Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/20/1980Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLESGRIGONIS, JR. ~ Chairman SERGE DOYEN. JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUG LASS Gerard P. Goehringer SnUTHFILD, L. !., N. Y. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 20, 1980 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 20, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at the Soutkold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonls, Jr., Chairman; Terry R. Tuthill; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Gerard P. Goehringer. Absent was: Robert J. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 26~8. Application of GERARD H. SCHULTHEIS, 3 Detmer Road, Setauket, New York 11733, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Loca- tion of property: Holden Avenue and Dick's Point Road, Cutchogue; bounded north by Hurff, northwest by Case, south by Dick's Point Road and Holden Avenue, northeast by Blohme. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-110-2-9. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:33 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. C~AI~N.:~ i~-:!s there anyone here who wishes to add anything to this application? Is there anyone against it? Is there anyone who ~ishes to be heard? (There was no response.) Well, we went down ~nd inspected it and it is very true what Mr. Schultheis said in his application. If he went back 50 feet, he would be dropping down maybe 20 feet from where the house would be. It drops right down. And we checked some of the other houses around, especially along Holden Avenue, and most of them are set back about 35 feet Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- March 20, 1980 which has been there for quite some time, some of them. So, if there is no one else who has any further question, is there any discussion, Terry, Serge? MR. TUTHILL: I agree he has a hardship and I move tha~ it be approved. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback to 35 feet due to the natural hilly topography of the land. The Board finds that the properties in the neighborhood are similar to the proposed and most of the dwellings are also set back about 35 feet, and that such relief would not alter the character of the locality nor decrease residential values in the area. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that GERARD H. SCHULTHEIS, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, in Appeal No. 2670, pursuant to Article III, Section 100~31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insuffi- cient frontyard Setback to 35 feet as applied for. Location of property: Holden Avenue and Dick's Point Road, Cutchogue; bounded north by Hurff, northwest by Case, south by Dick's Point Road and Holden Avenue, northeast by Blohme. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-110-2-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the February 28, 1980 meeting of this Board subject to minor corrections. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to approve the sign renewal request of Sam Simeon By-The-Sound, Inc. (formerly Eastern Suffolk Nursing Home), which renewal is extended for a period of one year from the expiration date, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT and FUNDING LAWS Southold To~n Board of Appeals -3- March 20, 1980 FOR HIGHWAYS~ IF APPLICABLE. Appeal No. 1224. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, TUthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2671. Application of HELEN and ANITA McNULTY, by John C. Diller~ Box 39, Laurel, 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 proposed subdivision. Location of property: Peconic Bay Boule- yard and Laurel Lane, Laurel; bounded north by Peconic Bay; west by Thoet, Ehlers, Teter; south by Peconic Bay Boulevard; east by Charles g. McNulty Estate. 1000-145-2- part of $001. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:46 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to ~ts pu~l±cation 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. John C. Diller, agent appearing for the applicants, mentioned to the Board that the legal notice description of abutting neighbors ~s ~ncor~e~t i~asmuck as the south and north were reversed. Mr. Di~ller agreed to accept the County Tax Map Number in the legal advertisement as legal and correct. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add, Mr, Diller? JOHN C. DILLER: I didn't understand the application that I wrote that you just read, so let me just try to explain. And I think there is a misunderstanding because when it was listed in the paper it was referred to as a subdivision, and I don't really think it is. Here's the situation. There are two adjoining lots, each approximately 440 feet long and 50 feet wide. Each were created mn 1943, about 14 years before zoning, and it remained in single and separate ownership from that date forward until today. So I am advised by the Town Attorney that if we wanted to go in to the Building Inspector and make application for a building permit, to put a house on each of those lots, it would be granted. Obviously as long as we met the sideyard requirements, which are reduced in t~at case. The reason thus far that we decided not to do that ~s frankly I don't think it makes much sense. It would mean that you would build houses on two very narrow lots and very long lots, and what we're suggesting is that the common boundary should be moved in such a way that after being moved you still only have two lots. You haven't created any additional lots. They are approximately the same size as they are now, but instead of being 440 feet long and 50 feet wide, they would be approximately 200 feet long and approximately 100 feet wide, and you could put a house mn effect mn the middle of each of those and avoid the necessity which we S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 20, 1980 find if we had to build on it as now designed, ~n effect building 11'3" from the property lineo Now, the two adjoining property owners to the east to whom I sent this notice-- CHAIRMAN: Ehlers and Thoert? MR. DILLER: Yeah, I have a note, and frankly I wouldn't put this in as part of the record without asking them. As an indica- tion, Mr. and Mrs. Ehlers write from Florida saying, "We think this is a good idea and I am sure this will work out well as well for the neighborhood in general." And Mrs. Thoert from Garden City writes, "We feel you have reached a good solution in making your 50-foot lots more practical. I wish you well with your new home." Basically, I think it's not a subdivision because division to me means you're creating more lots that are presently there. These~are two separate lots that are the subject of the application, and if you grant the variance, it would still be two separate lots. Two houses could be built before, and two houses could be built after, so I think it makes a lot more sense to build on the lots with that shape than if we're forced to go ahead and build as they presently are. CHAIRMAN: Actually, what it looks like when you look at the map, instead of spl~tting the lots lengthwise you're cutting them in two, one on the road and ore on the bay, and leaving the right-of-way on one side, on the east side of the one on the road, and access for the lo~ on-the road, the right-of-way on the west side of the bay lot. MR. DILLER: Exactly. In fact we're giving up the right to build a house on the bay in order to be able to build a house that's not as close to other houses. MR. TUTHILL: How many of those existing structures are on any part of these two lots? MR. DILLER: There is one existing structure on this lot the way it would be moved. MR. TUTHILL: Furthest east? MR. DILLER: Actually, it's right smack on the dividing line presently. MR. TUTHILL: Right in the middle? MR. DILLER: It has been there, the bungalow has been there since 1930. MR. TUTHILL: That's right in the middle of the two lots? MR. DILLER: Yeah. In other words, that present dividing line runs north and south, and in effect straddles that. That w6uld be moved off. S~uthol~To~n Board~ of Appeals -5- March 20, 1980 MR. TUTHILL: Then there are three houses to the west of that one? And they're not affecting this property, none of them? They are all McNulty's properties, too, I think~ MR. DILLER: MR. TUTHILL: MR. DILLER: Right. Ail the way to Laurel Lane. That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who has any questions? MR. GOEHRINGER: Mr. Diller, what do you mean by moved off? Moved off the present structure that's on the bay, now? MR. DtLLER: I imagine what we would do~ probably, is to move tP~t present bungalow perhaps back and~ make that a structure on the back lot. My intention ks to build in effect a year~round iwinter- ized house~ MR. GOEHRINGER: On the bay. MR. DILLER: On the bay. Yeah. But I'm not certain, that bungalow might be, where it would cost more to move it and build a foundation or anything else that it's worth to start with. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for this? Is there anyone here to speak against it? Do you fellows have any other questions? MR. TUTHILL: Of that existing one, John, that is going to be either moved to the Boulevard~ lot, if we do this, or removed completely from that area. MR. DILLER: MR. TUTHILL: MR. DILLER: R±ght~ By destruction or otherwise. Correct. And if it were moved to one of these lots, it obviously Would be moved in such a way to meet the zoning requirements, sideyards. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any more qu. eShions, Terry? MR. TUTHILL: Not right now. CHAIRMAN: You're probably aware, John, that the Board of Health will want maps of this before they will approve it, and theY'll probably going to water test it, or some type of well test, or something, too. You're familiar with some of that stuff. You're going through it up here on the North Road. MR. DILLER: Yes, I became aware of it this afternoon. There S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 20, 1980 was a question raised, I think, also by D.E~!C., which I learned about this afternoon; Linda told me. I called them and they somehow didn't go up and see the bulkhead there. CHAIRMAN: Yes~ I talked with one of the gentlemen yesterday, right down in the off±ce here from D.E.C. and'they were going to get ±nvolved, take lead agency and all that. But now the way, when they found out about the bulkhead across the front there, it takes them out. It's awful hard to understand who does what, where, in some of these cases. MR. GOEHRINGER: How much height do we have about the water there. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's pretty good. I don't know if it gives the elevations in here. MR. GOEHRINGER: That's all right. CHAIRMAN: Do you have it, ~John? MR. DILLER: It's on that survey. It goes 10 feet, 15 feet. There is a cliff beyond the bulkhead. MR, GOEHRINGER: Right. CHAIRMAN: I think it is out of the critcal.zone. MR. DILLER: They agreed this afternoon that this bulkhead there, they say they will not assert jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN: And I don't think this is what is classified as the "V-Zone" either under the new flood plain insurance programs coming up. MR, GOEHRINGER: You mean you :haven't seen the new maps? CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution granting this as applied for, subject to County Health approval, County Planning, D.E.C. if it applies, but I don't think it will now. MR, TUTHILL: Well, subject to those, I'll second the motion. MR. DILLER: I have a question before you vote on that. The County Planning I am not aware of. That's another hole? CHAIRMAN: I meant Town Planning, I'm sorry. The Town Planning Board has to approve any subdivision. The Board of Appeals cannot- MR. DILLER: This isn't really a subdivision. CHAIRMAN: Well, I mean you're setting off two lots. We're not allowed to do it without approval from the Planning Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- March 20, 1980 MR. DILLER: There are two lots there now. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's the thing that we have to put in there. We can't do it ourselves. You're changing the lines in them. You're changing the lines of the lots. Like you said a minute ago, before you had two lots that ran straight through. Now you're going to, for all purposes, cut them in half crosswmse. So it's a technicality, more or less, but no real problem. The Board of Health will be involved in it. And the D.E.C., it should go to D.E.C. because it's within 300 feet of any body of water. It's within 300 feet of the Bay. MR. DILLER: But their jurisdiction has been waived. ~They don't assert jurisdiction beyond the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: I saidt if it applies it goes to them. MR. DILLER: The only thing I'm asking, if for some reason we're able to convince the Planning Board it's not a subdivision, then that would be within your resolution? CHAIRMAN: I said, John, on the D.E.C. and the Planning Board, if it has to, that's the only thing. It's to cover all bases what we're doing. MR. TUTHILL: Ail we can do zs approve the insufficient width and area~ CHAIRMAN: Which the Planning Board can't do. For instance, if you were to subdivide and you had four legal-size lots. and one undersized, they couldn't approve the subdivision until we grant a variance on the undersized lot. The only thing they can approve ms a perfect subdivision. Everything has to have the proper square footage and the frontage. You know, that's the only thing they can approve. It's got to be perfect. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants are requesting approval of a re-subdivismon of two lots, which apparently were divided by probate of will of Edna B. Mc- Nulty, before zoning within the Town of Southold, to the applicants herein. The applicants have submitted for the record Variance Search showing the chain of title of the subject premises certified by the Title Guarantee Company March 18, 1980. The reason for this request for a change of the yard lines ms the lots presently have only approximately 50-foot road frontage, and to build a house to meet the sideyard restrictions of the zoning ordinance would be impractical and cause the dwellings to be considerably close unnecessarily. 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 applicatmon of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board S~utkold Town Board of Appeals -8- March 20, 1980 believes that the granting of a variance zn this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that HELEN and ANITA McNULTY, by John C. Diller, Box 39, Laurel, New York 11948, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, in Appeal No. 2671, for approval of the insufficient area and width of two parcels as applied for herein, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: (1) Approval of the subdivision by the Southold Town Planning Board; (2) Approval of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, if applicable; (3) Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health. Location of property: South side of Peconmc Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Peconic Bay Boulevard, west by Laurel Lane, south by Peconic Bay, east by Ehlers and Thoet. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonls, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2673. Application of SOPHIE RAYNOR, 17 Sound Road, Greenport, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient width and area of parcels to be established in a proposed minor subdivision, and for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-A. Location of property: 69035 Norhh Road, Greenport; bounded north and west by Tasker, south by North Road, east by Straussner, Sfaelos Realty, and Brandi. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-1-7. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:08 P.M. by reading the application for variances, 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. CHAI~4AN: We have a survey that shows a dog leg shaped property with 64.78 frontage on the North Road and it goes back about 109~ on one side on the east side and on the west side it's 97 feet, and then it widens out to 91.1 feet on the back and about the same across the middle part of it. There's a house on the front lot near the road, so the actual footage of the lot S~uthold Town Board~'~of Appeals -9- March 20, 1~80 that is proposed to be divided, amounts to a little more than 9300 square feet. It would wind up with about 100 feet on one side, 100 feet on both sides, 95.54 on the south end and 91.1 on the north end. On the County Tax Map it shows one lot very much similar size adjacent to it, on no, there are two lots that have been merged so that makes a pretty good-sized lot out of that, but then there is another one just off where the access would be, it's about 100 by 100, almost the same size. And across the road, there are several lots 50 x 145, 70 x 144. There are a lot of small lots across the street from where this one is, there's a whole string of them. They want to see off,ia lot with 6200 square feet. In fact~ when this is done, one lot would have 62000, excuse me, 6200 rather, and the other one will have 9300 square feet. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? MR. CHARLES V. RAYNOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN: I understand there's being a change made in the access to the back lot? MR. RAYNOR: Yes. Right now it doesn't have any access to the lot. CHAIRMAN: Right. But it was shown on the sketch that it was going to be on the west side. Now it's going to be moved to the east side? MR. RAYNOR. Yes, it would be more convenient on the east side. It doesn't matter to me whether it's on the west side or the west side. There's more room on the east side. If you put it on the west side, it's too close to the house. CHAIRMAN: I see where it would be now, right next to the house, Right. MR. HAYNOR: On the east side there would be a lot more room. It would be a one-family dwelling. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else, ms there anything more you would l~ke to add to it? MR. RAYNOR: Whatever requirements the Building Inspector wants, I'll ab±de by it. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak for this? Is there anyone against it? Yes, sir, your name, please? JOE BRANDt: The lot in question right now as it stands is barely big enough for one lot as it is. And the way they want to cut it up, by the time they put sewage and stuff in there, they're going to be raising the devil with Everything around that area. In other words, they would be degrading the whole area there rather than upgrading it. So~uthold Town Board of Appeals -10- March 20, 1980 MR. RAYNOR: Excuse me, Mr. Brandi, would you clarify that more, by degrading the area and the sewage? Would you clarify that? MR. BRANDI: It's not in keeping with the area around there. MR, P~YNOR: Ail the lots around there are similar in size. MR, BRANDI: Well those on the other side had quite a bit of trouble with each other on their boundary lines. As you go along there, you See sPike fences and stuff Put up. MR. RAYNOR: I don~t put up sPike fences, CHAIRMAN: Let's go through the chair with it gentlemen, because we get involved, otherwise-- (Mr. Brandi and Mr. Raynor were both talking at the same time & comments were not clear.) MR. RAYNOR: Ok. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? (There was no response.) If not, I'll make a motion to reserve decision on this until we have more time to examine the other properties and what not. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in the matter of SOPHIE RAYNOR, Appeal No. 2673. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and GoeP~inger. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Member Terry R. Tuthill asked Mr. Charles V. Raynor whether the lot in question was the one with the little green cottage on it, and Mr. Raynor so confirmed. Mr. Raynor said he was not presently living on that piece of property, that it is. b~eing rented, and is planning to build on the back lot if this variance were granted. Mr. Raynor said that his residence is on Sound Road in Greenport. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2674. Application of ROY C. SCHOENHAAR, c/o Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Box 38, Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: (t) approval of insufficient width and area of parcels to be established in a proposed subdivision, Article III, Section 100-31, (2) permission to reinstate preexisting noncomplying sideyard setback, (3) approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-A. Location of property: South side of Route 25, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Route 25; west by Matt Agency, Jarzombeck, Roth; south by Mellender; east by Pumillo, Hallock, Steinhart, Jackson, Bilianos. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-143-2~33.2. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -11- March 20, 1980 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:22 P.M. by reading the application for variances, 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 adjoining property owners were notified; fee paid $15.00. CHAIRMAN: We have copies of the survey, and copy of the County Tax Map showing this and surrounding properties. GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ.: Gary Olsen, attorney in Mattituck representing the appl±cant. This seems like it might be a rather confusing application. There are a lot of things that we're asking for, but it really is not all tkat difficult. We're dealing with 2.587 acres, and half of it is zoned B-1. The other half i~zoned A-Residential. What we're looking for is to crea~e two parcels in the B-1 District and two parcels in the A. In the B~i District we have a total area of 53,500 square feet, and in the A-District we have a total of 59,000 square feet. Not to grant an area variance for the residential section would be a hardship and would create a practical difficulty in that it would create an oversized parcel for ~he community, so what we're seeking to do is to create two pieces in the residentially zoned area. One piece w~uld have a square footage of 23,500 square feet; that would be Parcel No. 3. And Parcel No. 4 would almost meet the area requirements, it would have an area of 35,500 square feet. Now, the only thing we can do with those properties is use them for residential purposes; and since it is an interior piece, and the only way we can get a build- ing permit on both of those interior parcels is by getting an access variance. The application also includes a request for the Board to grant an access variance under Section 280-A of the Town Law, and the proposed access is shown on the annexed survey. It's basically a 20~foot right-of-way over Parcel No. 2, and then Parcel 3 is fed by an additional right-of-way over Parcel 4o Not to grant %he access variance would mean that the interior residential- ly zoned property could not be utilized, so I think as a matter of law the Board must grant the access variance to get to the residentially zane~property. Also, the two residentially zoned pieces to be created would be generally in keeping with the size and shape of other parcels in the community. I think if you look at the tax map, you will see that the other parcels in the neighborhood, both on Bay Avenue and Mariene are generally in keeping with the size and shape of the pieces to be created, and if anything, they're smaller than the pieces to be crsated. Parcel No. 4 as I have stated will be 35,500 square feet; it's about 4500 square feet short of the 40,000 that the Town requires at this point without the variance. Now, as far as the two pieces to be created, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to be created in the B-1 Zoned District, there is a structure on Parcel 1. There is a house there at this point. The way the lines are drawn, Parcel 1 would have an area of 26,500 square feet, and Parcel 2 would have an area of 27,000 square feet. We do need a sideyard variance for the house, as you can see we're asking that the sideyard be reduced to 5 feet. I don't think it's that s~gnificant since the S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 20, 1980 applicant is the owner of both pieces, and if anyone 'shoutd_p~rchase Parcel 2, they would understand that a sideyard variance was created for the house. We do have a purchaser for Parcel 2, and of course the sale would be contingent upon the Board granting our application. It would be a financial hardship if the Board did not. Now, the intended uses for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, would be basically the permitted uses under B, B-Zone, which is Light Business. The property is zoned B-l, and under the zoning bulk schedule, B-1 needs 30,000 square feet, so we're looking for an area vhriance for both Parcels 1 and 2, and you'll see that Parcel 1 is fairly close to 30,000 square feet. It will be 26,500, so it's pretty darn close. We're not asking for that much of a variance. And Parcel 2 is only 3,000 square feet short of what is requir~ed in B-l, and it has 27,000 square feet. Now, in the B-1 District we are permitted through the Zoning Code to, one of the permitted uses is to do what you can do in B. Now, the area of requirements for B, is only 20,000 square feet in area° So, as I stated, the applicant would only intend on using Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 for those per- mitted uses that are permitted under the Light Business or under the B, with basically retail. We're not looking to put a gas station in or any of the other things that would require a B-1. So, we are creating two pieces that would exceed the requirements for the intended use. And we also need a width variance for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, and I think if you look again at the Tax Map and the other businesses up and down Main Street and the Main Road in Mattituck, you'll see that these two pieces wo~dv~onform in size and shape and probably would exceed area and probably even width -the other parcels up and down the Main Road in Matti~ ~tuck that are also in the same zoning area that are in single amd separate ownership. So, the two pieces to be created, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, would be generally in keeping with the size and shape of the other parcels on the Main Road in Mattituck, and again if you wanted to make the decision contingent upon using the two Parcels 1 and 2 to restrict them for the use permitted in the Light Business, I'm sure there would be no problem in that. As I say, these pieces would both exceed the area that would be required. If you have any questions, I would be happy to try to answer Chem. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have one, Mr. ©lsen. What ever became of that strip that was supposed to be Old Town Road, has it ever been deeded to Schoenhaar or anyone that you would know? MR. OLSEN: I would think that the survey as we have sub- mitted it shows what they own at this point. SECRETARY: I checked with the Town Clerk and she says it has been conveyed, but it has never been zoned. CHAIRMAN: I understand through the Town Clerk, Linda says ~t has been conveyed but it has never been re-zoned. So that is something we will have to check out. So'uthold Town Board of Appeals -13- March 20, 1980 MR. OLSEN: Just as a matter of history also, I think the Board should know that I have submitted an application to the Planning Board and have discussed this matter with the Planning Board at its meeting of F~bruary 11, 1980. Of course, with the new procedure they want me to come here first, and then I assume you'll d±scuss ±t with the Planning Board if you should grant the application. I understand it would be contingent upon also getting the Planning Board approval. MEMBER TUTHILL: Is that house shown on Parcel 1, the old Pumillo house? MR. OLSEN: I guess so. MR. CRON: Yeah, I think that's correct. MEMBER TUTHILL: Which is in a state of disrepair? MR.OLSEN: I don't know. I haven't been through there. MEMBER TUTHILL: What are they supposed to do with that house, do you have any idea? MR. OLSEN: 1 don't know. One obvious possibility would be to, Df ~t's going to be used for Light Business purposes, retail purposes, that ±f ~t were ever sold, it would be renovated and-- MEMBER TUTHILL: Or moved back. MR. OLSEN: I don't know. I'm asking that it be permitted to stay where it is, and ask the Board to grant the sideyard varmance. It's been there for a long time. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, it's about five feet off the proposed division line. MR. OLSEN: I understand that. But again the applicant would be the owner of the adjoining at this point, and the purchaser of that piece would understand that you granted a variance, a sideyard variance, and I don't think it will materially change the character of the neighborhood. MEMBER TUTHILL: The applicant is also the owner of the Coach Stoppe, or the operator of it, Gary? MR. OLSEN: I don't know. There is a right-of-way in between so I don'~t know if the owner is the same. MEMBER TUTHILL: The applicant I said. MR. OLSEN: I don't know. MEMBER TUTHILL: Schoenhaar. MR. OLSEN: I don't know. Sdutkold Town Board of Appeals -14- March 20, 1980 CHAIRMAN: Is Mr. Schoenhaar here? MR. OLSEN: No, he's not. As a matter of fact, under the Light Busmness, I see that there are no sideyard requirements. CHAIRMAN: I suppose so. Is there anyone else who wants to add anything to this? MR, ©LSEN: So, I don't know if we need a sideyard variance qu±te frankly because there are none. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak against this? PAUL ROTH: I'm Paul Rotht one of the people affected by this. I represent a group of taxpayers who oppose the granting of these varzances for a number of reasons. We drew up a petition to be presented to the Board. (Mr. Roth brought the petition to be made part of the record.) Most of these people are directly affected. Some are indirectly, but they all live on Marlene or Bay Streets. Some of the reasons we feel a variance shouldn't be granted is, for one thing, there are more commercial businesses rmght on the Main Road. That area right there already has a serious traffic problem with the A & P Shopping Center, the Bowling Alley, the Coach Stoppe. A lot of the elderly people that live on Marlene Lane have great difficulty crossing that street, and if the com- mercial venture were put in on Lots 1 and 2, even though it's not shown on the survey map that you have, it's directly opposite one of the entrances to the Shopping Center. We think it will complicate matters more seriously than they are now by way of traffic. Also, I think by creating the two residential lots mn the back it may give rise to some trespassing incidences. Children are involved in those homes that possibly would be built back there. Instead of walking to those rear lots, approxi- mately 400 or 500 feet all the way out to the Main Road and down to Marlene, to go all the way back down to Marlene to get to the beach, they would probably just cut across one of the lots of Hallock, on the survey maps. It would be much shorter for them. I think it would be a temptation for them to do that, rather than walk all the way up to the Main Road. In any event, if the variance were granted, even if they put a fence around the whole thing to force those children to go through that right-of- way, then I think you would be exposing the children to the hazards of the Main Road. There is quite a bit of traffic there. There are no sidewalks along that part of the Main Road there. Also, as far as the fact that the acreage of these lots is about the same as the lots around it, well, I think at some point a line has to be drawn, and not crossed. I believe the zoning is roughly an acre for residential lots now, and I just feel if it keeps going on like this of the zoning law itself they' ua~e~ ~ just going to become ludicrous and just won't mean anything, if the lot that's under an acre is approved. I don't think that even though the lots around it are half acre or so, that you really, I do think it's something for you to consider. Thank you. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 20, 1980 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. ROTH: From what I understand right now, there is a water problem in the area. I think that a grant of a variance for any- thing like this to approve approximately a half acre would create more problems. I spoke to the people in this area, and they said that they have had a lot of problems with their well water. If you grant the variance then they would build up, more houses, with more than one parcel involved that may create more water problems. Another point is, I don't know what kind of business is going up, but if it's a wet business it would require special sewage. I don't know if it has been proposed, I don't know what they're proposing now, but the sewage now maybe inadequate. They need special sewage in the area, whlch isn'tup to standards. And also, the five-foot sideyard there, I believe that might be a hazard to future businesses being developed. MR. ROTH: Especially if, as Mr. Olsen says, Lot 2 is sold to some new prospective owner. MRS. ROTH: He doesn't have to comply with some type of verbal agreement. He can do whatever he wants on that pazticular piece of property. MR. ROTH: I was thinking with-the small distance beside the existing house and the property line between 1 and 2 and the right-of-way on the east side he really does have a very small area in there in which he can build. He can't build through the right-of~way and you certainly wouldn't want to get too close to tbs house. It would be a very~ very narrow strip of land. One other additional item, I was walking down Marlene Lane the other day, and it%s ~ust~south of the Litchhult property, is ik on the survey map? I noticed they, it looked like a creek to me but maybe it was Dust drainage from the road, I'm not sure. In any event the southern, Dust.south of the Litchhult property is Town of Southold property if you'll look on the tax map. And possibly it is a creek flowing through there, and according to the standards for sewage and waste water and disposal systems from the Suffolk County Department of Health, you are not permitted to have a septic tank or a leeching pool within 100 feet of any surfaces receiving waters, so if that creek, if it is a creek, meanders up north and comes near those rear residential lots he is going to have trouble placing those cesspools. If it's in the Town, they should check with it as a creek there, or road drainage, or what, I'm not really sure. CHAIRMAN: Well, that would have to be approved by the Board of Health, before they could do anything. MR. ROTH: Ok. MR. GLOWACKI: My name is Glowacki. I'm President of the Marlene Lane Civic Association. Just as a matter of information, you mentioned at the beginning of the dialogue there that the Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- March 20, 1980 Building Inspector has disapproved this variance? Just what validity does that have? CHAIRMAN: Well~ the Building Inspector can only grant permits on legal-sized parcels in any zone. MR. GLOWACKI: As long as it doesn't meet the standards he has to disapprove it immediately? CHAIRMAN: Right. The only way anything winds up here is through a Disapproval by the Building Inspector~. MR. GLOWACKI: Right. Ok. YVETTE MELANDER: I just want to say that what Mr. Roth said we back him up and we go along with it, and in speaking with the neighbors, all the neighbors on Bay Avenue, we live on Bay Avenue, are very much against this, very upset about it and we can't see any reason why this should be granted against why the Town Ordinances are. I mean if the Town Ordinance has been setup and the neighbors are upset, the taxpayers are upset with this sort of thing, certainly you have to go along with the majority of the taxpayers. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. ROTH: I'm also saying that the right-of-way may not be suff±c~ent. The access might be impeded at the Main Road especially by fireflghting equipment. It~may not be sufficient for trucks and those vehicles to get through. It may also create future access problems that may arise as a result of business in the area. MRS. MELANDER: Just a question. I don't know if if it's in place at this meeting. What type of businesses are they planning? Can we ask that if they know? CHAIRMAN: If he knows, maybe he can tell us. MR. OLSEN: I'm not sure at this point. It!s going to be retail in nature. MRS. MELANDER: If I ask you directly, we heard they are going to build a fish store~ can you answer me on that? MR. OLSEN: No. You have to understand that the property is zoned B-1 and there are a lot of permitted uses that probably you would rather have what's going to go in, I would think, than what is permitted. Fishing stations are permitted as a matter of law. Public garages, gasoline service~stations. MRS.~ELANDER: Except on that smaller lot? CHAI~N: B~i allows a multitude of uses. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -17- March 20, 1980 MR. OLSEN: There are a lot of things that are permitted in B-1. The permitted uses, the intended use would be better. MRS. MELANDER: But not on that smaller lot? CHAIRMAN: Well, B-1 doesn't require as big a lot as a building lot. Is there anyone else? MR. ROTH: I had just one more thing, too. It seems to me too a little bit silly to put up possibly a new building on lot 2 when there are plenty of ~- you have two empty shopping centers in Mattituck, and it's true that maybe the person doesn't want to pay rent but it is still something for the Board to consider, this stripped developmenu that's occurring along Main Road in Mattituck. It's not occurring along any other Town or Village on the North Fork, and it gets very tiresome for the residents to ~ee 'M&ttituck singled out for, just this really want for developing doesn't seem really fair. CHAIRMAN: I know. It just seems to be something that draws like a magnet towards Mattituck lately. MRS. ~iELANDER: I just wanted to know, zs there some sort of survey that has to be taken in the area for this type of business. In other words, a supporting clientele before they can open this. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. I don't go too much by those because look at all those shopping centers we had. They were built according to surveys by potential clients and they've all gone down the drain so far, so. That's something that we don't have any control of. I mean, we have too much control according to many people. But this is one thing that we can't you know, say just what kind of business a man is going to have in there, because there is quite a list of the different types of business that can be done in this type of area. MRS. MELANDER: As I said, if it was a fish station, they may need certain types of sewage requirements for that area. And being that the lot is undersized to begin with, it may insufficient to support that-- leeching pools and septic tanks. CHAIRMAN: Well, that would be a matter for the Board of Health. We're not the expertst they are on that. And if they don't give a permit they can't go in there. That's all there is to it. We may say it's all right, and they come along and say no, you can't, and that's it. Is there anyone else? Do any of you boys have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to ask Mr. Olsen, is the property owner aware of the fact of the overflow problem from the parking of Coach Stoppe on, I guess, it's Lot No. 2? MR. OLSEN: t don't know if the owner is one of the same. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -18- March 20, 1980 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I didn't say that. I just said the present owner of this property, is he aware of the overflow problem? MR. OLSEN: Well, that would be something that he would have to contend with~ obviously. There are ways of preventing that with fencing, if it got to that point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further comments, I would like MEMBER TUTHILL: I frankly in answer to the petition, I'm more concerned to the specific objections and the nature of them rather than I am the nut, her of names on the petition, and the validity of those objecting to this, the conformity of the reasons I should say. I would also, like to for that reason like time to study the minutes on this to see what reasons have been advanced for denying it, and further I would like to ascer- tain, if the applicant is the same Schoenhaar that is shown as owning the Coach Stoppe, then I would like to see a survey of the property showing the Coach Stoppe with its parking area, and also these lots as proposed here. Maybe I'm asking too much, but I don't think so. CHAIRMAN: I think you have every reason to. I think you have reason enough to ask for it. I~EMBER TUTHILL: Frankly, in addition to the number of reasons that you people have proposed, if the applicant is the same as who owns the Coach Stoppe and now has that as a Deli, I'm as much~oncerned with his parking problem as I am with any of the reasons that have been advanced here tonight. And that's why I want to see the whole set up there, where one relates to the other. MR. GLOWACKI: The water p~oblems up at the Main Road up there are causing the, well I shouldn't say sewage problem, but causing the water problems up there. We have people up at the front of our street on Marlene Lane that, whose water is brown. Right now, there are people, there's a young lady, Jean Jarzombeck, S~he was telling me she has brown water up there right now. So you better stop cutting up property smaller and smaller. You're not going to help this situation whatsoever. Now part of this is because of the Bowling Alley. If you go by there, it seems to me that every month they are having their pools pumped out and of course, right across the street you've got the big shopping center. And then down the block a little way you've got the Coach Stoppe. And then right on the corner there you have a Beauty Parlor, there is all kinds of water going on in it. I think they are just getting overloaded. And we've got to give these people some kind of a break. MEMBER TUTHILL: Mr. Chairman, would you read what the hardship is again? S~uthold Town Board of Appeals &lg- March 20, 1980 CHAIRMAN: It says, ...Strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship because applicant seeks to divide subject premises into four par- cels. Parcels 1 and 2 are located in B-1 zoned district and sa~d parcels would be used for retail stores. There is an existing building on Parcel 1 which requires a side- yard variance. Parcels 3 and 4 are located in Amzoned d~str~ct and would be used for res±dential purposes and access thereto would be over a 20-foot right-of-way as skown on tbs annexed survey, which is made part of this Application... And then it says, ...The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because the Applicant's premises is located partly in a B~t Zoned District and partly in an A~Zoned District. CHAIRMAN: If there is no one else who has any questions, I think, I would like to offer a resolution recessing this until April 10th. MEMBER TUTHILL: It should be recessed with no date until we receive the papers. We can re-publish it. CHAIRMAN: I mean, recessed no date. MR. OLSEN: Why don't I find out from you tomorrow just wha you want and we can discuss it. CHAIRMAN: We're running a little bit behind, so we'll go over it later on, and I'll make up a list and you can give me a call or I'll get in touch with you, to see what else we will need. MR. GLOWACKI: Do you folks have the County test the water up there? CHAIRMAN: The Board of Health will take care of that. MR. GLOWACKI: Can you have the Board of Health test the water up there before you can make your decision? CHAIP~AN: It's up to the applicant. MR. GLOWACKI: I should have brought a bottle of brown water here and put it on your desk~ CHAIRMAN: Maybe it's better than the white water, I don't know. Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -20- March 20, 1980 MRS~ MELANDER:Before you go on, I know that you are running behind, put I_do want to add, we are Melander, and the two lots would be touching on our property. We just bought that property on November 19th we took title. I certainly would be very unhappy, and certainly would not have bought the property had I known that they were going to split that up into two lots, and there might be people who are not going to go through to the Main Road, crossing on my property to go through to the beach. Because this is a beach community and anybody leaving there may not go to that 20-foot road that's going to go through, and it is in the ordinance that it be at least an acre now, and so it would be enough to build on one lot, but not to make two lots over there. I think we will also have to be considered on that level. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RECESS the matter of ROY C. SCHOENHAAR, Appeal No. 2674, with no date, and when it has been scheduled to~ reconvene, that it be re-advertised in the local and official newspapers. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Member Tuthill left the room at 9:02 and returned at 9:05 in time for the next public hearing. P~BLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2676. Application of ELEANOR RUCH, by Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels known as filed Subdivision Map of Shorecrest Lots No. 1, 4, 15, 17, 18 and 19 at Arshamomaque, Southold, New York° County Tax Map Item No. 1000-52-3-20, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:03 P.M. by reading the application for a Variance, legal notice of hearing and affi'davits attesting to its publication in the local and offi- cial 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: Do they have public water in this area? HR, CRQN: Yes, town water. CHAIRMAN~ I was curious, whether there was a hydrant or a well. MR. CRON: It's served by Town water, Village water. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -21- March 20, 1980 CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to that Mr. Cron? MR. CRON: Do you ask me if I wish to speak? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CRON: Yes. if I May. As you know, the relief that we are requesting on behalf of the applicant is basically the relief that exists on the filed map as it was filed in the County Clerk's Office in 1971. For some reason, unexplainable to me and by others to me, this map was not one of the maps that was excepted from the ordinance when it went into effect to 4-0,000 square feet in November of 1971. For some reason, they stopped at this map and did every- thing that was prior to it. And what we are dealing here with is not a proposed subdivision, but a subdivision that is very much in existence and has been in existence since 1971. Together with all of the improvements that were required by the Town in terms of a road, the curbing, and of rather recent date a complete sump and drainage area as t ~ndicated of great cost to the applicant to solve some of the drainage problems that existex in the subdivision. The sump and dra±nage area was placed between Lots 2 and 3 and as a result of putting the drainage area this~ this Board, and not necessarily the members of this Board, granted a substandard area variance to Lots 2 and 3, so as I pointed out in the application, Lots 1 and 4 while they do not meet the present ordinance require- ments leave ~n~ room for expansion and consolidation with any other adjoining or contiguous lots. So the application really for a variance is one of technicality, simply because it adjoins other land of the applicant, to wit, as far as 1-Lot 2, and as far as 4- Lot 3. With respect to that triangular piece of tand-~±thin the road areas there, you've got Lots 17, 18 and 19. Lot 17 already has a house on it for with a C/O was issued, and wSich will shortly close as far as title~ which basically leaves Lots 18 and 19 as really being the only lots, if you were to enforce the ordinance at this time as really being the only lots if you were to enforce the ordinance at this time for which you could compel more than 40, or 40,000 or more square feet. And you can see that would create a tremendously oversized lot and an awful odd shaped lot. As far as Lot 15 as I indicated that's sandwiched between lots of other parties. I think, you know, to grant the variances that we request insofar as width and area, certainly are just and fair to the applicant. Frankly I thought the Board, the Town Board when I said the Board, might of considered really adopting a resolution at this time and making this one of the excepted maps. However~ for some reason they have chosen not to do so, so we must proceed through this Board. So I would ask this Board to consider the relief that we ask. In light of the fact that it is not going to change anything, this ~s a filed map, everything is here that you see and there is nothing to be done except grant the variances that we request. Actually, I think all of the lots pretty much have 150 width requirement. So what we're really requesting is respectively the area, so I would ask that you favorabl~ look upon the application. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -22- March 20, 1980 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? MRS. SERVIN: May I just ask a question. My name is Mrs. Servin and I received a notice of the hearing. I'm not too familiar with the proceeding, so if my question has already been answered. This application is just to revert back to the measurements on the 1971 map that was filed, right? Not to reduce it further? CHAIRMAN: No. MRS. ~ERVIN: Just to go to whatever they had. CHAIRMAN: The only reason they are in here for is that this wasn't made part of the ordinance by being accepted as a part of the ordinance. There are certain developments, quite a number of developments that were made part of the ordinance but this for some reason at the time~ wasn't, maybe he wasn't altogether ready when they were doing it or something. CRON: I think it was just overlooked. MRS, SERVIN: The denial would mean because it did not ~eet one acre, is that basically what this zs? MRS. SERVIN: Yes. Yes, sir? HAROLD SERVIN: Another question, could you give me the dimensions of Lot 15 of which we are adjacent? In other words, where would it revert to? CHAI~4AN: Lot 15, you want to know just where it is located or the width? MR.SERVtN: No, no, just size. CHAIRMAN: It's 141.55 on the narrow end, 170.45 on the wider end, and it's fronting the road 180 feet and on the back side it's 182.31. MR. SERVIN: Does that roughly constitute about two-thirds of an acre? MR. CRON: That's correct. CHAI~N: Yeah. That's one of the bigger lots along in that area r~ght there, by a little bit. MR. CRON: I think the analysis of Mrs. Servin was correct. I think her point was well taken. There is no change being sought in terms of reduction of anything that shown on that map. It's just to get an approval at this time of really what has existed since 1971. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -23- March 20, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: This was laid out prior to the one-acre zoning. MRS. SERVIN: Then I really couldn't understand the denial. MR. CRON: Well, it's technical. That's the only reason for it. CHARON: Yeah, ±t's a technicality. When he should come in ~Q~ a ~u~ld±ng permit or something, the Building Inspector is bound to go by the book° MEMBER TUTHILL: You say you are going to have some problem with 18 and 197 CHAIRMAN: No. If it weren't granted he would have a problem. It would be an enormous lot. MRS. SERVIN:. Does the same code apply in terms of the size of building that's built on two-thirds as it does on the one-acre? CHAI~LAN: Right° MRS. SERVIN: The distance from the boundaries are the same? CHAIRMAN: R±ght. It will have to conform with anything that is already in there. Does anyone else have any questions? (There was no response.) Does the board have any questions? (There was no response.) I'd iike to offer a resolution that it be granted as applied for. After investigation and inspectionv the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area of lots known as "Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 15, 1, 4, 17, 18 and 19 at Arsha- momaque," and approval of insufficient width of lots known as "Shorecrest Subdiuision Lots No. 1 and 15 at Arshamomaque," Southold, New York. Shorecrest Subdivision Map was filed in the County Clerk's Office April 6, 1971, and under Section 265A of Town Law, it appears that any revision of the zoning code which increases the lot area in excess of the lot area shown on a filed subdivision map (unless included in the "Exceptions" list of Subdivisions of the Town Zoning Ordinance) would require compliance with the lot area and width requirements, after three years of the date of filing the subdivision map ~n the County Clerk's Office, to wit, April 6, 1974. Apparently, the subject lots have been conveyed subsequent to April 6, 1974, requiring compliance. T~ Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unlque, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a variance in this case w~ll not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -24- March 20, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that ELEANOR RUCH, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Section 100-31 in Appeal No. 2676 approving the insufficient area of Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 1, 4, 15, 17, 18, 19 as applied for, and approving the insufficient width of lots known as Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 1 and 15 as applied for, SUBJECT to the approval of the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of property: Shorecrest Subdivision at Arshamomaque, Southold, New York. County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-52-3-20, 22, 25, 29, 30 and 31. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2675. Application of JOHN CLIFFORD CORNELL, by Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels known as filed Subdivision Map of Shorecrest Lots No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 at Arshamomaque, Southold, New York. County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-52-3-28, 32, 33, 34. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:20 P.M. by reading the application for a variance and Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector. Richard J. Cron agreed to waive the reading of the legal notice of hearing as published in the Suffolk Times and Long Island Traveler-Watchman. Member Goehringer left the room at 9:20, but returned at 9:24 during the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County Tax Map showing the subject property and the surrounding areas. MEMBER TUTHILL: This is basically the same thing? RICHARD J. CRON, ESi~i: On the consequences of nO~ granting the variance is again minimal with respect to this application for the reason that with respect to Lot 5 has an already existing resi- dence there. On. Lot 6 it is vacant and has been sold and there is actually a C/O on it. Which would leave you basically 7, 8 and 9 to play with. The best you could do was make two lots out of three, all of which would be oversized. For the reasons that I advanced with respect to the application of Mrs Ruch, I woUld also. advance the same reasons with respect to the application of Mr. Cornei1. ~EMBE~L~UTHILL: It seems to me that even with lots 7, 8 and 9 that there would be no point in making them larger, and no necessity for it because they are in keeping with all the other lots in the area, and I move it be granted if there are no objections. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- March 20, 1980 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area of lots known as Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 6, 7, 8, 9 at Arshamomaque, Southold, New York, and approval of insufficient width of lots known as Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 6, 7 and 8 at Arshamomaque, Southold, New York. Shorecrest Subdivision Map was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on April 6, 1971 and under Section 265A of Town Law, it appears that any revision of the zoning code which increases the lot area and width shown on a filed subdivision map (unless included in the "Exceptions" list of subdivisions of the Town Zoning Ordinance) would require compliance with the lot area and width requirements, after three years of the date of filing the subdivision map in the County Clerk's Office, to wit, April 6, 1974. Apparently, the subject lots have been conveyed subsequent to April 6, 1974 requiring compliance. 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 zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that JOHN CLIFFORD CORNELL, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 in Appeal No 2675, approving the insufficient area of "Shorecrest Sub~ division Lots No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 at Arshamomaque," and approving the insufficient width of lots known as "Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 6, 7 and 8 ~t Arshamomaque," as applied for, SUBJECT to the approval of the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of property: Shorecresu Subdivision at Arshamomaque, Southold, New York. County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-52-3-28, 32, 33 and 34. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2668. Application of RALPH H. DICKINSON, by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Box 1424, Mattituck, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct with an insufficient frontyard setback. LOcation of property: Right-of-way off Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Graham and Hech; east by Arthur; south by Great Peconic Bay; west by McDowell. County Tax Map No. 1000-128-006-005. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -26- March 20, 1980 The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:26 PoM. and the reading of the legal notice, application and Notice of Disapproval was dispensed with. No one objected. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak for it? There have been some changes I understand from the original. ABIGAIL A. WICK~F~24, ESQ.: My name is Abigail Wickham, attorney for the applicant, Dr. and Mrs. Dickinson. I would like to start by saying that we're requesting a variance from the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance due to peculiar, the peculiar direction from which the dr±veway enters this property. A technical reading of the zoning ord±nance results in the east and west yards being considered the rear and front yards respectively on the property since the driveway does come in from the westerly, on the westerly boundary. I would llke to ask the Board, however, to consider this property in terms of the configuration of the neighboring properties where in each case the front and back yards are to the north and south of the properties. In that light, the east and west yards would really be the side yards as they are in the neighboring properties, and we do, I would like to point out, meet the sideyard setback requirements. We have 14 feet on the east and 26 at the narrowest portion on the west. The building inspector took the position that the street line was not Peconic Bay Boulevard, the public road, but the right-of-way coming in to the property in that the street l~ne thereby defined the technical frontyard- rearyard. If you look at the shape of the lot, it is long and narrow. It's from the Bay, south, and it was obviously intended when this subdivision was broken up that the bay side would be the front, or the bay and southerly side would be the front and back respectively of the properties. The existing house to the west, Which is now owned by Mr. McDowell was Peter Warren's residence, when he subdivided the property and that had the frontyard and the backyard at the north and south respectively. The other houses that had been built, the Goodwin house and the Regel house along the Boulevard operate the same and also the house to the east. Also, at the time this property was subdivided there was a 35-foot frontyard setback requirement. To expect the applicant to adhere to a 50-foot front and rear setback would mean that the house of very narrow dimension would have to be placed way at the back or at the northerly extremity of the property, down towards the Boulevard. That's the only way you could technically have enough room. When you look at the location o~ the property, the interest of the owner and I think the best use of the property is to take advantage of your bay-view. We've located the house so that it would be in line with the McDowell house to the east. It is proposed that we locate it as far back from the bank a~ his house is located. Because the slant of the bay beach, his house is really in front of ours, but we did it in -- so he does come out in front of ours. But we did try to put it back as far as his house is. It's 50 feet from the bulkhead line and it's more than 200 feet from the edge of the Doctor's property at the shoreline. As far as the distance of the proposed house from the neighboring S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -27- March 20, 1980 properties, it is further, or would be further from the easterly line than the house to the east is. That kouse is very close to the line. I would say ten or 12 feet. We have 14 feet here. The other houses to the south are as close to the line. It's marked here, "Goodwin," I believe, that's now, "Bendelt;" it's 10 feet from one of the sideyards and the "Regel" house directly to the north of this property also has a 10~foot sideyard. Therefore, if you would consider this in terms of actually a sideyard here on the east and west I do think we can conform to the general characteristics of the neighborhood. And we would like to request a variance from this technicality that this be considered a front and rear yard. I would like to point out one other item. There is as you gentlemen saw when you were at the property a large beach ~ree~on the property. I had Van Tuyl locate on the survey the location of the tree as it would overlap with the proposed location of the house. If you can see~ the branches of the tree-- a beach tree as you know has dense branches, they are low to the ground and really ars close together. The branches do encroach on where the house would be located and they fall right over the patio and right over the front '~ng of the house. 1 th±nk that to tr±m the lower branches would make the treet look ridiculous. If we were to leave the tree, the tree would cut down on the bayview, ~ would darken the house, create a whole lawn of leaves in the fall %than they fell off, and also interfere withthe house, and the branches ~n the wind and what not. So the Doctor has made every attempt he can to try to save trees on the property. This unfortunately, would have to be taken down, no matter where the house were located. It is right up in the front at the narrow portion of property. And in order to locate a house there you would have to take a tree down. (Secre'ta.ry mentioned that only a frontyard setback variance Ss needed, since ~a~,is the only.yar~ disapproye~ by the bu~ldi~ · nspec~or. Mrs. ~lcKnam had men~one~ a reques~ ~or rearyar~ setbacK.) MRS. WICKHAM: Yes, You're right. He did consider this as ~icient rearyard. It's mainly our frontyard that we're con- sidering. We have a minimum of 26 feet. When this property was subdivided there was a 35-foot requirement. We're not very far off, and when you consider the lattitude that the building inspector has with connection with a small lot, he does have authority I believe to reduce the requirements by 25% which is about 26 to 29 feet. So we're really just a few inches what he would otherwise be able to grant. It's merely the technicality of the driveway coming in to the side. We did want to have the ~eway re-routed to the northerly portion of the property. We were unable to get a signed agreement on that. We would still be willing to go along with that, but that's not the subject of this application. _ ME~BE~ TUTHILL: Under your reasoning, Gail, we do not have the ~ only a i4~foot sideyard instead of 157 SOuthold Town Board of Appeals -28- March 20, 1980 MRS. WICKHAM: You would have on the east side a 14-foot sideyard-- MEMBER TUTHILL: Instead of 15, the minimum? MRS. WICKHAM: Yeah, you have 20 and 15. One has to be at least 15. MEMBER TUTHILL: You have to have a combination of 40, 25 plus 15. You could have the 15 on either side. MRS. WICKHAM: We have 40. MEMBER TUTHILL: You only have 14 if you call that a sideyard, instead of 15. What I~m saying is the minimum on either sideyard. MRS. WICKHAM: Both sideyards have to be 35 feet total. One s±deyard has to be at least 15 feet, and the ~- May I say something h_ere on tkat. As I understand the zoning code and the bulk schedule to rear, both sldeyards have to total 35 feet. That we do have. Qne si~eyard has to be at least 15 feet, and we have that on the west of the property. It's not that both have to be at least 15 feet. It's that one has to be at least 15 feet. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else, Gall? MRS. WICKHAM: Not at this time, no. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak for this? Does anyone wi~sh to speak against it? EARL T, MILES, ESQ.: I'm representing Mr. George McDowell, the adjoining owner on the west. He is present. He and 5is wife own the property. The principal objection that Mr. ~cDowell has ±s that rather than agreeing that the Doctor is trying to put his house even with~..±s our position that if you drew the average setback of the McDowell house and the house to the east, draw a line between the two, you would find that the proposed dwelling projects considerably south, or toward the Bay, and therefore that this proposed dwelling ms in fact in front of the location where it should be. Apparently, it was the contemplation of the developer of the property and of the Planning Board that the 35~foot setback then in existence would cause the structure to be setback at least behind the existing tree or north of the existing treer and it is the suggestion of Mr. McDowell that the Board cause %he location of the house to be set sufficiently north and would be on a line north of the tree, and north of a line drawn between the front lines of the house on the west and the house on the east. This would be an approximate. 80-foot setback from the bank, another 30 feet from the 50 feet that ms proposed. It!s my understanding that your bulk ordinance would require a minimum of 15 feet on one side, on the smaller side, and that therefore as the Board member pointed that out would be So~uthold Town Board of Appeals -29- March 20, 1980 correct in indicating that they would need 15 feet on the easterly side and they of course have more than 15 feet on the westerly side. It is furthermore pointed out to the Board that we have on behalf of Mr. McDowell specifically offered to re-locate the right-of-way so that i% would enter further toward the north to get rid of the swing of the driveway as it appears, and the only point we had there which we would like to s~ress, we would like to save the beach tree and no~ have it destroyed as is proposed and the reason there was some difficulty in getting the negotiation of the change of the right-of-way, there was another tree located on Mr. McDowell's property, which they would like to have the road swing around. And the description that was proposed would have destroyed that tree and what we had suggested that if the surveyor w~utd stake it out so as to avoid the ~ree on the right-of-way, we would have no problem whatsoever in re-locating the right-of-way. On behalf of my client I offer for the record to re-locate the right-of-way so that it enters on the northwesterly corner of the Doctor's property, and the existing right-of-way so far as it enters into the Doctor's property~uld then be abandoned. We specifically request that the Board take notice of the restrictive covenant which was imposed in Liber 6424~ Page 63, and I call upon the Board to examine the record of the Planning Board which I requested to be here. And I ask whether it is here. SECRETARY: Yes, it is. MR. MILES: Could I have it. Is there a decision of that Planning Board that I could have read into the record please? SECRETARY: The file is here. What decision are you looking for? MA. MILES: I haven't had a chance to look at it. I assume it is a decision of the Board requiring this. SECRETARY: There are no covenants here of the Planning Board. MRo MILES: There was a restriction imposed as a condition to the granting the subdivision. (The Secretary handed Mr. Miles the Planning Board file to review inasmuch~s ~he Secretary could not find a decision of the Planning Board incorporating the covenants and restrictions referred by Mr. Miles.) MR. MILES: I direct the attention of the Board to the require- m~t of the Planning Board that a declaration of protective covenants be submitted as Condition No. 1 in the Planning Board's file, and I offer of that declaration and direct the Board's attention to para- graph five of the declaration which affects this property and the Doctor's property. And paragraph 5 provides that there shall be no unreasonable destruction of trees or shrubbery on the premises and Subdivision No. 8 of that covenant requires that all construction be in accordance with the setback requirements of the Town of Southold. ~ 1 , Soutko d Town Board of Appeals -30- March 20 1980 I offer a copy of that restriction into the record. (Mr. Miles submitted a copy of covenants and restrictions made by Peter J. and Susan E. Warren dated September 13, 1968 recorded at Libe~ 6424 Page 63, a copy of which was on file with the Planning Board.) I further point out that the Doctor in acquiring the property voluntarily was on notice and had specific notice of the terms and the conditions of this protective restrictive covenant, the purpose of which was to preserve the entire layout. And I'm certain that the contemplation of the Planning Board and of the adjoining owners, including Mr. McDowell, was that no structure would be forward of an average line drawn between his house and the'adjoining house to the east of the proposed dwelling, and that in any event the structure would be 35 feet east of Mr. McDowell's property. And I thank you very much. I realize it's quite late. MRS. WICKHAM: May I make a few comments in response to that? CHAIRMAN: Ye s. MRS. WICKHAM: First of all, Mr. Miles doesn't indicate any evidence as to why he thinks the developer wanted the house to be behind the tree or this tree to be saved, and in fact when Mr. Warre~ conveyed this property along the road, he mentioned~those deeds specific trees that should not be destroyed. He did not do so on this property. Moreover Dr. Dickinson is certainly aware of the restrictive covenants on this property. However, I submit that that ~s not within the jurisdiction of this Board. The covenants themselves say that the enforcement of them would be in a Court of Law or Equity. That is not your concern at this point, and in any event we feel tha~ it's not unreasonable to have to remove a tree in order to put a house there. It was obviously contemplated that a house would be built on this lot and you have to take down trees where the house will be. As far as th~ r~ght~of~way being located~ that's not here. That was the subject of a previous application. We waited several months to get an agreement from Mr. McDowell on that relocation, and it was never signed, and we had to finally withdraw the application and has been forced to come back here on the condition of the original roadway. We would have no objection, and I've.~ told Mr. Miles that to relocate the roadway that that would have to be in the future. I'm not going to hold up this application in order to do so. The first time I heard about this other tree holding up the thing was tonight. I've~ev~z~h~ard that before, and I'm sure we can work that out. I would also like to point out that this first reference to the average setback would be two houses on either side of this property. That would put Dr. Dickinson's house back further than Mr. McDowell's house. We're saying we'll go back as far as his house but I don't see why we should have to go back further, particularly since his ]uts out considerably in front of ours due to the diag~nol of the beach. As far as the restrictive covenant saying that the setback require- ments be adhered to, I think a setback requirement of the Town is Sduthold Town Board of Appeals -31- March 20, 1980 either what's in the Code or what the Zoning Board of Appeals state it to be pursuant to a variance application because that is all encompassed within the Code. I don't think I've forgotten anything. D6 you have any questions? MEMBER TUTHILL: Gail, this has been kicking around here for I don'% know how many meetings. MRS. WICKHAM: I'm painfully aware of that. M~4BER TUTHILL: And we seem to be kind of spinning our wheels. I'd llke to ask you a question that's very simple. The Doctor is planning his house at almost what is the narrowest part of the property. Why could he not move that house back 10, 20 feet and solve all the problems that we have, the tree, the sideyard, the frontyard, and the whole thing? MRS. WICKHAM: We've already moved it back several feet, number one. Number two, as I said, we want to try and take advantage of %~e bay view, and as you moVe back because the sideyards narrow down t°wardS each other at the bay, and that Would cut down on the view. ~urt~ermore, we're 50 feet from the bulkhead and quite a distance ~rom t~e edge of the property, so I don't See how the Board can require that we move ±t back any more. It's not a setback require- ment t~at we~ve violated. MEMBER TUTHILL: I"~ not asking you to, I'm not requiring you, I~m asking you why as a practical matter. MRS. WICKHAM: No, that's why, because of the bay view, because are back in llne With the other house, and even if we move the k~usa back ~ke tree would still be in the way. MEMBER TUTHILL: This is going to be a ranch or a two-story? MRS. WICKHAM: It's going to be a one-story house. If we move the house back further, we'd also be way behind Mr. McDowell's house and cut off any view that way. MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, I doubt if there would be any objection to that. MRS. WICKHAM: We would have an objection to that. His house, if I might point out, is two stories~ptus a big roof high. It's a very large structure. MEMBER TUTHILL: I know the structure. MRS. WICKHAM: And it would definitely get in the way. I hope l~ve answered your question. CHAIRMAN: I think so, Gail. I don't know, do any of you~have any other questions? Is there anyone else who wants to add to what S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -32- March 20, 1980 has been said? Either side? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN: We would like to study this out a little more, so I would like to put a resolution on the floor that we close the hear- ing and we make a decision a little bit later. MRS. WICKHAM: Could I add one more thing that Mr. Miles just mentioned? He did say that the house, this shows 50 feet back, the h~use may in fact be a little bit further back than 50 feet. Not that I~d really be out of line too much with the average setback, and cer~alnly is not going to be any closer than Mr. McDowell's house. CHAIRMAN: I think it's 50 feet or better. The time we were down there we kind of paced it off a little bit. NORMAN RE1LLY: I think it will be closer probably to 60, ~5 feet, by the tzhue we line the three houses together, so we are movi~ng back quite a bit. But the tree still causes a problem. MEMBER TUTHILL: From this proposed location on here? MR. REILLY: Yes, that's right. That shows about 50 right now. Van Tuyt must h~ve~ MEMBER TUTHILL: About 50 from where? MR. REILLY: The bulkhead line. MEMBER[ TUTHILL: You're moving in back of the tree. MR. REILLY: We'll be moving back probably into 65, or maybe 70 feet, t6~line the two houses up, that's what we're asking. MRS. WICKHAM: The tree will be approximately ~at the -- The tree would be here, you would be moving the house back like that. So I don't think that that's, you kno~ any more nearer in the long run. MR. REILLY: We are moving it back quite a bit, you know, to line them up. That's what we are really after. We're not sticking out in front of them. MRS. WICKHAM: I would hate uo go through a delay because, you know, we've been delayed with these people so long already, I think that we could represent to you now that the house will be right about at the tree, and as I say that's nou really before you because you've got-- MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, if you would-- MRS. WICKHAM: Even if you consider that a fronuyard, you've got more than 50 feet. MR. MILES: If I may be heard on that issue, and not tO interrupt but, we would request that Mr. McDowell is quite certain that the S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -33- March 20, 1980 setback of the adjoining lady's house is consi~s~ably to the rear and that an oral representation of where this tree is not sufficient for the Board to make their determination, that a line should be shown upon a survey from the two and I'll rest my case on that. MRS. WiCKHAM: I don't believe the lOcation of that house really-- MR. MILES: It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of setback. MRS. WICKHAM: No, I said I don,t believe it even applies to this hearing, and I strongly object to having that brought in as a requirement. This woman hasn't even appeared. She has never contacted me with any objection. MILES: The woman has requested that we speak for her. On motion by Mr. Gr£gonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and that DECISION BE RESERVED ~n the matter of RALPH H. DICKINSON, Appeal No. 2668. r~ · 'Vote of the~Board: Ayes: Messrs. G lgonls, Tuthill, Doyen and Goeh~nger. Abs~ent: Messr. Douglass. Informal d~scussion. Mr. Robert L. Boger asked the Board w~etker tPie applications he recently filed in Appeal~No~ '2682 and Appeal No. 1 (FE) could be set up for a public hearing to be held April 10, 1980. The Chairman told Mr. Boger that there seemed to be a problem in getting D.E.C. and County Health Department approvals, and the Board was in the process of making an environmental deter- mination, Which is required under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act before a decision on the variance application can be made. Mr. Boger said that he had spoken to Bob Villa of the Health Department, and that George Fisher would confirm this, that something would be worked out in order to obtain approval from the County Health Department. Also, Mr. Boger had submiuted a copy of the D.E.C. Tidal Wetlands Notification Letter Approval dated 3/18/80 indicating that no permit would be necessary on Lot 24. Mr. Boger's project is for Lot 25, and t~e Secretary said the D.E.C. had agreed to correct the letter, that it was a typographical error. The Board said an inspection had to be made of the property, and the Chairman advised ~r. Boger that a Special Meeting could be held in time to be advertised, scheduling his ma~ters for the April 10 1980 meeting. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2668. Application of RALPH H. DICKINSON, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of property: Right-of-way off Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Graham and Hech; ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- March 20, 1980 east by Arthur; south by Great Peconic Bay; west by McDowell. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-006-005. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant2is requesting permission to construct dwelling with an.insufficient frontyard setback of 26 feet. Due to the trapezoidal shape of the property and the location~of the access~ into the property, the frontyard area covers an unusually large section of the lot, tearing a very limited practical area to build. 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 zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthilt, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that RALPHiH. DICKINSON, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, in Appeal No. 2668 for permission to construct dwelling with an insuffi- cient frontyard setback of not less than 25 feet, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the subject dwelling is permitted to be constructed with up to a 25-foot frontyard setback [in order to allow another foot for the sideyard area if applicant desires to do so], and (2) That the subject dwelling is permitted to be constructed not closer than 60 feet from the nearest point of the bulkhead from the location of the proposed dwelling. Location of property: Right-of-way off Great ?econic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Graham and Hech; east by Arthur; south by Great Peconic Bay; west by McDowell. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-006'005. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Gri~onis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Appeal No. 2674. Application of ROY C. SCHOENHAAR. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, regarding the matter of Roy C. Schoenhaar, that it be requested of the applicant to provide this Board with a copy of the parking plan of the property of "The Coach Stoppe" and delicatessen also owned by the applicant~herein in order to determine whether or not the property which is the subject of this application is needed for the adjacent businesses, inasmuch as it appears pert of the subject property is being used for that purpose. Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- March 20, 1980 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2673. Application of SOPHIE RAYNOR, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for app~ovat~Qf insufficient area and width of parcels to be established within a subdivision, and for approval of access, pursuant to New York Town Law Section 280-A. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, and approval of ai~15-foot wide access to the rear proposed parcel located at North Road, Greenport. The Board finds that the area of the property as it exists is less than one-half acre, and to approve the area and width of parcels to be less than one-quarter of the presenv zoning ordinance requirements would be impractical and would not be in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold. The-Board finds that the circumstances present in this case ars not unique, and strict application of the ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that by the granting of the relief requested herein the character of the neighborhood will be changed and the spirit of the zoning ordinance would not be observed. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that SOPHIE RAYNOR,_in Appeal No. 2673, be DENIED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ZtI, Section 100-31 and be DENIED a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access. Location of property: 69035 North Road, Greenport, New York; bounded north and west by Tasker; sou~h by North Ro~d; east by Straussner, Sfaelos Realty, and Brandi. Counvy Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-01-07. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Messr. Douglass was absent. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2656. Application of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., Fishers Zsland, New York by Richard F. Lark, Esq. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VII, Sec. 100-72 for approval of insufficient area, width, front and side- yards of parcel to be established in a subdivision. Location: Fox Lane, F.I.; bmunded north by Gada, east by Fox Lane, south by Town of Southold, west by Long Zsland Sound. 1000-12-1-parr of 1. Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- March 20, 1980 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of: (a] insufficient area, approximately 7800 square feetf (b) insufficient width, 65 feet, Lc) insufficient frontyard setback, 25 feet, (d) insuf- ficient sideyard area, 32 square feet, (e) insufficien~ sideyard setbacks, 15 and 17 feet respectively. The Board has found that petitioner is the owner of approximately 10.2 acres, ou~ of which he proposes to establish this undersized lot to be sold and used as an upholstery business. The Board finds that the petitioner has not shown any hardship or difficulty mn complying with the requirements of the code, and that there ms ample property available for compliance with the code, regardless of the topography or the use intended by the petitioner as indicated in the subject application. 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 the variance in this case would change the character of the neighborhood and would not observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., in Appeal No. 2656, be DENIED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article ViI~ Section 100-71, for approval of insufficient area, width, frontyard and s±deyards as applied for herein. Location of property: Fox Lane, Fishers Island~ New York~ bounded north by Gada~ east by Fox Lane; south by Town of Southold; west by Long Island Sound. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-012-001- part of 001. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Goehr£nger. Nay: Messr. Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2657. Application of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., Fishers Island, New York by Richard F. Lark, Esq., for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article VII, Section 100-71, Article XIV, Section 100-t1~ for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels to be established within a subdivision. Location of property: Greenwood Road, Fishers Island, New York; bounded north by Town of Southold; east by Congregational Christian Churches; south by Greenwood Road; west by Barmache and Town of Southold. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-012-001-013. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3?- March 20, 1980 After investigation and mnspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of the insufficient area and width of four proposed parcels, having a total area of approximately 41~17 square feets in a B-1 Zone, and having three preexisting two-family dwellings and one single-family dwelling~ which origi- nally were utilized as offiers' quarters for the U.S. Army on Fort H.G. Wright. The petitioner has indicated that the nonconform- ing use of the buildings has been continuous for a period of more than two years, and that he intends to remove the existing above ground electric poles and install underground electricity wiring to each of the dwellings. The Board finds that the character of the locality would not be altered and the property values in the area would not be decreased. Property located immediately west of the subject area presently owned by R. Barmache is similar to the nature of the 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 grant 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. Doyen ~t was~ , seconded by Mr. Grigonis, RESOLVED, that FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMF2~T CORP., in Appeal NO. 2657, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII~ Section 100~71, and Article XIV, Section 100-114, approving the insuff~c±ent area and width as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE ~©LLOWING CONDiTiON(S): (1) Subdivision approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of property: Greenwood Road, Fishers Island, New York.; bounded north by Town of Southold, east by Congregational Chr±s~ian Churches~ south by Greenwood Road, west by Barmache and Town of Southold; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-012-001-013. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Appeal No. 2684. Application of SAM RODLAND as agent for NORTH FORK MOTEL, 55 Pilgram Path, Huntington, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70A, for permission to change existing motel use to include use per- mitting privately owned units or condominiums. Location of property: North side of County Road 27, Southold, New York; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- March 20, 1980 RESOLVED, that the applicant, NORTH FORK MOTEL, in Appeal No. 2684, be requested to file with this Board the following: ~a) Five sets of plans showing the dimensions and floor area of each unit proposed for condominium or privately-owned use prepared by an architect or engineer, and (b) Five sets of plot plans showing the parking area and building layout on the subject premises prepared by an architect or engineer for review and referral to appropriate agencies. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the following appeals be advertised for a public hearing to be held at the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, April 10, 1980 at the below specified times: 7:35 P.M. 7:45 P.M. 8:00 P.M. 8:15 P.M. 8:30 P.M. Appeal No. 2680. Application of Clement W. Booth. Location of property: North Mount Beulah Avenue, Southold, NY. Appeal No. 2678. Application of Richmond S. Corwin. Location of property: 500 and 540 Maple Avenue, Southold, NY. Appeal No. 2681. Application of Sidney Beebe for Dennis R. Bannon and wife. Location of property: Hamilton Avenue, Mary's Road and County Road 27, Mattituck, NY. Appeal #2679~ Raymond and Anna Ciacia. Loca- tion of property: Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport. Appeal No. 2683. Application of Richard and Donnalee Relyea. Location of property: Deer Foot Path and Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. ~ ~uthold Town Board of Appeals -39- March 20, 1980 On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, in the application of CLEMENT W. BOOTH, Appeal No. 2680, for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel to be estab- lished in a subdivision, and approval of insufficient sideyard of preexisting nonhabitable building, at,premises located at 1750 Mount Beaulah!AvenUe_&~ Sound View Avenue, Southold,New York, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect ~ upon the environment, Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, in the application of RICHMOND S. CORWIN, Appeal No. 2678, for a Variance to the Zonin'g Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels to be established in a subdivision at premises located at 500 and~ 540 Maple Avenue, Southold, New York, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment, Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. ~uthold Town Board of Appeals -40- March 20, 1980 On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, in the application of SIDNEY BEEBE, Appeal No. 2681, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100- 31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient frontyard setback at premises located at the corner of Hamilton Avenue, Mary's Road, and County Road 27, Mattituck, New York, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment, Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, in the application of RAYMOND and ANNA CIACIA, Appeal No. 2679, for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. VIII, Sec. 100-81, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and side yards, and (b) Art. VIII, Sec. 100-118 for permission to~c~i establish dwelling!use in a C-Zone, (Location of property: South side of Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport, New York; Lots No. 159 and 160 of "Peconic Bay Estates," Map No. 1124; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-53-2-23), that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment, Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, in the application of RICHARD and DONNALEE RELYEA, Appeal No. 2683, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel to be established in a subdivision at premises located at the east side of Deer Foot Path, Mattituck, New York, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned --S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -41- March 20, 1980 is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment, Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that the next regular meeting of this Board be scheduled at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on April 10, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis~ Tuthill, Doyen and Goehringer. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the meeting be declared closed at 12:00 mid- night. Vote of the Board: and Goehringer. Absent: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen Messr. Douglass. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals APPROVED - O~.airma~ B~rd