Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/17/1981APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J; DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board °£Appeals HAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1981 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 17, 1981 at 7:15 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 were Mr. Henry P. Lytle. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:15 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2922. Application of Frank E. Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient front and side yard setback at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Grathwohl & ano.; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Grathwohl and ano.; east by Second Street; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20.7. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:16 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add %o what you've said? FRANK E. BROPHY: Mr. Grigonis, is that right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROPHY: Not really, Mr. Grigonis. I think it's cited in my application there pretty much, and I Believe you may have some Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 17, 1981 Appeal No. 2922 - Frank E. Brophy continued:) MR. BROPHY continued: papers relating to lot coverage, which I feellthat I fall within the 20% including the present house ruling plus the deck addition, or the contemplated addition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Did you have a question, Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRtNGER: Yes. I just wanted to ask Mr. Brophy the exact size of the proposed deck now is how large? MR. BROPHY: One-hundred and twenty square feet. You may have one of these here. I filed them with my papers. SECRETARY: Yes, it is in the file. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we were down there Saturday morning. MR. BROPHY: I see. MEMEER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I asked that is you have a cement wall here, the retaining wall going into the garage? MR. BROPHY: Yes, that's right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to go right even with that? MR. BROPHY: That is correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it was 10' by 12' very much. MR. BROPHY: Thank-you, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. speak against it? (None) this as applied for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. Ok. Thank you Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to If not, I'll offer a resolution granting The following are the findings and determination of the board: By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 10' by 12' deck addition at the southeasterly corner of the exist- ing one-family dwelling. Applicant proposes a setback of not less than 6'6" from the front property line and approximately 10'6" setback from the southerly side property line. The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the westerly side of Second Street, New Suffolk, more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Bock 10, Lot 20.7, having an area of 7,231 square feet, road frontage of approxi- mately 66 feet and depth of approximately 100 feet. Southold Town BOard of Appeals -3- (Appeal No. 2922 - Frank E. Brophy~continued:) December 17, 1981 Applicant has previously applied to this board for approvals of a deck addition along the frontyard of the dwelling with a setback of three feet or less from the front property line. The board found that the deck addition originally applied in Appeal Nos. 2725 and 2693 exceeded 20% of the maximum-permitted lot coverage required of the zoning code, and the variances were denied. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goahringeriiita ~ was RESOLVED, that the application of F.r.ank E. Brophy, Appeal No. 2922, for a deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient front and side yard setback, be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20.7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. (Mr. Douglass was absent at the time this resolution was adopted.) Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to APPROVE the minutes of the December 5, 1981 Special Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. (Mr. Douglass was absent at the time this resolution was adopted.) Member Douglass arrived. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FL-10. Application of James P. Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approximately eight feet above mean sea level in this V-5 Coastal Flood Zone and presumably without structural support and anchorage by Pilings or columns. Location of Property: Private Road (Peter's Neck Pt.), Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- (Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued:) December 17, 1981 Orient, NY; bounded north by G. Latham and Gids Bay; west by Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss; east and south by orient Harbor; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-32-1-12. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:25 p.m., read the legal notice in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to what is in the application? JAMES LATHAM: I just wanted to, I turned in that sketch-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have it here. MR. LATHAM: So it would be, because of the area down there, want to put in a piling and then cap it with a cemen~ footing and have this 12" block for a small crawl space just so the house would be that tighter, and I think, you know, good strong construc- tion, and the way it would be graded up against it would eliminate the way I understand under V-5, they request some kind of a break~ay wall between the piles and the underground, which in this area I don't believe that would be required. Also, going on the fact that, and I understand that there is a proposed legislation to change that area from a V-5 to an A-area, which would enable me to do this, so if the board would see fit to grant me a variance before that law is signed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Latham. Anyone else? Anyone to speak against this? (None) Do the board members have any ques- tions they would like to ask? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just one. Mr. Latham, this is going to be on the outside, all the way around the exterior walls, the four exterior walls? MR. LATHAM: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would be in the center then, actual pilings or would the girders be supported on the outs±de foundation? MR. LATHAM: No, in the center of the house where the main girder runs through, the piles would come right up. Instead of cutting them off and putting a lolly column, it will just run right up under the girders. MEMBER GOEHRINGER:Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? (None) Are you in a great big hurry to get started on this? Would a few days make much dif- ference? MR. LATHAM: Well, no. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: This is fairly new to us. We want to make sure we have all the angles covered, and if we went ahead and told you to go ahead with something and thinking that it's right, and all of a sudden find out it's wrong and then you already had started something, so-- MR. LATHAM: Yes, I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: So I'll offer a resolution closing the hear- ing and reserving decision for a few days. MEMBER SAWICKI: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr'. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision for a few days in the matter of James P. Latham in Appeal No. FL-10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass., Grigonis, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold ToWn Board of Appeals -6- December 17, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2927. Application of Janet A. Davis (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A, B, for permission to operate an antique shop in an A-Agricultural & Residential Dis- trict. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Scharadin; west by S.R. 25; south by Pequash Avenue; east by Carroza. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-3-7. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:35 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application in their entirety. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything that you would like to add to what has been said in the application? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: I would like to read an affidavit of Victor R. Makis, who is Executor of Helen Madzelan~ who is the owner of this property: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: VICTOR R. MAKIS, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am one of the Executors of the Estate of Helen Madzelan, deceased, who died August 6, 1980. I am the owner of the premises situate at Southeast corner of the intersection of Main Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY. The premises in question were reported in U.S. Inheritance Tax Return Form 706 as having a value of $39,500 as of date of death. As owner of the premises I believe the value to be $50,000 as indicated in the Contract of Sale price to Janet A. Davis. The maintenance cost runs on this property approximately $600 a year, and Town, County and School taxes for 1980/81 was $914.26. There are no mortgages or other encumbrances upon the premises. At the moment there is no income whatso- ever from this property. If the premises were to be rented as a single-family residence, I would estimate the best rent I could get for it would be $200 a month unfurnished, which would yield an income of approximately $900 a year, which is a rate of about two (2%) percent investment on the principal involved, which I do not believe to be a reasonable rate. /s/ Victor R. Makis Sworn to before me this 23rd day of November 1981. /s/ Stephen F. Griffing, Jr., Notary Public. (Mr. Bruer submitted copies of the affidavit for the record.) I would like to submit at this time a couple surveys of the premises, which I just received today. I would like to submit that based upon the affidavit and some testimony that will be given here, that the property is residential property and will not yield a reasonable return in its present form. Obviously, Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- December 17, 1981 (Janet A. Davis Appeal No. 2927 continued:) the property as can be seen from the affidavit cannot be uSed for agricultural purposes, and it either has to be a residence or a business. The outfit here plans to use it basically as an antique shop using approximately, not approximately, but two rooms of the premises as the antique shop, the front two rooms. I believe, if you will hold on a minute, I had the measurements and I'll find it and give it to you. But it's basically the living room and the dining room of the premises. Also I would like to point out to the board that the nature of the business is basically a seasonal one and wouldn't be used in particular at this time of year. I'm sure that you've all been out there. You know Where the premises are where it's located in terms of other businesses around. Across Pequash Avenue and zoned business and as can be seen from the application, and I'm sure you observed, an automobile repair shop, which is not condusive to residential living. point out that based upon the business use of the property, it's being on Main Road, this is a hardship of the property itself. At this point I would like to ask a Mr. June Albertson, a local real estate broker, to come up regarding this property. A.W. ALBERTSON: I'm A.W. Albertson, Albertson Real Estate. And I just want to verify what Mr. Bruer has said. We have been trying to sell the property, and due to the location, we haven't been able to and it's been on the market now for two years. The garage across the street has stopped it and being on 25 is pretty hard. Also; I think that we have the comparable of -- Down the road here what we did with the Terry House, they changed that so that they let Sharp Real Estate go in there, which made a nice looking place but it was the same type of a situation. That house just would not sell as a residence due to its location, and I feel it will be well to let this one be used that way~ MR. BRUER: So do you think the property could be used for any other purpose other than some type of a business use? MR. ALBERTSON: No, not in that location. MR. BRUER: And you've said that you've actively had this place on the market for at least two years? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. MR. BRUER: And have you ever gotten any offers on it? MR. ALBERTSON: No, we haven't. We have had any interest shown. MR. BRUER: And would it be a fair statement that no owner can make a fair return on it as a residential property? MR. ALBERTSON: Well no, and absolutely. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- December 17, 1981 (Janet A. Davis Appeal No. 2927 continued:) MR. BRUER: And would it be fair to state that this house is quite old and inadequately insulated? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. MR. BRUER: I would like to further elaborate on the unique situation of the property. It is located between the 7-11, Wick- ham's Retail Fruit Market, and the Fish Store not too far away, not far away from the Keyfood Complex and the Nursery there. The properties that are basically there, I would have to admit there were a couple of residential premises that are there. The others of Mason Creek Farms. This is a place that's particularly close to the automobile shop. I believe the use requested here would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The request here and the situation is unique enough, although I don't think that the unique position is such that would bar the board from ruling in favor of the applicant based upon the favorable showing of a hardship here. I believe, with reference to the town attorney and Anderson and Zoning and the case law would show that that would not in itself be a hinderance to it. If you like, I could quote some -- as a matter of fact, I will read them. Referring to Anderson on Zoning which zs a noted authority on zoning and referring the unique situations on a use varmance, I quote the case of the Court of Appeals and Jayne Estates, Inc. against Raynor. And the court said,"in any case of the general rule where the landowner has made the requisite showing of financial hardship and compatibility of his proposed use with the existing land use pattern, it would seem preferable to grant the varmance. To deny the variance solely on the ground that unique circumstances had not been shown leaves open the prospect of a successful assault on the zoning ordinance as being confiscatory." With that, as again I stated that the proposed use of the premises as an antique store would not change the character of the neighborhood, and if anything would probably enhance it. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, Mrs. Davis is here and would be glad to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak against it? Mr. Goehringer has a question, I think. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bruer, this particular business is going to be used now for a business purpose. What would happen to the rest of the house? Will that be rented, or will anything else be done with it? Second story and such? MRS. DAVIS: That would be used for storage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That habitability of the house, Mrs. Davis, would not be used such as the kitchen area as opposed to Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- (Janet A. Davis Appeal No. 2927 continued:) December 17, 1981 just making lunch or whatever the case might be. Thank you. MR. BRUER: Mrs. Davis, I would just like to ask you a question. Street traffic. How often do you usually get on a main street like that, a large number of cars, in case the board has any questions about the parking. MRS. DAVIS: I would say two cars usually. MR. BRUER: At a time? MRS. DAVIS: Yes. MR. BRUER: And I think from the survey you can see there is adequate parking, or it can be made available in the rear and the side. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from any of the members of the board? (None) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until we get this all together. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision reserved in the matter of the application of Janet A. Davis in Appeal No. 2927. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2928. Upon application of Peter S. Terranova, Box 77, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100- 31 and 100-34 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduction of frontyard area and beyond property line. Location of Property: 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565 Sound Avenue), Peconic, NY; bounded north by Murdock; west by Sound View Avenue; south by Huntington Boulevard; east by Hoffman; County Tax Map Par- cel No. 1000-67-2-1. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:50 p.m., read the legal notice in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer, do you have anything you would like to add to what you have in the application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2928 - Peter S. Terranova continued:) RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Thank you. Yes, I would like to point out here, I believe the board or most of the board have visited the property, and you can see that the way the property was divided, the house sits approximately, the front of the house sits approximately five feet from the frontyard line. An examina- tion of the property will also reveal that the frontyard that is being used on this property consists of an additional 20 something, 23 feet going out into the alleged road. This is a, since Novem- ber, learned that the road I believe is not taxed to any known owner. You will notice that the property has a stone fence sort of speak going right out 23 feet and closing the aesthetic part of the property. This fence has been there since about 1935 I've been told. The sideyard, on the side going down the other side of the road, there was other construction abutting out into that alleged right-of-way where the deck is, or proposed deck would like to be. I would like to point out the size of the lot, 50 by 92. This is a lot that was much larger at one time and obviously the house behind it was cut out of that prior to zoning. I'd like to show the board some photographs that were taken during the early 1960's showing the continuous use of the premises extending into the roadway as part of its natural domain. These premises were taken approximately 1961. Here's one showing a front porch going out to approximately the property line where the proposed deck is. Again, here ms another photograph of the house showing that front deck, and also Showing construction going out into the other right-of-way, wherein the owners consmstently over the years felt they had a claim of right to use that part of the roadway. Now you have to remember this ms not a public road but owned by the association if any, not even owned by the association. If any- thing by the adjoining land owners. This ms another photograph showing the property from the rear looking at it, also showing the side construction that was there a few years ago. I may point out that these photographs were supplied to us by adjoining land owners indicating and as indicated to us that they appreciate and approve the application that is being made here. I would also like to submit a letter, a follow-up letter to one in your file I believe, from a Dr. Haddad addressed to Mr. Peter Terranova, dated December 2, 1981. I believe copies were supplied to you and I would like to read it: ...I am glad you explained the purpose of the deck mn your house in your letter of November 28, 1981. Please be advised that I have no objection to the way the deck is being constructed in your house as you specify in your letter. Please use my letter for the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, and give it to your lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Bruer. May I mention that my previous letter was written without having seen or had any information regarding the deck you have been constructing. I trust this will help you in your endeavors. Sincerely yours, /s/ Heskel M. Haddad, M.D ..... Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2928 - Peter S. Terranova continued:) MR. BRUER continued: I suggest that we have here a situation of practical difficulties regarding the property. .The situation is one that was created prior to zoning and without decks these days, it's a way of enjoy- ing and using your property, people like to be outside, particularly this type, this piece of property and where it's located, to be able to sit out there and enjoy the view in the way that house and the original owners and the way this property was cut up and intended them to use it. Again, I'd like to point out the wall and the existence of the property owners, present owners, past owners, using this as their frontyard and always considering this as part of their property. Again, the road is privately owned and as a matter of fact if you look at the tax map as I stated before, there is no known owner. I think this shows that the landowner cannot reasonably develop his property within the zoning limits without having this. It just couldn't be properly enjoyed and we respectfully request that the application be granted. It's not going to change the character of the district. Nothing new is being added other than the deck, which all the adjoining landowners, and we've canvased them, pretty much approved. We've heard no negative voice regarding it. And it is unique, it is unique in the sense the way it was built. It's on a corner lot, sort of speak, with respect to the right-of-way. The owners are present if you have any questions regarding it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We asked Mr. Terranova on Saturday morn- ing, Mr. Bruer, if you would give us the existing square footage of the house and the existing square footage of the proposed deck. If you will calculate that, what dimensions. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can use the mike down there if you would like. Doesn't make any difference, whichever way you'd rather. MR. TERRANOVA: The house being 38' by 24' would give us a square footage of 912. The proposed deck, the rear deck would be 407 square feet, and the side deck on Huntington Boulevard or walkway would be 119 square feet. Plus a small additional side walkway to continue to the front would be another 83 square feet, and the extension of the front porch along the house would~ be 130 square feet. So we~have something like 740 square feet of which, as a deck only 407 square feet can be used as such, as a deck. The rest of it is purely aesthetic and to enjoy the view of the sound, and that's it. Appreciate it very much, sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- December 17, 1981 MR. BRUER: Thank you, gentlemen. Would you please keep in mind the smallness of this lot, 50 by 92. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for this application? (None) Anyone to speak against it? (None) Do any of the board members have any other questions? I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision till we write out all the figures and everything to see where we're at and come up with a decision in the near future. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Peter S. Terranova in Appeal No. 2928. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2933. Upon application of David Strong, by Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-141(D) for permission to construct addi- tions to existing building pursuant to Appeal No. 825. Location of Property: 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Strong; west by Wilsberg, Strong and James Creek; south by Kreh and ano.; east by Kreh and ano. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 122-9-6.1. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:02 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to what you have stated in the application? RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: If it pleases the board, I can only again emphasize to the board that we are here this evening solely because of the requirements of Appeal 825 which this zoning board, not consisting of the same members of course, imposed a require- ment upon Mr. Strong, that if he sought to do any other improve- ments to the marina premises such as building construction, et cetera, that it required the approval of this board. This appli- cation deals, doesn't deal at all with a use variance or an area variance or anything like that. I~ deals solely with securing your permission to do that which he would be legally entitled to do but for the requirement imposed by Appeal No. 825. We had previously, I don't mean "we", I mean Mr. Strong had secured the approval to do the very work that we seek from the approval of Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- December 17, 1981 (Mr. Cron,continued:) this board this evening. Unfortunately, at the time the application was made, neither he or the Building Department had in mind the requirement that was imposed under Appeal NO. 825 and therefore he went ahead and did part of the work, the part that had that little L-shape off the existing building as you see on the drawing attached to the application. I believe you have that, don't you? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.~ MR. CRON: And he had gotten approval to do that and unfortu- nately as I said, neither the Building Department or himself was aware of the imposition of Appeal No. 825 as far as securing approval from this board. The result was that a stop order was put on the structure, but if it had not been he would have been able to complete not only that portion but the other portion which constitutes office space. I would like to just indicate to the board that if you look at Appeal No. 825, let me see what paragraph it is, you will determine I am sure as I determine, paragraph third, third paragraph of the board's decision on page 2. I'd~just like to quote to you a portion of that paragraph. In fact the last sentence where it says "...The Board interprets this to mean that a marina business may be conducted under the original ordinance together with a limited range of incidental but necessary services directly related to the accommodations of boats mo~red or stored in the marina." This decision came about on the board's own motion to the purpose specifically of vilifying certain areas of use and nonuse as far as the marina was concerned. And I respectfully submit to you that having an office and having sufficient work area to conduct a marina as Mr. Strong so conducts his are neces- sary and incidental uses to the operation of a marine. I think if you've seen Mr. Strong's operation both on the Main Road and at the marina premises, I'm sure you'll agree that he conducts a very fine business and tries to do well as far as the Town of Southold. Therefore, in light of the requirements of that prior Appeal No. 825, we respectfully ask the board to grant the appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Anyone else to speak for this application? Anyone to speak against it? (None) Mr. Goehringer has a question. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We, I think hastily said, Mr. Cron, that we had a copy of the "L" that you were referring to. MR. CRON: You don't? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MR. CRON: Would you just like to look at mine, and if you would like a copy of~it I'll be glad to give it to you. I thought-- Do you have this? Yes, that's it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're talking about this "L" here? Ok. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2933 - David S. Strong continued:) MR. CRON: In fact it's reference to what was basically done. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are referring to this? This is with the stop order? MR. CRON: Yes. This part was.constructed here. This part was not yet constructed. But the building permit that was granted basically covered the whole thing, but we never got that far. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other questions from any of the members on the board? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution granting this application as applied for. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll second it. The following are the findings and determination of the board: By this appeal, applicant seeks approval to construct additions at the northerly and southerly ends of the existing one-story frame marina building, as required by the decision of the Board of Appeals July 8, 1971 at a rehearing under Appeal No. 825. Building Permit No. 9648Z was issued by the building inspector on March 29, 1978 apparently without knowledge of the restrictions under Appeal No. 825. Applicant intends to use the additional area for office and work areas. The addition at the north end is proposed to be 12'4" by 15", and the southerly end 16' by 18' and then 24' by 18' The board feels that the areas chosen by applicant are the most feasible and practical under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is no~ substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that David .Strong be granted a variance as applied for in Appeal No. 2933. Location of Property: 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-9-6.1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- December 17, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2932. Application of Jay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin, Box 950, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to establish professional medical offices on premises zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural at 50 Ackerly Pond Road (a/k~a 49725 Main Road), Southold, NY; bounded north by Johnson; west by Baker and ano.; south by Ackerly Pond Lane; east by Main Road; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-70-5-4. MR. CHAIRMAN read the..legaT no, lc~ i~.it~ ent±~ety,~and the appeal application. The hearing was opened at approximately 8:11 o'clock p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add? I have a letter here from Dr. Z. Micah Kaplan, M.D.P.C., chief, Medical Staff, Eastern L.I. Hospital stating that he is in favor of this variance. ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, Gail Wickham, for the appli- cant. I'd like to first give to the Board, I took the liberty of preparing a survey and sketch for you because the zoning map that I enclosed with the application is a little hard to read in xerox. This sets out zoning - I also have a revised survey, the survey that was sent with the application was an old one. This shows the garage that apparently'had been expanded slightly by the Lathams and it shows the driveway coming out onto Ackerly Pond Lane. So it's more up-to-date and I'd like to give you that for the file. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. WICKHAM: I'd just like to go through a few items for you. The Slotkins are under contract to purchase this property, but the contract is contingent upon them obtaining a use variance to use the property as a professional office. Dr. Slotkin is a board-certified internist, and he has an emphasis in care of the elderly, which is quite a critical need in this area. He is starting a practice in this area and is interested in the property in order to have a place in which to conduct his prac- tice. Until it does expand, he may have the need financially to have other medical professionals in the building. Eventually he would hope to have this as his sole office with other people perhaps working with him and for him. It would be a normal private professional office practice by appointment. It would not be a clinic-type operation. It would have normal hours of operation. The traffic that would be used coming in in connection with this kind of use would not be at all excessive. It would be very moderate because of the appointment schedules. The other factor is that the exterior of the building would not be changing at all in terms of its appearance as a residence. And the property is well screened in terms of fencing and other types of vegetation, other vegetation. The difficulty that we have is with its location, and the problems that have encountered in selling it as a residence, the Lathams have lived there since 1955. They've had the property on the market for quite a number Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2932 - Davis-Slotkin continued:) (MRS. WICKHAM Continued): of years and have not been able to find a purchaser. Apparently, not too many people want to live on that type of corner where you are surrounded on three sides by industrial and business usage. And the fact that it is a corner lot and the fact that some of the business and commercial properties across the street are elevated on the hill, sort of increases this property's exposure to those types of usages. There are two residences which are adjoining this piece, and I don't believe either one of them would be adversely affected by the proposed change because the residential character or appearance would be retained and would actually act as a shield between the other business uses in the area. I was expecting Mr. Smith. I had spoken to William Smith, who as yau~all know is an experienced broker in the area, and he apparently is very familiar with this property. He had listed it for sale when the Lathams put it on the market some time ago. He showed the property a number of times. He did tell me that at least 15 to 18 times he would drive the people and they would not even go into the property. They just looked at it and said, "Oh, I don't want the property. It's on this corner location." And that was the general reaction to the property that he experienced. He felt that the value as a residence in that location was signifi- cantly less than the value that that residence would have in some other location. The residence is in very good shape, and it's a nice home and it's nicely landscaped, but the location is a problem. If it could be used as a professional office, the Value it would be felt would be at least $15,000 more than as a residence. The application mentioned that the hardship is not self-imposed. In 1965 when the Lathams bought the property, the what is now the clock shop adjoining that across the road was a residence. Hart's Hardware was a very small business that has expanded considerably. The Church was not built at that time I don't believe. And Sharp Realty was not there, that was also a. residence. One other thing I want to add is that the quesion came up as to whether to ask for a rezoning of this property, or to go for a use variance. And it was decided to go for a use variance because number one it is a much less drastic solution to the hardship caused by this property. I believe a few years ago when Sharp Realty asked for the property asked for a change it was by way of a use variance. I understand they had gone to the Planning Board and were going to the Town Board in connection with a change of zone, and it was recommended by the Planning Board that they instead go for a use variance. When we were negotiating the contract, I called Henry Raynor (Chairman of the Planning Board), and explained the situation Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2932 - Davis-Slotkin continued:) (MRS. WICKHAM continued:) to him. He also suggested that we go for a use variance, and I think that while a use variance if not readily granted I think it is appropriate in this case. If there are any questions from the board, I'd be glad to see if I can answer them, or Dr.- Slotkin can. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Wickham. Is there anyone else to speak for this application? Is there anyone to speak against it? Mr. Stoutenburgh? PETER STOUTENBURGH: My name is Peter Stoutenburgh. I own the residence a little further down Ackerly Pond Lane that adjoins this and I got this notice a few weeks back and tried to play around as best I could, having come before this board myself, and understanding the changes when it is considered properly. Just really what my reactions were. First I couldn't understand why a need in this location would permit anything but a zoning change. Then I found out that it had happened to the real estate agency across the street from here. And I don't really .oppose a doctor's office on the corner if the Town Planning Board or, if it was rezoned so that it was the understanding that it was set up in a special way that if it is an ~intersection, there are a number of corners and all the other corners are some sort of business use at the moment, I just feel i~'s sort of an odd changing the use, odd, and perhaps has a greater reaching end result that -- I don't know that much about it, perhaps the board does, and if the board wants to grant them, then grant i~ I don't know how much that ties a property up. If it is going to be a professional building. The one right at the moment is Ackerly Pond right along side my property. Even with appointments and as mentioned possibly a couple of other people working in the office, if that's two, three, four individuals. The building needs to be expanded. How big is the parking lot. Where does the drainage run -- it seems to end up Ackerly Pond Which is a relatively quiet street. I know the drainage would effectmy property. If it's something that people who know more about this than I feel it is a proper direction to go, it certainly has less of an impact than a gas station. But I think a zoning change really is in order for something of this megnitude. At least if it is permitted to go as a professional center. I think that possibility seems to be left open. I leave that up to your judgment. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stoutenburgh. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am? MRS. LATHAM: I am the owner of the property. And my husband is a very sick man. He cannot take care of the property and that's the reason we have to sell the property. And I feel there's no reason that that should interfere with my neighbor's property. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2932 Davis-Slotkin continued:) ~MRS. LATHAM continued:) That driveway and Ackerly Pond Lane. There has been an awful lot of traffic, not in my land, or coming down Ackerly Pond Lane. And I just feel that where I am the owner and my husband is not well enough to take care of this property, we have to sell it. And I am~appealing to the board to please grant the change of zone (use variance). He doesn't live there now. We don't bother him. I mean, I don't 's~e~whe~e.'this 'is~_going~-to~hur~t~anything, We have a great big lot that he can use for the parking, and it isn't even going to.be near his lhnd. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks'you. Anyone else? MR. STOUTENBURGH: I am not opposed to the use. I am very leary myself of an appeal which I feel is an awkward type of a thing to ~ if it's-going to be granted, I would like to see it changed to match the other corner lots and stuff. And, or, it hasn't even been turned down yet, hasn't been proposed I don't believe, changing the zoning. I guess what I am really looking for is to have that come up a~d find out if that's something the Town is willing to do. I am not looking to delay the sale, but I'm looking for some consideration in that respect. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there any plans to add on to the building? MRS. WICKHAM: Well, not at the moment. His practice is just starting as a one,man operation, but eventually he will have a professional practic~ there for other medical professionals, medical professionals with him. I don't think we would want to preclude that. Certainly it would have to comply with the building code. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was just saying in light of the new survey that you' have given us with the easement which almost cuts the property directly in half. MRS. WICKHAM: Well, that has been there for some time. It was put there to eliminate a problem on the town roads. I've been down to speak to Ray Dean (Highway Superintendent) and he didn't think there would be any problem to the property. That pipe has been there. It's just an 18" underground pipe and it's not likely that they would have to keep digging it up. MR. STOUTENBURGH: When was that put in, do you know? MRS. WICKHAM: The drainage easement was granted in '72. imagine it was some time after. (Mr. Stoutenburgh asked Mrs. Wickham another question which was not audible.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- December 17, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: We can't hear you, Peter. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I was just questioning if that was when the easement was granted, the water used to drain under that road and it still does. Is that when that section which is to be the parking lot was filled, and the pipe was laid? MRS. LATHAM: Yes. The town was responsible and it had to be dug up to put it back. That is to help you and everybody else. The main trouble is the lower road. Not my property. MRS. WICKHAM: No, the water comes off Ackerly Pond Lane from north of the property, and apparently this easement was implemented in order to remedy that problem and follow it into the creek. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I remember even as a kid half the town would be down there skating sometimes in the winter. Anyone else? No further questions? (None) 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, that the hearing in the matter of Jay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin, Appeal No. 2932 be closed and decision reserved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Do~en; Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2934. Upon application of Martin Nelsen, Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tion 100-31 for permission to construct addition with reduction in frontyard area at 2835 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Williams; west by Wendy Drive; south by Gt. Peconic Bay Blvd; east by Blvd. and Kennedy. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-5-4. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MARTIN NELSEN: I can't add very much. I'm Martin Nelsen, and I live on Peconic Bay Boulevard on the corner. As you know there is quite a curb in that particular area there. We've had possibly from six to ten accidents, some of which have hit~ the trees right where my driveway lies, Donald Brown, the architect across the street where they put the barrier. You'll notice the Town just recently put a barrier there because it is a very dangerous curb. My present garage now faces Peconic Bay Boulevard, and sometimes Southoid Town Board of Appeals (Appeal No. 2934 Martin Nelsen) -20- December 17, 1981 when you're backing out or coming in because of the curb, people coming around that curb up above it's quite dangerous. And for that reason, plus the fact that we do need another garage. We'd like to have it come in from the Private Road which is Wendy Drive and eliminate the driveway which is in the front on Peconic Bay Boulevard, which we feel is dangerous to us, and we much prefer to have a driveway coming in from the side road, and thereby where the blacktop is right now, we would put that all into lawn and eliminate that present driveway. I've talked to my neighbors and none of them object to it. They're all in favor of it. We have a very nice house and we'd like to expand to the extent of ten feet so that we can put the garages and have an additional garage coming in from that road. If there are any other questions about it, I'd be happy to answer them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know the existing square footage of the house right now, Mr. Nelsen? MR. NELSEN: Approximately 1,500 square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have any questions they want to ask Mr. Nelsen? (None) MR. NELSEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: against it? (None) resolution? Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to speak Maybe Mr. Goehrlnger would like to offer a MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll offer a resolution granting the application as applied for. MEMBERSAWICKI: Seconded. The Board made .the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 10' by 36.2' garage addition at the westerly side of the existing one-story, one-family dwelling, leaving an insufficient setback from Wendy Drive, a private road, of approximately 24.8 feet. The subject premises is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the code, with frontage along Peconic Bay Boulevard of approxi- mately 125 feet and along Wendy Drive of approximately 125 feet. Because of the location of the existing dwelling and the existing cesspool and septic tanks, the board agrees with reasoning of applicant for this location. There is minimal other buildable area in practicality. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2934 - Martin and Mildred Nelsen continued:) difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Goehrlnger, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the application of Martin and Mildred Martin for permission to construct addition with reduction in frontyard area, Appeal No. 2934, be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 2835 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Williams; west by Wendy Drive; south by Gt. Peconic Bay Blvd.; east by Blvd. and Kennedy. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-5-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2926. Upon application of William J. Clark, Esq. for Joseph Yaboni and Myron Hauptman, Middle Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30A and 100-32B for approval of insufficient sideyard areas of existing buildings due to location of new lot lines. Location of Property: Main Road and Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by North Road and Reliable Associates; west by Elijah's Lane; south by Tuthill; east by Yaboni & ano. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-100-4-6. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:38 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you wish to add to the appli- cation., Mr. Clark? WILLIAM CLARK, ESQ.: No. I just like to call to your attention the fact that the division line between Lots 1 and 2 was made because of the existing structures, all of which were erected before the zoning went into effect. The present Lot No. 2 is under contzact to the present tenant who is there. There'll be no physical changes, and the lots will remain--the only change will be in ownerships, not in any physical way. As pointed out, they will comply with the present zonzng that they have an area of over 40,000 square feet and 150-foot frontage. The only difference being the sideyard area being insufficient, and therefore ask that you ask favorably upon the applicatmon. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- December 17, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clark. MR. CLARK: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for this application? Anyone to speak against this application? MR. SCUDELLARI: We own the land a little further down, Scudellari is the name. Is this land presently zoned for farming or can a private dwelling be built on this land. MR. CHAIRMAN: It is zoned presently. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's presently A-R zoning, which is agricultural-residential. What is existing there now would nor- mally be considered to be under the confines of residential. However, before another lot was to be created it would require probably a subdivision. Does that answer your question? MR. SCUDELLARI: Not quite. Does that mean if this variance goes through that the possibilities of building private dwellings is more possible with this sideyard change? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well this particular subdivision, sir, involves two structures and many satellite structures around them. If you'd like, I'm sure the Chairman will show you the property of what the subdivision-- MR. SCUDELLARI: What is the hardship entail right now? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sideyard. MR. SCUDELLARI: Under the present zoning? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sideyard. MR. SCUDELLARI: What kind of restriction does that cause, the sideyard being two small. Is that it? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MR. SCUDELLARI: Meaning that the individual owners between these structures don't have enough space between their homes? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think if you were to look at this it would give you an idea of what we-- MR. SCUDELLARI: We did look at it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh. MR. SCUDEI,I.ARI: I'm still not quite sure why the variance is necessary. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- (Appeal No. 2926 - Yaboni & Hauptman continued:) December 17, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, this is, the buildings were all there before these new regulations came through, and then when they put the lines through, it just happened to fall right by, I think it goes through one of the buildings, a garage or something, that straddles the line. MR. SCUDELLARI: Why did he change it though if it has been there? What is their intention? MR. CHAIRMAN: They're splittinglthe property, splitting them to make it two lots out of what was formerly considered just one lot. MR. SCUDELLARI: It presently stands that way. Seemingly it doesn't -- MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing it's doing is putting the line on the map. That's what is amounts to, but it makes two different properties out of it now. MR. SCUDELLARI: What is their intention after this is changed? MR. CLARK: As I stated, there won't be any physical change. The existing buildings are there. The only reason they need the variance is because dividing them created it. Insufficient area in the sideyard. But if the variance is granted, everything will remain there. There will be a different owner, that's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what the hardship is, the buildings were there and there is no way they can put a line through there without, if they did it any other way, they would be going right through more buildings than what they've done here. They took the best way ou~. It's an old garage there that probably--if anything had to be demo~ lished, that would be the best one that would be demolished. MR. SCUDELLARI: I'll just say this. It is presently farmland. MR. CHAIRMAN: It still is, yes. MR. SCUDELLARI: It still is farmland. If the buildings that are there are obviously farm buildings with some private dwellings as well, I would hate to see changes that bring in any sort of two or three private homes. Frankly, the farmland as i~ presently stands is quite beautifuI ~and added value to your community. My wife and I are New Yorkers, we're not out here fulltime. We bought the house on Oregon Road three years ago. We have very little to say; we don't vote out here. But I just think that this area is of value because of its farmland. Houses are being built off of 27, is it 27A. Presently some of the farmland is being lost. If this is just an additional amount of loss of farmland I would say that I.think it is a mistake. Naturally, we have very little to say to prevent that. The Town does though. And I think, from what I Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- December 17, (Appeal No. 2926 - Yaboni & Hauptman continued:) 1981 Mr. Scudellari continued: understand there was some concern about this variance a couple of weeks ago. At least we saw that when we came out here the last time. Was that discussed at all? MR. CHAIRMAN: Not tomy knowledge. Planning Board maybe. MR. SCUDELLARI: Did the Planning Board come through with any information? MR. CLARK: Not as yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Tyler. CHARLES TYLER: I'm presently living in the house, t have no objection of changing anything. MR. SCUDELLARI: Are you renting? MR. TYLER: I'm renting right now. I want to buy the house. Mr. Sidor right here wants to buy the barns and they are going to be be used strictly for agricultural. They're not, we're not going to change anything. MR. SCUDELLARI: Are you apt to sell some of the land for building private homes? MR. TYLER: No. I'm only getting an acre. If you have one house on the acre now, you can't put another one. MR. SCUDELLARI: What about the land outside of what of you're buying? MR. TYLER: It's only going to be about 50 more feet outside of what the house is on now. And that's not going to be changed. We're not going to change anything. That's not the intent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your questions? MR. SCUDELLARI: To a point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak on this? (None) Any other questions from the board? (None) I'll offer a resolution to recess this until the next regular meeting which will probably be -- do we have a date on that yet? SECRETARY: Possibly the 7th. MEMBER DOYEN: January 7th. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it will probably be January 7th, and that will give the Planning Board time to finish up. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2926 - Yaboni & Hauptman continued:) MR. CLARK: I have an appointment with the Planning Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a letter here from Mr. Raynor on it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr~ Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Joseph Yaboni and Myron Hauptman until the next regular meeting of the board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2935. Upon application of William A. Kreitsek, 9030 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the construction of attached deck and pool with reduced rearyard setback at 9030 Sound- view Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north and east by Grattan; south by Mudd; west by Kreitsek. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-27.2. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:50 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. · MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak for this application. Is there anyone to speak against it? (None) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a motion granting this as applied for. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. The following are the findings and determination of the board: By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of the construction of an attached deck and inground swimmingpool leaving a setback from the southeasterly property line (adjoining Grattan) of approximately 36 feet. Existing on the premises are a one-story, one-family frame dwelling with attached deck and pool requested herein, and small metal utility shed. It is the feeling of the board that the location of the dwelling lends itself to the practical difficulties in finding adequate and feasible buildable area in the rear yard, and that the circumstances are unique. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2935 - William A. Kreitsek continued:) detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the inter- ests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the application of William A. Kreitsek, Appeal No. 2935 be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 9030 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-27.2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer and Sawicki. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2936. Upon application of Richard A. Miller, 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct wind generator exceeding the maximum height requirements at 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; bounded north and west by Town of Southold; east by Aldrich Lane; south by Boschetti; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-125-2-1.5. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:52 p.m., and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. HENRY SAXSTEIN: Fairway Avenue, Riverhead, New York. And I represent Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller has an application before you to construct a wind generator, the tower of which will be 60 feet in height. The application before you requests a variance to permit a total structure height of 80 feet. This is due to the fact that the generator sits on top of the tower, and the blade of the generator spans 13 feet. Additionally, the tower will sit on the base one foot above the ground level. The actual minimum height necessary will be 76 feet. We have included a few extra feet in there in case designs change for blades, which would require a larger blade, some time in the future. The height permissible in this district is 18 feet and it would just be impossible to erect a generator in this area as an accessory structure 18 feet in height. As the application has stated, the structure would be approximately 550 feet from Aldrich Lane. It's in an area that is quite heavily wooded and would not be a nuisance to anyone. The structure would be three feet from the southerly lot line, although the structure itself would not encroach on the property. The design of the generator requires that it be serviced on its side, which Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- (Appeal No. 2936 Richard A. Miller continued:) December 17, 1981 MR. SAXSTEIN continued: would require the generator to be laid down on the adjoining property. Because of this we have obtained an affidavit from the adjoining property owner on the south stating that he had no objection to this application; he is mn support of the application; and if the applica- tion were to be granted, he would grant Mr. Miller an easement for the operation and repair and construction and maintenance of this generator, and I have the original of the affidavit and a copy of the proposed easement here for you, and I'd like to offer that at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (The original affidavit signed by Carlo Boscheeti notarized on the 17th day of December 1981, and copy of the proposed Easement Agreement were both placed in the appeal file for the record.) MR. SAXSTEIN: With me also tonight is Mr. Miller, the applicant, and Mr. Richards Jazombeck from Riverhead, the gentleman who owns a tower substantially similar to the one to be constructed here. And Mr. Jazombeck is also a salesman for this company and is quite familiar with the requirements of the construction of the tower and the opera- tion of the windmill, and either of these gentlemen will be glad to answer any questions you may have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against this application? Any Of the board members have any questions? You've got the expert down there, and -- (No further questions). If there are no further questions and no one else to speak, I'll offer a resolution to ctose ~the hearing and reserve the decision, until we get a change to study this out a little bit and come to a decision, maybe in a few days. Thank you very much for coming in. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Richard A. Miller in Appeal No. 2936. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- December 17, 1981 PUBLIC RE-HEARING: Appeal No. 2818. Application of Herbert W. Davids, by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq., 634 First Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels proposed to be re-separated. Description of Property: Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Seawood Acres Subdivision, Filed Map 2575; bounded north and west by Reese; south by McDermott; east by Seawood Drive. County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7-64, 65 and 66. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 9:~00 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your turn has come, Mr. Corwin. STANLEY S. CORWIN; ESQ.: Well, gentlemen, as you know my client is disenchanted with your adverse determination. He took us into court, which puts me in a position where ordinarily since you're somebody else's client, I couldn't talk to you, but Mr. Yakaboski said I could come down here and talk to you tonight. So that's what I'm here for. We were exploring the possibility of working something out, and during the course of numerous conversations, Mr. Davids agrees that we would modify the application and just spin one lot off. And we propose to do that by stipulation, and have it enforced by a moderate Court but Mr. Yakaboski seems to feel that the Board will have the power to~'~i~ that way. I don't quite agree with him on that, but that's all beside the point. In any event now, coming back here as though this were strickly a re~hearmng on the original application and projecting the lawsuit for the moment, what we are proposing to d© now ms to spin one lot off. And as you know from our earlier hearing, the dwelling is situated on the middle lot, and we'd like for the board to give us an option about which lot went with the house because it doesn't make any difference. If somebody came along and wanted to buy one, we just assume sell them the north lot separately and us the south lot. If that's too much for the board, assuming that it's inclined to go along with this modifica- tion and you want me to be specific about it, why we would want to keep the southerly lot separate. That's a lot that's 100 by 125 feet, contains 12,500 square feet. The northerly lot contains maybe another 300 square feet, but the'contours of the land are such that by itself it ms not as attractive as Lot ~27. We hope that the3~board will be persuaded to accept this modified proposal and grant the application mn that form. I don't know whether Mr. Yakaboski has indicated to you what the status of the litigation is at present. It now.~stands adjourned until the 22nd of December. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Well, I know we're supposed to come up on the 17th and -- MR. CORWIN: It's over a week. Of course the board's here. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Thank you very much for coming in, Mr. Corwin. I'll offer a resolutmon closing this and we'll discuss this a little later and come up ~ith a decision and close -- reserve decision at the moment rather. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- December 17, 1981 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close .t.h.e. nearing and reserve decision in the matter of Herbert W. Davids, Appeal No. 2818. Vote of the Board: Goehringer and Sawicki. Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, This resolution was unanimously adopted. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to schedule and advertise the following matters for public hearing to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board to be held Thursday, January 7, 1982 commencing at 7:15 o'clock p.m.: Appeal No. 2938 Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. Appeal No. 2937 Beverly Andrews Appeal No. 2940 Richard Mohrlng Appeal No. 2939 - Mignon S. LaMorte Appeal No. 2941 Peter and Mary O'Hanlon Appeal No. 2926 Joseph Yaboni and Myron Hautpman (recessed from earlier this evening) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- December 17, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2818. Upon application of Herbert W. Dayids, by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq., 634 First Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels proposed to be re-separated. Description of Property: Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Seawood Acres Subdivision, Filed Map No. 2575; bounded north and west by Reese; south by McDermott; east by Seawood Drive. County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7-64, 65 and 66. This is a rehearing of Appeal No. 2818. Appellant originally appealed to this Board by Appeal dated April 22, 1981. Appellant is the owner of three contiguous lots on the northerly side of Seawood Drive at Bayview, Southold, New York known as Lots 25, 26 and 27 on Subdivision Map of Seawood Acres, Map No. 2575 (Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 79, Block 7, Lots 64, 65 and 66). Each lot has a frontage on Seawood Drive of 100 feet. Lot 25 has an area of 12,802 sq. ft.; Lot 26 has an area of 12,757 sq. ft., and Lot 27 has an area of 12,500 sq. ft. An one-story frame dwelling is constructed on Lot 26 (the middle lot). Appellant acquired the three subdivision lots in 1967, at which time the minimum size lot required by the Zoning Code was 12,500 square feet. In 1971, the code was amended to require a mini- mum size lot of 40,000 square feet. The lots have, accordingly, merged into one lot. This Board, by decision dated September 16, 1981, denied appellant's request to divide the premises into three lots. Thereafter, this Board, by unanimous vote authorized a review of its prio~ action at a rehearing of this Appeal. At such rehearing held on December 17, 1981, Appellant requested that one of the vacant lots be allowed to be set-off and the remaining two lots be held as one lot. When this Board considered the original appeal, it did not believe that it was in the public interest to permit a dwelling to be constructed on Lot No. 25 because of its terrain. However, since the appellant is now proposing that only one lot be set-off, this Board now believes that it would be appropriate to allow Lot No. 27 to be set-off and that Lots 25 and 26 continue as one lot. This will alleviate the Board's concern about the construction of a dwelling on Lot 25. It will also not ad- versely alter the character of the neighborhood since substantially all lots in the subdivision are developed with a lot size of 12,500 sq. ft. It is the finding of the board that to permit Lot No. 27 to be set-off as a separate lot is not a substantial deviation from the code requirements; that the circumstances of Appellant's premises are unique and not shared by other lots in the neighborhood; that practical diffi- culties have been demonstrated; that the spirit of the Zoning Code will be observed; and that the granting of the variance will serve the public interest. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2818 - Herbert W. Davids continued:) RESOLVED, that Appellant be granted permission to set-off Lot No. 27 and retain Lots 25 and 26 as one lot. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2936. Upon application of Richard A. Miller, 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct wind generator exceeding the maximum height requirements at 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; bounded north and west by Town of Southold; east by Aldrich Lane; south by Boschetti; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-125-2-1.5. The Board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 60' tower requiring a total height from ground level of approximately 80', for generating wind into electric power, to be located in the rearyard area approximately four feet from the southerly property line and approximately 26 feet from the westerly property line. It is the feeling of the board that energy systems of this type should be encouraged, and that it is a means of energy conservation. The board feels that such a system will not have a detriment effect upon the character of the neighborhood and that it is within the interests of justice. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the cir- cumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no sub- stantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as applied for. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the application of ~ichard A. Miller, Appeal No. 2936 be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR AND SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARLO BOSCHETTI (neighbor) AND THE APPLICANT. Location of Property: 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; County jTax Map Parcel No. 1000-125-2-1.5. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. * * * Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- December 17, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2920. Upon application of Frank Mandaro and Nicholas Mandaro, 269 Prescott Avenue, Staten Island, NY (by Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100- 30A(1), 100-118E, and 100-31, for permission to construct addition and alteration of two existing buildings, having been denied by the building inspector for the following reasons: (1) two seasonal undersized dwelling units existing prior to zoning on one lot cannot be permitted as two (yearround) dwellings on one lot; (2) a noncon- forming building may not be reconstructed or structurally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in aggregate cost 50% of the fair value of the building unless same is changed to a conforming use; (3) insufficient side yard. Location of Property: 2370 Bay Avenue, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Baltz; west by Tosca Hold- ing & Realty Corp.; south by Orient Harbor; east by Bay Avenue (Tut- hill's Path); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-16-7. The public hearing concerning this appeal was held on November 24, 1981, at which time decision was reserved pending further deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct addi- tions, deck addition at the southeasterly end of the most northerly structure 21' by 20', and proposed addition at the southeasterly end of the most southerly structure approximately 10' by 22' and deck addition 21' by 22', which would leave a minimal setback from the sideyard line (adjoining premises now or formerly of End O'Lane Cottage, Inc.) of four feet. The premises contains two one-family seasonal dwelling structures which are at present raised on concrete blocks and without basement or cellar area. The subject premises contains a lot area of approximately 10,200 square feet, with 98' frontage along Bay Avenue. It is the feeling of the board that the areas chosen for improvements and additions appear to be the most feasible in light of the shallowness, unusual character and shape of the parcel in question, and location of the structures in the immediate area. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the proposed projects herein will cause no detrimental effect to ad- joining properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental faci- lities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting permission for the improvements proposed by this application. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the application of Frank and Nicholas Mandaro, Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- December 17, 1981 (Appeal No. 2920 - Frank and Nicholas Mandaro continued:) Appeal No. 2920, be GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. In the event applicants (or subsequent owners) propose to convert the existing buildings to yearround use, prior written approval of this board must be received. 2. No further structural changes or improvements without approval of this board. Location of Property: 2370 Bay Avenue (Tuthill's Path), East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31'16-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass Goehringer and Sawicki. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. FL-10. Upon application of James P. Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY, for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approximately eight feet above mean sea level in this V-5 Coastal Flood Zone and presumably without structural support and anchorage by pilings or columns (or with fill/without breakway walls). Location of Property: Private Road (Peter's Neck Point), Orient, NY; bounded north by G. Latham and Gids Bay; west by Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss; east and south by Orient Harbor; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 32-1-12. The public hearing concerning this appeal application was held earlier this evening, at which time decision was reserved until this time. The Board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to anchor the proposed new one-family dwelling on pilings and "capping" it with cement footings, having 12' block for a small crawl space area. The subject premises is located in a V-5 Flood Zone with a minimum elevation requirement of eight feet above mean sea level for the lowest portion of the structural members of the lowest floor, with all space below the lowest floor's supporting member open so as not to impede the flow of water and no fill used for structural support (Section 46-19B). The plot plan submitted to the Board indicates that the location of the lowest floor has an elevation at or above eight feet above mean sea level. It is the understanding of the board that a modification of the zone designation for this area from a V-5 zone to A-5 is in its preliminary stages as of September 24, 1981, and if this change adopted, applicant would be permitted to construct in the Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- (Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued:) December 17, 1981 manner applied for in this application without the requirement of a variance to the Flood Plain Management Law. The premises in question contains an area of 67,000 square feet as shown on Map dated April 2, 1981, amended August 10, 1981 submitted with the appeal application, with frontage along a 25' private right-of-way of 68.29 feet. The parcel is known as Lot 2 of the Minor Subdivision of George R~ Latham approved by the Plan- ning Board September 14, 1981. In passing upon this application, the Board has considered all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards specified in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11), inclusive, of the Code. The Board further finds and determines that: (1) There ms a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) A failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; (3) The grant of a variance will not result zn increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances, or cause fraud, or victimize the public, or conflict with existing local laws or rules or regulations. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the application of James P. Latham, Appeal No. FL-10, BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED a variance from the provisions of the Flood Plain Management Law of the Town of Southold as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, to wit: (1) That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant apply for and obtain a Development Permit from the Town Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law; (2) That there shall be no habitable (living) area below the 8' minimum elevation above mean sea level, nor any utilities, at any time; (3) That this project is subject to all other rules and regulations concerning this property; 1.e. DEC Tidal Wetlands Permit ~TW S78-0167, et set.; (4) Suffolk County Planning Commission referral pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given NOTICE that the structure for which this variance is granted will be per- mitted to be built as applied for and that the cost of flood insur- Dnce will be commensurate with the increased risk, if any, resulting Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- (Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued:) December 17, 1981 from same; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary %o this Board transmit copies of this determination to the applicants and to the Town Building Inspector. Location of Property: Private Road (Peter's Neck Point), Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-32-t-part of 12; Minor Subdivision of George R. Latham Lot No. 2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was Unanimously adopted. (Minutes continued on next page) Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- December 17, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2928. Upon application of Peter S. Terranoya, Box 77, peconic, NY for a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduc- tion of frontyard area and beyond property line. Location of Property: 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565 Sound Avenue), Peconic, NY; bounded north by Murdock; west by Sound View Avenue; south by Huntington Boule- vard; east by Hoffman. CountY Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-2-1. The following findings and determination were made: By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of the construction of decks/walkways along the westerly, northerly and southerly yard areas attached to the existing one-family, one-story dwell- ing. The deck/walkway along the northerly and westerly yard areas would be constructed at or over the property lines, and approximately 48 feet from the southerly property line. The subject premises is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the zoning code and contains a total area of approxi- mately 4,600 square feet of which approximately 917 square feet are occupied by the dwelling and approximately 407 square feet for proposed deck area. The maximum-permitted lot coverage for residential parcels is 20% of the total lot, or in this case 920 square feet. It is the feeling of the board that the location of this project as applied for is substantial in relation to the code requirements and that this location ~s not appropriate or feasible in light of the closeness of the dWelling to this intersection and the board is concerned with safety for all. Applicant in his appeal has set forth the reasons for locating the decks/walkways as applied for rather than ~n the rearyard or the easterly yard area. Members of the board have visited the site and are familiar with the structures located thereon, including the deck applied for herein which is constructed, as well as the terrain, ~mme- diately adjacent properties and their structUres, and private road accessibilities. In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines that a detriment to adjoining properties will be created if the variance is granted as applied for, that a substantial change ~n the character of the neighborhood will be produced, that the relief as requested will not be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; however the board finds that applicant is able to utilize decks/walkways at the rear of the house and considers a 407 square-foot area, which applicant states Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- December 17, 1981 Peter S. Terranova (Appeal No. 2928 - continued:) is needed, to be practical if located at the rear of existing dwelling. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the application of Peter S. Terranova, Appeal No. 2928, be GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That a 407-square-foot rear deck is permitted only in the rearyard (southerly) area -- not to encroach past the west side of the existing house; 2. That the deck addition never be enclosed or used for habitable (living) area; 3. Suffolk County Planning Commission referral pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565 Sound Avenue), Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-2-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2932. Upon application of Gay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin, Box 950, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to establish professional medical offices on premises zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural at 50 Ackerly Pond Road (a/k/a 49725 Main Road), Southold, New York; bounded north by Johnson; west by Baker and ano.; south by Ackerly Pond Lane; east by Main Road; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70- 5-4. The Board made the following findings and determination: Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- December 17, 1981 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2932 Jay. P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin continued:) Appellant has applied to this Board for a use variance to permit establishment of professional medical offices for applicant and other medical professionals located on the northerly side of Main Road (N.Y. Route 25) and the easterly side of Ackerly Pond Lane (a/k/a Bowery Lane), Southold. The premises are presently zoned "A" Resi- dential and Agricultural and comprises approximately .59 of an acre and are shown and designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 70, Block 5, Lot 4. The subject premises has constructed thereon l%-story frame house with accessory garage. The property on the north side of the Main Road west of Ackerly Pond Lane is in the "B-l" General Business Zone and extends westerly approximately 1,500 feet. The property on the south side of the Main Road west of Ackerly Pond Lane is also in the "B-l" General Business Zone, and extending westerly of this "B-l" Zone are proper- ties zoned "B" Light Business. Properties on the south side of the Main Road directly opposite the subject premises are zoned "C-Light" InduStrial for approximately 337 feet along the Main Road. Section 100-30C(1) of the Zoning Code permits "Home Occupations" in the "A" Zone as an accessory use. Under the definition of "Home Occupation" (Section 100-13), the professional office of a doctor is permitted provided that the office is located in a dwelling in which the practitioner resides, or in a building accessory thereto. The Appellant (a practicing doctor) could establish a medical office in the dwelling on the premises or in a building accessory thereto provided he resided there and employed not more than one nonresident assistant. Presumably, however, Appellant does not wish to have only his own medical office on the premises, but instead desires to change the use of these premises to permit the use of professional offices. Such a use is not permitted in an "A-Residential and Agricultural District. It is permitted in the "B" and "B-l" Business Districts. Since the variance applied for is a use variance, before this board may grant such a variance the record must show that: (1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone; (2) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning code; and (3) that the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The courts have held that a claim that the property is yielding less than a reasonable return requires proof, in dollars and cents form, of all matters bear- ing upon the return available under existing zoning, including proof that no permissible use will yield a reasonable return. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- December 17, 1981 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin continued:) Dollars and cents evidence was not presented for the record, except that the property has been on the real estate market for some time without success, and that one of the real estate brokers not present at the hearing felt that the value of this property for residential use was significantly less than it would have in some location other than a business area, and the if the residence were permitted to~'be used for professional offices it's value would increase by at least $15,000. No factual written dollars and cents proof, or expert testimony was presented to show that the property could not yield a reasonable return. Therefore, this board concludes that the evidence presented does not support the grant of the variance applied for. This board does believe that there is, however, a public need for the type of facility proposed by Appellant in the Hamlet of Southold, and that perhaps the Town Board should consider the extension of the present business district to embrace Appellant's property. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, for the reasons set forth herein, the variance request in Appeal No. 2932, is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. (Minutes continued on next page) Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- December 17, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2938. Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., 3506 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY. Fence along frontyard area exceeding maximum height requirements of code. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was ~ RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 2938, Josep.h .D..._~osilli.co, Sr.: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617o13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environm. ental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southotd Town Code, notice is hereby given %hat the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified ~as a-~pe__II~Actio_n~ 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 impl~nented as planned. The property in question is located within 309 feet Of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a bulk- head constructed along the water-lying edge in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length. This declaration should no~ be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- vo!ved~ nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: 3506 Camp Mineola Road, Mattitu~k, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-123-6-12.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. 2937 Beverly Andrews. December 17, 1981 Swimmingpool in sideyhrd area on a corner lot at the corner of Maple Lane and Grand Avenue, Mattituck, NY. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by'Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, tc declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 2937, applica- tion of Beverly Andrews: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of EnvironmenTal Conservation Actv Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southo!d Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a-TyRe II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Enviror~nental Assessment in the Sho~t 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 fe'et of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a detern~ination made for any other depar~nent or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by' the subject appeal application. Location of Property: Corner of G~and Avenue and Maple Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-107-2-10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer~ Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- December 17, 19~1 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2940 - Richard Mohring. Application for approval of access over a private road off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED~ to declare the following Negative Envirom~ental Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 2940, applica- tion of Richard Mohring: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~ATION: 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 in this appeal application is hereby classified as a .Type II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the enviror~ent for the following reason(s): An Envirom~ental Assessment in the Sho~t Foz~n has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The right-of-way in question is not located within 3'00 feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be inB volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: Right-of-way off th~ west side of Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY. County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-66-2-44- Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- December 17, 1981 ~NVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2941. Application of Peter and Mary O'Hanl'on for permission to construct new dwelling.with insufficient rearyard area at 730 Greenway Way, Orient, NY. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative~E~%~ironm~ntai Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. z~±, app±lca- tion of Peter and Mary O'Hanlon: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y~S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Enviror~ental 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 in this a~e~ ~ ~ application is hereby classified as a ~>~_II.Action~ not having a significant adverse effect upon '~he e~t 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 premises in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other depart~ent or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: 930 Greenway West, Orient, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 15, Block 1, Lot 20. Green Acres a~ Orient Subdivision Lot 36. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -44- December 17, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2939. Application of Mignon S. LaMorte f0~ approval of access over ~ private road off the west side of Arshamamoque Avenue, Southold, NY. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehrin~er, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of 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 Southo!d Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified-as a _~pe 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 right-of-way in question is not l~cated within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property- Right-of-way off the west side of Arshamomaque ~nue~hold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel. No. 1000-66-2-45. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- December 17, 1981 It was the consensus of the board to table the matter of Robert and Frank Klos, Special Exception No. 2931 temporarily pending review of the recently-submitted parking plan. Being there was no further business to come before the board at this time, the Chairman declared 'the meeting closed. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals RECEIVED AND FILED BY ~'~ SOU~{OLD TOV~ CLERK