Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/06/1979Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. !., N. Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516~ 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHAR LES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN,JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERTJ. DOUGLASSt ActiT~g Chairman MINUTES SOUTHOLD TO,tN BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 6, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on December 6, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Messrs. Robert J. Douglass, Acting Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Terry R. Tuthill, Jr.; and Serge Doyen Jr. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2574. Application of RAYMOND and ANN CIACIA, Main Road, Greenport, New York, (James Bitses, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sec- tion 100-80 for permission to diVide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Lots No. 157 to 160 in- clusive, Map No. 1124, Peconic Bay Estates, Greenport, New York. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7:37 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: If it's all right with you, I don't think we need to re-read this if you're agreeable. MR. BITSES: Waive the reading. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. We will dispense with the re-reading. If you have anything new to enter for us, please do so. MR. BITSES: Members of the Board, unofficially I have been informed that thee~ Town B~ard has disapproved, unofficially, our application for a zone change. In conversations had with the mem- bers of the Town Board, I've been advised that they believe that the proper course for what it's worth, they believe the proper course is to come before the Zoning Board and ask for a variance to place a residential unit in a C-Zone. In other words, moving the ho~se which presently is a nonconforming use from the forward Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 6, 1979 two lots to the rear two lots, without a zone change, and secure a variance from the Zoning Board permitting the use of a resi- dential unit in a C-Zone. Now, I have a sketch, a Van Tuyl sketch; and this is of course off the record, because we cannot take action tonight. And essence, my plea tonight will be for an additional extension of time, an additional adjournment so that I can make a variance to allow Mr. Ciacia to move his house and to use it as a residence even thqugh it's a C-Zone. But I wish to show you Van Tuyl's map, and if you will examine the map, you will see that across the road and around Mr. Ciacia's house there are all residences there,-about six or eight resi- dences. Now I've just, even though it's an unofficial matter at the present time, I would beg the Board's indulgence to look at this sketch. MR. DOUGLASS: Can you leave one of them with us? MR. BITSES: This is the last one that I have, but i will make copies. MR. DOUGLASS: Please make copies and bring it in to us. MR. BITSES: I just want to point out that right across the street, wherever you see an "R", now here's Ciacia, and you have residences right around him. MR. DOUGLASS: They are all nonconforming just like he is. MR. BITSES: Yes. In other words they've got a C-Zone what used to be residential area, you see. Now, we tried to upzone to improve, but they have a different opinion and I can't blame them for their opinion. So they have told me unofficially to come before you for an additional variance. And I'll have to go through another application, and I respectfully request that you adjourn this matter for an additional month so that I can go through the procedures involved. MR. DOUGLASS: Do you want it to come in on the first part of January? MR. TUTHILL: Suppose we adjourn it indefinitely, we run into the same problem that we ran into this time where I can't publish it and get on the docket. If I set it on the docket, recess it or whatever, I don't know, on this I think you will have to come back with a new variance. MR. BITSES: It will be a new variance for publishing and so on. MR. DOUGLASS: So this one will be of no value? MR. BITSES: This would be an additional variance as an undersized site, lot, so there will be two variances then in Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -3- December 6, 1979 effect, running side by side, and the two variances will come therefore before the Board for final, either approval or dis- approval simultaneously. MR~ TUTHILL: When he brings his application in we can then~publish it for the next meeting. MR. BITSES: I als0 Want to call to your attention that we do have the approval of the Planning Board. The Planning Board did it some time b~ck and it's logical. Let's not talk about logic. MR. TUTHILL: That's what we are supposed to be in business for. MR. DOUGLASS: They have regulations, and sometimes they get a little strong. MR. BITSES: Well, what can I do. MR. DOUGLASS: Anyway, suppose we will recess it with no time on it, and then, our next meeting will be the 27th of December, and if then you find you can't be ready, the next one will be three weeks after that. MR. BITSES: I appreciate the cooperation of this Board. MR. DOUGLASS: As long as you let us know then, we can set it up for the three weeks later. MR. BITSES: Thank you very much, g~ntlemen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of RAYMOND AND ANNA CIACIA, Appeal No. 2574, BE RECESSED until the applicants have had the opportunity to come back and ask for a re-scheduling. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2598. Application of PHILIP A. WENZEL, Ma±n Road, Peconic, New York for a. variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to subdivide with insufficient area. Location of property: Main Road, Pecon±c; bounded north by Main Road, east by Koraleski, south by Leslie Road, west by Bujnowski. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7:42 P.M. by briefly describing the application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- December 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody here that needs this re-read? If not, is there anybody opposing it that wants it re-read? If not, if you will grant us the waiving of reading it, we will go on without it. MR. BRUER: On behalf of Mr. Wenzet, yes. MR. DOUGLASS: Now, is there anybody that wants to add any- thing to what we have already had or want to speak on this? MR. TUTHILL: Where did we leave it when we recessed? Was it pending something? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, they had to go to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board said that whatever we do, is what they will work on. We had been out and been all over this, and we walked it and pictured it and so on and so forth. The whole length of tha~ road has not been divided in any way yet. There are a lot of houses and farms along that road, and after ~due consideration of the thing, why I would llke to put a motion before my Board that we hold the property at the 40,000, the one acre, where none of it along there has been subdivided. I know there will be a tot of it coming up and so I will put a motion out if any- body would care to second it, if not-- MR. BRUER: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment before the Board decides? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, MR. BRUER: Number one, I'd like To say that this applica- tion is for an area variance, not a use variance, and one of the reasons the Board can grant it is because of practical difficulties. And one of the very distinct practical difficulties here is the use of the barns on the larger piece which is being conveyed. And I think that, in and of itself, is sufficient enough to ask the Board, and for the Board to consider and grant a variance based upon the very practical difficulty of using those barns with that road there, and the property as defined there. I think that with respect to a practical difficulty argument, the difference between 35,200 and something square feet and 40,000 really isn't that m-uch. And I think the Board in its discretion here can very readily, based upon the area variance theory and the practical use grant this application. MR. DOUGLASS: As to the barns, why the barns are available from either side. They are not just available from the side that we are talking about. Yes, Frank? FRANK CICHANOWtCZ: I would just like to make a comment. We are not building houses; we're not going to divide and do anything and we don~t, we forget to put a 55-foot trailer on the side of the farm, we're going to reduce our acreage by at least another Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 6, 1979 half acre of usable land. If I want to make a ridiculous thing out of this, I can take that strip of road and go up half way up the farm road and get 40,000 square feet, and it's going to look like a stupid lot. I think it's ridiculous. You're talk- ing about 4,000 square feet in this thing. I mean, you know, you know yourself having the equipment size that you have and the equipment size we have. You're blighting the farm to keep it an existing use. We've been using it that way for the last 20 years. The thing is not going to change physically at all as far as where we go in and everything. If the house, years ago, everybody had everything on a half acre, and it's just unfortunate the barns aren't far enough away. We can't give anymore road frontage because we can't use the roadway getting 55-foot trucks across the road heading up traffic. I mean I think you understand this thing, and I think it's very practical. MR. DOUGLASS: I know, and I looked it over and there is still no reason why you couldn't make an agreement with the people to continue using the road. The thing is, when we come into zoning, we have set ourselves up for the whole length of that road and anything that happens in back of it. MR. BRUER: I believe there are a lot of property on that road that doesn't have a full 40,000 square feet. I know there isn't. MR. DOUGLASS: Nothing has been divided in those farms. MR. BRUER: Well, there are, there have been farms that have been blocked off, and just the houses were left back there that are less than a full acre on that road. I mean it was done a number of years ago. There hasn't been anything done recently that I know of. MR. ClCHANOWICZ: You know, you're keeping this as an agricultural thing, which is what the Town wants to do, and now you're f±ghtlng against the same thing. MR. DOUGLASS: This is true as long as you own it. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well what do you think we are buying it for? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I know that-- MR. CICHANOWICZ: Somebody else wanted to raise grapes on it so now we want to keep it so that we can raise the grapes. MR. BRUER: The purpose of the Board is not to make the applicant show a huge hardship on somebody. It's to grant variances-- MR. DOUGLASS: He has to, you will have to produce hardship. Southold To~n Board of Appeals -6- December 6, 1979 MR. BRUER: Not necessarily, on an area variance. You're talking about a use variance. Practical difficulties is sufficient. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I've been told I am not supposed to argue back, so I won't. I still feel that way if my~B~ard wants to vote me down that's their ability. I feel that it should stay at 40,000. MA. CICHANOWICZ: I would just like to make one other comment. You know, the man is 77 years old. Now if he's going to g±ve us a use to go over this thing, and a year from now he drops dead, and his family says"Well I don't want them to use it anymore," this is the reason we are going for it because it's going to be tied up in an estate sooner or later. And we want to clarify it before it gets tied up in an estate. He doesn't care now if we r±de over half of his farm. We mow his whole lawn with our sod mowers. He's very happy that it isn't going to discontinue. And, you know, what we ~n't want to have is any contingence on the thing. It's the easy way to say, "Sure have a contingence on the thing." We want to have a clear, cut title, and I think it's ridiculous this way. MR. TUTHILL: Frank, I would like to ask you a question. Would the access on the other side of the barn, let"s say the doors that are on the north side of it, if they were on the south side, would that still give you a very tough time. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, we would have to eliminate at least a half acre, or an acre of productive ground because we would have to get around the back sides. Plus we have a hard surface road, I mean, a well-packed farm road that we have used to go up to the irrigation well, and that's the way we get our products off the field. I mean it's a very pract±cal thing. It's been there since the farm started, and now you're go±ng to change this thing and make a whole other deal out of ±t and ±t's r±d±culous. Anybody that's a farmer should know better. MR. TUTHILL: Of course, you can understand the other side of the situation, too, that we are reluctant in most cases unless there is a really great hardship to create something under 40,000 square feet when you have 40 something acres, and it doesn't, this is the time when we get criticized, "You've got zoning, stick to it." I don't frankly think that in a situation there that where you are short by 4,000 or 5,000 square feet, where these buildings have existed for 60 years probably, I don't think that it would be a big problem to cut down the size. But we are reluctant without hearing about your hardship to create anything under 40,000 square feet when we ourselves are open to criticism. And in some cases where you have adjoining properties along the road, or even across the street, if you've got undersized parcels that will have a bearing on it, too. We're not trying to be tough about it, it's just that we don't like to do something under 40,000 square feet. MR. CICHANOWICZ: We're not going to build houses on it, and Southold Town Board of Appeals -7a- December 6, 1979 this is what I am trying to say. We're keeping it as agricultural. This is what Southold Town is all about. We're trying to preserve it. You know, if we were trying to build on an acre and a half lot two houses, I agree with you. We are not trying to build houses. We're trying to keep it exactly the way it is. This is what I can't see, why the whole ting even has to start. MR. TUTHILL: Well, I know one thing I will go along with you on it. Through the years as the farmers sold off their farms, they would give a son, for example, the old homestead on half an acre, and they are scattered around the area. Not right in yours, but in many cases that was done as you well know. Maybe the old folks stayed in the house for as long as they lived, and then it became the son's. But it's been cut out, so I don't think that it's all that serious myself. I would like to see you be able to do some- thing so we could keep it 40,000 square feet. But if it's going to be a large practical difficulty for you, I think Mr. Chairman, that my feeling would be to go along with him. MR. GRIGONIS: I'm inclined to go with the applicant's situ- ation. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, would somebody second my motion, and then you can vote on it? MR. TUTHILL: Well, if you don't want to withdraw it I will second it, and we will vote on it. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of PHILIP A. WENZEL, Main Road, Peconic, New York 11958, Appeal No. 2598 for permission to sub- divide with insufficient area BE DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that the proposed lot with insufficient area be at least 40,000 square feet. Vote of the Board: AYE: Messr. Douglass. NOES: Messrs. Doyen, Tuthill and Grigonis. This resolution was defeated by a majority vote. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -7b- December 6, 1979 Appeal No. 2598. Application of PHILIP A. WENZEL. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting to subdivide land into two sections, the parcel with the dwelling consisting of 35,247 square feet in area, and the parcel to be used for agricultural purposes and with the two barns consisting of 24~0 acres, andl the applicant's reasoning for this.proposed subdivision is be- cause of the location of the barns as intended for agricultural use and the location of the right-of-way to be used for access into these barns. The access road is directly across the Main Road (State Route 25) from the Briarcliff Sod exit road which is the intended route for the farm vehicles. If there were any change in the placement of the right-of-way on the subject property, the farm vehicles would head righ~ into traffic on the State Route causing a hazard. The applicant's representa- tive has informed the Board that if the full 40,000 square feet were the area of the dwelling parcel, practical difficulties are involved: (a) that in order to continue3to use the~barns ~heyewould not be able to utilize the 24,820 acres for agricul- tural use; that one half to a full acre would have to be elim- inated for the agricultural use by using a rear entrance of the barns; (b) that in order to continue to use the barns and also add the area to total 40,000 square feet, a long narrow strip of land would be the only alternative and would serve no other purpose to the residential property or agricultural property; this would be impractical. Due to the practical difficulties involved for both the residential parcel and the agricultural land, the Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that PHILIP A. WENZEL, Main Road, Peconic, New York, Appeal NOo 2598, BE GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 as applied for SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That if in the future the owner of the subject parcels decides to apply for subdivision, the lo~ within the proposed subdivision will be not less than 40,000 square feet and will be required to meet the then current zoning regulations of the Town of Southold; Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- December 6, 1979 (2) That the applicant apply to the Southold Town Planning Board for their approval of this subdivision as applied for herein. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Tuthill, Grigonis and Doyen. No: Messr. Douglass. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2629. Application of RALPH H. DICKINSON, by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, New York 11952, for a ~ariance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 100-30 for permission to construct dwelling with insuf- ficient front and side yard setbacks. Location of property: Off Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Heck and Graham, south by Great Peconic Bay, west by McDowe!l, east by Arthur. The Acting Chairman read correspondence received from Abi- gail A. Wickham, Esq., attorney for the applicant, requesting that this matter be recessed until the December 27, 1979 meeting of this Board. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of RALPH H. DICKINSON, Appeal No. 2629 BE RECESSED until the December 27, 1979 meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Tut- hill and Doyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2609. Application of ROBIN A. RAEBURN and MARY ELIZABETH MURPHY, by George C. Stankevich, Esq., Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280A. Location of property: Bridge Lane Extension, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by Long Island Sound, south by Bokina, west by Bokina and Baxter Proper- ties, east by Parr. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:05 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: Has the attorney anything new for us? GEORGE STANKEVICH: Yes, your Honor. We have gone to the Planning Board with Baxter's attorney and the Planning Board will not give Mro Baxter any type of ruling saying that our houses could use Baxter's right-of-way and that Baxter could use the right-of-way for a minor subdivision. Two factors are involved. One is the number of houses, although that's not insuperable, because there are many similar sized roads used by four, five, Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- December 6, 1979 even ten houses in Southold. More importantly, the Planning Board felt that sooner or later there was going to be a major subdivision in either side of the right-of-way going up to the Sound., and on the books are plans to put a road parallel to the Sound, two or three hundred feet back from the Sound, and they just don't want to commit themselves until these items come to the forefront. With that position Baxter is unwilling to engage in any type of agreement with our clients, and we have offered to put the road mn on our expense; we've offered to maintain it at our expense, but I think they have a logical point, that until they could get a commitment from the Planning Board it would be fool hardy. Number two, Mr. Bokina and.his brother are here. They-can't move the barn. It's a very large and substantial structure that's been there for age and more. My discussions with them also indi- cate that they are unwilling ~o run this right-of-way any other place that would interfere with farming. So I suggest to you what we have here, gentlemen, is a situation that says that this land was broken up into three lots by Judge Baisley in the Partition Suit. It wasn't planned by me. It wasn't you know any s~bterfuge. This man had a lawsuit in front of him and he's a Supreme Court Judge, and he says, "Look, this land." He cut it up. And pursuant to that order which I think we have put a copy into your file, the land was deeded out. A fate of "complet." Now, on the three lots we've got a preexistin~ house ~ha~ uses this road, as it exists now, meanders up. And there appears to be a house further west of our property, further east of our property, Parr, that uses it; and you have the general guidelines that call for a 16-foot road and we propose to run a road in, 16 foot, and it was drawn up by the surveyor in good faith, but it was discovered that there was an encroachment of this'barn, four feet at one point in th±s long road. And that's been the fly in the ointment. And we tried to obviate that as I indicated with~Baxter with the Planning Board with Bokina and we can't. And I suggest to you that what we have here is a hardship. We have a practical difficulty, and that's why we're asking you tonight as we asked you earlier that you approve it as laid out, that we do ha~e a praCtical difficulty and we have shown you in good faith that we have no way of ameliorating that practical difficulty, and we believe that it's your duty as the Z.B.A. to grant variances, to be flexible. When a party doesn't create the situation itself, and we have in here, it's not self-created, where we have gone and done everything that you told us. Go to the Planning Board, go to Baxter, go to Bokina, see if it could be ameliorated." And we've done that. Um, and at some degree of expense. Remember the buyer has a commitment; there's a $200,000 deal pending and the rate of mortgages have gone up and are costing him money. But it's going to terminate January 1st, that commitment, and this deal is'going to go down the drain. And we think that's a very substantial hardship. And it's going to have to be solved anyway, one way or the other, you know, this property has been ordered divided; it has been divided. One lot is in use, the other two lots are going to be used. We're willing to agree to anything that we can as a condition. We've agreed to pave the road to your specifications. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December 6, 1979 Likely, you say, "Look, you know, if we do this once, does it create a precedence." And I say no because it's a unique case and there's hardship shown. You might say and you did say at the earlier hear- ing, "Well how is this going to affect safety and welfare?" Well, for the whole run, except in one point we have a clear 16 feet. Now you might say, well how could this one point where it narrows down to 12 feet, how could that affect the situation. I say it couldn't. Any truck can get through 12 feet. Even if the truck got stuck at that one 12-foot spot, it wouldn't block others. You can always go up around it. The likelihood of that of a truck getting stuck at that one 12~foot spot is no greater or less a likelihood that two trucks getting stuck on a 16-foot portion. I mean you're talking about a rather unique situation. So, we really do ask you in good faith that you prove it. We've done the best we can and you know, it is a problem, we did not create it, and it's not going away~ MR. DOUGLASS: What legal rights and what other legal measures can you take to open the thing up? MR. STANKEVICH: Wellt I talked to Bob Tasker as you know today. I don't know whether you were there, but I said, "Look. I~d love to tell my client to get the bulldozers out." Because that would be direct, it would be practical, it would be cheaper than the lawyers and the lawyering, and under normal circumstances self~help is available. It's a legal category, self-help. You can only do it though when you are sure. S~re that you!re right and the other guy is wrong, because if you do it and you're wrong, ok, t~ey 'lock you up for trespass and~harrassment and they su~- you for punitive damages, and it becomes quite a sore for everybody. We can't do that in this case. Why? Because as far as we know that barn has been there for more than 20 years. In fact, Henry Raynor says, and he said this last night at the Planning Board of Tuesday n±ght, that his family owned this property way back and he has talked to his family to find out which went in first, the right-of-way or the barn. And they can't honestly remember. It's that far back. So, we don't have any self-help. We never have threatened Mr. Bokina. We can't threaten Mr. Bokina and we have no intention of threatening Mr. Bokina. Now that the barn is there and that the road has been there. And we didn't create it and Mr. Bokina didn't create it as far as we know. The predeces- sors in title did. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there any discussion at the present time of going up part way on Baxter's until you get beyond the barn and then coming over? MR. STANKEVICH: Yeah. No, the answer is no, no, no from the Planning Board. No, because the fact is that all that Bax- ter owns is 20 feet, and whether it's, whether we use a portion of that 20 feet or not, it's still the same thing as far as the Planning Board is concerned. They are not going to commit them- selves. I think they could have committed themselves. They chose not to. They even chose to say they never heard about this case before. In spite of the fact that they, you know-- Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- December 6, 1979 and I asked tkem, "Gee, do you realize you~.have a Zoning Board of Appeals and they have been working on. this." They said, "No, we didn't, know anything about it." Well, they said this to you. MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Tuthill would like to ask you something. MR. TUTHILL: George, where is this the narrowest, where the barn is? MR. STANKEVICH: Yes, sir. MR~ TUTHILL: That 12 feet. MR. STANKEVICH: The corner of the barn. Yes, sir. MR. TUTHILL: You have 12 feet-- MR. STANKEVICH: At that point. MR. TUTHILL: At that point and 16 all the rest of the way? MR. STANKEVICH: Yes, sir. MR. TUTHILL: The whole distance from Bridge- MR. STANKEVICH: Well, actually, at the top it's 20 feet. MR. TUTHILL: Well, this-- MR. STANKEVICH: There are some trees down below, you know, I mean a foot or two. M~. TUTHILL: It's something to ask the Board of Appeals to approve an access that goes through a barn, and -- MR. STANKEVICH: We're not asking you to do that. MR. TUTHILL: I think as you say if you have something that's unique but maybe you should find another word for it that's even stronger, but what are you asking now? MR. STANKEVICH: We are asking you to approve it as submitted with the variation that the right-of-way will narrow down to 12 feet at the point of the barn. MR. DOUGLASS: How about where it's three feet into the house? MR. STANKEVICH: Well. And at that point to narrow it down three feat, yes. So, all these other places it would be the appropriate width. We could put signs up if you want, "No passing" at those points. You know, if you think of a way to ameliorate just tell us and we'll do it. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, but the thing I am worried about most is 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- December 6, 1979 the house. Mr. Bokina, do you have sD~ething to say? JOHN BOKINA: Yes. They still don't have a right-of-way all the way up there. This guy, he's worried about $250,000 so-- You know~ my mother is 72 years old whsn they put the underground lights, this lady Mrs. Raeburn or Murphy, whatever-- I think my mother can lose her life, and this guy is worried about losing $250,000. He took 10 years off her life. He's worried about a simple little thing. If you want to keep farming over there and. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you° I would like to put a motion out now that we reserve decision until a later time so we can get together and get a little more stuff on it. We will recess the hearing, no we don't have to recess the hearing. The hearing will be closed, we will just reserve decision until a later point where we can get everything together. MR. STANKEVICH: Could I suggest one thing? Could you tell us when that time would be, because I honestly have to tell you as I have everything, that January 1st this commitment-- MR. DOUGLASS: The only thing I can tell you is our next meeting is on the 27th and I would hope to have the answer for you by then. MR. STANKEVICH: Thank you. If we can supply anything else, call us. We'll try to get it. I don't know what further if you-~ant us to hire an expert to come in and give you their opinion as to whether trucks can get by and 12 feet. I mean, you know- MR. DOUGLASS: I don't think we'll need that. You have dug up everything you can and you've been working with the other attorney. I think we have to just sit down and put everything together and see what we can come up with. MR. TUTHILL: Certainly the property owners up there have to get to the homesone way or another. MR. DOUGLASS: Well they've been doing it for the years up over the top of it now. MR. STANKEVICH: We~?!ll certainly assume that you act in a fashion that we suggest and that you grant the Pr0po!~edi~i~iief. Certainly the end result will be a lot better than what you have now. You can get a paved road and it's going to be in the right place, which you don't have now. It's not paved; it's rutted; it's really a mess. So from the existing condition ~to~what .you approve, there's going to be a substantial improvement. It's not completely, you know, as you would like. Well, it's not completely the way my client would like it because if it was the way the client liked it, I wouldn't be here tonight. It would have been a cake war~. We wouldn't need the lawyers. But it's not a perfect world. Southold Town Board of Appeals ,13- December 6, 1979 MR. GRIGONIS: The road comes in, the house is there. I know mYself 50 years ago the house and barn; we used to go up there hunting when I was a kid. It's the way it was. Sooner or later-- MR. STANKEVICH: W~ would somebody create something like this? And the answer is, you know, everybody was a lot more practical, a lot less technical, and they just laid things out, I think it was Harold Reeve who got the first lot Up there. MR. DOUGLASS: Will you give us one thing, George, a copy of the contract of sale? MR. STANKEVICH: Yeah. MR. BOKINA: Actually, there is no right-of-way, the rest of the right-Of-way is in the woods. How are you going to write to the trees. In good faith I don't use that road. MR. DOUGLASS: The right-of-way part that they are talking about is the part from the street up. MR. BOKINA: Exactly, but they're going to develop that property, and they're going to go across the Sound, their right- of-way is in the woods. MR. DOUGLASS: The part that goes across the sound, if you will check with the Planning Board, you will find goes up into the land. And the only part that ~s in discussion with us is the part from the road up to the woods. HENRY BOKINA: And I don't think there's enough frontage there to build another house. JOHN BOKINA: I don't think they have enough property to go- HENRY BOKINA: You have to have 100 feet from the bluff, right? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know what the D.E.C. would require on that. MR. STANKEVICH: That's all been approved by the Planning Board, and we'll supply you with a copy of the decision. MR. DOUGLASS: This is not tn our category. I would take a second on that motion if you will. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of ROBIN A. RAEBURN and MARY ELIZABETH MURPHY, by George C. Stankevich, Esq., Appeal No. 2609, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until a further date and that this hearing be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2637. Application of VINCENT J. and CATHERINE ACUNTO, 35 Glenrich Drive, St. James, New York 11780, (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient frontyard. Location of property: Clearview Avenue and Gagen's Landing Road, Southold; bounded north by Clear~ view Avenue, east by Gagen, south by Goose Creek, west by Gagen's Landing Road. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the appli- cation for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter fr~m the Town Clerk that notification had been given to adjoining prop- erty owners as follow: John A. Gagen; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the survey showing the proposed location of the dwelling, and 15 feet on the sideyard and more than enough footage at the rearyard. I also have a copy of the County Tax Map showing the area and the size lots in the adjoining area. Have you anything that you would like to speak on for this? MR. BRUER: Rudolph Bruer. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, as you can see from the survey, does everybody have a survey there? MR. DOUGLASS: No, we only have one. MR. BRUER: What we basically would like is a variance of the 50-foot setback requirement on Gagen's Landing Road to 35 feet. The house, the proposed house would be situated in such a way that it would have to be pretty much up where it is due to the elevations of this particular lot, and the problems that the lot has other than this problem. We are required to sit back 50 feet from Clearview Avenue and we would like the Board to grant us a variance of the 50 foot requirement on Gagen's Landing Road, pointing out that the lot is approximately 90 feet wide and to put a house in this area on this particular lot, on waterfront there, not that you should give a great deal of consideration for waterfront, but the value of the type of houses and the value of lots there. If you want to put WP a nice house, and I think in all fairness to the applicants we would respectfully request a 35-foot sideyard requirement on Gagen's Landing from the required 50. Frontyard, excuse me. It's two front yards and that's why it's unique. The property adjoining it, I guess, to the east is 90 foot wide, I think and would not be bothered by this burden because it's not on the road. And again we respectfully request that the Board co~sider it and grant it. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else in the audiencs-wishing to speak for this project? (There was no response.) Is there any- body wishing to speak against this petition? (There was no response.) MR. GRIGONIS: I would like to make a motion that it be granted as applied for. ~Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -15- December 6, 1979 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests a 35-foot setback in one of the frontyards, that which is easterly of Gagen's Landing Road, due to the eleva- tion of the property. The dwelling as proposed would meet all other requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold and Bulk and Parking Schedule. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change %he character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that VINCENT ACUNTO and CATHERINE ACUNT0, ~rep~esented by Rudolph Bruer, Esq.), 35 Glenrich Drive, St. James, New Ycrk 11780, BE.GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insuf- ficient frontyard setback of 35 feet as applied for. Location of property: Clearview Avenue and Gagen's Landing Road, Southold; bounded north by Clearview Avenue, east by Gagen, south by Goose Creek, west by Gagen's Landing Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2644. Application of W. CHET VAN DYNE, 300 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient frontyard. Location of property: Glen Court, Cutchogue, filed Map ~5060 of Vista Bluff, Lot ~4; bounded northeast by Aliano, southeast by Glen Court, southwest by Loreto, northwest by L.I. Sound. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the appli- cation for a varlance~ legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publlcat±on in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification had been given to adjoining property owners as follows: Nicholas Atiano, Mrs. Lillian Loreto; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have copies of the County Tax Map showing this area and survey showing the proposed location of the dwelling. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- December 6, 1979 for this application? RUDOLPH BRUER: I think it's important as we observe this application to point out a copy of the filed map showing this particular lot in the map itself. You will notice that this lot No. 4 is cut away and it's road frontage up front, starting not quite 20 feet but going back definitely loosing 20 feet from all %he ~ther lots along the Sound there. In other words that lot would normally be 20 feet longer in front up towards the Road had it not been for the cul-de-sac for the turnaround. Now all the other properties have the access or do not have that problem. One of the important aspects of the appeal is I think the survey that was attached to the application as well as this application noting the bluff line there. And, I don'tknow if you gentlemen have seen this survey, it shows the proposed house and compared with the top of the bluff, and what we're asking for. And then this is the cul-de-sac and why we're cut down. Attached to the report is a study showing, by the Cooperative Extension of Cornell University, State of New York, U.S. Department of Agriculture~ addressed to Mr. Van Dyne dated October 23, 1979. It is signed by Mr. Peter T. Sanko, Sea Grant Extension Specialist, and I'll read it for the record: ...Dear Mr. Van Dyne: On October 11, 1979 I inspected your property in Southold, district 1000, section 83, block 1, parcel 10 to assess the erosion problem and its effect on the placement of the house you are planning to build. Your property is undergoing active erosion caused by wave attack at the toe of the bluff, ground water seepage, and rain drop erosion on the face of the bluff. According to the report "Erosion of the North Shore of Long Island, by Davies, Axelrod and O'Connor, the long term erosion rate for your area established over an 85-year period (1885-1965) is 0.8 feet to 1.0 feet per year. The bluff is in particularly "bad shape" at the top, where the slope is steeper than the natural angle of repose of the soil. Should you choose to vegetatively, the top will have or so ~n order to obtain a more do this, you can expect to lose through natural means. attempt to stabilize the bluff to be cut back about 15 feet stable slope. If you do not this top section, in any event, Complete stabilization of tion to vegetation, structural further erosion. the bluff will require, in addi- means to protect the toe from Given the present rate of erosion, which can be expected to continue, if not become more severe in the future, the current state of your bluff, and the fact that structural and vegetative methods of erosion control are not fool proof, I would recommend that your house be placed as far back from the top of the bluff as possible. As a minimum, you will have to compensate for the Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 6, 1979 15 fe~t that will shortty~be lost~ add to tbt~s~ at least 20 feet if you build a toe protection structure, and more to compensate for future erosion if you don't. ~ The 20 feet mentioned above is primarily a safety factor based on erosion potential and water ~unoff considerations. Your architect should review the situation from the point of view of foundation conditions .... I think based on this report and the application we're making here, the 15-foot application is not unreasonable° MR. DOUGLASS: While you are here, Mr. Bruer, would you take a took at those pictures. Are they the ones that are up there? Have you been up there? MR. BRUER: No. I really couldn't say. MR°DOUGLASS: Well this shows the frontyard area, cul-de-sac area sitting at the 15 foot that you want that you are asking for, why this brings the front of the house that he is proposing here still in line with the front of the house as compared to the others. MR. BRUER: Mr. Windall, who is going to be the builder of this, has advised me that being 15 feet back would probably even them up with what is on this-- MR. DOUGLASS: It would come within alignment w~th the houses in that area. And this is the house that you are talking about right here. It's about 100 feet down. MR. BRUER: It's a long way for a house to go. Thank 'you very much. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Under the circumstances of the cul-de-sac cut for the Town road and the erosion situation on the bluff, which is really radical at that point, and I hope that he can do something to maintain it. Or if he doesn't why he still might be overboard. I would like to make a motion that we grant him the relief he needs to come back to 15 feet from the cul-de- sac to construct his house. ~. TUTHILL: This man needs a variance if anybody ever needs one, and I would be glad to second the motion. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting a 15-foot frontyard setback variance due to the active erosion on the subject property and the poor shape of the bluff caused by wave attacks. The dwelling as proposed would meet all the other requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold and Bulk and Parking Schedule. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. ~Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -18- December 6, 1979 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hard- ship 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 made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it RESOLVED, that W. CHET VAN DYNE, 300 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. BE GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient frontyard setback as applied for herein. Location of property: Glen Court, Cutchogue, filed Map ~5060 of Vista Bluff, Lot ~4, bounded north- east by Aliano, southeast by Glen Court, southwest by Loreto, northwest by L.I. Sound. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2645. Application of NUMZIO REALE, 618 Valmont Place, Elmont, New York 11003, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient rearyard. Location of property: 200 Hamilton Avenue, Cutchogue; Ravatone Realty Filed Map ~539, Lots 25 & 26; bounded northeast by Hamilton Avenue, southeast by Modelewski, southwest by McCormack, Rauch & Wehlau, northwest by Schroder. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 P.M. by read~ ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification had been given to adjoining property owners as follows: Mr. Modetewski, J. Mcr Cormack, C. Rauch, R. Wehlan, and R. Schroder; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a section of the County Tax Map showing that property and the surrounding properties, and it's as big or bigger than the surrounding properties because it's two lots put together. I have a copy of th~ survey showing the proposed dwelling. There's a garage on the back corner that's within three feet of the line now. It's been there for years. Is there anybody wishing to speak for this application? MR. REALE: The only thing I can say is we are asking for a nine~foot difference in what they require. They ask for a 50 foot rearyard and we would end up with a 4t~foot rearyard, and keeping it to 50 I would have to change the driveway and possibly change the pools and take down just every really decent Southold Town Board of Appeals -19, December 6, 1979 tree that's on the property now, which I am trying to save. The way the house is being situated now I don't think would be inter- fering with anybody else's privacy or anything. It would be well wooded around it, and I don't see any reason why it should be held up for that reason, you know. MR. DOUGLASS: Would you give your name, sir? MR. REALE: Numzio Reale. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) MR. TUTHILL: I move it be granted as applied for. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting in his application a rearyard setback of 40 foot due to the limited area in which cesspools can be placed, and in order to preserve the old and large trees on the lot. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant and the request does not seem to be unreasonable as compared with other dwellings in that immediate area. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all proper- ties 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 made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that NUMZIO REALE, 618 Valmont Place, Elmont, New York 11003, BE GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100m31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient rearyard setback of not less than 40 feet as applied for. Location of property: 200 Hamilton Avenue, Cutchogue; Rava- tone Realty Filed Map $539, Lots 25 and 26; bounded northeast by Hamilton Avenue, southeast by Modelewski, southwest by McCormack, Rauch and Wehlau, northwest by Schroder. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2643. Application of MICHELLE BECKER, Love Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100~71 for permission to construct addition in a B~i zone with insufficient side and front yards. Location of property: Love Lane and Pike Street, Mattituck; bounded north by L.I. Railroad, east by Giiders!eeve, south by Pike Street, west by Love Lane. Southeld Town Board of Appeals -20- December 6, 1979 The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 P.M. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification had been given to adjoining property owners: James and Pauline Gildersleeve, L.I. Railroad, Southold Town Building Department; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the plan showing the proposed addition. I also have a section of the County Tax Map showing that piece of property and showing all the surrounding pieces of proper- ty in that area. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this application? MICHELLE BECKER: Like I put down in my resume, I do want to put it back to its original, well, it's original building. What I have here is a picture of how when it was originally owned by Gildersleeve, as you know, it goes all the way up to Love Lane. This was a general store at the time. What I would like to do is to go out to Love Lane. The only thing I have here is what I purchased. This was originally the gas station, and as you could see it was quite an eye sore in town. It's right against the railroad tracks. It was boarded up, it had all the cars in front of it. It was really the bad side of town. And I believe I handed in pictures showing you what it looks like now as a beauty parlor. I have a letter here from John Kanas, President of the North Fork Bank. MR. TUTHILL: Please give that to Mr. Douglass when you are finished. MR. DOUGLASS: That's all right. You can explain it and read it. MS. BECKER: What this is for, he feels that my addition would be an asset to the town because I have proven already what I did with the gas station and made it an asset to the town. And this is a letter from William Wickham, the attorney in Mattituck, also he felt that what I did once before was an asset for the town, and my ad,it±on could only enhance the town once again. And the'ole cliche~. This is the architect's drawing of what it will look like when it's complete. MR. TUTHILL: Including the .setbacks. MS. BECKER: That was a gas station. Right here is Love Lane. MR. DOUGLASS: You just said a minute ago that you wanted to come to Love Lane but you have asked to hold a 3-foot setback. MS. BECKER: Well, right, three feet, because what I was doing was putting the portico that now exists around the building on the addition. 'Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -21- December 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: So it will be three feet back. MS. BECKER: Yes, three feet. And one thing I would like to add, putting in the addition I'm not losing any parking space because with the addition and~with the amount of property that I own, I have enough room for 21 cars with this addition. And everyone else in town, they don't even have room for one car becauSe they don't have a parking field. They have to use the municipal parking field. So I feel that between the addition, the asset to the town and the parking, it~only intends to enhance the town. MR..TUTHILL: There's public parking right over in this area across the street, too. MS. BECKER: Right. But at one time we never even have 21 cars. If we did, I'd have a booming business° MR. DOUGLASS: You might have it here. MS. BECKER: Do you want me to leave this, too? MR. DOUGLASS: No. You keep that, have it framed. MS. BECKER: Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anybody else wishing to speak for this application? GEORGE PENNY III: I would like to speak- MR. DOUGLASS: Would you gzve your name, please? MR. PENNY: My name is George Penny and I've lived in Matti- ~ck for quite a few years. You don't have to put that in the record, do you, Bob, how long it's been? MR. TUTHILL: I know. MR. PENNY: Michelle has been a real addition to our business community when she started the change of the gas station there into a beauty parlor, it was a real improvement on that corner. And across the whole Village. From that started to look around and see what'they needed to do to beautify themselves, and they have done a pretty good job. They have a long way to go yet but they have done a good job. Michelle is very highly thought of in the community by the business people and the local residents and she has been so highly thought of that she was recently elected as President of the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce. And she is very active in all our community affairs, and I know that anything that she did would be for the benefit of the community and not in any way detrimental to it. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, Mr. Penny. Is there anybody else Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- December 6, 1979 wishing to speak for this application? STEVE PERRICONE: I'm in favor of this application by Michelle because I think it's just going to conform to the rest of this town. The southeast corner and the southwest corner of Love Lane now do have buildings as.-Michelle said, right to the property line and if she does put this building up, it's going to conform to the rest of the town. As far as parking goes, none of the other businesses in town have their own parking to begin with. They use the municipal parking. There iR also parking from the firehouse on Pike Street to the west end of Pike Street, and also from the North Road and Love Lane to 25, which is ample parking. There is also parking across the street along the railroad tracks,in back of Raynor-Suter Hardware Store and in back of the post office. So I don't see where a parking problem should even be brought into this matter as far as that goes. And I think she is going to do a real good job, and I think she should kave it. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Is anybody else wishing to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anybody wishing to speak against the application? (There was no response.) Well, it seems like we are pretty much in agreement in what kind of a job she does. MR. TUTHILL: How does she cut hair? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know. You'll have to ask some of the woman, unless you go there. I heard you put in for an application. MR. TUTHILL: be approved. I'll be very happy to make a motion that this After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests to put an addition to the present beauty parlor which is located in a B-1 zone, and requests a sideyard setback of not less than 4-1/2 feet and a frontyard setback of not less khan three feet. The addit±on as proposed would be in conformity with the neighborhood and meets all the other require- ments of the Code of the Town of Southo!d and Bulk and Parking Schedule. The Board a~rees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all proper- ties 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 made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that MICHELLE BECKER, Love Lane, Mattituck, New York, BE GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -23- December 6, 1979 Section 100-71 for permission to construct addition in B-1 Zone with an insufficient sideyard setback of not less than 4-1/2 feet and frontyard setback of not less than three feet, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) Southold Town Planning Board approval of parking plan and Site Plan, (2) Suffolk County Planning Commission recommendations. Location of property: Corner of Love Lane and Pike Street, Mattituck; bounded north by Long Island Railroad, east by Gilder- sleeve, south by Pike Street, west by Love Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC PIEARING: Appeal No. 2642. Application of WILLIAM HEINS, Main Road, Orient, New York 11957, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-71 for permission to construct addition for second business with insufficient sideyard. Location of property: 22350 Main Road, 55 Oysterponds ~oad, Orient; bounded north by Main Road, west by Oysterponds Road, south by Rackett, east by King. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:07 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification had been given to adjoining property owners: Floyd King, Jr. and Frederick Rackett; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a survey of the lot with the plans drawn on it, and I have a section of the County Tax Map showing that property and the surrounding properties. This property is in a B-1 Zone. Is there anyone wishing to speak for this appli- cation? Boa~d-ofAppeals Member Terry Tuthill left the room for a few moments. ROBERT HEINS: I feel that if you gentlemen have gone out and seen the before and after of what is going on out there~ that you can see it is adding to the beauty of Orient, and I feel what my father is putting in would be something else for tourists. And he didn't know for sure what was going in there, but it is going to be something to bring the tourists in and I think it will help the community. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anybody 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- December 6, 1979 wishing to speak against this application? WILLIAM TERRY JR: My name is William Terry Jr. and I oppose the granting of the variance. The property is much too small for the present businesses, and there definitely is no room for any additional. I'm sure the Board knows better than I about parking area. Something like one parking space for 100 foot of floor space, something like that. Therefore, I oppose the granting of the variance. And while I'm on my feet I'm supposed to say, bv saying this it may be too late, but I was also.asked that-the Board of Historical-Society is meeting tonight on the Historical Dis- trict of Orient, and a letter of opposition will follow to the Board tomorrow or the next day. And I had two long distance calls from Jack Hamilton and Charles Schneider, also in oppcsition. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing t~ speak for or against this application? Do you have another word, sir? MR. HEINS: In regard to the parking, we have checked with as far as how many spaces we need and there is more than adequate space for parking. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, that's controlled by the Zoning Ordi- nance anyway. What you have to have, the amount that you have to have is controlled by the Zoning Ordinance. Would you look at this. Is this an accurate picture of what you have done so far? MR. HEINS: Yes, 1 would say so. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir~ At this time, I would like to postpone decision on this until we have a chance to sit down and go over all of this that we have here. So I would put a motion on the floor to postpone this decision until we go over all of the other3tonight. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it wa s RESOLVED, that the matter of WILLIAM HEINS, Main Road, Orient New York 11957, Appeal No. 2642, BE POSTPONED ITS DECISION at a later time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen. Absent from the room: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, and Messr. Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2641. Application of J.B. HARTS~ FIELD, Box 232, Fishers Island, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards. Loca- tion of property: Right-of-way off Fox Avenue, Fishers Island; bounded north by Figall, east by F.I. Utility Co., south by Wheeler, west by Phelps. Board of Appeals Member Terry Tuthill returned at 9:16 P.M. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- December 6, 1979 The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:16 P.M. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification had been given to adjoining property owners as follows: A.C. Abbott; Stowe C. Phelps, F.I. Utility Co, and Stephen Figall; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a survey of the property showing what is on it now and where the proposed home would be. I also have a section of the County Tax Map showing that property and the surrounding properties. And it is within the same size category as those in the surrounding areas. Is there anybody here wishing to speak for this application? Is there anybody wishing to speak against th±s application? (There was no response.) MR. DOUGLASS: We have a couple of letters here, and this one must be the neighbor, right? SERGE DOYEN: Yes, that's the neighbor that would be affected by the rearyard variance. His home is very near that. It is very near up against the lot line. So he would be affected two ways, by the occupancy of the dwelling and the height of it. MR. DOUGLASS: Ok. Letter dated December 2, 1979 from Stowe C. Phelps: ...The undersigned respectfully requests the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to deny the Petition for a Variance filed by J.B. Hatsf~eld, Box 232, Fishers Island, NY, Appeal No. 2641 unless certain restrictions specified below are made part of the Va~a.~c~; based on considerations..~a) that the undersigned is the owner of the property ad3acent to and west of said Hartsfield property, and that 1 am the Phelps cited in the Petition aforementioned; (b) that the Hartsfield property presently contains three dwellings, each on lots smalle~ than permitted by current zoning ordinances~ (c) that current zoning restrictions require a setback of 50 feet in front and rear of any dwelling from the property line; (~d~ that all three existing Hartsfleld dwellings are in viola- tion of the current 50-foot setback ordinances, both front and rear; (e) that one of the Hartsfield dwellings, the garage apartment, is situated approximately six feet from the Phelps property, and is in gross violation of setback regulations; (f) that J.B. Hartsfield requests a variance in order to erect a fourth dwelling on a lot smaller than permitted by current zoning ordinances; and that he is re- questing a further variance from setback ordinances, said further variance being by the amount of 23/50ths in front and 27/50tbs in the rear. The restrictions requested by the undersigned are... (1) That any dwelling to be built on the property for which this variance is requested be limited in height to one story above ground, and that no second story, attic or other structure may be built over it now or in the Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- December 6, 1979 future; (2) that no part of any dwelling to be erected on the property, or added to the proposed dwelling thereon, now or in the future, may be closer than 27 feet to the western edge of said property, said edge being the line between the Harts- field and Phelps properties; (3) that no additional or separate structures of any kind may be erected on said property; (4) that the dwelling on this property be restricted to single- family residence.~.. The other letter here is from the applicant. Do you wish to make a motion on this? MR. DOYEN: Yes. I make a motion that it be approved as applied for with the provisions that it be llmited~ the struc~ ture be limited to one-story. MR~ DOUGLASS: How about some of these other things from the neighbor? MR, DOYEN: That's automatically. That's part of their determination, they can't do those things anyway. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, he,can put a garage on. MR. DOYEN: No, I don't believe so. That's a terribly undersized lot, unless he came back here for another appeal, I wouldn't know where he could put ±t. It's quite an undersized lot. MR. DOUGLASS: It's undersize except in the area that it's in. MR. DOYEN: That makes no difference. That's in single and separate ownership. So it:has nothing to do with undersize lots in the remain±ng area in this ±nstance. MR. DOUGLASS: I think we should put the rest of these on it then because it spells it out. MR. DOYEN: The rest of what? MR. DOUGLASS: The rest of Phelps restrictions. MR. DOYEN: What are you eluding to specifically? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, these statements are that there can't be any dwellings on there, and that it stays single-family and so on and so forth. MR. TUTHILL: Wouldn't they have to come before us for those things anyhow? MR. DOYEN: They have to come before this Board anyway. It doesn't make any difference. The applicant has a copy of that letter. All the provisions of that letter he is perfectly happy to comply with because it's part of the determination anyway Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- December 6, 1979 in effect. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, then put it in and it's stipulated. MR. DOYEN: Well, I don't know why Mr. Phelps can ask for all these things that we don't always accede to everything everybody asks for just because they object to this. Because he objects to it, we don't have to make those restrictions. I think he's getting the same consideration when restricting it with one level, is the important thing, and the remainder is up to the Board-in the future if he so desires to put a garage, it's up to us to determine it at that time whether he should have a garage or not. -~ ~ MR. DOUGLASS: So, your motion is on the floor then to just restrict it to the~? MR. DOYEN: Exactly as appl±ed for with the restriction that the structure be lim±ted to one story. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting to construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of 23 feet and rearyard set- back of 27 feet due to the configuration and topography of the lot, the character of which does not differ from those within the immediate area. The Board agrees with the reason- ing of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that J.B. HARTSFIELD, Box 232, Fishers Island, New York BE GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with a frontyard setback of 23 feet and a rearyard setback of 27 feet as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the dwelling be limited to one story. Location of property: Right-of-way off Fox Avenue, Fishers Island; bounded north by Figall, east by F.I. Utility Co., south by Wheeler, west by Phelps. 1000-06-06-006. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- hill and Doyen. -Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- December 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2639. Application of JOHN LOUIS MOUNTZOURES, c/o Fishers Island Fruit and Produce, Box 305, New London, Connecticut 06320, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct addition in a B-1 zone with insufficient sideyard. Location of property: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island; bounded north by R. Dupont, Jr., east and south by Equestrian Avenue, west by H.L. Ferguson Museum Inc. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:34 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Town Clerk, Town of Southold; Reynolds Dupont Jr. c/o The Liquor Store; Henry L. Ferguson Museum c/o Perry Edwards as Treasurer; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: t have a copy of the plan showing the entrance porck, or ramp or whatever you want to call it, across the back, that he desires. And I have a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties. I also have adrawing of what the ramp will look like, with a shelter over it. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) If not, I will enter- tain a motion that this be granted. MR. DOYEN: I'll make the motion. MR. DOUGLASS: I'll second the motion. It's in quite a dangerous situation. It's right on one of the worst turns on Fishers Island. MR. DOYEN: It's an extremely bad turn. MR. DOUGLASS: This will have to go to the Planning Board because of the zone it's in for parking and screening approval, and then it goes to the County Planning Commission for approval which We will send in. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting a five-foot sideyard setbask from the property line adjoining the Dupont property, north of the subject property in order to install a loading ramp in a more practical and less dangerous area than he is presently using at the front of the business. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinit~ of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- December 6, 1979 character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that JOHN LOUIS MOUNTZOURES, c/o Fishers Islan~ Fruit and Produce, Box 305, New London, Connecticut 06320, BE GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sec- tion 100-71 for permission to construct addition in a B-1 Zone with an insufficient sideyard setback of not less than five feet as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: (1) That approval be obtained from the Southold Town Planning Board of the parking and screening area required in this commercial zone. Location of property: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island; bounded north by R. Dupont, Jr., east and south by Equestrian Avenue, west by H.L. Ferguson Museum Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to recess this meeting for five minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrso Douglass, Gri~onis, Tuthill and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2646. Application of SALVA- TORE LORIA (New Suffolk Fishing Station), First Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article VII, Section 100-80(B) for permission to construct addition in C-Zone. Location of property: First and King Streets, New Suffolk, New York; bounded north by King Street, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by North Fork Ship- yard, west by First Street. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:50 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers~ Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that noti- fication to adjoining property owners was made to: North Fork Shipyard; fee paid $15.00. 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- December 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the map with the proposed addition on it. I also have a section of the County Tax Map showing that piece of land and the surrounding properties. Is anybody wishing to speak for this application? Would you give yourrname, sir? PHIL LORIA: I would like to say that the Building is a necessity to our business whereas we are exposed to the area within two weeks, for a working area and storage of our equip- ment. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Hearing none, I would like to ask a couple of questions of you, sir. At the present time, you have a small building moved into that area, right? MR. LORIA: Yes. MR. DOUGLASS: What is your intention for that small build- ing? MR. LORIA: Possibly we're going to take it, you know, disassemble it and take it down. It's a portable building, it's not on any foundation, it's just sitting on some cement blocks. MR. D©UGLASS: Ail right. Well, what I am getting at, if this is granted, the small building will have to go, it cannot be set on any other place on the property. MR. LORIA: No, that will be gone. We will take care of that. MR. DOUGLASS: In other words, then what you are asking for is you're covering the area where that little building is now, up to your other section out by the street. MR. LORIA: Right. We just want to attach the two build- ings, whereas so we could put a concrete floor in there. To make a regular shop out of it. Right now it's a hazard because of the couple of steps going up and down. We work on motors in there, and carrying the motors in and out, it could be a little dangerous. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anything else that the Board would like to know? MK. GRIGONIS: No. That answers what I had in mind. MR. DOULASS: Then I will propose a motion granting this application to extend the west end of your present building with the note that the little building that is presently there must be removed and not situated anywhere else on the property. -Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- December 6, 1979 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition in a C-Zone in order to attach the exist- ing buildings. The applicant has confirmed that he will take the small building that exists with no foundation down. The Board does not feel that the granting of this application would set any unusual precedence in the neighborhood, and the Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship; the hard- ship 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 made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that SALVATORE LORIA, First Street, New Suffolk, New York 11956, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the ~oning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 109-80(B) for permission to con- struct addition in C-Zone as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: (1) That the small shed presently on the subject premises between the east and west buildings be removed entirely off the premises, (2) That the applicant obtain approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for the Site Plan, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 100-80(B) (14) and Article XIII, (3) That the applicant apply to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its recommendation therefor. Location of property: First and King Streets, New Suffolk; bounded north by King Street, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by North Fork Shipyard, west by First Street. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32a- December 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2638. Application of HERBERT and KATHLEEN MUNCY, Box 343, Old Orchard Lane, East Marion, New York 11939, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tion 100-31 for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Old Orchard Lane, East Marion; Gardiners Bay Estates Section II, filed Map ~275~ Lots No. 64, 65 and 66. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:00 P.M. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: R. Frentzel, H.C. Hees, H. Schaller and J. Dzenkowski; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a survey here of the parcels that they own, the three parcels, and the way it would be divided in the middle and made two parcels out of three, showing the present summer house that's on the one parcel, its location and showing the desired parcel. I also have a section of the County Tax Map showing these parcels and the surrounding parcels. Gardiners Bay Estates was broken up well before any practical zone was in. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for this application? MR. SPAHR: Well, I am a neighbor-- MR. DOUGLASS: Would you give your name to the steno, please? MR. SPAHR: Spahr, (first name) August, and I have spoken to some of the other neighbors around there, and there are absolutely no objections, so it is my feeling that the application should be approved. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? JOE DZENKOWSKI: I own land around these two lots, and I am in favor of it. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Hearing none and after going over it and taking pictures of it, the surrounding neighborhood has houses that are on much less property than they will be dividing this into. It makes a pretty gOod sized lot for Gardiners Bay Estates. I would thereby make a motion granting this appeal to subdivide these three lots into two, in other words they are increasing the size of the lots for these people. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants are requesting to subdivide property which was at one time three legal lots, but because of merged ownership deemed to be one parcel. By re-dividing this property into two lots, the lots would still be larger than the other lot sections in that neighborhood. The Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicants. 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -32b- December 6, 1979 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties and 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 made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that HERBERT MUNCY and KATHLEEN MUNCY, Box 343, Old Orchard Lane, East Marion, New York 11939, BE GRANTED a Variance to the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to divide property with insuffi- cient area and width as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: (1) That the applicants obtain Southold Town Planning Board approval for a minor subdivision. Location of property: Old Orchard Lane, East Marion, New York; Gardiners Bay Estates Section II, filed Map #275, Lots 64, 65 and 66; bounded north by Dzenkowski, east by Old Orchard Lane, south by Frentzel, west by Heess and Schaller. Suffolk County Tax Map Item No. 1000-37-2-7 and 6. Vote of the Board: Tuthill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- December 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2647. Application of RALPH MARTIN, JRt, Old Orchard Lane, East Marion, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tion 100-30A for permission to conduct a gunsmith dealership in an A-Residential District. Location of property: 2555 Old Orchard Lane, East Marion, New York; Gardiners Bay Estates Section II, filed Map ~275, LOt ~6. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:08 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: I have affidavits attesting to the fact that this was published in the local and official papers and that it has been turned down by the Building Inspector. And we have notice from the Town Clerk that the adjoining neighbors had been notified. At this point, it is not imperative that I read and go through any of the rest of the facts because I have in my possession hers a letter from the applicant as follows: Old Orchard Lane Box 203 East Marion, NY 11939 December 5, 1979 ...At this time I wish to have my application for a "Special Exception" with regard to my residence as indicated above withdrawn from the agenda of the meeting of the Board of Appeals on December 6, 1979 .... Signed Ralph Martin, Jr. MR DOUGLASS:Due~.~o this letter of request from the applicant I will make a motion that this application be withdrawn without prejudice. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the application of RALPH MARTIN, JR., Old Orchard Lane, Box 203, East Marion, New York 11939, BE WITH- DRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Location of property: Old Orchard Lane, East Marion; Gardiners Bay Estates Section II, Filed Map ~275, lot ~6. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- December 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2648. Application of JOANN and FRANK RIZZO, 150 Maple Road, Southold, New York 11971, for a Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct swimming pool in sideyard. Location of property: 150 Maple Road, Southold; bounded northeast by Domurat, southeast by Ganassa, southwest by Maple Road, northwest by Cal- lahan. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:10 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was given to: S. Dumurat, Mr. Callahan, Charles Ganassa; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the survey showing the house and the placement of the pool, and I have a section of the County Tax Map showing that property and the surrounding properties, and ~e were up. We took pictures of it. Is there anybody that wishes to speak for this application? FRANK RIZZO: Well, actually we have a hill right behind the house and there's just so many feet behind before the hill starts rising, and there's really no usable space back there, for a pool and as far as getting around it and everything. I have plenty of room in the s±deyard which would, you know, be quite comfortable over there, and ±t wouldn't be in anybody's way, and it wouldn't be an eye sort to the neighborhood. MR. DOYEN: How close to the sideyard. MR. DOUGLASS: It's only partially in the sideyard. MR. DOYEN: No, how much sideyard from the lot line? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, it's 10 feet from the house and it's only about half in the side yard. You're still in the rearyard for half of it. MR. RIZZO: ~P~t it extends up into the sideyard. MR. DOUGLASS: It extends up to about your fireplace chimney, about to the end of your chimney. It doesn't come anyw~ere near the side line. MR. DOYEN: Oh, he has all this sideyard area here. Ok. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, under the regulations they are allowed to go within three feet of the sideyard anyway, but he has a lot more than that with it. Is there anybody else wishing to speak for it, or against it? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- December 6, 1979 the applicants are requesting to place a swimming pool in the sideyard area for which there is sufficient sideyard setback due to the 15-foot hill in the rearyard. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would 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 made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that JOANN and FRANK RIZZO, 150 Maple Road, Southold, New York 11971, BE GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,_Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to con- struct sWimming pool in sideyard area as applied for, SUBJECT TO Town of Southotd Building regulations concerning swimming pools conformity. Location of property: 150 Maple Road, Southold, New York; bounded northeast by Domurat, southeast by Gannassa, southwest by Maple Road, northwest by Callahan. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal NOo 2640. Application of GRACE KEYOUNG PARK, Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in side yard. Location of property: 3435 Eli~ah's Lane, Mattituck~ bounded north by Park, east by Elijah's Lane, south by Stabler, west by Zanieski. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:17 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspaper, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was given to: Young JA Park, Zanieski Farms Inc., Jane M. Stabler; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have the dimensions of the proposed greenhouse. It will not protrude past the house on the frontyard area. In fact it will be back about 20 feet from the frontyard edge of the main house. It will be in a little alcove next to the chimney in the sideyard by the side door; it will be about four feet from the chimney and will extend 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- December 6, 1979 18 feet wide and 17 feet deep from that location. And that brings it just about to the rear corner of the house so that it will not protrude out to the rear yard, and the north winds that blow. Is there anybody wishing to speak for it? Is there anybody wishing ko speak against the application? (There was no response from the audience.) TERRY TUTHILL: I would like to ask if the survey shows the outline of tbs proposed addition. MR. DOUGLASS: No, it doesn't. MR. TUTHILL: get that. Don't you think, Bob, that we will have to MR. DOUGLASS: I think it could be put right in. MR. TUTHILL: That would be fine, I'm not in favor of delaying this, but I am in favor of granting this, but I think for the Building Department we will have to show-- MR. DOUGLASS: We will stipulate where it can be placed. MR. TUTHILL: Because where it's supposed to be- MR. DOUGLASS: For where they are asking for it as they told us. MR. TUTHILL: Under those circumstances and that stipulation for our files, I'll be glad to make a motion. I think this is in keeping with the area, and as a matter of fact, not only is it in keeping but it's close to the railroad, it's near a railroad, and this little greenhouse is going right out in the farmland. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting to build a greenhouse in the sideyard area and that the dimensions of the accessory building are as follows: Length: 17 feet, height: 8 feet 7 inches, width: 18 feet. It will be 45 feet from the sideyard. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties and 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 made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that GRACE KEYOUNG PARK, Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- December 6, 1979 New York, be GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory build- ing in side yard as follows: The northwesterly c~r~.~r.-of the proposed greenhouse to be situated approximately four feet from the chimney and extending southerly approximately 17'and 3/4" therefrom, then extending easterly approximately 8 feet in width, and running northerly approximately 17 feet 3/4 inches long, and running approximately 8 feet westerly to join forming a rectangular-shaped greenhouse (accessory building). This described location is more particu- larly drawn on the applicant's survey submitted with her appli- cation. Location of property: 3435 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck; bounded north by Park, east by Elijah's Lane, south by Stahter, west by Zanieski. Suffolk County Tax Map Item No. 1000-108-004-7.20. Elijah's Lane Estates, filed Map No. 6065, Lot No. 17. Vote of the Board Tuthill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Resolution regarding the application of WILLIAM HEINS, Appeal No. 2642, for a variance to th~ Zoning Ordinance, Article VI Section 100-61 for permission to construct addition for second business with insufficient sideyard. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct addition in a B-1 Zone in order to obtain a fair return for this property ~ in order to maintain a good appearance of this building and not cause an eye sore in this area. The addition will leave a minimum of 14 feet sideyard area on the east and would not change the setback of the rearyard as it now exists nor would it change the setback of the frontyard as it already exists. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties and 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 made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that WILLIAM HEINS, Main Road, Orient, New York BE GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI Section 100-61 for permission to construct addition for second ~Southotd Town Board of Appeals -38- December 6, 1979 business with insufficient sideyard setback of not tess than 14 feet as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the applicant erect a rail, or other barrier between the highway and the parking area so that the entrance and exit will be off of Oysterponds Road and not off the Main Road, in order to prevent any backing off onto the State Road. (2) That the applicant obtain Southold Town Planning Board approval of the parking and screening area. (3~i That the old building in the rearyard be demolished and removed; and that there be no other structures on the subject property. (4) That the applicant obtain Suffolk County Planning Commission recommendation for the proposed project. Location of property: 22350 Main Road, Orient, New York; bounded north by Main Road (State Route 25), east by King, south by Rackett, west by Oysterponds Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be scheduled for Thursday, December 27, 1979 and that the following applications be advertised for a public hearing at the below specified times: 7:50 P.M. 8:00 P.M. 8:10 P.M. 8:25 P.M. 8:40 P.M. Y & C HOLDING CO~, Appeal No. 2650, for approval of access. MORCHEL, Gunter, Appeal NO. 2649, for permission to construct fence over four feet high. MORCHEL, Gunter, Appeal No. 2651, for permission to construct fence (accessory) in frontyard area. REALE, James, Appeal No. 2653, for permission to construct structure in sideyard area. BOCKLET, Charles, Appeal No. 2654, for per- mission to utilize building as second residence on same lot. 8:55 P.M. DEMPSEY, John R., Appeal No. 2652, for per- Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- December 6, 1979 9:10 P.M. mission to obtain frontyard setback variance. PERRICONE, Stephen J. and KOUSOUROS, Penelope, Appeal No. 2587, for permission to establish disco bar with dancing. Vote of the Board: and Tuthill. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Gri~onls, Doyen On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the Decision of this Board rendered November 15, 1979, in the matter of GWYNNE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Main Road, Laurel, New York, APPEAL NO. 2634, Condition No. (1) shall be amended to read as follows: (1) That if the model home living area is used for resi- dential purposes, then any business conducted on the premises must be conducted by the person(s) residing thereon. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the following 39 sign renewal applications be approved for the period of one year from the expiration date noted on each request: Appeal No. Applicant Sign and Property Description 1285 Mattituck Lions Club Two off-premises information signs of J. Duryee Estates, Love Lane, Mattituck. ~2374 Advent Lutheran Church One off-premises directional sign. L/p: Bethany Cemetery Association, N/s Main Road, Mattituck, New York. 2375 E.L.I. Kampgrounds Inc. One off-premises directional sign. L/P: S/s County Road 27 and Chapel Lane, Greenport. 2490 Grabie-Scudder Appli- ances, Inc. One second wall sign on building located at S/s Main Road, Mattituck, NY. ~Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -40- December 6, 1979 Appeal No. 1477 999 1003 1002 1476 Applicant Volinski Olds Harold R. Reeve & Sons, Inc. Richard E. MacNish Mattituck Lanes Volinski Olds Sign/Property Description One on-premises ground sign. S/s Traveler St, Southoldo One side-wall sign and one front-wall sign. S/s Middle Road, Mattituck. One on-premises identifica- tion sign. N/s Main Road, Cutchogue. One on-premises side-wall sign. S/s Main Road, Matt. One on-premises double-faced projecting wall sign. S/s Traveler St, Southold. 1693 George Ahlers, One over-sized sign. E~s Builder Cox Lane, Cutchogue. Kenneth Hagerman Kenneth Hagerman North Fork Lions 1150 1150 1152 Cutchogue Post Office 975 Crescent Beach Motel, Inc. Or, off-premises combination "Rotary and Lions Club" sign. Fleet Lumber Co., Main Road, Greenport. One off-premises combination "Rotary and Lions Club" sign. King Greenport Associations. One on-premises side-wall sign. One off-premises directional sign. S/s Main Road, East Marion. (Dawn Estates prop.) 975 Crescent Beach One off-premises directional Motel, Inc. sign. Emil Paupecki, Peconic. 977 Bernard Kaplan Beach Comber Motel Beach Comber Motel 1664 1669 2075 One on-premises directional sign. S/s North Road, East Marion. One off-premises directional sign. Depot La and Vista Place, Cutchogue. One on-premises sign. Depot Lane, Cutchogue. Wells Pontiac & Roof sign with height variance. Cadillac Inc. Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- December 6, 1979 Appeal No. ~pplicant 959 J. Richard Holmes 959 961 960 J. Richard Holmes Sign/Property Description One on-premises building sign. Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. One off-premises directional sign. Jim Norris property, n/e corner of Cox Neck Road and Luthers Road, Mattituck. Gardiners Bay East Marion, New York. Estates Club, Inc. Arthur Siemerling One-sided wall sign on n/s North Fork Oil Heat of building. W/s Westphalia Road, Mattituck. 957 Cove Resort 1136 2064 942 932 932 1932 963 Joseph Krukowski (Seafood Barge Advertisement) Pond Enterprises d/b/a Beach Comber 'Motel One off-premises directional and advertising sign. Leander Glover property, s/s Middle Road, CUtchogue. One on-premises wall sign on barn. Main Road, Southold. One off-premises directional sign. Property of Nicholas Aliano. Village Manor One.off-premises directional (William J. Baxter) sign. MainlRoad, Mattituck. Mattituck Presby- terian Church Mattituck Presby- terian Church Alfred J. Terp Two on-premises ground signs. Main Road, Mattituck. Manor Grove Corp. One off-premises sign on property of Alrod Realty Corp. S/s Main Road, Laurel. 968 Southold Savings Bank One ground sign at town !ine~ N/s Main Road, Cutchogue. 962 One on-premises subdivision .sign. Manor Grove Corp. "Marion Manor Subdivision~ Three on-premises ground signs. N/w corner of Main Road and Young Avenue, Southold. Raynor-Suter Hardware, Inc. One on-premises wall sign on east wall of building, located at s/e corner of Pike Street and Love Lane, Mattituck, Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- December 6, 1979 Appeal No. 957 Applicant Cove Resort 957 Cove Resort 957 Cove Resort 958 936 935 Indian Neck Park Property Owners' Association Cedar Beach Park Association c/o Frank Francia Mattituck Plumbing and Heating Corp. Sign/Property Description One on-premises directional sign. Property of Antone Surozenskit Main Road, Southold. (Insufficient setback) One off-premises directional sign. Property of Antone Surozenski. One off-premises directional sign. (Victoria Cottages) Property of George Overton, Southold. One area identification sign. E./s Smith Road, Peconic. Southerly side of Main Bayview Road, Southold Cwest of General Wayne Inn) One on-premises side-wall sign for advertising, and two front-wall signs. S/s Main Road, Mattituck. Vote of the Board: Tuthill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, On motion made by Mr. Tuthitl, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the November 15, 1979 meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -43- December 6, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of Y & C HOLDING CORP., Appeal No. 2650, for permission to obtain approval of ac- cess involving property off a right-of-way on the north side of County Road 27, Peconic, this Board after review of the Environ- mental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject applica- tion has determined that this project is classified as a Type II action not having a significant effect on the environment. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of GUNTER MORCHEL, App'eA.1 No. 2649, for permission to construct fence over four feet high, Article III, Section 100-32, this Board after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject application has determined that this project is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of GUNTER MORCHEL, Appeal No. 2651, for permission to construct fence (accessory) in frontyard area, Article III, Section 100-35, this Board, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject application, has determined that this project is clas- sified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass~ Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of JAMES REALE, Appeal No. 2653, for permission to construct accessory building in sideyard area, Article III, Section 100-32, this Board, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject application, has determined that this project is clas- sified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. * * * ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- December 6, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of CHARLES BOCKLET, Appeal No. 2654, for permission to establish second residence dwelling on same lot, Article III, Section t00-30A, this Board~ has, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject application, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type Ii Action not having a significant effect on the environment pur- suant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of JOHN R. DEMPSEY, Appeal No. 2652, for permission to obtain Certificate of Occu- pancy with insufficient frontyard setback, Article III, Section 100-31, this Board, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject application, has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: and Tuthill. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Griqonis, Doyen On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of STEPHEN J. PER- RICONE and PENELOPE KOUSOUROS, Appeal No. 2587, for permission to establish disco bar with dancing, Article VI, Section 100-30, this Board, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form submitted with the subject application, has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, RESOLVED, that the meeting be declared closed at 10:50 P.M. Vote of the Board: and Tuthi!l. Ayes: Messrs. DouGlass, Grigonis, Doyen P~_~p~ectf~ull~s~u~m~tted, /?