HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/02/1981Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
Joseph H. Sawicki
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 1981
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held
on Thursday, April 2, 1981 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town
Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman; Robert J. Doug-
lass, Joseph H. Sawicki, Serge J. Doyen, Jr., and Gerard P. Goehringer.
Also present were Mrs. Ruth Oliva, Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, Mr. Henry
Lytle, Senior Building Inspector George H. Fisher.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2797. Application of James V.
Righter (for Fishers Island Development Corp.), 58 Winter Street,
Boston, MA 02108 for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance,
Art. III, Sec. 100-30B(8) for permission to create additional employee
housing on second floor of Beach Club to match the existing housing
on the west end of club (also known as labor camp), to be located on
the south road to the East End of Fishers Island, more particularly
designated as County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-5-2-7.3, 1000-4-4-12,
1000-1-1-3.6, 1000-4-6-9.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and section of
the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding area.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak for this application? Is there
anyone here to speak against this application? (Negative) Serge,
do you have anything you would like to add?
~Southold Town Board of AFpeals -2- April ~ 1981
MEMBER DOYEN: No, the~.appti~a~ion covers it very well. It's
really a duplicate of the housing that was granted before.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, that's all it is. It's a duplicate
of what we granted them on one end, now they're putting it on the
other end. Any of you fellows, Joe, Bob? (Negative). I'll offer
a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until later
O~.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it-was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of James V. Righter (for Fishers Island Development Corp.),
in Appeal No. 2797.
.~Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
to renew the following special exception-sign renewals for a
period of one year from the expiration date noted thereon, and
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT AND FUNDING LAWS
FOR HIGHWAYS, if applicable:
Appeal No. 900 -
Appeal No. 1165 -
Appeal No. 932 -
Appeal No. 2027 -
Appeal No. 1664 -
Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Fred W. Kaelin
Ross'~ North Fork Restaurant
Mattituck Presbyterian Church
Peconic Antiques (highway sign)
Beachcomber Motel
Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
to amend Paragraph Sixth, Fourth Sentence of this Board's decision
in Appeal No. 2775 as filed with the Office of the Town Clerk on
3/19/81 to read as follows:
...The carport as originally applied for and upon
which the Board acted in September 1978 has now
evolved into a two-story structure 24 feet by
28 feet in size, 16 feet high (applicant appar-
ently proposes to raise the grade along the front
of the structure [street side] to comply with the
18-foot maximum height requirement of the Code)...
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
7~ ?Southold Town Board of A~peals -3- April ~,t 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2789. Application of David L. Mudd,
North Road, Southold, NY for a Variance ~o the Zoning Ordinance, Art.
III, Sec. 100-30A(2) [d] to construct farm tool shed with insufficient
rear and side yard setbacks at property located on the north side of
C.R. 48, Southold; bounded north by Lieblein, east ky Aliano, Latham
and Morris, south by C.R. 48, west by Doroski; County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-59-9-28.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and a section
of the County Tax Map of this area and the surrounding properties.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this application?
We have to get these on tape; anyone that is giving testimony, would
you please.speak into the floor mike?
DAVID MUDD: In here? I'm Dave Mudd, and I'm requesting that
the building as aforesaid document puts out. And it is for the
reason that we would have to rip out a considerable amount of vine-
yard that's been planted now for almost three years, and it is in
an area that is back to the extreme side of our farm, and hopefully
would be improved and put the building in there. Primarily it's due
to the fact that the farm was split up when the County confiscated
the road-zthe Original part of the farm up there on the south end,
and for that reason it is why we have asked for the appeal. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to speak
against it?
HERMAN LIEBLEIN: I own the property north of the property,
and I strenuously oppose this. I do not like to have a tool shed
sitting right out_to the~boundary line. It does not look very
presentable. I looked at it this morning and I think it's an out-
rage to put something that's so unsightly in front of my property.
If I want to develop the land that I own which is almost three acres,
it'll devalue it considerably, and at present the property back there
is now residential and I think it would be an unsightly thing to put
it.
MR. CHAIR~LAN: Anyone else?
MRS. HERM~ LIEBLEIN: I object to it, too,
MRS. LIEBLEIN: I want to build a house up there someday, and
I don't want to look at those old shacks that he put up. He already
has the foundation down, and I object to it. If you objection, speak
your peace.
JOAN TRULIO: From my back window, I can see the structure that's
~ ~ Southold Town Board of ~peals -4- April ~z, 1981
(Mrs. Trulio continued:)
up now. I have an expensive home. I have a nice home. I pay good
taxes. I moved out here because I like the area. It is rural, it
was beautiful. I'm a real estate broker. I'm aware of how proper-
ty can be devalued. And if I was buying the piece of property right
now, and those structures were on that properny that I can see from
my back kitchen window, I would not have bought the land. I am
absolutely outraged. I can understand if a farmer has to build a
tool-- this is not a storage shed as far as I'm concerned. It looks
like a migrant camp. It's over 60 feet l~ng. If somebody has to
build a storage shed, do it. Don't bring in a shanty from somebody
else's property that's falling down and looks absolutely horrendous.
You know, build a decent shed and build it within the bounds where
it's supposed to be. Up off-- I know if I had to build something,
they would be very strict with me, and I don't know why they are so
liberal with the farmers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Mr. Terry?
RENSSELAER G. TERRY, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board.
I appear here on behalf of Mr. Thomas Morris. Mr. Morris was con-
cerned the application didn't indicate the location of the building,
and the reason I appear was to determine that it is not, the building
isn't to be placed in the area adjacent to County Road 58 (48), even
though that was given as the location of the property. I have in-
spected the map and if I understand correctly i~is to be in the
northerly end or northerly corner of the property, and a considerable
distance away from Mr. Morris' property. If that is the case, then
it is not to be--if the plan is not to move ~he building from that
area, Mr. Morris would have no objection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what the proposed application indicates
on the map, it will be up in the northeast corner. Is there anyone
else? Do any of you gentlemen have any questions you would like to
ask Mr. Mudd, or-- (Negative) I'll offer a resolution closing the
hearing unless someone else has something to say right now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of David L. Mudd in Appeal No. 2789.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2798. Application of Dolores
Strong, Box 1033, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
~Southold Town Board of A~peals -5- April , 1981
nance, Art. VI, Sec. 100-61, 100-60C, Art. II, Sec. 100-32 for per-
mission to construct fence mn the side, rear and/or front yard
areas at 11455 Main Road, Mattituck; bounded north by Van RysmTk
and O'Neil, east by Mileska, south by S.R. 25 (Main Road); west
by Burgon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-142-2-17.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property with
buildings located~on it~and a section of the County Tax Map show-
ing this property and the surrounding area in this section.
DAVID STRONG: Naturally I'm in favor of this fence and
as you can see we need this fence because I don't have to tell
you that thefts are increasing all the time, and without fencing
in the :.area where we plan to display boats is just an open invita-
tion. That's the reason for this application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for it? How high is
the fence going to be, just looking at it I don't see it in here.
There's no height in here.
MR. STRONG: We never really got that far because he said
it wasn't permitted in that zone.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On the bottom of yours'map here it says,
"Fence to be 5' chainlink with three-strands of wire on top."
MR. STRONG: Yeah, that's what we have now but without the
wire, and we just thought we would add the wire, because last year
they carried stuff right over the top of the fence.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea how high the strands
of wire would be there?
MR. STRONG: Well, we're kind of changing that, because they
told us to try and make it look nice. I don't--we haven't really
got the prices, but we We~e~thinking more of going to a stockade
fence and make it look nice in the back anyhow. But if we did put
the wire in, it would be just like the~regular thing, I guess,
it's about 1½. Just so the guy can't climb over the thing lifting
the boat; he took a bunch, two or three,canoes last year by doing
that. Eighteen inches I guess is the normal thing I've seen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd~say somewhere about 1½' something like
that.
MR. STRONG: Yeah. That's the ones I've seen.
~ Southold Town Board of kFpeals -6- April~ ~, 1981
MEMBER DOUGLASS: On top of a five foot fence it would be
MR. STRONG: Well, they usually angle them, it doesn't go
straight up.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: It would still be about 6'6", on top of
a five-foot fence. The whole thing would be about 6'6" which
I believe is allowable in sideyard, right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, in sideyard. And the gates that you
propose would have to be kept open during business hours.
MR. STRONG: Yes. Right with the traffic parking in the back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone wishing to speak against this? Do you
have any questions? (Negative) I~ll offer a resolution closing the
hearing and reserving decision.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Dolores Strong in Appeal No. 2798.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2790. Application of Hope Prior
Smith by Robert W. Gillispie III as agent, for a Variance to New York
Town Law Section 280-a for approval of access. Location of Property:
North side of Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by Jockey
Creek and Lademann; east by Wirth; south by Kowalski, Pine Neck Road
and Kohl; west by Lademann and Kowalski; County Tax Map Item No.
1000-70-5-31.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:10 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and access
and also have a section of the County Map showing this property and
the surrounding area. Is there anyone here that would like to
speak for this?
ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III: I just want to reiterate what's
in the application--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you please use the mike, Bob?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Everything has to go on tape these days.
Ever since watergate I guess.
~Southold Town Board of AFpealS -7- ApriI~', 1981
M~.~ GILLISPIE: That's what I was afraid of. I just want to
reiterate what's in the application. There are two existing dwellings
on this property now as contemplated to only create two lots. The
property has a configuration where, in spite of the area, there are
only 20 feet on the town road, so that it's very difficulty to meet
the requirements of the ordinance in terms of property width. And
basically I would hope that you would approve it on that basis.
MR. CHAIRM3~N: Ail right, thank you, Bob. Mr. Lademann?
JOHN LADEMANN: My name is John Lademann. I happen to own
the property north and west of Mrs. Smith's proposal; and I ha~e
no problems with what she intends to do because of the fact that
we have shared the right-of-way going in there and there will be no
increase of another dwelling.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for this?
MRS. SMITH: I just want to reiterate what Jack said. We
came in 1978, and we're been using that road ever since 1967 when
we built the yearround house, and my husband retired from teaching,
and the house-the bungalow that I want to sell is only occupied
three months of the year in the summertime. It's strictly a summer
bungalow. And there isn't tha~ much traffic. The odd thing is
that we r~ly do meet each other when we go down that road, because
there are all together five cars that use it at all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone to speak in opposition?
KAREN KOWALSKI: I'm Karen Kowalski and my husband ~nd I
own property bordering on the road. We're not necessarily against
it, but we have a couple of questions as to the road and stuff like
that. We're wondering whether it's going to be paved, and if so
if they are still going to use our land too, because right now they
have their own right-of-way but they are using our land too so they
have a double thing and we don't want that to go on. Because we
plan to build our own house there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you show us on here just where you mean
by "double."
MRS. KOWALSKI: Ok. They have a right-of-way there and
they're cutting across and it really looks bad (southwest corner
at south end of right-of-way on Kowalski property).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did any of you gentlemen have any questions
you wanted to ask? Bob, or Mrs. Smith, what's going to become of
that property that's well, would be east of Kowalski, that little
odd piece that comes DP in there? That's going to remain as is.
MRS. SMITH: I'd like to say that little cut off that the
young lady spoke about, years ago when a farmer who was farming
that area, his vehicles could not make the right angle and the
~Southold Town Board of Ak~peals -8- April'~ ~, 1981
(Mrs. Smith continued:)
people who farmed the area started using that. Personally, I never
used it, and you could of course, it's there. But we go in and out
upon the road that we're supposed to. And it came into being because
the people who owned the land started to--
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not the parcel we're talking about.
Do you have a sketch down there, Bob?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're talking about the dog leg.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Pan'3handle.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What becomes of this?
MR. GILLISPIE: Well this section here goes with this lot.
This lot goes with this. This lot would have a right-of-way over
the property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you will need access for both lots
but basically this is the lot with the right-of-way. This line
is somewhat confusing.
MR. GILLISPIE: Apparently a legal right-of-way was set up
years ago, 30, 40 years ago, so I think it has to be shown.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
P~SOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Hope Prior Smith in Appeal No. 2790.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2795. Application of Mary H.
Lockwood, 465 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, NY (by Mrs. Elizabeth T.
Albertson) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Section
100-31 for approval of insufficient area, depth and/or rearyard of
parcel located at Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by
Benbow and Given; east by Cutchogue Harbor; south by Whelan and Mason;
west by Old Harbor Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-3-5 and 6.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
~Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -9- April.s, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey showing the property and
County Tax Map showing this and the surrounding properties. Is
there anyone wishing to speak for this application? Would you give
your name please?
JOHN H. LOCKWOOD: My name is John H. Lockwood; I'm under
power of attorney for my mother, Mary H. Lockwood, and we're simply
going to put a driveway up that 45-foot strip of property as shown
on the survey. The driveway is there now. And that will be the
driveway for the little lot. The big house will also use that
driveway, that particular section of it. Nothing will be changed.
There will be no physical change whatsoever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That,s 45-
MR. LOCKWOOD: That's a driveway now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Any of you fellows have any questions
while Mr. Lockwood is on the floor? Thank you, Mr. Lockwood.
Anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it? (Negative)
Mr. Lockwood, is there some problem that you couldn't add more area
to that lot to make it conform a little more to the zoning code?
MR. LOCKWOOD: That one small lot there has the second oldest
house in New Suffolk, and that was the lot tha~was bought about in
1946, has a house on that, and those were always on the Tax Map as
two separate lots. The big lot goes straight on through. The reason
we're going to do this is that we're going 'to sell the big house, and
that driveway, if we did, if we sold the whole thing we would have no
way to get our car in the one single-car garage in the little house,
because that lot is quite small and the drive is already there.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I don't think you quite understood what he
meant. What he means is, can you not add, you have better than two
acres of land in the big parcel--
MR. LOCKWOOD: 2.8 in the big parcel.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Can you not take more of that land and add
~o.'this to bring this up to standard?
MR. LOCKWOOD: Bring this up to a full acre when you say
standard, is that what you mean, a full acre?
MR. CHAIRMAN: 40,000.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: 40,000, a contractor's acre.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not an actual acre but they call it an acre.
Building acre.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: By running the line across, changing your
driveway up to your big house and extend your property on across
~ ~Southold Town Board of ~Fpeals -10- April~-, 1981
(Member Douglass continued:)
somewhat there so that it clears your three-car garage but still
gives, so that your driveway could go up by your three-car garage
there.
MR. LOCKWOOD: I think the very simple reason we wouldn't
want to do that is, when you're asking $500,000 for the big house
and you have buyers interested, if you take that whole lower sec-
tion and give it to the little house, and thereby getting no
access on the road, you have to go pretty far t~ get the required
acreage on the little house there, that-- and there was no need
for it, that's why we didn't do it. All we wanted was a driveway
there to get to the little house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you own that building next to the little
old house?
MR. LOCKWOOD: The garage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. LOCKWOOD: The little garage. The big building is on
Benbow's.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I was wondering.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: His lot runs up along those telephone poles?
MR. LOCKWOOD: The telephone poles are on our property, and
I think Benbow is two feet east of those, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it create a problem if you just extended--
well that's the driveway right now-- Could you come up here please?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: This is his driveway now. He can come back
here and come over to here somewhere (from ~he north property line
towards the south for more area).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right now they have a right-of-way over this
to go to this property.
MR. LOCKWOOD: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So if you could extend this up here a little
more, it.~would add to this lot and you would still have a right-of-way
over it.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but the right-of-way takes away from
the lot. A right-of-way does not consist of area that goes with a
lot. Access doesn't count ia the acreage of a lot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we figured it in the other day--but
~ it was a mistake, I guess.
~ ~South~ld Town Board of Appeals -11- April~ ~, 1981
MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's in here, yeah. But at the time we
talked, if he could move the driveway over here somewhere and give
us a little bit more in here.
MR. LOCKWOOD: That would kill the sale of the big house.
It would lock these fellows off--they'd see they're down here and
maybe end up with 50 feet or so on the road instead of --
(Microphone was knocked to the floor and remainder of statement
not picked up.) And that we wanted to be able to get in that
garage, that was the reason we're doing this.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, you're coming over to here, you're
coming over 45 feet, and this is the telephone pole running right
along here.
MR. LOCKWOOD: You want to make this lot bigger?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. Do you understand the reason why?
MR. LOCKWOOD: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ok. These parceIs of property are
actually merged as they stand right now.
MR. LOCKWOOD: They're not merged on the Tax Map though.
Two separate tax bills.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the same name though?
MR.LOCKWOOD: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER. Ok/~so it's merged property.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: One piece.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER. Ok, now mn effect what you're doing is
subdividing a lot, creating a lot that's less than 40,000 square
feet and that's the reason why we're asking you So consider putting
more area into the lot.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: If you want to come up this way--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's basically what the disapproval
says from the Building Inspector.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: And shove your right-of-way outside of it--
MR. CHAIRMAN: You know what the Planning Board says--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone that would like to say anything
about this? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution-- is there anyone
here-- I don't remember, is there anyone 5o speak against this? (Negative)
~Southold Town Board of A~peals -12- April ~ 1981
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Mary H. Lockwood in Appeal No. 2795.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2796. Application of Peconic
Corporation, c/o Norris Grain Co., P.O. Box 1058, Ocala, FL 32670
(by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 and 100-31 for permission to convert
existing barn containing a one-family dwelling by adding a second
dwelling (apartment) on second floor. Location of property:
South side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north by New
Suffolk Avenue; east by Wickham and Bagshaw; south by Bay; west
by Smith, Haberman and Camp Mineola Road; County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-115-9-4.
i~!~[i [~i!~Th~3Chairman opened the hearing at 8:35 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property with the
building and a section of the County Tax Map showing this property
and the surrounding properties. Mrs. Wickham, do you have anything
you would like to add?
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: I would like to make just a few
statements to the Board. First of all, discussing the building which
is the subject of this application is what they call the "carriage
house" or barn. It now contains on the ground floor an open garage
or barn space and an office and one bathroom. One the second floor
there is a three-bedroom apartment, and I~d like to correct the
application which indicated it was a one-bedroom apartment. Three
bedrooms containing one kitchen and one bath, and I understand this
has been there since the 1920's. It's certainly a preexisting use,
and has been occupied and used by the Norris Family and their guests
and occasionally by their captain or their employees throughout the
years. The Norriseswwould like to renovate and make this three-bed-
room apartment into one one-bedroom apartment and one two-bedroom
apartment so that the number of the bedrooms would not change. You
would just be making the living space upstairs a little more con-
venient for guests or family or if necessary for employees, rather
than having three people- three bedrooms in one apartment. It
would provide for a better layout. I'm told that the existing
apartment is quite nice with the old wood and wainscotting and
whatnot, and that the expansion would continue in that nature.
~Southold Town Board of Appeals -13-
April~12~, 1981
(Mrs. Wickham continued:)
The only change on the outside would be the additional of an outside
stairway, and that would be located away from the road, so I don't
think that the neighbors will be affected visually. If you've been
downcto the property, the carriage house is an attractive building.
It doesn't look like a barn as much as it could 10ok like a residence
even.
The carriage house and the other buildings mentioned in the
application are located on 72 acres, and Mr. Norris wants to keep it
in farmland rather than develop it, and the alternatives to this
application would be as I mentioned either to subdivide the property
or I suppose to construct another residence, and that also seems
foolish when he has space in this building. And he's not increasing
the number of dwelling bedrooms.
I have Mr. Norris' architect here tonight, and I had him
bring some plans of the change if you would like to see them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That will probably answer Jerry's question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: YOu.~didn'~ti'.~pecifically say anything about
kitchens. Would there be two kitchens?
MRS. WICKHAM: There is one kitchen now. There will be one
additional kitchen. There is one bath now upstairs, and one down-
stairs. There are two baths, one upstairs and one downstairs. Do
you have those plans? This is Mr. Hurlin. If you have any ques-
tions, he could answer them. (Mr. Hurlin, Architect, brought up a
set of plans of the renovations anticipated for the Beard members
to review.)
MR. HURLIN: Now, this is the garage as Mrs. Wickham just
mentioned. This is an office area now. This bathroom is over here.
This porch is here. This ramp. This is the outside stairs She=has
mentioned. What's upstairs now is there's a kitchen-dining room
over here. There's a living area here, and there's one, two, three
bedrooms and a bath over here. And this is a loft space now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. We inspected that.
MR. HURLIN: And what would happen actually would be the
downstairs, a minor change in the bathroom, modernizing the bathroom.
And then upstairs will still be two bedrooms. TheySre not going to
have any more bedrooms upstairs at all. And that's about the extent
of it. As you can see from these drawings, except for the staircase
which was mentioned, the outside staircase, tbdb~ over here, is this
view as it ms now, and there it is when it is to be finished, you know.
This is, the only change here I believe instead of these high windows
there is one window. We may even change the outside architecture of
the building to an extent. On the site plan, this thing is quite far
back from the road, 300 or 400 feet back from the road.
~outhold Town Board of Appeals -14- April .., 1981
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
MR. HURLIN: It's isolated. I think that may be a little
point of consideration too.
MRS. WICKHAM: Well, how many do you need (site plans)?
Just one.
(Mr. Hurlin left one copy of the renovation plans for the
file.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wickham? Could you consider this a
labor camp?
MRS. WICKHAM: I think it's going to be continue to be used
in the same way that it has since the '20s. It's going to be used
for apparently when the Norrises have a lot of people out in the
summer, Mrs. Norris and their nieces and nephews or some of the
friends come up and stay here. As I mentioned the captain I think
is now living in the house, but he has stayed there at times. And
it's going to be used for family, employees possibly; t~.wouldn't
call it a labor camp. t think it's probably a lot more elegant
than what you would normally consider as a labor camp and it's not
limited to use by employees. The Norrises could use it for family
and friends as well as guests and employees.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would
like to speak in behalf of this application? Anyone to speak
against it? Do you have any other questions to ask Mrs. Wickham
or the other gentleman, the architect down there?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, I have two. Have you ascertained
the square footage that you're figuring for each?
MRS. WICKHAM: Of the respective apartments? I can calculate
that. Do you happen to know that off hand (to Mr. Hurlin)? The
existing apartment basically.- Do you have a scale?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's all right. You can send it to us.
MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. So you would like to know the square
footage of the apartment?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: The living space. Living space.
MRS. WICKHAM: You had another question?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. Through outside talk that you hear
which is not always right, is there a possibility of this turning,
this farm turning into a business venture on raising, on breeding?
~outh~Id Town Board of Appeals -15- April ~_~; 1981
MRS. WICKHAM: We are submitting to the Planning Board, I
don't think it's any secret-- I went over it with Mr. Fisher, plans
for building additional barns and fences for uses, for horses,
raising and~breeding. It's permitted by the Code and it is com-
patible with its uses. We need site plan approval only because
part of the property happens to be a multiple residence zone right
now.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: So this has a possi--
MRS. WICKHAM: And an agricultural-residential farm.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: So this has a possibility of becoming a
labor camp.
MRS. WICKHAM: No. It's going ho continue the use in the
same way that it always has for employees or you know, perhaps
some of the farm people, will be used, will be put there to stay.
There are other places they could stay. If they're local people
they won't need to stay on the farm. It's going to continue as
it always has. For various farms uses, whether it be guests or
employees.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: When would you say the last time the place
was lived in?
MRS. WICKHAM: When was the last time-- last summer? It
has been lived in regularly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It says in the application here, Bob.
"...Applicant plans to operate a thoroughbred ~arm, using the
additional apartment for farm help and guests .... "
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I know. I just wanted to hear it from
the parties.
MRS. WICKHAM: Well I put it in the papers.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. I read that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gail.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else have anything to say? If not,
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve deciszon in the
matter of Peconic Corporation in Appeal No. 2796.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
~Southold Town Board of ~peals -16- April~_, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2791. Application of George L.
Penny, Inc., 12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Special Excep-
tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VIII, Sec. 100-80(B) (3) for
permission to construct storage building in a C-Zone at 12585
Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Penny; east by
North Fork Oil Heat; south by Sound Avenue and L.I.R.R.; west by
Parrish; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-141-3-37 and 38.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:51 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property showing the
propoSed location, and we have a County Tax Map showing this
property and the surrounding area. Is there anyone here that
would like to add anything that has not already been added in
the application?
GEORGE L. PENNY IV: I don't know if there is anything
that specifically I can add to that, but if you have any ques-
tions regarding it I will be happy to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this where the house, this building you
propose is in back of the house?
MR. PENNY: Behind the house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ~Lnd this lot has been used for?part of the
business before hasn't it? You have stuff stored out there--
MR. PENNY: There is storage on that~proPerty now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what we were just wondering about the
ether day when we came up to look at it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are locust posts and things along
the front of that--
MR. PENNY: Lumber is stored out in the open area there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of you gentlemen have any other
questions? Moving the building forward a little bit off the back
line, would that create a little problem. You don't have that
much room between. Do you know how much distance there would be
between the back of the house and the proposed building roughly?
MR. PENNY: I'd just be guessing at this point. Probably
40 or 50 feet. If we move too much further forward, we're going
to run into the cesspools.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I guess years ago they put all cesspools
· Southold Town Board of Appeals
-17-
April~.-, 1981
in the backyards. Any questions from any of you fellows? Joe?i~Bob?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Can you give us a couple of feet so that
you have room to maintain your building?
MR. PENNY: I believe that we allowed three feet as it is.
To maintain the building.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: You can't put a ladder up three foot.
MR. PENNY: Well, the property to the rear is owned by my
father, so if there's a problem at that point I'm sure we can get
to it. And maybe four feet. How much room do you need? It's
going to be a prefab metal building.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, what I'm talking about is instead of
three feet, five feet, so you have--
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's next. (setbacks hearing)
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Oh the next one.
SECRETARY: This one is the Special Exception.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution closing Appeal No. 2791
and reserving decision.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of George L. Penny, Inc. for a Special Exception in Appeal
No. 2791.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2792. Application of George L.
Penny, Inc., 12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, A~t. VIII, Sec. 100-81 for permission to
construct storage building in a C-Zone with insufficient rear and
side yard areas at 12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded north
by Penny; east by North Fork Oil Heat; south by SoundYAvenue and
L.I.R.R.; west by Parrish; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-141-3-37 & 38.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:58 p.m., and waived the
reading of the legal notice and relative filed documents. The
Chairman then read the Notice of Disapproval, appeal application
in ~hei~.-entirety.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the one, George, where Mr. Douglass
thought you could inch off a foot or so for us.
~outhold Town Board of Appeals '-18- April~_-; 1981
MR. PENNY: Well, in looking, at this, the only problem we
have is that the access door is going to be at the end of the
building; and the access door has to be centered, and so we are
running into the office building--there's a question of how far
we have to go in one direction or another back there, and still
have full use of a 20-foot door. So I'd have to get that down
to a lot closer scale before I could give you an exact figure on
that. But I really don't see where I need more than three feet
to work on that back of the building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I see what you mean. Did you see the
sketch, Bob. If you come back here--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, I looked at it. Well, we're
only asking two feet. The door is[.in~the center.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's hard to say because this is not, as
you say, drawn to scale.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: What's the width of your door, George?
MR. PENNY: Twenty foot. That's why we wanted to get the
building back as far as possible for access. It's very possible
that a foot or two in any direction may not effect it, but I
couldn't be positive at this point.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have a copy of the cesspool
layout on the house that you're worried about too? Do you have
any idea where they are?
MR. PENNY: Oh yeah. I don't have a copy of it, but I
know where they are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, George, you can sit down. Is there
anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it?
(Negative)
On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of George L. Penny, Inc. in Appeal No. 2792.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonls, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2793. Application of David I.
DeFriest, Main Road, Southold, NY (by Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq.)
for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec.
100-30(B) (1) for permission to change use of existing dwelling
from one-family to two-family dwelling use at 51320 Main Road,
Southold; bounded north and east by DeFriest; south by Jankowski;
west by Main Road; County Tax Map item No. 1000-70-2-4.
,Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -19- April _, 1981
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:04 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and County
Tax Map of this and the adjoining properties showing the existing
house, which is to be converted to a two-family house.
IRVING L. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: I'm Irving L. Price, Jr. I'm
an attorney-at-law with offices at 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY.
As stated in the application, I appear on behalf of David I. De-
Friest with reference to the conversion of a one-family house in
an A-Zone to a two-family house pursuant to request of a Special
Exception. And I would like to have the Board allow me to_question
Mr. Albert Albertson, Jr., a real estate broker, who will testify
in behalf of the application. Will you give your name and address?
ALBERT ALBERTSON: Albert Albertson, real estate broker,
Southold, New York.
MR. PRICE: Are you &2. licensed real estate broker?
MR. ALBERTSON: Licensed real estate broker.
MR. PRICE: Have you bought and sold real property in
Southold Town?
MR. ALBERTSON: I have.
MR. PRICE: How many?years have you done that?
MR. ALBERTSON: Not as a broker but before I was a broker
for about 15 years.
MR. PRICE: Are you familiar with this property?
MR. ALBERTSON: Very much.
MR. PRICE: Did I request that you survey this property
and the adjoining property?
MR. ALBERTSON: You did.
MR. PRICE: And in your own words would you tell us what you
found?
MR. ALBERTSON: I found that from Oaklawn Avenue up to
Baker's Real Estate I found approximately seven two-family houses,
so that I don't think it would be unique to change this into
two-family.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- April ~ ~ 1981
MR. RRICE: With reference to this specific property, would
you give the Board your opinion as to whether or not the use will
prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or
properties in adjacent use districts?
MR. ALBERTSON: Not one at all.
MR. PRICE: Whether the use will prevent the orderly and -
reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in a
district wherein a proposed use is to be located or are permitted
or legally established uses in adjacent use districts? Or
whether the health, safety and welfare, comfort and c'on~enience,
or the order of the Town will be adversely affected by the proposed
use and its location?
MR. ALBERTSON: Absolutely not.
MR. PRICE: As to whether or not the use will be in harmony
with and promote the general purposes and intent of this Chapter?
MR. ALBERTSON: Yes.
MR. PRICE: Also, would you give your opinion as to whether
or not the character of the existing probable development of uses
in a district and peculiar suitability of such district for the
location of any such permitted uses will be furthered by such con-
version?
MR. ALBERTSON: No.
MR. PRICE: Or hindered by such conversion.
MR. ALBERTSON: No. Not at all.
MR. PRICE: Whether or not the conservation of property
values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of the
land will be fostered by this conversion?
MR. ALBERTSON: No.
MR. PRICE: Whether there will be an adverse effect of the
creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public
streets or highways because of the proposed use?
MR. ALBERTSON: No.
MR. PRICE: Do you believe that there is a satisfactory
availability of adequate and proper public or pri~ate~water supply
and facilities for the treatment and removal of discharged sewage,
refuse or other affluent, whether liquid, solid, gases or otherwise
that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use? Whether
the use of the materials incidental thereto are produced thereby and
they give off obnoxious gases, odor, smokes or soot?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- April _~, 1981
(Appeal No. 2793 David I. DeFriest continued:)
MR. ALBERTSON: None
MR. PRICE: Whether the use will cause disturbing emissions
of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise?
MR. ALBERTSON: No.
MR. PRICE: Whether the operation and pursuit of the use will
cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public
of parking or recreational facilities, if existing or if proposed by
the town or by other competent governmental agencies?
MR. ALBERTSON: No.
MR. PRICE: Is there anything you would like to add?
MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. I would tike to just add that as you
probably realize, we have no place for our young people to live in
Southold. They can't afford to build, and what we're finding out
zs, and the proof of it zs in our fire department. We have people
that come in our of high school and they are able to stay with us
for about three years until they get married; and then they're
forced to leave our town. And what we're winding up with is a
bunch of old people in the fire department. We can't get young
people to come zn and stay because they can't live here. They
haven't any place to go. I would certainly love to see some of
these big homes turned into two-family.
MR. PRICE: In your opinzon, Mr. Albertson, would it be a
hardship to maintain this building as a one-family residence?
MR. ALBERTSON: Absolutely. It ca~t carry itself.
MR. PRICE: And would converszon into a two-family house be
of economic aid to eliminate such a hardship?
MR. ALBERTSON: Certainly.
MR. PRICE: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Price. Is there anyone else
to speak for this? Anyone to speak against the application? (None)
Any of you board members have any qth~!questions you would like to
ask?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Albertson, when you describe the seven
two-family houses within the general vicinity of this particular house,
you were talking from Baker Real Estate to where?
MR. ALBERTSON: Oaklawn Avenue.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
~outhold Town Board of Appeals
-22-
April ~J 1981
MR. ALBERTSON: On both sides.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On both sides of the road.
MR. ALBERTSON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No questions, I'll offer -- from no one any
more information? I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later on.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it wa~
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the ~
matter of David t. DeFriest in Appeal No. 2793.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2794. Application of Victor E.
Catalano, 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, NY 11787 for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to
build a one-story garage with insufficient front and side yard
setbacks at the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel;
bounded north by Catalano and Peconic Bay Boulevard; east by
Keller; south by Bay; west by Pridgen; County Tax Map Item No.
1000-128-6-13.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:15 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting %o its publication in both the
local and official newspapers~ Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and tax
map showing the proposed project. They wish to attach a garage
on the easterly side of the house; it would leave one corner of
the garage slx feet from the property line because of the angle
of the house; and the furthest part of the garage would be 12
feet from the line. Is there anyone here that wisheS to speak
for this application?
VICTOR E. CATALANO: I'm Vick Catalano, and I'm asking for
the approval. The only thing I would like to say !s a portion of
this parcel, this is one lot of the three mot parcel under my
name, and the only alternative I would have to that site would
be on the third lot of the property, which is near the road that
I think would create a bigger problem as far as neighbors~
changing the layout of the property-- I think it would be a lot
eas~er to put it here in terms of eyesore if we will, from the
road. It will be my permanent residence, and it does not have
Southold Town Board of A~eals -23- April ~. ~ 1981
(Mr. Catalano continued:)
any garage on the property at the present time. I'll try to answer
any questions if there are any.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have any questions you would like
to ask Mr. Catalano.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no change of you putting it up
forward. I realize there is a waterview involved here, but there
is no chance of you putting it up forward of the house?
MR. CATALANO: Forward of the house? On the easterly side?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
MR. CATALANO: Not on the easterly side. It gets even more
narrow. Look at the survey, the easterly side becomes more narrow.
In other words moving backward--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was thinking about a detached garage.
MR. CATALANO: In front of the house-- when you say the front,
you say the bay?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The bay, yeah. Basically --
MR. CHAIRMAN: The backyard actually according to zonzng, but
it's the frontyard as far as you're concerned.
MR. CATALANO: Ok, so on the bay side, the only location
that I think would even satisfy the size for a garage would be on
the westerly side, and then I would have a driveway cutting across
the entire property, which I prefer not to do. This would to me
seemmngly hide it the most, sort of speak.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, the reason why I asked that question
is ~certain people down there have detached garage which end up to be
boathouses actually, forward of the main house or the house in ques-
tion, houses mn question, and that was the only reason why I asked
the question.
MR. CATALANO: Well, I don't -- the only problem I believe
with that, if I understand it correctly, by putting the garage up
front in front of the house on the bay side it would have access
from as far as the boathouse, or just--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It would be entirely up to you if you
wanted to put double doors in it, you know, drive through for
intensive purposes, but I was just thinkmng of it from the point
of vmew of another possibility or another alternate site.
Southold Town Board of A~-eals -24- April ~, 1981
(Mr. Catalano e~Appeal No. 2794 continued:)
MR. CATALANO: Well, I don't think, if looking at the property,
I don't believe now thinking about it that there would be a location
on the easterly side. The westerly side perhaps, but then again I
would have the problem of access. Also the fact that I am going to
be using it as a permanent residence and I do, I would like a single-
car garage for my personally owned vehicle being that I will be out
here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to speak
for this? A~yone to speak against it? (Negative) We have one letter
in the file:
...Board of Appeals...
This is a sub-standard lot. The Town already gives sub-standard
lots a 25% reduction in requirements for additions. Yet, the
Catalano's are~-asking for even further special favors from the
Town. Where does the special treatment stop? How can the Board
of Appeals justify a variance for an extension that will effect
a Coney Island atmosphere. There are two houses already very
close on sub-standard lots with the possibility of a third build-
ing shortly. Any further "variances" from the Town would mock
the value of the zoning law; a law originated to maintain'
property values and the quality of the Southold environment.
I am strongly opposed to any further proposed variances for an
addition.
/s/ Jeanne Croce
Box 326
Laurel, NY 11948 ....
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Victor E. Catalano in Appeal No. 2794.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of~ppeals
-25- Apm_~ 2, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2766. ApplicatiQn of Rose Dansker,
300 East 56 Street, Apt. M, New York, NY 10022 (by Gary Flanner
Olsen, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec.
100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed
parcels located at Wells Road, Pe~onic, NY; bounded north by Wells
Road, west by Groben, south by RiChmond Creek, east by Krueger.
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-2-10 & 11.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:25 p.m. by reading the
appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing
and affidavits attesting to its publication in both 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 survey of the property showing the
house and the second lot and section of the County Tax Map showing
this property and the surrounding lots in the area. Is there any-
thing you would like to add, Mr. Olsen?
GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ.: In effect the property has already
been subdivided. I was retained by Rose Dansker to represent her
on the sale of a house on Wells Road, and the closing of title was
scheduled to take place in October or November of 1980. When I
applied 'to the Building Department for a preexisting Certificate
of Occupancy, it was then that I first learned that her husband
who had originally owned the house that she was selling also owned
~he parcel next door, and accordingly the Building Department
refused issuing the preexisting Certificate of Occupancy until
we get the approval of the Zoning Board to divide these two pieces.
As I pointed out in my application, the property owned by the
applicant Rose Dansker was originally owned by her husband, William
Dansker, and we took title to this house parcel in a deed dated
January 10, 1957. At that time there was a house on the property.
There was no question that it is~.a valid residence priOr to zoning.
In 1963, Mr. Dansker apparently decided to buy the adjoining parcel
which would be basically southwest to the house piece, I would assume
the reason being to give them a little buffer or protection. Unfor-
tunately when he took title to that parcel, which at that time was
also a good, valid, single and separate parcel, he took it in his
name again the same way he took the house piece. Accordingly, we
had the merger when the Town upzoned between the two pieces.
Accordingly, we have to go through this variance.
When Mr. Dansker died in 1980, he was still under the impression
that he had two valid parcels, and he in his will bequeathed the
house piece to my client, Rose Dansker. His will was filed in the
Surrogate's Court of New York County, and just for the record I'll
give you the file number -- File No. 1766-1980. Thinking that the
house was in single and separate ownership, and no problem, he gave
that to his wife, but under the terms of his will he gave the vacant
parcel to the south which he owned to his children by a prior marriage.
Southold Town Board 0~-~.~ppeals
(Mr. Olsen continued):
Mrs. Dmnsker is under contract to sell the house piece, and
I will for the record give you a copy of the contract of sale.
It's for $110,000 for the house parcel. For your record I'll
give you the contract.
Even if Mrs. Dansker wanted to include in the sale the
vacant parcel, she couldn't do because she doesn't own it.
Because that was bequeathed under her husband's will to his
children by a prior marriage.
I'd also like to for your records give you a copy of the
minor subdivision map dated March 25, 1981 which was prepared
by Roderick Van Tuyl. It shows the house parcel having 16,000
square feet approximately, and the ~acant lot th the southwest
having an area of 17,500 square feet. I also have pending
before the Southold Town Planning Board an application for a
minor subdivision. I understand that if the Board renders a
favorable decision on this, they will be able to entertain
that next week. As far as the Department of Environmental
Conservation is concerned, I did submit an application to that
Department. I received a Notice of Complete Application which
I sent to your office and they've indicated that in their opinion
the project would not have a significant effect on the environ-
ment. But after that they sent another letter, and actually our
hearing with this Board has been postponed pending a determina-
tion by the D.E.C., and it ends up that they do not have any
jurisdiction at all over this matter due to~the fact that the
property was divided by bequest.
Now, I know you have in your file a copy of the Tax Maps
or the Tax Map. Very briefly if you look at the map referring
to District 1000 Section 86 Block 2, I'm going to run through
a series of the lot numbers of the parcels basically to the
north of our property on Wells Road on the east side of Wells
Road on Richmond Creek. Starting with Lot NO. 2, that's owned
by a Ralph Condit and has approximately .540 acre~ Lot 3 is
owned by a Paul?Be~g~ and the acreage is approximately .440
acre. Lot 4 is owned by a B~uce Staiger having acreage of .540
acre. Lot 5, I don't know if that is the same ownership or not.
MR. STAIGER: I'd like to find out about that. I'm a little
disturbed about this ex. pos facto, lumping two lots together.
MR. OLSEN: Ok. I oan't tell if that's, whether there is
again a merger problem like the Dansker piece, but in any event
that has acreage of .499 acre. Lot 6 is owned by a Robert Horton
and has acreage of .500 acre. Lot No. 7 of Gustav Weidman,
acreage of .333. Lot 8 by a Frederick Schultze having acreage
of .430. Lot 9 by a Laura Krueger having acreage of .440. Then
you have the two Dansker pieces, Lot 10 having acreage, actually
square footage acc~d~h~i!to the map roughly 16,000 square feet and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- Ap~_l 2, 1981
(Mr. Olsen continued):
Lot 11 acreage which is actually owned by the heirs of Mr. D~nsker
having acreage of .500. And then the parcels to the southwest I
believe were part of the subdivision approved by the Planning Board
and they're roughly an acre apiece. Across the street on the west
side of Wells Road the acreage varies. Let me just see here.
It would be District 1000 Section 86 Block 1,tLoti'_ll is owned by
a William Weinheimer having acreage of .692. And then there is
another piece, there are two pieces, one owned by a Mr. Reingold
and another by Mr. Simon having a little over an acre apiece.
Lot 10.2 by a Kim Browny having .940 acre. Lot 12 by a Rev. Agrla
having an acreage of .450 and Lot 13 by a Donald Walsh having an
acreage of .550. My point is, if you look at the Tax Map and see
how these pieces are held, tell me if there is any question that
it would be any change of character of the neighborhood by the
granting of this variance. Again it's a"fate of complet" anyway.
But the %~o pieces, the house piece and the vacant lot would be
generally in keeping with the size and shape of the other parcels
in the community. As a matter of fact maybe a little larger than
some of the others. And if you visually look at the tax map I
think it's clear. The vacant lot again, I don't even represent
those people. But that's a wooded parcel of property. Obviously
if anything is done with it, the Health Department requirements
would have to be met and far as the D.E.C. is concerned I assume
when they go to build if anybody does, that base will have to be
touched also.
Ail I'm interested in is getting a Preexisting C/O on the
house. If you look at the survey that I just submitted tonight,
the house piece and the vacant lot as one parcel doesn't make
any sense. The house is not centered between the two pieces.
Mrs. Dansker has always gotten two separate tax bills, and if
both pieces had been taken in slightly different names it wouldn't
even have to be here today. She certainly has a real practical
problem, in that that's all she owns and a real economic hardship
in that if the Town does not give her a Preexisting C/O, she~will
not be able to complete her closing.
I've given you for your records a copy of the two deeds into
William Dansker, and a copy of the will and the codicil; and I
will give you an affidavit from a Bruce P. McBean who is an
officer of the Manufacturer's Hanover Trust Company, which is
the Executor of Mr. Dansker's Estate just so you have something
for your file, so you know that's how she got the property and
that the Will was accepted for Probate as well as the Codicil.
Other than that I don't think I have anything else to add
to my application.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you give me on Lot No. 10 the
approximate acreage on a point factor? I think you just gave
us 16,000 square feet and--
Southold Town Board o~-~Appeals
-28- Ap~l 2, 1981
MR. OLSEN: According to the Tax Map it's .340. But that's
the piece with the house on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
MR. OLSEN: It's already there. It's built. And according
to the Tax Map ~O~sNo. 11 is .550.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that has anything to add
for this? Anyone to speak against this?
PAUL GROBEN: I'm an adjoining property owner.
Board a letter.
I sent the
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have it right here. If you want I'll
read it.
MR. GROBEN: I~ha~e stated many reasons for opposition to
this variance. But the thing I would like to discuss right now
are the water requirements that the Board of Health requires in
regards to sewage and drinking water. I have a copy of my own
survey ~ere (gave the Board a copy of his survey dated 12/12/74
and indicating Health Department approval on 12/18/74; acreage
40,000 sq. ft.), showing the location of my well (about 8' from
Dansker westerly property line).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we make a copy of this?
MR. GROBEN: Certainly. The reason my well was located
right nexn ~o the property was so that I could comply with the
Board of Health regulations. On the other side of my property
prior to my building, a cesspool had already been established
right on the property line, so mine had to be moved to the
extreme east side. The way it~s~ands now there is no p~ssible
way that there could be another well on that side-lot and still
comply with the Board of Health requirements. This is the thing
I'm most concerned about right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to read the letter that
you wrote?
MR. GROBEN: If you would, certainly.
Dear Sirs:
...I am the owner of a one-family residence at 3705 Wells
Road, Peconic. The house is situated on a one-acre lot of creek
front property that is bounded on the south side by Richmond
Creek and on the east by a one-family residence on a creek front
lot of slightly less than one acre. This property was formerly
owned by Mr. Dansker, who is now deceased. It is my understanding
Southold Town Board of~=~peals -29- Apz,_~ 2, 1981
(Mr. Chairman continued reading letter from Mr. Groben):
that the application for a zonzng variance under consideration now,
will permit the Dansker property to be divided and allow construc-
tion of another home on the other half. The result will be two
homes, both situated on drastically undersized lots.
A glance at the survey sketch will show the zmpossibility
of complyzng with the Board of Health regulations pertaining to
sewage disposalS, and drinking water, not only for the Dansker
household, but for the proposed homesite and my own home as well.
I am sure that variances of this nature have been granted in the
past. I can only attribute this to a lack of knowledge of the
extremely gragile and delicate nature of the local ecology, and
in particular, that of creekfront property.
In the light of ever increasing environmental knowledge,
it becomes clear that population density should be a significant
factor in making a decision of this sort. At present, I think
it can be reasonable assumed that one acre of land will not
support more than one household without serious environmental
damage. As further evidence of the frail nature of the Eco-
System of the area, I call the attention of the Board to the
recent discovery of the danger chemical temik in the water supply.
In consideration of knowledge of this sort, I think that the
Board will agree that great caution and prudence should be exercised
in the determination of land usage, not only for the benefit of
existing residents, but also for those who, through the ignorance
of these facts, will beseige the Board again and again to bend the
rules in their favor. If the Board is stmong_in its resolve to
protect the land and waters of the community for the residents
present and future, it will use the tools of its office to deny
the application and all others like it.
I have given much serious thought to the subject of downzoning
and I would like to remind the board that their decision will be
observed by many people with a great variety of interests. There
will be individual property owners who will share my own conserva-
tive views and will salute you for making a conservative decision.
There will also be people whose interest will be more of a material
nature, to whom the prospect of financial gain outweighs all other
considerations. I think the time has arrived for the Board ~o
show which side it is on, now.
I urgently request the Board to deny this application, and by
so doing, serve notice to all interested parties that the Board is
determined to interpret the zoning laws of the community in a way
that will protect the resources of the land'and waters for the
benefit of all.
Sincerely,
/s/ Paul V. Groben ....
Is there anyone else wishing to say anything in this matter?
Southo!d Town Board of L.~ppeals -30- Apz_~ 2, 1981
RALPH CONDIT: I'm Ralph Condit. I also live on Wells Road.
And I wish to enforce, or how can I say it, I agree with Paul
Groben. I know where his well is. This past fall when the water
table dropped, his well got blackish water, and I was there when
the well-driller was there to pick it up, pull it up, and I know
it's close to the line and I don't see how it can possibly get
another house between Dansker's and Groben's, and their cesspools
have to be within the 100 feet that the Health Department requires,
of Paul Groben's well. I realize that Mrs. Dansker may have a
problem but I don't think that this division should be granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone e~se?
PAUL BERG: My name is Paul Berg and I live on Wells Road
next door to Mr. Condit. I'm familiar with what is taking place
here, what's said, and I agree with Paul Groben and the Building
Inspector, and I request that it not be granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
BRUCE STAIGER: I'm torn both ways.
MR~ CHAIRMAN: If you could give us your name--
MR. STAIGER: Staiger. I'm the guy in the middle here. ~
MR, OLSEN: You had better be on my side with this one because
you've got the same problem, I think.
MR. STAIGER: Yes. I have exactly the same problem. I am
aware of the environmental and I support it. But I am also aware
of the fact, I know that house, I was the second house on the road.
It was sold as a lo%, somebody bought the other lot in good faith,
and I can quite frankly say that nobody has made it clear to me
that I have the same problem. That I had two lOts, I bought one
eight years later. I've had the two of them for 22 years and
always thought I had two lots.
MR.
lots.
But your lots are much larger than those two
MR. STAIGER: But I'm still in the same bind.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Both the same name exactly?
MR. STAIGER: Yes. And~nobgdy told me 2~ years ago that it
was going to make a damned bit of difference.
MR. CH~RMAN: Mr. Goehringer is an expe~t on this--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not really. Twenty-two years the zoning
was 12,500 square feet. Today the zoning is 40,000 square feet.
Twenty-two years ago the lots were legal, single and separate.
· Southold Town Board o~ ~ppeals -31- Ap~l 2, 1981
MR. STAIGER: I bought them legally, and I-- well you're not
interested in my Problem now. I'm sorry. I'm in the middle here.
I can understand Mrs. Dansker's problem and I can sympathize
with the ordinance. And I just want-- I don't know that I'm adding
to either side and I don't want to because I support both of them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you sort of joined the club here.
MR. STAIGER:
bind that I'm in.
you.
Well I think, sure, yes, you're in the same
There's virtue on both sides. I don't envy
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anydne else, do any of you fellows have
any--
BOB RINGOLD: My name is Bob Ringold, I live on Wells Road,
and I just more or less am trying to get an understanding of my
neighbor's concern as well as the concern t~at~_Mrs. Dansker has.
And so what I'm really trying to sort out in my mind is that,
number one, if the Board granted this request to divide the
property, obviously that would help the party sell her house
and the children of the Will to have tha~ property. Ngw, if,
my point is if it were granted and if indeed the laws worked
out that one couldn't put a house there because the Health Depart-
ment and other agencies say that they can't based on the square
footage, then it would seem to me that it may not be a problem
in that all sides can walk away from this happy if that would be
the case. That if the property were divided, she could sell her
house and if indeed the regulations say that another house can't
go there because of it's relationship with the cesspools and the
wells, then the house can't go there. So there would be no prob-
lem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that,s in the back of my mind-- that
they probably would be able to meet the requirements.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: May I answer that? This is willed to two
different people. In answer to your situation, it you grant her
hers like you say so that she can sell and the other people can't
build on theirs, they have a useless piece of property. There're
two different people involved. They're not the same party.
MR. OLSEN: If I may just perhaps clarify it. Mrs. Dansker
doesn't have a choice of selling the whole thing, because she
doesn't own the whole thing. She only owns the house piece, and
if you look at it visually, you would say"I don't see any reason
why this application doesn't make sense." Again as I said in my
presentation, I don't represent the children that own the lot--
I only represent Mrs. Dansker. If the children went for a vacant
land Certificate of Occupancy on the lot, if the Board approved
the division, the Building Department would say, "All right, as
far as we're concerned it's a single and Separate ownership, but
you must comply with other regulations--like the Health Department,
D.E.C. and so on." Now that's a different matter and has nothing
Southold Town Board of~ ~peals -32- Apz~.~ 2, 1981
to do with this Board, and obviously before a house can go on the
vacant piece, they have to go through those other governmental
agencies which is a separate and different issue from what this
Board is listening to. And if they deem that it's buitdable and
it may be that it's not buildable, and the other thing that sort
of strikes me as Mr. Condit is opposed to this and yet his
parcel is basically the same and shape of both of these pieces,
and Mr. Berg's piece is perhaps a little smaller--something like
.440 according to the tax maps. I know they're not exact dimmn-
sions of area, but again their pieces fall right smack within
the size and shape of the house piece and the lot piece.
So the D.E.C. and the Health Department and the quality
of the water and the sewage disposal--that's a different issue
and shouldn't be considered by this Board. That's the different
departments that watch over those things.
WILLIAM WEINHEIMER: My name is William Weinheimer. I
live on Wells Road. I was going to suggest in view of the con-
siderations of whether or not you could or could not build a
house on the open lot would it'cnot be better to decide, get
some opinion from the Board of Health as to whether or not a
house could be built on there before you grant the variance.
If the house could be built on it, then you wouldn't have any
particular problem in granting the variance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there may be something in here.
ADELE GROBEN: The amount of water-- we have a problem
with the water. First we had temik there and got a charcoal
purifier. Then there came a d~ought and water got very scarse.
We have salt water intrusion. I'm Adele Groben, Paul's mother.
We have salt water intrusions, so we have no water to drink or
cook with. My neighbors here carry water (inaudible statement)
so there is a scarsity of water here. We are very careful how
much of it we use, and if you have more people coming in and
trying to use it there, we're (inaudible statement). Mrs.
Dansker also has to have her well pulled up. Her water went
salty too. And Schultze had to pull up his pipe, the point was
so crusted with salt that no water could come through. So we
have a terrific water problem which is one of the main reasons.
And I heard Mr. Olsen say about hardship for Mrs. Dansker. Well
Mrs. Dansker told me she didn't even need the money for the house.
Her husband left her well off. She lives in a nice condominium
in New York and the children are not children. They are older
men, and they are very wealthy too I think. So I thought you
had better know all the facts. We know that this poor woman is
not being deprived of.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's amazing what you find out sitting up
here sometimes.
MR. GROBEN: May I ask Mr. Olsen a statement? He made a
Southold Town Board o~-Appeals -33- Apz~l 2, 1981
(Mr. Groben continued):
statement that I objected and my property was similar in size and
shape to the Dansker property. My property is rectangUlar ahd the
Dansker property from what I can see is almost pie-shaped, itLs a
trunkaded--
MR. OLSEN: It's not exactly the same shape, but basically
the size of it and so on.
MR. GROBEN: You've got a short frontage on the road, the
lot on the creek we're on.
MRS. GROBEN: Theirs is less than a half acre.
MR. GROBEN: You've also stated that the children's
property is 17,000 and that's it's a half acre?
MR. OLSEN: No I said -- again I was -- the 17,000 square
foot figure for the children's-- by the way they're not their
children. They are his children by a prior marriage which doesn't
make things~..~ny.~easier either.
MRS. GROBEN: Why don't they sell their piece to Mrs. Dansker?
MR. OLSEN: Well, I can't answer that. That's not the issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me--
MR. OLSEN: I was using acreage as was shown on the Tax Maps
which show they're not accurate--exact in areas. I was just using
what was on the Tax Map. The 17,000 figure is shown on Van Tuyl's
survey I submitted tonight. There may be a little difference.
MR. GROBEN: You take both properties together and you only
wind up with 33,000 square feet. There's 43,000 in an acre.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a letter here from the Department of
Health Services in regards to Appeal No. 2766:
...We are in receipt of your letter, dated December 4,
1980 concerning the above.
Based on the information'available to this Department~
the westerly parcel (number 11) may not meet our minimum
standards for new construction of a septic system and
water supply. The groundwater quality in the area is
marginal and distances between the septic system and sur-
face waters will be less than one hundred (100) feet.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
the undersigned.
Vest,truly yours,
/s/ Royal R. Reynolds, P.E.
General Engineering Services ....
' Southold Town Board o~ ~ppeals -34- Apz~l 2, 1981
RUTH OLIVA: Ruth Oliva, President, North Fork Environmental
Council. When Mrs. Dansker's application had been entered into the
D.E.C. before it was disallowed, we wrote an objection to that
stating that the two parcels were only .85 acres and to divide it
again would be rather ludicrous being that we do have one-acre
zoning and, number two, if another house was put on that lot I
didn't understand about the salt-water intrusion, but any type of
septic tank system or fertilizing our lawn and all this would only
run into the creek and just furthering the pollution that's already
in the creeks. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Oliva. I have here a copy
of a letter that was sent to Mr. Gary Flanner Olsen from the D.E.C.
on March 12, 1981:
...As a result of your inquiry concerning the above-
referenced parcel, this Department has conducted an
on-site inspection. We have found the parcel or
(project) to be beyond the jurisdiction of Article 24
pursuant to 661.466(gg).
Therefore pursuant to Part 661, Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New
York, Section 661.4(b), no permit under Article 25
(Tidal Wett&nds) of the Environmental Conservation Law
is required.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Daniel J. Larkin
Regional Permit Administrator ....
MRS. GROBEN: Dansker's house was originatl~ a summer house.
Since~hen_the houses on the street are yearround homes, and a much
nicer quality. You can drive down Wells Road and you'll agree,
be ashamed on that small lot that's all you could do. (Complete
statement was inaudible--more than one person speaking at a time.)
MR. OLSEN: I think we're losing--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. Otsen, in reference to the D.E.C.
matter. The bungalow, the people that you're representing, that's
bulkheaded in front, right? That's why the D.E.C. has no authority
because they can only come to the bulkhead.
MR. OLSEN: No. The reason they don't have authority is
because--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's their authority.
MR. OLSEN: We're not looking to build on the house piece.
The house is there. This is really a ludicrous situation. We've
got a house that I want to close title, which I wanted to close
for Thanksgiving because the people wanted to get in, and I found
I could not get my preexisting Certificate of Occupancy because her
Southold Town Board or ~ppeals -35- AL il 2, 1981
(Mr. Olsen continued):
husband prior to his death, six years apart, took as the other
gentleman back here did, took a piece next door but he didn't
give it to his wife, and I've got a widow that wants to convey
title to a house-she's not using it. She has a contract for
a substantial sum of money, and I can't get a preexisting C/O,
without going through this procedure. And to deny the applica-
tion would mean that she's got a house there that she owns that
she can't convey title to which is really ridiculous because
her husband's children by a former marriage owned the piece next
door, and the reason the D.E.C. when we started this application
back in November, this Board decided not to make a determinatzon
until the D.E.C. rendered an 9pinion on the division. The D.E.C.
after much to do came back and said, "We don't have jurisdiction
over the division[ nbt-~the building on, the pieces. That's a
different issue. But on the division due to the fact that the
property was divided by bequest, and there's that section in the
letter, 66 whatever it is, states that they have no jurisdiction
over splitting property where it's done by bequest. Now if
somebody goes to build on the lot that--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's what I'm talking about.
MR. OLSEN: That the stepsons own, that's a different issue.
Somebody before a house goes on that obviously they're going to
have to apply to-~the D.E.C. and the D.E.C. is going to have to
look at it, and the Health Department is going to have to look
at it. All I want is to get my Preexisting C/O, and close the
house. That's the problem. She doesn't own the lot. She has
no control over it. Excuse me?
MRS. GROBEN: So the other problem (inaudible--too distant
to be heard clearly).
MR. OLSEN: Well, no.
up tb~the Health Department.
time.
You're-- they did not. But that's
That's up to the D.E.C. at a later
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's out of our hands too.
MR. OLSEN: That's right. It has nothing to do with the
Town. I don't know how I can make that clearer. I've got to get
a prompt decision so I can get on with the Planning Board next
week, so we can close this thing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, you have nothing else?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, thanks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing
and reserving the decision until a little later.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
Southold Town Board O~tAppeals -36- AD.._~i 2, 1981
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of the Appeal of Rose Dansker, Appeal No. 2766.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING% Appeal No. 2799. Application of Kenneth
Brower, by William S. Midgley, Jr. as agent, 200 Skunk Lane,
Cut-~gue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct garage with an insuffi-
cient sideyard setback at 495 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue;
bounded north by Fisherman Beach Road; west by Baxter; south by
Bay; east by McKeon. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-1-35.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:07 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid S15.00.
-M_R. CHAIRMAN: We have no survey; we have a sketch.
MILL/AM S. MIDGLEY, JR.: I have received the surveys
since, from the owner. I didn't get a change to get them to
you. You asked for three copies and they they are, and there's
proof of the letters we sent (return receipts), I don't know
whether you have proof of it or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have a statement from the Town Clerk.
MR. MIDGLEY: The Town Clerk doesn't know when I mailed
them though.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the receipts are here. Now we have
a survey and copy of the county tax map showing the area. Is
there anything~you~would like to add to what's stated in the
application, Mr. Midley?
MR. MIDGLEY: Pardon?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
in the application?
Is there anything you want to add to what's
MR. MIDGLEY: No, other than that form is a difficult darn
thing to fill out.without the young gal beside you. I would have
had a~heck of a time. Says unique hardship. It was no hardship
for me. Either I have a job or I don't.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why we don't want her to leave us.
MR. MIDGLEY: That might be unique.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37-
April z-, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's kind of unique to find somebody who
wants to work all the time.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand, Mr. Midgley, that this
garage is going to be attached to the deck.
MR. MIDGLEY: Yes. There is a deck on the house. It's
on that--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we saw it. We were down at the
proper~y.
MR.[MIDGLEY: You went down. And there are other structures
quite close to the line down in that area. I didn't realize it
until I got involved in this garage how darn small those lots were
down there, which a lot of them must be very, very close to the
line. And when I made the application to the building department
I went by the fence not knowing whosei~side of the line the darn
fence was on. So my measurement perhaps could be off. The width
goes out 16 feet from that boardwalk on the side of the house,
and whatever is left, that's it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How wide is that deck on that one side?
MR. MIDGLEY: I believe it's 4'6" It's not on that sketch?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it shows it. Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we recalculated this, Mr. Midgley,
instead of having 5'6" you now have 6'4"
MR. MIDGLEY: That's better.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Gained eight inches or so. Any other ques-
tions? (Negative) This is going to be just a one-story garage?
MR. MIDGLEY: That's all. Regular straight garage. He's
going to store his boat in it in the wintertime, and I assume his
car in the summertime.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We may in the findings put that in as a
stipulation that, you know, it will only be used for storing a
car or his boat.
MR. MIDGLEY: To my knowledge, that's his plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So many of these things, they wind up with
another story on them and the next thing you know he has an apartment
in there.
MR. MIDGLEY: One story. For that price I wouldn't put any-
thing on there. No way.
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and
carried to close the hearing in the matter of Kenneth Brower, ~2799.
Southold Town Board Om~tAppeals
-38-
A~i 2, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2800. Application of Margaret
McGowan, 17 Aberdeen Street, Malverne, NY (by Gary F. Olsen, Esq.)
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
ap~ro~alcof~hei~insufficient!area~:andr~idthlof two parcels due to
the relocation of lot lines. Location of property: R-O-W south
of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Connelly,
east by Sweeney, Ross and Private right-of-way, south by Johnston,
Mormile, west by Alexander. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-4-
11 and 14.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:17 p.m. by reading
the appeal application and related documents, legal noticelof
hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the
local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk thaZ notifica-
tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey that was mentioned in the
application and a Section of the County Tax Map showing the area.
I guess, Mr. Olsen, you have the floor if you have something you
would like to say.
GARY FLANNER OLSEN: Gary Olsen, attorney-at-law having
an office at Main Road in Mattituck. This application actually
is really not complicated. If you look at the survey of Roderick
Van Tuyl revised December 22, 1980, you'll see two pieces of
property, one marked Parcel 1, one marked Parcel 2. Parcel 1 is
owned by Mrs. McGowan, Margaret McGowan. We're under a contract
to sell that piece. It has a house on it. It has a well on it,
cesspools. It's in single and separate ownership. Parcel 2 was
owned by her late husband, a J. Harry McGowan. He took it in
single and separate ownership. That has it's own wellpoint and
cesspools and so on. A house on both pieces. Harry McGowan died
on March 7, 1970. I've checked the Surrogate's Court records in
both Suffolk and Nassau Counties and there's nothing filed On
his Estate in either, and it's owned by the Estate which would
be his widow plus se~en~hi~dren. What happened was, I went to
the building department again to get a preexisting C/O on Mrs.
McGowan's house, but when I submitted the application, I attached
the Van Tuyl revised survey to show that we wanted to change the
lot line between Lots 1 and 2. The reason being that the house
owned by the Estate of Harry McGowan, the house on that piece
laps over and encroaches on the piece that Mrs. McGowan wants
to sell. She is willing to basically retain part of the property
that she is selling in order to give the piece owned by the Estate
a bigger backyard. And it helps the buyer of her house in Zhat
Southold Town Board Oz~/Appeals -39-
Arc, il 2, 1981
(Mr. Olsen continued):
when he buys it, it will not be an encroachment of somebody else's
house on his property, when'it~creates title problems. Now the
reason I did get, I applied for a C/O on both houses, a'preexisting
C/O, and what happened was it was denied on the basis that we were
redefining the lines in the backyard between the two pieces neces-
sitating this. I guess when you change a lot line then you've got
to go before the Zoning Board so that's why we're here. I don't
know if that explains it, or -- but it's really not a complicated
application. The area will stay the same. There will be no material
change in the character of the neighborhood. The density will
remain the same. As a matter of fact I, as you know, served all
the adjoining landowners with notices and in this case I even got
a letter back from a Joseph Connel!y, which I've sent to the Board
indicating that he has no objection to the application being
granted, which is nice to hear for a change.
If you don't grant it, it means that, I'm sure I could get
my two preexisting C/O's, but it means that Mrs. McGowan can't
give the piece owned by ~he~E~%H~e~a little bit bigger backyard,
and it just creates problems for the buyer. And that's basically
it. I don't really have anything else to add to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. OLSEN: If you don't grant it, she'll have a real
practical difficulty as well as an economic hardship in that
you know there's a possibility that the sale will not go through.
I do have a signed contract in my file~ that is contingent on
the granting of this application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gary. Does anyone else have
anything to say for this? Does anyone have anything against it?
(Negative) Any further questions? Thank you very much, Gary!%~
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving
decision.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of the Appeal of Ma~rgaret McGowan, Appeal No. 2800.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
INFORMAL: Appeal No. 2788. Application of Frank E. and
Mary L. Brophy, Second Street, New Suffolk, NY (by William H.
Price, Jr., Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 and renewal of Appeal Nos. 2693 and 2725 to~6b~alh
Cer-tificate of Occupancy for deck constructed with insufficient
Southold Town Board of Appeals ;--40-
April 2, 1981
front and side~y~d setbacks at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY;
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7.
William H. Price, Jr., attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Brophy,
has submitted correspondence dated March 19, 1981 requesting:
(a) that the Board reconsider its prior decision, and (b)
that Mr. Price be permitted to address the Board to argue why
the Board should reconsider its decision.
WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: This Board as you know has to review
decisions of the Building Inspector. In this particular case the
Building Inspector denied the application for the building permit and
resultant C/0 for this deck, stating "insufficient sideyard setback
from property line. Sideyard require on north side 15'0" Insufficient
frontyard requirement 50'0" or average." Now this Board on 8/28/80,
same date as the hearing, sent a letter to the Building Department in-
structing the building department to change its interpretation of how
it calculated lot coverage. Up until that point in time, lot coverage
was not an issue before this Board. When I came before this Board on
8/28 I didn't know that I was here to argue the lot coverage. Now in
this Board's decision, you had stated that"appellant in this appeal has
set forth the practical difficulties." So I had shown you practical
difficulties and you had found that there were practical difficulties.
You had also prior to that made a negative declaratzon for the purposes
of the Environmental Quality Review Act, and one of the findings that
this Board was required to make in giving that Negative Declaration was
that there was no impairment of the character of quality of important
historical, archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources of
existing corauunity or neighborhood character. Another words, you had
found that the character of the neighborhood was not going to be changed
by the existence of this particular deck. Now I have written to this
Board and I stated a very recent Supreme Court case in which they said
that for a case like this where all that was requested was an area vari-
ance, not a use variance, all that was necessary to be shown was practi-
cal difficulty. And this Board found that there was practical difficulty.
I know that one of the factors that this Board must have taken into con-
sideration was that applicant had constructed this deck without first
obtaining a building permit... I pointed this out that he had no knowledge
of it, and Mr. Hindermann said to me, "Well, look, you know that if you
build the deck anywhere, you got to get a building permit." Well, in River-
head you wouldn't have to do it because to have a building permit for a
structure .it has to have a roof. And the same holds true with Shelter
Island. In other words, the'two surrounding municipalities would not
~ve 3e~ired t~ .~is b~i~ng p~mI~ had been issued bef0re~ you built
~.ls aec~: So ~.~eli~e aha.t, i3 ~ould b~. a reasongb.1e .ass,u~a~ption ,that
5nls applicant.GiG no5 Know ~na~ ne wash ~ suppose~ ~o Dui±~ a GecK.
He did not intentionally try to hide this deck from anybody. He didn't
do it behind anyone's back. t mean it's right on the front street. Mr.
Dean has written to the Board and stated that it would have no detrimental
effect upon the highway, and for those reasons I would tike this Board to
reconsider itscdecision.
As I said, I didn't know I was coming in the last time to address
'Southold Town Board of ~Ppeals -41- Apr,= 2, 1981
(Appeal No. 2788 - William H. Price, Jr. continued:)
the issue of lot coverage. I addressed the disapproval of the
Building Inspector which was just side yards. That's why I
presented all those pictures to you showing the surrounding area
and showing how close the buildings appear to be to the side lines.
So I believe that I am entitled to have the variance for the set-
back at the very least, and it seems rather unfair for this parti-
cular applicant to be denied this variance based upon excessive
lot coverage when the building inspector's office hasn,t even
interpreted that way at least until after he had received this
Board's letter of 8/28, the date of my appearance before you the
last time. And those are my reasons why I think this Board should
reconsider this prior decision. Plus I have to exhaust my adminis-
trative remedies.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Price, and that at the proper time
he will be notified of that Board's decision.
RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2787. Application of
Frederick Cowan and Company, Inc., 120 Terminal Avenue, Plainview,
NY 11803 (by Richard J. Cron, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. VII, Sec. 100-70A, B, for permission to conduct an
industrial-type business (equipment designing and fabricating.~ in
a B-1 Business District. Location of property: Northwest corner
of North Street and School House Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded
northwest by School House Road; northeast by North Street; south-
west by Baxter; southeast by Case; County Tax Map Item No.
1000-102-5-9.2.
The Chairman reconvened the public hearing at 10:38 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a recessed hearing, Appeal No. 2787,
Frederick Cowan and Company. I don't think I have to read any
legal notices. Mr. Cron, will you waive thei'~eading.
MR. CRON: Yes. Well, I don't think there is a great deal.
We~.h~d~a~i. ra~he~lengthy hearing the last time this matter came on.
I might indicate to the Board that since that date I had spoken to
Mr. Bunce again, in fact he had approached me; and I don't ~hink
his frankly his resistence is as great now as it was then, nor is
the resistence of any of the people on that petition--I'm not
sure they were great at that time, I don't think many of those
people had feelings one way or the other about this at this point.
I went over much of~what his objections were, and they weme objec-
tions that I think had no basis of fact. I hoped!-m~ybe he might
have come here this evening, but he hasn't. I understand the
Board probably did journey down to Mr. Cowan's operation further
west.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, three of us were down there.
'Southold Town Board of A~peals -42- Apri_~2, 1981
(Appeal No. 2787 - Frederick Cowan and Company, Inc.)
MR. CRON: I think all of the arguments I made, I don't know
if it serves any point at this time of night to go through much of
the arguments we had made at the last hearing. I think what's
intended to be done there wouldn't be any worse than any of the
other uses that are permitted in a B-1 Zone, and probably a lot
better than some that could be put there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any of you gentlemen have anything you would
like to ask Mr. Cron? Is there anyone else here that would like to
speak on it, for or against-Cowan and Company Incorporated?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe you have a few things you would
like to give us?
MR. CRON: No, I have nothing further that I can give you.
You'have a substantially complete record in terms of material that
was submitted. You got Mr. Cowan's testimony from the previous
hearing as to what he intended to do. You got your own individual
observations of what he is now doing. I would think you would
probably have enough to make a decision.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will close the hearing and
reserve decision.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, ~o close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Frederick Cowan and Company., Inc., Appeal No. 2787.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
and carried to recess the meeting to open "Closed Executive Session
for Deliberations," at 10:42 o'clock p.m.
The Board members then left the meeting hall to qo[[in%o<~the
Building Department room.
Motion was made at approximately 11:00 p.m. by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and carried to reconvene the regular meet-
ing of the Board for the purposes of transacting such business and
making decisions scheduled for this evening. At this point the
Chairman~and secretary went into the hallway~for the purpose of
~0tif~ng anyone that may be in the meeting hall that the Board
was reconvening its regular meeting. ~ohn Hurter, custodian, was
asked to check the meeting hall and building to be sure that,>any
persons interested may be present.~i~z~Hutter returned assuring
that there was no one in the building-- that~everyone had left the
building. There was no objection by any member %o remain in the
building department room for the remainder of the meeting.
Soutold Town Board of ~ppeals -43- Aprm± 2t 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2799. Application of Kenneth
Brower, by William S. Midgley, Jr. as agent, 200 Skunk Lane, Cut-
chogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Section
100-31 for permission to construct garage with an insufficient side-
yard setback at 495 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue; bounded north
by Fisherman Beach Road; west by Baxter; south by Bay; east by
McKeon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-1-35.
The Board finds and determines as follows:.
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a Variance to construct a
16' by 22' garage at the northeasterly side of existing dwelling
leaving a minimum sideyard setback of approximately 5'6" from
the property line. Erected on the subject premises is a one-story
frame house with deck, and contains anarea of approximately
14,420 square feet. The dwelling is presently set back approxi-
mately 71 feet from Haywaters Road as shown on survey dated June 8,
1973 for Kenneth and Irene M. Brower submitted to this Board at
the hearing April 2, 1981.
The Board finds that t~ relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested
is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance
if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood; that"
no adverse effect will be produced on available governmental
facilities of any increased population; that the hardship and/or
practical difficulty is unique; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief requested as noted below.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it
was
RESOLVED, that Kenneth Brower be granted a variance to the
zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW-
ING CONDITIONS:
(1) That there shall be a minimum northeasterly sideyard
setback of seven feet [7'].
(2) That the garage be used ~for storage [no living quarters].
(3) That the garage only be a one-story structure.
Location of Property: 495 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue;
bounded north by Fisherman Beach Road; west by Baxter; south by
Bay; east by McKeon. County Tax Map Item No. I000-111-1-35.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
G0ehringer and Sawicki.
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2784. Application of Robert T.
Bayley, 55 West 16th Street, New York, NY 10011, by Robert W. Gillispie,
III as agent, for a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280-A for
approval of access to property located on a private right-of-way off
South Harbor Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by Stewart and Blake;
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-44-
April 2; 1981
west by Paul; south by Bay; east by Ballenger; County Tax Map ID
No. 1000-87-1-21.
Upon investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a variance for approval of
access to a parcel of land approximately 4.1 acres in area, which
road access runs approximately 1,159 feet to the property in
question and approximately 20 feet in width commencing from South
Harbor Road and widening up to 30 feet, more or less, in width
to the property in question, as shown on survey dated February 26,
1970 for Ralph E. and Anna Lavinia (property just to the west of
appellant's property) and deed dated May 11, 1976 to Robert T.
Bayley. The right-of-way in question is apparently utilized by
all the parcels contiguous to the right-of-way from South Harbor
Road. The Board agrees with the reasoning of appellant.
The Board finds that the variance requested is not substantial;
that the hardship is unique and no change in the character of the
neighborhood will be created by the granting of this variance; that
the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance
and town law; and that the interests of justice will be served by
granting the relief requested herein.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that Robert T. Bayley be granted a variance for
approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-A, SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(a) That the access road shall be improved and unobstructed
for a minimum width of 15 feet;
(b) That the access road shall be improved in EITHER of the
following two methods:
(1) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of
packed three-quarter-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
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-45-
April 2, 1981
(Robert T. Bayley - Appeal No. 2784 continued):
(2) Shall have topsoil 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 or four inches of three-quarter-inch stone blend, or in the
alternative, oiled with a minimum of four-tenths of a gallon of
road oil per square yard.
(c) That no building permit shall be issued for this parcel
to which this access is referred until all of the conditions set
forth herein have been complied with.
(d) Where the terrain of the land over which such access road
is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant
is required to construct such drainage facilities as may be recom-
mended by the Town Engineer.
(e) That this access road be approved by the Town Engineer as
to meeting the above requirements, and that a copy of said approval
be furnished to the Office of the Board of Appeals.
Location of Property: Right-of-way off South Harbor Road,
Southold, NY; bounded north by Stewart and Blake; west by Paul;
south by Bay; east by Allenger; County Tax Map ID No. 1000-87-1-21.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No 2790. Application of Hope Prior
Smith by Robert W. Gillispie III, as agent, for a Variance' 'to New
York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access. Location of
property: North side of Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY; bounded north
by Jockey Creek and Lademann; east by Wirth; south by Kowalski, Pine
Neck Road and Kohl; west by Lademann and Kowalski; County Tax Map
Item No. 1000-70-5-31.
The findings and determination of the Board are as follows:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -46-
April 2, 1981
Appellant has appealed ~3 this Board see~ng a Variance for approval of access,
New York Town Law Section 280-a over property owned by the appellant herein.
The proposed right-of-way is 20 feet in width and fronting along the north side of
Pine Neck Road, Southold. The proposed right-of-way appears to be utilized by
the residents/owner of property to the northeast of the appellant' s anticipated
two-lot subdivision~ as well as the owners of these premises. The Board agrees
with the reasoning of appellant.
The Board finds that the ~ariance.reques{ed is not substantial; that the hardship
is unique and not shared by all properties in the vicinity; that no change in the
character of the neighborhood will be created by the granting of this 'variance;
that the relief requested is within the spirit o~ the zoning ordinance; and that the
interests of justice will be served by granting the relief requested.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, ~econded by Mr? Sawicki~ it~was
RESOLVED ~ that Hope Prior Smith be granted a yariance for approval of access,
New York Town Law Section 280-a, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(a) That the access road shall be i'mproved and unobstructed for a minimum
width of 15 feet;
(b) That the access r6ad shall be improved in EITHER.of the following two methods:
(1) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four.inches of packed three-quarter
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 ~he application of packed blend to a depth of four inches; OR
Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- April 2, 1981
(2) Shall have topsoil removed to a depth of eight inches and then filled
with eight inches of a 9ood grade stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then
be covered with a layer of two to four inches of three:quarter inch stone blend~
or in the alternative: oiled with a minimum of four-tenths of a gallon of road oil
per square yard.
(c) That no building permit or certificate of use and/or certificate Of Occupancy
be issued for t-hese proposed parcels to which this access is refe~ed until all of
the conditions set forth herein have been complied with~
(d) k/here the terrain of th~ land over which such access road is traversed is
~uch that drainage problems may occur~ the applicant is require'~ to construct such
drainage facilities as may be recommended by the Town Engineer.
(e) ~hat this access road be approved by the Town' Engineer as to meeting the
above re~iremen{s. -. .
Vote of the Board:
Sawicki.
Location of Property: Right-of-way off the .north side '6~' Pine-~e~k R.3~a', Southold;
bounded north by Jockey Creek and Lademann; east by .Wi~'th'; south by Kowalski,
Pine Neck Road and Kohl; west by Eademann and Kowalski; Counfy Tax Map Item
No. 1000-70-5-31. --' ..... ~
Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis ~ Dotiglass, Doyen ,' G'oehringer and
' Southold Town Board of'~ppeals -48- April k~ 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2786. Application of Richard A.
and Janet Schlumpf, 32 Curtis Path, East Northport, NY (Wickham,
Wickham and Bressler, P.C. as attorneys) for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of the reduc-
tion of the area and width of a parcel of land to provide additional
access to a second parcel of land, located at the east side of
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; bounded north by James, Mealy, Capo-
bianco, Shelly, Lueckoff; west by Indian Neck Lane; south by Peconic
Bay Gardens; east by Richmond Creek. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-
86-5-7&8.
Public Hearing was held concerning this appeal on M~reh
and April 2, 1981. At a regular meeting held April 23, 1981, the
Board found and determined as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellants seek a variance to provide a 25~foot
right-of-way along the southerly boundary of Parcel No. 1 as shown
on survey dated November 30, 1980, which reduces the buildable lot
area for Parcel 1 by 6,625 square feet, and which provides access
for Parcel No. 2 (containing 59,500 square feet approximately~not
including the 30' by 200' right-of-way for this parcel off Spring
Lane). Parcel No. 1 with the reduction of lot area would contain
a total square footage of 26,616 and lot width of approximately 100'
(125.66' less the 25' right-of-way). It is the fe~ling of the
Board that the access.off Spring Lane is more feasible; however,
it is also the feeling of the Board that Parcel No. 1 should not
be reduced in area.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial in
relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is
within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance if
granted will not change the character of the neighborhood; that no
adverse effect will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population; that the hardship and/or practical
difficulty is unique; and that the interests of justice will be
served by granting the relief requested as noted below.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Richard A. and Janet Schlumpf, be granted a
variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31, Appeal
No. 2786, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(i)
That the area for Parcel No. 1 fronting Indian Neck Lane
shall not be reduced, and that the 6,625 square feet
t~nd~&~ea~i~i!~t~ken~fZOm~P~r~el No. 1 for the right-of-way
access ~or'~arcel No. 2) shall be sectioned out of
Parcel No. 2 to be included in the land area for Parcel
No. 1. [Said section to be approximately 25' by 265'.]
(2) That there shall be no further subdivision of these
properties.
(3) That the access road shall be improved and unobstructed
for a minimum width of 15 feet.
· Southold Town Board of~ppeals -49- April ~.,~1981
(4) That the access road shall be improved in EITHER of the
following two methods:
(a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of
packed three-quarter-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 topsoil 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 three-quarter-inch stone blend, or in the
alternative, oiled with a minimum of four-tenths of a gallon of
road oil per square yard.
(5) That no building permit and/or certificate of occupancy
shall be issued for these properties until all of the conditions
set forth herein have been complied with.
(6) Where the terrain of the land over which such access road
is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant
is required to construct such drainage facilities as may be recom-
mended by the Town Engineer.
(7) That this access road be approved by the Town Engineer as
to meeting the above requirements, and that a copy of said approval
be furnished to the Office of the Board of Appeals,
AND IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED, to rescind the previous decision
made by this Board on March 1, 1979 in Appeal No. 2524 for access
off Spring Lane, Peconic for the appellants herein.
Location of Property: East side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic,
NY; bounded north by James, Mealy, Capobianco, Shelly, Lueckoff;
west by Indian Neck Lane; south by Peconic Bay Gardens; east by
Richmond Creek; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-5-7 & 8.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2783. Application of Thomas J. DeBorger, 93 Broad-
waters Road, Cutchogue, NY (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for per-
mission to change division line between Lots 295 and 296 to run
generally north and south rather than present east and west at
945 Broadwaters Road (a/k/a 100 Wunneweta Road), Cutchogue, NY;
Nassau Point Properties Subd. Map 156, Lots 295 and 296; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-11-9.
The consensus of a majority of the Board was that there were
too many factors against the granting of the variance, such as
Health Department matters, contour of the land, proof as to hardship,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- April 2, 1981
premises being purchased as a single parcel with single dwelling,
etc. The Secretary was requested to submit this consensus to
the Town Attorney for draft findings~and/or his review.
APPEAL No. 2782. Application of John and Mary Pietrodangelo,
52340 Main Road, Southold, NY (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30(A), (C),
for permission to operate a retail flower shop on first floor of
existing building in an A-Residential District at 52340 Main Road,
Southold, NY; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-63-S-9.
The Board continued deliberations concerning this matter,
which was held for public hearing March 12, 1981. No decision
was made at~this point. Further legal consultation was agreed to.
APPEAL No. 2794. Application of Victor E. Catalano, 22 Canter-
bury Drive, Hauppauge, NY 11787 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to build a one-story
garage with insufficient front and side yard setbacks at the south
side of Peconic Bay Boulevard,-Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-128-6-13.3.
The Board upon reviewing the file found that the survey sub-
mitted with the appeal application did not reflect total covered
area of land (westerly addition to dwelling), and asked the
Secretary to obtain same. No decision was made.
APPEAL No. 2789. Application of David L. Mudd, North Road,
Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-30(A) (2) (d) to construct farm tool shed with insufficient
rear and side yard setbacks at property located on the north side
of C.R. 48 (North Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-59-9-28.
During deliberations, it was the general consensus of the Board
that the Town Attorney prepare draft findings, that there were too
many factors against the granting of this variance, such as
substantial land being available, insufficient hardship, etc.
No decision was made.
Southold Town Board oz ~Appeals -51- April ~ 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2797~ Application °f James V.
Righter (for Fishers Island Development Corp.), 58 Winter Street,
Boston, MA 02108 for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance,
Art. III, Sec. 100-30(B) (8) for permission to create additional
employee housing on second floor of Beach Club to match the exist=
lng housing on the west end of Club (also known as labor camp), to
be located on the south road to the East End of Fishers Island, NY;
more particularly designated as County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-
5-2-7.3; 1000-4-4-12; 1000-1-1-3.6; 1000-4-6-9.
The Board finds and determines as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a special exception to the
zoning ordinance for permission to crea~e additional employee
housing for personnel working at the beach club and golf course.
The beach club is in an isolated area and the board agrees with
the reasoning of the appellant,and a special exception as
permitted by Art. III, Sec. 100-30(B) (8) of the Zoning Code
shall be permitted subject to the below-specified conditions.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that James V. Righter (for Fishers Island Develop-
ment Corp.) be granted a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordin-
nance, Art. III, Sec. !00-30(B) (8) to create additional housing
for employees at Beach Club as applied for AND SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Site Plan approval of the Southold Town Planning Board;
(2) Suffolk County Health Department approval;
(3) Not more than 18 employees or persons may be housed on
the premises;
(4) The living quarters shall be used for seasonal use only
which shall be from March through December of each year;
(5)
In the event a conveyance o~ this beach club and property
is being made, this variance will automatically become
void and its effect thereof will be ceased.
Location of Property: South road to the East End of Fishers
Island, NY; more particularly designated as County Tax Map Item
Nos. 1000-5-2-7.3; 1000-4-4-12; 1000-1-1-3.6; 1000-4-6-9.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and sawicki.
~ Southold Town Hoard o~ppeals -52- April 2~ .1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2795. Application of ~ary H.
Lockwood, 465 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, NY (by Mrs. Elizabeth T.
Albertson) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Section
100-31 for approval of insufficient area, depth and/or rearyard of
parcel located at Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by
Benbow and Given; east by Cutchogue Harbor; south by Whelan and
Mason; west by Old Harbor Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-3-
5 and 6.
The Board finds and determines as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a variance for approval of
insufficient area of 17,347 square feet and an insufficient mini-
mum depth of 78.93 feet of a parcel of land to be set off from
a total area of premises containing 3.4 acres, more or less,
located at the east side of Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk.
Erected on the total premises are a one-family house with
accessory building (which would be retained on the substandard
parcel), and large one-family dwelling with two accessory
buildings in the frontyard area. The entire premises are
shown to be in the sole name of Mary H. Lockwood as shown
on survey mapped March 6, 1981 of Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C.
The proposed substandard parcel was conveyed to Mary H. Lock-
wood on August 20, 1956; and the proposed remaining 2.8 acre
parcel was conveyed to Mary H. Lockwood on November 4, 1961.
Section 100-31, Bulk S~hedule 6f the Code requires 40,000
square feet in area and 175 feet in depth, for residentially
zoned property. The Board finds and determines that the relief
requested in relation to the Code requirements is substantial;
that if the relief is granted detriment to adjoining properties
may be created; that a change will be produced in the character
of the neighborhood; that the circumstances present in this
case are not unique; that strict application of the ordinance
would not produce unnecessary hardship; and that the interests
of justice will be served by denying the variance applied for.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis,-it was
RESOLVED, that Mary H. Lockwood be denied without pre3udice
the relief requested in Appeal No. 2795.
Location of property: East side of Old Harbor Road, Cutchogue,
NY; bounded north by Benbow and Given; east by Cutchogue Harbor;
south by Whelan and Mason; west by 01d Harbor Road; County Tax Map
Item No. 1000-117-3-5 and 6.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
~ ~ Southold Town Board o~ ~ppeals
~53-
April L,J'1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal~No~i~2792~Application of George L.
Penny, Inc., 12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VII~, Sec. 100-81 for permission to
construct storage building in a C-Zone with insufficient rear
and side yard areas at 12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded
north by Penny; east by North Fork Oil Heat; south by. Sound Ave-
nue and L.I.R.R.; west by Parrish; County Tax Map Item No.
1000-141-3-37 and 38.
The Board finds and determines as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a variance to construct a
50' by 100' storage buildihg,with a proposed sideyard setback
of 3 feet at the east side and proposed rearyard setback of 3
feet, and 3 foot minimum sideyard at the west side. Erected on
the subject premises are a 2½-story frame house with accessory
building(County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-3-38) and office
building with two lumber-storage buildings (County Tax Map Par-
cel No. 1000-141-3-37). The premises in question is zone "C"
With a no~c~nfOrm~ng~use~ermitting_the~storage of building
materials since prior to the adoption of zoning.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested
is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance
if granted will not change the character of the neiqhborhood;
that.no adverse effect will be produced on availabl~ governmental
facilities of any increased population; that the hardship and/or
practical difficulty is unique; and tha~ the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief requested and as noted below.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that .George L. Penny, Inc. be granted a variance to
the zoning Ordinance, Appeal No. 2792, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITION:
That the minimum side and rear yard area setbacks be five feet.
Location of Property: North side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck,
NY; bounded north by Penny; east by North Fork Oil Heat; south by
Sound Avenue and L.I.R.R.; west by Parrish; County Tax Map
Parcel Nos. 1000-141-3-37 and 38.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
~ Southold Town Board of~ppeals -54-
April 2~ ~981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2791 Application of George L.
Penny, Inc., 12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Special Excep-
tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VIII, Sec. 100-80(B) (3) for per-
mission to construct storage building in a C-Zone at 12585 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Penny; east by North Fork
Oil Heat; south by Sound Avenue and L.I.R.R.; west by Parrish;
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-141-3-37 and 38.
The Board finds and determines as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a Special Exception for permis-
sion to construct a 50' by 100' storage building in a C-Zone at
12585 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY. The subject premises has erected
thereon a 2½-story frame house with accessory building (County Tax
Map Parcet~No. 1000-141-3-38) and office building with two lumber-
storage buildings (County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-3-37). The
premises since prior to the adoption of zoning has retained a
nonconforming use permitting the storage of building materials,
and it is the opinion of this Board that a Special Exception is
not required for this use requested inasmuch as the use has existed
prior to zoning.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of George L. Penny, Inc., Appeal
No. 2791, be withdrawn without prejudice.
Location of Property: North side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck,
NY; bounded north by Penny; east by North Fork Oil Heat; south by
Sound Avenue and L.I.R.R.; west by Parrish; County Tax Map
Parcel Nos. 1000-141-3-37 and 38.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-55- April 2, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2766.
Application of Rose
Dansker, 300 East 56th Street, Apt. M, New York, NY 10022 (by Gary
Flanner Olsen, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two pro-
posed parcels located at Wells Road, Peconic, NY; bounded north by
Wells Road; west by Groben; south by Richmond Creek; east by Krueger.
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-2-10 and 11.
The Board finds and determines as follows:
This is an Appeal for a variance pursuant to Article III, Section
100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed
parcels located at Wells Road, Peconic, New York. Lot 10 designated
as such on the Suffolk County Tax Map has erected thereon an one-family
private dwelling. Lot 11 is vacant. The property was acquired by
Appellant's husband at two different times. The house was acquired in
1957 and the vacant lot adjacent thereto in 1963. Title to both lots
was taken in the name of Appellant's deceased husband, William Dansker.
Lot 10 has an area of 16,000 square feet, and Lot 11 has an area of
17,500 square feet. Appellant's husband died in 1980 and under his
will devised Lot 10 to his surviving spouse, Rose Dansker. The vacant
Lot 11 was devised to the children of a former marriage. In 1971 the
Zoning Code was amended to require a minimum size lot of 40,000 square
feet. Accordingly, both lots were merged into one lot. At the hearing
considerable testimony was given by property owners in the vicinity of
the premises in question concerning the severe water problem. There is
evidence of .salt water intrusion as well as insufficient water supply
during periods of draught. The Suffolk County Department of Health
Services has advised this Board that Lot 11 may not meet the minimum
standards for new construction of a septic system and a water supply
system, and that the ground water quality in the area is marginal.
In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Board that to
permit Lots 10 and 11 to be divided would lead to the intensification
of the water problem which presently exists in the area. No evidence
has been given to this Board of any attempt by the Appellant to either
acquire title to Lot 11 or to attempt no have both lots sold to a
s~ngle owner~. It is the further opinion of this Board that the Appel-
lant has not shown practical difficulties, and accordingly, on motion
by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, the appeal is denied.
Location of property: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic, NY; bounded north
by Wells Road; west by Groben; south by Richmond Creek; east by
Krueger. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-2-10 and 11.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki.
Messrs. Grigonis and Doyen abstained from vote.
Southold Town Board of~Kppeals -56- April ~.~-1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2800. Application of Margaret
McGowan, 17 Aberdeen Street, Malverne, NY (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq.)
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
approval of the insufficient area and width of two parcels due to the
relocation of lot lines. Location of property: R-O-W south of Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Connelly, east by
Sweeney, Ross, and private right-of-way; south by Johnston, Mormile;
west by Alexander. County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-128-4-11 and 14.
The Board finds and deter~_ines as follows:
By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a variance to sell off an under-
sized lot (tax map lot 14). Lot 14 is owned by the Appellant,
Margaret McGowan. Lot 14 is contiguous to a parcel containing a
structure and designated as Lot 11 on the tax map. This latter lot
has an area of approximately 2,700 square feet. Lot 11 has an area
of approximately 13,500 square feet. Lot 11 was owned by J. Harry
McGowan, husband of Margaret P. McGowan. Both Lots 11 and 14 as
well as tax map lot 10 were acquired by Margaret P. McGowan in 1944.
In 1956, Margaret P. McGowan conveyed Lot 11 to her husband, J.
Harry McGowan. In 1967, Margaret P. McGowan conveyed Lot 10 to
Catherine Hope. The structure on Lot 11 encroaches upon Lot 14.
In this Appeal, the Appellant proposes to enlarge Lot 11 in
order to eliminate the encroachment. However, Appellant proposes
to convey only a strip of land approximately 12 feet in width.
This would increase the lot area of Lot 11 by approximately 375
square feet, thus Lot 11 as proposes to be enlarged would have an
area of approximately 3,000 square feet or approximately 7½% of
the required lot area (40,000 square feet).
It is the opinion of this Board that Lot 11 should be increased
in size in view of the fact that it is substantially substandard.
However, the Board is of the opinion that a larger area of land
should be set aside for Lot 11. Accordingly, the Board denies the
Appeal, without prejudice, and urges the Appellant to set aside
more land for Lot 11 and then reapply to this Board.
Motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
deny the above appeal without prejudice.
Location of property: Right-of-way off the south side of Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; bounded north by Connelly; east by
Sweeney, Ross and private right-of-way; south by Johnston, Mormile;
west by Alexander. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-4-11 and 14.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer and
Sawicki. Messrs. Grigonis and Doyen abstained from vote.
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -57- Aprm ~,2, 1981
Motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis,
and carried, to schedule the matter of North Fork Motel, Inc.,
Appeal No. 2778 for the next regular meeting of this Board, to
wit, April 23, 1981, and to determine the following Environmental
Declaration pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA):
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is
hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant
adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
The property in question [ ] is not located within 300
feet of tidal wetlands; IX] may be located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands but separating the property from the wetland area
is a road or other type of barrier labeling this matter outside
the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con-
servation and therefore correspondence was not solicited.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal applica-
tion.
APPEAL No. 2772: Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, for
a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Sections
100-50(B) (2), (3) and (C) (2) for permission to construct marine,
provided in lieu of 21 motel units the addition of 20
residential units, swmmming pool, new locations for the westerly
residential units and accessory building to be utilized as a
coffee shop, maintenance shop and offices for the complex.
Location of Property: East side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion,
NY: County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-7-part of 4.
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1981 this Board received correspondence
from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services concerning
this proj~ect and property indicating that a sewage treatment plant
and public water is required and that the site plan will be neces-
sary to be revised to accommodate these needs, and that the total
daily flow ~ill~exceed~_~he ~epartment's maximum limitation of
30,000 gallons per day) and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 1981 this Board received correspondence
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -58- Apri._~2, 1981
(Appeal No. 2772 - Emanuel M. Kontokosta continued:)
from the Conservation Advisory Council of Southold Town, upon
request, indicating that they would like to reserve making a
recommendation in this matter until they are shown where the
fresh water table is and whether there will be a chance of
salt water intrusion; suggesting test wells be put in at
100-foot intervals in the center line of the proposed marina;
and inquiring as to what is proposed to retain the soil to
keep the mouth of the marina open and to retain the
the whole facility; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1981 this Board'received correspondence
from the Village of Greenport indicating their concern about
the digging away of land for it may have an adverse effect on
the ground-water reservoir, and requesting that this Board await
the recommendations of the Village Engineer before taking any
action on this matter; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 1981 this Board received correspondence
from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation indicat-
ing that they consider this project as one which may adversely
impact the environment and recommend the preparation of an Environ-
mental Impact Statement; and indicating that this proposal to
excavate 265' inland to construct the large marine has the potential
to create decreased fresh-water supply in storage and the possibili-
ty of salt-water intrusion into nearby well supplies (see report -
Town of Southold Investigation of Water Resources June 1967, by
Malcolm Pirnie Engineers); and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 1981 this Board received correspondence
from Holzmaeher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C., Engineers for the
Village of Greenport concerning this matter, indicating that the
marina will have an impact on the groundwater in the immediate
vicinity of the marina, that the groundwater elevation of the
northern end of the marina is approximately 6" above mean sea level
and will be reduced to sea level with corresponding reductions in
water levels near the marina, that these reductions in water levels
and depth to salt water may impact the ability to develop nearby
parcels with on-site water supply systems; that marinas, as reported
in "Malcolm Pirnie Engineers,' June 1967 report for the Town of
Southold, which cut deeply inland will have very detrimental
effects upon the water supply in the area; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 1981 this Board received correspondence
from the S~uthold Town Planning Board indicating that the depth
of 9' as proposed is excessive and that their primary concern is
salt-water intrusion-into the fresh-water interface; and that
if the orientation of the basin were turned 90% this possibility
would be minimized; and
WHEREAS, it is the fe~ling of this Board that a precise
summary which adequately and accurately focusses on the issues
of controversy and impacts which can be reasonably anticipated,
and an evaluation of all reasonable alternatives and recommenda-
tions, should be submitted to the Board of Appeals as lead agency;
~ ~Southold Town Board of ~peals
-59-
AL il 2, 1981
(Appeal No. 2772 - Emanuel M. Kontokosta continued)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board as lead agency determines this
project as proposed to have a significant effect upon the environ-
ment, and it is hereby requested, that the application submit a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning this matter.
vote of the Board: Ayes:. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2807. THOMAS COLLINS. Storage building/principal use.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question appears to be located within 300
feet of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a road
or similar type of barrier.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Location of Property: Cleaves Point Subdivision Lot 67,
275 Dawn Drive, Greenport, NY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
~ °Southold Town Board of'~ppeals -60- A~ ~il 2, 1981
APPEAL NO. 2804. SOUTHOLD GRANGE, INC. Church Use in B-1 Zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act~ Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project no~ covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Property in Question: 475 Beckwith Avenue, Southold.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2825. WILHELM FRANKEN. Garage in Front or Side yard
at 830 Tarpon Drive, Greenport, NY. 1000-57-1-9.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question appears to be located within 300
feet of tidal wetlands but constructed along the waterlying edge of
this property is a substantial functional bulkhead at least 100' in
length.
~ ~Southoid Town Board of ~Ppeals -61- A~_~i 2,
1981
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2809. MARY ANN MASTROIANNI GREFE. Pool in Sideyard
Area at 395 Tuthill Road, South01d, NY. 1000-55-4-3.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sUb-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2803. AGNES DUNN. Insufficient area and width of
two proposed parcels, each with a dwelling, at the south side of
C.R. 48 and Queen Street, Greenport.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
Southold Town Board of Appeals -62- A~il 2, 1981
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NQ. 2806. SARAH RAUCH. Relocate dwelling at the
north side of C.R. 48 and the west side of McCann Lane, Greenport.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law,.and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject prOject as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
~ ~Southold Town Board of ~peals
-63- AL ~,~1 2, 1981
APPEAL NO. 2813. CYBIL KOOPER. Pool in front and/or side
yard area at Canoe Path, Mattituck. 1000-106-11-23.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seConded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The project is not proposed to be located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2778. NORTH. FORK MOTEL, INC.. 52325 North Road,
Southold, NY. 1000-135-2-23.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On mn~ion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
Southold Town Board of '~PPeals -64- A~_~i 2, 1981
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. 2812. ROY C. SCHOENHAAR. Insufficient area,
width and approval of access for property located at the south
side of S.R. 25, Mattituck. 1000-143-2-33.2.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is
hereby given that the Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals has determined
that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as
a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the
environment for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were
likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented
as planned herein.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be involved,
nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli-
cation.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
that the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public
hearings to be held at the next regular meeting of this Board, to
wit, April 23, 1981 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold, New York:
Southold Town Board of ~peals
-65
AL ~1 2, 1981
7:30 p.m.
7:40 p.m.
THOMAS COLLINS. Accessory (storage) building on
vacant land. 275 Dawn Drive, Greenport.
SOUTHOLD GRANGE, INC. Special Exception for church
use in a B-1 Zone. 475 Beckwith Avenue, Southold.
7:50 p.m.
7:55 p.m.
8:05 p.m.
8:15 p.m.
8:20 p.m.
WILHELM FRANKEN. Garage in frontyard area.
830 Tarpon Drive, Greenport.
MARY ANN MASTROIANNI GREFE. Swimmingpool in side-
yard area. 395 Tuthill Road, Southold.
AGNES DUNN. Insufficient area of two parcels,
insufficient road frontage of one parcel. East
side of Queen Street, and south side of C.R. 48,
Greenport.
SARAH RAUCH. To relocate dwelling with insufficient
frontyard at 68175 C.R. 48, and McCann Lane, Greenport.
CYBIL KOOPER. Swimmingpool in front and/or side yard
areas at the southeast end of South Drive (Canoe Path),
Mattituck.
8:25 p.m.
NORTH FORK MOTEL, INC. To change use of premises and
to establish single-li~ing unit within multi-dwelling
(motel). 52325 C.R. 48 and Soundview Ave., Southold.
9:00 p.m.
ROY C. SCHOENHAAR. Insufficient area and width of
two proposed parcels in a three-lot proposed subdivi-
sion, and approval of access for rear parcel. South
side of S.R. 25, Mattituck.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and
carried, to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:30 o'clock a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
APP VEO