Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-04/12/1979
Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11~'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. G ILLISPtE, JR., CHAIRMAN CHAR LES GR IGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals April 12, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 12, 1979, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Terry Tuthill and Robert J. Douglass. There were also present: Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women's Voters and Barbara Selvin~ Suffolk Life. POSTPONED DECISION on Appeal No. 2515 of Richard L. and L6is F. Woodhull, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition of access. Location of property: Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Railroad; east by Krukowski; south by Suter; west by Adel and Tuthill. THE CHAIRMAN: We reserved decision on this application, I think. ABIGAIL WICKHAM; Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: We have discussed everything concerning this. Then Mrs. Surer went to Florida, is that right? ALMA SUTER: The Woodhull's were not here at the first hearing, and I was away for the second one. THE CHAIRMAN: In the interim, did you get any additional information? MRS. SUTER: I believe my lawyer has some. THE CHAIRMAN: The Woodhull's weren~t here once before. MS. WICKHAM: I spoke to them this afternoon, and they plan to be ~ SOU,T~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- April 12, 1979 here. I believe they were away when the notice for the hearing came in. They were still away when the hearing took place. THE CHAIRMAN: Just for my information, how long ago did they buy this property? MS. WICKHAM: In 1977. THE CHAIRMAN: They have been operating the nursery ever since apparently without legal access. Is that correct? MS. WICKHAM: There had not been a building there previously. There was just a n~rsery back there. THE CHAIRMAN: They enter sometimes over Mrs. Suter's property and sometimes over someone else's property? MRS. SUTER: That was over my property too. MS. WICKHAM: I believe they entered the property from Elijah's Lane for a while. John Tuthill was renting it? THE CHAIRMAN: From this end? That would be over Suter's property, wouldn't MRS. SUTER: That's right. I have 50 feet there. MS. WICKHAM: I do not know if they came mn from the Main Road or not, also? THE CHAIrmAN: The Long Island Railroad is on the northerly end of this property. MS. WI~HAM: I think there is also a road from Krukowski. THE CHAIRMAN: We have another postponed decision, and since Mr. Woodhull is not here, let us recess this matter, hold the other hearing and get back to this. Is that agreeable to everyone? POSTPONED DECISION on Appeal No. 2425 John Gaston, Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for per- mission to divide property with insufficient width and insufficient area. Location of property: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Hay Harbor; east by Stauton; south by Equestrian Avenue; west by Coffey. THE CHAIRMAN: We postponed the decision on Appeal No. 2425 of John Gaston on the north side of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Islandt New York, because we thought a more appropriate division of the acre that he wanted to subdivide could be made. We thought it could be divided more equally. .~ SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- April 12, 1979 We thought he could make two, half acre parcels. The property is bounded on the north by Hay Harbor and one of the parcels to be created will abut the harbor and the original house lot will abut Equestrian Avenue. Since that time they have submitted a plan which we agree with. The original suggestion of the applicant would have placed about 3/4 of the property in %he northerly lot. Isn't that right, Serge? MR. DO~EN: Right. THE CHAIP~N: We thought this division would be more equitable especially for a man dealing with a first and second wife. Is he going to hold both pieces? MR. DOYEN: No, his children will have the original house. THE CHAIRMAN: The new map indicates 20,000+ feet in Parcel "B" on the northerly portion of the applicant's land and 20,000 feet mn parcel "A" which is on Equestrian Avenue. Parcel "B" will be reached by an existing access which is to be owned by Parcel "B" and contains 3,100 square feet. In effect the division we suggested will be accomplished. He is going to demolish the cottage. MR. DOYEN: Yes, I think we should -~make that part of the final decision. MR. DOUGLASS: It states that right on the survey. MR. DOYEN: As I understand it, the survey shows the proposal. The main house will stay the way it is. The new house to be constructed will be used basically as a summer home, but there in no guarantee that in the future it will not be a full time residence. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests permission to divide a parcel of property with 43,560 square feet into two parcels. Parcel "A" to be created will abut Equestrian Avenue, contain 20,000 squre feet and have the existing ~ain house on it. Parcel "B" will abut Hay Harbor, contain 20,489.5 square feet and will haVe a newly constructed hOuse on it. Parcel "B" will be reached by an existing right-of-way on the westerly boundary of the property which is satisfactory for emergency vehicles. The adjoining properties in the area are of the same or lesser dimensions in many instances. The density will not be effected because the property will still have the main house and a new su~er house. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would 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 the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the nsighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was ~ SO~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- April 12, 1979 RESOLVED, that John Gaston, Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property as requested. Location of property: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers island, New York, bounded on the north by Hay Harbor; east by Stauton; south by Equestrian Avenue; west by Coffey; subject to the following conditions: (1) The division granted is the one shown on survey for John Gaston, dated March 28, 1979, (SK-1) (2) The existing cottage shown on Parcel "A" will be demolished. (3) Suffolk County Planning Commission Approval. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthitl and Douglass. POSTPONED DECISION on Appeal No. 2515 of Richard L. and Lois F. Woodhull. THE CHAIRMAN: I ~would be glad to hear from the applicant at this time. MS. WICKHAM: There have not been changes since the last hearing. We would like to request the approval of access. We discussed the re- quirements for the access. We would like to againcrequest, if possible, something be done in terms of minimizing the expense of such access. I have requested that possibly the requirement be narrowed to a 10 foot roadway if that would be sufficient to accommodate emergency vehicles because of the length of the road and the nature of the use of the pro- posed road for the barn building. To get back to the other things we discussed, we feel that approval of access is justified and we request a decision in our favor. THE CHAIRMAN: You do feel this access does exist after your re- search? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, and we have submitted documentation of that which I believe the Town Attorney has approved. THE CHAIRMAN: This is approximately how many feet? MS. WICKHAM: I would have to add it up. I believe we figures that it is approximately 3/5th of a mile. We figured approximately 2,256 feet from the Main Road and then another approximately 600 feet. The 2,256 feet from the Main Road has been partially improved by Mrs. Suter. THE CHAIRMAN: When we went over it, we just made it. It obviously requires quite a bi~ of work. MS. WICKHAM: Oh' yes, there is quite a bit of work to be done. Where did you have trouble. ,~ SOUT,HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- April 12, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: There are some very bad holes and gullies. MS. WICKHAM: Is this on the applicant's property? THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure. I think it is where Mrs. Suter's property joins the applicant's property. Where you go down thejlhitl toward the building. MS. WICKHAM: That has been ~eplaced. RICHARD WOODHULL: That washed-out with the early rains we had° THE CHAIRMAN: You repaired th6se gullies? Will they wash-out again? MS. WICKHAM: Some heavier material has been placed there. Some drainage will help that. THE CHAIRMAN: Basically your application is for the distance from the Main Road to the southwest corner of the property. I think the Board felt that it would not do any good to get the emergency vehicles to that corner. You would have to get the equipment the entire length of the right-of-way to the building. We think the access will have to go to within 100 feet of the building. The access will be used by trucks hauling produce and by your employees. Do you have any plans for de- veloping this property? This is one of the things that concerns us. MR. WOODHULL: No. THE CHAIPdWAN: Okay, we will be happy to hear from Mrs. Surer. THOMAS R. COSTELLO: May I stand over hear, Mr. Chairman? I am the attorney for Mrs. Alma Surer, the adjoining property owner to the south. It is my understanding that there is a right-of-way from the north to the Main Road. I would like to ask the Board who owns that right-6f-way, please? THE CHAIRMAN-: I don't know, that is one reason we are here. MR. COSTELLO: My research on the matter shows that the right-of-way is owned by, I believe, by the present owner to the north, and the right- of way ..... THE CHAIRMAN: The present owner O~ner of the land to the north, you are ~eferring to whom? MR. COSTELLO: I believe it is the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: The right-ofwwa~ from the southwesterly corner?~ MR. COSTELLO: That is correct, sir.. From the Main Road to the southwesterly corner. THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about the 2200+ feet? And approxi- mately 18 feet lin width? SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- April 12, 1979 MR. COSTELLO: That's right. That is in Liber 239 at page 299 dated March 24, 1879..- It was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on April 3, 1879. The parties were Gould to Mather. My client has ascertained that the right-of-way sou~n from her property, she is now paying taxes on. I would like to ask also .... THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, you client, Mrs. Suter, is paying taxes on what? MR. COSTELLO: On the right-of-~way from the southern end of her property to the Main Road. THE CHAIRMAN: The same right-of-way? MR. COSTELLO: That's correct, sir. Approximately one-half of the right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure you know, Mr. Costello, we are not equipped here to determine who owns this. MR. COSTELLO: I understand that, but my problem is this. In the petition it alleges there won't be any effect on the adjoining land. I say, Mr. Chairman, the effects may be very, very great and damaging and causing trespass if this application is granted for the reason that if there is a business and it is a permitted use in the agricultural district in that of a nursery, there will be trucks going back and forth. They are liable to pass each other some place along the way. If one passes the other, one would have to turn into the land of the present landowner, be it to the south or my client's land. Thereby causing a trespass and damage to it. Another problem I have to cope with is that whether that right-Of-way for ingress and egress that was given in 1879 can be trans- ferred to the public to run a business with. In other words .... THE CHAIRMAN: Transferred to the public? MR. COSTELLO: That's correct. It would be public usage of that right-of-way if that were used for a business. Customers of the owner would come to and fro. It was my understanding that owners of a business would have to be located on a public highway or have a right-of-way wide to be used~ by ~he~p~blic. THE CHAI~4AN: I have never run across that condition. Traditionally. when someone has a businsss customarily conducted on a farm, trucks go in and out, customers go in and out, it is part of the way we grew up here. MR. COSTELLO: That is %rue. But this nursery business is a new business. This ingress and egress was given for farm land, not for the nursery business. THE CHAIRMAN: A nursery business is a permitted use in an agricu- t~ral district. MR. COSTELLO: HOwever, it will generate more traffic on that right- ~ SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- April 12, 1979 of-way. If there were two trucks using the road at the same time, you would expect the use of that particular property owned by the people to the south. THE CHAIRMAN: It is conceivable, but I do not think the Board is equipped to handle every conceivable contingency. iM~, COSTELLO: I am not saying 9berber the Board is or isn't. What I am saying in these questions is whether or not the land to the south... THE CHAIRMAN: They are good questions, but the right-of-way is 18 feet wide and presumably two trucks can pass on it. MR. COSTELLO: I don't know. You would have to be pretty close to pa~s. I am sure there would be a foot or two between the trucks. There- fore you would have to go on private property. There is a way to get out to Elijah's Lane to the west. There is land available for the applicant to get to a public highway. There is a 50 foot piece of land owned by my Client that is available to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: The solution is obvious, but I am not the one to initiate it. MR. COSTELLO: I am not either, but my problem is who maintains this if my client does not own it? THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking now about the 3500 foot right of way? MR. COSTELLO: That is right, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant would have to maintain it. It will be an expensive job. What did we estimate the cost of this to be, Bob. MR. DOUGLASS: About $5,00 per foot. THE CHAIRMAN: The access has to go well onto their property. Several hundred more feet are involved. My speedometer came out to about 3500 feet. Who is going to maintain that? MR. COSTELLO: I would say the owner, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you just offering that as an observation? Is there anything else? MR. COSTELLO: I have notking more to offer at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: So youare objecting to this application? MR. COSTELLO: We are objecting because we do not feel the right-of- way is wide enough~to conduct a business on the north parcel. There will be injury by this use to the surrounding property owners. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, this right-of-way is a little wider than many of the rights-of-way you find in the Town of Southold. TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- April 12, 1979 MR. COSTELLO: Well the deed says a wagon width. THE CHAIRMAN: This would be two wagon widths. MR. TUTHILL: Is is Mr. Woodhull's intention to operate this as a retail operation or a ~olesale operation? MS. WICKHAM: He intends to use it as a wholesale business. MR. TUTHILL: Which would consequently result in a lot less traffic than a retail business. MS. WiCKHAM: In any event, we are not going to change the use, It is going to remain an agricultural use. I would like to address some of the statements of Mr. Costello. I think the alleged trespass is not only irrelevant, but highly speculative. This is not something that a Board of Appeals is charged with. They are not concerned about ~he use the right-of-way will have. There are legal remedies available if any pro- blems arise. We are strictly an agricultural use and intend to~e~'in an agricultural use, and stay within the limites defined by the C~de. THE CHAIRMAN: I take it then Mr. Costello that you and your client do not contest the ownership of the right-of-way. Is that right? When Mrs. Suter was here before there was some question about who owned it. Is it clear now? MR. COSTELLO: I have a bill here from the young lady's law office saying they own the right of way south of the parcel, but my research proves otherwise. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you propose to contest that? MR. COSTELLO: No. I go along with what I found. If the owner to the north owned everything to the Main Road, he had the right to give the right-of-way. As a ~atter of fact in the application it says that he was deeded this right-of-way. Now, the former predecessor ...... THE CHAIRMAN: The present applicant was deeded this right-of-way? MR. COSTELLO: That is so true, because he was deeded the right-of- way. I have a deed here that shows it. MS. WICKH~: Are you refering to the 1879 deed? MR. COSTELLO: I am referring to the May>~[4, 1977 deed recorded in %he Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 8241 of deeds at page 181 from Ernest C. Tuthill to Richard L. Woodhull and Lois F. Woodhull. MS. WICKHAM: I believe that was given a right-of-way. MR. COSTELLO: It says together with a right-of-way. MS. WICKHAM: That is not fee title, it is just a right,of-way. ~O~H~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- April 12, 1979 In a~y event, I do not think it is pertinent. We are not going to object if you say that we own it. We just feel that we have a right- of-way over it. In any event, we feel approval of access is justified. MR. COSTELLO: With ownership comes the right to maintain the road. The right to pay taxes on it. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is something you people can argue among yourselves. It is not up to us to determine who owns it, based on these old deeds. Ail we can do here is approve the access subject to certain conditions, if we feel the access should be approved. I think the Board does feel that the access should be approved, subject to the applicants' determination that the access is a legal access. Now, who owns it is not part of our job. Also subject to the established specifications relative to this type of access. (Mr. Gillispie reviewed the new a~eSs requlre- ments.)W~ u~3~'~just require the s~ripping of 6 to 8 inches of topsoil and the~repi~d~ng 6f it with bank run, subject to the approval of the Building Inspector. These new specifications seem necessary to the T~wn in order to bear the weight of the emergency vehicles. · ~$~.~ICKHAM: I think we discussed these specifications at the last meeting, and I was under the impression that a Building permit would be issued, but the Certificate of Occupancy would not be granted until the road was completed. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is probably the way they would do it. MS. WICKHAM: The Building Permit has a limited duration in any event. THE CHAIRMAN: You have requested a reduction of the width of the right-of-way from 15 feet to 10 feet. I will let people who are more familiar with this requirement handle it. MR. GRIGONIS: It is kind of a moot point. I have seen some trucks drive along the main highway and get stuck. It is nice, but it also an awful expense. MR. DOYEN: We do not have any equipment that seems to call for roads according to the new specifications. MR. TUTHILL: I do not think I am the one to speak on the r~quire- ments for emergency vehicles. I do think though in our decision we should say that our decision has nothing to do with the legal ownership of the right-of-way or the maintainence thereof. I do not think it is our realm of authority, and I don't think we shQuld get involved with this. MS. WICKHAM: I agree. MR. DOUGLASS: Your emergency vehicle equipment in fire apparatus requires the 15 feet. 15 feet does not give them any more than minimum ~ SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- April 12, 1979 maneuverability. If you had a fire truck go down that right-of-way and it got stuck, you would not be able to get an ambulance by the truck. Then you would have problems. The same thing with your commercial trucks. A commercial truck and a piece of fire apparatus are each 8 feet wide. They are carrying heavy loads now. It is the only way to get to many fires. By the same token, if ~e did not insist on the 15 feet width, and your building burned down, you would come back and question why we were unable to get to you. You also have to remember that you are servicing 28 acres of land there, not one acre. As you expand, you will require more equipment. I would not recommend anything under 15 feet in width. THE CHAIRMAN: There is one other point that might be made about the width of the road. If there is any curve in the road, it would be very ~imple for one of thoseltrucks to run. off the road and get stuck. MS. WICKHAM: On corners~ I think you would have to make allowances. THE CHAIRMAN: You come out to where Mrs. Suter's access enters and goes down that hill. You will need someway to get around that corner or else widen the access there. I think I would ha~e to agree with Mr. Douglass that this should be 15 feet. I~<h~d originally thought you would ~ave been able to get away with 10 feet, but with the expansion po?sibllities, it had better be 15 feet in width. Y~our application is going to be the first test case of these new specifications. I think we have about covered this now. MR. TUTHILL: I would like to make one more comment. Tom, wouldn't this road be of benefit to your client? MR. COSTELLO: It is my understanding that there is future con- struction of roads going laterally east and west and to join up with the road to the west, which will go into Elijah's Lane. It should be con- structed within the next year or so. MR. TUTHILL: That may or may not be true. I hold the mortgage on that property. He has filed a bond, but that is something that may not happen. In the meantime you have this access along side of your client's property. This stone blend would be a packed smrface for the entire length of it. So for a year or two this would be beneficial to all. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, except that the presently unoccupied, vacant land~ ~equires nothing as far as access. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you aware of what is required in the Town of Riverhead, Mr. Costello? MR. COSTELLO: No, I am not. THE CHAIRMAN: They require a 30 foot width, black topped the entire way. MR. COSTELLO: That is just the Public highway. I think they require a road bed of 55 feet before it can be taken over by the Town. 32 feet SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- APril 12, 1979 of that must be paved. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who has any questions or wishes to make any comments? (there was no response) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests recognition of access to a 28 acre parcel of land which he is using in connection with his wholesale nursery business. The decision of the Board will have no bearing on the legal ownership of the right-of-way or the maintenance thereof in the future. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would 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 the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Richard L. and Loi~ F. Woodhull, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED recognition of access. Location of property: Main Road (State Road 25) Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Railroad; east by Krukowski; south by Surer; west by Adel and Tuthill, subject to the following conditions: (1) Such access road s~a-lt~L~l~aYe a width of not less than 15 feet. (2) Such access road shall be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet. (3) Such access road shall be improved in either of the following methods: (a) Such access road shall be surfaced with a minimum depth of 4 inches of packed 3/4 inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped or the surface may be excavated to permit the applica- tion of packed blend to a depth of 4 inches. (b) The access road shall have top soil removed to a depth of 81inches of a good grade of stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of 2 inches to 4 inches of 3/4 ~nch stone blend. (c) Oiled with a minimum of 4/10tbs of a gallon of road oi~ per square yard. (4) Ail work required as hereinbefore set forth shall be performed under the supervision of the Town Engineer and no building permits or certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the Building Inspector until the Town Engineer has certified that such access road has been ~ ~ S~U~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- April 12, 1979 constructed in accordance with the foregoing requirements. (5) Where the terrain of~>the land over which such access road is to traverse is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant shall be required to construct such drainage facilities as may be re- commended by the Town Engineer. (6) The Board of Appeals may in passing upon any appeal for ap- proval of access make any reasonable exception as in its judgment it deems appropriate to the circumstances. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2528 - Upon application of Eugene L. and Judith Fischer, 400 Majors Path, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C(5) for permission to have a stable closer than 40 f~et~%o any lot line. Location of property: Majors Path, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by K. Mitchell; east by Tubb; south by Hansen; west by Majors Path. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the ~uilding Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Tubb; Mr. and Mrs. William Hansen; and Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Mitchell. Fee paid: $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Chairman, I have to disqualify myself from this hearing as I have a conflict of interest in connection with this Appeal. THE CHAIRMAN: PleaSe have the record show that Mr. Douglass is not present at this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Fisch~ is employed by Mr. Douglass. We have two letters in the file that should be read into the record. Tha first one reads as follows: To Whom it May Concern; I, Kevin Mitchell of 550 Majors Path, give my permission to Eugene and Judith Fischer to use my land for grazing their horse and to make up the difference of the required land needed to maintain a horse by the Building Department code laws. Signed, Kevin Mitchell, dated February 2, 1979. A sketch indicates that the applicant is the owner of a plot on Majors Path 150 feet by 100 feet, in other words, 15,000 square feet with a one-story, frame house more or less centered on the land and 50 feet from Majors Path, 25 feet from the westerly property line and is one of a group of houses on that street. The houses are all more or less on the same size lots. The other letter that I wanted to read is an objec- tion to the application. It is signed by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney C. Tubb and is SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- April 12, 1979 as follows: Gentlemen: We recently received a Notice of Petition from my neighbors Eugene and Judith Fischer requesting a variance to house a horse on their property at 400 Majors Path, Southold. Please be advised we are against such a petition and ask the Board of Appeals to deny the Petitioners variance request. Our house was purchased for our retir~ent, to enjoy the peace that nature provides at Southold and not to be disturbed by a housed horse nearby. We are sorry for our neighbors inconvenience if the Board denies their request, but we have a considerable financlal investment an our property and a desire to enjoy it peacefully, without horses. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney C. Tubb. That takes care of everything we have in the file. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? JUDITH FISCHER: I don't know what else I can say. I can understand my neighbors feeling. It makes me feel bad because I did go over and speak to them about this. He made no objections at that time. I don't know how to address that. When I discussed it with my neighbor I brought up the point that we have a dog that has never been off the property. She's never gone off the property. The Tubb's especially said how much they enjoyed watching the dog. I have a seven year old daughter, and any horse that I buy will not be a monster of a horse. It will be a pony. The question is not whether or not we can have a horse, we can have a horse. THE CHAIRMAN: Basically, it does not really matter .... MRS. FISCHER: It upsets me because I told everyone there would never be any manure or odor. My father is a Vet, I know how to keep a horse clean. I had horses all my life. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Incidentally, it would seem to us that the part of the application that has the least importance would be the par% that has the location of the stable. I can see your reasoning for wanting it at that location. Whether or not it is 30 feet or 40fleet from your neighbors is incidental, particularly when you realize that is not what he is objecting to. He is objecting to the fact of having horses at all. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). I will have to speak against this application. In my opinion this is an unsuitable sized plot to entertain a horse to two horses. I believe you should have 40,000 square feet and to accom- plish this which is almost three times the size 6f the applicant's lot by obtaining permission from a neighbor, in my opinion, is offensive to other neighbors 6n both sides of the street. We have run into stable problems before on the Board of Appeals, particularly on the bend of the road in Laurel. MRS. FISCHER: I don't understand that. I was under the impression that due to the fact that Mr. Mitchell has almost an acre and a half, and since his house does not take up that much land, he could have a horse there. His letter stating that I can use his property to make it readily available to house a horse. SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- April 12, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think so. MRS. FISCHER: That was not the way it was interpretted by all the people in the Building Department. THE CHAIRMAN: I think it should almost be a rule .... MRS. FISCHER: Yes, but there are houses before the zoning that have 2 and 3 horses on half an acre, and you cannot do anything about them. They have these ponies in little tiny sheds. I am talking about a lovely stable estimated to cost $1,100.00 and a nice looking horse. I am not talking about a pile of manure and awful animals so I would be turned into the cruelty %o animals people. I am talking about one little pony, a lovely stable, and I can't see any objection from a neighbor when I have sufficient land to graze the horse and take care of it. I don't think your reasoning is justified. THE CHAIRMAN: This is immediately adjoining the property to the south. That is neither here nor there. I personally feel that 15,000 square~eet is not enough for somebody to house a horse on when the zoning ordinance requires 40,000 squame feet even if you acquire the additional land from a friend~by lease or rental. That is just my opinion, maybe the rest of the Board feels differently. Does anyone else wish to speak against this application? MRS. FISCHER: We have every intention of fencing this all in with a lovely colonial fence. Mr. Mitchell is clearing out the other side of his house. We have complete access to use that land to ride on. There are several other horses in this area. Soundview Avenue is full of horses. I am not asking for the moon. I am 3ust asking to put a pony on my property. MR. TUTHILL: You might plan on a pony now, but in the future Mrs. Fischer, you might have 2 horses. MRS. FISCHER: I don't want 2 horses. I couldn't afford 2 horses. MR. TUTHILL: Okay, that is notiimportant. is that you need 40,000 square feet for a horse. you cannot make an exception. The Zoning Ordinance My opinion is also thaS% MRS. FISCHER: I am not the only person who wants to put a pony on 1/4 acre. I am sorry, I just do not understand the whole thing. MR. TUTHILL: The fact is that we cannot create things ~hat are against the Zoning Ordinance, except where there is a terrific hardship and one usually caused by topography of the land and so forth. ~e would be legislating here. My personal feeling is that after going up~in that area, whether there are other horses there or not, I don't feel you have enough property for a horse. MRS. FISCHER: You let other people have horses in their front yards. MR. TUTHILL: ' Nqt since I've been on the Board. MRS. FISCHER: With no building permit also. , ~OUTHgLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- April 12, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: These must have been non-conforming then. MRS. FISCHER: No, I am talking about very recently, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: The only one I can remember is Penny. He had the acreage. MRS. FISCHER: To put a stable in his front yard? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. FISCHER: That is not legal. THE CHAIRMAN: Your horse is not necessarily going to be restricted to your back yard. The Ordinance requires 40,000 square feet. If you had 40,000 square feet because the building would occupy some of the square footage. MR. TUTHILL: He has water front property. His front yard is really his back yard. MRS. FISCHER: And did he have the permit before he put the building up? No. I haven't even got the pony, and I am here begging to have a pony for my daughter. MR. TUTHILH: I owned a pony once. MRS. FISCHER: Wasn't it great for your children? MR. TUTHILL: Yes, I was the child. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this application? (there was no response). MRS. FISCHER: Why do you keep eliminating the fact that Mr. Mitchell is clearing his land to enable me to graze and exercise my horse on this property. He Ks offering it to me rent free. We are going to use the property. He does have an acre and one-half. Other people who have one ac~e of land do nog have a total acre once they put a horse on their pro- perty. Because they have an acre they can put up a little, tiny corral. I'm talking about a corral that will be very large. I'm talking about ~sing Mr. Mitchell's property. I do not feel that this land thing that you are harping on is that important. I live close to the beach. We can ride in the beach and in the potato fields. I have spoken to many local farmers who say that as long as we do not run down their crops, we have hundreds of acres close to our land. I don't justify your complaint. THE CHAIRMAN: I still feel that anyone who wishes to have horses should have 40,000 square feet. To accomplish the 40,000 square feet by getting it from a neighbor is except in very rare cases where the area is built up, you have many people who do not have a liking for horses. SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- April 12, 1979 MR. GRIGONIS: I feel it should be granted, since we have done it before. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cants request permission to house a pony within 40 feet of a lot line. This is an area of relatively small lots and since the property contains 15,000 square feet, which is considerably under the 40,000 square feet required by the Zoning Ordinance, the Board feels that the applicant should not be permitted to house a horse on their property, even though they are able to acquire the additional square footage from an adjoining property owner. 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 betshared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Eugene L. and Judith Fischer, 400 Majors Path, Southold, New York, be DENIED permission to have a stable closer than 40 feet to any lot line. Location of property: Majors Path, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by K. Mitchell; east by Tubb; south by Hansen; west by Majors Path. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Doyen and Tuthill. Nay: Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2529 - Upon application of Ronald H. Roberts c/~ First Towne Realty, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to reduce the front yard setback. Location of property: Lot No. 151, Cedar Beach Park, Southold, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, 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, Frank J. Campanelli and Katherine Muciello. Fee paid: S15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: The survey that accompanies this application indicates that the lot is irregular in shape with 110 on Cedar Point Drive East, which is a private road and 115 feet along the iRtet with about 130 feet in depth.on the easterly line and 124 feet on the westerly line. This is one of the earlier lots of the Town before the size was increased. The DEC has indicated they want the setback for the house to be at least 47 feet from the inlet. This places the house in a slightly embarrassed SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- April 12, 1979 position as far as the front yard setback is concerned. There is one house nearby which has a 35 foot setback. Is -there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there any- one present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the ~ppli- cant requests permission to reduce his front yard setback from 50 feet to 28 feet. The Board can appreciate the difficulty created by the requirement of the DEC that the house be set back 47 feet from the inlet. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would 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 the proper~y and in the same use districts; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that Ronald H. Roberts, c/o First Towne Realty, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to reduce his front yard setback to 28 feet. Location of property: Lot No. 151, Cedar Beach Park, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillisple, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2531 - Upon application of Daysman Morris, 2760 Yennecott Drive, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient are and width. Location of property: Linnet~ Street, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Linnet Street; east by F. Field; south by H. Wyche, PK Realty and Riverside Homes; west by J. Crenshaw. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, 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. Frank Field; Ms. Helen Wyche; P. K. Realty; Riverside Homes; and Joseph Crenshaw. Fee paid: $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by the County Tax Map which indicates that the applicant is the owner of 4 contiguous lots on the south side of Linnet Street between Ninth Street and Seventh Street. There is no Eighth Street in this area. When we were there it appeared that there was one house on the westerly lot of these 4 lots. One ~ous~ on the easterly lot of the 4 lots. The lots are approximately 112 feet SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- April 12, 1979 in depth. So that in effect each of these lots have between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet. Is this right so far Mr. Morris? You want to divide the four lots into two lots? DAYSMAN MORRIS: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you get a tax bill for 4 lots or is it billed to you as one lot? I am just curious. MR. MORRIS: It has been billed to me as three pieces. THE CHAIRMAN: Someone told us your wife owns one of these pieces of land. MR~MORRIS: She owns a lot on Brown Street. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it is pertinent. You own these, right. One of the things werwere wondering about is that garage you have there. How do you propose to divide that. Are you gozng to run a line through the middle of that? MR. MORRIS: Are you talking about the ~arage on lot 63? That will be moved. THE CHAIRMAN: Doesn't that occupy more than one lot? MR. DOUGLASS: We are talking about your truck barn? MR. MORRIS: The truck barn. The dividing line will just come up to the fence. MR. TUTHILL: The division line will not go through the barn then? THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, this is your wife's lot here, lot 187 MR. DOUGLASS: Does this line clear your truck barn? It goes to the west of the truck barn? MR. MORRIS: Yes, it will be 5 feet to the west of the truck barn. THE CHAIRMAN: So the property will not be divided equally. One parcel will have frontage on Linnet Street of 113 feet. The other lot will have 87 feet on Linnet Street. Is there anyone else wish to speak for this application? (the~e was no response.) Is the~e anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response.) MR. TUTHILL: It seems to me it would be more beneficial to have two large lots rather than four smaller ones. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests permission to create two lots out of four existing lots. The applicant's application will in fact decrease the density of Greenport, ~SOUT~OLD. . TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19- April 12,~ 1979 and will recognize the existence of a house on the easterly lot to be created and a house on the westerly lot. The easterly lot to be created will have 113 feet of frontage and be 112 feet in depth. The westerly lot will be 87 feet wide on Linnet Street and 112 feet deep. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board' finds that striCt application of the Ordinance would 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 the property and in the same use district;3 and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED,~that DaYsman Morris, 2760 Yennecott Drive, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Linnet Street, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Linnet Street; east by Fo Field; south by H. Wyche, PK Realty and RiVerside Homes; west by J. Crenshaw. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2530 Upon application of Lim-Con Enterprises, 1455 Vets Highwayf Hauppauge, New York, for a special excep- tion in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Artiele VI, Section 100-60 C(2) (a) for permission to have a sign which exceeds the area and height requirements for ground signs. Location of property: Northeast corner of Factory Avenue and Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Bethany Cemetery Association; east by Bethany Cemetery Association; south by Main Road (State Road 25); west by Factory Avenue and Ardpropf Inc. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a state- ment from the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to: Ardprop, Inc. and Bethany Cemetery Association. Fee paid: $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: This zs a sign as stated in the application which is to be placed on the Main Street more or less in the cenuer of the shopping center at the corner of Factory Avenue and Main Road with an entrance and exit to the shopping center on either side. The proposal zs to create a sign which is 6 feet by 12 feet with a large letter on the top of it with a 5 foot by 2 foot wing on the top saying "MATTITUCK~" There will be another wing on the other side of the "M" which will be 5 feet by 2 feet and say "SHOPPING CENTER". This would be perpendicular SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OH APPEALS -20- April 12, 1979 to the direction of Main Street and presumably visible from both sides. It would have a dozen tenant panels for the use of the occupants of the sh6pping center. Is thereaanyone present who wishes to speak for this application? SCOTT MACOMBER: I am speaking on behalf of Lim-Con Enterprises. I represent the contracting sign company. Basically a little of the history of the shopping center is that it had started to be developed however the original owner lost the center I believe it was unoccupied and development did not continue for some time. Then Lim-Con did buy the property. THE CHAIRMAN: Did they buy the entire property? MR. MACOMBER: Yes sir. The whole shopping center. I believe there used to be a Grants there. THE CHAIRMAN: Where is Lim-Con located? MR. MACOMBER: The main office is in Hauppauge on Vets Highway. I don't know how large a company they are. They do own several properties on Long Island. They own some additional property in Jamesport. THE CHAIRMAN: You were just hired to create the sign? You do not work for Lim-Con? MR. MACOMBER: Right. Right now the plan is to develope the center and put in some professional offices. They plan on dividing the Grants building into several retail stores. Right now there is a movie theatre, a liquor store, an A &P, and an italian restaurant. There will be a stationery store moving there soon. The immediate use of the sign would be divided amongst the major tenants that are there now. However, in the future, there would be adequate space on the sign for identification of other businesses that might go into the shopping cemter. It is a fairly large parcel of property. The main body of the center is set back quite a distance from the Main Road. The idea of the sign is to make the busi- nesses in there identifiable without having someone on the ~aad slow down and look to the right. The height of the sign was determined to avoid vandalism. THE CHAIRMAN: I think in our Ordinance we require an electrical sign to be 4 feet above ground. MR. MACOMBER: That 4 feet is not that much. THE CHAIRMAN: You would rather have it higher? MR. MACOMBER: Yes, because someone could take a hammer to it and take letters off it. THE CHAIRMAN: What we have fought here all the way is over-sized signs and I was hoping you might address that aspect of the sign. We are not anxious to encourage any signs larger than what is permitted by the SO~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- April 12, 1979 Ordinance. To my knowledge we have not permitted any over sized signs since we finally conquered the sign lobby. The only possible exception has been the size of lettering on a couple of marine roofs for offshore visibility. Standing signs have been held to 6 feet 12 inches to 12 feet 6 inches. It would be unfortunate if this application or any other application changed that in our opinion. MR. MACOMBER: Might I say that number one we are not tremendously over the requirements. THE CHAIPH~N: Doesn't matter. MR. MACOMBER: Number two .... THE CHAIRMAN: I might also say the County Planning Commission in Hauppa~ge, to my knowledge since I have been there, has never approved an over-sized sign. We get them froma, all ten towns from automobile dealerships, etc that claim they cannot'sell cars° MR. MACOMBER: Does the Suffolk County Planning Department oversee towns such as Babylon and Islip? THE CHA!RM~N: We review anything on a County Road~ I am a member of the Planning Commission. MR. MACOMBER: You are saying they have never approved an over-size sign. I think your information is wrong. THE CHAIP~MAN: MR. MACoMBER: THE CHAIRMAN: Not since I have been there. Yes, recently. As recently as two weeks ago. Name it. MR. MACOMBER: AE~erton Cadillac at West Islip. Selden Plaza in Brookhaven. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. MACOMBER: THE CHAIRMAN: They granted two over-sized signs? Yes, it was a 6 foot x 16 foot sign. Maybe that is legal there. MR. MACOMBER: Not in Brookhaven. They require 30 square feet maximum. This was quite a bit over the requirements. THE CHAIRMAN: Did it reach the county level? MR. MACOMBER: In Brookhaven, I don't know. In Is!ip, I don't know? Is it a requirement? THE CHAIPlViAN: A Board of Appeals by a vote of a majority plus one vote can override a Suffolk County Planning Commission decision. -~ ~OU~HQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- April 12, 1979 MR. MACOMBER: But the townships can override the Commission? THE CHAIRMAN: I am very surPrised they would override the Commission on a sign. MR. MACOMBER: ThS~Selden Plaza sign has been in existence for more than a year. I could probably name one sign in each Town. In this particular case this sign is representing an indefinite number of people. It is not as though it were a car dealer going for just one sign. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the hardship in this matter? MR. MACOMBER: The hardship is basically it would be impossible to represent what is going to be the total of tenants in this shopping center by the size of the sign that is permitted by the Ordinance. I have run into a case where a person wants to Put a tremendous amount of lettering on aisign and due to the size of the sign everything becomes illegible. MR. TUTHILL: Then the sign becomes larger and larger. MR. MACOMBER: In this case, no. Because of the setback. It is minimal. MR. TUTHILL: If you add two or three more business signs to wkat you propose, you will have a bigger sign. MR. MACOMBER: No, because we are allowing for the expansion in the shopping center. We know we are going to be having more stores in the center. The'size of this sign will adequate identify the additions. THE CHAIP~VkAN: What you have roughly is a 6 x 12 sign which is just under our 6'6~' x 12'6" standing ground sign for a business° That a~ea will have 12 panels for each of the business. Then you are advertising the shopping center on top of everything else. All that is extra and overage. You are allowed 84 square feet. MR. MACOMBER: You could look at ~t that way or the other way. The M and the Shopping Center identif~ca~ioq ~ e feet and the additional two panels instead of 12 makes it overage. Really it depends on what you figure the overage is. THE CHAIRMAN: Either at the bottom or the top. It doesn't matter. MR. MACOMBER: It is important to identify the shopping center in that the individual people. It is important for them for passing traffic to identify them, but it is also that the entire shopping center has identi- fication. Suppose you ate at the italian restaurant, you recommended it to a friend, you could tell them to watch for the big "M". This would eliminate them riding along the road trying to read every sign they see. The same with the movie theatre and the A & P. ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- April 12, 1979 THE CHATRM3~: But you cannot have a group of large letters around the town designating the different stores. MR. MACOMBER: The square footage allowed under the Ordinance could be2used up by one tenant and one parcel of t&nd though, couldn't it? THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is up to the landlord, isn't it? MR. MACOMBER: I'm talking about the Ordinance. The size that ms allowed is for each business. Each business is allowed 84 squame feet. We are talking about a number of businesses here. If the liquor store wants to put his own sign up and the italian restaurant wants to put his own sign up and the A & P wanss to put up a sign, this is going to eliminate all these individual signs. They all want identification on the road. This sign will incorporate all these people together. Also allowing for expansion in the centerr and will eliminate any future problems as far as signs in that shopping center. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand your argument, but I disagree with you. MR. MACOMBER: Can I ask you why you disagree with me? THE CHAIRMAN: Well, each business, as you say, is permitted a sign. The shopping center is going to act as the ground sign-for the individual businesses. I think it is up to the individual businesses to evaluate what they want. Most shopping centers that I am familiar with have no ground signs. They use wall signs. Ground signs are a hazard to navi- gation. MR. MACOMBER: That will not be the case in this situation. There is sufficient par~ing at the shopping center. ~ THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think the Board should permit a ground sign for each store plus another sign in front of the store. MR. MACOMBER: This would be just one structure. THE CHAIRMAN: We could allow one sign either on the building or on the ground sign, but we could not allow both. MR. MAC©MBER: Bu~ a wall sign on a store set way back becomes illegible. How could anyone identify a business. THE CHAIRMAN: If a business puts a store back 500 feet like Macy's we are not obligated here to furnish a sign that will be visible from ~00 or 800 fee~ away. MR. MACOMBER: But it is important for a business to have identifica- tion if it is going to survive. THE CHAIRMAN: We think we have adequate identification procedures. MR. MACOMBER: With wall signs set way back from the road? SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- April 12, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, with wall signs, ground signs and all the other types of signs. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). There is no ©6ff-premises advertising for retail businesses in the Town of Southold. MR. MACOMBER: Wouldn't this be considered as being on the premises? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, if you put up that one shopping center sign, that would be the only signed allowed at the shopping center outside the individual buildings. MR. MACOMBER: I want to eliminate the individual ground signs. We want one sign to represent everybody so each individual doesn't want to put up a ground sign. THE CHAIRMAN: It is already eliminated in the Ordinance. MR. MACOMBER: There is no allowance for a ground sign in the Ordin- ance at all? THE CHAIRMAN: center. MR. MACOMBER: feet? Not where your business is identififed as a shopping Then what is the Ordinance as far as the 86.5 square THE CHAIRMAN: That represents the business of the Mattituck Shopping Center. These are tenants of the Mattituck Shopping Center. The Lin-Com people own the shopping center° MR. MACOMBER: ground sign? THE CHAIRMAN: MR. MACOMBER: The individual business is not allowed to put a Not in the shopping center. But if he were all by himself on his own parcel, he would be allowed to ~Ht an 84 square f6gt sign up? THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Now if he does not want to go on the shopping center sign, then he can put up his individual wall sign. That is my understanding of it. Let!s say the Movie Theatre does not want to go on the Mattit~ck Shopping Center sign. Then they can put up their own sign. MR. MACOMBER: They would have to have the landlord's permission to do that. THE CHAIRMAN: That's right. MR. MACOMBER: He would not allow it. You have to go on the one sign or you don't have a sign at all. THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter between the landlord and the tenant. SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- April 12, 1979 We are talking about zoning here as to signs. Each business is allowed to have a wall sign and a single ground sign except in certain exceptions, where you are on a corner or have visibility problems. In this situation the business of Lin-Com is the shopping center. They are permitted a sign 12'6" x 6'6", which you have exceeded° If they want to use part of the sign, which I would think that they would to advertise. MR. MACOMBER: There is no business Lin-Com. It encompasses the whole center. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a real estate partnershipJ MR. MACOMBER: There ars no offices there saying Lin-Com. THE CHAIRMAN: It is identifying the Mattituck Shopping Center. If they identify each individual business on that sign that is it for standing signs as far as each business is concerned. MR. MACOMBER: Let's say the liquor store in the centsr wanted to put its own sign, then he would not be allowed to? MR. TUTHILL: He would have to take his wall sign down. MR. MACOMBER: He would be willing to take the wall sign down. MR. TUTHILL: That doesn't sound like very good business to me. MR. MACOMBER: It would be more advantageous to advertise by the road instead of set back 500 feet. What I want to do is et~nate all these separate ground signs. The landlord will not allow a bunch of ground signs because he wants this sign which is adequate for all his tenantS. If the tenants do not want to use this sign, they will not be allowed to put up their own signs. It is really not that tremendously large a sign. It is the minimum that we need. THE CHAIRMAN: We sat here for countless hours for 5 or 6 yeaHs arguing whether a sign should be one foot bigger or ten feet bigger, and I do not think there is any point continuing this discussion about how big the s~gn should be. The point that you have brought up is that you want an over-size sign° I do not think this Board should permit it. A sign 6'6" x 12'6" is the size we took all through the courts and spent many years on. The Ordinance was gradually adapted to include all the recommendations. I don't think this Board should vary the requirements. MR. MACOMBER: It is in the best interest of the public to allow this s~gn. THE CHAIRMAN: You can have a sign representing all the businesses as long as you keep it within the size requirements. MR. MACOMBER: You mean have a sign for each store. THE CHAIRMAN: You have suggested putting them on these panels. We SO~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- April 12, 1979 agree, that is fine. The only thing is that you have to make the whole setup fit within the Ordinance. We cannot adapt to what you think is legible. Many people have worked on this. Not ~st the people in this room, but people from the County and all over. MR. MACOMBER: But as you have stated other townships have overruled the Suffolk County Planning Commission. THE ~HAIRMAN: I agree, I think local governments should be encouraged to be independent. MR. MACOMBER: Aren't you local government? THE CHAIRMAN: I have fought with this along with two other members of this Board for many years early in the game. About once a week we got a speech about the Constitution and freedom of speechcon behalf of the sign owners. MR. MACOMBER: I just feel that the way the Ordinance is written it doesn't take into consideration the set back of stores from the road. You can't pick a number and apply it to every situation. Each situation is different. What we are asking for is a sign that would be adequate for this particular shopping center. MR. TUTHILL: tt seems to me that you should have created the sign to fit the Ordinance rather than for us to change the guidelines of the Ordinance to fit your sign. MR. MACOMBER: What do I do when I have 12 people on the sign and a 13th person wants space. MR. TUTHILL: YOu redesign the sign. THE CHAIRMAN~ You would not be tao smart if you only allowed for 12 spaces when you had 13 tenants. Most people cannot read signs anyway. They just read one or two words. MR. MACOMBER: That ~s the point. You can only read one or two words. You can only read a few things. THE CHAIRMAN: Then emphasize the Mattituck Shopping Center. MR. TUTHILL: The existing wall sign ordinance is pretty clear to me. Most of the shopping centers I have been in I have never looked at the signs outside with the little panels. ! don't have that much time while I'm driving in traffic. I can sure see the Mattituck Twin Cinema from the road. MR. MACOMBER: I designed it for the center and then applied to the Ordinance. I knew what the Ordinance was when we went into this project. The landlord knew it too. We will stay as close to the Ordinance as we can. We have not exceeded it by that much. There is going to be quite a bit of expansion in that center, and this was what taken into account. SOUT~OLD TOW BOARD OF APPEALS m27- April 12, 1979 We figured the minimum we could make it without ~xceeding the Ordinance to a tremendous degree. That is how we came up with the size of that sign. MN. TUTHILL: I do not particularly agree with you. In addition frankly don't care what they do in Islip. MR. MACOMBER~ I just brought that up because he was not aware of the other signs. THE CHAIRMAN: Riverhead encouraged signs for a while, but now they are in trouble. MR. MACOMBER: On January 20, 1979, Riverhead approved a 6 foot by 12 foot, double faced sign for my company right on Route 25 in Calverton. THE CHAIRMAN: Before that they were permitting larger signs, which they have had a lot of trouble getting rid of. That is neither here nor there. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against this application? ....... MARTIN SUTER: I am a resident of Mattituck, and I strQngly urge the Board to deny this. You spent a lot of time q~ this and the Town of Southold worked long and hard and spent an awf{al lot of money to control this. I think once you start to%~weaken this, then you are going backwards and not forward. MR. MACOMBER: You have not granted any excessive square footage over the Ordinance ever? Say in the past three years? THE CHAIPd~AN: Not to my knowledge. MR. MACOMBER: I do not understand then why the Ordinance is not designed to take into consideration the individuality of every situation. THE CHAIRMAN: I think one reason is because this hearing has taken as long as it has. No two people agree on signs. Some people don't~see them. I personally think ..... MR. MACOMBER: A business man realizes the importance of signs. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the Applicant requests permission to erect an over-size electrical sign 12 feet in width by a total height of 17 feet. The sign would contain 12 panels to advertise the tenants of the shopping center in addition to ornamentation describing the shopping center. The Board finds that thee present sign ordinance of the Town is adequate and proper for the resi- dential, business and industrial uses of the Town and disagrees with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS m28- April 12, 1979 and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass¥ it was RESOLVED, that Lim-Con Enterprises, 1455 Vets Highway, Hauppauge, New York, be DENIED permission to construct a sign which exceeds the height and area requirements for ground signs. Location of property: Northeast corner of Factory Avenue and Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Bethany Cemetery Association; east by Bethany Cemetery Association; south by Main Road (State Road 25); west by Factory Avenue and Ardprop, Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2532 Upon application of Anthony and Louise Zotto, 50-42 185th Street, Flushing, New York (Peter Stoutenburgh as Agent), for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and BU~k Parking Schedule for permission to construct an addition to existing house with insufficient front yard setback. Location of property: Bittersweet Lane, Cutchogue, New York, known as Lot No. 33, Filed Map 1179, Nassau Farms, Cutchogue, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by readinq the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal noti6e 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. Peter Izzo and Mr. Mike Romeo. Fee paid: $15.00 THE CHAI~LAN: This application concerns a lot which is approximately 70 feet in width and 304 feet long adjoining a 30 foot right-of-way which apparently only the northerly half is presently used. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? In effect the applicant's home which is 70 feet back from Pine Tree Road has two front yards ~ven though one of them is o~"a private road. PETER STOUTENBURGH:~Because of the way the house is set there really isn't any option other than to go behind the house in order to stay within the Zoning Code. There ts one possible option of going toward the neighbor's house which would restrict the southern exposure on the house and the usage of the house. He would like to add on a bathroom and a bath. They were hoping not to use the little bit of solar heat and ~iew that they did have in the side and back yard, by putting the bedroom and bath in front of the kitchen,ativing room and dining room. Also due to the fact that it is a small yard they wanted to keep as much space between them and the side boundary. When we first the plot the road which is Bittersweet was as far on the opposite side of the right-6~-way as possible. and makes the yard look bigger than it is. When I started to look into . ~OUT~QLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -29- April 12, 1979 surveys and all,~I found it was muc'k smaller. Considering Bittersweeu to be a road, thms made the property a corner lot and/~n into a lot of trouble. THE CHAIRMAN: I think at first some of the members of the Board thought it would be better to get 10 feet off Bittersweet Lane. When you recall that this is really a non-conforming lot and was divided a long time ago, one of the purposes of the Board of Appeals is to grant relief in situations like this one. To a large extent they are weak links in a chain. Generally speaking if the lots are too small the Board has to grant additional small lots in the same size and character. Because someone says the lots should be 2 acres or whatever, its more or less irzelevanu under actual conditions in the Town. Of course we could require you to stay back an additional two feet, but you must remember that in the first zoning ordinance we had here, the Building Inspector could automatically reduce the side yard by 50 percent without coming through the Board of Appeals, it makes the restriction seem less important. This is not a question of density. Courts more or less think of area variances far_less important. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). Are there .any questions? MR. TUTHILL: I have no questions, but I see no harm in granting this. From a physical standpoint the lot is na~rowD and will not hurt anyone. They do need relief. MR. STOUTENBURGH: It is too bad we did not have present day zoning standards to prevent them from forming lots lik~ this. THE CHAIR~AN: There were no water studies. Really our density and lot size is based on what we know about water. In some respects we are lucky here to have the amount of water we did. If we had plenty I don't think the courts would support us as far as the acre zoning is concerned. After investigi~ion and inspection the Board finds that the applicants wish to construct an addition to an existing dwelling on a lot 70 feet wide by 304 in length bordering on Pine Tree Road and Bitter~eet Lane. The way the existing house is located the addition will have to be placed in the front yard thus varying the present front yard setback requirement. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would 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 the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character ~of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that Anthony and Louise Zotto, 50-42 185th Street, Flushing, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct an addition to an existing house with insufficient front yard setback as requested. Location of pro- perty: Bittersweet Lane, Cutchogue, New York, known as Lot No. 33, Filed Map 1179, Nassau Farms, Cutchogue, New York. SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30- April 12~ 1979 Vote of the Board: kyes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2533 - Upon application of Royal R. Reynolds, 27 Schaefer Street, Huntington, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a hOuse with insuf- ficient front yard setback. Location of property: Vanston Road, Cutcho- gue, New York, bounded on the north by Quigley; east by Hart and Gina; south by Braatz; west by Vanston ROad. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspspers, 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: Margaret Braatz, Alex Gina~ Kevin Hart and Thomas Gilbert. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a County Tax Map which shows that the applicant,s property is located on Vanston's Road, Cutchogue, New York. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ROYAL R. REYNOLDS: There is quite a gully on the property. THE CHAIRMAN: We saw it there. MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to have the house located 35 feet from the front yard property line. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean to construct it 35 feet from the property line? MR. REYNOLDS: I will leave the natural foliage in the front of the house. There is a drainage problem on the property. If I place the house further back on the property, I will disturb the natural drainage on the property, and there would be quite a bit of fill involved. THE CHAIRMAN: You will require quite a bit of fill? MR. REYNOLDS: No, there would be quite a bit of fill required~if I placed the house 50 feet from Vanston Road. THE CHAIRMAN: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way it looked to us when we measured it, it looks as though the house will be placed in the actual contour of the property. If you tried, you could not get it into the gully any better than you will now. The house will be in the gully, and what you are going to do about the gully, I don't know. MR. REYNOLDS: It is partially in the gully right now. The back wall... SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31- April 12, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any way you can move the building that would help you in any way? If you move it back3up on the hill, you would have to excavate the side of the hill. That would affect the foliage in the front yard area. MR. REYNOLDS: The house is going to be a two bedroom colonial. I will have a walk in basement in the back. THE CHAIRMAN: The northeast end of it? MR. REYNOLDS: The east side of the house will be exposed. I will put as much fill as I can against the back. But that is in the gully. I believe the basement floor will be 50 feet above sea level the way it is set. It probably runs 50 feet through the center of the property. THE CHAIRMAN: The gully looks to~e as though it runs from the north- east to the southwest. The house lot itself runs north to south. The lot itself faces on Vanston Road to tbs west. Is that correct? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: I am just wondering if there was any way you could locate that house without ..... I thi~k you are going to h~e trouble putting that house in the gully. We will forget the 35 feet. If you put a house in the gully, you are going to ha~e problems with water. MR. REYNOLDS: The house was staked out. I don't know if you saw the stakes or not. I staked out the house, the front property line and and the front of the house. Actually the livingroom will be 46 feet from the front property line. The garage itself will be 35 feet from the property line. The garage just out about 11 feet. The garage faces to the west. I have some additional surveys if you want to take a look at it. They show the elevations of the ho~se. MR. TUTHILL: You propose to build that house with the rear wall technically in the gully? MR. REYNOLDS: Right. MR. DOUGLASS: Have you observed your water sistuation there? Do you know what the situation is under these bad rain conditions? It can't get out of that gully. It must have natural drainage in that gully. MR. REYNOLDS: There is a large depression on that property that will be left in that state. MR. DOUGLASS: Is it going ~o rise up around your house. MR. REYNOLDS: The house will be above the lowest point of the property. The basement floor will be above the lowest point. THE CHAIRMAN: What Mr. Douglass means is will water accumulate on your outside basement walls? I SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -32- April 12, 1979 MR. REYNOLDS: I have been on the property when it has rained. The soil is very sandy and there is very good draina~ on the property THE CHAIRMAN: You have never seen standing water on your property? MR. REYNOLDS: I have checked with the previous owner who was Quigley to the north and he indicated he haS neVer seen ~ater on the property. It is not clay base~soil. He does have a draining pipe coming on to my property. MR. DOUGLASS: It comes right down off of that whole north corner there. MR. REYNOLDS: That is one of the reasons I want to keep the house out of the gully.~ THE CHAI~IAN: I agree with your reasoning on the application. I don't think it would be a good idea to put the house on one hill or the other. You are going to have problems noon,matter what you do. Adherence to the 50 foot front yard setback from the street will result in the house being placed in the gully. If you place the house on the other hill on this property, you would be required to excavate more. MR. R~YNOLDS: You would have to dig out the back hill there to allow the drainage to go around. Do you have a topo map of the property. The 50 foot elevation goes right through the center of the house. MR. DOUGLASS: The back of your house is centered in your gully so the water can still go around the house and run off. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the adjoining property owner's setback? MR. REYNOLDS: I have a copy of the survey for Mr. Quigley. The setback is 45 feet from the road. THE CHAIRMAN: The 15 feet buffer strip that you speak of is that just an unused portion of the Town Highway?Z MR. REYNOLDS: I would just like to say that I am trying to work with the property while building this house. Many people would try to fit the property to the house. I am trying to do it the right way. That 15 feet is just going to be left natural. It is ]ust trees. THE CHAIRMAN: That 15 feet is in the public domain? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it is. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say? MR. REYNOLDS: There is one other thing I would like to mention. When I bought the property, I believe the setback requirement then was 35 feet. I had to enlarge the property to meet the present area requirement of 40,000 square feet. In doing so, I made the property wider and therefore SOHT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -33- April 12, 1979 changed the setback. I had already gone into contract for the property and I had drawn the plans for the house~based on the 35 foot setback. THE CHAIRFLAN: Was this part of the Braatz subdivision? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it was. THE CHAIRMAN: How much acreage was involved there? MR. GARDINER: 1~ acres. THE CHAIRMAN: That was divided about the time the requirements were changed for the lot sizes? MR. GARDINER: It was divided before the requirements were changed. In the deed they required 35 feet for the setback, which was later changed by the Zoning Ordinance. My deed read 35 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Many people in Nassau Point were certainly set back less than 50 feet. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? WILLIAM GARDINER: I have lived in that area for 20 years and am located about 100 ya~d~ from the property. I am Vice-President of the Nassau Point Association. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the association ha~e any questions or objections to this application? MR. GARDINER: Yes, I have a statement I would like to read? The Property Owner's Association is very interested in the Zoning Regulations. That is one of our biggest protections in the area. If you vary them it hurts the area. This property is not unique on Nassau Point. The lots are all irregularly shaped. That is what makes it so charming. The lot zs about an acre in szze ~ith plenty of room in front and on the sides and in the rear. The applicant knew the zoning laws when he examined the property. You bought that property after the zoning t~ws. The property certainly hasn't changed in the last 20 years. THE CHAIRMAN: When did you purchase this property? MR. REYNOLDS: I went into conuracu at the end of 1977 and then the problems arose with the illegal subdivision. THE CHAIRMAN: That had nothing to do with you. That is something you inherited. MR. REYNOLDS: ~hen I went into contract the seller was supposed to get me a building permit. When the building permit was rejected and then it took a year to get the problem resolved through the Planning Board. The seller was not sure whether to file a major or minor subdi- vision, or ask for a variance~ ~OUT~HQLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -34- April 12, 1979 MR. G~RDINER: That problem arose because of the 150 foot frontage requirement. MR. REYNOLDS: Right, the frontage was 149 feet. MR. GARDINER: They redesigned all the lot lines due to that fact. MR. REYNOLDS: She added an additional 73 feet to the south of the property. THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Braatz made all of these adjustments? MR. REYNOLDS: I paid additional money for the additional acreage. THE CHAIrmAN: How much additional property did you have to buy? MR. REYNOLDS: About 1/3 of an acre to make it a legal lot. THE CHAIRMAN: Originally you had 2/3 of an acre. MR. GARDINER: But you had that c~ice to buy or not to buy. MR. REYNOLDS: She had already held $2,000 for over a year. So I ~igured I might as well go ahead with the purchase of the property. MR. GARDINER: I was there the day she got the letter showing the change you wanted to make° And I read that letter, so I know what is involved. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know if thiA is pertinent, but you have approxi- mately an acre lot. The total frontage is 220 feet. It has 185 on the northerly end and 185 feet on the southerly line and the easterly line is slightly irregular, but not very much. Since you have just an acre this lot was adapted to the zoning ordinance? The end lot was that part of the subdivision? MA. REYNOLDS: That was sold off in 1975. At that time the Town did not realize what the seller's intentions were. She wanted originally to make 5 lots out of this property. They apparently made her go back and file a 4 lot subdivislon, a minor one. When I filed my application for a building permit, this was all brought to light. THE CHAIRM~N: This never came before us. Usually when you have an undersized lot involved, an application is presented to us. This is why I am a little confused about alltthis. MR. REYNOLDS: It was originally shown on the map of Harbor Cove as 14 lots. I guess the Building Inspector thought this lot had been filed. The map had never been filed in the Suffolk County Clerk, s Office. It was drawn up in 1966. I guess the Building Inspector was the one that picked up on the fact that it was not a filed map. THE CHAIRMAN: So at that time modifications were made to Mrs. Braatz's original map? ~S~T~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -35- April 12, 1979 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, there were. MR. GARDINER: She had a large piece of property adjoining this subdivision. She made this lot larger and took some off her lot. She doesn't really get involved with all the details. Bill Wickham handles it all for her. I have talked to her about it many times. ~ bought my.lot from her. I would like to go with the rest of my state- ment. All the acres in that area have had the same problem I had. I had a very steep incline toward the water. Now I put my house back which involved a lot of landscaping~ I spent two months of my life trying to put up a retaining wall and holding the mud in the rainy season. Mr. Quigley, the property next to it had a much deeper gully than this property, and what he did was to build a double foundation. Never saw anything like it, but he did it. He built one foundation, built it up and then put another foundation on top of that. The place looks great. Another house in that subdivison ..... THE CHAIRMAN: What do you mean one foundation on top of the other? MR. GARDINER: He put one foundation in down in the gully. It was a poured dement foundation. Then he filled it in with sand. Then he built another foundation right on top of that. He has about a 16 foot foundation. THE CHAIRMAN: Not everyone can afford to do that. MR. GARDINER: Well, when you look at a piece of property and know the zoning laws, you have to take that into consideration. I knew the rules when I built my house. I knew I had to put it back, do a lot of landscaping, and I did it. I did it myself so it did not take that much money. I don't think there is any hardship in this case. There was one other property in that area .... THE CHAIRMAN: What do you want him to do Mr. Gardiner. What does the Civic Association want done? MR. GARDINER: I want him to adhere to the zoning laws. THE CHAIRMAN: He is following the zoning laws when he comes in here and asks for a variance~ for topographical reasons. MR. GARDINER: I ~uess I do not want the variance granted. THE CHAIRMAN: Just because you had to work hard? MR. GARDINER: No, I have a couple of other reasons here. THE CHAIRMAN: A man building his house on the top of a hill might have more problems holding his land than a person building at the bottom. MR. GARDINER: I have other reasons. One other house in that subdi- vision by error stood a foot too close to the road. What did they do with that one. You could not get a Certificate of Occupancy. They had to move the road to Dr. Hansen's side about a foot. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe the road was located incorrectly in the first place. TOWN B~RD OF APPEALS -36- April 12, 1979 MR. GARDINER: I don't see how the drainage would be affected. Anytime you disturb the land on property, you disturb the drainage. No question about it. I took a reading of the trees on the property, and I think you will lose more trees on the property by placing the house where he wants to than if you located the house within the Zoning Ordinance. THE CHAIRMAN: Is you opinion that building in the gully will be more damaging then building on the hill? At 5~ feet it looks as though he has to go up that hill. He will have to gouge out a piece of the hill, and move it down make a little shelf on the side of the hill and build the house there. Right? My opinion is that to do that would do more damage then building in the gully. MR. GARDINER: My position is he should build on the hill. I have seen the property for a long time. In addition to this interest on be- half of tbs Civic Association this is only two lots away from me. You could set a precedent by granting this variance and someone could use it on the lots next to me. THE CHAIRMAN: There are not two zoning applications that are identi- cal. You could not have another gully identical to the one he has there. MR. GARDINER: Well, Quigley had a bigger gully. THE CHAIRMAN: It isn't visible now. MR. GARDtNER: It is invisible because he solved the problem. The lots next to me are similar to mine. The drop off comes much closer to the road. Someone could argue the situation to have their house closer to the road. I just don't like to see precedents set. THE CHAIRMAN: Of course one of the very basic elements of Boards of Appeal consideration is topography. This is not all like Kansas where you have ten square miles of flat land. MR. GARDINER: I understand that. I have just gone through 4 years of trying to get a dock, and I realize there are phoblems, but the thing is this property was there just like this and the zoning laws were there, and these are things you take into consideration. THE CHAIRMAN: What you are saying is that he knew there was a gully there when he bought it. Who knows, that may have influenced the sales price of the property. Maybe you sell gully property for less than you sell hill property. MR. GARDINER: How high is this house from road level? THE CHAIRMAN: It looks as though it is from five to ten feet. MR. GARDINER: Five to ten feet above the road? THE CHAIRMAN: No, below. TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -37- April 12, 1979 MR. GARDINER: I am thinking how high the house will be. Is this a two story house or a one story house. THE CHAIRMAN: Well the first floor will be about road level, won't it? MR. REYNOLDS: The first floor will have an elevation of 58.5 feet and the elevation in front of the house will be somewhere around the same° THE ~HAIRMAN: Right, the first fl~r will be about road level. MR. REYNOLDS: This is a two story house. Colonial. MR. GARDINER: Your basement ..... THE CHAIRMAN: The basement will make it a three story house. MR. REYNOLDS: From the back. The front will be built into the side of the hill. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going bo be able to walk in and out of the basement? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it will be a walk-in basement on the backside of the house. The rest of the house will be at grade. MR. GARDINER: It is going to be at grade, so you are going to have to do a lot of grading there in the front. MR. REYNOLDS: No, it will be built into the hill. MR. GARDINER: Oh yes. You will have to. If you are 35 feet back f~ your property line and your first floor is going to be level with your ground, you cannot do anything but fill in the front. THE CHAIRMAN: He does not want to fill in the front because it will be an open area looking from his house. MR. REYNOLDS: Ths~e~will be some fill where the garage area is. It is necessary. MR. TUTHILL: At the back of the house? MR. DOUGLASS: No on the side. MR. REYNOLDS: There will be some fill required to bring the first floor to grade. MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Gardiner the way you are trying to force him back, and we are talking about moving him back 15 feet~ you a~e closing off that gully. All the drainage now is coming down from the northeast corners of all those other property owners into that gully on the north side. He is helping you by being that 15 feet ahead of the gully so there is that clearance around the back of his house then if you choke it off, then he will choke off the water from the north. ~, S~Q~T~H~OLD~ ~, ~ TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -38- April 12 , 1979 MR. GARDINER: Where does the water go now? MR. DOUGLASS: It goes the length of the gully and settles in. MR. GARDINER: The gully is the only place it can go. MR. DOUGLASS:. It can't go anywhere else because the road is higher than the south end. Mr. Reynolds will have to stop the people to the north from draining their water on his property if you insist he b~ild his house in the gully. MR. GARDINER: I don't follow that argument. MR. DOUGLASS: he will have a pond on the north side of his house. MR. GARDINER: His house is almost in the gully now, being back 35 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: No, it ends up in the middle of it. I have pictures of the way the house is staked out. MR~t GARDINER~ But the middle of the. gUlly is the lowest point. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you seen the topographical drawing? MR. GARDINER: No, I haven't. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe this will help you. It is pretty difficult to describe the property. MR. GARDINER: I know the property pretty intimately. See this is the 50 foot point. The water is going to stay here anyway. MR. DOUGLASS: If you insist he put the house in the place where you are talking about the water will all just build up. The way it is now the water covers the entire gully. As soon as you block that off~ you a~e asking for problems. The house and the fill will close off the gully. THE CHAIRMAN: As the gully is now it has enough aeration and will take the water off. MR. GARDINER: Why not put it back on this second hill. MR. DOUGLASS: He doesn't have to go back to the back line of his property. THE CHAIRMAN: You are trying to %~11 him where to put the house on~ the lot. MR.~ GARDINER: I am not telling him. I am just saying the zoning laws that are in effect should be adhered to. If you grant him a variance there is nothing I can do abQUt it. You are the zoning experts. ~ ~t~HQLD TOWN BO~RD OF APPEALS -39- April 12, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: Rightly or wrong~y, I think the Board feels that ecology, '~oning a~d everyone else will be better off,if we allow Mr. Reynolds to put the house where he wants to. The courts indicate that area variances are much less serious that use variances. We have a problem of drain&ge here too. MR. GARDINER: That really gets me. I have walked that property for 20 years. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you ever seen Standing water there? MR. GARDINER: Never. T~E CHAIRMAN: If you make him put the house where you think it should go, you will. That is what Mr. DouglasS is trying to explain to you. MR. GRIGONIS: If that man puts the house completely in the gully you are looking for trouble. THE CHAIRMAN: The largest part of the gully will still be free to service his neighbors~ MR. GARDINER: Well, you do know why he put his house there don't you? The house will then be up high and he will be able to see the water. Which is over here. I suspect, but I can't really say that is the reasoning bahind this application. MR. REYNOLDS: I tak~.eexception to that remark. I don't have any windows on thaU side of the house that will give me a view of the wa~er. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody who doesn't wanu to 16~k at the water, I would think there would be something wrong with them. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a new dwelling with the reduced front yard setback on V~nston Road, Cutchogue, New York. The ecology and natural drainage of the area will be distrubed to a lesser degree by locating the house where the applicant wishes to rather than adherence to the 50 foot seu- back of the Zoning Ordinance. The actual area between the house and the pave~ area of the road will be approximately 50 feet. Th~ first fl~or will be approximately road level. In our oplnmon this is a better site to place the house znstead of requmrlng the applican~ to construct his house up the hill to the rear which would cause further damage to the side of the hill. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the ~SO~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -40- April 12, 1979 spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Royal E. Reynolds, 27 Schaefer Street, Huntington, New York~e GRANTED permission to construct a house With insufficient front yard setback as requssted. Location of property: Vanston Road, Cutchogue, New York, boUnded on the north by QuigleY; east by Hart and B ' Gina; south by raatz~ west by Vanston Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes for the March 22, 1979, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~essrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED:that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, May 3, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) and set up the following times on that date as the time and place of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Wayne A. and Kathleen A. De- Pe%ris, residing at Clearview Avenue, Southold, New York, and John J. and Valerie Kramer, residing at 6 Klm Avenue, Smithtown, New York, (Edward J. Boyd, V., Esq.), for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a building with insufficient side yards. Location of property: Main Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north bY Rich; east by Rich; south by Main Road (State Road 25); west by Scott Ben Corp. 7:45 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Clinton and Lorraine Finger, 131 Avery Avenue, Patchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Loca- tion of property: Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Miraglia; east by Skunk Lane; south by Kowalski; Shepish and Young; west by Miraglia. 7:55 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Sol Berg, 484 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York (Gilbert Lyons, as Agent), for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to ~S~THOLD TOM BOARD OF APPEALS -41- April 12, 1979 erect a fence which exceeds the height regulations and in accordance wi'th Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a tennis court in the front yard area. Location of property: Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Jockey Creek, Pulitzer, Conroy, Hamilton, Gibbons and Potlert; east by Jockey Creek; south by Pine Neck Road; west by Marchese and P~litzer. 8:05 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Steve J. Doroski, North Road, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article VIII, Section 100-81 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permis- sion to construct a farm building with insuffient front yard setback. Location of property: Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by North Road (C. R. 27); east by Village of Greenport; south by Long Island Railroad; west by Ackerly Pond Lane. 8:15 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Vincent M. Annabel, Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for per- mission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Kiernana, E. Annabel and B. Annabel; east by Eugene's Creek; south by Krukowski and others; west by Stillwater Avenue. 8:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Lee and Susan Courtenay, 47 Kings Dr~i've, Riverhead, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width. Location of property: Westview Drive, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Westview Drive; east by R~iff; south by Mattituck Creek; west by Reeve. 8:40 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Greenport Lumber Company, Inc., 67480 Main RoAd, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 B(16) for permission to use the yard for sale and storage of building materials. Location of property: Lot No. 156 Peconic Bay Estates, Greenport, New York. 8:55 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Joseph Schoenstein, 165 The Short Lane, East Marion, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 for permission to conduct a welding business in a "B" zone. Location of property: Pipes Neck Road, Greeenport, New York, bounded on the north by Swanson and Abbot; east by Keefee; south by Pekunka and Dobek; west by Main Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Me.ssrs: Gillispie, Grigonls, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /Babette C. Conroy /~/ Secretary ~