Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3487 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - S ATE ROAD 25 WUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 ►° TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3487-SE Application 'Dated March 19 , 1986 TO: Paul A. Caminiti , Esq . as [Appellant (s) ] Attorney for CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Main Road , Box 992 Southold , NY 11971 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Aopealc held on November 20 , 1986 the above appeal was considered , and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of AcQeas *_Q PrTnerty New York Town Law, Section 280-a [X ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article III , Section 100-30 (B ) [ ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ ] Request for Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-30 (6) [2] for permission to construct and establish House of Worship with related religious activities on a five-acre tract of land referred to as Lot #3 , Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano , which received Sketch-Plan Approval 4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board. Location of Property : West Side of Main Bayview Road , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 69 , Block 6 , Part of Lots _8 and 2 . (Current Owners : S . and J . Catapano ) . WHEREAS , a public hearing was held and concluded on October 2 , 1986 in the Matter of the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR under Application No . 3487 ; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded ; and WHEREAS , the board has carefully considered all ' testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application ; and WHEREAS , the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question , its present zoning , and the surrounding areas ; and WHEREAS , the board made the following findings of fact : 1 . By this application , applicant requests a Special Excep- tion under the Provisions of Article III , Section 100-30 (8) [2] for a "House of Worship" to be located on a five-acre tract of land along the west side of Main Bayview Road , Southold , referred to as Lot #3 in pending Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano and more particularly shown on sketched subdivision mapped October 15 , 1985 by Roderick VanTuyl , P. C . 2 . The premises in question is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and has received Sketch-Plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board on the pending subdivision on April 14 , 1986 . 3. The Site Plan under consideration shows a proposed new church building with a setback of 70 feet from the southerly property line , 185 feet from the west property line , DATED: November 20, 1986 . CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) Page 2 - No. 3478 Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Decision Rendered ~ovember 20, 1986 99 feet from the east property line. 4. It is noted for the record that this action is for a House of Worship, as more particularly shown on the Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 and is not deemed to be a Special Exception for any other construction which should be proposed in the future. 5. Located along the south property line improved with single-family dwellings, as well to the west and to.the northeast. are parcels as dwellings 6. It i's also noted for the record that this project as shown on t:he site plan under consideration will meet the requirements of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section lO0-30B of the Zoning Code as to minimum setbacks and maximum lot coverage as noted therein. In considering this application as shown with a minimum setback of 70 feet from the south property line depicted on Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 by Keillor Arch.: (a) The House of Worship will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) The House of Worship will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed House of Worship and its location; (d) the House of Worship will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and :intent of this chapter. The Board has also considered suibsections [a] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis,i it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception for a "House of Worship" in the Matter of the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR, No. 3478, as shown by Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 by Keillor Architects (indicating setbacks at 70 feet from the south property line, etc.), subject to receiving final Site Plan approval by the Planning Board as required by Article III, Section lO0-30B of the Zoning Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. lk November 24, 1986 Town Clerk, Town ot oou ~o1~ i 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 public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall , Main Road , Southold , NY at a Regular Meeting commencing- at 7 : 30 .p . m. on THURSDAY , OCTOBER 2 , 1986 and as follows : 7 : 35 p .m. Appeal No . 3559 - LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDEN- ALLEN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ; Article III , Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to -dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback , 'at 230 Sailor ' s Lane , Cutchogue , NY ; District 1000, Section 111 , Block 1-4 , Lot 07 . 7 : 40 p . m. Appeal No . 3555 - SHIRLEY HOMAN . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III ,- Section 100-.31 for permission to construct addition to' ,dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback , at 1 &0 Smith Drive , Peconic , NY ; District 1000 , Section 98 , Block 3 , Lot 38 . -- 7 :45 p .m. Appeal No . 3554 - NORMAN-AND KAREN REICH . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient rear- yard setback , at 1809 Right-of-Way off the East Side of Rocky Point Road , East Marion , NY ; District 1000 , Section 31 , Block 3 , Part of Lot 10 ; Kimon and Retzos Minor Subdivision #81 , Lot #2 . 7 : 50 p .m. Appeal No . 3547 - JOSEPH AND CATHERINE RIEMER . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient lot area , width and depth of two parcels knowh and referred to as Lots #96 , 97 , 98 and half of 99 at Peconic Bay Estates , Map #1124 , and identified on the County Tax Maps as District 1000 , Section 53 , Block 4 , Lot 32 . i1 7 : 55 p .m. ' Appeal No . 3503 - GEORGE D . DAMIEN. Variance requesting confirmation of Building Inspector ' s actions and, prior Z . B .A . Decision Rendered under Appeal No . 949 of 9/l /66 , recognizing two separate building lots , having insufficient area , width and depth as required by Article III , Section 100-.31 , Bulk Schedulg of the Zoning Code . Location of Property : Corners of Jackson , Fifth and Main Streets , New Suffolk , NY ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 17 , Block 9 , Lot 12 . 0 rl C. Z Lo Z F- _ O Z .® N Page 2 - Notice of Hearings Regular Meeting - October 29 1986 Southold Town Board of Appeals 8 :00 p .m. Appeal No . 3484 - PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article XI , Section 100-119. 2 (C)- for permission to construct addition at rear ofPond dwelling 7455with an insufficient setback from wetlands along Great Soundview Avenue , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 59 , Block 6 , Lot- 8 : 8:05 p .m. Appeal No . 3552 = JOHN SENKO . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII , Section 100-70 , and Article VI , Section 100-62 (B) , for permission to establish shopping center use in this " B-1 " General Business Zoning District with insufficient lot area at 49295 Main Road (a/k/a Ackerly Pond Lane ) , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 70 , Block 07 , Lot- 01 , containing 30 ,084± sq . ft . 8 : 10 p .m . Appeal No . 3553 - EUGENE BOZZO . Variances to the Zoning Ordinance , Articles : (1 ) XI , Section 100-119. 2 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient setback from wetlands/tidal water along 'Great Peconic Bay ; (2 ) III , Section 100-32 to relocate accessory garage building in the frontyard area ; (3 ) III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule , to construct with lot coverage of all structures - in excess of South maximum-permitted 20 percent . Location of Property : Side of Camp Mineola Road , Mattituck ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 123 , . Block 6 , Lot 27 . 8 : 15 p .m'. Appeal No . 3557 - ROBERT EGAN . Variances 31 to tlieZoning Ordinance ; Articles : - (1 ) III , Section to reconstruct dwelling with insufficient total sideyards , insufficient (northwesterly) side yard , and insufficient front yard ; (2 ) XI , Section 100-119. 2 (B ) for permission to construct addition and reconstruct dwellin1Harborthin 5 feet of tidal wetlands along Spring Pond., - Orient Location of Property : ' 330 .Knoll Circle , . East Marion , NY ; "Map of Section Two ; Gardiners Bay Estates , " Subdivision Lots 27 and part of 28 ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 37 , Block 5 , Lot 12 . � n _ � C.) u c: 0 r c� � f Page 3 - Nc.tice of Hearings Regular Meeting - October 2 , 1986 Southold gown Board of Appeals 3 : 25 p .m. Appl . No . 3487-SE - CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR . Specia', Exception to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-3(: (B) [2] for permission to construct and establish House of Worsrip with related religious activities on a five-acre tract of land referred to as Lot #3 , Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano., which received Sketch-Plan Approval 4/14/86 by the To .in Planning Board . Location of Property : West Side of Main Btyview Road , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map District 1000 , ` ection 69 , Block 6 , Part of Lots 8 and 2 . (Current Owners : S. and J . Catapano ) . 8 : 45 p .m. Appeal No . 3560 . - EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER . Appeal from Building Inspector Notice of Disapproval dated 1 /2/86 and ZBA Action #3463 dated 5/6/86 ,. and Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII , Section 100-71 , Bulk Schedule and Article VII , Section 100-70 (A) [1 ] (d ) for permission to estab- lish a second retail/business use in conjunction with existing nonconforming two-family dwelling and antique-sales business use on this parcel of 68 , 912 sq . ft . in .area and - 95 . 44 ft . lot width . Location of Property.: "B- 1 " General Business Zoning District , North Side of Main Road , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-63-3-26 . The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place al persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings . Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing . For more information , please call 765-1809 . Dated : September 11 , 1986 . BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS . GERARD P . . GOEHRINGER , CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski , Board Secretary - ----------------------------------------------------------------x ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS : P.lea_se publis.h. THURSDAY , SEPTEMBER 25 , 1986 and forward affidavits of publication bn or before Sept . 30th to : Board of Appeals , Main . Road , . Southold , NY 11971 . -------------------------------------------------------------------x .r z ell �a C.7 i N FORM NO.3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD,N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date . 1-��c!2/25.!. . .��. . 19 . . To .� !l�!/ l.I . . . . ,�' PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . for permit to ,�/til ��lc�c G. . . . 7'r!r!5. . . crC �C�!�. . . . . . . . . . . . . at s Location of Property /51 . . L,C7 House No. Street ajv Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . . . .0. . . . . Block . . . !�. . . . . . . . Lot Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filed Map No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is retur ed herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �lz e?. . . . . �. . ..4. . . . �p�-c�,� // X . . L¢. . {ram �' . .l8.�j���f:U a ,��J�C=E?6. . . .0 24,0c E . lGc . . . . . . .. .. . jc .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .... Building Inspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . Received . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 . . Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . Permit No. . . . . . . . . . . . Disapproved a/c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date Fee ..7r. . . . . . . . .. 10 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink,and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 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 stree or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this app 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 perm shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupant shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to tl Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein describe The applicant agrees to'comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building co , housing co , and regulations, and admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections./ . . . . . . . . . . (Sig ture of appl' ant, or name, ifs corporation) 42 fea'd / . . (Mailing address of applicant) State whether apq licant is owner lessee, agent, architect, e ineer, general c ntract r, electrician, plumber or builde 46 ,eclil gee 61p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #. �04�?4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name of owner of premises ® .�. �!�0�. . y. . . . .�!� (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corp ion, sig tyre of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporat officer) Builder's License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plumber's License No. . . . .A�111. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electrician's License No. . /��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Trade's License No. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. !' . .1/Y . . . . . . � . . . . v.nl. .��D 05�� . . Svc Di�i�io�. . . .f.�v�. . . y.�4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . . 6 .9. . . . . . . . . . Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot . . . . . . . . . . Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filed Map No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy . . . .A p�iP/�'UC�U,QE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Intended use and occupancy . . . . A/4V>e. . O . . .i'6!d��`�/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building . .X Addition . . . . . . . . . . Alteration Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Removal . . . . . Demolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other W . .. . . . . .• • er Work , . , • • . . (Description) 4. Estimated Cost . . . . � �o�, ®®. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (to be paid on filing'this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units . . . ... ..' . . • • • • • Number of dwelling units on each floor. . . . Ifgarage,number of cars . . . . . . . . . .A(. . . • • • . • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • , • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • . 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nat re and extent of each type of use 1�� '. . 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if any: Front . . . .A11�'. . . . . Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front .Rear Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Height Number f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . o Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ..K . . . . . . . Rear . . Depth Height �9�o u . . . ./. . . . . . . . . �. /,6,4�.5�';Ff fp 9. Size of lot: Front . . . . /. e,N�mber of Stories Rear . . . .�As. . . . . . . . . . . . . . De th . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Date of Purchase 6_0117t!,W . . . . • • • • • . . . Name of Former Owner 4X/.'4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated . . . . 12. Does proposed construction vio ate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Will lot be regraded . . . . . . . k�.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Will exc ss fpl be removed from premises: Yes �10 14. Name of Owner of premises pi4;t/Q. . . . . Address .vev . . Phone N�S�GI.941 -vro7sc-� Name of Architect IfIS1 04. AReI�,tiCA • • • Phone No(� Address%"¢��!i� : i?3°!�'a! {z, 5�/5- J3a . Name of Contractor AA,Q. IMIAW A?A 149"" . Address �AAIPS.T u!A,�r . .l�; (� , . Phone Nol?o!>.: A- �/•a.%� PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and.indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street-a d block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether % interior or corner lot: A 340 = g' o C_u�,f Jie#01 -/h,4/AI 11i4�V/,eW STATE OF NEW RI S.S COUNTY OF . . �. . . . .. . . . . . . . being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. He is the . . . . . . . . . . . AVIAltry: . .46V/... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief;and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me th' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . day of. . . . . . . . . . . . ., I� f Notary Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • ount r/y f C /� ' (Signature of applicant) J TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK / APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No. Date Filed: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: I (We) , CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR of Beckwith & Traveler St. Resi ence, House No. and Street Southold, New York 11971 Te; (516) 765-1401 (Hamlet, State, Zip C Telephone Number) hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III SECTION . 100-30 _, .SUBSECTION B(2) for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale) : 1. We wish to build a HOUSE OF WORSHIP on 5 acres of land zoned A Residential, as more fully set forth in the attached Subdivision Plan filed by Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano dated October 15, 1985. We are contract vendees of the property and the contract is subject to approval of the subdivision. The subject property for the church is indicated on said,plan as Lot 3 and consists of 5 acres with access from Bayview Rd.-A detailed survey of the lot by Van Tuyl, dated March 6, 1986 is also attached. 2. The Special Exception is being requested primarily „f_or_a_House_of-Worship-_to- accommodate our congregation. and_ the various ministries ese prntly housed at Beckwith & Traveler Streets,_in:Southold.4 The ministries. of the Church include but are not limited to, Bible Classes, Sunday School, Lambsgate Nursery School and_ Kindergarden, Pilgrim School (grades 1 to 4), Youth Groups, and Outreach Ministries. - --- -- 3. Phase I construction consists of a single 93' Octagonal building approximately 7200 sq.ft. with seating for 200 parishioners. Parking is provided per Bulk Schedule ( 1 space per 5 seats = 40 spaces.) One 2 way drive is proposed from Bayview Rd.for both ingress and egress. Phase II construction (only, as, if, and when feasible) will consist of an addition to the structure of a 40x8O building with an additional 20 parking spaces and possible parsonage. 4. The proposed construction is 26 feet in height and is completely fire retardant and soundproof. It conforms to the regulations and Code in every manner. The structure is 50 feet from any street, is more than 20 feet from any lot and the A. ' ' Statement of Ownership and I►iterest. total area does not exceed 20% of the area of the lot. Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano Ware) the owner(s) of property known and referred to as Main R2., out o N. . - Hguse No. , Str,)et, Hamlet ( Church of the Open Door is Contract vendee of property identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section' 69 Block 6 , Lot(s) 9.2 , which is not (is) on a subdivision Map Filed , "Map of Salvatore & Jeanne Catapano " Filed Map No. , and has been approved by the Southold Town Planning Board on pending as a [Minor] [M16f] Subdivision) . The above-described property was acquired by the owner on Aug. 16, 1985 B.. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The attached composite tax map shows that most of the adjacent land is open land. Of the 17 adjacent owners, 5 of the lots are vacant land. The church is not offensive either in design or appearance. It will be tastefully constructed to blend it with the surroundings and professionally landscaped. There will be large buffer areas completely surrounding the church and any objections from adjacent property owners can easily be resolved. C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned A-Residential and [ ] is .consistent with the. use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. [ ] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s) : [ X] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. : 7�L (Signature) s Sworn to be or me 1 20 day. of March,19986 19 otr�ev.U2/6/86) i carniNIr, pAbi. State 04 Now York Public. ZB2 6�osar:s No.24_a5�� Commission Eo Jy Quaimed in es e xp TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT FORMER OWNER N E ` ACR. t-' S - W TYPE OF BUILDING RES:.. SEAS. �GU VL. FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS d> 0 0. Z d ✓ �� Z C�c az`s�g-- l7 (n �'- J , _ l AGE BUILDING CONDITION - �� 7 3i� „�,,�1• p,Z7Gc �Lo'� ).��a mac.+rr 1� w - NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE r }} II FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre Tills le 1 Tills le 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland FRONTAGE ON WATER T Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD House Plot DEPTH BULKHEAD Total DOCK COLOR - i11A1 �a - �M; - ` ®--� � TRIM 1� M. Bldg. X L --4 •y� Z0. Foundation Bath Dinette Extension Basements Floors ! ` K. f Extension Ext. Walls /1 Interior Finish �2.r LR. Extension Fire Places Heat z DR. Type Roof Rooms 1st Floor �i�r BR. Porch Recreation Room Rooms 2nd Floor FIN. B. Porch Dormer Breezeway Driveway Garage Patio, O. B. 0 rVLr Total `j Q April 18 , 1990 ofth h Open k7,oi DoorPR 2 4 1990 .. Open Door Ministries Southold, Long Island, New York 11971 (516) 765-4137 Dear Mr. Goehringer and members of staff , Pastor Edward Hansen Please accept this invitation to attend our Open House and Lamb' s Gate Pilgrim School Pastor Natural Science Fair Saturday, May 5 , 1990 David Foster from 12 : 30-4 :00p.m. . It is a great opportunity for us to get to know each other. There will be exhibits of our many ministries to the community of Southold, New York City and the World. The Lamb's Gate Pilgrim School Natural Science Fair will provide many hands on activities for children, so bring your kids. The Open House will provide tours of our new church building (constructed with 85% volunteers) , live music, numerous displays of this local church 's work, activities and accomplishments over the past 13 years . Please come and be part of this event. I assure you, you will leave encouraged. On behalf of all the members of Church of the Open Door, g'cl Pastor Edward Hansen Pastor David Foster —ours, P Z, T +=0` = D ° ti yam. }` S L Fg R y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 l April 14, 1987 Mr. Paul A. Caminiti <. • Attorney at Law P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Church of the Open Door Site plan Dear Mr. Caminiti: The—following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, April 13, 1987. RESOLVED that the Southold Town"Planning Board approve the site plan for the Church of the Open Door for construction of a church located at Main Bayview Road, Southold, site plan.:dated as revised February 6, 1987. It was noted that a special exception had been granted by the Board of Appeals and the plan had been certified by the Building Department. Upon receipt of the endorsement from the Chairman, we will forward a site plan to you. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, a� "UJ�� Ok.�11 U- ) �. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHA RMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: XB * ld ing Department of Appeals c t: DECLF�F�AT I otq OF= c-_QtiJEmE:P4 rE; if kMn FRESTFt I CT I MMa WHEREAS, SALVATORE CATAPANO and J1.EANNE CATAPANO. 2. No more than one single family dwelling may 6e residing.at 3701 Courtney Lane, 3ethpage, New York I1714, are the erected on lots 1 and 2 on the map entitled SALVATORE CATAPANO as owners in fee-simple of certain oremises in the Town of Southold, approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York, known and designated as SALVATORE .,3. That there shall be no further subdivision of lots CATAI.4N0 at the southerly side of Route 2S,,,. the easterly side of shown as number 1, 2,and 3 on said subdivision plan,. in South Harbor Road. and a. port.ion of the westerly side of Bayview perpetuity. Road, in the Town of Southold. 4. That any further subdivision of lot numbered 4 on WHEREAS, said Declararants are desirous of placing said subdivision plan shall only be permitted'with the consent of certain restrictions upon said premises 'iYhich shall be binding .' the Southold Planing Board and shall be limited to a minor z AL 0s~ upon all"purchasers apd their grantees, mortgagees, or successors subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots. in interest of. the individual lots showiif{-0n said map as approved S. That. except as set forth above, Declarants reserve by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. Suffolk County, .,the right to impose additional covenants and restrictions, and ® New Ynrk.•' further reserve the right to modify, change and/or annul any such NOW THEREFORE, THIS DECLARATION WITNESSETH: additonal covenants and restri.ctions that may be imposed from That the said Declarants, for the benefit of time to time in the future. themselves, their successors and assigns, in consideration of the 6, A metes and bounds description of the entire \ premises and for the purpose of carrying out the above ex ress.ed subdivision is attached hereto a'made a p y g p part hereof. intentions. do hereby make known.- admit, publish, covenant'and IN WI1NESS WHEREOF, the Declarants have executed the agree .that the said premises hercinabove set forth, shall foregoing Declaration this ,�`1'dAy not June, 194A. hereafter be subject to the following covenants, easements, ?Salvatore ata ano tv restrictions and agreements: eanne apan \� I. Zoning regulations and ordinances of the Town, j- " Q� of STATE'OF NEW YORK) _ County and State or other governmental bodies 1n which the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)I.// premises 11e. On the2T day of June, 1986, before me personally came �h} SALVATORE CATAPANO and JEANNE CATAPANO, to me known and known to / me, to be the individuals described in an who executed -the foregoing instrument,, and acknowledged th y they xecuted the' same. C5 No ar b Fw,f,n■ O��e,LEA Cam. OUNTY OF�'SUFFOLK load 011 AD less PETER F.COHALANilS p,1LIM SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 360-5206 I/�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING `u/ LEE E.KOPPELMAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING December 1, 1986 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the following application(s) which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. A ,licant(s) Municipal File Number(s) Church of the Open Door 3487 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph G. Riemer 3547 Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE,L.1.,NEW YORKK 1'1788 y(51 6) 0(„ 92 1�� ,�Q La,-2f'jl/�'C�C�-{ X. z z . Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI 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 : Variance from the Zoning Code , Article Section Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector xx Special Exception , Article III , Section 100-30 (B) Special Permit Appeal No . : 3487 Applicant.: Church of the Open Door Location of Affected Land : �Vls Main Bayview Rd. , Southold, NY County Tax Map Item No . : 1000- 69-6—Part of Lots 8 and 2 Within 500 feet of : Town or Village Boundary Line Body of Water (Bay , Sound or Estuary ) xx State or County Road , Parkway , Highway , Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County , State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County , State or Federal Park or Other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Channel Lines , or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport . COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to construct and establish Hnll4P of WnrGh i n wi th re 1 Ig ted r e i i ni c)u s acti v i es on a f i ye-ac tract of land Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review . Dated : Nov. 25, 1986 Secretary , Board of Appeals . 4 C1MVF gar 23outhold Town Board of Ap ..ea is MAIN PROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTFIOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI November 25 , 1986 Paul A. Caminiti , Esq . Main Road , Box 992 Southold , NY 11971 Re : Application No . 3487 - Church of the Open Door (Spec. Exc . ) Dear Mr . Caminiti : Attached hereto is ' a copy of the official findings- .and determination recently rendered and filed this date with th.e Office of the Clerk concerning the above matter . e In the event your application has been approved , please be sure to return to the Building Department .for approval of any new construction , in writing , or other documents as may be applicable . If this application involves a pending subdivision or site plan , please return to the ,Planning Board for further processing _.by their office . Please do not hesitate to call either our, office (765-1809) or that of the Building Inspector. .;(765-1802 ) if you have any questions_ . Yours very truly , 'GERARD P . GOEHRINGER Enclosure ._CHAIRMAN . Copy of Decision to Building Department By Linda Kowalski Planning Board Richard J . Cron , Esq . Suffolk .County'.Plan.ning Commission svFFoix oFs,•ICE 91 54075 MAIN RD. COR. BECKWITH OF \/ 2 REPLY TO: SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK11971.0992 •i• NEW YOUR CITY OFFICE v(/ 19, 1986 138 COURT STREET August Lam' �/ ) ���� �� BROOK(71 N.Y. 1 1201.6287 Q m (718) 643-1800 IRWIN R. X"LAN OF COUNSIL Gerard P . Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Boad of Appeals Main Road - State Rd. 25 Southold, N . Y . 11971 Re : Special Exception #3478 Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Goehringer: I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 14, 1986 , and the contents have been noted . Your request under Par . ( b) . concerning the maximum number of students attending the proposed schools is somewhat unclear . I will , however, attempt to clarify our position and perhaps comply with your request. First of all , we are not applying. for a special exception for a school , but. for a House of Worship as set forth in Art. III , Sec . 100-30, Subsection B (2 ) . An inquiry as to the number of students that we have in school therefore seems to be immaterial and perhaps even unconstitutional . The school is a ministry of the Church , and therefore receives the same constitutional protections as the church . Neither the size of the school and the church membership nor that of its ministries can be regulated by the State . 1 Furthermore, the schools are not new or proposed as - set forth in your letter . They are in existence at the present time in our current facility on . Beckwith Avenue and merely will be moved with the church to the new building . , The new church building is designed to accomodate o-ur school as it presently exists and we do not anticipate any great surge of enrollment. We are severely cramped in our present quarters without any separation of classrooms . We are operating out of the proverbial "one-room" schoolhouse and our new quarters will at least give us a small room for each grade level . r ------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 . See Diocese of Rochester v Planing Board of Brighton ( 1956 ) 1 NY 2d 508, 154 NYS 2d 849, 74 ALR 2d 404 . -1- i k1 f I r Page 2 Church of the Open Door Pastor Edward Hansen has .compiled a very detailed letter in direct response to your request and his letter is attached hereto . --As pointed out in his letter, a special exception was al.ready granted to the church ,for its present location . We are asking for nothing more than what we already have . There will not be a change in our operations . In the interest of fully disclosing our plans and intentions , we are enclosing a packet of information setting forth all the information that you requested, and trust that you will be able to arrange for an inter-departmental conference as suggested. by you by the end of .the month . Very t ul rs A' AMINITI PAC : sf August 15, 1986 Church Gerald P. Goehringer, Chairman OC Southold Town Hall-Board of Appeals I Main Road the Southold, New York 11971 . OPENDear Mr. Goehringer, DOOR This letter is being submitted to you -in reply to -- your request of August . 14, 1986 for further inform- ation concerning our application for a Special Excep- Pastor tion pending with your office. Edward Hansen, Jr. As you are probably aware, the issues hereafter men- Olen Boor Ministries tioned, were discussed and resolved in the Spring of 1981, when Church of the Open Door, Open Door Minis- SOUthold, long Island, tries, Inc. purchased the Southold Grange at the cor- New York, 11971 ner of Beckwith and Travelers Streets. At that time (516) 7d�-2603 we were utilizing the building for its various min- istries, including Lamb' s Gate Nursery School and later The Pilgrim School. ZBA did grant a Special Exception for this Church in B General Zoning. _Questions raised at that time as to our eli- gibility to function in that building were answered by our attorney, Mr. Bruer, and later the Town' s attorney, Mr. Robert Tasker in ou favor. Enclosed in this letter is a copy of our Incorpora- tion papers filed in 1977 and amended February 6, 1984 to satisfy the In- ternal Revenue Service. Please note Paragraph 4 of our Certif2icate of Incorporation,l as defining our purpose. The Church' s 'By Laws which gov- ern the Corporation, a copy of our Statement of Faith,3 and various broch- ures are enclosed. Point 1: Pertaining to the issue of our schools raised by some: Often the language used as regards Church-Schools or Christian Schools is misleading. Church-Schools historically and pre- sently function as part of their Church. The term parochial is more often used in catholic circles, the government uses the term church-related and Evangelicals use Christian School. These terms are synonomous and are neither equivalent to nor the same as a "private school" though both fall under the State; rubric "non-public school. " It is important to delineate be- tween the two terns as they intend different types of corpor- ations. ---------------------------------------------------- 1. cf. C.O.D. Articles of Incorporation 2. cf. C.O.D. By Laws 3. cf. Statement of Faith < 1� -2- Having worked co-operatively with the New York State Department of Non- Public Schools, Special Counsel with Attorney Generals office, and Pri- vate Counsel for the past 10 years in areas of Church State relationships, I am aware it is often difficult to understand the unique position of the Church in America. Following the .intent of the lst Amendment, there is no New York State Department of Religion or Church affairs to either license or register churches or their schools. Consequently the Courts have con- sistently determined that a Church-School is in a part of the Church. For tax purposes there are specific requiremints, but these are secondary issues--all of which the Open Door has met. The sphere of legal activity of a religious corporation in so far as its corporate act- ivities -can be separated from its ecclesiastical activities is governed and limited by law. Christian Schools in turn have been determined by the courts to have the same protection. as their Churches. Let me quote Vol. 15. #4 Christian School Comment Cht.is.t.ian school educa-tots educate .in ChAis.t'.6 name. Ch,%is.t- .ian education .is an act o6 tetig.ious min.istt1 peA6onmed by .those whose k.ive4 ate committed to God 's w.i.eZ. They ate ZoyaZ Amet.ieans who neepec.t govetnmen.t as God-otda.ined and .they Aea- pond pos.i.tiveZy .to gove4nmen.t d.itee.t.ives ptov.ided govetnmen.t d.itee.t.ives ate not .in con6.e.ie.t with the B.ibte. . The B.ib.ee .is teganded a4 .the Cht.ie.t.ian 's highest taw. The F.iA4.t Amendment .to .the *U.S. Constitution gtan.ts a 4pee.iaZ measure o6 Zibet.ty to -the pte.44 and .to tetigion. The Language .in the amendment .is very cZeat: "Congtess shale maize no Zaw tespee.t.ing an estabZishmen.t o6 tefigion, of ptoh.ib.i.t.ing .the 64ee exete.ise thereo6 . . . " The compZete 6teedom o6 .the press .is aetdom ehat- Zenged by Congress and the eout.ts , but te;e.ig.ious m.in.iz tn.ie4 such as Aet ig.ious schooZ4 ate not held to - be as "sacred" as .the press . 1 have not heard o6 a 6edeta.e or state agency which .issues Zicenses of .pto6ess.iona.e ce,%ti6.icate o6 news- paper tepo4.te44 , TV tepoAtets o4 TV ancho4pet4ons . In America .there .is no govetnmen.t tegu.ea.t.ion o6 .the press . But .the same amendment that p4ov.ide4 Got .the 6teedom o6 .the press aZ40 e4.tabf-ishes 6teedom Got 4etig.ious m.in.i4.t4.ies such as Cht.is.t.ian schoot4 . In Lemon v. Kut.tzman, the courts have eatab.2.ished that Cht.is.t.ian sehoo.es have the same pto-tec.t.ion as ehunehea . Att agree that .it untaw6ut Got .the govetnmen.t to give 6.inan- e.ia.e aid to .the pre44 of .to approve .the tepot.t.ing o6 news to the nation. We 4houtd beet just as s.ttongty that govetnmen.t should-not p&ov.ide .tax dottats .to tetig.ious m.in.istt.ie4 , of te- qu.ite state or 6edetax cen.t.i6.iea.t.ion o6 Chn.is.t.ian schooZ teach- ens, of .in any way .impose govetnmen.t apptova.e o4 d.isapptova.e o6 Ch4.i4tian 4chooZ cutt.icuZum. Govetnmen.t 4houtd never screen books .in Ch4.is.t.ian whoat tib4at.ie4 as they have .in some states . Rega4d.ing Christian schools , a noted const.itu.t.ionat a.t.to4ney, WiZZiam Ben.ttey Batt, wto.te: "These sehoots ate an .in.tegtat pa4.t o6 .the tee.ig.ious m.in.is.tt.ies that sponsor .them. 16 .they 4 . cf. Department of the Treasury Letter of Determination (947 (D()) (5-77) -3- can't be pub.tic2.y . aided, neither can they be pubticty negutaIted. it cues both ways . " There is then no mandate in New York State to license, charter, or even register Church-Schools: However the law does require equivalency of education.S This is determined by the Department of Education if raised by the..local Public School Board and Superintendent ( Southold is informed of our curriculum and approving) as questionable This matter of equivalent education applies to children taught at home, public, pri- wage, or Christian Schools . We however are voluntarily registered as a Church-School with the New York Department of Non-Public Schools. Point 2: Questions pertaining to our intended continued use: Our intent is to build a Church for the men, women, families, and children of our community. We have endeavored in every respect to be. above board, considerate, scrupulously obedient to the law and fully honest in our disclosures with all members, Boards, and officials of the Town and community. My sincerest desire is to establish a new facility in which to safely and ,comfortably minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the children and families of this Church. As you can readily see it is an . increasingly difficult and complex task to share the simple Gospel we have believed in our society. Point 3: The question of "Ministries" has been raised. What are they? What will they be in the future? We define ministries as those endeavors performed by members of our congregation to share in word and deed the love of God in Christ Jesus. Where as some churches have yard sales, beet: Bestivals, bingo, auctions , rummage sales, and shops, we do not. We have people who tithe their income and give _generously so people may care for people. Presently these ministries are such: Fife & Drum: Winning awards in all categories and recipient of over 25 invitations to perform the summer of ' 86 . We chose 6, 5 of which were in Southold Township. Visiting Ministry: Men and women who visit the elderly, hospitalized, and home bound in our community. ..------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 cf. New York State Education Department memorandum April 1980 "Guidelines for Determining Equivalency of Instruction" -4- r .' Music Ministry: 9-12 musicians who lead worship in our Church. Perform for numerous .other churches and entertain in nursing homes. Youth Groups: Presently 2 groups, grades four through 6 , the other junior high. Meet one evening a week for fellowship activities, refreshments, and Bible Study. We rent the High School gym for sports and offer numerous field trips during the year to all child- ren. Tutoring: We volunteer free academic tutoring to students in need, as possible. Lamb' s Gate Nursery School: Staffed by certified teachers from our community (various churches) meet 4 mornings a week for 3 and 4 year olds. In the past 7 years 100+ children and their families have attended. The Pilgrim School - K-4th grade: A Christian School with cert- ified teachers. Where God is allowed to be a "normal" part of their education in prayer, song, grace, and forgiveness. Counseling: As needed by the Pastor and qualified staff. Bible Studies: Taught by Church leaders. Sunday School: Adult and children Sunday A.M. - presently 65 children and 20 adults participating. Sunday Worship: 10: 30 A.M. - 12 : 00 Noon. Missions Board: Responsible for sending and funding of foreign missionaries. Presently involved in Zaire, Mexico, Ethiopia, South- ern India, and Southern Asia., Prison Ministry: The Pastor, supervises 4 Bible Classes as well as counseling for men and women at the Riverhead Correctional Facility. All of these make up the Church--they are "our ministries" as in any healthy church of any denomination. Enclosed is our Church Directory,6 and Church calendar to help illustrate our schedule. •------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. cf. Preface. C.O.D. Directory and Calendar. 5-., r As to future ministry we. intend to increase our missionary work over- seas and minister to members of our community. Our desire is simply the freedom to continue to do as we have done by His Grace. In summation Church of the Open Door is defined by Federal Law and New York State Statutes as a Religious Corporation. Endeavoring to%ans- wer your request as to what uses our ' Certificate of Incorporation permits, the definition and cases cited below will clarify our position. American Law Reports, Annotated 74 ALR2d ANNO: Zoning Regulations-Churches pages 403 and 404. 919. What is a church or house of worship. Although the cases indicate the difficulty of attempting to define in precise terms what constitutes a "church," within the meaning of zoning ord- inances, or for purposes of determining the validity of rulings of zoning authorities with respect to applications for the proposed erection or est- ablishment of a church, it has been held that the term. is not to be so narrow- ly construed as to limit strictly to formal worship the use of premises for tie, construction or establishment of a church, but, on the contrary, is to be construed as being broad enough to inclu or permit related activities, rich as imn's and warren's social group activities, religious teaching and training, use of the premises for corporate meetings, meetings of Boy and Girl Scouts, Sunday schools, kindergarten and play facilities for children, provision for sleeping quarters for retreatants, and parking acconm. dations. For example, in Ccmuunit_y Synagogue v Bates (1956) 1 Md 445, 154 NYS2d 15, NE2d 488, the court held that petitioner was entitled to a change-of-use. permit frcm that of a one-family dwelling in a residence A district to that of a,church for public worship and other strictly religious uses, petitioner's aim being to establish a permanent place for religious worship, religious teach- ing and training, fellowship, guidance of indoor and outdoor activities for youth, and ccgmninity work, including a Sunday school, men's club, women's social group, and youth activities. The court was of the opinion that such use was authorized under subdivision 3 of §251 of Article II-A, relating to residential districts, but permitting therein churches for public worship and other ,strictly religious uses and in accordance with the discipline, rules, and usages of the religious corporation, and subdivision 7 of §602 of Article VI providing for accessory uses of the same character and nature as the use to which the same is accessory, and authorizing the board of appeals to re- quire, as a condition of any permit, for the purpose of establishing reason- able safeguards for the safety, health, and welfare of the occupants and users of buildings and their accessory structures, that the applicant and the build- ings and their accessory structures on the premises ccaply with the require- ments of the building construction code prepared by the state building code cannission, and to require that the premises, the subject of the application, not be used for the purposes permitted by the board of appeals except upon issuance by the building inspector of a. certificate of 'occupancy certifying that the terms and conditions of the permit have been ccmplied with. The court said: "A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the opportun- ity to worship God. Strictly religious uses and activities are more than -6- V prayer and sacrifice and all churches recognize that the area of their res- ponsibility is broader than leading the congregation in prayer. Churches have always developed social groups for adults and youth where the fellow- ship of the congregation is strengthened with the result that the parent church is strengthened. . . .It is a religious activity for the church to provide a place for these social groups to meet, since the church by doing so is developing into a stronger and closer knit religious unity. To lim- it a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of the opportunity , of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening itself and the congregation. The ordinance under consideration recognizes this in its terms for it provides for the use of a building for the purpose: 13. Churches for public worship and other strictly religious uses and in accordance with the discipline, rules, and usages of the religious corporation which will awn, support and main- tain' it (e7phasis supplied by the court) .". . . So, too, in Diocese of Rochester v Planning Board of Brighton (1956) 1 NY2d 508, 154 NYS2d 849, 136 (NE2d 827, revg 1 App Div 2d 86, 147 NYS2d 392, which aff'd 207 Misc 1021, 141 NYS2d 487, the court, with reference to a so-called "package deal" submitted in an application by a church organiza- tion for a permit to build in a class A residential district, the map accw? - panying the application showing the proposed location of the church, school, meeting room, kindergarten, small games, open field, and hardtop play area, and a parking lot which would acccQnnodate 144 cars, held that the uses pro- posed were within the scope of a church's activities, a church being more than merely an edifice affording people the opportunity to worship God.. New York Zoning Law and Practice, Second Edition, Anderson, §9 . 34. Dimensions of religious uses. page 470. Consistent with this view that activity related to the purpose of a rel- igious organization is a religious use, the concept has been held to in- clude the church itself, a parish house, a convent, a parochial school, recreational facilities, and accessory parking areas.14 A day care center for children of pre-school age, operated by a religious institution through a non-profit corporation, is a religious activity protected from unreason- able interference by zoning restrictions.15 The same conclusion was reached in the case of a school for the teaching of secular subjects operated as an integral part of synagogue.16 I hope this letter answers your concerns and should it be useful to other Boards I ask you to forward the same. In Christ, Reverend Edward Hansen EH/bcm Appendix 1. C.O.D. O.D.M. Articles of Incorporation. 2. C.O.D. O.D.M. Constitutional By Laws. 3. C.O.D. O.D.M. Statement of Faith. 4. Department of Treasury - Letter of Determination 947 (DO) 5-77 . 5. New York State Education Department -memorandum April 1980 . i "Guidelines for Determining Equivalency of Instruction" 6. Preface C.O.D. Directory. 7. Miscellaneous C.O.D. brochures, Calendars, etc. d �7 CERTIFICATE OF ITICoitPOILATiON OF CHURCH OF TIIE OPI2�1 DOO:t OP IX?OR laNISTRIES ITICORPORATED 1 • ryel, tr►e undersigned, all being Persons of full age and citizens Of thm United States. of Whom a majority are residents of the State of Now York. desiring to asnooiato ourselves .for the purpose of founding aild areuant to continuing a non-denominational wanpclica►l free ohurchg p` r the laws of the State of NAw York. hereby certify as follows: 1. The name and title by which aaicl e;ooiety shall be known in law shall y �wbe Churoh of the Open Door, Open Door 1'iniotrterj IneoY-porAtod. r� �n sI 2. The •purpone of its organization is to found and continue a non- r'i denomdnational evan(;elieal free church in the Town of Southold, Count, of Suffolk. a 3. The names of the trustooa, of whom not lase than three or more than nix pernons. wtio are not ministers of the pospei or priests of atW 'a denomination to manage the same are as follows: Charles A. Ilansaain, }? Eugene F. Heaeoek. Eugene A Iiea000k. 4. The PurPo nee of the Church of the Oren Door, Open Door Yinistries 4 Incorporated are as folIowa% To pursue Christian endeavors in accordance ronl and personal property. and with Biblical beliefs, own building►a. to. lease br rent the same for the afore mentioned ptu'goses. IN WITNESS WIIII;:EDF, we have exesnutod and acknowledge this certificate ;,. the 2t , day of October. 1977. 'A ma Benja n Charles ±. ouijone F. Heamook A, eacock JM ' .y ' State of New York) se. • �_ County of Suffou) .; t ` before uK� ca�A Chr rlos i m BenSamjn+ 97?+ on the ;�, dny of Ootober+ VA know and knam1 to tet► . -ge�tQe�ek. . to be the individual described in+ and who ©xeautOd the foregoing qz- Cortilto o►to of Incorporations and duly aol iowledged to me that the\• executed the saw. _ z l� MaRwE D. FNnuPS fjct[,ty p,ti,Lc, Stint ai ticw York �,. �z-11�3cnrn (turliticd hi $ull(ik C'ntnty , (;t,n.,nl•••,,;q, lspit•:., ht.;tci1 3-J. 1J. State of Masaach"Octts) ss. . County of. Essex) day of October , 19'17 L)cforo t Ie known and on the Y 3 to tugerie F. leacocl:, and nui eT1e ��. ..te,I.cock, ,oration, and known to me to be flit; indivi Ortif��iL�c.lof`Zilcorl.ln� and who . executed the foregoing C that they duly acknowledged to me that c:;:ecutec] t-l�e �3ame. Amendment. to CertifictiL.e o.1' Tncorporation C)f Church of t-he open Hoer, Op(**,n Poor Ministries Incorporated Yy Pat(,O.: Febriiary 2, 1984 J Purpose; amending of Certificate of Tncorporation to A t'.C 1.1_1 d e t 11 c following clause-113 so as to conform with Tnternal sect.iori 1,01 ((7) VVe, the underiAgned, all being.; persons of full age and citizens of tile United States, of whom a majority are residents of the state of New York, desiring to associate ourselves for the purpose of founding, and contiiiiiing, a non-denominational lical free church, pursuant to the laws of the ;Mate evali-o It te of Now York, hereby certify as ['ol.1_c)w,­,: 5. Notwl ths tan dine-, any other provision of these,- articles,, the corporation -is organized exclusively for one or more .1 c -: religious, charitable,scientific, of the following purpo,,, �s testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to faster national. or internatiorclamateur sports com- petition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment) , or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, as specified in section 501 (c) (3) of the Tnternal Revenue Code of: 1954, and shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt -form Federal Income Tax under section (501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 6. No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of any member, trustee, director, officer of the corporation, or any private individual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services rendered to or for -the corporation) , and no member, truistee, officer of the corporation or any private individual shall be entitled to share in the distribution of any of the corporate assets on dissolution of the corporation. 7. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided by Internal Revenue Code section ( 501 (h) , or participating in, or intervening in (including the publication or distribution of statements) , any political. campaign on behalf of any. candidate for public office. 8. In the event of dissolution, all of the remaining assets and property of the corporation shall after necef3sary expenses thereof be distributed to such organizations as shall qualify under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or, to 'another organization to be used in such manner as in the judgement of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York will best accomplish the general. purposes for which this corporation was formed. IN 71- TNESS WHFREOF, we have executed and acknowledge this certificate T the 2 day of February, 1984t Trustees of (..,hurch ugene A. eacoc Charles A,Benjamln . 14T- 6Marttaret Marston -a(i ac ea Thomas Christianson } •ii�l On the 3rd day of February, 1984 before me came CHARLES A. BENJA MIN, MARGRET MARSTON, NANCY Ai MacLEAN and THOMAS CHRISTIANSON known to me and . � to me known personally and each acknowledged to • me that they executed the foregoing "Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of the - , n Door Ministries Incorporated. Open Door, Opeq. RAYMOND T. MaeLEAN St.: of v YCrli ,. ..I .•�y �� G ur.'y parr. .' .. •^ _ _r1r� s I. ••f F .'•t N i]r .r] COUNTY CLERK'S OFFi1L STATE OF NEW YORKSS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK A RIDISL'" Clerk of the County of Suffolk and the Court of Record thereof, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed with the original...cs;Rr-j+gCATX•I••••••••••••••••• FILED in my office .......... ...2•:j46.'•&.-•q•••••••••••••• and,thatthe same isatrue , copy thereof, and of the whole of such original. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed .dz e - �� �'�• the seal of said County and Court this-.j.. .. ....••••••• 12-102: '': Form No. 236 '4.�s�ski•�#Y.►r�'�+�i4....r1.r1:�.�•....�.�>. - .ti, — . •.,a_ '.._...._�'-,..i.��—"-- ` c FILED FEB 6 2 46 1 JUUETTE A.KiNSELLA CLERK OF SUFFOLK COUNTY e CONSTITUTIONAL BY LAPIS Church 1• The Board of Trustees will meet once a month to guide the Church in financial and spiritual of matters. There are three tenured trustees. the 2. The Board of Trustees will plan a budget for OPEN each new year and present it to the members of the Church at the year end business meeting for DOOR approval. 3. The Trustees will take care of all property purchased or rented by the Church members. N RC.IStOr , Edward Hansen, J-r."A 4 . A nominating committee of three or more will present the names for the following offices in Open Door Ministries the Church at the year end business meeting for Southold, Lang Island, the membership vote and approval; the Board of New York, 11971 Trustees, the Board of Deacons, and the Mission- ary Board. 5. The Official Boards of the Church will be lect- . ed by a 2/3 majority vote at the year end business meeting. , '6. Of the Boards mentioned above, plus any others necessary in the future, all members of the Church are allowed to serve; that is to say that members must feel free to participate in the functioning ministries of this Church. Agreement with the Church' s Statement of Faith and govern- ment is required for election to any Board. The Pastor will serve on all Boards as spiritual advisor, counselor, and guide in Church matters. 7. The Board of Deacons will :handle functional, practical and serving matters, assist the Pastor, and in general attend to Church functions,. problems and needs, as the Lord provides. B. The Missionary Board will handle all problems and funds connected with sending out missionaries at home and overseas. They will advise the Church membership of the needs. and progress, and once a year help in an annual missionary conference to be guided by the Pastor. 9. The Church will hold an annual missionary conference, the dates for which will be set by the Missionary Board and the Pastor. 10. Commensurate with the ministry of this Church, we established in our first years a Christian School ministry. The ministry is regarded as an integral part of our Church. The School Board is responsible for the general maintenance and administration of the school (s) , and is directly responsible to the Board of 'Elders/Trustees. 11. Amendments to these By-Laws shall be passed by a 2/3 majority vote of the congregation. Church of the Open Door Statement of Faith 1. There is One God, Creator and Preserver of all things, exist- ing eternally as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 2. We maintain with the Apostle Paul concerning Jesus Christ; He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of: all creation; for in Him all things were created, in Heaven and on Earth, vis� ible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities-all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.. He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be pre- eminent. For in Him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth,.or in Heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross. (Col. 1: 15-20) . 3. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. 4. We maintain that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was tempted yet without sin, crucified unto death, and resurrected bodily. 5. We maintain the bodily and visible return of Jesus Christ and at His coming the resurrection of the dead. The righteous to be raised to eternal life in Heaven and the wicked to eternal death in Hell. 6. Christ' s sacrificial and vicarious death accomplished full atonement for sin and allows our justification by faith. 7. It is the Holy Spirit who empowers and enables saving faith. It is the Holy Spirit who bears internal witness to the work and person of Jesus Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who equips, gifts, renews, and sets apart the faithful for service and perseverance. 8. We maintain the verbal and plenary inspiration of the sixty-six canonical books. The Scriptures are our authority in all matters of faith, salvation, experience, and teaching. 9. Man in his fallen state of sin is unable .to secure salvation by his own efforts . Salvation is the sovereign act of God' s grace received by faith in Christ. , F 10. We maintain that Baptism is a sign of God' s Covenant of Fai h. with -the- believer and signifies. the Christian' s death to the old and now new life. 11. The Lord's Supper proclaims Christ' s death until His coming. Our participation declares our being in Christ. It is a con- tinual reminder of His forgiveness of sin and promise of new life. 12. The Church is the congregation of those called to be Christ' s. The Church as well as the individual believer are to be act- ively concerned for the nurturing of the saints and the advance- ment of the Gospel. 13. To this end we are committed: that men might know God in this world and have hope in the next, that what is done in Heaven might be done on earth, to carry the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed, with all Christians to the ends of the earth. ,----Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Affon District P.O. Box 1680, GPO Brooklyn,_ NY 11.202 Director y Dale: APR 19 1084 Church Of The Open Door, Open Door Employer Identification Number: Ministries Incorporated 11-2460495 Berkwith Avenue- Accounting Period Ending: Southold, NY 11971 December 31st Form 990 Required: Yes X No Person to Contact: Mrs. E. Smith Contact Telephone Number: (212) 330-7147 Dear Applicant: - Based on information 'supplied, and assuming your operations will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. - . - We have further determined that you are not a private foundation within the meafd-ng of section 509(a) of the Code, because you are an organization .described in section(s) 509(a)(1) ana' 170(b)(1)(A)(i). If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status. Also, you should inform us of all changes in your-name or address. . Generally, you are not liable for social security (FICA) taxes unless you file a waiver of exemption certification as provided in the Federal. Insurance Contributions Act. If you have paid FICA taxes without filing the waiver, you should contact us. You are not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). Since you are not a private foundation, you are not subject to the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from other Federal excise .taxes. , If you have any questions about excise, employment, or other Federal, taxes, please let us know. ' Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or :for your use- are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. Letter 947(G0)(5-77) The line checked in the heading of this letter shows whether you must file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. If Yes is checked, you are required to file Form 990 only - if your gross receipts each • year are normally more than $10,000*, or $25,000 for years ended on or after December 31, 1982. If a return is required, it must be filed by the i 15th day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10 a day, up to a maximum of $5,000, when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you are subject to the tax on unrelateo business income under section 511 of the Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on Form 990-T. In this letter, we are not determining whether any of your present or proposed activities are unrelated traoe or business as defined in section 513 of the Code. e You need an employer identification number even if you have no employees. _ If an employer identification number was not entereo on your application, 'a number will be assigned to you and you will be advised of , it. Please use that number on all returns you file ano in all correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service. Because this letter could help resolve 'any questions about your exempt status and founoation status, you should keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, ' please contact the person whose name ana telephone number are shown in the heading of. this letter. Sincerely yours, District Director cc: * For tax years ending on and after December 31, 1582, organizations whose gross receipts are not normally more than $25,000, are excused from filing Form 990. For guidance in determining if your gross receipts are "normally" not more than the $25,000 limit, see the instructions for the .Form 990. * Beginning January 1, 1984, unless specifically excepted, you must pay taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (social security taxes) for each employee who is paid $100 or more in a calendar year. Letter 547(DO)(5-77) TItE"UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW CORK r THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ALBANY.NEW YORK 12234 ,!r DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR ELEMENTARY.SECONDARY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION _ April 1980 School Board Presidents TO: District Superintendents Superintendents of Public and Nonpublic Schools Principals of Nonpublic Schools00 v FROM: Robert R. Spillane, Deputy Commissioner SUBJECT: Guidelines for Determining, Equivalency of Instruction My memo to you of August 1979 dealt with the legal aspects of equivalency of instruction. It cited Education Law (Section 3205, -subdivision 1 .a.) .which requires children between the ages of six and 16 to, "attend upon full- time instruction, " a requirement to be met by attendance at either a public school or a nonpublic school (Education Law Section 3204, subdivision 2). These guidelines are designed to promote good relationships among public and nonpublic school authorities by outlining mutually beneficial ways to fulfill responsibilities on the issue of determining equivalency in both new and established schools. They conclude with a statement on high school regi,_ tration and equivalency. State law on this issue is general, leaving key determinations to local authorities to make important judgments. Some aspects of the guidelines, such as truancy (item 10, page 4) have a specific legal base. Others, including the procedures described in items 1 and 2, page 3 are suggestions of systematic and reasonable ways to accomplish a determination of equivalency should a question arise. The board of education oft blic school district in which a child resides is res onsible for determining whether the child is receiving instruction su an- _ tially equivalent to. that ovided in the public school of tat home district. The �. school board makes such a determination through its superintendent of sc ools�. The home district has this responsibility even if the child is receiving inst ction in a nonpublic school outside the home district. In such cases, the board of education and the superintendent may rely upon the judgments of the board of education and the superintendent of the district.in which the nonpublic school is located. 2 _ Apri 1 1980 I. NEW SCHOOLS A. For those who want to open a new nonpublic school - The State Education Department recommends that any person or group which plans to open a new school proceed as follows to ensure that the school's program provides equivalent instruction: 1. Notify the superintendent of schools of the public school district in which the school will be located as early as possible that a new school is being, planned. Prior to the opening of the new school, its administrator might invite the superintendent of schools of the district in which the new school is located to visit the facility. Parents who intend to have children in the school should be notified that requests for transportation should be submitted to the superin- tendent of the public school district in which they reside by April 1. —Requests for textbooks should also be submitted to the district of v residence at the designated time in the spring. 2. The administrator of the,school should be willing to provide the superintendent of schools of the district in which the school is located with the following items: f/a) certificate of occuponc health inspection report and fire inspec i b) A copy of the school calendar for the coming school year. ✓ c) A description of the grade levels and the enrollment of each of the grade levels. &/ d) A list of the names of the students from the local public school district who will be attending the nonpublic school. e) The names of standardized tests. that will be administered by the school. f) A list of the courses and subjects which will be taught in the school. - 3 - April 1980 I. NEW SCHOOLS A. cont'd. 3. - If the school enrolls students from outside the district in which this school is located, the superintendent of schools of each of the dis- tricts which have students enrolled in the school should be given: a) Notification that the new school is going to open. b) Names 'and grade levels of the students from his district who will be attending this school . c) 'A dopy.of the school calendar for the coming - school year. B. For the public school superintendent - When a public school superintendent learns that a new nonpublic school will be established -in his school district he should: 1. -Ask to visit the new school prior to its opening. 2. Ask the administrator of the school for the information listed in I.A.2. above. 3. If the above information appears to be satisfactory, recommend to his board of education' that the schnal_be determined to provide "equiva- lency of instruction." The public school district should proceed to provide appmlarlate transportation, textbooks, and health services to th tudents of the nonpub ic-sc�'ool. II. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED- FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR Local school officials are usually familiar with established nonpublic schools in their districts; they are aware of .the general character of the schools, their instructional programs, and the achievements of their pupils through test results. Such information should satisfy local school officials that these established schools offer equivalent programs of instruction and, therefore, it is not necessary for them to make formal visits to these nonpublic schools. However, if a question about such a school does arise, the following procedure should be followed: 4 - Apri 1 1980 I. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR cont'd. 1. The superintendent of schools of the district in which the school is located should inform the administrator of the nonpublic school that a question has been raised about equivalency of instruction in the school. 2. Before visiting a nonpublic school because a question has been raised about the. equivalency of its instruction, the superintendent of schools, in conjunction with the district superintendent, where applicable, should contact the, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Nonpublic Schools in the State Education Department to inform that office of the question. 3. The superintendent of schools should request to visit the nonpublic school at a time that is mutually agreed upon by al I parties in- vol ved. 4. At the time of the visit, the superintendent should check on the information which led to the assertion of the lack of equivalency. The superintendent may review the following: a) Curriculum outlines b) Textbooks c) Test results d) Attendance rosters 5. Before a school is determined not to be equivalent; the public school authorities may wish to review the process and results with the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic Schools, State Education Department, as a check on the thoroughness and fairness of the review. The superintendent should also inform the superintendents of schools in other districts where students at the nonpublic school in question reside that equivalency of instruction is being reviewed. 6. During the period of investigation abouf equivalency, services to the students attending the nonpublic school should be continued. Trans- portation, textbook services, and health services are to continue unless and until the board of education of the local public school district determines that the program is not-equivalent. J 5 - April 1980 If. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR cont'd. y. Prlot to a determination of nonequivalency, the board of education and the local superintendent of schools should meet with the officials of the nonpublic school to discuss the situation. If the problem can be remedied in a short period, the school should be required to make the appropri- ate changes and should be given time to do so prior to a determination of nonequivalency. If assistance is needed, the board is advised to contact the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic Schools, State Education Department. 8. Once a board of education approves a resolution at a public meeting that a nonpublic school is not equivalent, the par- ents of the students attending that school should be notified in writing that their children will be considered truant if they continue to attend that school. The parents should be given a reasonable time in.which to transfer their. children to either a public school or another nonpublic. school. At the end of that time, all transportation, textbooks, and health services should be withdrawn. If parents continue to enroll their children in a nonpublic school whose program has been determined to be nonequivalent, they should then be notified that petitions will be filed in Family Court by the public school district authorities to the effect that their children are truant. III. REGISTRATION AND EQUIVALENCY The State Education Department registers high schools. If a nonpublic high school is registered by the State, we recommend that the superintendent of schools and the board of education of the district need make no determination with respect to" equivalency. A nonpublic high school may choose not to be registered even though its program of instruction is equivalent to that offered in the local public high school. The fact that a high school is not registered does not in its mean ,that its program of instruction is ,not equivalent. However, should a nonpublic school offering high schooklevel study c oose not to be registered, the local superintendent of schools will be advised of this by the State Education Department. The superin- tendent and the local district must determine equivalency of instruction through local review. This would also be the case should a nonpublic school apply for registration and not meet the requirements for registration. In any case, a school district should call the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic Schools in the State Education Depart- ment before contacting the nonpublic high school about determining equivalency. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 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 successive) commencing on the �S Y, g . . . . . . . . . . . . . day . . . . . . . . ., 19 . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sworn to before me this . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public, State of New York No. 4806846 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires�_3l 19 P-f— NOTICE OF HEARINGS TIOTICE 1S HEREBY - GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of theTown Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following ;public.hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD County Tax Maps.as.District wetlands/tidal water along (Current -Owners: S. and J. TOWN BOARD .OF -AP- 1000, Section.53,Block4, Lot Great Peconic Bay;(2)I1I,Sec- i Catapano). PEALS at the Southold Town• .32• tion 100-32 to relocate accessory -8:45 - -p.m. Appeal No. Hall, Main .Road, 'Southold, 7:55 :p.m. Appeal 'No. garage building in the frontyard 3560-EDMUND,AND JOAN NY at a Regular Meeting com- 3503-GEORGE D. DAMIEN: area; (3).III, Section, 100=31, PRESSLER... Appeal from mencing "at 7:30 ;p.m, on Variance requesting-confirma- Bulk Schedule, to construct Building Inspector,Notice of THURSDAY, ,.OCTOBER 2, lion of Building Inspector's ac-. with lot coverage of all struc- Disapproval-dated 1/2/86 and 1986 and as follows: tions and prior Z.B.A.Decision tures in excess of maximum- ZBA Action No. _3463 .dated 7:35 ,p.m. Appeal. No. Rendered underAppealNo.949 permitted 20 percent.Location 5/6/86, and Variance' to the 3559.LEONARDUS AND of 9/1/66, recognizing. two of'-Property: South .Side of Zoning-Ordinance,Article VII, MARIE 'VANOUDEN- separate building lots, having Camp Mineola .Road, 'Mat- Section 100-71,"Bulk Schedule ALL:EN.'Variance to the Zon- insufficient area, width -and tituck;County Tax.Map District, and ,Article VII, Section ing Ordinance,Article III,Sec- depth as required by Article 111, 1000,Section.123,Block 6,.Lot 100-70(A)[1](d) for permission tion 100-31 for :permission to Section 100-34Bulk Scheduling 27. to establish a second :construct addition to dwelling' of Zoning Code. Location of .8:15 p.m. Appeal No, retail/business use in conjunc- with an insufficient:frontyard Pr'opertyrCorners-of Jackson, 3557-R;OBERT EGAN. tionwith;existing.nonconform- . setback', at"230.Sailor's Lane, Fifth and Main Streets, 'New Variances to the Zoning Or-,-. ing two family dwelling and Cutcliogue,N.Y.;District 1000, Suffolk,.NY;.County Tax Map dinance,•Articles.(!)III,Section antique-sales business use on Section 111, Block.14,Lot 07. District 1000,Section 17,Block 100-3.1 to reconstruct dwelling this parcel-of.68,9.12 sq. ft. in 7,:40 p.m. Appeal No. 9, Lot 12. with insufficient.total sideyards, area and 95.44 ft. lot width. .35'55-SHIRLEY •HOMAN. 8:00 ,p.m. Appeal No. insufficient(northwesterly).side Location of Property: "B-1" Variance 'to the Zoning Or- 3484=PHILIP AND ELLEN yard, and ;=insufficient front General Business Zoning dinance, -Article -III, Section BELLOMO. Variance -to the yard; (2) XI, Section District, North 'Side of Main 100-31 for permission to con- Zoning Ordinance,.Article XI., 100-119.2(B) for permission to Road, Southold,.NY; County struct addition to dwelling with Section 100419.2(C) for per- construct addition and Tax Map Parcel No. an insufficient rearyard setback, mission to-construct addition at reconstruct.dwelling within 75 1000-63-3-26. at 160 .Smith Drive, 'Peconic, rear of dwelling with an insuf- feet of tidal wetlands along The Board of Appeals will NY; District 1000;.Section 98, ficient setback_.from wetlands Spring Pond, Orient Harbor. hear at said time and place all Block 3,.Lot 38. along Great Pond, at 7455 Location of Property:330 Knoll persons,or representatives desir- 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. Soundview Avenue, Southold, Circle,East Marion,NY;"Map ing to be heard in each of the 3554-NORMAN AND'KAREN NY; County Tax Map.District of Section Two,-Gardiners Bay ` above hearings. Written com- REICH.Variance to the Zoning 1000, Section 59,"Block 6,-Lot Estates." Subdivision. Lots 27 ments may-:also be, submitted Ordinance, Article III, Section 8• and part of 28; County Tax prior.to the conclusion.of the 100-31 for permission to con- 8:05 p.m. .Appeal No. Map District 1000, Section 37, subject hearing.For more infor- struct dwelling with an.insuffi_ 3552-JOHN SENKO.Variance Block 5, Lot 12. mation,"please call 765-1809. .cient rear yard setback,at 1800 to the Zoning:Ordinance,Arti- 8:25 :p.m. Appl. No.'' Dated:'September•11, 1986. Rigllf Wa :,off the East Side VII,Sect�ony100-70,and Ar 3487-SE OF THE BY'ORDER:OF THE ,1�° tice "t0(i ),f ; OPEN DOOR Special 'excep- SOUTHOLD TOWN Y 0p0;� :pearittss;alra Ufa h s�topp ;� lion to the:Zontng;Ordinance, ,� •BOARD.OF APPEALS Lot 10; �* " !ng" hsey?n#t ti 1. "` ' Article 1II;Sectton:IW30(B)12]ail GERARD P.CrOEHRINGER, Kimon and Retzos,Minor.Sub- .,General Business Zoning, for.permission to construct and„ CHAIRMAN division No. 81, Lot No..2. District with insufficient"lot"area .establish House :of-.Worship a Linda Kowalski, at 49295 Main Road a,/k/a �'with related religious activities Board Secretary 7:50 p.m, Appeal `-No. � , ,. y 3547-JOSEPH AND Ackerly Pond Lane),-Southold, on a five-acre tract of land'. 1T-9/25/86(16) CATHERINE RIEMER. NY; County;Tax Map District referred to as Lot No.31 Minor .Variance to the Zoning Or- 1000,Section 7.0,Block-07;Lot Subdivision of Salvatore dinance, Article III,-Section 01;.contaihing'30,084± sq.ft. 'Catapano, which .received ' roval4/14/86 100-31, Bulk Schedule for:ap- 8:'10 p.m.' APPeal No. Sketch-Plan Approval , ,proval of insufficient lot area, 1553-EUGENE BOZZO, by the Town Planning Board. width and depth,of two parcels Variances to the Zoning Or- 'Location of Property: .West known and referred to as Lots dinance,Articles; (1) XI, Sec Side:of Main Bayview Road, No:96,97,98,and half of 99 at tion 100-119.2,for.permission to ISouthold, NY; County Tax P econic`BayEstates,' Giap No. construct-dwelling with an in- �,,^Map'District 1000,Section 69, 1124, and identified on the sufficient setback from Block 6, Part of Lots 8 and 2. .. ! ( 69�� � Planning Board Page 14 7/14/86s Vote of the Board: Ayes : Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards, Ward Mr. Hall, esq was present representing Mrs. Blua. Mr. Hall stated that Mres. Blua had three lots onthe FIDCO map and by the lot line change proposed, Mrs. Blua was eliminating the middle lot and leaving only 2 lots rather than 3. Mr.Hall also requested verification from the Board that Mrs. Blua will not loose the status of these lots which appear on the Olmstead Plan. The question of set backs was also raised by Mr. Hall who stated that the FIDCO map provides for 35' setback. Mr. Lessard stated that these are accepted maps—The Board also asked Mr. Hall to submit maps indicating a lot line change since the maps submitted indicated a set-off. Sanders and Schwartz - The Board reviewed this proposal for a set-off of 36, 000 square feet from 1. 45 acres located at Bayview Avenue, Mattituck. . This proposal is pending before the Board of Appeals and they were asking recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Bruer, esq. was present. Mr. Bruer explained that the lots contain existing houses and lots previously existed many years ago, and should be separated. It was noted that the underlying subdivision and houses were done prior to zoning. On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the following comments to the Board of Appeals regarding the application of Sanders and Schwartz located at Bayview Avenue, Mattituck: It is noted that there are two existing houses on the property and this proposal lessons the non-conformity of that situation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards , Ward Church of the Open Door - The Board reviewed this proposal for a site plan for construction of a church to include bible classes, Sunday School, NurserySchool and Kindergarten, Grades 1-4 , 'Youth Groups and Outreach Ministries. This proposal located at Bayview Road, Southold is at the proposed Lot no. 4 of the minor subdivision pending for Catapano. The site plan is also pending before the Board of Appeals for a special exception. It was noted that the site plan shows a future lot for a residence which the Board does not endorse. Paul Caminiti, esq. was present_ for the Church of the Open Door. Mr.. Caminiti pointed that the poposed future lot for a , house is notion the site, but on the key map. The Board stated that this should not be on the plan at all. Mr. Ward stated that he did not believe that a special exception allowed for a residence unless a church is allowed one residence. Pastor Hansen was also present for the review of this site plan. Mr. Caminiti stated the house would be a parsonage. Planning Board Page -15 7/14/86 Church of the Open Door Cont. - Mr. Mullen questioned if people would be staying in the church overnight. Mr. Caminiti stated that it would be no different from anyother church. Mr. Mullen also questioned the term, outreach. Mr. Caminiti stated that this took into consideration when the Pastor visited the hospitals, prisons and even the school is an outreach of the. .church. Mr. Mullen questioned the number of people estimated in the church. Mr. Caminiti stated that what they have right now. is 21 in the grade school and he anticipated that it cold rise to 29-. to 30 at the most. Mr.Hanson stated that there is 75in the Sunday School and for the day school, the project goal is not to exceed 14-15 per grade and that is the limit of what they could do on the acreage where they are presently lcoated. Mr. - Hanson explained that there are 27 in the nursery school, 6 in first grade, 7 in second grade, 7 in third grade, and 2 in fourth grade. Mr. Hansen stated that the present problem is that there is not enough land for the church and school and the present size of the locationis 1/8 of an acre. Mr. Mullen questioned if there ws day care. .. Mr. Hanson stated that there is no day care, they run a nursery school like many other churches in the' Town. Mr. Orlowski stated. that this is a permitted use _ in the A zone with a special exception and the Board of Appeals was asking---for the Planning Board' s comment. Mr. Orlowski stated that an objection was showing the future building lot on the site plan. Mr. . Hansen stated that this was on the plan because they _ wanted to show all future use of the site. Mr. Orlowski also noted - that the .lot is still part of a pending subdivision which must be finalized. Mr. Ward questioned if there was to be a playground r on the site and if it would be fenced. Mr. Hansen stated that they had planned for a small playground with gardens which they � - hope to have, since theyhave a small playground now. Mr. Orlowski questioned the drum and bugle corp which the church has formed. Mr. Hansen stated that he knew this would . be a problem with the R neighbors, the bugle corp practises 5 Sundays a year and would continue to reherse on Travler' s Street. Mr.. Ward stated that they should address all the site plan elements on.,the site le plan and many of the objections may stem.:.from the fact that people do. not know where the things will be located .onthe site. Mr: Caminiti stated that they would be happy to comply with whatever is requested. Mr. Caminiti also stated that the children will be 4th graders or 6 - 7 years old and they will certainly not be playing soft ball, foot ball or soccer. Mr. Ward also questioned the design of the building. Mr. Caminiti stated that it would be one-story with octogonal shape. Mr. Richard J. Cron, esq. ; c was present representing the neighbors. Mr. Cron asked if he iv could address the Board at this time. Mr. Cron stated that he k would like to put on the record for the Board that he is representing F� the group of neighbors with regard to the site plan and special exception. Mr. Cron stated that he did not know how soon the p Board would be making a recommendation to the Board of Appeals, I = however, he would like to present a memo to the Board so the points k .. of the adjacent property owners can be taken into consideration. Mr. Cron , stated that he had just become involved withthe case and did not have time to research all the data with regard to the pending subdivision, site plan and special exception. r 1 w Planning Board Page 16 7/14/86 Church of the Open Door - Mr. Orlowski stated that -the Planning Board only had jurisdiction over the subdivision and the site plan. And, the only comment that the Board had was that more site plan elements should be on the site plan. Mr. Cron questioned the time frame and how close was the Board to haviAg,ta completed site plan. The Board stated that it would up to the applicant to have everything put on the site plan and they could not make a recommendation that time. On a motion made by Mr.Edwards, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the following comment to the Board of Appeals with regard to the application for a special exception of the Church of the Open Door: 1. The Planning Board is not considering site plan approval at this time. If evidence is found, in the review by the Board of Appeals, to substantiate the granting of a special exception, the Planning Board will proceed with the site plan review. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mulle Latham, Edwards , Ward On a\De e by Mr. Latham, sec ded by Mr. Edwards , it was RESOthe Southold TownPl ning Board recommend to the Builment that a certi icate of occupancy be issued for lan of Cross Soun Ferr located. in Orient. A field "ins he site has bee made. Voter• : Ayes: Orl wski,• Mullen, Latham, Edwards A• stained: Ward (Mr. . Ward' s firm was involved with the project. ) . On a motion made by M Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the S uthol Town Planning Board refer the site plan for K and K P umbina the Building Department for certification. This proposal is ocated at Traveler' s Street in Southold is for a retail plumbi store, sur y dated June 4, 1986. Vote of the B ard: Ayes: Orlows i, Mullen, Latham, Edwards , Ward On a mo on made by Mr. Ward, secon ed by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLV that the Southold Town Planni g Board authorize the Chairman to en orse the site plan of Drs. Cilett ' and Claps for construction of of ices located at County Route 48, S thold, site plan made for CC Res' rant Corp. and dated as last mended June 18, 1986. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF. APPEALS MATTER OF CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 9: 25 p.m. Appeal No. 3487SE - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Special exception to con- struct and establish House of Worship with related religious activities on a five-acre tract referred to as Lot #3, Minor Subdivision of S. Catapano which received sketch,.'pl.an .approval 4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board. W/s Main Bayview Road, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN . GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey which shows the 5 acre parcel, March 6, 1986 in question which has 142. 19 feet on Bayview Road or what we refer to as Main Bayview Road. I 've seen in the application in reviewing it several times, a copy of the subdivision plan approximately 22. 95 acres of which this one lot of which is dated October 15, 1985 being lot #3; shown indicating a building envelope of 50 feet from the south side, 75 feet from the north side and approximately 150 feet in width. A copy of a pencilled in, colored in area indicating the building which now shows a distance from the south of 111 feet as phase one construction and 60 feet from the north side approximately north. It' s a little more to the west. No. It is almost due north. And I have a copy of 'the site plan dated June 25, 1986 indicating the building plus a little bit further to the rear is the one prior that I just read. Again, a simi- lar type of building and parking spaces so on and so forth. And I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody who would like to be heard? I think it' s Mr. Caminiti . Would you like to be heard on .this matter? MR. CAMINIT'I : Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Mr. Lessard. This is a big evening for us tonight. As you can tell, there are a number of people from the church. They're not all going to speak but they are here to indicate their support for the application. We have been waiting a long time for this tonight. So we are somewhat excited about it. So our enthusiasm shows. I see also though unfortunately, some other faces that I don 't know. I might as well address that issue right now. I have reason to believe that there is somez�,opposition. Unfortunately, in cases of this nature there is opposition. But'' the law is very clear in New York and in the constitution of the United States I'd like to make two points in this regard. I don't think it's necessary to go through the application because it' s fairly clear. We're making an appli- cation for the house of worship with all the specifications. All the activities, everything we need are completly in the file. Of the two points that I would like to make, the first point is this; under the town code, under section 30 sepcifically, numerates the permitted uses in A-Residential zone. And in section B of that same section, it clearly states that the following uses are per- mitted as special exceptions. The code lists 14 categories. And it starts off with the most advantageous use of the property and Page 2 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the. Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : that is two-family. The second is a place of worship. And than it goes on to colleges, libraries, hospitals, nursing rest homes, sanitarians, fraternity houses, golf courses, recreation camps, labor camp, (if you so wish) docking facilities, stables, ceme- taries and wineries. What I would like to call to mind is, we are making an application for a house of worship which is the second most on the list. The most advantageous use of the proper- ty that it be used. . . It' s not for a labor camp. It's not a sanitarian. And in this regard, I 'd like to make one point, if I may be permitted to read something from Mr. Andersen and his book on zoning as far as what may be permitted. I 'd like to have him treat this bluntly. It subsequently pointed out in his book that I can't elaborate any better on it and it reads; the courts re- peatedly emphasize a high purpose and morale of religious insti- tutions. The contributions of religious use to the public welfare is regarded as beyond discussion or dispute and the fostering rather hindering of such uses is considered to be the established policy of this state. It logically follows that zoning regula- tions which must be reasonably related to help safety, morals or public welfare, are difficult to justify when they propose limi- tations on a religious use. The constitution of the United States and the State of New York guarantee freedoms of religion. Reli- gious uses are unique in their management. Of this application, the courts have invoked these sections and support decisions which limit municipalities -to impose zoning regulations upon churches and their institutions. If you will bear with me, it goes on just a little further. Religious uses possibly to a greater extent that is true of most uses, must be centrally located. Commonly, they serve a limited primary area. The efficiency of their service would be impaired if they were required to locate in places incon- venient or unaccessable to their members. In addition, they serve' neighborhoods by providing a meeting place for civic and charita- ble groups. Some of these events can be achieved only if the building which houses the use is within walking distance of homes. The need' for a central residential location has set religious uses apart and justify special treatment. If a religious use if broadly defined, it may include schools, recreational facili- ties which do produce traffic, noise and litter luxurious to a residential district. The second point I think really is the crux of the matter inas far as there is opposition from adjacent neighbors. And again reading from Anderson the next point, con- siderations of what he is discussing, section 121 of our code, He says; these considerations presently are not relevant where religious use is involved. A permit for a religious use may not be denied because the use will be detrimental to the neighborhood and the neighbors thereof. The church may not be excluded simply because it will have an adverse effect on the land values in the vacinity. The high purpose and moral value far out weiq.h losses of a few persons. And there is no other inconveniences or insufficent basis for a denial of a permit. A special permit for a religious use may not be denied on the ground that the use will geneaate traffic, congestion or that it will diminish property values. So I felt those two points should be made right from the Page 3 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of .Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : beginning so that they can be kept in mind' as the hearing pro- gresses. The balance of time remaining to us; we would like to break into 3 segments if it pleases the Board. Number one; our pastor, Pastor Hansen would like to address the Board and introduce some of the members that will explain to the Board about our church and very breifly indicate why we're here, where we came from and what we expect. And then the second segment; we have a parish where we are presently located, Mr. Mulgraff who would like to read a short statement into the record.!. And then there are one or two other people that would like to indicate their support for the application who are from the Grange Road and Bayview area section. And finally if the Board has any questions, . I 'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to ask you one question Mr. Caminiti . This is' a question I 've never asked anybody. We have had this room inundated with people probably at the point of 150 maybe 200 people when we had an application for windmill towers in Orient. I'm going to ask you a question and I 'm going to ask you to think about it during the period of time that the remaining people and part of the congregation are speaking. I 'm going to ask you how you can best tell us how we can grant this application to you and I will further expound on that towards the end of the hearing. Ok. But this is something that is rather difficult for us to deal with. There is screening involved here. There are noise level areas that we have to deal with. And I want you to think about that and see what you can do to help us in granting an application of this nature. MR. CAMINITI : I think I can give the answer now Mr. chairman. Section 100-30 of special exceptions indicate. . . Paragraph indi- cates the permitted uses in an A zone. Paragraph B shows the following uses are permitted as a special exception which means that with your approval. That' s why we're here, for you to grant this special permit. It is specifically permitted. The next sentence is the important part. Subject to site plan approval. Why we 're here is to have you say yes. Under the law you're al- lowed to build a house of worship in a B zone but we have to regu- late how it' s going to be done. These are all subjects, all areas for site plan approval. At that time we can discuss buffers, light- ing, location, any limitations that are within reason can be dis- cussed and final. Everybody can have input on it. At this point, I see no reason a special application, special exception can not be granted subject to site plan approval. At that time, whatever the objections are, whatever problems there are. . . Page 4 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean site plan approval by the Plan- ning Board? Alright. I thank you and we'll continue. I just want to say to the people that are in the audience, and I apolo- gize for interrupting the people who are going to speak and pos- sibly change somebody's train of thought and I am not doing that intentionally. There are certain people in the audience that are waiting for decisions tonight and I doubt seriously if we are going to get anywhere. I' .know I see Mr. Warwick in the rear of the room. I see the gentleman from Metro Electric in the front of the room. And I doubt seriously if we're going to get to any of those tonight. And not totally because of the length of this hearing, but because we do have one hearing after this one. And the only application that I know we will be voting on tonight is the application out in New Suffolk. I believe the name is . Thomas Shalvey. So if you're here to wait, we'll not be dealing with anything other than that (to my knowledge) tonight. MR. HANSEN: Good evening, Mr. chairman and members of the Board. I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and I'm also a gradu- ate of the Boston University. I earned my master of divinity de- gree from Gordon Cahnwell. We are evangelicals. We are members of the national association of evangelical of 32,000 evangelist churches in the United States with a constituency of 10 million people. So we are not just some little group on the coin. We are Christians. We are bible reading Christians. We love the lord Jesus Christ. : The god of whom it serves and to whom I repre- sent tonight who are natives of heaven and earth of whom has said the earth is the lords and the followers thereof, would like to use 5 acres of his land. That it is why we are here. And I know it sounds like a big thing but we have a building on one tenth of an acre. We are purchasing 5 acres. Fifty times more than what we have. On some Sundays. we have to ask people to stay outside. 160 people at the Sunday service, that is a lot of people to cramb into a little building. You understand. So this building now , - sits on 75% of it' s property. We are seeking to build on 4% of 5 acres. These things are not unreasonable. They're absolutely within our rights. They're god given privileges as well as our constitutional privileges. The amendment to the constitution that congress will make no law restricting an establishment of religion. New York State does not have a church incorporation code. It has a religious incorporation code. It has a broad, a wide reading as interpreted by the state. I know this because we had to do this time and time again with the state. In their application in 1981 for special exception, it was granted to us to be there. We have grown. God has blessed us. The people of the community I know have profited from the ministry there and they also would like to. And I'd just like them all to stand (if they would) and show those that are here from the church. . They are in favor of going ahead with this project. You guys may all be seated. The rest are home watching their children or their elderly or something like that. But I do ask that you look favorably upon what is my life' s work. I have put all my energy since I came here in 1976. Working in a shipyard, start- ing bible study in a shipyard. The church grew from that base. We had no outside support. The money raised from this land for the purchase doesn not come from yard sales, bake sales, anything. Page 5 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. HANSEN (Continued) : It was the free gifts of the people of Southold Town that want us to go ahead. I 'd just like to say that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Pastor. Who is the next person that would like to speak? MR. CAMINIT'J : I believe Mr. M-algraf _ .would like to read a short statement into the record. MR. MALGRAF . : No. I'm, not a member of the church but we have been neighbors since 1979 when I first rented the building from the Grange and we 've found them and considered them to be most cooperative as neighbors. I own the building next door. I work in my shop every day. I remained in my house for two days and . I 've got no complaints to the church, children, meetings, study, worship or anything else that' s going on over there. I just want you to know that I 'm in favor of this church being granted a spe- cial exception to build a house of worship. I hope that they sell the facility and the new neighbors will be cooperative as they've been. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR. CAMINITL : Miss Jane Bender would like to make a br-_.,ef state- ment also Mr. chairman. MISS BENDER: I just want to state that my husband and I have purchased a lot on Grange full we1T'_ ._l knowing that the church intends to be built almost directly behind our house and we feel that it' s a good use of the land and that we have no objection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank -you very much. Sir. Kindly state your name. MR. BENDER: John Bender. Rather than go through a rebuttal later on, you addressed the noise level. And if you would care to come up to my house some Sunday morning and you want to hear a noise level with little sons of parents riding their motor bikes across this area and the constant pounding of air cannons and water can- nons, I would just assume hear a little choir and carolling. MR. CAMINIT'I : Sandy Kaiser (Mr. chairman) would also like to speak. MS.. KAISER: My name is Sandra Kaiser. My family and I live across the street from Grange Road. We've lived there for a good many of years. As a. matter of fact, the land the church is now hoping to build on was once owned by my grandfather. We have no objection to this church and school becoming part of the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, we welcome it. For many years my family has been associated with local education and there can be no two finer as- pects of stability in the neighborhood than a church and school and we really are in favor of such a thing. And I can attest to what Mr. Bender said. The other Sunday evening when I took a walk Page 6 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the. Open poor Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. KAISER: (Continued) : on Grange Road to visit a friend, there was a motor bike going back and forth and some sort of a gathering at a house with loud music. So there is noise there and I think that the as- pect of a church and school being run by responsible people who do bare about the area that they're in and they are responsive to the criticisms or feelings of the neighbors and they are al- so caring about the way the children would behave. So we're in favor of this coming into our area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. CAMINITI : I don't know .of anybody else that I know of that would speak before the Board tonight. But by all means if any- body in the audience wants to speak on our behalf may do so. If not, I 'd be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have at this time or if there' s no on :else to speak. I know the time is getting late. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just tell me how far away from the south property line you intend to build the church. The reason why I ask is I have 110 feet on one application and I don't have any footage on the other, on the actual site plan I believe which was submitted to the Planning Board. You don't necessarily have to give me that right away. MR. CAMINITI:: It' s 5 acres. And we've been back there and it' s extremely, appears to be flat. And originally, we thought we could just locate the church as far away as possible from the back yards of the people on Grange Road. And it' s not that we haven't given it some consideration. We did before we even contemplated buying the land and we did send out letters and have a joint meet- ing with all the people on Grange Road. And our plans were- openly _ discussed with them and we indicated to them just about where we intend to place the building. The final site plan you have is , takes into consideration the contours of the land. We were hoping that we could utilize the natural contours of the land by putting in a lower ground floor that would accomodate the handicap so that we could have an entrance from the ground level right into the ground floor very similar to the special exception and the plan that was granted to the Mattituck Community Fellowship..:where .they do have access to the ground level without the benefit of an elevator. I don't know what the final results were there but that is basical- ly why the site plan was submitted in the form that it was. I be- lieve the distance from Grange to the back house would be between 2 to 3 hundred feet from the rear of anybodys house. And the :way the church is presently contemplated, it' s going to be a sufficient distance. That' s not a final site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I h1so thank the group of people here tonight for their courtesy and I thank Mr. Caminiti for. .:placing groups of people to speak rather than having each individual person speak and I think that was extremely helpful. Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application. Mr. Cron? Page - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD CRON ESQ : Mr. chairman, members of the Board. I 'm here to represent a group of property owners that border on the proposed use of this property. And that is to wit: the various owners that live in the Grange Road area. I can agree with Mr. Caminiti when he had indicated that there are people that he doesn't know. I share the same sentiment. I think it's wonderful that the people that are present here reflecting their support for this particular project. However, I want to make it especially clear to the Board and to the people present that I 'm not here in terms of speaking on a religious issue for that is .not the issue that is coming before this Board. I will be the last person to stand here or -on any other occasion and speak against god. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of zoning. The issue is one of a proposed use of land. The issue is one as to whether the application as it is presented to the Board, is one which this Board can grant under the zoning ordinance. I would like .to rephrase your question to Mr. Caminiti and then I will answer your question. And that is; how can I best serve - the Board by showing the Board why it can't grant the application. The application as it is proposed, is under section 100-30B2 which is a section that exists under article 3 which is the residential section of the zoning ordinance. What the applicant' s seeking is a special exception to (and his notice has indicated) construct a house of wor- ship. Now within that area, there are a oreat number of other pro- posed uses. However, if the Board looks at the application itself, it is clearly confined to section 100-30B2 . The other uses that would be forth coming, I would submit, would have to come under 100-30B3 . The Board - is confined and subject to what the ordinance says. I am well aware of what the New �York State Constitution pro- vides. I 'm well aware of what the United States Constitution pro- vides in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. I am also well aware of what the courts have said in terms of religious uses and how they construe them. However, the courts also go further and are not oblivious to the fact that reasonable rules and regulations promulgated under a zoning ordinance in order to control land use in - terms of the public health, -safety and welfare and comfort of the general community are clearly recognized and can be applied if they are fair' and reasonable. I submit to you that the proposed uses of the land would require a total of 12 acres of land use. You're going to ask me how I arrived at that and I 'm going to tell you. Under a house of worship since it' s in a residential area, it requires a total of 80 thousand square feet or approximately (under our ordinance) 2 acres . Excluded from a house of worship is a parsonage which is eventually a proposed use by the applicant. Since it's excluded, it too would have to have its own 80 thousand square feet of land area or approximately 2 acres. So there you're required 4 acres of land use. I would: submit to you, if you would examine the site plan, on the southwest corner there is a .parcel delineated of a size which is obviously less than 2 acres or 80 thousand square feet as being a proposed parsonage area. Now this is all on this 5 acres of land. On top of the 5 acres, the application also seeks a number of school type of institutions . Now you can talk about these as being church related. You can talk about them as non-public. Or as the ordinance says, they're educational institutions. The point being is that the ordinance clearly delineates that if you're going to seek as a special exception a school of whatever nature it is, you're going to have to comply with the requirements of section 100-30B. And that section • Page 8 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of the Church of the Open Door Southold Town. Board of Appeals MR. CRON : (Continued) : requires that if you're going to have a school of any nature, you're going to have to have 5 acres of land plus one additional acre for every 25 students. If my recollection serves me in terms of what was indicated to the Planning Board as the anticipated pupil capacity of the project which I believe was somewhere be- tween 14 or 15 students per classroom with the site plan or the drawing that accompanied the site plan, indicating a total of 5 classrooms, you're somewhere in the area of 70 or 75 students. That being the case, you're going to require 3 additional acres on top of 5 . So you've got 8 for the school, 2 for the parsonage and 2 for the house of worship. The 5 acres clearly will not. do the job and I understand what the applicant is doing and it's nice work if you can get it. But they're packaging everything under a house of worship and you may be able to argue that. I'm not saying that you can't. However, our ordinance specifically says you can't. Now I think you as a Board, are obligated to follow the dictates of the zoning ordinance and you can't seek all the things that the ap- plicant is seeking under the B2 special exception because B3 re- quires you use special exception with respect to the school. Another factor that has to be considered is; that since the land area would be totally insufficient to do all the things that the applicant seeks. An area variance would be required. Now you're going to run into a lot of difficulty. Because the area variance that would be sought would be so substantial that (in my opinion) the Board could not legally grant it. It would be going contrary to :the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. It would require (if you ex- cept my argument) approximately a 60o deviation from what the or- dinance would require which would be very substantial . The case law of the State of New York also recognizes that when you're deal- ing with zoning ordinances, you can impose reasonable rules and regulations which are intended to promote the public health, we-l- _ fare and safety of the community. Andlwhen you 're dealing in areas of side yard, front yard and height and area, you (the Board) are bound by the dictates of the ordinance. Oh sure, you can make in- substantial deviations by nothing which is going to not promote the public health, welfare and safety of the community. I would refer the Board to the ordinance itself in terms of what the powers and duties of this Board are under section 100-121 and those specifical- ly that deal with special exceptions. The Board can't disregard those specific requirements. S understand some of the cases in terms of what they indicate, has to be the leniency or so called leniency that you would give to areas of noise and so forth. That may be fine with the church use. ' I 'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is your ordinance which says you must give consideration to all those areas in determining the application. Under A, you have got to give recognition to the change in the character of the area by virtue of the particular land use. You've got to give (by the Board) the consideration to the conservation of property values. I 'll conceive that that may be a difficult thing to es- tablish at this point but there is the possibility that the land and the residences in the vacinity of the particular application Page 9 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON : (Continued) : would lose their marketability value. In which event, the next step down is the loss of market value. You can't marketj, some- thing when the price goes down. You've got to consider what ef- fect the vehicular traffic will have in terms of congestion in the area. There' s a whole group of things. I would venture to say that from A to I, there must be at least 9 of those that this Board would have to consider in terms of ruling 'on this application. I just don't think that the Board can grant the application as it is proposed on the basis of the fact that sufficient land does not exist to do all of the things that they propose. In addition, I have no idea what the applicant proposes with respect to the 40 by 80 building which is in another phase. It' s clear that on the basis of what the applicant proposes under B2, they're only looking at 40 parking spaces. That doesn't consider at all the parking that might be available for the parish or the school. It' s strictly the number of parishoners that are anticipated which I think they indi- cate to be 200. I think in the light of what I have said, I think the Board has to look at this as being an application that strictly confine to section B2. There is no application pending for a school under B3. There is no applicaiton pending for a variance from area requirements. Which in fact in my opinion if it were made, I don't think you could grant it. So I hope that in terms. of what I have indicated, it may be of some direction to the Board.. In futherance of the things that I've said, I secured an expert opinion from Ed- ward Hinderman, the former Building Inspector which I ask to ..be made part of the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Excuse me just one second. Would you like to take a look at this affidavit that Mr. . . . . What I'm going to do at this time, if you don't mind, is recess for approximately 5 minutes and let Mr. Strang finish his hearing if you don' t mind. Mr. Strang let me just recess this and I 'll be right with you. 10 : 08 Two-minute recess (t.o -c,ontinue with Egan hearing ) . 10 : 10 Five-.mi-nute break in meeting . 10 : 15 Church of Open Door Hearing reconvened . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit , could I have that back. That which I have given you. I 'll give you a copy of it if you'd like. '0 k . (Mr . Caminiti paused for d few minutes . ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any time you're ready. MR. CAMINITI : I have so many thoughtsthat are on my mind at this point Mr. chairman. And' three years ago, I. probably would have some fire coming out of my nostri Is on what I heard. I can't believe the preposterous idea that he just proposed 12 acres. If he wants us to buy 12 acres, take 12 acres back there, we'd be more than happy to do that. He' s complaining about fi ve acres. We Want 'Page 10 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : to put 12. We'll gladly put 12. We're operating out of a lit- tle school right now. One tenth of an acre. We 'd be more than happy to do that. But we're not here to insight or to argue. We love our neighbors. We love the people on Grange Road. We want to accomodate them. Some day I hope that this Board per- mits, we will move our church down there and some day I hope that they' ll even attend our services and our parishoners will welcome them with open arms..; I want to address this to a point of view that we have Mr. Hinderman' s letter. Let -the record show that Mr. Hinderman is not here. He can not be cross examined. I won't go into Mr. Hinderman' s record. The record speaks for itself. He states that it' s his opinion only that he blatantly indicates in paragraph 2 that section 100-30 permits houses of worship and underlines the word only. It does not say that. It says it specifically authorizes special exception for the construc- tion of a house of worship. What does the case say about house of worship? What is a house of worship? I ' ll quote you cases that I just happen to have. It just so happens these happen to be New York cases. They're all public cases. What is- a church or house of worship? It' s been held that the term is not to be so narrowly construed as to limit strictly to formal worship and the use of the premise for the construction or establishment of a church. But on the contrary, it is to be considered to be broad enough to include a permit of related activities such as a men' s and women 's social club, religious teaching and training, use of the premise for cor- porate meetings, meetings for girlscouts and boyscouts, Sunday schools, kindergarten and playschool facilities for children, pro- visions for sleeping quarters for retreatants and parking accomo- dations. An example: see .Community Synagogue vs. Bates a 1956 case. Diocese of Rochester v-s. Planning Board, 1956. Zoning ordi- nances permit the use of property in a residential district for a church or similar place of worship, parochial school, rectory, con- vent, see section: held that the contemplated use of the estate is permitted by the ordinance. ' And that since. there is nothing to indi- cate that such would adversely effect the health, safety and morals or general welfare of the town, the Zoning Board would be directed ' to is- sue a certificate. A mere statement that health, morals and public welfare is at stake, is a general statement and there' s nothing in the record to indicate that a church would indicate any moral decay of this town. When you're fighting beer parties, you're fighting distribution of porn and everything else that goes on, you strip away the provado and you strip away all the legal arguments. What are we complaining about? A school of 24 kids that they are laugh- ing. Is that what they're objecting to? People, kids are going to laugh and scream in the playground. That seems to be their basic objection is that they're against the school. I want to continue. The courst said that the uses proposed can, within the true intent of the ordinance, they can permit places of worship. Schools and it allows buildings for a community looking for the purpose of re- ligious study, education and followship. Stark' s appeal, the build- ing in the rear of a Roman Catholic church is sleeping quarters for retreatants was upheld by the court. Another case, common law sis- ter' s home was to be considered an intrical part of any Roman Catho- Page 11 - October 2 , 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI : (Continued) : lic church project. Another case, in terms of the zoning ordi- nance, churches were permitted in residence district. And para- graph 10 of 211 for accessories to buildings, upheld at the Board' s discussion, granted the permit, was consistent with the Board' s interpretation of section paragraph of parking allows for church members and staff was ok. I have a couple left. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish the Board with copies of those actual cases? MR. CAMINITI : I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. (Changed.,,to Tape 3 . ) MR. CAMINITI : The word package deal was mentioned in the oppo- sition. Diocece of Rochester where the court would refrain to so called package deals submitted at an application by a church organization for a permit to build a class A residential. The church being more than merely an edifice affording the people an opportunity to worship god. The court said a church is more than merely an edifice affording the people the opportunity to worship god. Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer. And sacrificing all churches recognizing that the area of their responsibilities are broader in leading the congre- gation of prayer. Churches have always deviated social groups for adults and youth for the fellowship of the congregations with the result of a parish, church or school. All these cases, _ I don't make these cases up. These are reported cases of public cases. I think Mr. Cron , s ' silence in referring to these cases, screams .out loud. You can't disregard them. This is the law of the State of New York. The law, the law of the United States, ' the law for 2, 000,years. 2, 000 years unfortunately, is on my mind because for 2000 .years people have opposed churches and for 2000. years, they've not been successful. And to this day, there is not one city, one little town that hasn't had the same argu- ments raised. They have no approval and this town certainly . (I think) is bounded by the tradition of the United States. If this town wants to be the first to say no to God, fine. The notoriety will go forth and I don't think we could ever come to grips with that. Mr. Cron says he doesn't want to argue against God. He is arguing against God, I 'm sorry to say. When he stands there and opposes the application of a house of worship on a novel idea that we need 12 acres, I 'd like to point out the very section 121 that he reads. He didn't read all of it. Let me read you Article I. I beg your pardon. It' s Article L. 'It lists A through K whether the use is incidental; obnoxious gas, electrical .dis- charges. But in L, the last item says; is the use to be. . . . Under the use to be operated is unreasonably near a church or school or a theatre. So all your previous paragraphs A through Page 12 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door' Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : L were all for one purpose. That' s to protect the church, pro- tect the school. You don' t want these other items close to the school. 121 absolutely gives the Board the right to look at the questions on a site plan. It gives the Planning Board the right to look at it to see that these various parts of the site plan do not interfer with the church, do not interfer with the school. Not to be against the church or the school. I don't want to go on. The reason that I made the two points that I made, I read from Anderson. Let me make this point. Every field of endeavor has a bible. We have a bible that we follow. The zoning has a bible. And as far as I know, this is the lead- ing authority. This is the bible for zoning. Robert M. Anderson, New York Zoning and Practice. He devotes a whole chapter on uses of land by religious institutions. I read the pertinent parts and each one was called to your attention. The cases they they site with respect to zoning restrictions, New York adheres to the majority view. Majority view that religious institutions are beneficial to the public welfare by their very nature. Consequently, a proposed , religious use should be accomodated even when it would be incon- venient for the community. There is a case in 1983; Unification for all Christians against Roosevelt . Anothercase application. Garden City Jewish Center Diocese of Rochester which there are more than 40 , for a religious use permitted in a residential district only after a permit. A permit can not be withheld solely on the ground that the use may compound traffic problems. First West- minister Presbyterian, have a community church and are permitted to construct a church and a parochial school may not be denied solely on the ground that the use will create traffic. State of. New York against Miller, Community Synagogue vs. Bates also with mention to religious uses, there' s a whole paragraph on it. The church is merely more than an edifice supporting people. Again quoting the Diocese of Rochester. Consistent with this view, activity related to the purpose of a religious organization is • a - religious use. The concept has been - . held to include the church itself, a parish house, a. convent, a parochial school, recreational facilities and accessory parking areas. The very package deal that we are talking about. The same conclusion was reached in the case for a school for teaching of secular projects. Subjects operated as an intrical part of the synagogue. Westbury Hebrew Congregational against Dowser - 1969 directly and to the point. Let me just read you something also very important. Faith of Today, Inc. 1952 . An organization engaged in conducting televised religious services and operated a religious correspondence school and acquired a building in a residenital district and remodelled it to include an office and a stuido. Equipped the office with postage meters, address-a- graphs, offset press. The organization sought a permit for further remodelling to add a print shop, storage room, bible classrooms, kitchen and dining room. The Order -- was denied. The special permit was denied. However, the Appellate- Division-Second Department, this department Suffolk County reversed the court and the Board holding that the ordinance did not prohibit the philantrophic or elemontinary corporation from carrying -out its functions in the manner proposed. The court of appeals affirmed that in their opinion. The highest court in the state affirmed. That was 1960. Page 13 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : Faith of Today, Inc. Application for Faith of Today, Inc. gives a parental judicial sanction to use of commercial and even indus- trial equipment by the religious organization. So that' s the law we're faced with. Those are the regulations. That's the zoning that we have and that' s the law that we must follow today. Any other departure from that is setting new law. Setting new law in the entire country. We've been in touch. You're going to in- timidate, I'll intimidate. We've been in touch with many organi- zations. We're a member of the national association of evangi- cals. They're looking for a test case. i �By golly if this town wants to adhere to regulation of a religious use by zoning to come up with 12 acres for a proposterous little school that has 24 students, we'll make history. One other point. I would like Mr. Hinderman' s letter to be reviewed by town coun. .l. I would like that to be reviewed. It' s blantantly in error. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any . obdectJ.on to that , Sir? MR. CRON I have no objection . I find it interesting that Mr. Caminiti seems to think that I 'm opposing that which is pro- posterous. I think it' s the zoning ordinance that has the require- ments which obviously he feels that he would not wish to fulfill. Let me take each of some of his things that he has said in the least of importance first. That I consider to be of the least im- portance because I did not propose that 12 acres had to be secured. I 'm saying that the ordinance seems to dictate in the way the or- dinance is written, that you would require 12 acres for that which they seek to do. Period. And I 'm not making this a religious is- sue that Mr. Caminiti would seem to like me to do that. It' s strict- ly a zoning issue. It' s strictly what the ordinance provides. . _ That' s the law that you're faced with. If you want to construe of the cases in the courts "of the State of New York, that' s fine too. But I 'm saying to you the law that you're stuck with is the law that you've got in front of you. The Southold Town zoning -or- dinance. And I say that that ordinance shows you've got to do cer- tain things and that the applicah.t has got to do certain things.. when he wants certain things. Mr. Caminiti referred to letter L in the 100-121 powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I don 't know how he reached the distorted conclusion that since L provides that you must take into consideration in granting a special exception, churches etc. , that are in the surrounding area. I thought this was an attempt to create one. Not to put something where one already exists. Now going back to one of the more cru- cial issues of the case. Mr. Caminiti refers to the fact that the house of worship incorporates a number of things and I don't dis- pute that. The case in the courts seem to indicate that. However, we're not dealing with zoning ordinances here in which that is the only provision of the ordinance. His argument may have some merit if the only thing in the ordinance says a house of worship may be granted by special exception. You might get away with that argu- ment. However, we go one step further in our ordinance. Our town fathers in adopting the ordinance says, hey; we're going to look Page 14 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CR,flN (Continued) : into the uses that are going to be employed in the terms of the special exception. One of which is the house of worship which re- quires (in an A zone) 2 acres. The second special exception is that which deals with the school--: and there is no delineation of what a school is defined as. As far as I'm concerned, a rose by any other name is still a rose. A school is a school and it does not fall within the ambit of the special exception of the house of worship. Now if you want to over rule your own ordinance, if you want to find your own ordinance unconstitutional in its appli- cation, that' s your perogative. I can't stop you. But the ordi- nance says yo.u:'ve got to treat them separately. And if you've got to treat them separately, they can't do what they want to do with the application that' s pending before this Board. Is is simply that simple. You can broaden it all you want. But Mr. Caminity' s argument would then reach the logical conclusion that the land re- quirements in terms of the public health and safety and welfare, is such that you can do anything you want if you're a religious organi- zation, on 2 acres of land. That's what he' s proposing because that' s all the ordinance would require him• to do. If his argument is to stand, he can put his parsonage, he can put his house of wor- ship and he can put his school which incidentally, by their own ad- mission, is not 24 students. I understand when they appeared before the Planning Board, they already had 48 and they anticipated approx- imately 70 or 75. But be that as it may, that' s what you've got to deal with. And you can address all:.. of the case laws in the State of New York as to what' s incorporated in a house of worship. That' s wonderful. But your zoning ordinance tells you what you've got to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Cron Mr. Caminiti, do'. you have anything to say before we close the hearing? MR. CAMINITI: That' s exactly the point I'm making. It' s a religious institution. All the cases. Anderson and his book, the two points I initially raised. There is that special consideration that is given to churches, religious institutions, in zoning. Paragraph B says very clearly the following uses are permitted in an A residential zone. Places of worship. What is a place of worship? We discussed that. It includes everything in the package deal provided it meets with site plan approvals and meets with all the other regulations of safety, traffic and so forth and we're willing to address that issue in our site plan approval. We're here only for special ex- ception. The only two requirements are no building shall be erected nearer than 50 feet .to any street. We 're not nearer than 50 feet and the total area is 20 feet. Paragraph 3 ; and Mr. Cron is insistant that we be as �a private school. We are not a private school. We are not a college. It says or other institutional edu- cational institution. It says any such school. Paragraph c shall be a not for profit corporation within the meaning of internal reve- nue. We are not a not for profit educational school under the mean- ing of internal revenue. What is a ministry? A ministry of the church and it is not a private school. It sometimes is called a Christian school and it i.s sometimes called parochial school. It Page 15 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of the Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT,I (Continued) : is sometimes called jewish school. I don't know what you call it but it is a ministry of the church. It is not a private school in no stretch of the imagination. No amount of badgering is going to make it a private school. It is a ministry of the church and protected under the United States constitution and State of New York in all the reported cases that I know of. I have given you the cases. I will be glad to give you a photostated copy of these cases. It has been decided by Mr. Taskerand the attorney general in 1981 when we opened up on Beckwith Avenue; that the school was permitted and a special exception was given by this very Board that we were allowed to operate a school as part of our ministry. And to change that now in midstream because we still don't know how many people are objecting to it. Mr. Cron never saw fit to respond to my letter that I wrote to him in response to a suggestion made by this very Board and we still have no idea of how many people are opposing it. Whether it be one or two or four. That' s not ma- terial at this point. The question is, is that we come under 2 or do we come under 3. I would respectfully suggest that this matter be referred by this Board to Mr. Tasker for his opinion. And I have no doubt at all as to what his decision would be. We are not a private school and no stretch of the imagination can make it. As far as numbers, we have 24 students in our classroom. We have 24 students in the pilgrim school. There are 6 little kids in each school . We have a nursary school which we have 2 and 3 4-year old kids and we have a kindergarten with 5 and 6 years. In the pilgrim school there ' s 24. The good lord be willing, the most that couldl.happen is that that would double and that certainly does- not mean 12 acres of land for 48 kids. Even the catholic school Sac- red Heart, would laugh if you ever told them they needed 12' acres down there. Sacred Heart school in Cutchogue certainly doesn't have 12 acres. At the most, they have a couple. Christian Science, you gave them special exception to the Christian Science church right here just within recent times down on Indian Neck Lane and no question was ever raised about schools or their bible school. So I respect- fully submit to this Board that the matter be referred to town at- torney for their opinion before any credance is given to considering the Church of the Open Door as a section in 2 or 3 category. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit.i- just before you sit down, you said in the beginning of the hearing that you had met with certain people on Grange Road and I don't know if those people were in favor or opposed. Was there any specific buffer and footage that was spok- en about or anything of that nature that would construed to be a noise level buffer? MR. CAMINIT'I: Right now there' s a natural buffer right behind Mr. ( ) property. Right behind Mr. Bu ( ) property on the corner property, there' s a natural hedge right there now. We would be happy to comply with any site plan provision for buffer or scenic trees or whatever pleases the neighbors. As I said before, we're not looking to antagonize anybody. The bible says love thy neighbor. It' s difficult at times but by golly, that' s what we want to do. We don' t want to antagonize. If you want to have a buffer. . . . . There' s all kinds of rumors in the streets. I can't believe the streets. I hear about the ball fields and the lights and the lights Page 16 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals. MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : we're going to have on all night long. It's fear. Fear of their own making that they are projecting these ideas. Yes we met with them. We discussed buffer area. And in response at the meeting that we had with them, they wrote a letter to the Planning Board voicing their objection and I would like to say to you, the letter says we have two serious, very serious objections. Number one; that this property can be used to build a church in a strictly resi- dential agricultural zone. That was their objection. That it' s being built in a residential zone. That' s the only place you can build a church. That' s what the law specifically says. It' s the only place you can build. Number two; it' s going to come off the taxrolls because we don't pay any tax. That land doesn't pay any tax now. It comes under the agricultural exemption. We are paying 100 dollars a year=or -400-'.dbllars _a._year. We sell our building, com- merical property more than pay.. for the tax loss. Those are the only 2 objections they raised. This is the first time (in all honesty) that I knew the objection was based on section 3 of the code. It was anticipated of course. I wouldn't have had the cases here avail- able. But this is the first time that it' s been raised. We �were happy to meet with them. We were happy to have a liason. One of the neighbors on Grange Road has volunteerd to act as an inter-medi - ator. To this day, we haven't met. We're happy to do so. We're happy to submit all our plans to the Planning Board and go over it in great detail so there' s no disillusion. Other than that, I don't know what else we can do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminiti , can I just ask you. Mr. Cata- pano owns all the property now. Is that correct? All 1 , 2, 3, 4. All lots. Have you approached him at any time or is he aware that any time there could be a modification of site plan where this or- ganization may require additional land? MR. CAMINIT"I : Well I ' ll tell you very frankly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'm asking the question because it was asked - tonight. I 'm not specifically asking the question. MR. CAMINIT"I : No. It was never specifically put to Mr. Catapano. I don' t want to delay the point but the story is quite long. He offered to sell us 5 acres. We were trying to buy that land our- selves from the man that he purchased it from and he offered to sell it to us for exactly what he paid for it. And I know it' s a great financial burden to him at this point to sell us the land at the contracted price that he bought it from Mr. Staller . He did a minor subdivision purposely so that we could have his house on the corner of South Harbor and Main Road and his nursery on 14 acres. I believe he reserved the other 2 acres so that his daughter could eventually build a one-family house. I might also add while I 'm talking about one-family houses, the code section 2 specifically allows the creation of a parish house. Not that we intend to do it, but it specifically allows it. A house of worship. I don 't under- stand the other aspect of what Mr. Cron is referring to about the extra 2 acres for the house of parsonage. The code specifically says. . . . Page 17 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Just let him finish his statement. MR. CAMINIT`l: The code specifically says, place of worship in- cluding a parish house. So section 2 does allow a parish house and it doesn't say you need another 2 acres. I would think that 5 acres would be more than enough to accomodate 200 parishoners, a small school and a parish house if necessary. If Mr. Catapano would like to address that issue, I would be happy to hear from him. MR. CATAPANO: On the additional acreage. At this time I have to. . . . At this time I don' t know whether I can truthfully say anything on that subject. But I really feel that this is not an issue here. The issue, I really feel, stands on the fact the you gentlemen are here tonight to give us a special exception for a church. It' s a place of worship. It' s not going to be a place of rowdiness. It's not going to be a place where we' re going to hang out. It' s going to be a place where we are going to worship. It has not even been denied to anybody else in the Town of Southold. And in the code it says that we need to have 7 acres, 10 acres, or 14 acres. I thought at that time that 5 acres would be a suffi- cient piece of land to offer to the church. If need be, I would take that under consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you Mr. Catapano while you're up and 'I appreciate you're speaking so frankly to the Board. Any decision that I recommend to the Board and we drum out in deliberation, is always open to the public, will be to crowd the north line. Ok. And it might be better for the Church of the Open Door to eventually purchase more land or re- draw the subdivision map to a certain degree. Now I realize that that is something that costs money. At the same time, I realize that the Planning Board has given you sketch plan approval. But it' s something that we're looking at. An imaginary buffer between the residentiality of what exists there now and the church which appears' to be a very active church and something of which we have no objection to in any way, manner or form. But I just want to point that out to you and that is the reason why I asked. MR. CATAPANO: Is that the buffer on the north side that would be adjoining my side of the property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. On the north side. We haven't dis- cussed it. We have looked at it but we haven't measured it. We haven't done anything at this particular time. MR. CATAPANO: As I spoke at the other Board, my intentions were fully to stay in the greenhouse and nursery business for my life- time. It may be today or tomorrow or whenever the lord calls me home. My son is in the same thing. He will continue on in the business and hopefully stay on in the Town of Southold for his lifetime. We do not plan at any time within the future to take me off that property. I plan to live happily ever after in my retirement out there. You know my hair is white on top of my Page 18 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CATAPANO (Continued) : head. I'm not that old but I'm still able to do a days work. But as I see it right now, I don't feel that in any stretch of the imagination that the Board can deny them any kind of use of that property for a church. Being my heartfelt situation was that I could not afford to give them the property at the time, I still .can not afford to give them the property. ' I am not one of those big westerners that come into town. If gave it to them what it cost me and I did it out of my love for the lord and my love for the church. Whether it be this church or some other church that I belong to, that' s what I would have done. The lord has laid that upon my heart by now. I would truly like to ask the Board to agree to a special exception on that piece of proper- ty. I do not want to fight my neighbors. I love my neighbors. I don't know any of them but I would at any time, speak at length with any of them. We were up in Hicksville. I was born in Hicks- ville, which is the western end of Nassau County. My father was established in 1919 on Flatbush Avenue coming off the boat from Italy. So we are Long Islanders at heart. We have seen the rava- ges of what they did in Nassau County. We can understand truly and lovingly what you people are trying to do and uphold. That' s why we moved out here. We tried to keep it in that rural vane . So we do want to see that you do grant a special exception for this purpose as far as the church is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Thank you. MR. CRON I just want to make one observation. I do agree with Mr. Caminity that under B2 a house of worship. would include a parish house. However, their application doesn't ask for that. The application says we may be seeking a parsonage and that is excluded and would require 2 additional acres of land. Secondly, he said I have not indicated the people whom I represent. So I would like to read that into the record. - They are: Mr. and Mrs. Seaman, Mr. and Mrs. Savage, Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin, Henry Freidman, John Buffer, and Mr. and Mrs. Mariccini. Filing one last point, I have nno objection to the Board consulting with the town attorney. I am sure the Board realizes it must be their decision that'.s rendered on this matter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I now come to the point where the Board and myself sometimes do not agree; . So I'll mention this point and we 'll hammer it out one way or another. We have a situation where we can.1do one of two things. We can close the hearing at this point and render its decision within 60 days or we can recess the meeting until October 22nd in hopes that you will meet with these people and come up with what we would construe to be a buffer that we can work with. I have no idea if the Board would go along with that and I have no idea if council objects. I'll leave it open for discussion. Sir. Page 19 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI. Mr. chairman, wouldn't the creation of- a buffer be the proper element of the site plan? What authority does the Board have to set up a regulation on a buffer? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminitt, we had spent 2Z hours ago- nizing over a buffer for a funeral home in Cutchogue. And after we agonized for 22 hours in front of the applicant, several peo- ple on the block came before us after that and we received letters and they stated they didn't want a buffer. Yet at the hearing, they stated they wanted a buffer. MR. CAMINITI: We'd be happy to comply with a buffer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I referred to a buffer, I'm referring to a scenic easement. Be it of a green character, god given tree to plants. MR. CAMINITI: We plan on doing that. That' s no problem. MR. CAMINI7;4, Which is the proper form to do that in? We have no objection to the scenic barriers, scenic buffer. We want to . I don't like looking at Mr. Bowman' s swimming pool either. I don't like looking at Mr. Duffy' s swimming pool. There' s other things I don't like about back yards. So we want the buffer area as well. I 'm just trying to determine where is the proper forum? I'-11 meet with them. I'm more than happy to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't established that yet. The point in question is, we have the right to reasonably place the building where we feel the building should be placed based upn the testimony and evidence that has been presented before us. Ok. MR. CAMINIT'I: We're not against asking for a little contour sur- vey and the building is located based on an engineer' s report. To have 721000 square feet to accomodate the buffer scenic area, would be construed as an unreasonable limitation on the use of the property by a religious use. I 'm not meaning to get into an argument with the Board on this point but I'd like to establish the perameters of the proper forum . CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: The parameters of my recommendation may be to crowd the north line unless there is a redrawing of the sub division which will place the line some 145 feet north which would place the building in the center of the property. MR. CAMINITI. We have sketch plan approval for the subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'm aware of that. Page 20 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of. Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI: Whether the,�spedial exception is granted or not, the subdivision would be approved. Mr. Catapano could do what- ever he wants with that 5 acres. We have entered into covenants already, recorded copies. not to subdivide lot 4 any further. There is a copy of that also being placed on record that he' s not going to subdivide. It' s starting at square one all over again on sketch plan approval to a buffer. We can establish a buffer. area without changing the sketch plan or without changing the line distribution. I don' t have any objection to that. But to redraft. . . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I'm not saying that you have to redraft. I'm just saying that we ` would like to place it closer to the north line than what you have proposed so as to create a buffer on the south line. And I didn't say we. I should say I 'm making that recommendation. I have no idea what the other 4 gentleman on this Board are going to do and they don't listen to me. So that' s neither here nor there. That' s not true. Now the point in question is, do we close the hearing at this point or do we recess it to the next meeting in hopes that we can arrive at some buffer which everybody can live with. And let me just give you a brief explanation of how this situation has worked in the past. About 800 of the time, it' s worked out very very nicely. We have had people that come into this Board that are ready to have a fist fight. We have called police and had them escorted from the room. And that is the 250 or the 200 . In the other case, we have them go out into the hall for 20 minutes as you have seen tonight between the architect and one of the mem- bers of the organization. and they usually come back arm in arm as they did tonight and the gentleman did not object because he under- stood the application. I can' t say that that' s the case in all cases. We have had several applications in the past couple months .have gone 3 hearings. One of which concerned 2 people down in New Suffolk who are not speaking to each other. And I specifically told them that was a very upsetting thing to the Board. But they still substanti- ated in those 3 hearings that they had no other choice but to deal _ with it in this particular manner and we (of course) don't like those adverse conditions. Everybody has been extremely courteous to everyone tonight. I personally think this group can work to- gether. Regardless if there ' s a school involved or not in the ' future, we have an application before us for a church and that' s the application we will entertain. Yes. MRS. LONG: For you, my name is Susan Long, East Marion. I do attend the Church of the Open Door. I do want to go on record as being in favor of the application as submitted. However, be- fore you choose to take any action to close this meeting or re- cess it, I do have some signatures here that are in favor of the application and I would like to put it on record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRII`NC'ER: Definitely. Thank you. So what will it be? Mr. Caminiti- . MR. CAMINITI": I would just urge the Board to close the meeting, grant the special exception and take a buffer. CHAIRMAN GOEHIRINGER: Mr. Cron? Do you have any objection to meeting with this group? '• Page 21 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of the Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON I can't answer that question without consulting with my clients firstly. Secondly, I have no objection (I also) for you to close the hearing and make a. decision. The only de- cision you can make is one you can't grant them what they want. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I 'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. All in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing . By Nadia Moore 10/21 /86 10 REPORT Dated: September 30, 1986 TO: RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 SUBJECT: Church of the Open Door, Beckwith & Traveler Street, Southold, NY 11971: Application for Special Exception in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article III, Sec. 100-30, Sub.-Sec. B(2) From December 1, 1971 to July 31, 1986 I was employed by the Town of Southold, NY, as a Building Inspector. During that period, my function in the Building Department was the administration and enforcement of various Building Codes as well as the Town of Southold's Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 100. During the course of my employment, I attended numerous schools and seminars required for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance - Certified by N.Y.S. Building Inspector's Association as a Code Enforcement Officer. I have examined the above application for a special exception and find the following: A. Under Item #1. Applicant wishes to build a house of worship on a five (5) acre lot with access from Bayview Road, Southold, NY. The property is zoned "A-Residential". The proposed house of worship is permitted by special exception. The land area required for this purpose in this district is 80,000 sq. ft. (see Art. II, Sec. 100-23 and Sec. 100-31-C(1)m Bulk and parking requirements Col.A-80 of Bulk & Parking Schedule). B. Under Item #2. Applicant is requesting this special exception primarily for"a house of worship to accomodate our congregation and the various ministries presently housed at Beckwith & Traveler Streets in Southold. The ministries of the church include, but are not limited to, Bible classes, Sunday school, Lambsgate Nursery School and Kindergarten, Pilgrim School grades 1 to 4), youth groups and out-reach ministries." The foregoing includes the following uses that, in my opinion, are subject to specific requirements under the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Lambsgate Nursery School and Kindergarten. 2. Pilgrim School (grades 1 to 4). This application was submitted for a special exception under Art. III, Sec. 100-30-B(2) which permits places of worship only. Since the proposed use includes schools, the application should also address Art. III, Sec. 100-30-B(3), which sets the requirements for private schools., colleges and other educational institutions. C. Under Art. III, Sec. 100-30-B(3), any school shall occupy a lot area of not less than five (5) acres. An additional one (1) acre is required for each twenty-five (25) pupils for which building is designed. As pointed out in comment "A" of this Report, 80,000 sq. ft. of land area is required for a house of worship. Under Subsection (d), a- minimum of five (5) acres (200,000 sq. ft.) of land area is required for any school plus one (1) acre for each twenty-five (25) pupils. Applicant does not state pupil capacity proposed; however, to meet the minimum five (5) acre requirement alone, plus the two (2) acres that are required for a house of worship, will put the land area required well beyond the land area subject parcel will provide. r D. In addition, under Item #3, Phase II, it is applicant's future plan to construct a 40' X 80' addition to building constructed under Phase I (no use of this addition indicated), and a possible parsonage. Under Art. III, Sec. 100-30-B(2), a parsonage is excluded. A parsonage is required to conform to the requirements for a one-family dwelling. This will require a lot consisting of two (2) acres (80,000 sq.ft.), (see Art. III, Sec. 100-30-A(1).) It is my opinion that the applicant has not met all of the necessary requirements under the Zoning Ordinance for all of the uses proposed in the application. Also, a variance will be necessary, requiring substantial relief from the lot area requirements. Respectfully subm'tted, EDWARD F. HINDERMANN Box 191 Cutchogue, NY 11935 ® $iJFFOLK OFFICE OR 54075 MAIN RD. COk. BECKWITH P.O. BOX 992 W,•L�(/•Ti/ / REPLY TO: SOUTHOLD, NEW YO 11971.0002 CTih (5 f 6) 765-.141401 EJ NEW YORK CITY OFFICE 138 COURT STREET -Copy BROOKLYN, N.Y. 1120I.6287 (718) 643-1800 IRwIN R. KAPLAN OR COUNG[L August 21 , 1986 Richard Cron, Esq. Cron & Cron Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Cron: At one of the recent meetings of the Southold Town Planning Board, you indicated that you had been retained by several residents along Grange Road. I have not received any correspondence from you to that effect and the records at the Town Hall do not re- flect that you filed any type of Notice of Appearance. Would you please be kind enough to send me a letter indicating the names of those you are representing and forward copies of all cor- respondence addressed to the board to my office. Very truly yours, PAUL A. CAMINITI PAC:sel / cc: Zoning Board of Appealsv Southold . Town Planning Board So,uthold Town . Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD '25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS AU gust 14 , 1986 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Paul A. Caminiti , Esq . P .O . Box 992 - Main Road .Southold , NY 11971 Re : Special Exception #3478 Church. of the Open Door Dear Mr . Caminiti : This letter will confirm our recent telephone conver- sations in_:. the above_, matter that you will furnish the following as requested by the board at our. July '31st Special .Meeti'ng : (a ) copies of all certificates and. licenses permitting all uses proposed by .this ap„plication , and (b) the maximum number of .students attending the proposed schools . Also , after receiving the Planning Board ' s letter of July 24th_ in which the Planning_.Board ,refuses to_.. cons ider, and review the pending site-plan "app.lication., the Z . B. A. Is i.n the process of arranging, a,n inter.department.al conference to disc..uss the effects of inaction on .necessary_. prel.iminary reviews, in general . Thank you for your past cooperation .. Yours very truly , GERARD P . GOEHR.INGER CHAL.RMAN lk , By Linda Kowalski %WFU G P' ANIA- O D FQ T kh'. LD ,mac•\ �` Southold, N.Y. 11971 -(516) 765-1938 July 24, 1986 Mr. Paul Caminiti Attorney at Law Main Road P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Caminiti: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 14 , 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the following comment to the Board of Appeals with regard to the application for a special exception of the Church of the Open Door: 1. The Planning Board is not considering site plan approval at this time. If evidence is found, in the review by the Board of Appeals, to substantiate the granting of a special exception, the Planning Board will proceed with the site plan review. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly ours, u� yours, 'a BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary c: Board of Appeals o��FFoc��oG y Southold Town Board of Appeals col y�0 MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD '25 SOUTHOLD, L.I. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765.1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS August 14 , 1986 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Paul A. Caminiti , 'Esq . P . O . Box 992 - Main Road ,Southold , NY 11971 Re : Special Exception #3478 Ch.urch... of .the Open Door Dear. Mr . Caminiti : This. l.etter will confirm our recent telephone conve.r.- sations in. the above_,.matter that you will f_urni.sh the following as requested by the board at our July '31st Special .Meeting : (a ) copies of all certfficates and. licenses permitting all uses proposed by this application , and (b) the maximum number of .students attending the .proposed schools . Also , after receivi.'ng the Planning. Board ' s. letter of . July 24th. in which the Planning__Board refuses to_. consider and review the pending site-pl_an - ap,p.lication; the Z.. B. A. Is . in .the process of arranging.• a.n inter.department,al conference to disc..uss the effects of inaction on .necessa'ry_: prel.iminary reviews, in general . Thank you for your past cooperation .. Yours very truly , GERARD P . GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN l.k By Linda Kowalski IS _c P ;" I ( D L D f S/1 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 24, 1986 Mr. Paul Caminiti Attorney at Law Main Road P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Caminiti: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 14, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the following comment to the Board of Appeals with regard to the application for a special exception of the Church of the Open Door: 1. The Planning Board is not considering site plan approval at this time. If evidence is found, in the review by the Board of Appeals, to substantiate the granting of a special exception, the Planning Board will proceed with the site plan review. Please .contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly ours , BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary c: Board of Appeals Southold Town. Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD . MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS May 2 , 1986 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Paul A. Caminiti ; Esq . P .O . Box 992 - Main Road . Southold , NY 11971 Re : Special Exception Application #3478 Church of the, Open Door Dear Mr. Caminiti : This letter will confirm that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at our Regular Meeting held last night concerning the above project : RESOLVED , that the Special Exception Application of the CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR under No . 3487 , BE AND HEREBY IS HELD TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE , pending the following : 1 . Application for Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Articles XI and. III , Section 100-31 ( B') of the Zoning Code , and 2 . Written comments , after receipt and review of the site plan application , from the Planning Board as to necessary changes or additions required in accordance with the Planning Board ' s regulations and policy , Article XI . This resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote of the members . It is our suggestion that a site plan application be filed with the Planning Board in order that they may review same and coordinate their comments . We have by separate letter informed the Planning Board of the above . Thank you for your cooperation in this regard . Yours very truly , GERARD P . 60EHRINGER lk CHAIRMAN Southold Town Board of.Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS May 2 , 1986 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Mr . Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman , Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , NY 11971 Re : Pending Subdivision - Salvatore Catapano Pending Special Exception - Church of the Open Door Dear Benny : This letter will confirm that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at our Regular Meeting held last night concerning the above project : RESOLVED , that the Special Exception Application of the . CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR under No . 3487 , BE AND HEREBY IS TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE , pending the following : 1 . Application for Site Plan approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Articles XI and III , Section 100-31 ( B ) of the. Zoning Code , and . 2 . Written comments , after receipt and review of the site plan application , from the Planning Board as to necessary changes or additions required in accordance with the Planning Board ' s regulations and policy , Article XI . We understand that as of today you have not received a site plan application from the applicant ' s attorney , however , we would like to request their filing of same in order that the Planning Board may review. same and submit comments . It is our understanding that additional information is frequently needed on site plans before preliminary approval is given by you ; and this would prevent the necessity of additional applica- tions and hearings with our board . ( It is not proper for us to make a decision on an "amended" plan once the hearing has Page 2 - May 2 , 1986 To : Planning Board Re : Salvatore Catapano/Church of Open Door been concluded . Thank you again for assistance concerning these applications . Yours very, truly , _ /GERARD P . GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk cc : Building Department Page 2 - May 2 , 1986 } To : Planning Board Re : Salvatore Catapano/Church of Open Door been concluded . Thank you again for assistance concerning these applications . Yours very truly , ;Y-& -er--LC/- /GERARD P . GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk cc : Building Department C� �(��' l� arm'" �`�"-'" � • Southold To wn hoard of Appeals )L, MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I,, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS May 2 , 1986 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Mr . Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman , Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , NY 11971 Re : Pending Subdivision - Salvatore Catapano Pending Special Exception - Church of the Open Door Dear Benny : This letter will confirm that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at our Regular Meeting held last night concerning the above project : RESOLVED , that the Special Exception Application of the CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR under No . 3487 , BE AND HEREBY IS TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE , pending the following : 1 . Application for Site Plan approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Articles XI and III , Section 100-31 ( B ) of the Zoning Code , and 2 . Written comments , after receipt and review of the site plan application , from the Plannin-g Board as to necessary changes or additions required in accordance with the Planning Board ' s regulations and policy , Article XI . We understand that as of today you have not received a site plan application from the applicant ' s attorney , however , we would like to request their filing of same in order that the Planning Board may review same and submit comments . It is our understanding that additional information is frequently needed on site plans before preliminary approval is given by you ; and this would prevent the necessity of additional applica- tions and hearings with our board . ( It is not proper for us to make a decision on an "amended" plan once the hearing has .. r. .I . t rY •p II���10 I t / ' 14 4 1 ... .._. .. �,1 lid r • t E� • .r a l �'t tNM►I.'Ip'I ! ` i' ,t t' s .:,.,a d n Il.j I�it311 itx. ffx, tail..;4 n t l ,� ; :,tt{ t q :� k rift 1I�t'/� 7� 4h}I } +M-�`•A -!`: t i }ti4: cd�1 k� t�i1l 't'+ �kt � 1Ii�t ,} y.t,:t1 t{±} I, �• ,y_ 1{;1(t TTT li . I t i1 41t1. � ,.r�;i a.(�`�• t � �.._ �+ �i r ,t� :`� ta.�1f �� i tlltl + S,.iti 4 ,,., y� i� — _ �J. ~`•�;d: tf ,�'I+. R��.��+`�� � � t>�Il��i��� f'•I�����I ��it�li��HY s�,:ltlx� I) ah�N �� �� k � �� £ — r t Sri! �, +A d��if�i EI �14�E i��ftf,�It 'M ,r r►� t•r ! t r �? i �� ��+ i� :i {+N f t! i{t►E`4►� ��j,ri 't ��l°= .; 3' rf{k '. imp !((f°trj`;,t},i{tE#�;�i(((r'��ll��t�Slii I;��yti'�}�1tt:t'��� i� � #t���¢/jj, ` i:'- -'.• �: f � .F 41 Jr I It, t l.., , { , clfoi► O Kkhm \ t- cburoom X�y .9 s, Nurmy Ctessroom ���J � ooLZq ❑no �, GG 1 GG GG, ❑❑❑L.xiq E�t o pp O T ❑ip q ❑000000 rpmo COG OL�mmo o p �� oo❑❑❑tom o❑❑❑❑000 o crose�owti, G�C cl=Or-C7C� oOOOO❑o l ; o , OCC]C�oCI❑❑❑ ❑ � - EM ElE= CIEIF-=ME] o. ® o cis - - ---- ------ C _ • IceJ Ci.8as1m11 Vestibule Bualness DooP rDO 0��. MARANATHA• CUSTOM. CHURL ` - Box 892 .•_ �: , .Genesis : Plant A ort ak 01 wn,�N : h D `ota 584 - '.Jamesto CQNSTITUTIONAL BY LAWS Church 1• The Board of Trustees will meet once a month to guide the Church in financial and spiritual Of matters.. There are three tenured trustees. the 2. The Board of Trustees will plan a budget for OPEN each new year and present it to the members of the Church at the year end business meeting for DOOR approval. IJ _ 3. The Trustees will take care of all property purchased or rented by the Church members. Pastor Edward Hansen, Jr. q • A nominating committee of three or more will present the names for the following offices in Open Door Ministries the Church at the year end business meeting for Southold, long Island, the membership vote and approval; the Board of New York, 11971 Trustees, the Board of Deacons, and the Mission- ary Board. 5. The Official Boards of the Church will be elect- ed by a 2/3 majority vote at the year end business meeting. '6. of the Boards mentioned above, plus any others necessary in the future, all members of the Church are allowed to serve; that is to say that members must feel free to participate in the functioning ministries of this Church. Agreement with the Church's Statement of Faith and govern- ; ment is required for election to any Board. The Pastor will serve on all Boards as spiritual advisor, counselor, and guide in Church matters. 7. The Board of Deacons will handle functional, practical and serving matters, assist the Pastor, and in general attend to Church functions,. problems and needs, as the Lord provides. 8. The Missionary Board will handle all problems and funds connected with sending out missionaries at home and overseas. They will advise the Church membership of the needs. and progress, and once a year help in an annual missionary conference to be guided by the Pastor. ' 9. The Church will hold an annual missionary conference, the dates for which will be set by the Missionary Board and the Pastor. 10. Commensurate w_ £h__the ministry of this. Church,__we _establi shed _in_ our f rst- y_ears--a Christian--School ministry. -- The ministryn-is_-regarded as j anintegral-part of our-"Church:-- Thee School Board is responsible for the general maintenance and administration of the school (s) , and is directly responsible to the Board of 'Elders/Trustees. , 11. Amendments to these By-Laws shall be passed by a 2/3 majority vote of the congregation. e Church of the open Door Statement of Faith 1. There is One God, Creator and Preserver of all things, exist- ing eternally as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . 2.. We maintain with the Apostle Paul concerning Jesus Christ; He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for in Him all things were created, in Heaven and on Earth, vis- ible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities . or authorities-all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be pre- eminent. For in Him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether . on. earth .or in Heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross . (Col. 1: 15-20) . 3. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. 4. We maintain that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was tempted _vet without sin, crucified unto death, and resurrected bodily. 5, We maintain the bodily and visible return of Jesus Christ and at His coming the resurrection of the dead. The righteous to be raised to eternal life in Heaven and the wicked to eternal death in Hell. .. 6. Christ' s sacrificial and vicarious death accomplished full atonement for sin and allows our justification by faith. 7 It is the Holy Spirit who empowers and enables saving faith. It is the Holt Spirit who bears internal witness to the work and person of Jesus Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who equips, gifts, renews, and sets apart the faithful for service and perseverance.. 8. We maintain the verbal and plenary inspiration of the sixty-six canonical books. The Scriptures are our authority in all matters of faith, salvation, experience, and teaching. 9 . Man in his fallen state of sin is unable ,to secure salvation by his own efforts . Salvation is the sovereign act of . God' s grace received by faith in Christ. ' r 3 10. We maintain that Baptism is a sign of Gods Covenant of Faith. with the believer and signifies the Christian's death to the old and now new life. 11. The Lord' s Supper proclaims Christ' s death until His coming. Our participation declares our being in Christ. It is a con- tinual reminder of His forgiveness of sin and promise of new life. . 12. The Church is the congregation of those called to be Christ' s . The Church as well as the individual believer are to be act- ively concerned for the nurturing of the saints and the advance- ment of the Gospel. 13. To this end we are committed: that men might know God in this world and have hope in the next, that what is done in Heaven might be done on earth, to carry the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed, with all Christians to the ends of the earth. jbternal Revenue Service Department of the Tr iry District P.O. Box 1680, GPO Brooklyn, NY 11-202 Director } Date: APR 19 1%4 Church Of The Open Door, Open Door Employer Identification Number: Ministries Incorporated 11-2460495 Berkwith Avenue Accounting Period Ending: Southold, NY 11971 December 31st Form 990 Required: Yes X No Person to Contact: Mrs. E. Smith Contact Telephone Number: (212) 330-7147 Dear Applicant: Based on information supplied, and assuming your operations will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. " We have further determined that you are not a private founoation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code, because you are an organization ..described in section(s) 509(a)(1) ano' 170(b)(1)(A)(i). If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status. Also, you shoulo inform us of all changes in your-name or address. Generally, you are not liable for social security (FICA) taxes unless you file a waiver of exemption certification as provided in the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. If you have paid FICA taxes without filing the waiver, you should contact us. You are not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). Since you are not a private foundation, you are not subject to the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from other Federal excise taxes. If you have any questions about excise, employment, or other Federal taxes, please let us know. Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. Letter 947(GO)(5-77) The line checked in the heading of this letter shows whether you must file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. If Yes is checked, you are required to file Form 990 only . if your gross receipts each year are normally more than $10,000*, or $25,000 for years ended on or after December 319 1982. If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10 a day, up to a maximum of $5,000, when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you are subject to the tax. on unrelateo business income under section 511 of the Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on Form 990-T. In this letter, we are not determining whether any of your present or proposed activities are unrelated traoe or business as defined in section 513 of the Code. You need an employer identification number even if you have no employees. If an employer identification number was not entereo on your application, 'a number will be assigned to you ano you will be aovised of - it. Please use that number on all returns you file ano in all correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service. Because this letter could help resolve 'any questions about your exempt status and founoation status, you should keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, ` please contact the person whose name ano telephone number are shown in the heading of- this letter. Sincerely yours, District Director cc: * For tax years ending on and after December 31, 1982, organizations whose gross receipts are not normally more than $25,000, are excused from - filing Form 990. For guidance in determining if your gross receipts are "normally" not more than the $25,000 limit, see the instructions foi the .Form 990. * Beginning January 1, 1984, unless specifically excepted, you must pay taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (social security taxes) for each employee who is paid $100 or more in a calenoar year. Letter 947(DG)(5-77) a rt' T _ " -IE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Y ALBANY.NEW YORK 12234 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR ELEMENTARY.SECONDARY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION April 1980 School Board Presidents TO: District Superintendents Superintendents of Public and Nonpublic Schools Principals of Nonpublic Schools FROM: Robert R. Spillane, Deputy Commissioner SUBJECT: Guidelines for Determining Equivalency of Instruction My memo to you of August 1979 dealt with the legal aspects of equivalency of instruction. It cited Education Law (Section 3205, subdivision ].a.) which requires children between the ages of six and 16 to, "attend upon full- time instruction, " a requirement to be met by attendance at either a public school or a nonpublic school (Education Law Section 3204, subdivision 2). These guidelines are designed to promote good relationships among public and nonpublic school authorities by outlining mutually beneficial ways to fulfill responsibilities on the issue of determining equivalency in both new and established schools. They conclude with a statement on high school regi= tration and equivalency. State law on this issue is general, leaving key determinations to local authorities to make important judgments. Some aspects of the guidelines, such as truancy (item 10, page_ 4) have a specific legal base. Others, including the procedures described in items 1 and 2, page 3 are suggestions of systematic and reasonable ways to accomplish a determination of equivalency should a question arise. The board of education of t blic school district in which a child resides is responsible for determiningwhether the child is receiving-instruction su §-t tially equivalen"o. that provided in the public schoo of that home district. The school board makes such a determination through its superintendent of sc oo s�. The home district has this responsibility even if the child is receiving instruction in a nonpublic school outside the home district. In such cases, the board of education and the superintendent may rely upon the judgments of the board of education and the superintendent of the district in which the nonpublic school is located. n 2 _ April 1980 l NEW SCHOOLS A. For those who want to open a new nonpublic school - The State Education Department recommends that any person or group which plans to open a new school proceed as follows to ensure that the school's program provides equivalent instruction: 1. Notify the superintendent of schools of the public school district in which the school will be located as early as possible that a new school is being planned. Prior to the opening of the new school,' its administrator might invite the superintendent of schools of the district in which the new school is located to visit the facility. Parents who intend to have children in the school should be notified that requests for transportation should be submitted to the superin- tendent of the public school district in which they reside by April. 1. Requests for textbooks should also be submitted to the district of v residence at the designated time in the, spring. 2. The administrator of the,school should be willing to provide the superintendent of schools of the district in which the school is located with the following items:. ✓a) A cent_ i!f'ecate of occupant health inspection report and fire inspec i or . b) A copy of the school calendar for the coming school year. ✓ c) A description of the grade levels and the enrollment of each of the grade levels. �/ d) A list of the names of the students from the local publ is school district who will b� attending the nonpublic school.. e) . The names of standardized tests that will be administered Loy the school. f) A list of the courses and subjects which will be taught in the school. - 3 - Apr i 1 1930 I. NEW SCHOOLS A. cont'd. 3. If the school enrolls students from outside the district in which this school is located, the superintendent of schools of each of the dis- tricts which have students enro!led in the school should be given: a) Notification that the new school is going to open. b) Names :and grade levels of the students from his district who will be attending' this school . c) A dopy�of the school calendar for the coming school year. B. For the public school superintendent - When a public school superintendent learns that a new nonpublic school will be established in his school district he should: 1. Ask to visit -the new school prior to its opening. 2. Ask the administrator of the school for the information listed in .A.2. above. 3. If the above information appears to be satisfactory, recommend to his board of education that the o provide "equiva- lency of instruction." The public school_district should proceed to bo provide amp o riate transportation, tex oks, and health services to th tudents of the nonpub is sc ool. II. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR Local school officials are usually familiar with established nonpublic schools in their districts; they are aware of the general character of the schools, their instructional programs, and the achievements of their pupils through test results. Such information should satisfy local school officials that these established schools offer equivalent .programs of instruction and, therefore, it is not necessary for them to make formal visits to these nonpublic schools. However, if a question about such a school does arise, the following procedure should be followed: _ 4 _ Apri 1 1980 I. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR cont'd. 1. The superintendent of schools of.the district in which the school is located should inform the administrator of the nonpublic school that a question has been raised about. equivalency of instruction in the school. 2. Before visiting a nonpublic school because a question has been raised Iabout the equivalency of its instruction, the superintendent of schools, in conjunction with the district superintendent, where- applicable, should contact the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Nonpublic Schools in the State Education Department to inform that office of the question. 3. The superintendent of schools should request to visit the nonpublic school at a, time that is mutually agreed upon by al I parties in- volved. 4. At the time of the visit, the superintendent should check on the information which led to the assertion of the lack of equivalency. The superintendent may review the following: a) Curriculum outlines b) Textbooks c) Test results d) Attendance rosters 5. Before a school is determined not to be equivalent, the public school authorities may wish to review' the'process and results with the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic Schools, State Education Department, as a check on the thoroughness and fairness of the review. The superintendent should also inform the superintendents of schools in other districts where stvdeihts pt the nonpublic school in question reside that equivalency of instruction is being reviewed. 6. During the period of investigation about' equivalency, services to the students attending the nonpublic school should be continued. Trans- portation, textbook services, and health services are to continue unless and until the board of education of the local public school district determines that the program is not equivalent. 5 - Apri 1 1980 II. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR cont'd. y. Prio* to a determination of nonequivalency, the board of education and the local superintendent of schools should meet with the officials of the nonpublic school to discuss the situation: If the problem can be remedied in a short period, the school should be required to make the appropri- ate changes and should be given time to do so prior to a determination of nonequivalency. If assistance is needed, the board is advised to contact the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic Schools, State Education Department. 8. Once a board of education approves a resolution at a public meeting that a nonpublic school is not equivalent, the par- ents of the students attending that school should be notified in writing that their children will be considered truant if they continue to attend that school. The .parents should be given a reasonable time in which to transfer their children to either a public school or another nonpublic. school. At the end of that time, all transportation, textbooks, and health services should be withdrawn. If parents continue to enroll their children in a nonpublic school whose program has been determined to be nonequivalent, they should then be notified that petitions will be filed in Family Court by the public school district authorities to the effect that their children are truant. III. REGISTRATION AND EQUIVALENCY The State Education Department registers'high schools. If a nonpublic high school is registered by the State, we recommend that the superintendent of schools and the board of education of the district need make no determination with respect to equivalency. A nonpublic high school may.choose not to be'registered even though its program of instruction is equivalent to that offered in the local public high school. The fact that a high school is not registered does not in itself_mean that its program of instruction is .not equivalent. However, should a nonpublic school ` offering high schooPevel study choose not to be registered, the local superintendent of schools will be advised of this by the State Education Department. The superin- tendent and the local district must determine equivalency of instruction through local review. This would also be the case should a nonpublic school apply for registration and not meet the requirements for registration. In any case, a school district should call the Assistant Commissioner for Nonpublic Schools in the State Education Depart- ment before contacting the nonpublic high school about determining equivalency. s y Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS October 2 , 1986 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR; SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.Q.R.A. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO. . 3487 PROJECT NAME: CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR — This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar. project. TYPE OF ACTION: [: ] Type II [ X] Unlisted [ ] D SCRIpTION OF T ON. Speci al .Exception to construct and es.tabl i sh House o- Worship with relAaCteld activities :-on,:a five-acre tract referred to as Lot #3, .Minor Subdivision of S. Catapano, sketch approved 4/14/86 by Planning Board. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, •more particularly known as: West Side of Main. Bayview_ Road, Southold , NY . REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has- been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) . The subject premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. (3) This application is related to use of the subject premises .p"ur;suant -to the.:requirements of Article III, Section 100-30 of the Town Zoning Code., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- • 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. s • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITH T.TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516)765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March, 191: 1986 TO.:. SOUTHOLD. TOWN ZONI.NG .BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: JUDITH T. TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transmitted herewith i.s Zoning Appeal No. 3487, . application of the Church of the Open Door for a special .exception. : Also _inc,Iuded is notification to adjacent property .owners; Short Env;i-!�.orimental Assessment Form; Letter relative to N.Y..S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department;. and survey of. . the property. a 00' Judi hT Terr Sout old Town h erk 4 Marc,,. 21, 1986 _ 7` f Southold -0 Town of Chairman :Boatedssppeals.-`. /�;�D�•y�, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehr..ir r: It is with great concern that we write to inform you cf' our very strong opposition to the promised subdivision of the 23 acres of land between Main Road (Route 25) and South Harbor Road, Southold. We understand. th at the parcel is to be subdivided into 1� subdivisions :- (1) Log building (2) Nursery @,nd hot houses (3) Vacant land for further building (4) 5.0 acres to be sold to The Church of the Open Door for the building of a church) nursery school and day school. Our main objection to this subdivision is the 11.th plot of 5.0 acres. The access and egress road to this five acres would be from lain Bayview Road, and would be adjacent to several properties of the homes on Grange Road. If this request for sub- dir� ision is approved, it will pave the way for the conlastruction of a church building for which we have very extensive objections. We strongly oppose the granting of an Exception so that this property can be used to build a church in a strictly residential- agricultural zone. Not only will the value of our properties depreciate, but this five acres will be removed from the tax rolls of the Town of Southold, thus depriving the Town of much needed revenue. The building of a church in this residential-agricultural area is devastating to our Grange Road community. inTe, the property owners of Grange Road, are directly affected emotionally by this proposed subdivision and the proposed building of the "House ofWorship", (church and school) . The increased amount of traffic, noise, and people utilizing the planned access and egress road will disturb our peace and quiet. RMFE1V1BER! This is in OUR BACK YARDS. Our residential area taxes are highest for which we deserve the tranquility which the area provides. The granting cf the subdivision and Special !, ception would greatly disturb our environmental surroundings. Very truly yours, PROPERTY OWNERS ADJAC dT TO PROPOSED SUBDIVISION:- 1xu_ cam NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF HOME AND PROPERTY OIT ERS (PETITION SIGNEERS ) John S. Buffa Grange Road, Southold Henry Friedman Grange Road, Southold Herbert H. Seaman Grange Road, Southold Grace D. Seaman Grange Road, Southold Wesley Zaleski, Sr.Main Bayview Road, Southold Bruce Bollman Grange Road, Southold Mary Ann Bollman Grange Road, Southold Alvin R. Savage Grange Road, Southold Ruth A. Savage Grange Road, Southold Richard Marinese 169 Iceland Drive Huntington Station 11746 Jeanette Marinese 169 Iceland Drive Huntington Station 11746 „ Robert T. Kroepel,D.D.S Oaklawn Avenue Southold * 'Property Owner . v S ` Yaw ©Aa Ili I SUFFOLK OFFICE OF 1�1 54075 MAIN RD. COR. BECKWITH P.O. BOX 992 �/J� REPLY TO: SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971-0982 ����////-�. (516) 765-1401 October 6, . 19 8 6 NEW YORK CITY OFFICE 138 COURT STREET BROO KLYN, N.Y. 11201-6287 L �0 y n (718) 643-1800 IxwiN R.OF COUNSEL K COUNSEL O Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board Of Appeals Main Road-State Road 25, Southold, .L. I . ,New York 11971 Re: Special Exception #3478 Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Goehringer: In response to your request made during the course of the public hearing in the above matter held on October 2 , 1986, I am pleased to enclose a photocopy of the cases that I cited.!and the documentation that was used in the applicant 's presentation. The text material is taken from the treatise, NEW YORK ZONING LAW AND PRACTICE, Third Edition, by Robert M. Anderson. Source material was also used from Vol 74, American .Law Reports, 2nd Series , pp. 403-405 . A photocopy of the text from Anderson entitled "USES OF LAND BY RELIGIOUS INSITUTIONS" is enclosed. The major points that I made in my opening remarks can be found in their entirety on pages 571 and 572 and on pages 577 and 578 . The cases cited can be found in the footnotes of the respective pages as well as other cases on the remaining pages which I have highlighted in yellow. I would in particular like to call to your attention the comments made by the author on page 576 in discussing the board' s determination requiring a religious user, as a condition of a permit, to provide a 130 foot setback and a 40 foot side yard. The Appellate Division clearly held that was unconstitutional and I think your insistence at the hearing to re-draft the subdivision lines, relocate the church and create a Scenic easement and otherwise publicly embarass Mr. Catapano to sell more land to the church was likewise unconstitutional . I am of the opinion that you far exceeded your authority and have charted the Town into Constitutional waters . I personally feel that your actions were unconscionable and completely out of line. If_ there is any question concerning site plan approval or the creation of a buffer zone between the church and the rear yards of the Grange Road residents, it should be left to the Planing Board to determine. 1` s Page -2- Church of the Open Door Furthermore, before the Church even contemplated purchasing the land, I personally inquired of the Building Department, and Mr. Hinderman in particular, as to what would be required by way of acreage to construct a church which would accommodate both our parishioners and our school . I received advices that two acres would be sufficient but that five would be preferable if we could get them. Subsequently on February 28, 1986 a Notice of Disapproval was prepared -by Mr. Hinderman himself ( a copy of which is in your file) in which he clearly states that a Special Exception is required under Sec. 100-30 B (2 ) . I don 't even want to discuss the propriety of the affidavit he submitted at the hearing or the means in which :it was obtained. It is completely contrary to the Building Department ' s position and his own prior opinion and must be reviewed by Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney. In the ensuing discussion of the meaning of "A HOUSE OF WORSHIP" as authorized by Sec. 100-30 B(2 ) of the Code, I also cited many cases from the annotated reports as contained in 74 ALR 2nd p. 403-405 . A photo-copy of those pages is enclosed with the appropriate cases underlined for your. ready reference. Not one case to the contrary was submitted to the Board by the 5 property owners apposing the application. Not one bit of evidence was submitted to sustain their position. THEIR ENTIRE CASE RESTS UPON THE OPINION OF EDWARD HINDERMAN dated September 30 , 1986 ( 2 days before the hearing) . Incidentally the affidavit is probably inadmissable in so far as it does not comply with the Best Evidence Rule and I was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine him as to his prior background, degree of experience and basis for his opinion all of which would reflect on his "expertise" and credibility. I also call to your attention Sec. 11 : 35 of Anderson entitled "Dimensions of Religious Uses" as found on pages 580 to 583 . A Court of Appeals Case is cited, namely, Community Synagogue v Bates, 1 NY2d 445 ( 1956 ) as well a Second Department (Suffolk County) Appellate Division Case, Application of Faith For Today, Inc. , 11 AD2d 718 ( 1960 ) . Both cases clearly support the fact that a Christian School is permitted as part of the Church and does not come under a separate zoning ordinance any more than our Drum & Fife Corps . , bible classes, Sunday School or our Pastor ' s Library. All this information was supplied to you prior to the hearing pursuant to your request by a detailed letter written by Pastor Hansen and yet you seemed completely surprised by our position and took extraordinary steps to try to discredit us . �o A&6&) Page -3- Church of the Open Door I am formally requesting a full copy of the transcript of the hearing so that it can be read objectively by other members of the Bar. I am very disturbed in the manner in which the hearing was conducted and in particular your demeanor. Your suggestion that I go out in the hallway and discuss the matter with the neighbors with the view of compromising the situation was unbelievable and an insult to all who were in attendance. It seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable and that is that a Special Exception must be granted subject only to Site Plan Approval by the Planing Board. At the site plan . stage all questions regarding buffer area, etc. will be resolved. Very my yours, wzv PAUL CAM NITI ' PAC:sel Encls . a �A-e FOnM NO.3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD,N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL �J Date . �4`. /l�!2I2`r!. . .� . . ., 19 To . V77 . . . . . ..5v. . C. . Z PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .L .1''g.•. . .z . . . . . . . . . . . .. for permit to ,QJti(5� . . . 1/Ci�< . . c.rl:.�11. ?Z��i!i� . . . . . . . . . . . . at Location of Property !�5. . . ! irQ�.l� . ! � �'(!. .� .`. . . 1dv�f/o.�,C7 House No. Street p�d Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . .U .'��. . . . . Block . . Q�. . . . . . . . Lot. • .Q.Q. .Z. , , Subdivision . ..... . Filed Map No. . . . . . . .7-7. . . . . . Lot No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is retuned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Row A . .75 rC A/y.C. .� . . -�!�!-?. . . .�� . . . . . . . . . �P.L-c(�L, -'z�cc'f� . . . . �L�. . e�c {ram• .! ,.�,!��:�? . . .4� �. . . .C.J2�lf�c=. . c;. Qo =30 , • 3• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Inspector aa'77� RV' 1/80 •�•� . ;._; Other Tr N (v Trade's License No. l�". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / / �f �� :........... REGULATION OF USES § 11.30 4rdi- F. USES OF LAND By RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS rom ,lot- § 11.30. Religious uses. ,nd- I if The Problems generated by municipal regulation of religious I uses require separate consideration, because the courts have ore detected in such uses qualities which entitle them to special lity treatment. Churches, synagogues, and other institutions dedi- ,ith cated to religious objectives are in some degree protected from ing the full impact of zoning restrictions. These uses are favored for reasons ranging from their, unique of contribution to the public ori- welfare to constitutional guaranties of freedom of worship. The of courts have consistently focused their attention on the singular W, be characteristics of religious uses, rather than upon the features U which are common to religious and other uses of land.-'O The courts repeatedly emphasize the high.,•purpose,and moral P "k j value.of religious..institutions—The contribution of religious use in- Q,6 to the public welfare is regarded as beyond discussion or dispute, to and the fostering rather than the hindering of such uses 9 .la- considered to be the established Policy of the statcoIt logically Ily follows that zoning regulations, which must be reasonably re- lleetic art lated to health, safety, morals, or public welfare, are.difficult to if of Z 20. See generally, Note, Zoning World Christianity v Rosenfeld, 91 -."P, - i, Laws and the Church, 27 St. John's L AD2d 190, 458 NYS2d 920 (1983, 2d he Rev 93(1952). Dept). Annotations: What cons titutes , he church," "religious use," or the like All schools public and private, and within zoning ordi religious institutions are protected ordinance. 62 ALUM ch 197. c- from the full impact of zoning restri 5 he Zoning regulations tions because of their contribution to as affecting the public ,ns churches. 74 ALR2d 377. 'welfare. Ginsberg v Yesh- iva of Far Rockaway, 45 AD2d 334,to 1. Diocese of Rochester v Planning 358 NYS2d 477 (1974, 2d Dept), affd Bd. of Brighton I NY2d 508, 154 36 NY2d 706, 366 NYS2d 418, 325 NYS2d 849, 13� NE2d 827 (1956); NE2d 876; citing I Anderson, New discussed in McKay, Constitutional dr-. York Zoning Law and Practice 2d Law, 1957 Survey of NY Law, 32 §§9.07, 9-29. 11 NYUL Rev 1338 (1957), and noted in Religious uses present problems 55 31 St. John's L Rev 318 (1957). which are sufficiently different from 32 With respect to zoning restrictions, other uses as to warrant separate .......... ................. ...... W vie 27 New York adheres to the majority treatment. Jewish Reconstructionist 2d !w, that religious institutions are Synagogue, Inc. v Roslyn Harbor, 38 iiy beneficial to the public welfare by NY2d 283, 379 NYS2d 747, 342 NE2d their very nature . . . . Consequently, 534 (1975), cert den 426 US 950, 49 L a proposed religious use should be Ed 2d 1187, 96 S Ct 3171; citing An- accornodated, even when it would be derson, New York Zoning Law and inconvenient for the community.- Practice (2d Ed); discussed in Ander- i Holy Spirit Asso. for Unification of son, Land Use Control, 1976 Survey of .VL aif� 571 1. �2; § 11.30 NEW YORK ZONING 4 ? justify when they impose limitations upon a religious use or r impede the construction of a building intended for such a purpose. E r The constitutions of the United Statesa and the state of New J '' E York3 guarantee freedom of religion. Religious uses are unique ' I in their enjoyment of this protection, and the courts have f l invoked these sections in support of decisions which limit munic- ipal power to impose zoning regulations upon churches and ' i other religious institutionS`4)-In addition, the courts occasionally have referred to the constitutional tax exemption of religious _ institutions, along with other charitable and educational organi- 1' zations.5 Religious uses, possibly to a greater extent than is true of most uses, must be centrally located. Commonly, they serve a limited primary area; the efficiency of their service would be impaired if they were required to locate in places not convenient or accessible to their members. In addition, they serve neighbor- hoods by .providing, a meeting place for civic and charitable f groups. Some of these ends can be achieved only if the building ;'`. . f which houses the use is within walking distance of homes If oi these considerations exist with resP g ect to other uses ar uabl Y they obtain to a less degree. he need for a central residential -n - �'4 location has set religious uses apart and justified special treat- iment.> Finally, it should be noted that a church or other place of worship has characteristics which present problems that are the ;; legitimate concern of zoning regulation. A church generates ?= New York Law. 28 Syracuse L Rev American Friends of Soc. of St. Pius, 109(1977). Inc. v Schwab, 68 AD2d 646, 417 See also, Rhema Christian Fellow- NYS2d 991 (1979, 2d Dept). ship v Common Council, of Buffalo, See Community Synagogue v Bates, r E� 114 Misc 2d 710, 452 NYS2d 292 1 NY2d 445, 154 NYS2d 15, 136 NE2d x; K (1982). 488(1956). `•,.; 2.US Const First Amendment. 5. NY Const Art XVI §1. {`~ 3.NY Const Art I §3. 6. A religious use may not be ter.... 4. Where the proposed erection of a treated differently merely because its church creates a conflict between a members are not residents of the zon- village's constitutional duty not to ing municipality. Jewish Reconstruc- infringe religious freedom and the tionist Synagogue, Inc. v Roslyn Har- need to protect the public health, bor, 38 NY2d 283, 379 NYS2d 747, safety and welfare, the village should 342 NE2d 534 (1975), cert den 426 US v: meet both requirements if possible. 950, 49 L Ed 2d 1187, 96 S Ct 3171. 572 T � I y:. 3 § 11.31 NEW YORK ZONING Commenting on the refusal of a board of zoning appeals to grant } a permit to establish a synagogue, the court said: f' The men and women who left Scrooby for Leyden and eventu- ally came to Plymouth in order to worship God where they ' wished and in their own way must have thought they had y terminated the interference of public authorities with free and i_ unhandicapped exercise of religion. We think that we should accept the fact that we are the successors of `We, the people' of the Preamble to the United States Constitution and that a court may not permit a municipal ordinance to be so construed that it '=`T would appear in any manner to interfere with the `free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.'B Thus, the total exclusion of places of worship is regarded not only as a regulation not within the scope of the police power, but ; - one which infringes freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution.10 Some municipalities have tried to protect the character •of � . residential neighborhoods b excluding religious uses from resi a~' ,��.�' .• g Y g g 1 dential districts. Regulations of this kind apparently are invalid for reasons which outlaw the total exclusion of such uses. Thus, ' g L the Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld a decision r' 99 that a village ordinance which barred places of worship from f 1; residential districts was unconstitutional." And the Court of Appeals, commenting on a finding of an administrative board t that churches ought to be built where future residential develop- ment could accommodate itself to the church, said: We know of no rule of law which requires that churches may only be established in sparsely settled areas. On the contrary, as 9. Community Synagogue v Bates, 1 ity view that religious institutions are i' NY2d 445, 154 NYS2d 15, 136 NE2d beneficial to the public welfare by 488(1956). their very nature. . . . Consequently, f t',�,� � a A zoning ordinance which purports a proposed religious use should be a11_/ to place a religious use at the mercy accommodated, even when it would be of certain rigid restrictions is uncon-' inconvenient for the community." ' stitutional. Jewish Reconstructionist Holy Spirit Asso. for Unification of Synagogue, Inc. v Levitan, 41 AD2d World Christianity v Roser)feld , 91 1. 537, 339 NY82d 274 (1973, 2d Dept), AD2d 190, 458 NYS2d 920 �(1383, 2d affd 34 NY2d 827, 359 NYS2d 55, 316 Dept). NE2d 339. p „ See generally,Comment, Zoni See generally, Note, Religion and µ d ng Or- dinances, Private Religious Conduct, the Zoning Laws, 15 NYU Intra L and the Free Exercise of Religion 76 Rev 194(1960). <' . -- Northwestern Univ L R 786(1981). 11. Pelham Jewish Center v Marsh, ` 10. "With respect to zoning restric- 10 AD2d 645, 197 NYS2d 258 (1960, E= tions, New York adheres to the major- 2d Dept). 574. yr e § 11.32 NEW YORK ZONING j In Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Brighton," the Court is { ; ' of Appeals disapproved the restrictions imposed by the board, but added: "That is not to say that appropriate restrictions may x1 never be imposed with,respect to a church and school and accessory uses. . . ."The difficulty lies in determining what restrictions will 'yr t i be deemed appropriate. The cases seem to consider, and to reject } . as insufficient, the objectives which commonly motivate regulation and establish its relation to the police power. ' Many municipalities, seeking a solution to the religious use problem, require that the approval of the board of zoning ap- peals be secured before a church or other place of worship is constructed. This requirement apparently is not objectionable." r But it is difficult to discover in the opinions grounds which will justify a board of zoning appeals in refusing to approve a il proposed religious use. Refusal of a permit on grounds regarded a.. a0� as adequate where other uses are involved, may invite court reversal, and a judicial opinion which places the board—in a y? ¢ position just short of an alliance with the forces of evil. Thus, a planning commission's determination requiring a religious user, ` as a condition of a permit to expand, to provide a 130 foot setback and a 40 foot side yard, was held to be arbitrary and j senfeld, 91 AD2d 190, 458 NYS2d 920 Local Government, 1967 Survey of ' (1983,2d Dept). New York Law, 19 Syracuse L Rev ,! A church which applied for a spe- 325(1968). t.; t q cial use permit for a religious retreat 16. 1 NY2d 508, 154 NYS2d 849, } in a single-family zoned neighborhood 136 NE2d 827 (1956). could be subject to regulation without being subjected to an unconstitutional 17. Application of Garden City Jew- restraint. Holy Spirit Asso. for Unifi- ish Center (1956) 2 Misc 2d 1009, 155 4 cation of World Christianity v New NYS2d 523 Castle, 480 F Supp 1212 (1979, SD Where a zoning ordinance requires NY)• that religious uses be reviewed by the V.. The use of land by a religious insti- board of zoning appeals and that such fit, tution is subject to reasonable restric- uses be permitted only in accordance tion in the interest of public health, with "height, area and yard require- safety, and welfare. Westchester Re- ments", the board is without, author- I form Temple v Griffin, 52 Misc 2d ity to permit construction of a reli- 726, 276 NYS2d 737 (1966), affd (2d gious use which will not substantially Dept) 29 AD2d 672, 287 NYS2d 499, comply with side and rear yard re- affd 22 NY2d 488, 293 NYS2d 297, strictions. Halberstadt v North Hills, 239 NE2d 891; discussed in Hyman, NYLJ•,July 15, 1963. 576 /d v c� ,. ti <- :•. .. Y— e r REGULATION OF USES § 11.32 4M unreasonable in that it interfered with the applicant's free + ter~ exercise of religion-" A one-year moratorium on permits for noncommercial uses in ' an area where federal, state, and local governments are under- g takin to rehabilitate a commercial district was held, by a lower court, to be constitutional as applied to a religious institution seeking a permit to establish a church in the area.'s A prime-consideration in the granting or denial of a specialMI o'�uf � permit for many uses is the effect which the,proposed use ,will Asp a have on land in the vicinity of ts. he site. A..�special permit (or�- < approval) is required so that new uses may be.located where they will impose a minimum of hardship on the neighborhood.20 ` Such considerations apparently are not relevant where a reli- Ate I gious use is involved. A permit for a religious use may not be - -- - i t= denied because the use will be detrimental to the neighborhood p� and the residents thereof.' A church may not be excluded simply r = ' . I because it will have an adverse effect on the land values in the ~j2 w< vicinity of the proposed site. The high purpose and moral value < :. of the use outweigh "mere pecuniary loss to a few persons." And "noise and other inconveniences" are an insufficient basis for i ' 2 A s ecial ermit for religious use may not be denial of a per p p y >. 18. Westchester Reform Temple v' American Friends of Soc. of St. Pius, Brown, 29 AD2d 677, 287 NYS2d 513 Inc. v Schwab, 68 AD2d 646, 417 j (1968, 2d Dept), affd 22 NY2d 488, 293 NYS2d 991 (1979, 2d Dept); discussed o l in Mayo, Land Use Control, 32 Syra- �Nd NYS2d 297,239 NE2d 891. cuse L Rev 421 (1981). ;- A zoning regulation is unconstitu- ordinance which purports li tional which imposes an inflexible to zon eln .a li y ous use at the mercy 100-foot setback requirement on reli- p --° gious uses and prohibits any variance of certain rigid restrictions is uncon- �,. K ti stitutional. Jewish Reconstructionist of the restriction. Jewish Reconstruc- Synagogue, Inc. v Levitan, 41 AD2d tionist Synagogue, Inc. v Roslyn Har- 379 NYS2d 747 537, 339 NYS2d 274 (1973, 2d Dept), bor, 38 NY2d 283, , affd 34 NY2d 827, 359 NYS2d 55, 316 342 NYS2d 534 (1975,) cert den 426 NY82d 339. c; US 950, 49 L Ed 2d 1187, 96 S Ct - Y 3171; discussed in Anderson, Land 19. Rhema Christian Fellowship v 's 76 Survey of New Common Council of Buffalo, 114 Misc Use Control, 19 41, 4 Y;. York Law. 28 Syracuse L Rev 109 2d 710,452 NYS2d 292(1982). (1977). 20. §24.19,infra. Where the proposed erection of a 1. Application of Garden City Jew- f church creates a conflict between a ish Center, 2 - Misc"''2d"1009, 155 f � t a: village's constitutional duty not to 'NYS2d 523(1956). 1 infringe religious freedom and the k ' need to protect the public health, 2. Diocese of Rochester v Planning �xa safety and welfare, the village should Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 . � - meet both requirements if ossible. NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827(1956). p 577 4 - § 11.32 NEW YORK ZONING �. ,. at the use will generate denied on the ground th :traffic con- 4 gestions or that it will diminish property values.>Denial of a —=• f permit may not be based on a tendency to produce a fire hazard unless there is substantial support in the record.' The extent to which a tendency on the part of a place of worship to increase traffic hazards at a particular location might support a denial of permit has not been fully articulated by the courts. In relation to secular uses, this factor may be considered by a legislative body, or by an administrative body if the poten- tial ordinance so provides. The Court of Appealsrejected jf traffic problem of a proposed religious use, as a ground for denial of a permit, but consideration of this factor apparently was not specifically authorized in the ordinance.e A requirement that off-street parking space be provided before a permit is issued apparently is valid, but a board of appeals may not require that the facilities be sufficient for f� uture= as well as current needs. 3. Where a religious use is permit- Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 ted in a residential district only after NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827 (1956). he permit A permit to construct a church and securing a special permit, t may not be withheld so e y on the parochial school may not be denied ground that the use may compound solely on the ground that the use will traffic roblems and have some a ri- create traffic and will generate noise. { mental impact on t First Westminster Misc 2d 27, 290 NYS2d 673M(11967).56 —roundinge value o sUir Greater New Yo �roperty_. Fi Presbyterian Chureh'v City Council of 7. Application of Garden City Jew- Yonkers"57`'AD2d' 556, 393 NYS2d ish Center, 2 Misc 2d 1009, 155 180(1977;2d Dept): NYS2d 523(1956). 4. Denial of a conditional use for An off-street parking variance may establishing a religious use cannot be not be denied to a religious institution justified on the grounds that the pro- without substantial evidence that a posed use will increase traffic and traffic hazard will result if the vari- noise, will affect the use and enjoy- ance is granted. Mikveh of South ment of neighboring property, and Shore Congregation, Inc. v Granito, that it will change the character of 78 AD2d 855, 432 NYS2d 638 (1980, i; the neighborhood and diminish prop- 2d Dept). erty values. Covenant- Community A board of zoning appeals is with- Church,--Inc.- v Gates Zoning Bd.'of out authority to condition a permit Appeals, 111_Misc 2d 537, 444 NYS2d for a place of worship upon provision :;:, 415(1981). for adequate parking facilities, where power to impose such condition is not 5.Mikveh of South Shore Congrega- tion, Inc. v Granito, 78 AD2d 855, 432 set forth in the regulations. Titus St. v NYS2d 638(1980, 2d Dept). Paul Property Owners Ass'n v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 205 Misc 1083, .; i 6. Diocese of Rochester v Planning 132 NYS2d 148(1954). r, 578 RINUIR rK 9i. Y f s{ - A:`.,,t� l r .k .:vF 5 � ,G'1 :..e .': .: • '�'..si � ' �G .,� •ram px., .,a,•i.L- f� i....t,, I -� - :. .fi.,'..;F } x'T f. r - f }-, , n,,. ;;,:; .„�..�. .. REGULATION OF USES § 11.34 ' A permit may not be denied merely to prevent loss of taxes 1'j { due to the tax-exempt status of the religious user or to the expected depreciation of neighboring land.e This is consistent -- 3. with the rule applicable to the granting or denial of variances for uses other than religious. Applicants for special permits to'establish religious uses are, - of course, entitled to notice and hearing. And a permit may not ? — be denied except on the basis of evidence which is made a part of the record.° The Court of Appeals has ruled that a religious . eated differently merely because most of applicant may not be tr "z its members are not residents of the zoning municipality.'° s r R § 11.33. —New York City. The zoning resolution of the city of New York permits churches, rectories, parish houses, and seminaries to locate as of right in, all residential districts." These religious uses are per- mitted in all commercial districts12 and in M1 districts, where ,+'G{ light manufacturing uses are all6wed.13 The same provision is ! f= made for convents, monasteries, and novitiates," except that + , these uses are excluded from commercial districts where general service uses are permitted (C8), and from all manufacturing districts.16 A {{ § 11.34. Permits; conditions. „ I Where a zoning ordinance authorizes �an5d oard of zoning µ appeals to issue permits for religious user, o.,impose condi- t: 5:.:.... .. w ¢ ions, the board may impose conditions which do not unreason- tj ably .restrict the use. In Application of Garden City' Jewish + y_ 5iocese of Rochester v Planning Survey of New York Law. 28 Syra- ?.{<. Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 cuse L Rev 109(1977). (s i `i. NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827 (1956). 11. Zoning Resolution, City of New Ft York§22-14(1961, as amended). ! 9. Community Synagogue v Bates, 1 NY2d 445, 154 NYS2d 15, 136 NE2d 12. Zoning Resolution, City of New York§22-13(1961,as amended). 488(1956). j 13. Zoning Resolution, City of New { 10. Jewish Reconstructionist Syna- York §42-11 (1961, as amended). gogue, Inc. v Roslyn Harbor, 14. Zoning Resolution, City of 38 NY2d ! {y1 New �; € 283, 379 NYS2d 747, 342 NE2d 534 York§22-13(1961, as amended). (1975), cert den 426 US 950, 49 L Ed t 2d 1187, 96 S Ct 3171; discussed in 15. Zoning Resolution, City of New Anderson, Land Use Control, 1976 York§32-12(1961, as amended). { :p 579 11 f xy' t § 11.34 NEW YORK ZONING 3 i Center, the court approved the following conditions attached to a „ ? permit for religious use: I (a) the premises shall be used solely for public worship and } other religious uses in accordance with the discipline, rules and = usages of the Reformed Branch of the Jewish religion and of the ecclesiastical governing body, if any, to which the petitioner is subject; €' (b) the said use shall be confined to the ground floor of said premises and limited to a maximum occupancy of 214 persons; (c) no recreational, social, educational or other group activities other than conduct of religious services and conduct of a Sunday School, or similar school for religious instruction of the youth, shall be conducted or carried on at any time in the premises. In approving these restrictions the court refused to assume that the board of zoning appeals would construe the conditions so narrowly as to prevent use of the building for Boy Scouts, men's clubs of the church, etc. Such a construction would render the conditions invalid under Community Synagogue v Bates.1e A board of zoning appeals may impose only those conditions authorized by the applicable-zoning regulations. Thus, where the regulations empowered the board to impose conditions relating to height, setback, and the like, the board was not authorized to condition a permit on adequate provision for off-street parking." s, § 11.351.Dimensions of religious uses. The sevoro-limitations which the courts have imposed upon the power of a municipality to regulate religious uses gain added significance when the cases describing and defining such uses are examined. Religious use is not defined in terms of religious �:�• worship or even religious education. Rather it is broadly ex- tended to conduct with religious purpose. Even where an ordi- nance authorizes a "church for public worshi? and other strictly religious uses" it is construed to include the social activities of the church group. The broader concept of religious use was expressed by the Court of Appeals as follows: merely an edifice affording people the A church is more than me y g p p opportunity to worship God. Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice and all churches recognize le 16. 1 NY2d 445, 154 NYS2d 15, 136 Ass'n v Board of Zoning & Appeals, vy: NE2d 488(1956). 205 Misc 1083, 132 NYS2d 148(1954). Es, I' 17. Titus St. Paul Property Owners `. 580 ` ,-.,? .. .-.'. .,,. z-r a ..•', t. � ;,; a P, .;�va _ . : ;y �.: A .s .11?"q?75��z L I, I ,• r _ REGULATION OF USES § 11.35 a , that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the t congregation in prayer. Churches have always. developed social groups for adults and youth where the fellowship of the congrega- tion is strengthened with the result that the parent church is strengthened. . . . To limit a church to being merely a house of >3 prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of the opportunity of enlarging, erpetuating and ! strengthening itself and the congregation. . . is true that the religious aim of strengthening the congregatioh through fellow- :wf. ship may not be permitted to be perverted into a justification for l establishing . . . a country club . . . and each case ultimately 2P rests upon its own facts.'> f Ksw Consistent with this view that activity related to the purpose of a religious organization is a religious use, ,the concept has been held to include the church itself, a parish house, a convent, a paroc ial sc:Nop_, recreational facilities, and accessory parking A day care center for children of pre-school age, operated F: by a religious institution through a non-profit corporation, is a religious activity protected from unreasonable interference by zoning restrictions.20<The same conclusion was reached in the �o T case of a school for the teach' of secular subjects operated as. an integral part of a synagoguepA contrary result was reached ,f where a dwelling in a single-family district was occupied by four families, all of the same religious persuasion. The court held u that the use was not a religious one notwithstanding that the '. children were given religions instruction each day.2 f The notion that a religious use includes all the facilities _> employed to achieve a religious purpose wa extendee further in -; 18 Community SvnagoKue v Bates, (1960), affd (3d Dept) 13 AD 863, 217 1 NY2d 445 154 NYS2d t t 6 NE2d NYS2d 567. ' ' See generally, Burns, Zoning for Annotations: What constitutes ac- Churches and Similar Uses, NYS C F cessory or incidental use of religious Planning News Vol 22 No 4 p 5 :3< or educational property within zoning (1958). ordinance. 11 ALR4th 1084. 20. Unitarian Universalist Church ` What v Shorten, 63 Misc 2d 978, 314 NYS2d constitutes church, reli- 66 (1970); citing Anderson Zoning 5 A gious use," or the like within zoning "' ? ordinance. 62 ALR3d 197. Law and Practice in New York State §9.33. r 19. Diocese of Rochester v Planning 1. Westbury Hebrew Congregation, Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 Inc. v Downer, 59 Misc 2d 387, 302 <—— ' t NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827 (1956); NYS2d 923(1969). , /v A%vf Diocese of Cent. New York v Schwar- 2. People v Kalayjian, 76 Misc 2d i 4 zer, 23 Misc 2d 515, 199 NYS2d 939 1097, 352 NYS2d 115(1973). S81 I _. /(,X—If //- § 11.35 \1 NEW YORK ZONING }' Application of Faith for Today, Inc In 1952, an organization engaged in conducting televised religious services and operating a religious correspondence school acquired a building in a resi- dential district and remodeled it to include an office and studio. It equipped the office with postage meters, addressographs, and 1 o an offset press. Later, the organization sought a permit for ilk ' further remodeling to add a printshop, storage room; Bible I�1�CuvETP classrooms, kitchen; and dining room. The permit was denied and the denial was affirmed by the board of zoning appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the board's action was affirmed.4 1 The court said that irrespective of the purpose of the petitioner's activity, the zoning regulations did not permit a "factory" in a residential district. However, the Appellate Division, Seconds h Department, reversed the court and a oar , o ing I a�—tHe 10" �C� l ordinance did not prohibit a philanthropic and eleemosynary G corporation from carrying out its functions in the manner _ V °t) proposed. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.5 Application of Faith for Today, Inc.," gives apparent judicial sanction to the use of commercial and even industrial equipment by .a religious organization, without regard to the residential character of the neighborhood, provided that the equipment and p! its use forward the salutory purposes of the organization. If there are limits upon the extent to which the residential charac- ter of a district can be destroyed by a religious user engaged in a publishing or manufacturing business, they are not apparent in this case. Perhaps the construction of a large, incompatible ; structure in a well-developed neighborhood may be so unreason- able as to come within the "country club" category mentioned 3. 11 AD2d 718, 204 NYS2d 751 See also, Cromwell v American Bi- (1960, 2d Dept), affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 ble Soc. 202 AD 625, 195 NYS 217 NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743. (1922). A center for counseling drug users, r 4. Application of Faith for Today, conducted at a church parish house Inc., 20 Misc 2d 634, 194 NYS2d 708 by arrangement with a hospital, is a 119591, revd 12d Dept) 11 AD2d 718, "valid religious use." The scope of 204 NYS2d 751, affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 judicial definition of"religious use" is NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743. very broad. Slevin v Long Island Jew- ; I: ish Medical Center, 66 Misc 2d 312, 5. Application of Faith for Today, 319 NYS2d 937 (1971); citing 2 Ander- j- Inc., 11 AD2d 718, 204 NYS2d 751 son, American Law of Zoning§9.25. (1960, 2d Dept), affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 6. 11 AD2d `718, 204 NYS2d 751 NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743; noted 12 (1960, 2d Dept), affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 Syracuse L Rev 284(1960). NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743. 582 ills- lpqi M1. f d.r ..:,- Jt i.. _ .,c.,... -n. n F •'` .p:... � Y";,"r°r -�-,,.. BUT� "'�. •1: 'v ..�tz�i 4r t-i�� ^-i ..Y,,, _ l - ANNO,:,:ZONING--REGULATIONS—CHURCHES 403 18,191 .,:,.: — �L:b time,,as in,their,,discretion, may zoning,authorities,with,respect.to ap- -Y 4eem,beat, but,notice;of any,such pro- plications. for the..proposed .erection iY-';poae{l;change.,shall be given ,in, the or,establishment of a church, .it has 'lganner provided,in the preceding,sec- been hel.d:•that;,thetterm�is•;notnto.tbe � •-- tlon of this act." 90i,narrowly;,.construed-r�as!,to<Lilimit �1ivAttention;may also be called;in this strictly.,.,to,formaL-worship the-.Vse'of. ! ron. o Lid Methodist Eis Linden eosp = p-r@mises;;for.--therconstruetion&-'-e9= .lonnectit tablishment-;of;-a•=church; • ut 'on,the lm G E ` �q:`"' copal Church v Linden (1934) 113 NJL � h "'t�488 r 173.A..593,.in.,which i the,court contrary�, is .to.be.construed•as being, 1 4','held invalid a'supplemental;zoning or- broad .enough;to,include; or ,permit ! 1,,'Aerwhich reclassified certain premises related :activities, such;,as,me_n's:;and :>,. .. # ' .which was a.two-story;frame women s::social,.group,;activities,,•;re1= � r 'structure which had.theretofore; con- gious teaching and.training, use of the dorm0d to the limitations set up by the premises., for;;:,corporate ,;-:meetings, - ett meetings of..l�oy,.and,Girl Scouts, Sunr ¢4: y zoning ordinance for a'two-family p� ..residential.zone—so.:as to constitute day- sch ,play ools; ;kindergarten..and •, ;the particular, piece, of property. in facilities ,for; children;;provision,;for ±� 4,rquesti6n,.as ,a,.;.business.:zone, upon sleeping,quartergjor,retreatants;;and � Which, owner planned..to operate parking;accommodations.: ..; „ ::r . t I most— `a saloon, and which property was only For example,,,in S'.ommunityrd& au 119,feet distant from that of,a church, 9ogue,.}ly ,tea:.W5. - J,.NY2d-;445, } i + Which protestect.the reclassification in 154 NYS2d.15, 136 NE2d 488,.the court ` question.: The,court was of the opin= held .that petitioner was..entitled;ao - m ion that the reclassification,ordinance a change-of-use:permit.from that of ,was not a reasonable exercise of mu. aone-family dwelling in, a ;residence ; <: nicipal power in.view of, a ;statute A district to that of a,church.for,pub- K. Which,;in authorizing.municipal;bod- lie worship and other,strictly religious ies,to adopt zoning: regulations, pro- uses, petitioner's:aim•being,to estab- ''Vided ;.•"Purposes in View: Such reg- lish a .permanent place;for .religious g � • : ulations'comprehensive, be made in-accordance worship, religious:teaching and train- 45,1: With•.a comprehensive, plan and de- ing, ,fellowship, guidance..of.;indoor signed for one;or more of.the follow- and outdoor; activities,for.youth, and g ,purposes: .,To. lessen 'congestion community work including. a Sunday ;.,ln,the,streets; to,secure: safety from school,..men's- club,•,.women's__social %}fire panic!and other, dangers;• to pro- group, and youth activities.: The court u r g , ;, mote health,_ morals,or•the general was of;the opinion,that such use;was 1 , ,, ��, Welfare; to,provide adequate light and authorized,,under subdivision. 3 of - ` '' air• to :prevent.;the.overcrowding. of §251 of Article II-A,,relating to resi- F{ '� v , land or-buildings; to avoid,undue con- dential districts;but permitting there- centration :of population. ;Such reg- in churches for;public,;worship.;and lation shall,be,made, with ,reasonable other strictly„religious,-uses and .in ;... Consideration,,among,other,things, to accordance with the discipline, .rules, the ,character.,of the district and its and usages., of; the;religious corpora- peculiar; .suitability for .particular tion, and,subdivision 7,of § 602 of Ar- � r,r uses. and,with a .view of conserving title ,VI providing for accessory :uses T the value of property and encouraging of,the same,character,and nature,as the..most appropriate, use of land the use .to;which.,the same.is acces- .' throughout such:municipality. •; - sory; and authorizing the board of ap- t .ri1Ydd86�.k:! 1u ,e+Al. .,�a c , peals to require,,as a condition;Of any, jf 9t� $19 ,is,aciurchQQuse�,opermit, for the.;purpose of establish- II a •i�, for the 11 worship:'= ing reasonable safeguards . r ,z ,:,Although the cases indicate the dif- safety,health, and welfare of the occur �- ti' Uulty of attempting to define in,pre- pants and users of buildings and their F cise . terms . 'what constitutes a accessory structures,_that the appli-. Al�� church," 'within. the meaning of,zon- cant and the buildings,and.their ac- ing.ordinances, -or for ,purposes of cessory ,structures, on the,,premises ,; determining the validity of, rulings of comply with, the requirements. of the ��a I C An- i zE_ s F ' 404 ,•AMERICAN IAW1 REPORTS; 'ANNOTATED 74 ALR2d 1, building construction':code'' prepared meetings;'meetings''of the' congiega1 by the state buildingcode commission, tion's' sisterhood and men's` club,' or and to require that the'premises, the meetings of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts .1 y subject of the,application;not be used composed of children''of the eongre- for (the' purposes' permitted-!by the gation. board'of appeals except uponIssuance So ' too'J1n Diocese+o ochestei• f w by the building inspector`'of'a 'certi� Pisuning,Rnarri of Rrighton, QK��;•+ iz -i •y ficate of'occupancy certifying that the NY2d 1508;'154 NYS2d 849, 136'NE2d t terms 'anUP-onditions of the.'permit 827, revg'1'App Div 2d 86, 147 NYS2d . have:been complied with. The--court 392; which• affd 207 ,Misc;1021, '141 _'said:'""A;church is more than`merely NYS2d'487, the court; with reference an!edificeaffording people the o or- to i a so-called " "pp package deal submit- }� tunity to'worship God: Strictly'reli= ted, in-an application 'by, a 'church $ i gious uses 'and activities are-'more organization for'a permit`to build in " } than • prayer!+and ,-sacrifice 'and 'all a class A residential district, 'the'map ichurches recognize' that the area of accompanying the applicationf•show- ?x their, responsibility`is broader',thaii irig­ the proposed 'location of the -°?3 leading the congregation 1.1in prayer. church, school, meeting-room;•kinder. ;{. Churches,have always developed social garten; small games, open 'fi'eld; and groups for adults and'--youth where hardtop play areas; Arid a parking lot I the'Mlowship of the congregation is which would accommodate;144 .'cars, -strengthened with the'result that the held that the uses proposed Were with- parent church-,is strengthened;'1. ' in' the scope of-a`•church.'s activities; .`•': i It ig'tC religious activity for the church a church being more'than merely ari 41 to'!provide .a i place for these social edifice affording' people �the' oppor: t' ' 4 groups 'to meet, since' the church:-by tunity to worship God. ` doing'so is developing into a 'stronger Where`a'zoning ordinance permitted and closer knit.religidus unit. To lim: uses of property in, residential:dis: it a'church to being'merely a house trict for a `.`church'or similar place of .z of prayer and`sacrifice *ould, 'in a worship," "parochial Oschool, 'Re'e- ` large 'degree, be'depriving the church tory,"'and "Convent,"'and: religious r .. of'the'opportunity}_of enlarging, per- organization proposed to'use a 36-acre petuating and strengthening itself and estate,'which for years'•had been oc= a the'congregation.• 'The ordinance un- cupied 'as a family=residence and'eon'. g }� c der consideration' recognizes';this ,in sisted'of a main residence house; ten' its•terms'for it provides .for'the use ant house; boathouse;' and,•barn,'•as Xf _ of a' .building,:for the ,purpose:., '3. a-religious education center where Churches for'public worship acid other . adults and selected teen-aged youths ; strictly"religious" uses and in, accord- would attend a aeries of programs of ande 'with'-the'}discipline; rules and supervised religious ''seminars;• con-­..4_ usages of"the'i religious''corporation templation, and training'with empha.' which will own,''support•and maintain' sis 'on'Christian living and ''services , it' [emphasis supplied by the "court]." such proposed programs to"run from - R -"i•And 'in''Application of Garden City •one day to one week iiii''duration'with ; Jewish Center (1956) ' Misc 2d =; participants'numbering'from 25 to 30, :-„'� ( 15T NYS2d 435, the court held that'-a the court in`Diocese,iof-Central �hIew. ; permit 'issued by'the'board'of appeals .•York.v:Schwarzer>41960)­"--.Misc-2d to-use!the'"g fl round' oor 'of,a`building —, 199•NYS2d 939, held•-thatl.hhe,con. °. as a'church synagdgue,=.or'temple' for - templated--usegofAhe,estate was'-per- rehgious'purposes;' the 'hermit stiptt= mitted-by•the ordinanceand,that-sine" " lating that'at no time should any por= there,.;was.,Ziothingrto�indicate'�that tion of the premises be used for pub- such;uee1 w.,,.o.ulc,• advdrsely„affect the Ilefrgatherings "of` any" nature' other, health„s4fety,,morals;'or general wet= than'those embraced within such pur= fare.,of. thee.town;;th'e' zoning board ._ poses,"'wa"s'fnot"to ''bei construed `as �would.bi'directe'd'to issue"a'ce'rtiflEate tt. religious . becauspreeluding"the permi e corporation; 'from 'holding'corporate the property'would not be'exclusively 't ` 4 y G.� u. 1 Y T ANNO s 'ZONING'REGULATIONS=CHURCHES 405, I , to 191 . a church; i parochial --school;; parish Board of Zoning i Appeals v Wheaton — house, or convent did not mean that (1948),•118 ind Ann 38, •76,NF2d1,59V its use was banned by,the ordinance; .. In Mahrt v•First Church of Chri$b'i and that the' quoted portions of.the Scientist (1955, CP), 75 Ohio L'Abs,5,1f ordinance should 'be considered!-and 142 NE2d 567, reasoning and eonclu-J- interpreted as a whole,':so that the sion upheld in �(App) 75)Ohio L-Abs, v• , naked dictionary meaning of separate 24, 142 NE2d 678, reh den.75 Ohio L ' words would not distort intent, :the Abs 27, 142 NE2d 680; an action by court,said_that..the•uses io osed,came owners of residential 'p , p property •in a. � ,.xik'iv,.the_true.intent-ofahe ordinance residence A district against defendant to permit�place�„gf w9rship,.::achools,• church, a nonprofit i organization; Aa and to.allow..buildings'..for';cPmmunity_ enjoin it and its members from park; _living. forL,-the,u purpose.of."religious; ing automobiles on a lot recently pure I �_ study, gducation,fellowships and con- chased by defendant1 in'this i district}, 9 teinplation. Since even under a strict which lot was immediately to the rear and literal interpretation of the ordi- of another lot owned by defendant and nance the property could be used as on which its'church.'structure stood; �g an edifice for worship (a church),'or and where it appeared thatpeimission j as a place of:instruction maintained for parking on the-lot in question had 1' by a religious body ..(a .parochial been granted by the zoning!board,of I� school), or as,a center for social.life appeals, and it also appeared that.by P of members of a religious faith (a thei terms- of•�-theu.zoningwbxdinancfi' parish house),.or as an abode for per- churches-w.ere4.pe.rmitted-inaresidene-e I, sons devoted to a particular religious A.districts,xandathat paragraph*10}bfl life (a convent; or monastery),..the §211 of such ordinance provided.for court ' said that . the organization accessory•usesip;,buildings;custpmarily, ! should not be denied the:right to. use incident to any use permitted therein; the property for these .various pur- it'was held that the�board',s�.decision poses even though,the proposed pro- grantm �a�the�,-ppyyn i;,yv` grams 'did not exactly coincide with with'the court s,intgrpretatiQnof such�A'�� the dictionary 'definition's of the uses paragraph;.;that;.',a;;•parliing...lotafor•�.a (y enumerated. by-the ordinance. chp,rch's_membgrs _al}d &taff�:TnAY.rbe And in Stack's Anneal 95 �M considered:a_ui se�eustomaril�-incidenb, I Pa D & C 168, 98 Pittsb Leg J 361_ . tal;gnd.,:accessory,.Lto izhurchesl3�both where a ruling of the board of adjust- new, and old, having.adjacent!,1and ment permitting a building..in.the.rear available for off-street parkirig.:.�,'I of a.Roman Catholic,church:as..sleep = ing quarters for retreatants;was; up- se of:premises as i slve f'di^pro� held, the court, in negativing the con= trac ed camp meetings has;been;held — tention that a retreat house is..not,a not a horized under a permit foi'the t church, said .that when .`a -property. constru ion of •a'tabernacle` for re: j located in a residential district, or any, ligious,p poses. ' other district, .is used, for a church, Thus, in ortage 'Township' Full - [` it may be used, without any violation Salavation on (1947) 318 Mich 693; ! of the zoning ordinance,.for any pur- 29 NW2d 294,; pp"dismd for'want of pose connected with the religious prac a'substantial uestionn 333 US q fe ral tices which the group'or sect maintain- 851, 92 L ed 1133, 8 S Ct 735,-rch den ing that particular church desires to 334 US 830, 92 L ed 757; 68 S'Ct 1336, pursue,- unless'there` is 'a:substantial the court denied the' ntention made and unreasonable interference .with,. by an`ecclesiastical Cor' ration which or.injury .to public. health, morals; had been granted 'ia,pe it to con- safety, and welfare. :; struct a tabernacle for re l ious".pur A convent or "sisters' home".must poses, under a zoning�ordi nee ex- " be,j onaidered`a1i integral part.,of any pressly allowing churches in a siden- Roma oher4hurch_,pr0Ject,*1thin tial area, that the use of,the•pre ices I the meaning of a zoning ordinance per- for holding camp meetings` the on mitting churches in a residential area. for weeks at a -time,Ahe worshipe F; P N I ''B'fS'a D -77 T � �SOU:> LD m S � �f�• Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 April 16, 1986 Paul A. Caminiti Attorney at Law 54075 Main Road P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Salvatore and Jean Catapano Dear Mr. Caminiti: Please let this confirm the action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, April 14, 1986 . RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the sketch map for the minor subdivision of Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano located between Main Road, South Harbor Road and Main Bayview Road, Southold, 4 lots on 22. 925 acres, survey dated . October 15, 1985 subject to: 1. Covenants and restrictions stating that no lot will be further subdivided in perpetuity. When the covenants and restrictions as requested have been prepared, would. you please forward a copy to our office so we may refer them to the Town Attorney for his review. Would you please, also, forward six (6) final surveys in accordance with the enclosed list so we may make the necessary referrals to the Suffolk County Planning Commission and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Upon receipt of three (3) surveys endorsed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, pursuant to Article 6, we will schedule a public hearing on this matter. If you have any questions , please don' t hesitate to contact our office. 1 r Mr. Paul A. Caminiti Page 2 4/16/86 -------------------------------------------------------------- Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary e cc: .Board of Appeals / U)` � Idi-P Few oAa 91 Su"OLK OFFICE 84075 MAIN RD. COR. BECKWITH OF 0. BOX 2 REPLY TO: SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK 11971.0992 (S f 6) 765.1401 !! NEW YORE CITY OFFICE August 19, 1986 COURT138 STREET BROOKLYN, N.N.Y.Y. f 201-6287 Q � (718) 643-1800 IRwIN R. KAPLAN OF COUNSEL Gerard P . Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Boad of Appeals Main Road - State Rd . 25 Southold, N . Y . 11971 Re : Special Exception #3478 Church of the Open Door Dear Mr . Goehringer : I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 14 , 1986 , and the contents have been noted . Your request under Par . ( b) concerning the maximum number of students attending the proposed schools is somewhat unclear . I will , however, attempt to clarify our position and perhaps comply with your request . First of all , we are not applying for a special exception for a school , but for a House of Worship as set forth in Art . III , Sec . 100-30, Subsection B (2 ) . An inquiry as to the number of students that we have in school therefore seems to be immaterial and perhaps even uncon.stituti.onal . The school is a ministry of the Church , and therefore receives the same constitutional protections as the church . Neither the size of the school and the church membership nor that of its ministries . can be regulated by the State . l Furthermore , the schools are not new or proposed as set forth in your letter . They are in existence at the present time in our current facility on Beckwith Avenue and merely will be moved with the church to the new building . The new church building is designed to accomodate our school as it presently exists and we do not anticipate any great surge of enrollment. We are severely cramped in our present quarters without any separation of classrooms . We are operating out of the proverbial "one-room" schoolhouse and our new quarters will at least give us a small room for each grade level . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . See Diocese of Rochester v Planing Board of Brighton ( 1956 ) 1 NY 2d 508, 154 NYS 2d 849, 74 ALR 2d 404 . -1- 1/ Page. 2 Church of the Open Door Pastor Edward Hansen has compiled a very detailed letter in direct response to your request and his letter is attached hereto . As pointed out in his letter, a special exception was already granted to the church for its present location . We are asking for nothing more than what we already have . There will not be a change in our operations . In the interest of fully disclosing our plans and intentions , we are enclosing a packet of information setting forth all the information that you requested, and trust that you will be able to arrange for an inter-departmental conference as suggested by you by the end of .the month . Very t ul rs A' AMINITI PAC : sf v August 15, 1986 . Church Gerald P. Goehringer, Chairman Of Southold Town Hall-Board of Appeals Main Road Lh�i Southold, New York 11971 . OPENDear Mr. Goehringer, DOOR This letter is being submitted to you -in reply to your request of August. 14, 1986 for further inform- ation concerning our application for a Special Excep- Postor tion pending with your office. Edward Hansen, J ]r As you are probably aware, the issues hereafter men- tioned, were discussed and resolved in the Spring of Open Door Ministries 1981, when Church of the Open Door, Open Door Minis- Southold, long isiond, tries, Inc. purchased the Southold Grange at the cor- New York, 11971 ner of Beckwith and Travelers Streets. At that time (516) 7CL1�41-2603 we were utilizing the building for its various min- istries, including Lamb's Gate Nursery School and later The Pilgrim School. ZBA did grant a Special Exception for this Church in B General Zoning. Questions raised at that time as to our eli- gibility to function in that building were answered by our attorney, Mr. Bruer, and later the Town' s attorney, Mr. Robert Tasker in our favor. Enclosed in this letter is a copy of our Incorpora- tion papers filed in 1977 and amended February 6, 1984 to satisfy the In- ternal Revenue Service. Please note Paragraph 4 of our Certif2icate of Incorporation,l as defining our purpose. The Church' s 7By Laws which gov- ern the Corporation, a copy of our Statement of Faith,3 and various broch- ures are enclosed. Point 1: Pertaining to the issue of our schools raised by some: Often the language used as regards Church-Schools or Christian Schools is misleading. Church-Schools historically and pre- sently function as part of their Church. The term parochial is more often used in catholic circles, the government uses the term church-related and Evangelicals use Christian School. These terms are synonomous and are neither equivalent to nor the same as a "private school" though both fall under the States rubric "non-public school. " It is important to delineate be- tween the two terms as they intend different types of corpor- ations. .-------------------------------------------- 1. cf. C.O.D. Articles of Incorporation 2. cf. C.O.D. By Laws 3. cf. Statement of Faith -2- Having worked co-operatively with the New York State Department of Non- Public Schools, Special Counsel with Attorney Generals office, and Pri- vate Counsel for the past 10 years in areas of Church State relationships, I am aware it is often difficult to understand the unique position of the Church in America. Following the intent of the 1st Amendment, there is no New York State Department of Religion or Church affairs to either licensE or register churches or their schools. Consequently the Courts have con- sistently determined that a Church-School is integrally a part of the Church. For tax ptrrposes there are specific requirements, but these are secondary issues--all of which the Open Door has met. The sphere of legal activity of a religious corporation in so far as its corporate act- ivities .can be separated from its ecclesiastical activities is governed and limited by law. Christian Schools in turn have been determined by the courts to have the same protection as their Churches. Let me quote Vol. 15 . $4 Christian School Comment Ch&i.6t.ian schoo.t edueatots educate .in ChAist's name. Cht.ist- .ian education .is an act o6 Ae.t.igious m.in.istty per6onmed by .those whose .t.ives arse committed to God 's w.i.t.t. They ate .toya.t Ameticans who nespeet government as God-otda.ined and they res- pond pos.it.ive,ty to government d.itect.ives ptov.ided government d.iteet.ives ate not .in con6.t.iet with .the B.ib.te. ` The B.ib.te .is regarded as .the Cht.ist.ian 's highest ,taw. The First Amendment to .the U.S. Constitution grants a spee.ia.t measure o6 .t.ibenty to the press and to te.tig.ion. The .tanguage .in the amendment .is very e.tean: "Congress 6haU matte no .taw tespec.t.ing an estab.t.ishment o6 Ael-igion, oA ptoh.ib.it.ing .the 64ee exete.ise theteo 6 . . . " The comp.tete 6teedom o 6 .the press .is s e.tdom chat- .tenged by Congress and the counts , but te.t.igious m.iniA tt.ies such as AeZig.ious schoo.ts ate not hetd to - be as "sacred" as .the press . I have not heard o6 a 6edeta,t of state agency which .issues ,t.icenses on pto6ess.iona.t ee4t.i6.ieate o6 news- paper Aepottens , TV tepottets or TV anehorpetsons . In Amet.ica . there is no government Aegu.tation o6 .the press . But .the same amendment .that provides sot the 6teedom o6 .the press a.tso estab.tishes 6teedom Got Ae.t.ig.ious m.in.is.tties such as Christian schoo.ts . In Lemon v. Kut.tzman, .the courts have ebtab.t.ished that Cht.ib.tian schoo.ts have the same protection as churches . AZZ agree that .it un.taw6u.t Jot .the government to give 6.inan- e.ia.t aid to .the press oA to approve the reporting o6 news to the nation. We shou.td 6ee.t Just as sttong.ty that government shou.td not ptov.ide tax do.t.tats to te,t.ig.ious m.in.istt.ies , or to quite state of 6edeta.t cett.i6.ieat.ion o6 Cht.ist.ian sehoo.t teach- ens , of .in any way .impose government apptova.t or d.isapptova,t o6 Christian schoo.t eutr.ieutum. Government shouZd never seteen books .in Cht.ist.ian sehoo,t .t.ibraties as they have .in some states,. Regan.d.ing Christian schoo.ts , a noted const.itut.iona.t attorney, WiZt.iam Bent.tey Batt, wrote: "These sehoo.ts ate an .integtaZ pant o6 the re,t.ig.ious min.istt.ies that sponsor them. 16 they 4 . cf. Department of the Treasury Letter of Determination (947 (DO) (5-77) V i -3- can't be pubticty aided, neither can they be pubticty negutated. it cues both wa yz . " There is then no mandate in New .York State to license, charter, or even register Church-Schools: However the law does require equivalency of education.5 This is determined by the Department of Education -if raised by the local Public School Board and Superintendent ( Southold is informed of our curriculum and approving) as questionable This matter of equivalent education applies to children taught at home, public, pri- wage, or Christian Schools. We however are voluntarily registered as a Church-School with the New York Department of Non-Public Schools. Point 2: Questions pertaining to our intended continued use: Our intent is to build a Church for the men, women, families, and children of our community. We have endeavored in every respect to be above board, considerate, scrupulously obedient to the law and fully honest in our disclosures with all members, Boards, and officials of the Town and community. My sincerest desire is to establish a new facility in which to safely and rcomfortably minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the children :and families of this Church. As you can readily see it is an increasingly difficult and complex task to share the simple Gospel we have believed in our society. Point 3: The auestion of "Ministries" has been raised. What are they? What will they be in the future? We define ministries as those endeavors performed by members of our congregation to share in word and deed the love of God in Christ Jesus. Where as some churches have yard sales, beet. De+stivals, bingo, auctions, rummage sales, and shops, we do not. We have people who tithe their income and give generously so people may care for people. Presently these ministries are such: Fife '& Drum: Winning awards in all categories and recipient of over 25 invitations to perform the summer of ' 86 . We chose 6, 5 of which were in Southold Township. Visiting Ministry: Men and women who visit the elderly, hospitalized, and home bound in our community. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 cf. New York State Education Department memorandum April 1980 "Guidelines for Determining Equivalency of Instruction" V 4- Music Ministry: 9-12 musicians who lead worship in our Church. Perform for numerous .other churches and entertain in nursing homes. Youth Groups: Presently 2 groups, grades four through 6, the other junior high. Meet one evening a week for fellowship activities, refreshments, and Bible Study. We rent the High School gym for sports and offer numerous field trips during the year to all child- ren. Tutoring: We volunteer free academic tutoring to students in need, as possible. Lamb' s Gate Nursery School: Staffed by certified teachers from our community (various churches) meet 4 mornings a week for 3 and 4 year olds. In the past 7 years 100+ 'children and their families have attended. The Pilgrim School - K-4th grade: A Christian School with cert- ified teachers. Where God is allowed to be a "normal" part of their education in prayer, song, grace, and forgiveness. Counseling: As needed by the Pastor and qualified staff. iBible Studies: Taught by Church leaders. Sunday School: Adult and children Sunday A.M. - presently 65 children and 20 adults participating. Sunday Worship: 10: 30 A.M. - 12:00 Noon. Missions Board: Responsible for sending and funding of foreign missionaries. Presently involved in Zaire, Mexico, Ethiopia, South- ern India, and Southern Asia. Prison Ministry: The Pastor, supervises 4 Bible Classes as well as counseling for men and women at the Riverhead Correctional Facility. All of these make up the Church--they are "our ministries" as in any healthy church of any denomination. Enclosed is our Church Direct0ry, 6 and Church calendar to help illustrate our schedule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. cf. Preface. C.O.D. Directory and Calendar. As to future ministry we'. intend to increase our missionary work over- seas and minister to members of our community. Our desire is simply the freedom to continue to do as we have done by His Grace. In summation Church of the Open Door is defined by Federal Law and New York State Statutes as a Religious Corporation. Endeavoring to"ans- wer your request as to what uses our Certificate of Incorporation permits, the definition and cases cited below will clarify our position. American Law Reports, Annotated 74 ALR2d ANNO: Zoning Regulations-Churches pages 403 and 404. §19 . What is a church or house of worship. Although the cases indicate the difficulty of attempting to define in precise terms what constitutes a "church," within the meaning of zoning ord- inances, or for purposes of determining the validity of rulings of zoning authorities with respect to applications for the proposed erection or est- ablishment of a church, it has been held that the term is not to be so narrow- ly construed as to limit strictly to formal worship the use of premises for construction or establishment of a church, but, on the contrary, is to be ci�nstrued as being broad enough to include or permit related activities, mch as man's and wcmen's social group activities, religious teaching and twining, use of the premises for corporate meetings, meetings of Boy and Girl Scouts, Sunday schools, kindergarten and play facilities for children, provision for sleeping quarters for retreatants, and narking accommodations.. For example, in Ccmmmity Synagogue v Bates (1956) 1 T_dY2d 445, 154 NXS2d 15, HEM 488, the court held that petitioner was entitled to a change�of-use permit from that of a one-family dwelling in a residence A district to that of a church for public worship and other strictly religious uses, petitioner's aim being to establish a permanent place for religious worship, religious teach- ing and training, fellowship, guidance of indoor and outdoor activities for youth, and cca!munity work, including a Sunday school, men's club, wamen's social group, and youth activities. The court was of the opinion that such use was authorized under subdivision 3 of §251 of Article II A, relating to residential districts, but permitting therein churches for public worship and other .strictly religious uses and in accordance with the discipline, rules, and usages of the religious corporation, and subdivision 7 of §602 of .Article VI providing for accessory uses of the same character and nature as the use to which the same is accessory, and authorizing the board of appeals to re- quire, as a condition of any permit, for the purpose of establishing reason- able safeguards for the safety, health, and welfare of the occupants and users of buildings and their accessory structures, that the applicant and the build- ings and their accessory structures on the premises comply with the require- ments of the building construction code prepared by' the state building code ca nnissioh, and to require that the premises, the subject of the application, not be used for the purposes permitted by the board of appeals except upon issuance by the building inspector of a certificate of occupancy certifying that the terms and conditions of the permit.have been ccuplied with. The court said: "A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the opportun- ity to worship God. Strictly religious uses and activities are more than -6- ' prayer and sacrifice and all churches recognize that the area of their res- ponsibility is broader than leading the congregation in prayer. Churches have always developed social groups for adults and youth where the fellow- ship of the congregation is strengthened with the result that the parent church is strengthened. . . .It is a religious activity for the church to j provide a place for these social groups to meet, since the church by doing so is developing into a stronger and closer knit religious unity. To lim- it a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of the opportunity - of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening itself and the congregation. The ordinance under consideration recognizes this in its terms for it provides for the use of a building for the purpose: 13. Churches for public worship and other strictly religious uses and in accordance with the discipline, rules, and usages of the religious corporation which will awn, support and main- tain' it (emphasis supplied by the court) .". . . . So, too, in Diocese of Rochester v Planning Board of Brighton (1956) 1 NY2d 508, 154 NYS2d 849, 136 (NE2d 827, revg 1 App Div 2d 86, 147 NYS2d 392, which aff'd 207 Misc 1021, 141 NYS2d 487, the court, with reference to a so-called "package deal" sutn-itted in an application by a church organiza- tion for a permit to build in a class A residential district, the map accom- parrying the application showing the proposed location of the church, school, meting room, kindergarten, small games, open field, and hardtop play area, and a parking lot which would accommodate 144 cars, held that the uses pro- posed were within the scope of a church's activities, a church being more than merely an edifice affording people the opportunity to worship God.. New York Zoning Law and Practice, Second Edition, Anderson, §9 .34. D.imeftaiQns of religious uses. page 470. Consistent with this view that activity related to the purpose of'a rel- igious organization is a religious use, the concept has been held to in -- elude the church itself, a parish house, a convent, a parochial school, recreational facilities, and accessory parking areas.14 A day care center for children of pre-school age, operated by a religious institution through a non-profit corporation, is a religious activity protected from unreason- able interference by zoning restrictions.15 The same conclusion was reached in the case of a school for the teaching of secular subjects operated as an integral part of synagogue.16 I hope this letter answers your concerns and should it be useful to other "Boards I ask you to forward the same. In Christ, Reverend Edward Hansen EH/bcm Y Appendix 1. C.O.D. O.D.M. Articles of Incorporation. 2. C.O.D. O.D.M. Constitutional By Laws. r 3. C.O.D. O.D.M. Statement of Faith. 4. Department of Treasury - Letter of Determination 947 (DO) 5-77 . 5. New York State Education Department -memorandum April 1980 . "Guidelines for Determining Equivalency of Instruction" 6. Preface C.O.D. Directory. 7. Miscellaneous C.O.D. brochures, Calendars, etc. d V CERTIFICATE OF INC011PORA'"ON OF CHURCH OF THE OPEN D00-t o OPTS! JMR MISTRIES IllCOREORATO ! . flat the undersigned, all being persons of full age and oiti.meno Of the United State of whom a maJority are residents of the State of New York$ desiring to aeaoaiato ouraelvee for the purpose of founding at1d wangalioal free church. p'.u'su ►t to continuing a non-denocdnational the laws of the State of N"w York, hereby 'oortify as followe: 1. The name and title by which said riooiety ahall be known in law shall be Church of tl'e Open Door. Open-Door i'inistries IncoY�poratad. 4� 2. The ,purpaue of its organization is to found and continue non- ` denondnational evcanralioal free church in the Town of Southold, Count,Y 4' 6 ? of Suffolk. .i? �. The name of the trustees, of whom not less than three or care than six persons, who are not ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination to manage the same are ae follows; Charles A. 13enjaaint Eugene F. Heaaoeke Eugene A. Hea000k. 4. The purposes of the Church of the Open Door, Open Door hd nistries Incorpor ated are as followa: To pursue Christian endoavore in accordance - :" with Biblical beliefa, own buildinRo, real and personal property,, and to.' lease br rent the aamo for the afore mentioned purposes. `!, IN WITNESS WHEREOF- the have.exe�eut � And acknowledge this certificate 1,,tryy i/ the t daffy of October. '1 977. # � Charles +. Yen�aan n Hea000k ' J / 'i 198L' l ��c t, , eacock ;'+-'; 5tJ^h a���� � � , � t ! ' I . i-x _ v r. bI '. .�.� � k !`! G��.St^ � ' 'i%.�y�7•S rns ,� a� . c!{.iq! , ! 4 + 1iUr a ..+ � . ,v x fir, ,. �. � !!S,'m�;f� u..xn�„ ti,• , a r .,} t ti' t , 7 t .N �S. i� n!" �+ _9;,. r: ? t .f.•�N. Stake of Now York) County of Suffolk) r ber !9"l7• before Wj cams Char A. 13en3aml n• on tho ;�;a. day of Onto • �eaaeek• to me known and kno"'I to 1W " to be the individusllO desoribad in• and who ®xeauted the forogoinS Cotrtifioote of Inoor�aration• and duly totaiowledged to 00 that executed the damm. MaRwl`t o. rMUIPS N(t;,ry PLII&C. Stine ui tlr,W York pu;',li(ied hl Suttu(k Comity � K 30. 1J.. State of MassachuOctts) ss. . County of• Lssex) `•' clay of. UetoUez , 19'17., licfares me cram© On the Y to !:la known and ttgel�e F. Ieacock, and Eugene A. �Ie.�•cock , known to ma to be tJie individL1,.t1 (.lc�scribcr! in, and who executed the forr-.going Certificzlt(-' of u�t�.�artrleasame. e Lo me that t Y duly acknowledged z �•'1+35`^ '��.�� '` f_ y '� �.I:i:;� :,'':•M'. a. , yt,( ; {,(�ua{' i14' r �,°1 �1'+ . Amendment. to Certifi-c-Ae of Tncorporation of Church of the Open Poor, Open Poor Ministries Incorporated }, Pattod: February 22 19814 Purpose; amending of Certificate of Incorporation to inr_.].ude the following; c;lauscs co ar to conform with Tnternal 11,,%Ve;-1uC (lode, section )01 ((~) ( 1>) • VVe, the undersigned, all being persons of full age and citizens of the United States, of whom a majority are residents of the ")tate of New York, desiring to associate ourselves for -� the purpose of foundintr, and conti_riii:i.ng a non-denominational ey'.u(g el:i.cn]. free church, pursuant to the laws of the. State of New York, hereby certify as follows: F 5• Notwithstanding; any other provision of these- articles, the corporation is organized exclusively for one or more of the following purposes: religious, charitable,scientific, testing for public safety, Literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national. or internatioralamateur sports com- petition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment) , or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, as specified in section 501 (c) (3) of the Tnternal Revenue Code of 1954, and shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt form Federal Income Tax under section (501 ( c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 6. No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure A. to the benefit of any member, trustee, director, officer of the corporation, or any private individual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services rendered to or for the corporation) , and no member, trustee, officer of the corporation or any private individual shall be entitled to share in the distribution of any of the corporate assets on dissolution of the corporation. 7. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be carrying on propaganda,, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except .as otherwise provided by Internal Revenue Code section ( 501 (h) , or participating in, . or intervening in (including the publication or distribution of statements) , any political. campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. 8. In the event of dissolution, all of the remaining assets 1/ and property of the corporation shall after necessary expenses thereof be distributed to such organizations as 1, shall qualify under section 501 (c) ( 3) of the Tnternal :Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or, to 'another organization to be used in such manner as in the judgement of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York will best accomplish the genera]_ purposes for which this corporation was formed. , IN ;-V_, 'SS WHEREOF, we have executed and acknowledge this certificate the 2 day of February, 1984? Trustees of � c;hu.rch.n F,ugene A. eacoc Charles A.Ben jam n ar arot Marston r 1 c ac eat Thomas Christianson , ; i On the 3rd day of February, 1984 before me came CHARLES A. BENJAMIN, MARGRET MARSTON, NANCY Mac LEAN and THOMAS CHRISTIANSON known to me and to me known personalty and each acknowledged to me that they executed the foregoing "Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of the Open Door, Open Door Ministries Incorporated. ' • RAYMOND T. MacLEAN fariil - �y e ,0.P :k^a. :h> K.x• COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF NEW YORK SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK A 1KUSELI A _,;.,;;, f Suffolk and h Clerk of the County o � ^?fir;• the Court of Record thereof, do hereby certify that I have compared the ' 14 .....•..,. FILED inmy annexed with the original.•-our-j y j CAs$ •''''''' office .... ....., F�.'�!. .. ,•••,,••. and that the same is a true , 2�.ro.-. F + copy thereof, and of the whole of such original. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed j� the seal of said County and Court this . _ ..�,= L� • •• ••••••• VIP'. lerk. ,n Form No. 236 OWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK RECEIVE y APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. �7 MAR 191986 DATE March 19 , 1986 TOM CWk So ftN TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1; (We) ..CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR of ....Beckwith & Traveler Strge,ts.......... ............................................................... Name Street and Number Southold, N.Y. 11971 ......................................................................... .......................................................... Municipality State hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE III SECTION 1---30 SUBSECTION B (2) THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED BECAUSE we wish to build a House of Worship for our congregation on 5 acres of land zoned A Residential . We are contract vendees per contract dated December 31 , 1985 . The present owners of 23 acres on Main Rd . are Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano who have applied to the Planing Board for a minor subdivision of 4 lots as more fully set forth in the attached Subdivision Plan dated October 15 , 1985 by Roderick Van Tuyl . The subject property for the church is indictaed on said plan as lot # 3 and consists of 5 acres with access from Bayview Rd. A detailed survey of the lot by Van Tuyl ated March 6 , 1986 is also attached. Also attached are copies of sketches showin� proposed site plan. .'Phase I construction consists of a single 93 Octagonal building approximately 7200 sq . ft. with seating for 200 parishioners . Parking is provided per Bulk Schedule (1 space per 5 seats = 40 spaces) One 2-way drive is proposed from Bayview Rd. for ingress and egress . Phase II construction (as , if and when feasible) will consist of an addition to the structure of a 40x80 building with an additional 20 parking spaces . Also attached is composite tax map reflecting 17 adjacent owners of which 5 are vacant lots . The proposed construction is 26 feet in height and is completely fireproof and soundproof . It conforms to the regulations and Code in every manner . The structure is 50 feet from any street, is more than 20 feet from any lot line and the total area does not exceed 20 % of the area of the - lot . Our present accommodations are completely inadequate for the various ministries of the church. The corner where we are located is hazardous and extremely dangerous especially with the increased traffic occasioned by the new Post office . The new building will be tastefully constructed and landscaped and any objections from adjacent home owners can easily be resolved. CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR STATE OF NEW YORK ) B y :� 4,9 . . ........................ COUNTY OF Suf folk ) Signature Sworn to this .... MarCYI............., 19.86......... . .. .....Y:... .................. No lic PAUL A.CAMINM Notary Public,State of New York No.24-55W 910 Qualified in ry Iccounty Commission ExpiresPrNe FORM ZB2 BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR NOTICE as Contract Vendees TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Neubolt, Mrs. Stephania Zayecki, PROPERTY OWNER Mr. Wesley Zaleski, Robert T. Kropel, Mr. &-Mrs. -R 'chard Marenese, .Mr. & Mrs.Bruce Bollman, Mr. Henry P. Friedman, Mr. John S. Buffa, Mr. & Mrs. Edward Lukosvicus, Mr:: &..Mrs.William H. DeZavala, Mr. & Mrs.David L. Lehr, The Village of Greenport, 'Mr: .George J. Pantazi, Mr. Rene Gendron, Mr. & Mrs. , Herbert H. Seaman,. Mr. & Mrs. Alvin R. Savage and Mr. Robert J. Turner.YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a Special Exception (SPINUM&MU) (Other) [circle choice] 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Dist 1000 Sec 69 Block 6 p%o lot 9.2 Main Bayview Rd-. , Southold, N.Y. being approximately 5 acres 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: A-Residential 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: Permission to � construct House of Worship.. rri 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article III Section 100-30 B (2) E ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting.the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 7E;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 for the publication of such notices;that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: March �' 1986 CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Petitioner Owner s ' Names : Edward Hansen, Jr. Pastor Post Office Address by: Paul A. Caminiti, Attorney Main Rd. cor. Beckwith Ave (Box 992) Southold, N.Y. 11971 Tel: (516) 765-1401 l' i PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAME ADDRESS Sec . 69 , Block 6 ,(lot- 6) Mr/Mrs Robert Neubolt Main Rd. Southold,--N:Y. 11971 (lot 7) Stephania Zayecki Main Rd. Southold, N.Y.. 11971 Sec: 70, Block 7 (lot 20) Wesley Zaleski Main Bayview Rd. , .Southold, N.Y. 11971 Sec 78 Block 1 . lot.1) Robert T. Kropel Oaklawn Ave. , Southold .(,1bt' 2) Mr/Mrs Richard Marenese 169 Iceland Dr. , Huntington Sta. NY 11746 (lot 3) Mr/Mrs Bruce Bollman Grange Rd. , Southold, N.Y. 11971 (lot 4) Henry P. Friedman 115 Henry Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 (lot 5) John S. Buffa 115 Henry Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Sec 75, Block 4 (lot 1) Mr/Mrs Edward Lukosvicus 565 South Harbor Rd, Southold, NY 11971 (lot 3) Mr/Mrs William H. DeZavala South Harbor Rd., Southold, N.Y.. 11971 (lot 5) Mr/Mrs David L. Lehr South Harbor Rd. , Southold, N.Y. 11971 (lot 6) Village of Greenport Town Hall, Greenport, N.Y. 11944 (lot 11) George J. Pantazi 147 Southgate, Massepequa, 11762 (lot 12) Rene Gendron 620 Youngs Ave. , Southold, N.Y. 11971 (lot' 13) Mr/Mrs:Herbert .H:: Seaman P.O. Box 317, Southold, N.Y. 11971 '(lot 14) Mr/Mrs Alvin Savage P.O. Box 324, Southold, N.Y. 11971 (lot 15) Robert J. Turner 1 Birch Lane, Garden City, N.Y. 11530 x wI; STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: COUNTY OFSUFFOLK) residing at `mil• oc i 3 U 6AA-, J NJbeing duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of ,_T K-/ , 19 deponent mailed a true copy•of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names;that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current asses ent r II of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- .lice at ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by certified (registered) mail. ek Sworn to b fore this / 0 day of 9 Notary Public PAUL A.CAMINM Notary Public,State of Now York No.24-55n9�o Qualified in s- ( ounty Commission Expires j-,a& Jtl, 19k (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property .owners.. ) �- FORM NO.3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date . l�4-/�/��!�/25-'. . . �. . 19To -` /11 /Z c !.-/ G'F --. . . .5 . . . . . . . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .'. . .Z . . . . . . . . . . . for permit toJJtiI �� � Ur!�4=. . crC".C&.�?�����. . . . . . .r. . . . . . at Location of Property House No. Street ��d Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . . . . . . . . _ Block Q��. . . . . . . . Lot . .Q Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filed Map No. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Lot No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is retu ed herewith and disapproved"on the following grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �t'��Je'�.Cl.� j. . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14A.J . '-a-�--- . . ' Building Inspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT FEB 2 81986 TOWN HALL 91 SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 BLDG. DEPT. TEL.: 765-1802 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD xamined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . Received . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . Npproved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . Pen-nit No. . . . . . . . . . . . Disapproved a/c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date t�eca .,?r. . . INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink,and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 ets 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 ,r areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- :ation. 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 Pen-nit to the applicant. Such permit hall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in-'whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy hall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the 3uilding Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Zegulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. Elie applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building cod e�, housing co , and regulations, and to ,dinit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections-.'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (SigiP ture of appl�i ant,6or name, ifa corporation) 4 . . . . . . . . . . (Mailing address of applicant) /* state whether applicant is owner lessee, agent, architect, e ineer, general t�ra/ct r, electrician, plumber or builder. e ,ZmA . . . . . . . . . . Ao�. . . . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4�4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . name of owner of premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I e(as on the tax roll or latest deed) if applicant is a core ion, sig tyre of duly authorized officer. ani g . . . . . . . . . % (Name and title of corp;rai officer) Builder's License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plumber's License No. . .Id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electrician's License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Trade's. License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Location of land on which proposed work will be done. A ve 4/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —foe-Y%ml 0 11W11,4 10—le House'Number . . . . . .. Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hai.nlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . . . . . . . . Block . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot . . . Y' -.2... . . . . ... . . . . Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Na*M*e). . . . . . . Filed Map No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . b, Intended use and OCCLIpan�' . . .0�. . .doe4l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3.. Natpre of%york (check which applic ): New Building . .,l.. . . . . Additie . . . . . . . . Alteration . . . . . . . . . . Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Removal . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . Demolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Work . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , i (Description) 4. Estimated Cost . . . . . 04p 'm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units . . . .A . , • . . . . Number of dwelling units on each floor . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . If garage,number of cars ft. . , . . . . . 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use . . ./ �,�`. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if any: Front . . . .1V/1'. . . . . Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Height . . . . . . . � . . . . • . • . . . Number of Stories . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front . . . ...K . Rear .3T.�. De th Height . . .a3-(v �. . . . . . Number of Stories . . • . . .�. . . . . . . . . . (y9P0?&4 7/W' 5¢J� . . . . . . . . �. Size of lot: Front ! �-7 . . . . . . . . . . . Rear e�.�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j Depth �. Date of Purchase . .<,1910944', . . • • • . . . . . . Name oj Former Owner -'!W<7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Zone or use district in which premises are situated . . . . W.-. ?. Does proposed construction vio ate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: 3. Will lot be regraded . . . . . . jar. Will exc ss f' 1 be removed from premises: Yes o Name of Owner of remises . �4? '!�/ � I P �. �. . . . . Address ,Pr�r� . . Phone Nc�AO RY 7 P(7 ARCName of Architect 1fif/ gyp. . . . . . Tit f , , , , Addres � � ! '�/ Nr��{z) 55�5- J3a Name of Contractor,4,q .gWh-77', f v ir✓I s ' Phone Address ,TdMe5.r$AY . .oV: 0 . . Phone Nof/?of)�: PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and,indicate all set-back dimensions from •operty lines. Give stree d blor*-number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether reiior or corner top Al d , ID 1 t O' \ cc ku se eqnk P'/ U'1'j4 ATE OF NEW RK ;UNTY OF . , l �. . S.S . • • . • . • • • • • • (Name of individual signing contract)�• • r• • . . . . . . being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant we named. is the . . . . . . . . . . .!4/.!�?C'ft/t°.0 .: . .1 ! (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this )hcation; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief;and that the rk will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. ern to before me this' 97 41" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .day of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Y •7 �• J tary Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U1 L.---Eounty i� (Signature of applicant) I Hattitach Vraftterian eburo MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11952 298-4145 - October- 1 , 1986 Dear Members , I write in support of the Church of the Open Door as they seek special exception to Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-30 (B) (2) . The work of the Church is of great benefit to the community in which they serve . Thank you . Sincerely, George�'E . Gaffga% Pastor GEG/jw 36p,e (�G PaYa�i5e pOi� ,Y�� Sold ,Ny I lq�� �a�lno�v ��,.� 2cmir•rc� �Q� a� AppeolS SCXAN lk& —aIXII i Mtn (Z�ac1 - - =t- wck n t fie' r Cxtvt�rch ear -Pone C�ert Do6r e Atk_:P-- Ar., see +one c3?gVcc&cm OW TCL\ �Y C&4 , our cavr*ry ckf�16 OJC QMYnUfl(4 . 6 q1 excep►d,) "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so pante&my soul after thee, 0 Gory" t l 1--,2(/- / —Psalm 42:1 01 wv - - WNN c- N-L�) r Gbo k uL Sau� � , s � 0 1 Tour � � ��n� � a 1 �l © 4r' Q— C,. CA_. r �'� t� n D coo P P 6- 'ram 1 i u-'s 0- c- i v141 NS, 44 "n r CUb INi v cx- In �n Agcand` d/ G��ea,�.' cE C� � �Gee�zo¢e �X � Pd. 2itd. �m tirc av-�-� y 4 c i ..i��o'� P• �d��,,�Qom, /777 mj Ord'oe. zon d I 1 ' /j � �,.• fJ � n r. f� PC 9 '"r ��� ,r'/ ��/� � ✓ -� Off, � f i �/� ,�`,. -z,.� ��`� � f' � .� I i Fes ,. ,r r� + v. � I i I / I ez 6Q,e_ 3 7- 67 ..el CIL- 77 777 September 28 , 1986 Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, N . Y. 11971 Dear Sir : At the October 2nd meeting, the Board of Appeals will consider making a special exception to the zoning ordinance so that the Church of the Open Door can construct a church building on Main Bayview Road in Southold. In the seven or eight years that the Church of the Open Door has been meeting in the present Beckwith Avenue site , the relations with the neighbors have been excellent . There is every reason to believe that this spirit of cooperation and consideration will continue with new neighbors if the church moves to the Main Bayview Road location. Moreover, the church is making substantial contributions to community well being, not the least of which is its large youth ministry stressing spiritual values to combat antisocial behavior caused by drugs , alcohol and violence . Churches are usually considered as one of a community ' s major assets , as arelschools and libraries . I hope the Board of Appeals will recognize the value that a new facility for the Church of the Open Door will bring to Southold , i S i n ce r(e--*,-z al Walte E . Glasser Box 320, Cutchogue, N. Y. 11935 September 29, 1986 232 Rabbit Lane East Marion New York, 11939 Dear Board of Appeals Members, I am writing to express my support of the Special Exception requested by The Church of the Open Door on Garange Road. I am a summer resident, but have attended The Church of the Open Door regularly during the summer months for six years. During this time I have seen it triple in size. A larger building is desperately needed for church activities as well as The Pilgrim School. The Church of The Open Door is a real asset to the entire town of Southold because of its outreach programs that demon- strate concern and caring for the entire community. Thank you, (Mrs. Ted Dowd) l ` THOMAS R. MERCIER, M. D. LOVE LANE P. O. BOX 1423 MATTITUCK, N. Y. 11952 TELEPHONE 516 - 298.5454 September 29, 1986 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: T am writing to express my support of the Church of the Open Door in its application for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to construct a house of worship on Main Bayview Road in Southold. The Church of the Open Door is a vital part of our community because of its committment to _spread the Good News about God through its ministries. Lambs Gate Nursery School, The pilgrim School, and the Open Door Youth Fellowship are examples of how this church has faithfully served our community in a godly way. My owri daughter is a second-grade student in the Pilgrim School and 2 can attest to the excellence and dedication of the school ministry staff. Any effort by the Church of the Open Door to expand its ministry will surely improve the moral fiber of Southold Town and should be encouraged by all of us. My wife, Barbara, and S strongly support the Church of the Open Door in its present endeavor. Respectfully, Moab. IMF September 25, 1986 Zoning. Board of Appeals Southold Town Main Road-Rte. 25 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Sirs, I am a student at Seminary and cannot attend the meeting, on Thursday, October 2nd, regarding a Special Exception for the Church of the Open Door. I have been involved with C.O.)D. since January 1984 and wish that I could stay here and continue .studying at the same time. I have every confidence that C.O.D. is a vital and grow- ing church with 'a sensitive understanding of its local community and for this reason I would hope C.O.D. could be granted its Special Exception. Sincerely yours, Robert W. Gillispie IV r M4 /sAaA"ck- JL A� o-k-CL � c - OL� - 5 OA. Y/ �� J-0 �L v G�rcaui, ,�•y. ii93,� -146 Ala -,)�n c- September 30, 1986 Zonirng Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road-Rte.- 25 -" Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer, In regard to Appl. No. 3487-5E- CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR- Special Exception. . I have been a neighbor of the Church of the Open Door, since 1979 when they first rented the building from the Grange, and have found them to be considerate and cooper- ative as neighbors . I own the building next door, working in my shop every day, renting the house to two ladies and have had no complaints as to the church, children, meetings, Sunday Worship, etc. . I am in favor of this Church being granted a Special Exception to build a House of Worship, and hope that if they sell -the present facility my new neighbors will be as. cooperative. Sincerely, All Robert C. Mallgraf ' Box 371 Southold, N.Y. 11971 k If L4 Ac. J6-146 :5 'o-A It • -c CA­ J� ki- 4r g/' c, 16 'I R Dr.Lawrence T.W aitz 4595 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 September 29, 1986 The Southold Town Board of Appeals Gerard P.Goehringer, Chairman Gentlemen: Ever since the Church of the Open Door started my wife and I have been members and supporters of this worthwhile endeavor. In a short period of time we have seen it grow from a handful of people to a congregation of 150 or more. There are many folks in the community who do not have a regular church to attend. This is especially true of young adults and families with children who need guidence in these uncertain times. There is a real necessity in the area for a church that will attract and welcome all. In connection with the establishment of this new church on the Main Bayview Road in Southold, it is planned to plant flowers, bushes and ornamental trees around the perimeter of the property and along the driveway to add screening, beautify and cut down on possible noise. Therefore, I urge you to decide favorably on this very worthwhile project in the near future. Sincerely, /�� J��21� I ' U Lawrence T.Waitz DVM. 9C Board of Appeals 9/3086 Southold, N.Y . Dear members, From the inception of the Church of the Open Door in Southold it has been my pleasure to have worked with the young children of the Lamb's Gate Nursery School as teacher and director. There are many satisfied families from both the nursery school and the Pilgrim school who testify to the benefits their children have had as a result of this ministry. Both schools are highly regarded in the community. Another aspect of our plans for the new church grounds is the construction of a wild life garden and sanctuary on the perimeter of the land. This will be carefully planned under directions from the National Wiia-Life Society, and will be as asset to the surrounding area. I urge prompt approval of the Special Exception to the zoning ordinance that will allow the Church of the Open Door to purchase the land in question, improve it, and construct a building in the near future. We are eager to continue the many ministries of our church for the benefit of the community, and to the glory of God. Respectful�ly� Yours, Ann Waitz, Asst. rof. Early Childhood Education a*>0-�9 3 039 0 =,0/ r/1 UT (J In- 30 66) T-z,.7 t&�� cv Ld U Gary Bufkins P.O.Box 780 298-8430 Mattituck,N.Y. Dan Reiter COMMUNITY. 11952 298-5141 CHRISTIAN f FELLOWSHIP Scott Wheaton Telephone: 298-9398 (516)298-4332 A NON-DENOMINATIONAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH October 1 , 1986 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Church of the Open Door Special Exception Dear Sirs: We want you to know that the members of Community Christian Fellowship, Mattituck give our full support to the efforts of Church of the Open Door to obtain a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100 30 (B) [2] . We believe the Church of the Open Door has both enriched and benefitted Southold township- in, .numerous ways. As we have seriously considered their efforts to build a new church we can find no reasons why their efforts should be stopped. This letter of support has the backing of all the members of Community Christian Fellowship. Yours truly, C. C. Daniel Reiter, Jr. Trustee of Community Christian Fellowship "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today,yes and even forever." —Hebrews 13:8 1270 Cedar Drive Southold , NY 11971 October 2 , 1986 PlmiH+i-p�g Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold , NY 11971 Dear P+aTnri4& Board Members , I urge you to approve the building plans before you presented by The Church of the Open Door . My daughter has attended Pilgrim School for three years and both my husband and I are extremely happy with th& quality education she is receiving. My younger son will attend in a few years , and I would love to see him enjoy a larger facility. We are not members of the church but feel that there is a need in Southold for a school such as Pilgrim that is committed to teaching our children both every day ethics and give them the valuable tools they will need for the future . Pilgrim has been a loving , caring school . I hope you will approve the request. Sincerely, Susan Cannon Young Peter W. Young SCY:hrs Re: Appl. No. 3487-SE - CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Special Exception of the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 (B) (2) for permission to con- struct and establish House of Worship with related religious activities on a five-acre tract of land referred to as Lot #3 , Minor Subdivision of Sal- vatore Catapano. I approve of the above Application: s_a Name Address Signature ° ax, 7XA ROA,a,_4L,�___I/j 1 -Z- II �' 1171 9?71 �} 1 II i i i I I - I ! I i � I � t I I I I I I I i I1 4 a I -- 1701776 G ddr�s / AFran k P y � (�l�L� , C�` �T� ))I Sz -"�',� I / � �/psi 5 ,l�oq!-v6a�..CcZin E'� /✓/�[�z�tcc,l� P/g 5,-, � d f 07 IV.Y 11 71 w 15 0`,�/z '' �c��� ���?�G,/'�-��c�-��� ,�3D (.,���%�CZ�'u� 2�G� �Jp>-�,/�'aa�✓U r/��/�7 /1Q• ,/ V 440 K � ,� klc��,Jo A v 111 ' 11 . I . J . i 1V II U1111IC111.UI l(UUI l 6y I%UV ICVV Mu 1l'1I1, Ir—(15 ,` UU mission bf this form, and an environmental review will be ' made by this b, d before any action is ti n . SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMFNT FORM I;ISTP1.'CT'_CKS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF is is assumed that the preparer will use currently available infor-ition concerning the project and the l:.kely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional ntudiee, roaearch or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a ccmpleted Environmental Assessment Form is necernary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is nc- significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? . • . . . . . . . . . . Yes No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? . . Yes No 3• Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? . . • . . Yea 210 4. Will project have a p otentiall,X large impacu on / groundwater quality? Yes V do 5. Will project significantly' effect drainage flow / on- adjacent sites? . . , . . . . . . Yes N 210 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal Species? . . . . . . . , • • • Yea No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? • • o • • • • • • • • • Yes V' No So Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the caamunity or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? • . . Yes 270 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct— ure of historic, pro—historic, or pal'bontological importance or any site designated as a critical / environmental area by a local agency? Yes V1 No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation ` systems? .. . Yes V- No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odoro., noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb— / ance a, a result of the project's operation? . Yen 13• Will project have any impact on public health or / safety'.' 0 a a 0 0 a 0 0 �— Yes :/ No 14. Will project affect the- existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula— tion of more than 5 percent over a one—year period or have a armor negative effect on tle / character of the c mrmunity :r neighborhood? . . Yes V No 15. Is there public wont f con ernin the project? _Y-e.s. V_ No r 1 PREPA3P?'3 SIG2:ATURE: TITLE: t TI.1G: f DATE: 'z 9/1l18 if d (Today' s Date) To : Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re : Appeal Application of aO e.-12 O ee dlel� Location of Property: Dear Sirs : In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations , 6 NYCRR, .Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that the subject property in the within appeal application: (please check csne boat) [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands ; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length. * [ ] May be •located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately feet in length. [ l May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, ' constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead- less than 100 feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands ; and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing on the premises. - [ Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge. * [Starred items ' (*) indicate your property does not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the N .Y.S . D.E.C. ] Sincerely yours, • + a (Signature ple e) NOTE: If proposed project falls within D.E.C. jurisdiction, approval must be received and submitted to our office before your application can be scheduled for a public hearing. r - March 2r, 1986 Town of Southold ��� Chairman of Board of Appeals yn7 Main Roads CG�L �'► aB�1J Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: . It is with great concern that we write to inform you cf our very strong opposition to the moped subdivision of the 23 acres of land between Main Road (Route 25) and South Harbor Road, Southold. We understand that the parcel is to be subdivided into 1� subdivisions :- (1) Lory building ( 2) Nursery end hot houses (3 ) Vacant land for further building (4) 5.0 acres to be sold to The Church of the Open Door for the building of a church nursery school and day school. Our main objection to this subdivision is the 1.4.th plot of 5.0 acres. The access and egress road to this five acres would be from Plain Bayview Road, and would be adjacent to several properties of the homes on Grange Road. If this request for sub- dilision is approved, it will pave the way for tale eonastruction of a church building for which we have very- extensive objections. We strongly or,pose the granting of an Exception so that this property can be used to build a church in a strictly residential- agricultural zone. Hot only will the value of our properties 'depreciate, but this five acres will be removed from the tax rolls of the Town of Southold, thus depriving the Town of much needed revenue. The building of a c1lurch in this residential-agricultural area is devastating, to our Grange Road community. We, the property owners of Grange Road, are directly affected emotionally by this proposed subdivision and the proposed building of the "House ofWorship", (church and school) . The increased amount of traffic, noise, and people utilizing the planned access and egress road will disturb our peace and quiet. Rr�l This is in OUF? BACK YARDS ,r dent; ., h_ . OL. re��.�,,.lV�.al tarv��z t�.?aN ary i�'ic^,$t fOi w "hiLr� .ra deserve the tranquility which the area provides. The granting of the subdivision and Special :exception would greatly disturb our s environmental, surroundings. Very truly yours, PROPEI,TY O:III',RS ADJAC..C74T TO PROPOSED SUBDIVISION:- F 4 j , J SUFFOLK-CO. HEALTH DEPT. APPROVAL f H. S. NO. PVT r �r.�'l.� tir,��'�''.�:a::✓ f`=►'_�Imo` �. STATEMENT OF INTENT 11 of ri4 OPEp ----oo4PP THE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL 7, SYSTEMS FOR THIS RESIDENCE WILL _ CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE Li{v�-t;. � �`'"�C•��.;�r 1rF, SUFFOLK CO. DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES. (S) APPLICANT fG70, 1, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH S E R V ICES - FOR APPROVAL OF 6- d 0 cre6 CONSTRUCTION ONLY .5'� /L'�T"vr'�' DATE: H. S. REF. NO.: APPROVED: SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DESIGNATION: -DIST. SECT. BLOCK PCL. ^cl Qt<j a r OWNERS-ADDRESS: Lk DEED: L. .6764 P. y TEST HOLE STAMP --"'"---- --�.._—`--�.�_�---- or 6.- / •°T .. ::ri�;�_— _ - a v�cauli0ii"ot ^`ct,c P•:oue York Stats I �� !'�6✓! ���A f7 .G - 'r 'SU . �L�. /r� C��..� �1�. L g v , =:'-'F:•Gr.'t !'1. ' t' e f OC,�t17 Cr.:.iF: o,`Y'i sts: ey map mthseaeln d `ti 3! L`r,1ar:d ss:r✓ayo.!s inkr>d$Vzl Or seai sh;:41 not ba considered to be s valid V z SOP Cuaranteua indicated hsrean c�holl run - only to ties person for whom the survey cS all 1-41, is prepared,and on his tchalf to the ® title compeny.V"Inmental agency end ;ending.lnstitutlan listed hmon and 7 �d� / to th6 aaslgneoS o9 they lending Intl- ` G• s, / i$01 Chi Jam" r' / � � ttition.Gue tram.are visa tranderabte ✓✓✓ ���j� eo ae.-Jitlonal inetif itions orsuteeQuent. SEAL .5c.+s'VCyid Mrr, 4, '9e45 RODERICK VAN TUYL, P.C. LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS !Z GREENPORT NEW YORK TELEDYNE POST N61239 2! � / .. / !. � s..I es; +:J a ly � 'P F f i f «,;,./ f rr�L'irn .a�✓•`.f+�� .w�`"4'r•�,,.,�M .......,,.,.._._,,...,Y.._.__..-..,.. ., -.»__ _.,... ._.....,.._ .... .,...�.._-........._-....4...................,.............,,,w. ....�. I' y6 F� ' f;�' +?"w ar R :, r 3 .f• ., / 1 ire hJ.ti,,.v.f..: r fY d`J..t ...� s�l/f�!Ls9+:Y�.. !/� yr'si�.�! i�l`1:1� !"� s4�i :. �'I a •_ .r --�/".._ - �� f,�,`y it r Dl�.�.f lC.• ��c: x:.�J'' r�y/...:%��:°. 4:: s6."•�::rH,�fc,:'�`�;.7. = r ? f'1', u•' " .,tt f�0 j.... _ a It V -- 30 1_ r ) r r� uf'�f��.,.�... l�C���'` U4-5 r° ./cam;'" _ I j ) t ,J I _.•----1----"_ __,� _- i'+ 'T'•,,.y !"t�tt.. c..7 «�'"�`A"7. ' „�i r'a j.' ' L,' r+ wc+ f \ - - , - _ - _.._ _.... t Iva i y. "''t:r 7 4 t \ N �rlG.?llc++a�?` c..4,lR/:G: . 4(1`L! rfL?�•.J 1—T.n Lat, t.•r� 4.�.K 1 «Y • 11 ''U fv I l If -F t f}�a ^� i ti'tG•-'" .�'..C7 V s"�lt t.�' 4` - �..G�. !-7 l.: �. :�:; � r `� ____�... ._ .. __ Sri �:- , *j}I _ tooin �. r 7 J. _•. ` � � .. ,ry 4� it 'y ,. `.., tAP c•.J f 5✓ X...It• _ Xy e I � , . III�`' � � Q[ _ a � ' ^ '• ,, � fir,. J ,4 f ` i _Y . 4I , 6, !! f .y 91 �. .ram . �1�-• �ta�::�k?:�,�rl"1�', .. � / ' r r .. 1 � this alteration or addition t: ddton i m s;survey is a vio!atien of Section 7209 of the New yo,,k Statn Education Law. - Copies of this survay map not bearing 1 J' tha land surveyor's inked seal or b s valid true all not be considered to j Guarantees indicated hereon shall run only to tha parson for whom the sir✓ey i i is prei.arsd,rand on his tehaif to the r _ title rn,-naanv.governmantai agency and y ;rcSaii>. ,arn listed hereon and i 1 .... �;",a .•^. .� a..J _. __.-_.__. _ ....__.__.., _ ..._-._._ - �_ �... .... ......_ _ .......____ ... ._.._ tt I�r Bast 5 f to o1 C�u rant�s are not trans y�abls tc> scdrtionalinstizutionsorsutsequent c P - - A�TAPAN o L cr -7 r � Zpt-ASK( L KO.SVI G uS X N. 7Q° el' 30" E, e92 .43 w -- -- -- --- - -- LOT 3 G01'rP PA.N0 l�.IIN EIZT"{ zA�5�20 y 0 i I°I2oPOSED i v' N.eo°1 I 'So'' E, 458,q°I LOT _ Z R�ILOINC-r �Ei CipGK -� Q _ 5. '?q° 4q � 30'.' W IOlG, 5 - 40 LO T' I { LOT LOT- LOT- LCT LOT L0T' LOT' LOT L),r r �s; �IbNT�2E - - . 12 13 14 15 1 2- 3 4 I L.OT Q ,, VILLAGE of c IzeP_NPO9T 10 GEwpRoN SEAMAN SAVA�'E -1vRNc--cz KRoPE-L . Ma121OF e0U.MPN F�.IEDMAO 13U F-4 — --- - --_ I k GfiZA N Gi E. ROA 0 /�D,� I I J I N -PRO P�(Z TY f�.� 1 / Is14 12 12,S 512 f i / i 101, ►�/0 1Z11 .��� I Irz Pi�Iz1�IN / -'To I 1 zc� Zs i �� DRJaI r\1 FIELD / UCa i+t � : r � � IZ 1211 Olt --- - ----4 Ott "--,r 0 : tv N. - e vie t i14, - _ fr;k�`. ri1TUIZCI► CHu,12G / z - Y I 2' " LOWER Fi.� Eli f -D � Go ""_"``'"..�--,- -�...-_•--.--•:..� ,_,,,_-. ____-__._----------- _ . ac .x � � `\` _ 'W�� ". s'GL���.I p N '� i l i ',wl// / �. �f�^�•q �� j - �`v�1""�......-• ...._�.....� � _ _ - �4Arz 4 i Tta,,x, I i ���.,. I ._ ` /)/y1/ (/�j �i !�r •_ / --- --. _._•.� _ � �. cc`rr{.3� f •".,.,.,,yam I �� \`I xI' .%/ f� / — \ k9,, '"'°�1' t�W? i��< Fr�� • i � —. I U I O ` i �/ 1 v 1 v2G \ — ---... ` V �, .rr � c�� PpIIN a� C3CO)Cai2�j • .rii. t',�'u +n # r�s„ t '�....� i r 1; 1 5• 1 � i ITy + rns:� yK—` - ' gyp) A, �.� ', ISI '�/� '•.• t �_ 1 O < a ` D21V,� ♦ �..,� I�• \ \ /�'Y �S �. t!' rii'.� •4 irr r } r IZ 3 w x ® �- \' /A �f u�k- �' .� � �� �'�—� I --,_- �� C.G��W I � __ — --- • _ --. __ � — \ FuTvtze Pal2wr�-, � �cQ C..hx��•M _. Z ,�'•hl+s,.ts},,Ps�'��C4 tt�)1, e l� - Rl ). cu SIDE \ k - -- �. k . x T.J 1 ''.'�. �� 'y \� I , f SP�fT' I PlL ffr.:tJC.t� `' J � h � 2 i S 1 I q-`�1 3 0 �`r � ��.�!, � I'�I N�' •TIC�GL. , 1 �� � �o.� � l,. . ; . 1 i. J � `�tl X,i¢;�i���� 1 tI— ., k I •ti...r :. .q � 19 1� l e-1� l ill o t cif ; •r.._!' �_ ._. +�[ J �' t a< ' i --_---- ---- .� 2 ate' o" - 114 0 �►v T } �� i ----- _ 's251'i ��Sst+., .. � � � �■1� _ �4`'yM1t'E� �a��4 ;:s dt r i+ t' Mli r :sr - y'r it �.54x; r if f .. 77 I ?�a � C TV .i�� 1 1_O�,�, C N Yi.tl V�/' I V I�1. � rVW-- ✓ � - :. .-.., JULIt''Ilt ® , _ _ f;lU j', a�3 r �t a'Arh �a - - _ - -------- I I xlsnN61 SPor Ec,Ev�-� UN r�' ---- - «�1 - -- - - - SAT