HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/18/1981 SPECSouthold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN Er'lAD- STATE Er'lAD ~-5 BOUTHOLD, L.I., N,Y. 11cJ71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.. CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
MINUTES
SPECIAL
~,~JS~ 18~ 1981
A S~ecial Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held
...5 o;clock p.m. at the Southold To~
on Thursday~ June 18~ 1981 at A.A
Hall~ Main Road. Southo~m~ New York 11971
Present were: Charles Grigonis Jr.~ Chazrma__, Gerard P, Goehringer~
Joseph H~ Sawicki~ Robert J. Douglass. Absent was: Serge Do~}s~,
The unazrma~ omened tn~ meeting at ~:50 o~clock p~m.
RECESSED ~_RING: Appeal No~ 2826. Application of Herbert Hoffman
& '¥~ife. Tn_~ hearin~ was reconvened at ~:50 D~m. It had ~een recessed
at the---meeting of this Board on June 11, 1981~ to be reconvened on
this date.
Appeal No. 2826. Application of Herbert Hoffman & wf~ byMrs.
Jules Adriaenssens, Box 76F~ R~R~ #2~ Mattituck~ ~f for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III~ Sec. 100-3J fo~ permission to construct
dwelling with insufficient front and rearyard setbacks'at Smith Drive~
Southold~ ~f; also kno%m as Goose Neck Subd. Lots I06~ 107~ 113 and
of 11~ Filed Map ~1663; Coun~ Tax Map Item No. I000-76-2-3~.1.
~E~.~ CM~IRt~Jq: This meeting was recessed on the eleventh~ Jerry
and I were do%v%n there looking at ~'
~ (remainder of statement was inaud-
ible as a result of interference on the tape.)
~.~ HOF~=W: Just %he m_we feet extra is what we're looking for~
twenty five, that's about all. Nothing else that I c~n think ~°
moou ex~ra~
~EFx GO~qRiNGER: Did you say five ~ ~ ~- M_~. Hoffman?
~. HOF~N: We!l~ we were hoping that ~
u~_~ would grant us to go
twenty five foot off t~e road.
~[BL~ GOEB=~INGER: Oh i see.
Southold Town Board ~T Appeals ~2- ~-'J
June 18, 1981
~ H0~&N: Rather~than thirty, as Mr~ Grimm would go along with
giving him twenty-one foot away from the back line.
MSEMB~ G0~RING~: Oh, I thought you were talking about twenty
five foot on the back where there's a fifty foot rear yard~
MR~ GR~.9~: That's a point that I'd like to make~ I don't know if
we talked the last time~ but there is~ I don't know what the requirements
are~ but there is~ what I think is a front%~ard variance within 300 feet
~ud that's the Crawford proper~yur~less M~ro Crawford~s ~ust been sold Out
to the R~os I think, or Lazaros~ which is on the waterfront and their
garage is~ it looks to me within ten feet of the roadway°
M~EP~ GOES~iNGER: That's not a primary st_~mcture though.
~Sq. GRI~_: Well it' s their garage e_nd that' s what ~r. Hoffmen
and Mrs. Hoffman wa_ut to put up near the road too is their garage.
~ GOE_h~INGER: Ye~h~ but since their garage~ the Hoffman's
garage is attached to their house it becomes a primary structure. %~en
you have a detached garage it's not a primar%~ structure.
~&q. CHAIFJA~2{: The setback would apply to that as it wou_id to a
house.
Miq. GR~: As to a house. I'd ~ust like to make it clear that
particularly because of what Mr. Hoffman ~ust said~it doesn't appes~
that the Hoffm~u's are abl.e to make any accommodation v~uiess the
Board is able to give them a ~ant~ ~front and back or one or the other.
And I'd ~ust like to say that our feeling is that we should have at
least 25 feet in back from the line to their house. And having gone
out there and looked at it again~ I feel more strongly about it than
I did even before, and it's higher than ours and it's going to over-
whelm our house, and we don't have a lot of options. I don't know
how that factors into all the other opo~tunities there are to alter
the situation but that's all that I c~e~o say.
other comments?
~-~qS. ADRiAENSSENS: We' !I wait to see what happens
~ GOEkRI~GER: Would you be unhappy, ~Ir. ~ how do you pro~
no~uce it?
~R GOEHRING~: Grimm o
~Sq. GRiM3~: Like the fairy tales°
Y~-~.~B.ER GOEk-q!NG~.: Woultd you be unhappy with a twenty foot rear-
yard if we put a p~ovzs_on in there that there be proper shielding in
the area where the house is going to be viewed from your property?
Southold To~ Board ~ ~pp~als
June 18, 1981
MZq. GRI~2~i: I~ve thought about that a great deal ~d I think
the answer is, I wou!dn~t be, I would prefer the 25 feet without a
fence to 20 feet with a fence. Simply because~ as you all know~ I
come from the city and we bought this place to get aws~y from being on
top of one another ~nd having six-foot fences and all the rest of
that kind of thing, and it would be a real disappointment to my wife~
and my self, all of us for that matter to have to come to that here.
Obviously it's better then s~ar_ng at the back wall of the house, but
it isn't what I would like to see happen to my property.
71%~ HOFFM_~!~: Cou!dn~t there be a (word was inaudible) with
shrubbery or having a fence?
~q GOE.W2qiNG~R: Yel!, if i was making the motion, ~ad this
is very highly irregular because we wouldn't ~u~ually have this amouaat
of contact between the petitioners~ but I would say- it would either be
done with stockade fence or s_hrubbery~ and that's what I would put
i don~t ~ow if you want to reserve decision on this~ close the hearing
or not after the input~
MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: Could I say something? I just, I thought about
after that night because we really didn't think that anybody was going
to object, you know, and you could see that on our presentation. I
got kind of upset and my husband refuses to stand up and do it so I
got stuck with it. And afterward I thought about it, Mr. Grimm and
his family bought that house knowing the size of the property and
knowing full well that someday someone was going to build next door.
You know, it isn't something that we're trying to take away from him.
They knew that that was, you know, the identical footage that you had.
MR. GRIMM: We also knew we'd be proteoted by zoning laws to keep
the building sixteen foot away from us.
MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: But you had built close to the property line,
which has created a problem for us as well, you know, if you weren't
that close to the varmance that some board some, at one time--
MR. GRIMM: There wasn't a variance when the house was built.
MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: Well how can you build eight foot from the
property line?
MR. GRIMM: Those were the zoning laws at the time.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: It was built, probably, back when house lots
were allowed at 12,500. Quarter acre. And then it changed, see, went
to half acre and it went to acre since that started.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why we have so many problems now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At half acre, we were what, 10 and 157
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah.
So~thold Town Board ~_l Appeals -4- June 18, 1981
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And now we're 35, 15 and 20. It's up to
you, Mr. Chairman.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: We also have another thing in that, in.zoning,
if you buy a 10t and you're supposed to build a house to fit the lot,
not the lot to fit the house. If you buy a small lot, that's, you're
supposed to keep it down so that it conforms to the lot, not try to
put a house on it that covers the whole lot.
MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: Oh, I don't think it's the same.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'm not saying that like this, but I'm saying--
MRS. HOFFMAN: We're not really, right? We've still got a lot
of property its just that little border.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That we have a lot of cases that come in where
people try to jam a long ranch on a little narrow 75 foot lot, and
it don't work.
MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: No, I remember when I first came down and
Mr. Hindermann figured out the square feet of the property, I don't
even know if he did that, he figured out the square feet of the house.
He said that way there was plenty of square footage of land as opposed
to the square footage of the house. It's just the problem of when
the Hoffman's bought the property. You know, the shape of it, that's
the catch, it's just that one little part. At one point you have far
more than you need to fill all the 50-50 business, and just that one
corner that you can't, you know, you can't get on there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of the Board members have any other
questions?
MEMBER SAWICKI: No, nothing Charlie.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No? Then I'll offer a resolution closing this
and we'll kick it around.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision re-
served in the matter of Appeal No. 2826, application of Herbert
Hoffman & wife.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer,
and Sawicki. (Absent was: Serge Doyen, Fishers Island.)
Southold Town Board o~Appeals -5- ~ June 18, 1981 Special
Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2826. Application of Herbert Ho£fman
& wife, by Mrs. Jules Adriaenssens, Box 76P, R.R. #2, Mattituck, N~f for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for ~ermission
to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rearyard set%acks at
Smith Drive, Southold, NY; also known as Goose Neck Subdo Lots 106, 107,
113 and pars of 114, Piled Map #1663~ County ~ax Map Item No. 1000-
76-2-34.1.
After inveStigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a new
one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback off
Smith Drive North of 30 feet and an insufficient rearyard setback
of 16'2" at the property line joining the premises presently owned
by Carway (Subdivision Lot No. 112). The premises in question
contains an area of approximately 23,450 square feet, but due to
its peculiar shape, the Board agrees with applicant's reasoning
that an average dwelling design could not be situated without
requiring relief from a variance.
The Board finds that the relief requested is within the spirit
of the zoning ordinance; that the relief requested is not substan-
tial in relation to the code requirements; that the circumstances
present are unique; that the character of the neighborhood would
not be adversely affected; and that the interests of justice would
be served by granting the relief subject to the below-specified
conditions.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that Herbert Hoffman be granted a variance to the
zoning ordinance requested in Appeal No. 2826, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) That there be a minimum frontyard setback of 28' from
the Smith Drive North property line;
(2) That there be a minimum rearyard setback of 20' from
the rear property (p~esen%ly Carway) property line;
(3) That proper shielding of 25' or more as needed be main-
tained for shielding the house, such as stockade fencing or hedges
[not exceeding the height requirements of the ~code].
Location of Property: Smith Drives, Southold, NY; Goose Neck
Subdivision Map No. 1663, St~bdivision Lots No. 106, 107, 113 and
part of 114; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-76-2-34.1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki
and Grigonis. (Member Doyen, Fishers Island, was absent.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-6-
June 18, 1981 Special
Meeting
RDS~VED DECISION: Appeal No. 2831. Application of ~rank J.
Abbadessa~ 14 Walden Place, Great Neck, NY 11020 for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for ~ermission to'construct
addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyard ~rea at 1200 Maple
Lane & 55 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, NY~ Cleaves Point Sec. II Subd.
~iled Map #3521 Lot 40~ County TaX Map Item No. 1000-35-6-1.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a
24' by 13'6" garage addition, to be attached at the southerly side
of the existing dwelling with a 4'6" by 9' breezeway in the sideyard
area. The setback proposed from the southerly property line is
seven feet. The premises in question is improved with a one-family
framed dwelling with a 12' by approximately 6' accessory building
in the rearyard area and contains approximately 10,000 square feet
in area. The premises ms lo~cated at the junction of two intersecting
streets. It is the opinion of this Board that sufficient hardship
or practical difficulties has not been shown inasmuch as a facility
as proposed by appellant may be constructed in the rearyard area
under the provisions in the Code specified for "accessory buildings."
The Board does not agree with the reasoning of appellant.
The Board finds that the relief requested is substantial in
relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is
not within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that if the variance
were granted the character of the neighborhood would be adversely
affected; that the hardship or practical difficulty is not sufficient
to warrant the granting of this relief; that the circumstances are
not unique; that the relief may be obtained by a method other than
a variance; and that the interests of justice will be served by
denying the relief requested by this appeal.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that Frank J. Abbadessa be denied a variance to the
zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 as applied for,
Appeal No. 2831.
Location of Property: 1200 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor
Road), Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-35-6-1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent).
Southold Town Board 5-£' ApPeals
-7- ~ june 18, 1981
It was again brought up that it is the opinion of the Board that
a Long Env_ronmental Assessment Form should be prepared and filed with
our office concerning Appeal No. 2833, Northville Industries Corporation.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2778. Application of North
Fork Motel, Inc., by William H. Price, Jr., Esq., 52325 C.R. 48,
Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. I, Sec. 100-
13B, Art. VI, Sec. 100-60B(1)(b), Art. XIV, Sec. 100-144F for: (a)
permission to change use of premises and (b) ~ermission to establish
single-living unit within multi-dwelling (motel) at premises known as
52325 C.R. 48 (North Road) Sou~ho_d, NY; bounded north by Soundview
Ave.~ west by Main, Kemper, Zech and I~arson; south by C.R. 48 (North
Road); east by Sound~iew Ave. and C:~R. 48; more particularly known as
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23.
This is an appeal by North Fork Motel~ Inc. of two determinations
of the Building Inspector dated Fabruary 13, 1980 and December 22, 1980.
By letter dated February 11, 1980, Appellant wrote to the Building
Inspector and stated: "We have been builder, ovmer, operato~ of the
North Fork Motel for the past 16 years. As of late (p~st few
some of our steady clientele have expressed a desire to purchase a unit
outright. Therefore, we hereby apply for approval to do same." On
February 13, 1980, the Building Inspector issued a written No%ice of
D~sapproval which stated that the proposed use was not a use permitted
in the ~'B" Zone ~istrict. An appeal of the February 13~ 1980 deter-
mination of the Building Inspector was taken to the Board, a hearing
held and thereafter on March 12, 1981 withdrawn prior toga determina-
tion of this Board.
By application dated December 17, 1980, Appellant applied to the
Building Inspector for a Certificate of Occupancy for Room No. 23
within the Motel structure. The Building Inspector denied such appli-
cation on ~ecember 22, 1980 upon the~rounds that '~conveying a living
unit of existing motel to single ownershi~ (condominium) does not
keep within the definition of a motel (motor vehicle transients) and
as such would not be a use permitted under Special Exception."
By amended appeal dated December 29, 1980, Appellant appealed the
December 22, 1980 Building Inspector determination as well as the ~re-
vious February 13, 1980 determination (the appeal of this Board ha~ing
been withdrawn on March 12, 1981).
The premises which are the subject of this appeal comprise a
parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.3 acres located at
the intersection of County Route 48 (formerly County Route 27) and
Sound View Avenue and is located in the '~B'~ ~ig~t Business District.
The property surrounding the subject premises is zoned for ~A" Resident-
ial and Agricultural uses. There is erected upon the premises a two-
story wood frame motel containing 41 motel rooms and two units with
kitchens. The building was constructed in June, 1965 at which time
such use was a permitted use under the then existing Zoning Ordinance.
Under the present Zoning Code a motel is a use ~ermitted by special
exception (100-50B(4); 100-60B(1)(b)) in the ~B'i~ zone provided that the
density requirements of the code are complied with. Applying the present
So~thold Town Board 6~'~Appeals
-8- ~ l. June t8, 1981
density requirements to the premises would, oermit 9.44 motel units on
the site, rather than the 43 units oresentl~ existing. Accordingly,
the present use is a pre-existing uSu-conforming use.
In its application to the Building Inspector, Appellant stated it
"wishes to convert the form of ownership £rom corporate to condominium.
No change o£ use is contemplated or requested by the application for the
Certificate of Occupancy' for unit or room number 23 of the~tet."
Section 100-144 A of the Zoning Code provides as follows:
"A certificate of occupancy shall be apolied for from the
Building Inspector and it shall be unl~fut to do any of the
following until a certificate of occuoancy is issued therefor,
to wit: (1:) Occupancy and use of a b~ilding erected, recon-
structed, restored, structurally altered or moved,-or any
change in use of an existing building. (2) Occupancy, use or
any change in the use o£ any-land, (3) Any change in use of a
nonconforming use."
Section 100-13 defines a Motel as follows:
"A building containing guest rooms, each of which, or each
pair of which, has a separate entrance leading directly from %he
outside of the building with parking space conveniently located
to each unit, and which is designed, used or intended to be used.
primarily for the accommodation of motor vehicle transients."
The issue in this appeal is whether the contemolated conveyance of
a single room in an existing motel from the corporate owner of the
entire motel property to an individual for his ~ole use and occupancy
is, in effect, a change of use o£ the oremises. The Appellant contends
that merely a change in ownership will-occur. This Board disagrees.
The premises in question are presently utilized as a seasonal
motel. Under the Zoning Code a "Motel" is a building containing
guest rooms ..... which is designed, used or intended to be used primarily
for the accommodation of motor vehicle transients." Webster's New
International Dictionary, 2nd Ed.., defines a "guest" as "any person who
lodges, boards or receives refreshment for pay at a hotel, boarding-
house, restaurant, or the like" and "transient" as "passing quickly
from existence~ of short or uncertain duration;" If the use of a unit
in the Appellant's motel were to be owned by-an individual, it is to be
expected that such person co lm occuoy sa~d unmz during such times and
for such duration, and by such of hi~ family and guests as he might
wish, since he, as owner, has complete control of the use and occuoancy
of the unit. The o~ner is not a "guest;~ and it is doubtful that h~
would be characterized as a "motor vehicle transients". This type of
use would differ from the present use of such unit by motor vehicie
transient paying guests, under the control and supervision of the motel
owner.
In the opinion of this Board, the use o£ a room in a seasonal motel
for the accommodation of motor vehicle transients is not the same as the
use of such a room by~a person who is the actual owner of the motel room.
The former is a use permitted by the Code. The latter is a use not
permitted, by the Code.
S36thold Town Board 0~/Appea!s -9- ~ / June 18, 1981
Accordingly, it is the decision of this Board that the Building
Inspector acted properly in denying the application for a certificate
of occupancy and such determination is affirmed and the appeal is
dismissed.
On motion by Mr. Grigon~:s, seconded by ~o Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the North Fork Motel, ..Inc_~., be denied a variance
to the zoning ordinance, Article I, Sec. 100-13B, Art. VI, Sec. 100-
60B(1)(b), Art. XIV, Sec. 100-144F, Appeal ~o. 2778.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer,
and Sawicki. Mr. Doyen was absent. (Fishers Island)
After discussion, the Board scheduled its next inspections for
Wednesday, June 24, 1981 at 5:00 o'clock p.m.
Being there was no further business to come before the Board,
motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and carried,
to adjourn at 6:10 o'clock p.mo (approx,).
Respectfully submitted,
~zliee__ M. Carey, Recordi~ug Secretary
Southold T'own Boa~d of Aopeals
APPROVED
Chairman ~-a~ of Appea.,l~