Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/06/1979Southold Town Board of Appeals -c:OUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GR GONI$ JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. M I N U T ~, S TERRY TUTHI LL ROBERTJ. DOUGLASS Acting Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals September 6, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on September 6, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. There were present: Messrs. Robert J. Douglass, Acting Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and Terry R. Tuthill. Absent was: Serge Doyen, Jr. R~CESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2580. Application of Frank and Delores Davies, 16 Rose Court, Northport, New York (Gary F. Olsen, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article iii, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Lots No. 54, 55 and 56, Map No. 175, Tollewood, Mattituck, New York. MR. DOUGLASS: We reconvene Appeal No. 2580. Application of Frank and Delores Davies. We have a letter from the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Davies advising us that they wish to withdraw the application without prejudice. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Frank and Delores Davis, 16 Rose Court, Northport, New York, Notice of Application dated July 25, 1979 be WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Tuthill. Ayes; Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2571. Application of Greenport United Methodist Church, Main Street, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30, C6f, for permission to erect an off-premises directional SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- September 6, 1979 sign. Location of property: Main Road (State Road 25), Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (State Road 25); east by Jurzenia; south by Reese and Sill~ west by Drossos. MR. DOUGLASS : We reconvene this matter which was recessed until tonight. I believe that application was to obtain some documents for us. Here is a letter from Mrs. Patricia Zeller giving the applicant permission to erect an off-premises sign. Is there any- one who wishes to comment on this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVE~, that Greenport United Methodist Church, Main Street, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C6f, for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road (State Road 25), Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (State Road 25); east by Jurzenia; south by Reese and Sill~ west by Drossos. VOte of the Board: hill. Ayes Messrs. Douglass, Gr±gonis and Tut~ RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2582. Application of Thomas and Edith Perillo, 87 Old Country Road, Melville, New York 11747 (Carman, Callahan, Carman & Sabino, Esqs.~ for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule, for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York, bounded on the north by Great Peconic Bay Boule~ yard; east by Weglicki; south by Weglicki; west by Sidor. Mr. Douglass read the legal notice of hearing which was published in the local newspapers upon which the hearing was called~ MR. DOUGLASS: They have legally asked for a division of the property. Is there anyone who wishes to'speak on this ma~ter? DOUGLASS HEINS, ESQ.: Carman, Callahan, Carman & Sabino. I submit to you the survey. You will note that the proposal as set here does meet the requirements set forth for the side-yard des- cription on the east side of the house by the driveway. Further we i~tended at that time to discuss other proposals partly wi~h r~fe~ ~o~nei'~hb~s and~r.~Weqlick~ and d~Scussi~g wi%h them the right-of-Way~wi~h variOUs deed ri h~iof-wa ed in some res- g Y pects. We can discuss it and know as originally set forth to maintain driveway on the east side of the property. I suggest that in view of the shape of the property and the right-of-way, and the Burns might have something to say regarding the right- of-way. I can go into detail and just to what extent that we would prefer to go with the plan as proposed here. With that and knowing full well there will be other opposition, I will close now respectfully requesting that this be granted. MR. BURNS: The access road you have zs on the east side as SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ? -3- September 6, 1979 of now. The proposed driveway. MR. HEINS: On the west not on the east. down to the house. The driveway would be MR. BURNS: The right-of-way on the east side would remain the same. It only measures 10 feet. The deed says 15 feet. Fifteen feet to ten feet wide. MR. HEINS: We prefer to have a course that would suit everyone. Mr. Heins did not have a copy of the deed with him but believes the right-of-way in the Perillo deed stated ten feet. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? ROGER MUNDS: I did not make the first hearing. I was wondering whether this application is asking for a subdivision of this property. Or just moving lines back? In my view wouldn't that denote an additional purchase of property and not just change of lot line? I happen to be an appraiser. I am not an attorney like this gentleman who must know better than I, but I want to be sure I am saying the correct thing. My question is that in my view they are creating a division of land. MR. DOUGLASS: This must be approved for insufficient area and width to permit further c°nskruction and is a request for subdivid- ing the land. MR. MUNDS: Into two separate lots in one ownership. MR. HEINS: We took it in two separate conveyances and is listed as two parcels and we are not deemed part of Laurelwood Estates. They are taxed separately. MR. DOUGLASS: I suggest that you will have to go to the Planning Board for their approval. I would suggest that we will reserve our decision in order that you may go to the Planning Board and get their decision on whether you can subdivide it. It has to go back to the Planning Board anyway for their approval. Is there ~nyone else who wishes to speak on this matter? MR. SIDOR: I would like to add to what he said. That land was never intended to be a lot. It was just a parcel of land; he had it there and he didn't know what to do with it, so he sold it to the Priest, to Grochowski. He had no intentions of it being a lot. If he did, he would have had a right-of-way. There was no right- of-way to it, there was no road to it. He left it there as they have it on my deed as a park. It was supposed to be a park, then he decided he didn't need all that land so he sold it. As a mat- ter of fact, I was going to buy it myself just to buy it, but not to build a home on it. MR. DOUGLASS: Who was that, Mr. Weglicki? MR. SIDOR: Right. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- September 6, 1979 ~R, DQUGLASS: Their neighbors here, they have theirs divided. MR. SIDOR: But not that piece'though. MRS. BURNS: But it was already divided. MR. DOUGLASS: Did you keep yours in single and separate owner- ship, each lot? MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. HEINS: From my reading of the deeds, it would appear that they are owned by the same party. Just looking up and down the tax map, this whole section from it, all the way down towards the Town line, there are a number of divisions there. The fact remains that they were listed as separate parcels as we proposed to divide them. There is substantial square footage in each area, it's not as if we're trying to buildlQn a pinhead here. There's quite a bit of room there and we're not anticipating building another palace or anything. A modest house, but certainly just standing on that spot one can see that there are homes down towards the water on several of the parcels in %hat area. I don't see that it would disrupt the residing area, in fact, that property I think could use a little sprucing up. I think it would add value to the neighborhood and it would be something for the Town to be proud of, too. MR. DQU~LASS: Well, when we checked it, you're right. There are properties split all the way around it, and the fact is just a little bit to the east, just outside of those properties the houses are hard to each other, pretty near. Is there anybody else? ~ MR. MUNDS: I would like to direct a question again; this is, what is the current zoning in that particular area as of today. In other words does the Town require 40,000 square-foot building lot there, or is it a half acre? MR. DOUGLASS: It's~everywhere 40,000 square feet. MR. MUNDS: That's what I thought. MR. DOUGLASS: That's why we're here. That's the only reason you have an Appeals Board, for when people have a hardship so they can come to us. MR. MUNDS: I think that different areas around this property that have been broken up, have been broken up smaller than this but certainly quite some time ago. MR. DOUGLASS: Not too long ago. MR. MUN~S: Well, sometimes, the properties over South Oakwood DriVe', which is a filed map, have been there considerably, quite a long time. Not that there's anything wrong with building on a half-acre lot, but does this really demonstrate a hardship? If the zoning in the area is ~0,00~0 square feet- SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- September 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: The zoning in Southold Town is 40,000 square feet. But that is not something that is in an area like this, where a sur- rounding area is subdivided to less than that. It is a hardship to a man if he has to maintain an acre and everybody else can work on a half or a third. MR. GRIGONiS: Of course, recently it changed quite a bit, and the chances are if we were to deny it to him, and he went to court, the Court would uphold him instead of us. MR. MUNDS: I was only bringing up the terminology that you had used, and that is "hardship." That's what I was mulling over. If a man is buying the property as such and the immediate character of the neighborhood, Mr. Burns has his in single and separate owner- ship, three of the lots; this is a single piece in my view. Now I'm not an attorney. Mr. Sidor and I believe his brother, I believe they are separate; going all the way down. And the property that was just sold that was Mr. Weglicki's is a single piece all the way down. So, quite a bit of the area is not broken up into half acres, so I'm not really sure that the whole area around there is being broken up. I mean if both sides were definitely half acres, or third, or quarter or something, I think it's demonstrating on both sides that there are some houses close by and some that aren't. if a man is buying the property and wishes to sell it off, is that really a hardship. I mean he his buying it as an entire piece and he would like to subdivide it. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I can't read his mind about why he bought it, or why he bought it the way he did. MR. HEINS: Mr. Chairman, just to flesh out the picture a little bit. The present intention is to fix up the back house, and in the future when Mr. Perillo sees fit to move forward, and the inten- tion at this point is to have Mrs. Perillo's mother move into the back house. But that is really only almost compensation though because as a technical matter You'v~ got other concerns, Whether it's Mr. Perillo's mother or someone, it's pretty much the same situation. And I just stand on the other comments, where appar- ently you have other parties that we, ll have to seek approval from. I fail to see in any way if this is carried out how it disrupts this area. MR. DOUGLASS: Do you understand that if we approve this on that access, that you have to meet certain standards on that ac- cess before you can get any building permission at all? MR. HEINS: We are fully aware, Mr. Chairman, that any approval here and any fUture plans will be subject to the approval of the various regulatory bodies. MR. DOUGLASS: I mean, we have regulations in what we will accept for an access road and so on. It has to be a minimum of certain paved for a 15-foot width. MR. HEINS: We are prepared to meet those requirements. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- September 6, 1979 MR~ DQU~$~ I'll accept a motion if anybody would care to move. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant wishes approval of the insufficient area and widtk and approval of access and that the property had been previously subdivided by the Planning Board before the lots became merged due to the same ownership. The applicant wishes to enlarge the rear lot to 15,000 square feet, more or less and decrease the front lot to 36,000 square feet, more or less. 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. Grlgonms, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Thomas and Edith Perillo, 87 Old Country Road, Melville, New York (Carmant Callahan, Carman & Sabino, Esqs. as agent) be GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk and Parking Schedule approv~ lng the insufficient area and width as designated in the appli- cation, and approving the access subject to the following CONDITIONS: (1) Southold Town Planning Board approval for a minor subdivision of ~he subject property; (2) Suffolk County Planning Commission approval; (3) Conformance with the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals requirements for an access road. Vote of the Board: Tuthill. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2591. Upon application of Diane Gazza, c/o North Fork Equities, Inc., Nort~¥Road, SoUth- old, New York 11971, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6a- September 6, 1979 Article III, Section 100-30, for permission to have a non-farm, barn storage building as the main structure on a lot which is not p~rmitted in an A-residential and agricultural district, and a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to con- struct said building with an insufficient frontyard setbacks. Location of property: Cedar Beach Road, Southo]d, New York, known and designated as part of Lots No. 21, 22, 23, 24 on Map No. 90 of Cedar Beach Park. The Acting Chairman opened.the hearing at 8:37 P.M. by reading the application for variances, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, a~d letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property own- ers was made; names unknown. Fee paid: $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the subdivision map as approved by the Southold Town Planning Board August 30, 1978, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing the land that this part of the building will be on. Before I open this up to the parties interested, I would like to say this, that the Planning Board~ back awhile ago, this was at one time a section of about five different little lots. They found that at that time it was not practical and the peQple came ~nto the Planning Board, and the Planning Board changed it from the five lots to just two, which Mrs. Gazza owns and has constructed a house on one, and now wishes to put this storage barn on the other. It has very limited area that she can go in due to environmental causes. She requests it in about the only area she can go. Now, we need some information. First, I'll ask is there any- body here who wishes to speak for this application? Do you, Bob? MR. GILLISPIE, III: Well, I'll speak for it, but I wrote it. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, while you are speaking for it, I'll need to kn°w some facts that we don't have on this matter. Number One, the size of the storage building; we don't have any measurements. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- September 6~ 1979 MR. GILLISPTE: The size of the building would be 29' x 58' MR. DOUGLASS: The origihal sketch you had was 24' x 48', I believe, right, and then she spread it out a .little bit and then that's what brought it for a front-~.ard variance? MR. GILLISPIE: There were footings constructed on this prop- erty December of last year, the 24 x 48. DOUGLASS: Right, this we found. MR. GILLISPIE: Mrs. Gazza subsequently bought the lot and now she wanted a building somewhat larger than 24' x 48' MR. DOUGLASS: Now, with the 24 x 48, it came to 52 feet from the property line, and now with the 29 that shows you five feet out. tn other words you are going to sit 47 feet from the front- yard line. MR. GILLISPIE: Right, I would say that safely we wish to apply for a front-yard setback of 45 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: For the files on this, Bob, we are going to need you to get us a sketched diagram of the building and where it is going to sit for our files, so please bring that in. Is %hare anything else that you wish to add to this? MR. GILLISPIE: We are maintaining the side-yard as shown on the east side of the property and we're attempting not to go any closer to the water than as shown. DOUGLASS: You have 60 feet to the water. MR. GILLISPIE: Right, so we feel' that it is better to ask for a front-yard setback, than to try and go closer to the water, environmentally. ~ MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, if you go any closer than that 60 feet, at 60 feet you're down to 4 feet above sea level. If you want it closer than that your next drop is 'down to 2 feet. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak in opposition to thise appli- cation? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~8- September 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: That's 24 feet from the east boundary line, right? BOB GILLISPtE, JR.: Right. ~R% TUTHILL: Actually, these are adjacent lots, physically one lot, and if that were so legally, we would be dealing with an acces- sory building. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, that's right. It would be an accessory building, but it was two lots and that's why she had to come in. If she had joined them into one lot, she would have been- MR. TUTHILL. ing to the house. As a practical matter, it's an accessory build- MR. GILLISPIE: Mr. Chairman~ under the Ordinance what is her allowable side-yard on the east side? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, you could come down to, I would say, probably not under 20 feet on that side. I'll have to dig it up for you anyway because-. Thirty-five is the total, 15 on one side and 20 on the other. MR. GILLISPIE: Can we say for the record that we will certainly maintain the required minimum sideyard? I may have to come a little closer than 24 feet is what I am saying. MR. DOUGLASS: You can't increase the size of the building. The size of the building is to be stabilized. But you can come to within 20 feet. We'll set it so you can come to within 20 feet if you want, which is the Sideyard. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to be heard? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, does anyane wish to make a motion on it? After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a/no~-farm, barn storage building as a sole structure on the lot With insufficient front-yard set- back of 45 feet from Cedar Beach Road. The Board finds that strict ~pplication of the Ordinance ~ould produce practical difficulties 9r unnecessary hardship; the nard- 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- September 6, 1979 RESOLVED, that Diane Gazza, c/o North Fork Equities, Inc., North Road, Southold, New York 11971, be GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for pennis- sion to have a non-farm, barn storage building as the main structure on a lot which is not permitted in an A-Residential and Agricultural District, and be GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to construct said building with an insufficient front-yard setback, subject to the fol- lowing CONDITIONS: (1) That the subject building be no closer than 45 feet on the frontyard and no closer than 20 feet on the easterly lot line. (2) That the building will remain at 58 feet by 29 feet as requested. (3) That the accessory ~ building be used only for storage of materials incidental to the use by the applicant of the adjacent singlepfamily dwelling also presently owned by the applicant herein. (4) That the building as constructed shall not be altered in any respect, nor shall the use thereof be changed without prior approval of this Board. (5~ That no other buildings of any type whatsoever be constructed on said lot. (6) That the lot not be further subdivided. FQr purposes of this decision, the word "lot" shall be deemed to mean the lots set off by the Southold Town Planning Board in its decision and approval dated October 10, 1978. (7) That there shall be no living quarters within this building. Location of property: Cedar Beach Road, Southold, New York known and designated as part of Lots No. 21, 22, 23 and 24 on Map NO. 90 of Cedar Beach Park. Vote of the Board: AYes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Tuthill. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- September 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2588. Upon application of Frances N. Frisbie, Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue, New York 11935, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to change lot lines on a filed subdivision map. Location of property: Nassau Point Road and Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue, New York, known and designated as Lots 105 and 106 on Map No. 156 "Amended Map A of Nassau Point." The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:52 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hear- lng as advertissd in the official local newspapers, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Robert H. Sturday and Roberta Sinott. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of a sketch drawn for Mrs. Frisbie of the way she desires to subdivide this land and where she desires the access to the piece where her house and garage are and so on. We also have a section of the County Map showing the part of Nassau Point where we would be taking action upon. This again is a case where at the time of pur- chase they purchased two sections of a subdivision, however, when they were purchased and put together, it became one. So it is now a case of subdividing the property not just changing the lot line. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for this application? MR. FRISBIE: I~m the husband of the lady who owns the property, and we Dppeared before the Town Planning Board, and they told me that it was to go before you fellows, that this was the question of redrawlng the lot line. This is ~n a filed subdivision map. There were two lots, 105 and 106. We could build on 105 but it would mess things up because there lsa cesspool, the house on 105 for 106, and the garage for 106 ~s on 105; and I think you folks understand, I mean, I don't know whether you care for me to show you. MR. DOUGLASS: We have been up there and did take pictures of it. S~U~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- September 6, 1979 MR. FRiSBIE: Well, what we had planned to do was at some future time build on this other lot for one of our children when they were ready for it; and that would be fine, we could do that now~ but if at some future time and when we pass on or when things change, there would be an awful mix-up. In o~her words, it could be a mother- daughter situation now or a father-son, but at a later da~e you would have two garages on one lot and no garage on the other lot, so we therefore respectfully request the permission regarding the lot line. MR. DOUGLASS: Can you tell me, were both of these lots when purchased put in Mrs. Frisbie's name. MR. FRISBIE: Yes, the~ were. MR. DOUGLASS: Then it is now one common lot of 2.4 acres. They are not independent lots any more. MR. FRISBIE: Even in a filed subdivision? MR. DOUGLASS: It becomes one lot. It doesn't matter whether you buy two or three. If they were bought and purchased and put under the single and separate ownership it is one lot. This, we went over this with the Town Attorney yesterday and so it becomes a point of subdividing this land, the one that you wish to create out on Nassau Point Road conforms, there are no problems. It conforms and has over the area and has road frontage. However, the one that where you l~ve will only have 25-foot of frontage on a road and that's the access. So thereby it does no% conform in frontage. The only thing that we can do is we can give you approval of access and then you have to go back to the Planning Board and they will have to approve the subdivision of it and then the County Planning Board has to approve it because you are within 500 feet of the water. That is a matter tha5 our secre- tary just takes care of. She will, if it is approved, she would write the Suffolk County Planning Board and they will send back an answer to us. However, you will, if we approve the access aRd so on for your homestead part, why then you will have to go back to the Planning Board for approval of the subdivision of the two. We can grant you the access and the lack of footage on the road. Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to say anything?on the application? Do you have any questions. I'll make a motion then that the application for the access and the property divi- sion of under the allowable number of footage be granted and that you take it back to the Planning Board and get their approval on the subdivision. After investigatioh and inspection, the Board fihds that the applicant wishes to divide a 2.4 acre parcel into two parcels which had become one par6el when ~rchase~of both contiguous pr~pose~.~sub~mvzd~ng v~©ul~-~eac~-~a~-~more~th~n~40,000 square SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS September 6, 1979 feet in area. The Board feels that the applicant has met all requirements except for access off Clearwater Lane. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ord&nance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shareddby all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use diskrict; and the variance will not change the character of the n~hbhrhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it RESOLVED, that Frances N. Frisbie, Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED a variance for access to the lot whose frontage will be off Clearwater Lane, subject to the following CONDITIONS: (1) That the access road be in conformance with the requirements of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals; (2) That the applicant obtain approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for a subdivision as proposed. (3) That the applicant obtain approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Location of the property: Nassau Point Road and Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue, New York, known and designated as Lots 105 and 106 on Map No. 156 "Amended Map A of Nassau Point." Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Tuthill. pUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2585. Application of William and Margaret Phelon, 215 Northfield Road, Hauppauge, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct a dwelling with insufficient front-yard setback. Location of property: Lilac Lane, Cutchogue, New York, known and desig- nated as Lot No. 105 on Map No. 1179 "Map of Nassau Farms." The Actin~ Chairman opened the hearing at 9:12 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hear- ing as advertised in the official local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to'adjoining property owners was made to: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Kirwin, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Nixon, and Mr. and Mrs. Laszlo Kun. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- September 6, 1979 application? WILLIAM PHELON: My wife has prepared somewhat to scale model of the proposed changes. MR. DOUGLASS: Would you bring it up please? MRS. PHELON: This is completely reverse of what it really would be. This would be Lilac Lane. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes~ it stops one piece before you. MRS. PHELON: Yes. There's an empty lot here, and over here. And over here the 130' wide. That's the house. MR. DOUGLASS: That's 52 feet off of Lilac Lane. MRS. PHELON: That's 52? We measured 50, but we didn't do it by survey. MR. DOUGLASS: I went up and measured. It might be where you consider the position of the lot line, too. That can be- MR. PHELON: Well, I just stood at the end of the driveway and tape measured it. MR. DOUGLASS: The l~t line is usually according to the telephone pole location. MRS. PHELON: There is a 90-foot plot here, and about 10 feet in is this house, correct? MR. DOUGLASS: That's your neighbor and it's her mother or aunt that owns this one here. MRS. PHELON: That's correct, yes. Because it is L~shaped, this house appears back of that other house. Part of it, this part of course. That's the lay of the land. As you come in, you come in on Lilac Lane this way, so this is grass. MR. DOUGLASS: That's a right-of-way. MRS. PHELON. Right-of-way, yes. You can see how horrible- This would be 50 feet. Which means we would have to come over this way, take that tree out. MR. DOUGLASS: You dQn't request any specific amount? MRS. PHELON: Thirty-five foot setback we ask for. MR. DOUGLASS: Ail you say is that it used to be 35 foot, at the time. MRS. PHELON: I thought we asked for a 35-foot setback. It would actually be 36 because we have an overhang on that house. SOUTHOLD TO%fN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- September 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right. Thank you for bringing it up. sions of that proposed house? We'll take it on up from there. Mrs. Phelon, what is the dimen- MRS. PHELON: On the north side it's 50 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: 50 foot? That's on the long "L?" That goes back towards the shed? MRS. PHELON: Yes. And the north to the south is roughly-- the main part of that house would appear a good bit behind the other house, the main body. MR. DOUGLASS: When we investigated it up there, there are no houses that are closer than 50 foot on that whole road. They're 50 feet and better a setback along there. Did you run a tape from your shed to the property line? MRS. PHELON: From our shed to the right-of-way? You mean when we built the shed? MR. DOUGLASS: No. Do you know what your measurements are? Did you measure it to see ~hat your measurements are there? MRS. PHELON: A little bit behind the half-way point. The lot is-- MR. DOUGLASS: The lot is 209 feet. MRS. PHELON: On one side and 200 and something on the other. MR. DOUGLASS: 213 on the other. MRS. PHELON: On the 213 side it's just a little beyond half way. That would be maybe 110 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else that has anything they would like to say about it? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: After going down through Lilac Lane and measur- ing those otherhouses to bring this house forward!~wo~ld set a very definite pattern that is not there now. Theyiiare all 50 and better. And therefore I have to make a moti6h~ you stay back to the 50-foot line. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- September 6, 1979 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a house with less than the minimum allowable front yard as required, namely 35 feet. The Board feels that in view of the front-yard setback pattern that is on the surrounding properties, it would not be proper to grant this reduction to less than a ~0-foot frontyard setback. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hard- ship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared b y all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that William and Margaret Phelon, 215 Northfield Road, Hauppauge, New York, be DENIED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule, for permission to coqstruct a dwelling with insuf- ficient front-yard setback. L~cation of property: Lilac Lane, Cutchogue, New Yorkf known and designated as Lot No. 105 on Map No. 1179 "Map of Nassau Farms°" Vote of the Board: Tuthill. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and PUBLIC HEARING. Appeal No. 2587. Application of Penelope Kousouros and Stephen J. Perricone, 7470 Sound Avenue, Matti- tuck, New York 11952, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60, for permission to establish a disco bar with dancing. Location of property: Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Sound Avenue; east by Sepko; south by Meglio; west by Meglio. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing au 9:3~ P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hear- ing as advertised in the official local newspapers, affi- davits attesting to its publication in the official local newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from %he Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Mary Sepko and Joseph Meglio. $15.00 fee paid. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak on this application? MR. PERRICONE: I received this; I don't know if you need it. (Mr. Perricone gave the Acting Chairman the certi- fied letter that was mailed to Mary Sepko which is marked by the postal service "unclaimed.") MR. DOUGLASS: We will place it in our files. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- September 6, 1979 MR. PERRICONE: I have nothing further to say. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this application for this application? MR~ TSOUNIS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, we have several spokesman Who are against it. MRS. HERFURTH: We'd like to know what he said for it, can't we hear what he said for it? MR. DOUGLASS: He didn't say anything for it. He just passed us a certified letter that came back to him. Is there anybody wishing to speak for it? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: We'll come back to you because we need alot more information, but first I'll throw it open, anybody here wishing to speak against it, and when you do, put your hand up, I'll call on you, give our secretary your name, please. Every- thing goes through the chair. I'll open it up to anybody desiring to speak against this application. You, sir? STANLEY SEPKO: We own the property directly east and number one, I don't k~ow whether you have been by the place, but you can see he's got more than one business going there which I think myself is a big violation in the zoning ordinance. Any way, number two we had trouble with this man. He thought he owned half of our property, just east of it, he owns half of the driveway. We had to get a surveyor and went through a great lot of expense trying to keep him off of it. Now i can't see, I know tha property dimensions roughly but I can't see where they are going to park cars there for a disco. We have a disco in the Village now which I think one is more than enough. If we're going to have it over there, I want to know who is going to be liable for all the property. We've got crops growing next to it. WhQ is going to be liable for all of the damages that are caused when cars are parking for this disco? I think that man's got enough, businesses going on there. He's got junk all around the place; you can't tell what it ~s. My neighbor here, she can see it from her home. If you looked at it, it's a disgrace to Mattituck, and I think another disco there, especially one that's going to be open all hours of the night, ~s not necessary in Mattituck. We've got one ~n Mattituck. If anyone wants to go disco dancing, there's a place in Town, plenty of disco. MR. DOUGLASS: Let me just ask him a question. I though% that one ceased being a disco. MR. SEPKO: Nobody knows what ceases. CLEO TSOUNIS: That's a disco. MR. DOUGLASS: It's still a disco? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- September 6, 1979 !MRS. TSOUNIS. Oh, yes. MR. DOUGLASS: I understood that it had stopped using it. MR. SEPKO: They open up at 10:00, not at 8:00. They open at 10:00. Cars zooming in and out of there. MR. DOUGLASS: I was told it was something other than a disco. MR. SEPKO: If you ask Dr. McCullough he'll tell you he hears that disco music pretty lo~d in there. He's right across the street. UNKNOWN LADY: I don't want to give my name. MR. DOUGLASS: You'll have to. UNKNO~ LADY: I'd r~ther~not. Why do I have to? MR. DOUGLASS: We'll need it for our records. UNKNOWN LADY: I don't want to give my name. Forget about it. I'm a "m~s%ery woman from Mattituck." MR. DOUGLASS:~ Yeah, all right. Mystery woman. UNKNOWN LADY: The disco, can he guarantee how far that drumming, with the windows open in%the summer, how many people are going to be disturbed by it. Did you hear disco music? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, I know it quite well. UNKNOWN LADY: I remember I lived in a n~ighborhood with this; my nerves were shattered. I was glad to come out in the Country and have quiet neighbors here. People pay very high taxes and there are alot of these retired old people, they won't want that "boom, boom, boom." If you pass this, which I hope you don't, you're going to see how much suffer- ing there is going to be. Oh, and another thing, this is the intersection. There at night, I wouldn't, I come through there alot. Even my young son, said it was dangerous to have a disco at that intersection. And to have drunks out of it at night. It's bad enough as it is. MR. DOUGLASS: This is something that we have no control over. The County controls that. The County has ~o pass on all this too. We don't just pass on it. Is there anybody else? You, sir? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Mr. Chairman? I lived in this Town for 14 years. As your previous speaker said about the disco, I can see these people, where are they going to park those cars? Then you are going to have the hazard of traffic. The hazard of drunks coming out° And you know that I know it, two weeks SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- September 6, 1979 ago we had two persons killed out over disco. I mean, we don't need no more of this. We have one disco right here in Greenport and one in Mattituck. I don't see the reason for a third disco to create more disorder and more trouble for this Town. We have enoughltrouble as we are. We like it like this. We don't want no more trouble. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Where do we have one in Greenport? i missed that one. MR. PANAGOPOULOUS: We have Drossos. MR. DOUGLASS: Oh. You call that a disco. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Oh yes! MR. DOUGLASS: Ok. Yes, ma'am. MRS. HERFURTH: Excuse me. I have to say for Drossos it!s definitely disco. They turned completely disco. MR. DOUGLASS: Your name ma'am. MRS. HERFURTH: My name is Mrs. Herfurth. But Drossos iS definitely disco and so is the Sundown. Among certain things. But they have a band every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night. MR. DOUGLASS: So does Soundview. MRS. HERFURTH: Not disco. MR. DOUGLASS: I have danced disco at Soundview. MR. PANAGOPOULOUS: You've got three'in your favor, Mr. Chairman. MRS. HERFURTH: I'm against it. I mean, I like disco, I'm not saying that. But I have to agree that's a bad spot for it. MR. DOUGLASS: Ail this stuff is taken into consideration before any decisions can even be made on the matter, but we're here to hear your feelings. Is there anybody ~lse who would like-- MR. TSOUNIS: My name zs Mr. Tsounis and I would like to say I have been to several discos and I knowwhat discos are like. First of all as the previous speakers, there won't be a big flux in traffic. Also once you're at discos the people can't go for drives. Also you have people who have under the influence of drugs and alcohol because at discos, i myself do not believe in drugs or any illegal substance, but aiot of illegal things such as marijuana and other things go on during discos. Now I'm not saying that this will go on at this gentleman's disco. I'm telling you that I have been to several discos in the Hamptons and these things go on. So under the influ- ence of all these things, those people drive all around, they go to SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19- September 6, 1979 the beaches. Ok, also, the main transportation for young people is bicycles. And alot of people in Mattituck go on bicylce rides. And therefore it's very easy for an individual to be run over. Alot of people drive bicycles at night because this is there only form of transportation because they are under 18 and don't drive. Ok, so you have all these people driving and some are going to get killed. That's one thing. Also, it's gonna, just the whole atmosphere, you are going to have people from outside Southold come to this place, you know, if it's a nice disco, which I presume he's trying to build a nice disco, you're going to have people from all around here and you're going to get somerowdy people. You just can't avoid it. Alot of trouble in Mattituck. I've been living in Mattituck for over 17 years; I love Mattituck, and I don't want to see it being downgraded, and I feel passage of this variance would be the des- truction of Mattituck. MR. DOUGLASS: Let me ask you a question, before I ask the man who is asking for it one. What you're stating is that disco is all teenagers. MR. TOUNIS: No, I say, you have to be over 18, no? So the bulk will be over 18 to 20, 21. MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know, but somewhares along the line, and now I'll go back to the owner, somewheres along the line I heard reference that there was a possibility of some days for the young group with no bar, and other days with bar for the older people. Is that right? MR. PE~RICONE: Yes, right. MRS. TSOUNIS: From 9 to 4 A.M. MR. DOUGLASS: Well now, ma'am, I think if you go down this street in Greenport and Mattituck at 3 or 4 o'clock on Sunday morning, you'll find quite a few of your children out there. More than you'll like. But that's getting away from the reasoning behind it, but I want to hear everybody. Thank you. MR. TSOUNIS: Wait, I would also like to say that, you know, closer to traffic, just want to repeat that there would be alot of traffic and this will also ruin the environment, on the grounds that, you know, you have people parking on the grass n°t!just!Qn- t~e parking lot. There will probably be an overflow into th~s gentleman over here, into his property which calls for alot of care. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, no business can overflow onto the neighbor, that's for sure. MR. TSOUNIS: Well, it's being done, excuse me, it's being done now according to that gentleman there. MR. DOUGLASS: Well that's something between them. Property lines are between them, not us. We cannot do anything about property lines. Would you like to say something ma'am? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- September 6, 1979 BARBARA SAYRE: I am a neighbor immediately adjacent to the west. I would like to ask a question. Where is the parking to be? t don't know of any parking there. There are no shoulders on the road. MR. DOUGLASS: Here i~ proposed parking area, down the sides and across the front will all be changed to the back edge of the existing storage sheds. Would you care to take a look at this; this will show you alot. MRS. SAYRE: I go by it ten times a day because I live there. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, well, we've been up there many a times, in fact I was there When the building was built by Pa~pis~. MRS. S~YRE: Right. There's parking in the front you're saying? MR. DOUGLASS: There will be, right. MRS. SAYRE: MR. DOUGLASS: MRS. SAYRE: MR. DOUGLASS: 26 feet. That's right on the road. No. It sits back from the road quite a bit. How far? The narrowest, the closest area to the road is MRS. SAYRE: Twenty-six feet. MR. DOUGLASS: Right° And that's a shrub area where they propose to plant shrubs and so on. The parking area is another, back another ten feet, so the parking area across the west section of it, which is the extension from the, the disco part is proposed for what was the sales department and the office department now, and was when built it. The showroom area. The stuff that he has mn there he is proposing moving over for his fence business, over mnto that elongation that goes to the west, and so there is parking mn front of %hat, parking on the sides he proposes, both sides, back to where there will be fence line across in front of where Mr. Foster has his machinery. Is there anything else? MRS. SAYRE: How far can, for how many cars, I still don't see the parking. MR. DOUGLASS: This is something we have to determine, that he has to answer and mee~ specs and so on and so forth. This is stuff we haven't got yet; this has to be done yet. Yes? MR. SEPKO: I happen to know that he hasn't got enough room on the east side of that building to park cars in there. Well, I'm gonna put up a concrete monument up there, either concrete or rail- road things tomorrow. I want him to be instructed that, it's going to be on my property. MR. DOUGLASS: I can't instruct him to do anything. I have nothing to do with property lines. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21 September 6, 1979 MR. SEPKO: Well, if he does he is going to be liable. 'Cause I talked to the Building In.spector today, yesterday, and I know if t put a post up there three feet high, that man will not go by there with a truck on the east side of his property to get by his building. He won't get up to the door. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, this is the thing for you and him on surveys. has nothing to do with us. MR. SEPKO: I'm just telling him, right before you, that's just what's going to happen to him before the end of the week. MR. DOUGLASS: The only thing we can go by is a Van Tuyl survey. We have a Van Tuyl survey and that's all we can go by. I have no way of knowing anything else. MR. SEPKO: I'm saying it's going to be different there by the end of the week. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else? Yes, sir. FRANK HUSACK: I live in Mattituck and i am well familiar with Papish's old building. What will be the capacity crowd in that particular building. MR. DOUGLASS: This has not been determined yet. MR. HUSACK: Do we have any ordinance, noise abatement, fire control on fire exits and so on and so forth that would apply or could be enforced while this is in operation? MR. DOUGLASS: Very definite. You ha~e a noise ordinance right now. MR. HUSACK: I don't think you do. MR. DOUGLASS: Oh, yes. MR. HUSACK: I'll cite you an instance on Sundown Disco. My brother-in-law happens to own the coin shop across the street from it. They start at 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning and they continue right on through till 5 o'clock in the morning. You have drunks coming out and urinating all over the streets, breaking beer bot- tles, throwing garbage and junk, and God forbid that you make a complaint. Because then you are harassed from here to hell. The woman that owns the building, Mrs. Kouros, asked them to abate from the noise; they intensify the noise; they throw their garbage into her yard~- She has no control. Get the police in their they say they have no authority to go in there or control this. Here's people from 2 to 3 o'clock at night put big flood lights on to harass you so you can't sleep at night. And is this condition going to be tolerated at this particular spot? MR. DOUGLASS: This m~ght have something to do with the parties that own the thing not being too cooperative, too, you know. SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -22- September 6, 1979 MR. HUSACK: But this should all be taken into consideration. MR. DOUGLASS: It is all taken into consideration. MR. HUSACK: of this noise~ We don't have no ordinances that pertain to any MR. DOUGLASS: That's not my job on the Board of Appeals. That is the Southotd Police Department. MR. SEPKO: They go in, everything quiets down, th'e cops go, and the noise goes. I've been down there at night--. MR. HUSACK: What about the fire exits they got. What if a fire starts? MR. DOUGLASS: The Fire Department has no authority, they are not an enforcement organization. The only enforcement organization is your police department. MR. HUSACK: That's because we have no fire ordinance, no fire code. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a buildzng code which requzres certain conditions for certain types of construction of usage, and that takes care of the fire code that we have been, I'm getting off the subject, but just to answer your question. I happen to be, until this year, presmdent of the Fire Districts' Association of Southold Town and we have put a fire code in and been pushing for a certain fire code for several years. And except for misfortunate things that happened, I will not mention that you know of, that just happened, it would have been in. The only thing that the fire code does, the fire code refers back to the building code. The fire code and the building code that we have are, what's the proper word, "brother and sister." They work back to each other, and the building department is the enforcement area on fire code or building code. But the building code as it stands now covers all of this stuff. It requires certain standards of construction. The only thing the fire code does is see to it that the parties after it's built maintain it, and gives the firemen a chance to know what is in an area and what they're up against if they are called on a fire. it's still all enforced through~e building code. MR. HUSACK: If I'm not mistaken, down at the Sundown Disco the capacity calls for 40 people. You got as higk as 70 and 80 people in there, and they are in there like sardines. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, yes-- MR. HUSACK: This condition developed down there with him. I mean, if this thing gets to be a popular place, who gonna en- force the occupancy capacity of that particular building. MR. DOUGLASS: That's up to your police department. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2~- September 6, 1979 MR. HUSACK: In other words it's just getting around the bush, it's up to him and if it ain't up to him it's up to that one. MR. DOUGLASS: No, your police department is yoUr enforcement agency and your police department when you have a complain~ like that is the one to go to. MR. HUSACK: I think that Southampton and the Hamptons over there are trying to get rid of their discos and trying to get rid of their groupers, and the groupers and discos are trying to float over here. Why should we take the debris that floats over from the South Side over to the North Fork. MR. DOUGLASS: I don't think we need it. MR. HUSACK: Keep it out of here, we don't need it. You've got enough garbage down there. MR. DOUGLASS: I don't think we do. MR. HUSACK: Ail right. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else? Over her ma'am. MARY GORMAN: Mattituck. Now a variance is required with several attributes to be approved by this Board, none which are: they will not contribute to a public nuisance, they will not decrease property taxes, they provide the service for the general population. Now in my opinion none of these requirements are being met. The drug and the drinking problem, the traffic problem that's going to amount because of this. Now you can grant this variance~ when we folks are so much against, it's up to the police department to take care of the drugs, the drinking and the traffic. That's ridiculous. Stop the problem before it begins~ MR. DOUGLASS: You're right but you're also a little ahead of schedule. There are alot of things that he has to answer before he could even get this if it were granted and also has to go through other agencies besides us. MR. TUTHILL: I think, Bob, that one of the things that he's going to have to provide which was to Mrs. Sayre's question, is that we will require a sketch that there is a~equate parking. That's one of the musts. In other words there will have to be a survey with the parking stalls drawn in. MRS. HERFURTH:My next question would be, when you consider all of these things, how are we to be notified of this so we can again determine what's going on. Will it be published? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, no, it does not get re-published, but what we do, when we finish here tonight -- no decision can be made here tonight, this I can tell you. We just want to hear what everybody has to say and everybody's opinion. A decision cannot be made tonight because there are alot of other things SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- September 6, 1979 that have to be answered, so what we will do, we will recess this until a certain meeting, and you're all sitting here now and you will know when that i~ by listening to when we post it right here tonight for what meeting we post it for. It doesn, t go back to be re-published in the papers. If the paper wants to write an article on it, there's newsprint they want to write, why they can publish it so you'll see it. Did you want to say something, sir? ROBERT BUTTS: I am speaking on behalf of Mrs. Westerbeck, my daughter, who is a property owner in Mattituck. I understood you to say that there are various things involved in this you are discussing, such as traffic violations. I understood you to say that these were not your responsibility° So therefore before any variance is made, the department whose responsibilities these things are being consulted? MR. DOUGLASS : I said that drugs and alcoholism is not our responsibility, and it is not. We're not an enforcement agency on drugs and alto hol and because a man has a place of business is not to, nobody, myself or yourself or any of you I don't be- lieve have a right to say that when a man just opens up a place of business that he's going to have a place that's going to be infiltrated with drugs and all that stuff. On what basis can you establish that, because one place is that way that another place is that way? I can't agree, I can't believe that. MR. BUTTS: May I go back to the problems for traffic that may be caused, because it's been agreed that this is a dangerous intersection. The authority concerned with that is being con- sulted? MR. DOUGLASS: The County. It goes to the County. The County has to give approval before we could even stop because of its location in proximity to an intersection. MR. BUTTS: That will be done before the--? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, sir. It has to be. MR. BUTTS: Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: I will go back now to the applicant. As you gathered, this has to be recessed to a further thing because we have to have alot more stuff, and one of them:"Applicant must apply to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for apProval. Suffolk County Planning will require that he bring in map Show~ ing distances to all other buildings. Map showing parking area designated for this business as well as parking areas designated ..for other businesses on that property. Map should be to scale. Need to know from applicant what the occupant capacity of the proposed building is." We will make a decision as to whether your parking requirements meet the requirements of the number of people using your place. In other words if you estimate two people per car, we may estimate that there would be one, or what- ever, but you should estimate the amount you figure per car and SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- September 6, 1979 the number of cars according to your proposal. The other thing that we would want is t~ have you and one of us, probably myself, to get together with the Chief and the Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners of Mattituck, go out and go over the place with you, and we want their thoughts on the situation. MR. PERRICONE: I've already talked to Chief Coleman about it. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, there will have to be one of us with you and go over it with him and the Chairman of the Board of Fire Com- missioners so that we know where this, of course, the materials and so on that you use in the place, that's all under the building code anyway. That's controlled by the building code and your accesses and all. It would be advisable, I would say, this is jus~ something that I am throwing in, that you can~sh0w us in a reasonable manner of what your noise tolerance would be with that type of building, with what you intend to do on the inside, the type of ~aterials you intend to use on the inside of it, the noise tol~an~e~ and stuff would be. So with this stuff in mind, I'll move for a recess of this. If we recess this till our October meeting, will that gi~e you time to get this stuff together? MR. PERRICONE: I've got time. MR. DOUGLASS: It will be recessed until the 18th of October. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Penelope Kousouros and Stephen J. Perricone, 7470 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York, application for a variance be RECESSED till October 18, 1979. Location of property: Sound Avenue, ~attituck, New York; bounded on the north by Sound Avenue; east by Sepko; south by Meglio; west by Meglio. Vote of the Board: Tuthill. Ayes: Messrs~ Douglass, Grigonis and iPg~LtC~HEARING: Appeal No. 2589. Application of David and Carme~ Oi~n[ck, 120 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a swimming pool in the front-yard area. Location of property: Corner of South Harbor Lane and Private Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by VandenHeuvel; west by Jacobs; south by Private Road; west by South Harbor Lane. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:10 P.M. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the official local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disappro- val from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Jacobs, and the VandenHeuvels. Fee paid: $15.00. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- September 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: We have been down to examine this property and we do have pictures of it. They actually end up with two front, the situation is they end up with two front yards. They have a frontyard which is low land, creek land, on South Harbor Road, and then they have their frontyard on the private road that runs along the creek off of South Harbor Road. We have pictures of it. In the back from where the garage and house are, there is a direct drop-off after about 10 feet behind the house down to the creek and to environmental-controlled grasses and marshes and so on. On the South Harbor side, it drops off quite radically to and down into low land even though it's considered a corner lot and naturally would be a front-yard too. But that would not be in front of the main house:. So it appeared to us when we went out and inspected it, ii-if they're going to have a swimming pool they-have no Qthe~ Place to put it other than their front-yard. This is right down the east of the property between them and Jacobs is a black-topped driveway and then Jacobs black-topped driveway. There's no land between the house and the side-yard. This is where they are supposed to put it. They have a unique hardship here. They have two front-yards and one front-yard is no good for the pool because of the creek so they have no place to put it but in the front and apparently it is all right with them to have it front of their main front door. So I'm open for a motion. After ~nvestigation an~ inspection, the Board finds that the applicants wish to construct a swimming pool in the front, yard area fronting Private Road. It is impossible to construct a swimming pool in the front-yard area fronting South Harbor Road because it is low land or creek land and also impossible in the rear-yard because of the dwelling's closeness to the creek. The Board agrees with the~applicants' ~reasoning. 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 o~s~rve the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, i% was RESOLVED, that David and Carmen Olenick, 120 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York 11217, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a swim- ming pool in the front-yard area, be GRANTED. Location of property: Corner of South Harbor Lane and Private Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by VandenHeuvel; east by Jacobs; south by Private Road; west by South Harbor Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Tuthill. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- September 6, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2590. Application of Celia Vitale, 19 Orchard Drive, Woodbury, New York, (Rudolph H. Bruer, as agent) for a variance in accordance with Town Law, Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Main Bayview Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Norklun and Olsen; east by Krepp; south by Main Bayview Road; west by Gioscia, Michaetis and Doma. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:20 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as adver- tised in the official local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Giosia, Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Michaelis, Helen Doma, Richard E. Norklun, Mr. and Mrs. Jack L. Olsen, Mr. and Mrs. James C. Krepp. Fee paid: $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I believe the applicant has application before the Planning Board for subdivision approval and it should be heard by the Planning Board in September hereto. Is there any- body that would like to speak for this application? RUDOLPH BRUER: Main Road, Southold. Mr. Chairman, I belisve I have a more updated survey showing the right-of-way going to the premises and then, at the direction of the Planning Board, showing over a 150-foot frontage on the subject premises. The Planning Board has acted on this already and has given site-plan approval of it, a copy of their letter is submitted here, for your review, and in the last paragraph they say that the right- of-way should show a 150-foot frontage for Lot ~1, which we have done, and that there will be no construction required on the right-of-way. We respectfully request that the application be granted subject again to the final division of the property by the Planning Board. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you and thank you for bringing these items. I will read for everybody the note from the Southold Town Planning Board: Dear Mr. Bruer, The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held August 17, 1979. RESOLVED to approve the sketch map of the prop- erty of Celia Vitale located at Bayview, Southold, said map dated July 24, 1979. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself lead agency in regard to the State En- vironmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the minor subdivision of property of Celia Vitale. The Board will require an affidavit of ownership and that the right-of-way show 150-foot frontage for Lot ~1. There will be no construction required on this 150 feet. Yours truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAI~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -28- September 6, 1979 ~'PIR~ BRUER: They will not be required to bring it up to Town specs, the gravel and all that at this point. Just that it conform to the Code of 150-foot road frontage requirement or at the house line you have to have 150 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: That's ~ot their jurisdiction though. MR. BRUER: I know, but that's what they meant. I know that they might be going beyond-~ MR. DOUGLASS: That's not their jurisdiction. If we grant access, you have to comply to our requirements. MR. BRUER: That's correct. MR. DOUGLASS: That's a little bit wrong. Before you can get a Building Permit, you will have to improve it because it's all woods up there. MR. BRUER: Right. We will comply. We'd have to, the Building Inspector would probably not allow it because you need fire exits to it. MR. DOUGLASS: He won't allow it because it'll be in our stipulation. MR. BRUER: Right. MR. DOUGLASS: They don't have any control over the access. MR. BRUER: By the way, for the record the division of property is for one lot to create two lots and not anything more. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, and they are both over the 40,000. They are both full size lots. MR. BRUER: It meets all the requirements except the access. MR. DOUGLASS: Right. The only thing-you have tolget is approval of access a~d. to get back into the back lots becaU~ both. of your lots are over 40,000, I think it shows 45,000 at least. 45,000 plus apiece. So you have 200 feet on the street and you'll have the same across the front of the other one. 238 on the other one because it takes in part of the right-of-way. All right, well I'll make a motion, first of all, is there anybody who wishes to speak against this application before I move on? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: I'll make a motion that the application for access from Main Bayview Road in Southold to the back property as okayed by the Planning Board be granted subject to our regu- lations of improvemen~ of the access right-of-way, which you probably have or you can get from the secretary. We require a minimum of 15 feet. Do you want me to give this to you. Well, I'll give you the total of what it says. Such access road shall SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -29- September 6, 1979 have a width of not less than 15 feet. Such access road shall be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet. You're giving 25 so you are well within the, but you have to have 15 cleared and serviced. Such access road shall be improved in either of the following methods: (a) such access road shall be surfaced with a minimum depth of 4" of packed 3/4" stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of 4 inches. That's one way you can do it; (b) the access road shall have topsoil removed to a depth of 8" and then filled with 8 inches of good grade stone and bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of 2 to 4 inches of 3/4" stone blend, or in the alternative oiled with a minimum of 4/10tbs of a gallon of road oil per square yard. 4. All work required as hereinbefore set forth shall be performed under the supervision of the Town Engineer and no building permits or certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the Building In- spector until the Town Engineer has certified that such access road has been constructed in accordance with the foregoing require- ments. 5. Where the terrain of land over which such access road is to be traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant shall be required to construct such drainage facilities as may be recommended by the Town Engineer. MR. BRUER: Mr. Chairman, calling back on the meeting with the Planning Board an~ your remarks as their jurisdiction as to get in to the access, I believe what they were trying to say to me, and I don~t think they were trying to interfere with your juris- diction, was not to say what my client should build here, but you will notice the right-of-way shown on the survey covers the whole length of this property up there and it would be very impractical. MR. DOUGLASS: This does not have to be even access as far as we're concerned (referring to the proposed northerly rearyard area of Lot 91 and the indication of the access along that border). Our access, we consider access to the garage area or-- MR. BRUER: I think that's what the reference was to in that letter, it was this thing they made us put on this map-- MR. DOUGLASS: This piece across here. MR. BRUER: Right, we did not have to put it up to specs. MR. DOUGLASS: It doesn't because it doesn't even have to be access. This is access as soon as you hit the property and come into your garage. MR. BRUER: Just for clarification that's what that 150 foot meant. MR. DOUGLASS: It's just another way of wording it. MR. B~JER: I know. They didn't word it right. But that's what I think they meant. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30- September 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right. That's understood. MR. B?J3ER: Thank you very much. ~. DOUGLASS: You can pu~ that in a notation that Mr. Bruer explained what was meant in the letter from the Planning Board with that 150 feet that ran across the front of the property and that we require it just to the property and to the garage facili- ties on sa±d property. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant wishes approval of access in the proposed subdivision~ and the property _involved has more than the minimum required square footage for eack proposed lot, an~the proposed rear lot does no~ have frontage on a public or pr±rate road and therefore requires access by right-of-way for which applicant is requesting for 25 feet in width. It is understood that the applicant also proposes to remove the existing cottages on the premises. 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 chanqe the character of tke ne±ghborhood and will observe the spirit-of the ~r~inance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigon±s, it was RESOLVED, that Celia Vitale, 19 Orchard Drive, Woodbury, New York, be GRANTED a variance in accordance with Town Law Section 280A for approval of access. Location of property: Main Bayview Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Norklun and Olsen; east by Krepp; south by Main Bayview Road; west by Gioscia, Michaelis and Doma, with the following CONDITION: (1) That the access road conform with tke requirements of the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Tuthill and Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2586. Application of Richard Praetorius, 846 Westmoreland Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13210, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insuf- ficient area and width. Location of property: Westview Drive, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Eriksen; east by West- view Drive; south by Dawe; west by Mattituck Creek. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:40 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as adver- tised in the official local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that not±f±~ cation to adjoining property owners was made to: Mr. and Mrs. Allen Dawe, E.C. Erickson and wife. Fee paid: $15.00. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31- September 6, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: I have a survey map showing the lot when it was originally bought with the division line which is the prOposed divi- sion line now down through the center making it two 21,052 and 21,471 sqUare!feet, i ~I also~have~a~section~iof the~countyT~Map Showing-that lot and the surrounding area i°~s. IS there anyone desiring to speak for this application? ROGER PRAETORIUS: I'd like to speak for. I brought a copy of the survey which I believe you have. MR. DOUGLASS: We have that. Yes. MR. PRAETORIUS: I haven't seen this. May I see this? So there are lots with similar frontage. MR. DOUGLASS: And the same over here, all along here. MR. PRAETORIUS: And again all I, one other thing, here is the original deed for Richard E. Praetorius and wife stating consisting of two lots when they bought i%. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. However, as you probably heard me say tonight that when you buy two lots in an area and you put them under one single ownership it becomes one lot, not two, and then it has to be subdivided. MR. PRAETORIUS: Yes, I just learned that tonight. That's what we're here for tonight, too. MR. DOUGLASS: We will not be able to subdivide it. The only thing we can give you is an approval for the insufficient area and width, and then you have to go tO the Planning Board if we approve that, and they will subdivide it. MR. TUTH!LL'~[->-Was this a filed map? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, this is that Westview Drive on Mattituck Creek almost across from you. MR. TUTHILL: I think that was filed. MR. PRAETORIUS: Ok. That was a lot, lots 18 and 19 that was subdivided many years, I believe, I don't know when. MR. DOUGLASS: It would be in the Town Code under filed sub- divisions. (The Acting Chairman and members of the Board research this in the Code Book.) MR. DOUGLASS: The only thing that we can do is, I'll accept a motion if anybody, there isn't anybody here to speak against it so I guess nobody wants to speak against it. We'll accept a motion approving what the applicant applies for in the insuffi- cient area and width of the division of the land with the stipu- SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -32- September 6, 1979 lation that then you will have to go to the Planning Board for approval of the division. MR. PRAETORIUS: Ok, please explain to me why that's necessary. I'm not familiar with the procedure. I came down from Syracuse, New York to do this and I was just curious why. MR. DOUGLASS: We approve conditions that create your piece of land not meeting the~zoning standards. In other words the standards today are 150 feet on the road a~d 40,000 square feet for a building lot, but you are proposing a 60+ feet on the road for each lot and 21,000+, a half acre instead of an acre. This is the way you bought it in the subdivision, however, once it was bought and put into single and separate ownership it became one p~ece of land. So now you are applying to divide that one piece of land, that original line is no more there. Once they bought to two pieces and put in into one deed, it's no more there. It became one lot. So when you divide a piece of land the party who divides the piece of land is the Planning Board. We grant you the right or okay the right to have a smaller than presently required lot with insufficient frontage or whatever the case happens to be. But they have to grant you the right to do the division and so we'll, I'll accept a motion to approve the insuf- ficient width and area and insufficlen~ s~reet ~frontage, and then you go back. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant wishes approval of insufficient area and width as well as approval of insufficient road frontage in order to subdivide this property. The neighboring lots also have road frontage and area and width less than that required in the zoning ordi- nance and thereby gives a pattern in the neighbOrhOod, 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. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Richard Praetorius, 846 Westmoreland Avenue, Syracuse, iNew York 13210, ~ GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 ~pproving the insufficient area, width and road frontage on the proposed lots with the following CONDITIONS: (1) That the applicant obtain approval from the Southold Town Planning Boaud for approval of the minor subdivision as proposed. (2) That the applicant obtain approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Tuthill. SOUTHOLD TOW~ BOARD OF APPEALS -33- September 6~ 1979 Qn motion made by Mr. Tuth±ll, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals meeting of August 16, 1979 be a~cepted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Tuthill. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, September 27, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) and hereby set the following times on that date as the time of hearing upon the following applications: 7:40 P.M.(DST)Upon application of JOAN KEINATH, 380 Deer Drive, Matt±tuck, NY, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to con- struct a dwelling with insu~f±clent frontyard and rearyard setbacks. Location of property: Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY. North by Robinson, ~st by K±enath, south by Soundview Avenue and east by Krupsk±. ' 7:50 P.M.(DST)Upon application of the NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100~71 for permission to install a 90~foot pole with two radio antennas in side yard. Location of property: Main Road, Cutchogue, NY. North by Sterl±ne; east by lmbr±ano and Boyd; south by Main Road; west by S & E Rhalty Co. 8:05 P.M.(DST)Upon application of the NE~ YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII~ Section 100-71 for permission to install a 85-foot pole in side yard. Location of property: Main Road and Moore's Lane, Greenport, New York. North by Village of Greenport; east by Moore's Lane; south by Main Road and Kavanagh; west by Zipkas. 8:20 P.M.(DST)Upon application of ELIEEN M. LEMBECK, 447 Greene AVenue, Sayville, New York 11782, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to construct a dwelling with insufficient frontyard and rearyard setbacksB Location of property: Deerfoot Path, Cutchogue, NY. North by Fitzpatrick; east by Deerfoot Path; south by Jester; west by Leskody. 8:30 P.M.(DST)Upon application of Delmer F. Nuhfer, 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk and Parking Schedule for permis- sion to construct an addition with insufficIent sideyard. Location of property: 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, NY. North by Bogglano and SOUTHOLD TOV~ BOARD OF APPEALS -34- September 6, 1979 8:40 P.M. (DST) Upon application of PHILIP A. WENZEL, 39320 Main Road, Peconic, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to subdivide with insufficient area. Location of property: Main Road, Peconic, NY. North by Main Road; east by Koraleski; south by Leslie Road; west by Bujnowski. 8:55 P.M. (DST) Upon application of SOUTHOLD TO~ REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (State Route 25), east by Elak, south by New Suffolk Avenue, west by Locust Avenue. 9:00 P.M. (DST) Upon application of SOUTH©LD TOWN REPUBLICAN COmmITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: County Road 27, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27, east by Cooper and Ashton and Uris~, south by Sidor and west by Westphalia Avenue. 9:05 P.M. (DST) Upon application of S©UTHOLD TOWN REPUBLICAN COi~ITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Mattituck, New York, North by Main Road (State Road 25); west by Walt Whitman Federal Savings and Loan Association; south by Wilsberg; west by Wilsberg. 9:10 P.M. (DST) Upon application of SOUTHOLD TOWN P~PUBLICAN COM~4ITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Laurel, New York. North by Laurel Properties; east by Laurel Properties; south by Main Road (State Road 25); west by School District ~11. 9:15 P.M. (DST) Upon application of SOUT~OLD TOWN REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Southold, NY. North by Main Road (State Road 25), east by Beixedon Estates, south by Beixedon Estates, west by DeLuca. 9:20 P.M. (DST) Upon application of SOUTHOLD TOWN REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: North Road (County Road 27), Southold, NY. North by Soundview Avenue, east by Kamps and Caiola, south by Froede, Droskoski and Wolanski; west by Sawicki. 9:25 P.M. (DST) Upon application of SOUTHOLD TO%~ REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional s~gno Location of property: Main Road, East Marion, NY. North by Main Road; east by Gillette Drive; south by Gagen; west by Cherepowich. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -35- September 6, 1979 9:~0 P~.~DST)Upon application of SOUTHOLD TOWN REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to %he Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Greenport, NY. North by Country-Wide Management Inc.; east by Main Road; south by Albertson Lane; west by Corrazzini and Whipple. 9:35 P.M.(DST)Upon application of SOUTHOLD TOWN REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: County Road 27, Cutchogue, New York. North by County Road 27; east by Glover; south by Glover; west by Funn. 9:40 P.M.(DST)Upon application of SOUTHOLD TOWN REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: North Road, Greenport, NY. North by Brandi and Raynor; east by Sound Road, south by North Road (County Road 27) and Main Road (State Road 25), west by Raynor. Vote of the Board: hill. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Tut- The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~-~inda F. Kowalski ~~-&~ Secretary