Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/22/1979 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN CHARLES GR GONIS. JR SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals March 22, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) Thursday, March 22, 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~ PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2425 - Upon application of John Gaston, Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, for a variance in accor- dance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and the Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insuf- ficient width and insufficient area. Location of property: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Hay Harbor; east by Staunton; south by Equestrian Avenue; west by Coffey. The Chamrman 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 hewspapers, 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: Wendell Fenton and others; Onolee Coffee and others. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a photostatic copy of a survey labelled Plan of Property of John Gaston, Fishers Island, New York, It appears that the applicant has an irregularly shaped par- cel, which is approximately 442 on the westerly line. I do not think the easterly line ms quite parallel to the westerly line. The ~asterly line is ~3~7~.:feet long. The distance between these two lines is 119 feet~h-E~estrian Avenue, but somewhat less than that if the Equestrian Avenue connection was at right angles to the side yards, which it isn't. It is somewhat less than that. Say, 110 feet as a guess. It looks as though the northerly end of the property is just a t~©UTHOLD TOWN BOA/~D OF APPEALS -2- March 22, 1979 little narrower. The applicant has one house presently a few feet from Equestrian Avenue, which is the existing main house. Is that the one he as talking about giving to his children? MR. DOYEN: Yes, there is a house here, here, and here. (pointing to the survey). He plans on putting this one out here. THE CHAIRMAN: Our representative from Fishers Island indicates that there are three closely spaced houses to the east. An additional cottage is on the applicant's property and probably ~t m~re than 50 ~ from the existing main house. The proposal is to either move that cottage and rebuild it to the north or tear down the old cottage and build a new one. The applicant has a very unusual division. He suggests the new house be on about 3/4 of the land. We are not aware of why he wants to do it this way. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for the application? MR. DOYEN: It is the first time I have seen this application, although this afternoon it was brought to my attention that it was to be divided more or less in this manner. I can understand why. This gives him all this back yard here that is very useful. If you divide it this other way, you are not going to get the usage. This is all presupposing that he is going to remove this cottage. MR. DOUGLASS: He said in his application that he was. It is right here on the survey. MA. DOYEN: He said he is, but he did not have to. That is the point. Suppose he comes back and says he is not going to do this. Then we would have to change the division lines. I do not see why we should penalize him for telling us what he is going to do ahead of time. I think that is a very equitable division. Suppose you divide that across and these two houses are on the front parcel of land and he does not remove the cottage. Are you going to get a court order and make him remove the cottage? MR. DOUGLASS: If he wants to divide it, he has to move it. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. DOYEN: We have never, ever in 25 years refused anybody a division of land.with houses located on the land by asking him to move them. THE CHAIRMAN: No, that's true. But that is not what he asked for. But he has a plot plan here for a new cottage. MR. DOYEN: He cannot put that there without some variances. He can't get a building permit now to put that there. THE CHAIRMAN: He can if this variance is granted. MR. DOYEN: He doesn't even have the side yard requirements. '~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- March 22, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: Ail you need is 15 feet on one side and 20 on the other. MR. DOYEN: If you saw the land it drops off here. THE CHAIRMAN: Then he will have to come back in. MR. DOYEN: As you can see from this photograph, it falls off right here. I was just saying I don't see anything wrong with the division. THE CHAIRMAN: I do. It is a very odd shaped division. This is the main house. It would be on less than a 1/4 of an acre. Where the man has ~ full acre, it could be divided more evenly. What he says here about his children, that is fine. But tomorrow he might sell to someone else. MR? TUTHILL: Is he looking for a two way division or a three way division? THE CHAIRMAN: Two way. MR. TUTHILL: Just this odd lot here? THE CHAIRMAN: He has a main house and a cottage down by the road. The lot is 400 feet deep. MR. TUTHILL: So he is not asking to divide it this way? MR. DOYEN: Would you divide the property with the condition that he doesn't get the division~unless he demolishes the house? THE CHAI~4AN: Removes or demolishes the house. Sure. You can't have it both ways. MR. DOYEN: I think you could unless you change our procedure. That house is already there. THE CHAIRMAN: But that is not what he asked for. He wants to~di~i~e the property this way because he has a situation with his firs~ wife and his second wife. He doesn't want them too close together. It's very simple. MR. DOYEN: But they will not be any closer together if you give him any division. If he is going to put the house where it is drawn, it will not be any closer. He is going to get as far away as he can. The point I am making is that if he came and asked for a division and did no~ felt us'what he was going to do, we would almost certainl~ give him ~hat he asked for. So we are not going to give him what he asked for because he was good enough to tell us what he was going to do. THE CHAIRMAN: He wants to build a bigger house. '~S©UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4' March 22, 1979 MR. DOYEN: I do not think we should penalize anyone for telling us what he wants to do. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not understand what your point is Serge. MR. DOYEN: He asked for the division as it is there. If he did not tell us that he wanted to demolish one house and build another in its place on ~his tot~over here, we would divide it most likely as he asked for it. Therefore, if he had not said anything, we would have divided it the way he asked for it. I don't see how it can be more simple than that. THE CHAIRMAN: Without restraints. MR. DOYEN: Right. If he came in cold aRd asked for it, we would have done it. THE CHAIRMAN: We might have done it that way. MR. DOUGLASS: You could still divide it so it is a half acre in each parcel. MR. DOYEN: NO't with that other house there you couldn't. MR. DOUGLASS: You can't do it with a 1/3 of an acre with one house and 2/3 with the other. MR. DOYEN: You want to make him mo~etthe house then? MR. DOUGLASS: No. MR.-DOYEN: There is no equitable way to divide the land unless you move the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Y~u would have an even odder situation if you did that. MR. DOYEN: That would not be logical. If he came in cold, this was the only logical division. Sure if you want to gerrymander it all around. Mk. DOUGLASS: You have an acre of land here. The whole surrounding area has lots that are from 1/2 acre parcels to acre parcels. MR. DOYEN: Over there, no sir. MR. DOUGLASS: On the tax map it is. MR. DOYEN: They have stuff there that is not even an 1/8th of an acre. THE CHAIRMAN: A lot of it is washed away on these maps here. MR. DOYEN: That area has some of the smallest plots on the island. ~ , "i~0UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- March 22, 1979 THE CHAI~AN: If you look at this map, you can see the acreage. MR. DOYEN: Does it show the houses that are there? There are three houses on,that lot. The actual land with each house. These are all non-conforming houses. In that area there are hoUSes that are on postage ~.tamps. THE CHAIRMAN: This parcel does have a depth of 443 feet. Or are we talking about land under water? MR. DOYEN: There is the photograph here which shows that part of this land is swamp. Out here it is not usable at all. It falls off. This ~s half way. THE CHAIRMAN: You do have some high land to work with. MR. DOYEN: Sure, but a 1/3 of the land along here is tidal. MR. DOUGLASS: The line show~ right on here. MR. DOYEN: But actually there is more tidal land than the map shows. I had not seen the application before. · HE CHAIRMAN: Is this the cottage? MR. DOYEN: No, it is the big house. Here is the main house looking back from the water. This is the front of the cottage. This is the road side, if you will. This is the opposite side looking back again. If you look at this picture you can get a good idea of how the land falls off. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone 'else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). MR. DOUGLASS: I still would like to see the division with a half acre in each parcel. MR. TUTHILL: I have not seen this, but what is the area in each of the ~ots as proposed in the application. THE CHAIRMAN: Well according to the sketch, there is about 20,000 square feet or a little better in each lot. The adjoining lots look about the same or a little smaller in some cases. Along the shore line the houses are very close together and on the old maps you would think the land ran out 200 or 300 feet, but it doesn't. I don't know what happened to it, but it is gone. MR. DOYEN: That is what happened to the house near the ferry. A 1/3 of it is under water. THE CHAIRMAN: What we are saying is that this house will be removed and/or moved and made into a new cottage. The land shall be divided ~HUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- March 22, 1979 approximately equally subject to a survey that they will have to furnish us. MR. DOYEN: There is only one thing wrong with that. You are dividing it in a manner that can not be used. If you have half here, that part is not equally as usable as this lot. That portion is just swamp land. MR. DOUGLASS: It is not that bad, Serge. MR. DOYEN: As far as use goes, it is not an equitable division. THE CHAIRMAN: What do you suggest? MR. DOYEN~ I don't think there is anything wrong with what he has requested in his application. THE CHAIRMAN: I do. MR. DOYEN: As far as I know, he may be very happy with what you propose. I don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: When we first looked at this, we thought it was a cesspool area here and the division lines were drawn to accomodate that. But the septic tank would be Qn the parcel with the cottage. When you talked to the architect today, did he indicate anything that would help us? MR. DOYEN: No, I just told him that the Board would divide the land the way they thought was most equitable for whoever owned the property in the future. I did not tell him what the outcome would be. He asked me if he should be here. He didn't want to come, be- cause presumably he had some other business. I asked him if he had a~ything to ~dd to the ~pplication? He said no. I just assumed it would be very simple.. I didn't know they had such a w~rd division. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Board has agreed that it should be ap- proximately an even division. That the division should extend from east to west with a half acre north and a half acre south. The new house located on the northerly half, and the new house will be com- posed of a brand new dwelling or the old cottage removed from its present location, remodeled at the location shown on the survey. MR. DOUGLASS: I will make a motion to that effect. MR. TUTHILL: If you divided it across into two, half acre parcels then with one sections having more wetlands than the other, then we would have to make some allowance for that. THE CHAIRMAN: Let him come back to us if he needs more relief. MR. TUTHILL: It seems to me that you cannot go by the square footage. MR. DOYEN: I would like to leave this open to see what his reasoning is for asking for the division in this manner. '~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- March 22, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to postpone it? Are they in a hurray? MR. DOYEN: No, I do not think they are overly concezned with that. I don't think that three weeks will make much difference. On motion by Mr. Giltispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the decision on Appeal No. 2425 be BOSTPONED until 7:40 P.M. on April 12, 1979. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2527 - Upon application of Robert V. and Annette S. Rider, c/o John Nickles, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordanCe with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~30 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property into two lots with insufficient width and a variance in accordance with Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Wig- wam Way; Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Wigwam Way; east by Minnehaha Boulevard, Laughing Waters Association, and the Town of Southold; south by Little Peconic Bay; west by H. Smith, Frank Bear, M. Morris and E. Yankeel The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a varzance 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: H. J. Smith, Frank Bear, Grace Bitz, Melvin Morris, Edward Yankee. Fee paid: $15.00. THE CHAI~4AN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this appli- cation? JOHN NICKLES: I would just like to point out that I am an elected official of the Town of Southold, but I am not appearing in that capa- city, but as the agent of the Riders. I have filed with the Board a disclosure statement with the Chairman. I don't think we have anything to add to our application, but we would be happy to answer any questions the members might have. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to add anything for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response.) Does any- one have any questions? MR. TUTHILL: I would just like to see the proposed division. These would be by far the largest lo~s in the area. MR. NICKLES: That's right, we tried to point that out in the application. THE CHAIRMAN: A good portion of this is under water though, isn't it? '~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- March 22, 1979 MR. NICKLES: If you look at the survey, you will see that it is approximately 250 feet by 550 feet which is above land. Then there is an inlet, which is an extension of Corey Creek that comes in up to the Nunnakoma subdivision. There is then a considerable amount of beach front out on the bay. THE CHAIRMAN: One of the things about looking at maps, but you might find that the actual terrain is quite different than what is on the map. When we were down there we realized ...... MR. NICKLES: Oh, some of it is underwater, but there is enough land left. It would still be in excess of the current requirements. MR. TUTHILL: There is 7-1/2 acres of property. MR. NICKLES: That is the size of the property. The upland por- tion is this area in here and would still be more than enough. MR. DOUGLASS: THE CHAI!~V~N: MR.' NICKLES: The main house is onaone parcel already. You have an existing house? You will notice the property has a main structure and three out buildings. There are some pine trees planted down the middle that Mr. Hallock planted. Mr. Hallock was an attorney and must have contemplated at some time selling this other half of the property MR. TUTHILL: I don't think they would be this near the line. THE CHAIRMAN: Who built the house originally. MR. NICKLES: Originally, I don't know. John Hal!ock who was an attoney ~n Riverhead for years until the time he passed away owned it. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. and Mrs. Rider are going to buy the house parcel or are they going to buy the vacant land? MR. NICKLES: They already purchased it, Mr. Gillispie. They pur- chased the entire seven acres. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRtGONIS: this property. You are asking us to set this off? There is an access~ in from Minnehaha Boulevard to THE CHaiRMAN: Minnehaha is a public road? MR. NICKLES: Yes. Also so you have a little of the history. This originally was a 20 foot right-ofwway. I don't know who it belonged to. It serviced this seven acres. In 1946 Mr. Hallock purchased the land the right-of-way was on. So that was a separate right-of-way in off Minnehaha. THE CHAI~4AN: Separately from his original purchase? ~SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- March 22, 1979 MR. NICKLES: Right. So he kdded another 20 feet by 250 feet onto the property. This right-of-way, by the way, goes up, t ~on't know the name of this road and out the back of it. It leads out to South Harbor Road. Unfortunately, I don't know what that means. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that going to be extinguished? MR. NICKLES: It isn't extinguished? THE CHAIRMAN: Then it is still used? MR. NICKLES: Yes. ~R. TUTHILL: It exists on paper, but it is overgrown. MR. NICKLES: No, when they divided Nunnekoma Waters, they could not make a lot where this right-of-way is. They left a space there. I don't think Mr. Rider is concerned about using this right-of-way out thru Nunnekoma Waters. That was my only concern. They have plenty of access. This is the access werare concerned about. There is no described right-of-way that runs through MR. TUTHILL: MR. NICKLES: MR. TUTHILL: that area. MR. NICKLES: No one has the use of this right-of-way, but Mr. Rider. He owns th~s property. THE CHAIRMAN: What about these people along in here? MR. NICKLES: They have their own right-of-way, Wampum Way. THE CHAIRMAN: I thought you said they came along this way? MR. NICKLES: I'm saying Mr. Rider's property had this right-of-way but then they purchased the land the right-of-way was over. So in effect this is no longer a right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: That doesn't mean they can extinguish the access. It was just a point of information MR. NICKLES: If i understand your question, he bought the land. THE CHAIRMAN: These people still have a right-of-way over .... MR. NICKLES: These other people have no~hing to do with it. MR. DOUGLASS: The only people who could use that right-of-way were the owners of the seven acres. MR. NICKLES: NO, they never did have the right. This property had a~.right-of-way over this 20 feet of property. In 1946 Mr. Hallock pur- chased this additional property. This other was part of the Mott Estate, ~ '~S6UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- March 22, 1979 and Mr. Mott's property is where the W~mpum Way is. THE CHAIrmAN: Hallock then bought this separately? Formerly this was used also to service this area up here? MR. NICKLES: Mr. Hallock used it to come and go out this way - out to South Harbor. THE CHAIRMAN: Legally, or illegally? MR. NICKLES: Legally. MR. TUTHILL: It is described in the legal papers. As long as he is not looking for access on that. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a very simple problem, but I was just curious about the history. MR. NICKLES: If this were not a private road, we would not need access. Because it would be a public road, and Mr. Rider would have it. As I understand it the only reason we are asking for approval of access is because ~e are dividing it, and we need the approval to go from one parcel to the other. THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Because you do not have access over this other road, do you? MR. NICKLES: No, it is private. THE CHAIRMAN: These roads were private originally, weren't they? MR. NICKLES: Yes, but I believe they are town roads now. THE CHAIRMAN: Then I think the only thing we have to do is specify what the access has to be. What I am trying to resolve in my o~n mind Ts the new requirements that we have on accesses. Here is a case where you can reach this property with a fire truck or emergency vehicle from additional roads. Of course, they are private roads. I don't think we need a condition here concerning drainage, but we will put it in anyway. MR. TUTHILL: As ~ p~acticat matter, what part of the access are you saying/~hQuld be surfaced? THE CHAIRMAN: Where it isn't indicated, you can do whatever portion that you want to. MR. TUTHILL: Ail these private roads are black topped. I was just trying to figure out where the stone blend would go. THE CHAIRMAN: You must hsve a width of 15 feet. MR. TUTHILL: You mean along this right-of-way? "S©UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- March 22, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: That seems like a waste when you have a road along the boundary of the property. They don't have a right-of-way over this property. A fire truck or emergency vehicle would be able to MR. DOUGLASS: THE CHAIRMAN: use Wigwam Way. MR. NICKLES: There is access to the property from Wigwam Way. I'm sure we have driven that way many times. MR. DOUGLASS: It is not a legal right-of-way. MR. NICHLES: You can use it until someone tells you not to. THE CHAIRMAN: You think this is superfluous, Terry? MR. TUTHILL: As a practical matter, I think it is superfluous. kctually to picture this with a good, hard surfaced road in Wigway Way, although it it private. It seems ridiculous to improve this road which is just a farm road. Who would stop them from using Wigwa~ Way? MR. NICHLES: The Property Owners Association. THE CHAIRMAN: There may be trees blocking the way also. MR. NICHLES: I think the road is passable. I think brush and trees might have to be trimmed back, but the former property owner used it. THE CHAIRMAN: If we approve this at all, it will have to be improved. It will have to accomodate emergency vehicles. As I understand it, some of the vehicles can weigh up to 35 tons. When you get a heavy truck like that on topsoil, it will just sink down. MR. TUTHILL: Chances are that if a truck went in there they would go in Wigwam Way and not even use the right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: This is why I say this is an unusual situation since you have two, private rights-of-way along side of each other. One of them needs to be improved, and the other is already improved. MR. TUTHILL: Mr. Rider, did you intend to improve the surface of that right-of-way? MR. ROBERT RIDER: Ray Nine put gravel. right-of-way there. The driveway has already been improved. I had I figured I would have him put gravel on the I would like to keep that private. MR. TUTHILL: Then you would not object to these requirements? MR. RIDER: No, it sounded like it was a little more expensive than I thought it would be. ~©UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- March 22, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: We have been getting more and more access appli- cations lately, and we have found that we have had to spend more time setting up guidelines for these accesses. How far is your house from this right-of-way? MR. RIDER: About 150 feet of driveway from the right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: Would your driveway be able to handle a fire truck? MR. RIDER: I would say so. MR. TUTHILL: He has gravel there. THE CHAIRMAN: What I am getting at now is how close to the struc- ture are we going to go? Do you have to come to the driveway to make it accessible for fire vehicles? This is not defined anywhere. MR. RIDER: The driveway comes right to the main structure now. MR. TUTHILL: I would think this section here on the farm road would be more important, but they have this road here, Wigwam Way. MR. DOYEN: They do not have legal access over that. THE CHAIRMAN: The Building Inspector cannot issue a building permit until this access matter is settled. In discussing a lot that has an access which is 1,000 feet long which merely gives access to the lot. Do you require that the right-of-way be improved the entire length? MR. TUTHILL: This private right-of-way section certainly ought to be accessible winter or sur~aer to fire equipment. MR. RIDER: There is heavy equipment going in and out there now. THE CHAIRMAN: Do these trucks go over the access you are asking for? MR. RIDER: No, they go over Wigwam Way. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have the right to use that? MR. RIDER: I didn't know until tonight that I didn't have access over Wigwam Way. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you would be here tonight if you had access over Wigwam Way. MR. TUTHILL: This property goes right up to Wigwam doesn't it? MR. NICKLES: The access he is requesting abuts Wigmwam Way. THE CHAIRMAN: I would say in this case that maybe we could reduce this from 15 feet to 10 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: I would not go along with that. S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- March 22, 1979 MR.NICKLES: Wouldn't it be reasonable to improve the road from Minnehaha Boulevard to this second parcel here? MR. GRIGONIS: That's what I agree with. Up to the driveway. MR. GRIGONIS: I would say from Minnehaha Boulevard up to the division of the property. THE CHAIRMAN: Up to the last 2 or 3 weeks, we have delivered a person to his driveway and then dropped him. Suppose the structure is 500 feet from his driveway, it burns down or an ambulance cannot get down there. MR. GRIGONIS: You can't make a man do that. MR. DOYEN: We are not charged with that responsibility. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are. We are charged under Section 280A to determine what constitutes proper access. MR. DOYEN: Access to a lot or access to a structure. ~LR. GRIGONIS: If a man lives on the sound and has a driveway to his house that is a mile long you cannot expect him to improve that. We've laid hose for 1500 feet. You would not have any water hook-up for them down there. THE CHAIRMAN: Now if this right-of-way was just improved for the width of the first lot, the rest would be useless, wouldn't it? Be- cause there is no way to get over to the present house. MR. NICKLES: I just said to Mr. Rider that in the future if he sold this property for that price, the new owners would be improving the right-of-way himself. THE CHAIRMAN: If you sell this vacant lot, will you keep the house? MR. NICKLES: Mr. Rider has no plans to sell the property. MR. NICKLES: We do not want to sell. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to live there? MRS. RiDdle: ~ We are renovating it now. MR. NICKLES: If you had driven down the driveway you would have seen that the house is all raised up and they are putting in a new foundation. MR. DOUGLASS{ We were there, I have pictures of it. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, let's compromise. We will have him improve it ~/~. '/SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- March 22, 1979 across the first lot. Of course, if we leave it there, we have a gap between that lot and the driveway to the house. It is all over- grown, right? MR. NICKLES: I have driven down that with my car. THE CHAIRMAN: Take a look. We have pictures there. Have you been over that right-of-way? MR. NICKLES: Yes, I have driven down there. MR. DOUGLASS: Not the one parallel to Wigwam Way. MR. NICKLES: Yes, you can. I have done that. MR. DOUGLASS: Charlie walked in it the other day. Somebody started to make a road out of it at some time. MR. NICKLES: That road has been there for 50 years. That was Mr. Hallock's driveway into his property. THE CHAIRMAN: What we would be requiring here is a road across the headland of the property. You are not using it now to go in and out, are you? MR. RIDER: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: You used this driveway all winter? MR. RIDER: Yes. I'm talking about this dirt road because there were trees hanging over that I had to take down. Now I had originally planned to have Ray Nine put gravel down the whole length of the right of-way. When I get through with the construction, I plan to put a tree here. I just have not gotten all the saplings out yet. THE CHAIRMAN: You have been using the Wigwam Way right-of-way. When you finish your construction you are going to Plant a tree there so no one can come in on your right-of-way, is that whab you plan? MR. RIDER: Yes, to make it a little more private. MR. TUTHILL: It looks as though he is on the way to doing what we require now. MR. DOUGLASS: I think he should be required to improve the right- of-way to his driveway. He had planned on doing it anyway. MR. TUTHILL: I agree with that. THE CHAIRMAN: Charlie, what do you think. The right-of-way would run the width of the property along the headland to the driveway. ~'~SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- March 22, 1979 MR. GRIGONIS: MR. NICKLES: property? THE CHAIRMAN: As far as I am concerned, that is enough. You are talking about the entire north end of the Yes. MR. DOUGLASS: Tie it to the driveway you have now. MR. TUTHILL: On the western end 6f your property. MRS. RIDER: You want the entire right-of-way improved the way you stated before? THE CHAIRMAN: We gave your husband the specifications. MR. NICKLES: Bob, what do you estimate the cost of this would be? MR. DOUGLASS: What he has had Ray Nine do with the gravel will cost about the same with the 3/4 inch stone blend that we specify. It is easier to put down and will not move around. MR. NICELES: Stone blend is a mixture of blue stones? MR. DOUGLASS: It is a mixture of blue stone and dust. THE CHAIRMAN: You can put it right on top of topsoil. You do not have to strip the topsO~first. It is harder. MR. TUTHILL: With a gravel base you would never get a pothole in it. MR. DOUGLASS: This stone blend is better. Gravel kicks out from underneath you. This never moves. THE CHAIRMAN: We have looked at quite a few of these stone blend arrangements. They are good. MR.~DOUGLASS: I am sure Ray Nine has used it. THE CHAI~4AN: That way you do not have a problem disposing of the topsoil. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to divide a 7.48 acre parcel of land into two lots. Each lot will have-frontage on a private right-of-way, which runs parallel to Wampum Way.~.'The lot to be created which has the main dwelling on it will have 148.50 feet of frontage and the vacant lot will have 127.95 feet. The applicant~also requests recognition of access for these lots due to the fact he is not entitled to access over Wampum Way. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. Each lot will contain 3 acres in acreage. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- ~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- March 22, 1979 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Robert V. Rider and Annette S. Rider, be granted permission to divide property with insufficient width and recognition of access. Location of property: Wigwam Way, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Wigwam Way; east by Minnehaha Boulevard, Laughing Waters Association and the Town of Southold; south by Little Peconic Pay; west by H. Smith, Frank Bear, M. Morris and E. Yankee, subject to the following conditions: (1) Such access shall have 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 application of packed blend to a depth of 4 inches. (b) The access road shall have topsoil removed to a depth of 8 inches and then filled with 8 inches 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 stone blend. _ ~ ~ ~ (c) The access road shall be oiled with a minimum of 4/10tbs of a gallon of road oil 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 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 m~y be recommended by the Town Engineer. (6) The Board of Appeals may in passing upon any appeal for approval 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. ~©UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- March 22, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2526 - Upon application of Kodros Spyropoulos, 40-28 82nd Street, Jackson Heights, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a deck in the side yard area. Lo- cation of property: Private Road (Hyatt Road), Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by Reise; south by Private Road (Hyatt Road); west by Wurtz. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attestin~ 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. Michael Reise and Mr. W. Wurtz. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIrmAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this appli- cation? RUDOLPH BRUER: On behalf of the applicant. I wish to say before I start that I did not prepare the application. I was retained two days ago. I have been to Dr. Spyropoulos' this afternoon and observed the condition and it is a deck which the applicant would like to keep. Apparently he started to construct it, the Building Inspector was informed of it because he did not have a permit, he went for the building permit and the Inspector informed him that he could not have the permit because he needed a variance. This all started last spring. He is a doctor and does not get out here that often. I think the deck helps the premises. It is not the prettiest deck I have ever seen. It does enhance the appr~'~ch ~to the sound and the exit way from the side door. I think it is logical in the way it is sitting there. It creates a larger area to serve the rear yard, and we respectfully request that the application be granted. THE CHAIRMAN: Were you ever able to figure out why this was denied. An accessory structure is normally permitted in the rear yard. I think the tecnical rear yard is toward the sound. The place where this deck was useful is in the adjoining side yard. How close does this come to his lot line? We do not have a survey, and it was hard to see when we were there. MR. BRUER: I think there is a hedge that is the property line. Some bushes. I think it is close to the side yard line. I don't believe that it goes over into the neighbor's yard. MICHAEL REISE: Sir, I am the owner of the other property, and I know where the lot line is. It is about 4 feet from the deck. The side line is where the woods begin. We own, of course, down to the water. We have never developed that corner. We just let it grow wild. THE CHAIRMAN: Your house is to the east? _~lR. REISE: To the south. When McCabe had that property. It was all so~'~d and mowed regularly. It has been kept that way ever since. Just like we have kept our woods. The deck is about 4 feet from the · ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- March 22, 1979 beginning of the ~awn. THE CHAIRMAN: What I was going to explain to Mr. Bruer was that an accessory building is generally permitted in the rear yard. Nor- mally we like to stay about 3 feet from a property line. This is a different type of variant. Mr. Reise, do you have any plans for that side area along that property? MR. REISE: Yes, we do. This summer we hope to begin developing the whole stretch there. Part of it has been cleared by our house. But the woods will take a little time and a little money. We want to make it into a garden area. Upi~ on the bluff, we already have a rose garden. At the moment the intervening area has nothing but poison ivyand cherry tree~. Real Long Island horticulture if you please. THE CHAIRMAN: There are some beautiful holly trees on the doctor's property. MR. DOUGLASS: Sure. MR. TUTHILL: Mr. Reise, are you opposing this application? MR. REISE: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: An accessory building is allowed in the rear yard subject to the following conditions: (a) Such building shall not exceed 18 feet in height; (b) Such buildings shall be set back not less than 3 feet from any lot line; (c) All such buildings in the aggregate shall occupy not more than 40 percent of the area of the required rear yard. Do you have anything more to add, Mr. Bruer. MR, BRUER: I think it makes sense as far as the doctor's property goes. I don't know if Mr. Reise is the neighbor who reported Dr. Spyropoulos to the building department. One of the neighbors did. It seems to me that with respect to this application it suits this property better than not having it there. The way the property rolls this is proper and should be granted. I don't think that it hinders the neighbors property. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MICHAEL REISE~ I looked at the application, and I will just go down the reasons if you don't mind. Some of this will be personal opinion. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean why he asked for it? MR. BRUER: It was my understanding that at one time Dr. Spyropoulos had a mason structure around the tree,, but he was advised that he would strangle the tree if he left it there. So to save the tree he took down ~ '~S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19~ March 22, 1979 the masonry structure and replaced it with the deck. The tree supposedly can breathe as there is enough room between the deck and the tree~ That is what he means. MR. REISE: The tree which is about 12 inches in diameter comes up through the middle of the deck. At that point the deck is about 6 inches off the ground. THE CHAIRMAN: The deck runs from north to south. The south end of it may be 3 or 4 feet off the ground. MR. REISE: It is probably more than 6 feet from the ground. MR. GRIGONIS: It looks like i's about six feet. MR. BRUER: You can count the blocks in '~that picture. MR. REISE: It is quite high off the ground. MR. BRUER: There is quite a fall off in that area, which makes it logical to have it there. MR. GRIGONIS: The only thing is he should have some type of railing around it. THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot really tell if there are 4 or 5 courses there. Maybe it is six. MR. REISE: It is at least waist high. I would not want to step off it into the hollow. MR. BRUER: When he says it would be left unaesthetic if he did not have the deck there, I think it means the deck enhances the yard. MR. REISE: I would just like to pick up the points the doctor made one by one. First of all with respect to leaving the tree unprotected. There aren't that many good trees up there. He has about 5 or 6 good big, old pines. We have a few large locusts. To do anything which might hurt a tree, I think is out of line. I have gotten two different horticultural opinions today on what would happen to a tree if you built a platform around it. One said, I would not do it if I could get away without doing it. The other said, absolutely not. It would kill the tree, eventually. He did not say the deck would kill the tree right away. By putting the platform around the tree, you are cutting off water inside the drip line. Now the only real water this tree can get is through this open space. This is a great big, tremen- dous tree that needs more water than it is going to get through this space. THE CHAIRMAN: Speaking of the hardship to the tree, weren't those boards spaced a little. It wasn't a solid deck. MR. REISE: Deck boards 3 inch by 9 or 10 inch planks. They are not . ~S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- March 22, 1979 spaced that much. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that 80 to 90 percent of the water could get to the tree. MR. HEISE: As far as leaving the tree unprotected is concerned. I assume that he means no one could hit it with a lawn mower. They Now the lawn quite often. You would have to crawl under the darn thing to do that. Pine tree branches would hurt you. As far as making the area hazardous is concerned. His slope and my slope are identical. That particular slope runs right along and down into Lindenmayers. I have been up and down my slope maybe 100 times with a heavy wheelbarrow full of topsoil. I am no Hercules. I can get the wheelbarrow up there all right. I do not think it is hazardous. THE CHAIRMAN: One of the oddities of this application is that wkere he started at ground level, he did not have a structure, but where he finished he did because it is above ground level. MR, REISE: That's right because he had to hold the end up. As far as the unique hardship is concerned, he has a steep condition next to the main traffic area, mainly from the kitchen to outdoors, that is not quite so. He has an 8 to 10 foot cement deck attached to the passageway out of his kitchen door. In other words from h~s house to ground is probably 12 feet. That is where that wooden deck begins. I don't see how that is hazardous. The last question of no impact to the environment. I cannot buy that. First of all this is a very sloppy construction job. If you look at the way the boards are cut off. Facing my property they are just cut off as if someone just went along with a chain saw and cut, cut, cut. It is pretty unsightly job. THE CHAIRMAN: That is an interesting objection. One that we have not run across very much. MR. REISE: I don't mean to be picky. This is far away from our house, but we have a deck on the back of our house and we overlook this area. THE CHAIRMAN: When you speak of developing the area behind your house, what do you.mean by that? MR. REISE: Clearing the underbrush. Planting part of it grass and flower beds. My wife picked a piece 6ut of HOUSE AND GARDENS which will probably take me 5 years to do. THE-CHAIRMAN: I personally cannot buy your objection. I can see why you feel that way, but I don't think it is serious enough or that the Board can deny the application for the reasons you stated. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this application? . , ~ .~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- March 22, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: I was interested in the comments this gentleman had here. Frankly, I was going to ask him what objection did he have? I guess I am thinking along the same lines as Bob is. The reasons he gives for his application is one thing. Of what I can see of it, I can't see where it is going to hurt anybody. It may well be beneficial, as the applicant'states. I am not about to go into horticulture. MR. REISE: As I told you when I .made my objections, they were mainly personal opinion. It's tough to argue against a thing like this with personal opinion when you fellows are sitting there with the law. I don't know the law. The only law I know is that it is way too close to the lot line. It is in the wrong area, and more- over the work was completed. MR. GRIGONIS: We had no way of telling where the line is. THE CHAIRMAN: This gentlemen would be the source on that subject. MR. GRIGONIS: It was probably in all that underbrush. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant wishes permission to construct a deck in the side yard area. The deck has been completed at this time. The deck is not considered a structure where it starts, but is held up by several courses of cement blocks which places the deck above ground level. The Board generally 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 no~ 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 ~pirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr.~Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Kodros Spyropoulos, 40-28 82nd Street, Jackson Heights, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct a deck in the side yard area as requested. Location of property: Private Road (Hyatt Road), Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by Reise; south by Private Road (Hyatt Road); west by Wurtz. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Griqonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. An informal discussion was held with Mrs. Lois Woodhull and her attorney, Abigail A. Wickham with respect to the right-of-way to their property from the Main Road, Mattituck, New York. The Board advised ~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- March 22, 1979 Mrs. Woodhull they would have to improve the right-of-way in accor- dance with the new specifications for improving rights-of-way that the Board has drawn up. She agreed to comply with the specifications. The Board gave her a copy of these, and advised her that the formal decision on this matter will be made at 7:40 p.m. on Thursday, April 12, 1979. An informal discussion was held with Mr. Harold Walters, Nakomis Road, Southold, New York, relative to his junk yard situation there. Mr. Walters claims he does not run a junk yard. He claims he deals in parts. The reason he has not erected screening is that there is a covenant in ~he Laughing Wate~s~$~bdivis~on which states that no fencing over 4 feet is allowed. Mr. Walters claims he has removed all his property from the lot owned by Mr. Angelo Accardo, which is next door to his property. The Board is going to reinspect the premises on April 10, 1979. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes for the March 1, 1979, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. Durin~herpast several months the Board of Appeals has been hearing a growing number of applications for recognition of access. After much discussion and investigation, it was decided that a set of specifications should be drawn up and used as guidelines for the improvements of the r~ghts-of-way. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that all rights-of-way, private road or other means of access to one or more parcels of land or buildings shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Such access road shall have 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 ~ ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- March 22, 1979 emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface & shap~d'i or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of 4 inches. (b) The access road shall have topsoil removed to a depth of 8 inches and then filled with 8 inches of ~ 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 inch stone blend. (c) Oiled with a minimum of 4/10th of a gallon of road oil 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 er certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the Building Inspector until the Town Engineer has certified that such access road has been 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 recommended by the Town Engineer. (6) The Board of Appeals'may in passing upon any appeal for approval of access make any reasonable exception as in its judgment it deems appropriate to the circumstances. Vote of the Board: Tuthill and Douglass. Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it~was RESOLVED, as a guide to all concerned about signs on or near public highways and elsewhere, and in view of letters of notification of sign violations now in prepareation, the Board of Appeals hereby summarizes the guiding principles governing the granting or denial of SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS for signs not specifically covered in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the general provisions of the Ordinance applying to all special exceptions and permissive uses. t. With Federal, state and local government agencies, the Board r~cognizes that the indiscriminate, uncontrolled use of the advertising slgns, and/or other similar devices located on public or private property tends ko deface the landscape, change the character of the neighborhoo-, and is against the best interests of the general public of the Town of Southotd, however, 2. The Board is strongly of the opinion that directional signs for certain activities are necessarily and demonstrably in the interest 6f the travelling public whose goodwill and patronage are necessary to the Th® following 1966 Sign Resolution was Reaffirmed and Restated with item 4, section h modified as follows: .~'3 ~6UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- March 22, 1979 general interest and welfare of the Town. 3. The travelling public is concerned with obtaining instant visual information about where to eat, sleep, and worship, as well as routes and directions to places of amusement, shopping centers, a nd ferry connections; the public is not, normally interested in the ordinary business activities of towns in passing. Local residents are well aware of local facilities and do not need signs for identi- fication purposes° 4. Accordingly, to assist the travelling public and in the interest of traffic safety, the Board of Appeals has established the following types of activities for which a reasonable number of off-premises signs, directional only, may be granted: a. Motels, hotels, tourist houses. b. Restaurants and eating places. c. Churches d. Ferries, transportation. e. Residential development signs listing residents° f. Shopping centers, or business districts° g. Amusement areas, including marinas, theatres. h. Temporary signs advertising local civic, charitable and public activities. i. Pederal, state, county, town owned signs. Signs for the above may be granted subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Written permission of property owner for sign erection. 2. Ail sign permits are terminable at once at the direction of the Board of Appeals. This condition is essential in the event the Town finds a legislative solution to the problem. 3. Purpose of sign must be directional in the public interes~ as distinguished from advertising of products or services. Content of sign must be approved. ~Sizeof sign may not exceed four (4) feet by six (6) feet. A reasonably accurate sketch of proposed sign must accompany application. 4. Signs must be maintained in good condition, otherwise the Board may in its discretion order removal. 5. The four (4) foot by six (6) foot size sign has been in effect since December, 1961. All off-premises directional signs must now conform. 6. Locations chosen for directional signs must meet with the general standards set up in Article VIII. 7. Ail signs must be at least five (5) feet from any property line; three (3) feet above ground level; four (~) feet above ground TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- March 22~ 1979 level if the sign is electrical. In our opinion adequate sign provisions are available in the Ordinance covering business, agriculture and real estate interests. In addition provision is made for professionals and "similar prac- tioners" as well as home occupations, and sign uses customarily associated with the ownership of property. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the next meetinq of the S6uthold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, April i2, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) and set the following times on that date as the time and place of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T~) Postponed decision on Appeal No. 2515 Richard and Lois Woodhull, .Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for recognition of access. 7:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) Postponed decision on Appeal No.2425 John Gaston, Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, for permission to divide property. 7:55 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Eugene L. and Judith Fisherr residing at 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 feet to any lot line Location of property: Majors Path, Southoldr New York, bounded on the north by K. Mitchell; east by Tubb; south by Hansen; west by Majors Path (Private Road). 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Ronald H. Roberts c/o 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. 8:25 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Daysman Morris, 2760 Yenne- cott 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 area 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, Riverside Homes; west by J. Crenshaw. 8:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Lim-Con Enterprises, 1455 Vets Highway, Hauppauge, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 C (2) (a) for ..... ~< ~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- March 22, 1979 permission to have sign which exceeds the area and height require- ments 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. 8:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct an addition to existing house with insufficient front yard setback. Location of property: Bittersweet Lane, Cutchgue, New York, known as Lot No. 33, Fi~ed Map 1179, Nassau Farms, Cutchogue, New York. 9:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 insufficient front yard setback. Location of property: Vanston Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Quigley; east by Hart and Gina; south by Braatz; west by Vanston Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Babette C. Conroy Secretary