HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/24/1981APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.~
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERTJ. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- .C[TATE ROAD 25 50UTI'-IOI_D. L.I., N.Y. '11c:J'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 1981
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was h~ld
on Tuesday, November 24, 1981 at 7:15 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer (Chairman Pro Tem); Serge J.
Doyen; Robert J. Douglass; Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Charles
Grigonis, Jr., Chairman (due to illness)~ Also present were: Mrs.
Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council; Mr. Henry Lytle, South-
old Peconic Seniors Club~ Mr. Franklin Bear.
Mr. Goehringer, Chairman Pro Tem opened the meeting a~ 7:15 p.m.
and proceeded with the first public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2915. Application of BEATRICE A.
GESELLE, Lilac Lane, Cutchogue, NY (By Abigail A. Wickham, Esqo) for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30A,
100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient frontage and area
of two proposed parcels located a5 Lilac Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau
Farms Subdivision Filed Map No. 1179, Part of Subdivision Lot 105;
County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-104-1-16 and 17.
The Chairman Pro Tem read the legal notice of hearing, appeal
application, Notice of Disapproval for the record.
CHAI~AN PRO TEM: We have a copy of tax map indicating the area
of the property in question and we have a survey indicating the house
lot, which contains 24,004 square feet, and the vacant lot which con-
tains 26,146 square feet. Is there anybody here that would like to
speak in behalf of this application?
WILLIAM WICKHAM, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman. I'm William Wickham from
Mattituck representing Mrs. Geselle. I would like to take a moment
to give you a little background to these two lots, because actually
there are four lots to make up this area. They were...the section was
owned by Mr. Ralph Sterling ( ) who died in 1958 and left this sec-
tion to his daughter, Helen Tuthill. The following year in 1959 Mr.
and Mrs. Tuthill had Mr. VanTuyl prepare a plot plan of four lots.
I'll submit that copy just to show you the lots. They were not sold
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2915 - Beatrice A. Gesele, continued:)
MR. WICKHAM continued:
until 1965 when her family, by the name of Gunther from Sayville bought
the lots and they were conveyed over individually to different members
of the firm from Mrs. Tuthill. Mr. Gunther, however, shortly after that
had a heartattack and they had to sell the lots. Numbers 3 and 4, the
two easterly ones were sold separately and 1 and 2, the ones we're con-
cerned with were sold to Mr. and Mrs. Gesele in 1966. These lots have
remained the same down to the present time with the exception of one
embarassing situation. The gentleman who bought the most easterly lot
of 110 feet, some time after he bought it found that he only had 90
feet. It seems that the title searcher missed or as they so say in
the Town Clerk's Office "hopped the deed" the Mr. Sterling had made
of 20 feet. I don't need to tell you I don't believe that shortly
after that Mr. Gunther was on the receiving end of a law suit, and
there was quite a bit of rang!ing and it got fairly heavy. But the
title company knuckled down finally and paid the gentleman off, although
he only has 90 feet. So now on that block instead of 110, 110, 110 and
135, we have 1!0 there with 90 feet.
Mr. Gesele died in 1978. And Mrs. Gesele had found it very diffi-
cult to sell. The action of the Building Department in freezing these
two lots has caused a very grave hardship. We have found one purchaser
who wanss to buy the house lot, but buying the other lot at the same
time is out of the question. Adding that price onto the purchase price
and adding that same amoun5 to a mortgage, which she has to take through
an institution is just putting it out of line altoqether...she cannot
afford to do although she would like of course to buy the house. This
is a moderate area. The houses are very moderate. And having two lots
there with just one house is a little out of character.
I would like to suggest a solution, however. The people who live
on the easterly lot, on the easterly side of the vacant lot, Mr. and
Mrs. Tom Sobulski from Cutchogue who recently bought the property from
people by the name of Latham. Tom would like to buy this lot as a pro-
tection, but only as a separate unit because he doesn't want to have
to face wha~ we're facing. It is possible, however, in the future he
might wan~ to expand his house, and the only way that he could expand
would be in this direction. There is also a possibility that in the
future the lot could be switched between him and the person who is going
to buy the house lot.
In any case, this is a very buildable lot. It has a frontage of
110 which conforms to the other lots there, with the exception of the
house lot which is greater but that's an irregular lot. It has a good
depth. I think the petition said 200 feet. Actually it's more 235,
or 240. The area is good in the respect that there is good water...we
had that tested when Tom bought a few months ago. The soil is a good
sandy loom with gravel so that there is no question of clay or anything
else that would interfere with sewerage. However, if you allow us to
do this, Tom is certainly not going to do anything in the near future
but there are possibilities.
Since 1978, of course, you must realize that Mrs. Gesele had no
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2915 - Beatrice A, Gesele, continued:)
MR. WICKHAM continued:
other alternative but to keep the property in her own name. She was the
only sole owner and there was just no way she could put it in separate
names.
I would therefore ask you people to consider continuing the plan
that was set up originally in 1949 and have these as separate lots.
We would like to consummate both sales. We think it Would be of a great
benefit to the community.
CHAI~N PRO TEM: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak in behalf of this? Anybody like to speak against it?
(None). Mr. Wickham, in the observations of the board, going down last
Saturday, and I must apologize to Mrs. Gesele...we didn't really realize
anybody was home. We usually ring the door bell. It didn't appear that
anybody was home and I hope we didn't startle you when we went down.
We observed that there is a garage added onto the building, which is
probably not shown in the survey? Is that shown?
MR. WICKHAM: I don't believe so. No.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Ok. And also there's a storage shed in the
rearyard. How close to the line does that sit, do you have any idea?
MRS. GESELE: What the garage?
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: No, the storage building.
MRS. GESELE: That's on the other lot.
MR. WICKHAM: I think that's On the other lot.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: That's on the other lot, ok.
MR. WICKHAM: That was juSt used for tools and movable.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: And it's an accessory building?
MR. WICKHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Does anybody else have any questions at all?
Any board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing and waiting until a later time, hopefully
later tonight to make a decision.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of Appeal No. 2915, matter of BEATRICE A. GESELE.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4-
November 24, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2916.
Upon application of Rober.t y... ~ider,. Jr., 1520 Minnehaha Boule-
vard, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-32 and Article XI, Section !00-118E for permission
to construct accessory two-car garage structure in the frontyard area
at 1520 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NY; bounded north by Wigwam
Way; west by Yanke, Morris, Bear, Smith; south by Hog Neck Bay; east
by Minnehaha Boulevard and Town of Southold. County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-87-2-40.
The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:30
o'clock p.m., read the entire legal notice of hearing pertaining to
this application and read the appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): We have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this property and all the surrounding properties,
and copy of the survey indicating the existing structures on the
property and the penciled-in proposed site for the new garage.
Mr. Rider.
ROBERT V. RIDER, JR.: I, just to clarify it, I have an aerial
photocopy if it may be of any assistance. This 'is ~he, both of these
buildings I have torn down that, the house was very delapidated when
I bought it. I put about $45,000 into the house reconstructing it,
and I've torn these two down. I wish to put the two-car garage at
that location.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that all you would like to say, would like to
go any farther?
(Mr. Rider nodded no.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
in behalf of this application?
FRANKLIN BEAR: Yes, I would like to. My name is Franklin Bear
and I'm a next-door neighbor. And the Riders have improved the
place there tremendously since they've moved in. The location of
this proposed garage is to be where the delapidated structure was
before. It will be a great improvement and certainly there would
be no reason why this shouldn't be built there at all, and I hope
that the Board will approve it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bear. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in behalf of the application? Would anybody
like ~o speak against the application? (None). Mr. Rider, when we
were down there, it was somewhat difficult to find the west property
line, so therefore we didn't measure all the way across from the
start of this new structure on the edge of yQur house, the east side
of your house, all the way over. Do you have any idea where that
lies in reference to footage, from here to here?
MR. RIDER: It would be at least 75 feet, well, the house is
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 24, 1981
(Robert V. Rider, Jr. - Appeal No. 2916 continued:)
MR. RIDER continued:
75 feet, the center of the property is 139 feet. So it's approxi-
mately 75 feet, at least.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a possibility that you could measure
that in the area and give us a call and let us know exactly where
that building is supposed to start with reference to a dimension,
because it's very difficult to -- I mean we know where the place
is, we just don't know where the footage is.
MR. RIDER: Sure. The what, offset from the west boundary
to the face of the garage?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Because there's nothing on the survey--
we could have measured it last Saturday, but we wouldn't have known
exactly where the line was.
MR. RIDER: Ail right. We're going to try to get the concrete
in before the cold weather. Will that hold up the decision?
75 feet, plus or minus, something or other.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea how far the house is from
the line?
MR. RIDER: The house here I would say is about 25 feet. Say
25, .the first room is 16, say 24, another 16, and the garage would
be set back from the end of the house approximately 10 feet, so
what does all that add up to. 91 feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we'll leave it at that particular point.
Maybe you can measure it-- I realize that it's the time of the
year when everybody likes to get going, and you wouldn't be able
to go over there tonight and give us the measurement, would you?
MR. RIDER: Yes, I could.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have 100-foot ruler?
MR. RIDER: Yes, I have a 50-foot tape.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you can come back in just a little while
and just give us an idea of where it lies from the west line. I'm
sorry to make you do that tonight.
MR. RIDER: No, all right. If we could finish it up tonight,
that would be good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't guarantee you 100% we'll finish it up,
but it certainly would be good if we had that figure.
MR. RIDER: Ail right.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-6-
November 24, 1981
(Robert V. Rider, Jr. - Appeal No. 2916 continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further testimony on either side, I'll
make a motion closing the hearing.
MEMBERS DOYEN AND SAWICKI: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Doyen and
Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing in the matter of Robert V. Rider,
Jr., Appeal No. 2916.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
and Sawicki. (Mr. Grigonis was absent due to illness.)
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2917.
Upon application of Constance Messina, Box 730, Main Road, Cut-
chogue, NY for a Variance for approval of access along the easterly
side of premises located on a right-of-way along the north side of
Main Road, Cutchogue, NY, New York Town Law Section 280-a. Location
of Property: Right-of-way off Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; Minor Sub-
division of Tut's Acres, Subdivision Lot No. 3; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-108-3-part of 008.
The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:39
o'clock p.m., and read the legal notice of hearing and appeal
application.
MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): We have a copy of the County Tax
Map indicating the surrounding properties and a copy of the Subdi-
vision Map of Tut's Acres. And we have a copy of the James Cross
property in which this particular variance is in question. Mr.
Cross or Mrs. Messina?
JAMES CROSS: It's pretty much what the application says.
She's my financee and before this house is completed we'll be
married, so-- This is a paved road, going down, which I maintain
winter and summer, to the eaSt, its ~djacent property, just like
the application says. If I had to use the right-of-way provided
for in Tut's Acres, that's another 2,500 to get down from the Main
Road you'd have to clear of snow and there is nobody else there, see.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I notice that you own Lot No. 2 also?
MR. CROSS: (Nodded yes). That's going back into farming.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see. The parcel that we had noticed that is
cleared of course is where the house is going to be built is Lot
No. 3 of Tut's Acres.
MR. CROSS: That's the one we're concerned with, although we
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2917 - Constance Messina, continued:)
MR CROSS continued:
tied in with Zhe provided right-of-way of Tut's Acres at this point.
We couldn't go this way and use the other two, because that right-of-way
is cleared right up to that corner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're actually going over a portion of that Lot 2,
Mr. Cross?
MR. CROSS: No. That's right smack on the right-of-way. The posts
are there. As a matter of fact I'm not completely over to the north
side of the right-of-way. At least that cut I've got in there paved, or
sanded, is not quite up to the north side of the right-of-way as provided
on the subdivision map.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you're not going to touch any of Lot No. 2?
MR. CROSS: Absolutely not. No. We're not even on the edge of it
yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see. Ok. So, as it leaves your particular piece
of property with the greenhouses and so on thereon, it goes right on to
Lot No. 3...or the adjacent right-of-way.
MR. CROSS: Yeah, actually they share Lots 2. and 3 share a right-of-way.
So if you consider half the right-of-way, Lot No. 2, then I'm touching:that,
yeah. But I'm not near up to the north edge of the right-of-way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak in behalf of this? Against? (None) Any questions from
any board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion
closing the hearing until a later date.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearinq~, and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2917, Constance Messina.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
APPROVED MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1981. On motion by Mr. Sawicki,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting held
November 13, 1981 of this board as submitted.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- November 24, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2919.
Upon application of Vito and Ann Navarra, 6 Barnyard Lane,
Levittown, NY 11756 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with
insufficient rearyard area at 1300 Bay Haven Lane, Southold, NY;
Bay Haven Subdivision Filed Map 2910, Lot 34; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-88-4-17.
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have with the application a copy
of the County Tax Map indicating the size of the lots, and an
updated survey indicating the proposed area in which the house is
to be located. And again the proposed area of where the house
should be located. Is there anybody who would like to speak in
behalf of this application? (None) Would anyone like to speak
against the application?
MRS. MONTANARO: I'm Mrs. Montanaro, and my husband, Richard.
We are on Lot number 33. The variance in question is I believe
34.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MRS. MONTANARO: And we object to it because of the nature of
the location of the property, in proximity to the beach area, which
is a very nice view; and if we ourselves want to chose to build, I
feel that this extra ten feet would block that much more of whatever
view there is, and that's one of the reasons we purchased the
property is because of the nature of the area, the n!ce view and
so forth. And I have my copy of the map, I don't know if it's the
same copy that you have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're very welcome to come up and take a look
at it.
MRS. MONTANARO: -~have an updated map.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have the same map there, basically. Maybe
you would like to look at it. Ours is very similar, except that
this doesn't have as much detail as yours has.
MRS. MONTANARO: Right. And we're here, and they're here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Are you familiar with what their
proposal is?
MRS. MONTANARO: I haven't seen the house, no. But--
MR. CHAIRMAN: (Showing Mrs. Montanaro the survey in the
appeal file) That's what they are asking.
MRS. MONTANARO: I understand. I called and found out that
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 24, 1981
(Appeal No. 2919 - Vito and Ann Navarro continued:)
Mrs. Montanaro continued:
the reason for it is so they want to extend it ten feet beyond,
you know, in the back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, basically what the nature is as I can
see it, is that we are dealing with an undersized lot. The
present zoning is 50-foot frontyard, 50-foot rearyard. If a
person such as yourself, you may be in this same position in a
year or years to come. Bearing in mind that the present zoning
is inflicted upon people even with substandard lots, you are,
the purpose of this board is then to remedy that if we see fit.
What it appears to be in this particular case is not an L-shaped
ranch but pretty much of a straight-line ranch, except for a
little protruding of the garage area, which is this, reducing
the frontyard to 41 feet. Placement of the house seems to be
an average size ranch and reducing the rearyard by ten feet. If
you take the thing into perspective and you live with the normal
frontyard and rearyard setbacks, the Navarras would only be
allowed to build a house 25 feet wide, which is somewhat diffi-
cult when one is building a ranch because it's a pretty scant
house. If you were building a two-story house--
MRS. MONTANARO: The other houses in that area are small.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but I'm just trying to give you some
idea of what I envision the situation of what they're asking for.
I'm not saying that we agree with it, or I agree with it, or
anything of that nature. I was trying to give you an idea of
what is here. You see, if the lot were 50 feet or 25 feet deeper,
there probably wouldn't be any variance required under the normal
situation. The lot is only 125 feet deepj.
MRS. MONTANARO: Ours would be the same size.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. They don't give me a dimension on the
house. We could scale it out but I don't have a ruler with me
at this particular time. Do you understand what I was saying
though?
MRS. MONTANARO: Sort of. I can't honestly say. I'd have
to see how it is compared to some of the other buildings in the
area. We, at the time we purchased the property, Mr. Wells who
was the real estate man at the time, he has passed away since,
gave us a list of rules and regulations as far as building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How long ago was that?
MRS. MONTANARO: 1971. And he at that time said that he didn't
want a house that was two stories high and sort forth and so on,
and we haven't been planning on building at ~he moment but I notice
that there have been houses, that there is a house there now that
is what looks like a two-story building but I'm told it's a story
and a half.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10-
November 24, 1981
(Appeal No. 2919-Navarro continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears to be two-story.
MRS. MONTANARO: It appears to be two-story. Ok. Now we
have this situation from someone wanting to go beyond, you know,
the size of what the code is. So I'm just wondering when it
comes time for us--
MR. CHAIRMAN: When you purchased the property in 1971,
the zoning restrictions at that time to my knowledge were 35'
frontyard, so, now it has been increased 15 feet so this is
the reason why these people are coming in for a variance. And
as I said, probably if it was a two-story house, it wouldn't
be required. They could probably live within the confines of
the present zoning. But since it appears to be a ranch, I
would say that that's probably the reason why we're here is
because they want to build a ranch and that's why they're reduc-
ing it nine feet on the frontyard and ten feet on the rearyard.
But probably when they bought the property it was the same
situation, 35 feet. What was the rearyard also. Thirty-five.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Navarra just walked in.
Maybe he can explain some things.
MRS. MONTANARO: Then you can see why ten feet is really
on that size of lot would really take up, I think, a lot of
space if we decided to build. If we decided to build and wanted
to add that extra ten feet, what would be the situation? Could
we go for a variance, if we wanted to go 15 feet or so?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You would have to bring in an application.
MRS. MONTANARO: Does it go on and on?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It would have to be based upon the
surrounding area of what the property looks like based upon
what your neighbors would have in the immediate area and maybe
five lots up. We usually go within a 300-foot radius all the
way around. Ok? Why don't we take a look and see what the
house looks like, Mr. Navarra is here.
(Mr. Navarra came up to join discussion.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what the square footage
of the house is, Mr. Navarra?
MR. NAVARRA: Oh, yeah. 1,450.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, that's not stapled, or is it?
MR. NAVARRA: Yeah, it's stapled.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The house appears to be --
MR. NAVARRA: Do you want the dimensions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I just wanted to put it into reasonable
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- November 24, 1981
(Appeal No. 2919-Navarra continued:)
perspective here. It appears to be 44 feet in width including
the garage on the south side and 35'8" on what would normally
be called the north side, and an overall dimension of 61'8" on
the west side and it looks like a similar dimension on the
opposite side.
MR. NAVARRA: A little wider.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes. We'd have to get a ruler.
MR. NAVARRA: 23 and 15'8".
MR. CHAIRMAN: 47.
MR. NAVARRA: Well that would be it, the difference. It's
44. Three foot. Oh, no, 6'4" Well this here is 6'4" from
here to here. So add 6'4" to this. 67, 68 feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions that you have of tb
gentleman, Mrs. Mondanaro?
MRS. MONDANARO: Only that I presented to you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there anything you would like to sa
Mr. Navarra while you are here?
is
MR. NAVARRA: Well, the only person that would really be
affected with the rearyard that I'm asking for the ten foot, and
my sisten bought the property behind me the same time that I
bought this property, which was last Monday, we closed on it.
And I have a letter from them saying that she has no objection
to my reducing the rearyard. The sideyards we're abiding by.
It's just the ten feet that we're asking for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And the nine feet in the frontyard.
MR. NAVARRA: No, this here. We're going by all the other
houses on the property--
MR. CHAIRMAN: And the setback is the same.
MR. NAVARRA: Right. It's the exact same, 41 feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: From 50 to 40.
MR. NAVARRA: Right. This is the only place that we're
asking for the variance.
MRS. MONTANARO: That's what I mean. You see, if we decided
we wanted to build we'd have that ten feet less of a view from
the beach. As you know that's the way the street runs, is where
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- November 24, 1981
(Appeal No. 2919-Navarra continued:)
MRS. MONTANARO continued:
our rearyard would be in the same--
MR. NAVARRA: There's no view through the rearyard.
MRS. MONTANARO: Looking down to the beach, there is. Well,
you know what I mean, you don't see the beach.
MR. NAVARRA: Yes, there was nothing here. You can't see
through there.
MRS. MONTANARO: Well, does everyone have their house back
as far as that, where your house is going to be?
MR. NAVARRA: No, no. There's no view, I mean, you can't
see through there.
MRS. MONTANARO: Yes, you can. If I were in my backyard
if I had a house, I mean to look down beyond in the area between
everyone's house, down that area. In other words, Whatever
little view there is--
MR. NAVARRA: There are all trees and everything through
there.
(Mrs. Montanaro's statement was not audible.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we thank you very much. I guess we
left it at the objection part. Is there anything else that
you would like to say, Mr. Navarra, before we --
MR. NAVARRA: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. I'll
see if any board members have any questions. (None) Does
anybody in the audience have any questions concerning this?
MR. NAVARRA: I have a letter from my sister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. I'd be very happy to take that.
Thank you. We put that right in the file. Thank you very much.
MR. NAVARRA: How do I find out?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Friday. '
You may either call the office tomorrow or
MR. NAVARRA: Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions on either side,
I make a motion to close this~i~hearing and reserve decision until
a later date.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
'(Appeal No. 2919 - Vito Navarra, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2919, application of VITO NAVARRA.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
APPEAL NO. 2916 - ROBERT V. RIDER, JR. Hearing was held earlier
this evening, pending the exact distance of the setback of the proposed
house. Mr. Rider returned at this time with a setback distance of 91'1"
from the westerly side.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2920. Application of FRANK MANDARO
and NICHOLAS MANDARO, 269 Prescott Avenue, Staten Island, NY (by Irv-
ing L. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Sections 100-30Al1), 100-118E, and 100-31 for permission
to construct addition and alteration to two existing buildings, having
been denied by the building inspector for the following reasons:
(t) two seasonal undersized dwelling units existing prior to zoning
on one lot cannot be permitted as two [yearround] dwellings on one lot;
(2) a nonconforming 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 Holding
& Realty Corp.; south by Orient Harbor; east by Bay Avenue (Tuthill's
Path); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-16-7.
The Chairman Pro Tem opened the hearing at 8:09 p.m., and read
the legal notice of hearing, appeal application, Notice of Disapproval,
et cetera for the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map of the
parcel indicating that lot and the surrounding lots, and we have a copy
of an updated survey indicating the present placement of the two houses
in question and indicating the proposed additions. Mr. Price.
IRVING L. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: Chairman and Members of the Board.
The first thing I want to bring out to the best of my ability...I have
never been able to find in the ordinance any difference or any definition
for "seasonal" and "all year round" residences. I believe like P says
"a residence is a residence, is a residence." These are residences
already. And when they say that this should be denied "two seasonal
undersized dwelling units existing prior to zoning on one lot cannot be
permitted as two yearround dwellings on one lot..."--the applicants do
not intend to use these for yearround dwellings, and I don't know where
this distinction came in. It was never in the application for a building
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2920 - Frank and Nicholas Mandaro, continued:)
MR. PRICE continued:
permit. It was just to make alterations to the existing dwellings,
already there. They were there prior to the enactment of the ordinance.
They were there when the applicants purchased it in 1967. So I am in
this unfortunate position of saying that the first reason that the
Building Inspector gives denying the building permit is wrong as a
matter of law because I don't know what to say. If it's the seasonal
part of it and the so'called yearround, there,s no definitions in the
ordinance to tell us What is what, which is Which; and as a matter of
fact they do not wish to have yearround struGtures, dwellings. The
second reason for "a nonconforming building may not be reconstructed
or structurally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in
aggregate cost of 50% of the fair value of the building unless the
same ms changed to a conforming use..."--this is already a conforming
use. They're already a dwelling. It's the nonconforming buildings
that are being altered. But they can't change them to conform because
they're already conforming; and that is, a dwelling, which is permitted
under A-Residential and Agricultural Districts, paragraph 100-30A(1)...
"one-family detached dwellings, not to exceed on dwelling on each lot .... "
But they conform as the use because they're dwellings. What they don't
conform to is the fact that there are two buildings on one lot. So the
alteration can't be changed to make the use conforming, because the use
is already conforming. It's just the buildings that don't conform.
Now you get to the matter of the third..."insufficient sideyard .... "
By the survey as submitted, I submit that the sideyards comply except
for the northerly building and there they can't comply. But, there's
a special section of your ordinance, 100-36, titled, "Substandard lots"
and it.was added May 29, 1973. In the "A" District, in the case of a
lot held in single and separate ownership on the effective date of this
chapter and thereafter, with an area and/or width of less than the
requirements of this chapter, a single-family dwelling may be constructed
thereon with sideyard requirements reduced by twenty-five percent (25%)
provided that all other yard requirements are complied with.
If you take the 25% off the existing side lot line, except for that
north building which you can't change, the side lines do comply. It's
only the front and it's only for that four feet. And as far as the
alterations, so-called, that are going to be made, if you'll look at
the survey, they'll be no change at the north of the building as far
as area is concerned, except the deck will be added. There will be
a second floor added to that which will comply with the zoning require-
ments as to height. On the southerly building they will push the
buildings further south ten feet, it will then be sixt-- and add a deck
and it will then be 16.2 feet from the frontyard and 6'4" from the side.
But there will be no addition to the area except in the front...that
will be just the deck and ten feet of building. The sides will remain
the same. The purpose of this is to provide a little more comfort for
the people as they grow. And there's no intention to make this a year-
round dwellings, and for $16,000, it's not even an $8,000 house-- it's
not even 50% of value because there's an appraisal submitted, and that
sets the value of the two houses, existing houses, an $8,000 is less
than 50% of it. And as I've always understood the object of the Zoning
Board of Appeals is to act as a safety valve when the provisions of
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2920 - Frank and Nicholas Mandaro, continued:)
MR. PRICE continued:
zoning ordinance which are superimposed upon existing conditions,
becomes onerous or difficult to comply with. And the Zoning Board of
Appeals can grant variances and provide that there are certain cove-
nants and restrictions or conditions on variances. And for that reason
we trust that you will grant a variance to make the~repairs and altera-
tions as asked for in the original building permit. And as my clients
individually would like to discuss this, I would hope that you would
give them an opportunity.
MR. CHAI~{AN: Would anybody else like to say anything in behalf
of this? Either one of you gentleman, and could we have your name, sir?
NICHOLAS MANDARO: Nicholas Mandaro. We want to put the buildings
back into some condition. We're there 15 years and money was tight, and
now we finally cleared, tried to upgrade them...you know, make repairs,
and I have three girls with babies and we need a little more privacy.
We want to put that second floor on as a bedroom. It would give us a
little more privacy, and really just to get the buildings back in shape.
The water gets turned off November 1st every year in that general area.
I mean, we usually don't make use after Labor Day and don't plan to put
foundations or heat or anything in those bungalows. Just try to get a
little more comfort, that's the main thing. Our neighbors who we're on
good relations with, they totally support us and thee'ye even helped us
trying to determine what to do. And we're just trying tO upgrade the
area. We're on this Rabbit Lane Water Association that supplies our
drinking water.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Price, also, while looking at this
application we noticed that property is in the V-5 Flood Zone which
has an elevation of eight feet under the new Flood Management Law. So
you should be aware of that. I don't know if you are.
MR. PRICE: Well, there's a letter in there from the D.E.C. say-
ing they have no jurisdiction and no objections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a different organization...as you know last
March of last year.
MR. PRICE: Yes I know it's a different organization, but if the
D.E.C. says it's all right, I hope that that would be final. I think
my house is in a flood area, and I believe it's less than eight feet
above sea level and I imagine half of Greenport in below sea level and
in a flood area including the theatres and everything else.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to point that out to you. Is there
anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this? Is there any-
body to speak against it? (None.) Hearing no further questions on
either side, I'll be very happy to make a motion closing this hearing
and reserving decision Until a later time.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2920 - Frank and Nicholas Mandaro.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2921. Application of GEORGE ALEC,
Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-36 for permission to construct
and enlarge porch with a reduction of frontyard setback at 22445 Main
Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded northwest and northeast by Cutchogue
Joint Venture; southwest by Cross;~ south and southeast by Alec and
Main Road; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-109-1-7.
The Chairman Pro Tem opened the hearing at 8:25 p.m. and read
the legal notice of hearing, appeal application and Notice of Dis-
approval in their entireties.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: We have a copy of the tax map indicating
the parcel and surrounding parcels, and we have a copy of a sketch
indicating the house in question with the proposed addition, several
outbuildings and barns on the property. Is there anybody that would
like to speak in favor of this variance? Is there anybody to speak
against the application? Any question? (None) Hearing no ques-
tions or comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv-
ing decision.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2921, GEORGE ALEC.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2923. Application of ERNEST E.
WILSBERG, 4175 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to
construct accessory building (garage) with bathroom facilities in
the frontyard area at 4175 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded
north and south by Ole Jule Lane; east by E. Wilsberg & ano.; west
by Wieczorek, Hunt and Wilsberg; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
122-5-12 and 13.
The Chairman Pro Tem opened the hearing at 8:28 p.m. and read
the legal notice of hearing, appeal application, Notice of Disapproval
in their entireties.
CHAIR~N PRO TEM: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding parcels, and we have a copy of a
survey indicating Mr. Wilsberg's house, swimmingpool and proposed
building that he is anticipating. Is there anybody that would like
to say anything in behalf of this application? Either one of you
gentlemen.
MR. WILSBERG: The only reason I feel I'm here is because
there's no ordinance to cover the situation. I considered my back-
yard-accordingly to the rules I don't have a backyard. I comply with
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2923 - Ernes~ E. Wilsberg, continued:)
MR. WILSBERG continued:
with the setbacks and side view, and I don't have any neighbors, so
I don't see where there should be any objection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody to speak against it?
(None) The application, again, is a garage approximately 24' by 40'
setback off of Ole Jule Lane approximately 50 feet. And I believe the
only utilities in the garage will be a bathroom, Mr. Wilsberg?
MR. WILSBERG: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Does anybody have any questions from
the board on this? (None). Hearing no further questions, I'll make
a motion granting this particular application as applied for, excep~
with the following condition: That it never be used as a habitable
dwelling unit.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 24' by
40' accessory building in the frontyard area off the south side of
Ole Jule Lane with a minimum setback of 50 feet. The subject premises
contains two frontyard areas and has a width of approximately 210 feet
and a depth of approximately 276 feet. The placement of the existing
one-family dwelling leaves the only feasible building area to be
frontyard or sideyard area, which in either case still requires a
variance. The character and location of this parcel lends itself
to the practical difficulties in this appeal. The board agrees with
the reasoning of applicant.
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. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of ERNEST E. WILSBERG, Appeal No.
2923 be GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the subject accessory building applied for not be utilized
for habitable living quarters.
Location of Property: 4175 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-5-12 and 13.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- November 24, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2916.
Upon application of Robert V. Rider, Jr., 1520 Minnehaha Boule-
vard, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-32, and Article XI, Section 100-118E for permission
to construct accessory two-car garage structure in the frontyard area
at 1520 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NY; bounded north by Wigwam
Way; west by Yanke, Morris, Bear, Smith; south by Hog Neck Bay;
east by Minnehaha Boulevard and Town of Southold. County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-87-2-40.
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a two-
car, one-story garage approximately 24' by 24' by 22' in the front-
yard area in the same location as a recently-removed garage. The
new garage will be located approximately 91' from the westerly side
property line, approximately 135' from the northerly access road
and approximately 135' from the easterly property line. Existing
on the premises are a dwelling set back approximately 175' from
the northerly access road, small accessory building in the front-
yard area close to the site of this new garage, and small acces-
sory building to the south of existing building. It is the feel-
ing of the board that this location is the most practical parti-
cularly due to the location of the existing structures and the
character of the neighborhood.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein
are unique and the practical difficulties have been shown; that by
allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining proper-
ties 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 the zoning code; and that the interests 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 Robert V. Rider, Jr. be
GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the accessory two-car garage be utilized for storage
purposes (and not for habitable living quarters).
Location of Property: 1520 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-2-40.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer and
Sawicki. (Messrs. Grigonis and Doyen were absent.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- November 24, 1981 Regular
Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2924. Application of EDWARD R. YANKE,
31 Summit Drive, Smithtown, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct new
dwelling with insufficient front and side (or rear) yard setbacks at
the southeasterly corner of Wigwam and Wampum Ways, Southold, NY;
Nunnokoma Waters Filed Subdivision, Map 5126, Lot 1; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-87-2-35.
The Chairman Pro Tem opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing, appeal application and Notice of Disapproval
from the Building Inspector in their entireties.
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Also contained in the file is a copy of
a tax map indicating this lot and the surrounding lots, and a survey
indicating the placement of the proposed house as noted in the applica-
tion. The proposed house that is shown indicates a 40, rearyard which
is to the east, 39' frontyard which is on Wigwam Way, 39' setback on
Wampum Way, and a 26' sideyard to the south. Mr. Yanke, would you like
to say something?
MR. YANKE: I remember it being 40', but maybe it is 39' on there.
I had purchased this property in 1976 in November, and before I Pur-
chased it I went to the Building Department to speak with a Mr. Terry,
to make sure that this was a buildable lot. At that time Mr. Terry
assured me that it was. He drew me a picture on my survey, which I
have in my folder that told me that I had a 35' frontyard to abide by
and also a sideyard, being a corner lot, and then he said 25' in the
rear and 10 or 15' on the side. He also said all that was necessary
was to bring in the plans, and if I filled out an application I could
get my permit. However, we didn't choose to build 'then and we just
in the last year had plans drawn up according to these specifications
and these setbacks, not knowing that the ordinance was changed. I went
around the area on my own and I took and paced off some of the homes,
most of the homes in the area and they all abide, most of them abide
by the old ruling and I just don't see where I am changing the charac-
teristic of the area at all. I think I'm complying with it. I'm just
surprised to find out--I never did check the Building Department to
see if it did change, so I'm left in a blind on this. So here we are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a couple of questions. How large is
the house square-footage wise.
MR. YANKE: Square footage it is 2,000.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That includes the open deck?
MR. YANKE: No. The deck would be extra. Which is just over the
garage here. The garage is underneath to the house, sort of. It is
of such a design of the house, I guess, that's mainly doing the one
setback[ ok. If I was to push this out, then I would actually be coming
further. I would encroach on the 26't Not knowing what the new setbacks
were, this is how we chose to have it drawn up.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
'(Appeal No. 2924 - Edward R. Yanke, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you feel' this is the only way that you could live
with this?
MR. YANKE: This is the house that we would want to live in.
MR. CHAIR~LAN: Not the house. We have no design possibilities within
the town confines. But is this the basic way that you feel that the house
should be placed on the lot. Is there any way that this could be varied.
You're steadfast basically with this placement of it?
MR. YANKE: I am. Yes. I think this house is really going to
beautify that lot being of a corner lot like that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm talking about the 40, 39, 39 and 26.
MR. YANKE: Oh, that. I,m sorry. You would have to take and make
changes of the house to change the setbacks. I don't really understand
you on that, I'm sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The actual placement that you have of the house at
this particular time, are you extremely steadfast with where it is
placed on the lot?
MR. YANKE: Yeah, unless you could suggest something to me that
might change my mind, I am. Yes.
MRS. YANKE: Well actually if I may say, the reason we have it
placed it way is so that we can have a view of the water. That is
really why we have it placed that way.
MR. YANKE: And this is why the house was drawn that way to get
a view of the water. And this is why we bought the property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Ok. I just asked a question and wanted to
know from the point of inquiry. That's all.
MR. YANKE: I see.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say?
MR. YANKE: I don't think so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in behalf of the application?
DAVID SMALL: My name is David Small and I'm the President of
the Nummekoma Waters Association, which is the development in which
Mr. Yanke is going to build. And I have with us others and members
of our association, and the majority of find no reason to oppose the
granting of this application. We're pleased that the Yanke's will
be building a lovely home and we're looking forward to having them as
a neighbor. A couple of members did question why the variance was
necessary if the house was being built according to the regulations,
and I know the definition of a corner lot has been contested in
court to be a sound reason in most cases for granting a variance. It
is difficult to build a sizeable lot on a corner when you're working
with two roads. But as far as our association is concerned, we find
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
'(Appeal No. 2924 - Edward R. Yanke, continued:)
MR. SMALL continued:
no reason to deny it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody that would like
to speak against this application? Do you gentlemen (board members) have
any questions? (None). Mr. Yanke, the reason why I asked you that ques-
tion about being steadfast was that I think one has to understand that in
granting a variance today, we have to take into consideration the surround-
ing properties. And we sent one of our members out and he did a lot of
measuring in the general vicinity, and one of our findings were that the
houses were set back off the road, that is, Wampum Way, approximately 50
feet.
MR. YANKE: All.of the houses on Wampum Way?
MR. CHAIR~N: Within the general vicinity. The one across the
street, excuse, one or two lots down and so on. I think it's different
when you go to the rear of the subdivision a little bit where she winds
around to the back.
MR. YANKE: I know the house next to me which is, you know Davids
house, is set back further but the other one is not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. I think his lot is a little--
MR. YANKE: Across the street they are not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You see his lot is a little shallower than yours.
His lot is 125. Yours is 135. We were wondering if you could live
with a rearyard setback of 30 feet, thereby pushing the house back 49
feet off of Wampum but remaining the same 39 feet off of Wigwam, so
it would be the same view, you know--I don't think that would change
anything because of the way the house is actually--
MR. YANKE: That's not so. We have two houses in front of us,
and this is why we were trying to gain a little bit past them, ok. The
only other thing I might suggest. We do have three children, and one
a younger one, and they too tend to like to play in the backyard and
we would like to have a little bit of area there also. If at all possible
we would really like it this way. Of course, we're on the mercy of the
board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Hearing no further questions
on either side, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until a later date.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2924, Edward R. Yanke.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2925. Application of ARTHUR M. SCHWARTZ,
M.D., by Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to
Section 280-A, Subsection 3 of New York Town Law and Article XIV, Section
100-141(B) for approval of access. Location of Property: Right-of-way
off Westphalia Road, Mattituck, N~; bounded north by Howard's Branch;
west by Berner; south by Penny & eno.; east by Munz. County Tax Map Par-
cel No. 1000-113-9-10.1.
The Chairman Pro Tem opened the hearing at 8:56 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice of Hearing, Appeal Application and Notice of Disapproval
from the Building Inspector in their entireties.
CHAIR~AN PRO TEM GOEHRINGER: We have a tax map indicating the sur-
rounding property, and we have a survey showing the nraveled right-of-way
in question. It was the observations of this board last Saturday where
we noticed the bulldozing of a right-of-way 5oward to, I would assume
south line, straight road--
DR. SCHWARTZ: Wouldn't that be the west line?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Toward the rear of the property. It's really the
frontyard of the property. Dr. Schwartz, what would you like To say?
Oh, Mr. Cron, I didn't see you walk in. I apologize.
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: That's quite all right. If I may speak mn
behalf of the applicant. This ms a rather unusual application in the
sense that basically we're probably seeking a re-hearing To a certain
extent of a prior application pursuant to which the Board of Appeals...
not constituting the same members that now sit on this board.., granted
recognition of access back in 1972. What complicates this matter is the
fact that the recognition of access that was granted back in 1972 re-
quired the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to the
any improvement to the right-of-way. Unfortunately, no such approval
is forthcoming from the Building InspecTor, and the matter sat to this
date, at which time unfortunately Dr. Schwartz bought the property and
was not aware of the recognition of access which existed back in 1972
with the condition clause...the result of which was, when he went to see
the Building Inspector for his building permit, he was told by the
Building Inspector that he could not give it to him because of the fact
that he could not at this time approve the road under the recognition of
access that was granted back in 1972, and in light of the fact that this
board had since that date mn 1979 adopted certain specifications for
roads of this nature. So basically what we're doing is really asking
this board, I suppose, that to grant recognition of access though, and
I think it already exists...but in any event, if you want at it as a
re-hearing to consider varying the terms of your road specifications as
adopted in 1979. And thereby decreeing what improvements that you
desmre to be made to the road so that full recognition of access can be
granted. Obviously the hardship is substantial to Doctor Schwartz be-
cause he, unless somebody makes the determination here, or somebody
says what he must do, can do nothing in terms of constructing a dwelling.
And we all know that the weather is going to start getting very cold and
we're not going to be able to do anything. So we would respectfully
request that the board make some determination, if possible, this
evening, as to what it will require in terms of getting recognition of
access.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
~(Appeal No. 2925 - Arthur M. Schwartz, M~D., continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in behalf of this application? (None) Is there anybody that
would like to speak against the application? Yes, Mr. Munz.
ROGER MUNZ: I'm not speaking against. May I just ask you a few
questions?
MR. CHAI~.~N: Certainly.
MR. MUNZ: My name is Roger Munz. My father is an adjacent property
owner on the east and he asked that I speak in his behalf. It's kind of
an unusual situation because when I originally wrote a letter to the
Board of Appeals, the bulldozer hadn't already been through the property
in creating his other pathway--rzght-of-way, that you observed on Satur-
day. So now it becomes a question of, zs the Board of Appeals going to
ask that only the new right-of-way be utilized or may my father and
others continue to use the existing right-of-way that they have traveled,
or I don't know. We're kind of up in the air as to what happens.
MR. CHAIRMAN: To answer you question, Mr. Munz, we haven't yet
established what position that new right-of-way is. I'm about to ask
that question of Mr. Cron or Doctor Schwartz.
MR. MUNZ: May I re-address the board then later?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Mr. Cron, that new--
MR. CRON: Well, let me say that to a certain extent I'm going to
have to confess ignorance. I just met Dr. Schwartz two seconds ago
before we walked in here, and we got into a very brief discussion con-
cerning the fact that a rzght-of-way had been cleared because I learned
that from Mr. Munz. But I had assumed that whatever was being cleared
was within the bed of any existing traveled road. I raise the question
with Dr. Schwartz. Unfortunately, not unfortunate if you want to look
at it another way...I didn't represent him when he purchased this
property. But it seems to me that there may be some question as to
which of the right-of-ways that we apparently are dealing with now is
the one which, number one, pertains to that which he has deeded right
to, and I don't know the answer. I assume, I guess maybe that isn't
the right thing to do some time, but I assume that the description in
Dr. Schwartz's deed was a description that referred to the existing
traveled road on a survey that he furnished to me. That may now not
be the case. I don't know. So I cannot answer your question. Maybe
Dr. Schwartz can shed some light.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cron, why don't you come up here with Dr.
Schwartz and we'll try and show you what we've accomplished here?
MR. CRON: I really don't know what's been done.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Schwartz, do you have any idea where this new
road started, this new right-of-way?
DR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, it started at the second telephone pole.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
~(Appeal No. 2925 - Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D., continued:)
MR. CRON: Where is that on there?
DR. SCHWARTZ: Well, it started at the end of Divello's property,
right there, ~-
MR. MUNZ: And travels down along this and cuts, I'm going to assume
that it cuts just about here into Dr. Schwartz's driveway.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. MUNZ: That would be about the length of it. Yes.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. It's where this starts to come over close to
the pole. There is a telephone pole right there. Now I had talked to
Mr. DiVello and Mrs. Galgano, and he told me he was planning to close
down or get permission to close this existing right-of'way off of
Westphalia and to have a new one to beg~n where the end of his property
is and make a new road coming in off of Westphalia to join this right-
of-way. And Mrs. Galgano told me that on her survey it showed the
right-of-way should have followed the telephone pole. However, through
the years, this road came up as the existing road, but the real right-
of-way follows the telephone poles. SO I called Mr. Wells up, I got
in touch with him, and we looked at both roads, we looked at the exist-
ing road and the proposed road, and there were about 12 to 15 trees
that would have to come out on the old road, and to be made wider
whereas with the new road, which follows the telephone poles and where
the right-of-way should be, I don't know it as a fact. I've gotten it
from information from talkmng with other tenants there...he said it
would be less expensive. We would be removing maybe three or four large
trees and the rest just brush. So I chose to go down that...and it
made it a straighter road. Now, it's true when you look...when you saw
it on Saturday, it looks like a fresh grade in a way, everything had
been dug up and in time it will be settled down. I spoke with Mr. Wells
on Sunday, and he said that he would maintain it and crown it periodi-
cally and also help roll it to get it settled down.
MR. CHAIR~AN: Excuse me. Are we slighting anybody in the audience
by this discussion?
LADY IN AUDIENCE: I'm glad I can hear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the reason why I asked the question.
LADY IN AUDIENCE: Dr. Schwartz speaks very clearly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to have somebody use the mike next
time?
LADY IN AUDIENCE: I can hear.
MR. MUNZ: Where Mr. DiVello plans to close or request to close
this access off here, where this is an access right-of-way guaranteed
~by a title company...I've notified him and through him, his attorney,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
Appeal No. 2925 - Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D., continued:)
MR. MUNZ continued:
that my father is unalterably opposed to the closing of thms access.
I don't believe he can do it. And that may stand an attest in court.
But that will be done. We are not opposed in any way Dr. Schwartz's
obtaining a building permit or whatnot, but we are now considerably
confused as to what's going to happen. If the town requires that,
and this ms an open question...if the town requires that the new
pathway that was created where the legal right-of-way may originally
have been supposed to go in, which is my recollection also that it
ormginally was supposed to travel along high-tension lines, but in
fact this ms where the exmsting path is. If the town requmres that
that be upgraded to its specifications as of 1979, which I believe is
4" of crushed stone, et cetera, et cetera, then where does that leave
my father. My father has always used this and would like to continue
uszng that. However, with this commng zn here, up to about here, does
the town now want this traveled pathway closed because this cuts down
this way, and it would be extremely difficult for my father now to
turn this way and then that way to try to get into his property. He
would then have to bear the expense of bridgmng in-between here. And
you can see we're kind of up mn the azr. We don't know what's gomng
on. We had hoped that some compromzse mmght have been struck to clear
the existing right-of-way to whatever the town specifications...and
that's out the window. So I really don't know what's going to happen.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Now, I don't see this as complicated. I made that
decision-- (several persons were speaking at one time and the statements
were inaudible).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you want to reply, Mr. Munz, to what Mr. Doyen
said?
MR. MUNZ: You asked, "How can you go forward without knowing
where the legal access is?" The legal access is still that guaranteed
by the survey...this is the survey, this is the access. This is the
legal access to the property by use. That road has been there 16 years,
at a minimum.
MR. CRON:
MR. MUNZ:
MR. CRON:
lutely.
Has any title company given insurance over that?
Yes. My father has it. We Would not buy it without it.
I don,t blame you. It's a smart way of doing it, abso-
MR. MUNZ: And that's why because of this guaranteed access, I
question whether it can be closed off. I don't believe it can.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If we're going to enter into a legal problem, we
just have to make sure we enter everybody's testimony verbatim. (Several
persons w~re speaking at one time.) Next ~person?
DR. SCHWARTZ: While no one knows for a fact where the legal
right-of-way is, each person that I've talked with, Mr. DiVello, Mrs.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2925 - Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D., continued:)
DR. SCHWARTZ continued:
Galgano, and now Mr. Munz...they have it in their mind that it was to
follow the telephone pole. I wanted to ... I've been in... I don'~
know if I've been impatient...but we've wanted to get the building
permit granted. I knew that I had to as suggested by Mr. Wells to me,
and I knew that we also had weather changing, and I knew that we had
to improve this road, I think the road, I feel the road is improved
now. It is unobstructed, 15 feet wide, and there is only maybe 75 feet
to go to allow Mr. Munz to be able to go into his property. I paid
for this road to be done, and I would pay and bear the expense so that
Mr. Munz's father would be able to drive into the property. And I
think it's a better road...it looks horrible now. I mean it looks,
as I said before, like a fresh grade. But I think it destroys...the
protecting of the environment more. I think clearing the old road
would have taken down many, many more trees. I think it did the least
harm ~o the properties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wan~ 5o say one thing about Mr. Wells,
because there ms a basic problem when one suggests something 5o someone.
The discussion of Mr. Wells mn prmor discussions with Mr. Cron and
Dr. Schwartz...the questmon of a person he had had as a contractor,
both myself and Mr. Douglass reiterated there was a gentleman mn the
community that has a feeling for the environment, the trees' and so
on, and that was the reason why we suggested that you contacted Mr.
Wells. In no way does any body in this board have any interest mn
either Mr. Wells' contracts or whatever agreements you contract with
him. I just wanted you to be aware of that so that there's no
problem, and everybody understands that.
DR. SCHWARTZ. No, I understand that.
MR~ CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cron, the only question I have at this
particular point is, do you intend if you do have a right-of-way over
this newly formed access, to pave it to the normal road specifications
of the town?
DR. SCHWARTZ: That's where the part I think it would be a ~remend-
ous hardship ~o bring in...that would be the mos% costly thing to do...
5o bring in now 4" of crushed stone for that section of road. That
would be several thousand dollars.
~. CHAIRMAN: The reason why I ask you that question, Dr. Schwartz,
was because we were down there on Saturday with the town automobile,
which is a former police car with a posi-traction rearyard, and there
was no way that we could enter upon that right-of-way. It was just too
soft, and this is the reason why, prior ~o my being on the board, why
we have instituted, or the board has instituted these specifications
of 4" of crushed stone. So i wanted you to be aware that that was an
observation that I had had.
DR. SCHWARTZ: I drove down on Sunday, and there was no problem,
--up and back several times down the road. I, you know, would grant you
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
~DR. SCHWARTZ continued:
that it does have this soft quality to it and will have 5o be settled.
We would have the same problem if I had opened up the old road 5o clear
the trees that bordered it. We would still have had a problem of an
unsettled road. And I was hoping that the variance would be to allow
this as a right of access without having to add the bluestone. That
would be really a most costly thing.
MR. CRON: Is the board going to be in any kind of a position
to make any kind of determination now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not without discussing it with other persons.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Why we could very easily if you want, I would take
the loss, to close that up and go back to the existing road. And I
would count that as an error. But I don't...
MR. CRON: Can I have about a five-minute recess of this matter
to talk to Dr. Schwartz?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do, after Mr. Munz's question.
MR. MUNZ: May I look a~ this for a minute? I'm not trying to
complicate things.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want 5o wait to ask your question until
after the recess?
MR. MUNZ: Sure. Ok. I'll wait.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should recess for five minutes.
This hearing was recessed for five minutes and reconvened at
9:30 p.m. after motions by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
and uly carried.
MR. CRON: In light of the fact that the only application pending
before you is the one that deals with this traveled road on that survey,
I will suggest that this is all we in fact can deal with, and that the
application will stand as has been made to this board for recognition
of access over this road for such improvements as the board would recom-
mend in terms of allowing emergency vehicles to pass and re-pass thereon
without having to meet your 1979 specifications~ In other words, what
I am saying I've advised Dr. Schwartz, I think he should abandon any
further efforts with respecting to cutting this so-called "new road"until
certain factors are determined: Number 1, exactly where that road should
be, and whether he has legal access over it~ There's no question that
probably legal access by ~irtue of usage in any event exists of this road.
And this I believe is the road over which all recognition has been
heretofore granted by the board. And I don't think that it's appropriate
at this time that we try to create a new road off that to which we would
seek recognition of access. I'm not prepared to modify that application
without knowing where that road is, whether Dr. Schwartz has in fact a
~!egal right over it. So I would ask the board to disregard any reference
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -28- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2925 - Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D., continued:)
MR. CRON continued:
to this road that is attempted to be created, and confine itself only
to the application that has been submit%ed. I know you can't disregard
what you've seen there, but I believe that can be rectified I am sure°
MR. MUNZ: In the letter that i sent to the board on behalf of my
father, he is opposed to opening of this road 15 feet wide and placing
crushed stone or mixed blend, whatever the correct terminology is, the
legnth of the road and into his property for the reasons stated in the
letter...it's disrupting of privacy and from here to here, people are
going to obviously go down what looks like a roadway instead of a
traveled pathway. That's what you have here where there is a little
grass growing in the middle of it and down like that. He has had
very little...he bought a place back here for privacy, enjoys his
privacy and likes it. I think if you've all been down there you know
what it looks like. He is not at all in favor of what the town is
doing. I am really surprised that there isn't some grandfather
clause or something of that nature that would apply to private
roadways. They have been in use for a long time. Because you're
affecting other people's properties and possibly their values with
little or no regard. I find this very difficult. He finds it more
so. And I was hopeful that some compromise might be affected utiliz-
ing the existing roadway, and if possibly a tree here or a tree there
has to be removed, that you feel that it's in a critically bad loca-
tion, it could be removed and leave the road bed of the dirt compacted
exactly as it is...I've been in there in and ou~ constantly for the
last nine years with this summer and every other time and have never
had any difficulty, and emergency vehicles have had no difficulty
because there had been a fire right here since my father has owned
the property...right up on the bluff...right about here, and the
fire trucks made it right in there without any problem. Now if they
feel that because there are ~rees at the road bends, if they must come
down to accomplish a compromise where for safety reasons the road has
to be opened up a little bit to get emergency vehicles in and out
without doing damage to them, hopefully that sort of compromise could
be worked ou~. And that's what my father's position is. I ask that
you consider it as such.
MR. CRON: That, of course, is also obviously Dr. Schwartz's
position in respect to this application, too, a variance from your
1979 specifications with such improvements to the road basically to
allow emergency vehicles to pass and re-pass in a satisfactory manner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass and re-pass at the same time?
MR. CRON: No. I mean pass in one direction and re-pass back in
the other direction. Ok, not at the same time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask Dr. Schwartz one question.
Dr. Schwartz, did you get a building permit?
DR. SCHWARTZ: No, I have not received it. If i had a building
-permit, I wouldn't have been here tonight. I would have been building.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- November 24, 1981 Regular Meetin
(Appeal No. 2925 - Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D., continued:)
DR. SCHWARTZ continued: That's what we want.
MR. CRON: Nobody has offered one as far as I know. It has
always been rejected until this board has made a determination.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was wondering if anything was done.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Do you have one for us tonight?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I don't have one for you. It's no~ my office.
I just asked the question. I was just wondering if there was any
determination from in between the time that you filed this variance
and to date whether you received anything from the Building Inspector.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Mr. Stakey, the builder would have received the
permit.
MR. STAKEY': No. t filed the application (building permit) about
October the 6th and I haven't heard anything except that it is up to
you fellows.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, ok, thank you very much.
MR. STAKEY: Isn't this either the building department's fault
or the variance department's fault since 1972...that this road wasn't
approved? There was a stipulation in the variance that the road be
widened and nobody followed through in checking it out. The land was
subdivided under those conditions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. I can't answer your question in
that respect on whose fault that it was. The decision that was made
was made in respect to the building inspector.
MR. STAKEY: But the variance department should have overlooked
it and made such that it was done. At that time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that.
MR. STAKEY: See I'm not too familiar with this variance board
in Southold because I do most of my building in Riverhead. And they
put stipulating in their granting that within six months they want to
see a document stating stuff had been done. But if that had been
done at that time we wouldn't have all these problems.
MR. CRON: I would only request of the board if at all possible
this evening that some kind of determination be made, this evening,
so that Dr. Schwartz can know in which direction he's going. As to
the weather being a~s such, that if they don't start pretsy soon we're
not going to be able to get going.
MR. STAKEY: There's another problem here, ~oo. I mean it's
not going to affect Dr. Schwartz but me as builder. Because when
~Dr. Schwartz came to me, he had everything taken care of...the D.E.C.,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
~ (Appeal No. 2925 - ArthUr M. Schwartz, M.D., continued:)
MR. STAKEY continued:
the Board of Health, and he went to the Building Department and they
informed him of what he had to do. He asked them how about the
Building Department itself, and they said, "No problem. It'll be
out of here in a couple of days." And it has been almost a month.
And I signed, contracts with Dr. Schwartz with those things under con-
sideration. And if we have a bigger increase in prices over the
winter, it's not going to hurt Dr. Schwartz but it's going to hurt
me because I'm locked into a contract.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybody else have anything else
to say? Board members? (None) Hearing no further questions and
comments, I'd like to reserve decision on this particular hearing.
We've had discussed, Mr. Cron...before I make the motion...the
possibility of reserving decision, and leaving the application open,
but now since in light of the fact that you have re-addressed the
board and went back to the original "traveled road" as it appeared,
I have to address the fellow board members and ask them what their
consideration is in this particular matter. Do you gentlemen want
to go back and deliberate on this, and give an immediate decision
or what?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Reserve decision.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Close the hearing maybe and reserve decision.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to close the hearing, Bob?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's if they're going back to the original.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what the application was written as.
MR. CRON: The application before the board.
MR. CHAIR~LAN: Ail right, I'll make a motion, since I didn't
complete the other motion, to close the hearing and reserve decision
until a later date.
MEMBER SAWICKI: I'll second the motion.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision until a
later date in the matter of Appeal No. 2925, ARTHUR M. SCHWARTZ, M.D.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent. This resolution was unani-
mouSly adopted.
Mr. ~Munz requested that a copy of the board's decision be
forwarded to him.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- November 24, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2917.
Upon application of Constance Messina, Box 730, Main Road,
Cutchogue, NY for a Variance for approval of access along the
easterly side of premises located on a right-of-way along the
north side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY, New York Town Law Section
280-a. Location of Property: Off Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
Minor Subdivision of Tut's Acres, Subd. Lot No. 3; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-108-3-part of 008.
A public hearing was held earlier this evening concerning
this appeal.
The Board made the following f.indings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of access over a
private right-of-way located off the north side of State Route 25
in Cutchogue and running northerly along lands of James E. Cross,
more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section
109, Block 1, Lot 4, for a length of approximately 2,467 feet.
Approval of access was granted May 22, 1975 in Appeal No.
2038, application of Alma Suter granting access to the subject
parcel subject to certain conditions and improvement require-
ments. Applicant desires to utilize the subject right-of-way
(over lands of CrOss) inasmuch as it has been improved and main-
tained for safe and easy accessibility. Mr. Cross has agreed to
Permit the applicant access of his lands; however, it is the
opinion of this board that the applicant and any successors in
title should have a document in recordable form obtained as one
of the conditions in granting this alternate access road.
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 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 allowing the
variance.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the ap~!i.cation of Constance Messina, in
Appeal No. 2917 be GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. (a) That the applicant obtain from the owner of the
right-of-way over which the proposed access is to be traversed
a document in recordable form, such right-of-way beginning at a
point on the northerly line of Route 25 extending northerly and
thence southwesterly to the applicant's property;
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- November 24, 1981
(Appeal No. 2917 - Constance Messina continued:)
(b) This approval of access ms not to be effective until
such document is executed, approved by this board, and recorded in
the Suffolk County Clerk's Office.
2. That the northerly portion of said access which at present
is not surfaced be improved in accordance with the specifications
heretofore adopted by this board on March 22, 1979, and that the
grant of approval of said access shall not take effect until such
approval has been given by this board.
3. (a) The subject right-of-way must be approved before the
dwelling may be occupied;
(b) No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the
construction of any buildings or structures, or any existing build-
ings or structures, on the premises to which this access is referred
until all of the conditions set forth herein have been complied with.
4. Where the terrain of the land over which such access road
is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant
and/or owner shall be required to construct such drainage facilities
as may be recommended by the Town Engineer.
5. That this access road be approved by the Board of Appeals,
Town Inspector or Town Engineer, or Town Building Inspector, as to
meeting the above requirements.
Location of Property: Off the north side of Route 25, Cutchogue,
NY; Minor Subdivision of Tut's Acres, Subdivision Lot No. 3; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-108-3-part of 008. The subject right-of-way
is more particularly described as being over a parcel land indicated
on the County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 109, Block 1, Lot 4.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. (Mr. Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolu-
tion was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2915. Application of BEATRICE A.
GESELE, Lilac Lane, Cutchogue, NY (by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.) for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30A,
100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient frontage and area
of two proposed parcels located at Lilac Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau
Farms Sudbidivion Filed Map No. 1179, Part of Subdivision Lot 105,
County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-104-1-16 and 17.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- November 24, 1981 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 2915 - Beatrice A. Geselle continued:)
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of insufficient road
frontage, 135.26 feet and 110.0 feet along "Lilac Lane" and insuffi-
cient area, 24,004 and 26,146 square feet respectively for two parcels
at Cutchogue, and part of Nassau Farms Subdivision Filed Map ~1179.
Existing on the westerly parcel (County Tax Map District 1000, Section
104, Block 1, Lot 17) is a one-family private dwelling with 17'2"
garage addition at the easterly side, leaving a setback from the
center dividing line of approximately 12 feet. In past communica-
tions with the Coun~7 Health Department, they have indicated that
parcels with less than 40,000 square feet which have received prior
subdivision approval would be treated as separate parcels by their
agency. These parcels are shown as separate parcels on the County
Tax Map, are assessed separately in the Tax Receiver's Office, and
do conform with the neighborhood as to character, size and shape.
In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances here-
in are unique; that by allowing the variance no substanial detri-
ment 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 interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it
was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in Appeal No. 2915,
application of Beatrice A. Geselle be granted as applied.
Location of Property: North side of Lilac Lane, Cutchogue,
NY; Nassau Farms Subdivision Filed Map 1179, Part.of Subdivision
Lot 105; County Tax Map Parcels 1000-104-1-16 and 17.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Mr. Grigonis was absent.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- November 24, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2919.
Upon application of Vito and Ann Navarra, 6 Barnyard Lane,
Levittown, NY 11756 for ~ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with
insufficient rearyard area at 1300 Bay Haven Lane, Southold, NY;
~ay Haven Subdivision Filed Map 2910, Lot 34; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-88-4-17.
The public hearing was held earlier this evening concerning
this matter.
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct anew
one-family dwelling with an established setback distance from Bay
.J~aven Lane and leaving an insufficient rearyard setback from Bay
Haven Subdivision Lot 15 of 40 feet. The lot in question has road
frontage of 140 feet and a depth of 125 feet and was established
prior to the change in rear and front yard setbacks from 35 to 50
feet. It is the feeling of the board that the relief requested
is practical and reasonable under the circumstances, that same
is within the character of the neighborhood and is within the
spirit of the zoning ordinance.
~n 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. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the application '~of Vito and Ann Navarra, 6 Barn-
yard Lane, Levittown, NY 11756 be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 1300 Bay Haven Lane, Southold, NY; Bay
Haven Subdivision Filed Map 2910, Lot 34; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-88-4-17. ~
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. Mr. Grigonis was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- November 24, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2921.
Upon application of George Alec, Main Road~ Cutchogue, NY for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31
and 100-36 for permission to construct and enlarge porch with a
reduction of frontyard setback at 22445 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
bounded northwest and northeast by Cutchogue Joint Venture;
southwest by Cross; south and southeast by Alec and Main Road;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-109-1-7.
The public hearing was held earlier this evening concerning
this appeal.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a
15' front porch (enlarged from its original size of 9') leav-
ing a setback from the front property line of approximately 23
feet. The board at the time of inspection of the premises no~es
that the dwelling directly across the street has a frontyard
setback of approximately seven feet from its front property line.
It is the feeling of the board that applicant's request is
minimal, less than 10% of a variance from the requirements of
the zoning code together with its established setback, and this
project will not affect the character of the neighborhood.
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 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 allowing the
variance.-
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of George Alec in Appeal No.
2921 be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 22445 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-109-1-7.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- November 24, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2924.
Upon application of Edward R. Yanke, 31 Summit Drive, Smith-
town, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct new dwelling
with insufficient front and side (or rear) yard setback at the
southeasterly corner of Wigwam and Wampum Ways, Southold, NY;
Nunnokoma Waters Filed Subdivision Map 5126, Lot 1; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-87-2-35.
The public hearing concerning this application was hel
earlier this evening.
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a
new, one-family dwelling with deck with an insufficient frontyard
setback on each Wigwam and Wampum Ways of 39 feet and insuffi-
cient setback from the southerly property line at 26 feet and the
easterly property line at 40 feet. The subject premises is a
corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the code, contains an
area of approximately 19,850 square feet, 135.17 feet along Wig-
wam Way and 145 feet along Wampum Way. Upon inspecting the
premises and immediate neighborhood, the board finds that the
average rearyard setbacks are 30 feet and average frontyards
set back approximately 50 feet. It is the feeling of the board
that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the
code requirements and the existing setbacks in the neighborhood,
and that the setbacks should be reduced, as indicated below.
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. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Edward R. Yanke, Appeal
No. 2924 be GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the frontyard setback off Wampum Way be not less
than 44 feet, leaving a 35' minimum rearyard setback;
2. That the frontyard setback off Wigwam Way be no~ less
than 39 feet, leaving a minimum setback from the southerly
property line of 26 feet.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37-
Appeal No. 2924 - Edward R. Yanke continued:)
November 24, 1981
Location of Property: Southeasterly corner of Wigwam and
W~pum Ways, Southold, New York; Nunnokoma Waters Filed Subdivi-
sion Map 5126, Lot 1; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-2-35.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Mr. Grigonis was absent.)
REVIEW OF NEW APPEAL NO. 2929, filed November 19, 1981 in
behalf of SAL CAIOLA, by David E. Kapell as agent for approval of
Lot width 'for Lot ~3, insufficient depth for Lot 2, and insufficient
rearyard for the existing dwelling due to the new lot line locations.
LoCation of premises: County Road 48, Southold.. Owners: partly
Caiola and partly Sawicki. 1000~51-3-8, 9, and part of 12.
The board reviewed and discussed this proposed project, and
it was brought to the attention of the board that this project
as drawn up and requested does not represent the "project of the
parties having main interests." The board members agreed to hold
this matter in abeyance and instructed the secretary to forward a
letter to Mr. Kapelt advising him of the same.
REVIEW OF NEW APPEAL NO. 2926, filed November 17, 1981 in
behalf of JOSEPH YABONI and MYRON HAUPTMAN, by William J. Clark,
Esq., for approval of insufficient sideyard areas of existing build-
ings due ~to new lot line locations at Oregon Road and Elijah's Lane,
~Mattituck, NY. 1000-100-4-6.
The board reviewed the new application for Yaboni and Hauptman,
and it was the consensus of the board to hold this matter in abey-
ance pending review and comments from the Sou~hold Town Planning
Board on the proposed subdivision.
APPEAL NO. 2897 - PAST DECISION IN THE MATTER OF VICTOR L'EPLAT,
TENIER rendered November 5, 1981 in Appeal No. 2897 granting a
conditional variance.
Correspondence was received late this afternoon from Rudolph H.
Bruer, Esq. in behalf of the applicant, Mr. L'Eplattenier as follows:
"...In connection with Appeal No. 2897 of Victor L'Eplattenier
please be advised that in Paragraph number one of your decision regard-
ing the legal right of applicant to improve the access road, in my
opinion the applicant has this right by being a lot owner on the filed
map. The paper road in question is not the one abutting property
owned by Kathleen Chamberlain. That is the road that the applicant
agreed not to improve. Lakeview Avenue from the northwesterly and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- November 24, 198'1 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2897 - Prior Decision for Victor L'Eplattenier)
corner Of the premises and northwesterly and northerly is what the
applicant had in mind. A review of your minutes of the hearing
will reveal that Miss Chamberlain, as well as other members of the
public who were abutting land owners, had no objection ~o the
application as it was done, as I hopefully have fully outlined.
Please remove this condition from your decision.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rudolph H. Bruer ....
It is the unanimous opinion of this board that Condition No. 1
of this board's recent decision filed November 10, 1981 with the
Office of the Town Clerk would be satisfied if the covenant in the
subject deed, recorded at Liber 9028, page 432, does not refer
specifically for all "Lake View Avenues," particularly the Lake
· View Avenue over which access was approved by the Board, described
on Page 2, paragraph 2, of the written decision. At the time of
deciding this application, the board agrees they assumed the "paper
roads" in the covenant could have been referring to the subject
access road. Since Mr. Bruer and Mr. L'Eplattenier and others
assured the board that the "paper roads" stipulated in the deed
covenant is not the same "Lake View Avenue" (which was approved for
access by this board), it appears that Condition No. 1 is in
compliance and removal is not necessary as requested.
The secretary for this board was instructed to inform Mr.
Bruer of the above in writing.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the following appeals be and hereby are scheduled
for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this
Board, to wit, December 17, 1981 commencing at 7:15 p.m. and as follows:
7:15 p.m.
7:25 p.m.
7:35 p.m.
7:50 p.m.
7:55 p.m.
8:05 p.m.
Vote of the Board:
and Sawicki.
Appeal No. 2922.
Appeal No. FL-10.
Appeal No. 2927.
Appeal No. 2928.
Appeal No. 2933.
Appeal No. 2932.
Frank E. Brophy.
James P. Latham.
Janet A. Davis.
Peter S. Terranova.
David Strong.
Jay and Joanne Davis-Slotkin.
Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
(Absent was Member Grigonis.)
Scutho!d Town Board of Appeals -39- NoVember. 24, .i981
Regular Meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. 2922.
A~plication of FRANK E. BROPHY for permission to construct
deck addition to dwelling with insufficient front and ~'ide
yards ....
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
it was
RmSOLvm~, to declare the foltowin~ Necative Environmental
Dec!aranion concern~n t~ =~= '
---g --~m~er of FRANK E.~ BROPHY:
ENV!RONHENTAL DECL$~,cAT!ON:
Pursuann to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Deparm~ent of
Env~ronmenta!~:=~ ~ Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Enviro~en~a!
Co ..... ~t~On Taw, a~d ~=~ ~
- ~o~t.~oza Town Code
· -~-~-~= is hereby given them~h~= Sou~ho!d Town Board of Appeals'
has dete~ined that the subjecL projec~ as Droeosed in thzs
aD~ea! as~t~ ~a~ ~n .
-- -~ ....... is hereby classified as a Tree ~! Act~o~
~ -: .... ~-~ adverse effec~ uDon th=
for the = ' ~ -
zozzowinc reason. {s) :
An Environm~nt=i ~ - = · .
- ~ ~s~e~sment ~n %h~._ Short Fo~ has
sukmitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should ~' '-
D ~ ~ ~nz= projec~ b~d as
. ~ann=d. .
This declaration should non be considered a determinamion
made for any other depar~lent or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other projec~ not covered by the subject
appeal application. -
_ _ Location of Property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY;
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass end Sawicki. Member Gr'igonis was absent. This
reso-lution was unanimously ~dopt~d.
Scutho!d Town Board of Appeals -40'
NoVember. 24,.1981
Regular Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. FL-10. Variance
to the Flood Plain Management Law for permission to Cons{ruct
dwelling without anchorage by pilings or dotumns as reqhired
in this V-5 Coastal Flood Zone.' Lowest floor to be a minimum
of 8' above mean sea level.
On mouion by Mr.
it was
Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
ENVIRONMENTAL D~C~ATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.¥.S. Departtent of
Environmente!~==~. ~. ~ Conservation Acu, Article 8 of the Enviro~men~al
C ...... yarrow: Law and Se~-~ ~
· · .... c.~ 44-4 of the Southold Town Code,
no,rca is hereby g±ven tha~ the Sou~hoid Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subject prolec~ as proposed in this
appeal application is hereby classified as a TvD Ii
· -~'~m~= adverse effect umon mhe
for the foi!owinc reason{s): .............
}m Environmental Assessment in the Short FozTm has
suhminted which indicates than no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur shoul'd~hz='- pro/oct be zmp!e~ented' as
planned.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other depar~lent or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any onher project non covered by the subject
appeal application
Location of Property: Peter's Neck Point, Orient, NY.
Voue of the Board: Aves: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass ~nd Sawicki. M&mber Gr~qonis was absent. This
.'~'.. resonution was unanimously ~dopt~.
Scuthotd Town Board of Appeals -4t-
November_24, ,1981
Regular Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. 2927.
Application of JANET A. DAVIS for permission to operate
antique shop in an A-Zone.
On mo%ion by Mr.
it was
Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehr.inger,
RmSOavm~, to declare the following Necative
conc~= .... g the ma~ter of JANET A DAVIS:
ENViRONHENTAL DECLAPcATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Depart~.ent of
Environmental~.~ ~.. Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Enviror~mental
Co ..... s=n~_on Law, and Section 44-4 of the Scutho!d Town Code
~- ~ ~ is
..... c~ hereby g that the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
has determined
t:.am the suhjec~ projec~ as proposed in this
~.~z~a! application is hereby classified as a Tree i! Acmion.
non having., ~ -~a sicnif~cane.~. . adverse effect upon~ L~k env~i~o~en2~
for uno =ol=o~¥,_n? reason {s}:
~m Environmental Assessmenm in the Short Form has been
su .... z~e~ whic~ indicates than no significant ~dverse effects
~-~ liketv to occur should ~-
planned. ~ project be implemented as
This declaration should no~ be considered a denermina~ion
made for any other department cr agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subjec~
appeal applicationl
Location of Proper~y: Corner of Pequash Avenue and Main
Road, Cutchogue, NY.
Vote of the Board: Aves: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass smd Sawicki. M~mber Gr~gonis was absent. This
resolution was unanimously ~dopt~d..
--~'-:~}~,~5~,',!~-~t:'~]:<~' '.. l-::.:~"' .-' ' - l' -i'.[ · - ' ' - ' ',.;" i ~...i · .'., .- .
Scutho!d Town Board of Appeals
-42- NoVember. 24,.1981
Regular Meetmng
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. 2928'
Application of PETER S. TERRANOVA t~'constmuct de~k addm-
tion with reduction of.frontyard and beyond property lin'e . . .
at 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565 Sound AvenuE), Peconic,
-
On motion by Mr.
it was
Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehr.inger,
concerning the m'auuer of PETER S..TERRANOVA:
Pursuant to Section 6t7.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Envirorur~enta!
Conservation. Law, and Section i~-l._ . of the Southo!d Town Code
no~ice is hereby given than the Southcld ~- '
· . ~n Board of Appeals
a~=~has determ, ined tna~ the subjec~ project as proposed in this
rz--1 application is herekv classified as a Tvoe !! Action.
nc~ havinc_ a sicn~a~+ adverse effect u~n~ t~e envzro~lent'
for the foi!owin~ reason(s): '
An Environmental Assessmenu in the Short Form has b~.l==~
submitted which indicates that no s4c~4;~ ....
' -~ ......... adverse effects
_ likely to occur should this project be imp!~en~ed as
p~ann~d.
This ~ ~ ' : ''-
d~la_atzon should non be considered a determmnation
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal applicatzon. -
Location of P~ope~tv- 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a~k/a
565 Sound Avenue)~ Pe~o~c, NY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass end Sawicki. Member Gr~gonis was absent. This
resolution was unanimously %dopt~d.
'f ? '7 .,27 · ~ -. ....' .... -. · r
~---'- .~~~',:~';~p,: ~V~;'~.2~.i-,:...'. '-: ~.~:,'" ,: -" i ' .- .- . . , .. . . .: .-: .-...,."' -'
Scutho!d Town Board of Appeals -43-
NoVember. 24,.1981
Regular Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. 2933~
Application of DAVID STRONG,. to construct additions to
existing building pursuant to Appeal NO. ~25.
On motion by Mr.
it was
Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehr.inger,
RESOT'VED, to d~ - -' -
=~ ' - ~=~e the following Negative Envzronmental
D~!aramion concerning the mamcer of DAVID STRONG:.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECL~2~ATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Deoar~ent of
Envzrcnmenta! Conservation Act, Article 8 of the-Envirom~ental
Conservation. Law, and Section g~-g.. . of the Southold Town Code,
ncn,_ce is hereby g!ven tha~ the Southcld Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subiect projec~ as Droeosed in this
'~2=~- ~t-~on is he~e~,~ classified as a T~e !! Act~o~
h -~nc
-~ .... ~.~ aGverse ~ ~ ~pon the
for the
zc~z · -~ reason(s) :
~vz~onmentai Ass==smen~ ...... ~ in the Short Fo~_-m has b
sukminmed which indicates that no '_ ~-'
sm~nzzmcant adverse effects
were likely to occur should ~lis project be lmp!~mented as
planned.
This declaration Should not be considered a determination
made for any o~her depart~.en~ or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property:
NY.
2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck,
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass 'and Sawicki. Member Gr'igonis was absent. This
· .-' reso-lu~ion was un an zmo~sly ~dopte, d. .
Scuthold Town Board of ~DD~is -44-
November. 24,.1981
Regular Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: APPEAL NO. 2932.~
Application of JAY AND JOANNE DAVIS-SLOTKIN for a Variance
to establish professional medical offices on A-zoned premises~
On momion by Mr.
it was
Douglass, seconded by Mr..Goehr.inger,
.... mu, to declare th= following Negative mnvzronmenma~
D~.a_a~_~_on concerninc the matter of DAV~S-SLOTIN:
ENV!RONHENTAL DE2L~ATiON.
Pursuanm to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of
Envmronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Enviro~en~a!
~o~. Law, and Section 44-4 of the Seuthold Town Code,
ncsice is hereby given that t:~= Scuthoid Town Board of Appeals
has datelined - ~ ,
t~a~ the subject projec~ as proposed in thzs
appeal application is hereby ctassifled as a Type 7r ~
-r .... ~'-~ adverse effect umon the envmrom~t
for ~he following ~ .... -
-- -~on (s):
.~n Environmental. ~ Assessme~.~ zn' ~e Short Fo~ has b
submiuted which zn!zcaues that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should th{s project be i.. lem~n~=d as
. ~ann=d.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other depar~menn or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal app!icationl
Location of Property: 50 Ackerly Pond Lane (a/k/a 49725
Main Road), Southold, NY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Me. ssrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Douglass -and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent. This
-.-- reso-lution was unanimously ~dopt~d. .
-{- i" i < < ~ . ' .. . .' '.~: -- ~._. :...~..< -' . .
Southold Town Board of Appeals: '45- November 24, 1981 Regular Meeting
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the date and time for the next Regular Meeting
of this board shall be 7:15 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 1981, to
be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis was absent.
Being there was no further business properly coming before the
board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned, at
approximately 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
APPROVED Linda F. Xowalski, Secretary
outhold Town Board of Appeals
g ND FILED BY
~= $OUTHOLD TO~%rN CLERI~