Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/11/1979Southold Town Board of Appeals -~OUTHDLD, L. I., N.Y. 11~'71 TELEPHONE (516J 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISP E, JR., CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals January 1i, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals wa held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) Thursday, January 11, 1979, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chair- man; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Terry Tuthill an~ Robert J. Douglass. Also present were: Richard Curtis of the Suffolk Weekly Times and Jean Tiedke of the League of Women's Voters. Postponed Hearing on Appeal No. 2498 of Anthony Sponza, 1655 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient-By-The-Sea, Orient, New York. THE CHAIRMAN: This hearing was postponed from the last hearing due to the fact we did not know exactly where the garage was to be located. Is i~ to be on the north side, as it appears on the sketch? THE SECRETARY: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: This house is built on Ryder Farm Lane in Orient- By-The-Sea and the house is more or less centrally located on the lot. It has an adequate setback for that time, 36 feet from Ryder Farm Lane. There is a paper street called North Sea Drive on the north side and the applicant's house faces on Ryder Farm Lane. He wishes to put a garage 16 feet by 24 feet connected to the house. This man has two front yards. He proposes to put the garage on the paper street. On that side he has 50 feet and it appears to me that a 16 by 24 foot garage attached to the house is appropriate. He will still be 34 feet from North Sea Drive which doss not exist. I do not think he will com- promise the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold by doing this. Are there any questions concerning this application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct an attached garage on the north side of his house with insufficient front yard of North Sea Drive, a paper road. .~.~' ~''~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- January 11, 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass~ it was RESOLVED, that Anthony Sponza, Ryder Farm Lane, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to ~onstruct a garage with insufficient front yard setback as requested. Location of property: Lot No. 54, Map NO, 34~4, Map of Orient-By-The-Sea, Section Two, Orient, New York, subject to the following condition: (1) The garage will be located as shown on the Building Permit application. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillisple, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Appea%s approve Minutes for the December 21, 1978, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gitlisple, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2510 - Upon application of Gary Flanner Olsen, Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-61, Article XI, Section 100-112 and Bulk Parking 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 Presbyterian Church; east by Main Road (S. R. 25); south of Lawlor; west by Mattituck Presbyterian Church. 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: Margaret Lawlor and Mattituck Presbyterian Church. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The applicant's lot contains a brick, one-story building formerly used by the Telephone Company which has a three foot side yard on the westerly side and a 2.7 foot side yard on the easterly % · SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- January 11, 1979 side. It ranges from 44.4 feet to 49.2 feet from the street line for the front yard. The building itself is on a curve on the Main Road, Route 25, with some elevation above street level. What the applicant seeks here is not to have to provide any off-street parking on the premises. A similar application was before us in 1974. It was adjourned August 22, 1974, to September 12, 1974, and then adjourned again to October 17, 1974, and finally withdrawn on November 13, 1974. The last communication we have on this is a letter from the Chairman. (Mr. Gillispie read a letter dated November 20, 1974, addressed to Gary F. Olsen from Mr. Gillispie relative to issuing a pre-existing Certificate of Occupancy and parking). That summarizes the history I guess of this property. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GARY F. OLSEN: I am the applicant. As you have indicated I am the owner of the property, and when I purchased the property I was intending to use it as a law office for myself, and I did submit a sketch of Young and Young showing the property with a proposed parking area. I decided not to use the building for my own purposes, and I am in the process of selling to Mr. Albert Brisotti, who intends on using the building for an insurance office. Mr. Brisotti has been advised by his builder and has obtained estimates as to what it would cost to put in a parking lot, and t guess the net result is that after discussing it, it is the feeling that it would not be feasible to put a parking lot on this piece of property. First of all it would be very expensive to do. More importantly, it might create more problems than you are trying to solve. The property is basically on a hill. I have a survey of Young and Young showing the topography of the property and the elevations on Main Road are approximately 18.54 and up by the building is 24.3 feet. So we are talking of an elevation of about 5-1/2 to 6 feet. The property is only 40 feet wide. The average length of a car is about 18 feet, and we jus~ don't feel putting the parking lot in ~s very practical because cars may have difficulty getting out even if they are able to get in. They could possibly end up backing out onto the highway. There are real practical difficulties imposed bacause of the topography of the property. Also because of the size of the property. The area that we have to work with is only 40 feet wide by approximately 40 feet in depth. Also there is a problem since the existing-cesspool for the building, as far as I can tell from the building plans I obtained from the telephone company, is located in the front yard. We would have to drop the cesspool. There were underground cables running from Main Street into the building, which would be in the affected area. THE CHAIRMAN: Those telephone cable lines, are they still there? Nothing you~might do here would interfere with telephone service, would it? MR. OLSEN: No, because this was a substation building, the lines ran underground. The lines have been removed. There is a tunnel from a manhole on the front of the premises that runs underground into the building itself where the cables used to be. Mr. Brisotti has contacted the manager of the Mattituck Manor and has an affidavit from him which I will submit tonight in which he indicated he was the ~p~o.specti~e pur- chaser and asked whether there would be any objection on the par% of the Mattituck Manor for Mr. Brisotti and his employees to use the parking lot ~- '~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- January 11, 1979 and he was advised by Anthony Panicola there would be no objection. I understand that it is nothing more than an oral license, and they do not want to get involved in putting anything in writing, but Mr. Brisotti has talked to him on two or three occasions. From a practical point of view there would be no problem for him to use the lot across the street. There is no other room on the property other than the very, very defined area in the front. The building takes up most of the property as you can see from the survey that I submitted. It is a pre-existing building. The main building itself was built many, many years ago and then was extended sometime in the early 1950's with a back extension. On those grounds, it is basically an area variance we are going/f~t a use variance. It is zoned for business, and I do have a Certificate of Occupancy dated December 14, 1978, No. Z9344 indicating that the building substantially conforms to the re- quirements for a commercial building unit. It is zoned for business, and I think the usage that Mr. Brisotti intends on making of the pro- perty is ideal for the building. It is not the type of business that would attract a lot of vehicular traffic. It is basically Mr. Brisotti and his employees, and a customer occasionally. It is not a retail business that would create a lot of traffic. I just feel that to try to squeeze an insignificant amount of parking into a very tiny area where cars may not be able to turn around comfortably would be more of a handicap in the area rather than an asset. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess that is debatable. MR. OLSEN: I will submit the affidavit of Mr. Brisotti. He is here tonight too. know THE CHAIRMAN: You, as an attorney,/that affidavit has no legal bearing, don't you? MR. OLSEN: I understand, but I just wanted something. It is not a guarantee, it is just some indication that there is a license. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the Brisotti operation would be insurance. All types? General insurance? have ALBERT BRISOTT: It would be a general insurance office. I/run it for seven years. We handle basically all kinds of insurance. THE CHAIRMAN: This would be a branch of the one in Mattituck? MR. BRISOTTI: No, I would move up the street. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. MR. BRISOTTI: I~ am now on the other side of Route 25 nearer the center of Town. THE CHAIrmAN: You would move the insurance business? MR. BRISOTTI: I am not in the real estate business. THE CHAIRMAN: H~w many people come to see you in the course of a w~rking day? ~,~ ~?' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- January 11, 1979 MR. BRISOTTI: NeWer more than one at a time and maybe five a week. THE CHAIRMAN: I can never remember going to an insurance agent to pay an insurance premium. MR. BRISOTTI: They don't come in to pay a premium. They come in to get identification cards when they buy new cars. THE CHAIRMAN: You must have a couple of hundred of those a year? MR. BRISOTTI: No, we mail the cards out. It is only when someone loses it that they stop to get another one. THE CHAIRMAN: I am just trying to put something in the record here as to the amount of traffic you ~ill generate. MR. BRISOTTI: Definitely no more than 5 people or cars a week. THE CHAI~4AN: How many employees? MR. BRISOTTI: Myself and two others. THE CHAIRMAN: So you propose to park your cars across the street and walk across the street. So that any people who come to see you will have to stop on the curve? They won't necessarily know you con- trol part of the Mattituck Manor parking lot. MR. BRISOTTI: I would hardly describe that as a curve. I think the road is pretty much straightened out at that point. The curve is more at the church itself. By the time you get to the back of the church graveyard, the road has straightened out. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to make sure this is clear since it will have to go to both the County and State if we are going to require a curb cut and parking here. In the course of the conversation here it appears that you and your employees each have an automobile. What could be created there is space for three automobiles. You have about 1600 square feet. The parking requirement is 350 square feet for each parking space so you could get 3 spaces in there. ~If yo~ put four there, someone w~ould have to back out and start a chain of accidents there. We do not think it would be quite as expensive as your people have in- dicated, but there is some doubt in my mind, if this would be the safest thing or whether it should be done at all. MR. BRISOTTI: I had a builder give me an estimate for the parking lot and he estimated that it would cost between $4 a~d~$5~000 to put the parking lot in according to the Young and Young plan. I must point out that although the survey says %he property is 40 feet wide, they say we can only use 35 feet. You can't build right to the line. THE CHAIRMAN: We were thinking that maybe you would not have to excavate it. You could have parking on a slant. i~'~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- January 11, 1979 MR. BRISOTTI: I think you would have a much prettier building if you let me put bushes there. THE CHAIRMAN: We are just trying to explore all the possibilities. Part of this has to do with safety. Does anyone else have any suggestions? RICHARD LARK, ESQ: I represent Mr. Brisotti. When we first got involved with this I was furnished with the letters from Mr. Terry and~y0u~§~f in 1974 wherein you stated a variance was not required since it was a pre-existing building. THE CHAIRMAN: I think what we had been discussing, Dick was Gary was going to put 2 or 3 other people in there in addition to himself. MR. OLSEN: If I may correct something? I was representing a client who wanted to buy and wanted to use it for two or three offices. Not for myself. I owned it. I never wanted it for any- thing more than one office. THE CHAIRMAN: You bought it though didn't you? MR. ~POLSEN: I bought it after that was terminated. THE CHAIRMAN: After that? MR. OLSEN: Right. MR. LARK: I talked with ~e Town Attorney and it is quite evident this is not a non-conforming use. This is zoned properly for the area. I take issue with the Building Inspector's denial of a permit for alteration because I can find nowhere in Article VI of our Zoning Code that requires any on-premises parking. Now you are going to refer me to 100-61, which is going to refer me to the Bulk Parking Schedule which refers me right back to Article VI and nowhere in this Zoning Ordinance is off-street premises parking required in a B-light or a B-general district. It is in a B-light where you have a retail shopping center. This is no~ a retail shopping center. So, I take issue with the Building Inspector's denial of the permit for alterations in that there is no requirement for off- street parking for this particular land under our Zoning Ordinance. However, if someone could point it out, I would stand corrected. I think as Mr. Olsen has aptly pointed out if the Board does require it, then it does fall under the classifications of an area variance, and I think there have been enough practical difficulties substantiated that would warrant it. As Mr. Olsen said, you would create more pro- blems then you would solve by putting on-premises parking due to the peculiar situation of the building be so close to the road on a hill. THE CHAIRMAN: Part of your briefing is based on Article XI and that states: "Accessory off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, shall be provided in all use districts for any use specified below." And you look below and you find that these may be in any district in i~~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- January 11, 1979 the Town. MR. LARK~:~ For which this use is not listed. THE CHAIRMAN: In fact, B-Light doesn't require any side yards. This fits this. What I think we will be acting on here is the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Southold, and I do not think we would be hel~i~Hthe Town by having a business at this location. MR. LARK: I would agree with you if this were vacant property. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to explore this further and also with the County Planning Commission. MR. LARK: For the record, Mr. Olsen did receive a curb cut from the State in the event he was going to do the parking lot. THE CHAIRMAN: How long are they good for, do you know? MR. LARK: I thought theywere good f~rever. MR. OLSEN: There is no limitation on this. THE CHAIRMAN: Did you file a bond on it? MR. OLSEN: They require a bond when the work is actually done. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me go into it with the County. They are certainly going to object to this. MR. LARK: On what grounds? THE CHAIRMAN: No parking. MR. LARK: But the ordinance does not require'parking. THE CHAIRMAN: That does not make any difference to them. They are like a lot of planners, and that is why you have a Board of Appeals. They plan things. MR. LARK: If it is going to cost between $4,000.00 and $5,000.00 to put in a couple of spaces for a building that cannot be practically used, it does not make sense. ~HE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Douglass has something to point out. Section 100-62i!really says you cannot incorporate anything into this ..... MR. LARK: Section 100-62 refers only to a retail shopping center. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that so? Mk. DOUGLASS: It doesn't say that. Section 100-61 Bulk parking schedule states for the B Light Business District. '~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- January 11, 1979 MR. LARK: Now if you read that whole section, you will find that section refers you to the Bulk Parking Schedule and when you go to that at the back of your Zoning Ordinance, and refer to a B-Light Business District and it refers to off street parking. The Schedule says see Article VI. Right where you came from. It has no provisions for this. I think it was an oversight and should be put in there. Don't misunderstand me. Right now, though, it is not there. I submit that on this property you do not have to have on- premises ~arking~ THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are correct about that and I am not sure as to why we got into the problem of off-street parking in the first place. That was a different zoning ordinance. MR. LARK: As to that section, no. The prior Building Inspector ruled that you~could use that building for a one business use. Not a multiple business use. Then he just added on~ I like your. parking plan. That was the content of his letter. Then from talking to Mr. Olsen, I understand he just decided not to go through with it. He decided not to have his office there. The property has just stayed dormant until now. Even if the Board does decide that a variance ms necessary on this particular property, I think the practical diffi- culties have been substantiated the requirements the Courts say are needed for an area variance. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know if I could agree with you that the cost of this parking lot is exorbitant. Nor should that be a reason for this Board not requiring it. MR. LARK: As I said at the outset, I do not think the variance is required. I really feel this is an appeal from the Building Inspector's denial. I feel that this Board does have the power to override under the Zoning Ordinance. THE CHAIRMAN: I think I agree with you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM: I represent Mrs. Lawlor. Mrs. Lawlor's main concern is that if the variance were granted that it would ad- versely affect her property. If you do not require parking on the premises, I think the tendency would be for an overflow of cars parking in front of the premises and they would park along the street. THE CHAIRMAN: Do cars normally park in front of Mrs. Lawlor's? MS. WICKHAM: Not at this point. But H~e~P~operty ms not being used. THE CHAIRMAN: Does she have a driveway? MS. WICKHAM: She has a driveway and there ms room in the back of her property for parking. "~ ' !'~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- January 11, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: Her property is used purely for residential purposes. MS. WICKHAM: At the momemt, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Although it is zoned B-Light. MS. WICKHAM: The other problem is one of safety. First of all the license is just a temporary thina. It could be cancelled at any time. New Suffolk Avenue also generates a tremendous amount of traffic there. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we all agree the verbal agreement is not satisfactory. I think we have to explore this further. MS. WICKHAM: The other thing I would like to add is that on the question~of one business as opposed to two. You have one business with 8 people in there, you could generate as much traffic as two businesses with 4 people. There is nothing to limit, even if you have an insurance business, to limit the transfer to some other type of business in the future. I do think they generate a tremendous amount of parking. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know if Mr~ Brisot%irgnl~expec~s 4 or 5 a week why he should bother with the expense. MR. LARK: The point being any one of the uses permitted in a B Light Business district can go in there. If the Bank wanted to put a satellite office there with a drive-up window and not change any of the exterior of the building, I submit that they can. You can put a restaurant in there and provide no off-street parking, because there is no provision in the regulations° This man wants to put an insurance agency~ I think it is well and good to understand how much traffic is going to be generated, but on the other hand, I firmly believe it is not required° THE CHAIRMAN: Actually, I think this application does give us an opportunity to put some restrictions on the use of the building. Where we couldn't with a hamburger stand. Is there anyone else who would like to contribute? MR. TUTHILL: There used to be a barber shop I think two doors away. It wasn't unusual to find eight to a dozen cars parked along the shoulder of the road. He had no parking space and that is not to say THE CHAIRMAN: There is no shoulder here. It is a curve. MR. TUTHILL: Well, this is actually a strai~h~i?secti~n~be%ween two bad curves. The problem with New Suffolk A~e~ue is a t0Ugh situation~ The barber shop generated quite a bit of business and all the parking was done right along the road. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? '"' '~' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- January 11, 1979 MR. GRIGONIS: You don't have that much parking where you are now, do you Mr. Brisotti? MR. BRISOTTI: There is 3ust enough parking for our employees. THE CHAIRMAN: You are also on a curve there. You want to go from one curve to another. MR. BRISOTTI: With all respect to Ms. Wickham I can assure you my business is one ~ 50 to 60 percent outside of this area. It would not generate any more traffic than I indicated. MS. WICKHAM: What I meant there was that the business had po- tential for traffic. MR. BRISOTTI: There is potential in every office for generating traffic. MR. TUTHILL: Aside from ~the employees marching across the street from the Mattituck Manor parking lot, basically whether it is one car or more they are going to park on that shoulder. There is no doubt about that in my mind. THE CHAIRMAN: I suppose Dick that you came across the sentence ~at~Bo~ ju~t~pointed, ou~ to me. (Chairman ~ead Section 110-112 A of ne ~on~ng or~nance.~ On motion by Mr. Gillispie seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Appeal No. 2510 be POSTPONED until 7:30 P.M. on February 8, 1979. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Griqonis, Tuthill, and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2508 - Upon application of Southold Savings Bank, Main Road, Southold, New York (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Sec- tion 100-23E; Section 100-35 A; Article VII, Section 100-70; Article XII, Sectional00-121 A & B for permission to construct a fence six feet high in the ~ront yard area. Location of property: Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by P. B. M. Associates; east by Rich; south bY Eiseman and Rich; west by Youngs Avenue. 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 ~nspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Rich, Eiseman and P.B.M. Associates, Inc. Fee paid $15.00. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- January 11, 1979 RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ: I would just like to explain what hap- pened here. The reason the extra number was added on is that originally the Building Inspector issued the Disapproval for a fence in a residiental area and this is a business zoned area. He then changed his position the fence is not only too high, you can't have a fence in a business district. That is why the extra number was added. THE CHAIRMAN: Somewhere along the line someone3asked me if you could put the fence up before the frost, and I said sure. That didn't help it any, did it? MR. LARK: No. THE CHAIRMAN: I guess I have read everything pertinent to the application. The application includes a sketch showing the parking lot which is 489 feet long and 94.96 feet wide on the easterly end of the parking lot and approximately the same width on the westerly end. It is located in a B-1 area surrounded by B-1 property. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. LARK: Also I wish to enter into the record a copy of a letter dated December 20, 1978, to the Building Inspector rendering a legal opinion from the Town Attorney. The letter states that the Building Inspector's position of December 20, 1978, is kind of absurd in that no fences are allowed in a business district. The Building Inspector still persists in his opinion, so this is why this appeal was not withdrawn in order to get a ruling from the Board that under the current zoning ordinance there is absolutely no fencing restrictions in a B-1 General Business District. What the Bank proposes here is one of necessity to protect their property. It is a six foot high fence. I can see objections if they wanted to erect a 15 or 20 foot high fence. Under the current zoning ordinance there are no restric- tions and prohibitions for this. THE CHAIR~_AN: I think you are right. We have a copy of that letter. MR. LARK: I did not realize you had a copy. THE CHAI~4AN: (Mr. Gillispie read a letter from the Town Attorney addressed to Mr. Hindermann, Building Inspector.) Now we are unable to discover through all legal ramifications, referrals and cross re- ferrals that there is any fence requirement. I also admit that we made an error. We required another fellow putting up a fence around a commercial piece of property to get a variance. This was also un- necessary. Your application is unnecessary. It is just that you disagree with the Building Inspector. MR. LARK: He will not issue a Building Permit. THE CHAIrmAN: In the other case no one noticed you didn't need a variance. Even though all the battery of experts we have around here, we didn't notice it. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- January 11, 1979 MR. LARK: On the other hand the Zoning Ordinance requires a building permit for a fence to be built. THE CHAIRMAN: I think one of Ed Hindermann's arguments was that if you cannot find in the Zoning Ordinance where something is permitted, you cannot do it at all. Our attorney had an answer for that approach also. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this application? JOHN H. ROSE: I'm President of Southold Savings Bank.We had hoped initially after our original investment and improvement to the property up that that the curbing we had put along the north line with the interim 10 or 12 foot buffer zone of gravel would deter anyone from getting in there. It has not. We have found, as Mr. Lark has mentioned, that cars have been in there using it as a race track. They get in by jumping the curb and going across the gravel. That is one of the reasons we did not put bushes in there. We thought the bushes would just be overrun. So it has become a necessity for us. We need this for the protection of the investment that we have up there. THE CHAIRMAN: There will be a lot of cars in there. MR. ROSE: We have approximately 60 people in our main office and they all park over in that area. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to have a watchman or anything like that? MR. ROSE: During the day? THE CHAIRMAN: I was just wondering? MR. ROSE: We have 2 or 3 custodians at the present time. One of whom, occasionally takes a walk over there to see that everything is okay. We have no one stationed over there from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. We do have lights in there, as you know. We put those in for our own protection. The place is well lit up at night. There is no way except for putting up a fence there that we can keep the people from going in there and vandalisin9 the property. THE CHAIRMAN: How much protection do you suppose are lights? MR. ROSE: The lights that we have in there light up basically the front 75 to 80 percent of the property. It is visible from the street. Anyone going by on the street can see to the back. THE CHAIRMAN: What we are talking about is not just vandalism by children but by automobiles. I noticed the other day that someone had pulled out some of your posts before the fence was built. MR. ROSE: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: You could not do that without a jeep or pick up · SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- January 11, 1979 or some vehicle of that nature. MR. ROSE: There were 7 or 8 poles that were bent right over in two. THE CHAIRMAN: They had to be replaced? MR. ROSE: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak on the application? (there was no response)~ After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high fence in the front yard area of their parking lot located on the easterly side of Young's Avenue, Southold. The findings of the Board are that the Building Inspector's interpretation of the zoning ordinance should be overturned. The interpretation of the ordinance presented-to the Board by Mr. Lark on behalf of Southold Savings Bank and the opinion of the Town Attorney should be supported. 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. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that Southold Savings Bank, Main Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct a fence six ~ethigh in the front yard area as requested. Location of property: Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by P. B. M. Associ- ates; east by Rich; south by Eiseman and Rich; west by Youngs Avenue. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2507 - Upon application of Rita Cooke Woglom, Main Road, East Marion, New York (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient road frontage. Location of property: Main Road, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Hicks; east by Rand; south by Main Road (S. R. 25); west by Jayne and Sloan. The Chairman, Mr. Robert W. Gillispi~ had to disqualify himself from this hearing due to the fact that his ~n~le~-~ ~ created this lot and his son is the real estate broker involved in the sale of the lot. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- January 11~ 1979 Mr. Douglass 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: Hicks, Rand, Sloan and Jayne. Fee paid $15.00. MRo DOUGLASS: We find a survey sketch attached showing us the exact parcel of land and the way it is to be subdivided with approxi- mately 132.13 feet of road frontage on each piece and 54,887 square feet in one parcel and 53,259 square feet in the other. Is there anyone here wishing to add anything further to this or speak for this application? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Just basically I would like to repeat the reasoning of the applicant. The survey fairly well shows the property and shows it can adequately handle two residences here. We are shy a little bit on the road frontage for the division of the property. We respectfully request that the Board grant the application. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? JEAN TIEDKE: I am not for or against it, bur I would like to ask a question. Has part of that land been filled by normal flooding or normal building up of the waterway followed by man made fill? MR. DOUGLASS: No. MRS. TIEDKE: It has always been like that? MR. DOUGLASS: Ail the way along there. There was farm land not too many years ago and it was cropped by one of our Orient farmers and after that it was a ball park for the Twilight League. It has not been changed by man. MRS. TIEDKE: What are the elevations from the road? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I might be able to give that to you right here if it is on the survey. They do not have it here. From the inspection of the land and knowing the land, I would say the elevation from the street to the back of the property increases about 5 feet. MRS. TIEDKE: From the road? MR. DOUGLASS: From Route 25 to the back of the property at the Hicks' line. MRS. TIEDKE: Is there any problem with fresh water? Or with a well or cesspool drainage? MR. DOUGLASS: No. MRS. TIEDKE: It is not very highJ .'~. ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- January 11, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: It is higher than a lot. MRS. TIEDKE: I was just wondering what protects a purchaser if the water or cesspool drainage is not good. MR. DOUGLASS: This is something that a purchaser should take under,advisement before he buys a piece of property. There is nothing we can do on that. That comes under your Board of Health. Is there anyone else who has any questions? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who would like to speak against this appli- cation? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to divide a 2.482 acre parcel into two parcels. The Board feels that the applicant has met all the land area require- ments except the frontage requirement. The slight reduction of road frontage from 150 feet to 132.13 feet will have no effect on the character of the area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. 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. DOuglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that Rita Cooke Woglom, Main Road, East Marion, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient road frontage as requested. Location of property: Main Road, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Hicks; east by Rand; south by Main Road (S. R. 25); west by Jayne and Sloan. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Tuthill and DOuglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2505 - Upon application of John E. and Gail M. Lademann, Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York, (Abigail A. Wickham, as Attorney), for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area and frontage. Location of property: Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Remski; east by Long Island Vineyards, Inc.; west by Alvah's Lane; south by Blachly. 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: Remski~ Long Island Vineyards, Inc.; Blachly. Fee paid $15.00 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- January 11, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: The property is on Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, New York, and the two lots to the north refer~d-to~on~%he north one of which 100 feet by 160 feet and the other one is 91 feet by 160. These two border this property on the north. To the south is a narrow right-of-way into Blachly lan~ Just to the south of that is another lot which is 150 by 135 feet. The proposal by the applicant concerns a piece of property 252.73 feet on Alvah's Lane with a depth of approximately 200 feet and approximately the same width on the rear. Oh the h6rtherly portion of this property which will contain 24,888 square feet there exists a house and a frame garage to the rear. On the other lot to be created are two building just to the south of the proposed division line, which will be re- moved or relocated. The division of the property places 24,8887 square feet in the southerly lot. Both of these lots will have 126 feet on Alvah's Lane. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for the application? ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: We have a relatively large lot here squeezed between smaller lots. If you refer to the tax map lot No. 1 is two lots to the north of this property with 100 foot frontage. Lot 3.2 has 14,560 square feet and 91 feet of frontage and to the south of this property, Lot 4, is 20,250 square feet with 150 feet of frontage. Both of these proposed lots would be larger than any of the other lots, and the frontage would be greater than two of them. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no way to enlarge this property due to the fact the property directly behind is owned by Long Island Vine- Yards, Inc. MS. WICKHAM: None of the property owners in the surrounding area w~id be interested in selling any property. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who ~ould be interested in speaking for the application? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against the application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant has a parcel of land consisting of 1.2 acres of land. They wish to divide the parcel into two parcels one of which will contain 24,888 square feet and the second one will contain 24,887 square feet. Both parcels will have approximately 126 feet of road frontage. The findings of the Board are that this will not effect the area because of the size of the existing lots in the area. It is only fair to permit these two lots to be created since each of them will be 20 to 25 percent larger than the lots to the north and south of the applicant. 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. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was 31 ~' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- January 11, 1979 RESOLVED that John E. and Gail M. Lademann, Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and frontage° Location of property: A1vah's Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Remski; east by Long Island Vineyards, Inc.; west by Alvah's Lane; south by Blachly. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2511 - Upon application of William G. Wysocki, Orchard Street, Orient, New York, (Samuel J~ Glickman, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition of access. Location of property: Private Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Wilsberg; east by Latham; south by Latham; west by Long Island Lighting Company. 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 nespapers, 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: LILCO: Wilsberg; Latham and Latham. Fee paid: $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a Van Tuyl map dated September 27, 1978, indicating the fact that this is literally the end of Long Island and the end of Route 25, because Route 25 dead ends into this Right-of-way that we are talking about here. The right-of-way has a width of only 16 feet for a short distance. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? SAMUEL J. GAICKMAN, ESQ: I believe the Chairman of the Board has stated our case. All I wish to say is that on a prior variance application the petitioner, Mrs~ Betsy Latha~ in dividing her land failed to ask for access at that time. The road ends approximately 25 feet or more from the property in question, the Main Road. There are no other roads there except the 16-1/2 foot private right-of-way. The house intended to be built will be facing on the right-of-way. We respectfully request that the variance be granted. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that a previous variance was granted creating a 40,000 square foot lot on behalf of the applicant. At that time an acess variance was not granted. The findings of the Board are that they are in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. There are no other roads to this property. Route 25 (Main Road), ends 25 feet to the west of this property. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- January 11, 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. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that William G. Wysocki, Orchard Street, Orient, New York, be GRANTED recognition of access as requested. Location of property: Private Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Wilsberg; east by Latham; south by Latham; west by Long Island Lighting Company. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No~ 2503 - Upon application of Peter V. McPartland, 45 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a house with insufficient front yard setback. Location of property: Waterview Drive and Cedar Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Johnson; east by Cedar Lane; south by Waterview Drive; west by Wilkinson. 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: Getoff; Wilkinson and Johnson. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Basically this application is occasioned by an oddly shaped lot with a longer length on Waterview Lane. The northerly side of %he lot has about the same length. There is 99.20 feet on Cedar Lane and 61.20 feet on the westerly boundary line. The Waterview Lane side of the property has approximately 200 feet along that street. The northerly boundary line slopes, it is not parallel to the Waterview Lane line. This is really an irregularly shaped trapezoid. In order to place a house here of normal dimensions, they need a reduction for both front yards. The total area of the property is $15,324 square feet. The lot is similar to the other ones in the area, except this is the one that they took out all the surveyor's mistakes out on apparently. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response.) The applicant certainly needs relief to construct a house here at all. The adjoining ne!ghbor to the north has a 45 foot setback. The one on the other sids of that SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19- January 11, 1979 has a 40 foot setback. Mr. McPartland is asking for a 30 foot set- back from Cedar Lane. He also raquests a 30 foot setback from Waterview Drive. He states a number of houses have been constructed in this area with 30 foot setbacks, which I believe is right. The present location for this houseiite~ves about 8 feet from the rear line. If he goes back much further he gets nearer~the line. (a discussion was held about the location of the house) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applica~t3~ wishes to construct a house with insufficient front yard setbacks on the corner of Cedar Lane and Waterview Drive, Southold, New York. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant that due to the irregular triangulation of the lot it would be close to impossible to build a conventional style home. 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 ~he neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that Peter V. McPartland, 45 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct a house with a 30 foot setback from Cedar Lane and a 30 foot setback from Water- view Drive, Southold, New York. Location of property: Waterview Drive and Cedar Lane, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Johnson; east by Cedar Lane; south by Waterview Drive; west by Wilkinson. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonls, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2504 - Upon application of the Estate of Jean F. Brown, Village Lane, Orient, New York (Christopher S. Byczek, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordin- ance, A~ticle III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for per- mission to divide property: Location of property: Village Lane, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Hoffman and Godfrey; east by Village Lane; south by Home and Norklun; west by Oysterponds 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: Godfrey, Norklun, Hofman, and Horne. Fee paid $15.00. ~ '' '" SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- January 11, 1979 THE CHAIRMAN: This application is accompanied by two sketches. One of which shows the improved lot on Village Lane in Orient and the vacant land to the rear on Oysterponds Lane. The second map simply shows the improved lot. The improved lot is in an area of similarly sized lots on Village Lane. The vacant lot which was merged at a later date conforms to the size of lots on Oysterponds Lane. In fact this lot is a little larger than the adjoining lots. We have several communications with respect to this application. (The Chairman read letters from Dwight Home, Kenneth Godfrey, and Antone Norklun in s~pport of the application. He then read a letter from Darius L. Thieme in opposition to the application.) Is there anyone present who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? LAURIE DOWD: I am with the firm of George Stankevich, and I am here at the request of Bennett, Kaye & Scholly. When each of the parcels was purchased each was zoned for a single-family dwelling. When the same person came to own both¥ they were~merged~y_law into a single plot. As you notice on the~m~p~they are not exactly con- tiguous. What we are asking for tonight is for the Board to restore them to their original state of two separate lots. To deny the variance would be creating a substantial hardship on the part of the applicant. This is part of an estate and the land has to be sold to pay the inheritance taxes and other expenses. This land would be unusable, because there are not very many people who would be interested in buying both lots knowing they can never use one of them. On the other hand, to grant the variance would not ~ffect the neighborhood since both of the lots conform to their neighbors. Beca~se~of this ! respectfully request that the Board grant this variance restoring the property to its original status of two separate and single lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who would like to speak against this application? (there was no response). I noticed a remark in Mr. Thieme's letter that I read before was that he felt that Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Finlayson did not want the adjacent lot divorced from the original lot. That may have been the intent originally, but one of the reasons people come to this Board is a change in the circumstances. Particularly if someone dies -~ A discussion was held with Mrs. Jean Tiedke concerning the historic designation of the Village of Orient which has no effect on this decision. After investigation and inspection the Board finds %hat the applicant wishes to divide a parcel of land fronting on Village Lane and Oysterponds Lane, Orient, New York into two lots. Whan purchased these parcels where zoned as single and separate lots, but were merged by law, and the applicant wishes to return them to their original state. It would cause a very unusual harship to require the westerly lot of the applicant's property to remain vacant when all of the lots on Oysterponds Lane have been developed or are going to be developed. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. ~.. '~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- January 11, 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, the Estate of Jean F. Brown, Village Lane, Orient, New York, be GRANTED persmission to divide property, as requested. Location of property:Village~ Lane, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by Hoffman and Godfrey; east by Village Lane; south by Horne and Norklun; west by Oysterponds Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonls, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 25~6 - Upon application of Colony Cabinets, Inc., (Robert Annison, as Agent), North Road, Southold, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60B for permission to operate a kitchen cabinet show- room and workshop. 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. THE CHAIRMAN: Is Mr. Annison here? ROBERT ANNISON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The Town Attorney advises us that you were given the wrong forms for your application. You should have been given variance forms not special exception forms. I think the Board looks favorably on the application,but you will have to fill out another form. The Town should absorb the $ 15.00 since it was our mistake. You are not going to enlarge this shop, are you? This is one of the conditions we would want to put on a variance. What you propose to do there was done there many years ago by Bill Smith, perhaps more elaborately. The Ordinance was then changed. Whenever they change an ordinance, it leaves a lot of debris and the old districts become more restricted, which is what happened in this district. Now it has become more sophisticated and is a light business district and your use can only be permitted by a variance. I think if you see Mrs. Conroy soon, to get the papers. THE SECRETARY: Could Mr. Annision get the papers tomorrow and we can schedule it for the February 8, 1979, agenda. THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. We will pUtT~it ~n~the agenda at 7:40 P.M. on February 8, 1979. · ~"~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- January 11, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2509 - Upon application of William Engel, Beachwood ~oad, Cutchogue, New York (Mattituck House Movers, as Agent) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to relocate a garage in the front yard area. Location of property: Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, Lot No. 2, Map of Beachwood Colony, Cutchogue, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and dis- approval of the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clark that notification by certified mail had been made to: Perrine and Grefe. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: This is a long narrow lot on a series of private roads. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this applica- tion? MR. PRANK ZALESKI: The private road has garages along it. I moved several of them there myself. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think they will be better off with a garage there? ~R. ZALESKI: We are moving Paul Suter's garage over to the new foundation. THE C~2I'~N: We saw it there. Do you have vandalism there? MR. ZALESKI: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). This is an arsa with front garages in the front yard. MR. DOUGLASS: Are you going to put it where you cleared the trees? Where your machine cleared between the other two garages? How do you get by with a car after you put the garage there? MR. ZALESKI: You go through the Grefe driveway. They all come in that way. MR. DOUGLASS: Do they have rights of ways over each other's land in there? MR. ZALESKI: Just good neighbors. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to move his garage from ~his legal back yard to his legal front yard. The property fronts on the water. This is an area where many of the houses have their garages in their legal front yards already. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. ' - SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- January 11, 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that William Engel, Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York be GRANTED permission to relocate a garage in the front yard area as requested. Location of property: Beachwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, Lot No. 2, Map of Beachwood Colony, Cutchogue, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2512 - Upon application of William T. Ferris and Joan B. Ferris, 1035 Theresa Drive, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a greenhouse in the side yard area. Location of property: Theresa Drive, Mattituck, New York, known as Lot No. 37, Deep Hole Creek Estate, Mattituck, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Foster, Fiorentino and Renda. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a Young and Youno survey dated October 20, 1977, as revised, indicating that the appli- cant proposes to build a greenhouse 6'8~' by 8' 8" against the southerly wall of his house although it~will 3nOtctouch the house. Mr. Ferris has a 20 foot side yard on the southerly side of his house. Adjoining him to the south is another residence, and they have a two-car garage which is only 3 or 4 feet from the applicant's side yard. We were there in the morning and it looked to me that the garage would block the sun from the south. If the greenhouse were located in the rear yard where it is permitted, it would be subject to northerly winds. I presume that the applicants have thought of all this. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? WILLIAM T. FERRIS: I would just like to ~laborate a bit on what you said. First of all the greenhouse is relative small. It is only 6' 8' by 8' 8" or 48 square feet. THE CHAIRMA/~: Non-commercial? MR. FERRIS: This is for personal use. As you said earlier, there SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- January 11, 1979 there is no provision prohiting the use of greenhonses in the residential area. The application is only for the location. If you live in the area you are aware of the northerly wind situation especially in some of these tracts that have almost no protection from any natural growth, just the houses themselves. The north wind being the coldest and most severe in the winter time, the house on the northern side of the greenhouse would protect it. It would be very costly to construct any structure to protect the greenhouse from the wind. If we were to put it in the back, it might necessitate putting up additional snow fence, which we felt would be rather unsi~htlv, and - it would draw more attention from others~than, it does now. The only people who are directly affected right now are the Renda's on the south. The nemghbors to the east might see it. By putting it in the rear, it would be exposed to everyone else. You mentioned before that placing it where we wish to, the greenhouse might be obstructed by the nemgh- bor's garage, one weekend I tried to note the sun and I felt that the position there would get full sunlight throughout the entire day. The southern exposure is rather necessary in a greenhouse. THE CHAIRMAN: If you had the greenhouse in the rear yard, it would affect the heat factor. MR. FERRIS: I might also add that having this close to the house there will be an additional cost saving due to the fact that there will be electrical and plumbing lines that have to be installed. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you heat this electrically? MR. FERRIS: it hasn't been decided if it will be electric or oil, hot water heat. THE CHAIRMAN: It will be thermostatically controlled? What ms this made of? - ~ MR. FERRIS: It is a glass structure with an aluminium frame. SinGle glass, but extra thick. MR. TUTHILL: What are the dimensions again? MR. FERRIS: 6' 8" by 8'8". From the base to the top is 7' 3/4? tall. MR. TUTHILL: It really is pretty small. You have already apparently marked it out with stone. MR. FERRIS: It is 3 feet from the easterly side of the house. It is somewhat protected by the wind at that point. It is set~.b3ack approximately 14 feet from the front of the house. People going by the house will not see the greenhouse until they pass the house. THE CHAIRMAN: The neighbors built their driveway quite close to the line. It doesn't seem that this is any more of a nuisance than -.~ ~ ' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- January 11~ 1979 having your neighbor's driveway right next to your house. I was going to ask you why three feet away from the house? Wouldn't you save something by having a lean-to? MR. FERRIS: I did not want to attach the greenhouse to the side of the house because you have shingle problems, drainage, I did not know how it would effect the wood, and at that point, you really make it a permanent structure if you attach it. I wasn't quite sure I wanted to do that. The foundation will be secured so it doesn't fly off and go into a neighbor's yard. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. FERRIS: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. FERRIS: You are not sure of this project, are you? I see your point. But I am. How do your neighbors feel about it? You mean the Renda's? I don't actually know. I did ask their son to see if he wan%ed to help me put it upt but he said it was too cold. FRANK ZALESKI: Mr. Chairman, I live to the west of Mr. Ferris, and I can see where it is going to be located. MRS. ZALESKI: Will you be landscaping this area? Will.you be cutting off all the sun going into the greenhouse? MR. FERRIS: What we hope to do is place small shrubs along a walk that goes around the front of this. The ground will be leveled off, and it will not be a muddy area. The bushes will not be large. MRS. ZALESKI: That would defeat your purpose. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes to speak against %his application? JOHN HOFFER: Could we ask what the greenhouse is going to be con- structed of? THE CHAIRMAN: Aluminium and glass. MR. HOFFER: Because if it is not well made, I think he is going to have a big problem with it floating around the yard. The winds up there are treacherous. I have seen a few buildings blown down already. THE C~AtRMAN: Where do you live in relation to the Ferris' MR. HOFFER: Three houses down. MR. ZALESKI: I had a building in my back yard, a metal one 8' feet by 8 feet, and the wind blew it down. I had it nailed down, too° ,. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- January 11, 1979 MRS. ZALESKI: But Mr. Ferris will have the house protecting him. THE CHAIRMAN: He will have northeast protection. Some of the worst winds do come from the east. Who manufactures this? MR. FERRIS: J. A. Nearing Co., Inc. of Mar.~land. Do they give you any specifics on tying it to THE CHAIRMAN: the ground? MR. FERRIS: Yes, they do. THE CHAIRMAN: Do they know you are in one of the windiest areas of the United States? MR. FERRIS: They do. They sell greenhouses throughout the country. They are one of the older greeenhouse manufacturers.~ Long Island is not the only place that has windy winters. THE CHAIRMAN: I have spent win%ers in the midwest and it is paradise compared to the winters here in the east. I think you can anchor this building, but I think these gentlemen have a very good point. MR. DOUGLASS: Isn't there a requirement where he will have to go down three feet? THE CHAIRMAN: There is no requirement is there how far down into the soil you must go, is there? MK. FERRIS: Yes, I did talk to the Building Inspector. I have to go down 3 feet down into virgin soil. MRS. LEE: I live across the street from the Ferris' Some of us are concerned about any commercialism. Is there the possibility of their selling their flowers. That would encourage others to build these greenhouses. It would down zone the area. THE CHAIRMAN: You have to understand that a greenhouse is a permitted use in a "A" residential area. MR. FERRIS: I do not have the time to sell anything from the greenhouse. This is just for our personal use. MR. HOFFER: If this greenhouse were larger, would you object to it? THE CHAIRMAN: Somewhere along the line, I guess you would naturally. MR. HOFFER: Sometime along the line everyone along the block would be putting up these greenhouses. I don't think it would look too good. This is a very open area. I think a~lot of greenhouses in this area wonld down zone it. _w SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- January 11, 1979 MRS. TIEDKE: I would rather look at greenhouses then a lot of mud and blowing dirt. MR. HOFFER: If this greenhouse is not constructed properly it could be an eyesore. MRS. TIEDKE: Houses and garages can be eyesores also. After investigation and inspection the.Board finds that the applicant wishes to place a greenhouse in his side yard area. The greenhouse will be 6'8" by 8' 8" and be constructed of aluminium and glass. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. 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. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that William T. Ferris and Joan B. Ferris, 1035 Theresa Drive, Mattituck, New York be GRANTED permission to construct a green- house in the side yard area as requested. Location of property: Theresa Drive, Mattituck, New York, known as Lot No. 37, Deep Hole Creek Estates, Mattituck, New York, upon the following condition: (1) That the applicant come back to the Board in January, 1980 and advise the Board how this greenhouse works out. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals, will be held on Thursday, February 8, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. and set the following times on that date as the time and place of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. Postponed decision of Gary F. Olsen, Main Road, Mat- tituck, New York, for permission to convert existing building (non- conforming business building) with insufficient side and rear yards and insufficient parking for proposed use. 7:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Colony Cabinets, Inc. (Robert A~nison, as Agent), North Road, Southold, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 A for permission to operate a kitchen cabinet showroom and workshop. '~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -28- January 11, 1979 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. 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Frank Dawson, Jackson Street, New Suffolk, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article III, Section 100-31 A 1 for permission to divide property into two lots with insufficient area and frontage. Loca- tion of property: Fourth Street,~ew Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by Eksterowicz; east by Gandolfi and Dawson; south by Jackson Street; west by Fourth Street. 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Meyer and Gertrude Rosenberg, Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York, for a variance in accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition 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. 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Richard L. and Lois Woodhull, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accor- dance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition of access. Location of property: Main Road (State Road 25), Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Railroad; east by Krukowski; south by Surer; west by Adel & Tuthill. 8:25 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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: Coleman Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Ognibene and Frankola, east by Schooner Drive; south by Reese~ west by Sayre. 8:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 A for permission to use property for business and professional offices. Location 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. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. The meeting was adjourned ak 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted. Secretary