HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/26/1985 SPEC Southold Town Board o£Appeals
NIAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.., N.Y. 11c:J'71
TELEPHONE (515) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR,
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M I 1~ U t E S
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 1985
A Special Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Satu~d~y,'J~nuary 26, 1'985 at 11:00 o'clock a.m. at the
Southold Town Hall.., Main Road, S~uthold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles
Grigonis, Jr., Member and Robert J. 'Douglass, Member, constituting
a quorum. Absent were: Serge Doyen, Jr., (of Fishers Island)
and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present was Victor
Lessard, Administrator (Building Department).
The Chairman called the meeting to order at ll:O0 a.m.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3234:
Application of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL., Private Road
Orient, NY for a reversa7 of the interpretation of the building
inspector concerning a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued
June 21, 1983 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for a one-family
dwelling and four accessory .cottage structures at Private Road
No. 7 (a/k/a Diedericks Road), 'Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-18-03-005 [Current Owners: D. Io Abbott and J.T. Swanson].
The board made the following findings and determination:
This is an appeal for an interpretation of the provisions of the
Zoning Code pursuant to the provisions of Section lO0-121(D)[1] of the
Zoning Code, with respect to certain determinations of the Building
Inspector.
The Appellants, Arthur R. Truckenbrodt, et al., are the several
owners of properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of property owned
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234- A. TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL., continued:)
by Dorothy Abbott and Janet T. Swanson. The subject property contains
12½ acres of land adjacent to Long Island Sound at Orient and is shown
on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 018, Block 03,
Lot 005. The subject property is located in the "A" Residential and
Agricultural Zoning District.
As stated in their appeal, the Appellants seek interpretations of
various provisions of the Code as they relate to certain actions of the
Building Inspector, to wit:
1. The issuance of Building Permit No. 12828Z dated November 15,
1983, for the erection of a fence alleged to have been issued
contra~ry to the provisions of Section 100-119.1 of the Zoning
Code.
That the owners of the subject property are operating a
tourist camp/cottage colony without a permit, in violation
of Article X of the Zoning Code.
3. That the owners of the subject property are violating Section
100-23(A) of the Zoning Code b~ utilizing buildings which are
being restored, altered~ or rebuilt, without a permit, in
violation of Section 100-141 of the Zoning Code.
4. The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy dated June 21,
1983 (Zl1736) .... alleged to have been issued in violation of
Section lO0-118(.Q) of the Zoning Code.
The Board conducted hearings on June 21, 1984, July 26, 1984,
and August 23, 1984, at which time extensive oral and written evi-
dence was received and numerous witnesses testified on behalf of the
Appellants and the present owners of the subjecL property. The
Hearing was concluded on December 13, 1984~
The four issues upon which interpretations are sought will be
considered in the order set forth above.
1. The Appellants asse~t that the Building Inspector issued
Permit No. 12828Z to erect a fence on the ~ubject p~operty within
one foot of the boundary line of the property in violation of Sec-
tion 100-I19.1 of the Zoning Code. The first paragraph of this
section provides as follows:
"Subject to the provisions of Section 100-119, fences, walls,
hedges or other live plantings within five ~(5) feet of the
property lines may be erected and maintained, s~bject to the
following height_limitations:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - 'A.''TRUCKENBRODT, ET ~L., continued:)
The Appellant contends that this provision prohibits a fence within
one foot of the property line unless a variance is obtained. The
Board interprets this provision to mean that fences may be erected
along property lines as a matter of right, provided that they are
located within five feet of such line~ No evidence was presented
by Appellants on this question., and thus the Board must conclude that
they have abandoned this issue. Therefore, the permit issued by the
Building Inspector must be deemed~valid, and the interpretation urged
by Appellants is rejected.
2. The second request is for an interpretation of the Town Code
to the effect that the owners Q.f the subject premises are operating
a "tourist camp/camp cottage" on the premises without a permit in
violation of Article X of the Zoning Code.
Section 100-100 of Article X of the 'Zoning Code provides as
follows:
"Section '100~100.. Permits Required.
No tourist camp shall be est~'blish.e'd, maintained or operated in
any district, nor shall any tent, tent house, camp cottage,
house car or trailer to be used or occupied as a place for liv-
ing, sleeping or eating, whether charge ~s or is not made, be
erected or placed therein, unless authorized by the Town Board
pursuant to the provisions of the Trailer Camp Ordinance, dated
June 30, 1953."
Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code defines a "Tourist Camp" as
follows:
"TOURIST CAMP Any lot, piece or parcel of ground where two (2)
or more'tents,~ tent houses, camp cottages, house cars or house
trailers used as living or sleeping quarters are or may be
located, said camp being operated for or without compensation."
Section lOD-13 of the Zoning Code defines a "To~ist Cottage" as
follows:
"TOURIST COTTAGE - A detached building having less than three
hundred fifty (350)square feet'of cross-secti.~nal area,
designed for or occupied as livin.g and sleeping quarters for
seasonal occupancy."
The testimony of one of the present owners was that she measured each
of the four cottages on the premises and that two of the cottages each
have a cross-sectional area of more than 500 sq. ft., and the other
two cottages each have an area in excess of 600 sq. ft. No evidence
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - A. TRUCKE~BROD~,''.ET A~.~., continued:)
as to the size of the cottages was introduced by Appellants.
It is appa~'ent, 'that, -~ince the four cottages-~a~ exceed 350
sq. ft. in cross-sectional area, they are not "toUrist cottages"
under the definitions in the Zoning ~ode. The'Board, according~'y,
finds that no permit is required under Sec.tion lO0-100 of the ZA.ping
Code, and the interpretation urged 'by the Appel]ants is rejected and
the appeal on this issued is dismissed.
3. In their third appeal for an interpretation, Appellants
assert that the buildings_"are ~.eing restored, altered .or .rebuilt"
without first obtaining a bu.ildi'ng_per.mit pu~.~uant to Section 100:141
o.f the Zoning Code.
Section lO0~l~l of the Zoning Code provides in part that:
"No building-in ~y distr.ic{"'shall-~e erected, ~econstructed,
restored or st'ruc~ral'ly altered without a building permit
duty issued upon ap,placation 'to'the Building Inspector."
Section 100~13 of the Z~ning Code defines t~e terms "Alteration"
and "Structural Alteration" as fo]l.ows.:
"ALTERATION - As applied to a bull.ding or structure, a change or
rearrangement in the st'ruc'~ural parts or in the exit facilities,
or an enlargement, whether extending on a side or by increasing
in heigh..~, or the moving from one location or position to another."
"STRUCTURAL ALTERATION - Any chan~e in the sup'porting members of
a building_, such as beams, columns, girders, footings, foundations
or bearing walls.~' _.
No claim is asserte-d ~hat buildings were being "erected," but Appellants
allege that buildings were being !'restored, ~.]t~red or rebuilt." How-
ever, no evidence was presented._to this Board with respect to the
restoration, alteratio9 or r.eb. eil.di'ng of the-buildings, and, therefore,
the appeal with respect to the requirement of a building permit is
dismissed,
4. The fourth 'cl.aim of Appellants, and upon which both they and
the owner~ of the premises_yoq.~_most of their attention, is the
assertion that a Certificate of Occupancy_was erroneously issued by
the Building Inspector on June 21,. 1983.___
It is the Appellants"-poSition that the use of the subject premises
was a nonconforming use; that such .use was discontinued for a period
of two years, and that pursuant to Section lO0~l18(D) of the Zoning
Code, the nonconforming use can no longer be p~r~itted unless a variance
therefore is granted by this Board.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 26, 1985 Special Mee.t!ng
(Appeal No. 3234- A. T~U-CKENBRO-D1~-, ET AL., continued:)
Section lO0-13 of the Zoning Code defines a nonconforming use as
follows:
"NONCONFORMING USE - Any use, whether or a building or tract of
land, or both, existing, on the effective date of this chapter,
which does not conform to the us~ regulations of the district
in which it is located."
Section 100-118 of the Zoning Code'deals with nonconforming uses
and provides as follows:
"Section 10'0-1~8. Nonconforming Uses.
Unless otherwise authorized as a special exception by the Board
of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, the following p.rovisions
shall apply to nonconforming uses:
A. The lawful use of a building or premises existing on the
effective date of this chapter Q.r authorized by a building
permit issued prior thereto may be continued although such
use may be extended throughout the building lawfully acquired
to said date.
B. A nonconforming use of a building or premises may be changed
to a use of the same or higher classification according to
the provisions of this cha.pter.
C. Whenever a district shall hereafter be changed, any then
existing nonconforming_gse of a building or premises in such
changed district may be continued or ch. anged to a use of a
similar or higher classification, provided that all other
regulations governing the use are complied with.
D. Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has
been discontinued for a period, of more than two (2) years or
has been changed to a higher classification or to a conform-
ing use, anything in this section to the contrary notwith-
standing, the nonconforming use of such building_or premises
shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall
have been granted by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter
provided.
E. A nonconforming building may not be reconstructed or struc-
turally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in
agg~..e.gate_cost fifty percent .(50%) of the fair value of the
building, unless the use of'-such building is chart, ged to a
conforming use.
- F. A nonconforming building which has been damaged by fire or
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - A. TRUCK~NBR~T, ~ET A'L~, continued~)
other causes to the extent of more than fifty percent (.50%)
of its fair value shall not ~e repaired.~._~re~It unless
the use of such bui'ldigg is changed to a confQrm_ing 'K~'e.
It is'this Board's view that in order for Appellant {~ pre'ail in its
position, there must be proof that (l_] th~.UE~s conducted on the
premises are nonconformi.pg uses, and (2) that such ~se was di. scon-
tinued for more than two years.
Viewing this case from a different aspe~ct, if there is no proof of
a discontinuance of the pre~zent uses _~or tw~_years,, the ~pe]lant~
cannot prevail, regardless of' whethe~.._the, us~are determ~..n~' to be
conforming or nonconforming,
On the question of ~he di~onti.nuance of use, the evidence presented
by Appellants consisted of ora.~ testimony, affidavits and written
statements of the Appellants that on ~ar~ous__~ccasions they viewed
the premises and observed no i~.dica.tions that the cottage~.were
occupied, They also presented e~vid.ence of. the discontinuance of
electric and g~s ~erv~ces to the pre~mi.ses._~ The owners of the
premises produced evidence from all of. the previous owners of
the premises from 1956 to 1~83, all of. whom stated that the 9remises
and cottages .~hereon had been ~on]'~i~nu~usly ~sed and occupied during
their ownership of the proper'~,y. Dr. Dam~anos, the owne~ of the
property from 1973 to 1.~84~ te.~ti.fied that the cottages on the
pro.perry were us'ed conti, n~ous~ly dur]ilng his ownership~ as recrea-
tional facilities for his nUr~ing~home and vineyard.empl'oyees ~o
spend vacations and weekends at the cottages during the summer
months. He also testi.fied that du.rli',ng so~e of~th~ period of his
ownership, the electri~ and gas facilities were. discontinued and
that the occupants of the cabins bn~gh't in drin~i~'g water in jerry
cans; used sea wate~ to flush the.'toil.e.ts, Coleman lanterns for
illumination and charcoal__gri.lls for ~goki. ng p~rpos~.
Fr~m a review of all of-~h~ e]~iden-ce in the record, ~nd visits to
the premises on three occasions"by Board members,'the Board finds
that there was no discontinuance 9f the. existing uses of the
premises for a period of more than two'.years during ~11 of the
period from 1956 to and. inclu~di'ng the d~te of the acquisition of
the premises by the presen~ners.
By reason of ~he above findings~ i-t is not necessary for the Board
to make a determination as to 'whether the use of the ..~ottages on
the premises from 1956 to 1984 was a nonconforming use. However,
it is the'position of the.~oard that the "uSe" of the cottages
for single=family occupancy is not a nonconforming use in the
district in which located, The Board agrees with the interpreta-
tion of the Buildigg Inspector that the nonconformity exis~ 'by
- reason of the existence of five residential structures on the
premises, and n6t the "usg"_~of such buildi.~gs f~r ~easonal re~-~-
dential purposes.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appea~i No. 3234 A. TRU-CKENBRDDT, ET AL., conti"nued:)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, by reason
of the foregoing, the interpretation urged by Appellants on the issue
of nonconforming use is rejected and Certificate of Occupancy
No. Zl1736 issued by the Building Inspector on June 21, 1983 is
deemed valid; and the appeal with respect thereto is dismissed.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, G~ggonis and
Douglass. (Members Sawicki and Doyen were absent.) This resolution
was duly adopted with a quorum of the members present.
REQU~.ST FOR~INTERPRETATION: It has been requested that the
Z.B.A. make an interpreT~tiQn; wfthout formal application since it
is for the entire township and particularly ~n~._~arcel, as to the
term, "nonconforming building~' as user. in_Sections lO0~l18(E) and (F)
of the Zoning Code. All Of t~-board members a~ree~ ~'~a%'this h~s
in the past b~en treated as not only conduct which is proscribed
applicable zoning restrictions but also a building or str~cture
would does not comply with the zoning reg.ul'at~on~and-~'as existed
as such since prior to the enactment of zoning~ Reference was made
to Section 6.02 of New York Zoning Law and~Practic~(Anderson), and
consultations with both the Town ~t~o~ney and Town Counsel Yakaboski
were had. The board's-~consensus is tha~ "nonconforming ~lding!'
as u~ed~i~.Sect~o~s lO0~l18~E & F) of. the Code shall include'nOt only.
"uses" which may not conform under current zonfng .~gulations b~ al'so
"a buildin~ or structure(s)"'~which offend the zoning ~gulations and'--
which h~ve'e×i's~ed as such ~ince'p~ri'~to the 'enactment
This would include a buildin~ with insufficient front¥~r~' Setbacks,
sideyards, residential use in a ~s'in'ess or industrial dist'rict,
etc. as ap.plies under the current zoning 'ordina~'~'e.~ The Chairman
was authorized to send a memorandum to Mr. Lessard s~ject to
Town Counsel Yakaboski's advice accor, din~gl~__as to the~omposition
of same.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3308:
Application of LAUREN KRUG; 200 Horton Road, Cutchogue, NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 ~or
permission to attach accessory garage ~o dwelling for expansion of
living area, thereby leaving an insuffi'cient.rearyard setback, at
200 Horton Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-
1-12.
The public hearing on this matter was held on January 24, 1985~
at which time the hearing was~concluded pending deliberations.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3308 LA~RE~-"KR~G, ~onti~ued:)
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 24, 1985, in the
Matter of Appeal .No~ 3308 for LAUREN KRUG; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, no one appeared in opposition thereto;
and
WHEREAS, prior to said hearing, the board members personally
viewed the premises in question; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact and
determination:
1. The property in question is located in the "A" Residential
and Agric~ltural_~Zoning District.
2. The pr~per'ty ~n question is improved with a one-family dwell-
ing, set back_45± feet from the front (easterly) property line~ and
an accessory garag~ structure, h~ving a setback from_the westerly
(rearyard) property line at 13± feet,~ and as mor~ particularly shown
on survey d~.ted August 22, 1973 ~ubmitted with the subjec~ application.
3. The lot is rectangular in shape, having frontage of 75 feet
along Horton Road and a de~th of 100 feet
4. Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code requires a
principal structure to have a minimum ~earyard setback of 25 feet.
5. It is the applicant's request for a variance from 35 feet
to the existing established setback of ~3± feet, after_attaching
the present garage structure to the d~elling and converting same for an
expaDsion of_present living area as para._of_the principal structure, (not
for separate living q~arter$)
In considering this appeal, the board has found that the
setbacks have been established_for the subject existing structures
and it has determined accordingly that: (~_) the relie~ requested
is not substantial in relation to. the requirement; (2) there
will be no effect on population density ~hereby no effect will
be produced ~n available, governmental facilitie.s; (2) there ~s
no substantial change in ~he character_of the neighborhood or
a substantial detri~.ent to adjoi~ning properties, (4) and that
in view of the manner in which the di~ficul'ty arose, and the
shallowness of the lot, justice will be served by allowing the
variance, as indicated below.
NOW, T.HEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. GrigoniS, 'it was ._ _
RESOLVED, that.the-~elief requested under Appeal No. 3308
in the Matter of'LAUR.EN'KR~G ~or ~.ermission to at~acb accessory
garage to principal dwelli~ ~ith~an insufficient rearyard setback
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 26, 1985 Sp~c~al Meeting
(Appeal No. '3308 ~ LA'~R~KROG, continued:)
at 13 feet,.as exists,.BE AND.H.ER.EBY IS APPROVED,''WITH'.TH.E."CONDITION
THAT THERE BE NO FURTHE-R--~YARD'SETBA~K'RED. U~TI.ONS. '~' ]'-.-.. ' '~
Location o~ ~;op6r'£~i-'206 H6r{~n-~o~,~ut~hogue. NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No~ 1Q00-]02=1-12 ....
Vote of the Board: Aye;: Messrs. Goehri,nger, Grigonis and
Douglass. (Members Doyen end Sawicki eere absen]t._)' ~Th:~;s resolu-
tion was adopted with ~ unanimous vote of a quoru~ of-the members
present. ._
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3313:
Upon a~plication of SERGE' J. DOYEN, Box 263, Fishers Island, NY for
a Variance ~o the Zoning Ord.i..nance~, &rticle I]I,_Section 100-31, Bulk
Schedule, for approv.al of insufficient area and width of two parcels in
a proposed set-off division of land located at the South Side of Fox
Avenue, Fishers Zsland, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-O06-006-
OO1; containing a total area of 3± acres. ~.
The public hearing on this matter was held on January 24, 1985.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No.
3313 of SERGE DOYEN on Januar~ 24, 1985; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, no one appeared in opposition thereto;
and
WHEREAS, two letters in opposition to this proposal have been
received and considered by the board in making this determination; and
WHEREAS, each of the board members have viewed and are familiar
with premises in ques%ion and its surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact and deter-
mination:
1. The property in question is located in the "A" Residential
and Agricultural ~Zoning District;
2. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code
requires a minimum of 80,000 sq.. ft. for each proposed parcel of land
established subsequent to June 1_0, 1983 (date effectuated).
3. The property in question contains a total area of 3 acres;
proposed Lot #1 ~o contain an area of 1.61± acres and Lot #2 to
Contain an area of 1.33± acres ....
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3313- SERGE J. DOYEN, continued):
4. Lot #1 has frontage of 451 feet along Fox Avenue; Lot #2
has an average lot width of 253± feet, and..a width at the building
setback line of 222 feets
5. Lot #1 is vacant land; Lot #2 is improved with a one-family
dwelling.
6. Lot #1 is to be serviced by the municipal water district
and an on-site_sewage disposal system subject to the requirements
and approvals of the Suffolk Cou.D'ty Department of Health Services;
Lot #2 _is presently serviced by each, respective]_y.
7. It is applicant's request for a ~'ariance to allow relief
for Lot #1 of apprQximately 12% of the requirements, (9,868± sq. ft.)
and for Let #2 o.f approxima%e.'ly 27% of the requirements, (22,065±
sq. ft.)
-8.- For the record it is noted that a prior appeal application
for an accessory building was made under Appeal No,_ 3187, which was
conditionally granted by this board. NOvember 30, 1983.,
9. It is further noted for the record that on December 17, 1984,
this project received approval for a set-off division of land by the
Southold Town Planning Bo. ard.
10. Applicant has indicated his intent to properly locate
the new dwelling on Lot #1 when planned and to consult ~Jth the
neighboring property owne~(s) for their wishes or suggestions.
In considering this appeal, the board has found that this
proposal is consistent which those parcels existing in the surround-
ing area and it has determined accordingly that: (1) the relief
requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements
(being 27.5% and less); (2) there will be no effect on population
density thereby not effecting availabl~ governmental facilities~
(3) there is no substantial change_~in the character of the neighbor-
hood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (4) and
that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice
will be served by allowing the variance app. lied.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to grant'the relief requested under Appeal No. 3313
Of SERGE'DOYEN as applied.
Location of Property: South Side of Fox Avenue, Fishers Island,
~Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3313 - Serge Doyen, continued):
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-6-6-1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Grigonis and
Douglass. (Members Sawicki and Doyen were absent.) This resolution
was adopted with a unanimous vote of a quorum of the members present.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3296:
Upon application for'JOSEPH AND ARLENE LEST1NGI, c/o David Kapell,
400 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory garage
in the frontyard area at premises, 1150 Sound Drive, Greenport, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-0~-001.
The board made the following findings and determination:
WHEREAS, public hearings on this appeal application were held,
initially December 13, 1984, and thence concluded January 24, 1985 in
the Matter of Appeal No. 3296 for JOSEPH AND ARLENE LEST!NGI; and
WHEREAS, at said hearings, there was no opposition in relation
to the relief requested; and
WHEREAS, each of the board members have viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question and its surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact and deter-
mination:
1. The property in question is located in the "A" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District and contains an area of 37,741 sq.
ft., with lO0' frontage along the north side of Sound Drive;
2. Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Ordinance requires
all accessory buildings to be located in the rearyard area;
3. The subject premises is improved with a new one-family
dwelling, situate 172± feet north of the front property line and
having minimum sideyard setbacks of 19 feet, and pool and deck areas
having a setback at its nearest point 26± feet from the bank, and
more particularly shown on site plan submitted November 28, 1984 for
consideration under this appeal ap~plication and as approved under
Building Permit #13506Z issued October 29, 1984.
4. It is the appellants" request for a variance to allow
relief to permit the location of a structure approximately 40' by 26'
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3296 - J. LESTINGI, continued:)
in size for garage purposes at a setback of approximately 94' from
the front line along Sound Drive, and having a setback from the
westerly sideyard at approximately 17 feet. In between the existing
dwelling structure and the proposed garage location will be an
absorption field.
5. It is apparent that although the appellants' practical
difficulties are self-imposed, principal structures are normally
situated much closer to the front property line than exists, and
the members of this board agree that relief should be granted
accordingly.
6. The subject premises is waterfront, and it is not unusual
for accessory garage structures to be preferred in the frontyard
area.
In considering this appeal, the board has found that this
proposal is not out of character with those parcels of similar
circumstances and existing in the surrounding area, and it has
determined accordingly that: (1) the relief requested will not
adversely effect population density or available governmental
facilities; (2) there is no substantial change in the neighbor-
hood; (3) no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will
be created; (4) that the circumstances of this properties are
unique thereby lending itself to granting of the relief as requested
and noted below.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to grant the relief requested under Appeal No. 3313
for permission to locate an accessory building for garage purposes
in the frontyard area approximately 94 feet from the front property
line and 15 feet from the westerly~side property line, SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the structure be located no closer than 15 feet from
the westerly sideyard line (as requested);
2. That the garage structure be of a size not to exceed
26' by 26'~
3. That the garage door(s) not face the street line;
4. There be no living, plumbing or other utilities that would
condor habitable or sleeping quarters;
5. That this structure not exceed one-story in height (18 feet);
6. There be no obstrusive lighting which will be adverse to surround-
~ng property owners.
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3296 J. LE~TINGI, continued:)
7. That the structure be located as requested and not closer than
90 feet from the front (road) property line.
Location of Property: 1150 Sound Drive, Greenport, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-33-04-001.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass and
Grigonis. (Members DOyen and Sawicki were absent.) This resolution
was unanimously adopted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the following Minutes of the board:
March 2, 1984 Regular Meeting; March 17, 1984 Special Meeting;
April 19, 1984 Special Meeting; May 17~ 1984 Regular Meeting.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyens Douglass and Sawicki.. This resolution was adopted by
un~.nimous vote of all the members.
FEBRUARY 14TH PUBLIC HEARINGS: The following files, which have
been scheduled for Eeb~uary 14, 1985 for pub!ic hearings, were again
reviewed, and scheduled for ~ield inspections accordingly:
Appeal No. 3294 - PETER AND MARGARET TROYANO;
Appeal No. 3314 - JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEFER;
A~pe~l No. 3317 - THOMAS PERILLO;
A~peal No. 3291 - ANTHONY PAGO~O; ~
Appeal No. 3312 - ESTATE~OF LOUISE WILSON;
Ap.~eal. No. 3315 - CUTCHOGUE EREE LIBRARY;
Appeal No. 3316 - CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 3317 - THOMAS PERILLO:
Pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining
to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Chapter 44-4 of the Code
of the Town of Southold, and after reviewing each of the following
matter,.the~bOard,~declared a}~NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS, as follows:
$outhold .T~wn Board of Appeals -14- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3291, Perillo, continued:)
S.E.Q,R.A.
NEGATI~ZE ENVIRONFIENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 329l
PROJECT NAME: THOMAS PERILL0 .....
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulation~ pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the To~rn of Southold.
This ~oard determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type I! [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of area and
width of parcels in this proposed-division of land.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk,
particularly kn~w-n as: Silkworth Road and Home PiKe Rdad, Mat~i~u~e,
NY; 1000-114-1-7. Map of Point Pleasant"L6ts 17,-18, 19 6nd 20..
t~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has-been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Being a prior subdivision, this is a request for re-'division
or lot line changes for lots substandard of the necent lot area
and width changes.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- January 26, 1985 Special Meeting
There being no other business properly coming before the board at
this time, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, and unanimously carried, to adj. ourn. The meeting adjourned
at l:O0 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L1 da~F. Kowalski, Sec~ta y
a Southol_d Town ~Board of Appeals
2/14/85
ECEIVED &ND FILED BY
Town Clerk, To~ of Som~ld