Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/12/1977 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. Gillispie, .Jr., Chairman Robert Bergen Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, .Jr. Fred Hulse, .Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I'., N.Y. 119'71 Telephone 765-2660 MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.)., Thursday, May 12, 1977, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen; Fred Hulse, Jr.; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr. Also present: Steve Katz, Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman. 7:30 P.M. (E..D.S.T.) Decision on Appeal No. 2254, Nicholas W. Ippolito, 39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30; Article V, Section 100-50, and Bulk Schedule for per- mission to divide property with existing buildings. Location of property: South side. North Road (CR27), Southold, New York, bounded on the no~th by CR27; east bY Hass and Carole Road (Pvt. Rd.).; south by Mill Creek; west by now or formerly Dover Navigation Corp. THE.CHAIRMAN: This-appeal of Nicholas W. Ippolito for a variance to.divide property with existing buildings, south side CR27 in Southold,.was postponed until tonight. At'.fi'9e o'clock this afternoon, the attorney for Mr. Ippolito asked that the application be withdrawn. The application.is withdrawn without prejudice to further applications. I'm stating this for the record. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED.that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes'dated April 21, 1977. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 12, 1977 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes dated April 29, 1977. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. 7:45 P.M. (E~D.S.T.) - Decision on,Appeal No. 2260, Spencer W. Petty, III, ~cklAvenue,~ Cutchogue, New York for a variance in accordance w~h the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk for permission to divide property with insufficient wid nd area. Location of property: West side Track Avenue, Cut.chogue, New York, bounded on the north by K. Gagen; east by Tr.ackiAvenue; south by Lots 1 and 5, Pequash Acres; west b~ Ty~e and Fior. THE hear~ing is~ A% that that we would a~ea 1Qts. ~es was by C1 ~leet and o~r Board. ~rea known as ' L. filed on lc A o~ ~ M.S. Hand subdivision to ~o~i~g. It con- sis~s Area ~4 on S, Hand ~ is not a looking at ~ and re-readi~ Which i.s stated in , "We have~ a ~it of the CHAN~E THE bec~se we to build a one-family and either giv~ the second lot to one of my children, o~ if that they choose'not to live at this location, able to sell i~ for the same purpose, a one-~family dwelling." I think that the applicant should furnish further proof of hard- ship. I would recommend to the Board that this application be denied. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property with in- sufficient width and area, west side Track Avenue, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the applicant has not shown sufficient hardship. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- May 12, 1977 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hard- ship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by ~i~. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Spencer W. Petty, III, Track Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, be DENIED permission to divide property with insuffi- cient width and area, west side Track Avenue, Cutchogue, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Griqonis, Doyen. (After the public hearing was closed, Mr. Petty stated that his neighbor is dividing his lot and that he wishe~ to appeal the Board's decision. Mr. Gillispie suggested that he get an appraisal made of his property. Mr~ Lawrence Murdock asked why the Board permitted people to divide property into lots of less than 40,000 sq. ft. when the Town has one-acre zoning. The Chairman explained that it is a legal precedent set by the courts. If a man owns an acre lot surrounded by quarter-acre lots, he can declar~ that as a hardship, and the courts have ruled that he should be allowed to divide that property~n keeping with the character of the area.) PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2268 - 8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon apPliCat£o~ of Dr. Newton Faulkner, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York for a variance in a~cordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to con- struct accessory building in front yard area. Location of property: Nassau Point Road and Vanston Road, Cutchogue, New York; Lot ~177 and 178, Nassau Point Properties. The Chairman opened the hearing hy reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to ts publication ~n the official newspapers, and not~ce to the applicant. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr. George Bischoff. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak agains~ this application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 12, 1977 (There was no response.) The applicant proposes to place this shed, 15' by 15' in size, 35' from Old Cove Road on the southerly side of the prop- erty. No, the northwest corner of the property, 35' from Old Cove Road. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct accessory b~ilding in front yard area, Nassau Point Road and Vanston Road, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are the applicant has two front yards due to the shape of the lot. Many people in th~s area use their front yards for accessory buildings. 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 prpp~rty 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. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Dr. Newton Faulkner, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building in front yard area, Nassau Point Road and Vanston Road, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The shed shall be placed at least 35' from Old Cove Road and no closer than 5' to the side lot lines. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLI~ ~ARING: Appeal No. 2267 - 8:a7 P.M- (E-.D-S-T-) ~ tlOn of Paul and ~argaret Kayse~, 1206 'Main Street, ~ew York for a variance in accordance with the zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec%ion 100-30 and'100-31 B for permis- sion to convert existing building into two-family dwelling. Location of property: East side Main Street, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Grand Union Co.; east by A. Bonkoski; south by DeRubio & others; west by Main Street. THE CHAIRMAN: This is an application for a two-family house on avery small lot. The attorney for the applicant at five o'clock requested that we withdraw the application. This application is withdrawn without prejudice to any future appeals. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 12, 1977 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2266 - 8:20 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Frank and Vera Scott, West View Drive, Mattituck, New York (Abigail Wickham, Esq.) for a v~riance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Northwest side of West View Drive, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Anchorage; east by Woodcliff Drive; south by West View Drive and A. Boscomb; west by Mattituck Creek. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the~application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, disapproval from the Building InspectOr, and notice to the applicant. The Chair- man also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Alfred Bascomb. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a photostat of the County Tax Map which supports the applicant's statements. Is there anyone present whoWishes to speak for this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I would like to speak in favor of the application based mainly on the characteristics of the neighborhood. THE CHAIRF~AN: Where these lots bought at separate times? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: No, they were bought together. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone wish to add anything? (There was no response.) One question, the 11,000 sq. ft., which lot will that go with? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Tha~ will go with the lot of 26,000 ~q. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: So in effect, you'll have a lot there of 37,000 sq. ft. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: It will be one large lot, yes-., but due to the location of that filled in area, we really didn't have a choice, that iR certain~y not a separate building lot. THE,CHAIRMAN: It's listed on the tax map as 1.2 acres. That is certainly larger. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- May 12, 1977 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants request permission to divide property with in- sufficient width and area, northwest side of West View Drive, Mattituck~ New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 observ~ the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Frank and Vera Scott, West View Drive, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insuffi- cient width and area, northwest side of West View Drive, Mattituck, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC ~EARING:..Appeal No. 2270 - 8:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of k~ert and Virginia Kroepel, 2360 Oaklawn venue, SoU~old, New York for a variance in accordance with the Z~oninq Ordinance, Article III, Section !00-35 for permis- sion to construct tennis court with fence exceeding maximum height. LOcation of property: West side Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Southold School District and L. Baker; east by J. Graves; south by Jockey Crsek Drive; west by H. Arm. Th~ Chairman red the hearing by reading ~the application for a variance notice of hearing, affidavits~a~testing to its pu the official newspapers, disapproval from the Inspe~tor~ and notice to the applicant. The Chairman notification by certified mail had been made to: Dr~ Graves; Dr. Herbert S. Arm; ~r. ~ouis F. Baker; SoUthold Union Free School District. Fee paid - $15.00. TH~ CHAIRMAN: The photostat of the Tax Map indicates that the applicant is the owner of two lots, ~26 and 27 on this map. One of them fronts on Oaklawn Avenue and the other on Jockey Creek Drive. On~ has a frontage of 150' on Jockey Creek Drive, and a frontage of i'60' on Oaki~wn Avenue. The sketch accompanying the application indicates that the tennis cour~ will be adjacent to the property of Dr. Arm. These two lots are irregular in shape; Southold ToWn Board of Appeals -7- May 12, 1977 There's a large tree on the easterly side of the proposed tennis court. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ROBERT KROEPEL: I would like to change the location of the tennis court on this map. I would like to set it back entirely on the property line in the back. I want to set the court as far back as I can and not 5' away from the property line. THE CHAIRMAN: You want to move north? ROBERT KROEPEL: North and west, to align on the property line west and back to ~ouch the property line on the northeast corner. THE CHAIRMAN: Directly against Dr. Arm,s. ROBERT KROEPEL: Theluse of the property north of Dr. Arm's is requested because ... Dr. Arm has requested that the tennis court not ex.tend past the front of his house, which it will in the present location. THE CHAIRMAN: It looks like you can just about do that. ROBERT KROEPEL: Yes, it will fit in there exactly. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? DR. ARM: We Submitted a letter, it's not against what Mr. Kroepel plans to put up. It stab~d that we didn't object to the tennis court as long as it was set back far enough so it did not project past the front of our house. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have the letters here. I guess you wrote to Edson first. (The Chairman read the April 23, 1977, letter from Dr. Arm to Mr~oE~son and also the April 29, 1977, letter from Dr. Arm to the Board.) Will this be back 100'? ROBERT KROEPEL: No, it will be about 95' DR. ARM: Which is perfectly all right with us. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- May 12, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants;~request permission to construct tennis court with fence exceeding maximum height, west side Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 changethe character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Robert and Virginia K~oepel, 2360 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct tennis court with fence exceeding maximum height, west side Oaklawn Avenue, north side Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The northerly fence of the tennis court shall be placed as close to the northerly line of Lot ~26 as possible. The westerly fence of the tennis court shall be on the line between Dr. Kroepel and Dr. Arm. The enclosure shall be no larger than 60' by 120' Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis,_Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2271 - 8:40 P.M. (E~D.S.T.) ion of William B. S~ith a/c R. V. Gehlmeyer, 220 :eet, Southold, New York for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100- 60 C (b) for permission to place side wall sign on existing building. Location of property: South side Middle Road (CR27), Southold, New York, bounded on the~north by CR27; east by Barzac; south by Bucci; west by Klein. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the 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 disapproval from the Building Inspector and statement that notification by Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 certified mail had been made to: Gary David; Joseph Hoffman; Barzac Beauty Salon; Ted Bucci; Phillip Manita; Bernard Klein. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: This location is on CR27 on the south side of the road. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? WILLIAM SMITH: The main reason for this is that I've been told by so many people that they come out seeking brokers and have gone by the office without seeing the sign, turned around, come back. One party I know of that was looking for us went by it three times. I made the signs that are there myself, I don't think I made them big enough. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there two offices in your building? WILLIAM SMITH: Yes, Robert Gehlmeyer and myself, we're both brokers. THE CHAIRMAN: You're in the same building. WILLIAM SMITH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: What's required under the present Ordinance is that you combine them. Those two out in front there, how long have they been there? WILLIAM SMITH: Eight years, nine yea~s. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe that's before they changed the Ordinance. WILLIAM SMITH: They've been there since 1966. THE~ CHAIRMAN: It's been changed now so that you have to combine the signs for contiguous premises. If you had five people in the building, they'd all have to he on one sign, one road sign and one ~all sign~ The maximum on the road sign is 6'6" by 12'6". You~ tittle smaller', 6'6" by 8'6". Then there's a formula the ~all sign, two square feet of sign per linear r{~nning foot of the width of the building. That's supposed to be on the front, but since you've got a sign on the front of your building, would ~ou rather have another sign, take that one down and put one up on the side? Is this for both of you or what? WILLIAM SMITH: You mean take the little sign I have down? THE CHAIRMAN:, Yes. WILLIAM SMITH: I don't care about the little sign. It's supposedly real estate regulations that we have one. I've never been brought up on it before. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- May 12, 1977 THE CPL~IRM~N: I think that if you want to put the sign on th~side of the building on account of the trees and everything, you'll have to take it off the front of the building. WILLIA~ SMITH: Are you talking about the same sign or the new sign that we have? THE CHAIRMAN: If you put up a new sign on the side of the building, you'll have to take the one down on the front of the building because you're only permitted one wall sign. Apparently, you've got two signs out in front there now. You're the owner of the property, right? WILLIAM SMITH: No, Gehlmeyer is. THE CHAIRMAN: Well then, it will be up to Mr. Gehlmeyer to provide any signs that you have to have for that back building. You can't have any more signs, you'd have five or six there with- in 100 feet. What we're trying to do is get one. WILLIAM SMITH: Well, I ~on't really care about that little sign in front. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Will this he back far enough? (The Board and Mr. Smith discussed the location of the sign.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to place side wall sign on existing building, south side Middle Road (CR27), Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Beard finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be.served and the legally established or permitted use of R~ighhorhood property and adjoining use dis- tricts Will not be permanently or substantially injUred and the spirit of' the Ordinance will be obserVed. On motion by Fir. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hutse, it was RESOLVED, R. V. Gehlmeyer, 220 Mechanic Street, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to place side wall sign on existing building, south side CR27, Southold, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 The applicant shall remove any signs from the northerly side of the building. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2274 - 8:55 P.M. (E.D.S.T.)~ upon application of Dominic J. Catalano, 28 Joval Court, Brooklyn, New York for a variance in accordance withtthe Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Bay View Avenue and North Drive, Mattituck, New York; Lots 19 through 22+, Shore Acres. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publioation in the official newspapers, notice to the appli- cant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read ~tatement that notification by certified mail had been made to adjoining property owners. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a survey by Young and Young indicating that Lot ~22 will have ... one lot Will have 29,829 sq. ft. and the other will have 30,170 sq. ft. There is a one-story, framed house on each lot. It's in an~area that appears to have many small lots, all sorts of sizes. There are one-acre plots, a series o~ smaller lots. IS there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? JERRY GAl{RINGER: If this were granted by you gentlemen~I don't think it would have any effect on the neighborhood, it wouldn't be a hardship for the ~eighbors. One of the structures is in a state of disrepair. THE CHAIRF~%N: What are they going to do, sell them? JERRY GARRI~GER: I would assume that one of them would probably be repaired and the other one will probably be destroyed. The one to the north would be destroyed. THE CHAIRMAN: The one to the north? That's the bigger one of the two. JERRY GAl{RINGER: The other one, of course, would have to be added on to. THE CHAIRMAN: What's-~that, a shed back there, a garage? J~ERRY GARRINGER: It's a garage. $outkold Town Board of Appeals -12- May 12, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN:. It certainly can't harm the area. Does anyone wish to speak against this? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the BQard finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property with in- sufficient width~and area, Bay View Avenue and North Drive, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that this will probably improve the area as one house will most likely be removed. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance woul~ produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; ths'hardshtp 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. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Dominic J. Catalano, 28 Joval Court, Brooklyn, NeW York, be GRANTED permission to divide property With insuffi- cient width and area, Bay View Avenue and North Drive, Mattituck, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2279 - 9:00 P.M. (E.D~S.T.) upon application of Elizabeth Yarc, P.O. Box 1221, Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning OrdinanCe, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk SchedUle for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NeW York, bounded on the north by Minnehaha Boulevard; east by Laughing Water Property Owners Association; south by Corey Creek; west by G. Moyle. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, notice to the appli- cant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: G. ~Moyle; Laughing Waters Property 3Q~aers Association. Fee paid - $15.00. ~. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is aecompanied by a sketch of October 2, 1956, indicating that the applicant has approximately Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- May 12, 1977 253' on the tie line on Corey Creek. The westerly depth of this property is 122! and the middle is approximately 140' in depth, on the easterly side it's 194' in depth. The County tax map in- dicates that this is an area of very small lots, particularly on Minnehaha Boulevard and the immediate vicinity. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? ELZZABETH~ YARQ~ ~ had it surveyed by Mr. Van?Tull and the total area is about.~.2/3 of an acre. When the lots are divided they will be about 1/3 each. I think the largest lot in the area is 1/4 acre. These will be two 1/3 acre lots. THE CHAIRMAN: How will you get water there? ELIZABETH YARO: From my property across the street. THE CHAIRMAN: Across the street? Have you been to the Board of Health on that? ELIZABETH YARO: No, I haven't. I don't intend to build right now, I just want it on the books. THE CHAIRMAN: This is quite low land. ELIZABETH YARO: It only flooded once, back in 1968. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you understand that you'll have to get D.E.C. approval and you'll have to get Board of Health approval for cesspools, and the County Planning Commission. I think what this Board should dO ~S wait and see if you get those approvals. ELIZABETH YARO: Do I have to get a building permit if I don't intend to build? THE CHAIRMAN: No, not a building permit. You have to apply to D.E.C. for permission to divide the lot. ELIZABETH YARO: It's fairly high ground, there are other houses on the same level. THE .CHAIRMAN: I think we would like to have their opinion before we go ahead. What I was going to suggest is that, if no one else wants to talk about it, that we recess this hearing in- definitely until you get D.E.C. approval. ELIZABETH YARO: What's D.E.C.? THE CHAIRMAN: Department of Environmental Control. ELIZABETH YARO: I'm not sure I know how to go ab, out it. THE CHAIRMAN: Y~u can ask some of our experts in the office. They'll tell you how it should be done. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- May 12, 1977 On motion by Hr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals RECESS this hearing indefinitely until Mrs. Yaro receives D.E.C. ~_ approval. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. pUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2272 9:10 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) pon application of Constantine Vloutely, 605 Maple Lane, Mattituck, NeW York for a variance in accordance With the Zoning Ordinance; Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct tower ex- ceeding maximum height. Location of property: Maple Lane, Matti- tuck, New York, bounded on the north by Peconic Homes Subdivision; east by R. Brooks; south by Maple Lane; west by Krupski. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, no~iC~ to .the appli- cant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: Stanley Krupski; Robert Brooks; Peconic Homes c/o David Horton. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: A sketch furnished by the applicant indicates that the tower will be placed on the easterly side of the appli- cant's house. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: Some of myi~neighbors object to the tower. The location was picked because it would be out of their way. It would also make-it more convenient for running the cable to,the tower. It's a self-supporting tower, there's no guy wires. THE CHAIRMAN: Concrete base? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: Yes. It's approximately 4' x 4' THE CHAIRMAN: And what's the total height? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: 48' THE CHAIRMAN: You need this type tower for amateur radio equipment. Would you also use the tower for television? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: No, I have Cablevision. THE CHAIRMAN: How far away can you get signals? $outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- May 12, 1977 CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: This particular application is for UHF. I have been able to get w~thin 50 miles or so. You have to get above the trees. THE CHAIRMAN: The main reason for this height is to get above the trees? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: I'll be totally above them, it will be much better. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Then maybe Mr. Hulse will make a motion ... if it falls down, will it hit anybody's house besides yours? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: My neighbor's house is a little closer but this is a three sided tower, it's supposed to fall on a flat side. THE CHAIRMAN: It will fall north or south. CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: It could fall north and then it would be either southwest or southeast. THE CHAIRMAN: When they sell you one of these towers, is that part of the sales pitch? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: No, they just tell you how to position it. It wouldn't be overloaded or anything. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you ever had one fall? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: No. THE CHAIR/4AN: Have you everseen one fall? CONSTANTINE VLOUTELY: I've seen them bend but I've never seen one fall. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct tower exceeding maximum height, Maple Lane, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- May 12, 1977 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. On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Constantine Vloutely, 605 Maple Lane, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct tower exceeding maximum height, Maple Lane, Mattituck, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The tower shall be no higher than 50' and shall be located on the easterly side of the applicant's house. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2273 - 9:20 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Leslie Hart, Hart Hardware, Inc., Main Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Z~ning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-80 and Bulk Sc~hedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the Rorth by Jockey Creek Drive; east by Ellis Terry; south by Jockey Creek and Ulrich; west by Main Road. The Chazrman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, notice to the appli- cm~t, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: E. M. Terry; Ulrich Marine. Fee paid - $15.00. The application is accompanied by a sketch indi ~he layout of the buildings on the applicant's property. The ~i of the Tax Map indicates that this property is on the cc ~r of Jockey Creek Drive and Main Road. It consists of, according to this sketch, ab~out 38,000 sq. ft. which the applicant proposes to divide in two, make two 19,000 sq. ft. lots. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this aPPlication? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I would like to point out to the Board that Mr. Hart is the sole owner of Hart HardWare. He presently owns the complete premises, or the corporation does. The premises were bought in two separate parcels, I believe in the early '60's. The first part was the business back in 1964 which is on the Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive. The secQnd part was bought with the building thereon as an office, it was an office and is now a Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 residence as is shown in this sketch. I don't know if everybody has a sketch. What we have now is that the Ordinance, ~1 we have acre zoning and we have now "C" zoning and cumulative zoning. We have a piece of property that's approximately 38,000 sq. ft. which is that way because of merger. It is in the corporate name. Mr. Hart's house is on the premises and the two buildings are connected. Now, that sketch is incorrect in that. My understanding is that it's a one-family dwelling and the two of them are together. There's one single kitchen. THE CHAIRMAN: If the kitchen was here, it'd have to be moved. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Absolutely. We'd have to conform to the building permit for ~he structure that is added on there and it is to be a one-family dWelling only. THE CHAIRMAN: When was this built? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: The addition? THE CHAIRMAN: No, this one here. The main one, the big one. -RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: That I believe is an addition because of the connection. TEE CHAIRMAN: Because I don't think he came into us. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: He didn't have to. He couldn't get a building permit if that was going to be two separate structures. That Ks, according to the Building Inspector, one structure and that's all it can be. THE CHAIRMAN: Was this used for a residence? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It is, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And it was? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: We can ask Mr. Hart. Mr. Hart, the smaller building, that was used as a residence, is that correct? LESLIE HART: Yes. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It's non-conforming which is What we have here.. In other words, we have a non-conforming residence in the commercial zone with a business. What we're askinq is that the business be.separated from the non-conforming residential property in the existing zone. Up until the cumulative zoning, assuming you had the other area, there wouldn't have been any problem as far. as that goes. You have the "C" zone now and you have all the additional requirements of side yards and rear yards, etc. $outhold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: How deep is this "C" zone here? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: To the end of our property. THE CHAI~d~AN: Over to Ulrich? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Ulrich has it too, yes. That is all "C", 100%. See, the basic problem is that you have one piece of property here that is owned by a corporation of which there is a residence on it. We want to be able to separate a business from the residence. My understanding, we've gone down that street many times, the provision as to the size is approximately whatever the rest of the property on ~ockey Creek Drive is. It's not inconsistant. THE CHAIPdV~AN: No, it's just an unusual situation. .RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It's an unusual situation of zoning. THE CHAIRMAN: And really, the addition out. original house. But this is all going to be part house. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Part of the house is a showroom. THE CHAIRMAN: This will be used for a showroom? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: A little bit of both, I guess. It wQu~d be f®olish not to use it, it's not completely necessary to th~ total dwelling. THE CHAIRMAN: The kitchen will be over here? (on ~ap) RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Hart, the kitchen will be in the larger part of the house now? LESLIE HART: Correct. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's our main concern, that there isn't any attempt to get two families. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I think Mr. Howard ~erry would be very much concerned. He's expressed that view to me personally. (Mr. Hulse conferred with the Chairman.) THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hulse brought up the point that this could be sold off to somebody else and used commercially. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Yes, it's always been commercial. FRED HULSE, JR.: It's been one commercial. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- May 12, 1977 RUDOLP~ BRUER, ESQ.: It could be used for two businesses, could lease it off. You could have a 99~year lease if you ~nted. THE CHAIRMAN: There's no intentioneof ever selling this other lot, Mr. Hart, with the house on it for business purposes? LESLIE HART: No, we're going to keep it residential. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you be willing to have us put in a condition that.it can be used only for residential purposes except for the one-story, framed office? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I don't think that would be proper. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think so either, I'm just asking. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Because you're really changing the zone by putting that restriction in. THE CHAIRMAN: But Mr. Hulse brings up a point here. I think the smallest lot in the "C" zone is supposed to be pretty big, much bigger than this. PJJDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Absolutely, that's why we're here. That taken together probably isn't as big as it should be. I believe you're supposed to have, what, 80? THE CHAIRMAN: "C Light" is 40,000. RUD©LPH BRUER, ESQ.: I think we're here on every part of the Bulk Schedule except for the ~ear ~ard requirements. FRED HULSE, JR.: You could end up with two businesses where now you only have one. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Yes, but as far as practical purposes ... it's existed prior, it was two lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Essentially, these are business uses and not industrial. ESQ.: Correct. The thing i.s, you're r business in the area, ASsUming it alone, it could be leased off, we could sign a 99-year lease a~d have two separate businesses. But it's a practical matter, there's a brand new house there, a house that was bUilt for residential purposes. You're correct in your theory, but I'm just saying that I don't think it would be proper for the Board to ultimately talk about ~oing down the road a couple of years in terms of restricting the use. I think it would be improper for you to do because you'd be, in effect, doing a change of zone. Southotd Town Board of Appeals -20- May 12, 1977 FRED HULSE, JR.: By doing what? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I think by saying that it could only he used for residential purposes. We're only there as a residence by non-conforming. In other words, if that premises was ever stopped being used as a residential house for two years or what- ever' the Ordinance says, we'd be out of business anyway as a residence because we'd lose the non-conforming use. It would revert back to "C". THE CHAIRMAN= The only point Fred made is that this could, conceivably, yield two small "C" lots. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: You could do that anyway. In other words, if this was, if you just had the business ... FRED HULSE, JR.: No, you couldn't. You've got one commercial lot right there. THE CHAIRMAN: No, but if you divide it now. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: You could effectively divide it by a lease. You're talking about a typical situation where you have one business and there was nothing there. There's nothing there, you could .never put anything there. But now we do have something. There's nothing in the Ordinance, in my understanding of it, to restrict Mr. Hart from leasing that, in effect having two businesses on one lot. We could throw out a 99-year lease. THE CHAIRMAN: The odds are in ~avor of this remaining as it is. I would be inclined to vote for it. FRED HULSE, JR.: Don't get me wrong, I'm just pointing out something, I'm not against it. THE CHAIRMAN: How long has the hardware store been there? LESLIE HART: 15 years. FRED HULSE, JR.: It should have been zoned for business, they probably just evened it up to the corner. THE CHAIPu~AN: Anyone else wish to speak? Anyone against? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property With insufficient width and area, Main Road and Jockey Creek-Drive, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the applicant wishes to separate the lot from corporate title and place it under individual title. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21~ May 12, 1977 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardsh/~created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alTke ~n 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. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Leslie Hart, Hart Hardware, Inc., Main Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient width and area, Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen. Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2277 - 9:40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Henry Stelzer and wife, Main Road, Peconic, New Yo~k for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of prop-. erty: North side Main Road, Peconic, New York, bounded on the north by A. Stelzer and M. Harris; east by Pilles; south by Main Road; west by F. Stelzer. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits~attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, notice ~o the appli- cant, and disapProval from the Building Inspector. ~The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: Antone Stelzer c/o Frank Stelzer; Mary Harris; Thomas Pi~les; Frank Stelzer. Fee Paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a sketch indicating that the applicant is the owner o~' a plot.277' on the Main Road in Peconic wi:th a depth of 175' on one end and 170'+ on the other, easterly end. The applicant's t~-story f~amed house is located approximately 40' from the. right-of-way of 16-1/2' on the westerly border of'the applicant's lot. The house is 54' from the Main Road leaving what appears to be about 200' of vacant land between the Stelzer house and the neighbor to the east who wishes to enlarge his lot. Is there anyone present who wishes tO speak for this application? MRS. STELZER: We own the lot. THE CHAIRMAN: How much did you want to .se'lt? Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 MRS. STELZER: Whatever the Boardw±ll allow. MR. PILLES: I way I feel, I would like any part of it to make mine better. -THE CHAIRMAN: The neighbor to the east, his house is only 4' at Hhe norterly end of the side yard and 6' at the southerly end of the side yard and approximately 44' to the Main Road with 60' running feet on the Main Road. FRED HULSE, YR.: Do you know how much distance there is between your house and Mrs. Stelzer's house? MRS. STELZER: Well, our's is 277' and we have a driveway to the east. THE CHAIRMAN: About 180' between the two houses. ROBERT BERGEN: We don't want to creRte another lot. -MR. PILLES: I don't want to build on it, I want a nice size yard. THE CHAIRMAN: And it doesn't make any difference to you, Mrs. Stelzer? How about 100'? MRS. STELZER: If it's agreeable to them. FRED HULSE, JR.: How much have you got on the road? MR. PILLES: 60' FRED HULSE, JR.: So if you got 100', you'd have 160' and Stelzers would have 177' THE C~AI~AN: That would make the two lots approximately equal. 100' is easy to remember. Anyone wish to object to this application? MRS. STELZER: THE CHAIRMAN: MRS. STELZER: We have no objection at all. Any other questions? The only thing is, if we can't come to an agreement like on the price or something, can that lot be sold to someone else? THE CHAIRMAN: No. You could only sell the 100' to enlarge Mr. ~.~lles _lot. It couldn't be used for another residenCe. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to set off lot with 'insufficient width and area, North side Main Road, Peconic, New York. The Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 findings of the Board are that Mr. and Mrs. Stelzer wish to sell the easterly 100' of their lot to Mr. Pi!les in ord~er to. enlarge his lot which is only. 60' in width. The result of the division shall be that the P~lleS house and the Stelzer house will be on approximately equal acreage. The Board finds that strict application cf 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. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Henry Stelzer and wife, Main Road, Peconic, New York, be GRANTED permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area, north side Main Road, Peconic, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: Mr. Pilles may not use the additional 100' side yard for building purposes. It may be used only to enlarge his present lot. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2275 - 9:501P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Joseph Vandernoth, Osprey Nest Road, Green- port, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to ~onstruct addition with insufficlient side-yard setback. Location of property: Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, New Yo~k; Lot ~18, Cleaves Point Subdivision, Section I. The ( to its the hearing by reading the application of hea~ing, affidavits attesting . the official newspaper,s, notice to the had been made to: Mr. a~d Mrs. Joel Rosenthai; Mr. and Mrs. Conrad Russo~ Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant's lot is pie shaped. It extends on Osprey Nest Road on the west to Osprey Nest Road on the s~st. The area proposed for the garage is oK the Westerly side of Osprey Nest Road. There are large trees involved. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? Southold Town Board of Appeals ~24~ May 12, 1977 JOHN GUIDEMANN: Mr. Vandernoth couldn't be here tonight, is it all right if I speak for him? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 1 guess the application pretty well speaks for itself. The applicant is s~eking a garage and he would like to put it at the head of his driveway which comes in from Osprey Nest Road on the west. It would adjoin the house, it would not be a separate building~ and would adjoin a covered patio. JOHN GUIDEMANN: That's right. The car stands there now without any shelter. · HE CHAIRMAN: He also is afflicted with two front yards and the one big side yard he has is full of trees. Anyone else wish to speak for the application? (There was no/response.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct addition with insuffi- cient side-yard setback, Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, New York. The findings of the Board are that this is an odd-shaped lot that was created long before the present 40,000 sq. ft. requirement. The Board feels that this is the best location for the garage and it will also save some large trees. 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 ~I~ke 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. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Joseph Vandernoth, Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, New Y0rk~ be GRANTED permission to construct addition with in- sufficient side-yard setback, Lot $18, Cleaves Point Subdivision, Section I, Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~ Messrs: Gilltspze, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2276 ~ 9:55 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Ralph W. Ellwood, Oyster Ponds Lane and Main Road, Orient, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning. Ordinance, Article VI, SeCtion 100-60 for permission to con~truct dwelling unit on business building. Location of proper%y: Main Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Main Read; east by Oyster Ponds Lane; ~outh by L. ZarzeSki; west b G. Moon. T e Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a ~ariance, legal h~tice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, notice to the applicant, and disapproval from the Building Inspect~r. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had bee~ made to: Louis Zarzecki; G. Moon. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant's sketch indicates that the property is a business building on a corner lot created by Oyster Ponds Lane and Main Road. The lot is 157' in depth, 119' by 119' The applicant proposes a 20' by 25' addition to a present building which is 20' by 40'. The addition will be on the southwest corner in the rear of the lot. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? RALPH ELLWOOD: I do have a survey if that would help. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think we need it. A survey of the lot you mean? RALPH ELLWOOD: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think we need it, you've got the size down here. Do you have anything to add to the application? RALPH ELLWOOD: I'm a commuter, 200 miles a day. I want to live out here, but I do not have the facilities. THE CHAIRM~N: Was~part of the building used for residential purposes? Is there a bedroom? RALP~ E~LWOOD: ~The~e's a bed in there now and a bath. When I bought it initially, I was told I could put an addition on for Evidentially, that law has changed or something ~ime I bought it from them. THE CHAIRMAN: The Ordinance was changed to protect the Town from what happens when shopping centers are abandoned. We had several shopping centers around here that were abandoned andthere were attempts made to convert these to multiple residences. This was added to the~Ordinance to help control that kind of situation, I don't think it applies here. Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 RALPH ELLW00D: No, I wouldn ' t ~h.~nk s~o. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else ~!sh~to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against thfs application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct dwelling unit on business building, Main Road and Oyster Ponds Lane, Orient, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agree- ment with the reasoning of the applicant. 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. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Ralph W. Ellwood, Oyster Ponds Lane and Main Road, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct dwelling unit on business building, Main Road and Oyster Ponds Lane, Orient, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. NG: Appeal No. 2278 - 10:~00~P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon of ISaac Edwards, Main Road, Orient, New York for a ~ariance~i~ accordance ~with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, S~c~iOn 100..35-- for permission tlo construct fence exceeding maximum height. Location~>of property: East side Rocky Point Road, East ~Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Yanas; east by Howell; south by Muir; west by Rocky~P0int Road. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, notice to the appli- cant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: A. Muir; E. Yanas; G. S. Howell. Fee paid - $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~27- May 12, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Tke application is accompanied by a sketch, a survey by Van T~i ~nd~cati'ng that the applicant proposes to enclose the entire p~ope~tyw'~th a barbed-wire fence, 6' high. A t~iple rowof 5arbed wire on the top for tke whole property? ISAAC EDWARDS: I just want it back to the main building to fence in the main part. THE CHAIRMAN: Not the whole property? ISAAC EDWARDS: No. I would be coming out on an angle in the front. The insurance company is afraid of vandalism. THE CHAIRMAN: You'll surround the truck fill? ISAAC EDWARDS: Yes, the whole oil plant will be enclosed. THE CHAIRMAN: The barn is not your property, is it? ISAAC EDWARDS: Yes, it is. THE CHAIRMAN: Where you have these arrows is where you propose to place the fence, right? No more than necessary? ISAAC EDWARDS: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: How much is it a running foot? ISAAC EDWARDS: Enough. They came down three years ago and told me to do it, and when they came down this year they weren't anywhere near as pleasant. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Well, I'll speak for it, I think we need to conserve all the gasoline we've got, it'd be a shame to have some of it blow up, we couldn't get the use of it. Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant ~r~quests permission to construct fence exceeding maximum height, east side Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Beard is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 shY'red by all Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 properties ~ike in the immediate'v.~c~nzn~ ~ ~ '~- os- th!s_ property and in.the same use~di, str~c't; and the var±ance ~w~ll .not change the character of the nefgb3~elrho'od, and will oSs:erlve the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by. Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Isaac Edwards, Main Road, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct fence exceeding maximum height, east side Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen'. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2269 - 10:15 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Frank Vanecek c/o Frederick J. Tedeschi, Esq., 403 Main Street, Greenport, New York for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100- 30 B (9) for permission to amend marina permit to include the sale of gasoline. Location of property: East side Narrow River Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Hughes & others; east by Halleck Bay; south by Plain Land Realty; west by Narrow River Road. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, notice to the applicant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement that notification by certified mail had been made to: Plainland Realty Corp. c/o Morris J. De ~Nardo; Mrs. Barbara P. Huqhes. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: This application is accompanied by a memo- randum in .support of the application for a special exception.by Mr. Tedeschi. "The permission sought herein is primarily for the convenience of local residents rather than for the profit of the owners. Under Appeal number 1424 this Zoning Board of Appeals ..." I~thi~k ~t was the earliest time that we had this. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: The Edwin King application. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. It went from King to Kobeck to Vanecek. September 5, 1963, I think is when he started working on this. It's in the minutes of that meeting. (The Chairman read the entire m morandum in Support" submitted by Frederick Tedeschi, Attorney for the applicant.) The next item in the file here is a petition requesting the Zoning Board to act favorably on this application. "We ... signigy Southold To~rn Board of APpeals May 12, 1977 our approval of his request for permiss'ion to sel~l gasoline, soft drinks, oil, bait and ~ce.t~ tke o~ner~ of .thee. ~Oat$' using the facility." I~tl take 'your ~ord for the fatal nUmb'er of names, three and a half' pages requesting us ta act favorably. I believe you said there were 188 signatures. FREDERICK TEDE~CHI, ESQ.: 104, 68 and ~6. THE CHAIRMAN: This is a paragraph on a different petition. "We respectfully call your attention to the f~ct that up to 75 pleasure boats may use this facility at one time and the lack of availability~of gasoline, soft drinks and ice for use of the boats is an extreme hardship to us." The next letter I come to is from Dowling College to the Zoning Board of Appeals. (The Chairman read the April 30, 1977, letter from Robert and Ellen DeMaria~in support of the application.) I'll read all of these into the record. (The Chairman read the May 9, 1977, letter from Anne MacKay; the May 9, 1977, letter from Lyndal Brandeis; the May 9, 1977, letter from Cynthia Beer; the May 12, 1977, letter from the Audubon Society; and the May 12, 19~7, letter from the North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. Alt of these letters urged the Board to deny the application. Most were in opposition because they felt that it would bring more boats into the area and would be a detriment to the environment.) I g~ess that pretty well summarizes the file. We ha~e a record of wha~ was. done at the last ... what was done on May 6, 19.71 .ication 41424 concerning this marina. "1.1 All must conform to existing law. 2. Permission is granted to remove ~he old barge and replace with floats. 3. is men or boats ine soft drinks, and or business activity, includ' 5. Storage of boats 6. Use of these facilit~ is ~ ed. 7. facility is ,~i ~o. 1732, ~24, the Board is in a on Appeal No. I424 should, be upheld." restrictions that were put in that are, 4. All machines ~s of the owner ~o~ercial fisher- pleasure more than 75. 1973, to of Appeals dec~sion 142~ the presently, appli- cable~to this marina. A strong case is made both for and aqainst this. I'might:'say,, 5yway of history, that when this f~rst started back in 1963, it %~as ~efore the To~ had d~scovered the hazards and dangers of ~nrestr±cted marina growth'and ~prtvate marinas ,were permibted. Mr. King created this and I believe the applicant, Mr. King, was the owner of 21 boats according to testimony taken at the hearing. To try to ... anyone with 21 boats, one can understand Southold Town Board of Appeals May 12, 1977 why he might want a marina for them. But be wa~ extremely un- usual in that ~respect, very few ether people o%n% 21 boats and that's the way all o~ this started. We thought that, originally, he was going to .do it to make moneT and maybe he did2 Is there anyone present %~ho w~shes to speak for this application? FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: I won't belabor the point, I know you've been here since 7:30, and you've very ably read my memo- randum in support and the letters and petitions, but I think there are a few thi'ngs that should be cleared up. Perhaps some of these letter writers are under a misapprehension. Anne MacKay said that by dispensing gasoline, we would ~ attracting pas~ing boats to come mn a buy their gasoline. In-our application we state that we would not sell to passing boats, only to the users of our marina, our tenants. THE CHAIR/~AN: Mr. Tedeschi, right there, we had quite a discussion with a marina here on that particular point. The point can always be made that the boat is in an emergency when they come in for gasoline. In fact, I have been on the beach when people have asked where there were gas stations, run their boat up on the beach to ask where the nearest gas station was. You can't exclude the public entirely in emergencies. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: privilege to sell the gasoline. one ~n an emergency. We can if it means losing our Nobody likes to not help some- THE CHAIRMAN: I don't mean to quibble with you, but that situation does come up. FREDERZCK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: I might mention that Anne MacKay Beer .have one,boat in the The impression W~s ~each had'a boat in the marina, ' ~have one. I think the [~ ~: point. The fact is ine is now being di ~arina, and the way ~s very hap'hazard. These people come up there with of cOntainers~ a cigarette in the mouth, pour it into th, oards, it Spills their boats, they have to have energy. What ~e propose to do is give it ~o. them~in a controlled situation. I it is more desirable to accept the situation that is have it done under controlled conditions rather than a hap-hazard way such as is being done now. AS far as the increase in traffic ... THECHAtRMAN: I~d i 1. ke to ask Mr. Vanecek a question. How ~any outboards have y~u got no~? FRANK VANECEK: We might have 10 or12 sailboats' and the rest are outboards. Southold Town Board of Appeal~ May 12, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Do. you think that these people .would run their outk~ards aver ~ your pump if ~ou had a pump there? Would you pump directly into' the'i'r cans or would they come over with a fire-gallon can? FRANK VANECEK: A lot of these boats, the 20' boats have built-in gas tanks. THE CHAIRMAN: What 1 mean to say is, you can create perfect facilities and then people don't use them. But you think they'd come to your pump. FRANK VANECEK: They've been hounding me to do it. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: This point about dredging. I don't quite understand that, that,S pure hypothesis. Mr. Vanecek is not interested in having anything dredged. He's got a marina for 75 boats and that's what he's satisfied with. As far as the higher rents that Miss MacKay and Miss Beer are paying, Mr. Vanecek, llke everyone else, is caught in a squeeze with the higher real estate taxes to the Town, he has to raise his rent. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's irrelevant. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: She raised it so I had to answer it. In fact, I think each one of these people has reallygiven an arg~lment in favor of our application~because the gasoline is there. As far as energy conservation, that has no bearing. These 75 boats, or however many there are, 12 sailboats, 12 from 75 gives you 63 with gasoline. They're there whether the President says not to use gasoline or not, they're going to use it. We're not in- creasing the consumption, we're controlling it. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think if they double the price of gas it would make any difference as far as the use of the outboard is concerned? How much do the outboards use When they go out down there, four or five gallons? FRANK VANECEK: The small ones, six gallons. The larger ones use more. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: It will take this man years to amortize his expenses. It's not a profit item, it's a convenience item. I respectfully ask. that you act favorably on the item. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for the application? DAVID BRAWNER: 1 live in Orient about a mile and a half east Of Narrow River R~ad. 1 think this would combine the convenience and safety of ~aving outside gas pumps that.would be controlled. THE CHAIRMAN: You think it's be~ter, if you need gas for your boat, to get it when you get down there rather than lug it do~w~ in a an utomobzle. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- May 12, 1977 DAVID BRAWNER: Or lugging a 60-gallon can down a narrow pathwalk~ It'd be a lot safer to get it there. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you ever spill gasoline when you pour it in your boat? DAVID BRAWNER: Yes sir. I have a 17' rig with an internal tank, and to empty a 10-gallon can into it is very difficult. THE CHAIRMAN: What do you think about the sale of soft drinks and ice and bate? DAVID BRAWNER: People bring those things anyway, so I don't think it will make much difference. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think it will attract other people to the marina? You wouldn't ~e able to serve them, would you, because you're required to not sell to the public. DAVID BRAWNER: I don't think many people would go to Narrow River Marina ~ust to buy a soft drink. THE CHAIRMAN: Where's the nearest gasoline service station to your marina? FHANK VANECEK; Greenport or Orient-by-the-Sea. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? DAN LATHAM: I live in Orient. I keep my boat at the marina, and I'm in favor ~f it. I'm also a member of the North Fork Environmental Council and, unless they held an emergency meeting last month with regard to the letter that was read.tonight, I was never notified about it. I don't want to cause any arguments with the Council or whatever, but if I was present at that meeting, maybe I could have swayed their judgment. I wasn't notified of that meeting or even if a meeting was going to be held at that time. Maybe they ~ust took it on the basis of 1973, I'm not sure° THE CHAIRMAN: Well, they probably take positions on all environmental issues. DAN LATHA~: If you've been to Narrow River Marina, and at low tide a la~ge ~essel could not get in and out. With my boat you've got to lift the motor up, so if you sell gas there, it's not going to bring in a 25' or 30' ship. THE CHAIRMAN: Some of these people in the objections are implying that there will be pressure to dredge the channel but without a County dredge .... DAN LATHAM: Mr. Vanecek lives in Orient, he likes Orient just as much as anybody else, I don't think he'll give into the pressure. As far as Suffolk County, I don't think they even Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- May 12, 1977 dredge anymore. Whoever's going to dredge it out, he's not going to pressure anybody to dredge it out, in my opinion. KEITH MURNS: I don't own a boat, I don't use one, but I am an active men~ber of the Autubon Society and I do believe that a gas pump is far more beneficial to the environment, to the bird life that's there, than what is going on now. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? (There was no response.) Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? ORVILLE TERRY: I live in Orient. I'm a marine biologist. Along with a number of other people, I have been working for many years to try and keep the Bay in3its natural state. I have to agree that probably adding a gasoline pump to the services that are presently listed in the application would not have a g~eat effect on the environment, but I see it as one more step toward commercializing the marina. (The Board and Mr. Terry discussed the effect a commercial marina would have on Ha~lock Bay. Mr. Terry stated that Hailock Bay is almost completely inclosed and would not be able to flush properly.) THE CHAIRMAN: What is a go~d location for a marina? ORVILLE TERRY: A location where you have relatively good access to clean water, where oil spillage will not accumulate, and preferably near where other marinas are~ FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: May I ask him a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure, but ask it through me. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: The first thing I want to ask is, what location in Southold Town would you say is appropriate for a marina? iLLE TERRY: We know we're going to have marinas, there's t, we also hope that we're going to have some fresh water left ... FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: That wasn't the question. The question was, where are the locations that you would think desirable for a marina in Southold Town. It just requires a specific location. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34~ May 12, 1977 ORVILLE TERRY: The specific locations are where marinas are already concentrated so that you don't spoil fresh water. THE CHAIB~AN: I take it that you consider Sterling Creek completely spoiled, done. ORVILLE TERRY: It's not usuable for shellfish. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Any cross questioning, rebuttal? Any questions from the Board? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the ~applicant requests permission to amend marina permit to include the sale of gasoline, east side Narrow River Road, Orient, New York. The findings of the Board are that the original reasoning of the Board should be upheld. This reasoning is ably supported by additional testimony taken at this public hearing. The Board feels that, if this application were granted, it would further open the doors to a business use in what is primarily a residential area. The proper action for the applicant to take is to apply to the Town Board for a change of zone for a commercial marina. The amounts that the applicant may take in from the sale of gasoline, soft drinks, ice and bait is fairly negligible when compared to the damage that might ~¢cur to the environment. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will not be served and the legally established or permitted~use of neighborhood property and adjoining use dis- tricts Will be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will not be observed. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Frank Vanecek, Narrow River Marina, Orient, New York, be DENIED permission to amend marina permit to include the sale of gasoline, east side Narrow River Road, Orient, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Two (2) Sig~ Renewals were reviewed and approved as submitted. on motion by Mr. Gitlispie,~seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- May 12, 1977 RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), Thursday, June 2, 1977, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~ Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Do~en, it was RESOLVED that a. special meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 11:00 A.M. (E.D.S.T.), T~ay, May 19, 1977, at the Town Hall, Main Road,~ Southold, NeW~Y~rk. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set the following times on Thursday, June 2, 1977, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) - John and Luisa Cardia; Appeal No. 2280 7:45 P.M. (E.D.SoT.) - John C. and Doris B. Morgan; Appeal No. 2281. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) R?~ectfull~submitted, Secretary 'ROVED