Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/10/1980Southold Town BOard of APpeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Chairman SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHI LL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Gerard P. Goehringer SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 1]971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 10, 1980 A regular meeting of the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 10, 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; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Gerard P. Goehringer. Absent was: Robert J. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2680. Application of CLEMENT W. BOOTH, Maple Lane, Southold, New York (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.), for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of: [a~ insufficient area and width of parcel to be established in a subdivision, [b] insufficient sideyard of preexisting nonhabitable building. Location of property: 1750 Mount Beulah Avenue and Sound View Avenue, Southold; bounded north by Sound View Avenue, west by Mount Beulah Avenue, south by Koch and North Road, east by McGunnigle. Tax Map Item No. 1000-51-3-part of ~2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 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. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey showing the project, and a copy of the County Tax Map showing the surround- lng properties. Mr. Bruer, did youLhave something to add to this? Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 10, 1980 RUDOLPH J. BRUER, ESQ.: I believe you gentlemen are familiar with the premises. It's a lot ~up there on the north side of Mount Beulah with a number of buildings on it, which were built, you know, many years ago, which was at one time Mr. Booth's residence and there were existing buildings a~d barns as you can see. He would like to b~i_able to divide the property, sell the house as one lot and the barns on the other part as another lot._ A~'_it:exists today, you really couldn't as one lot get as you should get for the property, and it just lends itself to a division as we applied for and in accordance with the subdivision, which is before the Planning Board. Thank you. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Is there anyone against? (There was no response.) Do you gentlemen have any questions about it? MEMBER TUTHILL: Lot number 7 has a residence on it, MR. BRUER: Yes, sir. MEMBER TUTHILL: And that large building, which one are you saying is nonhabitable? MR. BRUER: The northerly part. MEMBER TUTHILL: Well this is a house. This is habitable. CHAIRMAN: But this is the one he is talking about (showing the large brick building to the north of the subject premlses). MR. BRUER: We want to divide this thing in two. MEMBER TUTHILL: Oh, we're not talking about the second house down there. MR. BRUER: We're trying to cut this piece in half there. MEMBER TUTHILL: So there is only one house concerned? MR. BRUER: There is one house there now, plus the barns on the northerly part; we want to separate the barns from the house area. In other words, this is the way the line is now. We want to divide it right along here (indicating the division line to be approximately 159.17 feet from the point from Sound View Avenue). MEMBER TUTHILL: So you'll have this big irregular lot. MR. BRUER: Right. And this, which the residence is on. MEMBER TUTHILL: Which one are you saying is convertible? MR. BRUER: This one. (The house directly south of the large brick building at the north end of the property.) · Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 10, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: Now, you've got to go down to there. MR. BRUER: That's right. CHAIRMAN: 47,2~8 square feet on that lot. MEMBER TUTHILL: And this is the building that has all the garages. MR. BRUER: Right. We want to separate that from~he residence. CHAIRMAN: Well, if a resolution is in order, .I'll offer a resolution to grant this as applied for, being that it won't change the neighborhood, the character of it or anything, and that there be no more than one dwelling put on, including the conversion. Just be one residence. MR. BRUER: The existing building or ths~new building. CHAIRMAN: On the new building, on the barn. MR. BRUER: On the new piece, !yes. So there will be on the whole piece two residences. MEMBER DOYEN: Two single-family. MEMBER TUTHILL: I'm not sure we shouldn't require that no further additions go into this sideyard which is already going to be insufficient. CHAIRMAN: If they do, they have to go south. MEMBER TUTHILL: That it not be decreased in the future because it's already insufficient. MR. BRUER: Parcel 6? MEMBER TUTHILL: Parcel 6, no addition to that house. MR. BRUER: On ~the sideyards? Maybe to the rear? MEMBER TUTHILL: We'll worry about that when the time comes, right now I'm saying in the sideyards. MEMBER DOYEN: Is that necessary to have that? After all, he's only allowed to do anything anybody else is. I mean he would have to come in here anyway. MEMBER TUTHILL: Ok. MEMBER DOYEN: If it's permissible, why treat him differently than anybody else. MR. BRUER: So I don't see why he couldn't do it if he meets the requirements, if any. I don't know if he will or not. Probably wouldn't. Sou~ho!d Town Board of Appeals -4- April 10, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, the only thing, in that accessory building, that certainly doesn't have any sideyard. CHAIRMAN: This is the only sideyard he's got there. There's three feet. And there's a little more sideyard here, than there is with this. MEMBER TUTHILL: That was purely curiousity. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second the motion. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area of proposed Lot No. 6, containing approximately 21,797 square feet, and insufficient width of proposed Lot No. 6, having 99 feet fronting Mount Beulah Avenue. The Board finds that the unusually large brick barn building on Lot No. 7i. does lend itself to conversion as a residence and to require applicant to continue its use as a barn would cause extreme difficulties for applicant. The Board also finds that there are similar size lots in the neigh- borhood, and 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 zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that CLEMENT W. BOOTH, in Appeal No. 2680, be GRANTED approval of the insufficient area and width of proposed Lot No. 6, as applied for. Location of Property: 1750 Mount Beulah Avenue, Southold; bounded north by Sound View_Avenue, west by Mount Beulah Avenue, south by Koch and North Road, east by McGunnigle. Tax Map Item No. 1000-51-3-part of ~2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2678. Application of RICH- MOND S. CORWIN, Box 927, Southoid, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels to be established in a subdivision. Location of property: 500 and 540 Maple Avenue, Southold; bounded north by Smith, west by Latson, south by Terp and Latson, east by Maple Avenue. Tax Map No. 1000-64-1-20 & 21. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- April 10, 1980 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:49 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. CHAIRMAN: The lots would have 31,370 and 31,485 square feet. Many of the lots across the street and in the immediate vicinity on this side of the street or close by are quite a bit smaller. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this? Mr. Corwin, do you have anything? MR. CORWIN: I think the statement covers my problem. It was bought primarily as an investment to be used when we needed it and this way I would like to say I own property when there might be a time when I might need that money real badly. MEMBER TUTHILL: A lot of lawn to mow. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Corwin. Does anyone else have any- thing to add? Is anyone opposed? (~here was no response.) I guess a resolution is in order, unless someone has some questions. MEMBER TUTHILL: Since with the division, the two parcels, one containing the residence and one being vacant would be in keeping with the average size of the lots in the area, I see nothing wrong with the division. I recognize the hardship, and offer a resolution that it be granted as applied for. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of the insufficient area, con- taining 31,485 square feet and 31,370 square feet, and approval of the insufficient road frontage, having 120.00 and 123.29 feet respectively fronting Maple Avenue (private street). The applicant states that these lots were separate originally until the death of the applicant's wife, and "merged ownership" of the lots was not intentional. The Board agrees with the reason- ing of the applicant, and did find many lots in the immediate vicinity to be similar in size to that proposed. 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 zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that RICHMOND S. CORWIN, Box 927, Southold, New York, Appeal No. 2678, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31, approving the insufficient area and width of Lots i and 2, Maple Avenue, Southold, New York, as applied for. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 10, 1980 Location of Property: 500 and 540 Maple Avenue, Southold; bounded north by Smith, west by Latson, south by Terp and Latson, east by Maple Avenue. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-64-1-20 & 21. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Tuthi!l, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the March 20, 1980 Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2681. Application of SIDNEY BEEBE, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York (account of Dennis R. and Ann L. Bannon), for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addi- tion with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of property: Corner of Hamilton Avenue, Mary's Road, County Road 27, Mattituck; bounded north by County Road 27, west by Swiatoccha, south by Hamilton Avenue, east by County Road 27 and Mary's Road. Tax Map Item No. 1000-140-2-1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 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. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey showing the proposed addition. Is there anyone here who would like to add anything to it? SIDNEY BEEBE:~ There is rea!ty'.~no other.~place[for it to go. Like you say, this.is all front yards. In the back yard is his driveway and parking, so I don't know where else it could go. If you went near the County Road, you would more or less be blocking the corner of Mary's Road. And this is a very lightly traveled road-Hamilton Avenue. CHAIRMAN: Looks almost like a private, dead-end road or something there. MR. BEEBE: It is, more or less. I believe it's only one way, right. You can only go into it from the County Road. You can't get on to the County Road from that. SDuthold Town Board of Appeals -7- April 10, 1980 CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that has something to say for it? DENNIS R. BANNON: The house points, the front of the house points towards Mary's Road, and this is what my wife and I consider the front of the house, and Hamiltbn~Avenue would be more aesthetically proper to put it on that side, because we have a porch on one side, the front of the house on this side, and the Hamilton Avenue side is sort of a blank side. You know, it would be the only good place to put it. CHAIRMAN: Another thing that we noticed the other day in favor of it, too. When you come out of Hamilton Avenue, the cut there where the road is cut down, the bank along side of it you have to get out past it anyway before you could see. And adding something on there wouldn't be any obstruction to the view. MR. BANNON: On that hill there is where we would be putting it on. You know, there are no obstructions at all. CHAIRMAN: Is anybody opposed to it? (There was no response.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bannon, is this going to be a one or two story? MR. BANNON: One story. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: It's a 20=foot addition, isn't it? MR. BANNON: Right. MR. BEEBE: 20 by 24. MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, since I live right in the area and know that property very well, I agree with the reasoning of the applicant, and I move that we grant him the relief which he had applied for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I second it. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 20' x 24' addition at the southeast side of the subject two-story dwelling. The Board has found that the subject lot is ~situated in such a way that it has mostly frontyard area, leaving a very limited practical area in which to construct the addition. 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 zoning ordinance. SQuthold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 10, 1980 On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr, Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2681, the applicant, SIDNEY BEEBE on account for DENNIS R. and ANN L. BANNON, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 permission'to construct a 20' x 24' addition with an insufficient frontyard setback, as applied for. Location of property: Corner of Hamilton Avenue, Mary's Road, County Road 27, Mattituck; bounded north by County Road 27, west by Swiatoccha, south by Hamilton Avenue, east by County Road 27 and Mary's Road. Tax Map Item No. 1000-140-2-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthilt, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held March 31, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, the Mattituck Firemen's Association, Inc. be GRANTED permission to install posters advertising their "Old Fashioned Firemen's Parade and Tournament" to be held in Mattituck on Saturday, August 16, 1980 within the Southold Town area with the condition that the posters be removed 3 not later~than~.the week of August 17th. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Thei~Chairmah announced a recess for five minutes. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2679. Application of RAYMOND and ANNA CIACIA, Main Road, Greenport, New York (by James Bitses, Esq.) for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: [a] Article III, Section 100-31 and Article VIII, Section 100-81 Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and side yards, [b] Article VIII, Sec- tion 100-118, for permission to establish dwelling use in a C-Zone. Location of property: Southerly side of Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport; Lots No. 159 and 160, "Peconic Bay Southold Town Board of Appeals =9- April 10, 1980 Estates," Map No. 1124. Tax Map Item No. 1000-53-2-23. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:16 P.M. by reading the application fora 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. CHAIRMAN: Is Mrl Bitses going to be here? MR. CIACIA: He should be here. CHAIRMAN: The only thing we question here, we thought at one time he was talking about selling the business, and it says here selling the house. MR. CIACIA: No, no. The business. CHAIRMAN: I think that's a mistake. That's why I stopped during the reading or.the application. The Board at this point in time reviewed the proposal of the applicants. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to say anything, Mr. Ciacia, or do you want to wait for Mr~ Bitses? MR. CIACIA: I'd rather wait for Mr. Bitses. CHAIRMAN: Ok, we'll recess this then until the attorney shows up. MEMBER DOYEN: Maybe put it until the end of the public hearings. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the matter of RAYMOND and ANNA CIACIA, in Appeal No. 2679, until the end of all the public hearings scheduled tonight. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2683. Application of RICHARD and DONNALEE RELYEA, Box 372, Laurel, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article II!, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel to be estab- lished in a subdivision. Location of property: East side of Deer Foot Path, Mattituck; bounded north by Beier, west by Deer Foot Path, south by Mattituck Creek, east by Zara. Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-6-23. S~outhold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 10, 1980 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 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. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey map here, that shows that the main lot that they are now building a house on contains 33,837 square feet and the lots they propose to cut off would contain 23,262 square feet. Is there someone here that wants to speak about this? RICHARD RELYEA: Yes, I'm Rich Relyea, the applicant. I have neighbors bordering the east side of the property which are Mr. and Mrs. Zara. They couldn't be here tonight, they are both business people, but they did give me a letter of support or approval for the subdivision. They border on the east side, which is the old Beier property. CHAIRMAN: What's their name, Zara? MR. RELYEA: Yeah. (Mr. Relyea handed the Chairman the letter.) CHAIRMAN: "Mahir and Greta Zara .... Let it be known that we have no objection for the proposed subdivision of the property adjacent to our property, registered in Tax Map District 1000, Section 113, Block 6, Lot 23. Yours truly, Greta Zara, Mahir Zara .... " This is dated March 5, 1980. May we make this part of the file. MR. RELYEA: Ail right. I also would like to mention that my property has a right-of-way on Fox Hollow Road into my own property, which is right here, and this fronts on Mr. Ramsau's property. This right-of-way would not be necessary in the deed for this half acre because there is ample access on this end of the property, which is one of the fears of my neighbors. Also, I'm quite flexible in this subdivision where I would accept any recommendations on house size or height of house in this area so that it wouldn't be obtrusive to the neighbor- hood, which is also a fear of one of my neighbors that there might be a very large house built there, which it would not be the case. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else to add? MR. RELYEA: I think all you gentlemen have all the informa- tion. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else in favor of it? ts there anyone to speak against it? DOUGLASS SHAW: Yes. My name is Douglass Shaw and I'm speaking for myself as a resident of that neighborhood as well as for Mr. Joseph Moisa, Mr. Ed Danowski, and Mr. Ken Ramsau, who are the other three adjoining property owners. SDuthold Town Board of Appeals -11- April 10, 1980 MR. SHAW (continued): I think we would like to dispute the Relyea's statement that the average lot size in that area is one-half acre. Along the water, and if I can share with you this map, which I am sure you can acquire a copy, including all properties in Bill Wurtenburg's subdivision known as "Hideaway Estates," which are these, and moving also to include the Zara property. We have an average lot size on the waterfront of 1.19 acres, and this has been figured from areas of each of these. Including all of the lots in the general area, we have the 12 surrounding lots which conclude the waterfront lots which would be directly com- parable to the Relyea's property, as well as the three lots in Hideaway which would service the surrounding properties as well as the two behind it. We have an average lot size of .97 acres, or almost one acre. We'd also like to point out that when the Miller Estate was divided, and all of these lots, this, this, and the Relyea property were all at one time part of the Miller Estate and was divided by perhaps Beier, probably 10 or more years ago, it was divided when half-acre zoning was in effect and the lots on the water were made larger than one acre to conform with the existing pattern along the watter. We'd also like to point out that if you follow it on, around, you'll notice that this lot isn't one acre, this one is slightly less than an acre, and it goes on. That one is two acres, this is 1.3, 1.4, 1.3, 2.1, 1.8, 1.4, and that's 2.1 acres, and that takes us all the way around to Bayview Avenue. We feel that it would materially alter the character of our neighborhood. And I think it is quite significant that all three of these other adjoining property owners are here in opposition to this. We don't feel that the argument concerning lot size is valid. And I think that basically sums our case out. So, thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? MR. SHAW: Would any of you like to say your particular piece on the matter (referring to neighbors in the audience). We've met and discussed this and we are quite concerned about the possible, really the crowding in the neighborhood. There is no single lot that would be as small as the lot that the Relyea's are proposing. And we don't feel it's in the best interests of the neighborhood, and we feel also that it should be pointed out that the Relyea's bought the property with full knowledge that one-acre zoning did apply at the time. And we simply do not agree that there is a sufficient hardship involved giving the lot to your children, or selling it to your children to justify this. We further are aware that there are no guarantees that that lot cannot then, once the subdivision is made, be sold to whomever is interested in buying. Thank you very much. MEMBER TUTHILL: You own adjoining property. MR. SHAW: I am the son of Dorothy and Donald Shaw. We're not on an adjoining property. I'm in the neighborhood and, I'm, SDuthotd Town Board of Appeals -12- April 10, 1980 well Ken Ramsaurhas known me since the old days of babyhood, and this is our property, which is 1.7 acres which adjoins the 1.3 which is in the Hideaway Development. We however were part originally of Emmett Young's Development, of which Youngs Point Captain comes from. So that's who I am. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thanks a lot. MEMBER TUTHILL: I'd like to ask a question. Ken, what's the size of your lot? I can't read the figures on that tax map. KEN RAMSAU~~ It's one acre. MEMBER TUTHILL: It is an acre? Do you know the frontage and the depth? It doesn't look like an acre on the tax map. MR. SHAW: Itis 135 on the front and 312 feet deep. CHAIRMAN: 135 by 312. MEMBER TUTHILL: You've got over 40,000 square feet. CHAI~f~N: A little better than 42,000 I come up with. Is there anyone else that has any questions? MR. RELYEA: Mr. Grigonis? Most of the information that was stated was true, but if you have a copy of the map in the area behind my own property, the property to ~the north way over here. The property to the back of my property, the piece I would like to subdivide, is .666 acres, which is nowhere near even three-quarters of an acre. The property just beyond that is .5 acres; there's a house being built on it now. The piece of property that my one neighbor owns which is across the street from it is .5 acre. None of these properties are larger than the one I want to subdivide. Plus I feel the proportions of the property I want to subdivide are superior to many in the neighborhood, that it's not pie-shaped or anything. It has 137 foot frontage, it's 150 feet deep; it's an ideal building lot. And my own property as it stands now is 450 feet deep from the water, which is 150 feet or better deeper than almost all the other pieces on the waterfront. So that's what I was trying to bring it out in that it is odd-shaped. It's 150 feet deeper than most of the properties on the water, and it doesn't disturb the character of the waterfront pieces. They're all long and narrow. It just might happen to be a little bit narrower than the others, otherwise it will also be an acre or over. That's all I wanted to add to that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? (There was no response.) We will close the hearing at this time, and we will make a decision a little bit later on, behind we are running behind. Thank you all for the information and you will be notified very shortly. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 10, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed in the matter of RICHARD and DONNALEE RELYEA, Appeal No. 2683, and to RESERVE DECISION until a later time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Messr. Goehringer abstained. Absent: Mr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING. Appeal No. 2682. Application of ROBERT L. BOGER, 1225 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for per- mission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. Location of property: North side of Willow Point Road, Arshamomaque, Southold, New York, more particularly known as "Map of Willow Point" #4652, Lot ~25. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-56-5-27. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 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 S15.00. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey showing the location of the proposed dwelling. Is there anything you wanted to add in relation to the front and rear yard variances, Mr. Boger? ROBERT L. BOGER: Not really. But thers~arequite a few houses in there right now that have less back yard, some are 28, 30 feet. And around the corner naturally, some in fact up to 35 over there. PHILIP OFRIAS: I think another fact was that, this lot as originally laid out was not bu!kheaded, and has lost between 10 and 15 feet of erosion that has fallen into the canal from the lot. While it was originally the second narrowest lot in that subdivision, it is now about 10 to 15 feet narrower than when it was originally laid out. I believe that's shown on the survey that you gentlemen have. It shows the original lot line that is underwater now. CHAIRMAN: That narrowed down toward the westerly end. MR. BOGER: The reason for the location being shoved over that way too was to get in the highland on the property and away from the neighbors as far as possible. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have anything to add to it? Does anyone wish to speak against it? MR. WHITNEY: I'm Mr. Whitney from Bay Home Road down there. would like to know more about this house. I'm not familiar Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- April 10, 1980 with it, and I would like to know more about it, because, I mean after all I was the first man in there. MR. BOGER: I know, I built your house. MR. WHITNEY: Yeah. MR. BOGER: What would, you~like to know. MR. do you Design, type? WHITNEY: I would like to know the design on it. Why have to go back 35 feet? MR. BOGER: Why do I have to go back 35 feet? MR. WHITNEY: There's a 35-foot setback in there. MR. BOGER: I know. They want me to go back, they are requiring me the average of the houses next to me, 48 or so. If I did that, I'd be in the water. You know, I'm trying to keep the 35-foot setback that I thought was used in half-acre zoning. MR. OFRIAS: Maybe the question should be directed through the Board-- / CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's right. The secretary can't hear you talking back and forth and then we all get confused. MR. WHITNEY: the east side. measures today. Well, that lot originally was 139 feet on 127 on the other side. I don't know what it I haven't any idea. MR. BOGER: We have that, but you know, it's in the water. There is quite a bit in the water, t think it winds up around 1-something, close to 115 or 117 now. MR. WHITNEY: Do you plan to bulkhead that area? MR. BOGER: Yeah, eventually. I was fighting with D.EoC. so long I didn't have the--they said to me not to go ahead with the bulkhead permits right now because the other thing was complicated enough, and it turned out I didn't need them. I could have gotton the bulkhead permit because I never needed the other variance, you know. So I will apply for that anyway soon. MR. WHITNEY: i'm just curious~to find out what the design of the house was. MR. BOGER: It'll be a Cape Cod. Two-car garage. MR. WHITNEY: Is it going to have a cellar? MR. BOGER: Yeah, we're getting into that after this. MR. WHITNEY: I have the only cellar down there. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -15- April 10, 1980 MR. BOGER: No (remainder of statement was not picked up). MR. WHITNEY: Oh, yeah, over on the other side more. CHAIRMAN: We can't get into the record what you're saying. MR. WHITNEY: I have no objection. I was just trying to get further information. MEMBER TUTHILL: I think what the Board is saying the questions should be addressed to the Board or a request for information, and the answers should come to the Board and not back and forth in the audience. CHAIRMAN: To get it in the record. MEMBER TUTHILL: Besides. It can get into a debate. MR. BOGER: I can drop off a set o.f plans for Mr. Whitney to look over if he is concerned with house design. MR. WHITNEY: I would appreciate him showing the location and all. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have any questions? No questions? (There was no response.) I'll offer a resolution granting the front and rear yards. 35 and 35. As applied for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rearyard setbacks of 35 feet off Willow Point Road, Southold, New York. The Board found that the lot has a depth of buildable area approximately 112 feet, leaving an insufficient amount of area in which to build, to wit, 12 feet if he were required to comply with the 50 foot front and rear yard setbacks of the present zon!ng ordi- nance. 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 zoning ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that ROBERT L. BOGER, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, in Appeal No. 2682 permitting the construction of the proposed dwell- ing with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks of 35 feet as applied for. Southold ToWn Board of Appeals -16- April 10, 1980 Location of Property: North side of Willow Point Road, Arshamomaque, Southold; more particularly known as "Map of Willow Point" ~4652, Lot ~25. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-56-5-27. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, TuthilL Doyen and~Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1. Application of ROBERT L. BOGER, 1225 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southo!d, Sections 46-15 and 46-19B(!) for permission to construct base- ment below the restricted base flood elevation in a V-4 Zone. Location of property: North side of Willow Point Road, Arsha- momaque, Southold, New York; more particularly known as "Map of Willow Point" ~4652, Lot ~25. County Tax Map No. 1000-56- 5-27. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:03 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. CHAIRMAN: We also have a couple of letters in .here. One from the Department of Health Services: Re: Robert L. Boger, Property N/S Willow Point Road, Arshamomaque .... ...We are in receipt of a Notice of Complete Applica- tion, dated March 19, 1980, for the above referenced proposed dwelling. This office does not wish lead agency status. A precursory review of the above referenced indi- cates that public water should be available to service the new home; however, special consideration will be given to the sewerage disposal system due to poor soils in the area. Very truly yours, /s/ Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Public Health Engineer General Engineering Services .... PHILIP J. OFRIAS, ESQ.: Gentlemen, because this was a first time application, prior to submitting that application to the Board I took it up and I went over'with Bob Tasker to insure that in his estimation it was legally sufficient~in the form of its drafting; and he thought it was. Insofar as the appli- cation goes and the basis for the application and why we think Sputhold Town Board of Appeals -17- April t0, 1980 it should be granted. In addition as what is set forth in the petition. I would cite three sections of this Flood Plain Law. One is 46-15, which states that the Board of Appeals on appli- cation for a variance shall consider all relevant factors includ- ing 11 itemized considerations, which it sets forth. I think that reviewing this application and what Mr. and Mrs. Boger wish to do those, it passes those 11 items with flying colors. They hardly appear to even be relevant. The next section I'd refer you to would be, and I don't mean to be fractious in referring, would be 46-5. It defines a variance because there were ques- tions that Mr. Tasker and I went over in our own minds as to what a variance could encompass, and I think the answer is in the definition of a variance as set forth right in the ordinance a grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter which permit construction in a manner which would otherwise be pro- hibited by this chapter, therefore, the Board by granting a variance can grant to the applicant permission to erect whatever he could otherwise erect absent this flood plain ordinance. The last section I would call your attention to would be 46-16, which basically says that for lots under a half acre in size or up to a half acre in size, where that lot is in the area of other lots that have already been improved by dwellings which are below the base flood level, that the variance can be granted in this application although that the Board should refer to the 11 items which I referred to above. So I would think that while, of course, there is discretion with the Board, I would think that the appli- cants have come well within the parameters set forth in this ordinance for a variance. And I think that what exists on that canal~iand which has existed for a number of years would certainly be sufficient indication that this particular location is not subject to the type of damage for flood control to which this ordinance is directed. If the Board has any questions, I would be glad to try and answer them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe in a couple of minutes, after we get the objections, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Well, is there anyone else who wants to speak for this? Is there anyone here that would like to speak against it, or wants to speak against it rather? (There was no response.) MEMBER TUTHILL: You're referring to a full basement? MR. BOGER: Yes. MEMBER TUT~ILL~ I mean a walk-in cell.arK i~erst~nd~there is a'technical difference between a cellar and a basement. MR. BOGER: Eight foot ceiling height. MEMBER TUTHILL: How far would the floor of this basement be below the eight-foot? MR. BOGER: I think I gave them an accurate survey the location. I think it might be 3'8" below. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- April 10, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: it's here. MEMBER TUTHILL: I presume you are going to do all kinds of waterproofing and so forth for your own benefit. MR. BOGER: Oh, ! have to. MEMBER TUTHILL: Because the other houses in the area are built on slabs we noticed. MR. BOGER: Slabs, a few crawls, and a couple of basements. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm looking for it in there, and it's all written in here. It says 4'4" MR. OFRIAS: Above sea level. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask him a question? Is there any possibility of raising that at all, Mr. Boger? MR. BOGER: Right now I'm putting the top of my foundation four feet above the grade that's there now, and that is already eight feet above mean sea level, where, you know, the surveyors show. MRS. BOGER: If you go any higher, you're not going to be conforming to the neighborhood either. MEMBER TUTHILL: In other words, half your basement will be below and half will be above this eight-foot mark. MR. BOGER: We're still going to grade to a normal foundation level. I didn't want to look at all that concrete and I don't think anybody else would. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any possibility for a seven- foot foundation instead of an eight foot? MR. BOGER: There is. I don't know if it really makes a greater difference. I don't know. I'm going to put in a d~ct system, so you do l°se, and that's the thing I'm trying to avoid, if I can, I'd like to be able to walk underneath all this stuff. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By ducts, you mean heat pumps? MR. BOGER: No, I mean hot-air system. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hot-air system. I'm not positive which one it's going to be yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I don't know, if it's four feet or three feet it's going to make that much difference? He has got to waterproof it any way, down below there. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- April 10, 1980 MR. BOGER: Nothing goes through that, Charlie. That's all clay over there. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why you've got water sitting on the top of it now in some places after it rains. MRo BOGER: And with this new system that the Health Department has designed, I'll make a leeching field around my foundation itself and that will go into it because it has to be a tremendous sand troth I will have to build for them, 100 feet long by, I don't know, so many feet wide, and this surrounds the five pool section so when I get through there it'll be all sand. MEF~ER TUTHILL: You are a builder aren't you? MR. BOGER: Yes. MEMBER TUTHILL: Then you know what your problems are. MR. BOGER: I happen to have the biggest one of all. MEMBER TUTHILL: You're not planning on a sump pump, I presume? MR. BOGER: No. No. I'm not worried one bit about water over there. MR. CHAIRMAN: A lot of these houses are on slabs, but I think there is a cellar over there now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Whitney has a cellar. MR. OFRIAS: Two with full basements. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know whether it's waterproofed or not, but, I don't know. Heck, I've seen cellars after a good heavy storm get water in them. It wasn't flooded, it was just from rainwater, I don't know. MR. BOGER: That's all I would be worried about is rain water. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, you'll get that a lot. SHIRLEY BACKRACH: May I ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. BACHRACH: Does it make any difference with the~National Flood Plain Insurance qualifications? MR. CHAIR~N: Well, that's what he is required. He is~just asking for a little variance on it. That's why he is in here. If it wasn!t for the Flood Plain Insurance he would have been building a house there. And probably living in, it by now. But this thing came along about the time he was getting ready to get started. That's why he is asking for the variance, to get the four feet below the level, which we are in the process debating about granting it as it's requested. That's four feet Southold Town Board of Appeals -20, April 10, 198- below the eight-foot level. MRS. BACHRACH: Yes, I realize that. That's what I'm asking, whether this would interfere with, in case there were flooding, whether he would be disqualified from getting flood insurance? MR. OFRIAS: I think the answer is, that he is not disqualified, but if he builds a house having obtained a variance from the Flood Plain Ordinance, his premium is adjusted accordingly. He is not disqualified, but he has to pay a higher rate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because they have to be notified of everything that happens kere, from this Board. I guess it probably would end up in Washington somewhere. It's all brand new to us actually. Do any of you gentlemen have any other questions? Do any of you people got anything to add that we might have forgotten, or you forgot? MR. OFRIAS: Nothing unless there are questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't think of anything. MR. BOGER: Is everybody aware of the actual location of this land? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Definitely. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We've been down there. MR. BOGER: I think you have a big map if I'm not mistaken. MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been down there a couple of times, and Gerry's been down. I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and we will make a decision a little later on. We wan~ to make sure we're going to get all this stuff in order before we do so. We'll probably have an answer for you tomorrow if you wan~ to call the secretary. Thank you very much for coming in. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and to RESERVE DECISION regarding the matter of ROBERT L. BOGER in Appeal No. 1, (Flood Damage Prevention Law). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass'. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2679 Application of RAYMOND and ANNA CIACIA, Main Road, Greenport, New York (by James Bitses, Esq.) for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: Ia] Article III, Section 100-31 and Article VIII, Section 100-81 Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -21- April 10, 1980 and side yards, [bi Article VIII, Section 100-118, for permission to establish dwelling use in a C-Zone. Location of property: Southerly side of Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport; Lots No. 159 and 160, "Peconic Bay Estates," Map No. 1124. Tax Map Item No. 1000- 53-2-23. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at approximately 9:20 P.M. MR. CHAIRMAN: I've read all the legal notices earlier, and we ran into an item here; I think it's a mistake, probably. In the strict application of the ordinance, where it would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship because "applicant has been occupying the dwelling in~.C-Zone as a nonconforming use. It is his intention to move his house onto Lots 159 and 160, which are undersized. The best location on said lots on which to erect a dwelling will leave an inadequate front and side yard clearance. The applicant faces unnecessary hardship in that the dwelling was included in the business zone long after it had been at its present location, and the noncon- forming use engendered by unilateral action by the Town Board in 1957 and thereafter. At the present time applicant wishes to sell his house." M~._CHA~RMAN:~ You indicated to sell his business. MR. BITSES: Should be the lots~from which he is moving his house which have a commercial building thereon. I missed that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we amend that now with your permission? MR. BITSES: Yes. I would request that the Board amend that to include the proper sense. The house is being moved off the property that will be sold, and that Lots 157 and 158 are the lots referred to as the ones to be sold, and Lots 159 and 160 are the lots to which the house will be moved, which will not be sold, of course. He, will continue to live ink,he_dwelling hQuse. MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be in the record. So do you have anything to add? MR. BITSES: Mr. Ciacia went to the trouble of literally building a wooden plywood replica of the lot to~ scale. And he also built a replica of the house to scale very accurately. And we moved that around, you can get a better sense in 3-D than you can trying to figure something out on paper, and we moved tbs house around and we tried to find the optimum loca- tion. The house is presently 24 feet from the road. It will be 40 feet from the road. Also, being moved back 40 feet from the road it still gives us 20 foot clearance on either side of the house. And from visual examination of a 3-D model,we found this to be the optimum location. However, if you insist on moving it back 50 feet, this will narrower down the sideyard; it can be done. We're not saying that it can't $outhold Town Board of Appeals -22- April 10, 1980 be done and that we will not do it if you so direct us. But it can be done. It will narrow down the sideyards unneces- sarily. So, we would suggest, we would respectfully request that the 40-foot distance be- very carefully examined and considered before we pick this particular distance. We try to balance all the factors. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? (There was no response.) The house across the road on Ker- win Boulevard is only about 5 feet off the road. I doubt it's even that much, the way the property line is. Then going down that street I don't think there are any of them 40 feet back, there might be some 30, 35. When you get further down, there's one that's pretty close to it actually. MR. BITSES: It will definitely be an improvement. MR. CHAIRMAN: And'this will more or less keep it in line with Rempe's Fish Market, a little bit further back even than that. Do you have any questions, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions and no objection to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: No further discussion? Then I'll offer a resolution granting this as applied for. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct dwelling on a parcel of land in a C-Zone with an insufficient frontyard setback off Kerwin Boulevard of 40 feet and an insufficient frontyard setback off Lawrence Lane of 20 feet and insufficient total sideyards of 20 feet. The Board finds that most of the buildings in the neighborhood have been constructed with similar locations, and some with much less frontyard setbacks than that requested herein. The Board feels that to deny the applicant the permission requested herein would cause unnec- essary hardship and 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 charac%er of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that RAYMOND and ANNA CIACIA, Appeal No. 2679, be GRANTED Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: [a] Article III, Section 100-31 and Article VIII, Section 100-81, Bulk Schedule, permitting the construction of dwelling with insufficient front and sideyards as applied for, [b] Article VIII, Section 100- 118, permitting building to be used as residence in a C-Zone as applied for. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- April 10, 1980 Location of Property: Southerly side of Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport; Lots No. 159 and 160, "Peconic Bay Estates," Map No. 1124. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-53-2-23. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Member Tuthill left the room briefly between 9:31 and 9:36. Member Goehringer left the room briefly and returned at 9:40. 9:31: Informal Discussion regarding property of Samuel B. Prellwitz, south side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Bill Smith asked to meet informally with the Board regarding Mr. Prellwitz' property, for which this date he has filed a variance for permission to construct second dwelling on single lot con- taining 4.47 acres. Mr. Smith explained that the Planning Board would not consider a separate lot for the second dwelling proposed inasmuch as it would be a five-lot (major) subdivision, rather than a minor subdivision which has already been applied for. The Chairman said there didn't seem to be any problems with:the layout. Mr. Goehringer said that he assumed the kitchen in the house on the Bay would not be in use when the kitchen in the house and the cottage would be in use, and Mr. Smith said both m&y be used during~the summer only. ' Tke - Board said the variance will be scheduled for a public hearing ~ the next regular meeting of this Board. 9:40: Informal Discussion regarding the Orient Point inn site at Route 25, Orient. Richard J. Cron, Esq. showed the Board members the plans of converting the existing dilapidated 54-unit hotel into a 45-unit motel on the 2.148 acres. Article XI, Section 100-117 required 4,000 square feet of land for each unit where public water and public sewer sys- tems are provided, and in order to permit 45-units, 180,000 square feet of land must be available. Mr. Cron said more land would be available; however, it would not be in the same zoning district (A-Residential & Agricultural rather than M-l). The Board suggested that they ion of the Town Board as to whether or not a change of zone application would be the proper procedure. Southcld Town Board of Appeals -24a- April 10, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2683.Application of RICHARD and DONNALEE RELYEA, Box 372, Laurel, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel to be estab- lished in a subdivision. Location of property: East side of Deer Foot Path, Mattituck; bounded north by Beier, west by Deer Foot Path, south by Mattituck Creek, east by Zara. Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-6-23. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants are requesting approval of the insufficient area of two proposed parcels, 23,262 and 33,837 square feet, and approval of the insufficient width of 112.34 and approxi- mately 20 feet respectively. The Board has found that most of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel are larger than that proposed by applicant, and to grant the relief requested herein would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are not unique, and that strict application of the ordinance 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 would not observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that RICHARD and DONNALEE RELYEA, Box 372, Laurel, New York be DENIED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance as requested in Appeal No. 2683. Location of property: East side of Deer Foot Path, Mattituck; bounded north by Beier, west by Deer Foot Path, south by Mattituck Creek, east~by Zara. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-6-23. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen. Messr. Goehringer abstained from vote. Messr. Douglass was absent. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 1 (Variance to Flood Prevention Law). Application of ROBERT L. BOGER, 1225 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold, Sections 46-15 and 46-19B(1) for permission to construct basement below the restricted base flood elevation in a V-4 Zone. Location of property: North Side of Willow Point Road, Arshamomaque, Southold, New York; more parti- cularly known as "Map of Willow Point" ~4652, Lot 925. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-56-5-27. Upon investigation and personal ~__spec~lon of %he premises~ %he Board _f~i~ds as follo~s~ ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -24(bl- April 10, 1980 The lot in question has an area of 20,500 square feet. The plot plan submitted to the Board indicates that the area of the lot where the dwelling is to be constructed has an elevation of 8.0 feet above mean sea level. The applicant proposes to con- struct a basement with a finished floor 4.4 feet above mean sea level. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the property is located in a Zone V with an elevation of 8 feet. However, the Town Engineer has been conferring with representa- tives of the Federal Insurance Administration and has indicated to the Town that the designation of the area in question will in all probability be changed from a V Zone to an A Zone. The Board also finds that there are several homes contiguous to and in the neighborhood of the lot in question. The dwellings constructed on these lots are on property of a similar size and the dwellings constructed thereon are below the base flood level. The Board therefore finds that the lot in question meets the standards set forth in Section 46-16A of the Code since it contains an area of less than one-half acre and is contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. In passing upon this application, the Board has considered all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards specified in the Code; and all of the applicable factors con- tained in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11), inclusive, of the Code. The Board further finds and determines that: (1) There is a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) A failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; (3) The grant of the variance will not result in increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, or create nui- sances, or cause fraud, or victimize the public, or conflict with existing local laws or rules or regulations. IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that ROBERT L. BOGER, the applicant herein, be and he hereby is granted a variance from the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold to construct a one-family private dwelling on premises located on the north side of Willow Point Road, Southold, New York, said premises being designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 56, Block 5, Lot 27, with the finished basement floor to be elevated 4'4" above mean sea level, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, to wit: (1) That the basement be flood proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls sub- stantially impermeable to the passage of water; $outhold Town Board of Appeals -25- April 10, 1980 (2) That the floodproofing requirements be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as meeting the standards set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; (3) That such certification be filed with the Building Inspector of the Town; (4) That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant apply for and obtain a development permit from the Town Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given notice that the structure for which this variance is granted will be permitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation~ an~ that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurats~with the increased risk result- ing from the reduced lowest fl~'~r elevation. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board transmit copies of this determination to the applicant, the applicant's attorney, and to the Town Building Inspector. Location of Property: Lot #25, "Map of Willow Point," Arshamomaque, Southold, New York. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-56-5-27. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. APPEAL NO. 2685. Application of Emanuel and Venita Lorras, for permission to construct addition with an insufficient rear- yard setback at premises known as 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion, New York. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Secretary request of the Building Depart- ment information regarding the Flood Damage Prevention Law and the affects this proposed project may have inasmuch as this appears to be in a V-5 Flood Zone, a high flood hazard area. Also, it should be brought to the attention of the Building Inspector that this project may be considered "sub- stantial_improvements," reconstruction or improvement of a ~ $outhold Town Board of Appeals -26- April 10, 1980 structure, the cost Of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the existing structure, and that his determination regarding same be requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that May t, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. be set as the next regular meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. The meeting was declared closed at 11:10 o,clOck P.M. APPROVED Respectfully submitted, aiski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals