Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/17/1978 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. Terry Tuthill Robert J. Douglass Southold Town Board of Appeals SnUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE 1802 MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals August 17, 1978 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:3~-P.M. (D.S.T.), Thursday, August 27, 1978, at the Town Hall, Ma±n Road, Soruthold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman, Charles G~ig~nls, Serge Doyen, Jr.; Terry Tuthill, and Robert J. .Douglass.. There were also present: Doug Love, Long Island Traveler-Ma.tti- tuck Watchman, Peter Campbell, Suffolk Times. The. following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals at a regular meeting. Upon motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was Rv. SOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals commends the long and fa~if~ service of Robert L. Bergen, who was a most effec- · rive Board Member and occasionally acted as Chairman. ET WAS FURTHERED RESOLVED that this resolution be made a part of the permanent records of the Town and that a copy be sent to Mr. Bergen. the Board: Ayes: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Terry Tuthill; Robert J. Douglass. for _rman also took the Opportunity to welcome to the Board of Tu%hill from Mattituck, New York, and Mr. Robert J. New York. The Chairman also commented on how was to have a full Board again, something that had not been time~ , SOWTHOHD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- August .7, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2459 - Upon application of Joan L. Tsontakis, Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property. Location of property: Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Sound Road Estates, Inc; east by Roesch and Wilson; south by Carpenter; west by Johnson. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publi- cation 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: Barbara T. Roesch; George & Blanche Wilson; Billy and Kathleen Carpenter; William and Geanne Johnson; Sound Road Estates, Inc. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? The parcel is unusual in shape and I do not know if the applicant has anything to add to the application~or not. GARY F. OLSEN, ESQ: Attorney for the applicant. If the Board will remember at the last meeting, they did in fact grant the access variance under Section 280A. We went over the merits of this application at that time. If you do not have any more questions, I do not have anything further to add. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response.) Are they any questions from any members of the Board? The parcel of 40,000 square feet will have an access of 15 feet wide running to Breakwater Road and the larger parcel has approximately 100 feet on Breakwater Road. They will use tke same access they have been using all along. Will this new access be ~mproved? What is the 40,000 square feet used for now? MR. OLSEN: Apparently there is a barn back there. I do not know if they raise horses on ±t or not. I am not sure. It's being leased to an adjoining land owner. MR. TUTHILL: That is to be a brand new access somewhere in the vicinity of %he Roesch property. MR. OLSEN: It will be to the south of the Roesch property. MR. TUTHtLL: That will be new? MR. OLSEN: That was approved at the last meeting. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appl±cant requests permission to divide property. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant who wishes to divide 2.4 acres of property into t~o parcels. The first parcel will contain 40,000 square feet and have a 15 foot access to it. The remaining parcel will contain one and one quarter acres. SOUTH~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- August 17 1978 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that Joan L. Tsontakis, Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property. Location of property: Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Sound Road Estates, Inc.; east by Roesch and Wilson; south by Carpenter; west by Johnson. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillisple, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2460 Upon application of Joan L. Tsontak±s, Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York (Gary F. Olsen, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec%ion 100-32 and 100-41 and Bulk Schedule to have a swimming pool in the front yard. Location of property: Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Sound Road Estates, Inc.; east by Roesch and Wilson; south by Carpenter; west by Johnson. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publi- cation 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: Barbara T. Roesch; George & ~lanche Wilson; Billy and Kathleen Carpenter; William and Geanne Johnson; Sound Road Estates, Inc. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? This p~ol some time ago...My Understanding is that the applicant did.not know that it was required to have a permit to construct a pool. If they had known, and if they ha~ applied previously I think the Board would have been justified in granting the application as applied for. There is considerable difficulty in maintaining this pool even in the front yard, we have one member of the Board who can attest tc that. He's help fix it. It slid a couple of times. GARY F. OLSEN, ESQ.: Attorney for the"applicant. This is an above groUnd pool. It is a very odd shaped piece of property. I guess technically it is in the front yard, it almost looks as though it is in the side yard 'from the survey. Because of the topography of the property this is the most ideal spot for it. It does not affect the character of the neighborhood, and we urge that the Board grant the application. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response} Is there anyone who wishes to ~D~THQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- August 17, 1978 speak against this application? (there was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to have a swimming pool in her front yard area. The pool has been there for some time due to the fact that the applicant did not realize that the Town of Southold required a permit to erect an above the ground pool. Due to topographical reasons the present location of the pool is the best one. 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that Joan L. Tsontakis, Breakwater Road, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to have a swimminq pool in the front yard. Location of property: Breakwater Road, Mattit~ck, New York, bounded on %he north by Sound Road Estates, Inc.; east by Roesch and Wilson; south by Carpenter; west by Johnson. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2461 - Upon application of Thomas A. and Rosa Fuc±le, 50 East 89th Street, New York, New York, (Gary F. Olsen, E~q.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordin- ance, Articts 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct a insufficient front yard setback. Loca- tion of property: y Road and Bridge Lane, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York., bounded on the north by Hillmer; east by Hillmer; south ~y Bridge Lan~; west by Bayberry Road. The Ch~' variance, cation in Inspector. that nc Carl Hillmer. Led the hearing by reading.the application for a of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publi- cial newspapers, and disapproval from the Building read a statement from the Town Clerk mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. $t5~00 THE C~HAI~N~: The application is for a portion of the property. I think the'ki~tOry of it Was the Nassau Poin~ HOtel. I remember the man who lived across the street/from it was concerned about it for a number of Year',abode'What would happen to it. I think Saland bought it and sol~ ~h~mai~ portion .... MR, TUTHILL: The Saland's sold 2 acres to the Hillmers, together with the Home. S~TH~L~ TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- August 17, 1978 MR. CARL HILLMER: Two and one-half acres. THE CHAIRMAN: When we were talking to Mr. Hillmer he explained they found after they bought the property that the patio of their residence had practically no front yard. So, whoever had located the original house had located it in such a way, Mr. Hillmer had to buy additional land in order to have a front yard. MR. HILLMER: On the entrance to the property, we only had the right of way to--go there. used THE CHAIRMAN: You only/the right of way? MR. HILLMER: THE CHAIRMAN: So we had to buy the additional land. So now you own ~his irregular shaped property, which is south of the patio. MR. HILLMER: How can you allow a building 30 feet from our library. It will interrupt our wh6te way of our front yard. We do not think~it is necessary... THE CHAIRMAN: I am just trying to clarify for the people here how the property faces on two roads, Bridge Lane and Bayberry Road. It has two front yards. It is 340 feet long and about 145 feet wide. Technically speaking it does not meet the width requirements under the new Zoning Ordinance which is 150 feet. Does anyone wish to speak for this.application? The proposal is to l®cate a rectangular shaped house 50 feet from the easterly line, 30 feet from the northerly line and 35 feet from Bayberry Road. In my conversation with the Town Attorney indicates that in a situation like this where there are two front yards, the applicant has a choice of which of his two other yards is to be the rear yard and which is to be the side yard. The applicant is correct in his locat~ion of the side yard in the northeasterly side. Than will be 30 feet in width, which is a legitimate width. The 50 foot rear Yard is also the minimum requirement. However~the application falls into trouble when it attempts to create a 35 foot front yard on Bayberry. Therein lies the r~b. GARY F. OLSEN : Attorney for the applicant. As.you pointed out the.o~l we are asking for is the front yard variance~of 35 feet. f of Bayberry Road, Bayberry Road would be the front Yard, the side yard of 30 feet meets the Town requirement for a Parcel of 40,000 square feet, we also do meet the 50 foot %0 the east as the rear ~yard requirement. ~It is respectfully submitted that this is an unusual piece of Property. It is a minor subdivision. It is Iar~er than most of the parcels on Nassau Point because of its history. Most of ~he other parcels in'Nassau Point are half acres, and most of the houses do have front yards under the required 35 feet for half acre lots. The variance would not change the character of the neighborhood, and the variance is on the road side, not the Hillmer's side. Due to the topo- graphy of the property, this is really the best place to put the house. The property slopes from the north down to the south. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- August 17, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: How much does it slope, do you know? MR. OLSEN: I don't know .... THE CHAIRMAN: We did not think there was that much slope. It is so densely wooded that when we were standing on the Hillmer's front lawn, we couldn't see Bayberry Road. It is extremely heavily wooded. MR. OLSEN: But i~ is the high point on the property. A house located at that point wouldenable them to take advantage of the bay view. THE CHAIRMAN: How, chop down the trees? MR. OLSEN: As a matter of fact, I ~notice on the Hillmer's house, they have the advantage of a staircase that goes up so they can take advantage of the view. On the northerly end of the property is only 115 feet Wide. With a rear yard of 50 feet and a front yard of 50 feet, you only have 15 feet left. I do not think it adversely affects the neighborhood. It is only due to its history that a variance is required. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? EDWARD FUKES: I~m from Circa Design, the builder. I am going to build the house.?You had a question as far as how much does the property slope. I think in~,the application you had a topographical layout of that lot. I'believe the northerly line bo Bridge Lane should slope from anywhere from 25 to 30 feet. There is a line on the northeast corner of 30 feet and about 3/4 down the lot there is a line 10 feet topo line. THE CHAIRMAN: So you can say that it slopes about 20 feet in ~00 feet. MR. FUKES: I fe~l by placing the houss up at the point where we are proposing.., as far as containing the drain water from the house itself'and k~eping it on the parcel, I think this is the best location for not disturbing the trees which are down at the actual corner of Bayberry and Bridge. This way I feel the water will be contained on the parcel and not running off into Bridge Lane, which is a low point. THE CHAIRMAN: The fact that this house is located in the northeast corner you feel affects the water drainage? MR..FH~S: If we relocate the house, ~tinging it down so it is 50 feet from~Bridge Lane and 50 feet from Bayberry Road, maintaining your required SSt'backs, disturbing that part of the property. I feel it.... THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for the applicatiOn? MR. THOMAS FUCILE: If I might, I don't know if it would be out of S~UTHQL'D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- August 17, 1978 order. The address you have is just an address. We have been here for 8 years. One thing we would not want to do is upset the trees and the beautiful property that is already there. It was through no fault of ours that this is the way the Board elected to separate the property the way it is. Unfortunately .... THE CHAIRMAN: This was divided by a real estate broker. MR. PUCILE: I'm sorry, the bay view is available even if you call it a winter water view. Otherwise we are just facing a house. We would obviously not have to locate the house there, but topograph- ically i% really slopes way down. If you are worried about looking into a neighbor's front yard, we are within an entire clump of trees there separating us from the neighbor. Hopefully they will be untouched wh~le we are there. Those spruces are why the property was originally called "Spruce Acres." THE CHAIRMAN: Somekow it is irrelevant about looking into your ne±ghbor's yard. Most of us do look into our neighbors yard. MR. FUCILE: It is just to clarify the view. If it is the tilt of the house that i~ the problem. If we do not tilt it, we are facing that g~ay house in front of us. THE CHAIRMAN: The gray house in front of you? MR. FUCILE: It is a long, gray house across the street on Bay- berry Road. THE CHAIRMAn,: You mean the Proom's old house? MR. FUCILE: The house that was rented and then sold. THE CHAIRMA~N: It has quite a low profile. Almost below the road level. MR. FUCILE: The reason we have that angle is to catch the view between the two houses. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? You are Mr. Hillmer, and we talked to you the other day. MR. HILL~4ER: It is very unnecessary for them to set the house the way they want %o erect it. Previously the division of the property was a~ainst our wishes, and we did not realize it. The lot line is 30 feet from~our house and to give them another 30 feet and that would make ±t only 60 feet away from our house. They have the whole acre and a half to go.6n. The slope you are talking about is minimal, and is not an important part. I do not think that just because of a tree they should be able to put the house where they want to. THE CHAIRMAN: What you are saying to us in effect is to tell Mr. Fucile where he should put his house. What we are here for~is to tell him where the house can be legally placed, if he wants to place it there. SOUTHOL9 TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- August 17, 1978 MR. HILLMER: By granting him the 35 feet from the frontage he will be able to place the house right by ours. If he will move the house a few feet down he will be able to meet all the require- ments. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are going to ask him to go down a little farther, but I am not sure whether we will be concerned whether it is 35 or 40 feet from Bayberry Road. Many places in Nassau Point are that approximate distance. MR. HILL~ER: That would be fine if you can convince him. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter of convincing him to go 35 feet from Bayberry providing he is 50 feet from both the north line and the easterly line. It seems to me that is what we should do. As you have pointed out and I think as the Board is fully~.aware, this is in effect using only about 1/3 of an acre claiming hardship because they are only using that 1/3 of an acre. There are 2/3 that are fully wooded. They should invade the woods to the extent of 20 more feet and. if the land slopes the way they say it does then the 20 feet will not make that much difference as far as %he view is concerned. They will have to chop down a bunch of trees if they are going to get any view except in the winter. Now is there anything else. It is unfortunate that Mr. Saland~divided the property the way that he did. It is also unfortunate that the person who built the Hillmer's house put it so close to this point. MR. HIL~: But the division was made long after the house was built. The division only happened two, three years ago. The division should never have been granted that way. MRS. HILLMER: I do not see that I should worry about my neighbor that they have a view of the water, because we own 3-1/2 acres of land, and we don't see the water very well either, so what. Why would anyone who has that much property want to sit right on top of us? THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? FREELAND CARDE: My wife and I are under contract to buy the Proom house, I am not sure whether I speak for or against. I have listened very carefully. Unfortunately I did not know about this meeting until Mr. F~azer called me tonight. I would appreciate an opportunity to lo0k at the map. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have the location of the house on that map for him? MR. CARDE: I cannot determine the location of the house, but I thank you. My concern would be strictly on the basis that Bayberry Road is a very narrow road. Someday it will be widened, it is very likely. I have to think about which direction they will go in when they widen it. Will they take my property or the o~her people's property. THE CHAIRMAN: I know it is a narrow right of way there. In some S~O~UTHO~L,D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- August 17, 1978 places there by BulGps the fence ran into the road, the road ran into the lawn. MR. LELAND FRAZIER: B2~dqe Lane is very narrow but it/a 50 foot f ' right of way at that point.~ Bridge Lane is a 50 Dot right of way in front of the property. You would think it is only 25 feet, but it is no~. MR. CARDE: The only thing I would be concerned about is the 35 feet is a variance for a front yard. When I looked at the map and saw the locatiQn of the house and the property and I do not think it is necessary. I would prefer a situation in which my future would not be challenged by the fact that the neighbors across the street had less distance from the ~rontage than we had. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know what distance you have? I went by there the other day and I had to estimate it. You drop down sharply from .the road. MR. CARDE: I really don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: What we are faced with and why we have a Board of Appeals is because a group of planners set down regulations on people who have already built or have brought property prior to zoning. MRS. HILLMER: This is a new house that is being built and there is still the opportunity not to allow the 35 feet for the setback. MR. CARDE: May I suggest that the angle that this house is set at is not necessary. Put that house on that lot properly and the setback variance is not necessary. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Fukes could you explain why the house is set at an angle? MR. FUKES: The house is set an an angle to obtain a view from the .... THE CHAIRMAN: There is no view there at all now. MR. F~KES: Mainly to obtain the view. I don't know any other way to explain MR OLSEN: I am not sure we can physically locate the house that way. May I say we do meet the distance from the ~ty~l~ lines from the northerly and also the rear yard. THE CHAIRMAN: What you are asking for is a front yard variance which you have already heard objections to. You are going to get a front yard variance, but we can condition it that you move it at least 50 feet from both the back dimensions. In that way we can correct a little the mistake that was made when this house that the Hillmers live SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- August 17, 1978 in now was located as it was. MR. OLSEN: I seems to me just lookin~ at the shape of our lot even though it is 1.4 acres it is roughly i15 and 120 feet wide. THE CI{AtRMAN: Y~u have used the narrowest part of the lot. MR. FUCILE~ We have been thinking that if we decide to keep the house straight, no variance will be needed. We are on 30 on the northern or side lot and so therefore we would not need a request for the variance. THE CHAIRMAN: If you do that you have got it made. MR. FUCILE: I am only interested now in the extra 20 feet you are talking about for the side yard. If we stayed at 30 on the northerly portion, we are within the legal front yard requirement. THE CHAIRMAN: If you can get 50 feet on the front yard on Bayberry Road. We .have no choice. You would not be able to do that because your house would only be 15 feet wide. Mr. Douglass is a construction expert and most of the water runoff you ha~e been talking about here will be contained w~thin the lower part of the lot at the south end. It will not run up onto Bridge Lane. MR. DOUGLASS: It is below street level down at the bottom of your hill. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct a house on a parcel of land containing 1.4 acres of land which has two front yards, one facing on Bayberry Road and the other on Bridge Lane. Many of the houses in Nassau Point do have 35 foot front yards. In some instances fences are in the road bed and the road runs into the lawn. 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 ~ariance 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 Thomas A.. and Rosa Fucile, 50 East 89th Street, New York, be GP~NTED permission to conStruct a dwelling with insufficient front yard. Location of property: Bayberry Road and Bridge Lane, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Hillmer; east by Hillmer; south by Bridge Lane; west by Bayberry Road, upon the following condition: The building shall be located at least 50 feet fmom the northerly line, 50 feet from the easterly line, and at least 40 feet from Bayberry~Road. TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- August 17, 1978 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HE~RING: Appeal No. 2462 - Upon appliQation of Jacqueline Penney{ North Street, Cutchogue, New York, (Gary F. Olsen, Esq.) for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, S~ction 100-30 C 6 f for permi'ssion to erect an off-premises sign. Location of property: North Street and Main Road, Cutchegue, New York, bounded on the north by Cutchogue SchooI District; east by Albert H. Orlowski; south by Zina Chugin; west by North Street. The Chairman opened the hearing by readinq the application for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers~ and disapproval from ~he Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Cutchogue School District; mina Chugin, Albert Orlowski. Fee paid $15.00 Mrs. Jacqueline Penney, Mr. Olsen, and Mr. Penney held an informal discussion concerning this application due to the fact that there is no lega~ way Mrs. Penney could have received permission to erect an off- premises sign. In May, 1966, the Board of Appeals adopted a resoi~tion governing the types of off-premises sign allowed in the Town of Southold and a sign for an Art Studio was not included on the list. Permission is granted for signs that will aid the travelling public such as motels, h0tels~ restaurants, churches, amusement areas, and federal, state, county and town owned s~gns. After this discussion Mr. Olsen respectfully requested that this application be withdrawn without prejudice. RESOLVED, Jac~ueline Penney, Appeal No. 2462 be withdrawn, with- out prejudice. Vote 'of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, and Douglass. 00-~l.and Bulk ~ckedule for permission to construct a house wSth nsuflfici~%1'~r~t 'yardl setback. Locabi0n of' Pro~rb~: 'M~8~s~ Street, The Chairman openedthe hearing hy reading the application for a variance, legal n~t~ce of hearing, affidavits cation in th~'0ff~&i newSpapers~ and di from t Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification bY certified mail had been made to: F. Ozarowski; Eugene Mazzaferro; Ligor Simyonoglu. Fee paid $15.00 ~O~TH~DD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- August 17, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2455 - Upon application of Harold and Loretta Schwerdt, 2720 Cedar Aveaue, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tion 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct a two car garage with two rooms above the garage with insufficient side yard setback. Location of property: Oak and Cedar Avenues, Goose Bay Estates, Lots 192, 193, 194, and 195, Southold, New York, The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publi- cation 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: John Lambert and Mary Ann Lambert. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: The County Tax Map shows this is on the corner of Cedar and Oak Avenue, Goose Bay. The lot has approximately 11,300 square feet in it, and the sketch of this lot is apparently derived from 20 foot lots. The lot is 80 feet in width and 140 feet deep. MR. HAROLD SCHWERDT: As we stated we are a family of 4 adults We need the garages for our cars. We need the bedrooms for the girls who are growing up. The cottage is of old vintage and there is no close~ space so we really need the room. The neighbor has forwarded a letter that he has no objection. THE CHAIRMAN: Sometimes down there on Goose Creek we have run into Opposition from the people across the street who think that their view is being impaired when houses are being added onto. This does not seem to be the uase here tonight. Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? (there was no response). There are a couple Of points about this Mr. Schwerdt that are not clear. The way the sketch is drawn, your garage is contained within one of these 20 foot strips. How will you get 7 foot 3 inches side yard plus a two car garage in a 20 foot strip. MR. SCHWERDT: The garage will extend from ..... I can show you on this sketch. The house is here. This is just a cement patio. The garage will come out like this. This will all conform with the house. I d~ not propose'to go into the front yard like some of my neighbors. I will're~ai~the same line with the corner of the original house. THE CHAIRMAN: It will extend down this way. There isa jog. MR. SCHWERDT: Right here, right where the stoop is. So that would be the garage area and above would be the bedrooms. MR. TUTHILL: How wide wil~ the garage be? MR. SCHWERDT: The garage will be in the area of 30 feet. It will be a two car garage. THE CHAIRMAN: You aren't establishing a second family here are you? SpUTHQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- August 17, 1978 MR. SCHWERDT: No, what you are seeing is the kitchen. MR. DOUGLASS: Then this will tie into your existing house. MR. SCHWERDT: This is the existing room. What I propose to do is extend from the ten foot bedroom that you see here. The garage will be over here. THE CHAIRMAN: You are just enlarging your present house? MR. SCHW~RDT: Right. THE CHAIRF~N: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this appli- cation? (there was noresponse). A condition of granting this appli- cation is that the building resulting from the application will not be used for a two-family use. That is a problem we have go%teb ih~t~ lately. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct a two-car garage with two bedrooms above the garage and requires the side yard reduced to 7 feet 3 inches. The findings of the Board are that the applicant wishes to enlarge his present house with the garage and two. bedrooms. There will be no reduction of the front yard setback. The neighbors immediately adjoining have extended their approval of this addition 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that Harold and Loretta Schwerdt, 2720 Cedar Avenue, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct a two-car garage with two rooms above with insufficient side yard setback. Location of property: Oak and Cedar Avenues, Goose Bay Estates, Lots 192, 193, 194 and 195, South~ld, New York, upon the following conditions: (1) The addition to the house may not be closer than 7 feet 3 inches to the easterly side yard. (2) There shall be no use of this enlarged residence for two families. (.3) No cooking facilities are to be in the enlarged facilities. On mot±on by. Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was S~)UT. HQLb TOWN BOARU OF APPEALS -15- August 17, 1978 RESOLVED that the public hearing on Appeal No. 2457, John Baxter be postponed until September 7, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) at the request of Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. of Wickham, Wickham, & Bressler. PUBLIC HEARING: Cherepowich an accordan( and Bulk Sc] front yard East Marion The Ch~ variance, to its publ~ the Buildln~ Town Clerk Cook, Robert THE CHt on a two cai street, when houses appe~ wishes to s~ JOSEPH thin~s brie~ south of me Appeal No. 2456 - Upon application of Joseph Gillette Drive, East Marion, New York, for a variance :e with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, SEction 100-31 ~edule for permission to extend garage with insufficient letback. Location of property: Lot No. 21, Marion Manor, New York. irman opened the hearing by reading the application for a ~gal notice of hearing~ affidavits of publication attesting .cation in the official newspapers, and disapproval from r Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement~from the ~hat notification by certified mail had been made to: Walter MCGarry, and Joseph Cherepowich. Fee paid $15.00 IRMAN: The applicant wishes to add an addition?of 8 feet garage extending toward the street. The setback from the the house was buil~ is 32 feet 6 inches, and most of the .r to be on the same setback. Is there anyone present who ~eak' for the application? CHEREPOWICH: I would just like to mention a couple of ly in reference to the setbacks: The neighbor to the is 34 feet. His house was built at a later time. How- ever the ho~se to the north, Mr. Cook, has a 26 foot setb~k~ I have been in touch pSrso~ally with each neighbor' and they ha~e no objec%ions. As far as S~tb~Ck, I would be looking for 6 feet further than M~. Cook to the nOr%~. I do need the additional space. I have 3 children and a two car gsrage. One side is filled with toys, biRes, snow mobiles, etc. i do have the ~eed. I only have a lot 100 feet ~y 100 feet. ' ~E ~R~IRFaAN: ~e saw the rear, we went around, to the back. I~s there ~nyo~ else who wishes to speak for this n'? was .Is there anyone who wishes to ica- ~o response.) From the ha~e to s ~his application and in an 8 foot addition to a row of and.~there the same size. So it wo~16 b~ our suggestion a building in the rear yard in orde~ to tak~ care of thi lld violate the front yard setb~ck.. From a zoning stand- point very unfortunate. The development is a lit~tle shy even for the early days of zoning. The size of these lots have only 10,000 square feet which ~s not very much. I am no~ sure if you are aware of it or not but there are covenants in the Marion Manor develop- ment which l~mit you as to how close you can go to the Street. Did you know that? .SpUT~Q~D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- August 17, 1978 MR. CHEREPOWICH: Yes, but those covenants are not being adhered to. THE CHAIRMAN: N~bst~uc~r~as~att~e ~reete~voR~mbere~Dlo~oanv nearer/ than 25 feet except for lots 32 to 47 on'which no ~t~u6~re shall be erected any closer than 20 feet t~ the road. You are aware of these and they are not being enforced? MR. CHEREPOWICH: Yes. THE CF~IRMAN: This has nothing to do with us, we were just won- dering if you were aware of it. MR. CHEREPOWICH: I have a copy of that. THE CHAIRMAN: As far as zoning is concerned and as far as this Board i~ concerned, the Board would be making an error in granting this application. The lot is already minimal. Today's zoning requires 50 feet. Are there any other questions? Does anyone else wish to speak? MR. CHEREPOWICH: Just one question concernzng an out building? Is a variance needed for it? THE SECRETARY: As long as the shed is placed in the rear yard, no variance is needed. THE CHAIRMAN: You better ask the Building Inspector. Some places the buildings must go in the front yard. MR. CHEREPOWICH: Another question, if I added on to the back of the house, would a variance be needed? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. But that would be one that we could grant more readily than a front yard variance which affects the whole neigh- borh~i~Here it is in the Ordinance. The Chairman quoted Article III, Section 100-32 to Mr. Cherepowich. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to extend his garage 8 feet into his front yard. The setback when the bous~ was built was 32 feet 6 inches. Most of the houses in this development have the same setback and this chanqe would seu a precedent. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance 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 w~ll change the character of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion of Mr. Git~spie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that Joseph Cherepowich, Gillette Drive, East Marion, New York, be DENIED permission to extend garage with insufficient front yard 'setback. Location of property: Lot No. 21, Marion Manor S?~TEOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- August 17 1978 East Marion, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2452 - Upon application of Arthur W. Lee, 246 West 8th Street, Deer Park, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to erect an eight (8) foot fence around property. Location of property: Laurel Lane, Mattituok, New York, bounded on the north by J. Lee; east by C. Schimpe; south by Laurel Lake; west by J. Mutvihill. 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 · ¢)~C~erk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Clarence H. Schimpf, Mr. and Mrs. John Lee. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: This property zs on Laurel Lake and is part of a minor subdivision granted by the Planning Board. The property immed- iately in back of this contain approximately 1 acre and is reached by a right-of-way on the westerly side of the original parcel. The neighbors to the east, Mr. Schimpf will approve of the fence which wztl surround this parcel except for the part that borders on Laurel Lake. We have in our file a letter addressed to the Board of Appeals dated August 16, 1978, from Lieutenant H. D. Winters, Executive Officer of the Town of Southold stating on January 31, 1978, three homes on a private road, Laurel Lake, Laurel, whic~e~ewunder construction by Arthur Lee wer burgularized. The case was cleared by arrest and all property was returned to the owners, Arthur Lee, John Lee, and Robert Slagon. ~n 1977 there were two burglaries in this area. How many feet of fencing will be involved? ARTHUR W. LEE: ~ p~o~t~e~S.300 almost 400 feet deep. ~We are surrounded by swamp on one sid'e and Laurel Lake on another. The fence will replace the split rail fence that you saw around the property while you were there. The insurance company feels that an eight foot fence will deter kids from running rampant through there and ~rom other people being tempted to burgularize the places. We are also going to be setting up a burglar~ alarm throught he Southold Town Police. This is all being done because of suggestions from our insurance company. MR. TUTHILL: Will the premiums on your insurance go down if you do these things? MR. LEE: I'm not sure. I hope so. THE CHAIRMAN: In this letter from the police, it states that the merchandise was returned. What was stolen? MR. LEE: A tv, stereo, radio and some other things. Just the type of windows that are in the house are valuable in themselves. SOUTHqLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- August 17, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a~y~ne who has any questions concerning this? (there was no response)~ ~s there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no3~response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect an 8 foot fence on two sides of his property. The findings of the Board are they are in agreement with the reasoning of the applican~that the fence will help de%er the pilerage and vandalism in his area and to his 3 houses. 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 of Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that Arthur W. Lee, 246 West 8th Street, Deer Park, New York, be GRANTED permission to erect an eight foot fence around property~ Location of property: Laurel Lane, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by J. Lee; east by C. Schimpe; south by Laurel Lake; west by J. Mulvihill. %~ Uote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2451 - Upon application of Marion Roussin, General Delivery, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Soundview Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Halbauer; east by Private Road; south by Soundview Avenue; west by Young. 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 ~he Building InsPector. The Chairman als~ read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification had been made by certified mail to: F. Halbauer, B. Young. Fee paid $15.00 T.HE CHAIRMAN: The County Tax map indicates this is located on a right-of-way off Soundview Avenue. Most of the lots are half acre in s~ze. Do you know where the cesspools are located? MARION M. ROUSSIN: I know where they are approximately located. But if the lot lines where changed from the original variance gr~nted in NovembSr, 1977, we would not have to worrry about them. THE CF~IRMAN: Before we can change the lot lines for you, we S~UT~QLD TOWN BOARD DF APPEALS -19- August 17, 1978 must have the exact location of the cesspools. VIRGINIA MOORE: Mr. Chairman, has there been a variance granted here tonight? THE CHAIRMAN: No, but the 1.5 acre parcel of property was divided in November, 1977, and a 100 foot parcel along Hyatt Road and is 230 feet deep. The division c~eated one half acre parcel and one, one acre parcel. T~s right-of-way on the westerly side of the property does not look as though it is used. MRS. ROUSSIN: That is right. It was going to be used at one time, but it never was. VIRGINIA MOORE: I would like to speak on this application and hope the Board will indulge me. (Mrs. Moore read a two page letter addressed to the Board in opposition to this division. She stated that if the lot was further subdivided it would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood as the lot sizes vary from 150 feet fronting on Hyatt Road to 4.6 acres. Only eight lots south and west of Lighthouse Road are 1/2 acre or less. Some of the neighbors voluntarily merged three lots into 2 lots to conform to the present zoning of the Town of Southold. Mrs. Moore pointed out that the 208 Waste Water Study ~ecommends at least one acre zoning for the entire North Fork. The ne±gh~orh~od rests on semipermeable layers of Gardiner's clay, which prevents the ±mmed±ate seepage of rainwater into the ground. The neighbors would suffere from downzoning and dimuntion of privacy.) MRS. ROUSSIN: In this area on Hyatt Road some of the people do not have 150 feet on the road. I have a list here showinq what the frontages are for the neighbors. I would like to have a v~riance for the 100 by 230 feet, but the 114 feet on which the variance was granted I would let remain the way it was. You granted the variance last year and I wasn't sure where the cesspools were located, so I asked could that lot line be changed from 114 feet to 100 feet. That would be from Soundv£ew Avenue in 100 feet~to .... THE C~AIRMAN: Let us go into this further, investigate it again, and then make a decision. MRS. ROUSSIN: What would you like from me? THE C~IRMAN: What do you have there that we don't ha~e? MRS. ROUSS~N: ~ also have a letter, from an attorney who handled the closing when we bought the'~pe~t~iginally. It was in three different parcels. I have 3 recorded deeds. THE CHAIRMAN: Were they bought at three different times? MRS. ROUSSIN: No, they were all bought at the same time. THE CHAIRMAN: What I would like to do is postpone this until the next meeting at September 7, 1978, at 7:50 so we can have more 'SQUTHQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- August 17, 1978 time to look this over. MR. MICHAEL REISE: I own parcels No. 23 and 9 on the County Tax Map. It was three lots originally on the Hyatt property and then made two lots out of them. I would just like to go on the record at this meeting so I can be heard at the next meeting. Also so I can be notified. THE CHAIRMAN: The next meeting will be September 7, 1978, at 7:50 Mrs. Roussin, maybe you could find out specifically where your cesspools are located. MRS. ROUSSIN: I spoke to the Building Inspector today, and he told he that the house is about 35 years old. There is no map showing where the pools are. This is not the part that is in dispute. The part that is in dispute is the adjoining piece of property that I want the variance on-now. The 100 by 200 parcel. MR. DOUGLASS: Could you leave us the attorney's name and the names that the deeds.were o~iginally in. MRS. ROUSSIN: The deeds were originally in my husband's name and mine. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the public hearing on Appeal No. 2451 be recessed until Thursday, September 7, 1978, at 7:50 P.M. (D~S.T.). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, GrigOnis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. WE are next going to consider a request from James Bitses, Esq. ~fo!r Matt~uck Watch Dogs, the Brower W~ods Association and ©t~ ~ified, in requesting that the Board reverse, modify, or rescind a decision which the Board made in June, 1978, in ct With permitting Matt-A-Marina ~t0 store for p0!ssi~e sale up as a part of their Marina operation. I might say that is the longest one of this character that we Lave ~ver a few days ago we received a stated~ r~quest rom somebody wko ~s unhappy w~th~a decision Point and sa~d t ~t we ~ad acted on m~slnformat~on, and coul~ ke hav~ a new heariDg. ·hat ~s ali he slaid. Now the procedure for having, a ~ew hearing ~ ~6~!~;~;~'~dilfY'~"anAul or otherwise-ch&ng~ a p~&vi0~'s de~i~i~nl ~nd the Bo'ard has to do this in public session. We are considering the matter now. It~s~n~.e~u~s~ to have a legal notice notice published that we are considering ~his. If it were required: almost anyone who writes us a letter could require that when we receive the letter, we issue a legal, notice and hold a hearing on a letter. In effect this is a letter which summarizes, apparently,' the frustrations of many years S~UTHQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- August 17, 1.978 of the residents on Mattituck Creek. It happens to be centered here tonight, and we are supposedly the people who instituted this not so. The Mattituck Creek was dredged in the early 1950's sometime before zoning. The County and many. others thought about it and realized Mattituck Creek was one of the few harbors between Port Jefferson and Orient Point and it was~atural to want to develgp it. Now as marinas developed in the Town, "marina" was more or less a new word. At least around here 22 years ago. A~.~more and more boats~became available to people and there was more demand for marinas, they grew. People who originally thought the Creek was a nice place to live and watch a few sailboats go by once in a while found out that there were many power vehicles going by and it was h~coming less pleasant than it was. I call your attention to the original purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. I remember sitting on the Zoning Commission and originally addressing a group of people such as you who were asking why zoning was necessary at all. We were trying.to persuade them that we all have to live here together. There are some people who are local residents and have been here for a long time. There are people who operate farms and agricul- tural indust±es, fishing industries, the summer residents provide income to many winter residents. The Creeks and Harbors, such as Greenport, Provide part of our overall wealth in the community in the Town of Southold, and I am almost positive that all the people in this room are against the Matt-A-Mar Marina. The reason I say that never in our history has anyone ever come to approve or to support. They come only to decry, or to tell their neighbors what to do. Or to interfere or to object. Some of the objections are well taken. In saying this to you I would like to point out 4o you that the different strata, or groups ~n the Town of Southold have to live together. We are the focal point at the moment on this Matt-A-Mar Marina. All of the frustration from Mattituck Creek going to the length of an Appellate Petition which Mr. Bitses has bound in blue like a legal document, to which he has attached a number of affidavits going to this at the moment. "~etition of the Mattituck Inlet War ch Dogs Association and others, respectfully alleges as follows: All of the petitioners herein are homeowners and property owners whose holdings lie in the vicinity of Mattituck I~let and the Matt-A- Mar Marina. For convenience, all these individuals will hereinafter be mentioned as Appellants. Matt-A-Mar Marina will hereafter be mentioned as the Respondents. That is a fact. No. 2 is a fact. On May 5, 1978, Respondent s~rved notice upon contiguous land owners of his intention to seek a variance to sell retail boats. See Exhibit A. That is properly identified. .JAMES BITSES, ESQ.: Mr. Gillispie, could we put aside these details and get to the heart of the matter. The issues before this group. T~E CHAIRMAN: I expect to get there, Mr. Bitses. MR. BITSES: Eventually. THE CHAIRMAN: Due to the fact of your harrassment of the Board, exPect to take my time... MR. BITSES: The hour is late, sir. Mr. Gillispie, ~ am the party SpUTHO~D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- August 17, 1978 that is being harassed~at~his time. THE CHAIRMAN: You are not the party being harassed~ MR. BITSES: I would like the record to show that you are playing cat and mouse with this group. I am asking you to get to the issues and q~it playing cat and mouse with us. THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask you to sit down, Mr. Bitses. MR. BITSES: I am seated. THE CHAIRMAN: On May 12, 1978, the Building Inspector. This is from the letter you wrote to the Board, Mr. Bitses ..... MR. BiTSES: Yes, sir, let's get to the issues, sir. · ~H~ CHAIRMAN: I'm not going to skip any part of the letter. The Building Inspector disapproved of said application on the ground that "retail sale of b~ats are a non-permitted use in this zone." An appeal was taken to the Appeals Board and on June 15, 1978,the Board of Zoning and Appeals granted" applicant permission to sell retail boats ..... " It is from this grant that the applicant herein appeal to the Board of ZOning and Appeal of the Town of Southold for an order reversing, rescinding, nulIifying and setting aside the granted variance dated June 15, 1978 ind for such other and further relief as to the Board may seem appropriate under the circumstances. 7. Before the issues can become intelligible, certain background facts must be into~ ducedl. That ±n 1957 there was enacted by the Town Board~ of the Town of Southold a Zoning Ordinance, together with an official zoning map delineating the zone distribution of the said Town. Said map is pre- sently on file in ~he office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold, and will hereinafter be referred to as the "1957 Zoning map." An examina- tion Of the said 1957 map shows that the land of respondent, Matt-A- Mar comprises nine acres was characterized as "A" Zoned residential agricultural. 10. The 1957 Zoning map is siqnificant because it estab- lishes certain vested interests in non-conforming uses. The nine acres presently belonging to Matt-A-Mar were nominated and delineated a non- conforming use because of the prior existence of the "Harbor Inn ~otel" thereon belonging to Mrs. Vina Baker and Mr. George Van Buren. Non- conforming uses in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted are permitted t~ continue if, and only if, enforcement of the ordinance, wou~d, be rendered valueless. Here Mr. Bitses has gone on a departure from ~hat actually happened. I'll skip part of this letter because its really irrelevant. MR. BITSES~ We have suffered through a very careful reading to this point and now you intend to skip through what you consider irrelevant. In all fairness Mr. Gillispie, why don't you put the entire letter into the record. · ~E C~IP~4AN: Paragraph 11. Non-conforming uses in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are permitted to continue, if, and ~O~THgDD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- August 17, 1978 and only if, enforcement of the ordinance would, by rendering value- less substantial improvements or business' built up over the years cause serious financial harm to the property owner. There are case references. Hence Baker and Van Buren continued the undisturbed use of the Harbor Inn Hotel even though it was totally surrounded by several hundred acres of high grade residential area and millions of dollars in upper income residential houses whose median value is approximately $50,000.00 each. 12. Sometime between 1964 and 1966 Mrs. Baker and Mr. Van Buren sold their Hotel to the present owner of the Matt-A-Mar Marina, respondent herein. The former Mrs. Vina Baker is now Mrs. Vina Van Buren, widow of co-owner, George Van Buren. Appended hereto and made a part hereof please find a true copy of her affidavit (Exhib±t F) dated ~uly 25, 1978, in which she certifies that "in 1957 at the time zoning was enacted in Southold Town, we operated the pre- mises in question herein strictly as a hotel.,' She continues, "The wasterfront was occasionally used by guests for swimming only. We did not moor boats nor accommodate boats in any way; we did not operate a mooring or a boat business of any nature, whatsoever. Later in her affidavit she states "the premises sold to Matt-A-Mar was never a marina non-con- forming use or any related boat business of any nature whatsoever." Later in ~r affidavit she states "the premises sold to Matt-A-Mar was never a marina non-conforming use or any related boat business non- ~onforming use." Now one of the peculiar things about her affidavit ms that she fa±led to state that she later applied to the Town Board for a change of zone in order to sell the property as a marina. It was odd that she would not have remembered that. 12. On June ~, 1966... MR. BITSES: Excuse me, ~o you have any documentation of that statement? There should be documentation of course. She must have signed something. She must have applied. You said she applied. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, she did. MR. BITSES: Okay, where is the documentation saying that she applied: THE CHAIRMAN: We are getting there. On June 6, 1966, she applied.. in late 1964 for a change of zone from A to B in order to sell the property to Matt-A~Mar. The Town Board denied it because at the time they were ~hinking of revising the Ordinance. On April 6, 1965, which was some months after she had applied, amendments changing the Ordinance were included and they included a new "M-l", "B-l" and a "B-2" district~ No areas were rezoned. It was as a result of public hearings, changes or evolutions of the comprehensive plan of the Town of Southold was required because we needed more sophisticated Zoning with an ~-1" and two "b" districts. Now, apparently the Town ..... MR. BITSES: It is the Amendment~68 you are talking about? THE CHAIRMAN: No, this is in 1965. On June 6, 1966 ....... MR. BITSES: May I ask what amendment this is? They are all numbered. SgUTHQLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- August 17, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 68 MR. BITSES: No. 68. That is the one where the map is missing. Is that correct=sir? THE CHAIRMAN: There was no map required. MR. BITSES: Ail the other amendments have maps. This one does not. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bitses, a big point is made of the map being missing. On this amendment they merely amended the book. They did not change any actual property. That was done later in June. MR. BITSES: Are you saying therefore that the Matt-A-Mar property was never changed to a "B" zone? THE CHAIRMAn,: No, it was changed in June 25th. MR. BITSES: Therefore there is documentation in the minutes of the Town Board deliberation and minutes. I suppose you have the Town records here? THE CHAIRMAN: On June 25, 1965, the Town changed the zone of several different places including one in Greenport, one in Southold, one somewhere else and Matt-A-Mar was included in that change of zone. That apparently has confused, to some extent, this letter. You also state that on June 6, 1966, respondent applied to the Board of Trustees for a permit to bulkhead, dredge and install a floating dock for an approximate length of 1600 feet and to excavate 20,000 yards o5 creek bo%tom, 20 feet wide and 200 feet long to a depth of five feet at low tide. See Exhibit "G". In answer to the question, "area zoning" respondents answer was: "Change to Business "B". Now, I am not exactly sure what that referred to. The Zone was changed on June 25, 1965, and this is a year later. In other words they are operating now in a re- zoned area from A to B-2. The Matt-A-Mar people acquired title on August 13, 1965, to a B-2 zoned piece of property which a marina is a conforming use so provided for in the ordinance. An examination of Amendment 68 dated April 6, 1965, which is the only date a change, if any, could have taken place. I think we have covered that. The zoning map is missing, we have covered that. MR. BITSES: I beg to differ. I don't think you have covered that. All the other amendments in the entire series thereafter have zoning maps. This is the only one that does not. THE CHAIRMAN: If you are amending an Ordinance, changing tke wording of an Ord'inance, introducing three new, more soPhisticated zones... We had a simple %iA" "M-l", "B", and "C" set up. Naturally we required zones. April 6, 1965, changed the Ordinance toinclude' "M-l", "~B~-i" and "~-2". Three new districts. It did not actually rezone any land. It just made it possible to do that. tf they had rezoned any land at the same time, the~3'would have furnished a map with it. As it was they just changed the book. $~UTHQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- August 17, 1978 MR. BITSES: You are telling me they rezoned it, but they didn't rezone it. Is that correct, sir. Therefore they did not need a map because they did not rezone it. I do not follow your reasoning, sir. I think you are giving us a little double talk here. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail right, the Town Attorney is here and I think he can explain it. MR. BITSES: This is not the issue before the Board. We are going very far afield. ROBERT W. TASKER,ESQ: I think you asked a question, and I happen to be the Town Attorney and was when all of these things took place. I think that before we get into the arguments and the merits we ought to get the facts straight. In 1966, April, the change... MR. BITSES: Excuse me, do you intend to reargue the merits of this tonight? Yes or no. I trust no. THE CHAIRMAN: I do,not think I have to answer anything that you say, yes or no. Neither does anyone else here. MR. TASKER: Do you want an answer of what took place? There first was an application by Vina Baker and Van Buren to change the zone of the Matt-A-Mar property. They owned it. Prior to time they applied the first time they had entered into a contract to sell it to the people who own the Matt-A-Mar Marina today. They made the application for change to a "B" zone, as Mr. Gillispie sai~d. The Town Board denied it, because of the fact that the.~s~s of the different zones were too broad. If they rezb~ed3~t~ther~-~~w a marina, they would also have to permit ship yards and fOunderies. They were aware at that time there was a need for more different type use districts. So they denied Van Buren application. In April 6, 1965, the thing that you talk about where there was no map, it was merely a revision of the zoning ordinance. No maps were involved. Nothing was rezoned. They rewrote ~e zoning ordinance. That was the change in 1965. MR. BITSES: Did the change in the zoning ordinance mention the Matt-A-Mar marina? MR. TASKER: Absolutely not. Nor any other property in the Town of Soutkold. MR. BITSES: Then, where did the change take place? MR. TASKER: That is the second step. After the zoning ordinance was amended to permit new use district, thereafter Van Bure~ and Baker applied~ Not for the old "B", but for the new "B-2" which merely permitted marinas for the accommodation of non~commercial boats. That application was granted. That was June 25, 1965. To that there is a map. You can go in the Town Clerk's Office and find it. Let me continue, please. As a result of the rezoning, there was ~a lawsuit brought by a man by the name of Mr. Morrison, who lived across the creek. He sued S~UTHQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- August 17, 1978 the Town, and he sued Mrs. Baker and Mr. Van Buren and Matt-A-Mar claiming spot zoning, illegal rezoning. MR. BITSES: Which court did he bring this to, please? MR. TASKER: He took Supreme Court, naturally. MR. BITSES: An Article 78 proceeding? MR. TASKER: No, it was a Declaratory Judgment. To declare the change illegal. There were motions by both sides for summary judg- ment. The motions were dismissed.by the Supreme Court at special term, b~cause of the fact there were issues of fact. Morrison, the property owner, appealed the case to the Appellate Division, which concurred. They never proceded any further with the case. Now what Mr. Gillispie is quoting from is the record on the Appeal of that lawsuit. Then after that, the property was validly zoned for "B-2" for which a marina is a legal use. In any case, it never was a non- conforming use. MR. BITSES: In other words you are corroborating what I am saying. We have not approached the issues in this case. We have spent about an hour going around the issues. This is a mere preliminary in my letter which sets the stage for the arguments I expected to set before the Board. MR. ~ASKER: Mr. Gillispie is merely reading your letter. MR. BITSE$: That's right, we are not to the matters at hand. I do not think he ever intends to get to the merits of the case. THE CHAIRMAN: I find so many things wrong at the beginning. For instance under paragraph 17. The spirit of zoning is to restrict and not'increase non-conforming uses and to eliminate such uses as speedily as possible. We agree. But this has nothing to do with this. It is not ~ nonl-conforming use. So we must eliminate that paragraph. Against this background, the respondent now c6mes before the Zo~in~ B~ard for a further expansion of what originally started as a humble rural rooming house. This started as a piece of land which was rezoned from "A" residential to "B-2" business. Question No. 1. Strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficUlties or unnecessary hardship because: Then you go into the~different aspects of the deeision. The retail sale of boats has become a necessary aspect of ~he marina ~business today. You are giving~what was decided. The business would be conducted at least 100 feet from and a~cord±~g~y w0utd not aesthetically change ~he nature b°rhood. 2~ The hard~hip created is ~NIQUE'iand Would nOt be shared by ail properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because there are no other marinas nearby and because the applican~$~perty is presently zoned "B-i" which permits a marina use, of which the Proposed retail sale of bo~s would be a necessary aspect. The variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the District because ~he applicant would still be operating marina business and a variance for the retail SpUTH©LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- August 17, 1978 sale of boats would not in any way change the character of the neighborhood. These all are points that we agreed with the reasoning of the applicant. Then you go on to tell us how to run the Zoning Board~ MR. BITSES: No, just how the Court tells the Zoning Board to run itself. THE CHAIRMAN: We are perfectly willing for you to appeal this to a higher court and tell us how to do it. MR. BITSES: Will you read what the Court says? THE CHAIRMAN: Before the Zoning Board may exercise its discretion and grant a variance upon the ground of unnecessary hardship, the record must show (1) the land in questio~'cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that zone; (2) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general condi- tions in the neighborhood which may reflect unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and (3) that the use to be authorized by the varzance will not alter the essential character of the locality. This comes from Basset on Zoning and comes from pages 120, etc. The Zoning Board exercises its-discretion in granting this variance based on its belief that this would be a hardship in the marina business not to sell retail boats. Many places in the To%~n in "B" business districts are now selling boats. MR. BITSE$: That is not the kind of hardship~mentioned in the cases° THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Mn. BITSES: Please read the next cases which are recent cases, 1977. It will make it more clear. THE CHAI~N: The Court of Appeals in McGown v. Cohalan and the Town of Islip "the property owner must show more than the current zoning classification has caused a significant diminution in value, or that a substantially higher value could be obtained if an alternative use is use unless the respondent demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the property will not yield a reasonable return under any of the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance he fails to satisfy his burden of proOf. In our thinking on this aspect of it. We knew that there are only two or three places in the Town of Southold where a marina could be located. MR. BITSES: But that is not the point. THE CHAIRMAN: That ~is our thinking, that is not what the court says. SpUTHOLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -28- August 17, 1978 MR. BITSES: Well the Court is paramount to this Board. The Board has been ignoring the Court decisions. Constantly. In this gase particularly. THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask that the Town Attorney respond to that, since he is far better equipped than I am to respond. MR. TASKER: I think that we should get down to legal cases. What in fact this Board ±s to decide toniqht is in fact is whether there has been actual evidence presented t6 it which would change its decision. The question of whether or not the Board legally made its decision or its decision was ±mproper- is for a cour~ to decide in an Article 78 proceeding. Not for this Board to review its own decision. If you disagree with the legalities of its decision, you appeal to the Court, but what you are merely bringing here is a request that they forgot or overlooked some facts concerning the circumstances of this matter. Had they known them before, they might have decided the case differently. MR. BITSES: It is mere than just that. First of all they have epened the door to the issues by reading the last Paragraph or two. Second of all it is far more than merely a decision of this Board, its a question whether or not the law of this State will be obeye~ by a reading of the cases in this State. Do you disagree with the Court of Appeals in the Cohalan cases? Of course, you could not. MR. TASKER: That is not the point. We are not here to argue cases. Right or wrong. MR. BITSES: The door has been opened. I did not open it, he did. THE CHAIRMAN: I did not open it. You wrote. MR. BITSES: You read those paragraphs which dealt with the merits of the case, which these people here tonight want to present to this Board. You have ignored the merits of this case according to the cases cited by the Court ef Appeals and cited by my brief. THE CHAIRMAN: Now that I have read something that you like, you are enthusiastic. MR. BITSES: Why don't you read the rest, there is more ammunition there. I want you to get to the heart of the matter, sir. THE CHAIR~LAN: What is the heart of the matter. MR. BITSES: The issues delineated in the Cohalan cases as explained by the Court of Appeals, by which this Board is bound. This is the law of tke State. Th~s is the law you choose to continually ignore. You ignored it~in Ashe v. Gillispie. And you have continued to i~nore it. THE CHAIRMAN: Incidentally, what was Ashe v. Gillispie? MR. BITSES: Ashe v. Gillispie was a case in which the Board spot S~UTHQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2~ August 17, 1978 zoned a two-family in a one-family area. Mrs. Ashe had the money to go to Court, a local judge decided, one who should have probably dis- qualified himself, against Mrs. Ashe o~=~he-facts as well as on the law. ~s.?As~was ~tiged to take this Board to Brooklyn to the Appellate divisioh in which the five judges of the Appellate division not only reversed on the law, but on the facts. Which is slap in the face to any judge. They annulled by their own act, the decision of the Board. In other words they did not refer it back to the Board, they annulled it right then and there. Mrs. Ashe spent alot of money, and this is what you are putting these people through now. ~.~E ~I~: I think it is you who are putting these people through S~e difficulties. I~s~b~ ~a~ respondents answer the question No. 1 does not even address the requirements of the law. If "retail sale of boats is a necessary aspect of the marina business" it is not evidence that respondent is not presently receiving a reason- able return. The fact that retail sale of boats would not be a separate business or would be conducted 100 feet from Wickham Avenue is immaterial. He fails to carry the burden of proof. This is a very narrow interpre- tation by this judge. Whether all judges would feel the same, I do not know. If they did all feel this way, I think it would annual, or make it possible, most use changes. MR. BITSES: Use changes have stringent requirements under the law. THE CHAIRMAN: Judges don't seem to care so much about area changes. No. 22, I submit that respondents answer to question No. 2 does not satisfy ~he requirements of law. "There are no other marinas nearby" is not what is meant by unique hardship. Again he repeats his inade- quate'answer to question No. 1. "the proposed retail sale of boats would be a necessary aspect...of marina use." This is redundant and does not address the requirements of the law. He fails to carry the burden of proof. That is your opinion. An example of what is meant by unique hardship will be found in the following case: Petitioner re- quested a variance to erect a six foot chain link fence. Denial of petitioner!s application to erect said fence and thus obtain a variance from the four foot fence limit, was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, particularly in view of the 15 foot drop down an embank- ment to railroad tracts at the rear of petitioner's premises. Now that introduces sxtraneous fact. The 15 foot drop. MR. BITSES: These are unique circumstances. THE CHAIRMAN: I consider the Mattituck Harbor a unique circum- stance. No. 23. I submit that respondents answer to Question No. 3 is frivolous. The respondent seeks a use variance. It has been held that a use variance will have greater impact on the community than an area variance which does not involve a use prohibited by ordinance, however, magnitude of desired area of variance, whil:e within the confines of permitted use, is a significant factor since the greater the variance from area restrictions, the more severe the likely impact on the community. In the instant matter the respondent has operated what has amounted to a floating hotel. (except this floating hotel uses Mattituck Inlet for a cesspool). Patrons arrive by boat and leave by boat. Use S~UTHOL~ TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30- August 17, 1978 of th~ local streets is incidental and minimal. Now, however, respondent seeks a varaince for an additional use which will change the character and alter the use of respondents property, making it a thorough going commercial enterprise. Just at this point I might mention that in another marina case, I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, most people come in here to object, but occasionally there are people who sign petitions to ask us to support something. We had another marina application a few years ago where we received a petition with 278 names asking us to permit the existence of the marina. But they don't come to the meetings. The respondent is s~rrounded on all sides by what amount to fine mansions. In the twelve years since he was allowed to obtrudelinto this area, his patrons have pumped uncounted gallons of raw human sewage into the south end of Mattituck Inlet (which this Board knows is the stagnant end, lacking an ebb and flow). It is now dangerous to take shell fish in the vicinity of respondents premises. One swims near respondents marina at risk of hepatitis and polio. One walks the beaches surrounding respondents marina and is nauseated by the toilet paper strewn theron. Now the proposal by respondent is to pollute the streets in his vicinity as well, with an increased load of commercial traffic. This new use is bound to alter the essential character of the locality. I have always considered that the streets are for all of us. Agriculture, business, tourist and so on are f~ee to use the streets in pursuit of their business. They are not polluting the streets by using them, even though some of us think so. O~c~ud~ei~_~r~evi~w, following an adversary hearing at which both sides present evidence, issue before the court is whether the action of the Zoning Board on application for variance ls founded on substantial evidence. CPLR 7803, Sub. 4. I submit that respondent has utterly failed to submit the least shred of evidenc~ to support his application. It would be no more than substantial justice for this Zoning Board to re~pen and review respon- dents petition using the tests and criteria propounded by the cases herein. That the relief sought herein has not been heretofore applied for. WHEREFO~, Appellant demands a reopening and re-examination of respondent's application No. 2419, that the same be rescinded and denied, and for such other and further relief as may seem proper under the circumstances. Now that is the communication and it is accompanied by some affidavits, one of which was referred to particularly. I think that unless some other member of the Board wants to present something further as to the Town's action, that at this time the two attorneys, one for Matt-A~Mar and one for the opposition to Matt-A-Mar sum up very briefly. After which time I will ask the Board to deCide whether they want to rescind, review, modify, annuf~r change or original de- cision. At this time I will call on Mr. Bitses. MR. BITSES: You have read to t~hs:s~people and the only point I would like to make is to repeat what the Court of ~peals has directed you genttement to do. The proper test is whether the owner can presently receive a reasonable return on his property. This means there has to be testimony be taken to indicate whether he is receiving a return on his property. Whether that return is a reasonable return. You who are present at the hearing, the alleged hearing, can testify that no such evidence of any kind whatsoever bearing on that requirement was intoduced. It further goes on to say, that %~.~respondent must demonstrate beyond a SpUTH©Lb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31- August 17, 1978 reasonable doubt. Let me tell you what a reasonable doubt is. In civil matters you have to prove your case in the preponderance of the evidence, a little more than 50 percent. In criminal cases the requirements are far more stringent, and your establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court applies the same stringency to the use variances brought before these Zoning Boards throughout the state. In other words, the testimony that the proponent has to introduce has to be beyond a reasonable doubt according to the Court of Appeals not according to me or Mr. Gillispie, but according to the highest Court in the State. The seven members of the Court of ~ppeals who made the law in this state. The~e ~re ~any wa~S~i~which~- tne~lawe~n~be~bro~n~.~ A.~man~akes a~ga~goes into a gas st~t.i~n'and holds it up. He is acting affirmatively. He breaks the law. There are ways in which the law can be avoided by being ignored. And I charge Gentlemen that you have ignored the law. The case law in this State, the Statutory Law in this Town, in granting this use variance on insufficient evidence. In fact on practically no evidence at all. That should have addressed the issues that the Board should have con- sidered. The issues laid by the Court of Appeals in the COkalan series in February~ 1977. Cohalan series and the other cases that were heard at the same time' and which established, I should say reinterated the ground rules for the conduct for any Zoning Board. I su~omit Gentlemen that you are totally ignoring the law as found in the case law as well as the statutory !aw~. That is a breach of trust. I am stating here before you that I believe you have breach'ed your trust, not just in this case, but in a whole series of cases before this because you have not applied the requirements of the law. Thank you. THE CHAIRYuAN: Before you go, Mr. Bitses, you wrote you me a letter this morning. What you say is that what we are doing here is illegal. Have you changed your mind about that? MR. BITSES: I have to use the only tools at my disposal. I am here tonight because these are the only tools at my disposal. To address this Board at this time. · HE CHAIRMAN: But do you still consider that the reconsideration of this matter is being done illegally, ~ that tonight's action is a nullity as you refer to it? MR. BITSES: There has not been public notice. This place would have been packed if there were. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you understand why there was not a public notice. I tried to explain that to you in the beginning. MR. BITSES: Well, if you read the letter, you will see that there are reasons why there should have been public notice. THE CHAIRMAN: I think at this point the Town Attorney might inter- ject a few words and tell you why there is not a public no~ice about this. I have tried to tell you. SpUTHQLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -32- August 17, 1978 MR. TASKER: I talked to Mr. Bitses this morning about this. I explained it to him and see no point in going over it again. MR. BITSES: But in my letter I state that there are many people in this Town. I merely represent a small group. There are other people, if they had public notice, would come forward to introduce statements of evidence of their own, to which we will not be privy, because there was not p~bIic notice. That was my point in the letter. You are debarring a group of people from speaking. THE CHAIRMAN: I disagree with you. I would like to hear from Mr. Olsen, the attorney fo~ Matt-A-Mar ~ARY F. OLSEN, ESQ: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. As I understood the purpose of tonight's meeting it~w~s to give Mr. Bitses and his clients an opportunity to demonstrate to-the Board that there was sufficient evidence that was not brought out at the variance hearing that on June 15, 1978, said evidence would be sufficient to p~s~ade the Board that it perhaps should reopen the hearing. I respect- fully submit that there, has not been any new evidence submitted. Basically what Mr. Bitses is doing is arguing a legal case which he has ... it is the wrong forum. Th:e place to argue his arguments is before the Court. The public has had an opportunity to speak its mind. That is the ~hole purpose efa var±ance hearing. The Board felt at the hearing tkat t~e evidence submitted was sufficient. Whether the Board was r~ght or wrong, this is not the proper forum to decide it. I think what Mr. Bitses is doing is basically under Section 267 of the Town Law. That section of the Town Law does give the power to the Board to r~en the hearing if it has sufficient new ~vidence. This is not a public hearing. This is not the purpose. Now, what is called the Patit'ion from'Mr. Bitses sets forth a long history of this property, and he apparently is Under the impression that the property is a non- con'fo~ming use, and that it is still zoned Agricultural-Residential. This is not the fact. It is not a non-conforming hotel use which he repeats for five or six. pages in his petition. My clients, when they entered into ~he contract with Vina Baker now vih~ van Buren and George Van Buren, in 1964, only agreed to buy the property if they could use it for a marina. They did not want to use it as a hotel, a non-conforming ~1. Vina Baker and George Van Buren applied to the Town Board to have the proper~y rezoned. That was part of the contract. If they did not get t~e zoning change, my client was not going to buy the property. Now, the proper legal process took place as Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney kas indicated to you. And the property was rezoned to B-2 in June, 1965. This ~s rezoned for business, which permits a marina use. After that closed title. Again in 1971 there was a the zoning ordinance and Matt-A-Mar ~arina was again zon~ for a marina use. All of the issue that Mr. Bitses has been raising about this property only being able to be used for a non-con- forming use is simply not the fact. The fact is that the Town Board properly and legally has-zoned this property for a marina. Now, if you do not like the decision of the Zoning Board back in June which granted us permission to sell boats at retail, and it was a limited variance, then unless.the Board is convinced to reopen the hearing, the proper forum is to have it reviewed judicially by the Court. That is the size SQUTHQLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -33- August 17, 1~978 o~ it. I have not seen any affidavits or any evidence submitted to the Board that I feel would enable the Board to reopen the hearing of June 15, 1978. The only affidavit that has been submitted with Mr. Bitses' papers is an affidavit from Mrs. Van Buren that stated back in 1965 the property was never used for a marina. It is very strange that she did not mention the change of zone. That affidavit is only good to persuade the Board that it is a non-conforming use for a hotel. She did not mention that she, herself, got the change of zone. MR. BITSES: We checked the variances, and none exist for this property. THE CHAIRMAN: We did not do a variance. A change of zone is granted by the Town Board. MR, BITSES: There must be in the records the minutes of the Town Board, which we cannot find. MR. TASKER: You must look under Van Buren. MR. BITSES: We have checked the Town Board minutes, and we cannot find any change of zone for this property. MR. TASKER: On June 25, 1965, go to the Town Clerk's minutes, and you will see them. You will see the minutes of the public hearings, the affidavits, everything. MR. BITSE$: That was not the information I received when I got when I applied .... THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bitses, Mr. Tasker was intimately associated with creating the Ordinance. MR. BITSES: I can only go to the Town Clerk and ask for the information. MR. TASKER: You are not asking for the right information. You went amd asked for the minutes where the Town Board granted a variance. There are no such things. The Board of Appeals did not grant a variance for a marina. It was the Southold Town Board which rezoned that property. MR. OLSEN: I have the record on appeal of the Morrision matter versus Mat~t-A~Mar. As a matter of fact a co-defendant with Platt-A-Mar was Van Buren. Mr. Morrison challenged the change of zone with a Declaratory Judgment. ~would like to read an affidavit from Mrs. Van Buren. Vina Baker and George M. Van Buren, being duly sworn, depose and say: (1) We are owners and holders of a mortgage resulting from the sale of the premises in this matter to Matt-A-Mar, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto as well as the bond. The mortgage was recorded and the recording information is given. Our sale to Matt-A-Mar, Inc. wa~.~m~e expressly contingent upon the granting of ~e~i~ning of the Town of Southotd. It would be a miscarrzage of justice ~o deny Matt-A- SpUTHOLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -34- August 17, 1978 Mar, Inc. the right to operate their premises for the intended use after amendment to the zoning ordinance. I think you have all been mislead and misinformed. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to limit .... go ahead, we are not trying to suppress anything. VICTOR LESSARD: Do you want new evidence, I will give it to you. I live directly across from Matt-A-Mar. At the time I was the Presi- dent of the Association of over 300 members. When we heard they were going to buy the place, I~came with over 300 signatures. I know about the original "A", "B", "C" thing. I brought out the point that the zoning was broad. It could be sold as one thin~ and used as another. That was the r~ason for the rezoning, and that was why it was turned down. Now, obviously this Board hasn't got the blueprints for the original application or none of this would even be here. The original application showed a big restaurant in the center of the property superimposed over the existing hotel. It showed a ramp for boats in the southeast corner by Wickham Avenue. Now the judge is now retired, I won't mention his name, acted as an intermediary to try to iron all of this out. He convinced me that I should convince my group that the Town needed a big restaurant that would overlook the water, and the boats and all that. When I asked what the thing over in the back corner was, he said that's a boat ramp. I said no way. It was agreed there was n~ver, and 1 don't know how long never means, there would never be any sale of boats,~repair of boats, or anything to do with boats on that land. All boats would have to stay on the water. There would never be a launching ramp to launch the boats. Under those agreement I went back to talk to the Association, and they withdrew the petition. With the understanding that this would be definite. That is the way it stayed. I missed that one in June because I did not see the paper. THE CHAIRMAN: The paper was misinformed on that one. The paper has said twice now that we granted permission for a building to store boats. We did not. We talked about it, and the applicant withdrew the application for a building to store boats. It seemed obvious to us that a huge building to store boats as we see down by Port of Egypt would be very unsuitable to this area, which we felt was adequately screened by the woods. In fact if you are looking for a good place to put a marina, this would seem to be it. I have read the early trial on spot zoning, and I saw some reference to a restauranT. I do not know what you are referring to about an agreement. This a matter where the zoned is changed. MR. LESSARD: This happened after the zoning was changed. I was guaranteed bY the person who was mediating if the place was ever sold, the owner would have to resubmit to this Zoning Board before he could go in there with another type business. Also in that was the big restaurant that turned out to be an over-sized hot dog stand, but that is all right, in my own interpretation. THE .CHAIRMAN: You see the way I view it, the applicant has the right to sell boats under the B-2 zoning. Then when it was later SQU~HOLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -35- August 17, 1978 changed in 1971, the right was taken away from him. Also to store boats. It was placed in a light industrial zone. There are very few light industrial zones in the Town. MR. LE$SARD: In other words the promise that was made was only good until the man's death. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know who the man was, ... MR. LESSARD: I know the man who was talking to me meant what he was saying. THE CHAIRMAN: We have not had anything on Matt-A-Mar until January, 1977. This Board has never had anything. I have been here the whole time. MR. LESSARD: I'm sorry then, you would not be aware of any of this. HHE CHAIRMAN: You must be talking about a Town Board action, I guess. MR. BITSES: He has just submitted new evidence. MR. LESSARD: He certainly had to submit this to the Zoning Board. THE CHAIRMAN: No, the Town Board. MR. LESSARD: Would that require a map of what you are going to do with it? THE CHAIRMAN: The Town Board would. M~. LESSARD: In other words if it isn't down in black and white, it doesn't amount to anything? THE CHAI~4AN: I do not think that the Town Board changes a zone with stipulations, which I think is illegal. You cannot stipulate what kind of a business can go into a business zone. MR. LESSARD: Let's go back the other way then. The only reason these promises were made was because they~were two people against 300. They agreed to this. MR. TASKER: Who agreed. MR. PAUL MURPHY: Judge Tuthill specifically. MR. TASKER: Agreed with who? You are talking about a legal agree- me~t. That is the only thing we ha~e to go by. If a member of the Board told you something verbally and it never got into writing, it has no bearing. MR. MURPHY: You memory is quite short. We used to do things that way, and everyone was very happy. SQUTHHLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -36- August 17, 1978 MR. LESSARD: Hey, this man was a Judge. A man is only as good as his word. MR. TAEKER: The agreemenu was for a resuaurant there? MRS. RITA MURPHY: The agreement was that nothing would ever be done on Mr. Lessard's side and on the Brower Woods People. The owner of Matt-A-Mar Marina promised on his word as a gentlemen~that he would just have a few little docks there for the boats that came in. There would be no great thing. THE CHAIRMAN: What year was this? MR. MURPHY: I guess it was way back in 1965 or so. THE CHAIRMAN: About that same time Matt-A-Mar .... MRS. MURPHY: Maybe it was before he first opened, sir. Because we were all against it when the man was trying to originally buy the property. That is when all the petitions were withdrawn, because we had a gentlemen's agreement that it would never do anything to ruin our land or our water. It was just going to be a cute little country marina. MR. JAMES DELAHANTE: Your last action granted Matt-A-Mar the right to sell boats. THE CHAIRMAN: 15 boats on nine acres. MR. DELAHANTE: I submit that you should reopen the matter because this case is bound to lead to future requests. You cannot sell boats ~.3ush'~o~t in a field. Sooner or later these people or their successors have t© come back to you for permission to have a building there to sell the boats. THE CHAIRMAN: Up to know, I understand Matt-A-Mar has operated without wint.er storage. That was granted to them in January, 1977. MR. DELAHAN~E: Yes, we know. One thing inevitably leads to another. Z s~ggest that a valid reason that this case be reopened is you must cOnsi~.where this action will tead us. We are all here trying to protect what we have. We bought residential property, and we expect you, the Board, to uphold what is right. We did not ~uy next to a ~hipyard. i could have moved to Brooklyn, but I didn!t like it. I. moved t'o ~att±tuck. Some of these people were gullible they took Somebody,s word for something. I would never do that, because it h~s no legal standing. They are gentlemen, and they think the other guy is a gentlemen. THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot believe that Judge Tuthill would speak on behalf of Matt-A-Mar. MR. DELAHA~TE: Because he is a gentlemen~ and he spoke in good faith. SDUTHHLb TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -37- August 17, 1978 MR. LESSARD: We were all there, sir. This was not a one-sided conference. THE CHAIRMAN: This was a meeting of all 300 people. MR. LESSARD: There were 3 or 4 meetings in the Judge's house, with both parties. There was an agreement with both parties. THE CHAIRMAN: That there would never be a marina there. MR. LESSARD: That there would never be a ramp there or any boats stored or repaired on the land. THE CHAIRMAN: It would be interesting to know when that was be- cause there is an affidavit here for 1,600 feet of bulkheading. MR. DELAHANTE: If I might just close since I have the floor. I really think before you finally decide on this matter, you all ought to consider, where does it lead us? Where does it leave us? These people will proceed one step at a time. Where will be end up? We will have a~other Brooklyn on our hands. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have already reached the turning point with them on the question of a building, for storage of boats. MR. DELAHANTE: No, because granting them the right to sell, you are building a valid case for them to come back and request.., it will follow. One step follows another. JAMES KLEIN: From Brower Woods. I was a little aggrevated or thinking wrongly about the variance procedure.. I/th~h~the Town Board built the zoning laws and a variance was something that was granted by the Board here to allow people to do something who would not hurt anyone else. Or legally breaking the law. I thought that if a group of people objected to your breaking the law, you would not do it. The poor fellow who is caught in the bind, tough. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail the judges have told us you cannot take a referendum on a zoning decision. It would be very simple if you could. All you would need is a secretary here. Somebody to read the case. Based on a popular vote, you cannot grant variances. MR. KLEIN: BY these hearings you bring out alot of facts. You know what is going on. We are involved in that area, we do not want that So become a GreenPort Shipyard. Down at the head of the Creek by ~he Old Mill. ~hat has plenty of storage. That is building up and will Probably move down the creek more. This one may become a Partner to that o~e,' who knows? We would like to leave the situation the way it is. Mr. Morris~n was in the Association, I was in the Association when he started his operation and he indicated he was going to carry it through himself. I do not know why or how it dropped. We res s~it that we should be very cauious in allowing variances for a ~ individuals and not allowing them for others. llly MRS. LAURA KANNWISCHER: I had not intended to speak tonight; but my 'S~H©L'D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -38- August 17, 1978 husband and I are the newest members of Browers Woods. We are from Pennsylvania. We moved out of a suburban area and came out here to find some peaceful country living. We have waterfront property there. From what I have been able to see...we are boat owners, w~ have a sail boat. I do not believe, from what I have seen, that the Creek will support another large marina, or large size boats. I think in all fairness you should consider that one thing will lead to another. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, you are for no changes. MRS. KANNWISCHER: Yes, I am. I like the way it is now. I see enough power boats go through there. I see enough garbage-and has to pick up enough to last me a long time. MR. RUBRICH: When a variance changes. Do they have to have a cesspool? Do they have to have a garbage disposal? Not use the inlet as they now. They not only use the road, they use the inlet, just watch them. They make no bones about it. Do they have a holding tank? How come you can go swimming in that inlet ~ntil June, after June no one dares go in there. They are crazy if they do. Who allowed them to do that. ROBERT HALLIDAY: I would like to ask the Town Attorney a question. Do you know the final status of the Morrison case? MR. TASKER: It is dead. They never proceeded. You will have to ask Mr. Morrison, why they never went any farther. It went to the Appellate Division. There was no final adjudication. When the case on the calendar, there were motion to dismiss by both sides. It was dismissed by the trial judge. MR. BITSES: Who was the trial judge? MR. TASKER: It was Cohalan. That motion was appealled to the Appeallate Division and affirmed. MR. HALLIDAY: When the case was in the court, that is when the zoning was changed? ~R. TASKER: The zoning was changed before the law suit~s~ae~sn started. The law suit questioned the change of zone. Mr. Morrison claimed'that the Town Board acted illegally when they changed the zone. That was a fact. It had to have been changed before you could bring a law suit. MR. HALLIDAY: I think there were 3 changes weren't there? "B-i," "B-2" and "M-1 "* MR. TASKER: No. I think what you are Feferring to is after all this, and I think, .it is just supposition on my part~'.th~s is wh~ Mr. Morrison did not follow through on this. Just about this time we were going through the Master_Plan Study. It was finally enacted in 1971, at which time the Master Plan strongly recommended this property for business use. SQUTH®~D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -39- August 17, 1978 Therefore, it would be my attitude that if Mr. Morrison had won, all he would have done was wipe out the 1965 change. It was changed in 1971, so he would not really have won anything. MR. ALLEN DAWE: I will try to be very brie.f. I own Property right around the corner on the creek. This new person, four doors up from us, subject to all the abuses the creek enjoys(?). The thing it would seem to me that would be the turning point would be when you allow a marina ...... THE CHAIRMAN: It is not being allowed by us. He has a right to operate as a marina. MR. DAWE: I understand that - Do you have a right to change the operation of ~the marina? Let's go back to the basic ..... THE CHAIRMAN: I would say no. biR. DAWE: You have done it by granting this variance. THE CHAIRMAN: We have varied what is permitted in different zones at different times. That is the purpose of the Board. We grant variances and special exceptions. MR. DAWE: I am unclear about the Ordinance. What is in writing anywhere that says a marina shall do this, shall not do this, shall do this. Where are the rules for running a marina? THE CHAIRMAN: At the present time, I am reading Ordinance dated' 12/25/76. "Uses permitted in the B-Light Business District. There are other things you can do in this district besides marinas. No. 9 is marinas for the docking, mooring, accommodation of non-commercial boats including the sale of fuel, oil, primarily for the use of boats ~ccom- modated in the marina. Now that is the present limited concept of what ~can b done by a marina in the B Light Business Zone. ~ MR. DAWE: There are no words in there that boats can be stored or repaired. THE CHAIRMAN: The reason the ordinance was ~evised, and which has caused so much confusion, was to place certain aspects of the boat business in a heavier use classification. That is now covered by the C-Light Industrial district. Boat building, boat servicing, boat storage facilities. Not pul~ing your boat up on dry land, which is done all over town. MR. DAWE: Not winter storage. THE CHAIRMAN: That's right. Boat storage facilities means buildings. That sort of things. MR. DAWE: Does Matt-A-Mar come under that? ©OTHSLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -40- August 17, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: They are not permitted to do that. MR. DAWE: You havennow given them permission to do something that is not in the OrdinanCe,' THE CHAIRMAN: In between, I would say. MR. DAWE: I cannot see the in-betwe~kn in your decision. I would like to be on your side. THE CHAIRMAN: Zoning as it is now has evolved slowly. Originally it was .permitted to have marinas. Then a few words were added. Nobody contemplated originally the number of boats that are now in the area. Nor did they in the original,zoning ordinance 20 years ago have all these things delineated. Mr. Tasker was talking about 1965 when they created 3 new zones which involved marinas. That was one of the reasons for creating it along with the Master Plan. MR. DAWE: Why can't you take the initiative and spell out exactly what cannot be done before someone like comes to you asking for it. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant was about to ask us for storage facilities, and withdrew the application. Actually, Mr. Dawe, we saw practically no effect on the marina by permitting the applicant to sell up to 15 boats on nine acres of property. Now when you consider com- pared to an automobile storage depot, it is a fraction of what is stored on an automobile lot. We further thought permitting the sale of used boats as he also mentioned would involve using the docks and lessen pollution. Because a used boat at one of his docks presumably would use space that could be occupied by someone in transient. So that our net belief was 15 boats, new boats, available somewhere for someone to look at and might want to buy them, would seem a necessary adjunct to many boat operations. MR. DAW]E: Wasn't that a rather naive decision to say 15 boats a day, 15.boats an hour? THE CHAIRMAN: No 15 boats to be stored there at any one time. MR. DELAHANTE: Yes, but if you let him store them to sell them, that requires a building. Can't you see that? In a year or two he will come back and say I have permission to store, now I need a building.because my merchandise is deteriorating. THE CHAI~: Not unless he can put them in the buildings he already has. We already have alot of boats that are outside now in the Town. $outhold, for instance. MR.~ DELAHANTE: Those are not new boats, sir. THE CHAIRb~N: There are new boats out there. They are $30,000 to $40,000 dollar boats. MR. DELAHANTE: You will never be able to pull this off short of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. SOUT ®LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -41- August 17, 1978 MR. BITSES: Mr. Gillispme, may I suggest a possible compromise? I address myself... There is a possiblity of a compromise which I outlined in my letter to my learned colleague. I suggested to him that maybe, I have not discussed this with any members of my group, If we could work out a 200 foot buffer zone which would be parallel to Wickham Avenue. The owner of the marina has let the trees grow around his marina. He has tried to create a relationship with the members of the community. If he would put into writing that forever this ribbon parallel to Wickham Avenue would be untouched, maybe this would ~e agreeable. (People in the audience said "No Way", '~Forget Tha~'~ ~ur~i~g~o his group of .~ople, Mr. Bitses said "Did I talk to you about this before. Okay, I withdraw it." MRS. KANNWISCHER: If I am not mistaken, it is now a federal law that a Marina must have a holding tank. MR. DOUGLASS~ I think that if you check closer that that law has been nullified by the Federal Government until further Study and standards. Holding tanks are not required as of now. They have requirements coming out approximately in the year 1980. Right now they have nullified most of that law. They recommend the use of a cer=ain system which reactivates the waste. MRS. KANNWISCHER: They have this law already in Maryland. MR. DOUGLASS: You will find it is not a regulation now.. ~R$. JAMES DELAHANTE: There are alot of issues here that have not be~n.~iscussed at all. One very important issue is the impact of Matt-A-Mar marina on the water table. All these boats fill their holding tanks with water. All of these boats empty their sewage into this c=eek. There is a swimming pool that is filled with fres~ water. We do ~ave a water shortgage. There is a water with problem on Long Island. No One seems to care how much water he is using. No one seems to care What he is doing to the creek. The fact that this does not come before this Board is of no significance. Just who do we go to to stop the pollution and contamination of the creek? Just who do we see~. You-say the Town Trustees. What do they do about it? Nothing. I happen to know that anyone who happens to speak up for us there are 3 to I on any environmental issue. It is hopeless. I maintain that Matt-A~Mar marina was put there for one reason and one reason only. Zoning was changed for one purpose and one purpose only, to furnish business for the Town of Mattituck~ For the Chamber of Commerce. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that probably did have influence on the matter, ts there anyone else? MR. MURPHY': I think just from the gist of the conversation, that you gentlemen have the opportunity now to help stop what we call pollu- tion. You do, through the nature of your office, have ~he right to d- grant, ms.allow variances. Here.is a prime example of an overwhelming group of people versus individuals in a business witha hardship.' That you have the opportunity now, by your actions, to reconsider your original permission and annull and void ..... TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -42- August 17, 1,978 THE CHAIRMAN: You are asking us to do something that we do not personally feel has any effect on pollution one way or the other. MR. MURPHY: I ~will agree with you. Because if you did you would not have granted the original variance at all. THE CHAIRMAN: If we do what you are talking about, there would not be anything, would there? You couldn't have a store, automobile lots. MR. MURPHY: It is the wishes of a vast majority of people that you people do something constructive that would help us on the creek, help the citizens of Mattituck by having the Creek there, by not allowing any more enlargement of the present business down there. That it will stay the way it is. We can only assume by the granting of variances that the creek will get.worse and the road will get worse. Or the air will get worse. We are not doing anything for our own personal gain. We are asking that you let common sense dictate° This is not the will of the people, who you people should represent~ MRS. S~ELLA HARVEY,: I would like to extend an invitation to you gentlemen to come and have a swim in our creek some Sunday afternoon. Mr. Tuthill, all you have to do is walk across the street and jump in. MR, TU~HILL: I have only been on this Board one month. This is my second time around, and if I am going to speak to you because you re my neighbors, and I am therefore saying I do not want to get into egal technicalities. Basically as I understand it and see it, the Board of Appeals has limited function, and basically it is common senSe and ~od judgment. Regardless of Court decisions and other things. As you know.I live pretty close to Matt~A-Mar, and I am not going to get into pollution and al! those things. Basically if you understand the workings of the Board of Appeals, this is nou within thei'r province. Mrs. Delah~nte I do not know' where to tell you %o go for relief for alot of your problems, but alot of the thin~s I have read and I believe a qreat many of you are against the existence and growth of Matt-A-Mar more.than you a~e interested or objecting to the 15 boat allowance as a condition. Consequently., if this is the issue, the variance it seems to me was a very limited thing allowing the man to sell and dis- play 15 boats, that is one thing. We can not do anything about the pol- lution andlthat type of thing. Where you go I do not know. The exis- tence and how it got that way is done and past. It was apparently done legail~ We have Matt-A~Mar. We certainly know that you people do not want to have it expanded in any way. I live 600 feet away from it, and I cannot see how the display of the boats 100 feet behind the woods is .going to ruin the neighborhood. I am doing this to explain what may be ~my vote when this comes to a resolution. MR. MOLIKE: What can happen is ~hat happened twenty years ago when no one ~anted to buy it as a hotel. They had the zoning changed to accommodate a marina. He wants to sell this place. He can come for a further var~ance.~ THE CHAIRMAN: It has happened, and he was denied. _SQL~OL~ TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -43- August 17, 1978 M~S. STELLA HARVEY: I live across from Matt-A-Mar Marina. IV June when that varianbe was granted, you give them permission originally to sell 10 boats and within two Seconds he was given another five boats so he could sell 15. This is exactly what we think is going to continue to happen. So in another couple of months or next year, he will ask to sell 50. This. ±s what we are trying to avoid. Who is going to keep track of those boats. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hour is getting late, and we should start to wind th±s up. On mot±on by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESQL~ED that the Board of Appeals REAFEIRM their decision of June 15, 1978, concerning the r~%ail sale of hew boats and DENYING the application made by James Bitses, Esq. in connection with the retail sale of new boats by Matt-A-Mar Marina. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes for the July 27, 1978, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~essrs: G±llispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tu%hill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED there were eleven (11) sign renewals reviewed and approved as submitted. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals grant permission to the Mattituck Gun Club, Inc., to hold their annual "Turkey Shoot" on Sunday, S~ptember 17, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. Tke secretary was instructed to write to the Board of Appeals .S~U~HC~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -44- August 17, 1978 to find out what their requirements are concerning a business in a home in a residentially zoned area. We have recieved a request from ~G. Wallin, 196 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, who wishes to conduct a mail order business from his home. ? It was resolved that Thursday~ gRptember 7~ 1978~ be the date for the following: On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for the postponed hearing upon application of John Boaxter~ 27 Wiltshire Drive, Worcester, Massachusetts. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by. Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:40 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for postponed decision upon application of Donald and Virginia Leden, 156 Sterling Avenue, Greenport, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for postponed decision upon application of'Marion M. Roussin, General Delivery, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:05 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon t~ application of ~ R~ ~arnowski Old Cove Road, Cut~hogue, New York, f~r a variance in ac60rda~ce with ' the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to change lot lines. Location of property: Old Cove Road, Cutchogue, New York, Lot No. 196 on Map Of Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York. On motion by MR. Douqlass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was S~U~D TOWN BOARD OF ~PEALS -45- August 17, 1.978 RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:15 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for a hearing upon application of K. G. Brown Mfg. Co., Inc., Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, New York, (Twin Pork Fence as agent) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to erect a 6 foot 6 inch fence around entire property. Location of property: Wickham AVenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by A. Grossenbacher, D. Reeve, P. Zapp, W. Guyton, G. Lomaga; east by Wickham Avenue; south by Long Island Railroad; west by Maiden Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:35 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for a hearing upon application of Jean C. Leonard, 143 Harbor Road, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to erect an accessory shed in my front yard area. Location of property: Leeton Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by P. C. Carrol; south by Leeton Drive; west by H. Frseman. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:40 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for a hearing upon application of Albin Januick, (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.), Kouros Road, New Suffolk, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk, area and parking schedule for permission to divide property with insufflc±ent frontage and area. Location of property: .Kouros Road, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by Kelly, T-ler and Naldjian; east by Harkins; south by Kouros Road; west by V. Gleason. Vote of the Board: Tuthill and Douglass. Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, On mot±on ~y Mr. ~r±goni$, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for a hearing upon application of Betsy Latham, Private Road, ©r±ent, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide proper~y ~±th ±nsuff±c~ent frontage and area. Location of property: Private Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by SQ~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS August 17, 1978 Wilsbe~g; east by G. E. Latham, Jr.; south Private Road; west by Long Island Lighting Company. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 9:05 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for a hearing upon application of Eastern Long Island KampgrOunds, Inc., Queen Street, Greenport, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50 B (5) and Article VI, Section 100-60 B (1) as revised by Local Law No. 4, 1978, Chapter 88, Article II.~.Location of property: Queen Street, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27; east by Queen Street and Village of Greenpprt; south by Village of Greenport; west by Village of Greenport, Judith F. Fenno, Arthur Francisco and Mrs. Leo Sledjeski. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gitlispie, Grigonis, Doyen, T.uthill and Douglass. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, BAB~.TTR (2. CONROY Secretary PPROVED