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