HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/12/1981 APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN. JR,
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
Joseph H. Sawicki
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN F~rlAD - STATI~ I~I-IA[~ 25 ¢~OUTHOLO, L.I., N.Y. 11':771
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 12, 1981
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday, March 12, 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.
Douglass; Joseph H. Sawicki; Gerard P. Goehringer. Absent due
to illness was: Serge Doyen, Jr.
It ~s hereby noted for the record that all the matters
scheduled and advertised previously for the March 5, 1981 Regular
Meeting were ~_u.t off.until this evening, same times.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
HUBL~C. HEARING: 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. Location of Property:
52340 Main Road (S.R. 25), Southold, NY; bounded north by S.R. 25;
west by Charnews; south by Southold School District No. 5; east by
Terry; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-63-6-9.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:34 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.
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
-2-
March 12, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the premises and we have
a section of the Tax Map showing this area and the surrounding area
in the neighborhood. Is there anyone here that would like to speak
for and add to anything that has been in the application?
RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Yes, Rudolph Bruer, on behalf of the
applicant. I would just like to add a couple of things to the--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Can you people hear him back there?
Use the mikes because we're trying to get everything on tape these
days, so. I hate to make you walk that far back--
MR. BRUER: Basically just a couple of words to add in addition
to the reasons as set forth in the application. The business that
we have we're basically asking is that we be able to move the florist
shop which is located directly next door to this building up the
street approximately 900 feet. The building there is owned by the
applicant at this time, and he would like to use the downstairs floor
as a floral shop for products not grown on the premises. The charac-
ter of the neighborhood is not going to change. There will not be
any display outside except possibly for a sign indicating that it is
a floral shop there, and the business that is connected with this
situation is a very quite business. The majority, I would say 80%
of the business is conducted by way of telephone orders and it's not
going to change the character of the neighborhood. We're really
lust moving an existing situation 900 feet west and across the street.
I don't know if the Board has any questions of me. I would be happy
to answer anybody that is opposed to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, is there anybody else that w~uld like to
add for this application? I have a letter here that's dated March 2,
1981:
...Gentlemen... The Trustees of the Southold Free Library,
owners of the property adjacent to the property of John
and Mary Pietrodangelo on Route 25 in Southold, wish to go
on record opposing the relief sought in the petition of
John and Mary Pietrodangelo, because the relief sought,
would in effect result in spot zoning and is an attempt
to change an A-residential district to B-business.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Betsy Widirstky, Secretary
Board of Trustees...
Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application?
ROBERT HARRINGTON: Yes, I would like to. I'm Robert Harrington.
live directly across the street--
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-3-
Mar~h 12, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into the microphone, sir?
MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, certainly. I'm Robert Harrington. I live
directly across the street. I don't want to look across the street
at any kind of a sign or business. I moved into that neighborhood
because it wasn't business-- I wouldn't have moved into it if it was.
I have,to'look directly across the street at this, and I want my
block to stay residential, and I was told when I first bought the
place that some day it may become business. And I thought I wasn't
interested b~cause I wanted to live there, and I want to enjoy it
as a residential neighborhood. I also don't need any more traffic
in the area. I don't see where eight cars can park over there, but
even if they can and I realize a good deal of his business will be
on the phone, I just don't want any more. We have plenty with the
church, more than we can contend with now. I just want it to go on
record as saying that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? I have a note from the
Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman ....
... The Planning Board reviewed the application of John and
Mary Pietrodangelo at a regular meeting held February 1t,
1981. Because the proper~y is in a residential zone, the
Planning Board feels that until such time as a variance is
granted by your board and the square footage of the sales
area computed, it is impossible to determine if the parking
is adequate.
Yours truly,
Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board ....
MR. BRUER: May I say a couple of words?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sure.
MR. BRUER: In connection with the letter, I would like to point
out to the Board that what we have there is not strictly a one-family
residential situation. We have a nonconforming use there allowing us
to have a multiple two'family dwelling, which it presently is used for.
We would be willing to have the Board~stipulate that the use used in
connecfion with this in response to the argument that we try to change
the zoning here to a business use, true, we want to use the downstairs
as a flower shop but we would be willing to accept a restriction that
any use of this building be only on the downstairs be only as a flower
shop rather than any other type of building. Of course we would like
to state that if it was ever discontinued as a flower shop that it
could then go back to being a two-family dwelling. But we're only
looking for our own particular use asa flower shop. We're looking
at it from a point of view that the store that we have now is completely
inadequate. YQu have a situation here Where you have the Town Hall, you
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-4-
Mar~h 12, 1981
(Mr. Bruer continued:)
have various times of the month when court is in session here and it
is absolutely impossible to use a business and to be able to park
here, to be able to supply the shop, to be able to deliver orders.
You're talking about walking and carrying things 200 and something
feet. We're only talking about moving an existing situation in the
heart of the town, in the heart of the hamlet here 900 feet.
With respect to the gentleman that lives across the street, it
might be noted that he also runs a business legitimately so from, I
believe, his premises there. I believe he does sell stuff, I believe
that is grown on his premises. We're not changing the character of
the neighborhood. Not far down the street across the street is a
law office. There's a doctor also practicing also out of his present
residence. All of them legitimate. But we're not really expanding
the nature of the use here with what we're trying to do. We own it.
It is a hardship. We have a multiple use at this particular point,
and we just would like to use it as a flower shop. It's not going
to change anything. The type of shop - it's an FTD shop. It must
be kept neat. It is neat. I think all of you have gone by the
place next door and I'm sure you've come ~ery uften, you know that
everything is kept in a very orderly fashion, and we're willing to
accept of course restrictions with respect to this use. Again the
parking is adequate. The business is primarily a mail-order or a
telephone order business. I have here receipts of the business
showing the mail orders if you would like to look at it, to show
basically how the business is conducted. The exceptions of course
are your Mother's Day, the funerals and stuff like that. But basically
it's a telephone business. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Anyone else have any--
HENRY LYTLE: Henry Lytle speaking in behalf of the Southold-
Peconic Civic Association. Why we have no% taken any formal action
on this particular application, we want it to go on record as being
our standard of procedure to oppose any spot-zoning or downzoning of
any property at all. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Rudy or John, do you know about how many square
feet you're going to be using in there?
MR. PIETRODANGELO: About 800.
SECRETARY: That's £or the sales area?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's for the sales area.
MR. PIETRODANGELO: The front three rooms. The~other two are
storage and the cellar.
Southold TOwn Board of Appeals -5- March 12, 1981
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will there be any extension into the
garage area or anything?
MR. PIETRODANGELO: No, no. Nothing is going to get changed.
The only addition that would go onto the house would have to be
the sign which I am required to have by FTD, unless I identify it
as a floral shop then the FTD emblem must be on the sign.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Joe, did you have anything? Mr. Douglass,
have you got anything?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would like to ask him some questions.
Have you worked up a financial statement on the situation as to
the value whether it can maintain itself in its present state and
how much the difference in value would mean between its present
state and what you desire to change it to?
MR. PIETRODANGELO: Are you saying ~tl my house increase in
value?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, you need to put together a financial
value on all the stuff. The amount you paid for it, the amount--
MR. PIETRODANGELO: I can tell you this. The shop, my present
location, I cannot handle the volume of business that is coming in
over the phones right now. As such I am just about breaking even
and it's covering expenses. Obviously if I go into my own house I'm
my own landlord, and the $2,200 that i~s costing me to heat this
house as a two-family residence of course will be off-set because
the business can support it. I cannot very well keep the two-family
house as a two-family house per say between taxes and my heating
bills. The house is operating at a loss. I'm at a point where I've
taken a house in Southold, I've restored it completely on the inside.
The outside is beginning to deteriorate and any additional work that
I do on it is not being supported by the house. It's coming out of
this pocket, and it just can't be handled.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: This you need in a balance statement showing
the original purchase, what the house is maintaining now, what it --
how it will change it financially to go into it with what you want
and what the valuation of the place would then be.
MR. BRUER: In other words you would like us to present to the
Board an annual statement.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Here's what you got to prove.
of items for financial hardship)
(Showed copy
MR. CHAIRMAN: Some of this information we juSt got this past
week.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-6- March 12, 1981
MR. BRUER: May we have a copy of this, Mr. Douglass? I'm sure
we can p~ovide the Board with it but I don't believe it's a necessary
requirement of this Board in its consideration.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I imagine you can get one from our secretary.
SECRETARY: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further questions from anyone,
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal No. 2782.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen (illness).
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FA-5. Application of Goldsmith
Building and Construction Inc. (for George Sweeney), Southold, NY,
for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Sections 46-5 and
46-7 for permission to construct substantially an addition and altera-
tions to existing dwelling, known as 150 Mason Drive, Cutchogue, NY;
bounded north and west by Mason Drive; south by Broadwater Cove; east
by Wong and others; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-7-11.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:56 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 Van Tuyl survey and a section of the
County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties.
Is there anyone here that wishes to add anything to the application?
MR. ALFRED H. GOLDSMITH: I can't add much to what is already
written down there. I became aware today and received this letter
that you have some question about the survey part of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Maybe I should read this so the people
would know. This is the letter we sent to Mr. Alfred Goldsmith,
President of Goldsmith Building and Construction Incorporated,
Southold, NY~ in regards to Appeal No. FA-5, Variance Application
for George Sweeney:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- March 12, 1981
...Dear Mr. Goldsmith:
After several consultations with the Town Engineer and the
Town Attorney, the Board has been advised that Mr. Van Tuyl's
survey dated December 31, 1980 regarding the above-entitled
matter does not show accurate elevations above mean sea level.
Apparently, Mr. Van Tuyl used datum from the Suffolk County
Department of Public Works aerial survey maps rather than
placing reference markers pursuant to the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 and the requirements of the Flood
Plain Management Laws. The Town Engineer has advised that
the ~levations shown in Mr. Van Tuyl~s survey could be off
by as much as two or more feet.
Please provide us with three copies of a survey certified
by a professional engineer and showing the true elevations
above mean sea level of the first floor.
Thank you for your cooperation and if you have any ques-
tions, please feel free to call.
Yours very truly,
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF APPEALS ....
Is there anyone else to speak for this? (None) Is there anyone to
speak against this? (None)
MR. GOLDSMITH: I have one question. Who will the Board acce~t
as a professional engineer?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know about professional but as long as
he is certified. That's the thing.
MR. GOLDSMITH: Mr. Van Tuyl has beenie~rtified and is also a
professional engineer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But he's not using the righ~ datum. I'm sorry.
MR. GOLDSMITH: I don't even know what you're talking about when
you call it a datum. All I could do is take this letter back to him
and have him go over it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We also sent Mr. Tuyl a letter, I'll read it to
you:
...Dear Mr. Van Tuyl:
In the past it has been noted that the elevations provided
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-8-
Mar~h 12, 1981
by your office has been obtained through datum from the Suffolk
County Department of Public Works aerial survey maps.
The Board of Appeals cannot accept these certified elevations
inasmuch as they do not reflect accurate elevations above mean
sea level as per information from the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929, and they may be off as much as two or more feet in
certain areas per the Town Engineer.
Your cooperation is requested concerning this matter.
Yours very truly,
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF APPEALS ....
The Federal Government has taken over down here. Now that's something
I never did believe in, grants and stuff, because every time you take
a dollar worth of grant you lose a couple of pounds of home rule. And
I don't know-- this is something that is going to have to be wormed
out. There's quite a difference. The bench marks or whatever you
call them.that Van Tuyt showed, one is 5'6" and one is 5'4" at opposite
sides of the property. Not too far away. It's quite a distance from
the property but not too far from the last one and it doesn't seem to
be that much change in the grade. The Geodetic markers 4~-4'1", and
they're supposed to be the -- So. Are these people going in for
a mortgage or anything on building?
MR. GOLDSMITH: They have a mortgage already approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good one. Somebody must have slipped up
on it.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, it's probably a private mortgage or some-
thing because it wouldn't be approved--
MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean, maybe they didn't go through a bank or
something?
MR. GOLDSMITH: They went through a local bank.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Generally 90% of our appeals wind up here on
account that somebody went to the bank and they pick up all these
things.
MR. GOLDSMITH: I am sure of this.
MRS. SHIRLEY BACHRACH: May I ask a question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- March 12, 1981
MRS. BACHRACH: Is it possible that if a person were granted
a variance that they would not be entitled to flood insurance and
that they would be under their own?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but the thing is that the Federal Govern-
ment has requested the banks not to grant loans on stuff that doesn't--
they would have to build it to their specifications. Waterproofing
for everything below the level-- the required 8' level, any structure,
you know, if it's a cellar or anything like that.
MRS. BACHRACH: Tn. other words to get their loan they would
have to meet that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Any other questions? (None) Well, I'll
offer a resolution closing this hearing and reserving decision.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision
reserved in this Appeal No. FA-5, application of Goldsmith Building
and Construction for George Sweeney.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2786. Application of Richard A.
and Janet J. Schlumpf, 32 Curtis Path~ East Northport, NY (Wickham,
Wickham & Bressler, P.C. as attorneys) for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of the reduction 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, Capobianco, Sheily,
Lueckoff; west by Indian Neck Lane; south by Pedonic Bay Gardens;
east by Richmond Creek. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-5-7 & 8.
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 notification to
adjoining property owners was made; fee paid ~15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and County
Tax Map showing the surrounding properties. Is there anyone here
to speak on behalf of this application?
South61d Town Boar~ of Appeals
-10-
March 12, 1981
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes. ~ail Wickham for Mr. and Mrs.
Schlumpf. I'd like to first just ~.~%something in the application.
There was a previous appeal concerning this appeal --
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I thought.
MRS. WICKHAM: Concerning this property, No. 2524 when Mr.
Schlumpf acquired it, he divided the property and obtained approval
of access over the, over another parcel on Spring Lane. The purpose
of this application is also, ~concerns access, and we feel that the
access there is available to the larger piece from Spring Lane is
not the best,~and' Zhis<~application requests us to have access from
Indian Neck Lane directly to the larger parcel in the back. The
access from Spring Lane is a right-of-way, it's not ownership.
We're going over someone else's property. It would mean building
a road on someone else~s property, we would not expect that person
to contribute, and it means coming in over a poorer type of road.
This 25-foot strip from Indian Neck Lane will be direct access. Mr.
Schlump could own it and maintain it himself without interferring
with any other properties. It does mean decreasing the size of
the parcel in Indian Neck Lane, but it's not the type of decrease
where you're creating any more lots than you already have, or
creating other parcels that houses or anything else could be built.
It's merely to improve the access to the parcel on the Creek.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone to speak against the
application? Anybody on the Board, Mr. Douglass, did you have
any questions? Jerry? Mr. Goehringer.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Gail, in the right-of-way that you
request off of Spring Lane, it was somewhat difficult to locate
that actually when we when down to inspect. It appears that the
trees might have to be taken down on that. Is that the case?
MRS. WICKHAM: Well, the~e.~s been no development. It would
have to be scraped down and all treed in the back particularly.
MR. SCHLUMPF: I would like to add just one thing on tha~.
That grade is--
MRS. WICKHAM: Mr. Schlump pointed out that the grade on
that right-of-way on Spring Lane ms also quite a problem, whereas
if you go mn from Indian Neck Lane, it's much more level grade.
To try and better identify for you where that right-Of-way is on
Spring Lane, it's right before you get to the last house on
Spring Lane. I believe there's a trailer? Right past the trailer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Werwent down there and we saw it.
MRS. WICKHAM: I think there were two stakes from the monument.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- March 12,
1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that was granted to him a few years
ago -- in that application.
MRS. WICKHAM: Pardon me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that was granted to him in the applica-
tion you spoke of.
MRS. WICKHAM: That was the access that was available to the
property at that time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? I'll offer a resolution
closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in Appeal
No. 2786, application of Richard A. Schlumpf and wife.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2783. Application of Thomas J.
DeBorqer, 93 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, NY (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.)
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
permission 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 Sub. Map 156, Lots 295 and 296; County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-104-11-9.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:22 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 showing the property and the
location of the building on it, and we have a section of the County
Tax Map showing this area and the surrounding area. Is there anyone
wishing to speak for this application?
RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: This appliCation pretty well speaks
for itself, unless the Board has some questions. What we're doing
here is really just changing the lot lines. The denial by the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 12, 1981
(Mr. Bruer continued):
Building Inspector is due to the fact that part of the building is
on both, covers primarily one lot and is partially on the other.
What we propose to do is change the lot line so we again have the
two lots rather than be required to move that building onto one
lot, and to take advantage of the view, the waterview to the north
which would make the properties more valuable, and allow us to
consummate a sale of the other lot. I'll be glad to answer any
questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Is there anyone else
to speak for this? Is there anyone else to speak for this? Is
there anyone to speak against it?
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: Yes, if it pleases the Board. I'm
here appearing in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Reim, who are
adjoining lot owne~ in3%the vicinity of this particular piece of
property. I'm here obviously in opposition to the application.
I think it's important at the outset that the~facts of this matter
again be reiterated to the Board, because what you're basically
dealing with, and I know the applicant has made reference to the
fact that this is an "Excepted Map" presumably under Section 100-112
of the Zoning Ordinance, but I don't think that's important with
respect to that application. What you're basically dealing with
is, Number One, two lots that existed a long, long time ago on a
subuivzsion that was created in.1922. Conceitedly these lots were
excepted from the current, requirements of the zoning ordinance
under Section 100-112. However, the exception was intended to take
place where the lots remained in their unimproved state, not in a
developed state. What has occurred has been in existence for some
time is a residential dwelling constructed on the two lots so as
~o create basically, as far as the zoning ordinance was concerned,
one single lot with I'm sure, I don't even think an area of 40,000
square feet. Now what the applicant intends to do is by restruc-
turing the subdivision, so to speak, change the direction of the
lot line and now create two lots, both of which are substantially
less than the present zoning requirements. The lot that would be
left would be approximately 17,000 square feet or slightly less
than that. This is not what was intended by the exception that
was put in the ordinance. The hardship, if any exists, and frankly
I haven't seen by the application where any hardship exists, is
self-imposed or created by the applicant's predecessor in title
when he decided to utilize the two lots for a single dwelling.
What you're going to do if you grant the application is permit
this particular applicant to create a subdivision of two small
lots, which no other subdivider would be entitled to do if he
came before the Planning Board of this Town. I'd like to pursue
the arguments with the Board of the arguments that are made in
the application.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-13-
March 13, 1981
(Mr. Cron continued):
Under the undue hardship or practical difficulty, the sole
argument advanced by the applicant in this particular case is
that it would be to his advantage to have two lots facing the
water. I submit that doesn't establish practical difficulty if
you're dealing with an area variance, and it surely doesn't
establish hardship if you're dealing with a use variance. In
fact I think you've got a little of both in this case, because
you're changing the area requirements, and the instance if you
grant another application for a building permit, you're changing
the use requirements with respect to that particular lot because
right now, under the ordinance that lot is entitled to one resi-
dence. And this is by choice of either the applicant or his
predecessor in title. He's not entitled to two residences.
Secondly the applicant points out with respect to the
uniqueness of the application that it's unique to this particular
parcel. That is not true. There are other lots in this area
where the property owners have built on more than one of these
lots in this subdivision. I can think of one instance because
I represented the people in the past, and that is Mr. and Mrs.
Robert Reim, who had their residence on both Lots 141 and 142.
So it's not unique to this particular parcel, and I think there
are other people here this evening who likewise have utilized
more than one of their lots. In terms of the character of the
area. Number One, the character of the area will be drastically
changed, and~.Num~er~Two/~it will affect the area. The character
of the area is going to be changed because you're going to
utilize one piece of land on which one residence exists and you're
going to create two residences. That surely is going to have an
effect on surrounding properties not only in the terms of their
value but secondly in terms of a water situation that exists down
on Nassau Point. It's a well known~fact, and it's documented by
not only the Health Department letters to this Board, but in this
Board's own~decisions in recent cases where the Board has recog-
nized the fragile water supply that exists in Nassau Point and has
on numerous occasions turned down applications which had more
merit than this particular application.
So for these reasons I would respectfully requestc~ha~ this
Board deny this application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cron.
JEFFREY REIM: Mr. Cron I think stated all of my points
perfectly. I did want to see if the Board received two letters
from the two other adjoining property owners that I didn't hear
read tonight. One was from Frank Abrams, who is an immediate
adjoining property owner and the other from Lou Sillich.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-14-
March 12, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I've got about four of them I'm going
to read off into the record.
MR. REIM: I just wanted to see if those came.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak?
W.S. GARDNER: Yes. My name is W.S. Gardner. I'm President
of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I've been here
many times. The song is getting sort of trite, but I agree so
much with Mr. Cron's arguments. I don't have the technicalities
that he does, but I know that once, my own feeling and my neighbors
feelings, that once a house has been built across two lots any
adjoining neighborffeels that it's one lot and buys this property
his house on that basis. My second point of course, to get back to
the old story, about water on Nassau Point. Again my point has
been taken by Mr. Cron very ably that there are many lots on Nassau
Point that are straddled by one home, and to set a precedent to
enable people to cut up odd shaped lots, and you can do it any way
you want, it doesn't have to be a straight line, it could be a
crooked line, it's going to set a precedent which is going to hurt
our fragile water supply and hu~t us immeasurably. And the Nassau
Point Property Owners Associati0n wants to go on very strong record
against~he granting of this variance. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
PAUL FOLEY: My name is Paul Foley. I'm an adjoining property
owner. In view of the water table situation right now, I feel until
the Town does something in buying public water systems, that this
variance should not be allowed, personally. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else?
RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: My Grigonis, a couple of words. Very
briefly, in connection with what Mr. Cron said before, he made a
great deal of the word the "intent." The subdivision is an excepted
map. I don't believe there is anything in the ordinance that says
anything to do with the intent, and what the Town Board did at that
time there is nothing in the record to show their intent when they
enacted the exceptions to the map. What we are asking basically is
to have two lots that are in that subdivision, fee two lots. With
respect to the Health Department, the lots will have to stand on its
own two feet with respect to any application before that~regarding
its approval of the water systems, etc. I believe the application
is well-founded. They are two lots. There are financial difficulties
here. There is a pending sale of the lot, pending the approval of
this Board of the division, and there is a technical division of the
property if the merger is strictly by way of a small.portion of the
premises being on the other lot. The, in my opinion, I think and I
think anybody in viewing the area, can see that a more~proper cutting
up of the lot would be to take advantage of the waterview and what
we propose is in the best interest of the property. Thank you.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 12, 1981
MR. CRON: May I make some response to that please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: 0k. Go ahead.
MR. CRON: First of all, I think the intent is clearly expressed
in the ordinance, the ordinance when it comes to the exceptions that
the ordinance intended to give with respect to existing maps when the
ordinance was adopted. The intent lied with respect to the use of
vacant lands which didn't meet zoning requirements and was intended
to give relief with respect to those maps that were in existence.
This is a different situation which exists here. Whatever hardship
exists,land I certainly doubt any does, but whatever does exist was
self-imposed. It was bought that way, it was built that way, it was
intended to be that way. Now a very interesting point is made and I
think I ought to stress to this Board, this man or this applicant now
becomes before this Board because he is selling the property. He held
this property since 1972 and as long as he lived there he didn't feel
the necessity of dividing that so he could have two residences. Now
that he is selling it, perhaps getting out of the area, he has nothing
to lose. And when he says there's no detriment as far as the property,
maybe not as to the property, but certainly as to the adjoining land-
owners. So there is an ulterior motive in seeking the application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read these letters -- oh, excuse me, go
ahead, 'Jeff.
MR. REIM: Chairman, Mr. Cron made reference to one other piece
of property on Nassau Point where a house straddled two lots. The
immediate adjoining proper~y owner Frank Abrams' house stradles two
lots. He's the 6wner of Lot 292, which is an open lot, 293 and 294,
and Mr. Abrams indicated to me that his house did in fact straddle
293 and 294, so it's not unique. Please, that's two examples.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reim. Mrs. Oliva?
RUTH OLIVA: Did you say that the total area of the two lots
was 1.2 acres?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. No one else wants to speak right now,
I will go through with these letters. (The Chairman read three letters
received from the following in opposition to the granting of the
subject appeal: Nassau Point Property Owners Association letter
dated February 28, 1981 and received 3/2/81; Louis F. Sillich, P.E.
letter dated March 1, 1981 and received 3/3/81; Frank W. Abrams'
letter dated March 4, 1981 and received 3/9/81.)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bruer, could you give us a copy of
the survey or a sketch of the survey indicating the square footage
of both properties in question; of course, it's only one property
now shown as 1.2 acres, but Mr. Cron did state that he thought there
was 17,000 square feet to one lot that this gentleman would be setting
off in this particular case. I really don't know how l~rge it is.
Could you get it for us, please? Either call it in or send it in.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-16- March 12, 1981
FLR. BRUER: Sure. Ok. Fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If no one else has anything, I'll offer a
resolution closing the h~rin~~ and reserving decision.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
wa s
On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision
reserved in the matter of Appeal No. 2783, application of Thomas J.
DeBorqe.r.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2787. Application of Frederick
Cowan and Company, Inc., 120 Terminal Avenue, Plainview, NY 11803,
(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; southwest by Baxter; south-
east by Case; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-102-5-9.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 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 notification to
adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey and a section of the County
Tax Map showing this and the surrounding properties. Is there
anyone here to speak for this application? That would be you, I
guess, Mr. Cron.
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: Yes, if it pleases the Board. I would
to say at the outset I think a lot of stress has been placed on the
description of this property on its intended use as industrial in
nature. Not through my application but in reference hy the Building
Inspector in the denial of the right to use the premises as we would
like to use it. I think the only reason it's referred in that manner
is because we're dealing basically with an ordinance that is very
specific in terms of the uses that can be employed in a specific
zoned district. The type of use that we would like to employ at
the premises, it is really not industrial in the sense that most
people would view the word "industrial." We have no other choice I
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-17-
March 12, 1981
suppose in referring to it in that manner, simply because there is
nothing that fits the category in the B Zone as to this type of
business. The nearest that I could come to was in the C-Industrial
Zone under Section B(2) which dealt with designing, research, fab-
ricating and so forth, and office buildings. ~f]~ou look at the
industrial uses, there is nothing else that would fit this particular
category. I think it's unfortunate that we have to deal with an
ordinance this way, because it makes it very, very hard for somebody
to fall into an exact category under any one of the zoned districts,
but I can assure you and I'm sure that Mr. Cowan, who I asked to be
present here this evening can assure you, that the type of business
that is intended to be conducted falls more of the area of a business
zone than it would in the use that we put to industrial. And obvi-
ously, since we have a zoning ordinance in this pa~tim~lar zone, that
is specific in terms of the types of uses that can be done in that
district I have no other choice, nor does Mr. Cowan, but to come before
this Board and seek a variance. One might argue, well, you know, why
don't you go into a C Zone. And myanswer to that is that the type of
business that he intsnds to conduct is frankly more appropriate and
more suitable in a B Zone. But unfortunately unless you grant the
variance we can't do that. If you look at the specific uses under
the B Zone, you'll find many types of uses that would be far more
excessive, if you want to use the term, than with respect to this
type of business that we propose here. For example, you go into a
carpentry business or an electrical shop business, a motor cycle
business, you're dealing almost exclusively with 100% shop-type of
work. What's proposed here is approximately 40% shop work, and you
heard the description in Mr. Cowan~ letter as to the type of shop-
work that will be done, probably not much different than what's
presently being done in a garage or an auto repair shop. There's
machine work; there's electric&l~o~k; there's welding, soldering.
All of these things that are done in a B Zone. The rest of the use
of the property will be put to engineering and administrative work,
which will constitute about 60% of that business. It hardly appears
the type of thing that you should relegate into an indus%~ial area.
To begin with in all fairness, we don't have a legitimate
industrial park. We don't have an industrial park that we could
use to attract any kind of industry here. The only area that we
can attract this type of business is really in a B-Zone, and the
type of business that Mr. Cowan wants to employ in this Town I would
think is something that the Town would like to have. We've talked
around here for many, many years of broadening the tax base. As you
well know, our sole tax base in this Town is through residential homes
and the existing small businesses that are in the Town. I think if
we can attract a business of this nature that will not be detrimental
to the community will employ people from the community, and at the
same time broaden the tax base. I would think that that would be
desirable.
I could go on and talk, but I don't think that will accomplish
anything. First of all, I'm sure there are people hs~et~hat either
through misinformation or having no information at all really doa~not
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18-
March 12, 1981
(Mr. Cron continued):
understand the nature of the application. And there may be others
who have already made up their mind that it's something that they
don't want, so I could stand here for another hour and speak to
this Board and speak to them, and it's not going to accomplish
anything. Because I'm not going to be able to answer the questions
that they may have.
I have asked Mr. Cowan to be here this evening, and I would
respectfully request that if there are any questions tha~ anybody
would like to ask of him, that perhaps they could ask them through
the Board and the Board in turn to him to keep it somewhat orderly.
The pictures ~ '~e referred to in his letter I have here, if the
Board would like to have them, I would be glad to give them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: People may want to see them, Dick.
MR. CRON: I'll leave them up here if anybody wants to see
them (on the dais).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we put them into the record?
MR. CRON: Sure. If you would like to mark them and put them
into the record, it would be fine with me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Es there anyone else here that wishes to speak
for this?
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: Gail Wickham. I'm representing Ann
Wickham, the owner. I would just like to say that Mrs. Wickham did
sell this property a number of years ago. She had to take it back
when the purchaser defaulted on the mortgage in 1979. She hasn't
had a con~mact on it since.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone here in opposition wishing
to speak? Yes, sir.
ED BUNCE: My name is Ed Bunce. I live on Schoolhouse Road in
Cutchogue, the surrounding area. I'm one of'those uninformed persons
that Mr. Cron was talking about, so 1,11 give it a shot. I might not
know what I'm talking about. We have a petition here from the home-
owners, the residents and the businessmen in the surrounding area of
this property's application. And it's signed by at least one person
from every house in the area, and we would like to present that to
you, and I can read it to you. We have here:
..."To whom it may concern: We, the undersigned, wish to
express our opposition to the above proposed variance to
industrial-type business in a B-1 Business Zone due to the
proximity of the elementary school playground, neighboring
residential property. It could present a hazard to young
children, downgrade residential property. Industrial zoned
property should be set aside for that purpose .... "35 signatures.
~' Southold Town Board of ApPeals -19- March 1.2, 1981
(Mr. Bunce continued):
Should be located on that particular land.
Now we had some questions that we would like to speak to Mr.
Cowan about. I don't know if you want us to talk to him now or
later.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You might just as well. Maybe he will answer
some of the questions some of the others might have.
MR. BUNCE: Well, we feel that this, like we said, would
downgrade our property, and it's also hazardous because it's a
school area. But we feel too that this situation is ]ust one of
many that will appear, because once that is given a variance or
a zoning change or whatever you want to call it, it will open a
door for other industries to come in. There's property all around
that area. The adjoining property, I could name the people that
own it like that, but that doesn't make any difference, and we feel
that once one is in another one would come. And if you do start
something like that it is going to be a regular industrial park,
that they said they don't want, that they say they don't have or
don't want or whatever. But we also have one other thing we
wanted to ask Mr. Cowan about. He has already established his
business in the Zahra Garage across the street. He has rented
space. He has brought in three-phase electrical system, entire
help, set up his machinery, and what was his intent when he
should get a variance here to get his factory started, does he
plan to ask a variance change over there too? Now we have two
factories or two places of operation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cowan, do you plan to stay there or move
over?
MR. COWAN: No, I figured I would use the mike.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I mean with the--
MR. COWAN: Oh. Well, I would like to start off at the begin-
ning by saying that unless we get the b&essings from the neighbors
we don't want to move in either. So we've got that in common.
First our equipment is basically not that industrial. It's
not heavy. What we're doing in the Zahra Garage now is a lot less
than Mr. Zahra is doing in his own garage.
MR. BUNCE: He's zoned for that. You're not.
MR. COWAN: Technically--
MR. BUNCE: That's one business to operate a gasoline station--
MR. COWAN: I'm talking about the type of work we,re doing.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- March 12, 1981
MR. BUNCE: I don't ~en know if you legally could operate
in there. You have two businesses under two different names on
one piece of property. I don't know if that's even legal.
have no idea.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Talk through the chair. One at a time, too.
We really don't know how much work Zahra is doing in there.
Do you have any idea about it, Bob?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't really know.
MR. BUNCE: It's just a.regular gas station-repair shop as
far as that,s concerned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you respond to that, Mr. Cowan?
MR. COWAN: Well., of course, what he is doing is repairing
automobiles, of course. But what we're doing in that shop is we
have an induction motding machine that presses ceramic mixed with
metals into a case. It's a very simple device. It uses pressure
at high temperature which we get from this three-phase electricity
we spok~ about. There's no noise. There's no pollution. All it
does is employs one of your local people that lives down the block.
And you wouldn't know when we're there, or when we go. There's
no truck deliveries. There's nothing. The main reason we have it
there is because we don't want our competitors to see us. And
they so far can't spell Cutchogue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pronounce it too maybe.
MR. BUNCE: They'll be here once you get started.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But I think Mr. Bunce's question was, do you
intend to use both the Zahra place and this property if it were
granted?
MR. COWAN: No. Eventually it was our intention to move out
of the zahra place when we finally got started properly with this
business we were building up to. The Zahra place doesn't come into
our liking. It's a garage. We must have something more presentable
to our own customers, and it would be very important that we had a
presentable place. Because working out of a garage is the kind of a
thing that our competitors who are all used companies would claim
we're doing anyway. We have to destroy that image.
MR. BUNCE: Another thing I would like to ask him is, how
many men or people do you plan to employ. You have given us 60's
and 40% and everything else, just how many people does that need?
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-21-
March 12, 1981
MR. COWAN: Well, if I can answer-- the best way to explain
that is, in order for us to do about a million dollars a year, we
would probably need 15 people, approximately. To do two million
we need 10 more people, and to do three million we probably need
five or six more people. In our business doing two or three mil-
lion is a lot of money, so that I can't imagine us employing much
more than 20 people, at the tops, with this type of operation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question, Mr. Bunce?
MR. BUNCE: Yes, that answers that question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else to ask him while we
have him here?
MR. BUNCE: Well, not really other than what I just said.
We're not in favor of it and we think it should be put on industrial
type property when there is industrial-type property in~the~.Town
set aside for such. I can't understand why he has to come into an
residential area and upset the place.
MR. COWAN: Can I answer that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would please.
MR. COWAN: The main attraction that I believe we have out here
is, first you have to analyze our Plainview operation. We've been
in business well over 25 years, with the same employees, so that the
nucleus of our company today, there,s people in the age of 60, we
all know we are on our way out. So we're re-employing young people
in training. Young people don't particularly want to live in Nassau
County or the west part of Suffolk County. They want to go to a
nicer place, like Californiaaand Arizona and Florida. ~nd we have
difficult times getting people employed and keeping them. We know
they would, we feel anyway, that they would like to stay out in this
part of Long Island. It's a gamble on our part. So if we bring
them out here and employ local people with it, we feel that they
will stay with us for the next 25 years. And that's the main reason
we selected this area. Now we've had many opportunities to go to
many other places at a much better advantage financially as you
probably know, places like Pennsylvania, Florida and so on, you
know, open their doors. They, a?~ot of them go down to very low
prices. But I don't think, well I personally wouldn't want to do
it myself. This has a lot to do with it. But that's the reason
we're coming out here and want to.
MR. BUNCE: I'll tell you this. I deal~[~wi~h[?a company, 180
Terminal Drive; that can't be too far from you. I know the area.
I know what they put up down there and I know what's going on down
at that place. We certainly don't want it out here in Quz Town.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir?
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 12, 1981
MR. COWAN: I don't know what 180 is. We're 120.
MR. BUNCE: Well you're in Plainview, aren't you?
Drive. Do you know "?" Products? (Kelly?)
120 Terminal
MR. COWAN: No. But our going is 20,000 square feet put up
with steel frames with what they call anaapron wall with a flat roof
that leaks all the time, and for the most part the area, you know,
in my estimation is kind of hideous, which they cleaned up too.
But you know industrial parks are like that. That's the main reason
we don't want to go to one.
MR. BUNCE: That's what we're going to have if you change the
zoning to industrial. I don'~t know if they have any other alterna-
tives other than to do that since that's what you're asking for.
Then there will be one more right behind you~ And the next one down
the road. Then an industrial park over there by the post office and
up on the hill.
MR. COWAN: I was under the impression we're asking for a
variance not for zoning but just to use the property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what the application is for. Is there
anyone else that has any questions?
NEIL DEICHEN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you one question. I'm
a homeowner in the neighborhood. I've lived there for 19 years.
What is it going to do to my property? Do you know the answer? Is
it going to downgrade it, upgrade it, or what?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Member Goehringer is a real estate man sometimes--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At this particular time I don't think we
can make a determination upon that, and I understand that all of you
are very, very interested in~.this; and I know exactly what you're
talking about. This Board is not a Board that can deal with project
design. We can't tell the gentleman what type of building to build.
That's up to the Building Department.
MR. DEICHEN: Where does that leave us though?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I can't tell you how blatant the building
is going to look or h0w~nice the building is going to look.
MR. DEICHEN: But what I am saying is, where is that going to
leave us?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know exactly what you're saying.
MR. CHAIP~IAN: Wish we could answer it.
MR. DEICHEN: Wish we had the answer too.
Southold Town Board of Appeals ~23- March 12,
1981
!
MR. CRON: Can I say something? Unless there's somebody else
that wants to say something. I
MR. CHAIRMAN:. Is there anyone else that wants to speak?
WES SIMCIK: I'm Wes Simcik and I'm representing the Ma~tituck-
Cutchogue Board of Education. This property in question is right
across the street from the West Cutchogue Elementary School. lin that
building we have students from kindergarten to third grade, and~ we
have summer soccer programs and also little leagues. Our concern
and realizing the benefit of a broader tax base, etc., our concern
is safety and welfare of the students. And I really don't kn~w
what the off-street parking would be. What the traffic wouldibe.
But these are just our questions. We're not for it and we'relnot
against it, We just want to find out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's a good time to find out.
MR. COWAN: Our present plan is to have an office building
looking similar to a home, as close to a home as we.can. We'be
·
kicking around the idea of employing somebody to live on the
premises. This would be a security problem which I was told We
might need. Our friend, Zahra had some gas stolen out of hislcar
recently. All the parking that We intend to do is on our premisels'
with a driveway in and a driveway out. One of those driveways
will accommodate a truck which would pull into the building b~hind
a hedge. We've made some layouts, and the layouts would be ia a
great improvement to the community. We,d see to that. One o~ the
things we expect to have and want to have is all the blessing~ of
all the neighborhoods. And the way we do that, of course, is''
Ijust
to conform to their wishes. There's no problem to us to do o~ that.
There's nothing hideous about the work we do. It's~all indoors.
And it's mostly a very heavy exotic engineering-type buslness~
which attracts all sorts of inquiries. And also it,s advantages
for local people, including school children, to come around a~d
ask questions about it. So that it would be a credit to the
community as far as we're concerned, what we do. Of course w~
can't answer to ~hat anyone else would do to a neighboring property,
which is another thing that came up.
MRS. VERDERESE: I just wanted to know, would there be any
emissions from this building?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Emissions problem--
MR. COWAN: No, not in--
MR. BUNCE: Well, he's talking about, talking about manUfactur-
ing valves and gas, valves and exploding them,-checking them not
exploding, there has go'to be emission. There's got to Use liquid.
He's got to use something to check them. There's goti~to be a certain
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-24-
M~rch 12, 1981
(Mr. Bunce continued):
amount of emission or something, some kind of a danger over there.
Maybe they don't want it in Nassau County, or they can't do it
anymore in Nassau County. How about that?
MR. COWAN: I don't know what he's saying--
MR. BUNCE: Are you allowed to do your operation in Nassau
County now or not? Maybe that's why you're moving out here because
you can't emit into their emissions or you can't operate the way
you want.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that wouldn't have.any bearing whether he's
allowed to operate there or not.
MR. BUNCE: But I mean as far as meeting the Code of Emissions,
polluting the air.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, he's going to have to meet the requirements
of the Board of Health and e~erything else that goes with it--Planning
Board, site plan--well I sai~ the Health Department. DEC. Excuse me,
what was your name?
MRS. VERDERESE: Verderese.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. COWAN: I brought a one model of one of our igniters, just
to give you a general idea of what it looks like, if you would like
to see it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It might help us. To show these people what
you're doing.
(Mr. Cowan brought up an igniter model for viewing.)
MR. COWAN: I might explain, that's a gas igniter. And an
ordinary gas igniter has a spark transformer, spark plug, and when
it gets soaking wet it won't work. Various companies have appli-
cations, in this case, Dupont, where their igniter circuits always
get wet, and they need a special igniter to work when it got wet.
And this is the one. And instead of having a spark plug we have an
arc plug--as you see, it's all stainless. The materials in it and
the design of it is such that there is no way you can blow it out
once you got it started. And ir'uses a small amount of gas and
throws the flame about a f6ot long. It's unique. It sells for
a lot of money. Much more than a regular burner in a regular home.
In fact three times as much as a burner. There's no pollution in
making it. It's just a unique deride. And there's nothing we do
that pollutes anything anyway. We've never been questioned in Nassau
or any other place about it.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-25-
March 12, 1981
MRS. VERDERESE: I'm not too familiar with the zoning thing.
If this variance were granted and the building were built, even-
tually if it were sold Could~some'~other type of business come into
that building?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The use variance would be changed it wouldn't
stay that way to whatever was granted.
MRS. VERDERESE: It would have to be the same operation?
MR. CHAI'RMAN: It wouldn't have to be the same operation.
It would be some type of business similar to his. If you wanted
to call it industrial, it would be industrial. What they're trying
to do is keeping it in the B-1 Light, it would be the same as
was permitted oh in any district around town in the same area--
the use district would remain. It's zoned B-1 now, and he's just
asking for a variance to use his business in that zone. It's a
question whether hisbusiness is really the same or is real heavy
business, which it doesn't appear to be.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: May I say something, Charlie?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Bob.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: One important item in the power of this
Board, this Board has the authority to attach stipulations of what
can be done and put regulations on the use of whatever they pass.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
MALCOLM HENDRY: My name is Malcolm Hendry. I think that
the Town would welcome business. We need the business, and I
think it should be put where it belongs. I don't see subsidizing
one company or one property owner. If the gentleman would want to
build a plant, we have areas zoned for that. And I think that we
should follow the fathers, the town fathers' wisdom in presenting
this to the gentleman. We don't want to thro~ him out, sort of
speak. In all regards if the people in the neighborhood, the
school, and you know, the environment would be hurt,~et's put it
where it belongs. And as far as bringing people in the area, I
don't know if people could afford to live here. Do we have housing
for them. So there's more than that to go on, as far as sa~ing yes
to anything. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hendr~. Anyone else? Mr. Cron,
you wanted to say something?
MR. CRON: I think we're losing sight of something here.
Whether you're in a B-Zoned area or whether you're in an industrial
area, or any of the areas in the B-Zone, C-Zone, almost everything
you do in any one of those areas exists by a Special Exception.
And that's true with all of the uses that are permitted in the B-Zone.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- March 12, 1981
(Mr. Cron continued):
It's true of all of the uses that are permitted in the B-Zone.
It's true of all of the uses that are permissible in a C-Light Zone.
For the want of a specific allowance or a.permitted use in the B-
Zone, we feel to fall in this Light Industrial Zone, but frankly,
anybody in their right mind can say that an office building is
necessary and should only be constructed in a C-Zone. And our
ordinance says that. It's exactly what the ordinance says. It's
actually ludicrous to take a business that's really not of an
industrial nature and force it into a C-Zone. If somebody came
before this Board with one of the permitted uses under the B Zone,
such as a motorcycle shop, an electrical shop, a carpentry shop,
this Board could only grant it by a, as a permitted use, a Special
Exception. This business is not unlike that type of business.
In fact it is probably less honorous than what a motorcycle shop
would be. And I~say, I say we're unfortunate that we don't have
a specific enumeration for this type of business in the B-Zone.
I think what everybody is losing site of is that this property
is B-Zoned, and those kind of uses could come into this zone. If
it's the intent of all the surrounding neighbors to say, "We
don't want any kind of business in this zone," that is it's zoned
improperly obviously. But all of the business in that, all that
area there is B-Zoned from the Main Road right back to the garage.
Nobody seems to object to the garage being there. They do
machine work. They do welding. The type of work that's going
to be done here is less honorous than that. You heard Mr. Cowan
say that the type of structure that he's going to put up is in
the nature ~Jitially of an office building that's going to look
somewhat like a residence.~i In my conversations with him, he had
hoped eventually to put up a structure that looks somewhat like
the Town Hall building, which might be a heck of a lot better than
having a motorcycle shop, or an electrical shop, or a carpentry
shop. But if that's what they want in the area, well maybe they
would be happier with that. What.we offer is something that we
feel is attractive and is going to be beneficial and helpful. Mr.
Cowan said, I~oki~if you don't want him that's the way it is. But
don't throw it away because somebody is using the term for want~3of
a better term that this is an industrial use, because it is not an
industrial use. It is categorized that way because of the way the
ordinance is written. We don,t have any other choice.
And incidentally, I didn't mean to Mr. Bunce in a derogatory
manner when I said "uninformed." I said uninformed in the sense
that nobody has gone t~anyi~effort to determine exactly what is
proposed here.
MR. BUNCE: I was going to say, if they do this, or if you
grant it, you would be setting a prededent.on an industrial basis.
What effect would that have later on. If someone else comes along
and wants to get the same type of variance and do something else,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-27-
March 12, 1981
(Mr. Bunce continued):
and then just add a little more to the pile, and say, "Well I'm
only doing the same thing as they are but I'm going to put a little
bit more of this into it.~ Buq~right now it's just the garage and
the welding." But now he's going to work in the same thing and
add a little bit more each time. The next thing you know, we've
got our industrial park. I've seen it happen. I lived in Hunting-
ton for 55 years. Not 55, but 50 years. I've been out here about
nine or ten years, and it happened in there. It went from one
residential from 15,000 to 250,000 people, and zoning was changed
the meet industry and to meet anything that they could get their
money out of. I don't believe it should be done. I believe they
should put it on an industrial type property. That's about all I
can say.
MR. CRON: You're talking about a two-acre piece of land.
mean the kind of expansion that he's talking about you need acres
and acres of land.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This has been educational, more or less, an
educational hearing to all of us. Mr. Bunce, I mean Mr. Cowan, is
there any chance that we can drop by and see just what the operation
is so we know a little bit more about what we're talking about too?
MR. COWAN: You mean in Hauppauge or here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Out here. What you're doing over there now.
MR. COWAN: Oh sure. You're welcome to drop in.
tomorrow morning again. We're open five days a week.
much so. Would be happy to see you.
We're open
Yes, very
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. Mr. Douglass would like to ask
you something.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: In opening up your operation in Cutchogue
there, did you receive a permit and proper~papers on the new Fire
Code and stuff?
MR. COWAN: I'm not too sure. I think the fire inspector has
been in, but you got to remember we haven't added much into that
garage. We just put one piece of machinery in. Other than painting
it up and cleaning it up and ~inally adding hot water to it, our only
contribution was putting our machinery in it.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Has the building department issued you a
permit?
MR. COWAN: I'm not sure. We have a man assigned to that from
the shop, but I'm not sure whether he did it or not.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-28-
March 12, 1981
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. Cron? In one of your th±~gs, in discussing
of the garage. That garage was nonconforming, right?
MR. CRON: I assumed it was in a B-Zone, that garage.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, it was made, if it is in a B-Zone
which it must be, it was made afterwards I believe. I think it
was nonconforming originally wasn't it? It was there before, wasn't
it?
MR. CRON: I can't answer that question. I don't know what it
was before. Obviously in this particular zone you're entitled to
have a garage.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There was something there before he became a
garage, I think, he stored buses or something like that?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's right. It was a garage for bus--
MR. CRON: How long ago was that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And telephone company trucks.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: How long ago? Well, I remember it.
MR. CRON: It might not have been there when I came.
MR. BUNCE: I believe Cliff Tyler owned that garage before
Zahra owned it. He did rent buses. He owned the whole piece of
property. He owned the business; he rented it as part of his busi-
ness. He took in telephone trucks. He repaired them and also let
them stay there, you know, they garaged them. Now you've got two
businesses in two different names. On one piece of property.
That's why I asked Mr. Cowan if he intends to stay there or what he
is going to do after if he gets this if the application is approved.
Because I believe he's in violation. I don't know.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we've said about all that can be
said about it tonight. And we'd like to drop in, maybe a couple of
the fellows would feel like taking a long ride. Could they go to
Nassau and see your operation?
MR. COWAN: Oh, sure, that too. Just call up before you come
because I'm not always around.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail righty. Do you have a telephone number for
there you could give the secretary.
MR. COWAN: Yeah. 349-8282.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-29-
March 12, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, I think, I'll offer a resolution to recess
this until the April 2nd,'1981 meeting. I think everybody will
have more ideas about it by then I think.
MR. COWAN: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it
wa s
RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 2787, application of Frederick
Cowan and Co. until Thursday, April 2, 1981 5o be held at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen.
The Chairman announced a recess period from 9:35 to 9:45 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2785. Application of Leo and
Lillian Brac, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to alter
property line between Subd. Lots 49 and 50, reducing the lot area
for Lot 50 and increasing the lot area for Lot 49 of property lo-
cated at the east side of Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded
north by Eggers; west by Nassau Point Road; south by Blaikie; east
by Peconic Bay; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-15-8.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:46 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 el5.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and a section
of the County Tax Map showing this property and the adjoining proper-
ties, and what they intend to do is starting from point zero on
Nassau Point Road move up to the Bay and move the line over 17 feet
to the southerly, to the south, if I understand that right. And
these both lots have 100 feet on the Bay, no, 117 feet on their lot
and 100 on the other lot, the lot that's being left. Is anyone here
to speak for this application?
GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, Gail Wickham for Mr. Brac and his
mother Mrs. Brac. Mr. Brac could sell Lot 50 right now based on
Section 100-12 of'the Code; however, the Lot on which his house is
located, Lot 49 is slightly smaller than Lot 50, and he merely wants
to increase the size of his residence lot to provide for more side-
yard and a little bit larger bay frontage. It won't affect any lots
other than the two lots involved here, Lots 49 and 50. That's basically
it.
Southold Town Board oz-~Appeals -30- Mau~n 12, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for this?
W.S. GARDNER: I would like to say something again. My name
is W.S. Gardner and I'm President of the Nassau Point Association.
I'm very glad that this request for a variance came-up tonight
because it shows the difference between the type of variance in
changing a property line that we were arguing against before. This
is a mere slice in the same direction, changing it by 17 feet.
Where the other application is a complete change dividing property
that should not be divided. We have no objections to this sort of
thing, and we feel that it shows very strongly the difference be-
tween the two types of applications. We have no objections to
this but we have great objections to the DeBorger division.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak regarding this
application? (Negative) Does anyone wish to speak against it?
(Negative) This went to the Planning Board and we have a response
from the Planning Board:
... February 11, 1981
Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr.
Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals...
The Planning Board feels that the change of line proposed by
Leo F. Brac and Lillian Brac poses no objectionable change
to the existing properties because the amount of property
involved is minimal.
Yours truly,
HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD ....
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): I'll offer a resolution granting this
as applied for. It's not going to change a thing there. It's a
very, very small amount. Been regularly moved--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-31-
MarCh 12, 1981
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as
follows:
Appellants have appealed to this Board seeking a variance approving
the alteration of the lot line between Subdivision Lots 49 and 50, reduc-
ing the area for Lot 50 by 2,848 sq. ft. and increasing the area for Lot
49 by 2,848 sq. ft. in order to allow more side yard area at the south
side of the exiSting house and shifting bay frontage to 117 feet from
100 feet. The lots in question are part of the Subdivision of Nassau
Point Club Properties Map No. 806, which preexists zoning. Upon referr-
ing this matter to the Planning Board, this Board has received a written
favorable response from the Planning Board.
The Board finds that the relief requested in relation to the Code
requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is granted no
detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no detrimental
effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increased
population; that no substantial change is produced in the character of
the neighborhood; that the relief requested is within the spirit of the
zoning ordinance; and that the interests of justice will be served by
the granting of the within variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Leo F. and Lillian Brac be granted a variance to
the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 approving the alteration
of lot line as applied for.
Location of Property: East side of Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,
NY; bounded north by Eggers; west by Nassau Point Road; south by
Blaikie; east by Peconic Bay; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-15-8.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen (illness).
S6uthold Town Board of A?peals -32- March .. ~, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2776. Application of Frederic P.
Rich, 1470 Hobart Road, Southold, NY (William H. Price, Jr., Esq.)
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels
each with a residence, and known as 1470 and 1580 Hobart Road,
Southold, NY; bounded northwest by Smith; southwest by Town Creek;
southeast by Creighton; northeast by Hobart Road. County Tax Map
Item No. 1000-64-3-2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:57 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
existing buildings and the proposed division and a section of the
County Tax Map showing the area and the surrounding areas. Is
there~.auyone here that wishes to speak for it, wQBld that be you,
Mr. Price?
WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: Yes. As stated in the petition
no physical changes will take place. The division was decided upon
by two individuals who are going to purchase this property and did
it in a manner which they consider to be equitable, and also without
changing any of the existing driveways or anything like that. No
increased use will occur in here where we're just asking for an area
variance. I believe we have shown there is a practical difficulty.
Here we have two very useful and very good dwellings, and as you
know it's very, impractical for one individual to own two dwellings
on the same lot in this day and age. That's all, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak for it?
tire) Is there anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to speak
against it? (Negative) Mr. Goehringer, you had a question?
(Nega-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any problem with coming up with
a little more of equitable division, say 20,000 square foot minimum
on that one lot that's 18,000 square feet? Is there any problem
with that, Bill?
MR. PRICE: Just a second--let me take a look. Yeah, I
believe that the Qne in consideration here that we're talking
about are waterfront properties. It's more than just the actual
area of the lot rather than the location of the dwelling. The
Parcel 2 here designates 18,718 square feet and has the premier
location for the house, has the best view of Town Creek and has
the better location. The other house being closer to the road
does not have quite the view that the other house, and just for
the Board's information so that you can see we are trying to
comply with the open area and the like, there are going to be
covenants and restrictions filed that will prohibit the erection
of fences between these two lots, so~!that when anyone drives down
the street it's going to look just the way it looks now. It is
SOuthold Town Board of Appeals -33- March 12, _-1981
(Mr. Price continued):
going to look just the way it looks now. You're not going to have
any changes in it at all. But that's why, I believe was the main
consideration for dividing the property in a different than exact
50/50 area, 50/50 as far as the values are concerned.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Except that when we measured from the
house, Mr. Price, we felt that there was certainly an equitable
amount of area to come up with the roughly 1,300 square feet. I'm
talking about the lot - Parcel No. 2, in this particular area here
(near the existing fence). We measured from the house here and
felt there was enough area coming back here to maybe cut the line
like this and just to add the other 1,300 square feet to make this
20,000.
MR. PRICE: I'll tell you the only problem that's going to
arrive as this Board is aware. I first submitted this to the
Planning Board in December of 1980. Now if we're gozng to amend
this, we're going to have to according to your ordinance refer this
back to the Planning Board I would assume. Now I have proceeded mn
absolute good faith and there's been a communication breakdown
somewhere, and I mean, if we have to go back to the Planning Board
now, my deadline runs out on March 15th. The contract ms going to
fall through, and you know, as I said, I put this petition to the
Planning Board in December, and to you folks as soon as I had the
Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and I believe Mr. Grigonls
wrote me a letter saying that you the Board of Appeals couldn't
consider it until the Planning Board considered it; and then I went
to the Planning Board and they said they couldn't consider it until
you considered it. Now, if somehow we could do it without going to
the Planning Board, that's fine. I'll try to settle ~o that here.
MR. RICH: There's also another little reason. There's
also underground lines in here coming to this house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a little, like a, bulkhead or something.
MR. RICH: That's right. It's wired as well with underground
lines. There's also underground water that's going to have to be
all changed if we moved that back a couple of feet. And the other
part of it is that the people that are purchasing this are very
happy with this set-up, and these people are very happy with the
set-up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you get a letter from the Planning, oh I
guess it just came here:
...The Plannina Board reviewed the application of Frederick
P. Rich at a regular meetina held February 11, 1981.
It was the decision of the board that such set off or
creation does not constitute a subdivision in accordance
with Chapter A106-13 of the Code of the Town of Southold...
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -34- March~.~--~, 1981
MR. PRICE: I received that letter. This is after I had
appeared for them, and then they said, "No, we can't look at it."
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you think that would cause a practical
difficulty if you moved that line 20 feet or something?
MR. PRICE: If it has to be re-wired and/or his water would
be changed, we would have to then have water easements...
MR. RICH: Where are we here. We're 18, almost 19,000 here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're talking about 1,000 square feet.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: You can even take some out of here.
MR. RICH: Oh, ~hey~didn't want to even give us that much
driveway. The Planning Board.
ME~ER DOUGLASS: They don't like flag lots.
MR. PRICE: The only reason this is the way it is is because
this is where the existing driveway goes in there.
MR. RICH: If I bring this back--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what we had estimated when
we measured it from the house.
MR. RICH: How far would that have to come back to be satis-
factory?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: To get your 20,000.
MR. RICH: So we're talking about-
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thirteen hundred feet.
MR. PRICE: We'd probably have to come back.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Eight feet by 10 is 800.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: About 15 feet.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Why would it create a problem here?
MR. RICH: Because we're cutting way back into his property.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but he's got all this, too.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think when we measured it the fence was
somewhere back here anyway. I know we measured it from the point of
the house over.
MR. RICH: I thought this line was pretty much on the fence.
SOuthold Town Board of ~ppeals -35- March~2, 1981
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Not by our measurements.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we--
MR. RICH: The ~roblem is we have to do that and then come
back for approval, or can we at this time, can you people approve
this if we say, "~es, we can come back."
MR. PRICE: You want us to come back as far as the fence is
now?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, just to 20,000. We just want 20,000
square feet.
MR. RICH: You're talking about 2,000 square feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, 1,300.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thirteen hundred according to his survey.
MR. RICH: But our problem is we're running out of time.
When could it be--
MR. PRICE: Could we have an approval just as long as we don't
change the shape of the Parcel No. 2 that's along -- that Parcel No. 2
has 20,000 square feet and amend the boundary line?
MR. RICH: That's all right. If we could get that approved,
then we could go ahead.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That can,t possibly involve your water or
anything else, because--
MR. RICH: Well, even if it does--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Because you,re wiring wouldn't be back here
for the house; it's up in here.
MR. PRICE: Would it be permissible with the Board, say for
example, instead of going, if we widen this a little and bring this
up a little as opposed to ~uSt~bringing one up just as long as it's
20,000 square feet is the main point that has to be met?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all if it will satisfy everybody.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Frederic P. Rich in Appeal No. 2776.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr. Doyen)
~outhold Town Board of~ppeals -36- ~ ~ch 12, 1981
RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2684. Application of North Fork
Motel, Inc., by William H. Price, Jr., Esq., 828 Front Street,
Greenport, NY for a Variance (Appeal No. 2684) to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Art. VII, Sec. 100-70 for permission to change existing motel
use to privately-owned units (or condominium) use in a B Zone.
Location of property: C.R. 27 (48) and Soundview Avenue, Southold;
bounded north by Soundview Avenue; west by Main, Kemper, Zech and Lar-
son; south by C.R. 27 (48); east by C.R. 27 (48) and Soundview
Avenue; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23.
The Chairman reopened the hearing at approximately 10:00 p.m.
and read the following letter to the Board of Appeals dated
March 12, 1981 from William H. Price, Jr., attorney for the
applicant herein:
...Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the applicant does hereby withdraw
the subject application (Appeal No. 2684).
As you realize, a subsequent application has been made
to the Board concerning two decisions of the Building In-
spector which purportedly deny the applicant the right to
change the form of ownership of the North Fork Motel from
corporate to condominium. One of those decisions was the
decision appealed in the subject application. Therefore, I
assume that none of the record made concerning the subject
appeal will be used in the subsequent appeal in that you
have ~!deemed" the subsequent appeal a new appeal (letter
of Charles Grigonis, Jr. dated January 7, 1981).
In that the subsequent application with filing fee and
short environmental assessment form was filed with the
Board, completely, on January 14, 1981, it is respectfully
requested that a hearing be set for as soon as practical.
Please make this letter part of the record for the
subject application and subsequent application.
Very truly yours,
/s/ William H. Price, Jr ....
Motioni~was then made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
that ApDeai~N~ 2~84~aPpiicat~°h0f North Fork Motel, Inc. is withdrawn.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. (Mr. Doyen was absent.)
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer and
carried, to recess the Regular Meeting for deliberations in "closed
or executive session." * , ,
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer and
carried to reconvene the regular meeting.
· * *
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- March 12, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2776. Application of Frederic P.
Rich, 1470 Hobart Road, Southold, NY (William H. Price, Jr., Esq.) for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval
of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels each with a
residence, and known as 1470 and 1580 Hobart Road, Southold, NY;
bounded northwest by Smith; southwest by Town Creek; southeast by
Creighton; northeast by Hobart Road. County Tax Map Item No.
1000-64-3-2.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as
foll6ws:
Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a Variance for
approval of the insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels
each with a one-family dwelling, of 18,718 sq. ft. and 32,290 sq. ft.
in area and 20 ft. and 1567- wide zespectiv~ly. Also existing on the
premises, on proposed Parcel I are a small screened-in structure
and small boat shed.
The Board finds that the relief requested in relation to the
Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is
granted no detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that
no detrimental effect is produced on available gouernmental facili-
ties of any increased population; that no substantial change is
produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the relief
requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; and that
the interests of justice will be served by the granting of the
within variance.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Frederic P. Rich, 1470 Hobart Road, Southold,
NY be .granted a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec.
100-31 for the insufficient area and width of the two proposed
parcels SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) That Parcel No. 2 be a minimum area~_'of 20,000 square feet
and be similar in configuration of the parcels as shown on the
survey submitted with th~ within application dated December 22,
1980, and
(2) That no accessory buildings may be converted or built
for habitable use.
Location of property: 1470 and 1580 Hobart Road, Southold, NY;
bounded northwest by Smith; southwest by Town Creek; southeast by
Creighton; northeast by Hobart Road. County Tax Map Item No.
1000-64-3-2.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen (illness).
Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- March 12, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2729. Application of William C.
Mercurio, and others, c/o Nancy J. Rodilosso, 28 Chestnut Street,
Garden City, NY 11530 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art.
III, Sec. 1G0-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two
proposed parcels at the east side of Bay Avenue, Mattituck, NY; more
particularly designated as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-144-4-4 and
bounded northeast by James Creek; west by Yanke and others; southwest
by Bay Avenue; east by Halligan.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
as follows:
Appellants have appealed to this Board seeking a variance for
approval of two proposed parcels which would have an insufficient
road frontage of 72 feet and 76 feet, and insufficient area of
31,200 square feet each, and located on the east side of Bay Avenue
in Laurel. Existing on the premises are two small frame cabins,
a one-story frame house, and a one-family dwelling which dwelling
appellants propose to relocate on one of the two parcels if this
variance were approved. Appellants have agreed to eliminate all
the extraneous buildings existing prior to the issuance of a
building permit in relocating the main one-family dwelling. It
is the feeling of the Board that by granting this variance the
area is improved in that a total of two dwellings would be per-
mitted and the nonconforming uses of the existing structures would
be eliminated.
The Board finds that the relief requested in relation to the
Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is
granted no detriment to adjoining properties will be created;
that no detrimental effect is produced on available governmental
facilities of any increased population; that no substantial change
is produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the relief
requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; and that
the interests of justice will be served by the granting of the
within variance.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that William C. Mercurio and others be .granted a
variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 approving
the insufficient area and width of the two proposed parcels as
submitted in their survey mapped February 6, 1981, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That applicants shall remove the existing buildings as
"x'd" on applicant's survey dated November 10, 1970 prior to the
issuance of a building permit(s) for a principal building/dwelling;
2. That applicants shall have one year from the date of the
filing of this decision to remove said buildings "x'd" on their
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-39- March 12, 1981
survey dated November 10, 1970;
3. That applicants proceed only with their proposal of work
to be done as shown on their survey mapped February 6, 1981 and
received by the Board of Appeals February 27, 1981 with the set-
back distances as shown;
4. That there shall be no further subdivision.
Location of property: East side of Bay Avenue, Laurel, NY;
bounded northeast by James Creek; west by Yanke and others;
southwest by Bay Avenue; east by Haltigan. County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-144-4-4.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer an~ Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen (illness).
Appeal No. 2783. Application of Thomas J. DeBorger, 93
Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, NY (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
permission to change division line between Lots 295 and 296 to
run generally-north and south rather than present each and west
a~ 945 Broadwaters Road (a/k/a 100 Wunneweta Road), Cutchogue,
NY; Nassau Point Properties Sub. Map 156, Lots 295 and 296;
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-11-9.
Earlier this evening, the Board of Appeals held and closed
the public hearing concerning this matter, and it was the con-
sensus of the Board members that no decision be made on this
matter until such time as the square footage of the area of
each proposed lot is provided by applicant.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2775. Application of Charles A.
Brautigam, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, NJ 07452 (by Richard F. Lark,
Esq.) for Variances: (a) to amend a previous decision of this Board
made on 9/28/78 in Appeal No. 2471 to permit the construction of an
accessory building (garage) with rooms, and (b) to review deter-
minations made by the Building Inspector concerning this accessory
building which includes a garage with rooms; Art. III, Sec. 100-32.
Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, NY; more particularly
designated as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-110-7-6 and bounded north
by West Road; west by Lister and G. Fleet Estate; south by Cutchogue
Harbor; east by Bicker.
$outhold Town Board of _~peals -40- March 1 1981
The follOwing are the findings and determination of the Board made
at a Regular Meeting held March 12, 1981:
This is an appeal from a stop order of the Building Inspector
which directed the suspension of all work on an accessory structure
under Building Permit No. 9961 Z, dated October 3,~1978. Appellant
seeks the following relief: (1) the amendment of a variance granted
by this Board on September 28, 1978 [Appeal No. 2471]; (2) a~review
of the Building Inspector's action in issuing a stop order and revok-
ing a previously issued permit~
The facts leading up to this Appeal are as follows:
By application dated August 30, 1978, Appellant applied to
the Building Inspector for a building permit to construct an open
carport on his property (1.1 acres) located on the south side of West
Road at Cutcho~ue. The application stated that the carport would be
25 feet by 12 feet i~size and 7 feet in height, t~ be used for two
or three cars. The estimated cost was $1,000.00. The Building
Inspector disapproved the application upon the grounds that '!Accessory
(carports) are only p rme~ted in a rear yard. Not permitted in a
front and/or si~e yard as y~u propose."
By appeal dated August' 31, 1978, Appellant appealed to this
Board seeking a variance to Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code to
permit the location of the carport in the frontyard area. This
Board, after a public hearing, granted a variance "to construct a
carport in the frontyard area." Thereafter, on Octobern3, 1978, the
Building Inspector issued Permit No. 9961 Z to "build a carport as
approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals ~2471."
It would appear from the plans on file that the Building
Inspector approved one or more amendments a~d/or revisions to the
plans for the accessory structure, either by mistake, or upon the
belief that he had the authority to permit such revisions. There
appears to be no dispute that the-structure, as built, does not
conform to the type of structure specified in the original appli-
cation for a building permit and upon which this Board relied when
it granted the variance on September 28, 1978. The Board members
have visited the premises and viewed the structure which is sub-
stantially completed. 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, 18 feet high
(applicant apparently proposes to raise the grade along the front
of the structure [street side] to comply with the 16-foot maximum
height requirement of the Code). "The first floor has two 9-foot
door openings for two cars. The second floor contains a 24-foot
long living room, a complete bathroom, and one bedroom. A 28-.foot
long by 5-feet 4-inch wide outside deck extends across the
front (waterfront side) of the second floor, access to which is
gained by two 8-f~ot sliding doors, one from the bedroom and one
from the living room. A brick chimney is erected for a stove on
the second floor. Access is gained to the second floor by an ~
outside stairway. The construction cost to date exceeds $28,000.00.
~outhold Town Board of ~ppeals -41- March _~, 1981
Except for the installation of cooking facilities, the second
floor of this accessory structure presently has all of the house-
keeping facilities to qualify it for a dwelling unit as defined in
the Zoning Code (Sec. 100-13). If it complied with all other
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, and if~ cooking facilities
were added, it could be used for single-family dwelling uses.
However, this is not the case. The Bulk Schedule forming a part
of the Code requires 850 sq. ft. of living area. The second floor
of the structure contains only 672 sm. ft. and thus does not meet
this requirement. The Code does not permit accessory buildings
to be used for dwelling purposes (100-30C). The Code also
allows only one, one-family dwelling on each lot E100-30A(1)].
To permit the second floor of this accessory_building to be
used and occupied for dwelling uses would have the affect of
permitting two dwellings on one lot, a use which is~not per-
mitted by the Zoning Code, and a use which the Building
Inspector has no authority to allow.
The Appellant, in this appeal, requests that the Board
amend its previous decision to allow the accessory structure,
as built, to be completed and to revoke the Building Inspector's
stop order. Appellant concedes that the building does not con-
form to the 1978 variance granted by this Board. Appellant
also admits that his plans were changed "from a simple garage
to a garage with rooms overhead." Appel!ant's reason for such
change in plans was "to construct one small bedroom/living
room/bathroom combination over the garage." Appellant claims,
as a hardship, that the main house is not insulated and has
no heating plant and that the construction of haated living
facilities over the garage would permit the use of the premises
during that portion of the year when the main house is closed.
No cost figures were presented as to the expense of installing
heat and winterizing the main house. However, Appellant claims
he has already expended in excess-of $28,000 on the new accessory
building.
Appellant in his petition and at the hearinq on this appeal
claims that his present plight was caused by the'actions of the
Building Inspector in approving his revised plans and that he,
in good faith, relied upon the acts of the Building Inspector.
However, the fact that completely revised-plans were presented
to the Building Inspector for his approval five daps (3 working
days) after this Board granted the original variance, casts doubt
on such claim. On the other hand, it cannot be denied tha~ the
actions of the Building Inspector, to some degree, may have
contributed to the circumstances in which the Appellant finds
himself.
~outhold Town Board of ~Ppeals -42-
Marc~ ~.12, 1981
It is the determination of this Board that to permit the
second floor of the accessory structure to be used for living
facilities would, in effect, allow a use not permitted by the
Zoning Code, since the result would be to permit two dwellings
on one lot. A use variance may only be granted upon proof of
hardship, which has not been demonstrated by the Appellant.
It is also the determination of this Board that an economic
burden would be imposed on the Appellant, if he were required to
alter the structure to conform to the original application for a
building permit.
Accordingly, on motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, IT IS RESOLVED, that the structure shall be allowed
to be completed, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The accessory structure shall not be used or occupied
as living quarters, which shall be construed as prohibiting the
use of the building for sleeping, cooking or eating purposes,
or the installation of facilities for such purposes.
2. The Appellant shall comply with the recommendations of
the Suffolk County Department of Planning contained in its
letter dated February 5, 1981, (S.C.P.D. File No. SD-81-2), as
follows:
(a) Accessory building shall have no kitchen facilities;
(b) There shall be no renting or leasing of the accessory
and main buildings on the premises;
(c) An application for renewal shall be submitted annually
subsequent to inspection by the Town Building Department;
(d) There shall be no subdivision of the premises.
3. Appellant shall permit the Building Inspector to make
such additional inspections of the premises and accessory build-
ing as he deems appropriate.
The stop order issued by the Building Inspector is revoked
and the Building Inspector shall permit construction to be com-
pleted, consistent with this determination.
Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded
north by West Road; west by Lister and G. Fleet Estate; south
by Cutchogue Harbor; east by Bicker. County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-110-7-6.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen (due to illness).
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-43-
March 12, 1981
Appeal No. 2786 - Application of Richard A. and Janet J. Schlumpf,
for approval of the reduction 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. 1000-86-5-7 & 8.
Earlier this evening, the Board of Appeals held and closed the
public hearing concerning this matter, and it was the consensus of
the Board members that no decision be made on this matter until such
time that the Chairman is able to c~nsUtt with the Town Attorney
regarding prior appeals on this property.
Appeal No. FA-5. Application of Goldsmith Building and Construc-
tion, Inc. (for George Sweeney), Southold, New York for a Variance
to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Sections 46-5 and 46-7 for permission
to construct substantially an addition and alterations to existing
dwelling, known as 150 Mason Drive, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north and
west by Mason Drive; south by Broadwater Cove; east by Wong and others;
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-7-11.
Earlier this evening the Board of Appeals held and closed the public
hearing concerning this matter, and it was the concensus of the'Board
members that no decision be made on this matter until such such as
the Board has received three copies of a survey certified by a
professional engineer showing the accurate elevations above mean
sea level of the lowest first floor.
Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
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 2, 1981 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York:
7:35
p.m. Appeal of James V, Riqhter (FIDCO). To create
additional housing for employees on second floor of
Beach Club at the East End of Fishers Island, NY.
7:50
p.m. Appeal of David L. Mudd. To construct farm too~
shed with insuffiCient rear and side yards at C.R. 48,
Southold, NY.
8:00
p.m. Appeal of Dolores Strong. To construct fence in
side, rear and/or front yard areas at 11455 Main Road,
Mattituck, NY.
8:10
p.m. Appeal of Hope Prior Smith. (a) 280-a approval
of access, and (b) approval of insufficient road front-
age. North side of Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY.
8:20
p.m. Appeal of Mary H. Lockwood.
cient area, depth and/or rearyard.
New Suffolk, NY.
Approval of insuffi-
Old Harbor Road,
Bouthold Town Board of~ppeals -44- k /ch 12, 1981
(Set-ups continued for April 2, 1981):
8:30
p.m. Appeal of Peconic Corporation. To convert existing
barn containing one-family dwelling by adding a second
dwelling apartment on second floor. South side of New
Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY.
8:45
p.m. Appeal of George L. Penny, Inc. Special Excep-
tion for permission to construct storage building in a
C-Zone at 12585 Sound~Avenue, Mattituck, NY.
8:50
p.m. Appeal of George L. Penny, Inc. Variance to
construct storage building in a C-Zone with insufficient
side and rearyard setbacks at 12585 Sound Avenue, Matti-
tuck, NY.
8:55
p.m. Appeal of David I, DeFriest. To change use of
existing dwelling from one family to two-family use at
51320 Main Road, Southold, NY.
9:05
p.m. Appeal of Victor E. Catalano. To build one-stor~
garage with insufficient front and sideyard setbacks.
South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY.
9:15
p.m. Appeal of Rose Dansker. Approval of insufficient
area and width of two proposed parcels. Wells Road,
Peconic, NY.
9:30
p.m. Appeal of Kenneth Brower. To construct garage
with an insufficient sideyard setback. 495 Fisherman's
Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY.
9:45
p.m. Appeal of Margaret McGowan. Approval of insuffi-
cient area and width' of two pa'rcels. R-O-W off the
south side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. (Mr. Doyen was absent.)
On motiOn by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this
Board held February 12, 1981 be approved.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr. Doyen).
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
~outhold Town Board of~ppeals
-45-
k _~ch 12, 1981
RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Special Meeting held by
this Board on February 27, 1981 be approved.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr. Doyen)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, thc declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of James V. Righter, Appeal
No. 2797:
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 propert~ in question is ~o~ 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 applica-
tion.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr. Doyen).
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of David L. Mudd, Appeal No. 2789:
~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- Ma~ch 12, 1981
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
tidal~w~tiands. ~ ~ ..........
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.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr. Doyen)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Dolores Strong in Appeal
No. 2798:
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):
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-47-
March 12, 1981
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.
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.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr, Doyen)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Hope Prior Smith in Appeal
No. 2790:
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 project in question [X] is not located within 300
feet of tidal wetlands; [ ] 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.
·
'-~ ' ~outhold Town Board of %~ppeals
-48-
March <~, 1981
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis,
ringer and Sawicki. (Absent was: Mr. Doyen)
Douglass, Goeh-
Being there was no further business to come before the Board,
motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and
carried to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPROVED