 3915, in behalf of Jordan's Partners. It is a reconvening hearing from the prior meeting. We will ask Mr. Tsunis, is there anything he would like to add? MR. TSUNIS: John Tsunis, 801 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York. I will be very brief. I just would like to mention tothe Board that subsequent to the last hearing, I submitted some affi- davits. There was a question as to a para- graph on my margin that indicated that propert5 was to be developed as residential lots. At that time, I indicated I never saw that par- ticular phrase. Apparently someone, either in the title company or the County Clerk's Office, put that language in there. There was a technicality required by a regulation in the County Clerk's Office to record the deed on the vacant piece of land. It was at no time submitted to me. I never saw it. Their affidavit by the vice president of the bank, which issued the mortgage, indi- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 cared at no time was it ever indicated or suggested or planned to be developed as a residential use. I would like to report to the Board, also, that I received a letter from one of my tenants terminating the lease that he executed, because of the long delay and asking for his deposit back. I have lost at this point in time McCrory's and I have pleaded with my last remaining tenants to please bear with me until I have a determination from this Board, until they terminate theirs and they are willing to do that. Mr. Chairman, I think the facts are absolutely crystal clear in this case; that the hardship in this particular ~pplication is apparent in that basically $826,000 ha~ been expended on a piece of property that was properly zoned at the time of acquisition. That was approved by the Planning Board. A site plan was approved, Board of Health permit~ were issued, and due to some reason, at the Building Department within the Town of Southol~ a building permit was not issued because 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 municipal water would not be granted to me. I patiently waited. I patiently waited, even for three years when Ii begged and pleaded that I would drill my own well. That I took a test hole and that it was clean water, and that I was denied a permit even though I could drill my own well and get clean water. Subsequently after much persuasion, a permit was issued and indeed it was issued because I could drill my own well and get my own water and when municipal water was avail- able I agreed I would tap into the municipal water system. Subsequent to that, the Village of Greenport sent me a letter. Their letter said in effect, congratulating me. The project is on its way, and if I could see my way clear to give them water they would expedite water to me. I submitted that letter to the Board. Approximately three years later I have a building permit that was subsequently revoked, because the building inspector advised me three or four months after I was issued the permit that the property was rezoned 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 103 zoning was changed. The zoning was changed because of the potential disastrous results that could happen by having a. shopping distict outside the limits of the Village of Greenport downtown shopping district. It was one of the major goals on the master plan, to preserve the world of nature of this area and one of the ways to do that is to prevent a commercial sprawl and the resulting deterioration of the downtown. That is the reason that action was taken. That is not your particular concern. I understand. You are looking for hardship. You have to determine there is a hardship, but this matter has come before the Board, the Town Board, and they were not granted relief from the Town-Board. It sounds to me that relief might more probably be granted through the legal process, if there was unnecessary delays by the Building Department or site plans were approved and subsequently withdrawn or whatever happened. I am not really familiar but it seems to me that a case for real hard- ship has not been made. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 I was unaware of it. Obviously the building inspector was unaware of it, although the Town delayed issuing the building permit for that three-year period until that zoning was, in fac~ changed. $826,000, my family's money, Mr. Chairman. I now have an appraisal for $150,000. I suggest to you that is not a reasonable rate of return. I suggest to you that would devastate any family on Long Island to sustain that kind of loss. The law as applied in this particular instance, I think, is very unclear. I agree with the Board that the use variance should be very sparingly used, but this application cries out for relief, Mr. Chairman, and I respectfully leave it in the Board's hands. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? MR. TOWNSEND: Joseph Townsend, Jr. I was on the Town Board at the time the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 105 I was told that the building permit was revoked because the zone was changed. The Building Department -- I don't know if the Building Department knew if, in fact, that was changed or not. I certainly did not. I can tell you that forthrightly. When I inquired of the Town Attorney and members of the Town Board, they directed me to this Board to seek administrative relief. THE CHAIRMAN: building permit was MR. TSUNIS: This was after the revoked. Yes, sir. It was incredulous to me after three years of waiting with the proper zoning in hand, with site plan approval, with Planning Board consent, with Board of Health approval in hand I am waiting for the building permit and I cannot drill a well to get'water on my own property. It is incredulous to me that I am delayed, and it absolutely appears to me and my counsel that the delay was deliberate for three years. It is incredulous to me that that happened, and while I brought it to the exclusive attention, they directed me to this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 If, however, this Board determines there is a hardship I wou[~ hope there is some other relief that would be given. I don't know what it is. It has been so long since I have been involved in this. I don't know what your powers are, but if relief is to be granted in some other area, for igstance, in a multi- family housing or something where there is a more demonstrated need, I think it would be both to the Town's benefit and to the Appli- cant's benefit. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Townsend. Mr. Tsunis. MR. TSUNIS: My response to that, so the Board is aware, Mr. Townsend, I don't know where you heard that information. I never applied to the Town for a change of zone. I inquired, in disbelief, whether or not the land was rezoned while I was awaiting for three years for my building permit, when I was told, in fact, it was. Also, I thought I did receive a building permit and I relied on that building permit. I put 29,000 square feet of cement in the ground. No one said a thing. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 was waiting for his approval for the water or whatever it was. There were letters sent to the Planning Board trying to get an extension of his site plan. I would be interested to know, and I think this Board should know, what steps he took to preserve his application. MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, that is a very good point because I was concerned about that. The Town of Southold does not require extensions for the site plan approval. I inquired many, many times. Once a site plan approval is approved, it is approved and there is nothing necessary in addition to perfect it. that rule has changed. There was nothin. Unless to do. now, readdressing. MR. TSUNIS: zoning was changed. THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is three years and after that you have to go back for My gripe is not that the My gripe is that I was not issued a building permit pursuant to all the regulations in effect for that three-year period. However, a permit was subsequently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 106 Board for administrative relief because it is a unique circumstance concerning this property. It is an abomination what happened to my family here. I absolutely did not go to the Town Board. I came to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief and I applied for the use variance, as I was directed by the Board and the Town Attorney at that time. So that's what happened. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Townsend wants to just reflect on that. Would you step up, at this point, because there are two other issues I have to bring up concerning the closir of this hearing. MR. TOWNSEND: Thank you. I would like to respond to that and the changes on the master plan, which were talked about at great length at several meetings. They were advertised, according to the requirements, in the local papers several times It is not that I don't have compassion for Mr. Tsunis but there was an error on his part, whether he had his building permit or not, whether the zoning was changed all the time he 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 108 issued based upon my original plea to drill a well. If that building permit, Mr. Townsend was issued originally, I would not be here now. I would have complied with everything. Only because of this three-year municipal delay, whether it was on behalf of the Village of Greenport for not giving municipal water -- I heard I was Number 4 on the list for three years -- or because the Building Department did not issue a building permit even thoug~ I requested to drill my own well. That is the hardship I am facing here. There was some roadblock. Why for three years I could not get it, and all of a sudden I can get'it? That is the question. That's my hardship. MR. TOWNSEND: To the extent the Buildir Department caused you to lose that money, h~ve you taken them to court for that? Are you pursuing Article 78? MR. TSUNIS: Legally speaking, Mr. Lessard advised you have to execute all administrative remedies before any civil or any kind of action is taken against the Village of Greenport, the Town, or any individual who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 109 may have willfully or, for one reason or anothe acted in violation of my rights or the law. So that's why I am here. THE CHAIRMAN: Before I continue, I want to make you aware of the fact that this is a final hearing for verbal testimony. What we are doing is very simply sending the site plan back to the Planning Board for a last perusal to make sure it is still in order. I will close the hearing with no more oral testimony. At the next regularly scheduled meeting, you are very welcome to come if you so choose to, and I am just going to look at it at that point. I don't want them to give me information that I can't accept and be put into this file. When I close the hearing that is usually the case, Mr. Tsunis, and that is why I don't want that to happen. MR. TSUNIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Frankly I really don't know if the site plan -- now you are telling me it was three years. I was never advised of this three-year period. This is the first I am hearing of it. All I can tell you is it was pursuant to Code. I did not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 I ask for any kind of relief whatsoever. built only what the Board permitted me. Obviously the site plan is defective. THE CHAIRMAN: Why is it defective? MR. TSUNIS: Because it was not zoned properly. However, if it was interpreted or 'refused pursuant to the pre-existing Code, if the interpretation is that I was refused because I expended hundreds of thousands of dollars, because I was refused because I have everything in order e~cept the building permit because someone didn't issue it to me, for one reason or another, that was out of my control -- or that I could have effectuated -- that was asked of me to effectuate now. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. If there so comes a point where the Planning Board said no, the site plan is not in order, then I will let them tell us why it is not in order and we will have to reconvene the hearing. MR. TSUNIS: That would be a very curiou case. THE CHAIrmAN: We are not closing the hearing for that particular reason. I will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 certainly ask them is it in order at the present time, based upon the original site plan. I do want you to know that I do under- stand your plight, and before I say what I finally want to say, I just want to make sure that everybody else remembers there is no more verbal testimony after this hearing. ~e are going to close the hearing and the matter at the next regularly s~heduled hearing assuming we have the report back from the Planning Board, which we will send them a lette over tomorrow. Are there any questions from anybody? MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, one other issue, in case it means something to the Board. I had a land loan on this property for a very long period of time. The bank demanded the last month that I reduce that land loan by $100,000 due to the pending uncertainty. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tsunis, at the last hearing on the way out you said to me, "I appreciate," to some degree, "I appreciate the courtesy." That this Board has run a good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 hearing and a fair hearing, and so on and so forth. I don't know if you remember the conversation. MR. TSUNIS: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: You are truly a gentleman and so is your staff and so are the people, good woman and gentleman who have come before us. I will truthfully say that there was a real degree of professionalism in the way things have been presented in this hearing. Th only thing that bothers me to this particular degree, at this point, is thatlyou have not shown me or the other four members -- this gentleman here and the gentleman to his left having been on the Board since the inception of the zoning, since 1958 -- prior to the zoning they have been on this Board -- you have not shown me that this property cannot be used for the professional office park or business park. That is the only thing you have not done to this date. I am saying it would be unkind of me to have you leave here thinking that you have, because you have not. I am only speaking of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 me. I am not speaking as a member of the Board, at this point. MR. TSUNIS: First of all, let me just touch on one thing. At the last meeting, also I think the meeting was stopped midway because some personnel from the Incorporated Village of Greenport requested we explore any alter- natives or any avenues, or whatever. I s~id I would be open to that. A meeting was scheduled last week. Someone was ill in the Village of Greenport and could not attend. There was no meeting, although I believe both parties tried to effectuate that. I would also assume that the various municipal agencie~ would sit on the sidelines, as well, and wait to see what the decision is in this case. Speaking to the fact that cannot be used as a professional'office -- THE CHAIRMAN: Or business office. MR. TSUNIS: I believe if you would review the record, someone from my staff had testified that we advertised the property for a period of time and my office has also been out in the field contacting people. His name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 believe offices built there. I be obtained. The I can build there, maybe four houses. 114 was Stuart Kramer. I can also attest to it, because besides being an attorney I am a developer and I work to lease my property. Except for some interest by a chiropractor and perhaps a dentist, the request for professional office space in this area is devoid of any demand. I also believe that the way the Code is written as RO, residential/office, I don't as a matter of right must be think a special permit must fact of the matter is all asd a matter of right, is I appreciate the courtesy of bringing this to my attention. If it was ambiguous or it was not strictly touched upon, let me say this: In all due candor, Mr. Kramer unfortunately is not here tonight. I can tell you I am a real estate broker, as well. My office has endeavored to unearth any kind of tenant that was permitted in the permitted zoning and professional office was one of those things recommended by the Planning Board. It 3 4 5 6 7 ( 24 115 was very difficult to obtain any interest, whatsoever. The sincerest interest was in a building that was developed in a residential type of fashion. If you remember, the renderin of it could be used as a professional office. I would beat the bushes to try to get it. It certainly was appealing to the McCrory Stores, a local chain of small supermarkets on the North Fork, Shop With Us, who now terminated their lease, and the:local Chinese restaurant who is hanging on up'until this time. I will not say I will not endeavor to seek and try to obtain that type of use, but the life blood up until this period of time was the retail uses. Frankly, I am not here to hurt anybody. I am not here to hurt the downtown people, bu~ frankly, a new building with a parking lot in front of it is a very attractive thing. I submit to the Board that it would be observed over a period of time. It is bringing in new uses, new tenants. It is not conflicting. It is a service or retailer that does not exist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 out here. It would better serve the public. It would increase your tax base. It would put some people to work who need it. I mean, I am not going to stand here and say that there is not a lot of money at stake to my family. There certainly is, and the only way to recoup is to be permitted to proceed with an approval that was existent but in reality was denied because the permit was being held for three years and unreasonably so I make no bones about it, at this p6int, but to speak to your issue -- I hate to belabor the point. The hour is late. I want to be courteous to everybody else, but this'is very important. There were no offices interested in this location, or I would suggest to any stran¢ office use anywhere in the Town. I can verify that personally, from my own personal experienc, If that is a question that was left slightly ajar or we did not touch on it, I thought Mr. Kramer did. Rest assured, you can take judicial notice if it is available to the Board 29,000 square feet of professional office is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impossible. It is time for Chapter 11. cannot be done. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 117 It We will then submit this back to the Planning Board for their viewing of the site plan and we will close this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting, assuming we have the decision back from the Planning BOard. not take any more oral testimony. If somebody wants to reduce something to writing, you may. The only problem is you have to come in and review the file, if you want to rebut the information that will be reduced to writing. We had three hearings. We exercised a tremendous amount of time, and we find it has been done very well. A VOICE: There is something, if you ' want to submit something in writing. THE CHAIRMAN: No problem. You are welcome. The record is still open if you choose, the record tonight. It will be closed and I don't want to do that. A VOICE: When will the THE CHAIRMAN: We will record be closed' Hopefully we will close it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 on July 25th. MS. WADE: Randi Wade, Greenport. I want to comment the Southold Town Attorney told Mr. Tsunis he should come before this Board to seek relief. I think that is probably the correct way to go. Before I spoke to a Southold Town Councilman who told me they wouldn't be able to decide on the zoning until you have denied him a varianc~ So it would be appropriate for you to deny him the variance. Having spoken to a Southold Town Councilman, they were upset at the thought that a year and a half ago, after a long council deliberation, they passed the master plan and this was a specific issue. They appointed a board to effectively rezone. This was upsetting to them. They thought that really wouldn't be the right way to go, and I hope you agree with them. Also, Mr. Tsunis, as I said to you outside, I do hope you will pursue other ways. If there is anything that any of us can help you with, we would love to seek some kind of residential relief for you. I am surei 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 ( 14 ~6 ~4 119 a compromise can be worked out. MR. TSUNIS: I will be happy to turn the land over to you for the money I have in it without profit. MS. WADE: When you said that the professional office space value would be nil, so would retail space. If you look at the vacancy rate of Greenport, except for the supermarket, the retail stores you would want to put in would be in direct competition with the stores downtown and would cause them hard- ship. So I do not see why you would be granted a variance for that. Also, you mentioned that a letter was sent saying that the Greenport Village would help you out with sewer and water once you started to put in the cement. You also told me outside that the Deputy Mayor had said to you that that person from Greenport was not authorized to send any letter to you making any offer of any kind. So I wish us all luck in working out a good compromise. THE CHAIRMAN: Randi, you just addressed the question to the Board. It has to be to Mr. L 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tsunis. luck certainly hope you Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: 120 MS. WADE: I wish him and all of us in working out a good compromise, and I deny this application. I am hoping the Village of Greenport gets back to you during this interim period, between now and the 25th, and that you submit something to us on the 25th which says that you are gonig to do something else, or whatever, as a result of the meeting -- the last meeting. In any case, we will close the hearing. Hopefully, we will close it on the .25th, and anything you want to reduce to writing you are very welcome to. MR. TSUNIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to comment I think you have been more than fair to all parties concerned. You have been very thorough. I appreciate all the time this Board has offered to my family and in our application. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I make a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 motion -- MR. Mr. few things DINIZIO: I have a question. Tsunis, I just want to go over a to make it perfectly clear. You say you spent $900,000. You paid $700,500. in this property'. Roughly that much. That is your investment You can divide it into four lots legally under the zone and get -- approximately how much per lot are you saying? MR. TSUNIS: I stand by what the record says. I believe it was $150,000 for whatever I could subdivide it for. MR. DINIZIO: That pretty much takes care of your hardship, as far as residence is concerned. What I am saying is you spent far too much already, and you would not be able to get your investment back if you sold the four lots -- MR. TSUNIS: MR. DINIZIO: do. MR. TSUNIS: That's the point. -- as you can legally I believe you will see cancelled checks or verification of about 826,000. The appraiser indicated it is worth 1 3 4 5 6 7 ~0 14 ~o 122 somewhere around one hundred fifty. If somebody wanted to be kind and double it to 300,000, I would suggest it is rate of return. MR. DINIZIO: I would say the same I would have said that had you let me. MR. TSUNIS: MR. DINIZIO: remains in my mind, not a reasonabl, thing. Thank you. The only other thing that the same thing the Chairmar alluded to, is that office space or that this could be used as office space. I did a little investigating myself because I don't feel it was offered and I don't feel that aspect was covered as thoroughly as it probably should have been, at least not to my mind. I did read the testimony. It is a lot, and perhaps I missed it. What I did was obtain a zoning map of the Village of Greenport which is in close proximity to this. I live in the area, I don't live in the Village of Greenport. also got a copy of their Code which states zoning in which office space is permitted. There are two zones, al'thou¢ I the one as retail/commercial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 and the other is general commercial district. Of the Town area, not including the residence~ basically Front Street -- Main Street -- I estimate that at least five percent of that roughly could have office space in it. The old Bohack building, I just can't think of the name of it now, is currently empty with just one store in the front. That is next to the movies. There is also an auto supply shop behind the gas station that is empty. There is Sterling's. We all know the plight of that. There is the old Grant's building. I have not been inside, but there is space available in that building. There is an empty lot next to Mills. I guess what I am getting at here is if you were to try to use that office space, you are right; you could not use it for office space for that reason, in my mind, but you would not get a decent rate of return for it. But if you don't make that clear -- I don't think you made that clear to me anyway. So I have to investigate that on my Own. MR. TSUNIS: I appreciate your effort in 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigating that. MR. DINIZIO: 124 One more thing I would like to say, and I don't know how to get this answer. When you advertise for office space, are you searching for a comparison between an amount of money you are asking as opposed to an amount of money someone could rent that space for in Greenport? I don't know if that is obtainable. MR. TSUNIS:- Well, it is a function not only of supply and demand but, again, what would be an economic rate of return on the dollars invested. I have to tell you that three people from my office traveled out many, many times from Hauppauge and knocked on doors out here. I probably brought some of these problems upon myself, in that it may have rallied some of the real estate merchants in the Town of Greenport to come out and oppose me. Perhaps some whispers were made in certai areas of the Village and Town Government that may adversely affect these people. I can unde= stand what they may have done, but all the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 125 while the retail aspect of the development was very strong and all I can point out to you is, yes, there are a lot of empty stores down in Greenport. They are old. They don't have any parking. I had a proposal for the new building, very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. You would think you are in a new beautiful area of Southold that was 150 years old because I developed two other shopping centers along these same lines. One is a historic district in Mount Sinai. I was patted on the back. It is an expensive building, because I have committed to the funds. I have got national tenants. There are many stores that are looking to come out to Greenport. I think that is good for the Town. MR.~ DINIZIO: All I am trying to say, I am trying to just get the office. You have as I see it, uses for that land that you can have and that you have to prove that you can't use for your hardship in order to get your Use variance. One is residence, and I believe even at $300,000 you haven't proven a hardship 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 in that case. The office space. Ail one has to do is look at the vacant stores in Greenport that could be used for business. I point that out. MR. TSUNIS: I would like to brin~ to the Court's attention that the site plan provided for office space in that development. So there is a big development of professional space as well as retail. So it wasn't strictl' retail developments. Again, just very quickly, I understand the problem of the vacancies in downtown Greenport. This is not going to be a white elephant on the highway. I submit, there are clear as bell executed leases and letters of intent. It is simply because it has parking and it is new. It is unfortunate the people found it a detriment, but I don't think my family should be burdened by the fact, we are enjoying something that was properly before the Board; that we took a site plan that was approved by the Town and that we legally could have proceeded if I only had gotten a building permit which, in my opinion and I believe my counsel's opinion, was much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 more unreasonably or arbitrarily denied me by some severe problem. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tsunis. MR. TSUNIS: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, we reserve the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting for the pur- pose of evaluation from the Planning Board. We will accept no more oral testimony on eithe] side. Both parties should call us prior to th( next hearing to see if there was anything adde( to the record, that they might want to add. Thank you. MR. SAWICKI: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYENs: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. (Time noted: 10:47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 ( 16 CERTIFICATION I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes taken on June 27, 1990. GAIL ROSCHEN 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING, In the Matter of, JORDAN'S PARTNERS, · Applicant. 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 199~ '~ May 30, ~ ,~' 7:55 P.M. Before: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. - Absent SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI 22 23 24 25 JAMES DINIZIO, Also Present: Doreen Ferwerda Board Secretary JR. GAIL ROSCHEN Official Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 THE CHAIRMAN: The last hearing is in behalf of Jordan's Partners, and this is Appeal Number 3915, and we ask Mr. Tsunis if there is anything else he would like to add to his case? MR. TSUNIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John Tsunis. Mr. Chairman, basically we concluded our presentation at the last hearing. However, there were certain questions that were brought forth at that hearing, and the Chair indicated that the hearing would continue to be open. So to further support our proposal and to, perhaps, explain some of the questions that were brought up I have some further documenta- tions for the dollar and cents proof, some legal documents as well as an appraisal showin¢ the current value of the property by Mr. Tuccio, who is a local real estate broker on the East End here, which indicates the property if it was allowed to be developed as residential lots under the current zoning would be valued at $180,000 for the four lots. That's exclusive, Mr. Chairman, of removing 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 3 the existing foundation, the servicing and legal costs of objections with the subdivision' approval. I think if the Board will review the dollar and cents proof we have broken down with bills and cancelled checks, we have expended in excess of $825,000 to date on the particular parcel. So I think it is quite apparent that in reviewing these docu- ments, that no reasonable right of return could be derived from the parcel. I would just like to submit these documents with a memorandum of law which, again, supports our opposition. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail this is one file. MR. TSUNIS: cents proof. That Thank you very much. This is all one. That is the dollar and is the summary sheet on top with the supporting documentation under- neath. I think there are two appraisals attached to the bottom there. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. TSUNIS: I going to review it today, Wonderful. Thank you. do not expect you are but in your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 deliberations. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. do in a situation like this, What I usually because there are assuming people in the audience that want to talk about this, I usually let them review them down here but this is rather extensive. Is there anybody in the audience, that is not in favor of this application, that would like to review it at their leisure in our office sometime and some back and comment on it briefly? There is someone. Okay. So bearing in mind we ask anybody that might not be available at the next hearing, if they have anything they would like to say concerning this application tonight, and we will recess it until the next regularly scheduled hearing, just for the purpose of closing the hearing, taking short brief comments from anyone after they have reviewed it and we will limit the hearing to five minutes. But is there anybody here tonight that may not make it at the next meeting? It will be sometime in June. Yes. MR. KAPELL: David Kapell, 143 Sixth Street, Greenport. I'm a businessman in the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 Greenport Business District. I'm also Chairman of the Greenport Planning Board. In that capacity I have a letter, which I would like to read and enter into the record, address( to the Zoning Board of Appeals, with regards to the Greenport Commons variance. "Gentlemen: "Enclosed please find copy of a memo submitted by the Planning Board of the Village of Greenport to the Mayor and the Board of Trustees expressing acute concern about the subject variance application and further requesting a joint meeting between the Village Planning Board and Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. "We hope that you will allow such a meeting to take place prior to taking any action on the Greenport Commons Project which the Planning Board feels represents a major threat to the health of the Greenport Business District." That letter is signed by myself, as Chairman of the Greenport Planning Board. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 6 Then the memo. The memo is from the Greenport Planning Board, to Mayor Hubbard and the Board of Trustees. "At the May 7, 1990 meeting of the Greenport Planning Board a motion was made by Mike Rowsom, seconded by Penny Coyle and carried requesting that Mayor George Hubbard schedule a joint meeting of the Village Board of Trustees, this Board and the Sou~hold Town Board, Zoning Board and the Planning Board to discuss pending development of the Greenport Commons Shopping Mall to be located at the corner of Main Street and the Main Road, Greenport. "The Planning Board feels that this development, along with the possibility of similar and larger development of the Brecknock Hall site, pose a major and potentially catastrophic threat to the future of the Greenport Business District and the village itself. The Board requests that this meeting be scheduled as quickly as possible so as to occur prior to Town Zoning Board action on the Greenport Commons variance request which is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 currently pending." I would like to elaborate a little bit. I believe in 1985 the Village Board contacted the Town Board, and I was a member of the Village Board at the time, and asked the Town Board to consider acting in moratorium which the Town Board eventually did precluding development of sites, specifically this site and also the Brecknock Hall site, and the Town Board enacted it, all other similar sites in the Town pending review of zoning of these sites. Subsequently, the Town enacted a master plan which specifically addressed our concerns which, at the time, were that if this site and the Brecknock Hall site were allowed to be developed in an intentional retail or office way, then that would result in devastation of the Greenport Business District which, as you know, already is deteriorating. You need only look to Riverhead. I can find scores of other examples of small business districts that have been eliminated by strip shop centers. Riverhead is a perfect example. What is there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 left of downtown Riverhead, at this point? We are trying to bring one tenant here and one tenant there into that morass of vacant commercial spaces. It is also a result of the development that has taken place on Route 58. This is going to happen to Greenport if this project is allowed to proceed in its current form. This is only the beginning. Brecknock Hall, there are 12 acres of business zoned property, the same zone this site houses. How can you deny Brecknock Hall the same use if it is approved in this case? You have two big problems. If you have any regard'for the Village of Greenport and the efforts we have been making to revive our little village, you have to turn down this application. There are other uses that could help this gentleman recover his investments and that can be intentional uses. I don't want to see him hurt and I don't think that four-lot residential subdivisions is the answer, but there are alternatives. I would ask you, please, to deny this application and allow for the debate to take place, a discussic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 to take place, with the Town Board and the Town Planning Board as to what other uses could take place at this site. THE CHAIkW~N: I just want to mention to you, since we have this application before us, it would be not within our best interest to have a meeting concerning this particular application. I understand your comments, but I would suggest that you correspond with the Planning Board and the Town Board as quickly as possible and, then, at the last hearing on this application come back and tell us exactly what came out of that so that we can deal with it based upon the way you want us to deal with it, if %hat is not too much to ask. that. MR. KAPELL: THE CHAI~AN: I would be happy to do Okay. There is going to be a two, or at least a three-week period in between the hearing and the next hearing . so between tonight and the next hearing it should afford you enough time, because we are going into the summer season push -- whether you get together with them, and let us know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 We will readvertise for this. Thank you very much. I Will submit this for the record. MR. PRESTWOOD: Hugh P. Prestwood, 519 First Street, Greenport. I just want to point out something I thought the Board might consider. I am opposed to this shopping center also, but I want to point out that this intersection is a really unusual intersection as it stands right now, because Main Street does not line up with the street that crosses 48 and the other thing that makes it very unusual is that the Orient Ferry in the summer drops off huge amounts of cars that come down this intersection. It's getting to where it's going to have to have a light because I feel like -- because of what I just said, a light is going to be a disaster. I feel the only thing that's going to save this thing for all times is a circle in there. I feel if this development is going up, the chance of ever having a circle in there is gone. Right now there is enough land around the intersection to put in a circle. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MS. HORTON: Gail Horton. I am from 727 First Street, Greenport. I am a resident and also the Deputy Mayor of the Village. I would like to say that I support what the Chairman of the Plannin, Board suggested in turning down the proposal. I would also like to say that to support what Hugh Prestwood said, that is anlexceedingly dangerous area comparable to Sunrise Highway over in Southampton, by the 7-Eleven where there are many near misses day in and day out, and if a shopping center were put there it would only heighten that activity. I would like to ask you to turn down the application, and say that I am willing to personally work on it ~;ith the owner to develop some other less intentional use of the area. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. ~ MS. WADE: I represent 772 people. · This is a petition I wanted to submit to you. Rand~ Wade, 440 Sixth Street, Greenport. We, the undersigne~ are Opposed to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 proposal construction of the shopping center on State Road 25, ~ a ma~n.street in Greenport, for the following reasons: 1) Economic hardship in the Village of Greenport. 2) Increased traffic flow in an already hazardous intersection. 3) Surrounded on three sides by residential area. 4) The site is a gateway to Green- port that joins the historic district. Any proposal should be carefully considered. Retail use should be rejected outright. And I said 772 people signed this. Actually, there is at least 70 more. Even though this is clearly a request for a change of zone and not a variance, you expressed concern at the last hearing that economic hardship would be one part of your considerati I have a sketch that shows how you could get 15 residential lots on this property with a park on the corner and a 50-foot buffer with a six-foot berm and evergreen plantings. At 35,000 to 40,000 a lot, this could be an L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 13 affordable housing project and bring in 525,000 to 600,000. This would have to be coordinated with the Village of Greenport, but the Village believes in affordable single- family homes and the chances for success are overwhelming but also could happen much more quickly than having to wade through the legalit~ and possible lawsuits of pursuing a retail development. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MS. GWYN: My name is Milou Gwyn. I live on South Street in Greenport. I am not on a board and I don't have a petition, but just from a practical standpoint I grew up a little bit further west from here in Stony Brook, and when I drive back and forth now on Route 25A to here it is strip mall after strip mall and they are ugly and they are not very successful as far as retail stores go. It seems terribly impractical to build more when in the Village of Greenport you already have the.Victorian Village which is vacant, the Bohack building which is vacant, the Mills building is vacant. I don't under- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 stand the purpose of building more stores, when there are so many empty ones existing already and it will of Greenport. I think it was just change the character a good point that it is the gateway into Greenport. The first thing you see is another strip mall. I wouldn' want to go any further and see what's inside, because there are so many to begin with. I think it would make a lovely park to be on the corner there, from the practical stand- point. I wanted to say that. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. TSUNIS: I grew up in Port Jefferso~ which is a sister community to Stony Brook. I have a 170-year-old house. I am sensitive to these items that are being discussed today, but I would also hope, and I am not here to have anybody cry out in sympathy for'me, but in 1986 this parcel was zoned commercial. There comes a time where a person who makes an investment in a piece of property should be able to rely on what's going on in the local town ordinances. This was before this matter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 began, before any changes of zoning,'before this moratorium. If the Village of Greenport or the Water Authority would have allowed me to hook up into the water system, this project would have been built a long time ago. It is a not a mall. It is not a strip center. It is a mixed use. It is office use, besides retail. It was approximately 50 percent pre-leased before we even put a shovel in the ground. So there was obviously a need for something like this. We took great pains to develop a structure with a New England architecture that would blend into the communi It is a gateway to Greenport. It as suggested it looked or it is something similar to Sunrise Highway. I don't know anybody in the room that would want to live on Sunrise Highway, and this would be the more appropriate type of use. It appears that the Town of Southold Building Department was mistaken for over three years, which sterilized this piece of property which I had to carry debts on, and I had to pay real estate taxes on, that I could, in fact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 drill a well on this because I took the test well and the water was clean and the Town of Southold Building Department refused to issue me a building permit as far back as 1986. I was already to commence construction on this property and there could not have been a question throughout the Town, that it would have been able and it would have been a per- mitted thing to do. But three years of sterilization has certainly been a financial burden upon myself and my family and carrying this property. The Board of Health directed the Town of Southold Building Department to issue a building permit based on the fact that I could drill a well if, in fact, municipal water was not available. Unbeknownst to be, subsequent to the issuance of the building permit, a stop work order was issued five or six months after the building permit was issued, that, in fact, the property was rezoned. I would like to say that I believe I have come here with clean hands. I did not 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 try to put anything over anybody. I have spent four years of time on this particular project. I tried to make it look nice, some- thing that my kids could be proud of. If anybody saw the rendering, I think it is one of the nicest retail an office complexes one could have next to them. It is on, if you want to call it, a busy intersection. For Southold it probably is a busy intersection, but in my opinion as a developer for 15 years, as a real estate attorney, this would be much more appropriate than a residential development I certainly would not want to live on that corner. I appreciate the fact that some people down in Greenport may be adversely affected as far as the commercial aspect is concerned. There will be a brand new shopping center, brand new office in there -- have in excess of 200 parking spots which Greenport drastically needs but, my God, for three years I have been up against the wall and not been able to develop my property as the codes and as the law would hav~ permitted me to do and, again, this is the avenue that was open to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 to come in and seek relief. If affordable housing is what the community wants, I will be happy to deed it over to anybody that wants to take it for the dollars and cents I have got into it. I don't want a profit. I don't want to make enemies. I am not the developer in Suffolk County that is coming in to Boards like this and asking for relief to enhance what he has. All I am trying to do at this juncture is to do what I was permitted to do, but some bureaucratic mess stonewalled me. I mean, I have reall~ been stopped cold. I don't know if the pressure came or from the people. Came from, but I was stopped dead in my tracks for no reason. I am here $826,000 later, and this plea to the Board is to ask for relief from the Village, the Town I don't know where it that I think I justly deserve. I am not here to hurt anybody, but $826,000 is devastating. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you this question. In the past, having been on the Board for 10 years, we did, Mr. Tsunis, in the past recess these hearings and we asked 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 19 people to go out in the hall and speak to each other and come back and agree on certain things, and to see if we can live up to the things that they want to agree to, and so on and so forth. Do you think it would behoove you, at this point, in meeting with the officials of the Village of Greenport? MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to interrupt. I don't want to delay the decision on the application but let me say this, if I may. I am not here to blow my horn either, but when I was in law school I worked for a man by the name of Robert (phonetic). He is a present authority Anderson on zoning assistant. in the United States. I was his I have been doing zoning work, zoning litigation, for 15 years. My God, if there was ever a case that screamed out for relief -- $826,000 of cash spent out, and you are telling me now it is only worth $180,000 -- this is it. You have approved maybe five uses for variance in 15 years. Thi~ is Number 6. It has got to be. Legally a 15-page memorandum of law supports me every 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inch of the way, but again hurt anybody. But, my God, 20 I am not here to I don't want to be hurt either. years of a frankly, I It is just not fair. Four struggle out here, and quite feel like I am an outsider. I live in Suffolk County but I am from the wrong town. I say this with all sincerity, but every time I came to the Board meetings or the Board hearings I was booed or shoved over. "You're on the list," this and that, and it is four years of expenses, legal expenses, brokers'or traffic experts, surveyors engineers or architect% leasings. I signed leases, for Christ sake, based upon the zoning. I mean I don't know. There comes a time that you have to rely on building permits, on site plans, on Board of Health approving. My God, I can't believe I couldn't get water. I mean municipal water. I couldn't drill a well on my own property to get water. It is really getting on the verge of Gestapo tactics to an outsider. I mean it is my own.personal feelings and it may be to my detriment, but that is how I firmly feel. I really went into 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 a coverage of lions out there. I met:with this gentleman from the Planning Board. I met with the Mayor. I'll meet with anybody else out here, if there would be an economic resolution where I could leave here with my dignity and my investment that I dumped into Southold. I'll leave with my head held high, and hoping that I could be part of a community effort that if it is low income housing you want, low income housing you need, I think that's a townwide situation and a townwide matter that should be supported by the entire municipality as far as the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. It should not be dumped in my lap. It should not, and I will be happy to expedite any kind of agreement I can work out with 9ny jurisdiction authority in the Town or the Villages. But, my God, don't hold up the decision because I an attorney and an applicant I understand that. anyway. I earnestly feel as that I am right. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have to recess until the end of June, MR. TSUNIS: I appreciate that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand. THE CHAIRMAN: 22 Maybe sometime in that period you can meet with these people. MR. TSUNIS: I will be willing to meet with anybody. THE CHAIRMAN: This is not something we have done in the past two years, only because it just has not been the philosophy or the time has not been right to do it, but maybe this is the case. Thank you so much, Mr. Tsunis, for your opini6n. MS. HAAN: Susan Haan. I'm a business owner on Front Street, a partner of Front Street Garden. I've %~orked in the commercial district for the last 10 years in Greenport. I just took a quick walk through Greenport today. This morning I counted close to 40 vacancies of commercial and professional spaces in the downtown commercial district. I also drove past Southold Square, which is a shopping center less than five minutes away from the proposed center, which appears to have a vacancy rate of 50 percent. I don't 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 feel that another shopping center, retail and professional center, is warranted. I feel it would be economically disastrous and aesthetically detrimental to Greenport. MR. KAPELL: Dave Kapell. I certainly, for one, would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Tsunis and discuss any alternatives that would grant him a reasonable return on his investment and, also, address the concerns of the Greenport Business District. THE CHAIRMAN: telephone number, Mr. MR. TSUNIS: MR. KAPELL: jurisdiction. We over the site. about the Town issues. MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, happy to meet with the gentleman. Would you give him your Tsunis? Yes. We are powerless of the have no zoning jurisdiction I'm here to voice our concern I would be What he is saying now is quite correct, and it is going to be a lot of verbiage Over nothing. Unless we get a municipal officer that not necessarily has the power to make a decision, but it would have to be a legislative action 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 14 24 24 and I think the Supervisor and perhaps the Mayor of Greenport or the people. THE CHAIRMAN: You have the Deputy Mayor here. MR. KAPELL: If'I can state that I think if we can choose to hold thee me,ting you suggested with the Village Board and the Town Board, other than this Board, I think Mr. Tsunis can attend and see if we can work some- thing out. I am wide open. I am in business. I don't want to see anybody lose money. It is not good for the area. It is not good for anybody, but this use is port. MR. TSUNIS: a disaster for Green- In all due respect, again, I feel for you as a businessman but that is not germane to the issue at hand. What this lady said tonight has no significance to this application. Forty stores in Greenport has no relevance to this application, because this is an economic environment, survival of the fittest, to be blunt about it. I had a 40 percent pre-lease. I had a letter of intent for 13,000 square feet from a national company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 So whether I put 29,000 feet and have maybe 60 percent occupancy, or I build just 15 or 20,000 and had 100 percent occupancy would be up to the landowner. It would be my risk, but there is something very unique about this parcel. It is a highway type of location and it would have something no place on the North Fork has. It has a parking' lot. It has a parking lot, and that is very~ important to a successful retailing or a successful professional office, so this is a unique location, and penalized because another Fork doesn't have parking. I should not be area of the North I should not be penalized because there is a 150-year-old building in the congested downtown municipalit] that may have fire codes or Whatever, or stairs, not first floor access that's vacant, and I am committed. different situation. apples. MR. KAPELL: I observation, which is around the facts is I mean it is a very It is not apples with just want to make one that the discussions that the Town Board in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 review of the master plan discussed and accepted a different zoning from the one you have. I don't know how you got a building permit for it. MR. TSUNIS: It was a mistake. MR. KAPELL: All I know is that the Town Board had notorious hearings and debates around this property, as I stated earlier, dating back to 1985, prior to your ownership. The fact you were not aware of it is, I don't think, a burden the Village should be forced to bear. MR. TSUNIS: In '86 I was denied water. I was denied, allowing me to put a well there which I could have built it. That is my only problem. Forget that I never got a notice in Hauppauge. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's hold up, and go on to Mr. Flynn. MR. FLYNN: I am F.M. Flynn of Southold. I would merely like to clarify something in my own mind. Is all discussion on this matter to be delayed until subsequent meetings in June, or is the discussion only to be delayed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 with relation to this dollar and cents proof submitted tonight? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Flynn, it is the purpose of this Board, as the courtesy has been afforded you in the past on another matter the case that is something that could not be disseminated as quickly as this, and appraisals and so on and so forth, we like to afford everybody in the audience the right to look this over at their leisure in our office. So to limit it to the dollar and cents situatiol tonight, it would be unkind for me to say that or concur with what you are saying. What we are basically doing is a~king anybody in the community that would like to review the file to come in and do so, and then we can wrap it up at the end. It is not for any one particula issue, but that there are many people in the community that have not actually reviewed the file, and we are constantly gathering more data. MR. FLYNN: What I am asking, in effect, is other commentary on this matter appropriate tonight or will it be deferred to at the June 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 meeting? THE CHAIRMAN: 28 Is is entirely up to you, if you would like to say something tonight MR. FLYNN: I have remarks I would like to make. What is actually sought by the applicant in the guise of a variance, is a rezoning from Residential-Office use to Business use. Zoning and rezoning is a legislative functi6n and, as such, is the prerogative, sole of the Town Board. Zoning texts including Robert M. Anderson's New York Zoning Law and Practice refer to Boards of Appeals as "escape valves" which were created to relieve the Town Boards of the burden of dealing with minor changes in zoning requirements. The powers of the Board of Appeals are limited and circumscribed. As I have informed this Board on several occasions, the New York State Enabling Act for Town Zoning states that the granting of variances is to be "sparingly exercised in r~re~ circumstances." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 The Southold Town Code permits the Board of Appeals to vary the strict letter of its regulations if the spirit of the regu- lations is observed, public welfare and safety secured and substantial justice done. Changing a zone hardly constitutes varying the strict letter of the Code. It would constitute a complete repudiation of the Zoning Code, both in letter and in spirit. The spirit of the law is not subject to interpretation when the law, itself;, is explicit. The variance sought constitutes far more than varying the spirit of the ordinance. The Appellate Division has ruled that: "A use variance, as the term implies, is one which permits a use of land which is proscribed by the zoning regulations." (Emphasis supplied)' The Southold Town Board, after pre- sumably due deliberation, adopted a compre- hensive, or master plan, placing the subject property in an RO District. The stated purpose was to provide a transitional area between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 business ares and low-density residential development along major roads which will provide opportunity for limited non-residentia uses in essentially residential areas. This constitutes a legislative enact- ment. If it is to be challenged, it must be by means of an application for change of zoning before the Town Board. The Applicant also has the option of seeking a legal deter- mination of the legality of the comprehensive plan. The very fact that this hearing is being held represents, in my opinion; an improper attempt to exploit the "escape valve" function of the Board of Appeals. The Town Board, as elected officials, would be shirking its responsibility to defend its action in adopting the recent comprehensive plan. It would constitute the delegation to unelected officials of the power to effectively change zoning, a function reserved to the Town Board as a legislative I believe the Board of Appeals body. there is no legal basis for to grant this variance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Despite this position, I would like to call to the Board's attention certain aspects of this application which, I believe has bearing on this entire matter. As I understand it, the chronology of events pertaining to the property is as follows: 1) Applicant purchased property to deed dated 2/18/88 and recorded in Liber 10549 Cp. 324. Purported consideration was approxi- mately $393,500. Subsequent deed to Jordan's Partners, et al, was intra-corp with no consideration. 2) Property was appraised. 3) Site plan approval had been obtained for a shopping center. 4) A Building Permit was issued to construct an office and retail shopping center on June 8, 1989. 5) Property was cleared and con- struction of a foundation started. 6) A Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department on 11/30/89 based upon the permit having been issued in error. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3915. 7) 32 Owner filed subject Appeal Number As to the Stop Work Order, I believe there is ample legal justification for such orders when a permit is issued in error. It is also my opinion.that the adoption of the comprehensive plan placing the property in a different zoning district abrogated any previously approved site plan. I would like now to bring to the Board's attention certain matters pertaining to this application which necessitates further investigation and deliberation. 1) The deed into the owners, deeded 2/18/88 does not, in my opinion, constitute an arm's length market conveyance. At least one of the grantors is also a grantee. It is purported consideration is not evidence of market value. Subsequent conveyance was intra-corporate. 2) On 4/12/87 a Certificate of Incorporation was issued to Jordan's Park Place, Ltd., authorizing the issuance of 200 shares of stock. I believe the Board 1 3 4 5 6 7 ~0 ( o~ 23 24 33 should determine if this corporation is still extant and if any of the principals of Jordan's Park, Ltd. or Jordan's Partners are both grantors and grantees. 3) My research indicated that the only arm's length conveyanc~ of the subject property was by the Grand Union Company by deed dated 4/2/82 and recorded in Liber 9185, Cp. 438. Indicated consideration was $103,000. 4) There was an interim conveyance of the one-third interest in the property by a deed dated 7/14/86 and recorded in Liber 10080, Cp. 537. Consideration was $80,000. 5) It has been stated that an appraisal was made of the property. Was this appraisal made prior to purchase, or pursuant to a mortgage application? What value was ascribed to the land? 6) On 2/18/88, coincident with the date of the deed, owner obtained a con- struction loan mortgage from the Suffolk Count' National Bank in the amount of $440,000. Mortgage is recorded in Liber 13587, Mp. 131. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 34 Mortgage is based on a percentage of the total value ascribed, land value included. Land value represents only a fraction of total value. In my opinion, the Board would be well advised to investigate the circum- stances of this mortgage. Particularly important is a clause in the mortgage, and I quote: "This mortgage covers property presently improved or to be improved by one or more structures containing in the aggregate not more than six residential dwelling units, each having their own separate cooking facilities." This hardly coincides with the sub- sequent application to build an office and retail shopping center. It appears from this clause that both the owners and the mortgagee agreed in 1988 that the highest and best use of the property was for residential purposes. The mortgagee granted the loan for this purpose. This would also appear to cast doubt on the contention that the Owners were ignorant of the proposed zoning changes 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 published in January of 1984 and 1987 respectively. astute owners 35 It is difficult to believe that and investors, some of whom had owned the property since 1982, and others who had purchased an interest in 1986, would be unaware of the proposed zoning change, or of the actual zoning change when the Building Permit was applied for in 1989. The owners should have had actual or constructive knowledge, had they exercised reasonable diligence. Mention has been made by others of concerns with traffic volume and the public health safety and welfare. I would like to add that in my experience as a consultant to the Department of Transportation, it was the Department's policy to restrict access to a property's frontage in both directions from the point of convergence of two State highways. This is another area which should be investi- gated. Applicant to submit proof of hardship. In conclusion, it is incumbent on an supportable and persuasive Hardship is interpreted as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 financial hardship and "dollars and cents" proof must be submitted. Now, since writing this, I have become aware of the submission to the Board and I would like to have the opportunity to review this purported proof. I would state that, the casual statement of the real estate broker as to the value of the property as presently zoned, unsupported by a market data analysis, hardly constitutes persuasive proof. Further, no attempt was made to establis] the market value of the property as previously zoned. The Court of Appeals has held: "Once it has been demonstrated that some legitimate public interest will be served by the restriction, then, before the property owner can succeed in an attack on the ordinance as applied, he must demonstrate that hardship caused is such as to deprive him of any use of the property to which it is reasonably adapted, and that, as a result, the ordinance amounts to the taking of the property. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 Applicant did not cite practical difficulties as a basis for the variance sought. That concludes this, and I can give you a ~copy. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. TSUNIS: Briefly, the only item I would like to address, because I think the package addresses everything else, I am not aware of the provision in the mortgage that Mr. Flynn alluded to. MR. FLYNN: It is here if you would like to see it. MR. TSUNIS: I did check my copy. It was never contemplated by myself or the financial institution that this parcel -- it was never contemplated to develop the parcel as a residential development. If it is, indeed in the mortgage document, if it is in the boilerplate, I don't know if the boilerplate or the rider -- if it is in the mortgage document part and lending institution attesting to that. will submit that at the next hearing. -- it was a mistake on both parties' I would get an affidavit from the I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FLYNN: It is a handwritten initially. THE CHAIrmAN: 38 It is not a boilerplate. rider to the mortgage, Thank you. Hearing no further comments, we will recess this hearing to the next scheduled meeting, which will be during the latter part of June. We thank you gentlemen for your courtesy. If there is anybody that would like to review the application, you are welcome to between the hours of 9:00 and 5:00 on a daily basis, five days a week, and please come in a~d if you have some time sit down and discuss it. We thank you, Mr. Tsunis. (Time noted: 9:10 p.m.) 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 CERTIFICATION 39 I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes taken on May 30, 1990. ~AIL ROSCHEN 12 14 15 16 21 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 22 24 JORDAN'S PARTNERS, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING, In the Matter of APplicant. : Main Road, Route 25 Southold, New York March 15, 1990 8:20 P.M. BEFORE : BOARD MEMBERS: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JAMES DINIZIO, JR. 11971 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 THE CHAIRMAN= The next appeal is the last appeal, Number 3915. We have Jordan's Partners. The Legal Notice reads as follows: Applicant Number 3915 - Jordan's 'Partners. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved for permission to construct office and retail stores, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this district. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1. I have a copy of the site plan that was submitted with the appeal. It is JAL Land Surveying, and I see it is undated, and indicates the concrete footing and the proposed foundation on the east side, and their approximate location to the property line. I have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is John C. Tsunis, and ! 1 2 3 4 $ 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 am a princzpal and an attorney concerning this application, in connection with the' application for a Use Variance. The subject parcel is located at the southeast corner of Main Road and Main Street, in the Hamlet of Greenport.' The applicant is seeking a Use Variance to permit the construction and operation of retail shops and offices at this site. The project received site plan approval, Health Department approval, and a building permit. And relying on these items, the owners poured a foundation. This application has become necessary due to the fact that in January of 1989 the parcel was rezoned by the Town pursuant to a New Master Plan which changed the zone of the subject premises from Business to Residential/Office. For the record, the owners purchased this property in February of 1988 for $590,000. the parcel proved Obviously, the purchase price for reflected the fact that an ap- shopping cei%ter site plan was in 3 1 2 3 4 6 ? 9 ~0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place. Suffolk County National Bank, at that time, granted an acquisition loan o~ $440,000, which would have been recast in a construction loan at a later date. Two years of delays later, the loan is due and the land cannot he developed under the current zone without losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although zoning and the Health Department and site plan approvals were in place in 1986, the owners were advised that a building permit could not be issued until arrangements were made for water service through the Village of Greenport. As you may know, the water mains are right in front of the property. I would llke to reiterate that although a site plan was approved in t86, and water was requested from '86, no water was permitted to be connected. Al- though the connection was promised to Be forthcoming, it was never received, and at that time, up until 1989, the Building Department rejected the idea of the water well, although we had water tests and we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 found the water was clean. Since municipal water was not ava~l- able, a permit could not be issued. Time and substantial sums of money had been expended until finally, in May of 1989, a permit was issued when the Suffolk County Board of Health advised the Town Building Department that a well could be drilled if municipal water was not available upon completion of the project. Construction commenced approximately two months after the building permit was issued. Prior to this time, serious negotia- tion for leases proceeded in 1988 and two leases were in fact executed, you have copies of the leases~in your package, and a letter of intent for McCrory, which is the largest retail store in the State, having 1,600 stores, was signed for the total commitment of approximately 1,300 square feet for the site. peaked because the struction was commenced. However, on May 30, Interest, at this time, land was. clear and con- 1989, a Stop Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 6 Order was'issued advising us the zoning was now improper and we halted construction after pouring the foundation. The founda- tion, I believe, was completed in early September. To date, Mr. Chairman, the applicant has expended nearly $75,000 toward construc- tion, and $115,000 for architectural, en- gineering, legal and other soft costs, in addition to monies expended for the acquisi- tion of the land. At present, there is a foundation in place for the proposed center. The applicant is seeking this variance because a little application of the zoning ordinance will result in an unneces- sary hardship. Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, (1939), established that the Zoning Board may exercise its discretion and grant a variance upon the ground of unnecessary hardship when it is shown three things: 1. The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose permitted in that zone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 7 2. That the plight of the owner is due to the unique circumstances and not the general conditions in the neighborhood. 3. That the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the locality. I would like to ask that the Board keep in mind that when determining whether or not the applicant may realize a reasonable return through developing in accordance with the permitted uses, you consider the following factors, which ac- cording to the Court of Appeals, must he weighed: 1. Amount paid, in this case $590,000; "' 2. Present value of the parcel as zoned, you will hear testimony tonight, approximately $150,000; 3. Amount of mortgages, in this case, $440,000~ 4. Income of the Pa.rcel, when developed; And other relevant factors, i~ this j/ 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 ~$ instance, this includes the expenses in- curred by the applicant in developing the parcel, and the particular leasing market situation. These factors compromise what has been termed the "Dollars and Cents" rule as set forth by the Appellate Division in Slumbera v. Sieqel, 87 AD 2d 650, 522, (1982). That the plight of the owner is due to the unique circumstances and not the general conditions in the neighborhood. In Ellentuck v. Klein, 51 AD 2d 964, 380 NYS 2d 327, (1976), indicates that expenditures made in good'faith reliance upon subsequent- ly invalidated building permit may properly be oonsidered in the variance proceeding. Additionally, the granting of a use variance is proper where the applicant has spent large sums of money in reliance upon the building permit and denial of the variance would be financially devastating. Similarly, you may also consider the possibility of the applicant 448 NYS 2d 8 to cover debt 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 services with the permitted purposes. this case, residential plots of about or four units. Debt service, in this 9 In three case, could only be paid by the sale of these lots or the houses upon them. You will hear testimony this evening that it would be economically disastrous in that the value of these lots would be approximately $150,000 and the owners have already invested ap- proximately $800,000. There can be no question that the plight of this applicant is due to unique circumstances relating specifically to this parcel of land,, and that it is not shared by other land in a larger area. Testimony will show that in the immediate area it was only the applicant's land which was rezoned from Business to Residential/Office, and that no other nearby landowner has had its building permit revoked after construction had com- menced. The use variance to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the locality in this instance. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 10 testimony ~ou will hear tonight will show that the granting of the requested variance and the subsequent development of the proposed center will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Appellate Division in Hanna v. Cross~ey, has held that the existence of similar or identical the proposed site that the essential uses in the vicinity of reduces the likelihood character of the neigh- borhood will be altered. Directly across the street is Porky's Restaurant and the parcel is located on a major intersection in Greenport. The development of the shopping center at this business intersection is compatible with the immediate area. I am sure you will agree that upon hearing the testimony offered tonight, the applicant has indeed met the burden that there is unnecessary hardship for which the Board may grant the requested Use Variance. On a personal note,..l would like to say that my family and I have made every effort to build aesthetically beautlfu] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 11 buildings throughout Suffolk County. Our finished products meet or exceed that which is represented in our renderings. This particular rendering before you is a build- ing which was completed in the Historic District in Mt. Sinai, in the Town of Brook- haven. I have pictures. I have pictures showing the completed project. We build our buildings. We operate our own buildings. We don't sell them to others. We live and work and are sensitive and respectful to the needs and wishes of our neighbors. Z hope you will agree that the present circumstances are due to a series of events that are out of our control and the relief requested tonight is jus- tified. I will introduce now Mr. Edwin Tuc- cio. MR. TUCCIO: I am a real estate broker and appraiser representing the Town of Riverhead and Southold, .and in the County of Suffolk. The purpose of my testimony is to establish to the Zoning Board that if a 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 12 Use Variance is not granted to the petitioner, it will create a tremendous economic hardship. There are different types of scenarios that affect the value of this property. For example, before the Town upzoned to RO (Residential/Office), the property was purchased with the intentions for a retail shopping center (29,000 square feet). With this type of approval, the value of vacant land with an approved site plan could be worth up to $850,000 to $950,000. Under the type zoning (now RO) only three or four lots would be allowed on this property. Even if this were allowed by the Town, what average person would want to purchase a vacant lot and build a home that close to the Main Road? It is in my opinion that each lot would only sell for $25,000 to $30,000 each. If this were the case, the..petitioner would only realize, at the most, $120,000. You must rem,~mber, they paid $590,000 for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 13 this parcel. Another scenario is Residential/ Office. Currently, there is no demand for office space in the Town of Southold. doubt very much that the Town wants to make the same mistake as ~iverhead has done, and that is approving more office space than needed. Currently in Riverhead, we have around 250,000 square feet of vacant office space. That is unheard of in the real estate industry. If this Board does not approve the Use Variance, it may he promot- ing more office space. One thing that I think you should be aware of is when such a high vacancy exists in a town such as Riverhead, most landlords are able to have their assessments reduced because of a vacancy factor. When real estate investors grieve their taxes and are reduced by the Town, they lose a large chunk of our tax base when overbuilt. That could happen here. The bottom line is that the only way a reasonable return can be realized for this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 14 property is to develop it as what it was zoned, for business use. The tax benefits are far greater to the Town if it is built as a retail shopping center versus Residen- tial/Office. On a final note, I think it is in the best interest of the Town as well as our client, to grant the Use Variance and allow this project to realize its full potential. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. CORRIGAN: is Robert Corrigan. Thank you, Mr. Tuccio. Mr. Chairman, my name I have been asked by 1973. Bank and the East River mortgage lender. president. Today mortgage banking. Mr. Tsunis as to the financial ability of the project as a retail center. I have been in real estate since I have worked at the Dime Savings Savings Bank as a I rose to the rank of vice I am actively engaged in I hold an MBA from St. Johns University in finance, and banking. ! am a member of various real estate organizations and various real estate groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 26 l/ in the City of New York and Long Island. Since 1985, I have been underwriting 15 mortgage loans exceeding one billion dollars for both construction and permanent financing. During my career ! have provided permanent financing for Mr. Tsunis and' have worked on construction financing for his projects, and always found him to be fair and reasonable in his approach and has always acted according to everything he ever said he would do. At Mr. Tsunis' proposed shopping center would be available under conditions in the way of request I analyzed a to determine what the present market financing for both the construction and permanent loan. I determined that a construction loan of 1.9 million dollars is reasonable. This loan would be inclusive of the existing financing of $440,000 of already existing land. Financing could be arranged and that would be fair and reasonable, and that is based on a proposed construction budget of $2,475,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 16 and the existing preleasing that is in place. In regards to permanent financing, we believe that we could arrange $2,475,000 based on typical underwriting procedures. I do have that methodology. Based on the previous testimony, if the project was to only have the residential use and the estimated market value on the land of $150,000, we feel that the best financing that would be available would be $75,000, which is 50 percent of the value of the property, which is typical of this type of project, residential project. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. KRAMER: Stuart Kramer, Director of Leasing for Tsunis Associates. Tsunis Associates is the broker responsible for the marketing and leasing of the "Greenport Commons". With Tsunis Associates, ! have suc- cessfully leased 200,000 square feet of retail space at the Sunshine Mall in Med- ford, Long Island, and I have been involved 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 in many other projects in Suffolk County. believe my specialty is centers. easing shopping 17 Z I have been involved in the leasing of Greenport Commons since June,"1988. From June 16th until the present time, adVertise- ments were placed in the appropriate newspapers seeking both national and local tenants. As a result of these efforts, ! have secured two signed leases and one letter of intent. The first lease is with Shop With Us for 3,300 square feet. Shop With Us is a five store chain of superettes. The second lease is with Poon's Chinese Takeout for 1,000 square feet. Poon's is a four store chain of Chinese takeout restaurants. Since the signing of the lease, the tenant has expressed interest in doubling its square footage. The letter of intent received is from McCrory Stores for 8,000 square feet. McCrory's is a national variety chain store with 1,600 stores nationwide. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 18 These three agreements alone repre- sent more than 13,000 square feet, or over 42 percent of the total center. I believe that these tenants were attracted to our center because of our unique abundant parking, our location being at a major intersection and because of our New England Architecture that will blend with the town. After these commitments were received and construction commenced, we received a tremendous amount of serious inquiries, including the following categories: phar- macy, dress shop, florist, haircutter, dry cleaner, print shop, card shop, Greek res- taurant, pancake house, pizza takeout, doughnut shop, and two banks. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. Greber. firm. GREBER: My name is Norman am a consultant in an independent My offices are in Amityville, 7 Green Avenue. briefly, from Cornell University. hand up my credentials, but very have a Masters degree in planning ! work for public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 j~ 19 and private firms, and since 1971 I have had my own firm, Norman Greber Associates. I have been retained by the appli- cants to look at this particular situation with respect to the overall planning charac- ter of the area, traffic and related mat- ters. Very interestingly, actually what is being asked for is nothing more than what was already proposed by the Town of Southold with respect to the site plan. What is being asked for is just a renewal of that site plan that was deemed to be quite suffi- cient by everybody concerned a couple of years ago. This is an area that cannot be con- sidered a residentiai~ area. Not only is there Porky's across the street, which is an LB Zone, but a short distance to the east of the north side of Truck 25, just to the east of Manhasset Avenue, there is a large, very large RO Zone where an old mansion was built which has professional offices in it. It is also at a very important inter- section where many streets and many roads 1 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Main Road, lng field. 20 come together, where there is a blinking light. The homes that are in the surround- ing areas are in basically good shape, hut they are on fairly small lots with respect to the subject property. The subject property if developed, the single family residences would require 40,000 square feet each. Basically, that would lay out four rectangular lots facing facing Porky's and Porky's park- That is essentially the way this property would have to lay out four deep lots that way. These lots would be between three and five times the size of the lots in the surrounding areas. So in my opinion, it is out of character with the surrounding area, not- withstanding the fact that it was rezoned and the Master Plan saw fit to recommend such a change. The fact that it is unique is the result of the fact that this is the only zone that, at least in my studies, indicates this was the only one that was changed in the immediate area. 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 A professional office was discussed earlier, but that is not really permitted use in RO Zone. The RO permits, as a matter of right, only single family homes on 40,000 square foot lots, for all practical pur- poses. Special exceptions asked for and if granted by this Board could produce ... professiona! offices could produce a funeral home, could produce other things if asked for. As a matter of rights, only single family detached homes on 40,000 square foot lots could be allowed. Greenport ... downtown Greenport is a busy, active, often congested area with respect to the street system, parking facilities and particularly in the summer time, of course, sometimes spaces are hard to come by. Oftentimes you must park and pay money in the meter in order to park. There is no question that the proposed shopping center, where a merged facility, retail and office together.totalling 29,000 square feet, would relieve the pressures on Greenport Village downtown and, ! might add, 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 at a very convenient location. It is precisely what the Town of Southold has done with the Hamlet of Southold, in the five miles where we are today, about five miles to the west of the subject property. On County Route 48 there are two shopping centers, seven-tenths of a mile away from the downtown area. The same as the subject property ... is eight-tenths of a mile from the intersection of Front and Main in downtown Greenport. There are two shopping centers there, totalling 24,000 square feet. They are not all rented ~ut there is 24,000 square feet, plus or minus, of retail. This proposal is 29,000 square feet of merged retail and office. It is my opinion it is very similar to what has happened here if, in fact, it is approved further to the east. There is no shopping at all on CR 48 or Truck 25, from essentially Youngs Avenue and CR 48, all the way out to Orient, 12 miles-.., nothing ... zero. In the thinking of the Town putting 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 shopping just north of downtown Southold, which relieves the pressure or whatever the reasons were, it would he exactly the same as relieving the pressure in Greenport ... almost virtually the same distance due north of where the business district is. There is no question also, based upon my studies, that a substantia! amount of the traffic is in fact already on the road, particularly east of the subject property, because once you go east you have no choice. You have to go to East Marion or Orient. Al! of that traffic will necessarily pass the subject property. Whether they want to stop there or not is not the point. They are already on the road. Traffio studies that were done in the Master Plan indicated there were no traffic problems in that area. Current traffic counts that I have obtained from the New York State DOT indicate a very similar situation to what was in fact the traffic situation back in the early '80s, where peak hours in that area generated approximately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 300 to 350 cars in the main direction during peak hours. The same situation today as"it was in those days. My observations of traffic flow at the blinking light indicates that there are no problems. Yes, you must wait for oars ii you are going north and you want to make a left-hand turn, but those are normal delays. They are shorter than they would be if, in fact, there was a regular red light situa- tion as opposed to the blinking red light situation. I also feel that this facility, as proposed, in terms of aesthetics will look very much like a professional office build- lng. If, in fact, a professional office building was being sought, that rendering you have before you could very well be a professional office as opposed to retail. Remember, this is retail and office. So that amount of traffic that would be generated is softened by that merged use. In conclusion, unless you have ques- tions, I believe that the character of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 // area is such that this would not detract also like to add, 25 facility as presented from the area. I would with respect to this facility, that this facility is producing rear buffers. The shopping centers near here do not have rear buffers. The parking that is behind the store and the office that is proposed in the site plan you have before you, ! submit there are 50 spaces in the area. It is my opinion, and I suggested this to the applicants, that John, if he wanted to, could land bank those spaces. I don't know if they will be needed. There are 203 spaces on the site plan. I don't think you need more than 150. Those 50 spaces, while they are necessary to satisfy the code, may not be necessary to satisfy reality and if you land bank them, the homes, there are eight homes that back up to the subject property ... this is on Knapps Place. Those homes would have addi- tional buffering was not provided. there still ... if in.fact the parking If it were provided, would be the buffering. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 suggest there could be greater buffers without any lots of utilities to the shopp- ing center. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation. Again, if I may reiterate in the final remarks, if the Town of Southold Building Department would have permitted me to construct this parcel pur- suant to drilling a well, as they were subsequently advised by the County Board of Health, I would not be before this Board today. I certainly would not have expended $800,000 for what I was told is a $150,000 piece of property. Honestly, we relied on what we were told. We relied on the site plan. We relied on the Board of Health's approval. We listened to people telling us that we are getting municipal water soon and the time slipped by. We never were aware that this parcel was being changed in. January of '89. Obviously, the Building Inspector did not either, otherwise he certainly would not // I 2 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~5 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 27 have issued the building permit. However, substantial funds were in good faith expended. We submitted these plans to the Building Department. We received your approvals. I would be happy to work with anybody in the Town, to eliminate any problems that may be suggested and we hope that the Board will look favorably upon this application. THE CHAIRMAN: The only question I have is did you think about asking the Town Board for another rezoning? MR. TSUNIS: Again, Mr. Chairman, as the other gentleman indicated, I received a telephone call to stop work out here, not knowing what in the World was going on. We poured twenty-something thousand feet of concrete to build storage. I ran out here. I met with the Town Board. I met with the Town Attorney. The Town Board said they sympathize with me. They felt very bad about it. They would like.to rectify it, but they indicated the direction should be made at the Zoning Board of Appeals and in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 that it was a unique situation in and of itself, it was not a broad rush and that' there was a case to be handled on an in- dividual basis due to the uniqueness of the situation. This is where they directed me to come, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. TSUNIS: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are any spokepersons in the audience that would like to speak, after we ask if there is anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application ... I would refer to the spokesperson, I refer to them as possibly leading a group first and individual persons in the community. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? MS. GOHOREL: My name is Jane Gohorel, and I have written out what X have to say. I must say I am amazed at what ! just heard about the plan for Greenport and the amount of trouble these gentlemen have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 gone to to get all the wrong answers. This Appeals: The proposed Greenport Commons com- plex is an example of the kind of misuse of the open spaces which the long-awaited Master Plan was designed to prevent. The construction at this important intersection of yet another row of stores and offices, offering goods and services of the type already abundantly available within the Village itself and elsewhere, nearby, would not only adversely effect Greenport's com- mercial center, hut would needlessly and unalterably damage the rural character of the whole area. There are at present numerous stores and offices in Greenport and throughout Southold Town, including space in the newer malls, that remain empty after more than a year, some much longer. This proposed development has been extremely unpopular in the community at large, has been criticized in the press and Chambers of Commerce. It is to the Southold Town Board of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3O has nothing new or attractive to offer, except to the developers who will take their profits and move on, leaving us with the mess. It is opposed by environmentalists as well as those who care about preservation of the historic and rustic charm of the North Fork. And it is in conflict with the. Master Plan which went into effect in January, 1989. Yet, a building permit was issued last spring. Inexplicably, this error went apparently undetected until after the foun- dations had begun. It is difficult to believe that Jordan's Partners remained totally unaware all along of the illegality of the situation and even harder to under- stand why the Town waited so long to take this proper action. Granting the requested variance on the grounds of financial hardship suffered by Mr. Tsunis will only compound the error and set a very sorry precedent. It will very likely open the way for further excep- tions to the rule and future random i/ 1 2 3 4 $ 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 commercial invasion to the west and east along a stretch of highway that has so far managed to escape the blight of suburban sprawl. We urge that the requested variance be denied. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to oppose this particular project? MS. WATSON: this lady. I am Mae Watson. Square, downtown Greenport. established in 1973, and we took preexisting buildings and restor'ed them to what they are If anybody here knows what they look now. like, you know the community. I want to say I have never had full I am not as eloquent as I own Sterling It was they are in character with that up until last year occupancy and my square footage costs my tenants under $10 a square foot. We have three shopping centers in the Village of Greenport and ~ithout 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 counting them I would say there are ap- proximately 17 to 20 more shops that are empty. One has been completely empty for quite a while. Our businesses are basically seasonal and based on tourist trade. We have already five Chinese takeouts on the North Fork, plus one regular restaurant. We have three drug stores on the North Fork, in the Southold/Greenport area. We have a variety store. I don't think we need any more of these. The North Road at that intersection to Orient Point, there are four restaurants which people traveling from New London and New England can go well serviced. As well, in the Village of Greenport, there are four more ... or more ... I can't even count. I am totally against it. I want it on the record this would be an incredible hardship on the Village of Greenport. If you look at the Village of River- head, you see what the strip of shopping centers has done to that community. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It is totally out of without colonial co....unity. character The North F~rk, we are more of a resort and retirement area, and I don't see the population going. ! think the economics in real estate do not warrant this kind of expenditure, and I am really sorry these people went to that kind of investment without THE CHAIRMAN: MR. TOWNSEND: looking into that. Thank you. Joseph Townsend, former Mayor of the Village of former Town Councilman. I speak, so I will be brief. I would like to say, as have sat Plan as it beginning. change the Greenport and am prepared to Councilman I in on it and worked on the Master exists today from almost the There was a decision made to zoning at that location, because of what you heard tonight, the impossible impact on the Village, the nature of traf- fic, the general improbableness of that site for this kind of development. This was made known in all the Town meetings, the meetings going on from '85 to the final adoption of 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 34 the Master Plan. I am not familiar with exactly what happened with the existing site plan and the building permits. All I know is that the zoning was ... we had hoped the zoning would be changed from the very outset of the process. The new zone is inconsistent with the overall goals of the Master Plan and if a hardship has been created, it seems to me it should be corrected, not by any group but by Article 78 for some sort of procedural basis. Because, as far as I know, the Master Plan was passed properly. These people had notice of that, as a property owner, and I feel that this is not the proper area for their redress. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Coun- cilman. Anybody else who would like to speak? MR. ISAACS: Bruce Isaacs, President of the North Fork Environmental Council. We are opposed to this project for all the reasons expressed by the speakers in 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opposition. them again. THE CHAIRMAN: MS. WIESEHAHN: There is no sense repeating Thank you. Ruth Wiesehahn. 35 have a short letter from the Greenport Historic Preservation ¢om~nission. "Dear Members: As members of the Greenport Historic Preservation Commission, we are deeply concerned about your decision regarding 'Greenport Commons'. If Greenport Commons is commercially developed, we feel that Greenport's commer- cial district will be adversely affected. Much of that commercial district is officially designated a historic district. Therefore, we urge this Board to hold firmly to the zoning spelled out in the approved Master Plan." This is signed by the Members of the Greenport Historic Preservation Commission. Randy Wade. I just' want that the one commercial Thank you. MS. WADE: to make. a point, 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 1§ 17 18 ~0 II ~4 25 /! 36 district is the only one downtown that is directly on the waterfront being economical- ly strong and vital. The Master Plan recog- nized a retail shopping center on the out- skirts of the Village would stop the vitality of ~reenport and zoned this proper- ty up towards residential. Since the Village has a huge retail vacancy rate right now, it seems in the best interest of the applicants to appropriate the Master Plan and seek the proper varian- ces to get four houses, the four that they stated they were going to be able to build there. As especially there, if they were landscaped properly and compatible with the character of Greenport, and new houses are in great demand. Retail rentals are not. This intersection is our gateway. It signifies a transition between the main thoroughfare of the North Road and the residentials running around the commercial town. It should not be like a strip mall landscaped by a parking lot. MS. FLYNN: My name is Ingeborg 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Flynn. Southold. opinions Z am a resident of the Town of I would like to express my critical of this application. Before doing so, Z would like to cite, briefly, some of my background and experience which, as in a legal proceeding, serves to qualify my opinions. I have been a licensed real estate broker for over 20 years and am a graduate ~of the Real Estate Institute. I conduct my business from an office in the Village of Greenport. I have been active in the sale, leasing and financing of commercial, in- dustrial and income properties, as well as vacant land in various zoning districts, as well as residential property. Over a period of seven years I was progressively: Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-President for Suffolk County of the Long Island Board of Realtors. ! served in this latter capacity for three years. In addition, I was a director of the New York State Association of Realtors and 37 // 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 38 the chairperson of several committees. To address the subject application, in my opinion it represents yet another attempt to circumvent, or try and end run around the Southold Zoning Code by seeking a resoning disguised as a variance. It is my understanding that rezoning requires legis- lative enactment and is a function reserved to the Town Board. It is also my understanding that the basis for this application lies in the erroneous issuance of the building permit, subsequent to the adoption of the Master Plan, and a later Stop Work Order. I fail to see where an error on the part of the Building Department Overrides an existing zoning ordinance. I believe you will agree with me that the preparation of a comprehensive, or Master Plan starts, or should start with a blank piece of paper. The overall planning of the Town is to be considered in terms of needs and effects, now and in the future. Not of least importance is the long-term 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 39 effect on the character and viability of established communities. A review of the situation reveals that the Town had long since made its inten- tions clear. Preliminary Land Use Plans for Southold Town were released to the public in January of 1984. These plans were prepared by the Town's consultants, Raymond, Par- fish, Pine and Weiner, who placed the property in a Hamlet Density Residential District. This was approximately five years before the adoption of the Master Plan. By January of 1987, RPPW's plan had been revised to Residential/Office use. I rarely find myself in agreement with the actions of the Southold Town Board with respect to zoning. Their overall actions with respect to the Village of Greenport have been particularly harmful. They have demonstrated a predisposition to locate all of the intensive, undesirable uses unwanted elsewhere on.the perimeters of the Village on the false premise of adequate and safe water supply. Contrary to its L 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4O stated policy, Route 25, Village. the Board has strip zoned the major access road to the Having said this, I find myself in agreement with the zoning of the subject property. Any observer of the real estate scene has observed the adverse effects of the development of highway business when on established downtown business areas. I need only cite Babylon, Bay Shore and Patchogue as examples. The downtown business district of Greenport is suffering. Stores are vacant. And newly erected shopping centers are doing badly. Many tenants are of marginal quality. A shopping center to the west on the North Road has been foreclosed recently. The Village of Greenport is making valiant efforts to restore its image as a tourist attraction and commercial center. To establish, contrary to the zoning a shopping center on a traffic in the Village would repeat the and serve to undue the ordinance, artery not mistakes of the past 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '14 17 18 ~4 25 efforts of the Village. The subject Appeal Number 3915 is classified as an Appeal from decision of Building Inspector. I am sure there has been enough legal precedence set in this area to require no comment from me. However, the application appears to be in the nature of a dual attack. It also seeks a variance from the zoning ordinance. The Board of Appeals is empowered to alter the strict letter of the law or to alter the application of zoning regulations so that their spirit is observed. The zoning change which would be required is hardly altering the letter of the law. As for the spirit of the law, this is a nebulous concept. The zoning ordinance is the actual law, clearly defined. Hardship and practical difficulties as the grounds for a variance must be in- herent in the property; not its ownership. Hardship is measured is measured in finan- cial terms, by proof that the property as regulated is valueless. A frequently cited 41 1 2 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 test is that residue of value". As far as practical difficulties are concerned, they too must be inherent in the land and not the owner's intentions or operations. With respect to the owner's submission of a Short Environmental Form, I would like to make some short comments: Question Number 12 apparently dis- regards traffic problems at a major inter- section. I did not prepare for that, but I would like to add to that that the planner estimates that the traffic was about the same as 1980. We know that even now in the summertime, the ferries run around every hour. In 1980, we had about four ferries running a day, and the traffic must have certainly doubled or even more than that. Don't tell me there are no major problems. Question Number 14 states that the project will have no major.effect on the character of the neighborhood. Question Number 15 answers the 42 the property has only "a bare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 // question of public controversy with a no ... and I don't think we can even say that tonight. In summation, what is sought here is a zoning change, not a variance. This is a matter for legislative enactment. Granting the variance to accommodate the owner's objectives would go far beyond both the letter and the spirit of the regulations. Errors on the part of the Building Depart- ment cannot void zoning regulations nor can i they serve as the basis for granting a variance. Thank you. MS. CROSSER: Diane Crosser, resident of the Town of Southold. The first question I would like to address to Mr. Tsunis would be you stated that .... THE CHAIRMAN: You have to address it the Board. You cannot cross-examine an all. He is not bound to to applicant, first of answer the questiou, to. also, unless he wants 43 I 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MS. CROSSER: What know is Mr. Tsunis states 44 I would like to the project would not change the essential character of the neighborhood, yet Mr. Greher stated the center would look llke a professional office building. I would like to know what the definition of the essential character of the neighborhood is. My second question, this would be asked of the Board, would be that when excavation beqan we were told that five leases had been secured. Tonight we are told only two leases have been secured and this one letter of intent. I am just curious to find out what happened to the other leases. My third question would be ... THE CHAIRMAN: Before you go to the third, that question was addressed not to us. That was addressed also to these gentlemen. MS. CROSSER: like to know, as a would be what will happen if Okay...What I would resident of Southold, the rest of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 leases are not secured as we initially were told they had been? THE CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question, but go ahead. MS. CROSSER: My last one, I guess this will be an open ended question as well, is that Mr. Tuccio, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Greber all stated their credentials and testified at this meeting as experts in their field. My question would be, apparently ! won't get an answer on this, is whether or not they received any financial compensation or if they stand to gain financially from seeing Greenport Commons come to fruition. Those are my questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you like to answer that? MR. TSUNIS: I will answer the last one first. They are getting paid, but they are getting paid whether it is approved or not. These people are experts in their field, and took monies to speak. They certainly, I don't believe as professionals, 1 2 3 4 $ ? 8 'lO '13 14 15 18 ~4 ~$ 46 would come out and not get paid for their time. I paid them. I paid for the time they spent out here, expended out here. THE CHAIRMAN: You only have one question here. That's the part of the firm that spoke, is that correct, that's the gentleman on the end here? MR. TSUNIS: a commission basis. THE CHAIRMAN: The other question was about the leases, I assume, and that was what would happen if I guess you had several Yes, and he gets paid on more leases prior to ... MR. TSUNIS: I only had two leases secured and one letter of intent. ~ THE CHAIRMAN: What happens to the project if you don't rent is the question. MR. TSUNIS: Well, a question over there, if it? I assume that I suppose there is~ the entire project. won't be built in one stage, either build in one stage or if the Town wpuld be giving a permit we could build it in two or three stages. But there is 13,000 committed, also 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 road, which is over 40 percent of project. I also would like to the suggest apparently some retailers are seeking per- mits to the location and to the fact there is a large parking lot. The traffic that we are talking about there, before, is not going to result or increase due to the shopping center. ! would like to point out that the traffic that was discussed coming off the 47 ferries, I believe, that increase traffic because the intersection. is not going to they may stop at So, was there another question? THE CHAIRMAN: the neighborhood. MR. TSUNIS: the neighborhood, About the character of Well, the character of believe, would not be altered due to the fact that the shoppinq center, with the Planning Board acting consistently with their input of the store towards the intersection. There is a 63 foot buffer from the property line to the 1 2 3 4 $ 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 building line. It is far enough away, I believe, for it to be properly screened ky fences and/or shrubs. The .alternative would be lots of rows facing that very heavily traveled road. That certainly would be out of character. X would just more time, if I may, appreciate what was like to reiterate one I am sensitive. said tonight by the residents. I just hope that the residents are appreciative of my point of view, as well. I have been literally held hostage since 1988, and having my approval in hand and not being able to get a building permit due to the fact that municipal water was not available. I was constantly told the well could not be obtained. Subsequently, all of a sudden, I could go ahead with the well. If this well was permitted by the Town Building Department two or three years ago, I would not be here. X could have built in accord with the existinq zoning. X am concerned that ... ! am 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appreciative, again, what we are about with retail uses downtown. 49 talking I think a relationship could develop with this one location, with the store downtown. I cer- tainly am not going to seek out uncomplimen- tary uses, but complimentary uses to what is in existence. But again I feel a little hit grieved in this particular situation. I can honestly tell you I was never notified that there was a change of zoning in January, otherwise certainly I would have been out there. The fact of the matter is the Building Department issued me ... did realize that the zone was changed in this parcel, and if the Building Department is within a municipal buildinq that these changes of zones are authorized, my office, being in Hauppauge, I woul-d hope'that people could understand that I would not know. ! am an attorney. I would not build without a permit and/or disregard the or- dinances. I think our case was stated. hope that I would the Board would review the package 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we submitted, porate our records analyze our case. and we would like to incor- for your review to I believe we have sus- rained a burden necessary to obtain a Use Variance. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. HOLLAND: Thank you. Everett Holland. 5O X am a resident of GreenDort. I have a state- ment as well as a question. If I understand correctly, the Master Plan was changed in January of 1989. THE CHAIRMAN: January 10, 1989. MR. HOLLAND: The land in question was bulldozed sometime at the end of the summer, I believe, tember ... October lng to be poured. and then it was in Se9- the foundation was start- I don't understand why he was not informed in January that this was changed. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know. answer that question. I can't a deqree I don't have an MBA or anything like in it. that,. MR. HOLLAND: I don't have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Z do not understand why it is so bad to have a shopping mall here, which is predominantly empty and have no shopping mall on that North Road, all the way out to Orient. ! see nothing wrong with having trees, grass ... Z do feel that it is very unfortunate that this has gotten this far out of hand. I don't know what can he done to rectify this or how it happened, hut I do feel that there is an extreme amount of traffic throughout that intersection. The major part of the Village of Greenport has three shopping centers; one totally empty, another one maybe 95 percent empty, another one equally empty. Plus also there are quite a few stores there, out in other buildings, that are also empty. The Village of Greenport is hawing a tremendous problem in business, in the business dis- trict. The last thing we need is another strip mall on the outskirts of the Village. The traffic in downtown is a problem. Parking is a problem. It is a small, old- fashioned village. You do have to put a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 52 nickel in the meter. ! don't see any harm in that. It is not a huge amount of money you fork over, for the upkeep of that property. That is basically all I have to say. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN:' Thank you, sir. MS. SCHEER: Linda Scheer. I am thinking back to the statements Mr. Tsunis made at the beginning. The petitioners have come to determine economic hardship, and determined that the proposed development does not alter the character of the area. The Master Plan was in process for many years. I find it hard to believe that a professional developer would n~t know that property was going to be rezoned. Secondly, ! believe their planner made the point that there is no shopping on Trunk [sic] 48 from Southold to East Marion. Building, lng, will THE CHAIRMAN: no matter how aesthetically pleas- definitely alter-the character. Thank you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 MS. SANACTYNOW~CZ: Nancy Sanac- tynowicz. I am opposed to the shopping center. X think it is really not needed. The Master Plan was put into effect to protect the character of our town, and hope we can follow it otherwise it will set a terrible precedent for shopping centers to spring up all over. I have one more question. Where is this going to be? It is not going to have an Environmental Impact Statement done, see. THE CHAIRMAN: We have not determined it yet. MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: I would like you to determine. It needs an Environmental Impact Statement, though. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir?' MR. ROWSON: Michael Rowson. I am from Preston's, down in Greenport. It is a pretty drawing. I can see a lot of people come out here as tourists and support our Town of Greenport. They don't come out here to see shopping centers. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~? ~0 ~4 54 think a lot of them come out to see the parks out in Orient, enjoy the waterfront, and enjoy the open spaces. I think it is up to the Zoning Board to oppose this. Based on the facts that many of the taxpayers here who have busi- nesses, and live here on a year-round basis, enjoy the open spaces and being that the Town Board represents the taxpayers, it is in their best interest to do what is going to keep the taxpayers happy. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I just want to address one issue, so that the applicants and the residents of the Town are aware, we ... and Mrs. Flynn will attest to this because she sat!in on several hearings with her husband on it ... that we are not closed on the Port. of Egypt. We did not have a Town Attorney until February 22, 1990. So what we are going tonight, aqain, asking this here who is takinq this this record out tonight to be doinq very nice lady record down, to pull and we will discuss this record with the Town Attorney and we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1'1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 55 will recess this hearing until sometime in April, and we will let you know. We believe the next hearing is going to be April 19th, and we will convene at that time. My question basically is is there anybody that might not be here on or about approximately ... that is, that date ia subject to change based upon when we get the hearing record and when we get the chance to discuss it with the Town Attorney, who is Harvey Arnoff. We'will recess until that date or approximately that date, and then conclude the hearing, hopefully in about 45 minutes. We would not want to shove anybody out who might not be available at that particular time. ' . If there is anybody here tonight that has not spoken that may he away ... we realize that is during the Easter holidays ... you know, give a week before or a week after ... so will you please speak? I know ! have to read that letter, Ma'am, you have a question? MS. OSTROSKI: ! own a luncheonette 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 in Greenport. One of the representatives from this group came and suggested we might want to move our business to their develop- ment, and I don't think that is in the best interest of the community. Mariella Ostroski (phonetic spell- lng). THE CHAIRMAN: gentleman in Green. the The request from the rear of the room for Alice "Dear Members of the Board: This letter is being written with mixed feelings in r~gards to the proposed construction project. While it is under- standable that a business expects a return on investment, it i~ difficult~to comprehend why a businessperson would expend a large amount of capital at a time of weak economy in an area where there are many business storefronts vacant (ie. Sterlington Com- mons, Victorian Village, Kontakosta's storefront). Perhaps there are other reasons which the general public is unaware of, but in the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 minds of many local people this project appears to be five or ten years premature. Another area of unkept vacant stores with broken or boarded up windows and trash blowing in the breeze is not desireable. The traffic problems have not diminished and the new traffic pattern at the intersection of Routes 48 and 25 is worse than ever. due to retail shops in operation and there may be a hazardous situation to the general public. It is hoped that this has been thoroughly researched and considered. This is no question that the thoughts of noise pollution become apparent. A retail shop operation reguires~truck deliveries at all hours of the day and night. Depending on the type of retail shop, it is possible to have store hours around the clock and perhaps not the most desireable clientele inhabiting an area adjacent to residential homes. It is not uncommon for business people and investors who are not residents to do whatever it Add to this a traffic flow 1 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 58 takes to proceed with their project to accomplish a bottom line. Sometimes it is done without regard to how it effects the local inhabitants who will live with the situation for many years. Please consider these concerns before approving a project which can have so much influence on us. Sincerely, Alice Green" I should say we received another letter, or there is another letter in the file. Yes, ma'am? MS. McDONALD: Marion McDonald. May I ask a question? What are yod basing this variance on? I There are three traf- important one is the Board's approval of this don't understand. THE CHAIRMAN: fic areas. The most one that was clearly defined by Mr. Tsunis in the beginning. That is-dollar and cents proof. MS. McDONALD: This Board would rule 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 on something like that. THE CHAIRMAN: Dollar and cents proof. It cannot be used in its present situation. That is the most important. Okay. At this particular time, I am going to offer a resolution to recess this hearing. I am sorry. MR. DINIZIO: After reading the Suffolk Times today, that reminded me of a letter that my wife had written, too. live in the general area behind Porky's Restaurant. She wrote a letter to Joe Sawicki, State Assemblyman, and he had the State Department of Transportation come out and do a study on that corner. The s~udy indicated that at that time, which was August 26, 1987, there was no proble~ as far as traffic on that corner which I use daily and my wife uses daily and plenty of people in this audience use. ! just wanted to offer that into the record, so you can read it. It may help, it might not help, or I don't know what. But 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 my personal intention is to ask the Planning Board ii this particular project was taken into account when the study was taken and just what type of traffic your project will entail. ! understand your hardship, and it certainly is very clear tonight. But I just did not want anybody to think that this was going to be something ... I want to keep it out in the open. We did receive this letter and it will be part of the record. exist and it has an on-going thing, particular point. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jim. you, It does at that MS. FLYNN: I would like to remind mapping on the traffic codnts are available from the Department of Transporta- tion in Suffolk County, but I also would like to ask you to check the date when these maps have been updated, very carefully, because I do know from experience they have not been updated sometimes for six or seven years in certain areas. So if the traffic counts are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 61 submitted, sometimes these are taken from accounts that are quite old. I also received maps from Suffolk County Planning and you can get the maps there, but in certain areas you have to really watch the dates of when they are being updated, and sometimes it is six or seven years they have not been updated. I have been working as a broker with these quite frequently. If I may address the comments. think you are alluding to the development east of this parcel. MR. DINIZIO: Yes. This letter states that when that parcel opens, a three light traffic signal will be r~qulred at You 'are talking about No. The other inter- 48 and State Road 25. that intersection. THE CHAIRMAN: Manhasset Avenue. MR. DINIZIO: section of Route That is what this this letter ... was in '88 approximately, it was, when we THE CHAIRMAN: letter states ... in back 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 received it, and quired to put that MR. TSUNIS: 62 they are going to be re- light in. I think that could only enhance this particular project. MR. DINIZIO: I don't want to enhance or do anything to your project. All I am stating is that this letter exists, and I fully intend to see that the traffic study in your site plan, the site plan that was approved, if that was taken into account. MR. TSUNIS: I honestly don't know if it was or wasn't. MR. DINIZIO: ! intend to ask that question. I just wanted you to know that question is going to be asked. MR. TSUNIS: 'i would suggest to the Board, it can only enhance this project because of that installati'°n of that light. But I would also like to add that any traf- fic from that parcel would have to go west one time or another, whether or not my project exists. So whether they stop at Greenport Commons or downtown Greenport, or Southold, 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 63 I don't think would matter to this particular project. They would have to pass by this project no matter what, if they are living east of this project. cern. MR. DINIZIO: That was not my con- I just wanted to enter this letter. MR. TSUNIS: I would like to get a copy. MR. record. MS. HAMILTON: regard to Mr. what he does he chooses property. DINIZIO: It will be part of the Joan Hamilton, in Tsunis' dollars and sense and if this doesn't go through and to split up these pieces of I am a licensed broker.! My office was approached by Mr. Tsunis' office to come down here and speak on hi~ behalf. No one in Greenport would do it. They had to 9o as far as Riverhead to speak on his behalf. I also think, dollars and cents, that lot was sold for $35,000 ... he better qo back to the group Board and come up with better numbers because better numbers do 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 ~8 ~0 ~4 (. 64 exist than the numbers he gave tonight. THE CHAIRMAN: Before we close this, I have to ask Nancy a question. It has been my interpretation, Nancy, in dealing with the SEQRA process, SEQRA usually runs laterally with a project. In other words, they run parallel. It is really a two part question. 1. The statement. I have a problem in dealing with the SEQRA process on this until we actually make a decision on the rezoning action, unless you can clearly define for me, at this particular time, what developing areas except for traffic, you feel the project should have an effect upon. You refer to the character of the neighborhood. Are you referring to other specific areas? MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: downtown Greenport. THE CHAIRMAN: All the impact on Any point in question? Is this a learning experience, because we have never requested DEC in a Use Variance hearing to my knowledqe. 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 I stand before you, ten years on this Board. ! can tell you we have had between six and seven Use Variance hearings, one of which, to my knowledqe, this Board has granted and that was over on Young Avenue and County Road 48. That is, to my knowledge. So, at this particular time, you are requesting this Board to go back and review the SEQRA process and establish the pos- sibility of running laterally with this hearing a DEC statement? MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: It wouldn't hurt. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask you, is that what you are suggesting? MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: Yes.~' THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Because I would have to review this With the Town Attorney at the same time. That is basical- ly where we are at this point. I don't want to sidestep any particular issues, at this time. First of all, we have no knowledge of what these gentlemen intend to present to us 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 66 prior to this hearing. So I had no idea what was going to occur, and that's basical- ly the issue. There was a question from the lady in the back. MS. me at the WADE: A friend of yours called real estate office ! work for a couple of years aqo, after you bought the property, and said, "I am going to buy commercial property on the North Fork, because a friend of mine got this property really cheap. mall." So I want to put in a strip It was just a little ... THE CHAIRMAN: Nearinq no further comments, we will resume at the April appreciate it, as I recess the hearing and 19th hearing. We would mentioned, if you would give us a call around the 'iSth to make sure we are on. We will readvertise, even though we are not required to. If we recess to that particular day, we definitely will do that. We have all the input. We will discuss the SEQRA issue with the Town Attorney. Around the 5th of April 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 ~0 ~4 ~$ or so we should have the transcript. you want copies of the transcript, have copies to furnish to you. tion. 67 So if we wiil MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: One more ques- Why wasn't the environmental assess- ment ever done anyway? THE CHAIRMAN: I believe there should have been a short form done. We have one in here. The date on it is 1/30/90. MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Again, making the motion to recess the hearing to the next regularly scheduled hearing which is, we assume to be, April 19th. As I said, please bear with us. It will be based upon when I receive the transcript, when wA review this with the Town Attorney, and when we can reschedule it. It may be ~one week later. Thank you all for the courtesy. (Time noted: 10:40 p.m.) 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 68 CERTIFICATION I, OAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that ! am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct transcript according to my official stenographic notes. GAIL ROSCHEN Official Court Reporter STATE OF NA'W YORK} Yvonne Lieblein e~ MMUtueh In Cled[ of ~ ~0~ ~M~ i Wee~ hmplper, ~ ~ ~ b ~ Tm of ~ ~n~ of ~~ofkY~~of~h said h~r o~e Hob week ~r ~ ' weeh suo~.,, ~mmenolq on the 24 ~ of NOTA~ PUBLIC. S~te o~ Hew York Suffolk Coufl~ No, 4849860 Term Exp~r~ Februa~ BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of : ,, JORDAN' A PARTNERS to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. ThA~t. Ja~ intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of thc Town of Southold to request~ (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] 2. ~hat the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribedas follows: 100N M~. grropt and 160 Main Road - Route 25 - the Southeast corner ..... o/k_£hi~ _ irLter s~cti oB. 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: ResideptJ ~1 4 ] }la[ b'~ Stlth Pelifion, the undersigned will request the following relief: Use variance to permit construction and maintenance of Retail Stores and Business Offices (29,000 sauare .... feeL~ pursuant to approved site Dian. 5. Thai the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Vll Section 100-71 [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. O. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be f,'~ed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you ma), then and there exam/~ne the same during regular office hours. (516) ?~5-1809. 7 That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated fox the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Da,ed: I- JORDAN'S PARTNERS Petitioner Jordan's Partners Owners ' Names: P_ARTELiS_PAPAZ.O_G~U Post Office Address 801 Metor 0'~.! ~' Y':' ~ ',;:' ' U~,mpm,lPe, New York 11788 ~w,~?" ,,' "'~Tel No. ( 516 ) 582-4000 [Copy of sketch or plan showing prop. osal to be attached for convenience purposes.] PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CER~"IFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAME ADDRESS Eugene and Ano Mazzaferro - 8th Street, Greenport, NY 11944 Faith A. Valenti - 135 Moriches Avenue, Mastic, NY 11950 Theodore C. Henkel - 55 Sunset Lace, Greenport, NY 11944 James R. and Judith W. Woodhull - 915 Shepard Drive, Southold, NY 11971 State of New York Department of Transportation - Hauppauge, NY 11788 Michael J. }{assett and Amy Sue Cryer - 285 St. Marks Place, Apt. 2A, Staten Island, NY 1030 ~obert L. Davids - 520 North Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Roderick Vantuyl - 600 North Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Gerald P. O'Neil - 526 East 20th Street, New York, NY 10014 ~,Mr. & Mrs. Joseph F. Angevine, Jr. - 619 Bailey Avenue, Greenport, NY 11944 ~arold T. Thilberg - 300 Bailey Avenue, Greenport, NY 11944 -/Mr. & Mrs. William J. Kart - 611 Bailey Ave~e, Greenport, NY 11944 Clifford Udell - 755 Knapp Place, Greenp Theresa Biggs - 208 Knapp Place, Greenpc Mr. & Mrs. Peter W. Harris - 212 Knapp ! ~Gladys Flatley - 216 Knapp Place, Greenl ~ennis A. Giordano - 423 West Main, Apt -/Chester A. and Helen Begley - 224 Knapp ~Mr. & Mrs. Peter Staron - 228 Knapp Pla ~'Joseph Cherepowich & ors - P.O. Box 103 ~r. & Mrs. Andrew J. Ciuprvk - 324 Knai '~ichael Andreef - 315 East 69th Streeti ~'Margaret Kayser - 1005 Mill Creek Dri~ Mr. & Mrs. Michael Crosser - 52-33 69~ Clarence and Clara Begley - 75 Palm D~ Lymann and Hilda Syrett - 230 Knapp PI Stanley and Patricia L. Droskoski - ~ Mr. & Mrs. William S. Pruitt - 527 S~ Mr. & Mrs. Macy W. Marczewski - 523 S ~' Savethisreceiptan~presenNtifyoumakeinqui~. Mr. & Mrs. William L. Davis - 520 Ste~ Mr. & Mrs. Robert D. Biggs - 524 Sterling Placei~reen~~''"°"~"-~*~ Bradley C. Conklin & Ano - 528 Sterling Place, Greenport, blr. & Mrs. Kenneth H. Dimon - Greenport, NY 11944 Stella Kudlinski - 516 Sterling Place, Greenport, NY 11944 Joseph P. Jr. and Ann M. Milovich - 220 Atlantic Avenue, Greenport, Mr. & Mrs. Dimitrios Kartas - 86-44 Musket Street, Bellrose Manor/ Sophie Raynor - North Road, Greenport, NY 11944 ~ Theodore and Maria Petikas - 257 Stewart Avenue, Bethn~/ Benjamin,Kujanski and Marjorie Moore - Sound Av~n~ STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OFSUFFOLK) of January . 19 ~ ~,, verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-~ names; that the addresses se1 opposite the name~ the current assessment roll of the Town of Soulh~ rice at ~eppau~e ~ (certified) ~ mail. ~ Sworn to before me this day of ,,fig/I'L~OL--'L~ . 19 (This side does not have to be comp]eted on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) \ \ \ \ / \ \ ~""~. NESCOIVSET, 1V~Y. 11767 I DO HERERY CERTIF7 THAT THE RADIUS MAP ACCURATELY D£SCRIRES JORDAN'S pARTNERS 301 MOTOR pARKWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11738 3 4 ? 1000--35--01-- ROBERT L. DAVIDS GNEENPORT, NE~ YORK 11944 RODERICK VANTUYL 300 NORTH ROAD GREEN~ORT, l~mw YORK 11944 QERALD P+ O'NEIL 5~3 E. BOTH STREET NE~ YORK, NEW YORK 10010 ~ & mfRS. JOSEPH F. ANGEWINE JR. 319 B~.EY AVENUE GREENPORT, NE~ yORK 11944 HAROLD T, T~w. RERG GREENPORT, NE~ YORK 11344 RADIUS MAP OF PROPERTY AT GR Fi, W, NP OR T TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. S.C.TAX ~ 1000--34--02--01 SCALE 1"-= 60' JAN. 3, 1990 GRAPHIC SCALE 10301 19~ AnRF,4NDER AVENUE 2%TE$CONSET, N.Y. 11 ?6? (516) ?~4-483~ N7,4..~'oo''E: ~'~ 6 5' 352, AREA 4.7 ACRES four~dd''ti°° JAN. 3, 7990 S.C. TAX~ 7000-34-02-01 JM ¢,~r~. 01/24/90 JM o~z~w~ ~: 20J-8$L 203-89 I ~ I ~ 2 4,98.74 / 7 ~oO /~o 1942 74.33'30w Y TO~Yi~ Oiv ~OUTHOLD GHE NPOR T MALL ~OU~DATION LOCATIO~