Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/16/1979Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE. JR.. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR, TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS MINUTES Southold Town Board ~f Appeals August 16, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on August 16, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) at the Town Hall~ Main Road, Southold, New York. -There were present: Messrs: Robert J. Douglass, Acting Chairman; ~harles Gr±gonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; and Terry R. Tuthill. Also present were: Douglas Love, Mattituck Traveler~Watchman; Peter Boody, The Suffolk Times; and Shirley-Bachrach, League of Women Voters. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Do.yen, it was R~SOLVED, that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals meeting of July 26, 1979, be accepted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. "RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2539 - Application of Vincent Annabel, Stillwater E-~enue, Cutchogue, New York, for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of pro- perty: Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Kiernan, E. Annabel and B. Annabel; east by Eugene's Creek; south by Krukowski and others; west by Stillwater Avenue. MR. DOUGLASS: We have been recessing this ~saring since the end of May, 1979, to enable Mr. Annabel to arrange for current survey work to be done and settle his brother's estate. We are not in a position to grant it at this time. All the necessary fo~ms were origi- nally filed and everything was read at the oriqinal hearing. Tonight we are going to entertain a motion to deny the application without prejudice until further time when they can come back in with all the proper papers. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -2- August 16, 1979 On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was R~SOLVED, that Vincent Annabel, Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, be DENIED permission, without prejudice, to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of Property: Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Kiernan, E. Annabel and B. Annabel; east by Eugene's Creek; south by Krukowski and others; west by Stillwater Avenue. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonls, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2580 - Upon application of Frank and Delores Davies, 16 Rose Court, Northport, New York, (Gary F. Otsen, 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. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the applica- tion for a vari&nce to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building InspectQr. The Ecting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: John and Claire Becht. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey attached to this application. We also have a section of the County Tax Map of that general area showing the lots along Mattituck Creek. ~s there anyone present who wishes to speak for th±s application? GARY F. OLSEN, ESQ.: ~'m an attorney in Mattituck, and I am repressnting the applicants. My Clients, Mr. and Mrs. Davies are under contract of sale to purchase lots Nos. 54, 55 and 56 of Tolle- wood from Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, who are the owners of record. The contract is subject to the granting of this variance. Mr. and Mrs. Edwards purchased the three parcels in a deed~dated January 24, 1958, md the deed described two pieces of property. Parcel one was lots 54 and 55 and parcel two was lot 56. When the Edwards purchased the property, lot no. 56 was considered a good, valid building parcel for the cons%buction of a single family residence. If they had taken lot 56 in a separate deed in either Mr. Edward~ name or Mrs. Edwards' name, the variance application would not be necessary. Since thsre has been a technical merger of t~tle between these three parcels. Aceo~d~ngly.~ we have to go through the variance proceeding. They still receive two separate tax b±lts. Lots 54 and 55 are on one tax bill and lot 56 is on a separate tax bill. I have a copy of the tax bills~;~, whick I will submit to you ~ow. Lot no. 56 is a corner parcel. ~t is bounded on the south by Meday Avenue and on the west by Illinois Ave~ nue. The lot is approximat%ly 55 to 60 feet wide and runs a depth of about 387 feet to the Mattituck Bay, west branch. The rough square footage is approximately over 21,000 square feet, which would put it over a half acre. I have also earlier this evening submitted to you SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 3 August 16, 1979 ~a copy of the tax map. I think if you look at it you will see that the granting of the variance will increase the density by only one house. The lot will generally be in keeping with the area,~size of other lots to the east as well as to the south. The lot is bounded immediately on the west by Illinois Avenue, which gives it basically extra width° To the west of that is a parcel known as lot 57 which is presently owned by the Long Island Lighting Company~ That is approximately 60 feet wide and is basically for the Lighting Company easement, and I don't think we will ever see a house on that piece. The reason that it is important for my clients to obtain the variance is that there is a house on lots 54 and 55, that they plan to use for their own purposes. They wish to build a house on lot 56 at this point for Mrs. Davies' mother. I also wish to point out that the property is waterfront property° It is uniquely valuable. Not to grant the variance would result in forcing Mr. and Mrs° Edwards to have an oversized parcel for a total of roughly an acre and a half, which would not only be a practical d~fficulty, but"an economic hardship. As I say the lot that would be created, only has to be created because of the technical merger of title. When the sellers took tit~e' ~ was considered a valid building lot. I don't think the variance would change the character of the neighborhood, and in fact would create a lot that is generally in keeping with general area and other parcels in the area. Other than that, I will ans~er any questions you may have. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak in favor of this appl±¢a~on? (there was no response). Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against this application? ~there was no response). Is there anything that any of the Board members wish to say? MR. TUTHILL: It is fairly obvious that there are many small lots of similar size in the area. However, it appeared to us that many of the owners have built on a combination of anywhere from two to five or six lots, and most of the owners in that area are on fairly substantial pieces of property. Very few are built closely together. There are a few instances where there are a few built on 50 foot lots. Talking about lots is one thing. Talking abou~ the character of the neighbor- hood is another thing. I can sympathize with ~he owners and purchasers, but I don't see any compelling hardship and would have to offer a motion to deny it, because I feel it would change the character of the neigh- borhoood. MR. DOUGLASS: I wo~ld have to agree with that in that when we traversed the area, all along the waterfront there we could not find property with just 50 feet on the street. All of them as Mr. Tuthill says were either two or nearly two in width along the waterfront. It was our feeling it would change the character of the waterfront to grant it. MR. OLSEN: If I may at this time, I would like to ask the Board to adjourn this hearing until I have an opportunity to discuss it with my client before you render a final decision. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- August 16, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: You know my feelings, no matter how reluctantly f expressed them. It appears that way to us, and I think it will to you if you go up there. MR. OLSEN: Before you render a final decision~ I would ask you adjourn it until the next meeting until i have an opportunity to discuss it with my applicants with the possibility the application will be withdrawn. THE SECRETARY: It must be recessed, not a~journedo MR. DOUGLASS: We can do that. If they do withdraw it, it will be without prejudice. MR~ TUTHILL: I would like to hear from Charlie on this. MR, GRIGON1S: I am all in favor of recessing it and possibly they can come up with something that will be agreeable to everyone. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal~No. ~2580~on~b~hatf of Frank and Delores Davies, 16 Rose Court, Northport, 'New ~York, be recessed until Thursday, September 6, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.)o Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2573 - Upon application of Green- port 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 sign. Lo- cation of property: Corner of Sound Road and County Road 27, Green- port, New York, bounded on the north by Brandi; east by Sound Road; south by County Road 27; west by Raynor. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, le~l notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication ~n the official ne~s~ papers, and disapproval from the Building ~nspector. The Acting Chair- man also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notificatiQn by certified mail had been made to: Joseph Brandi and Sophie Raynor. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the County Tax Map which shows us the corner where they desire to place the sign. There is provision in our sign ordinance for such signs. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this? REV. LEE C. H~RDGROVE: I am the pastor of the Greenport ~4~thodist Church and if you have any questions, I will be happy to ans~sr them. Other churches in Town have done this, so we are just following the ~ecedent. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- August 16, 1979 MRo DOUGLASS: Just one question. Have you been in contact with the people who own the iand that you are going t© place the S~gn on? REV. HARDGROVE: There are three of these as you know. In this one ~ have sent letters to all of the owners. We have gotten answers to only ~wo. The~owner of this property has not replied to us as yet. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this. application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to erect an off.premises directional sign to advertise the annual clambake and antique car show and sale which are held during the summer of each year. The signs will conform to the Town of Southold sign ordinance, will be erected no longer than 3 weeks prior to the event~ and will be removed within one week after the event. The Board agrees with the .reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance, would produce practical difficulties Q~unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in .the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. DDouglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Greenport United Methodist Church, Main Street, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Corner of Sound Road and County Road 27, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Brandi; east by Sound Road; south by County Road 27; west by Raynor, upon the following conditions: ~ (1) Written permission of property owner for sign erection. ~ (2) All sign permits are terminable at once at the direction of the Board of Appeals. This condition is essential in the event the Town finds a legislative solution to the problem. (3) Purpose of sign must be directional in the public interest as distinguished from advertising of products or services. Content ~f sign must be approved. Size of sign may not exceed four (4) fset by six (6) feet. A reasonably accurate sketch of proposed sign must accompany application. (4) Signs must be maintained in good ¢ondition~ otherwise the Board may in its discretion order removal. (5) The four (4) foot by six (6) foot size sign has been in effect since December, 1961. All off-premises ~i~sctional signs must now conform. (6) Locations chosen for directional signs must meet with the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -6- August 16, 1979 gens~al standards set up in Article VIII. (7) All signs must be at least five (5) feet from any property line; three (3) feet above ground level; four (4) feet above ground if electrical. (8) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2572 - Upon application of Green- port 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 sign. Location of property: Corner of County Road 27 and Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27; east by Shames and others; south by Price and Main Road (State Road 25); west by Chapel Lane. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official news- papers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chair- man also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified~mail ha~b-e~n made to: A. Shames and others, L. Delean~s, Village of Gr~r~p~o~rt, Willi~ Price, Sr. Fee paid S15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a letter in the file from the Rev. William A. Coleman dated ~uly 13, 1979, which reads as follows: The Rev. Lee Hardgrove, Greenport Methodist Church, ~ain Street, Greenport, New York. Dear Mr. Hardgrove: St. Peter's Church gives you permission to place a temporary sign on our church property on the North Road and Chapel Lane for your annual clam bake and antique show on July 28~ 1979. Sincerely, The Rev. William A. Coleman. We also ha~e the letter for the first sign. We have a County T~x Map of this area sh~ing the corner at which the sign will be placed. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response)° Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response~. Atter investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to erect an off-premises directional sign to advertise the annual clam bake and antique car show and sale which are held during the summer of each year. The signs will conform to the Town of Southold sign ordinance, will be erected no longer than 3 weeks prior to the event, and will be removed within one week after the event. 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 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF~'APPEALS -'7- August 16, 1979 oreated is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On.motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Greenport United Methodist Church, Main Street~ Greenport, New York, be GRANTED permission to erect an off-premises, directional sign. Location of property: Corner of County Road 27 and Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27; east by Shames and others; south by Price and Main Road (State Road 25); west by Chapel Lane, upon the following conditions: Written permission of property owner for sign erection° (2) Ail sign permits are terminable at once at the direction of the Board of Appeals. This condition is essential in the event the Town finds a legislative solution to the problem. (3) Purpose of sign must be directional in the public interest as distinguished from advertising cf produc~s or services. Content of sign must be approved. Size of sign may not sxceed four (4) feet by six (6) feet. A reasonably accurate sketch of proposed s~gn must accompany application. (4) Signs must be maintained in good condition, otherwise the Board may in its discretion order removal. (5) The four (4) foot by six (6) foot size sign has been in effect since December, 1961. All off-premises directional signs must now conform. (.6) Locations chosen for directional signs must meet with the general standards set up in Article VIII. (7) Ail signs must be at least five (5) feet from any property line; three (3) feet ~bove ground level; four (4) feet above ground, if electrical. (8) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglasst Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthitl. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2571 - Upon application of Green- port 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 sign. Location of property: ~ · ' ~ ~a~n~Roa~ ~(.~tate Road 25), Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Main Re~d (State Road 25); east by Jurzenia; south by Reese and Sill; west by Drosses. SOUTHOLD TOW~ BOARD OF APPEALS -8- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Rev. Hardgrove in reviewing our files we find that the legal notice was published as a differenet spot than what you are presently talking about. It was published for across the street where you used to have the signs, and where we were told where it was to be. The disapproval describes the land across the street ~rom the Lutheran Church as the location for your sign. Now, we understand that on the north side where you are talking about is State property and the State Will not grant you permission. Do you want ko withdraw this, or w~uld you rather haven, s recess it while you see the people on the other side, Drossos and Reese and see if you can erect it where you have the application already filed? it. REV. HARDGROVE: If it can be recessed, I would appreciate MR. DOUGLASS: For years you had it across the way on the Drossos section, and we will recess it and see if you can work out an agreement. MR. TUTH1LL: Does this have to be published again? THE SECRETARY: No, not if you recess it. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2571 on behalf of Greenport United Methodist Church, Main Street, Greenport, New York, be recessed until Thursday, September 6, 1979, at 7:45 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2584 - Upon application of Thomas F. and Margaret M. Maher, 114 Locust Street, Garden City, New York (Robert W. Gillispie, III, as agent), 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. Loca- tion of property: Leeton Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Lon~ Island Sound; east by Markel; south by Leeton Drive; west by Motloy. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearinq, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified~Dmail had been made to: Mary Katherine Markel and Mr. and Mrs. ~a~es T. Malloy. Fee paid $15.00~ MR. DOUGLASS: We have a recent survey of the property showing the house on the one piece and the vacant piece next to it to the east. We also have a County Tax Map section of the area on Long ~sland Sound SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS n9m August 16, 1979 ~howing the surrounding neighborhood in that Great Pond area. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? As representative~of these people, do you have anything to say, Bob? ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, III: No, I said everything in the appli- cation, Mr. Douglass. ! don't think I can add to it. MR. DOUGLASS: ls there anyone present who wishes to speak against this applicat±~n? HELEN DEMOS: May I ask a question? To the east of the property when you say 100 feet are you tal~ing about length or width? MR. DOUGLASS: Road frontage. MRS. DEMOS: Road frontage to the east? MR. DOUGLASS: Right. MRS. DEMOS: I don't think there is 100ffeet~ MR. DOUGLASS: There is 100 feet there because we measured it. MRS. DEMOS: To the east is Markel's property. Is that correct? MR. DOUGLASS: To the west of Mah~'s house is 100 feet of ~oad frontage. MRS. DEMOS: But that 100 feet is including the vacant lot, is it notj MR. DOUGLASS: That is the vacant land. There is 100 feet of vacant land. MRS. DEMOS: But the parcel to theeeast of the vacant land is Market's and how many feet does that have? It is not 100 MR. DOUGLASS: You mean the next house? MRS. DEMOS: Yes. MR. DOUGLASS: It ranges 'sDmewhere near 100 feet. They range from 100 feet down to 50 feet. MR. GILLISPIE: I believe Mr. Markel's property is 50 feet in width. MR. DOUGLASS: They get closer to the east. To the west a couple of houses away, the houses are closer together~than 100 feet. It varies. About the widest is the 100 feet and ail the others are less. Is there anyone else present who wishes to ask a question Or make a comment? After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is the owner of a parcel of land with 200 feet of road fron- ~ge on Leeton Drive. On one 100 foot parcel there is erected a single SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- August 16, 1979 ~amily dwelling. The parcel to be created will have 100 feet of road frontage on Leeton Drive and bee 123 feet deep to Long Island Sound. The size of the lot to be created exceeds many of the lots in the area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Thomas F. and Margaret M. Maher, 114 Locust Street, Garden City, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Leeton D~ive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound; east by Markel; south by Leeton Drive; west by Molloy, Upon the following con- ditions: (1) There will be no further subdivision of either of the lots created by this action~ (2) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2583 Upon application of William P. Riley, Smith Drive North, Southold, New York (William B. Smith, as a~ent), 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. 23 through 27 inclusive, Map No. 1663, Map of Goose Neck Estates, Southold,'New York. The A~ting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Leonard D. Dank and A. D. Nelson. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey of the property and the waterfront and showing the house on lot no. 25, 26 and 27 and the lots to be de~ sired bo be split off into one other lot as 23 and 24. We also have a County Tax Map of the area attached to the file. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? WILLI~ B. SMITH: I believe that everything that is necessary is in that appeal. Dr. Riley would certainly like to have this done. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone on the Board who would like to say anything? (there was no response. We went out and checked the property. We talked with some of the neighbors across the street, and the largest property across the street runs from 60 feet to 75 feet. The average is probably about 77 feet. 'In fact some of the houses on the creek are built on 77 feet of frontage, which wa~ one and one half lots when the subdivision was originally created. After investigatiQn and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is the owner of five lots in the Goose Neck Subdivision which have a total road frontage of 257.65 feet and a depth on one side of 195 feet and a depth on the other side of 170 feet. The applicant wishes to create a lot ~aving 100 feet of road fron~ rage with a square foot area of 15,0010 and a lot w~th 157,64 of road frontage containing 29,000 s~uare feet. The lots to be created will be larqer than many of the lots in this area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will'not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by M~. Gr!gonis,lit was RESOLVED, that William P. Ri!ey~gSm~th Drive North, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property ~ Lots No. 23 tY~ough 27 inclu- sive, Map No. 1663, Map of Goose Neck Estates, Southold, New York, upon the following conditions: (1) There shall be no further subdivision of either of the lots created by this action. (2) The division line shall be no closer than 10 feet to the existing dwelling sitting on lots 25, 26 and 27. (3) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2581 ~ Upon application of Long sland Oyster Farms, Inc., 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, or a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-93 for permission to erect an eight (8) foot ~hain link fence in the rear yard area. Location of property: Shipyard Lane~ East Marion, New York, bounded on the Morth by Cherepowich, Reeve, Bohlke, Clark SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- August 16, 1979 ~eoghegan, Kelly and Gregory; east by Manoqlu, Watt, Tsatsos, ~uir, Wahrenburg and South~d; south by Orient Harbor; west by Shipyard Lane. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Joseph Cherepow~h, Russell Reeve, John J. Boh~ke, Robert F. Clark, Lawrence Goeghagan, George ~o Gregory, J. & B. Manoglu, Robert and Anna Wells, Dorothy Watt, Margitta Wahrenburg, Tanas and Sma Tsatsos, Robert Muir, Annette Kelty~ Fee paid $15.00 MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey of the property sh~wing where the fence will be on the property. It will start from the side of the main plant and go out behind the access road around the drainage sump and back in to the east and over to the waterfront at the basin on the east side. It w.ill enclose the small buildings in the rear. W~ also have a County Tax Map of the area showing the surrounding lots~ as well as the area owned by the Oyster Farm. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of this applieation? CONRAD V©LINSKI: I 'think it is a good idea and it should go through. I live on,Shipyard Lane and I have a small boy who could be a victim of whatever lies in that area. I think it is a good idea it should be granted. PATRIC1A VOLINSKI: I agree. MR. DOUGLASS: Is the~e a~yone else present who wishes to speak in favor o~ this appl~catl~n? (the~e was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). This falls un,er a special situation be- cause in commercial property there is no statute which states what can be put up. That is why it comes before us for a variance. MRS. ROBERT MUIR: I don't wish to speak against this, but I would like to know if there is a diagram showing where that fence will go? MR~ DOUGLASS: Yes, we have it right here. It goes out...Do you know the area? MRS. MUIR.: ?es. MR. DOUGLAS~: Do you know where the post line out to the sump is located. MRS. MUIR: I ~ive on Gillette Drive in East Marion, and I~m not f~±liar with that side of the installation. I'm on the east side. I'm familiar with the boat basin area. MR. DOUGLASS: You are familiar with the plant, r~ght? If you ride down Shipyard Lane, you know where that is? The fence will start SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- August 16, 1979 by that sump, which is the backside of the parking area. The parking area will be in front of the fence. The fence goes straight oUt to the north from that and across approximately in the middle of the open lot they own to the north of their buildings. Over 50 percent of the lot will be outside the fence. It goes to the east toward you on Gillette Drive till it just clears the basin area, and then goes to the south where the bay joins the basin. MRS. MUIR: That is going to prevent anyone from going along that bulkhead? These people are concerned about saving their children, how are they going to enclose that in? Wall people be able to walk along the beach area? MR. DOUGLASS: That has buildings on the other side of the plant already. MRS. MUIR: On my side there is nothing. MR. DOUGLASS: This will go right down along the basin. It covers the basin. It goes down to the Bay area where it joins the bulkhead there. So it will keep anyone from walking from Gillette Drive over and tumbling into the basin on the east side. MRS. MUIR: 1 was just wondering how they were going to enclose that area. MR. DOUGLASS: It will not be an eyesore, because it is chain link fence, and you will be able to look through it. This is a deterrent. MRS. MUIR: As I say, I did not disagree with it, I just wanted to know where it was going. MR. TUTHILL: But it ~n't stop anyone from coming in by boat will it? MR. DOUGLASS: No. Is there anyone else who would like to say anything on this application? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the application is located at the end of a heavily populated area and an an open boat basin ~nich is exposed to tresspassers and vandalism. They wish to erect an 8 foot chain llnk fence to prohibit access to the build±ngs and Boat basin. 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. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- August 16, 1979 On motion by Mr. Douglass~ seconded by Mro Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Long Island Oyster Farms, Inc., 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, be GRANTED permission to erect an eight (8) foot chain link fence in the rear yard area. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Cherepowich, Reeve, Bohlke, Clark, Geoghegan, Kelly and Gregory; east by Manoglu, Watt, Tsatsos, Muir, Wahrenburg and Town of Southold; south by Orient Harbor; west by Shipyard Lane, upon the following condition: (1) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2582 Upon application of Thomas and Ed±th Per±llo, 87 Old Country Road, Melvlllet New York, (Carman, Callahan, Carman & Sab±no, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ~II, 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 Boulevard; east by Weglecki; south by Weglicki; west by Sidor. The Acting Chairman opened the hearinq by readinq the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice o~ hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Bu±ld±ng Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from~l~ ~own Clerk tha~ notification by certified mail had been made to: Barney and Emily Sidor and Martin Weglicki. Fee paid $15.00 MR. DOUGLASS: We have a sketch here drawn by the people on their proposal of moving this lot line from the soutk to the north a little bit. We also have the section of the County Tax Map which shows th~se line$~the property and the surrounding area. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? DOUGLASS HEINS, ESQ: I am with Carman, Callahan, Carman & Sabino in Farmingdale. We represent the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Perillo, who are lifelong residents of aur Farmingdale area. Unfortunately, they were unable to be with us tonight due a business meeting concerning a business meetmng on heating fuels. They anticipate a busy season. This zs an appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector. The application ms to divide the lot presently owned by the Rev. W. S. Grochowski. He took title to that property in separate conveyances: The north parcel in June, 1964, the south parcel in August, 1968. The Board i~ aware of the fact that we do not have a final survey on this matter. We had withheld from going to that expense until we had sig~ed contracts back from the vendor. We have it on the word of the attorney for Rev. Grochowski that the contracts have been signed and put in the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- August 16, 1979 ~ail this week. I think this will preserve our status as contract vendees. We have word also from Mr. Robert Celic, who has been in touch with that attorney. I would like to provide the Board with a copy of the map with the proposal for the subdivis~ono I would also note to the board that the rendering that i~r~ Douglass referred to I believe was done by the Building Inspector. He indicated to me today that was not done strictly to scale. Of course we stand ready to proceed with a survey and provide ~h~ Board with an official final survey of the area to show the exact proposal. As the appeal indicates this is an application to balance the land areas and readjust the lot lines. The tax map will show this area was originally divided into two separate tax parcels. The approxistate size of the area at this time, excuse me. I did make other copies of the maps for the other board members. You will notice one difference in the map I am handing you now. I made some effort to indicate the other homes in the area. I am sure the Board is well aware of those other homes. I thought it might be of some assistance to see the approximate layout of some of the homes in the area. MR. DOUGLASS: We have some pictures of them. MR. HEINS: In that case I won"t submit the broker's polaroid of the Grochowski residence, because I would observe it looks better in the picture than it did when I stopped there this afternoon to have a look at it. As the Board is aware the property is on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard diagonally across from the entrance to Laurelwood Estates, and somewhat to the west of the North Oakwood Road entrance. It is presently inproved with a single, family frame dwelling, which I might add is in need of repair. Our client~is in a position to do this. Generally in accordance with his plans, he intends to build 6n the southerly portion to maintain that whole strip of land in fine condition as Mr. Perillo's residence in M~i~- ville is kept at this time. We would seek not only an appeal of this decision from the Building Inspector, but relief from Article III, Section 100-31 in that it doesn't pose a hardship on us, it makes it practically ~mpossible to build a house on that property in keeping with the nature of the community built in compliance with the building code. The property now is approximately 100 feet wide by 547 feet deep. Our proposed alteration of the property line would result in two parcels: the ~o~thern parcel approx~mately 275 feet in depth and withaallowance for the driveway either as a part of the subdivision or a easemen~85 feet long with an approximate area of 24,000 square feet~ev~u~hern parcel on which Mr. Perillo would propose to build a single family, frame dwelling Would then be 275 feet long and 100 feet in width. In addition to that there would be the driveway area of 15 f~et wide by 275 feet making &nrarea of about 31,000 square feet. As I have indicated the present plan is to repair the north house and evidentially, of course conditioned on the approval of this Board, building a hOuse on the southern parcel. Obviously access to ~hat southern parcel would be a problem so we are faced with the task of m~ki~g an access road or a finger on the ~o~thern parcel to give us access to Great Peconic Bay Boulevard or to eventually take an easement on a subsequent conveyance on the northern parcel to the southern parcel. I think that the proposed alteration of the lot lines is not SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- August 16, 1979 within the letter of the law which requires the 150 feet of frontage and 40,000 square feet area it is certainly in the spirit of the Ordinance. 1 think this would be a valuable addition to this area. I think in view of what 1 have been told and seen with my own ~es that this would be in mos~ part in conformity with the area, size of the adjoining parcels, location of the various houses, etc. Standing ready to answer any questions, I would respectfully request this board to consider this appeal and grant the relief requested. MR. DOUGLASS: It is our understanding that the development across the way has legal right of way to the beach down that ~efoot stretch you are talking about. MR. HEINS: That's right, Mr. Douglass. MR. DOUGLASS: You show it only going...o~, I see. My question is, do you have access over that 15 right-of-way that is already there? MR. HEINS: The Covenants and Restrictions that I have looked at grant the right to the Laurelwood Estates that easement would not be effected by what ~ propose here. MR. DOUGLASS: But do you have a right to use that? MR. HEINS: It is my understanding that we have the right of~ pedestrian use of that as well as the right to use the area indicated as the "park and playground"area. MR. DOUGLASS: You show a new access cutting in on the west side of the property in your proposal here to get to the southern parcel. MR. HEINS: At this time the property owned to the west by Sidor, the name on the mailbox is Krum. There is a driveway on the eastern part of their driveway. We propose a driveway the mirror image of that so to speak on to the Grochowski property leading only down to the house which 1 suppose w6~id be situated in the center of the property. MR. DOUGLASS: What I am getting at is do you need that if you have legal right over the other access? MR. HEINS: The pro~&em with the right of way to the east is that it is restricted to pedestrian use only. MR. DOUGLASS: Oh, it is. MR. HEINS: The character of that right-of-way is not linear as it appears here. It meand~ers to the beach. It doesn't conform exactly to this. We have no intention of changing that in any way. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, the markers are down there. We found them. MR. HEINS: According to the broker the actual right-6f-way lies slightly to the east of the path. At least where it starts out. We don't anticipate any problem with that. We propose a driveway on the .. SOUT~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- August 16, 1979 ~ther side of the property. MR, DOUGLASS: In other words, it is just a walk and not a driveway? MR. HEINS: That's right. MR. DOUGLASS: Okay, so you have to put in your access to your southern piece. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else present who~ wishes to speak in favor of this application? (there was mo response)° Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MR. SIDOR: I don't know if I want to speak for or against this, but can I look at that sketch? MR. DOUGLASS: Sure. MR. StDOR: As I understand it tkere is a 15 foot right-of-way for the people across the street, walking on!y, no driving. MR~ DOUGLASS: That is on the east side. MR. SIDOR: I~m on the west side. Now if he puts a driveway on ~ke west side he is going to squeeze that existing house there. He'll gut that lot where the home is~ DOUGLASS: He still has to maintain a legal side yard area. MR. SIDOR: I don't know how much he will have there after he puts that driveway. How wide is the driveway? MR. HEINS: Looking at some of"the other lots in the area, par~ ticularly with reference to lots to the west, lots 8 and 9 on the tax map, they are rather narrow driveways ~hown. My understanding is that presently a 15 foot driveway is required. We would be willing to change that figure if need be. MR. DOUGLASS: If you have 15 feet for your driveway, how much distance will you have between your driveway and the side of the house? MR. HEINS: I actually don't have the exact measurements. In my own opinion, I would say 25 to 30 feet. MR. DOUGLASS: This is why you need the survey. MR. SIDOR: There are not many feet there. This is between my property line and my home that I'm talking about. If you put 15 feet there, there will be very few feet left. MR. HEINS: Two suggestions I might make at this time. W8 do have to get that survey made and provide you with a copy. In addition %o that theze is a possibility of obtaining an easement over that pro- perty which in my understanding would not affect the side line problem. In v~ew of the fact that I cannot provide you with a survey to show SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- August 16, 1979 what that measurement is, could I have an extension? MR. DOUGLASS: Our suggestion is that we recess this hearing until the next meeting, and that should give you time to get the survey. You have to conform to the side yard area. You might also be able to see if some sort of access could be drawn up there on the east side to allow you down through that way. MR. HEINS: I certainly appreciate the comments of Mr. Sidoro It seems to me that there?~ight be another speaker there. Would it be possible to see what she has to say? JOHN BURNS: We live on theeeast side of the house. That right of way according to our deed is ~5 feet wide all the way down. I measured it and it is only 10 feet. MR, D©UGLASS: The markers show 10 feet. MR. BURNS: That's right. MR. DOUGLASS: B~t the deeds all show 15 feet. So if he could make some kind of arrangement there, you would have 15 feet there you could improve for the people there and yourself too. MR. HE1NS: That is a very interesting suggestion. As I pointed out the legal situation there is that is strictly for pedestrian use, but we will certainly explore the possibility of improving on that. MARGARET BURNS: According to the understanding that right-of-way is a walkway for the people across the way in the Laurelwoods Estates. We being on the west side have 3 separate lots and the intent was that right-of-way would be for the use of a car if we in the future build on these lots toward the bay. MR. DOUGLASS: Is anything like that inyyour deed? MR. BURNS: I don't think so. MRS. BURNS: I don't think so, but that was a verbal understanding with Mr. Weglicki. MR. DOUGLASS: M~ybe the two of you could get together and you would have access to yours and he would have access to his. MR. BURN~: Who is going to give up the 5 feet? MR. DOUGLASS: Well there is plenty of room...Let~me put it that way. Where the markers are down by the waterfront piece stitlhheld by the other own'er, there is probably five feet between the easterly marker and the fence line which is there now. The second marker is really in about 15 feet, but they only have 10 feet between them. It would still be do~n on his fence line, and it would be to his advantage if he could make such an agreement. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -19- August 16, 1979 ~ MRS. BURNS: The present wid%h~ of the right-of-way is insuf- ficient for the passage of t~Q~Ca~rs if there were to be a house put on the lots toward the bay. MR. DOUGLASS: 15 feet would be all right. If you can get the full 15 feet? That is what we require. MRS. BURNS: Would that be sufficient for the entrance of any emergency Vehicles? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, that is what our present requirements are. MRS. BURNS: Then should that r±ght~of~way be increased to 15 feet according to the present law as I understand it, then it has to be blacktopped or paved or put in such a condition. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes we have certain road conditions that must be met. This way it will be able to carry emergency vehicles. MRS. BURNS: Now, should this variance be granted will the con- ditions of construction and right-of-way be entered into the record? MR. DOUGLASS: He has to go now and see what he can do on his right-of-way. Then when he comes back and shows that he has side yard etc., if we grant the change which is merely making the lots equal rather than one small one and one large one. Then he has to come back in here and get approval of right of acces% MRS. BURNS: At the same time I question the distance between the present building and the increase in the right-of-way being in the building code. MR. DOUGLASS: This is what he has to show us on a survey. This is why a survey is required showing the house situated on it. MR. HEINS: Just to clarify in my mind. Mrs. Burns you are talking about the r±ght-of~ay on the east? The one between your property and Rev. Grochowski's property? MRS. BURNS: Yes. MR. DOUGLASS: Either side must meet the requirements. You must have 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side. The building department can reduce that automatically. MR. HEINS: I certainly appreciate the airing of all of the concerns. I think it would do us well to go and get a survey. In view of those observations I would respectfully request the Board to entertain a motion to recess this to the next available date. MR. TUTHILL: With regard to that right-of-way between you and the opposite property, that is restricted to pedestrian use, is it not? MRS. BURNS: For the people who live across the ~ay. ~- SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -20- AUgust 16, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: Are you suggesting you might be able to use if for a driveway? You don't know if you can do this though, is that correct? MRS. BURNS: Well, we could go to Weglicki and find out° MR. BURNS: If it was just supposed to be a walkway~ it certainl~ would not be t~ feet in width. MR. DOUGLASS: It doesn't seem like it, no. That is something that is going to have to be straightened out~ MR. TUTHILL: There are trees there now, so there is now way a car could get down there. MR. BURNS~ Oh, they get down here. MR. TUTHILL: Were these t%~o lots created by separate deeds? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, they were purchased in different years, they had to be. MR. HEINS: four years apart. August, 1968. The deeds into Father Grochowski were approximately The first one was June, 1964 and the second waS MR. SIDOR: That lot at the foot of the right-of-way was originally to be used as a beach for the people across the road. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2582 on behalf of Thomas and Edith Perillo, 87 Old Country Road, Melville, New York, be recessessed until Thursday, September 6, 1979, at 8:00 P.M. (D.S.T.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tu~hitl. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2574 m Upon application of Raymond and Anna Ciacia~ Main Road, Greenport, New York (James Bitses, Esq.), for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with in- sufficient area and width. Location of property: Lots No~ 157, 158, 159 and 160, Map No° 1124, Peconic Bay Estates, Greenport, New York. The Ac~ing Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affi- davits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail ~Greenport Lumber and John Rempe. Fee paid $15.00 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -21- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey of the total area of Mr. Ciacia's property here. We also have a County Tax Map showing the area and the surrounding area in that neighborhood. We also have a sketch drawn by him showing his proposal. Is there anyone present who would like to speak for this appeal. JAMES BITSES:' You all know Mr. Ciacia. He has worked here all his life, and he is a very skilled boat builder. He is a magician with wood. He's come to the term of years at which he wishes to retire. As was customary in this Town for the last 300 years, where- ever there was a journeyman he generally lived along side the building where he worked. The blacksmith lived alongside his forge, and in this case, Mr. Ciacia lived alongside the building in which he had been building boats for God knows how many years. Beautiful boats at that. Now we have an opportunity to sell the industrial building and the property abutting on the Main Road. Mr. Ciacia wishes to retire, which is reasonable at this time at this age. But he cannot sell his bUSiness because his dwelling house is right alongside the building in which he has been engaging in his trade as a skilled carpenter all his life. In this case there are four lots, and up until 1970 there would not have been any problem. But the law has been changed for the better to protect ~he Town and to prevent undue density of building construc- tion, and general unsightliness. In that respect the law is wise. However, the four lots are now considered one and they constitute about 2/3rd Of an acre. It would not change the character of the area. As I said in my application it would improve the local area by moving the house at, ay from the industrial building and placing it by itself on what in effect becomes a residential lot in the middle of an industrial C~Zone. That is a definite improvement for the Town. Also it is unique in that because of the exigqncies of his business and profession, he had to have the building alongside his house. Now, he is being penalized f6~rin effect engaging in an honest, honorable trade all his life. The solution is relatively simple. We are asking for the division of this one parcel of ground, lots 157, 158, 159 and 160 into two individual pzeces. 157 an~ 158 which face on the Main Road and Kerwin BOulevard as Parcel A. and 159 and 160 which a~e further back on Kerwin Boulevard as Parcel B. If we are given permissinn to do this, we will then be able to move the house from Parcel A back to Parcel B. There is ade~ quate space on Parcel B for the side yard clearances and the front yard clearances and so on. It will leave Parcel A~availabte for sale. At the present time we have entered into a contract of sale with Lynn Sciora, conditioned upon the Town granting us permission to divide this property into two parcels. If the board would see fit to grant this honorable servant of this Town, this hardworking man, his just rewards at the time of his retirement without in any way violating the spirit of the Ordinance, he would be much 6bliged. I would also like to hear comments from any objectors w-ith a view toward amicable settlement. MR. DOUGLASS: Is the~e anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone pre- sent who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). Is there anything any of the members of the Board would like to say re~ing this application? (the~e was no response). SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- August 16, 1979 MR. BITSES: I forgot to mention this is conditioned upon the Planning Board's site plan approval. MR. DOUGLASS: In this respect then I must say Ghat you will find tkat the proper thing to do is put this on a recess for this reason. As long as Mr. Ciacia's house is where it is, it is usable as a residence. This property is "C" zoned right back to the railroad. Moving the house does not change the property to a "A" residential zone. In order to move that houset you will ha~e to go before the Town Board first and have that "C" zoned changed to "A" residential. We cannot grant living conditions in a "C" zoned. It is now non- conforming. As long as the house stays wh~e it is, it is okay. But we cannot grant this unless you get a change of zone from the Town Board. How much tiE~e will you need? MR. B1TSES: What is the schedule of the Town Board? You generally would know more about that then I would. It might take more than one meeting. Let's set it down for ~st~onth's hence. MR. DOUGLASS: Okay° On motion by Mr. Tuth±ll, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it Was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2574 on behalf of Raymond and Ann Ciacia, Main Road, Greenport, New York, be RECESSED until Thursday, September 27, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) in order to allow the applicant time to obtain a change of zone from the Southold Town BQard. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2570 - Upon application of Robert and Anita Feagles, 21 Colony Road, West Hartford, Connecticut, 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: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Ocean View Avenue; east by Ph±lipp; south by Beach ~venue; west by Equestrian Avenue. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affi- davits attesting to ±ts publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Barbara Ph±llip. Fee paid $15.00 MR. DOUGLASS: I have a survey of this p~ece of land and when we were over there as the survey shows there ~s ~he ma~n house on the one piece, another house that will renovated on the second p~ece, and there is a third house which is the tumbled down eyesore that they talk about changing. So there ~s presently houses on each parcel that could SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -23- August 16, 1979 be renovated. It will not increase any density° We have also the County Tax Map of that area and the surrounding parcels. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). Maybe our colleague from Fishers Island would like to say something° MR.~DOYEN: It is very desirable that the appeal be granted. That structure has been an eyesore for many years. The Town has been petitioned to see ±f they can get it razed. Obviously there wasn't, so from the community's point of view this should be granted. MR. TU~HILL: Don't you think it should be conditioned that something be done with that old barn there? MR. GRIGONIS: You are still going to have some gripes. MR. TUTHiLL: That is the main reason for it is to remove the eyesore. MR. DOYEN: They could renovate the eyesore if they saw fit. It is just that I suspect they want to raze the eyesore so they could build another structure further back on the lot. If they so elected to renovate the structure there, they should be given the 9pportunity to do this. At one time it had been gutted, but never rebuilt again. The windows were just blocked off and it got run down. I don't know why ~e should penalize him, we don't ask other people to guarantee that. MR. GRIGONIS: Why don't we just say eliminate the eyesore. Then they can improve it. MR. D©YEN: It is their intent to do that even though they don't say so. However, suppose they did want to renovate the existing structure. As long as the eyesore is removed, i.e. renovated or removed, is that is important to the community. MR. TUTHILL: They certainly cannot use it the way it is. MR. DOYEN: No, but you could renovate it, if you so elected. I think we should allow him to have that option. Why don't you say that he remove the eyesore one way or the other, by renovation of the building or tearing it down. MR. TUTHILL: How do you make a nice eyesore? MR. DOYEN: I don't know. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is the owner of a parcel of land containing 2.0 acres. The proposal is to divide the property into three parce~ all of which have a dwelling located on them. The Board agrees with the reasoning cf the applicant. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -24- August 16, 1979 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would p~oduce 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 w 11 not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On mo~ion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, thatzRobert and Anita Feagles, 21 Colony Road, West Hartfor, Connecticut, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Equestrian Ave- nue, Fishers Island, New York, bounded on the north by Ocean View Avenue; east by Philipp; south by Beach Avenue; west by Equestrian Avenue,uupon the following condition: (t~ The building th&~ is need of repair shall either be r~no~ rated or razed Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLI'C ~EAR~NG~ Appeal No. 2578 - Upon application of Herbert R. Mandel, Inlet Lane Extension, Greenport, New York (John Geideman, as agent), for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parkinq Schedule for permission to construct an addi- tion to a buildi~g~f~it~ insufficient side yard. Location of property: Inlet Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Clempner; east by ~ull Pond; south by Cenant; west by Inlet Lane° Tke Act±rig Chairman opened tke hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ord~nance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: R. Clempner and Miriam Conant. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey map showing the house on the pro- perty and its positioning and the postion of the walk they are talking ab0~t along the side an~ then across the rear of the house on Gull Pond. We also have a copy of the area o~ the County Tax Map. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~N GEIDEMAN: I just want to make it clear that this walk is on the first ~loor elevation and is not on the ground. It~will be s~milar in construction to the house. The onlyrreason for the variance is to pass the chimney. There is heavy brush between the exis~i~g~ouse and the nearest house and I don't believe that this will create any hardship. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (.there was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- August 16, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: This will be 5 feet wide? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, it cuts do~% %he distance to the lot line to 7 foot 2 inches, from 10 feet something. MR. TUT~iLL: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. TUTHILL: MR. DOUGLASS: That is a walkway, not a deck. It's a deck.at the first floor level. 5 feet is pretty narrow deck, wouldn't you say? When we were out there...Thls was just subdivided a couple of months ago. When we did, we subjected the other p~ce to a 15 foot side yard r~quirement. So what this deck will create would not happen. Th±s was ~n Mr. Clempner's side. I guess Mr. Clempner purchased that piece in between there? MR. GEIDEMAN: Right. MR.DOUGLASS: We subjected that to a condition. Is there any~ reason you cannot go down to ground level until you get to the back side of your building, where the main deck is going to be? This way you will not requireda variance for the side yard reduction. MR. GEIDEMAN: We have tried t8 live with the contours there. It drops off fast to ~Ae water there. It would require terracing or steps. Mr. Mandel's wife is incapable of passage through~that type of situation. We are trying to get it by the kitchen around to the front porch in such a fashion that it is all on one level, instead of going down to grade and then back up again. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyway you can go out on the other side over the top of the garages? MR. GEIDEMAN: The entrance on the first floor and the garages conflict on that side because the double garage and the distance be- '~ween.-the two is 7 feet, which is less than normal. We cannot pass the garages without putting a dip in the walk. At that elevation, the first floor elevation, it would block off the entrance to the garage. ~ MR. DOUGLASS: Well the first floor elevation is above the garage doo~? MR. GEIDEMAN: In order to put the main deck which will be on the water side of the house at that floor level, it would create a situation where the walk on the side of the house would have to come up past the garages and then down again. The top of the garage door is right at the level which meets the first floor beam. MR. DOUGLASS: Are you intending to drop the deck lower than the first floo~ out in the front? MR. GEIDEMAN: We are trying'to keep it at the first floor level. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Well, if you went across the other way.o.YOur sills certainly are the same height all the way around. MR. GEIDEM~N: It's hard for me Bo present this problem. The architect presented this and we are trying to work out a one level passage, and he said in order to get it through without h~ving a step up and a step down, we would have to put a walk around the outside of the house. It really affects the doors of the garage. The reason is structural, and we can't seem to get by there unless we put a walk- way. MR. DOUGLASS: I can't quite understand that because as far as know the sills all run the same leval all around the house. MR. GEIDE~N: I guess it is the structure itself that would have to be supported by an outside beam to put it a little lower than the garage entry. MR. DOUGLASS: In my opinion it is really crowding ~he side yard to cut down to that distance. I know the chimney is there. MR. GEIDEM~N: The nearest house is 15 to 20 feet on the other side. MR. DOUGLASS: I know, but we have set a 15-foot requirement on the ~ther property° MR. GEIDE~VLAN: I understand tkat. capable of making the trip up and d~n. asking for this variance. Unfortunately this woman is un- Othe~mse we would not be MR. DOUGLASS: What do%~he rest of the members of the Board think? MR. GRIGONIS: I'm not a builder, so I don't know exactly how it works out. You seem to understand it better, Bob. MK. DOUGLASS: I am not for cutting the side yard down any further. MR. GRIGONIS: You might open up a can of worms down there by doing that. MR. DOUGLASS: I am stillnof the opinion that you can still go along and go down to g~ound level. You still have to walk up into the kitchen. She can do that. She has to walk upstairs to get into the front of the house. The house is raised. I will grant you that. Maybe~ he can add a little bit of fill along that side, and ~aise it up. I would be afraid to have that deck there and cutting the side yard down to a 7 foot clearance. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a walk along the westerly side of his house which would reduce the side yard setback f~m 10'6" to 7~ 6". Recently %he Board divided property on the easterly side of the appli- SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- August 16, 1979 cant's house. When that division was made the Board imposed a 15 foot side yard. The Board feels in view of that decision it would not be proper to grant this reduction ~hich is half the amount im- posed on the other side of the property. The Board finds that strict application would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immSdiate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On mo~ion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RES~L~ED, that Herbert R. Mandel, Inlet Lane Extension, Greenport, New Y0rk,~ihe DENIED permission to construct an addition to a building with insufficient side yard. Location of property: Inlet Lane, Green- port, New York, bounded on the north by Clempner; east by Gull Pond; South by Conant; west by Inlet Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2577 ~ Upon application of Clifford and~ary Eginton, Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct a carport in the front yard area. Location of property: Deep Hole Drive, Mattltuck, New York, bounded on the north by Niedoroda; east by Deep Hole Drive; south by Dohm; west by Deep Hole Creek. The Acting ~hairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affi- davit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and dis- approval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Walter L. Dohm and William Niedoroda. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a plot diagram which is attached to this application and also the County Tax Map of that section showing the surrounding areas. As you gathered this property is on Deep Hole Creek on the water. The rear yard is on the water side and structural area is on the land side. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there ahyone present who wiskes to speak against this application? (there was no response). All tke houses along Deep Hole Creek have their garages along what is called their front yard area. The applicant drew us a sketch here, and when we went to inspect it and measured it out~ we found that he made marginal errors in the distances he measured and marked on the sketch. For instance he set his house at 110 feet back from Deep Hole Drive. We found it is only 85 feet back. He proposes to build this within 6 feet of his house, which is fine~ and 3 feet from the Bontherly property line, which is accordin~ to regulations. The carport will be SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -28- August 16, 1979 12 feet wide and 24 feet long. He shows there is 80 feet from the carport to the road, but there will only be 50 feet~off ~eep Hole Drive. MR. TUTHILL: He has a problem common to waterfrtont owners. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicants own waterfront property. The proposal is to construct a carport in their legal front yard area. Most of the homes on this street already have their garages in their front yard area. The Board agrees with tke reasoning of the applicants. 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. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Clifford and Mary Eginton, Deep Hole Drive, Matti- tuck, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct a carport in the front yard area. Location~of property: Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Niedoroda; east by Deep Hol~ Drive south by Dohm; west by Deep Hole Creekt upon the foll®~ing condition: (1) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Do'~glass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC 5EARING: ~ppeal No. 2576 - Upon application of Lim-Con Enterprises, Inc., 1455 Vets Highway, Hauppauge, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 C 2 for permission to erect a sign that exceeds the height requirements. Loca- tion of property: Northeast corner of Factory Avenue and Main Road, Matt±tuck, New York, bounded on the north by Bethany Cemetery Associa- tion; east by Bethany Cemetery Association; south by Main Road (State Road 25); west by Factory Avenue and Ardprop, Inc. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affi- davit attesting to ~ publication in the official newspapers, and dis- approval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Ardprop, Inc. and Bethany Cemetery Association. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: He supplies a sketch of the Mattituck Shopping Center and also supplies us with ~ketches of the proposed sign. We also have a County Tax Map section of that area. This is what we have in the file, and is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -29- August 16, 1979 ~ SCOTT ~COMBER: I'm from Paul Axien signs. We are the con- tracting firm that Would be erecting the sign. ~f you gentlemen recall I was before you earlier this year proposing something a little bit different than wh~t we have tonight, which in certain respects fall favorably on the decision that you made at that time. I think that what we have come back with is something hopefully that is a good compromise in what you are looking for and also for what we are looking for, which is adequate identification of the stores in the center. To review a little bit, 1 am sure you are familiar with the center, it has quite a setback with quite a dis~ tance between the stores and the road. It is necessary to have a sign on the road which is more noticeable then a sign over each ~ndividual store. Again, I would like to say that we worked as closely as we could to the Zoning Ordinance, and actually the only except±on to the Ordinance is the fact the sign does not fall in the confines 12'6 by 6'6 limitation. It is total ~quare footage wise, setback wise and other respects inccompliance with the Zoning Ordin~ ance. MR. DOUGLASS: May I ask you some questions. You say that it conforms in here, but when we add it up, it doesn't~heightwise. MR. MACOMBER: The actual height, in fact I called the Building Department when I got the notice stating that it was ~he height that was the problem, and I asked, I believe, it was Mr. Fisher!~ in that the total height of the sign is not in question. It is the actual h~ight due to the fact the sign is done in three section, the actual height of the sign does not fall within ~he 12'6" requirement. In other words, it is not a solid sign. You can see from the sketch, it does not totally fall within that 12'6', situation. The actual size of the sign above grade, I believe, is within the requirement. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, you are above the 12'6" requirement. MR. MACOMBER: Well the outside dimension is over the 12'~", but actual sign area is actually less than 12'6" MR. DOUGLASS: We are interested in the total height. The sign ordinance has a figure for the total, not the readable part or the design that is on it. MR. MACOMBER: Are you speaking of the total height of the struc- ture? The total height of the structure is within what is allowed. I believe it is about 1~ feet. MR. DOUGLASS: You have 4'6" and 5 is 9'6", 10'6'~, 11'3 and 3~. In my additionkit comes out to 14 feet. MR. MACOMBER: 4'6" is from the bottom of the sign to the grade. MR. DOUGLASS: That is the required amount, right. Then you have 5' for your participants on the sign. 1'6" MR. MACOMBER: That's air space SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30-~ August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: It still is incorporated into the sign and then 3 feet of A&P. is MR. MACO~BER: Okay, well, due to the nature of the design/what leads us away from the total height. Engineering wise it is set up better than a solid structure. MR. DOUGLASS: However, we have a solid sign ordinance in the Town. ~er the last time you informed us that the County had made variances and you went to the County, but I think you found out they had not made variances and would not. MR. ~ACOMBER: i told you at the first hearing I was aware of the fact that many of the towns on the island had granted variances. MR. DOUGLASS: We checked since then, and they have not. The County has not granted variances. If we grant you a change in our regu~&tion here, then anybody along the road is entitled to come in with that change. We have a strict Sign ordinance here that attempts ~ maintain some semblence of order in Southold Town. I do not feel we can indiscriminately change it. It is my feeling that we have to stand by it. MR. MACOMBER: May I ask a question? When you say the County has not granted any variances, what body are you talking about? MR. DOUGLASS: The ones controlling signs. You tolduus you some oversized signs had been granted. One was a cadillac agency, and we found that it had not been granted. MR. ~,~COMBER: Since I have been here E have gone before the Islip Board and have been granted two, two hundred square foot signs in Brentwood. MR. DOUGLASS: Maybe they have a different sign ordinance than we've got. MR. MACOMBER: Every t~ownship has a different ordinance. MR. DOUGLAS~:~ We have one here that we have to stick by. I thought that when you were here last time we made that plain. Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? ALAN CARDINALE: I represent Lim~Con. A~ide from the Ordinance which I ~o not know about, I just wanted to let you know that the uniqueness of this center in size and ~ayout is different that you are encountering here on the North fork. It was not (the sign) the brain child of our organization, but at the request of all of our tenants. They feel there is a need for identity to make it a viable business. It has been an eyesore. My intention in purchasing this or getting involved with it was to try to make it a viable center both tax wise and otherwise. This is one of the approaches, having cauc~sedd SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31- August 16, 1979 with all the tenants, we wanted to try. I am not familiar with the Ordinance, so I do not want to make any waves, but I feel it would be beneficial to the tenants. MR. DOUGLASS: You can pull it down to the proper height and size. We showed Mr. Macomber that the last time. Let's see if there is anyone present who ~ishes to speak against this? HENRY B. LYTLE: As one of the original proponents of the Sign Ordinance in the Town of Southotd, I would just like to say that we should stick with our original specifications. It is only a matter of a foot and a half or two feet. I think they can scale it down a little bit. They can still have a good, workable sign. MR. CARDINALE: I readily appreciate the position of the Board and the Town's people. I do not want to step on any toes. It is just the unique character and size of the center and at the request of the ~nants that we are doing this. We had spoken at length, Mr. Macomber and myself as to what we could do to make not an abortive looking situation. We do want to maintain the character. Many things about the cen~er would have been done differently if I had started from scratch. But we are trying to do something with what we have to work with at this point. DQe to the topography of the land and the nature of the center ~tself, it has already sunk ~n. We are just trying to get it high enough it would be attractive and not noticeable and get some ldenti~. If we go lower it's going to discount the number of tenants from participation because of the 4'6" MR. DOUGLASS: No, I don~t think it would. I think you could drop the A&P a little bit, and get down into the size. You are~giving the A&P the whole top there according to this sketch. If you drop the A&P down, you will pull it down within the size. You are up on top of the hill there by therroad. You are not down in the valley. MR. CARDINALE: I certainly agree with what you are saying. The only problem is that it might look very distasteful on the main thorough- fare if we box everything together. It will look like a Long Island t~pe billboard. By giving the air space which is the foot and one half~ I think it adds more character to the sign. MR. DOUGLASS: Well the foot and a half is just for A&P's benefit. MR. CARDINALE: No, that was done more for terms of air space. It has A&P on top of the billboard itself. MR. DOUGLASS: I would make the suggestion that you redesign it and pull it down to stay w.ithin our Ordinance. I don't want to see our Ordinance changed. We can end up with a problem all the way down the line. After investigation and inspection the Board fin~s that the appli- cant wishes to erect an electrical ground sign to identify the Mattituck SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -32- August 16, 1979 S~opping Center. The sign is larger than the permitted size, but the Board feels the sign can be designed in such a way that it can conform to the present sign ordinance. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hard- ship created is not unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighbor- hood and will not observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Lim-Con E~terprises, In-., 1455 Vets Highway, Hauppauge, New York, be DENIED permission to erect a sign that exceeds the height requirements. Location of property: Northeast ~orner of Factory AvenUe and Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Bethany Cemetery Association; east by Bethany Cemetery Associa- tion; south by Main Road (State Road 25); west by Factory Avenue and Ardprop, Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis,DDoyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2575 - Upon application of Armando Cappa and Ann Hocking, Main Road, Southold, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V~II, S ~tion 100~8! and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct an addition to an existing building with insufficient rear yard setback. Location of property: Old Main Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Old Main Road; east by Reiter; south by Budd's Pond; west by Port of Egypt Enterprises. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notide of hearing, affi- davit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and dis- approval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Joan R~iter and Port of Egypt Enterprises. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: They have a sketch here for us of the existing building and the proposed addition, and 9e also have a section of the County Tax Map~Sh~wing 'the su~round±ng neighborhood. If you look at it it is deceiving. When we went out there it shows the proposed addition would be about equal in size to the existing building. This is misleading because wheme t~ proposed addition wi~ go it will replace part of the existing building there now. The part to be replaced is on a lower level and floods now in a heavy rain. That part will be removed and rebuilt at the same time the addition is erected. All they are requiring is 15 feet instead of an area the size of the existing building. Is there ah~one p~esent who w£shes to speak for th±s application? Would you like SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -33- August 16, 1979 tp say anything~ Ann? ANN HOCKING: No, I think the application states everything, Bob. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? HELEN REITER: I would ~ike to speak, but not really for or against it. I just want to air a couple of points on this. On this property there are two very active places of business plus a rental, and really there is h&.rdly enough parking for one business much less two. This parking situation results in flooding over to our property for parking, as well as disabled boats and thin~s. It causes bad relationships and expense for us to remove. This is all I wanted to say. MR. DOUGLASS: In a situation like that, M'am, maybe you could get together with Ann and get some kind of barrier put up. MRS. REITER: We have already spoken on this. MR. DOUGLASS: Maybe you could contr~ that. We measured the area and tke ne±ghboring businesses are within 32 feet and less of thsir bulkheads, their structures are. The proposal that she desires would bring her only to 35 feet of the bulkhead and we would definitely make that a restriction that she could not go closer than the 35 fleet. There is certainly plenty of parking available if properly con~rolled. MRS. HOCKING: I don't know of any of my customers parking there. Helen, could it be from the Barge? MRS. REITER: No. MR. TUTHILL: This is not going to effect the parking. MR. DOUGLASS: What she is actually asking for is a 15 foot extension. MRS. REITER: I have no objection to this, I just wanted to bring out some problems and the number of buildings. MR. DOUGLASS: This addition will not change the existing businesses. It will be the same business, it is just going to improve the existing building she has there. Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak on this application? After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicants wish to construct an addition to an existing business building. Part of the present building will be removed and rebuilt at the time the addition is built. The other businesses along the water are all about the same setback from the bulkhead. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3~- August 16, 1979 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and ~eoutd 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. On motion by Mr. Tuth±ll, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Armando Cappa and Ann Hocking, Main Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct an addition to an exiSting building with insufficient rear yard setback. Location of property: Old Main Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Old Main Road; east by Reiter; south by Budd's Pond; west by Port of Egypt Enter- prises, upon the following conditions: (t) The proposed addition shall be no closer than 35 feet to the bulkhead. (2) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen, and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2579 Upon application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50 B(3) & (4) and C(2), for permission to erect a 28 unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and a coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Parkside Heights Co.; east by Shipyard Lane; south by Gardiner's Bay; west by Parkside Heights Co. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Acting Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Parkside Heights Company. Fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: There are several things in this that will be desired and needed to be done, and the way it stands right now the Town of Southold desires lead agency status in the above matter. I would like to read the following letter into the record~ Mr. Roy L. Haje, Regulatory Affairs, Building 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794~ RE: TW 15278-0143, Emanuel Kontokosta. Dear Mr. Haje: The Town of Southo~d desires lead agency status in the above matter~ There are several steps which the applicant must take to proceed with this project. (1) Apply for and receive approval of a subdivision of the property. (2) Apply for and receive approval SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -35- August 16, 1979 f~om the Board of Appeals for the p~pgsed apartment complex° (3) Apply for and receive site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. This matter will not be acted upon until the above have been complied with. It would appear that the Board of Appeals would assume the lead agency status for the Town. Yours truly, HENRY RAYNOR, JR.~ Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board by Muriel To!man0. Secretary. What this means is that we, the Board of Appeals becomes the lead agency in the dets~rmination of this plan in what is called SEQR~ which is enclronmentat impact. We have to assume the responsibility for getting all the stuff together and seeing that it is followed in its right track and determining the evaluation. We have written to DEC. We have several things the proposed contractor has got to do and we have a sketch here which I would propose that any of you who are interested in the audience, and it appears to be quite a bit of interest, come up and take this and pass it amongst yourself so you can see what the contractor proposes. Then it is my intent, ~e have his sketch, tke County Tax Map showing the area, to have anyone who disapproves this plan speak before we go on with the Contracto~nand his agent, which you will see what we further have to have done. If anyone would like to come and get this map and pass it amongst yourselves and see what is proposed for your area, why, you will have a better idea of wkat we are talking about. While they are looking at that I will try to answer any questions. M~RIE SMITH: Will you please explain the 28 and the 21. Does that come out to 49 or 21 units in the 28? MR. DOUGLASS: It is 28 apartments plus 21 motel units. MAR~E SMITE: Making a total of 49 units? MR. D©USLAS: Yes. RICHARD KNUDSEN: This land is zoned residential? MR. DOUGLASS: It is zoned multiple use. MR. KNUDSEN: Then motels are permitted, right? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. KNUDSEN: That wohldn't be commercial? MR. DOUGLASS: Oh yes, it is commercial. Multiple dwelling. MAR~RIE VOLINSKI: I live on Shipyard Lane. You read a statement be{6re that they said it would not make an vehicular traffic on any existing Town of Southold roads. According to this map he has three access roads off Shipyard Lane. Shipyard Lane is a dead end street. MR. DOUGLASS: He only has two accesses. O One going in and one coming out. You will see they are one way streets on the plans. The SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -36- August 16, 1979 d~vided is a one way street. MRS. VOLINSKI: Excuse me. One is a road going in and the other is going out. Then at the other end of the property he has another road. That makes three roads. Either in or out. MR. DOUGLASS: That's right. MRS. VQL!NSKI: You are still going to go down a dead end street,~ Shipyard Lane. MR. DOUGLASS: Shipyard Lane is a two way street. But they are going to ~o down it. MRS. VOLINSKI: What I am saying is that he says there bwill be no increase in traffic. MR.DOUGLASS: This is his thing. PATRICtA VOLINSKI: We already have 5 tractor trailers a day ~own that road. WILLIAM McDERMOTT: May I ask a question? You are the lead agency.~ This does have to have before anything else goes ~n~ I understand the approval of the Zoning Board. MR. DOUGLASS: It has to have a lot of approvals. MR. McDE~OTT: DEC, Zoning Board, and God knows what else, is that right? MR. DOUGLASS: There is more befogs that. MR. McDERMOTT: But yyou cannot act on this aside from being lead agency. All you are doing is supervising the direction. Am I correct? MR. DOUGLASS: We can~tact on it until all the other stuff is approved. MR~ McDErmOTT: That's what I thought. I don't believe...There are 49 units there and how much acreage, 9 acres. Does that fit in with the Master Plan. MR. DOUGLASS: It does. It mee~s all the zoning requirements. MR. McDERMOTT: In your zoning code. Do you know if it meets the approval of the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASS: This is something coming up you will hear later on. MR. McDERMOTT: This is unusual, is it not, to lead through~he Board of Appeals before it goes to the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASS: No, it is not unusual, it is something that we SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -37- August 16, 1979 h~ve to revert back. MR. McDERMOTT: It is not the usual procedure? MR. DOUGLASS: It is the usual procedure because we have to be the lead agency in SEQRA in the determination of the environmental impact. JAMES CAVANAUGH: On the west is Parkside. Is that the same outfit that is developing this concept. MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know. I can't determine that until after I talk to them. MRS[~SMITH: 1 don't live on Shipyard Lane, but I think everyone here will agree with me that most of the problems in East Marion come from this sort of housing. Do you agree with me? My husband and I have lived in East Marion for seven years and whenever we come to Town Hall for an answer to a problem, we have on inevitable answer, from several different people. A deep sigh followed by it's a shame, East Marion used to be such a nice place to live. Number one you have no noise ordinance. Have you ever suffered through hours music? MR. DOUGLASS: M~am, I've livedhhere and my family date~ back to 17Q0 and something. MRS. SMITH: But if you have no rules, how can you allow an increase in this type of h6~sing? MR. DOUGLASS: ~'m not crowded. MRS. SMITH: You live in Orient. MR, DOUGLASS: ~ think East Marion is still a nice community. MRS. SMITH: Would you like to spend a hot Sunday with us? Would you llke to try to get out on the Main Road? Would you like to have people visit you and ask "For God's sake, why did you build here?" Six cars scattered on the lawn of a one family dwelling, boats? MR. DOUGLASS: I think you are getting a little bit off the trail of this matter. MRS. SMITH: My whole point is that shouldn't there be rules first? MR. DOUGLASS: We have rules. MRS. SMITH: An~i-noise? MR. DOUGLASS: That has nothing to do with us. I'm afraid that is not in our jurisdiction. MR. TUTHILL: That is with the Town Board. SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -38- August 16, 1979 MRS. VOLINSKI: What type of sewage treatment do they plan on using? MR. DOUGLASS: It states in the application that whatever the Board of Health requires. What they will require, I cannot answer. They are very strict. I know for instance they will require the land to be at an elevat±on of a minimum of 8 feet for it. Right now the highest ~point is 5 feet and the lowest is 2.4 feet~ MRS. VOLINSKI: Isn't there a law that cesspools have to be 10 feet above sea level? MR. DOUGLASS: No. Two feet above the water. MRS. VOLINSKI: But when we get a storm the Town road floods and all tkis property floods. MR. DOUGLASS: That's right. That is why land has to be raised. They will require .... MRS. VOLINSKI: They will have to raise the land so the sewage will not go into the bay? MR~DOUGLASS: That's right. Board of Health. That would be taken care of by the JOHN BLACKWELL: I live in East Marion. To tie in all this type of question, when will the environmental impact statement be available? MR. DOUGLASS: This you will hear if you are patient for a few minutes. MR. BLACKWELL: It is current? MR. DOUGLASS: It has to be provided. LESTER SHAPIRO: I may have missed something. But ~hat is the variance for exactly? One is for a coffeesshop, am I right? And the other has to do with requesting permission to erect an apartment complex? MR. DOUGLASS: It is all under the same application. This is a special exception~ MR. SHAPIRO: Under current zoning they can erect a motel unit? MR. DOUGLASS: Permitted uses under multiple dwelling. (Mr. DQuglass read the part of the Zoning Ordinanee applying to this application) MR. SHAPIRO: Then I understand they are asking the Board of Appeals to grant a special exception which is not granted under "M-i", but they are asking for permission to erect an apartment complex and motel units and coffee shop. SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -39- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: It is a use permitted under the Zoning Ordinance if the Board so determines. MR. SHAPIRO: That is what I am trying to get at. We as the people interested in it have it within our view to object to the Board's granting the special exception. MR. DOUGLASS: This is perfectly within your right. MR.SHAPIRO: At one time I was under the impression that the M-1 automatically granted this. MR. DOUGLASS: No it is a legal special exception. MR. SHAPIRO: W~ehave enough authority to object to it. This is not automatically granted? MR, ~DD~GLASS:' You must understand one other thing. If they meet the requirements of the Town ordinances which on that drawing you will see that he is under the zoning code regulations, he has met them down the line to this point, then he cannot be denied this special exception. As long as he stays within the legal requirements of the zoning. MR. CAVANAUGH: Do I understand there are only four dwellings to an acre? MR. DOUGLASS: N°t under this type of unit. GUNTHER STOTSKY: I live in East 'M~ion, I am rather confused because we have no details regarding water supply. MR. DOUGLASS: The water supply is his least problem. He has Greenport water. MR. STOTSKY: He will tie into the Greenport water. MR. DOUGLASS: He has no problem there. MR. STOTSK~: What about details in terms of sewage removal. MR. DOUGLASS: This is controlled by the Board of Health. MR. STOTSKY: But you are asking us, and I am a little confused at this point. I am confused about the Board of Appeals sitting on this type of variance, which has just been announced in the newspaper with no environmental impact statement yet. MR. DOUGLAS~: You are jumping ahead of me. MR. STOTSKY: If you could clarify why this is in front of the Board of Appeals, rather than the Planning Board. As Bill McDermott tried to question this. I still do not understand how you can have 49 units on 9 acres of land which is about 2 feet above sea water. No details in terms of sewage disposal will be or what solid waste SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -40- August 16, 1979 will be. Now, hopefully they will tie into Greenport water. It seems to me that~until this Environmental Impact Statement is filed, that we should have a chance to look at this instead of just being given a copy of a map this evening without any time toolook at it, this pro- posal should either be tabled. MR. DOUGLASS: I told you there would not any decision here tonight. I'm giving you the opportunity ~ talk and get answers. MR. STOTSKY: There will be no decision tonight? Thank you. MR. McDErmOTT: I think it would be worth going through once again the lead agency status that the Board of Appeals must follow before anything can be doneoon this. It would clarify a lot of people's questions, I think. MR. DOUGLASS: As I explained before, we end up with the job dropped in our lap as lead agency in what is called SEQRA. Environmental Impact developed by the State of New York. We have forms that we have to follow, and when we run down through these forms and answer the questions it puts us in a determination of what we must require of the Contractor before we can make a decision. We as the Board of Appeals, they came before us first because they are after a special exception to ~o this construction. Now we have to go back with them and tell them what is required. This is what will be coming. MK. SHAPIRO: Again, I ask what kind of impact we can have on the Board's decision? I think you have gathered the flavor of all of us here this evening. We are agin this. We like the character of East Marzon. We've been here 18 or 19 years. We don't want this to become the south fork. We don't want a motel. We don't want a coffee shop that will expand into a disco or something. Does this have any impact? MR. DOUGLASS: It all enters into the thinking of the Board, certainly. MR. SHAPIRO: Because before you said that if they conform to the Code, you have no alternative, but to grant this. MR. DOUGLASS: This is possible. We have the determining factor whether or not it does. MR. SHAPIRO: Let's p~rsue this a little further. They can legally conform to the code, but we are the neighborhood say, "Heck, we don't want it." I trust the Board will take that into consideration. MR. DOUGLASS: We always do. MR, SP~P!R@: The final decision, as Dr. Stotsky asked before, Will be delayed until the Environmental Impact Statement is filed? Is it also that a decision will not be made until we hear what the thinking of the Board is and what the findings are of the Board? MR. DOUGLASS: I am going to take one more person, and then I am SOUTHOLD TOWN BO~RD OF APPEALS -41- August 16, 1979 going back over to the Contractor. From then on you will see what happens. PATRICIA VOLINSKI: I have only one question. How much property does he own? Did he buy the garden as well as the FishersEstate? MR. DOUGLASS: This is something I have to find out yet. MRS= VOLINSKI: Oh, okay, you don't know? MR. DOUGLASS: We know that the land has been bought, but how we have to find out. Hold it up how and let me go back to Mr. Lark and Mr. Kontokosta, the contractor who is proposing this. We have... I would like to give Mr. Lark a minute to explain their side, just a short bit, and then I will go over with him on what we requzre and will require and this will all have to be recessed until the stuff is brought before us that has to be done. Would you take over for a minute, Mr. Lark. RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ: I would just like to ask the Board whether or not you have been granted the lead agency status by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation? MR. DOUGLASS: We are still waiting for a letter, but the Town has made us the lead agency. MR. LARK: But has the State acquiesced the lead agency in this matter? MR. DOUGLASS: We have not had a letter back from them yet. MR. LARK: Then I understood that you are going to give us a list of requirements and recess the hearing. I would like to hear what you had in mind. MR. DOUGLASS: In the first place, it has to go back to the Planning Board. Let me ask a question of Mr. Kontokoska. When you purchased this land, it was 14 acres, right? MR. KONTOKOSTA: No. I purchased the 9 acres. MR. DOUGLASS: Who purchased the rest? MR. KONTOKOSTA: Parkside Heights purchased the rest. MR. DOUGLASS: Did Parkside Heights originally purchase the whole 14 acres? MR. KONTOKOSTA: No. The deed went from the prior owner to myself. MA. DOUGLASS: For the 14 acres? MR. KONTOKOSTA: For the 9.199 acres. MR. DOUGLASS: And the deed went directly from Kaplan Brothers to Parkside Heights on the rest? SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -42- August 16, 1979 MR. KONTOKOSTA: We have the deeds here, Mr. Chairman, if you care to look at them. MR. DOUGLASS: No, that's all right. I'll take your word for it. You've got them. We will see them later anyway. This was a question that has been raised. The first thing that has to be done is that you have to go back to the Planning Board. You have got to supply us with an Environmental Impact Statement before we can go any further. You have got to go to the Board of Health and get their requirements on what they will require for the sewage. I have talked to them since we saw you, and I know they have certain requirements that will have to be met. They will go over that with you. You have b~en there before. You have to go on a subdivision basis to the Planning Board, and have an Environmental thing worked up. Then through the Board of Health and back to us. It will be a public hearing again. We intend to recess this until October. How much time do you want, Dick? MR. LARK: I still ask the question. Did the State make you the lead agency? Or is the State going to assume the lead agency and then if the New York State Environmental Agency assumes lead agency are they going to deem this a minor project, which makes a different set of rules and regulations then if they deem it a major project, as you know. So I can't answer your question until I know what the Department of Environmental Conservation is going to do. MR. DOUGLASS: We will still be the Town's lead agency anyway. MR. LAR/f: What happens if the state supersedes you? MRS. CONROY: If the state overrides us, we are under them, and we have no control. That is what he is asking. MR. LARK: I don't know how much time we need until we find out what the Stonybrook people are going to do. We have written to them. MR. DOUGLASS: We have written them, too. an answer before tonight, but we didn't get it. it until October 18, 1979. We told them we expected We proposed to recess MR. LARK: That would be satisfactory pending on what they come up with. MR. DOUGLASS: You will all know that it will be October 18, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. Hopefully we will have all the information back by then. Then Mr. L~rk and Mr. Kontokosta will be through with the Planning Board by that time. MR. STOTSKY: I hope that prior to that October meeting that all this information will be available for all the parties involved, so we can see what it is. MR. DOUGLASS: You know government agencies as well as I do. MK. STOTSKY: Inasmuch as you are the Board of Appeals, the DEC is really sort of a secondary agency. The final decision will be made here. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -43- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: If they take over they are not the secondary agency. MR. STOTSKY: If they take over, I understand you are going to maintain control. All the people who are here and interested shQuld have access to the files before that October meeting. MR, DOUGLASS: Everything is open to them at our office. MR. STOTSKY: I~ there some date prior to the October meeting that all the infomation will be available to us,? MR. DOUGLASS: We have no way of knowing~ MR. STOTSKY: Will it be published in the paper? MR. DOUGLASS: No. It's been published once, and tkat~'s all it will be published. You will just have to stop in the office and talk to our secretary, from time to time. , MRS. BACHRACH: Can you hold a public meeting before all this available? MR. DOUGLASS: This is a public meeting right now, MRS. BACHRACH: I~m talking about this particular case, MR. DOUGLASS: If the information ks not available then, it will h~e to be recessed to a later date. MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a member of the local press here? DOUGLASS LOVE: Yes. PETER BOODT:~ Yes, MR~ SHApIiRO: Would you tWo be k~nd enough to follow this up so we have some kind of way to follow this? Please keep a close watCh on this. MRS, McDONALD: ~ust as a point of information. Has this been zoned M-1 for a very long time? MR. DOUGLAS~:~ Yes, quite a %fnile. MR. CAVANAUGR ~ All of 15 years. ANGELO PANAGOPOULOS: Live in East Marion. You said in the beginning of the meeting about the traffic. Do you think in your opinion that a little road like Shipyard Lane will be able to handle all the traffic. You are talking about 49 units. MR. DOUGLASS:~ This is not for me to say. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: It still Was in the plan of the Town. SQUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -44- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: This is for the Planning Board to say, not me. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: When you start reading the Code and start talking about traffic... MR. DOUGLASS: That was his statement in here. That Was the Contractor's statement. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Doesn't the construction have to blend with the environment of the Town? MR. DOUGLASS: That is all controlled by your Planning Board. MR. KNUDSEN: When this comes before the Planning Board we can voice our objections there, too? MR. DOUGLASS: You sure can. I~m sure it has to be published. MA. KNUDSEN: Do you know when that will be by any chance? MR. DOUGLASS: No. We will turn it over to them and Mr. Lark and Mr. Kontokosta will get in touch with them, and they will receive a date there just like they did here. MR. ST©TSKY: Just as a point of information. Why is this com±ng before the Appeals Board instead of the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASSS: We have already read it to you. It has to have a special exception. MR. STOTSKY: Has it been to the Planning Board? MR. DOUGLASS: Not at this time. MR. STOTSKY: I still don't understand with this zoning require- ment they are putting in for a variance. MR. DOUGLASS: No, they are putting in for a special exception. Not a variance. MR. STOTSKY: I don't understand what the special exception is that they are applying for. MR. D©UGLASS: They are putting in for a commercial use of the multiple dwellings and motel use down there which are allowed under M-1 under a special exception, with the coffee shop. MR. STOTSKY: This type of zoning is M-l, special exception which means no mat%er who owns this and they want to put up this type of operation in that zone, they w~ll have to come before the Board of Appeals and get a special exception? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. SOUTHOLD TO~YN BOARD OF APPEALS 44~ August 16, 1979 MR.DOUGLASS: MR. SOSINSKI: MR, DOUGLASS: MR. SOSINSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: in that area. MR. STOTSKY: T~is M-1 zoning is not a commercial zoning?; MR. DOUGLASS: T~is is a special exception, and a special exception is a legal use. MR. STOTSKY: Now, I get it. It is only zoned commercial with the special exception. It is zoned non-commercial unless they get a special exception. MR. DOUGLASS: It is an M-1 zone which allows it. WALTER SOSINSKI: Suppose the rest of the property up to the Main Road is rezoned for motels and all. Your town board is the one who controls that. If this is rezoned, why can't the rest. They are not rezoning anything. A special exception? That is not rezoning. That is a granted use CONRAD VOLINSKI: Now I'm going according to letters. mult±ple dwellings? MR. DOUGLASS: MR. VOLINSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. VOLINSKI: a C? M is for Right. C is for colnmercial. L±~ht industry. Now, what you are going to do is go from an M to MR. DOUGLASS: No. C is industry. This is not considered in- dustry. You have C right across the way at the Long Island Oyster Farms. HELEN DEMAS: The remaining property you are talking about. There is a ~.9 acreage, for the motel and apartment use. The remaining property owned by Parkside Heights? That would you please repeat what zoning that area is? MR. DOUGLASS: It is all M~i. MR, SHAPIRO: When was the subdivision made for those properties? MR, DOUGLASS: I can't tell you. MR, CAVANAUG}{~ we are really not talking about anyting until he goes before the Planning Board for the subdivision. MR. DOUGLASS: That's!right. MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know who the principals are in the Parkside Heights? SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -45- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: No, I don't. it is public information. If you want to go to the tax library, MR. STOTSKY: Will there be an impact statement ready by October 18th? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know sir. I told you si~ I cannot tell you that. I don't know until it comes in. There will be before there is a decision. MRS VOLINSKI: You said it was M~i from Cavanaugh's over? What I meant Was from the Bay the other way. map. MRS. VOL!NSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: him and Cavanaugh. MRS. V©LINSKI: MR. DOUGLASS: MRS. VOLINSKI: A-residential? MR. DOUGLASS: PAUL KALUNAS: MR. DOUGLASS: It is only M-1 back to his property line on this In back of him towards the Main Road is A residential. Parkside? Parkside is along side of him. Parkside is between' After you have what he owns, it becomes A-i? Yes, M~am. In other words the land that Sep farms is all Yes. I~m from East Marion. There is just one thing on my mind. You sa±d before that the feeling of a large group of people such as this one would have a bearing on your decision. MR. DOUGLASS: It always does. MR. KALUNAS: You also said that if all the requirements are met, that the special exception ~ould have to be granted. this? MR. DOUGLASS: MR, KALUNAS: MR. DOUGLASS: stop them. MR. KALUNAS: mean anything. If it conforms to zoning. Even if it may be contrary to more people than just Well, I would say if they meet the law, you cannot What you say then is that our objections do not NATHALIE RACKETT: tf the state should take over as lead agency MR. DOUGLAS: I'm not saying that at all. You might be expressing something the contractor is glad to hear. So he knows what is what. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -46- August 16, 1979 instead of the Board of Appeals here, that means they would make the decision instead of the Board of Appeals? MR. DOUGLASS: They would then tell him if he was in violation of environmental things or not. MRS. RACKETT: The decision would still lie here and not with the state~ MR. DOUGLASS: He would still have to come here for the special exception. He would have been cleared environmentally. MRS. RACKE~T: Will any hearings be held or anything of that sort in their courts rather than here where the majority of the people would attend? M~. DOUGLASS: No. You have your biggest value here. MR. STOTSKY: That's not true. If the DEC does in fact hold a hearing, everybody should be informed and has a right to be heard be- fore the hear±ng officer and make any complaints they want to make. MR. D©UGAASS: You can write anyone a letter you want. MR. STOTSKY: They just would have to have a hearing on this. MR. DOUGLASS: They don't have to have a hearing on anything. MR. STOTSKY: If we insisted on it, they would have to. MR. DOUGLASS: No, they don't. They are up there somewheres. MR. SHAPIRO: Is the Army Comp of Engineers involved in this? MR. DOUGLASS: No, they are never involved !n anything closer tkan 35 feet to the tide line. MR. SHAPIRO: This is above that? MR. SHAPIRO: I hope so. MRS. MCDONALD: Does the 9 acres include the land that is under water so much of the year? MR. DOUGLASS: That is all open ground if you look at the drawing. The poor area of that he has left as open ground. He is not touching or effecting %hat at all. He's working on the area which is the highest which is down towards the shore front. MRS. McDONALD: The part right off Shipyard Lane. The kids ice s~ate there every winter. MR. DOUGLASS: I know where you are talking about. It is in the back section. MRS. VOLINSK!: Right up to the water. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -47- August 16, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: The waterfront has 5 feet of elevation. MR. SHAPIRO: I think we are all caught up in the thing of special exceptions. It would appear to me that if all a special exception meant was that the person complied with the Code, that is not a special exception to me. That would just be the rule. MR. DOUGLASS: Special exception is for the use of it. MR. SHAPIRO: It would seem that the special exception -would be granted where there are special circumstances. MR. DOUGLASS: That is not the way it reads. Special exception gives them the right to do what ~ read to you. MR. SHAPIRO: It would be granted under special conditions? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, that they meet all the conditions. This is a much more restricted variance. I hope I have answered some of the things. More will be answered at the meeting in October that's for sure. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2579 on behalf of Emanuel Kontokosta, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York, be recessed .until Thursday, October 18, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. On mo~tion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by_Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of! the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, September 6, 1979, at ~:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) and set the following times on that date as the time of hearing upon the following applications? 8:10 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Diane Gazza, c/o North Fork Equities, Inc., North Road, Southold, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, SeCiton 100-30 for permission 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 a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to construct said building with an insufficient front yard setback. Location of property Cedar Beach Road, Southold, New York, known and designated as part of Lots 21, 22 and 23 and 24 on Map No. 90 of Cedar Beach Park. 8:20 P.M. ~.S.T.) Upon application of Frances N. Frisbie, Clear- water Lane, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -48- August 16, 1979 ~' ~hange 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". 8:35 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of William and Margaret Phelon, 215 Northfield Road, Hauppauge, New. York, for a variance to the~Zonlng 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 designated as Lot No. 105 on Map no. 1179 "Map of Nassau Farms." 8:50 0,M. (D.$.T.) Upon application of Penelope Kousouros and Stephen J. Perricone, 7470 Sound~Avenue, Mattituck, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 for per- mission to establish a disco bar with dancing. Loccation of property: Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New-York, bounded on the north by Sound Avenue; ~'~east by Sepko; south by Meglio; west by Meglio. 9:10 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of David and Carmen Olenick, 120 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York, for a.variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, 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 ~anden~euvel; east by Jacobs; south by Private Road; west by South Harbor Lane. 9:20 P.M. ~D.S.T.) Upon application of Celia Vitale, 19 Orchard Drive, Woodbury, New York, for a variance to the 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. 9:35 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Richard Praetorius, 846 Westmoreland Avenue, Syracuse, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section t00-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property w-±th insufficient area and width. Location of property: Westview Drive, Mattituck, New York, bounded~on the north by Eriksen; east by westview Drive; south by Dawe; west by~Mattituck, Creek. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass, Grig6nis, Doyen and Tuthill. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ? Babette C. Conroy Secretary