Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/21/1978Southold Town Board,of Appeals -c:JDUTHOLD, L. !., N. Y. 11~'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN CHAR LES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHtLL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals December 21, 1978 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, December 21, 1978, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Charles Gri~onis, Jr.; Terry Tuthill, and Robert J. Douglass. Also present was Dick Curtis of the Suffolk Weekly Times. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve minutes for the November 30, 1978, meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2499 - Upon application of Dolores G. Avella, 536 8th Street, Palisades Park, New Jersey (Charles DeVoe, as Agent) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100.-34 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a house with a reduced front yard setback. Location of proper~y: Lot No. 45 of Map No. 3444, Orient-By-The-Sea, Section Two, Orient, 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 Buildin~ InspecLor. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Fred Lombardi. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a sketch which shows that the proposed location of the ho~se would be approximately ~eh and a fraction feet from the easterly line of Ryder Landing'whiCh is/a:r~se~ved SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- December 21, 1978 area for beach purposes. Technically it is a right-of-way which causes the applicant to have two front yards, one on Sound View Road and the other on Ryder Landing. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? CHARLES DEVOE: I am. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is anything to add to this application. Did you know about the Ryder Landing problem when you started this construction? MR. DEVOE: No. We went to the Town Hall and found that the Town owned it. They did not know they did. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Town owns quite a few of these that are not very useful. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak f~r this application? (there was no response.) Does anyone wish to speak against the application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant wishes to reduce one of his front yard setbacks. The Board finds this is an unusual hardship to have two front yards and the fact that this is a lot with 100 feet of frontage really minimizes the area on which a house can be located. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Dolores G. Avella, 536 8th Street, Palisades Park, New Jersey, be GRANTED permission to construct a house with a reduced front yard setback as requested. Location of property: Lot No. 45 of Map No. 3444, Orient-By-The-Sea, Section Two, Orient, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2498 - Upon application of Anthony Spenza, Ryder Farm Lane, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a garage with insufficient front yard setback. Location of property: Lot No. 54, Map No. 3444, Map of Orient By-The-Sea- Section Two, Orient, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the zoning ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- December 21, 1978 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: Marion Fitzsimmons and John Slabich. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRF~N: There is a sketch with the application. The house is approximately 36 feet from Ryder Farm Lane and 50 feet from a proposed paper street, North Sea Drive, which has not been cut through yet. The applicant has a lot which is 140 feet by 150 feet which is a-little better than a half acre and Covenants in his subdivision require that garages be attached. In this case, it will place the garage closer to North Sea Drive than the present 50 foot front yard setback. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response.) MR. DOUGLASS: The application does not even say where they would like to put it. THE CHAIRMAN: I might just comment that the Board is not bound by the subdivider's Covenants, but in this case, we would agree with what we understand is the applicant's proposal, which would be to put the garage on the north side of the house. The applicant does not ask us for any specific setback for the garage. Do you know if they are in a hurry for this? THE SECRETARY: I was told that the person who will build this for Mr. Sponza was going to be here tonight° He didn't draw on the survey where he wanted the garage. MR. DOUGLASS: He does not even show which setback he is talking about. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know where we got the idea, but I thought he was going to put it on the north side. Maybe I am wrong. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response.) On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Gillisple, it was RESOLVED that Appeal No. 2498 be postponed until 7:30 on January 11, 1979. Vote of the Board~ Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2497 - Upon application of Richard and Donnalee Relyea, Delmar Drive, Laurel, New York, for a variance in accor- dance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area and a variance in accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law for recognition of access. Location of prDperty: Foxhollow Road and Deer Path Road, Mattituck, ~e~ York, bounded on the north by Beier;'east by Beier; south by Mattituck Creek; west by Private Road. SOUTHOLD TO~N BOARD OF APPEALS -4- December 21, 1978 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the zoning ordinance and a variance to the Town Law for access, 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: Klaus Beier, Kenneth Ramsauer. Fee paid St5.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The survey of the property indicates that the property contains 1.16 acres and is a rather long, narrow lot running to Mattituck Creek from a private right-of-way, access is ~btained by private roads, Deer Path Road and Foxhollow Road. It is also located on another right- of-way. The applicant doesn't mention it, but the back yard area of this property slopes rather steeply to the Creek and it would not be feasible to locate a garage there. Is there anyone 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). Are there any other questions? You know the application better than anyone, Terry. MR. TUTHILL: Well, it makes sense to me. t do not think it is an unusual situation. After inspection and investigation the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a garage ~n the front yard area and requires recognition of access to his property. The Findings of the Board are that they are in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. Due to the sloping legal back yard area, it would not be feasible to build a garage in that location. After Inspection of the rights-of-way to the property the Board finds they are narrow, but ~n good condition. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and.would not be shared by all properties ~iike 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 RESOLVED that Richard and Donnalee Relyea, Delmar Drive, Laurel, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area and GRANTED recognition of access in accordance with Section 280A of the Town Law. Location of property: Foxhollow Road and Deer Path Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Beier; east by Beier; south by Mattituck Creek; west by Private Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2501. - Upon application of Suzanne Clark, 47 Barrow Street, New York, New York, for a variance to the Zoning SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- December 21, 1978 Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 100-41 and Bulk Parking Schedule to have one, two-family house and two, one-family houses on parcels with insufficient area. Location of property: New Suffolk Lane and New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by Syms; east by New Suffolk Lane; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Hartung and Demartini. 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 n~tification by certified mail had been made to: John Hartung, Louis Demartini and Helen M. Syms. Fee paid $15.00. TERRY TUTHILL: Mr. Chairman, I have to disqualify myself from this hearing due to the fact I have a conflict of interest, and I am going to excuse myself from the room. THE CHAIRMAN: This is quite an elaborate project and maybe a word will help to understand this. At present there appears to be a large old dwelling on the corner of New Suffolk Avenue and New Suffolk Lane which, I guess, in the past has been used as a boarding house. The pro- posal is to restore that and create~a twoHfa~i!y~dwelliug_~i~h its~.o~n lot. On the adjoining lot that is applied for, Parcel B~ several buildings would be combined into a~one~fami~y structure. There is a cottage near the tennis court near the no~h end of the property which would be moved and joined to the cottage and garage on Parcel Bo That leaves parcel C, on which there is a tennis court on the westerly end and a cottage in~edl- ately to the rear of the old residence would be placed on the parcel C to be created. Each of these parcels would have approximately half an acre in area. Parcel A would have 18,600 square feet; Parcel B would have ~2,000 square feet and Parcel C would have 20,000 square feet with reasonable frontage considering the area. The lots would be comparable to the adjoining lots in the area~ Is there anyone present who would like to speak for this application? SUZANNE CLARK: As you have indicated this is an ambitious pro3ect, and I would like to show you some of the pictures of what I would have in mind. I would like to explain one problem that has come up according to my architect. The consolidation of the 2 small cottages which you · ndicated on parcel B. is the problem. I had hoped to connect the ~ cottages with a~reenhouse. My architect has not physically inspected the two cottages. The one I want to move from the tennis court nearer to the garage. However, I did show him the pictures, and he said that I would sink so much money into these cottages which did not appear to have any architectural or historical value. He suggested that I not do that° He said that the early 19th century cottage which is close to the main house is worth preserving. THE CHAIRMAN: These just look like enclosures, really. MRS. CLARK: I think they were originally sheds. I think on the SOUTHOLD TOP~ BOARD OF APPEALS -6- December 21, 1978 survey one of them was shown as a shed. So what he suggested I do is move the cottage over here and if I wish, put up a new salt box by the tennis court. I have checked out the salt box situation with Mr. Schwartz of Circa Design. He has a very nice, 2 story salt box. I think this makes sense to put a new salt box by the tennis court. I can do this observing all of the setback requirements. This cottage on Parcel C is too close to the line. By putting Cottage No. 1 in front of Cottage No. 3 I can observe the 50 foot setback for the front yard requirement. So there will be prmvacy from the Hartung property which does not exist now dHe to the closeness of the cottage to that lot line. Besides doing that I intend to screen this by planting hedges here. THE CHAIRMAN: Then you would eliminate the shed entirely? MRS. CLARK: I would tear this one down. I would use the garage as a garage. It has been squared off since this survey was drawn. THE CHAIRMAN: Essentially we would have the same number of buildings. Then you would have one house on each site. MRS. CLARK: The character of the new building is consistent with the neighborhood. THE CHAIRMAN: You have used here as a hardship the question of availability of mortgages or financing. I was ]ust wondering what that is based on. MRS. CLARK: When I made this application the interest rate was still 8~1/2 percent. It was impossible for anyone to get mortgages at that point. I am having to put a tremendous amount of cash into the purchase of this property, and it is half commercial the way it ms now. To get a mortgage on the entire property, the most the bank would give would be 50 percent. I have to be able to finance this project as I go along. THE CHAIRMAN: This balloon payment, what does that mean? MRS. CLAP~K: The whole entire first mortgage must be paid off in December 1979. It is a $29,000.00 payment that is due. THE CHAIRMAN: If you had to do that without being able to divide up this property so you could borrow against individual pieces of it rather than the whole thing, you would have a problem. Is this what you are saying? MRS. CLARK: Yes, I would fix up the cottage first. Then get a mort- gage on that so I would be able to pay off the mortgage next year and have a little something left over. The new salt box can be financed through the builder. I just have to be able to give him a single parcel of land free and clear. THE CHAIRMAN: Of course financial hardship is generally regarded as irrelevant. But I think it is interesting, and the Board is very sympathetic. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- December 21, 1978 MRS. CLARK: Essentially, it is a hardship to the sellers. I would like to buy the property, but it has ~o be divided and allow me to work an arrangement like this. THE CHAIRMAN: One of our members was interested enough to consult two bank officials after we looked at the property. MR. DOUGLASS: I found out through discussions with them they would mortgage the whole thing under extreme cases. Nine chances out of ten it would be a coramercial mortgage. The interest rate would be very high rather than at individual rates. MRS. CLARK: I was also told, they probably would not go more than 50 percent. MR. DOUGLASS: Under a commercial mortgage they said they would mortgage more than 50 percent. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you plan to use this yourself? MRS. CLARK: I would plan to live in the part of the house that has the porch around it and the old pine floors. I would like to live in that section of the house. I live and work in the city and this would be a summer proposition. I would like to keep all of these as an investment, and rent out the other portion of the house. There are 20 rooms in the entire house, but there are separate staircases up and down. This wing was put on about 1880. I would also rent the cottage. I would rent the salt box after I built that also. stand THE CHAIRMAN: Do you under/what Mr. Douglass is saying? MRS. CLARK: Yes, I have heard that even now there are restrictions on one family houses. They haven't really started lending. MR. DOUGLASS: They opened up a bit this past week. It was~ at 9-1/2 percent. THE CHAIRMAN: Would these houses be created for year round houses. MRS. CLARK: Frankly, with the very, very old cottage all I plan to do is put in a pot belly stove, which had been in there at one time. The flue is still there. It runs out the back of the house. Just to take the chill off the house. This is a single wall construction house. There is no insulation or anything. That would only be a summer residence, and I myself will be out here zn the summer. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, which house would that be? MRS. CLARK: It would be the two-family house. THE CHAIRMAN: So it would not be heated? MRS. CLARK: The part that the Fogarty's live in now is heated. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- December 21, 1978 The portion of the house that is not heated is where I would live. I would put a pot bellied stove in that portion of the house. I would build the salt box last because I have to worry about paying off that first mortgage. The first thing I would do is restore the cottage. I have an estimate from Mr. Zaleski for moving it and Mr. Crenshaw for putting a foundation under it. I had the termite~ man there today. There are a number of beams that have to be replaced. THE CHAIRMAN: You did have termites? MRS. CLARK: There were and one beam is broken. THE CHAIRMAN: What about this house? (meaning the two family house) MRS. CLARK: Well, no active condition. This house is very well constructed. The timbers are large and the pit does not go in very far. Most of them were powder post beetles. It is still very sound. It is in excellent shape. The ceilings have 12 inch timbers of oak with big wooden pegs. It must have been built by the same people who built ships. It is a wonderful house. THE CHAIRMAN: It sounds like a great project. MRS. CLARK: It is kind of my hobby. I really like to do this. I am kind of excited about it and hope I get the chance to do it. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anycne else who would like to speak for this application? RICHARD J. CRON: If it pleases the Board, I am here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fogarty, and in addition I also happen to be their neighbor to the south across New Suffolk Avenue. I think the application is a rather unique one. Particularly since the application seeks, at least in part, to divide a multiple zoned use area. I think the Board was accurate in assessing the existing situations Yes, in the one corner you have the large framed structure which I guess at times has been used as a boarding house. The applicant is willing to restrict it in terms of its usage if the application is granted to a two-family usage. The number of buildings will be tess than exist now if the application is granted. One of the buildings on that parcel B will be consolidated to another building further back by the tennis court. The other one would have been, under the basis of the application, whick is now changed, would have been put on the tennis court parcel. In each instance when you are dealing with Parcel B & C the applicant is willing to restrict the usage on those parcels to single family dwellings, which is not the situation as it now exists. You do have on New Suffolk Avenue a multiple zoned use which I think would en- compass a greater use than what is proposed by the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: This would end up with less density than what you have how. MR. CRON: That is exactly what I am saying. So I think there is a sound rationale for granting the application although it is unique. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- December 21, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: So unique that the Building Inspector made an error in thinking that there had to be a special exception. There is no special exception required for a two-family use in a multiple zone because it is there inherently. MR. CRON: What you are doing basically is segregating what already exists in terms of the residential district from the multiple district. THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that if these were two private single residences an a residential zone owned by one person, or 3 lots owned by one person, and each one was divided separately you would not change the density at all. I think that the net effect of everything the applicant wants to do is going to be beneficial to the residents of New Suffolk. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for th~s application? (there was no response.) Is there anyone who would like to speak against this application? JOHN F. HARTUNG: I live to the west of the Fogarty property. The subdivision bothers me in the ability of the party that is going to purchase the property of completing her desires as she spoke here tonight. I would like to know what type of thoughts the Board would have and how the surrounding property like mine would be protected if these dwellings weren't so placed after Mrs. Clark is granted a three parcel piece of property out of the existing parcel. MRS. JOHN HARTUNG: No mention has been made of the resale of these three parcels. There would be 4 families living on one parcel. You talk about density, but not about the year round homes. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have spoken of that. We have discussed the financial aspect of that. As I understand it from Mrs. Clark, the purpose of having this parcel divided is to have a little more assurance in 'being able to obtain bank financing at the ordinary level rather than at stratopheric levels which occur when you incorporate. Banks can charge a corporation far more than they can an individual. It seems to me in one sense that this tends to protect you. If this is not o~wnsd by someone other than Mrs. Clark in the future, it will be 2 or 3 people. MR. HARTUNG: Once you grant the subdivision what assurance are we going to have that all these houses are going to be transformed by Mrs. Clark as she depicts. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we would condition the granting of this ap- plication on Mrs. Clark doing what she says. That would mean that someone else who takes it over wQ~d have to guided by the user,restrictions which go with the land. MRS. HARTING: Suppose there was termination of the improvements? Suppose something happened? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think anyone can guarantee the future. MRS, HARTUNG: But once the division is made, we are the ones who have to live with three parcels that was once one parcel. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- December 21, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course the three parcels to be created are approxi- mately the same size as most of the parcels on the block. In fact they will be larger than many of the parcels within a few hundred feet of this location. Orchard Street, Queen Street, Main Street all have small parcels on them. This is not going to change the neighborhood as far as the density is concerned. In fact we think it will reduce the density a little bit. MR. HARTUNG: As a resident of New Suffolk for most of my life, I realize there are alot of problems within the Town. I also feel that this area creates a very big problem. I would like to see it divided into two parcels. THE C~AIRMAN: Do you mean New Suffolk? MR. HARTUNG: The property that is to be subdivided. THE CHAI~N: It doesn't have to be subdivided. You are making a point that seems to me to be a little hard to follow. I think that sooner or later this property would probably be subdivided with all the buildings that are on it whether or not Mrs. Clark is here or not. MRS. HARTUNG: Let us ask you this question° As these three parce!~ are separated, would they be saleable as A, B, and C? THE CHAIRMAN: That is the reason for separating them~ They could be mortgaged s~parately. Let's assume that a bank will loan "X" amount of dollars to the whole project. It would probably allow a little more if it was three projects. MRS. CLARK: I have to do one at a time. I cannot do them all together. MR. HARTUNG: Would there be a possibility of considering a creation of two parcels running east to west across the premise and then at a later date when Mrs. Clark upgrades her property, then she can apply for the subdivision of the parcels A & B. MR. DOUGLASS: John, let me just answer something. Under the "M" zone that the frontage next to you is on now, she has the possibility of more density then she will have the way she wants to divide it now, with an individual home. THE CHAIRMAN: That's a good point. The density could be greatly increased here. This is really a safety factor for you to confine it to this double house and a single cottage next to you. You could have ai~tOt more dwelling units in an "M" zone than are there now. MRS. HARTUNG: When did the zoning change on the property from boarding house non-conforming to M Zone. Is that when the Master Plan went through. THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure on that particular lot. MRS. HARTUNG: We were assured by the Building Inspector that that was Boarding House ~on-conforming. That was the way we understood it when we bought our property. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- December 21, 1978 MRS. HARTUNG: It does not seem likely that a man in his position would not know the zoning regulations. THE CHAIRMAN: It happens all the time. This was done on another parcel of property in New Suffolk. The people had 4 or 5 cottages on one parcel and we restricted them to seasonal use. The lady had a boarding house and a bunch of cottages. MRS. HARTUNG: There were two summer cottages on the water. THE CHAIRMAN: We had another application on the Sound where there were two small cottages. But you could have a good deal more density than is there now° MRS. HARTUNG: We are not worried about that. We have all the faith in Mrs. Clark that things will go along as she has planned, but once it is divided into three parcels they can be sold as soon as the transfer goes in. The next owner may not do the renOvating that Mrs. Clark has intended to do. THE CHAIRMAN: In that case you would not be any worse off than you are now. Mrs. Clark plans to improve the premises. MRS. HARTUNG: THE CHAIP~N: MRS. HARTUNG: time we have more people, but only in the summer. could have 3 or 4 year round families. But I would have 3 neighbors instead of one. You do now, don't you? Now, now they are summer cottages. In the summer But this way, we THE CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think so. MR. DOUGLASS: The only restrictions we would put on it would be for density~ which is already taken care of. MR. HARTUNG: What I would request is some assurance what she is proposing is somehow carried out. I do not exactly know how to present that except that if the property were divided into half instead of 3 parcels and then at a later date when she has changed the buildings and improved the structures, divide the one-half portion again. THE CHAIRMAN: I could ~°t agree with that. It would negate the whole purpose of the application. Is there anyone else. LOHIS DeMARTINI: I would want to know if she moves cottages from one location to another on three different parcel~, isn't there a part of the Zoning Ordinance that says the buildings have to have so many square feet? THE CHAIRMAN: You mean interior? It is required there be 850 square feet. One of them will be enlarged. MRS. CLARK: The one that will be preserved is already in excess of 850 square feet. The only one that will stand is okay. The other two will SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- December 2t, 1978 be demolished. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we can include that in the decision as a condition. MR. DeMARTINI: The only thing I object to is the two-family house. I do not care what they do with the rest of it. You are going to start a precedent there. THE CHAIRML~N: We had that battle for 25 years. MR. DeMARTINI: Well you have it here again. THE CHAIRMAN: This house is 20 rooms. It has been a tourist house or boarding house. MRS. HARTUNG: Mr. Gillispie, has the decision been made, or are you going to make it tonight? THE CHAIRMAN: We will make it tonight. MRS. HARTUNG: Who sits on the Board in review of this decision? THE CHAIRMAN: There are 3 of Us here. MRS. HARTUNG: Are there any conflicting interests? THE CHAIRMAN: Not now to my knowledge. Charlie, Bob, do you have any conflicting interest in this application. MR. DOUGLASS: No. MR. GRIGONIS: No. THE CHAIRMAN: This is a five member board. Three constitute a majority. MRS. HARTUNG: That is the only point I wanted to make. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? (there was no response) Would you please restate to the Board your plans with respect to this property since there have been some changes since your appliCation was submitted? MrS~Cla~k ~oceed~d to explain in detail to the Hartungs what her plans Were With ~eSpect to moving the cottages, building a new salt box and the large main house. THE CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what. We will postpone the decision on this while you people finish discussing this amongst yourselves. Please feel free to go out in the lobby. We will hear this last hearing and then come back to you. MR. DeMARTINI: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mrs. Clark one question? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure, go ahead. SOUTHOLD TOW~ BOARD OF APPEALS December 21, 1978 MR. DeMARTINI: Are you going to live here, Mrs. Clark? MRS. CLARK: I am going to live in one half of the house for the summer. MR. DeMARTINI: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2500 - Upon application of Suzanne Clark, 47 Barrow Street, New York, New York, for a special exception to the zoning ordinance, Article IV, Section 100-40 B for permission to use an existing rooming house as a two-family dwelling. Location of property: New Suffolk Lane and New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by Syms; east by New Suffolk Lane; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Hartung and Demartini. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affi- davits attesting to its publicaiton in the official newspapers, and dis- approval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: John Hartung, Louis Demartini and Helen M. Syms. Pee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Town CounSel has advised the Board it is not necessary to require a special exception to divide a rooming house into a %wo'family dwelling in the "M" Light Multiple-Residence District. On motion by Mr. Giltispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Mrs. Clark is withdrawing her application No. 2500 for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis and Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2502 - Upon application of Apostolos Skaperdas, 310 Merrick Avenue, ~r~¢k,New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII, ~ec~ion 136 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a house with reduced side yard setbackl Location of property: Lot No. 130, Map No. 6266, Map of Pebble Beach Farms, East Marion, 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 of the Town, 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: Ms. Nina S. Magen .a~d Kenneth Deegan. Fee paid $15~00. THE CHAIRMAN: In the Notice to Neighbors the applicant states that they want to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 17-1/2 feet to 15 feet. This is one of the lots in Pebble Beach Farms facing on the sound. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- December 21, 1978 Is there anyone present who would like to speak for this application? KATHERINE SKAPERDAS: This is permission from one of my neighbors on one side. THE CHAI~VIAN: "This is to advise you that in the event that an application is made to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold the undersigned as owner of lot No. 129, makes no objection to the waiver of the side yard requirement. Signed Kenneth Deegan. Is there anything else you would like to add? MRS. SKAPERDAS: I had these plans drawn up for this house in Florida. This is more or less like my dream house. Then we decided we would build here since we fell in love with this area. The only thing was that we acquired this. lot, and it is narrower than what the plans call for. So we need a foot on each side of the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Our problem is involved with the whole subdivision. All of the lots in this area are very narrow. They vary a little bit in width. Some are 75 feet, 78 feet, and 77 feet. The maximum reduction permitted in a cluster under our Ordinance and under most ordinances is 50 percent. So that means where you have a 35 foot side yard requirement, you need 15 feet on one side and 20 feet on the other. The Board would be acting improperly to go beyond that because we would be changing the Ordinance. The Ordinance has already provided that in return for the sub- divider clustering the land and leaving some of it open space, the Zoning Ordinance will permit the subdivider or the individual owner to reduce his side yards by 50 percent which is more than anyone else in the Town can do except for hardship. So I am afraid that we cannot accommodate you. There ls no way we can give you any relief. MRS. SKAPERDAS: It doesn't make any difference that my neighbors agree? THE CHAIRMAN: It would change the Ordinance and change the whole character of the subdivision. You would have wall to wall houses up there. It is going to be pretty bad as it is already. There is no way we can help. MR. DOUGLASS: Can't you cut down the size of the house? MR. TUTHILL: We sympathize with you, Mrs. Skaperdas, but I don't think the hardship is unique because all of those lots are about the same slze. The other people have had to give up their dream house and change plans. Everyone has the same problem. MRS. SKAPERDAS: i guess I will have to do that. I thought before I did that I would see if I could get a variance. I hate to go through a whole new blue print agains. THE CHAIRMAN: Look at your square footage, and maybe you could make a room a little longer. MRS. SKAPERDAS: Okay, thank you. WILLIAM PAPPAS: I own land in the same development and am a friend SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- December 21, 1978 of these people. My question was does this Board have the authority to grant such a request? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but do you understand the cluster concept? MR. PAPPAS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The ordinary side yard setback is 20 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other side for a total of 35 feet for a lot with 40,000 square feet, which came into being in the Town of Southold in 1971. Be- fore that the side yard requirement was a total of 25 feet, 10 on one side and 15 feet on the other. By law, strictly in the Ordinance, in a cluster the side yards may not be reduced by more than 50 percent. There is good reason for that. Some of the old lots which are in single and separate ownership from the original founders of the Town such as in places like New Suffolk cannot be denied the use of the property. These lots in this subdivision were created in the last two years and part of the land of the ~otal subdivision has been set aside for everyone. This is part of the whole deal. MR. PAPPAS: In other words what you are trying to tell me is that the Building Inspector could have saved us time from applying for a variance that you are unable to grant? think THE CHAIRMAN: I do/not we have had an application for a cluster subdivision before. MR. PAPPAS: In other cases though it would be treated the same way? THE CHAIRMAN: If we gave these people a further reduction we would have to do it everywhere in that whole subdivision. MR. PAPPAS: You are saying that you would be setting a precedent? The square footage is there. The property is a large piece of property. I am sure you are aware in order to provide more waterfront lots, they made those lots very, very narrow. THE CHAIRMAN: I am still a member of the Suffolk County Planning Commission and several years ago when this came before the Commission, they rejected the situation for the reason that these lots are too narrow. MR. PAPPAS: Even though there is no objection from the adjoining owners? THE CHAIRMAN: If that were the case a group of people could get together and change the Zoning Ordinance. Just by making deals this could be done. MRs, PAPPAS: But doesn't the Appeals Board handle special cases? Each case is different. Each case ms heard on its own merits. THE CHAIRMAN: We try to. Zoning ms nevery subject to a popular vote. Frequently that puts us on the unpopular side. .Mah~ people are in favor SOUTHOLD TOWN BDARD OF APPEALS -16- December 21, 1978 of something and we are not. You cannot take a vote and decide you are going to change the Ordinance. We would like to help, but I do not see how we can. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? (there was no response). Does anyone else have any questions? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cant wishes to reduce the required side yard setbacks by an additional 2-1/2 feet. This lot is in a "cluster zone" subdivision which allows the side yard setback requirements to be ~educed UP to 50 percent. The findings of the Board are that they ar~ not aHtho~ized to vary the cluster subdivision side yard requirements more than 50 percent. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created iR not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district~ and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion of Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Apostolos Skaperdas, 310 Merrick Avenue, Merrick, New York, be DENIED permission to construct a house with reduced side yard setback, Location of property: Lot No. 130, Map No. 6266, Map of Pebble Beach Farms, East Marion, New York. Vote of the Board: Douglass. Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and THE CHAIRMAN: This is the postponed hearing On Appeal No. 2501, Suzanne Clark. Now, Mrs. Clark can you state for us again what you will be doing since your application has bee revised since you originally filed it? MRS. CLARK: The main house which is located on Parcel A ...... THE CHAIRMAN: Do the two of you understand and agree with this application now? MR. HARTUNG: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. DOUGLASS: Are you talking to us? Yes. Have you been out there talking? They didn't go out there. MRS. CLARK: On Parcel A Where the main dwelling is presently located I propose to convert the rooming house use to a two-family dwelling. On Parcel B I propose to relocate cottage No. 1 and tear down cottage No. 3. I also propose to tear down cottage No. 2. Parcel C at some future time I plan to consturct a salt box, 2 story, one-family house. And a one- family house on Parcel B. There will be a two-family dwelling on Parcel A. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- December 21, 1978 With respect to parcels B & C, I will observe all the setbacks and side yard requirements and so Oho I will also put in new wells and cessp~ols~ for each of the separate structures which presently share. There is one well now for the property. The cottages I believe are inter-connected into a series of cesspools. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you will be able to meet all the Bulk Re- quirements except for the big house, because you cannot move the big house which is probably too close to the road. Is that clear to you, Mr. and Mrs. Hartung? Do you understand what she plans to do? (The Chairman reviewed for the Board what Mrs. Clark is going to do.) MRS. CLARK: The only thing I do not understand is the Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board. THE CHAIRMAN: That is required due to the fact that part of this is an "M" Zone. What you have to do is take the revised plan to them and tell them what you want to do. MRS. CLARK: I couldn't find in the Zoning Ordinance the Site Plan Approval requirement applying to this. THE CHAIRMAN: I couldn't either, but this was suggested by Town Counsel. MR. CRON: If it pleases the Board I do not see why one needs Site Plan Approval with respect to a multiple residence. You already have in existence a two-story building, a two family building. You could use this for tourists or boarders. There is not going to be any change basically in the existing parcel B to the west in light of the fact you are just going to enlarge that particular part. It would seem to me that all you would need is a permit from the Building Inspector. I see no~ reason why the Planning Board ha:s to give Site Plan Approval, when there is no new site to be selected. THE CHAIRMAN: One reason I can see is that as you know the Board of Appeals generally concerns itself with dividing a piece of property into two parcels. Now, what would happen if we referred this application to the Planning Board is that they would send it back to us and tell us that it was illegal for them to do anything with an undersized parcel. So the whole thing would be in limbo. Unless we tentatively approve it here, subject to their approval, it will be stymied. It's. something that is not clear in our Ordinance. MR. CRON: No, it is not clear. THE CHAIRMAN: Where we have asked for their approval on under-sized lots and they sas it has nothing to do with them, the Attorney for the Town says that after this Board has created them they are legal. That is why you have a Board. This is just a routine matter. I do not thin~this will be complicated for you. This is something we are going to straighten out this winter. MR. HARTUNG: Are you now saying that the house that is being moved to property B can be placed anywhere on property B? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- December 21, 1978 THE CHAIRMAN: Anywhere on property B where it meet all the legal setback requirements. The side yard requirements and all. MR. HARTUNG: Like a 50 foot front yard setback? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. You can accomplish that there. I think you can get the 35 combination side yard setback there also. If you are on the west, this looks to me like this wil~ be a good 35 to 40 feet from your line. 25 any~ Your plan is to put cOttage No. 1 in front of the garage on New Suffolk Avenue, Mrs. Clark? MRS. CLARK: Yes, it is. THE CHAIRMAN: If this sketch is accurate it will have this house almost lined up with the rear of the big house. You will be way back from the road. You have a driveway coming in there anyhow, and you won't want to lose that. MRS. CLARK: It would be placed approximately in the middle of the lot. I would like to ask one question for clarification. This whole thing has to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval? THE CHAIRMAN: I think so. MRS. CLARK: Is there an expedited procedure? How long does that take? THE CHAIRMAN: The last time we did it, Babs? THE SECRETARY: The last time we did it we just wrote them a letter, enclosed a copy of the decision, and gave it to the Planning Board Secre- tary and they made a decision at one of their regular meetings. Got a letter back the next day. It went right through. MRS. CLARK: When do they meet next, do you know? THE SECRETARY: I think it is the first week in January. January 9, 1979, is their next meeting. That is when they are going to have public hearings that night anyway. THE CHAIRMAN: This would not require public notice. THE SECRETARY: No. The last application didn't. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this sketch one that you made? MRS. CLARK: I just went over the lines that were on the survey. The way the photocopier picked up the buildings was not very clear. THE CHAIRMAN: I think this will be enough for the Planning Board. Getting back to a question raised by Mr. Cron. I would like to read the following: The following uses are permitted by a special exception by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided subject to Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board , but this is not being handled as a special exception, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19- December 2t, 1978 this is a variance. Any other questions? MRS. HARTUNG: If the variance is granted, it is granted on the strength of the proposals? THE CHAIRMAN: It is granted on the land. It runs with the land, not with the individuals. It is not like a liquor license. If Mrs. Clark sells this property the new owners can do nothing different than what Mrs. Clark is granted permission to do. MRS. HARTUNG: Then they could not sell it as it is when divided into three parcels. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not divided into three parcels. It is proposed to divide it into three parcels by this resolution we are about to make. MRS. HARTUNG: But if you make that resolution, we will have three parcels. THE CHAIRMAN: It is Mrs. Clark's proposal to alleviate her problem as far as d~aling with the banks. A lengthy discussion followed concerning what would happen if Mrs. Clark was unable to follow through with her plans. The Chairman explained to Mrs. Hartung that density would be de- creased and over-all improvement to the area. After_kinvestigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant's application contains a sketch of the property she proposes to buy and this property has been divided into parcels "A", "B"~ and "C" in approximately equal sizes of about 20,000 square feet in earch parcel. Parcel A. con- sists of 105 feet of road frontage on New Suffolk Avenue and Parcel "B" immediately adjoining to the west has 87.56 feet on New Suffolk Avenue. Both parcels have a depth of approximately 177.26 feet. On Parcel "A" there ms a 22 room house whick the applicant proposes to restore and make into a two-family house from a former boarding house use. The applicant will try to rent the westerly portion of the two-family dwelling on a year round basis if possible. If nots she will rent it on a seasonal basis. The applicant plans to live in the easterly portion of the house. Parcels "A" and "B" are zn a "M" Light Multiple Zone district. Located partially on Parcel "A" and "B" is a cottage (marked as Cottage No. 1) which is to be moved in front of the garage located on parcel "B". At the same time the cottages marked as No. 2 and No. 3 located on Parcel "B" and "C" will be demolished. The conditions applied to the granting of this subdivision of land seem appropriate in the area based on the surrounding lot sizes. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- December 21, 1978 RESOLVED that Susanne Clark, 47 Barrow Street, New York, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient width and be GRANTED permission to have one, two-family house and two, one-family houses on parcels with insufficient area. Location of property: New Suffolk Lane and New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by Syms; east by New Suffolk Lane; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Hartung and Demartini, upon the following conditions: (1) The creation of Parcel "A" is conditioned upon removing Cottage No. 1 from Parcel "A" and "B" to a central location on Parcel "B" and locating it near the presently existing garage on Parcel "B" (2) The elimination of Cottages 2 and 3. (3) The residence to be created on Parcel "B" will be a one-family residence. (4) Any subsequent building on Parcel "C" shall be a one-family residence. (5) One-family residences on Parcels "B" and "C" must adhere to the side yard, front yard and rear yard requirements of the building requirements of the present Zoning Ordinance, but none of these three parcels shall be inhibited by the 40,000 square foot requir'ement. (6) Ail individual dwelling units on Parcels "A", "B" and "C" shall meet the 850 square foot minimum area requzrement of the Zoning Ordinance. (7) Site Plan Approval of the Planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis and Douglass. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) Thursday, January 11, 1979, and set the following times on that date as time and place of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. Postponed ~ea~g~ of Anthony Sponza, 1655 Ryder Farm Lnae, Orient, New for a reduced front yard setback. 7:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Gary Flanner Olsen, Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for a~ari&~ce%in accordance wi~h 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 busi- ness 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 by Lawlor; west by Mattituck Presbyterian Church. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- December 21, 1978 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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, Section 109-23 E; Section 100-35A; Article VII, Section 100-70; Article XII, Section 100- 121 A & B for permission to construct a fence six feet high in the front 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. 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Rita Cooke Woglom, Main Road, East Marion, New York, (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a variance in accor- dance 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. 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of John E. Lademann 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. 8:25 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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. 8:35 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 Water- view Drive; west by Wilkinson. 8:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of the Estate of Jean F. Brown, Village Lane, Orient, New York (Christopher S. Byszek, Esq.) for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission 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. 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of Colon Cabinets, Inc. (Robert Annison, as Agent), North Road, Southoid, New York, for a special excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60B for permission to operate a kitchen cabinet showroom 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. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- December 21, 1978 9:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) Upon application of William Engel, Beachwood Road, 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 ~olony, Cutchogue, New York. 9:25 P.M. (E.S.T.) 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 Estates, Mattituck, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill and Douglass. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, iPPROVED