Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/22/1980 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR, CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN.. R. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT .I. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD ~.c, c~OUTHOLD. L.I,. N.Y. llcJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 22, 1980 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 22, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman; Terry R. Tuthill; Robert J. Douglass; Serge Doyen, Jr., and Gerard P. Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2687. Application of MARINO FARAGUNA, 175 Park Avenue, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards at property known as 5675 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York; Lot 113 of "Nassau Farms" filed Map ~1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-10. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:37 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch showing where the proposed structure is to be placed, and the existing structures. We have a section of the County Tax Map showing the lots in the surrounding area. Is there anything you would like to add that you don't have in the application, Mr. Faraguna? MR. FARAGUNA: As you notice the map shows a 75-foot frontage and within 250, and narrows down to 60 at the back- yard, and that means that the further back the house is carried, the less sideyard as a result of it. If the lot had been a perfect rectangle of 75 foot,then there would be no problem. But in order to obey the requirements, and Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 22, 1980 lining up with the neighbors, this is the result. I have left only a 19-foot total of sideyards. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Faraguna. Now on the one, I guess, as you describe it in here, the house that you use now, what are your plans with that? MR. FARAGUNA: What I am supposed to do, the outside shell of this house, and then finish the inside maybe over a few years, so in the meantime I'm going to be using that house that is in the back. I realize that once I get the C of O (Certificate of Occupancy) for this house, I was already instructed, that the only usage I could have of either the storage, shanty or as an overflow say if we have somebody like my son who drops over, for Sleepinq purposes but not for any other usage, see, I wo~ld not ~ve a kitchen there or something of that nature. But I don't foresee that it can last very long because that house must have been there over 40 years or more, and the foundation is on wood piles. And those wood piles are in terrible shape. MEMBER TUTHILL: Is there a kitchen in it now? MR. FARAGUNA: Yes. We are using it. MEMBER TUTHILL: You also have a small storage build- ing there now, do you not? MR. FARAGUNA: It used to be an outhouse. MEMBER TUTHILL: It's a big outhouse. MR. FARAGUNA: I use it for storage. MEMBER TUTHILL: What would you say, is it 10-foot square or something like that? MR. FARAGUNA: The outhouse? MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, that's what you call it. MR. FARAGUNA: Ok, now it's for storage, ok. I would say it's about 4' wide by 7 or 8' long, about 32, 35. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know whether or no~ you are awa~ea of it, but now you come under the Flood Plain Law. The front part of your house would probably be a little bit below-- MR. FARAGUNA: I, if you will notice, I had the surveyor check for elevation. And he gives certain points. It's roughly 100' from the road on the north side, the elevation is 7' and on the south side it is 6.9'. So, and being that that is a Zone A, i~ould have to be over the 8-foot mark and ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -3- May 22, 1980 that requires only one foot above that, and that is about the normal situation for any building. As a matter of fact, I propose to have a crawl space that would be about 4' high above the top of the footings, in order to enable work to be done underneath it, and that would bring the lowest point of the floor, which would be the lower part of the beam about 18" above, so it would be-- MR. CHAIRMAN: About 8 foot. MR. FARAGUNA: And I'm only required to be 8 foot. top of the beam will actually be about an additional 10" So that would be about 2 foot above. The MEMBER DOUGLASS: You're not going to have any cellar under it then. MR. FARAGUNA: No, I even cannot have a cellar. But I would have had to have it anyhow because I was not going to look for trouble. And the only thing I needed was a utility room. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Faraguna. Do any of you Board members have any other questions? Is there anyone here that wants to speak against it? MR. LOGAN: I would like to find out why, if the property is 250 feet deep, why a place couldn't be designed to stay within that? You have a lot of depth. MR. FARAGUNA: Frankly the only house, I couldn't find any house that would have an entrance under the gabled roof. I just couldn't find any design except that. And anything provided that I wanted a garage, anything would have exceeded this lot. Preceding back from the front, the lot narrows, so I don't have any 75 feet. At this point here I have only 60, and at this point I have, including the garage and house is 50 foot, the house itself is 38. The garage is 12-½. So at this point I will only have 68. MR. LOGAN: Can't you design it to be used within that? MR. FARAGUNA: I don't see how. This house is 38 by 34, which is unusual, an unusual size. As you know, normally they are 25 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, could you give the secretary your name? MR. LOGAN: My name is Logan. I live immediately opposite. I would like to ask one other question, too. There was some mention in there that some land was unbuildable? MR. FARAGUNA: My understanding is that, and this is from the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 22, 1980 owner, that the lot adjacent to my lot on the north is 112. It was and appeared on the map, I saw it myself, is made part of the other lots, which must be I guess number 111, and that one has already a house, unless the lot gets separated again. MR. LOGAN: I thought you were referring to my land. MEMBER TUTHILL: Are you on the corner, Mr. Logan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else has anything they would like to say on it? (There was no response.) We have a long agenda, so if no one else has anything to say, I'll ask for a resolution to reserve decision on it, when we get through the crowd, and later on go through them all. MR. FARAGUNA: There is one more thing to add. That my neighbors on my north find themselves in about the same situation. Their house is practically adjacent, and have minimal sideyards separating them. That must be the problem with all of those lots in the area. They are in that shape. That would be Mr. DiLalla, and Mr. Jensen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION regarding Appeal No. 2687, application of MARINO FARAGUNA, and that the hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2685. Application of EMANUEL and VENITA LORRAS, Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with insufficient rearyard setback at property known as 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Schwab, east by Massaro, south by Vasquez, west by Bay Avenue; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-17-4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:57 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map showing the property, which has an existing house on it now, 42' by 20.9' in width, and ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 22, 1980 they are wishing to add on 24' Is that 24 square? WILLIAM JACOBS: Actually, it's coming five foot back onto the house from the 24. We're remodelling the five-foot end of the house. So the actual extension is 19 by 24 wide. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else that you can add to this? I don't know whether you realize it, but with this size addition you are going over the 20% of the building area of the lot. MR. JACOBS: Well, actually it's within the code to come out 13 feet to the sideline by 42 according to Mr. Fisher, but that would involve remodelling the bedrooms in the house. It really wouldn't give them what they want. Actually they want a little view of the lake and a family room, which is right out the rear is the easiest and simpliest for a family room. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I think also you are going to be affected by that Flood Plain eight-foot minimum. MR. JACOBS: Not really since the appraisal of the house and the extension is less than half of the appraisal of the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I meant the flood area plan. MR. JACOBS: Right. It doesn't come into that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes. I see this letter. It's right on top. I didn't even read it. It's from the Building Inspector. It says: "I do not consider this to be a sub- stantial improvement, therefore a development permit to build in this flood area is not required..." This is something that is new to us. MR. JACOBS: Right. It's new to everybody. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you still are going to wind up with over 20% of the area covered by buildings. MR. JACOBS: I didn't check that out. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's going to be roughly, we're figuring, we've come up with about 200 feet more than is supposed to be on there. Two hundred square feet. MR. JACOBS: In other words, if we cut the building down. MR. CHAIRMAN: About two feet. MEMBER TUTHILL: Smaller addition. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- May 22, 1980 MR. JACOBS: By two feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: It may even be a little less than that. MR. JACOBS: 17 feet instead of 19. MR. CHAIRMAN: According to what the requirements are, you would have to cut it back maybe 10 feet. MR. JACOBS: 107 MR. CHAIRMAN: To get 200 feet. Some of that will be, what are you going fiue feet into the other house? MR. JACOBS: Five feet remodelling into the other house. Right. But there is part of that five feet is bathroom in there. There's a rear porch to be taken out. The house is too small. MR. CHAIRMAN: They are all small down there. Bill, do you have any idea how you could get around that? Part of that is going five feet into the house-- (The Board reviewed what the calculations would be to cut it down to the 20% coverage.) MR. DOUGLASS: See, you don't show it this way. You show it starting from the edge of the building to 24 feet. MR. JACOBS: Right. This is the five feet in here. There's a bathroom in here and this is a rear porch in here. And we're starting back at the mean part of the house. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Ok. So then you've got 19 from here to here. By 24. MR. JACOBS: Right. After calculating the square footage of the proposed addition with the area of the house, compared with the area of the land, the Board came up with a 12½ plus5' into the house by 24 allowable addition. MR. JACOBS: This would be the !ettsr yo~ would send if this is approved, for 12½ plus 5, by 24? MR. CHAIRMAN: You're allowed 120~. MR. JACOBS: 1300 something. to that effect. We're allowed 1200, and what we have is If it is approved, I would like a letter Thank you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You will get a notice whichever way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else here to speak in favor? Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- May 22, 1980 Is there anyone here to speak against it? (There was no response.) Are there any further questions? (There was no response.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2685, applica- tion of EMANUEL and VENITA LORRAS, and that this hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2692. Application of VICTOR E. CATALANO, 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, New York 11787, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient road frontage; (b) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area due to proposed change in lot linels]. Location of property: South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, east by Pridgen, south by Peconic Bay and/or Catalano and Estate of A. Cardinale, west by Croce and Keller; County Tax Map Item No. 1000'128-6- 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have surveys and a copy of the County Tax Map of the neighboring properties. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wishing to speak against this application? ANTHONY TOHILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Anthony Tohill. My address is 6 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York. I am an attorney, and I represent a number of families in the area. Before I speak, I was wondering is the hearing as far as the application, closed without the production of any presentation or evidence or testimony? MR. CHAIRMAN: Very often no one would show up. MR. TOHILL: Well, I would want to proceed with %he understanding the applicant's portion of the matter is closed. I would not want to proceed otherwise. MR. CHAtRMAN:~. The only thing we can go by is what is in these files, and what has been read. I would like to Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- May 22, 1980 state maybe, if it would help you any, I could read you that decision on the previous appeal. MR. TOHILL: I am aware of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you're aware of it. You know what it said. MR. TOHILL: Yeah. May I continue? MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. TOHILL: You had indicated that there is a tax map in the file. I represent families for numbers on that tax map, and I can state who they are by giving you the numbers as they appear on the tax map, if I can just orient everyone. Ok. I represent the Gatehouse Family, which is Lot 11, which is right here (three lots west). Ok? I represent the Croce Family, which is Lot 23 (lot to the west). I represent the Mastropolo Family, which is Lot 22 (two lots to the west). I represent the Keller Family, which is Lot 21 (lot to the west), and I represent the Pridgen Family, which is Lots 14 and 15 (lots immediately to the east). Each adjacent. So I think that we have pretty much the entire immediately effected neighbors. Now, some of my clients could not be present tonight -- the Mastropoloes at the last minute by reason of an illness could non be present. The Gatehouses, the Pridgens and the Kellers knew as of last week that they could not be here tonight, and they provided me with letters which I would like to read into the record and to hand up to you, Mr. Chairman. The first letter dated May 12, 1980 from Arthur Gatehouse reads: ...Dear Sirs: Due to a previous commitment out of town I am unable to attend your meeting on 22 May 1980. Let it be known that I am opposed to any further subdivision or additional buildings on the subject property. This additional density will adversely effect the property values in the immediate area. I strongly object to the subdivision into 3 lots of a single lot in this area which is no larger than other single lots in the area .... A second letter, from Hilary Pridgen, who is the owner of Lots 14 and 15 on the tax map: ...Dear Sirs: Earlier this month I wrote to you in response to Mr. Catalano's petition for a variance on the Catalano/ Cardinale property on Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- May 22, 1980 It has subsequently come to my attention that the objective of the petition is to enable a minor sub- division of the property so that a separate lot can be sold and a third house constructed. We own the property immediately adjacent on the west and are strongly opposed to any such pstition. The creation of three undersized lots on the catalano/Cardinale property would, in our opinion, have an adverse impact on the community: beach density, water and general environment. More specifically, it would have a detrimental impact on the value of our adjacent property .... And a third and last letter dated May 17, 1980, from the Keller Family: ...Gentlemen: I expect to be out of town on the date of the hearing in this case May 22, 1980 and therefore cannot attend. I have no objection to any enlargement of present buildings on Lots 1 and 2, but any further subdivision would I feel adversely affect the property values in the area. To permit three lots on insufficient area would establish a precedent for others to follow and present problems with water, drainage and sewage. I am sure the Petitioner will understand our stand, as we work diligently to maintain the property in order to protect our investment .... with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand up these three letters and ask that they be made part of the record. May I proceed? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. TOHILL: The application is somewhat unfortunately inartfully stated. What we have as the survey, which is attached to the application, much more fully indicates, is an effort to subdivide and rearrange the parcel of land on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. It runs from Peconic Bay Boulevard down to the water. Located on the property, since pr±or to zoning or at least the subdivision regulation, are two residences. One formerly served as a garage for a residence and was thereafter converted into a residence. Those two houses are depicted as Lots 1 and 2 on that map which I think Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- May 22, 1980 is drawn by Alden Young's Office in Riverhead. The portion of the application that we object to relates not at all to Lots 1 or 2. It also does not have anything to do with the rearrangement of the rights-of-way or the footpaths. We would conceive, as I will state a little bit further, that there is a practical dif- ficulty on the part of the application with respect to Lots 1 and 2. Our sole objection and all of our objection relates to the creation of a third lot, which is attempted here but inart- fully stated in the application. The third lot is designated as Lot 93. It is a vacant beautifully wooded area. It is the front side of the property, what I would call the front side is the portion along Peconic Bay Boulevard. It's vacant land between the middle house and Peconic Bay Boulevard. That is the portion of the application that all of my clients have asked me to come here tonight to speak to you about. The difficulty that the applicant has which we can see is that he has an one-acre plus parcel, slightly over one-acre parcel, on which two houses were built without the benefit of modern subdivision regulations, without the benefit of a proper layout of the property. In this kind of situation as the Board well knows, the Board is generally not adverse to grant- ing of relief, a form of relief to permit the subdivision of the common ownership of the two houses. It permits the houses to be sold, it permits the owners to redeem some sense of value from the properties. Permitting that however and per- mitting some relief on account of an obvious practical diffi- culty does not mean, however, that the applicant can success- fully ask whether this Board should grant the third portion, which is a creation of a third lot, which is an added starter, which has no relationship to the practical difficulty or the customary rules that the Board is familiar with, and frankly results in a windfall to the applicant. If this Board were asked today to subdivide that parcel, it would at best permit one house on it. If it were asked to subdivide the parcel into two parcels, it I think would do it. But being asked to subdivide it into three parcels is to be asked to do something that you're not under any circumstances required to do, and that the applicant has no basis in law or any of the regulations with the ordinance of this Town to permit it to do. The zoning requires 40,000 square feet. That was pointed out in 1974 during the hearing. If you permit the creation of a third lot on this parcel, even though~there is 40,000-square-foot zoning, then quite frankly the Pridgen's only Lots 14 and 15 next door could just as easily come in and ask the Board for a subdivision to permit six lots. They have sufficient area, if this is going to be used as a standard to paint six lots. In fact a major subdivision of six lots on two acres. I don't ~hi~.~the Board ,u~der ~.ny circumst~nceswoutd grant that application, and I would applaud the denial of that application and the Pridgens obviously don't have that in mind. In fact, if I'm not mistaken and I may be, if I am I apologize, the Pridgen's Parcels 14 and 15 were once the Fanning parcel. They were subdivided by this Town within the last five or six years. Notice what they were subdivided into-- two each over- Southold Town Board of Appeals -i1- May 22, 1980 sized lots. Each of more than one acre, so that we have on the closest piece of property the most recent subdivision since 1971 into two completely conforming parcels-- more than conforming. The property on the east where Croce and Mastropolo and others of my clients live is a 1966 subdivision, which is all one-half acre lots and which was conforming at that time. Further to the west, we have Edgemere Park. Edgemere Park precedes zoning and it precedes the subdivision regulations, and this Board would never under any circumstances, despite the strongest persuation of a gang of lawyers before you, grant another approval for the kind of thing that we have at Edgemere Park. There are problems there as the Board well knows. For one thing, the groundwater resources in this particular area are inadequate to serve present housing. Edgemere Park does not have its own water supply. Edgemere Park as an adjacent property to what is proposed here tonight by the applicant is unable to obtain water on each of the lots within that subdivision, and is required to obtain water from a well, which the Town of Southold has placed on the Town property, outside of Edgemere Park, and the water is taken from the Town's property into Edgemere Park to accommodate the problem. In fact, if I could hand up a letter from the County of Suffolk Department of Health Services, Roy Reynolds, dated May 16, 1980. In this letter with reference to this particular application, it is noted Mr. Chairman that the County Health Department would not approve this application by reason of the inadequate water supply in this particular area. (The Suffolk County Department of Health Services letter dated May 16, 1980 is part of the file, and states that they do not recommend the creation of residential lots less than 40,000 square feet in areas where private wells and individual subsurface sewage disposal is planned; and information indicates that the area has a history of limited water supply.) I might also add, although it's not compelling but it is pertinent to my clients, that the Pridgens when they purchased 14 and 15, there was an old house on it, at.small cottage maintained as a summer bungalow by the Fannings. They are in the process of putting in a foundation for a modern home immediately adjacent to it. As a condition to obtaining a building permit, they are required to remove the kitchen from the home that they purchased, formerly the Fanning Bungalow. It would be very difficult for me or for anybody, or anyone of you as well, to explain to the Pridgens why they must remove the kitchen from their home as a condition to building a home imme- diatly adjacent while at the same time permitting on the immedi- ately adjacent parcel the creation of a third subdivision lot, a vacant lot, for a new house where there is no compelling reason. There is no practical difficulty, there is no financial hardship. There is nothing, that complies with the various criteria that this Board is-I know is-completely familiar with. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that 1974 application which is interesting, and I'm sure has drawn your attention, there are three comments that I would have. One, it is not a binding determination on this Board or on my clients, and the reason is it was never completely or finally determined because it Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- May 22, 1980 expressly sent the applicant to the Planning Board. Until the Planning Board acted there was no approval. More importantly, until the Planning Board acted, we could not even appeal by means of the customary Article 78 the determination of this Board made in 1974, so that we have an unusual state of limbo with respect to that 1974 application. There is a second reason by that has no precedential value. The Planning Board of this Town when finally given the opportunity to review the 1974 application, just some weeks ago in May 1980, determined that they would not approve the creation of lot 93, the new vacant lot for a new building on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard. And I refer to the letter of Muriel Tolman which I assume is part of the record, whereas she states it is their feeling, meaning the Planning Board's feeling that Lots 2 and 3 as shown shoul~d be on one lot. Is that part of the record? MR. CHAIRMAN: It's part of the record. MR. TOHILL: Fine. There's a third reason. In 1977, three years after the 1974 determination, and three years before this evening, there was a case determined by the New York State Court of Appeals, which is the last Board as the Board knows, in the State of New York, entitled Cowan against Kern, in which the Law of the State of New York with respect to area variances while not changed was made much clearer and a strong message was sent out to the Zoning Boards of Appeals that they could no longer grant area variances of the type requested here, in 1974, or the type requested here this evening, without certain items of proof which were not there in 1974, and surely are not here this evening. They relate incidentally to the question of financial hardship and the inability to obtain a return from the land of the investment in the land. And obviously there is no testimony with respect to that. No other parcel, and it can be demonstrated by a quick look at that tax map in the area along the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, has ever received to my knowledge such a substantial variance from this Board as to permit a 13,000 square-foot parcel in 1980 some nine years after 40,000 square-foot parcels became the rule of thumb in Suffolk County. I think that the variance that is requested in that particular respect, not with relation to Lots 1 or 2, with which we have no objection, but with respect to Lot 3 is so substantial that it casts a particular and special burden on the applicant that would require very significant testimony and proof as to the nature of the hardship. In fact, however, and as this Board knows, there is no hardship. The land exists. The land has been built upon. There is no reason why the house has to be built in a certain fashion on the vacant parcel No. 3. What we have instead of a hardship that relates to the land, which is in fact just the application that precedes us here this evening. It's a hardship that perhaps as I was listening to it related to the size of the parcel and the effort to construct some kind of an accommodating dwelling on that particular piece Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- May 22, 1980 of land. That is much more in the nature as the Board knows of the customary practical hardship that you see. But what we have here is not practical hardship relating to the land, but instead an effort quite frankly, q~ite honestly, to obtain a wind~!! on the sale of a .t~d lot. All of us would love to be able to do that. To buy a one acre parcel and to be able to sell it off as three separate parcels, with or without houses. But it makes an enormous difference when one comes to the zoning Board of Appeals whether there are houses there already built by a common family with, as the application says, common ties. In that situation there is a significant, a com- pletely meaningful difference that makes the difference. But when it comes to Lot 3 and the effort to separate out a vacant parcel which now serves the front yard, which as I have indicated to you and with which I know you would see if you were to view this parcel, is a beautiful treed, lovely parcel, and it would be absolutely inappropriate for every reason getting beyond the legalities of the situation to construct a house there. It's the fundamental premise of zoning, as the Board knows, to prevent nonconformity in area or in use. We know that we eliminate nonconforming uses. There are sign ordinances in surrounding Towns that prevent the continuation of signs. There are all sorts of efforts. In fact the Building Depart- ment has kept, I'm sure, quite busy in an effort to prevent people from using property in an illegal nonconforming fashion. I don't think it's fair to put this Board in the position of being requested to create such a substantial nonconformity as a 13,000-square-foot parcel in 1980. The hardship simply doesn't exist. The land doesn't have to be divided into three parcels. I would concede it may have to be divided into two parcels. The two parcels on which there are now houses. One of them will have a more than customary front yard, but I don't think that it should be sacrificed in an effort to fatten one's wallet or to obtain such a fantastic return from the investment of property. It really makes a mockery of what the zoning ordinance says, and out of all the long hours you spent here on hot evenings like this. So with due respect we respectfully request that the application be denied. Now I have a broker here, a licensed real estate broker, who is ready to testify, and I will make this offer of proof that the impact of a third house, or third parcel, on that one parcel would be adverse to the property values of the surrounding parcels including my clients. He will also testi- fy that the value of this property which is the applicant's property, in all three respects, if it's three or two if it's two, has increased no matter how you look at it with the sub- division into two parcels, or without the subdivision into two parcels. The reason I make the offer of proof is that my broker, Mr. Ray Luca from Mattituck, has a difficulty speaking and I would simply ask that he stand and affirm the truth of my statements in that limited respect. MR. RAY LUCA: They are. Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- May 22, 1980 MR. TOHILL: Unless there are any further questions from the Board, I would stand with the matter submitted, and I would request permission to hand up at this time, Mr. Chair- man, a memorandum with respect to the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Memorandum dated May 22, 1980 made and submitted by Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. was made part of the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to say something regarding this matter? MR. DONALD BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I own the property 100 feet east of the subject property, along side the Croce property, and I'm a registered architect and professional designer. I feel that the subdivision into three parcels is certainly inadequate and a ~ery poor planning in this proposed subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Board members? (There was no response.) I will call for a resolution to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. Some of these people.~are going to be waiting a long time. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal ~2692, applica- tion of VICTOR E. CATALANO, and that the hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2693. Application of FRANK E. BROPHY, Second Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100,31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and sideyard setbacks at property known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York; bounded north by Pugs!ey and Grathwohl, east by Second Street, south by Woodard and Wetzel, west by Martin and Third Street. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:47 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- May 22, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch and copy of the County Tax Map showing this and surrounding properties. Is there anyone here for Brophy to speak for it? (There was no response.) Is there anyone here to speak against this application? (There was no response.) I offer a resolution to close the hearing and reserve decision until after we get caught up here. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2693, applica- tion of FRANK E. BROPHY and that the hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2695. Application of RICHARD and MARY LINDSAY, 435 Watersedge Way, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with insufficient frontyard at property known as 435 Watersedge Way, Southold; bounded north by Watersedge Way, east by Debany, south by Little Peconic Bay, west by Bourgin; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-88-5-59. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:55 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County Tax Map showing the area and a sketch showing the proposed addition. And as the application stated, by adding the garage eight feet to the front of the dwelling it is going to leave a 42-foot setback. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? MRS. LINDSAY: We are here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything to add to it, Mr. Lindsay? MR. LINDSAY: I really don't know-- you see I'm really not familiar with it. You said something about a denial? MR. CHAIRMAN: For a building permit by the Building Inspector. MR. LINDSAY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why you are here. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- May 22, 1980 MR. LINDSAY: I guess that's why I'm here. You're right. Well, we've spoken to our neighbors on each side and they say that they prefer it by far to have us build at the front of the garage rather than to have it on the water side, because then it would naturally interfere with looking towards the Bay. Well, and it says in our application, we are in dire need of more room in a garage because of bicycles and oh just about anything you want to name. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lindsay. Is there anyone to speak against this? (There was no response.) Do you fellows have anything you want to ask? (Board members replied they didn't.) Well, as we have been doing all evening, we're going to do the same thing with this one also. We're running behind time, so we will close the hearing and reserve decision until later on this evening so we don't keep you. It's going to be a long evening. MR. LINDSAY: Tomorrow morning? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we may be before we get through. Yes, you will be able to call the office some time tomorrow morning, and they should have an answer for you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: We might still be here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you for coming in. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2695 and that this hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer, and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2694. Application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR., Peter's Neck Road, Orient, New York for a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280-A~for approval of access. Location of property: Right-of-way off the south side of King Street, Orient; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27-4-9. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:04 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map of the property and County Tax Map showing the properties in the area. Is there anyone Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- May 22, 1980 here to speak for this? Mt{. KENNETH STRACHAN, JR.: Yes, I'm Kenneth Strachan. have nothing further to add, and essentially we ~e asking the Town for permission for access. · ~' MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you fellows have any questions on this? Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: You'll have to see if there is anybody against it first. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak against this? You wanted to speak, excuse me. MR. STRACHAN: I would further add that I have spoken to the adjacent property owner and he has no objection. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no one here to speak against it? (No response.) Do you fellows have any questions? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Ken, when we inspected it you had it marked out down there. But since then we see the road is being cut, the access is being cut already. You do understand that if this is granted that we have specifications on access roads, that you have to follow? MR. STRACHAN: Yes. I was told the road has to be 15 feet wide. MEMBER DOUGLASS: The improved part, right. MR. STRACHAN: And must be conforming to that width. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It has to have certain type of surface, too. Not what is being put there now. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I've just got gravel base and it will have a finer gravel top and then sand. MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, you'll have to get, if this is approved by the Board, you had better pick up a-- MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy here. MEMBER DOUGLASS: A copy of the access roads from our office, because it's different from what you are doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: This you can take with you. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I will have to say I will have to conform with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: This will explain what they want. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 22, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: So, there are no further questions? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Then I'll make a motion that we close the hearing on this and reserve the decision until later. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2694, application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR. and to close the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2697. Application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR., Peter's Neck Road, Orient, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory building in an area other than the rearyard. Location of property: Right-of-way off South Side of King Street, Orient; part of County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27-4-9; also referred to as Lot 2 of Property of Margaret L. Strachan. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:13 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map of the property and copy of the County Tax Map of the area. Do you have anything you would like to add? MR. STRACHAN: Yeah, I would like to add that the house and the barn will be on a two-acre parcel. The barn located 30 feet in front of the house, and will still have approximately 170-foot distance from the right-of-way. And I was talking to the adjacent landowners and there are no objections. MR. CHAIRMAN: What are you going to be using this barn for, just as a storage building. Not as a garage or something like that? MR. STRACHAN: Well, a combination. MR. CHAIRMAN: Combination. You will have to go to the D.E.C. for their approvals. MR. STRACHAN: No, I have already been there. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- May 22, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been there? Did they respond in any way? MR. STRACHAN: t got the approval to build. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything we could put into the record; we don't have any kind of a report from them, so far. MR. STRACHAN: I have the Planning Board approval, and the D.E.C. was lead agency, I think, on my application. So I do have Planning Board approval to go ahead. MEMBER DOUGLASS: We have to have D.E.C. approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have to have D.E.C. MR. STRACHAN: They were the lead agency, and they gave approval. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Also, do you realize that you are in tide water plain, Zone A, which means that you're height elevation must be 8 foot? MR. STRACHAN: Well, on the property that I am going to build, the height is 7 feet on the average, and the house itself will be another foot or two feet above that, so the first floor will be well above the 8-foot level. MEMBER DOUGLASS: No cellar? MR. STRACHAN: Just a crawl space. MEMBER DOUGLASS: The crawl space has to be 8 feet. MR. STRACHAN: As I understood it, the first floor has to be eight feet-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but the crawl space has to be waterproofed. It has to be waterproofed or else it has to be on piles. It has to be waterproofed according te an engineer's certification. MR. STRACHAN: There will be nothing in the crawl space. It's just a foundation for the house. Do you want the D.E.C. approval, a letter? MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have it, we will need it. SECRETARY:. I checked with D.E.C. and they said they didn't have an application. (Mr. Strachan showed the Board letter dated 9/6/79 from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- May 22, 1980 regarding the subject property stating that no permit is required from their agency. Reference No. 15278-0146.) MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, which reads: To: Kenneth Strachan, Jr. Peter's Neck Road Orient, NY Tidal Wetlands Notification Letter Approval Dear Sir: This is to inform you that we have received your notification or letter for permit application filed on 8/6/79, and we have determined that it will not be necessary to file a permit application or secure a tidal wetlands permit to construct a one-family dwelling on Lot 2, Property of Strachan, east side of King Street, Orient, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Assuming that you have obtained all necessary permits, you may proceed with your project adhering to special conditions, if any, found in this letter: Home must be a minimum of 75-feet from landward edge of wetlands. Cesspools must be a minimum of 100 feet from landward edge of wetlands. Signed, Daniel J. Larkin Permit Administrative Dated 9/6/79 Expiration~ 12/31/80 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak for this? Is there anyone wishing to speak against it? (There was no response.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2697, application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR. and to close the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- May 22, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2698. Application of RENE GENDRON, Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area. Location of properties: Lots 9, 11 and 12 at South Harbor Homes, Grange Road Extension, Southold; County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-75-4-9, 10, 12. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:25 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map of what is proposed to be done with the lots, and the new lot lines, that would be added, and the County Tax Map showing all the properties in the neighboring area. Do you have anything you would like to add, Mr. Bruer? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: I believe it pretty well speaks for itself. The road wasn't dedicated years ago by way of an oversight, t have a letter from -- we offered it for dedication this past year, and Mr. Tasker said, if you want me to read it: Dated February 13, 1980, saying that the Highway Law -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you read the letter for the record. MR. BRUER: Ok. It says: ,,...Dear Rudy: The dedication papers which you sent to the Town Clerk have been forwarded to me for examination. The street to be dedicated, apparently the un-named spur running north from Grange Road to the southerly boundary of Lot ~10. This spur has a width of 40 feet according to the subdivision map. Section 171, subdivision 1, of the Highway Law provides that a road of less than three rods, that's 49½~ feet, may not be dedicated to the Town unless a certi- fication in writing is obtained from the Commissioner of Transportation certifying as to the necessity therefor. Also, the Town specification for dedication of highways provides that all roads must be 50-feet in width," We have submitted the road, the road has been put in the physical condition it needs to be dedicated. I cleared it with Mr. Dean and whatever. There is a it has been inspected by the Town, and in particular Mr. Davis, and everything seems to be in order except the required width of the road, and to do this we have to take five feet off those three lots. It's not going to affect the lots or the enjoyment or use of the lots, at least to my opinion, ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -22- May 22, 1980 and it will affect, actually will be beneficial to the lots in that they will have a Town road there. And with that in mind, we ask that the Board grant the application. MEMBER TUTHILL: What's the name of this subdivision? MR. BRUER: South Harbor Homes. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON ACCOMPANYING MR. BRUER: Also, there are no wells there. There is a water main that runs up that road already, Town water. MR. CHAIRMAN: No temik in it, I hope. MR. BRUER: So actually you already have pipes up the street already. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: No, we get the water from the Southold Town place, on South Harbor Road. MR. BRUER: There wouldn't be temik there. MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope that's not temik floating over us all day too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else for it? Is there anyone against it? (There was no response.) Do you fellows on the Board have any further questions? (No response.) Ox motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2698, application of RENE GENDRON, and to close the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2699. Application of FRANK and JACQUELINE WEBER, 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards at property known as 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; bounded north by Jockey Creek Drive, east by Wohlberg, south by Jockey Creek, west by Blackburn; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-5-21. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:36 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- May 22, 1980 affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have surveys showing the proposed location of the house and a section of the County Tax Map showing this and the adjoining areas. Is there anything that you wanted to add for this? MR. AHLERS: I would just like to bring out a few points. We originally went to , because of the shape of the lot, we originally went to the Building Inspector George Fisher, over a year ago and we got his permission to use the sideyard distances of 11.5 I think it was and 15.5 feet, because it was a percentage lot and we could use those smaller distances. So based on that and the standard 75-foot variance from D.E.C. we went ahead with the plans and filed with all the necessary authorities. But D.E.C. dragged their foot and they said, well, since you're 75 feet from the front of the creek, go ahead. But when we went for our Health Department approval, they wouldn't accept an oral, so they said resubmit it again to D.E.C. Well apparently Spring came about the same time as the second D.E.C. inspection, and they found two clumps of which I have pictures here, two clumps of beach grass on the whole beach. And on the basis of that, they said, well, you just can't build a house where we said you could build it. You would have to move it back another 12 feet to approximately 87 feet from the water. And we tried immediately when we heard of that to rearrange the house. But we just couldn't do anything, because the house is on a peculiarly shaped piece of property, and the way it's shaped, in a U-shape. We have some revised plans here, in case you're interested, site plan. MEMBER DOUGLASS: What is the footage of that house with the decks. MR. AHLERS: Oh, the footage of the house I calculated that, in rough calculation, the plot is about 23,374 square feet. The house is about 2,054 plus or minus. The garage is 560 square feet. So with the porches and stoops and everything, it's about 3200 square feet. ~EMBER DOUGLASS: And the lot is 13,000 something. MR. AHLERS: 23,000. MEMBER DOUGLASS: How do you get that. I just figured it. MR. AHLERS: It's 23,000. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -24- May 22, 1980 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can give you the figures. Do you want to take them down. MEMBER DOUGLASS: MEMBER TUTHILL: your calculations? MR. AHLERS: Yeah. Where? On here? MEMBER TUTHILL: In pencil at the bottom of the map. No, that's me. I was trying to figure SECRETARY: it out, too. Yeah, I want to check them out. Down here it shows 23,052. Were those MR. AHLERS: 23,000 plus. MEMBER TUTHILL: The surveyor didn't show it. MR. AHLERS: No, he doesn't. MR. CHAIRMAN: This lot had restrictions on it for 15 and 10, 25 total. MR. AHLERS: When they set it up originally it was 15.5 and 11. Now, we're about 9 inches off. MR. CHAIRMAN: With the D.E.C. creating a hardship, it's about 8 or 9 inches. MR. AHLERS: That's it. And here is a letter for the files from the D.E.C. which says that, they really give it to us, because they say no part of the house can be built less 155 feet from Jockey Creek Drive, which more or less makes it mandatory that you have to stick that in, right on the borderline. MR. AHLERS: That's all I have to say unless you have any questions. MR.CHAIRMAN: Do you gentlemen have any questions while Mr. Ahlers is here. SECRETARY: Mr. Ahlers, may I see the restrictions on the D.E.C. letter for the file? MR. AHLERS: Sure. I'll make a copy for you and bring it in the morning if you want it. SECRETARY: You could even mail it. MR. AHLERS: Well, I have to come up in the morning. MEMBER DOUGLASS: May we keep one of these in the file? Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- May 22, 1980 MR. AHLERS: Surely. Don't use the one I scribbled Take any one of the others. Member Douglass received a copy of the survey-site plan of the proposed project. MEMBER TUTHILL: It brings it pretty close in the neighborhood. MR. AHLERS: They have all been notified and I haven't heard anything. We're going to try and keep as many trees on the property as we possibly can. In other words, we're not going to get a bulldozer and rip everything down. MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, this lot was created by a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, in 1974 we granted the variance, and at that time we put restrictions for the sideyards to be 10 and 15 feet. MEMBER TUTHILL: Be not less than 15 and 10, total 25. MR. AHLERS: We have it 11'6" or something like that. Now 15.5 and 9.9. We're just under. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Charlie, when this was created it was back when it was half-acre lots. Before they went to one acre, right? I would say that's how it got created. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's the way it was set off. Today we couldn't set it off that way. Being undersized too, his sideyard can be varied a little bit too. Thank you, Mr. Ahlers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here wishing to speak against this application? MRS. WOHLBERG: In regard to placing the house, some of it will block our view. I don't know if this has anything to do with you, but putting the house that far down to the creek, we're being obstructed in regard of the view of the creek. If they had put the house a little bit up toward Jockey Creek Drive, we would have had more of a view of the house, plus the fact that we're the ones that are getting the house closer to us rather than Blackburn. MEMBER TUTHILL: Where is your house located, across the street? MR. WOHLBERG: No. MRS. WOHLBERG: We're next to it. ~outh01d Town Board of Appeals -26- May 22, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: Oh, you're right next to it. In the Frosina House? MR. WOHLBERG: Right. MRS. WOHLBERG: So it is not actually enhancing our property by putting the house that far down to the creek. Had they put it up closer to the road, then our view would not be obstructed to the creek. MEMBER TUTHILL: Did you say you were limited. That it was mandatory that you be so far from the road? MR. AHLERS: Yes. The back of the house can be no further than that, and that includes the porch and every- thing else, be no further than 155 feet from Jockey Creek Drive. So we're up as far as, I mean, we're not down by the creek at all. We're practically 87 feet from the water line. MRS. WOHLBERG: Well our house is certainly closer to Jockey Creek Drive. You know that. MR. CHAIRM32~: Yes, but this was before the new restrictions were put in. Years ago everybody-- MRS. WOHLBERG: New restriction? That's even worse than what we had before then. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's getting tougher and tougher to live around here. To meet all the requirements. MRS. WOHLBERG: You come out here to live in a rural area, and then you've got a house in front of you. It devalues our property. And that's what you are going to pass, right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we haven't done any decisions on it yet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ahlers, can you tell us how far this house is from the road right now? The back end of it. MR. AHLERS: The back end of it can't be any more than 155 feet. D.E.C. won't let us. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, that's the waterfront side you're talking about. That's the back. MR. AHLERS: Yes, that's the back. But you want to know the front? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Right. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- May 22, 1980 MR. AHLERS: You can take it right off the map here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what we're having trouble with. MEMBER DOUGLASS: This is what we want to know, from here to here (from front property line to back of the house). MR. AHLERS: Do you have a scale handy, a ruler? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can get one. MR. AHLERS: Never mind. I would say, it's about 8 inches, 80 feet. MEMBER TUTHILL: That's the frontyard. MR. AHLERS: That's the front of the garage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course, if we moved this back farther this figure here would be depreciated. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You can't. You would be closed right in on the line. The only thing you can do is scale the house down. MR. AHLERS: You see, this is the garage area here, this is the kitchen, living room, bedroom. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Do you know how far you are back, your rearyard is back from sideline? MRS.WOHLBERG: 10 feet. MR. WOHLBERG: From the tie line? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. Your rear yard is the part on JOckey Creek. MR. WOHLBERG: Not off hand I don't. MRS. WOHLBERG: But it's farther than what they have. MR. WOHLBERG: About 176, at least. MEMBER TUTHILL: Back from the highwater mark? MR. WOHLBERG: Yes. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Maybe this will tell us. In reference to that little shed that is down there, that little tool shed, that's on his property, how far would you estimate you are from that back? MR. WOHLBERG: I would say roughly, ' I guess, about 50 feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- May 22, 1980 MR. WOHLBERG: But, the creek has an advantage to it. We're further away. If that tool shed was brought over, it would be much further away from the creek at our place than it is over there. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I have no further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wohlberg? MRS. WOHLBERG: Just that we would like to have it come towards the road further. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? (There was no response.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2699, application of FRANK and JACQUELINE WEBER, and to close the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2700. Application of ROBERT W. BROOKS, Holmes Road, East Lyme, Connecticut 06333, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area, width and setbacks. Location of property: Winthrop Drive and Reservoir Road, Fishers Island, New York; bounded north by Gada, east by Reservoir Road, south by Winthrop Drive and Cleveland, west by Silver Eel Cove; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-9-8-3. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:57 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have surveys showing the houses, and a copy of the Tax Map, and pictures. MEMBER DOYEN: Here are some more, when I was up to look at it, Bob. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I've got pictures of it. SouthOld Town Board of Appeals -29- May 22, 1980 MEMBER DOYEN: You have pictures, and I took another picture of it, over the water. MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in the file. Do you have anything to add %o your fine presentation in your statement there, Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Since the survey was made, which is attached to the petition, applicant has removed this curb that you see here. That was part of the old circle. MEMBER DOYEN: Right here. That's what these pictures are about. They wanted to see the road there. That's why we took the pictures. MR. LARK: Right. It used to be a big circle there, when the flagpole and the fort was in effect. They removed this. All of the utility lines that used to traverse the back of the property have been removed and now are on Winthrop Road and service the properties as opposed to going back and forth the way they were originally. The rearyards of the premises have all been, the what do you call it, the overgrowth, has all been removed and they have been landscaped down to the highwater on a gradual slope. It was an overall improvement of the situation. As you can see, this is the last, I'm told, the last of Fort Wright, in subdividing the homes that were there. As you know from prior hearings where you've granted similar type variances within a block or so away, there is a need for existing housing over there, and it is felt that since the Government Services Administrators sold these things at auction, it is felt that if we subdivide them into separate single ownership they will be kept and preserved. These are all single f~mily, there are no duplicate families here in these particular houses. As was pointed out in the application, we're kind of stuck with the front and rear yards and when Mr. Brooks went to figure out how to draw the sideyard lines, we split the difference between each of the buildings as being the most equitable way of handling it, otherwise, we have no other way of going. Now, for what the Board is interested for economy and property~ the road frontage didn't become big of a problem and in the rear, rather than cut this lot out, lot number three, the sideyard in the rear got bent a little bit to allow a little water frontage. And it was felt that this was the reasonable way to do it and come up with some reasonable size lots. As you see, they run from 15,000 some odd, to 19,000 some odd due to the way the buildings are situated on them. For the record-- so, that's what the existing property looks like with the removal of utility lines and the curbs which I think Mr. Doyen's well aware and also we indicated on the photographs. That cleaned up a rather awkward situation there. Of course it didn't make any difference when the Army had it Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- May 22, 1980 because they had the circle there and they would drive right up. The zoning in the area, in fact the only things these things do conform to is the zoning, is A-residential. Right behind it is John Gada's property, as you can see on the map, which is zoned Industrial, and most of the rest of the fort ended up in a B-1 District. But this area up in here ended up as A-Residential. So we don't have that problem with the nonconforming uses, it's conforming. Over on Greenwood Street, which is right over here on the other side of the cove, where you granted variances, some of them were duplex and they ran 8700 square feet - the lot sizes, to 9500 square feet, so this is reasonable in this requirement being, you know, running from 15 to 19,000 square feet. The only other thing that I can add is that in relationship to the 40,000 square feet requirement, we just don't have it because the houses are preexisting. It's not something that we're asking to be built. There will be no increase in the population density because they'll be three family. And when the sewer arrangements ever get squared away over there, these three will also be linked in to that, because they are in the old existing sewer system now. They'll also be in the new plant, if that squabble ever gets straightened out. MEMBER DOYEN: Well, not only that, I suspect if worse came to worse, they have enough area there and they are far enough away so they could have cesspools. MR. LARK: Right. We would want to continue to hook up. It makes more sense. MEMBER DOYEN: But it is possible because we have public water. MR. LARK: Right. And they are being serviced. MEMBER DOYEN: 0nly one minor correction -- they were built in 1938. MR. LARK: Well it was still when the Fort was on, wasn't it? MEMBER DOYEN: Yes. But that was the last houses that were built. I recall when they were built. MEMBER TUTHILL: You learn something new every day. MEMBER DOYEN: Before I used to, this middle house one, it was completed, we used to pal around with the Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- May 22, 1980 family in there. MR. LARK: There will be no substantial change in the neighborhood as you can see. They are single and separate, and the difficulty, the practical difficulty of subdividing it can't be obviated by any other method because we're stuck with what the property is, and I think the feeling is, by keeping them single and separate it will be an enhancement to the neighborhood to keep them preserved for the future and the maintenance. So I reallY have nothing further. And I know the Board is aware that the one over to FIDCO you granted and the one to Baramache, right next door was granted. Again it's cleaning .up a bad situation, Dver there, and I'm told, and you can correct me, that there are no more to be subdivided. As to housing over there. MEMBER DOYEN: There are other structures, but not dwellings. Right. MR. LARK: So this should be the last. MEMBER DOYEN: This guy has done an amazing job of renovation and landscaping. MR. LARK: Right. It has been an improvement. MEMBER DOYEN: It improved the Harbor tremendously. MR. LARK: And with FIDCO on the other side cleaning it up. MEMBER DOYEN: They've made it a very attractive Harbor. MR. LARK: So it has, what had gotten overgrown and kind of gross looking over the period of the years by having individual people come in there and take them over, it has improved it. There's no question about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. Is there anyone else to speak for? Is there anyone against? (There was no response.) Are there any questions from you fellows? (No response.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2700, application of ROBERT W. BROOKS, and to close the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthitl, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- May 22, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FL-2. Application of RICHARD ZEISLER, c/o Philip J. Ofrias, Jr., Esq., 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901, for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold, Section 46-18A,B for permission to construct basement below the restricted base flood elevation in a special flood hazard zone. Location of property: Jackson's Landing, Mattituck; Lot 7 of Map of Jackson's Landing; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-4-9. The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:15 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector; fee paid $15.00. Member Goehringer left the room between 10:15 and 10:23, during the reading of the documents in the file. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map showing the flood zone, a section of the County Tax Map showing the area. And as Mr. Ofrias says in his statement, the house would be 50 feet back from Jackson's Landing Road I guess they call it, 19 feet from the east property line and the nearest corner would be 20' from the west property line. Do you have anything else to add to it, Mr. Ofrias, to what you have stated so far? MR. OFRIAS: Not a great deal. Except that what we have is a situation, as you see from the survey, and I will be quite brief, we already moved the house further back from the water to get to a higher elevation, but the point where we are at now and the basement is in this section here, the lower square, that is where the basement is going to be, at that point the basement flood will be 6 inches above the existing grade. In order to come back to higher grade, you can see, if we come baCk, we would have to come back 40 feet, move the house 40 feet closer to the road, that would only get us one foot additional elevation, so we've come back to the point where moving further away from the water gets us very little in the line of additional elevation. And the basement floor will now be 6 inches above grade, you know, we really can't come up too much higher than that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The slope isn't too great. MR. OFRIAS: It levels off at that point. As you could see, the slope is a little steeper right in front, but then we came up to the top of the slope and now it starts to level off, so coming back further would make no difference, you know, substantially so. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- May 22, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: Do you have D.E.C.? MR. OFRIAS: We have D.E.C. approval. And I believe that letter is in the file. SECRETARY: Yes, it is. MEMBER TUTHILL: Do they make you move it back so far from the water? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, they stipulate how-far back. MR. OFRIAS: Right. MEMBER TUTHILL: I just wondered whether we had it. MR. OFRIAS: Yes, we have it. Health Department approval is still pending. I don't anticipate a problem. And of course any relief I receive from you people will be subject to their approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read you the letter,fellows, from the D.E.C. if you would like. It says, "... Tidal Wetlands Approval... Applicant shall be liable for any damage to adjacent waterway resulting from any phase of the permitted construction. No construction, fill nor regrading shall be done any further than 110 feet from Jackson's Landing Road. There is to be minimal disturbance of the land between the house and creek during construction .... " MEMBER TUTHILL: 110 feet from Jackson's Landing Road puts tbs house line at what from the water? MR. OFRIAS: Just looking at the survey here, I would estimate that it looks like it's somewhat over 100 feet, about 100 feet. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I think it's 200 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's 207 feet all the way, it's about half way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 107. MEMBER DOUGLASS: 107 feet from the water. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. OFRIAS: But all of the land,just about all of the land between the house and the water is sand, salt marsh and meadow, you know, there is -- MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's filled ground. MR. OFRIAS: Maybe they dredged the creek. Southcld Town Board of Appeals -34- May 22, 1980 MEMBER DOUGLASS: That and they carved it in when they built the road. MR. OF~IAS: I don't think there should be a problem so Far. I talked to the architect about it, he Sees no problem insofar as the structural aspects of the design and construction. As a matter of fact when I was there, I don't know if the water has ever been that high, as you see from the survey, the flood zone comes right up to within five feet from the road. So there really is no property on this lot, outside of the flood plain. All the way up here before you get out of the flood plain. MEMBER TUTHILL: You've got at least one other house up there. MR. OFRIAS: As you stand there looking out, yes, at the creek, there looks like there is a house about three lots to the right and one maybe four or five blocks to the west. MEMBER TUTHILL: Many blocks high. MR. OFRIAS: Yeah, the immediate lots on either side are unimproved or considerable couple 100 feet in either direction. The correction, the contour lines shown on the survey mean high water, and there is a notation over here which Van Tuyl added. You have to add 2-1/2 feet to these contour lines to get what will be mean sea level, which is what the flood plain deals with. So that's why what appears to be a 5' contour we can add the 2½ feet, so we have 7½ foot elevation. And the basement level will be 8', so actually the basement will be 6" above the ground. MEMBER TUTHILL: Basement floor. MR. OFRIAS: Basement floor will be 6" above. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Has he made provisions for a waterproofed basement? MR.OFRIAS: It will not be-the construction itself will be waterproofed, but the basement will not because there is a door from that accessing on the side that is basically grade level, so were there to be a flood, water could come in through the door, but the basement that small section -- it's only one room 17 by 17, there are no improvements, it's unheated space. There is nothing there, so the water could come in and go out again. There would be no damage. MEMBER TUTHILL: Will it be a utility room for the Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- May 22, 1980 heat and so forth? MR. OFRIAS: No. It's just storage, and there is stairway to come from upstairs to come down so that you could go outside of the house without having to put an exterior stairway on the outside of the building. MEMBER TUTHILL: It might end up as a swimmingpool. MR. OFRIAS: I.don't know that it ever came that high. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It came that high. In 1938. MR. OPRIAS: That was a bad year. I think that's what mad~Shinnecock Inlet. I don't think I have anything else to add. If you have any questions, I have some more papers if you have any questions you may ask. MEMBER TUTHILL: It's complicated enough now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks a lot, Mr. Ofrias, Is there anyone here that wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. FL-2, application of RICHARD ZEISLER, and to close the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. The Chairman called a recess at 9:30 until 9:35 P.M. Appeal No. 2685. LORRAS. Application of EMANUEL and VENITA ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2685. Application of EMANUEL and VENITA LORRAS, Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100- 31 for permission to construct addition with insufficient rearyard setback at property known as 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Schwab, east by Massaro, south by Vasquez, west by Bay Avenue; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-17-4. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicants are requesting permission to construct proposed addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback of approximately 21 feet. Upon inspection, the Board found that with the proposed addition and existing buildings on the premises, coverage of the lot area would exceed the 20% maximum permitted, unless the size of the addition were reduced about 200 square feet in floor area. The Board has also found that the property is very limited in area, con- taining approximately 6,000 square feet. The Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that EMANUEL and VENITA LORRAS, in Appeal No. 2685, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for permission to construct addition with an insufficient rearyard setback, SUBJECT TO THE POLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the coverage of the lot area shall not exceed .the 20% maximum permitted, and (2) That not less than a 27-foot rearyard setback is permitted. Location of property: 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Schwab, east by Massaro, south by Vasquez, west by Bay Avenue. County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 31-17-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal ~2687. Application of MARINO FARAGUNA, 175 Park Avenue, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards at property known as 5675 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York; Lot 113 of "Nassau Farms" filed Map ~1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-10. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting permission to construct proposed dwell- ing with insufficient sideyards, 8'9" on the south and 10' on the north. The Board finds that the subject property is very narrow in width 75' along the road and 60' at the rear line however, there appears to be adequate practical area in which to build the proposed 50-foot wide house with sideyards of 9 foot and 12 foot. The Board also finds that the property is located in an A-4 Flood Zone restricting new construction to an 8-foot elevation from mean sea level, for which applicant has not requested relief and therefore the Board assumes he intends to comply with the restrictions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that MARINO FARAGUNA, in Appeal No. 2687, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the sideyards may not be less than 12' on one side and 9' on the other side; (2) That the existing dwelling to be used as an acces- sory building for storage and not to be permitted to be rehabilitated to a living dwelling once a Certificate of Occu- pancy has been issued for new dwelling proposed herein; (3) Compliance with the restrictions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold. Location of property: 5675 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York; Lot 113 of "Nassau Farms" filed Map #1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -38- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2694. Application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR., Peters Neck Road, Orient, New York for a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access. Location of property: Right-of-way off the south side of King Street, Orient; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27- 4-9. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting approval of access to a proposed par- cel containing approximately 80,000 square feet, which parcel is presently part of property of Margaret L. Strachan, mother of the applicant herein. Applicant is proposing to construct a dwelling on the subject premises; the subject premises does not front on a Town road. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that KENNETH STRACHAN, JR. be GRANTED approval of access, New York Town Law 280-A, in Appeal No. 2694, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the access approved herein shall be used only for the proposed dwelling; and if the access shall service any future dwellings, application must be made to the Board of Appeals for approval of same; (2) That the right-of-way be suitably improved in accordance with the requirements of this Board adopted March 22, 1979. Location of property: Right-of-way off the south side of King Street, Orient; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27- 4-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -39- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2697. Application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR., Peters Neck Road, Orient, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory building in an area other than the rearyard. Location of property: Right-of-way off South Side of King Street, Orient; part of County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27-4-9; also referred to as Lot 2 of Margaret L. Strachan. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting permission to construct accessory building to be used as a garage and barn for storage in the sideyard and partly in the frontyard.. The Board feels that the structure can be placed in the side- yard area practically, and to allow same to protrude into the frontyard would not be in keeping with the comprehen- sive zoning plan of the Town. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance 'in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance, except that same should not be permitted in the frontyard area. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that KENNETH STRACHAN, JR. be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to construct accessory building, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the accessory building not protrude into the frontyard area; (2) That no commercial business be permitted on the subject premises. Location of Property: Right-of-way off the south side of King Street, Orient; part of County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27-4-9; also referred to as Lot 2 of Margaret L. Strachan. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -40- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2698. Application of RENE GENDRON, Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, New York) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insuffi- cient area. Location of properties: Lots 9, 11 and 12 at South Harbor Homes, Grange Road Extension, Southold, New York; County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-75-4-9,10,12. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area of three parcels due to the widening of Grange Road Extension, which is reducing each of the parcels five feet deep. The Board finds that the subject parcels are part of the ,Exception List" for area and width requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance, Article I, Section 100-12. Applicant states the reason for this change in area is because they wish to dedicate Grange Road Extension to the Town of Southold, and the Town requires a 50-foot wide road for dedication. The road is presently 40-feet wide, and five feet would be added from each side. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant(s). The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that RENE GENDRON, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 as applied for. Location of properties: Lots 9, 11 and 12 at South Harbor Homes, Grange Road Extension, SouthOld, New York. CQunty Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-75-4-9,10, 12. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2699. Application of FRANK and JACQUELINE WEBER, 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York, by Sacco & Ahlers as agents, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient sideyards at property known as 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; bounded north by Jockey Creek Drive, east by Wohlberg, south by Jockey Creek, west by Blackburn; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-5-21. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicants are requesting permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards, 9.95 on the east and 15.5 on the west, totalling 25 for both sides. Upon inspection, the Board has found that the subject premises is 75 feet wide at the north end, and 117.95 feet wide at the south end. The Board has been advised that the Department of Environmental Conservation is restricting the subject dwelling to be located not closer than 87 feet from the tie line. The Board has found upon further investigation that on May 23, 1974 a variance was granted approving the insufficient area and width of the subject lot, with the condition that the sideyards shall not be less than 25 feet, 10 on one side and 15 on the other. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant, except that the sideyard restriction of 10 and 15 on the sides will remain the same. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case 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 FRANK and JACQUELINE WEBER, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient sideyards and setbacks, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the sideyards shall not be less than I0 foot on one side and 15 on the other; and not less than a total of 25 feet for both. Location of Property: 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-5-21. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2700. Application of ROBERT W. BROOKS, Holmes Road, East Lyme, Connecticut 06333, by Richard F. Lark, Esq., for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area, width and setbacks. Location of property: Winthrop Drive and Reservoir Road, Fishers Island, New York; bounded north by Gada, east by Reservoir Road, south by Winthrop Drive and Cleveland, west by Silver Eel Cove; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-9-8-3. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting for the three proposed parcels, approval or.insufficient area, 19,060, 14,617 and 15,151 square feet, and approval of insufficient width, 176, 58 and 138.94 feet respectively in order that applicant may proceed with an application to subdivide the property into the three lots, each having an existing dwelling. Applicant is also requesting approval, of %he setbacks of the existing dwellings as they will be situated with the proposed lot lines. The Board finds that the existing dwellings were built prior to the adoption of the Town zoning ordinance, and are served by public sewer and water systems. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe ths spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it w~s RESOLVED, that ROBERT W. BROOKS be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area, width and setbacks as applied for. Location of property: Winthrop Drive and Reservoir Road, Fishers Island, New York; bounded north by Gada, east by Reservoir Road, south by Winthrop Drive and Cleveland, west by Silver Eel Cove. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-9-8-3. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -43- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2695. Application of RICHARD and MARY LINDSAY, 435 Watersedge Way, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with insufficient frontyard setback at property known as 435 Watersedge Way, Southold; bounded north by Watersedge Way, east by Debany, south by Little Peconic Bay, west by Bourgin. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-88-5-59. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicants are requesting permission to construct an 8-foot addition to existing dwelling in the frontyard area with a setback of approximately 42 feet. Upon inspection, the Board has found that most of the homes in the immediate neighborhood have at least a 50-foot setback in the frontyard. Also, the Board has found that there are other areas available for the placement of the proposed addition, either at the east side for an addition, or in the rearyard for an accessory building, for the purposes of storage stated in the application. To grant a variance in this case would be unjustifiable, and would not be in keeping with the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The Board does not agree with the reason- ing of the applicants. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are not unique, and that strict application of the ordi- nance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that RICHARD and MARY LINDSAY, 435 Watersedge Way, Southold, New York, be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance in Appeal No. 2695 as applied for. Location of Property: 435 Watersedge Way, Southold, New York; bounded north by Watersedge Way, east by Debany, south by Little Peconic Bay, west by Bourgin; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-88-5-59. VOte of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -44- May 22, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2693. Application of FRANK E. BROPHY, Second Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and side yard setbacks at property known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl, east by Second Street, south by Woodard and Wetzel, west by Martin and Third Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting approval of a deck which has been constructed with an insufficient frontyard setback of approxi- mately four feet and insufficient sideyard setback of approxi- mately eight feet at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, Cutchogue, New York. The Board has found upon inspection that the 20% maximum permitted lot coverage has been exceeded, and the deck as is constructed is not within the character of the neighborhood. The Board does not agree with the reason- ing of the applicant, and there appears to be sufficient area in the rearyard for same. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are not unique, and that strict application of the ordi- nance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that FRANK E. BROPHY, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York, be DENIED a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, in Appeal No. 2693 as applied for, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the subject deck addition be removed within 60 days of the date of this decision. Location of Property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl, east by Second Street, south by Woodard and Wetzel, west by Martin and Third Street. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117- 10-20.7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. 'SOuthold Town Board of Appeals -45- May 22, 1980 SEQRA Declaration. ZEISLER, by Philip basement below the flood hazard zone On motion by WHEREAS, an Appeal No. FL-2, application of RICHARD J. Ofrias, Jr., Esq. for a variance to construct restricted flood base elevation in a special Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, nvironmental assessment in the short form has been submitte~ with the complete application which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be i~Dlemented as planned herein, and WHEREAS, the~ has been no response to this Board's request for comme~s, suggestions and/or recommendations from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, this Board is assuming that there is no objection by said agency(ies) regarding the project proposed herein, and WHEREAS, the following comments and/or recommendations were received from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation in Tidal Wetlands Notification Letter Approval as revised 4/1/80 in TWNL #15272-0122: "...Applicant shall be liable for any damage to adjacent waterway resulting from any phase of the permitted con- struction. No construction, filling or regrading will be done any further than 110' from Jackson Landing Road. There is to be minimal disturbance to land between house and creek during construction .... " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board has determined that this project, if implemented as planned herein, is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment, will not require any other determination or procedure in the SEQRA standards of process, Section 617.5(a), and this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the May 1, 1980 Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. ~ Southotd Town Board of Appeals -46- May 22, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting held May 7, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to approve the following Special Exception Sign renewal Requests, with the CONDITION THAT SAME COMPLY with the Federal Highway Beautification Act and Funding Laws for Highways, if applicable, and for a period of one year: Appeal No. 1165 - Ross' North Fork Restaurant Appeal No. 2384 Stanley J. Waimey & F & P Antiques Appeal Nc. 1180 Albertson Marine, Inc. Appeal Nc. 1784 John Koroleski Appeal No. 2422 - Drossos Restaurant Appeal No. 1090 Valentine Ruch, IV by Mrs. Ruch Appeal No. ll00 Joan Tate - "Skippers" Appeal No. 1252 - Jack Levin Appeal No. 1254 Jack Levin Appeal No. 1550 Lawrence A. Mitchell "Seafarer" Appeal No. 1898 - Agway, Inc. Appeal No. 206 Thomas & Florence Jurzenla Appeal No. 1582 - Volinsk. Olds, Inc. Appeal No. 1084 - Edna A. Brown Appeal No. 1405 Nicholas Atiano - Intersection of Middle/Sound Appeal No. 1405 - Nicholas Aliano N/s Oregon Rd, Cutch. Appeal No. 442 - Howard Zehner Appeal No. 1173 Donald E. & Lorna E. Tuthill Appeal No. 1753 - Mattituck Inlet Marina Appeal No. 1322 Mattituck Inlet Marina Appeal No. 1321 - Mattituck Inlet Marina Appeal No. 2427 - Willow Point Association Appeal No. 2026 - Robert Tabasco Appeal No. 2288 - Brian's Song, Inc. Appeal No. 2309 - Alexander Hargrave - L.I. Vineyards,Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- May 22, 1980 On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that June 12, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. be set as the date and time for the next regular meeting of this Board to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. The Members of the Board agreed to have a Special Meeting, tentatively for Tuesday or Wednesday, May 27 or May 28, 1980 in order to review and schedule matters for the next regular meeting and in order to make environmental declarations under the SEQRA process. The meeting was declared closed at 12:00 midnight. APPROVED / " Chairman 'Boarder' Appe Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals