Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/22/1981 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.. CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN JR. T f-P,,~',' TUT~',LL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE[ ROAD 2[5 SDUTMOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11c~?1 TELEPHONE (5161 765.1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING-HELD JANUARY 22, 1981 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 22, 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; Serge Doyen, Jr.~ Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer; and Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present was Yrs. Ruth Oliver, North Fork Environmental Council. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2729. Application of William C. Mercurio, Nancy J. Rodilosso, and others, c/o Mrs. Nancy J. Rodilosso, 28 Chestnut Street, Garden City, NY 11530 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels at the east side of Bay Avenue, Mattituck, New York; more particularly designated as County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 144-4-4 and bounded northeast by James Creek; west by Yanke and others; southwest by Bay Avenue; east by Halligan. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:36 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, 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 a copy of the County Tax Map showing the surrounding properties in the area. Is there anyone here that would like to add to what is in the applica- tion? In favor of it? MR. RODILOSSO: Well we're here to represent the application if you have any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: ~ay we have your name please? Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 222 1981 MR. RODILOSSQ: Rodilosso and this is my wife Nancy. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of it? Anyone to speak against this? (There was no response.) Do any of you members have any questions, Joe, Bob? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are we pronouncing your name correctly? MR. RODILOSSO: Rod-i-los-so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you chose to divide the property directly in half? Basically I guess the question I should ask is, what other type of house are you plann~ng to construct on the other side. I am looking at the map now, and I understand that the present house is approximately 62 feet long. Is that correct? Mr. Rodilosso nodded affirmatively. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thereby leaving approximately a 75-foot lot you're asking us to divide, and it kind of cuts the sideyards down significantly. MR. RODILOSSO: The house would probably be placed lengthwise on the property since it's 450 feet long. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about the present house now? The new house? MRS. RODtLOSSO: MR. RODILOSSO: and a new house will be constructed on the other parcel. two rental cottages on the property as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. RODILOSSO: Which would be eliminated. The present. The present house will be moved to one parcel, There's MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But what would happen with the present house, the one that you intend to keep, be placed in the same position but moved over to one sides or it would be placed lengthwise on the property? MRS. RODILOSSO: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, I see. MRS. RODILOSSO: Thereby having a lot more sideyard for each property. MR. RODILOSSO: The house is, I forget the exact width of it, but it's a lot less than 62 feet. Maybe 24. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 22, 1981 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. RODILOSSO: MR. CHAIRMAN: MRS. RODILOSSO: MR. RODILOSSO: MRS. RODILOSSO: Twenty four and some inches. Are you familiar with the sketch that's in here. I believe so, yes. Because it looks like the house is placed crosswise. It is now. That s how it is now. It would be spun 900. Um, you must have a, on the copy that I submitted I had the original one, the houses were outlined in black and I used red pencil. SECRETARY: There is one copy that was filed. MRS. RODILOSSO: Red obviously was what was planned and black was what was tqere now. I do have a cody. MR. CHAIRMAN: You see, this doesn't show any of that. This is where the new house would be, when it's done would be here. MRS. RODILOSSO: Now, the E.P.A. requires us not to move it this way bu~ to move it back even closer to the road. I assume you have that. SECRETARY: From the D.E.C.? Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Having known the Baldwins, who were prior owners of the house, do you intend to 61ace the living area, which we would call a living room which is L-shaped toward the water side? MRS. RODILOSSO: Correct. They also require that we move the cesspools. May I have this one back? The Chairman returned the sketch with black and red markings to Mrs. Rodilosso. MR. CHAIRMAN: Speaking of the Baldwins, I bought one of the first tickets they ever sold for Hawaii. MRS. RODILOSSO: Is that right? Everybody we speak to knows those people. MR. RODILOSSO: They either know them or have rented cottages from them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know by any change just about where that house will wind up, just how far from the street? Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 22, 1981 MRS. RODILOSSO: From the street, I don't know. 90' up. MR. RODILOSSO: No, 190'. The E.P.A. had it from the water. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the D.E.C. MR. RODILOSSO: It would be roughly 200 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a long lot. MR. RODILOSSO: What it would do is put it into plain with the rest of the homes that had been constructed, Yanke in particular, which is the most recent. MRS. RODILOSSO: That's right. I don't know, maybe you can see what you're looking at. probably more familiar with this than I am. It would be in the same line. You're MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What this, the D.E.C.? MRS. RODILOSSO: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: "...Subdivide 66,304 sq. ft. lot into two lots approximately 33,152 sq. ft. each... Covenant that all buildings be moved to or constructed west of a line 190' west of easterly property line .... " Any other questions? (Negative). If not, I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to=reserve decision in Appeal No. 2729, application of William C. Mercurio and others. Vote: All ayes. * * * PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2771. Application of Florence A. Evans,.3940 Orchard Street, Orient, NY 11957 for a Varilance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback off Brigantine Drive, Southold. Location of property: 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a 650 Brigan- tine Drive), Southold; Harbor Lights Subdivision Map No. 4363, Sub- division Lot No. 24; County Tax Map ID No. 1000-79-4-35. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, 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 section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 22, 1981 Is there anyone hereto speak for this application? MRS. EVANS: There is nothing to be added. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone against this application? Do any members of the Board have any questions, Bob? (None) have a letter in the file dated December 31, 1980: ... To: Board of Appeals Re: Variance Lot 24, Harbor Lights Estates, Southold, NY Gentlemen: (None) We do Mrs. Harry EvanS advised us that she is appealing for a variance on Lot 24 of Harbor Lights Estates, for construction of a residential building. Mrs. Evans furnished us a copy of the sketch (copy attached) showing the location of the proposed building. As owners of Lot 25, we see no reason to object to the pro- posed location of the building, as shown on the sketch. Very truly yours, /s/ Francis J. Dellamano... MRS E~ANS: Would leave privacy for both of us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the house will be set back 35 feet from Brigantine Drive and 50 feet from Anchor Lane. That's leaves a 25'foot sideyard on the west side. MRS. EVANS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd offer~a resolution granting this as applied for. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permission to construct a new dwelling with an insufficient front- yard Setback of 35' off Brigantine Drive. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by the Code of the Town of Southold, and is 20,000 square feet in area, 200 feet in length along Brigantine Drive and 100 feet deep along Anchor Lane. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds and determines that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is h6t substantial; that if the variance is granted no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that no substan- Southold Town Board of Appeals -6, January 22, 1981 rial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the interests of justice will be served by the granting of this variance; that the circumstances present in this case are unique; and that strict application of the ordinance would produce unnecessary hardship for applicant. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that ~lorence~A..E~ans, 3940 Orchard Street, Orient, NY 11957 be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insuffi- cient frontyard setback of 35' off Brigantine Drive, as applied for. Location of Property: 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a 650 Brigantine Drive), Southold; Harbor Lights Subdivision Map No. 4363, Subdivision Lot No. 24; County Tax Map ID. No. 1000-79-4-35. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2774. Application of Bernice Lettieri, 1430 Arrowhead Lanes Peconic, NY 11958 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and 100-32 for permission to construct tennis court with an insufficient setback from property lines, occupying more than 40% of the rearyard area, and to construct same partially in the sideyard area at 1430 Arrow- head Lane, Peconic, NY; more oarticularly designated as County Tax Map ID No. 1000-98-2-10 and bounded north by Kappes; west by Kull; south by Abelson; east by Arrowhead Lane. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:08 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of qearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, 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 map of the property showing where the proposed tennis court is to be located. Is there anyone here that would like to add or speak for this application? (None). Is there any here wishing to speak against this application? (None). Do any of the board members have any questions? (Negative). I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until we have discussed it. Dig into it a little bit more. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 22, 1981 RESOLVED, to reserve decision in Appeal No. 2774, application of Bernice Lettieri and that the hearing be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. The Chairman called a five-minute recess and the meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. , , , PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2775. Application of Charles A. Brautigam, 46 Benson Road~ Glen Rock, NJ 07452 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances:. '(1) to amena 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 (2) to review determinations made by the Building Inspector concerning this acces- sory 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 MaD ID. 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. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:16 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, letters of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the tax map showinq this and the surrounding properties. Is there anyone here that woul~ like to add or speak for this application? RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you mind speaking into the mike? MR. LARK: Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Brautigam. As you can see the application is being brought primarily for amend- ment of the prior variance aranted by the Board, and I'm not going to burden your time here with what went on. I think most of you, if not all of you have seen the property, so you see what is there. Apparently the oriqinal confusion came on as the applicant himself applied for a carport, and there was a great deal of con- fusion as to what a carport and a qarage were. Because when they went to build a carport, if you will read the first application in which you granted him a variance, it was inconsistent with building a carport to keep it in architectural harmony with the other build- inq, with the main building on the propertv. So you heard the history there in the application. And I'm a little, or have been baffled right from the beginning since I've been involved here, last month or so, as to why the Building Inspector revoked his permit Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): since he had knowledge right from the beginning what was going on, and I have both Mr. Brautigam here and the builder, Mr. William Beebe, in case there's any questions. Because it's my understand- ing he only wanted to build a garage and then add these rooms on that was indicated, and went down and saw the building inspector and he said, "Yeah, that would be fine." And then it was only after the thing was constructed and framed that he decided to stop the work, and originally the builder was told the roof was too high, and then after that was measured the building inspector as you can read from the exhibits, that's all I have, is more confused--and then doesn't state a reason as to why he then outright revoked the permit, except that you take his one reason there, that it is true that the variance that was granted was strictly for a carport or a garage. Carport is not defined in our zoning ordinance; garage is. And this is a little bit more than that. And so therefore I think the original variance application had to be amended because it is an increased accessory building than just a pure carport or garage. So that's the reason for the appli- cation, and then for you to review the stop orders because I think you have the olans in one of the exhibits--they're built plans, that's what's down there now, and I think it does conform to the building code and to the zoning ordinance. The structure with the restrictions placed by the Board origi- nally not to oe further than the carport on a neighboring oroperty have been complied with, the setback off the line has been complied with. So the site location and everything is ok. I think the use was increased and since the use was increased from a simple garage or carport, I talked to Mr. Brautigam, as I said who is here, and if the Board feels that it woJld be necessary and incumbent uPOn them to impose restrictions such as subdivision, further sale and so on and so forth, and I oring that up because about seven of the neighboring properties on the soJth side of that road where the petitioner owns, have been exactly that. They either have subdivided the properties or as I indicated have converted garages into summer- type apartments and stuff like that. So what the petitioner is requesting is really no different than exists on the south side of that road in that neighborhood, and as I indicated in the application, I don't feel with what has been built--it is there right now--it is not substantial, what's being requested--the variances being requested is not substantial since most of the properties do have accessory buildings in what is techn$cally, called under our zoning ordinance is the frontyard-- that which faces the street--even though all the houses are built facing the bay. The property as the Board probably knows, with most of them in that area, are bulkheaded~and they really--the front of the house does face on the bay. So I don't think there will be--as I indicated in the application, any increase in density '' Southold Town Board of A~eals -9- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): since it still is a one-family and the petitioner intends on it and will also covenant with the Board to keep it that way--he has no desire at all to subdivide the property, and as I said will covenant accordingly and will definitely not produce any substan- tial change in the neighborhood for the reasons that I indicated that the properties along the south side of the road have existing or similar situations. It's not really a case of self-induced hardship were because here the owner is caught in the middle. He came down, got a variance a couple of years ago, and then construction went on for a year and a half there, and all of a sudden when it was framed ~n and virtually completed was when the building inspector decided to do something about it. But I think to be in technical compliance with the ordi- nance he should have an amended variance, and I think we're also reviewing, if that's what the building inspector means, if the building is built too high for you to reverse his determination, which you have the power under the Code to do, that the 16 feet which is measured from the front of the building to the average line of that hip roof as shown on the plans there that you have does conform. So his--I don't know what his interpretation is. I take it he was measuring it, from what I could gather from the builder. And again he's here_to answer the euestion--he measured it from the back of the building to the top of the roofs and ~s I read the Code it's from the front of the building to the mean-- which is halfway up the roof line. So considering all the factors involved, I respectfully urge you for a variance for this accessory structure with any reason- able conditions that you impose and to make an affirmative deter- mination on the height of the building if that is what the building inspector's problem is. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to soeak in favor of this? Do any of you fellows have any questions you would like to ask either Mr. Brautigam or Mr. Lark? MR. BRAUTIGAM: May I inject a few sentences? MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely, Mr. Brautigam. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the mike if you would, Mr. Brautigam. We're trying to tape this. MR. BRAUTIGAM: Oh, I see. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It becomes very difficult, Mr. Lark, unless you have everybody speaking into the mike. MR. BRAUGTIGAM: I'm Chuck Brautigam. I just wantee to inject a few sentences to what Dick said. I have a very patient attitude Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Brautigam continued): but my patience is running real short lately, and finally between Bill and I decided we had better go to Dick to find out what in the world is going on by not being allowed to continue or finish this structure. And I'm in New Jersey, and I'm on the road travel- ing and I have very little contact with the day-to-day activities of the builders and the town inspectors and the building inspectors, whatever. And I felt and still do that I was doing the right thing and that my structure is an enhancement rather than a deterrent to the neighborhood; and I really -- I don't know if any one of you have seen it, but if you haven't please go down and look at it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've all been down there. MR. BRAUTIGAM: I'm quite embarrassed about it. And I admit it looks a lot more than a carport even thought of being, but what is a carport; and as Dick said, as we progressed the money was being spent and dozers were in there and putting the driveway in and all that, and then while we're spending all this money we might as well make it something a little more useful. That's about how it all happened. From there on as to which plan was accepted by Mr. Fisher and which was not and which was objectionable, I'm really not aware of that particular detail. If there are any fur- ther questions about Mr. Fisher, Beebe and whatever, I don't know. Please ask them. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got it pretty well covered here I think. MR. BRAUTIGAM: I'd appreciate it iF you'd give us serious consideratior and let us complete the building. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAn: All right, thank you. Anyone else? Anyone to speak against this? JAMES CRON: My name is James Cron. I'm with the law offices of Richard J. Cron and we represent Mr. Harry Lister, who will be speaking in opposition to this tonight. Gentlemen, I think it's necessary to point out at the outset that the actions which Mr. Brautigam relied on -- that is, the actions of George Fisher, the building ~nspector, were null and void. They were illegal. He had no power to change the determination of this Board by granting an amendment. I think that is necessary to point out at the outset. Furthermore, Mr. Br~utigam states in his petition that he has very little knowledge about these matters. However, he appeared before this Board on September 28, 1978 to ask in person for the variance. He knows a little more than possibly he's leading on. I would also like to cast back your minds to September 28, 1978 when he appeared before the Board. The Board specifically granted him a variance for a carport. Approximately five days later, that is, October 3rd, a Tuesday, this being a Thursday night September 28th, he applied for a building permit and submitted his drawings. The Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- January 22, 1981 (James Cron continued): drawings which he submitted were quite detailed, and they were detailed in that they were not a carport. It is our contention that Mr. Brauti- gam had at no time the intention of building a carport, but building exactly the structure that stands there now. Mr. Brautigam has men- tioned in his application that there's hardship. Yes there is hardship, but it's intentionally inflicted upon himself. He disregarded the variance that this Board consented to. Ne did so ex parte, unilaterally, and without in any way coming before this Board to request~ a confirma- tion, a clarification in any respect. He mentions he spoke with the building insoector, and that his builder spoke with the building inspector. The building inspector, George Fisher at one time worked for Mr. Beebe. I don t think he was completely without emotion in granting this, and also in ligh~ of the fact it haopened five days after his proposed carport was granted. I think it s highly suspicious. Furthermore, the building is obstrusive. Gentlemen, if you have seen the building, it is a two-story building. It has a deck. It has a chimney for a fireplace. It has room for a bedroom, living room and bathroom. It's hardly a carport. It s a two-story structure. It does cause quite a bit of notice by anybody passing on the road. Mr. Lister is opposed to it because it stands basically right on his boundary line, and it is something that this Board did not grant that man the right to do, I keep reiterating that because it is this Board and only this Board that had the authority to grant what Mr. Brautigam built. For those reasons I believe that the Board should turn down this application without further undo. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Do any of the Board members have any questions? MR. LARK: I would just like to phrase one point to clarify the record. Mr. Lister is not the adjacent owner. The Estate of Catherine Fleet is. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a 15-foot right-of-way-- MR. LARK: Twenty-foot right-of-way, and then the building is some 6½' further east of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well if there is no one else, III close the hearing and reserve the decision when we get this thing settled. We have a lot of going through before we can really write something either way on it. So, thank you very much for coming in and we'll get to it as soon as we can. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded Or motion by Mr. Grigonis., seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the Southold Town Board of APpeals -12- January ~2, 1981 matter of Charles A. Brautigam, Appeal No. 2775. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2773. Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., Hemlock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11735 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to: (1) the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards; and (2) New York Town Law Section 280-A for approval of access. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwir; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; County Tax Map ID No. 1000-123-6-12.4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property showing the present building and showing the proposed location of the new dwelling, and a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the property in the surrounding areas. Is there anyone to speak in favor of this application or add to it? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Speaking on behalf of Mr. Posillico, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. As indicated in the application I do represent Mr. Posillico, who couldn't be here tonight. He's on vacation. The application is three-fold; one to review the determination of the building inspector, which is going to become a legal issue that you'll have to decide. The second one is the factual issue on granting a sideyard variance, which is practical difficulties under the zoning ordinance. And then the third one is granting access under 280-A of the Town Law'.s--as indicated hasn't been done. As for the first one, when Mr. Posillico decided to become interested and buy this property, he wanted to purchase it but he wanted to knock down the existing house, which I think the Board has seen that's on there and build a modern structure that would be more in keeping with his needs. And originally he thought he would just knock down the struc- ture that's there and build right where it's in its place. And I approached the building inspector to find out what we would have to comply with to update the house in that fashion. You know, knock it down, and put in a foundation and build a new one in the same spot. And it was the building inspector's recommendation rather ironic that the house be moved back so it would conform with the existing shall we say ~'setback lines" off the Bay with the other houses that were generally on both sides. You know, to keep it somewhat in the same vain, because this house as it presently stood owned by M~ss Detner was a little closer to the bulkhead and he thought that that would be best, especially considering the flood plain laws and the other laws Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): that have now been, environmental laws that have come on, that you need certain heights and so on and so forth; and as it turned out when the survey was done, there was enough height, 7 or 8 feet, where if you moved it back about 25 or 20 feet it wo~ld be in conformance. So, you said initially that that would have to be done. But then after it was decided to move it back, he was very candid, he said, "you would have to get a sideyard variance if you do that because I'm going to view what you consider your frontyard--your si-deyard as the frontyard, and therefore you're going to need a variance." He says, "I realize that you're going to build the house facing the Bay, but technically the way the lot is laid out by the Planning Board," and since this did receive Planning Board approval -- we have a copy of the Planning Board map there--so we don't get into the size of the lot question, because it did have an existing house on it-- he says, "I'm going to view that as being your frontyard and therefore you're going to have to get a variance for that." And that after we applied for a building permit to move it back to start the chain of events to come before the Board for the sideyard variance, he came up with the fact that this was really a nonconforming use, and he got hung up on that, and that's why he issbed the Notice of Disapproval. And when you read the zoning ordinance, and I checked into this quite a bit, under nonconforming use, was that section that he quotes there, lO0-118E, that only applies where the use is not compatible with the zoning district. Here we have an A-Residential zone which the use is resi- dential. And nonconforming use is defined in our statute as any use whether of a building, tract of land, or both, existing on the effective date of this chapter, and here are the key words, "which does not conform to the use regulations of the district in which it is located." So my first point, as I say and a legal one that you'll have to check with the Town Attorney on, is that this is not in any way, shape or form~with the use variance application, nor does Section 100-118 in any way apply. Because the use has always been conforming; it is now. The old house is still there and the proposed new house would be the same -- A Residential. So if you would review that with the attorney, I trust that you will find that I'm correct on my analysis of the law on that point. Now I won t burden the record with the application portion for the sideyard variance. I think you can see the lot width there is according to the survey which you have, is approximately for the pur- poses of this discussion about 90 feet. Now what makes this lot different from the other lots surrounding it is this one faces on the right--only on one right-of-way; that's the one running north and south as you see on Exhibit A. So the building inspector con- strues that as the frontyard, and it would be impossible under our zoning to locate any kind of house there with a 50-yard, frontyard, and a 50-yard rearyard when you only have 90-feet to begin with, ok? But he also recognizes that all the houses in the neighborhood are facing, you know, towards the Bay, the ones that have the bayfront ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): property. So as for the practical matter, the frontyard as most of them is facing the Bay and the rear, either towards their access areas as to the properties to both the east and the west have asright-of-way that they can obtain access. But this is the only right-of-way that runs north and south there, which the petitioner will have. So the request then is to, if you will, technically under the zoning ordi- nance, to get a frontyard variance to locate his house within as shown there, approximately 10 feet from~the right-of-way, which should give sufficient space to the neighbor on the other side of the right- of-way to the west, and then it would leave 15 feet to the neighbor on the east. And under the half-acre concept that we had before we went to acre, that was the normal sideyard, 10 and 15, both of them 25. So it would be compatible with precedence on that nature. And by moving it back rather than building on the same spot, it would conform to the existing flood plain regulations that we have and so on and s'o forth because: (a) we got a bulkheaded property and (b) the elevation in that area as you can see on the map where the survey has located it runs approximately eight feet, a little bit better ~n some and then it goes down in the back. Ok. So that's a practical difficulty which is being requested for the sideyard, and as I indicated when the building inspector then issued the determination disapproving the relocation of the house, it was his ooinion that no one, in spite of all the houses that are in that neighborhood, I found it hard to believe, ever got approval of Camp Mineola Road from the Board of Appeals. So again the third ohase of the application is a clean-up, is to get approval. That road as ! have indicated, ~n other neighbor's presence, has been here for many, many years. Aooarently it doesn't have any official sanction and it only can come from one party, or one Board, under the Town Law and that s the Board of Appeals. So that's the third phase of the appli- cation. I think, as I said, the first one is a legal question which you 11 have to get an interpretation from the attorney, and the second one is in your province on practical difficulties using the criteria of how substantial the request is. Again, it's an existing house, the °lanning Board gave approval for the lot with the house as it was because that was nonconforming as to area and not as to use, and as to sideyards and rearyard, it was there many~years prior to the zoning ordinance. So when they divided that property up into four lots as you have on Exhibit B there, the house was down there. There will be no increase in the density population as indicated; it's still going to remain a one-~amily use. So it will still be the same. And there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact it should be an upgrading because the house there was,'really the whole reason we're here, Mr. Posillico found it would cost far too much for what it was worth in relationship to the prooerty, to try to renovate the existing house, and as I say, there were all kinds of games that could ~- Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): be played as you build the house around the existing house and then he wouldn t have to come here, but the cost of doing that when you get into the Code requirements as to the electricity, the plumbing and things of that nature, that was not only feasible, he wash t kidding anybody by doing that. So that's why he wanted to tear down the old structure rather than even try to move it. His builder told him that he couldn't even move the structure. It didn t warrant it. It wasn ~ substantial enough with its underpinnings. And I don't believe there will be any substantial detriment to the adjoining properties created, because again it's a one-family situation moving it back with the existing setbacks that the houses enjoy on the creek; and with all the factors taken into consideration I respectfully request that you grant the area variance for a front- yard--here as requested, and that you give consideration under 280-A to the access, not only to that lot but to all the lots till it gets to the nearest public road in the neighborhood, and then to give me a legal review as to the Building Inspector's determination--this is a nonconforming use. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you selected the west side, actually the frontyard in this particular case, to be set off at 10 feet rather than the east side of the-- MR. LARK: No, it could go the other way. That was kind of, yo.u'might say, arbitrary. Probably on my part after talking with Mr. Fisher intially, as I say it's my neck to the Building Deoartment here, because the other house to the east is almost virtually right on the property line as you see on the drawing there on Exhibit A, on the survey. And by putting it 15 feet off of that one would create a little wider separation between two adjacent dwellings and it was felt by, you wouldn't gain anything by moving that five and making the other 15. Another consideration was, that the driveway ~o the house would be further north on that right-of-way, in order words it's not contemplated that that right-of-way become improved all the way down the actual-- as you see the jog out in the house, in the back, in that area, would be where the garage entrance, the driveway would be. And so it was felt by, if you had a choice whether to put that 10 or 15 feet, that was the reason for it. It was primarily the house separation in the back, and then you were right on the existing right-of-way. In other words that right-of-way is a dead-end there. It's not going anywhere. You know, as a thoroughfare. I thought of that originally, maybe we should be 15 feet back o== of it--after viewing the property and going down there and looking at it, it was basically my advice to Mr. Posillico to move it a little bit further east. The Building Inspector thought that was a good choice considering the two things. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there also, do you have any idea or does your applicant have any idea how heavily trafficvthat right-of- way is in the summertime? ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- Janu~ary 22, 1981 MR. LARK: I imagine it would be Quite heavily~ you mean, the end of the old road itself? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. The end of it. MR. LARK: It's basically, there's now a number of yearround homes in there, but I suppose the population would probably double or better than that in the summer. It would be much more activity in the summer. There's no auestion about that. But again there will be no increase in density--it will still be one family~for the lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Isn't that right-of-way still in dispute over who has a right over the top of it? MR. LARK: As to the northerly portions of it when it runs out, I understand there is some dispute. But as to this area here, ~ don't believe there is any. This property as I understood it came out of the Howell family, and they clearly had the -- he owned the whole thing at one time. ~ don't think there's been any dispute as to this property using it, but I know there is a dispute as you go further north on it and in fact some portions of it aren't used at all, or very little have used it to go directly north and they take the spur--I believe it's Pray Ave-- Kraus Road, that's what it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Kraus Road. MR. LARK: But I know that portion of it has been a big bone of contention for some time. But down ~n this area I don't think so, as to these owners on this particular property when it was subdivided. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Is there anyway that man would consider maybe shortening the house a few feet? MR. LARK: Yes. He's not married to that particular plan at all, and in fact when I talked To _him, I have a, I guess you'd call it-- I'll talk into the microphone like you want me to-- like a builder's sketch, and it wasn't submitted as part of it because he wasn't really going to be married to it. This shows if I can show the Board just what he had in mind, if anybody else wants to look at it. But as I indicated he's not married to this particular ones and in fact as a practical matter I believe he is going to shorten it up, because this didn't work out exactly the way he wanted. What he calls here his'rear elevation would face the Bay, this would be the general layout, where he would have a deck. In other words we're looking if you were standing in the water looking north that way. And that's the--that would be the floor plan layout there, the second sheet there, and then the first sheet if you were to stand on the north of the property and look to the south, as I indicated to you Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): the garage area would be e~er in that areas and he wasn't exactly married to the actual dimensions of the length of the house, but that was the general schematic that his builder, Mr. Pontino, had come up with, and as I say he was thinking when be talked to me of shortening up some of these rooms and over in this area, over in here, which would would by necessity shorten uo the house a little bit. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That would give you more frontyard, what- ever you want to call it there. MR. LARK: Yeah. Whatever way you want to look at it, yeah. That was what the builder had come up with with the architect when they looked at the property. After Mr. Posillico looked at it for what he wanted for his use, he says, "I don't need all that space." And ne wanted to condense~it because he wanted to make one common deck because the way that was going to be you'd have like two decks, and he wanted to be able to go out from the kitchen and from the bedroom area, you know, using the Bay as the back drop as a front- yard area. tt has one deck, so he could squeeze together that easterly portion, make it shorter in other words--the house. But I was generally what was_envisioned, that type of layout. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually this here sketch would~ if this were into scaling, would show the house at about 65 feet. MR. LARK: Sixty-four I think is what came up for the answer. (The Board members reviewed the floor plans brought by Mr. Lark, and then the plans were returned to Mr. Lark.) UNKNOWN GENTLEMEN: May we look at the olan$? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CORWIN: Here on the side on the scale, the side showing 30 feet. That would leave 65 using that scale. way. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It s 30 in here plus this little kick-out. MR. DENERI: The plans shows 34 here, 42 here, and 65 this (At this time several persons were speaking at one time and the conversations were not clear.) SECRETARY: May I have your name, please? MR. DENERI: D-e-n-e-r-i. I'm here to speak-- MR. LARK: That's why that wasn't presented as an exhibit, that was just made for the architect and the builder. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- January 22, 1981 MR. DENERI: --for Mrs. McMahon, who is the immediate next door neighbor. I live next to Mrs. McMahon-- like 55 feet away from the oiece of property. MR. LARK: As I say, he indicated to me that it was too long for his purposes--for living purposes, because he thought that, it's just he and his wife now and then the grandchildren will be visiting, he says, "I don't need as this space." Ok? But that's generally what he had in mind. Ok? MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Dick. You seem to always come up with accesses nobody has record of--the Gajeski thing where for years we thought it was a town road. MR. LARK: I couldn t believe that--because he's issued many, many building permits,there. (A gentleman from the audience asked Mr. Lark a question, which was not clear because it was not through the direction of the chairman.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else wishing to soeak for this? (Negative). Is there anyone here to speak against this? RICHMOND CORWIN, JR.: My name is Richmond Corwin, Jr. I am the owner of the right-of-way that s in question to the west, and the property that is to the west of that right-of-way. As a point of information on that right-of-way, the parcel that's in question here has right to Camp Mineola Road from that right-of-way to that parcel, not to che Bay. There is a restrictive clause on that. They have the right to enter off of the right-of-way onto that parcel, and that's the extent of their right--not to the Bay or anything of that nature. Speaking from the general view and having read the application--coming down and having read the appli- cation, there were a number of ouestions that I looked at and felt were in error. One on the Environmental Conservation ques- tionnaire concerning the bulkhead that the bulkhead is in good condition. It does not take a marine engineer that that bulkhead is not in good condition. The EAF form on question 8, will the project have a ma2or effect on the visual character of the com- munity or scenic views that known to be of importance to the community. Again, looking at the community as it has been struc- tured both in the older buildin§s and the newer buildings you will find that this house far exceeds the norm for the area as far as size, both in width and length, ana as--I!m now speaking for my wife who is the owner of the parcel due north, a house of this size taking up that much of the width of the property as is so constructed or proposed to be constructed would have a delusory effect on the value of the property to the north as far as having the view of the water. These are purely subjective observations, but I would like to be on record as having stated them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Zs there anyone else? CHARLES HUMMELL: My name is Charles Hummell; I live directly ~' Southold Town Board of Appeals -l~- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Hummell continued): north of the proposed building that you're speaking of. I just want to say that I put my life savings into my home, and I built my home because it had a beautiful view of the Bay. Now from the proceedings I see here, that view is going to be taken away. Now if everyone here was in my position for just one minute and thought how hard I worked for my money to put up this house because of the view that we see, and now that everything is going to be lost, so. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hummell. EUGENE DENERI: My name is Eugene Deneri. I live two houses east of this plot that we're talking about, but I'm here to speak for a Mrs. McMann who lives in the plot right next to the proposed Posillico plot. I've lived in Camp Mineola for, it's going on 14 years I've owned by house. Prior to that I've been coming there since before World War ZI. I know every house on the beach. There isn't a house on the beach that is the size that this house is being proposed at. About the widest house on the beach starting at the Norris property, that is Bruce Norris' property and going west to James Creek, the widest house facing the beach and there are approximately 25 houses facing the beach, is 48 feet wide and it's on at least a 95-foot olot or a lO0-foot plot. The rest of the houses average somewhere below 30 feet on plots going anywhere =rom 50 feet to 95 to 100 feet. I think the plan for this house at 60, 65, 64 feet is excessive for that size plot of ground. It will, one thing for Mrs. McMann~ shut out every bit of daylight that comes into her house for a good 65-70% of the day, this ts it being built on the west side of her house, it will make a narrow tunnel between the two houses that Mr. Hummell, if he gets into the right room of his house may be able to see below water- front. I just can't understand why they want to build a house at least sprawled out that wide. There must be another way to build the house--turn it around sideways or make a two-story house out of it. All of this is feasible and plausible. There are other two story houses along the beach in either direction. On top of it all, I have to agree with Mr. Corwin~ the bulkhead's in bad shaDe--it's lowest than my bulkhead is 55 feet away, and when we get a bad storm, the back end of her property is lower than the front end o~ the property at the bulkhead and the backyard floods. New does Mr. Posillico plan to fill in the backyard? Is that going to be permitted? Because if that is permitted, ~hen the properties on either side of that plot of ground, the smallest one around it incidentally are going to be overflowed because his property will be higher than everyone else's. The terrain naturally runs downhill westerly towards James Creek. Nobody's objecting to Mr. Posillico or anybody else building a house there. We would love to have a fulltime neighbor there. But we'd like to have a house that conforms with the rest of the neighborhood. We're not mad at him because he wants to build a 65-foot wide ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- January 22, 1981 house, but I wouldn't do it on a 95-foot plot of ground. I can't understand why he wants to do it. I don't think it makes any sense. It is going to just make the place look like parts of the world most of us, except natives, escaped from a long time ago. This is what we're trying to avoid; we jus~ don't want to see another condition where you have an alley-way between houses barely wide enough for people to fit through. And 15 feet isn't really a devil of a lot of room. Now my house was built in about 1925. I have at least 20 feet on my west side and much more on my east side. The McMahon house was built shortly after mine or maybe at the same time as mine; it's built almost on the property line--there s no two ways about it. I just can't-- I think the big bone of contention here is the width of that house, the size of that house. If he were planning a different kind of house, none of these questions would be before the Board of Appeals right now because there wouldn't be any need for them, It's because he wants to put a house on it that doesn't =irst of all conform to anything else in the neighborhood, and does- n't conform sideyard-wise, or front or back-wise, however we're going to call this, because this is kind of peculiar change of events. My frontyard faces north, but I get taxed from the south, because it faces the Bay. This is our objection, this is what we want you to take into consideration, that the house is much too large for the plot of ground. It:really is postage stamp with the size of the house that Mr. Posillico wants to put on the piece of property. The other thing is I may have misunderstood Mr. Lark, but I understood that the jet-back in the house on one of the plans there may be the garage that would be right in McMahon's bedroom window. I don't think I'd like to have that in my bedroom window. We come out here for the peace and quiet. So please, give some consideration to the size of the house to the size of the plot. That's the problem. It's much too large for the size of the plot Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Do you have any questions you would like to ask? I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until we can check it and~maybe, like Mr. Lark, there's a possibility the man may be changing his house around a little bit somewhere or way, along the way. MR. LARK: Before you vote on your motion to adjourn, the ques- tions before the Board is zoning here. We don't have an archi.tectural review committee in here. Eight-hundred fifty square feet is the minimum, and I think this is house is only 1300 or 1400. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is under the zoning, and the zoning is the sideyard and the practical difficulties on the sideyard, number one, ten feet off the right-of-way. I don't want to get all hung up on vistas or anything like that because that's not what we're here for. Maybe we should pass another ordinance, like we don't have enough of them. Like communities have, an architectural review as to Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): what can go there. But that's not the purpose that we're here. MEMBER GOEHR~NGER: Just a ooint in passing, I think the house is in excess~.of 1800 square feet. MR. LARK: I'm not talking--it was exclusive of the garage area, which you don't include for -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Living quarters. MR. LARK: Yeah, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: I make the motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. MR. DENERI: The only thing that I wanted to direct was the eluding to 1300 square feet. The garage is only 400 square feet. It's 20 by 20, roughly speaking 400 square feet, and my calculations come to 2200 square feet including the garage. Take 400 off that it's an 1800 square-foot house, not 1350. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we calculated Mr. Deneri, we calculated approximately 2300 square feet. MR. DENERI: I was agreeing with you. Just not agreeing with Mr. Lark. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we're aware of that, you know, and that it's going into the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's been a second on it. Thank you very much for coming in. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., Appeal No. 2773. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- January ~-~, 1981 On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held January 6, 1981. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehrin- ger and Sawicki. Mr. Doyen was absent from the room at this moment. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held January 17, 1981. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehrin- ger and Sawicki. Mr. Doyen was absent from the room at this moment. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held December 29, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehrin- get and Sawicki. Mr. Doyen was absent from the room at this moment. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the next regular meeting of the Board of Appeal. s be held Thursday, February 12, 1981 at 7:30 o clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Upon reviewing the new appeal applications recently filed, it was the consensus of the Board to hold the following ~n abeyance for the following noted reason(s): Appeal No. FA-5 George Sweeney (by Goldsmith Building & Con- struction, Inc.) D.E.C. jurisdiction. Appeal No. 2776 Frederic P. Rich (by Wm. H. Price, Jr., Esq.) Pursuant to Chapter Al06-13 and 20 requires Planning Board review prior to setting off or creation of parcel. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- January 22, 1981 Appeal No. 2783 Thomas J. DeBorger (by Rudolph H. BrNer, Eso.) Pursuant to Chapter Al06-13 and 20, requires Planning Board review prior to setting off or creation of parcel. Appeal No. 2782 John and Mary Pietrodangelo (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) reques~ Planning Board parking plan consideration for proposed business use in a residential zone. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following appeals be scheduled and adver- tised for public hearings to be held at the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, Thursday, February 12, 1981: 7:35 p.~m. Appeal No. 2777 Robert and Diane Gazza, for per- mission to construct attached garage with insuffi- cient frontyard setback. 2850 Cedar Beach Rd, Sld. 7:45 P.m. Appeal No. 2684 - North Fork Motel, Inc., for Der- mission to change existing motel use to privately owned units (or condominium) use. C.R. 27, Sld. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 2780 Albertson and Katz, for permission to construct addition to existing building with an insufficient rearyard setback. S.R. 25, Southold. 8:15 p~.m. Appeal No. 2781 James D!Aquisto, for permission to construct accessory building in frontyard. 3235 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport. 8:25 p.m. Appeal No. 2784 Robert T. Bayley, for approval of access, N.Y. Town Law Sec. 280-A. R-O-W off South Harbor Road, Southold. 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 2779 Michael Caprise, for permission to construct accessory building in frontyard area at 345 North View Drive (a/k/a 370 South View Dr.), Ort. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- January 22, 1981 Appeal No. 2650 - Y & C Holding Corp. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the matter of the application of Y & C Holding Corp. dated December 6, 1979, said public hearing having been held December 27, 1979 and recessed i'ndefinitely without date pending further notification from applicant and its attorney; WHEREAS, this Board acknowledges receipt of written request dated December 30, 1980 from Abigail A. Wickham, Ese., attorney for the applicant herein, requesting that the application be withdrawn; on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it is RESOLVED, that the matter of Y & C Holding Corp., Appeal No. 2650, be withdrawn. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2777, application of ROBERT AND DIANE GAZZA, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31~ to construct attached garage with insufficient frontyard setback at 2850 Cedar Beach Road, Southold, this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44=4, no further determination or proce- dure is reouired by this department in the SEQRA standards of process. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may a~so be involved, or any other project not covered by the within application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. WHEREAS, the property in question does not appear to De located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, and therefore does not appear to require permits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conser- vation pursuant to Sections 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law; and Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- January 22, 1981 WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2780, application of Albertson and Katz for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Art. VI, Sec. lO0-70A(1)(d) and Art. VI, Sec. 100-62F, for oermission to construct addition in a B-1 General Business District, at premises located at the~south side of Main Road, Southold, NY, this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or proce- dure is required by this department in the SEQRA standards of process. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other deoartment or agency which may also be involved, or any other project not covered by the within a~plic.ation.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. WHEREAS, the property in question does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, and therefore does not appear to require permits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conser- vation pursuant to Sections 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law; and WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in ApPeal No. 2781, application of James D'Aquisto =or a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission tO construct accessory building in frontyard, 3235 Manhasset Avenue, GreenDort, New York, this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type It Action, not having a significan~ effect uDon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or proce- dure is required by this department in the SEQRA standards of process. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, or any other project not covered by the within application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Southold Town Board of Appeals -26 - January 22, 1981 Goehringer and Sawicki. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; and WHEREAS, the access road in question is not,located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands and therefore would not appear to require permits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con- servation pursaunt to Sections 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Laws [although the subdivision proposed does fall within 300 feet of tidal wetlands but is not under the jurisdiction of this Board at this time], On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringers NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2784, application of Robert T. Bayley for a Variance for approval of accesss New York Town Law Section 280-A, for property located off South Harbor Roads Southold, New York 11971, this Board determines that this oroject if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the enviWonment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or proce- dure is required by this department in the SEQRA standards of process. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, or any other project not covered by the within application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; and WHEREAS, the property in auestion is separated from the area of tidal wetlands by approximately 300 feet of land area and a 50-foot private town-approved moad, and therefore does not appear to require oermits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Sections 661.4b and 661.7 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Article 25; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVEDs that in Appeal No. 2779, application of Michael Caprise for oermission to construct an accessory building in frontyard area au 345 North View Drive, Orient, Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- January 22, 1981 this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)~ Sections 617.13 and 617.5[a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or proce- dure is required by this department in the SEQRA standards of process. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other departmen~ or agency which may also be involved, or any other project not covered by ~he within apolication.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. On motion by Mr. Goehringer~ seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the Board deliberate in "closed session the matters which have previously been heard and are pending review. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. The Board deliberated in closed session between 9:50 and 10:30 p.m. The C~airman reconvened the regular ~pen meeting at 10:30 p.m. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2774. Application of Bernice Lettieri~ 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, NY 11958, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and 100-32 for permission to construct tennis court with an insufficient setback from property line(s)., occupying more than 40% of rearyard area, and to construct tennis court in the sideyard area at 1430 A~ow- head Lane, Peconic, NY; more particularly designated as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-98-02-10; and bounded north by Abelson; west by Kull; south by Abelson; east by Arrowhead Lane. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permission to construct a tennis court approximately 120' by 60' at the southwesterly corner of the property in question. Existing Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- January 22, 1981 on the premises is a large two-story framed house with porch. The parcel is approximately 270' by an average of 152.' It is the fe61ing of the Board that the structure proposed is substantial in comparison with the size of the parcel and would not be within the fe~$ble limits of maximum lot coverage. The Board finds that the relief requested are substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that if the variance is granted a detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; and that the interests of justice will not be served by the granting om the relief requested herein. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Bernice Lettieri, 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, New York, be denied permission to construct tennis court as proposed in the within application. Location of property: 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic~ NY; bounded north and south by Abelson; west by Kull; east by Arrowhead Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-98-02-10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2773. Application of Joseph D. POsillico, Sr., Hemlock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11973 (by Richard F. Larks Esq.) for Variances to: (a) the Zoning Ordinances Art. III, Sec. 100-31, and Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards; and (b) New York Town Law, Sec. 280-a for approval of access. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000~123-6-12.4. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Beard seeking a variance for permission to construct a one-family dwelling with a setback from the westerly property line of 10 feet and from the easterly property line of 15 feet. The premises in question is approximately 90 feet in depth and an average of 200 feet in length. Existing on the premises is a one-story framed bungalow, which applicant intends to remove entirely, and which is presently approximately three feet from the westerly property line. Upon inspecting the general area, the Board finds m6hy of the existing dwellings to have substantial insufficient frontyard and sideyard setbacks and that the granting of insufficient setbacks in the front and rear yard areas would not change the character of the district. ='~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- January 22, 1981 The Board finds that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is granted no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increasee population; that no substantial change is produced in the character of the neighbor- hood; and that the interests of justice will be served by grant- ing the variance with certain conditions, specified below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Ooseph D. Posillico, Sr. be granted a vari- ance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E for permission to construct dwelling SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, and be granted approval of access: l) That the dwelling not be constructed closer than 17½ feet to the westerly property line [frontyard line], and that the dwelling not be constructed closer than 17½ feet to the easterly property line [rearyard area]; 2) That the dwelling be constructed so that it does not protrude forward towards the Bay [south] of the easterly neighbor's existing dwelling; 3) That compliance be met of the regulations of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-6-12.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. APPEAL NO. 2729. William C. Mercurio, and others. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that this matter be held in abeyance pending receipt of three copies of an accurate certified survey showing the proposed division of land and showing the exact new location of the main dwelling with all setback distances, and receipt of a written con- firmation from applicants that they agree to remove the existing buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit in relocating the main dwelling, if the variance were granted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- January 22, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2775. Application of Charles A. Brautigam dated December 26, 1980, by Richard F. Lark, Esq. for Variances: (a) to amend a previous decision of this Board made on September 28, 1978 in Appeal No. 2471 to permit the construction of an accessory building (garage) with rooms, and (b) to review determinations made by the Building Inspector concerning this accessory building which includes a garage with rooms, Art. III, Sec. 100-32. Loca- tion of property: West Road, Cutchogue, NY~ more particularly designated as County Tax Map ID 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. Mr. Douglass made a motion to deny the relief requested inasmuch as it does not conform with the original ~ariance granted in 1978, there is insufficient hardship and that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the Code requirements. Mr. Goehringer seconded the motion, and discus- sion was held~among the Board members. Mr. Douglass then withdrew his motion, and Mr. Goehringer withdrew his second of the motion, pending further consultation with the Town Attorney. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2770. Application of Marianne Weil, Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30(c)(1)(c) and Art. XIV, Sec. lO0-141(B) for permission to establish home occupation in a residential area exceeding 30% of the area of one floor of the main building, and a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-a. Loca- tion of property: Right-of-way off the west side of Youngs Ave- hue, Orient, NY; bounded north by private right-of-way,(King); we~t by Kroepel; south by Reybine; east by High; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-18-1-10. After investigate, on and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking-variances: (1) for permission to establish a home occupation, to wit, art studio, occupying 68% of one floor of the principal building, and (2) for approval of access along a 20-foot preexisting right-of-way off Youngs Street and extending approximately 180 feet to the property in question. Existing on the premises is an~.abandoned~building, substantial in size, in d$~repair. The' road ~n cuestion is approximately 9 feet clear and unobstructed and appears to have been a well-traveled farm road for many years. It is the consensus of the Board that 68.75%, more or less, is excessive and 40% would be feasible in light of the foregoing. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31 - January~2~, 1981 The Board finds that the relief granted of 40% of the occupancy.of one floor of the principal building for home occupation use would not be substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that if this relief is granted no sub- stantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increased~population; that no substantial change is produced in the character of the neighborhood; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting this relief conditionally as specified below. The Board also finds that the granting of the variance for approval of access is not substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that if the variance is granted no sub- stantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that no substantial chang~ is produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible for the appellant to pursue, other than a variance; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting approval of access. On motion by Mr. Douglass~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Marianne Weil, Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York be granted: (1) a Variance for permission to establish home occupation ina residential area exceeding 30% of the area of one floor of the main building and (2) a Variance for approval of access, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1 The home occupation shall not exceed 40% of the area of one floor of the main building; (2 Mo commercial or other type of business shall be con- ducted on the premises; (3 The access road shall be improved from Youngs Avenue to the property line of applicant at the point of the garage area; (4 The access road shall be improved according tOcthe specifications of the Board of Appeals for access roads for 15 feet in width and the length indicated in (3), supra. (5) The access road shall be maintained clear 15 feet at all~t~mes. Location of property: Right-of-way off the west side of Youngs Avenue, Orient, NY; bounded north by private right-of-way; west by Kroepel; south by Reybine; east by High; County Tax Map Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- January 22, 1981 Item No. lO00-18-l-lO. Vote of the Board: Goehringer and Sawicki. Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2674. Application of Roy C. Schoenhaar, by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esc., Main Road, Mattituck, New York for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (1) for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels to be established in a proposed subdivision, Article III, Section 100-31, and (2) for permissior to reinstate preexisting nonconforming sideyard setback, (3) for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-A. Location of property: South side of Route 25, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Route 25; west by Matt Agency, Jarzombeck, Roth; south by Mellender; east by Pumillo, Hallock, Steinhart, Jackson, Bilianos; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-143-2-33.2. Upon investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance ~or approval of: (a) two parcels in the B-1 Business District with insufficient area of 27,000 and 26,500 scuare feet, and 109 feet and 88 feet in road frontage, respectively, and (b) two oarcels in the A-Residential and Agricultural District with insuf- ficient area of 35,500 and 23,500 square feet, inclusive of the proposed right-of-way runnirg 105 feet approximately along the north end of the proposed parcel, and (c) approval of ac20-foot proposed right-of-way extending from the Main Road to the inter, ior residential parcel. Existirg or proposed parcel No. 1 is an existing one-story dwellirg which would be left with a five-foot easterly sideyard setback if this var:lance were granted~ It is the consensus of this Board that the granting of this variance as applied for will cause an overcrowdirg of land. The Board finds that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that if the variance is granted substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created inasmuch as the area is presently congested; that a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; and that the interests of justice will not be served by the granting of the relief requested herein. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Roy C. Schoenhaar be denied approval of insufficient area, width and approval of access as applied for. Location of proper~y: South Side of Route 25, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Route 25; west by Matt Agency, Jarzombeck, Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- January 22, 1.981 Roth; south by Mellender; east by Pumilto, Hallock, steinhart, Jackson, Bilianos; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-143'2-33.2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Goehringer abstained. Being there was no further business to come before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 11:00 p.m. . APPROVED ~-Chairma~-B°ard~of Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals