Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/05/1979 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR., CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHI LL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119~1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals July 5, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on July 5, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert Jo Douglass, Acting Chairman; Charles Griqonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Terry Tuthill. Also present was: Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters. The followino resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals at a regular meeting upon motion of Robert J. Douglass seconded by Charles 6~igonis. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold has learned with deep sorrow of the death of Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia. WHEREAS, the Board gives formal expression of the loss of Albert M. Martocchia, who ~ave his unselfish service to the people of the Town of Southold. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold adjourns tonight out of respect to the memory of Albert M. Martocchia and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the family of Albert M. Martocchia that we may extend to them our sincere sympathy. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2559 - Upon application of Edward H. Schw~ebert, 202 Round Hill Road, Roslyn Heights, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct an accessory building in the side yard area. Location of property: Mill Creek Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the nort~ by Mill Creek Drive; east by Pursel; south by Long Creek; west~by Mac- Dougall. - The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mrs. Donald Pursel and Thomas MacDougallo Fee paid: $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: There is a survey of the property attached to the application, tn line with this appeal is there anyone present who wishes to speak for the appeal? EDWARD H. SCHWIEBERT: I'm the applicant. MR. DOUGLASS: Do you have anything more you would like to add. MR..~SCHWIEBERT: No, I think I have said everything. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MRS. PURSEL~: Yes, I do not want it there. It faces my patio and it will spoil my view. I would like to know how big it is going to be? I haven't been informed on that. I suppose it is going to be to the building line. MR. SCHWIEBERT: It will be 15 feet off the building line. MR. DOUGLASS: It will be 15 feet off her property line? MR. SCHWIEBERT: Yes, 15 feet from the property line. MRS. PURSEL: I don't see how you can do that. MR. SCHWIEBERT: The shed is approximately 10' by 10' and here is the property line. If I cannot put it there, I will~r~ake application to put it down further. MRS. PURSEL: I don't want it in the side. MR. SCHWIEBERT: You want it here? (pointing towards the water on his survey). MRS. PURSEL: You have enough property. In fact you have 190 feet of back yard property and he is taking a small piece which I am going to look right into from my patio. I have lived there for 30 years. ~ ~ S~UTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -3- jUly 5, i979~ MR. DOUGLASS: When we~.~ere up there we took some pictures and would it bother you to put this shed behind the garage? MR. SCHWIEBERT: That would effect the other property owner. MR. DOUGLASS: Your garage is all shielded from the other property owners by high brush now. MR. SCHWIEBERT: I cannot put it along side the garage there is not enough room. MR. DOUGLASS: I mean just behind it. MR. SCHWIEBERT: No, sir. I have over in the east side my garden area. I would like to have my tools closer to where I am working. MR. DOUGLASS: After consultation with our Town Attorney, how close can you get this to your house? MR. SCHWIEBERT: How close? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, on the side that faces Mrs. Pursel? MR. SCHWIEBERT: There is a basement door on that side. One of those Bilko door type. i would have to stay 8 to 10 feet away from that so I could get stuff down to the basement. MR. DOUGLASS: You have some beautiful trees on that side. MR. SCHWIEBERT: Yes, and I do not want to sacrifice any ofhthem. On a survey in 1968, I don't have that survey here; however, I do have a copy of it on which I have put the building which shows the well house or pump house at that point. It is slightly closer to the house than I suggest putting this accessory shed. From indicated on the survey that was probably about 7-1/2 feet square. I have indicated in my application it would not exceed t0 feet on either side because these things come... What I have in mind is a metal building which is painted. I haven't yet d~c~ded to build a ste~l one or an alumini~moaRe. I tend toward alumini~m because if a ste~l building gets chipped, it rusts. MR. DOUGLASS: Can you put this building over in here so you can get away from her patio. MR. SCHWIEBERT: On the survey I have indicated only 3 of the trees in the area. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, we have a p~cture here o~ it. MR. SCHWIEBERT:~ (Looking at the photograph) This shrub, I think represents the remains of the screening around that well house. That is the reason I want to keep it in that area. I want to make use of that screening and shrubbery. I'm going to live there, and I don't want an · SO.~'HOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -4- July 5, 1979 eyesore anymore than anyone else does. MR. DOUGLASS: We understand that, but what we are sugggesting is that you go over in there. MR. SCHWIEBERT: There are trees over in there. MR. DOUGLASS: Right in against the garage? MR. SCHWIEBERT: No~ we have a perennial border along there. the house next dour is about here. Also MR. DOUGLASS: The angle of the v&ew would not be effected either for you or him~if you placed it up in here. MR. SCHWIEBERT: I don't want to put it on that side of the property. My garden area is down. Right now I am using the garage for storage of my tools. That is a long stretch to take everything back and forth. When I first came up with this idea, unfortunately Mrs. Pursel was in the hospital. I was not able to talke to her about it. MR. DOUGLASS: I just seems a shame~because if you put it over in here you wouldn, t even need an appeal. This is the back yard, and it would not be seen by anybody. MR. TUTHILL: I wanted to ask~Mrs. Pursel what the nature of her objection was? MRS.PPURSEL: Because my patio faces and has faced for the past 30 years that direction. I am going to be looking at that eyesore. No, I don't want it period. He's got a garden there, and he can put it down by the garden. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, if you put it all the way down there, it would be seen by both of you. MR. SCHWIEBERT: That is the reason I asked to have it up here. think I have indicated on the sketch the approximate location of Mrs. Pursel's house. MR. TUTHILL: · don't see anything wrong with what he is asking for. MR. DOUGLASS: If he places it in the side yard area, it is recom- mended that he put it here. MR. TUTHILL: When we were down there, I thought we thought it might be better if it was moved back toward the house a little bit. MR. DOUGLASS: You have plently of room between these trees and that part of your house. MR. SCHWIEBERT: I don't want to sacrifice any trees for this shed. , SOfT'OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- July 5, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: If you came back into this corner more you would not effect these trees. MR. SCHWIEBERT: This tree is approximately right about there. Then ~here is a planting right along there. MR. DOUGLASS: You could stay just outside of that. MR. SCHWIEBERT: Then there are some windows on that side of the house. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, there are two windows farther down. MR. SCHWIEBERT: No, they are not too far down. One would be about here. One is just about over the basement door. MR. DOUGLASS: My recommendation would be to have it ~earer the house. That will pull it back a little here. MR. SCHWIEBERT: The way it is now it is abQut 15 feet off the line. MR. DOUGLASS: Put it here so it doesn't effect your cellar door. MR. SCHWIEBERT: I have to have a~cess into my basement. MR. DOUGLASS: This way it will not be in line with Mrs. Pursel's patio. MR. SCHWIEBERT: I wish you would explain to Mrs. Pursel where you have suggested I place this. I hope she will be satisfied with it. ~. TUTHILL: You are suggesting to put this back closer to Mill Creek Drive, is that right, Bob? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, between the cellar doo~ and the corner of your house. This tree comes out about 5 or 6 feet from the house. So if you started your shed on that line and put it in there, you will be back behind her patio. MR. SCHWIEBERT: You patio is in the back of your house, isn't it Mrs. Pursel? MRS. PURSEL: On the side. MR. TUTHILL: Mrs. Pursel, do you remember the pump house that was there? MRS. PURSEL: stand up in it. in very neatly. The pump house amounted to nothing. You could not even It was a little shanty that my neighbor kept his tools MR. TUTHILL: To me a little shanty would be more of an eyesore than an up-to-date metal building. .. sOU~HOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -6- July 5, 1979 MRS. PURSEL: his tools in it. it. But you couldn't even stand up in it. He just put That is all there was to it. You could not even see MR. SCHWIEBERT: I won't be able tosstand up in this shed either. They don't have the headroom. MR. DOUGLASS: No, they don't. MR. TUTHILL: HOw far could it be moved back, 15 feet? MR. SCHWIEBERT: Toward Mill Creek Drive? I don't think it could go that far. MR. TUTHILL: Without hitting trees? MR. SCHWIEBERT: On the survey I have only indicated a couple of the trees. MR. DOUGLASS: Back here is a driveway. MR. SCHWIEBERT: It is not a driveway. It is just a parking spot. MR. DOUGLASS: This is where cars sit anyway. If he comes back here then he won't be in line with Mrs. Pursel's pation and won't be in iine with anything of his. Is there anyone else present who wishes to be heard on this application? MRS. PUR~EL: I just don't understand why he can't put it on the other side of his house. He is considering MacDoug~l more than he is considering me. I have been there for 30 years. MR. DOUGLASS: On the other side even without considering the trees, the corner of the garage is Qnly 13 feet to the corner of the property. If he comes back another 10 feet he is going to have to staFyaway from his garage a little. He has to stay 3 feet from his property line. MR. GRIGONIS: Doesn't it drop off back there? MR. DOUGLASS: Well it drops off right by the side of the garage. There is a hollow there. MRS. PURSEL: I have lived there for 30 years. I know all about the land and everything. I disapprove. MR~ SCHWIEBERT: Okay, okay. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is the owner of a parcel of land located on Mill Creek Drive, Southold, New Yorkt which abuts Long Creek. In order not to disturb the water front vmew of his neighbor the applicant wishes to construct an accessory shed in his easterly side yard area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. ~ SOUTHOLD TOWn BOARD OF APPEALS -7- July 5, 1979 The Board finds that s~rict 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 Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Edward H. Schwiebert, 202 Round Hill Road, Roslyn Heights, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct an accessory building in the side yard area as requested. Location of property: Mill Creek Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Mill Creek Drive; east by Pursel; south by Long Creek; west by MacDougall, upon the following conditions: (1) That the shed shall be located in the easterly side yard 5 or 6 feet from the corner of the front of the house. (2) Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass, Giigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2562 - Upon application of Claudio's Restaurant, Main Street, Greenport, New York (Robert Ketcham, as Agent), for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C 6 f for permission to locate an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Southwest corner of County Road 27 and Main Street (State Road 27), Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27; east by Main Street (State Road 25); south by Henkel; west by Mazza- ferro. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a spe~i~l~ex~eptian to the Zoning. Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector~ The Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Gene Mazzaferro and Ted Henkel. Fee paid $15.00. MR~ DOUGLASS: The County Tax Map indicates that the property where the off-premises directional sign is to be located is on the corner of Main Road (S. R. 25) and County Road 27 at the traffic circle in Green- p~t, New York. We have also a photostatic copy of an agreement between Charles S. Witherspoon and William F. Claudio for the purpose of erecting this sign. Mr. Witherspoon granted Mr. Claudio permission to erect his sign here as of June 12, 1979. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak ~gai~th~spplication? (there was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- July 5, 1979 cant wishes to erect an of ~p~emises directional sign for his restau- rant located at the end of Main Street, Greenport, New York. He has permission from the Owner of the land to erect his sign. The Board agrees with the reasoning· of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practieal 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. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Claudio's Restaurant, Main S~eet, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED permission to locate an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Southwest corner of County Road 27 and Main ~%a~et (State Road 25), Greenpokt, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27; east by Main Street (State Road 25); south by Henkel; west by Mazza- ferro, upon the following conditions: Written permission of the prgperty 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 e~ent 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 of sign must be approved. Size of sign may not exceed four (4) feet by six (6) feet. A reasonably accurate sketch of proposed sign must accompany application. (4) Signs must be maintained in good condition, otherwise the Board may in its discretion order removal. (5) The four (4) 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 mee~ with the general standards set up in Article VIII. (7) Ail signs must be at least five (5) fe~t from any property line; three (3) feet above ground level; four (4) feet above ground if electrical. (8) Suffolk County Planning Commission A~proval. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. . SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- July 5, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2557 - Upon application of Richard and Susan Greene, Glenn Road, Southold, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to erect a garage in the front yard area. Location of property: Right-of-way off Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Jockey Creek; east by Mullen and Dunne; south by Oed; west by Gunnisonl The Chairmanoopened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a let%er from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Kathryn Mutlen; John Oed, L. Dunne and J. Gunnison. Fee paid: $15.00 MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the applicant's csurvey which shows that his prgperty is located on Jockey Creek. He is in the process of constructing his house which is located approximately in the center of his lot. The proposal is to place the~garage in the side yard area ahead of his house. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this appli- cation? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). Does anyone on the Board have any questions? (there was no response). After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appli- cants wish to construct a garage in their legal front yard area due to the fact their property is on Jockey Creek. Thei~ house which they are constructing is placed approximately in the center of the lot. The garage will be 24 feet by 24 feet and will be built ahead of the house and to the side. The Board agrees with the ~easoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created ~s 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 Richard and Susan Greene, Glenn Road, Southo~d, New York, be GRANTED permission to erect a garage in the front yard a~ea. Location of property: Right-of-way off Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Jockey Creek; east by Mullen and Dunne;~ south by Oed; west by Gunnison, subject to the following conditions: (1) That all the side yard requirements ~f~the Zoning Ordinance are adhered to. (2) Suffolk County Planning Commission Approval. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. ~.~ s'0U~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- July 5, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2561 - Upon application of Jay and Mary Thomson, 695 Bayshore Drive, Greenport,~New York (George Ahlers as Agent), for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct an addition to an existing house which would cause the usage of more than 20 percent of the building lot. Loca- tion of property: Bayshore Road, Greenport, New York, known as Lot No. 64, in Peconic Bay Estates, Gre~nport, New York. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers of the Town and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Ann Blitz and F. F. Csajko. Fee paid $15.00. GLADYS CSAJKO: Before you get started, would it be possible for me to obtain a copy of the application? THE SECRETARY: I can make you one. MR. DOUGLASS: There is a survey map attached with the small addi- tion drawn on it, and how much area it will cover. There is also a County Tax Map of the property attached. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for the application? MRS. CSAJKO: Excuse me, we have asked for a copy of the application. Could we have it? THE SECRETARY: I'm sorry I can't give it to you right now. Our photocopy machine is locked in the Town Clerk's Office, and I don't have a key for that part of the building. MR. DOUGLASS: It would have to be done during business hours. THE SECRETARY: I would glady do it for you if I could get into that room. MRS. CSAJKO: I'm sure you would. GEORGE AHLERS: I'm the builder. Mr. Hinderman when we first sub- mitted the papers made an error in the total square footage of the house~ Actually the house only covers 22.43% of the plot. These are figures that I have gotten from Van Tuyl's office. Because the existing house does cover 2.43% more than it is supposed, we are asking for an additional .91% in the form of an addition on to the existing house. We are demolishing part of it, and then addi~=on to it to give us the additional square foot- age. t do not th~nk this small amount of added footage on to the house would change anything, be it the character of the neighborhood or anything else for Mr. and Mrs. Thomson. MR. DOUGLASS: Would you answer a couple of questions for us. When we wereaat the house looking it over it appears that it is not going to protrude past the end of the house on the ~ater end. .. sQUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -il- July 5, 1979 MR. AHLERS: No, we will be Still 6 or 7 feet behind the exis~ihg front line of the house. MR. DOUGLASS: Is it going to be one or two stories? MR.AAHLERS: Two stories. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? FRAN~CSAJKO: I do not want to speak against the application, but against ~he procedure at this point. Can I be recognized? MR. DOUGLASS: You can speak against it now if you want. Once this hearing is closed you will not be able to speak against the application. FRANK CSAJKO: Can I speak against the procedure before the applica- tion is approved? MR. DOUGLASS: FRANK CSAJKO: MR. DOUGLASS: the record? MR. CASJKO: I would like to speak after the formal application is approved or disapproved. You can speak right now against it if you desire. Can I speak on the ~uestions? Yes, you can. Do you want this on the record 6r off MR. DOUGLASS: That is right now. MR. CSAJKO: I~ okher words you are going to hold it right now? MR. DOUGLASS: Sure. GLADYS CSAJKO: We don't want to speak for or against this. a We want to speak on a question. We want on the record that we are not for or against this. MR. DOUGLASS: MRS. CSAJOKO: this. Okay. But we do uot want anyone here thinking we are against MR. DOUGLASS: Okay, stand up and talk. MR. CSAJKO: Question No. 1. According to the Bulk and Parking Schedule the Town of Southold you cannot use moretthan 20 percent of your plot. ~ MR. DOUGLASS: That's right, not without a variance. ~ ~ SouTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- July 5, 1979 MR. CSAJKO: Exactly what percent of the lot will be covered if this ~ariance is granted? MR. DOUGLASS: 22.43 percent. MR. CSAJKO: You said 28 per cent before. MR. DOUGLASS: As Mr. Ahlers just pointed out after Van Tuyl went over the surveys there was an error in mathematics by the Building De- partment. MR. CSAJKO: Before I go any further how can you vote on a variance where you have an error with the Building Department. MR. DOUGLASS: We have our own figures too. We have our own adding machines. We will go by the Sur~ey of Van Tuyls. MR. CSAJKO: Then you do not go by the Building Department? ~MR---~ ~ -DOUglASS: He can just be so accurate. He is not a surveyor. MR. CSAJKO: Okay, what does Mr. Van Tuyl say? MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Ahlers, would you care to give him that? MR. AHLERS: The existing house covers 2243 percent more of the lot than is supposed to be used. When Mr. Hindermann first sa~ the survey, the front sidewalk appeared to be part of the house. Which is why he came up with such a large percentage of the ~verage by the existing house. The next day he called my office about it, and I went to Van Tuyl and had Rod kno~kout the numbers on the calculator and he was the one who came up with the existing coverage of 22.43. We are asking for approximately .91 percent additional co~srage of the lot. MRS. ~SAJKO: So what is your actual figure of usage of the lot now? How much over the 20 percent are you going to be? MR. AHLERS: It would be 3. something. MRS. CSAJKO: No, give me 20. something? MR. AHLERS: It would be 23.34 percent of the lot. MR. CSAJ~O: That is down on the Building Department's records? MR. DOUGLASS: It is right here in front of me. In my records° My figures. MR. CSAJKO: Okay, now I have a couple of other questions at this point. There was a what do you call it before the building was added on makinq the building over-sized. Am I correct. MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know what a what do you call it is sir? S~6¢HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- July 5, 1979 MR. CSAJKO: When did the existing building become over-sized? MR. DOUGLASS: Originally when it was buil~ prior to zoning. MR. CSAJKO: Oh no, I object. I object. Because I owned that building with my father-in-law, and I know exactly how big that building was. MR. AHLERS: I'm afraid that is a loaded question. Merely because you would not know the answer to it and he does° We put an addition on this house last for Mr. and Mrs. Thoms®n. It was not picked up by the Building Department at the time that what we requested was going to put the house over the percentage of usage allowed. In fact I do not think it would have been picked up this time except that these folks were performing a public service and advised the'Building Department that what we proposed to do would indeed violate the Ordinance. MR. CSAJKO: You've got the floor George. (Mrs~ Csajko clapping in the background). Now can I go on with my questions? Mr. Ahle~s admits that the addition is illegal. Now, can I ask Mr. Ahlers a question? MR. DOUGLASS: Through the Chairman you can. MR. CSAJKO: Okay, Mr. Chairman. Was there a variance applied for for the other addition? MR. DOUGLASS: Evidently it was not considered over-sized when it was put on. MR. CSAJKO: Was there a variance applied for? MR. DOUGLASS: It was never picked up like Mr. Ahlers said. It was not pickeduup as an over sized building. MR. CSAJKO: Well, who goofed? MR. DOUGLASS: It wasn't this department. MR. CSAJKO: I know it wasn't your department. I'll admit that. Now you are going on, you are asking for a variance to go over sized on something that is over sized to begin with. Am I right or wrong? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, sir, it appears to me what you are trying to do is pick departments in this Town apart. Just a minute sir. Not answering your direct reasoning to object to the project. I think you should back off the departments and get in line on exactly what the appeal is, and object to that if you desire. MR. CSAJKO: Can I make a request that we have a hearing on the variance for the first over-size and then go from there. MR. DOUGLASS: We have no authority on that whatsoever. It has never come bef®fe here. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- July 5, 1979 MR. CSAJKO: It never came before this Board? There is no precedent then whatsoever? MR. DOUGLASS: I would not say so. I would have to check with legal counsel. MR. CSAJKO: Can we wait until legal counsel tells me if we can do it or not? MR. DOUGLASS: I can postpone it until then. MR. CSAJKO: I would appreciate a postponement~until legal counsel can tell me whether we can go on with the second variance when the first vari~e was not approved. MR. DOUGLASS: There ~as no first variance. MR. CSAJKO: I know there wasn't a first variance. MR. DOUGLASS: Then how could it be approved? MR. CSAJKO: You just told me you have to have legal counsel. MR. DOUGLASS: I would check legal counsel before I would say you would have to go back on that, yes. MR. CSAJKO: I would like to make a motion at this point that you get legal counsel to see whether we have to have another hearing or if this can be approved tonight. I want to adjourn this hearing tonight and find out whether the first over-sized building was legal or not. Whether. it needed a uariance or not. MR. TUTHILL: I object to any postponement of this hearing. We are dealing with a specific ~uestion here and not with the past. MR. DOUGLASS: That's true. MR. CSAJKO: Excuse me .... MR. DOUGLASS: On the other thln~, ~ think,yHu would find you will have to go back' .... We are directly ConCerned w!~h this appeal not with something that did not happen. I think you will have to go back to the Building Department and see if the Building Department wants to get in- volved with revoking the original BUilding Permit before anything else can be done. We can pass on thi~ MR. CSAJKO: about the past. structure? Can I ask one more question? I don't like the part Has there been a permit to tear down t~e ex~sting MR. DOUGLASS: I wouldn't know. That has nothing to do with us, sir. line. There hasn't been any through here. You are totally getting off the MRS. CSAJK0: We're just trying to find out...we are just asking questions, that's all. S~THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- July 5, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Mrs. Csajko... MRS. CSAJKO: Let's try and straighten this out. We personally have no objections whatsoever to the Thomson's putting this in. What we are bringing up right now is that an original building was put in which was over-sized and for some reason the Building Department did not pick it up and bring it to the attention of the Appeals Board. Now they are coming up with a second over-size, which is perfectly legitimate. We are making no objections whatsoever. Understand us, we are not objecting. We are trying to bring out if there is any communication between this Board and the Building Department? Is thsre any spot check to see what the Building Department is doing? Now you have a case of an over-sized building which was never picked up by the Building Department which should have been. MR. DOUGLASS: Let me answer that .... MRS. CSAJKO: Let me finish what I want to say Mr. Douglass. We have personal reasons and we discussed it and we did not do it in the hopes of keeping friendly relationships between neighbors. We could have when the first building was put in raised objections because we knew damn well that the building was over-sized? You know this contributed to my mother's death. The upset on this. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, this .... MRS. CSAJKO: Now, wait a minute. Please let me finish. What we are trying to bring up tonight is are you checking with the Building Department? Are there any other variances that are not being applied for because the Building Depar~ent is not passing them along to you. Now you gentlemen are being paid to act on variances. But you get them from the Building Department. I am not in any way holding you culpable. You have to work with the Building Department. Is there anyone from the Building Department who advises you? How much do you talk to them? Do you find out what is going on with the Building Department? MR. DOUGLASS: Let me answer that this way. We are not an enforce- ment agency. The Building Department is the enforcement agency. This is not us that checks on the Building Department, the Building Department checks on the variances that we issue. MRS. CSAJKO: In other word,s you are not in any way checking that the Building Department is doing their job. MR. DOUGLASS: When we ride around we see if they have or not. MRS. CSAJKO: Well, you didn't know about this? MR. DOUGLASS: Why should I? MRS. CSAJKO~ You just admitted yourself that you check on them. Now we are in now way opposed to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson's application. The only reason we came down tonight was because we have seen what has happened next door where you have a case where the Building Department SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- July 5, 1979 did not report it at all. In the second case I doubt it very seriously that it would have beenr~eported except that we called, and they knew damn well that it was us calling~ asking about this. I personally be- lieve, and there are now reporters here tonight, are there? Are there any reporters here? MR. DOUGLASS: I think there is someone writing here. MRS. CSAJHO: Is there? MRS. SHIRLEY BACHRACH: I'm from the League of Women Voters. MRS. CSAJKO: That is not a reporter. MR. DOUGLASS: This is going to be in the public record anyway. MRS. CSAJKO: I don't want it said I am doing this for publicity or anything like that, okay? What I am getting at is that this Board should make an attempt if nothing else to spot check what is going on in the Building Department. MR. DOUGLASS: I would suggest that you go back to the Building Department and ~iscuss it with'them, because it is not within our realm. MR. GRIGONIS: It is not our duty. MRS. CSAJKO: You are evading the issue, Mr. Douglass. MR. DOUGLASS: No, I'm not. I know what my orders are. I know what my realm of duty is. MRS. CSAJKO: I know what your realm of duty is. You have a duty to the public also~ And the Building Department is not putting through things that should come here. You are negligent by not checking them out. Come on, everybody has to have a little bit of checkinc back and forth to see what the other guy is doing. They are not doing their jobs correctly. Are you going to do your job correctly? MR. DOUGLASS: We do. We go out on the road and check these applica- tions and we have held this session long enough and go ahead on this appeal. Is there anyone else who desires to be heard. Any other questions? MRS. CSAJHO: Wait a minute. I'm sorry Mr. Douglass... MR. DOUGLASS: What you are talking about M'am does not pertain to this appeal. MR. CSAJKO: I am making a formal request right now. That you hold a hearing on the first variance... If you have nothing to do with the Building Department that a hearing be held on the first variance. I was not informed through legal proceedings according to the Southold Town Law. Mr, what's his name, Thomson. He was supposed to inform me. Each neighbor is supposed to get a registered letter. I never received one. I would like this hearing postponed and a variance held on the first addition. S~U~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ,17- July 5, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: We cannot postpone it unless you are going to put all your arguments against the proposal. MRS. CSAJKO: Okay, we will completely object as there has never been a variance hearing held on the first addition. W~ ~nders~a~d Mr. Douglass we are not fighting with our neighbors. We are bringing something up that is terribl~ important to this Town. MR. CSAJKO: I think Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, residents of the Town will appreciate what we are doing. MR. THOMSON: My name is Thomson, not Johnson. MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Ahlers? MR. AHLERS: Mr. Chairman, won't your granting of the additional foot also cover~the additional footage that the Building Department missed the first time. MR. DOUGAASS: No. Because all we can grant here tonight is the additional area. That's what you have asked for in this ~ariance. MRS. CSAJKO: Now you are granting their additional area. What happens to the area they have already put in that has not been granted. MR. DOUGLASS: I think you should go back to the Building Depar~ant. I really do, M'am and see if they want to pursue it in any other manner. MR. CSAJKO: The Building Department has nothing to do with granting a variance. MR. DOUGLASS: The Building Department has to make their move before we are even involved. MR, GRIGONIS: There has to be a denial by the Building Department before an appeal can be made to h~is Board. That is the only way it comes to us. MRS. CSAJKO: We realize this. We are not picking on you guys. MR. GRIGONIS: You should have gone to the Building Department at that time if you thought that a violation was being committed. About 75 percent of the hearings we get arrive here that way. ~A neighbor or someone calls or comes in and tells the Building Department they think there is something wrong. MRS. CSAJKO: Then what is the Building Department doing? MR. CSAJKO: What are they doing? Just sitting onttheir asses? MR. DOUGLASS: Wait a minute, let's watch the language. MR. CSAJKO: I'm sorry. We have no objection to this a~ all. ' SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~=~8. July 5, 1979 absolutely no objection. Give them the variance. What we are trying to bring before this board is that we feel the Building Department is derelict in bringing things to your attention. You can't work on it if the Building Department doesn't bring it to youraattention. We are not fighting with you. MR. DOUGLASS: You,ve made your point. Now let us proceed with the appeal before us. MRS. CSAJKO: How can you give an approval on something · ' that has not been approved. MR. DOUGLASS: It has nothing to do with this appeal. We are approving this appeal, or disapproving it, whatever the Board desires. The houses all along that area, most of them, are close and tight. It was a narrow lot community way back when it started. In my opinion .... Does anyone else on the Board want to say anything before I MR. TUTHILL: I~m ready to make a motion. I make such a motion. MRS. CSAJO: We knew that already. It was a foregot~ conclusion. MR. DOUGLASS: We will take up what you have brought up before us with the Building Department, and I suggest that you go back to the Building Department and discuss it with them, too. MRS. CSAJKO: Oh, I intend to. But I thought it was something that should be brought to your attention. In no way are we charging you people with dereliction of duty, but I feel that the Building Depart- ment is not doing their job and therefore you cannot do your job. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, we go out and inspect these properties before we have these hearings. The fact is we have very good pictures of the exact project that are on record in our files here, in mine, showing exactly what they want, showing the positioning of the house on the total property, and we do with everything that we are going to have before us. So we make our own judgment. The Building Department does not make our judgment, nor does any other department. We are totally inde- pendent, and we are not the enforcing agency. But we will go back to the Building Department and tell them they better get their calculators up. MRS. CSAJKO: MR. TUTNILL: That is exactly what I wanted you to say. think I don'~ we have the time here to have an open fo ~r~m. MRS. CSAJKO: I beg your pardon. This happens to be the United States of America. MR. DOUGLASS: MR. TUTHILL: not to us. The appeal is closed. You should go to the Building Department, Mrs. Csajko, MR. DOUGLASS: Don't get into any discussion with her, the discussion is over. soUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~19= July 5, 1979 MRS. CSAJKO: The part of the discussion with us being refused to speak to this Board will be brought b~ore the Town Board. Now...~ MR. DOUGLASS: Don't ...... MR. CSAJKO: Don't say "don't," Mr. Chairman. MRS. CSAJKO: rant to the Town. the Town Board. We mentioned this because we felt it was very impor- You want to cut us off, okay, we will bring it before MR. CSAJKO: I would like to say one more thing, Mr. Chairman. You have granted an over-sized addition to an already over-sized building. How much further do you go when they come back for another over-sized addition? I would like an aRswer? MR. DOUGLASS: We will have to wait to see if they ever do. MR. CSAJKO: I will make a bet they do. That's good government. MR. TUTHILL: ~ood night. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicants are requesting permission to construct an addition to an existing house whi=h would cause the usage of more than 20 percent of the building lot. The addition will be '~o stories in height and will occupy ~34 percent more of the lot than is allowed under the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would pro- duce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion of Mr. Tuthitl, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED that Jay and Mary Thomson, 695 Bayshore Drive, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct an addition to an existing house which would cause the usage of 23.34 of the lot. Location of property: Bayshore Road, Greenport, New York, known as Lot No. 64, in Peco~ic Bay Estates, Greenport, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2560 - Upon application of Victor and Marion Ales, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, 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. Lo- cation of property: Meadow Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the SO'HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~20- ~ly 5, 1979 north by Case; east by West Creek; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Meadow Lane. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers of the Town and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chaiin~an also read a letter from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Ernest W. Case. Fee paid: $15.00 MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey map of thA local area shying this plot that the applicants wish to subdivide and the meadow running out in front of it. We also have a copy of the section of the County Tax Map that shows this plot. All adjacent areas, are on about 100 to 112.5 road front lots and ~y subdiv±ding this, the frontage would be approximately 100 feet on Meadow Road for one and the other one would have many times that. It would have 300 feet if he used his front yard area as on New Suffolk Avenue. They have, if the meadow was included, over the required ~0,000 square feet for the building lots. They have almost 40,000 square feet of high land. We have several letters attached to this that I have to read. I'll start with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation letter dated November 7, 1973 addressed to Victor W. Ales, which reads as follows~ Dear Mr. Ales: Your petition has been forwardbd to this office by the Local Tidal Wetlands Permit Administrator. He has determined that your permit will not adversely affect adjacent tidal wetlands area. Therefore, pursuant to Part 660.1 (4) NYCRR (Proposed) youaare hereby notified that no permit will be nec- essary. Very truly yours, Louis M. Concra, Jr., Central Tidal Wetland Permit Administrator. Then we have a letter dated July 5, 1979 addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals signed by John Wickham wh±ch reads as follows: Gentlemen: In regard to my recent letter and the Ales petition, please be advised that we have reached a boundary line agreement in the salt marsh area. Quitclaim deeds and a survey map will be forthcoming. The agreed upon boundary starts at a tangent point on the north side of New Suff61k Avenue, about 838 feet east of Meadow Lane, and runs in a northerly direction parallel to Meadow Lane (North 13 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds East) about 400 feet until it intersects the center line of the small west gutterr then follows the center line of said gutter and of the associated salt pond to the north boundary of the Ales property. This ~A~i leave the Ales prarcel with about 4-3/4 acres. It is evident that %his property could be divide~ into two lots, each having the re- quired area and highway frontage, but this would result in a long narrow lot on New Suffolk Avenue. It is my opinion that a division of this property as requested in the petition is reasonable. I~ is also evident that there is adequate fresh water for two lots because the pump house shown on the map was used to supply bungalows on Case's Beach. It was abandoned only because of the difficulty of maintaining an above-ground supply line to the beach. We then have a letter dated July 3, 1979, from Wickham Wickham which reads as follows: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ales: I notice in the legal notices of this week's Suffolk Times an application by you to the Board ' souTHoLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS July 5, 1979 '21' of Appeals to divide property on Meadow Lane, Cutchogue, New York. A description is given as: "Bounded on the north by Case; east by West Creek; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west on Meadow Lane.[ Please be advised that members of~the Wickham Family claim title to part of this meadowland, the easterly boundary being the West Creek Channel and the westerly boundary being the gutter. Appropriate deeds have been~ recorded. We, of course, will have to object to the application, since part of it obviously includes this meadowland. It might be well for your to have your attorney get in touch with us not only regarding the application but the title to the meadowland. The letter written by John Wickham saying that.an agreement has been reached was written on July 5, 1979. This was after William Wickham's letter. Now we have another letter from John Wickham dated July 2, 1979 which reads as follows: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ales: I note from the local paper that you are asking to divide your property on New Suffolk Avenue and Meadow Lane. I am concerned about just what portion of this property the petition covers. I bring to your attention the fact that your d~ed from the heirs of Alice Case Weber conveys to the main channel. However, the meadow fronting on the main channel and north of New Suffolk Avenue was never owned by the Case family and the attorney at the time was so notified. To support this you will find that no other geed from the Case family, in this area, conveys to the main channel, nor is it shown on the Town tax maps. The County tax maps are in error and the authorities have been so notified. Further you will note that although your survey shows 8-3/4 acres, your tax bill only covers some 4 acres. My family and I have been paying taxes on the remainders, some of it for many years. Our recorded title goes back for 100 and 150 years respectively. I also hold a confirmatory deed from the "Commoners." Since there are few natural landmarks in meadowland, it is to be expected that some questions ar!se about exact boundaries. I'd like to suggest that some day quite soon we meet at the site and try to formulate a boundary line agreement. William Wickham, Esq. is also a part owner of some of this property. In conclusion~ let me say that I have spent a great deal of time searching the 17th and early 18th century records of this T~wn in this regard and they clearly show that this meadowland did not belong to the owners of the adjacent upland to the west. Interestingly, they do show the transfer from the "Commoners" to the upland owner of a meadow parcel bounded on the southeast by a line from Wild Cherry Tree Point to a stake in theebeach at the bay. This would be the bed of New Suffolk Avenue as it swings southeast and with Case prgperty to the south and west. This last ~etter was written on July 2, 1979. I should have looked through the file and read this last letter first. His letter on July 5, 1979 states that all of these things have been corrected and the parcel is '~ SDU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -22- July 5, 1979 abaut 4.34 acres. That is all the correspondence attached here. ~ f It appears that the prope~y has been agreed on anyway. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. VICTOR ALES: We are the owners of the property. MR. DOUGLASS: Would you like to say anything, sir? MRS. ALES: Not unless someone objects. MR. ALES: I have talked to Mr. Wickham yesterday and that is the reason for the letter. We agreed on the disputed land in terms of the meadowland and the issue I t®ld him was not involved in the meadowland. It was only concerned with the dry land. At the time he wrote the first letter he had become alarmed. He thought we were trying to divide the whole piece of property, which we could not do a~yhow. We came to an agreement in our division of the property but it would have no effect as far as I know in terms of our appeal. Because we are only concerned with Meadow Lane and New Suffolk Avenue at the western end of the pro- perty which is all dry land. So the last letter from Mr. Wickham is the one that best describes what we want to do. MR. DOUGLASS: What do you intend doing? Hold the meadowland in an independent parcel? MR. ALES: We intend to deed the meadowland if it is deedable, we don't know to anyone who buys the property, with the restrictions placed on i% by New York State. You can not do anything to that land but look at it. MR. DOUGLASS: So it will become part of these two lots? MR. ALES: Definitely. It will be over 2 acres for each parcel. MRS. ALES: Instead of 8 acres as we thought we had, we will be dividing 4 acres. MR. DOUGLASS: Whatever there is there. You will be dividing what- ever your agreement with the Wickham family is concerning the meadowland into two. The line of this division will go down throught the meadow. Each of these two pieces will possess meadowland. MR. ALES: Yes, app~oximately~two acres. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (there was no response). After investigation the Board finds that the applicants own a parcel of land containing approximately 4 acres of property. They wish to divide the property into two lots, each of which will contain almost two acres of meadowland. Only one lot on Meadow Lane will have insufficient frontage of 100 feet instead of the required 150 feet. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. ~. , SDU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~3- July 5, 1979 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 immedicate 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 Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Victor and Marion Ales, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: Meadow Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Case; east by West Creek; south by New Suffolk Avenue; west by Meadow Lane, upon the following condition~ (1) Suffolk County planni~q~i~o~m~ssi~n kppr~va1 Vote of the Board:~ Ayes: Messrs: Giltispie, Grigenis, Doyen and Tuthitl. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals meeting of June 14, 1979, be accepted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Giigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. An informal discussion was held with Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. for the right of way off the North Road in Pec~nic. The Board rod~ over the r~ght-6~-way when theywere out on inspections on June26, 1979. The Board advised Ms. Wickham that they needed the following information: (~) Documentation of the width and actual location of the right-of~ way. (2) Whether or not the county has purchased the development rights of the surrounding paree~ (3) Whet~er or not the County will allow the ri~ht-of~way through there if they have the development rights. After securing this information, Ms. Wickham may apply formally to the Board for approval of the right-of-way. An info~al discussion was held with Richard F~LLark, Esq. con- cerning the application of Bruce Norris on Love Lane and Sound Avenue in Mattituck. . SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPE~S -24- July 5, 1979 The Board reviewed the plans and made the following recommendations: (a) That a 24 foot strip behind all of the existing buildings be provided for employee, off-street parking. This should help some of the ever present congestion on Love Lane. (b) The additional space needed for the?parking can be taken from the lot designated as No. 6 on the Exhibit A submitted with the application. On motion by Mr~ Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that tbs next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, July 26, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) and set the following times on that date as the time of hearing upon the following applications: 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Goldsmith & Tut~ill, Inc., 1560 Youngs Avenue, South~ld, New York, for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 1990-90A for permission to relocate a 20,000 gallon fuel oil tank on property of Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York. Location of proerty: Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Agway, Inc.; east by Youngs Avenue; south by Long Island Railroad; west by Agway, Inc. 7:45 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Carol Lounsberry, 191 Manell Avenue, Islip,New York (Dickinson Realty, as agent), for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section~i00-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Loca- tion of property: East side of North Sea Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Boyle and Stoll; east by Sound View Avenue; south by Dews and Palmer; west by North Sea Drive. 7:55 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Louis V. Cartelli, 13-04 146th Street, Whitestone, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permisSion to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Kenney's Road, South~id, New York, bounded on the north by Central Drive; east by Kenney's Road; south by Lake Drive; west by Dechiaro. 8:05 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Mary M. Sayegh, 515 Shore Drive, Greenport, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article~III, Section 100-3b and Bulk Parking SChedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Shore Drive, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Shore Drive; east bY iChasko; south by Pipes Cove; west by Morris. 8:15 P.M. (D.S.T,) Upon application of Doretta Tralnor, 117 Villa Place, Roslyn Heights, New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, ArtiCle III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area. Location of property: West ShOre Drive, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Southold Bay; east by Krueger; .- ~ Sou%hold Town Board of Appeals -25- July 5, 1979 south by West Shore Drive; west by Kolyer. 8:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Bruce A. Norris, c/o Charles A. Price, III, P. O. Box 237, Mattituck, New York, (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Northwest corner of Love Lane and Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NetWork, bounded on the north by Barker and North Fork Bank & Trust Company; east by Love Lane; south by Sound Avenue; west by Mattituck Episcopal Church. 8:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of M. A. Kelsey Properties, Inc., P. O. Box 983~ Southold, New York (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100~71 and Bulk Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insuf- ficient width and area and off-street parking. Location of property: Love Lane and Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Barker; east by Mattituck Park District and Stype; south by Main Road; west by Love Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Babette C. Conroy Secretary