Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-07/06/1978
Southo!d Boardof Appeals U L.I., N. Y~ 119'71 TELEPHONE 765-.~× 1802 APP~A LS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN ROBERT BERGEN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals July 6, 1978 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.), Thursday, July 6, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There we:re present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman, Robert L, Bergen, and Serge Doyen, Jr. west Also present: Doug Love, Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman ) Appeal No. 2423 - Postponed decision upon the N. Moor-Jankowski, Village Lane, Orient, New Mahoney, Esq,), for a variance in accordance with the Article III, Section 100-31 and~'Bulk SChedule for a lot with insufficient area and width. Location : Village Lane, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by east by W. Schriever; south by Lionetti and Kripinski; and Lane. This hearing was for permission to set oflf a tot with ad area was postponed to invest to divest.himself oif .by Dr. and Mrs. N. Moo~-JankowS lot ~i acquire~ from Schrieve~ at It will have The ~f 150 feet and an area re feet. will exceed mOst~of the lo~s a that two of the objectors~ ~. Kripinski a~d ~gested that in the event that a residence, is ~ed lo~ that it be at least 25 feet from the and at least 10 feet from the northerly side yard. I think those conditions sou~ be made part of this action. MR. GLtCKMAN: Is he going to have a 35 foot setback from the road? THE CH~I~: He will have whatever the setback is there. I am not sure what the setback is there. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- July 6, 1978 MR. GLICKMAN: They~are right by the road. Most of the houses there are by the road. Kripinski sits back. If he puts his house right on the roadside, or 10 foot setback ..... MR. BERGEN: He can't put it that close. THE C~AIRMAN: He can put it on the average se%back. Whatever is established there. MR. GLICKMAN: The average setback on Village Lane is no more than 15 feet I would say. THE ~HAIRMAN: That may be true at some points. I think you will find the old Vail house is set back quite a bit. I think that would some- what determine the line. There is no way we can pre~ent Mr. Kripinski from being triangulated or from having his view cut off. He is in the extreme northeast corner. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests permission to set off a lot with insufficient area and width. This lot will contain 17,450 square feet with a width on the road of 104 feet. The newly created lot will exceed the size of most of the lots within a half mile of the property. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neigh- borhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that Catherine N. Moor-Jankowski, Village Lane, Orient, New York, (Donald E. Mahoney, Esq.) be GR~NTED permission to set off a lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Village Lane, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by W. Schriever; east by W. Schriever; south by Lionetti and Kripinski; and west by Village Lane, subject to the following condition: (1) When a dwelling is constructed on this parcel, it shall be at least 25 fe~ from the southerly boundary line and 10 feet from the northerly boundary line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen and Doyen. 7:35 P.M. (D.S.T.) Appeal No. 2322 - Postponed decision upon the application of Virginia W. Surer, Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, ~Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,. Article III, Section 100-30, 100-32 and Bulk Schedule for per_mission to construct accessory building with insufficient setback. Location of property: Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by land now or formerly of J. Dean; east by R. Seh; south by Beach- wood Road (Private Road); west by Creek Road (Private Road.) SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- July 6, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have done everything on this except make a decision, haven't we? We already held the public hearing. ABIGAIL A. WICFJ{AM, ESQ: You have a copy of the DEC report. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant owns what is described as meadowlands across Beachwood Road in Cutchogue. The applicant's residence is across the' street from this lot. I think the applicant made the point that it was useless unless she could use it for some purpose. She proposes to to use it as a two car garage. This involved the Department of Environ- mental Control because there was some question as to whether it was wetlands, uplands or meadows. Apparently the DEC held a hearing on this. The results of the hearing are here. I do not believe they effect the zoning decision unless it involves setbacks, if it does. The southeasterly corner is to be 10 feet from Beachwood Road. MS. WICKHAM: The closest point to the road is 10 feet. THE CHAIR/~AN: Do they bring the cars in from the west? MS. WICKHAM: The cars would come in from the west and swing around so that the bays wo~ld face the west. THE CHAIRMAN: Presumably this would get the cars off the road so there would be no parking there. MS. plants on screening WICKPLAM: The DEC also required screening of pri~es and other the wetlands side of the property, and the Suters will be the rest. THE It is the findings? CHAIRMAN: What are the pertinent parts of the DEC decision? recommendations., conclusions. The conclusions relate to the MS. WICKHAM: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: This is an eight page, no eleven page document: Proceedings, Findings of Staff, Findings of Fact, Conclusions, Recommen- dations ..... MS. WICKHAM: The most important part is the Finding of Fact, par- ticularly those pertaining to the site itself, as far as the DEC goes. THE CHAIRMAN: The purchase price of the site was $4,500.00; the property is assessed at $500.00 and the taxes on the vacant land are approximately $85.00. The applicant claims that if her application to build a garage on the site is denied, the property will have no value and that ske will have to pay taxes on property which she cannot use and verly likely will not be able to sell. The Applicant has applied to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance in the setback requirement which will allow construction of the garage 10 feet from Beachwood Road rather than the 35 feet minimum required by the Town Ordinance. A determination of this request to the Town is pending a decision in the instant proceeding. The Applicant must also apply for local permits from the Town Board of Southold because the property involved is adjacent to wetlands and from Suffolk County because the Site is within 500 feet of Great Peconic Bay. The Applicant has opted to wait SHUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- July 6, 1978 until a decision is rendered on the instant application before proceeding with these two applications. MS. WICKHAM: WUnen we initially consulted with Mr. Howard Terry on this, he was of the opinion that a permit would be required because it was on wetlands. There would be no activity on the wetlands per se so I do not think that we need a permit. Although the County of Suffolk will still have to be consulted. THE CHAIRMAN: The action from the County dated Auqust 16, 1977 indicates that the decision should be for local determination and should not be construed as an approval or disapproval. The County's comments are : "Subject to compliance with any conditions and setback restrictions set forth by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. as regards the "Tidal Wetlands Act." So I guess the sense of this DEC action is that the applicant, as far as they are concerned, may place a two car garage within 10 feet of Beachwood Road, in the location shown on the sketches. The garage should be located with the entrance doors facing west with an approximately 20 foot wide 40 foot long currying driveway providing access from Beachwood Road. This arrangement was selected by the Applicant to minimize the aesthetic impact of the garage door opening, as the property to the west is un- developed, largely unused and only two families would have to pass the garage structure to reach their homes on the south side of the western terminus of Beachwood Road. They have determined that this will not interfer with wetlands, public health, welfare, development restrictions, as apply to their guidelines. So in view of this laborously determined location of this garage, I think the Board should hasten to grant its approval. ROBERT SEH: I objected to the 10 foot setback from the start. I still object to it and even more so now since I have been to see the Environmental Board and I always wanted to build a bungalow on tkat piece of property. When I first went to them they said absolutely not. THE C~IRMAN: The DEC? ROBERT SEH: In Stonybrook. Now they are reconsidering it. Ail the trouble was over cesspools. Now they will consider a holding tank. THE CHAIRMAN: Your property is to the west of this? MR. SEH: To the east. I have more dry land than this piece on the Surer map lines run diagonally north. I bought ~hat property 20 years .th the intention of building on it. Now they will consider a holding tank. I also spoke with Mr. Martocchia, and he advised there have been holding tanks put in on a couple pieces of wetlands in this Town that ci~c~Un~ents th~s we%lands law. If I go ahead and want to put a bungalow im there for my own use. I am here six months of the year and six months in Florida. I want to sell my house. I don't see why I shauld have to have a garage stuck out in front of me. THE CHAIRMAN: The way it looks to me on the map, you could not have it in a better place. It looks as though the Seh property is generally north of this. You would be worse off if it were somewhere else. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- July 6, 1978 MR. SEH: I am looking down the road to an inlet and this blocks the view of the inlet. THE CHAIRMAN: The direction that the garage will be in-there are houses, trees...you will not be able to see the inlet that way. I think that if that is what you came here to discuss...if we were asked to locate the farage, we could not have chosen a better place. After all,this lady has gone to a tremendous amount of trouble, established the fact that she could do this - she may be helping you. It may help you get the usage from your property. I think you should thank her. You said you could not build the cottage. Now they are willing to re- consider it. MR. SEH: What she is building is something different from what I am building. There are no run offs with a garage. THE CHAIRMAN: You can understand why someone should be permitted to use their property can't you? This lady has followed all laws that pertain to this matter. She has dealt with a very difficult outfit to obtain their permission. I do not think this Board should sit here and deny her permission to use the property. I think the lady has helped you. MR. SEH: This application may seem reasonable enough to you. It ]u~t burns me that some people can do something and other can't. THE CHAIRMAN: They are not asking to do what you wish to do. MS. WICKHAM: You are asking for a totally different use. One of the points in this is that there would be no plumbing facilities there. Also I think that since there is now going to be a building on that side of the street, it is going to help you tremendously. Now when you look at the garages on the other side of Beachwood Road, they are very close to the road, so this is not out of characte. MR. SEH: Then okay, I withdraw my objection. THE CHAIRMAN: That is very generous of you. The Board appreciates that. Not many people can say they withdraw their objection or that they are sorry. MR. SEH: I was annoyed by the whole thing. If she had been turned down, ~he WOuld have been yelling blue murder that she owns property, pays taxes, and cann'ot use the land. That is just the way I feltl I went to the Boar~ of ~ssessors last year and pleaded with them that I could not use the property, why am I paying taxes? They told me there was nothing they could do about that. THE CHAIRMAN: Well I hope you get DEC to okay your property. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to plac~ a garage on a parcel of land whiCh appears to be uplands and meadows. A permit has been obtained from the DEC allowing construc- tion of the garage within 10 feet of Beachwood Road. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 6 July 6, 1978 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seConded by Mr. BerGen, it was RESOLVED that Virginia W. Suter, Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, (Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.) be GRANTED permission to construct an accessory building (two-car garage) with insufficient setback. Location of prQperty: Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by land now or formerly of J. Dean; east by R. Seh; south by Beachwood Road, (Private Road); and west by Creek Road (Private Road), subject to the following conditions: (1) The garage shall be no closer than 10 feet to Beachwood Road. (2) The garage shall be entered from a westerly direction as described in the DEC action dated June 14, 1978. (3) Garage shall be located approximately as described on survey of V~n Tuyl dated June 21, 1977. ~ote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2437 - 7:45 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon applica- tion Of Rhumb Line, Inc., 36 Front Street, Greenport, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C 6 f for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Southwest corner of Shipyard Lane and Main Road (S. R. 25) east by Shipyard Lane; south by Dawn Estates; west by Dawn Estates. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits a~testing to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Dawn Estates. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAI~4AN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response)° Is there a~yone present who wishes to speak against'this application? (t~ere was no response.). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the ~ppli- cant requests permission to erect an off-premises directional sign on the southwest corner of ~ain Road (S. R. 25) and Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York. The Board feels that attractive signs will be beneficial to attracting the visiting public to our area. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- July 7, 1978 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. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that Rhumb Line, Inc., 36 Front Street, GreenpDrt~ New York, be GRANTED permission to erect a double-faced ~or single-faced directional sign on the southwest corner of Shipyard Lane and Main Road ~ R~ ~25~East~a~i~n,New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (S. Ro 25); east by Shi~ard~Lane; south by Dawn Estates; and west by Dawn Estates, subject to the following conditions: (1) Sign shall be directional in nature. (2) Shall be no larger than 4 feet by 6 feet. (3) Sha~l be located at least 30 feet from the southwesterly corner of the intersection of Shipyard Lane and ~Ma~in Road (S. R. 25). (4) St~ll be at least 5 feet from any property line. (5) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2438 - 7:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon applica- tion of Rhumb Line, Inc., 36 Front Street, Greenport, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article~III,~Section 100-30 C 6. f for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Southwest corner of Sills Road and Main Road (S.R. 25), Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (S. R. 25); east by H. Reese, Jr.; south by Herman; and west by Ciacia. The Chairman op~ned the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal no%ice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Ciacia, H. Reese, Jr.; and Mr. Herman. Fee Paid $15.00 THE CHAIrmAn: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this applica- tion? (there was no respone) . Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (tkere was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect an off-premises directional sign on the s~uth- west corner of Main Road (S. R. 25) an~ Sills Road~ , Greenport, New York. The Board feels that attractive signs will be beneficial to attracting the visiting public to our area. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will produce SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- July 6, 1978 practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, that Rhumb Line, Inc., 36 Front Street, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED permission to erect a double-faced or single-faced directional sign on the southwest corner of Sills Road and Main Road (S. R. 25), Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (S. R. 25); east by H. Reese, Jr.; south by Herman; and west by Ciacia, subject to the following conditions: (1) (2) (3) Sign shall be directional in nature. Shall be no larger than 4 feet by 6 feet Shall be located at least 30 feet from the southwesterly corner of the intersection of Sills Road and Main Road (S. R. 25), Greenport, (4) Shall be at least 5 feet from any property line. (5) Subject to approval of Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING- Appeal No. 2439 - 8:00 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Keith G. Gi%bride~ 270 North Sea Drive, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Right-of-way off Sound View Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Lombardi; east by Bayley and Schur; south by Morris; and west by Spurway. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application fo~ a variance, legal notice of hearingf affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building InSPeCtor. The Cha±rman also read a s~atement from the Town Clark that notification by ~ertified mail had been made to: Lombardi, Bay!ey, Schur, Morris and Spurway. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response) The application sPeaks eloquently for i~self. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this? (there was no response). Do we know which parcel this applies to. ~S. CONROY: That is the second half of the Bayley property that you granted ~he access to the Kowalski's on June 15, 1978. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- July 6, 1978 MR. BERGEN: The southerly half? THE CHAIR/~AN: The access is owned by Arthur Spurway. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests recognition of access over a private right-of-way off Sound View Avenue, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that this access is an unusually fine one for a private road, being well paved. The Board finds that strict appliction of the Ordinance will 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. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that Keith G. Gilbride, 270 No~th Sea Drive, Southold, New York, be GRANTED recognition of access. Location of property: Right-of- way off south side of Sound View Avenue, Southold, New York; bounded on the north by Lombardi; east by Bayley and Schur; south by Morris; and west by Spurway. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2441 - 8:10 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Stephen Tsontakis, d/b/a Captain Kidd Water Co., Middle Road, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 B 5 and Bulk Schedule for permission to erect a pump house. Location of property: Lot No. 36, Field Map 5448, corner of Stanley Road and Dog Wood Lane, Mattituck, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits ~testing to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman alSo read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: N. Lygnos, P. Phillips. Fee paid $15.00, THE CHAIRMAN: In this location chosen for this pump it is approxi- mately 40 feet y line of this lot which is 200 feet.., it is a.~half acre lot corner of Stanley Road and DOg Wood Lane. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MRJ BERGEN: I will say that the property is well maintained now. It would not be any eyesore at all. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know what type of equipment will be there that I could not read? SC~JTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- July 6, 1978 MR. BERGEN: Cloronation equipment. THE CHAIRMAN: They expect to put a 40 MR. BERGEN: Well they have to have sh pump, cloronation equipment. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wis application? (there was no response). Appa It is going to have an auxilliary unit so th MR. BERGEN: Do they have an electric square foot building up? lter for the generator, les to speak against this rently it is a diesel pump. notor or a diesel motor? MR. STANLEY SLEDJESKI: That will be an electric motor to start it, but in case of a storm the auxiliary will be diesel so they have power to pump the water. In fact the Public Service Commission, I think in the last couple of days approved the location. THE CHAIRMAN: It will normally be an electric motor operation and the diesel will be stand-by. All housed in a 20 foot by 20 foot building. Are there any other questions. When we talk about locating the building over the well point, the well point is already existing. What is it a 10 inch? MR. SLEDJESKI: An 8 inch well. 450 g~llons per minute. They are down a hundred some odd feet. ' After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests permission to erect a pump house over an 8 inch farm well. Location of property: Aot no. 3~, Field Map 5448, corner of Stanley Road and Dog Wood Lane, Mattituck, New York. The Board finds that strict applicati~ of the Ordinance will produce practical difficulties or unnecessar~ 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 ~ill not change the character of the neighborhood, and will ob- serve the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Berqen, seconded by M RESOLVED that Stephen Tsontakis, d/b/a Middle Road, Matti~uck, New York, be GRANTED pump house on the corner of Stanley Road and New York, subject to the following condition That the pump house be located at leas and at least 40 feet from the easterly side Vote of the Board: '. Gillispie, it was Captain Kidd Water Co., permission to erect a Dog Wood Lane, Mattituck, 5 35 feet from Stanley Road )f the lot. Ayes: Messrs: Gi~lispie, Bergen, and Doyen. SO~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- July 6, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2440 - 8:25 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Stanley Sledjeski, (Richard F. Lark, Esq.), 2760 Ruth Road, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Map No.90, Stanley Sledjeski, dated April 30, 1974. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Warren Brady, Jane Shannon, Mr. and Mrs. John T. Ballard, Adam Gatz, Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Hluszko, and Helen Sledjeski. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this appli- cation? RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.: I feel somewhat this is somewhat an exercise in that when the Planning Board gave approval back in February, 1976, they, as I indicated in the application, insisted on 50 foot rights of way. They, at the time, had given us assurances that we did not have to have approval from the Board of Appeals. As you know there has been some confusion with these minor subdivisions and rights of way. Mr. Sledjeski has already transferred out lots 2 and 4 on the minor subdivsion and I understand that lot No. 2 has a building permit. This all came to light when he was under contract for lot No. 1 in the last month. The attorney raised the question that there was no access. When I contacted Mr. Fisher being a new, recent Building Inspector, he couldn't find one. Although in the Notice of ~isapproval which he gave me on May 31, 1978, that I did attach to the application he said that he visited the site and noted that it appeared to have a road base suitable to be approved. I guess, subsequently he has gone ahead and issued building permits up there. I agreed that we would go ahead,'~and I went back and discussed this with the Planning Board. 1 agreed to make this application and get approval from the Board of Appeals for the rights of way that are there. As I ±nd±cared in the appllcat±on I believe the adjacent property owners are here. The right of way on the southern portion of the property has been used for many years by Mr. Brady. In fact I think he built some of the actual construction there. I do respectfully move that the application be approved as presented. Apparently it was an oversight and lack of communication between the Planning Board and Board of Appeals back in 1976. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a very good access. MR. LARK: I think it is ample and will certainly take care of any emergency vehicle that we have in the Town of Southold at this time, which is whole purpose of 280A. THE CHAIRMAN: We normally do not get involved with major sub- divisions. There is no right of way in a major division. MR. LARK: I think that is what the Planning Board had in mind when they laid out a 50 foot. In their Master~-Plan some day they had hoped if there was ever to be an east-west road it would be in that area. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- July 6, 1978 Because originally we had though 35 feet would be more than ample because what was done with the seclusion, but they insisted on 50 feet. What is an extra 20 feet? THE CHAIRMAN: This is the same problem they have all over the Town. Particularly where you have these farms in Orient, that are rectangular in shape and run from the Main Road to the sound. They will eventuall~ create terrible problems unless some sort of cross accesses are created. I guess that is what ~ey~d in mind. MR. LARK: That's right. So we agreed to it and honestly thought at the time on their representation they had cleared it with the Board of Appeals. Apparently, it was formally never done. That is the reason we are here two years late. STEPHEN LATHAM: I am here on behalf of the Bradys. MR. LARK: They are adjacent property owners to the west. MR. LATHAM': Mr. Brady did recieve the notice as you indicated. He had a question when he saw the language to the effect referring to the use of the property by the Bradys. His existing easement along that right of way was perhaps not adequately protected at that time. I have talked to Mr. Lark and have arranged that there will be the grant of an easement permitting the Bradys to go out and use the same right of way which Mr. Lark pointed out that Mr. Brady has been upkeeping. I simply wanted to note for the record we would endorse the granting of the right of way subject to the granting of an easement. THE CHAIP~SAN: That is agreeable with your client? MR. LARK: Oh yes, as a matter of fact. The Bradys do have - ~ from the former owner of the property a deeded right of way right here. (pointing to a map) A~50 foot swath across the entire southerly boundary of the property. That has been in existence for~m~ny many years. All we are doing now is continuing that easement to come up to Ruth Road. Now currently the Bradys from a legal point of view have to go down over here, down a farm dirt road, and then come outl We are creating up here. It is only fair. It is a much better access. THE CHAIRMAN: There is one item which you brought up here. No. 12 of the Covenants and Restrictions relating to $25.00 per year per lot. We don't often see all these ¢onvenants. MR. BERGEN: What is that for, mainten~ce? THE CHAIRMAN: Per lot? In other the total of the four lots would be $100.00. The point ~ was going to raise is $25.00 used to be $10.00 MR. LARK: Well, he built the road. That will be up to them to raise it. MK. BERGEN: They will have to form an association? MR. LARK: It is Mr. Sledjeski's intention when the 4th lot is sold, he is going to t~ansfer the fee title to the rights of way over to the property owners association of those 4 lot owners. SO~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- July 6, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this appllcatiDn? (there was no response) Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). I think the Applicant should be complemented on the thQreughness of his application. It seems to have everything on it. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests recognition of access for two rights-ofmway in a minor subdivision established in February, 1976. The Board finds the two rights of way are very good accesses and would be able to accommo- data any emergency vehicle that we have in the Town of Southold. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will 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 of Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED ~hat Stanley Sledjeski, 2760 Ruth Road, Mattituck, New York, (Richard F{~ Lark, Esq.) be GRANTED recognition of access for two rights-Of-way. Location of property: Map No. 90, Stanley Sledjeski dated April 30, 1974. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2436 - Upon application of Glenn and Ann T~ Moon, Main Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Chapter 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property: Location of property: Main Road, Orient, New. York, bounded on the north by MainRoad; east by Ellwood, Zarzecki, Jimenez and Kavazanjian; south by Tabor; and west by Private Road. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance..leg ~ notice of hearing, affidavits a~testingT:to its publica- tion in the ~ newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspe~ lrman atso read a statement from the Town Clerk that notific ied mail had been made to: R. W. Ellwood, Louis Jimenez, Mrs. Bryant Tabor, Makyl Kavazanjian, and Fee Paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: This lot is approximately 290 f~et on the easterly dimension{ 270~more or less on the westerly dimension, 125 more or less on'the Main Road, and 129 feet in width at the rear of the property. This is approximately 37,211 square feet in area. The County Ta~ Map indicates the applicant is surrounded by smaller lots as he stated. There are three lots to the east., all smaller than his: t~ar~ 75 by 150 or 160, which is about t2,0~0 or 13,000 square feet. Tbs one directly s~th of him is about 22,000 square feet, and Tuthill's lot SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- July 6, 1978 .69 of an acre. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MRS. MARY CLEO TABOR: I adjoin the property on the south. I am for them dividing the property as long as the right-of-way to my house is not ~hanged as to any former deed. In order for me to get into my house, I have to go down this right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that your approximate acreage, 22,000 square feet? MRS. TABOR: I would say that is about right. THE CHAIRMAN: This right of way is 29-1/2 feet in width. of it is used. Not all MRS. TABOR: In the winter time when it snows, and I have to have it plowed in order %o get out, at my expense. It was so bad this past winter I had to get Irving Latham bring a bulldozer. I am in favor of the division as long as the new owner in the big house does not block the snow removal. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? Are Mr. and Mrs. Moon here? It is not exactly clear to us Mr. Moon how you wish to divided this, in half? MR. GLENN MOON: There is about 95 between houses. We would want to split that 95 feet in half. THE CHAIRMAN: Put 47 feet in each. How would that turn out in area? MR. MOON: About the same in each piece. The garden in the back belongs to the parcel in the back. THE CHAIRMAN: The onion garden belongs to the back parcel? MR. MOON: There is about 25 feet beyond that. THE CH~I, RMAN: Well, I think we will have to have a survey. So if we act here, we can decide to divide approximately in half subject to confirmation by survey. The only other points we might wonder about is whether this second house was ever used as a residence. I do not think it matters, but some of the residents I talked to did not remember it bei~used as a residence. Did you state that it was used? MR. MOON: It has been used as far as back as 1943 and 1944, back in 1945 and 1946. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know who used it? MR. MOON: I used to live in it. I used to ¢ome here for my vacations. My wife's parents lived in'the big house, and we lived in the little house. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- July 6, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: I would say that is very good testimony. You were there. We had one the other day where the man claimed there was an old house on an adjoining vacant lot. We discovered that it had not,been there for over 40 years, because our Town Attorney had walked past there to go to school and used to play in that vacant lot. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for this application? What is the size of this house? Square footage. MR. MOON: I cannot give it to you. I should have had it. THE CHAIRMAN: The minimum is 850 square feet. Will you be able to get that? I am just calling your attention to the things that may come up. MR. MOON: It is high enough and ample to get the square footage. THE CHAIRMAN: .Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to divide his property into ~wo lots each to have a dwelling on it. The findings of the Board are that this parcel is surrounded by are smaller in area, and that the division of this lot into two lots will not change the character of the area. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will pro- duce practical difficult±es 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. Gitlispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that Glenn and Ann T. Moon, Main~Road, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property. Location of property: Main Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road; east by Ellwood, Zarzecki, Jimenez and Kavazanjian; south by Tabor; and west by Private Road, subject to the following conditions: (1) The lot be divided approximately equally~ with a northerly and southerly lot. (2) kccess to the southerly lot to be created be over the present access, Private Road, which is very adequate. (3) The final dimensions of the lots be determined by a s~rvey to be presented Go the Board by the applicant at his earliest convenience. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. SO~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- July 6, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2435 - Upon application of Burris and Vivian Jester, Beebe Drive, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to construct a six (6) foot fence in the front yard. Location of property: Lot No. 10, Map of Moose Cove, Cutchogue, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by rHading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen F. Leskody, and Mrs. Valerie Card. THE CHAIRMAN: The sketch accompanying the application indicates that the applicant is inflicted with three front yards. That the house is irregularly located in the center of the lot with five sides. One of which is Deerfoot Path, Moose Trail, Beebe Drive. The fence would in fact appear to be in the front yard toward Deerfoot Path. anyon~p~eseRt~who wishes to speak for this application? MR. BURRIS JESTER: I feel the application speaks for itself. THE CHAIRMAN: This is what happens when a developer has a little land left over. A five sided lot with 3 streets. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response.) Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect a six foot fence in his front yard. The reasoning of the Board is that they agree with the applicant that he is afflicted with a lack of privacy due to the fact he has a five sided lot abutting on three streets. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. on motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED %hat Burris T. and Vivian Jester, Beebe Drive, Cutchogue, be GRANTED permission to erect a six foot fence in the front yard. Loca- tion of property~ Lot No. I0, Map of Moose Cove, Cutchogue, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, an~ Doyen. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- July 6, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2432 - Upon application of John A. Po!ywoda, Bay View Road, Southold, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 C 2 for permission to erect a second ground sign. Location of property: Southwest corner of Main Road (S' R. ~5) and Hobart Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Main Ro~d, east by Hobart Road; south by J. Lehman and West by Warnaka and Ros~. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publica- tion in the ~fical newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspec- tor. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notifi- cation had been made to: J. Lehman, J. Warnaka, Jo Ross. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal is to place this in the side yard on Hobart Road. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? JOHN A. POLYWODA: We have started a second business. Without this sign people will not realize it ds there. THE CHAIRMAN: Are your the applicant? You now have a second business there?~!H°w do you describe the business. Dr~ve in service? MR. POLYWQDA: Take out. · HE CHAI~N: The existing building is well known and you need this for the~se~Ond business. Do you have a standing sign now? MR. POLYWODA: Yes, it is on the Main Road sid~ of the building. THE C~AI~: You are on two s~reets. The corner of Main Road and Hobart Ro~ ~ Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? (there was no ~6nse.) MR. BERGEN:! Do we have a sketch w~ere this sign will be placed? THE ~CFIAIR~A~.~ Yes, we try to keep i~ 5 feet from any property line. In this case, t~ '~et 5 feet from the ~roperty line it will have to be 30 feet from ~the intersection. We try to keep ~'igns 30 feet from the inter- section for visibility. This would not apply ~n this case because the building is so c~se to the road. Is there anyone who wishes to speak a~ainst this appl~©n (there was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests permission to place a second ground sign advertising a second business on their property on the corner of Main Road (S. R. 25), and Hobart Road~ The second ground sign will be on the opposite site of the p~perty from the original, exiting ground sign. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will pro- duce 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 varianc~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -'18- July 6, 1978 will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that John A. Polywoda, Bay View Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission~ to erect second ground sign. Location of property: Southwest corner of Main Road (S. R. 25) and Hobart Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road, east by Hobart Road; south by J. Lehman and west by Warnaka and Ross, subject to the following condi- tions: (1) The sign shall be no larger than 6 feet by 8 feet. (2) The sign shall be single faced. (3) The sign shall be located at least~Sf~eetYfr~m~any prop~rty~r~~ line. (4) The sign shall be located at least 30 feet from the intersection of Main Road (S. R. 25) and Hobart Road. (5) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2434 - Upon application of Bradford B. Green, 101 Bard Avenue, Staten Island, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insuf- ficient area. Location of property: Lots No. 189 and 190, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, The variance tion in the Chairman certif Mr. New York. pened the hearing by reading the application for a of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publica- newspapers,'and notice to the applicant. The S~tement from the Town Clerk that notification by eenmade to: Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Rausch, ~arksr, Ms. HOnorah McC Fleming. Fee paid $15.00. The house is located in such a way, I assume the rear lot he wishes to create would have approximately the same acreage as the lot where his present house is on Broadwaters Road. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? Is Mr. Green here? (there was no response)i, ls there anyone present who wishes to speak against this appl±cat±on? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~19- July 6, 1978 THE CHAIRM~: If there is no one who wishes to speak against this application I will'have to speak against the application. It has become the policy of the Board to recognize as did the Malcolm Pirnie Water Study ~f ~ne 1967, General Study of the Town of Southold Water Supply has be~n updated since several times indicating that the finite nature of the available water supply particularly Nassau Point which is replenished solely on Long Island by rain falll We had an application somewhat similar to this at that time in which an applicant's lot stretched from Nassau Point Road to Wunneweta Road, was to divide his property in two. He had approximately the same aCreage. After investigation we found out that 80 ~ercent of the wells showed evidence Of salt ~ater intrusion according to a Board of Health letter of March 4, 1977, indicating that there had not been any cha~ges since their 1975 test results. So at that time we established a poli~y which would deny creation of two lots from one unless the two resulting lots would be e~er 40,000 square feet. With a view to retaining as much of the water supply as exists in Nassau Point for the sometime future use of some of the people who have not developed their lots, there are quit~ a few. There is alot in the file on Appeal No. 2245 of Arnold and Diar water Supply. For instance wells ~ampled sh~wed varyir obvious that there is a ter fresh water. Certainly an5 They speak of nitrate concE is by natural precipitatior cent of the wells. An addJ which d±fferent±at~on betw~ could not be actually dete~ experiencing Chloride level accepted ground water concE water standards. The rate established but the rate wJ a Gardner bearing out Nassau Point's limited in one of the reports, 50 percent of the g degrees of ~alt water intrusion. It is .uous balance in the area betwen the salt and large withdrawals will have drastic effects. ntration. The only source of replenishment · Salt water chlorides is evident in 50 per- tional 30 percent had chloride levels in en salt water intrusion and cesspool pollution mined. Eighty percent of the homes are thus s in their water supply greater than normal ntrations althoUgh hone exceeded drinking of salt water intrusion cannot be accurately 11 be a function of development, population growth, ground.~ater withdrawal and the amount of natural precipitation. that there is no change in the 19~5 test results. The creation of such a lOt would set a precedent for the division of many lots which are some- what over 40,000 square feet in Nassau Point but not large ~nough for two lots. Many single and separate undeveloped lots on NasSau'Point, some undersized, remain to be developed and should have prior rights to the available water. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- July 6, 1978 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 will change the character of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. on~motiQn ~f ~r~ ~iIl~g~e, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, that Bradford B. Green, 101 Bard Avenue, Staten Island, New York, be DENIED permission to divide property with insufficient area. Location of property: Lots No. 189 and 190, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. - Upon application of Donald G. King, Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, for a variance in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide lot with insufficient area. Location of property: Lot No. 16, Map of Jackson's Landing, Mattituck, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the of ficial newspapers, and notice to the applicant. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: THE CHAIRMAN: The County Tax Map indicates that this lot does in fact face on two streets. It appears to have 110 feet on Jackson's Landing and 110 feet approximately on two courses on Mill Road also known as COX Neck Road. The depth of this lot on the southerly dimension is 314 feet and on the northerly depth 250 feet. It looks like one of the courses is 129 feet and the other is 139. You don't have any-~&~e computed on this, do you? DONALD G. KING: It is approximately 3/4 of an acre. Across the road on Jackson's Landing are several lots that appear to be 160 feet and 130 feet, about 20,000 square feet. Across the street on Mill Road or Cox Neck Road are several smaller lots that taper from the road to the ~est. T~ey start out at 120 feet, 91 feet, some go down to 85 feet. (Lots 11 and 12). So they are an average of a 100 by 240 feet, 20,000 square feeL. We are just trying to establish the neighborhood. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- July 6, 1978 DONALD G. KING: We have on the lots, aside from the size, which is a large lot, we have two structures that go back to the turn of the century. THE CHAIRMAN: What are the structures? MR. KING: One is a five story brick tower about 20 x 20, which is on the back side of the property. THE CHAIRMAN: What was the purpose of this tower, do you know? MR. KING: That was originally A Water Tower and originally someone li~ed in the bottom of the building. A caretaker, Iv~elie~e. Then you have a barn, which is approximately 30 feet by 60 feet, which also goes back to the turn of the century located approximately in the middle of the property. ~a THE CHAIRMAN: Which part of the lot is that on? MR. KING: It is on the Mill Road side of the property. Sort of the middle of the property. These structures go back to the turn of the century and were occupied by people in the tower and cows in the barn. Now we are 70 years later and the structures are being vandalized and being broken into. Doors and locks get ripped off. Neighbors park cars in driveways and into the barn itself. It is very difficult tH sell the plot with the two structures. And it is very difficult to go and remodel it because you have another structure in danger economically of going into disrepair. These will be very important to the community beca~se~they are probably the oldest structures in the area. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the barn being used for now? MR. KING: Nothing, it is empty. THE CHAIRMAN: It looks as 'though it had been reconditioned at some time. MR. KING: A while back it was repaired a little bit. There was a carpenter who boarded it up further. Now it is falling more and more .... THE CHAIRMAN: How long have you owned the property? MR. KING: For about three years. It was our intention to.remodel the barn and go on from there. Then what happened is that we bought property Up ±n East Marion. I have had this property on the market for a year or so. It is not easy to sell it due to the 2 structures. Any one who takes on the responsibility of restoring the bar~ must then look at a five story tower, which is brick, and subject to weathering. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the advantage of maintaining a brick struc- ture? Why not tear it down? MR. KING: Well, it is such an interesting thing. It is almost... the copper tank was taken out of the building. By the way, that is One of the tallest structures in this area, and it has a fabulous view from the top. I could ultimately demolish this and take it down. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21-~ July 6, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: I am just wondering if the community agrees with you. You apparently value the structure. Does the community agree with you? Are some of the people from the area here? MR.3JAMES LERRO: I am a resident owner of lot No. 22. opposed to this subdivision, the lot iB question is No. 13. a letterCfrom Dr. Ruben Oropeza .... I also have THE CHAIRMAN: You own lot 22, sir? MR. LERRO: It is not adjacent to the lot ..... THE CHAIPd~AN: But you can see the tower? MR. LERRO: I have a letter from Dr. Oropeza, owner of the Jackson House proper and lots Nos. 17 and 18, opposing the subdivision together with a letter from Mrs. Thayler opposing the division. She is adjacent to the subject property, Lot No. 13. I was asked to speak on their behalf. THE CHAIP~LAN: You do not have anything in your file from these people as to them being "pro" or "con" the tower do you? MR. LERRO: Sometime back , we have had several owners, one of the owners was thinking of using the tower as an art studio. It sounded okay. I disagree with Mr. King's comments about vandalism and parked cars in the barn. I live about 50 yards ~rom the place and there has never been vandalism or parked cars there. As far as locks~ there has been just one little lock that fell off. However, we are opposed. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here who likes the tower? Is there anyone here who likes the barn? You (Mr. Lerro) cannot see it very well anyway, can you? MRS. LERRO: We cannot see how you can split this lot leaving one little piece of property with the Tower. The way it looks is that the barn would be in the middle. There have been people who have wanted to... The tower will never be made into a lovely studio, it would ~ever be... THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. King? In addition to what you have already said~since you heard these remarks? MI{. KING: The Tower was here before the community. And the barn was here before the community. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean the present audience? You don't mean before the community existed? MR. KING: They are historical structures to the area. I believe the property can be ~ivided without any hardship o~ anything unusual going on ~p there. It won't create a hardship that hasn't existed for the past S~ven year. THE CHAIRMAN: Just before this hearing, we denied an application for a man to divide his lot which was much larger than yours. Because S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- July 6, 1978 it is in an area where there is a very fragile water supply. You have enough water here. If this is granted, you will have two, 17,000 square foot lots, which is not that much smaller than the lots in this area. Mattituck has the best water in the Town of Southold. As it has been pointed out, when we looked at this property, it was very difficult to see where the barn was in relation to your p~oposed division. Do you have the barn on the westerly plot and the tower on the easterly? MR. KING: I would leave the tower in place and move the barn for- ward to the other side of the division line of the parcels. THE CHAIRMAN: Then you would try to sell the two separately? MR. KING: Then I would try to..., I cannot sell it as one lot. The barn would fall in disrepair. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a fact, you know, this is somewhat self- imposed. When you bought the land, you saw the tower that had been there for 70 years and the barn was there also. On the other hand, you did buy a piece of property which may not be useful for the area in which it is zoned, and Zoning recognizes this. In most circumstances the Judge would lean toward granting this variance if we denied it. It is much smaller than the 40,000 square foot requirement, which presumably you should have known about when you purchased the property. The current 40,Q00 square feet goes back to 1971. So there are points you may not have thought about, both in your favor and against. Does anyone else w~sh to speak for this application? (there was no response). If not, we will hear from people who wish to speak against the application. MR. STEPHEN McNABB: I own lot No. 23, directly north, I have a house here. I do not support this at all. I understand he bought the property and now he wants to subdivide it and sell it. I do not under- stand the hardship. It would cause a strong decline in property values if those lots were created. I do not feel there is enough square footage involved. MR. THOR PETERSON: I live right across from the Tower, lot No. 9 and 10, Jackson's Landing. Well, I would have to say I like the tower. But if you gave me the choice between the tower and the division, I would say take the tower down. We bought land out here with the understanding that you were required to have an acre or half acre. THE CHAIRMAN: How long ago did you buy land? MR. PETERSON: Four years ago election. THE CHAIRMAN: You had to have 40,000 square feet then. But your lots are smaller than that because were in a previous development. MR. PETERSON: I think the whole feeling of Jackson's Landing and in Southold is that you come here with the idea of having at least a half acre of land. THE CHAIRMAN: One of the oddities of this job seems to be particu- larly apt in this situaion. You are people ~ith 20,000 square feet in your SO~3THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- July 6, 1978 10ts, plus or minus. What this man is asking for is about 17,000 square feet, as near as we can tell without a survey. He is asking for somewhat ~ess than what you already enjoy. We have discovered over the years from the beginning of Zoning that Southold is short of water~~- Millions of dollars have been spent on studies to see how water can be managed. One of the places where it cannot be managed is Nassau Point. Captain Kidd's Estates will have a beautiful water supply up there on the hill where they are putting their new well. We have parcels from the original zong!ng of 12,500 square feet, 1~3 of an acre~ 1/4 of an acre, and lis acre. You cannot come in and automatically make everything 40,000 square feet from now until eternity. We have to pick up all the lots in single and separate ownership that.might be smaller or larger than 40,000 square feet. That is why we have the Board of Appeals. We are not doing anything arbitrary here. MR. PETERSON: I still think, the impression was given that this is how it was going to be, and would never be any smaller. If anything the lots should be larger. It looks as though we are regressing in Jackson's Landing. MR. BERGEN: Is that the name of the development there? When they developed the lots to the south on the Creek, how large are they? MR. PET. ERSON: They are supposed to be half acres. MR. BERGEN: This piece came out of part of that development? MR. PETERSON: That tower was supposed to be renovated 18 months from the time he took ownership. It was either to be torn down or renovated, and it isn't. THE CHAIRMAN: Which owner are you talking about. The first, second, or present. MR. PETERSON: Any owner, after 18 months he was supposed to do something with it. I think this is why it has been switching hands. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to clear this up with Mr. King? MR. KING: The part this gentlemen is talking about is correct. However, if you were to board up the windows, this structure could stand and stay. I do not have the covenants with me tonight, but you can interpret it either way. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, you bought a covenanted piece of proper~. In the covenants there zs something you were supposed to do? Although covenants do not concern this Board. MR. KING: We can discuss it. I am not looking ~o uBset anybody. You can leave the tower and remove the barn, but that does not serve any purpose. I pursued renovating the tower with Mr. Terry. I believe that would improve the value of the area. MRS. RUTH LERRO: About the tower, It is well and good to say it can be called a~- historical structure. I/~felt that way and so did my SObTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- July 6, 1978 neighbors several years ago. Owner No. 1 stripped out ~he windows, took down all the ivy, removed the water tank, etc. Owner No. 2 came, did something else, and left it looking "ghostly". No vines, nothihq. All the good was taken out. There it is, and we have been told by other people that it would be worth it financially to take it down due to the value in the brick. But you will never be able to build it up. It would be a very small piece of property. We do not want a lot of small pieces of property with "something" unused on it. Now it is attracting vandals. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to know if anyone ~_ever have a residence in this tower? MRS. LERRO: In the restrictions and covenants under which we all bought our property, it states: the present tower structure shall remain on the property, provided its exterior is repaired to the extent of having, etc ...... and if not, within 18 months, it should come down. THE CHAIP/~AN: Anyone could write that into a deed restriction. You would have to enforce it through a civil suit though. STEPHEN NOSTRAND: all the reasons stated. had a second well put in. I own lot No. 26. I oppose this application for As far as the water situation, I have had to MR. JOSEPH VITALE: I had to have two wells put in also due to the nitrate problem. THE CHAIRMAN: How high were the nitrates, do you know? MR. VITALE: No. MR. NOSTRAND: I have been the~e less than 2 years and have already put in 2 wells. O~e cost $1,800.00 when I moved into the house, and as a result of nitrates, a second one had to be driven down. THE CHAIRMAN: How far away was the second well from the first well? MR. NOSTRAND: It had to come up from the first one. THE CHAIRMAN: Nitrates remain in the water. If you put another point in the same place, you will get the same water. How far apart were they? MR. NOSTR~ND: I don~t have that information with me. THE CHAIRMAN: You must know the physical location, take a guess. Were they in your cellar? MR. NOSTRAND: No, they were out toward the road. They were both the same area, just different depths. THE CHAIRMAN: What I am trying to find out is what the justification was for putting down a~.well next to the original well, where you had nitrates, on the theory that you will get pure water. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- July 6, 1978 MR. NOSTRAND: They were put down deeper. Two wells were put in within 27 months. MR. McNABB: I also had two wells. One was also put down deeper. One is down 70 odd feet. MR. BERGEN: Could you get water? MR, McNABB: Water was obtained, but the nitrate level was too high. THE CHAIRMAN: Sometimes when you go deeper, you get salt water. MR. MCNABB: The fellow from Krieger said he had to go down to hit good water. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe he went down through another layer of material. MR. KING: I would like to know if people are having trouble getting water. But~ across the street there has been a subdivision 200 feet from the barn. I think it was or±g!nally 40 acres, no its broken into 20 acre parcels~ There is a large victorian house and just in front of the drive- way there is a house that was not there 3 years ago. Apparently they have water. THE CHAIRMAN: I think there is plenty of water there. MR. KING: The people of Jackson's Land~ng are complaining, but across the street no one is sc~e~a~i~g~about water level. THE CHAIRMAN: What we are talking about is the q~ality of water. This man found it at a reasonable depth, but went 70 feet or better to find it. MR.-KING: I think the water issue is nothing due to the fact that everyone is alive and healthy. I do not believe that suddenly this property will get split up and endanger the water. I think to fight this matter with the water situation does not constitute a strong point. THE CHAIRMAN: It has come up constantly for about 15 or 20 years, in the matter of density. MR. KING: I would like to mention that Mr. Le~ro has a er from Dr. O~openza, who!~alled my broker and said he was 23rd of July, and'he would like to buy the property, and I w~ to sell i% to him. My Point is not to try to hold on to or try to make any h~ge ~aln. As. far as ~andalism~, I was the barn 3 weeks ago and in my circular driveway which goes across to Dr. Oropenza's property was a parked car. I believe it belon~sd to the house directly ~¢ross the street. I could not eve~ get in the driveway. The Dr. had another car parked aleng side the barn, with a cover on i~. When the vandals they came, they stood on the car and went into the garage through a big hole~. Up there I found cans and garbage~ I asked Dr. ( to. remove the car. I opened the barn doors a~d there was ~he My lawyer was with me just because we wanted to show the property. I a~sked him not to park his car there since I am liable for it. Then they put a -SO~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- July 6, 1978 a tractor in the little niche. If this is not vandalism, I do not know what is. I put nails through the doors and posts against them. I ~come back a few weeks later and the doors are flapping in the wind. I do have insurance on both the tower and barn. If the pieces of property were improved, it would help the neighborhood, not hinder it. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the tower is that historic. I think it is just an old structure. MRS. LERRO: Mr. Bergen from Mattituck is still living and he told us when it was built. It is lovely old brick, but it is not that histor- ical. I wish it were. I do not think the tower is the question. Are we going to have two small plots in the area? THE CHAIRMAN: But they'would be only 10 percent or so smaller than your lots. MR. McNABB: Why go backwards? THE CHAIRMAN: That-is a very difficult point to make with the courts, 10 percent reduction in area variance. MR. McNABB: What about sewage? THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure it could be handled there. The Board of Health went alonq with us for about 15 or 20 years on half acre plots. The Board of Health has led us, the Town, to larger requirements. One of our purposes here is not to get into alot of controversy with the courts and Judges. You see, a Judge will say, what is 10 percent smaller? Is that go±ng to be c~itical? That is not enough difference in the Judge's eyes. I think I would like to take some more time with this decision, discuss ±t with the members of the Board, and talk to Town Counsel. I think there is something to say on both sides. Also one of our members could not be here tonight, and I would like to see what he has to say, MRS. LERRO: When you say you will discuss this among yourselves, and with the missing member and Town Counsel, I trust we will have ano- ther speak out on this. Another hearing. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else to add to the information you gave us tonight? We understand how you feel about it. STEPHEN NOSTRAND: There are alot of people down there who are upset and we can have more, if needed. Let's not go back, let~s go forward. I understand what you said with regard to the Courts. All of us purchased our land though with the idea that Zoning would not be decreased. MR. BERGEN: Covenants and restricts are enforced by the Builder. THE CHAIRMAN: As far as covenants and restrictions go, there usually a time limit. After that they are not in effect. MR. McNABB: You told us that you sent an inspection team out, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- July 6, 1978 that true? THE CHAIRMAN: That is true, but we are not enforcing agents. The Building Inspector is the enforcing agent. Mt{. BERGEN: When we go out to see these properties, usually no one is there. To get information we go truding through brush and all. We come up with the best information we can. MR McNABB: What was the Disapproval of the Building Inspector? THE CHAIRMAN: The Building Inspector disapproved the division ~due to the fact the lot was too small. That is why it was referred to the ~ Board of Appeals. MR. SVENLUND: I would like to know Mr. King's intention. THE CHAIRMAN: I think he has answered that question. He said he wanted to move the barn to one of the lots. He want to arrange the structures better to the two lots, if divided, would be easier to sell. The reason I asked the questions about hista~ic ~value is the court says that if it cannot be used in its present district, the owner, whoever he may be, can dispose of the use of the property. I have been trying to find out the value of the tower and the barn. If On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was resolved to postpone a decision until 7:50 P.M. on July 27, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispe, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion of Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board approve the minutes of June 15, 1978. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.), Thursday, July 27, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for a hearing upon application of Raymond Kirsch, 1551 Williams Bridge Road, Bronx, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning $O~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -28- July 6, 1978 Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in front yard area. Location of property: Private Road off Bayview Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by right- of-way; east by V. Ladeck; south by Corey Creek; west by K. Isles. ~'~L®~th~aBo&rd:l Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:40 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and p~ace for~a~h~ar±ng upon application of James F. McFarland, 13 Mildred Court, Floral Park, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 and Bulk Schedule to place a shed in the side yard. Location of property: Little Peconic Bay, Cutchogue, New York. Lot No. 236 and part of lot No. 235, on Map A of "Nassau Point Properties." Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for postponed decis±on upon application of Donald G. King, Rocky Point Road, East Marion for a variance to divide property with ±ns~ffic±ent area and frontage. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Giltispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was P~ESOLVED that.tke?Boar~ of Appeals set 8:00 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of Kenneth and Jerie Newman, Private Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with~\the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 and Bulk Schedule to construct a detached garage in the side yard. Location of proper%y: Private Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by E. W. La,ham; east by E. E. Luce, ~r.,; south by School District No. 2; west bY M. Antonazzi. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. ~illispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:10 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of ~9~if!.~7 Andrews, 87 Edward Street, Roslyn Heights, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zon±ng Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule to divide SO~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -29- July 6, 1978 property with insufficient frontage. Location of property: Grand Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Jemmot; east by Young; south by Maple Avenue and west by Grand Avenue. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Giltispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED tkat the Board of Appeals set 8:20 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Adams, 4055 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituc~, New York, for a variance in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 and Bulk Schedule to construct an underground swimming pool in the front yard. Location of property: New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by A. M±leski; east by H. Sacks; south by New Suffolk Ave- nue; west by Maratooka Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of the3Southold Rotary Club, Southold, New Yor~k, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section L00-30 C 6 f for permission to erect an off-premises sign. Location of property: Triangle Park, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Lower Road; east by H. A. Goldsmith; south by Main Road; and west by Lower Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, ~ergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:35 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of St. Peters Lutheran Church, Main Road, Gre~nport, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C 6 f for permission to erect an off-premises sign on property of Case. Location of property: Middle Road, Cu%chogue, New York, bounded on the north by Middle Road; east by J. Townsend, Jr.; south by Long Island Railroad; west by J. Bednoski, Jr. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was- RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:40 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of St. Peters Lutheran Church, SO~3THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30- July 6, 1978 Main Road, Greenport, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C 6 f for permission to erect an off-premises sign on property of Olsen. Location of property: Route 25, Mattituck, New York, bonnded on the north by Main Road (S. R. 25); east by S. Kander; south by K. Bo Tuthill; west by H. Pollak. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:45 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of Helen Weevnik, Central Drive, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area and frontage. Location of property: Lots Nos. 140 and 147, Map No. 1672, Captain Kidd Estates, Ma%tituck, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillisple, Bergen, and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 8:55 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and place for hearing upon application of Joan L. Tsontakis, 239 Break- water Road, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. 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; and west hy Johnson. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. Qn motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Doyen,. it was RESOLVED that the Board Of Appeals set 9:10 P.M. (D.S.T.) as time and piace for hearing upon app~icati0n of Long Island Vineyards, Inc.; Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, New Y6rk, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article ~II, Section 100-30A (2) (a) (1) for per- mission to use a building for displayi'and retail use larger than is allowed. Location of property: County Road 27, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the nort~ b~ Middl~ Road; ~ast by R. S~h~i~k; sou~h by Issacs and Aud; west by Ov~sinak. Vote of the ~card: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doysn.