Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/28/1978 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTH ILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Southold Town Board o£Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. !., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES Southold Town Board of ~Appeals September 28, 1978 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.), Thursday, September 28, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman, Charles Grigonis, Jr., Terry Tuthill and Robert J. Douglass. There were also present: Richard Curtis, Suffolk Times. P~BL!C~HEARING: Appeal No. 2470 ~ Upon application of Edward and He~en ~a~iak~.R~D, Ruth Road, Mattituck, New York,~for a variance in acc~r~nc~i~!~ith the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, section 100-31 and Bu~k ~c~ed~le for ~ermiss±on to divide property With insufficient area and Wid~i Location of property: Lot No. 4, Map No. 5023, Sunset Knolls, M~tti~ck, New York. ' opened the hearing by reading the application for a notice of hearing, affidavits of pub!ication attesting to its ion in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the The Chairman also read a statemenh from the Town Clerk certified mail had been maSe to: Mr. and Mrs. Kostas Harapas; Mr. and Mrs. Helen Demetriou; Mr. and Mrs. N. Orros. Fee paid: $15.00. present who wishes to speak for this application? MRS. HELEN JASKOWIAK: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Do I have that correct? It is lot No. 4? SOUTHOLD TOWN-BOARD OF"APPEALS -2- September 28, 1978 MRS. JASKOWIAK: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we understand now. The one lot is part of the subdivision. MRS. JASKOWIAK: The house lot. The other lot I bought to hold on to. THE CHAIRMAn,: Your house is on Ruth Road. Directly south of it is the--iot~._¥od~ ~ou~e lot is part of an excepted subdivision. 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). After investigation and inspection the Board ~inds that the applicant requests permission to divide two lots with insufficient area and frontage. The findings of the Board are that the applicant owns two lots similar in character and area to most of the adjoining lots in the neighborhood except across Ruth Road where there are smaller lots. 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 the 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. Gilllspie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that Edward and Helen Jaskowiak, RFD, Ruth Road, Matti- tuck, New York, be GRA~TED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width as requested. Location of property: Lot No. 4, Map No. 5023, Sunset Knolls, Mattituck, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUELIC~ HEARING: Appeal No. 2469 - Upon application of Daniel and Laura~h~b~n~o, 5 E~lltOp Court, Head of the Harbor, St. James, New York i(~A/~%h?~i?~. DeRiggi, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with ~he Zoning orain~n~e, ArtiCle III, Sections 100~31~ 100-33, 100-34, and 100- 36 fo~ permisS~o~ to reduce front and side yar~ Setbacks. Location of property: Map No. 5126, Nunnakoma Waters, Lot No. 5, Southold, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting to its pUbiica~±on in the official newspapers, and dis apPrOval from the Building Inspeotor. The Chairman also read a statement from the TOwn Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Henry J. Smith. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRF~N: The application is accompanied by a survey dated SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD. OF APPEALS -3- September 28, 1978 August 22, 1977, indicating that the property is on Hog Neck Bay. The tie line of Hog Neck Bay appears to be approximately 170 feet. The northerly boundary of 100 feet is on Tepee Trail. The easterly boundary on wampum Way is 276 feet. The westerly dimension is approximately 170 feet. Average out these dimensions and roughly the property consists of 30,000 square feet. P~rt of the problem is the narrow end of the lot is the only bu±ldable portion. We have several letters from the Department of Environmental Conservation concerning this application. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ANTHQNY DE RIHGI: Good evening. This is Mr. Shybunko. I do not want to belabor some of the information that was in the application. I do have a letter here from the Building Inspector, Mr. Terry, dated October 31, 1977, in which he indicated at that time that the two front yard setbacks could be reduced to 35 feet and the side yards to 10 feet. Ii~3~ld also like to show you a copy of a letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation concerning the 100 foot setback from the mean high water line. THE CHAIRMAN: Which one is that? We have 3 letters from the DEC. MR. DE RIGGI: The one I have, and I have not received anything from the recently, is dated August 11, 1977. THE CHAIRMAN: This is addressed to Mr. Henry J. Smith dated August 11, 1977, and reads: "Your petition has been forwarded to ~is office by the Local Tidal Westlands Permit Administrator who has made a review and site inspection. As a result we have determined that the construction of home and sewage facilities more than 100 feet from mean sea level will have no adverse affect on adjacent tidal wetlands. There- fore, pursuant to Section 25-0202 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the Commissioner's Directive dated November 12, 1973, you are hereby notified that no permit will be necessary. Signed Louis M. Concra, Jr. Chief Permit Administrator. Another on the same dated addressed to Mr. Franklin Bear, President of Nunnakoma Waters Association goes into more detail. MR. DE RIGGI: I have also some sketches that we made on that survey showing what area of the property is available to build on. An- other to show what we would have to live with if our application were denied, THE CHAIRMAN: You are applying for a 35 foot setback from Tepee T~ail? MR. DE RIGGI: We would like them from both streets. THE CHAIRMAN: You see there is no sketch there about how you wanted to locate the house. MR. DE RIHGI: It hasn't really been decided yet. This is an SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- September 28, 1.978 estimated idea. The front would be facing the water. THE CHAIRMAN: Those outside boundary lines are just the area which can be used. Is that correct? MR. DE RIGGI: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The house itself would be actually more than lQ feet from the westerly boundary line. MR. DE RIGGI: Most likety. T~LE;< CHAIRMAN: It would be 35 feet or more from Wampum Way. We are just talking about the buildabte area. 35 feet or more from Tepee Trail. MR. DE RIGGI: This is a sketch of what is available now. THE CHAIRMAN: The first thing you do on these sketches is~rule, out 10.0 feet toward the Bay. Then you ruled out 50 feet toward Tepee Trail, and 50 feet on Wampum Way. That leaves you an unreasonably small area to build on. What is the square footage of the bu~tdable area on this sketch? Do you know off-hand. MR. DE RIGGI: No, not off-hand. It is a long time since I dealt with trapezoids, or whatever. THE C}~IRMAN: It looks as though it is about 2,500 square feet. MR. DE RIGGI: This is a copy of the letter that we received from Mr. Terry some time ago. That is why it has taken us so long to get here. We assumed with the 35 feet, we could operate. Just recently Mr. Fisher advised us it would be 50 feet. MR. TUTHILL: Which is the front of the house on this sketch? MR. DE RIGGI: It will be facing toward the water. MR. TUTHILL: Not the point here? MR. DE RIGGI: Well, basically, toward the point. MR. DANIEL SHYBUNKO: The decks and windows would be the front of the house and would face the water. The flat part of the house would face the road. THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is obvious that you have ~ definite hardship here. The letter to Mr. Frank Bear from DEC states: "This application is for one home only. It .is only the one home to which I can address my review. The Department has long held that an approval of one application is not a precedent for subsequent approvals of similar applications. Wolf ~oad, Alf';a~'?, N~w.¥c-rk t~2~,3 '. August ii, !977 21r. Henry J. Smith Pobinscn L~ne Peconic, NY 11958 Dear :-:r. Smith: P~E: Yd,ur petition has been fo~varded to this offite by the Local ~idai Wet!a~3s Permit Administrator who has made a .revie:¢ and site inspection. As a result we haYe determLned that construction of hcme ~nd sewage faci!i~ies more than i00 feet from mean sea level w~li have no adverse affect on adjacent tidal wetlands, -~ -Therefore, pursu~tt to Section '25-0202 o.f t:he En-u~_o::,~entai Conservation Law and the Comin~asioner's Directive dated No~zeml'~r 12, .P~'73, you ara hereby notified that no pprmit will be necessary. Very truly -- Louis M. Cohere. Chief Permit Admh:istr~tor /24C: SCS Daniel Lark lin ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARH OF~APPEALS -5- September 28, 1978 Site inspection resulted in a determination that there are no tidal wetlands on or near Mr. Smith's property. A review of the aerial photo- graphic inventory map also does not show tidal wetlands. According to a report by the Suffolk County Health Department, groundwater is at a level of -6'. Do you know what the height of the land is there, Mr. Shybunko? MR. SHYBUNKO: No, I do not have the elevations? THE CHAIRMAN: The property probably goes underwater during an easterly storm. Are you going to put the house on piles? MR. SHYBUNKO: We are going to build a conventional house. THE CHAIRMAN: (Continuing with letter) In our opinion, with- drawal attributable to one home will not significantly reduce the amount of potable water available. This is most properly a matter to be addressed by the Suffolk County Health Department, approval from which must be obtained by the applicant prior to occupancy. Ownership prior to the effective date of the Tidal Wetlands Act is reason for declaration of hardship. In reviewing hardship claims we must consider the hardship, again, on an individual basis and cannot justly measure it against an applicant's net worth. This is a matter strictly for local enforcement. Our file contains a letter dated January 26, 1977, from Robert Tasker, Town Attorney, to John Wickham, Chairman of the Southold Town Planning Board. That letter says, in part, "...nowhere do I find that the Planning Board imposed any conditions when it approved the subdivision. Construction in a flood Zone is a matter for local jurisdiction and not within the purview of the Tidal Wetlands Act. We have no information before us which indicates a significant adverse effect on tidal wetlands, including threats to wildlife, pollution of waters, contamination of fish and shellfish, or the public health and safety. Your other concerns are properly a subject for consideration by local government. As a result of my review o~ the project file, including your comments, the Department is issuing,~on this date, a determination that no permit will be necessary if the applicant con- structs the home and sewage facilities more than 100 feet from mean sea level. Mr. De Riggi, are you familiar with that letter? MR. DE RIGGI: No, I am not. THE CHAIRMAN: Is Mr. Bear here? You apparently wrote him a letter? here. MR. FRANKLIN BEAR: Yes, I did, I have a copy of that letter THE CHAIRMAN: Did you object to this:project? MR. BEAR: Yes I did THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we can take that up when we come to the other part of people against the application. Is there anything else you would like to add? SOUTHOLD TOWN ~OARD OF'APPEALS -6- September 28, 1978 MR. DE RIGGI: Just one other thing we would like to point out. If the front yard setbacks are reduced, there won't be any way the house will jut -out closer to the road than any of th~other houses on the block. This is the only house on Tepee Trail down to the water. It would be the only house on the south side of the little leg in Wam- pum Way. THE C~AIRMAN: This subdivision was done when our front yard setback was 35 feet, I think. The Ordinance was later revised in 1971. We also have a letter here from the Department of Health indi- cating that test wells had been run on lots 5, 6, and 8.All the data presented was documented by our field staff and water analyses were performed by our laboratory on samples collected after pumping each of the wells for at least one hour at a minimum rate of five gallons per minute. The depths of the wells and static water levels were obtained by our inspector at the time of the field inspection and sample collec- tion. The ~oard of Review considered the data submitted, a statement from the public water supplier that there was still. no plans to ex- tend the water mains into this area and the original test well results on which approval for the other lots was based. The data submitted does indicate a substantial change in the quality and quantity of fresh water available to these lots and the Board of Review's determination was to grant the.request for the use of private wells on these lots. The Board of Review would not have ruled for the applicant if it felt that seasonal flucuations in the water level would result in water problems ~for the future homeowners on these lots. This letter is dated November 17, 1~76. Also attached is a pertinent paragraph of the Suffolk ~oun~ylSa~itatlon Ordinance reprinted f~r your recordS. At the end there is a paragraph that states:"As you can see by the last sentence of the second paragraph, the determination of the Board of Review is deemed t© be t~e determination of the Commissioner and as such cannot be 0uerruled on this level. The position of the Southold Town Planning Board has no bearing on the determination of the Commissioner and you are certainly free to follow any course of action which you and your Board feel appropriate. This letter is addressed to the Southo!d Town Planning Board. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). I~ has just been figured out that by reducin~ the front yards to 35 feet instead of 50 feet,~a~ditional 2180 square feet of ibuilding area is made available which would give a better ~hance fo~ a usable design of the house. Is there anyone present who would like to speak against this application? FRANKLIN BEAR: I live a~ 375 Wampum Way. This is e and Davi Who reside in b~ck of us. I would ~o s~y sor~ ' Mr. ShybUnko. We met a of It was we wilt the. fact that we are objecting to this application. 'We have some facts, I think, that have direct bearing on this matter and should be entered for all parties concerned. First of all the letter you read from Mr. Louis Concra of the New York State Department of Environmental Conser- vation was an answer to one that I wrote to him as Presid~t of the SOUTHOLD TOWN ~OARD OF'APPEALS ~7- September 28, 1978 Nunnakoma Waters Associa~iDn on July 19, 1977. This was a request that a hearing that was to be held on the request of Henry Smith for a permit to build on that property was canceled a few days >before the hearing was scheduled, and we objected to the fact that it was canceled without g~ving us an opportunity to be heard. I set forth in that letter reasons why we felt this was not a wise decision. The property should not be built upon. was THE CHAIRMAN: What/their answer to you relative to that hearing? MR. BEAR: The Association was requested to have a letter in the hands of the DEC on a certain date, and it was there. It happened to be on a Friday. On Monday morning at 9 o'clock I received a telephone call from a gentlemen by the name of John Zeh, who is one of the employees there and informed me that in view of the fact that they considered the points in my letter as not being germane, the hearing had been canceled. I was quite disturbed about this because we had ..... THE CHAIRMAN: In other words they ruled that because what you were going to say and did say in your letter, had no bearing on the decision, they were not going to hear you. Sort of prejudging the case. MR. BEAR: That's right. We had expert testimony that we had planned to present at the hearing. An interesting fact about that is there had been a hearing scheduled some months before. I believe on January THE CHAIRMAN: I remember that. It was in connection with docks. Henry put in a drain. That probably alerted them. MR. BEAR: I don't believe that had any bearing on it. It could have, but I doubt it. What happened was the sequence of events went like this. After the problem with the docks, this matter with the DEC came up on tot 5. Of course three other lots, 6, 7, and 8 were also involved. Before the January hearing I wrote a letter to the DEC. Then that hearing was canceled when Mr. Smith withdrew his application? I was informed on the telephone that his reason for doing it was there-we,~e~ new regulations concerning building on the shoreline coming out in March ~nd he would not ever need a permit. THE C~i~IRMAN: Th~s type of hearing doesn't require public notice, sir. Just a meeting in his ~ffice? FiR. BEAR: This meeting did require public notice. This DEC regulation~ did n~t igo into effect right away. Another hearing W~s set for July 14, 1977~ That hearing was ultimately canceled. I saw ~r. Zeh who had'been down to inspect the property some weeks before~ He told me then that they would not have any objection. Ho~r./'we did present a!letter. When I went in, he called me over t© ~iS d~sk and said there was only one point in the letter for the January hearing %hat was valid. That was point No. 4. I do not remember the details SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAR~ OF'APPEALS -8- September 28, 1978 of it. That was also included in the letter for the July hearing. So I was qui~e astounded when I was told the hearing was canceled. I wrote to Mr. Concra, who is the only source to which I could appeal. Mr. Con- cra is in ~lbany. I set forth in that letter our reasons why the permit should not be granted. If you like, I can either read it or present i~ to you so you can make a copy. THE CHAIRMAN: Your letter to Mr. Concra. I think we have to know what your objections are. So you might as well read it. Mr. Bear read a letter dated July 19, 1977, addressed to Mr. Louis Concra, Chief Permit Administrator, New York State Environmental Control, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York. The letter requested a new hearing be held on Petition No. TW~15276-0189 "A". The origianl hearing date of July 14th had been arbitrarily cancelled by t~e reg~®n~ o~fice at,S~ony. B~ook New York. %said letterem annexem nereno) ' MR. BEAR: Now, subsequent to that... THE CHAIRMAN: Well basically you are objecting to the antici- pated reduction of the supply of the fresh water remaining for the present owners living there now. MR. BEAR: That is approximately correct. I would like to get into some of that. THE CHAIRMAN: Mostly you are objecting to the sewage disposal method. MR. BEAR: W~tl] the type of sewage disposal at all in that area. THE C~AIRMAN: These are the two points you are concerned with. Go ahead. MR. BEAR: On the matter of water, I would like to get into that, if I may. I have a letter here from the Holzmacher, McLendiQn and Murrell, P.C. which was sent to the New York State Department of En~ironmeatal Conservation in ~ibany in relation to the letter I just read to you. Th.e points made i~ ~heir conclusion are as follows: Based ~n~e in~fo~C~,a~ion that ~the filled a~eas ~ withdredged saa~,'~ is certain that greater i%han ver~!ically. Consequently, most of the flow laterally u~ergrouhd over the silt and westerly) into 5o~ Neck Bay. (2) Fresh Waste ~ed .s much will for underground flow of water will be perpendicular to the shoreline. Fresh aterwithdrawn for ~he'four lots will affect the. available supply of he ot~er nearby residences with the largest effect on lots 22'~d 21 situated between Tepee Trail and Wampum Way. Salt water intrusion can occur ~n either of two way.. By increasing withdrawal, the volume of ?~ew York $!a~e sow I'~ -~ · ~-~, NeW Yo~k 12233 August .i1, 1977 Prank!mn eear, FreSident Nunnakoma Waters Association 375 Wampum Way Southold, NY i19~1 Dear ~lr. Bear: for your letter of July 19, 1977 regardi~<~ -fha concerns of the N.un.:~,akoma ~'.;=~ere Association. . I have ................ -conscrns an~ ' - " ' ~-~' ~-= following cos_ments, addressed as nm~bete~ %n '~our letter. ha. Th}s appizca~on m for one home only. {s only the one i.b. .... h~,~ ~,n.,....w~ ..... i~l E c~ address my review. .',.'~, r,.,par[locnt has long held that ~ aD~}rcval of one apptica?3on is precedent for s~sequene approvals of s~mLl.~%r u. pplidations. Site 4n~e=cPion resulted in a dete~.h}akic, n that there are no tidal wetlands on or ~-~ "~ c=~it%'= ..... ~[~_ aerial photocranhLc invent?ry map 6~[so does ~on shew ~ida! weti~ds. Accordin~ to a resort_ hr. the Suffolk Cou:~tv~ Health Depar~manm,_ ~rcu,~,~,.~e~ ts at a level of -6'. 2Jc. in gt;~ o~inion, withdrawal attributable ~3 oL-c hem,.~ will_not 21d. %~icnifica~t].'~ reduce t~e remount of Dotehle wato~ ~-L 'This is most prooerly a_ matter to nc: addr',sse~.. ~'3' c~e suffolk ~_ouNn'~ ~[~n!th '~ ~--. -, approval ~rr-m w~rt.h - ~ ' ~ ~_ par ~,, Cwners~%ip puior to th~. effective date of the TLaai Act is reascn for dec!aratlon of hsrdshJp. Page Two Frank ~iP- 'Sear, Presiden't Augus'c i !; .'1977 mqa[n, on an individual basis and caut~eu juahly m, asure it against an applicant's net worah~ 5ia. Thms' is a matter strictly_ for local ~nF~ r contains a let6er ~tad January 26, !'~77 !=~ror~ Uobcrt Tasker, -fown-Attorney, to John Wickham, Chairmnu of nhe Sou~hoid To%,~] Planntn~ Board. That ·letter says, fn Da~, "...nowhere do I find that the Planning Board impo~d s~fy conditions %~rnen i~ aL'proved the subdivision .... 5.0. See 2.c. above. - 5.c. ConstruCtion in a flood zone is a matter ?or local jurisdiction and r. ot within tiae purview of the Tidal ~,~' We ha~?e no inferm5tion before us which indicate~ a wi!dt~fe, pollution effect, on tidal wctiands, including threats to ' waters, cont~minanion of fish and shellfish, or thp public heatth and ' ' ~b~r-~ ' ~ -s are properly 5 =ub~c~ ~nr consideration safety. You~ o~_.=.~ ~onc~r~. by local government~under zoning or other, t~d use control. fmle~ ..... ~ ..... g your co~nents the Dckoarhmenm is issuing, on this date, a de'nez~nen~o~ that ~e permit ~-'~.~.l~ ~ be necessary if the applicant constructs ~u~ Nome and sewage facilities more than i00 feet ~rom mean sea r aDD+'~ ~zOUr concerns, welcomed your ~ =~ adequately ~xpza~ns our positicr~. . LA{C: scs cc: D2 Larkin'~' Very truly yours~ Louis ~'i. Concr~ Jr. chief Permit Aomh!istrator - ~RE~'YPED FROM EXTREMELY POOl{ PHOTOCOPY PRESENTED BY MR. FRANKLIN'BEAR. SECOND PAGE IS NOT READABLE. TAKEN FROM TAPE~ July t9,·'~i977~ Mr. Louis Concra Chief Permit Administrator New York State.of Environmental Control 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Dear Mr. Concra: On behalf of the Nunnakoma Waters Association and its individual members, I request that the matter of the petition of Henry J..Smith, Petition No. TW-t5276-0189 "A" be rescheduled for a hearing in Order that our association as a party in interest can present expert and relevant testimony and documentary evidence that the petition should ~denied. Th~s matter was scheduled to be heard on July 14, 1977, at Riverhead, N. Y., but was arbitrarily cancelled by your regional office at Stony BrOok, N. Y., without giving us the right to be heard. Tke letter ~kich 1 presented~in person to the regional office on July 8, 1977, outlined our association's objections to granting the petition. TD~s letter had been drafted in consultation with environ- mental experts. It is not irrelevant at ·all, as I was told by John Zeh of tke Stony Brook Office. Our association has reta±ned~he expert services of the firm Of Holzmacher, McClendon, Murrell-- environmental spec~alists who have prepared a multi-volume report for Suffolk County -- to testify in support of environmental points made in the letter. We also have-the support and assistance of the North Fork Environmental Council. Further, we ha~e interviewed concerned experts in suck agencies as the U. S. Geological Survey, the Nassau- Suffolk Regional Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control and obtained the knowledge and advice that led to the contentions se~forth in our letter of objections. The project proposed by Henry ~. ·Smith, andother projects wh~chwoutd be certain to follow, will indeed endanger the quantity and quati~y of the ground water supply, and waste disposal may. in fact adversely affect the waters of Hog Neck Bay and the local ground water supply. It is un- believable that the·hearing set for July 14, was canceled without regard for our r±qht to present the findings and expert testimony suggested in this paragraph. In addition to the above, I should like to call attention to the matter of financial hardskip. The claim is without credible foundation. We are prepared to present documentary evidence from the files of the Town of Southotd that~enry J. Smith has approximately doubled his investment in the Nunnakoma Waters subdivision. In·fact, about one fourth of his income from this subdivision has come from the sale of lots on land filled over marshlands, and the fill itself may have been placed there in contravention to regulations. Is 5~ Smith ~o be rewarded further for his actions. The r~al losers in this matter can be be the property owners in this subdivision, all of whom purchased their lots with the specific know~ lege that the approved map of the subdivision carried this note.'"The owner will retain ownership of Lots 8,7,6,5',4 until such time as.public water is available. They may have in fact suffered irrepairable damage. I have been informed by Mr. Donald Milton's office that Mr. Daniel Larkin said that I am the objector in this case. Even if that were true, I would have the right to be heard. The fact is, however, the objectors are the property owners in Nunnakoma Waters Subdivisionl Also I am in- formed that an objection was made by Mr. John Wickham, Chairman of the Southold Town Planning Board. On behalf of the members of the Nunnakoma Waters Association,'I appeal to you to order a rescheduling of the hearing in this matter .... Thank you. Sincerely yours, Franklin Bear, President Nunnakoma Waters'Association New York Slate Department o! Environmental Co~servation Environmental Analysis Unit Building 40, SUAPf Stony Brook, NY 11794 Peter A. A. Berle, Commissioner January 23, 1978 Mr. John Wickham Southold Town Planm4ng Board Southold, NY 11971 Re: Henry J. Smith, TW 15276-0189 "A" Dear Mr~ Wickham: This letter is which you express concermOver thehearimg cancellation for home construction by HemryJ,.Smith. The, parcel i~question'(lot #5 of ~Iunnakoma I*aters) has no tidal wetland vegetation a~ consists mainly of dredged spoil and beach grass. There is adequate land area on the parcel to conform to our regulations as stip~late~ i~ Part 66!, Land-Use Regulations, Title '6, of New Fork Codes, Rules and Regula- tions. Tidal wetland hearings are held for the sole purpose of elucidating environmental factors pertinent to the Tidal Wetland Act (Article 25) which may have a bearing on the issuance.or denial of Tidal Wetlands Permits. .Objectioms raised by yourself and Mr. Franklin Bear of the Nunnakoma Waters Association were ~ot relevant and did not adequately address the various considerations the Departmen~ evaluates for tidal wetland permit issuance. adequate, relevant objections are not raised by the public and if theNew ¥o~k State Department of Environmental Conservation has no objections to the project, the Chief Permit Administrator may dispense~ith a public hearing and issue a tidal wetlands permi~ or waiver thereof. Enclosed is a copy of our correspomdence with Mr. Bear regardimg this matter. ~opefully it will answer any further questions yon may have. Conservation Biologist JBZ/cr Encl. ROBERT G. HOLZM&CHER, P.E,, P.P., L.S. ' ' SAMUEL~C. McLENOON, P.F.. . NORMAN E MURRELL P.F- HUGO D. FREUBENTHAL Ph.D. HAROLD A. DOMBECK. ROBERT H. ALBANEBE, P.E. . '~ARL E. BECKER. CHRISTOPHER POWERS. p.r: · ' - CHARLES E. RANKS. ~RAN,K N. COPPA, H2M CORP. HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists & Planners · July 18, !977 ,.. 50 Wol2 ROad Albany, }Tew York 12233 Mr. Louis Conc~ Chief Permit Administrator Attention: Gentle~en: ~eh~ve been r~tained by Z~unnakoma Waters Association toadvtse them of the environmental effects of the proposed development of 2our (4) additional plots on the %-est side of Tepee T~itso~th of Bo~ Road, Southo!d, S~ffolk County~ said plots also fronting on Hog ~eck Bay (Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8). Based on-a plan dated December 14, 1965, by Van Tuyl ~ Son, and entitled Map'of.~opert!es ~J~veyed for Henry J. Smith at Southold, ~e_w York, aI1 of the four (4) ptot~ were filled with dredged ~terizl. They regresent a small .portion of residential property contained on a peninsul.a e~tendiu~ into' HO~ _NeckBay between Core¥ Creek and Richmond Creek. This peninsula is about I/5 mile wide and 1/3'mile long, with surface salt .water on.thraesides, aad.umderaeath. Our conclusions are as fo!lo~s: (1) ~ste Water BaSed on the !nfo~zti°n that the filled areas were meadow' land covered with dredged sand, it is certain that hor~ontal ~abllity is much g~er than verClczlly. Con- sequently, most of the se~ge effluemt will fl~ late~liy underground o~er the silt and ~E (westerly to southwesterly) in=o HoE }~ck '-' H2M CORP. ' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. Nr. Louis Con.era ~SDEC -2.- July !8i I977 (2) Fresh Water - Si~ce fresh ~ater-for potable ~ater supply for all __ ~esidences-on-the peainsu/a is derived from 1~1 re.fall and center of the peninsula and sloping to. rd each sho~line. 1 ine. F~sh ~er wit~d~wn f~ the four lots ~ill affect ~Se ~' available s~pp!y of t~e other nearby ~sidences wi~ the effect on lots 22 and 21 si~ed ~een ~e ~il' and u~p~ Wzy. ~lt ~ter imt~siom can ~ in either of t~o reservoir z~d ~he piez~tric head ~ould ~ reduced and elevate the salt water interface from ~derneath. Li~e~ise,~ bF c~zsim~ the f~sh ~zter underflow in the f~sh wz~r aquifer, ~he ~ed~e of salt ~er ~ould move hor~o~tzllF ~owz~ tke fntmnd are~. If Hog Neck Bay is sensitive to increased nitroEen loadings, the proposed development ~y cause eutrophication proble~.. A potential solution to this is public sewers in the area. Due to the extreme limited fresh water resource in the area, extension of public suppt~ to the area sh~ald be coo- sidered. The area is less than a mile from the nearest public supplyo Very truly yours, SC~J/Jj HOLZ~L~CKE~ ~R, McLE~'DON & ~MIP~W~.L, P,C. CC' Franklin Bear, President Nunumkoma Waters Assoc iai ion (~ J SOUTHOLD TOWN BQARD.OF APPEALS -9- September 28, 1978 fresh water reservoir and the piezometric head would be reduced and elevate the salt water interface from underneath. Likewise, by de- creasing the fresh water underflow in the fresh water aquifer, the wedge of salt water would move horizontally toward the inland area. Summary: If Hog Neck Bay is sensitive to increased nitrogen loadings, the proposed development may cause eutrophication problems. A potential solution to this is public sewers in the area. Due to the extreme limited fresh water resource in the area, extension of public supply to the area should be considered. The area is less than a mile from the nearest public supply. Signed by Samuel C. MCLendon, P.E. THE CHAIRMAN: How dO%Hoizm~ch~r~'McLehdon~and Murrell know the sewage will have a horizon%al~m°Vement ~here.- I ~m fairly familar with beaches, it looks to me that one was basically a sandy beach be- fore they threw some subsoil on it, back when you could do that. MR. BEAR: I think you would be contradicted by Mr. John Wickham, of the Southold Town Planning Board. I have some testimony of his here which I will read to you which may shed some light on that. Subsequent to the letter I have just read to you, two residents, the landowners of Lots 21 and 22 brought suit against Mr. Smith against the sale of the lot. They lost the suit~ The main reason they lost the suit was Mr. Wickham was not able to prove that the Town Planning Board gave its approval to the subdivision with the note that I read. THE CHAIRMAN: We checked that this afternoon in Counsel's office and there was nothing on the Map. Nothing on the Map that the Planning Board said in their minutes or regulations. MR. BEAR: That is what I am coming to. They could find nothing in the minutes~to prove that the Planning Board did make that note which the Board of Health placed on there. THE CHAIRMAN: The Suffolk County Board of Health placed that stipulation on the map? MR. BEAR: Presumably. The Town Planning~Board, according to Mrs. Wiokham, gave i%s approval to the Map with that note on the map, but ~%e minutes do ~Ot show that. That is Mr. Wickham'S testimony and his belief. In the ~awsuit that we .had, Mr. Wi~kham testified in part as (~r. Bear rsad into the record Mr. Wickham's testimony, a part of.these minutes.) The test wells discus~ the t~ are the wells that were tested in May of 1977. after the ~fore any summer draw~.down and the test according to and the H2M Corp. indicate there ~ not adequate e sufficient water to last the hard summer use esp g a drought period. This is what concerns myself and my ~ighbors because we have had some experience down there. Not that we d© not want to have neighbors. Neighbors are alright. We are concerned not only about the water we may or may not have, but the kind of water. I would like to recite the experience we had when we built our home. We own lots 3 and 4. Four we cannot build upon because that is too close to Corey Creek. Lot 3, we built upon. Lot 3 is partly filled. The Builder had a well placed at approximately the place where the former SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD-OF APPEALS -10- September 28, 1978 uplands began. Possibly a little toward the Bay from that. The result of that was we got brackish water. We therefore went to the extreme northwest corner of Iot No. 3 in order to get potable and suit- able water. THE CHAIRMAN: Where is your house, on Wampum Way? MR. BEAR: On Wampum Way. On the east side of Wampum Way. THE CHAIRMAN: The last house on the east side of Wampum Way, overlooking the inlet? MR. BEAR: Yes, overlooking Corey Creek. THE CHAIRMAN: The first test well was put on the edge of the former uplands. How far did they move it back? MR. BEAR: Approximately 125 to 135 feet from the original location, Still on my property. In the extreme northwest corner. As far back as we could get. May I also point out a couple of things from the 208 WaS~telWater Study. on page 45 of the summary it says the high chloride concentrations over 25 miligrams per liter have been found in a few areas of the North Fork in New Suffolk and along both shores of Great Hog Neck and Little Hog Neck Bays. This is at the upper end of Great Hog Neck. Public supply wells in the Greenport area experience salt water intrusion where pumpage was concentrated at one site. Be- cause of the limited depth of fresh water on the Forks Waste Water Management Controls must protect those areas that still have acceptable ground water quality if the areas are to remain self sufficient in water supply. On page 82. This zone is characterized by unique water condi- tions, especially with respect to local quality problems such as high nitrate levels in f~a~m areas and Salt water upconing where pumpage is Concentrated. Salt water upconing would be along the shoreline. Those are some of the things that our experience and expert testimony and advice indicate. That is that this is an extremely risky situation. THE CHAIRMAN: I take it that ~YOur last chance to object because the authorities~ tha~ control the area and what is done are higher than we are. In other words New Eork State En~imonmental Conservation and the County Department of ~ealth have all okayed thi~, Wa 'cannot really judge the water si~uation, or ~ater risk, whic~ i~ b~sicaily what you are addressing. I am fa~ila'~ with~thiS. I have pu~ap.e~d 475 gallons a minute in a beach area ~nd after 50 or 60 minutes found that i~ was turning salt.. I stopped and ~ week or two later wen~ back; ~a~d~we~e~S ~o~t~8~ the ~1~~-/¥ ~' ~' It replenishes itself. No two Spots a.r~ exactly alike. T~e ~int t~at you make ab0ub silt is well taken because ~'hat we found in E~st Marion ~hen the Plannin9 Board permitbed the canal~to end down there, the supply of the Greenport water people~Was ~ffected as much as a half a mile way and they had never had a problem with salt water intrusion. There are alot of examples of this, both pro and con. I do not know if you are familiar with Block Island or not, but they have 360 odd lakes. The sub-structure is basically clay. One place over tber~ on the south end of the island you can see the water running as thoUgh it is coming from a fire hose. What John Wickham says SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAP~D~ ~OF APPEALS -11- Septer~ber 28, 1978 about the water supply situation on beaches is i~e~euan~.~ ~In-s0m~be~eh~s it is, some others, it isn't. I think what we are up against here is something that is beyond our authority. MR. BEAR: I recognize what you are saying. If you did go against what the Department of Health and DEC says, this would not be the first time a Town Agency has done so. There are Town regulations which you follow and enforce. In this case'the Town regulation could be irrelevant and could be enforced. In the case of John Wickham I am speaking speci- fically, not generally, of this area. He has told me he has done quite a~ bit of duck shooting along that area when he was young, and that was a barrier beach there, which extended along in front of where these properties now exist. That is what the H2M Corporation is talking about when they say which way the water would run. There is underneath there a bog. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a bog under there? Are you sure of that? MR. BEAR: Yes, I can show you a map .... I am sure I can prove that if necessary. Here is a map~of when Henry Smith sought to have that area filled and he applied for a permit to do so. It shows a low land disposal area. This is a sketch I am sure, and I do have at home, a map that shows this area as a marsh area. It was filled with sand. I think it came from Richmond Creek. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean the County dredge, or something like that? Placed on bog? Does the Board of Health know this? MR. BEAR: I cannot answer that question. Ail they did is to rule on the basis of an hour's pumping at a rate of 5 gallons pe~minute. THE CHAIRMAN: I would tend to agree with you that is inconclusive evidence. M~. GRIGONIS: How deep were the wells do you know? THE CHAIRMAN: They only had to go 6 feet to water. You could practically push it down with your hand. MR. BE~R: One of the things I have learned from the people of the U. S. Geodetic Survey and other people confirmed this. The County Department of Environmental Control as well. The water table comes down toward the Bay and eventually it ends. This is right at the edge of the water table. THE CHAIRMAN: Where the head is the least. MR. BEAR: The Geodetic Survey people and the County people both told me that probably there is not mo~e than 6 inches of water above mean high water in ~he Bay. · HE CHAIRMAN: You mean a 6 inch head. I would imagine that it is probably less than that. If you had a 6 inch head, you would have a factor of 28 or 25. You would have several feet of water perhaps. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- September 28, 1979 MR. BEAR: That must be. If they only went down 6 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Our new member, Mr. Douglass, put in points at Orient Point laterally, instead of vertically in order to stay within t~e water s~pply. MR. DOUGLASS: Also did it in New Suffolk. HR. BEAR: If he had that shallo~ head there, and if you had some dry weather as you did from 1962 to 1965, we would have a serious problem. The normal rain fall is only 44 inches per year. THE CHAIRMAN: Did you live here then? MR. BEAR: No, but I lived on Long Island. I have been doing some reading on this not only in connection with this, but on other matters. The 208 Water Study points out some of these things quite often. What you are really up against is how soon you ~re going to have salt water intrusion. You can't predict that. THE CP~IRMAN: How long have you been there. MR. BEAR: We have had that property since 1974. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you use any water to irrigate your lawn? MR. BEAR: We use some in the garden. THE CHAIRMAN: Because the way the County figures the normal usage of water is based on 380 or 480 gallons of water.per family per day. Some families use 10 time that amount. Does that conclude your points? MR. BEAR: I Would just like to mention a couple of other things. You read the dimensions of the lot. I got those dimensions the other day in the office of the Board of Appeals. Then when I got the map of the subdivision out, I found the dimensions of the property described in this application are not the same dimensions as shown on the official map as lot No. 5. The subdivision map shows the 100 feet on Tepee Trail all right. But instead of 170 feet on the west side, it shows 188.09, Instead of 170 feet on the Bay side, it shows 161.23 feet. Instead of 276 feet on Wampum Way, it shows 255 feet. THE CHAIRNAN: (looking at the map). A difference of 9 feet on the Bay, 21 feet on the easterly line. Don't you think that depends on which part of the beach they measured from? MR. BEAR: Not entirely. You have the width on the Bay side which is not varied that much. I do not see how you could lose 18 feet on,the west side. THE CHAIRMAN: That was 1968 and this is 1977. MR. DOUGLASS: He lost 20 feet. $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- September 28, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: It looks as though they gained. Can you gentle- men throw any light on that Mr. De Riggi? MR. DE R1GGI: Maybe it was accretion. We lost on one side from 188 to 170 and qained on the other side. I have,no ideas other than the tides and back and forth with the sand. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know how-they mark the beaches. MR. BEAR: Of course there had to be a survey. MR. DE RIGGI: These were both done by Mr. Van Tuyt. MR. BEAR: I suppose it depends what you are surveying. did this map too. MR. DE RIGGI: The various directions are all the same although he seems to be going around clockwise one time and counter clockwise the next time. The directions are the same on both. THE CHAIRMAN: Oddity. MR. GRIGONIS: Shifting sands. MR. TUTH-ILL: Reversed erosion. THE CHAIRMAN: A hopeless trapezoid. DAVID Y. SMALL: Mr. Bear has presented all the facts very well. All I would like to present is what I physically see. I see terrific erosion of that beach in the 3 years that I have lived there atW~HOg~S Neck. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean it is disappearing. It is not accreting? MR, SMALL: When I first moved there, there was a fine sandy beach. Now there a~e~?huge blocks of concrete emerging. There are old boilers and radiators emerging in the sand. THE CHAIRSLAN: This is all towards the Bay? MR. SSt~_LL: This is right in front of the property and to the left of the propsrty we are discussing. THE CHAIRMAN: Down by the water ? MR. SMALL: The beach has receded considerably. I have also se~n ~hat Hog Neck's-Bay is now reaching and lapping into Corey Creek during the winter time. There is an area of about 6 or 8 feet where the peb~l~es ars j~st roiling and being pushed in. THE CHAIP~L~N: Do they roll back? SOUTHOLD TOYFN BOARD-OF APPEALS -14- September 28, 1978 MR. S~LL: No. The Bay is pushing into Corey Creek. I also can say that I can see an appreciable change in our shower head. I have a water pik shower head. During the summer I could not get a needle point shower out of it. It was coming out in drizzle. I am now getting a full circle of needle point shower. So the water is effected by usage. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be mechanically between the water supply and your home. MR. SMALL: I --am not drawing as much water during August as I am now. THE CHAIRMAN: You have a pressure tank? MR. SMALL: The tank has been serviced and is in working order. The erosion is very easy to see. THE CHAIRMAN: According to these two sur~eys it looks as though 20 feet has appeared on the ~asterly line. Of course that is the area where the turn around on the road is. MR. SMALL.: But the whole beach has eroded in just 3 short years. THE CHAIRMAN: When you say you think this has been artificially filled, lots of land is, this is nothing new. MR. SMALL: This was probably done when this was permissable. Nevertheless, nature does not want that beach to be there. It is eating away at it. It must have some effect on the water table. THE CHAIRMAN: So far you people have not had any chloride pro- blems have you? MR. SMALL: I do not know. A couple of times when I drew water the glass seemed very foamy. I am going to have my water tested. I do not know if it was soap residue in the glass or the water. I never saw it that way in Nassau where I came from. THE CHAIRMAN: Nassau is where they permit detergents. MR. ~SMALL: I had better water in Roosevelt. Town Building Code on the lot in question by .its potential owners should consider the following: The lot is adjacent to Hog Neck Bay. Its water supply is unproven and, at best, tenuous. Development of the proPerty, as is, will pose a threat of salt water intrusion to the potential pur- chaser and all property owners from lot 22 southward. In addition it is questioned whether or not the subject property can comply with waste disposal criteria and well criteria already in effect in Suffolk County. For the above reasons the Board is respectfully asked to decline the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD'OF APPEALS -15- September 28, 1978 request for a variance for the protection of existing and future property owners in the subdivision. Also a telegram was to be sent to me by Michael Stack and a letter is to follow. I opposs~ issuance of a building permit for Lot No. 5. Concerned re possible damage to water table and water supply for my house. Micahel Stack. They are the people who own the property immediately across the street and north of lot No. 5. THE CHAIRMAN: What you are asking us to do here is consider non- expert testimony~against so called expert testimony. You do have expert testimony too. The Board of Health and DEC and so on. There is still another possibility that may help you. If this was a bog the odds are that the Water table where this gentleman wants to build a house has no relation to the water table which controls your water. If this was artificially created, the bog protects you. It is only when you cut into a bog and let the water out that you have problems. What may happen there is that the only way a water supply can be obtained will be laterally. I will tell you, Mr. Bear what I would like to do unless someone would like to refute something that has been said. MR. BEAR: The only thing I would like to say is that Mr. Shybunko is under contract and does not apparently own the property yet, and I would question whether there is any real financial hardship. THE CHAIRMAN: We are not allowed to consider financial hardship here, Mr. Bear. Everyone is considered to have financial hardship. WhH~her he owns it now or buys~it does not affect the hearinq. I would like to postpone this decision, although I d~4~t like to do ~his, so we can all dwell on all the testimony presented. I think we should weigh all of this. MR. DE RIGGI: As you perceived before, all of this business about the water is not really germane to this hearing. It is a legal building lo%. The question is just how much Qf it can be used. We are just asking to use a little bit more than the zoning ordinance permits us to use. THE CHAIRMAN: I agree with you, but out of respect to these people who have done extensive work and are long time residents of the Town... MR. DE RIGGI: Mr. Bear is from Baldwin, and he is an old candi- date for County Executive in Nassau County and many other offices. THE CHAIRMAN: Also chairman of the Nassau County Planning Board. BEAR: My past has caught up with me. THE CHAIrmAN: Out of respect to all of the testimony presented here, and to further confirm my opinion which is all we have been requested to act on here is a setback variance, I would like to review all the facts before deciding. There are situations where we are contrained tc stick to just the %e~h/~calities. We use good judgment also. I understand there is -SOUT~OLD TOWN B~ARD ~OF APPEALS -16- September 28, 1978 no objection whether or not ~'you have the house. No one has objected about that. That is all you are asking for in this application. These other mat%ers have been brought up at a public hearing, and I think they should be assessed. MR. DE RIGGI: come back. THE CHAIRMAN: We have no objection to a delay. Will we have to Personally, it is my opinion that this should be granted to Mr. Shybunko. Whether we can extend our area of competence to... I do not think any court would uphold a Board of Appeals that denied you a variance to decrease slightly the front yard requirement on an undersized lot. It is the hardest thing to prove in court is whether or not the house is located a foot this way or 10 feet that way is going to change the character of an area, and effect the safety, health and welfare of the Town of Southold. MR. BEAR: This does effect the safety, health and welfare of at least one part of the Town of Southold. THE CHAIRMAN: Not as to the area of whether it is 10 feet or 35 feet or 50 feet back from the Road. I do not think that would make any difference. Or that would cha~ge the character of the neighborhood. If there is a house there at all, that may effect the water supply. Presumably, we are incompetent to judge. This is what I want to take up with Town Counsel. On motion by Mr. Gillispie seconded by Mr. Tuthilt, it was RESOLVED to RESERVE DECISION on Appeal No. 2469 until October 19, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC. HE~R~NG: Appeal No. 2471 - Upon. application of Charles A. Brautigam, ~6 Benson Roa~, Glen Rock, New Jersey, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec-ion 100~32 for permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area. Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by West Road; east by Gus%ave Bickert; south by Bay; west by George H. Fleet Estate. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal n~tice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to: George H. Fleet Estate and Gustave Bickert. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant is the owner of approximately 1.1 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD~OF kPPEALS -17- September 28, 1978 acres, and he proposes to put a carport partly in the side yard and partly in the front yard on the westerly side of the property. This carport will be further away from the road than an adjoining carport to the west. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? CHARLES A. BRAUTIGAM: If there are any further questions, I will be happy to answer them. THE CHAIRMAN: Bill Beebe called me today and said he was going to build it, and that you would not be able to be here. The proposal is to put 3 cars in the carport, antique cars. Do you collect antique cars? M~. BRAUTIGAM: I am starting to. I have 2 cars already. THE CHAIRMAN: That is a good start. You will have one place to grow on? MR. BRAUTIGAM: I will use the third place for my regular car. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this appllcatlon~ (there was no response). What size is the carport going to be? MR. BRAUTIGAM: That was decided after I applied. It will be 25.feet by 25 feet. After investiNation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct a 3 stall carport to be located partly in the side yard and partly in the front yard to house 2 antique cars and his family car. The size of the carport will be 25 feet by 25 feet. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship crea~ed is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the 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. Douglass, it was RESOLVE~ that Charles A. Brautigam, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, NeW Jersey, be ~G~NTED permission tO Construc~ a ca~port in the front yard area. Locatf0h of pr. operty:~ West Road, Cutcho~ue, New York, bounded on the north by WeSt Road; east by Gustave Bickert; south by the Bay; west by George H. Fleet Estate, subject to the following condi- tions: (1) The carport shall be no closer to West Road than the adjoining carport on the Lister property. (2) The carport shall be no closer than 5 feet to the westerly line of the property. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- September 28, 1978 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2473 - Upon application of Robert Wacker, Nassau Point Road, CutchogHe, New York, (Peter Stoutenburgh, as agent), for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to add 10 feet to present garage located in front yard area. Location of property: Lots No. 7 and 8, Nassau Point Properties, Cutchogue, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and-disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification had been made by certified mail to: Fred F. Faulkner and Felix R. Palmeri. Fee paid $15.00o THE CHAIRMAN: The County Tax Map indicates this Property is on Nassau Point Road on the easterly side and consists of approximately 1.4 acares. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? PETER J. STOUTENBURGH: Pretty much what you have read is the way the Wackers would like to have it. It's only a 10 foot addition on the front of the garage. The garage is in need of repair, and when they had it repaired they wanted to have 10 feet added on due to the fact this was originally buil~ during the time when cars were smaller. Now they want to store lawn mowers and such. TH~AiPJ~N: How narrow are those opening for the doors? MR. STOUTENBURGH: In that garage? THE CHAIRMAN: The one that is sitting there now. MR. STOUTENBURGH: It is barely 16 feet 6 inches for the outside dimensions of the garage. They are making most garage doors 16 feet. now. THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't look as though those doors are that big. MR. STOUTENBURGH: It is pretty small. They want a whole new front on it. THE CHAIRMAN: Are-you going to widen it at the same time? MR. STOUTENBURGH: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD .OF APPEALS -19- September 28, 1978 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to add 10 feet to an existing garage and repair the original garage that is located in the legal front yard. 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 the 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. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that Robert Wacker, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York (Peter Stoutenburgh, as agent), be GRANTED permission to add 10 feet to a present garage located in front yard area as requested. Location of property: Lots No. 7 and 8, Nassau Point Properties, Cutchouge, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2472- Upon application of Rein Narma, 1000 Private Road, (Hyatt Road), Southold, New York, (Robert C. Wertz, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32, for permission to construct a garage in the front yard area. Location of properlty: Private Road (Hyatt Road) Southold,.New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by A. Gina; south by right-of-way; west by R. A. Brown and P. R. Bie. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Ruth Ann Brown, Anna S. Gina, and Paul R. Bie. Fee Paid $15.00 THE CHAI~LAN: The County Tax Map indicates that the applicant is the owner of a lot 56.2 feet on one side, 548 on· the other side, and a width of '100 feet presumable from the Private Road to Long Island Sound. The sketch is so poor, but the house is located approximately in the middle. ROBERT C. WERTZ, ESQ.: The garage will be 24 feet by 24 feet and sits back 85 feet from the road, and will be constructed of cedar as the house. THE CHAIRMAN: There are adjoining garages that show faintly on this survey. You must have a copying machine like mine. MR. WERTZ: The original we used was not that good. . SOUTH~LD TOWN B~ARD'OF APPEALS -20- September 28, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: It looks as though many of the adjoining neighbors have garages in their front yards also. Both to the east and west. So you will merely ±n conformity with your neighbors. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against th~s application? (there was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct a garage in his legal front yard. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The adjoining properties have garages in their front yard areas, and this will not affect the character of the area. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce pract±cal difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the 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 F~r. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that Rein Narma, 1000 Private Road (Hyatt Road), Southold, New York, (Robert C. Wertz, Esq) be GRANTED permission to construct a garage in the front yard area. Location of property: Private Road (Hyatt Road), Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by A. Gina; south by right-of-way; west by R. A. Brown and P. R. Bie ~'~upon the following conditions: The size of the garage shall not exceed 25 feet by 25 feet. (2) The garage shall be located 85 feet from the Private Road and at least 5 fe~t from any property line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Rave and Olsen, 0rdin a ~al No. 2474 - Upon application of Sandra ~ Lane, Bayville, New York (Gary F. in accordance with %he Zoning B (6) for permission to operate .club with swimming pool. Location of proper~y: YOrk, bounded on the north by Middle Road; east by Haas; south by Long Island Railroad; west by Case. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special excep~ notice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting to ±~s in the official newspapers, and disapproval from theB~ildin~ Inspector. The Chairman also read a Statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Douglass and Carol J. Case, Helmut Haas. Pee paid $15.00 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD~OF APPEALS -21- September 28, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: The property is on:> Middle Road, Peconic, New York. The County Tax Map indicates that the property is 4.7 acres, but when we multiplied this out this afternoon in the Town Attorney's office, it seemed to us that it was just barely over three acres. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GARY P. OLSEN, ESQ.: We have submitted to the Board as part of our application a copy of the proposed layout plan prepared by Sacco, Ahlers and Brown indicating that the plot area is approximately 133,00 square feet with a total usage covered by buildings and the other facilities of approximately 6.35%. It also shows parking and so on. We feel we meet the minimum Town requirements as far as special exceptions are concer~ed. There may be some variations as far as the sidelines are concerned, but this is the gist of the facility that we wish to have. There may be ~ome rearranging of the location of the different facilities. This gives the Board a general idea what the applicant has in mind. THE CHAIRMAN: You apparently sent a copy of this down to Mr. Tasker's office. Do I have the latest sketch? MR. ©LSEN: I sent a copy to Bob Tasker just for him to review t~e computat±on of the area usage. THE CHAIRMAN: He also pointed out to us this afternoon that alot of tkese things are considered structures and there cannot be any parking within 50 feet of any structure. There has to be 100 foot setback from any street line, so I thought the plot plan had been!s~bstahtially changed. MR. OLSEN: We have a revision with us. But quite frankly we ~ust received it this afternoon, and it is not really what we want. The parking area shown on the layout that you have of September 8th shows the setback of the parking 100 feet from Middle Road. I think you are con- cerned probably about the sidelines more than the actual parking itself. THE CHAIRMAN: No building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located within one huhdred feet of any street line. I think you had the 100 foot setback. MR. OLSEN: We have that. THE CHAIRMAN: Then it goes on to say nor within 50 feet of any lot lines MR. OLSEN: The sketch may be redesigned slightly so we meet the 50 foot side line requirements. In any event this must go before the Planning Board for site plan approval. What we are a~king the Board for tonight is to grant the special exception for the concept and then site plan approval will be submitted to the Planning Board. THE CHAIRMAN: I just thought we would point out to you on the way what we have learned. You cannot put anything within 50 feet of the side~li~es. ®r the rear yards. Not even including the back stops for SOUT~LD TOWN BOARD 'OF APPEALS -22- September 28, 1978 tennis courts. MR. OLSEN: We have the room to work with as you can see. THE CHAIRMAN: If you analyze the amount of space left, it is considerably reduced. MR. OLSEN: Also on the area. I do have a survey of the property. This property was approved by the Planning Board at one time for a minor subdivision. This survey was prepared by Rod Van Tuyl in March, 1976, indicating area to be 4.1169 acres. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Douglass worked on that subdivision. He could probably tell us something about it. MR. OLSEN: I am going by Road Van Tuyl's computations, but it is right on this map. It shows the area there. MR. DOUGLASS: That is what I thought it was when we did it. MR. OLSEN: It was approved for a minor subdivision of 4 lots each having over 40,000 square feet, the average of 44,000 square feet. MR. DQUGLASS: This shows the entrance that the County allowed and everything. MR. OLSEN: So it is over 4 acres. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know where we got the wrong information. But I'm glad there is the extra room because 25,000 square feet cannot be used, 16, 000 cannot be used here, 100 across the front, you are over 100,00Q square feet that cannot be used for structures. If this area is incorrect... MR. OLSEN: You are talking about the total area? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I'm glad you have that much. MR. OLSEN: We can use up to 20 percent. According to the Archi- tect~s computations as to the amount of space usable, the formula that he received from the Town Attorney, we are using only a little more than 6 percent of the area that we are allowed to use. Provided that we meet front, side and rear setback requirements. Which we will do. MR. DOUGLASS: When you push these things in you won't have room to get them all in. Will you get them all in? SANDRA RAVE: Well, it is 4.7 acres according to our Contract. MR. DOUGLASS: The amount of area you have marked off on this map for each ind~ividual project or game. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe that is out of scale. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD~OF APPEALS -23- September 28, 1978 MR. DOUGLASS: If you take all of these and add them together, you can't get them stretched across, and stay within the setbacks. SHE CHAIRMAN: Do you see what he means? The way this is drawn. This may not mean anything and may be totally useless. MR. OLSEN: I assume it is all to scale. THE CHAIRMAN: How are you going to get these 50 feet off of here and these 50 feet off here? They are 10 feet now. (indicating the deck tennis courts on layout) You have got to establish the 50 foot boundaries. There is not way this Board can vary it. MR. OLSEN: I realize that. I guess what I am askinq for is an approval of the concept of the special exception for this us~. The total area is over 4 acres, not 3. MR. DOUGLASS: I remember when Mr. Foster had it surveyed, it was 4 acres at that time. THE CHAIRMAN: This sketch states plot ares 133,500 square feet. It just seems incredible that it can be so far off. It is off by 30 or 40,000 square feet. The sketch you sent to Bob Tasker's office, as you can see.:.. MA. OLSEN: This is the sketch that was presented to this Board on September 8, 1978, for the informal review of it. I do not know where he got the 133,000. MR. TUTHILL: I don't know either, because it doesn't come out to 133,000 square feet. MR. OLSEN: Even using ...... Even using the reduced are of 133,000 square feet, which is obviously inaccurate. We are still only using 6% roughly~ THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that is the problem. MR. OLSEN: With the larger area, going by an accurate survey of the surveyor and putting the same facilities on this, we would be using instead of 6%, we would be using maybe 4% or 5%. So if anything, we have cheated ourselves. '~ THE CHAIRMAN: You are aware of these restrictions.ru~ll the set- back requirements have been covered. Use shall not be conducted for pro- fit as a business enterprise. In that respect I am just curious. Some, times these things make money, sometimes they lose. There has to be enough money to pay for the expenses. Otherwise it is a charitable enterprise supported by somebody. Is there any problem there. MR. OLSEN: I spoke with the Town Attorney about this.. The opera- tion would be set up as a membership club which is permitted as a special exception. I fully discussed this with Bob Tasker. THE CHAIRMAN: If it is incorporated, does that mean if you start SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD.OF APPEALS -24- September 28, 1~78 to lose money, this is the wrong place for it in a residential area. Have you had any luck on membership on this? club. MARY TLOCZKOWSKI: There is alot of interest as a membership THE CHAIRMAN: In other words they pay so much? My recollection of the last time I talked to Mr. Zehner was that there are not too many members down there. Do you know. MS. TLOCZKOWSKI: O~rs is sort of a poor person's YMCA. We will be aimed at the middle class person. THE CHAIRMAN: He had fairly moderate fees I think for the use of te~n~s courts and swimming pool, but I do not think he ever achieved the number of members that he wanted. He had alot of trouble with his pool. It was constructed badl~ Also, it is an extremely difficult location. If you have ever driven down that road. MR. OLSEN: We feel that this is an ideally suited location. For residential purposes, it is not ideally located. There is a business directly contiguous. The L6ng Island Railroad to the south. We just felt that this is one of the better uses for the property rather than a resi- dential use. THE CHAIRMAN: Long Island Railroad to the south almost guarantees vacant land in perpetuity. MR. OLSEN: There is a need for it in the community. T~E CHA!~RMAN: No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than 3 acres. You have the area. Direct source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from the view of surrounding residential lots. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for the application? .(there was no response). Does the Board have any questions for the applicants? Does anyone wish to speak against this application? DOUGLASS CASE: I li~ directly to the west of this property. I do not like to disagree with Mr. Otsen, but my family 'has lived there since 1845 when they bought the piece next door and it has been residential since then. I do not know how many people are going to be there, but there are children across the street, children at my house, next door to me. We have a problem enough with the dual lane highway with trucks going to and from Steve Doroski's. We do not know how much noise we are going to get from this. I work at Eastern Long Island Hospital and the club they have across the creek, I can hear people screaming all night long. This is at Sterling Harbor Marina. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean from the motel? From Townsent Manor Inn? MR. CASE: From the opposite way. From Sterling Harbor Marina. Tkey run a d~sco at the Boathouse. I don't have the slightest idea what SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD 'OF kPPEALS -25- September 28, 1978 you<are going to have at night. Is this going to be open at night. MRS. CASE: This is really a residential area with one business stuck in the middle. MR. CASE: Hass' property was zoned commercial in the 1800's because it was Charlie Hubbard's father's saw mill. The zoning was never changed on that. It was carried down. THE CHAIRMAN: A non-conforminq use that survived and was legiti- mized by business zoning in the late l~50's. MR. CASE: The piece they wish to buy has been farmland for I don't know how long, because my family farmed it until~n61e~i~d~hen turned into his estate, and it was sold t© Richie Foster~ who soid~it to Joe Townsend. Then they tried to put it into 4 residential lots, which is now being changed to what I consider a commercial use. THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is quite different from commercial property. For instance the operation across the street could be charac- terized at times as commercial. Bittner's riding academy. It is in an agricultural~residential area, and this type of activity is permitted in a residential area. Just as a gas station is a convenience in a res±dential area. The price of land in a business district may be pro- hibitive. For~this operation as you can see from the discussion requires quite a lot of land,~a~d ~uite a bit of vacant land around the perimeter. Same thing could be said of playgrounds and beaches. One thing that I was a little unclear about was the 3 types of tennis. Deck tennis, volley ball, do you contemplate all of these? Paddle Tennis? How do those differ? MS.~ T~O~ZKOWSKI: Deck tennis is on platforms and played during colder weather. You play in sweatsuits. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you play with rackets? MS. TLOCZKOWSKI: The racket ball is with a cement wall. As on a handball court. THE CHAIRMAN: No enclosure, no fence? The pool would require a fence. Do you plan to fence the side yards? MS. RAVE: Ail the way around. THE CHAIRMAN: What about shrubbery? MS. RAVE: It will all landscaped. THE CHAIRMAN: (speaking to the Cases) Does this help you any to understand this? MRS. CASE: We were ~ooking at the layout there. There was an SOUTHOLD TOW~N B©ARD.OF APPEALS -26- September 28, 1978 area there for 62 cars. Would you like that next door to your house? It is changing the character of the area. The operation across the street may ha~e 2 cars there at one time. Maybe there are 2 cars at the awning place at one time. This is going to have 4 tennis courts going, it is going to be noisy. THE CHAIRMAN: How many cars would you have for 4 different tennis courts? MRS. CASE: Alot. MR. CASE: If they don't, they will be broke. MRS. CASE: We have houses here and kids. I think it is changing the character of the area. It is a great big thing right in the middle of an area with residential homes. I think it is just an opinion as to whether it is a residential area or not. My husband and I work nights at the hospital, we sleep all day, and there is going to be bang, bang out there. Plus we were explaining to the gals, my husband is going to farm the property next door, which is going to cause dust over there and I anticipate complaints that you shouldn't be doing it when it is windy. The wind does blow that way. THE CHAIRMAN: What land are you going to be farming? Across the street? MRS. CASE: I have 3.7 acres right next door. THE CHAIRMAN: Just to the west. land. MRS. CASE: We have goats and animals. Agricultural-residential MR. CASE: Sepenoski across the street farms 40 acres behind his mother's house which is diagonally across from their property. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any response to these objectors? MR. OLSEN: No, the only response I have is that this is a per- mitted use in this agriculture-residential area by special excePtion by the Board. It is contemplated in the-Zoning Ordinance by Special Exception. with certain restrictions on the amount of land, setbacks and so on. MS. TLOCZKOWSKI: We do not plan on hawing a night.operation. There are only four platform tennis courts which means onl} 4 o~leach court. Maybe in the early evening. At the Sterling Harbor Marina it was a disco. We stayed there on our boat all summer. That is completely different. We do not have a disco. We have a snackbar to service people during the day. It will just serve hot dogs and hamburgers. There will be very little night use. We have belonged to different clubs, and I cannot honestly say that it is that noisy. That is a busy road anyway. I can't see us increasing the use of that road. MRS. CASE: But the cars will be starting and stopping right next SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- September 28, 1.978 door to us. That is different than just going by. I do no~ object to the concept of the club. I would like to join it. It sounds like alot of fun. If a Special Exception is granted for them, then maybe the whole area there will be changed. If the Board feels that it is not suitable for residential purposes then why don'twe all get our land changed and find another place to live. THE CHAIRMAN: Of course this is the classic confrontation between zoning where every specific use is classified and no one can predict the future indefinitely.- They create districts which are specifically used for professional offices. No one wants to build a professional office building there. The uses are pretty limited. It would be hard to create a zone specifically for this use is what I am t~ying to say. This would not be suitable in a business zone either. MR. CASE: Isn't this increasing another classification in the area since this is an Agricultural-Residential district? THE C~AIRMAN: The Agricultural-Residential classification is a very broad one. Certain uses such as this one is permitted by Special Exception by the Board, providing the Board does not find that there are no objectional aspects. The phrase "Special Exception" is a "Misnomer". A Board~sho~ld really call it a "Required Exception." The Board is required to act affirmatively if they can answer affirmatively all the criteria thak~ is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The character Of this neighborhood would be inhibited by Haas' property and the fact that the County ha~ considerable land on the other side of Haas and the Long Island Railroad is located at the rear. The County might someday elect to use theJ property. All of these things would indicate to me it might not be place for residential lo-ts. We_consider the conservation of pro and the encouragement of the moStlappropriate uses of land. not be appropriate. This coUld be. The effect that the loca proposed use may have upon the creation of undue increased ~eh congestion on public streets or highways~ The County P~anni~g Commission will tell us about that very specifically. Based o~ ~y e~peri~ce with them, ~hey would be particularly adversed to any- thing that wouid in~rease the traffic flow or conqesti0n too much. I don't think you could argue with them that this would 'i~crease the~ongestion too much. Tke availability of adequate and proper public or Private water supply and facilities for the treatment and removal of sewage. Mr. Douglass has personally conducted tests on this land. There is adequate water suppl~, and the soils there are good. There are some places where you can build tennis courts and get into alot of trouble. MR. CASE: What happens to my water? Not the water table. My point is 14 foot into the ground. THE CHAIRMAN: If you only have to go down 14 feet, you certainly have an adequate water supply. MR. CASE: I do. But the only thing that land has ever been used for is agriculture. Very seldom did we water this parcel because the water had to be brought from across the street from the swamp. .S~U~H~LD TOWN BOARD 'OF kPPEALS -28- September 28, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Based on what we know, there will be plenty of water there for everyone. Whether the materials produced there will give off odors. None. Disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. Now, it is more likely your dust will inhibit them more than their noise will inhibit you. Whether the operation in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities. The necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles. The Planning Board will determine what type of surface they want. Whether the use or the structures will cause an over- crowding of land or undue concentration of population. I don't think we have to worry about that. Whether the plot area is sufficient. It is sufficient by law. States you have to have 3 acres for this type of use. They have over 4. Whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational are or other place of public assembly. I think we can rule that out. In deciding any matter before it, the Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary or appropriate to preserve and protect the spirit ahd ' the objectives of this chapter. I think that the Board would have to answer most of these affirmatively. In favor of the applicant. MR. OLSEN: I don't think we want to preclude the possibility of a year round operation. Either enclosing the pool or tennis courts. I think that is something that would be welcomed by the community. I do not know if it is in the offing at this point or not. THE CHAIRMAN: Any enclosures would help the Cases, not hurt them. MR. DOUGLASS: In answer to what you talked about the water and sewage Mr. Case. This project will use less water then 4 homes ~ould use on the same land. There will be less sewage. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to operate a tennis and racket ball club with a swimming pool. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the appli- cant that there is need for this type of facility in the Town of Southold. 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 the 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. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Sandra Rave and Mary Tloczkowski, 22 Edison Lane, Bayville, New York, be GRANTED permission to operate a tennis and racket ball club with swimming pool. Location of property: North Road, Peconic, New York bounded on the north by Middle Road; east by Haas; south by Long Island Railroad; west by Douglass Case, upon the following conditions: (1) Ail of the restrictions in the Zoning Ordinance. SOUT~HOLD TOWN BOARD ~OF kPPEALS -29- September 28, 1978 (2) Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board. (3) Suffolk County Planning Commission approval. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVE~D that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes of the Sep~embe~ 7, 1978, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonls, Tuthill and Douglass. On mQt~on by Mr. Gr±gonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOSYE~ there were sixteen (16) Sign Renewals reviewed and appreved ~s submitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.), Thursday, October 19, 1978, and se% the following times on that date as the time and place of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) Reserved decision upon application of Daniel and Laura Skybunko. 7:40 P~M. (D.S.T.) Postponed decision upon application of Betsy Latham~ Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the to divide property with insufficient frontage and area. Lo property: Private Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Wilsberg; east by G. E. Latham~ Jr.; south by Private Road; west bY Long Islan'~ Lighting ~ompany. 7~50 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Russell Tabor and Sons, Main ~Qad, Orient, ~New York, for a variance in accord~ance with the Zoning Ord±na~c~, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Area Schedule to divide propert~ with insufficien~ area and feont and'rear yard setbacks and f~r a variance in accordance with Town Law, Sec%ion 280A for approval of access. Locat±on of property: Main Road, Orient, New York, bounded on SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD .OF APPEALS -30- September 28, 1978 the north by Main Road and Tabor; east by Tabor and Schriever; south by Tabor and Schriever; w~st by Village Lane and Tabor. 8:05 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Henry M. Jaquillard, 13100 Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct an addition to the greenhouse with insufficient side yard area. Location of property: Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road; east by W. L. Grabie; south by John Wickham; west by R. C. Kopf. 8:20 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of James Melrose, 39 Robinson Road, Greenport, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct a house with insufficient front and rear yards. Location of propertY: Robinson Road, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Robinson Road; east by Troyan; south by Sterling Basin; west by R. Melrose. 8:35 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of William and Peggy White, First Street, New Suffolk, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-61 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient frontage. Location of property: F~rst Street, New York, bounded on the north by Frances Majeski; east by First Street; south by Main Street and west by J. Kinczell. 8:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Raymond and Adah Redfield, 255 W±llow Street, Roslyn Heights, New York, for a variance in accordance With the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permiss±on to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Paradise Shores Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Private Road; east by Daiker; south by O'Toole; west by Private Road. ~:00 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Sarah Rausch, 1223 Cornegia Avenue, Far Rockaway, New York, (John S. Sherwood, as Agent), for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 R (al for permission to construct a storage bu~!d~ng w~th shower, a bulkhead, ramp and mooring float. Location of pr0Per~y: Gull P~nd Lane, Greenport~ New York, bounded on the north by Germansky and ot~hers; east by Fordham Canal; sOuth by Rutkowski and others; west by Gull Po~ ~ne. 9:10 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Jean Case, New ~S~fO~k Lane, cu~c~ogue, New York; Bruce McLean Case, New suff~ik Lane, York; 'and Walter Te~eskO, New S~ff01k Lane, cutchogUe,~ New York, (Ri!~hard F. Lark., Esq.) for a variance~ accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, ~ticle III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient frontage° Location of property: New Suffolk Road, Cutohogue, New York, bounded on the north by James Horton; east by John Wickham; south by other land of Teresko; wes~ by New Suffolk Road. 9:20 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Susan Jacobs, 605 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New~.York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct an ~O~HSLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31- September 28, 1978 accessory building in the front yard area. Location of property: Soundview Avenue, Ma~tituck, new York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by Saltaire Civic Association; south by Soundview Avenue; west by J. McLaughlin. 9:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Henry Luce, III, Fish, rs Island, New York (Eric Haas, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C 2 for permission to construct a fence around an underground pool. Location of property: Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Private Road; east by Simmons; south by Block Island Sound; west by Coffee. ~An~e~%~r was received from Donald G. King (~ppeal No. 2433) asking that the conditions of the decision be changed to maintain the historical integrity of the Jackson's Landing area. ~Mr~Gillispie ~iet~t~d~aDie~Sr ~to Mr. King advising him t~at the only c~nditi0n of the decision that the Board might be willing to waive would be to postpone the time limit for adequate reasons. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~BABETTE C. CONROY Secretary