Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/23/1978 APPEAL BOARD MEMBEI~S Robert W. Gillispie, ,Jr., Chairman Rober~ Bergen Charl ss Grigonis, Jr. Serse Doyen~ Jr. Ja~es Mai~ne Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11971 Telephone 765,~'~ 1802 MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals March 23, 1978 A regular meeting of the Southo~d Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), 23, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold [. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; James Maimone. Also present: Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters. 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) - Mr. John Malinowski, Second and King Streets, New Suffolk, New York, requested an informal discussion With the Board relative to a variance he received on January 12~ 1978, for his building on King and Second Streets in New Suffolk. JOHN MALINOWSKI: Mr. Chris backed out and I don't think it's necessary to fight it, it's better to drop the case and let the Town save their money. It's no use to rezone the place now, he's not going to take it. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. It seems to me that this is about as specific a variance as you could produce. There wouldn't be one in a hundred thousand others who could exactly fit this variance. You would incur quite a bit of additional expense if you had to defend this. ESQ.: That is correct and it's also a matter there's no point in it. As soon as ~ Chris had died and was beyond any form contact with Town counsel to advise ~Lhem of that and we fermulated the idea that, with your approval, we would ask that this particular variance be withdrawn, rescinded, so that it would.render the action that is presently before the Supreme Court mute and hopefully will end any further expense here. Certainly Mr. Malinowski appreciates the consideration that was given 'to him in the granting of the variance in the first place. We appreciate how specific the variance was, and, as you said, there's not a chance is a hundred or a thousand that anyone else would come along who could fit the specific terms you tailored for Mr. Chris' operation. Southold Town Board of Appeals March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: That's why it was so difficult, of course most people don't understand Zoning too well, but obviously if you had a change of zone it would have been much worse for New Suffolk because any one of a number of things could go into a change of zone such as Light Industrial. It would be unlikely that the Town would ever change the zone to Light Industrial right in the middle of a residential area so that the proper solution in this case was to come to the Board of Appeals for a variance which we thought would greatly lessen the difficulties that existed there before. In other words, New Suffolk would have enjoyed quieter, less traffic and so forth. Whether you can get somebody else that would occupy the place under the same conditions, I don't know. In other words, if you get somebody else it may be worse than the one they had, I don't think the people in New Suffolk realize what a good deal they had. EDWARD J. BOYD, ESQ.: Whether we get anyone else at all is the question to which we must address ourselves. THE CHAIRMAN: There are several places around town where nobody has appeared at all to rent buildings, as you probably know. I think that, in the past, we have rescinded at the request of the applicant, but Counsel thinks that we should formally s~hedule this for the next meeting and do it with adequate public notice, so that's what we'll do. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, John Malinowski, Appeal No. 2380, be scheduled for rescinding at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 13, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: '--Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. 7~45 P.M. - Review of Appeal No. 2161, Howard Zehner, Young's Boatyard and Marina, Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, to insure that there is adequate parking for the mem?bership club. (The Chairman read the July 22, 1976, action of the Board,~ We're a little late in checking on this but our delig found this and so we're bringing it to your attention now. I think one of the reasons we wanted to review it was that nobody had any idea how many members there would be or how many parking spaces would be needed. Are you here for this? DOROTHY ZEHNER: Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Under our Ordinance I think it was required that there be one space for every two members or lockers, whichever is gr~r. Did you have a restricted number of members, did you have a l~t of members, how did it work out? DOROTHY ZEHNER: We will have a restricted number, last year we didn't have full membership. But we have no problem with parking, we have parking from the road right up to the club and there's parking facilities where the boats are so it's more than adequate. THE CHAIRMAN: I believe the people who are members of the marina, it's a membership club anyway, isn't it, the marina? DOROTHY ZEHNER: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: But you have certain classes of membership, some are boats, some for tennis and some for swimming. How many swimming members did you have, just out of curiosity? DOROTHY ZEHNER: We had 20 family memberships last year. THE CHAIRMAN: Did that cover tennis, too? DOROTHY ZEHNER: Yes, we had 20 family memberships total. THE CHAIRMAN: Running along the tennis courts there's a space 25' by 250' for parking which would certainly seem to be adequate. DOROTHY ZEHNER: If it ever gets to the point where there is an overflow, as I said, it adjoins the boatyard and all the boats are in the water at that point, so we have all that space in there for parking. THE CHAIRMAN: The only other thing that I could suggest is that you do something about those potholes. DOROTHY ZEHNER: They're terrible, we're working on them now. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's all we need to know. Apparently parking is no problem. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2396 - 7:55 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Patrick Edward and Linda Martz Lyons, Main Road, Orient, New York for a special exception in accolrdance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118 D for permission to reinstate non-conforming, two-family use. Location of property: North side Main Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by D. Rose; east by Finkle; south by Main Road; west by D. Moore. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 23, 1978 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: David and Janet Moore; Philip and Elayna Finkel; Donald and Janis Rose. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The tax map accompanying this application indicates that the property is on Route 25 in Orient adjoining the gasoline service station on the north side of the road. Also we have a sketch here of the floor plans, the first and second floors of the house as well as a survey of the lot which indicates that the lot has an area of 31,928 sq. ft. This survey is dated October 7, 1977, by Van Tuyl. The frontage on the North Ro~d is approximately 134+'. On the north end it widens out to 179+' and' the depth on the east side is 219+'~ on the west side 192+'. In other words, it's just over three-quarters of half the si~e requ~ed for a two-family dwelling under the present Ordinance. In the rear of this property, on the County tax map, is a subdivision with lots which are generally two a~s or more. There is an un- developed piece to the northwest. T~at covers what we've got in the file. Is there anybody presen~ who wishes to speak for this application? GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: With me I have my two clients, Mr. and Mrs. Lyons, and Mr. Lyons knows this house far better than I, he's been through it, and he would like to make a presentation to you which I think you will find informative. PATRICK LYONS: I've got a little, if you'll bear with me, a little presentation that I did which I hope you'll find informative and which will give you a little better idea of what we're trying to communicate in requesting the variance here. THE CHAIRMAN: When did you buy this house? PATRICK LYONS: The closing was the t5th of ] . sir. My wife and I have been visitors in the Orie years, we've rented houses in the summer and be a w~nderful idea to someday have a house ol realities what they are, we looked at prop seemed to be a little unsatisfactory at tha mentioned there ~as a house available, it was but perhaps we'd like to look through it. Events being what they were, we bought the house on the 15th of February. We had just finiShed a three-year pro~ect of a house in Brooklyn, a renovation of a brownstone in the Park Slope section, and I feel that the expertise that renovation gave me wiI1 be greatly helpful in this project as well as~the money from the refinancing gav~ uS a start on it. I have a little book here that we've prepared as part of Economic ~nt. A frisn~ great disrepair Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- March 23, 1978 a proposal to the bank showing some of the work that we did on the ho~se in Brooklyn if you'd like to pass it around and look at that. The house in Brooklyn was in much worse condition that the one in Orient and that's what gave me the idea that it certainly was a feasible project. The house we are talking about is this house right here (Mr. Lyons showed the Board a pictural layout of the house).. It's on the north side of the Main Road in Orient, and right now it's in pretty bad shape. When we saw the house initially, the idea, because it was so large we thought that the second unit was an absolute feasibility financially and for other reasons, and we later found out that it was, most likely at one time, a two-family house. The economic viability of the house itself, as Mr. Stankevich said, is these days a house too large to heat economically, mortgage payments, so forth and so on. This house was probably built at a time when families were much larger as well as the second unit that someone occupied. These days, those conditions no longer exist. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know when it was built? PATRICK LYONS: We have an idea that it was built somewhere between 1880 and 1910. I don't know for a fact, it's only through ruiner. THE CHAIRMAN: You say that when you bought it you didn't realize ... PATRICK LYONS: At the time it was not immediately evident to us that it was a two-family unit. However, the following evidence which I'd like to show you sort of backs up the claim that it was. Here w~£~have a floor plan of the first ~.~and the second floor in the house. As you saw in the first photograph, it ~ctually, physically is two §~p&~te houses. This is a second, two~story house joined by a porch' and a connecting wing here, and thi!s is the main house, this is the scene from the back end of it. This is from the front (in photos) the small house is back there. This is one side with the separate house physically at~ached to it but they are two separate hoUses. In the small house in the rear we h~ve a bathroom upstairs, as you can see here, and then down- stairs there was, in the small house back here again, the stove was there and this is the sink. In the main house, we have a second bathroom here on the ground floor and there was evidence of some pipes and a sink that's been removed in this area here Which served as, I believe, a kitchen. The cistern, which is incorrectly drawn here, was under this room over here, I had two pipes going to the floor Which do not protrude through the floor so in the past couple or.years I don't know what happened the fixtures or what have you. ~ But, as you can see though, there were two separate units in the house. ~r. Norklun is doing some construction work for us and hopefully will finish the project for us and he mentioned that he had heard that the family that last occupied the house, the Karchers, there was a Mr. and Mrs. Karcher that occupied the front half of this main house and a brother-in-law that actually occupied the second dwelling back here as a separate unit. These days I Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 23, 1978 think that situation is called a "mother-daughter" where there possibly a related relative but retaining a separate dwelling unit entirely separate from the main one. The other reasons for the second unit which we thouqht is, initially we'll be using the house solely as a weekend house and in the summer, and the thought of having a house this large sitting out there unoccupied most of that time is a little scary to me, I'd like t~e idea of someone living in it and being there throughout winters and also in case of burglers or whatever. The financial consideration Mr. Stankevich will go over with us but it is imperative, as I said, the mortgage loan that we were given was based on income being derived from rental unit. The house we have in Brooklyn has a rental unit in it also which enables us to afford the renovation as well as main- tain a rather expensive mortgage and taxes in that city. We are, my wife and I, requesting that you look favorably upon the variance and we feel that when the house is completed, this is a sketch of what we hope it will look like when it is finished, it will be nothing but a benefit to the community. There are other rental units in the area and although there seems to be a scarcity of rental units in the Orient a~ea, young single people or couples that would like, for example, to live in the area possibly don't have a place to live because there a~e, mainly, one-family houses there. We would like to find someone to be there p~rmanently year-round. Also, the benefit to the community of turning a house which is generally now an eyesore and a safety hazard like this into whaH we hope Will be a renovated house which will be a historical benefit to the come, unity, there will be a sense of pride and enjoyment, not Only for us but for the community as a whole. Also with us this evening is Mr. Dave Moore and Mr. Philip Finkle, they're our neighbors, and Mr. Norklun who's our contractor. If you'd like to ask me any questions or them or Mr. Stankevich. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You like in Brooklyn now and you will use this in the summertime? PATRICK LYONS: Weekends and in the summer with eventually ... I would like to move out tomorrow but, unfortunately, my wife and I have occupations, we're both graphic designers and have a small advertising agency, we're tied right now to the city. I wish it weren't so, believe me. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions anybody like to ask? GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: I'd just like to show the other gentlemen%down at this end these photos. The main prop, legally, for the making of this application to you is the fact that it's obvious there are two units here as constructed. THE CHAIRMAN: When was that picture taken, the one on your right? GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: That was taken this winter, February. LINDA LYONS: Just about a month ago. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: When you look at it from the road you don't see this. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: No, ~Ou don't. You have to go around the back. JAMES MAIMONE: We went down Tuesday and we didn't see the back. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Just go right around the back. CHARLES GRIGONIS: From one angle it looks like there's a wing there but now I can see where it's been separated. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: It~apparent that either that was built that way or was moved on and for many years was used as two physical units and two living units. WILLIAM TERRY: Can I speak for just a moment? We have no objections to it, we'd just like to get the thing straight. Bill Karcher and May Karcher and John Karcher were all brothers and sister. THE CHAIRMAN: I remember, they were here when I came. WILLIAM TERRY: As far as we can find, talking to the nephew and a few people left in Orient, it was never a two,family house. It's immaterial as far as I'm concerned, just to straighten out the facts. THE CHAIRMAN: How do you accoun~ for those two houses being moved along side of each other? Or do you suppose they were? GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: There was a third at one time, so it was a brother-brother-daughter house instead of a mother-daughter kind of thing. WILLIAM TERRY: There was kind of a wood-shed barn out in the back which Lorraine's mother bought and moved up to the Sound. But we believe it was never more than a one-dwelling house. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: But there are two houses there, right? WILLIAM TERRY: They lived ... do you know anything about this? I hope I'm helping you out. They lived back here in the kitchen witk the bedroom upstairs in our !if~time and they went in there for their minister's parlor and living room. But as far as we know, they never lived upstairs in that part. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: There are two houses though? WILLIAM TERRY: It looks like two houses, correct. LORRAINE TERRY: There were three buildings, one was moved away. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -8- March 23, 1978 GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: This confirms the position that we've taken, that there are two buildin~Sthere. Whether you call it a mother-daughter ... WILLIAM TERRY: But not a multiple dwelling. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: That may be your opinion but the law says that there are many people living here, people fight about this all the time, is it a grouper, are they related by blood? Obviously it's a very large premises and ~his is our point. THE CHAIRMAN: Very large. As nearly as I could estimate the floor area by the blueprints I've got here, it's about 1,800 to 2,000 sq. ft., which is not very large, small ranches run about 1,200. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: But large also as they're split apart. THE CHAIRMAN: You could really say that it's large~enough so that it could accommodate two dwelling units. /GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: It appears to us to be built in that fashion. Also, the neighborhood does have a considerable number of older homes that have been used for many years for two or three- family purposes. THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to have some verification of that because I'd like to tell you a little story. About 20 years a:qo when we first started this we took the view that old abandoned houses probably should be bouqht before the Board of Appeals and, providing circ~lmstances were ~roper, that the Board should grant variances to convert these to two-family use rather than have them fall apart. On.Skippers Lane in Orient there was a house that had, seems to me it had about 16 rooms in it. A felloW from East Moriches bought it and he was going to put his brothe~ On tke top floor~ and he'd go on the bottom floor. Everybody in Orient objected to that and appeared, standing room Only, outside the windowS and down the hall in the old, abandoned bedroom we had for a hearing room, and in spite of their objections we contin~ in our believe that this should.be granted and did grant it. It was appealed to the Supreme Co~urt to the Appellate Division and we were reversed by the Court of Appeals in Albany with the chastisement that this was a function of the Town Board to make the law in the Town, not a function of the Board of Appeals. In doing this, we have since been very, very careful about granting two-family use for any premises which aren't twice the size of the normal requirement. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: In other words, the 80,000 sq. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, we're reinforced by tremendous water studies and zoning studies which bear out the fact we all know, that water is limited on the North Fork of Long Island. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- March 23, 1978 GEORGE ST~NKEVICH, ESQ.: I think I'd address myself to that and the reason we're here is, we certainly know the history of your decision~ on large homes. We feel that this is different from all of t~ose because, in fact, you actually do have two buildings here. This is not the normal situation, it is different, not only the physical configuration of the building but we have found, by ripp~g apart these walls and what not, that there have been two plu~i~g s~stems, two sets of bathrooms. Of course the Karchers are Not here, but we feel that these buildings are in design two buildings that are attached by a breezeway and a porch. This is a different circumstance from the normal large farmhouse where you are afraid of just breaking it up and allowing two, three or four families, where do you stop, and obviously the Board of Appeals is that board set up by the Town to give individual justice, not to paint with a broad brush. I think you will give us individual treatment on this, and I think that if you give us favorable treat- ment and it is litigated, we will defend your position and ours the Court of Appeals. It appears that the people of Orient ha~e not come out to Oppose this and they are well aware of it. Furthermore, I'd like to pass out to you a sheet indicating the financial feasibility on this because this is important. As you know, under, the New York Court of Appeals case of Fulling vs. Palumbo, if there is a substantial economic detriment a variance must be looked on in a way different than'normal and certain bur- dens of proof may or may not shift. THE CHAIRMAN: I think I subscribe to the theory that everybody · s~~ ~ w~t'h~-f~nano~!~a~sh~p and it cannot be used for reas6~q~t~Pply f~r a Varian~ o~ special exception. If you can Show economic injury, which you can't, I don't think I'd pursue that. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: I will pursue it b~ause I want it in the r~co~d. The fact is that this ~ the ac- st us $!6,000 and that they had of probably ~o fa~ and that there will be a $30,000 a portion of the renovation, ~ -antici- $~6~000 to renovate this struct-ure. That,s ce~tain~y as you look at the pictures. It's really de~, a d~saster, one of the worst. Now, ~e kno~ that our s on this type of proposition wou!~ belrough~y~ $26 r the mortgage, $100 ~or taxes~ $50 for maintenance and $~.5 f~ celianeous expenses such as insurance, so there,s a total of about $439 a month. If this was just one unit we feel that, on a year,round basis, you'd have about $300 a month rental coming in, if you rented the whole thing year-round. That's our estimate and that would produce a monthly loss of $139 a month, an economio losscof $139 a month. That's why, when we applied to the bank for the mortgage, looking at < the property and so forth, we felt, reasonably speaking, this was designed as two structures and Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- March 23, 1978 that a two-family would be a suitable alternative to make it economically viable to reconstruct this house. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the reasoning. It seems to me that anybody that has a summer house and can combine it with a financial return is unusual. Most people are afflicted with all the costs of rising taxes ... GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Right, but that's not what we're doing. THE CHAIRMAN: It sounds like he's merely trying to cut his losses. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: You're wrong, absolutely wrong because you're not listening to me, and you're not listening to me because when we started presenting this to you, you indicated that you would not accept it. I'm telling you that ... THE CHAIRMAN: I'll accept your reasoning on this, mathematics, but I won't accept financial consideration as hardship. My taxes are 12 times what they were a few years ago. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: If you'll let me finish, I'm trying tO tell you that we feel it's going to take $439 a month to make this Structure reasonably decent to the neighborhood. We're telling you that you're right, nobody has a .right to expect that they'll have a house for nothing so we're saying that our use of the premises would be $300 a month. That still leaves a deficit, after you take off Lyons' use of the premises of $300 a month, a deficit of $139 a month. That's where we're saying that this is a little different than just a sur0~er house somebody would be losing money on. They don't lose money because they use it and they get $300 a month use out of it. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a reason for our breaking the multi- family zoning provisions~ GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: We're not asking you to break the multi-~amily zoning provision. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: I think that's unfortunate because you're making a decision before ... THE CHAIRMAn: I'm trying to bring up all the a~gu~ents I can find here, I'm sympathetic to you', it may not sound that way, but I'm trying to draw you out here~-~i~et all the arguments th~e are. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- March 23, 1978 ¢ GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: In addition to that we say that that produces a deficit or economic loss, over and above their usage of the house, of $1,600 a year. This doesn't provide for contingencies for cost overruns or the return on the acquisition cost. That would be a~her $26,000 worth of equity capitalized at 15% would produce a $3,900 economic loss. So we're saying, grand total, that if this is used as a single family dwelling only with no other income coming in there would be a net economic loss of about $5,500 a year on it. It just wouldn't be feasible for a person to take this house and renovate it for themselves, to go through all these expenditures and all these potentialities, it's just going to lay there derelict. That's the function of presenting this financial fact sheet to you to show.you that it's just not a person trying to have a free summer house, it's a person saying that even if they absorb~ $300 worth of the expenses themselves per month, there's still a hugh net economic loss of over $5,000 a year. It's to show you that this house no way, shap~ o~ form is going to get renovated as a single-family house, it should~'~ be renovated as a single-family house because it's uneconomic and that's why it sat there for 17 years, that's a fact. We're saying that this house was designed as two buildings. We're not asking you to break the zoning, we're not saying we're~'the same as every other farmhouse because we say that if you granted us the application in this case, any other house that came in you could say, "Look, the Lyons' application is not yours. The Lyons had two houses that were attached, this is not yours." It's not a barn out in the back, it's right there and something's got to be done with it. Either blow it up or use it. We don't think it can be used as a single- family house either economically or physically. THE CHAIRMAN: Who owned it previously? PATRICK LYONS: I bought it from Mr. Finkle. G~©RGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: We~would hope on that basis that you would see fit to view this is a manner that is not the run-of-the- mill application to break a single-family house into two-family. We've gone to some expense and effort to show you what it could look like, how it does look on the inside, and to show you that the Lyons do have a track record for doing attractive renovation. They're not coming in and just painting you pretty pictures, they've done this before and they really do want to make it a decent neighbor- hood and sink roots here. PATRICK LYONS: If I could interject something just at the end here. I know the pictures all look very attractive and you hear the story about people who are fairly well heeled in New York renovating brownstones. Appearances can sometimes be de- ceiving and that's not my case at all. I bought that house in B~ooklyn when the city was going to push it down for $5,000 ~nd spent three years of my own time as a second job nailing the plaster board up myself and sanding all the floors and cleaning out all the Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 23, 1978 old blocks and scrounging because I felt that the thing had a viability. I had people up and down the block tell me I was crazy, they don't say so much anymore. I don't have a hugh bahkroll to do this, sir, and you can believe that. I think the house should be saved as close as possible to the way it was built, not clad with aluminum siding ~nd the back knocked off and turned into a barn or something like that. This is the only reason why, we don't have a lot of money going into it if you can believe that. The pictures I know look very nice but it all represents our blood, sweat and tears, quite honestly, as a second job for three and a half whole years. JAMES MAIMONE: Why would somebody go into all this problem just to lose $1,600 a year? GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Because they're not going to lose it if you grant the variance, and because they're energetic young people. They're not freeloaders. What they are showing you is that the reason this place laid vacant for seventeen years is because this type of person doesn't come around all the time and they're willing to go out there with their bare hands and hire a local contractor and dig in up to their elbows. Yes, they'll enjoy it, but they think the community and themselves will have something to benefit by later and they're just saying that the figures show why it stayed empty. It stayed empty and is derelict and dangerous because it has no viability as a single-family house. In that regard I think we're resting on the case of Fulling vs. Palumbo and what we're really asking here is either to re-establish this as a two-family because multiple people lived in it wkether it was rented out or not, we do have some evidence that there were multiple bathrooms, multiple plumbing systems, separate construction, and if that were the case,--either you can reinstate it as a two- family or you can give them a variance from the provision that requi~es 80,000 sq. ft. JAMEs MAIMONE: As the gentleman here before stated, nobody lived there but one family, as far as he could remember. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: That was his opinion that it was brothers and sisters, all adult people I assume, correct Mr. Terry? LORRAINE TERRY: It wasn't an opinion, that's a fact. WILLIAM TERRY: I worked with them, I lived with them, I did everything else with them. You understand, I'm not objecting, I just~to bring out the facts. THE CHAIRMAN: It's your opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Terry, that this actually was a single-family residence and used that way. What do you say to the fact that there were apparently two kitchens, was that just a convenience? Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- March 23, 1978 WILLIAM TERRY: In my lifetime there was never a kitchen in what I call the front house, the only kitchen was in the bi~ back house. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Of course, you don't know what existed prior to that time. By the way, how many bathrooms were there in the house, Mr. Terry? WILLIAM TERRY: One operable one, that little ... GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: How do you account for the fact that there are two bandY, rooms in it now? LORRAINE TERRY: There were two but they did not use one of them. ~RGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: But you have no objection as a neighbor? WILLIAM TERRY: I'm not objecting, I told you that right away. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Do you think it would be a benefit to the community if this were fixed up? WILLIAM TERRY: Any old house that can be fixed up is a benefit. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: There's not too many worse than this other than the Orient Inn, right? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's the question that I'm trying to establish. You have made the statement that you think this was a two-family arrangement and they say that it wasn't, and they lived there. I farmed not far from there for quite a few years but I was never in their house. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: We said that, number 1, there's two buildings, we all agree to that, there are two buildings. That's beyond dispute. THE CHAIRMAN: That in itself seems like a hardship, that's the point you're making. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: We do know that there were multiple plu~bing systems in the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Then it's your position that if this were a two-family house that the Board of Appeals is justified, after 17 years, in re-activating the two-family use? GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Under these circumstances because of the two units. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any backup? Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- March 23, 1978 GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: We'll write you a brief on it. For instances ... THE CHAIRMAN: There's another point I'd like you to deVelop too. You've made the statement that there are a number of ... it's a question of what a neighborhood is, it's never really been defined. You made the statement in here that there are many multi-family and two-family uses in the-neighborhood. To what do you refer, put that in your brief too. LINDA LYONS: Our neighbor to the west of us, Mr. Moore, has a cottage unit in the rear of his property that he rents. Mrs. Freeman, who lives catty-cornered across the road ... PATRICK LYONS: I think she has two rental or two rooms that she rents and one apartment in her house as~,well as her main dwelling and that is in one contained house. THE CHAIRMAN: And then the next house is a home for the elderly on the south side of the road. LINDA LYONS: Yes, next to Mrs. Freeman's. THE CHAIRMAN: OK, you can develop that information. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: I would also indicate that where you have this type of unusual, two buildings, two structures, economic hardship, that this Wacksberger vs. Michaelis case, which I cited to this Board before, lays out five basic criteria on which you could either reinstate or say that you would grant an area variance. In other words, because of the peculiarities of the structure ... THE CHAIRMAN: This is a use variance. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: No, I would say ... THE CHAIRMAN; I think it is, based on the Terry's testimony. GEORGE.S~ANKEVICH, ESQ.: We get to differ with that also because we think the law says that all we would ask for is a variance on the 8~,000 sq. ft., if it had to be not a reinstatement but a variance case. If that were the case the question would be how substantial is the variance, what effect it would have on the neighborhood, whether it would change the character of the neighborhood, whether the difficulty can be obviated by other mechanisims, and whether, considering the history of how it arose, would the interests of justice be served. I would say this, there's a third possibility. You could reinstate it, you could give a variance, or you could treat it under the concept of a special exception, a special permit, and then we'd get into the area of Baxter vs. Gillespie, which was a Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 23, 1978 Supreme Court case in 1969 wherein Justice Stark indicated that, when you have a sows ear and you come along with a person who wants to turn it into a silk purse, sometimes that's not a bad alternative. Let them try it. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any question about that. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: So it would help the neighborhood, I think. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? Can anyone add anything to the points that have been discussed here? DAVID MOORE: I live next door. I don't think I can add anything new except that I've lived next door to that for 10 years and I have personally chased trespassers and intruders out. They've ~sed my driveway, they come across my property. It has been a bit of a nuisance. The raccoons that live there have knocked over my garbage cans countless times and so forth. I feel that an owner-occupied, two-family residence wouldn't really hurt. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? LORRAINE TERRY: I want to make sure that you realize that I have no objectiDns to this, the proposed use of it. THE CHAIRMAN: ApparentlY no one in Orient has any objection tO this or, presumably, they'd be here. This is quite different from what happened 20 years ago. GEORGE STANKEVICH, ESQ.: Could I introduce ~hese into evidence and have them marked as Exhibits A, B, and the financial workup as Exhibit C? (Exhibit A is a presentation on the house in Orient, consisting of photos, floor plans, and drawings illustrating the projected renovation; Exhibit B is a pictoral presentation of the Lyons' renovation of a brownstone in Brooklyn; Exhibit C is the finahcial sheet.) THE CHAIRMAn: Is there anyone who wishes to add anything further speaking for this application? Anyone wish to speak against this appliCation? (There was no response.) I think what might have been said from the Board's point of view I've already said. I would suggest to our Board that we reserve decision on this until the next meeting. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- March 23, 1978 RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals RESERVE DECISION on Appeal No. 2396, Patrick and Linda Lyons, until April 13, 1978, at 7:35 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2401 - 8:37 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Charles A. Bolsch, 30 Roosevelt Street, Little Valley, New Jersey for a variance in accordance with the Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York, bounded on the north by W. Zurl; east by Tuthill Bungalow Properties, Inc.; south by Pizzarelli; west by P. Wood; Lot 2, Minor Sub. $87. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town'Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Tuthi~l Bungalow Properties, Inc.; Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Zurl; Mr. and Mrs. Peter Pizzarelli. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The County survey indicates that this original parcel consists of five acres and runs from Indian Neck Road to Hog Neck Bay. The survey shows that this property has been sub-_ divided into three parcels. 91 on Indian Neck Lane is an a~, 43,560 sq. ft. exactly. $2 is 43,164' and the third parcel, which it is proposed'the Pizzarellis will retain, is 2.9 acres. The proposal is to ~create an access road to Parcel #2 using the easterly of two driveways which come out on Indian Neck Lane. There was no way of telling where they go to because they were full of snow when we were down there. On the map is a 30' right- of-way on the easterly side of this property which apparently was set up by the Planning Board, is that correct? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: That's correct. THE CHAI~: The proposal is to avoid using that to save the trees, you'd wipe out a tremendous number of trees there if you cleared that out, wouldn't you? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I would certainly think so. It's being used to service the back lot already. THE CHAIRMAN: That driveway. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Yes, under a non-conforming usage. THE CHAIRMAN: How many houses are on this property now? Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- March 23, 1978 RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: As far as I know, just one. THE CHAIRMAN: And that's the Pizzarelli's? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN: The far one down on the Bay. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: And there's also a, I know for a fact there's a ... THE CHAIRMAN: Cottage? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I don't think so, it's on that survey, whatever's there is there. THE CHAIrWOmAN: It shows one house. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: That's it. There is a covenant that that lot will never be further subdivided. I know that for a fact because I prepared it and filed it. It's not going to be used for another lot sometime in the future, it's restricted. That's all that's ever going to be there. THE CHAIRMAN: Who would be the buyer of Lot 927 RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Olsen's client, I'm appearing for Mr. Olsen. His client, Mr. Bolsch. THE CHAIRMAN: And I assume that he will give right-of-way to Mr. Pizzarelli and that that's all arranged, no concern of ours. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN: And that there would be, since this lot isn't sold yet, ~1 ... RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It has been sold. THE CHAIRMAN: And these people have no objection to this? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: No, they want to keep it that wayt too. THE CHAIRMAN: What's their name? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Zurl. I think it's on one of those surveys. THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem we have then is with the driveway itself. The driveway should be widened to 15' to permit the passage of emergency vehicles, ambulances ... RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I don't know how wide it is now, did you measure it? Southo~ Town Board of Appeals -18- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: There was no way to measure it, it Needs a little work on it. The topsoil should be stripped and put in some bankrun. The Building Inspector can advise you on it but, for proper access, we need 15'. It doesn't mean that the whole surface has to be surfaced for a distance of 15' but you need 15' of clearance. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I don't know, I have no knowledge of it. Maybe when the trees are in full bloom you don't have enough, I don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: When we looked at it the other day there was one tree about a hundred feet down about this big around and one across from it that might cause trouble, I don't know. It should be 15' for clearance between the trees and the surface should be, have the topsoil removed, at least 6" and 6" of bankrun put in~o'r the length of this driveway. We kind of hate to authorize a right- of-wRy without being able to describe 'it but I don't know any way to describe this one. Would you say that it approximates the 30' line from the easterly side of the property? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Are you in possession of this survey? BURT LEWIS: I'm familiar with it, I sold it to them. THE CHAIRMAN: It looks here, in one of these sketches, as though the 30' runs down the middle of this driveway. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I think it does. As a matter of fact, the survey says it does. THE CHAIRMAN: But when you look down the d~iveway, the driveway durves. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: But you're talking about now, you have to go down 342' to the property. You're talking about an existing roadway that's already servicing the back piece as compared to having somebody knock it down and go along with ... it's going to be one o2 the other. THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem that we had is,~When we were there, there was snow on it. We couldn't tell what the surface was. t don't know, maybe they've done this before. Maybe we should delay the application~of this, grant the right-of-way subject to the condition that the Board looks at the road again to determine whether or not this should be done. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I think it might create a hardship to this particular applicant here because I don't know- if the property would be available then. What I'm saying is it's sither going to come to you and ask you to say, "yes" to what we have here or we'll have to go and bulldoze down and do whatever's necessary to establish the right-of-way as per the map, one or the other. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN~ Does anyone Wish to object to this application? (There was no response.) If not, I suggest that we grant this access as requested by the applicant approximately following the 30' line established on the survey of March 10, 1978, 30' from the easterly border of the minor subdivision drawn for Andrew Hahn, extending a distan~ of 342' to Plot $2 subject to the Board's examining the surface of the presently used driveway and advising whether the present drive- way ms satisfactory. That's the only way I know to handle it. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Just as a comment, what is there is what ... THE CHAIRMAN: I couldn't tell anything about it, there was snow on it. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: OK, if you go down there sometime when there's no snow, not to argue with you or anything, it's probably what everybody in that neighborhood, using the word~?'neighborhood" again, or the adjoining ... all those lots down there are long lots with these roadways and they're all the same. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm familiar with that argument. JAMES MAIMONE: We were there Tuesday and to us it looked like it was just strictly a dirt road. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: That could be what it is, like everything else there. JAMES MAIMONE: And you've got to have it 15' for the emergency trucks to go by. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It's possible it is 15', maybe it isn'~t, I don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's leave it up to the Building Inspector, he probably knGws more about it than we do. Subject to the approval of the-Building Inspector, instead of the Board examining it. Subject to the Building Inspector? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and the driveway should have 15' of clearance and adequate surface for emergency vehiCles. If he OK's it, it's al,1 ~igh% ~ith~.us. BURT LEWIS: For how long a distance? THE CHAIRMAN: 342'. I don't think that we're obligated or that we were asked to put in a driveway all the way to plot $3. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- March 23, 1978 That's going to be up to them. Actually, I don't think it's a function of the Board to go further than we're asked to go on this. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: It's a non-conforming situation, i~'s been there forever. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a fact, though, that the Board should be concerned with proper access for ambulances, fire engines and so on. If they go down there and get stuck, we wouldn't want it to be our fault. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests approval of access, right-of-way off Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this~property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change~ the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, Charles A. Bolsch, 30 Roosevelt Street, Little Valley, New Jersey be GRANTED approval of access o~r t~i~xisting easterly right-of-way off Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New~k, to Lot ~2 of Minor Subdivision 987.~-.-~ right-of-way should have 15' of clearance and is subject to the approval of the Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gitlispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2399 - 8:55 P.M. (E.S.T.) uponA~pplication of Wilford Kryger, 130 Washington Drive, Center- port, New York for a~variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front yard Setback. Location of property: Westphalia Road and Deer Drive, Mattituck~ New York; Lot 919, Map of Deer Park, Filed Map ~3204. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Joseph Deerkoski. Fee paid ~- $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant has a lot on the northwest corner of the intersection of Westphalia Road and Deer Drive. It's borders on marshland which is controlled by the Department of Environmental COnservation. They have indicated that they want a 60' setback from the marsh for the rear property line of the proposed house, you haven't built the house yet, have you? WILFORD KRYGER: No. THE CHAIRMAN: And this involves reducing the front yard setback on Deer Drive to 26' instead of the minimum 35' on an undersized lot, a 50~ setback under the present Ordinance. So the applicant proposes to place the house 60' from Westphalia Road and 26' from Deer Drive, which will give plenty of room for visibility for cars entering Westphalia Road from Deer Drive. Anyone present wish to speak for this application? WILFORD KRYGER: Only that, subsequent to my filing, the Board of Health has specifically located the well and the septic tank and it really puts me in a bind. I have enlarged this ... THE CHAIRMAN: You're going to put the water on the corner of Westphalia Road and Deer DriVe and the cesspool 100' to the south. WILFORD KRYGER: That's correct, I must do that. They're quite specific about that as the DEC is specific where I'm to locate my house and where I'm to put my driveway. I had to change my sketches because they would-not permit me to go near the wet- lands with my driveway for fear of runoff. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail I can say is, we're lucky to have a Board of Appeals. All these boards are adamant, nobody would ever get anywhere. WILFORD KRYGER: I have an enlargement of this if it would be of any assistance to you. Ed Bage has my plans for the house, I had hoped to have them herr to show you. It's a fUll-time house, we are a retired couple and we plan to live h~me permanently. As a matter of fact, my house is going to look somethin~ like this which is a picture of a house in East Setauket, built in 1735. I'm planning to build exactly that using those~dimensions. Of course, the inside is going to be a little bit different. I couldn't hardly get into this one, it has very low ceilings. ~HE-~kIRMAN: Is there anybody present who wishes to speak against ~his~application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct dwelling with insufficient South01d Town Board of Appeals -22- March 23, 1978 front yard setback, Westphalia Road and Deer Drive, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that the reduction of the front yard setback to 26' will not affect the character of the 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 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. Maimone, it was RESOLVED, Wilford Kryger, 130 Washington Drive, Ce~terport, NeW York, be GRANTED permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient front yard setback, Westphalia Road and Deer Drive, Mattituck, New York, Lot ~19, Map of Deer Park, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal Ng. 2400 - 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Victor Teidh c/o Burr G. Lewis, Main Roa~, Cutchogue, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule, and the Town Law, Section 280A for permission to change lot lines and approval of access. Location of property: South side Broad- waters Road, Cutchogue, New York; Lots 9189 and 190, Amended Map "A" of Nassau Point Properties., Filed Map 9156. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing~ affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Hondrah Fleming; Charles J. Rausch; Geroge Barker. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone wish to speak for this application? BURT LEWIS: I'm a real estate broker in Cutchogue and I'm speaking for Mr. Teich. THE CHAIRMAN: Apparently he always owned both these lots. Did he always own both lots? BURT LEWIS: No, he!s a contract vendee. THE CHAIRMAN: But these two lots were under one ownership? Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- March 23, 1978 BURT LEWIS: They've been that way for a long time. THE CHAIRMAN: And whoever built the original house ... BURT LEWIS: Made a mistake. Instead of getting a survey, they just had these two lots and they put the house on the lot. Then it turned out later on that it straddled two lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe the fellow thought that the lot was divided crosswise. BURT LEWIS: I got that information from Rod Van Tuyl. But if you gentlemen don't like that line the way it's divided, we'd be happy to move it one way or the other. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it matters, if that's where-they want it. The access is good, too, we drove up in it. BURT LEWIS: That's the access that's being used now. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone present wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to change lot lines and approval of acaess~ south side Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The houses were originally sited on property lines and granting this application will in ny way change the existing situation. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and ~ould not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED, Victor Teich c/o Butt G. Lewis, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED permission to change lot lines and approval of access, south side Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, New York, Lots $189 and 190, Amended Map "A" of Nassau Point Properties, Filed Map $156, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Maimone. Messrs: ~illispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- March 23, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2155 9:10 P.M. (E.S.T.) Recessed hearing upon application of Appolonia Kirchgessner, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York for a variance in a~cord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area. Location-of property: Right-of-way east side Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by now or formerly R. Tuthill; east by now or formerly J. Peters; south by right-of~ way; west by now or formerly P. Groben. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification ~y certified mail had been made to: Frank Murphy; Laurence Reeve; Joseph Peters; Frederick Pivko. F~ee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I would like to submit these two copies of the tax map showing the area and the subject parcel outlined in red. The Planning Board has approved the subdivision subject to the Board of Appeals approval of the variance. %~We also need approval of access for the right-of-way shown on the map submitted a couple of weeks ago. THE CHAIRMAN: It's a little confusing because these maps in here ... what is the name of this road, Alois Lane? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And that was originally 55' wide, right? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, we had an original proposal before the Planning'~ard f~r 55' and, at their suggeStion, we decreased the size to 35". Therefore, the Peters' lot and the Groben lot~ which is now owned by Pivko, were increased slightly in size as were the two lots which are the subject of this applicaiton. THE CHAIRMAN: So that now the two lots that were undersized are being increased by the addition of the 15'. They're each up around 37,000 sq. ft. now. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, Lot ~1 is 36,075 sq. ft. and Lot is 37,716 sq. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: And Lots 3 and 4 are over the 40,000 sq. ft.? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: They're almost 42,000 each. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: It took a long time. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, we had a number of problems. THE CHAIRMAN: You want approval of access on Alois Lane and approval of these two undersized lots which are compensated for, really, by the acreage across the street. The whole design here was affected by the placement of the original houses which were sold individually. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: The original Peters residence, Burns and Pivko. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) The Planning Board has approved this minor subdivision. Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) The only reason this Board is involved in it is because of this access which will not become public, it will be 35' wide, and because there are two slightly undersized lots necessitated by the geography. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds-<that the applicant requests permission to divide property with insuf- ficient area and approval of access, right-of-way, east side Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not beushared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Appolonia Kirchgessner, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property-~ith insufficient area and approval of access, right-of-way, east ~side Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York, as applied for. Vote of tke Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- March 23, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2398 - 9:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of P.B.M. Associates, Inc., Boisseau Avenue, Southold, New York, and the Southold Savings Bank, Main Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width. Location of property: East side Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Railroad; east by F. Rich; south by Eiseman; west by Youngs Avenue. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal~otice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Frederick Rich; Carl F. Eiseman; Long Island Railroad Co.. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I think the application which you just read pretty much states the Bank's position. However, there's a couple of additional points that I would like to bring to the Board's attention. As you stated in reading the petition, you are aware that the application is a direct result of the Bank's expansion program which is about to commence next month. Although the Bank's premises on the northwest corner of the Main Road and Rail~ Avenue under the existing Zoning Ordinance meet all the r~quirements for existing, off-street parking-.., in fact, the Bank did receive site plan approval from the Planning Board on November 21, 1977, to go ahead with this addition. However, the application is being brought primarily because the Bank i~ of the opinion, although it might have the legally required number of parking spaces, that it's just not adequate for the Bank's needs. The figures, I think, will bear this out. The site plan, as approved by the Planning Board, on the Bank's premises, called for 78' parking spaces. The Bank also has access to another 32 in the municipal lot right behind Riverhead Auto Parts, which is a property or so to the west of the Bank. The Planning Board gave permission to a cut through. However, this isn't going to fill the bill in the Bank's view- point. The primary reasons for this is that the Bank is not in the position of being a policeman and no matter h°w they try, by drawing lines and not drawing lines, people tend to take two spaces to park one car, which has created confusion from time to time. During peak Periods, which are typically Deoember 30th to January 2nd and June 30th to. July 1st and various other times but those period,s of time in particular, the Bank's parking lot is used to itslabsolute m~ximum by customers coming in and getting their interest posted and things of that nature. Another factor has crept into this · n the Bank's analysis of their parking problems is that whenever there are organized bus trips, such as the Senior Citizens or youth groups, for some reason the people use the Bank parki¥~ lot to park their car Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- March 23, 1978 for the day or overnight and they~load it up. This has created, even though it's unauthor±zed~aD~reated some consternation, again the Bank is not in the position of being a policeman and although they've gone to the municipa~ authorities, the Town Board and the Supervisor, to ask why can't adequate municipal parking be provided, they're met with the shrug that we're all familiar with, lack of funds, lack of space and the fact that the township has provided three small parking areas in the hamlet of Southold but, as you know~ during the summer months these are also utilized to their fullest. With the compounding of other people using the Bank's parking lot, it's just not, the Bank feels it's just not adequate. THE CHAIRMAN: Where does the bus start from? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Apparently they, from time to time, have used the corner there as a pick-up point. The bus stops to pick them up there and off they go to the City or wherever they're going. THE CHAIRMAN: It might be a thought to ask them to start from some other place. RICHARD LARK', ~SQ.: To a degree you have to understand, the Bank is in the publlic relations business also and th~yrlj~s~ don't want to go out towing cars away. That's really the h~b.i~flit. The Board might or might not be aware, another factor has into this. The Bm~k is one of the largest and private, in the T~wn of Southold and they did a Poll that drive to work because we don't have a~equate on and some 55 to 60 vehicles which belong to the emPloyees in that particular facility, drive their automobiles and re every day. So you can start to get the appreciation the ng that the Bank is faced with. Taking all these fa ideration and ~he fact that ~he construction, the architect has estimated that there could be during this construction period as many as ~0 contractor private vehicles, the employees of the constract0r, the'various trades that would be lo~king for a place to ~rk their private vehiclss. What it adds up to,I especially during the summer months, is what the ~ank feels is a horrendous situation. As the aPplicatiOn says, ~n~tially they were going to lease this propert~ from~the p.~.M. However, due to economic considerations and control as to who had ~ontrol of the pa~king lot and, quite frankly, the c0Sti'~h~.ibank had to be put through to provide a suitable surface and everything, ~hey Couldn't agree on just how it was to work out. So the upshot of zt was that the~ had a~meeting of the minds and the Bank agreed to purchase the property which you have before you subject to the Board of Appeals granting the approval of the lot split, the southerly half lot split. It's the Bank's intention to fix up this southerly half by pavement, drain, lighting, fencing, and in essence it's going to be a private parking lot primarily for bank'employees on a permanent basis and, of course, during construction the Bank feels that they can dictate to the contractors to park their personal automobiles, the employees of the contractor, in this area. You've got to keep $outhold Town Board of Appeals -28- March 23, 1978 in mind that for this next year or year and a half, whatever it takes, the Bank's existing parking lot is going to be between construction chains, things like cranes because a lot it is steel construction, and other construction apparatus ~here, it's going to be a nightmare there. The Ban~ had r~served some parking area during this time they feel adequate for customers but certainly not ~or customers, employees, ~ontractors' ~e~les and strangers. That is it really in a nut shell. Now, something has been drawn to my attgntion since the filing of the application with the Board. As I sta~ed in the application, the Bank intends to construct this facility ~n accordance with all the rules and regulations as~to size, ingres~ and egress lanes and so forth as set forth in 10~-112 of the Ordinance. However ..i THE CHAIRMAN: Does that require site p~an approval? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: The Building Inspeqtor and I had a conversation on that and I feel no~ as long ~s the Bank doesn't erect any structures over th'ere. He tends tq agree with me because he can't find anything in the Zoning~Ordinance which would require site plan ~ppr0val. However, he did point out to me that subsection H of that section, and I'll quote the appreviated section, says, "Required accessory parking s~aces,'open or enclosed ..." We're talking about off-premises ~arking, "shall be provided upon the same lot as the use to which they are accessory or elsewhere . ." which is our application, "provided' all sp~ac~s therein, are located' within two hundred'feet walking distance of such lot. I had VanTuyl look at ... THE CHAIRMAN: The distance between the two lots is no problem for that RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Right, and I have that was done for the Bank back in November 2 up which shows that the front quarter of the the 200'. However, quite candidly, from tha~ anywhere from the 200' to about 500' distanc~ Here's the overall map of the area. I am as~ be slightly amended, it doesn't change~the ir request a variance from this particular requJ parking since we will be beyond, some portior .ere a map from Van Tuyl , 1977, which I'll hand proPosed area is within point back it would run from the Bank'~ pr6perty. .ing that the application .tent or anything, to also rement of off=P.~emises s will be beyond the 200'. As I say, I don't think it changes ansthing in the application. THE CHAIRMAN: I discussed this point with Counsel yesterday, I think you need a separate application for that, it wasn't noticed. You don't need all this reasoning, you can refer to the reasoning applied in this application. It's just a simple matter of making another application. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: OK, I just wanted to point that out, that was brought to my attention. We are, as I said within the application Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- March 23, 1978 itself, there was just~o other property around with any type of reasonable area that's zoned this way, the same zoning that the Bank could use. As I said, it is extra parking because we do comply legally on the on-site. But I gave you the reasoning, the Bank feels that it's not adequate. THE CHAIRMAN: t went over the original expansion plan with the Planning Board the day the architect brought it in. It ~ooked like the parking situation would be very tiqht and it seems to me that this would be a tremendous advantage to the neighborhood, town, and the bank. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I have Mr. Terry here, he might want to make ~ few comments. Oh, the other portion of it is that we had to co-apply because the contract ~endor, P.B.M., is left with an insufficient lot width if the Board does approve the sale with pre-existing buildings that have been on there. But as I said in the application, and we've looked at it and talked to him, he has suitable ingress and egress for what's being conducted there. We're going to fence it right down the middle and it will be locked at night and stuff like that. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to blacktop the whole thing? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Yes, and put drains in. RAYMOND TERRY: I think Mr. Lark has covered most everything. The only thing I would like to add is that it's our intention to Continue to be a good neighbor in the community and the lighting that he referred to, we're going to make sure that that points away from any residences and certainly it should not be an ob- jection~o any contiguous neighbors. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to light it all night? HAY~OND TERRY: No, we're going to have it on a time clock. It'll probably go off about a half hour after our last employee leaves. THE CHAIP~4AN: The parking lot P~rbably will not be used at night then. RAYMOND TERRY: It's not our intention, in fact we intend to fence and lock it to preclude any gatherings and so on which might disturb the contiguous neighbors. THE CHAIRMAN: It sounds like a good idea. Are there any other questions? SHIRLEY BACHRACH: I have a question. This property is what is known as Settler's Village, correct? Would the use of this parking lot by the bank limit the parking~f0~ people using Settler's Village? Southold Town'Board of Appeals -30- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I think Mr. Lark discussed that. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I think she might have missed that. What they call Settler's Village, the barn that's being used primarily for storage will be torn down. THE CHAIRMAN: The old I.M. Young building is going to disappear. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Right, that's correct. SHIRLEY BACHRACH: There will then no longer be a Haystack. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know what they call it now, it used to be the I~ M. Young building. That's going to be demolished and the whole 100' by 400' or whatever it is will be blacktopped with drainage~ Any other questions? Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants request permission to divide property with insufficient width, east side Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board fihds~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 chazacter of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED, P.B.M. Associates, Inc., Boisseau Avenue, Southold, New York, and the Southold Savings Bank, Main Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient width, east side Youngs Avenue (Railroad Avenue), Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, 'Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2397 - 9:45 P.M. (E.S.T;) upon application of Angelo Francis Corva, 159 Great Neck Road, Great Neck, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- March 23, 1978 permission to construct dwelling exceeding maximum lot coverage. Location of property: Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, New York; Lot ~54, Cleaves Point, Filed Map ~4650. The Chairman opened the hearing bY reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman ~lso read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by Certified mail had been made to: Helmer Kent; Rhoda Weston. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The site plan of this lot indicates the difficulties that exist in locating a house the size of this one. The front yard toward Snug Harbor Road is, it straddles a sharp change of direction on Snug Harbor ROad so that it has two di- mensions, one is 37' and the other looks like about 10', 10.69 I guess. The proposal is to locate ~he house, which is irregularly shapedi, 35' from Snug Harbor Road and 15' from the northerly boundary of the property and 10' from the southerly boundary of the property and approximately 25' from Gull Pond. A little fur- ther from Dawn Lagoon. The house fits all of the original zoning yard requirements. It is the unusual shape caused by the original development which was maximizing the number of lots which could be obtained. It's in an area of similarly sized lots. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: The petition pretty much lays out the position of the applicant, I won't belabor the point. However, there's a few things I would like to add. Has the Board viewed the property? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I've seen it a number of times. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I did obtain from Van Tuyl's offence a copy of ilar filed map, Sectlon. II~ ~f Cleavgs ~?Dint. The lot we about here is Lot ~54 as I s~ate~, it is an application f an areavariance' and I co~er some of the practical difficulties there. As the looking at Lot ~54 on this~map of Cleaves Point, se u~ique in the road. So we don't have a c0nven~ional ~ar lot like the majority of the lots that are on that map. We only have 48' on Snug Harbor which is chopped up in a t0' section and ~he balance being in a 37' section rather than the standard 100' which was the standard at that time for the subdivision and for the rest of the lots in the subdivision. Yet, we have a rear yard of approximately 160' which is ~currently, you might say the intersection of Gull Pond and that dredged out Dawn Lagoon there, and it is bulkheaded. The side yards, because they go out on various angles, $outhold Town Board of Appeals -32- March 23, 1978 makes it irregular so you can't really describe it other than by saying it's an irregularly shaped piece. I don!t think there's any question when you look at that lot in relationship with the other ones that it is unique due to its location on the intersection of Gull Pond and Dawn Lagoon and due to its oddball shapei~'~On account of these features, as I stated, a standard, rectangular or square house would not be suitable, from the economic point of view taking into consideration land values and certainly not taking into consideration the aesthetic standpoint as to what could be done with the property. Realizing this and being sensitive, meticulous type people, Dr. and Mrs. Simkin engaged an architect to helP design a house which would be in keeping with their living requirements but would also blend in with the area and would utilize this particu- lar lot to its best advantage. The result is the reason why I'm here, because the house that was designed and redesigned I might add, as the architect will tell you in a c6uple of minutes, is still graater than would be permitted under the current Zoning Ordinance. In con- sidering practical difficulties I believe the Board has to take the following matters into consideration, the first one being, how sub- stantial is the variance in relation with the requirement which is being sought to have relief from. I submit it is very small because the lot area is 14,647 sq. ft. and, although this is a substandard lot today, it wasn't substandard in 1966 when the map was approved because we had, at that time, only a 12,500 sq. ft. requirement. Due to later a~ndments, ou~ Zoning Ordinance is the present 40,000 sq. ft. However, as I pointed out, that Section 100-112 of the amended Zoning Ordinance exempts this subdivision from both the lot area and width requirements. It is my>understanding that the side and rear yards, as being applied for, do comply with the standards as applied to this subdivision. You wfll note that on Exhibit 2 the proposed dwelling on this application, as I said, does comply with all these r~quirements the way the architect has it laid out. However, the ~Xception for lot coverage for the building was not ~p~d, for ~ome strange r~ason, and at that time under the old-~ng ~rdina~ce in 1966 we had 25% lot coverage. T~E CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat that? It was not accepted, you said? RICHARD LARK~ ESQ.: The lot coverage, the area that you're allowed to have a~?~ih~ on, was not excepted when the amendments went through for this ~d~division, only lot width and area. The area got upgraded, or down, however you want to look at, it, it used to be 25%, you could build a home up to '25% Of your area and now you can only build one of 20%. With the 25%, back in 1966~. a hous~ of 3,661 sq. ft. could be built but today, with only the 20% requirement, you're only allowed a house of 2,929, without a variance which is ~he reason we're here. In essence, the appliCation boils down, we're asking the Board for an additional 415.02 sq. ft. to be built on this lot. When all is said and done, that's what it boils down to in numbers. I say the requirement is small because, under the prior O~d~e it was the proposed house was 317' under Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- March 23, 1978 the permissible coverage-whereas, as I said, today it would be 415' over. The next requirement that I believe you have to con- sider in an application of this kind is the eff~ variance is allowed on increased population ld thus produce an effect on available governmental ~les. I submit that this application, there is no effect. Reason: re- gardless of the size or the shape.~of the home, whether it's 850 sq. ft. or 4,000 sq. ft., you're still only going to have a one- family dwelling on the lot. The next thing I think you ~ave%~to tale into consideration is whether this variance will result in a substantial, whether a change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a substantial detriment to adjioini~g properties will be created. I submit, again, there will be none. Rather, it will tend to upgrade the property values as the cost of this, we're all aware of the present construction costs and it's going to be quite substantial, the cos% of an improvement of this nature. As I understand it, the house will fit in. It's going to have natural cedar shinqle roof which the architect will fill you in on in a moment with ~a~R~l cedar siding with some white trim. In essence it's going t0'be a simple and a clean design and I~think it will blend in nicely, especially taking into consideration the lot. I think the next thing you have to consider is whethler the difficulty can be Obviated bY 1some ~method feasible f~r the appli- Cant 'to pursue 0thor than a variance. I think, to be iqui~e dandid, th~ obvious answer there is to build a smalle~ house. i'~ going Go defer to the architect to tell you the ~easons that of What he's set out'to do here. Finally, I think taking all these factors into consideration and considering th~ unique location of this ~ and the particular area on the waterfront, whe~the~ of justice will be served by allowing the owne~ to bui proposes, I submit, for the reason~s given in the sznce the Board has viewed the prope~y and the are. proposed site plan which you have before you, that the ~n~rests of justice and the integrity Of t~e Ordinance will be served by granting the application. I'd like to have Mr. Corva Just briefly explain how he got involved with building such a house on this lot because it is a little unique, there's a lot of features on.here that I think the Board should be aware o'f and then I think he can answer any questions and certainly, if he can't, Dr. Simkin can. THE CHAIRMAN: I think Howard Terry spoke to me about this project ... it was a much larger house, I believe, they've already reduced it. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Yes, that's correct. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: He asked me my informal opinion and I thought it was too large for the Board to approve. I presume this is the result of reducing the area? ANGELO F. CORVA: Yes, sir. We have been working on it and we finally came to a size which was compatable to the property, we felt, and compatable to the owners of the property. Dr. and Mrs. Simkin happen to be very, very meticulous people in everything they do. We sat for many, many months, as a matter of fact it's over a year now since my commission was engaged, and we have come to a solution which they feel they can live with along the lines of their standards of living and one that would be compatable with the prop- erty which, as Mr. Lark said, was one that does create great hardship because of its uniqueness, it~': very small frontage, itsf~very ex- pansive frontage on Gull Pond and the Canal. We have worked very tightly in working along the lines of all the side yard requirements, rear yard requirements and front yard requirements. Unfortunately, the shape of the property has led us to this L-shaped house which has created a bit more square footage than a normal~type house but as, again as Mr. Lark said, a normal-type frontal elevati~on house wouldn't really be accommodated, easily accommodated on this site due to its narrowness in the front. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this going to ahve a cellar in it or will this be slab-type construction? ANGELO F. CORVA: It will have a cellar under it. TR~ CHAIRMAN: Are you going to get it started pretty soon? ANGELO F. CORVA: Hopefully, yes. THE C~IAIRMAN: Before they get this flood plain in? Because if you had to build this house under the flood plain conditions you'd have to have the floor of the cellar up 8' above mean high tide there. That would make a very grotesque-looking apparition and I think you should get it started. ANGELO F. CORVA: I wouldn't permit my client to build such a grotesque-looking house. T~E. CHAI~N: I think that covers it, this is only 2%, slightly more than 2%, and actually it's verY rare, ~'can't case where we've had, this type of ~pplicationWhere more than ... in the old smaller lots, you had 25~% as Mr. Lark pointed out. As the lots got bigger they reduced the size, and this 20% really isn't applicable to this size lot. Under the old system, as you said, you could have used it. Sc this is an area variance which is far less serious than a use variance, of course. Any other questions? Anybody wish to speak against this application? ~LELMER KENT: I'm the adjoining property owner to the south. In the plans.~s~they are now Submitted I have no objection to the Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- March 23, 1978 larger area. However, on the south side of the building, you inquired about the cellar. The plans show sliding doors which would necessitate the foundation being open on the south side adjoining my property. THE CHAIRMAN: You're on the south side, that's toward the Bay. HELMER KENT: Yes, towards the Bay. THE CHAIRMAN: You're not toward the Club, you're toward the Bay. HELMER KENT: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you seen the way the house is located on here, I don't whether you've seen this plan or not. HELPER KENT: Yes, I've seen this plan. I'm the adjoining property here .(referring to map). On this area here Mr. Simkin proposes to have sliding doors. Now that would come right up to within 10' of my property. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I thought they were flush with the house, aren't they? HELMER KENT: Well, if they're in the basement then you naturally have an opening out there that will be flush to the f6otings, the cellar floor. THE CHAIRMAN: You're going to have glass in the basement facing the water toward the lagoon? ANGELO F. CORVA: There are glass doors. THE CHAIRMAN: In the basement? ANGELO F. CORVA: On that level, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: It's a split level. ANGELO F. CORVA: No, it'~s not. THE CHAIRMAN: But you are going to utilize the basement? ANGELO F. CORVA: The property now has a natural slope to the ba~k~and, we are by no means going to be gOing any lower than what the property is now. We will be working within the contour of the property. HELMER KENT: Mr. Simkin assures me he's going to build on the same level as my house. Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- March 23, 1978 ANGELO F. CORVA: As far as the'first floor is concerned, yes. HE~ER KENT: Now, if he has a basement that requ±~es sliding doors, they ~will naturally have to be 6' or 7' lower. He proposes, according to the plans, you've drawn the plans, a trench outside of those doors. ANGEL0 F. CORVA: We would have to be able to exit out o~ those doors, but as far as a trench being built there, t don't think we can refer to it as a "trench." HELMER KENT: It would be an excavation, wouldn't it? ANG~L~F.~CORVA: There will be some sort of excavation, yes. What is your objection, I don't follow. HELMER KENT: It would leave a hole alongside, only 10' from my property that would go down 7' or 8' below my level. ANGELO F. CORVA: I don't think there's that much, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you~ prgperty is higher than~"this property. HELMER KENT: But Dr. Simkin expects to fill the property up to the level of my property. ANGELO F. CORVA: I think the statement you made before, Dr. Simkin plans to build the first floor in the same line as your property to have the house up matching yours. But his property is lower than your property now and we are by no means excavating any tremendour amount of earth to create any sort of ... HELMER KENT: It is much lower now and you are proposing to have a basement so it will be still lower. You know the conditions there. As it is, the property there now is only 3' above high water. THE CHAIRMAN: Don't you think, Mr. Kent, that that's their problem? HELMER KENT: Yes, it is, but it would also cause a problem for me. I w0Ui~ have a bank. For the 10 years that I~ve been · n ~en a bank going down to this property up a couple of years ago. Mr. Kaplan, that was the former owner, filled it. THE CHAIRMAN:.~ It seems to me that this would strengthen your ba~k because if they're going to put a lower level in this house, they'll have to have seven or eight feet of concrete wall for this who~e distance I0' away from you, which, would strengthen your bank. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- March 23, 1978 HELMER KENT: They would have to put a 10' wall down ... THE CHAIRMAN: Something like that would have to go down in front here, too. HELMER KENT: It would have to go out near the property line. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: There's no doors here, are there? (on map) ANGELO F. CORVA: No, there are no doors there. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Point that out to him because I think he's confused. ANGELO~?F. CORVA: The doors aren't along here, sir. The doors that you were talking about are along this area here. HELMER KENT: Oh, you're not going to have them here on this side? ANGELO F~ CORVA: O~; no. I wasn't sure what you w~r~ talking about because, if anything~ Dr. Simkin should have a complaint because your house is too high. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: In other words, there's going to be nothing over here, the doors will be out over in this area. ANGELO F. CORVA: Which is about 20', 25' away. This will be naturally graded land. HELMER KENT: That will be the legal 10' from the line then. ANGEL0 F. CORVA: Has to be. HELMER KENT: There will be no encumbrances otherwise then. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: No. HELMER KENT: Well, that's OK. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Good, I'm glad we got that clarified. THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, we didn't understand it either. About the garage, is this garage going to be on-the basement level or the ... ANGELO F. CORVA: No, I forget the elevation with regard to the street but I believe it will be just a couple of inches higher than street level so we don't have any problems with water coming in. THE CHAIRMAN: I have one like that, my garage is the same level as my first floor. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- March 23, 1978 ANGELO F. CORVA: No, the garage, I believe ... THE CHAIRMAN: This is going to the the same level as your first floor. ANGELO F. CORVA: As the first floor, two or three risers below, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: You'll have cellar underneath it? ANGELO F. CORVA: Not under the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: So that will be a slab there? ANGELO F. CORVA: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? JOHN HUGHES: I have an objection. My name is John Hughes, I live on Dawn Drive. I'm to the rear adjacent to this particular piece of property that's going to be improved. THE CHAIRMAN: You're adjacent to it? JOHN HUGHES: To the rear and adjacent, I'm Lot 69 on Dawn Drive. As you probably know, Cleaves Point Subdivision was put to~ether by Mr. Kaplan of Dawn Realty Corporation down in Centereach. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I bought a lot from him. : At that time, Section III had a Declaration of Re~ filed in Riverhead which said that no house could ~ n 50' to the water. Every homeowner that's hashad to maintain 50' from the rear of ~he house last lot that was sold, which happens to~ be this lot, Mr. n turned around and waivered the 50' 'r~quirement goes 25' from the water. That, in my aggrevation~and a conc~ern to ~he h~e~wners in L.. Therefore, I feel that the Planning BOard approving an ~ footage for the house is going to further a~g Now, whether the lot is' not, an irregular lot, he knew that whi sed it. 'm quite sure that there's a house, without going the requirements of the Town, that can be constructed on there without this variance. All this variance does is put him closer to the water and, therefore, does not conform with any other homes in that subdivision. So, inasmuch as Mr. Kaplan sold the homeowners down ~he river by giving out this one variance, I don't think it shou~ be aggrevated byh~his Board, further aggrevated. '~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, what Mr. Kaplan did on his own deed restrictions or even if he had the power to do it ... JOHN HUGHES: I realize that, I realize it's not a Town ordinance but I'm also saying there was a Declaration of Record on file in Riverhead which was imposed on every lot owner out there except this one. Therefore, it does have an impact on the surrounding homes. THE CHAIRMAN: How could he escape it? JOHN~HUGHES: Build a smaller home. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: As I understand it.. when Dr. Simkin bought the property from the Kaplans that Kaplan did reserve himself the right, in his covenants and restrictions, to amend them at any time. As I understand it, after talking to Dr. Simkin who can address himself on the point, this lot was unique in that it fronted both ... if you'll notice in Section III~ those that are waterfront lots are all on this dredged out canal, Dawn Lagoon. This lot here is also on Gull Pond. Kaplan amended the covenants and restrictions to waiver that requirement since it was on that, and Dr. Simkin did buy it with the amended covenants and restrictions which allowed him to build closer to conform to Zoning whick, of course, is 25! for this particular subdivision for a rear lot. Dr. Simkin was aware of it and, when he purchased it, he was aware that he could build up to 25' THE CHAIRMAN: It looks to me as though this, you say he waived it on Lot $547 RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: That's the lot that Dr. Simkin owns, 54. THE CHAIRMAN: And this one? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: No, I d?n't know anything about 59, just on 54 aS ~ ~understand it because it was on the pond also not, per se, on the dredged creek there or the lagoon. JOHN ~UGHES: That, to me, is still part of Section III and Section ~i~.had ~he Declaration of R~cord and that said all the homes wi~llb~ built 50' from the water. Every home in that sub- division ~as built 50' from the water. When he sold the last lot he allowed them to turn around and got within 25' of the water. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: He had the power to do that, though. JOHN~J~HUGHES: I'm saying whether he had the power or not, I'm saying that I don!t want the Board to further ag~revate a bad situation by approving this variance. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- March 23, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that one of the points that should be made here is that without, I was unaware of Mr. Kaplan's 50' restriction. We're generally not aware of subdivision restrictions. The house could have been built with these side yard~/~r yards and front yards under the original Zoning Ordinance of the-Town. I assume that his idea in granting this reduction is that it's very difficult to locate a house 50' back into a narrow lot. As you go back further you narrow the lot so that any Zoning inter- pretation, any Board of Appeals, I think would tend to sympathize with that problem when it came up. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Also, Dr. Simkin could build an 850-sq. ft. house right along 25' off the rear line, off the bulkhead line, and wouldn't have to apply for a variance. JOHN HUGHES: It'd be pretty had to meet the front yard, front line 35' setback. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: He'd be more than 35', he'd probably be 40' or 50' JOHN HUGHES: Once the precedent has been established as far as setback it has to be met by all homes. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: No, it can't be closer than that, it can always be further back. THE CHAIRMAN: That's right. Anyone else wish to speak? (There was no response.) Well, with all sympathy to the objection that was just made I think i~'s beyond the Board of Appeals' power to enforce what Mr. Kaplan does with private property. It's appropriate for this Board to offer a resolution granting this application as applied for and ~greeing with the~reasoning of the applicant, with due respect to the points that have been made here. I'll offer such a. resolu~iO~ · y--i~t After investigation and inspection, the Board f~nds~tha th( permission to construct dwelling ek'c~eeding lot coverage, Snug Harbor Road, Greenpcrt, New York. The s of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application off'the Ordinance would pr.aduce 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. Southol~ Town Board of Appeals m41- March 23, 1978 On motion by Mr. Giltisp~e, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Angelo Francis Corva, 159 Great Neck Road,. Great Neck, New York a/c Dr. $imkin be GRANTED permission to construct dwelling exceeding maximum lot ~overage~ Snug Harbor Road, Greenport,~ New York, Lot 954, Cleaves Point, Filed Map #4650, as applied for. Vote of ~he Board: Ayes: Maimone. Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the ~outhold T~n Board of Appeals approve minutes dated March 2, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Maimone. Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, On motion by Mr. Maimone, seconded by Mr. Gillisp~e, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of .Appeals approve minutes dated March 10, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. Nine (9) Sign Renewals were reviewed and approved as submitted. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T~), Thursday, April 13, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- March 23, 1978 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that a special meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 10:30 A.M. (E.S.T.), Friday, March 31, 1978, at the To~n Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. (E.S.T.). Re~ctfully submitted, M~ry/~. Dawson Sec~/etary