HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/08/1979South ld Town Board of Appeals
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11~'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
ROBERTW. G LLrSPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN
CHAR LES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
TERRY TUTH I L.L-
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
MINUTES
Southold Town Board of Appeals
February 8, 1979
A reqular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held
at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) Thursday, February 8, 1979, at the Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman;
Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Terry Tuthitl and Robert J. Douglass.
Alsp present were: Richard Curtis of the Suffolk Times and Shirley
Bachra~h from the League of Women's Voters.
PQST~ONED DECISION on Appeal No. 2510 of Gary F. Olsen, ~ai~ Road,
Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article VI, Section 100-61, Article XI, Section 100-112 and
Bulk Pa~king Schedule for permission to convert existing building (non-
conforming business building) with insufficient side and rear yards
and insufficient parking for proposed use. Location of property: Main
Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Mattituck Presby-
terian Church; east by Main Road (S. R. 25); south by Lawlor; west by
Mattituck Presbyterian Church.
THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant has indicated that the proposed use of
of the property will be for an insurance business which would generate
very little traffic, approximately 5 cars per week, which is certainly
minimal for any kind of business use. The insurance office will have
2 or 3 employees, Presumably each would have a car and there is a ver-
bal agreement with the owners of the Mattituck Manor that they may use
their parking lot directly across the street from the office. I believe
when we originally heard this application that Mr. Olsen intended to
use this as a law office and have a tenant.
GARY F. OLSEN: The previous application was for an optician. He
also wanted a separate office. But that was withdrawn. So there was
really was no previous application.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
-2-
February 8, 1979
THE CHAIRMAN: In any case at that time the question of off-
street parking was discussed and considered. In this application
that question has also been discussed. I will read a letter that
we have from Lieutenant H. D. Winters concerning the question of
pedestrian accidents at that location. (The Chairman read a letter
dated January 22, 1979, addressed to Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. from
H. D. Winters. The letter is on file in the Appeal file.) We had
asked for this opinion. It is my opinion that it would be extremely
dangerous to excavate a parking lot in front of this building on a
curve which could easily accommodate two vehicles with room to turn
around and get out. If a third car drove in, the first ~ar already~
parked would cause the third car to back out into the traffic, which
is a violation in itself. There is no should~ t~-sPeak!~!~!here. I
think a car on the road would be 6n the concrete of Route 25. I do
not think it is quite 8 feet wide there.
MR. GRIGONIS: A car backing off that property would not be visible
to a car traveling west.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you are in that parking lot you are so~t of in a
trapped area and I am not sure you could leave the parking lot safely.
MR. GR~GONIS: I do not think it would be any more dangerous than
going east where Mr. Brisotti's office is located now by Scudder-Grabie.
I think he would be safer here.
MR. TUTHILL: That is a terrible spot where he is now. But that does
not necessarily make this a good spot.
T~E CHAIRM~N: Is there anyone else who has any questions concerning
this matter? (There was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to
say a~thing against this application? (there was no response).
~er investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applic-
cant-wishes to eliminate the requirement for off-stre~t parking'on pre-
mists which are 40 feet wide and 115 feet deep. The office building
is centrally located on the premises. A parking area would have to
be excavated in a front yard area which is 40 feet by 40 feet. Even
though the square footage is available for 3 parking places, there is
not enough room for a vehicle to turn around so the car would not back
onto to Route 25, which is a violation of the traffic law. 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 cre-
ated is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike ~n the
immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and
~h~ varia~nCe~i~l not change the character of the neighborhood an~
will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED that Gary F. Olsen, Main Road, Mattituck, New York, be
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- February 8, 1979
GRANTED permission to eliminate the off-street parking requirement
as requested. Location of property: Main Road (.S.R. 25), Mattituck,
New York, bounded on the north by Mattituck Presbyterian Church; east
by Main Road (S. R. 25); south by Lawlor; west by Mattituck Presbyterian
Church, subject to the followin~ conditions:
(1) That the applicant and his employees will park in the Matti-
tuck Manor Parking lot lot the ~outh side of Main Road (S. R. 25), but
NOT on the shoulde~ of Route 25.
(2) Suffolk County Planning Commission approval.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill
and Douglass.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2506 (Amended) Upon application of
Colony Cabinets, Inc., (Robert Annison, as Agent), North Road, Southold,
New York, for a variance to the ZoninH Ordinance, ArtiCle VI, Section
100-60 A for permission to operate a ~itchen cabinet showroom and work-
shop. Location of property: North Road (C. R. 27); Southold, New York,
bounded on the north by North Road (C. R. 27); east by North Road Asso-
ciates; south by Goldsmith; west by Klein.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a vari-
ance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attes-
ting 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: R. &
B. Gealmeyer, T. J. Bucci, and B. Klein.
THE CHAI~L~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this
application? (there was no response). I think the ~nnisons were here
before. There were no questions that anyone wanted to ask them at that
time, were there?
MR. TUTHILL: I believe it has been used for the same purpose in
prior years, hasn't it?
THE CHAIR~N: I think Bill Smith had a carpenter shop there. The
point was made this afternoon in discussing this appeal, this business
is certainly similar to the one that existed before. It is not really
identical though because one of the reasons the applicant is in this
building now is because he had an explosion in the cabinet shop.
MR. TUTHILL: From the things he showed us, I presume he uses a lot
of adhesives with formica tops and so forth.
THE CHAIrmAN: He works with volatile materials. This was changed
from a special exception application to a variance application for
procedural reasons. If this were a use going into the B-1 general
business district, it would require a special exception. Because it is
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- February 8, 1979
in a B light district, they need a variance. I think the property
was zoned B before the more sophisticated zoning of the Town of Southold.
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli-
cant wishes to operate a kitchen cabinet showroom and workshop. Before
-the more sophisticated zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold was
enacted, this was a permitted use in the zone in which this property
is located. 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 cre-
ated is unique and would not be shared by a~l 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 of Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was
RESOLVED, that Colony Cabinets, Inc., (Robert Annison, as Agent),
North Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to operate a
kitchen cabinet showroom and workshop, as requested. Location of
property: North Road (C. R. 27); Southold, New York, bounded on the
north by North Road (C. R. 27); east by North Road Associates; south
by GOldsmith; west by Klein, subject to the following conditions:
(1) If any change is contemplated in this business, it must have
the prior written approval of the Board of Appeals.
(2) Suffolk County Planning Commission Approval.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and
]Douglass.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2513 - Upon application of Frank Dawson,
Jackson Street, New Suffolk, New York, for a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 A 1 for permission to divide
property into two lots with insufficient area and frontage. Location
of property: Fourth Street, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north
by Eksterowicz; east by Gandolfi and Dawson; south by Jackson Street;
west by Fourth Street.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a vari-
ance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attes-
ting to its publication in the cfficial newspapers, and disapproval from
'the Building I~spector. The Chairman also read a statement from the
Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to: John
Eksterowicz, Margaret Dawson and Newman Estate. Fee paid $15.00
THE CHAIR~N: The applicant has a sketck attached in addition to
· the County Tax Map which indicates adjoining the applicant's 200' by
201' lot on the corner of Jackson and Fourth Street immediately to the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- February 8, 1979
east are three improved lots of 75' by 100' or 7,000 square feet
each. Across the street is a 15,000 square foot lot. In the adjoining
block to the east there are lots as small as 25 feet wide and I think
that is a record for New Suffolk. There are a number of lots in New
Suffolk that are 45 feet or 50 feet wide. As the applicant states the
areas has a lot of undersized lots by today's standards of the Zoning
Ordinance. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
HOWARD TERRY: I am appearin~ here as a friend of Mr. Dawson and not
in any professional manner. Included in the file is an amended notice
to G~ndolfi which used to be the Newman E~t&te. I think the application
speaks for itself. The proposal is to set off the northerly 100 feet
of the 201 feet as a separate lot. As you note from the sketch and
the tax map of ths area, this division will not be out of line with the
average of the lots in the neighborhood. To the east on First Street
there is a water problem. On this street there is no water problem.
I have been familiar with this property for the last 25 years. Mr.
Dawson has owned this lot prior to my employment with the Town. I was
familiar with it then. Each and every lot in that area was owned by
single and separate ownership. The Eksterowicz lot to the north has a
main house and cottages. Across the street on the west side of Fourth
Street .....
THE CHAIRMAN: This is all in the same block?
MR. TERRY: Yes. Mr. Dawson himself lives on the corner of Third
Street and Jackson Street. The M. Dawson property is a rental property.
New Suffolk is unique in that it is an old waterfront town with small
houses and small lots. I think what Mr. Dawson is asking for is nothing
more than the average that the neighbors have. I ask that you approve
his application.
THE CHAIRMAN: The northerly half approximately is what Mr. Dawson
would like to have granted, is that right?
MR. TERRY: Yes. 100 feet on Fourth Street and 101 feet deep. The
balance of the property would be in the southerly lotion the corner of
Fourth Street and Jackson Street.
THE CHAIRMAN: This division would be just about in half?
MR. TERRY: Yes. We would like to set off the northerly 100 feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this appli-
cation? (there was no response.) Is there anyone who wishes to speak
against this application? (there was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant
wishes to divide a parcel of property on the corner of Jackson Street
and Fourth Street into two lots containing 100 feet of road frontage
each on Fourth Street and 101 feet in depth. The~size of these newly
created lots is larger than most of the lots in the surrounding area.
The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
-6-
February 8, 1979
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would
produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship
created is unique and would notbbe 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Frank Dawson, Jackson Street, New Suffolk, New York,
be GRANTED permission to divide property into two lots with insufficient
area and frontage as requested. Location of property: Fourth Street,
New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by Eksterowicz; east by
Gandolfi and Dawson; south by Jackson Street; west by Fourth Street.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and
Douglass.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2514 - Upon application of Meyer Rosen-
berg and Gertrude Rosenberg, Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York, for
a variance in accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recog-
nition of access. Location of property: Indian Neck Lane, Peconic,
New York, bounded on the north by Rosenberg; east by Rust; south by
Cohen; west by Rosenberg.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a
varmance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits
attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval
f~om the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from
the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to:
S. Cohen and H. Rust. Fee paid $15.00
THE CHAIRMAN: The application ms accompanied by a map indicating
the area. The depth of the property from Indian Neck Lane is 1417 feet
more or less. The applicant's subdivision consmsts of four lotso The
application is for lot No. 3 of the subdivision. This lot is the
second one in from Indian Neck Lane, and contains 54,000 square feet.
The other lots in the subdivision contain 81,000 square feet, 54,000
square feet and 135,000 square feet. Is there anyone present who
wi~hes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is
there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there
was no response). This is a formality really. The applicant has an
excellent access which is black topped, landscaped and at least 15
feet wide. In order to get a building permit for Lot No. 3 recognition
of access is necessary and so we are holding this hearing.
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli-
cant requests recognition to lot No. 3 of his minor subdivision located
on Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York. The access is black topped,
beautifully landscaped and at least ~ feet in width. The Board agrees
witk the reasoning of the applicant.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
-7-
February 8, 1979
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would
produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship
created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in
the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district;
and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and
will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Meyer Rosenberg and Gertrude Rosenberg, Indian Neck
Lane, Peconic, New York, be GRANTED ~ecognition of access for lot No.
3, as requested. Location of property: Indian Neck Lane, Peconic,
New York, bounded on the north by Rosenberg; east by Rust; south by
Cohen; west by Rosenberg.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and
Douglass'.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2515 - Upon application of Richard L.
and Lois Woodhull, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in
accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition of access.
Location of property: Main Road (S. R. 25), Mattituck, New York,
bounded on the north by Long Island Railroad; east by Krukowski; south
by Surer; west by Adel & Tuthilt.
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 disapprova1
from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from
the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to:
W. L. Adel, Jr., J. C. Tuthill~ A. Surer and S. Krukowski. Fee paid
$15.00.
THE CHAIRMAN: As indicated on the County Tax Map, the property
appears to be bounded by the Long Island Railroad on the north. It is
surrounded by private property. No indication is given on any material
in our file as to what right of way theF.~are referring to in the
deed. This is a deed between Ernest C. Tuthill ~e~iding at Middle
Road, Mattituck, New York and Richard L. Woodhull and Lois F. Woodhull,
his wife, residing at No. Number, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. Among
other things it states in the second paragraph of this deed: "TOGETHER
with a right of way from the southwest corner of the above described
premmses to the northerly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. 25A)." We approached
the property from a difficult angle, and we had a pickup leading us, and
we straddled a couple of three foot ravines and finally got there in
the middle of a very difficult area. It had been floode~ where the
applicant has started the construction of a barn. Having reached there
not by the means of the proposed access, but by a convenient method, we
were unable to figure out where this access is supposed to be~ We were
cautioned about driving around zn any direction. We were hoping that
someone would be here tonight to explain this to us. We could hardly
approve this because we could not even find it and there are no maps
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- February 8, 1979
to indicate even how far it is to the Main Road. Is there anyone
present here who can cast any light on this subject? The applicants'
are not here, but since it was scheduled, we hoped to learn something
about it.
MR. TUTHILL: I used to own what is known as the Adel farm, which
borders this on the west. So I am somewhat familiar with the area.
I think, Alma, ~that we got to the Woodhull property over a strip that
you own east of~ Elijah's Lane, which is ~50 feet. I don't believe
that is the strip Woodhull is referring to. There is that old road
that comes up along the east side of Adel's farm. As a matter of fact
there are two of them. One going into his development. I suppose the
one they are referring to is that old farm road that has always gone
up along the west side of your 16 acres.
HENRY RAYNOR: That is why werare here.
MR. TUTHILL: Then John Tuthill's father sold it to him. So I
think between the three of us, we should be able to describe it.
MR. RAYNOR: Apparently you do not have a completed file or a survey
available?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, we do not have a survey. I do not think we even~
have an answer to our request for a survey. We knew you were going to
be here tonight~ Mrs. Suter, so we decided to hold the hearing anyway.
MR. RAYNOR: I am here tonight on behalf of Mrs. Suter and in no
way am I acting in any capacity as a member of the Planning Board of
the Town of Southold. Mrs. Suter~s attorney was unable to be here to-
night With her. There seems to be a little problem if you gentlemen
do not have a survey of the existing property. It will be difficult to
explain the objection that we have to Mr. Woodhull's application for
access. We would intend on the advice of an attorney that after a
thorough title search by me that the question of the right-of-way coming
through from the southwesterly corner of this property as described is
probably not in good title. We had the title searched as far back as
1868, and it is a very complex thing, as you gentlemen are well aware.
There seems to be some voids in it. As far as we are concerned presently
about the property to the south as it was conveyed to Mrs. Suter is not
encumbered by any right-of-way.running along the westerly line to coin-
cide with the southwesterly side of the applicant's property.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who conveyed these pieces of property to ~Mrs. Surer
and the previous owners? Were they done at approximately the same time?
Different times?
MR. RAYNOR: Mrs. Suter's property was conveyed by her grandfather.
It was conveyed to her grandfather by Chauncey Tuthill.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are apparently talking about a right-of-way in the
southwesterly corner of the above described premises~to~h~northerly
side of RoUte 25. There are two lot lines there. They do not even
indicate which lot the right of way traverses.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- February 8, 1979
MR. TUTHILL: You received that through a will, didn't you Alma?
ALMA SUTER: Right.
MR. RAYNOR: I have a survey this evening of the property. By the
way gentlemen this is probably the way you got in (Mr. Raynor pointing
to his survey.) From Elijah's Lane.
THE CHAIRMAN: From than on it is treacherous.
MR. RAYNOR: Not only there, but the whole thing. Mr. Woodh~!l
has been using it because what he is asking for as a right-of-way he
has not been able to use.
THE CHAIRMAN: How could we inspect it then?
MR. RAYNOR: We had restored it to a usable condition two years ago,
but unfortunately with the amount of farm trucks he puts over it, Mrs.
Suter is not in az~position to arbitrarily put large sums of money into
the right-of-way and have it destroyed. This is a map of "Tut's Acres"
which is directly south of the property designated as H~thiti--Which7is
now Richard and Lois Woodhull.
THE CHAIRMAN: Where is the applicant's property?
MR. RAYNOR: Right here.
(Mr. Raynor and Mrs. Suter held a discussion concerning the different
parcels of land on the maps that Mr. Raynor presented to the Board.
They also reviewed the decision of June 12, 1975 concerning Mrs. Suter's
application for a right-of-way into her subdivision.
THE CHAIRMAN: In Mr. Woodhull's deed it describes a right-of-way
from the southwesterly corner of the property to the Main Road, but it
does not say what it goes over.
MR. TUTHILL: We drove over a short piece of it to that ravine. The
one that was more or less overgrown.
THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I did not think we were anywhere near that.
MR. RAYNOR: This is where you came in.
MR. TUTHILL: We rode on about 50 feet of it.
MRS. S~TER: Then you were on Woodhull's property.
MR. RAYNOR: It is in line with Mr. Woodhull's property. We have
also endeavored to work something out with Mr. Woodhull so he could
have some type of access. Unfortunately, to this point to no avail.
THE CHAIRMAN; You are trying to work something out with him? You
figure you have an obligation9!~
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- February 8, 1979
MR. RAYNOR: We have no obligation, but we were doing it as a
courtesy.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the phrase in the deed does not really mean
anything, does it?
MR. RAYNOR: It is part of his deed, but we cannot find any title
search having been done on it. Our attorney searched the title back
to August 11, 1868, and at that time Chauncey Tuthill acquired the
property from a Mary Gould and at that time there are no rights-of-way
or encumbrances over any of the property whatsoever° The property
has been brought down through the family.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will have to postpone this hearing until
we are presented with a survey and a legal access.
MR. TUTHILL: I don't see how we can deal with this until we have
more information.
MR. RAYNOR: There seems to be no documentation outside of this deed
phrase. We don't think it is fair that someone comes in and tries to
encumber this property at this point.
MR. DOUGLASS: The girl who works for the Woodhull's told us that
part of the access was under water.
MR. RAYNOR: Yes, the southerly right-of-way. Probably is at this
point. The prgperty has been improved and had it excavated, back-filled
with sand and tried to improve ito Every time we get it in shape, the
heavy farm trucks destroy ito He has been using three different accesses~
none of which can we find that he has any right over. We haven't done
anything about it.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no way that this man has legal access to
this property that you know of, ms there?
MR. RAYNOR: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: He comes mn from several different directions, but none
of them are legal.
MR. RAYNOR: Not that Mrs. Suter's attorney can determine at this
point. I realize he has to have some type of access by necessity. This
zs why we have tried several times to come up with something that would
be workable. Mrs. Suter owns a 50 foot strip that connects to Mr. Wood-
bull's property ~from Elijah's Lane, and we are mn hopes that something
can be worked out.
MRS. SUTER: It is the short one that you drove over.
THE CHAIRMAN: This can be very confusing.
MR. HAYNOR: This is what he is using presently for his ingress and
egress.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- February 8, 1979
MR. TUTHILL: Some of those old deeds mention property being
bounded by a couple of stones, a crooked hedge and a tree. It
can be very confusing. The right-of-way to me was never clear.
MR. DOUGLASS: What about the question of ownership by use.
MR. RAYNOR: He has only owned the property for a couple of years.
That is why Mrs. Suter was very suprised to see this application pre-
sented.
JOHN C. TUTHILL: My father sold this property to Richard Woodhill.
I am 60 years and my father is 97 years old. During that time I have
worked all the land around this area and also Mr. Woodhull's farm. I
can testify that where the access has~een for the last 50 years.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tuthill, you can testify about the access that
has been used for the past four years? This includes since Mr. Wood-
hull has owned the property?
MR. TUTHILL: There have only been two accesses that I know he has
used.
THE CHAIRMAN: One from the 50 foot right-of-way from Elijah's Lane?
MR. JOHN TUTHILL: I understand that is the main one that he uses.
THE CHAIRMAN: This one is owned by whom?
MRS. SUTER: I own that one.
MR. TERRY TUTHILL: It is not really a right-of-way.
MRS. SUTER: That's right.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the other way they came into the property?
MR. JOHN TUTHILL: That is the one we always used. The one from the
Main Road.
THE CHAIRMAN: That went down the border line of the farm there.
Well we are a little further than we were before. Do you kno~ when
the Woodhull's will be back in Town.
THE SECRETARY:
THE CHAIRMAN:
THE SECRETARY:
The girl said they would be home on February 14, 1979.
When is our next meeting?
On March 1, 1979.
MRS. SUTER: I am going to be out of town until the 25th of March.
Could it be scheduled after then.
MR. TERRY TUTHILL: Could Henry speak for you?
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
-12-
February 8, 1979
MR. RAYNOR: I would prefer that Mrs~ Suter and her attorney be
present. I am just helping out tonight.
MR. TERRY TUTHILL: I think the Woodhult's had better be here with
their attorney.
MRS. SUTER: I am leaving the llth of March and will return on the
25th of March.
· HE CHAIRMAN: Since this is over your land, I would think that you
are a key witness. What is the next hearing after March 22, 1979?
THE SECRETARY: It puts it into April. The 12th. of April.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was
RESOLVED that Appeal No. 2515 be recessed until 7:30 P.M. April
12, 1979.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Giltispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and
Douglass.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve the
minutes for the January 11, 1979, meeting.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gil!ispie, Grigonis, Tuthill
and Douglass.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2517 - Upon application of Alexander
and Ryck Koke, Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, for a variance in
accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition of access.
Location of property:Scho~ner-D~i~e, Southold, New York, bounded on the
north by Ognibene and Frankoia; east by Schooner Drive; south by Reese;
west by Sayre~
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a
variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits
attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval
from the Building Inspector° The Chairman also read a statement from
the Town Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to:
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Ognibene, Mr. and Mrs. Bruno Frankola, Mr. Frederick
Reese, Mr. Ralph Lyman. Fee paid: $15.00
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this
application?
MR. ALEXANDER KOKE: If you have any questions, I will be happy to
to answer them.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- February 8, 1979
THE CHAIRMAN: We were just wondering why t~is one road has not
been dedicated. We are talking about Schooner Drive.
MR. HOWARD TERRY: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could enlighten you on
this. This particular right-of-way leading from North Bayview Road
into Schooner D~ive in the Harbor Lights subdivision is a private road.
Among other people I h~e a deeded right to use it. There are many
property owners who have the right to use that road. This was a right
granted by the Corwi~ family years and years ago. The property that
Mr. Koke has is outside the subdivision. There hasabeen a problem with
the roads in that subdivision ever since I have been connected with the
Town. They worked on it, but the problem has not yet been resolved.
These roads will probably not be turned ~er to the Town for some time.
However, they are used and are in good, passable condition for emergency
vehicles.
THE CHAIRMAN: This 2.3 acres that comes off North Bayview Road.
It looks like it is 160 feet wide~ Is this part of the access?
MR. KOKE: Let me see what the map looks like. This is a road which
the Reeses' maintain for anyone living in this area.
MR. TUTHILL: It is shown as a piece of property, but it really is
a road.
MR. KOKE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then you are asking for access to Schooner Drive
from Anchor Lane?
MR. KOKE: Yes.
THE CHAI~4AN: That is in good condition also. Is there anyone who
wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response).
Any other questions?
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant
requests recognition of access to Schooner Drive over Anchor Lane in
Southold, New York. The roads are in good, passable condition and
could accommodate all types of emergency vehicles. The Board agrees
with the reasonzng of the applicant.
The Board finds that strict applicatian of the Ordinance would pro-
duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship cre-
ated 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED that Alexander and Ryck Koke, Youngs Avenue, Southold, New
York, be GRANTED recognition of access for Schooner Drive, Southold, New
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- February 8, 1979
York, as requested~ Location of property: Schooner Drive, Southold,
New York, bounded on the north by Ognibene and Frankola; east by
Schooner Drive; south by Reese; west by Sayre.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill
and Douglass.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2516 - Upon application of Susan H.
Terry, c/o Eastern Suffolk Nursing Home, Greenport, New York, and
Edith M. Terry, residing at Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York,
(Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a variance in accordanc~ with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A for permission to use property
for business and professional offices. Locatian of property: Main
Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Christian Science
Society; east by Christian Science Society; south by JOckey Creek
Dr~ve; west by Main Road- (State Road 25.)
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a
variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of heari~g,~ffidavits
attesting to its publication,in the offical 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:
Christian Science Society. Fee paid $15.00.
THE CHAIRMAN: In addtion to the application we have a letter from
the Planning Board which suggests that this application should be
granted and gives some reasons. The letter reads as follows:
Mro Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.
Chairman, Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Bob:
The Planning Board would like to bring to your attention the
fact that at our December 18, 1978, meeting, Richard Lark, Esq.
and Raymond Terry appeared on behalf of Susan Terry and Edith M;
Terry proposing a change of zone on the Terry property on the
northeast corner of Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive in Southold
Villaqe.
After considerable discussion, it appeared that it might be
better to seek a variance for a specific use rather than a change
of zone on this property. This was recommended by the Planning
Board and Mr. Terry stated that he also felt that this would be
presentable.
We bring ta±your attention, that this property is too small
for business zonmng and it is hemmed in by the church property on
two sides. In add±~on, we feel that further scatterization of
busines on west Main Street at Southold should be resisted°
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Board of
soUTHOLD TO%~ BOARD OF APPEALS -15- February 8, 1979
Appeals give consideration to the request by Susan Terry and
Edith M. Terry for a variance on this property for business and
professional use.
Yours truly,
JOHN WICKH~4~ Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
We also have an apprisal from William B. Smith dated February 3, 1979,
addressed to Mr. Raymond W. Terry, Jr. Mr. Smith is a licensed real
estate broker. The appraisal reads as follows:
Mr. Raymond W. Terry, Jr.
610 Jockey Creek Drive
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Terry:
In regard to the appraisal of the corner lot and house at Main
Road and Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York, I offer the
following:
Value of land, as is
Value of house, as is
Total
Value of land, rezoned
Value of house, rezoned
Total
$1~,000.00
15,500.00
$29,500.00
$26,000.00
17,500.00
$43,500.00
Southold Town Assessment as of
February 2, 1979:
Land
Buildings
$ 1,500.00
3,700.00
The Main Road frontage is 150 feet, but the rear of the
property is 107 feet. My land appraisal is based on 130 foot
frontage at $200 per foot. The rezoning at this particular loca-
tion would, in my estimation, almost double the value of the land.
Very truly yours,
William B. Smith
Also we have an independent opinion from a real estate agent who was not
aware of these figures, who suggested it was worth between $27,000 and
$29,000, "as is". This confirms this other appraisal. The application is
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- February 8, 1979
accompanied by "Exhibit C" which shows that the applicant's property
is surrounded by the Christian Science Church and that the DeFriest
funeral home is on the same side of the street a few hundred feet
away. And directly across Jockey Creek Drive is land zoned "C"
Industrial and used by a hardware store and marina. Across the street
and down the road a bit to the west is a !~B-i" general business zone
which has a gas station on it. Within a few hundred feet of the Terry land
are at least four roads which intersect. It is a complicated, busy
traffic pattern area. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for
this application?
RAYMOND W. TERRY, JR.: I am the son of Edith Terry and nephew of
Susan Terry, co-owners. I would juSt~iike to m~ke it clear we had
understood for many years that the Christian Science Church wanted to
purchase this property from us. When it did come available they had
a change of heart. Since that time, we have listed the property with
many brokers in the community, and we did not have any luck selling it
as a residence. I was then approached ~o sell it for a business use.
The first act was to go to the Christian Science Church because we had
always been good neighbors and wanted to continue to be good neighbors.
So I met with their Board of Directors, explained the circumstances,
and they said they would support my move for a change of zone. As Mr.
Wickham's letter states and because of the late hour I won't go into
that. We did appear before the Planning Board, and they suggested a
variance in lieu of a change of zone. I said that would be agreeable.
I just wanted to re-emphasize that to my knowledge we have not received
any offers to purchase the property as a residence.
THE CHAIRMAN: For two years it has been in the hands of brokers?
Approximately?
MR. TERRY: Approximately.
THE CHAIRMAN: What was the offering price?
MR. TERRY: We had asked initially 40,000, and we had instructed our
brokers not ~o turn down any reasonable offer. To my knowledge we have
not received any offers at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Not even any suggestions?
MR. TERRY: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else?
WILLIAM B. SMITH: I am talking about this building in regard to
building. It will take between $14,000 and $15,000 to bring it up to
date with all the utilities deteriorated. The interior is deteriorated
with no insulation.n If someone was to buy this for $29,000 or $30,000
they would have a house in the neighborhood of $44,000 to $46,000. There
are b~and new houses for sale worth this amount of money.
if
THE CHAIRMAN: What you are saying is that if you/could get someone
SOUTHOLD TO,tN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- February 8, 1979
to buy the property for $29,000, they would have to put $15,000 into
it to make it habitable?
MR. SMITH: Yes, and the house is still a very small one with many
problems.
MR. SMITH: It would not be up to date even if you spend all
that money. There are houses for sale in the Southold area with three
bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, ceramic tile, full cellar, two car garages and
so forth for $52,000.00. Or the house will be built on your lot for
$40,000.00. It doesn't make much sense for anyone to invest in this
residential place. If you take my figures for the rezoning of it, if
possible, you will come up to $58,000 or so, and I think this certainly
would be wortk it to any professional business.
THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be rezoned, but it would be granted a
variance. A use variance, which is a little unusual, but enables the
Board to place restrictions on it that could not otherwise be placed
on it. If the zone were changed, any business that is listed in the
"B" Light zone could be placed there. So that the neighborhood and
Christian Science Church are protected more by the granting of a vari-
ance rather than a change of zone.
MR. SMITH: I am also one of the realtors that had the house listed,
and I never got to first base with the property.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not disputing this, because I am sympathetic,
but one of the things that bothers me a little bit is the result if
someone lives in a house and it gradually runs down, and he doesn't
make any repairs. I am not s~ylng this is the situation in this case.
Maybe Mr. Lark can help us out on this. It does not give him a legi-
timate reason for applying for a variance or a use that is not permitted
in a residential zone, does it?
MR. LARK: No in and of itself.
THE CHAIRMAN: So this is irrelevant. The fact that it is run-down
is irrelevant as to our consideration of granting a variance. I believe.
Anyone's house can run down.
A. W. ALBERTSON: I am a broker in Southold, and I would just like
to state that I have shown the house on many occasionsr and I have
never received so much as an offer for it as a residence. It is in a
bad spot for traffic. With the businesses along side of it, it is not
a good spot. I would like to see the variance given.
THE CHAIR~4AN: I suppose the history of this is that this was part of
the Terry farm back there on Jockey Creek Drive~ This was all part of
a larger tract.
MR. R. TERRY: Yes.
$OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- February 8, 1979
THE CHAIRMAN: The reason Mrs. Terry had the corner lot was be-
cause it was closer to the main highway. This goes back a good many
years that they have owned the property. If she moved the house to
this farm, she would move it to the Main Road.
MR. R. TERRY: There was no Jockey Creek Drive.
THE CHAIRMAN: There was no boat marina or hardware store either.
Things really build up. Including the highway.
JAMES BAKER: I own Baker Real Estate. I have had a listing on
this property for residential use for some time. My office is located
about 500 feet from the property. I have had customers come in that
have wanted to buy a home in the low $40,000. It has been very con-
venient for me to walk them up the sidewalk. The people were not in-
terested in this at all. My opinion is that where you have a hardware
store to the west and a marina and a gas station in addition to our
officeaeast of it, the neighborhood is not too good for a residence.
I do not feel that a variance for a business use will disturb anYthing
at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Which brings up the point, what is this going to be
used for?
MR. R. TERRY: Business office.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are many kinds of business offices. A real
estate office?
MR. R. TERRY: As far as I know, a real estate office an/or pro-
fessional office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would there be two businesses there° Would it be
all right to limit this to one business office? Is there anyone who
wishes to speak against this application?
HOWARD TERRY: As a neighbor I am not for or against it. This is
really a mixed neighborhood. The property is on the east side of Main
Road. The prevailing winds are from the west during the winter and
southwest during the summer. It is right at the foot of Willow Hill,
and the noise right there would drive you ~ut of your mind. Keeps me
awake nights, and I live up the street a little bit. The kids race out
of the gas station at night, and there is a lot of truck traffic. It
is not suitable for r~sidential property in any way. We do have the
indus%rial property. We have two family dwellings, offices, gas stations,
and business zones. We truly have a mixed neighborhood. We even have
a little religion thrown in. I don't know if that helps any of us or
not, but it is there. Originally Jockey Creek Drive was the drive way
between the main house and the barn on the Terry Farm. The main house
sat right next to the cottage on the property now.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the neighborhood would be best protected by
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- February 8, 1979
a variance rather than a change of zone.
RICHARD LARK~ ESQ: I represent Mr. Terry. That was the thought
of the Planning Board._~When thg'problem was first presented to me,
I told Raymond that it would probably need a change of zone. The
Planning Board met that with great resistence. What do you want to
use the property for? Raymond explained his plight of not being able
to sell it at any price. It is not even a question of a lower price.
If anyone made him a decent offer he would have sold it. He did not
really want to go through a variance or a change of zone. Then he
received a couple of offers for a real estate office. He felt it would
be a very good location for it. The negotiations then ensued with his
purchasers. The purchaser did not want to be boxed in merely for real
estate. He wanted the leeway to renovate it for a doctor, dentist or
insurance agent. Something along those lines. The Planning Board then
said that if that is what you want to use it for. Why don't you seek
a use variance. That is how we got here. From reading the application
and hearing the testimony of the brokers here who had the property lis~ed
for a considerable length of time, it just does not have any economic
return as a residence. I think Mr. Smith's opinion of the amount of
money to make it suitable to live in assuming you could get a buyer is
right. The fact that the property owner allows his property to go into
disrepair in and of itself is not any type of grounds of hardship for
granting relief. The house was moved there as a summer cottage when it
was part of the overall farm. The area has just completely changed
since that state of facts. I think what Mr. Smith is trying to point
out is that economically even if you brought the house up to snuff, you
would not ever be able to realize any type of economic return on it.
The main thing is Mr. Terry has made an active effort to sell the house,
and he has not been able to. Mr. Terry is willing to accept any reason-
able restrictions, and I have explained to the purchaser that he would
have to provide on-premzses parking for customers in accordance with
the requirements. He agreed to that, and that is why you see Exhibit "D"
there in the application, which shows the proposed parking area. We
would not contribute to the parking problem there.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would like you to elaborate what you propose there.
MR. LARK: That map was drawn by the purchaser. He would put that
size parking area in, which would conform for a real estate or profes-
sional office. It is ample because you would have your primarly ingress
there off Jockey Creek Drive, and the egress out to the Main Road or
back out onto Jockey Creek Drive. In the rear of this property is the
only ingress/egress for the Church who primarily use it on Sundays and
occasionally for night meetings.
THE CHAIRMAN: But that belongs to the church.
MR. LARK: Of course. That is not Mr. Terry's property. It ends
surrounding this property.
THE CHAIRMAN: You think it would be satisfactory to have this
parking lot approached on Jockey Creek Drive solely.
MR. LARK: I really have no feeling on it.
~ ~ S.OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
-19-
February 8, 1979
THE CHAIRMAN: At first glance it would appear that Jockey Creek
Drive would be the best way.
MR. LARK: I don't disagree with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: On a second glance though, where are you going to
stop your car? ProbablY along the side of the road. So it wOuld
be probably more reasonable to have an entrance from the Main?~0ad.
MR. LARK: A curb cut on the Main Road.
THE CHAIRMAN: Even though I don't think we all agree, even the
Town Attorney. BUt when you think about it, where are they going
to stop.
MR. LARK: If someone sees a sign and just tries to pull over, it
would be difficult if the person had already gone past Jockey Creek
Drive.
THE CHAIRMAN: Actually, I think there is a drive way there now.
MR. LARK: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the property should have two entrances to
the parking lot. What did you come up with for the amount of spaces
which w~uld~be provided~
MR. LARK: I think there is adequate space for 15 to 20 spaces the
way it is laid out there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to do this this way.
MR. LARK: Am I? No. That is what the purchaser proposes to do.
It Ks in his interest really to provide the parking.
THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to suggest as near as I can determine in
the rules under parking for a professional office the minimum is 5 for
visitors. That means 350 square feet for each parking place. Plus one
place presumable for the professional plus each employee. So if you had
3 employees, you are talking about 8 spaces.
MR. LARK: So you are suggesting 10 in round figures.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am saying for a real estate office, you probably
should not have any less.
MR. LARK: So if you want to put a restriction that a m~nlmum of 10
spaces that would be perfectly acceptable, because I know he plans on
putting in at least that many. It just makes sense.
THE CHAIRMAN: The topsoil will have to be stripped off.
MA. LARK: It will have to be black topped or a suitable surface.
~ S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- February 8, 1979
THE CHAIRMAN: Or 8 or 10 inches of bank run. Or black topped.
A minimum of 10 spaces with an entrance from both the Main Road and
Jockey Creek Drive. There is another restriction you can get away
from if you keep the parking lot at least 15 feet from any side yard.
Then you won't have to have screening.
MR2i~LARK: The way ~h~t property is laid out, that will not be a
problem. The cottage is really on the easterly portion of it as I
recall.
THE CHAIRMAN: It did look though to me that the area where the
proposed parking is~.low.=-I-t looks lower than the road and Jockey
Creek Drive. You will have be assured of suitable drainage. Does
the Board have any questions?
MR. DOUGLASS: Do you think the neighbors will want to look at
all those cars, or do you think they would want the screening?
MR. R. TERRY: I have listened to what Mr. Gillispie said, Bob,
and I quite agree with him that by the time a person comes down Willow
Hill and reads the commercial sign, applies his breaks, he will be
lucky if he makes the turn onto Jockey Creek Drive. I would think
that the curb cut on the Main Road and the egress on Jockey Creek
Drive and al.so the egress there will taka care of the problem. I
think the screening would be a traffic hazard°
MR. DOUGLASS: This is between the neighbors and the property.
MR. R. TERRY: Currently there is a screen by virtue of the Christian
Science having a hedge on its property,. This is on the easterly side.
This segregates the church from the residential area. Also the land
slopes down, so I don't think there would be an visual problem.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you need it anyway.
MR. LARK: You were talking about an aesthetic point of view.
MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, and not only that, but what do you like.
MR. TERRY: I would like to say that aside from there being many
Terry's here there are many real estate brokers. I would hate to be
the only one with nothing to say. I agree with ~he appraisal figures.
I also agree with the idea that even if that small house had $15,000
of improvement put into it~ due to its location and size, I do not
think it is really saleable. Even if it was in excellent shape.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are in agreement here. We have been
trying to establish a good record here. I have discussed this with
the planning commision people in Hauppauge, and they are in agreement
with us basically. One of the things they suggested which is commonly
done in the Town of Islip is to have these buffer areas, e~pecially
between a residential area and business area. This helps control what
goes~in there. There are many businesses that could go in there that
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- February 8, 1979
would be unpleasant for Jockey Creek Drive and the neighborhood.
Is there anyone else.
SHIRLEY BACHRACH: I am sort of puzzled why so many realtors are
in favor of another real estate office moving into the area.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is very interesting, but I do not have the
answer.
MR. LARK: I can answer that. I don't know if they are interested
in having another real estate office there, but Mr. Terry asked if
they could come and testify to the fact that they had listed the pro-
perty as a residence and have not been able to sell it. One of the
requirements for a use variance is to show that your property as it
is zoned presently, and this is zoned as residential property, dannot
yield an economic return. If it can yield any type of reasonable
economic return, then the Board should not be granting any use variance.
However, if it can't be utilized and have a reasonable economic return
then the Board is authorized to grant a use variance~to set the use.
That is what Mr. Gillispie was talking bout when ~e mentioned the
restricted use. The real estate brokers were primarily here to inform
the Board that Mr. Terry had actively tried to sell the property and
has been very unsuccessful.
MRS. BACHRACH: That doesn't really answer the question. I still
do not understand why they would be in favor of another real estate
office.
MR. TUTHILL: I don't think it is pertinent, but I will be glad to
answer your question. I think we have so many of them in the area now,
that one more will not make that much difference.
MRS. BACHRACH: I disagree with that philosophy. We have areas
where we have rows and rows of automobile agencies. The entrance to
Southold Town then becomes real estate row. Is that what we want for
our Town.
MR. TUTHILL: This could be an existing broker that just wants to
relocate.
MR. LARK: That is the case. This man just wants to change his
location. It is not a new broker.
THE CHAIRMAN: It ms not the function of the Board to determine the
competition. We used to have this come up mn connection with gas stations.
MRS. BACHRACH: When you have food markets that are closed, the Town
is left with empty buildings.
THE CHAIRMAN: We ha~e empty gas stations also. We will be having
even more of them.
MRS. BACHRACH: I just bring this up for the consideration of the
~SHUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- February 8, 1979
Board, because I feel they do have something to say about the character
of the neighborhood and what you want it to be.
THE CHAIRNLAN: Indirectly.
MR. T. TUTHILL: There may be some closed real estate offices, too.
_MR. ALBERTSON: I am not happy to see another real estate office
there, but I also know' that if that house is sold for what it is
worth, you can tell what kind of people are goang to move in there
with a bunch of old cars, mud and such things as that. That is my
reasoning for wanting to see a nice office.
THE CHAIRMAN: There would be no return at all from this property.
Who would buy it? Would you l~ke to live there, Mrs. Bachrach?
MRS. BACHRACH: ~at a bout a two-family situation?
MR. LARK: Too small. We do not have the area to get a variance
for that.
EAR. GRIGONIS: Another consideration is that the Planning Board
which has a lot to do with the Town planning, as an favor of it.
MRS. BACHRACH: We do have a lot of older citazens that cannot
afford a new house.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are right, and I have often though that
large, old houses should be converted into two-family residences. In
fact we started to do that here 20 odd years ago thinking we were
doing everyone a favor. The upper courts upheld us until we got to
Orient and then they told us-we were legislating, which we were.
MR. R. TERRY: This house is not even large enough for one family
which is part of tbs problem.
THE CHAIRM3%N: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this
application? [there was no response).
After investigation, inspection and public hearing, the Board has
determined that the applicants are the owners of a deteriorated four
room shingled cottage which was moved to the present location in 1937
at roadside on the original family farm on the southeasterly side of
Route 25, the main road, entering the Hamlet of Southold from the west
in an area which was largely agricultural and residential at the outset
of zoning in 1957, and was zoned A residential at that time. The
applicants~ lot now consists of approximately 28,000 square feet or
2/3 of an acre with 150 feet of frontage on Route 25 and 215 feet on
Jockey Creek Drive.
The lot adjoining to the north and east is owned by the Christian
Science Church while two streets form the other boundaries of the
applicants' property. Directly across Jockey Creek Drive is an area
bordering Route 25 which is zoned "C" industrial and is presently
SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- February 8, 1979
occupied by a hardware store and a marina where boats are offered
for sale and displayed at roadside. A few feet from the marina,
Route 25 is intersected by Bayview Road with an adjoining gas station.
In addition Route 25 is intersected across the street by Ackerly Pond
Lane. The existence of businesses in close proximity to the applicants
residentially zoned property as well as the increasing traffic condi-
tions and the fact that the property is surrounded on two sides by
church property have contributed to the extreme difficulty in attempting
to sell or rent for residential purposes. Applicants attempts to
sell or rent ~ia local brokers have been without success over a two
year period. William B. Smith appraises the property at $29,500.00
"as is" and $43,500.00 if zoned ~or business. To put the cottage in
a livable condition would require improvements estimated to cost about
$20,000.00 and require a monthly rental payment of $250.00 merely to
cover taxes,iinterest and carrying charges according to the Southold
Savings Bank, with no return on principal or interest. This compares
with a possible rental return of an estimated $175.00 to $200.00 per
month for a four room cottage. A fair return for the property seems
unattainable when used for residential purposes as zoned. Brokers
testified that they were unable to elicit any interest for residential
use. Under these circumstances the applicants sought a change of zone
recommendation from the Planning Board; however the Planning Board sug-
gests a limited business use, limited to general or professional office
use°
As a buffer between several different uses of nearby property, a
limited use variance emerges as a solution to the problem of relieving
a unique and unusual hardship~ where the owners ars unable to attain a
fair return, a situation which has developed over the years and is
certainly not due to any actions of the applicants. Such a use variance
meets with the approval of the Christian Science Church (to whom the
property was offered) as well as neighbors to the east on Jockey Creek
Drive, for whom a zone change is undesirable.
Our investigation confirms the fact that the applicants are unable
to obtain fair value for their property as zoned for residential use
either by sale or rental. The hardship is not self-imposed. The effect
is confiscatory and results in severe economic hardship to the applicants.
Accordingly, we believe .in view of these findings and withtthe dual
purpose of relieving the applicants situation and establishing a suitable
buffer use zone between varying uses of adjacent properties, a strictly
limited use should be permitted.
On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that Susa~ H. Terry c/o Eastern Suffolk Nursing Home,
Greenport, New York and Edith M. Terry, ~iJockey Creek Drive, Southold,
New York, be GRANTED permission to use premises for one general business
office or professional office.~L~eation of property: Main Road, Southold,
New York, bounded on the north by Christian Science Society; east by
Christian Science Society; south by Jockey Creek Drive; west by Main Road
(State Road 25), upon the following conditions:
~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- February 8, 1979
1. The above use is permitted in the B Light Business District;
Article VI, A permitted uses; (2). All other uses of the property
either more or less intensive are prohibited including all other light
or general business uses or residential uses. Any question arising
from this condition shall be decided by the Board of Appeals.
2. No portion of the pr~mises may be used or sublet for purposes
other than the intended use 6f the premises in this action.
3. A ten car parking lot of not less than 3500 square feet exclusive
of land devoted to entrances from Jockey Creek Drive and Route 25 shall
be constructed prior to occupancy. Entrances shall be at least 50 feet
from the intersection of Jockey Creek Drive and Route 25. Driveway and
parking lot Surfaces shall be dust free preferabl~, bituminous. No por-
tion of the parking lot shall be within the front yard set back from
Route 25 established by the present cottage, however a portion of the
fron~ yard established on Jockey Creek Drive may be'used if necessary in
determining the location of the parking lot. No portion of the parking
lot shall be closer than 15 feet to any lot line.
4. Ail surface run-off water and~drainage shall be contained on the
premises. Adequate drainage structures will be required,%if necessary.
5. Before use of the premises may begin, a Certificate of Occupancy
will be necessary from the Building Department in accordance with
Article XIV, Section 100-144.
6. Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill
and Douglass.
Claude Carlsson appeared before the Board for an informal discussion
relative to buying a 75 foot by 350 foot deep lot out of a parcel which
which is 500 feet in width to operate a fish market. They wish to run
a whole sale lobster business and a retail fish market. The Board ex-
plained that they cannot vary the front yard requirement due to the fact
that this lot is the first lot to be sold from the large tract of land.
If they were the last people to buy land from the tract, they might
have a definite hardship and relief could be granted to them.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was
RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold~Town Board of Appeals
will be held on Thursday, March 1, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. and set the foi-
towing times on that date as the time and place of hea~ing upon the
following applications:
7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- February 8, 1979
Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insuf-
ficient area and width and a variance in accordance with Town Law,
Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Right-
of-way off Spring Lane, Pe¢onic, New York, bounded on the north by
James, Mealy, Capobianco, Wood and Lucckoff; east by Richmond Creek;
south by Bedell; west by Indian Neck Lane.
7:49 P.M. (E.S.T,) 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 Ave-
nue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by New Suffolk Avenue;
east by Plimpton; south by Peconic Bay; west by Moore.
7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 the Town Law, Section
280A for approval of access. Location of property: easterly side of
Watervlew Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Bergen
and Boltman; east by Zebroski; south by Zebroski; west by Zebroski.
8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of B~ldwin L. Humm, 51 Dumbar-
ton Drive, Huntington, New York, for a variance in accordance with
Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property:
Wiggins Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Greene;
east by Armstrong; south by Gull Pond; west by Fordham Canal.
8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of John and Gertrude Hartungf
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 permiRsion to divide property into three lots with insuf-
ficient area and width. Location of property: New Suffolk Avenue,
New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by D~Martini; east by
Clarke; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Bunny Lane.
8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Amelia Narobe, Alpine Avenue,
~ishers Island, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article II~ Section 100-23C; Article III, Section t09-31
and Bulk Parking Schedule and Article XIV Section 100-144 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 Calanquln.
8:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 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 Development Co.
~tGreenwood Road; west by Tyler Lane.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill
and Douglass.
S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26' February 8, 1979
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Re~.~/ectfully submitted.
Secretary