Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/1980Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RI3AD- STATE RrlAD 25 .~rlUTHrlLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1B09 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONI$ JR. CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN. JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRtNGER MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 1, 1980 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 1, 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; Gerard P. Goehringer; Robert J. Douglass (arrived at 7:37 P.M. at opening of first public hearing). Absent: Messr. Serge J. Doyen, Jr. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board held April 18, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Goehringer. Absent: Messrs. Douglass and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconde'd by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes. of the Regular Meeting of this Board held April 10, 1980, subject to minor corrections. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis~ Tuthill and Goehringer. Absent: Messrs. Douglass and Doyen. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 1, 1980 RESOLVED, to approve the sign renewal request of Mr. Armando Cappa in Appeal No. 1428 for a period of one year, SUBJECT to the Federal Highway Beautification Act and Funding Laws for High- ways, if applicable. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Goehringer. Absent: Messrs. Douglass and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2686. Application of LORNE GREENE by Richter Home Improvement Co., 515 Seventh Street, Green- port, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in frontyard area. Location of property: 1455 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion; bounded north by L.I. Sound, east by Moeck, south by Aquaview Avenue, west by Miller. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-22-2-2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 P.M. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map, or sketch, of the property showing dimensions. The lot is 275' by 270' in length on one side, 275' west, 270 on the east, and on Aquaview Avenue 102.24' On the waterfront, the Sound side, it's 101.31', and the proposed garage was proposed to be set back, the nearest point of it 33' from Aquaview Avenue and 10' off land to the east, land of Moeck. The size of the garage is 22' x 14' Is there anything you would like to add to this? ERNEST RICHTER: Not really. It's all stated there. Again, I just have to say that there is no room on the Sound bank and the garage is a very important part to a house. MEMBER TUTHILL: It's going to be 30 feet off the road, isn't it? MR. RICHTER: That's what I applied for. Off the property line. MEMBER TUTHILL: Between the road and the garage. MR. RICHTER: Betwe'en the property line and the garage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually from the road it would probably be more like 40. MR. RICHTER: Probably, I would guess. I would say so, yes. It must be eight to ten feet there because there is property on that road. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- May 1, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this? Is anyone in opposition to it who would like to speak? (There was no response.) MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would like to make a motion that it be passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second that motion. We find it's a common thing more or less with waterfront that that is about the only place you can put garages, is in the frontyard. There are several down the road, three or four maybe that are in there. Some are attached.- MR. RICHTER: Some of them are attached. MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, it's a common problem. MR. RICHTER: Waterfront it's backwards. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct garage in the frontyard area 30 feet from the nearest point to the front property line and t0 feet from the east side property line. The Board finds that the vicinity of the neighborhood is similar to that proposed herein, and due to the steep bank it would be impossible to construct the garage in the rearyard area. 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. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that LORNE GREENE, by Richter Home Improvement Co., Appeal No. 2686, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-32, for permission to construct garage in frontyard area as applied for. Location of Property: 1455 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion; bounded north by L.I. Sound, east by Moeck, south by Aquaview Avenue, west by Miller. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-22-2-2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 1, 1980 APPEAL NO. 2582. AMENDED FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION. Application of THOMAS and EDITH PERILLO, by Carman, Callahan, Carman and Sabing, Esqs., 280 Main Street, Box 310, Farmingdale, New York 11735. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Griqonis, it was RESOLVED, that regarding Appeal No. 2582, in the matter of the application of THOMAS and EDITH PERILLO, by Carman, Cal- lahan, Carman and Sabing, Esqs., wherein the Board of Appeals granted a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 (Bulk Schedule), approving the insufficient area and width of two parcels located at the south side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, (more particularly known as County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-145-2-13 and 17), that the findings and deter- mination of this Board as worded in its decision and minutes of the September 6, 1979 Meeting are erroneous, and that same be and hereby are amended to read as follows: After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that ~ applicants wish approval of insufficient area of approximately 22,457 square feet for Lot No. 1 at the north end of the premises, and approval of insufficient area of approximately 26,348 square feet for Lot No. 2, and approval of insufficient road frontage 100 feet and 50 feet respectively. The variance requested would reduce LOt No. 1 from its original size of approximately 36,000 square feet, and would increase Lot No. 2 from its present size of approximately 15,000 square feet. The Board finds that to grant the relief requested herein would be uniform with the lots in the immediate vicinity. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. 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 .... The remainder of the original resolution, which reads as follows, will remain the same: was On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it RESOLVED, that THOMAS and EDITH PERILLO, 87 Old Country Road, Melville, New York (by Carman, Callahan, Carman and Sabino, Esqs. as agent) be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31(Bulk Schedule) approving the insuffi- cient area and width as applied for, and approving the access, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Southold Town Planning Board approval for a minor subdivision; Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 1, 1980 2. Suffolk County Planning Commission referral; 3. Conformance with the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals requirements for an access road. Location of property: South side of Great Peconlc Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, east by Weglicki, south by Weglicki, west by Sidor. County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-145-2-13 and 17 .... Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass. Absent: Messr. Doyen. Abstained: Messr. Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2691. Application of SAMUEL B. PRELLWITZ, Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to construct second dwelling on single lot. Location of property: South side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Indian Neck Road, west by Cukor and Fischer, south by Peconic Bay, east by Indian Neck Lane and Adams. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-7-7. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:53 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 surveys. It shows a parcel of, it is kind of an odd-shaped piece. It's got 227' on the southerly line, 525' on the easterly line, and then it goes 121, and 291 on the northerly line (413') and then the westerly line something like 608' altogether, I guess, is that somewhere near right, Bill? It's got a little jog in it. And the proposal is there is one house down on the waterfront, a big house, I guess it's known as the High House, or something they call it. MR. BILL SMITH: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a studio-type building connected to it, I guess, you would almost say, with a wall. MEMBER TUTHILL: It's detached isn't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: And then there is another building that's used for storage now. It's like a big garage, I guess that's all it ever was. I guess, Bill, is there something else you would like to say about this, to explain exactly what your intentions are? BILL SMITH: 0nly that'Mr. Prellwitz had planned this for quite a long time, and did plan to go into a major subdivision ~ Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -6- May 1, 1980 if the Planning Board would have waived the 50' roads and the park and recreation, which they would not do, and we've come to this elusion, which would be one parcel of 4½ acres for the two ho~ses. The other three parcels would eventually probably be subdivided, making a four-parcel subdivision, which is the minor subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: This parcel would contain 4.47 acres. MR. SMITH: That's so. MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be made into one parcel. MR. SMITH: Right. Which is owned by Samuel Prellwitz, the whole parcel. Of course, it's all owned by him, and it's been in his ownership for some time. MEMBER TUTHILL: What section are they appealing? MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 100-30. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak? MR. FISCHER: In favor? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. FISCHER: I'm in favor of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of it? Is there anyone here opposed to it? (There was no response.) We have a letter here that's dated April 30th, to the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold: ...On May 1, 1980 at 7:50 P.M. you will be considering a request by Samuel Prellwitz to build a 'second house' on the westerly 4.47 acres for year round residence. I am the neighbor to the east of the proposed subdivi- sion and I am also very concerned with maintaining the open space nature of the area. On the 3.25 acre section which contains the main house "high house" there is across the court yard from the main house a two-sided studio, one half of which has been converted into living quarters and which is currently lived in from June to September by Mr. Prellwitz' mother. This studio contains a bathroom and small kitchen. It would be possible to convert the other half of the studio into another small apartment. There is also a very large garage, storage building on the same three acres. Without any great depth of thought, I would recommend your not permitting this variance at this time. In the first place there is a possibility that the planning board can be ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -7- May 1, 1980 persuaded to change its mind in regard to the proposed changes Mr. Prellwitz suggested or he might decide to request a minor subdivision which would be better in terms of density. The Master Plan for this area seems to call for keeping a narrow strip surrounding Richmond Creek in its natural state. It is hard to tell from the map precisely what is included in this. In my mind I have included bayfront up to Smith Lane and as much as possible creek front to the same point. I wish that we had five acre zoning for this area or minimally two acre zoning. Please note also that the Fischers who adjoin Prellwitz to their wes~ have no public road access of their own and must use the Prellwitz road (at %he moment Cukor - next to Fischer - also use it but they do have land to the road). I would also like to bring to your Boards attention that my neighbors to my east (known as Bell Buoy and currently owned by Mrs. James Day) converted an old barn to a rental apartment and has to date not applied for building permit or variance and/or split the property into two pieces. Thank you. Sincerely, Signed Jody Adams Box 68, Peconic, NY 11958 734-6639 ... MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): When the Board was down there, we looked around, and we also found there was living quarters in the studio. Do you have any explanations for that, Bill? MR. SMITH: Frankly, I didn't know it. Bdt I don't think it's too much importance, if the Board wanted to put a restriction on it that the kitchen would be removed, I don't think you would have any complaint about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. Does anyone else have any- thing further they would like to add? MRS. FISCHER: Mr. Smith, we're the neighbors, the Fischers. Could we have one second (to the chair)? I'm surprised Mr. Smith didn't know. We are very much in favor of Mr. Prellwitz' proposal. (Mr. and Mrs. Fischer were having a discussion with Mr. Smith at the rear of the room, which was not meant to be in the record apparently inasmuch as the conversation was not picked up.) MR. SMITH: I can further explain that, which I didn't know anything about. Mr. Preltwitz' mother used to use that in the summertime, and he fixed that up for her when the whole family was there. But now Mrs. Prellwitz has completely moved out. She had been in Colonial Village several years, isn't it now? MRS. FISCHER: Right. She's been in Colonial Village now ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- May 1, 1980 about three years. MR. SMITH: So it's not used anymore, and I'm sure if there is anything they will take it out. It is of no importance today. MEMBER TUTHILL: There is somebody else's name on the build- ing itself, on a little sign outside. That I don't understand. MR. SMITH: Did you know about that (referring to the Fishcers)? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm trying to remember what it was now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It started with a "D." MR. CHAIRMAN: Right on the westerly end of the studio, there is a name. I don't know whether it's been there for years. MR. SMITH: Does the studio have a name? MEMBER TUTHILL: It looks like a person's name. MRS.FISCHER: I don't even remember that. I want to say Mrs. Prellwitz does spend time there in the summer, but it's a minimal thing. There is no heat there. There's just a wood stove, and I don't see how anyone could ever convert the studio into a dwelling. And certainly not that garage. MR. SMITH: No. I wouldn't think so. MRS. FISCHER: In other words, we as neighbors are not at all concerned that there would be an over-population. It's not feasible. MR. CHAIRMAN: If this were granted, I'm certain the Board would not allow the garage to be converted to a dwelling. Well thank you very much. MEMBER DOUGLASS: May I ask you a question, ma'am? You use the road there to your property? (Mrs. Fischer nodded yes.) MBMBER DOUGLASS: Do you have a legal access over the road? MRS. FISCHER: What is the width? MR. FISCHER: Car width. MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, the legal access width. MRS. FISCHER: We would have to look at our deed then. I don't know. MR. FISCHER: It's a dirt road. ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -9- May 1, 1980 MRS. FISCHER: And we like the dirt road, and we would prefer to stick with that if we can. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well roads do have to be improved now. Where they used to be able to put dirt, they have to be improved with stone. MRS. FISCHER: You mean any road at all? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Any access now. It's like this property. They have not requested access, and to build a new house they have to request access for the new house. MRS. FISCHER: We'd want to disturb the property as little as possible. MEMBER DOUGLASS: We have a minimum width that we go by, so that emergency equipment can get in, and minimum conditions on the quality of the road. MR. SMITH: Well, if and when he applies for that building permit, which will mean a subdivision of the other two lots, of the three lots, he will have to go along with the Planning Board's minimum road. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well he will have to come in and get access for this house even. MR. SMITH: Right. MEMBER DOUGLASS: We have to have an application for access. MR. SMITH: As far as I know, that's 16 foot, right? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Right. Fifteen foot improved. MR. SMITH: Right. Well, that wouldn't be too hard. It's probably about nine foot wide now. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, this was why I was asking. Maybe the access already grants the 15 or 16 foot. MEMBER TUTHILL: They probably just granted use of a private right-of-way, and they don't have the problem at the moment, Mr. Prellwitz is going to have the problem when or after he puts up this house. MR. CHAIRMAN: He'll have to have an approved access. MR. SMITH: Yeah. He understands that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. If there are no further questions, I'll close the hearing, and we'll make a decision a little later on this evening, and tomorrow morning you can call the office and they'll have an answer for you. Thanks for coming in. · Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- May 1, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: For the record, I offer a resolution that the decision be reserved. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to reserve decision in the matter of SAMUEL B. PRELLWITZ, in Appeal No. 2691. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2689. Application of ARNOLD D. GARDNER, 260 Robinson Road, Greenport, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition in rearyard area. Location of property: · 260 Robinson Road, Greenport; bounded north by Robinson Road, west by Rosenberg, south by Sterling Creek, east by Bruckheimer. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-34-5-12. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:14 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 copy of the County Tax Map and sketch showing the location of the house. He presently has a 30-foot setback from bulkhead off Sterling Creek, and this is considered his backyard, it's a very unusually shaped piece of property. And with this addition it would reduce the side- yard to 24 feet from the bulkhead. No, there wouldn't be any change on the east, well, I don't know. The other side is only 10 feet off the property line and if he tried to add anything on there it would really be encroaching on the neighbor's property. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for this? ARNOLD D. GARDNER: I'm Mr. Gardner. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything you would like to add to it? MR. GARDNER: Only one thing. What I state in the application is pretty much the situation. It's a very small six-foot addition in which I would just move the westerly wall out where the bedroom and the kitchen is in order to give me that space. Actually since it's moving out towards the Sterling Creek basin where it's bulkhead ed, it wouldn't be encroaching on anyone, or as I state change the character of the area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -11- May 1, 1980 add anything to this? Is there anyone wishing to speak against it? (There was no response.) There's one thing about going that way, no one is going to build any closer to you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You just took this over about a year ago, huh? MR. GARDNER: I'll be in there two years now. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I know who had it built. MR. GARDNER: It was built unfortunately in such a way that it would require a major revamping of a house in order to go into any other direction. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well it is a very oddly shaped piece of property. It was something that was left over after they got all the others. MR. GARDNER: I get the leftovers. Yes, this is true. MEMBER DOUGLASS: He used to keep his boat right down on the side there, on the float. MR. CHAIRMAN: No further questions? I'd like to offer a resolution granting this as applied for. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 6' x 36' addition to the west side of the subject dwelling for additional living area, at premises known as 260 Robinson Road, Greenport, New York. The Board finds that the dwelling is set back approxi- mately 72 feet from the front line, is approximately 10 feet from the east side line, and approximately 30 feet from the west side line. Due to the trapezoidal shape of the property, 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that ARNOLD D. GARDNER, 260 Robinson Road, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article, III, Section 100-31, for permission to construct a 6-foot by 36-foot addition as applied for. Location of property: 260 Robinson Road, Greenport; bounded north by Robinson Road, west by Rosenberg, south by Sterling Creek, east by Bruckheimer. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-34-5-12. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Tuthill and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. S6uthold Town Board of Appeals -12- May 1, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2688. Application of GEORGE R. and HARRIET J. TIEBEL, 8 Arbor Street, Great Neck, New York (by Richard F. Lark, Esq ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, and for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280A. Location of property: 6540 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Peconic Bay Boulevard, west by McGowan, south by Great Peconic Bay, east by Holfelder. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-2-1. The Chairman-opened %he hearing at-~8~22 P.E. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County Tax Map and surveys of the property. Maybe you would like to add something to it? RICHARD F. LARK: Mr. Chairman, the petition speaks for itself which is a request for an area variance. Both Mr. and Mrs. Tiebel are present here tonight. I think the Board should know that Mr. Tiebel has owned the property since 1949 in his own name. It was in his family for some 80 years prior to that, so they're now getting in their 60's and they want to come out and live here on a fulltime basis rather than just as a vacation or a summer home, and they find themselves now with today's standards with a substantially large piece of property. Not only for maintenance purposes but the cost of maintaining same. Their prime reason, they want to keep the house, which is Lot 2 on your map, the waterfront lot, and sell and subdivide and have the permission from the Board to sell off Lot No. 1, to-utilize the funds from the sale to replace and repair the bulkhead. I think the Board has seen the property. Large portions of the bulkhead are in immediate need of repair, and the house is old so they want to not only fix up the house but to repair the bulkhead. That's the purpose which generated the application. As indicated by the surveyor, the only practical way the Board is going to grant any division of the property is the way it is proposed there because of the location of the existing ~uildings on there, and the fact that you would have to get a right-of-way to the waterfront lot, and also access to the beach area from the lot, which would be on the boulevard. When I first looked at this, I took a long hard look at the application because it was created in two substantial parcels. I went down and looked at the property and looked at the~neighbor- hood in question, and after some investigation, I found that the application before you tonight is not without precedence. The Board has granted subdivisions in the area creating substandard lots on the bay-side of Peconic Bay Boulevard. Not on the north of the Boulevard but on the south of the Boulevard. On the side of Peconic Bay Boulevard and you go all the way to the Riverhead Town line in Laurel on the bay side, there are, a S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -13- May 1, 1980 legion or so of houses that are on smaller lots or have been subdivided on the bay side. In particular, the Board in September of 1979 granted to people by the name of Perillo, which is a little bit to the west of this property, an applica- tion where the Board granted a split for a 22,500 and a 26, 00 square foot lot, and in 1974 as I understand it the Board granted to people by the name of Cardinale, who owned just a little bit over an acre 43,694 square feet, granted them a subdivision to split it into three lots containing 14,800, 15,000 and 13,700 square feet. In 1976, the Board granted a variance to people b~ the name of Carpenter to split a lot that contained some 66,000 square feet into two, one contained 26,800 and the other one contained 39,000. A little bit further to the west, there is an old subdivision known as Bay Oaks, which has I guess about 10 or 12, those of you that are familiar with it, real s~all lots jammed in there, and moving on down further going east towards the property, there's a subdivision, I think it was in the name of Raynor, although I'm not quite sure, just how it was with the Board, granted a three-lot subdivision, and in fact the two properties away from this, now this could have been before zoning because I couldn't find anything on it, there is the property that was split in two from what it was originally. I have a tax map here of the general area. The subject property is all the way to the east. And the property I was speaking about that I couldn't find anything in the records on, two properties over that's been split in half, and as you go down the street to the other properties that I spoke about, as you can see, is indicated there. So it is not without precedence that the Board grant a variance, and access under 280-A, because it's been done in the neighborhood. And one of the deceiving things when you look at the tax map, especially in the Mattituck area there. There are a lot of properties, all of these narrow shaped for some reason, and they all have more than one home on them, but they're held in one ownership. So, you know, in reality the neighborhood is one of small lots on ths bay side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, whether it be in one ownership and it's rented out, or two people live in there or what have you, and these are just, the ones that I pointed out, are just some of the ones that I pointed where there have been variances granted by the Board and which ths ownerships have changed. If the Board does grant the application, the Tiebels are fully aware that they would have to apply formally to the Planning Board to get approval.of the layout as proposed. And again it would have to come to this agency first. I think some of you are familiar with the property and the area in question. But if you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them if I could, and as I said Mr. and Mrs. Tiebel are here also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dick. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? JOHN L. MOORE: In opposition or in support? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're ready for opposition now if you would like to go ahead, because no one else seems to want to. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- May 1, 1980 MR. MOORE: No, I'd like to speak in support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, in support? Excuse me. MR. MOORE: I'm sorry. I'm John Moore, Jr. I'm the proprietor of Silkworth Real Estate, Mattituck, and I don't believe this division as the application is would change the character or the property values in the neighborhood. I've been working as a react estate broker since 1973, and I've dealt with properties and homes in that area, and again I don't think it would change the value of the neighborhood at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Before we get into opposition, I think I have a letter that looks like it's in opposition too, so I'll read that and then I'll ask for comments. I have to take that back. There is more than one, I guess. The first one on the top of the list here is: 6325 Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel, NY 11948 ...To the Zoning Board of Appeals... Gentlemen: I live across Peconic Bay Boulevard from property owned by George and Harriet Tiebel who are appealing for a zoning variance. They wish to divide their property into two lots. Lot ~1 would include their home on the bay and a story and a half garage. This lot ~1 would comprise 32,250 square feet. Lot 92 would measure 19,350 square feet. I take exception to this division of the property be- cause it would without a doubt depreciate the value of my property and that of my neighbors. Please consider my request which I believe will help to keep the neighborhood beautiful. Sincerely yours, /s/ Bernadette M. Garvey April 22, 1980 .... Letter from Frederick T. Coulter in opposition: ...It has come to my attention in the Mattituck Watchman that George and Harriet Tiebel residing on Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY bordered by the Holfelder residence on the east, Peconic Bay on the south, and the Meaney-McGowan home on the west have petitioned to divide their property into plots of 19,350 and 32,250 square feet. Please be advised I am absolutely opposed to any variances or changes in plot size since it will eventually result in overcrowding and detract from the natural beauty and ecological balance of the area. Sincerely, /s/ Frederick T. Coulter April 21, 1980 .... Sputhold Town Board of Appeals -15- May 1, 1980 Letter from Frederick C. Edel in opposition: ...Please be advised that I am opposed to any such variances or changes in plot size since it will detract from the area, result in overcrowding and offset the natural beauty and ecological balance of the area. Yours very truly, /s/ Frederick C. Edel April 23, 1980. MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): That's the end of the mail on it. Does anyone else here wish to speak against? ARTHUR DePIETRO: My name is Arthur DePietro. I'm an attorney from Riverhead. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. McGowan, who own property immediately to the west of the parcel which is the subject of this application. Before I proceed directly on their behalf, they have asked me to transmit to the Board a letter from Andrew J. Holfelder who is one of the owners of the parcel immediately to the east. I understand there was a death in the family and he was unable to attend tonight, but he wished this letter to be brought to the Board's attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish this to be put into the record? MR. DePIETRO: Yes, we do. MR. CHAIRMAN read the entire letter from Andrew J. Hcl- felder dated April 30, 1980 in opposition to the subject variance: ...The Tiebels have been neighbors for a number of years and I have no desire to offend them in any way, however Board approval of this variance will have a negative impact on the value of my property. A subdivision of the property will result in housing congestion and destruction of the rural character of the area. All surrounding real estate values will be reduced if a subdivision is permitted. I urge the Board of Appeals to deny the petition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to proceed? MR. DePIETRO: Yes, sir. First I would like to make reference to the tax map that Mr. Lark has brought to the attention of the Board. I submit that that tax map does not in any way support this application. As a matter of fact, it supports the opposition to the application. If the Board scrutinizes that map, you'll become aware of the S~utho!d Town Board of Appeals -16- May t, 1980 fact you have to go almost a quarter of a mile to the west before you get to any of these smaller parcels Mr. Lark is talking about. Also I think that it just happened to be convenient for this application that the tax map ended where it did, because the tax map was submitted by the applicants who have the burden of proof here tonight, showing the property to the east. You would see properties that are single parcels that substantially conform to the zoning district we're talking about. The key element as you know in this kind of a case in proving a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship to show, and again the applicant has the burden of proof to show that this applicant is being held to a higher standard. Then the preponderance of the surrounding of parcels and also that to divide this parcel as proposed would no~ result in a change in the character of the community. I think it does very much result in a change in the character of the community, and I would like to point out a few things with regard to the application itself, and then make a couple of references to the Town Zoning Ordinance. With regard to parcel No. 1, the parcel that fronts on the road -- it's my contention that we're really not talking about a 19,000-foot parcel because you need to take 20 feet off the eas~ side of it in order to gain access to parcel No. 2. Now you could do that by either a flag lot and give title to that access to parcel No. 2, or you could do it as they propose, by a right-of-way, where title stays in parcel No. 1. But even if title stays in Parcel No. 1, from the standpoint of zoning and from the standpoint of appearance, Parcel No. 1 is losing effectively any use and benefit of that 20 feet because it's got to be a driveway. It's got to be an access way for Parcel No. 2. So then what do you have? You take 20 feet by 170 feet, that's almost 3400 square feet. You take that away, and we're talking about a parcel that's less than 16,000 square feet, or almost one-third of the size required in this zoning district. And that's a tremendous variance. And when you look at it that way you also realize that you're not talking about 137 feet of frontage. You're talking about 117 feet of frontage in a district that requires 150 feet of width. Also, the lot as proposed would be approxi- mately 140 to 150 feet deep, and as I said with the right-of-way 117 feet wide. It leaves a very small building envelope in the middle where a primary residence and a garage could be constructed in conformity with the zoning ordinance. If this variance is granted, there is a tremendous likelihood that when a person comes back to build, the eventual purchaser from the present owner, that person is going to be before your Board and need a variance to put any kind of a house on up because he is not going to have enough room on the parcel to meet the requirements of this district. Again, just commenting on Mr. Lark's presentation, with all due respect I've handled a lot of cases like this on both sides of the fence, for the applicants and for the munlcipalitiss, and it's a difficult burden to prove a practical difficulty, and I just don't think he has done it here. There's no question of financial hardship whatsoever. The property has been owned prior to zoning. Sbuthold Town Board of Appeals -17- May 1, 1980 There is no question of intending the property for another use. It's been owned by many, many years and enjoyed for many, many years. And I think this is undsrlined by a couple of specific provisions in your Zoning Ordinance. Section 100-23 of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision A, excuse me, Subdivision C, says "no lot shall be formed from part of a lot already occupied by a building, unless such building, all yards and open spaces connected therewith and the remaining lot comply with all the requirements prescribed by this chapter for the district in which the lot is located." Well, if this division is granted you're creating a lot that is going to have a barn, an accessory building in the frontyard which is in violation of the ordinance. It's going to be three feet from the front lot line, and you're going to create a substandard lot in the front. I think for all of those reasons in opposition the requirements of your Ordinance and the fact that again, with all due respect, the applicant just does not have a legal basis, has not presented facts and evidence and justification to grant this variance. The only, the only concrete evidence other than conclusions that has been submitted is this tax map. And I think this tax map shows the surrounding community substantially adheres to the A District, and that this parcel as cut up would in the immediately surrounding community be the smallest lot, and therefore, that in and of itself would justify a denial of the application. There are other people from the community here who would speak if you have any questions, or I would be willing to answer any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do any of you want to speak regarding this? Bob, Terry, Gerry, do you have any questions? MR. DOUGLASS: Not right at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Would you people that are in opposition care to give your names to the secretary so that it's down on the record? LOIS McGOWAN. ANDREW McGOWAN, JR. ELLEN THOMPSON. BERNADETTE GARVEY. ANN STALLZER. MEMBER TUTHILL: Do you live across the street, Mrs. Garvey? MRS. GARVEY: Yes. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lark, do you have any rebuttal or Mr. Tiebel? GEORGE R. TIEBEL: To the members of the Board, I'd like to say that in a sense I was born into the property. And it's because I want to stay here, and certainly don't want to see the value of my own property be depreciated that I am seeking S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 1, 1980 what I think is the only feasible remedy. I wouldn't want to do a single thing which would de-value the place where I hope to spend the remainder of my life. Doesn't make sense. I suddenly seem to be rammed because I just jogged down some notes that came up. The lawyer who spoke for my~ neighbors who own a 50-foot piece of property, which I am very well acquainted because my grandfather built that house. Some of you may remember the Tandy name, and the house which I now occupy with my wife belonged to Frank Tandy and the property on the other side of the 50-foot lot belonged to Van Tandy. And because of some eminency between the brothers they sold my grandfather who was not a wealthy man the 50-foot strip of property to be a buffer zone between them. That's how come that is 50-foot wide in there. Now I was brought up in that house, and I'm familiar with the property. I'm familiar with the house prior to its renovation and enlargement. It's substantially larger than it was. I was a little bit puzzled by the fact that Mrs. Thompson was opposed to this. Is this Ellen Thompson? MRS. THOMPSON nodded yes. MR. TIEBEL: I am amazed, because I spoke about the Frank Tandy property and the Van Tandy property. The barn which they say is in the frontyard was Van Tandy's barn, no, the barn which they say is in my frontyard was Frank Tandy's barn. Van Tandy's barn was enlarged and converted into a residence which is occupied by Mrs. Thompson. I mean, these small pieces of property are all around me. The lawyer for our neighbors, the McGowans, said that this would create a property, he said, with 117 feet on Peconic Bay Boulevard. My neighbors have property with 50 feet on one side; that's the McGowans. My neighbors the Holfelders have property with 100 feet. Our property even under this gentlemen's recording, have you ever been to that area? MR. DePIETRO: Yes, sir. MR. TIEBEL: You've visited and you know how many houses are built on all these pieces of property? MR. DePIETRO: That's correct. Yes, my partner is John McNulty. He lives on the Boulevard in Laurel. MR. TIEBEL: But you have? MR. DePIETRO: Yes. I've visited it many times over the past six years we've been in partnership. MR. TIEBEL: That's a good thing to know, because if he knows that, then he also knows that as you look at the map you will see that as you go towards the eas~, as you go towards the Holfetder property, the shoreline slopes back and towards Peconic Bay Boulevard, and the properties keep becoming smaller. So my property is bigger than the S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -19- May 1, 1980 Holfelder's property, the Holfelder's is bigger than the one next to it, I can't remember their name at the moment-- PERSON FROM AUDIENCE: Grammerman. MR. TIEBEL: Grammerman. Thank you. And the Grammerman's property is larger than the one next to it. And as I said, I've been there every single year of my life since 1917, when I was born, except during the war. Now, one of the things that I felt very strongly is that my property is presently in danger because of its condition of the bulkhead. Now this gentlemen who represented the McGowans said that there is no question of financial hardship. I don't know how he knows about my finances. I wish he was right on this! t really do. I wish there was absolutely no question of financial hardship. Oh how happy I would be. I wouldn't be trembling here as I stand here. And Mrs. Thompson knows there is a question of financial hardship because, gentlemen, I have agreed to rent the house for the whole summer because we need the money. And it was rented through her! She called up and asked if she could list the house. I mean, there are things here that are so puzzling to me that I tremble as I think about them. Now the bodies in the letters which are more or less standard there before you almost kind of copy one from another, saying something about destroying ecological balance. Now, that's beyond my comments. I don't know what ecological balance is going to be destroyed by putting a house in back of my house which would correspond to the house which Mrs. Thompson lives in. I don't know how it's going to destroy the ecological balance. I don't know how it's going to be out of line of the beauty of the neighborhood. And the gentleman who repre- sented the McGowans said it's something about, you have to go a quarter of a mile to the west to find these narrow lots. I just have to go next door, I have a 50-foot lot next door. In fact that 50-foot lot next door which I am completely familiar is one which is one-third the size of our lot, less than a third, and I don't know, I don't like to use words like sour grapes, but both Dr. McGowan and Mr. Meaney have spoken to my wife about making my piece of property smaller by buying part of our property. They want us to divide our property. But they want to buy our property their way! They want to buy some of our property so it becomes a bigger piece of property. I'don't have that in writing. Well, I don't know what else to say, except that I want to stay in a place which has been in our family for three generations. For three generations our family has come out first from Brooklyn, and then I moved out to Great Neck, and I don't want to destroy Southold, Mattituck, Laurel. I want to keep them in a very good condition and if I were planning on doing anything which was going to adversely affect the character of the neighborhood I certainly would not want to do it there. And I certainly hope that you intend consideration what the real motives for opposing this variation might be, and try to think whether a person and a family who has been here for at least 80 years wants to Sbuthold Town Board of Appeals -20- May 1, 1980 destroy the community in which we have lived throughout the summers and in which we hope to reside in years to come. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tiebel. MR. DePIETRO: Mr. Chairman, may I make one final comment? I promise to be very brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. MR. DePIETRO: With all due respect to the applicants, we are talking about status of the land area. Nothing as subjective as a given owner at a given point of time. You're talking about considering a variance that is going to per- manently alter that by creating two parcels of land for two separate ownerships. And we are talking about standard of proof that it's not being imposed upon this man because he is disliked. It's being imposed because it's the law. And when an applicant comes and requests the relief he is seeking through your Board, he should know and if he doesn't know this the lawyer should know that there is standard proof involved, and unless that standard is met, the burden isn't met and there is no basis to grant the application. It has nothing to do with personal prejudices, likes or dislikes, and the question of economic hardship has nothing to do with personal bank accounts. I dare say if it did we'd all qualify 90% of the time. It's always nice to have a little more money. It's always nice to cut off a piece of property and sell it off and make a little bit more money. But that's not the kind of hardship and difficulty we're talking about. And I ask the Board not to be inhuman but to consider the facts and the law controlling this type of a case, and not just emotional pleas. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. LARK: Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to reflect, since it was brought up the substandards width of the lot. Under the current zoning ordinance, as the Board is aware of, it's requiring 150 feet, I submit that the property is at least 1000 to 1400 linear feet either side of the subject property, to the east of the subject property, no more, no greater than 100 feet, and so this would not be substandard. And the properties' to the west for about 800 feet are all less, are 100 feet or less with the exception of one, and there's one two properties over to the west of this one, and that has a split into two lots. And to the area, the lots in this area are a quarter of an acre of a mile on either side and even some as low as 4500 square feet. So I submit, and there is precedence that the Board in this area has granted variances to people both recently and going back over the years to split the properties. In generally the splits have been not in the east/west basis but in the south as being proposed on this basis where right-of-ways Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- May 1, 1980 were granted either to the water and to the Boulevard. So I submit there is some precedence to this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. MEMBER TUTHILL: Dick, would you elaborate a little bit for me on the hardship or practical difficulty in this case? MR. LARK: Well, under the, the attorney was referring no doubt to the Watchberger verses Callis Case where the Board set down standards which in an area variance, this is not a use variance where you have to prove hardship. And area variance where you have to prove practical difficulties, ~or a split or a subdivision of a piece of property into what would be substandard by the current zoning enactments at the time. As you know, ~n our zoning we have 40,000 square feet and 150 foot width, and that's the primary reason that the applicant is here, for relief under those provisions, and under practical difficulties the requirement, the variance from the 40,000 and from the width of the property, how substantial is that in relation to the requirement. And the applicant has shown that his lot was not all by itself in this type of request. That there were several other lots in the neighborhood, in the general neighborhood of Peconic Bay Boulevard, that the Board has granted similar relief since the zoning standards have been imposed. That was number one. Number two, some of the lots in the area are substandard because they were created prior to the zoning and were nonconforming, so the applicant there is trying to show what he is requesting is not so greater the variance or standard-deviation from the standard-not created by the ordinance. Another one contested~ I ~hink laid down by the Court, where would substantial justice be created if the Board granted the application. Now you heard Mr. Tiebel talk that the reasons that he wanted to create this lot split is so that he could stay on the property, and that goes to the Board's discretion. It would not create any undue burden in practical difficulties on the municipality, either by increase by density or by increase in fire or police facilities. The application which you read earlier, and you will recall in there that there would be one more house that would be the maximum that would be created in as a result of this split, and that has submitted that is not such an undue burden on the municipality, you know, an additional house in this area. Let's see, what have I got, about four of them. I can't remember the fifth one right off hand, but the Court laid down on the standards on proving practical difficulty. The hardship or practical difficulties are that the owner is faced with a dilemma as I said, and he wanted to subdivide it because the property in and of itself, the way it sits now, you've heard him testify, that it is much larger than the surrounding properties in the neighborhood and he feels that places him at a disadvantage where other people have been allowed either prior to zoning or since zoning with variances or subdivision approval to create smaller Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- May t, 1980 lots, smaller than the zoning. Some of the them the Board has granted as low as 13,700 square feet. Others are larger depend- ing on the size and the nature of the property. The Board has to look at each particular parcel in question to come up with what would be an equitable solution, and I think one of the things, the main thing you have to consider is the neighborhood, the entire neighborhood in that area and what the size of the parcels are and what you're faced with. We're not dealing with farm fields or we're not dealing with property as I submitted to you earlier on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard it is different in character than the properties on the north side of the Boulevard. By virtue of historical development of the area, and at that particular area right on down the line to Bay Avenue in Mattituck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would like to make a motion that we close the hearing and reserve decision. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed and the Decision be RESERVED until a later time in the matter of GEORGE R. and HARRIET J. TIEBEL, Appeal No. 2688. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Tuthill and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. The Chairman called a recess between 9:15 and 9:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2690. Application of STEPHEN EGGERS, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permis- sion to construct swimming pool in sideyard area. Location of property: 6625 Nassau Point Road, Nassau Point, Cutchogue; bounded north by East Club Road, west by Nassau Point Road, south by Brac, east by Peconic Bay; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-15-7; also known as Nassau Point Club Properties Lot No. 48. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:21 P.M. by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- May 1, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have copies showing the proposed swimming pool for the sideyard area. The map shows it to be about three feet from the side. It appears to be too close because the neighbor's house is only about 15 feet from the property line there, too, so that would bring the swimming pool about 17, 18 feet from the neighbor's windows. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting permission to construct swimming pool in sideyard area due to the reason the house is constructed too close to cliff on the bay and no other location is suitable. Upon inspection ~ of the premises, the Board has found that the premises contains 41,500 square feet, and that there is an acces- sory building (garage) located in the frontyard area off Nassau Point Road. The Board feels there is adequate area in which to construct the swimming pool other than in the sideyard area as requested. Therefore, the Board does not agree with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstancss 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 STEPHEN EGGERS, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, in Appeal No. 2690, be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE permission to construct swimming pool in the sideyard area as requested. Location of property: Point, Cutchogue, New York. 1000-111-15-7. 6625 Nassau Point Road, Nassau County Tax Map Item No. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Tuthill and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2691. Application of SAMUEL B. PRELLWITZ, Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tion 100-30 for permission to construct second dwelling on single lot. Location of property: South side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Indian Neck Road, west by Cukor and Fischer, south by Peconic Bay, east by Indian Neck Lane (Road) and Adams. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-7-7. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- May 1, 1980 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant requests permission to construct an additional dwelling at premises located at the south end of Indian Neck Road, Peconic, New York, containing approximately 4.47 acres. The Board has found that there exists a 9-foot traveled road located at the subject property extending from Indian Neck Road to the main "High House," for which the Board feels applicant should return for further consideration, pursuant to New York Town Law Sec- tion 280-A for approval of access. Also, the Board has found that there exists a studio building, which appears to be used for living quarters, for which the Board feels would not be permitted to be used while the proposed dwelling was in use. It has been indicated that applicant intends use of the proposed dwelling by his children or for renting. The Board finds there is sufficient area, approximately 3 or more acres available for use for the proposed dwelling, and to deny the relief requested herein would be unwarranted. 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 SAMUEL B. PRELLWITZ, in Appeal No. 2691 be GRANTED permission to construct second dwelling at premises located at the southerly~.end of Indian Neck Road, Peconic, New York, more particularly described below, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (a) No Other Duildings shall be permitted to be used as living quarters, except the main, so-called "High House," on the subject 4.47-acre site; (b) Building permit not to be issued until variance application for approval of access has been filed and approved. (c) Garage not to be used for living quarters. Location of property: Indian Neck Road, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Indian Neck Road, west by Cukor and Fischer, south by Peconic Bay, east by Indian Neck Road and Adams. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-7 7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2688. Application of GEORGE R. and HARRIET J. TIEBEL, 8 Arbor Street, Great Neck, New York (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, and for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-A. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -25- May 1, 1980 Location of property: 6540 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Peconic Bay Boulevard, west by McGowan, south by Great Peconic Bay, east by Holfelder. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-2-1. Upon investigation and personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds as follows: The premises in question is located at 6540 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, and contains a total area of 1.185 acres. The applicants request approval of insufficient area of 19,350 square feet and 32,250 square feet, approval of insufficient width, 137.77 and 20 feet respectively, and approval of access to the rear lot. The Board feels that to grant the relief requested herein would be unjustifiable, and that the hardship or practical difficulty stated by applicants would not warrant such approvals. 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. was On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it RESOLVED, that George R. and Harriet J. Tiebel, by Richard F. Lark, Esq. as attorney, Appeal No. 2688, be DENIED approval of insufficient area and width and approval of access as applied for. Location of property: 6540 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Peconic Bay Boulevard, west by McGowan, south by Great Peconic Bay, east by Holfelder. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-2-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, in light of the costs involved in the processing of appeals by this Department, it has been determined that the following fees would be more equitable for the filing of same: (a) To increase from $15.00 to $20.00 the filing fee for appeals to the zoning ordinance; (b) To set a $25.00 filing fee for appeals to the Flood Damage Prevention Law adopted March 15, 1980 by the Town of Southold; and ~ ~0uthold Town Board of Appeals -26- May 1, 1980 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman is authorized and directed to send a letter to the Southold Town Board recommending the above. Vote of the Board: Douglass and Goehringer. Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Meeting be called, tentatively for May 7, 1980 in order to determine any environmental signi- ficance the proposed projects recently filed may have, and to determine which of these appeals should be scheduled for a public hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting, to wit, May 22, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen, On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that May 22, 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 and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. Moved by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Appeals is most grateful to Mr. RObert W. Gillispie, Jr., who has provided this Board and the People of our Town of Southold with his fine, faithful services as Chairman of the Southold Town Board of Appeals for more than 22 years, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the members of this Board express their most sincere appreciation to Mr. Gillispie for his unselfish efforts and wish him much happiness, success and good health in the years to come, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mr. Gillispie be per- sonally delivered a copy of this resolution and that this resolution be entered into the permanent records of the Town. ~ ~ Sbuthold Town Board of Appeals -27- May 1, 1980 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Messr. Doyen was'absent, but has asked that it be noted in the records that he also expresses his sincere appreciation and best wishes to Mr. Gitlispie.t APPEAL No. 2674. Application of ROY C. SCHOENHARR. The Board discussed the recent correspondence of Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., representing Mr. Schoeenharr in the subject appeal, and it is the feeling of each of the Board members that this matter be held in abeyance pending receipt of the following: 1. Decision of the Southold Town Board regarding change of~ zone request of the Southold Town Building Inspector pertaining to the "Old Highway" portion of the subject premises; 2. Recommendations of the New York State Department of Transportation; 3. Determination as to whether there appears to be adequate parking for adjacent property also owned by the applicant herein, to wit, the "Coach Stoppe" and "Deli" premises. The Board members congratulated Member Tuthill on his reaPpointment April 19, 1980. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the meeting closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Doyen. The meeting was declared closed at 10:20 P.M. APPROVED Respectfully submitted, 'r.inda F. l<owalsk±, Secretary $outhold Town Board of Appeals_