Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/04/1977 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. Gillispie, J~, Chairman Robert Bergen Charles Griflonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals rsrlUTHOLD, L. I'., N.Y. 119'71 Telephone 765-2660 MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Boa=d of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), Thursday, August 4, 1977, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen; Fred Hulse, Jr.; Charles Grigonis, ~r.; Serge Doyen, Jr. PUBLIC. HEARING: Appeal No'. 2308 - 7:35 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) R~cessed hearing upon applicatioh of Helmut Hass, Middle Road, Pec~ic, New Y~rk for a variance in accordance with the Zonin~ Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule, and the New York State Building Code and Housing Code for approval of building built in violation of the Building and Housing Codes~ Location of property: East side Beverly Road (Pvt. Rd.), Southold, New York, bounded on the north and west by now or formerly I. Meissnest; east by Vi RUch Est.; south by Mill Creek. STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, before you.get involved in it, since I don't think there's anybody here in opposition to me, I'm going tO ask you to recess it again. We'haven't made any progress on the application and now we're in the process of making an application to our neighbor for additional land the~e, that wilt involve a variance, we'd like to put them together. THE CHAIPd4AN: Sure. Another three weeks? to ask ESQ.: That'll be all right, but we may have or another one. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you rather have six? We'll make it three weeks and you can recess it again if you want. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the public hearing upon application of H~lmut Hass, Appeal No.. 2308, be RECESSED ~o A~gust 25, 1977, at 7:~30 P.M. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2322 - 7:40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Virginia W. Suter, Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York (Abigail Wickham, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30, 100-32 and Bulk Sdh~dule for permission to construct accessory building with insufficient setback. Location~of property: Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by now or formerly J. Dean; east by R. Seh; south by Beachwood Road (Pvt. Rd.); west by Creek Road i(Pvt. Rd.). 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 from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Rushmore; Mr. Robert Seh; Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Reinhard. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant owns, according to this survey of June 21, 1977, by Van Tuyl, a lot on the southerly side of Beachwood Road with a residence and garage. Across the road she owns a considerably larger area of what appears to be upland and meadow on which she wishes to place a garage. There's nothing else on this property. It appears to be 182' by a width of perhaps a little better than 100', it's hard to tell, two courses. What we're talking about across the road between meadow and upland is something better than a half-acre, I guess. Is there anyone present here who wishes to speak for this application? ABIGAIL WICKHA~, ESQ.: I would merely~like to state that we support the application for the reasons sta~d in the pape~s~'a~nd also point out that the lots down there are, for the most part, very narrow and most of the garages are righ~ on the right-of-way. We fe~l that as this is just on the other side of the right-of-way it's really not different from the established pattern. THE CHAIRMAN: Ha~e you checked with D.E.C.? ABIGAIL W~CKHAM, ESQ.: We have an.application before the D.E.C. and we're submitting an application to the Town Trustees for a wetlands permit. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other agencies that you have to goto? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: NO, I don't believe so. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: The County Planning Department because it's within 500' of the water. So that's County, State, and Town. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: To build a garage. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? ROBERT SEH: I do, I live on Bungalow Lane in Mattituck. I'm the adjoining property owner, I have two lots there I've owned for the last 25 years. THE CHAIRMAN: You're on the south side? ROBERT SEH: I would say east. It's on the south side of the road, the same side as the intended garage. THE CHAIRMAN: And what's your objection based on? ROBERT SEH: My objection is based on, I went to the environmental board to, after 25 years of paying taxes, to put~$p a summer bungalow. I am not allowed to build on that property. THE CHAIRMAN-: Which property? ROBERT SEH: My property, the two adjoining lots, I'll show you. (Mr. Seh, Ms. Wickham, and the Board referred to the map.) THE CHAIRMAN: What did you wanu to build there? ROBERT SEH: I wanted to build a summer bungalow, I've been planning it all my life, I was going to sell my big home and come down here and live. You see how this line goes. I have more dry land than they have. THE CHAIPd~AN: I know. We were down there and I have a pretty good idea of the difference. ROBERT SEH: When I spoke to the environmental b~ard, they said that there was going to be a book printed within several months that may show that this ~roperty could be built on. I don't want a two- car .garage 10' from this road because you Can't even park from the road to the garage without having the car extending over the road. If the setback calls for 60' I want it the 60', I don't believe in spot zoning. On the basis of that, I object to the construction of the garage. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't think that it would be just as objectional there as i% would be here as far as ... what you're thinking of is if you can build a cottage here. ROBERT SEH: Right, I don't want that sticking out in front of me. THE CHAIRMAN: You don't want it here (on map) but it wouldn't bother you there? ROBERT SEH: No. ROBERT BERGEN: Well, as I understand it, they'll never be able to build on their lot. ROBERT SEH: Don~t say never because the environmental board, when I went down to talk to them, they thought there was a possibility this could be built on after they make their minds up and this parti- cular law book comes out that's going to define this thing. This is dry.in the front. THE CHAIRMAN: It's one of those situations where sometimes it's underwater. ROBERT SEH: Yes, I've lived down there in the bungalow and I've seen this whole area covered with water. ROBERT BERGEN: And it comes in from this way (on map). ROBERT SEH: Both ways in the back. THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if they're talking about a flood plain line, did they mention that? ROBERT SEH: No, they didn't. FRED HULSE, JR.: May I ask how long ago you spoke to them? ROBERT SEH: Within the month. THE CP~AIRF~N: Well, I don't think that this Board would want to have a residence created here on this lot, we didn't consider your lot. Is your lot about the same height? ROBERT SEH: They're higher. VIRGINIA SUTER: May I just say one thing? on the garage, the doors are not ~oing to face this way at all. The doors are going tO face t~is way. You mentioned that cars will extend out into the road, they will not extend into the road. ROBERT SEH: If I have a possibility of building a bungalow here, I don't want this sticking out in front of me. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: I think your objection is well taken, that's why you have a front yard setback. If this is to be the sole structure on this lot, I think that it should be the minimu~ distance under zoning at the time that was in existenc~ which would be 35' ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: There is no possibility of ever building a residence here and you could even consider the Surer parcel here as one lot with a right-of-way through it in which case i~ would be sufficient. Also, the new regulations of the D.E.C. which are coming out in about a month are going to be even more stringent tkan they presently are now. If you can't build under the present regulations, I can't see how you'd possibly be able to ... THE CHAIRMAN: Well, a garage is entirely different from a residence. ROBERT BERGEN: Yes, but he's talking about a house,c.a bungalow. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I know, and he's objecting to the fact that it might interfere with his view. THE CHAIRMAN: Not only that but it would depreciate his property if it could ever be used for residential use. I think that the Board should adhere, in this case, to 35' because of the possibility that he may be able to build on here and also because this will be the main structure, as I understand it, on that lot. You don't plan to build a house there, do you? VIRGINIA SUTER: There's no way, I don't think, that either Bob or we will ever be able to put a house onit. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: The D.E.C. has informed me that if we are forced to build further back we will not be able to obtain a permit, we wouldn't be able to obtain a permit at 35' just becau~se it would bring us too close to the wetlands. The wetlands are not accurately marked on this map as far as D.E.C. purposes, the wetlands are approximately right along here. THE CHAIRF~AN: From what we could see down there, it looked as though you had a lot of~... A~IGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: They won't permit a structure within 75' of the wetlands under that new regulation. For that reason, they certainly wouldn't permit, in my opinion, a house with sewage ... · ~E'.~HAIRMAN: Do you know what they established as wetlands, is it"this'line here? You see a difference wkere the marsh grass changes into ... Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- August 4, 1977 ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: It's before that, it's south of that point. I walked over with the engineer and it looked to me like ... THE CHAIRRAi~: It's not where the grass changed? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: No, it,~ not, it's at least 20 or 30 feet towards the Bay from that point. There would be absolutely no possibility of us relocating that garage back 35' THE CHAIRMAN: Adding 22' to the garage would make a total of 57' back. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: That would place us almost down in the wetlands. THE CHAIRMAN: When you go down there to look at it, I don't know how recently you looked at it but we were there Tuesday, you can see the marsh grass and then you can see a different type of grass. It's more upland than marsh. I don't know the difference between the different ones but you can tell the difference in the grass. But that is not the difference between the upland and the wetlands, ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: No, the upland where you say the grass changes~ that's also considered high marsh by the D.E.C. and is protected by them. THE CHAIRMAN: So you object to any use of this property for a garage, is that correct? ROBERT SEH: For anything. ROBE~RT.~ ~ERGEN= ~n that case, why don't you buy this property if you don'~ want to~.~top the view. ROBERT SEH: I want to sell mine to the County. If they like this wetland so much let them buy it. I offered it back, I've got 25 years of taxes in that land. ROBERT BERGEN: We can't protect you for a view over somebody else's property. : Everybody's got problems with taxes on land use used. I'd like' to Ch~ck iht0 this a little~mOre with D.E.C. and the County and see what I can find out about the use of part of this property for a garage. I'd like to find out, if possible, where the line is. There's no use in our granting something here that D.E.C. is going to deny. ABIGAIL WtCKHAM, ESQ.: I have to be at D.E.C. in a week or so on this particular issue, I could ask them to give this map to their ~ngineer and have him go down to the property and perhaps mark the line right on it. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRM3~N: Have him mark it right on the map so we'll know where it is. I don't know how else we can act. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I didn't have him do it when he was there because he was the engineer and not the biologist, but he did tell me it was right about here. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we do not wish to deprive Mrs. Surer the use of her property but we do have to determine where and if she can build on it. As far as we're concerned, I think the Board agrees to granting permission to put a garage somewhere because, as you said, you've paid taxes on it all these years and to not be able to use it is stupid. On motion by Mr. Gillispze, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the public hearing upon application of Virginia W. Suter, Appeal No. 2322, be RECESSED to August 25, 1977, at 7:40 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING.: Appeal No. 2321 7:55 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of James and Deborah Navas, 30 3rd Street, River~ead, N~ York (Rudolph Bruer, Esq.) for a variance in accordance ~ith the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-76 A (1) for permission to construct dwelling unit in business building. Location of property: North side Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by G. Cullen and W. Krause; east by W. Winiarz; south by Main Road; west by W. J. Moisa. The Chairmanopened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its p~iblic~atio~ in the official newspapers, notice to the aPpli- cant., anddisapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: George L. Cullen; William Krause; Stanislaw Winiarz; W. Joseph Moisa. Fee paid $15.00. THE C~I ~R~AN: The photostat of sketch by Van Tuyl indicates %he following, that the applicant is talking about a'two-story framed building which is 2.7' from the easterly line of the adjoining neighbor. It is placed on a lot which is 45' wide at the Main Road and ~60' wide at the rear end of the lot which is 237', approximately, in depth. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: My clients, Mr. and Mrs. Navas, wish to purchase property which is known as Jim's Diner in Mattituck. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- August 4, 1977 To do this~and~to make the improvements which ... I'm sure you people have been down there and observed the premises, you know that substantial work has to be done to improve itsappearance, the interior and whatever. They are a young couple, Mr. Navas works at the North Fork Country Club here in Southold; %hey live in Riverhead. To be able to purchase this, run this business, and keep things going, it is a requirement of theirs thattthey have to live in this pt&ce in the upstairs. Actually, I~ think it, in effect, improves the area because it actually restricts the use of the property for business. There's an upstairs area that's suitably there for the purpose that they want. Of course, had they been here last year, it wouldn't have been a requirement because of the change in the zoning. They would have had that right without coming to the Board but of course the laws change. It's an existing structure, it's something that is there. It is something that they need to have to own this property. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the principal objection, as far as the Board is concerned, is the lack of parking. There's zero parking on the property at the moment. Apparently from the sketch and from viewing the property the other day, the rear yard, there could be parking created in the rear yard. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I believe that's what they would do. The business use is there and in terms of the parking for the business ... we have the business use al=eady, what we're talking about is the addition to the business use of the right to live upstairs which I don't think would be technically a parking problem. If we were coming in here today with a vacant piece of property and asking the Board to allow us to have a bar and restaurant there, I think you legitimately could say "Hey, you don't have enough parking." We have that use already. We want to live above it, and that would not create any additional parking problem. THE CHAIRMAN: I'd have to disagree with you therE. ~UDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: One car, but the person's there anyway if they buy it. THE CHAIRMAN: Not all day and night. It's a technical point but i.fi!they"re going to live in it the~'re going to create additional parking requirements. The average family has at least one car if not more. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I personally feel that is a small point. THE CHAIRMAN: But the most important thing about th~s as far as the COunty and this Board are concerned is t~ improve'the area, and as far as the applicant's concerned, by creating additional parking. I think the use of the sed0nd floor for an apartment 'is justified. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It would be an incentive for the people to improve it. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? RUDOLPH ERUER, ESQ.: Exause me one moment. (Mr. Bruer conferred with Mrs. Navas.) Mrs. Navas is here and she just told me that it is their intention to improve the back for the purpose of parking. We are well aware of the situation on the street, there's very little parking available, there isn't any. You need to use the back and it has to be improved. THE CHAIRMAN: It-looks as though, when we were there, as though the people in the gas station adjoining your property, the garage adjoining your property, had parked a big truck on your, on what appears on the survey here to be your property. DEBORAH NAVAS: I think they've got some kind of right-of-way agreement. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but probably not a parking right. DEBORAH NAVAS: I really don't know what the situation is. THE CHAIRMAN: That's something you ought to check. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It was my understanding that they have a mere license. In other words, the presen~ owner said, "Go ahead, we don't need it." The~e is no guaranteed right to use that property other than by permission of the owner. To me, that would be an en- cumbrance on it, I would advise my client not to buy it if they had a right to block that area. If you have that right there, you lose the right to a third of your property. ROBERT BERGEN: He has a driveway, a right-of-way along side of the building. RUDOLPH ERUER, ESQ.: It's been used for years and years. I understand that and I was by it and I know that the truck was parked there. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? GERALDINE CULLEN: The only objection i~have is they're going to live upstairs; in-fact, that Whole building should be condemned. The whole place is falling apart. The drainage system is out of this world. Their property ends next to my back yard. I have trouble with the parking lot, I get three or four pools coming in Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 my back yard which affects my cesspool and all. Then I have between Joe Moisa and Jim's Diner, I get a backup there also with heavy water coming down. THE CHAIRMAN: You're in back of this property, is that correct? GERALDINE CULLEN: That's correct. MRS. WINIARZ: When we bought that ~roperty there was a sewer for the toilet but never sewer for waste from kitchen. We have party two times for Lions Club, that's all. The wa~er go under building to our property. When I sold to Leon Lozinski, I no bother because he no live there and two times monthly he has the party so I don't care. Now if this people make apartment upstairs and they going to make to washing machines, soaps and kitchen things, it's going to clog on my lot, I no want that. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't understand why everything goes on your lot, because of the slope of the land and they don't have any cesspools? MRS. WINIARZ: No, not from the kitchen. They got cesspool from toilet. See toilet is this side and kitchen is this side to my property and they have no cesspool for that. There is one pipe and that pipe go all around through to my property. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this correct? DEBORAH NAVAS: I don't understand how the Board of Health let these people operate it, but ... THE CHAIRMAN: I don't either. MRS. WINIARZ: Another thing, we make it a big cesspool, a very big cesspool in the back. Joe Moisa, he fill up his property higher and mine is lower. When a lot of rain comes, the dirt even comes to the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: That's not in connection with this applicant, though. This is your other neighbor, huh? You have trouble with both neighbors with the water. Anything else? MRS. W~NIAR~: Nothing else, I no want to drive my driveway and driive right on my property, because you know, nobody to pay for everything. GERALDINE CULLEN: No, if they have a parking lot, they have to have the line straightened. MRS. WINIARZ: And,then no noise, if they have children or who know what they going to make it, maybe they make it like Jamesport Motel, who knows who's going to live there. They going to promise Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 you they make apartment, who know what g~ng to be there, maybe strapless. I live myself there and I get a lot bf noise from that place, lot of noise, lot of troubles. THE CHAIP~4AN: Well, if they live there, they won't be able to sleep either. MRS. WINIARZ: THE CHAIRMAN: you said? Who? Who going to sleep there, the strapless? I didn't get that word.. Topless, is that what MRS. WINIARZ: Well, we don't know who's going to be there. GERALDINE CULLEN: She's a little leary of it, I think. Maybe sometimes they do over there, you never know. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat your objection again? GERALDINE CULLEN: Just the drainage, that's all I'm worried about. Between the two of them, I really get a ba~'kwash. THE ~HAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this application? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Just a couple of points more. To go in there, we're going to have to comply with the Board of Health, we're gozng to have to go in there with a new application for the new people, a liquor license and whatever. We're going to, of course, have to meet the requirements of the particular agencies. That's between us and the Health Department and the Building Inspector, but as far as the application for one apartment upstairs, I think the objections are a little out of field. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have anything to say? (There was no response.) ~fter investigation~and inspection, Lon to cons' side Main Road are that finds that the unit in New York. right to use this as an apartment provided they comply with all of the Board of Health requirements and the Building and Housing Codes of the Town of Sou~hold. 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~sh~red 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. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, James and Deborah Navas, 30 3rd Street, Riverhead, Ne~ York, be GRANTED permission to construct dwellin~ unit in_~ business building, north side Main Road, Mattituck, ~ew York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The rear yard area, presently overgrown, Shalt~be converted to a parking lot for use by patrons of the restaurant. Proper drainage shall be installed subject to the approval of the Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2320 - 8:20 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Gilbert and Madeline Michaelis, Main Bayview Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, SeCtion 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off existing buildings on undersized lots. LocatiOn of property: South side Summit Road, Southold, New York; Lots~29, 29A, and 30, Map 2034, Bay Side Terrace. Tke Chairman opsned 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 from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr~ and Mrs. Edmund Cielatka; Helen Doma; Paestom Realty Corp.; Mildred L. Dickinson. Fee paid $15.00, THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? : To just recap the ~ing '~ ~ly has a one and ( The property is ~cribed the Map of i~ fs an if the variance were we Se~ek tO have set off as a single and se . It Main Bayview Road of 95' be approximately i~ depth. It's a good sized parcel, actually a little larger than some of the other parcels in the community. The other thing we seek to do is to have the parcels designated on the suryey as 1 and 2 set off as two seParate.~building parcels. Parcel $2 is basically Lot 30 of Bayside Terrace and tha~ presently has an existing house on it. We would like to have that set off as a single and separate parcel. It has a house there already so the~ density would n~t be increased by granting the variance. Then we Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 would like to have what's designated on the survey as Parcel ~1, in effect Lot 29 on the map of Bayside Terrace. That is a vacant parcel, it's actually a little bit bigger than Lot ~29 on the map because it also includes a small portion of 29A. If the variance were granted that vacant parcel would have frontage of approximately 97' on Summit Road and would have area of about 10,475 sq. ft. Parcel 92 would have similar frontage off of a right-of-way shown on the filed map of Bayside Terrace. Again, there is a building on there. THE CHAIRMAN: This is the same property that we acted on once before just recently, right? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: That's right. I withdrew the application as to this part of it at that time. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) I think that I would want to speak against creating the fourth lot there, or the fifth lot. I would request that you incorporate 29 with 30. It would still he less than a quarter of an acre, both of them are 10,000 sq. ft. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I think Mr. Michaelis' intention for the vacant lot is to build a home for his son and, as I' say, the granting of the variance ... it is basically a lot on a filed map and if you look at the rest of the lots in the community, the granting of the variance would, in effect, permit a lot which is basically the same size in area and shape as the other lots in the community. THE CHAIRMAN: Are all of these lots in back here' built on, on Summer Lane? Take 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, they're on the east side of Summer Lane. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Each one of them has a hoUse~-on it? GILBERT MICHAELIS: Yes sir, they're mobile homes. THE.CHAIRMAN: HOW about across the street on the east side? GILBERT MICHAELIS: There might be two or three lots that haven't been built on, but people are going to build on them. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: How about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, are they all separate lots? GILBERT MICHAELIS: Yes, they are. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Some of the lots, I have a copy of the tax map and some of the lots, like 4 and 5, appear to have a common owner, but most of the lots appear to be in single and separate ~wnership. Again, if Mr. and Mrs. Michaelis had taken Lot 29, say, an just Mr. Michaelis' name and Lot 20 and Lot 30, which in effect is Parcel 2 on the map, we wouldn't even have to be here for the variance. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, in view of this situation then, I think I withdraw my objection because there appear to be 25 lots within a few feet of you, more than that, all 10,000 or 11,000 sq. ft. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: If it would help, I can give you a copy of the tax map showing the, what appears to be the ownership of the various lots. Most appear to be in single and separate ownership; THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants request permission to set off existing buildings on undersized lots, south side Summit Road, Southold, New York. The fihdings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicants. Many lots in the area are the same size as the lots to be created. The Board finds that strictC~application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hazdship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of th~s property and an 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 byMr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, Gilbert and Madeline M~chaelis, Main Bayvi~w Road, Southold, NeW york be GRANTED permission to set off ex~sting buildings on undersized lots, south side Summit Road, Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southo~d Town Board of Appeals -15- August 4, 1977 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2319 - 8:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of William G, Rafferty, 18 Fa~view Drive, Dix Hills, New York (Gary Olsen, Esq.) for a variance in ac- cordance 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 property: North side Pinetree Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Hickory Acres Sub- division; east by L. Wahl; south by Pine Tree Road; west by now or formerly S. Bourguignon. 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 applicant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs~ Larry Wahl; Sidney Bourguignon; Mr. and Mrs. Richard Corrazzini; Dorothy Stengale. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present Who wishes to speak for this application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Just to briefly summarize, ~what happened here islMr. Raffer~y owned Lot $7, Map of Section I, Hickory Acres, which is on Lupin Drive, in his own name. His mother owned a vacant parcel on P!inet~e'e ROad~and his mother and father together owned a parcel with a house. All the parcels were in single and separate ownership. His mother then died on April 13. When she died, she left the vacant parcel to her husband, so at that point those two pieces merged. Then the applicant's father died a month after that, on May 11 of this year. He inherited both pa:cels. As a result, we have all three pieces in the name of the applicant at this point through wills. THE CHAIRMAN: 97 was Mr. Rafferty Senior's? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: No, $7 was the applicant's, that's the son. He owned that in his own name prior to the death of his parents. The other two lots were in sinqle and separate ownership. THE CHAIRMAN: Which, 10 and 117 GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: No they're not lots on the map, they're just deSCribed pie~es. THE CHAIRMAN: Across the street? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: NO, behind it. They're on Pinetree Road. The~lot on the map, the filed map, is ... the son's piece, would be north of the piece where the house and the vacant-parcel on Pine- tree Road, it would be to the north, facing on Lupin Drive. Tha~ was in single and separate ownership, just in his name. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRRAN: Parcel 91 on this County map. FRED HULSE, JR.: 6 and 7 is his father and mother. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I don't know. how it's designated on the County map. (Mr. Olsen referred to the map.) Yes, that's riqht, 6 and 7 on the County map, 7 is the house parcel, 6 is the va6ant parcel. I would assume Lot 1 is the other parcel that is really a lot on a filed map. There's been a merger of title between all of the pieces. We are presently under contract to sell the house that was originally in both Mr. and Mrs. Rafferty's names by the entirety. Of course, it's now owned by the ~son. We want to sell that off as a single and separate parcel retaining the vacant piece next to~it on Pinetree Road. That's not included in the sale. Therefore, we need the variance. They both have frontage on Pinetree Road and each lot would have frontage of 100', about 20,050 sq. ft. each. As a matter of fact, if the variance wasn't granted, those two pieces, it would be an oversized parcel and out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. The other piece is the piece that was always in the name of the applicant before his parents died and that has frontage on Lupin Drive. That's also a vacant piece and we would want that set aside as a separate parcel. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for the application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against the application? {There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant request~ permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area, north B~d~ Pinetree Road, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The B~ard finds that strict application of nanc~ unI the i~%~Lediate ~icinity ~ and in district; and the variance will not lge the character of the district, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by ~. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, William G. Rafferty, 18 Farmview Drive, Dix Hills, New York 'be GRANTED permission to set off lot ~ith insufficient width and area, north side Pinetree Road, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for. Southold T~n Board of Appeals -17- August 4, 1977 Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, HulSe, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2317 - 8:40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of VIP Inn, Ltd., 39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York (Gary Olsen, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off existing buildings on under- sized lot. Location of property: South side CR27, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by CR27 (North Road); east by H. Hass, A. Stachtiaris, N. Ippolito, F. Bruch, J. Smulcheski, M.~ Furrier, E. Stewart; south by Mill Creek; west by now or formerly Nassau Steamship Agency. 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 from the Town Clerk that notification by certiflsd-mail.had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Achilles Stachtiaris; Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Smulcheski; Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Bruch; Mr. and Mrs. Manfred Kurner; Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Stewart; Helmut Hass; Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc. THE CHAIRMAN: There was another meeting on this, and I believe that the applicant withdrew. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Yes, we did withdraw. THE CHAIRMAN: I have the minutes of the previous meeting of March 31, 1977. The application was made under the name of Nicholas W. Ippolito. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I didn't realize at that time that the property was in a corporate name owned by Mr. Ippolito but it's the same application. THE C~LAIRMAN: So this is a fresh application. (The Chairman finished reading the application.) The application is accompanied by a sketch which indicates that the prQpe by the applicant is on the south side of 'North Road ~ ~own Beach in Southold. Th~ first plot on which the motel stands is onabout 24,000 sq. ft. The next plot on which the four-unit section stands is on 9,400 sq~ ft., plus or minus. The two-unit portion of this motel is on Parcsl 43 toward the pond south from the Main Road. This is a situation which existed prior to zoning and which is about as severe an example as could be found and predated zoning in this Town. We Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- August 4, 1977 have a brief which I will read when the time comes from Mr. Tedeschi who further points out what poor zoning it zs, a point with which we hardily agree. In other words, we agree entirely with the fact that this is poor zoning. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: This may be an example of poor zoning but the fact is that it does exist. THE CHAIRMAN: Lest anybody think that there isn't poor zoning elsewhere, I was in Hauppauge yesterday Where a fellow's got before the Planning Commission 12 building sites on 2.9 acres. There's so little room there's no place to park the cars, they have to be parked on the street. We're not the only ones with poor zoning. Go ahead. ~GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: This is an existing situation. On Parcel 9I, p~oposed Parcel $1, the~e is presently a 12-unit motel and that parcel would have 24~000 sq. ft; with frontage on Middle Road of about 258'. Parcel $2 presently has a 4-unit building on it and if the variance is approved, it would have an area of 5,400 sq. ft; Parcel $3 has a 2-unit building and, if the vari- ance were granted, would have an area of approximately 17,000 sq. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: I think Parcel 92 is 9,400 sq. ft., isn't it? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Yes, 9,400. Mr. Ippolito, who is the owner of the corporation who is the applicant here, has a party interested in purchasing the motel unit but they're not interested in purchasing t~e '$~unit building or the 2-unit building. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you tell us why? NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I really can't answer that, I guess the price is out of their zeach for the three parcels. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: The granting of the variance will not increase the density or change the situation. THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Tedeschi's coming along with a brief after you've finished ... GARY OLSEN, ESQ..: I Wish I had seen a copy of the brief. THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't see it myself until 12:00 . GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: As I say, the granting of the variance would not increase-the density, it would.simply set off each of the units as separate parcels. THE CHAIRMAN: Would Mr. Ippol~tQ continue to operate the ~-unit and the 4-unit portions of the motel on Parcels 2 and 3? Southold ToWn Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: That would be deSirable. Upon selling I would be willing to have it dropped or up it to residential zoning. THE CHAIRMAN: One of the buildings would have to be enlarged to 850 sq. ft. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Which means that the only direction it can go is up. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? I know Mr. Tedeschi's going to speak, do you want to read the brief or shall I? FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: You're up higher. (The Chairman read the Auqust 2, 1977, "Memorandum in Opposition" submitted by Frederick Tedeschi, Esq., on behalf of his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Stachtiaris; Mr. and Mrs. Bruch; Mr. and Mrs. Smulcheski; Mr. and Mrs.. Hribok; Mr. an~ Mrs. Kuerner; Mr. and Mrs. Stewart; and the Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything yoU'd like to add to that, Mr. Tedeschi? FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: Yes, as a correlary I wo~ld like to add that the seven clients that I represent are all here. They have indicated to me and, to digress a~inute, we all agree it's bad zoning. Perhaps we could, do something to upgrade it. THE CHAIRFa~N: I'd like to point out that this was before zoning. FREDERICK ~ED~$CHI, ESQ.: I know that. We're not casting stonesi~, but in an effort to get along ~ to upgrade the situation, my clients L t¢ Lt if a reasonmble compromise could be.~reach~d whereby the two sontherly e~s 2 and 3, were converted into residential one- family, oer~ainly mpgrade the area in that respect. My seve~ five of them have a one-familydwelling on 4,500 sq. ft. of property. If he creates ... THE CHAIRMAN: Each of them has 4,500 sq~ ft.? FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: Give or take a few feet. If we could ~reate the same thing across the road .... T~E CHAIRMAN: They use them mostly inthe summer don't they, none of ~em are year-round residences? Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: (Talking to his clients) Is Mr. Stachtiaris a year-round resident? No? Then they're all summer residences~ Our thought is if we could create two one-family units across the road we would certainly be upgrading th~ area which would be an asset to the entire co~unity. I know you, Mr. Gillispie, have been there with another member of the Board but for those who have not been there, this is what they propose to have for four dwelling units. (Mr. Tedeschi showed the Board a picture of the building.) THE CHAIRMAN: It's an existing four-dwelling unit, not what they propose. FReDErICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: That'~s what they propose. And this picture is the requested motel, which you're all familiar with. This is the two-unit building. We submit that we could, if we could reach such a compromise to make these two parcels one family, it certainly would be in keeping with the rest of the community as it · s presently constituted. But to put four units on 9,400 sq. ft. we may be compounding the error in zoning. I know this Board is not that type. THE CHAIRMAN: Then, as I understand it, you would be in agreement with a suggestion which would involve permitting the sale of the 12-unit part of 24,000 sq. ft. and dividing the other two parcels, 2 and 3, into two separate residential units, each of which would have to have 850 sq. ft. in the residence. I think the 4-unit may have that 850 sq. ft. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: That's what I was saying, Mr. Gitlispie, we're saying ... THE CHAIRMAN: For single family use. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: Right, exactly. Now I understand. THE CHAIRMAN: And the present use would be continued through this year because it's the middle of the season, and it woUl~ be required that these be converted, if used, to single family use anytime after next year. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: We' would they could operate their 12-unit motel as with that, ituted. THE CHAIRMAN: And I think that would improve the area. I'm not sure there would be very much difference. Those motel, units are used probably four months out of the year. If you multiply six times four you get 24 months. If you put two families in those two places times twelvemonths you get 24 months use as far as sewage and water and so forth. FREDERICK: TEDESCHI, ESQ.: You don't have as many people for parking, sanita~i~n, I have some pictures here of garbage, cars parked all over the place ... Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be one small step toward upgrading the area. Mr. Ippotito and Mr. Olsen, you've heard the discussion, are you in agreement with what we've been talking?~ NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I'm in partial agreement. What I'm trying to do is sell each parcel off. If I sell the front parcel, I have buyers that claim they're interested. We have gotten down to finalities on it. If they agree to buy, then I agree that the two back buildings should be turned to residential as they are sold. Now assuming that they do not decide to buy, then I would still want to have the motel zoning for the three units. In other words~ I wouldn't want to change that at the end of the year. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if there's no sale you would continue the way you are, basically. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: That's not the way I understood your con- versation with Mr. Tedeschi. You said that for the interim of this year he could continue ... THE CHAIRMAN: If Mr. Ippolito sells the 12-unit motel tomorrow for $500,000 ... GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: It's only upon conveyance of title to the 12-unit that the ~arcels 2 and 3 would come into the picture. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Actually, what I desized was that assuming that we sold the front parcel, I would have two parcels left. As each parcel is sold it would have to be sold as a residential but while I still possess it, it would be operating as it operates now as a motel. ROBERT BERGEN: For this year only. THE CHAIRMAN: For this year only on the two parcels. If you sell Parcel $1, Parcel $2 and 93 which is a four-unit and a two- u~it motel, which are very small units, would still be operated by you for the rest of the season. After this season ... GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Assuming we sell Parcel ~1 this season. THE CHAIRMAN: Assuming you sell it. cation that you have a buyer. I assume from the appli- NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I have a buyer but it's not, I don't have the money. THE CHAIRMAN: That's our position. We want to do something to elevate the area. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I'm in full agreement with that. The only direction I want to go is toward higher zoning. Southold T~wn Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAn,: It looks like we're walking backwards, doesn't it. We won't be causing you any financial inconvenience, you will be permitted to continue this operation the way it is until or if you sell all or nothing. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: The other thing that I was hoping to receive from the Board was the right to rent the back rooms until they're sold. Let's take Parcel 2. THE CHAIRMAN: No, you can't have everything. We'll let you finish this year because you could have contracts or anything else. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Then what you're saying, see if I understand it correctly. If I sell the front building, the back two buildings automatically become residential. THE CHAIRMAN: Single family residential. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: If I do not sell the front building, am I still able to sell the three parcels as a motel unit? THE CHAIRMAN: That we can't prevent. That's an existing situation. We can't prevent that, can we Mr. Tedeschi? FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: No sir. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: What I was hoping for was that if I did sell the front unit that I would still be able to rent the back units next year as four units and two units. FRE~' DEE!~K.TEDESCHI, ESQ.: That's what we're objecting to. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Ail right, I'll accept it. I have the option to sell either individually ... THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that we would want you to sell or $3 for a motel use at all, period. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: If $1 is sold. ESQ.: Mr. Gillispie, just a technicality. In as is owned by a corporation, there's a that :ock could be sold and the title wouldn't be ,. I would like for your consideration in the event that stock of the'corporation and/or the title is sold that this would come about. I can envision a situation where title would not be transferred, just-the stock sold. I think we're all looking for th~ same~ thing so just as a technicality or precaution I would ask that that be considered. GARY 0LSEN, ESQ.: I don't understand that, quite frankly, the selling of stock. Southo~d Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Who owns it now, Mr. Ippol~t~ or the corporation? N~CHOLAS IPPOLITO: The corporation. THE CHAIRMAN: And you own the corporation. Entirely, 100%? NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: You own all the common stock. There's no preferred stock, no bonds. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: In effect he owns it then. What were ~ou going to say?~ GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: As long as Mr. Tedeschi, his net comment is if the Parcel 91 is conveyed whether it be through the transfer of stock ... I don't know how you could do it. You couldn't just convey part of it by selling the corporation, by selling the stock of the corporation. FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: Sure you could. THE CHAIRMAN: If it's entirely in Mr. Ippolito's hands you could extinguish the corporation, that would Probably be the simplest way. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Ail right, as long we understand what the intent is. THE CHAIRMAN: That conceivably would be possible, what you're talking about. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Mr. Ippolito, I think, understands that if Parcel ~1,' which would have approximately 24,000 sq. ft. and contains the 12-unit building, if that is sold as~shown on the survey, then Parcels.2 and 3 would then have to revert to single family residential use, regardless of how he sells Parcel 91. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tedeschi has suggested the possibility of selling stock in the corporation. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: As I say, regardless of how h~ sells it whether it's through selling stock of the corporation ... FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: Ownership and control. THE CHAIRMAN: Sold involving ownership and control. Added to that action, that should be the first condition. Added to that action would bS that if Parcel 91 is sold or conveyed or changes hands by whatever means, then Parcels 92 and 3 may continue as motel units under the direction of Mr. Ippolito for the balance of 1977. Starting January 1, 1978, if the structures on either Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 Parcel ~ or 3 are used, they must be used for single family resi- dential use and the structures on Parcel ~3~and Parcel 2 must conform particularly to the 850 sq. ft. minimum requirement of floor area in the Southold Building Zone Ordinance. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I don't think they have that footage right now. THE C~AIRMAN: One of them doesn't. It's about 20' by 20', maybe a little bigger. I think your other one may. If you sell it as is, whoever bought it would have to fix it. You don't have to d~ it. NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I may do it but I don't want to be forged into it. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other conditions should be in there? CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.: I think you've covered them all. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to set off existing buildings on undersized lot, south side CR27, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that this is the first opportunity the Board has had in 20 years to attempt to upgrade the Hass development on the North Road in Southold. The Baird 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 · n 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, VIP Inn, Ltd., 39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York be GRANTED permission to set off existing buildings on undersized lots, south side CR27, Southold, New York, as applied for, subject to the following conditions: If the 12-unit motel on Parcel 91 is sold or the ownership a~d control of this parcel is transferred in any way, Pa~eis 2 and 3 may continue as motel units under the direction of Mr. Ippolito for the balance of 1977. conform tO tke Southold Town BUilding Codewith respect to minimum floor area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- August 4, 1977 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen. - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2318 - 9:15 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Lee and Barbara Siros, 3 Lee Lane, Wilbraham, Massachuttes (Gary Olsen, Esq.~for a variance in accordance?~ith the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property: East side Deer Path, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Miller Right-of-way; east by D. Trimmer; south by right-of-way, Dickerson and Beier; west by Deer Path (Pvt. Rd.). 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 from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Daniel Trimmer; Charlotte T. Dickerson; Pamela Steadman; Anna M. Smith. Fee Paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: My clients live in Massachuttes and they are presently involved in a purchase of the subject premises from the present owners, Klaus and Marga Beier. The parcels to be created ... THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know what lot number this is on the County map? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: It's at the intersection of Miller's right- of-way and Deer Path Road. THE CHAIRMAN: This indicates 2.8 acres. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Mr. and Mrs. Beier al is contiguous to the sub~ ~ ~ It appears to be separated right-of'way. I don"~ know er the right. se which [ Creek. ~ion by a is owned by ROBERT BERGEN: It says Deer Path Road right-of-way. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: If I may show you this overall survey of the property, this is the property in question, iece located on the corner of Miller's right-ofrway, side of Miller's right-of-way and t~e easterly side [th Road. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25~ August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant is going to keep ... GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: The seller is going to keep an approved piece on Mattituck Creek that apparently has quite a substantial house on it. The parcels that we're in the process of purchasing, Parcel 91 is a piece having acreage of about 25,000 sq. ft. Parcel 92 would have almost 29,000 ~q. ft. It appears on my survey that there's a right-of-way that separates the parcels in question from Mr. and Mrs. Beier's home. I don't know whether that right-of-way is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Beier, I don't know whether that goes to Mr. Trimmer's property or not, I don'~ think it does. I think it's strictly access for their home. THE CHAIRMAN: This is another right-of-way here. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: That right-of-way, apparently, is to get access to the beach. I don't know whether parcels 1 and 2 would be getting the right to use that right-of-way to the beach or not but I don't think it's material for purposes of this variance appeal. THE CHAIRMAN: This Miller right-of-way appears to be 24' wide. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Yes, but we would not be getting title to Miller's right-of-way. It's really a two-fold application. THE CHAIRMAN: Who has title to Miller's right-of-way? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I don't know. It may very well be that the seller does. THE CHAIRMAN: How does the seller get there, both of these, Miller's and then Deer Path? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: He apparently comes down Deer Path Road. I think he comes down from Mill Road down Miller's right-of-way and then turns south on Deer Path Road to get to his house. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: This is an improved right-of-way, it's asphalt surfaced and he gets to his home by going down here. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: It doesn't servide anyone else other~ than the seller. ROBERT BERGEN: Deer Path Road, is that a private right-of-way? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: It's a private right-of-way and the Board in the past has given an access variance over it. THE CHAIRMAN: To who? FRED HULSE, JR.: To whoever owned the lot. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26-- August 4, 1977 GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Across the street from the two parcels in question would be the property of Talbot, the property of an H. Pole~ they're each half-acre parcels. ROBERT BERGEN: And over here is another one, Dr. Ogilv~e. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: They all get access over Miller's Road and then coming down, one is known as Raccoon Road, it's a similar type road. ROBERT BERGEN: They don't join. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Dickerson's property would also get access over Deer Path Road. THE CHAIRMAN: If the owner wishes to convey the access ... FRED HULSE, JR.: The owner must have access, it must be in the deed, isn't it? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Obviously, I would want to make sure that we have an insurable access. In-any event, I would need the access variance since Miller's Road and Deer Path Road are appakently private roads and I wou~d need the aecess variance under 280A to get access to both of these pieces. Then I would need an area variance for both pieces. THE CHAIRMAN: The Board could grant access that wouldn't necessarily be any good untsss the seller could convey it. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: It obviously would only be in the event that the seller could convey access. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail those roads are in pretty good shape down there. ROBERT BERGEN: Yes, the roads are not bad at all, but the fact is that it's a priVate right-of-way and how we can give somebody an access to it ... THE CHAIRMAN: We'll have to take the attorney's word for it that he has a right to convey it. If he any ge Is there anyone who wishes to spe~ ROBERT TOOKER,~ESQ.: I'm acting on behalf of Charlotte Dickerson, one of the neighbors. Back in 1967, Mr. Beier who is the .present owner of the property that Mr~ Olsen is talking about, owned ... Mr. Beier used to own this (on map), this where his home is, and these two parcels. They were all owned by Elaus Beier. In 1967, Mr. Beier entered into a contract with an Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- August 4, 1977 Evelyn Arne and sold her that piece there which is about 1.1 acres. At the time that was sold an encroachment was created. These are the two pieces Mr. Olsen Has spoken about directly, this is the balance of the property owned by the BeieEs and this is the prop- erty next door which is vacant land (on map). The~e is a garage here, a framed garage 20' by 20'. Apparently Mr. Beier came to the Board and obtained a variance to sever~toff this piece from the rest of his property. At that time, he created the encroachment, this garage is right smack on the boundary line. This is a survey of that piece of property. This is the piece that Mrs.hArne purchased and this is the garage that belongs to Mr. Beier. They realized at that time that they were creating an encroachment and they provided that on 90-days notice from Mrs. Arne to Mr. Beier that the encroachment would be removed. Mrs. Arne twice attempted to give notice to Mr. Beier and was unsuccessful. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean she couldn't serve him? ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: She attempted to twice by certified mail and it was rejected. THE CHAIRMAN: Where does he live? ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: Here are the two letters mailed by Mrs. Arne's attorney to Mr. Beier. This was addressed to Centerport and this one also to Centerport. THE CHAIRMAN: "Moved, not forwardable." ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: Subsequently, Mrs. Dickerson ... THE CHAIRMAN: Somebody must have found him because he's selling the property, right? ESQ.: Yes, I'm sure-he.!could be turned up. Sub~ Dickerson purchased the' of Mrs.'Arne in sp~ the encroachment in the hope t~at removed. It came to her attention when this matter that there was an attempt being made to f~rther s' propertY. I discussed it with the Dickersons and we time was appropriate to make sure tha~that en~ taken ~are of at the~time there was a request further subdivision. Our request to you is tha~ if you grant the further subdivision of this property, you make it contingent upon the removal of this encroachment which was created · n 1967 when there ~ad been a prior application for a variance. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Well, I don't represent Mr. Beier so I can't spe~k for Mr. Beier, I represent the purchaser~ It seems to me that there's obviously some sort of personal dispute between Mr. Beier and Mr. Tooker's client but I don't think it goes to the merits of the application. I don't think it's a contingency that should be imposed on my application to remove some sort of garage. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: On the other hand, you can understand Mrs. Dickerson's irritation. GARY OLSEN;~ESQ.: I can understand that but I don't know the personalities, I don't know the problem, the history between the people ... ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: I don't think there's been any con- versation between Beiers and Mrs. Dickerson, it just seemed an appropriate time to attempt ... I think, in effect, what's happened is tkat Mr. Beier's trying to create four lots. He created one before and is creating three more now. I wouldn't be inclined to join ~he two applications~t~gether. It~seems to me that if that's go&ng to take place it ought to be done without any encroachments. Mrs. Dickerson doesn't care if it's moved this afternoon or tomorrow or next month but I think there should be some provision before new construction ~akes place to remove that garage. · HE CHAIRMAN: It looks like in the area there are a great number of 15,000 sq. ft. lots. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I have a copy of the tax map. The other lots in the neighborhood, across the street for example, they would all be in conformance with the general size and shape of the two parcels that we are in the process of purchasing. The garage.is not on the parcels that we're purchasing, it's on the ~emamnzng piece of property that Mr. Beier would hold. It seems to be separated by a right-of-way and I think it would ~ in- appropriate to, in your decision if you should grant my variance application~ to relate it to a garage. THE CHAIRMAN: This is apparently a private arrangement between the buyer and seller previously and has nothing to do with this. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: I think it's all part of the same piece ~f property. THE CHAIRMAN: But the dispute is between, not the purchasers of this property and Mr. Beier, it is rather between Mr. Beier and Mrs. Dickerson and she isn't present. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: She couldn't be here tonight, she's in California. THE CHAIRMAN: She isn't present as a participant in the action. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: She's a neighbor and she has an interest in the situation. THE CHAIRMAN: This can hardly be said to be objectionable as to this application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- August 4, 1977 ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: At the time that the application was made in 1967, this encroachment was created by the granting of the variance which permitted~-th±s piece of property to be divided off from the balance of the property that the Beiers own. This garage was in the middle of the Beier property. When the variance was granted it was possible to separate off this piece. THE CHAIRMAN: But he was so anxious to sell it and whoever bought it was so anxious to buy it that they just left the garage there and went ahead. I don't see why we should try to correct it now on property that's unrelated to this. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: It's part of the parcel that's before~ you today. THE CHAIR/~AN: But it's a part that remains with Mr. Beier. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: The parcel that's before you today is divided into three pieces. Mr. Beier would retain one and Mr. 01sen's clients would buy two but it's all part of a parcel that's being divided ink,he matter that's before you tonight. THE CHAIRMAN: What does the rest of the Board feel? Do you understand it? Beier chopped off a lot for somebody but they were in such a hurry that they left the building on the property and Beisr never moved the building. CHARLES GRIGONIS: I think that where we left that building there before ... THE CHAIRMAN: But it was not our concern then. I dOn't even remember. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I think that was a tit~e problem at that time. Mr. Tooker did indicate to me that he iwould be here tonight and I called the attorney for the seller to find out whether Mr. Beier intended on removing the garage. Unfortunately, Mr. Beier is also in California from what I understand so he did not have a chance to talk to him. I think it's an irrelevent, i~material issue and does not go to the merits of my applieation. THE CH~IRF~AN: What would happen if Mrs. Dickerson ran a fence through the g~rage, would that cause him to move it? ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: I think she has the right to bulldoze the garage down but that isn't the way we'd like to proceed. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think the Board should be influenced in this decision but I think that the Board could write a letter to Mr. Beier~ FRED HULSE, JR.: How was this granted without any side yard on an accessory building? Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- August 4, 1977 SERGE ~OYEN, JR.: We must~ave been unaware of it somehow. THE CHAIRMAN: He said that in 1967 this lot was created from the Beier property. ROBERT TOOKER~ ESQ.: They must have appeared before the Board because I have a copy of the contract between Mr. Beier and Mrs. Arne~and it provides, among other things, that the sale was con- tingent upon procuring a variance for lack of access the same way it's being requested by Mr. Olsen. (Mr. Tooker read a portion of the contract regarding the right-of-way and the garage on ~he~.~property line.) Now what I expect happened, in 1967 things were done a little more informally th ~n they are today. I would expect they came to the Board, asked for a division of property in the same way Mr. Olsen is tonight, the Board noted the fact that the garage was there, the Warty said, "Look, we've got an arrangement for taking care of that," and so they said 1.1 acres is big enough, let it go. We've been frustrated in giving the notice in order to have the garage removed and we suggest to you that this is an appropriate time to make sure that the encroachment is tended to. ROBERT BERGEN: What was the number of that appeal, do you know? THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of the action? ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: Not the action, no. FRED HULSE, JR.: We probably weren't even aware of the garage then. ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: Oh, I think so. It must have been brought to the attention of the Board at that time. It took p~ace sometime b~een.Eebruary of 1967, when the contract was entered into, and the closing which took place in June of 1967. I'm sure if you search back through your records you'll find it. THE CHAIRMAN: Who's name is ik under? ROBERT TOOKER, ESQ.: Beier, the same man who's applying tonight. It Was to sever off that one 1ct from the balance of his property. THE CHAIPd~AN: Well, in order to resolve this situation and get on with the evening I suggest that the Board act favorably on this application on Friday, we have a special meeting on Friday. In the meantime we will look up the record and see what we can find out about this building left on the line. If there is any provision in our a~tion that required removal of the b~ilding we'll include that as a condition. Southold Town Boar,-of Appeals -31- August 4, 1977 On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, if was RESOLVED that the hearing upon application of Lee and Barbara Siros, Appeal No. 2318, be RECESSED to August 12, 1977. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs; Gittispie,.~Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2315 9%40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of George Ahlers, Builder, Inc. a/c Julius Kinczel, 7 Second Street, New Suffotk,~ew York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in front yard area. Location of property: East side Second Street, New Suffolk, New ~ork, bounded on the north by now or formerly Rogers Est; east by M. Majeski; south by now for formerly Zamphiroff; west by Second Street. 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 from the Town C~erk that notification by certified mail had been made to:~ Marion Majeski; Mr. White; Michael .Karg; Athanas Zarphiroff. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The lot in question is about 106' in width, 107' in Second Street, the depth is about 128' which means it's about 12,800 sq. ft. something like that. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GEORGE AHLERS: We are the builders of the proposed garage. I don't believe I can add anything to what we've stated in the application. I do think that the house to the south facing RObins Island ... THE CHAIRMAN: How close is it? We were trying to see through the hedge. GEORGE AHLERS: About 8' to 10' off their property line. We propose that our garage would be 8-1/2' ROBERT BERGEN: Off the highway line? GEORGE AHLERS: No, the property line. THE CHAIRMAN: What it says here is 5' GEORGE AHLERS: That would be the setback on the side yard, it's the back of the garage but the side yard of the piece of property. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- August 4, 1977 ROBERT BERGEN: How far off the street? GEORGE AHLERS: I would guess that the side of the garage woul~be at~least 15' I didn't measure it but I would say there's at least that much. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if it's 8-1/2' from the property line ... ROBERT BERGEN: That's from this way. (The Board and Mr. Ahlers discussed the property.) THE CHAIRMAN: It'll be back further than the adjoining house. ROBERT BERGEN: I know that, but I still think it should be back more than 8-1/2' from the property line on the highway. THE CHAIRMAN: That would put him back further than the adjoining house and the adjoining house is only, it looked to me about 5' or 6' GEORGE AHLERS: That would be my guess. THE CHAIRMAN: That's the house that was behind the hedge we couldn't ~ee. ROBERT BERGEN: We know that's close so why stick another one up close. THE CHAIRMAN: If he goes back much further he can't make a garage there, he'd have to turn the ~arage around this way. GEORGE AHLERS: The big problem is that he can't swing around without running into his own house. ROBERT BERGEN: He's going to swing in the driveway that's there now and then back out on the highway? GEORGE A~LERS: His plan is to back out this way (on map). That's why if I go back further I haven't got any room. If I pull it back he'll back out into his house. ROBERT BERGEN: I'd say keep it back as far as you can. I don't believe in closing up the highway. 10' at least. GEORGE AHLERS: 10' would be all right. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone wish to speak ~g~inst this? (There.was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct accessory building Southold Town Board of Appeals -33~ August 4, 1977 in front yard area, east side Second Street, New Suffolk, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the ~pplicant. The Board fin~s~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. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Julius Kinczel, 7 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building, a one-car garage, in front yard area subject to the following conditions: .0 The garage shall be no~2closer than 10' to the property line bordering Second Street and no closer than 5' to the southerly property line of the applicant's ~ot. The garage shall open to the north. The applicant shall create a condition whereby he can back onto his own property before driving onto the public highway. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC.H~ARING: Appeal No. 2313 - 9:50 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon~applica~Ion of Tennis Courts Unlimited a/c William LaM~rte, N~rth B~yview Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordi ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 C for permission to construct tennis court with fence~exceeding maximum height. L~cation of property: East side North Road to Bayview, Sou%ho~, N~w York, bounded on the north by Pine Neck Road'; east by SOu~hold~B~y; south by North Road to Bayv~w; west by North Road to Bayview. TheChairman opened the hearing by readin~ the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its'~P~blication in the official newspapers, notice to the appli- caat, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Ch~rman also read statement from the Town Clerk ad' ' 3o~n~g property owners to be notified. Fee paid ~5~. THE CHAIRMAN: The tennis courts, are located, as Mr. Lyons submitted, in the center of the development on Pine Neck Road. Anyone present who wishes~%o speak for the application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- August 4, 1977 GILBERT LYONS: We,re actinq for William LaMorte. THE CHAIRMAN: What's the height requirement? GILBERT LYONS: 10' is what they recommend for catching balls. THE CHAIRMAN: How much backcourt~ GILBERT LYONS: That 60' by 120' is the courn including the backstops and fencing. THE CHAIRMAN: That gives 72' for the court and 38' for the back. How about the sides, is it supposed to be 10' all around? GILBERT LYONS: It's recommended to have 10' all around so you're not chasing balls but playing tennis. THE CHAIRMAN: 19', is that a big enough backcourt? GILBERT LYONS: Actually it's 21' on each end past the service, the back base line. THE CHAIRMAN: Your blacktop is 60' by 120' GILBERT LYONS: That's correct and that's exactly where the backstops go along the edge of the blacktop. The fencing would also be 60' by 120' There are two gates. FRED HULSE, JR.: One court? GILBERT LYONS: Yes, one court right adjacent to the swimming pool on Lot ~3. As you can see from this,'he owns quite a bit out there. It won't interfere with or hinder the appearance of the neighborhood. THE CHAIRMAN: It's a long way from the r.~ad? Anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was mo response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board ~hat the applicant requests permission to construct tennis fence exceeding maximum h~'ight, east side NorthRoad to , 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 aDplication 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 ~icinity of.this property and in the same use district; and the variance ~ill not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 19.77 On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was ~SOLVED, William LaMorte, North Bayview Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct tennis court with fence exceeding maximum height, east side North Road to Bayview, Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2311 - 9:55 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Jean Lohn and B. Loretta Vom Lehn, Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Ak~.ticle III, Section 100-30 and 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building on property line. Location of property: East side Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Prieto; east by Corey Creek; south by Vanderbeck; west by Minnehaha Boulevard. 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- ca~t~ and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: R. R. Prieto; W. K. Vanderbeck. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? JEAN LOHN: Mr. Vom Lehn is here, he's going to speak for both of us. HARVEY VOM LEHN: I represent Mrs. Lohn and my wife, Mrs. Vom Lehn, we're adjoining property owners of waterfront property in Storage area is very critical. We'd like to ~te the 3' setback and put the storage buildings back to back. We'd screen it with light foliage and make it as in- consPicuous as possible. So far there are no objections, the two owners are acceptable, naturally. THE CHAI ~RMA. N: As I understand it, this jointt~storage shed would be on a ~ine and would be no closer to Minnehaha Boulevard than a line extended from the Vom Lehn house. HARVEY VOM LEHN: No, it's back about ... the Vom Lehn house is 36' from Minnehaha and this would be back about 42' THE C~AIRMAN: The Yom Lehn house is not parallel to Minnehaha and that's the reason that your building would be further back. That's where you want them, at 42', right? Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 ROBERT BERGEN: What's the size of this proposed building? HARVEY VOM LEHN: MH~ Lohn wants 12' by 12', Vom Lehn wants 7' by 10'. THE CHAIRMAN: Combined peak roof? HARVEY VOM LEHN: No, they'll be separated. THE CHAIRMAN: You're going to have two separate buildings without a common wall, is that correct? Back to back? HARVEY VOM LEHN: That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: We thought you were going to have a common wall. HARVEY VOM LEHN: No, two separate buildings with a fence in between. THE CHAIRMAN: They'll be lean-to~type, right? HARVEY VOM LEHN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: It would be better to have something on the ridge than have the Water go down in between and rot the walls. There'll be no way to paint them or anything else. So you'll have a common ridge, that'll be the only common part of the building, you'll ~have to have a ridge that goes over it. I would think so anyway, otherwise %hey won't last very long. HARVEY VOM LEHN: Bob Hyatt suggested back to back with a fence in between with space to paint, 6" THE CHAIRMAN: 6"? You'd need a mop. I don't know if this is any of our business. According to Town counsel this is unusual but there should be no objection on our part from the legal stand- point. We never had one like it. Are these going to be made out of lumber? HARVEY VOM LEHN: No, Sears Roebuck aluminum, nothing better. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants request permission to construct accessory building on property line, east side Minnehaha Boulevard, 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; Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- August 4, 1977 the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the ±mmed±ate viclnlty~ ' of this property and in the same use district; and the variance w±ll not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On Motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, Jean Lohn and B. Loretta Vom Lehn, Minnahaha Boulevard, Southold, New York be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building on property line, east side Minnehaha Boule- .vard~ Southoldr New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillisple, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2316 10:05 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Valentine Stype a/c Lillian Van Dusen, 5305 Westpath Way, Washington, D.C. for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area. Location of property: Dicks Point Road and Holden Avenue, Cutchoque, New York, bounded on the north by Bicks Point Road; east by ~olden Avenue; south by now or formerly E. Mort; west by Haysom, F6x, and May. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its-<publication in the ~fficial newspapers, notice to the appli- cant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Eugene Mott; William P. May; E. -W. Fox; Wilhelm Haysom. Fee paid - $15.00. THE. CHAIRMAN: The parcel in question, as ~we understand it from the ~stat of the County tax map, iS~Lot tax has a frontage of 299' ~ Dicks is and 2g2' on one dirm~nsion and 197' on dimension on Holden Avenue. It has a little more on ~r dimension ~icks Point Road, 237'. The total is somewhat over 40,0( The area we're considering is, this lot is opposite nine lots which are on West Creek Avenue all in this block composed of West Cre~k Avenue, Dicks Point Road, Pinewood Road and ~est ROad. Almost without exception within the block there appears to be only one lot which would be larger than the two lots to be created by this ~ivision. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -38~ August 4, 1977 ROBERT VANDERBECK: My property is on West Creek Avenue. The northeast corner of my property is at the southwest corner of the Van Duzen property which is located on one of the highest points on Fleets Neck. In other words, I'm catty cornered to the prop- erty. THE CHAIRMAN Your lot is 200' in depth and 40' on Creek AVenue and the rear dimension is 60' with an indentation of 20' by 100' which goes to your neighbor, s lot. ROBERT VANDERBECK: That's right. My concern is that there may~e a.water supply problem and a possible sewage leaching pHo~liem if two houses ~re located here. The purpose of the Town of Southold zOning Ordinance requiring a singie family dwelling on ~ minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. is among other things~to conserve and protect our dwindling water supplY and cut dOwn On density. I reali~e the nature of the area.~- West~Creek Avenue consists of many 100' wide plots. I respectfully request that you carefully consider the geographic location of this property before rendering a decision. It is on a high point, it's the highest point on Fleets Neck. I am southwest of this property and I understand that the natural flow of Water is in that direction. THE CHAI.RMA. N: I think that, in general te~ms, we have con- ~re~ Water ~nd sewage just~in a~general way, ~u~ specifically ~ is a problem ~or the Suffolk County Board of Health. Of have extolled the virtues of 40,000 sq. ft. Many people, such as you, are~ encumberred lots many happily so. Many p~ople don't like 4~ was originally set ~p the last time 's been increased three times since I've been 40,000 sq. ft. was .set up based on a ition of maximum number of ~ople to the maxi- mum~ ~e could get out of t~e lan~i~ 'Some areas of th~ ~re difficulty with W~ter th~n o~hers, as you , more or less,, and.i ~ ~hat with good water i~ your than there is ~ )crt for instance. ~eneral, we'~e of land, under counsel What the cou2 in connection iece of property Such~ as~ We have qe~era~ly where the proposed least the same size or get into the question of' is a neighborhood, etty hard to define exactly what a neighbor- hood is but you perhaps use the County's figure whiCh is within 500' of the area. I think D.E.C. had a different figure, 300'. Using that as sort of a guideline to determine what a neighborhood is and then looking at the 10t sizes in that neighbor- hood, we act for or against. Usually these applications aren't made unless a lot of the adjoining lots are smaller. We never get them where the adjoining lots are an acre. About a year ago, we Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 had quite an a~g~ment with somebody about this action of the Board, whether we had the right to do this. At that time we had counsel prepare this three-page summary of some of the recent court decisions on area variances. It's here if you'd like to read it, if you question our authority. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak against this applicat~nn? WILHELM HAYSOM: I own one piece of the property to the west of the property in question. I noticed that I was supposedly contacted abodt this. The address was Elmsport, my home of four years ago. Consequently, I heard about this after I came out for our vacation period. Many of the lots in this area of Fleets Neck are much smaller than the desired lots that the division~would make. However, there is a difference in purpose of the division when they were originally made add this division. Like myself, most of the people who have built on the smaller lots have built summer places. The demand on the water was for a month or two perhaps. The sewage disposal is~also for a month or two. During the rest of the year the ground had an opportunity to rebuild itself as my place does at the present time. Building an all- year-round house means that the demands for water and sewage disposal will both be year-round. Probably with more than two or three people occupying the house. As Mr.*~Janderbeck has said, I question the wisdom of the division of ~his lot in this way particu- larly since it is above the adjacent property owners except for the Mort property which is along side of it. There are three of us between Dicks Point Road~and M~. Vanderbeck who will be in the direct line of any drainage of sewage from one house which is acceptable according to the zoning law or two houses which would result if this were granted. So I respectfully request that this variance would not be g=anted. THE CHAI~/~AN: You now occupy your house t~o months out of the year? You wouldn't want to have to come in here and get per- mission to occupy it 12 months out of the year, would you? WILHELM HAYSOM: No, I wouldn't. THE CHAIRMAN: Well this is exactly what a j~dge would say to the con~munity,~if the~.isn't.enou~h~water there, get it there and 'e. That~'s what we're faced w~th. This is out of our hands as water and Sewage is ~oncerned unless we're aware of a general problem with water in the area. Then we have, on occasion, refUsed'to do this, particularly on Nassau Point. But in this case, it would be my opinion that the Board should act favorably on it. I don't think that it even should be recessed for further investigation. If there's anything that you would like to say in opposition to that or if there's anything that any- body else would like to say, we'd be glad to hear from them. HARRY CASE: I live on the southwest corner of Dicks Point Road and West Creek Avenue. I'm on the opposite side of Dicks Point Road from Rev. Haysom. We moved in there, I'm on my seventh year now and we are on our third driven well, we're having trouble Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 with water over there. THE CHAIRMAN: What kind of points do you use? HARRY CASE: Stainless steel. We've run into clay, we've run into silt. THE CHAIRMAN: How far are you from this property? HARRY CASE: Part of my property, the east end of it, would be across from this property on the Qpposite side of Dicks Point. THE CHAIRMAN: AS we all know, Long Island being a terminal moraine, you can go from here to here and you can find sand or you can find beautiful water. HARRY CASE: That's right. We've tried I don't know how many places and we've had very poor luck. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that's too bad. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? WILLIAM N~COL: I represent the Fleets Neck Property Owners Association. I have a few questions and a few comments I'd like to give to the Board. The first one is Why arena% the across the street neighbors of any particular concern in this action? If I'm not mistaken, I don't have a map with me now, the properties in the~mediate neighborhood, you said 500', are quite a bit larger than the subdivision that these people propose. THE CHAIRMAN: We've never had a proper definition of what a neighborhood is. WILLIAM NICOL: They're within 50' anyway of this proposed subdivision. THE CHA~RM~N: On this particular block, block might be a reasonable ~ay to approach it. Of course in the country you don't have s, ~b~t there is a block here. ~he two lots to be than any other of the 19 other properties on this block~ be smaller after this is divided. One of the~, LOti~18 on the County tax map is apparently larger, it's 145', it looks iike about 30,000 sq. ft. WILLIAM NICOL: Maybe I can put it in the form of a question. ~hy do~S a road terminate any problems that might be caused by a subdivision? The people across the street still have to look at this particular area. I'd like ~ou to consider them as a possible factor in this action. They just don't disappear because they live across the street. The second thing I'd i~ike to say-is that ground water in Southold in general is a problem. Why aggrevate that prob- lem by placing more homes than ~s absolutely necessary, particularly When the zoning is already one acre' which this property when not Southold Town Board of Appeals ~41~ August 4, 1977 subdivided is. If you subdivide it, you are only guaranteeing an aggrevation of the problem. If you read the Pirnie report from 1967, they list on page 54A the problems that will become quite serious. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm perfectly aware, I was present during the Pirnie report and spent a lot of time with them. WILLIAM NICOL: Why then does the Town of Southold ignore that report? T~HE CHAIRMAN: We don't. I think the thinking of the Board here is that if ~here's enough water for everybody on Fleets Neck there'll be enough water for two more lots. WILLIAM NICOL: The Board obviously has a lot more knowledge in this area than I do, but my question is, when do we stop sub- dividing? When everybody suddenly comes to you and says, "We don't ~ave any water." This gentleman back here has a water problem. It may not be caused directly b~y the people in that area but if you only go 100 yards down the street you have Boatmans' Harbor which has a large draw down rate of fresh water out of that particular area. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have to aim your general objection to where do we stop to the Supreme Court judges who've made the decisions by which we are bound. WILLIAM NICOL: As a serious question simply because I don't know, can you explain to me why the people across the street are not affected by those Supreme Court decisions? Why are they ignored in these cases even though the road is only 20' wide. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know, I'll give you these cases, these are what we're guided by. WILLIAM NIC~L': I'm not questioning in any way .your authority, these are questions that I have that seem a little l~dicrous. I think that any dispose of the present pm I think that's what the in r're not there to solve water all ':re there presumably to give c ,. decisions. They f:eel, I guess,~that water, sewage and. other prob- lems belong to: %he bureaucrats who. run the:municipalities, which is simply another waY of saying that ~so~e of these t~ingS are beyond us. that, we can't act on what we individually think would be best, it's more in accordance with what custom and precedence dictate. Are there any other questions? Southold Town. Board of Appeals -42~ August 4, 1977 (There was no response.) I'll tell you one thing we can do. We can ma~e this subject to Board of Health approval. We never used to do that, but the counsel for the Town indicates that we can do that occasionally. I suggest that we put in a condition on this action that this division of property shall not take place unless Board of Health approval is obtained for both water and sewage. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property with insufficient area, Dicks Point Road and Holden Avenue, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that this application will not seriously affect the water supply or sewage disposal possibilities in this area. 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 ir~uediate vicinity of this property and an the same use ~istrict; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On mo~ion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Lillian Van Dusen, 5305 Westpath Way, Washington, D.C~ be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area, Dicks Point Road and Holden Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: This division of property shall not take place unless Board of Health approval is obtained for both water and sewage. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Appeal No.~23'14 - 10:30 P.M. ~E.D.S.Ti~ orge Bambr~ck, 46 cedars Roa~,i i~i~i~We~ New a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to constr~ct dwelling with insufficient setback and rear yard. Lo- Cation of proper~ty: Lake Drive and Lake Court, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Lake Drive; east by Sondericker; south by Sondericker; west by Lake Court. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication inLthe official newspapers, notice to the applicant, Southold Town Board of Appeals ~43- August 4, 1977 and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also r.ead statemen~t from the Town Clerk tha't notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Sondericker. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a photostat of the County tax map indic~ting,~also a sketch of the area, indicating that the lot is 115' in depth. It's a cornerhlot, Lake Court and Lake Drive, and the frontage on Lake Drive to the north is 49'. The frontage on Lake Court is on two courses, 73' and 40'. The depth of the lot, the south'end of the lot is 71'. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak ... they propose to place the house in the southeast corner of the lot away from the residence of Sondericker who is on Lake Drive. GEORGE BA~.~RtCK: I'm in the process of purchasing the property in question. I had a survey done and I asked the surveyer to makk the h~use in keeping with the setback requirements. When he did that, I saw that the house would be very 6lose to the one residence that was adjacent to the lot, especially to his deck. The lot in question is a corner lot and the boundaries are two roads. On~ the other side is a vacant lot. What I'm asking is permission from the Board to move it over to center it on t~e lot a little bit. I think you'll see that the building line is 32' I believe instead of 35' I think because of the size of the lot it's not ~nreasonable, I feel,~and it would lend itself ... THE CHAIRMAN: What's the size of the ~ot, have you got it here? GEORGE BAM~RICK: It's about 7,000 sq. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: And you're surrounded by Sondericker. GEORGE BA/4BRICK: I believe Mr. Sondericker is here. THE CHAIR/~N: Are you buyzng it from Mr. Sendericker? GEORGE BAMBRICK: No I'm not, I'm buying it from an0%her party. THE CHAIRMAN.: It's a very small lot, maybe Mr. Sondericker can tell us when it was created. HE] Frankly, I'm to be J I last week and he ~ I assume the a legal sized lot, I'm not familiar with all of the Town ordinances. Aside from that, Mr. Bambrick told me that the purpose for the v~riance that he was trying to get from the Board was concerning the setback to move the house away from our place, it would be very close to our deck, and as he s~aues in the appli- cation, the topographical nature of the land, the way the house would be set it would actually over~ook our deck. Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- August 4, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean the second floor would he overlooking it because it looks to me like a sa~d h©le now. HERBERT SONDERICKER: Not where the house is proposed. That would be up in front. Where the proposed house is is the high point which borders on my other piece of property. This is the map that I have. (The Board and Mr. Sondericker discussed the property.) The reason I came tonight was really for clarification as much as anything else. When I saw in the paper the notice ... THE CHAIRMAN: Is this sketch correct? GEORGE BAM~RICK: As far as I know, it was done by Mr. Van Tuyl. HERBERT SONDERICKER: This is similiar to our map, I ha~e a copy of that also. The notification in the paper stated "insuffi- cient rear yard." THE CHAIRMAN: That's standard operating procedure on a small lot. Almost everything he does on this lot is a violation of today's ordinance. GEORGE BAMBRICK: The requirement is 25 on a corner angle. If I kept that 25' and also the 35' on this side, it would bring me down and toward Mr. SonderiCker's residence. I also want to clarify that it's my understanding from the Building Inspector and the present owner of the property that it's a buildable lot insofar as it was single and separate prior to 1970 I believe the rule is. THE CHAIRMAN: 1957. That's buildable, certainly it's a legal lot. I think the Board of Health would just about be able to get ... where's your well? HERBERT SONDERICKER: point, right o~er here (on map.) THE CHARON: The well and cesspool are apart. I think I read the other day where the a little bit in sandy conditions, he certainly has wo~ld not place the house any closer than 32' to ... My well is probably the closest possible to be 100' 'that you GEORGE BAMBRICK: I just want to clarify one thing, there's a porch here also, a ~eck. A 12' deck towards Lake Court. But the corner of the house, the structure, would be 32'. THE CHAIRMAN: And there would be no intention of ~nclosing under the deck. There's a faint line here, is that the deck? Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- August 4, 1977 GEORGE BAMBRICE: Yes. I was under the impression that you were required to enclose underneath, under the deck. THE CHAIRMAN: It might be a local rule if you've got a property owners association or something that might require it. My understanding of this is that the main house would be at least 32' from Lake Court and from the main house extending toward Lake Court would be a 12' deck the full length of the house, is that correct? What's the length of the house? GEORGE BAMBRICK: Yes. The house is 24'. THE CHAIRMAN: The southerly side of the house will be no closer than 16' to the southerly line adjoining Sondericker. The easterly side yard will be no closer than 12'3" to the side yard. The property is afflicted with two front yards, it's an undersized lot approximately 7,000 sq. ft. Is there anybody who wishes to object to the application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient setback and rear yard, Lake Drive and Lake Court, Southo~d, New York. The findings of the Board are that the applicant has an unusual hardship. The property is an undersized lot of approxi- mately 7,000 sq. ft. and is a corner lot having two front yards. 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 mn 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. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, George Bambrick, 46 Cedars Road, Caldwell, New ersey he. GRANTED permission to construct dwelling with insuf- idi~setback and rear y~rd, Lake Drive and Lake Court, SouthOld, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The ~ai~house shall be no closer than 32' to Lake Court, no closer than 16' to the southerly line adjoining Sondericker, and no closer than 12'3" to the easterly side line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Glllispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 PUBLIC EEARING: Appeal No. 2312 - 10:45 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of Gustav Bartra, 227 Brea'kwater Road, Mattituck, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C and 100-32 A for permission to con- struct radio and T.V. towers exceeding maximum height. Location of property: Right-of-way, east side Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Stupiello and Maione; east by Donald Cooper; south by right-of-way, D. Cooper; west by Cannone. 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 from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Vincent Stupiello; Mrs. Gussie Cannone; Peter Maione; Donald Cooper. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The location of this property, the property of Mr. Gustav Bartra, is on a private right-of-way next to the farm of David Cooper off of Luthers Road, the right-of-way comes off of Luthers Road. The lot is about 150' by 248' in depth on one side, 300' plus on the other side. The location of the towers that are there now is in the front yard and as I understand it, they have no permits. I also have some letters here in opposition to this application. I'll read those after we see who wants to speak for this application. Is there anyone here who wants to speak for the application? (There was no response.) Is Mr. Bartra here? GUSTAV BARTRA: Yes, I'm here. I couldn't say any more than what I said already. THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to ask you how high those two towers are that you have up there now, there are two towers, right? GUSTAV BARTRA: Yes, right next to each other. One is 28' and the other is 60'. THE CHAIRMAN: Were you aware that neither one of them is permissible without a permit from the Town. G~STAV BARTRA: No, I wasn't aware, that's why I'm filing now. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this applicat&on? (There was no response.) Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the application? I assume that some of the people who wrote these letters are here. Southold Town Board of Appeals -47~ August 4, 1977 I'll read these letterscfirst and then you can add to them or whatever you want. These letters are in opposition to the appli- cation. (The Chairman read the July 15, 1977, letter to the Board from Mr. and Mrs. Donald J. Cooper.) Normally, we read everything in objection to an application before we permit you any ... I think that's the simplest way to do it. If Mr. and Mrs. Cooper want to add anything to the letter that they've written, are Mr. and Mrs. Cooper here? ROBERT BERGEN: No. (The Chairman read the July 15, 1977, letter to the Board from Peter G. and Doris M. Maione, and the July 11, 1977, letter from Gussie Cannone.) THE CHAIRMAN: You added this part about the tower for a windmill? GUSTAV BARTRA: Yes, I misunderstood the information that I got from Mr. Terry and I th6ught that I was supposed to have this application signed by each person. So I went to each neighbor and explained what I was planning to do. Now, one of the neighbors told me that she would have objections to a windmill tower so I said "Look, I already bought the tower but.si don't want to cause any problems, I'll just use it in conjunction with the others for a ham radio antenna." I put them right next to each other and made a single structure. In other words, it's yes, I went around to each ... THE CHAIRMAN: I guess originally you had one aeriel and you had both things on it, the ham radio and the antenna, is that correct? GUSTAV BARTRA; Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Then you bought another tower which you propose to put a windmill on, perhaps, hut instead of putting a windmill on it you transferred to television recep%-ion to the windmill tower. GUSTAV BARTRA: I could use that tower either for a windmill or television reception. THE CHAIRMAN: You've got some kind of an antenna on the shorter structure now. Is that the ham radio on the 28' tower? GUSTAV BARTRA: Right now on the 28' one I have the television antennas. I would like a little more height for that. On the 60' Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 mast, I have my ham radio antenna. However, because of the pre- carious situation up there, it,s a mess, 1 cannot mount the regular rotatable ham radio set. THE CHAIRMAN: You have to rotate those? GUSTAV BARTRA: It's very nice to be a ham radio amateur with a rotatabl~ antenna so you can talk to Europe with a lot of power or California or all over. PETER MALONE; Make a note of that power. THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to bring that up a little later, I don't k~ow exactly how to conduct this but my understanding is that when you are using your ham radio, it interferes with tele- vision reception in the area. GUSTAV ~ARTRA: I notified every neighbor that if they"have any inter: ~nCe, to please call me. So far I've had callS from two thinking that I was interfering. I wasn't even using the I went on my own finding out who are these C.B. area in the area and I have one friend among them Who has one ,e~y close to my house and he told me that he is not ~he one. I was also getting interference, he told me that he wasn't .B. radio. I went~to the lighting company ~¢ they have a leaky transformer. They'ctaim ~h~t the~ check ou~ the transformers and so forth and zero that they will have a problem with a le~kly I thought it was a leaky transformer because thi~ almost every day, it blurs channels 2~ 3., 4, 5, an et 6 from the other side. On my set it kills those channels !completely for one, two, three hours, maybe half a day. I did research and I found out, I also read the ~ we have a problem with the sunspots andyne are go . t~his problem for a year or two. Unfortunately, Mr. hl ~hinking that I'm the Cause Of the prob!~m. bo s called me once because i told all ~y ~e~ghbors if I to c~li me. One of them called me and indee~ I wa when he called me. Immediately I corrected the I monitor the interference on.my ~.V. sets. listen it stops. The interference that we all have now, and I'm sure you also have, happens continuously on all those c~hannels. Unfortunately, he probably thinks that I'm causing that problem. PETER MAIONE: Then why doesn't it go out in the daytime? It plays good all day long. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion should be through me because otherwise we'll have a brawl here. Southold Town Board of Appeals -49~ August 4, 1977 (The Chairman continued reading the letters.) THE CHAIRMAN: Did you give up on the windmill? GUSTAV BARTRA: This is what happened. When I had the idea for the windmill using that tower as a combined usage for the windmill and the ham radio, Mrs. Cannone said she would oppose the windmill because of the noise. I already bought the tower so I said, "I'll just file for a ham radio amateur tower to put all of them under the same thing, to combine the structures into one." Apparently it turned out, I don't know what happened. THE CHAIRMAN: Y6u still want a windmill? GUSTAV BART,: I would like to. THE CHAIRMAN: What's this here about your garage? GUSTAV BARTRA: It's a place where I store my materials. I don~ use that to work. THE CHAIRMAN: You're not permitted to warehouse electrical materials in a residential zone. That's a little off the subject but just in passing we might mention that you're not permitted to warehouse electrical materials or do business in a residential zone. You can park a truck which is used in you~ business not over 25' long on your property, but you can't run a business out of your garage. GUSTAV BARTRA: I'm not running the business out of the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: You're warehousing parts out of the garage, apparently you've got stock in there, right? GUSTAV BARTRA: I've got to put them someplace. THE CHAIRMAN: You should have a place of business. This is a residential area. GUSTAV BARTRA: No, it's not a residential area. THE CHAIRMAN: It' s zoned residential-agricultural. "The garage is pu.t up in such a way that he could not 'use the garage for'his vehicles without going on our property (Cannone letter) , is that correct? GUSTAV BARTRA: No, that's a lie. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm just asking you whether it's correct ok not, not if it's a lie. GUSTAV BARTRA: No, it's not correct. I got a permit to build the garage and it is 15' from ~r property. She might get upset Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -50~ August 4, 1977 because of the fact that I park my car maybe 5' from herbs. THE CHAIRMAN: But you don't use her property either in entering or approaching the garage. GUSTAV BARTRA: Not at all. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that's one thing that maybe we don't have to worry about, you've got a lot of complaints hsre. That's the end of the letters againsththe application. If you would like to re~ly to some of these things, we've covered some as we went along. PETER MAIONE: Mr. Bart~a was never here when we had a hurricane, he never saw these t~ees going down. I'd hate to have a house near his tower. DORIS MAIONE: He wants to put this new tower between our house, toward our house. THE CHAIRMAN: Your house is north of his house. PETER MAIONE: South, no you're right, north. DORIS MAIONE: He's the highest poznt. PETER MAIONE: He's on the highest point and I'm about 40' below him. GUSTAV BARTRA: NO, more like 200'. PETER MAIONE: I'm 200' below by his assertion and I have a 10' mast on the roof and I get all channels until somebody cuts in. THE CHAIRMAN: You're 200' below, you'd almost be in the water, right? GUSTAV BARTRA: He's a lot closer to the water. In other words, they have clear access to New York City, that's why he gets better reception. PETER MAIONE: My antenna is as high as his garage, the whole land goes down like that. I'm right near the asphalt tanks, you kno~ where thley are~ THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't see the antennas when we were down there. PETER MAIONE: It's only on the gable of the roof, it's only a 10' mast. I was here for Carol, I don't want-no big mast up in the air. I went to Mr. Grabe, he wanted $300 to put.an antenna an the roof with all these wires, I don't want that, I was here for hurricanes, I don't need that. THE CHAIRMAN~~ Ail right, go ahead, Mr. Bartra. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 GUSTAV BARTRA: I want to say two things. If I'm ever to interfere I would interfere ~orse if I didn't have a good antenna than if I had a good antenna. THE CHAIRMAN: Say that again. GUSTAV BARTRA: If any ham radio is to cause interference, that interference would be worse if he had a lower antenna closer to the ground. The higher you go, the more directly you have your antenna, the less interference if you do that you might create. THE CHAIRMAN: You're stating that as a fact, I don't know ~nything about it. GUSTAV BARTRA: I'm a licensed ham .radio amateur. The other point I wanted to make is, of course I respect all of Mrs. Cannone's opinions, and I also want to say that she has a business. She resents very much the fact that I'm there and I think she is just a little selfish. She is also running a business there and all she is trying to do is protect her~interest. THE CHAIRMAN: What do you mean she's running a business? GUSTAV BARTRA: She rents the cottages, they're not even right next to my property. THE CHAIRMAN: People all over the town rent cottages or their own houses, it's not considered a business, it's a pre-existing use. PETER MAIONE: The cottages have been there 30 years. GUSTAV BARTRA: It's a regular business where she brings people from the city out every week. I think she has eight cottages. There were so many points in the letter that I wanted to comment on. THE CHAIRMAN: You were saying that Mrs. Connone resents your conducting a business and you're saying that she conducts a business. GUSTAV BARTRA: No, what I~m saying is that she resents me do~n~i~hing that she feels might affect he~. I. respect her opihion.~ ~'Bu% the interference t~at we all have, and I can assure you that~we all have it hecmuse once when I get a call from this neighbor immediately I made a call to Cutcho~ue and to my father- i~-law who's three miles behind me, and we all had exactly the sa~e problem on all of those channels. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's stop right there and get your oppositions reaction to that statement. PETER MAIONE: OK, why doesn't it happen during the daytime? I get-all channels in the daytime. Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- August 4, 1977 DORIS MAIONE: It's usually from suppertime to about i1 at nigh%. PETER MAIONE: It's all right frDm 9 in the morning until 4, 5 or 6, then something goes on. GUSTAV EARTRA: And remains continuously on, right? DORIS MAIONE: Just until 11. GUSTAV BARTRA: It doesn't go on and off sharp. PETER MALONE: We get all kinds of waving. GUSTAV BARTRA: But you don't see the picture clearly and then lose it completely? PETER MAIONE: I don't think we're here to discuss an F.C.Cc complaint, I think we're just here to discuss the safety of the towers. THE CHAIRMAN: That's the point I was going to make before we got through here, that we are not equipped to arbitrate or decide matters involving ham radios, that's a matter for the F.C.C. If Mr. Maione and others have an objection to his operation of ham radios, I think, for the reason of interferehce, I think that you would have to take it up with them. All I know is that we can't handle it here. GUSTAV BARTRA: That's correct, I told them that. PETER MAIONE: We've had trouble in other places, in New York we had trouble with hams. You write a letter to the F.C.C. and they just tell you to put a filter on your own ~et. Why should everybody in Mattituck put a filter on their set because he wants to operate a ham, let him put a filter on. GUSTAV BARTRA: You are very unreasonable. If you really think that ~,m interfering even though you know there are a l~t oflCB r~io~ama~eurs and they are not either interfering, get in touch with~the F.C.C. and if they believe you, they wili c6me an~ check.my set. I'll be very glad to shoW them that I~have the necessary equipment to correct the situation. THE CHAIRMAN: OK, let's skip anything involving the ham radio except the height of the tower. As far as this Board is concerned, you do not have permission to operate a ham radio from a tower over 18' high. You'll have to bring your ham radiol;'d6wn to 18', that's as far as we can control you. As far as your ~..V. reception is concerned, we have in many places all over the Town, granted higher T.V. reception antennas because of the dif'ficultyof reception out here in some areas and because Cablevision is spotty around the Town. Are there any other questions? We can't handle the radio interference problem. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4, 1977 PETER MAIONE: If there's any towers put up, they should be clear of any buildings, his own building too, he's got kids too, you know. He's got a telephone pole up there 60' high. He wasn't here for Carol. THE CHAIRMAN: Were you her~ for the lady we had last August? GUSTAV BARTRA: That pole is properly guyed. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but there was hardly any wind then. GUSTAV BARTRA: I can show you antennas all over Southold without licenses that are 40' and 50' high. I was trying to be nice and get a license for it. I have friends that have licensed towers here in Southold, in Southold Town. THE CHAIRMA/~: I think we licensed one ham radio operator. I think it was a 30' Sower. GUSTAV BARTRA: That's a friend of mine, it's a 50' tower. It's in Cutchogue. I do know that you also licensed a tower for a windmill. As a matter of fact, the fellow I got the tower from that had the windmill, he told me he got a permit. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we've licensed several windmills. Ail I'm saying is that where we've had this many complaints from your neighbors about the interference with their televisions, the only thing that we can do is require that you not put ham radio facilities on a stru~cture which is over 18' in height. We don't wanu it over 18', that's permitted in the Ordinance. We can't prevent you from having a ham radio or television, we're speaking now of ham radios and apparently that's what these people objected to. If apparently doesn't happen elsewhere or we certainly would have heard of it. GUSTAV BARTRA: You've never heard of what? THE CHAIRMAN: Ham radio interference with neighbors. GUSTAV BARTRA: They think that because I'm the only radio amateur in the area, and I told them before, if they have any interference and if they hear my voice to please call me. They did call me but if wasn't me. I can prove, definitely, that it isn'~ me. I can have the F.C.C. come, check my radios, and I can have an authority from the F.C.C or from any government agency to prove that it's not me. The argument that I'm causing interference, I think it's wrong. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wi'shes to speak? What do you think ought to be done, Mr. Maione? PETER MAIONE: I have no objection against his T.V. tower but ham radios but there still should be some type of Ordinance about the type of pole he has, it would cut his house in half if it fell down. Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- August 5, 1977 THE CHAIRF~AN: I'd worry about that too because I've been through at least a dozen hurricanes down here. I lost a tree about that big ... GUSTAV BARTRA: A tree might fall on3your house which is worse than a tower. I had three trees fall behind my house, if they were in the front they would have caused kremendous damage. My towers didn't even move. THE CHAIRMAN: How is your tower.guyed? GUSTAV BARTRA: It's guyed from three separate points at two separate heights. They are spaced 120° and they are heavy duty guys. They go out 28' from the base. That is the reason why I wanted to compound this with this windmill tower, not to use it as a windmill because I knew there were going to be ob- jections. I wanted to compound it, put them right next to each other so that it would be a lot stronger. That would allow me also to put an antenna with a rotater which is a must for ham radio work. That would create less interference. If I don't have the right height, if I do create interference which I don't think I do, it would be worse lower. DORIS MAIONE: The ones he has now are in front of his house they're the highest ones 0n our area. When he spoke to me and my sister he told us he was going to put them in his back yard. THE CHAIRMAN: Personally, I think accessory structures should be in the rear yard or side yard, but there are cases where we have put accessory structures in the front yard if the~e"~s good reason for it. If everybody else on the street has one or if the back yard of the house faces on the water, they put the garage in the front yard. This of course is a right-~of-way, there's ~obody across the street. I suppose you've got it there because it's the highest point on your land, is that correct? GUSTAV BARTRA: Not only that, I just want to men~ion to you that approximately half a mile from my houlse in a straight line m~ and New York City, I have MattitUck Hills Which he being closer to the water. I found ~an an s %ha on top of ~y house gets me almost nowhere. The for the ham radi~. If you look at~a map, you York is southwest of us, of my house, and right there, i'was always wondering why my reception wasn't any good. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any question that the hills are between you and New York. GUSTAV BARTRA: That's right, those hills are around 180' in that direction. THE CHAIRMAN: Bnt because the hills are between you and New York is no reason why Mr. Maione and half a dozen other people have to have bad television reception. Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- August 4, 1977 GUSTAV BARTRA: I understand that, but as I said I'm willing to go through any legal procedure to demonstrate that I'm not causing the interference. THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to ~e that some of the questions that were brough.u~ here are beyond us and beyond the opposition too. I don't th'ih~r. Maione knows enough about it and he's probably admit it about ham radios to know how much they could interfere with surrounding television3reception. What little I know about the F.C.C., they hardly respond to anything other than explosions. GUSTAV BARTRA: I guess if you sendC~them a letter, they would. THE CHAIRMAN: And if we write them a letter, maybe we could find out whether what Mr. Maione is saying is correct, and back up what you're saying. GUSTAV BA~TRA: I don't know if anybody read the p~pers a couplH of m6nths ago saying about the sunspots, for maybe one year we're going to have this problem. Every eleven years we have this problem. THE CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what. I suggest we recess this hearing and we'll try to write a letter to the F.C.C. explaining the facts. We'll recess this for six weeks anyway. Maybe we can solve it that way, I don't know. If you're not the cause of the bad reception, then if we wipe him out, you're still going to have bad reception, we'd better find that out if we can. PETER MAIONE: But is that in connection with the towers? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, he says he needs more than 18' for his ham radio. SERGE DOYEN, JR.: Also when you write that letter you might ask the F.C.C. if an 18' tower, if it caused interference, distortion might be worse than 60' THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, if we force him to bring his ham radio down to 18' which is the only thing we can do, it might make it worse for you. (The Board, Mr. Bartra, and Mr. and Mrs. Maione continued discussing the situation.) On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the public hearing upon application of Gustav Bartra, Appeal No. 2312, be RECESSED to September 15, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -56~ August 4, 1977 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the $outhold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes dated July 14, 1977, subject to minor correction. Uote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes dated July 22, 1977. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messr.s: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigon~s, Doyen. Seven (7) Sign Renewals were reviewed and approved as submitted. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the next m~eting of the Southold ~own Board of Appeals be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), Thursday, August 25, 1977, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis Doyen. Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, 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.), Friday, August 12, 1977, at the Town Ha~l, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote o~ the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Knights of Columbus, Stirling Council, No. 768, be ~RANTED permisszon to hold a carnival on the Greenport PoloJ Grounds, August 23 through August 28, 1977, subject to the condition that the posters can be erected no sooner than two weeks Southold Town Board of Appeals -57- August 4, 1977 prior to the event and must be removed within the week following the event. Vo~e of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis Doyen. The secretary was instructed to write to George McCarthy, P.O. Box 12i, Laurel, informing him that the Board "opposes the granting of any building permits for either of the portions of your land which would remain after the State condemns your property for a State highway." The secretary was.also instructed to write to Arthur Schneider, Island H~licopter Corp., Garden City, advising him tha~ "the B~ard is in agreement with your request, and you are therefore granted an extension of twenty days in which to remove the helicopters from Mr. Orlowski's property." The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.M. (E.D.S.T.~. Re~ect~ll~ s~mitted,