Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/01/1979Southold Town Board of Appeals S{:]UTHOLD, L. !., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516} 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. Gl LLISP[E, JR., CHAIRMAN CHAR LES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeal March 1, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) Thursday, March 1, 1979, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There was present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Terry Tuthill and Robert J. Douglass. Also present were: Richard Curtis of the Suffolk Times. Lois Woodhull came to talk to the Board about the location of their right of way with her attorney, Abigail A. Wickham. She discussed with t~he~Board the location of the right-of-way they are requesting. The right of way described in their deed is the requested right-of-way. Ms. Wickham asked if the hearing could be s~heduled earlier than April 12, 1979, and was advised that April 12, 1979, was the earliest it could be held. PUBLIC HE~RING: Appeal No. 2524 - Upon application of Richard Schlumpf, 32 Curtis Path, East Northport, New York (Abigail A. Wickham, as attorney), for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide pro- perty with insufficient area and width and a variance in accordance with Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of prop- erty: Right-of-way off Spring Lane, Peconic, New York, bounded on the north by ~ames, Mealy, Capobianco, Wood and Luccko~f; east by Richm~n~ Creek; south by Bedell; west by Indian Neck Lane. 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 mn 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: Theodore James, Jr.; Mr. and Mrs. Frank Mealy; Mr. Edward Capobianco; SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- March 1, 1979~ Mrs. Mabel Wood; Mr. and Mrs. Lucckoff; Peconic Bay Gardens, Inc. Fee paid $15.00 THE CHAIRMAN: The sketch accompanying the application datd April 3, 1964 indicates that the property is on the east side of Indian Neck Lane and consists of a total of about 80,000 square feet. The adjoining lots to the proposed "Parcel A" which is on Indian Neck Lane Consist of lots No. 1, 2, and 4, which appear to be smaller in size than this ~Parcel A" which is requested. Lot No. 1 is 125 feet by 165 feet; Lot No. 2 is 123 feet by 165; and Lot NO. 4 is 100 feet by 248 feet all of which are smaller than the applicant is requesting. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM: We are requesting to divide this into two parcels mainly because of the shape of the parcel as a whole and the original layout of the parcels. We feel based on the surrounding lots that it is a division that is comparable with the other lots in the neighborhood. THE CHAIRMAN: The parcels are unimproved? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: We looked at the property, and we went over to the right-of-way for "Parcel B." As it enters Spring Lane, there is a big hole and at the top of a little knoll, this right-of-way expires. It is unimproved. Apparently the people on Lot No. 6. It would have to be improved to reach ~Parcel B." Who owns the right-of-way. MS. WICKHAM: It was at one time owned by Mr. Nelson. I believe it was conveyed to Lot No. 5. It was one of the people who was noti- fied of this hearing. THE CHAIRMAN: Lot 5 would not need it. They are right on Spring Lane. It might have been owned by the people on Lot 5, and then they might have sold it to the people who own Lot 6. MS. WICKHAM: It is either Lucckoff or Capobianco. I do not have them listed by lot numbers here. THE CHAIRMAN: Are they the owners now? MS. WICKHAM: The Schlumpf's are under contract now to purchase the property. He does not own it at the present time. THE CHAIRMAN: From whom? MS. WICKHAM: It was Mrs. Tuthill. She has remarried and is now Mrs. Francisco. THE CHAIRMAN: But not the people who own the right-of-way? MS. WICKHAM: The property to be purchased does have a right of way from the property on Spring Lane. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- March 1, 1979 TERRY TUTHILL: It is legal and described? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. It is described as 30 feet in width running to Spring Lane. It has been shown on the survey on the westerly side of Lot No. 6. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have any questions? It was sug- gested that the lots should be equalized?with 40,000 square foot in each lot. But I think that we agree that would not accomplish any particular purpose. In order to equalize them, you would have to move the line about 40 feet. MS. WICKH~M: This is the way the lots were originally laid out. If you did increase parcel A by moving the lot line 40 feet to the east, you would have a dog leg there, and would not really help anyone. It would just cut into Parcel B. THE CHAIRMAN: Are the~e any other questions? (there was no response). Does anyone wish to speak against this application? (there was no re- sponse.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant wishes to divide a parcel containing 80,900 square feet into two plots. The Parcel labelled Parcel A will contaih 33,300 square feet. Parcel B will contain 47,600 square feet and requires recognition of access from Spring Lane, Peconic, New York. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. There will be no increase in the projected density permitted in the Town of Southold. The Board fin~s 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. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Richard Schlumpf, 32 Curtis Path, East Northport, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide his property into two lots with insufficient area and width and be GRANTED recognition of access to Spring Lane, Peconic. Location of property: .Right,or-way off Spring Lane, Peconic, New York, bounded on the north by James, Mealy, Capo- bianco, Wood and Lucckoff; east by Richmond Creek; south by Bedell; west by Indian Neck Lane, subject to the following conditions: (1) The right-of-way from Spring Lane to Parcel "B" will be improved for a length of 266 feet in length and 10 feet in width by: Ia) Stripping the top soil and replacing it with 6 or 8 inches of Bank run sand and gravel. (b) Stone blend for a width of 10 feet more or less in the center of the right-of-way; 3/4 inch stone. SOUTHOLD TOM BOARD OF APPEALS -4- March 1, 1979 (2) Subject to the approval of the Southold Town Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2522 - Upon application of Marjorie M. Butterworth and Stephen Moore both residing at 12120 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance to 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: New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by New Suffolk Avenue; east by Plimpton; south by Peconic Bay; west by Moore. 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 Chaiiman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to: Elizabeth Plimpton, Douglas Moore. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The survey accompanying the application indicates that the property has 220 feet on New Suffolk Avenue. The proposal is to divide the 220 feet into 110 feet in the westerly portion and t10 feet in the easterly portion which w~ld include the barn and the main house. Retreating fr~m New Suffolk Road toward the bay, the proposed division line is perpendicular to New Suffolk Road for 100 feet, then running diagonally~ for 50 feet an~then perpendicular again to Gkeat Peconic Bay. The last perpendicular line is 79 feet from the Moore property, which is to the west. The smaller lot will have 80 feet of frontage on the bay, and the original house lot would have 140 feet on the bias. If this is done the newly created parcel would have a square foot area of 34,000 square feet. The original house lot will have 50,000 squareffeet. The depth of the property is on the order of 400 feet; 390 on the easterly boundary and 370 on the westerly boundary. The westerly portion with the large frame house would be 15 feet from the proposed new lot line. We also have in the file two letters objecting to this application. One letter is from Mary Moore Kelleher and reads as follows: "As Mrs. Butterworth's petition states, our grandfather's estate was divided by his two sons, Arthur and Douglas by common consent. Since then our two families hav~ lived beside each other with affection and goodwill, and we regret that we must make a strong objection to he~ appeal. We do so for two rea- sons: (1) We do not believe that the claim of hardship is justified. The petition states that the house is too large for present day living, but does not mention the fact that it was divided in the 1950's just because of its size, into two practib~e households. Each is complete and self-contained with separate entrances, kitchens, etc. Two families lived there for many years, and recently Mrs. Butterworth has been living ~n one house and renting the other. (2) We think that the char- acter of the area would be drastically altered because: (a) Since the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- March 1, 1979 main house is already a two-family house, with the addition of another house, three families would be living on the present single lot. This, we feel, would constitute a disast~ous~ overuse of the land. (b) The privacy which was insured by the distance between the main house and the Douglas Moore house would be lost by the insertion of another house between them. Because of the inadequate frontage and the dimension of the two new plots (long and narrow), the three houses would be very close together. (c) This closeness will result in an alteration of the whole area which is presently made up of large houses set in ade- quate qrounds. The density would be out of keeping with the neighboring plots. (d) We are concerned with the additional demands on the water table as the Douglas Moore house is set on the edge of a salt marsh, as well as the long range sewage problems that might be raised. (e) The value of the Douglas Moore house would be unquestionably much dimin- ished by the loss of privacy. (f) Finally, we would like to retire in the fairly near future to live permanently in our house, and we think that the Southold Town zoning laws represent an effort to protect a unique environment from growing overcrowding and urbanization. Theoother letter reads as follows: I Sarah Moore, owning with my sister the property and the house adjoining Marjorie Butterworth state: My chief objection is overuse and overcrowding of the land. ~he house that exists already on the property of Stephen Moore and Marjorie Butter- worth is a two-family house. It was so altered to be in the 1950's and has been consistently used as such since then. During the past 6 or 7 years one side of the house has been rented to tenants - Marjorie Butter- worth and her family living in the other side. The building of another house on the property would permit three separate families to share the less than two acres. The size of the original house ~s exceptionally large and when filled to capacity, as it has been on numerous occasions~ during the last few years, it houses a great many people. Excessive demands would certainly be made on the land with the coming of a new house. Its resources would be over-used and the private and rural na- ture of the property would be diminshed, it not destroyed. Further, in addition to the original house, there is a large barn. It has been used in past years as living quarters and has the potential to be so used in the future. Again--three structures, two of them enormous, seem excessive for the land in question and out of character with the surrounding houses. Since hardship is a question argue~ here, surely the creation of a new house, and the buying from her brother of the land on which to build it, would cost considerably more than the main- tenance of the family house which has bee self-supporting ever since it was first ranted. Signed, Sarah Moore, February 22, 1979. Is there anyone here who wishes to add anything what has been said here. The two letters are against the application. We would be glad to hear from anybody who wants to speak for the application. MARJORIE BUTTERWORTH: Is it possible to rebut any othe statements that have been ma~e here? THE CHAIRMAN: Before you start your rebuttle is there anything you could add to the application? I was just wondering whentthe house was made into a two-family set up. Was that in the late 1950's? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: The house was made into a two-family set up in 1950 because at that my father was alive and my father and stepmother SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- March-1, 1979 lived on one side and my family lived on the other side. About 8 years ago my stepmother, Mrs. Moore decided she no longer wanted to live on the west side, and it became necessary for us to rent the west side-to keep up the pla~e. It was not originally intended for the house to be rented, but the circumstances left me with one small part and my brother had other involvements and was not interested and in order to maintain the property it was necessary to rent that part. It was a case of necessity. THE CHAIRMAN: The ownership is a little confusing. Did you say your grandfather, Stuart Moore left this property to your ~ather and his brother? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: The property was left in an estate from the death of our grandmother in 1933. At that point it was decided by the family, there were 4 children of Stuart Moore, how they would divide the property. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, it was left jointly to all of them? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: It was in an estate. Yes. This also included another son and a daughter. Amongst the four of them in 1933, I do not have the exact records, they made the decision who was to get what. At this point Arthur and Douglas decided to keep the property on the Bay. Etliott had the farm on the Lane, and I believe my Aunt took money. Also the property that was left to Douglas was in addition to a 13 acre par~H~f prcperty in th~ woods. THE CHAIRMAN: That is still in his estate? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: The acres in the woods are still in his estate. THE CHAIRMAN: Didn't you have an Aunt who lived next to the Club? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: That was Elliott Moore. My Aunt did not want property at that time, so she took her share mn money. THE CHAIRMAN: So the division we see now was arranged by the heirs in 19337 MRS. BUTTERWORTH: I have found no records as to what was done or why, but they d~cided among themselves how to do this. ThAt is why Arthur, my father, retained the big house and the 2 acres on the Bay. THE~IRMAN: }{ow does Stephen Moore become involved? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: In 1950 he left the 2 acres, the house and the barn equally to my brother, S~ephen and me. Since that time Stephen has not basically lived in the house although he has occassionally stayed the~e. THE CHAIRMAN: He is one of the Co-owners? MRS~BUTTERWORTH: He is a co-owner with me of the present property. $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- March 1, 1979 We have agreed that he in the interest of these plans, to take his share in cash. is willing THE CHAIRMAN: Is it you plan to divide off 34,000 square from a total of 80,000 square feet? Or 84,000~ This is just over the re- quirement for two dwellings, which accounts for the usage of the big house. We require 80,000 for a two-family unit. It is the thinking here that the two-family use in the large house would be eliminated and sell off the large house. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: I did not put this down because I did not know it was pertinent. I h~ve a buyer for the large house tomorrow, if I get this variance. He has been my tenant for four years. He is very attached to the place, and it is not his intention to maintain the house and rent the other side. He has quite a large family. THE CHAIRMAN: Just out of curiosity, how many square feet are in that house? Do you know? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: I'm not sure, 30,000 or 40,000. THE CHAIRMAN: Couldn't be that much. Is it 3 floors high or 2-1/27 MRS. BUTTERWORTH: 3 fl~ors. The attic has never had running water in it. It has not been used as living quarters for many years. There are rooms up there, but they are not used. It is used for storage. They mentioned the fact that the barn had been used as living quarters. The apartment had bmen built in the barn in 1898 for the coachman. Subsequent to that time my grandmother had a chauffeur. She died in 1933. I believe he lived in the barn, but he took all his meals at the main house. So the barn has not been used since 1905. THE CHAIRMAN: Didn't Elsie Carruthers live around here. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: Next to us,but two houses down. THE CHAIRMAN: Did she ever ren~ your property? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: No, she never lived in the barn. been any water there for a long time. There has not THE CHAIRMAN: Your respective buyer would use the house as a single family residence? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: Yes, he would. That is his plan. THE CHAIRMAN: If this application were granted. There could be only two familSes on the whole property. So the density would not be increased. The amenties may be decreased. It does not seem to me that your proposed location would seriously interfere, and in view of the value of waterfront property I think the Board should give consid- eration toward density. We are also very concerned with the water problem. $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- March 1, 1979 MRS. BUTTERWORTH: 'As far as our water goes, we have never had a water problem on our property. I have not checked with the environ- mentalists. THE CHAIRMAN: If you were to put a third family there, you would create a different situation. Two families have extracted water from two acres, that is what we would propose be done in the future. In other words there would be conditions of granting this. The large house would not be used for anything other than a ~ne family dwelling even though I understand there is a solid wall through there. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: It isn't a solid wall. It would be very easy to convert it. THE CHAIRMAN: It does have two kitchens though. MRS. BUTTERWORHH: You could just take down the two partitions. There were not any structual changes made when the house was made usable for two families. The staircase was made in addition to 2 extra bathrooms. The bathrooms and the staircase were the only str~ctual changes. THE CHAIRMAN: I meant to ask you if your brother is a willing applicant here? I notice that he has not signed the application. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: Yes, he is. I am sorry I do not have the papers on it. We have an agreement. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, he is a willing seller? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: Yes, we have discussed this in detail. THE CHAIRMAN: Where does he live now? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: He lives in New York City. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have any questions? MR. DOUGLASS: I think we should have something in writing from her brother. THE CHAIRMAN: Is the~e anyone who wishes to speak against this application? ~ MARY MOORE KELLEHER: I was just going to say that even though the tenant may or not rent part of the house which is a two-family house, he has a brother-in-law. He has a very large family and for all inten- sive purposes, it would be perfectly possible to have two whole ~ilies whether it was a question of rent or not. THE CHAIRMAN: I can follow your reasoning, but that is something that we cannot really control. DOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- March 1, 1979 MRS. KELLEHER: There are two, well-equipped kitchens there now. THE CHAIRMAN: One would have to be eliminated. MRS. KELLEHER: I think we have otherwise made our points in our letters. HHE CHAIRMAN: Your points relate to the spacing a~d area of the side yards, and the number of people, correct? Of course, no government official can limit the size of a family. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this? (there was no response). Does anyone have any questions? (there was no response). What about the placement of the new house? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: The way it is measured out, there will be no break in the lawn between the two houses. In other Words, the house I want to b~ild could only basically be seen by the rear of the two existing houses. The front lawn, the side lawn, the meadows and the bay will not be cobstructed. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words your new house would not be south of the existing setback Established by the Kellehe~Mo~e_house~and the Butterworth-Moore house, it looks as though there is plenty of room there. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: I think there is plenty of room. I think the distance b~tween Moore house and our house is 85 feet to begin with. I have more than 20 feet on either side after I build the house. THE CHAIRMAN: The requirement is a total of 35; 15 feet on one side and 20 on the other. MRS. BUTTERWO~H: Well, I ha~e more than 20 feet on both side. I hKve more than 50 to build back. The only thing I would like the right to do is put a terrace on the house. THE CHAIRMAN: This would not cover an open terrace. MRS. KELLEHER: T~he Douglas Moore house is set back farther from the Bay than the other house. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: I?~ sorry, but I think if you measured it, you will find that the back of both houses are almost the same. THE CHAIRMAN: When we were out there it looked as though the Butter- worth house was closer to the bay then the Moore-Kelleher house. MRS. BUTTERWORTH: I am not talking about the bay, I'm talking about the road. THE CHAIRMAN: The Moore-Kelleher house is closer to the road than the bay. MRS. KELLEHER: Yes, that's right. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- March 1, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't know~-how close, do you? MRS. KELLEHER: You have a map there, don't you. I could show you there. Our house is here and comes out this way. THE CHAIRMAN: It is oblQng and runs along the bay? MRS. KELLEHER: Yes. But it would be considerably closer. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you would prefer that the house be located here rather than here. MRS. KELLEHER: Yes, we certainly would. THE CHAIRMAN: The way your house is laid out, it looks as though you will have enough ro~m? How big of a house do you plan on building? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: It has 1500 square feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you remember the length? MRS. BUTTERWORTH: The width facing the bay was 6~ feet and the depth was about 28 and with the garage it goes to 36. There is still 85 feet from the Douglas Moore house and then my house and an additional 20 feet to the large original house. I think the way it ~s situated on the property, it sits back far enough. The house next door mainly faces the meadow and southwest. I am b~ilding to the north and east of that. This is really not visible from 3/4's of their house. After investigation and public hearing the Board finds that the applicants, Mrs. Marjorie Moore Butterworth and her brother, Stephen Moore, are co-owners of a large, old family residence acquired by in- heritance in the 1930's and divided into a two family residence at%a later time situated in Cutchogue, New York, with 220 feet on New Suffolk Avenue, facing Peconic Bay to ~he south with a depth of approximately 380 feet and an area of 84,000 square feet. The house is divided into two parts by an interior wall and has two, fully equipped kitchens for two family use. The applieants wish to divide the fronta~ equally creating a new westerly lot of 34,000 square feet~.for residential use by Mrs. Butterworth. The proposed new easterly lob line would extend southward 110 feet from New Suffolk Avenue parallel to the present westerly line of the property, angling southwesterly to a point approxi- mately 79 feet from the easterly property line and continuing parallel to said line to the water comprising an area of 34,000 square feet. Mrs. Butterworth's hardship is that she will be unable to convey a usable residential lot to her children from land which has been in the ~amity?[or 150 years unless a division of the land is granted. The present two-family use of the original residency precedes zoning, is presently non-conforming, however, the present use more than meets all of the bulk and area requirements of the current zoning ordinance as defined for two-family use. If the large family residence is restricted to single, one-family SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- March 1, 1979 residential use and a smaller lot created for Mrs. Butterworth, a present co-owner, there will be no increase in density in relation to the original acreage of 84,000 square feet. The original family residence would retain 50,000 square feet or 125% of present minimum (40,000 square feet) lot size, while.Mrs. Butterworth's new, s~ngle family residential westerly lot will have 34,000 squre feet, or 85% of present minimum with a restriction locating the new residence to be constructed as far north on the new lot as possible. A location which will tend to preserve as far as possible the open space between the Kellehers to the west and the original family home, both of which are located considerably in excess of the 50 foot front yard minimum set back from New Suffolk Avenue. It is not possible to adapt the lot division to comPlY with all of the bulk requirements. Accordingly, in order to relieve the hardship of co-ownership~and at the same time protect the interests of neighbors and the Town of Southold. 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Marjorie Moore Butterworth and Stephen Moore, both residing at 12120 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width, as requested. Location of property: New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by New Suffolk Avenue; east by Plimpton; south by Peconic Bay; west by Moore, subject to the following conditions: (1) Written approval of this application must be obtained from Stephen Moore, co-owner. (2) The original family, summer residence (presently cenverted to two-family use), located on the easterly lot created by this action, shall henceforth be used solely for one-family residential use, and no portion of the premises or the improvements thereon may be sublet in the future. Theold~'barn may not be used for residential purposes. A stove from one of the two kitchens must be removed from the house and not replaced. Any question concerning this condition shall be referred to the Board of Appeals for determination. The proposed new house on the westerly lot of approximately 1500 square feet shall be no closer than 20 feet to the westerly side line, nor closer than 15 feet to the easterly side line, and shall be located on the 50 foot front yard setback line from New Suffolk Avenue in order to maintain as far as possible the open space b~tween Kelleher on the west and the old Moore residence remaining on the east. A proposed terrace on the south shall be opennd uncovered. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gil!ispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- March 1, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal. No. 2523 - Upon application of William Doroski and Joseph Doroski, Waterview Drive, Southold, New York, (George C. Stankevich, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-141(B) and for a variance in accordance with Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Easterly side of Waterview Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Berge~ and Boltman; east by Zebroski; south by Zebroski; west by Zebroski. 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: Julius Zebroski; Irving Wexler; Joseph & Jennie Doroski; John and Maria Belancic; Mr. and Mrs. Albert G. Bergen. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GEORGE C. STANKEVICH, ESQ.: I would like to speak in favor of it. The application was attached to a map of the neighborhood. If you examine the lot in question,yyou see it is 40,000 square feet and meets the zoning ordinance requirements except for the access. The neighbor- hood in question is bounded by Bayview Road, Waterview Road and Cedar Laen and has appr®ximately~25 lots; 18 of these lots are much smaller than the lot in question. This lot is larger and meets zoning require- ments while 72% of the other lots do not. There will not be any increase in density. The topography is gently sloping, sand and gravel base, so there should not be any drainage problem due to any driveway. The applicant is willing to surface it with any materials that you choose. It certainly would be a hardship for him if this variance is not granted. Evidently originally when he purchased the property the applicant pur- chased it with his son. The applicant owns the adjoining property and I assumed at a later date they wish to put a house there. They are now going to sell it to Mr. and Mrs. Vukasovic for the exact same price they bought it for several years ago. THE CHAIRMAN: Were the two lots bought at separate times? Yes, there was a period of time between the two purchases? MA. STANKEVICH: When the question of the sale came up last summer, Mr. Vukasovic was not represented by an attorney, and I wrote him a letter saying that Mr. Doroski thinks there is no problem with this lot. In fact he had talked to the building inspector many times. There had been some confusion. I insisted that Vukasovic go down and talk to the building inspector. The building inspector said there was no problem. So I finally went down to see the building inspector to bring this to their attention so we could bring this before you. THE CHAIRMAN: He is selling the back lot? MR. STANKEVICH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: There looks as though there is plenty of land there. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- March t, 1979 MR. STANKEVICH: I guess Mr. Zebroski has had some problems over the years understanding what should be done. Some people say that he is misguided. It has created a small problem. THE CHAIRMAN: The access does not look as though it is going to be a problem. It looks as though there is only 15 or 20 feet more to be taken care of. MR. STANKEVICH: Actually, you could put the driveway in from either side. THE CHAIRMAN: Peculiar situation. MR. STANKEVICH: I don't think there has been any opposition from any one _c0ncsrning which side the driveway comes in. THE CHAIRMAN: When we were down there, we drove in from Waterview Drive onto the black topped driveway. We could see that it starts~ around the rear of the house. I assume that the lot is around that. MR. STANKEVICH: Yes sir. I think there is about 100 feet more that would have to ~urfaced. I think that if you came in from the other end of the lot, it would be about the same. MR. WILLIAM DOROSKI: I would like to say one thing. Where the black top is now, the driveway goes straight up to meet the property. If you go up 20 feet or so, you go right up into the other piece of property. THE CHAIRMAN: It is very difficult to relocate yourself sitting here. MR. DOROSKI: That right-of-way is deceiving. Do you know where the black top is? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, werwere there. MR. DOROSKI: If you continue straight, you will meet it. It is the next piece of property. MR. DOUGLASS: My question is that you are now using the access as a way into the house. MR. DOROSKI: Yes, my father's house. MR.DOUGLASS: That is part of the access? MR.DDOROSKI: Yes, that is part of the 50 foot right-of-way. My father has no objection. It is a matter of continuing another 20 feet. From what I understand this right-of-way goes right around here. There are other lots in there. I don't know if they have been sold or not. There is supposed to be a 50 foot right-of-way which supposedly goes right back to the road. THE CHAIRMAN: Where is the garage on this map? Because it seems to go right around the garage. ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- March 1, 1979 MR. DOROSKI: The black top goes up to here and starts around. It is just a matter of 15 or 20 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: This is the lot weaare trying to get to? MR. STANKEVICH: We will provide a survey showing exactly where the driveway will be. MR. DOROSKI: If there is a pDoblem, then we can get an access from this way. MR. TUTHILL: Part of it will be a common driveway. MR. DOROSKI: Yes. MR. TUTHILL: But there is more room if you need more black topped? MR. DOROSKI: Yes. MR. STANKEVICH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no reDponse). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests recognition of access behind a parcel of property on Waterview Drive. There is presently a 50 foot right-of-way there now. This property is in a minor subdivision, and the right-of-way continues throughtthe the subdivison back to Waterview Drive. Presently the portion of the right-of-way by Joseph Doroski's property is black ~topped and in excellent condtion. The right of way only has to be improved for another 15 to 20 feet to reach the interior lot. 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; 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. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that William Doroski and Joseph Doroski, Waterview Drive, Southold, New York, Se GRANTED recognition of access. Location of pro- perty: Easterly side of Waterview Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Bergen and Boltman; east by Zebroski; south by Zebroski; west by Zebroski, upon the following conditions: (1) The applicant will furnish a survey indicating the exact location of the access. (2) The access will be improved by~one of the following: SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- March 1, 1979 (a) Stripping the top soil and replacing it with 6 or 8 lnche~ of bank run, sand and gravel. (b) Stone blend for a width of 10 feet in the center of the ~ight-of-way with 3/4 inch stone. (3) ~mbj-e~t to the approval of the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Doyen, Tuthitl and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2521 Upon application of Baldwin L. Humm, 51 Dumbarton Drive, Huntington, New York, for a variance in accordance with Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Loca- tion of property: Wiggins Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Green~~ east by Armstrong; south by Gull Pond; west by Fordham Canal. The Chairman opened the hearing BY reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting HO 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: Ge~ge Green, and Harry Armstrong. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The lot that is the subject of the application is beyond Wiggins Lane in East Marion, going south from Route 25. It is a right-of-way 600 or 709 feet south of Wiggins Lane. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? BALDWIN L. HUMM: i am the applicant. I do not know what you want me to say? I am here to answer any questions. THE CHAIR~N: I think the chief thing that has to be said about it is that you will have to improve this access for a width of 15 feet on this 50 ffot right-of-way. This is related to the fact that there will be 3 houses out there. It looks as though it is about 700 feet to your lot. Do you know how far out it is? MR. HUMM: It is about 750 feet out there. THE CHAIRMAN: The improvement will have to be done for that distance° MR. HUMM: The right-of-way had been macadam, but that was back in 1965, and it is pretty well shot now. There are a couple of soft spots. MR. DOUGLASS: It would not withstand any weight. Fire equipment would never make it out there. THE CHAIRMAN: You have probably only encountered it during the summer. MR. HUM~: Another question I have is that Dawn Drive comes in .... SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- March 1, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: ~ know what you are going to ask and we cannot answer that. You want to know why you can't break through and come through from Dawn Drive? MR. HUMM: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: In order to Bet a building permit, it will be re- quired that this right-of-way be improved the entire way. You will have to either strip it and replace the t6p soil with 6 to 8 inches of bank run, but in 3/4 inch bituminous rock or black top it. When did you plan to starting building your house? MR. HUMM: Right away. MR. DOUGLASS: Do you know your other two neighbors? MR. HUMM: Yes, but I am not sure if they are on a speculative basis or are interested in building a home. MR. DOUGLASS: They would also need recognition of access. If you could get together with them, the cost would then be nominal. MR. TUTHILL: I am interested to know if this is a legal right-6f- way in a subdivision? THE CHAIRMAN: Was this part of a subdivision? MR. HUMM: Yes, but I think the problem is that we are the first ones seriously interested in building in the subdivis~an. THE CHAIRMAN: How many lots are there? MR. HUMM: 4, I think. MR. TUTHILL: I think it is mentioned in the applicatian that it is ~n the subdivision. THE CHAIR~N: It is only lately that we have become so involved with the leq~l rights-of-way. After investigation and ~nspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests recognition of access for a private-right-of-way 750 feet south of Wiggins Lane, Greenport, New York. The right-Of-way has many softs spots in it, and it must be improved. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created zs 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. Gillispie, it was SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- March 1, 1979 RESOLVED, that Baldwin L. Humm, Dumbarton Drive, Huntington, NeW York, be GRANTED reeDg~i~i~ of access.~ Location of property: Wiggins Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Green; east by Armstrong; south by Gull Pond; west by Fordham Canal, subject to the following conditions: (1) The access will be improve by one of the following ways: (a) Stripping the top soil and replacing it with 6 or 8 inches of bank run, s~nd and gravel. (b) Stone blend 3/~-inch for a width of 10 feet in the center of the right-of-way. (c) Black top the right-of-way. (2) Approval of the Southold Town Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2519 - Upon application of John and Gertrude Hartung, New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, 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 into three lots with insufficient area and width. Location of pro- perry: New Suffolk Avenue, New York, bounded on the north by DeMartini; east by Clarke; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Bunny Lane. 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: Suzanne Clarke and Louis DeMartini. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The survey of Van Tuyl accompanying the application indicating that the proposal is to create 3 lots: Lot~A will contain 15,980 square feet; Lot B will have 11,990 square feet; Lot C will have 12,204 square feet. The frontage on New Suffolk Avenue appears to be 182.30 feet. Lot A will have 74 feet on New Suffolk Avenue; and Lot C would acquire 108 feet of frontage with an additional 8 feet as a result of squaring of the lot line. The lot lot which contains 11, 990 square feet, Lot B, in the rear of Lot C will have an access to Bunny Lane of 30 feet. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this ayplication? It is surrounded by lots to the rear on Bunny Lane are each approximately 20,000 square feet. Across the street the lot appears to be 19,000 square feet. County Tax Map Lots No. 22, 23 and 24 across Bunny Lane are approximately 17,000 squre feet. Adjoining to the east is a multiple use distrist which was recently upgraded and had some zonmng action on it. Is there anyone who would like to speak for this application? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- March 1, 1979 JOHN HARTUNG: We have somewhat of a unique problem with two houses on one parcel. Now since there has been a subdivison upgrading to the east of us, we are alone with this situation. We have had a lot to the west of us which has been on separate tax ro~ls before we purchased our property. (Lot A which included the extra 30 feet we have marked off for Parcel B.) THE CHAIRMAN: You have just done that now? JOHN HARTUNG: Lot A is under a separate tax bill now. We feel.. THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Does the 11,990 square feet include the 30 feet on Bunny Lane? MR. HARTUNG: Yes. The problem is subdivison. The problem is trying to maintain to maintain the proper prospective for the area, and protect our own interests. We have a hardshipuof not being able to put money into our cottage which is in somewhat disrepair. It needs new siding. There does not seem to be any other logical way of re- gaining that type of expenditure unless we have this type of division. THE CHAIRMAN: You live in the house on Lot C. The problem is main- taining the property onfLot B. You would not be able to rent the cottage for enough money to recoup your expenditures? You bought these separately? MR. H~RTUNG: The A and B parcels marked in red were purchased as one parcel. This division linewas the original division line. THE CHAIRMAN: The fact that this is on a separate tax bills does nou have any bearing on the variance. As far as we are concerned, this is one p~ece of property. When you buy property at different times, it becomes one parcel under the New York State laws. MR. HARTUNG: What we have done over the past 12 years that we have owned this is used this 30 foot piece as an access into the cottage. If we were allowed to divide this property the other way, I would assume that we could have a buildable lot-in its entirety. THE CHAIRMAN: You were here before in connection with your objec- tions to your neighbor's application. It was my understanding at that time that you were going to divide this into 2 lots. MR. HARTUNG: I don't remember making any statement like that. THE CHAIRMAN: You didn't, I was talking to your wife about it. MRS. HARTUNG: I questioned the legality of setting this off as a lot. I realize for zoning purposes as you say you assume this is all one parcel. THE CHAIRMAN: You understand that the theory is that each one-family use is supposed to have 40,000 square feet. The only reason we can consider your request at all is because of the surrounding area. The Judges have determined that our Board is the only Board that can legally do that grant lots under the 40,000 square feet. You are not going SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19- March 1, 1979 to find a zoning ordinance that will fit every situation, especially in a shore front community. You have accumulated about 40,000 square feet. Li~e a2~ot of people you thought that was a good idea. Maybe you thought you wanted to keep it that way, but when you are surrounded by neighbors who do something differently, allot of times you reconsider your thinking. Our situation has to be guided by whether the Board feels this should be 3 lots or 2 lots. Off-hand, when we first looked at this, we were thinking in terms of 2 lots. There are two houses on the property. The one piece of property you bought (parcels B & C had two houses on it when you bought it, right? MR. HARTUNG: Yes, it did. THE CHAIRMAN: H~w long ago did you purchase it? MRS. HARTUNG: 1966. THE CHAIRMAN: Then you bought this other piece? MRS. HARTUNG: No. THE CHAIRMAN: You purchased it before? MR. HARTUNG: NO, we purchased it at the same time. It was just a different lot that we purchased although it was owned by the same man Who sold us the property delineated as Lots B and C. It is on a separate deed. THE CHAIRMAN: So when you purchased the different parcets, you bought them all together? I think I understand it now. The question is most of the properties in the area are about 16,000 square feet. These two parcels will be only about 12,000 square feet. MR. HARTUNG: If we did divide the property from the north to the south, we would hem in the cottage in the back. The way the property is set up now, I have about a 150 foot side yard. It would be better if the house were more centrally located. MRS. HARTUNG: We have a 1/4 acre side yard that no one wants to maintain. MR. HARTUNG: We have only a 40 foot side yard on this one side, where the drive comes mn. MR. DOUGLASS: This is 74 feet here. MR. HARTUNG: Nov I have 100 feet here. What you are sa~ing is that I would accept a gigantic side yard. It certainly would not bland an with the area that way. THE CHAIRMAN: You probably want to get rid of the cottage? MR. HARTUNG: No, I am not really trying to get rid of anything. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- March 1, 1979 MRS. HARTUNG: We want to upgrade the cottage. MR. HARTUNG: There is no sense in putting money into it now. MRS. HARTUNG: We do rent it, but it just pays our taxes. THE CHAIRMAN: If you cannot make any money renting, how will you make any money keeping it? MR. HARTUNG: We have two sons, and I would like to think that I have that property in reserve in case they want to live in New Suffolk. MRS. HARTUNG: It is very hard for them to acquire an acre of land to build a house. THE CHAIRMAN: What you would really like to do is just divide it. Then you might sell it. You might not sell it at all? MR. HARTUNG: We have two sons and we would have ~wo parcel~. When we originally purchased that property, that was our general thought. We did not purchass the property to be in the rental business. MRS. HARTUNG: We have a similar situation as Mrs. Clarke. The man who owned the Fanning farm built this house, he rented again. He kept his boarding house trade. He just moved it over. MR. HARTUNG: Fanning Farms owned the entire property down to the Main Road. MR. TUTHILL: Do you rent the cottage now? MR. HARTUNG: Yes. MR. TUTHILL: My feeling is that the property is probably worth more with your home and the cottage behind it. This is from a sales point of view, then you would think selling off the one lot. MRS. HARTUNG: You would think so, Terry, as income producing. MR. TUTHILL: There is a big demand for that type of arrangement. MRS. HARTUNG: It isn't because the average man that would be attracted to our house would be a man that had a family or a retired couple, because the s~hool does not offer that much for a family. If they are retired they do not want to maintain the cottage. MR. HARTUNG: Let me explain it to you this way, maybec this will satisfy you. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of me being satisfied, it is a very .... MR. HARTUNG: If we did sell this as a separate unit, which we have SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- March 1, 1979 a separate deed for, we would still have a buildable lot (indicating Lot A). Is that correct? MRS. HARTUNG: We are keeping the density the same, that is what we are talking about. THE CHAIRMAN: If you sold those two together. It is all one par- cel now° In order to break anything out of the parcel, you must come before thi~ Board. It is undersized, so just to deed it, ~ould be illegal. MR. TUTHILL: You would not have that lot adjoining you. THE CHAIRMAN: It is under 40,000 square feet here. MR. HARTUNG: We have looked at it and tried to come up with the most logical division. If I drew the line the way you suggested, I have a gigantic side yard. THE CHAIRMAN: My original thought was that you had acquired this lot under single and separate ownership and that you had one house. It seemed perfectly possible to divide this and sell the vacant lot. MR. HARTUNG: If we did that, we would give up this egress over her (indicating lot B), we would have a narrow drive along the house. The way the property is laid out now, we utilize this area. It is not something that has not existed. It has existed for more than 12 years. If we did it the other way, we would have two houses on one parcel with a common driveway. THE CHAIRMAN: So you have more privacy is they use the egress from Bunny Lane? MRS. HARTUNG: That is the way it has been done for many years. mR. DOUGLASS: If you cut this egress down to 15 feet then you would have an independent piece here. MR. HARTUNG: The only reason we made this one was that we tried to assure our neighbor that we were just not trying to put a little drive- way through there. I don't mind cutting it down to 15 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: The 30 feet will never be used for a small cottage. MRS. HARTUNG: We would like to have the 3 lots. MR. DOUGLASS: 3 lots is really going to tighten it down. They will be pretty small. MRS. HARTUNG: Were you thinking of density with the water? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. HARTUNG: If we had a buildable lot here, the situation would SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- March 1, 1979 remain the same. The houses are still here. That is what is unique about the problem. THE CHAIRMAN: You have 2 houses where it is just enough for one already. What you are talking about is sellina a third lot. Then there would be three houses where there should only be one. Either of these lots whould be smaller than most anything in the neighborhood. MR. HARTUNG: Across the street there are smaller lots. MRS. HARTUNG: There is a 12,800 square foot lot with 2 houses on it. MR. HARTUNG: Whenyyou cut it the other way, you must remember that our lots become larger than the other lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Our job is to make it work. MR. HARTUNG: You were talking about your criteria in density° We are not increasing the density. We do have sort of a unique situ- ation that has existed there for many years. Is there anyone who objects to this application? THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to object to this application? (there was no response). MR. HARTUNG: Do you have any letters in the file? MRS. HART~NG: We talked to Mrs. Clarke tonight and she does not object. THE CHAIRMAN: Does she understand the situation? MR. HARTUNG: Yes, we went over the whole plan with her. THE CHAIRMAN: Whether or not anyone is opposed to it or not does not really enter into this. ~ MR. TUTHILL: Well, I go along readily with the division of the land into two parcels. I feel that the three parcels diminish the values of their property. It is not pertinent, but it is my opinion. I would certainly go along with lot A. THE CHAIRMAN: What is Lot A worth? MR. TUTHILL: It ~i~ worth between $10,000 o!~Ji$!~i,000. People might ask more, but that is what it is worth. MRS. HARTUNG: If we build on that parcel it makes no change. There is still two houses here and another here. If they are separated, there will still be the same situation. ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- March 1, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: What we are talking about is not increasing the number of houses on the property. W~iare talking about dividing it into two parcels.~~ :~ MRS. HARTUNG: How can you do that? THE CHAIRMAN: The only way I can see is go across here. MR. TUTHILL: That would not be practical. MRS. HARTUNG: Then you would 200 feet here and a half acre side Yard. MR. TUTHILL: I just do not like the idea of creating 3 small lots out of an acre. MRS. HARTUNG: They almost exist as it is. They have been function- like this for a long time. MR. TUTHILL: I did not know the cottage was back there. It really does not affect my thinking one way or the other. THE CHAIRMAN: A lot of cottages become houses, eve~tuali~ MR. TUTHILL: Then if you went on a north south boundary, you still would not have a large lot over here. 19,000 square feet is not that large. Over here your property would be a combination of the two~ which is still not great. MRS. HARTUNG: I think it would ruin the beaut~ of it to do it that way. MR. TUTHILL: I am not saying I will not go along with it, but right now ~.like the north-south division. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a little different than the way I viewed it while we were out there. MR. HARTU~G: Well, it you had walked around it as many times as I have to see how things could be worked out. MRS. HARTUNG: We are willing to change lines, but we gave the attention to this lot because we knew ~ou would want it to conform with Southold Town. THE CHAIRMAN: This lot would conform with the next three~ lots. MRS. HARTUNG: Yes, you would want to give your attention to this lot, because you cannot change these. THE CHAIRMAN: In effect you would not change the character of that street, New Suffolk Avenue. You have what amounts to a vacant lot there. If that had a house on it, the charcter of the neighborhood would not be changed. ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- March 1, 1979 MR. HARTUNG: I am sure that if we had not purchased that 12 years ago, I am sure it would now have a house on it. THE CHAIRMAN: When you look at it that way, I guess I would go along with it. Across the street you are living with much smaller lots. MRS. HARTUNG: When you go down the street a little bit, the lots only contain 12,800 square feet. THE CHAIRMAN: The thing to do would be place one main house on the 16,000 square foot parcel, which in many parts of the Town is a large lot. So I think I would vote for ito MR. TUTHILL: You would go for the three way division? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, they may not do it any way. MRS. HARTUNG: How do you go about a Certificate of Occupancy? THE CHAIRMAN: You see the building inspector. MR. TUTHILL: It doesn't change the area, because I did not even see the cottage when we drove past it the other day. It is really hidden. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant requests permission to divide a parcel of land containing 40,174 square f~et into three parcels. Lot A which_is vhcant land will contain 15,980 square feet; Lot B which has a year rouhd cottage on it presently will contain 11,990 square feet; and Lot C which presently contains a two story brick house and garage will have 12,204 square feet. New Suffolk is a shore line hamlet with many small, irregular shaped lots. The division of this property will non change the character of the neighborhood. 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; 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. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that John and Gertrude Hartung, New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property into three lots with insufficient area and width. Location of property: New Suffolk Avenue, New York,[bounded on the north by DeMartini; east by Clarke; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Bunny Lane, upon the following conditions: (a) Lot A will be improved ~th ONLY a one-family residence. ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- March 1, 1979 (b) Applicants will supply the Board with a current survey showing the new division lines. vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Doyen and Tuthill. Mr. Douglass abstained from voting. PUBAIC HEAHING: Appeal No. 2518 - Upon application of Amelia Narobe, Alpine Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 100-23 C; Article III, Section~100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule and Article XIV Section 100-144 B for permission to divide property into three lots with insufficient area, width, side yard and rear yard. Location of property: Alpine Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Howell; east by private right~of-way~ south by Alpine Avenue and west by Calanquin. 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: Leon V. Calanquin and James S. Howell. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by ~he County Tax Map indicating the location of this property.on Alpine Avenue and the lots that have been described. We also have a sketch showing the proper~y which Mr. Kiross devised in his will. Lot No. 8 surrounded by a right-of-way. He did not have to come before this Board for that. It was in single and separate ownership. The Calanquin lot was one of three lots that was divided without approval according to the Building Inspector. They were owned by Kiross, and he bequeathed them to these people in his Will. Is there anyone presen~ who wishes to speak for this application? SERGE DOYEN, JR.: I will. There is no other practical solution. They exist and the division is as reasonable as it can be, which is really our Qbli~ation in the matter. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no ~esponse.) PHILIP B. MATTHEWS, ESQ: Mr. Chairman, I am a little familiar with this, and I have talked with Gordon Ahman on Fishers Island. Gordon advises me that all of these houses, three houses, pre-existed zoning in the Town of Southold. Thg~were not built subsequent to the sub- division. They are quite old houses. MR. DOYEN~ They have been there o~er 50 years. Our only paramount interest is to see that the land is divided equitably. After 50 years there is no other way this can be turned over or used, except to divide it out in this manner. It's already landscaped and fenced. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL -26e March 1, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand one man owned these four cottages. He left them to four different people. In granting this action the Board will merely recognizing~something that is already in existence. MR. DOYEN: You are just legitimizing these other pDople's lots. They had just gone ahead and done it~without getting the division beforehand. I guess we~were 3ust not that particular before.as far as Certificates of Occupancy are concerned. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, either for or against this application? (there was no response). Apparently in this one block of houses there is an interloper by the name of Howell. MR. DOYEN~ I saw that. I don't know how that happened. I don't know how that enters into this deliberation? I just always thought it was all part of the same parcel. THE CHAIRMAN: It says Erpenbeck, Lot 7 and Lot 6. MR. DOYEN: In ~fect that is one lot. THE CHAIRMAN: The lot is 129 feet by 54 feet. MR. DOYEN: I though that the Howell portion was part of the original property, but I could be wrong. They have been there for more than 50 years. After inspection and investigation the Board finds that the applicant wishes to divide property into four parcels. The entire Kiross parcel was bequeathed through Mr. Kiross' estates, and the four houses have been there for more than 50 years. This is the only reasonable way to divide this, and 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; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Doyen and seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Amelia Narobe, Alpine Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide propert~into three lots with insufficient area, width, side yard and rear yard. Location of property: Alpine Avenue, ~ishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Howell; east by private right-of-way; south by Alpine Avenue and west by Calanquin. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- March 1, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2526 - Upon application of Roger Barmache, 117 East 77th Street, New York, New York, (Philip B. Matthews, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118 D for permission to reinstate non-conforming two-family use. Location of property: Northeast corner of Green- wood Road and Tyler Lane, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Fishers Island Ferry District; south by Fishers Island Development Co. and Greenwood Road; west by Tyler Lane. Th~ 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: Fishers Island Ferry District and Fishers Island Development Corp. Fee paid $15.00. PHILIP B. MATTHEWS, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Board. I am glad that Mr. Doyen is here, because he is very familiar with this area. When it was recommended to me to request the restoration of the two-family use, which I shouldn't think would be a very great problem anyway, in view of the fact that the nature of the building has always been continued as a two-family residence. This was Coast Guard house as I understand. While the Coast Guard does not have any people sta~!Hne~ here that actually lived in the premises, the nature of the premises has been p~eserved. It was not abandoned to the extent that the nature that it was changed into a storehouse. It has always kept the two-family residence. The failure of use is only by reason that the Coast Guard has not had forces stationed there. I have also re- quested in the application the relief that we would be allowed to divide the parcel into two separate p~rcels A and B. I know in a similar structure o%~ed by Ruth Ferguson Ruth on Whistler Avenue, which is again in the same area, a division was approved by this Board. It would be appreciated in this case° THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the same Government building that had some difficulties. MR. DOYEN: I guess they did. MR. MATTHEWS: This lot was created when the Government itself sold most of the race point area to the Race Point Corporation~ They withheld certain areas and this was one of the areas. They have now declared it excess and have offered it for sale. They have here and I would like to le~e with the Board, but I would like to have a copy back, the representations of the Government. They list it specifically as a two-fami~ residence. They described it as being constructed of masonry. Two separate units and entrances. Everything is separate. They appar- ently paid no attention to zoning. On their brochures and advertising, they show the area as a fraction of an acre. They showe~ it as a two- family use. Now, when we confront their attorney to tell them we cannot get a certificate of occupancy and we cannot go through with out finan- cing, they take the position "that is too bad." I think we would have a valid law suit against them, but we don't want to sue them to try to ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -28- March 1, 1979 recover the down payment, and Mr. Barmache is desirous of buying the premises, provided he can get a Certificate of Occupancy and use it. As the board is aware there is no increase in density~ THE CHAIRMAN: MR. MATTHEWS: MR. TUTHILL: You are saying it was misrepresented? Yes. Right here~it says. Is it a masonry building? MR. DOYEN: If you think that is misrepresented, that is onl~minor. The real misrepresentation is yet to come. MR. MATTHEWS: Listing of sale consists of a parcel of land consisting ®f approximately .28 acres improved by a two-family dwelling and base- mention the southwest corner of Greenwood Road and Tyler Lane. When they listed this, they had no conception of zoning. Now the government says if you want your money back, you have to sue° MR. DOYEN: Did they say anything in the advertisament about how you are going to dispose of your sewage? Did you inquire? MR. BARMACHE: Ail they said was that they were apartment houses. MR. DOYEN: Right now there is nothing. I had a great many inquiries when people heard they were being sold. The first obvious to anyone who knew the property knew that it was tied into the~sewage system which is inadequate and is in litigation and everything else. The only ques- tion anyone had was what can I do if the environmental people finally disallow the sewage system. All the surrounding homes have been dumping their raw sewage into the ocean° I went to a local contractor, if they are shut off, can you build two cesspools to take care of them. I was assured by the Contractor that you could do that. ~ ~ Mk. BARMACHE: As far as I know, it is white brick. MR. MATTHEWS: I am asking that this be sold as two separate parcels of land. I want the same relief given to Mrs. Wolf. MR. DOYEN: Oh, I did not understand that. MR. BARMACHE: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. BAROUCHE: THE CHAIRMAN: I want to sell the other half to my son. This is right across the street fr~om the high school. Right behind me is the water and the ferry boat. We saw it last summer. We knew this situation was coming up, so we looked at it. MR. MATTHEWS: There was one question raised that I want to get straightened out so we do not get into trouble. Regarding the sewer. Mr. Hindermann indicated that if approval was granted by the Board, it ' ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -29- March 1, 1979 would be conditional upon Mr. Barmache installing his own sewage system. I have explained this sewage problem to Mr. Barmache so he is familiar with it, we are also under pressure to close this which require~ financing and in order to do that we need a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Barmache would be perfectly happy to say that in the event this sewage system is condemned and terminated that he agrees to build a sewage system. I think it would be unfair to force him to build his own sewage system while it is still being operated and used by everyQne else. So I need some decision on that so I could get a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. DOUGLASS: The building department will not issue you a Certi- ficate of Occupancy until you have approval of the sewage system by the Board of Health. Before you go any farther, you better check with your Board of Health and if they will allow you to put in private sew- age in the area. MR. MATTHEWS: I thought it was indicated .... MR. DOYEN: I said that the contractor said that the area would sustain it. MR. DOUGLASS: That is a contractor over there, he has nothing to say about it. MR. MATTHEWS: I understand there is discussion whereby all the people in the Race Point area are considering forming a unit to have a sewage disposal district. MR. DOYEN: That is very "ify" and very costly. It is somewhat a bone of contention amongst some of the land owners and some would pre- fer just to build their own cesspools, and not be part of a packaged sewer system. I don't know what the status of that is. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you restate what you want, please? MR. MATTHEWS:You mean in.regard to the sewage? THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is the only question~we have. MR. MATTHEWS: That the Certificate of Occupancy be issued upon the condition that Mr. Barmache will install the necessary sewage require- ments at such time as the present sewer system is discontinued. THE CHAIP~N: It is in use now? MR. DOYEN: Presumably, yes. To my knowledge it is. MR. BARMACHE: There is a row of six houses right next to me that I know of that use the system. THE CHAIRMAN: They are vacant though, aren't they? MR. DOYEN: Some sun~er, but more or less vacant. ~ ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30- March 1, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: The sewage system we are talking about is being used by these other people? MR. DOYEN: The Government even in those days were a law unto ~hemsel~es. If they wanted to dump their raw sewage into the ocean, they did not, ask ~-anyone. I guess there is some question now with the health department. MR. MATTHEWS: My only position was that it was unfai~ to place on Mr. Barmache the obligation to put in a new sewer system now and then find out in a year, this will be condemned in 1980. Then everyone resorts to their own systems, or they crea~e this sewer district. He puts in cesspools now, next year he is contributing to a central sewage system. I think it is just a little unreasonable to condition the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know how we can protect him. MR. BARMACHE: This house is in very good condition. MR. DOYEN: They stopped building houses like that 40 years ago. MR. BARMACHE: It even has a copper roof. THE CHAIRMAN: Serge, is it true they will make no new connections on the present sewer set-up there. What do they mean by new sewer connections. MR. BARMACHE: This would be considered an old connection. MR. MATTHEWS: I would say that if someone who owns one the vacant lots there wanted to hook up to the system, they would not be able to. I do not see how they can prevent the present houses from hooking up. MR. DOYEN: This would be logical. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think we have to get into the question of sewage at all. It is up to the Health Department. MR. DOYEN: I really think the land would sustain a system that would be approved by the Board of Health. MR. MATTHEWS: The Ferry District must have sanitary facilities over there somewhere. MR. DOYEN: It is right next door. THE CHAIP~N: Just one question Mr. Matthews. You do not get into the condominium law, do you? MR. MATTHEWS: No sir. THE CHAIRMAN: If you sell someone half of your house and want to put SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31- March 1, 1979 a new roof on your half and not on his half, how are you going to handle this? MR. BARMACHE: I don't know. We~.ll take care Of it. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant wishes to reinstate a non-conforming, two-family use. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant and feels the request is reasonable. 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, 'that Roger Barmache, 117 East 77th Street, New York, New York, be GRANTED permission to reinstate a non-conforming, two-family use. Location of property: Northeast corner of Greenwood Road and Tyler Lane, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the North by Fishers Island Ferry District; east by Fishers Island Ferry District; south by Fishers Island Developement Company and Greenwood Road; west by Tyler Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that John Baxter withdraw his application No. 2457 without prejudice. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gi!lispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes for the February 8, 1979 meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ®F APPEALS -32- March 1, 1979 The Board held an informal discussion with Richard F. Lark, Esq. relative to the Mothersele Estate relative to the division of a parcel of land containing 2.6 acres in Fleet's Neck, Cutchogue, New York. The four proposed parcels have insufficient area, but only one lot has insufficient width. Due to the fact that the estate has property across the road, the Board feels they could get the extra acreage f~om across the road. The Board also recommended they speak to the Planning Board about this matter. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, March 22, 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.) Upon application of John Gaston, Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New YOrk, for a variance in accordance with th~ Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission 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 Staunton; south by Equestrian Avenue; west by Coffey. 7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 varianee in accordance with Town Lawr Section 280A for ap- proval 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 Sou%hold; south by Little Peconic Bay; west by H. Smith, Frank Bear, M. Morris and E. Yankee. 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Kodros Spyropoulos, 40-28 82nd Street, Jackson Heights, New York, for a variance inaaccordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a deck in the side yard area. Location of property: Pri- vate 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, Doyen, Tuthill and Douglass. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, / Ba~e~e C~C~onr o~ Secretary