Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/03/1981APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N,Y, 11~71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 1981 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 3, 1981 at 7:15 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Gr±gonls, Jr., Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Robert J. Douglass, until 7:21 o'clock p.m. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:15 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2854. Application of Michael A. LoGrande, 63 Pinedale Road, Hauppauge, NY 11788 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for an insufficient frontyard setback for new dwelling at the east side of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Madzelan, west by Chituk, south by Stillwater Avenue, east by Barlotta; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-136-2-4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:15 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of bearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to add to what has been stated in the application? MICHAEL LoGRANDE: I'm the applicant in this case. I.'m Michael LoGrande and I'm here with my wife. We're co-owners of the property and we'~e just, we had an aerial photograph prepared and that perhaps can e~plain both the woodiness of the site and also the topography in ~is configuration with reference to the water body, if i may sho~ that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- September 3, 1981 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's beautiful. MICHAEL LoGRANDE: A little colorful. This is the subject property over here and this is Stillwater Avenue. The houses that are colored in red have setbacks already of less than 50 feet. Most of them were built under the older provisions of the ordinance and I took an area of about, a distance of about 12 hundred feet in all directions and those colored in red are less. There are many of them that you can see are much closer to the road than 35 feet. The site itself, if you look at the property, all of this is vacant. This is a current aerial--1981, and this piece of prop- erty sits here and the remaining portions of the property, also vacant, seen in white, you can see that the heaviest vegetative part of this is up in this area here. The property, I think, shown better, perhaps, on the survey, has a ten foot elevation up by the road going down to one feet right by the water. If we can, in order to preserve the eight foot requirement, if we can move the house up a little bit, we could take advantage of the high part of the site which is this area. And without disrupting many of the trees at the southern end of it, the point closest to the water, which will also, I think, aggravate the run-off situation and make the silting of that canal worse than what it is right now. We think it's a reasonable application. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to--can I ask you a question? MICHAEL LoGRAEDE: Sure. ME~ER GOEHRIEGER: Are you going to position the house just the way it's -shown here, Mr. LoGrande? MICHAEL LoGRANDE: Yeah, just about. MEMBER GOEHRINGER:' It won't be adjusted, then, to the road front. It'll be adjusted straight-- MICHAEL LoGRANDE: Well, I think actually, parallel to the road fro~t-- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Actually parallel. MICHAEL LoGRANDE: Yeah, it would be skew~ a little bit with reference to the property line because the property itself is skewed. But we'd like to make it parallel to the read front. We'd also like to preserve as much as possible the view from the adjacent propertTes. These are spread fairly far apart, but we would do it ~2n a way that we would maintain the higher, wider sideyard setba~ck on this side to afford this little better view from the property across the way, as opposed to hugging a little bit closer in this area. These views are not as interesting in this area. M~MBER GOEHRINGER: How large is the house you're going to build? Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- September 3, 1981 MICHAEL LoGRANDE: We'think right now it's going to be about £o~ty by sixty, total with the garage and all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a one-story house? MICHAEL LoGRANDE: Yes. We intend to build it on a slab and that's why the e!evation's critical as far as we're concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for this? (Negative) Anyone opposed to it? (Negative) If there's no further questions, I'll offer a resolution granting this as applied for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. ~ Southold Tow~ Board o£ Appeals -4- September 3, 1981 The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellant by this appeal seeks an area variance for a reduced frontyard setback from the required 50 feet to 35 feet for a proposed new dwelling with dimensions of approximately 65 feet wide by approximately 40 feet deep. The lot in question contains an area of 18,917 square feet, has road frontage of 100 feet, is an average of 195 feet deep, and fronts along a dredged canal known as Eugene's Creek (a/k/a East Creek), Cutchogue. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has restricted the location of the proposed new dwelling to be within 95 feet of Stillwater Avenue, pursuant to Tidal Wetlands Notification Letter dated October 17, 1980, TWNL ~15276-0341. The Board notices that the proposed location of the house as shown on applicant's survey dated November 3, 1980 indicates that the northwesterly corner of the house is more than or very near the 95 foot line and the house may have to be turned on a bit of an angle in order to comply with the DEC restriction. The turning of the house on a slight angle would not affect the frontyard setback from Still- water Avenue. The Board recognizes applicant's practical diffi- culties in this proposed project and agrees with applicant and the DEC. 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 the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili- ties 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the variance~to.the zoning ordinance, Appeal No. 2854, application of Michael A. LoGrande be granted as applied. Location of Property: East side of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-136-2-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- September 37 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2855. Application of Richard Posselt, 23 Fairmont Street, Huntington, NY 11743, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of an insufficient rearyard setback £or new dwelling at 3145 O!e Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Allsopp, west by 01e Jule Lane, south by Ole Jule Lane, east by Battersby; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-122-5-18. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:25 p.m. by reading the legal notice of hearing and the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak for this? Would you mind speaking into the mic so we can pick it up? RICHARD PossELT: I have the maps here if you'd like to take a look at them. The setback map. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, if we could. RICHARD POSSELT: What I'd like to do~,is the, this is what the surveyor gave me. Now, this isn't right. I'd just like to take this house and t~rn. it this way. That would give me enough room. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any problem with the advertising, Linda? SECRETARY: No, I just need to know how much the setbacks are going to be. MR. CHAIRMAN: How much is the setback-- RICHARD POSSELT: You see, if, because it's not defined as a corner lot, if the house is this way I don't have enough rear yard. But if I take the house and twist it length-Wise so the property, then I'll have enough front and side. MR. CHA~: Where would your front yard then be? Still the same thing? RICHARD POSSELT: Well, no. I would take the house and the frontyard would be up this way, and the rearyard would, or just cock it, you know, enough so that I could get it in there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you wouldn't need a variance probably. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I think you would probably on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I see, yeah. Southold Town Board of Appeals 6 September 3, 1981 MR. POSSELT: Yeah, because I have, see, because of this curve. See? This isn't defined as a corner, so if I could either position the house this way, back and front, or just cock it just enough somehow. SECRETARY TO CHAIRMAN: We have advertised it for rearyard and that would be sideyard. MR. POSSELT: I think if you turn it this way, you'll have enough on the side. MR. CHAIRMAN: But the legal notice read the other way, so now we have a little problem with readvertising. Maybe we'll just recess this, and if you can come back with your actual where you're going to be, and get your actual footages in. MR. POSSELT: You see, I didn't--when they surveyed this, he says, "Where do you want to put the house?" And I said, "Well, I don't know. I'll leave it up to you." Because I wasn't sure, you know? I didn't know what kind of a problem I was going to have. But he put it like this, and I definite- ly don't want it like this anyway. I got 15 feet here. So, I was thinking if they could re-define this as a corner I would be able to turn the house, twist it right around, then I would have enough on the sides and enough on the front. You have 186 feet here and 100 this way. Now, this house is 30 by 50, but I'm not going to put in a 30 by 50-foot house. It would be 28 by 34 with a patio off the kitchen side of it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have as we just mentioned the prob- lem with what we call advertising because we advertised it for something other than what you want. Possibly what we can do is, can we reserve decision-- recess decision with a date, two weeks, and then would you come back with it sketched in so that we can re-advertise it properly next week? MR. POSSELT: Oh, all right. Just take one of these maps that I have and re-sketch the house on here? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then it has to be taken back to the building inspector because it needs another "disapproval." MR. POSSELT: Will I have to fill out all the papers again? MR. BATTERSBY: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BATTERSBY: My name is Battersby. I'm here to object to this variance. Certainly I would like to present some papers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, as soon as we finish up with him. Do you have anything else you want to say, Mr. Posselt? MR. POSSELT: No. That's all. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- September 3, 1981 MR. BATTERSBY: This is the property in question. This is my home. I bought this based on this letter from the Town of Southold, assuring me of privacy. ...August 28, 1964 Termini & Siegel Builders Hampton Bays, NY ATTN: Alexander Termini Dear Sir: ... Enclosed please find building permit for Mrzilek as requested. Please be advised that the former owner of this lot (Lethen) appears to have left himself an undersized lot which will be unusable and unsaleable. At some future time he may wish to make an adjustment with Mrzilek to take back some of this lot in order to get the required area for his remaining parcel. Yours truly, /s/ Howard Terry, Building Inspector .... MR. POSSELT: Can I see that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Anybody can. If it's going to be entered, it is public record. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll recess this until September 17th, by that time maybe you can get more figures. MR. POSSELT: Now, what does this mean for me? MR. BATTERSBY: I would also like to see that plans to see how it encroaches, if it does encroach on my property, or where the cesspools plan to be and so on. MR. CHAIR~N: This is the survey I understand that he just told us that the surveyor said the house was this way and he doesn't want it this way. He wants the house set in here. MR. POSSELT: This is your house. This is your piece of property. He, the surveyor, put the house in here. I don't want the house that way. I want the house to turn this way. This came from the Department of Health. Here's the cesspools. Here's the well. Now that has to conform with everybody around me, but I don't want the house this way. It's too close to your property. I just want to take it, move it off this line and twist it this way, so it would be front and back. MR. BATTERSBY: In other words, parallel with my house. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- September 3, 1981 MR. BATTERSBY: Well, as I say, I bought this house based on that letter from the Town of Southold. That's the only way that I would ha~e privacy there. I will not have privacy with another house along side of me. MR. POSSELT: Now what does this mean for me? MR. BATTERSBY: You can have a legal action against your realtor, that's what this means. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll go over and check it out, check out that letter and see how (not understandable ). MR. POSSELT: But even if this, excuse me, even if this is an undersized lot, these are all undersized lots. Everybody's that is in here has undersized lots, And -~ MR. BATTERSBY: I have not. MR. POSSELT: And they don't have the setbacks either. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a question? How do you pronounce your last name? Posselt. Did you get a Certificate of Occupancy for a single and separate lot when you bought this pmece of property. I'm sure your attorney must have applied for it. MR. POSSELT: I'm not really certain what I have on this. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because that would then denote that the lot would be buildable, you see. And that is the matter in ques- tion that this gentleman is raising. MR. POSSELT: I don't understand this letter that he has. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the first time I've ever seen it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think we can explain it. It goes back to a prior building inspector who retired in 1978. MR. POSSELT: Yeah, but this letter says that the lot is undersized. Isn't that how it explains it? They are all under- sized. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything less than an acre today is undersized. It does not mean that it ls not buildable. Speci- fically. As I said to you, it would be to your advantage to see if when you did buy this piece of property that your attor- ney secured a single and separate, excuse me, a C/O for the lot. MR. POSSELT: You know, I talked to Mr. Fisher (building inspector) about this. I don't know if he is here or not--no. Because I explained this situation, and, I'm trying to think of the words. I can't really recall. But he said, I said, you know, if the realtor had told me there was going to be this Southold Town Board o£ Appeals -9- September 3, 1981 (Mr. Posselt continued:) problem, I would not have bought the property. And he says, "Well, even if the realtor said that there was a problem, if you had come to me," he said, he would have issued-- I don't know what they issue, I think he said he would issue some- thing that it was a buildable lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's exactly what I told you-- a C/O for a single and separate lot. MR. POSSELT: Well, I don't know if we got that. But he said he would have issued it. So then I would have bought the lot with this thing here, and then I still would have ran into problems. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you purchase the lot or are you in contract? MR. POSSELT: No, no. I bought it last year free and clear and paid for it cash. You know, I can't take any of this sitting down. That,s a good chunk of money. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're going to check this out, dig into all the angles of it, and bring it up at the next meeting. And you'll bring in the sketch showing just where you want to change the house location, and where your sideyards, how far they are going to be from each line. MR. POSSELT: When do I have to come back? MR. CHAIRMAN: As soon as possible. MR. POSSELT: With the sketch? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. POSSELT: Who do I give the sketch to? MR. CHAIRMAN: BuildingDepartment. MR. BATTERSBY: Do I understand that You are completely ignoring this letter from the Town of Southold? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Absolutely not. MR~ CHAIRMAN: No, no. We are going to check it out and see just what he meant by it. Because at that time in 1964 20,000.was a legal size. Some of the others down there are too. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it was 12,500 -- I believe. MR. CHAIRMAN: It might have been. Yeah. MR. POSSELT: My property is 161 by 90. Your property Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- September 3, 1981 MR. POSSELT continued: is less square footage than mine. I have over 16,000 square feet. MR. BATTERSBY: My property is less? MR. POSSELT: Well, according to this. It says 161 by 90. Mine is 186 by 100-- That's what this says. Mine is over 16,000. If it's not figured maybe yours is the same size. MR. BATTERSBY: They are all set at 20,000. MR. POSSELT: Let me ask you this. If you had a preference how would you want that house put on the lot? MR. BATTERSBY: My preference is no house there. MR. CHAIRMAN: All righty. We'll recess this --I'll offer a resolution to recess this until September 17th, 1981. MR. POSSELT: Am I going to get anything in the mail on this? SECRETARY: Yes, you will get a letter. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. What's your name~ sir? MR. BATTERSBY: Battersby. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Battersby, when we get the sketch from this gentleman here, what. our suggestion would be to come down and take a look at the file. MR. BATTERSBY: I live in Islip. I can't run back and forth just to look at a sketch. SECRETARY: You may call the office and check to see if it is available, and if it's available we can send you up a copy. MR. BATTERSBY: I say that you call me at my office. How often would I keep calling then? MEMBER DOYEN: It will be available in the office. If you unfortunately can't come by to come and see it, then that is your problem. It doesn't seem that you even want to cooper- ate to settle the matter. MR. BATTERSBY: There has been no attempt to settle it. I have presented a letter there. And all right, you people, are going to check that letter out to see the validity of it. MR. POSSELT: Can I have a copy of that letter? Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- September 3, 1981 (Mr. Posselt was given a copy of Howard Terry's 8/28/64 letter. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second that resolutiOn. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 2855, application of Richard Posselt until Thursday, September 17, 1981. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer, DOyen and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2857. Application of Demetrios and Joanne Joannides, 60 Central Drive, Mattituck~ NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck/addition to dwelling with an insuffi- cient frontyard setback at 60 Central Drive, (a/k/a 3905 Break- water Road), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Nolan; west by Tsounis; south by Central Drive; east by Luthers Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-3-17; (further known as Cpt. Kidd Estates Map No. 1672, Subd. Lot No. 114). The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:43 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else to add to this? JOANNE JOANNIDES: I am Joanne, and would like the~ deck. MR. CHAIRMAN: We were down there, and we took a look at it -- I guessiyou were aware of it, and on the front you're planning to come right up even with the steps leading up to your front door, side door rather I guess it is. MRS. JOANNIDES: The way the house is situated, we will try to put it next to the driveway. So there is the kitchen-- to take the food around, and we would like to be out in the country here, and we outside a lot, and we like to built the deck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it? (None) No question from any of the board members? I'll offer a resolution reserving decision and closing the hearing. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- September 3, 1981 matter of Appeal No. 2857, application of Demetrios and Joanne Joannides. Vote of the Board: Goehringer and Sawicki. Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2858. Application of Harry Fagan, Jr., and wife, 400 Betts Street, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient rearyard setback at 400 Betts Street, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Dunn; west by Betts Street; south by Williams; east by Weiss; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-110-6-9. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:48 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything you would like to add at this time? MR. FAGAN: I have nothing to add. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for it? Anyone here in opposition to this appeal? (None) He actually seeks a, do you know actUally hOw close you are coming to the rearyard line? MR. FAGAN: Existing right now I believe is 37 or 38, something like that. And the eight-foot addition would make it 30. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: pile, if you remember. MR. FAGAN: Yes~ That'w what we measured to the wood 30. You were the gentleman that measured it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a resolution to approve this variance as applied for. MEMBER SAWICKI seconded. (The findings and determination are continued on page 13) Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2858 - Harry P. Fagan, Jr. and wife, continued:) The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellants by this appeal seek a variance to the zoning ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule, for permis- sion to construct an 8' by 16' addition at the southwesterly corner of the existing one-story frame house, leaving an insuffi- cient rearyard setback from the westerly property line of approxi- mately 25 feet. The subject premises is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-34 of the code and the remaining side yard will have maintained a 12 foot setback from the southerly property line. The Board finds that the nature of the location of the existing dwelling lends itself to the practical difficulties o~ the applicant for expansion of the structure. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. 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 the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili- ties 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. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Harry P. F.agan, Jr. be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance as applied for in Appeal No. 2858. Location of Property: 400 Betts Street, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-110-6-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- September 3, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2859. Application of Thomas an.d..p.hytlis Maus, 6 Michele Terrace, Massapequa Park, NY 11762, for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location of Property: 480 Oakwood Drive, (a/k/a 505 Lake Side Drive North), Southold, NY; bounded north by Wood Drive; west by Clear View Road; south by Lake Side Drive; east by Haskins; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 90-4-3, (further known as Cedar Beach Park Map No. 90, Subd. Lot No. 67). The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:51 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything that you would like to add to this? MR. MAUS: Only if you have any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Which way would you want an approved access, which way would you like to come into it? You've got a choice here, about three different ways. MR. MAUS: Oakwood Drive. MR. CHAIP~N: Oakwood Drive, I guess probably you're most direct off Beach Road. Is there anyone else to speak for this; anyone to speak against it? (None) Do you know who owns any of those roads in there? MR. MAUS: It belongs to the Cedar Beach Association. MEMBER SAWICKI: Ail of them are private roads? MR. MAUS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else have any questions? (None) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution approving this with an access over Oak Wood Drive according to the spec's set up, which maybe I think you'll have to work out with the association, whatever has to be done on it. MRS. MAUS: We do know, my husband's parents live there and we do know a lot of people who lived there and I don't think it would be any problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it. (continued on Page 15) ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2859 - Thomas and Phyllis Maus continued:) The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellants by this appeal seeks approval of access pursuant to New yOrk Town Law, Section 280-a along Oak Wood Drive in the major subdivision of "Cedar Beach Park, Map No. 90," for the subject premises known as Subdivision Lot No. 67, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 90, Block 4, Lot 3. The premises in question is vacant, and fronts along Lakeside Drive approximately 132 feet, Clear View Road 190 feet, and Oak Wood Drive 200 feet. 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 the grant of the variance would not produce a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to the appellants., 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 the zoning code and town law; and in view .of the manner of which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. ~ On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer it was RESOLVED, that Thmmas and Phyllis M~us~be ~ranqed a variance to New Yo~ki~Town Law,~secti~n'280-a fo'r approval of a_c~ess, ~SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Such access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet. 2. Such access road shall be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet. 3. Such access road shall be improved in EITHER of the following two methods: (a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of four inches, OR (b) Shall have topsoil removed to a.depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good grade stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of three-quarter inch stone blend, or in the alternative, oiled with a minimum of four-tenths of a gallon of road oil per square yard. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2859 Thomas and Phyllis Maus continued) 4. No building permit and/or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the construction of any buildings or structures on the premises to which this access is referred until all of the conditions set forth herein have been complied with. 5. Where the terrain of the land over which such access road is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant shall be required to construct such drainage facilities as may be recommended by the Town Engineer. 6. That the access road be approved by the Town Engineer, Building Inspector and/or Board of Appeals as to meeting the above requirements. Location of Property: 480 Oakewood Drive (a/k/a 505 Lake Side Drive North), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-90-4-3; Cedar Beach Park Subdivision Map 90, Subdivi- sion Lot 67. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2860. Application of James Genovese, 620 Lake Drive, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to con- struct deck/addition to dwelling known as 620 Lake Drive~ Southold, NY; bounded north, west, south by Dechiaro; east by Lake Drive; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-59-1-22. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:58 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add? MR. GENOVESE: I did have a variance in a few years ago, and it was ok'ed by the board at that time; however, the numbers were not correct as far as we measured from the road, rather than from the monuments -- and it was.ok,ed with those other measure- ments, so I don't know. And this is the second time around. MR. CHAIRMAN: The note says that~it is attached, but I don't see the previous application. What was that, for the same sort of a thing? MR. GENOVESE: Preexisting deck. We had an addition to the house, and at that point we didn't have the deck, but now this should just follow on to that existing deck. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- September 3, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you come up here and show us-- we've got a couple of lines, and one of them has a squiggle. We wonder if that's the one that's been changed for some reason for another. MR. GENOVESE: This is the existing house. We built this addition onto it, and if you notice it's on an angle to conform with the street line. Now when we go along, it isn't wide enough to put a table and stuff up there, and will come up onto the deck. This was the old existing deck with the old house there, and this is an old survey. MEMBER SAWICKI: Is that going up to your garage doors, or past them? MR. GENOVESE: My garage is down underneath. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, this is the garage doors now, right here. All you want to add on is this piece right here? MR. GENOVESE: Right. My driveway is in here. And that goes down into here. And here's the measurements that were wrong when I went for the permit. When we started to build, we determined that the monuments weren't the road, and I wasn't aware at that time, back in three years ago I guess, or four years ago at the point when this was put in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you want to come within 14 feet of the road now? Is that what that thing is there? MR. GENOVESE: That was the deck and building point. And that's no more than what was across the street. And also the other house, the other two or three houses down going south and east that are on the Lake. There are no houses on my side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it? Any other questions from any of the members? (None) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until we get this, now that we find out everything, we'll be able to go from there much better. MEMBER DOUGLASS seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearin~ and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 2860, application of James Genovese. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- September 3, 1981 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2866. Application of Jon C. Kerbs, 510 Main Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in a proposed sub- division, and for permission to relocate building with insuf- ficient yard setbacks, with yard determination on proposed lot adjoining Stillwater Avenue. Location of Property: Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north and west by Fleet; south by Fleet Neck Road; east by Jezek; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-137-2-8, 18, and 19. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:08 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything more to add to this? (Mr. Kerbs nodded no.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Jon, do you know what the width is across the back of that, the length rather of that-- JON KERBS: Excuse me Charlie? MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know what the length of that lot 4 is, up on Stillwater? MEMBER DOUGLASS: That one is a little smaller than the other two, right? MR. KERBS: It should be the same. The way we looked at it is, I got Van Tuyl's survey, and he says the whole thing is 1.7 acres. So 1.7 acres -- and he said that's correct. So that's what I did, I said, "Ok. Across the front we had 78 three times." So they're 78-foot lots, and then come back 237. So it's 78 by 237 is like 18,500, about 18,408~ something like that. So then I said, "Well, what we've got here is 233 approximately. We've got over 80 there, like 85 wide there, and 60 wide there." And if you take an average of 70 - 75 by this width it comes out about the same. If you take this, and this, and this, and subtract it from 1.7 acres, that comes up with 18,500. Actually that's how I got the dimension of how far back to go, by dividing the 1.7 acres by four. Whatever square feet that would be, and then came up with this. I think it's right. I certainly wouldn't swear to it. If VanTuyl is right, and it's 1.7 acres, four goes into 1.7 acres -- Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2866 -Jon C. Kerbs, continusd:) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It came out to about 14,000. was 40,000-- MR. KERBS: 43,560 times 1.7 is 74,000, divided by four, is 18,513. So if you had 18,500, 18,500 and 18,500, this one has got to be 18,500. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's go back on this one. You've got 85 on that, 85, 89-- MR. KERBS: This actually shows -- I said roughly, you know, say 89, -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've got 60 over here that you gave me-- MR. KERBS: That's 65 according to this. M_EMBER GOEHRINGER: Ail right. I'll recalculate that. By 230. That comes to about 17,710. MR. KERBS: That's possible. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's by taking both sides and adding them togather after multiplying, and then dividing by two, which is the normal way that they do it-- MR. KERBS: I would say in that range, but, what did you say it came to? MR. JEZEK: Well I'm not good at this, but I figured 17,556 square feet. MR. KERBS: It hasn't had the final survey, so that's, I mean, I wouldn't absolutely say that it's, it might not be off by 1,000 square feet. MR. JEZEK: Well how are you going to move that old house. That thing is going to fall apart on you. MR. KERBS: Well, not if you rebuild that front wall first. MR. JEZEK: That house should be wrecked. MR. KERBS: Ok. The story, the way I look at it, the house is there and if we own it, we're not going to-- MR. JEZEK: You own the property? MR. KERBZ: No. We're only under a contract to buy it is the idea. Ok? I would think that it would be better to have that house moved and fix it up, put it in the back there and everybody own their own house. Because the way Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2866 -Jon C. Kerbs, continued:) Mr. Kerbs continued: it is now, whoever buys that, if you can't subdivide it, somebody is going to be renting all those houses, and-- MR. JEZEK: Why can't you make three nice lots, rehabilitate the three houses? You'll get plenty of money out of that. MR. KERBS: Yeah, but the point is, if you own the property, you're not going to tear a house down. In other words if you have a unit there you can use, I'm not going to tear it down. I'm not going to tear it down, nobody is going to. They have to make use of it as a living unit somewhere. MR. JEZEK: That house was moved there from Route 25. That was not built there. MR. KERBS: That's possible. I've got no idea, really what the history is. I'm just looking at the way things generally are in the area. And I would think that it would improve the area. That land goes way back into those woods there, and that's where that other lot would be. Take that house and get it right out of the way, clean it up nice, and you could have a nicer situation. But if it's denied this way, the house is going to stay there and somebody is going to rent it and they're going to live in it. MR. JEZEK: That house has been condemned. MR. KERBS: I'm not sure, but I would think that some- one could go in there, and if it is condemned I don't know. MR. JEZEK: It was condemned 11 or 12 years ago. I don't think anybody has been living in there for 12 years. MR. KERBS: But you can still renovate it. And if it's condemned and you want to renovate it, and then-- MR. JEZEK: It will probably affect my water supply. believe the water supply is defective or something. That was the reason-- MR. KERBS: That's the matter of driving wells, which everybody does every day. MR. CHAIRMAN: If anything.happens there, it has to-- MR. JEZEK: Then you are going to affect my water supply. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2866 - Jori C. Kerbs, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything that happens there is going to have to be approved by the Board of Health. MR. JEZEK: Now, last year you disapproved, what's his name over here--the electrician. I can't think of his name. Now he has over two acres and you didn't allow him to sub- divide. Now here's with less than two acres and you're willing to subdivide into four lots. MR. KERBS: Well there are houses on it already. I think that's the big difference. MR. CHAIRMAN: This has been there. This has been there a long, long time. Preexisting~ And these lots will be a lot bigger than most of the other lots around in there. If it goes through. Anything else anyone has to say on this? MR. JEZEK: Well, I think House No. 4 should be destroyed completely, and make three nice lots and rehabilitate those three, the other three houses. MR. KERBS: like your garage. down." But what if I came along and said, "I don't I think you're garage ought uo be taken MR. JEZEK~ It's because it's a new garage; it's not falling apart like that house. But as I say, it's there. If my garage was like that house, I would MR. KERBS: MR. JEZEK: agree with you. MR. KERBS: Yeah, but what I'm saying is, if it's there, I mean, I don't see where you have any right to tell someone they have to tear it down. MR. JEZEK: Isn't there a town law about dangerous buildings? MR. CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with this hearing right now. So I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER SAWICKI seconded. MR. KERBS: I have a question, too, still on those lots. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. MR. KERBS: In looking at this and trying to decide if it is allowed that we can do it and we can move this house, Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2866 Jon C. Kerbs, continued:) Mr. Kerbs continued: there was some question as to where it could be located. building department has a couple of interpretations as to what should be a frontyard and what should be a sideyard. The MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, when we were checking through this, Jon, Sketch No. 1 would be the proper one. MR. KERBS: Ok. Sketch One would be? Ail right. Fine. The only reason I bring the point up is, if it did go through these dimensions here, I'm not exact, it hasn't been surveyed as you know. And if we had to move the house one foot or two feet or something like that, trying to get around, because there was a rock or tree there or something, is there some way it could be taken into consideration. That may not be the exact spot, because looking at it that way, that's going to need the sideyard requirements. Or maybe after it's done ~ could just, if the numbers weren't quite right or something, just get a number-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, when you get your survey done, Jon, then you'll know definitely. MR. KERBS: Ok. But, you see, what I was getting at, was this one gave me room~to work With, but if this is what it ls~ that's what it is. When the times comes, we'll worry about it. Ok. Thank you. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to cloSe the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 2866, Jon C. Kerbs. ' ' Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2862. Application of Mar.y Ra~, 375 Factory Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and 100-36 for per- mission to construct carport/addition with insufficient sideyard and rearyard setbacks at 375 Factory Avenue, Matti- tuck; bounded north by Francis; west by Bergen; south by Mills; east by Factory Avenue; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-6. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2862 Mary Ray, continued:) The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:27 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak for this? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I'm representing Mary Ray, and~ ~ I would just like to repeat what was in the applicatio~/~'~ /~ add a ~ew things. This house is located right across f,~?o~ /~J~' ~ the entrance to the A & P on the side of Factory Avenue, and the house is a very attractive house and the yard is nice, too. However the house is set way back, and there really isn't room to get any garage in the backyard where it would normally be. Also, there's not much room on the side of the house next to the kitchen where the carport was put up. So it was.necessary in order to construct it properly with the proper supports to go up to about one foot from the property line. There is a hedge, quite a tall hedge higher than the carport that runs all the way down that northerly Property line and screens the carport from~he carport from the neighbor on that side. Also, that neighbor's house is up towards the fron~ of the road and into the back next to the carport, and if you look from the neighbor's house, all you would see is the roof line of the carport. It's not like you're looking at a solid structure that would be much more noticeable. I also notice tha~ there is only one small window in the back of the neigh- bor's house, and that's covered up on the bottom with an airconditioner and the shades pulled down on the top, so I don't think that they really are going to be affected by it. None of the other properties around are affected by the appearance of this. And she does need some kind of shelter for her automobile, and that's why this is constructed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gall. Is there anyone else to speak for it? Anyone in objection? {None) Any of the board members have any questions to ask Mrs. Wickham? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does Mrs. Ray, Mrs. Wickham, have any objection to a restriction being put on this carport to the effect that it is always to remain as a carport and never to be enclosed? Because of its proximity to the north line? MRS. WICKHAM: Never to be enclosed on the north side, do you mean? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, entirely be made a room out it, like the rooms on the other side. MRS. WICKHAM: Oh, I see what you mean. No, I don't think she would really would object to that. The only thing, I have not discussed it with her -- but I can see where it possibly, in the back, I don't know if there is any wind that comes in through there, maybe just to put up some kind of partition, but Southold Town Board of kppeals -24- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2862 - Mary Ray, continued:) certainly it's not to be enclosed in terms of any kind of living area in that garage. I don't think she would have any objection to that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, I have no questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: That the carport which is the subject of this variance remain as a carport not to be enclosed or to be used as any portion-Of~.this dwelling, other than for the purpose of a carport. MR~ 'CHAIRMAN: I'll second that. (Continued on Page 25) Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2862 - Mary Ray continued:) The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellant by this' appeal seeks approval of the construction of a carport addition approximately one foot from the northerly sideyard property line and approximately 29 feet from the rear- yard property line. The Board finds that the carport addi- tion has been existing for more than four years. Existing on the subject premises are a one-family one-story frame house and two small sheds in the rear yard. The premises contains an area of approximately 20,250 square feet and has frontage along Factory Avenue of 110.34 feet as shown on Roderick Van- Tuyl's survey of July 22, 1981. 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 the grant of the variance would not produce a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to the appellants, 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 the zoning code. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Gri~onis, it was RESOLVED, that Mary Ray be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance for carport addition applied for in Appeal No. 2862, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the carport not be enclosed or be used for any purpose other than a carport. Location of Property: 375 Factory Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-122-6-6. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -26- September 3, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: _Appeal No. 2864 - Gladys G. Bayles, c/o Flower Hill Building Corp. as agent, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30A for permission to construct addition and convert building with guest room to dwelling use. Location of Property: Smith Road (private) at Nassau~Point, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Ahrens, Smith Road and Cook, west, south and east by the Bay; County Tax Map I.~em No. 1000-119-1-14 (further known as Nassau Point Subdivision Map No. 156, Lot A). The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:35 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. Lark? RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.: Yes, good evening. On behalf of my client, we're here because the building inspector denied the application of the petitioner in modernizing-expanding-the board is aware in viewing the property, the existing guest cottage/garage facility, because it contains a kitchen area. If it didn't contain a kitchen area, which it does, we woUldn't be here because it would still be construed as an accessory use. But since it has both the kitchen and bathroom facilities as well as a building area, it's under the zoning ordinance, the building inspector has interpreted as it as a separate dwelling unit, even though the use would continue the same. Therefore, the board will have to look at and make findings as to whether a strict application of the ordinance will re- sult in practical difficulties. As you are aware the courts have defined Just what practical difficulties are and in mak- ing the determination the board will have to consider how substantial the variance is in relation with the require- ments of the zoning ordinance, the effect if the variance is allowed on the increased population density which would produce on the available governmental facilities, whether substantial change will be produced on the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties and whether the difficulties can be obviated by some other method other than a variance, and whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and a consideration of all the factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance. I want to say at the outset that when the applicant brought this problem to me after conferring with the build- mng inspector, I concurred with the building inspector and also the Chairman of the Planning Board, because it seemed to me at the outset, since we have 5.45 acres and where the property was, a minor subdivision can be created where we could have two lots, so one where the main dwelling is and the other one where the accessory structure is now. The guest cottage which would be expanded would be expanded would be. Now the Planning Board chairman informed me that Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2864 - Gladys G. Bayles, continued:) MR. LARK continued: although this could be done we could create two lots, he didn't foresee any problems with that. It was his opinion that this would not serve either the Bayles Family or the spirit of the ordinance because then in effect we would have two lots down there. The owners do have no intentions of any type of a sale. They're going to use it as they have always used it, as a guest storage area-garage complex. Right now the grandchildren use it primarily the weekends and during the summer, during recess from school, although they, he occupies the main house, which by the way he is also modernizing and updating which they already have the permits to do. Now so after considering it again and gozng back and talking to the applicant, it was decided and conferring as I said with the Chairman of the Planninq Board, it was thought that the best way to handle it ~nd preserve the spirit of the zoning ordinance would be to ask for a variance to create or to allow the two houses on the one lot. It is no subdivision here. It would have to go and remain as one.parcel situation, and namely because as I said because of the use of the property and its location, and for the other reasons as I stated forth in the appli- catmon. Also, although there would be no difficulties from a legal point of view creating a subdivision there becomes several practical difficulties. If you had a subdivision, the main house lot which would be the most southerly lot would have to have an easement over the other lot due to the configuration. You're right on the end of Nassau Point, as you are all aware of. That would be one problem right off the bat. The other problem is where would ~ou draw the lot line which, because you wouldn't want to necessarily, there's enough room there, but where would you draw it for the side yards between the two places. That was another-- we ended up with more~Practic&1 problems by doing it that way. And so, as I said he felt that the best way to do it would be to apply to'the_Board of Appeals to obtain a variance rather than go through the subdivision Process because, you know, the practical difficulties. Also keep in mind that we're no~ creating two lots here even though we have five acres, we're no~ creating two building lots. The well will continue will continue to serve as it does today, both places, and the cesspools will continue to serve booth places. So you're not getting a situation where Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2864 Gladys G. Bayles, continued:) MR. LARK continued: you're having two independent lots. So as I say, keeping that in mind and the strictly residential character of Nassau Point, it was felt to apply for a variance. Now, let's look at the facts that the board will have to consider. How substantial is the variance in relation- ship to the requirements. The requirement says only one dwelling on one lot in an A-Residential & Agricultural District, which is what this is. And in order to have a residence on a lot, a lot is defined as 40,000 square feet. So here we have 5.45 acres, or 237,400 square feet, so I don't think that the requirement that we're asking for a variance zs very substantial as would be if you had a much smaller property hemmed in by other properties. So I think that's an mmportant factor. The other, the effect of the variance if' allowed on the increased population density produced on other avail- able governmental facilities. Keep in mind we're not creating two lots or a two-family situation. It's still going to remain as just two dwellings on one lot. We have several other situations in the town where we have that, so you don't have like two independent situations there, which you would have with two lots. And the owners don't want that. They are just going to continue to use it like they have. So there will be no increase in the population density, and as I say, keep zn mind the guest cottage there today does contain one bedroom, a bathroom, and a garage facility. The expansion as you saw on the plans Will contain the same bedroom and enlarged bathroom and living area, and also it will have a kitchenette facility with a toilet facility attached off to it, and then the garage area. So there isn't going to be any increase in the bedrooms or that, just the living area size of the house. And whether there would be, another one, a substantia5 change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties. As you see from the mapj the applicant also owns property to the north there, other property, which acts as a buffer, and then for another five-acre piece as a matter of fact, which is split by the driveway going in and out. You have that as a buffer and then you have just the two houses, and don't forget you have the isolation of this being at the tip .of Nassau Point. So we don't feel there will be any change at all in the neighborhoods. I covered with you whether the difficulties can be obviated by some other method. A~ subdivision, although it can be done legally, could create more problems than it's Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2864 - Gladys G. Bayles, continued:) MR. LARK continued: possibly worth, and the applicant is not interested in that. The other thing that interestingly could be done, but it would be an architectural~disaster, if the builder de- cided to put the addition on the southerly portion of the house of the guest cottage, it would probably hook onto the main dwelling, and you could end up with just one dwelling there. But even though it would have separate entrances but architectually and aesthetically looking at the area it would, although it's a way out of the dilemna of expanding it and keeping one house. You can have more than several kitchens in one structure. It would be an architectural mess. And so, that's why it was laid out the way you have it in the plans. And then the last factor, in view of the manner in which it arose -- it as I said has been there since 1936, and the use has been there since '36 and it's just a modern- ization, updating it if you would, and with an expansion to make it more comfortable for the owners and his children and grandchildren. And taking all the factors into consideration, I think the granting of the variance is the best way to obviate the practical difficulty of this. If the board has any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was wondering, Mr. Lark -- is it Mrs. Bayles? MR. LARK: Mrs. Bayles, that's the legal ownership in the Estate. She has passed away. It's her husband actually the owner. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any problem with Mr. Bayles living with the restriction of it never being rented? MR. LARK: That's no problem. You mean with the acces- sory building, in other words the one that-- there's no question about that. In fact you can put another one with it being subdivided, because the intent is not to subdivide, because I went through that already, is figuring the way out and the owner said, "No, I don'-t want a subdivision there." So, that is no problem. Because it's strictly a family-use situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for this? MR. EVERETT: I represent the Nassau Point Property Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2864 - Gladys G. Bayles, continued:) Owners Association, and we have gone on record as ( ) opposing two houses on one lot. This has, we do this with regret as far as the Bayleses are concerned. We recognize everything that Walter Uhl has said, but I think that's for the now and we don't know what's going to happen in the future. We feel that putting two houses on one lot is a further step towards jeopardizing an already precarious water supply. We are rapid!y~approaching the maximum number of houses on the Point that will be permitted by the Suffolk County-~Board of Health. They have set that figure at 350, com se, com sa a few, and we are already over 300. Now we have consistently opposed this type of construction of placing two houses on one lot. We feel that in this case, I understand the situation, I am in sympathy with it, and but we're still speaking for the now. As far as that particular thing is concerned. What's going to happen tomorrow, if Mr. Bayles passes away and the property passes into other hands, and the other lots are subdivided by the new owner, then we're going to have that two-house on one lot situation and a house on every one of the other five acres, you see. These are the possibilities we have to face, and it's for this reason that we must support the building department objections, and withhold your approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I met you the other day but I can't remember your name. MR. EVERETT: My name is Everett. I'm a Vice President of the Association. W.P. Everett. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a letter in the file here from Mr. Gardner. MR. EVERETT: He's ex-President, Ted Bruce is presently President. MR. CHAIRMAN: I talked with him the other day at the office. Ok, thank you very much. Anyone else to speak against this? (None) If not, I'll close the hearing and reserve decision until a little later. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and resezve decision in the matter of ~l.ad~'s' Gl.' .B'ay.les', ApPeal No. 2864. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2861. Application of Donald J. Finne~ty, 1530 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- September 3,1981 (Appeal No. 2861 Donald J. Finnerty, continued:) 100-31 for permission to construct addition to accessory building in the frontyard area, located at~1530 Fleetwood Road and Betts Street, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Hansen, west by Betts ~Street, south by Samios, east by Fleetwood Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-137-5-11 and 12. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:55 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything further to add? MR. FINNERTY: What we're doing is putting the boat and trailer under cover instead of being out in the wooded portion of the lot. It is very wooded with our..many small oaks and some very large oak trees there. With that, I understand I wouldn't have any problems if I put the shed attached, you know, as an extension to the garage on the side but I would need to take down two oak trees about 40 feet tall. It's about 66 feet from Betts Street. It's sheltered by the wooded lot. It would probably look better with the boat under the shed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone opposed to it? Any questions from any of the members? (None) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the .hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal' No. 2861, Donald J. Finnerty. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2872. Application of William and Ann Zoldessy, 1560 Pelham Parkway, Bronx, NY 10461, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed par- cels, located at the south side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north by Bergen Avenue; west by Vallely;.south by Lindsay; east by Russell; County Tax Map Parcel 1G00-113-7- 4.1. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 9:05 p.m., read the appeal application and related documents; mentioned the letter from the Town Clerk indicating that notification to adjoining property owners was made and fee paid $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2872, William and Ann Zoldessy, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a photocopy of survey of 7/12/63 and copy of the Countyl Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding area. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. ZOLDESSY: It's the dream of the lifetime, and I was completely taken unaware by the~fact that it had been rezoned from the two lots into one, and that it would just kill me financially and otherwise. I respectfully submit that without causing any difficulties to have it as origin- ally planned into two lots. As a matter of fact, Mr. Valley is it, next door to me, approached me already hope- fully to purchase it because I intent building one lot ~y from there. I want to be next to Mr. Lindsay, so there's another alternative too. I don't intend to cause any dis- ruption of the area in any way whatsoever. It's the dream of a lifetime. I want to come out and spend my final years here. I know lots of people. I love it here. My sister- in-law, and I'm practically a native. My children were here since they were small. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it? Any questions from any of the board members? (None.) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until a little later. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until a little later in the matter of Appeal No. 2872, application of William and Ann Zoldessy. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer, Douglass, and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2873. Application of Sonny Brown, Box 473, Madison Avenue, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. XI, Sec. 100-118D for permission to use existing building as an automobile repair shop (and/or reestablish preexisting use to permit use as an automobile repair shop), at 73225 Main Road, Greenport; bounded north by Village of Greenport; west by Wardowski; south by Main Road; east by Rutkowski; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-45-3-part of 2. The Chairman cpened the hearing at approximately 9:18 p.m., read the appeal application and related documents; mentioned the letter fro~. the Town Clerk indicating that notification to adjoining property owners was made and fee paid $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2873, Sonny Brown, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have photocopies of a survey of the property and copy of the County Tax Map showing this and the surrounding properties. Is there anything yom wanted to add, Mar. Brown? (Nothing added) Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone against it? (There was no response.) I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision mn the matter of Appeal No. 2873, application of Sonny Brown. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2871. Application of Anthony G. Nowachek and Helen M. Nowachek, P.O. Box 355, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) to construct deck/addi- tion to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback pursuant to Article III, Section 100-31; or (b) determining this improve- ment not to be an addition to the existing structure under the ordinances. Location of Property: Corner of Pequash Avenue and Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Fleetwood Road; west by Pequash Avenue; south by Goldsmith; east by Schroder; Ravatone Realty Corp. Subdivision Map No. 539; Section I, Subdi- vision Lots No. 45 and northerly half of 44; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-110-4-1. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately p.m., read the appeal application and related documents; mentioned the letter from the Town Clerk indicating that notification to adjoining property owners was made and fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey with the proposed additions sketched in and copy of the County Tax Map. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for this application? MR. NOWACHEK: I'm Mr. Nowachek and this is my wife, Helen. I think it's all her fault that I'm here with this thing. But I'll try to explain to you why. When I bought this house, coming from Port Washington, we intend to come out here permanently, all this is transition. But I checked the~C of O on the building and I got a violation because two stoops in the back were floating away. There was no way we could get into the two back doors. So my wife decided the best way to remedy that ~= you couldn't put shrubbery or anything -- was to get a deck. So we did get the deck up; we got a permit; we got a C of O for it. But if you look at the survey ~nd see that the side of the house that is on Fleetwood Road is about 30 feet, ok? At its furthest point Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2871, Anthony G. and Helen ~owachek, continued:) MR. NOWACHEK continued: because it's at an angle, about 30 feet from Fleetwood Road, at its narrowest point it's about 25 feet from Fleetwood Road. Now that side of the house looks like a barn side, really. It's got cinderblock underneath. It's really rough soil, looks like something was backfilled. And the breakfas~ room windows are the triple track, we got to pull them down and there is one kitchen window. And I didn't know whether it would be a structure, what to call it, but mY wife suggested and I went along with her that since the deck ended at that corner, we should have a parapet or a walk so you could just go to the left along side the house, that would be about, up to six feet wide. So you can have access to the windows, and I wouldn't have to concern myself with a lot of foliage, leaves and snow and everything piling up at that side of the house. Now I think the objection of the building inspector and when I spoke to him was that I would have to get a vari- ance because it is a structure, even if at its highest point it would only be about two feet off the ground, 2½, and the lowest point would only be like a foot. So if you could visualize that this is the back of the house, and this is the side, it would just be a walkway around it. It wouldn't even be a sitting area, 6 feet, and the building inspector also said that they have to consider it a structure and the setback thing because my neighbor down the street is set back just a bit further that I am. Well looking at his front stoop, if he ever wanted to put up a deck, you know, something maybe about 6 or 7 feet wide, you know, in front of his house -- because he only has a little stairway with about three steps, he'd have to come out at least 6, 7 or 8 feet. I basically think aesthetically it will look good. It just doesn't look like a side of a barn wall there. Secondly, I think my wife would shoot me and -- really, I have to admit that the build- ing inspector caught my son who is back at college now in his last year, he put in the footings and everything for it when the violation came on it. So, I would say about 48% complete. I don't think in any it will be Offensive or interfere with traffic or really look burdensome in the proximity. I think it will enhance the appearance on the side of the house and be practical for use. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to say, upon inspection, Mr. Nowachek, we did measure and line up the monuments to the best of our ability. And I think we found it to be approxi- mately eight feet deep toward the front of the house from the actual property line. Now this is just on the inside of the telephone pole. And either 27 or 29 feet on the, I guess that's the rear part of the house, I don't know. They're both facing up north I would assume. MR. NOWACHEK: Well I didn't measure it. I used Van Tuyl's survey, and I think he indicated that it was 25 feet if you look at it. Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2871, Anthony G. Nowachek and wife, continued:) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's from the road. MR. NOWACHEK: Oh from the road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, we're going from the property line. MR. NOWACHEK. Oh, I see. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just wanted you to be aware of that. MR. NOWACHEK: I see. MR. CHAIRMAN: VanTuyl has 25 in here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To the house. MR. NOWACHEK: I think he used the markings, and I called-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's going to the house, right? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Going to the house. MR. NOWACHEK: Yes. MEMBER DOUGLASS: And this man is adding six feet. So our figures were right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes within a foot, I guess. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You never intend it to be enclosed, is that correct? MR. NOWACHEK: Oh, no, sir. It'll just be continuous. On inspection it'll show that it's just a counterpart to the left to what exists there zs the deck on the C of O. And that's all it would ever be intended. As a matter of fact there's a rail fence all along the property which I took down and what we intend to do is sort of put up a small sho~ fence, which will be short in the front of the deck and I'll be able to maintain it to some degree. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. NOWACHEK: Thank you. You know what I wann to say, I've been practicing law for about 29 years, throughout all Nassau County, including some of the villagesw and I have to commend you for scheduling it in an efficient way and operating, really. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2871 - Anthony G. Nowachek continued) The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellants by this appeal seek: (a) permission to construct deck/addition to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback off Fleetwood Road of approximately 18 feet from its nearest point from the property line [rather than 22 as indicated in applicant's appeal application], and (b) determination that this improvement is not an addition to existing structure. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by the zoning code and contains an existing one-family, one-story frame house with setback off Fleetwood Road of 25 feet as shown on Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. survey dated December 6, 1978 submitted with this appeal application. Upon inspection of these premises, the Board has found the addition which is the subject of this variance has been completed, and upon measuring the distance from the nearest point between the addition and the front property line, the setback is approximately 18 feet. The Board also has found that the height from ground level at the highest grade (northwest corner) is approximately one fo~t and the height from ground level at the lowest grade (northeast corner) is approximately 2½ feet. The Board does not agree with applicant's reasoning that the subject construction is not to be considered a structure but merely a walkway and do affirm the Building Inspector's determination that same is an addition under the town ordinances. In considsring 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 the grant of the variance would not produce a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to the appellants, 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 qeneral purposes of the zoning code; and that in view of the_ manner of which the difficulty arose, the interests of Justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Anthony G. Nowachek be granted permission to construct deck/addition to dwelling with an insufficient front- yard setback as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the deck is not to be enclosed. Location of Property: Corner of Pequash Avenue and Fleetwood Road, Cutchoque, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-110-4-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- September 3, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2840. Upon application of David L. Mudd, North Road, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A & C, 100-32 for permission to construct accessory shed with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks at property located on the north side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; bounded north by Lieblein; west by Doroski; south by C.R. 48; east by Morris, Aliano and Latham; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-59-9-28. The foll6wing are the findings and determination of the Board: Appellant by this appeal seeks a variance to Article III, Section 100-30A & C and Section 100-32 of the zoning code to permit a storage building on his premises with reduced setback requirements. Appellant previously applied for the same relief which was denied by the Board (Appeal No. 2789). An inspection of the premises and an examination of records in the Building Inspector's Office discloses the following: Appellant is the owner of a parcel of land located on the north side of County Road 48 (formerly County Route 27) at Southold, having an area of approximately 23 acres of agricultural land upon which appellant planted grapes and fruit trees. In the past several months, appellant constructed a concrete foundation and placed thereon a wood frame building moved from another location. No building permit was obtained for such construction. As indicated by the map filed with the appeal, the structure is located 5.4 feet from the north boundary line and 4.6 feet from the east boundary line, and the structure is 60 feet long and 30 feet wide. The previous appeal was denied for failure to demonstrate practical difficulties. In the present appeal, it is urged that the structure should be considered to be an accessory building rather than a principal building, and thus may be located three feet from any lot line pursuant to Section 100-32 of the zoning code. Appellant proposes to use the structure to store agricultural trucks, vehicles and equipment utilized in the operation of his fruit orchard and vineyard on the remainder of the property. If the structure is to be deemed a principal building, it must be a minimum of 15 feet from the side lot line (east line) and 50 feet from the rear lot line (north line). Appellant in his appeal asserts that he has demonstrated practical difficulties in that to relocate the building would require the removal of productive grapevines. Section 100-30 A (2) (a) of the zoning code allows as a permitted use "vineyards and orchard farming." Paragraph (d) [which is part of subsection (2) and which relates to agricul- tural uses] permits the following: "Barns, storage buildings Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- September 3, 1981 (David L. Mudd Decision continued:) and other related structures, provided that such buildings shall conform to the yard requirements for ~rincipal bu'il'dings." By virtue of these provisions of the code, it is clear that barns, storage buildings and other related structures must con- form to the yard requirements of principal buildings whether or not they may be characterized as accessory buildings. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request in relation to the code requirements is sub- stantial. A 60% reduction in the side yard requirement and an 89% reduction in the rearyard requirement~ That the grant of the variance would produce a substantial detriment to adjoining residential properties. That the difficulty can be obviated by some method, feasible to the appellant, other than a variance. That in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of Justice will not be served by allowing the variance. The Board further determines that the appellant has not demon- strated practical difficulties. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, the appeal is dismissed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, to approve the Minutes of the August 26, 1981 Special Meeting of this board. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPEAL NO. 2863. SOUTHOLD MARINE CENTER HOLDING CORP. The Secretary was instructed to inquire of the N.Y.S.D.E.C. as to whether this proposed project will require approvals from their agency. Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, to set Thursday, September 17, 1981 at the date for the next regular meeting of this board ~o be held at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 commencing at 7:15 p.m. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- September 3, 1981 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to schedule and advertise in the local and official newspapers the following matters for public hearings to be held at the next regular meeting of this board, to wit, September 17, 1981: 7:15 p.m. James V. Righter Architects for Jeremiah Bogert. Approval of access at F.I. 7:20 Patricia A. Bailey. Leslie Road and East Side of Bay Avenue, Cutchogue. Insufficient area for Parcel No. 2; insufficient road frontage for proposed Parcel No. 3. 7:30 p.m. Southold Marine Center Land Holding Corp. S/s Route 25, Southold: (1) insufficient buildable upland area; (2) proposed easterly lot will have existing buildings with insufficient sideyards. C-Light Zone. 7:40 p.m. John J. Lee. Off-premises advertising sign. A-Zone. 7:45 p.m. Southold Town Republ. ican Committee. N. Aliano prop- erty, N/s C.R. 48, Southold. Off-premises sign. 7:50 p.m. Southold Town Republican Committee. Gatz Proper~y. S/s Sound Avenue, Laurel. Off-premises sign. 7:55 p.m. Southold Town Republican Committee. Kousouros Prop- erty, C.R. 48 and Sound Avenue, Mattituck. Off- premises advertising sign. B-Zone. 7:55 p.m. Southold Town Republican Committee. Cron property, Main Road, Cutchogue. B-1 Zone. 7:55 p.m. Southold Town Republican Committee. N. Aliano prop- erty, S/s Route 25, Gzeenport. B-Zone. 7:55 p.m. Southo[d Town Republican Committee. Soundvlew Estates property, N/s Middle Road, Peconic. A-Zone. 8:05 p.m. Matthew McKiernan. New dwelling with insufficient frontyard setback. E/end of Beachwood Lane, Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- September 3, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2848. Application of Donald C. DeLalla, P.O. Box 526, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B(9) (a) for per- mission to dock and moor two boats not owned and used by owner of premises for his personal use between existing pilings at 5545 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Timpson; west by Baldwin's Creek; south by Faraguna; east by Bay Avenue (Skunk Lane); County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-18. A public hearing was held and closed on this matter on August 6, 1981. The Board made the following findings and determination: Applicant has filed a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi- nance in accordance with Article III, Section 100-30B(9) (a) for permission to dock and moor two boats not owned by himself at premises located at Skunk Lane, Cutchogue and fronting Baldwin's (Mud) Creek. The Town Code permits boat docking, mooring or accommodation of noncommercial boats for no more than two boats other than those owned and used by the owner of the premises for his personal ~se. Applicant is the owner of the premises in question, and has stated during the public hearing h~ld August 6, 1981 that the mooring accommodates his own boat and two friends' boats, 28-footer, 35-footer and 28-footer, respectively. Appli- cant has received approval from the Southold Town Trustees at a regular meeting held October 2, 1979 "... to make a total of four pilings at this location..."; however at a regular meeting of the Trustees held September 2, 1981 the Board of Trustees state they would have denied that application for the two additional pilings (making a total of four) if they had known that it was to be used by non-family individuals. It is the feeling of this Board that the purposes and intent of the Town Code is to allow the docking and mooring of two boats not owned and used by the owner of this property by this application, provided compliance is met with all rules and regulations applicable to such use. In considering this appeal, the Board finds that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein this use is to be located, or of permitted or legally estab- lished uses in adjacent use districts; that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by this proposed use and its location; and that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the code. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2848 - Donald C. DeLalla continued:) RESOLVED, that Donald C. DeLalla be granted a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That no more than two boats other than his own are permitted; (2) Southold Town Planning Board site plan approval be obtained pursuant to the Sou~hold Town Code, Article III, Section 100-30B(9). Location of Property: 5545 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Timpson; west by Baldwin's Creek; south by Faraguna; east by Bay Avenue (Skunk Lane); County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-138-2-18. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- September 3, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2864. Application of Gladys G. Bayles, c/o Flower Hill Building Corp. as agent, Cutchogue, NY (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A for permis- sion to construct addition and convert building with guest room to dwelling use. Location of Property: Smith Road (private)r at Nassau Point, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Ahrens, Smith Road and Cook; west, south and east by the bay; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-119-1-14, (further known as Nassau Point Subdivision Map No. 156, Lot A). Appellant by this appeal seeks permission to alter and increase the size at the northerly end of the one-story existing garage/guest cottage for one-family dwelling use. Also existing on the premises since prior to the zoning code is a one-family, one-story frame dwelling with garage. The premises in question contains an area of approximately 5.45 acres and together with premises to the north also owned by appellant contains a total acreage of approximately 10.3. Appellant wants to retain the entire parcel for a one-family use using the existing garage/ guest cottage with proposed addition for use by house guests and visitors in this neighborhood. The Board agrees with the reasoning of appellant. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request in relation to the code requirements is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique and prac- tical difficulty has been shown; that the relief if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood;-that~if ~he!relief is granted no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance subject to the conditions specified below. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that a variance to the zoning ordinance, Appeal No. 2864, application of Gladys G. Ba¥1es, for permission to alter and increase the size of the existing one-story garage/guest cottage for family and guest use be granted, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2864, Gladys G. Bayles continued): 1. That the garage/guest cottage structure be used only for family and guest use; rented; That the garage/guest cottage structure may never be 3. That no other dwellings be permitted on the 5.45-acre parcel, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the ordinary highwater mark of Little Peconic Bay, said point of beginning being South 7@ 18'30" East, 389.51 feet from the southerly corner of Lot 82B as shown on Amended Map A of Nassau Point and Map of Section B of Nassau Point, Maps No. 156 and 745 respectively; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING running thence southerly along said highwater mark as measured by the following four tie lines: (1) South 7© 18'30" East 816.68 feet, (2) South 2© 52'50" East 298.38 feet; (3) South 4© 21'20" West 197.57 feet, (4) South 14° 32'40" West 191.13 feet; THENCE northerly along ordinary highwater mark of Great Peconic Bay as measured by the following four tie lines: (1) North 3© 53' 20" West, 250.58 feet, (2) North 10° 55'40" West, 501.08 feet, (3) North 17© 29'30" West, 249..54 feet; (4) North 27 20'00" West, 404.04 feet; THENCE along land of Bayles two courses as follows: [11 North 54© 43' 00" East, 211.95 feet and [2] North 78© 42' 10" East, 146.44 feet, to the point or place of BEGINNING. Containing 5.45 acres, more or less. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2866. Application of Jon C. Kerbs, 510 Main Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in a proposed subdivision, and for per- mission to relocate building with insufficient yard setbacks, with yard determination on proposed lot adjoining Stillwater Avenue. Location of Property: Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north and west by Fleet; south by Fleet Neck Road; east by Jezek; County Tax Map Items No. 1000-137-2-8, 18, 19. A public hearing was held earlier this evening and closed concerning this matter. The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for: (1) approval of insufficient area, approximately 18,500,18,500, 18,500 and 17,710 square feet and width of approximately 78, 78, 78 and 75 feet, of proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively; and (2) approval of the location of a house on proposed Lot 4 with a setback of approximately 40 feet from the northeasterly property line, approximately 50 feet from the northwesterly line, and approximately 12 feet from the southwesterly property line. The premises in question is located north of Fleet Neck Road and south of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. Existing on the premises are four buildings, one which appears to be habitable and is said to be occupied for dwelling purposes, two of which have been used for dwelling purposes but are in need of repairs, and one of which is extremely delapidated, will require more than 50% of structural improvements and which appellant proposes to relocate onto proposed Lot 4 as indicated in the previous paragraph hereof and in compliance with current State~! County and Town building regulations. The neighboring properties to the east and west of the subject premises are generally smaller in size and similar in character and shape. The Board recognizes the practical difficulties in that by not allowing the variance the pr6perty will be substantially larger than those generally in the neighborhood, and there are existing dwellings on these premisesL~ ~ 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 the difficulty ~annot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili- ties 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. Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2866 -Jon C. Kerbs continued) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the application of Jon C. Kerbs be granted as requested in Appeal No. 2866 and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: (1) That applicant obtain approval from the Southold Town Planning Board; (2) That Sketch No. 1, received by this Board on 8/24/81, shall be used in determining the yard areas; [frontyard at approximately 40 feet, approximately 50 feet from the north- westerly line, and approximately 12 feet from the southwesterly property line]. Location of Property: Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-137-2-8, 18, 19. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Sawicki and Grigonis. Mr. Goehringer abstained. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- September 3, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2857. Application of Demetrios and Joanne Joannides, 60 Central Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to %he Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for per- mission to construct deck/addition to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback at 60 Central Drive (a/k/a 3905 Breakwater Road), Mat~ituck, NY; bounded north by Notan, west by Tsounis, south by Central Drive, east by Luthers Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-3-17; further known as Cpt. Kidd Estates Map 1672, Subd. Lot 114. A public hearing was held and closed earlier this evening concerning this appeal. The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellants by this appeal seek a variance to the zoning ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule, for permis- sion to construct a deck addition eight feet into the frontyard area from the front section of the house (not from the porch). The existing front porch extends into the frontyard from the house approximately seven feet. ApplicaHts also propose the deck to extend into the sideyard area approximately 10 feet which is per- mitted under the rules and regulations of the zoning code. The subject parcel is a corner lot as defined in Section 100-34 of the code. The Board finds that the nature of the location of the existing dwelling lends itself to the practical difficulties of the applicants in the relief requested in this appeal. The Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicants. 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 the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili- ties 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Demetrios and Joanns Joannides, be granted permission to construct deck addition to dwelling SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the deck shall not exceed seven feet from the dwell- ing into the frontyard (from the front of the house~; (2) That the deck shall not be permitted to be enclosed. Location of Property: 60 Central Drive (a/k/a 3905 Breakwater Road), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Nolan, west by Tsounis, south by Central Drive, east by Luthers Road; County Tax Map Item Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2857 - Demetrios and Joanne Joannides continued:) No. 1000-106-3-17; further known as Captain Kidd's Estates Map No. 1672, Subdivision Lot No. 114. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- September 3, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2861. Application of Donald J. Finnerty, 1530 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct addition to accessory building in the frontyard area located at 1530 Fleetwood Road and Betts Street, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Hansen, west by Betts Street, south by Samios, east by Fleetwood Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-137-5-11 & 12. The Board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellant seeks a variance for permission to construct a 9' by 20' addition to accessory building (garage) which is located in the frontyard area with a setback off Betts Street of approximately 65'+ for storage of a small boat during the winter months. Existing on the subject premises is the small garage and one-family two-story frame house with porches. The premises contains an area of approximately 21,900 square feet and has a minimum width on both Betts Street and Fleetwood Road of 100 feet. The Board agrees with appellant's reasoning in this appeal. The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements of the town; that the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that if the relief is granted no adverse effects will be pro- duced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood; that the practical difficulties are unique in these circumstances; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, with the below-specified restriction. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Donald J. Finnerty be granted permission to construct addition to access~ry'building in the frontyard area, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That at no time is the garage or addition to be converted to habitable use (living quarters). Location of Property: 1530 Fleetwood Road and Betts Street, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item Nos. 1000-137~5-11 and 12. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki, and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2860. Application of James Genovese, 620 Lake Drive, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100'31 for permission to construct deck/ addition to dwelling known as 620 Lake Drive, Southold, NY; bounded north, west, south by Dechiaro, east by Lake Drive; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-59-1-22. A public hearing was held and closed earlier this evening concerning this appeal. The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 in order to con- struct a deck addition to an existing dwelling at the southwest corner with a setback from Lake Drive of approximately 14 feet. The existing dwelling has attached thereto an 8-foot deck exten- sion running parallel with the front of the house and along the northeasterly side of the house. Appellant proposes to add a 13' by 8' deck at the southwesterly corner on an angle to the house but running in line with the existing deck rather than parallel to Lake Drive. The lot in question contains an area of approximately 16,100 square feet and has road frontage along Lake Drive of 107.24 feet as indicated on applicant's survey dated August 22, 1973. It is the feeling of the Board that the nature of the loca- tion of the existing dwelling lends itself to the practical difficulties of the appellant; however the Board does not feel that the deck addition Should protrude forward of the existing deck plus one foot (or nine feet from the southwest corner of the house) towards Lake Drive. The Board agrees with the reason- ing of appellant for a frontyard setback of not less than 14 feet at its nearest point for the proposed deck addition. 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 the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili- ties of any mncreased population; that the relief requested will be mn 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 James Genovese be granted permission to con- struct deck addition to existing dwelling as applied for in Appeal No. 2860 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting (1) That the deck extension shall not exceed nine feet towards Lake Drive from the southwest corner of the house; (2) That the deck may not be enclosed. Location of Property: 620 Lake Drive, Southold, NY; bounded north, west, and south by Dechiaro; east by Lake Drive; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-59-1-22. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- September 3, 1981 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2872. Application of William and Ann Zoldessy, 1560 Pelham Parkway, Bronx, NY 10461, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, located at the south side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north by Bergen Avenue, west by Vallely, south by Lindsay, east by Russell; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-7-4.1. A public hearing was held and closed earlier this evening concerning this appeal. The Board made the following findings and determination: Appellants by this appeal seek a variance to the zoning ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule for permis- sion to re-separate-parcels and originally purchased. The subject parcels as shown as two parcels on the County Tax Map (Lots 4 and 2.2), are assessed separately in'the Tax Office, and conform with the neighborhood as to character, size and shape, having 100 foot frontage along Bergen Avenue and an area of approximately 20,000 square feet. The County Health Department in their correspondence to this Board dated September 23, 1981 state that they would process these as tw~ separate tax parcels and there appears to be a sufficient quantity of water, although the area has a history of nitrate contamination. It is the opinion of this Board that appellants will suffer significant economic injury by the appli- cation of our zoning ordinance pertaining tO area and width. 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 the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili- ties 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that William and Ann Zoldessy be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance as applied for in Appeal No. 2872, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: That applicants obtain approval from the Southold Town Planning Board concerning this proposed subdivision. Location of Property: South Side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-113-7-4 and 2.2. Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- September 3, 1981 (Appeal No. 2872 - William and Ann Zoldessy, continued:') Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2881. JEREMIAH BOGERT. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Jeremiah Bog~ert: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. ~epartment of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board'of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon -the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Sho~t Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This project is for approval of access to the subjecn premises, pursuant to New York Town Law Section 280-A. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: Clay Point Road, Fi'shers Island, NY: County Tax Map Parcel 1000-3-1-8 and 9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Me. ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2846. Application of Patricia Bailey. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Patricia Bailey: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a ~Typ.e II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The property in question is not located Within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. Th'~s declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: 2155 Skunk Lane, Cu~chogue; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-97-4-11, 12 and 17. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Me. ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- Saptember 3, 1981 ~NVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 28'63. Application of Southold Marine Center Holding Corp. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded'by'Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Southold Marine Center Land Holding Corp.: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the-N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board'of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classifiad as a ~ype II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. . This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: South side of Main Road (S.R. 25), North side of Main Road, Southold; County Tax Map Parcels~No. 1000-56-6-2 and 3; 1000-56-4-15. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Me~ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -55- September 3, ~1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: of John J. Lee. Appeal No, 2865. Application On motion by Mr. it was Grigonis, seconded by MK. Sawicki, RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of John J. Lee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not hav!ng a significant adverse effect upon ~he environment for the following reascn(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The premises in question is not located .within 300' feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: North side of Main Road, Southold (owner: H. Cardinal); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-2-1. Vote of tha Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. MEssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- September' 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~ATION: Appeal No. 287~. Appli'cation of Southold Town Republican Committee for an off-premises advertising sign. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of the Southold .Town Repub- lican Committee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project ~s proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon ~h~ environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The project in question is not located Within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. Th~s declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: N/s Middle Road (C.'R. 48), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000- 59-9-30.2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Me. ssrs. Douglass~ Goehringer, . Southold Town Board of Appeals -57- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2876. Application of Southold Town Republican Committee for an off,premises advertising sign. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of the Southold Town Repub- lican Committee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a T~pe II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon ~h~ environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The premises in question is not located near tidal wet- lands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: S/s Sound Avenue, Laurel; County Tax Map Parqel No. 1000-120-3-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -58- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2877 Application of Southold Town Republican Committee for an off,premises advertising sign. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of the Southold ~Town Repub- lican Committee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The projec5 in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: NJs Middle Road, Peconic, NY: CTMP #1000-74-2-12.2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Me. ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. , Southold Town Board of Appeals -59- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 287~ Application of Southold Town Republican Committee for an off-premises advertising sign. On motion by Mr. Grigon~s, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of the Southold Town Repub- lican Committee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursusnt to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southo!d Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board o'f Appeals has determined that the subject project ~s proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified.as a Type II_Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The project in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: S/s Route 25, Greenport, NY: CTMP ~1000-46-1-2.1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: M~ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -60- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2879. Application of Southotd Town Republ.ican Committee for an off-premises advertising sign. On motion by Mr. it was Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of the Southold Town Repub- lican Committee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. Intersection of C.R. 48 and Sound Avenue, Mattituck,.NY; CTMP #1000-121-2-2. Project is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. T~is declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: Intersection of C.R. 48 and Sound Avenue, Mattituck; CTMP ~1000-12t-2-2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. M~ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, . ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -61- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No..2880. Application of Southold Town Republican Committee for an off,premises advertising 'sign. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of the Southold Town ReDub- lican Committee: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southo!d Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a ~ype II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The project in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the s~bject appeal application. Location of Property: S/s Route 25, Cutchogue, NY; CTMP ~1000-102-6-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Me. ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, ~ Southotd Town Board of Appeals -62- September 3, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No, 2874. Application of Matthew McKiernan. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Matthew McKiernan: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southotd Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Mas permitted the construction of a new home 50 feet or more from the tidal wetland boundary, under TW Permit ~15276-0177"A". This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: East end of Beachwood Lane, Southold, NY? CTMP ~100G-70-10-60. Vote of the Board: Ayes: M~ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -63- September 3, 1981 APPEALS NO. 2867, 2868, 2869. Applications of Joseph Czartosieski. The board requested that a letter be sent to the Planning Board reiterating the need by this board of the. off-street parking requirements to be imposed by the Planning Board thereby limiting available area for outside storage of the cars proposed for sales, et cetera. The Planning Board origi- nally said they would not entertain any requestS of this deparltment until this department acted upon the applications. The board urged the chairman to request retaining Eileen Carey until approximately October 15th, or later if necessary in lioht of the increased workload. Being there was no further business to come before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals RECEIVED AND FILED BY T~ ~OUT'~LD ~0¥~ CLEitK