HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/18/1976 APPEAL BOARD
MEMBERS
Robert W. Gillisple, Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen
Charles Grigonis, Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse, Jr.
Southold Town Board o£ Appeals
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11971
Telephone 765-0660
MINUTES
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 18,1976
A regular meeting of the $outhold Town Board of Appeals
was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, March 18, 1976, at
the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.,
Chairman; Robert Bergen; Fred Hulse, Jr.
Absent: Messrs: Charles Grigonis, Jr. and Serge Doyen, Jr.
Also present: Sherley Katz of the Long Island Traveler.
7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Appeal No. 2099, Kenneth and Susan
Lange, 1887 Newfield Avenue, Stamford, Connecticut.
THE CHAIR~AN: This is a hearing that was recessed until
tonight. The original public hearing w~ held at 8:30
(E.S.T.), February 5, 1976. At that time I read the
notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its in
the official newspapers, and all other matters to
the hearing. The basic purpose of the application was to
s~bdivide the property the Langes hope to buy; to divide it
up into four tots. There are several other Planning Agencies
that would be involved in this including the Suffolk County
Planning Commission and Department'of Environmental Conserva-
tion. There was a discussion on February 5th, testimony was
taken and on a motion regularly made, seconded and carried, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2-
March 18, 1976
"RESOLVED that the hearing on Appeal No. 2099, Kenneth and
Susan Lange, 1887 Newfield Avenue, Stamford~ Connecticut, shall
be RECESSED until 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), March 18, 1976, to allow
time for applicant to seek Southold Town Planning Board and
Department of Environmental Conservation approval".
We have a recommendation from the Planning Board now
indicating that the Planning Board took the following action
at a regular meeting held on March 15, 1976:
"RESOLVED that South Lane be continued at a thirty foot
width to the Building Inspector's specifications on property
of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Lange. This will leave one lot of
approximately one-half acre south of the road and approximately
one and a half acres north of the road. The Planning Board
has no ob ~ction if this property is approved by the Board of
Appeals to be divided providing one lot is kept at one acre in
size."
THE CHAIRMAN: We have accumulated more correspondence
since the last meeting. The Chairman read letters from the
following interested persons:
Ronald Kennedy, P. O. Box 254, 80 West Lane, East Marion,
New York. Letter dated March 15, 1976 filed in Kenneth
Lange folder. Excerpt from letter: "It is respectfully
urged that Application 2099 be denied as not being in the
public interest and an unnecessary attempt to circumvent
existing zoning laws for the benefit of an individual at
the expense of a community."
J~hn~E. Jones & Evelyn Mo Jones, 67 Oakland Avenue, Port
WashSngton, N. Y, (owners of property on the west side
of East Lane). Letter dated March 15, 1976 filed in
Kenneth Lange folder. Excerpt from letter: "We trust
t~at the Zoning Board will strictly adhere to its regulations
in the event that the new owner of the property mentioned
above should apply for a variance."
Leo Stern, 230 South Lane, East Marion, N. Y. Letter dated
March 15,1976 filed in Kenneth Lange folder. Excerpt from
letter: "According to the State Environmental Board
findings, we will have problems with our water supply, which
is produced by wells located on the various properties. More
families will require additional cesspools. We have one
beach alloted for people who live in this area, which is at
present crowded during the Summer season."
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3-
March 18, 1976
James J. Winton & Rebecca A. Winton, West Lane, East
Marion, N. Y. Letter dated March 16, 1976 filed in
Kenneth Lange folder. Excerpt from letter: We are opposed
to the variance requested because of the environmental
impact. The increase in population sought will place too
great a strain on the limited water table and it will cause
pollution in Marion Lake toward which the land slopes."
Salvatore Li DiGiovanna, 21 Ormond Street, Rockville Center,
New York. (owners of property on West Lane in East Marion).
Letter dated March 15, 1976 filed in Kenneth Lange folder.
Excerpt from letter: "Our objection is directed to the
problem of water supply and sewerage. It is my understand-
ing that one of the reasons for the restrictive zoning
results from the report of a study done by the Environmental
Conservation Committee which, among other things, indicated
the seriousness of a possible shortage of the underground
water supply and its potability and of the sewerage disposal.
We are certain that your Board in the context of its official
capacity and as residents of the ~Township will give this
matter your serious consideration."
George Zwanziger, South Lane, East Marion, N. Y. Letter
dated March 15, 1976 filed in Kenneth Lange folder. Excerpt
from letter: "Apparently the appeal is based on the fact
that other plots in the area are smaller. To grant a variance
on this basis would make all zoning progress difficult, and
create a dangerous precedent for all future appeals. I rely
on the wisdom of the Board, in possession of all the facts,
for a proper decision."
Robert Dixon & Dorothy H. Dixon, South Lane, East Marion,
N.Y.. Letter dated March 9, 1976 in Kenneth Lange folder.
Excerpt from letter: ""The effect on sewage disposal,
lowering of the water table, and spacing of homes is
totally undesirable and we wish to go on record as requesting
that no change be made."
James O'Neill and Gabrielle Daly O~Neill, Lovell Street,
Mahopae, New York. (owners of property at East and South
Lanes, Old Orchard, East Marion, N. Y~) Letter dated
March 3, 1976 filed in Kenneth Lange f~o~der. ~xcerpt:
"We ~ave owned our home since 1957 and were told when we
purchased our property on East and South Lanes, Old
Orchard, that the vacant land on the other side of East
Lane was owned by the Edwards family and that they had no
rights to our road, nor to our 150' of beach' area... We
respectfully request that no more than two houses be per~
mitted to be erected by this builder on the east side of
East Lane, Old Orchard, East Marion, N. Y."
Southold Tew~ Board of Appeals
Nareh 18, 1976
TH~ CHAIP~MAN: The original applieatien was for feur
houses on the preperty. The Plan~Lr~g Beard reoommends t~
~he erigimai h~use re~n ~n ~ne a=re a~d $~t ~he re~ing
pr~per~ be divided i~to ~ lets ~mstea~ ~f ~hree, The
prepert~ ~=h ~s ~n Gard~ers Bay w~ have t~e ~0~000 s~, ft~
tw~ l~s~ ~e s~k~i~ l~ts are considerably smaller
th~se proposed by the applieant. The Plying
dati~ms ~e as previously read ~ y~u ~nigh~ indiuati~ that
t~e Pls~i~ Board has no ebjeetion if this proper~y is approve~
by the ~e~d ef Appeals t~ be divide~ previdi~g ene let is kept
at ~ne acre i~ size.
TBE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyene present whe is interested
in the Lange applieatien?
MR. AND MRS. ~ALPH WENK: We were alse here at t~e Febr~y
~t~ he~ing.
~. J~S J. ~N~N= I ~t te say t~t ~1 of.~e r~a~s
in this OLd 0r=h~d ~ea were owned by the Estate of Fr~ Thorp~
~rigi~lly, He died ~d his estate ~s been ~r~sCerred. ~e
Edw~ds preper~y is approaehe~ from an easterly d~eeti~ ~d
there is ~other l~e~ Hu=kleberry L~e. Thee is no need for
an additio~l approach. It ~d be a ~r~s~ession ~n ~he
Zwamziger~s ~operty.
T~ C~IR~NI Was Z~ziger~s property origi~ally a part
~f the ~rp
~S. GEORGE ZWANZIGERs Ne~ i~ was not.
~ Originally, the land ~Of Ed~dsr~ frem
t~ a n~rew p~i~t e~ the ~lg~e~ It ha~ been cut
eff rated in ~ne of the ether lots. The ~war~s
~ from the ~o~s~ a~i~onal piece of
whi~ apprga~eS ~he lake b~t ~oes ~t ~ t~ ~e 1~,
T~ C~~= It l~ks as if ~hey ~ve a e~rri~r,
ple~ely. Part of the Ed~ds property ~as thr~ in ~th t~e
~orp pr~per~ t~ ~ke the pr~9sal f~r ~ee lots. ~e~
n~t ~ ~1 the l~d. ~e ~mrps o~ed pa~t ~d s~ld it t9 the
Ed~ds. ~e w~le ~4~ wen~ t~ the
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-5-
March 18, 1976
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't believe that he has bought it yet.
In looking at the tax map it says 25 foot road over here on
Huckleberry Lane. The fence has nothing to do with it. Mr.
Lange's own map shows 10 feet from the east.
MR. WINTON: That's Huckleberry Lane.
THE CHAIRMAN: What the Planning Board is asking here is
a 30 foot right of way to meet a 10 foot private road.
MR. WINTON: The Thorps would have to give their consent.
MR. RALPH WENK: Would they use our road then?
THE CHAIRMAN: We are trying to figure out what to do
with this application. It should not have been considered by
us first. It should have gone to the Planning Board first.
They addressed themselves to it Monday night and wrote us the
following letter:
"The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a regular meeting held March 15, 1976:
RESOLVED that South Lane be continued at a 30 foot width
to the Building Inspector's specifications on property of
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Lange. This will leave one lot of
approximately one-half acre south of the road and approxi-
mately one and a half acres north of the road. The
Planning Board has no objection if this property is
approved by the Board of Appeals to be divided providing
one lot is kept at one acre in size.~
THE CHAIRMAN: The Planning Board asks that South Lane
intersect a 10 foot private road.
MR. WINTON: You would be beyond the Edwards property if
you went beyond South Lane.
The road is on my property. Huckleberry Hill was
Mr. Baltz bought the front part and I bought
the rear pa~t which has a road on it next to MCCue.
THE CHAIRMAN: So, this 10 foot road was used by whom?
MR. WENK: LeBar, Senko, Cotgreave and ourselves. We have to
maintain it. We put blacktop on it. It was all full of holes.
We had it fixed eighteen years ago and then since that time have had
it repaired.
Seutheld Town Beard ef Appeals -6-
Maroh 18, 1976
MRS. WENK: The last time we were here I believe
La,ge said he w~uld ~se the other road to get out a_nd it
would net be going down Huckleberry Hill,
THE GHAIRMAN: I think I suggested that they shut off
Huokl cherry Lane.
MR. WINTON~ Hsve you seen the slope i~ the terrain?
It ~es way down deep. If you build down there I think you
womld be might in the
T~E CH~IRMAN~ That would be a matter fo= the Board of
Health. D~ you have community water there?
MR. I~NTON ~
THE CHA~RMAN~ On the questiolt of access, it seems to me
that this land of Thorp and ~dwards must have had a~oess,
MR. ~INTON: Edwards never had access, One ef the bo~nd-
a~es is North Lane. ~$ r~s 4~ p~etie--lly te the lake
sides. (One le~ ~uld have access ~m ~ s~des),
THE CHAIR~AN~ If these were divided as the Plar~iin~ Board
suggests both of these lots'wuld have access to East. Lane. I
believe we now hawe all the i~fez-a~tion you can give us about
~eoess.
MR. W~NTON~ Our feeling is that there s~ould be only one
m~re house. Why ~er~les an~ re~ulationS if you ~O~t StUd
by them?
feet wide, some
e~ none are an acre. The ~eb of the Beard of
~udicate and a~r~ve at a fair solution, It does
MR. ~ENKs How about the water table?
MR. R~BERT BERGEN: ~e HealthDep~tment would be
with
cow, Id have ~ acre of p~perty a~d nos be allowed lo build a h~use
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-7-
March 18, 1976
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that hearing on Appeal No. 2099, Kenneth and Susan
Lange, 1887 Newfield Avenue, Stamford, Connecticut be RECESSED
to 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 8, 1976.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- MesSrs: Gillispie, Bergen,
Hulse.
The secretary was directed to write a letter to the Planning
Board with regard to the above Appeal No. 2099 questioning why
there should be a 30 foot right of way to a 10 foot private
road.
7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), Appeal No. 2100, Julius Zebroski,
Bayview Road, Southold, New York.
THE CHAIRMAN: This hearing was recessed from February 5,
1976 to tonight. The original public hearing was held at 8:45
P.M., February 5, 1976. Philip J. Ofrias, Jr. was present.
At that time I read the legal notice of hearing, affidavits
attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and
all other matters pertaining to the hearing. Is there anyone
present who wishes to add to the testimony taken on that date?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIR~N: In the absence of any recommendations from
the Planning Board or the Department of Environmental Conservation
I suggest that we recess this hearing.
On motion by Mr. Gitlispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that hearing on Appeal No. 2100 be recessed until
8:00 P.M., Thursday, April 8, 1976.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen,
Hulse.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-8- March 18, 1976
8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) Appeal No. 2194, William Schriever,
Main Road, Orient, New York.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the applica-
tion for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attest-
ing to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice
to t~e applicant. A statement from the Town Clerk was read con-
cernlng notification to Adriana B. Vail and William Wysocki~ Jr.
We have received a letter from the Planning Board dated
Februar3 26, 1976, as follows:
"When Mr. Schriever went before the Town Board for
approval for his property off Village Lane to be
developed in the cluster concept, the Town Board
approved the area outlined in black on the attached
map.
This left two undersized lots on Orchard Street, one
consisting of 28,530 sq. ft. and the other, 25,000 sq. ft.
The Southold Town Planning Board is in a~reement that
these lots be considered by your board as being outside
the proposed subdivision."
There is also a letter in our file from Mr. Charles R.
Cuddy, Attorney, .dated March 5, 1976, indicating that
the application is now scheduled for a hearing on March 18,
1976. This letter was addressed to the Town Clerk. Previously,
the hearing was scheduled for February 26th. We have on file
copies of Certified letters.
THE CHAIP/~j~N: Is Mr. William Rich III here?
WILLIAM RICH III: Yes.
TM CF_AIRMAtq: Do you wish to have your Brief read into
the record? I think it applies to both Schriever applications.
~. RICH: I ~ave ahother brief here. I doh~'t think you need
to read that one.
T.HE CHAI~: It seems, to my knowledge, that quite a bit
of the informatio~ in the Brief is incorrect.
A: letter was written to Mr~.'~Rich on March 1~, .1976, as
follows:
"We are in receipt of your letter dated Februar~!.~25, 1976,
and accompanying brief dated February 24~, 1976.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9-
March 18, 1976
Letter to Mr. Rich cont'd.
After investigation it was learned that you were not
properly notified of the hearing on Mr. Schriever's appeal
scheduled for 8:00 P.M., February 26, 1976. This notification
improperly went to your father, Mr. William Rich, Jr.
The Board of Appeals is not required to postpone hearings
because of improper notification. However, this hearing has
been postponed until 8:15 P.M., Thursday, March 18, 1976.
It. has lust come to our attention that you have moved
to the above address (33-51 80 Street, Jackson Heights, N.Y.)
during this past week. We are also sending a copy of this
letter to your former address: 454 Fort Washington Avenue, New
York, N. Y. 10033."
s/s Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.
THE CHAIRMAN: You were properly notified?of tonight's hearing?
MR. RICH: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: This application, Appeal No. 2104, relates
to property which is next to Vail's property. There is a letter
in this file addressed to the Chairman of the Appeals Board
from the Planning Board, dated January 30, 1976, which reads as
follows:
"Mr. William Schriever of Orient has presented the Planning
Board with a map for developing his property in a cluster
concept.
The Town Board has approved the area which can be clustered.
Excluded from the area of the cluster sUbdivision are two
lots. T. he first is on Tabor Road and Orchard Street and
consists .of 28,530 sq. ft. The other is on Orchard Street emst
east of the Vail property and consists of 25,000 square feet.
Mr. Schriever will be coming before your Board in %~e near
future to request a variance on these two pieces of~roperty.
Mr. Wickham has conferred with Robert Tasker, Town AttOrney,
who has indicated that it would be proper for the Planning
Board to recommend approval on this. The Planning Board
will take official action on February 23, 1976, th~ date of its
its next meeting."
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10-
March 18, 1976
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.: I ~m with Tooker, Tooker & Esseks
and I represent Mr. William Schriever. We sent you copies of
certified mail notices. We thought you might want the
originals. (Mr. Cuddy submitted the originals). This is Mrs.
Vail's first notification dated Feb. 7, 1976~ and this is dated
March 2, 1976. The same thing applies to William Wysocki, Jr.
So, they had notice of the original hearing which was scheduled
for February 26th, and this one tonight. I will put those
receipts into the record.
Mr. Schriever obtained this property a little over two
years ago. Since that time it has been before all sorts of
Boards in the Town and County. He wanted to have a cluster sub-
division on fourteen acres of land. He had to get approval from
the Planning Board and Town Board. A dispute developed which was
ultimately resolved by the Town Board agreeing to have a cluster
subdivision and the perimeter lots were to be taken out of the
subdivision. These two lots are considered to be outside of the
subdivision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Officially, these two lots are not in the sub-
division by action of the Town Board.
MR. CUDDY: The Town Board has asked us to exclude these
two lots. The Town Board had asked that all property on the peri-
meter not be included. That's why we are here because in order
to get approval for lots like these we have to come before the
Appeals Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, you would not have bought these
lots. This does not fit into the cluster concept.
MR. CUDDY: The Town Roard believes that they have jurisdiction
as to what lots should be in a cluster concept. They want certain
lots within a cluster and other lots outside. This is a combina-
tion of both Boards and Mr. Schriever working together.
THE CHAIRMAN: ~That's what I understand. The Planning Board
is charged with the ~esPonsib~iity of cluster deVeI~Pment. The
Town' Board interjected itself and %hat's the problem.
MR. CUDDY~ This is what they say they want in the cluster
and ~ha~ they want outside. I Wo~ld li~e to put into evidence
several things. First; an appraisal by Floyd F. King of Orient.
He has indicated that the lot on Orchard Street would be valued
at $12,000. In the event the variance could not be granted, it
w~uld be worth $4,000, which is a 66% decrease in the value of
the lot.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11-
March 18, 1976
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the lot between Wysocki and Vail.
MR. CUDDY: I am entering into the record a statement
from Roderick Van T~yl dated February 6, 1976. He has gone over
all the lots. The statement gives lot areas of the 19 existing
lots and the two proposed house lots in the block bounded by
the Main Road, Village Lane, Tabor Road, and Orchard Street,
arranged in order of increasing areas.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no ob ~ction we will accept
the appraisal of Floyd F. King of Orient and make it a part
of the record. The appraisal was notarized on December 23, 1975.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection we will accept
the statement of Roderick Van Tuyl and make this a part of the
record. The statement is dated February 6, 1976.
(There were no objections).
WILLI~ RICH III: Does the Van Tuyl statement indicate
how many lots received variances?
THE CHAIRMAN: These lots all pre-existed the Ordinance.
We have checked all the lots fg~Village Lane, from the monument
to the dock, and it's my recollection that there were no lots
that met the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement. Reading from the
Van Tuyl statement, we find Fred Tabor - 1.322 acres; Horton -
0.795 acre; Carlsson - 0.765 acre; King - approx. 0.75 acre;
Strachan - 0.606 acre; Ward Tabor - 0.603 acre; Proposed Lot
east of A. Vail - 0.574 acre; Wysocki - 0.558 acre; Proposed
Lot east of Rich - 0.534 acre; Adrian Vail 0.517 acre; and so
forth, down to Kripinski 0.112 acre.
WILLIAM RICH III: You say that none of ~t~s~property owners
applied for a variance?
MR. ROBERT BERGEN: They were all pre-existing.
THE CHAIP~IAN: There was one fellow next to Dr. Moor-Jank~wski...
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSRI: That application was denied. I was
there as a witness. I was nOB for or against.
THE CHAIRMAN: That was when you told us about your verbal
arrangement.
DR. JANKOWSKI: Yes.
Southeld Town Beard of Appeals
-12-
March 18, 1976
THE CHAIRMAN: Virtually all ef these are pre-existing
lets.
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSKI: The cluster ze~ng is under litigation.
Therefore, Mr. Wickham stated at a public meeting that as long as
there is litigatien~ they will nut give any definite agreement.
This part cf the cluster zoning is under litigation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Hew 1-c~Ewi11 that litigation take?
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSKI~ Until the limits ef m~ ability.
T~E 0HAIRMAN: A zoning decision has te be made within a
reasonable length cf time. It has te be appealed within 30 days
cf the decision. It has to be heard by the Supreme Court.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: I thick Dr. Mocr-Jankcwski m,y have
misstated the case. He has litigatie~ privately with
Schriever, not on cluster zoning.
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSKI: There is a cloud on the title as Mr.
WAckham stated.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are glad te have that i~formaticn but it
is irrelevant.
DR. HOOR-JANKOWSKI: What we are discussing is based on a
letter you received from the Planning Board. If Mr. Schriever
doesn't receive a permit for cluster zoningt it may very well
be that these lets would become one acre lots. I would like
have this on the record.
THE CHAIRMAN~ I would have to disagree with you there.
T~ere is no way these c~uld be intelligently made into one acre
lots. You could not get frontage.
DR. ~00R-JANK0~SKI~ All you haV~ to de is put a roa~ here.
Mr. Schriever b~ught these'~~ lots after the one acre zoning
w~s establtshe~ s~ he knew the risk he was ru~ing. Sot he is
now retroactively coming here.
THE CHAIRMAN= Apparently the seller wanted to include this.
MR. WILLIAM SCB~IEVER: The .only way I could buy what I
wanted was t~ buy the odd pieces.
THE CHAIRMAN~ Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard?
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSKI: I w~uld like to make a statement later.
Southold To~ Board ~ Appeals
-13-
March 18, 1976
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: (addressing Dr. Moer-Jankowski) D~
you own adjacent property?
DR. M00R-JANKOWSKT: Adjacent to ~r. Schriever's entire
property. The limit between this'~operty ~d this property
(referring te map) is the black line on the map, When you look
to the Deeds the whole property belongs to Sehriever and I am
his neighbor.
My property is here. I don't k~ow what he will do with
cluster zoniD~. I feel nothing should be done with the entire
property ... so he doesn't come back to us-and say "I am under
duress, I have a hardship".
CHARLES OUDDY, ESQ.: Your property is om Village Lane.
DR. M00R-JANKOWSKI: Yes.
~LLIAMRICH III: Dr. Meor-Jankowski was beginning to
address himself te merger of title. I have a brief on several
recent Appellate Division merger of title concepts. Dr. Moor-
Jankowski is a neighbor in the entire area s~nce t~is piece has
not been sot off yet.
THE CHAIRMAN: I was w~ndering about that myself but~
would seem to me that if the Planning Board and the Town ~ard
Las the power to determine what s_~ea cam be ¢lustered~ ~hat
w~uld take care of that,
The firs~ thing that struck me was that it w~uld seem %mfair
if F~r.· Sc~riever was able to use the unrequited acreage as a
result ef this variance or these variances. If every lot is
supposed to have 40,~0~ s~. ft. then the %caused area should be
considered in the cluster concept
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: These are two --~i~s, They are on this
map. NOV, there won't be any more lets t~- there origi~ally
would have been~ The ~e computation is ~e~g used now.
There wontt be any more Iots$ the density ~s not being increased
one iota~
~hat given~
density, there anything else that anyone
am1 afraid we are ~g far afield. Dr
he is a neighbsr but he is qul~e a distance away from
the
to add., I
says that
lot.
MR. SCHRIEVER: The lot is as geed as any~other lots along
there~ 'If a house were built on there, it would not be any
4ifferent than any ether
Southold Town Beard of Appeals
-1~- March 18, 1976
I~R. M00R-JANKOWSKI: These lots oo~ have been used to
put through a street~oh would have changed, the en~re non-
fixation, ~ ~be he ~11 have ~o p~ a s~reet in.
THE CHAIRM~N: I tbdnk you 2~e in front of the wrong Board.
Was that ever considered?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: I don,t think that was ever considered
because the street problem has been gone over a number of times...
where it should exit and how it should exit.
W~LLIAMRICH III: I think all the issues we are talking
about now w~ll be exactly the same when we get to the next
variance. Why dontt I bring up my points as we go along? I
will be ~ppy to read this brief to ~ou. There is one situation
which is q~/te similar te this one. T~e Appellate Division in
dealing w~th a subst-.ndard-to~ and a large subdivision in back
specifically stated "that ~ frustration of a land owner's
building pl~s by a is not a practical difficulty
warranting an area variance", We are measuring by that standard.
~$om~elled ~o merge it~ it c~uld f*~lfill his area re-
THE CHAIRMAN: I think he is fulfilling the area re~,~rements.
They take the total area and then they ~ake $0~ of that area, and
then the Plan~ing Board~can reduce the bulk area re~uirement by
5~ by clustering, You say that frustrating the builder's plans
does not warrant a variance.
MR. RICH: Forget about the subdivision in the background.
The li~e of reasoning that the Appellate Division has used where
the property owner has sufficient adjoining land to fulfn11 the
area req~/rements is that he should de se. When you introduce.
the value of le~d, the Appellate Division stated clearly in
Troiane v Volz that "proof that mere profitable use ~ould be
made of applicant's land if any area variance were apprev~
is not sufficient to shew "practical difficulties".
T~ CHAIRMAN: I ,m familiar with th-t concept but I am net
familia~ with the eases ~ou'refer to.
WI~AMRICH III: He is not preying his burden of practical
difficulty.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do~s suayone wish time for rebuttal?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: The applicant has sustained his burden.
~hinks we are mixing apples and oranges), The reaso~ ~he area
varis.~oe is before the Board is because th~s entire piece of
proper~y leads itself to cl~steri~g. If these lots were included
they ~uld be exactly as show~ on the map-. We are asking that
since they can tt be inoluded we be gra~te~ an area v~rianeeo The
problem is which Board do you go tO?
Scutheld Tew~Board of Appeals
-15- March 18, 1976
THE 0HAIRMAN: For a substandard let you ~ve to come
before this Beard, except if the lets w~re i~side the cluster,
That's why we a~e here because they are sub-
TN~ CHAIRMAN: The burden of proof as far as I am c0neer~med
is the surrounding area. We just had a ease where practically
ever~/ neighbor was o~ a let of a q~a~ter acre or less but dis-
MR. RICH: Those cases did not so mm~h look to the area
of surrounding lots as the baok surro~a~ing lot owners within the
past year or tw~ sought area variances -~d were gra~ted.
T~ C~I~N: Tb~t is a different situation, We recently
were aske~ ~e censi~er a variance en twelve d~fferent ~ts i~ a
clmster concept. If we did it all en one application it could
be over~ned if ~he To~ ever has ~o $~e ~ver th~S setmp, Our
fe~ family ~A~S. ~t~s t~e same r~sen we ~e e~nSidering
If we ee~ider ~re ~ o~e at a time, we ~d be e~a~ng the
MR, RICH: To look at She size of the smrr0u~ing lets is
not the way I interpret the eOmrt's view. Owners of substandard
lots ~ave all beeH ~e~ ~ea varia~es.
THE CHAIRMAN: Tha$ has net been done here. I can't think
of a single case~
MR. RIOH: The size of a let a hemse was ~built on in
shomld ne~ bo a measure for a house ~ei~ b~tt in 1976,
THE CHAIRMAN: We don't knew whe~her ~he
was buil~ is relevant.., wh~t is relevan~ is
was in single a~d separate ownership prior to ~he Ze~ing.0r~ina~ee~
MR. P~G~H: On ~$~, ~he ee~ts ~ve held the line, ri.ght dew~
the line, whenever two properties merge,
THE 0HAI~_I~4~N: We are being asked to .~u~-merge" these.
MR, SC~RIEVER: Kenneth Tabor acquired these lets separate
from the big parcel and ~hey were merge~ by h~m. ~en he sel~ them
they were bought as one pareel~ a~d the~ I h0ught i~ as one parcel.
He was farming all that pareel~
Scutheld Town Board ef Appeals -16- March 1S, 1976
MI1. CUDDY~ It was a~l one piece**, ~ part of one piece,
,DR. I~0R-JANKOWSKI~ You are mo~ removing it and creatin~ a
substandard lot o
~I~. WILLIAM $CBItIEVER~ We drev up the cluster concept
because y~u can reduce the frontage by 5(~ and: the area by-50~,
We Md the application before the Pl~ing Beard when it needed
nc vari~c $.
D~. MOOR-JANK0~KI: T~ere was before you an application
for a subdiVision, the name w~s Peter L~oe. F~ ~s ~he ~ffe~ence
~e~wee~ ~he Lueeappliea~ion ~ ~s application?
THE CHAIRMAN~ He was denied. The size ef his p~operty we~ld
have beenabcut 7,~0~ sq. ft. This is =~most four times the ~ze.
We had visions ef almOst everybody cn VillageLane aski~g tc
d~vi~e their property, Already we have water ~roblems. This is
almost four times ~he~si~e cf the propert~ tbS% Lute was involved
in, There ~S q~ite a ~ifference between 7~00 sq, ft. and 2~,000
~. M00R-JANKOWSKI~ Ail of these lo~s are small but the s~me
to Lu~e. It was determined t~t one acre is the
In my eyes th~s was a sim~ situation. In yo~s,
The zcni~ concept is based cnhow much, yea
It should include theories and methods
space.
DR Let's
and the BOarddces not ~t
can be appealed in t~trtydays. The
has notbee~ heard. This is net a ft~l
yc~selves in a si~tien where y~a b~v®
the l~d wb/eh he owns in back ii
wc~ld leave him encu~ area to make ~ ~
ion
You may find
two lots and
~hich means it
I will oppose.
I will ge as long and as far as I can. In the meantime, Mr.
Sehriever eo~ld build two houses here on ~he baSiS of his applica-
tion. I ~hink What we are discussing here is premature.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17-
March 18, 1976
THE CHAIRMAN: No one on the Board is a lawyer. That's
an unhappy place to be but Boards of Appeals, basically, just
have what is supposed to be common sense and the common sense
solution in this case is that these two lots should be taken off
and granted a variance regardless of what Mr. Schriever ~ay hays
done before. A zoning variance goes with the land~ not with~the
applicant.
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSKI: My understanding is that if the~r~ is
adjacent land it has to be merged.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Town has already decreed that these shall
be'removed from the cluster. They have asked that these be
removed.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: What the Town Board has said is that
this area can be cluster zoned. No matter what happens with
this land, density will not be changed. You won't have more
lots. It ill behooves anyone to say we should not have lots
that size. This area will not be any more dense. The Town has
said you can have a cluster concept in the black area. The
Planning Board openly approves. The Town Board has said where
it can be. The Planning Board will give us a layout of lots and
streets.
DR. MOOR-JANKOWSKI: My feeling is that it should not be
approved until the cluster zoning is approved. Was this hearing
advertised for today?
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
WILLIAM RICHIII: You said I was not properly notified
for the first hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN: In deference to you we did postpone this
and also it was complicated by these other considerations, so,
we thought it would be good to have your advice. However, we
are not required to do that. Otherwise, we would have to spend
all of our time dealing with these things.
MR. RICH: I think you take it very lightly.
THE C~IRMAN: It is State law that publication in local
newspapers is sufficient unless the Town decrees otherwise; and
this Town, as a result of pressure from civic associations,
has decreed that adjoining neighbors be notified. Many people
are summer residents and are not here at all in the winter time.
We have also been critieized for holding our hearings on
Thursday nights.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18-
March 18, 1976
THE CHAIRMAI~: Does anyone else wish to speak?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I suggest we hold making a decision on
this Appeal No. 2104 until after we have heard the next one,
Appeal No. 2105.
8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Appeal No. 2105, William Schriever,
Main Road, Orient, New York.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication in the official nawspapers, and notice to
the applicant Statement of Town Clerk was read regarding
certified mail notificatiOn to William Rich
THE CHAIRMAN: This hearing was postponed from February 26,
1976 to tonight. We wrote to Mr. William Rich III on March 1,
1976 in reply to his letter of February 25, 1976. (The Chairman
read the letter informing Mr. Rich that the hearing scheduled
for February 26th had been postponed to March 18, 1976). Letter
in William Schriever folder, Appeal No. 2105.
There is a letter in the file from the Planning Board, dated
January 30, 1976, as follows:
"Mr. William Schriever of Orient has presented the Planning
Board with a map for developing his property in a cluster
concept.
The ~own Board has approved the area which can be clustered.
Excluded ~ area of the cluster subdivision are two lots.
The first Orchard Street and consists of
28,530 sq~ar~ is on OrChard Street east of the
Vail property sists of 25,000 square feet.
Mr. Schriever will be coming before your Board in the near
future to request variances on these two pieces of property.
Mr. Wickham has conferred with Robert Tasker, Town Attorney, ~
who has indicated that it would be proper for the Planning B0~rd
to recommend approval on this. The Planning Board will take
official action on February 23, 1976, the date of its next
meeting."
/s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19-
March 18, 1976
THE CHAIRMAN: This lot is on the corner of Orchard
Street and Tabor Road. Ail the arguments on the previous
application would apply to this one and, substantially, all
the objections would apply to this application too.
(There was a discussion between Dr. Moor=Jankowski,
the Board ~nd Mr. Cuddy regarding whether his property
Ks considered to be contiguous to or far away from the
two lots under consideration).
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: I would like to put some things in
evidence. I submit two certified receipts, one sent to William
Rich, Jr. and one to William Rich III. I would also like to
put some documents in evidence: an appraisal from Floyd F.
King, which is different from the one submitted for Appeal No.
2104 because it is a different lot. He appraises the value of
this property at $8,000. If the variance is not granted Mr.
King appraises the property for $5,000. I would also ask that
the Board accept another copy of Van Tuyl's "Lot Areas within
Block" dated February 6, 1976. This is identical to the one
submitted for Appeal No. 2104.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to the Floyd King
Appraisal and the Van Tuyl Lot Areas being entered as evidence.
(There were no objections).
MR. SCHRIEVER: There are 19 lots and this is all of them.
MR. CUDDY: The last item is a map of this area made by
Van Tuyl. This is for information purposes.
MR. SCHRIEVER: I think all the required information is
in the map given with the application. This is just for
information.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this B-1 zoned?
MR. SCHRIEVER: No, not on the cluster part.
MR. RICH: The first issue that he raised as far as establish-
ing practical difficulty is that the land would have little or
no ~alue and by the evidence that he has just presented the
property with a variance would be appraised at $8,000. Without
a variance it would be worth $5,000.
(The Chairman read the statement signed by Floyd F. King,
Jr. dated.and notarized on the 23rd day of'December, 1975.
Statement is filed in William Schriever folder, Appeal No. 2105.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-20-
March 18, 1976
WILLIAM RICH III: The point is that I indicated my
interest in buying that property. I think his price was in
the neighborhood of $25,000. Obviously, that discouraged me.
I am willing to purchase and add to my 'lot as I said in an
earlier memo. I don't see how he could say it would not be
worth anything. My offer is 85% of what the real estate
appraiser values the property at, if developed, which would
be the most profitable way to use it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that is relevant here.
MR. RICH: I think it is relevant to the statement he made
of practical hardship because I have offered 85% of what the
property is worth to him.
MR. SCHRIEVER: The real estate appraiser makes the claim
as to what it would be worth.
MR. RICH: You sought Mr. Floyd King, Jr.
MR. SCHRIEVER: Yes, for the purposes of obtaining a variance
I asked him to appraise the propertY.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you want to ask any questions, please
ask them through me.
MR. RICH: I don't see how he can submit an evaluation of
property to the Board when he would not sell the property to me.
It is an invalid claim.
THE CHAIRMAN: It's hard to sell vacant land if you can't
build on it. I think this is irrelevant.~
MR. RICH: How could it be irrelevant?
THE CHAIRMAN: What you and Mr. Schriever exchange property
for is irrelevant.
MR. RICH: He can not claim that if the area variance
were denied that this property is of much less value.
THE CHAIRMAN: I agree that that statement should be
modified. Generally, in.my experience in zoning, if you can't
use a piece of property it makes it far less valuable.
MR. RICH: I prepared a memorandum that lists the Appellate
Division's decisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will be glad to have you submit them.
Seutheld Town Beard ef Appeals =21-
Ma=ch 18, 1976
MR. RICH: I would like the Beard to ecnside~ the n~st
recent of the area variance cases decided by the Appellate
Divisio~ in the Second Department (~ow~_~ v Kern),
THE CHAIRMAN: This will postpone the. decision but we
w~n~t ~stpene for a?ry longer tha~ it t~es to read ~his.
thi~kM~o Sohriever has been held up long enough.
MR. RICH: The Appellate Divisiomargues that the fact
that a petitioner is inconvenienced is not reason for gr~nti~.
THE CHAIRMA_N: As I recall, after eighteen years on the
Zonin~ Board ~f Appeals, only omce were we overturned. In that
case we were trT~ing tc establish the ~se cf ~ld houses as two
family houses. The 0curt ef Appeals said that that was a matter
for the Town Board to change the 0rdi~ance~ so ~he Ordinance was
ehan~ed.
,MR. RICH: I would s~E~est you read the Cewa~ case..
T~. CHAIP~MAN: Are you submitting three copies?
MR. RIOH: There are four copies, one is for the Town
Attorney. I wo~,ld like some more time to prepare my armaments.
THE CHAIRMAN:
ad~ tags.
There are a let ef points in your brief
just matters cf fact. You were at a dis-
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions?
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Hulse, it was
,RESOLVED that the Southeld Town Bo~d cf Appeals ~ost~pone
decis~o~enlAppeal N~. 210~, William~Seh~ieve~; and Appeal No.
2105 , to ~lew time f~r? ~he ~d t~ study
the briefs ~d by William Rich III, ~lh ~he assistan~
ef theTe~ ,~torn~. ~e Bo~d s~11 mee~ a~ 12:oo e~le~k
'Neon, ~Ch 26, 1976, a~ the Te~.Office, ~in Road, Seut~eld,
New Y~rk.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-22-
March 18, 1976
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2109 - 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.)
upon application of Glenn F. Heidtmann and Ruth Heidtmann,
Clipper Lane, Southold, New York, and Fairhaven, Jamesport,
New York for a variance and special exception in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-90 and
Bulk Schedule for permission to construct shop and mill
building with insufficient side yard. Location of property:
west side Cox's Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the
north by Eastern Suffolk County Cooperative, Inc. and Leander
Glover, Jr.; east by Cox's Lane; south by Frank McBride, Jr.,
west by Leander Glover, Jr. Fee paid $15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance and application for a special exception, legal
notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in
the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant.
The Chairman also read letter from Town Clerk stating
that Leander Glover, Jr.; Eastern Suffolk County Cooperative,
Inc.; Frank McBride, Jr. were notified of this application
by certified mail.
The application is accompanied by a survey indicating
that the property under discussion has a westerly boundary of
203.19' and an easterly boundary of 150.52~; that the northerly
and southerly boUndaries range from 528.75 on the north and
529.23' on the south. It is an irregularly shaped lot.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to
speak for this application?
GARY F. OLSEN, ESQ.: I am ~epresenting tlhe applicants.
As you know, this is General Ind~stria! property. Grefe, a
general contractor, is to the north;-~ and in between there is
a labor camp; and to the south there is a concrete company,
t belisve %hat the intended use is a~high type of' use and
would be an asset to the neighborhood. They want to put up
a 6 foot fence t6 fence in their buildi~¢ p~lferage.
They would like the building to be 15 f.
property line, running parallel. Basically, it's just a shop
in which to keep materials. You can see the fence on the survey.
They, at th'is point, don't want to fence around the whole area.
Eventually they might want to use a back fence further to the
west j~ining it with the Glover property. The northerly side
where the proposed building is shown is a flat, buildable
property and is high. Over to the south side there is a hollow.
They have a topographical problem.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to use the area in the back?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23-
March 18, 1976
MR. HENRY HEIDTMANN: Not now, we just want to make the
neighbors happy.
THE CHAIRMAN: This lot has been in single and separate
ownership and there is no way it could be made larger. How
close to the road do you want the fence.
MR. HENRY HEIDTMANN: Wherever you say we can have it.
MR. GLENN HEIDTMANN: We want to leave a wooded area in
front. We don't want to spoil this. We could not come up to
the front line because, as you recall, we have to put a driveway
there. On the other side we have a drop of 10 or 12 feet.
It's not the most desirable piece but it's the only piece we
could find. I would say ~bout 15 or 20 feet in.
THE CHAIRMAN: If your fence is in 25 feet from Cox's Lane
and your building is in 50 feet, I would say it seems reasonable.
How close to the sidelines would you want to be?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Just inside the lines.
GARY OLSEN, JR.: The problem with a fence is that it can
create a title problem. You have to put it almost on the line.
If you put it on his property you can lose your fence.., if you
put it a foot inside you can lose your land.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to store materials outdoors?
MR. GLENN HEIDTMANN: No. There is a building with an
office, a building to store products, and a shed. The only
thing is that now and then concrete forms might be there for a
short while.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to put a building parallel
to the side line, and nothing will be stored in the front yard.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
applicant has a topographical hardship on proper~y located.
on the west side of Cox's Lane, Cutchogue, New York. A 50.foot
setback~ for buildings will approximate that established by
nearby property owners. The Board agrees with ~he reasoning
of the applicant as stated in the variance and special exception
submitted by the applicant.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-24 -
March 18, 1976
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by
all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property
and in the same use district; and the variance will not
change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe
the spirit of the Ordinance.
The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare
and justice will be served and the legally established or
permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use
districts will not be permanently or substantially injured
and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED, Glenn F. Heidtmann and Ruth Heidtmann be GRANTED
permission to construct shop and mill building with insufficient
side yard on the west side of Cox's Lane, Cutchogue, New York,
subject to the following conditions:
The fence which applicant proposes to construct to
prevent pilferage shall be no closer than 25 feet
to the property line on Cox's Lane and shall be no
higher than 6'6". The fence shall run along the
borders of the property to a point crossing the
property approximately 175 feet from Cox's Lane.
2. The applicant shall not store any materials in the
front yard area.
The building to be constructed shall be no closer
than 50 feet to Cox's Lane and no closer than 15
feet to the northerly border of the property.
4. No buildings shall be placed closer than 50 feet
from the southerly border of this property.
Subject to site plan approval of the Planning Board.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse.
Southold Town Beard of Appeals -25-
1976
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, se~nded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that minutes dated February 26, 1976 be appreved
as submitted, subject to minor co.~,oetiono
On motion by Mr, Gillispie, s~cended by Mr. Hulse, it was
~ESOLVED ~hat the nex~ regal~ mee~ of the Southold Town
Beard of Appeals shall be held a~ 7i'~0 P.M~, April 8~ 1976, a~
the Town Office~ Main Road, S~uthold, New York.
V~te of the Board= Ayes:- Messrs: ~illispie, Bergen~ Halse.
On motion by Mr~ Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals shall meet at 12=O0 o*cleck
Noon! March 26, 1976, at the Town 0ffiee, Main Read, Southcld, New
York.
V~te ef the Board= Ayes=- Messrs= Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse.
On motion by Mr. Gi!lispie, seconded by Mr. H~lse, it was
RESOLVED that minutes dated March ~, 1976 be approved as
submitted, subject 2o minor correction.
Vo~e of the Board= Ayes=- Messrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Sign Rene~rals were reviewed by the Beard ef Appeals and
approved as submitted.
Seutheld Town Board of Appeals -26-
RESOLVED that the Sou~held Te%m~ bard ef Appeats set 8~i0
(E~S.T.), April 8~ 1976~ at the Towm 0fftee, l~n,R~ad~ SouthO1d,
New Ye=k, as the time a~d plaee ef hearim~up~H application of
i~ aecorda--ce ~th ~he Zoni~ 0rd~"~ee, Article III, See~ion 1OO-
C~ele ~ive, ~st ~ion, N. Y., bo~ded o~ the north by J.
~d~s~ ~st b~ Circle ~ive~ se=~h by T. S%~s~ wes~ by Reeky
Poim~ R~ad;~ T. Berrill, Jr., T. ~. Be~11.
Vote ef the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs~ Gillispie, Bergene Hulse.
On motion by Hr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. H~lse, it was
P~ESOLFED that the Southold Tewn Beard ef Appeals set 8~25 P.M.
(E,S.T.), April 8, 1976, a~ the Town 0ffiee~ Main Rea4, $omtheld,
New Ye=k as the time and place of hea~ingupe~ apPlieati~n~ef
Jekn Sim~eieh, ~x 6~8, 0lo J~le L~e, ~itu~k~ New York for a
east b~ C~ ~ne~la Read (Pv~. Rd.); south by~a~, ~remeler,
~Pe~=ts~ wes~ by 0lo J~e L~e~ ~mbrava, Papish~ Z~wsk~.
Veto ef the Bea~d: Ayes:- Messrs: ~illispie, Bergen, Hulse.
On m0~ion by Hr. H~lse, seconded by Hr. Bergen, it w~s
(B.S
New
, for pe=misSio~ to
undersized lot with insufficient Setback. ~¢ation of preperty~
Estate~ eh. the som~h by Peconi¢ Bay; west by La,re1 La~o,
Veto ef the ~oard. Ayes~- Messrs~ ~illispie, ~erge~, Hulse.
Ssutheld Te~n Beard ef Appeals -27-
On ms~n by l'd~ Hulse, seconded by N~, G~llisp~e, ~ w.as
R~SOLVED that the Seuthold Town ~s~d of Appeals set 8=55 P.M.
(E.S.To), April 8, 1976, a2 the To~ Office, Main Road, $ou~hold~
New Y~rk, as the time ~ place ~f he~i~ ~n appliea~ion ~f
J. Park~ Wie~am, A~~ve~ Ma~i$Uek, New York for a variance
in aeeo~ee ~h the Zoni~ 0rdipa~ee, ~iele III, Seoti~ 100-30
1~-118D & 100-115 D, for permission tc reopen Salvage
the B~d~ A~eS=-.~ssrs.--~tll~sp~e, B~en~ Hulse.
On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED ehat the Matti~uck Volunteer Firemen's Association
be GRANTED bermission tO install posters advertising the 01d
Fashioned Firemen s Tournament to be held in Matti=uck on
Saturday, J~ne ~t9,1976, within the Southold Town area, subject
to the following conditions:
That these posters shallbe installed no more than two
weeks before the Tournament, and shall be removed a week
after the Tournament.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Glllispie, Bergen, Hulse.
-Z8 -
On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Lion's Club be GRANTED permission to
erect two signs, one on premises of Frank Murphy's Garden
Center and the other opposite the Mattituck-Cutchogue High
School for the purpose of advertising the Strawberry Festival,
subject to the following conditions:
Tha% the signs be erected two weeks before the festival,
June 5, 1976, and shall be removed one week after the
festival.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respect~fully~ su~)ted,
j ' rmott, Secretary
Robe~t W. Gillispiei.-.~r;, Chairman