Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/02/1978Southold Town Board of Appeals -=:OUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 76§-:~ 1802 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERTW. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN S I N U T ~. S ROBERT BERGEN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals SERGE DOYEN, JR. ~K~F~ February 2, 1978 James Maimone A re~alar meeting of the Southotd Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, February 2, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; James Maimone. Also present: Frances Waggoner, Long Island Traveler- ~atti%uck Watchman. The Chairman opened the meet~n~g by welcoming James Maimone of New Suffolk to the Board. Mr. Maimone was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Fred Hulse, Jr., who resigned recently due to his conflicting work schedule. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of App~!s commends the long and faithful service of Fred Hulse, Jr.~ ~ho was a most effective Board member and occasional Acting Chairman; and IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be made a part of the permanent records of the Town and that a copy be sent to Mr. Hulse. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie,r~T~o~s~t~:.~O~e~,~ Maimone. 7:30 P.M. (E.S~T.) - Appeal No. 2373 - PoStponed decision upon application of John Xikis, 32-55 Steinway Street, Astoria, Ne~ York for a special exception in accordance wi~h the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-~0 B l(b) for permission to constructmotel and restaurant. Location of property: south side CR27, G~eenport, New York, bounded on the north by CR27; east by J. Poliwoda; south by L. Hodor; west by CorneI1, Caiola, and Papantoniou. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 2, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything further to add, Mr. Bruer? RUDOLPH BRUER,~ESQ.: I believe it was recessed for the decision of the Board and possibly the letter and the recommendations of the County. I'd just as soon not open any further discussions on it. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the County a~ted on it yesterday and I'll read the pertinent part of the action. This is the resolution that was passed by, in effect it's the resolution that was passed by the County Planning Board. "It is the belief of the staff ~..", that's the staff of the County Planning Department, "... that said proposal ...", that's this proposal, "... is inappropriate as. sufff~ient information has not been submitted to demonstrate compliance with established special exception criteria in the zoning ordinance; the resultant~ increase in traffic generation, vehicular turning movements and imminent pedestrian movements to beach areas across North Road would be hazardous and adversely affect %ha safetyand traffic carrying capacity of this high-sp~ed roadway, particularly during peak summer periods; the locale appears to be adequately serviced by motel facilities; and it would tend to establish a precedent for further downzonings in the locale inconsistent with the Town of Southold Development Plan which designates premises and surrounding areas for Agricultural-Residence Development." That is basically what we discussed here before we got this from the County at the meeting two meetings ago. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out to ~e Board that, first of all, the Ordinance does not designate this p~perty as agricultural, we're not asking for a change of zone here. ~his would not be the proper form. As I reiterated to the Board the l~s~ time that we spoke, with respect to motel use, no matter what zoning level or classification you are, you must come to this Board fer a special exception. With respect to the burden being on the owner to show the !criteria of the Ordinance, I think it's up to the Board to, on its own, decide what is the criteria of the special ex- ception. We do come under the type of zoning wherein we are allowed that type of use of the property with a special exception of the Board. I ~ust take exception to the letter of the County Planning, I don't thi~k they've taken into consideration the true development pls~ of the~Town. ~The ToWn's avowed purpose, if you speak to Mr. Wickham, is for agricultural and recreational use. Now~ the use of the Prop- erty as-a restaurant and motel fulfills the purpose of the proposed use of the Town and its properties and its land. It's not an in- dustrial use, it's not even a use ... it's a use for a recreational purpose~which is what the Planning Board and the planning map and the Ordinance has decided or recommended that the Town lean to. THE CHAIRMAN: I'd have to disagree with you on that because this is, it seems to me, the development of strip zoning on a high-speed highway. I agree with you that it isn't necessarily Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- February 2, 1978 up to the applicant to prove that he meets all these criteria that are established here for granting a special exception. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: of the word "strip zoning." motel. I take exception to the use, your use We have the necessary zoning for a THE CHAIRMAN: I think what I was trying to say is that the comprehensive plan, if there is such a th~ng, or the sum of all the thinking in the Town is that we should not further develop the major highways into additional business uses and the fact that this will further destroy the traffic situation up there is part of what the County is talking about. In addition to that, I'm sure you heard all of the objections concerning use of the beach and the use of the beach which is directly across from this ... RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Projected use. Mr. Chairman, I take exception to your use of the word "business property." The prop- erty is zoned business. We want to use it for the zoning that it is ~esignated for. THE CHAIRMAN: It is designated for business uses, and one of the permitted uses is a restaurant. It does not have to be used as a motel unless this Board decides it. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I assume that the Board has to find or make a determination with respect to the Ordinance and there's a rule of thu~b set forth in the O~dinance and ma~e a factual deter- mination regarding that. If the Board is going to do that, I would respectfully request that the determination be set forth~in writing and in detail. Specifically, I'd like to make no~e that, for the record, that both this hearing and the hearing before this have been on tape and I would respectfully request that the exact minutes of both this hearing and the one before that be kept. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, they are kept. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: And be available for possible transcript. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you keeping the tapes over 30 days? SECRETARY: I keep them for about six months. THE CHAIRMAN: We keep the tapes for about six months. I will offer a resolution denying the special exception for the partial use of this property as a motel. The findings of the Board are that the application will, in fact, tend to change the character of the surrounding residential area. Nearby is a new subdivision. This is not the most appropriate use of this parcel. It will affect traffic and the carrying capacity of CR27. Although the property is served by public water, public sewage is not available. There is a possibility of noise interferring with the orderly conduct of the area. These axe some of the findings. I'll offer that resolution if someone will second it. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 2, 1978 CHARLES GRISONIS, JR.: Seconded. THE CHAIRMAN: It's been regularly moved and seconded and we will try to put this in more appropriate language so that Mr. Bruer can examine it at length. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, the applicant here would respectfully request that we have copies of the tapes whether it's the tapes themselves or the transcript of them exactly as they ... THE CHAIRMAN: The minutes are verbatim. The tapes are kept for the secretary's use, chiefly, but they're available. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: But they are available. THE CHAIRMAN: He can listen to them, can't he? SECRETARY: copies of them. copies of that. Yes, he can listen to them but I don't know about But the transcripts are verbatim and you can get RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: But the tapes themselves, we can listen to them and make copies? If we had a stenographer we could take it? SECRETARY: I guess so, sure. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: And they will be available for at least another month? SECRETARY: Yes, I've got them. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Thank you very much. DAVID DRISCOLL: I'd like to ask a question. the restaurant or the motel or both? Does that include THE CHAIRMAN: That just refers to the motel part of the appli- cation. The way it was applied for was a motel and restaurant and he has a right to a restaurant there in a business zone. DAVID DRISCOLL: In other words, ... THE CHAIRMAN: This denies him a motel. DAVID DRISCOLL: Denies a motel but gives him a restaurant. THE CHAIRMAN: No, he has the right to a restaurant in a business zone, the "B-Light" zone. It's one of the permitted uses. This was originally zoned Business, as we said here before, at Mr. Teeves' request, Teeves had~ a real estate office there for many years. We didn"t want to make this a business zone, we preferred, in the original zoning commission, to carry this forward as a Southold Town Board of Appeals February 2, 1978 non-conforming use. But it was pretty hard to argue with Mr. Teeves because a real estate office had to be conduct'ed~'in a business zone, and I think he had a strong point in his favor in requesting a business zone. There were very few places in the Town that wanted to be zoned business, individual spots, because ... RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, is this being included on the record? · HE CHAIRMAN: Oh sure. This is a question about the decision, that"s all. This is one of the spots that a lot of people didn't want3to be zoned business because it raised taxes, or they thought it would, to be zoned business rather than a non-conforming resi- dential use. But he preferred it this way. About 1970, the Town Board picked up, the Zoning Ordinance was changed, they picked up a lot of areas around the Town that had been zoned that way that had never been used for the purposes for which they could have been used and changed the zoning to Agricultural-residential. In this case, they did not so that Mr. Xikis has the right to do whatever is per- mitted in the business zone. But as Mr. Bruer pointed out, nowhere · n the Town, under the present Ordinance, can you have a motel with- out a special exception from the Board of Appeals and the Board of Appeals is required to make its decision based on fourteen or fifteen different paragraphs in the Ordinance which are used as guidance criteria to determine whether or not to specifically locate a special exception. DAVID DRISCOLL: May I respectfully ask what would be the next step for ... THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer and Mr. Xikis? DAVID DRISCOLL: To apply for a restaurant. THE CHAIRYLAN: They could apply for a building permit to build a restaurant or they could apply to overturn this decision. If they apply to o~erturn this decision, they have to do it within 30 days of the s~igning of the action. DAVID DRISCOLL: I know this is not a hearing was held earlier but it seems to me that people livin~ here and paying ~taxes have a right to ss office such as Mr. TeeveS had, which was about 2' as an office but he also saw fit to have, I believe, two g lots classified as business at the time. What I'm trying to get at is that you put a restaurant in, I'm not saying that's approved, as I understand it that has to be another application ... THE CHAIRMAN: Not to us. No, that's a permitted use, all he has to do is go to the BUilding D~partment an~ get a building application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 2, 1978 DAVID D~ISCOLL: When a real estate office hasn't been used for approximately eight or 10 years, I don't wish to be overly critical of your Board, but I think that ... THE CHAIRMAN: Everybody else is, welcome to the club. DAVID DRISCOLL: Well, I am, yes, I'm opposed to the position that the restaurant can go there, and very strongly so. THE CHAIRMAN: We have nothing to do with that. The Town Board controls the change of zone and can lift the "B" Business zone under certain circumstances. They're the legislative authority of the Town, we are not. We have to work within certain areas. DAVID DRISCOLL: I understand that, but is it not true that a number of classified business enterprises have been taken back to residential in the Town? THE CHAIRMAN: Right, that's true, but they didn't do it in this case. This is not either a non-conforming use, you see. If it were a non-conformin~ use that had not been used for a period of over two years, it could logically be required to disappear. But this was zoned for what was there, a real estate office, and whether he ever used it as a real estate office or not is beside the point. DAVID DRISCOLL: I respectfully ask the Board, isn't there a difference b~etween a real estate office 10' by 12' and a restaurant? THE CHAIPdV~AN: I would respectfully agree with you. DAVID DRISCOLL: If it were in front of your house I think you would agree. THE C~AIRMAN: I do agree with you, yes. Not everything is equal that is permitted, equally offensive let's say, that's per- mitted in a '!B"-zone. There is a classification that's kind of hard to come by as to which items are most offensive in a "B" zone, a "B-2" zone, and an "Industrial" zone. In here there are a list of things that are not permitted in an Industrial zone except by special exception. But that doesn't apply to the "B" zone except mn the case of a motel. DAVID DRISCOLL: For ~xample~ a restaurant and the sewage and so on ....what I'm trying to get at, is this left open now as, are we're giving the right to build a restaurant? THE CHAIRMAN; No, he always had the right. DAVI~ DRISCOLL: Well, a restaurant and a real estate office, sir, are quite different things. You spoke very well about traffic on the North Road and so on, I don't know whether a motel would get any more traffic than a restaurant. I don't quite see the logic of ... Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- February 2, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: I think the simplest ~hing to do would be to read you what's permitted in the "B-Light" zone. All of these uses are prefaced with uses that are permitted in lighter zones, like agri- cultural and residential. Then your "business, professional, and goverD/mental offices, banks and financial institutions, retail stores, restaurants." Now you can take a retail store and you might find it considerably more or less objectionable than a bank or a restaurant depending on what Was done in the retail store. Now, a supermarket where there are several hundred or more cars a day would be quite different from a bank or a restaurant. A restaurant might be more desirable than a supermarket. "Bake shops, laundromats ..." a laundromau might be particularly undesirable. "Personal service stores and shops, marinas for the docking, mooring and accommodation of nonco~ercial boats, inCludinG the sale of fuel and oil primarily for the use of boats accommodate~ in such marina." "Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The following uses are permitted as a special exception bY the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof~" It lists some things that are permitted there. Whenever they put a list of uses that are permitted in a business area or an industrial area or an "M" area, it's not always possible to have each of these as similarly, in other words you can't compare, one thing's/different from the other. DAVID DRISCOLL: Well-then, let me ask one more question. The next step for the applicant would be to what, reapply for a restaurant or is he given the opportunity now to open a restaurant tomorrow? THE CHAIRMAN: Let's suppose, Mr. Driscoll, that a month or two months ago, Mr. Xikis came into the Building Department and applied to the then Building Inspector for permission to build a resta~=ant and gave him the specifications and so forth. He would have received a building permit assuming that the application was in order, and it would not have come to us and we w~uld not be sitting here talking about it. He would be in the process of building his restaurant. But the way this application was made was for a motel and restaurant and we think it was our d~ty to deny the motel part of it. We have no control over the restaurant part of it. DAVID DRISCOLL: So it can be ... THE CHAIRMAN$ Yes, it could have been at any time in the last 20 years, or the last five years anyway. DAVID DRISCOLL: I would respectfully suggest, it's an old story, many of the articles of the Constitution have been changed by the Supreme Court, but it seems to me, maybe this is not the proper place to bring it up, but I believe that a review of the Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 2, 1978 planning and development or preservation of this area should be reviewed by some competent authority, I don't mean you're not competent, but we've gone through this thing many times and always believed we had a master plan. We don't have a master plan, Mr. Wickham made that very clear in his dossier about the whole thing and he underlined carefully in his copy that it was a development plan. Yet at the time Mr. Albertson was the Supervisor, everything was the "Master Plan." Now we find ourselves in the middle of something, you're saying that a 10' by 12' real estate office classifies a couple of acres of land as business and they can open a restaurant. I believe, I'm not quite sure whether you're rendering a decision here, I m not quite sure whether your decision is the County's or the Board of Appeals'. THE CHAIRMAN: The Board of Appeals felt this way before the County got into this. DAVID DRISCOLL: In other words, this was your recommendation. THE CHAIRMAN: You'll find in the December minutes when this, and you're find it in our findings here when the decision is formally typed. DAVID DRISCOLL: May I ask for a roll call? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely. I think everybody voted in favor of my motion which was to deny the motel portion of the application. DAVID DRISCOLL: I'm forgetting the motel now, I'm talking about the restaurant. THE CHAIRMAN: We don't have a vote on the restaurant. CHARLES GRIGONIS: We can't do anything about that. THE CHAIRMAN: If~you had a piece of residential property you don't have to come in here to build a house on it. You might have to come in here if you were going to build a house too close to the roa~, too close to the water or the side, follow me? The same thing would apply for a use that was permitted in an industrial area or an "M" zone. If you want relief from a zone, that has to be done by the Town Board, they're the ones who control zones. ABRAHAM NISSENFELD: If the gentleman who made the application for the motel., if he acquires two other parcels of land adjacent to this proper%y~ could they be zoned as THE CHAIRMAN: In my opinion no, the Town Board I think made a mistake in not picking up this zoning. ABRAHAM NISSENPELD: In other words, any additional land he acquires does not go under the heading of Business zoned. THE CHAIRMAN: No. I know of several places in the Town where Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 2, 1978 the Business zoning was picked up. One of them was on a point, 10 acres, out in Long Island Sound where the applicant originally got a change of zone for the restaurant and then never did anything. So they attempted to peddle the property based on 10-acre business zoning out on this point in East Marion, over the years the prices increased, unsuccessfully. Nobody ever bought it, nobody ever put a restaurant in there, and the Town Board lifted the zoning. Now, conceivably they could have done the same thing in this case if they felt that it was wrong. Why it wasn't changed, I don't know. DAVID DRISCOLL: May I ask one more question. This d~scussion is concerning the property one-the south side of Route 27. Would this permit the use of, persons patronizing the restaurant to use the beach which is owned bY the same gentleman? THE CHAIRMAN: I would say no, but I think it would be a very difficult thing to enforce. You're talking about restaurant patrons using the 300' beach which is zoned residential. I would say no. Of course, a Board like this, assuming we had granted the motel and we were convinced it was all right for a motel in that position, in that spot, if we had put in a condition denying them the use of the residential 'beach across the way, we would have been in error because a Board is not supposed to impose conditions which are more or less unenforceable and which require the services of the police. In other words, we're not permitted to add duties unnecessarily. Of course, if this had been granted by the Board we would have put that prohibition in, but who is going to enforce it-as~Mr. Nissenfeld has said. He has trouble on his beach from people that~wander down from Town Beach 1,800' or 2,000' away. He's been there a long time. DAVID DRISCOLL: I've been there a long time, too. THE CHAIRMAN: I know you have. DAVID DRIS~OLL: Would this Board entertain the thought of recommending to the Town Board a review of t~whole planning situation in the Town of Southold? THE CHAIRMAN: This is one of the outstanding examples, in my opinion, of a miss as far as ... as I said before, when the zone was changed~... DAVID DRISCOLL: Amen. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not tryzng to pass the buck to the Town Board. They don't catch everything, nor do we. Surely I think that it would be a very good idea to ... DAVID DRISCOLL: I believe that, if anyone had the finances to do it, this kind of a thing could be perhaps taken all the way to the Supreme Court because what was true or what was given to. somebody fifteen or twenty years ago is not necessarily applicable to the present situation inT~wh~h we live. · Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- February 2, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. You see, the public wants it both ways. If they don't want any change, which is the usual position, they don't want any change in anything, they come in here and object stren- uously. Yet this Board was created to alleviate occasional, unique, unusual hardship because it's impossible to set down a perfect zoning picture on our bays and irregular lot lines. Maybe you can do it in Kansas on 760 acre plots but it's very difficult to do it on Long Island. That's why there is a Board of Appeals. DAVID ~RISCOLL: I'm glad there is a Board of Appeals and I'm appealing to you for a review of this or a recommendation. THE CHAIRMAN: It wouldn't be one of our functions, we might sit in with the Town Board and the Planning Board but probably the Planning Board and the Town Board should undertake a review of all of the zones. DAVID DRISCOLL: Would you go on record as saying that? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely, it's on record. DAVID DRISCOLL: That you think there should be a re-examination of zoning. THE CHAIRMAN: Of the zones, the use zones. I'm not talking about an examination of the Ordinance, I'm talking about an examination of the use of zones. DAVID DRISCOLL: Such as the specific case we're talking about now, is that correct? THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. It was done recently and this is one they missed. DAVID DRISCOLL: It's very peculiar how certain things are missed, I can't quite comprehend it but I will have to rest my case and thank you for your time. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the appli- )ermission to construct motel and restaurant, south side CR27, t, New York. The Board finds that the applicant owns a plot of land on the south side of CR27, approximately 2.58 acres with 300' of frontage and 275' of depth, zoned B-Light Business in a pri- marily residential area on a high speed County road. A new residential subdivision immediately adjoins the subject property to the west. There are no business uses within a 1,008' or more radius. The original Zoning Commission zoned the property for business use in 1957 at the insistence of the then owner, Teves, who conducted a real estate business in his ho~se. [The original Zoning Ordinance in 1957 ~equired real estate offices to be in a business zone; however, many real estate office uses were made non-conforming at that time rather than establishment of a business zone.] The Zoning Co~t~ission's position at that time was directed toward the elimination of strip business development on CR27. Operation of a m®tel in this location would affect the carrying capacity of the County road, would lead to deterioration of property values in the area on both sides of the road as a result of the possibility of more unusual traffic, and Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- February 2, 1978 would, in our opinion, not be an appropriate use. ~ublic water is avail- able, public sewage is not. The Board also finds that the applicant owns a substantial beach area of approximately 190' on Long Island Sound con- sisting of a half-acre or more zoned Residential and located directly across CR27 from the proposed motel use. There would be great hazard to motel guests who might use the beach, adversely affecting traffic and safety during the seasonal use of a motel. Two of the three motels within a few thousand feet of the proposed motel existed prior to zoning; however, any new motel would establish an undesirable precedent leading to further strip development. In our opinion, the proposed use will tend to hinder the orderly and reasonable residential development of nearby property, particularly the adjacent subdivision, and would certainly affect the residential character of the area as well as having an unfavorable effect on traffic and safety. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will not be served and the legally established or permitted use of neigh- borhood property and adjoining use districts will be permanently or sub- stantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will not be observed. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, John Xikis, 32-55 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York, be DENIED permission to construct motel, south side CR27, Greenport, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2388 - 8:05 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon appli- cation of Harold and Virginia Thomas, 91 Avenue C, Port Washington, New YOrk for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct addition with insufficient front and--side yard setbacks. Location of property: North side Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, New YOrk, bounded on the north by Corey Creek; east by J. Bu~in; south by Minnehaha Boulevard; west by H. Haggerty. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits atteStinq to its publication · n the official newspapers, and disapproval from the B~ilding Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Joseph Bugdin; Henry Haggerty. Fee paid $15.00.. T~E CHAIRbLAN: The County tax map indicates that this lot is on the easterly side and a little deeper on the westerly side. application is to ... is the applicant he~e? HAROLD THOMAS: THE CHAIRFuAN: HAROLD THOMAS: house. The Yes, sir. Would you tell us what the problem is here? We're trying to get an attached garage to the The existing house is sitting askew on the property in order Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- February 2, 1978 that it face the road on a bend. No matter where you put that house it is going to point either front or to the rear to a side yard. It W°~ld'almost be impossible to line UP ~he garage with a side yard so that there would be equal distance, whereas the sketch shows only 3' in the front, it is considerably more than that as you go back along the property. THE CHAIRMAN: If the garage were moved further back ... CHARLES GRIGONIS: It drops off in the back. THE CHAIRMAN: Say the back of the garage lined up with the back of the house instead of this jog here which is about, I don't know how many feet, I can't read it. Looks like several feet. The further back you go, the further away from the side yard you get and that's the question I'm asking, whether you can go back any further. HAROLD THOMAS: Two thoughts come into mind, Mr. Chairman. One is that it would obstruct our view of the creek area, which is a beautiful area, and ~2, it would tend to interfer with the views of the neighbors. We had talked to one of the neighbors, not the one in question on that side, but the other one and that seemed to be the concern of the area, that we do not obstruct views of Corey Creek. The further back we took this would obstruct these views. THE CHAIRMAN: The land falls off there, I believe, too. Anyone else wish to speak for this application? Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investiqation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct addition with insuffi- cient front and side yard setbacks, north side Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship~ the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this p~Operty and in the same use district; and tl%e variance will not change the cha~aoter of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On.motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, Harold and Virginia Thomas, 91 Avenue C, Port Washington, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct addition Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- February 2, 1978 with insufficient front and side yard setbacks, north side Minnehaha Boulevard, Southotd, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2387 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Recessed hearing upon application of James J. Murphy, 3617 JohnstStreet, Wantagh, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118 E & F for permission to reconstruct non-conforming dwelling. Loca- tion of property: north side Horton Lane, Southold, New York, bounded on the nroth by Long Island Sound; east by A. Derosa; south by Horton Lane Beach; west by Horton Lane Parking Lot. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to speak for this application? SERGE DOYEN: I think they're all outside in the lobby. (The people who were present for the Murphy appeal came~into the meeting hall.) THE CHAIRMAN: The Murphy application was recessed. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application now? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: The application was presented at the last hearing before the Board. The petitioner doesn't have any further evidence to offer for the special exception. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you recall why we recessed it instead of postponing the decision? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I do not. SERGE DOYEN: The other gentleman asked for that. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: I understand it was postponed for a certain party to obtain counsel. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that was true of Kathleen Willman. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: I have been asked to represent them. THE CHAIRMAN: But I think it was in connection with their case. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: No, with this one. THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Kathleen Witlman, is that you? You asked for it to be recessed? KATHLEEN WILLMAN: I personally didn't but my family, I think, gave the general ... plus you had mentioned that the decision would Southold Town Board of Appeals m14- February 2, 1978 be delayed until this week, and I think meanwhile we thought_we would have ... THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Is your attorney prepared to ... THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: We've been discussinq this out in the hall, as you probably noticed, to work out so~e kind of ~greement depending upon what the Board decides to do. If the Board decides that they will allow Mr. Murphy to put up a house, we're trying to work oat an agreement for the type of house and the dimensions of it that all the residents, who own this property in common, would agree to which would save~a lot of problems all the way through. We haven't quite reached any point on that. THE CHAIRMAN: Once or twice in the past we have tried to act as intermediaries in a disputed situation like this, and I can say that uniformly we've been unsuccessful. It's not our job, w~ have enough t~ouble doing our own job. I think generally the sense of the Board is, and we can confirm this in a minute, thau Mr. Murphy should be granted permission to rebuild a house slightlY enlarged as he has suggested, and I think the Board is also in agreement that Ka~hleen Willman should be permitted to slightly enlarge her property. I don't know whether tkat helps you or no~. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: I really don~t know anything about her application at all. But this is the point, we all agree to this extent, that if the Board allows Mr. Murphy to build we all agree that, to build slightly enlarged ... the question is, where to go out to give the best privacy to all the houses in the area. This is what we've been discussing in the hall and we almost came to a meeting of the minds and possibly we could come back within 15 or 20 minultes. THE CHAI~i~: One of the questions that I'd like to develop. here WI~h~thi~s recessed hearing a~d I don't think we brought it out with Mr or adequately brought it~ out, is how much of the year are thes es in use? They wer.e originally, basically, summer cottages buil~ by Dr. Fischer, a veterinary here in Southold, pre- sumably for summer ~ental. They have evolved into whatever is there now. I'm just wondering what the amount of use is. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: Ail the parties are here, you can ask each one. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: I represent Mr. Wagenbrenner. He advises me that he. lives here mosu of the year, in fack practically all of the year, so he would be materially affected by anYthing that went on here, he's not just a summer resident. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I elicit a response from the other people? Southold Town Board of Appeals ~15- February 2, 1978 THO~S DALY, ESQ.: The Kelly family advised me they use it on weekends and during the summer full time. THE CHAIRMAN: Not in the winter except on weekends? THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: Weekends from April on, the warmer weather. KEVIN MOLONY: We use it maybe May through the early part of September. THE,CHAIRMAN: OccasionalTy in'the past where we've run into a situation like this where a ~mber of cottages are being improved, converted or sold ... JAMES MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, I also use it in the summer and occasionally on weekends in the winter. THE CHAIRMAN: What I was thinking of was a restriction which would prevent anybody from occupying these houses in the winter, but I can see that wouldn't work so I'll drQp hhe idea instantly. Other places where this has been done we have put that kind of a clause in, where somebody divides up half a dozen places on one small piece of property we've insisted that they not be used year round and that they be strictly seasonal, which is within our powers here. But if you are already using them around-the-clock, so to speak, we can't do that. Anyone else? PEGGY DOW: Mr. Gillispie, I'm a little confused. Are you hearing the Willman-Kelly appeal? THE CHAI~: No, it just came into the conversation. We're hearing the M~phy appeal. It's a little confusing' We've got fOur, six, eight owners on an undivided piece of property. PEGGY DOW: I'd like to make an observation concerning this situation, I wasn't at the last hearing. When those cottages were sold it was an understanding that I had as one of the PeOple who sold them that they would not be enlarged in any way. They coUld remain as they were but not added to, so forth and so on. It's also been my observation that the only person who hasn't added was Mr. Murphy, the other bungalows have been added to. You're probably ~ware that the bungalow this gentleman had had a serious cracked flaw in it. MRS. MOLONY: The Molony house has not been-added to, either. THE CHAIRMAN: There's no reason why anybody couldn't have added to their house, all they would have to do is get a building permit. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: There is an agreement in existence in writing signed by all the original owners and I believe Mr. Wagsnbrenner has a copy of it. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~16~ February 2, 1978 THE CEAIRM3LN: Our Building Inspector wouldn't know that nor would he be empowered to enforce it. NORMAN SA~IAN, ESQ.: This is property that's really owned by the four different entities and they each own an undivided one-fourth interest in the property. It's my understanding ... THE CHAIR~IAN: You're talking about the land, is that correct? NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: Right, and of course these are the buildings affixed to the land ... THE CHAIRMAN: You're not talking about the improvements, the buildings themselves aren't owned jointly, are they? NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: Yes, they are. THE CHAIRMAN: The buildings are owned jointly? MRS. KELLY: No, they're not. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: According to the agreement which I happen to have a copy of, the agreement says "but legal title to such remains in the tenants in common." That refers back, I'll read the whole paragraph. "The property purchased on December 17, 1970 located at Town of Southold, near Horton's Point, Suffolk, New York is owned by each of the members in common, but the following cottages are to be regarded as owned by each exclusively. Any improvements made are to be regarded as the property of the one making the improvements, but legal title to such remains in the tenants in common. For the purposes of this agreement the cottages, it contents and improvements are to be regarded as exclusively owned as follows:" Then it lists the four names and the four cottages. But the title ... THE CHAIRMAN: What happened to the lawyer who drew that agreement, is he disbarred now? That's incredible. He says two things at the same, one thing out of one side of his mouth, and another thing out the other. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: That is correct. However, the agreement which was signed by all the parties here too, the premises, the cottages are part of the land and they're owned by each of them in COEkrdon. THE CHAIRMAN: I think what was meant, probably, any improvement would have to be paid for by the individual who made it, but the title to it would be in, it would in effect be giving it to the other three members of this unusual consortium. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- February 2, 1978 NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: Therefore, in order for the Board to hold a hearing such as this if an application is being made, it has to be, in my mind, it has to be made by the four parties jointly. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm very sorry you brought that up. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: But it is true, nevertheless. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know, I think that in the case where there are ... a person who has an interest in the property can make an application to this Board. KEVIN MOLONY: There is not one copy of that signed by all four individuals. THE CHAIRMAN: It's really a curios~ty_~.. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: Each one has one signed copy. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, these are all outside of what we're talking about here. Very interesting, though. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: In a sense it's not because I think that the application is fatally defective. THE CHAIRMAN: Because it isn't made by all seven? NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: It isn't made by the owners, it's only being made by someone who owns a one-quarter interest, an undivided one-quarter interest and there are people here, as my client, who are objecting to it as a part owner. Therefore, I think the appli- cation as presented to this Board is fatally defective. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. What did you say your name was? NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: I'm Mr. Safian. THE CHAIRMAN: Representing? NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: I represent Mr. Wag~nbrenner. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would,let Mr. Wage,brenner speak for himself. It's my understanding he's not objecting to the application, neither are any of the other property owners. THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to ask Mr. Wagenbrenner if this represented his view. You're an attorney for Mr. Wagenbrenner, correct? NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: Yes, I am. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -18- February 2, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Does this represent your view, Mr. Waqenbre~ner? I mean, this is an interesting side light, but is this wh~t you think, too? FRANK WAGENBRENNER: Sort of. As Mr. Daty said, outside we were discussing this for about an hour and we were trying to come to some sort of a compromise so we wouldn't waste any more of the Board's time. We were trying to eliminate on the east side that 4' and we will let Mr. Murphy either build on the Sound or on the south or on the west. Now, we all agree we would eliminate that 4' structure on the east side of his structure which makes it too close to the Kelly's, it would come down to about 21' and some odd inches. Where we were going to place that additional 4', we haven't reached that stage yet. THE CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what I suggest. How much time would you need, half an hour? FRANK WAGENBRENNER: With a half-hour t think we could work it out. THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we recess this for half an hour and see. We!ll recess it to nine o'clock and, meanwhile, we'll get on with the rest of our business. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the public hearing upon application of James J. Murphy, Appeal No. 2387, be RECESSED until 9:00 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Maimone. Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED that the public hearing upon application of Ka~hteen Willman, Appeal No. 2391, be RECESSED until after the 9:00 P.M. recess on the Murphy hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Gri~onis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appsal No. 2389 - 8:35 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon applicatiOn of Carlton T. and Marion G. Latham, 235 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0~dinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front yard setback. Location of property: Northeast side Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- February 2, 1978 Southold, New York; Lot 11, Map of Sleepy Hollow, Filed Map #6351, Southold, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to i%~publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Leo Kwasneski; Mr. and Mrs. Walter Rabe; North Fork Environmental Council c/o Daniel T. Latham. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a letter in the file to C. Terry Latham from Roy Haje of the DEC. "As per your request of December 7, 1977, you are hereby authorized to situate your house as shown on the survey of Lot 11, Map of Sleepy Hollow dated October 19, 1976, so that the northeast corner Ks a minimum of ~0' from the edge of the meadow. In addition, a copy of the permit issued to Mr. Kwasneski is being forwarded to you. Please note and comply with other con- ditions which apply to your home." The survey by Van Tuyl, dated October 19, 1976, indicates that the applicant is the owner of 179', approximately, on Sleepy Hollow Lane. The northwesterly lot line is approximately 152'. The easterly lot line, without giving very much additional depth to the property, extends twice that distance, 309'+ so that it is really irregularly shaped and that particular line is to encompass a cut in the meadow. What caused that cut, I don't know, but that and the requirement from the tidal wetlands people, the DEC, are the reasons for this appli- cation. The lot itself is ... I'm not sure what the size of the lot is, better than an acre I guess. It's one acre on t~he County tax map. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? CARLTON LATHAM: I was denied a building permit by Mr. Fisher due to the small triangular shaped area in the garage attached to the house which does not meet the 50' setback. Other than that, the rest of the house is within the 50' feet. The far corner towards Lot 10 is set back 65' from the road. THE CHAIRMAN: What occasioned that dip in the meadowland there, do you know? CARLTON LATHAM: I have no idea. It's been there for years. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the first house in this development? CARLTON LATHAM: Yes, it is. THE CHAIRMAN: It's a beautiful spot. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- February 2, 1978 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants request permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient front yard setback, northeast side Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold, New York. The findings of th~ Board are that the appli- cant has a definite hardship by reason of the Tidal Wetlands Act as well as the curve of the road in this area and the unusual shape of the lot. ~ The Board finds that strict application of the O~dinance would produce praotical difficulties or unnecessary hard~hip; 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. Maimone, seconded by Mr. ~rigonis, it was RESOLVED, Carlton T. and Marion G. Latham, 235 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front yard setback, northeast side Sleepy Hollow Lane, Lot 11, Map of Sleepy Hollow, Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2390 - 8:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Robert J. Heaney, 1400 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area and approval of access. Location of property: North side Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Jockey Creek; east by H. Barry and ano.~ south by Pine Neck Road; west by Wirth. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice cf hearing~ affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk' that notification by certified mail'had been made to: Henry and Ann Barry; '~. Wirth. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMA~N: The applicant is the owner of a lot which is indicated on the County survey as having dimensions of approximately 445' on the east and 405', approximately, on the west. Lot %38 on Pine Neck Road, on the north side of the road. It appears to be on the order of 30,000 to 35,000 sq. ft. in area. The adjoining lots aret to the east are one acre, 1.1 acre, 1.2 acres, the next one Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- February 2, 1978 appears to be about one acre. Each of these lots adjoining to the east has 100' frontage. The lot immediately to the wes~ is 99' frontage, and there's a small lot with a smaller lot in back of it on Jockey Creek Drive. Three other lots to the west are approxi- mately an acre or better. Across the street there's an old develop- ment of approximately 1/3 acre plus. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ROBERT HEANEY: I more or less explained everything on the application. I'd like to divide it into a little over a half-acre and quarter-acre plots. I have about 33,000 sq. ft. and for some reason, I don't know why, I only have 75' and all the others have 100' but I'm~the only one that's smaller. My map that I got from Van Tuyl has something to say about 25' immediately to the west ... THE CHAIRMAN: A little louder, I can't ... what did you say about 25'? ROBERT HEANEY: I can show this to you. (The Board and Mr. Heaney discussed the map of the property.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is this Wirth next to you on the-west? ROBERT HEANEY: Wirth is next to me on the west, yes. Ail of these adjoining lots on the east have, well the two to the east have two houses on them. THE CHAIRMAN: The house directly east of you has two houses on it. ROBERT HEANEY: Right, and Albertson has, too. Then as you get closer to Oaklawn Avenue, those lots are divided and have one on the water and one on the road. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) I have a letter here signed by Henry F. Barry, who is now in St. Petersberg, Florida, to the Board of Appeals: (The Chairman read the January 25, 1978, letter from Mr. Barry objecting to Mr. Heaney's application as it would establish a preceden~ for the area.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- February 2, 1978 I believe you said, Mr. Heaney, that Mr. Barry has two houses on his property, one of which he leases? ROBERT HEANEY: One of which he leases, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And Mr. Albertson has two, one of which he leases? ROBERT HEANEY: I believe he leases one, ~'m not sure. In response to that letter, first of all his figures were wrong about how long my property is, he said 420' and it's over 440' according to the County map. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the County map~showed 440' on one side and 405' on the other end of it. ROBERT HEANEY: So his figures are wrong there. Mrs. Wirth's estate has already been divided. If you look at that map, she owns a series of four lots, and the lot immediate adjoining mine is divided into two. THE CHAIRMAN: Apparently that was done some time ago. Since 1971, the lot size in the Town of Southold has been i~c~e~sed to 40,000 sq. ft. and, while occasionally the Board has gran[ed relief, I think in this particular case we would be reluctant to do so because we would be creating a precedent which would applY to 15 or 20 lots here, one or two of which already have rentals on them or have two houses on them. We would prefer not to break this up and add to the additional impact on the water-supply. The whole theory of 40,000 sq. ft. zoning is based on the'water supply avail- able in the ToWn of Southold. The creation here of two lots on your property, which you bought knowing that it was 40~000 sq. ft., at the time you bought the property it was 40,000 sq. f~., would be adverse to the future~ of the Town and I think that the Board should deny it for those reasons. To grant the applicant's request would be to create two undersized lots and set a precedent for an additional 15 or 20 undersized lots in the area immediately north Of Pine Neck Road and adjoining the ~pplicant£s property. ROBERT HEANEY: The property on the south, as you noted, is only third-acre. THE CHAIRMAN: ROBERT HEAN~Y: We can't correct the mistakes of .the past. To.~he south. _ .~ THE C~AIR~LAN: The south, ~es, across the street. Those were done, I believe, when we had a 12,500 sq. ft. minimum. Some of those were a little undersized even for then. For this Board to suggest the possibility of an additional 15 or 20 applications I thin~ would be entirely wrong. So for those reasons I will offer a resolution denying this application. $outhold Town Board of Appeats -23- February 2, 1978 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property with insufficient width and area and approval of access, north side Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the creation of two lots on this property would be adverse to the future of the Town, and would set a precedent for an additional 15 or 20 undersized lots in the area immediately north of Pine Neck Road. The Board finds that strict application of the O~dinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED, Robert J. Heaney, 1400 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York, be DENIED permission to divide property with insuffi- cient width and area and approval of access, north side Pine Neck Road, Southold, New Y6rk. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: 9:05 P.M. - Resumed hearing on Appeal No. 2387, James J. Murphy. THE CHAIRMAN: We will re-open the recessed Murphy hearing. RI( : Mr. Chairman, on behalf of. Mr. Murphy, we met ~uest of the Chairman with all of the other ~, the four people who own the former Kelly resi- ~enner~ Everybody is in concert now with Mr. with the following amendment which will have made to the Building InspectOr when he formally applies ks building permit if the Board does grant him a special a~d that is to eliminate the 6' on the easterly side Df the proposed dwelling and place it on the westerly side~ It means a shifting over of 4' and internally, which'd6es~'t con- cern this Board, Mr. Murphy has also agreed to flip-flop the layout of the proposed dwelling wherein the dining room and kitchen would be on the westerly wall and the bedrooms on the easterly wall. Everybody is in concert on that and the four property owners, as I understand it, are all in agreement with his application now. I have notated on Exhibit 7 the 4' adding onto the west with a 4' plus and a 4' minus on the foundation. Mr. Daly's here, Mr. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- February 2, 1978 Safian is here, and I think Mr. Molony is representing himself and I've accurately stated what we've all agreed to. Oh, just for the record because there was some confusion, this is only going to be a one-story, one-family structure, that's been the whole intent of this whole application. There has been some confusion on that point and I think that clarifies it. Does anybody have anything to add, have I accurately stated that? THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: That's correct. NORMAN SAFIAN, ESQ.: Yes, that's been accurately stated, on behalf of my client we agree and support the application. THOMAS DALY, ESQ.: On behalf of the Kellys, we do also. THE CHAIRMAN: As modified and placing the 4' addition, eliminating it from the easterly side of the former Murphy, or the present Murphy plans and placing it on the westerly side of the plans. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Mr. Molony, is that right? KEVIN MOLONY: Yes, we agree. THE CHAIRMAN: Have~u~we heard from everybody no~? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I believe so. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that all that's to be presented then on behalf of Murphy? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: That's correct, Mr. Chairman, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And I understand that the other join~ owners .of the property are in agreement about this change. No one wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) ~fter investigation and inspection, the Board finds~%~that the requests permission to reconstruct non-conforming dwelling, Horton Lane, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning presented by Richard Lark, attorney for the applicant, as to the replacement of Mr. Murphy's residence. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or per- mitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- February 2, 1978 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that James J. Murphy, 3617 Johns Street, Wantagh, New York, be GRANTED permission to replace the non-conforming structure that was destroyed last year with a slightly enlarged structure having the additional footage located on the westerly side of the building as indicated on the plan revised at the February 2, 1978, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2391 - 9:10 P.M. (E.S.T.) Recessed hearing upon application of Kathleen Willman, 19 Kim Avenue, Ha~ppauge, New YOrk for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct addition with insufficient side yard setback. Location of property: North side Horton Lane, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by A. Derosa; south by Horton Lane Beach; west by Horton Lane Parking Lot. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its~publication in the official newspapers,~and disapproval from the ~uilding Inspector. The Chairman alsO read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: James Murphy; Eugene Fisher; Margaret Dow; Kevin Maloney; Gail Horton; Frank Wagenbrenner. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Accordin~ to a sketch contained in the file the addition would be approximately the same width as the steps that are presently located on the west side of the cottage, perhaps a little more, and would increase the size of the two bedrooms within the building to a more usable size. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for the application? KATHLEEN WILLMAN: I would like to have this approved. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone wish to speak against this application? MARG~RET DOW: Just for clarification, this will still be a one-faraily dwelling? Is it not true that, actually, four families own this building now? We own a right-of-way that isn't mentioned there and that building is within inches of that right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: In one of the early surveys a year ago, I noticed a right-of-way. Do you own the right-of-way or do you just have the right of passage? Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- February 2, 1978 MARGARET DOW: We pay taxes on it, I think we own the right- of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: AHd the right-of-way separates th~s property? MARGARET DOW: Derosa must be to the right of it, to the east of it, that's the name I heard mentioned. THE CHAIRMAN; So in effect these four families or six families or eight families are settled on less than half an acre. No, this wouldn't affect your right-of-way nor would it affect the right to have a two-family house. This is, I suppose, serially occupied unless two or three families can occupy it at the same time. MARGARET DOW: The cottage has been added to once, I was surp~se~ to get a notice this time because we were not notified of the first addition that was made to it after the property was sold to the four people. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe that was before this notification require- ment came into being. CHARLES GRIGQNIS: This has only been in about two years. THE CHAIRMAN: We are not bound by the notificaIion procedure because we couldn't conduct the business of the Board if we were. People who own adjoining properties are sometimes in Europe or Florida or elsewhere and there's no way to get in touch with them. The applicant is really required to certify to the Town Clerk that she has notified by registered mail the adjoining property owners. ·hat doesn't mean across the street either~ they don't have to notify people across the street. Anyone else? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct addition with insufficient side yard setback, north side Horton Lane', Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the O~dinan=e. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED, Kathleen Willman, 19 Kim Avenue, Hauppauge, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct addition with insufficient Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- February 2, 1978 side yard setback, north side Horton Lane, Southold New York as applied for. ' ' Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes dated January 12, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes dated January 20, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gi!lispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. Four (4) Sign Renewals were reveiwed and approved as submitted. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it .was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southo~-d Town Board of Appeals be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thur~ay~ March 2, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RESOLVED that a special meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 10:30 A.M. (E.S.T.), ~e~s~ay, February 15, 1978,. at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,-Ne~k. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. February 2, 1978 (E.S.T.)