Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/28/1980 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHAR LES GRIGONIS. JR., Chairman SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHI-L ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Town Board of Appeals SEIUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516} 765-1809 MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1980 A Regu~lar Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 28, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman; Serge J. Doyen, Jr.; Terry R. Tuthill; Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer. Also present were: Councilman Henry W. Drum; Mike Stahl (Suffolk Times); Paul Demery (L.I. Traveler-Watchman); Mrs. Shirley Bachrach (League of Women Voters). Appeal No. 2735. Application of Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr., 7014 Sheaff Lane, Ft. Washington, PA 19034 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section: (a) 100-30 for permission to establish accsssory building for guest use and play area use, and (b) 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in the frontyard area. Location of prop- erty: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY; bounded north by Walker, west by Spofford, south by Private Road, east by Private Road and Sorenson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-3-2-10. The Chairman announced that this matter is adjourned until the Septembet 25, 1980 regular meeting of this Board inasmuch as there was a misprint in the local newspapers causing a defective advertisement. (It appeared that no one was present regarding this application.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr., Appeal No. 2735 be re-advertised and re-scheduled for the September 25, 1980 regular meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- August 28, 1980 Appeal No. 2724. Application of Clara Prout, 107 Green- acres Avenue, White Plains, NY 10606, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient rearyard setback. Location of property: 465 Private Road No. 3, Southold, NY; bounded north by Jockey Creek, west by Dyer, south by Norris, east by Shector; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-6-16. The Chairman asked whether there was anyone present regarding this application, and further announced that same will be adjourned indefinitely pending clearance through the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to adjourn the matter of Clara Prout, Appeal No. 2724, indefinitely pending receipt of clearance notifi- cation from the Office of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ- mental Conservation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Mr. Paul Leary questioned whether applicant pays for these costs of readvertising; and he was advised that when these notices are re-advertised, which are very few, appli- cant is forced to wait an additional three to four weeks. The reason could be because of a newspaper misprint, or technical difficulty; and certainly isn't any fault of applicant. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to approve the following sign-renewal requests (Special Exception annual renewals) for a period of one year from the expiration date noted thereon, SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT and FUNDING LAWS FOR HIGHWAYS, if and when applicable: Appeal No. Applicant 948 963 960 958 959 962 (continued on page 3) Mattituck Estates, Inc. Manor Grove Corp. (Marion Manor Subd.) North Fork Oil Heat Indian Neck Park Prop. Owners Assn. Richard J. Holmes Raynor-Su~r Hardware, Inc. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- August 28, 1980 Appeal No. ~pplicant 968 2075 942 1136 1669 2064 Southold Savings Bank Wells Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. Village Manor (William J. Baxter) Joseph Krukowski (Seafood Barge) Beachcomber Motel Pond Enterprises, Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, WHEREAS, this Board held a hearing on the application of Dolores Strong, seeking a variance to permit the display and storage of boats and other merchandise outside of the build- ings (Appeal No. 2710); and at said meeting the Board rendered a decision granting said variance with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Board now wishes to reconsider said decision with particular reference to the conditions contained therein; NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, by the unanimous vote of the members present, that this Board review at a re-hearing upon notice given as upon the original hearing, said decision made in the aforesaid Appeal No. 2710, and that said re-hearing be held on the 25th day of September, 1980, and that the Clerk give due notice thereof. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. At this time, the Chairman announced that the Town had received a letter of resignation from Board member, Terry R. Tuthill, effective September 15, 1980 and expressed sincere appreciation for his fine services and presented Mr. Tuthill with a plaque showing our gratefulness and the following resolution: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, BE IT RES©LVED, that the Members of this Board commend Terry R. Tuthill for his dedication and faithfulness and hereby express our grateful appreciation for his efficacious efforts and sincere cooperation during his services rendered as a member of the Southold Town Board of Appeals between July 16, 1978 and September 15, 1980; and Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- August 28, 1980 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mr. Tuthill be personally delivered a copy of this resolution, and that this resolution be entered into the permanent records of the Town of Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Doug- lass and Goehringer. Councilman Henry W. Drum was also present during the plaque presentation and commended Mr. Tuthill for his out- standing services to the community, both as a private citizen and public officer. The Town Board also passed a formal resolution at their regular Town Board meeting held August 26, 1980. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2725. Application of Frank E. and Mary Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York (by William H. Price, Jr.), for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and side yard setbacks. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl, west by Martin, south by Wetzel, Pugsley and Grathwohl, east by Second Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:]6 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, 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 prop~erty owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey and copy of the County Tax Map showing the area. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this? Mr. Price. WILLIAM PRICE, JR.: I represent Mr. and Mrs. Brophy. I'm an attorney with offices in Greenport. I think at the outset I should make an explanation as to why there was a necessity here for a second appeal. Mr. and Mrs. Brophy made representations to me that they were under the impression that the application for a variance was somewhat like the application for a building permit. And they didn't realize the true necessity of appearing and pointing out the strong points of their argument, and presenting their side of the case to the Board. They really relied on the papers that were submitted. In addition, in the first appeal, only Mr. Brophy was Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- August 28, 1980 the applicant, and the property is owned by both Mr. and Mrs. Brophy. Therefore I had the so-called legal technicalities come back mn and present their case. I know that the Board has gone out and examined the premmses, but I have brought some photographs which I took on August 21st at approximately 10:00 a.m. These are views of the subject property. The first photograph shows a view of the premises viewing from Second Street. The deck is behind the hedge. The second photograph (No. 2) is from the adjoining property owners looking down towards Peconic Bay. The third photograph shows from the beach lookingup at the deck. And the fourth photograph on tha~ sheet shows the actual distance between the adjoining property owners. I don't want to take up too much of the Board's time and go through all of what was said in the written appeal; however, I would like you to take administrative notice that it would be difficult to remove that deck and to take notice that it would cost some money to remove it, and very possibly some of the materials would be hurt. As I said in the appeal itself, these adjoining land owners, they have an unobstructed waterview down behind the property; and in the event this deck were to be constructed in the rear of the property, the adjoining property owners would suffer. Now we know that there is the park on the other side of Second Street, which is an open space, and we also have the open space behind the dwellings. And I have again some photographs taken that day (No. 5) here that shows the view from the Brophy's house looking towards Main Street. The No. 6 shows from the Pugsley house on the corner looking down the backyards at Peconic Bay. Right about in here would be where the deck would be, right in front of the water [to rear of applicant's dwelling]. And this is from the actual adjoining property owners down the backyard. Now this last photograph here, this is the adjoin- ing house steps extending out onto the street, which as you can see extend pretty much as far out as that hedge is. And I will represent to the Board that I do not have the capabili- ties of trick photography. Now we have made the representation that the granting of this variance would not change the character of the district itself. And in support of that I brought photographs of other houses mn the adjoining area showing what appear to be to me very close construction to boundary lines. Now the locations are all noted here. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but they are all -- this is on the same block and most of these are right around the immediate vicinity, and they show how close these houses are constructed in New Suffolk to the boundary lines. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wasn't this garage supposed to be moved, Bill? Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- August 28, 1980 MR. PRICE: That is what I have been told. I have no knowledge of that myself. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was supposed to, I think in a decision of the Board. MR. PRICE: But, you can see now, this photograph here, this is -- the backyard is between several houses, and on Jackson Street I think that was. And you can see that they are very close. Here we have what appears to be on (No.) 14 relatively new construction close to boundary lines. And here we see another deck that is constructed there. All very close together. This is not a case where there were one-acre parcels, and the applicant has truly tried to overcrowd the yard. As you are well aware, the bulk schedule require~ that only 20% of the lot area be covered by a structure. Here we have 22% covered. We also have a lot which is less than 20% of the required minimum. The required minimum size of a one-family dwelling in the Town of Southold, I believe, is 850 square feet of living area. Here we have a dwelling of, I think is a little over 1100 square feet, and a deck now of 400 square feet, oh - I think it's 473. I don't wan~ to under-represen~ that. And I don't think in my own personal opinion that it has changed the character of the district. And as said in the appeal, I believe that it's totally in keeping with the spirit of the zoning ordinance itself. In addition, I'd like to point out that the assessors have re-assessed the premises showing that the deck is part now being taxed by the Town of Southold, not that that has a real bearing on whether or not a variance should be granted, but as far as economic hardship is concerned, here we have the applicant if made to remove the deck will have paid taxes on the deck, which has had to be removed, and be suffering twice. And with that, I have two letters of neighbors to be put into the record. And I believe that some of these people may be here to speak in favor of this application. I am submitting this as part of the record to you. Sixteen photographs submitted by Mr. Price were made part of the record and marked "Exhibit A." Also submitted and made part of the record were the follow- ing letters, which were read by the Chairman: Dated 8/28/80 To Whom It May Concern, · .. We are tenants (with intent to buy) next door to the Brophy house on Second Street in New Suffolk. It is disturbing to us that anyone would have any ob- jection to the deck that has been constructed adjacent to their house. We look directly onto the deck and consider it Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- August 28, 1980 a definite asset to our view and that of the immediate neighbors. We feel it enhances the casual country life style of the community. Sincerely, /s/ Mr. and Mrs. Paul Leary .... Dated 8/28/80: · -.To Whom It May Concern: I, the undersigned own a house at 865 Second Street in New Suffolk. I walk every day on Second Street in front of the house owned by Frank Brophy. The deck which h~ constructed in 1979 does not disturb me personally and in my opinion, does not in any way change the unique character of the neighborhood. In fact, one cannot see the deck from the street unless it is specifically pointed out. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matei S. Roussan, M.D .... I agree with above statement. /s/ C. Zamphiroff ..... MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak for this application? Your name, sir? THOMAS LARRY: I'm a weekender with a home at Second and Jackson Street, across the street from the Pugsley house. And I simply want to say that i wasn't even aware that the Brophy's had constructed the deck until Frank Brophy approached me, and said, "Hey, will you as a friend show up at the Appeals Board?" I said definitely. And so, I walk everyday down at Second Street, and apparently the deck was constructed when my back was turned. MR. WETZEL: My name is Wetzel, and I have the southern property adjacent to the Brophy's, and I would just like to say that I feel the deck is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I think it is a nice addition to the neigh- borhood, and although you can't see it, I was aware that it was being built. You can't see it from the street. I have no objections to the deck, and I think that the appeal should be granted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak for it? MR. LEARY: My name is Paul Leafy. I live immediately adjacent to Mr. Brophy. There are many imperfections within a zoning ordinance or whatever; and I think if you read, if you have it there, the zoning that relates to parking spaces. The zoning laws say that public parking spaces which allow more than five cars in an area, they have to be screened from residential areas. Now we all live adjacent to the public park there, and there is no screening there whatsoever. So my Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- August 28, 1980 (Mr. Leary continued): question is to the Board, is the Town of Southold subject to the same zoning laws that we are? Why haven't a screening hedge or fence area been placed? It's not germain to the hearing, but I am just saying, if people have to come and get variances and things like that, why doesn't the Town itself have to follow the same things? You have your zoning ordinances there; I can show you the particular chapter and verse that I am talking about. So I'm saying, if we as residents have to follow the laws like to the letter, why hasn't the town itself gone ahead and made sure that we as residents are protected by the same right? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point. MR. LEARY: That's the only point I have. I have no objection to the deck, as we wrote in our letter we think it has added some- thing to the area, but by the same token, if we have to be subjected to the letter of the law, why isn't the town also subjected to the letter of the law. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. MRS. CLARE MANNING: I also own a home in New Suffolk. It's not adjacent to the property that the Brophies own. I'm on Fifth Street and Jackson. However, I used to rent that house years ago and I often dreamed about buying it, and never thought about putting a deck on there like they have, and I think it has definitely added and as you can see their neighbors approve, and I certainly have no objections. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else in favor? Does anyone wanu to speak against it? PERSON FROM AUDIENCE: No. I have no objections to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of the Board members have any questions? MEMBER TUTHILL: I think one of t.he things that I should have said when these very thoughtful presentations were made to me tonight. Of course, this will be the last meeting that I will be serving on. And I should have said that one of the unrewarding aspects of this job is that sometimes after a hearing people don't speak to you for maybe ever again. LADY FROM AUDIENCE: And we love our neighbors. MEMBER TUTHILL: But that's the nature of the business, and I think that probably this whole problem, a lot of it, I think we're working backwards because, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the correct procedure would have been for Mr. Brophy to come in for a building permit when he put the deck on. It would have been denied and then we would have heard a variance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- August 28, 1980 MR. PRICE: You're right. MEMBER TUTHILL: As a matter of fact, the deck is there and in effect there is a big expense in removing it. I don't like to see anybody have to remove something, but it was created by Mr. Brophy; and I'm not about, even though I am going to be 1200 miles from the nearest rifle shot, I agree in a sense that New Suffolk, and particularly that block, has very small lots, undersized and that a lot of things go in New Suffolk that don't seem to be permitted in a different area. We have several areas like that where there-- oh I mentioned this at the last meeting-- is a zoning nightmare with undersized and all kinds of things. We have an area in Camp Mineola in Mattituck where things are allowed because there are preexisting things to compare it with. And I can see you people that are not offended by this hedge. Personally I don't think I would be offended by it either, so the rest of the Board can speak and say whatever they wish, but the first time I have worked which was a long time ago was New Suffolk, and so did Jimmy Pugsley here a while back. I've only known him about 45 years; and as a practical matter, I'll say to the other members of the Board, I really don't think that that deck is a bad thing. It's behind the hedge; it is too close to the lot line and to the street, but purely, and these things you can't sometimes be practical with because we're subject to bureaucracies that tell us what we have to do and wha~ we don't have to do. But speaking strictly from a practical standpoint, I don't think it's a bad thing; and I hate to see him have to tear it down, even though it was created by his own omissions of procedure. That was a pretty long speech. MR. CHAIRMAN: It wasn't too long. MEMBER TUTHILL: Charlie said that my speech wasn't too long-- I was just saying that we as members of the Board do not like to find any situation where people have constructed some- thing and then come for a building permit. And frankly it's very upsetting, but we have to not be vindictive. 'We cannot use that as part of our reasoning--the fact that somebody didn't get a building permit. Of course, we can say tear it down--but not because of the particular fact that he did not obtain a building permit before building something. Am I correct? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. Is there anybody else who has any comments? (There was no response.) Well we're running a little late again, so I'll close the hearing and reserve decision until later on. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close th~ hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Frank E. and Mary Brophy, Appeal No. 2725. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- August 28, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2730. Application of John Reinertsen, c/o William Schonewald, Box 23A, Wells Road, ~attituck, NY, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyard setback. Location of property: 1850 Albo Drive, Laurel, NY; bounded northwest by Wells Road, southwest by Albo Drive, southeast by Bray Avenue and Butterfield, northeast by Robson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-126-8-12. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:49 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing the surrounding area. We also have a map of the property. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. SCHONEWALD: I'm Mr. Schonewatd. I think that the reasons I wrote down are self-explanatory. The dwelling is 22 feet wide. You add 40 feet more on 22 would make it look like a barracks, more or less. As it stands now, it's 22 by 30. The only way we can go is on that 22-foot width one way or the other. The house is practically in the center of the 50' by 320' plot. MR. CHAIRMAN: You propose to add a 39'4" by 29. MR. SCHONEWALD: 39'4" by 29 wide addition on to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that would cut your sideyard back to six feet at that point with the addition. MR. SCHONEWALD: From 13 foot, right. Most of the plots along there-- I live very close by there -- are 100 by 160. This actually is the same size only trouble is they sold the two lots, one behind the other one when they originally sold them years ago. The house was placed right smack in the middle of it. It makes it very difficult to do anything with it. It's a very small dwelling, and now have three growing sons, and brihg out their wives and stuff like that, and find it very difficult to accommodated themselves. There were folks retiring there about 10 years ago or so. That's the reason for the request for the variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Too bad it didn't start with a bowling alley in there. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- August 28, 1980 MR. SCHONEWALD: Yeah, it would have been good for that. Rifle range or something. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for it? Is there anyone to speak against it? (There was no response.) Do any of you fellows have questions you might want to ask the gentleman? Well, I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll second it. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed and that decision be reserved in the matter of John Reinertse~, Appeal No. 2730. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2731. Application of Ernest G. Radford, Main Road, East Marion, NY 11939, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area, and (b) New York Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access. Location of property: South side of Main Road, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Main Road, west by Commissioner of Public Works, south by Anderson and Smith, east by Gardiner, Dean and Smith. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-8-1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:58 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, 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. ~R. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the county tax map and map of property in question. Is there anyone whoiwould like to add anything, Mr. Radford, to what you've stated? MR. RADFORD: I just have one thing here that I would like to present. This is the same as the map you're talking about that I made up. But this is an enlarged part of the same section on the road. It shows this layout so that you can get abetter idea of the sizes of the properties all along there. This particular piece is the part that is now zoned my business. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is ho.way you can throw that cottage in? Southold Town Board of Appeals -12-. August 28, 1980 MR. SCHONEWALD: It's a cement block building, very diffi- cult to move it~ MR. CHAIrmAN: No, I meant draw the line around it in there somewhere. Even the two lots up a little bit. MR. SCHONEWALD: Well, that's what I was talking -- to cut off a piece here kind of spoils the whole lot adding it to this part by just taking a little section from here. This party wouldn't be interested in it if I did that. MEMBER TUTHILL: These are the two lots that you propose? (Referring to the survey submitted with the application) MR. SCHONEWALD: Yes. This is the one I want to sell (the rear lot off Marion Lane), and this will remain. The whole thing is two acres. MEMBER TUTHILL: You already have these divided? (Referring the surrounding lots also owned at one time by applicant.) MR. SCHONEWALD: Well that's under another subdivision. That was done in 1960. There is another subdivision, not mine though, of property in here, to be subdivided also. MEMBER TUTHILL: Which would be about 7 lots altogether. MR. SCHONEWALD: Well, this lot has no access to this. This Main Road lot would have nothing to do with this at all. It is on the road. It wouldn't use this private road here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for it? WILLIAM SCHRIEVER: My name is Bill Schriever, and I -- you were talking about another subdivision. I did a subdivision of the Washburn Estate, which adjoins this, and I would like to give you a little historical background on this situation. The cottage as Mr. Radford pointed out was built before the zoning ordinance. At that time Mr. Radford owned a piece of property, a narrow piece of property that went all the way to the lake; and I believe it was later than that, the Washburns bought another such a narrow strip. And in 1968 and thereabouts Mr. Radford came before the Planning Board to do a minor subdivi- sion, and he had made arrangements for Mr. Washburn to do a little juggling of the property in order to make reasonable shaped lots in there. You got to remember that this when lots were half an acre, not one acre. So all the planning in this area, layout and everything, was based upon half-acre lots which was an existing thing at that time. And there was sort of a tentative idea of what the Washburn Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- August 28, 1980 subdivision would look like, based on half,acre lots. And of course his subdivision was based on half-acre lots. The lot of the Smiths which is directly south to this lot, was a conforming lot at the time it was,created. And t think it,s interesting that when this was done, a provision was made for access to the back end of Mr. Radford's lot that fronts on the Main Highway. And that is the piece that is the subject of this application. The road was built about 1970, thereabouts. It's a gravel road, and it's been in there since there -- no maintenance and no problems. It's a very substantial road. And I did a sub- division in there in 1978 I believe it was, but anyway, I think it was two or three years ago -- Mr. Washburn died in 1976 and I'm the executor of the estate. I think it was possibly 1977 when I did the subdivision. And I was forced to subdivide what had been laid out and with the thought of half acres into one acre. So I didn't get anywhere near as many. But I got some lots in there. And the piece that Mr. Washburn had. And so the two subdivisions, Mr. Radford's and the Washburn subdivision form in effect one subdivision. They were sort of planned originally with that in mind, and the road divides it--the one called Marion Lane and one Marion Place. A road association was set up in order to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the road. There are eight members of that association, and this was done by an agreement that's recorded in the County Clerk's Office. It makes the members contribute, whether they like it or not, to the maintenance of this road; so there is no problem about the road-coming in there. And when that was done, the lot that is the subject of this application was-became a member. In order words he has been paying as if this were a lot for the maintenance of the road from the beginning, from the time the association was set up. And as you can see the 50-foot access when it was planned, when the development was done in 1968. So I don't see any problem with access. It seems to me all you have to do is build a driveway on his lot. There is no harm to this property. Secondly, the property in question is actually two one-acre house lots in area. There is no variance required in the total area. The only.thing that he is asking for is to move a lot line over in order to ~nclude on one of the lots a second residence, which is on the property. The residence ~s a nonconforming use, so there is no variance required for the existence of that building. So I really, it seems to me that this thing conforms to the spirit of the ordinance completely. So long as he doesn't come in and, you know, attempt to build another residence on this lot so that there will then be two residences, except for that one situation I see absolutely no reason why he should not be granted the permission to divide the property into essentially Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- August 28, 1980 two oat-acre lots, at least in total, and put one residence on one and one on the other. And the access is there and everything. There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be granted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Schriever. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for this? MR. RADFORD: I'd like to point out one other thing. This is the original map approved by John Wickham on this subdivision. One of the requirements was with dividing these up, and that was a three-quarter-acre lot, but this was a much bigger lot -- but I had to agree that this could not be divided. Now, this has one and 6/10ths acres, and it's bigger than what I propose for the one here, which is one and one-quarter acres. As they made me do this here, I can't see why they should say I can't have one bigger than an acre here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of you gentlemen have any questions? We're running late again, so I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. Yes, sir? GEORGE SMITH: You just heard the people for it. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. I'm sorry. I'm getting late I guess, sleepy. Is there anyone to speak against it? MR. SMITH: My name is George Smith. I live on Marion Lane, property abutting Mr. Radford's. I didn't come to oppose it-- I do have a couple of questions I am concerned abou%. Number one, what will be the zoning classification of the lot assuming that the Board grants the application and sets off this larger lot. Will that be residential? MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume so. MR. SMITH: The other question has to do with parking on Marion Lane, which Marion Lane ends on the westerly line of my lot; and then there is that 50-foot strip as you can see running along side of my lot going up to the lot that is proposed to be set off. That apparently will be an access or a driveway, or whatever you want to call it. I'm wondering about parking on the end of Marion Lane. Will that become a parking area for whoever owns that lot? MR. CHAIRMAN: We'd probably, if it were granted, have to put a condition in there that there would be no parking on it. MR~ SMITH: I would appreciate that. Now of course they are entitled to park a car under the rules of our little association, Marion Lane Association, but we wouldn't wan~ to see a whole bundle of cars parked in front, you know, parked in front of our house, using that area as a parking field. That's Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- August 28, 1980 what we're concerned about. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Charlie, may I ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Douglass has a question to ask you, Mr. Smith. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'd like to ask a question in reference to that of Bill. Those roads are private roads, right? MR. SMITH: Yes. MEMBER DOUGLASS: They are not town-accepted roads. MR. SCHRIEVER: Well, they're accepted as subdivision roads. MEMBER DOUGLASS: They're not town-owned roads. MR. SCHRIEVER: They're not town-owned, no. They're town accepted. MEMBER DOUGLASS: They are privately owned roads. You have your own covenants, right? MR. SMITH: We do not have covenants. MEMBER DOUGLASS: But you have a board that-- MR. SCHRIEVER: Yes, we have the Marion Road Association. MEMBER DOUGLASS: An association that controls it. MR. SCHRIEVER: Right. Exactly. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Therefore, it is not a town control of where anybody parks. MR. SMITH: This is a unique situation, Mr. Douglass. We have this access road running up along side of our lot. And it's rather distant from where a house would be built if there is one to be built on this lot. Or even the summer Cottage which is what is there now. So perhaps someone who lives on that lot might not want to carry his, take his car all the way up to this exit. He's got to do a lot of clearing to get a car through there. MEMBER DOUGLASS: This would be up to your association, what went on there. MR. SMITH: I don't think we can control what he does on his lot. MEMBER DOUGLASS: No. What happens on Marion Road. Southotd Town Board of Appeals -16- August 28, 1980 MR. SMITH: We can force him to-- MR. RADFORD: No, but it's not part of the roadway. May I point this out on this map here. He is referring to this piece (leg of rear lot) which is part of this lot (rear lot). The road comes in here and dead ends against this property. And this property will belong all to this parcel. That's all one parcel. This is not a roadway. This is his property. He has a perfect right to park there if he wishes. MR. SMITH: Absolutely. That's not my question. M_EMBER DOUGLASS: He is talking about parking in here (on Marion Lane). MR. SMITH: In front of my house on Marion Lane. MR. SCHRIEVER: Well that's under the control of the association. MR. RADFORD: That should be under the association. You have your own regulations here as to what can be done with that roadway. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. They are not town roads. MR. SMITH: So then it is outside the problems-- you cannot place a condition to that effect (referring to Board). MR. RADFORD: No, the association places its own. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very often an association and groups like that have restricted covenants and the town would impose them quite often. MR. SCHRIEVER: At the present time there is a regulation that limits parking on the road to one car. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Marion Road is how wide, .Bill? 50 foot? MR. SCHRIEVER: 50 feet. This is 30 feet of actual road bed. 50 feet wide. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak against it? MR. RADFORD: Well, is Mr. Smith speaking against it? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he is just asking-- MR. SMITH: There were just two questions in my mind and they have been answered. Not entirely' to my satisfaction, but they have been answered. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- August 28, 1980 MR. RADFORD: He said, "Is there anyone else against it." MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution closing this hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to close this hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Ernest G. Radford in Appeal No. 2731. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2727. Application of Katie J. Dexter, Park Avenue, Mattituck, NY (by Gary Ftanner Olsen, Esq.) for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-A. Location of property: South side of Park Avenue, Matti- tuck, NY; bounded north by Park Avenue, west by Holman, south by Great Peconic Bay, east by Sarkisian; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-7-9. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:30 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN; We have a section of the County Tax Map showing the area and the lots in the immediate vicinity, and we have a survey of the property. Mr. Olsen would you like to add anything? GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ.: I'm Gary Flanner Olsen, attor- ney for the applicant, having my office at Main Road in Mattituck. As I said in the application, the applicant seeks to divide the premises which contains 2.668 acres, into two parcels. There~happens to be two houses on the total property. There is a house on Parcel 1 to be created, and also a house on Parcel 2 to be created. Parcel 1 would have over 40,000 square feet. As a matter of fact, it would have 47,400 square feet which meets the town requirements, and would have frontage on Park Avenue of 171 feet. Parcel 2 would have a total area of 68,700 square feet, which more than exceeds the area requirements. The only thing that we are seeking is to obtain an access variance under Section 280-A of the Town Law to obtain access to Parcel 2. And simultaneously with this application, we're making an appli- cation to the Southold Town Planning Board for approval, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be granted. I don't Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- August 28, 1980 know that the Town has ever really denied an access variance under Section 280-A. ~MBER GOEHRINGER: You made a mistake, Gary, when you said 47,000 for Lot 1. MR. OLSEN: No. It's -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, it's more? MR. OLSEN: Well, it includes the area in the 25-foot wide right-of-way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, ok. We don't show that. MR. OLSEN: The dimensions -- I called Van Tuyl on this. The dimensions on Parcel 1 which include the area in the 25-foot wide right-of-way. In other words, title to Parcel 2 would not include the 25-foot wide strip going through to Park Avenue. Apparently, that's because the Planning Board doesn't like flag lots. But in either case, you matter how you do it, both lots would still have more than 40,000 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for this? MEMBER TUTHILL: If this were granted, wouldn't it have to be surfaced with our requirements? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume so. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. MEMBER TUTHILL: Are you planning on that, Gary? MR. OLSEN: Well, the improvement would have to be made. I guess my question to the Board is, which Board has the jurisdiction deciding how the improvements are to be made? The Zoning Board or the Planning Board? I don't know whether you fellows have worked that out. ME~ER DOUGLASS: We do in granting approval of access. MR. OLSEN: But in any event, it would have to be improved to meet the minimum specifications in order to get a building permit. MEMBER TUTHILL: Right. Which you're familiar with? We have -- Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- August 28, 1980 MR. OLSEN: I know you do. I don't know whether your regulations are the same as the Planning Board's. MEMBER TUTHILL: Basically, I think the answer is that the Planning Board has the final say on the division; but it is our responsibility to see how the access is improved. I may be wrong because sometimes one board doesn't know what it's supposed to do, and the other doesn't know where it should stop, so. But that's my understanding on it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We've always granted it in the past, you know, in reference to the minimum town specifications for a private access. MR. OLSEN: I know that the Zoning Board does have some minimum specifications typed up as of March of 1979, I think. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the copy right here. MR. OLSEN: But I don't know what -- you have a copy? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. You can have this if you want it. MR. OLSEN: But that's all I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak against this? Does the Board have any further questions? (There was no response.) There is another thing here. A note from the Planning Board, it says here: ...Chairman, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals August 28, 1980... The Planning Board has reviewed your referral to the matter of the approval of access for Katie J. Dexter. The layout appears to be in accordance with the Planning Board standards as the lots meet the minimum standards With regard to width and area. Yours truly, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Signed Muriel Tolman, Secretary .... MR. OLSEN: I'd like a copy of that when you get a chance. MEMBER TUTHILL: If we should approve this, it seems to me that with this wording, some of it is "...with Planning Board standards as lots meet minimu~ standards with Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- August 28, 1980 regard to width and area .... " And with Zoning Board of Appeals standards as to surfacing, width, etc. I don't think those requirements are any more than anybody would want in an area as nice as that. MR. OLSEN: No. They are two nice lots; and as I say, there are two existing houses anyway on the parcel--both of them more than exceed the town requirements. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? A resolution is in order. Jerry is offering this as a resolution granting this application as applied for, subject to the minimum requirements of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. (See next page for findings and determination) Southold Town Board of Appeals -21-August 28, 1980 Appeal No. 2727. Application of Katie J. Dexter. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for approval of access 25 feet wide for the southerly parcel in the proposed minor subdivision of property located at the south side of Park Avenue, Mattituck, New York, and more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 123, Block 7, Lot 9. There is presently located on the northerly parcel (Lot No. 1) a one-story frame house with garage; and located on the southerly parcel (Lot No. 2) are a two-story frame house, garage and accessory building. Upon referring this matter to the Planning Board, it appears that the Planning Board does not h~3~e ~ly ob~ectionsforthe road proposed within the subdivision. Upon inspecting the subject property, it is the consen- sus of this Board that the access road proposed is at least 25 feet wide and would extend the full depth of both parcels to Peconic Bay, that applicant's request is practical and reasonable, and hereby determine that same be given a con- ditional approval therefor. The Board finds the circumstances present in this case are unique, and strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neigh- borhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordi- nance. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Katie J. Dexter, be granted a variance for approval of access, N.Y. Town Law Section 280-A, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) Southold Town Planning Board minor subdivision approval; (2) The access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet and shall be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet; (3) The access road shall be improved in either of the following methods: (a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -22- August 28, 1980 of packed 3/4-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may either be applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of ~packed blend to a depth of four inches, or (b) Shall have top soil removed to a depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good grade stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of 3/4-inch stone blend, or in the alternative oiled with a minimum of 4/10ths of a gallon of road oil per square yard. Location of property: South side of Park Avenue, Mat- tituck, New York; bounded north by Park Aenue, west by Holman, south by Great Peconic Bay, east by Sarkisian; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-7-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2728. Application of Katie J. Dexter, Park Avenue, Mattituck, New York (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area. Location of property: North side of Park Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north and west by Chase, south by Park Avenue, east by Sark Equities, Inc.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-1-6. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:45 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, 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. ~lR. CHAIRMAN: We have a letter from the Planning Board which reads as follows: August 28, 1980 .... The Planning Board has reviewed your referral in the matter of the insufficient area of property of Katie J. Dexter. Because the reduction in the lot area is within ten percent of that required by the Code of the Town of Southold Bulk and Parking Schedule, the Board would look favorably on this division. /s/ Henry E. Raynor, Jr. by Muriel Tolman, Secretary .... Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- August 28, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything you want to add to this, Gary. We have a map here. MR. OLSEN: No. It speaks for itself. But I would like a copy of the Planning Board letter since I simultane- ously with this application have an application to the Planning Board for approval. These are very attractive lots, nicely shaped, and they are only 2500 square feet undersized. Otherwise they both meet all the town require- ments. They have 150 feet on the road. And there is no reason why this application should not be approved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I've been thinking about it since yesterday when I, after I looked at it, when that parcel it is surrounded by goes up for a development some day, Chase I think owns all of the adjoining property around there. MR. OLSEN: That's been sold. To Mr. Holman. M~. CHAIRMAN: Whoever has it, it will be all 40,000 square foot lots, and if this weren't divided I think it would be a hardship just to make them sit on practically two acres, where everybody else would be on acres. That's the only comment I have to make on it. MR. OLSEN: There is a minimal deficiency on both lots. MR. CHAIRMAN: No other questions? No one to speak against it? (There was no response.) MEMBER TUTHILL: We find that such an excellent area down there, Gary, that we shouldn't create undersized lots. However, if they're thinking about it, it is a minimal change and the Planning Board seems to find it acceptable. Certainly there is a lot of difference with the property on the west side, what is it, Park Avenue? MR. OLSEN: Park Avenue runs north and then to the south-- MEMBER TUTHILL: The next intersection. Is there much of a difference between there and east of that road, in comparing it with the neighborhood. But the differences are very small. MR. OLSEN: It's so insignificant that it's hardly worth worrying about. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no other questions, I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- August 28, 1980 RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Katie J. Dexter, Appeal No. 2728. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2722. Application of George Ahlers, 855 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32A for permission to construct tower exceeding height limitations. Location of property: 855 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue; bounded north by Zabriski, west by Ward, south by Eugene's Road, east by Erickson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-97-2-18. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:50 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map and a map showing the location of 5he house on the property and where tower would be placed. The tower will be approximately 31'4" off the property line, and about 74' back from Eugene's Road line. Mr. Ahlers, did you have something you would like to add to it, what type of radio you're operating, or something? MR. AHLERS: Well, it's just a business band type radio, it's an FM radio used very intermittently during the day in case I need to be reached when I'm out in the field. The tripod is a very small, thin silhouette tower, and as I said on the application, it is to be located behind the house with plenty of big trees around it, and I don't think it would be seen or objectionable. And it very definitely is a must that I be reached during the day when needed. MR. CHAIRMAN: We saw the tower, I guess that's the one that was lying there. MR. AHLERS: Yes. Oh, I might also add that the tower was in the yard close to seventeen years, and when we moved our based of operations, why we moved it up to our office building and we have since sold the office building and moved the radios back to the house. MEMBER TUTHILL: It didn't look new, but that is the tower structure in sections along said of your garage? Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- August 28, 1980 MR. AHLERS: Yes. That's right. We disassembled it. It's only about 12~ MEMBER TUTHILL: Is there any correspondence from neighbors? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see any. No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, how high is the house that you have there? MR. AHLERS: I would say probably 22, 24 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's going to go right up the side of that shed door there, right up along the back. MR. AHLERS: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would that tree interfere with it there? MR. AHLERS: If it does, we'll prune the tree a little bit, but baSically-- we pruned the devil out of that tree to get the swimmingpooi in, so a couple more of small branches probably won't make too much difference. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak against this? (There was no response.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 1,11 make a motion that we close the hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second it. It's been regularly moved and seconded to close the hearing and reserve decision. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Georqe Ahters in Appeal No. 2722. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs, Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2734. Application of Francis J. Murphy, Box 84, Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for approval of the construction of portiCo with an insufficient frontyard set- back. Location of property: 8700 Main Road, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Main Road, west by Rodden, south by Murphy and Old Main Road, east by Old Main Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-127-7-6.2. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- August 28, 1980 The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:50 p.m. by read- ing the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map and we have a map showing the existing buildings. Is there anything you would like to add? FRANCIS J. MURPHY: I think the physical change of the building certainly enhances the area. It's much better looking, which is what I was trying to do. All it is is a shed over a building to make it appear like a barn and this all we were doing. And this is what I 'explained to the building department and evidently there must have been a mix-up. Why we-were issued the permit and then after we built it that it came about that there was something wrong. I think anyone who has seen it would agree that it's a tremendous asset to the area. We're not infringing upon anyone. Most businesses along the Main Road going into Mattituck don't have the parking, the setback or the frontage that we have there. I see no problems with it whatsoever, except that, being a post to hold the roof is now nine feet or eight feet over to where it's not allowed by zoning, and we need a special exemption on it. MEMBER TUTHILL: It's more or less like a front porch? MR. MURPHY: Yeah. MEMBER TUTHILL: With a deck with a roof coming down over it. MR. MURPHY: Yeah, we put the overhead, the deck - we wanted to make it look like the other barn rather than have a store with a straight front, and naturally we had to anchor it with posts and I think it enhances the beauty of the building and any entrance going into Town there might certainly be in need of some improvement in Matti- tuck in that area. It couldn't be much worse. MEMBER TUTHILL: I agree that it enhances the building and makes it look better. I think there was some kind of a foul up in the procedure, because apparently you were issued a building permit and then later you were served with a notice of violation. Is that correct? MR. MURPHY: That's correct. ME~ER TUTHU~,:So that apparently you built something that the original building permit didn't describe-- Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- August 28, 1980 MR. MURPHY: No, I applied for a building permit, and we didn't even know exactly how we were going to do it; and I said we wanted to build a 10-foot overhang around four sides of the building, and I was given a permit to do this. And now on the back side of this property, were very close, if I built it that way, we would have extended over into the highway, the old State Road, because it's on -- the store is on~.a very pie-shaped piece of property, and it really is only the east end of the building that is in violation. I think we're just about legal on the west end of the building. Because of the way the shape of the land goes. And I don't see how it can cause any problem whatsoever. We've increased the parking area; we've increased the mobility to get off the road; we've made it easier; we've changed the entrance of the building eliminating the steps, making a much better approach to the store. And I think it made a big addition to the area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Frank, when you line up that front monument over there by the telephone pole, the big monument over by the telephone pole to the east side of the property-- when you come across, does any of that block wood, that old wall that you used to have in there, does that run straight? In other words, let me show you on the survey. You've got here on this, and this is what I would have asked you yesterday but you said you weren't going to be there. This is that monument I would assume right here, ok, and when you line it up, does it cut into that wall at all, or does it run straight right along that wall? You know what I'm talking about, the first row of stone that was originally there, you didn't touch that stone, it was always there, right? The flat stone that's all along there? MR. MURPHY: No, that's-- What do you mean now? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you line this up here, this monument ok? You run it right across that flat stone all the way across, right, and then she starts wind around. I'm trying to figure out what this N.Y.S. Department of Public Works says in here. What is that? MR. MURPHY: That was an easement. That land originally if you remember any of the old times, the old Mitchell sign was on that property, and it used to be a tremendous hole in there, and the easement was for them to maintain the slope on the hole. And since I bought the land, what 22, 23 years ago, I guess, that we fill that in and so there is no more easement necessary. They still have the right to the easement to maintain the slope, but there is no more slope because it has all been filled in. And the edge of where the greenhouse is on my store was just about where the old Mitchell's sign was, going back 20 some odd years; and that when we built the store and we graded off, we started filling it in and then when Hendrickson did Route 25, I guess that's when we got the biggest amount of fill and then we've been bringing Southold Town Board of App. our own in. But that's al nothing to do with the proI was inside the, yeah, it w~ property line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We monument over here to line the west side. MR. MURPHY: Well, the~ monuments apart. You'd ne~ ~als -28- August 28, 1980 that is. That original wall had )erty line. There was, I'm sure it ~s definitely well inside the 1, because we couldn't find the it up with, over in the grass in ~e are, I think 1,000 feet --those 7er see them. But the way the land goes on a pie-shaped, you ~¢ouldn't see them--the only way you could tell is from the sur~Tey, and taken from Van Tuyl's reading on taking a 90© an~le from the building, and you could interpret that almos~ any way you want. As I say on the east end of the building, it just so happened that when zoning went in the building.was there before, but it ended up that that corner was evidently exactly 35 feet, which was really remarkable, but it ~as never planned that way. No one ever gave it a thought But the west end of the building is probably about 45 feet ~rom the property marker. If you took down that greenhouse. MR. CHAIRMAN: It show from where. Says 44. MR. MURPHY: Yeah, I c~ MR. CHAIRMAN: It show~ 44 feet here, but we don't know n't -- I don't have my glasses. 44. (Survey by Otto W. Van Tuyl) MR. MURPHY: This isn Tuyl's survey on the thin~ accurate. You would need Van MEMBER TUTHILL: Have ou Van Tuyl's survey of it? we put the post down onto lem because supposedly we'] in if we wanted to. I hav~ All I wanted to do was to MR. MURPHY: Well this is a drawing of it. You would need a better picture of i~ This corner of the building was exactly on a right-ang~.e with exactly 35 feet, and then when all we did was put a post nine feet from there, so now we're 26 feet. That pgst is 26 feet. If we didn't have a post on the building, on the roof, evidently this would have been, there wouldn't have been any violation. There wouldn't have been a~y problem. And according to Ed Hindermann, there wouldn't have been any. But when .he ground, that created a prob- 'e now able, we could close this no ~ntention of ever closing it. .ake it look like a barn. MEMBER TUTHILL: Let m a minute, and ask why and pass on the porch situation for ~hat the bulkheaded horseshoe is out there filled with sand? Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- August 28, 1980 MR. MURPHY: Ail that was do, if in engineering, if you go in a straight line and going up a hill, and you have only so many feet to raise so many feet, you're going to be very steep. And in order to gain, so, we always had a problem in the store with steps and people walking out; and especially if we were going into produce where you have a lot of old people walking down where it's tough to walk down steps and carrying something in your hands. So we tried to eliminate it, and by going in a circle you're making your walk longer. MEMBER TUTHILL: So you're making something for people with bad legs like me to hold onto. MR. MURPHY: Yeah. So it's easier to walk down. So you're not as steep. We went from the center of the store straight out to the top of the parking lot. It would have been much steeper, but by lengthening the walk, by making it in a circle, or half a circle, you're extending it and it is a hell of a lot easier. It's not as steep a grade to climb. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, what he is asking though is why is that piece bulkheaded? MR. MURPHY: Well otherwise the dirt would just wash into the walk. It's not a part of the building. It's an ornamental-type thing. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, if it was another few inches taller it would be part of your construction. MEMBER TUTHILL: It would be a structure. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It would be a structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's in the building code. MR. MURPHY: Not even that it was part of the building? MEMBER DOUGLASS: It misses being a structure by just a few inches. MR. MURPHY: Ail we did- MEMBER DOUGLASS: And then you would be 14 feet from the road. MR. MURPHY: Ail I wanted to do is hold the dirt back and to -- so that we would be able to grade this walk off so that you would be able to get a little more length on your sidewalk to walk up the steps easier. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Even a tennis court fence is a structure under zoning. MR. MURPHY: I could understand that. What would be the difference with that and say a bird bath, or feather rock, that Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- August 28, 1980 I would take and say if I built like a rock garden type of an effect there. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Even if it was rocks and it came to the height as a retaining-- MR. MURPHY: What height could we go to? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Three feet. If it had hit three feet. MR. MURPHY: From where? MEMBER DOUGLASS: From the ground up. MR. MURPHY: Which side? MR. CHAIRMAN: Where it starts wherever it is. MEMBER DOUGLASS: From the high side. MR. MURPHY: Really? If that was a problem we could have cut them off, lower. All I was doing, I wanted to extend our walk more so that an older person would have it easier to walk up and down, so we didn't have steps going into the store. And because they are dangerous and when our original steps in the store were always dangerous. I was never happy with them. So people were falling, and we had more people coming to the back door of our store than to the front door, when it was operating as a florist for that very reason, because they didn't like walking up there. So we raised the elevation of the parking and leveled it off, and did this purposely to make the walk longer--an easier way to get into the store. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Do you have the building permit they issued? MR. MURPHY: Yes. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Do you have it with you? MR. MURPHY: No. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Is there a way we could have it? SECRETARY:I could get it from the Building Department tomorrow. MEMBER TUTHILL: Is that referred to as a mansard roof? MR. MURPHY: Yeah. MEMBER TUTHILL: And then you changed your mind and built a porch? Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- August 28, 1980 MR. MURPHY: No. We built what I considered, I brought a picture. I explained what we were doing. I brought a picture of the so-called mansard roof to the building department to get a permit. I~was issued the permit for it, and I was told well this is a mansard roof. Fine. If this is what you call a mansard roof. I had no idea what a mansard roof is. But all I know is, that when you put a roof of that size on there you have to support it on the ground, otherwise the thing is going to fall off, fall either way, and kill somebody. And all we did was put posts into the ground to anchor this mansard roof. And this is how we built the thing. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It doesn't have to be on the ground, Frank. MR. MURPHY: What do you mean? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Any projection is part of the building. Whether it was touching the ground or not. MR. MURPHY: Yeah. I assume so, and I assumed that we were perfectly legal when I got my building permit. I got my building permit three, four months before we were issued a stop notice. And we did this work on a parttime basis during this period, when the fellows working for me weren't busy. This is what we started. MR. MURPHY: Did you stop when they issued the notice? MR. MURPHY: Sure. MEMBER DOYEN: I don't think he understood what Bob was saying. The post isn't the determining factor. The projection is the determining factor where a post is not. MR. MURPHY: I was told it was the other way around. I was told that it was all perfectly fine being that we didn't have posts. I agree with you. I think it's kind of a crazy statement, but this is what was told to me. Why was I given a building permit to build something 10 feet out and my building permit stated that it was going to four sides of the building? I understand you 1000% and naturally you're going to have to support this. And it seems silly just because you put a post down that all of a sudden you're illegal. I agree with you 1000%. MEMBER TUTHILL: I think that everything was said that could be said. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no one against it in here, I guess, is there. MEMBER TUTHILL: Or ask any more questions. MR. SEPKO: I built the thing so I'm not speaking against it. I helped them. Down there supervising. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- August 28, 1980 MR. MURPHY: And it~'was a magnificant job. MR. SEPKO: I helped them, doing it this way, that way, the permit was there. I was legal. And all of a sudden I got a notice, I was there when this fellow came around, and he told us to stop work or else you're going to be in violation--give you a summons. I said, "What do you want me to do. We're 90%--we only had the lashes to put on." I said, "we"ye been working on it for three weeks. And it's the first time, here's the building permit." He said, "Well you told us you were going to make a roof overhang." I said, "How else are you going to support it? We've got a couple thousand, couple ton. What's going to support that thing with a 10-foot overhand." MR. MURPHY: t do think it certainly has added to the character of the neighborhood. A definite improvement. Nothing was done that will be detrimental to the approaching town. If anything, it's a definite improvement. And if through some oversight, it was done that now there is a post down there, as the building department said, that you are in violation. I agree with this man when he said but you've gone out nine or ten feet, this is when it should have been determined. Not really now when we finished the damn job. But this is-- MEMBER TUTHILL: My feeling is that something has been misinterpreted. There was some fault in the proceedings on this thing--the technical proceedings. Whether it's Frank Murphy's fault or the Building Department's, or what it is, as far as I'm concerned I'm not questioning that. But I do have to agree with Frank, it makes it a very much better-looking building. MR. MURPHY: And there's no problem with parking, and we're not blocking someone else's view of a storefront or anything like that. There is nobody here by us, and I don't see it could possibly have any adverse affect on any other business in the area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well thank you very much for coming in, Frank. I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing, and when we get a chance to look at the building permit and stuff, reserve decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Goerhlnger, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Francis J. Murphy, Appeal No. 2734. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthilt, Douglass and Goehringer. Southotd Town Board of Appeals -33- August 28, 1980 Appeal No. 2725. RESERVED DECISION. Application of Frank E. and Mary. Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY (by William H. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and side yard setbacks. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Pugsley and Grathwohl; east by Second Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to approve the construction of a deck to existing dwelling in side and front yard leaving approximately three feet between the deck and the front property line. The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the westerly side of Second Street, New Suffolk, more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7, having an area of 7,231 square feet. There is presently erected on the lot a private one-family dwelling with porch and the deck under consideration. The dwelling without the deck has a frontyard setback of approximately 14½ feet from Second Street. Appellant previously applied to this Board for approval of the subject deck in Appeal No. 2693, which was denied. The relief requested in this application is synonymous to the previous appeal. Appellant in this appeal has set forth the practical diffi- culties in removing the deck and the reasons for locating the deck as applied for rather than in the rear yard or other side yard areas. Upon personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds that the existing structure and deck would exceed 20% of the lot coverage of the total lot area; and it is the feeling of the Board to grant the variance herein technically would not warrant justification. Accordingly, the variance is denied. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy, be denied the relief requested in Appeal No. 2725 as applied for. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Pugsley and Grathwohl; east by Second Street. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonls, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- August 28, 1980 Appeal No. 2730. RESERVED DECISION: Application of John Reinertse~, c/o William Schonewald, Box 23A, Wells Road, Mattituck, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyard setback. Location of property: 1850 Albo Drive, Laurel, NY; bounded northwest by Wells Road, southwest by Albo Drive, southeast by Bray Avenue and Butterfield, northeast by Robson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-126-8-12. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permission to construct a 39'4" by 29' addition west of the existing dwelling; leaving an insufficient sideyard of approxi- mately slx feet. The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the northerly corner at the intersection of Bray Avenue and Albo Drive and the southwesterly corner of Wells Road and Albo Drive, Mattituck, more particuarly known as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-126-8-12, having an area of approximately 16,000 square feet. There is presently erected on the lot a private one-family dwelling, with a sideyard setback of approximately 13 feet. Upon personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds that the lot is bounded on three sides by a public street; 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. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that John Reinertsen be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 permitting construction of an addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient sideyard setback, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: (1) That the structure not be constructed closer than 10 feet to the northerly sideyard area; and (2) That the established frontyard setback of 15 feet off Albo Drive be maintained as exists. Location of property: 1850 Albo Drive, Laurel, NY; bounded northwest by Wells Road, southwest by Albo Drive, southeast by Bray Avenue and Butterfield, northeast by Robson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-126-8-12. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- August 28, 1980 Appeal No. 2731. RESERVED DECISION: Application of Ernest G. Radford, 8220 Main Road, East Marion, NY 11939, for a Variance to: (a) Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area, and (b) N.Y. Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access. Location of property: South side of Main Road, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Main Road, west by Commissioner of Public Works, south by Anderson and Smith, east by Gardiner, Dean and Smith. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-8-1. After investigation and personal inspec~.~q~, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for approval of insufficient area of one proposed parcel of approxi- mately 31,244 square feet and seeking a variance for approval of access of proposed parcel No. 2 off "Marion Lane," a private road. There is presently erected on proposed parcel No. 1 a two-story building, with a preexisting nonconforming business (real estate) use and barn; anderected on proposed parcel No. 2 is a cement block building which apparently had been used as a seasonal dwelling [less than 850 square feet]. Appellant proposes 31,244 square feet in area and 154.30 feet in width for parcel No. 1, and 48,967 square feet in area and approximately 50 feet in road frontage (along Marion Lane), ~ '~ the division line drawn parallel to Main Road 18 feet north of the existing cement block building. After referral of this matter to the Southold Town Planning Board, it was the consensus of the Planning Board "that Mr. Radford should make two legal lots from this property by moving the lot line to the south...(and) sees no reason for a variance .... " It is the consensus of this Board that the difficulty claimed can be obviated by a feasible method pursued by appli- cant, other than a variance, and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interest of justice will be served by denying the area variance applied for. It is also the consensus of this Board that access for proposed parcel No. 2 be given conditional approval under the circumstances. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Ernest G. Radford, be denied a variance for approval of insufficient area, Article III, Section 100-31, as applied for, and that a variance to New York Town Law Section 280-A for approval of access be granted, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Southotd Town Board of Appeals -36- August 28, 1980 (1) Southold Town Planning Board minor subdivision approval; (2) The access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet and shall be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet; (3) The access road shall be improved in either of the following methods: (a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed 3/4-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of four inches, or (b) Shall have top soil removed to a depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good grade of stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of 3/4-inch stone blend, or in the alternative oiled with a minimum of 4/10ths of a gallon of road oil per square yard. Location of property: South side of Main Road, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Main Road, west by Commis- sioner of Public Works, south by Anderson and Smith, east by Gardiner, Dean and Smith. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-8-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehrlnger. Appeal No. 2728. Application of June Cheshire, 9280 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY 11952. Mr. Sepko of Mattituck announced that he is no longer an adjoining property owner of the Cheshire, that it is now in the name of Pylko. The Chairman advised Mr. Sepko that this matter will be scheduled for the September 25, 1980 meeting. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2734. Application of Francis J. Murphy, Box 84, Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for approval of portico con- struction with insufficient frontyard setback. Location of property: 8700 Main Road, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Main Road, west by Rodden, south by Murphy and Old Main Road, east by Old Main Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-127-7-6.2. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- August 28, 1980 After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for approval of the porticc with an insufficient frontyard setback off Main Road of approximately 26 feet, which portico has been constructed. There exists on the premises a one-story concrete building with greenhouse, and several accessory buildings. The frontyard setback of the principal building without ~ke addition of the portico was approximately 35 feet. It is the concensus of the Board that although the construc- tion of the subject portico/manssrdroof addition appears to differ from the permit granted by the building department, the subject portico does enhance the appearance of the building. The Board finds the circumstances present in thiS case are unique, and strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neigh- borhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordi- nance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Francis J. Murphy be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 approv- ing the construction of portico with an insufficient front- yard setback as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the mansard roof/porch area be maintained as open space [and not be screened or enclosed without obtaining the express prior written approval of this Board]; (2) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of property: 8700 Main Road, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Main Road, west by Rodden, south by Murphy and Old Main Road, east by Old.Main Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-127-7-6.2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthi!l, and Goehringer. ~Nay: Mr. Douglass. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- August 28, 1980 Re: Appeal No. 2728. Application of Katie J. Dexter, Park Avenue, Mattituck, NY (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area. Location of property: North side of Park Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north and west by Chase, south by Park Avenue, east by Sark Equities, Inc.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-1-6. Upon reviewing the file, it was the consensus of the Board not to make a decision at this time in order to inquire about the Planning Board opinion dated August 28, 1980 in reference to the statement "...reduction in the lot area is within ten percent of that required by the Code .... '~ On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, WHEREAS, upon filing of the appeal application of William and Rita Hilton, for a Variance to construct garage in the front and/or side yard areas at 1520 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, NY applicant(s) has submitted a short Environmental Assessment form which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; IT IS RESOLVED, that in the subject Appeal (No. 2737) this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein, is classified as a Type II Action, not hav- ing significant adverse effects upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. (This declaration should not be considered a deter- mination made for any other department or agency which may be involved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, WHEREAS, upon filing of the appeal application of June Cheshire, for a Variance to construct addition to existing dwelling with insufficient frontyard setback at 9280 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York; County Item No. 10D0-122-2-3, applicant(s) has submitted a short Environmental Assessment form which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; IT IS RESOLVED, that in the subject Appeal (No. 2739) Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- August 28, 1980 this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein, is classified as a Type II Action, not hav- ing significant adverse effects upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. (This declaration should not be considered a deter- mination made for any other department or agency which may be inv.olved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, WHEREAS, upon filing of the appeal application of E~gar J. Smith, Jr. for a variance to construct addition to existing dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks at West Bay Avenue, Orient, NY (County Tax Item No. 1000-24-2-9), applicant(s) has submitted a short Environmental Assessment form which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; and after having telephone conversations with the N.Y.S. Department of Envir- onmental Conservation whereby this Board was advised this type of project is not within D.E.C. jurisdiction; IT IS RESOLVED, that in the subject Appeal (No. 2738) this Board determines that this project if implemented as planhed herein, is classified as a Type II Action, not hav- ing significant adverse effects upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. (This declaration should not be considered a deter- mination made for any other department or agency which may be involved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, WHEREAS, upon filing of the appeal application of George R. Sullivan for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect ground (off-premises directional) sign in a B-1 Zone at the South Side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York 11952, applicant(s) has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- August 28, 1980 form which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; IT IS RESOLVED, that in the subject Appeal (No. 2744) this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein, is classified as a Type II Action, not hav- ing significant adverse effects upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. (This declaration should not be considered a deter- mination made for any other department or agency which may be involved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, WHEREAS, upon filing of the appeal application of Curtis and Nancy Norklun, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to convert part of existing barn for gues house/residential use at 700 King Street, Orient, New York, applicant(s) has submitted a short Environmental Assessment form which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; IT IS RESOLVED, that in the subject Appeal (No. 2726), this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein, is classified as a Type II Action, not having significant adverse effects upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this department. (This decla- ration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may be involved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Tuthill and Goehringer. Messrs. Grigonis and Douglass abstained from vote. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it RESOLVED, that the next regular meeting of this Board be scheduled for Thursday, September 25, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and that the following appeals be scheduled and adver- tised for public hearings to be held on said date: Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- August 28, 1980 7:35 p.m. Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr. (Adjourned from 8/28/80) . Variances to Article III, Sections: (a) 100-30 to establish accessory building for guest use and play area use, and (b) 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in frontyard area at Private Road, Fishers Island} New York. 7:50 p.m. Curtis and Nancy N~rklun. Variance to convert part of existing barn for guest house/residential use at 700 King Street, Orient, New York 11957. 8:05 p.m. William and Rita Hilton. Variance to construct garage in front and/or side yard areas at 1520 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, New York 11952. 8:20 p.m. June Cheshire. Variance to construct addition to existing dwelling with insufficient frontyard setback at 9280 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York. 8:35 p.m. Dolores Strong (see page 3, supra). Rehearing for reconsideration of decision of this Board made July 1, 1980 wherein applicant requested permission to display and store openly boats and marine items outside of enclosed buildings at 11455 Main Road, Mattituck, New York 11952. 8:50 p.m. North Fork Motel, Inc. (Adjourned from 8/14/80). Variance for permission to change existing motel use to privately-owned units use (or condominium use) in a B-1 Zone, at North side of County Road 27, Southotd, New York 11971. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and Goehringer. Upon reviewing the estimated expenditures and revenues of this Department for the Fiscal Year commencing January 1, 1981, it was the consensus of the Board to recommend to the Southold Town Board the following Estimated Budget for 1981: (See pages 42 and 43, infra) Southold Town Appeals Board -42-- August £$IIMAT£ OF -~XPENDITURE$ RECEIVED Fo~ AUG 9 i980 Board of Appeals (Administrative Unit) Town Clerk S~uthold ,1 PERSONAL SERVICES* (List all employees giving Title, No. of Persons & Pay Rate] Expended Last Year 79 Secretary Chairman $~.00.00 & $~,000.00 Four Members @ $4~00.00 TOTAL .- PERSONAL SERVICES .2 EQUIPMENT (Show individual items) IBM Electronic 75 Typewriter Piling Cabinets/Card Drawers *Actual cost $8,283.58 4,000.00 3,000.00. -3,OOO.O0 ' 9,000 O0 1:545~42 ¢l,829.oo 28, 1980 Unit Code Budget For This Year 80 $ 8,600.00 4,200.00 3,200.00 3,200,.00 $.25,600.00 B8010 Request Par Next Year 19 81 $ 12,500.00 %500.00 4 ~5.00.00 -- .4 ~. 00-.-00 .9_Q. O0 0 o- 0 o. $ $ 990,0~ $ 1,320.00 123.30 50a.O0 550.00 TOTAL - EQUIPMENT $ 1,203.30 $ 1,490.00 $ 1,870.00 · 4 CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES (List by major Items or Types) Lanier Service Agreement; Subscriptions to Printing of Forms; Misc. Office Supplies; Meetings~ Expenses for Board mez~bers to ~. I.: mileage ~ei~fourse~ent Association of ~owns Meeting 543.15 {/,~ ~ t, 090.48 ( ~ 2,650.00 ~ 4,000.00 175.00 600.00 700.00 1,250.00 4,'4C0.00 5,265.00 1,8~o.50 2,000.00 4,035.00 Legal Counsel to Defend Four Cases .Leqal Advertisinq Costs TOTAL - OTHER EXPENSES TOTAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT RemarJ<s: $ 5,019.75 $ 9,650.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 28r052.05 $ 36,740.00 D,,o: 8/28/80 * Where empJoyee is compensated from more than one administrative unit, show totaJ salary and aoportionment. FORM E E WILLIAMSON LAW BOOK CO,, ROCHESTER, N. Y. 14609 C ~ ~Southold Town Board of-ApPeals -43- August 28, 1980 · ESTIMATE OF REVi-'NUES Fa, Board of Appeals (Zoning) Code Item* (Admlnistratlvo Unit) ACTUAL - Last Year ~9. 79 U.~t Cod.. BS010 BUD DET Fa, This Year '~9 80 180 Appeal Applications (at $25.00 per appl.) $ $ 3,240.00 -ESTIMATE For Next Year 19.81 4,500.00 TOTAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT $ Remar~¢s: At present, fee for appeal acplications 3,240,00 $ 4,500.00 is $15.00 per application. The Board of Appeals had recommended a. $25.00 filing fee to the Town Board during early May 1980f which has been used in calculating the estimated revenues for 1981. 8/28/80 Dale:. Chairman Shaw all t'evenue eeceived directly by the administrative unit. Explain any sales o[ equipment. ExpJoin any unusual items such as gi~ts, etc. Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- August 28, 1980 Upon reviewing the following matters which have recently been filed with this Department, it was the feeling of a majority of the Board members present that same not be scheduled for a public hearing at this time inasmuch as the properties involved appear to be within the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the applicants herein should be so advised: Appeal No. 2741 - Application of Joseph Smulcheski. Appeal No. 2740 - Application of Annette Golden Carnes. Appeal No. 2738 - Applicationlof ~.dgar J. Smith, Jr. Being there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was declared adjourned. Chairman B~rd Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary