HomeMy WebLinkAbout1400
.I.~W\L NOTICE
Notice of
Hearings
Pursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and the provisions of
the amended Building Zone
Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New
York, public hearings will be held
by the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the Town of Southold, at the Town
Office, Main Road, Southold,
New York, on March 18, 1971 on
the following appeals:
7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.l, upon ap-
plication of Wilbur Verity, 1130
Pacific Street, Baldwin, New
York, for a variance in ac-
cordance with the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article Ill, Section 306,
for permission to "erect one
family dwelling with insuficient
front yard setback. Location of
property; Northeast corner of
Cedar Lane and Summitt Road,
Lot No. 8 on map of Bayside
Terrace, Southold, New York.
7:45 P.M. (E.S.T. l upon ap-
plication of Rosemary Skye
Morill, 117 State Street,
Brooklyn, New York, for a
variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 300, Subsection 1, and
Article Ill, Section 303, for per-
mission to convert existing ac-
cessory building into one family
dwelling. Location of property:
rigbt-of- way off east side of
Camp Mineola Road, Matlituck,
New York, bounded north by
private road, east by E.L.
Daneri, south by Great Peconic
Bay, west by L.D. Howell Estate.
8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.l, upon ap-
plication of Peter E. Swahn, Park
Avenue, Mattituck, New York,
for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordance, Article Ill,
Section 306, for permission to
erect one family dwelling with
insufficient front yard setback.
Location of property: south end
of Bennett's Pond Lane, Lot No.
5, Map of Bennett's Pond, Mat-
tictuck, New York.
8:30P.M. (E.S.T.l, Pursuant to
Section 267, Subdivision 6 of the
Town Law, of the State of New
York on the Board's motion, a
rehe~ring on Appeal No. 1347;
upon applics tion of James
Warner, Paul Winters, & Mark F.
Madaio, 173 Oregon Road, Cut-
chogue, New York, for a ~pecial
exception in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, 'Article Ill,
Section 300, Subsection 5 (dl, for
permission to establish and
maintain stables for boarding
and riding horses. Location of
property: land of Dominick
Mavel1ia, north side of Oregon
Road, Cutchogue, New York,
hounded north by L.r. Sound, east
by Graphic Arts Management
Corp., south by Oregon Road,
west by Vincent Zimnoski.
Any person desiring to be heard
on the above applications should
appear at ~e time and place
specified.
DATED: FEBRUARY ,11, 1971,
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK.
STATE OF NEW YORK.
1
f ss:
J
... .,,'(.tL ~n-,'-:i;-. .4... ,:4':t-L;I..n-.~!-.,-;.... being duly Sworn.
(.
says that .. C-",".. is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK
WEEKLY TIMES. a newspaper published at Greenport. in said
county; and fuat thE'n'otia:. ,of which the annelWd is a printed
copy. has been published in the said Suffolk Weekly Times
l>nce in E'ach week. for. . ..... t-;-:I.'-:'?-:.......... ... week~
successivc;ly oommencing on the . .*':?,k.-K-t~. . . . . . . . . . .
day of ....L?h~.~G.-i,,_....,.. IS:;:. '
.)-~ '.
"~"(::";'~'-"4~''''''>r~i/.",..................
Sworn to before me this ..I.? :~i.': . . 1
- - .
day of .. ./.1.1 "".""~:.... lSZI.. i.
..~ .~~~~~.,.~>,\':i~...........
.~~~\-.\ .\,;-,:---:\,-:\.:-~::-:-; . . . . . . . . .
,;'N
...._,~ ,;..~, '\ ()\ \t
< c~;. '",,'\" (\""3:
< ",\. "l...., , _: \...~ ,()11,,-';) \
\...p....':~. ,". ':".,'.... ~,,,,,,--,, ':.I?' ?>0, \.9.. '\
~. \-,\\\.. ':'\~\c'\ ....;;~(.:.':\
~0t.~\~\~ Co. '''-i~i'\''(;7> '-'~
";;u1\O '~S\o-r>
I.P"""'"
NOTICE OF HEARINHS
Pursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and the provisions of
the amended Building Zone Ori-
dinance of the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York. pub-
lic hearings will be held by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Southold, at the Town
Office, Main Road, Southnld.
New York, on March 18, 1971 on
the following appeals:
7: 30 P. M. (EST), upon appli ~
cation of Wilbur Verity, 1130
Pacific Street, Baldwin, New
York, for a variance in accord-
ance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 306. for per-
missIon to erect ODe familY
dwelling with insufficient front-
yard setback. Location of prop-
erty: northeast comer of Cedar
Lane and summitt Road. Lot No.
8 on map of Bayside Terrace.
Southold, New York.
7:45 P. M. (EST), upon appli-
cation of Rosemary Skye Moritt,
117 state Street, Brooklyn, New
York, for a variance in accord-
ance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III. Section 300, Subsec-
tion 1, and Article III, Section
303, for permission to convert ex-
isting accessory building into one
family dwelling. Location of
property: right-of-way off east"
side of Camp Mineola Road.
Mattituck, New York, bounded
north by private road, east' by E.
L Danert, south by Great Pe-
conic Bay, west by L. -D. Howell
Estate.
8:00 P. M. (EST), upon appli-
cation of Peter E. Swahn, Park
Avenue. Mattituck. New York,
for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, section 306, for permission
to erect one family dwelling with
insufficient front yard setback.
Location of property:' south end
of Bennett's Pond Lane, Lot N/).
5, Map of Bennett's Pond. Mat-
tituck. New York.
8:30 P. M (EST)' pursuant
to Section 267. Subdivision 6 of
the Town Law, of the State of
New York, on the Board's mo-
tion, a rehearing on Appeal No.
1347; upon application of James
Warner, Paul Winters, & Mark
F. Madaio, 173 Oregon Road,
Cutchogue, New York. for a
special exception in accordance
with the zoning Ordinance, Ar-
ticle III, Section 300, Subsection
5 (d), for permission to estab-
lish and maintain stables for
boarding and riding horses. Lo-
cation of property: land of Dom-
inick Mavellia, north side of
Oregon Road. cutchogue. New
York, bounded north by L. I.
Sound, east by Graphic Arts
Management Corp., south by
Oregon Road, west by Vincent
Zimnoski.
Any person desiring to be
heard on the above applications
should appear at the time and
place specified.
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 1911
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
1T-.ll
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK } ss:
ST ATE OF NEW YORK
C. Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, says
thot he is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND
TRAVELER - MATIITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news-
paper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that
the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in said Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch-
man once each week for ...({/.-:./.(..L..(..//,'Wrweey,
successively, commencing on the ...............//...................
'-71" /'/ / ~7!
day of ........../.. L(.t.,~..{/(~qij.~bttd
~;l
Tit
Sworn to before me this ......../.:t:......... day of
.....:::J../.i..d.L{;~!i.., 197/
/) ,/
..........U,:Itti"Lf/!12{~"..,....,.."..
ADELE PAYNE
Notary Public, State of New Yolt
Residiq.g in SuHolk County
No. 5n041000 ~
Commission ExpIres NI[l[ch 30. 191
-,
.__._.~,;...---_.."",,.~-.,..,...._.,.,.,,<-,-",~..-..
~'___'~'~"'__'~'_..;".,,~_v,,__.. _,
,- '"."..-......----".--.,.,.,..~~_~_~'O"
..
Estate of Treadwell D. Carpenter
640 Waterview Road
Oceanside, N.Y. 11572
March 15, 1971
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold, New York 11971
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We are very much against the request for
a variance re:
Rosemary Skye Morritt
117 State Street
Brooklyn, N.Y.
In accordance with the zoning ordinance
Article 3, Section 300, Sub Section 1, and Article
3, Section 303 for permission to convert existing
accessory building ( garage ) into a one family
dwelling.
Very truly yours,
Estate of Treadwell D. Carpenter
.~
~-
'~
FORM NO.5
o
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD. N. Y.
ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION
Date .....................Decembet'.....2.I......... 19....10
Rosemary Morltt
TO ..........................................................................
(owner Or authorized agent of owner)
.1.1.'l..S.ta..te...at.........lU:o.oklyn.......N...};.......11201
(address of owner or authorized agent of owner)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of:
....--..
Zoning Ordinance
Other Applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations
at premises hereinafter described in that ..An..ac.ees.so.r.y...bu11ding...has..heen..convexted to
(state character of violation)
.~...~.~~p.;:!..~~~. ..J:+.YJ~.g ..Mn~:~..'!!.* ~.h!?~:t.. .~.. p.~.r.!!lJ:t;...~r...R.~rj;U"~.~t.~...9.f....Q!;~.1JP.M.C,y
................................................................................................................................................................
in violation ofA,1;'.t ..lII...lUI.C.t.1o.n..30Q. .s.ub.. .1...&.. Ar.t.. Y.II...s.ec.tion...7.02,...7.o.l...7.03B
(State section or paragraph of applicable law, ordinance or regulation)
YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the law and to remedy the
conditions above mentioned forthwith in or before the .......................4.th........................................
day of ..............Januar.y......................... 19..'7-0..
#120
The premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers are situated at
1< , " . Mattituck
pv:tJj.!1..i(.1.Z...Q;f..r...l)l/M..C.alll.p..Hineo.la...Rd.~Caunty of Suffolk, New York.
Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid a nd to comply with the applicable provisions of law
may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
-
r ff,{/ Fe . ( /.//..
~
-..
-
-
C. EDMONDS ALLEN
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
220 EAST 42~o STREET
NEW YORK. N, Y. 100r7
March 16, 1971
Mr. H. Reeve
Board of Appeals
Zoning Department
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Reeve:
I am the owner of property at the end of Reeve Avenue
boardering on Peconic Bay and James Creek in the area
locally known as Camp Mineola.
It has come to my attention that Rosemary Skie Mooritt
of 117 state street, Brooklyn has applied for a zoning
variance on her property, which is boardered by
property owned by the L. D. Howell Estate and Daneri,
under Article 3, Section 30, Sub-Section 1 and
Article 3, Section 303. It is my understanding that
the zoning variance asked for would include a second
complete residence including a kitchen on the property.
I would like to state my unalterable and vehement
opposition to any zoning variance on this piece of
property.
Plots are very narrow and to load anyone of them with
a second residence would tend to destroy the country
atmosphere and over crowd the area. The affect would
be the same as erecting an apartment building.
There have been too many zoning variances granted in
this area, including the Marina.
I sincerely hope that the AppealsBoard will deny this
application.
Sincerely,
~.-'-~~
CEA:ed
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
In the Matter
Of
The Application of ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT,
Petitioner,
NOTICE OF PETITION
For a Judgment under Article 78 of the
Oi viI Practice Law and Rules Annulling a
decision of Respondent
against
INDEX ..NO.
.
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE JR., ROBERT BERGEN,
FRED BULSE, JR., CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.,
SERGE DOYEN, JR., Constituting the
Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold,:
Suffolk County, New York,
Respondent.
-X
SIRS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed petition of
ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT, verified on the 1 st day of May, 1971, with
Exhibits annexed thereto, and upon the affi=ation"of WILLIAl"I
WICKRAl"I, ESQ., sworn to on the 1st day of May, 1971, and the
affidavit of EUGENE L. DANERI, sworn to on the 1st day of May,
1971, an application will be made at a Special Te= Part I, of
this Court, to be held at the Courthouse thereof, located at
Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on the 25th day of May, 1971
at 10 O'Clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter
as counsel can be heard, for a judgment pursuant toCPLR Article
78 annulling a decision of the Respondeht herein, filed on the
2nd day of April, 1971 and granting the relief sought in the
petition, and for such other and further relief as may be just,
Ii proper and equitable.
i' PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that an answer and supporting
affidavits, if any, shall be served at least five days before
the aforesaid date of hearing.
-
~."...,...~...
, , ,~.~ ~ ~
~
" r.
Petitioner designates Suffolk County as place of trial.. The
basis of venue is Suffolk County where the real property in
question is located and the County where the Respondent made its
decision.
Dated: May 1st, 1971
WILLI.AM WICKRAM, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
Main Road
Mattituck, New Yo~k 11952
TO: ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR.
Chairman, of the
Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
BETTY NEVILLE
Secretary & Clerk of the'
Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK..
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -X
In the Matter
Of
The Application of ROSEI1ARY SKYE MORITT
P'nE TIT. I D,N
Petitioner,
For a Judgment under Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules Annulling a
decision of Respondent
Index No.
against
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., ROBERT BERGEN,
FRED HULSE, JR., CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., :
SERGE DOYEN, JR., Constituting the
Board of Appeals of the Town of.Southold,
Suffolk County, New York,
Re sponden t.
-X
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
.1
The Petitioner, RDSEI1ARYSKYE MORITT, respectfully alleges:
1. Your petitioner is the owner of certain real property
with buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being
at Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded
and described as follows:
1
BEGINNING at the northwest corner hereof
at a monument set on the southerly line of a
50 foot strip of land, conveyed by. Laetitia
Reeve, and others to Leone D. Howell by Deed
dated 6/2/22 recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 1044 of Deeds
page 170, on June 8th, 1922 and running thence
South 10 39' 30" East, along the last mentioned
land, and through a monument 640.16 feet to
the Peconic Bay; thence along Peconic Bay a
tie line course and distance of North 810 04'
East, 55,.57 feet to the southwesterly corner
of land now or formerly of George H. Terry;
thence North 20 13' 10" West, along the westerly
line of the last mentioned land, 631.00 feet to
a monument located on the southerly line of the
50 foot right of. way, above mentioned; thence
North 890.09' 00" West, along the southerly
line of said 50 foot right of way, 49.00 feet
to the point or place of BEGINNING.
The aforesaid property is depicted on a "Map of Property surveyed
for Arthur W. Loweth by Otto W. Van Tuyl& Son, on May 26th, 1954",
.
which map is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.
Your petitioner purchased the aforementioned property from Emily
R. Loweth, on March 6th, 1970.
2. At all times herein mentioned, Respondents, ROBERT W.
GILLISPIE, JR., ROBERT BERGEN, FRED HULSE, JR., CHARLES GRIGONIS,
JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., were and are members of the Board of' Appeal
of the Town of Southold, and constitute the Zoning Board of Appeal
of which Board, Respondent ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., is the
Chairman.
3. When petitioner purchased the property mentioned in para-
graph 1 herein, there were two (2) small buildings on the premises
to wit: A bungalow located on Peconic Bay and a small cottage
located approximately 80 feet to the north of this bungalow.
At the time of purchase it was your petitioners understanding
that this cottage had been formerly a two (2) car garage, which
was renovated by the prior owners with a permit from the Town
of Southold. Further, that this renovated cottage was used as a
guest house for the relatives and friends of Mr. & Mrs. Loweth.
Since the date of purchase, your petitioner and her husband have
occupied the bungalow as a summer residence and weekend retreat
and have used the small cottage for overnight stays of visiting
relatives and friends. Your petitioner has installed a small
stove, sink and refrigerator in the cottage for the convenience
of guests. It was never the intent of your petitioner to create
a second dwelling upon the premises. Your petitioner was merely
improving what was already there. Further, the installation of
this kitchen appliance was done without knowledge that an addition 1
.
permit from the Town was required.
4. On January 3rd, 1971, your petitioner received an ORDER TO
REMEDY VIOLATION from Howard Terry the Building Inspector of the'
Town of Southold. Such order cited among other things, that the
accessory building on petitioners property had been converted to
a complete living unit without a permit or a certificate of occu-
pancy, in violation of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. A copy
of such order dated December 24th, 1970 is attached hereto and
marked Exhibit B.
5. In order to comply with the law your petitioner caused to
be filed with the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals a request for
a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to convert this
exiSing accessory unit into a dwelling unit. A copy of such Appea
is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C.
6. On March 18, 1971, after due notice said matter designated
as Appeal #1400, came on for a hearing before the said Zoning Boar
of Appeals. Your petitioner, by her attorney William Wickham,-
appeared at the hearing before the said Board of Appeals, and .
presented facts and reasons why the status of this accessory
building had not'changed,and why permission should be granted to
continue to use same, or a variance.be granted therefor. An
affidavit of William Wickham, Esq., is attached hereto.
7. That said Respondent, Board of Appeals, by written decisio
on March 18, 1971, did find that your petitioner had converted thi
accessory building into a second residence on the single lot with-
out a permit, and denied permission to your petitioner to convert
the existing accessory building into a one (1) family unit; said
decision was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Town of South
old, the 2nd day of April, 1971. A copy of said decision is
annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
8. Your petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the
Board of Appeals because the use of the building on the petitioner
premises as an accessory use. for a guest cottage has been in
existence since April, 1967, when petitioners predecessor in title
obtained permission to renovate the garage for this purpose.
Your petitioner has not in any way changed the use of this buildin
.
in that, it has been' used only for family and guest accommodations
and has not been rented. Your petitioner intends to use the
cottage solely for the use of her family and friends because
petitioner's bungalow is too small for such accommodations. Your
petitioner has not created, nor does she intend to create a two .
(2) family residence on the property, in that, the cottage is to,
~e used solely for the petitioners guests. Your petitioner has
not in any way changed the appearance or use of this building,
and by merely adding this kitchen appliance as a convenience for
guests does not in any way effect the existing use of the premises.
The effect of the Board of Appeals decision is confiscatory, in
that petitioner is denied the use of this facility.
9. Since the Building Inspector and the Board of Appeals
insist that the petitioner is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance
because she now has a completed building by the addition of this
portable kitchen unit, and the Respondent Board in its decision
decided that petitioner has in fact created a second residence on
petitioner's land by the installation of this kitchen appliance,
then the Board of Appeals has acted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner in denying petitioner's variance in this case because of
the practical difficult~es and hardships imposed on yourpetitioneJ
by carrying out the strict letter and interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance.
10. The Board of Appeals in denying petitioners variance, has
stated in its decision that to grant this variance would change
the character of the neighborhood and would not observe the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board has recognized that
petitioner's lot is large enough to accommodate 'two (2) dwellings
and has found that if petitioner ,moved her guest cottage that this
would comply with the ordinance. 'Whether or not your petitioner
complies with the Boards request in relocating this cottage, the
character of the neighborhood will remain exactly the same as it .
is now, in that, there will not be an increase in the population
density, there will not be any detrimental effect to the adjoining
;",
properties. The only effect would be to have the cottage further
separated from the bungalow or have the existing bungalow with the
cottage attached. The method suggested by the Board, your petitioJ-
er submits to this Court, is utter nonsensel The Board of Appeals
finding that your petitioner has substantially changed the charact-
er of the neighborhooa is arbitrary and in complete disregard to
the facts.
11. The Respondent by completely ignoring the facts and sit-
. uation in this neighborhood, in effect contradicts itself because
it was unduly influenced by some of the surrounding neighbors who
objected for objections sake. If anything, your petitioner has
demonstrated that the general character of the neighborhood will..
not be changed by the "legal conversion" of this renovated garage
into a separate dwelling unit. The property owned by Eugene L.
Daneri, which is immediately adjacent to your petitioners, and
the property owned by the Estate of T. Carpenter approximately
250 feet east of your petitioners, and the property owned by the
Estate of Norris, approximately 450 feet east of your petitioners
has the same situation as your petitioners, in that a house is
located on the beach with a converted two (2) car garage located
to the north of the house, which has been previously converted to
a summer cottage. The only difference of the neighboring proper-
ties with that of the petitioner, is that the cottages located
thereon have. and are used forrental purposes to third parties.
To comply with the Respondents demand would place an unreasonable
burden on the petitioner and in effect accomplish absolutely
nothing. The character of the petitioner's property with the
neighboring properties is not going to change one iota by moving
this guest cottage o~ the petitioner's property, certainly there
will be no detrimental effect if the petitioner's cottage stands
where it is or is located elsewhere.
.
I
I
12. That by reason of the foregoing, the determination by
the Respondent Board of Appeals was not warranted by the facts and
r'
is illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, improper and
deprives your petitioner of the reasonable useo~ her property.
.._r....
In effect this decision deprives her the use of this cottage as a
dwelling or accessory use. The Respondent wholly neglected to
take into consideration the facts and practical difficulties and
unnecessary hardships imposed on your petitioner by requiring her
to move this cottage to some other location on the property. When
considering all of the facts, the interest of justice demands the
granting of this variance.
15. No previous application has been made to BJJ::f Court or
Judge for the relief sought herein.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that an order be granted here
in reversing, annulling and setting aside the decision of the
Respondent Board of Appeals filed on April 2nd, 1971, granting.
the appeal herein, and for such other and further relief as to
this Court may seem just and proper.
Dated: May 1st, 1971
sl Rosemary S~ Mori tt
Rosemary Skye Moritt
Petitioner
WILLIAI'l WICKlW'l
Attorney for Petitioner
Main Road
Mattituck, New York 11952
516-298-8353
STATE OF NEW YORK:
COUNTY OF KINGS
ss.
ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
deponent is the Petitioner in the within proceeding, that deponent
has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof;
that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to
the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief
and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true.
sl Rosemary Skye Moritt
Rosemary Skye Moritt
Subscribed and Sworn to
before me this 1st day of May, 1971.
sl Alfred P. Moline Jr.
. hotary Publ1c
ALFRED P. MOLINE, JR
Notary Public State of New Y ~
No.302741673 - Nassau Count
Co=ission Expires March 30,
197
-
. ' .
.
SUPREME COURT STATE OF :NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
--------------------~
In the Matter of the Application of
ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT,
: SUPPORTING AIDUBMATIOli
: INDEX NO.
Petitioner
against
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., et ale
-------------~----- -:;x:
I, WILLIAM WICKHAM attorney admitted to practice in the
State of New York, attorney of record for the Petitioner
Rosemary Skye Moritt, under penalty of perjury pursuant to
CPLR 2106 affirms the following statement to be true:
Deponent is the attorney for Rosemary Skye Moritt who re-
sides at 117 State Street, Brooklyn; that he appeared in her .
,behalf at the hearing of the Board Of Appeals, Southold Town,
on March 18, 1971 on her application to convert an accessory
building. The applicant and her husband Fred Moritt were not
able to be present due to illness in the family and the fact
that Judge Moritt, a Civil Court Judge of the City of New York,
was occupied with jury cases that particular week. After readinl
the petition and notice of hearing the Chairman Robert W.
Gillispie asked if there was anyone who wished to appear in'the
behalf of the application. Deponent made a statement which is
summarized as follows:
After coming out to this section of Long Island for many
years the Judge and his wife purchased the property located on
Peconic Bay at Mattituck in the area known as Camp Mineola; they
bought this as a second or vacation home to use throughout the
summer, and weekends the remainder of the year. The main house
.
. .
. . .
is very small with only two small bedrooms and not adequate for
their children, their families and guests. About 80 feet to the
rear there is a small structure which the former owners had con-
verted in 1967. This was formerly a two-car garage. The build-
ing now is very attractive with a high block foundation and wood
frame. .In order to:acc.ommodate his family and guests more com-
fortably the Judge had heat and a small stove, sink and refrig-
erator unit installed for their convenience - for having a cup
of coffee in the morning without disturbing the occupants of the
house or perhaps for a snack during the day or evening. Deponent
emphasized that this was not to be a separate family unit; that
it was not for rental in any way; that such use would be contrarJ
to the applicant's intention and ownership. Deponent further
pointed out there are many second cottages in this area which
the owners rent out for the summer seasons and these cottages or
apartments are both east and west of this property. One such
additional cottage parcel is immediately to the east of the
I property and is owned by Mr. Eugene L. Daneri. The area of the
applicant's property as shown by the attached survey is .759
acres and would seem more than ample in that vicinity for this
guest house. The approval of this application would cause no
change in the character of the neighborhood since the building
locations have been there for many years; the conversion of a
double-car garage to this nice looking building constituted a
great improvement to the neighborhood. The Chairman then stated
that there were several letters which the Board had received in
connection with this application from which he read excerpts.
The tone of the letters was against the application but the
arguments were confined to the fact that the writers did not wis
a two cottage condition to be extended. Three of the objectors
were people.who actually have second rental cottages on their
properties. None contended that there was any change in the
condition of the neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Richmond Corwin
, .
I'
then appeared as objectors. Their arguments, again, centered
around their feelings that the condition of more then one cottage
on one plot should not be expanded, although, there was no
objection to the building, its location and its appearance.
I'lr. Eugene L. Daneri appeared in support of the application
and made a very impassioned plea that it be approved. He owns
the property immediately to the east. He has a nonconforming
use cottage which he rents. He stated that the applicants were
excellent neighbors; that the cottage in question was fine in
appearance and he could see no reason wby the application should
not be granted. He felt that the objectors were trying to
penalize the applicants.
In a subsequent discussion between the Chairman, I'lr. and I'lrs. .
Corwin, I'lr. Daneri and deponent, the Chairman stated that approva
would be given if the cottage was moved to another section of the
property or attached to the main house. Deponent argued that
this would just be an unnecessary expense to the applicants and
absolutely nothing would be gained by making either of such move ;
that the building had been in this location for many years and
did not in any way affect the area or the merits of the app1i~
cation.
Without further consideration or deliberation the Board
denied the application.
Matti tuck, New York
May 1, 1971
.le'
"~ ,
-...
.
--;---
. .
. v,.
~."
..,..,.. ,~~.
1-"
SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x
In the Matter of the Application of
ROSEI1ARY SKYE MORITT,
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
Petitioner,
against
INDEX NO.
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., etal.
- -X
STATE OF NEW YORKl
.
.
.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLKl
ss.
EUGENE L. DAHERI, being duly sworn deposes and SaySl
Your deponent is the owner of a parcel of land which bounds
the petitioner, ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT'S, land on the east. Your
deponent has no interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome
of this litigation and has been promised no financial reward for
making this affidavit, or being a witness at the hearing thereof,
and .your deponent is fully familiar with all the facts and
circumstances of this case.
Your deponent's property is almost identical to the land of
the petitioner, in that it is a long and narrow parcel approx-
imately 62 feet wide. and 640 feet in length, and also like Mrs.
Mori tt' s property,:. has a house and guest cottage, which was con-
verted from a garage, located on. it. A copy of the "Map of Proper
Surveyed For Eugene L. and. Patricia M.Daneri at Matti tuck, N.Y.",
surveyed by Van Tuyl & Son, on November 21, 1967, is attached
hereto; said map accuractely depicts the layout of your deponent's
property.
Your deponent purchased this property on December 1, 1967,
from Florence E. Terry. For seven years prior to December 1, 1967
your deponent rented the one story frame house, as shown on the
attached survey, from Mrs. Terry. The survey of your deponent's
property also depicts a garage and patio, hereinafter referred to
[,
as the "Terry Cottage", which is approximately 80 feet north of
the one story frame house. The Terry Cottage is nothing more
than a two car garage which was converted prior to zoning by the
Terry family into a one family dwelling, consisting of two bed-
rooms, bathroom, kitchen, dining and living room, and is us~d
primarily as a summer residence. During the time Mrs. Terry
rented the one story frame house to your deponent, she occupied
the Terry Cottage; prior to that time Mrs. Terry rented this
cottage to third parties and occupied the frame house herself.
Your deponent has been informed that he is allowed to utilize
the Terry Cottage, as a dwelling because it has been used for this
purpose prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance.
Prior to April, 1967, there was located on the property
immediately to the west of your deponent, a bungalow and a tumble-
down two car garage on land which was then owned by Emily Loweth,
and is' now owned by the petitioner, ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT. In
April, 1967, the Loweths, with a permit from the Town' of Southold,
completely renovated this two car garage into an attractive one
family dwelling, in that, when it was finished there was a
completed dwelling consisting of two bedrooms, a large living
room, bathroom, a large storage closet, utility room with washing
machine, water pump, hot water heater,and the house was also
insulated 'and electric heat installed. After April 1967, and
prior to March of 1970, the Loweths used this dwelling as a guest
cottage for the use of their friends, relatives, married daughter
, and grandchildren..
Judge and Mrs. Moritt purchased the Loweth property in April
1970, and since that time have not made any changes to the exter-
ior of the dwelling, but have added a small combination two burner
stove, refrigerator, oven and sink combination to the interior of
the house. Because their main house is rather small, they have
used this guest cottage for their relatives and friends.
,-
I
i
!
I
I
Your deponent attended the public hearing before the Board
of Appeals on this matter on March 18, 1971, and after hearing
the objections to Mrs. Moritt's application, your deponent was
surprised to find out that some of the neighbors were objecting
to th~ Moritt application solely on the basis that Judge Moritt
had installed a kitchen appliance without any special permit and
should have known better. It is interesting to note that some of
the objections were raised by land owners in the v~cinity, who
have an identical situation to that of your deponent and the .
petitioner. To be specific, a letter was read by the Estate of
I
Tredwell Carpenter who owns property approximately 250 feet to the
east of Mrs. Moritt's property. On the Carpenter property there
is a house located close to the beach with a detached two car
garage approximately 50 feet to the north of this house. This
garage has been converted into a two bedroom cottage and is occupie I'-
for use' as a separate dwelling. A letter was also read from the
Estate of Norris which owns property approximately 475 feet to the
east of the Moritt property and on this property is located a hOUSE
on the Bay and approximately 40 feet north of this house is a two
car garage which is rented as a summer cottage.
Your deponent after politely listening to various objections,
none of which had any merit, pointed out to the Board of Appeals
that your deponent was probably the party most affected by the
Moritt application, since your deponent's property was immediately
adjacent to that of the petitioners. In fact the guest cottage
of the petitioners was approximately 33 feet west of the Terry
Cottage. Your deponent stated to the Board that he had no objec-
tion to the granting of the variance to the Moritts, because their
cottage was very att~actiye, and. that the Boards granting the
variance would not, change the. qharacter .and charm of the neighbor-
hood in any way.
In effect Mrs~ Moritt was obtaining a legal permis-
Sl.on
, ~
.
to utilize this guest cottage in order to comply with Building
Inspector's order. Her use of this cottage is not any different
than the use by the prior owners of the property. To say the
installation of this kitchen appliance changed the status of the
cottage and its use is ridiculous. Further, it was pointed out to
the Board that several other land owners in the neighborhood have
identical situations to the Moritts, in that garages were convertec
to complete living quarters, and in some cases rented to third
parties.
The Chairman went to great lengths to explain how the Moritts
could"legalize" the situation by attaching this guest house to
their bungalow.by either moving it, or by some form of archway.
The Chairman then indicated that their parcel is large enough to
relocate this dwelling elsewhere on the land without incurring
any violations of the Ordinance, thereby creating separate plots.
In other words, if the Moritts' guest cottage was attached to the
bungalow, 9r moved further back on the property, then everything
would be okay. This your deponent submits to this Court is utter
nonsense, and imposes a great hardship on the petitioner if she
were to carry out this reque st, and would accomplish nothing.
The Chairman of the Board of Appeals all but said that the Moritt
situation would not change the character of the neighborhood if
they moved the guest cottage a few feet one way or another. .
The Board was not in the least bit interested that the Moritts
predecessor in title had obtained a building permit to convert
the garage into a dwelling, and that its prior use was as it is
now a guest cottage. The Board couldn't care less that several
properties, including your deponent's, in this neighborhood had
similiar situations, in which converted garages were now used
as rental houses. The Board thereupon immediately voted and
disapproved the Moritt application. To apply the zoning ordinance
in this fashion is to use it for a purpose which it was never
.
. .
"',,. .
intended and would unreasonably deprive the petitioner of her
rights without in any way obs~rving,the spirit or interest of the
ordinanc e .
WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully submits to the Court
that the Board of Appeals decision in this matter be annulled
and substantial justice be done in granting the petitioner,
ROSEMARY SKYE MORITT; the relief she requests.
~~:t. ~
Eugene ,L. Daner~
Sworn to before me this
1st
NOTARY rrUA1f WICKlTAlf
UCLlC. STATE OF NEW YORK
\; ..' Qn.lif d' .52-4259000
\ It '0 . In Suffolk Connt
'. erm explro. Maroh 30, 19 U
"I' .
'''?:
l
.
,-'
Si.r:- Please take notice that the within is a (certified)
true copy of a
duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within
name&'Court OD 19
l:tiJi'~ c.Mmi':r otATE OF U..
tome : COIIIfiIl Ul sunou
In the liellte::: 0: the .It.pplic-
a1d.on of
Dated,
Yours, etc.,
liOO1it:AKI 6I.Y1. l'101U~.
WILLIAM WICKHAM
htiticner.
Attorney for
MATTITUCK. NEW YORK' 1952
apiut
~ w. crn.T.Tmon, iii., ot.';
aJ:.
:iiespqnii81'l.t.
Office and Post Office Address
MAIN ROAD
To
NOTICE OF SETTLEMJ:::NT
NO'fiC!;; OF :EEf:!!ClQii
l'ElJ:lTlON \-JIm dUl'POR:flJiG AFilt'
AVI m .!Uill :s:auaUB AmlBX3D.'
Attorney{s) for
Sir: - Please take notice that an order
of wJ)ich the within is a true copy will be presented
for 80tt1ement to the Hon.
WILLIAM WICKHAM
Attorney for
Fet1t1aiOft
one of the judges of the within named Court, at
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
MAIN ROAD
on the
day of
M.
19
MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952
(516) 298-e353
at
Dated,
To
Yours, etc.,
WILLIAM WICKHAM
Attorney(s) for
Attorney for
Office and Post Office Address
MAIN ROAD
~
Se~vice of a copy of the within
is hereby admitted.
MAi'T1TUCK. NEW YORK 11952
Dated,
..___.h.._.___....._.____...__..._._......._......._....___.....-.-
To
Attorney(s) for
Auomey(s) for
3.0ll-~1Il1l3, JULIUS BLUMI!IERG. INC.. eo I'lI:CliAl'IOK P1.ACIi!:. N, Y. .;
-I
. "
..
COPVltIG...T 1..3
. \
.
. .
. .
.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York Slate, certifies that the within
has heen compared by the undersigned with the original and
found to be a true and complete copy.
Dated:
.. nn... noon. nn. ...n..nun,. .nn'h.__nn.nu.hn. nn'''''U_h n'n_n.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
ATTORNEY'S AFFIRMATION
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is
the attorney(s) of record for
in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing
and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein
stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent
further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by
The grounds of deponent's belief as to aU matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows:
The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.
Dated: .......---n..n..........n.n............___n.......n..__.nnn...__.nn.mm
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
8S.:
INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION
, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
deponent is the in the within action; that deponent has
read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that
the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true.
Sworn to before me, this day of 19
h____________..___________________U.__________U_____________
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
CORPORATB VERIFICATION
88.:
, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the
. the corporation
of
named in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing
and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein
stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true.
This verification is made by deponent because
is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its
The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows:
Sworn to before me, this
day of
19
--------______._________uuu________.____________u_.u__u.._u_______.._._
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
88.:
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at
That on the
upon
day of
19
deponent served the within
attomey(s) for
in this action, at
the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose
by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in _ a post office _ official
depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United Slates post office department within the State of New York.
Sworn to before me, this day of 19
U.nh......un......nnn.....n.n..n_.n.uu..Uh_n_unn.u.__...._nn.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
AFPIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE
88.:
being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at
That on the
day of
19 at No.
deponent served the within
upon
the herein, by delivering a true copy there01 to h
person so served to be the person mentioned and described in said papers as the
Sworn to before me, this day of 19
personaUy. Deponent knew the
therein.
t J
~-,
\
I
I
;
i
I
I
I
I
~
J
,-"
#,.".
",""...'
-"'"",,
LAW OFFICES
WI LLlAM WICKHAM
MATT1TUCK, LONG ISLAND
NEW YORK 11952
SitS - 298 - 83.53
WI L.L.IAM WICKHAM
R1CHARO F. LARK
February 4, 1971
Board of Appeals
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
We are enclosing a petition of Rosemary Skye Moritt for a
permit to convert an accessory building to a dwelling unit
together with our check in the sum of $5.00 to cover your
fee in this matter.
W:jg
Enclosures
I ;,.,'_.~".~_~'~'''..,
-
...
-...",-,
~
.. .
-.
--
CHARNIN & WEISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
160-16 ,JAMAICA AVENUE
,JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11432
EDWIN N. CHARN1N
DAVID R. WEISMAN
March 15, 1971
(212) JAMAICA 6-8082
CA8LE ADDRESS"CHARWEIS"NEW YORK
ALDO A.TRASUCCHI
Board of Appeals
Southold Township
Southhold New York 11971
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that I represent John Norris and
Hedley William Norris, Executors of the Estate of Margaret S.
Norriw.
The estate is owner of property located by your tax
map designated as l-H-9-30-46-71-130 described as follows:
"Bounded on the north by L.D. Howell Estate: East by James Norris:
South by peconic Bay: and West by F.C. Whiterock. It is located
generally on the east side of Camp Mineola, L.I., N.Y."
I am writing under the instructions of my client to
state their opposition to an application for a variance by Rose-
mary Stye Morrett of1l7 State Street, Brooklyn, New York, in
accordance with Article 3 Section 300 [1] and Article 3 Section
303, for permission to convert an existing accessory building
to a one-family dwelling. The location of the property which
is the subject of the application, is located on the east side
of Camp Mineola, Mattatuck and is bounded by the properties of
Dineri and Howell.
As my clients are one of the few interested parties
they have requested that we write to you and record their protest
to the proposed variance.
Kindly refer to any further correspondence relating
to this matter to the undersigned.
very truly yours,
&6tJ~.
ALDO A. TRABUCCHI
AAT:rw
CERTIFIED, R.R.R.
r.....
...
-'
'\
...;
PraI1ll: C. Vb1 trook
29 :ouno.n Road
HoRoh., If.J. 07_23
W1nter ft.aid.no.
550 'rl~t Read 12
C.IIP M1neoD
MIlttttuok, !few York 11952
~r ft.aid.no.
Southo1d TOD Board of Appeal
Southo1d X.Y., 11911
.roll 13, 1971
Dear 8ir. I
W. are ap11U1t RO"-7 It,. Merritt, 111 Stat. street, Brook1JD,
requut1ns . varunc. 1n ...erda.' with the Bon1ftS ordinano.
Article III, Seotion 300, SU~-8eot1on I .ad. Article III, Seoti01l 303
tor pel'll1..1on to oonyert ex1.tins .o....or7 ltul1d1q 1nt:o OM tald.17
d_111na. Loationl ...t aid. of Ca., ,"r-". ftoad, MIltt1tuok, ltordered
lt7 D1Mire and JIo1fWll.
8~~C?Y~
JIr. Prank =Al'd~u/
. LC11if~k
o
~ /J /77/
J?/f,v 0 /v<J/1.R./s
5'/ /'.R-12P r~
~t;j pi I/FfO
~ ;,/.JI .
&/~ ~,M~' L~~
~T~
~,A;.j. Im/
PAM p. .
. tk ~ ~~~ 11- ~:-::J-, ~
M~,h~ r,9v'~ v....-cL..
((Jo.j.~ ~ 1/113'::> 1'?/ /36~'
rJ-L.OrY~.~c-~;v~.JS-f'~ ,
w-FC<;J~:; J ~~ c-
~ ~~. I~J7 /
1/7 y~ '~~I/U~jJ"7" ~~
vftli. ~ s~ .3od ~~ J
~~3~Xl~r~
t;;~~~~
~?'-~-~~' ~~
to~ ~-ti-!..~~ l~ h~
~ ~~l.y 'j)~<>--/~
~~r~~
J~ ./-'-' '~
-
,
^..
!
Qi>
o
March 13, 1971
58 St. Paulls Rd.
Heapstead. 111. Y .
Southhold Town Board of Appeals
Southhold, N.Y.
Dear Slrsl
I, Mrs. a.ary B~ S.1th, owaar of two
beach front properUes at C_p M1'aeola,
Mattltuc:k, II.Y., do strenuously object to
allY chanqes 1ft. the preseat zORlnq code that
would allow for a second house or reatabla
unlt to be astab llshedbeh1Rd the present
exlstlnq hous._ on the .waterfront. I
underatand tn.t Mr.. ROS.any S'!zYe Morrltt
of 117 State st., Brooklyl'l has ipplled for
just such a varlance, aad I request that
you turn lt dowIl so that the whole lateat
and .character of tha beach 1s not en-aqed.
I . ~lacerely yours, ,
~IJ ~c ~~
Mrsj';;n:.z B. Smlth . i
(Hazel S. Smlth)
i
0,
}f
Il .
-\- ~
'>, '> "\...
\ '" \l
~" ~
.l(
.......... <:>
I> '" It,
~"i
\~
.~\: ~
I:( II ~
-\0 < 'l:.
~
'\-._~..
MAP OF PROPERTY
SURVEYED FOR
ARTHUR W LOWETH
AT
MATT/TUCK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUf:F"OLK Co., N. Yo
Scale 60':::: IH
AFrE"A O.7r9/JCRES
Guarqnt"eed f"o Co//~e:. r=e,."f ^,ort'o"tll
Bank tlnd to 7it/eGutlrtmtet:! and7J-ust
CO"'l'tln~ as .svrv~)'ed ,yay Z 6, 1!lS'4-
Oltb W Van Twy'/4Son ---
tItSh:~~
Licensed L-;;,/hvrvt::yor.5
Green'pcrT, N. Y;
a =conereTe monumenT
Title No. /209457
,.
I, ~ I
,,0 R'
l:Jhf" OfWqy"
-So B~.oos'o
/00.00
.
"EO' ',,'.
. I
I I
, I
,
I
I I
I I
I
~
~
"-=:]
~ ' I
'l:: I 1
t ::J I
.
'"
.U
, , I
~ 0
t lo.
II ~
'- ~
'-
I) ~ ~
~ ~ -
II tj
II ~
::t: 10 '0
, ~
~ I,
(j ~ I~ ~
'"
~ ~ ~
t
" . I.
l: <:> I I~ E
\) ,"I , I~ l
a) ~
~ ,"I ' .
I I~
'.J , I I' l
~ III 0
ill)
~
~
Et
#,
G-ij -LJ. Co-..
1"'It_.,.. Li... ---
,\oj
t
~
.
<7"""';".~:!
S.B'.()"""W.
,;1,' "".'c~t.;".
SAY'"
lA-~:I -"2.
<1S.o,,--
....\
, '
, '
''to
J
G Pl!.E;A-r F'JEc.ONIC
.~.
~.
~
1~'
!~
j
. I
.-